Bruce, I think we may need to take a pinch or two of salt with the conclusions of these reports.

The essentials of the story may be true. It would hardly be a surprise to learn that the usual neo-con suspects in the Pentagon would like to remove the current government in Iran by whatever means.

Reports that covert commando groups are working in the area might also be true and not particularly surprising.

But it's a big leap from those reports to assume that an invasion of Iran (even if it has been planned) could be undertaken unilaterally by the USA.

Even if an invasion were militarily possible - given probable commitments in Iraq for some years to come it would require a mass mobilisation of all US reserves - the political realities just don't fit.

The UK government (despite - or perhaps because of - Iraq) would not support an invasion of Iran. The USA has few enough friends left in the world as it is. Even this American government needs some friends and allies. One friend and ally ?

At the very least the Bush government would need to muster support at home and, after Iraq, there will now be a lot more people listening to the sceptical voices, questioning the rhetoric and the 'intelligence' reports.

And Iran poses problems in other more subtle ways. There's no Saddam Hussein - no bogeyman, no single figure who can be demonised.

There is much to criticise and condemn about Iran but there are reformist and opposition voices in the country (even among the clerics) and the political opposition are not being systematically murdered as they would have been in Iraq.

There are more shades of grey here. Even the neo-con hawks will be pushed to succesfully paint Iran as 100% evil.

I suspect that the the Iranian leadership is also somewhat brighter than Saddam Hussein and they will not provide the hawks with so many easy targets.

But - even if none of this is true - I have a hunch that this time the deciding factor will be the common sense and vigilance of the American people who, when push comes to shove, will draw the line at just one more invasion in the name of .......... what ?

A few surgical strikes? Possible. Full blown invasion? Impossible. US simply does not have the resources to fight another full blown war while keeping 120K+ in Iraq and failing there every day.

Have to agree with that - although perhaps we all (self included) now need to break the lazy habit of allowing the phrase 'surgical strike' to trip so easily off the tongue.

Bombs do not perform surgery. We may wish to take some comfort from the fact that guided missile attacks are preferable to carpet bombing but, at the receiving end, bombs do not discriminate.

Surgical strikes still hit places. They do not ask non-combatants (or anyone incapable of enriching uranium?) to leave the building before detonating.

There was a very good article about the possible strategies and outcomes of potential attacks on Iran. http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/prem/200412/fallows

As one who has spent a great deal of time in Iran over the past several years, I just can't see an invasion or strikes happening or succeeding.

I was constantly asked by people of all walks of life, "When are the American commandoes coming to liberate us?" since they assumed that whatever their government-run televesion was telling them about what America was doing in Iraq and Afghanistan must be lies, and that it was only a matter of time before W would come to the rescue.

Usually I'd tell them not to hold their breath and I'd say the same today. The United States has an incredible opportunity in Iran, but rest assured we'll blow it.

If I had to guess, I would say that Bush administration will reconcile with the mullahs, letting go of hope for democracy in Iran in exhchage for stability.

Still, there is a great opportunity for people to people diplomacy and I hope American citizens and the Iranian government realize it's in everyone's interest to let that happen.

A number of related issues about Iran have been developed - not least by me (apologies for that) - over on http://www.omidyar.net/group/community-general/news/436/ but I wonder if it might be more helpful to try to keep this strand focused on the desirability of change through peaceful and diplomatic initiatives rather than the futility of invasion or bombs.

To that end, let me ask this oblique question.

Why is the Bush government focusing its rhetoric on Iran rather than - simple example - neighbouring Pakistan ?

Iran is targeted by the USA because it is claimed that the regime is seeking (quote) 'to develop a nuclear capability' - but in plain English this means that Iran does not have nuclear weapons.

Pakistan does have nuclear weapons and it has actively assisted in the proliferation of nuclear technology by passing nuclear secrets on to other countries.

Pakistan is also an Islamic nation but, unlike Iran, it is a military dictatorship. Although elections have been held since the military coup they were probably no closer to 'free and fair' elections than those held in Iran. Opposition parties in both countries would probably go along with that statement.

The Human Rights Watch reports on both Iran and Pakistan bear striking similarities. It is worth looking both up and comparing them. Not saying the human rights abuses are the same in either frequency or intensity but there are significant comparisons. But we hear little of human rights abuses in Pakistan and much of Iran. Why ?

Despite the rehetoric about Iran which suggests otherwise, neither Iran or Pakistan are 'closed societies'. International companies operate in both Iran and Pakistan. Even British Petroleum (BP) has returned to Iran.

Ah ! ........... petroleum !

Another link to Iran next !!

Anyone taking Bets?

Iran tops the list of "potential trouble-spots" worldwide, according to US Vice-President Dick Cheney

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4193909.stm

If you go into a pub every night and start picking a fight it soon gets a reputation as a trouble spot !

Maybe Dick Cheney should stay home more often.

