I wonder if something is brewing.

Jonathan Freedland in the Guardian seems to think it is.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2101521,00.html

Quotes:
>>...At the Hay festival last month former Pentagon adviser and super-hawk Richard Perle talked openly of bombing Iran, offering a clue as to timing: the US would wait till it had fewer troops in Iraq, so denying Tehran an easy target for retaliation.
Now Perle is not as tightly woven inside the loop as he once was; many of his neocon comrades have fallen by the wayside. But his predictions are worth taking seriously. I remember visiting him in Washington the day Kabul fell, in November 2001. Matter-of-factly he made clear that Washington's next target was Saddam Hussein. And so he was.>>
>>Yet the dangers of a nuclear Iran are real too. Egypt and Saudi Arabia would feel compelled to match Tehran, so triggering a nuclear arms race in the most combustible region on earth. Israel would feel the menace most keenly. As even al-Ayyam, the Palestinian daily, conceded yesterday, "the Jewish state would face a mortal threat to its very existence".>>

The Israeli Defence Force has been holding joint exercises with the USAF.

See:

http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/869098.html

>>Reports on the exercise were carried in Arab media, fuelled by speculation that Israel or the United States could bomb Iran should United Nations Security Council sanctions fail to curb its nuclear program. Iran insists its atomic ambitions are peaceful.>>

The Jerusalem Post goes further:

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&cid=1181228588702

>>Military plan against Iran is ready>>

My own feeling is this is much ado about nothing.

But in the Middle-East who knows?

Addendum:

Jonathan Freedland is right in pinpointing an Arab-Iranian nuclear arms race as one of the nightmares that would emerge from a nuclear armed Iran. Given the identities of most of the 9 / 11 terrorists I find the thought of Saudi nukes more unsettling than Iranian ones.

But, then again Iranian or Saudi nukes are only a possibility. The highly unstable nation of Pakistan has nukes right now. What happens if Pakistan implodes or gets taken over by a Taleban style regime

steven, you naughty boy! pakistan are good ragheads, not bad ragheads like those monstrous, devilish, crypto-terrorist iranians. their bombsare good bombs, g-o-o-d bombs.

of course the usa is pressing iran with military displays, and would like to do more. but dare they? conventional bombs lobbed into saudi arabian oilfields would expose the fragility of the global economy in a way that would give new meaning to the phrase 'oil shock'. this might not frighten perle or cheney, but i suspect dubya is at least consulting others before he starts his next "mission accomplished".

As I said DEMOS,

So far this looks to me more like smoke and mirrors than reality.

At the same time I think a nuclear armed Iran, or even the possibility of a nuclear armed Iran, could set off a chain reaction – pardon the pun – of catastrophic proportions. Imagine Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Egypt all involved in a nuclear arms race. How would the Europeans feel about a nuclear armed Egypt?

Would these countries all be able to keep their nukes out of the hands of terrorists even if they wanted to? In the case Of Pakistan especially we already have the case of AQ Khan and his nuclear network. Members of the Pakistani ISI, acting from a combination of greed and ideology, might be persuaded to pass on a nuke to an Al Qaeda affiliate.

Overall a scary scenario.

Bali on steroids.

While I take no joy in noting America under Bush is dysfunctional in the extreme they may well act one day.
Iran Syria and the real Saudi Arabia are unlikely to become trust worthy any time soon.
Pakistan is even less so, we must one day face of with the idiots who are intent on killing us all.
A bit radical? no realistic
We could in just days face such a world as a result of events on the west bank right now.

Belly,

I think in global terms the events on the West Bank and Gaza, tragic as they may be for the individuals concerned, are a sideshow.

2 cents worth from a self educated on Middle East politics,

Its all a show to pressure Iran to negotiate. The US could have bombed Iran if Israel succeeded to eadicate Hezbollah. Right now Israel is a hostage as it have no strategic depth and the US army is another hostage in Iraq.

Eventually a deal of some sort will be brokered.
The issue with the deal is its not likely to be accepted by Arab monarchies since Shiaa conflicts is about governance.
Agree with Steven that a nuclear Sunni/ Shiaa arms race is possible but the likely uglier scenario is for Iraq to become a proxy war for that conflict where Arab monarchies will use it to hold the Shiite crecent progress.
I was in the middle east recently and reading the news and headlines, seems Iranians are up to an uglier game by thrying to seed their ideologies into young sunnis.

Sorry no links, as I said its my own thoughts,

Fellow_Human

If the US decides it needs to strike Iran I doubt the possible effect on Israel would deter them. They will first and foremost consider their own interests. Among their most important goals must be avoiding a nuclear arms race between Iran, Saudi Arabia and Egypt.

