"Hey: The Iranians are too stoopid to own nucular weapons so they shouldnt be allowed to own them. If they had smarts, they would not threaten to wipe out Israel with them"

if you were smart you would know they never said that.

Only the US actually wipes out countries leaders and thier people.

These "journalists" earn their dirty money when they can smirk at how they have deceived people like you and me. (i was no different and woke up with the news about Katrina)

"Iranian president never said he want to wipe Israel off the map. He is against all racism philosophies like Zionism".

Wow! a true American that does research. no easy task with these "journalist". Absolutely true, the man said all tyrannys should be wiped off the face of the earth. Israel has been oppressing Jews for decades. Zionists are racist and just like our president has no qualms about killing his own people, Zionists indeed have killed Jews to blame it on others. Jews for the most part fear them. of course, the rich elite that own our media and Bush are Zionists that together are deciding the fate, life and death of every single american and will do so from underground bunkers.

end of story.

the un can't stop the propaganda. if we could stop THAT well, hell, there would be no fires bringing down huge skyscrapers, or a plane in the pengagon after 2 RSVP in New York, or Osama Bin Laden, or WMD's and there would be no murderous criminals that have taken this country from within.

Is it bad to overthrow a government that overthrew the government. hmmmm

If you believe the marketing campaign about Iran, it is no wonder you are allowing our kids to come back in body bags from Afghanistan and Irak.

Is there no stopping the most evil group of elite monsters ever to darken these United States and the world? Lord it makes Hitler look like Bugs Bunny!

This coming from a President that wanted to paint a plane with UN colors to be shot down by Irak to get us into a war.

plan B: get a defector to speak about all those weapons of mass destruction.

when are you going to write sbout that?

And why the hell shouldn't Iran have the nuclear bomb? Why should any country want to possess such weapons? Domination and intimidation! I may be very naive but which country has been attacked by Iran? On the other hand the US and Israel can hardly be seen as doves.Either every nation forgoes Nuclear or they all have a right to possess. By the way which country actually dared to use this TWICE not against an army but on civilians? Collateral damage I suppose. Hiroshima 140 000 Nagasaki 70 000. Go for it Iran otherwise your going to end up with the same dmocracy as Irak today!

What the USA is trying to convince Iranians about is the following:

You are inferior entities that are expected to accept our vision of the world and you are expected to cooperate or we will force you into cooperation.

It is almost the same thing they use to say to african slaves.

Remenber that they expected the indians to cooperate with the new world order of the time.

USA is allways in war with someone and they are allways able to convince themselfs that they are right.

From indians they want the land.

From africans they wanted the work power.

From arabs they want oil.

Security?

What about the security of others.

Interests?

What obout the interests of others?

Nuclear bombs?

They have used the bombs and are the only state that uses to say that they are prepared to use their bombs against people that don't have such type of bombs, in a premptive way.

Look at the past if you want to understand USA.

Robert,

I understand your feelings but I must say that I am of the opinion that the failure here is larger that just President Bush, or the administration as a whole, or a political party. Sad to say, the country as a whole bought this enterprise hook, line, and sinker by something like 70% to 30% depending on which poll you looked at. Congress bought it as well, not because they really believed the obviously crappy intelligence, but because they largely follow the public mood so as to win the next election. What failed here was our basic separation of powers, our representative system of government. Ultimately it is us, we the people, who elect these folk.

It troubles me greatly when so many are entertaining the notion that the nations of the world must become democracies and it is our duty to see to it that they do. The Soviet Union once asserted that same notion with respect to socialism. Who gives a single nation such authority? What it is is the sheer hubris of great power. The problem is our actual power, while great, is no where near large enough to impose our will, our President's vision. Even more fundamentally, it is contrary to the basic principles that drove the brilliant and hardworking fellows who painstakingly put together our Constitution. A people has an inalienable right to decide its own governance, its own system of governance. No other people has the right to dictate what that shall be.

Our democratic republic was tailored specifically to suit the cultures of our people. It is secular because our populace then (and still does) included many religious variants with a well known history of government persecution. Thus we enshrined the right of each citizen to practice any religion of their choice and prohibited the state from involving itself in any way. The Iranians have a constitution defining their state as well. It is an Islamic republic that combines Islamic religious guidance with representative democracy, quite complicated actually. It reflects the culture of the Persian people. The people of Iran ratified it. Where do we derive the authority to interfere with that?

No doubt the administration has been inept in the postwar occupation and management of Iraq. Hordes of politicians have taken advantage of that to maintain their original misjudgement in voting for war while criticizing the administration for its execution. But the ineptness is not the important issue for America in the long run. The important issues for us are what principles should guide the commitment and the use of our armed forces in conflict, what is an adequate cause for war and what is not, what role should we play in this world. The answers to these things are what should determine votes this November and perhaps enough to improve the miserable quality of our present Congress so we might again have reasonable checks and balances in our system.

