world

Iran Revolutionary Guards chief warns Israel

129 Comments

The chief of Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards has issued a new warning against Israel not to attack it, saying the Jewish state is well within range of its missiles, a newspaper reported on Saturday.

"This country (Israel) is completely within the range of the Islamic republic's missiles. Our missile power and capability are such that the Zionist regime -- despite all its abilities -- cannot confront it," General Mohammad Ali Jafari told the conservative daily Jam-e Jam.

"There is the possibility that by attacking Iranian nuclear sites the enemy wants to delay our nuclear activities, but any interruption would be very short since Iranian scientific ability is different from that of Syria and Iraq."

His comments came after U.S. media reported that more than 100 Israeli warplanes staged a training exercise with Greece earlier this month to prepare for a possible long-distance strike and as a warning to Tehran.

Iran has defied U.N. sanctions and international demands by pressing ahead with its disputed uranium enrichment program, which both Washington and Israel fear would be used to build a nuclear weapon.

Tehran denies wanting the bomb, and says its nuclear ambitions extend only to generating electricity for a growing population.

Parliamentary speaker Ali Larijani, formerly Iran's chief nuclear negotiator, weighed in on Saturday and said the country was ready for anything.

"Iran is always ready for any kind of action," Larijani was quoted as saying by the semi-official Fars news agency.

Israeli Infrastructure Minister Benjamin Ben-Eliezer, a former defense chief, said in an interview published in the Russian press on Wednesday that Iran would be "annihilated" if it tried to attack Israel.

But, he said, "we are not planning any attack against Iran."

Meanwhile, the chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Michael Mullen, discussed Iran in Israel on Saturday with his counterpart, General Gaby Ashkenazi, Israeli military radio reported.

The talks came amid speculation that Israel is seeking Washington's tacit approval to strike Tehran's nuclear program, but the Pentagon said earlier this week that the meeting had been scheduled for some months.

The pair also discussed Israel's peace talks with the Palestinians and with Syria, army radio said, while public radio added that Mullen had also met Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak.

Last Sunday Iran's defense minister dismissed the reports that Israel had conducted a dry run for air strikes against its nuclear drive as "psychological operations," but warned of a limitless response to an attack.

"Iran will not begin any conflict but will punish any aggressor with force. With determination and using all the options -- without limit in time and space -- we will give a destructive response to any hostile action," Mostafa Mohammad Najar said.

General Jafari also warned that Iran could wreak havoc with the support of anti-Israeli militant groups Hamas and Hezbollah.

"Revolutionary Muslims, whether Shiite or Sunni, see the U.S. and Israel attack against Islamic Iran as an attack on the Islamic world and thus defense will be on their mind without a doubt," he told the daily.

Iran maintains that its support for Hamas and Hezbollah is moral and has repeatedly denied supplying them with arms. Israel and United States consider both to be terrorist groups.

Iran, number two in the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), has said that using oil as weapon is not on its agenda -- but has also not ruled it out.

"It is natural that when a country is attacked it uses all of its capabilities against the enemy, and definitely our control of the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz would be one of our actions," Jafari said.

The strait is a vital conduit for energy supplies, with about 20-25% of the world's crude oil from Gulf oil producers passing through the waterway.

"Certainly if there is fighting... the scope will be extended to oil, meaning its price will increase drastically. This will deter our enemies from taking action against Iran."

© AFP

©2022 GPlusMedia Inc.

129 Comments
Login to comment

Anyone who supports an attack of any kind on Iran needs to realize that such an attack would cause oil prices to spike again (as Iran would restrict or stop oil traffic in the Straight of Homuz), probably by a significant margin, which could well burn out a large portion of the middle class in their own countries, not to mention others - including your own families.

Thousands more companies in the developed world would hit the wall, thousands, probably millions more people in third world countries would face death as the rocketing fuel prices pushed up the prices of their staple foods they need to survive, and millions of Americans, British, Canadians, Japanese, Australians, Europeans, etc. would face significant hardship as high pressure inflation pushed up commodity prices even further. And with wages likely to remanin flat due to intense pressure on businesses to keep payrolls under control in the face of soaring costs, we would likely see greatly reduced spending power, national growth rates going south and recessions breaking out everywhere.

The very likely result of an attack on Iraq would be a deep global recession, millions of job layoffs, spiking inflation and costs of almost everything, massive turmoil in the financial markets and a lot of intercountry instability, which could well fuel terrorism.

Does anyone still think an attack on Iran is a good idea?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Is the post at 11:11am someone's opinion or the full quote from the 'chief' of Iran's terrorist-training Revolutionary Guards on this issue?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

RedMeat - bomb Iran and you put the final nail in the coffin of the U.S. economy and very likely the global economy.

Still wanna attack Iran?

In answer to your question, my above post is a summation of thinking of many Western financial analysts, not from the 'chief' of Iran's terrorist-training Revolutionary Guards.

Are you prepared to delude yourself even further on this issue?

One would hope not.

Oh, and RedMeat - just so I don't need to tell you after the fact - an attack on Iran would be a godsend for terrorists and terrorism everywhere, as has been conclusively proven by the attack on Iraq.

Which means that if you support an attack, you will automatically be partially responsible for the subsequent increase in terrorism and terrorist attacks everywhere.

Which will mean even more government spending on defence, and even less government spending on schools for your kids, social security for you and your parents, and healthcare for your family.

Still think an attack on Iran is a good idea?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Red - It's both!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

RedMeat and Sarge - we should probably call both of you 'Fact Free' posters since you never have any facts to back up your claims.

Why not? Is it because you both hardly ever have a case?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Is the post at 11:11am someone's opinion or the full quote from the 'chief' of Iran's terrorist-training Revolutionary Guards on this issue?

Ouch.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SushiSake:

" RedMeat - bomb Iran and you put the final nail in the coffin of the U.S. economy and very likely the global economy. "

Probably. But don`t bomb Iran, and a nuclear-armed Iran will nuke Israel and carry out the promised "real holocaust" within the decade. So, which do you prefer?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Isreal says, "I have the "BOMB" and I will kill you if you want one too.

Iran, hey dirtbag, we don't want the "BOMB", we just want n uclear energy.

John McCain, Iran is a threat and we should "BOMB BOMB IRAN."

Obama, I'll talk to Iran even if the rest of you want a war with Iran.

The IAEA: Iran has shown that they are not producing the "BOMB."

Silently Isreal is saying, The United States wants us to attack Iran for them before george bush gets out of office and then we'll get some more checks. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sushi, you are assumning that the behavior of these factions is rational. AS the last 2,000 years have proved, results have lacked this. Short of suicidal, both sides will keep pushing, until some space cadet pushes the wrong button. Let's hope nobody has to suffer the consequences of this brinksmanship.

by the way, there's no way Iran can block the strait of Hormuz. they would have to use their own nuclear weapons to contaminate it, and even then, radioactive fallout would proably affect them more. any other potential scenarios out there?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sushi:

bomb Iran and you put the final nail in the coffin of the U.S. economy

This is the same gloom and doom prediction we heard before the gulf wars in Iraq and it never happened. If Israel bombs Iran's nuclear program, which it should, there's no questions there will consequences. There will be retaliatory missile strikes by Iran, but these will be with conventional warheads. And oil prices may very well go up which may hurt in the short run, but help in the long run by encouraging alternative energy sources to fossil fuels.

But this is nothing compared the consequences of Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon and nuking Israel or Europe or even the US. The nuclear retaliatory strikes for such an action would literally level the Middle East. Keep in mind Israel alone has an estimated 200+ nuclear warheads There would be a nuclear holocaust. So now we're not talking about a global recession, but a global economic collapse. So although destroying Iran's nuclear facilities now has its consequences, the consequences of not destroying them could be magnitudes worse.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Iran wants nuclear power, not a nuclear bomb, and yet, Bush's war happy govt wants to enter into a war because Iran wants to build a few nuclear power stations, which Bush extrapolates to mean they want the bomb. So, once again, without proof, why not go ahead and start another war just based on public scare tactics.

I am always amazed at the crap that the Bush administration can get away with. I really hope that American's have some spark of intelligence and vote Obama in. He is at least willing to talk to Iran.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Iran wants nuclear power, not a nuclear bomb

You mean there are actually people who believe this?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Adaydream:

" Isreal says, "I have the "BOMB" and I will kill you if you want one too. "

No. Israel keeps it an open secret that it has the bomb to deter possible attackers. Israel has never called a neighbouring state an "illegal entity" or a "dirty bacteria" which must be "wiped off the map".

