Thanks for posting this Bill.  I noticed, though, in this part:

>Viewed from Tehran rather than Washington, Iran's interest in nuclear
>weapons is not entirely unreasonable. Two of its neighbours - Pakistan and
>Russia, across the Caspian sea - are already nuclear powers. Iraq, a
>neighbour with whom Iran fought a bitter eight-year war, would dearly like
>to become one. And Afghanistan has a new government, installed through
>military force, by the world's largest nuclear power - the US.

that there's no mention that Israel has nuclear weapons, even though

>The "Iranian threat" is a tried-and-trusted Israeli card. Domestically, it
>helps to rally Israelis round the government when the going gets tough.
>Internationally, it helps to keep the military aid flowing into Israel
>from the US. Those F-16 warplanes are supposed to protect Israel from the
>likes of Iran, not to attack the Palestinian population.
>
>This is not to deny the animosity between Iran and Israel, but Israel has
>its own reasons for hyping up the actual military threat. If you believed
>all the extravagant reports that appear in the Israeli media you would end
>up imagining that Iran's Revolutionary Guards held daily parades along the
>seafront in Beirut and Gaza.

The point made here:

>Another factor in the verbal onslaught against Iran is the war in
>neighbouring Afghanistan. Iran is accused of "meddling" by trying to
>undermine the new government, allowing al-Qaida fugitives to slip through
>its 600-mile border and providing recalcitrant warlords with money and weapons.
>
>Again, it's instructive to consider how the Afghan situation appears from
>Tehran. Iran's right to "meddle" is surely no less than that of the US
>and, in common with other countries surrounding Afghanistan, it wants to
>have some influence over what happens there.

is great though - can you imagine this article appearing in a mainstream US
newspaper?

 From this, near the end:

>Take this to its logical conclusion and we'll soon be in the business of
>installing authoritarian regimes in all the fragile countries around the
>world, and propping them up endlessly with dollars and weaponry in order
>to preserve our liberty in the west.

The bit I don't get here is the use of the word "soon".  Anyone remember
Chile, 1973?  Nicaragua in the 80s?  Or Nicaragua under Somoza?  Batista in
Cuba?  Haiti?  Panama?  Viet Nam?  Cambodia?  US companies profiting from
apartheid?  The list is too long to repeat.

Alister




CRICOS Number:  00099F

DISCLAIMER
=====================================================================
This email message and any accompanying attachments may contain
confidential information.  If you are not the intended recipient, do not
read, use, disseminate, distribute or copy this message or attachments.
If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender
immediately and delete this message. Any views expressed in this message
are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly,
and with authority, states them to be the views the University of
Technology Sydney. Before opening any attachments, please check them for
viruses and defects.
=====================================================================