Is this mike on?

[Xiahou]

Iran having the bomb is not the same as Iran using the bomb. If it used the bomb, it would be razed to the ground - they know it, everyone knows it, and Iran is not mad.

So you're saying if a nuclear bomb went off in a US city and Iran was implicated, but vehemently denied any involvement you'd be in favor of turning Iran into a sheet of glass? I don't think they believe any such thing.

We just sent a second carrier battle group to the Gulf, though our new SecDef denies that it's aimed at Iran.

I think our Persian pals are far from ignorant of US attack capabilities. 'Boots on the ground'? Agreed: ain't happening tomorrow. But "shock-and-awe" airstrikes from the USN & USAF? Entirely possible, from their point of view.

All of which makes an afternoon talk over tea, a more distant option.

The perceived threat of meaningful consequences can encourage negotiations. So far, the line has been "Iran must abandon it's nuclear aspirations or else we'll be forced to talk more about it." I'm sure Iran is perfectly happy with that arrangement- if any meaningful sanctions look anywhere close to being approved, Iran only need mention it wants more talks and Russia & China will back them up.

I think it's a forgone conclusion that Iran will get nuclear weapons- the international community is completely paralyzed and unable to agree on anything-, the question is what will they do with them? And the possible answers are truly frightening.

[Watchman]

My bet for that last one involves sitting around, picking navels, and watching the virtual dick grow...

That's what everyone has done with them, and as I've often pointed out before, there's no particular indication the Iranians wouldn't be happy enough with that tried-and-true arrangement.

[Banquo's Ghost]

So you're saying if a nuclear bomb went off in a US city and Iran was implicated, but vehemently denied any involvement you'd be in favor of turning Iran into a sheet of glass? I don't think they believe any such thing.

I would be in favour of a proportionate response and would expect it. Apart from the woolliness of the scenario proposed (I assume you're positing a suitcase bomb deployed by unidentified terrorists claimed by some group associated with Iranian interests) one would have to know how Iran was implicated. Let's face it, claims by your government would currently have to be treated with some degree of scepticism in such a scenario, don't you think?

Back in the real world, it is highly unlikely the Iranians would be able to develop ballistic technology to deliver a bomb effectively over long distances, let alone get such through the defence mechanisms of a country like the US. Which leads me on to:

The perceived threat of meaningful consequences can encourage negotiations. So far, the line has been "Iran must abandon it's nuclear aspirations or else we'll be forced to talk more about it." I'm sure Iran is perfectly happy with that arrangement- if any meaningful sanctions look anywhere close to being approved, Iran only need mention it wants more talks and Russia & China will back them up.

I think it's a forgone conclusion that Iran will get nuclear weapons- the international community is completely paralyzed and unable to agree on anything-, the question is what will they do with them? And the possible answers are truly frightening.

There is too much fear pervading here. I remember the same sort of panics in regard to the Soviet Union and their "faceless hordes". Iranians enjoy a sort of democracy - by no means what we would aspire to, but it does influence their politicians. It wasn't that long ago that the President was Hashemi Rafsanjani, a moderate with positive leanings to rapprochement. He was only defeated by Ahmadinejad in a run-off, and because the current president got many votes from the rural poor who hoped he would improve their lives. He has failed miserably in this, and the recent elections delivered a rebuke to his faction for this. He has been using the "Great Satan" to retain support as an embattled leader. But the ordinary Iranian, whilst backing a "wartime" leader for now, does not want his rhetoric to get them bombed.

Do you recognise the situation?

Weak leaders invariably bombast. The trick is to talk and provide them with new ways out, not treat them as pariahs and thus give them only one way to go. The US is not under any conceivable threat from Iran, whatever your own bombasts may say. You have the strength (and the big stick) to afford magnanimity. Even failure would only get us back to where we are now, not any worse.

If the international community is paralysed, it is only because its erstwhile leader is refusing to take the practical and possibly frutiful course of diplomacy, in direct contravention of his own advisors, while fatally bogged down militarily and for reasons that no-one can fathom. We are paralysed by astonishment.

[Xiahou]

I would be in favour of a proportionate response and would expect it. Apart from the woolliness of the scenario proposed (I assume you're positing a suitcase bomb deployed by unidentified terrorists claimed by some group associated with Iranian interests) one would have to know how Iran was implicated. Let's face it, claims by your government would currently have to be treated with some degree of scepticism in such a scenario, don't you think?

So you'd have to know they did it beyond any doubt and you wouldn't believe what the US would say about it. That pretty much answers my question and makes my point. I wouldn't be surprised if Iran thought it could obfuscate enough to get out of the most serious repercussions. Many might believe them over the US and many more would say that "in kind" retaliation isn't warranted.

