European news says that UN (USA, Russia, UK, France, Germany et al) are trying to find a formula for further trade sanctions etc against Iran .... have heard that before somewhere!

Al Jazeera, as mouth piece of the (militant) Arab world, reckons war is pretty imminent.

What do "friends" think?

What was the effect on the markets when hostilities atrted in Iraq?

Will US either covertly or even overtly give permission for Israeli to make pre-emptive bombing strikes against Iranian nuclear installations?

If so, within what sort of time-frame?

Nah....do not believe the media hype. They are just trying to make up stories.

There is no benefit in attacking Iran, the nuclear issue is just a front for the major issue, which is Iranian covert support for the Iraqi insurgents.

I would see some kind of deal down the line, where Iran can carry in with the nuclear stuff in a controlled way (but behind the scenes agreement is made to stop the overt support of the insurgents in Iraq).

This is just political games at present, like North Korea, a few threats here and there and then a solution is found.

There is no point Israel of the US making Iran the hero of the Arab world by any form of attack, the sanctions are better and strangle the life blood of support for the president.

No war or tactical strikes coming imo.

news report...uk government tells CNA not to buy gas from iran!

intereestingly, the Saudi press is saying absolutely nothing.

imo, the odds must still be in favour of an Iranian invasion, but it will not be in 2007.

for sure the Israelis are scared shitless about Iran having nuclear weapons, and not entirely without reason ...... Whether or not USA will dare to sanction some unilateral Israeli action is a moot point, though for sure the Jewish cabal in US really does seem to have disproportionate influence.

as for economic sanctions, they really have been proven (imo!) to be a total joke, with only the general populace suffering ..... time and time again, the powers that be find easy ways of circumventing any restrictions, as indeed do their suppliers.

PapalPower: making Iran the hero of the Arab world Don't make the same mistake as many Americans and think that the Iranians are Arabs -- they aren't, even if Iran is an Islamic state. I think it's fair to say that the Iranians (Persians) consider themselves rather superior to the peoples around them . . .

certainly the Iranians have a far far greater civilised heritage, stretching back about 2000 years, which is more than can be said for every other parvenu Arab state ..... nevertheless, Iran is an Islamic nation (big surprise there!), so the opinion and backing (or otherwise) of their "brotherhood" is likely to colour or even swing its gung-ho stance.

I think it would be interesting to examine the DNA of all the present inhabitants of the Middle East including the Iranians, Iraqis, Israelis and Saudi's etc.. It might be revealing about the ancestors.

I think in all probability they would be as mixed as the Scottish, English, Irish and even the Welsh.

The galling thing about the problem we have is the Middle East problem is seen due to the ignorant racial superiority of the political leaders of various groups and their emotional rousing of the rabble.

I can not believe that America with its recent history of war mongering and political interference in other countries is any safer keeper of weapons of mass destruction than the Iranians.

I would be happier if both groups lay down their nuclear armory.

But the racist superiority will not allow it.

MM, yes they are not Arab's, however the present media spin and hype in the ME would make Ahmadinejad a hero for standing up to the US. The support for Ahmadinejad is wearing very thin now, the economic sanctions will hurt the populace, who in return will hate Ahmadinejad more and more and he should before too long lose his position.

I think religion should be banned, that would solve all the worlds problems. The problem is of course that would never happen, as religion is a nice way to keep the masses under control and take their money. If you look at the big three, being Christianity, Islam and Judaism you see where the problem lies.

Judaism is the oldest, the prophet Moses is recognised as such by Christianity and Islam, however the two new religions detest the fact that Judaism is the oldest, so through history have tried to obliterate it and kill the Jews. Christianty was designed around a man called Jesus (and it could have been Simon but Jesus was the one who was chosen) and they made him "Son of God" so that he was better than Moses who just talked to God, and used this new religion to gain power and wealth. Muhammed was a little more clever, as when he was a prophet he also said he was the last one, therefore trying to make Islam the end game, therefore cutting off the line for others to try the same thing.

Islam, being the newest, has to recognise Jesus and Moses as prophets, which it does.

Christiantiy being second oldest does not recognise Muhammed, as that was a newer event, but has to recognise Moses, the earlier event.

