91�ȱ�

Forgive me for being niaive but why is the US always so protective towards Israel? Israel's actions over the last 35 years or so have constituted terrorism or outright war to its neighbours yet the US chooses to turn a blind eye to it all. Why do they protect Israel at any cost to themselves? The Jewish lobby in the US is not very big, in fact there are far more atheists in the US than Jews.
Soon as India and China take more of an interest in world affairs the US is going to need some friends in the Middle East if they want to keep buying their oil, and friendships need to be built up over time. The lure and authority of the dollar will wane (are we already seeing signs of that?) so surely it would be in the US's long term interests to try to win Iran over rather than knock them over. I doubt our 'special relationship' would stretch to a war with Iran.

This may be the most dangerous crisis in the world today. More dangerous than Korea and far more dangerous than global warming, this has the possibility of escalating into a worldwide catastrophe of unimaginable proportions, and it appears to be headed unswervingly in that direction.

It is not credible that Iran is developing nuclear technology for peaceful purposes only. That could be done under international supervison not only without causing any concern to other nations but with technical assistance, yes even from the US. Instead, it is clear to most thoughtful people that Iran's goal has been for a very long time to acquire nuclear weapons.

These weapons are not like other weapons. They make a pawn a king. A nuclear first strike would destroy most countries including Israel almost completely. Even for a vast continental power like the US it would have a devastating impact. That is why a nation which openly supports terrorist organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah and has vowed to destroy the US and Israel cannot, will not, must not be allowed to acquire them.

It's hard to understand what the US is waiting for. In matters of existance and non existance, so called international laws have no meaning. It is clear neither sanctions, nor any policy short of military action will deter Iran. If the US waits too long, Israel will be forced to act. Israel has only one possible effective strategy against Iran, a devastating nuclear first strike. Most observers belive it has far more than the means to accomplish this. What would be the impact for the world? Will the world even survive such an event? If the Iranian oil fields are set ablaze the way Saddam Hussein set Kuwait's oil fields on fire, you'll see 100 years of CO2 in normal use evolved in six months. And the air polution will be horrific. Don't expect anyone to put them out, they will burn forever.

On what basis does Nick Robinson assert that the President of Iran will have a nuclear weapon '' put into his hands '' ?
Does Nick Robinson really understand the Iranian Constitution or the current Iranian internal political situation ?

Iran has been the centre of focus for a while, as I said in a comment before. The Alliance wants to contain Iran by controlling Afghanistan and Iraq on either side of it (both of which I believe the Alliance thought would be easier to achieve than they have turned out to be). Also with the diplomatic 'wooing' of Syria to keep them on side. Iran is now stepping up its nuclear programme and the Alliance their military operations. George Bush's speach on Iraq will be an interesting comment on future policy there, probably aimed at maintaining bases for regional security. I think you are right, the holidays are very much over. (Nice plug for your show though!)

Dear Nick,
Whilst there are serious tensions inside Iran, there is no doubt who are in charge. Iran (and to some extent N Korea) are the most dangerous countries on the planet; and whilst all attention is focused on Iraq - where little more can be done - these two have to be brought to book one way or another.

Sanctions will not work. They will press on with their nuclear plans regardless. It would be far more useful to concentrate on showing them just what hardball is - if they insist on playing it. Perhaps a small, controlled nuclear test of their coast would make them see sense.

KW

Here we go again…

While nuclear weapons remain on the table I’m not sure it’s right to draw the line at Iran having access to them. Likewise, I’m not persuaded the bullying and divisive foreign policy strategy of America makes them exemplary players. Strip away the considerations of power, status, and wealth and the issue is one of policy and character, or maturity.

From personal lives, to communities, to nations, our character follows us around. The only way to be better is to do better. Here, I think, the international challenge is a distraction, and that more profit might be found by focusing more on internal affairs. It’s from this foundation that personal, business, and social success flows.

The Daoist concept of “do nothing” can be a little hard to grasp when so much of our lives is spent being conditioned to achieve but it’s quite simple. Simply, you do what you are. If your are an idiot, you act like an idiot. If you are a master, you act like a master. By being in tune with reality, or “the way”, success happens naturally.

Maybe, people could “do nothing” for once. It would make a change.