In the event, it is not at all sure that Israel would respond with nuclear bombs if nuked by Iran. It is sure that Ahmedinejad would use his nuclear weapons against Israel, he has promised the same often enough.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Pepingalaga:

" by the way, there's no way Iran can block the strait of Hormuz. "

Take a look at the map. Even if some oil tankers slip through under heavy protection -- Iran`s threat to attack shipping alone would be enough to drive prices through the roof. And that is enough send the world into depression.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

WilliB - exactly exactly - this is what the bomb Iran proponents don't seem to realize.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

“It is natural that when a country is attacked it uses all of its capabilities against the enemy, and definitely our control of the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz would be one of our actions,” Jafari said.

Ain't gonna happen. OPEC and the Arab league wouldn't allow it and Iran would be in a state of war with her Arab neighbors in a heartbeat. The west wouldn't even have to get involved, though they would eventually to support the Arab neighbors in finishing of the regime in Iran. If anyone thinks the Arab nations would sit by while Iran cut off the only source of income they have is as delusional as this General is as far as his threat to use the oil weapon. Use it and the present regime in Iran is finished. Dumb statement from a country that issues lot's of em and then wonders why they can't be trusted.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

WilliB - There is a lot of difference between calling names and making accusations and actually attacking.

We've been calling Iran names like "Axis of terror" and John McCain and his imfamous "Bomb Bomb Iran". Their rheteric is no worse than ours, but Isreal is now readying to attack.

Iran has made it very clear that if Isreal attacks, Isreal will pay the price. If Isreal attacks, nuclear weapons may well be on the table.

We buy Iranian oil. Maybe not directly from Iran because they refuse to take US dollars. If Isreal attacks Iran, forget about their oil.

Isreal attacking Iran could be the worst thing that could happen to the US. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Two weeks ago Iran withdrew 75 billion dollars in assets kept in foreign banks, fearing sanctions by the governments these banks area accountable to would result in funds being frozen or blocked.

They were European banks.

http://www.reuters.com/article/companyNewsAndPR/idUSDAH63024720080616

Some of us come here with facts. Others come with silly little emoticons, or assertions which are the intellectual equivalent thereof.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

And Iran just found more oil.

http://in.reuters.com/article/email/idINIndia-34272220080628

I guess this is a great time to attack.

That's why we attacked, for oil. Might as well have Isreal attack Iran for us this time. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The Iranians are a totally different proposition to, for example, Saddam Hussein and Iraq. The Iranians are organised, the country is supportive of it's leadership, they have a large defence budget supported by it's massive oil revenues (and therefore decent armed forces) and they have already shown their defensive abilities with recent captures of western forces straying into their territory.

Israel is responsible for a lot of conflict around the world and their attitude to war borders on neglect. I totally side with the Israelis when they are attacked by Arabic terrorists and their recent history and what Israel has suffered over the years is appalling. But they have no interest in human relations or peaceful negotiation.

Israel needs to cool it's boots and the west needs to stop using Israel as it's pit bull terrier. This is one conflict that the world definitely does not need to go out of control.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sailwind:

" Ain't gonna happen. OPEC and the Arab league wouldn't allow it and Iran would be in a state of war with her Arab neighbors "

No. The Arab countries are great at financing madarassas and producing jihadists, but they are not a match for Iran`s military. Not even close.

Daydream:

" There is a lot of difference between calling names and making accusations and actually attacking. "

Yes, there is. When Iran`s mullahs talk about removing Israel from the face of the earth, they are absolutely serious about it. The removal of the Jewish state is a religious duty for them. And they are quite willing accept any mayhem that may result, in fact they welcome it because it hastens the return of the 12th imam. That is entirely different from some US president with a 4-year election cycle saying soundbytes.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

northlondon - "the country is supportive of its leadership"

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Are you kidding? The average Iranian despises Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, but there's not much they can do about it, because, unlike the Iraqis now, they have no free election processes.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So, if I follow the synopsis of the drama, a nuclear-armed Iran will stage a radioactive holocaust for Israel's benefit. (Watch for the scene with the high-kicking mullahs!) Now this is where I start to get confused. After it does that--and, mind you, it will have had plenty of time to think about it--what exactly will it do in the second act?

Methinks there's a plot hole here.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sarge,

That is simply false.

The Iranians have a free election process. In the most recent elections, the electorate largely expressed its disapproval of Ahmadinejad's government.

The United States also has a free election process. But even with Bush's popularity at or around the 30% mark, there hasn't been much we could do about that.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"The Iranians have a free election process. In the most recent elections, the electorate largely expressed its disapproval of Ahmadinejad's government."

Iran does not have a free election process. Candidates are screened by the mullahs.

Again, it is amazing how ignorant JT critics of America's Mid East policy are about some of the most basic facts.

"Candidates in Iran are screened for loyalty" By Nazila Fathi Published: March 5, 2008 http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/03/05/europe/iran.php

"Potential candidates are screened by the conservative-dominated Council of Guardians, who can disqualify those it deems unacceptable." http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3441601.stm

'Because the Interior Ministry and the Council of Guardians, a sort of Iranian constitutional court, refused to approve a third of all applicants as candidates, the conservatives are running unopposed in some districts in the country. "The mass exclusion clearly shows that the election organizers want to keep the ruling group in power," says Sayed Madani. His group, the National Religious Alliance, is boycotting the election, calling it "unfair." ' http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,541452,00.html

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sezwho:

" So, if I follow the synopsis of the drama, a nuclear-armed Iran will stage a radioactive holocaust for Israel's benefit. "

No, for its own benefit. The destruction of the Jewish state is a deed that greatly pleases Allah, and in ensuing mayhem, the 12th imam will coming out of hiding.

In order to understand Iranian politics, you really need to read up on Shiite doctrine. If you see the politics of the islamic republic through Hollywood eyes, you understand diddlysquat. (Which alas describes most Western politicians, opinion makers, and website contributors.)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sez - If "in the most recent elections, the ( Iranian ) electorate largely expressed its disapproval of Ahmadinejad's government," then why the hell is the Ahmadinejad government still in power?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Are you kidding? The average Iranian despises Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, but there's not much they can do about it, because, unlike the Iraqis now, they have no free election processes.

Sarge,

I am not kidding. My mother is Iranian and I still have family there. Even though I was born in England and I myself am English, because of my family background I probably do know a whole lot more than the average punter interested in Anglo-Iranian affairs. And whilst there are plenty of Iranians (namely the more liberal students and young Iranian women) who do not like Ahmadinejad, the vast majority of the electorate still support the current Islamic state and that means voting for whoever is put in place (Ahmadinejad) by the Islamic state. It was that very same vast majority who overthrew the Shah and created their new state.

As for the comment about the Iraqi's having a free election process, that comment is open to debate. Especially as the current Iraqi election process was paved by the US government and enforced by the US military (in other words, not very 'free').

0 ( +0 / -0 )

northlondon - You may be right about the majority of the electorate in Iran supporting the Islamic state, but that's because they're basically brainwashed by these Mullahs. They don't know much about what's going on in the rest of the world. They're taught that Israel is evil, Bush is evil, blah blah blah... virtually everyone is forced to follow Islam... what a nightmare of a country. What family do you have there? Your mom's in England, right?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The world really doesn't need any more wars caused by the lies and propaganda made up by the Sarge's and RedMeat's of this world.

What Sarge and RedMeat haven't yet told us is why they so strongly believe Iran has a nuclear weapons program when 16 of their own country's top intel agencies concluded only last year did not exist.

What makes the Sarge's and RedMeat's so sure they are right and the CIA, and the Pentagon are wrong?

Do the Sarge's and RedMeat's of this world understand that any attack on Iran is very likely to trigger a global recession? Do the Sarge's and RedMeat's of this world have even a basic understanding of how the basic economics would play out and cripple their nation?

Clearly not.

What the Sarge's and RedMeat's of this world need to remain credible is a dangerous cocktail of constant fear, made up 'facts' and ignorance.