If the international community is paralysed, it is only because its erstwhile leader is refusing to take the practical and possibly frutiful course of diplomacy, in direct contravention of his own advisors, while fatally bogged down militarily and for reasons that no-one can fathom. We are paralysed by astonishment.

So just buy them off then? That worked remarkably well with the DPRNK. There's been lots of "diplomacy" with Iran and they keep stalling for, and getting more time. At least we seem to agree that it's likely inevitable that Iran will go nuclear. For the rest, I guess I'll just put you in the "Chirac" collumn.

[Tribesman]

So you'd have to know they did it beyond any doubt and you wouldn't believe what the US would say about it.

hey hey a fabulous lesson from the 6th century B.C.
When people are known as liars they are not believed even if they do tell the truth .
Such a pity that Bush didn't progress from my pet goat as far as Aesops tales .

[Banquo's Ghost]

So you'd have to know they did it beyond any doubt and you wouldn't believe what the US would say about it.

So you would be perfectly happy obliterating tens of thousands of people through a nuclear strike when there was doubt?

So just buy them off then? That worked remarkably well with the DPRNK. There's been lots of "diplomacy" with Iran and they keep stalling for, and getting more time. At least we seem to agree that it's likely inevitable that Iran will go nuclear. For the rest, I guess I'll just put you in the "Chirac" collumn.

Buying enemies off is a time-honoured tactic. Especially when your military options are so limited. The vast majority of your countrymen don't want another war of any description on their hands.

Of course Iran keeps stalling, they're winning. Everything the US has done so far has strengthened their hand and weakened your influence in the region.

We do agree that it is likely that Iran will obtain a nuclear deterrent. Personally, I think we should give it to them as an act of guarantee and treat them like the regional power they are, and work with them to encourage the moderates to take that responsibility seriously. There's more mileage to work with the Iranians once Ahmadinejad is toppled than with the dangerous terror harbour in Pakistan - which not only has nukes already but people in the security services that are actively supportive of al-Quaeda - and in case you forgot as President Bush has, they're the threat.

As for the "Chirac" column, as a potato-eating surrender monkey, I guess I esteem that an honour. We've been right so far, haven't we?

[Pannonian]

There's more mileage to work with the Iranians once Ahmadinejad is toppled than with the dangerous terror harbour in Pakistan - which not only has nukes already but people in the security services that are actively supportive of al-Quaeda - and in case you forgot as President Bush has, they're the threat.

Pakistan doesn't threaten Israeli interests, only American interests. Therefore they're not a threat in the eyes of the neocons. There's a consistent thread running through these stories - people who strike at the US are sidelined, while people who threaten Israel are demonised and require urgent and extreme action. Sometimes I wonder if American "patriots" prefer the Israeli flag to the Stars and Stripes.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Pakistan doesn't threaten Israeli interests, only American interests. Therefore they're not a threat in the eyes of the neocons. There's a consistent thread running through these stories - people who strike at the US are sidelined, while people who threaten Israel are demonised and require urgent and extreme action. Sometimes I wonder if American "patriots" prefer the Israeli flag to the Stars and Stripes.

You hit the nail on the head. Support for Israel is important for US interests, but no more than a settled Middle East. It has become a sacred cow that is now directly hurting those interests. I can't understand how it has come to this pass - in the same way that your Mr Blair completely disregards British interests in favour of a facile US-centric policy.

[Xiahou]

So you would be perfectly happy obliterating tens of thousands of people through a nuclear strike when there was doubt?

There will always be some doubt and they're perfectly aware of that. Thus, your original statement that Iran would never use a nuclear weapon out of fear of retaliation in kind falls flat doesn't it?

Buying enemies off is a time-honoured tactic. Especially when your military options are so limited. The vast majority of your countrymen don't want another war of any description on their hands.

Again, DPRNK showed how effective buying enemies off is. They may stop for a moment, but then they'll continue doing whatever they like- if they're caught again, they can "negotiate" for more extortion money. Meaningful sanctions would be a useful tool- but the UN again shows its uselessness with Russia/China blocking anything close to that. You seem to think that "diplomacy" consists of all carrot and no stick.

We do agree that it is likely that Iran will obtain a nuclear deterrent. Personally, I think we should give it to them as an act of guarantee and treat them like the regional power they are, and work with them to encourage the moderates to take that responsibility seriously.

Yes, Iran has been a responsible "regional power" so far hasn't it? I wonder how many US soldiers and Iraqi civilians have been killed by Iranian agents or the weapons they've supplied to Iraq? There's a fair chance that Ahmadinejad may go away in the next elections, but do you think he's the one that's approving their nuclear program or their actions in Iraq? He couldn't make decisions like that without approval from Iran's real leaders. It's his public statements that are getting Ahmadinejad into hot water.

