The Spectator: Iran is our biggest test since the Cold War

On today's YourPlatform Peter Hitchens has catalogued the way successive British and other governments have appeased terrorists:`

"The best defence against terrorism is the knowledge - in the head of the potential terrorist - that his actions will fail to change the policy of the government against whom he fights, and that it will all be for nothing. Terrorism is the force that it is because, in contrast to their rhetoric about "evil killers", the leaders of the law-governed nations have been all too ready to treat with terrorists and their sponsors, and to encourage them to believe that outrages lead eventually to concessions. In which case, of course, the concessions will lead to outrages, as they do. The IRA's motto was always 'Our day will come'. And it did, at Easter 1998 to the shame and disgrace of all who supported the Belfast agreement."

The quotation is spot on.  What I cannot get from Peter Hitchens' analysis, however, is any insight into how he would deal with a terrorist state like Iran.  The leader in this week's Spectator notes the ways in which Iran sponsors terrorism across the globe:

"Iran, the world’s most active state sponsor of terrorism, is the primary obstacle to peace in the Middle East. It is a fact that the regime is the paymaster of — among many others — the Lebanese Shiite militants of Hezbollah (which Iran helped to found in the 1980s), the Palestinian terrorist group and now government, Hamas, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and many of the barbaric terrorists who are murdering innocent Muslims every day in Iraq in an effort to destroy its first glimpse of freedom. The spectre of nuclear-armed terrorists is not one that bears contemplating."

The Spectator speculates about Iran's ambitions:

"Not content with financing and encouraging the world’s worst terrorists, and doing its best to destabilise Iraq, the Iranian regime is also developing an intercontinental missile, the Shahab-3, with an 800-mile range that could hit Israel — all at a time when rabid anti-Semitism is being encouraged in the Iranian media and Holocaust denial is propagated by the Iranian government. Armed with nuclear weapons, Iran would also be much more likely to try to grab control of the Strait of Hormuz, a crucial trading route for oil and gas."

What is the west going to do about Iran?  Jack Straw - whose regular visits to Tehran over recent years have achieved nothing - wants the military option off the table.  Liam Fox and 60% of Tory members disagree and think that military action must remain an option.  Much of Britain's liberal-left establishment invest much more of their energies in worrying about George W Bush than about the prospect of the Iranian president getting hold of the nuclear weapons with which he could "wipe Israel off the face of the earth".  Including Israel within NATO seems the least that Europe and North America could do.

Mr Straw's faith in the UN is not reassuring.  Ask the people of Rwanda and Darfur and Srebrenica and the Congo about the failures of this ultimate institution-of-political-convenience.  The only hope for diplomacy is if it is backed up by the threat of military action - "whoever wishes for peace, let him prepare for war".   It is urgent that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad knows that we are serious about stopping him from holding the world to ransom with nuclear weapons.  The Robb-Silberman report informed us that US intelligence in Iran is wholly inadequate.  Whilst the diplomacy goes on our governments urgently need to improve intelligence about the location of Iranian nuclear sites.

David Cameron is worried about the long-term threat to our planet posed by alleged global warming.   The much more imminent threat from Iran should really be keeping him awake at night.

Comments

[Elena]

Sadly, I think that because Bush discredited himself over Iraq, people don't want to listen to the stories coming out of Iran anymore. But I'm convinced that Iran is a real and serious threat to both the stability of the region and the stability of the world order. We must not rule out military action, however unpopular it may be.

[Chad]

We'll be melting a lot quicker than the Norwegian glacier if Iran drops a nuclear bomb on us.

[Richard]

"Sadly, I think that because Bush discredited himself over Iraq, people don't want to listen to the stories coming out of Iran anymore."

Agreed. There is a lack of popular and political willpower to deal with the Iranian threat.

One thing does puzzle me though - why would the Iranians nuke Israel when doing so would prevent the Palestinians from living there too?

[Serf]

why would the Iranians nuke Israel when doing so would prevent the Palestinians from living there too?

What makes you think they care?

