Archive for  February 2007

Home / February 2007
47 Posts

This is really scary. Why on earth will anyone put a sensor in the head of an animal to control their behavior? What is this sick engineering practice?

What is next, to put a GPS and a bomb attached to it and make a Chinese version of a cheap cruise missile?


Remote control used to guide pigeons, Chinese say

Chinese scientists have succeeded in controlling a pigeon’s flight with tiny electrodes implanted in the bird’s brain, state media reported.

Xinhua News Agency said the scientists at the Robot Engineering Technology Research Centre at Shadong University of Science and Technology can command the pigeons to fly left or right and up or down.

Chinese scientists have reportedly succeeded in controlling a pigeon's flight via electrodes implanted in the bird's brain.

Chinese scientists have reportedly succeeded in controlling a pigeon’s flight via electrodes implanted in the bird’s brain.(Tatan Syuflana/Associated Press) Scientists sent signals by computer to the implants that mirror signals generated by the brain to control body movement. These signals stimulate different areas of the pigeon’s brain and cause it to respond to the command, the researchers said.

Chief scientist Su Xuecheng said it is the first such successful experiment on a pigeon in the world.

Su and his colleagues told Xinhua they hope the technology can be put to practical uses but did not specify what those might be.

It’s not the first time scientists have experimented with animals and remote control.

Su had previously conducted a similar experiment on mice in 2005, Xinhua reported.

Researchers at State University of New York in Brooklyn said in 2002 they had developed a way to control rats using remote control signals. John Chapin, a professor of physiology and pharmacology at the university, said arming the rats with tiny cameras could one day allow them to be used to search for disaster survivors in places humans couldn’t access.

And Japanese researchers surgically implanted a device in a cockroach in 2001 that allowed them to control its movements.

It is also interesting that they do not mention one of the other sick actions by the US government to use Sharks and Dolphines as spies or to attack divers:

Sharks = Spies?

The U.S. military already trains dolphins to hunt for mines. But why draft Flipper, when you can get Jaws, instead?

shark_arrrr.jpgThat’s the thinking, I guess, behind the Pentagon’s decision to fund research into brain implants that could one day lead to sharks becoming “‘stealth spies,’ capable of gliding undetected through the ocean.”

At first, the implants are being used to “steer” spiny dogfish, New Scientist notes.
As the dogfish swims about, the researchers beam a radio signal from a laptop to an antenna attached to the fish… Electrodes [inside the fish’s head] then stimulate either the right or left of the olfactory centre, the area of the brain dedicated to smell. The fish flicks round to the corresponding side in response to the signal, as if it has caught a whiff of an interesting smell: the stronger the signal, the more sharply it turns.

Boston University biologist Jelle Atema plans to use the implants to study how sharks track chemical trails. We know that sharks have an extremely acute sense of smell, but exactly how the animals deploy that sense in the wild has so far been a matter of conjecture. Neural implants could change all that.

God saves us all from these mad scientists who are doing everything to make the ultimate war machine to kill even more people.

PS. I really like this coment about the CIA attempt to use a cat as a spy on  Weired :

But don’t hold your breath waiting for animal spies to roam the world anytime soon. One of the most infamous would-be animal espionage projects, dubbed Acoustic Kitty, dates back to the 1960s, when the CIA wired a furry feline to eavesdrop. On its trial run, the cat was run over by a car.

This is another example of how the Bush administration is not interested in solving the tension between Iran and the US.

This administration, run by a group of war hungry morons want to start  war with Iran. This has been on their agenda from the day first they came to power.

We have seen, again and again how these guys either ignore any offer from Iran or refuse it because “they do not believe in them”. The results of their politics, if not stopped, will be another disaster just like Iraq.

But the main difference between Iran and Iraq is that Iran has a much larger population and the IRI has a larger supporting base than Saddam ever had, plus the nationalistic power of Iranians if the country is attacked, will start a conflict like US has never see before.

One important issue the world must remember, the destruction of Iranian democracy in 1953, caused the Islamic revolution of 1979, do the world really want to create another disastrous outcome of their stupid foreign policy? Or they are willing to help Iranians toward a peaceful transition to democracy that will change the Middle East in a much better way that anything Bush administration and anyone of their Neo Con idiots can ever achieve.

