look this site :

All Americans are encouraged to honk their cars’ horn at the same time for two minutes on March 22 to show opposition to Iran’s nuclear weapons program.

DALLAS, Texas – January 21, 2007 – To show opposition to Iran’s nuclear weapons program, Americans are urged to honk their cars’ horn from 9:00 – 9:02 PM (EST) on March 22, 2007
.....
Chilling Facts about Iran:
Iran is arguably the world’s most dangerous nation and the greatest threat to world peace. Allowing it to acquire nuclear weapons would be a mistake of historic proportions.

This excellent Article from Daily News Tribune :

Editorial: Look for clues on Iran
Tuesday, January 23, 2007 - Updated: 12:48 AM EST


Years from now, will we refer to these early days of 2007 as "the run-up to the Iran War"? That's what it feels like in Washington as President George W. Bush prepares to deliver his seventh State of the Union address tonight at 9.

"To be quite honest, I'm a little concerned that it's Iraq again," Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV told The New York Times. "This whole concept of moving against Iran is bizarre."

Rockefeller knows more than most. As chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, he had a front-row seat as Bush misled us into Iraq and he has access to the most sensitive intelligence about Iran.

One of the things that characterized the run-up to the current quagmire was the obfuscation and manipulation of intelligence. But there are no signs the Bush Administration knows any more about what's going on inside Iran than they knew about Iraq. There's no reason to believe they have a better plan for what to do with Iran after the fighting starts than they had going into Baghdad.

Nonetheless, administration officials have ramped up the rhetoric against Iran. Bush rejected the Iraq Study Group's recommendation that he seek Iran's help in stabilizing Iraq. Last week U.S. forces attacked an Iranian consulate in Iraq, and Bush just dispatched a second aircraft carrier to the Persian Gulf.

But even as the Bush Administration demonizes him, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad appears to be losing support at home. His party has lost recent elections and the clerics who hold the real power in Iran are signaling their discontent. Last week, two hardline newspapers, one of them owned by the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, called on Ahmadinejad to back off from confrontation with the West over nuclear development.

If cooler heads are prevailing in Tehran, will they prevail in Washington? Tonight's speech, and the reaction to it, may provide a clue.

Four years ago, George W. Bush used his State of the Union speech to make the case for the invasion of Iraq. He talked about Saddam Hussein's stockpiles of chemical weapons - stockpiles that were never found. He talked about Iraq's attempts to purchase uranium in Africa - a fiction he officially retracted months later.

So listen closely to what Bush says about Iran. If he tries to hang a Saddam Hussein mask on Ahmadinejad; if he warns of the growing threat of Iran's WMD program; if he stresses Iran's connections to terrorists like those responsible for 9/11, we may be watching a frightening sequel to a movie we've already seen.

Watch as well for the reaction, from Congressional Democrats, presidential contenders and media pundits. If George W. Bush appears intent on launching what would be his third war against a Moslem country in six years, who'll stand in hi

Is Bush planning war against Iran?

By Patrick Seale, Special to Gulf News (here)

It is now clear that the US President George W. Bush has decided to confront Iran - politically, economically and militarily - rather than engage it in negotiations, as he was advised to do by James Baker and Lee Hamilton in their Iraq Study Group report.

Bush appears to have been influenced by pro-Israeli advisers such as Eliott Abrams, the man in charge of the Middle East at the National Security Council, and by arm-chair strategists at neoconservative think-tanks such as the American Enterprise Institute, who have long clamoured for "regime change" in Tehran....

On a recent visit to the Middle East, the US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice sought to mobilise the six members of the Gulf Cooperation Council, plus Egypt and Jordan, to join the US in confronting Iran.

Leading Arab states, such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt, are, of course, concerned by the rise of Iran and of militant Shiism, but they are even more alarmed at the possibility of a US/Israeli war against Iran, which would inevitably inflict heavy blows on their own societies...

These many moves have aroused fears in European capitals - and in the Arab world -that Bush has embarked on the road to war...

The situation is not unlike that of 2003, when France opposed the invasion of Iraq, triggering a severe diplomatic crisis between Paris and Washington.

Chirac is planning to send a high-level envoy to Tehran to urge the Iranian authorities to rein in Hezbollah, and thereby help defuse the dangerous situation in Lebanon, a country to which the French president is particularly attached...

Democrats Warn Bush Not to Attack Iran

WASHINGTON, Jan. 19, 2007
By LAURIE KELLMAN Associated Press Writer

(AP) Democratic leaders in Congress lobbed a warning shot Friday at the White House not to launch an attack against Iran without first seeking approval from lawmakers.