Well.. just some history.. relevant or not. Iran was a responsible democracy.. before the US and UK decided that it is not good to have a democracy in the middle east. Now the US and UK want a democracy in Iran again. This history might be 50 years old, but I think it is still relevant.
Read
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Mossadegh

A. Myers writes: "Why is it okay for the U.S. to have nuclear weapons? Because it's a real democracy where the people recognize it's not in anyone's interest to start WWIII."

Do you remember Guantanamo, NSA Program of spying on American citizens, Saddam's Mushroom Cloud and its WMD lies? Doesn't Sounds, tastes or looks democratic to me. Are you redefining what does democracy means?

Perhaps a Cruel joke?

A. Myers writes: "Why is it okay for the U.S. to have nuclear weapons? Because it's a real democracy where the people recognize it's not in anyone's interest to start WWIII."

DO YOU REMEMBER HIROSHIMA AND NAGASAKI. I mean THAT war with Japan a while ago.

Cayambe,

You are right on. This is the best system in the world and perhaps the fairest and most humane superpower in the world. I would rank it closely to the first real empire, the Persian Empire of the Achaemenids. They were also humane and fair. They did not impose their faith on others, and their founder Cyrus the Great published what was widely considered the first Human Rights Bill. This was called Cyrus' Cylinder, which if I am not mistaken, has its content on display at the United Nations.

But I would still rank our system as better because as you mentioned we are the closest you are going to get to a fair and transparent system. Unfortunately however, a good system could still not function properly when led by an inept administration.

I am not a bad republican for criticizing this administration. I am being a good American first. Country before political party. And I will say this, I do feel awkward when I find myself laughing and agreeing with statements made by Bill Maher and the likes. He made a very funny statement last night on Larry King (I don't watch Larry King, but while channel surfing, I saw Bill Maher was the guest and tuned in). Bill Maher said that this country is like a thick-necked muscular wrestler who doesn't have a brain and just wants to go around and bully people.

No disrespect to wrestlers or good Americans, which I believe and hope are the majority. When we as Americans have to travel abroad and tell others that we are Canadian or from the land of our immigrant parents and grandparents, then you realize how far our star has fallen.

And I'm talking about travelling to Europe. This administration who is from my party has disgraced us Americans with lies, corruption, incompetence, and fanaticism. All of the begs an answer to Joe Scarborough's question last week, Is George Bush an Idiot? Scarborough himself answered it best when he said that the answer is NO, but he also said that is is undeniable that this President is "not intellectually curious" and ignores any dissent within his own administration.

That tells me that he is NOT smart enough to listen to experts, including people from his own party and father's administration, and it tells me that he is someone who is content with what he knows rather than be hungry to learn. That by definition is someone who is ignorant and a fundamentalist.

Robert,
Ooooops. You mistook A. Myers answer to Persica's question as Persica's statement. Not that I disagree with your comments on Myers response to Persica, quite the contrary; but if you must fault Persica try the touch of arrogance she (or he) displayed discussing the 34 day war in her August 27, 2006 02:48 AM post.

It pleases me no end that a self described "moderate Republican" no longer supports the Iraq war. As a truly old style conservative Republican, I never did, finding myself in the uncomfortable position of hearing my views most clearly expressed by Howard Dean of Vermont. And I recoil at the liberal Trumanesque expansion of presidential power with the NSA program and Guantanamo, not to mention quasi-torture.

I'm really pleased to see so many foreigners, or should I say non-Americans, putting their thoughts and opinions on these threads, most especially the Iranians. It provides us a means to get out of the echo chamber of our media and political dialogue and to escape the marketing rhetoric our politics have become. Anyone remember Andy Card's comment about not introducing a "new product" (the Iraq war) in August? Well, they sold it didn't they? Fellow Americans --- buyer beware.

But back to Myers reply. What I find most troubling is the notion that only democracies are entitled to have nuclear weapons. I suppose that means that we should first invade China and North Korea as these don't even pretend to psuedodemocracyhood. The illusion has been created that a democratic republic (which is actually what we are) is somehow more peaceful and less aggressive than other forms of government. It's simply not true and there are plenty of countries in our own hemisphere which will justifiably attest to the fact that we are the proof that its not true. Based on experience I will say that a democratic republic is the best form of government for its citizens and I've no desire to change mine for another, but each people in this world has to make their own decisions in that regard and its not for us to make these decisions for them or to proscribe what technologies they can and cannot exploit.

Persica and Record, if you want your regime changed, that is your job. We changed ours back in the late 1700's. Good luck with it.