Karl Rove Personally Received (And Ignored) Iranian Peace Offer in 2003

Listen to Segment || Download Show mp3
Watch 128k stream       Watch 256k stream

As Seymour Hersh reports the Pentagon has created a special panel to plan a bombing attack on Iran, we examine how the Bush administration ignored a secret offer to negotiate with Iran in 2003. We speak with the National Iranian American Council’s Trita Parsi, a former aide to Republican congressman Bob Ney. 

While the Bush administration continues to insist it has no plans to go to war with Iran, the New Yorker magazine is reporting the Pentagon has created a special panel to plan a bombing attack on Iran that could be implemented within 24 hours of getting the go-ahead from President Bush. According to investigative journalist Seymour Hersh, the planning group was established within the office of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in recent months. In response to the report, Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman denied the US was planning to go to war with Iran and said “To suggest anything to the contrary is simply wrong, misleading and mischievous.” Whitman went on to say the White House is continuing to address concerns in the region through diplomatic efforts.

This comes against the backdrop of last week’s allegation that Bush’s chief advisor Karl Rove personally received a copy of a secret offer from the Iranian government to hold negotiations four years ago. The Bush administration decided to ignore the grand bargain offer. Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice recently claimed she had never even seen the document. At the time Iran said it would consider far-reaching compromises on its nuclear program, relations with Hezbollah and Hamas and support for a Palestinian peace agreement with Israel.

Rove’s involvement was revealed by an aide to former Republican congressman Bob Ney. The aide, Trita Parsi, said Ney was chosen by the Swiss Ambassador in Tehran to carry the Iranian proposal to the White House because he knew the Ohio Congressman to be the only Farsi-speaking member of Congress and particularly interested in Iran.

Trita Parsi joins me now from Washington DC. He is the President of the National Iranian American Council, the largest Iranian-American organization in the US. His forthcoming book is “Treacherous Triangle – The Secret Dealings of Iran, Israel and the United States.”

  • Trita Parsi, president of the National Iranian American Council (NIAC), the largest Iranian-American organization in the US. He is author of the forthcoming book “Treacherous Triangle – The Secret Dealings of Iran, Israel and the United States.”

RUSH TRANSCRIPTThis transcript is available free of charge. However, donations help us provide closed captioning for the deaf and hard of hearing on our TV broadcast. Thank you for your generous contribution.
Donate$25, $50, $100, more…

AMY GOODMAN: Trita Parsi joins me now from Washington, D.C. He is president of the National Iranian American Council, the largest Iran American organization in the United States. His forthcoming book is called Treacherous Triangle: The Secret Dealings of Iran, Israel and the United States. Welcome to Democracy Now!

TRITA PARSI: Thank you for having me, Amy.

AMY GOODMAN: Explain exactly what this memo, this proposal was, coming from Iran, and how you say it made its way to the highest levels of the US government.

TRITA PARSI: Well, this is back in May 2003. The United States had just defeated Saddam in less than three weeks, and I think there were a lot of feelings inside Iran that they needed to present some sort of a negotiation deal with the United States. But what they presented was quite similar to many things that they had communicated verbally to the United States over the last couple of years. Basically, they said the United States has a couple of aims, Iran has a couple of aims, and there is a process to be able to proceed with the negotiations.

And what the Iranians agreed to discuss as a framework of the negotiations was how to disarm the Hezbollah, how to end support to Hamas and Islamic Jihad, how to open up the nuclear program, how to help the United States stabilize Iraq, and, in short, that the government there would not along sectarian lines, and also how to sign onto the Beirut Declaration, which is basically a former recognition of the two-state solution. These are far-reaching compromises that Iran potentially would have agreed to in the negotiations, but the Bush administration, as you reported, decided simply not to respond to the proposal.

AMY GOODMAN: Can you explain how it made its way from Iran to the US government?

