The author's premise would be very nice and very sensible, except that after today's election in Israel, it's almost a certainty that Binyamin Netanyahu's Likud party will win.

Netanyahu has never made a secret of his desire to nuke Iran - and the Israeli people know this. Unless they come to their senses, they will hand Netanyahu the mandate to fulfill what he sees as Israel's 'primary obligation' to 'stop the Iranians'.

Netanyahu is one of the most dangerous players in world politics today. If Bush were still in, the Middle East's nuclear fate would almost certainly be sealed.

Now that we have a reasonably sane moderate in the White House, there may be some hope.

Right with you, SJF, America has had an axe to grind with Iran ever since as a bastard neo-colonialist she not only had her Patsy boy Shah thrown out by the Ayotollah, but also had her colonialist Iranian embassy locked up for more than a year.

As if that was not enough to tell her to leave Iran in peace, in 1981 foolish Americana backed Saddam to attack Iran, with Donald Rumsfeld as military adviser.

But after eight long years, many of us clapped our hands as it looked like Saddam's foolish Iraqis would be pushed all the way back to Baghdad before Saddam, despite American aid, asked for an armistice.

Reckon the Iranians have bee heroic to stand up to it all, and who could really blame them for helping Palestine Arabs to hold back an Israel that has had gifted from America not only over a trillion dollars worth of aid, mostly in arms, including nuclear, but certainly American backing if they want to attack Iran.

Cheers, BB, Buntine, WA.

As a US citizen I have objected to my government’s policy of non-recognition of governments that it did not approve of. For years after the Bolshevik takeover the US did not recognize Soviet Russia. For years after the Communist takeover the US did not recognize the People’s Republic of China.

In recognising the USSR and the People’s Republic of China FDR and Nixon furthered the interests of the United States.

Diplomatic recognition should not denote approval of a government. It should have only three conditions.

1. The government of a country controls its territory.

2. The country is not at war with the power recognizing that government.

3. Diplomats are protected.

On 3 November, 1979 Militant Islamic students stormed the US embassy and took more than 90 people hostage. Revolutionary guards and police did nothing to stop the take-over and Iranian television broadcast live pictures of the siege.

Ayatollah Rubollah Khomeini, who assumed control of Iran in February, 1979 supported the occupation.

Before any relations are established Iran must ensure that US diplomats are protected.

The article included the following: “Also, any relationship with America would mean giving up support for Hamas and Hezbollah. At a time when the Israel threat has not been averted, Tehran can ill afford to loose [sic] two allies it could utilise in war, whose support is valuable at a time when Tehran challenges the international community’s efforts to constrain its nuclear program, and whose help is crucial in projecting Iranian power in the region.”

Perhaps Aditya Mehta might reflect that Israel need not be a threat to Iran. Iran supports Hamas and Hezbollah. If Iran did not support Hamas and Hezbollah Israel would have less reason to feel threatened by Iran. The article did not mention peace with Israel. Why not? Why not peace with both the United States and Israel?

I would like to see Iran, the US and Israel having diplomatic relations and at peace with each other.

Perhaps Iran might consider whether it is really in the interests of Iran to have Hamas and Hezbollah as allies.

David F, apparently you did not bother to read my historical piece just above you.

Thus apparently as a historian, who bases his interpretations as fair and middle-road as an umpire in football, I resent
your lack of comments concerning my recent historical piece.

In passing I can only conclude by wishing that Obama changes and sticks to the middle-road that America has lacked so much of in recent years, especially as regards a spoilt upjumped modern Israel.

Obama will does Rham Emanuel tells him to do.

A recycled madman in charge of an insane Israel. Makes sense ... they only ever look backward for their future.

Armaggedon is indeed descending on Israel.

Obama won't have the courage or strenght to use the USA's biggest asset in the mid east ... a democratic secular Iraq.

All that's needed to destabilise Iran and it's madmen is a propaganda war focused on the success of the people of Iraq.

Of course the Israeli madmen can't have that ... it threatens them ... too much an indication of real change and a chance for peace throughout the mid east. Their expansionist aims would be ended.

Obama is too dumb to understand that.

Dear Bushbred,

Certainly I read your piece. Fair and middle of the road as an umpire in football? Naming one side as bastard neo-colonialist or foolish and the other side as heroic merely shows bias. Umpires don't talk that way. Your piece was not an objective account of what happened.

I agree that the US was wrong in backing the Shah and later in backing Hussein. Hamas and Hezbollah had no business shelling Israeli villages. Israel had no business dropping cluster bombs in Lebanon and white phosphorus in Gaza.

Barracking for a side in the Iran-Iraq War? I just saw a stupid war in which humans on both sides were suffering. Iraq attacked. Iran had young Iranians clear mine fields with their bodies. I could not clap my hands as I thought of the human cost. Saddam's 'foolish Iraqis' had about as much choice in being in the army as the intelligent Iranis. Getting even for historical wrongs means more killing. Peace is made with enemies not with friends. One can nurse historical wrongs or try to make peace.

However, in one significant way Israel, Iran and the US are all alike. They each have a population which has elements who are religious fanatics and wish to continue the killing to further the truth of which they believe they have a monopoly. They each have sophisticated educated elements in their population who are tired of militarism and killing and wish to have peace. If Iran wants to have peace it has to stop supporting those who shell Israeli settlements. If Israel wants to have peace it has to get out of the occupied territories and force the Israeli settlers in those territories to evacuate their settlements. If the US wants to have peace it has to cooperate with other nations and support such international instruments as the ICC.

On all sides I see suffering human beings most of whom have had enough of conflict. The way to peace is to talk to each other and try to resolve the conflict.