I am getting sick and tired of the USA making up stories and phony logic. To say Iran is a threat to the world when the only power to use a nuclear weapon and threaten other countries is the USA. If the US was surrounded by Iranian, or other countries missiles, bases, and Aircraft Battle Groups, we know what it's response would be. Yet this is exactly what the US is doing with Iran. The US history of meddling in Iran's affairs, and many other countries, over throwing democratically elected governments is well known. I am a 63 year old financier businessman who takes a keen interest in world affairs. Enough of the propoganda. Tell the truth; we can see through the lies.

Rolland Miller, Powell River, Canada

Dear Francis - A diplomatic triumph of the sort that lead directly to World War Two is not precisely what is called for in this case.

Dennis Burton, Seattle,

SAM J - A short history lesson - Iraq invaded Iran not the other way around...

Andy, Caterham, UK

---Dave Thomas-- there's the pot calling the kettle black!

Clinton, Utrecht, Netherlands

I have to agree with Sam J. A couple of years ago while I was in Kiev I was speaking to a German chappie who said we must have the EU to stop the US taking over the world!! i asked him what did he mean by "taking over the world". His reply was look at all the MacDonalds in Kiev. I asked him had he eaten a MacDonalds in Kiev. He said "Yes". I told him if people stopped eating MacDonalds they would go away. (There are after all plenty of good value eateries in Kiev) Personnally as a pro American I think MacDonalds are disgusting.
Still after 60+ years the Americans get it in the neck for arriving late into WW2 yet when they go in first they still get it in the neck. Damned if you don't damned if you do.

Steve Byrne, Christchurch, UK

Get your heads out of your behinds!! America is playing everyone once again. They are trying to control the area by setting up military bases in as many regions as possible, and they will go to no end to achieve this. The Israeli-US media machine is at it again. Weapons of Mass Destruction, you're having a laugh. How many times will the Americans do this before people learn and say no, we are not in the times of imperialistic barbarians, it is the 21 st century. Wake up people! Wake up!! War is only valid once you have been attacked. Preemptive George scares me.

Colin, Edmonton, Canada

"Anybody.. Give me one good damn reason why Iran should not have nuclear weapons?

Mohammed Jaffer, Dubai, U.A.E."


Err...Because Iran may use them. Would you give a ranting madman a gun? In case you have forgotten, the Iranian president has made a series of comments regarding his view of Israel. Whatever you think of that, I think not allowing weapons anywhere near Ahmadinejad is a good plan for the time being.

Richard Jack, Edinburgh, UK

The good damn reason Mohammad from Dubai asks for as to why Iran should not have nuclear weapons is that the current President has promised to wipe Israel off the map. That should be enough to make any human being oppose Iran’s plans.

If you need more reasons add the reality that Iran sponsors attacks on nations all over the world, even as far away as Argentina. Iran’s leadership has declared itself our enemy so many times even the EU might eventually notice their malice and hatred. You probably think the suitcase bombs will be reserved for Western cities Mohammad, they won’t. The ‘apostate’ Sunni regimes and city states are at risk from Iran’s madness just as we are.

Denial ain’t just a river in Eygpt.

tired and emotional, London, England

It is odd that the Continental Western European powers must be persuaded to help control Iran. When faced with an outrcy from miitant Islamists, the leaders of the Continental Western European powers routinely prostrate themselves at the feet of the Islamists and start publicly berating themselves about what they, the Europeans, have done to cause these Islamists to be so militant. As someone said, the winds of Munich (1938) have for some time been blowing across the power centers of Europe. These "leaders" then dismiss their cravenness as "sophisticated engagement." What they are ignoring is that if Iran develops a bomb, and the capacity to deliver it just a little further than they can now, Continental Europe will be at the mercy of the Iranians. And the Iranians are most willing to deliver a firm kick between the legs of Continental Western European leaders (for the males, it won't matter--none of Continental Western Europe's male leaders have anything there to damage anyway).

