Mehdi Hasan

Mehdi Hasan’s polemical take on politics, economics and foreign affairs

Are we heading for an "accidental" war with Iran?

The Islamic Republic's vow to close the Strait of Hormuz, in response to sanctions, could give the h

By Mehdi Hasan Published 29 December 2011 15:42

US warns Iran over threat to block oil route

screams the headline on the BBC website. According to the report:

The US Navy has said it will not tolerate disruption to a vital oil-trade route, following an Iranian threat to close it.

Iran warned it would shut the Strait of Hormuz if the West imposed more sanctions over its nuclear programme.

The BBC report quotes US Fifth Fleet spokeswoman Rebecca Rebarich as saying that the US navy would be ready to act if required:

The US navy is a flexible, multi-capable force committed to regional security and stability, always ready to counter malevolent actions to ensure freedom of navigation.

Reading the BBC headline and the hawkish quote from Rebarich, I couldn't help but think of a recent piece I read on the Huffington Post website, headlined:

The Coming Accidental War with Iran

The author of the piece, Lyric Hughes Hale, argues that

. . . due to the lack of understanding between our government and Iranian leaders who have been isolated from the rest of the world, war will not be a decision, but a mistake.

She quotes from a recent comment piece in the Los Angeles Times by Trita Parsi, head of a Washington think tank focused on Iran and author of the upcoming book, A Single Roll of the Dice: Obama's Diplomacy With Iran, who wrote:

In Iran, political cannibalism within the Iranian elite has reached new heights. While this has not necessarily given birth to a new Iranian adventurism (beyond the harsh rhetoric), it has paralyzed the state and weakened its ability to maneuver in a changing strategic environment. This is particularly the case when it comes to crucial issues such as its relations with the United States.

. . . The U.S. military leadership is rightfully worried about this situation. The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Michael G. Mullen, has repeatedly raised the lack of communication between the United States and Iran as a major concern in the last few weeks.

"We are not talking to Iran so we don't understand each other," Mullen said last month. "If something happens ... it's virtually assured that we won't get it right." The lack of communication has planted seeds for miscalculation, Mullen argued. And miscalculations often lead to dangerous escalations.

Mullen's diagnosis is on target, as evidenced by the escalation in Iranian bluster. Talking to the Iranians is not guaranteed to resolve the fundamental issues that have created this dangerous atmosphere. But it might ensure that in the midst of the barking, there isn't an accidental bite.

So, will the accidental bite be the closing of the Strait of Hormuz? As the report on the BBC website notes:

The Strait of Hormuz links the Gulf - and the oil-producing states of Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) - to the Indian Ocean. About 40% of the world's tanker-borne oil passes through it.

In recent months, plenty of analysts have warned that an American and/or Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear facilities would prompt the closing of the Strait of Hormuz - which is only 20 miles wide - and send oil prices through the roof. Few seem to have anticipated the reverse: that is, a pre-emptive closing of the Strait of Hormuz by the Iranians - annoyed by the new set of sanctions imposed on them by the west - which then offers hawks in Tel Aviv, Washington and, let's be under no illusions, London a casus belli for military action against the self-styled Islamic Republic.

But, if one of the arguments offered against war with Iran has always centred on the danger to the global economy of the Iranian regime cutting off not just its own oil exports (which, at around 3.5 million barrels produced per day, amounts to 2.5 percent of the world's oil supply) but the rest of the region's too, via the afore-mentioned blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, why hasn't it had much traction? Why do so many seemingly well-informed western pundits seem so relaxed about the catastrophic economic consequences of a war with Iran?

"I think the market has paid too little attention to the possibility of an attack on Iran. It's still an unlikely event, but more likely than oil traders have been expecting," remarked Bob McNally, head of the consultancy Rapidan Group and a former energy adviser to the White House, in November. McNally added that he believed oil prices could surge as high as $175 a barrel if the Strait of Hormuz is closed by the Iranians.