John McCain, a man who has already admitted he is not strong on economics, through his 'Bomb Iran' song, has made very, very clear why he is totally unfit to be America's next C-in-C.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Something else the Unthinking Radical Right don't seem to understand is that pressuring Iran gives Iran even more reason to want to kick off a nuke program. Which the Government of the Unthinking Radical Right concluded only last year didn't exist.

Meanwhile, the armchair warrior chickenhawks who make up the ranks of the Unthinking Radical Right, most of whom have never been - and are too gutless to go within a 1,000 miles of a front line, seem to think they know better.

It gets more hilarious by the hour :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Ahmadinejad is not the head of Iran! I wish for once some you you hate filled ignorant war mongers would realize he is a figurehead of sorts and everything he says is as reliable as a Bill O'Reilly rant. Anyway, I don't think Israel will attack Iran because Israel cannot sustain any sort of war against Iran; it would just be a minor set back.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sarge, the revolution overthrew the Shah because the rich got richer and the average working classes got poorer and neglected (my mum's family is related to the Shah's side and most of them escaped to the US with their millions in assets and properties). We all get brainwashed Sarge. You get brainwashed by Bush's rhetoric (that protects his family's Texan oil interests), the Iranians get brainwashed by the mullah's (although nowhere near as badly as the young kids getting brainwashed in western mosques and schools of Islam) and the Brits got brainwashed by Blair. Yep, my mum went to London to study and met my dad and that was that. My aunt and uncle stayed after the revolution because he is a senior physician and they paid him to stay and help during the Iran-Iraq war. Iranians nowadays don't need to be taught that the west is evil. They know their own tragic history and how the British and the American governments have played with them and meddled in their affairs for decades. A lot of Iranians may dislike Ahmadinejad, but they trust him a whole lot more than any western propaganda.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Heck, Israel's attack on Lebannon last year was such a dismal failure the head of the Israeli Army was fired.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sarge - "You may be right about the majority of the electorate in Iran supporting the Islamic state, but that's because they're basically brainwashed by these Mullahs. They don't know much about what's going on in the rest of the world."

ROFL!!!! ha ha ha ha, that is soooo funny coming from someone like yourself who has basically been brainwashed by these Neocons and who doesn't know much about what's going on in the rest of the world.

ha ha ha, I need a break, that's so funny, almost crying with laughter. :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Do the Sushis of this world understand that sticking one's head in the sand and allowing Iran to acquire nuclear weapons is very likely to trigger another war in the ME and possibly a global recession?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sushi - I notice you didn't refute what I said about the Iranian electorate and the Mullahs.

"I need a break"

Take as long as you need.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Despite the position where I stand (which is a whole lot more neutral than you may think), I don't think everyone should jump on sarge. Remember, it was the Iranians who stormed the US Embassy and took American hostages during their revolution and that was not on. That is against all international law. It was also the Iranian president who made that comment about obliterating Israel. And that is despicable. Even though everyone knows my thoughts (and not very pleasant thoughts) on George W and my Iranian family background, there are two sides to this argument.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sarge - "Sushi - I notice you didn't refute what I said about the Iranian electorate and the Mullahs."

What did you say about it?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sarge - "Do the Sushis of this world understand that sticking one's head in the sand and allowing Iran to acquire nuclear weapons is very likely to trigger another war in the ME and possibly a global recession?"

Sarge, your own government has concluded Iran is 5-10 years away from building a bomb, then they need a delivery system.

An attack on Iran before the worst U.S. president in U.S. history leaves office in Janauary would trigger a global recession far sooner than that.

Making stuff up won't help your fading credibility..

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sushi, If you going to accuse others of twisting, lies and propaganda you might want to be a little more careful on how you do the same thing.

What Sarge and RedMeat haven't yet told us is why they so strongly believe Iran has a nuclear weapons program when 16 of their own country's top intel agencies concluded only last year did not exist.

Not true the NIE concluded that Iran had a robust and secret nuclear weapons program directly under the guidance of the central Government and only stopped it under international pressure after they were caught with their pants down in 2003. Direct from the report your sighting as somehow saying Iran never was after getting a nuke.

A. We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program1; we also assess with moderate-to-high confidence that Tehran at a minimum is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons. We judge with high confidence that the halt, and Tehran’s announcement of its decision to suspend its declared uranium enrichment program and sign an Additional Protocol to its Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Safeguards Agreement, was directed primarily in response to increasing international scrutiny and pressure resulting from exposure of Iran’s previously undeclared nuclear work. • We assess with high confidence that until fall 2003, Iranian military entities were working under government direction to develop nuclear weapons. • We judge with high confidence that the halt lasted at least several years. (Because of intelligence gaps discussed elsewhere in this Estimate, however, DOE and the NIC assess with only moderate confidence that the halt to those activities represents a halt to Iran's entire nuclear weapons program.) • We assess with moderate confidence Tehran had not restarted its nuclear weapons program as of mid-2007, but we do not know whether it currently intends to develop nuclear weapons.

Also Sushi, this from the report that should give everyone pause.

• Our assessment that Iran halted the program in 2003 primarily in response to international pressure indicates Tehran’s decisions are guided by a cost-benefit approach rather than a rush to a weapon irrespective of the political, economic, and military costs. This, in turn, suggests that some combination of threats of intensified international scrutiny and pressures, along with opportunities for Iran to achieve its security, prestige, and goals for regional influence in other ways, might—if perceived by Iran’s leaders as credible—prompt Tehran to extend the current halt to its nuclear weapons program. It is difficult to specify what such a combination might be. • We assess with moderate confidence that convincing the Iranian leadership to forgo the eventual development of nuclear weapons will be difficult given the linkage many within the leadership probably see between nuclear weapons development and Iran’s key national security and foreign policy objectives, and given Iran’s considerable effort from at least the late 1980s to 2003 to develop such weapons. In our judgment, only an Iranian political decision to abandon a nuclear weapons objective would plausibly keep Iran from eventually producing nuclear weapons—and such a decision is inherently reversible.

In other words they are so far along with their program that if they wanted one nothing is going to stop them from getting one, and they lied for years to get this far to the international community to get to this point, and since they did that and that is undeniable you still think we should give them the benefit of the doubt now? Maybe in your world not in mine.

The report in it's entirety.

http://www.dni.gov/press_releases/20071203_release.pdf

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Wow, that was a long article from sailwind ! Now, can anyone explain to me why nations such as the US, China, Pakistan and Israel are allowed to possess nuclear weapons ? Maybe you can explain the reasons why in your world, but how about in mine ?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sailwind, even your own Generals think an attack on Iran is crazy.

US generals ‘will quit’ if Bush orders Iran attack

The Sunday Times February 25, 2007

SOME of America’s most senior military commanders are prepared to resign if the White House orders a military strike against Iran, according to highly placed defence and intelligence sources.

Tension in the Gulf region has raised fears that an attack on Iran is becoming increasingly likely before President George Bush leaves office. The Sunday Times has learnt that up to five generals and admirals are willing to resign rather than approve what they consider would be a reckless attack.

“There are four or five generals and admirals we know of who would resign if Bush ordered an attack on Iran,” a source with close ties to British intelligence said. “There is simply no stomach for it in the Pentagon, and a lot of people question whether such an attack would be effective or even possible.”

More: www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1434540.ece

Sailwind, do you also fail to see how any attack on Iran would very likely to trigger a global recession, which would come back and bite you and your family and friends, not to mention millions of others worldwide, in the arse??

We don't need any more war mongering - the invasion of Iraq was a dumb enough mistake without another attack being launched on Iran.

Also, Sailwind, should there be an attack on Iran, how high do you reckon oil prices would go?

$6/gallon? $7/gallon? $8/gallon?

How many Americans do you know could afford that, let alone the massive spike in the cost of everything you and your family buy?

An attack on Iran would see the end of the current economic state of the world as we know it, and could well wipe out the middle class in many countries.

