world

Fears grow of Israeli attack on Iran

207 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2012 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

207 Comments
Login to comment

an action that many fear might trigger a wider war, terrorism and global economic havoc.

That's true. If anyone is going to trigger those things, it really should be the world leaders and not Israel.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu frequently draws parallels between modern-day Iran and Nazi Germany on the eve of the Holocaust.

oh please.... what sort of hyperventilating nonsense is this????....

5 ( +9 / -4 )

World leaders should intensify diplomatic efforts and try to disarm both Iran and Israel.

4 ( +9 / -5 )

In order to disarm both someone would still have to start a war... catch 22?

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Go get 'em Israel, I'm with you.

-17 ( +6 / -23 )

Israel is going to have and go it alone. They need to strike soon and HARD. Time is running out and the risk is having nukes go off in their own country.

-12 ( +7 / -19 )

This is the most serious threat to world peace since the second world war. Israel must not be allowed by the world community to attempt any military action against against Iran.Prior to the North Korean suspended six party Nuclear talks, those talks had been in progress for seven years, and are about to restart. Dialogue is the only answer to this situation with Iran. Me, personally reading between the lines , war in Iraq wound down ,war in Afghanistan winding down, the war manufacturing machine is feeling the pinch. They are the only ones who will benefit rom any conflict, and I wonder at what human cost ???? Because they have no regard for human life , only money and power.

9 ( +13 / -4 )

minello7:

" This is the most serious threat to world peace since the second world war. Israel must not be allowed by the world community to attempt any military action against against Iran. "

So,in your mind Iran`s nuclear bomb is not a "threat to world peace", but the possibility that Israel takes it out is???

Talk about an upside-down world view.

-9 ( +4 / -13 )

So,in your mind Iran`s nuclear bomb is not a "threat to world peace", but the possibility that Israel takes it out is???

Your fears have become your reality, but your fears are just fears. Iran's nuclear bomb doesn't exist. Even the Israelis don't think it exists, though they worry it is trying to build one.

9 ( +11 / -2 )

Israel's propaganda is amateurish and unconvincing (all their techniques explained in detail in Wikipedia), and analyzing Iranian armed forces futile. All Iranians have to do is to say they mined the Strait of Hormuz, and the west can only look at their skyrocketing gasoline bills from there on.

It's better to just talk. Cheaper, too. There won't be any entertainment value for those who wouldn't put their own asses on the line, but that is a price I'm willing to pay. Snirk!

5 ( +7 / -2 )

@WilliB: so you are a media believer. You believe what the media tells you. Have you seen the bomb with your own eyes? If someone tells you they have a bomb, you blindly believe it. The media can talk whatever they want in order to manipulate us and our thinking. Believing in them is optional. Pls keep in mind that they also work for someone and are not doing this out of charity (unfortunately). If they were telling the truth, they would be saying "we have no idea whatsoever if Iran has any nuclear weapons or whether they are into the stuff at all". That would be more accurate.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

GoGo Israel. Take out the Persians now.

-12 ( +5 / -17 )

Ok, let's get this straight:

Israel, a state long known to possess nuclear weapons, is believed to be planning to attack a country for possessing an as yet unproven arsenal of similar weapons.

Meanwhile, the militant majority of  America's GOP would like nothing better than to launch yet another war based on as yet baseless claims; risking another pointless, incredibly costly war Iraq-type disaster for which they can blame president Obama for being 'weak on terror' if he vetoes, or a failure if it goes pear shaped.

Turns out the ones who cry 'terror' are the weakest on logic - and likely to be the most dangerous elements of society.

-4 ( +5 / -9 )

This is the most serious threat to world peace since the second world war.

Really? Ever heard of the Cuban Missile Crisis?

2 ( +4 / -2 )

YuriOtani - "Israel is going to have and go it alone. They need to strike soon and HARD. Time is running out and the risk is having nukes go off in their own country."

What nukes?

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

WilliB - "So,in your mind Iran`s nuclear bomb is not a "threat to world peace", but the possibility that Israel takes it out is???"

Which of Iran's nuclear bombs are you talking about?

Is it the one no one has discovered, or the huge Iranian nuclear arsenal Fox News keeps telling you they are building??

Facts please.

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

OK, here''s a simple clearcut challenge for everyone who claims Iran has nuclear weapons - as opposed to nuclear reactors:

please present PROOF of the existence of such weapons.

Surely if you so readily believe In their existence, there must be lots of evidence, no? Just like there was all that hard evidence for Saddam's WMDs.......uh...yeah.

And please don't bother bashing me for putting up this challenge - if you claim Iran has nuke weapons, put up the evidence.

No slacking now.

-3 ( +6 / -9 )

MrSushisake 3 is absolutely correct. The GOP backbenchers will force Obama to force Israel to attack Iran.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

I doubt Israel will attack Iran unless it could guarantee the support and assistance of the U.S and a majority of other Arab nations. Would Russia and China sit it all out on the sidelines? Israel would not show good judgement if they decide to light a fire that will in all probability spire out of control

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Could the rest of the world agree to stay out of it? I personally wouldn't miss either country if they fell off the face of the earth. i don't think many would.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Memories of Iraq's WMD (non-existent) come to mind. The Iranian Islamic fundamentalist regime sucks, and nuclear power sucks in general but there is no evidence that they are out to attack anyone soon. In an air war Iran is a sitting duck. Once it gets to a ground war it is going to be Iraq and Afghanistan all over again.

Is there anyone out there who is not sick of useless wars? There was no need to invade Afghanistan and no need to invade Iraq.

As for Israel, it will only sow the seeds of its own eventual destruction if it starts a war against Iran.

Leave Iran alone and the people will destroy the country's oppressive Islamic regime on their own.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

Sushisake, you're missing the point. Having already made nukes is different than developing nuclear weapons. The reason Isreal would strike and the surrounding neighbors may not care is to STOP Iran from learning how. The uranium enrichment is what is worrying the international community. Please know the difference between prevention of, compared to proving the existance of.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

Go get 'em Israel, I'm with you

GoGo Israel. Take out the Persians now

what appalling statements... we are talking about a potential act of war - not cheerleading at a football game

8 ( +11 / -3 )

Honestdictator - "Having already made nukes is different than developing nuclear weapons."

You're right. Has Iran already developed nuclear weapons?

If so, please provide details.

Honestdictator - "The reason Isreal would strike and the surrounding neighbors may not care is to STOP Iran from learning how. The uranium enrichment is what is worrying the international community. Please know the difference between prevention of, compared to proving the existance of."

So, in essence you're saying it's 'right' and OK to attack a country based on what are essentially guesses that Iran MIGHT BE or LOOKS TO BE developIng nuclear weapons?

Really? 

Couldn't this rationale also be used by Iran to launch an attack any time on any other nation that DEFINITELY is nuclear armed? 

Would you disagree with this?

Please know the difference between gossip and rumor, and hard facts, the latter, of course, sometimes being harder to pin down but exponentially more important.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Another war, more money wasted, oil exploitation

2 ( +3 / -1 )

The warmongers suggest that Iran should be attacked before they move their nuclear facilities deep underground. But even if Iran is attacked now it will only delay the inevitable. New facilities will be built deep underground and we will be back to square one.

The US has massive debts, mainly due to defence spending. What do they have to show for their perpetual wars? Not much. Now that there's a chance the defence budget may actually be cut the vested interests suddenly come up with a new "threat". The Chinese must be laughing at the foolish Americans bombing their way to bankruptcy whilst Chinese influence and power steadily grows.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

During the 70s, Iran pushed other countries to go back to wearing hijabs (head scarfs) which was stupid as pre 1970s hardly any surrounding countries were wearing it

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

On Friday, Iran supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, called Israel a cancerous tumor that should be cut and will be cut

That guy was not exactly calming the situation. Even though there are plenty of hardliners in that Islamic state, it seems odd given its almost certain inflammatory affect to what is already a dangerous situation. Considering which, perhaps this was said because it is partly a ruse by which to get Israel to attack Iran so that Iran can then bring Pakistan and its nuclear weapons into play, i.e. why build your own nuclear weapons when you can use your neighbor's. So, if it is indeed the case that Pakistan will support Iran against Israel with even its nuclear arsenal, then Israel is already dealing with a nuclear threat in the region. Consequently, a strike on Iran now would not prevent a nuclear threat but rather stir one up.

Yet, given the present conditionality of the nuclear aspect of the Iranian threat (Israel strikes Iran's nuclear facilities) and the nuclear aspect's present indirectness (Israel ->Iran->Pakistan), there would seem to still be a remaining window of time in Israel's control in which to set aside arms and continue to pursue diplomatic and economic channels of influence in order to prevent Iran's threats from becoming directly nuclear (Israel<-->Iran). In other words, if the interest is for Israel to not be militarily engaged with a nuclear power in the region, then it would seem to be best to not attack Iran now because of Pakistan and to pursue diplomatic and economic channels until Iran has clearly begun to weaponize their nuclear technology, test blast or the like.

Said from another view point, it might be that Iran never weaponsizes its nuclear technology. They would probably like to have their own nuclear weapons technology, but they also probably know that is impossible to do because of the US and EU who have made their opposition clear through the latest round of sanctions. Consequently, if Iran wants to hit Israel with nukes, but knows that it cannot develop its own, then it is quite plausible that they know their best bet to do so is by baiting Israel into a first strike by which they can then play the "we did not have nukes and said that we did not intend to, but we have been attacked anyway, so help us out Pakistan... with your nukes" card and have their best possibility of nuking Israel. That would make their latest statement not only the usual threat to Israel, but also a potential ruse for which I hope that Israel will be careful.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

ALL wars are about oil, WW2 Japan-US, US cuts off Oil supplies to Japan WW2 breaks out, Iraq expands market presence and oil fields, first Gulf War commences, change of power halts first Gulf War, Second Gulf War starts a decade later. Libiya tried to arrange African countries and other Opec nations, I.e Russia, South America etc to trade to other countries with Gold Bullion's instead of any currency you can watch it here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuqZfaj34nc

Protests occur internally from online protests suddenly, he is overthrown then killed.

Iran being a loose canon and a hostile dictator at the helm uses negative clout to other nations seeing how they have the upper hand with t their third largest oil supplies, hence what will now commence a new war in 2012.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

China is obviously worried as without oil supplies, no crap is exported.. so shaking up large oil suppliers disrupts China's economy at the same time.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Does anyone beside Fox News have any conclusive evidence that Iran has nuclear weapons??

-3 ( +5 / -8 )

Israeli military attack on the Islamic Republic could be imminent—an action that many fear might trigger a wider war, terrorism and global economic havoc.

That can be February, latest Marc. Waiting silently will also encourage them to terrorism and would have negative effect on peace. Iran publicly declared they will annihilate Israel, they have nothing to lose. It's better for them to be in war before Iran acquires A bombs. Israel doesn't have to wait green light from the United States, they are not that important for the US anyhow, they can be sacrificed. The war does not depend on the US it's upon Iran. Both the Us and Israel were waiting to the last moment. If war erupts I can't image that without going nuke. There is a possibility that Russia will be meddling, probably somewhere close to the end of the war. Old Russian habit.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Does anyone beside Fox News have any conclusive evidence that Iran has nuclear weapons??

Why are you ignoring the fact that no one has said they have them or the fact that people have already pointed this out to you? The idea is to prevent them from getting them.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

Ben, western leaders claimed Iran has already carried out underground nuclear tests.

They were the same 'nuclear tests' that advanced U.S. sniffer planes failed to detect any airborne radioactive materials during flyovers.

Please keep up to date.

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

Ben, probably you missed this - from the NYTumes way back in 2006:

"In October 2006, North Korea became the world’s eighth atomic power, conducting an underground nuclear weapons test."

So Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons?

Perhaps this a large whoopie cushion that horribly malfunctioned?

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

some would say that Israels undeclared nuclear weapons stockpile is the elephant in the room.... why can they have these weapons and not be a signatory to any international nuclear weapons conventions or be subject to inspections?

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Sushisake,

Perhaps you could tell me what North Korean atomic tests in 2006 have to do with your claims about Iran. They don't seem to make very much sense.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

While you are at it, which western leaders claimed Iran has already carried out underground nuclear tests? Thanks in advance for helping me to keep up.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

I think most sane individuals would agree that with the current state of the global economy, it's far more important to prevent another resource-sapping war than it is to prevent one that may occur sometime, possibly, in future should certain conditions be met by certain parties.....perhaps.

That's unless you're one of the alarming number of folks who have bought into the 'Iran has nukes' line.