And now you see why Jews are always persecuted, for of the big three they are oldest one.

This is also why Communism erraditcated and banned all religion, for Communism itself was a new type of religion, and therefore had to eradicate anything before it.

So in the world today, you have Christians, Jews, Muslims, all linked to the same God, having a common prophet in Moses who cannot agree on due to new prophets. Now, given these prophets were "speaking to God" in times where the world was regarded as flat, and any what we call a "trick" could make you a sorcerer, if you claimed to be able to speak to God, and got enough followers, then you could turn into a prophet. Question, if someone claimed today to be able to speak to God, would we declare them a prophet ? or send them to mental instituion ?

Talking of old religions, read this sad story :

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6412453.stm


Bloody hell, gone off topic here.......................ok, there is no benefit whatsoever for Israel or the US to attack Iran. Contrary to what the media and certain groups of people like to spout and hype, they are not war mongerers. They have objectives and goals..........and there is no gain in attacking Iran. Therefore, it will be sanctions aimed at hurting the populace, who in turn will hurt Ahmadinejad.


All IMO, DYOR !!

An invasion of Iran is almost certainly out of the question - the US Army is badly overstretched as it is with its war on two fronts and other international commitments. Even if the Iranian government does something particularly reckless requiring ground action by a truly multinational force I still doubt we'd see such a coalition come together.

I think it is a matter of fact now that the Bush Administration has drawn up plans for a massive aerial attack ('shock and awe') campaign against Iranian command and control, military, nuclear, and industrial targets. The plan may not be executed but on the balance of probabilities as they currently stand I believe it will. Whatever its opinions on the ground war in Iraq, the Bush Administration unequivocally believes the initial aerial bombardment of Iraqi targets at the start of the war to have been a huge success, and they see that as a blueprint for future military actions.

It is said that over the last few years the Bush Administration has made what amounts to thousands of political appointments, hundreds in the Pentagon alone, to the point at which the traditional military chain of command is being subverted by neo-conservative civilian appointees who are 'interpreting' military and intelligence analysis and consistently presenting best-case scenarios to those in the highest offices who are only too ready to accept what they want to hear. I read an interview with a recently retired US Colonel in the Pentagon's operations planning group over the weekend and it's quite clear that from her perspective that the culture has become one where inconvenient facts are simply ignored.

The same US Colonel also added that in the Pentagon it was believed that the real reason for the British pull-out from Iraq was not so much Blair's legacy or a sense that the job was done, but rather that there is a real fear in the British military hierarchy that the US will attack Iran and that will lead to their position in Basra and surrounding areas becoming untenable - at best. Incidentally, several US Generals have been reported to have threatened their resignation if the Administration orders them to attack Iran, which is unprecedented.

It is also said that, for the most part, the US Air Force and US Navy are also more than ready to execute any attack against Iran because they can do this with relative impunity and casualties will be low. Obviously the US Army doesn't and there is growing resentment towards the other branches of the services who are seen as pushing agendas for the sake of their own budgets which will lead to increasingly endangering the Army's personnel on the ground in Iraq.

So you have a situation where the Bush Administration is being told that Iran can be bombed back into the stone age, and the consequences will be minimal. That seems to fly in the face of common sense to most ordinary people in the world, but the Administration has surrounded itself with people, both civilian and military, who tell them otherwise.

A recent poll showed the Democrats leading on most issues, except national security. If one were cynical one might suggest that in order to ensure a Republican victory in the coming election there needs to be a greater sense of national security crises than currently exists in the US. A conveniently timed war against Iran might deliver that. And with Republicans once again in the White House, there will be no difficult questions asked about any illegal conduct by the previous Administration. I suspect people like Cheney are very motivated by that. We should not underestimate the lengths to which politician will go to protect their own skins.

There may not be a mood in the US to mount a first strike against Iran, but it may not be that simple. Even if the Bush Administration decides not to execute its plans, with each day there is the constant danger of an incident triggering a conflict which nobody wants. And there's also the possibility that Israel will mount a strike against Iran's nuclear facilities - as they did with Iraq's nuclear reactor in 1981 - apparently unilaterally but probably with varying degrees of US complicity, which again will suck the US into the subsequent conflict.

