Iran's Nuclear Program

Pa ElGrande

Just found a very good presentation from the BBC on Iran.
Certainly gives some good background.

Inside Iran
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/middle_east/2006/inside_iran/default.stm

bonkey

This might seem like a stupid question, but what makes it a good presentation with good background?

Put another way, what yardstick do you have to measure the "goodness" of this information with?

jc

jank

What kind of military capabilites does Iran have at Present?

I read in the times this sunday that the Head of Mossad is coming anxious about the whole thing and made his feelings clear at a meeting at the Pentagon.

Bush cant afford to attack Iran. He is too weak at domesticly and internationaly.
Israel will do it but may lack the firepower to do the job proberly.

Perhaps a Co-op mission headed by Israel to take the heat of the US?

Its going to happen sooner rather then later IMO. Interesting and dangerous times ahead.

Anyway its a lose-lose situation for bush.

Manic Moran

jank wrote:

What kind of military capabilites does Iran have at Present?

Not bad for a Middle-East military, with lots of moderately decent toys, but little if anything of a current first-rate nature.

Chemical/Bio warfare capability, so that'll be kept in mind.

Air force and land units a strange combination of pre-revolution American equipment (to include the last operational F-14 Tomcats, would be a shame to see those shot down) and post-revolution previous-generation Soviet-block equipment, including a fair number of aircraft 'donated' by Iraq in the 1991 war. As long as nobody gets cocky, there is little to trouble a modern, well-trained military such as the US or Israel, except numbers of ground troops. Submarines might cause some angst to units in the gulf, but wouldn't do much than propoganda/nuisance sinkings.

Israel will do it but may lack the firepower to do the job proberly.

If they're only talking about primarily bombing raids, with no great numbers of boots on the ground involved, Israel has more than the required capability.

NTM

RedPlanet

Manic Moran wrote:

Air force and land units a strange combination of pre-revolution American equipment (to include the last operational F-14 Tomcats, would be a shame to see those shot down) and post-revolution previous-generation Soviet-block equipment, including a fair number of aircraft 'donated' by Iraq in the 1991 war. As long as nobody gets cocky, there is little to trouble a modern, well-trained military such as the US or Israel, except numbers of ground troops. Submarines might cause some angst to units in the gulf, but wouldn't do much than propoganda/nuisance sinkings.

If they're only talking about primarily bombing raids, with no great numbers of boots on the ground involved, Israel has more than the required capability.

NTM

Actually Iran appears to be more resourceful than that, having developed indigenous fighter and bomber aircraft. At least according to http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/weapons.htm

Israel has more than the required capability.... to get themselves into trouble.
What do they expect Iran to do after a bombing raid...croppie lie down?
I wouldn't bet on it.
I think they'd get dirty and fair play to em.

Manic Moran

RedPlanet wrote:

Actually Iran appears to be more resourceful than that, having developed indigenous fighter and bomber aircraft. At least according to http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/weapons.htm

They are certainly resourceful. The fact that they're able to keep the Tomcats flying demonstrates that alone. However, resourceful doesn't necessarily mean that they're building first-rate equipment. For example, the Zulqifar tank that they are now producing appears to combine elements of the M60 with the T-72 to make an interesting frankentank. But it's not a first-rate tank by today's standard. They have taken HAWK missiles and somehow fitted them to the Tomcats. Ingenious, but again, hardly first-rate capable. All the new weapons systems announced in the last month or two are fascinating, but again, few are more than academic on the 'troublesome' factor to a first-rate military.

Israel has more than the required capability.... to get themselves into trouble.
What do they expect Iran to do after a bombing raid...croppie lie down?
I wouldn't bet on it.
I think they'd get dirty and fair play to em.

And do what? Lob a few more scud-like missiles at them? They're already giving support to organisations such as Hamas: Go more overtly than that, and the theocrats might soon find their own homes being bombed, not just their weapons facilities.

NTM

jank

And do what? Lob a few more scud-like missiles at them?

Chemical and Boilogical Weapons?

Parsley

Iran's military threat is undeniably negligible, it's main deterrence lies in the massive terrorism that would result from any attack. The Israelis are quite capable of shooting down any scuds carrying chem or bio weapons.