There was an online poll conducted on BBC site about Iraq elections. If you see the results sorted by language, you will see a striking reality coming out. Generally, Iranians are more sympathetic with American position and are more hopeful for the future of Iraq. This is amazing considering the fact that Iran has been under a fiercely anti-American regime and propaganda for the last 25 years.

I think Iran has been much more ready for democracy than Iraq. A huge mistake for Bush as far as setting his priorities.

I have only known a few Iraqis in my life, my sister worked for Iran Air as a stewardess (yes that does give away her age a lot!) So I am no expert, however, most Iranians outside Iran seem to be very different to the Iranians inside Iran.

I give little credence to web site polls, I think we all know how easily a script can be written to hit these things through an anonymising proxy.

Akbar TL

I have had a good look for the poll you mention, but am unable to find it, could you give me a link to it please.

Here you go Bruce

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4192239.stm

or

http://globalnin.com/branchedsurvey/?surveyid=26&languageid=2

I noted this chatter here ;

http://peterdawson.typepad.com/blog/2005/01/black_operation.html

I think that Iran is the next pit stop.

Akbar

read the bottom of the page...

Total Votes: 11,416 Arabic: 1,890 | English: 6,741 | Spanish: 720 | Persian: 1,074 | Russian: 324 | Urdu: 276 | Hindi: 85 | Portuguese: 306 DISCLAIMER: Results are indicative and may not reflect public opinion

It seems strange that for every 2 English speaking people filling in this survey on and English website 1 Arabic/Persian person fills it in...

Other meaningless statistics 75% of Urdu speakers think the troops should get out right away and 82% think Iraq will abandon democracy.

I think that this shows that the results are unreliable at best and rigged at worst.

Sure Bruce, I didn't mean to suggest this poll was all facts. But (to me at least) a general sympathy for Americans is seen from the persian votes?

I totally agree with your point . look at different issues in Pakistan and Iran and then compare US policy with Iranian case and Pakistani case. For instance, lets look at refugees in Iran and Pakistan . More than 4,000,000 refugees mostly from Afghanistan are living in Iran and Pakistan almost has the same population of Afghan refugees. The international community is helping Pakistan each year nearly 800,000,000 $ but the amount that Iran is receiving from the international donors is nearly 10,000,000 $ . Although refugee's problems arise from an international conflict.

So I think self- interest is the main indicator of US policy around the world . It has nothing to do with human rights , democracy ,etc.

A number of related issues about Iran have been developed - not least by me (apologies for that) - over on http://www.omidyar.net/group/community-general/news/436/ but I wonder if it might be more helpful to try to keep this strand focused on the desirability of change through peaceful and diplomatic initiatives rather than the futility of invasion or bombs.

To that end, let me ask this oblique question.

Why is the Bush government focusing its rhetoric on Iran rather than - simple example - neighbouring Pakistan ?

Iran is targeted by the USA because it is claimed that the regime is seeking (quote) 'to develop a nuclear capability' - but in plain English this means that Iran does not have nuclear weapons.

Pakistan does have nuclear weapons and it has actively assisted in the proliferation of nuclear technology by passing nuclear secrets on to other countries.

Pakistan is also an Islamic nation but, unlike Iran, it is a military dictatorship. Although elections have been held since the military coup they were probably no closer to 'free and fair' elections than those held in Iran. Opposition parties in both countries would probably go along with that statement.

The Human Rights Watch reports on both Iran and Pakistan bear striking similarities. It is worth looking both up and comparing them. Not saying the human rights abuses are the same in either frequency or intensity but there are significant comparisons. But we hear little of human rights abuses in Pakistan and much of Iran. Why ?

Despite the rehetoric about Iran which suggests otherwise, neither Iran or Pakistan are 'closed societies'. International companies operate in both Iran and Pakistan. Even British Petroleum (BP) has returned to Iran.

Ah ! ........... petroleum !

Akbar TL said:

A few surgical strikes? Possible. Full blown invasion? Impossible. US simply does not have the resources to fight another full blown war while keeping 120K+ in Iraq and failing there every day.

Very true, Akbar, but that won't stop them. Reading the article in some detail, they may have some pipe-dream that Iranian opposition will somehow support whatever actions are taken. They are very mistaken about that.

Friends,

I am wondering if you are talking about the Iranian mass society or the Iranian intellectuals include journalists, writers, activists and Iranian movements for reform (such as Student Movement, NGOs Movement, Youth Movement and Woman Movement.)

Let's start from the second group. There is no welcome to American invasion of Iran here . We are challenging for reforms but we don't want American army brings us it as a gift!We know US cases of humanitarian intervention in different countries and we are familiar with the real outcomes.

The approach of Iranian mass society is totally complicated. There is no clear picture of their next reaction. This mass society are not only taxi drivers in Tehran but also population who are living in the small cities and villages. For them a foreign country is a foreign country who is a stranger seeking for oil!