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

Ah, the joys of modern technology mixed with religion. Either was we'll probably have war. Israel will strike first, or Iran will develop nukes and engage in low-scale warfare until the end of time.

SushiSake3: You're right. Has Iran already developed nuclear weapons?

Stick to Republican bashing. I can't imagine you've been following this story.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

Again, nobody is saying Iran has 'nukes', except for you above. Could you explain what the heck you were talking about? Thanks.

Anyway, there is not going to be any ground war into Iran. It just will not happen.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Iran will develop nukes and engage in low-scale warfare until the end of time.

Actually, they have already been waging low scale warfare in Lebanon and Gaza for quite some time. Nuclear weapons would just mean they could be more active in the process.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

Superlib, I'm still waiting for people who claim Iran has nuclear weapons to step up to the plate and provide some evidence.

No, surely that's not difficult, and yes, I am following the story, thanks for asking.

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

I'm still waiting for people who claim Iran has nuclear weapons to step up to the plate and provide some evidence.

I'm still waiting for you to show one person claiming that.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Ben, ok, point taken. However my thrust is not undermined at all and still stands: where is proof Iran is developing nuclear weapons?

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

The situation is changing rapidly. But not too quick for sushishake 3. FauxNews will force GOP backbenchers to force Obama to force Israel to attack Iran.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

SushiSake,

My opinion is that Iran should not be put in a situation in which they are able to develop nuclear weapons. They should be required to followed IAEA and NPT regulations that they signed on to. Iran has not always been forthright in their presentations and the IAEA has in the past said they were in violation. I believe that if Iran would like to have nuclear power they should obtain it with full IAEA observation. That is the best way to be sure the technology would not be used to create weapons and to allow Iran the innocent power they say they want. Win - win for everyone.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Could the rest of the world agree to stay out of it? I personally wouldn't miss either country if they fell off the face of the earth. i don't think many would.

Wow...

0 ( +1 / -1 )

some would say that Israels undeclared nuclear weapons stockpile is the elephant in the room.... why can they have these weapons and not be a signatory to any international nuclear weapons conventions or be subject to inspections?

Because apparently they are the "good guys" and can be trusted with them like we can trust the Americans, Brits, Russians, French, Indians etc.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

and because they are a democracy surrounded by countries that hate them and want them wiped off the face of the earth?

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Ben, ok, point taken. However my thrust is not undermined at all and still stands: where is proof Iran is developing nuclear weapons?

Ben, point taken, but you missed out a few important points, which seem to be commonly missed by those in the west. I inserted them in brackets below.

Ben - "I believe that if Iran would like to have nuclear power they should obtain it with full IAEA observation. That is the best way to be sure the technology would not be used to create weapons [like those possessed and weilded  by other countries that claim Iran should not have what they themselves have had for decades in most cases] and to allow Iran the innocent power they say they want. Win - win for everyone [except for Iran, which no doubt sees the huge hypocrisy of the west.]

I think what Iran should be saying to any country making demands against it's nuclear program is essentially:

You want us to stop developing nuclear tech?  Only if you do as well.

You want us to give up wanting to develop nuclear weapons? Only if you scrap your arsenal.

You want to inspect our nuclear facilities? Only if we can inspect yours.

But I suspect logic like this is simply too much for many in the west.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

It would be a dumb move on Israel part. Israel's would be attacked by Egypt, Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

I believe that if Iran would like to have nuclear power they should obtain it with full IAEA observation

Does this statment also apply to Israel (and for that matters the US)?? Of course not.....

3 ( +4 / -1 )

The onus is surely on Iran to defuse the situation. Iran may say one thing in public, but it takes no superior intelligence to join up the dotted lines. They do not like Israel and they will develop whatever weapon will hold the greatest threat. It is not a question of if, but when. The hatred is not going to change any time soon, neither is the posing and aggro, (and Iranian diplomacy has not yet left kindergarten so no hope there).

If you shout "Yah, Boo, Sucks!" long enough, you will eventually test the patience of even the saintliest person. If you supply increasingly sophisticated military hardware and moral support to those neighbors/neighbours needling Israel, then you become the main backer, like the king-pin drug boss behind the local street-corner dealer. Iran is setting herself up as a bigger and bigger target and seems to make little effort to prevent what is now nearly inevitable. "Why?" ... is the only question in my own mind. Ego? Iraq's mistake again?

Maybe Iran think they are far enough away from the scene to be safe, but it is a dangerous game that Iran is playing, that of baiting Israel. There is already dislike of Israel in the region, but even greater general dislike of Iran and they way they go about things. As in the school playground, uninvolved students will start to egg on the two to fight. The whirlpool gets ever stronger.

I would appeal to Iran not to burn those last bridges. Do not turn your whole country into one huge suicide bomb. Forget Jew against Muslim. Forget Shiite against Sunni. Just "Please", ...from one human being.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Does this statment also apply to Israel

No. They have not signed the NPT. Iran has, have they not?

3 ( +4 / -1 )

"Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu frequently draws parallels between modern-day Iran and Nazi Germany on the eve of the Holocaust."

Yes, well, a lot of people conveniently forget that half of the problem with this crisis is Israel, and in particular radicals like Netanyahu. It takes two to tango, and drawing on the Holocaust to try and game sympathy for being quite like the Germans instead of the victims (ie. in particular the way Israel treats Palestinians) is above and beyond pathetic. Israel will likely increase the sabre rattling or make some small incursion before a larger attack to test the international waters, and if anyone voices opposition he'll make more references to Jewish suffering and claim those who do not support him are anti-Semetic.

Israel needs to be told, and told clearly, that if they choose a preemptive attack with no clear proof of Iran's nuclear program, they are going it alone; the US should cut them off completely, and the UN condemn them the way they would anyone else. No more of this hogwash about using past victimization to justify a potential nuclear attack on another nation when clearly the nation attacking would be the aggressors.

Meanwhile, Iran has got to be more transparent with it's program and at least TRY to meet some of the demands the UN (not necessarily Israel) is making on it. As I said, it takes two to Tango, and this would not be one side or the other's fault -- it would be BOTH.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

except for Iran, which no doubt sees the huge hypocrisy of the west.

If they truly only desire peaceful energy, why would they be so concerned about supposed hypocrisy? Just get the energy you need and follow the rules you have agreed to. Pretty simple actually.

You want us to stop developing nuclear tech?

Nobody has stated that they want them to stop developing tech. We have already been over this before. Please try stating what people actually say for a change. The IAEA would like to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

You want us to give up wanting to develop nuclear weapons?

Confused now. I thought you were all about suggesting Iran does not have any interest in developing them. Now you suggest they do and they should be able to because others have.

You want to inspect our nuclear facilities? Only if we can inspect yours.

That is not what they signed on to when they signed on the the NPT.

I suspect for some logic is a difficult thing to accept.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Yes, well, a lot of people conveniently forget that half of the problem with this crisis is Israel, and in particular radicals like Netanyahu.

Yes, I really wish people like Netanyahu would stop forcing Iran to break its NPT and IAEA agreements. It is just not nice.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

and at least TRY to meet some of the demands the UN (not necessarily Israel) is making on it.

Oh come on. You should not be so tough on Iran.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Kabukilover:

" Memories of Iraq's WMD (non-existent) come to mind. "

"Non-existent"?? Saddams nuclear bomb program (the Ozirak reactor) was bombed in order to stop it. (By Israel, in the event).

And Saddams "non-existent" chemical weapons were actually USED... among others against Iranian soldiers during the Iran-Iraq war. Do you want to to tell the Iranians that Saddams poison gas did not exist?

Good grief.

" there is no evidence that they are out to attack anyone soon. "

"soon" is a rubber word. Ahmedinejad and the mullahs have been very clear about their ultimate plans for the "dirty bacteria Israel"... it must be wiped off the face of the earth. Nobody says Iran would use its bomb the day it is available. For a while, it will serve well as a constant threat. But eventually, one of the 12er Shiite zealots in Iran will crack and order the nuking of Israel. Logically, it is just a question of time.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

skipbeat:

" It would be a dumb move on Israel part. Israel's would be attacked by Egypt, Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon. "

Actually, that is not sure at all. Syria, yes of course because Assad is an Iranian client. For the Sunni Arab countries like Eqypt, on the other hand, Israel would act as a useful fool by taking out the Iranian bomb program. Because none of the Sunni Arab countries wantsto live in the shadow of a future Iranian Shiite nuclear superpower.

You were unaware of that?

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

I think America is most likely fully backing Isreal's attack, if not ordering it. It's not a question of if they'll attack, it's when. The reason being Iran is one of the biggest oil producing companies in the world. Iran stands to gain nothing by an un-provoked nuclear attack on Israel or any other country as it is surrounded on all sides by enemies. I'd also say Britain has already agreed to the attack going ahead at the right time and all talk of finding a peaceful solution is just an attempt to cover up there true intentions and convince people that there was no other option.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Alright, listen up everybody.

Iran need to be protected from any intervention from outside, from West from East, from everywhere. Just because it has NO BOMBS. Seriously, people, are you not learning at all?! Remember Iraq! Remember Hussein! Remember "threat of chemical weapons"! So you won't let Iran be a growing modern country and have nuclear technologies for peaceful goals?!

Don't make WW3 a matter of nearest future! Just think about aftermath! THINK ABOUT IT!!

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Take away their barbaric and outdated belief systems and give them any modern biology book. In time they realize how gullible they've all been. We humans are all the same species and we should all work together to help our species evolve....

1 ( +2 / -1 )

JackP:

" I think America is most likely fully backing Isreal's attack "

Some people in America might, but Barrack Hussein's government most certainly is not. Where do you get that idea from?

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

@WilliB,

No, am not aware of that. You did bring up an interesting thought in regards to the differences between the Gulf wars, Iraq, Iran, and Syria. Where do the rest of the Arab nations stand on them?

Last year Israel have some run ins with Egypt, Syria, and Palestinians on the borders. Israel is a reminder to her neighbors as to who won the six-day war. Strategically speaking, Israel can't fight all of them at the same time. It would be in the Arab countries favor to attack Israel when their military power is lacking.

Let's hope that Israel have a lot of patience and not rush into it because there will be some serious ramifications otherwise.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So you won't let Iran be a growing modern country and have nuclear technologies for peaceful goals?!

I don't remember anyone saying that. Quite the opposite actually. If Iran only has peaceful goals, they can demonstrate this by following the rules of the NPT and IAEA as they have previously promised to do.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Iran could have saved itself a ton a grief if besides trying to hide parts of their nuclear program if they weren't also developing and advancing their ballistic missle technology at the very same time.

Doesn't do you any good to develop a nuke if you can't deliver it. Iran wouldn't be such a world Pariah country if they actually showed by actual deed that they only interested in a peaceful nuclear program. Such as never developing ballistic missle technology on a parallel path and by having a totally transparent IAEA inspection regime of its nuclear facilities in place to verify at anytime.

Anything the Iranians say about a "peaceful nuclear program" is null and void by their very own actions in developing ballistic missles technology at the same time.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

@WilliB They aren't all sunni muslims, there is a lot of Jews, Christians in those countries also you mentioned..

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

It takes two to tango ! Equally blaming Iran and Israel allows me to look as non-judegmental as you can in this case and most importantly I get to feel morally superior to all sides.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

They are not 'arab' speaking a language does not make you from that country, influence, faiths etc did come in yes, but it is no different to speaking English, does not make everyone British.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

there is a lot of Jews

No, there are not, actually.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

@Ben There is, most have gone to other countries, but I have spoken to a lot of jews who are Egyptian etc

2 ( +2 / -0 )

It will be good to see Israel kick the butts of its neighbors. Probably much less than 6 days.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

@mabodofulspicy Why create tension with neighbors not wanting to get into any war? this isn't the 1960s-70s.. The issue here is Iran not any other country..

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

More killing from any wars is against the Torah, Bible, Buddhist Scripture, Shinto Scripture, Hindu and every other religion forbids it.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

As I said, it is ALWAYS about oil.. the black gold of any economic blood line..

0 ( +0 / -0 )

most have gone to other countries

Then, they are not there anymore, are they? As I said.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Why create tension with neighbors not wanting to get into any war?

I agree. I really wish Iran would stop doing that.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Ben_Jackinoff

"Why create tension with neighbors not wanting to get into any war?" I agree. I really wish Iran would stop doing that.

