Danielle, I agree entirely with you in supporting Columbia's and Bollinger's stance. It is much better that people such as Ahmedinejhad be heard clearly, if only the better to condemn them. But I think one can support Bollinger and simultaneously be suspicious of the american government's current focus upon iran.

i have taken a quick look at the new website you linked. i did not need any further proof of the nastiness of the iranian leadership. what i am interested in is informed and balanced discussion of the current american-iranian tensions. in this regard, i very much doubt that either side is blameless. and, i'm not sure i'll find such a balanced discussion on that website.

Bushbasher,

The Free Iran site obviously wants a regime change; they certainly do not want a war. They have made excellent arguments that Iran be expelled from the United Nations until such time as a secular democracy replaces the present regime.

They are extremely worried about the nuclear programs being undertaken by their regime - not only for obvious issues, but also the risks to their people due to sites on fault-lines (Iran is subject to frequent earthquakes). This makes for compelling scientific reading.

For a balanced debate about Iran and the US, I would suggest:
The Washington Institute for Near East Policy - Insight and Analysis on U.S. Middle East Policy
http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateI01.php

See particularly:

Policy Focus #72 (a download)
http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC04.php?CID=280

Deterring the Ayatollahs: Complications in Applying Cold War Strategy to Iran
Patrick Clawson and Michael Eisenstadt (Eds.)
With contributions by Lewis Dunn, Gregory Giles,Mehdi Khalaji, Jeffrey Lewis, Keith Payne, Karim Sadjadpour, and Bruno Tertrais

“In this Policy Focus -- the first paper in The Washington Institute series "Agenda: Iran" -- editors Patrick Clawson and Michael Eisenstadt have assembled a distinguished group of experts to pose questions about the use of deterrence in countering the Iranian nuclear problem. The paper takes a multidisciplinary and multifaceted approach to this problem, with chapters discussing the strategic and ideological mindset of the Iranian regime, the balance of interests between Washington and Tehran, the prospects for cooperation from Europe, the Iranian military's ability to safeguard a potential nuclear arsenal, the regime's calculus concerning domestic pressures, and numerous other key issues related to both the Iranian nuclear dilemma and deterrence in general. Without exhaustive contingency planning and a concerted push for diplomatic solutions, the editors argue, the United States risks making miscalculations that could have far-reaching consequences.”

Just thought it was a little odd that no-one's mentioned the lengthy analysis of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad speech which has been, somewhat erroneously, translated as "wiping Israel off the map".

Just How Far Did They Go, Those Words Against Israel?
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/11/weekinreview/11bronner.html?ex=1307678400&en=efa2bd266224e880&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Imagine if Bollinger invited the Israeli PM, Olmert and started a tirade with the following:

Mr President you preside over a country that has illegally occupied your neighbours’ lands for over 40 years.
You actively participate in the stealing and auctioning of parcels of your neighbours’ lands ensuring settlement of them.
You engage in an illegal occupation where your armed forces arrest people and detain them without trial for years on end.
You’ve overseen the building of a fence around parts of your neighbours’ lands and forced them to move.
You engage in military adventurism and your armed forces attack your neighbours without provocation or following manufactured incidents.
You meddle in the political affairs of your neighbours and refuse to accept their democratically elected governments and invade and destabilise their territory to show your displeasure.
You allow the launching of air attacks to assassinate your neighbours’ leadership and you kill innocents during those attacks.

Then you moan when your neighbours throw bombs at you and when they and their friends threaten to get square by wiping your country off the face of the earth.

You seek our support to ensure the suppression of your neighbours and to deter their friends from attacking you.

On the one hand you are nuclear armed and while you would never admit it, I suspect you would have no hesitation in launching your weapons of mass destruction against your neighbours. And on the other hand you grizzle and exhort the world to attack, when one of your neighbour’s friends starts to develop nuclear arms.

And so on … and finished with:

‘I am only a professor, who is also a university president, and today I feel all the weight of the modern civilised world yearning to express the revulsion at what you stand for.’

I have no truck with the Iranian government, its suppression, its support for terrorism, nor do I think they should develop nuclear weapons.

But we’d do better to give all a fair go and suggest we should assess countries in the region, and especially Israel, in exactly the same manner

Keith

Imagine if.

When Bollinger said “Mr President you preside over a country that has illegally occupied your neighbours’ lands for over 40 years.”

Olmert replied that these neighbours were doing their level best to kill every Israeli they could get their hands on. That every time they were given concessions, they abused them to more effectively attack Israel. That they were offered their land back in return for renouncing violence and recognizing Israel’s right to exist but spurned this offer in the belief that one day there will only be one Palestine which will include all of Israel but no Israelis

When Bollinger said “ You engage in an illegal occupation where your armed forces arrest people and detain them without trial”

Olmert replied that the those Palestinians who were arrested were part of a war against Israel and as such were considered prisoners of war.

Bollinger said “You actively participate in the stealing and auctioning of parcels of your neighbours’ lands ensuring settlement of them”

Olmert replied that all gov’ts subsume privately owned land. Try owning undeveloped land in Spain. All those who had land confiscated were given reparations for their loss.

Bollinger said “ You engage in military adventurism and your armed forces attack your neighbours without provocation or following manufactured incidents.”

Olmert replied that it is not military adventurism to atempt to protect your citizens from attack by foreign nationals. The provocation is clear and obvious to everyone who has command of their faculties. I don’t know what manufactured incidents you are talking about.

Bollinger says “On the one hand you are nuclear armed .. and.. I suspect you would have no hesitation in launching your weapons ... against your neighbours."

Olmert replied that his country had NEVER threatened to destroy another. Nor had they denied genocide or preached about an apocalyptic event where a legendary religious figure returns to save the world. Many nations are highly concerned about Irans nuclear ambitions including the US, France and many of Iran's neighbours.

And finished with” Could you actually provide evidence for any of these preposterous accusations.”

Paul,

"Olmert replied that these neighbours were doing their level best...."

Well usually when people are invaded they fight back. Sometimes even for generations. How long has Ireland been occupied territory?

"[R]ecognizing Israel’s right to exist"

Why should they do that?

"which will include all of Israel but no Israelis"

The irony is rich. It is impossible to be an Israeli in Israel. The state denies there is any such nationality as 'Israeli', see Moshe Gorali (Ha'aretz) Dec. 29, 2003 also at: http://middleeastinfo.org/article3804.html

"Olmert replied that the those Palestinians who were arrested were part of a war against Israel and as such were considered prisoners of war."

Er, no. They are arrest non-combatants and are considered as prisoners of conscience by Amnesty International. The are often tried in military courts "whose procedures fell short of international standards."

"Olmert replied that his country had NEVER threatened to destroy another."

"We should prepare to go over to the offensive. Our aim is to smash Lebanon, Trans-Jordan, and Syria. The weak point is Lebanon, for the Moslem regime is artificial and easy for us to undermine. We shall establish a Christian state there, and then we will smash the Arab Legion, eliminate Trans-Jordan; Syria will fall to us. We then bomb and move on and take Port Said, Alexandria, and Sinai." (Ben Gurion, first Prime Minister of Israel, 1948)

In his Complete Diaries, Vol.II, Page 711, Theodor Herzl, the founder of Zionism, says that the area of the Jewish homeland stretches: "From the Brook of Egypt to the Euphrates". Rabbi Fischmann, member of the Jewish Agency for Palestine, declared in his testimony to the U.N. Special Committee of Enquiry on July 9, 1947: "The Promised Land extends from the River of Egypt to the Euphrates. It includes parts of Syria and Lebanon."