I'm sceptical of Iran's ability to inflict damage on Israel anyway. Despite Hizbullah's claims of victory in the last war I doubt they have the stomach for a re-match. They must know that the Israelis have abandoned the doctrine of winning from the air and that another war would bring about a full scale ground invasion. It is no secret that the IDF has been training for ground operations in Lebanon and is itching for another go.

Lebanon itself is in a parlous state and could implode at any time.

Iran's other friends, Hamas, have won control in Gaza.

But what now?

They may learn the truth of an old adage:

Those whom the gods would destroy, they first grant their wishes

Then there's Iran's friend, Syria. Syria has been flexing its muscles of late. But, again, I'm sceptical. Syria's President Assad must know his Alawite regime is unlikely to survive a ho-holds-barred war with Israel. The destruction you saw in Lebanon is a mere trifle compared to what would result if the IDF were let lose on Syria.

There may be many reasons which stay America's hand against Iran. But the damage Iran could do to Israel is not one of them. Israel is probably not the hostage you seem to imagine despite what the pundits say.

The fact Bush is a lame duck leader is some assurance we may not yet see a US war on Iran.
However one day we will see a clash in this part of the world that concerns us all.
That time could be years or hours away.

Steven,

There are two issues you seem to have mixed:
-Iran is becoming a stronger influencer and player in the region.
Most of new powers was a direct result of American mistakes in Iraq rather than actions by the Iranians. The key errors were: a) dismantling the Iraqi army (only army in the gulf capable of holding the Iranians across and b) dismantling the only powerful secular regime (baath). Those two errors guaranteed that Iraq fell to the Iranians on a silver platter. The arms race in this region is likely inevitable because the Iranians wants to export their revolution and force their way of life. We will see.

- Israel and its security is a different story and requires a different strategy. Regardless of its military capabilites, its clash with Hezbollah was a 2 way surprise and proved that one of key security threats is it have no strategic depth (land). Israel can only mitigate that by peacefully ensuring strong surrounding allies and those are : Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria. Israel's guarantee to security is to wrok closely and in collaboration with all its neighbours.
My guess is there will be lots of negotiations (US-Iran) and (Israel Syria). I can't see any positive outcomes to war scenarios in this region. Iraq is a deja vu.
Its all views anyway, only time can tell.

Peace,

Fellow_Human,

You won't find me defending the Bush administration. Bush is the worst president I can remember and my memory for presidents goes back 50 years. I suspect he may go down in history as the worst of the post-World War 2 presidents and probably one of the worst presidents ever.

When Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq I though he had lost his marbles. Latterly I've begun wondering whether he had any marbles to lose in the first place.

The thrust of my post was to point out that possible consequences to Israel would not stay America's hand if the Americans thought they needed to hit Iran. The US, like every other power, will always put its own interests first.

All candidates running for president that have even a remote chance of actually winning have been careful to reserve the rights when it comes to military action against Iran. Under certain circumstances there could be bipartisan support for destroying Iran's nuclear facilities.

Israel is not as helpless as you seem to imagine. I am also not as sure as you seem to be that Hizbullah would want to risk another confrontation with Israel.

Jaw jaw is always better than war war as Churchill said so I'm sure there are many behind the scenes talks going on. But in the Middle-East it is usually the pessimists who are right and this pessimist does not think there will be peace anytime soon. Not in Iraq. Not in Iran which is fighting low-level civil wars in various provinces. And not between Israel and the two Palestinian entities which one pundit labeled "Hamastan" and "Fatahstine."

I also wonder what Hamas will actually do now that it has control of Gaza.

My own guess is that Abbas may be secretly relieved that Hamas has in effect broken away and taken Gaza off his shoulders.

Steven,

Agree with your most of your last post specially re Hamas. For Gaza to be controled by Hamas is a step in the wrong direction.

You mis-interpreted my comment re "Israel helpless" on the contrary that is not view. The point I was trying to make is that the whole region can have an EU like future if they work together (ie Israel and its neigbouring countries). The Israeli and the Arabs need a change of attittude and should both say good bye to muscles or victim attitude but rather put their heads together as they share the same region, culture and resources. Sooner or later they will come to realise if they can't unite no one really cares about either of them.

Peace,

Steven,

Agree with your most of your last post specially re Hamas. For Gaza to be controled by Hamas is a step in the wrong direction.

You mis-interpreted my comment re "Israel helpless" on the contrary that is not my view. The point I was trying to make is that the whole region can have an EU like future if they work together (ie Israel and its neigbouring countries). The Israeli and the Arabs need a change of attittude and should both say good bye to muscles or victim attitude but rather put their heads together as they share the same region, culture and resources. Sooner or later they will come to realise if they can't unite no one really cares about either of them.