Wish for an attack on Iran at your peril, but I know you are more intelligent than that - and I just wish some of your war mongering countrymen had the level of wisdom and intellect that you do.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

They aren't "allowed" to maintain nuclear weapons, but rather for the most part they are the world's strongest and most influential nations (US, China, Russia, France, Great Britain, India) and no one can really tell them what to do (that statement in no way condones their possession of nuclear weapons). In Israel's case, Israel hasn't officially confirmed having them (I'm sure they do), but also the West is more reluctant to press Israel as possession or the myth of possessing nuclear weapons acts as sort of an invasion deterrent. Even Iran which keeps issuing threatening statements toward Israel would hesitate to attack out of fear of being nuked (also US protection). Pakistan wont let go until India does. Nobody wants to be the first to disarm out of distrust towards the others, fear of loss of military influence, and nationalistic pride.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I do not wish for an attack on Iran that would be insane. The problem is the Mullahs are even more insane by making an attack an actual plausible option and maybe only option to halt them or set them back in their pursuit of owning a nuke, subjecting the world to nuclear blackmail to achieve their objectives. Look at what they doing now without even having a nuke, but just with the possibilty of getting one. They have the whole international community trying to figure out how to deal with them. In other words blackmail already. I understand this is a hard concept for you to follow as you believe that the U.S is just hellbent and itching to invade and attack Iran (as if we don't have enough on the plate already with Afghanistan and Iraq) but it's the lousy leadership in Tehran that is driving this by their actions nothing the U.S or the world community has done to Iran.

The big issue here and this will answer North London's question to me also as to why the U.S, China and his own country Britain are allowed to have nukes, though Pakistan sure scares me, is that these countries have proven themselves responsible in ensuring that these horrible weapons are for defensive purposes only to deter aggression from other nations. Iran has in no way shape or form has assured anyone that they would be as responsible, as a matter of fact the nightmare is they give one to HAMAS or HEZ or some other terrorist organization. That should give you nightsweats it sure does me.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sushi - "according to highly placed defence and intelligence sources"

Heh, highly dubious.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Northlondon:

" Now, can anyone explain to me why nations such as the US, China, Pakistan and Israel are allowed to possess nuclear weapons ? "

Because they don`t have fanatical lunatics in government, who will nuke a small country because they think God wants them to? Just a thought for you to gnaw on.

Of course, in case of Pakistan, that should probably phrased as "not yet".

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sushi Sake:

So is your argument that a second holocaust is justified, as long as the oil price stays reasonable?

Frankly, I find that line of thought a little mind-boggling. Please explain.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I don't think Iran would really attack Israel. I think it's just the government and others with influence pandering to nationalist and fundamentalist sentiments as well as trying to direct discontent away from domestic problems. Also the US wouldn't invade Iran, the American public would never go along with it following the mistakes of the Iraq War. America doesn't need anymore hits to her reputation.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Iran doesn't need to use a nuclear weapon to benefit from it. Just having it will be enough. I'm sure it will make their already openly hostile policy towards Israel even more hostile. We'll probably also see an increase in support for terrorists groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah. The bomb probably has it's biggest benefit by defending Iran from retaliation which would allow them to up the ante in any conventional or non-conventional war with Israel. That'll be a lot of fun for everyone.

In the end, Israel will do whatever it feels it needs to do regardless of what the UN or the US says. When your enemy is guided by religion that's sworn to destroy you it kind of limits your options on the diplomatic front.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What historical claim can Persia/Iran possibly make in attacking Israel's legitimacy? And why is this Persian presumption to not only speak for but act (with genocidal intent) on behalf of an Arab population that is mixed as the Jewish one in Israel never called "imperialism" or "hegemony" ? Seen photos of these Revolutionary Guards in formation and saluting the medieval theocrats who run the country? They are Persian Nazis.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Also, Sailwind, should there be an attack on Iran, how high do you reckon oil prices would go? $6/gallon? $7/gallon? $8/gallon? How many Americans do you know could afford that, let alone the massive spike in the cost of everything you and your family buy?

In threads talking about the environment you tell us that $7 a gallon gas is inevitable. And, funny enough, you list it as being quite a nice benefit to the environment. You actually argue against the US government when it takes measures to prevent gas from reaching $7 a gallon.

But golly, Sushi. look above. If gas ever reaches $7/gallon then it will crush American families.

How many ways can one spin $7 gasoline? I guess we'll just have to wait and see. In the meantime I should probably decide which position to discredit: Sushi's position on the environment or Sushi's position on Iran.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

RedMeatCoolaid:

" What historical claim can Persia/Iran possibly make in attacking Israel's legitimacy? "

It is a muslim issue, not a "Persian" issue. Persia under the Shah had no problem with the existance of Israel. Khomeini made the fight against Israel a national agenda the moment he assumed power.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

RedMeatKoolAid,

Yes, the candidates are screened by the mullahs. That does not mean the elections are not free. They are.

The mullahs manage to screen candidates that cover a fairly wide range of the political spectrum. The mullahs are not particularly happy with Ahmadinejad at the moment and that may or may not account for some of his reversals of political fortune.

Every country has a screening process. That process does not necessarily produce what is good for the country. Flag lapel pins, anyone?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

WilliB,

Thank you for suggesting that I need to improve my education.

As I understand it, however, true Muslims never do anything because it pleases Allah. That would be, well, blasphemous. True Muslims act and pray that it pleases Allah. That puts true Muslims in the camp of rational actors because they must live with the consequences of their actions.

So, you seem to be of the school that says Iran is going to take out Israel because it somehow fulfills the will of Allah. I think it is you who need to read up on the Middle East and figure out a scenario in which Iran unilaterally attacks Israel and lives to enjoy it. Please don't go with the martyrdom nonsense.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

In the most recent elections, the electorate expressed its disapproval of the Bush government. Yet, there he is, still in power.

As Rumsfeld said, democracy is messy.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sarge,

I hope that answered your question.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sezwho:

" I think it is you who need to read up on the Middle East and figure out a scenario in which Iran unilaterally attacks Israel and lives to enjoy it. Please don't go with the martyrdom nonsense. "

Sorry, it still is you who should read up on islamic teaching in general and the Shiite 12er movement in particular. You can start with the numerous statements by Khameini about the subject.

What do you mean by "lives to enjoy it"? As the Iranian mullahs have frequently stated, Iran is willing and able to take massive hits, while Israel is a "one bomb country". One nuclear bomb on Tel Aviv would make Israel unviable as a country, and that is precisely the goal.

As for martyrdom, alas that is no "nonsense". Remember, when talking about Iran, you are talking about the country that was willing to send half a million of it own children into the Saddams mine fields, armed with little Taiwan-made "keys to paradise". And that today has proud Majis (suicide bomber) brigades marching at every parade on Al-Kudz day. If you think that death scares a convinced muslim fanatic, then once again you are arrogantly assuming that everyone thinks like you.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

WilliB,

No, I don't think so. Sending me to read up on something is not a refutation. It is a ploy. If you do not like the distinction between carrying out the will of Allah and acting in the hope that your action finds Allah's grace, then refute it if you can.

What I mean "lives to enjoy it" is very simple. The United States would punish, immediately and swiftly, any nuclear attack on Israel. It would do that with the world's blessing and with the blessing of most of the Arab states. The theocracy of Iran would cease to exist and there would be a Persian diaspora.

The rivalry between Iraq and Iran is deep-seated. But it was Saddam who attacked Iran in the mistaken belief that post-revolutionary Iran would be chaotic and weak without US support. It was Iran that was fighting a defensive war. That a fledgling revolutionary state could hold off Iraq, especially after Iraq gained US support, would make anyone proud. Look at how puffed up the US was after Yorktown or after WW2, for that matter.

I don't think death scares any fanatic. You have chosen to resort to name calling covertly qualified by a hypothetical. That is a most unhappy choice, but perhaps we can add it to your attitude of assigning homework in lieu of making your point. I know that not everyone thinks like me. Had I not known that before I ever posted here, I should have quickly learned it or have been very dim indeed.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yes, the candidates are screened by the mullahs. That does not mean the elections are not free. They are.

Well let's not forget that they don't charge a fee for voting in Iran, either. That's even more evidence that they have free elections.

But I see what you're saying. Flag pins. Barring any candidate who the mullahs don't deem appropriate. Pretty much a toss-up.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SezWho, imagine Iran does get nukes. Perhaps you can tell us how you'd see it play out.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sezwho

" No, I don't think so "

Not thinking is, alas, not a substitute for doing your homework.

" if you do not like the distinction between carrying out the will of Allah and acting in the hope "

That is sophistry. There is a whole Koran and Haddiths for you to learn what islam says about the Jews, and you can google yourself to see what Sunni imams and Shiite Ayatollahs have to say about Israel and its right to exist. In playing your word games, you blank out all context.

