The problem in the conflict between Israel and neighbouring Muslim states is a deep mistrust and unwillingness for unconditional forgiveness, borne out of religious ideology and war. The zionist Jews believe Israel is the land God has given their forefathers for which they are legally entitled. Muslims see it as an invasion of Muslim land and believe that God has warned against them having Jewish (and Christian) friends who are deemed an unjust people (Qur'an 5.051). Can there ever be reconciliation given the mindset of these peoples? Unless there is a fundamental shift in the hearts and minds of both the Jews and Muslims in this conflict how can there ever be reconciliation? Perhaps if they accepted the words of Jesus to "love your enemies" and "pray for those who persecute you" (Mat. 5:44) they could be reconciled. But who amongst them would accept Jesus' authority? Jews reject that he was the Messiah and Muslims view Muhammed a greater prophet. Loving and praying for your enemy is counter cultural to the ways of both religions, but unless there can be a change in the religious culture there can be no lasting peace.

Well might we have concern regarding Iran's attitude to neighbourliness.
But how up-tight should the article's author be about Iran's disregard for article 2(4) of the UN charter, which was quoted as "All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state"?
Iran's apparent disregard for it is worth some worry, but how can we expect that country to do the right thing and respect article 2(4) in the face of the history of UN Security Council members' contempt for it when it concerns their own actions?
Can we just brush off such matters as the US invasion of the little island of Grenada, of Panama and the kidnapping of its head of state, of the US's less than savoury activites against the national integrity of Nicaragua, Guatemala, Chile?
Can we dismiss the USSR's 1956 invasion of Hungary, and of checkoslovokia some years later, etc.?
Might it have been an action in contempt of article 2(4) for Britain and France to mount a military expedition against Egypt in 1956?
Well, that is for starters. All those actions were initiated by members of the Security Council.
Then there is the little matter of Dr. Mossadeq, the elected head of Iran in 1953 when Britain and the US gave him his marching orders.
What should we expect of Iran in the face of this history of hypocricy?
We might follow on from there about nuclear non-proliferation. What Charlie actually believes that nuclear power can ever be totally divorced from military matters? We do have cause for worry. But what respect for non-proliferation from nuclear-emergent countries can we expect when those already possessing nuclear armaments steadfastly refuse to set an example by decommissioning them?
Does Leanne Piggott really suggest that "we" are pure, and Iran is not? It seems to me that the whole shebang of this mess is populated by lunatics.

Palestine is central to this problem.

Iran is ambitious for nuclear power.

Could one reason for this be the possession of a large nuclear arsenal by Isreal?

Successful negotiations are more likely between parties of equal power.

Is Israel likely to trade off a viable Palestinian State for better relations with the Arab world?

Until it does the rhetoric coming from Iran will continue unabated.

Do we really think the United Nations will take any action to defuse and disarm the situation? Or will they be espousing nothing more than retoric? I have to agree with Crusader, until there is a major attitude change in the basis of their beliefs there is no possible hope of settlement and reconciliation.

'attitude change' is the initiative of the more powerful side.
Unfortunately Israel started and continued to pursue its borders expansion through military action rather than negotiations.

"the land for peace" concept was always followed by 'the land for settlers' which did not show any good intentions towards arab neighbours.

Israel need to focus for the next 3 decades on fixing its relations with its neighbours. 'The old will die and the young will forget' slogan by its founders may have served Israel in the past but likely to cause damage in the future.

Its not so much Iran which illustrates one of my favorite 'mantra's' but Palestine, and the lessons we see there are instructive about how Iran will also behave.

Its not the silent majority who drive agenda's its the radical few.

We have now seen incontrovertable evidence of what I, among others have long been claiming, that there will never be a political solution between the radical Islamists among the Palestinians and the right wing Orthodox Jews. (to point to the extreme ends of the spectrum)

Iran will also show that it is the 'whacko loud mouthed and well armed mob' who call the shots.

A Persian is a Persian is a Persian.. and they have much history of Empire to fondly look back on, and a sizable slice of military humiliation which I'm sure they would like to see balanced up with a bit of resurgent Persian/Islamic(Shia) empire building.

As for them acquiring Nukes.. and their public "peaceful purposes" posture, I just laugh... "Takiya" is what is going on here.

Say the convenient thing for the bigger goal of victory. Does anyone seriously think Iran has no thoughts about uniting the Shia of Iraq with them ? Seems very likely they could do it unless the "Great Satan" prevents them.

Just imagine.. a nuclear armed Iran.. wouldnt that be Armageddonish fun.