The pressure is rising upon Iran as they begin to enrich Uranium. Haven't we seen all of this before with Iraq? Who turned out to be less of a threat than we were led to believe by bumerous dossiers and statements from both the UK and US governments. Also who says Iran can't have nuclear weapons? Most other countries in the world have these weapons(Pakistan have nuclear weaponary but thats ok because they are friends with us). Of course the new extremist Iranian admistration, is worring statements like "we want to see the Israel wiped off the map" and they cannot be discounted as a threat in this new era of terrorism and a neigbouring unstable Iraq.

But if they stay whithin UN rules on weaponary, and continue to use the uranium for energy purposes, I don't see the problem. I'm fed up of scaremongering from this awful US admistration who seek to keep their public scared in order to divert attention from their awful policies. Isn't there something slightly sinister about the US admistration that continues to "spread domacracy" throughout the east through threats, bombs and force.
Surely this use of force only enflames the situation?

Personally I'm more worried about having a US president who has accidents with nacho's, having his finger on the button than Iran enriching uranium like most other countries in the world.

Um...this just isn't true. Most countries don't have nuclear weapons, most don't enrich uranium, and we don't support Pakistan's nuclear programme.

We don't support Pakistan, true, but we aren't exactly imposing sanctions on them, and that's as good as giving the go ahead in reality.

If you do what we say, then that's cool. You can join our gang (albeit as the dogsbody). But not you. We don't like you, so there's nothing you can do. You're history, mate.

World: Fucked up beyond all hope.

Ok maybe not "most" but alot do, usually citing the reason of "protection."

Yeah but my point was Pakistan have a programme and we aren't exactly as vermently against it as we are with Iran, I'm just trying to demonstrate the hypocrisy that exists.

Anyway back to Iran...

Um...Iran is an extremist theocracy, Pakistan isn't. Countries use foreign policy as a means to change the policy of others; that's just standard/realistic and I don't see why its not legitimate.

Yes I accept Iran is a "extremist theocracy" and of course Pakistan is politically a different kettle of fish but its was just the point that one country is allowed weaponary/or to enrich uranium for energy production, and others aren't mainly because their leader is in our pocket. Its similiar to when Sadamm was a friend of the West it was ok for us to use him, but once he turned on us he became a bad man.

Anyway this isn't some kind of defense of the Iranian government who I don't have much time for either, I accept we have to do something I just think we the "west" take the wrong approach.I accept that foreign policy is often about changing the policies of other countries, otherwise why have one?Its the means and implementation of foreign policy that scares me with the current US admistration.

Don't you think that the US foreign policy seems to inflame situations such as this?There were reports last week that Bush and his admistration were drawing up plans for air strikes if negotiations with Iran fail. I just think that, if it were to happen it, would be a total over-reaction at this stage.

No, I don't want to bomb Iran. However I don't think its fine that they're developing nuclear weapons...

We are agreed then.

My question when starting this thread was more about how the US deals with these situations, and whether Iran is a real and genuine threat?

They're not going to bomb anyone. They'll get pummelled.

Don't see why they can't have nuclear weapons. The concept of 'Iran' as a threat doesn't concern me at all.

Firstly, we have nuclear weapons so every time we slap somebodys hand for having them we are proving what a ridiculous set of individuals we have running things in the first place.

Also in these cases of "war" that we have gotten into in various forms over the last 3 decades or so, we have followed a rule that since the Second World War hasn't been broken, and that is don't attack any nation who might have a chance of retaliating and attacking yourself. When the Cold War happened we came the closest to attacking another nation who would have simply bombed the shit out of us. So we didn't. But going back to the point, having a war against someone like Iraq creates a false sense of insecurity within a nations people and allows the politicians to manipulate them somewhat. I think......

I don't think there's any immediate danger, now or in the 3 months since Bill wrote that post, of a war with Iran.

I'm far more concerned with how we're casually standing by and watching Israel pound Lebanon to hell.

Because apparently it will bring about a new wave of democracy.

This is from Condoleeza Rice who is a specialist in Cold War studies, I think this says an awful lot.

The Middle East can not be reduced to a simplified 'domino theory', conflicts here are not highly volatile and as we've seen elsewhere often tend to drag on scarring all sides.

She's also in an adinistration full of neo cons!

But yeah the middle east situation, is very worrying, and so in my view is The American response to it.

Did anyone watch Newsnight last night? I know it's a slight change of tack on the subject, but Israel have now invaded Lebanon. Blair has turned his back on the entire cabinet (Maggie Beckett excluded) in not demanding that the US stop their weapon supplies to Israel, and for the next 10 days (the estimate of the Israeli minister interviewed on how long thwe mission would take) all hell will break loose. But it's not terrorism if the civilians being killed are Arabic.

CD

I think what has probably surprised the Israeli's has been the level of resistance from the Lebanese. But occupation isn't always greeted with flowers and handshakes if you're killing more and more civilians, and UN/Red Cross convoys every day is it?

Blair we said that we 'need a renaissance of foreign policy' in the Middle East. This to me stinks of "we've f***ed up big style, we admit this and we haven't got a clue what to do now!".

I think everyone is responsible of seeing this conflict as merely black and white ie either Israeli's good and Hizbullah bad or Hizzbullah good because of the way they're integrated into the Lebanese infrastructure and because quite a few Lebanese support them and Israel bad because they've got more military might. It shouldn't be like this it's more shades of grey to me.

Hizbullah are as a bad as Israel, but both are engaging in serious violence and Lebanon is unfortunately between them. Hizbullah is trying to punish Israel and Ehud Olmert can't be seen as negotiating with them because of the number of deaths on the Israeli side and because politically he's trying to appear strong rather than weak(as he is relatively new to the job). This doesn't excuse the number of deaths on the Lebanese side however.

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

I'm sorry I don't have an answer, but I think that's the problem no one does!