I am writing in regard to the Foreign Minister Jack Straw's recent comments expressed on the Channel 4 news programme, about the Government's new policy working towards a "nuclear free" Middle East. While I am entirely against the use of nuclear weapons as a means of war, and would prefer that no nation possessed the means to destroy life on this scale, the fact that the United Kingdom still possesses an nuclear deterrant long after the Cold war has ended, is proof that sometimes even just possessing weapons of such devastation can prevent lives being lost. I was angry when I heard of the Foreign Secretary's comments labelling both Iran and Israel as "potential threats" to Middle East peace. In the case of the Cold War, no nation was prepared to use nuclear weapons for fear of reaping the terrible consequences of mutually assured destruction. To both the US and USSR, the use of nuclear weapons was a last resort, and both nations desired peace more than the devastation that would result from a nuclear exchange. But in regards to Iran, this policy of "mutually assured destruction" cannot work, nor does Iran seek peace with its neighbours. Iran is one of the biggest exporters of terrorism in the Middle East, and as we have witnessed, fanatical Islam is prepared to make any sacrifice in order to destroy its enemy, including sacrificing the lives of thousands of its own people. Militant Islam sees that enemy as comprising of Israel and its supporters, namely Britain and the United States. Although it is widely believed Israel possesses nuclear weapons, successive Israeli governments have stated that Israel will not be the first nation to use nuclear weapons in the Gulf. After Israel declared independance in 1948, the surrounding Arab nations immediately declared war on the tiny nation. Their intention was to drive Israel into the sea. Jews are outnumbered by Arabs 100 to 1 in the region, and it is a miracle that Israel survives to this day. Even in 1967, when Israel was attacked by six surrounding Arab nations, in just six days the war was over and Israel had won a major victory, despite the odds stacked against it. It is believed that Israel, due to its size, would be indefensible without a nuclear deterrant, and previous Iranian Mullah's have boasted how it would take just one nuclear warhead to wipe Israel off the map, while any retaliatory strike against Iran would cause only limited damage due to the size of the country. And it is against that background of war and threats from Muslim nations - even before Israel occupied the West Bank and Gaza, that I believe the UK Government must support Israel including its right to maintain a nuclear deterrant. Forcing Israel to give up its nuclear deterrant would be forcing the country to commit national suicide. As a democracy, we have a duty to support and defend democratic countries in the Middle East. Please can the Government reconsider its policy of a "nuclear free" Middle East. With recent statements coming out of Iran that Muslims have a "right" to possess nuclear technology, I don't believe Iran will abide by any rules the international community sets in regard to nuclear arms, even if Israel did. Thank-you Yours sincerely, Christopher Perver