Terry Walker, Ladson, SC / USA

As a Brit I have always had a soft spot for America, without whom Europe would not be the Europe we know today. However, I find it increasingly difficult to support the current US. "Gang of Four" namely, Bush, Chaney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz who deceived the world with the pretence of "weapons of mass destruction" that started this sad chapter of American policy in Iraq. Little danger to the US. from Iraq existed, but perceived danger to a US. ally in the region orchestrated the current state of affairs. Any Iraqi danger to that ally has now been removed by the Iraqi invasion, while a great financial and human burden has been thrust upon the American people.
Is the same clandestine cabal that engineered the invasion of Iraq now setting a new course for the American people? Namely to remove the remaining perceived threat of Iran.
The old maxim that "The first casualty in any war is the truth" is once again proving to be true .

David Clark, Nanaimo, Canada

OK, Mohammed, here's one "good damn reason": because its culture embaces martyrdom..

Michael Grable, Silver Spring, MD

let's see - homophobia, anti-semitism, nazi-admiring in Iran - hmmm - I noticed quite a bit of these when I was last in the UK! - and they already HAVE nuclear weapons! have a great day!

henry laycock, kingston,

For better or worse, as a permanent member of the UNSC, the United States (along with Russia, China, France, and the UK) is permitted by the NPT to possess (and deploy) nuclear weapons. Iran is not. Comparing the two as legal and moral equals is intellectually dishonest.

Francesco Pazzi, Ottawa, Canada

Ken, Boston - you have invoked the mythology of Munich. 'Never appease - remember Munich!' Well, Munich wasn't the Alamo, and no appeasement took place at Munich. Adolf Hitler, never any fool, had laid a trap. He asked for Sudatenland (with a large German population) but really wanted all of Chechslovakia. So, the British government could accede to him taking it all, or they could go to war, and then he could take it all, while posing as a victim. Neville Chamberlain did the one thing he didn't expect - give him the pound of flesh, no more. And, get Hitler's signature on a treaty, which he showed to all the world. Then when Hitler violated that treaty, nobody (including a large proportion of the UK population) could then argue that they 'could do business' with Hitler. It is a shame that this triumph of diplomacy is now used to whip up mock heroic violence against men, women and children.

Francis King, Bath, UK

As an atheist from a Christian background, what are the reasons I might have for being concerned at the aspirations of the Iranian regime? Well, let's start with a list; there's homophobia, antisemitism/holocaust denying/ nazi admiring, intolerance of other faiths or those with an absence of faith who just belief in what they can see or can be proved, adherence to dogma set out in a lifestyle book written 1500 years ago for ignorant tribesmen (sic) and of course in the words of the late spiritual leader Khomenei, the view that women are defective creatures sent to tempt us pure chaps and who therefore should only ever be seen at home or in the maternity ward. Oh yes, one more. Support for those willing to kill in support of these views, even to the extent of using nuclear weapons. I think that's enough.

ian, bath, uk

An American attack on Iran would temporarily prevent Iran from attacking Israel. But there is no sign that Iran has immediate plans or the capability to do so.

But an American attack would certainly increase the resolve of the Iranian people, and other Muslim countries, to aquire NCB weapons to defend themselves against America. And make it vastly less likely that a more moderate govenment would take power in Iran. It would also trigger even more bloody civil war in Iraq..It could also bring down moderate governments across the muslim world, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi, etc

That is why talk of war is dangerous and unhelpful, really an indulgence by people who love war, or think they do (dobt many have seen a dead body)

America should defuse the Middle East, not pour oil on the fire. By ending its uncritical support for hawkish Israeli policies, by showing some understanding of what so angers Palestinians and by showing some understanding that not every muslim is a terrorist.

julian, london, uk

To Mohammed Jaffer- how about this for a reason: the oft-stated aim of President Ahmadinejad is to wipe the state of Israel off the face of the earth (also a nuclear-capable state). Is the start of a nuclear war a good enough reason for you?

Nick Green, London, UK

R. Bradley, France and the UK gave Israel its nuclear weapons. The United States had nothing to do with it.

evariste, Chicago, IL

Ahmedinijad did not say that Israel should be wiped off the map. He stated that the regime in Isreal, namely Zionism should be wiped off the map. There is a big difference but who cares because the media here will go on misquoting him because it serves the west's purpose.

jack , London, UK

If the U.S has nuclear weapons, why should they try to deny another country the freedom to develop their own defense.
Iraq Opinion: My opinion for the war in Iraq is that Iraq shot at U.S coalition planes that were patrolling the no fly zone. Weapons of mass destruction was just a cover story. I didn't think we needed any more justification other then they attacked us to go to war. Now finish it and get out.
You will never be able to have control of criminals in Iraq. We can't control criminals in the U.S.