Peace,

Fellow-human,

The Palestinians have two blessings and one potential blessing going for them.

The two blessing are.

-They don't have any oil; and

-They are the best educated most technically competent Arab society. Literacy is almost 100%.

The potential blessing is that they are right next door to the EU, one of the richest markets in the world. If they could attract just a tiny fraction of the investment that goes to China they could experience rapid economic advancement.

Why the hell do they mess about with Qasams? Why don’t they have trade delegations in the EU trying to attract investment? With the kind of ingenuity the Palestinians displayed in making rockets out of scrap they should have no difficulty persuading the Europeans to site some factories in Gaza and the West Bank.

Instead of making Qasams I'd like to see them making components for BMWs. Sort of beating your rockets into automotive parts.

On a per capita basis Israel attracts much more investment than does even China. Why don't the Palestinians get in on the game?

This is all such a fu ck ing waste!

Just keep em talking till the oil runs out, then their economies will collapse and it will be all over red rover.

Well, I used to ask Palestinians the very same question.
Even though it must be frustrating to see someone land taken, they should also master the anger and make the best of what they have.
I never heard good answers but my views is initially their system of governance is corrupt and dysfunctional. It also worked well for the Israeli since the territories are a good source for cheap labour.

Who really knows, as AlanPoi says, seometimes I really wished this region never had any oil so you can focus on something else. Unfortunately they have lots of other natural resources such as natural, Gas, Uranium, etc...They will always be rich adn lazy I guess.

Fellow_Human

The Gazans can only dream of the "good old days" when they could work as "cheap labour" in Israel. Now the border crossings are closed and they've all lost their jobs.

Some West Bankers still work in Israel but it's a fraction of the number that used to.

Meanwhile people from across Asia, especially the Phillipines, Thailand and Vietnam are flocking to Israel to fill the jobs vacated by the Palestinians.

BTW you too, Fellow_Human, have a source of cheap labour. It's located in China Indonesia and Vietnam among other places.

Ever wondered why everything from TVs to cutlery is so cheap these days? It's because they're made by "cheap" Asian labour.

"Cheap labour" exists because we want to buy cheap products. If you want to know who is exploiting labour look in the mirror. Look around you on the tram.

Steven,

No need to get defensive on cheap labour. The point I was making that Israelis were supporting fatah even though they are aware of their corruption because of many reasons one of which is cheap labour. Gaza had 40% unemployment and most of them are living on a less than a $1 a day per person. Which made it a 'cheap educated labour heaven to the Israeli businesses.

There are no angels on either side of the fence. Its politics.

Fellow_Human this may interest you.

Why there is no Palestine

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/870577.html

Steven,

Very real article. I think its time for Palestinians to take a look at themsleves and stop blaming everyone for their misapps.

My view is that it is the

"Legal Right @ International Law"

of

*Hamas*

as the chosen representative of their people,

2 petition the relevant International Court as if it were a
State Party
in order that all of its grievances may b heard by all.
..
Security Council "veto" power ought b ignored.
..
The Sri Lankans "hissed & spit" at this argument in 2000 @ the HRC in Geneva but what have we seen since then apart from further
"bloodShed" & hatred as a consequence?

& what have we all reaped because of the refusal of numerous administrations to b held accountable at Law?

Why is it a surprise that the
"BrotherHood" of Al Qaeda
are big enough to dish out a good punch in the nose?

Kosovo ought b given freely.

...Adam...

Iran and Korea are just as entitled to Nuclear Power as the same as Britain, United States, France, Israel, India, Pakistan and Russia. Neighbours our childrens friends victims of emissions Strotium B 90
My family lived very close to Bradwell Nuclear Power Station in Essex and we were part of a Community that campaigned for the closure because of the tremendous amount of various type of cancer deaths that was unexplained especially with school children. Friends of the Earth local Residents Associations and Labour Party Branches were finally successful. (Campaigners and local residents today (Thursday 28 March 2002) welcomed the closure of Bradwell nuclear power station in Essex. The station is due to be shut for decommissioning on Easter Sunday, after 40 years operation. Friends of the Earth today called on the Government to rule out the building of another nuclear power station on the site and to encourage investment in renewable energy, such as wind power instead.) We are all interested to know that if you have any intention of altering, amending or changing our existing policy if we do fall into line with John Howard and his Government in expanding uranium mining this would be a disaster for us all because this would mean that we would be condoning nuclear power and subsequently nuclear weapons. We cannot guarantee that China or Russia would not give uranium or plutonium to Iran.