THIS STUPID IDIOT ATHEIST FROM BOSTON U.S. CRITIZING INDIA WHO DOES NOT KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT INDIA OR THE WORLD BEYOND BOSTON, SHOULD KNOW THAT U.S. IS ONLY TRYING TO DO FAVOUR TO ITSELF BY PUSHING THE NUCLEAR DEAL. INDIA OR NONE OF THE REAL INDIANS NEED THIS DEAL WHICH IS COMPLETELY DETRIMENTAL TO INDIAN INTEREST. IT WILL IN FACT BE A BIGGEST HELP FOR THOSE MAJORITY OF INDIANS WHO DOES NOT WANT THIS NUCLEAR DEAL WHICH IS BEING PUSHED BY U.S. BY BRIBING NOT ONLY INDIAN POLITICIANS BUT THE PRIME MINSITER MANMOHAN SINGH TOO. AND DO NOT TRY TO THINK IN YOUR HEAD THAT YOU ARE NUMBER ONE. YOU ARE JUST IGNORANT. GO OUT TO THE WORLD AND SEE HOW MANY NATIONS (NOT THE BOUGHT OUT GOVT OF THOSE COUNTRIES) REALLY LIKE AMERICA.

better get used to it, facts are Iran will be struck by air, heavily, this year or next. US and Israeli politicians will not tolerate a nuclear Iran.

When "Diplomacy" Means War
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12785.htm

Collapsing Iran
http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/globalguerrillas/2006/04/collapsing_iran.html

Iran Preparing
http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/johnrobb/2006/06/iran_preparing_.html

Iran: war by October?
http://www.opendemocracy.net/conflict/iran_3463.jsp

The countdown to war
http://www.opendemocracy.net/conflict/countdown_3426.jsp

I say lets go ahead and use tactical nuclear weapons on Iran now and this discussion is over with not to mention the hundreds of millions of lives we will save in the future when the Nazi mullahs in Iran decide the world is just not quite Muslim enough. Give the Nazi Muslims in Western Pakistan one month to hand over Bin Laden or they await the same fate. 60 years ago this would have been the policy not only of the Democratic Party but the policy of the United States of America.

"THESE are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered" These words written by Thomas Paine are as true today as they were 230 ago.

I say to these Nazi extremist thugs enough is enough we did not start this fight but by God we can end it now.

Persica's comments are a litte inaccurate. Her statement: "Why is it okay for the U.S. to have nuclear weapons? Because it's a real democracy where the people recognize it's not in anyone's interest to start WWIII. Iran is a pseudo-democracy where the people's vote controls little of consequence. You don't see the U.S. president talking about wiping adversaries off the map." is an absolute joke. Even us Americans and moderate Republicans now admit that the war against Iraq was trumped up by manipulated and even false data, as admitted by the Honorable Colin Powell.

So you should know that just because a country is a true democracy, people's vote isn't truly a big obstacle to an administration who is hell bent on war. The current administration claims it needs no oversight by the Congress, who represent the citizens of this country. In a time of war, this president has taken the executive decision to invade a country the he himself, as recently as last week, admitted had no ties whatsoever to Al-Qaeda and the attacks on 9-11.

As for her statement "you don't see the U.S. president talking about wiping adversaries off the map." What a joke once again. Look at action, not words. What is he doing right now. It is estimated in today's Washington Post that 45,000 civilians have been killed as a result of this war. To add to that, crimes committed by our soldiers are rarely punished and often in less than meaningful sentences.

Also, Iran is not a pseudo-democracy. It is a theocracy that picks a few of the candidates they deem worthy and loyal to the regime and "Velayeth Faqih" and prohibit real alternative and diverse parties to participate.

What you have here are 2 fundamentalist, end-of-days presidents who are looking to hasten the return of their messiahs.

Iranian president never said he want to wipe Israel off the map. He is against all racism philosophies like Zionism. This has nothing to do with Jewish religious or Israelis. Zionists regime in Israel is based on racial segregation. It has many similarities with South Africa in the apartheid era, the United State during the slavery era (through 1865), and the Nazis in Germany during the 1930s.
If Israel regime removes all the racial (Zionism) laws, stop the Arab Holocaust, free Arabs from their concentration camps (Gaze and West bank), and let all Palestinian go back to their homes, they will be able to live in peace with its neighbors.
Apartheid, slavery, and Nazism are all history but South Africa, U.S, and Germany are still there supporting their people of all races and religious.
Iranian President had said on Saturday that Iran's nuclear programs were no threat against any country, 'not even against the Zionist regime.' 'We will principally not be the initiator of any military offensive against any country and nuclear weapons have no place in our military doctrine,'.

Iran will build nuclear weapons. They will give them to a terrorist group. They will set one off in Israel. Isreal will
nuke every major city in the Muslim world.
Problem solved.

A. Myers,
please don't tell me US never send any money and arm to anybody to creat war between other country .Please don't tell me all western democracies including GERMANY and USA did not send chemical weapon to Saddam, in order to use it against Iran. and please don't tell me about the reaction of all civilised and democratic world at the time that Saddam used these WMD against its own people and iranian civilians.so do you still think is OK for USA to have the nuclear bomb because it is a democracy.common, just let's be honest and don't just repeat what fox news saying.