Jeremy Greenstock says "no British government will support military action"

Oh yes ?

While the current PM is in post I wouldn't rule anything out.

It's a sad fact that our support of military action in Iraq and our, and the US's, failure to engineer a robust new regime there has had the undesirable consequences of destabilising the whole region, removing the remaining counterbalance to Iran, and occupying our armed forces to the extent that Iran sees a golden opportunity to increase its power.

So the current situation was, sadly, entirely predictable and of this and the US's government's own making.

The real problem with making a convincing (moral and political) case against Iran is double standards. Not necessarily because the objection is correct but because it is powerful all over the world. Whatever one's view about the Iran's ruling politics, it has not been particularly belligerent in the Middle East. At least one can say other countries are more aggressive. Israel is one such country, and it has nuclear strike capability. As long as those who oppose Iran's programme do not take measures to be seen to be impartial by opposing Israel's own programme, Iran's opponents will remain isolated.

I think everyone is missing the point. Iran is not developing nuclear weapons and never will. This 'news' story is pure propaganda.

Excluding Iraq who has Iran ever experienced conflict with? Even on that occasion and Iraq initiated conflict, sponsored by the US.

This time around the US along with the UK (in some form or another) will attack Iran. It's all about power, power within the US. To secure the power 'they' need oil 'they' need one of their puppets in Iran and 'they' will stop at nothing to get it.

Unfortunately, unless the people of this planet finally wake up the war machine will continue to roll on and on and on and on!

If america is so concerned about Iran then why on earth did they otherthrow Saddam hussain and effectively give control of Iraq to Muqtada al-Sadr? Meaning Iran now controls Iraq. I think we've all heard the taunts at Saddams execution, it was clear he was executed in the name of al Sadr not by any means the iraqis.

America has had several chances to diplomatically resolve the Iran issue, has everyone forgot the 'letter' written to George Bush offering to end nuclear enrichment? That was ignored? Or perhaps the offer to end nuclear activities from North Korea that America equally ignored?

If Israel nukes Iran then it our duty to nuke israel. Preemtively if necercary because they are more of a threat to both the middle east and western nations (indirectly) than Iran is.

Almost every problem we have in the middle east today is the fault of Israel which is seen as an American colony enforcing aparthied on the native population. Treating them as worthless animals and bullying there neighbours.

Like in Africa israel needs to end aparthied. Meaning all arabs be given full israelie citizenship and be represented in the Iraelie government. Only then can there ever be peace in the middle east.

I think, regardless of cultures and creeds, the bulk of the world's problems are caused by frustrated men, especially middle-aged ones who have determined that, as they are past their prime are and are egocentric by default, there is no future. For anyone.

Middle-aged men given the luxury of whinging via blogs are possibly the worst. Just read here for example.

Why should Iran want to develop a thermo-nuclear intercontinental missile capability(the so called'Jihad Nukes')that could annihilate Israel and the US -and others,at the drop of a feather when it must inevitably realise, that both Iran and Islam do not have any enemies in the west and that any inspirational revelation as to the ideological future of the world ought to interpreted as metaphor, and not as literal truth.
However, if they do not,there can only be three options:domestic conversion to Islam;faith in 'Star Wars'and asylum seeking to the US; and for US hate mongers,retreat to the 91�ȱ� protectorate at Wood Lane.

If i had two questions, i could put to tonights panel,they would be 1.WITH BRITAIN IN THE STATE OF A P.M. LEAVING,COULD HE COMMIT TO ANOTHER WAR?2.DOES BRITAIN HAVE THE MILITARY POWER TO BE INVOLVED IN THREE CAMPAIGNS.

I have read reports from the USA revealing that in fact Iran is READY to repel/negate any invasion of her space, whether from land,sea or air. The USA and UK are really in no position to do other than negotiate -and this with the masters of subfuscation!
Tread lightly, chaps!

Iran has every right to develop nuclear power for peaceful purposes and has been doing so since the time of the Shah.

However, building a deployable nuclear weapon is very difficult. I'm not convinced that enriching Uranium for power generation will intrinsically lead to weapons-grade uranium. Even if Iran had the material, building a bomb that can be delivered is a major project.