Joe Reynolds, Bastrop, LA

Sam J - Chicago. Your history lesson is wrong. Sorry. Iraq, under Sadaam Hussein (a US puppet) invaded Iran. He intended to exploit the discord following the revolution. Iran was on the receiving end of, amongst other things, chemical weapons (the same ones we went into Iraq to destroy, and the same ones used on the Kurds). Many people in Britain are angry with the USA because we can see that most of the killing that the USA is doing is entirely counterproductive. During the Troubles in Northern Ireland, the British army completely outgunned the provos, but the provos could recruit enough people to maintain their front-line strength. Despite all the anti-IRA retoric, it was only negotiations based on a degree of mutual respect that resolved the situation into something that approaches normality. So it will be with Al Qaeda. Only a crass and unnatural brutality could force Al Qaeda to submit, and this level of violence is beyond almost all in the USA, including the Neo Cons. Thank God

Francis King, Bath, UK

Yes Iran has the Straight of Hormuz, but with it's population growing much faster than it's agricultural output, will the real battle be between the Combine Harvesters of the USA prairies, [ fuelled by Ethylene] or the wild threats of Iran?

DAVID VINTER, Louth, Lincs., UK

At last the Europeans have some leverage over the Americans - it's just a pity they're too weak to apply it.

The problem people have with America is it's blatant hypocrisy. They claim Iran having nukes wil shift the balance of power in the region (they're probably right) but are happy to shift it to their own advantage by giving nuclear weapons to Israel.

They demand that thrid world countries open up their markets, yet used protectionist measures to strengthen their fledgling economy to get to the point they are now, and continue to do so (online gaming for example)

It's understandable that America should want to protect its interests and its future, but this isn't the right way to do it.

Iran is also at fault here - grand standing to his people, the president has left himself little way out. Had he accepted enriched fuel from Russia for domestic energy use everyone would have been happy (ish), but very few people are going to be happy to see Iran enrich its own uranium.

The threats against Israel are just grand standing to keep the extremists in tow - Iran may build and threaten the use of a nuclear weapon, but Israel would be more than happy to become the third state to use a nuke in anger, and it would be rather more successful than Iran. The Iranians will be all too aware of that. If there's any "wiping off the face of the Earth" to be done, it'll be done by the Israelis.

R Bradley, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK

Maybe I can answer that. If things go wrong, and pre-emptive action against Iran ends up creating a power vacuum in a country that, unlike its neighbour, has all the infrastructure to create either real nuclear weapons or dirty bombs, then Europe will feel the consequences of that blunder long before the continental US does.

My beef is not with the general goals of US foreign policy (although the current administration appears to interpret them in a rather odious way), merely with a near 100% record of incompetent planning and execution.

Ian Kemmish, Biggleswade, UK

'Anybody.. Give me one good damn reason why Iran should not have nuclear weapons? Mohammed Jaffer, Dubai, U.A.E.'

Because, matey, their President is a crackpot messianic loon who awaits the Mahdi and has repeated threatened to destroy a nearby country. If Greece were pursuing nuclear weapons to wipe the UAE off the map, how would you feel about that? Hey, let them go ahead. What a great idea. I'm sure they don't mean it. Probably just rhetoric.

Why don't you get together with Phil from Essex and form some anti American hate group. Don't get too friendly though because they'd kill you in Iran for that.

Rob, Gloucestershire,

Phil from Essex - Short history lesson: Following Khomeini's return in 1979, Iran invaded Iraq on Sept 22nd, 1980 starting a war of attrition which lasted over six years and left over 1milion people dead on both sides and saw the use of both chemical and biologocal weapons of mass distruction.
Mohammed for Dubai - In recent years Iran has shown itself to be perfectly willing to meddle in the politics of its neighbors including its continued support of terrorist groups. Its stated aim of destroying both Isreal and the US are particularly worrisome, especially if Iran posseses nuclear weapons. Whatever you think of Isreal, they have shown admirable restraint in not using their nuclear deterrent despite being invaded on a number of occasions. Can you seriously suggest that Iran would have been as restrained if invaded by Isreal? The mere possibility of a nuclear exchange in the Middle East is unthinkable. The deaths alone would be catastrophic and as for global oil supplies!!!