Yes, Iran doesn't attack other countries directly. They give weapons and money to fanatics who will do the job for them. Iran equipped with nuclear weapons will not launch them as missiles -- they'll smuggle them into cities of countries that oppose them. If they use them, there will be deniability.

Deterrence works both ways -- possession of nuclear weapons will mean other countries will have to bow to Iranian threats, which here have been many of lately.

Why is it okay for the U.S. to have nuclear weapons? Because it's a real democracy where the people recognize it's not in anyone's interest to start WWIII. Iran is a pseudo-democracy where the people's vote controls little of consequence. You don't see the U.S. president talking about wiping adversaries off the map.

Vivaldo Latoche,
What make you jump to the conclusion that atomic bomb in the hand of Iran's president is equal with world war and then elimination of human being. I think you are exaggerating a bit. Also, please tell me what make you think atomic bomb in the hand of Americans or Israelis with their well known records of action against humanity make the world safer? What should you do if you are sitting in Tehran as the president of Iran to protect your people? Although I am not a big fan of Iranian regime but let's be honest. Yes Iran's president look scary mostly because western media only show his scary face.but the fact is Iran never attacked any coutries in past 200 years, and also never use WMD even when it was attacked by chemical bombs during Iran-Irak war. And yes Mr. Bush and President of Israel are not scary because of the opposite. it mean even if they constantly committed war crime, western media will ignore it or even make it up as a war against terrorist .

Bill Emmott....

You are quite right I believe, and you put it well, both lucidly and with pith :o) .

More worthy of debate is "how to live with that fact". Taken together with North Korea does this not gut the NPT for good? What is the fall back mechanism to keep the lid on the nuclear weapon genie. El Presidente Chavez has as much or more to fear from us (USA) as Iran.

As long as any single country has nuclear weapons, at least one other country will feel sufficiently threatened by them to seek parity as a defensive measure. Dividing the world into nuclear haves and nuclear have nots and attempting to preserve that state creates its own instability. The brutal fact is that the possession of nuclear weapons is the best defense against external threats.

Since the world cannot bring itself to agree to eliminate these weapons entirely (because the haves won't even consider it), can the world bring itself to agree that the OFFENSIVE use of nuclear weapons by a nation-state is the most heinous of war crimes and will subject the offending nation to instant nuclear counterattack by any and all nations with the means to do so; in other words, a war crimes so heinous as to merit immediate capital punishment? An agreement on that basis would at least substantially devalue nuclear weapons as an offensive tool and provides somewhat more balance between the haves and the have nots than the NPT offers.

In the end it may be somewhat more practical to police the use of nuclear weapons than the possession of them.

If Iran's leaders were a group of enlightened people, I would support them in their desire to become a member of the "Nuclear Club."

However, the whole world knows that a nuclear weapon in the hands of the Iranian president, will be the beginning of the "Third World War." The difference between this war and the First and Second World wars will be obliteration of the Human beings on earth.

Considering this reality, I think we should try to stop Iran from finalizing its nuclear objective.

So here we are. USA, USSR, England, China, France, Israel, India, Pakistan ..... Iran, and certainly one day ...... the Vatican

To persica,

Thank you for your great post. As an Iranian living in the United States I very much agree with your views specially your following statement:
"In fact the only way for regime change in Iran, is to remove all external threat from Iran. this way the government could not exteriorized its problem like unemployment, etc.reformist movement will definitely resuscitate once external threat are minimized, and this will move Iran toward a democratized country, which won't be a threat with or without nuclear arsenal for west."

When I was old enough to understand had happened to the Jews in 1960, I was a strong supporter of Israel. Having watched their soldiers behave in what can only be described as a bestial fashion for the last 30 years, I now understand why they've been persecuted over the years.

To put it bluntly, they really aren't sufficiently responsible or morally decent enough to be allowed to run a tea party, let alone a country.

Unless the Israelis start behaving properly and stop attempting to annihilate all their neighbors, I predict that Israel will cease to exist in my grand children's time.

Iran's acquisition of the nuclear devices may bring that forward a bit, but in the long term it's inevitable.

In my opinion, I hope that UN and western world (P5+1) impose economical sanction such as importation of Auto- Gasoline to Iran. It is true that in a short while (i.e. a few years) Iranian people will suffer. But Iranians are as talented as other nations and will figure out how to refine and produce their own gasoline from their wealth of crude oil and they will learn to adopt energy conservative policies leading to more self reliance.

Remember, the Iran's isolation in the years of war with Iraq "turned the Iranians into military professionals" who proceeded to develop an advanced and innovative defense industry according to the London-based International Institute of Strategic Studies (IISS). As a result Iran today produces almost two thousand defense items, from munitions to aircraft, and from missile boats to satellites. It exports military equipment to over 30 countries, including seven in Europe.

KUDOS David Kusel,
Good to see there are still people who don't get fooled by Western propaganda.

Israel took to the Arabs with a gusto that probably reflects its anger at Germany. It does not behove Israel well to stir the very forces in Europe that led to its creation in the Middle East.