The difficulty is that nuclear energy has become a matter of nationalistic pride in Iran and it has taken steps that could be interpreted as having something to hide.

What diplomacy needs to do is make absolutely clear to Iran that it has the right to peaceful nuclear power and will be allowed to continue if that is what it wishes to do. The IAEA should also make it clear that the inspection regime is not about control, but about transparency.

The example of Libya is a good pointer. Give Iran a chance to re-start IAEA monitoring whilst saving domestic political face and the crisis is no longer.

Charles E Hardwidge #8

You're not sure its right to draw the line at Iran having access to nuclear weapons? You would be if Iran's president said your country had no right to exist or that the world would be better of without your country and you were his likely target for them.

Just to address that white middle-aged man thing, Damien. In principle, I like the idea behind Nick’s new programme but how it turns out depends entirely on the quality of peoples contributions and attitudes. Personally, I’d prefer less debate and more thesis, less fixed position and more willingness to change. This, from a “middle-aged white man.”

There are plenty of good people around. Nick’s earlier media lecture hit most of the bullet points I’ve been screaming about, and some of his topics have followed a very interesting curve. Also, some of the invited speakers, such as Sir Jeremy Greenstock, are very knowledgeable, skilful, and well meaning people. We must value this.

There’s a story of a Samurai who went after the assassin of his master. Eventually, he found him. On raising his sword, the assassin spat in his face. The Samurai put down his sword and walked away. The reason? To strike a blow in anger was not honourable. Simply, anger clouds the mind and misdirects our action. Better to say nothing than be improper.

Iran, as with any nation, has just as much right to build upon it's nuclear energy program as Britain, the US, or anyone else. From where I'm sitting the government of that country seem, like North Korea, to be all mouth and no trousers. Iran knows that any pre-emptive action on her part to wipe Israel off the map would result in a very swift Tip-Ex of her own longitude and latitudes, and it's a hollow victory indeed that one would not remain around long enough to savour. Let them develop as much technology as they like, but also have the guts to issue a firm statement of policy which decrees assured destruction should she ever see fit to launch an attack on any foreign soil. What troubles me at night is not Iran's propensity for big talk, but George Bush's penchant for big action, usually of the unjustified variety, and almost certainly with favourite pooch Tony Blair at the end of a tight leash.

Iran has recently begun advocating the sale of oil in Euros rather than US Dollars. Saddam was advocating the same before the intervention in Iraq, as a way of reducing the influence of the United States (as a drop in demand for dollars for energy payments could result in a fall in the value of the dollars, given the negative US balance of payments).

At present Japan and China among others hold large US Dollar reserves and have an interest in the dollar keeping its value. The problem thy have is that if they tried to get rid of large amounts of their US Dollar reserves they would see the value of the remainder fall sharply. However, if energy contracts were priced in Euros, this would make the dollar far less attractive as a reserve currency.

Iraq sold its oil in Euros before the invasion. After the invasion Iraq has gone back to selling oil in Dollars. has Iran sealed its fate by trying to price oil contracts in Euros?

It seems that Iran has found the tactic all so called "rebel states" ie North Korea, have begun to use...simply going toe to toe with the main players.

After Iraq and Afghanistan it is clear that military action is no longer an easy solution to problems. Conflicts will now last decades if not longer until some form of ending arrives. These countries now know this and it is now easier for them to assert their demands as the diplomatic option is the main card and more is willing to be given to them so that conflict is avoided.

Now they know this it seems that a bargain will be harder to form as there confidence will now grow inline with the situations in the Middle East.

Hapy new year indeed! I take one 5 week break from reading your log and return to find the recidivists (that would be TB & GB btw ) have gone nuclear!

Can I point out to comment #6 that a small 'test' explosion is blatantly illegal, and might well trigger off mankinds biggest ever, and ultimately final, fireworks display?

Secondly what then would seperate us from every other tyrannical nation in history? Do it or your dead is never anything else but tyranny chaps. Who would use these disgusting weapons ethically is rather the debate after all.

Can I point ut to comment #2 that ultimately every major war is to the point of annihilation and that the international law is there to prevent not only that happening but our redescent into barbarism too and should not be laid aside out of fear!

