Will Bush make Iran the only superpower?

It is correct that a crazy leader has a deterrent advantage. Iranian leaders are quite rational, and smart too. Their ultimate goal, like any other dictator, is to stay in power. They TRY to look crazy and scary. It is to their advantage because it scares foreign powers and stops them from trying to interfere. They also get the benefit of having an "evil foreign enemy", so they can use fear and hate among their own population and stay in power. The point of having a bomb is just an extra deterrent against foreign intervention. They will not use a bomb even if they get one; if a nuke goes off ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD, all fingers will be pointed at Iran and they know it. They will be forcibly deposed and they know it. That's the last thing they would want. They just want to stay in power, and so far, they have succeeded. They are rational and SMART. A seemingly rational but stupid George Bush is far scarier. Bush is like Lennie from Steinbeck's "Of Mice and Men". Really Dangerous!

I strongly disagree with you Bradley. The military might of Iraq was never a challenge for Iran; perhaps you are too young and don't know the history well. Before the Iranian revolution in 1979, there was a well-known expression amongst army personel that "anytime we feel Iraqis are becoming a threat we will launch an attack against them at 8:00 A.M. and will have our lunch in Baghdad the same day. Iraqis, who were always scared of Iranians, fooled by the west took advantage of the totally caotic situation in Iran immediately after the revolutiion and invaded Iran with the hope to take over Khusestan and other provinces that are mostly inhabited by Arabs. You should see some of the footages released to the public which demonstrates how the irregular Iranian army along with ordinary people defended their mother land. Iraqis were backed by most of western countries one way or another but at the end shamefully retreated accepting the 598 resolution.

Clinton bought them off,turned the head of our military away from iran, and that was the clinton doctrine,north korea,china,the list goes on and on...and now it is bushes fault for telling the truth,for confronting the crap that was left for him to solve,it never stops with the lib's..they are gutless to fight a war,gutless to stand up,and hate every american idea that comes around....WWII had the same challenges..but one main difference...americans still had pride,americans still had allegence..and americans still had common sense...the old days a really gone..and our next president will seal it up...we are a country without a moral cause,or a sense of right and wrong..just politics and sides...no solutions will come of it...when the politicians started running wars,they started being lost...by us...it is sad to know that we are a superpower..in name only...if it was a democrat war..then it would all be ok...but it is not...there in lies the seperation of our once great nation..sad.

nukes are bad, and no one should have them. but us having them means ANYONE can have them. how can we be in a moral position to dictate a nuclear-free world when we have the largest arsinal? and we've proved we are crazy enough to do anything (e.g. Bush going into iraq AGAINST UN recommendations, for reasons we conjured up and turned out to be false). and how can the US leadership claim "we-are-holier-than-thou" when Halle Burton Co. -owned by top Gov officials- won most iraqi reconstruction contracts? Morals, you say? Puh-leeease!

The best way, and most humanitarian way, is to Israel, with the wisdomly help of UN, to give peace and rights to Palestians and Lebanon people, the right to share life as the people of Israel, every men and women. So Iran, the people in power would lost all the rhetoric of their nightmare will to destroy Israel. Muslims people are clever as Jews and would see the benefit of a peace in the respect of the ex-ennemy.

the joke is over and america & the world is paying a HEAVY price for israels EVIL CRIMES ON STOLEN LAND.

i do not get it.. you guys are worried about islamic bomb and Pakistan is a nuclear nation already. Iran is smart enough not to nuke anyone. but it want an insurance policity which can be achieved by owning nuke..

It is stupid people like you who ferment extremists. Would you like Nevada to be radio active for the next 100,000 years?. Goerge W Bush is afraid of a televised debate with Mr. Mahmood Ahmedi Nejad because for sure he will be exposed to the world the lies and fabrication he and Blair make to their own people and the entire western countries.

Iran is determined to obtain nuclear weapons. Iran's leaders have promised to destroy Israel. If Iran obtains nuclear weapons they will use them on Israel. They are willing to die to destroy Israel. There is only one option Israel must completely destroy Iran now with nuclear weapons before Iran acquires them.

Bradley, peace lovers have bigger ... hearts. Hating war or thinking twice about starting another one does not mean a man has no testacles. It just means means he wants to try a different way, a non-violent way. I pray that Bush becomes a peace lover, does not "stay the course," and pulls our sons and daughters out of Iraq and Afganistan sooner rather than later. Please no more articles implying that peace lovers are wimps. Thanks.

jihadis probing for weakness (razzias) in the West and espicially the USA, have found that the USA, doesn't want to use nuclear weapons. This definitly is a weakness, that the jihadis and their enablers, will try to exploit. Free people of the World Community, will be pushed and tested to submit or convert. Short of using every weapon in our inventory, weakness will be shown to the jihadis. This will not help the muslim apostates. Overwheming and massive use of military force will give less pious muslims a strong voice in the ummah. For peace with the west.

hmm..dont think Iraq beat Iran...If my history is correct, Iran took on Iraq and its allies By the end of the war, Iran was inside of Iraq...

Let me get this straight. Mr. Burston wants the U.S. to go to war against Iran so that Israel can feel more secure. Israel did not feel secure with Saddam Hussein, so it activated its neo-cons and the religious right cabal in the U.S. to push the yo-yo Bush into a war against Iraq. I cannot help it but to recall Mel Gibson?s rant about the Jews behind all wars. The thought of Mel Gibson one day telling us ?I told you so? is frightening, indeed. It certainly is the prerogative of Mr. Burston to continue to dig his own grave. However, if he one day finds himself into it, I hope he would assume responsibility for his own creation and not go around crying that anti-Semitism is a disease. Warmongering is not a virtue.

Iran is a looming threat to the world. The West is too craven to confront it. They will leave the ball in Israel's court and then condemn her for doing what they should have done. This would be a good time for someones Messiah to come.

Isn't it too late for Israel to try and separate herself from neo-con nutology.

I think it will happen much sooner, after november of this year - if & when the republicans retain the house and senate. Bush, with his percieved "renewed mandate" will lash out against Iran. Imperial overstreach - Israel beware - your closest ally (a selectively interest-driven one at that) is going to keep giving you new toys to play with, but wont be able to play with its own.

Quote"..."Israel only allie will be G-d..." I would not sure about that either. Most probably, you`re on your own. But, hey, you are the master of survival, aren`t you?" ========================== Ezekiel the prophet 2500 years ago explicitly said when push came to shove ALL nations would be against Israel and that only G-d would deliver them...... take time to check it out... -Ezekiel chapters 36 thru 40-

Quote -Roy says: "If Democrats gain power in 2009 Israel only allie will be G-d...." The Democrats support for Israel is no less strong than that of the Republicans as far as I can see, Roy. ================= If the more moderate to conservitive Democrats hold the reins...you may be close to being right..... How ever it appears the liberal news media is paying more attention to the liberal cut and run crowd of democratic politicians.... Only time will tell....

Dear Bradley Having reflected a little I have reached a conclusion. It is the ?Iranian Missiles?.Does Israel have in its arsenal an equivalent type of missile system which is capable of retaliatory purposes? Because I fear the missile factor more than the nuclear danger. Just a thought,though important...