[Derek]

Of course the military option must remain on the table. It is an essential ingredient of the stick and carrot approach to diplomacy.

[Selsdon Man]

Israel should defend itself and not require other countries to fight its battles.

[Rick]

Go read John Moser's book "Twisting The Lion's Tail" and learn how in the late 1930s Us politicians were seeing the British Empire and Nazi Germany as morally equivalent; how they did their utmost to keep the US aloof from Europe's disputes and rammed Neutrality Act after Neutrality Act down FDR's throat for at least 5 years preceding Pearl Harbour.

Read abut Father Coughlin and get a good idea on Senators who liberal and Irish/German colluded to cut off arms supplies to Britain and oppose any help - which is one reason why Chamberlain had to deal at Munich.

http://tinyurl.com/hgrdj

Then think forward - it is today Europe that tries to pass Neutrality Acts; tries to collude to impede the USA, behaves as if Europe can go isolationist yet lives in fear lest the US does so again.

It is the same hypocrisy as over Cruise Missiles in Europe - it was Europe that asked for the Pershing II to counter the SS21 rockets in Central Europe - yet it was European streets full of demonstrators, it was Greenham Common and even Rowan Williams was arrested over these demos.

Yet it was the US and Reagan which was attacked throughout Europe as European Governments kept their heads down - Helmut Schmidt who had requested the missiles faced his own SPD breaking up over the issue.

This was weakness of Western Europe - not Schmidt nor Thatcher - but Western Europe.

Well today Iran is hell bent on being provocative. There is no real choice - the regime that Jimmy Carter allowed to be installed; the reime which France assisted by letting Khomeini leave France; is a festering sore which will burst its poison everywhere.

There are no clean solutions because Carter was negligent even as he is now holier-than-thou - he created this mess which probably ignited fundamentalist Islam into another surge.

Anything that destroys the Mullah regime must be our objective - whether open or covert

[CS Parnell]

What, exactly, did the IRA get in the Good Friday Agreement then? The right to lay down their arms? The right to conceed the principle of consent? The right to take their seats in Stormont and serve in the government of Northern Ireland.

These three things were previously described by the IRA as surrender, the Unionist Veto and neo-colonialism.

So less of the great Peter Hitchens cobblers. What happened that day was the first step towards creating an Ireland where all people could feel like they belonged.

We might as well argue that partition was a capitulation to the terror threats - backed by Bonar Law - in 1912.

[Rick]

We might as well argue that partition was a capitulation to the terror threats - backed by Bonar Law - in 1912.

Really ? Some would argue it was the issue of Home Rule versus Direct Rule. After all Stormont was a product of Lloyd George's negotiations with De Valera and was not part of the Pre-war conception; the issues are not comparable especially after 1914-18 when the Royal Navy recognised it needed to retain ports in the North.

[Simon C]

"Israel should defend itself and not require other countries to fight its battles."

Selsdon,

Is that a universal principle for you. Would you have applied it to Poland in 1939?

Leaving that aside, isn't stability in the Middle East a vital national and global interest?

[Editor]

Does Selsdon Man also believe in leaving Nato because membership involves Britain coming to the defence of other nations, if they're attacked?

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"Ask the people of Rwanda and Darfur and Srebrenica and the Congo about the failures of this ultimate institution-of-political-convenience."

And Gaza and the West Bank, of course.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"And it did, at Easter 1998 to the shame and disgrace of all who supported the Belfast agreement."

IRA decommissioning must be a figment of my imagination then.

Thank goodness for Peter Hitchens and his words of wisdom to set me straight.

[James]

Call me simplistic, but surely the fact that Northern Ireland is still a part of the UK is indicative that the IRA have - thus far - failed?

[Richard]

"Call me simplistic, but surely the fact that Northern Ireland is still a part of the UK is indicative that the IRA have - thus far - failed?"

They have made some gains such as the abolition of the RUC.

"IRA decommissioning must be a figment of my imagination then."

As is the early release of terrorist prisoners?

