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?

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".