Bradly From what I gathered Iran is acting far too confidently,which amounts "To Hubris" and we know the result of it is "nemesis". Like another respondent,I will print your article and read it at leisure. I still feel optimistic.Iran cannot achieve all you assume.There are nations who are equally equipped with nuclear weapons.If push comes to shove,and they may feel repressed by the Iranians,do you think they'd not retaliate? After all,if Iran becomes "The Bully boy" who's to say they would remain impartial. Good article worth taking note of thank you. We'll see

Mark I find it surprising to read you say about Iran's coming out as the winner.What? After the many thousands dead by the Iraqis? I must have missed something there Mark. What advantage did Iran get after the Iraqis demolished his people,plus survived in tact? To say I am surprised to read what you say would be an understatement.What objectives are you refering? I have a feeling that Iran suffered to such an extent,that they vowed never to fall under another trap,and thus have been beavering away since and now are trying it on with their nuclear ambition. That's my take on this ... If I am wrong you will no doubt correct me,eh Mark...

Hiya Jacky Well,well who would have thought it.Ya'l come out of the woodwork sooner or later don't you Jackie only when the time is ripe hmmmmm? Viva the Jewish Lobby!Jealousy will not get you anywhere.You will think of another form to promote your wares. Sorry,forgot how well you all are at this type the of things. You do it quite well it seems.What with doctored photographs,on the scene cameramen, shooting staged massacres and the list goes on Jackie. It doesn't wash with most of us Jackie. We know your tricks very well.You can fool the people some of the time(not quotting Abe here)BUT NOT ALL OF THE TIME DEAR...

Bush has failed miserably to contain Iran, kill Osama Bin Laden, and manage the war in Iraq. America has the most lethal, skilled, and powerfull Military Machine in History, yet because of the incompetence of Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld...he have becom stuck in Iraq, much like we were in Vietnam. Untill Competent, civillian leadership is available to complement our second to none Militaary leadership...America will continue to have problems in the Middle East and in the war on terror.

Brad' Just a short riposte. Brad? on paragraph 17: December,2001, one of Ahmedinejad?s predessessors, Akbar Hashemi Rafsangani, was quoted as declaring,?if one day", the Islamic world is also equipped with weapons like those that Israel possesses now,then the imperialists? starategy will reach a standstill because the use of even one nuclear bomb inside Israel will destroy everything. Well Brad,he underestimated the outcome that may ensue,which he avoided. One bomb from Israel will not only obliterate Iran ,but the rest of the region altogether. Then he talked about the Shebab 3 missiles.Israel being some 1,200 kilometers from Iranians rockets. They too are within close range for Israel to retaliate.Don't you think it feasable?

...they are not. They barter away women, man and children for the religious goal to be achieved as shown in the Lebanon conflict on a greater scale first time. And now Hezbollah is feeding its victims for the next round. Didn't you see the fingers forming the V-sign of women and men returning from the north to the south of the Lebanon? These were the victims of Hezbollah in our sense. They were the winners! The idividual's life in our sense doesn't count. It is fullfilled in absurd religious rules or laws as we would say. For them this is their life they cling to it with every atom of their being. This makes the point in the article above and with me. And this is the unbridgeable cultural gap between the prevailing Muslim mind and ours. And they are not at least interested in a point of view different from theirs: the Quran says... So the world has become divided again. Not in East and West but Muslim an Non-Muslim. Dangerous world this.

IT WON'T BE LONG BEFORE THAT EVEN FROM THE DAMN AMERICA.

"While it is the moral duty of every person to refuse the authority of illegitmate power,in a democracy the military is subsevient to the military.Hitlers Germany was not a constitutional democracy under the rule of a law" - Danite I guess you mean "in a democracy the military is subservient to the politicians". Or to the people. Anyway - you have totally missed the point. That our politicans once every four or so years are elected by the people does not absolve them from their own responsibility. That a general is ordered by his president to carry out an attack does not absolve him from his own responsibility. That responsibility is to not commit war crimes, crimes against humanity, crimes in general. If Bush were to order tomorrow to drop an A-bomb on Amsterdam, then Bush, the general who relayed the order, and the pilot all three are responsible for that crime. The general and the pilot cannot hide behide the infamous "Befehl ist Befehl". The fact that the US is a democracy is totally irrelevant. I only cited Nuremberg because that was the first time these principles were laid out. Since, they have been incorporated as principles in international law.

I like George W. Bush, but I am dissatified with what appears is his lack of willingness to exercise that force. Sady, if he listens to all the "peacniks" and/or they have their way, i.e. appeasement, then his failure to act now will only cause greater death and destruction later. America and the West need to wake up from their slumber and realize we are in a real war from an enemy (Islam) hell bent on our destruction and REAL peace is not considered an option by them. Better their destruction than ours; but to be politically correct I guess we must be willing martyrs and/or submit to sharia law. It can happen if we don't fight and fight hard. The silent invasion of Europe has been ongoing for sometime and will succeed unless there is a complete expungement of Islam from the Western nations. The values of the West and of Islam are about as compatible as oil and water. They do not mix or stay mixed even if violently shaken.

Thanks for the reference; I already acknowledged that one to Alan. As to the Hitler quote: I didn't mean to put a distinction between "Juden" and "Judentum". But Alan, who has heard Hitler's speeches, quoted quite liberally. My rendering wasn't quite right either. But he missed the part that Hitler blamed the Jews (I think even the "internationaler Judenfinanztum") for the First World War. And of course Alan "missed" that Hitler spoke in German. Which can be a crucial failure. When Bertolt Brecht was questioned by the Committee on Unamerican Activities, he was asked whether he had written something. The quote was given from the English translation. To which Brecht replied: I never wrote in English. He was acquitted. The next day he left the States for East Germany.

Only those orders that are clearly illegal, and would lead to serious war crimes, can be questioned. Otherwise, the civilian leadership is solely responsible for setting policy, including the decision to go to war. If every general could decide for himself whether to obey or not, there would be no armed forces. All of this is codified in military codes. What the Nazi generals did were serious war crimes since they exterminated entire classes of people, in this case, whoever was perceived to be a communist. Regarding war of aggression, there is simply not enough legal precedent on the matter, but I seriously doubt that a war against Iran would be considered as such. Iran has already breached the peace in Lebanon, and its open threat to wipe Israel off the map would constitute part of the reasons, among others, to justify such a war legally. Do not think that everything starts and finishes in Nazi Germany.

While it is the moral duty of every person to refuse the authority of illegitmate power,in a democracy the military is subsevient to the military.Hitlers Germany was not a constitutional democracy under the rule of a law code that any sane person would understand as valid,thereofre the analogy does not hold water.While I am opposed to a strike in Iran for tactical reasons ,I doubt if it were to happen that it can be construed in the same vein as Hitlers attack on Poland.The United States and the President remain bound by the constitution the american people are free to dump him next election,comparisons with Hitlers Germany are not valid.If anything iran at present bears a more close resemblance.Do you call for the iranian general staff to refuse orders to fund and arm Hizbollah? No.. I didnt think so.

You two generals forgot one important fact,Iraq had help from America. Remember the American hostages held in Iran.

"Would you have US generals refuse orders from the president?" - Danite You apparently negate the right, nay, the duty of generals, to refuse orders from the president, when they perceive them to be unjustful. Every soldier, from the five-star-general down to the private, has his own duty in assessing the justfulness of the orders given to him. That's the prime reason why Jodl and Keitel received the death penalty at Nuremberg - they obeyed their Fuehrer's order in signing the so-called Kommissarbefehl, which meant the murder of every (perceived) communist civilian in Russia. Starting a war, e.g., against Iran, for a perceived but not imminent threat, without prior authorization from the UNSC constitutes waging a war of aggression, which equally is a war crime at least since Nuremberg. Not only the president who starts such, but also the generals may be held accountable for such.