Were the Nationalist Socialist beast to rise once again, Hezbollah will look like a walk in the park.

Tread warily Israel!! You may need allies in the Third World some day.

Iran has every right to an extensive civil nuclear programme, as do all countries. This right includes building uranium enrichment facilities to produce the fuel for nuclear power stations.

At present, as a signatory of the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty, she has voluntarily foregone the right to build nuclear weapons. Were she to withdraw from this treaty, she could build nuclear weapons without contravening any international law or regulation. And she has every right to do so. Four of her neighbours have armed themselves with nuclear weapons in recent years, while the Non Proliferation Treaty has been in effect, Israel, China, Pakistan and India.

The present Iranian regime is seriously opposed to the American view of how the world should be run.
This does not make her a "Terrorist State" to be "taken out" as the next election-winning step in G.W. Bush's "War on Terror".

On the contrary, Iran has always opposed Al Qaida. This terrorist organisation, which really does promote international terrorism against the USA and her perceived allies, has its roots in the xenophobic Wahhabite Islam of Saudi Arabia. It was nurtured in the Saudi financed madrasas of Pakistan which were part of the US's proxy war against the Russians in Afghanistan. Saudi Arabia and the US spawned Al Qaida together.

Less than two years ago Iran put members of Al Qaida on trial herself, while the US was complaining about Iran's failure to hand over Al Qaida prisoners, not about her support of Al Qaida!
Iran was discretely helping in the real war against terror, without making it too obvious that, in this case, she was on the same side as the USA.
(See the Swiss based ISN report 9/12/2004) http://www.isn.ethz.ch/news/sw/details.cfm?ID=10337

Iran does support both Hamas and Hezbollah, which she sees as legitimate militias opposing Israeli occupation and aggression. Although this view is not shared by Israel and the US, much of the rest of the world has come round to the Iranian viewpoint, specially in the light of recent events. To many eyes, Israel's massive use of "state terrorism" against her Lebanese and Palestinian neighbours undermines the legitimacy of the state of Israel.

The Iranian president did not say that he wanted to "wipe Israel off the map"...this was a case of wilfull mistranslation. However, he does support the return of the Palestinian refugees and "one man one vote" in Israel. Much of humanity regards this as a legitimate, but impractical desire. But with Israel, desires like this earn their proponents top place on the list of countries to be nuked quickly...before it's too late!

If it wasn't so serious it would be funny, but Israel's hawks really are pushing for a US attack on Iran and its nuclear facilities. The coming war is openly discussed in serious Israeli newspapers where the advisability or otherwise of the use of nuclear weapons is debated.

The Bush administration now backs the idea and is only waiting for the right moment. They promote this attack as the next logical step in their "War against Terror" ......... failing to mention they now see it as their only hope of winning the coming elections, in spite of the Iraqi quagmire.

Added attractions of this lunatic, unjustifiable and illegal plan are that it pleases the powerful Jewish and Evangelical lobbies and it just might open a possible door to Iran's massive oil reserves.

Sadly those who govern the USA and Israel have their own plans for the Middle East and appear unworried by the sanity, justifiability or legality of their actions. The war they are planning endangers us all, not just Iranians, Israelis and Americans. But for Israel it is far worse...instead of saving herself with another pre-emptive strike, she really will be sowing the seeds of her own destruction.

Iran would never forgive, and unlike Israel and the USA she neither looses wars, nor counts her casualties.

It seems a lot of writers feel that force is the answer. But, as Mr. Emmott writes, we do not have the sanctions or wherewithall to stop Iran from getting the bomb, then the only answer is negotiations.
My thought is that we are already in some type of early negotiations and they will have to include a resolution to the Israeli/Palestinian abbatoir .

J. Bentworth wrote:
"Stability in the middle east will improve once Iran has nuclear capacity to provide a counter-threat to Israel's nuclear weapons, and act as a real deterrent against the use of overwhelming force and brutality seen in the recent Lebanon conflict."

Yes, I would have to agree that the firing of thousands of rockets into Israel's cities does indeed constitute an act of "overwhelming force and brutality". In response to that act, Israel "carpet-bombed" Lebanese cities and towns with leaflets warning them to evacuate before real bombs hit the militants who were entrenched there. No other country in that region would have taken such measures to protect civilian lives. It is utterly revolting to hear Americans who wholeheartedly supported the post-9/11 invasion of Afghanistan turn on Israel, even as it continues to suffer such attacks.

Many people seem to think that, if Israel were "contained", the Middle East would become a model of peace and stability. They ignore the fact that shelling by Hezbollah, like Palestinian suicide attacks, started long before the latest conflict, when Israel was at peace with her neighbors.

No sooner had Israel withdrawn from Lebanon, than Syria's Bashar Al-Assad started promising similar attacks against the Jewish state. To those of us who understand what she is up against, the reason (and necessity) for Israel's "bellicosity" is as obvious as the actual difference between her and her enemies. Given that even a non-"contained" Israel has no guarantees of security even in time of peace, one has to wonder what her would-be "restrainers" actually envision as the final solution to the Middle Eastern problem...