TRITA PARSI: The United States, back in 1991, established the Swiss embassy in Iran as a go-between between the United States and Iran. The US needed a channel of communication, a reliable channel of communication between the two countries just to ensure that the war in Iraq back in 1991 would not cause any misunderstandings between Iran and the United States that could be dangerous. That channel was then afterwards in existence, and the Swiss ambassador to Iran is a person that usually visits the US every six months and gives a report to the United States to State Department, sometimes to Congress, about what the situation in Iran is, mindful of the fact that the US itself does not have any diplomats in Iran. So this channel has been used on numerous occasions by the United States and by Iran to be able to send messages to each other.

And this time around, the Iranians gave a proposal to the Swiss ambassador that he then sent to the Swiss foreign ministry in Bern, who faxed it onto the State Department, but the Swiss ambassador also made a personal visit to Washington, D.C. to brief the State Department about the proposal, and he also made sure that he met with Congressman Ney, who has been a longtime advocate for negotiations and dialogue between the United States and Iran, and he handed him the proposal, as well.

AMY GOODMAN: Now, the Swiss ambassador was Tim Guldimann?


AMY GOODMAN: And he then got this proposal to the man you worked for, Congressmember Ney?

TRITA PARSI: Exactly. I was an advisor to Bob Ney at the time. And Tim met with Bob and handed over the proposal to him. And Bob afterwards sent it to be hand-delivered to the White House to Karl Rove, and Karl Rove called back within two hours, and they had a brief discussion about the proposal.

AMY GOODMAN: And what did Karl Rove say?

TRITA PARSI: Well, he basically said that it was an intriguing proposal. He first wanted to know if it authentic, and the congressman assured him that it was, according to what the Swiss ambassador had said. And we have to remember, the Swiss ambassador would not be handing over proposals to the United States unless they were authentic. The Swiss ambassador’s work has been requested by the US, not by the Iranians. So he is basically fulfilling a mission that has been given to him by the United States.

AMY GOODMAN: We’re going to break, then come back to you, Trita Parsi, president of the National Iranian American Council, was the former consultant for, aide for Congressmember Bob Ney. This is Democracy Now! Stay with us.


AMY GOODMAN: We are talking to Trita Parsi, president of the National Iranian American Council, largest Iranian American group in the United States, author of the forthcoming book, Treacherous Triangle: The Secret Dealings of Iran, Israel and the United States, saying that the Bush administration, Karl Rove, received a memo in 2003 that Iranian leaders backed comprehensive negotiations with the United States. Now, Trita Parsi, Condoleezza Rice, the Secretary of State, was questioned about this document several weeks ago on Capitol Hill. She said she didn’t recall seeing it when she was National Security Advisor. “I just don’t remember ever seeing any such thing,” she said. Your response?

TRITA PARSI: Well, I think part of the reason why the Secretary of State currently is using the terminology of saying that she doesn’t recall seeing it may be because the Bush administration senses that it may be forced to negotiate with Iran down the road, particularly if this surge policy is a failure, which a lot of people predict that it will be. And as a result, they don’t want the negotiations, the potential future negotiations, with Iran to be compared to what they could have achieved with Iran back in 2003, because clearly the United States is in a much weaker position today than it was back then. And I think it would look bad for the administration to come to a deal with Iran now that would be substantially worse than the deal they could have achieved back in 2003. And I think they want to avoid that type of a comparison.

AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk about this proposal that came to the US? You have Karl Rove who knew, the very close relationship between — well, it was Karl Rove and Condoleezza Rice who went with President Bush to South Korea, just them together. Do you have any awareness or knowledge of President Bush knowing about this?

TRITA PARSI: Well, according to many people that I have interviewed in the Bush administration, they did have a discussion about this at the highest level in the Bush administration, and basically the hard line of the Dick Cheney and Rumsfeld basically ensured that they would not proceed with the negotiations. In fact, they actually reprimanded the Swiss ambassador for having delivered it.

And the argument by the hardliners, the hawks in the Washington — in the White House at the time was basically that Iran is weak and it’s giving this proposal precisely because of the fact that it is fearful of the United States and that the US can achieve more by taking on the Iranian regime and just removing it than by negotiating. So we had this situation in which, back then, because of America’s strength, the Bush administration argued that it could not negotiate.