Ah a comedian, so Iran is threatening sanctions and military action are they? Someone watches to much Fox news... While Iran building a bomb is not ideal (although reportedly they already do have nuclear weapons) what threat are they. How many countries have they invaded in the past 50 years? How many strikes in other nations have they launched. Are they any more of a treat than other nuclear armed nations like Pakistan, India, China, US etc... Or is it just that the US and their friends Israel dont like the leadership?

0 ( +2 / -2 )

so Iran is threatening sanctions and military action are they?

One for two. Iran is and has been threatening the state of Israel for quite some time. Their proxies in both Lebanon and Gaza have been actively working to destroy the state of Israel. Quite threatening actually.

How many countries have they invaded in the past 50 years?

The present government has not been around that long. Soon after they came into existence, they did invade another country's embassy though. Which is clearly an act of war.

How many strikes in other nations have they launched.

They have orchestrated many actually. They train members of Hamas and Hezabollah in their efforts to destroy Israel.

Or is it just that the US and their friends Israel dont like the leadership?

That is certainly part of it. BTW, many members of Iranian society don't like it either. Unfortunately, voicing such opinions gets one a dirt nap, as was seen during the last presidential election.

While Iran building a bomb is not ideal

It would be a very bad thing.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

I have been following this story on a weekly basis for at least the past 5 years and a few things have become evidently clear.

1) It is not possible to use 'diplomacy' to get Iran to abandon it's nuclear program, since even diplomacy + sanctions + threats of further sanctions have proven absolutely futile. 2) All evidence, i.e. non-compliance with security council resolutions and directives from the IAEA, uranium enrichment methods, etc. points toward the development of nuclear weapons. 3) If Ayatollah Ali Khamene (Iran's SUPREME leader) and Ahmadinajad (It's PRESIDENT) are to be believed, Iran's express intention - as publicly stated on several occasions is to completely destroy (i.e. bomb) Israel.

As a group of people that has already suffered mass genocide while the world (especially Europe) stood by and watched, is it so wrong for Israel - which has never ever threatened Iran, by the way - to strike at the impending doom that threatens its very existence? I, for one, say NO!!

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Ben_Jackinoff

One for two. Iran is and has been threatening the state of Israel for quite some time. Their proxies in both Lebanon and Gaza have been actively working to destroy the state of Israel. Quite threatening actually.

Ok, so Iran has been supporting terrorism against Israel. Has Israel attacked Iran? They sure have they have carried out attacks in Iran. Are there other nations with nuclear weapons that support terrorism? Yep the US is one, Pakistan another yet l dont see world outrage against these countries having nukes.

The present government has not been around that long.

So you could use the same argument against any country. The US changes government every few years so does that mean we cant ask the same question about them? Afterall Obama has only been around a few years yet we still say the US invaded Iraq dont we but that was before the Obama government. Sorry but that is a silly argument you used.

Soon after they came into existence, they did invade another country's embassy though. Which is clearly an act of war.

The embassy was in Iran.... I said have they invaded another country do you understand the difference?

"While Iran building a bomb is not ideal" It would be a very bad thing.

For who? Why would it be a bad thing? Give me a proven sound reason why it would be a bad thing? Afterall they already have a nuclear weapon and have they used it? I can say somethings a bad thing, just saying it doesnt make it so.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

While Iran building a bomb is not ideal (although reportedly they already do have nuclear weapons) what threat are they.

They are a regime that wouldn't have any problem giving nuclear material to Hamas or Hezabollah or any other organization that uses terrorism to advance their mutual political goals to be able to strap on a missile and launch it at Israel. I'm sure you've heard of a dirty bomb. Just remember the havoc that Fukushima caused here in Japan (and still is) by releasing low level radioactive material into the environment. They darn sure are a threat to all of us who aren't down with their particular 13th century Islamic vision of Government and rule.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

This is sad... I know several Iranian people, and they are very nice and down to earth. Their country is controlled by a man they would prefer not to have in power, but they cannot remove him easily. Several of these people I know are now out of Iran due to him and his control.

So, it is sad that the people of Iran will pay the price if Israel attacks. Additionally, as many have pointed out, there will be a renewed push towards fear of terrorism, real or imagined, that will most certainly impact the liberties (freedoms) around the world.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

There have been many countries in the world that have been prospering during the cold war, while lots of nuclear weapons were pointed at them (without even having nukes on their own!), while leaders on both sides many times foretold the doom of the other system and how they should be destroyed (rolled back, whatever else). I do not see, how the situation with Iran and Israel is basically different...

As long as Israel doesn't sign the NPT, it doesn't have any moral right to complain about nuclear arms projects on the Iranian side. And since the NPT is a treaty, there is nothing to hinder one side from quitting except good faith. Look at the disarmament agreements, climate protocols and all that - international treaties are only worth as much as the nations signing them.

I can understand the Israeli fears very well, but there is no proof that the mullahs do anything more them aggressive, but empty rhetorics. No doubts about them hating Israel, but until now they never dared any direct action against Israel since their islamic revolution. I do not see why this should change with the eventual acquisition of nuclear weapons.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

SuperLib: Iran will develop nukes and engage in low-scale warfare until the end of time.

Ben_Jeckinoff: Actually, they have already been waging low scale warfare in Lebanon and Gaza for quite some time. Nuclear weapons would just mean they could be more active in the process.

That's what I was saying...

0 ( +1 / -1 )

No doubts about them hating Israel, but until now they never dared any direct action against Israel since their islamic revolution.

They've done plenty of indirect action against Israel through their Hezbollah and Hamas proxies.

I do not see why this should change with the eventual acquisition of nuclear weapons.

I do not either except that now the stakes are a lot more dire for Israel, Plutonium or radioactive waste dropped in the water supply by Hezbollah or Hamas can really ruin ones day.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Ok, so Iran has been supporting terrorism against Israel

Remember when you said they had not threatened anyone? Thanks for admitting your mistake.

Yep the US is one, Pakistan another yet l dont see world outrage against these countries having nukes.

There is no time machine to the past. How about working on preventing the future from getting worse instead?

So you could use the same argument against any country.

No, the present country of Iran as it is now was not around 50 years ago. Saying they did not do such and such 50 years ago has less meaning if the country you are talking about did not exist.

.... I said have they invaded another country do you understand the difference?

An embassy is considered foreign soil. While the embassy was indeed in Iran, it was also foreign soil in Iran. Do you understand the difference now?

Give me a proven sound reason why it would be a bad thing?

I already have. They are actively trying to destroy another country as it is. A bomb would only make the atmosphere worse. It certainly not improve things from any standpoint. Since you seem to think that there is a positive, perhaps you could share it?

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

but there is no proof that the mullahs do anything more them aggressive

except support groups actively attempting to destroy Israel, that is.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

That's what I was saying...

That's what I figured.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

i told everyone ww3 will begin, it will!

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

check: infowars.com and there might be a false flag...scary

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Ben_Jackinoff

"Ok, so Iran has been supporting terrorism against Israel" Remember when you said they had not threatened anyone? Thanks for admitting your mistake.

Ben, Ben, Ben how you twist words. I said "so Iran is threatening sanctions and military action". I never denied that they had committed terrorist actions. And l made that statement in response to your statement that Iran is inflaming tensions. So buddy if your gonna quote someone do the right thing and take it in context.

"Yep the US is one, Pakistan another yet l dont see world outrage against these countries having nukes." There is no time machine to the past. How about working on preventing the future from getting worse instead?

Oh gotcha so the worlds greatest protagonists can have them but we must stop anyone else getting them! Right? So you are saying that you are happy for some nations to have them even though some of those nations have links to terrorism, have used nukes or come close to using them in the past. But just because you dont like a nations leaders or religion you dont want them to have nukes.

No, the present country of Iran as it is now was not around 50 years ago. Saying they did not do such and such 50 years ago has less meaning if the country you are talking about did not exist.

Ok so let me rephrase since April 1st 1979 how many countries has Iran invaded, or attacked with its military?

".... I said have they invaded another country do you understand the difference?" An embassy is considered foreign soil. While the embassy was indeed in Iran, it was also foreign soil in Iran. Do you understand the difference now?

So l ask how many other countries has Iran invaded and the best you come back with is "oh but they invaded and embassy". So then as you earlier claimed this was an act of war l guess you feel the same about the invasion of the US embassy in Pakistan in 1979 as well. Now they also have nukes, and support known terrorists but l dont see you jumping up and down about them having a nuke or ten.

I already have.

Ah yes thats right you said "IT WOULD BE A VERY BAD THING"

They are actively trying to destroy another country as it is. A bomb would only make the atmosphere worse. It certainly not improve things from any standpoint. Since you seem to think that there is a positive, perhaps you could share it?

Ok Ben, let me ask you this. Has Iran attacked anyone with a nuclear weapon? Afterall it is reported they bought 2 warheads in 2009, and 4 nuclear tipped artillery shells in 2010. Have they used them? Have they used their military to attack another nation? Have they invaded any other nations or started a war of aggression with another nation?

I will help you here the answer to all those questions is NO. So why all the fear.... Now ask the same questions but put Russia, or US, or Pakistan in place of Iran and see what answers you come up with. Who is the bigger threat the one that threatens and talks or the ones with the track record of actions.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Cletus,

Iran has been threatening Israel for a long time. They have been attacking Israel for a long time through their proxies that they both support financially and train. You were claiming Iran was not threatening Israel, you were wrong.

but we must stop anyone else getting them!

Yes, unless you have that time machine handy. Do you know of any nation from which nuclear weapons have successfully been taken away? No? Neither do I. I don't any more potentially dangerous members of that club.

Ok so let me rephrase since April 1st 1979 how many countries has Iran invaded, or attacked with its military?

It has attacked Israel. Its military trains both Hamas and Hezbollah. Iran is quite open about this. Didn't you know?

Now they also have nukes, and support known terrorists but l dont see you jumping up and down about them having a nuke or ten

How high would you like me to jump? I'd jump it if it would erase that reality. Unfortunately, it won't, will it? I would rather not have another country to jump up and down about, thank you.

Has Iran attacked anyone with a nuclear weapon?

They don't have one, as far as I know. Kind of a moot question, don't you think?

So why all the fear....

Because, as I have already stated, Iran has been supporting groups that are attempting to destroy Israel. Having a nuclear weapon to back this up would be a very bad escalation.

Who is the bigger threat the one that threatens and talks or the ones with the track record of actions.

You figure out a way of going back in time and erasing past mistakes and your question might have some point to it. You cannot put the monster back in the cage once it is out. The key is to never let the door be open.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Ben_Jackinoff

Iran has been threatening Israel for a long time. They have been attacking Israel for a long time through their proxies that they both support financially and train. You were claiming Iran was not threatening Israel, you were wrong.

Ben l agree Iran has been threatening Israel with words for a long time its called rhetoric. Yes they support terrorism that is aimed at Israel l agree again. BUT has Iran used its military to attack Israel? No it hasnt so apart from supporting terrorists (and many nations do that) and making threats that is your justification.

Yes, unless you have that time machine handy. Do you know of any nation from which nuclear weapons have successfully been taken away? No? Neither do I. I don't any more potentially dangerous members of that club.

Its a difficult proposition how do you stop nations from wanting what other nations (and sometimes their enemies) already have.

"Ok so let me rephrase since April 1st 1979 how many countries has Iran invaded, or attacked with its military?" It has attacked Israel. Its military trains both Hamas and Hezbollah. Iran is quite open about this. Didn't you know?

I asked has its military attacked anyone? Yes its military trains terrorists, unless you have been in a cave even the US trains and equips terrorists. Pakistan supports the Taliban and they have nukes see what im saying. I will ask again has the Iranian military attacked directly or invaded another nation? The answer your looking for is no.

"Has Iran attacked anyone with a nuclear weapon?" They don't have one, as far as I know. Kind of a moot question, don't you think?

Thats funny the British PM has said they do, the Russians say they do, even the Germans have said they do. They even have said how many and where they came from. They havent made their own but they have purchased a couple. Its been widely reported in the past 3 years.

Because, as I have already stated, Iran has been supporting groups that are attempting to destroy Israel. Having a nuclear weapon to back this up would be a very bad escalation.

So Iran supports terrorism so they cant have a bomb. Again Pakistan supports Americas number one enemy and they can have the bomb, the US who has attacked and invaded more countries than any other nation (and supported terrorism) can have the bomb, do l need to go on.

"Who is the bigger threat the one that threatens and talks or the ones with the track record of actions." You figure out a way of going back in time and erasing past mistakes and your question might have some point to it. You cannot put the monster back in the cage once it is out. The key is to never let the door be open.