I suppose Hamburg and Nagasaki were acceptable to you as well? On second thoughts I'd be unsurprised if you didn't know what they were or why WW2 is an excellent example of why those laws should be maintained and upheld.

I beleive I read as well that someone suggested we should strike at Israel? Hate to break your bubble chum, we'd loose, no question. Though I would briefly admire your spirit.

Finally can I point out that a nuclear first strike by iran (or israel actually) would be certifiable suicide? I find it unlikely that either have quite taken leave of their senses that far just yet.

Did anyone else notice that the shops are celebrating easter already? Perhaps they're afraid we won't make it that far eh?

I cannot see the UK ever being involved in military action against Iran, almost certainly because no one will want to join the Armed Forces now, bearing in mind the latest revelations about the lack of funding by the MoD.

If Iran ever used a nuclear weapon, Tehran would be wiped off the face of the planet. I cannot see the current Iranian president having such a death wish.

Talking never killed anyone, so why can't the leaders of the countries concerned sit down and discuss the situation?

Some very interesting points have been raised on this blog. Its good to hear the "voices" that we rarely hear in the mainstream media. This is my first time reading this blog & felt i had to write...

I feel that 90% of what we hear is propoganda & spin. Contrary to popular belief, the US & UK Governments clearly knew what they were doing when they invaded Iraq on dodgy intelligence reports. This is why there was no "exit strategy" & civilian life is still harsh even if you don't take into account the violence (lack of water/electricity etc). The US/UK hawks (manipulated by military-industrial multinationals & global banking houses) want a perpetual state of war in the Middle East to justify their 'War on Terror' and secure permanent regional bases to secure oil supplies & of course control their own domestic populations through ID cards/DNA etc. Why is it that everything since 9/11 has always been about the war on terror? Its strange how it's never reported that the US has spent the last 50 odd years funding (militarily & financially) 'terror' groups all over the world, but particulary in Latin/South America! We need to remember who gains from a situation, only then can you begin to disseminate what is really going on. Think of Pearl Harbour, it has now been proven then the US Government knew about the attack 3 days before, then sent more ships to dock there & even put the radar into "maintenance", why? Well of course the attack created a US public outcry (quite rightly) & this was used to justify joining the war to increase global US influence. Does this situtation sound familiar to anyone? Burning of the Reichstag = Nazi repression & consolidation of power? 9/11 = War on Terror/Iraq/Afghanistan? Gulf of Tonkin = Vietnam war? Anyone see any similarities here? I leave you with one question...Why was the collapse (read demolition) of World Trade Centre Building 7 not reported in the British media? I saw some footage of the owner/spokesman of the World Trade Centre complex Larry Silverstein & when asked why it collapsed, he stated that 'well it had been such a terrible day, that i said just pull it (down)'. So we are to believe that on 9/11 when the Twin Towers were destroyed that he went oh well its been a bad day, there is a fire in WTC7, I know, lets just demolish it? Am I the only person who thinks this is madness & manipulation? PS This building was leased to the FBI & Mayor Guilliani's Office & contained info on investigations into major banking & oil criminal cases! Ok rant over! ;-)

The current 'crisis' demonstrates the utter hypocrisy of world leaders. The nuclear facilities that Iran has, were constructed by Siemens during the reign of the Western supported ' Shah of Persia', who was a complete tyrant and had human rights abuses equalling any self respecting Middle Eastern leader. The nuclear programme was halted after the Islamic revolution because The Ayatollah Khomeini declared nuclear power to be the 'work of the devil', it was only resurrected again when Iran sought to protect itself against Saddam ( who was being given the technology by western powers.)

What the invasion of Iraq showed any vilified country , was not that they ought not to have WMD programmes or they will be attacked, but precisely the opposite, North Korea would never be attacked because they are prepared to use WMD, so any country that wishes to keep itself safe will get nuclear weapons as fast as possible.

Phew, lots of interesting comments...

It strikes me as funny that of the four countries GWB cited as forming an Axis of Evil (Iran, Iraq, Syria NK), two have swelled their piles of nuclear bargaining chips, one needs to become a bedfellow to help in Iraq, and Iraq itself appears to have been completely the wrong target given the public justification for going in.