And we have the opposite situation right now. Now, the Bush administration is saying that because it’s weak, it cannot negotiate. But if you can’t negotiate when you’re strong, because you’re strong, and you can’t negotiate when you’re weak, because you’re weak, that basically means that you’re not interested in negotiations at all.

AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to read you a clip by Gareth Porter, “Rove Said to Have Received 2003 Iranian Proposal.” And it says that “the identification of Rove as a recipient of the secret Iranian proposal throws new light on the question of who in the Bush administration was aware of the Iranian proposal at the time. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice denied in Congressional testimony [last week] that she had seen the Iranian offer in 2003 and even chastised former State Department, National Security Council and [Central Intelligence Agency] official Flynt Leverett for having failed to bring it to her attention at the time.

“At a Capital Hill conference on U.S.-Iran relations Wednesday, sponsored by the New America Foundation and [your organization, Trita Parsi] NIAC, Leverett responded to Rice’s criticism by saying it was ‘unthinkable that it would not have been brought to her attention’ and [demanding] an apology from her.”

TRITA PARSI: Well, I would agree that it is absolutely unthinkable that a proposal of this importance would not have reached the Secretary of State or at the time the National Security Advisor, particularly mindful of the fact that Flynt Leverett, who was at the NSC at the time, did see it — his wife Hillary Mann, who was also at the NSC, did see it — who had a discussion with Colin Powell about it, according to his testimony at our conference two weeks ago. So I find it highly unlikely that they did not see it. I frankly believe that it’s beyond unlikely that they didn’t see.

But, again, I think it’s partly because of the fact that they’re fearful that if there are going to be any negotiations down the road, not negotiations that they themselves choose to have, but they’re basically forced to have, that they don’t want the result of those negotiations to be compared to what they could have achieved back in 2003.

AMY GOODMAN: What has Ney said about this — I mean, now disgraced, involved with the Abramoff scandal, in jail — what are his comments?

TRITA PARSI: Well, I can’t speak for him, but I think there may be some indications from him in which he will come out with his side of the story, as well.

But let me say one thing about the impact that this has had on the Iranians, because I was in Iran back in 2004, doing interviews for my book, which has a lot of details about this proposal. And what was really interesting is that when the Iranians put this on the table and they were basically offering significant policy modifications in the hope that this would be able to open up a new chapter in the relationship with the United States, when the United States, when the Bush administration did not even respond to it, that left Tehran with the impression that the US does not necessarily have problems with Iranian policies. What the US’s problem lies is with Iran’s power. So if you can’t give any concessions to the Bush administration that would be able to change the nature of this relationship, then why give concessions to begin with? And that is part of the reason why Iran’s position has strengthened and hardened so much over the last couple of years. It’s mainly because of the failure of the Iranian government to be able to reach an understanding with the United States by offering concessions. So now they’re trying to do the same by playing it very, very tough.

AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to get your response, Trita Parsi, to Seymour Hersh’s piece in The New Yorker, that the Pentagon has established a special planning group within the Office of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to plan an attack on Iran.

TRITA PARSI: Well, I think that these are things that we’ve been hearing quite a lot here in Washington for quite some time now. And it is quite likely — it is also quite likely that the Bush administration is using the revelation of this and this flourishing of articles saying that the Bush administration is about to strike as a pressuring tactic against Tehran, this psychological warfare that seems to be going on right now. But one of the elements that I think we’ve seen very clear evidence for is this shift in the US’s policy in the Middle East, in which it is now increasingly siding with the Sunni states and even turning a blind eye to their extensive support for al-Qaeda and jihadist groups, including in Iraq, groups that are killing Americans far more than the Shiites are, and pursuing that, not in order to stabilize Iraq, but in order to weaken Iran and re-establish the type of balance in the region that they feel is more beneficial to the United States, but is also the same balance that has been creating a war in the Middle East every five to ten years over the last fifty years.