So l see you avoided that question, you appear to think the bigger threat is the paper tiger rather than the real tiger.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

The nutcase regime in Iran must be denied nuclear weapons at all costs. Reading some of these posts it would seem certain would like to see Iran use a nuclear weapon before doing something.

They were offered a light-water reactor as a sweetner deal. Only that negates the option of making weapons grade plutonium at short notice, and Iran refused that proposition outright. Anyone still believing Iran's nuclear ambitions do not include weapons at this point believes in Sanat Claus.

What did he bring you this year cletus?

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

People seem to think that if Israel has nukes, Iran and everyone else has the moral right to have them. I would agree if we were talking about libraries and drinking water. But this is different. Israel doesn't want Iran wiped off the face of the earth, they just want them to leave them alone. Iran on the other hand is different.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

LH10:

" check: infowars.com and there might be a false flag...scary "

Yes, "infowars.com" is one giant false flag. Really now. we don´t need to stoop to sensationalist conspiracy sites here.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Johannes Weber:

" There have been many countries in the world that have been prospering during the cold war, while lots of nuclear weapons were pointed at them (without even having nukes on their own!), while leaders on both sides many times foretold the doom of the other system and how they should be destroyed (rolled back, whatever else). I do not see, how the situation with Iran and Israel is basically different... "

Neither the Soviets nor the Americans believed that destroying the other would be God`s will, and would be the 12th imam out of hiding, meaning it ushers in the end time paradise for the believers.

So to answer your question: Yes, religious fanaticism is a completely different angle in the Iran situation.THis is totally different from the Cold War.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Madverts

The nutcase regime in Iran must be denied nuclear weapons at all costs. Reading some of these posts it would seem certain would like to see Iran use a nuclear weapon before doing something.

You are missing several points. The main one being Iran already has nuclear weapons as has been widely reported prior to now. You should have said "The nutcase regime in Iran must be denied" THE ABLITY TO MAKE "nuclear weapons at all costs." Now given that it has been widely reported that the Iranians already have brought some weapons in previous years ago and given that you and other posters believe they are so bent on Israel's destruction with said weapons then why have they not done it already? Also why exactly are Iranians nutcases? is it because they hate Israel, and the US. Is it they are Islamic? Why do you say they are nutcases l would love to hear your reasoning.

They were offered a light-water reactor as a sweetner deal. Only that negates the option of making weapons grade plutonium at short notice, and Iran refused that proposition outright. Anyone still believing Iran's nuclear ambitions do not include weapons at this point believes in Sanat Claus.

Oh l do not doubt that they want nuclear weapons and if you read my posts you will see l have never denied they want them. All l am questioning is yours and others reasoning behind why they shouldnt get them and why attacking them to stop them is the right reason and the best reasons l have been getting are they are "very bad" and "nutcases" well lm sorry but that describes many nations and their leaders and some of them already have nuclear weapons so if thats the reasoning to stop Iran sorry but the precedent has already been set.

What did he bring you this year cletus?

Good one Madverts, he brought me lots. But coming from a guy recently was part of a duo with went shooting rodents and dreamed of being George W Bush lm more worried for your mental state.... "I remember years ago when Madverts and I were back in Texas shooting vermin with our .22s and talking about how much we wanted to BE that man"

Nuff said there

1 ( +2 / -1 )

The problem with an attack is that it is against international law, if there is no official military action on the Iranian side. Terrorism is in contrast to the opinion of large parts of the world just an (extreme) crime. It is not a hostile act between states in the sense of a war. It is a hostile act in the sense of a secret service operation. If the defending state catches the perpetrators, it can still do nothing else but try them for the crimes they commited. Well the USA can (in Guantanamo), but that is why everyone looks at the USA with disdain.

War is something completely different. And if there is a war, the price will be extremely high (since the civilians on all sides have to counted, not just soldiers and not just victims on one side). Until Iran starts any direct military actions or their proxies have nuclear materials without being able to proof that they didn't get it from Iran - a war is illegal. I know that lots of people don't care about the law (if they personally can't be tried for it), but there is currently no legal basis for a military intervention in Iran.

This might change quickly, if Iran does actually put anything material behind its threats.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Johannes Weber:

" The problem with an attack is that it is against international law, "

Building a nuclear weapon in violation of all the treaties Iran signed is also against international law. And wiping Israel off the map is also against international law, I would think.

Do you think that counts for Ahmedinejad and the mullahs?

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

anglootaku:

" @WilliB They aren't all sunni muslims, there is a lot of Jews, Christians in those countries also you mentioned.." "

Nope, not many Jews and Christians left in any middle Eastern country, thanks the centuries of steady discrimination. (Zero Jews in radical Sharia countries like Saudi Arabia and Gaza.... count them: ZERO).

And getting fewer by the day with every "Arab spring" islamic takeov er (the exodus of the Egypt Copts has already begun).

Nope, the sympathy for Israels possible attack on Iranian nukes is not from microscopic remnants of Jewish and Christian populations in the Sunni muslim word. It is based on the simple fact that Sunni countries don´t want to be dominated by Shiite Iran. (Remember that Sunnis regard Shia as heretics.)

0 ( +1 / -1 )

@WilliB Your right WillB, Coptics, Catholics and Jewish Egyptians are leaving and are the ones who controlled the economy of Egypt, it is sad and I really hope the muslim brotherhood and salafi dont win as they are not even ethnically Egyptian..

To be honest, under Mubarak the economy was at 7-8%GDP the same levels of India and a lot of reforms took place, FDI sky rocketed, IT and engineering sector grew, stock market index was at its peak.

They are stalling now, cause they dont want the idiot brotherhood and salafi to win, Egyptians in general, Christian, Jew, Muslim etc all hate the brotherhood and salafi..

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Also under Mubarak it was relatively secular, all countries should not mix religions and their economies

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Apparently there are still jews in Iran, if you watch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXOTITRdw_I

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@WillB There still 15-20% Christians in Egypt, natives of their country all are educated and quite successful and most are wanting to leave, due to worries of the change in power and further discrimination

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Iranian people are very nice, please spare them the terror of war.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

You missed Superlib driving his Chevy pick-up at mother Sheehan's protest. Oh happy days. Rodents scattered everywhere. George Bush made my life complete, a Texan president, if only you knew. Super and I were very proud to vote for the man.

But that's besides the point, cletus. Like I said Iran has refused offers that would give them state of the art lightwater system. There is only one explanation for that, which is because it removes the potential to make nuclear weapons. They can't be trusted, as we've seen since 2005, and they brutally put down their own people calling for an end to the islamic dictatorship. No, these nuts should definitely not be sitting at the nuclear negotiation table.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

anglootaku:

" Apparently there are still jews in Iran, "

Yes, about 5000 or so, out of a population of tens of thousands before Khomeini took over. And they are under strict dhimmi laws, which means that their number can only go down from now on.

But more than in Saudi Arabia, I grant you that...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@WilliB hmm then how come the jews of Iran don't leave? in the video they seem patriotic..

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Madverts

Like I said Iran has refused offers that would give them state of the art lightwater system. There is only one explanation for that, which is because it removes the potential to make nuclear weapons.

So lets agree then Iran wants to make its own nuclear weapons. At least we agree on that.

They can't be trusted, as we've seen since 2005, and they brutally put down their own people calling for an end to the islamic dictatorship. No, these nuts should definitely not be sitting at the nuclear negotiation table.

So your basis for Iran not being allowed to have nukes and also being attacked for trying to build them is that they brutally put down their own people and for this they are nuts. Ok then by your own admission most mid east nations are run by nuts, and given that your nation has supported many if not most over time then what right do you as an American have to dictate your demands on them. You as a people are really no better than the "nuts" you fear so much.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

I kind of get the feeling that those who side with Iran don't really know that Iran funds and arms proxies like Hamas and Hezbullah who have been attacking Israel directly with rocket attacks for some time now. I keep seeing questions like "Who has Iran attacked in the last X years" and "Iran has never threatened Israel" and my only explanation is that they just don't have the information.

I also get the feeling that those who keep asking for evidence of Iran's nuclear ambitions have never read anything about the IAEA or their position on the matter. Even the head inspector has come out and said he believes Iran is putting itself in position to go nuclear. And they aren't exactly best friends with the US government.

I keep hearing questions about Iraq, but that's probably because those siding with Iran still view the world through a US filter. The opposition to Iran has been well documented by countries who fought the US tooth and nail on Iraq, but it looks like people don't know that so they just think the same thing is happening again. It's been well documented that other parties in the Middle East have no love for Iran and have serious concerns about their nuclear program. But again, most people seem to think this is Bush Part II since they don't know anything else.

I keep hearing claims of "hypocrisy", but it's hard to imagine people are looking at the prospect of nuclear arms races in the Middle East, global disruptions, and a return to the daily military battles of the past and setting all of that aside because they can't seem to get past the hypocrisy of Israel having nukes and Iran not. I'm not buying it.

People claim that Iran won't use nukes, but they don't seem to understand that they don't need to. They can step up the pace of military attacks on Israel and use the nuke as an umbrella. Look at North Korea's position where they have the ability to strike back. Ships get sunk and at the end of the day South Korea can't really respond. My guess is that's what Iran's goal is.

At the end of the day my guess is that the whole gay-hanging terrorist-supporting hardline religious theocracy about to get nukes thing just isn't registering with people.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

SuperLib

I kind of get the feeling that those who side with Iran don't really know that Iran funds and arms proxies like Hamas and Hezbullah who have been attacking Israel directly with rocket attacks for some time now. I keep seeing questions like "Who has Iran attacked in the last X years" and "Iran has never threatened Israel" and my only explanation is that they just don't have the information.

You obviously havent been reading the posts properly then is my only explanation. Yes Iran funds and arms Hamas and Hezbullah as do other nations and groups but you seem to focus purely on Iran. And yes l have asked who has Iran directly attacked in the past years and the question stands. They have directly attacked no one, yes they train and support groups that attack Israel but then again many nations yours included have supported, financed and armed terrorist groups. And yes Iran has threatened Iran, apart from supporting others have they actually followed through on their threats? Its reported that the Iranians have had nukes now for a couple of years, have they used them against Israel? Yes it would be not a good thing for Iran to develop their own bomb, is it worth going to war to stop? Is the risks of a war with Iran better than the risk of Iran having a bomb?

At the end of the day my guess is that the whole gay-hanging terrorist-supporting hardline religious theocracy about to get nukes thing just isn't registering with people.

And your point is? So a nation has laws against being guy, that is their country not yours. Remember your nation still has hang ups about gays and it wasnt that many years ago you still killed people because of the color of their skin in your nation. Terrorist supporting, yep they are. So is your nation, so are many of your allies. Religious hardliners hmm many nations have religious hardliners is that a reason to fear them? Look at the vatican that is a city of religious hardliners and they have been responsible for more wars and deaths than the Iranians yet you say nothing about them.

All l see is a person who is scared of a nation because of their religion and their beliefs and what they do within their own country. There is a term for that you realise....

Oh and for the record l do not support Iran, l do not want them to develop their own bomb but going to war or risking a bigger war to stop it. Well thats plain idiocy, but its right up the US of A's path l guess.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

How abou letting the diplomatic channels workt this out... and then let the IAEA oversee the peacefuluse of nuclear energy in the Middle East. Surely these countries know what's up... the oil will be gone by 2030 and then what?? back to candles and coal? I believe that Israel has as much blame in the present context as does Iran... why can Israel have nucalear weapons?? Is it a fact that Iran is making nuclear weapons? Probabbly not, and believe me I wouldn't want to see Iran with nukes as they are a slightly too radical for my taste.. then again so is Israel. The only solution here is to let the IAEA do it's job... gather the facts and then make a decision... this could spark WW3 and the world community needs to act responsibly in handling the matter. If israel attacks, then Iran will fire back...it will destablize the region for decades to come... as the Gulf states will be seen as sellouts by the the rest of the Middle East... the sides are shaping up already. If it sodes happen... I only hope the US or Russia will not take sides and "support" one or the other., but it's probably gonn ahappen anyway. What a mess!!!

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Would have been nice after the Iranian revolution if the Iranian Government would have gotten busy improving the people's lives instead of this path they've forced them on.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Building a nuclear weapon in violation of all the treaties Iran signed is also against international law. And wiping Israel off the map is also against international law, I would think.

Do you think that counts for Ahmedinejad and the mullahs?

