'Iran's nuclear program poses a major risk to Mideast stability'

...we're actively reducing our stockpile of nukes, and Russia has been doing the same. I still don't trust the Russians, though.

if you really want peace, and no global war, then you should be thankful that israel has nukes and the arabs dont. Its that simple. get your jew hating asses out of your heads for a moment and THINK...i know, its not your best option, but try to think.....lol israel has never threatened her neighbours with annihilation...only iran and the other arab mickey mouse talking heads use those expressions....israel has wisely had nukes and responsibly too. I doubt the same will be said many years from now about letting the iranians acquire them. fools..... if you want to keep the peace, you should be in favour of israel having nukes and the iranians not having nukes.

You and the rest of your settler friends need to get your Nazi way of thinking out of your heads and become human beings. But I guess that is asking for the impossible to happened.

Learn how to spell for one SEZ. Don't blame Israel or the US. Why in this world do people have to put the blame on others? (EASY WAY OUT.)Why can't we all get along? I'll tell you why. People believe their way is best when it's not. If all countries would rule in good morals and ethics and beliefs things wouldn't have come to this. All people have a right to live...No one should have nukes but it would be like an intruder comes into your home knowing you can't defend yourself they can have their way with you. If they knew you had a way to defend yourself they would not intrude on you. That is why Israel has nukes and the US. Iran will use them. Wake up and stop blaming others and quit adding to the problem...start helping by coming up with a solution instaed of blaming. Grow up.

So much of what you said is demonstrably wrong. If it were not for the US and other Western countries discovering the local oil, the nations of the Middle East would still be tribal and more ass-backwards than they already are. The "Palestinians" say they desire peace and a nation of their own. There was a two state solution in 1947, under the original UN mandate. The arab "peace lovers" of the region decided to declare war.....the next day. It was made crystal clear they had no intentions of living peacefully with a Jewish state. They were defeated on multiple occasions in their bid to destroy Israel. Since then, the neighboring countries in the region, so "concerned" with the plight of Palestinians, have declared them unwelcome on their soil. Have some sense of history.

"If it were not for the US and other Western countries discovering the local oil, the nations of the Middle East would still be tribal and more ass-backwards than they already are." I think in Britain these days, at least we have begun to recognise that along with a few good things British imperialism acheived it also did a whole lot of damage. British imperialism does, of course, bear a lot of responsibility for the Middle East chaos of today. It is also, however, time for the US and ISrael to start acknowledging the chaos they have brought to the area from CIA coups in Iran, to fuelling the Iran/Iraq war, to the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, to endless unhelpful intervenstions in Lebanon, to the ongoing gruelling Arab-Israeli conflict etc. etc. Sure the Arabs were offered half of their country in 1947, while the other half of their country was offered to a Jewish community most of whom were recent immigrants. Are you really surprised they refused such a 'generous' offer?

What country was 1/2 offered? The Roman creation of the land called Paleatine was not a country. And when the land was given to Isreal most all of the Arab countries attacked them. That showed how their Arab neighbors felt about Isreal and it continues to this day.

The Zionist narrative always goes along the lines of, 'The Jews had every right to their land of israel and the Arabs were stupid to refuse the bit of the Palestine Mandate offered them in 1947.' The true narrative goes along the lines of this: 'The area that became the Palestine Mandate had been largely Arab with a few small pockets of Jews for over a thousand years. 19th century Europeans Jews then encouraged immigration with the specific intention not of joining in with local society, but instead of taking over as big a chunk of it as possible for a separate Jewish entity. Sympathy for holocaust survivors ensured a hugely generous UN offer of territory to the Jewish community in 1947 which was narrowly passed in the UNSC and grabbed enthusiastically by Ben Gurion. The Pals, like almost anyone would in their situation believed thay had been betrayed by the UN and refused the partition plan.'

You Brits were basically Celts before the Roman, Viking, and Norman invasions. Do you now demand Italy, France, and Scandanavia acknowledge the "damage" they did to your country? The US belonged to American Indians, who weren't exactly pals with each other upon the arrival of Europeans. My point is, we developed a nation that does more for the world, including feeding it, than all other nations combined. Western civilization and the United States has done more in 500 years to advance and better humanity than other nations of recorded history. We make no apologies for that. One day, an alternative energy source more efficient and abundant than petro-chemicals will be discovered. "Oddly" enough, it will discovered in a Western nation's laboratory. Once that happens, the ME arab culture will once again fall into historical irrelevance. Other than having oil, the arab nations make no meaningful contributions to the world. Don't hand me any crap about math, science, etc. Advanced math came to the region from the Indian subcontinent and the Greeks. The knowledge they had was what was left in the destroyed Alexandrian library. Greco-Roman concepts had already been spread through Europe prior to the rise of Muhammad. Name one meaningful contribution of muslim culture since 700AD. Other than misery, mayhem, and death, they have nothing to offer.

But it was Jewish before it was Arab.

....before that it was Canaanites, Amorites, etc.... Historical claims aside, the Palestinians have demonstrated they aren't interested in coexistence and peace with Israel. For all their claims of a desire for a return of 1967 borders, it was flatly rejected by Arafat during the ME talks at the end of Clinton's administration. They were not then nor are they presently interested in land for peace.

It seems that the USA and Israel decided to make themselves the police of this world and decision makers as to who can have what and who can do what. They both live in a dream world but they need to wake up and wake up soon before the both of them experience disasters they have never witnessed before.

The answer is easy. Isreal is not an aggressor nation like many of the other ME countries and factions are. Isreal has had nuclear weapons since the late 50s and has never used one or threatened to do so. And it's not Isreal that threatens to wipe Iran off the map.

Iran probably isn't an existential threat to Israel. It's a threat to Israel's military superiority in the Middle East. Israel wants to retain that superiority so that it can go on grabbing Pal land and dictating to the Pals.

If the CIA hadn't deposed the democratically elected Mosaddegh in 1953, the Iranian revolution wouldn't have happened in 1979. If Israel had made peace with her Palestinian neighbors in 1948, Hamas and Hezbollah wouldn't exist. Cause and effect. Clearly there were other underlying issues in the ME before the Iran 'problem' was invented.

if only israel made peace with her neighbours in 1948 huh? LOL... you really are out to lunch eh? Israel was attacked by the arabs in 1948 and won. She was always ready to make peace with her neighbours. Israels neighbours had other plans though. Man, you can at least get your history straight before writing on here, no?

because of the argument over what to call the Persian Gulf

I was under the impression that you were an advocate of everyone simply accepting 'facts on the ground' and dealing with them, have I got you all wrong Peter? I'm just curious.