As for the market effect, any conflict with Iran is likely to have severe economic and political consequences and I think you'd have to expect a significant crash. Unlike with Iraq, Iran will be seen as an open-ended commitment from the start and the market hates uncertainty. The oil price will of course, rocket. Incidents of international and domestic terrorism will increase substantially, and we can expect it to be chemical, biological or radiological in nature. A wider war may emerge in the Middle East and popular revolutions may overthrow the leaders of more moderate states replacing them with fundamentalist regimes, creating new problems for the US. Unlike Iraq, which was a planned and timetabled war, conflict with Iran could be initiated unexpectedly, and that will make the crash much worse than when people have had time to position themselves in the market in preparation for it.

Some of the articles I've read in the last couple of weeks:

US 'Iran attack plans' revealed
US generals will quit if Bush orders Iran attack
Bush Faces Opposition on Iran Attack
'Trigger happy' US worries Putin
Russia warns U.S. on Iran moves
Norquist: Bushs Advisers Telling Him Invade Iran. Then Everyone Will See How Smart We Are
Top Cheney Aide: 2007 Is The Year Of Iran, U.S. Attack A Real Possibility
Target Iran: US able to strike in the spring
US Iran intelligence 'is incorrect'
Pentagon Whistle-Blower on the Coming War With Iran
US funds terror groups to sow chaos in Iran
America's Hidden War With Iran - Newsweek
Iranian nuclear scientist assassinated by Mossad
Report warns against Iran attack
Iran: Can a military strike work?

Kyoto, you are missing the point. There is no benefit to what you said above.

Unless they can overthrow the government and by use of a land force takeover the country and then install a puppet regime to give them access to the oil, then there is simply no point in a singular air attack.

This is what all the prophets of doom and market scarers fail to take into account.

If you really think Bush is going to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on a quick air raid that will bring no benefit to the US or his cronies, then you fail to understand the politics.

Sure, the media are doing what they do best, making up stories that they can then tell, analysing all sorts of scenarios.

A nuclear weapon Iran is around about 10 to 15 years away, and everyone knows that.

The US is simply this time using the media and the scare tactics to put pressure on the Iranian president. The covert operations will continue, all you are seeing now is the "overt PR" regime kicking in, the threats against him, threats of force, threats of "shock and awe" and its all being done to kick up unrest in Tehran, as the last thing the Iranian people wanted is to be bombed, and so, this encourages them to kick out the loud mouthed president a.s.a.p.

The support for him is falling day by day..........and so the "overt PR" is working. Much better to do it with words, than real military action.

As you'll note, if you want an "overt media" strategy to work, you have to get lots of people to talk about invading Iran, or bombing them.

IMO there will be no attack on Iran, there simply is nothing in it for the US, or singular Israeli action, they both have a lot to lose from it. Many people trading the markets may wish to happen, to give them volatility and a chance for trading profits, but all the wishing in the world is not going to make it happen IMO.

PP .... do you have any foundation for your statement, "The support for him is falling day by day"? ..... in due course, i shall endeavour to get some first-hand feedback from a m8 of mine who is currently out there.

Media reports, I think the latest was a Beeb one a few days ago.

Let me find the link..........

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6396873.stm

forgive for having a cynical view of press reports! ..... the iranian people generally only have access to what their (government controlled) press and media have to say .... bet that is saying what a wonderful and far-sighted chap Mr A is, whereas all americans and their allies are dastardly cads!!

:)