FIrst: treaties can be cancelled. There is nothing illegal about that. Since many countries lift their own rights on the international scene above international agreements, there is nothing that can be done about that. If Iran would quit the treaty, they wouldn't be anything illegal in pursueing nuclear weapons grade technology. Only because someone is a bad guy that doesn't mean that he is outside of the law.

Second: Wiping out Israel is just propaganda. Like the preemptive nuclear strike doctrine from the Bush era. Even though he personally might have been crazy enough to actually consider this. Propaganda to gain support from the hardliners of one's own electorate. The Iranian theocracy knows very well that they could not use nukes and expect that their country survives that.

Iran supports terror against Israel. This has to be dealt with in a civil fashion by economic sanctions, freezes of Iranian accounts and arrests whenever possible. Discussions about whether killing suspects without trial will rage on forever, because they walk the fine line between self-defense against criminals and the fact that it is murder. Different opinions are part of a free society.

War is clearly beyond these lines. Any sane person from a country that has been destroyed by wartime actions in the past is quite clearly against unnecessary warfare. And before anyone gets it wrong: I strongly support any action against the Iranian theocracy which doesn't violate international law. However, there is a not so fine line between civilisation and barbarism. Might does not supersede right in a civilised world.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Second: Wiping out Israel is just propaganda.

Here are your statistics on propaganda.

The conflict between Hezbollah and Israel began on July 12 when Hezbollah, the Iranian-backed Shiite terrorist organization, crossed the Israeli-Lebanese border into Israel in an ambush, killing three Israel Defense Forces (IDF) soldiers and kidnapping two others. [1] In turn, Israel responded with an operation in Lebanon that aimed to disarm Hezbollah and rescue the abducted IDF soldiers. Hezbollah's daily barrage of rocket attacks took a heavy toll on Israel's civilian population, economy and environment.

During the conflict:

159 Israeli citizens were killed; of those 43 civilians of Jewish, Arab, Christian and Muslim origin killed in rocket attacks 119 IDF soldiers killed in rocket attacks as well as in armed combat [2] 4,262 civilians were treated for injuries in hospitals; of those, 33 were seriously wounded, 68 were moderately wounded, and 1,388 were lightly wounded. Another 2,773 suffered from shock and anxiety. [3] More than 2 million people - a third of Israel's population - were within Hezbollah rocket range [4] 300,000 - 500,000 Israelis were displaced from their homes [5] More than 1 million residents were forced to live in bomb shelters [6] 6,000 homes were hit by rockets [7] 7,600 property damage claims were filed [8]

A Snapshot of Hezbollah's Rocket Cache and Attacks:

13,000 rockets were in Hezbollah's arsenal at the start of the war [9] 3,970: The number of rockets Hezbollah fired into Israeli cities and towns; 901 landed in urban areas [10] Of the missiles Hezbollah has fired at Israel: More than 1,000 hit the Kiryat Shmona area 808 hit near or in Nahariya 471 hit near or in Tzfat (Safed) 176 hit near or in Karmiel 106 hit near or in Akko 93 rockets hit the Haifa area 81 rockets hit near Tiberias [11] 1,800 buildings used by Hezbollah have been destroyed by Israeli forces [12] 530: Hezbollah guerrillas killed by the IDF [13] 309: Hezbollah rocket launchers destroyed by the IDF [14] 33: Hezbollah-built tunnels destroyed by the IDF [15]

Brought to you by Iran courtesy of Hezbollah.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Just go look at a map of the Middle East. Then you'll understand Israel's position.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Cletus,

Quite simply, your list of countries which have nuclear weapons that you don't like having them has convinced me my argument was and is correct. Iran should not have nuclear weapons. Thanks for letting me know I was correct. I actually had not doubt, but it is still good to know. The world should not let Iran have them. If they truly want peaceful nuclear power, let them show it and follow IAEA rules to the letter and let their country's progress be monitored. If they cannot live with this, they should not have access to nuclear power. Hopefully the countries of the world continue to agree with me on this issue.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Without taking sides.....these 40 seconds of video should give every one pause as to why Israel might feel compelled take action on her own against Iran.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRz3nHwgjHY

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

cletus, your repeated argument that... Iran already possesses some nuclear weapons, but has not used them, and therefore would never use a nuclear weapon, ... does not really make sense.

If they used them they would get hit so hard in return, and without replacements that would be it.

No, much better to hold onto a few and in the meantime develop the ability to manufacture as many as you like. At this point, for the first time, it becomes an option to use those precious warheads, because you can always make more.

It makes more sense for Iran to say, "Yes, we are making nuclear weapons, so what?" People can understand that and deal with it, and in many ways such honesty is healthier for the planet.

Have you had your hand in the cookie jar? No!

The repeated denials make people doubt the intentions of Iran and she becomes a known liar, and a pariah state.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Cletus: Yes they support terrorism that is aimed at Israel l agree again. BUT has Iran used its military to attack Israel? No it hasnt so apart from supporting terrorists (and many nations do that) and making threats that is your justification.

If you're to the point where you're only option is getting cute with semantics then you aren't trying to actually convince anyone of anything, you're just grasping for something to say. I don't think I've ever heard anyone from the West telling me that outrage over homosexuals hanging from cranes is evidence of my lack of tolerance for other cultures. That one probably takes the cake.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Johannes Weber: The Iranian theocracy knows very well that they could not use nukes and expect that their country survives that.

But they could easily ship more powerful weapons to their proxies and keep Israel under a constant attack with the defense umbrella of a nuclear weapon. They could also transfer nuclear technology to other countries and there's no guarantee that Iran could even keep their nuclear weapons safe given the structure of their government where one hand often doesn't know what the other is doing. Saudi Arabia would be next to go nuclear and whose to say that other neighbors don't follow suit, sparking a nuclear arms race in the Middle East.

Iran supports terror against Israel. This has to be dealt with in a civil fashion by economic sanctions, freezes of Iranian accounts and arrests whenever possible. Discussions about whether killing suspects without trial will rage on forever, because they walk the fine line between self-defense against criminals and the fact that it is murder. Different opinions are part of a free society.

I'm all for the sanctions and freezes but keep in mind that Iran considers that to be an act of war.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

This will not happen. Israel has been threatening to attack Iran for decades. Won't happen. You can take it to the bank.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It's like a hornet's nest. The worst possible thing you can do is go and take a whack at a hornet's nest. Attacking Iraq was like attacking a small ant colony. Attacking Afghanistan was like kicking a sleeping dog. Can be done, if you are big enough. But size does not help when you hit a hornet's nest. If you are well organized and have the right chemicals you may be able to destroy it. But in the real world destroying the entire country of Iran is not possible, nor desirable.

America could not win in Vietnam or Korea without using nuclear weapons. When you look at Iran, think Vietnam or Korea, except they can shut the world economy down overnight by blocking the straits of hormuz. You think Israel wants to answer to America and the world for starting the Great Depression of the 21st century? No way.

Iran is not even developing a bomb. that's a red herring. Israel's foreign policy is to turn all of its neighbors into either

A. American satraps, like Saudi Arabia, or the way Egypt was before

or

B. Failed states, like Iraq and like they are trying to do with Lebanon

That is what they want to do with Iran. They are not happy with a powerful Iran, the same way Japan freaks out about a powerful China. People need to get along and stop all this nonsense.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Iran is not even developing a bomb. that's a red herring.

What secret knowledge to you have on the color of the herring?

0 ( +2 / -2 )

We should start selling arms to Iran to balance the power between Iran and Israel. Currently Israel are the only ones in the region with nuclear capability. If a war was to start it would be Israel starting it. Just like in 1967,

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Obama just has to say to israel, no more money , then they will rethink it.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

I give up with this whole mess-just don't ask My Son to go down the river with these war-mongeting haters Either one of them!-This has been going on ,centuries let the Arabs & the Jews go at it once & for All!!

1 ( +2 / -1 )

If a war was to start it would be Israel starting it.

No.

Just like in 1967,

No.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

When you look at Iran, think Vietnam or Korea, except they can shut the world economy down overnight by blocking the straits of hormuz.

The U.S. Navy keeps a steady presence in the gulf. There's no way Iran is going to successfully blockade the Straits of Hormuz for longer than it takes to scramble a squadron of fighters from the deck of an aircraft carrier. The simple fact is, if it's water, the US Navy owns it.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Iranians are Persian and speak Farsi not Arabic..

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Afghanistanis also speak Farsi

1 ( +1 / -0 )

anglootaku,

Do you have a point in there somewhere?

0 ( +3 / -3 )

I asked has its military attacked anyone? Yes its military trains terrorists, unless you have been in a cave even the US trains and equips terrorists. Pakistan supports the Taliban and they have nukes see what im saying. I will ask again has the Iranian military attacked directly or invaded another nation? The answer your looking for is no.

Is there really a difference or even matters if one attacks/invades with its military force or if it orders a proxy group that is under its complete control to do the attack for it? I don't think it does one bit. Hezbollah is under the control of Iran, meaning it chain of command takes orders from Iran not from Lebanon or Syria or even itself and that is really what matters. By your argument the bay of pigs invasion was not a US invasion of Cuba because the invasion force was not US military or even Americans even though the invasion force was funded, trained and it's chain of command answered to the US government. Your just playing with semantics at this point. So technically no it's military has not invaded another nation outside of Iraq however though it has ordered its proxy groups that are under its complete control, most notably Hezbollah, to attack other nations which is basically the same-thing as ordering its military to invade or attack another nation. One could argue using your logic that if the US military ordered the Chicago PD to start killing people that technically the US military didn't attack Chicago because it used a proxy group that was under its control and not its own members.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Great, on one side, you have Israel who in this situation is like a hammer and sees everything Iranian as a nail. On the other side, you have the Iranians advertising, "we're nails! We're even sticking up!"

I'm glad there is a diplomat in the White House and not a trigger happy moron. We're going to need some diplomacy to work this out.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

@Ben point being some posters on here mentioned 'arab' just stating the obvious that they are farsi :P

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Noliving,

Thank you, you made my point perfectly. You see some of the posters have been saying how dangerous Iran is if they get a nuclear weapon and how they are a threat to the world blah blah blah. My point was as you pointed out apart from supplying arms, money and training to an external group has the Iranian military been involved directly in any actions. Afterall l cant see the military handing hezbullah a nuclear tipped cruise missile can you? And if you say yes then why havent they done so already? My point is that some posters are saying Iran should not be allowed to develop nuclear capability and we should risk all out war with them to stop that ant their reasoning for it is Iran is a threat because they support Hezbullah. Well Pakistan supports the Taliban, and Al Quada (who are the sworn enemy of the US) and they have nuclear weapons. Are we talking of going to war or imposing sanctions on Pakistan? The US has and does support groups that others class as terrorists are we talking of sanctions or war against them?

Some posters even bring up the fact that they hang gay people as an added justification for this action yet Pakistan also has areas that use Sharia law and even the US not so many years ago discriminated and killed people for the color of their skin. My point is this yes Iran building nukes is not good, but to risk an all out war to stop a nation just because we dont like who it supports (yet our allies do the same), or becasue we dont like its laws (yet our allies do the same) is a bit much to ask. And finally if you believe some of the posters here as soon as Iran gets nukes it will wipe Israel off the map, well reportedly Iran has had several nuclear weapons purchased in past years. Have they used them? Threats and rhetoric are one thing actions are another and the nations with a history of violent military actions are the ones asking us to support them for the greater good again.

Just a thought

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

Arabic is one of the languages spoken in Iran. Persian contains a considerable amount of Arabic words. Yes, the cultures are different, but the general attitude of countries in the region toward Israel do not vary nearly as much.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

. My point was as you pointed out apart from supplying arms, money and training to an external group has the Iranian military been involved directly in any actions.

Exactly. Apart from being violent, they have not been violent at all. Thanks for that.

and we should risk all out war with them

Name one person that has said this, please.

The US has and does support groups that others class as terrorists

For example? You have repeated this enough times that you probably have the answer on the tip of your keyboard.

My point is this yes Iran building nukes is not good, but to risk an all out war to stop a nation j

Except nobody is suggesting this, except for you.

well reportedly Iran has had several nuclear weapons purchased in past years.

Yes, so you say. Care to share where you got this information?

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Ben_Jackinoff

. My point was as you pointed out apart from supplying arms, money and training to an external group has the Iranian military been involved directly in any actions.

Exactly. Apart from being violent, they have not been violent at all. Thanks for that.

"and we should risk all out war with them" Name one person that has said this, please.