[Editor]

I think that is simplistic James. Hundreds of IRA terrorists have been released from prison early. Peter Hitchens' message is that the rule of law can never mean the same thing again, as a result. Bomb Canary Wharf and Bishopsgate and the British state will start appeasing you.

[James]

Alright mayby it is too simplistic - I certainly regret the release of any IRA murderers, or any capitulation to terrorism. But isn't it too negative to go so far as to say Easter 1998 marked "victory" for the IRA?

[Rick]

But isn't it too negative to go so far as to say Easter 1998 marked "victory" for the IRA?

No idea, but isn't celebrating Easter 1916 in Dublin this weekend a mite provocative ?

[Henry Whitmarsh]

Oh no. The armchair Generals are readying their forces zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz....

[Richard]

"Oh no. The armchair Generals are readying their forces zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.... "

Then what do you believe should be done?

[Samuel Coates]

Article 5 of the NATO treaty states that, if one of the members is attacked, each member will take "such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force“ to restore security.

There is an unwritten understanding that members will take action, although A5 was first invoked after 9/11.

[Richard]

"Is that a universal principle for you. Would you have applied it to Poland in 1939?"

We had no way of defending Poland and the ruling regime was only marginally less unpleasant than Hitler's. By the end of WWII Poland was under the thumb of Uncle Joe, although I expect Soviet tyranny was (only just) favourable to the racialist slavery of the Nazis.

My personal opinion is that we should have waited longer and given ourselves more time to re-arm. Then when Hitler had got stuck into Russia we should have declared war.

Anyway, Iran is a different kettle of fish. The nature of the regime makes its actions very hard to predict. Unfortunately a policy of "wait and see" might end up being one of "wait until they strike first and kill thousands".

[Editor]

Thousands, Richard? More likely tens of thuosands and very possibly many more. Waiting until we are sure Iran has weapons and can steal our security is too late.

[Selsdon Man]

Simon C, Hitler was a threat to all of Europe, including the UK. Entering the war was in our national interest, i.e.\self-defence.

As for Nato Tim, we should only take action with other nations when we are defending ourselves.

I am opposed to military action that is not related to self defence. That includes the invasion of Iraq and military action against Iran.

Ideas, not military action, won the Cold War.

[Selsdon Man]

For the armchair generals and warmongers - lyrics from Roger Waters

"The war has started on the ground
Just love those laser guided bombs
They're really great
For righting wrongs
You hit the target
And win the game
From bars 3,000 miles away
3,000 miles away
We play the game
With the bravery of being out of range
We zap and maim
With the bravery of being out of range"

[Selsdon Man]

" Waiting until we are sure Iran has weapons and can steal our security is too late."

The editor obviously views our nuclear weapons to be no deterrent. He thinks that Iran wants to attack us anyway.

[Richard]

"With the bravery of being out of range"

Seems like common sense to me! It's all very well going on about the nobility of arm to arm combat but in practice the aim is to minimise our casualties.

If Iran does develop nuclear weapons then an airstrike is probably the most appropriate response.

[Henry Whitmarsh]

Well, the less we're dependent on Iranian oil the better. Also, 40% of Iran's population is under 15. So why don't we show those kids that freedom and democracy is cool?

If it pans out in Iraq then other countries could follow suit. You can't fight demographics. Personally, I think Iran just wants attention from the international community. They know that their aquisition of actual working nuclear weapons would mean war. No european country, no moderate arab country and certainly neither Israel or America would ever allow that to happen. Not in the middle east, not now. I agree with Selsdon Man, only in our national interest in the face of clear and present danger.

The Israelis could turn the offending bits of Iran into smoking holes if they so chose. They haven't, so I'm assuming we're safe for the moment.

Selsdon Man is also right about the Cold War. We won because our ideas, our society and our way of life were superior to theirs and because, deep down, neither side really hated the other. All we can do is trust that eventually they make the right choice, for their sake and for ours.

Incidentally, about Northern Ireland, I was wondering if someone could explain to me what a multilateral peace process is except an exercise in compromise?