Meanwhile, according to the most benign of four scenarios presented in a recent paper by Greg Sharenow, a portfolio manager at bond house PIMCO and a former Goldman Sachs oil trader, oil prices would likely spike to at around $140 a barrel if Iran were to be attacked next year.

Noting the possibility of an Iranian blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, Sharenow calls this "the Armageddon scenario" in which "oil prices could soar, significantly constraining global growth. Forecasting prices in the prior scenarios is dangerous enough. So, we won't even begin to forecast a cap or target price in this final Doomsday scenario."

Accidental wars. Armageddon. Doomsday. Bring on 2012, eh?

As we note on the cover of this week's New Year's issue of the New Statesman:

And you thought 2011 was bad. . .

Special Offer: Get 12 issues of New Statesman magazine for just £12

Tags: America Economy Israel Oil Iran

More from Mehdi Hasan

View the discussion thread.

202 comments

Fri, 2012-06-15 09:00 — Jane Evans (not verified)

We will see almost nothing accidental concerning this. Obstruct the particular Straits of Hormuz and also Iran has decided to obtain. They may not be that will stupid. They will seen what took place to Al-Qaeda and people that provided them shelter inside Afghanistan. A few U . s . Special Makes, the particular CIA, and also goodnight sweet Royal prince. six flags ticket discounts

Fri, 2011-12-30 20:51 — michaelpetek

I don't see how a war with Iran could be accidental.

First, the US National Command Center must transmit launch confirmation codes to the millile submarine. The Captain and the First Officer, each independently, then have to confirm the authenticity of the code.

Having done that, they have to turn their missile launch keys simultaneously.

Fri, 2011-12-30 20:52 — michaelpetek

Sorry, that should have read "missile".

Fri, 2011-12-30 21:00 — Khosrow (not verified)

32 years now since the Iraq-Iran War, as in 1980s what most of the Western analysts are concerned with is the price of oil, not the legality or shocking human cost of such ruthless invasions! How British! 32 years ago we had the same arguments and how strange that today that the declassified documents of that period have been made public the British media and their readers been mainly busy with Thatcher's ironing board, rather than her collaboration with Saddam in his 8 year genocidal war against Iran.Why is it that Thatcher's criminal collaboration with Saddam in his illegal war against Iranians and Kurds (even after using chemical bombs in 1983-4 and later in 1988) does not interest the British public?! Maybe after another shocking terrorist attack on the west (God forbid) some critics would show some interest! As has been argued for decades and revealed Thatcher's support for Saddam's war against Iran went beyond the supply of massive military hardware, tanks, even repairs of the tanks inside Iraq, and so forth which were a direct involvement in the genocide; Thatcher's support, as with Reagan's, continued with supply of military 'intelligence', even after Saddam used chemical bombs against Iranian soldiers and civilians: one piece of 'military intelligence' can decide the fate of 10,000s young soldiers forced to defend their country. Imagine 10,000s young men, like Thatcher's own son at the time, being brutally murdered and their death be rationalized in the name of British foreign policy concerned with market and aggressive western hegemony.
Millions of Iranian families are still mourning their loved ones fallen in that imposed war. Thatcher and Reagan, like Blair and Bush, should have been indicted by the International Criminal Court, but today the British public and their critics are busy with Thatcher's ironing board. It seems such trifles have priority over human life as long as the victims are outside Britain, a disturbing fact that contradicts Britain’s sanctimonious stance and claims to highest values, ethics, human rights and progress; what empty rhetoric.
Instead of 'critically reflecting' on the past and condemning Britain's irresponsible complicity in Saddam's war of aggression that may soon be repeated by Britain, America and Israel, the British public is rather bemused by the news about Thatcher's ironing board, and, as in this article, with the 'price of oil' in case of the inevitable massacre in Iran.

Sun, 2012-01-01 22:08 — Hugh Markey (not verified)

Sending opponents to Coventry, or Siberia for that matter, is a problem.
Russia now represents state capitalism and we don't condemn senior Conservative MPs to go live in Russia despite their acting as advisers to Russian companies or sitting on the boards of directors of Russian corpulence.
The West is a beacon to the exportable peoples of the Developing world and they vote with their feet. Thankfully! Can you imagine the West getting by on home-grown talent and inherited wealth.