Um you for one, you support the stopping of Iran building these weapons. How will they be stopped sanctions, strikes. By supporting the attempt to stop them you are supporting these actions. You really think Iran will sit back while Israel or the US blow up their ambitions. You think they wont defend themselves or strike back. You think that wont lead to a widening of the action. Get serious Ben

"The US has and does support groups that others class as terrorists" For example? You have repeated this enough times that you probably have the answer on the tip of your keyboard.

Seriously you need me to spell this out, well the US has sponsored rebels in Cuba, Afghanistan, and we all remember the Iran contra affair where the US was found guilt by the ICJ of violating international law by supporting the terrorists. The theres your allies Pakistan who support you enemy the Taliban as we speak yet you still supply them weapons, money and training. Come on Ben get serious you really dont need this spelt out now do you.

"My point is this yes Iran building nukes is not good, but to risk an all out war to stop a nation" Except nobody is suggesting this, except for you.

As l said earlier it would be a fool to think that Iran will sit back and do nothing while Israel or the US bomb them. You really think they wont strike back. As l said only a fool or a very short sighted person would think this way.

"well reportedly Iran has had several nuclear weapons purchased in past years." Yes, so you say. Care to share where you got this information?

Ben its called the internet lm sure your familiar with it. After all there is a lovely clip of the UK Prime minister saying as much, there's the reports from German intelligence services, there's interviews with high ranking Russian military people. The list goes on, they even say where the weapons came from and what types. But its obviously easier for you to play dumb than look it up for yourself.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

I have never stated support for all out war or even war.

You really think Iran will sit back while Israel or the US blow up their ambitions.

Yes. Yes, I do. Better that than possibly lose their country.

Come on Ben get serious you really dont need this spelt out now do you.

Yes, I do. Which terrorists are the US supporting now. Try again, please.

As l said earlier it would be a fool to think that Iran will sit back and do nothing while Israel or the US bomb them.

Really? That is what they said about Iraq.

Ben its called the internet lm sure your familiar with it.

I could not find any such thing. Again, source, please. If you cannot provide it, I will just go ahead and assume it does not exist.

Anyway, there is little chance that war or all out war will occur. None of the players want it. There is a lot of huffing and puffing. The only real concern is Iran getting their hands on a nuclear weapon.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Bartholomew Harte:

" This has been going on ,centuries let the Arabs & the Jews go at it once & for All!! "

Wrong. The conflict is not "Arab" vs Jews, it is muslim vs. Jews.

Christian Arabs have no beef with the Jews, And Iranians are not Arabs. The hatred against the Jewish state is an islamic issue, not an ethnic one.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Johannes Weber:

" Might does not supersede right in a civilised world. "

You are assuming that the world of Ahmidinejad and the Iranian mullahs is "civilized" as per per your definition. But is it? read what they say. For Ahmedinejad and Rafsanjani, wiping out Israel and eliminating the the Jews is a divine obligation. Your modern concerns about law, humanism, and all those niceties does not even enter the equation for them.

You are making the mistake of projecting your world-view on others.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Ben_Jackinoff

I have never stated support for all out war or even war.

Ok Ben then please explain to me how you propose that Israel or the US stop Iran without some type of military action as sanctions havent worked and talking hasnt worked. Given that and you adamant statement that Iran must be stopped then l take that as you supporting a military option. Please tell me if thats incorrect.

"You really think Iran will sit back while Israel or the US blow up their ambitions." Yes. Yes, I do. Better that than possibly lose their country.

Oh Ben you cannot be serious. Really you think Iran will sit back and let another nation attack it, you think the leaders will lose face in the public arena by appearing weak to those nations they hate. You are either dreaming or are serious delusional.

Yes, I do. Which terrorists are the US supporting now. Try again, please.

Ben you asked for examples, l gave you examples. End of discussion buddy next you will be asking for examples between a set date. Facts are facts you dont like them so you shift the goal posts. But if you want a present one, the US supplies arms, money and training to Pakistan true? And Pakistan harbors and arms terrorists true?

"As l said earlier it would be a fool to think that Iran will sit back and do nothing while Israel or the US bomb them." Really? That is what they said about Iraq.

Yes a lot of people did say that and they where spot on, you may have beat the Iraqi military in a short period of time. A military that was already weak from years of bombing and sanctions, but you still didnt win the war in a short period it took nearly ten years and thousands of allied casualties to get there and where are you now. Your country is broke, your military tired and stretched and you are risking another war with a country that can fight back.

"Ben its called the internet lm sure your familiar with it." I could not find any such thing. Again, source, please. If you cannot provide it, I will just go ahead and assume it does not exist.

Good for you Ben, you obviously didnt look terribly hard because it took me all of a minute to fins several reports from the past few years from several outlets.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Actually the problem is not Muslims vs Jews.

It's Persian Shiite 'Muslim' revolutionaries and their Hezbollah and Hamas clients, vs the present State of Israel.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@Ben_Jackinoff but the general attitude of countries in the region toward Israel do not vary nearly as much.

That is a little biased don't you think? Christians and moderate educated muslims are pro israel and pro west, more so with the Christians there, there is the good and bad in all cultures, we can't say they are all bad and have all negative anti sentiments. A lot have questioned their own corrupt regimes which is why they toppled their own government.

Media is to blame really for brainwashing people on both sides of the fence..

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Ben Jackinoff:

" 'The US has and does support groups that others class as terrorists' For example? You have repeated this enough times that you probably have the answer on the tip of your keyboard. "

OK, not my threat, but let me give you some hints: Mujahedin in Afghanistan, Kosovo Liberation Armee in Kosovo, Freedom fighters in Libya, Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.... shall we go on? The US absolutely has foolishly supported terrorists, for misguided and short-sighted political reasons, and continues to do so.

However, that is not a reason to whitewash the Iranian regime, which is preparing for a new holocaust in Israel. In fact, it is a completely different dimension.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

WilliB,

The US actively supports the Muslim Brotherhood? Anyway, the people you point out are active militarily against their own country's governments and are active in their countries. With Gaza and Lebanon, they are actively attacking another country with Iran's assistance. Although I get your point about the US's mistakes, It is not the same at all.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

That is a little biased don't you think?

Not really biased, more of a generalization, actually. Not meant to include every single person in the region.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Cletus,

Military action, ie attacks on specific sites does not neccessarily mean war, all out or otherwise.

You are either dreaming or are serious delusional.

No, I am realistic, as in the end, are the leaders in Iran.

US supplies arms, money and training to Pakistan true?

Yes.

And Pakistan harbors and arms terrorists true?

Maybe, but if they do, the US does not actively support it. Bad example actually.

Yes a lot of people did say that and they where spot on

You miss the point. I am talking about Israel's hit on Iraq's nuclear plant. Iraq did not retaliate.

from several outlets.

Name one, please.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Cletus My point was as you pointed out apart from supplying arms, money and training to an external group has the Iranian military been involved directly in any actions

And the 500-lb gorilla you've been ignoring is the very real possibility that with a nuclear defense umbrella Iran could increase their arms, money, and training to their external groups and ratchet up the attacks on Israeli soil. I'm sure you're aware of how much chaos that would bring to the Israeli-Palestinian issue as well as the Israeli-Lebanese issue. Syria could come into play again as well. You might as well bury the peace process at that point and prepare for endless war. I don't see you even acknowledging this possibility which means it's too real for you or you just don't understand the dynamics.

You are also ignoring the very real possibility that Saudi Arabia would go nuclear at which point a chain reaction would start with the entire Middle East going after nuclear weapons. That's something that no one wants, but when you look at the situation it needs to be addressed. You aren't addressing it. Instead you choose to chalk up the situation as "people not respecting other people's cultures" which we know is just useless filler material.

There are 3 possible outcomes: 1) Iran starts to comply and agrees to have a transparent and verifiable civilian nuclear program, 2) Iran continues along the path and develops the bomb, and 3) Israel strike Iran preemptively. Two of those outcomes are disastrous. Only one leads to peace and stability, and the ball is in Iran's court on that one. We're left sitting here praying that Iran shows some kind of common sense and doesn't drag the entire world onto a path of endless hostility. Only time will tell.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

SuperLib:

" There are 3 possible outcomes: 1) Iran starts to comply and agrees to have a transparent and verifiable civilian nuclear program, 2) Iran continues along the path and develops the bomb, and 3) Israel strike Iran preemptively. Two of those outcomes are disastrous. Only one leads to peace and stability, and the ball is in Iran's court on that one. "

You are right about the 3 possible outcomes. And I agree that 1) is the preferred one, although I doubt it would lead automatically to "peace and stability". But it is absolutely the option we should hope for.

However, hope is not reality. I firmly expect that 2) will happen, and the future of the Middle East and the world is not nice.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If Iran is bombed for allegedly trying to make nukes, then who will bomb Israel for allegedly already having them? (key word is allegedly)

It almost seems a shame that the world fell for the unproven WMD ploy once, because they probably won't fall for it again.

I am happy to stay the course and wait it out. Iran, just like NK, will have to test it before they even think of using it, and then we will be much, much more certain about a great many things. Then, the hammer can fall with no complaints from me.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

There are 3 possible outcomes: 1) Iran starts to comply and agrees to have a transparent and verifiable civilian nuclear program, 2) Iran continues along the path and develops the bomb, and 3) Israel strike Iran preemptively. Two of those outcomes are disastrous. Only one leads to peace and stability, and the ball is in Iran's court on that one. We're left sitting here praying that Iran shows some kind of common sense and doesn't drag the entire world onto a path of endless hostility.

Option 4..... The U.S declares that diplomacy has failed despite the best efforts of the world community on preventing Iran from continuing its pursuit to build a nuclear weapon over the past 7 or 8 years. The U.S declares that Iran has to open up their entire nuclear program to an IAEA inspection regime and agree to have their program monitored by the IAEA and has two weeks to work out the details that is acceptable to the IAEA. If the Iranian regime refuses the U.S will then begin a Naval blockade that will prevent any Iranian oil from being exported. Communicating this ahead of time could help to deter Iran, as the loss of oil income would be a major blow that would threaten the survival of the regime. Also communicate that any attempt to close the straits of Hormuz in retaliation to a Naval Blockade will be considered an act of war against the international community and a coalition of Arab states, U.S forces and European forces will take military action on Iranian military targets.Communicate that the Naval Blockade, if Iran is foolish enough to go that far and allow it to happen after the announced deadline would be lifted when Iran fully complies with the IAEA.

Sanctions haven't worked, Diplomacy hasn't worked. The U.S in its role as world leader now should act in the best interest of our Middle east allies and I mean Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, our European allies in assuring the oil they depend on for their economies continues to flow through the straits and deterring Israel from pursuing a military option. The U.S should starve the current Iranian regimes economy and let the Iranian people rise up against it as the economic misery from a Naval blockade starts to take its toll. They have risen up before and they will again if the U.S shows steadfast leadership on the goal for the regime to either comply or face economic ruin.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Israel set the example on how to build a bomb in secret.

We all know the truth, even though the government has still, even today made no official pronouncement.

Iran has learned from them.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

@Sushisake, I'm pretty sure the behind the scenes intelligence agencies have something coming out of their spy network. Rumours from the MSM and what may be considered top secret intelligence hidden from the public is something you nor I can ever know about until it happens. The fact that Iran got their hands on a spy drone flying near the border might be a nice little hint, as well as all the spy satellites. Some rumours may be based on truth and others distortion, there is no clear cut black and white answer as much as one would like to think so. We'd have to be there ourselves in order to verify who is speaking the truth and who is not.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Iran does not have a bomb. They don't need one. All they need to do is show they have mastered the nuclear fuel cycle, it would not be much more than rocket science (for the delivery system, which they seem to have pretty well organized, having just launched an indigenous satellite into space), after that. Just like Japan. Japan does not need nukes, it just needs to show the world it has mastered the nuclear fuel cycle (debatable, especially if you live in Tokyo, like I do, and keep hear about meltdowns, melt-throughs etc, etc).

Anyway, Iran is a far more important, more advanced, more civilized country than Israel, which is nothing more than a bunch of glorified squatters sitting on stolen land, which in their hearts they know is wrong, but because they have painted themselves into a corner, they can't back away from. It's obvious who is the guilty party in this dispute, but they are clever enough to have managed to project the blame on others and actually get the gullible to believe them.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

IslandFever:

" Iran does not have a bomb. "

That is nice that you think so. Now tell that to Ahmedinejad and the mullahs.