I do not always agree with Burston, but this time I read and reread his article. I printed it and will reread it again. It made the hair on the back of my head stand up. I am as guilty of self-induced myopia as anyone else, and I must admit that Burston's points have struck a nerve. What Burston doesn't mention, perhaps because it is too terrible to contemplate, is the possibility that circumstances may reach such a critical point that the western world in its self-imposed inability to act may contemplate NOT retaliating in case of a nuclear strike on Israel. It's a possibility that even I keep at a distance, a possibility I would rather relegate to the realm of bad dreams.

When is Israel going to leave it's Neo-Con nightmare? Lets see, what if Both Isreal and Iran said publically, for the record: "Yes, we do have deliverable nuclear weapons, but we pledge vever to use them in a pre-emptive attack, only for deterrence." Then perhaps George W. Bush and the Neo-Cons could say the same thing.

W@ould you have US generals refuse orders from the president? Is your belief in the Constitution that shallow? Should the generals now make policy? Your hatred of Bush is really making you go off the rails.

Jews can understand Hitlers rants without having to know German, we can recite them word for word without knowing exactly what was said.Much in the same way I can fill in the gaps of your views concerning Israel.How? We have all heard it before.

"Nasrallah repeatedly indicated he will stop targeting the civlians on the Israeli cities, if Israel stop trageting the Lebanease cities". 1. But it was Nasrallah who started targeting civilian towns - rocketing the Israeli town of Shlomi BEFORE kidnapping two soldiers, which was days BEFORE Israel sent its planes to bomb Lebanon. 2. Israel targeted Hezbollah and infrastructure but not civilians. Had it targeted civilians there would have been at least 10 times as many dead.

You wanted proof of genocidal call of Hezbollah, here it is again: Speaking at a graduation ceremony in Haret Hreik, Nasrallah announced on October 22, 2002: "if they [Jews] all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide." {Beirut?s ?Daily Star?, whose editor is Shia}. 1992 Hezbollah statement, which vowed, "It is an open war until the elimination of Israel and until the death of the last Jew on earth." {You may have admitted this one already}. I really do not understand your distinction between "Juden" and "Judentum" you seem to point out. Hitler surely did not make such fine distinctions. To him the end of one was the end of the other.

I would say in fairness to you, that neither the contents of PLO or Hamas charter should be given primacy in any negotiations between the Israeli and the Palestinian parties, in any future talks, though there should be an undertaking to eventually remove or edit such sections that seem to call for purely military efforts to "obliterate" Zionists or Israeli Jews/Israel or describe Jews/Zionists in such derogatory terms so as to imply they must be fought against at all costs. i.e. Apes and Pigs references and so on. As for evidence that Hizballah or Hamas are intent on killing Israeli Jews, this is a little disingenuous of you. There was no evidence that Hitler wished to systematically kill Jews, nor is there conclusive evidence from Hamas of such intent. It is more a question of diminishing the status of a group to such an extent that the conditions where a Genocide is possible or likely are created (as with Hitler's Germany) by dehumanising and or demonising an enemy to the point where killing him is considered either a religious duty or a righteous/understandable act. This can be inferred from Hamas own charter and many statements made by prominent Hamas leaders over the years. What can be said is that as long as Israel is militarily strong and is not in a position of vulnerability to Hamas it makes little difference and should not prevent dialogue even if via some third party (Abbas/PA). One would expect that the language of Israel's sworn enemies would change in time to reflect new realities and that the effects of years of dehumanising on both sides would have time to dissipate.

One or two more appointments and they will declare him dictator for life.

?Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.? - Voltaire

Watch this.These are the people the christian- zionists support 100%. Both ideologies are one and the same. Film about 1 hr. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/israel/view/ With Eyes Wide Open watch.

When will the world grasp the limitations of military force? Especially as a means to institute peace. It's like planting an orange seed and expecting an apple to grow. Peace produces peace. War produces war. Peace is not the absense of war. Peace is... the knowledge of God the Father Almighty, who alone is Surpreme and Absolute. Yeah, we know it. So why don't we live it? Where are the teachers?

Keep your money! tell your government shut off the aid to Israel! It would be a blessing and we would not have to listen to your government tell us what to do! there great policy in IRAQ!

You can put your hope in the "Surpreme Junta" if you want to. Good luck!

"YOU GIVE BUSH WAY TOO MUCH POWER!" - Virginia The Supreme Junta gave him absolute power. Since then they have had some second thoughts.

"Yes, but circumstances are a bit different. Hitler bought the generals with the elimination of the SA ("Night of the Long Knives"), the state funeral of Hindenburg, and three easy bloodless victories (1936 Rhineland, 1937 Austria and 1938 Sudetenland)" - Bor de Wolf In the US the Secretary of Defense has to recommend the promotion of high ranking officers. If your passed over two times your out. The Senate must approve. Rummy has the by their careers and fired General Shinseki for telling the Congress that Iraq would end up like it has. America's Generals might be willing to die for their country but they won't risk their careers.

He is NOT the one Israel or the world should be turning to!

According to muslim teachings ,when Mohammad preach islam, he holds a spear in one hand. This,to muslim belief means "you need to follow what i say or bear the consequence". In islam ,when you steal as a consequence ur hand need to be chopped off! If one commits adultery, he/she will be stoned to death.. Violence is the language understood by muslim when you need to presuade or deal with them..it's in their teaching and mindset! You have to be firm and do need to show that what you say ,you will do. Like how u dealt with hizbollah for the kidnapping of soldier..now for sure the HIZ will think twice b4 doing the same act again On how to deal with Iran's nuclear. I say, nuke the fanatical muslim iran now and they will understand and will listen and will think twice b4 playing with that nuclear again. If they still do in the future,totally annihilate them...problem solve and other muslim will listen and will respect you. It's violent but it's the language they will understand

If you are dumb enough to copy "information" from Wikipedia, you have nobody but yourself to blame for looking like a fool. Plagarism is nasty and self destructing.

"This is what Hitler depended upon, and this is what Bush depends upon. Unquestioned obedience." - Mark Yes, but circumstances are a bit different. Hitler bought the generals with the elimination of the SA ("Night of the Long Knives"), the state funeral of Hindenburg, and three easy bloodless victories (1936 Rhineland, 1937 Austria and 1938 Sudetenland). Bush thus far has bought them with two gigantic quagmires - Afghanistan and Iraq - and no victories. And in the meantime, a dozen or so ex-generals have spoken out against Bush's plans. Maybe you help remind the current generals of the 2nd Amendment, and about the words in the Declaration of Independence about oppressor King George?

Alan, I think Mark meant that Iran would use chemical weapons against US ground troops; but his post was not clear on that. And the Iranians now first-hand the devastating results of that from the Iraq-Iran war. But I think the Iranians will, for that same reason, be very reluctant to use them.