From time to time, the blood stock has to be reinvigorated or else genetics become insular from inbreeding. The Romans, Anglo-Saxons, Normans, Dutch and German princelings certainly came in useful.
H G Wells gave us forewarning with his "Isle of Doctor Moreau'.
Returning to Iran and the Contras - we hope the West has noted this mid-east state has just tested out long-range missiles. There is an abundance of targets in the nations hemming in this Shia state.
Of course the Iranian middle class see no future in a theocracy and look to the USA and its web of electronic recruiters for support.
Same thing happened in the UK and the USA in the 1930s. It was newsprint hardcopy in those days. Hitler and Musso were looked on as saviours and until Churchill brought the Tower of London back into political use and the shadow of the traitor's noose fell on certain elements of British society, a lot of fifth-column grumbling and manoeuvring was evident. Pearl Harbour did for the Isolationists and the Republicans.
Will we ever see 2013 - unlucky for some, perhaps all, bloggers included.
Astrologer

Thu, 2011-12-29 17:10 — Hugh Markey (not verified)

Just a few mines sprinkled in the sea lane/s in this bottleneck and the West et al would be in dire straits.
Remember - Jimmy Carter backed off when the chips were down and Ronnie Reagan, despite being owlishly short-sighted, took the long view and allowed Saddam Hussein and his defence forces to do the fighting for the USA. And this was before the Net and the smart phone recruited millions of Mid-Easterners to come out fighting for Free Enterprise and its allies.
The only thing holding back the USA is the price of oil and the presidential election. BY the by, whatever happened to the popularity of the HUMVEE?
Yep, gotta be this or that. Goddam it! Do you feel lucky?

Gulf of Tonkin

Wed, 2012-01-04 18:26 — Bee (not verified)

@Dan

You need a reality check. Iran is not Nazi Germany, and Ahmadinejad is not Hitler. Iran does not have nuclear weapons, they haven't attacked anyone. The sanctions are ridiculous,and a preemptive strike on Iran would be extremely foolish.

I'm beginning to feel that our obsession with Iran stems from the fact that we just don't like them. Or maybe we just can't stomach the fact that they successfully overthrew the pro-western backed government (the Shah). Maybe we just hate them because they believe in self-determination, and they wanted to control and profit from their own assets (oil).

How can this country be viewed as a threat, when you have places like Pakistan and North Korea. Countries that are extremely unstable and volatile.

Tue, 2012-01-03 17:58 — jankaas (not verified)

"Jackass"

yes ScrewYoulia Harris..?

"as I said, you are an embarrassment, speaking in riddles and rhymes, your just not a convincing person to have a discussion with."

thanks for yet another ringing endorsement of my functioning faculties.

"If you say I am lying, explain"

but you wouldn't understand what was so absolutely stupid about that single brief sentence of yours. your mind is just too tiny to deal with anything other than the spoonfed hysteria you've received from Dawkins, Harris etc about religion.

though fair fucks to you though, you almost correct your own miserable position when you wrote; "...Muslims keep misunderstanding Islam..."

yet despite yourself, you continue to talk out of your botty that Islam in and of itself is the problem. truely bizarre.

Sun, 2012-01-01 22:47 — andyg (not verified)

@ Hugh Markey:
Is that a yes or a no?

Fri, 2011-12-30 21:44 — Kev Con (not verified)

"Gulf of Tonkin"

Thu, 2011-12-29 17:25 — Luddite (not verified)

There's no love lost between the Arab states and Iran. So why would this pending confrontation be an all American affair? You can bet your bottom dollar Saudi Arabia is agitating for war. Oil prices up and a powerful bad neighbour taken care of. Watch this space.

