Gosh, you know your stuff. It made me laugh when Tony Blair came out with that line about other countries interfering in Iraq, until I started coughing up blood.

Still trying to get my head round what's happening in Iraq - does Bush think he can just plunge into war after war, and win all the time? Not that he can be said to have won one yet. With US forces still stretched trying to "maintain" "order" in Afghanistan, and playing hunt-the-Osama, while the so-called multination force in Iraq continues to send back a steady toll of body-bags from Iraq, what is that Bush bloke on?

I still haven't worked out what international law governs deciding whether a country is evil or not. Obviously evil countries can't be allowed to develop nuclear weapons, so the USA, Russia, Britain, India, Pakistan, France, Israel and China (?) must all be good countries. North Korea is an obvious exception, because GW Bush said so, and he can tune his head in to the voice of God apparently.

Of course, to us enlightened types (!) it is only his sayso that Iran want to develop an atomic energy programme so that they can progress onto nuclear weapons. Conventional wisdom holds that any country which develops atomic energy will then get the atomic bomb. There are obvious exceptions to this wisdom, ie. Germany and Japan, both of which rely on nuclear energy, but are, I believe, the only 2 countries specifically prohibited from developing nuclear armaments under international treaties (post-World War II). Japan has virtually written into its constitution that it will not ever hold nukes, being the only country to have had them dropped on its people (by the US). So if these two ex-evil-powers are safe to have nuclear facilities, why is Iran not to be trusted?

Of course, there are strategic reasons why Iran would want to develop nuclear weapons. Israel is the only Middle-Eastern state with a nuclear deterrent, which was presumably smuggled over in a US (or British) diplomatic bag), the same way Blair was so concerned that Saddam Hussein might pass on his secrets. Therefore, Israel possesses First Strike Capability against the Arab States, since they have no capacity to retaliate in nuclear terms.

This is why the nuclear arms race hasn't ended. While the bulk of the nukes are with the pro-US countries, any nation which Georgie-B's God decides is an evil enemy faces swift annihilation. This isn't about Iran being able to use the hypothetical weapons to attack us, but about them being able to use them to defend their nation AGAINST us.

Demanding that Iran or North Korea don't develop these monstrosities is like Pete Sampras saying he'll play me at tennis, but only if I wear a blindfold against him. The only way to level the playing field sensibly is to restart the nuclear disarmament programmes, beginning with the countries that hold the balance of power and the biggest arsenals (the US). Once again, we in the west are the global terrorists.

There is a very big difference indeed between Iran and North Korea and America and Britain though. That is that Iran and North Korea are extremly brutal dictatorships and America and Britain are democracies. You wouldn't be able to run an independent media outlet like Indymedia in Iran or North Korea for example. And while nuclear weapons in the hands of any country is unsavoury, surely the most despotic and unstable regimes in the world like North Korea and Iran should be prevented at all costs from getting their hands on such weapons.

I don't know why also you are so quick to defend such evil regimes. Surely if any country in the world needs regime change then it is countries like North Korea and Iran which have the worst human rights records in the world.

Call youself enlightened? That's a joke - unless of course you achieve enlightenment by wallowing in your anarchist scare stories and feeding off eachothers over fertile imaginations. Lets hope thats the only fertile thing about you bunch of unwashed halfwits, then maybe in a generation or two we'll be rid of your types.

By the way - Rene Thomas is an anagram of 'The Moaners' - how apt.

It's hard to know what to believe. Looking at it from a purely mercenary aspect, surely the two Bs (Be Dumb and Be Spun) won't start another war when the one they're already up to their necks in is such a godawful mess. On the other hand, it's hard to deny that the propaganda is more and more about Iran now. And the fact that we're running out of oil logically demands more and more wars against uppity oil nations.

The ground is at least being prepared for a war with Iran. By the time they've extricated themselves from Iraq sufficiently to go in, they'll have convinced most people that it's both right and necessary.

The UK will go apeshit if Blair suggests following Bush again. The most he may get away with are covert operations and perhaps at a push overt air strikes. I can't see anyone supporting a UK infantry invasion without a UN mandate for some time.

