It is very sad and shameful to see a British PM join the European leaders in distancing themselves from the war on terror. Islamofascists would grow in strength when they see the European leaders cowering. European leaders, including Blair, hope that the Islamofascists would concentrate their fire on others now that they have submitted like slaves to Islam. A prey, that turns its back and runs from the predator, would simply increase the interest of the predator. Thus, instead of relieving pressure from the Islamofascists, Britain would suffer increased Islamic terror.

Hyder Ali, London, UK

I cannot believe the hand wringing apologists such as Colin of Pontivy.......... diplomacy with the Iranian theocracy, Humm, is he kidding?

Graham, Sydney, NSW

The solution to greatest foreign policy issues that the US faces today lies in the mindset of the US policy making establishment. The President is merely its manifestation. Thus the problems of US relations with Putin, Iran and Palestine could all be put on the right path to a solution if the US government decides to give some value to the needs of these adversaries.All the adversaries are seeking a basic rights to their dignity.It is true that their dignity manifests itself differently. This is quite natural because all of them have different goals. But taking their dignity into consideration would require the US to enter into a serious dialogue with all of them. A clear message along these lines supported by actual moves towards dialogue will immediately defuse many of the tensions that the world is experiencing today.

Kamaljit Sood, London, UK

The ones who could easiest end this was are our own soldiers. They should have the courage of Watada to do the right thing--refuse illegal and immoral orders and just defect en masse. Because what if they had a war and no one came? They have the power. But do they have the courage?

Margaret Just, San Juan Capistrano, CA

Why have no state officials--and few media analysts-- proposed a "weapons of mass destruction free zone" in the Middle East as an alternative, diplomatic solution to the problem/question of Iranian nuclear weapons. It's well known that Israel already has them--between one and two hundred. There are also serious concerns about Israeli biological and chemical weapons activities at its highly secret Ness Ziona facility. Both Egypt and Israel on various occasions have proposed weapons of mass destruction free zones in the Middle East. In fact, under Egyptian influence, this concept was incorporated into UN Security Council Resolution 687 on the disarmament of Iraq.

This is the right time--and an urgent time--to follow up on Res. 687 and propose a conference on nuclear, chemical, and biological disarmament for all Middle Eastern states. Most of them would likely welcome the idea.

Susan Wright, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA

The American people tried to tell the Bush administration to "wise up" and look where it got us. We marched in the streets and no one, including the American media, listened. Dave, it's easy to tell the young people to speak out; chances are, they won't be heard.

Isabel, San Francisco, CA, USA

This, my freinds, is humanity. Let the bombs fall where they may.

James, Chicago, il.

It's about time we took another line with Iran, how about real engagement, we should encourage their nuclear POWER programme and help them achieve their stated aims of generating electricity. Engagement and displaying trust in this way should surely help us ensure that they do not feel threatened by the West and actually weaken the arguments of any "hawks" within the Iranian Govt.

Alan, Morpeth, England

The Iran question is in the hands of the rulers of Iran themselves. For a nation's President to threaten another nation with destruction (Israel), is provocation in the extreme. Given Israel and the Jewish people's recent history, Iran's President is walking on very thin ice indeed. I hope more balanced Iranian politicians convince Iran's misguided President despot that threats like these don't do anyone, least of all Iranians themselves, any good at all. Young people in Iran need to tell their elders to wise up - and soon.

Dave Alan, Worthing, UK

I sure hope you brits have plenty o' "crocodile chow" on hand to feed the crocs...iran considers britain as bad as the usa only much, much closer...CHOMP!!!

Gary Emerson, St. Charles, MO. USA

It's interesting to consider how the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan have given U.S. war planners open air corridors on both the east and west sides of Iran. Unchallenged overflight is a great tactical advantage for surprise and greatly increases the possible directions from which air strikes on Iran may originate. If U.S. air bases within Iraq and Afghanistan were utilized, a cruise missile / bomber strike could be off the ground and over targets inside Iran in a matter of minutes with sorties originating from multiple directions. Less time in the air equals less time for detection and even less for reaction on the ground. More directions equals more confusion.

To suggest that G.W.Bush didn't have Iran on his mind when he made the case to invade Iraq is a bit self-deceiving, I'd say. Iran has been the real rogue element in the Middle East for years. In my opinion, Iraq and Afghanistan are simply side shows, pretexts for establishing beachheads and precursors to the main event.

Thomas, Atlanta, GA, USA

And how would you stop them, Mr. Parker?

keith Hudson, philadelphia, usa

We should be thankful, whatever his motivation, that Blair shows signs of revulsion at this insane US-Israeli led belligerence in the Middle East. They lied about WMD in Iraq and nearly three-quarters of a million people have died so far, with more to follow. The Western press keeps accusing the Iranian President of wishing to wipe Israel off the map - something he never said or implied. There is no hard evidence that the Iranian regime is directly or deliberately supporting Iraqi insurgents. A nauseatingly hypocritical accusation in any case, when coming from an invading aggressor who has devastated the country with the world's largest arsenal. The press has completely turned against Putin in recent months because he is opposed to attacking Iraq and Iran. We keep harping on about Iran breaking "International" directives. Israel flaunted the non-proliferation treaty and has nuclear warheads aimed at civilian Arab targets (and who knows what else?) all over the Middle East. Israel has also broken and defied more UN injunctions than all the Arab states put together. I don't recall the US ever attacking them.

The real question is how is it possible that the western democracies can be fed such a homogenous and cynical stream of disinformation? I wonder.

Clements, Prague, Czech Republic

Another blair sound byte saying whatever he thinks people want to hear.As tone will be thankfully gone soon surely deputy fuhrer browns position on this issue would be welcomed at this time.Then again he may not of received his sealed orders from bush yet? Any military action against iran would be a total folly which would just fuel every anti u.s group around the world,what happened to the hearts and minds approach ,namely diplomacy.

colin, pontivy, france

There is only one question to answer by anyone writing about Iran and nuclear power.

If it was your sole decision would you let them have it?

YES or NO.

Robert Parker, Leamington Spa, England

True, Bush is considering armed conflict against Iran. But let us come up to speed on the new world order... China is the new counterweight to America, the USA is on its way out, recession, inflation, and poverty plauge the streets of America's largest cities. USA will not strike agains Iran b/c deterance still works! and USA, just like Iraq war, is off side...BIgtime. Just a Ahbad's man said last week, "If America likes, Iran can make the Persian Gulf its tomb." True, everyone wants peace, Iran has RIGHT to deliver energy to the people, so they can have nice life too, why America so insecure all the time? Forget all this greedy war business and start caring for all people and the earth.

Richard Ali Muhumad- just a regular guy

Richard Ali Muhumad, washington, dc

There will never be peace in the Middle East until America gets back it's independence from the Israel lobby.

Frank Ash, Nottingham, UK

Otto Zeit - I totally agree. Its too little, too late from Blair. But it is better than nothing. Personally Im amazed after years of pathetic poodling from Blair that hes finally got a voice of his own. But to all those who say the thought of a nuclear armed Iran is too dangerous - we already have a nuclear armed north korea, and it doesnt get more dangerous than that. But the most dangerous thing in the world right now Bush. Overwhelming firepower combined with absolute incompetence. I personally will feel far safer once this blood-thirsty fool has gone. What we need, at the end of the day, is peace.

luke, nottingham, uk

To Scott in WI
The US won WW2?
Oh how you American people live in such an insular little world of your own.
I suggest that you research your statement and apologise to the people of the world that exists outside of the USA. Yes that's correct, there is life outside of the US borders.

Rob, Scunthorpe, England

All this shadow government stuff is hilarious, spend some time on the ground in Iraq and figure out what you are talking about. Islamic extremists will stop at nothing to destroy those who are not. You haven't seen their effects firsthand have you? They understand force, if you back down then, to them, you are weak and that much easier to destroy. People will create any kind of conspiracy to feel important, just spend some time on the ground, then you will understand who these people are we are fighting. Problem is we should operate under the SAME rules of engagement we did during WW2, let the democrats call all the WW2 vets war criminals, corner them on this, authorize the same ROE as WW2, fight the same, if you allow terrorists to operate from your house then you are a terrorist. Without this we will lose every war we fight against them, they know this, apparently a lot of Americans do not.

Riley Donoho, Fort Smith, AR

The most dangerous loose cannon in the world is Mr Bush himself. This is why countries such as Iran feel the real need to arm themselves. If American aggressor policies do not bring Armaggedon in the near future, then their industrial pollution will do so in the not too distant future. I just hope that my American wife does not read this as the hostilities may spead towards the UK too!

Rob, Scunthorpe, England

"Why should the Bush Admin. willingly castrate itself of one of it's most important powers?"

Err, possibly because it doesn't work as the Afghanistan and Iraq experiences have shown beyond any reasonable doubt?

Petros, London, UK

First thing to do if you are in a hole - Stop digging

Taken Tony Blair several years to work that one out but finally he may have got there.

Funny the number of US based hawks commenting so far. Must be Bush sponsored.

Pete, Edinburgh,

I have a number of Iranian friends, and I know English ex-pats living in Iran quite happily, and so can vouch for Iranians being generally kind, warm, educated people; they’re not these blood thirsty fanatics that some people suppose them to be. The bellicose rhetoric used by the American Hawks and some members of the Iranian Government, Ahmadinejad included, causes a set back in diplomatic relations; and as importantly, cause to fuel animosity between the public on both sides. Perhaps Americans can start by being civil and then Ahmadinejad will, perhaps, stop blurting out preposterous lies about the holocaust.

Another thing: taking pre-emptive action against a remote possibility of a threat, at the risk of creating an even bigger fiasco (civil war) in the Middle East is a prospect that scares me; it hasn’t exactly worked in Iraq: the world is more dangerous now than before removing Saddam.

James Broughton, Daegu, South Korea

The Iranian President has recently encountered growing discontent among the Iranian public, and it is likely that he will not be re-elected (yes, Iran IS a democracy). Even so, he is pushing ahead and building nuclear "equipment" in opposition of international opinion.

George Bush wont be re-elected, and has hundreds of millions of Americans against his foreign policy. Yet he still pushes ahead and wants military action agasint Iran, also against international opinion.

It seems that this is a war between two pompous, arrogant fascist, and the American and Iranian citizens will be the only ones to lose out.

Democracy is fine, but it is only fine when the leaders believe in democracy themselves. Bush, and Mahmoud are modren fascists.

Pete, Cov,

I wonder if America could help Iran , rather to wage war against them. PLEASE dont go in to war wiht Iran.

sammuel brown, Darmstadt, Germany / Hessen

Cormac, it appears that Mr. Hussein earned your respect. I guess it must take much for you to lose your respect for a person since using chemical weapons and murdering hundreds of thousands of people doesn't seem to matter to you.

Tim, Minneapolis, MN

Doug Dover Oh, The U.S was asked By Churchill to assist in the World war 2 and President Roosevelt refused any assistance, even though Canada's McKenzie King Prime minister also asked on behalf of Britain and again it was refused, so Mr Doug you should choke on your words.
Infact it was the bombing of Pearl Harbour that awoke the U.S to get involved.

tomm1e, Chilliwack, Canada

Seeing this Big America so close to home and so threatening, if I were an Iranian, I would be very much in favor of nuclear enrichment. And I understand they don’t want to be bullied by this mess of an Administration. But I agree Iran may be a real concern for all of us, and the United-States are surly right about this threat, but the dealing is so wrong: next time please, choose a smart president, not so pigheaded and arrogant, maybe he will handle things better.
One last thing Justin: you might be right about Europe not facing ‘evil’ and a little backward, but look at what you, Americans, gain with your meddling: more anti-Americanism, more resentment, more terrorism… more trouble everywhere. You should be more careful because, backward Europe is one small thing compared to what is expecting in years to come: outraged Muslim countries, a re-rising Russia, and a fast-rising China… with their own interest. Watch your back.

Mathurine, Reims, France

Forget you political viewpoint for a minute and think. Can everyone agree Iran is obtaining nuclear weapons? Can we agree they will use them, or threaten the region and most of the worlds oil? Do you believe they can ever be "negotiated" with to stop this from happening? What do we negotiate with?

Michael Fassler, Carnation, United States, Washington

The US will undoubtedly attack Iran but first they will engineer a terrorist attack on US soil (just like 9/11) and blame it on Iran.

Andrew, Paris,

Appeasing has never worked in the past. This sound just like when the United Kingdom and other European powers appeased Hitler when they allowed him to "annex" Austria and the Sutterland of Czechoslvakia. A nucelar attack against the U.S. or Israel will be just like Pearl Harbour. It will draw us into a war. We could stop this right now before they get nuclear weapons by bombing their weapon factories, nuclear powerplants and facilities, and military bases.

John Doe, Dallas, Texas

how many wars before the paranoid bushies stop? ah yes. the money to be made with war. i'm keeping my fingers crossed that a real opposition is forming in the goverment to keep the president and his disciples in check. despicable, warmongering freaks.

david jones, Chicago, USA

The same special interest group that got us into Iraq, is now trying to get us intyo Iran. Unfortunately, they are the best organized and finananced American special interest group in the U.S. That is of course, the American Jewish Lobby, representing Israel.

Jason Warden, San Rafael, CA

Before taking on Iran over nuclear weapons, the US should insist that Israel come clean on its nuclear weapons program but coming to think of it, why would the Bush administration do that? Their entire policy in the ME is an extension of Israeli foreign policy. In fact, Israel is the largest recipient of US foreign aid.

peter bleach, Chicago, USA

Well done. A good article. We are left with the statements in the first 3-page website Newsweek exit exclusive on Blair: according to his aides, "Privately, Blair encouraged Bush to use the intelligence British troops in Basra had collected on Iranian-made weapons in order to confront Tehran. (Their foreign-policy teams had been discussing such a 'pushback' strategy since the summer war in Lebanon.) 'We tried to fashion a more coherent and tougher policy based on the Iran that we were seeing, which was a more regionally assertive Iran,' says one of the Blair advisers." In the second, 4-page, version, this material disappeared. So how do we account for the mutation to the position explained here in this thoughtful article? You might ask Newsweek Terror Watch, but not accepting that collation of documents has any value, Americans tend to sleep if you mention it. Sir Peter Stothard has suggested to me that a deep analysis of all the versions of the text would be in order. I agree implicitly.

Clayton Burns, Vancouver, Canada

Either the West faces down Iran now or in 2 years when this extremist theocracy will have its first nuclear weapons.

Malcolm Curd, Ayr, UK

Having just written concerning Iran and Iraq, then turning to another headline that reads "US concerned over China build-up, I feel compelled to wonder aloud: Will China be next on America's list 'Evil Empire' nations?" No doubt the world community should prepare itself for a buildup of US warships in the seas around China.

The militarism of the US makes the militarism of all other militaristic states, both past and present, pale in comparison.

Tatiana, Moscow, Russia

We are right back to what the world faced in the sixties with Kennedy and Russia, only the stakes are manified by so much more. How can we continue to allow Cheny to take the world to the brink of a nuclear horror. It is time to demand accurate media reporting, accurate information from the government ; with over sight and hearings. After watching the news last week I am horrifed at the depth of reporting. I actually watched faux news to see if they would report about Walter Reed and the humiliating treatment to our dis honored troops by this government and I can not say for sure between the astronaut, Anna Nichol, and Brittany Spears but I do not think they reported one word. Media is a true right wing propaganda resourse and if you have any intellectual or brain matter left you must know that something is terribly wrong!

mary, carpinteria, ca

So you`d all sleep well in your beds at night knowing that Iran (the country that "invented" suicide bombers) had nukes? By diplomacy or war, it simply can`t happen.

Adam, london,

Yes, I agree with the hawks on this message board. War is the answer to the Iranian question. That path had great benefits in Iraq and Afghanistan . . . oops, silly me! I forgot that Iraq is now in a civil war and the Taliban and al-Qaeda are rebuilding their strongholds. But hey, George and Dick have all the answers!

Al, Seattle, WA

I completely agree with Jeff Brown,
glad to see some Americans are actually thinking for themselves.
As for Ken,Waxhaw, if the USA stopped backing Israel in its violation of International agreements this wouldn't be happening, it's very convenient to bring up that argument at times and then forget it at other moments...

Jonathan, Rennes, France

After the mess-up in Iraq, heaven help us if Bush does the same in Iran! America is quite a dangerous country if you think about it. If they had a clear plan in Iraq for what happens after the bombing it would be more reassuring.
But they messed up big time. Hopeless, and as usual us Brits are left with a dangerous situation for our troops.

Also, America usually ends up killing innocent civilians , women and children in their thousands without apparently worrying about it. This is totally unacceptable behaviour.

Martin, London, UK

The USA would possibly destroy Iran in order to preserve the state of Israel. Would it be correct to assume that 7 or 8 million poeple in Israel are more valuable than 75 million in Iran?. Are we to understand that each citizen of Israel is worth ten Iranians in the American sceheme of things?.