Iran is an ancient and great nation, whose civilization has outshined any others in the Mideast and perhaps the world. Compared to that the US is a flash in the pan. Israel isn;t even a real country - like practically all of the Arab states of Mideast, it is an artificial creation of 19th century Colonial powers.

Realistic article Mr. Emott,
Iran is a nuclear power and western countries are still in denial of the facts. This is just a psychological defense mechanism of western countries, but it is the time for them to accept the reality. West have two options: first is keep doing whatever they did in past 27 years which is further isolating Iran and going for sanction or whatever. Obviously the first option is proven as a failed option and did not work and won't work. Second option is engaging Iran and accepting its regional weight. You can not ignore someone and then expecting him to behave, especially when we are speaking about a nonignorable country such as Iran with proven potentials in different fields. The recent 34 days war had lots of points to learn for US and its allies. Iran showed that is able to create real trouble and is able to push back, but the most important point was that Iran did not let Hezbollah to hit Telaviv, which has a clear message: Telaviv could be a safe place, if Iran decides so. And there is a security guaranty for Iran, then Israel could remain safe. Even the regime of mullah in Tehran has no interest to wipe Israel out of the Middle East and ahmadinejad slogans are only for domestic audiences. Is clearly not in Iran's geostrategic interest to have Israel-free Middle East. But second and most important benefit of engaging Iran, will be the huge effect on the regime change. In fact the only way for regime change in Iran, is to remove all external threat from Iran. this way the government could not exteriorized its problem like unemployment, etc.reformist movement will definitely resuscitate once external threat are minimized, and this will move Iran toward a democratized country, which won't be a threat with or without nuclear arsenal for west.

To Libertyfreedomtruth Post of:
"Islamic comuntries should be never allowed to become millitarily powerful enough.they will surly use it and earth is at risk."Beware" stop it in the name of humanity."

Interesting to hear Americans - citizens of the only country ever to have used nuclear weapons at the end of a war almost won - talk about the threat of a nuclear armed Iran. What gives the US, the country that dropped millions of tons of bombs and herbicides on Vietnam, invaded Grenada, Iraq and Panama, that daily violates international law in Guantanamo and threatens to bomb Iran, that breaks its own domestic laws and spies on its own citizens - the right to decide who should have the right to develop nuclear power? Perhaps the thing to do should be to ban the teaching of nuclear physics in Third World countries - to prevent them from developing the scientific base that could at some future date lead to their developing nuclear weapons. Keep them barefoot and ignorant and pregnant too, if possible. Only than can you continue to dominate these aliens.

God. Help. Us.

Nation-building according to The O'Reilly Factor.

If we truly value freedom as a nation of non-hypocrites, perhaps invading a sovereign country and splitting it up according to our own shallow knowledge of a region and its interests isn't such a spiffy idea.

Incidentally, is it an accident that the neocons care SO MUCH about Kuwait, Iraq and Iran, which happen to have some of the largest oil fields in the world? Nah.

I wouldn't die for such a ridiculous plan, neither would I send my neighbor's kids to die "partitioning Iran into three loosely governed regions." You would have to draft me to participate in such a silly malicious plot, and even then, I might just join arms with the Iranians out of common decency.

The current essay about Iraq is available at the following Web link, but Bill O'Reilly will change the essay on Thursday. So, you must read the essay before Thursday.

http://www.billoreilly.com/currentarticle

The essay at the following web page has the best idea for dealing with Iraq.

http://www.billoreilly.com/currentarticle

Bill O'Reilly essentially supports the plan that Senator Joseph Biden first proposed. The plan is to partition Iraq into 3 regions under a loose federal government; each region would essentially be an independent country. The 3 regions are Kurdistan, Sunni-town, and Shiite-town. The oil revenue would be shared among the 3 regions in proportion to each region's population.

The plan calls for the prompt withdrawal of American forces from Iraq, thus freeing up our military to deal with Iran.

Of course, this time, we should demand that the Germans join us as equals. The Germans should use unmarked jet fighter-bombers to destroy all the nuclear facilities in Iran. The Japanese should use unmarked jet fighter-bombers to destroy all the nuclear facilities in North Korea.

By the way, one of our mistakes in Iraq is simply assuming that all cultures are conducive to the development of democracy and free markets. We mistakenly extrapolated from the transformation of Eastern Europe to a possible transformation of Iraq (and the rest of the Middle East). We Americans were completely wrong.

Hopefully, we have learned our lesson. Human cultures are diverse. Different cultures behave differently: non-Western culture can actually damage and destroy democracy and human rights. We should never again attempt to impose democracy on any Middle-Eastern nation. At the same time, we should ban immigration from the Middle East to the United States. Why? Middle-Eastern culture damages democracy and human rights. Iraq, Iran, and the rest of the Middle East is proof.