I think it's rather incredible for certain people here to carp on as though Iran is a big cuddly old country that poses no threat. I think Iran probably is arming Iraqi fighters/terrorists. But, I reckon that factions in Saudi and Turkey probably also are. But no-one is rattling swords at them, despite their notorious human rights records, and Saudi's patent lack of democracy or anything remotely approaching free speech. These bastards are our our bastards.

Iran has the US/UK/USSR to thank for a war waged against it via Saddam. If there are no people in Iran bearing a grudge for that, they must have the patience of Saints.

I don't support unilateral military intervention. I don't support the Iraq war or the Israeli occupation. But, what do you do IF Iran really is arming itself!?

Of course, *credible* proof is needed and no-one will trust the US/UK in the UN for a long long time. I'm not sure if the US Senate would fall for the same trick twice either.

The comment above hits the nail square on the head. The line of argument about "Iran propaganda" is irrelevant. The way forward is multilateral disarmament... and the US &UK complying with international law.

"Iran certainly had nothing to do with the incident that"

Why "certainly"???

"broke out when 10 British tanks smashed through the walls of a Basra jail to rescue two SAS operatives."

Well, I thought they did it to free a six man negotiating team (trying to secure the release of the two men being held and tortured by Sadr militia elesewhere) and arrest a load of bent coppers (according to the MoD via the Independent)... but there are so many versions floating around.

"The two had been caught after shooting at Iraqi police when stopped at a check point while they were disguised in arab dress and driving a civilian car containing weapons and explosives. No wonder that the British government is keen to divert attention away from questions about what these 'undercover' soldiers were really up to."

Sorry, what arab dress were they disguised in and what explosives did they have? Al Jazeera showed only standard UK military equipment: no elaborate disguise; no explosives. Do you think it's suspicious that UK forces drive around with standard kit? The shemagh ("arab head dress") is standard kit.

There is no mounting pressure in the UK for answers to what the soldiers' mission was. Most likely because it is obvious to the media from their kit they were reconning targets for air strikes. The off-the-record story being "targetting Iranians supplying the Basra militants". If you have any proof otherwise let's here it backed up with solid evidence (i.e. not Alex Jones said... or Chinese News said... or Socialist Worker said...)

Why are there no photographs of the explosives? And even if there were explosives, why is it suspicious that special forces would carry that PARTICULAR type of explosive? You surely must know the type of explosive and the amounts and how is was prepared to be suspicious.

To use the tinfoil hat logic: there are no photographs of explosives because they didn't exist?

But Japan DOES have nuclear weapons. It's been an open secret for decades. You can find references in The Economist, strategic studies publications, etc. Do you really believe that it wouldn't?

Back to the Middle East, it may be that the US is really gunning to completely secure the oil reserves around the Persian Gulf, in order to put itself in a better position vis a vis the European Union, India and China. Whoever controls the flow of oil from the region can exert tremendous influence over the other large economies, which rely upon a constant supply of the black stuff to keep their economies (and, if push comes to shove, their armed forces) moving.

The question is: if the US aims to conquer Iran (assuming that it is possible - if Iraq is difficult to swallow, after a decade of sanctions, the US will choke on Iran), will the other powers stand by and let it do so? China has just signed a major oil deal with the Iranians - will they be happy for their contract to be turned over to US oil companies - or will they threaten Taiwan to weaken the forces that the US can deply in the Middle East? When imperialist powers collide, force decides.

Obviously the US is not in a position for another ground war, even with UK support. Iraq was an easy target, weekend by a decade of sanctions. Iran is a completely different kettle of fish. There is no way that the US is contemplating another Iraq...

No.. they have another solution.

Air strikes accompanied by tactical nukes.

And they don't even have to do it themselves. They just have to lay the ground work in the media to justify an Israeli pre-emptive strike.

"You can find references in The Economist, strategic studies publications, etc."

