It is an obvious move that the British had to make.Iran's influence was not at all at stake as a result of British troops presence in the city of Basra.It is imbeded in the local population and the move only confirms what has been true for years.
Obvious changes,strategic decisions on the part of pro-Iranian militias will be witnessed in the coming days.However,there is also a likelihood of USA making another blunder by insisting to see presence of american troops nearer than the airport.This, of course, will be a bigger blunder than the present Central and Northern Iraq's vulnerable American position.

MAHMOOD, LONDON, UK

Even supposing that, as you say, Iran is on the march. Isn't that a matter for Iran's Arab neighbours and, at an international level, the UN? What is the UN for it is helpless to exercise a restraining influence on countries like Iran? As far as the UK is concerned, the main lesson is how to come as close as possible to self-reliance on the question of energy - and that means atomic energy.

Armen, London,

That's great Larry, you managed to insult the british, tried to claim Winston Churchill as american, and draw a very shaky parallel between the Middle East situation and World War 2-all with out saying anything interesting and relevant at all.
The fact is Britain can't realistically stay on in Iraq much longer-public opinion is against it, the force is too small to do anything useful, the political situation is not improving fast enough, the casualties are mounting, the vast majority of the violence is against British Forces anyway and the army urgently needs to recoup. The decision was taken to concentrate troops and effort in Afghanistan instead. I don't call that appeasement, and to do so is an insult to the hundreds of british dead and wounded. The americans ran the big picture-they have screwed up and we payed the price.

Comment, London, UK

When you Brits consider your greatest of leaders - Churchill.

Remember that he was half American and also remember that Neville Chamberlain the PM he replaced was 100% British and 100% appeaser.

No doubt Chamberlain still has many admirers. Lessons re-learned and re-learned and re-learned!

Larry , ATL, America

Spot on Jim but you're unlikely to hear the real story in the major Western press. There's a nice build up in the rhetoric against Iran. Deja vu...

neal, Gunnislake, UK

Has anybody noticed that whenever a team wins, the players on the team never quarrel as to whose fault it was that they won?

Louis R., Montreal , Canada

Have you not considered, Mr Beeston, that the invasion of Iran and the overthrow of the Shi'ite regime might just have been Bush's priority all along, with the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan merely being preparatory to this? After all, considering that the evidence for "Al Qaeda training camps" in Afghanistan seems to only come from the US military, what could have been the purpose for invading, other than to give access to Iran's Eastern frontier. And, did you not notice, that Bush could not wait for Blix to report on Iraq's WMD programme before invading, since there were no WMD's there at all. Blix might just have noticed this and reported it to the UN. Now why should the British army remain in Basra? Well, isn't it the only seaport in all of Iraq and Afghanistan? Notice also, that the IAEA are now reporting good progress with their inspections in Iran. Now we have reports of American plans to wipe out Iranian defences in three days. Have we been here before?

Jim Oliver, Leicester, England