This matter poses more questions than answers ,all of which only serve to compound one another to the point where you could write a book and still be very little the wiser; and drive yourself quite crazy in the process. . So in the interests of brevity i will merely say that l have this feeling that sadly the powerful "Jewish Cabal " within the USA administation, and generally world Jewry, will push Bush for the lsraelis themselves to be given the green light to put an end to lran s ambitions to becoming a nuclear / power / .lt is no secret lsrael will NEVER tolerate any form of nuclear enrichment programmes so near thier own homeland. .. But lran is a country with 8.000 years of history and culture to protect with a racial mix which PP so eruditely points out . THEY are certainly not Arabs . ...8000 years of a racial mix of originally Assyrians .Medes ,Babylonians,,.Lydians .Parthians,Sassanidae, Seljuks, Tartars, Mongols, Turkomans and even as diverse as from Georgians to Egyptians and Greeks and barring 150 years under Arab rule in about the C7th the Persian { lranian } heritage remains intact and perhaps stronger then ever. ...Regarding themselves as far superior to neighbors carved from decayed empires and so forth ........Conquerors come and Go....There is a saying in the middle east at the moment . ..< <.MY father rode a camel , l drive a mercedes , my son drives his own jet airliner , but his son shall ride a camel .>> .................. ........................Think they know something we dont ?.........................

that's not much different from the more succinct version, "Rage to rags in 3 generations"

domestically in Iran, i can tell you that invasion/bombing by the Amis is believed to be inevitable sooner raher than later ....... will that be the catalyst to a general and sustained sell-off as predicted by TFC?

TFC ..... nothing personal, but please can you try to be far less verbose and more comprehensible!

Just read something which was written many years ago about America. It seems more pertinent now than when it was first written:-
"America is the only Nation in history which miraculously has gone directly from barbarism to degeneration without the usual intervention of civilisation."

George Clemenceau.

I think America is now internationally politically broke and would not have the internal or external support for an attack on Iran.

It is unlikely that Israel would have sufficient internal support for military intervention in Iran and the consequences to them would be horrendous. After their latest fiasco in Lebanon they again lack any credible support other than a corrupt American administration and a Blair, (who is now past his sell by date) both out of step with their countries and World opinion.


A thing which hasn't been mentioned very much in the press recently is the Russian support and supplying of missile systems to Iran.


As has been "thought" about the Atom and Hydrogen bombs the bigger the weapons the less the chance of war. During the cold war many believed this.

However, I think more important weapon Russia, Iran and the Middle East have is their oil supply and America will not be prepared to jeopardise that supply.

by that, do i take it that your view is that Iran will be allowed to get on with it' nuclear programme unmolested apart from the usual toothless UN sanctions?

Yes.

Iran has as much right to have nuclear technology, and nuclear armaments as any other state.

If one considers how many wars, America and Britain have been involved in over the last 40 years, without considering the number of independent counties that America and Britain has tried to destabilise or coerce during the same period Irans record seems almost virginal.

The only major conflict they have been involved in was that against Iraq, which was provoked by Iraq with the blessing of the USA and Britain. America corruptly supplied them with armaments and weapons, including poisonous gasses.

If a state with the arrogance of Israel with its mischief making potential and disrespect for human dignity of others has Nuclear armaments I see little reason for Iran not trying to acquire them.


However, if at the time of the ending of the cold war the America and Maggie Thatcher hadnt crowed so much and proceeded seriously to negotiate reduction in the worlds nuclear arsenal they might have achieved something to be respected for.

Instead they proceeded to plough money and resources into further development of arms and star wars. (The latter I think can be seen as projection of their own intentions.)

This with the neocons attempt to destabilise many states through out the world has been the cause of the obvious instability the world and in particular the Middle East.

If the money wasted on star wars and similar adventures had been ploughed in Health, Education and helping to relieve general poverty of the poorer and less developed nations, Britain and America would not be seen as corrupt, hypocritical light, which they are at present.


Bush and Blair are not world leader, as they would like to purvey themselves as, but small, narrow-minded individuals corrupted by the power they have held.

The latter of the two is deluded and suffers from self aggrandisement.

America doesn't need Middle East oil. America doesn't buy Iranian oil. What the US doesn't want is the Gulf closed as that would be damaging to US trading partners i.e. Europe and China. There is little chance of that because of the huge military capability aboard 2 US carrier attack fleets in the area. The same 2 fleets could and probably will at some stage (because of UN ineptitude) attack Iranian nuclear facilities and degrade their ability to strike back. There will shortly be 3 US carrier attack groups in the area, However the third is due to replace the Dwight D Eisenhower group. It could be the US will make use of all three before the Eisenhower departs for 'home'.

As for internal US support .. the US political system allows for Presidential veto.

