22ANDUK

I'm not sticking up for the neighbourhood bully, but does anybody else think it would be a wise idea not to directly attack Iran?

Even though under President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Iran maintains extremist and fundamentalist policies, and that key positions are filled by his supporters but beneath the surface the country is currently undergoing cultural, social and constitutional change and evolution.

It's now nearly 28 years years since the revolution, and over 60 percent of the population is under age 25 with no memory of pre-revolutionary times. Women, and many other minorities and groups, are craving more freedom, opportunity and dignity than the restrictive theocracy allows.

Groups such as the Islamic Iran Participation Front (which has 13 MPs) are seeing support rise under relaxing laws.

I am aware that many reforming candidates have been disqualified from standing, many women still refuse to vote and hard-liners still hold the power, but the fact that these groups still exist and are growing suggests that there is a growing light at the end of the Iranian tunnel. Figures such as former Iranian vice president Mohammad Ali Abtahi has a large fololwoing amongst the web community, both in Iran, the Middle-East and the West.

My main fear is that an Isreali or US-backed attack on Iran would only secure and bolster Ahmadinejad's leadership and beliefs, galvanising the country against reform. It would also jeopardise the Iranian and Middle-East economy, which would have serious repurcussions for all reformers across the region. Without a strong and liberalising economy there can be no real hope for reform.

Is we instead we use diplomatic and political action against Iran - such as providing support, finance and refuge for Iranian reformist, rather than military action then the people of Iran can surely overtun the government in their time.

My only worry is that all this talk of nuclear proliferation is distracting the West from the real danger in Iran: the clamp-down on growing opposition and reform. This includes the imprisonment of Akbar Ganji a journalist, who was jailed in 2000 for publishing articles, books and lectures that opposed Iran's ruling clerics.

The West is ultimately damned if we do and damned if we don't, but surely military action will only give further power and influence to hard-liners across the Middle-East.

Hereward77

WWIII will start with a hale storm of state-of-the-art Russian-built Iranian missiles on Israel.

__________________
"The social experiment in China under Chairman Mao's leadership is one of the most important and successful in history."
David Rockefeller, New York Times, August 10, 1973

g hall

Israeli intelligence is pretty good I suspect an american inspired pre emptive strike

Westcountryman

That's my bet too.

__________________
Manus haec inimica tyrannis ense petit placidam sub libertate quietam - "This hand of mine, which is hostile to tyrants, seeks by the sword quiet peace under liberty."

Hereward77

Oh, what the hell: http://www.barrychamish.com

__________________
"The social experiment in China under Chairman Mao's leadership is one of the most important and successful in history."
David Rockefeller, New York Times, August 10, 1973

freedom & democracy 4

I think the Iranians would be stupid to fight back if America bombed its nuke sites. They may have Allah! but even he cant save them from the US. So an attack would be wiseish.

paullotion

There is a third carrier group heading outhere so war looks a possiblity around March or April.

Of course the dumb-down media does not help,they stated that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad want`s to wipe Israel off the map,thats not what he said,what he said was he wants to wipe Zionist`s off the map.