Sam J, Chicago, USA

I understand the world's frustration with the U.S right now. We ar ebeing led by the worst president the country has ever know. And The administrations' foreign policy has been a disaster. I can only hope the next two years pass quickly. However, we should not kid ouselves. There is going to be another world war, and it is going to occur in the middle east. Remember the Munich Pact of 1938? That little deal showed that appeasement does not work. Iran must be dealt with strongly. I do not think the U.S should go to war with them. But I also don't think we can trust them to honor any deal we make concerning their nuclear program. If Iran were to obtain a nuke, the balance of power in the region would change in way that is bad not only for the U.S, but for Europe as well.

Ken, Boston, Massachusetts/USA

I just don't get it. It seems like the new British passtime....bash America at every opportunity. As a Brit living in the States, I must admit I find the whole thing absurd and extraordinarily churlish. If you want to stop America doing its thing, then hit it where it will hurt the most, in the pocket book. But no, we love the things America produces...breakthroughs in science, engineering, medicine and technology that keep us safe, well and comfortable, but we hate what it costs. America has paid in the lives of its children and the wealth of the nation for the relative peace, security and comfort we all now live in. Would you really want all that to go away. America has born the majority of the cost in lives and wealth for every major conflict since WW1. Where would Eurpoe, Bosnia and the Middle East have been today if America had not intervened in WWII, Kosovo and the Gulf War. America may be motivated by self interest but it is often the same interests that we hold dear. So shut up or put up!

Sam J, Chicago, USA

Who keeps saying they are going to write Israeli off the fact of the earth. If you think he means it, think again. If it happens it will effect you more than the United States. The leftist would get over ruled and we would open up for drilling all over. The pipe line in Alaska only got built because of the oil problems of 1973, a few leftist held that up for years proir. We have the Cubans going to drill not far off the American coast, in onternational waters,who esle to you think will be there. I can not beleive the change in the English in the forty years I have been gone. It's sad and many expats think the same 99%.

bernard michael ( Florida), delray, FL. U.S.A.

The one good reason for Iran not to have nuclear weapons is the fact that would use them. It amazes me in the US to read about Europeans head in the sand mentality regarding this matter. Iran is developing the capability of striking European cities with missiles. Remember you are infidels too!

Iran's economy is suffering from hyperinflation and must have high priced oil (over $60 per barrel) to float their economy. Also, alluded to in the article is that Iran has great difficulty refining oil (it costs them 9 times as much as other oil producing companies). If the price falls closer to $40 per barrel Iran's economy will suffer major problems. The mullahs will have to do something to avoid unrest.

Hence the key to stopping Iran's nuclear ambitions is to squeeze their economy.

Doug Deavers, Naples, Florida

To Mohammed Jaffer, who asks "Anybody.. Give me one good damn reason why Iran should not have nuclear weapons?"
Here's a good reason: Because President Ahmadinejad publicly stated that Israel should be "wiped off the map." Can we trust such a man not to press the big red button if he had one?

Stephen Grindle, London,

Mohammed Jaffer:Iran should not have nuclear weapons because its President has repeatedly stated a desire to annihilate Israel.I would much prefer no-one to have nuclear weapons, but I do not recall any of the other nuclear powers making similar threats.To Peter in Cov(entry?):The last invasion of a sovereign state was NOT by Germany during WWII. How about Uganda invading Tanzania in 1978, various countries invading DR Congo in the last decade, China' invasion and current occupation of Tibet, the USSR's invasions of Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968(9?), for example.Then to compare the USA with Tojo's Japan beggars belief! Please, if you are not sure of your facts or are hazy on certain periods of history, buy a book on the topic, or find a relevant web-site. Yes, America is imperfect by a long shot, but to act as if they are the personification of evil is frankly ignorant. Invasion of Iran is very bad idea, but that doesn't mean Iran's gov't is noble and righteous.