Tue, 2012-01-03 18:05 — jankaas (not verified)

"It seems jackass is not here to answer you."

another prick who cant spell. or you too a comedian Jonny Minger...?

well done for agreeing with other morons that "Iran started this". you know fuck all, and appear proud to tell everyone. maybe you are so fucking thick that you don't even know Iran ever had another name, or that the US has been meddling for ever and a day in their affairs?

thought so.

Fri, 2011-12-30 22:04 — jankaas (not verified)

@Khosrow

award for most thoughtful post of this thread i think. well done. hope that those who need to read it will bother.

i think this was encapsulated quite well by Bill Hicks, when faced with the question of what weapons Saddam Hussein likely had, said; "just look at the receipts of what we sold him."

genius.

Mon, 2012-01-02 00:29 — Chris Gilliver (not verified)

I do wonder how many of the people who write with such "knowledge" about Islamic behaviour have been to an Islamic country. I've been to Syria and no other country in all my travels has shown me such hospitality, kindness and warmth.

Thu, 2011-12-29 17:52 — Buckskins (not verified)

There will be nothing accidental about it. Block the Straits of Hormuz and Iran has elected to receive. They are not that stupid. They seen what happened to Al-Qaeda and those that gave them shelter in Afghanistan. A handful of American Special Forces, the CIA, and goodnight sweet Prince.

Wed, 2012-01-04 18:56 — jankaas (not verified)

"stay warm in mommy's basement now"

as far as shite put-downs go, that has to be your weakest to date. and you've posted some stiff competition.

Thu, 2011-12-29 18:03 — JoeDeMocritus

There's nothing accidental about the deliberate closing of a major international water way.

The international community must stand fast against such naked aggression.

Thu, 2011-12-29 18:25 — jankaas (not verified)

@Julia Harris
"This has been a terrible mistake as it has shown Obama to be a weak leader who has not fully understood the Islamic Republic and how exactly all non-Muslims are viewed."

do put a sock in it dear. on every thread about Muslims you illustrate just what a simpleton you are.

@Luddite
"There's no love lost between the Arab states and Iran. So why would this pending confrontation be an all American affair?"

indeed. the oil producing Arab nations have just as much to lose, so the dumbest thing ever would be if the US attempted to 'sort this out' alone, or only with Israel.

@Buckskins
"A handful of American Special Forces, the CIA, and goodnight sweet Prince."

stop masturbating, and put your pants back on.

@JoeDeMocritus
"The international community must stand fast against such naked aggression."

yes. the key word being "international", so absolutely unlike the Coalition of the Willing.....

Fri, 2011-12-30 23:54 — Chris Gilliver (not verified)

Can the NS please create some sort of private twats forum for the posters on here who want to have a po-faced, puerile slanging match? It would infinitely improve the quality of these forums.

Luddite, you make the most sensible post here. The arab states largely hate Iran and are surely aggrevating matters.

Tue, 2012-01-03 19:13 — andyg (not verified)

@ Andrew

"There are far too many similar comments on this thread - basically "I had a nice holiday and got a few free dinners so all the stuff about oppression, torture, etc must be wrong".
A. Hi Andrew. Could you just remind us where your comments above were written by "others" in these post(s)?

Sat, 2011-12-31 00:12 — Chris Gilliver (not verified)

Let's not forget that the US and UK knocked out a democratically elected government in Iran in 1953 over the nationalisation of oil, and many of today's troubles stem from this event. Undoubtedly the current regime in Iran is vile and morally corrupt, but we should better understand "our" hand in this before we get too bellicose.

Fri, 2012-01-06 17:34 — andyg (not verified)

@ Dan Ackroyd
Ok so let's start with number 1.
In your view what are the likely consequencies of such an invasion?

Mon, 2012-01-02 04:26 — gordy

Let's face it, there is only one threat to global peace and it's the USofA. America has been responsible for all the major wars since 1945, enjoining its allies to contribute troops and logistics in a failed effort to support America's vainglorious position as leader of the world. I've no love for the Iranian fundamentalist, President I'madinnerjacket, or whatever his name is. But if he's building nuclear weapons it's only because Israel, India and Pakistan have them, courtesy of the West. Any bloodshed that eventuates will be purely of America's conniving and lying, like a now unstable Libya and Iraq.