[comstock]

So let me just get this straight. This war is about weapons Iran may or may not develop at some unspecified future point in time, which they then may or may not use against person or persons unknown at some equally unspecified future point in time. It is nothing whatsoever to do with oil.

Just as long as we've got that clear. I'm sure the British people are right behind it.

[Rick]

My personal opinion is that we should have waited longer and given ourselves more time to re-arm. Then when Hitler had got stuck into Russia we should have declared war.

Well in actual fact that is Mussolini's view - he was busy arranging a Conference in September 1939. The French had no wish to honour their treaty with Poland and waited until 5pm on 3rd September, 6 hours after Britain, to declare war.

Britain declared war at 11am though this breached the League of Nations Charter -

ARTICLE 10.
The Members of the League undertake to respect and preserve as against external aggression the territorial integrity and existing political independence of all Members of the League. In case of any such aggression or in case of any threat or danger of such aggression the Council shall advise upon the means by which this obligation shall be fulfilled.

ARTICLE 11.
Any war or threat of war, whether immediately affecting any of the Members of the League or not, is hereby declared a matter of concern to the whole League, and the League shall take any action that may be deemed wise and effectual to safeguard the peace of nations. In case any such emergency should arise the Secretary General shall on the request of any Member of the League forthwith summon a meeting of the Council. It is also declared to be the friendly right of each Member of the League to bring to the attention of the Assembly or of the Council any circumstance whatever affecting international relations which threatens to disturb international peace or the good understanding between nations upon which peace depends.

ARTICLE 12.
The Members of the League agree that, if there should arise between them any dispute likely to lead to a rupture they will submit the matter either to arbitration or judicial settlement or to enquiry by the Council, and they agree in no case to resort to war until three months after the award by the arbitrators or the judicial decision, or the report by the Council. In any case under this Article the award of the arbitrators or the judicial decision shall be made within a reasonable time, and the report of the Council shall be made within six months after the submission of the dispute.

So Richard you are in line with the League of Nations viewpoint and against the position of Lord Halifax and Chamberlain which hardened considerably after Hitler occupied Prague in March 1939 - which incidentally is the month that Britain first offered a guarantee to Colonel Beck to protect Poland.

Had France honoured its commitments to Czechoslovakia under its bilateral treaty it would have triggered the clauses in the Czech-Soviet defence treaty and circumscribed Hitler's scope completely.

[Richard]

"Incidentally, about Northern Ireland, I was wondering if someone could explain to me what a multilateral peace process is except an exercise in compromise?"

The problem is that the compromise involves releasing terrorist prisoners and doing deals with organisations that utilise violence.

[Rick]

We won because our ideas, our society and our way of life were superior to theirs and because, deep down, neither side really hated the other.

NO but because we could destroy them and they knew it.

Documents found in the GDR after the wall came down show that Warsaw Pact units went on war alert each Tuesday. They had so convinced themselves of a German attack - German troops would go home at weekends, Mondays were spent servicing tanks, and the Volksarmee was frightened that the Bundeswehr and NATO would attack on thev following day, a Tuesday.

People in the West underestimate just how fearful the Warsaw Pact was of the technology and military power of NATO - after all Russia had seen three invasions from the West since 1914 sweep deep into Russian territory

[Richard]

"Had France honoured its commitments to Czechoslovakia under its bilateral treaty it would have triggered the clauses in the Czech-Soviet defence treaty and circumscribed Hitler's scope completely."

I actually happen to agree that earlier action in 1938 would have been preferable.

My reason for supporting the "wait for

[Henry Whitmarsh]

Organisations which had to accept that their war was over, whilst having to accept far less than they ever though they deserved. For them, thats worse, thrown on the scrap heap whilst their leaders make deals with people they'd happily have killed.

They're never going to get what they want, the victims are never going to get revenge. Both get peace. There are a generation growing up now which has no part in that cycle. Isn't that the point? Remember, an eye for an eye and the whole world will be blind.