Japanese nukes? Okay, I'm interested. Give me a link to the Economist pieces, please.

 http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/japan/nuke/

Important points

"Although possession of nuclear weapons is not forbidden in the constitution, Japan, as the only nation to experience the devastation of atomic attack, early expressed its abhorrence of nuclear arms and determined never to acquire them. The Basic Atomic Energy Law of 1956 limits research, development, and utilization of nuclear power to peaceful uses, and beginning in 1956, national policy has embodied "three non-nuclear principles"--forbidding the nation to possess or manufacture nuclear weapons or to allow them to be introduced into the nation. Prime Minister Eisaku Sato made this pledge - known as the Three Non-Nuclear Principles - on February 5, 1968. The notion was formalized by the Japanese Diet on November 24, 1971. In 1976 Japan ratified the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (adopted by the United Nations Security Council in 1968) and reiterated its intention never to "develop, use, or allow the transportation of nuclear weapons through its territory."

Japan hates nuclear weapons, understandably

and

"During the Sato cabinet in the 1960's, it is reported that Japan secretly studied the development of nuclear weapons. On 17 June 1974, Japanese Prime Minister Tsutomu Hata told reporters that "it's certainly the case that Japan has the capability to possess nuclear weapons but has not made them." This remark aroused widespread concern in the international media at that time.

Japan's nuclear power program based on reprocessed plutonium has aroused widespread suspicion that Japan is secretly planning to develop nuclear weapons. Japan's nuclear technology and ambiguous nuclear inclinations have provided a considerable nuclear potential, becoming a "paranuclear state." Japan would not have material or technological difficulties in making nuclear weapons. Japan has the raw materials, technology, and capital for developing nuclear weapons. Japan could possibly produce functional nuclear weapons in as little as a year's time. On the strength of its nuclear industry, and its stockpile of weapons-useable plutonium, Japan in some respects considers itself, and is treated by others as, as a virtual nuclear weapons state. "

It could easily develop nuclear weapons if it wanted to. In many ways, it is further advanced than Iran is in it's nuclear program, but no-one talks of referring Japan to the security council. There is no evidence Iran is developing nuclear weapons, it is simply an assumption, because if we were in their position, well, we would probably want to devleop them too. The IAEA has said it does not believe Iran is developing nuclear weapons, like they said about Iraq, and they were correct, and Idiot George was wrong.

Why do they not have a right to develop nuclear power? At some point we're all going to run out of oil....who are we to tell the rest of the world they can't look into this source of energy? And why do we think about bombing Iran for it's nuclear program, and not Israel, for whom it is KNOWN they have nuclear weapons. What, Iran is a threat? I don't see Iran invading anybody elses country recently. I see the biggest nuclear power, the US, constantly invading, occupying, torturing, murdering. We should bomb the US. It is the only country to have used nuclear weapons, and that against civilian targets.

The whole Iran situation seems strange from the outside because internally, raging debates are being fought over the best military method of waging war with Iran.

1) the whole Israel strike thing is a massive red herring. For Israel to attack Iran would be an act of suicide, an Israel is a million miles from being that stupid. Only when the residents of Israel think armageddon is approaching will they get this crazy, and that won't even be possible until far bigger wars are raging.

2) the use of airstikes (including smaller nuclear weapons) does not satisfy US planners. They see only the downside in such clearly illegal action. They are aware better than anybody of the limited use of airpower, unless that airpower is used to murder whole populations. US planners WANT a full scale invasion if they attack Iran, but do NOT want the casualties that such an invasion will bring (universal dilemma for all military planners in all periods of our history). Also, they understand that such an invasion brings with it the requirement of wholesale change in the politics of the US with the other nations of Planet Earth. Basically, the USA would move from potential to actual, and would have to be formally recognised as ABOVE all Earth's laws, free to act however it wishes. This is one hell of a change to contemplate. To summarise, US planners want an Iran war to be the full blown beginning of a new era, and to have their politicians stand behind this.

3) Blair wants the new era too, but knows that persuading the politicians of the US to do this in one go would be near impossible. Instead, Blair wants ANY irreversible action against Iran that would start the ball rolling, and effectively commit the USA to an ongoing course of action that would eventually hit all of his goals (and those of the US military planners mentioned above).