Thu, 2011-12-29 18:47 — Alexis (not verified)

Julia harris - do everyone a favour and shut the fuck up.

If we wanted to read bullshit, we would go to the bnp/edl websites.

Sat, 2011-12-31 01:07 — Julia Harris (not verified)

@ AndyG, I don't want war, i'm not asking for it or promoting it. I'm not asking for an occupation of Iran, a change of Government would be nice - Obama totally sold out the 2009 freedom demo, let the regime kill the demonstrators and didn't back them, why???

If you read the Iranian rhetoric that they will unleash the hell fire's if the US and or its allies should try to unblock this vital shipping lane, then War or some conflict looks like it will be inevitable.

The answer to there not being a war is for Iran to not block the Straits of Hormuz.

What transpires after this event regarding there nuclear program remains to be seen, there are many countries in the regions that would prefer a non-nuclear Iran. If it meant a conflict to remove that threat then I would say tactical strikes on the Nuclear facilities would be preferable to a Nuke landing on Tel-Aviv (or Jedda for that matter) killing of innocent civilians over a Military target.

Thu, 2011-12-29 18:49 — Alexis (not verified)

Buckshite - just because your country takes orders from tel aviv doesnt mean the rest of us have to risk WW3 by following a course of action that will result in us ALL being totally screwed.

Sat, 2011-12-31 01:37 — Julia Harris (not verified)

Alexpiss, I dont stalk Mehdi, I'm not racist, I do hate Islam. It just so happens our views are polar to one another. I would be upset for his articles to be published without the real facts coming through - call my repsonse's a public service :)

Thu, 2011-12-29 18:51 — matthew fox (not verified)

I take it the author and budding Press TV presenter, understands the Americans offered a hotline, back in September, to help avoid any misunderstandings.

Tehran refused, point blank.

Wouldn't it have been a good idea not to threat the sinking of international shipping in the first place, or is that too simplistic?

Thu, 2012-01-05 22:27 — jankaas (not verified)

@Dan

thanks for the thanks, and you're welcome btw!

"But on the same line you should drop on your knees and thank America for keeping your western civilization defended against what others have prepared for you."

for WWII? not a problem, big thanks for that, saved our hides once you came off the bench. just in the nick of time too?

since then though? you've got to be kidding me. there's sufficient historical evidence that shows the Cold War took 2 sides to remain calm, so we must also be thankful for the USSR remaining calm.

the last 20 years though the US has only managed to break more than it fixed.

Thu, 2011-12-29 18:56 — Alexis (not verified)

Matthew fox - perhaps the Iranians see the sanctions as an act of war itself.

Especially when you consider that the americans have openly called for regime change (which by the way is illegal under international law).

Mon, 2012-01-02 11:47 — andyg (not verified)

@ Gonzales

"It's in Syria that soldiers rape little children in front of their parents, that torture little children to death, that burn little children alive. And you were impressed by these primitive savages!"
A. Two things, firstly I think that Chris Gulliver was talking about the ordinary person in the street and not soldiers. I too have witnessed the sentiments of which Chris has declared.
Secondly, the allied troops in Afghanistan and later Iraq have been accused of similar behaviour; some of these were women soldiers.
Could you please explain to the readers of these posts where your source is for the accusations that you make?

Mon, 2012-01-02 11:50 — seeker (not verified)

I feel after reading the tone of comments mostly from the same people as if these people are paid by far right wealthy nutters/bullies...

Thu, 2011-12-29 19:19 — Julia Harris (not verified)

@Shkara – I don’t have an irrational fear of anything. simple minded people like you wont accept that even with the calling for the destruction of Israel, openly promoting hate speech against Jews, Christians, the UK and US, it is then our fault for reacting to this but not the fault of those making the threats?
Look at what is happening in Egypt, there is no Arab Spring, the Islamists are moving forward, the violence and hate speech is Islamically inspired against Jews and Christians. Guess what, if Egypt decided they needed a Nuclear weapon could we trust people who believe they speak and act in the name of God with those weapons as the Iranian regime does?