Piggy Kruger, bridgwater, somerset, UK

Its all fine and good to sit back and advocate a thoughtful and civilized reaction to Iranian atom rattling, but what studious and peace loving westerners fail to see again and again is that Iran and the moslem "experience" is something totally foreign to anything that westerners can understand. Imagine, if you will, that you have been in serious behavior modification (not just brain washing, but brain building) since you were old enough to understand the language - being told again and again that your mother,delightful as she might be, is evil and you must kill her at the 1st opportunity beyond your 15th birthday. At 15, plus one second, you will kill her. Moslem brains are similarly brain built since toddling age, with regard to Westerners and particularly Jews. If Islam/Iran ever attains the upper hand via substantial weaponry, you will die, Westerners. And as you draw your last breath, you will not understand why because you cannot understand. Iran cannot have nukes.

Fred Little, Pendergrass, GA , USA

The only thing that would be more stupid than invading a country under the pretext that it had WMDs and essentially turning it in to a hotbed for terrorists, would be to invade a country that actually does have WMDs, or at the very least a significant amount of refined uranium and end up with a similar situation to that in Iraq.

Rich, Newmarket, UK

Most of you the comments thus far represent sincere but ignorant viewpoints. The world is still a mess after the first World War and it's Paris conference aftermath. When is it going to get set right and how? Blaming Bush and Blair for all the world's ills solves NOTHING! I am guessing most of you want another 9/11 in the USA to punish us for Bush's policies, go ahead and stick your heads back in the sand...

Aldo, Beverly Hills, USA

It's time for the US, UK (and others) to let the Middle East be, Iran has changed tremendously since 1979, the hard-liners are loosing grip on their people and a change is coming.

The US should be the last country to go "help" Iran after what they did in 1978-9, Iranians had to struggle since then because of them, went through a horrible war against Iraq (dirty war that the UN let happened) and had to suffer the consequences of an Islamic state. Having the US telling them what to do would be worst in their eyes than having a new Khomeini (close anyway).

I think people are wrong when they say "America has no history (comparing them to older civilisation)", the main problem is that they don't learn from history and repeat the same mistakes (some of them on purpose I'm sure).

Antoine, London, UK

Hey Piled high. and Deep in Hawaii, go back to your beach and leave this to the people who really understand the threat! Chamberlin believed Hitler when he said "we are friends". Do you really believe that the US is making president Tom in Iran say that Isreal will cease to exist? Read Islam ,What the West Needs to Know, or another Ph.D and former Muslim, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam and then post your response about the 9/11 conspiracy! Your Ph.D will buy you a noose in Tehran!

Mark White, Montana,

Yes, let's invade everyone where having trouble with. It worked so well in Iraq, why not all those countries. I don't think anyone would see that as prejudice at all either. Then the motivation for more insurgents and more terrorism would be difiantly be lessened.

Bob, Arlington, USA, VA

Yea, sad deal that America has these warmongering idiots in charge of the government, and a populance that has to be one of the most ignorant of the western nations.

Bob , Baltimore,

Does anyone ever talk about what needs to be done with Iran as opposed to what the U.S. shouldnt do? Doesnt this kind of reasoning ever get old for you america haters?

JP, los angeles, USA

We are not going to be able to bully this issue to rest. It is our imperialistic agenda that makes the U.S. a target, and unless we hit this problem at the root, Iranians and other Islamic groups are going to find any means necessary to attack our integrity. The only way to resolve this conflict is through mutual understanding, not strong-arming.

Caputo, Suffolk, VA

"Can we sat in our comfy homes see Iranian warships in the English channel?" No, but if you try hard enough you just might be able to imagine the effects of a radiological device provided by Iran's uranium enrichment program detonated in London by Iran-sponsored jihadists. My God, what naivete...

Paul Kelley, Columbia, SC, USA

"Americans are hell bent on world war 3. They want to take away control of oil supplies from OPEC so major US corporations control the global economy, charging as much as they want for oil."

Yeah. And we crashed planes into our own buildings 6 years ago. And the CIA invented the AIDS virus. And we're the ones behind those crop circles...

Grow up. If it weren't for the big bad USA you'd be posting your comments in German.

Rob, Asbury Park, NJ USA

The US might be happy to step back if we didn't believe we'd ultimately need to come to Europe's rescue--again.

Terri, Fernley, Nevada

The most unstable country in that region with hell of aresenal is Pakistan with missiles that are already operational and has Al-Qeda and ultra right Jihadists in the Military.

Days of warmongering are over, planet can not sustain it anymore.

Alex, LA, USA

The simple fact is that the USA is in grave danger of getting into a hugely damaging war which may well , in the longer term, hurt it and the West far more than it does Iran. The Iranians showed a capacity for huge suffering and casualties in the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq War and can only be expected to hit back against their enemies in any way possible. Efforts should be being made to help dissidents who can profit from the incompetence of Ahmedinejad in running Iran's economy and foreign policy. The West should seek to appear strong while at the same time trying to split the ruling elites of Iran. If the US or/and Israel attack, Russia and China will feed their latest weapons to Iran and will be very keen to see success with what has already been supplied to their ally. This could all spiral out of control faster than most people imagine.

Sebastian, Oxford, UK

It is high time to neutralise Iran. But who is going to do that? No body. Not even George Bush. Because his hands are tied down. The American public were foolish in voting the Democrates (who have no guts to take any action against threats posed by Iran) to power in Congress and Senate.

Iran will neutralise the West unless it acts right now.

Deva, mumbai, india

western europe doesnt care about israel anyways. Its just an extention of the masked antisemetism in europe. The europeans have a brillant way of dealing with their racism and hatred for anyone not european(especially americans and blacks), they just ignore it. The only way you can get the europeans to take action is to threaten paris or munich or rotterdam or any other big city in europe. In fact, the europeans say they dont like america and our policies. When in reality they are all secretly glad that we are dealing with all this stuff. They thumb their noses at us, yet if it werent for the u.s. speanding in excess of $100 billion a year on securing the world, then the rest of the european countries would have to fit the bill. I think in europe they say why speand our money and blood when we got the americans to do it for us. If this is the case, a little gratitude would be nice. Not for me, but for the thousands of soldiers and citezens we've lost to defend freedom in the world.

terrence, washington d.c.,

The impeachment should be of Vice President Cheney. Then we could get a new puppeteer to control the strings over the current occupant of the WH.

James M Campbell, St. Paul, MN

To Craig in Bowling Green; People can call Bush whatever they want and just calling him "Mr. Bush" is probably the kindest thing anybody could possibly call him at this point considering the myriad of other less shiny words.

Scott, Milwaukee, USA

I agree with many of the comments, especially the need for Europeans to form a closer EU bond to give balance to US administrations such as the one we are saddled with now. Since the demise of the Soviet Union, there has been no checks or balances to the US's actions. I look forward to a stronger EU for the World's sake. The US does not have a lock on knowing what is best for all concerned (including ourselves!).

Mike, Washington, DC, USA

He is only an American President and his title is technically informal and we have no obligation to be called that. If a British journalist refers to him as Mr. Bush, then it is his right to. If you choose to call him President Bush, it is your choice. Personally I think the article points out much more substantive issues than the choice of name the author uses. Finally, respect is earned and I think Mr. Bush has lost any respect most people in this country may have considered him to have.

Mark Leiser, glasgow, UK

As one of your commentors wrote "Was it worth the cost"?

We don't even know what the cost is yet...yes we can see that the human toll is astounding indeed but the radical terrorists are saying that they are are gonna "wipe ALL infidels off the face of the globe" that is a glimpse into what we are facing with our future.

I say put everything on hold and deal with this at once lest we see a human death toll beyond anyones imagination especially when the radical jihadists see heaven as thier goal. They are dead serious while we banter about whos right and whos wrong.

Watch out the storm flags are flying high for everyone that calls planet earth home.

God help us all.

W. Santos, carlsbad, usa-ca

America is having problems in Iraq - how can they start an invasion of Iran? No doubt, we will leave this to the nation of Israel to resolve?

Jackson, Jackson Hole, USA

I find it a bit discrediting to read the comments from people all around the world who continue to cite the brainwashing influence of the American media (and it's profiting? thank you Chomsky conspiracist), yet fail to consider the brainwashing influence of their own home media. It would be nice for the people always pointing fingers at America to reflect on the fact that maybe, just maybe, they could be also be receiving twisted information by their own media. If you've ever heard the Bob Dylan song, "With God On Our Side," many of these posts represent the exact hypocrisy he so intelligently recognized during his time. Basically, these viewpoints must exist on a two way street, open for discussion, and simply dismissing someone's contrary idea is a terrible way to gain respect for your own ideas.

Guy Madison, St. Paul/ MN, UDA

I say that we, Americans, give them what they all want; we should pull out of Iraq, Iran, Europe and the rest of the world and bring all of the troops home and put them on bases on the borders of Mexico and Canada. Once we have brought all of the troops home we can then withdraw from the UN and kick the little frenchies out of our country. Once that is done we also withdraw from NATO which is also becoming another UN. Once we have done this we then make an international announcement that the only place that the US will defend is our home land. If someone attacks us we will not send troops to beat them down and be humane about it; no we will simply bomb them back to the stone age and if necessary send a few nukes over to finsh the job completely. If someone like Iran or even Russia attacks or takes over another country, oh well...you can defend yourself and if not, to bad. I think I like the names Western and Eastern Russia instead of the European Union.

Dan, Charlotte, NC

The most laughable development in the world is the concern Russia has over anti-misslie defense un Poland and the former soviet republics. Russia feeds Iran rockets and technology for nuclearization. The concern is about an unstable radical Iran. The simple explanation is that Putin could care less about western democracy or civilization. I've looked into this creeps eyes and saw KGB tatooed on his retinas.

John, Phoenix, USA/ AZ

It's interesting to consider how the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan have given U.S. military planners open air corridors on both the east and west sides of Iran. Unchallenged overflight is a great tactical advantage for surprise and greatly increases the possible directions from which air strikes on Iran may originate. If U.S. bases within Iraq and Afghanistan were utilized, a cruise missile / bomber strike could be off the ground and over targets inside Iran in a matter of minutes with sorties originating from multiple directions. Less time in the air equals less time for detection and then for reaction on the ground. More directions equals more confusion.

To suggest that G.W. Bush didn't have Iran on his mind when he made the case to invade Iraq is a bit self-deceiving, I'd say. Iran has been the real rogue element in the Middle East for years. In my opinion, Iraq and Afghanistan are simply side shows for establishing beachheads and precursors to the main event.

Tom Hopkins, Atlanta, GA, USA

the usa will either go the way of euorpe,or press full speed ahead with total victory in iraq,and the wacking oof iran,or my children and grandkids will suffer the consequences.

john carey, philadelphia, usa

You have to love the Internet where we can share our information and dis-information. I personally, would leave Iran alone. As far as 9/11, I'm sure I don't know the truth. I dislike hearing "it's my job" as justification for doing something that one would not do if "it wasn't my job." But, then, if you have a boss, a morgage payment, a car payment you better do what you are told, cow to some other wimp who is also, "just doing his job." Trash the BMW, live in a hovel, but be a man of courage. I can't do it, maybe you can.

ira rosensteel, mesa, az

How many times over the past 100 years have American come to the side of their friends and the oppressed? Now, again we face world oppression and it seems the free world doesn't care. What is it? Don't you ever learn? You don't buy freedom, you defend it.

Tom Giles, RECTOR, USA

This problem with Iran will not go away--it must be settled sooner rather than later---for the benefit of all humans on this planet.

Norman W. Earley, Huntsville, Alabama

Political Islam is more passionate and intolerant than Germany's national socialist ever dreamt of being. When one truly understands the threat they pose to democratic, or for that matter even European socialist values, it becomes a no brainer as to what needs to be done to eliminate this spread of religious totalitarianism. Europe, including Great Britain, is well on its way down the path towards Muslim and political Islamic domination. This is part of the pronounced goal of political Islam; a caliphat stretching from Great Britain, through Europe and on into Afghanistan and Asia. Hitler was not even so ambitious. Iran has been the driving force behind this extremist expansionism since the resurrection of radical political Islam during the Carter administration, when a weak American president failed to stand up to the Islamic facists. Unfortunately, the terrorism will happen even if we stand still and do nothing. This is the nature of facism - always. It is time to fight, me hardy's!

tony roumell, San Francisco, USA/California

Charles Schlott - yes we all remember. The Bush administration executed a covert job, blamed someone else, and started a war. If u think I'm wrong then explain the simple physics behind the impossibility of steel melting when aviation fuel has no where near the burn temp required to do it. Yet, somehow it melted. Bush ordered 9/11 and got away with murder. He should be jailed.

john doe, Springfield, USA

To Ed Ingle:

This American would be more than happy to remove all our
military bases from Europe. Why should we continue to fund the defense of a bunch of ungrateful cowards? In fact, we should pull our troops out of the Balkans now!

Don't come and cry for the Americans help when your appeasement policies and the spineless French leave you wearing a Burka.

Jim , USA,

The Brits don't know history. You can't appease a lunatic who is bent on genocide. Unfortunately, it's looking more and more like we will have to take some kind of military action against Iran. Better to do so before they have a nuclear arsenal. How many millions of lives could have been saved if the world had confronted Hitler in the 1930's instead of in the 1940's?

Jack, Los Angeles, CA,

Yes, military action is not the desired route. However, with the majority of the world (notably China and Russia refusing to join in imposing economic sanctions and continueing to bankroll and arm this rougue and dangerous regime )refusing to identify and meet this potentially great threat, what options are left. Unfortunately, diplomacy without "teeth", if you will, does not work with genocidal fanatics committed to killing as many of us as possible.

This is a war we are in---not an oil grab or a trigger happy president with an ax to grind. Like any war lives are lost and will continue to be lost. The security of the US is our Presidents prime directive and I sleep better at night knowing that we are riding out to meet evil rather than waiting for my (or my children's) plane, train or building to be blown up.
If ridding the world of terrorism, liberating millions and saving lives and making the world a better, safer place is not a worthy cause then we are all damned.

Steve Rogers, New York, NY,

The solution to IRAN and IRAQ are both the same, start pumping oil from ANWAR and the Gulf of Mexico. Then we can tell Europe and the Arabs to all go to hell.

Jim, Tucson, AZ

Having nuclear technology is Iranins right,I agree with the Iranian president who said if the west want them to abondon the enrichment first in order to resume the negotioations so the west also should do the same , I also beleive then the both parties would hold fair and just negotiations then

Mike, Birmingham, West Midlands

Please let me hear back from one Englishman, one French, one Spanish, and (ironic) one German:

"We will never ask The United States of America for protection or relief again."

Convince my people of that and we should agree to let you handle it yourselves. It would be great in my view.

Al Davis, League City, U.S.A., Texas

To an earlier comment: Just what in the world does Iran have to do with 9/11?
No, let's not forget 9/11. Never. But let's also make sure that the memory isn't employed by folsk hoping to mislead us into another disastrous foreign policy.

Malcolm, Milwaukee, US

Iran is one part of a an empire of radical Islam which is bent on world domination. Those who see the United States as overweening should ask themselves whether they would prefer to live in a world dominated by the U.S. or by the Ayotollahs and Imams -- because that is the choice on the horizon, whether they like it or not.

Ted, Palatka, FL

Let me get this straight, Europe does not believe there is a problem with Iran developing a nuclear weapon when Ahmadinejad has said Israel has no right to exist. Perhaps if he stated that Britain, France, etc. had no right to exist, Eurpoe may feel differently.

Jim, Pittsburgh,

As I understand, Iran has the legal right to produce nuclear fuel under the NPT. The issue is whether we should believe the Bush administration's claim that the Iranians are preparing to develop nuclear weapons or believe the Iranian's claim that the fuel is for peaceful purposes. Frankley with this administration's record of repeatedly lying to the American people, I tend to believe the Iranians, especially since we do not have any concrete evidence to the contrary.

masoud zarraby, Albuquerque, NM

Roger...please tell me you're not naive enough to believe that the French came to North America and helped us defeat you at Yorktown out of the goodness of their hearts and because of the rightness of our cause. You know damn well they came over to poke a finger into your imperialist eye and further weaken your hold on the continent you had "stolen" away from them.

On the other hand, Americans went to Europe (and many died) in order to liberate continental Europe and save your beseiged, fading island from years of goosestepping and David Hasselhoff-worship...all because it was the right thing to do. There was really nothing in it for them but "blood, toil, tears, and sweat." In fact, all the U.S. earned as plunder was the right to spend millions and millions of dollars worth of American taxpayers' money helping to rebuild Europe just so we could then spend billions and billions more protecting you from the Soviet bear.

At least you got the "incalculably heroic" part right...

Jim Quinn, Pittsburgh, PA

The idea that an invasion has to take place is a fallacy....there is a viable students movement that if armed and with air support could overthrow the mullahs...however the sanctions ARE working so this can be put off a good year or so.

nedm, boston,

Amazing! The spiritual sons of El Alamein and Arnhem are inappropiately wringing their hands over the hapless, intolerant, murderous, corrupt, gender apartheiding, illegetimate regime of the Mullahs - and blaming America - no less!

Face it kids, as our regime changin', syntax manglin' cowboy in chief says "...There's a little bit of Great Britain inside every 'Merican..." And thats what provokes ya'lls wrath I'm sure. After all, we are just following the shining example Great britain has shown - like when the Royal Navy put paid to the slave trade.

Rant on chaps - ya'll made us this way. And we are PROUD to disregard, provoke and frighten despots anywhere, anytime. After all, we learned from the best.

courtney, Chattanooga, TN, USA

"I am sick and tired of Americans thinking that they know best for us all. We don't want their bigotted, bullying, overbearing world view, their bases or manipulation of our government any more. " -- Ed Ingle, Chesham, Buckinghamshire

Why didn't your gov't say that in WWII? If it weren't for the U.S., you would be speaking German. Tony Blair had no choice in the matter. Britain is repaying a favor from WWII and everybody knows it, but no one will say it. You will read about this in a book many years from now.

Alfred O'SHea, New York, NY

In response to the thoughts of Mr. Engle (of Chesham, Buckinghamshire): Would you be surprised to know that many Americans agree with you that the bigotted, bullying, overbearing world view and manipulation of your government (by the US government) is disturbing to us, as well? Once presidents and their closest advisers are in the position of lording their agenda upon others, it is next to impossible for the average citizen to find a way to impress upon those individuals the need for listening to citizens' views and following a military, economic plan that is implemented with prudent action. Sadly, what those in power do is out of our hands, at least until the next national election when, hopefully, a less egomaniacal leader will be elected. One can only hope.....

Mary B., East Boston, MA

Do not thrust one more unwanted, unjust war on the world. War is no solution. It is the problem. Generations after generations may have to pay dearly. They will curse us. despise us. Look where we have reached by these unjust wars. No US citizen, UK citizen, and for that matter any national whose country is a direct party in the wars of terror that are now being fought, are safe on the face of earth. No military gadget can ensure that safety. LET THE WORLD UNITE AGAINST THESE TYRANNIES AND UNJUST WARS AND OCCUPATIONS.

MOHAMMED ASLAM, KOCHI, INDIA KERALA

He said the political and diplomatic option is the way to go. Forever? How long do we give it? A month, year, decade? Or until they threaten Israel? Or until they threaten Europe? Or until they explode a nuke? Remember, Iran is different, in that it said it would use them at the drop of a hat to bring back the Mahdi.

Remember, when you attack a person's position, ONE HAS TO PROFFER A BETTER OPTION, not just sit and gripe.

Bubbagyro, Exeter, NH USA

Judging from the comments posted here from the Great Britain I would guess that Sir Winston Churchill is spinning in his grave. Obviously Europe learned nothing in the past century with respect to the dangers of appeasing tyrants.

I would suggest all of you read at least volume one of "History of the Second World War" as penned by the greats English of the 20th, and possibly any, century. The people and place names have changed but the world situations are eerily similar.

Cecil, South Carolina, USA

Ed,
Europeans never get it right. The hide your head in the sand view of the world never worked for you and it was always the Americans who bailed your backsides out when you took that approach. With the new mad man on the block looking for nukes you should support the removal of said weapons from him now so we do not need to assist your Euro's when he uses them himself or when he sells them to the high Islamic/Muslem extremist.

BILL, FREEHOLD NJ, USA / NEW JERSEY

Poor Mr. Ingle from Chesham!!! Its not our fault(U.S) that the true followers of Islam hate your country and attack it. Its because you are not submitted to Allah. Read the ninth surah of the Koran and do alittle research of the historical Muhammad and you will realize that true muslims should want any unbeliever to die or submit, its their religious duty. If the world wants no conflict with muslims then we should all submit to islam or outlaw it. The real underlying problem lies within the texts of the Koran and Hadditha, and the true followers of it not America.

Emile Roberson, Covington, LA

Britain has the north sea oil We the US still get most of our oil from the middle east.
Please you guys that like to knock the UK & France remember it was those two countries that opposed Hitler in 1938 while we waited until Germany & Japan declared war on us .
The war was half way over when the US came into it .
The German navy & most of its air force were already destroyed [ battle of Britain].
Also remember without the French at Yorktown the war of independance may have been lost . There were actually more French there than Americans .
Plus of course the French navy ,
WE REALLY SHOULD STUDY OUR HISTORY MORE THOUGHRALLY .& spend less time watching John Wayne movies.
Still not to worry i,m sure the draft dodging duo of B& C will see us thru.

brian lee, medina , ohio

I find it a bit discrediting to read the comments from people all around the world who continue to cite the brainwashing influence of the American media (and it's profiting? thank you Chomsky conspiracist), yet fail to consider the brainwashing influence of their own home media. It would be nice for the people always pointing fingers at America to reflect on the fact that maybe, just maybe, they could be also be receiving twisted information by their own media. If you've ever heard the Bob Dylan song, "With God On Our Side," many of these posts represent the exact hypocrisy he so intelligently recognized during his time. Basically, these viewpoints must exist on a two way street, open for discussion, and simply dismissing someone's contrary idea is a terrible way to gain respect for your own ideas.

Guy Madison, St. Paul/ MN, USA

Regarding the comment from Jason in Lancaster, CA. - Were you asleep when Iraq failed to comply with 17 UN Security Council resolutions following the first Gulf War?Iraq was shooting at UN planes that were patrolling the no-fly zones put in place following the removal of Iraq from a country it invaded (Kuwait) in 1991. Iraq also would not allow UN inspectors access to their facilities to confirm they weren't breaking their commitments to the UN. Perhaps you were you too young to read the news at that time so now you believe everything the liberal media feeds you. I'm so grateful the founding fathers ensured we live in a republic where leaders are elected to make the best decisions they can. It will be a sad day when we leave foreign and domestic policy up to an uneducated society that spends their free time watching professional sports and American Idol.

JC, Cedar Hill, USA

The first commenter, Tony, Seattle of Wa/USA, is factually wrong in his claim that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is Sunni. This is central to the dispute and it is elementary in understand the differences among Muslims and the basis for the fighting. Iran and its president are Shi'ites. Saudi Arabia and its monarchy are Sunni Muslims. The House of Saud is deeply competitive with Iran.
Al Qaeda is Sunni.
Most of the people in Iraq, including American soldiers, being killed in Iraq are being killed by Sunni Muslims who are deeply unhappy that they no longer wield the power that their Baath Party held while Saddam Hussein ran that country. Sunni Muslims are the minority in Iraq but the majority in the Middle East. Because Tony in Seattle does not grasp these key differences, what he says can be safely discarded.

Ruta Wagner, Pittsburgh,

Who is guilty of the 9/11 tt attack ? This Iraq war was a waste of Iraqi lives, american lives, brits, etc..(soldiers) Very , Very sad. They were not responsible, Bush should be held accountable for going to war against the international community !! NOTHING will bring back lost lives , sorrow, pain, etc...

Terrorists are not freedom fighters <<<<<<< I dont know why people think that ? They murder innocents by the droves, how are they gaining freedom ?? They have killed more Iraqis than the war itself !!

Now, if they had gained some freedom, I might think they were indeed freedom fighters, but really they are just MASS MURDERERS !!

Kathy, Kosovo, Tenn.

It is amazing that there are still people who "buy" this administration's rhetoric! Andy and Carl....nothing that the Bush Administration said in the run-up to the Iraq War has been proven true!! Why should we believe anything they say about Iran? Wake up and smell reality! If we continue down the path of war with Iran, who will fight it? We are bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan with no end in sight. I hope the scare tactics don't work like they did in 2002-2003. As citizens we should NOT tolerate more lies and deception from the Bush/Cheney cabal. I can't wait for your canned FOX news response.

geoff, Ellicott City, MD

I have to ask - why is everyone so against America? Sounds like a simple question, but is it really? I wish America would stay out of Iraq, Iran & Afganistan - mostly because, what good are we doing? They will attack Europe much sooner than the US - so why be the first to try to stop them? Let Europe actually do something for once - instead of just sitting around critisizing everyone else. If the US does something - you hate us. If they dont do anything - we are turning our backs on everyone - and you hate us. If we are diplomatic - you hate us. Of the people in the US, 65% dont approve of Bush - yet all Americans are seen as Bush supporters and murderers. Americans used to care about what our brothers in Europe thought - but we are condemned regardless so, as I have seen a lot of here lately, we just dont care anymore - you are going to hate us no matter.

Drew, Connecticut, USA

Van Skamamper,.
You are wrong. Duroing the Yom Kippur war when the Egyptian Airforce routed the Israeli Ait Force and the Israeli army was also being Moshe Dayan told the U.S Whoitehouse that unless aid is goiven immediately thehy were going to use their Ato9m Bom,bs against Egypt. Searchj history and you will find that this is the truth

Alf., Qormi, Malta

Imagine if Israel had not conducted it's magnificent bombing and destruction of the Iraqi nuclear facilities in 1980 which the world so roundly condemned. How would the Middle East have looked if Saddam had nukes? The world & the U.N.'s impotence & inaction will force Israel to attempt to take out Iran's nuclear facilities by itself, again receiving world condemnation for actions taken in it's own and civilization's defense.

Steve, Dallas, TX / USA

To: Cormac, Madrid, Spain:
No need to take focus off the issue at hand by repeatedly reminding everyone of the correct pronunciation of Iraq; the United States is a large nation, most of can say the country's name properly. As sad as it is, we know that the global community views Americans as unarticulate cowboys, based on our current representation. It stings, & the worst part of all is knowing how much we will need to do to correct that view. Many Americans do not support the policies or actions of the Bush administration - and I'm not speaking solely about recent opinion; many of us have been extremely opposed to him from the start over 6 years ago.

The situation between Iran, Iraq & the United States is much like the old fable of the boy who cried wolf; now that there is a legitimate, verifiable threat of nuclear capacity in Iran, our decision to employ military action will have no support; we have no credibity due to the baseless war we began in Iraq for some special interest.

AJS, New Jersey, US

The British are fooling themselves once again, just as they did with Hitler before World War II. No amount of talk is going to stop the Iranian mullahs from building an atomic bomb and dropping it on Israel, or perhaps giving the technology to al quaeda for use in the U.S. They are fanatics with a messianic view of establishing a worldwide caliphate under Sharia law. They have said so time and again, just as Hitler set out his goals for worldwide dominance in Mein Kampf. Now is the time to stand up to them and stop them before they get the bomb. Where oh where are the Margaret Thatchers of Britain!

Kevin Hyland, Newton, NJ

Hey Cormac just what point are you trying to make. You are stating that respect needs to be earned by not assumed but yet you stick up for Hussain who killed thousands of innocent people of his own country. How is that an example of what you refere to as a "President". Saddam was nothing more than a Cruel dictator the honorable Bush is just doing what he feels as would any person with feelings is needed. Have you seen the torture chambers that a person you so call a persident murderd his own people if not you have nothing to say.

PFC Sheldon, Darmstadt, Germany

It is enevitable, the War between Muslim and Christian will be fought in the Middle East or on the streets of America and Europe. Which do you want? And if the West does not win the war, we will all be slaves to the Muslims. President Bush understands this, few other people do. All of the people that wish to avoid War are simply hiding their head in the sand like an ostrich. There is no way to negotiate with a peoples whose goal in life is to destroy any non-Muslim wherever found.

Erlein, Bedford, TX

Only an Republican would say "a war is iminent". doesnt matter what therest of the world thinks. Not suprised as i heard recently that ony 5% of the yanks have passports! what a joke!

bush hater, london, UK

This man who would be the new Saladin of an Islamic Kaliphate is big trouble. He has repeated his desire to "wipe Israel off the map" more than once. Only a fool would ignore the potential of a tyrant like this with nukes. Oh, they want us to think the nuclear process is for peaceful use only, so its ok, right?

The way of Islam, as set by the example of Mohammad is clear. Peace with pagans, that is, not the People of the Book, is impossible, as they are all to be given a chance to accept Islam or be killed. This is illustrated by the recent killing of pagans in the South Sudan by northern Muslims attempting to impose Islamic Law on them, the killing of non-Muslims in Northern Nigeria by Muslims attempting to impose Islamic law on them, the attacks of the northern Muslims on the southern pagans in Chad with Gaddafi interfering, etc.

John S., Orlando, Florida

Ok Gabriel Hague you get this strait, bombing Iran back into the Stone Age WILL stop their program. Weather or not they use such a weapon against anyone because of the prevailing winds is irrelevant. They could give the bomb to a terrorist organization that could use it against anyone. They must be stopped; taking the military option off the table only weakens our position and enables Iran to keep doing what they are doing.

Kevin, DC, USA

Wow, an interesting perspective from across the pond. I wonder if your French and British grandparents felt the same way about 'American imperialism' U.S. when ours were lifting the Nazi boot off their throats. We would be delighted if your countries were capable of defending themselves so we didn't have too. Maybe without your thirty-two hour work weeks and socialist welfare states, you could provide for your own defense, but I doubt it. Iran brags it is enriching uranium, states it wants to wipe Israel off the map, and has supported terrorism for thirty years, but Isreal and the U.S. are to blame? Too what lengths will your delusional minds go to deny reality? I thought our left-wing moonbats were dangerous.......

Shawn, Toledo, Ohio

How come we are always defending the rights of our corporations to go places where they are not wanted. If Exon- Mobile and BP want Iraq so badly why don't they build their own Army/Navy/AirForce. Hell they got the money since they don't like paying taxes. If Iran is such a big problem let Halliburton handle it. Again they got all the money while the American Goverment is losing our fine men and women and going broke doing the corporate dirty work for them. Great job George and Dick! Gee you guys wouldn't be oil guys , would you?

Al Serrao, Plano, TX

"...(SecDef Gates) is understood to believe that airstrikes would inflame Iranian public opinion "? Is there anyone (with the exception perhaps of Mr. Cheney) who would debate this point?

George Kubek, Boston, Mass

Is there really anyone out there who is silly enought to think that the gutless Europeans will do anything about Iran except to wring their hands and pass meaningless resolutions? The Israelis will be the ones to act decisively on this issue and then when they do the EU will start whinging and condemning and passing even more silly resolutions this time against the Israelis.

David Gray, Auckland, New Zealand

Reading some the below comments from our american friends can only make one understand why the world has such a slanted view of them. I am glad Blair is taking a stance against america on this . After all what kind of world does the future hold where america will invade a country everytime it does not get its way. To me it seems Iran major reason to have nuclear capability is so their voice can be taken seriously. Look at Pakistan and India.

Cormac, Madrid, Spain

I've heard views expressed here that Iran has stated that it "wants to destroy Israel" , and that Iran wants to create a "Caliphate", that "everyone agrees the world will become a more dangerous place once Iran has to ability to use and sell nuclear weapons". And can anyone name me the "terrorists" that Iran is linked to?
Iran is not, and never has been an expansionist nation, on the contrary, they have been defending themselves from occupation and foreign intervention for centuries.
But here we go again, paint then as the "Mad Mullahs" hell bent on destroying the world, the new nazis that have to be stopped, and only the god fearing Americans and their poodles can save the world, (and take control of one of the worlds largest oil producing nations)

MG, Glasgow,

What is wrong with everyone? People are forgetting that Iran has no history of attacking any other country. Also, people talk of Iran having connections to terrorists and supplying weapons that are killing US troops in Iraq - what about the US? They are known sponsors of terrorist organisations when it suits them and also supplied weapons to Iraq during the Iran/Iraq war that were responsible for the deaths of upto 2 million people! Before judging Iran, people might also like to consider the fact that the USA is the only country to have actually used nuclear weapons...

Amir Pournasrollahzadeh, Bristol, England

Craig Magrum,

Bush may be a president, but he is not my president nor is Cheney the VP because I did not vote for their sorry cans. They deserve no respect because they do not respect the offices that they hold. Our country has been decimated by their idiotic decisions and I only hope they avoid screwing up anything else.

So leave your high and mighty attitude at the door.

Jeremy C., charlotte, US, NC

Craig,

Call you president what you like, but may I remind you that a man who holds an office similar to your president needs to earn respect not automatically assume it.
ON a further note, when your troops were invading Iraq (prounced 'erak, not I-rak') how did your press refer to President Hussain? as I recall it was 'Saddam'....why is that?

Cormac, Madrid, Spain

I guess all of Ahmadinejad's comments regarding Israel should simply be ignored. The comments should be taken as rhetoric. But, what if he is insane?

Dan, Belpre, Ohio

So we should all show respect to Bush, Craig? I cannot show respect to a born-again Christian who (unnecessarily) orders bombs to be dropped on thousands of innocent women and children. (What would Christ say?) Bush is a hypocrite and a dangerous one as well, and a disgrace to the office of US President. Impeach him!

alan, cologne,

People are getting tired of your world domination games. Leave people be, start obeying the laws and concentrate on your own domestic problems.

Simon, Toronto, Canada

Yeah, let's keep it simple... Iraq wasn't responsible for 9/11.