[Richard]

In addition to my above post that I cut off, my reason for supporting the "wait for Hitler to invade Russia" option is because it would have allowed us to judge whether our assistance was needed. The best outcome would have been for the Russians to defeat the Germans alone but at such a high cost that the regime either collapsed or occupying Eastern europe would be impossible. Suffice to say counterfactual history is an exercise in speculation.

"Remember, an eye for an eye and the whole world will be blind."

Except that the quantity of good people outnumber the quantity of bad people so what will actually happen is only some of the world will be blind including 100% of the bad people. Anyway, better a blind world than one where the wicked go unpunished. Personally I've always found that phrase to be flawed no matter how clever it may sound.

"They're never going to get what they want, the victims are never going to get revenge."

The families of the victims could at least have the satisfaction of knowing that their killers are in jail. Now they no longer have that.

"There are a generation growing up now which has no part in that cycle."

If the IRA had been finished off in the early 90s when we had the chance the cycle would have been ended then.

[Henry Whitmarsh]

Who was it who said that a definition of insanity was to repeat the same behavior and expect a different result?

[Richard]

"Who was it who said that a definition of insanity was to repeat the same behavior and expect a different result?"

Except that by the early 1990s the IRA were on the ropes after being worn down after many years.

Anyway, this doesn't change the fact that terrorists were let out of jail as part of the Good Friday Agreement - I have yet to see a decent justification for this.

[Michael Ehioze-Ediae]

Did anyone read the leader in the guardian two days ago? It argued that the world should learn to live with a nuclear armed Iran. It claimed Iran feels threatened by other nuclear armed nations like Israel and India.
True, western europe should not feel threatened. However, Iran has threatened to wipe Israel off the map. This gives Israel the moral and legal right to attack Iran. The UN charter grants states the right to self-defence. This is unless the guardian and others interprete the right to self defence as waiting until you are nuked before you respond.

[Richard]

"It claimed Iran feels threatened by other nuclear armed nations like Israel and India."

Well perhaps if they didn't threaten to destroy Israel they wouldn't have to worry about them!

Why would India want to attack Iran?

What this all boils down to is the fact that Iran is an Islamic fundamentalist regime that wishes to see Islam conquer the world. They do not abide by Western norms of behaviour. That isn't to say we should enforce our values on them (typical left-wing idealism), merely that we should prevent them reaching a position where they can harm us or destabilise the global economy (typical right-wing pragmatism).

[Samuel Coates]

With respect, I would feel safer in a world of Pastor Martin Niemollers than Selsdon Mans. Only acting in self-defence of ones own nation doesn't help anyone outside of the top few military nations.

[Selsdon Man]

With respect, I would feel safer in a world without George Bush and the neo-cons.

[Selsdon Man]

Richard, it is actions rather than words that count. Iran is nowhere near having a nuclear weapon. If we attacked every country whose leaders employ extreme rhetoric, we would be in a right mess.

[Editor]

The trouble with your anti-Bush stuff, Selsdon Man, and the legions of your fellow travellers is the little problem of chronology.

9/11 happened before the liberations of Afghanistan and Iraq.

The problems of the world didn't begin with the neoconservatism of Bush - they began when isolationist politicians buried their heads in the sand.

9/11 was, of course, bad enough but it's tea party stuff compared to the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran.

What exactly is your solution to Iran? Wait and hope for the best? Britain's nuclear deterrent may have worked against the rationalism of the Soviet Union. I don't put Iran in the same category.

[Selsdon Man]

"Only acting in self-defence of ones own nation doesn't help anyone outside of the top few military nations".

Why should we be the world's policeman any more than Norway or Switzerland ?

[Selsdon Man]

Ed, Bush used 9/11 as an excuse to go after Iraq. It would have far easier to deal with Iran if Bush had not invaded Iraq. Please explain why you don't think that our nuclear deterrent would not work in relation to Iran.

Have you been to Afghanistan recently? A close Republican friend has - working for the US government. It has not been liberated, it is a total mess. It is not safe for Americans to walk the streets - such is the hostility to them.