" What I mean "lives to enjoy it" is very simple. The United States would punish, immediately and swiftly, any nuclear attack on Israel. "

Firstly, that is your assumption. Secondly, as I pointed out, it does not impress the mullahs. The islamic world can take many hits and survive; Israel is a one-nuke country.

" I don't think death scares any fanatic. "

Again, you "think" before doing your homework. No, not every "fanatic" is the same. That is a word game again. A Jewish fanatic, for example, loves life, because it is sacred. The concept that dying in the course of Jihad gets you directly to paradise is an islamic concept, not an unidentified "fanatic" concept. Jewish (or American) governments would not send hundreds of thousands of their country's children to death, armed with little plastic keys to paradise. The islamic republic of Iran did just that. Please inform yourself before more egg on your face.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

WilliB

When Iran`s mullahs talk about removing Israel from the face of the earth, they are absolutely serious about it. The removal of the Jewish state is a religious duty for them.

Let's see who attacks who first. I have my money on Isreal taking the first strike. And as soon as that happens you pro-war, pro-Isreal posters will support their actions, even though they throw the first punch. You'll justify and worship their actions. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SuperLib:

In threads talking about the environment you tell us that $7 a gallon gas is inevitable. And, funny enough, you list it as being quite a nice benefit to the environment.

Great point. Really shows Sushi's hypocrisy. I believe high gas prices are good since it's the only thing that will lead to alternatives energy sources and end the world's addiction to oil. And these Middle Eastern oil-producing nations will become completely irrelevant when oil is rendered worthless.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

And as soon as that happens you pro-war, pro-Isreal posters will support their actions, even though they throw the first punch.

I would right now completely support Israel destroying Iran's nuclear facilities. The world condemned Israel when they took out Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor in 1981. Most are thankful now. The same holds true for Iran. The world doesn't need a terrorist-exporting holocaust-denying Islamic fundamentalist nation which openly threatens other nations obtaining nukes. It's an existential issue for Israel so they'll have to do the dirty work. A single nuke on this tiny country the size of New Jersey would mean its demise (which is why neo-Nazis, Marxists, and Islamists so passionately defend Iran's nuclear program).

0 ( +0 / -0 )

http://us.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/06/29/us.iran/index.html

0 ( +0 / -0 )

. Probably. But don`t bomb Iran, and a nuclear-armed Iran will nuke Israel and carry out the promised "real holocaust" within the decade. So, which do you prefer?

Hysterical baloney.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

People need to be able to distinguish between ordinary Muslims and Islamic fundamentalists. Not all Muslims want to see Israel wiped out, I doubt even all Iranians. Like any religion Islam has its radicals. Although the mullahs of Iran are much more vocal and aggressive than others.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SuperLib,

Snarkiness is no substitute for making a reasoned point.

About the voting fee, could you try to make your point in a less elliptical way? That way I can be sure that you have one before I address it.

No, mullahs screening candidates and shrieking right-wing radioheads calling for flag lapel pins are not a toss-up. They differ both in degree and in agency. But it is not at all clear which is worse.

As for how Iran with a nuke would play out, I really think that those who claimed that Iran would nuke Israel in Act 1 should first tell us what will happen in Act 2 instead of leaving us all in suspense. Against the completion of that plot outline, I will say that in my Act 1, Iran develops nukes and warns Israel and the United States that any attack on Iran by either party will result in the obliteration of Israel.

You show me your Act 2 (and by the way, I have already completed a version of that in case you aren't able to write your own) and I'll show you mine.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SezWho2,

Actually it is actually much simpler than that. If Iran attempted to attack Israel in Act 1, Israel would attack Iran before Iran's missiles hit Israel. In Act 1 both Israel and Iran would pretty much be destroyed and most of the rest of the Middle East would suffer from the fall out in Act 2.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

WilliB,

For anyone who speaks of context, the snip and retort method of discussion is unbecoming. And that is to say nothing of word games.

You know, of course, that the idiomatic "I don't think so" does not mean that one does not think. If you don't know that, I see I will have to be very careful in what I say to you so that you do not become confused. When I say "I don't think so" in this context, the clear meaning is that I think I do not need to bend myself to your reading program.

Our discussion is here and now. If you have information to bear upon it, please state it. Alluding to a supposed lack of understanding on my part is unconvincing. If you think the more repressive verses of the Qur'an are determinative of what the mullahs have in mind, that's fine. I disagree. And I could as easily send you off on an Internet search for opinions of scholars and experts who disagree that Iran has any intent in attacking Israel.

Don't pretend to superior knowledge here. Demonstrate it or be exposed as a poser.

It does not matter that it is my assumption that the US would retaliate on Iran for a nuclear attack on Israel. We are all dealing with our personal opinions here. Your opinion that Iran would nuke Israel is an assumption. Likewise, even if Israel were a "one-nuke" country that would not matter. The goal in retaliation would be to permanently end the theocratic state in Iran.

You are right that not every fanatic is the same. But they are the same in not fearing death for their cause. That was your original contention and if you now wish to waffle on that, that's fine with me.

However you are wrong that death in jihad being a key to paradise is an Islamic concept. You are wrong because the statement is trivial, as "jihad" itself is an Islamic concept and everything that follows from that will be as well. More broadly and less trivially, however, dying honorably in battle has lifted souls of fallen warriors to Valhalla on the wings of Valkyries. More recently, the Japanese held out enshrinement of souls as inspiration for battle.

Please concentrate more on civility and try to be less eager to paint faces with eggs.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

kinniku,

That's another good Act 1. Dramatically speaking, however, Act 2 leaves the audience hanging a bit.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SezWho2,

If Iran were to attempt to attack Israel, the Act 1 I described would be the only logical way for things to progress. As far as my Act 2 leaving people hanging, if by hanging on you meant hanging on to the last few days of their lives, you'd be right. If Iran gets to developed nuclear weapons, things will probably get messy very quickly.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If Iran were ever to launch a nuclear attack on Israel, a lot of Palestinians and other Muslims would die, as well as many of Iran's Hamas allies.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

not that the Iranian radicals would care or anything

0 ( +0 / -0 )

About the voting fee, could you try to make your point in a less elliptical way? That way I can be sure that you have one before I address it.

It's not that hard to understand. Elections in Iran don't cost money for the people voting. They're free. So obviously one can make the claim that Iran has free elections. It's a cute little word play. I'm sure u get it.

But it is not at all clear which is worse.

hehe well let me help you out. In one election, the candidate is compelled to wear a flag pin to get votes. In the other election the same candidate isn't allowed to be there. But gosh, it's all so confusing and unclear. I just can't seem to decide which is "worse." Can anyone really make a claim either way? Flag pin vs. not there at all. Nope, in terms of election injustices it's just something that isn't clear at all. I guess we'll just have to table the issue since a decision really can't be made wither way. wink

Iran develops nukes and warns Israel and the United States that any attack on Iran by either party will result in the obliteration of Israel.

Oh, was Iran's announcement that they have nukes your Act 3? Seems that your play is rather short. What do you think Iran will do in the sequel?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yeah, wouldn't it be a wonderful thing if Isreal attacked Iran.

We already have one dumbass was because a bunch of liars got together and convinced enough people of their non-truths and total lies that we're involved in a war that was started by choice and not because there was any truth to the lies.

Sure we need to be involved in another war started by choice.

Then I'm just sure that you chickenhawks will actually enlist so you can do your part for the effort.

That's what we need. Another reason to see our young men and women die for a bunch of liars. Another 50,000 wounded for a cause that lines the pockets of few, but takes the lives of many.

Sure Isreal attacking Iran will do nothing but draw us into another war for the rich and the war patriots. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I got a gut-feeling that we will have a new war in the ME before the end of the year.

Getting a serious feeling of Deja-Vu here.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Lo and behold what has the US Congress gone and done. Given Isreal an extra $170,000,000.00.

This is outrageous. The country has an economic problem that won't be repaired for at least a decade of suffering and we give this pro-war country $170Million.

We've got a debt for a war of choice in Iraq that will far exceed $2,300,000,000,000.00 and we give Isreal more money.