" Anyway, Iran is a far more important, more advanced, more civilized country than Israel, which is nothing more than a bunch of glorified squatters sitting on stolen land, "

That is what radio Iran would say. And that is why the Iranian leadership has repeatedly declared it is their holy duty to remove that "dirty bacteria" Israel. Now who is civilized... the one who wants to live in peace, or the one who continues to promise genocide on the other?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

nandakamanda:

" Israel set the example on how to build a bomb in secret. We all know the truth, even though the government has still, even today made no official pronouncement. Iran has learned from them. "

Fail! If Iran had "learned from Israel", it would not have signed the NPT and then violated it for years on end. And if Iran had "learned from Israel", it would not continuously threaten another country with annihilation.

How dishonest to compare the two.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The whole middle-eastern 'issue' is like a bad joke that no one gets, but no one is allowed to leave the room until everyone laughs. All because we in the west had to have their oil and use these nations for our own greedy devices. Oh, I'm fairly conservative, and a Republican at heart, but I'm not stupid enough to not realize this, and only a fool would deny the facts.

Also only a fool would think that Israel attacking Iran could end in any way except disastrous to the region, and in turn to all of us economically. At heart I'm a supporter of Israel and think the Iranians, at least their leadership and hard-line a-holes are a bunch of anti-Semitic lunatics. But, as someone stated we've faced these type lunatics before, and most often they self destruct by their own devices.

Iran with a nuclear weapon? Not what I would want to see. But hey, I don't think any of should have them. Why is it that only the West and our allies can have these things, but we get in all sorts of a twist of someone we deem as 'evil' has them? Hypocrisy? At its best. Oh, I know the arguments, that we are more responsible and more capable of keeping our arsenal safe and unused. Maybe. I tend to see nuclear power as a temporary and relatively dangerous 'stage' in development until future science finds proper and safe ways to better utilize the potentials (we're only 70 years on from really discovering the awesome potential - give it time). Using nuclear energy for weapons is madness. That we do, and then brow beat others into not doing it is not being responsible, but rather exercising a power that we as a nations do not and should not have. Rome was the world power and peace keeper; look where that got 'em. Perhaps if we put more money into developing a true cost-effective and workable oil alternative rather than spending the coffers on wars to keep the oil flowing we could tell Iran and the whole of the ME to sod off and go about living that Star Trek-ish utopian existence that liberals too often think can be achieved through Socialism or some other rubbish that has proven not to work because of human greed.

Jesus Christ, as an American, as a human being on planet Earth, I am so fricking tired of hearing about the ME and all of the problems that seem to emanate from that region that I would personally much rather become isolationist (as dangerous as that can be) and let them either blow each other up, or let them further devolve into chaps running about on camels as in 'happier' times. We in the evil west can move forward into broad sunlit uplands (borrowed that one!) while they can wallow in the insanity of their own perverted science - which seems to be the art of bickering, hatred, accusations and backwards thinking. Reasoning with clique-ish, clan-ish people further twisted by religious fervor that by its very nature blots out truth, realism and rationality is a losing endeavor.

Yes my friends, we caused it. But we cannot settle it. Time to walk away and go get a beer somewhere.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Problem is Iran is not Iraq. It can become a major problem in the middle east. The attack on Iran could produce dynamics that would push either or both sides to escalate the conflict even if neither had an interest or an initial intention to do so. Increase in Iranian civilian casualties could provoke Iran to step up its response. This becomes more likely as the scale of a U.S. attack increases. Downed U.S. aircrews could lead to search and rescue operations that could become significant military actions in their own right. The need to restrike targets that were missed or inadequately damaged could also prolong the conflict and involve additional forces. As the conflict developed, political pressures could press both antagonists to escalate the fighting.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Tigermobil:

" The whole middle-eastern 'issue' is like a bad joke that no one gets, but no one is allowed to leave the room until everyone laughs. All because we in the west had to have their oil "

FAIL. Afghanistan does not have oil, and neither does have Syria. Try again.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

WilliB

FAIL. Afghanistan does not have oil, and neither does have Syria. Try again.

Maybe you should tell that to the Chinese after all they are paying $700 million to tap Afghanistan's oil and gas reserves. And while its small Syrian oil earns Syria $3.2 billion a year.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@Tigermoth, you just expressed my sentiments exactly. It'd be great if just walking away worked.

We need the best brains in the world to get in a room and sort this out. It's just a matter of time, (imagine 20, 30, 50 years from now) and more and more countries will have the technology. Then it will be cashed up cults.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

yahukuni: We need the best brains in the world to get in a room and sort this out. It's just a matter of time, (imagine 20, 30, 50 years from now) and more and more countries will have the technology.

Yep. It's a race between the pace of technology vs. the pace of evolution.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Main thing is to get in the room with Iranians. Bush junior stopped talking to North Koreans, and they had their bomb soon after. It would be ridiculous not to learn from that.

But in all fairness: nuclear bomb have been used in war and against civilian population. But exactly how many times has this happened when the enemy also had the capability? War is like a beer: if you must have, better have a cold one instead of hot one. Israelis just want to keep war on their list of ways to interact with international community.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It's not very likely for the US or Iran to directly start a war. Neither side really wants it. The US economy is just starting to recover, the US public, but especially Democrats, don't really want another one, the Pentagon is nervous about the secondary problems that would be created by a war and the Iranians know that their military couldn't last very long in a fight and that their nation would suffer a lot of infrastructure damage. Since Iran doesn't have nukes yet, everyone would rather settle this with alternative means.

The problem is Israel - Israel is massively paranoid about Iran for good reason. They're not exactly on the best of terms with each other. Israel desperately wants to take military action against Iran, and it's been pressing for a U.S. invasion for over 6 years now, and the U.S. have been tiredly saying "No" to them ever since. For that matter, Saudi Arabia also wants the US to invade Iran, as do a lot of other Gulf States who hate their Persian neighbour (Arabs and Persians don't really like each other a whole lot). As much as Israel and Saudi Arabia dislike each other, I can absolutely imagine the Saudis allowing Israel to use their air-bases for a covert strike on Iran. The Saudis have said that if Iran gets a bomb, they'll get a bomb, and they'd rather avoid pouring in the expenses necessary to make and maintain nuclear weapons.

Israel have said that they are seriously considering a military strike on Iran this year, much like their strike on Iraq's nuclear reactor. Personally, I think any Israel military strike would be foolish - they could certainly bomb Iran to a limited extent (Iran's airforce isn't very scary), but they couldn't actually destroy the hardened, fortified structures under the ground - it would just piss off Iran, kill Iranian civilians and drive Iran to finish their nuclear project even faster. And on the off-chance the air-strike did work, think of how much radiation would be spread around!

I don't want Iran to get a bomb - but I honestly think that there are other ways to solve this problem. Even if Iran does get a nuclear weapon, Israel also has nukes and just needs to aim a few at Iran - if any nuclear attack goes of in Israel, the Israelis will make it clear that they'll nuke Iran no matter what, instantly. If the USA and the USSR could depend on the doctrine of MAD, why not Israel and Iran?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

gaijin techie:

" Main thing is to get in the room with Iranians. "

Obama has brown-nosing Ahmedinejad for 3 years now, and with what result exactly? Ahmedinejad wants to eliminate the "dirty bacteria" state of Israel. Israel does not like to be eliminated. How do you want to find a compromise between those positions?

" Israelis just want to keep war on their list of ways to interact with international community. "

Good grief. With its 6 million people squeezed on a tiny 10,000 sqkm, surrounded by huge hostile countries, the last thing Israel wants is war. Israel is under constant threats and attacks from its islamic enemies, and you blame the victim? Talk about an upside down world view.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sfjp330:

" I don't want Iran to get a bomb - but I honestly think that there are other ways to solve this problem. Even if Iran does get a nuclear weapon, Israel also has nukes and just needs to aim a few at Iran - if any nuclear attack goes of in Israel, the Israelis will make it clear that they'll nuke Iran no matter what, instantly. "

We have been through that argument many times. Iran´s mullas have addressed this very clearly: Tiny Israel is a "one nuke country".... one single nuke on Tel Aviv would make the country`s existance unfeasible. The huge islamic republic of Iran,on the other hand, could not only absorb several nuclear explosions, but is also perfectly willing to, if this is necessary in the path of the holy war agains the Jewish state.

So, this argument does not float at all. Why do people keep bringing it up?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If Israel has announced in advance that they are going to attack Iran, then there will be a reason for this announcement.

Israel did not announce announced their surprise attack on Iraq's Osirak nuclear facility in advance.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

nandakamanda:

" If Israel has announced in advance that they are going to attack Iran, "

Israels has not "announced that they are going to attack Iran". They are simply saying that Irans bomb program must be stopped. Which is something all of us have known ever since the Iran lies about their "peaceful" nuclear program were exposed by Iranian dissidents.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Willi, you may recall a recent article here:

http://www.japantoday.com/category/world/view/israels-iran-rhetoric-has-washington-on-edge

They have announced it in every way possible without using the actual words, it would seem. Does not sound as if they want to keep it a secret...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Maybe it's time for Iran to push for the United States to attack Israel. I believe that Israel may have a clandestine nuclear program. They could use their nuclear weapons against the west, if they decide they don't like the way we are treating them. They could also sell them to other rogue states, like they may well have done to South Africa.

Of course Israel just flouts UN resolutions that it join the non proliferation treaty, of which Iran is a signed up and abiding member. Yes, I think it is time for Iran to urge the United States to attack the potential terrorist nation of Israel, oh wait, they already practice terrorism, not sure what else you call the incineration of civilians, targeted killings and attacks on UN outposts...

israel is a nuclear armed rogue state, a failed state. They represent a real and present danger to world peace. It's time for America to step in and bring those boys to heel before they cause some real damage.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

I think Israel's "perception management" program is disintegrating in the harsh light of reality and they are becoming desperate. In truth they want what they want soon, before Obama gets a second term and does not have to worry about getting reelected. The real window of opportunity is not that Iran may have a bomb by the end of the year. That's not it at all.

Israel has really rubbed Obama's nose in the dirt, first with Netanyahu's incredibly rude lecturing of him when they met, and now with lining every major Israel donor up behind the repugs, who don't stand a snowball's chance in hell of being elected. They want chaos before they have a sworn enemy, which is exactly how Obama will treat them when he is reelected, in the White House next November.

These are extremely desperate and dangerous people we are dealing with, and I am not talking about the mullahs.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Of course Israel just flouts UN resolutions that it join the non proliferation treaty, of which Iran is a signed up and abiding member.

click I think I'll turn that one off early and head to bed. It's a rerun.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

WilliBFeb. 08, 2012 - 11:13AM JST. Tiny Israel is a "one nuke country".... one single nuke on Tel Aviv would make the country`s existance unfeasible. The huge islamic republic of Iran,on the other hand, could not only absorb several nuclear explosions, but is also perfectly willing to, if this is necessary in the path of the holy war agains the Jewish state. So, this argument does not float at all. Why do people keep bringing it up?

So what is your solution? You don't have any.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Israel have a nuclear bomb and not a party to the NPT, so is not obliged to report to it. Neither are India or Pakistan, both of which have developed nuclear weapons. The IAEA called on Israel to join the NPT and open its nuclear facilities to inspection. The resolution said that the IAEA expresses concern about the Israeli nuclear capabilities, and calls upon Israel to accede to the NPT and place all its nuclear facilities under comprehensive IAEA safeguards. Israel refuses to join the NPT or allow inspections. It is reckoned to have up to 400 warheads but refuses to confirm or deny this.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

FAIL. Afghanistan does not have oil, and neither does have Syria. Try again.

Hill Willy B you seem to not be able to see the forest despite the trees. If the oil is not directly present, it oozes somewhere close by under the surface. Why else do you think we spend so much of our time and political resources dealing with a region - and the stability of said region - which can only be linked to black gold. For no offense to them, but other than sand, dates and rugged and almost inhospitable countryside, what else would be the reason? The crusades are long done, and the thrill of tourism likely died off with those chaps offed by the pyramids in Egypt some years ago. There are political reasons of course, but most of it is linked to the primary resource of the region and the economics involved within.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not decrying the US, Britain or anyone else involved in the region as the 'evil west'. The oil sheiks have certainly made their fortunes and are more to blame than anyone. But you have to admit that our meddling in the region and the dependence upon their oil has created a nightmare that is of our own making.