Bush has failed to capture Bin Ladin or many of the top Al Quada terrorists. As a President, he has been a failure - on foreign policy and economically. The deficit and federal spending is at record levels. The obscene Patriot Act is used as a model by Blair to trample on civil liberties.

Look at the polls, it will take the GOP years to recover. Good riddance to Bush.

[Editor]

Afghanistan has been a mess for a long time, Selsdon Man. You don't make it ok overnight but you either believe in extending freedom and democracy or you don't.

I've already said why the nuclear deterrent isn't a secure protection against Iran. I don't think Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is rational.

Spending is far too high but the US economy is strong. Tax cuts are powering that economy... and, to a significant extent, ours.

I've answered your points. Will you now stop ducking mine?

9/11 came before Afghanistan and Iraq. It's a nonsense to blame Bush for everything. 9/11 happened because of ostrich isolationism. What would you do to stop Iran getting nuclear weapons?

[Selsdon Man]

9/11 happened due the failure of US intelligence and because Clinton failed to tackle Bin Laden.

There was no link between Saddam and Bin Laden and Saddam did not have WMD - Bush's justification for the war.

I do not agree with you on Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. He is a typical Zealot using empty rhetoric to wind up the West and Israel. Sanctions are the best way to stop Iran acquiring the necessary technology.

I do not think that he will attack the UK or the US. Israel has the necessary weapons to deter Iran and punish aggression. It should stand on its own feet.

My suspicion is that the Bush administration is whipping up alarm to justify an attack next year - just in time for the election.

[True Blue]

Speak softly and carry a big stick. Don't wave the stick around like a demented monkey. Iran knows full well that the US or Israel will bomb them, international law or not, if they progress too far down the nuclear line. They'll either find an excuse or they'll just go ahead anyway.

Under Article IV of the NPT Iran are entitled to pursue nuclear power, and in fact the other nations are supposed to help. They are using exactly the same enrichment technology as Germany and Japan.

It would be perfectly legal for Iran to abbrogate the treaty under article X giving three months' notice and pursue the aquisition of nuclear weapons. The US lack distaste for international treaties, for example their obligation to pursue nuclear disarmament under NPT and the abandonment of ABM treaty, sets a very poor example, as does the hypocrisy shown by Western leaders about Israel's nuclear program. To be fair to the neocons in the US, they said very pragmatically, it's because Israel is an ally.

There is still plenty of time to negotiate. The Europeans and speaking softly, and the US are carrying the stick. The Iranians need to save face and threatening them with military action will harden their attitude.

I think the IAEA overstepped their legal bounds with the referral to the security council. I am concerned that chapter VII referral would lead inevitably to violence, as the only other chapter VII measures are sanctions which are unlikely to be effective - we really need their oil. It's unlikely a resolution will get through, though as the Chinese and Russians would probably veto it.

The talk of "imminence" is the most worrying development - if the Iranians think Israel is going to attack, are they justified by "imminence" in attacking Israel?

[Selsdon Man]

With a little help from...

"All the war-propaganda, all the screaming and lies and hatred, comes invariably from people who are not fighting." ~George Orwell".

"If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy." ~James Madison

"Wars generally do not resolve the problems for which they are fought and therefore...prove ultimately futile." ~Pope John Paul II

"Never believe any war will be smooth and easy, or that anyone who embarks on the strange voyage can measure the tides and hurricanes he will encounter." ~Sir Winston Churchill

"Liberty and democracy become unholy when their hands are dyed red with innocent blood." ~Mahatma Gandhi

[Richard]

Some good sayings Selsdon Man but generalising proverbs and quotes by famous people are no substitute for argument over a specific topic.

[Andrew]

Ahmadinejad is no more in control of Iran than I am. He's a populist bumpkin, nothing more.