How damn stupid can this country be? < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Link - http://rawstory.com/news/afp/US_Congress_approves_Israel_aid_inc_06272008.html

0 ( +0 / -0 )

adaydream,

It is quite simple actually. Iran does not attempt to create nuclear weapons or attempt to attack Israel and Israel will not attack Iran. Based on your past opinions, it seems that you would not mind Iran having nuclear weapons (correct me if I am wrong). Reasonable people disagree with this opinion.

Yeah, wouldn't it be a wonderful thing if Isreal attacked Iran.

It definitely would not be wonderful, however if Iran were to develop nuclear weapons that would be even less wonderful.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

War seems likely. The mullahs need to have something to show for 30 years in power. 1 million dead in a war with their fellow Muslims in Iraq didn't get the 12th Imam to show himself. Seems that by the mullahs' reckoning he is therefore waiting for a more pious, thermonuclear display of faith before he comes shooting up out of the well he has been hiding in these last one thousand years.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

adaydream:

Lo and behold what has the US Congress gone and done. Given Isreal an extra $170,000,000.00.

What is it with you and aid to Israel? How come you never complain about the 2,800,000,000.00 in US aid we give to Egypt and Jordan every year, nearly as much as Israel? And did you know the aid to Jordan will be increasing 44% this year? Where's your outrage that your own country is giving aid to Muslim Arab countries that aren't even considered allies?

http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/168874.html

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SuperLib,

It was hard for me to understand. Now I do. You were being cute.

Help me in your thinking as to which is worse. I don't understand the sentence, "In the other election the same candidate isn't allowed to be there". Same as what? Perhaps if you were more committed to communication and less committed to cleverness, your meaning would be more clear.

Act 3? No, SuperLib. As the defender of the proposition that a nuclear armed Iraq will attack Israel, you should pony up your Act 2 before you ask me to get into Act 3.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

kinniku,

I'm not sure the way you describe is the only logical way for things to progress. But it's certainly one way. There is that matter of US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and our ever present ships at sea.

Yes, if Iran gets nuclear weapons, things might get messy pretty quickly. But does this presume that they aren't messy now? One of the ways that it could get messy is that we might finally realize that nuclear weapons, like chemical weapons, are a dead end.

As long as the US retains nuclear weapons it is fanciful to think that other nations will not at least develop the basic technology to equalize.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

There is that matter of US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and our ever present ships at sea.

If Iran were to attack Israel with nuclear weapons, I do not think those US troops would not change anything as far as Israel reaction would go. At that point, both countries would be out to destroy each other.

Yes, if Iran gets nuclear weapons, things might get messy pretty quickly. But does this presume that they aren't messy now?

Respectfully, it would get a whole lot messier. To the point that the Middle East would no longer be recognizable.

One of the ways that it could get messy is that we might finally realize that nuclear weapons, like chemical weapons, are a dead end.

Well, one way on the road to that dream would be preventing more countries from getting them in the first place, wouldn't you agree?

As long as the US retains nuclear weapons it is fanciful to think that other nations will not at least develop the basic technology to equalize.

Respectfully, it is equally fanciful to think that other nations would still not pursue them even if the US didn't have them.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

kinniku,

If Iran were to attack Israel with the nuclear weapon it does not have and says it does not want, there is no certain scenario. Yours is that Israel retaliates upon Iran. Mine is that the US retaliates. Whether Israel retaliates or not, no American President could afford to allow the Iranians to get away with that and any job which the Israelis could not finish, the Americans would have to.

Yes, the situation would probably get messier with an Iranian attack on Israel. That's one of the reasons I think such an attack is unlikely. However, to say that the Middle East would no longer be recognizable is a bit of hyperbole. It is questionable who recognizes the situation now. Furthermore, unless you can say how it would be messier you don't really add significantly to the discussion, in my opinion.

And, yes, I would agree that one way on the road to the abolition of nuclear weapons would be preventing more countries from getting them in the first place. I'm all in favor of Iran not acquiring nuclear weapons. Sign me up. I'm not in favor of assuming that no matter what the Iranians say, they must be lying. Don't sign me up for that. Furthermore, we've gone the way of not allowing other countries to acquire weapons and so far India, Pakistan and, presumably, North Korea have acquired them. Maybe the "after we've made sure that no one else can acquire them, we'll give them up" strategy is flawed.

And absolutely, yes, it would be equally fanciful--in the current world political climate--to think that other nations would still not pursue nuclear weapons if the US did not have them. Does anyone think that? So what seems to me to be necessary is to change the climate. As the US sits with enough nuclear capacity to destroy contemporary civilization 3 or 4 times over, with our military ships in all oceans and with our troops--in one capacity or another--in anywhere from 50 to 100 countries, this is a poor beginning for change.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SezWho2,

If Iran were to attack Israel with the nuclear weapon it does not have and says it does not want, there is no certain scenario. Yours is that Israel retaliates upon Iran. Mine is that the US retaliates. Whether Israel retaliates or not, no American President could afford to allow the Iranians to get away with that and any job which the Israelis could not finish, the Americans would have to.

Okay. I agree with this. I misunderstood you mentioning the US forces assuming you meant that this presence would somehow prevent a retaliation by Israel. I now see you were trying to say that the US would retaliate. While I think it is possible. I don't know that the US is willing to use nuclear force (or that it should be either). However, I am pretty sure Israel would be in the situation we are discussing.

Yes, the situation would probably get messier with an Iranian attack on Israel. That's one of the reasons I think such an attack is unlikely.

Could you clarify what you mean? Do you think Iran is concerned about preventing things from getting messier? If so, I am not convinced of that.

However, to say that the Middle East would no longer be recognizable is a bit of hyperbole. It is questionable who recognizes the situation now. Furthermore, unless you can say how it would be messier you don't really add significantly to the discussion, in my opinion.

Sorry. Let me clarify...there will be huge, smoking holes where two countries called Iran and Israel used to be. The areas around these countries will be contaminated. People generally don't do things half-***ed in the Middle East. If there are nuclear strikes, they will be destructive.

And, yes, I would agree that one way on the road to the abolition of nuclear weapons would be preventing more countries from getting them in the first place. I'm all in favor of Iran not acquiring nuclear weapons. Sign me up.

That is good to hear.

I'm not in favor of assuming that no matter what the Iranians say, they must be lying. Don't sign me up for that.

I think both sides could do with a lot more flexibility. However, I am not sure Iran is really willing to have their facilities monitored in a way that would give most people peace of mind.

Furthermore, we've gone the way of not allowing other countries to acquire weapons and so far India, Pakistan and, presumably, North Korea have acquired them. Maybe the "after we've made sure that no one else can acquire them, we'll give them up" strategy is flawed.

It certainly is flawed. However, adding more questionable countries to the list could be considered a flawed solution as well. There should be some pleasant middle ground. The US has in the past said they are willing to assist Iran in its goal of peace nuclear energy. If I remember correctly Iran's president didn't seem so keen on the idea.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

kinniku,

I can try to clarify.

I think the biggest deterrent to Iran launching a nuclear attack is the one you mentioned--the "huge, smoking hole" where Iran used to be prior to the hypothetical launch. The mullahs may be extreme--not nearly as extreme as the Taliban but more extreme than American neoconservatives--but they are not stupid. There is no anticipation of finding Allah's blessing as the incinerated leader a smoking hole.

I agree that both sides could do with more flexibility. And I also am not sure that Iran is willing to have its facilities monitored in a way that would bring peace of mind to most folks. I think there is a reason for that, however, and I don't think it necessarily has anything to do with the development of nuclear weapons. In dealing with the current administration--and possibly even the next--Iran is dealing with people who it cannot trust with the truth. From an Iranian point of view, it would make no sense to allow inspectors unqualified access to all information and records if that information would do nothing to convince the US that its program was peaceful but instead do everything to provide it with useful information for launching strikes against Iran's facilities.

Setting aside the question of what is and what is not a questionable country, adding more countries to the list of nuclear haves could indeed be considered a flawed solution. And, yes, there should be some middle ground. However, no country or group of countries should "own" science or technology. And the Iranians, who are fully capable of developing this technology on their own, probably think they should not have to go for their energy needs, turban in hand, to the country that places it in the Axis of Evil.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

kinniku - I'm against nuclear weapons, period.

But let's look at it this way. We built nuclear weapons and then the USSR built nuclear weapons to match ours.

Then we built more nukes.

Now the US and Russia has 10s of thousands of nuclear weapons pointed all over the world. Wasted funds that could have been spend on humanitarian purposes.