Get rid of our oil dependence. Build cars that run on something else, but are decent, not so damned expensive and not the dreadful hippie mobiles that are currently out there. Of course the rich oil folks could not allow that; it might just be our demise, but the almighty dollar is too great of a draw. Wouldn't you love for the US to be able to tell OPEC to f___ off and not have the cost of your vacation drive to be determined by some jackass in Saudi Arabia? Instead of drilling for more in Alaska or off shore - which I would have no major problem with really - why not move into a new modern era where the old gasoline engine is as archaic as it should have been a long time ago? Instead of towing the conservative or liberal line to argue points it's time for folks to start actually start thinking for themselves and actually using their brains.

As for Iran vs Israel, I think if left to their own devices the Israeli army would make short work of Iran, even without nukes.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Of course every other middle eastern country fears Israel. They are nuclear capable. They already attacked Palestine civilians to make Israel a larger state by stealing more Palestinian territory in the Gaza strip by bulldozing Palestinian farms and building apartments there without compensating the people. If they resist they are met with tanks and guns. Now Israel is scared of Iran because they may become nuclear capable. Israel has a history of striking first - The six day war in 1967 is one of the shortest the World has seen. On the morning hour of 5th of June, the Egyptian air force was destroyed on the airfields in Egypt it self and Israel declared itself a state. Iran sides with Palestine. They want Israel to go back to the land agreement of 1967. But Israel wants to take all of Palestine so they can be a doorway for western oil companies to the middle east. If WW3 starts it will be due to the Israelis.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

I'm American... I'm no fan of Israel thats for sure. Israel's inordinate influence in American politics and media has always bothered me. However, on this issue I would at this point have to side with Israel and I believe taking out any Iran ability to produce a nuclear weapon as necessary. Like was mentioned on an earlier post... Israel is a one bomb country. One bomb could end Israel altogether. Can the Israelis afftord to let Iran have a bomb.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

WurthingtonFeb. 09, 2012 - 09:38AM JST. I would at this point have to side with Israel and I believe taking out any Iran ability to produce a nuclear weapon as necessary. Like was mentioned on an earlier post... Israel is a one bomb country. One bomb could end Israel altogether. Can the Israelis afftord to let Iran have a bomb.

Then what is your plan? Even the very ability of Israel's military to the decisive strike are doubtful. Most likely, the Iranians have dispersed their nuclear program at multiple sites, some of which are hidden underground. That makes a repeat performance of the clean and decisive blow against Iran almost impossible. The task of locating all of Iran's nuclear targets requires a high degree of intelligence and risk. A hit-and-run preemptive attack can't guarantee much success.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@sfjp330: About a month ago an Iranian Nuclear Physicist I believe it was, was car bombed inside of Iran. The Israeli's were, without a doubt behind it. The bomb was placed on the car by a person on a motorcycle running alongside the car. My point is... if the Israelis are following these people and targeting them then I would have to believe they also know where the "secret" location of any Nuclear facility might be in Iran.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Wurthington, the guy got killed along with the secuity person on the car was described as mid-level scientist. Even if you take out one, there are another 399 scientist left. Point is, other than pyscological impact on the remaining workers, very little or no impact on slowing the objectives of Iranians. Then what's next?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

YuriOtani, I agree 100%. Diplomacy has been tried. Iran was given a chance. No nation can be allowed to develop nuclear weapons., We must secure world peace. If Iran will not stop, nothing short of total annihilation of the country will do. This is the only way other nations will see the devastating consequence of developing nuclear weapons. We must make the planet free of these horrible weapons.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

@sfJP: The number of scientists is not the major factor... the number of facilities, as you said, is. Now, being that they are trying to develop a Nuclear Bomb and that this is absolutely Priority Number One for Israel to stop them. These guys are being followed and their facilities will be known. Do not underestimate Israels resolve and resources in this matter. The USA is doing everything it can to pressure Iran to act first so we can anniliate them but they won't take the bait. We won't send in many ground troops... just various teams of seals along with Israeli teams to locate any Nuclear related resources in Iran and neutralize them. All during this we take out Iran's capability to wage any meaningful war by targeting any weapons. Ahhh.... somedays I wish I were still in the Military.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

WurthingtonFeb. 09, 2012 - 11:22AM JST. We won't send in many ground troops...

Are you sure? Better give those ground troops some more training. They haven't had a considerable challange since Vietnam war. For if they try rolling into Iran as they did in Iraq, they'll turned to disaster.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

They already attacked Palestine civilians to make Israel a larger state

No, Israel was attacked and responded. Iran should learn a lesson from this and stop playing with matches.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

What's next is most likely continued sanctions and pressure with the ultimate goal of stripping the Iranian government with the ability to function financially. The measures have been set in motion but the harshest ones have not. More scientists will probably be killed. More pressure will be placed on Syria in order to remove an Iranian ally from the region. At that point Iran can either return to the negotiating table and agree to handle their nuclear program in a transparent way, or they could go nuclear. If they go nuclear you're going to see many more countries publicly speaking out about Iran at which point they become even more isolated.

If a shooting was does start it will begin with cyber warfare, and Iran will most likely start with terrorism. That's to say the boots on the ground are a long ways off, if they are even needed at all.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@sjpf330: I'm sure... like the first Gulf War. Knock them back a couple of decades and sail away.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

SuperLib:

" What's next is most likely continued sanctions and pressure with the ultimate goal of stripping the Iranian government with the ability to function financially. "

That train has left the station long ago. Sanctions have been tried for years, and have not worked. The Ayathollas are determined to stay in power, and a steady indoctrination of the Iranian youth makes sure they do.

It boils down to this: Israel would be willing to take out iran`s nuclear bomb facilities, but does not have the capacity. Obamas US has the capacity but not the will to do it.

So, the radical islamic republic of Iran will have a nuclear bomb plus delivery vehicles in the near future. Get used to it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

peanut666:

" They already attacked Palestine civilians to make Israel a larger state by stealing more Palestinian territory in the Gaza strip by bulldozing Palestinian farms and building apartments there without compensating the people. "

Check your facts. Israel vacated the Gazah strip 10 years ago, forcibly removing all Jewish settlements and villages there, some of them dating back thousands of years. The only farms in the Gaza strip that were bulldozed were Jewish one. Todays Jewish population in Gaza is 0 (zero). Count em. Israel did this, hoping to get peace. Instead they got Hamas and more rocket attacks.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

WilliB

The conflict is not "Arab" vs Jews, it is muslim vs. Jews.

Christian Arabs have no beef with the Jews, And Iranians are not Arabs. The hatred against the Jewish state is an islamic issue, not an ethnic one.

Thanks for saying that. So many people fail to understand History and what's really going on.

Arabs and Perse (Iranian people) are two groups of people and they are normaly not muslims. They were Pagans, Christians and even Jews before the muslims conquest their lands from Arabia and forced them to convert to Islam.

The hatred against the Jew is a command from Mohamet himself. He was a war criminal and killed many Jew (and Christians) in his lifetime.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

@Stormsilver - that is not quite correct. Muhammad states death to invaders and infidels not Jews. That is why Iran (Persia) and most Arab states are against Israel - not Jews. The lands and people of Israel existed peacefully within Palestine. The war of 1967 was started by Israeli extremists and stole lands from the Palestinians and declared it their own country. It did not stop there, Israel expanded it's territory by bulldozing thousands of Palestinian farms and took the land by force. That is why every country in the middle east hates Israel. How do I know? I'm Jewish!

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Be it Iran or Israel ... both countries shouldn't provoke each into a corner to engage into a war ! To be frank ... Iran, surrounded by her Muslim Brothers yet, can't even live in harmony with each other ... Why ... !? I'm not a good judge for characters but dare say ... ' MOST Muslim ' are egoistic ' and ' trouble-makers ' . They immigrate elsewhere to have a better life but they don't wish to change ... As ... ' When In Rome Do As The Romans Do ' ! If they so wish to hold onto their customs and cultures that badly then stay put and have a wonderful and fruitful lives ! The Jews for that matter ... are not for pushover either ... BIG BROTHER is always keeping an eye over her !

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Alec, Iran is mostly of the Shiite persuasion, which is not recognized as true Islam by the Sunnis who control many of the countries around about there. Iran sees herself as the people's champion and would like to go in and undermine other states, reaping status and gratitude in return. Well, that's how she sees it, even if others do not.

Stormsilver, agreed there are some shocking passages in the Qu'ran, but there are just as many, if not more, that quote Allah speaking clearly and strongly through Muhammad saying that Christian and Jewish true believers must NOT be killed. (As peanut666 says above.) Sadly there are those who would one-sidedly 'interpret' the Qu'ran to justify their own murderous political agenda, above the true word of Allah... their religion is so perfect in every detail that it has shut out even merciful Allah himself.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Interestingly, massed crowds in peaceful Iran have been shouting "Death to America!" and "Death to Israel!" for how many years now?

And remind me how many times such crowds have shouted "Death to Iran!" in which countries exactly? None? Correct.

Now, who is hostile again?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

You know something that one one seems to ever figure into the equation of an Israeli attack on Iran is the response of major powers like Russia and China, which are both supporters of Iran. Russia and China prevented a US attack on Syria recently, by using their veto powers in the UN. One thing you guys need to understand is that the US and Israel use agent provocateurs in Syria, Libya, Iran and many other points east to stir the pot.

China and Russia which are not US satellite states can understand this. Many Europeans, Japanese and obviously Americans have no clue about any of this. So when people start making generalizations about Muslims, or about who does what and when and why, it is very often from a seriously under informed standpoint.

In any case, the real question is what will the Israelis do? They have already proved themselves over and over again to be fully capable of murdering women and children in their beds, as in Gaza and Lebanon. They are proven war criminals and would be answering at the Hague if it was not for a bought and paid for US congress, which which only wants to know how high when ordered to jump by Benjamin Netanyahu or whichever other fat oaf is in charge at the Knesset.

Luckily for Iran, which I will admit is in already locked in a low level conflict with Israel, and has been at the top of the Usraeli hit list for some time now, this is not 2003. We don't have the smirking chimp in the oval officer and Russia and China are much more firm in their opposition to reckless American militaristic adventures.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Alec Hue:

" Be it Iran or Israel ... both countries shouldn't provoke each into a corner to engage into a war ! "

No. There is no equivalency there. Israel has never threatened Iran. Israel simply wants to exist. Iran on the other hand has been constantly threatened Israel ever since the islamic takeover. There is no balance there. Only Iran wants to wipe out Israel and kill its people, not the other way around.

" To be frank ... Iran, surrounded by her Muslim Brothers yet, can't even live in harmony with each other ... Why ... !? "

Because the Iran is a Shiite country, and the neighbouring Arab countries are Sunni. Two different branches of islam, who regard each other as heretics. Were you unaware of that?

" I'm not a good judge for characters but dare say ... ' MOST Muslim ' are egoistic ' and ' trouble-makers ' "

No. "Most muslims" are simply people with no particular issues. Islamic doctrine, however, wants to dominate the world, and islamist radicals want to submit the world under Sharia rule. Unfortunately, such islamist fanatics are governing Iran, and soon they will have nuclear weapons.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

We need to reduce the price of Oil to $20 a barrel... then countries like Russia and Iran won't have a dime to even wage war. In order to make money... like the rest of us they'll have to work and become interdependent on each other's economies.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

the whole world is guilty if war begins.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Look at a map guys! It's simple. How big is Israel? How many people live there? is it a democracy?

Now look at all the land owned by Muslim countries, how many people live there, and look at the type of govts and freedoms they have, and also count the number of times leaders say idiotic hateful things against Israel, and how many times mindless mobs get together to shout death to Israel etc. Do you think it's fun living around people who want you wiped off the face of the earth and think the holocaust was a lie and 9/11 was an inside job. It's insanity.

It's very simple. Israel is a light shining in the midst of darkness. Shalom.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Yasukuni:

Correct. As much as the haters ridicule the statement, it is a simpe fact: Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East.

And the opposition against Israels existence has nothing to do with "land", it is the radical muslim opposition to the existence of a state in the middle East where Jews are free and do not live as oppressed second class "dhimmi".

I suppose most have forgotten the Iran that existed before Ayatollha Khomei´s islamic revolution.... under the non-religious, secular regime of the Shah, Iran was in fact an ally of Israel, not its lethal enemy.

The hatred against Israel was introduced in Iran by Khomeini and the other mullahs.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

yasukni & WiilB - I agree with you & I support Israel.

May God bless Israel & those supporting Israel.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Wurthington:

" We need to reduce the price of Oil to $20 a barrel "

Alas, impossible. There is not enough of the stuff left, and the Middle Eastern countries are sitting on most of what is left. What we really need is a "Manhattan project" type of highest-priority research orogram to find viable energy alternatives. (And no, cute windmills are not it.)

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites