(Note: at least they get the 'alleged' bit right in this para).

Now the propaganda which one expects from the Guardian, which despite its 'liberal' veneer, has in fact, like a moth, flown far too close to the New Labour flame in recent years.

'Iran's leaders have so far shown every sign of relishing the confrontation. The supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, declared yesterday that American policies had failed in the Middle East and warned: "I am certain that one day Bush and senior American officials will be tried in an international court for the tragedies they have created in Iraq."'

Note, of course, that the second sentence of this paragraph bears no relation to the first. The Ayatollah's statement does not, in any sense, support the idea that he will 'relish' any confrontation with the US. Instead he points out that American policies have failed in the middle east (a fact) and that the American invasion of Iraq was a war crime (another fact). But it's important for the 'liberal' Guardian to pretend that this is a fight between equals, both of which 'want' war, even when the facts indicate a very different chain of causality.

'The US has called a meeting of major powers in Washington next Friday to discuss Iran's defiance of UN resolutions calling for its suspension of uranium enrichment. It comes amid signs that the Bush administration is running out of patience with diplomatic efforts to curb the nuclear programme. Hawks led by the vice-president, Dick Cheney, are intensifying their push for military action, with support from Israel and privately from some Sunni Gulf states.'

As I have indicated in previous posts, the 'debate' about Iran's (alleged) nuclear weapons programme is of course a red herring. There is, of  course a very minor dispute about the extent to which Iran is complying with UN Resolutions but it is, to repeat, a minor issue and solvable. The reason it has suddenly become so important is because of the last sentence of the paragraph above. But make no mistake: Iran's 'nuclear ambitions' (if it has any) are irrelevant.

'Any US decision to attack Iran would force Gordon Brown to choose between creating a serious rift in the transatlantic alliance and participating in or endorsing American actions.'

Oh that's a toughie. Can anyone, conceivably, have any possible idea which way he will move? It's a real mystery isn't it?

The article concludes:

'Hopes that a new war could still be avoided have also been boosted by Gen Petraeus's claim that Iran's covert Quds force alleged to be supporting Shia attacks on coalition forces had been pulled out of Iraq. If true, it could be that in the stand-off between the US and Iran, Iran has blinked first.'

The Guardian is keen on the phrase 'stand off', which implies two states, both equals, both equally belligerent, staring at each other over a dispute border. This ignores a number of basic facts.

Iranian GDP $610 Billion.

US GDP     $13,244,550 million (highest in the world).

Iranian military expenditure: $6.3 billion.

US military expenditure: $644 bilion.  (i.e. ten times more).

And as for the 'border' point....of course the US does not share a border with Iran. Iraq shares a border with Iran. The only reason that American troops are in Iraq is because of an 'illegal' (Koffi Annan) invasion.