Commitments in Iraq probably preclude the UK and US from a bilateral strike in Iran for obvious reasons. I imagine there's major hesitancy from everyone else given the instability in Iraq now. Because we made a bad and hasty decision on Iraq, we've to an extent tied our own hands when it comes to our options for dealing with NK and Iran. I don't believe that force is the immediate answer, as it will compel Iran to prepare to defend itself (and perhaps accelerate any weapons programme) or to lash out first.

That Iran would wish to have nuclear power is no bad thing in itself. We all know oil is running out. How it's played out and presented politically probably skews the picture somewhat. As a UK citizen, how do I really know what I hear from the news is really representative of Iran's standpoint?

Israel's possession of nukes and it's protection from the US must make everyone else feel threatened. Isn't Israel actually breaking international law because they've never actually admitted possession and been subject to the same scrutiny as other nuclear nations? That this is a US bedfellow holding military supremacy over the region where the US buys most of it's oil is highly suspect, so I cannot accept the US presentation of the Iranian situation as balanced, especially when GWB and his monkeys still run the zoo.

The US veto in the UN probably hinders progress in that forum too given their vested interests in the region and entrenched position in Iraq.

UN Nations need to continue to provide options to Iran without the US being the dominant player, so that Iran can see there are choices and that they don't just have to bend to the US will. If, when presented with viable choices in a public forum, Iran disregards and continues in a way that strongly suggests nuclear proliferation, it will make the job at the UN Security council easier and more justified, whatever their choice turns out to be.

The road to a nuclear conflict in the Middle East is paved with European carrots....appeasment will only lead to war.

Iran is a country so please stop with the "she" "her', and use the correct pronoun.

For me, the discovery of a renewable energy source with high efficiency will be the event that changes world politics and economics on an unimaginable scale. With such a discrovery, the power that Iran and her Eastern counterparts have ammassed will be completely annulled - Iran's power in the middle east is completely dependent on her oil supplies, and more importantly, America's dependance on it. When this is removed by another source of energy production, the reprecussions will, quite simply, be monumental.

Dear Conspiracy Theorists (a.k.a. Nutjobs),
The US gets only 15% of its oil from the ME as a whole. Saudi Arabia is much more important to the US than Iran or Iraq from that viewpoint. If extended drilling in Alaska is ever allowed, the US's dependence on the ME will be even less.
Israel has nukes - big deal. Israel also has a relatively rational and democratic government. Iran's attempts at democracy are farcial, and the real power lies with some very irrational theologists that believe dying for Allah is a good thing (by nucleur sunburn or otherwise!). Even Kim Jong Il strikes me as a safer bet with nukes than the Ayatollahs.
It has nothing to do with today, but let's slay another conspiracy theory. The US had a warning from British spies six months before Pearl Harbour. The problem was J Edgar Hoover didn't believe the warnings, but then he was getting reports of possible attacks all along the Western seaboard. Maybe he just thought the Brits were trying to drag the US into the war, maybe he was just too busy dressing up in womens' clothes, we'll never know. In fact, he could blame the Brits in a way - it was the Fleet Air Arm attack on Taranto that really gave the Japs the core for their attack plan on Pearl.
I personally think it is more likely that NK will attack South Korea whilst the US is overstretched in Iraq, for the simple reason that they are more desperate than Iran. Iran can play the long game, I'm not so sure Kim can.

I noticed quite a few hostile comments towards Israel, especially number 12, which seems to advocate a nuclear strike against the country and compare it to Aparteid south Africa. Maybe Sam would be interested to know that Israel has a number of Arab MPs already. Far better traetment is given to Israeli Arabs than Jews receive in Iran (and many other Arab countries), where it is normal to see cartoons of Jews which look like they've come straight from Nazi Germany. Also, Israel is a fully democratic country with a good record on issues such as race relations, gay rights, and women have full equality unlike in much of the Arab world. The Palestinians and neighbouring states have been offered many opportunities by Israel to work towards a lasting settlement, all of which were rejected, as the will of elements such as Hamas is to completely destroy Israel and not to recognise that it has the same right to exist with peace and security as any other country has.

Just to clarify, Reuel Marc Gerecht may be a former Middle Eastern specialist in the CIA, but you omitted to mention that he is currently the Director of the Middle East Initiative at the Project for the New American Century and a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.

Just thought I would mention it.