E. Nough, Fairfax, VA

War will break out more than likley not by design - but by accident. If I stand toe to toe with a cocked and locked Colt .45 pointed at my adversaries head long enough, with my finger on the trigger, at some point I will begin to percieve the risk of my own destruction as so great that I must strike first. As time passes I will begin to misinterpret my adversaries intentions this will also lead to attack. Nuclear Weapons are an even worse situation. If I get on my roof with a rifle pointed at someones home, a mile away, and they do the same at my home, the degree of provacation for me to fire will be much less, because the consequence of my not firing is so high. Iran, for all it's idiotic statements, is acting rationally - they percieve a threat and are preparing to meet it. The U.S. is also behaving logically - we percieve a threat from Iran as a result of their rhetoric's nexus with their actions. This game has been played for too long. We all lose in the end.

Gregg Scott, Katonah, United States, New York

As a minimum, covert action needs to be used against Iran to support Iranians who believe in democracy. When a government has LEADERS who question the occurrence of the Holocaust , finance and foment terrorism, including the killing of their fellow Muslims, threaten the existence of a sovereign country, Israel and express a willingness to use nuclear weapons, there is no alternative to regime change. If the U.S. has to use its air power to attack the military sites of Iran, so be it. The world will be a far safer place for it. The U.S. made a mistake in how it went about regime change in Iraq. It failed to use its technological superiority with the resultant consequences. Iran will be a different story. George Bush has the spine that other leaders lack.

David Doub, Toronto, Canada

I'd find the historical illiteracy of many US posters here rather amusing were it not for the fact that they seem hell bent on causing an almightly inflagration in the middle east that could consume us all. For those among our trans-Atlantic who've forgotten, the 2nd World War started in September 1939 NOT December 1941.

Stuart, London,

Dear Ed of Chesham,

Way to repeat the same inaccurate stereotype of Americans that we've heard for years. If I hear that one more time I think I'm going to...yawn. Well put, though. Maybe if you keep saying that sort of stuff the psycho terrorists will stop trying to kill you and just try to kill us.

Matt, Orlando, FL

Stumbling towards Armageddon once again. I suppose they'll take Iran seriously after they nuke Tel Aviv. Yet another group of megalomaniac misfits preparing to wipe out the Jews and take over the world. And what do the rest of us do? Same thing we did at Munich in 1938: talk peace while our enemies prepare for war. My heroes. "The lesson of history is that we do not learn the lessons of history," Hagel once said. How prophetic.

John Simpson, Nashua, NH USA

Americans !!!!

What give them the right to say what regimes need changing. They should look at their own crooked regime before making comments on other nations. Why is it so wrong for Iran to have an atomic capability for power production, or even defence. The standard Yankee position of"we can't trust them" is hypocritcal as the only nation tou use atomic power for destructive purposes is America. With their record on human rights and their use of force with gay abandon, I agree with Bromley Dave, "I'm Afraid of Americans"

Late for the last two big ones, they seem to be rushing to be on time for the third.

Michael Holloway, Sydney, Australia/ NSW

Please remember 10 years from now when a Muslim extremist sets off a nuke in downtown USA, supplied by the Iranians, how diplomacy is the only way resolve a dispute. Obviously we didn't dicker with Hitler or the Emperor long enough, otherwise WWII could have been avoided.
The real problem in Iraq is that we are trying to fight a war like we deal with our criminals. We should do what we did to Japan and Germany in WWII - maximum fire power till we get no opposition. I don't hear many claiming we were "immoral" in that war (though I sure a few nut jobs out there will). In that case please start learning Arabic and figure out which direction Mecca is...

Stephen M, Sacramento, USA/Ca

Comparing Tony Blair to Neville Chamberlain is altogether erroneous in that it disregards the difference between international relations and intercontinental(global) relations, particularly in the formation of foreign policy. The Munich Agreement was in response to a Nazi regime that had invaded a nation in Europe, namely the Sudentland. Preaching that Blair's decision displays similar cowardice is almost laughable considering the enormous culture gap that presently seperates Britain and Iran. With more questions arising everyday (even in the USA) about the overall cogency of the war in Iraq, Blair's decision to avoid military action in Iran is completely rational.

Alex H., Baton Rouge, LA, USA

Ok I guess I'll have to stear these comments in the right direction. This talk is all jibber jabber. Wake up people this whole planet is being rearranged by the New World Order!
Yes it is true. They knocked down the towers, and created a phony reason to go to war. Please go to infowars.com learn the truth, and watch Loose Change. I promise it will blow your mind.

Paul, Peoria, AZ

Think long and hard about this. If its ok to bomb Iran into the middle ages for daring to develop an atomic bomb, why is there not a peep about Israel?

Luan Chan, Windhoek, Namibia

Anyone got any independent evidence of this alleged "Iranian threat"? Any evidence produced by Bush or Blair will of course be considered tainted goods and have zero credibility.

Never believe anything until is officially denied. I believe that the US and UK are planning to attack Iran. Better pray that the Iranians don't have an operational nuclear weapon already.

Marroc, Berks,

Regardless of our prejudices or our backgrounds, Iran is a sovereign nation, and as such expects and wants to receive equal footing in world affairs. They have all the resources to achieve their goals and objectives. Anything less will be rejected by the Iranians. If there are any doubts just look at the result of U.S. and North Korea relationship. Jaw jaw is so much better than war war.

Shahin S., Arcadia, California

i am sure if somebody knocked on the door of iran (maybe a retired none political blair) take time and both listen to each other, talk to the oragan grinder not the monkey, it would work out well for all sides , the irainian people i have met are very like us anglo saxons they just want to live there lives

steve dinnes, landres, france

Biker Dude, you are quite right, "ignorance is a luxury the US cannot afford to let stand in the way of what has to be done." But I think that your logic fails to consider what the "ignorance" is. Successive US administrations - many of which I have a great deal of respect for - have failed to encourage the country to become properly engaged in the world. There was, until 2001, a culture of isolationism that was endemic in the US, with a significant proportion of the population not ever having a passport, and many being unable to point to key countries on a map of the world. The US's trenchant belief in the rightness of its way of life allowed no room to consider that other possibilities might exist. As a result 9/11 left the nation shocked (and in many cases it still is) that foreigners might hate it. If the US cannot afford ignorance, then it must start by trying to see itself through the eyes of those with different - but valid - entrenched beliefs.

M Cockerham, London, United Kingdom

The doctrine of preventive strikes on the basis of false information and propaganda has created the chaos in Iraq. Instead of focusing on the threat of radical terrorists this policy has galvanized more terrorists and created a failed state in Iraq. Although many experienced foreign and military experts warned about the disaster invading and occupying Iraq would bring and although millions of people in the UK and US opposed abrogating international law and unilateraly invading a sovereign nation that posed no direct threat to either the US and UK - Bush and Blair made the biggest strategic blunder in recent memory and now we have Iraq in a death spiral of chaos and a haven for terrorists that are getting valuable experience in attacking US & UK military forces. While now the US & UK are harping on the Iranian nuclear program, neither of them of mentions Israel already having nuclear weapons. And under the NPT Iran has a right to a nuclear fuel cycle. None have produced evidence that Iran has a nuclear weapons program. Bomb Iran and the Middle East will be in flames and the blow back will last a generation.

ab initio, Nashville, TN

"I am sick and tired of Americans thinking that they know best for us all. We don't want their bigotted, bullying, overbearing world view, their bases or manipulation of our government any more. " -- Ed Ingle, Chesham, Buckinghamshire

Why didn't your gov't say that in WWII? If it weren't for the U.S., you would be speaking German. Tony Blair had no choice in the matter. Britain is repaying a favor from WWII and everybody knows it, but no one will say it. You will read about this in a book many years from now.

Alfred O'shea, New York, NY

I'm so glad that Mr Blair doesn't agree with those evil American hawks. We can work this out diplomatically.

If we all just sit down together in front of a nice cozy fire while sipping on latte, we can eventually convince Mr Ahmadinejad not to wipe Israel and the West off the map.

This strategy failed with Hitler only because the meeting didn't end with a big group hug.

Please people! Give Peace A Chance!

birkenstock boy, San Jose, California

Mr. Baldwin details what the people he calls "hawks" are pressing for in the US administration: "keep[ing] the military option 'on the table' [and] ... pressing the Pentagon to examine specific war plans — including, it is rumoured, covert action". Isn't advocating military action the definition of hawkishness? What would you have him call it?

Iran was ready to be an ally in the war on terror, but the Keystone cops Bush administration added them to the "Axis of Evil" just to stop people from getting the impression they were focussing exclusively on Iraq. Al-Qaeda is their enemy as well as ours (the split between Sunnis and Shiites goes very deep). Iran's nuclear program is certainly frightening and the Iranian government is definitely oppressive, but war and childish bullying are NOT the answer. How many times do we have to try it to figure out that?

Scott Hays, Hong Kong,

What so many are failing to realize is that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a radical Sunni Muslim, and as such he believes he is to usher the return of the 'Madhi' - the fabeled 12th Iman who went down a well, and as legend states, would return when the world is in total caios. His return will bring all the world under the control of the Sunni Muslims and bring about world peace. These are his beliefs, he wants to destroy 'the Great Satan' (U.S.) and the 'little Satan' (Israel) and has made no apologies about it. Ahmadinejad WANTS nuclear war - to him it will hasten the return of his messiah. Iran is playing a global game of chess with the west, and we are approaching 'end game' and most don't even realize we are even in the game! It is time to wake up before it is too late. As soon as Iran has nuclear weapons, they will use them!

Tony, Seattle , Wa/USA

As any student of history knows, there is never a diplomatic solution unless it is backed by a credible military alternative. Those that view the two options as opposing are naive. Military posturing is an integral component of achieving diplomatic success.

Jim, Atlanta, Ga

now is the time to come to the aid of your country.

J Cool, Coolpertown, USA

It's interesting to consider how the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan have given U.S. war planners open air corridors on both the east and west sides of Iran. Unchallenged overflight is a great tactical advantage for surprise and greatly increases the possible directions from which air strikes on Iran may originate. If U.S. bases within Iraq and Afghanistan were utilized, a cruise missile / bomber strike could be off the ground and over targets inside Iran in a matter of minutes with sorties originating from multiple directions. Less time in the air equals less time for detection and even less for reaction on the ground. More directions equals more confusion.

To suggest that G.W. Bush didn't have Iran on his mind when he made the case to invade Iraq is a bit self-deceiving, I'd say. Iran has been the real rogue element in the Middle East for years. In my opinion, Iraq and Afghanistan are simply side shows, pretexts for establishing beachheads and precursors to the main event.

Tom Hopkins, Atlanta, GA, USA

The United States should spend it's dollars on shoring up it's DEFENSIVE strength instead of attacking countries perceived to be a threat. So we got rid of Saddam and his henchmen. Big deal....was it worth the cost? Hell no.

John Bailey, Nashville, Tennessee

Killing more, is definitely not the answer.
The worn out pattern of "war on terror" with this double standards in the nuclear field, will create misery, unnecessary suffering and eventually more violence.
Had the West been more ethical, it would have certainly wined the mind of people.

Homa E, Tehran, Iran

Why does everyone seem to think Mr. Blair has followed Mr. Bush blindly? Read his writings and speeches before Mr. Bush was elected and you'll find that Tony Blair advocated removing Saddam even before Bush.

This characterization Tony Blair as a Bush follower is as ridiculous as characterizing Margaret Thatcher as a Ronald Reagan lapdog. Mr. Blair has always rightfully followed his own conscience on foreign policy matters. Just because two leaders agree on certain issues does not mean one leader is subservient to the other.

It’s a disservice to both Britain and Tony Blair to imply that George Bush dictates British foreign policy.

Phillip , St. Louis, MO, USA

I'm sorry as I do agree that 9/11 was a very sad day....we as a people can not continue to use that as a staple to continue to attack countries.... though I do believe continuing to monitor Iran's progress is necessary, attack right now is not

Lane, Pensacola,

Its a shame that so many Americans believe it is a problem for America, and not something that should be solved with the international community. That mindset and influence is what takes away the ability of the international community to accomplish peace. If America would give its full diplomatic and military support to the United Nations, then the UN would have the strength to do something about it, and we wouldn't be seen as the tyrants of the world, but rather as a major contributor to the global family. But that's not going to happen as long as we have our own Hitler in power.

Ashamed American, Seattle, 'merica

Trusting in the reasonsed restraint of a nation such as Iran when it comes to nuclear technology is not a logical process. I would be completely refreshed to have politicians stand up admit, 'we are going to take the path of least resistance because that path will insure our continued reelection up till the point that a nuclear attack is traced back to a country like Iran, but then again, I won't want to be in politics when all that is left to do is clean up the mess of our failed policies and inaction.'

Appeasement has never worked in world politics. "Political, diplomatic channels and talks' are simply code for out right blackmail by the offending nations to extort money...and then in the end, they will still go right ahead and do what they agreed not to do.

It is ironic that it is the British that are making the motions to appease the Iranians and relying on the "good intentions" about doing what they say they will do. I guess the 1930's have been too long to remember.

Keith, Central Texas, USA

I feel that war options are unthinkable..Imagine a situation where in US succeds in suppressing the interests of Iran but with a new Iran with Terror groups and millions of innocent lives lost..just like in Iraq.This is a tricky situation the global leaders have to get through with some solution.

R.B, Southampton, UK

If the United States, Israel, or any other state launches a nuclear attack against Iran on a first-strike basis, then I would say that a state of war would exist between the aggressor state and all humanity.

Any response at all against such a first-strike nuclear attack would be justified. There would be no possibility of considering a response "terror," regardless of the form it takes.

A preemptive nuclear attack would be unprecedented, even for the U.S., which attacked Hiroshima and Nagasaki to conclude a huge Pacific war started by the Japanese.

The response to such aggression should at least include extreme economic measures, such as breaking the dollar (easy enough for China and a few other countries to do).

Such aggression would verify the Bush Administrations quest for world domination, and I would think states and other groups would respond as if in mortal danger.

Clayton Hallmark, Twinsburg, Ohio, USA

Why isn't this "article" in the opinion section? Tom Baldwin and Philip Webster, you make it sound like President Bush and Vice President Cheney are at war with Robert Gates, Condoleeza Rice, Steve Hadley, and Prime Minister Tony Blair! Give me a break. Leave your connotative rhetoric at home for your next fiction book. Instead of looking to divide everyone against each other why not unite on the fact that none of us want countries obliterating each other with nuclear weapons? It's that simple.

Keith, Spokane, WA

I guess a majority of people in England forget what we Americans did for them in WW II . If it was not for our bigotted, bullying gov't everybody in England & the rest of Europe for that matter would STILL be speaking German.
What did we do to deserve 9/11/2001.. Support Israel???
what a crime!!!

Scott, Atlanta, GA, USA, Georgia

I've come to agree with the view that the U.S. interferes to much in world affairs. As a citizen I'm tired of helping to pay for the security of others. We grew up looking at WWII as a model for national behavior. That it was right and necessary to interfere in wars for the 'good of mankind' and our own security. In the future, we should wage only devastating punitive war on our enemies and provide no security for any country but the US. They neither want our help nor appreciate it. Nuclear weapons make invasion of the US impossible. Why should US citizens lift a finger if Europeans, South Koreans, Japanese, or Taiwanese are attacked? There is no such thing as 'defending freedom.' The idea of individual liberty and representative government being a universal aspiration of all people is clearly wrong. Everyone was happier when Iraq was run by a cruel tyrant. Hardly anybody else in the world even considers lifting a finger to improve the lot of other people, never mind expending the blood and treasure the US has. It is time US citizens wake up and demand disengagement and disentanglement.

Don, Boston,

I cannot predict the future better than anyone else - I can only rely upon my recollections of past actions to steer me in a probable course for the present and future. Based on this admittedly unscientific "science", there is much to fear from the Iranian regime - enough to justify any stance that the US government deems to take, including military action. Iran has been an enemy of the US for nearly 30 years - there is nothing they have done since the Carter era to earn our respect or admiration.

My guess is that will come down to either fight now or fight later. In a stronger era, the fight now camp would prevail, but we live in a world that is upside down in it's logic so the latter option may well be the order of the day.

The US always takes a bad rap but in reality, the world has only enjoyed peace and prosperity for many years because of this great country (and I am not a US citizen nor do I live there). It's time to cut the US some slack and realize that despite it's flaws, it remains the one beacon of light left on this earth that can and will stand up for what is right, and not what is momentarily advantageous.

I fear for the US these days, but I also cheer for it. I am prepared to offer my support for whatever is decided in Washington. I just hope the government is not swayed by a world of fools who pretend as if "they" know the answers. Whatever unfolds will, and in a year we can check back on this column and offer our 100% accurate hindsight.

Barry, Toronto, ON

It would be beyond comical if the U.S. just stepped back and let the United Nations handle the issue with Iran. UN resolutions, though difficult to pass, are meaningless. Maybe Islamic Fundamentalism will just...go away....ha.