"The president does not have the authority to launch military action in Iran without first seeking congressional authorization," Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., told the National Press Club...
Last week, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joseph Biden, D-Del., challenged the president's ability to make such a move. In a letter to Bush, Biden asked the president to explain whether the administration believes it could attack Iran or Syria "without the authorization of Congress, which does not now exist."

Meanwhile, Lee Hamilton, the Democratic co-chair of the Iraq Study Group, told the House Foreign Affairs Committee on Friday that the U.S. must try to engage Iran and Syria in a constructive dialogue on Iraq because of the countries' influence in the conflict.

The Bush administration, and several members of Congress, say they oppose talks with Iran and Syria because of their terrorist connections. Bringing the two countries into regional talks aimed at reducing violence in Iraq was one of the study group's recommendations.

Under what circumstances would you support U.S. aggression against Iran?

People from different part inside us Answered

Why can't they just make peace?

Jan 18th 2007 | JERUSALEM
From The Economist print edition

F ONLY Israel could make peace with Syria, the optimists muse: it could be the key to peace in the whole Middle East. No longer sensing enemies on every side, Syria could relax, stop backing insurgents and radicals in Lebanon, Palestine and Iraq, and join the West in isolating Iran. So the news that broke this week in an Israeli newspaper, Haaretz, of a secret back channel that ran for two years and even produced an outline of a possible peace deal, caused quite a stir. Could peace talks still be round the corner?
...

Who gave a nod?

One question is: did the talks have quiet official approval? The Israeli and—despite reports that senior Syrian officials were indirectly involved—the Syrian leaderships have issued strong denials. Mr Liel has stressed that he was not representing the Israeli government, but says he kept it constantly informed, though it is unclear precisely who was in the know. Mr Olmert, who has firmly ruled out peace talks on the ground that America is against them, may have a more immediate reason for denying knowledge of the talks: he would risk being eaten alive by hardliners in his increasingly fragile coalition if he were seen to entertain the idea.

However, neither Mr Liel nor Mr Suleiman is known as a heavyweight in the back-channel world. Another question is why the story was leaked now. Mr Liel says he thinks it time to “pressure” the Israeli government into considering talks with Syria. The only result so far has been to show, more clearly than ever, that while the general shape of a peace deal is quite easy to draw, the hard part is the political will to try it out.

اینبار به نظرم گروهی کاملا هوشمند و واقع گرا در سیاست خارجه امریکا تصمیم میگیرند. حذف کامل تفکر نئومحافظه کاری در سیاست خارجه امریکا، ورود مشاور جدید امنیت ملی (و مشاوران) و وزیر دفاع و تحول وزارت خارجه، تغییر نماینده در سازمان ملل، تغییر کادر سیاسی امریکا در منطقه و ... چرخشی به این سرعت و با این شدت کمتر اتفاق می افتد. سیاست فعلی امریکا نه تنها بهتر از سال گذشته است بلکه بهتر از تحریمها و مهار ناموفق زمان کلینتون است.

This from Reuters:

"U.S. contingency planning for military action against Iran's nuclear program goes beyond limited strikes and would effectively unleash a war against the country, a former U.S. intelligence analyst said on Friday.

"I've seen some of the planning ... You're not talking about a surgical strike," said Wayne White, who was a top Middle East analyst for the State Department's bureau of intelligence and research until March 2005.

"You're talking about a war against Iran" that likely would destabilize the Middle East for years, White told the Middle East Policy Council, a Washington think tank.

"We're not talking about just surgical strikes against an array of targets inside Iran. We're talking about clearing a path to the targets" by taking out much of the Iranian Air Force, Kilo submarines, anti-ship missiles that could target commerce or U.S. warships in the Gulf, and maybe even Iran's ballistic missile capability, White said."

CTV.ca News Staff

The minute hand of the Doomsday Clock has been moved closer to the fatal midnight hour to reflect the growing concerns of global terrorism, the unchecked nuclear ambitions of Iran and North Korea and -- in a first -- the threat of climate change.

The clock was first set 60 years ago by an elite group of nuclear scientists at the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, shortly after the United States dropped its atomic bombs on Japan. It was meant to symbolize the perils facing humanity from nuclear weapons...

"North Korea's recent test of a nuclear weapon, Iran's nuclear ambitions, a renewed emphasis on the military utility of nuclear weapons, the failure to adequately secure nuclear materials, and the continued presence of some 26,000 nuclear weapons in the United States and Russia are symptomatic of a failure to solve the problems posed by the most destructive technology on Earth."

"The dangers posed by climate change are nearly as dire as those posed by nuclear weapons," the statement continued.

"The effects may be less dramatic in the short term than the destruction that could be wrought by nuclear explosions, but over the next three to four decades climate change could cause irremediable harm to the habitats upon which human societies depend for survival."....

Labels: societies +Doomsday Clock + nuclear weapons