No Werner I disagree. Joschka Fisher tried very hard to appease the theocrats. But once the links between Pakistani nuclear scientists, Germany and certain theocrats was spotted, the whole enrichment technology transfer trade was stopped. EU has always benefited from any US and its adversary. But even today UK is bewildered by the hostage situation. Even Jack Straw is thinking again. The happy Chechen warlord is no help, and he will not speak. It is very hard to deal with sadistic theocrats, that do not have a political spoke person. Once OBL or any of these sadistic people have a mouth-piece that will talk, then negotiations can be taken to a more humane level. Until that time, there is no jaw-jaw, but war-war. Killing will only stop when humans talk to each other. And it takes two to talk. At the moment the sadists want the infedils of the world to squirm. That is pure sadism. It has nothing to do with any form of morality.
- By: Ali Mostofi on September 23, 2004

My country (Germany) has for three decades defined its policy versus Iran as "constructive dialogue". In practice this means good business. But I cannot see that anything good has come out of it for the Iranian people. Nor does our government have any bargaining power now when it counts (e.g. regarding the nuclear weapons program). You will notice that nobody of the commenters on this blog cares much about what the Germans think. No, they talk about the USA all the time. It seems to me that Bush is doing something right. I guess there are Iranians who would say that any foreign involvement in their affairs is making it worse, but this is hard since the Iranian government is involved in threatening the outside world - they are making it our business. Wouldn´t you agree that the German (European) appeasement policy does more to uphold the status quo in Iran than US policy?
- By: werner on September 23, 2004

Well put Paris - just my sentiments. Bush should have got the UN in right away after though....Just freakin unbelievable that he didn't! With the Us's image over there we had to put another face on the effort to bring in a new government..
- By: Ted B. on September 22, 2004

Rebecca MacKinnon: I can only speak for myself and the tiny world of Iranians I know. There are as you would expect many Iranians who learnt only recently about the alternative to Monarchy and Theocracy. Persian literature is probably the richest in the world, but ironically not very rich in politics or business. Culturally Iran is now jumping light speed in one generation. What most countries in Europe did in 300 years, we are trying to do in 30. There has been a lot of soul searching. Many are far too scared to give their life so easily. But the war against the religious brainwashing has been won. The good news is that the people are actually now totally ambivalent towards religion. Most of this has to do with the very logical mind of the Iranians. I do not know whether you know, but Iranians are very talented in the pure sciences. Many of the best Mathematical brains and scientist are now working in places such as Jet Propulsion Lab. So the good news is that the moral arguement has been won. No longer are Iranians mesmerised by this theocracy. What is very evident is that the theocrats are well aware of this phenomenon aswell. So evident is their unpopularity that they are resorting to the same politics that the neocons are doing in USA. The are constantly creating false fear. But the youth ignore it. Iran now probably has the largest population of young agnostics or atheists in the world. We are talking at least 30 million people here. Most are unemployed. The recipe is potentially explosive. To revert to your question. The western press need to tell their own people the demographic and cultural change that has taken place in Iran. In short the people are not like the pseudo leaders at all. To conclude just look at the last elections apathy. As long as the world press sees the true Iran, the people of Iran will take care of the rest.
- By: Ali Mostofi on September 22, 2004

George Bush Sr. defeated Saddam in the Persian Gulf war but did not remove Saddam from Bhagdad. The bottom line is that George Jr. did not like the fact that Saddam was still in power long after his dad was defeated in the election of 1992. Geroge Jr entered the presidency determined to get rid of Saddam. All he needed was an excuse.
- By: Mr. Tim on September 22, 2004

yeah hoder, what are you like the John Kerry of Iran? You appear to be supporting the hardliners with many of your comments. Diplomacy will not work. UK has had relations with Iran and this has changed nothing except for industrialists. Maybe your nation cannot have decent governments because the people are cowards who like beheading people or support those who do.
- By: hound on September 22, 2004

Your comment is a bit naive. Bush, Khomeini and Saddam are people who have ideals. Most ideals that have an element of death create wars. Of course religions have the most death ideals, but it is not just religions that have death ideals. Even in a democracy such as Israel, or even USA, the people can vote for war.
- By: Ali Mostofi on September 22, 2004

Personally, I saw Saddam as funding a despicable form of terrorism in Palestine (the suicide bombing), setting up a fascist state in Iraq, utilizing outlawed forms of warfare (gas), posing a danger to his neighbors (attacking Iran, Kuwait), encouraging and applauding violence in human affairs and contempt for the weak in his own country, attempting the assasination of world leaders (USA President Bush 1), killing millions of people, employing torture as a form of political control, and threatening to perpetuate his murderous regime through his sons. The UN should have taken care of Saddam, but Europe and the rest of the world were too cowardly or corrupt to do anything about him. He bought them off through bribery (the oil for food program, etc.). Bush clearly has his faults, but his virtues exist in stark contrast to other world leaders. Paris
- By: Paris Bontrager on September 22, 2004

Hoder, I've just been reading the NYT article, Bush Aides Divided on Confronting Iran Over A-Bomb. What does the Iranian blogosphere want the U.S. to do? What do Iranian bloggers think about Iran's nuclear program? Do you believe Iran is seeking a nuclear weapon? Do you think it should? What do average Iranians think about all this? Thanks! Rebecca
- By: Rebecca MacKinnon on September 22, 2004

We all live in fictional worlds. What other kind is there? You know history is written by the winners, so the only justification needed is to win.
- By: RW on September 21, 2004