This whole 'crisis' is utterly preposterous. How dare the americans accuse the iranians of destabilising the area and being aggressive when the iranians have committed no aggression whatsover against its neighbours since 1979? The americans by contrast supported iraq's brutal war on iran through the 1980s, destroyed the iranian navy and shot down an airliner, invaded iraq twice, and starved the country with sanctions. Total death toll 2.2 million. Israel in the same time has bloodily invaded lebanon, violently put down the peaceful uprising of 1989, and continued its ridiculous occupation.

And Iran is the bad guy? Please!

growler

Parsley wrote:

Iran's military threat is undeniably negligible, it's main deterrence lies in the massive terrorism that would result from any attack. The Israelis are quite capable of shooting down any scuds carrying chem or bio weapons.

This whole 'crisis' is utterly preposterous. How dare the americans accuse the iranians of destabilising the area and being aggressive when the iranians have committed no aggression whatsover against its neighbours since 1979? The americans by contrast supported iraq's brutal war on iran through the 1980s, destroyed the iranian navy and shot down an airliner, invaded iraq twice, and starved the country with sanctions. Total death toll 2.2 million. Israel in the same time has bloodily invaded lebanon, violently put down the peaceful uprising of 1989, and continued its ridiculous occupation.

And Iran is the bad guy? Please!

so do you think that a nation with an existing chemical arsenal and a potential nuclear one , that is willing to hold up an implicit threat of terrorism against the west is a "good guy" ?

Squaddy

911 was a "False Flag Operation"

Examples of False Flag operations :-

In 1931, Japan, which had been exploiting Manchuria for resources, decided to take over the whole province. To have a pretext, the Japanese army blew up the tracks of its own railway near the Chinese military base in Mukden, then blamed the sabotage on Chinese solders. This "Mukden incident" occurred almost exactly 70 years prior to 9/11, on September 18, 1931. It is referred to by the Chinese as "9/18."

Nazis, less than a month after taking power, started a fire in the German Reichstag, then blamed it on Communists. Their proof that Communists were responsible was the "discovery" on the site of a feeble-minded left-wing radical, who had been brought there by the Nazis themselves.2 They then used the Reichstag fire as a pretext to arrest thousands of Communists and Social Democrats, shut down unfriendly newspapers, and annul civil rights.

Hitler wanted a pretext to attack Poland. The solution, known as "Operation Himmler," was to have Germans dressed as Poles stage 21 raids on the Polish-German border. In some cases, as in the raid on the Gleiwitz radio station, a dead German convict dressed as a Pole was left at the scene. The next day, Hitler, referring to these 21 "border incidents," presented the attack on Poland as a defensive necessity.

In 1964, a false account of an incident in the Tonkin Gulf was used to start the full-scale war in Vietnam, which brought about the deaths of over 58,000 Americans and some two million Vietnamese.
LINK

The day of the 911 attacks people saw 20 Hi-jacked plane not 4 or 5 like what we are being told, we are being led 2 believe that this attack was plotted by terrorists. America have a history of attacking themselves and making up Bull**** and have gotten away with it every time!


For example: JFK - The reason why no1 has ever found out who the killer was is because it was by its own government!

Oklahoma City bombing - The guy that blew up this hotel claimed he was innocent, he was an ex amry American soldier, but America said that he was crazy and was sentenced to death ( so the truth wouldn’t get out!) and guess what? - The demolition team that was assigned to clean up was the same team to clean up after WTC!

Afghanistan - Why was this country attacked!?! Oh yea the video tape of Osama admitting he plotted these attacks! These videos where released all over the world apart from the middle East. This was to give you a excuse and to try and turn you against the middle east! The video itself was completely fake - The guy in the video does not look anything like Osama and he is writing a note with his right hand when he is left handed! Also he was wearing a gold ring which is against Islamic law. Because God says if you have wealth do not buy gold spend it on the poor. - God or Allah (whatever way you want to say it but it is the same person!) Also even if Al- Queda did plot the attacks still what is the excuse to bomb Afghanistan!?! Everyone in Afghan hates Al-Queda because they do follow Quran ( the Islamic Bible) Al- Queda wasn’t made to be a terrorist group, we are being led to believe that this group is a terrorist group - but they are a religious group that although they follow Quran they changed it around to make life easier - this is why they are hated!