Mark, Odessa, Ukraine

The argument that the war with Iraq is illegal on the grounds of false intelligence is absurd. Fact is that there were chemical weapons in Iraq and it took a long time to find them because they were mixed in with the regular ordnance. They were not segregated, as is safe and SANE. Iraq stored its bombs everywhere, so the idea of just going into a bomb storage area that has been sitting out in the 120' sun and 35' nights, with a variety of different ordnance there and no documents saying what they are or when they were placed there is not likely to be an active practice of...any weapons inspector! 155mm Mustard gas shells were used in roadside bombs in 2004 and 2005, one was included with inert VX gas. Terrorists having used three chlorine gas bombs in Iraq in the past week. Fundamentalists were targetting the US years before we went into Iraq...to think they are just going to go away is naive and moronic. The war in Iraq has kept further incidents out of the United States.

Mark, Odessa, Ukraine

"Lets keep it simple. Are we all forgetting what happened on 9/11??"

What does Iran have to do with 9/11?

Not all Americans are "bigotted, bullying, overbearing..."

Alexander Smith, Woodbridge, VA, USA

America is destined to go to war with Iran no matter what. Even if it takes a disasterous event to sway the public into supporting it. Things are going to get a lot worse in the middle east because Americans are hell bent on world war 3. They want to take away control of oil supplies from OPEC so major US corporations control the global economy, charging as much as they want for oil.

john, london, uk

More dangerous than an nuclear powered Iran is the current nuclear regime in Israel and the only thing more dangerous than that is the hugely ignorant public in the USA fed drivel and spin by a commercial media profiteering from illegal wars.

Poetically, though, the biggest losers of what will happen next is not the Middle East, but the biggest losers will be the American people whose Republic is already torn apart by a political and economic elite who have lost touch with reality.

Rockjaw, Brisbane, Australia

Many of the comments placed here seem to be based on people's fears rather than informed opinion. That Iran could unite its neighbours - let alone the whole Middle East and beyond - under a 'Caliphate' is laughable and shows a total lack of understanding of the differences in religious practice, economics and way of life between it and its neighbours. The call for action - and the option of military intervention at this stage shows that the lessons from the disaster that is Iraq have not been learned, and probably never will.

Martin, Nelson, Lancs. UK

It would appear that European public opinion is driving it's governments to repeat the appeasment policies of the 1930's. The very failed policies that lead us to WWII. Remember Europe, if Iran is allowed to develop nuclear weapons and associated delivery systems, it will be Europe, not just Israel that will be in danger. What would your thoughts or policies be if a highly radicalized, unstable regime had the capability to deliver nuclear weapons on a Eurpean city? Of course, you could continue your current policy of appeasment and doing business with Iran, to include selling them arms and technology, in hopes that they will not be a threat. However, we all know how well that policy worked out for everyone in the 1930's.

Brian, Fayetteville, NC

Jim of New York says that the Iranian leadership is "not rational".

The expression "The pot calling the kettle black" springs to mind. Where is the rationality in his government imposing democracy (itself an oxymoron) or invading countries on the other side of the globe because it has a paranoid perception of some threat, or cutting off funds when a state has democratic elections but you don't like the result?

I am sick and tired of Americans thinking that they know best for us all. We don't want their bigotted, bullying, overbearing world view, their bases or manipulation of our government any more. Nor do we want the terrorism that has come to our shores because we are seen to be their poodle, thank you.

Ed Ingle, Chesham, Buckinghamshire

Lets keep it simple. Are we all forgetting what happened on 9/11??

CHARLES SCHLOTT, LAS VEGAS, NV, USA

Was that Neville Chamberlain's ghost talking?

Robert , Littleton, MA

I think its counterproductive to come out and announce you are completely removing the military option from the table. It only strengthens the Iranians position when diplomatic issues are being dealt with.

I dont personally beleive that Iran has done anything to warrant a full military response as of yet, although there will come a point where you either cede the right for Iran to have nuclear weapons or take action and this situation will become a reality in the next few years.

EVAN, ORLANDO,

Of course England would be against military action against Iran. They are afraid that the Muslims living in their country would rise up and do God knows what. In fact, you can say that about all of Europe. I agree with the WWII analogy on appeasement for Hitler. It is exactly the same thing.

What cowards we have in leadership these days. We will talk and talk and talk but we will never act until it is far to late. Why we haven't already done something to both Iran and Syria is beyond me. We know and have proof they are supplying men and weapons in Iraq and also the fight against Israel. If we have proof we need to act. Who cares what the democrats and Hollywood liberals think.

Gene Hammons, Pasadena, Texas

Don't worry, Tony. The U.S. will be here to rescue you and all your sorry european mates after your countries are overrun again. At least this time you will be easier to find when you are glowing in the dark... good call chum! carry on! (nudge nudge wink wink - say no more)

Jeff, Seattle,

As I read Jim from New York, a question occurs to me: What IS a "rogue state"? That term, always undefined, is often used to describe Iran. Those who advocate this attack are often advocates of self-defense (opposed to gun control), and isn't the USA dictating that Iran not be able to defend itself from the USA a form of gun control? Iran is allowed by international law to have domestic nuclear power - and has submitted to inspections. The USA is not allowed by international law to invade a country that is not threatening it, such as Iraq. Who is the rogue?

Jason, Lancaster, CA

American WWII vetenerians tell a joke about one of their incalculably heroic, bemedalled fellows being hassled by French customs. Angrily he points out that the last time he visited, it was easier. The Customs asks how and he says it was D-Day...Doug of dover, check YOUR history but for that French Naval gunfire at Yorktown, YOU woul be in in Dover New Kent

Roger Obermaier, Leicester, Leic's

Is it no wander that the Europeans feel this way their populations are beyond replacement rates and are being supplemented by Nations that are predominantly Islamic.
In 1932 the French had the ability to destroy the German army it chose not hense 50 million people perished. America gets 20% of its oil from the middle east the rest comes from Canada and south America it also has fast as yet untapped oil reserves. Should we one day become isolationist who will protect your oil lanes? If Iran gets a Nuclear weapon politics will change in Europe it will have a new name...Blackmail.

Gary, Tallahassee, USA

When will the bullying and bluster stop?

I suppose only when the U.S. either has produced a second Iraqi disaster or again has used a nuclear weapon on civilians (likely the only way to destroy Iran's facilities).

This constant drum beat of propaganda is horrible. Why is the press so fearful to describe it for what it is? The U.S. engineering a new aggression.

Iran has attacked no one in its modern history. It was attacked by Iraq in a vicious war assisted by the United States.

In the same period that Iraq has attacked no one, the U.S. has attacked or threatened dozens of lands: Vietnam, Cambodia, Haiti, Somolia, Iraq, Affghanistan, and many others.

Just who is the real threat here?

John Chuckman, Toronto, Canada

Most of your comments remind me of most of Europe's response to another dictator who threatened the world....Hitler. Oh England, don't pull a Neville Chamberlain on this one (i.e. "we have achieved peace in our time" after he met with Hitler). The leader in Iran has told us exactly what he wants to do, and if he gets a nuclear weapon, I am going to take him at his word! We need to learn from history and not make the same mistake twice!

Don't forget that Saddam told us that he was going to invade Kuwait before the first Persian Gulf War. Nobody believed him, but he did exactly what he said he was going to do, and I believe that Iran will be no different. If you haven't figured it out yet, the policy of appeasement doesn't work when doing with dictaors like the one in Iran! Hopefully, Europe won't have to learn this lesson the hard way...again!

Matt, Weatherford, TX

First of all, Iran as a country, has never said Isreal should cease to exist. It was a decietful misquote of President Ahmadinejad by a jewish newspaper that was picked up by every other mainstream news organization. What he actually said was that the "zionist regiem in Isreal will by lost in the pages of time."
There is a difference between zionism and jewery. Yes, Jews actually live in Iran, as well as Christians and many other religions. As far a Isreal not committing genocide, well ask the Palestinians about that.
You people really need to start doing your homework instead of taking mass media propaganda at face value. Ahhh, but that would actually require you to spend time researching and using your mind. Apparently you like other people doing your thinking for you.

Joe, Schaumburg, Illinois

We should wait for an Iranian attack with nukes. That should cause the UN to pass another resulation.
All wars should be resolved using UN resulations. Guns, WMDs and bombs are no match for UN resulations.

John Moody, Hudson, USA/Ohio

Iran's president has said that the division of Jerusalem must be consigned to the entrails of history. Berliners would understand this, but many wish to mistranslate his words to mean that Israel must cease to exist.

R. Lewis, Los Angeles, CA

Gee, just think if some of you peace lovers had this attitude about 70 years ago, you would be writting this in German!

Wiederhoeren!

A Freedom Lover, NJ, USA

There can hardly be a human being on the planet who does not understand that the rise of Islamic militancy is directly linked to the attitude of Israel towards Palestine and the Palestinians, and the unwavering support of the US for whatever policies that attitude drove. For sixty years, the only question the US asked when Israel said "Jump!", was "How high?".
Time to understand the fundamentals and sort them out, not "deal with" the consequences of having got them wrong for so long, in isolation.

Watcher, Lancashire,

Misters Justin, Atlanta and James F.Kijek, Lexington must both be in the 10th Grade. For a start their country did not commit themselves militarily to World War 11 until the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbour. And, it was our Prime-Minister, Winston Churchill that advocated moving onto Moscow after the defeat of Germany - their country did not have the appetite for it. They should also remember that their President, George Bush Snr, didn't have the appetite either to move onto Baghdad after the first Gulf War. A bit of a traite here, with the same ensuing results, I would suggest!

Robbie Rohan, Great Chart, Kent, Great Britain

To the people who never been in New York, or heard about 9/11. Nuclear is not 3000 people, Nuclear (those who survive will be talking about millions dead, and millions affected by radioactivity). Now who among us is willing to say let Iranians have a nuclear bomb? Aren't these the people who took our hostages and humiliated us in front of all the world, what makes you think they will hesitate wiping New York of the map? Think again, I'm from New York and I saw the towers coming down. Any US leader that will not take action will never be elected; it's not a matter of choice.

Julian, New York, USA

I'd love to see Europeans actually commit the resources to take responsibiliy for their own national defense rather than spend the pittance they spend to fund the most ineffectual militaries the European continent has ever known. Maybe then, Europe will have to deal responsibily with other foreign governments rather than fire cheap shots from the cheap seats at the only country in the world that maintains a military capable of defending Europe from forces that would rob them of the very liberty that allows them to make such irresponsible statements.

Iran is NOT a benevolent government. Iran has gone out of its way to demonstrate a total lack of responsibility that is required of a nuclear nation. Iran is a hostile theocracy that has stated over and over that it believes their role in the world is to lead the charge to bring Islam to the rest of the world. Who will Europe expect to come to their rescue when Iran engages nuclear blackmail to force the adoption of sharia?

Michael Curtis, Columbia, SC, USA

The war in Afghanistan was reactionary to the attack of 9/11. The war in Iraq was preemptive to the potential must greater attack of tomorrow. What we have seen is that the politics of today can not stomach a preemptive war to protect tomorrow. So now we have the elephant in the room, Iran. It appears that to handle Iran will require that we allow them to live up to what they say they are going to do and then the politics of the world can again stomach the reactionary war to follow.

Mike, Des Moines, Ia

I understand that our friends in Europe, if they exist, see a tint of imperialism in U.S. foriegn policy. I understand that considerable mistakes have been made in Iraq, and I feel many Americans are humiliated by these errors.
It's still unconsciable to read posts from around the globe where people are joyously calling for growth in China's emerging dominance and the downfall of the United States.
I don't believe there is a serious intent to attack Iran. It's not what Americans want. Americans don't fear Iranians using nuclear missiles. We fear suitcase bombs sent from a nation that aggressively promotes terrorism.
Even still, Iranians would be emboldened if a military option were completely "off the table."
This article seems incredibly out of step with US public opinion and the reality of the situation.
What is frighteningly in step with European public opinion is the isolating opinion that America is an evil nation with evil people who wish only for war and global dominance.

Dan Clare, Cincinnati, Ohio, US

Every couple has a right to have a child - but does that mean we allow every couple to keep their children if they abuse them?

Iran has the right to nuclear technology - but that right should only be tolerated if it shows that it will use the technology responsibily. Current comments from Iran suggest otherwise...

David, London, UK

Thank heaven Tony Blair has come to his senses, speaking out against war with Iran, and withdrawing some troops from Iraq. We need leaders throughout the globe whose main goals are world peace and better opportunity for all human beings to live secure, rewarding lives. Americans must elect such a leader in 2008. (Note the views of Democratic candidates Kucinich and Gravel.)
Lonely Liberal in Texas

Dianne, Plano, Texas USA

It is sad to see just how far Britain has fallen, whose leaders have become such a weak, ostrich-like group of patsies. When there is true evil in your hemisphere, the next Hitler developing atomic weapons, your first response it to comfort him with "Don't worry, we won't launch any military strike against you, we'll just have another meeting at the UN to talk about things...carry on."

Stop watching your Football matches and listening to the Spice Girls and learn to recognize evil, and stand up to it.

John, Boston, USA

US has no immediate threat from Iran - neither it will be threatenened in a foreseeable future. In public statements, Iranian president also said many times that in his phrase that Israel should sease to exist he does not imply using military force toweards Israel. In addition, I think, Israel has a huge stockpile of nuclear wareheads and will respond on any attack, while iranians are not SO suicidal . Moreover, Iran stated many times that they do not pursue any nuclear weapons program. In my conclusion: 1) Negotiations is the only way to go 2) Those who press for military solution are either a) stupid b) ignorant or c) persue some hidden interests

Will Krach, Philadelphia,

The problem is Iran has been the biggest threat to the US for almost the last thirty years, more so than even the old USSR. Iran has been very pro-active in destroying American interests (hostages, the Beirut bombings in 1983). I feel the US would be justified in going after Iran. That is the shame of Iraq war. Iraq was never a threat to the US (or the UK) so Bush (with help from Blair) got bogged down in an unnecessary war that has cost lives, treasury, time and credibility. While we are stuck there the real enemies of freedom Iran and Bin Laden go free.

Is it any wonder when Bush beats the drum for Iran no one is listening? He has no credibility. It's a shame in a way because that is the real war on terror. Defeating Iran may make a difference, Iraq, with all due respect to the departed, was a waste of time.

Brian S, Lowell, MA, USA

The western world cannot afford to ignore the agressive tone, and continiously existings threats of Mahmoud Ahmadinghad and the rest of the mullohcracy that rules Iran.
PM Tony Blair, and Commons Leader Jack Straw can cast the posture of their diplomatic tone as soft or as hard as they wish, but the possible need for military action will and must always remain on the table without question.

Robert Macklin, Paradise, USA/ California

President Bush is a great leader. He has the guts to do what is right regardless of what the liberal media says. He has freed Afghanistan and Iraq. I hope he does whatever it takes to stop Iran's nuclear program and their supplying of arms to the terrorists. Thank heavens for President Bush who doesnt bury his head it the sand as the former President did!

Leslie, Pisgah Forest, NC

Ignorance is truly bliss, apparently. Many posting to this article are either unaware, or wish to ignore the fact that those dictating policy in Iran are not rational. A priori, rational decisions on the part of Iran are not certain, and therefore the logical, rational use of nuclear weapons is also uncertain. Also missing from the comments above is any recognition of the fact that Iran (much like Iraq befiore it) is refusing to obey international law and thumbing its nose at the international community. As long as rogue states, including Iran and North Korea, believe that they can play by their own rules with no consequences for their actions, they will continue to threaten their neighbours and the world. And by consequences I mean severe consequences, not the pussyfooting about we are now seeing from European governments too worried about loosing access to Iranian oil, in contrast to Canada and the U.S. It is time to eliminate Iran's nuclear capabilities. Immediately.

Jim, New York, U.S.A.

It is stunning to see the ignorance of my fellow Americans. George W. Bush will go down in history as the worst president. His incompetence has led the US into a war against a country that was no threat to us. As a result Iran has grown in power and stature and the Taliban is back.

Kevin, Bayside, NY

Maggie, You would be living in Millington, Brittany, Germany had it not been for the sacrifices of the Almighty USA. Your countrymen turned and ran in a confrontation. Get a clue before you bad mouth the USA.

Doug, dover, oh

The given wisdom of the anti American conspiracy theorists is that the attack on Iraq is about oil and the forthcoming degradation of Iranian nuclear weaponry is about using Western power to control the Muslim world for its own hegemonistic ends. This view regards itself as the only sane and and historically valid interpretation of events. It is however the meeting of little England right, isolationist collaboratatory left and conspiracy theorists who shout angrily at radio phone-ins whilst ignoring the death of hundreds of thousands in Rwanda ,carried out with the connivence of the "anti war" French, the slaughter of thousands in the Balkans (particularly in Sebrinica under the protection of the United Nations) and no doubt abhorred the "illegal" interventions to save the Kosovans and the victims in Sierra Leone.Itsthe same European superiority that failed to recognise Hitler as a threat. Internationalist liberal left and right is in grave conspiracist danger.This matters to us all.