But we have Iran who has opened up their doors to the IAEA and they have pronounced that Iran isn't building nukes.

But the world is against the very same thing that John McCain advocates. Nuclear power plants. John McCain advocates more nuclear power plants than you can shake stick at, but you pro-war posters are condeming Iran for the same thing that John McCain wants. More nuclear power plants for envirementally clear energy.

Hell, you posters are hypocritical. You're all for nuclear power plants here, but heaven forbid them there. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Helter_Skelter - I'm not too keen on giving too damn much money to any of the middle eastern countries.

But I look at it this way, also. If we give monies for humanitarian reasons, food and aid, then okay it's at least going to a good cause. But when we're giving money to Isreal for weapons to attack Iran, I'm against it.

We just gave Isreal a blank ckeck over 10 years for $30,000,000,000.00 for weapons. That's all. And then we give them another $170,000,000.00 for more weapons. Not for food or aid. Weapons!!!

Let's take that money and spend it on our own citizens. That way the tax payers of this country can see their tax dollars caring for our own. But this is blood money. Money george bush and the congress is giving to Isreal to start another war. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

adaydream:

I'm not too keen on giving too damn much money to any of the middle eastern countries.

Fine. But why always single out Israel? Egypt and Jordan have received billions in military aid from the US. But I guess there's no political gain for the America/Israel haters in mentioning this.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Adaydream:

" Let's see who attacks who first. I have my money on Isreal taking the first strike. "

Misleading. Iran's strike would destroy Israel (which would be the purpose). Israel´s strike would simple have disable the nuclear facilities. Similar to what Israel did previously with Saddam`s Ozirak reactor and last year the the North Korean reactor in Syria.

These are totally different objectives, don´t try to relativize them.

Iran could stop any Israeli threat right now by stopping its nuke program. Israel could only stop the Iranian threat by stopping to exist.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Helter_Skelter - I don't see Egypt or Jordan advancing their terrorist activities as such and planning to attack Iran with the money we supplied.

I don't see the United States giving more money for humanitarian purposes, but for Isreal to start a war for the United States. I see that the US taxpayer being dragged into another war for a bunch of war-mongers and chicken-hawks. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

WilliB - How would Iran's attack destroy Isreal?

First thing Iran isn't planning to attack Isreal. Isreal is planning to attack Iran for the US.

But please explain what you're trying to say. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

First thing Iran isn't planning to attack Isreal. Isreal is planning to attack Iran for the US.

You're clueless.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SuperLib,

If adaydream is clueless on account of this statement, won't you give us a clue as to why you say so? Please remember that the context here is an Iranian nuclear strike on Israel.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SezWho2,

I think the biggest deterrent to Iran launching a nuclear attack is the one you mentioned--the "huge, smoking hole" where Iran used to be prior to the hypothetical launch. The mullahs may be extreme--not nearly as extreme as the Taliban but more extreme than American neoconservatives--but they are not stupid. There is no anticipation of finding Allah's blessing as the incinerated leader a smoking hole.

Interesting points. Yes, those in the Iranian government are not all as extreme as the Taliban. However there are definitely some that are, even in the supreme council. All it takes is for those people to have control of the weapons and be willing to sacrifice all in order to destroy Israel. Certainly you would agree that this kind of thinking is not unique in the Middle East.

In dealing with the current administration--and possibly even the next--Iran is dealing with people who it cannot trust with the truth.

This goes both ways. The US government is dealing with a country that actually took over its Embassy and its occupants and kept them prisoners. This was an act of war. So, the issue of a lack of trust was started with Iran's international illegalities.

From an Iranian point of view, it would make no sense to allow inspectors unqualified access to all information and records if that information would do nothing to convince the US that its program was peaceful but instead do everything to provide it with useful information for launching strikes against Iran's facilities.

While it might help, the US pretty much knows where everything is already. So, I think that point may be moot. As far as them not wanting to give access, well I am sorry but that is just tough luck. If they are serious about only wanting it for civilain purposes, they should have nothing to be afraid of. Again, Iran has committed an act of war against the US, however as of yet, the US has not committed one against Iran. Of the two, I would think caution on the part of the US is a bit more understandable.

And the Iranians, who are fully capable of developing this technology on their own, probably think they should not have to go for their energy needs, turban in hand, to the country that places it in the Axis of Evil.

Well, a lot would change in the positive for Iran if they would relax a bit more and cut it out with the rhetoric. Their president has done very little for Iran's reputation in the world. Whether Iran likes it or not, they have to learn to play nice with the rest of the world if they want the world to share its 'toys' with them.

adaydream,

But we have Iran who has opened up their doors to the IAEA and they have pronounced that Iran isn't building nukes.

Well, one could argue that the IAEA has had different opinions on Iran at different times and one could further argue that the IAEA would not have complete access to Iran's facilities. These are serious concerns.

but you pro-war posters are condeming Iran for the same thing that John McCain wants. More nuclear power plants for envirementally clear energy.

First, who says I am 'pro-war'? Have we ever met? I don't think so. I think you should stick to what you want to say and leave out the guess work and name-calling. Next, nuclear energy is 'environmentally clean' energy? Since when? Please...what are we going to do with the nuclear waste? I don't think you have an answer for that. If you want to clean up Iran, how about exhaust filters for their cars and better plant management for a start. Oh, sorry, I guess the Iranian people can't rally around the Iranian president over something as mundane as exhaust filters, huh?

Adaydream, are you for nuclear energy in your own country? If not, I think that would speak of the ultimate hypocrisy.

How would Iran's attack destroy Isreal?

Do you know exactly how small the State of Israel is? Do you know the destructive force of a nuclear device? The area would be a waste land.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SuperLib likes seeing his name in lights. And unless he posts something, even inane, no such luck.

Remember I'm the guy that calls Isreal a terrorist state and I claim that Isreal is preparing to attack Iran. And if Isreal does attack, I don't want the US to do anything at all.

I want Isreal to take the sting from the scorpion they are about to receive as soon as they attack Iran.

Iran ain't Iraq. They haven't had the US and England bombing them daily for 10 years. They actually have a military. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

kinniku,

Thank you for your comments.

Extremist thought is not rare in the Middle East as far as I can see. However, extremist control in Iran would be somewhat rare. You say that all it takes is for certain people to have control of the weapons and be willing to sacrifice all in order to destroy Israel. True. Can you name even one such person? This seems to me to be more fear-mongering than realism.

Well, yes. The US government is dealing with a country that took over its embassy. I think, though, that this is something that we consider to be an act of war more than the Iranians do. Certainly we did not respond to it as an act of war. Furthermore, I think it is a little glib to say that the issue started with Iran's international illegalities. Why did the Iranians turn out the Shah who the US engineered to lead the country by instigating the ouster and imprisonment of Mossadegh? Who was interfering in whose country?

As far as the access issue is concerned, everything I have read says that any air strikes on Iran will be ineffective in stopping in real nuclear weapons program that might exist. The reasons are two: we don't know precise locations and we don't know the precise depths of the facilities. I should think that having precise information would be a help. I agree that Iran should cooperate, but I don't agree that it follows that it should cooperate with a trigger-happy administration. It's best strategy may be to bide its time and see whether it will get a more rational US leader.

Furthermore, I think the US has never committed an act of war against Iran is not very convincing. The overthrow of the Mossadegh government, the support of the Shah against his people, the shooting down of an Iranian jetliner and the support of the Saddam in his war against Iran pretty much mark us as a nation devoted to interference in Iran's affairs for our own gain. That would be a sufficient cause for war, in my opinion, but because the Iranians are somewhat rational and know they cannot win such a war they have not declared one.

Nevertheless, I will agree that Ahmadinejad's comments have hurt Iran. I think a lot of people in Iran think so, too, and I think that was one of the concerns that earned him a rebuke in the last elections. However, as far as playing nice with the rest of the world, I really can't say that of the two--the US and Iran--that it is Iran who more needs to learn this lesson.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I want Isreal to take the sting from the scorpion

Bucking for that promotion to Mullah, eh daydream? Looks like you have the vernacular down. How's the beard coming along? ;)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"It's best strategy may be to bide its time and see whether it will get a more rational US leader."