Iraq - Why the hell was this innocent country attacked? I don’t know maybe Bush knows! Lets talk about Bushes personal life for a min ok? Bush was born and raised in the a town where they murdered and slaughtered coloured and foreign people, Bushes religion is Money! Bush families fortune comes from Nazi gold, his grandfather Prescott Bush, was a senator from years 35 - 51. He was Abraham Banking Corporations CEO and was Nazis top bank. They helped Hitler take over countries such as Poland and Austria. LINK

Iraq was attacked because they have wealth, oil, and they are Muslim. They have done nothing wrong to America. I agree that Sadam should be arrested and sentenced to death but why did they put in thousands of troops into Iraq when it would only take 4 special force troops to take out Sadam himself successfully! The reason why is to take over their oil fields which they did! Sadam was still taken out successfully and he is getting a fair trial and guess what he is winning it, so far there is no evidence against him that he killed people. Bush used excuses that Iraq was creating Nuclear weapons, when they wernt, Bush got a map and circled towns where there was activity going on and was there! NO!

Lets move onto Iran!

Iran shouldn't be allowed to have Nukes, But neither should America. Of all countries in the world, America should not be allowed have them. America are the only country to use Nuclear weapons in a war, Bush pretty much has announced that he wants to Use his nukes in a strike on Iran. It is America who are preventing global nuclear disarmament and who are developing new nuclear technology that is designed to lower the nuclear threshold. it is america who are threatening all these dangerous countries with 'regime change' which is forcing them to seek out a deterrent to attack. America are the biggest threat to world peace by a f**king long shot. And the current republican government is certifiably psychopathic. (Thanks Akrasia)

Right lets put it this way first, If you where the government of Iran and your next door neighbour was being attacked for no reason by this evil country robbing them of there wealth, oil, education, government finance, creating civil war between Shia and Suni Muslims and creating more poverty wouldn’t you defend yourself from this evil????

Now lets move onto the Nukes side of it! Iran have never said they are creating nukes. They do have a country of 68 millions people they do have to improve their economy and the only way they can do it is by using nuclear power. But, we are being led by Bush and media that they are creating nukes! And people are believing this because its pumped into there brains every few minutes! But there is no proof, I bet that in a few weeks or months that Bush will have a map with circles drawn on it saying that there is nuclear activity going on here.


You must be wondering why they are attacking these countries. America is full of wealth and business tycoons and their economy relies on oil and businesses. America are entering a depression and it is predicted that they are going to loose out to countries such as India and China. These two countries are going to be the ‘Superpowers’ and the wealthiest countries in the next ten years, and this is what Bush and America cant stand, because they cant stand the fact they wont be the wealthiest country or the most powerful so they rob other countries oil because and take the wealth generated from it to keep up with these countries (China and India). That’s why Bush held talks with the Chinese government a few weeks ago, Bush wanted him to create more trade between the countries so that America can have more access to their economy.

All the evidence has been brought up in court by Families of the victims (400 family members) and by FBI workers themselves suing the US government and Bush for carrying out the attacks.

Why would the government do such a thing?

911 was a psychology attack on the American people and it was pulled off with military precision.

*Larry Silverstein - the man who purchased the WTC in July 2001 six weeks before the attacks, after 911 he demanded 7.2 billion dollars from his insurance claiming that each plane counted as a separate act as terrorism, however the courts only reward him with 2.2 billion dollars.

*The put options (a put option is a bet that stock will fall) that where placed on United Airlines, American Airlines and Boeings stock weeks and days before 911.
- More than 2.5 million dollars have remained unclaimed.

*Large amount of gold stolen from WTC. Over 160 billion dollars in gold was stored in the WTC. Where did it all go?? It was found in November 2001 in the back of a 10 wheeled truck along with several cars in a delivery tunnel underneath WTC 5, (no bodies where recovered), As workers got closer to the gold authorities began restricting access to ground zero by FBI.

“If I tried to go down there they would of shot me” - Worker

Heavy machinery workers where watched under the watchful eye of more than a 100 armed officers.

Gold from WTC 4 was found under WTC 5 in a delivery truck with an empty escort of cars. I think its safe to say they where running away from the south tower, the Q is how did they know to flee with the stash when not even the fire fighters themselves inside the south tower expected it to collapse.

*And that’s just the money side of it, after 911 Bush had and continues to have permission to do and say whatever he wants all under the pretext of 911.


I'll leave you with this question then How should Christians in the world respond to the realization that we are living in an empire similar to the Roman empire at the time of Jesus, which put him to death for resistance against it.