You initiated a response #41 which was dubious in its selective editing of my post to you #40. You follow this with a steadfast claim that "Zardos, you made no points"!? Hmmm, really! The points made in #50 are to be ignored! Aw shucks! To summise "my points", Lincoln. Iraq scored a military victory of sorts, in that Iraq decimated the Iranian military and finished the war far stronger than Iran and in possession of Iranian territory but did not achieve the geographic and political goals it set out to, thus Iraq can not claim any real victory themselves. Iraq started the conflict quite well. Iran meanwhile having fared much better than expected following initial Iraqi successes and during1980-82 actually repulsed the Iraqi army and fought the enemy in Iraqi territory itself for a period. At this point, Iraq offered a cessation of hostilities in (1982). Had Iran accepted the Iraqi offer they could indeed have claimed a famous and unexpected victory. However the Iranians crucially now embarked on a war of choice. Recent declassified US intelligence (available in national security archives) available explores both the domestic and foreign implications of Iran's apparent (in 1982) victory over Iraq in their then two-year old war. Iran especially had the opportunity to cut off Iraq from the Persian Gulf at the Al-Faw Peninsula and win the war in the late stages of the conflict. Iran's insistence from July 1982 onward to destroy the Iraqi government prolonged the conflict for another six years of static warfare. From which the Iraqi forces ultimately regained the upper hand. Iran was internationally isolated and facing rising public discontent. Finally, a cease-fire was agreed on August 20, 1988. Thus it is clear Iran snatched PARITY from the jaws of victory in the last few years of the conflict. History can be subjectively viewed of course. However, it is far more honorable and decent to view it dispassionately and without encumbering oneself with supercilious attitude and condescending comments as in your two previous posts, whilst engaging in selective laundering of the facts. ;)

Alan, I forgot about the one initiation speech of a group of Hezbollah fighters. You're right. Now you still have to prove about Hamas. They are a hitch away from recognizing the pre-1967 borders. You're not quite right about Hitler. He said: "Wenn es dem internationalen Judentum gelingt, die Welt in noch einen Weltkrieg zu stuerzen, dann bedeutet das das Ende des Judentums." I hope I got it right from heart, but it is much closer than your liberal translation. I thought you were so good in German? It kind of surprises me that you are so bad in writing German, but manages to understand Hitler's speeches - his rants are often even for Germans themselves hard to understand.

I think it is very sad that there are Jewish commentators and their friends who will come on here and say "Ahmedinnejad made a horrible speech.... it could lead to another Holocaust. We'd better nuke Tehran ASAP," an dseemingly mean it. Admittedly most of these cretins are safely ensconced in the US and notn actually living in the "tough neighbourhood." But consider this.....16 million ordinary people, many of whom don't like the government and just want a better life -- freedom loving people who you claim to support, live in Tehran. And you want to murder this 16 million because a populist demagogue, playing to the gallery, makes a speech. Iran has had nuclear weapons ambitions that date back to the Shah. It is about strategic deterrent, not about attacking the violent little Jewish state on behalf of some displaced Arabs.

The US Imperial neo-con design, named as ?war on terror? is at a full blast to secure her planned hegemony in the Arab world. All other players are taken as humbled; except one odd man out-Iran. Iran may not, necessarily want to proclaim her rhetoric to eliminate Israel. But any one with the two grey cells living can easily cognize Israel?s intensions, vis-à-vis Israel?s concurrent ferocious actions visible on the ground. US is the lone super power, fighting her war like a lone skier on the mountain. Israel is just a long arm, a staunch proxy and Briton an active agent in the game. The Arab world is taking a turn to revolt.They are bent to break asunder the Imperialist shackles of monstrous US. They also know that this monster, as said in old Arabian tales, has got his soul stuck in one; parrot (Israel) which is kept in a cage, lying right in their killing field. Why not take on this parrot out and monster will fall.

If you study recent history you'll see Iran has not invaded neighbouring countries or launched pre-emptive wars, which cannot be said for the US, Iraq under Saddam or Israel. If you look at Iran's strategic world view from the Tehran perspective you would see a country that views itself as surrounded by potentially hostile forces on many fronts: Afgrhanistan/Central Asia has US/UK troops and bases, so does Iraq, the GCC states were organised as such as an anti Iranian defensive alliance, the 5th Fleet's in the Gulf, many Pakistani Sunni clerics see Shia as heretics deserving death (Pakistan IS nuclear)... then there's nuclear Israel which has shown the ability and will to project power well beyond its borders: eg. Osirak and Tunis. For Iran a nuclear deterrent makes sense. The Iranian bomb, if one comes, is not for use against you Israelis. Iran would get pulverised in response and knows it. Besides turning Israel into a nuclear desert wouldn't exactly help the Palestinian cause.

"A lack of policy is, in itself, a form of policy", agreed. "And in the present world, it may also be the worst form. Failure to move through lack of policy, may, in fact, turn out to be your last move. Just ask Ehud Olmert, Amir Peretz, or Dan Halutz", I really hope so. We need to kick these clowns in our government and military straight out the door, early retirement for them. Iran's Ahmedinijad and Hezbollah's Nasrallah are mortal and existential threats to Israel and the entire free world. We need better leadership that can deal with this threat more intelligently and courageously.

"W H A T D O Y O U W A N T T H E US A N D I S R A E L T O D O A N D W H E N ?" Find a negotiated peace with the Palestinians, ASAP! That will eliminate the most ligtimatly troubling aspect of the state. All else is defendable.

..."Israel only allie will be G-d..." I would not sure about that either. Most probably, you're on your own. But, hey, you are the master of survival, aren't you?

..."And he has to coordinate fully with Israel, as Israel will bear the brunt of any U.S. attack on Iran..." Since he knew that the aftermath of every attack against Iran will be unbearable (especially for his narrow stupid mind), I think it will be wise enough for him to take the heat for a couple of months before he left WHITE HOUSE in January 2009, and lets his successor bear the unbearable burden of "would be" the ultimate war between CHRISTIAN-JEWS-HINDU against ISLAM. Nobody can stop that.

Mr. Burston and many of the people who commented on his article share Bush's problem: too much adrenalin, not enough substance. The strongest nations in the world are those with a courageous self-defense, but who refuse to bomb others to resolve disputes. The real problem in both the US and Israel is that self-defense is weak, aggression is excessive. All the grandstanding couldn't hold up under real war conditions. Hezbollah held up. So would Iran. Iran's combination of civil nuclear enrichment plants and long range missiles is as good a deterrent as Israel's nuclear bombs. Preemptive nuclear strike is considered acceptable by Bush and Olmert. If bombed by Iran in self-defense, Dimona will act as a nuclear bomb inside Israel. Using nuclear bombs is crime against humanity. But who will be left in Israel to accuse Olmert for his crime? Maybe there is a reason why the US military refused to do it. Maybe Ahmadinejad isn't as stupid as you all thought he is.

Thats democracy. So if a bunch of incompetents are running the USA and apparently Israel, thats just a reflection of the level and capacity of the majority who voted them in. And quite frankly, that level is reflected here in this discussion. The problem of Iran is so complex cuz it touches so many issues on various levels. It started in 1953 when US-UK deposed a populist democratic PM and replaced him with a despot leading to Islamic Rev '79 and undying bitterness to US. It has to do with competition for energy resources, global economic growth, resurgent Islamic fundamentalism (of course), the festering wounds of the Isr-Pal issue, egopolitics of several leaders, etc etc. Bombing one's way to a solution is the one thing which is gauranteed NOT to work of all possibilities. Most of you one-trick pony tunnelvisioned hawks here are not only digging ur own graves but those of the rest of us as well! www.thru-other-eyes.com

Roy says: "If Democrats gain power in 2009 Israel only allie will be G-d...." The Democrats support for Israel is no less strong than that of the Republicans as far as I can see, Roy. Sure , a Democrat president may be less inclined in to indulge in adventurous invasions of places like Iraq and , potentially, Iran, than one led by the neo-cons, and they may even try to encourage a less belligerent approach to the Palestinian and Lebanese issues by Israel, but many of us would say that this actually makes them far better friends of Israel than the current lot.

I agree Nanette, but you forgot Bush's major master - the Jewish lobby.First and foremost!

The real threat to world peace is the United States. With a madman sitting at the White House, the U.S. has killed far more innocent civilians than all the so called terrorist organizations combined. They have attacked Iraq based on fabricated evidence. They have supplied Israel with weapons for which it uses to slaughter Lebanese civilians with unparalled barbarity. Despite its superior armory, the U.S. and Israel have used phosporous and cluster bombs which if used by their opponent will be considered illegal. The United States policy is full of hypocrisy. If they want to spread democry in ME, they should start with their allies -SA, Egypt, Jordan. When a killing occurs, the victim is Arab or Muslim and the perpetrator is American or Israeli, the act is considered legal or justifiable. When the same act is committed by an Arab/Muslim and the victim is American, Israeli, or westerner the act is consired terrorism.