David Gwilliam, Bristol, Uk

Mr. Craig Magrum's opinion exemplifies perfectly the arrogance and bullying attitude that continues to be displayed by the USA to the rest of the world. What is correct in one country, Mr. Magrum, is not necessarily so in another; the sooner you come out of your shell the better.

Mr. Baldwin is being perfectly courteous in referring to your president as "Mr. Bush" in a UK publication. In Europe, it is the people that make a difference, not the title. It is George Bush himself that has abused your presidency, and in so doing is destroying the considerable respect the rest of the world once held for the USA.

Richard Stevenson, New York and London, USA and UK

It's certainly true that things in Iraq did not turn out as the US and GB would have hoped. There have been tragic and serious error in it's plan and implementation.

Having said that, I am dismayed that many do not grasp what is at stake in the middle east. Radical Islam is not satisfied in politcal settlements that will recognize a sovereign Israel. Radical Islam could care less about the murder of innocents, as displayed by their suicide attacks. War is terrible and should be a last resort, yet it may come to just that. I believe British historians would look at the appeasement of Chamberland with Hitler as a perfect example of how sometimes it is necessary to spill precious blood to avoid madmen (Hitler, Bin Laden, Al Sadr, et al) to crush free peoples.

The voices that call for peace carry a thoughtful hope, and one that I share...that there will be a peaceful resolution. But I ask you, are you prepared for what happens if diplomacy fails? What then?

Brian Thomas, Cincinnati, USA/Ohio

After witnessing decades' worth of suicide attacks against Israel, and the more recent suicide attacks against the U.S., I am somehow skeptical that radical muslims will worry too much about potential fallout being carried back toward themselves by "prevailing winds".

Sadly, war is inevitable. The question is do we prefer the war to occur before or after the nuclear genie escapes the bottle?

The situation is unfortunately a matter of "lesser-than-evils" with no happy outcome.

Jason B, Springfield, MO

The Europeans like there little museum nations where they can look at past achievements. Confronting evil is a constant and unfortunate task. We Americans do not enjoy this responsibility, but must confess that it has been thrust upon us. Islamic extremism must be defeated for the sake of humanity. It will not go away. Europe allowed extremism to grow in the 1920's-30's and then again with the rise of the Soviet Empire after WWII. Now is the time. Personal peace and affluence appears to have deadened our hatred of evil.

Justin , Atlanta, USA

Iran is just as completely within its rights to arm and threaten it's neighbors as the Nazis were back in the 1930's.

However back then it was the English that came hat in hand begging for US help, as their cities were in flames.

If we could go back in time and change things from that era, I wonder if England would do anything differently? Would they be more forceful or more preemptive in their dealings with Germany, or perhaps they still think it's best to try to talk their enemies to death?

The issue today is Iran and Israel is in very real danger of one day being a target of one of those nukes. Should they wait to get nuked before responding to Irans threats or should they act now to remove that threat before things get out of hand?

James F. Kijek, Lexington, KY USA

Re:craig Magrum
We do not have a President in the WH, what we have is a
blemish on the WH, who was appointed by a conservative
Supreme Court.

paul ryan, plano, USA/Texas

Iran has publicly stated that Isreal must cease to exist. The Iranians are developing a vast nuclear capability. The writing is on the wall and I have no problem reading the message. When Iran completes its development cycle, it will be in a position to blackmail the West and take over its neighbors. The calculas is very simple. A war is iminent, we are simply discussing when it will start, and who will start it.

Andy Dowell, Gainesville, Florida

I guess most of the world just won't get it until a brillant light followed by an atomic cloud is seen from their homes. By then it will be too late to do anything to prevent that event. Oh well, I shouldn't expect anything else from countries that did nothing except sell out other countries until Hitler's tanks and planes started killing their own women and children.

Carl Smallwood, Crestview, Florida

Craig -- "our president" has earned no respect. He is lucky we are still tolerating his presence.

rk, jacksonville, fl

But Muslim led countries with ruthless ambitions. When was the last time one heard of a Western power citing ambitions to eliminate another country off the face of the earth? An Iranian attack can be justified both legally and morally. Their continuing rhetoric makes an attack fall under the ambit of the right of self-defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter- this is regardless of whether a state is merely bluffing or not.
People seem to be forgetting the NATO campaign in defence of ethnic Albanian MUSLIMS which can only mean, therefore, that those who see the West as anti-muslim are only trying to justify their own political ideologies- consequently known as hypocrisy.

RA, UK,

How terrible is it that the US is the only superpower ? Things were much better when Stalin ruled half the Globe .

I don't think powerful nations should be allowed to defend themselves. If a smaller country that desires your destruction starts developing the means to do so you should just watch and try to be happy that justice is being served.

Rulers (be they nations or people) shouldn't try to defend their rule. As soon as they become powerful they should step aside and let someone less deserving have a shot.

Dan Osborn, Fort Collins, CO, USA

Craig,

Call you president what you like, but may I remind you that a man who holds an office similar to your president needs to earn respect not automatically assume it.
ON a further note, when your troops were invading Iraq (prounced 'erak, not I-rak') how did your press refer to President Hussain? as I recall it was 'Saddam'....why is that?

Cormac, Madrid, Spain

Hey Bob of London, Japan's younger generation didn't take to arms against us, they emulate us. Nor did Germany's, or England's, for that matter. We are allies now. The American Indian has yet to pick up a gun against us, the same holds true for Hawaiians, Puerto Ricans, Samoans, and Native Alaskans. We beat them all into submission by making it so terrible to think about striking us. This is only the beginning. The situation will come to a head at some point where it's a real war and civilians are included as targets for both sides, not just theirs. Then you will see them suffer. :)
And for all you fools who ignorantly say it's about oil...the price of oil in the US has doubled in the past 4 years, so go find another excuse to pin our war to greed, because that one holds no water.

Chris, New York, USA

Criag,
Bush, President Bush or just George......call him what you want. People need to earn respect not just automatically assume they have it when voted put in office
When US newspapers were reporting on their 'justified' war in Iraq (pronounced erac not I-Rac) did your newspapers called President Hussain by his title, no I believe it was jsut Saddam, why is that Craig?

Cormac, Madrid, Spain

The reason why no one in the West worries about Israel having the bomb is that Israel hasn't expressed the desire to commit genocide, and has never denied their neighbor's right to exist. Iran has done both. Iran has also actively participated in efforts to kill Israelis and bring bloodshed and instability to the region.

VanSkaamper, Seattle, USA

To Craig,

What has George W Bush done to earn respect?

Cormac, Madrid, Spain

To Bob From London:

When you speak of children picking up guns, are you referring to the reaction of the French, your own citizens, the Dutch, etc., in response to Hitler's escapades? Do you not recall what happened when "anti-war" groups tried to "negotiate" with Mr. Hitler?

Open your eyes before it is too late.

Thank God for the United States of America.....and George W. Bush.

Scott Gerux, Springfield, Illinois

This is the same Mr Blair who sat and discussed options for provoking a war with Iraq with Mr Bush prior to the invasion, so I wouldn't take much of what he says publicly seriously.

And in answer to Craig Magrum, there is virtually no respect globally for Mr Bush or his office anymore, thanks to his illegitimate and disasterous presidency.

I would think about that carefully if I were him, rather than go on the offensive against those who have a serious problem with Mr Bush, but not with the idea of America or it's institutions.

RAL, London, UK

Weapons of mas destruction are 'definitely' found to be in Iran? Where have we heard that before? Without a doubt, the USA is the greatest threat to Mankind; when are we all going to stand up to these buffoons and point out that they don't actually own the World?

Sean, Kent,

Some of you are asking why Iran doesn't have the right to nuclear weapons and the U.S. and Israel do. I hate to drop the "H" bomb, but: One might as well ask why the U.S. had the right to start developing the bomb in the 1930s and Hitler did not. But that would be a silly question, wouldn't it?

Rol McMasters, Washington, DC

I didn't realize that you guys had the perfect utopian society. Please forgive us, as Americans we have always been inferior to all of you in the UK and Europe as a whole. I've also come to realize that we have screwed up the entire globe. Why if Americans were no longer around I bet the world would be a much happier place. Well, a wise man once told me to "Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it." One last thing, I would like to know, what would you do if someone punched you in the nose? Would you take it, or would you fight back?

Carlos, Jacksonville, Florida

Didn't Blair, and many others say that Iran having Nukes was "unacceptable"? To me that means we use any means to prevent them from having nukes, untill our pain is so great that we are convinced it is acceptable. Iran will continue down the path until they have the bomb, unless there is a serious threat of pain, and that won't be economic. Instead of dealing with them diplomatically we need to deal diplomatically with Russia and Chine to convince them that it is really unnaceptable for Iran to have nukes. Once that is done then we will really have all options available and Iran will listen.

John, Atlanta, GA, USA

To the Israeli doctor -

Why is it that you can build a wall keeping the Palestinians in? Yet, if someone built a wall around the Jews (ie. the Ghettos), it is Anti semitic?

Why is it that you can bomb and invade countries and have nuclear weapons but your neighbours cant?

Europe did not come to your defense, because most of us thought your actions in Lebanon were wrong and immoral...

Mark Leiser, glasgow, Uk

He is only an American President and his title is technically informal and we have no obligation to be called that. If a British journalist refers to him as Mr. Bush, then it is his right to. If you choose to call him President Bush, it is your choice. Personally I think the article points out much more substantive issues than the choice of name the author uses. Finally, respect is earned and I think Mr. Bush has lost any respect most people in this country may have considered him to have.

Mark Leiser, glasgow, UK

It is amazing to listen to the weak Europeans who believe that capitulation to the Islamic terrorists is the way to go. Europe tried the same method 60 years ago and look what happened then.
In todays world, there is a radical Islamic movement that is determined to kill every Christian and Jew they can. The Europeans believe if they stick their head in the sand and ignore it, everything will be ok. You have two choices:
1. Wake up and start defending yourself
2. Start taking Arabic lessons and sudying the Koran.

Samuel Smith, Tucson, Arizona, USA

Which countries already have nuclear weapons? Which of these countries have threatened to use nuclear weapons? And most important, which country has used the bomb on civilian populations? And last but not least, which countries are presently threatening to use the bomb "at any cost?" This is where the real danger lies,

John, Chicago, iIllinois

I often wonder when reading comments like these, if there is a gene responsible for bellicose sociopathology.

The ignorant scaremongers who are urgently claiming nuclear devastation of the Middle East and Europe if Iran develops the bomb might do well to learn something of the geography and prevailing winds in the region. The Iranians could no more attack Israel with nuclear weapons than they could attack themselves. The fallout would inevitably drift back over their own population. Nuclear weapons for them could only ever be a weapon of last resort.

I have to ask: After witnessing so many examples of their never-ending dishonesty, how could anyone believe these war-mongering propagandists when their interests and allegiances are so obviously, exclusively aligned with those of the right wing in Israel?

When have they ever been right about anything?

arthurdecco, Georgina, Canada

i totally agree with the C.Fritsch comment! first iraq, then fuelling the isreal and lebanon war, now iran.... what next. it seems like one thing after the next. also do you see what all these countries have in common- they are muslim led countries. i think this is one way bush is rebelling for the 9/11. i agree it has a disgraceful event for which hundreds of inocence died. but do you not think that iran may not actually have any nuclear weapon and that they are just going to ruin the country like they did for iraq? i pray to god that tony blair doesn't get involved in bush' mess, i think he has lowered his reputation in England after the war in iraq.
america has enough problems with poverty and rime in their own country to deal with instead of focusing on what others are doing.

Naz, London, UK

Thank you Mr Blair, Bush and Olmert can go on their Iranian escapade, Europe wants nothing to do with reckless wars, all you warmongers get this straight attacking Iran would not stop their program.

Gabriel, Hague,

Just because you can does not make you right or justified, we are all hypocrites, the west has the biggest stick so it must right ? I am sure Iraq will thank us for their 'freedom' if there is anybody left to vote in the next few years. America was well aware of the threat in Iran well before 9/11, and it did very little. After 9/11 it invades Iraq which the only threat it posed was the fact that America relies on their oil. Oh as well they had some weapons didn't they? we sold them some. So the message to Iran; Stop producing your own weapons and just buy them from America, it will give you at least fifteen years or so before they conveniently forget they sold them to you and invade for what little of your oil, sorry freedom is left. God bless capitalism.

Malcolm Richardson, Durham, England

I just despair when reading some of the comments here. When will you Americans realise that if you kill a father (albeit an agressor) his multiple children will pick up a gun against you? It seems you've learnt nothing from the awful events of 9/11. People hate your country because your interfering greedy self-serving government has irritated them to the point of exasperation. Why can't you just leave the world alone and deal with the many problems in your own country. Nobody needs you as the World's police. Your motives are always so biased.
I have young children, and I am so angry that complete strangers would want to kill them just because they are christians. They are innocent people growing up in the midst of tension. How did we get into such an awful mess? Our politicians have failed us badly. Why can't they ever negotiate in the common interest? What has happened to sanity? We don't need another Iraq, Vietnam...

Bob, London,

It would be easier to helpthe Iranians if we could be
sure they would withdraw from all international terrorism support, kick out all their terrorists, and recognise Israel....
altho I have no particular craw for their camp!!

McGahon, Dublin, Ireland

I am an Israeli.
I have spent my whole lifetime living in the aftermath of the Holocaust.
'It did happen. It can happen. It must be prevented at all costs.' Are all engraved deeply in the Israeli National subconscious.
These fears are deepened by the inane behaviour of the Iranian leadership.
The community of Nations did nothing for the Jews l in the last conflagration.
The consistent vilification and denigration of Israel is seen to indicate a continuation of this attitude.
We fear that for many our obliteration would not be wholly negative.
Israeli leaders are not so removed from us that they share our fears. They understand that lack of action will not be allowed.
Israel will never allow an Iranian bomb. No matter what it takes. No matter what are the consequences.
The West must consider only one thing.
What is better?
Israel removes the threat or the West does?
Yours sincerely

Dr Michael Benjamin, Oranit, Israel

The comments here from our cousins across the Atlantic are pretty scary aren't they. Reports today that once again CIA intelligence on just where these weapons in Iran are being produced has proved to be less than true. Never thought i'd say it, but I agree with Chirac, what do they have to gain from producing these weapons, they'd be wiped off the map. And the political signs from inside Iran itself are suggesting people there are getting tired of Ahmadinejad to. America needs to learn, however much they feel frightened by the rest of the world, the fear outside their corner of the globe is ten times worse- come on China hurry up and challenge them for god's sake.

Simon, London, UK

When referring to our President Mr. Baldwin, it is not proper to casually refer to him as "Mr. Bush." It is "President Bush". Your lack of respect for his office and title isn't very professional.

Craig Magrum, Bowling Green, OH,

No one as yet has answered this question, why is it alright for Israel [ & others ] to have nuclear weapons but not Iran ?
America has turned into a imperialist Bully, they simply want to be top dog .
The size of their Embassy in Iraq is obscene, did they buy the land it is on ? are they paying all the tax there ? How come they have managed to build it in a war zone? have everything up & running with electricity & all services when the locals do not have these basic functions. It's the same in Dar es Salaam huge embassy sitting there like a menacing presence. They have no interest in helping people of these countries, they want strategic bases around the world & to be seen as the almighty USA. For the first time I understand why Europe does need to unite & become a forceful body to match the size of America. We have all looked to the states for our protection for far too long, times are changing & I hope all country leaders are rethinking their loyalties & seeing the reality of todays situation.

Maggie Millington, Brittany, France

Where is the problem? A nation wants to develop let it.... What are we afraid of? We talk about equal opportunities, where is the equality with a hegemony that is the US.

The Iranians have more to fear than either we in Britain or our "allies" in the US. They've got wars going on next door.... Warships arriving in their waters everyday.... Can we sat in our comfy homes see Iranian warships in the English channel? I mean just who is the aggressor here? What a flimsy excuse to go to war. There is no threat. It's all based on tenuous at best, imagined/fabricated intelligence.

The story changes every day, first it was Al-Qaida, then it was Afghanistan, then it was Iraq and now Iran? Have we not learned our lesson? Declaring war has done nothing in any of these countries. The wars on various battlefronts are still continuing nothing has been resolved, nothing has been achieved. Innocent people dying everyday, do their lives mean nothing?

Sekander, London, England

The message from the Bush Administration appears to be that only its friends e.g. Isreal, should be allowed the capability to follow its example as in Hiroshima and Nagasaki and to bring death and destruction to untold thousands. It is probably seen as sound politics to Bush but the morality behind the argument sucks.

A B Robertson, Innellan, UK

What’s Chamberlain and appeasement got to do with it? Has the state of Iran actually invaded other sovereign lands? No. Some may say that it has been sponsoring terrorism (i.e. in Iraq/Afghanistan), but at the end of the day, it is no worse than what America and other Western states has done over the years – can anyone honestly say that the US has never sponsored (covert) operations in other nations with the aim of reaching a political (or religious) goal? Bush and his hawks are no better than other religious fanatics – it’s just that they happen to be Western Christians, so it’s OK…
Iran claims to want to use enriched uranium for “peaceful” purposes. Maybe they are, maybe not, either way what right does the US have to bully other weaker nations into submission? Bush’s belief that he has this right is based on schoolyard bullying and has enraged moderates (both in the West and East) who would otherwise not have reacted against him in this way.
Those who show this sycophantic “patriotism” and paranoia do so from a position of undeniable weakness, and should consider that the world is not black and white. Bush (and Blair) have been proven wrong on a number of occasions over both Afghanistan, Iraq and, more recently the Israel/Lebanon disgrace. Blair would appear to have learnt from this (better late than never). Bush… well what need I say…?

