Ross Frenett
: Woolwich Attack: Should We Expect a Violent Response?
Andy Burnham
: Jeremy Hunt Is Playing a Dangerous Game
Theo Randall
: Recipe for the Weekend: Minestrone Primavera
Zoe Armstrong
: Five Ways to Fake a Break and Avoid Parenting Burnout
Anne Speckhard
: Examining the Woolwich Murder of a British Soldier
The latest report by the International Atomic Energy Agency about Iran's nuclear armament exploded like a bomb onto the world of Washington think tanks.
In two high-ranking round-tables, of which one is particularly close to President Obama and the other to the Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney, the topics of military intervention and regime change in Iran were discussed more openly and concretely than ever before.
Pessimists estimate that Teheran will have a nuclear weapon at its disposal in two months at the earliest, and in 22 months at the latest.
Optimists believe that for the time being Iran is aiming at blackmailing her neighbors and at restructuring the balance of power in the Middle East and not at a strike against Israel or Saudi Arabia. However there is the great danger that an impulsive purchase of nuclear weapons by several states out of fear could turn the region into a seething cauldron.
The planned attacks on the Saudi Arabian Embassy in Washington and the assassination plot against the ambassador gave great cause for concern.
Also President Ahmadinejad has intensified his aggressive rhetoric against Israel and the USA. In Israel intense discussions about a strike against Iran are secretly held. Even though a leading intelligence officer spoke publicly against it, the military option is taken seriously.
The decision depends on America's attitude and on the at least passive support by the anti-Iranian, Sunni powers of Saudi Arabia and the Emirates at the Gulf.
The latest news also encourages those who until now have advised against a mission to attack after all. The proponents in Washington of a military intervention are fully aware of the political consequences. However, they believe that a potential end with terror is better than certain terror without an end.
Washington is under no illusion that Europe could be incorporated operationally into military action against Iran. The French and the British have gone to the utmost of their strengths in their intervention in Libya. Germany is not seen as the country that actively intervenes in a military fashion but some moral support is hoped for.
However, even the most ardent advocates of a military intervention make clear that all the stops need to be pulled out prior to it in order to convince Tehran by means of economic sanctions to stop its nuclear program.
Sad & Pathetic ...
They're also the only nation in the region that did anything substantial for Palestine, a land of Arabs who have no racial bond to Persians at all.
But all this is of academic interest - the Russians, Indians and Chinese are Iran's major oil buyers and they've made it clear what would happen if Israel touches Iran. The Russians would no doubt ramp up their arming of Iran if America dares to get involved.
My guess is Israel is pretty much done for unless it backs down and speeds up getting out of the Palestinian territories; the region has changed forever and the world is tired of Israel now.
My point is when Israel are threatened they make a decision and then act,and I think this is what the surrounding countries of Iran may be hoping for,because if Iran declares at any point in the future that it is declaring itself the leader of all nations in the middle east,They will get sick of looking over their shoulder as to what is coming hard and fast from Israel.
Israel is armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons planted in its borders by the US. It has spent 60 years bombing its neighbours and murdering British Army personnel in horrific acts of terrorism such as the King David Hotel bombing in 46 by the terrorist group the Irgun.
Fast forward less than a decade and the US is running a coup to remove Mossadeq in Iran and replace him with a corrupt, puppet Shah. 1978 comes along and Iran throws off, finally, US colonial pursuits.
Iran has every right to possess a nuclear deterrent when Israel recently murdered over 1,400 innocent people in Lebanon alone in under two weeks in an aerial bombardment.
I don't really care what your professed humanitarian interests are in your various projects such as your "Strategic Dialogue" set up, your simple theme seems to be a pretty blatant one.
As anyone who has ever been to the middle east knows, this conflict is Israel's and not London's nor Washington's. Anyone professing otherwise is a dangerous ideologue scandalously ignoring basic historical and economic realities.
People need to read the Goldstone report and ask some questions of all this carte blanche horror.
It's really quite impressive to see the number of Americans now gradually coming to terms with the damage caused by the US in the middle east; it took us in Britain a generation to face up to the mistakes of our own empire.
I got an "imperial blessing" from the Shah when I was a baby, due to my Godmother being from an old family from the days of Reza Khan. I'm not remotely Iranian but grew up around Iranians and taught myself Persian etc.