Mark, you know very well that chemicals and bios can be uncontrollable. You launch one at Israel and the Palestinians, Lebanese, Egyptians, Syrians and Jordanians may also go away. Also, despite the wacko in Iran’s threat to sacrifice 35 million Iranians to get rid of Israel I doubt he would be willing to pay that price. If he does I hope the Iranian people have deep bomb shelter.

Israel only allie will be G-d.... Stand by World !

"Likewise, provide some evidence that either Hamas or Hezbollah are intent on genocide of the Israeli Jews. Evidence means a link to an impartial website or reference to a likewise book". _bor Come Bor thats stretching it even for you. Those dudes are on video claiming they want to wipe Israel off the face of the earth. One of them suggested that all Jews come to Israel to make the job easier. Unless you are claiming the interpreter was not telling the truth. Are you also claiming that Hitler did not say "if there is another war that will be the end of Jews"

Israel cannot afford to have an inept security counsel or incompetent military leaders - right now, it has both. Instead of worrying about what Bush will or will not do, Israel should replace its leaders, and prepare to stike Iranian nuclear facilities.

Bush might be resisted behind his back by the top generals in the Pentagon, but if he orders an attack on Iran, the armed forces will click their heels and obey. This is what Hitler depended upon, and this is what Bush depends upon. Unquestioned obedience.

I supported him twice for governor, and only stopped supporting him for President after his despicable attacks on John McCain. He didn't have to smear John McCain who was out of money and had no chance of winning the primaries. He did it because he could. And by that action he showed just how imprudent and ruthless he was. I did not castrate George Bush. He did that himself when he decided that the quick and easy cakewalk conquest of Iraq would make him the master of the world. He cut his own nuts off. Then he opened his mouth and pronounce the end of operations in Iraq beneath the "Mission Accomplished" banner his aids had erected. Having swallowed his own gonads, George Bush tried to blame the US Navy for the "Mission Accomplished" banner. That is the manner of the man. It is a good thing he went to exclusive schools where your family matters. He would have been beat up and left in the gutter in any school I attended. What a wimp. Blame the navy, for his propaganda.

Zardos, I live in a great nation which lost virtually every battle of it's revolution. Am I to deny our victory because it doesn't fit your fantasy? What matters in war is who gets what he wants. Saddam wanted Iran's oil fields. He got nothing. Iran wanted what it had. It got everything. All your bullshit can't change those facts. In 1776 many Americans wanted freedom. England wanted us colonies. We lost most of the battles, and in the end we were free. Did England win the American Revolution? Come back when you have an intelligent answer.

"Do they? I mean, the usual rhetoric from them says they want the "destruction of the Zionist state" or of the "Zionist entity". - Bor de Wolf Standard Arab boilerplate for 60 years. The reality is quite different. The first mentioned point and point of beginning for negotiations last mooted by Hamas was the return to the 1967 borders in return for full recognition. No mention of no Israel. I understand the difference between propaganda and reality. What is really tragic is not people who believe their own propaganda, but people who believe the propaganda of others. Propaganda is advertising. It is bullshit intended to shape the thinking of others. God help you if you believe your own propaganda. Nothing can save you if you believe the propaganda of others.

Larry, if the bully is only 1 meter high, how much does it take. Iran is not a superpower. Every inch of it's growth in stature in the last 5 years has been the work of George Bush. The problem isn't Iran's strength, it is playing into Iran's strength.

For God's sake, let's hope so. We have already seen what the combination of a moron and a war results in. See Iraq.

" A little more time, a lot more oil revenue, and the bomb goes Iranian." Israel has over 200 nuclear warheads and several delivery systems, including submarines. It is nonsense to think that Iran would use the bomb as an offensive weapon, since even if Israel were hit, the total destruction of Iran's civilization is assured. I'm sure there are already mulitple nuclear warheads in Israel aimed at various Iranian coordinates already .

"Not sure what the opposite of Genocide actually means but considering some additional millions of immigrants entered into Israel since 1947 I don`t believe you can assume anything of the sort!" - Zardos I acknowledge my sloppy wording. But I can't imagine you not understanding what I meant. Considering the PLO - whom we're talking here about - explicitly acknowledges in their charter, their basic policy document, the right to live of those Jews who lived there in 1947, I think it highly unlikely they intended to kill the rest. Provide me with some evidence to the contrary. Likewise, provide some evidence that either Hamas or Hezbollah are intent on genocide of the Israeli Jews. Evidence means a link to an impartial website or reference to a likewise book.

You managed to navigate your way past several points made in my post and extract one definition (numbers killed on either side) as proof of the paucity of my argument. You demonstrated gross impairment in recognising the basic (reality) stance in my post! i.e. A nation (Iran) who lost practically every battle in the closing stages of what had been a war of attrition, who also lost 3/4 of its armoured inventory, half its artillery pieces and personnel carriers and significant portions of its territory in the North, as well as twice as many personnel as Iraq cannot in any way shape or form claim a victory. Unless of course the Iranians themselves were suffering from psychosis of their own, similar in nature to that displayed by you in your deluded little post. PS. Poster 38 states far more coherently his case, whilst agreeing with you on other points makes clear that Iran did not win the war. Try taking a break from the computer Lincoln, it might help blow away the cobwebs. ;)

"they acknowledged the right to live in former mandate Palestine of all those who lived there in 1947, and their descendants. That is the opposite of genocide." B de W Not sure what the opposite of Genocide actually means but considering some additional millions of immigrants entered into Israel since 1947 I don't believe you can assume anything of the sort!

If you have a bully and fail to put him in his place he has power over you. If you have the ability to knock him on his butt but fail to use it, you also enable him to continue. It seems that Europe, Asia, South America and the rest of the world don't seem to be too worried about Iran. Why deal with something today when you can put out the fires and bury the bodies later. Hizballah was allowed by the entire world to arm itself, allow Lebanon not to be in a position to take charge of its own affairs. Iran was in the position to arm Hizballah to the teeth and prepare for the showdown with Israel. Regardless of whether or not Hizballah was ready for the confrontation it fought effectively. Israels politicians crippled the army in not giving it the authority to deal with Hizballah initially and quickly. It chose to pacify Bush and Rice at its own expense. Now Israel will bear the brunt of Hizballah rearming itself, perhaps already and far too late for the UNIFIL reinforcements to succeed.

You are a weirdo Osborne Reed, hating a far away country so much and at the same time reading avidly its' newspapers. What does your fascination with a hated subject mean? What would Dr.Freud have said, Ossie?

You managed to navigate your way past several points made in my post and extract one definition (numbers killed on either side) as proof of the paucity of my argument. You demonstrated gross impairment in recognising the basic (reality) stance in my post! i.e. A nation (Iran) who lost practically every battle in the closing stages of what had been a war of attrition, who also lost 3/4 of its armoured inventory, half its artillery pieces and personnel carriers and significant portions of its territory in the North, as well as twice as many personnel as Iraq cannot in any way shape or form claim a victory. Unless of course the Iranians themselves were suffering from psychosis of their own, similar in nature to that displayed by you in your deluded little post. PS. Poster 38 states far more coherently his case, whilst agreeing with you on other points makes clear that Iran did not win the war. Try taking a break from the computer Lincoln, it might help blow away the cobwebs. ;)

Torrance, you moron. Israel does fight its own battles, and the USA's battles too. You think Islam will be happy with just Israel gone?? They want Florida also. Think about that. I'm proud to support Israel! You should be too!