We live in age of enlightenment, I won’t be lectured or listen to the likes of Mehdi Hassan who spouts his religious doctrine and believes the Koran is the word of God, utter nonsense.
There is no more dangerous person on earth than a Muslim with a Nuke who thinks the mass slaughter of Infidels will somehow provide him with a great status in an afterlife. Its Madness.
We defeated Nazism and Communism, next is Islamism.

Mon, 2012-01-02 12:01 — jankaas (not verified)

"@ jackAss (a class of its own)"

thanks for that Dan Ackroyd, or as i'll call you Dank Hemorhoids...and what do you have to contribute Dank? let's read again;

"either Iran regime gets bombed or dies in horrible economic conditions I don't care."

i think your own words illustrate what a totally bigoted moron you are. you just don't want a peaceful solution, you just want death, destruction, and misery inflicted on people like you and me, who happen to be foreign and aren't in charge of their own destiny.

"PAX AMERICANA will be soon imposed on them as it should for any Muslim OUT THERE craving for world domination and imposing their filthy murderous ideology on anybody."

worthy candidate of the Irony Award 2012. astonishing!

Thu, 2011-12-29 19:27 — Julia Harris (not verified)

@ITSaMEmariooo Yawn, what a pompous twat.

Tue, 2012-01-03 21:19 — matthew fox (not verified)

The solution is simple, call the Iranians bluff, let them a sink a Chinese Tanker, and then deal with the consequences.

The Bush doctrine, create an enemy, demonise, then bomb them failed miserable.

If anyone wants to fire the first shot, good luck, they will need it.

Mon, 2012-01-02 12:20 — jankaas (not verified)

"@ Jancaas.

So in your view, would you say that we maybe heading for an accidental war with Iran?"

nearly missed that one andyg.

my guess is, and all anyone can do is guess, that there will not be another war, accidental or intentional. thankfully Obama is not a proper hawk, and is smart enough to realise there are better ways to skin a cat than to nuke is to dust.

Obama also has the measure of Netanyahu, and Israel better not act in isolation if they wish to maintain support from the West, without which they wouldn't last the decade.

the Iran question is not for us to solve on our own. we need to work diplomatically with China, the Arab League, UN, etc.

a blockade by Iran would affect way too many nations that currently allow Iran to bluff and bluster a bit. Iran can't afford to lose all their allies. and let's not forget that Iranians are razor sharp negotiators, businessmen and savvy politicians. they are not just rabid idiots of sub-normal intelligence as some posters here assume. underestimate them at your peril, Obama hopefully won't.

we need a sense of proportion.

Mon, 2012-01-02 12:36 — andyg (not verified)

@ Jankaas

I strongly agree

Tue, 2012-01-03 21:50 — Bee (not verified)

''quote was from Senator Rick Santorum made this week''

Who is currently leading in the polls

American politicians having been calling for air strikes on Iran for years. These People openly talk about attacking another country, but this doesn't seem to bother us.

Mon, 2012-01-02 12:51 — Hugh Markey (not verified)

@ andgy
How naive! Our condo of bloggers feels that nobody knows the answer the questioner wants.
Cameron and his social circle of political blutocrats, besides crucifying Gordon Brown promised heaven on earth. Perhaps they meant 'hell'. What's in a word as some anonymous writer once wrote.
Tell us - "Who was Shakespeare?" A lot of people claim to know this one.