Regarding Iranian society who are living out side recently (January 31, 2005 )The National Iranian American Council released findings from a national letter writing campaign to President Bush on US-Iran relations, showing overwhelming opposition among Iranian Americans to U.S. military strikes against Iran. The findings also demonstrate strong support among the community for negotiations between the two countries as the best option for addressing current tensions.

Sahar, thank you for these insights - it seems that they also make the case for the rights of self-determination for the Iranian people rather than continued destabilisation of the country by the USA.

Please do correct me if this interpretation is either wrong or misleading.

John,

Self-determination is a right of individuals and nations under UN Charter but it has nothing to do with foreign intervention. There is another concept that called "Humanitarian Intervention" but to implement HI, there should be a specific situation. Unfortunately, history proves that all of cases on HI weren't because of humanitarian goals but mostly they were because of self-interest of the foreign countries.

Any way,I think it is a right of Iranian society to exercise self-determination if they want but through the local mechanisms. There is no way to legitimize self-determination by US army!

Sahar, that's what I said ! :)

During the latter stages of the Cold War, one of the key stated principles of Western diplomacy and propoganda was the right of peoples and nations to self-determination.

In practice, this normally translated to mean the right of nations to determine their future without Soviet interference.

I was merely asserting the sovereign right of the Iranian people to determine their own future without direct interference in their internal affairs by the USA.

Matters of concern to the wider international community are always best addressed through direct diplomatic negotiations - not belligerent threats.

We should therefore all give very vocal support to the talks currently taking place between the European Union and Iran and continue to respect the sovereign rights of the Iranian people.

And while the USA is banging on about Iran...... The Washington Post reports that : North Korea ...announced for the first time that it has nuclear arms and rejected moves to restart disarmament talks anytime soon, saying it needs the weapons as protection against an increasingly hostile United States.

Well, during the Cold War we were always told that nuclear weapons were only intended to act as a deterrent.

Will the USA now be diverted from Iran or deterred by North Korea ?

And whilst the USA still keeps tactical nuclear weapons in Europe that could well be targeted on Iran (if required) we might also ask if this provides an understandable motivation for acquiring a deterrent ?

A new report claiming that the USA still deploys some 480 nuclear weapons in Europe certainly won't ease the concerns of nervous politicians in Iran.

Full story on: http://www.oneworld.net/external/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nrdc.org%2Fmedia%2FpressReleases%2F050209.asp

John,

Just like you I believe that negotiation is the only way to solve this conflict and European Union has a wonderful capacity to play more active role in the negotiation. Although, I think mostly EU talks behalf of the States's interests.

You know my problem is since US believes itself as a superpower, as an international leader, it wants to apply its logic to whole of the world. This logic is really simple. The countries who accept State's leadership and power are friends , the countries who don't are hostile.I really have a big question. How we as people who wants peace can limit this free exercise of power by US.

I'm sure US, Great Britain, Israel, China, North Korea, Pakistan, etc are unclear arms not only for humanitarian goals but also for hostile goals. What's difference between Israel and Iran? Pakistan and Iran? This question is simple because its really true.

Of course, even with this official statement of North Korea US wont forget about Iran. They call Iran the eye of Middle-East. Just imagine Afghanistan , Iraq and Know Iran. The other countries in Middle-East are with States. Look at Saudi Arabia,There is no problem with them.Iran always has had a specific and strategic situation for States. This lovely situation is not only because of resources but also because of situation of Iran in the region.

There is a strong stereotype among Iranian mass society that all of policies, reforms, changes in political atmosphere even revolutions are happening by will of State and UK in Iran . It's a belief of normal people. You can hear it from people who are living in the villages.It's a stereotype but it can draw for you how US and UK interventions during the recent history of Iran have made a strong belief for people.

And...I'm so worry about my country. We are tired from war and revolution . We need reforms but bottom-up reform by Iranian people and we don't want democracy by US army.

I think Sahar and John are more in agreement than in disagreement. None of you want American intervention in Iran. (like 90% of the world)

One more step closer...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4261567.stm

Iran has stated very clearly that it's intentions are looking to the future, they see oil as a short term fuel and are planning ahead wanting their own technology and their own capability to develop and exploit energy from atomic power.

I don't see how we can deny them that right. The question is what draconian safeguards will be required to keep America from using it's military might to ensure it maintains its commercial advantage in these technologies.

Where did it say that the USA has the commercial advantage in nuclear technology ?

Russia is building the power station in Iran, Highly developed nuclear power programmes in the EU. China has nine nuclear power plants with two under construction .... the list goes on.

So where is the automatic commercial advantage to the USA in this particular field ? The USA has excluded themselves from some markets to prevent proliferation of weapons technology. It is other countries that have taken commercial advantage of this fact.

Wasn't that part of the excuse for the invasion of Iraq in the first place ? Saddam's development of WMD based on their nuclear power programme ?

Whether there is a sovereign right to develop nuclear power programmes is another matter altogether. Have we all now completely ditched our concerns about the long term environmental impact of nuclear plants ?