Sports Calendar

Sanctions should merely be the first step. I would be surprised, and disappointed, if planning for the military option were not well under way. The starting point should be the heavy water facility at Arak. Since the facility is of no use for the type of reactors being built in Iran, its sole purpose can only be for the production of plutonium. Only a small amount, a few kilos, of plutonium is required to make a fission weapon, less for a "dirty" conventional bomb. Iran's nuclear programme must be halted at any cost. When they have a weapon it will be too late by far. Name and address withheld

Yes, I think it is important to keep the pressure on Iran. However I do appreciate how some feel that there are inconsistencies with the Western world's approach to the nuclear issue. The way Iran has isolated itself over the years though, along with its lack of transparency on its nuclear ambitions, is surely questionable. Whilst Iran's prime minister is insistent on extremist rhetoric the country will remain a tricky and challenging area. Sanctions are a possible answer but it is important that they punish the government from a foreign policy perspective rather than directly affecting the Iranian people. Nick Zakrzewski, Scarborough

No, simply because they will prove to be ineffective. You could say let's at least be a little even-handed and threaten sanctions against India and Pakistan as well. A certain hypocrisy strikes me here, as does the West's handling of the Middle East generally. A fairer approach to the Israel/Palestine problem in particular would certainly help. Nobody want's to see Iran become a nuclear power but it's probably already too late short of military strikes and even then the outcome is far from clear. Peter Rainbow, Gillingham

I think the UK has a right to be worried that a state ruled by a man who sees wiping out the infidels (ie, most Britons) as a way to bring about the Second Coming is about to get nuclear weapons. If sanctions might work (and thus save infidel British lives) I think we infidels ought to seriously consider them. Inna Tysoe, Sacramento, California

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad comes across to me a very clever politician. It costs him nothing to say he will wipe IsIsraelirom the face of the Earth. He knows, however, that it will wind up the pro-Israeli Neo Cons at the White House, and that they in turn will drive President GW Bush even more crazy. Michael Blatchford, Bath

"The actions of a state can unintentionally reduce the stability of another state. This state often then acts to reduce the security of the first state. A whirlpool of distrust emerges that even the most skilled politician finds it hard to exextricateimself from." This is written in Chapter 1 of a book I am reading - its about the Cold War - but doesn't it sound familiar? The West has learnt nothing from history and how to deal with rival views of the world, other than with force and inept posturing. Alastair Hill, Newcastle

Iran's case should certainly be referred to the UN but only if the following steps are taken first: 1. Place NPT non-signatory rogue states Israel, India and Pakistan under strict economic quarantine backed by threats of military intervention including the deployment of the Pentagon's latest "bunker buster" nuclear-tipped ordnance. 2. Send the records of all NPT members with nuclear arsenals to the UN for having failed to abide by Article VI of the treaty, ie, not taking steps "at an early date" to reduce and destroy such weapons. 3. Introduce special punitive measures against states that since the ratification of the NPT in 1970 have not only retained their nuclear weapons but have developed deadlier versions. Once these issues have been resolved, the UN should turn its attention to the nuclear power station currently under construction in Bushehr to determine whether its completion and other aspects of Iran's nuclear programme would circumvent any provisions of the NPT. Kewmars Bozorgmehr, London

The proliferation of nuclear weapons and the possibility that such devastating potential will fall into the hands of terrorists is frightening. During the Cold War, it was demonstrated that intelligent, responsible governments - who had access to such weaponry and an awareness of the consequences should they use them - could act with restraint. Would you classify Iran as an intelligent, responsible government? Can you guarantee that with the knowledge and facilities to construct a weapon of mass destruction, Iran will not strike at Israel or a neighbouring country? If you can, then go ahead and rule out the use of force against Iran. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad doesn't strike me as the sort of person to settle matters diplomatically once his scientists and engineers have provided an opportunity to destroy the Jewish State. Keith Downer, London

Yes. Fly a bomber across and drop Jack Straw on them. They'll be begging for mercy - I know I am. Derek Sinclair, Dundee

Please complete the form below and your contribution will be considered for publication. Please restrict your response to 250 words. It may be necessary to edit your comments. Please include your name, town/county/state of residence and e-mail.