"Iran, Hizbolla and Hamas desire the genocide of Israel and the Jews." - Kangaroo Do they? I mean, the usual rhetoric from them says they want the "destruction of the Zionist state" or of the "Zionist entity". That is, they want the destruction of the Israel as a Jewish state, but I don't hear there that they want all Israeli Jews dead. The same words were always used by the PLO, who was also vilified for wanting to "drive the Jews into the sea", but had in its charter explicitly that they acknowledged the right to live in former mandate Palestine of all those who lived there in 1947, and their descendants. That is the opposite of genocide.

Burston is using the same Zionist scare tactics that represented Iraq as an enemy hovering over the ME and the rest of the world, and prepared to use weapons of mass destruction. Now the tactic includes trying to shame the U.S. into action against Iran, viz. "Simply put, a government which is unwilling to use its power - and whose enemy knows of its unwillingness - has no power." I hope and pray that the U.S. will not be taken in by this latest of Zionist subterfuges.

The Iranian response of August 22, 2006 is the declaration of the annihilation of Israel, the Jewish people and western civilization. Specifically, it calls for even handedness vis- a- vi nuclear arms in the mid-east, by mentioning that Israel must be disarmed totally, not Hezbollah, if there is to be peace. With major strides in P2 enrichment, Iran will probably declare by September 1, 2006 that it has the technology to build a nuclear WMD by year end if it so desires and that it will withdraw from the nuclear non-proliferation agreement, unless the world reigns in Israel. This is the surprise that Tehran wants to deliver. The solution to turning Tehran upside down is evident if we examine their terrorist death cult strategy. Iran has exploited every creation of western civilization to rationalize Islam?s superiority. Only when the west realizes that the targeting of ALL life forms of this death cult regime must be the objectives, can the tide turn in favor of the west. This goal must

"Come off it ML. Iraq may not have achieved its war aims but that does not constitute a victory for Iran in anyone`s understanding of the word." - Zardos By that description Germany won WW II. Sure it didn't achieve any of it's objectives, but hey, it killed a lot of people. Iran achieved it's objective despite overwhelming disadvantages. Iraq failed to achieve it's objectives despite overwhelming advantages. The guy who comes out of a war with what they wanted, while their opponent gets nothing of what they wanted, has won. Any other twaddle is just that. Iraq had every advantage, and in Saddam's typical style, blew it. Iran suffered every disadvantage and survived intact.

"That same useless Iraqi army beat the Iranian army earlier." - Kiki "No it did not. Iraq`s bid to annex Iran`s oil fields failed totally. Iran won the war." ML. Come off it ML. Iraq may not have achieved its war aims but that does not constitute a victory for Iran in anyone's understanding of the word. Four major battles were fought from April to August 1988, in which the Iraqis routed or defeated the Iranians. Iraq recaptured the Al-Faw peninsula, the Iraqis launched successful attacks on Iranian forces in the Fish Lake and Shalamjah areas near Al-Basrah and recaptured the oil-rich Majnun Islands. Farther to the north, in the last major engagement before the August 1988 cease-fire, Iraqi armoured and mechanized forces penetrated deep into Iran, defeating Iranian forces and capturing huge amounts of armour and artillery. In the fall of 1988, the Iraqis displayed in Baghdad captured Iranian weapons amounting to more than three-quarters of the Iranian armour inventory and almost half of its artillery pieces and armoured personnel carriers. Iraq suffered an estimated 375,000 casualties, Iran's losses may have included more than 1 million people killed or maimed. Although Iraq won the war militarily, and possessed a significant military advantage over Iran in 1989, the 1991 Persian Gulf War reduced Iraq's capabilities to a point where a rough parity existed between Iran and Iraq-conditions similar to those found in 1980. If this was a victory for Iran the it was a pyrrhic victory par excellence.

Mr. Burston evidences the same flawed logic with emphasis on issues of "virility" and "potency," read: "the Castration Clause," that seems to have contributed to the recent Lebanese fiasco. According to Doron Rosenbaum, a columnist for Ha'aretz, the real cause for the recent Lebanese war was not the capture of two Israeli soldiers by Hezbollah, but an earlier boastful TV speech by Hezbollah's leader, Sheik Hassen Nasrallah, that provoked Israel's leaders. Nasrallah taunted Olmert, Peretz, and Halutz by calling them "small" compared to Ariel Sharon. "Adding fuel to the fire," wrote Rosenblum, Nasrallah "emphasized the 'small' with his fingers." According to Rosenblum, Olmert, Peretz, and Halutz flew into rages at this insult to their manhood or "potency," and sought to prove they could out-Sharon Sharon by turning a minor skirmish into an all-out war. The moral here is that primary process acting out typically leads to unpredictable results. Better safe than sorry.

Dead on. I only want to comment on one point: The Iraq-Iran war was more or less an everyone vs. Iran war. Even Russia sided with Iraq for the most part for Iran's closure of its socialist party and refusal to converge to a more socialist model. Plus the West and the Sunni gulf states. In the end, Iran capitulated when they were no longer able to maintain their oil shipping routes and even the US intervened a bit (by shooting down a civilian plane). So Iraq won, but mere survival and keeping its borders was an impressive achievement. It has been stable since, so its army is certainly not weak. SE Asia is no longer in the American sphere of influence, and logically China and Russia should do their best to keep Iran on their side. From what I see, that's exactly what they are doing.

If we have a nuke and we're not willing to use it, we don't have a nuke? I can see the logic, but rest assured that if we are nuked we will have absolutely no problem using our own nukes and wiping our enemy out. Perhaps Burston is referring to our reluctance to use nukes to solve problems that can be solved elsewhere. To which I reply, thank God that we're not whipping it out at every opportunity. Perhaps Burston is asking us to drop nukes all over so that Israel doesn't have to begin diplomacy and withdraw from land that doesn't belong to it. A reluctance to nuke anyone who looks at you wrong isn't castration, Burston, it's wisdom. If you want Iran nuked, do it yourself, and don't come crying to us when you don't like the consequences. By the way, if anything's castrated us, and caused Iran to pursue nukes, it's Bush's loony-bin Middle East policy in the first place. Appearing like a nut might have its advantages, but actually acting like one usually gets you in trouble.

Tell me, Mark, what's your blogger name on the dailykos. That's where you get your ammo.

We are hearing the cries from the psycho-right to "nuke 'em." There is a very real reason why the US armed forces are trying hard to convince Dumby not to use nukes. Unlike Iraq, Iran has WMD, chemical weapons, and lots of them. Think about it Israel before you get all excited and start something. Iran has the capability to launch chemical weapons at Israel right now, and has not. Why not? Don't let histrionics from the same folks who sold the world a pack of lies four years ago do it again with much more serious consequences than simply losing a long war in Iraq.

Dear Haaretz: Could you please set up the Response Details so that each entry includes the Number associated with it? As it stands, only the Title is given... Also found a spelling error: If he is - and you can bet that none of the European or Asian nuclear powers have any plans to move against Iran - then Mahmoud Ahmadinejad may just **** fine **** himself effectively in charge of the world's only remaining superpower, the only one, that is, actually willing to go to war. ~the devil is in the details

Sam, I would give that Wikopedia citation some time to be edited for accuracy. To begin with we still have no certain idea how many Lebanese are under rubble at this time. It is clear, that the IDF, which in the past had managed to keep civilian casualties to a minimum did not show the same scruples in this war. It can be said that accepting existing numbers, including the IDF estimate of Hizbollah dead, that Israel killed twice as many civilians as Hisbollah, and that Hizbollah killed twice as many IDF as civilians. For the most part the intent of both was to inflict massive harm upon the infrastructure and civilian populations of the opponent. Israel was more successful because it had much more effective systems. The low civilian casualty count in Israel was not doe to Hizbollah having more scruples than the IDF. The unguided rocket is poor strategic weapon. For both parties this was a war against the other nation's people rather than just soldiers.

