One of the big topics in the news nowadays, more so in some parts of the world and where interests are involved...

Here are a few news stories related;

Israel, US and UK 'planning' attack on Iran nuclear facility
UK and U.S. 'draw up joint plan to attack Iran': Evidence of nuclear programme raises tension in Middle East
UK military steps up plans for Iran attack amid fresh nuclear fears
Israel Considers Pre-Emptive Attack On Iran
Missile test fuels talk of Israeli plan to strike Iran's nuclear sites
Will Israel Strike Iran? Speculation Fed by Looming Report on Iran’s Nuclear Activities

What do you think?

...and still...

Foreign Secretary meets Israeli Defence Minister

03 November 2011
The Foreign Secretary met Israeli Defence Minister Ehud Barak today to discuss developments in the Middle East. Speaking after the meeting the Foreign Secretary said:

"I had a good meeting with Defence Minister Barak. I welcomed the ongoing efforts to deepen and broaden our bilateral relationshiop. I condemned the recent rocket attacks on Israeli civilians, reiterated that the UK is fully committed to Israel's security and welcomed the release of Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit as part of a prisoner exchange.

"But I also made clear the UK's unequivocal condemnation of the announcement this week of 2,000 more settlement units in east Jerusalem, Efrat and Maale Adumim and threats to withhold Palestinian tax revenues. These steps undermine efforts to achieve peace, and increase Israel's isolation at a time of enormous change in teh Middle East region when we need to work together on shared concerns such as the appalling situation in Syria and the threat posed by Iran's nuclear programme. I urged Israel to revoke the plan for new settlements and to avoid further provocative steps which only make more difficult the Quartet's attempt to facilitate a return to talks."

You could of also bolded the above ... but that doesn't fit the FUD does it ... and in any case when have Israel taken any notice of what others may think ... water off a duck's back.

While on the subject of (secret) nuclear programmes can you enlighten me on the difference between that of Iran and that of Israel?

21st century and there are still warmongers. Would have thought man would have got along with its own species by now.

I found the whole quote a tad confusing, tbh; but agree with the bit I have quoted.

The research by the UN's watchdog will add a substantial layer to seven years of investigations that is likely to inflame tensions in the Middle East. Yukiya Amano, the organisation's director-general, is unlikely to draw a definitive conclusion that Iran is making nuclear weapons, but according to Western diplomats the facts will make any other conclusion implausible. They believe the IAEA has substantiated evidence from intelligence reports, interviews with Iranian scientists and on-the-ground inspections that Iran is carrying out a nuclear weapons programme in parallel to its civilian energy goals, according to The Telegraph.

The Ministry of Defence (MoD) is stepping up its contingency plans for a potential military strike against Iran as concerns grow over the Middle Eastern power's nuclear programme, sources claim. Reports last night that the UK was prepared to support the United States in any military action against Tehran came as Israel started testing ballistic missiles, raising fears of conflict within the region.

The US is believed to have told the MoD that it may decide to accelerate its plans for targeted missile strikes against key Iranian facilities, The Scotsman reports.

Yep given these press reports today,I reckon there will be air strikes within three weeks.

Let's hope he isn't found dead at the bottom of a tree, or near a tree.

Good time to buy oil shares

That was a reference to Dr Kelly, who allegedly committed suicide. He was the author of the "no WMD in Iraq" dossier, which was then sexed up to justify the illegal invasion of Iraq.

So you don't think that Israel continuing to expand and taking further provocative steps is relevant?

re Kelly, the Iraqis aren't in the frame; the Labour Govt is where the suspicious eyes look.

People here are fed up with the Israel\Palestine issue, and probably think that if there is peace in Northern Ireland, why not there. The idea that Israel is concerned a shining beacon of civilisation\Westernisation is plain wrong (outside of the pro-Israel lobby, anyway).

I think like in Syria the people in Iran dont want the people in charge to actually be in charge.
But there again are the majority of Israel oppressed as well?
Hopefully freedom and democracy will prevail in all three countries in the long term.

Britain's nuclear capability is known, we have signed up to the NPT whereas Pakistan, India and Israel haven't, our facilities are under IAEA safeguards and therefore there is not IF for us in there and as such we don't sentence people to jail on treason charges for saying we do have a nuclear capability (Mordechai Vanunu). So I think there is a big difference between the two there.


Out of all the troll posts you've made this has to be the funniest ... pot meet kettle ... the irony is awesome.

<-- vacates another ironfist_is_right_and_anyone_who_disagrees_with_him_is_wrong troll thread

I have to come to the conclusion that Ironfist is of the same ilk as many investment bankers - so narrow-minded as to be unable to comprehend any querying of his/Israel's position, and therefore why people get angry/annoyed/upset. It's really quite ridiculous how people who should have a majority on their side seem intent on destroying their own support base.