As with the Arabs seeking their liberty today, Iran must seeks its own path, and I personally think Iran has every right to do with its oil whatever it wants. The west has never forgiven Iran for basically saying, "We'll be fine without you - go buy your oil from the Saudis and we'll sell ours to China, India and Russia". Iran today is far, far, far from being an isolated nation.
Notice how we are a "global economy" when it's time to sign trade deals. It's all a wonderful connected world. But then if there is a nation not playing the way you like it's suddenly a "dangerous world".
The fact is we should not support globalization because it is a dangerous world and free trade helps the transfer of weapons and technology to dangerous places.
But since you support free trade then you and those who supported free trade should be first to fight.
This is Israel's war; it has nothing to do with me nor anyone else in the west. Iran isn't out to get us. If it were it could have done it two decades ago and carried on doing it.
We hear endlessly this nonsense about Iran sponsoring terrorism but we never see any proof. None. Just statements by "ex-CIA officer Mark so-and-so" and some random Mossad director.
If Israel wants to bomb its neighbours and murder Syria's and Iran's scientists then let them deal with it instead of some kid from Idaho or the villages of England.
Enough of all this.
The Nobel committee's concerns were valid. They singled out Obama's rhetoric on reducing nuclear weapons.
Right now Iran's nuclear ambitions dominate the headlines. The warnings are that Iran may be concealing something from the International Atomic Energy Agency and violating U.N. Security Council Resolution 1887, passed last month and hailed as a victory for Obama's efforts to contain Iran.
Meanwhile, a debate continues on whether Obama's recent decision to reconfigure missile-defense systems in Europe is a capitulation to the Russians or a pragmatic step to defend the West from Iranian nuclear attack.
Silence is often more eloquent than loud clamor, so let us attend to what is unspoken
http://www.chomsky.info/articles/20091105.htm
I think the most accurate response to your "big stick" was actually when Ahmadinejad burst out laughing during a CNN interview when asked what he thought of an Israeli attack on Iran. Not a flicker of anything other than genuine amusement.
The only help Israel has is if the US enters the fray - and the Russians have already told the US what will happen if they do that.
Face it - Israel is in serious trouble this time. This isn't the Six Day War against a bunch of badly trained Arabic amateurs.
Why is that such a "big problem" now?
The West is declining rapidly.
Of course, it is true that one monarch had to be replaced with another to get that cooperation, but that does not constitute 'occupation'. That is just external assistance to the one side in a coup d'etat. That has happened often enough throughout history.
Out of Ireland have I come,
Great hatred, little room
maimed me from the start.
I carry from
My mother's womb
a Fanatic Heart.
-Yeats (naturally)
So who is this man?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Weidenfeld,_Baron_Weidenfeld
"Weidenfeld has served in many philanthropic capacities including Chairman of the Ben Gurion University of the Negev (1996–2004), Governor of Tel Aviv University, Governor of the Weizmann Institute, Vice-Chairman of the EU-Israel Forum, and Trustee of the National Portrait Gallery (1988–95)."
=LOL=
They sure are insistent on sacrificing the lives and wealth of Americans, Brits and others for the benefit of a foreign country based on the concept of religious racism.
Perhaps we should start digging into how this chap became a "Lord" - probably reveal some other circles who sell out their country for personal gain.
As for him and people like him being a traitor, I just don't know. The 'T' word is a very serious allegation, not one I feel I know enough about the individuals to make. OTOH, I do agree with you on their strange willingness to sacrifice the lives of their young countrymen and women in countries like the UK and the US, to benefit their favoured belligerent and racist foreign country, a country to which the rest of us have no tie.
Barman, get that man a beer!
I'd argue it most certainly IS justified in possessing it. If Israel wants to fight, let them use their own sons and their own money instead of British and American kids.
Iran is no threat to the west and never has been nor has never intended on being. Israel put itself in this position, and the US State Department let AIPAC tell them what to do.
We can't keep excusing the one mass murderer in the region while we harp on about the minuscule numbers (in comparison) killed in the recent events in Syria and Libya.
I say let Netanyahu go for his brother's revenge. And let the Israelis decide if they want war or peace. Nothing to do with us.