This is pretty obvious. Iran has very good reason to distrust the west. For the last 30 years the west has been 'picking on' Iran in various ways, the worst perhaps when they supported Iraq in the Iran Iraq war. Add to this sanctions, miss information, general villification - no demonisation - in the western media and you start to get the picture. Don't forget that the US has Iran almost completly encircled - even Turkey is full of US troops - its a member of NATO afterall. Iraq has been crushed, as has Afghanistan. Even Pakistan has US 'advisors' on their soil. The Gulf is full of US warships and just accross the water are major US bases. If the US had managed to 'nato' Georgia they may very well have expanded further - possibly into Azerbaijan and into the Caspian sea too - effectively cutting Iran off from Russia (or Russia from Iran). If Iran didn't have advanced 'home-grown', Russian, and Chinese weapons at their disposal, and the ability and the will to use them, chances are Iran would have 'folded' under US pressure and be part of the US empire - just as most of the other gulf states are. By the way the religious leaders hold the real power in Iran, despite his title the 'President' is really only the equivilent of 'Foreign Secretary' in western terms.

Jim, I pretty much agree with everything you said except that Iran necessarily requires the foreign weapons in order to be effective at resisting a Western invasion. The West, like any modern major offensive military power, specializes in conventional warfare. Russian and Chinese weapons might increase initial Western losses and complicate the destruction of the high tech arms of the Iranian military but even with these foreign augmentations, the quantity and average quality of Iran's arms remains very inferior to those of the West. I think the truly daunting problem a Western invasion would face would be the Iranian populace and a primitive but highly resilient remnant of the Iranian military. The West as a polity isn't ruthless enough to carry out the level of brutality that it would take to break the will to resist of the Iranian populace. In other words, we have the firepower required to easily blow up them up in any number of different ways. But it would be extremely difficult, probably impossible, to reform Iran to something more to our liking using violent means that we are willing to use. Chiefly for this reason, even George Bush wasn't stupid enough to invade Iran. Plus, we were and are largely tied up elsewhere. Note, I am not arguing the West isn't capable of doing horrible things; but the end of the Cold War has removed our best, or at any rate internally most effective, excuse for them, and the suffering in Iraq, while massive in scale, was completely unanticipated by the imbeciles who were in charge. Plus, historically the US preferred to do its worst deeds through 3rd parties, like Saddam for instance.

William of the USA, Good points well made. Thanks for adding that. I forgot to mention that Iran has also made good preparations for 'asymetrical warfare' (they have actually boasted of this in the past). Apparently they have 'representatives' in several gulf states (which host significant US assets), in Argentina (well documented elsewhere), in Venezuela (also well documented), and apparently also in Canada and Mexico. It is also common knowledge that Iran has a significant presence in Iraq. If they have such a 'documented' presence in these countries, I would think that it would be fairly safe to assume that 'representatives' are also present in the mainland US. Either way the uncertainty that such a prescence may present (and which must play havoc with their computer crunched war game scenarios) must surely play a factor in detering any US aggression (and in the US restraining other countries from using force). A big concern of mine would be the US or Israeli response to an atrocity alledgedly perpetrated by, or at least partially blamed on Iran (a proxy attack). Think of another 9/11 type incident - would this give the excuse some have been looking for to use certain weapons not used in anger since WW2?

USA is Broke, They can't afford another war. This is the main reason that talk has shifted from using mini-nukes in Iran (last Sept.) to "We need tougher Sanctions" China and Russia (Also have excellent trade relations with Iran). They will never compromise those relationships for an uncertain relationship with the west. (We will play nice now, but in 3years, when another Bush is elected?) USA was prepared to invade Iraq in Sep. of last year, if not for the financial crisis, The world would be at war. Now the USA has to bow to it's banks (China and Russia), while trying to hold their heads up high. Last year was the perfect time to strike against Iran. In Aug, of last year. Georgian War took place. Saakashville would have been insane to think that Russia would not retalliate, or protect it's neighbours. A fact that would be known by security analysts all over the world. For whatever reasons Georgia attacked S.O, it gave NATO the perfect opportunity to send warships into the black sea. Warships armed with cruise missiles and mini-nukes to provide AID to georgia. 1Bn USD in AID (bribe or no, can't tell). Their first mission was to rebuild the airfields in Georgia. Now, Iraq to the West, Afganistan to the East, The Persian Gulf to the South, and the Black Sea to the North. The perfect assembly of forces to attack a more formiddable enemy. Iran's forces would have been divided. Iraq and Afghanistan with no military power that could be considered a threat, are still a challenge to the USA. I believe the USA will not leave these countries until the war with Iran has been fought. Rev12A