Oracle

Mon, 2012-01-02 13:43 — jankaas (not verified)

"@ Jankaas

I strongly agree"

thanks andyg, but you do realise this makes you a marked man? good luck!
ttfn

Mon, 2012-01-02 13:46 — jankaas (not verified)

"The president of Iran Mahmoud Ahmadinejad needs to turn down the saber rattling."

why are you and the others so scared of a bit of "saber rattling" Fox....? (good description by the way in view of the pathetic amount of weaponry at Iran's disposal)

Tue, 2012-01-03 22:46 — Des Demona (not verified)

From a liberal democracy point of view it would be a good idea to have all politicians aggitating for military action to have to declare any interest they have, or campaigns or charities (Liam Fox?)funded by defence contractors. Much like Rick Santorum.Read up on Carlyle Group, United Defense INC, the Crusader howitzer and PAC!
As far as Iran is concerned.... well... if the people want to live in a fascist theocracy that's up to them, but they have to realise that foreign policy decisions they make may impact on the sense of fair play of the people of the liberal democracies coupled with the rampant greed of the politicians.
A dangerous mixture. As Sadaam found out in the first and second gulf wars. Though to be fair the second one was more down to the rampant greed.

Tue, 2012-01-03 22:47 — jankaas (not verified)

"this doesn't seem to bother us."

bothers the hell out of me Bee.

at times like these i wonder why the relative capability to do actual harm is never reviewed and accepted by the Bomb Iran side as being of primary interest. 'we' can remove 'them' from the map, done without even having to lift more than a few fingers. 'they' can't even reach 'us' with everything 'they've' got.

is the only way those people will ever accept this truism is by actually demonstrating it? is that what's going on?

Wed, 2012-01-04 21:19 — andyg (not verified)

@ Dan Ackroyd.

"As the US prepares to announce details of planned defense cuts this month, Mr Hammond will say that the debt crisis in the US and Europe “should be considered the greatest strategic threat to the future security of our nations".

Hi Dan. What do you suppose will happen in the future given the above quote and also given that the debt spiral of Europe has been brought about by Europeans and the collapse of financial institutions in the US?

Sat, 2011-12-31 11:25 — Drakula

I think the people of Iran are fed up with their repressive regime so why don't we let them deal to their own government and mind our own business.

Mon, 2012-01-02 14:53 — andyg (not verified)

@Hugh Markey

"How naive! Our condo of bloggers feels that nobody knows the answer the questioner wants."
A. Is this why you refered to 'H G Wells gave us forewarning with his Isle of Doctor Moreau'? Firstly you haven't even attempted answer the question. And secondly H.G. Wells novel was science fiction and called the 'Island of Doctor Moreau'. The whole and entire story was about an 'Island' not an Isle. This is as close as you came to an answer. Do I rightly conclude then that you are saying in response to the question of:"So in your view, could we be heading for an accidental war with Iran?" that the entire world will end up as half man and half animal who will eventually end up eating a rabbit? And you call me "naive".
You then write:"Cameron and his social circle of political blutocrats, besides crucifying Gordon Brown promised heaven on earth. Perhaps they meant 'hell'. What's in a word as some anonymous writer once wrote".
A. Where did this come from within the above discussion? Or, is it because it is you that is "naive" to the above discussion?
And then you write in accordance with the above discussion:"Tell us -"Who was Shakespeare?" A lot of people claim to know this one."
A. My friend, if you have nothing to contribute then keep shtum.I'll give you a little clue shall I Hugh. The discussion above is about Iran and not Shakespeare. If you wish for people to take you serious then maybe you would be better off joining a literary blog as opposed to a political one. I get a slight vision of you sitting in the alcoholics annonymous group telling them that you have lost three pounds in weight this week.

Sat, 2011-12-31 11:55 — jankaas (not verified)

@Julia Harris

"there are many countries in the regions that would prefer a non-nuclear Iran."

true. and the whole world would like to see Israel without nukes. yet Israel has them, though they refuse to admit so officially, and are not signed up to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. does that strike you as perhaps relevant to this debate? no? why the hell not?

"I'm not racist, I do hate Islam."

so you're only a bigot. thanks for clearing that up.

Tue, 2012-01-03 23:14 — Des Demona (not verified)

That was a very naive post by your standards Jankaas. Closing the Straits of Hormuz is well within Iran's military capabilities .... long enough to provoke a war. And some of those religious nutjobs who actually control Iran might just be nutty enough to do it.