The Iranian President was one of the leaders of the invasion and hostage taking of the American Embassy in Tehran in '79. That was effectively an invasion of U.S. soil and territory in accordance with international law. That is all anyone needs to know about him and the current Iranian administration.

Never been proven. The only thing we need know about you is that you spread unsubstanciated claims as facts.

What we DO know is that the US installed Shah as dictator in 1953, something that acctually pawed the road for the muslim revolution. Only now in recent years are they starting to find a way back into democracy and even now it's still polluted with religion.

Rice: No Point in More Iran Negotiations

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - "France, with the support of the United States, rejected Iran's request for more negotiations on the Islamic republic's nuclear program, with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice saying Wednesday "there's not much to talk about" after Iran resumed atomic activities."

That’s right boys, it’s called “Let’s Roll!”, not Roll Over!

The US together with those of its Western allies that are acting as "front guys" in the current standoff with Iran have backed themselves into an uncomfortable corner, reminiscent of poker players furiously bluffing when all the time they are holding rotten hands while their opponent has a Royal Flush.

Put simply, Iran's Royal Flush is its vast reserves of oil with which its hard-line leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has no compunction in using to hold his enemies hostage. Indeed, he has recently warned that if the UN Security Council imposes sanctions on his country over its uranium enrichment program, his government will manipulate markets and force up the price of oil. In this case, analysts predict oil shooting upwards of $100 a barrel, providing a bonus for oil producing nations and a nightmarish scenario for most Western economies.

Nevertheless, many in the West are determined to adopt a policy of cutting off one's nose to spite one's face, including several Republican senators. "If the price of oil has to go up, then that's a consequence we would have to suffer," Sen. John McCain told CBS. Speaking on CNN, Sen. Trent Lott concurred. "Sanctions should be imposed as a response to Iran's irresponsible behavior," he said. Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer wants to see President Bush "playing hardball" with Russia and China to get them on board the sanctions bandwagon.

Thus far, both Russia and China are unknown quantities in the dressing down Iran game. Unlike the US, those powers have much to lose in economic terms resulting from a confrontation with Iran as both have signed up to mega commercial, trade or energy contracts with Tehran.

While it is true that Russia appears to be making the right noises by publicly criticizing the Iranian decision to cut IAEA seals, it is unclear which way President Putin will jump when push comes to shove. China appears to be waiting in the wings to see which position Russia takes before announcing its own.

Yesterday, Russian and Chinese representatives met with senior officials from the US, Britain, Germany and France in London to discuss the looming crisis, but the Iranian president appears unfazed. Ahmadinejad shows no signs of relinquishing his nation's right to produce nuclear energy under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to which Iran is a signatory, and he still insists the Iranian program is a peaceful one.

Now the Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud Al-Faisal has weighed into the argument pointing out that the problem stems from Israel, which is not a signatory to the NPT, being allowed to build nuclear warheads unimpeded. "Nobody mentions that Israel has 100 nuclear weapons in stock even though it's an open secret," he told delegates attending a terrorism conference in London

.

But Prince Saud also warned of the dangers of a regional nuclear arms race and urged Tehran to forego any ambitions it may have in that direction. He further urged Ahmadinejad to return to the more moderate foreign policies of his predecessor President Khatami. However, Prince Saud was far from optimistic that his appeals would be heeded.

If we look at the situation from the point of view of Tehran, then it is easy to understand why the Iranian government isn't about to go down the appeasement route. This is exactly what Saddam Hussein did in 2002 when he once again allowed inspections and just look where that got him and his unfortunate country.

Furthermore, the moderate policies of former Iranian President Khatami were not an entrée into US acceptance but rather evoked Iran being branded as a member of Bush's infamous "Axis of Evil" at a time when pro-Western reformists were seriously gaining ground in that country.

This entire standoff could have been avoided if five years ago the Bush administration had been willing to nurture its budding relationship with Iran instead of branding the country "evil" and forcing it to adopt a fortress mentality.

Five years ago, Ahmadinejad wouldn't have had a hope of being elected president but today he stands firm on the edifice of national pride amid a torrent of threats, including military threats, from Israel and the US.

Indeed, Israel has been threatening to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities for years as even Vice-President Cheney has confirmed. At the same time Iran has been a target for regime change in a slew of neocon policy statements going as far back as 1996.

So, although it is easy to assume that Iran is the aggressor here, such an assumption wouldn't necessarily be correct. Iran is rather being carefully painted as the aggressor by its enemies and Ahmadinejad is unwittingly helping to complete the final picture with regularly inflammatory anti-Israel statements.

Suggesting that Israel should be wiped off the map and calling for a scientific conference as to the veracity of the Holocaust isn't about to win the Iranian president friends in the international arena and only adds grist to Israeli ambitions.

Prior to Ahmadinejad's fiery anti-Israel rhetoric, if Israel had bombed Iranian nuclear facilities it would have faced worldwide condemnation just as it did in 1981 when it took out Iraq's Tuwaitha complex. Now, the Israeli leadership could rightly claim it had been threatened and was acting within the context of self-defense.