"Iran has as much right to have nuclear technology, and nuclear armaments as any other state."

to my mind, that is the nub of the moral(?) matter, and the other stuff in your post is not really relevant.

however, the question is surely not, "Does Iran have the right?" but will the rest of the world, which for better or worse in this particular includes USA and Israel, allow Iran to complete its programme?

such is the current gung-ho mentality of both USA and Israel, that I rather fear not. However that does rather lay one open to accusations of appeasement given the likelihood that Iran does not want nuclear power merely to heat their hot water requirements.

Navajo .... i concur with your conclusion though not with the opening! ..... US needs to import oil which de facto means from M/E and therefore from both Iran and Iraq when political expediency can be manipulated to allow it.

Yes the US needs to import oil. But most definitely not from the Middle East. One basic reason is transportation costs.

Copy and paste into your browser ...

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nus_ep00_im0_mbbl_m.htm

The US Energy Information administration is very good imo.

One nice example.. The US imports more oil from us than it does from Kuwait.

many thanks ..... interesting viewing as you said, though i strongly doubt that it is telling the absolute truth - e.g. there are some countries listed who do not to my knowledge actually produce oil at all - e.g. Singapore and Belgium.

you are of course not right to say US does not import from US Gulf as clearly it does. More to the point, if Iranian oil supplies get shut off to everyone, rather as they did in Iraq due to war damage etc, then oil prices will rise as the rest of the world bid up what is available.

all of which is rather getting away from the original question as to whether or not Iran will be permitted to carry to completion its nuclear programme.

cynic.. How can it be gung ho by US/Israel when Ahmadinejad makes inflammatory speeches day after to audiences that are chanting 'Death to America/Israel'.

As for an earlier statement by someone .. 'everyone knows it'll take them ten years to produce a nuke'. For one thing I get sick of being classed as 'everyone'. For another with 3000 centrifuges up and running they can produce enough enriched uranium to produce one weapon within a year. If that was the intended use.

With Ahmadinejad's target being 50/60,000 centrifuges, work it out.

YES every country is entitled to nuclear power. But who can be blamed for stopping the current Iranian regime from aquiring the dual ability to make weapons.

Russia already promised them the fuel to run power stations they build for them, but that wasn't good enough.

cynic - 16 Apr 2007 17:08 - 29 of 30

you are of course not right to say US does not import from US Gulf as clearly it does.
-----------

If you mean the Gulf of Mexico I didn't say that :o)

Doh! ..... dopey boy - Persian gulf of course!
Mr A makes lots and lots of noise, some but not all designed for domestic consumption ..... but hardly dove-like tones nevertheless.
Israel is allegedly pressing US for permission(!) to take out Iranian nuclear capability ..... hardly dove-like tones and to my mind pretty gung-ho for whatever reason.
USA has been (c)overtly threatening military action against Iran for some time and placing a very significant naval force in the Persian(sic!) Gulf is scarcely designed to show peaceful intent.

in fact you state yourself that US forces are likely to make a pre-emptive strike against Iran.

so, having said that Iran is entitled to nuclear capability, are you also saying that despite this, you too think war or similar in Iran is almost inevitable?

i confess that i read your initial post to imply that it would not happen.

If iran has refused power, as you say navajo, from Russia etc (I think the US also gave them a few reactors of some kind), then its quite clear that the technology will be used for other purposes. E.g trying to send a nuke to israel and then UK + US. The good thing here is though that we/more importantly the US will absolubltely demolish them before they've launched more than one missle.
But the US is building this huge network of missle defence systems around the world and in the uk which protect . . . . the USA. Which could suggest they've planned or are anticipating some more competitive wars in the not to distant future.

also just to note - cynic i think you've been beaten here by navajo etc.

possibly but not sure! ..... just to nail my colours clearly to the mast again ..... i fear that war or similar is inevitable, though suspect the timing is unlikely to be before late 2008 ..... too much manoeuvring to carry out first, political and otherwise.

I think what Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan is showing, is that America and little Britain have overstretched themselves.

America may have been World dominant, but as with previous powers when internal strife develops and the economy begins to fail the largest empires begin to fail.

