I don't think talking about Israel on a thread about Iran is off topic, as the entire reason the whole Iranian issue is even being discussed is due to Israel in the first place. If you watch and believe what the media has to say about Israel you will have gotten a very warped picture. Israel has very powerful media lobby groups in the US (mainly AIPAC), and becuase of this any reporting done on the middle east rarely covers both sides of the story. In contrast Israels neighbours have no lobby groups and so are not given a voice in the whole issue from the beggining.
British Army spokesman Major Charlie Burbridge stresses that there is not firm evidence of any direct Iranian meddling in southern Iraq. And British Army field commander Lt. Col. David Labouchere, whose troops patrol Maysan, says that any Iranian influence is a result of a long and tragic history, one that coalition forces should understand before letting fears of Iranian infiltration influence policy. For 4,000 years the Marsh Arabs have inhabited what is now southern Iraq. For much of that history they were ignored by the various governments that rose and fell in the region. The result is a xenophobic, deeply traditional society where tribal leaders are the highest authority — and where political borders are largely irrelevant.
Meaning they cross into Iran almost daily, often without even realizing it — or caring if they do. Their intents aren’t to smuggle in weapons or to undermine the Iraqi government, but to trade, fish and visit family and friends.
The fact that some of the weapons that end up in Iraq were made in Iran is obvious, but that does nothing to implicate Iran in anything. Using that sort of logic you could claim that America should be stopped, as it has created over half of the weapons on the planet, most of which are used now by terrorists themselves.
Despite the much publicised footage of the Military general showing Iranian made mortars in Iraq, it really does not mean anything significant. Anyone watching it would get the impression that Iran has some sort of secret plan to take over the entire middle east, which is exactly what Cheyney an Co want the public to think, so if they do attack there will be more popular support for the war. Despite all this there has not been ONE case of an Iranin person caught smuggling ANY weapons into Iran. confirmed by a recent Reuters News article; http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071101/ts_nm/britain_iraq_iran_dc
"It's fair to say that no one has caught anyone red-handed bringing in lethal aid across the border," said Major Anthony Lamb, who oversees training of Iraqi border enforcement units.
"Hundreds of searches are carried out every day, but as yet, there hasn't been a direct seizure of lethal aid."
Lamb says on some days, when British forces visit the major border crossing points in southern Iraq, they can see some Iranian trucks turning back, but there's no certainty they're doing so because they're carrying illicit weapons.
"They could be carrying ladies' underwear and be embarrassed about that," he said.
The media does not even have to say anything directly implicating Iran any more. Everyone see's Iran through such paranoid eyes that if they had seen the above story I quoted most of the viewers would probably think that these trucks
are actually being used to transport weapons, simply because they are mentioned, even though none of these trucks has EVER been found with ANY weapons in what-so-ever. If there was direct evidence it would be all over the media.
So, if you take into account that there is no evidence of iran trying to destabilize Iraq (which they would not have an interest in doing anyway), no evidence of nuclear weapons, no evidence of weapons being transported across borders and no direct evidence that Iran is not adhering to IAEA guidlines, apart from pure speculation, what exactly is Iran accused of?