Charles, Basel, CH

Iran is completely within its rights as a soverign nation to develop nuclear weapons. In the 1945, the U.S.A. as part of the Manhattan Project, secretly developed, produced, and used the first atomic weapons in its war against the Empire of Japan.

While I support the international banning of nuclear weapons, if conducted fairly and with equity, I also understand the necessity to develop nuclear weapons as a means of Persian national defense against those bellicose foreign governments who would threaten Iranian independence.

As a nation of great antiquity, the Persian people have the absolute soverign power and right to do whateever they want to and to do what-ever-it takes to protect their legitimate national, cutural, and economic self-interests from external aggression.

I support the Iranian nuclear initiative as a affirmative vehice of Iranian pride and of international diplomatic ascendancy.

Marcelino Martinez, Tracy, CA, USA

Why is everybody looking into the night and seing demons. Should we not support the peaceful use of nuclear technology for energy generation on the grounds of 'global warming'. Surely the west would be seen in a better light if we were to help the Iranians with their development of the technology. In helping them we could also ensure that their intentione were peaceful and help to defuse some of the bad feelings towards the west.

Peter, Basinstoke, Hampshire

I think that it is unfortunate that this may very well come to war, yet again. But Iran has made its intentions for its version of the future very clear, they are now developing the means to pursue "their future." And taunting it in our face? Wow. The politics around Iraq are definitely complicated, but if anyone was to look at this issue and block out their feeling about the current iraq situation, i think it is pretty obvious that Iran is a HUGE problem. Obviously we must take into account these other factors(iraq) when determining how to move forward, i just very sincerely hope, that people do not decide we shouldn't stop Iran because they are scared that this could work out like Iraq. The situations are by far different, an personally i would much rather Iran ends up like Iraq, than the alternative, nuclear war, the destruction of Israel, nuclear fallout in middle east and europe, and that would only be the beginning.

Jake, Lake Tahoe, California

Sometime before we bow out of Iraq the USA will degrade iran's military capabilities and nuclear ambitions. So that iran can't threaten the Gulf States. The world's oil supply. Bet the farm on it! Do you really think we can trust the iranian islamic extremist if we were to come to an agreement with them? If I recall you Gents had a similar arangement with hitler. That didn't work out so well.

Bob, NYC, USA

We should prepare to parachute thousands of pigs onto and around their nuclear facilities. Their religious aversion to touching the beasts would prevent them from going to work and may thus curtail the fantasies of the little Adolph wannabe. As with the Peoples Democratic Republic (don't ya love the name?) of North Korea, we could turn their nuke sites into glazed parking lots should they EVER launch.

Brian Bellman, Charles Town, WV. USA

London is much more within Iran's firing range than the United States is.
If the British believe that this is in their best interests, so be it. However, the British will be able to handle this on their own, especially with the French and Germans at their side (Sarcasm intended).
The only thing I am waiting to see is the AntiChrist arise from the Revived Roman Empire (European Union).

Ernesto Cornejo, Keizer, Oregon

The Brits want out because an attack on Iran will propel the Shiites in the south to cut our supply lines out of Kuwait, and they don't want to be in the middle of it.

Iran cooperated with us after 9-11 because they don't like Al Qaeda anymore than we do. A diplomatic effort at that time might have eased the tensions, and we could have worked a deal on the nuclear stuff. Fact is, the Wall Street Journal just reported that Iran is near the point of rationing gasoline, so they do have a need for energy.

Iraq was a mistake in progress as soon as we invaded.

All these references to the appeasement of Hitler ignore the fact that we're the ones who invaded Iraq, with plans to go into Syria and Iran. None of these countries had anything to do with 9-11, and everything to do with the neo-con alliance with the Likudniks in Israel.

Mike Siesel, Columbia, Missouri

I'm hawkish, but I think that a good strategy for the US would be to tell the world to go take a flying leap. Tell France that it's up to them to figure out how to deal with Iran. Tell the UK (much as I'm grateful for their staunch support over the past few years) that they need to take the lead in managing Iran's nuclear ambitions. Tell Saudi Arabia that it's now up to them to figure out how to make nice with Iranian menace. And let the US focus on more important things, like figuring out cures for Liberalismitis, PCSS (Political Correctness Stupidity Syndrome), and IIRP (Intense Irrational Reality Phobia). If we could cure these three things, we'd truly be a 21st Century power. But we're hobbled because we're more concerned with Iran and AIDS than the real internal maladies that affect almost every large institution in America and Europe.

Harry, Chats, USA

Would somebody please point out a single international agreement made by anybody with Iran in the last 30 years that the Iranian government didn't dishonestly violate? What makes anybody think that they can be trusted? They have no reason whatever to stop pursuing nuclear weapons precisely because nobody will force them to stop. They use negotiations only to keep everybody else TALKING while they get their business done. The only reason they continue to get away with it is because the whole world irrationally fears the status quo less than they fear what Iran will most assuredly do if they are allowed to get nuclear weapons. They will finally get to be leader of the Islamic pack, whose goal is forced conversion and domination of the planet. Nothing they have seen so far from any country, the US included, amounts to even a speed bump for them. They don't fear the US. They pity the US for its unmanly inability to take anything but its pleasures seriously. They do FEAR Israel. Hmm

Ken , Waxhaw, NC

The USA seems to be so deadset on creating as much havoc as possible in the middle east, it now does nothing to shock me that they're hell-bent on invading Iran. Only a few months ago I jokingly asked how long it would be before Bush claimed that they'd found a link to Iran in Iraq or Afganistan, and worryingly enough I was spot on! Step forward George W Bush in act iv, with the bloody knife a la 'Iranian Munitions'. The only thing that does surprise me is that Blair has finally decided to firstly bring his troops home, and secondly stand up to Bush. When is America going to realise that Britain is not some puppy dog that they can yank their chain against and immediately we'll fall in line. They are the world leader, they are the single most powerful nuclear nation on the planet. It's about time they started sorting their own messes out.

ade, Canary Wharf, England

Those who write here that military action against Iran is necessary. Please write back after you have signed yourself up for military service. If you believe in war so much, please match your convictions with your armchair bravado. War is not a leisurely game of Stratego. People die during war and unless you yourself are willing to die for your convictions, I would respectfully suggest that you keep your hollow comments to yourself.

Jeff Brown, Durham, NC

The longer it takes to make a decision on what action to take over the Iranian situation, the more likely it will be that they will develop a capability that we in the West won't be able to ignore. Better we are clear on what action to take now, than let a tyrant drag us into another war that has the distinct possibility of turning into WWIII. Everyone knows what happens when you let aggression go unchecked and the Iranian situation is clearly provocative.

Paul Maynard, London,

To Steven Schoenberg: Without us if you don't mind. We British have no arguement with Iran and have no desire to listen to the consistent black propaganda fed to the west by Israel and its supporters.

Carl, London, UK

To Steven Schoenberg of LA. What on earth was the US doing when "we cravenly fiddled while Spain and Poland burned and the Blitzkreig raged.."? Britain declared war on Nazi Germany in order to honour our commitment to Poland. For heavens sake, get your facts straight first.

Brian Clayton, Brisbane, Australia

Nobody actually WANTS to take military action against Iran, but they are determined to develop nuclear weapons and are simply stringing the world along in negotiations while they enrich uranium. They can stop at any time, and haven't, despite repeated and rather generous offers of help with peaceful nuclear power. The world faces a stark choice: a nuclear armed Iran with links to terrorists or some air strikes which may or may not have the desired effect. There are no good options here, but personally I'd choose the latter.

PJ, London, England

Somebody has to stop them, and since the UN hasn't the stones nor the will to ever do anything other than beg for money, the United States will have to take the lead yet again.

While everyone agrees the world will become a more dangerous place once Iran has to ability to use and sell nuclear weapons, many of the biggest defenders of this hostile country are in bed with them with financial arrangements, so they won't do what must be done.

And anyone who thinks Iran should have access to such weapons would just as foolishly hand a loaded gun to an infant. Ignorance is a luxury the US cannot afford to let stand in the way of what has top be done.

Biker Dude, Florida, USA

It is simply too dangerous for the free world to allow countries like Iran to have nuclear weapons. Iran has shown time and again that they aren't interested in a peaceful resolution to this problem. It is time to end their nuclear program on our own terms and if that includes airstrikes, then so be it.

Ward Bounds, Brandon, MS, USA

I guess Tony Blair isn't deep in the pockets of the defense industry, unlike Bush and Cheney. The only thing that drives the US Administration is money and greed. I'm sure Haliburton is drooling at the mouth of the prospect of another full blown war. Bush and Cheney are crazy if they think the US can afford a military intervention in Iran. By the way, the British press is respected in US. Maybe not in Virginia.

Adam, Ben Lomond, California

Has anyone stopped to consider that 9/11 may have been orchestrated by a shadow government whose intention may be to keep the U.S. at war with one nation or another forever? And did anyone stop to consider that this is an illegal war with Iraq from the onset based on false information presented by this President, and that the U.S. has no business in the middle east other then to steal oil from other nations? And did anyone stop to think who makes money off of war and where are all of our hard earned tax dollars going? And even more important that all those billions of dollars pouring out of the U.S. is not here to rebuild our own infrastructure. War sucks and so do those who insist on instigating war, spilling the blood of innocent women and children. It seems to me some of our leaders are engaged in treason and should be held accountable.

C. Fritsch, Ph.D., Honokaa, Hawaii

The reason why we are 0/2 in the last two wars isn't because of the troops or leaders, it is because of the people back at home. The United States won WWII because of the complete war effort back at the home land. How much more will have to happen in order for our troops to get our homeland effort back? I never knew America was full of such "fair weather fans."
And with the A. Nicole comment, there isn't anything bad going on in Iraq, so the news has nothing to report, god forbid they report something good about it.

Scott, Eau Claire, WI

Blair can't correct the blunder of his stumble into Iraq by feigning some spinal fortitude at this late date -- but at least he can quit digging the hole that Bush, Cheny, and the Neocons have dragged us into.

Otto Zeit, Berkeley, California, USA

Think long, hard, and seriously about this. Is it better to tackle this problem head on now, when Iran does not have nuclear weapons, or wait until an enemy, theocratic government who has repeatedly said " Israel will cease to
exist", and that "they will distroy American interests everywhere", has nuclear bombs and the ability to deliver
them to North America?
When they have "the bomb", they will have the ability also, through threats and coercion, to form a "Caliphate" of the whole Middle-East., from western Muslim China to Somalia. Will America have the backbone to face them then? With the demonstrated political will of the "left", in
our country, I doubt it, and I fear for America. This is what our children and grand-children will face. God Bless
the USA.

Robert Thurston, Naples, Florida

"The hawks headed by Cheney, who is urging Mr. Bush to keep the military option 'on the table'". This article is over-the-top biased. First of all, it's just good policy to have someone holding the military card. Kinda like "good cop, bad cop". Why should the Bush Admin. willingly castrate itself of one of it's most important powers. Particularly when dealing with someone like Ahmadinejad. Secondly, when has Pres. Clintin ever been refered to as Mr. Clinton. That little "Mr. Bush" jab is always a sure sign of an emboldened leftist.

Will, Riverside, USA / CA

Who cares about world opinion? I dont. The world opinion is to help the people of Darfur and nothing is happening. Enough about world opinion and start talking about world actions.

Kalik Crick, Brooklyn, New York,

You can delay but not stop Iran from mastering nuclear technology. It is better to use diplomacy and trade to bring about a less hostile environment for Iran, so that they won't see nuclear weapons as an essential security guarantee. Threats of sanction and war will only strengthen Iran's impetus to build a nuclear arsenal. The Hawks inclination to dictate terms to Iran is a recipe for failure.

Kyet, Singapore,

If Israel is left alone to stop Iran it will possibly lead to World War III. Appeasement continues to grow...

Blog Chow, USA,

I wonder if Americans know that Iran has long-range missiles that can reach the U.S...

David Alvarado, Yongsan, South Korea/USA

If only people knew what is really going on in Iran. It goes past their support for Iraqi militias. This country wants nothing but to destory the U.S. and it's allies. You'll see it all unfold here really soon. Real soon...

David Alvarado, Yongsan, South Korea/USA

Chamberlin rides again!

Paul, Fort Worth, TX

For what it's worth, there are millions of Americans who are totally opposed to the war in the middle east, and absolutely opposed to a war with Iran. It's also becoming more and more puzzling to many so-called liberal americans that it is the christian conservatives who are calling for even more aggression. Anyone, on either side, who doesn't see this as a holy war is spending way too much time on their knees in church!

Jon Harmeling, Seattle, WA

Bush is right to take a firm line with Iran and to carry out military operations if the production of nuclear weapons continues! Blair is showing similar weakness to Chamberlain in '38 'cept that Iran will be far more dangerous than Nazi Germany once they have atomic weapons!

Ralph Smith, Victoria BC, Canada

Well, the Brits have finally succumbed once again to their favorite fallback -- "Peace in Our Time". For those who cravenly fiddled while Spain and Poland burned and the Blitzkrieg raged, remember a simple fact --this time, when sociopaths scream for our blood, the Jews know how to defend ourselves. Never again. With you or without you.

Steven Schoenberg, Los Angeles, USA

While I want a diplomatic answer I also have memories of Beirut and the US Embassy in Iran. Iran has shown no restraint in killing Americans. Iran can't be allowed to threaten us with nukes.

Joe, Chicago, USA

Suppose Iran's radicals refuse to agree to diplomatic initiatives and obtain nukes or are very close to it.

They believe a middle east holocust will usher in the reign of the 12th imam, and have no problems murdering 100'000's of thousands of jews or sunnis.

Do we allow them to build and use the bomb....

That really is the only question.

Judge William, Birmingham, AL

Most American contributers to this topic all have the defensive attitude that the West highly dislike them.
What the West dislikes is your foriegn policies being driven by your present out of control administration.
The American people are among the most friendly and hospitable folk one could meet.
You are a very patriotic people but beware that this great quality can be manipulated by power hungry politicians for their own myopic ends.
I speak from having served with Americans in war and met many in my country and on my travels.

Des FitzPatrick, Christchurch, New Zealand

What a biased article. Hawks? Thats not neutral language, it reflects the views of the writer of this article. This is an editorial, not news.

Iran is pushing it bigtime. Diplomacy doesnt always work. Sometimes force is necessary. Hopefully the U.S. doesnt have to use force, but Iran is asking for it.

Everyone fine with Iran having nuclear weapons? hhmm?

Tthe U.N. doesn't have the spine to do whats necessary. Nobody is afraid of the U.N.

The EU's response is pathetic as well.

This is going to be interesting to watch unfold...

scott, Valencia, spain

If Iran pursues its real agenda, the world will be at risk of radical Islam. This cannot happen at any cost.

John, higley, az

"this is why the British press is not repected in the U.S."

This from a member of a nation whose press features wall-to-wall coverage of A. Nichol Smith.

Flanagan, Ottawa, Canada

One senior adviser to Mr Gates has even stated privately that military action could lead to Congress impeaching Mr Bush.

Under what law?
The War Powers Act of 1973 says the President can make war on any country for 90 days without Congressional support or declaration of war. Clinton did it in the Balkans. Though it sounds dramatic, it has no legal basis. The House Judiciary stated Nixon could not be impeached for bombing Cambodia because it was within his power as commander in chief.
Shoddy editorial work by The Times on this one.

J Taverni, NYC, USA

Do you want to emulate Chamberlain or Churchill? The UK must decide.

JD Brooks, Bellevue, NE, USA

Who cares for opinions, International Laws, Legal Norms, Diplomatic Precedents? You have the power, use it, destroy, pulverize and kill by all means necessary for the sake of international 'peace and stability'. Claim yourself victorious and leave a legacy. Celebrate anniversary of war and in front of TV cameras, recite some nice words......'The world has been a better place, blah, blah, blah, ....New international order,.....decisive action,........envisioned a new chapter in human history............Blah, blah, blah, blah..........The sentences should end with God, His mission, Saving Civilization...................Amen!.

Bob, Mcpherson, Texas, U.S.A

Without a credible threat of using force against them, we are powerless in negotiations with a regime such as Iran. It is that simple.
No one wants another war, but we must be prepared to go to war should it come to that. All options must remain on the table.

MikeG, Boston, , MA USA

Yea Daniel, lets invade Iran while Iraq and Afghanistan are already in shambles. Lets make the region even more chaotic, lose even more respect from the worldwide community, and watch the beginning of the downfall of the United States. Jay, if you don't understand how neo-cons like Cheney and Rumsfeld are hawks, then you didn't pay any attention to the false case they made for going to war with Iraq.