Interesting to hear Americans - citizens of the only country ever to have used nuclear weapons at the end of a war almost won - talk about the threat of a nuclear armed Iran. What gives the US, the country that dropped millions of tons of bombs and herbicides on Vietnam, invaded Grenada, Iraq and Panama, that daily violates international law in Guantanamo and threatens to bomb Iran, that breaks its own domestic laws and spies on its own citizens - the right to decide who should have the right to develop nuclear power? Perhaps the thing to do should be to ban the teaching of nuclear physics in Third World countries - to prevent them from developing the scientific base that could at some future date lead to their developing nuclear weapons. Keep them barefoot and ignorant and pregnant too, if possible. Only than can you continue to dominate these aliens.

The immediately preceding essay was written by me. I apologize for not including my identification: Atheist, Boston, USA.

One grave mistake that Washington committed is catering to Indian bigotry on the matter of nuclear weapons. Read the shocking story at the following Web link.

http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_id=7193934

Under the terms of the NPT, nations (including failed societies like India) that renounce nuclear weapons qualify for prompt assistance in the development of civilian nuclear technology. Yet, the Indians have rejected the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and accelerated development of nuclear weapons.

Though India is a democracy, merely being a democracy does not qualify a nation to be a nation the enriches Western society. Consider Turkey. It is a democracy, yet it repeatedly imprisons people exercing their right to free speech.

Nonetheless, Washington agreed to overlook the NPT and to proceed with giving nuclear technology to India.

Washington's actions creates a climate of hypocrisy. This hypocrisy undercuts Washington's justified demands that the Iranians stop developing a nuclear bomb.

Congress should vote against Washington's nuclear deal with India.

Instead of wasting time in trying to buy Indian friendship, we Americans should try to foster friendships with nations, like Thailand, that are committed to Westernization. Indians reject Westernization. Westernization is much more than democratization. (Note that the Indians are fond of aborting female fetuses, leading to a dire shortage of women.)

side note
---------
Like many naturalized Americans who resist assimilation, Fareed Zakaria publicly stated his support for India's nuclear ambitions on his program, "Foreign Exchange". Specifically, Zakaria explicitly supported Washingtons' overlooking the NPT and giving nuclear technology India.

Israel has nukes, the US has nukes, why not Iran. I don't care nothing about y'all saying that the Iranians don't need them. Why? Go Iran. Finally, someone willing to stand up to US and Israel bullying.

It is true that sanctions will not
have much effect on Iran. And they
could, by withholding their oil from
the world market for a few months,
create a pretty bad economy for the
U.S. & much of the world. It is also
true that, with American troops bogged down in Iraq, Iran must feel
a lot of freedom to act that it might not otherwise. The wild card
is Israel, of course, the Israelis
have often said that they will not tolerate a nuclear Iran. Olmert will most likely have to call elections soon and whoever replaces him will most likely be
looking for a military "victory".
The result could be airstrikes on
Iranian nuclear facilities, which
could elicit a full blown war between the 2 countries. Needless
to say, if this happened, Hizbullah would not stand idly by.
Not a pretty picture, so I hope that it doen't happen.

Dwayne writes: "Hopefully Isreal takes has the balls to take control of the situation and wipe Iran off the map (before Iran is capable of doing the same to Isreal)"

What?

Israel couldn't even wipe off Hizbullah, how could it wipe off Iran? Iran has a larger military than Israel, has a huge population, is a massive country compared to the tiny Israel and has survived thousands of years of aggression by the Roman, Arab and Ottoman empires just to name a few. How could Israel wipe Iran off the map? Using their nuclear weapons? Even if they do use all of them, Iran is not a country to be wiped off the map.
And nor can Iran wipe Israel off the map (even once it's got the nukes). The idea of wiping another country off the map is just pure madness.
It seems as if Mr.Ahmadinejad is not alone!

Himanshu

I don't agree with your idea that nuclear weapons should disappear altogether.

The most important argument for nuclear weapons is due to Edward Teller, the father of the Hydrogen bomb.

The chances that a gigantic destructive meteor in future (next 1000 years) will collide with earth is about 1/100,000. A small number but not zero probability.
It just could turn out to be so that a number of thermonuclear weapons aimed at the meteor could be our only hope to avoid a global catastrophe. A catastrophe that would otherwise make you forget all about Greenpeace and world peace!