[Pannonian]

Yes, Iran has been a responsible "regional power" so far hasn't it? I wonder how many US soldiers and Iraqi civilians have been killed by Iranian agents or the weapons they've supplied to Iraq?

Most of the American dead have been at the hands of Sunni insurgents, and their support mainly comes from Saudis and Jordanians. The Iranians have an interest in importing arms into Iraq, but not to use against Americans. Why should they want to fight the Americans when they're doing such a good job of suppressing the Sunnis for them? There might be some Iraqi nationalists like Sadr who resist both American and Iranian influence in Iraq, but in the main, Iranian interests lie in letting the Americans fight for as long and as hard as possible on their behalf. The Iranian agents you should be worried about are those in the Iraqi government who constantly plead for you to stay and safeguard their "democracy". The day you wise up will be the day their "democracy" is secure and American soldiers are welcome no more. The Iranian weapons are being stockpiled for that day, for use against Sunnis.

[Banquo's Ghost]

There will always be some doubt and they're perfectly aware of that. Thus, your original statement that Iran would never use a nuclear weapon out of fear of retaliation in kind falls flat doesn't it?

Not really. If you can't see why, there's no arguing with you.

Again, DPRNK showed how effective buying enemies off is. They may stop for a moment, but then they'll continue doing whatever they like- if they're caught again, they can "negotiate" for more extortion money. Meaningful sanctions would be a useful tool- but the UN again shows its uselessness with Russia/China blocking anything close to that. You seem to think that "diplomacy" consists of all carrot and no stick.

Whilst DPRNK is not a typical situation due to the nature of the regime, you do have a point. Iran however, has a lot of vested interests in the stability of the region. They are players, and we should explore that. In contrast, your president's strategy is all stick and no carrot - except that his "stick" has been shown to be about as dangerous a weapon as the aforementioned vegetable.

Yes, Iran has been a responsible "regional power" so far hasn't it?

Well, they were remarkably helpful to you when you invaded Afghanistan don't you think? And I know he was a good buddy at the time, but it was the Iranians who helped keep Saddam Hussein's ambitions in check for a long time in the 1980s. Since the US has demonised them in spite of the help given after 9-11, they are pursuing their goals without you. I just don't see why it's so impossible to talk to these guys, however hard it might be.

I wonder how many US soldiers and Iraqi civilians have been killed by Iranian agents or the weapons they've supplied to Iraq? There's a fair chance that Ahmadinejad may go away in the next elections, but do you think he's the one that's approving their nuclear program or their actions in Iraq? He couldn't make decisions like that without approval from Iran's real leaders. It's his public statements that are getting Ahmadinejad into hot water.

I wonder how many Iranians have been killed by US-armed puppets like the Shah and Saddam Hussein since the CIA toppled Mossadeq?

As for the theocracy, you are certainly right that there are many that approve Ahmadinejad's antics, but also plenty that do not. The vast majority of Iranians, clerical or civilian, do not want a war with the US. We need to give the moderates leverage because threatening with no other options only stiffens national resolve, just as in any other country.

If you are saying that the shadow of military action should be hinted at in the background to any talks, I would support you, but presently the only offer to the Iranians is "do everything we demand first and then we might, perhaps, let you beg at our table." No government will bow down to that sort of nonsensical twaddle - least of all when the demands are being made by a paper tiger in big trouble.

The US needs to quit bullying and start being realistic. It may come to war eventually, but war should not be the starting point - not least because any war will damage US interests far, far more than they are damaged already. I would have thought even dedicated Bushies would be tired of Americans returning in flag-draped coffins for no reason by now, but perhaps not.

[Tribesman]

Pakistan doesn't threaten Israeli interests, only American interests. Therefore they're not a threat in the eyes of the neocons. There's a consistent thread running through these stories - people who strike at the US are sidelined, while people who threaten Israel are demonised and require urgent and extreme action. Sometimes I wonder if American "patriots" prefer the Israeli flag to the Stars and Stripes.

Pakistan still doesn't recognise the State of Israel . Musharraf has set down the conditions for recognition , getting out of the occupied territories and creation of an independant Palestinian state .

As for the "Chirac" column, as a potato-eating surrender monkey, I guess I esteem that an honour. We've been right so far, haven't we?

Ooooooo nasty Banquo , what a put down
want to rub it in a bit more

I would have thought even dedicated Bushies would be tired of Americans returning in flag-draped coffins for no reason by now, but perhaps not.

Well they are , but they have a problem admitting to it .