With all that talk about Iran, Muslims, martyrdom, death etc. there are 3 clear facts: 1. Iran still does not have the Bomb. 2. If it gets it and uses it - it should know that it will be destroyed. Completely. 3. Even if its president AhmedTheNut is a nut - others in the government are not that stupid... However, if the common sense does not prevail, then there will be a quick solution to the problem soon as Israel has no choice...

"Iran a superpower? Maybe, Maybe not !" - Kiki Bardot A statement of wild exaggeration. Iran has been make a middle eastern power by the foolishness of George Bush, but it is far from a 'superpower." Indeed, it is clear that not even the US can claim that status any longer. " We all remember that just before the invasion of Iraq, Iraq was claimed to have the third strongest army in the world with arms of mass destruction." - Kiki Bardot Claims only believed by the psycho-right and those who were not aware of the facts. Now those who were gulled by Bush and Blair are sensitive to more of the same lies from the same guys. "It turned out that they had no arms of mass destruction. . .." - Kiki Which UNCOM had proven. ". . . and they had a useless army." - Kiki Which had been proven over a decade before. "That same useless Iraqi army beat the Iranian army earlier." - Kiki No it did not. Iraq's bid to annex Iran's oil fields failed totally. Iran won the war.

with Sunni and Kurdish elements in opposition to Shiite fundamentalists in Southern Iraq. Let the Shiite's have the South, the Sunni's the Centre and the Kurds the North. Sunni and Kurds will share most of the Oil and both will be bullwark against Iran as Saddam once was. This will set the stage for possible military actions against Iran whilst minimising danger to US troops who will no longer be required to police Iraq. Sacrifice the lesser for the Greater Evil that is Iran.

While you guys are debating a pre emptive strike Iran is preparing one. You fools. Ok Big Al is crazy, we should not take him seriously. Just wait big Al, they don't have a clue what surprises you have against them, Even when you tell them, they still don't believe you, they think you are crazy with all that crazy talk. They will sure take you seriously then! I like your strategy, Big Al prepare for a pre emptive strike while your enemies are talking about one.

Iran will never be a superpower; it takes more than a few imported bombs, and stolen ancient nuclear technology to create a superpower. Domestically, Iran is in a much worse situation than the former USSR. Except for Antarinejad's (what Iranians call Ahmadinejad- means monkey son) rhetoric, nothing else works in Iran. Believe it or not, they even have to import their gasoline from abroad. This is the land of pump and waste. Europe?s need for her oil and multi-billion dollar markets, have kept this corpse alive for the past 27 years. The so called close ?your -eyes- take the oil - sell- the goods policy or as it is labeled in Europe, Constructive Dialogue, has created a monster of this nation. Perhaps Jack Straw could find one more ?really interesting thing? about the mullahs. Nuking Iran is a mistake, as flattening Lebanon was. You can?t restore rotten policy with total fire. Helping the Iranians toppling the theocracy, not only helps Iran, Lebanon, Israel, Iraq and Afghanistan; but it would forever, kill the rampant disease of Islamic Fundamentalism.

OK Burston, spell it out chapter and verse. W H A T D O Y O U W A N T T H E US A N D I S R A E L T O D O A N D W H E N ?

I hate to burst your 250 million odd bubble but the rest of us 3.5 billion odd planet earth inhabitants don't agree with any of your warmongering drivel. If anything it is the United States that needs to be dealt with by the rest of the world.

Bradley - your article is specious. The implication of your article is that America would not defend itself against attack (yes, Bradley: attack, not some hyped-up nonsense from a violent racist bigot). Iran will defend itself if attacked. if you attempt to abuse your position as a journalist by pretending that Iran is likely to use a pre-emptive attack then you and those like you are a far greater menace to the existence of Israel than an outspoken Iranian President. your laughable "rationality" ignores one simple question: suppose that in order to contain the risk of yet more Israeli violence countries like Syria and Iran have been given nuclear cover. Got it, Brad old boy: c-o-v-e-r. In other words, if the IAF attempts, as is almost certain, to use tactical nukes on Iran, Tel Aviv just may be radioactive dust in under three minutes: just enough time for you to say: oh, we didn't think that ...

why can't Iran, or any other country, possess nuclear bombs? Does a nuclear arsenal become kosher when in Jewish hands? In fact, every Muslim country should possess nuclear weapons to defend their children against the Israeli-American madness.

The author states the following: A side which celebrates civilian deaths on its enemy's home front as victories, and which at the same time trumpets and exploits civilian deaths on its own home front as examples of war crimes [viz. Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, et al.] According to the link below at wikepedia.org Israel IDF strikes killed 90% civilian and 10% Hezballah. Hezballah on the other hand killed 80% IDF Ground forces and 20% civilians. Do the math! Stop spinning propaganda and state facts only. Israeli children were pictured signing autographs on Israeli rockets that hit Qana's children and killed dozens of them, where is the justice? Why don't you write about that celebration? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict

To add to this excellent article: Speaking at a graduation ceremony in Haret Hreik, Nasrallah announced on October 22, 2002: "if they [Jews] all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide." . . . 1992 Hezbollah statement, which vowed, "It is an open war until the elimination of Israel and until the death of the last Jew on earth." Iran displayed its English translation of 'The protocols of Zion' at a recent book fair in Vienna.

#5 wrote - "If there is any justification for nearby Muslim countries to develop atomic weapons then it is Israel which has provided them." You forget that Israel has never ever desired the genocide of any other country or people. Iran, Hizbolla and Hamas desire the genocide of Israel and the Jews. Thus, it is Israel and not its Muslim neigbours that needs to defend itsself against total destruction. But then, Rod of Oz, what do you care ... you live on the other side of the world.

The other 'castration clause' is "any power who foolishly applies power and becomes totally entangled in an unimportant war has castrated itself." George Bush castrated America in Iraq. He plunged us into a debilitating war which has left us mired. Iran can see the US losing wars on two sides of them. They were supposed to see the US triumphant in both places. This situation is NOT the fault of Iran, it is the fault of the fool who has been running the world's only 'super power' into the ground. Olmert has performed the same service for Israel in Lebanon. Israel must address the systemic failures revealed in Lebanon before it engages in greater wars under the same leadership. The United States is in no position to lose another war in the middle east under the same inept leadership which is already losing two wars. Being fixated upon creating a justification for war, Bush has also castrated the rest of the world. Why deal with them, when Iran knows Bush will attack them?

Iran and North Korea will achieve atomic weapons. It is impossible to keep this from happening, and after all, it is 50 year old technology. It is true that one nuclear weapon hitting Israel in the right spot would be the end. In spite of this, it is unlikely that Iran would launch a first strike against Israel. It would surely spell doom for the Iranian leadership and perhaps cripple Iran beyond repair. I don't think that Iran would commit suicide in order to destroy Israel. If Israel contunues the foolish aggressive behaviour though, this could change. If the Iranian regime thought they were in great danger from Israeli conventional weapons, they just might take the risk and press the button.

Iran a superpower? Maybe, Maybe not ! We all remember that just before the invasion of Iraq, Iraq was claimed to have the third strongest army in the world with arms of mass destruction. It turned out that they had no arms of mass destruction and they had a useless army. That same useless Iraqi army beat the Iranian army earlier. Is it possible that Iran has accumulated all that military strength in the last decade ? I doubt it.