However, personally I can't see how we get out of this hole now. The Iranians are convinced they need nuclear weapons, because of the constant threats coming out of the American right for the past 8-10 years, the huge influence of the Israeli lobby in Washington, and the invasion of both of Iran's neighbours. History hardly helps either: we overthrew their only democratic leader after WWII, supported a murderous dictator for decades (who started their nuclear weapons program), then were complicit in Saddam Hussein's genocidal attacks (even down to protecting him from UN censure after he repeatedly used chemical weapons on Iranian villages). Why wouldn't they be suspicious?

The current situation with Iran has more contemporary roots though, and particularly it marks the complete failure of diplomatic technique in the Bush admin. This should have been dealt with years ago, but with people like John Bolton at the UN, diplomacy is never even on the agenda.

Unless we have a miracle, the Israelis will decide to attack sometime before the Iranians can progress too far, but before Bush is out: 2008 most likely. The Pentagon will then likely conclude that for such an attack on 100+ targets to be successful, the US will need to join also. Then we have inevitable Iranian retaliation against American bases, and thus the perfect excuse/rationale for the US to destroy their military, should they wish to.

This latter point will not have been missed by the hawks, although it would have far more risks than a single night of surgical strikes - the whole nuclear issue would likely be seen as a smokescreen to that military end, and the chance of getting out of Iraq anytime in the next decade pretty much depends on those sorts of perceptions in the Islamic world.

Regardless of how it goes, an allmighty mess. I've said it before and I'll say it again: if only Bush's ultra dirty politics in the primaries hadn't worked in 2000, we'd have had McCain instead. It's thoroughly depressing that in the exact time when the world needed an American President with widespread understanding of global issues, we get someone like Bush - the least knowledgeable leader about the outside world since Harding (remember that 1999 interview when he couldn't name a single foreign leader ....... sheesh).

[Dontmakemelaugh]

With a little help from...

"All the war-propaganda, all the screaming and lies and hatred, comes invariably from people who are not fighting." ~George Orwell".
Re those mentioned below

Saddam Hussein; BinLaden; The mad Mullahs

"If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy." ~James Madison

Re the usual suspects mentioned above.

"Wars generally do not resolve the problems for which they are fought and therefore...prove ultimately futile." ~Pope John Paul II

He means: Don't bother to defend yourselves, because I think our lot used to support the DUCE and we lost.

"Never believe any war will be smooth and easy, or that anyone who embarks on the strange voyage can measure the tides and hurricanes he will encounter." ~Sir Winston Churchill

And to think he used to be called a "Warmonger"

"Liberty and democracy become unholy when their hands are dyed red with innocent blood." ~Mahatma Gandhi
Spoken by a man who was said to advise against cooperating with the British in assisting them to stop Japan invading India and whose political advice was said to have greatly contributed to the savagery that ensued after the British left India.

Here are some more quotes:
"A stitch in time saves nine"
"Too many cooks spoil the broth"
"Never cast a clout until May is out"
They are about as relevant to the Iranian situation as the quotes of Selsdon Man above, but the one quote that he does not want to read in the future is:
"He that hesitates is lost".

[Mark Fulford]

America's and our fumbling in the Middle East is adding to the problem. A "surgical strike" will not solve anything. Unless we restrain our mindless arrogance, our actions simply inflame and add to years of mistreatment and bring closer the most almighty and destructive war we've seen.

[Anti-Cameron Tory]

Whatever has to be done here leave the Yanks out of it.

They're not to be trusted.

We've already heard a Brit on the spot confirm that the Americans acted like Nazis in Iraq.

No surprise there.

[Rick]

We've already heard a Brit on the spot confirm that the Americans acted like Nazis in Iraq.

I wonder what his opinion is on other matters - this veritable sage ?

Since 1942 everything the British have tried to do alone has been terribly unsuccessful without US help and with the British Army now the smallest since 1913 I suggest "putting your money where your mouth is" and funding the Armed Forces so we don't need our American allies to provide resources..................but since Britons are piling up consumer debt and cutting defence spending and manpower........you are clearly not serious

[Editor]

My contribution to the exchange of quotes comes from Winston Churchill:

"You must never fire until you have been shot dead? That seems to be a silly thing to say."