Giving Iran a nuke is like giving a 4 year year old a lighter and a newspaper and leaving them alone for the day. When you come back from work, the building and the child will be burnt to the ground. Iran is the bad kid. Do you spank the crap out of them and hope they learn their lesson, even though you know they will throw a giant tantrum for a while? Or do you deal with them by giving them a time out, take away their toy (money, power) for a while until they submit to rational thinking. The security council has already warned them for over two years now. I say major sanctioning acrossed the board. I will pay the extra buck in gas to live in a world free of nuclear weapons in the hands of madmen such as the Iranian government. Who knows how long before they hand out this plutonium to Al-queda or other terror groups to get us off their back. No Nukes until Iran stops supporting terror. How in the heck or why in the heck can't Russia or China see this? Does china want rid of its overpopulation so it can rebuild? Russia, the cold war is over dude, you claim to be an ally, get off your freakin high horse and put a stop to the nonsense. I can't see my friends and family sent off to the desert to take bullets for something that could be cleared politically by entirely muting the iranian nuclear issue. Light water reactors, Plutonium on Russian soil.
Isreal must take fault too. Set objectives for peace with its neighbors and finally learn to give. If Isreal must protect itself from Iran than it should not be dragging it feet. It has the money to help those it has hurt. Give it up and gain a following.

Yes you are right Mr. Emmott about the fact that the world has to learn to live with a nuclear Iran even if enrichment was stopped tomorrow or the facilities destroyed in a bombing raid.
The issue is the false premise that it is certain that Iran is going to acquire "newkeylar" weapons. Iranians do want nuclear capability as a deterrent and much more so regard it as a matter of national pride. But do they really want the weapon? In the eyes of West this is a certainty.
Why is it that the western media forget Khamenei's clear declaration about weapons of mass destruction as "un-Islamic", but for years focused on Khomeini's death sentence on Salman Rushdie!? Khamenei is after all the supreme spiritual leader with far more weight than the politically immature Iranian president who's remarks make the headlines.
The evidence for the Iranian nuclear weapons program is overwhelming. We are constantly reminded that Iran has been hiding weapons-related activity for the past 20 years. End of story. But any fair and balanced analysis of this fact should be done in the context of the past events. 20 years ago, Iran was making desperate attempts to possibly acquire a nuclear weapon because it was at a very bloody war with.....yes you guessed it right...IRAQ, who routinely used chemical weapons on Iranian soldiers, guided by US intelligence and who had their own nuclear weapons program(...now, why did the US&UK invade Iraq, again? Was it 45 minutes or 55 minutes the time that Saddam needed to arm a Scud missile and hurl it towards London?) The world's first nuclear weapon was produced in exactly such an atmosphere, and later the same situation made India and Pakistan owners of nuclear weapons.
The mullahs of Iran are not nut cases like Saddam or North Korean leaders. As the political card playing has shown, they are masters of deception and have a very pragmatic approach to politics. What is at stake here is their survival which is a game they play so well, it would make a social-Darwinist want to study them.
Conclusion: Given the conditions of a post 9/11 world, the pragmatic mullahs will play by the rules and will not acquire nuclear weapons. What Khamenei meant by "un-Islamic" can be translated as "Illogical for the Islamic Repulic"

Hamishu, wake up from your fantasy land. The world is a brutish and nasty place - filled with conflict and competition.

Wish it away. Meet with your friends. Donate to Greenpeace. The world is at it always shall be.

Peace through strength. There is no other way.

Because preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons is going to be extremely difficult, and ultimately very dangerous, many people and governments are simply falling into denial or defeatism. This state of affairs is made worse by the fact that the costs of dealing with Iran will be felt in the here and now, while the benefits will be enjoyed in the future. This is not a trade off that most human beings easily make.

None the less, a realistic appraisal of the risks which accrue from a nuclear armed Iran outweigh any potential short-term cost associated with preventing such an outcome. From their own language and actions, it is readily apparent that the current Iraninan leadership is driven by a bizzare combination of religous zealotry, feelings of victimization coupled with self-aggrandizment, and self-serving historical ignorance. One look no further than their denial of the holocaust to see how far out of touch with reality the theocrats in Tehran are. Iran is the world's most prolific sponsor of terrorism, and demonstrates open hostility to the West and to Israel, both in word and deed. If they acquire the bomb, there will never be true security, either in the Middle East, or anywhere else in the world.

The UN has wisely drawn a line in the sand. Failure to take whatever actions are necessary to stop Iran's nuclear program would send a clear signal that the UN and the world's great powers are weak and ultimately uncommitted to non-proliferation. Should this occur, no rational person can believe that terrorists will not eventually acquire a nuclear capability and bring disaster upon on us all. In this light, the costs of a confrontation with Iran begin to pale.

The only real way out of the whole nuclear problem is to attain global disarmament. Beginning from the top, Russia, US, UK, France, China, India, Korea, Pakistan, Germany... Everyone...

How do we get there? That is where we need true statesmen in world politics, not what we are seeing around the world. Ahmadinejad, Olmert, Kim, Bush, Blair, Putin... They are all too weak to disarm. It takes a strong will to go the non-violent way. The issue is not as simple as I make it out to be, but is not difficult enough for statesmen to handle either.

Peace!

get used to it america, you can't tell the world what to do like you used to. the people of Iran are free to decide if they want to go nuclear. get used to freedom americans you talk about it a lot

al-fallujah
www.propagandapress.org