Manic Moran

Oh for God's sake, does every thread have to turn into a 9/11 conspiracy thread?

"Now, on Six-One news: American scientists have discovered how to declaw kittens without the need for stitching."

"It's all part of the great 9/11 conspiracy and coverup! See this wonderful cut-and-paste job of standard conspiracy claims!"

NTM

Squaddy

Iran is relevant to 911

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

That’s why Bush held talks with the Chinese government a few weeks ago, Bush wanted him to create more trade between the countries so that America can have more access to their economy.

no ****ing way!
that is incredible

Jimboo_Jones

Manic Moran wrote:

They are certainly resourceful. The fact that they're able to keep the Tomcats flying demonstrates that alone. However, resourceful doesn't necessarily mean that they're building first-rate equipment. For example, the Zulqifar tank that they are now producing appears to combine elements of the M60 with the T-72 to make an interesting frankentank. But it's not a first-rate tank by today's standard. They have taken HAWK missiles and somehow fitted them to the Tomcats. Ingenious, but again, hardly first-rate capable. All the new weapons systems announced in the last month or two are fascinating, but again, few are more than academic on the 'troublesome' factor to a first-rate military.



And do what? Lob a few more scud-like missiles at them? They're already giving support to organisations such as Hamas: Go more overtly than that, and the theocrats might soon find their own homes being bombed, not just their weapons facilities.

NTM

You make a strong case for Iran getting nuclear weapons. Basically they have nothing else to worry anyone. And as they have a couple of neighbours with nukes so I guess if I was them I would be trying my hardest to get one too.

RedPlanet

Iran has had chemical and biological weapons for ages yet these war mongering cheerleaders haven't been chomping at the bit about that.
Yet now that they may go nuclear suddenly Iran can't be trusted.
As if it is for the west to determine what technology another country may develop:rolleyes:

Remember the press said of Khatami that he was powerless and just a figurehead, but now that Ahmadinejad is in, all of a sudden it's different huh?

RedPlanet

Interesting developement, Ahmadinejad sends a lengthy conciliatory letter to Bush.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4983868.stm
I don't know about you, but where i come from, or maybe it's just my upbringing but if someone makes a peace offering, or extends their hand in peace; it's accepted and it's expected to be accepted by everybody around really. Sure isn't that the "christian" thing to do?
Sounds like Rice and co. are scoffing at it.
They are like children.

bonkey

RedPlanet wrote:

Sounds like Rice and co. are scoffing at it.

Where? In teh article you linked to, it concluded by saying the White House has said its unaware of hte letter, which isn't all that surprising considering the Swiss haven't (or hadn't by then, at least) given it to them.

So they're scoffing at something they don't acknowledge the existence of? Of content they haven't seen?

If you're referring to additional reports about the letter, then the US' position is that there is nothing new in it. There is a request to negotiate and/or engage in diplomacy - something Iran has been saying from the start.

They're dismissing it, not scoffing at it.

Of course, this dismissal is totally expected. The letter was never really expected to make the US move. It was more expected to have an influence other nations on the Security Council by highlighting that the Iranians are the ones constantly and still saying "lets talk about this", and the Americans are saying "no - just do what we tell you to and forget what's written in the treaties you've signed up to".

jc

Akrasia

this is exactly what happened before the Iraq war. America says 'We don't want to attack you, but that said, all options are still on the table' (except diplomacy or compromise)

Hobbes

I think Iran screwed. The US is already posturing itself for war with Iran. If it can or not is another issue.

growler

RedPlanet wrote:

Interesting developement, Ahmadinejad sends a lengthy conciliatory letter to Bush.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4983868.stm
I don't know about you, but where i come from, or maybe it's just my upbringing but if someone makes a peace offering, or extends their hand in peace; it's accepted and it's expected to be accepted by everybody around really. Sure isn't that the "christian" thing to do?
Sounds like Rice and co. are scoffing at it.
They are like children.

not much conciliation offered if leaks are to be believed, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4752831.stm

sounds like amateur playground politics from Iran, another attempt to take the moral high ground and distract domestic attention away from any thoughts of reform.

He again appears to question the right of Israel to exist and buys into the 911 conspiracy theories.

and my personal favourite from this report " "I have no doubt that telling lies is reprehensible in any culture, and you do not like to be lied to," Mr Ahmadinejad is quoted as saying" which is a bit rich since many believe they are lying through their teeth with regard to their peaceful intentions for use of nuclear technology.