AMY GOODMAN: Let me follow up on this point, because it is certainly a key one. Seymour Hersh, in The New Yorker magazine, reporting that the Bush administration and Saudi Arabia are pumping money for covert operations in many areas of the Middle East, including Lebanon, Syria and Iran, in an effort to strengthen Saudi-sported Sunni Islam group and weaken Iranian-backed Shias. Some of the covert money has been given to jihadist groups in Lebanon with ties to al-Qaeda. So, supporting the Sunnis over the Shia and working with Saudi Arabia to funnel that money.

TRITA PARSI: And basically says that the United States is not trying to resolve the civil war in Iraq. Rather, it’s taking sides in the civil war. And ironically, it’s taking the same side as al-Qaeda is doing.

AMY GOODMAN: And the second part of the story, that John Negroponte, Seymour Hersh reports, may well have resigned his post as National Intelligence director, because of his discomfort that the administration’s covert actions in the Middle East so closely echoed the Iran-Contra scandal of the 1980s.

TRITA PARSI: I think one thing to keep in mind in all of this is that the United States does have legitimate grievances with the Iranian government and the policies that they have been pursuing. But the problem is that the line that the Bush administration is pursuing is only making matters worse in the region right now. It is further destabilizing the region. It’s further making it more difficult to be able to find a solution to Iraq. The only solution that I can see is to actually bring all the parties to the table. And that, of course, also includes not only the Iranians, but also the Saudis.

Part of the fear that countries, such as Saudi Arabia and Israel have, is that if the United States strikes a bilateral deal with Iran, it will come at the expense of countries such as Saudi Arabia and Israel. And that’s what they’re trying to prevent at this stage. But it’s only adding more fuel to the tensions in the region. And that’s why I think the Iraq Study Group’s recommendation was the most effective one, the most successful one, if the United States can bring all the parties to the table in order to find a multilateral solution to the problems in the region.

AMY GOODMAN: Trita Parsi, why come out with these documents right now? This is years later. This is, what, some three, four years later.

TRITA PARSI: Well, I was holding this document for quite some time. I did not come out with it until I saw that Flynt Leverett had, because Flynt was in the White House at the time, and I was basically someone who was an advisor to a congressman and I happened to see it. Part of the reason why I decided to come out, speak about it and also provide a document to a lot of journalists was because I was very fearful last year that the Bush administration was getting very close to military conflict with Iran and that the talk in town was that the Iranians are not interested in a deal, that the Iranians would never negotiate, a lot of these false assumptions about Iran that I felt was just helping hawks being able to bring this situation closer to closer to war. And I wanted to make sure that people knew that there have been substantial negotiation proposals, negotiation proposals that could be pursued once more in order to be able to find a peaceful solution to what is taking place between the United States and Iran. And I did so, mindful of the fact that there seems to be a lot of people in the White House that have the military option as their first option, not as their last option.

AMY GOODMAN: Trita Parsi, I want to thank you very much for being with us. Trita Parsi is president of the National Iranian American Council and is author of the forthcoming book, Treacherous Triangle: The Secret Dealings of Iran, Israel and the United States.

Some very nice pictures of Iran.

Sadly, the stupid mullahs of Iran has caused  so much damage to the beautiful Image of Iran in the world that it is difficult to pass their ugly cover and see the real beauty of Iran.

Source Payvand News 

Amazing Iran: Portraits By Iason Athanasiadis (

At a time when talk of a military strike against Iran looms ever larger, it’s often easy to lose sight of the fact that Iran is one of the most visually stunning countries in the world.

Having just returned from a memorable one-week trip around Iran, during the Ashura festival, I wanted to send all of you on this list a few samples of this country and temporarily lighten the political fare that I’m usually serving up...

An old man in Bandar Abbas, southern Iran

A rare blue-eyed Turkmen horse close to Gonbad-e Qavvus

Iran.December 221: A man and his weight-scale in Hamedan’s central square

A little child affected by the Sirjan earthquake peeks out of the emergency
tents offered to the victims by the Red Crescent

A woman looks at a photo exhibition in Tehran’s Khane Hunarmandan

At Tabriz’s central bazaar, portraits of Imam Ali rub shoulders with more
earthly pleasures.