Bush is in a very difficult situation. 1) The situation in Iraq is a no- win situation, with Iran the true winner if the Shiites now supported by America emerge as ruling power. 2) The Americans made the wrong choice, underestimated Iran, overestimated Iraq. 3)Bush has to do something extremely difficult to do, admit error, and change priority . He has to go after Iran. 4)Bush I am sure does understand, that the diplomatic effort is nonsense. Iran will not be stopped by even the most severe U.N. sanctions. Only force will do it. 5) Bush needs good Intelligence. And he has to coordinate fully with Israel, as Israel will bear the brunt of any U.S. attack on Iran. 6)A major step in winning the war on Terror would be breaking the present regime in Iran, and replacing it with a more friendly to the West one. 7) Iran not al- Quaeda is the greatest challenge facing Bush now. Let us pray he can handle it wisely.

For those of us who have been shouting 'Gevalt nuclear Iran' for more than a couple of years now it is somewhat of a relief to see many others, at least in Israel, now getting aboard. But the problem is more acute, more difficult more urgent than you have hinted at. It above all should be the first priority of the Israeli Prime Minister. And it should have been for some time now. And we should have had answers by now, and not just probing in the dark. Much of this depends on 'Intelligence' which the lay person cannot know about. It in fact may be too late to stop Iran, simply because their retaliatory power might be horribly destructive to us. One cannot know this unless one has proper Intelligence.Do we? Do the Americans? It is clear that the Israeli public now has to adopt a new mentality, a new degree of readiness. We should be preparing for a war of the worse kind, in every way we possibly can prepare. We have to wake up now.

The best option Israel has is to secure its borders, monitor for signs of attack, and allow the world to deal with Iran.Iran is a threat to the entire world and the US will be forced to deal with it one way or another whether it wants to or not.Bush's political position will only bolster his will to do what he knows is right as we have seen throughout his presidency.He has no more elections to worry about this time either. Sanctions or no sanctions at some point soon Iran will be stopped.

... it is likely that George Bush will the man to put the story about the end of times, we know from the bible, in reality.

It will be silly for Iran or Israel to nuke each other when they are sharing the same region. Nuclear fall-out does not know the word borders or region. It will eventually contaminate the entire Middle-East region. Tchernobyl will be kindergarten compared to this. My reasoning is, in spite of both sides being mouthful, including the US and the EU; nobody is crazy enough to spark a nuclear war. Look at Pakistan and India. In spite of their raging hormones, both know now that to launch a nuclear attack on the other would only make the surviving country of the two an international Pariah. We don't need to listen to stupid people you know. There are some intelligent ones worth listening to in each country too.

Bradley is right. Iran is a superpower ....with or without nukes. Somebody please tell Bush and Israel that you don't attack superpowers.

I would like to comment and Mr Burston third point, the equation of the civlian deaths, during the Lebanon war it was Israel who persued the policy of targeting civilians, while Nasrallah repeatedly indicated he will stop targeting the civlians on the Israeli cities, if Israel stop trageting the Lebanease cities, he clearly was not interested in this equation, he showed he cared about his civilians more than Israel cared about it's own. But was he gaining from this equation? maybe, but then that begs the question, why was Israel persuing this policy , if it was benefiting Hizbollah more than them.

in Lebanon. You bomb a country. Then what?

It's time for Israel to step up to the plate. How much more support can you expect from the United States? Billions of American tax dollars have been provided for your defenses and you still want us to fight your battles too. Are you using your warheads to heat your homes? Gather the brilliant Jewish minds and bulid yourselves an Anti missle system (REMEMBER THE MANHATTAN PROJECT)or consider the nightmare of Prime Minister Olmert leading Israel during world war three. Oh Yeah there's a change France could save you..

constantly attacks its neighbours. It is Israel that targets civilians. It is Israel that has the bomb. It isn't Iran attacking thier neighbours and killing civilians in their hundreds. This poor poor little Israel hasn't anything to do with reality. You have become a vile state with territorial ambitions and shown time after time that you have no interest in peace and peace is after all the only thing that will allow you a future in the region, so why be so against it is strange. Leave Lebanon, leave Syria and end the occupation of the territories or time will eventually catch up with you. There will be no Security council resolution calling for sanctions, China will make sure of that, and after the debacle in Lebanon the US can't trust Israel to do its part in a possible agression against Iran. This window of opportunity the US/Israel tried to create is closed. The US will now try to keep Iraq intact prevent it from falling into Shiite Iranistan, Kurdistan and a little Sunni Iraq.

Actually, Bradley Burston writes some very good articles. And some very stupid ones. Since you can never know what you'll read next, he would be a strong deterrent in any superpower's arsenal. to this article, come on Bradley, Iran of 70 Million a superpower? never. such beautiful soundbytes may fly well with people who grew up on hollywood and cnn, but that's about it. "...the imperialists' strategy will reach a standstill because the use of even one nuclear bomb inside Israel will destroy everything. " scary, but it sounds more like saying "we will have a deterrent". yes, Iran is a threat to Israel. now is the military the only language Israel understands for solving problems?

Its is far from "proved" that Iran has a nuclear weapons program. Yes, it is enriching uranium to apparently low levels (far below those required for a weapon). Yes it is in breach of some inspection protocols by the IAEA. But there is no real evidence at all that it is trying to build weapons. Israel, on the other hand, is too self obsessed to be bound by the international conventions which Iran has committed itself to. It has had a known nuclear weapons capability for many years. If there is any justification for nearby Muslim countries to develop atomic weapons then it is Israel which has provided them. The stance of Israel and the US on such things accordingly and inevitably looks like utter hypocrisy to the rest of the world. Given the dishonest use of claims about nuclear WMD programs in Iraq by both the US and Israel when they sought to justify the US invasion it is hard to see the global community accepting such things without far, far better "proof" when it comes to Iran.

America is weakened by it's war in Iraq, which, in actuality, has allowed Iran to influence the region. Bush's choice of Iraqi leaders instituted Shariah law, persecution of minorities, and sidelined the Kurds (who were initially promised their own state). The US is in debt to Saudi, who have the zillions of dollars and are keeping the US afloat right now. Bush wouldn't want to jeopardise his relationship with them, although, in the end there will have to be a Sunni/Shia showdown, meaning Iran and Saudi will have to slog it out. We have to lose our dependence on oil to see a dramatic shift in world politics and power games. Sadly, the oil conglomerates have suppressed all other alternative fuel technologies so far. The oil corporations, including the Bush family's interests, and the Russian government interests, have far too much power, which is very apparent in the latest spat of wars in the middle east.

are pushing countries all over the world to arm themselves with unconventional arms. America and Israel simply made the world a very dangerous place, a real jungle. Who would guarantee that Israel will not drop nuclear bombs on Istanbul, or Tehran or Cairo. There is no guarnatee..hence, the solution is mutual assured destruction (MAD). It is only MAD what would make Israel know its real size.

you need to practise it at home. One of the fundamentals of democracy is telling it to your constituents like it is. George Bush told his people he was exporting democracy, they discovered their boys were dying to expand and secure the business interests of certain of his selected allies. Drop the exportation of democracy and the wild west and look again at brinkmanship and espionage. This worked in the past with the USSR. The CIA need to concentrate on brushing up their language skills before starting work though.

Rumors taken for reality, like rumors about "Israeli Arabs"...

..."Simply put, a government which is unwilling to use its power - and whose enemy knows of its unwillingness - has no power..." In my prediction, Bush would give his executive order to attack Iran in Summer 2008, to make sure his "everlasting" legacy before he left WHITE HOUSE in Januari 2009.