Another good line, " The president ends the letter by appealing to Mr Bush to return to religion. "We increasingly see that people around the world are flocking towards a main focal point - that is the Almighty God. "My question for you is, 'Do you not want to join them?'"

I shudder to think of the world this lad envisages. The sooner God gets the hell out of politics the better off we all will be ( US included).



Far from an attempt at conciliation it would seem to be a thinly disguised provocation / puerile PR stunt, not the kind of diplomacy that is going to make the west treat them the respect they believe they are due.

Gurgle

Hobbes wrote:

I think Iran screwed. The US is already posturing itself for war with Iran. If it can or not is another issue.

So pretty much the only way Iran can avoid invasion is to bring a nuke to the table ASAFP.
Worked for NK.
Dis-armament and allowing inspectors didn't really help Iraq.

meditraitor

Gurgle wrote:

So pretty much the only way Iran can avoid invasion is to bring a nuke to the table ASAFP.
Worked for NK.
Dis-armament and allowing inspectors didn't really help Iraq.

This is at the heart of the current crisis, anyone with a ounce of cop-on can see that if Iran dont have a means to defend their natural resources the USA wont be long taking it of them...

growler

meditraitor wrote:

This is at the heart of the current crisis, anyone with a ounce of cop-on can see that if Iran dont have a means to defend their natural resources the USA wont be long taking it of them...

I don't think anyone would deny them the right to defend their natural resources, I would happily deny them the right to any weapon or technology that they might use overtly or covertly to give voice to their religiously inspired hatred of the west.

I don't want to see any country run by religious fanatics, with 1000s of volunteer suicide attackers in the wings have the ability to attack the west.

There wass no threat to Iran before they decided to go after nuclear technology. Any one with a half ounce of cop on wouldn't let them have it while the current management is running the show.

meditraitor

growler wrote:

There wass no threat to Iran before they decided to go after nuclear technology. Any one with a half ounce of cop on wouldn't let them have it while the current management is running the show.

The same thing could be said for North Korea, Pakistan and Isreal

RedPlanet

growler wrote:

There wass no threat to Iran before they decided to go after nuclear technology. Any one with a half ounce of cop on wouldn't let them have it while the current management is running the show.

I don't get you.
Do you believe that it is up to the western countries to determine what technology a country can develope?
What makes it ok for the US to have nukes when they are the ones threatening other countries with them, waging war against other countries on the basis of lies (WMD) and also not adhering to the terms of the Nuclear NonProliferation Treaty themselves?

Obviously it is up to Iranians to determine what sort of government they'll have. It's nobody's business but their own.

growler

growler wrote:

I don't think anyone would deny them the right to defend their natural resources, I would happily deny them the right to any weapon or technology that they might use overtly or covertly to give voice to their religiously inspired hatred of the west.

And if nukes are the only deterrent to stop the worls superpower coming in to sieze those resources? We've already seen that the US doesn't give a damn if teh target country already has a military, since they're usually chewed up within a few weeks of combat.

No. The only real deterrent against a superior equipped military is to have something even they fear. And all thats left are nukes.

Basically you're parking your feet on both fences. They're entitled to protect their resources, but you're not willing to allow them the tools to do so.

I don't want to see any country run by religious fanatics, with 1000s of volunteer suicide attackers in the wings have the ability to attack the west.

have you heard? Bush has conversations with God. Behind the US Invasion of Iraq, missionaries preaching Gods' word followed, completely authorised by the US.

Personally I don't have a lot of time for religions of any type. However, it seems to me the traditionalist & religious movements that are sweeping the US at the moment, are in many ways as bad if not worse than Irans feverent followers. They (Iran) haven't had a war in decades. How many wars has the US been in recently?

There wass no threat to Iran before they decided to go after nuclear technology. Any one with a half ounce of cop on wouldn't let them have it while the current management is running the show.

Strange that the only members of the Axis of Evil that haven't been touched are those either with nukes, or have very close nuclear allies.... Thats a very big hint to everyone, that you need nukes to remain uninvaded. Especially since he was very specific on the names of Iraq, Iran, and N.Korea. :rolleyes:

Frankly I'm amazed that people seem to forget that Bush declared his intention to remove these countries ability to be a threat, in his State of the Union Address.................

growler

meditraitor wrote:

The same thing could be said for North Korea, Pakistan and Isreal

To the best of my knowledge Pakistan and Israel are not considered to pose a threat to the west, both are in fact considered allies (despite Pakistan's less than perfect system of government). North Korea is nicely bottled up and under the de-facto protection of china. Neither Pakistan nor Israel are run by an islamic religious elite who consider the west the great satan.

