I think most people would have guessed the attitudes and positions of the Americans, the Saudis and others, despite these Wikileaks, and they haven't changed things very much, if at all, they may have slightlty reinforced those views. We already knew the things the Americans got up to.

Let's try that again.

More sunlight:

Obama's view on Cameron: he's a lightweight: http://bit.ly/dVxT7x

Cameron sees transparency mainly as a way giving the right-wing press the ammunition to attack the public sector for perceived or actual waste.

Look forward to lots of "civil servant stayed overnight in a nice hotel and took taxi to the station" stories.

I'm not entirely convinced that this plays badly for the US government. We already knew 99% of this stuff anyway, right?

What it does do is to highlight the hawkish nature of other nations such as the Saudi's and UAE when it comes to the subject of Iran.

Office of Independent something or other is going to announce in the next hour how much of shit we are NOT in, unlike Tory/LibDem spiel in the lasy six months.

The Dave/Clegg snake oil roadshow will be shown as it is, pathetic and the best plastic manufacturing you will come across in recent times.

I praise the WikiLeaks man

Wikileaks in Feb 2010 is not same as Wikileaks Nov 2010. The gloves are off, the business is on.

You can trust Mehdi to cheat though. Would you not from an Islamist?

I hope everyone to be rich. Am I Tory or a Labour, Mehdi?

Here's some sunlight:

"Bank of England governor Mervyn King accused Prime Minister David Cameron and Chancellor George Osborne of a "lack of depth", according to reports based on information on the Wikileaks website."

http://news.scotsman.com/news/Mervyn-King-accused-PM-of.6642946.jp

Benedict - nice, but that goes without saying.

As I have said from the start, they are practising amateur gossiping closed-shop idiots. Just seem they should have the job due to their background rather than others with true talent.

Bit like Wimbledon brit tennis, you could say. What would they do without Andy Murray?

@Livers On evidence of what?

@ Marcus, @Ismail: The extent of some Arab countries' hostility to the Iranian regime was very interesting. Yet I think there's a distinction to be made between the "statements" of those Arab heads of state mentioned (and after all, these are only US communiqués, rather than any official documents from the governments concerned) and the policies implemented by those under their leadership, who may be rather more inclined towards détente. The same is true of the Iranian side; much of Ahmadinejad's belligerent rhetoric is directed to his domestic audience, while Iranian diplomats, ministers, civil servants etc. are working hard on establishing and consolidating all kinds of often surprising links. The importance of rhetoric in the region shouldn't be overlooked either. So, yes, there can be a disconnect between the leaders and those they "represent". I shudder to think of the consequences if this is taken as some kind of consensus in launching an attack on Iran.

@ Livers: RK's comment is just par for the course, sad to say.

So Russia is a Mafia State and America a corrupt megalomanic Empire? Well tell us something new Wiki! We knew that Yeltsin and his stooges had alledged links with the Mafia and corrupt Oligarchs after the fall of the great USSR. And we know that Kennedy had alledged dodgy links with 'The Family' which got him the Presidency and that tradition has continued down the ages to the Tea Party. And I'm pretty sure that offshore private donation to one of our major political Parties have dodgy histories.

I wouldn't like to be one of Hans Castorp's colleagues, as he obviously thinks slagging off ex-colleagues is part of his job.

Feedback for Mehdi,

I must say... yesterday's newspapers reviews on TV were most enjoyable!