Two Kurdish women wait for their darvish husbands outside a khaneqah
close to Kermanshah, western Iran

A man smokes a cigarette at the Kermanshah bazaar, western Iran
The inheritor of an aristocratic house in Marivan

Two Kurds, victims of Saddam Hussein’s chemical weapns bombardments,
at a conference in Marivan, western Iran

A Kurdish darvish makes a point to his friends during a break in the zikr

A group of asheqs perform in a private house in Tabriz
Worshippers led by Father Methodios celebrate Easter at Tehran’s
Greek Orthodox Church

Female members of Tehran’s orchestra practice ahead of a tour of
Germany in the summer of 2005

A Shah-era memento: A vintage Cadillac
parked in front of a Russian-built house
in Rasht, on the Caspian Sea

A supporter of reformist candidate Mustafa Moein at his rally in May 2005

The third generation: Two young men at a reformist political rally sport
an Iranian flag and a Metallica T-shirt

An Iranian woman in a village outside Yazd

Amazing Iran
By Iason Athanasiadis (

At a time when talk of a military strike against Iran looms ever larger, it’s often easy to lose sight of the fact that Iran is one of the most visually stunning countries in the world.

That is certainly one of the main reasons that has kept me here for the past three years, against all the odds and despite the Iranian authorities consistently refusing to grant me a press visa.

Having just returned from a memorable one-week trip around Iran, during the Ashura festival, I wanted to send you a few samples of this country and temporarily lighten the political fare that I’m usually serving up.

For those of you who are non-Iranian, this may serve as an introduction into what is a varied and uniquely beautiful country. For  the Iranians (mostly the expats), it is a reminder of the Iran that remains unseen during intense, family-dominated two-week visits back to the motherland.

A man walks by a camel in Khomeinishahr, a city on the outskirts of Esfahan
during the procession marking the Shiite holiday of Ashura

A group of Kurdish villagers crowd onto a
slope to watch a dervish procession in the
mountaintop village of Horaman-e Takht in
Iranian Kordestan

Two Kurdish dervishes shake their heads in ecstasy during the some ceremony
on the mountaintop village of Horaman-e Takht in Iranian Kordestan

A Kurdish dervish plays the daff and sings, standing on snow spattered with
the blood of some 60 goats and cows sacrificed by the folk of the mountaintop
village of Horaman-e Takht in Iranian Kordestan

A village mosque on the road from Esfahan to Khorramabad in western Iran

Snow-covered, virgin mountain peaks on the road from Esfahan to
Khorramabad in western

A little girl is covered by her mother in a crowd of women in the middle of
the fire ritual performed by tens of thousands of women on the eve of
Ashura in the town of Khorramabad in western Iran



About: Iason Athanasiadis a Tehran-based writer and photographer currently writing a book on contemporary Iranian society. You can visit his web site for further photography from Iran and the region.

ason Athanasiadis photos at Tehran’s Artists Forum: Asia Minor Photographs
By Syma Sayyah, Tehran The Artists Forum (Khaneh Honarmandan) is well known for promoting art and culture as well as being the venue for many important events and conferences. The Artists Forum under the directorship of Mr. Gharibpour has given its support to Iranian and non Iranian artists.

The Artists Forum first exhibition on the eve of the New Year (2006) was a photo exhibition of a multi-talented Greek-British whiz-kid, Iason Athanasiadis who speaks, reads and writes very good Persian as well as Arabic, which he studied at Oxford.

Iason Athanasiadis
He is a well established photographer and has had several exhibitions in Europe and the Middle East. He is also a very active journalist working for Greek papers and TV as well as the BBC, while at the same time doing an MA in International Politics at the University of Foreign Affairs here in Tehran. He has lived in Middle East for five years and traveled to Morocco, Syria, Yemen, Egypt and Qatar and spend long stints in each country to enhance his deeper understanding of their people and their values.