Simon, Bangor,

I am wondering exactly what evidence there is that Iran is actually trying to produce a nuclear weapon.

I am also wondering how many wars or invasions the Iranians have started over the last, say, 20 years compared to how many the US have started.

And, just to top it all off, I wonderd if people understood how little power the Iranian president has?

Please, lets not get involved in another avoidable war just because we haven't learned the lessons of the last one.

Phil, Esex, UK

Anybody.. Give me one good damn reason why Iran should not have nuclear weapons?

Mohammed Jaffer, Dubai, U.A.E.

How can America have any credibility as a peacemaker if it continues to ignore the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty by developing its own nuclear weapons as fast as it can ? Sooner or later America is going to run out of Oil and I can just see President Bush or his successor stating that it is unfair for other countries to monopolise the supply of oil, and that if they do not continue to supply the USA with cheap fuel then the USA "will have to take appropriate action". What we need is a new world order with the United Nations in control, not the USA.

Richard Turner, Harrogate, North Yorkshire

Dave Thomas of Shangri-La says:

"their vacuous culture that brought us two World Wars and the Holocaust in the last hundred years"

At the rate you're going, your foreign policy is going to result in World War 3. Irans sudden exacerbation of their desire for nuclear weapons is directly linked to Israeli nuclear armament and the US illegal invasion of Iraq (the last invasion of a sovereign state by another was the catalyst for WW2). Attacking Iran will only deepen distrust of US foreign policy, and turn moderate Muslim countries against you. The new US president must repair the damage immediately, or a West-Muslim war is more than likely. If the new President carries on along the same lines as Bush, the UK *must* break free from the Americans, because in ideologies and motivation, modern Americans are comparable to WW2 Japanese!

Pete, Cov,

Who is the most bellicose, Bush or Ahmadinejad? America’s military is but a sideline in a burgeoning economy, a nation that can support a massive range of technological and intellectual initiatives by virtue of its wealth, that has a stable and cosseted society enjoying the fruits of their labours, optimistic and busy. Then we have Ahmadinejad who chooses to use his nation’s wealth to threaten, imprecate, to play the role of the chauvinist, even more egotistical than the USA (whom many regard as over-inflated in their self-opinion). Ahmadinejad promises his people nothing through his posturing except the possibility of annihilation. The Iranian regime is masculine abrasiveness and conceit to the nth degree, nothing promotes such combative insensitivity more than a totally male dominated society. An educated society such as Iran's should have confidence in its long and spectacular history and have the gumption to study war no more.

Malcolm Turner, Alsager, England

Europe is a disgusting collection of hypocrits. They can't even defend what is left of their vacuous culture that brought us two World Wars and the Holocaust in the last hundred years.

Dave Thomas, Shangri-La,

I am wondering why the disparity in threat-perceptions between the US and European countries over Iran's seeming attempt to acquire nuclear weaponry. Europe is certainly closer, but US oil allies are too. Maybe the future war against the Moslems will be instead a war between the Moslems.

Rick Friedl, California City, USA

The USA has become the judge and the slasher of this world. The judge and the police. In their own country, they separate the judicial power from the executive power. They are separate so that President Bush can't be a dictator.
However, in its dealing with the other countries, we see that it has defied the whole world by not returning to the UN before invading Iraq. Now, they think they can do the same with Iran.

Hussain, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

going by the adage " it takes a thief to catch a thief " , i dont think the american approach is going to work. it wont work because it is only a matter of time before an american financial bigwig would show iran a path on how to deal with it. that is , if iran does not come up with a solution itself. so let the americans continue being thieves and let the champions of the palestinians , continue being heros.

marcel andronetti, rome, italy

May one ask why anyone should,apart from self interest, co-operate with America. This is a country that should be pariah for operating outside of International law

alan burden, mijas, spain

The USA always has it's own agenda, i.e preseving it's military and economic supremacy. (It is even trying to colonize space.) But of course each country has it's own foreign affairs policy.
The blahblah of the USA about war on terror and WMD serves nicely to blackmail other nations to follow USA demands.
But it is not doing anything to resolve the root cause - the Israel/Palestina conflict. On the contrary, it has consistently encouraged hawks in Israel.

Bill, Bristol, UK