The idea of an attack on Iran's facilities has been around for a while now, so I'm not sure why the current time should be any more relevant to a possible attack. I looked up the nuclear plants on google maps about 3 years ago, about the time a pre-emptive strike was due - probably shortly after Israeli jets took out some Syrian anti-aircraft positions to demonstrate their capability to get into Iran. As for the power struggle in Iran, that's been rumbling for ages too. It's maybe quite legitimate to think that Ahmedinejad could be toppled; doesn't mean there'll be friendlier, less anti-Israeli replacement, but he is under major pressure.

But it is a legitimate debate to bring up Vanunu and his appalling treatment. And please don't patronise people by suggesting Israel does not own nuclear weapons. It really doesn't help the argument. And it isn't true that the rest of Israel's neighbours are waiting to drop bio-bombs - there are plenty who want Iran suppressed and for whom Israel is therefore a covert ally. Wiping out your own dissidents is different to balancing regional power.

Israel's trump card is that it is the only nation that can attack Iranian facilities and basically get away with it. So it beggars belief why it continues to wind people up with its behaviour, be it its settlements or belligerence or whatever. A bit of perspective is sorely lacking.

The first part of my answer was a summary of what I think people think about the situation, which is why I used the phrase "people", and yes people here will\do wonder why there is peace in Northern Ireland and not in Palestine.

While hurling insults at me, you seemed to totally miss the point about Israel's PR.

If they both want it so much, why don't isreal and Palestine go halvesies on Jeruselum? Surely they can share?

Blah that is the way they play it, if you dont agree with them they will label you.

I can see Ironfist's point on this one.

The Iranian leader thought the Holocaust has never existed. He's always making anti semitic rants at UN meetings - most of the other countries walk out.

Do we want someone like this getting their hands on a nuclear weapon ?

If he does, who will he target first ?

A lot of Iranian people don't want this lunatic in charge. Unfortunatley he uses brute force to stem any rebellion (nothing new there then)

The Israel Palestine argument is a seperate debate.

If only, the Americans and Brits arent known for their fairness to others are they.

I cant be bothered to waste my time checking figures but i can tell you when Israel was created by the western powers the majority of the people in the area were Arabs yet it was the minority Israelies that was given the majority of the land and to add insult to injury, the minority Israelies ranks had swelled over and over only in the preceding few years.

The boy who cried wolf

"I urged Israel to revoke the plan for new settlements and to avoid further provocative steps which only make more difficult the Quartet's attempt to facilitate a return to talks." This is from a Conservative Foreign Minister. That means a party that is traditionally sympathetic\supportive of Israel is telling it to stop taking the piss.

I disagree with this too Blah but isn't the thread about a potnetial attack on Iran ? You get the feeling Israel could cede loads of land to the Palestinians but Ahmendinejjad would only be happy if Israel didn't exist at all.

I mean that Iran may well be a "real" threat but having heard all the cries of wolf before (and arguably, many of them having been provoked) people may not be interested this time.

Iran is in the main a different issue compared to the Palestinian question, Iran supports a Palestinian state, Iran sees Israels wall and occupation as unfair and illegal, Israel is doing its cause no good by occupying land that is not theirs under international law.

Iran may well be a dangerous pariah state that is a danger to Israel and others but Israel is not helping itself by its treatement of the Palestinians.

I find it hard to believe that any country that supports a Palestinian State would launch a nuclear, or chemical weapons, attack against Israel - potentially killing thousands of Palestinians and laying waste to the territory that they seek - or that any Islamic nation would bomb Jerusalem. On the other hand, the USA, UK and Israel are hardly likely to kill too many of their friends - or destroy sacred Jewish and Christian sites - by bombing Iran.

The US Middle Eastern Foreign Policy version of the Seven Pillars of Wisdom:-

1. Support a brutal dictator
2. Dictator turns against the USA or is overthrown by revolution which creates an anti-American regime
3. USA determines that the new regime is evil
4. UN sanctions are imposed on the demonised rogue nation - causing mass deprivation
5. Rumours abound that rogue nation has nuclear and/or chemical weapons of mass destruction
6. USA + allies launches missile strikes against rogue nation in an attempt to destroy WMD
7. USA + allies invade

...we won't get fooled again?

Good post yet again 'AkNotSpur', the Seven Pillars of US foreign policy is interesting..

If Israel launches a pre-emptive strike on Iran, Iran will immediately bomb Tel Aviv in retaliation, faster than you can say Mad Dog Ahmadinejad. Then the US will attack Iran in support of its ally, and, even though NATO has already said it wants no part in this particular theatre of war, Britain will feel obliged to support the US, just as it always does (there are a lot of powerful and influential Friends of Israel on both sides of the political divide). So we bail out the eurozone economically and we fuel the US war machine militarily, even though we can't afford either.