Ashura mourning ceremony

Esfahan, Iran
The exhibition was at the Tajroubeh (experimental) Workshop on the roof of the two story building. It was nicely lit by candles so that one could pay attention to the works which were so correctly lit. I would like to add that this exhibition was sponsored by Nikon Agent in Tehran M/S Nikonegarsh (

The desert

Statues in Tehran
This exhibition, Glimpses of Asia Major, presents a human and landscape panorama from Iran and Afghanistan, according to the exhibition notes. We see his works from middle Asia mainly Iran and Afghanistan some of which are quite moving. He considers that the two countries represent two extremes. While Iran is a country struggling to modernize and take its place at the head of the region, Afghanistan represents what many might consider to be a cautionary tale to its Western neighbor.

I found some of the photographs very moving and intense. As one well known and accomplished photojournalist whom I met at the exhibition said, all photographers have too many pictures on show at every exhibition, this is no exception. We enjoyed looking at photographs and the ambience


Here I have a few of the pictures for you to observe. Iason’s next exhibition in Tehran will be next year and is going to be “Hellenism in Persian: from Alexander to the Islamic Republic”. We look forward to this exhibition most earnestly.

You may reach Iason Athanasiadis at:


View of Tehran

A friend of mine sent me a link to BBC’s opinion page. It is very interesting to read that the world is not buying the US propaganda as the world leaders say ( I am not sure if the comments are representative of the people in their countries or not).

You can find the rest of the comments here: BBC Forum


Added: Thursday, 22 February, 2007, 16:09 GMT 16:09 UK

The world should do nothing about Iran. Iran is a sovereign nation and it is entitled to have nuclear power consumption. Just because the USA is war-mongering doesn’t mean the world has to listen to their made up lies. The country the world should fear is America! Their government is crazy!

Russell, Winnipeg, Canada


Recommended by 387 people



Added: Thursday, 22 February, 2007, 16:55 GMT 16:55 UK

You want a nuke free Middle East? So do I. So does the whole world.
Let us start with Israel sitting on 100-200 nukes. Iran allows UN inspectors in, Israel does not. Iran is a signatory of the non-proliferation treaty, Israel is not.
Assuming Iran is really trying to develop nukes, any results will be in a decade (CIA). That gives the world community enough time to disarm Israel so Iran will have no more reason to develop its own.
But this suggestion is not politically correct!

El Cyniko, Switzerland


Recommended by 323 people



Added: Thursday, 22 February, 2007, 16:07 GMT 16:07 UK

I Think Iran should be left alone. Israel has nuclear weapons. I’m an american. But I don’t think we need another Iraq.

Joseph J Clancy, Carmel


Recommended by 267 people



Added: Thursday, 22 February, 2007, 15:57 GMT 15:57 UK

“Wouldn’t a more appropriate question be ‘How should the world deal with the US?'”?[Londonerabroad]

But that’s not the question. Are you incapable of answering the, you know…actual question without turning it into a whine-fest about the US? And people need to stop turning this into a US vs. Iran thing. It’s not. Almost all nations, the EU and the UN are concerned about Iran having nukes. This is why we Americans think we’re the center of the world. You make us so and we just go with it.

Shawn Hunt, Washington, DC, United States


Recommended by 262 people



Added: Thursday, 22 February, 2007, 17:32 GMT 17:32 UK

Despite the anti-Iran propaganda thats all over the news (the wipe Israel off the map mistranslation, EIDs etc), I am sure most do not regard Iran as a threat to the UK. Why dont we start disarming Israel, a country in breach of dozens of UN resolutions first, and make the Middle East a nuclear free zone? How would we like it if we were told we couldnt have legitimate nuclear power stations? It looks like the Neo-Cons are hyping up a non-existent threat like they did with Iraq.

[Trancefan], Guildford, United Kingdom


Recommended by 259 people



Added: Thursday, 22 February, 2007, 16:08 GMT 16:08 UK

Another question set up so this “Have Your Say” can become a US-bashing forum. Why should we fear Iran having nuclear weapons? Because they are a fundamentatlist, theocratic state which severly curtails freedoms and human rights. The US, on the other hand, is still a bastion of freedom and human rights despite what is highlighted by the foriegn press. Which do you fear?