Red Planet:
I admit the world would be better off if no one had nuclear weapons, but they do, that doesn't mean that we should allow more countries to develop them, particularly those who are governed by those who think they are doing god's will.

Do you think that everyone should have nuclear weapons and trust them all not to use them ? Do you think Hamas has a right to develop this technology, or perhaps the Sudanese or the Eritreans ?

RedPlanet

growler wrote:

Do you think that everyone should have nuclear weapons and trust them all not to use them ? Do you think Hamas has a right to develop this technology, or perhaps the Sudanese or the Eritreans ?

I believe that any country has the right to invent and develope whatever technology they want; therefore Yes to your first question.

While i support total nuclear disarmament, it must be voluntary. And since the existing nuclear powers are not disarming, then what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

Hamas is a political party, not a country. I do not fear them and would treat them as equals. If the Palestians had a state, and pursued nuclear technology, i have no basis in which to complain. Other then the goal of total nuclear disarmament. But the only reason i see countries are interested in nukes is to be treated as equals by the existing nuclear powers.
So nuclear disarmament needs to start with them.

meditraitor

growler wrote:

To the best of my knowledge Pakistan and Israel are not considered to pose a threat to the west, both are in fact considered allies (despite Pakistan's less than perfect system of government). North Korea is nicely bottled up and under the de-facto protection of china. Neither Pakistan nor Israel are run by an islamic religious elite who consider the west the great satan.
?

So its only if these countries pose a threat to the west that they are considered dangerous, Both Pakistan and Isreal have their fair share of religous zealots as volatile and numerous as anything in Iran!
The reason's behind the Islamic worlds mistrust of the west are staring you right in the face, its because of constant aggression and willingness to break international law just to take what they want from the weaker nations, mostly Islamic because of their natural resources.
Maybe having nuclear weapon's might deter the future "rape" of another Islamic nation by the USA led west...

Curious?
Do you really believe that Islam as a religion allow's aggresion to other countries for no other reason than conquest and pilage...
When was the last time Iran was the aggressor in a military dispute with another country... ?>????? please answer this!

growler

Deleted User wrote:

.

No. The only real deterrent against a superior equipped military is to have something even they fear. And all thats left are nukes.

Basically you're parking your feet on both fences. They're entitled to protect their resources, but you're not willing to allow them the tools to do so.



have you heard? Bush has conversations with God. Behind the US Invasion of Iraq, missionaries preaching Gods' word followed, completely authorised by the US.

Personally I don't have a lot of time for religions of any type. However, it seems to me the traditionalist & religious movements that are sweeping the US at the moment, are in many ways as bad if not worse than Irans feverent followers. They (Iran) haven't had a war in decades. How many wars has the US been in recently?



Strange that the only members of the Axis of Evil that haven't been touched are those either with nukes, or have very close nuclear allies.... Thats a very big hint to everyone, that you need nukes to remain uninvaded. Especially since he was very specific on the names of Iraq, Iran, and N.Korea. :rolleyes:

I know its currently fashionable to believe the conspiracy that the US is intent on taking over the middle east, but I don't believe that either the UN, EU or the American people would allow another war or invasion like Iraq, ok admittedly they couldn' do much about it should Bush go all Napoleonic on us, but, for all its failings its still a democracy.

I think only by compliance with the well intentioned UN will the world be better off. If the world needs a super power to police it, i'd far rather it be a democratic and largely secular US / Western coalition with all the imperfections of capitalism than say a communist or islamist inspired alternative. I'd also like to see them go into far more conflicts under the appoval of the UN.

I do not believe that the US will invade Iran to seize their oil, it simply isn't a feasible scenario.

What GWB says in his pyjamas is of little interest to me, he's a politician, he'll say he sacrifices goats if he thinks thats what people want to hear, personally I'd question the sanity of anyone who has conversations with imaginary friends, but at least he has a cabinet, a senate, a house of representatives and a functioning (ish) electorate to answer to. Iran has none of these constraints or checks on the infallibel powers of their rulers.