keith, no offence, but there is absolutely nothing upon which you can base that post. You've plucked that Israel theory out of hot air.

Loewenstein is arguing against intrusion into Iran and has argued against Israeli combat actions in the past. Your interpretation is utterly at odds with all the source material from this author. I can only conclude you've made certain assumptions, which are patently false.

Rudd's done a fair job of having a bob each way. I can't help but wonder if he would do a similar thing in the instance of an attack on Iran, perhaps committing logistical and medical support in lieu of soldiers.

Turnrightonly, :-)

Read the second sentence in the third paragraph and then show me where in the article Loewenstein condemns or even suggests such an option isn't realistic or acceptable. He rightly condemns the US option but never once the Israeli one.

Do all the Iran-haters realise that Iran is probably the most honest and bravest nation in the Middle-East.

Iran gutfulness was proven by the way she ousted the American's puppet Shah and was certainly not breaking any fair-play rules to jail the knocked out US Embassy for a year. And certainly did not break any rules to win against a US - backed Iraq after eight deadly years.

The big worry about an attack on Iran, it would surely need a nuclear attack to win.

And even then not so, because there are rumours that Iran already has nuclear warheads on hand to fit her long-range rockets.

Now honestly, the way Bush has been treating Iran well before Ahmadji' came to power who could blame her for receiving help from her Eastern neighbours rather than fom the West.

Reckon the very fact that Iran might already have nuclear warheads could result in a bit of Realpolitik, which would not be the first time it has warded off a major war.

Cheers - BB, WA

The Canadian article is a very poor analysis of the likely tactical/operational outcomes of a US strike on Iran. To suggest that the Iranian possession of ‘sunburn’ missiles predetermines the outcome of any conflict is fanciful and could only come from someone with little understanding in military matters. The British experience of the Falkands is a good study for modern ‘missile vs. warship’ combat and while the exocet’s had an extremely important role, they were never going to ‘wipe out’ the fleet. And the British only had 20 planes and a dozen destroyer pickets. The American fifth fleet could put 300 naval aircraft into the air and be backed up by twice as many land based aircraft of the air force. Tomahawks in their dozens could respond to any Iranian ‘sunburn’ anti ship missiles launched. The issue is far more complex than the author allows.

Recent agreements with Merkel and Sarkozy on sanctions against Iran shows, I believe, that Bush has partly learned his lesson about unilateral action and would not invade Iran without a Gulf War 1 style coalition backing. I don’t believe that they will go to war with Iran any time soon. In any case, it would be a stupid move to publicly suggest that military force won’t be used against Iran, even if it won’t. Keeping the option open is more likely to lead to successful negotiations than not. Especially note Clinton and the ‘NO Ground Forces’ commitment which Milosevic used to his full advantage during the Balkans crisis

Those simpletons who are obsessed with the idea that Iranian nuclear weapons are only an issue because they are a threat to the Israelis have their head buried in the sand. A nuclear armed fundamentalist theocracy is a danger to the whole planet. Iran is currently demonstrating in Iraq how far they are prepared to go to in their quest for regional dominance. The wishful thinkers and the soft lefters can apologise for Ahmedinejhads comments all they want, it doesn’t change his aggressive intentions. Most of Iran’s Arab neighbours live in fear of a nuclear armed Iran

no, keith. I'm afraid on this one you've simply made a mistake plain and simple, and it's fairly easily proven.

Your argument, that the author is an apologist for Israel, is incredibly far off the mark. I've read a few of Loewenstein's pieces, and he's definitely among the harshest critics of Israel's policies - but I'll get to that.

The only basis for your attack on the author, is that they have failed to specifically criticise Israel on this instance, instead focusing on the US and the Australian connection.

I fail to see how that can in any way be construed as an endorsement of Israeli intervention in Iran. Because the article focuses on the Americo-Australian aspect, doesn't mean it encourages the Israeli one.

I can only conclude you've seen the author's surname or background, and assumed that because they're of a certain ethnic or cultural descent, they can only be an Israeli apologist.

These kinds of assumptions are what makes it so difficult to make any progress. Just because he has the surname Loewenstein, he must be an Israeli apologist right?

Take a look at some of the other articles linked at the bottom of that page.

Here's a few snatches from 'A Country Lost In It's own Region:'

"Israel is a nation in serious decline... the military establishment is addicted to military solutions that have failed...
...I believe that only international pressure on Israel can bring a nation addicted to violence to heel and leadership on both sides mature enough to negotiate with honesty."

Hmm... doesn't sound like the image you're painting. How about this item from the ironically titled 'Palestinian Terror and Israeli nobility:'
"It had become sadly predictable that challenging the Jewish state’s actions and morality resulted in hateful correspondence."

What's sad here, is that you're attacking the author... but it would appear the author agrees with your stance entirely.

keith, You've just assumed what his attitude must be, and according to everything here, you couldn't be more wrong. I find it quite depressing that assumptions lead to such an attack when you should be supportive.

It may well be that both major parties have an interest in ensuring that the Constitutional Monarch of Iran is returned to his homeland of Persia as both Qeumars and his wife have suffered at the hands of Beattie's and Howard's thugs and with no travel documents or passport, where do you send the King of Persia after his imprisonment in far north Queensland was becoming an embarrassment to the people who were initially charged with his protection by the British Government under international law.
http://www.persiaworldnews.com/page1.aspx