John, NYC, USA


Recommended by 246 people



Added: Thursday, 22 February, 2007, 15:54 GMT 15:54 UK

I don’t know how the world should deal with Iran, but I for one am sick of the barrage of “What about America? They’ve used nuclear weapons.” arguments.

It’s very tired. The current US administration had nothing to do with dropping of the bombs. The US population did not vote for bombs to be dropped.

Blaming the current U.S. government for what happened at Hiroshima is the same as blaming Tony Blair for all the troubles in Africa that England caused many years ago.

Move on already.

Danielle, New York, USA


Recommended by 232 people



Added: Thursday, 22 February, 2007, 15:44 GMT 15:44 UK

Wouldn’t a more appropriate question be “How should the world deal with the US?”?
Iran hasn’t invaded anyone, and whether you believe that the nuclear enrichment is for peaceful purposes or otherwise, who can really blame Iran for wanting nuclear it?

What’s that I hear? Oh, that’ll be the sound of the stampede of all the people rushing to misquote that comment about Israel again.



Recommended by 225 people



Added: Thursday, 22 February, 2007, 16:09 GMT 16:09 UK

to Fred Kingdom, Montreal

As we all know, dropping the bomb during WW2 was necessary, ask your grandparents. You weren’t born yet, so don’t use that excuse.

Now, you sit back in canada spitting out anti-US rubbish, why? You will be protected by big brother if anything ever happened on this continent. Canada is here and will remain to be, because of US. Protection by being attached to hip.

Du h, nm, United States


Recommended by 212 people



Added: Thursday, 22 February, 2007, 17:33 GMT 17:33 UK

From the US, it looks like bush is going after Iran just to change the subject off the debacle in iraq. Iran could be dealt with through negotiations – apparently they have already made a decent opening offer. My gov looks hypocritical in developing small nukes, giving nukes to India, yet feigning alarm at the idea of Iran developing any kind of program. We need to get back to a 100% non-proliferation stance, including destroying some of our stockpile.

Carol, Seattle


Recommended by 196 people



Added: Thursday, 22 February, 2007, 16:58 GMT 16:58 UK

I wish the world wouldn’t have to deal with Iran. I wish the world wouldn’t have to deal with any country but their own. I wish war was not an option.

Having said that, my wishes are not an option. Confining oneself to ones own borders is not a possibility with Iran. If we do nothing about Iran, we will deal with a much more formidable enemy 5, 10, or 20 years from now.

We must confront Iran.

Eugene Levin, United States


Recommended by 185 people



Added: Thursday, 22 February, 2007, 16:03 GMT 16:03 UK

To be fair, it would be best if ALL the countries in the world gave up nuclear weapons.

We must learn to live at peace with all.

Rachel Smith


Recommended by 181 people



Added: Thursday, 22 February, 2007, 15:57 GMT 15:57 UK

The question is backward. It should be “How should Iran deal with the world”. They claim their goal with nuclear is peaceful yet they have a history of lies about the program and do little to convience the international community otherwise. Why not allow inspectors in if it’s really a peaceful program? All other “responsible” nuclear countries have no problem with inspectors. Why does Iran fear inspectors yet give tours to those uneducated in nuclear work? Too many questions, not enough answers

Daniel, USA


Recommended by 181 people



Added: Thursday, 22 February, 2007, 17:35 GMT 17:35 UK

First, the world should do no more than respect Iran’s right to pursue pacific nuclear technology under the supervision of the NPT (condition already met by Iran’s government).
Secondly, the world must pressure the countries that already have a program for the development of nuclear & chemical weapons (e.g. the U.S.) to abandon it.

Gonzalo Vásquez Villanueva, Santiago, Chile


Recommended by 166 people


Added: Thursday, 22 February, 2007, 16:06 GMT 16:06 UK

The case of Iranian nuclear capability is a difficult one. On the one hand no one country can tell another as to how they can go about fulfilling its power needs. On the other hand the world does not need another country with nuclear missile capability. The US has created a mess wherever it has intervened since the commencement of the Cold War. I think it should take a back seat. It’s time for level headed thinking and action. The US should stop being the big bully in the schoolyard of the world

Shah Alam, London

Recommended by 146 people