Diplomatically, preferably, but militarily, if necessary, we must stop Iran getting hold of nuclear weapons.

[Henry Whitmarsh]

You shouldn't let the hysterical ravings of chickenhawks like Hitchens cloud over the major issues. Iran and the west's issues with each other are not a bombing raid away from being solved. In time Iraq will be more stable and democratic, albeit heavily backed by the Americans. It's said that all wars are started by old men and fought by young men. Well, in about a decade the median age in Iran will be about 20. Perhaps they will want what their fellow Shia across the border have, democracy and the rule of law, not the constant threat of war and sabre rattling old men.

[Henry Whitmarsh]

If Hitchens wants to play real world Risk how about typing "Somalia" into google.

[Jon Gale]

It seems to me the Shahab-3 rocket is irrelevant. Iran is not insane enough to use missiles to nuke israel because everyone would know who did it and the Islamic Republic would become a smoking glass wasteland.

It is more likely that Iran would give the bomb to terrorists - thus there is a bit of uncertainty over who did it, who to blame.

If neccesary the nuclear facillities should be taken out by surgical strike/SAS, but the threat of that should at the very least remain on the table. Straw ruling it out is unhelpful.

[Patsy Sergeant]

How nice it would be if one could think that President (or whatever he is) Ahmadinejad, is just a 'country bumpkin', unfortunately he is much more than that. The best that one can say is that he is 'unreliable' with ALL that that implies! But in THAT country - Iran - at the moment, he appears to have control, and that brings power with it - however unfortunate. And that is the real misfortune for the rest of the Iranian people!

[Patsy Sergeant]

Does Ahmadinejad really care if people knew who it was who launched any nuclear missiles? He strikes me as that type of young man who having achieved absolute power (in his country at least), lets it go to his head and becomes that mixture of megalomaniac and messianic, which probably no-one can reason with. Almost from the moment he was voted to his present position, he has behaved more like a revolutionary, and if that is the case he is hardly likely to respond in a mature way to discussions with the West.

[Andrew]

"How nice it would be if one could think that President (or whatever he is) Ahmadinejad, is just a 'country bumpkin', unfortunately he is much more than that."

Sure, he's a nutjob, I wasn't trying to dispute that. The important thing is the location of power though - the whole period of Rafsanjani's "leadership" proved that security/defence/foreign affairs don't lie with the Presidency. That's for purely domestic and managerial issues, little more.

Remember Banisadi? No-one does, which says it all :-) He was the first President under Khomeini, and despite being elected was removed when he went against the clerics. His successor wasn't even that lucky - he was just bumped off after a few weeks. Unsurprisingly, Presidents ever since have known their place ........

[Rick]

in about a decade

It seems to me the Shahab-3 rocket is irrelevant.

How reassuring...........who was it said he had no more territorial claims in Europe.....in 1938 ?

Iran is not insane enough to use missiles to nuke israel

Noone would be stupid enough to fight the British Empire twice in one generation............noone would be stupid enough to fight both Russia and the United States ...and the British Empire..............................

Noone would be stupid enough to fire Kazam rockets from Gaza knowing that F-16s and helicopter gunships deliver retribution.............noone would become a suicide bomber knowing the family home will be bulldozed.............

[Jon White]

Moving back from Iran to the subject of Ireland as was discussed earlier in this post, could we please stop using the term the "Good Friday Agreement', and use what it actually was: "The Good Friday Surrender". The surrender process that was begun by a Tory (albeit ineffectual) PM, and concluded by Bliar.

It is yet another example that terrorism, sadly, DOES bring results.

[The Capitalist Cowboy]

"Bush has failed to capture Bin Ladin or many of the top Al Quada terrorists. As a President, he has been a failure - on foreign policy and economically. The deficit and federal spending is at record levels. The obscene Patriot Act is used as a model by Blair to trample on civil liberties.

Look at the polls, it will take the GOP years to recover. Good riddance to Bush"

What absolute garbage.