Blair's greatest weapon is the 'inevitability of history'. This dishonest phrase means that if you keep pushing forward, even if you lack a precise plan, things will start to happen. It's why higher up in this thread, one of his goons worthlessly denies the FALSE-FLAG operation in Basra. It's all PUSH, PUSH, PUSH, and that motion is why seasoned political observers KNOW that we are going to attack Iran regardless of how stupid or badly thought out the plan may be.

However, the more the UK/USA and their European supporters think about the war, the more likely it is that the war plans WILL be robust in various areas. That is the nature of human thinking. More thinking tends to equal better thinking.

Be in no doubt, the war against Iran, regardless of how it starts, will become massive. We will see conscription introduced in the UK, USA and many European countries, in double quick time. Then you will understand why there has been this extraordinary campaign against youth in the papers and on TV. It's all about psychological conditioning, and 'army will be good for them', with a big dose of the old 'the children belong to the STATE, not the PARENTS' (hence the whole Jamie Oliver thing, with PERFECT analogies to the same tricks pulled in Nazi Germany over the state of the youth, failure of the parents, and the need for state 'experts' to do-over their lifestyles).

I've remarked before that the whole issue is like looking into the Sun. Anything TOO bright, and we shy away from careful observation. Blair is building the intensity of our future, so none of us want to see it too clearly. The implications of our immediate future are discussed mostly by people that REALLY TRULY DO NOT BELIEVE THEY ARE COMING TO PASS. Once agian, sadly, ever EVIL human leader has taken advantage of this way of thinking-
"yeah, but he won't ***really*** do that, I mean there is ***no*** way he would ***really*** go that far- it's just a political game- words to make people do things"
Next thing you know, Poland is invaded, and in the blink of an eye, your cities are flattened, and tens of millions are dead.

Yeah, it isn't going to happen- just keep repeating that to yourselves. Blair is a good guy really, just another one of those CRAZY politicians, and we all know how odd they can seem. Listen to his goons, the're always re-assuring. Say after me:
GOOD is a British policeman shooting a restrained innocent man seven times in the head.
BAD is an Iraq policeman arresting two british terrorists in disguise, loaded with guns and bombs, after they murder a policeman.

Make this your mantra. Who knows, repeat it long enough,and you may find peace. Then again, it may unlock a doorway to hell, allowing you to see the sponsers of Blair face to face.

In 2003, Japan threatened a first strike against North Korea, if it got too nervous about North Korean missiles. How could Japan mount an effective attack against a nuclear-armed North Korea without having its own nuclear arsenal?

 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/02/14/wkor14.xml&sSheet=/portal/2003/02/14/ixportaltop.html

Japan appears to be a virtual member of the nuclear club: either because it has weapons ready to assemble, or because it has access to US warheads to use on its own missiles. Note that Japan's space programme relies upon rockets that are almost identical to the US "Minuteman" rockets.

What do an ostrich and an anarchist have in common?

They both wear black and stick their heads in the sand.

As to the Japan has nukes comment, the last line on the highly speculative FAS site is telling.

"Japan's nuclear power program based on reprocessed plutonium has aroused widespread suspicion that Japan is secretly planning to develop nuclear weapons. Japan's nuclear technology and ambiguous nuclear inclinations have provided a considerable nuclear potential, becoming a "paranuclear state." Japan would not have material or technological difficulties in making nuclear weapons. Japan has the raw materials, technology, and capital for developing nuclear weapons. Japan could possibly produce functional nuclear weapons in as little as a year's time. On the strength of its nuclear industry, and its stockpile of weapons-useable plutonium, Japan in some respects considers itself, and is treated by others as, as a virtual nuclear weapons state"

A virtual nuclear weapons state is not a nuclear weapons state. Given that analysis, any country with nuclear power and cash on hand for technology fits that bill. Just like...Iraq!

But returning to Iran. The troubled history of this nation, set in motion by British post-colonial shenanigans, is poised to slide down one of two paths. One is that of popular change and reform, the other is that of brutal totalitarianism and open war with the rest of the world.

At present it appears to be the latter, rather than the former. Actions against such a regime must be matched and measured. Diplomacy, sanctions and military action are all valid tools dependent upon the course followed by Tehran.