Anthony, Arlington, VA

Here is my view.General MacArthur said; America loves a Winner. Seeing we are 0 for 2 in the last two War's Let's do it right like we used to do War.I mean turn that U.S. Military might loose or send the Gospel preachers over there instead. It will be cheaper and fewer will die.

Gene Spinoso, Torrington, Ct.

Not everyone in America is crazy. It was wrong to invade Iraq and it would be catastrophic on many levels to invade and / or attack Iran. The US will stop at nothing to ensure its own hegemony over the rest of the world. Kofi Annan was correct: The biggest threat to world peace is the US.

William, Kearny, NJ

Either the U.S. takes out Iran or Israel does it. Either way it's going to be a bumpy ride for the world. The alternative is Iran obtaining and using nuclear weapons. Welcome to 1939 all over again.

Karl, VALDOSTA, GEORGIA, USA

Must have missed something. Keeping the "military option on the table" is prudent. Haven't heard a word on this side of the pond about attacking Iran aside from media cooking stories. But rest assured, if it happens we'll expect you to tie down the enemy in Basra

Rob, Hurricane state,

This comes as no surprise to me knowing what kind of individuals are in command. The Bush administration is hell bent on alienating all of our former allies despite what the majority of Americans think. What does surprise me is that no one has talked of a three way impeachment. Now that would really surprise and please me as well as set a precedent for future power mongers.

bob graham, las vegas , nevada

I'm very pleased to see the UK leader taking a strong, independent and, most importantly, just stand.

Now if only our leaders here in the U.S. would focus their efforts on noble causes--like returning the U.S. to its leadership role in space exploration or helping Bill Gates to eradicate certain diseases from the planet or eliminating world hunger or curbing the rampant growth of human trafficking--instead of making our country go down as a mass killer of innocents while stealing their resources under false pretences. My president more than shames me. He sickens me.

Good for you, Mr. Blair.

Avril Ellington, Dallas, TX

I would consider myself a stereotypical "hawk." Even though I realize that military action against Iran should be the last possible alternative, we should never have top U.S. officials making statements taking that card off the table. It is called leverage and that is just another bargaining chip when true negotiations start to take place. If Iran sees that the majority of Bush's cabinet will steer clear of force, then that gives them one peak into the cards that the U.S. holds. In poker it's not so much the cards that you hold, but rather how you play them.

Luke, Dallas, TX

It's President Bush.. not Mr Bush... would this article refer to former President Clinton as Mr Clinton?

Sam, Rockford, IL

Its time to stop the useless blabbering about war and use diplomacy. War solves nothing, but it does end the lives of the innocent. We are in an Iraq war because it became the project of an incompetent American president. I dont think the world can suffer through more American incompetence in pursuit of its narrow minded vision of what is right.

Pau Nolan, Jessup, MD

Publicly stated comments by the Iranian leadership regarding Britain, Israel and the United States' future leave us with few options. Iran's nuclear capabilities will have to be dealt with, sooner rather than later In this case we'd better be a day early than a day late.

Gary , Hemet, , CA

There is no logical explanation for us to remain in Iraq let alone stir the beehive in Iran. These people don't like us and don't want us there any longer. Almost all of America can see that, why can't Mr Bush and Mr Chaney. It is now time to tap into our oil reserves and to aggressively seek energy alternatives.Its a big country and there is lots of land to plant corn for ethanol,and if that does work hydrogen is a another idea, America is filled with great scientists and engineers,we need to utilize their knowledge.

jc, atlantic Highlands, usa/nj

To Jay in Arlington: Hawks is a well-known term describing those (like Cheney) who are itching for a war. It is simply a means to identify one group from another, traditionally called "Doves", who would rather, in the words of Churchill, do "jaw-jaw, not war-war". And as for the British press not being respected in the USA, why waste your time reading & commenting on it then?
Iran, as yet, have not breached the NPT, unlike certain other nations I can think of, & as such I feel that diplomacy is the ONLY path to go down. All this sabre-rattling from Washington will just serve to make the Iranians anxious & allow bush to start a war which he will then leave for someone else to clear up. For once in my life, I find myself in agreement with Mr. Blair.

Jerry, London/State College, UK/USA

The British press is "not respected" in the US because the news differs from the sanitized official corporate vision or banal filler proffered by most networks and other news venues. I have found the British journalists are more pragmatic and questioning than their American counterparts, whose primary concern seems to be keeping their jobs in an increasingly vapid and gray sea of talking heads. I didn't see the BBC wasting time on Anna Nicole's funeral arrangements or Britney's haircut. CNN sure ate that sludge up, however, and recut and looped every inane bit of detail in those stories. Most Americans wouldn't know good objective forward-looking journalism even if it struck them repeatedly in the face and groin.

Dan, Okinawa City, Japan

The Iran "threat" has been too hyped-- their president is only a figurehead with no real power and their ayatollahs have publically issued fatwas forbidding Iran's building, stockpiling or use of nuclear arms.

Those who think that they can bomb Iran into a moderate, freedom loving democracy are the same who thought the same of Iraq and have no real grip on reality.

Victor Kozlovski, Rochester, USA/NY

HAWKS! Accurate and appropriate in this *news* piece. And speak for yourself. Some of us like to check the news outside the U.S. to get a more balanced view of the world.

IRAN, defeated? You're kidding. Listen to yourself. Imagine another country telling us our business and how infuriating that would be! We'd tell them to go to hell, and rightfully so!

Come on folks. Why don't we try minding our own business for a change? Imagine that! Americans tend to give off this repugnant combinantion of ignorance and arrogance that it's no wonder we're so popular around the world.

Rob, Atlanta, GA, USA

Daniel, why must Iran be defeated? Are they commiting genocide? are they killing inncocent people? are they trying to destabalise the western world in an attempt to become a global power? Can you please explain why Iran needs to be defeated and also what is defeated? left in rubbles with a new wave of people wanting to get revenge against america or just to have all of their weapons blown up? if you could clarify your statement it would be helpful

Can i also add that the BBC is actually widely respected around the world.

Leon, Brisbane, Australia

WHY must IRAN be DEFEATED? Do the arabs scare you? More so than North Koreans conducting nuke tests? Iran isn't the country everyone thinks it is. They aren't the power-hungry, jew-hating country most people make them out to be. We should continue letting the IEAE monitor them. We should BELIEVE the CIA's assessment that they are at least 10 years from building a nuclear weapon. And we should continue a diplomatic route until we have absolute proof that they are working on building proof.

We've heard this story of 'imminent threat' and WMDs before, people. TIme to start investigating for yourselves and stop letting your fear of dying guide you around like sheep.

Justin, Boulder, CO

I agree with Sen. John McCain... "the only thing worse than attacking Iran is a nuclear capable Iran..." sooner or later either the US or Israel will have to shoot...

Ray Lyon, Waynesville, NC

we should mind our own business. It's a foolish thing to attack Iran. They are no threat to the U.S. Many innocent people would die.

Steve, Houston, Tx., USA

Bush has only two options at this point:

1) Fail in Iraq, and be remembered as the worst American President since Warren Harding, or

2) Expand the conflict to Iran, hoping that the (temporary) hault of their nuclear program will distract from the Iraq failure.

Since an attack on Iran was part of the American endgame from the beginning, expect hostilities to expand before he leaves office.

Michael Spitz, Fullerton, CA

It seems that 21st century politicians, whether English or American, are unable to come to grips with what is required to win a war. British sailors were called assasins for having sunk the Argentine warship the Belgrano during the Falklands War. Not the comments of Argentine politicians, but British! It is a pathetic situation. I fear for the stability and longevity of both the United States and Great Britain.

Larry, Dallas, USA

We always keep all options on the table. There is a war plan for every contingency. That does not mean we intend to go about bombing everyone.
That said, would it be better to take out the Iranian nukes now, or wait and see if Iran becomes a "kinder, gentler" neighbor to you all?
It actually is more a danger to you, than to us. My feeling is becoming....let the world take care of itself. You make a plan. You fix it. You clean it up if it all goes wrong.

K Pearce, Oregon, USA

Dick Cheney is right. The American can and will not stand by and watch another holocaust.

Bush has got to more on Iran now.

sol weiss, Beverly Hills, CA

To ignore an open threat to close ally, Israel, and to ignore a growing long-term threat to the financial stability of the West (and yes, that includes Europe even if some can't or won't see it) is foolish and shortsighted. Yes, give diplomacy a good, long try. Yes, even go so far as to give bribery a try. War should always be the last option. But America cannot back down from such an extremist threat. We will move, using force if necessary, to protect ourselves and our freedoms. Extremists in the Middle East seek power by election, terrorism and nuclear weapons, not to secure a peace, but to destroy America and Israel and the freedoms we stand for. Of course America is no perfect role model. We certainly have excesses and we have rightly held up to ridicule and criticism for it. But don't forget what those freedoms give the world and the good we can and have done. This isn't a "regional conflict". This is a war on a grander scale than the cold war ever was.

Michael, Salt Lake City, Ut

The USA has now dug itself a hole so deep in regard to Iraq and Afghanistan that it will have great difficulty in extricating itself with - I was going to say with honour - but it may now be with a colossal failure of competent governance. To add Iran to the list would only compound the error and prolong the agony for many years into the future.

This is not necessarily disagreeing with the original policy, only with the execution and incompetence with which it has been carried out. It could have been so different.

Now even Tony Blair is cutting and running in advance of the May election, but rather late in the day for any hope of anything but an infamous name in the history books.

Brian Lewis, Manila, Philippines

1. Hawk is a commonly used term, even in our (the US) press. Many hawks, in fact, refer to themselves as "hawks".

2. The first rule or question to ask when contemplating military action is "Will military action make things better or worse?" Looking at the disaster that is Iraq we can see a glimpse into the potential future results of any military action w/Iran. ONLY this time it'd be WORSE.

I know it feels good to pump your fist in the air and yell "Iran must be defeated!" but that's foreign policy for 5 year olds.

shingles, northampton , ma

I applaud Blair for this move. The Iran issue can be solved diplomatically. There's absolutely no reason for America to launch a military attack on another Middle East country as we continue our struggle against terrorism.

As for the comment about respect of the British media by the US, who cares? I'm certain that gaining respect from the US is the last thing on the mind of the British media. Moreover, referring to those in America who support military action as "hawks" is a pretty accurate description.

Oscar, Washington, DC

I think we need to take covert action against Iran. We should do what they are doing to the U.S. in Iraq. Supply rebels groups with weapons. We'll see who has better weapons and more money, the U.S. or Iran. I believe that the Iran regime is teetering and with the right pressure it will collapse. Convince Saudi Arabia to increase oil production to ruin the Iranian economy and flood the market with oil. The supply tons of weapons to rebels in Iran, hopefully this will mean a Northern Alliance like rebellion in Iran.

Leaon, Luke, Minneapolis, USA, MN

Jay: comments like that are why Americans are not respected in Great Britain. Or anywhere else.

Joe, Denver, Colorado

Reminds me of the 1930's. No one in Europe or Britain understands true evil, and all prefer to look the other way. This time the Blitz will be nuclear. Good luck, you'll need it.

Scott, Boulder, Colorado

All of this is moot. Israel will act whether the brits or yanks want to or not. That's what you do when you are backed in a corner

jeff, Smart, US

Did Tony Blair not learn anything from Neville Chamberlain?

George D, Chandler, TX

I am an American, and I respect the British press! Correctly identifying a hawk is good birding and good journalism

The Bush doctrine of preemptive war is the most dangerous policy proclamation in our history. Apply the same bit of lunacy to personal relationships and see who goes to prison!

Saddam and Iraq were totally contained (NIE 2001); Iraq never attacked the U.S. Saddam hated the fundamentalists who are now wreaking havoc on the people of Iraq. I

If Bush and Cheney move to wage war on another country which did not first attack us, I hope the process of impeachment and trial as war criminals will follow.

Scott Romans, CUYAHOGA FALLS, U.S.A.

i wonder who will be more threatened and threatened sooner by a nuclear armed iran, the USA or Britian? Blair seems to be more than happy to be the canary in the coal mine.i certainly hope he has plenty o' crocodile chow on hand.

Gary Emerson, St. Charles, MO. USA

Jay, I can't disagree more.

Look- I'm a former Bush voter. But I think "hawk" is a generous term for what we've seen. Where is the small government and small budget we voted for in 2000? Where is the Bush who promised us that our armed forces would not be used as the world's 911?

Turns out Bush is no conservative- he's an imperialist. And the British press has been down-right diplomatic in their descriptions of this administration.

John, Sadler, Texas

I think Tony Blair has a reason to oppose a U.S attack on Iran. Iran is much different from Iraq. The U.S has yet to solve problems in Iraq, so how can it defeat Iran?

Quang, Ho Chi Minh, Vietnam

How many more centuries need to go by; how many more millions need to die, before people understand that there is evil in the world that cannot be wished or negotiated away?

james lippman, darien, usa

since you british cant seem to muster up the will to defend yourself anymore just go back to worshiping tolerance until you are no more because that is your fate.

iran must go sooner than later

Rob, El Dorado Hills,

The problem Mrs. Dismile in sunny and protected Los Angeles is that one US or Israeli bomb drops on Iran without provacation (as in an actual Iranian attack on US forces) then the Iranian public will side with a government that they would just as soon get rid of. It can ONLY be done from within. NO OTHER WAY!

Mehdi, NY, NY

Thanks for all of your help but if you're getting too weary for the fight, by all means bow out. But don't start criticizing us for taking the fight to the enemy. We were attacked 5.5 years ago and vowed to take the fight to our enemies and if Iran won't stand down, we have no choice but to have a military plan ready.

Chad, Ormond Beach, Florida

I'm a retired Army officer. I deplore combat. But what has diplomacy bought us? Ever more time for Iran to continue its developments.

Bruce Bottomley, New London, NH, USA

What is important is to pursue the political, diplomatic channel. I think it is the only way that we are going to get a sensible solution to the Iranian issue.”

REALLY NOW, and if that doesn't work, do we start buying korans in 10 years from now. This is 1938 in its full sense, we'll need to defend the brits after all, no? I never heared of such a stupid thing, that when one is a thrat to the world you say "What is important is to pursue the political, diplomatic channel" is that what they need, are they even listening. Remember this is a religous war, they want not money or power, they want our souls.

Stupid Europe, they always get it wrong, even in Iraq, maybe it's not going well, are we going to hide in our caves now, war is always bloody and if Iraqwas a mistake in retrospect, are we now going to start giving rice to our enemies or are we men, Iran does not need diplomace they need a bloody nose and a good one.

Mark Tower, Brooklyn, USA

"What is important is to pursue the political, diplomatic channel. I think it is the only way that we are going to get a sensible solution to the Iranian issue.”

DIPLOMATIC? Are you asleep? Or just stupid?

Bombs away now or pay dearly later for not having any gonads. Europe is wasting away from "the religion of peace", but you keep trying to talk with them, fools.

Mark Held, San Diego, CA,

If Iran were "defeated" Iran being an Islamic regime, could play the religious card saying that the demonic west (america) was out todeclarewaron Islam. Islamic extremists all over the world especially pakistan, with growing tensions towards india a US ally, would unite and start a us vs. THEM the religiously intolerant. the US is already in a bad state and a war on three fronts is inconcievable without destroying it's own military and all its international relations.

Mr., Chicago, Illinois

Is this the Times or the BBC? What a joke. Maybe we can dump all the paper from the violated UN resolutions on the nuclear sights.

Shawn, Atlanta, USA / GA

Yes we need to appease Iran like Poland did to Hitler in WW2. Appeasement always works.

T, Raleigh, USA

To argue in favour of an attack on Iran is hardly acceptable for an American politician, even in the hard-right lunatic fringe. For a British politician it is unacceptable. What I think we are all waiting to see is how Blair and later on Brown will react to actions by the United States.

I listened to Blair on the Today programme, and I thought he did very well and Humphries spent most of his time arguing with him. First he wanted Blair to apologize for Iraq. While it might have been good for Blair to show a bit more modesty and express some sort of regret for following Bush so closely, I can have some sympathy for the positions he took. It is hard to see how he or Brown might put troops back in, but Blair probably can't say that. As for Iran what we need to do is look at how a more rational leadership with a real reform programme might be encouraged to rise, in the interests of the Iranian people as well as our own.

Christopher Hobe Morrison, Middletown, NY, USA

Tony Blair has declared himself at odds with hawks in the US Administration by saying publicly for the first time that it would be wrong to take military action against Iran. The Prime Minister’s comments came hours before the UN’s nuclear watchdog raised the stakes in the West’s showdown with Tehran.

HAWKS? Is this a news piece or editorial; this is why the British press is not repected in the U.S.

Jay, Arlington, VA, USA

IRAN must be defeated. The regime needs to be changed either from within, or with help from the outside.

Daniel Disimile, Los Angeles, CA

Anonymous sources? Passive voice assertions? Give me a bleeding break!

RLythgoe, OKC,