They have no friends and it isn't smashing a country into submission which counts but it is governing it. They don't have the resources to do this.

I think we are seeing the new emperors developing, but their power although involving military power will concentrate on economic power.

Annihilating Iran's nuclear development will do little to prevent the slow but ongoing demise of Americas political influence and due to the recent policies of the British government make Britain even less important.

Britain was once the World's Policeman and it can never be a popular role, but you are certainly right about the governing bit.

Britain, and the Romans in earlier times, put in place workable and generally acceptable legal and governmental practices. Though some (Zimbabwe!) have chosen to throw out these systems, with some pretty dire effects on their nations, others (India) have kept them pretty much unchanged to general overall benefit.

Unfortunately, America does not have the benefit of a long history, for it is a slow process, to understand how these things come to be. I am sorry to say that her attempts to stamp her authority and mores on various nations, from Vietnam through to Iraq look to have failed almost without exception. Arguably Mexico and one or two of the South American or similar countries have moved forward peacefully following "intervention".

I think the word Plunderer would be more appropriate than policeman.

America for the last 50 years has attempted the same approach by protecting its own narrow self interest and not interests in general.

Gross inequality leads to abuse and resentment and the application of self righteous justice at the expense of others.

An example of this can be seen in that the death tolls of Americans, Britain and its "allies" in Iraq and Afghanistan being known to the last detail, while that of the civilian populations killed during the ongoing conflicts are not recorded for public consumption.

It reminds me of the conflicts in the South of America and the apartheid in South Africa. ie. the oppressed not being valued. It is easy to see how terrorism results and thrives.

i think categorising Victorian Britain as plunderers is a bit harsh given the mores of the time ..... for sure it was not (entirely!) altruistic, but I certainly believe the thinking of the time was that they were also doing the "benighted natives" a considerable service.

Belgium's actions in the Congo were certainly much more brutal and rapacious ..... read (factual) King Leopold's Ghost (or of course, Lucky Jim)

I think it is reasonable to consider the "mores" of the time when judging an action. However, I don't think that changes or excuses the actions which took place. Neither does it change the motivation for those actions.

I am a little bit P. off by politician of today saying "it is time to move on", especially when they don't admit the culpability of their actions or apologise for their ill chosen actions.

Perhaps, it is because I am older and have made more mistakes than they have that I have learnt the value of saying "sorry" and I was wrong.






Not too often though!

it is one thing to apologise for one's own actions, but as one retreats further and further into history, the "obligation", as some would have it, to apologise for one's ancestors' actions becomes less and less ....... I certainly think all this current breast beating about slavery is a load of nonsense, for many many reasons ..... bringing it forward 50 years or so, while we should never forget the Holocaust, i think it ridiculous to keep beating today's German (relative) youth about it ..... and yes i am jewish

Cynic, somebody I agree with at last. I don't hold it against the English that they stole my country a few centuries ago. Only thing I think now that they have played with my ball long enough. Can I have it back and can they all go home? 8-)

I have never understood how one can apologise for somebodies action if you are not in a position of responsibility at the time. That does not mean such actions should be forgotten or not analysed.

I claim my nationality only on Rugby International days or when abroad and somebody is rude enough to suggests I am English.

As you have probably guessed, my heritage is Welsh, but I feel European.

how can a proud Celt claim to be European? .... Even you must admit that the connection with the Bretons is tenuous at best!

that said, surely in today's atmosphere of PC correctness, you should be demanding apologies and reparations from anyone at all by the name of Edward; after all, such a person would be celebrating being named after Edward I

I like their wine, women and the way they play rugby. Good enough reasons.

I almost said love, but in the presence of my wife that is probably going to far.

AT LAST////I NOW KNOW(FredInew) IS WELSH///////THAT EXPLAIN IT ALL /

Cynic - Buy some ArmorGroup shares and you ll win either way.

I wish we could beat the Germans ;-) maybe we stand a chance at cricket? we cant beat anyone else at it

.

'Increased pressure' on Iran to rethink nuclear programme

.

Have any "other Countries" been invited to rethink "their" nuclear programme in that link Skinny?

Stan - the clue is in the link title :-)

Yeah, thought so -):

What a lovely couple.

.