Whichever way the cookie crumbles, the US and its allies have to face an unpalatable reality. Iran is not Iraq. Saddam Hussein was ruthless and cruel but not suicidal in a way that Ahmadinejad, still an unknown, might be. If Iran is attacked, the country's religious fervor will come to the fore, which didn't happen in the more secular Iraq. Ahmadinejad has already boasted of large numbers of kamikaze pilots ready to die for their country.

Nobody really knows what Iran has up its sleeve in terms of a military deterrent. America's entire network of spies in that country was exposed by a double agent and there is little hard intelligence as to the whereabouts of Iran's military capabilities or its nuclear facilities, said to be spread around the country and carefully secreted.

Ironically, if Iran had found itself in the international hot seat five years ago, the neocons would have had a field day. This is exactly what they have long wanted. Unfortunately for them, the timing is now way off. Since Iraq was invaded in 2003, Iran has been cementing ties with Iraq's southern Shiite communities, which could be tempted to team up with their neighbor rather than stand alongside the American invaders. This is definitely not what American needs at a time when it appears to be seeking an elegant exit plan.

What is truly needed now is patience and diplomacy rather than grandiose posturing and threats. Experts say that Iran could be three years off from developing a nuclear bomb. If that's so, there is plenty of time for cooler heads and wise decisions to prevail.

This entire standoff could have been avoided if five years ago the Bush administration had been willing to nurture its budding relationship with Iran instead of branding the country "evil" and forcing it to adopt a fortress mentality.

What's the author of this piece been smoking?

Five years ago they were and still are sheltering Al Quida terrorists...

Five years ago they were and still are sheltering Al Quida terrorists...

Source?

The Iranian President was one of the leaders of the invasion and hostage taking of the American Embassy in Tehran in '79. That was effectively an invasion of U.S. soil and territory in accordance with international law. That is all anyone needs to know about him and the current Iranian administration.

Never been proven. The only thing we need know about you is that you spread unsubstanciated claims as facts.

What we DO know is that the US installed Shah as dictator in 1953, something that acctually pawed the road for the muslim revolution. Only now in recent years are they starting to find a way back into democracy and even now it's still polluted with religion.

Blah blah blah blah blah!!

The Iranian president has stated that he was a central player in it and reports verify it, including those of hostages who were actually there. Further, the Iranian president claims this event as one of great pride in his life.

So the Iranian president claims an invasion of US soil is something that he is proud of.

What more does any American citizen need to know?

As far as the shah goes, that was all done for strategic matters in the heart of the cold war for keeping an eye on the Russian bear. Given that we got through the cold war without destroying each other, I would say that was an acceptable trade off for the American people.

The shah was definitely no prize, but the guy in there now is a complete fanatic. He fully does not realize how thin of a sheet of ice he is walking on.

Once again the NeoCons forget to supply any unbias sources of their claims.

I would say that was an acceptable trade off for the American people.

Yes, why would you give a ###### about other countries elections or well-being as long as you can put a bit of security in your own mind.

People getting killed since you installed a dictator? Pishposh, they shouldn't have choosen to be born in a country where you had 'strategic' interest in ofcourse.

What Iran needs is a Saddam Hussein.

Or at least it needs the sort of leader antiwar liberals claimed Saddam Hussein represented. Saddam wasn't a "good guy," liberals argued, but he could be counted on to act in the interests of self-preservation. Unlike Saddam, Iran's president is a religious whack job. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad believes that the Holocaust was a myth and that Israel needs to be "wiped off the map."

Actually, this argument about nuclear weapons is no different than the argument about possessing guns. The basic threat is from the people who have them, not from the weapons themselves. Lots of countries have nukes - we only need to worry about the ones run by whack jobs like Mahmoud...

Five years ago they were and still are sheltering Al Quida terrorists...

Source?

Here ya go...

Saddam had illegal weapons and weapons programs, and supported international terrorism:

http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/

http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/new/docume.../s-2004-435.pdf

http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/new/docume.../s-2005-351.pdf

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2002/SC7564.doc.htm

http://www.hudson.org/files/publications/m...ddamarticle.pdf

http://www.aim.org/media_monitor/A76_0_2_0_C/

http://www.aim.org/media_monitor/A75_0_2_0_C/

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/008190.php

More on request.

If you remove from the count the deaths of Iraqi Insurgents and soldiers in the Iraqi Army, Iraqi civilian deaths come to somewhere around 7,000. Using the accurate number, there is a civilian survival rate of over 99%.

http://www.logictimes.com/antiwar.htm

http://www.logictimes.com/civilian.htm

Have a nice day!

First of all, the qoute was that you said IRAN had Al Quida-terrorists under their training, not Iraq.

Second of all, no, they haven't found any weapons of mass destruction.

Or don't you get the news like anyone else in your house?

(And it's pure comedy that you link the CIA-report, when CIAs reports has been refuted as lies already regarding the subject of WMDs themselfs. Or I'm sure it's called 'bad intelligence'. Same effect anyway.)