By "rational leader" anyone at all familiar with the history of the region can only assume you mean to say that from Iran's point of view Obama is a Jimmy Carter-like figure and therefore the "rational" choice for them to wait and deal with, since it was Carter who was in office when the Iranian "students" declared war on us by seizing and occupying the US Embassy in Teheran and taking 53 hostages. I would have to agree with your assessment there, old chum. Khomeini's own son is on record saying that his father's initial plan was to hold the embassy for only a short while, but Carter's milquetoast response emboldened the "revolutionaries" and the mullahs used their newfound leverage to solidify power and later liquidate many of their Communist rivals in Iran's Tudeh Party.

Americans elected Reagan in a landslide the following year and the Iranians immediately released the hostages.

Surely you remember that.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Iran 18th richest warns Israel 44th richest. War between the two will cause damage 1000 billion USD of habitat wealth/comfort in total or more, if peace is maintained.

Do we need a same kind of foolishness and nonsense, in communications breakdowns, of wars to continue?

Also 71 million iranian and 8 million israelis also are in danger. WW2 caused death of 70 over million roughly the population of iran today.

Japan and Germany were subject to destructions in WW2,because of greed want, of more habitat wealth. Is this confrontation between israel and iran about wealth?

Can a peace talk between iran-israel be started to preserve their habitat wealth?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

RedMeatKoolAid,

No. What I mean to say is that Bush is not a rational leader, which is to say that he knows things that are contrary to fact and confuses fact with belief. It doesn't mean that his actions don't have a rationality all of their own. It just means that rational people will have difficulty seeing that his actions have any rational basis.

Yes, the hostages were released immediately after Ronald Reagan took office. And I think it was probably in no small measure due to an Iranian assessment that Reagan would be the victor. However, the document that authorized their release was signed under the Carter presidency, had been under negotiation for several months and was due in no small measure to the freezing of Iranian assets which Carter imposed at a time when the freezing of assets caused some real pain.

Reagan won the election with a little over 50% of the popular vote, but an electoral landslide. What I remember most about the election was that people in my state voted on the economy and on the optimistic glibness of the man who had sold us those so-soothing-to-the-throat Chesterfields--not primarily on Iran.

<strong>Moderator: All readers back on topic. The subject is the current situation between Iran and Israel.</strong>

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SezWho2,

Extremist thought is not rare in the Middle East as far as I can see. However, extremist control in Iran would be somewhat rare.

Well, I am not exactly sure what you mean by 'extremist control' in the statement above. My guess is that most of the leadership in Iran including the president and the supreme council would be considered 'extremist' Japan other similar countries. I do not know where you are from and it is not important to this discussion, but I would guess they would also be considered extremist there as well. In terms of Iranian Shariah and the Iranian Government, yes they are not the most extreme. However, I do think they are extremists geopolitically speaking.

You say that all it takes is for certain people to have control of the weapons and be willing to sacrifice all in order to destroy Israel. True. Can you name even one such person?

I have a hard time believing President Ahmadinejad has a firm grasp of reality. I think he might be one such person. Yes, I know his power is limited by the Supreme Council. However, they have basically rubberstamped everything the man says and does. Could it all just be rhetoric? Sure. Should we be willing to bet on that? I am not so sure.

Well, yes. The US government is dealing with a country that took over its embassy. I think, though, that this is something that we consider to be an act of war more than the Iranians do. Certainly we did not respond to it as an act of war.

Well, I disagree with your assessment that Iran would not see the takeover of their embassy in a foreign land as an act of war. I am pretty sure they would. As far as the US response went, I imagine things would have been quite different if another person had been president at the time. I doubt very highly that the US Embassy would have been taken over if any president since Carter had been in office. I further doubt that the US response would have been the same. Regardless, it was an act of war and Iran should be grateful that they got away with it.

Why did the Iranians turn out the Shah who the US engineered to lead the country by instigating the ouster and imprisonment of Mossadegh?

If I may, speaking of glib, the two have very little to do with each other. The 1979 revolution was not one of politics, it was one of religion. While your points about the Shah are certainly valid, the revolutionaries of 1979 were little concerned with the ouster of Prime Minister Mossadegh more than 20 years earlier. Rather, they were revolting in favor of a government that revolved around Shariah. In addition, the ouster of Mossadegh was the machinations of Great Britain which managed to convince the US that Mossadegh was a communist (a really dirty word back then). In addition, Iran had been run by a Shah long before the US or Britain had got involved.

Who was interfering in whose country?

The embassy takeover didn't have to do with US interference in Iran. The revolutionaries had their country at that point. It had to do with Carter initially refusing to allow the Shah to be treated for cancer in the US and then going back on that and letting him in temporarily. That is when the US Embassy was taken over and that was an act of war.

As far as the access issue is concerned, everything I have read says that any air strikes on Iran will be ineffective in stopping in real nuclear weapons program that might exist. The reasons are two: we don't know precise locations and we don't know the precise depths of the facilities. I should think that having precise information would be a help.

Well, we have no idea what is known and what isn't. Certainly most of what is known would not be public knowledge.

It's best strategy may be to bide its time and see whether it will get a more rational US leader.

Well, for all the blustering on both sides, I do think the EU and US offer of help with civilian nuclear energy research is reasonable. Seriously, what would be the real harm in Iran backing off a bit? If Iraq had done that five years ago, Saddam Hussein would still be alive in Bagdhad.

Furthermore, I think the US has never committed an act of war against Iran is not very convincing. The overthrow of the Mossadegh government, the support of the Shah against his people, the shooting down of an Iranian jetliner and the support of the Saddam in his war against Iran pretty much mark us as a nation devoted to interference in Iran's affairs for our own gain.

Let's take each of your points one by one:

As to the coup d'etat of the Mossadegh government, this was done with the blessing of the Shah. Mossadegh was trying to overthrow the monarchy of the Shah. You can argue that you prefer Prime Minister Mossadegh over the Shah, but that is what happened. There were quite a lot of pro-monarchy protesters as well as anti-monarchy protesters. So, the situation is not as cut and dried as you represented it.

The shooting down of an Iranian jetliner was an accident and the US said as much. The Soviet Union also shot down a Korean Airlines jetliner. Did you think that was on purpose, too?

Nevertheless, I will agree that Ahmadinejad's comments have hurt Iran. I think a lot of people in Iran think so, too, and I think that was one of the concerns that earned him a rebuke in the last elections.

Here we agree. However, I am concerned that the Supreme Council does not seem interested in reigning him in more.

However, as far as playing nice with the rest of the world, I really can't say that of the two--the US and Iran--that it is Iran who more needs to learn this lesson.

Well, I guess we will have to disagree here. I think Iran is in the more dangerous situation and should have the sense to notice it. They need to tone down their rhetoric and start taking better care of their country. The economy is a mess and the population is dissatisfied. I think fixing these problems is a higher priority than getting into fights with Israel and the US.

I just now noticed the moderator is asking for more topical discussion, so I will end here. This took forever to type.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The whole Middle East is a basket case! Why? They are all so screwed because of all the RELIGION brain washing not just Muslims, but Jews and Christians fighting for some land in the name of the RELIGION of their choice, this situation makes me sick to my stomach. Imagine how many schools, hospitals, parks, etc..could have been constructed instead of the BILLIONS spent on WEAPONS in this awful part of the world! Imagine their is NO HEAVEN! Give Peace a chance, Long live John Lennon!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Adaydream:

" How would Iran's attack destroy Isreal? "

One single nuclear bomb is enough to make Israel unviable as a country. The Iranian mullahs know that and have already bragged about it. Take a look at the map and see how tiny the place is.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

damexicanbuda:

" hey are all so screwed because of all the RELIGION brain washing not just Muslims, but Jews and Christians fighting for some land in the name of the RELIGION of their choice, this "

Not quite. Jews and Christians are not causing wars in the Middle East. The campaign to destroy Israel and to put Jews and Christians into second-call dhimmi status under muslim rule is entirely an islamic cause. Judaism and Christianity do not divide the world into a "house of war" and a "house of peace" and do not teach jihad.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

kinniku,

It would probably take you less time to type if you would concentrate on giving your thoughts rather than on attempting to answer me point for point. It might make for a more topical discussion, too.

I think that the charges of extremism against Iran and against Ahmadinejad are a bit overblown. Finding an enemy and blustering about it has been the bread and butter for many American politicians. There's nothing quite like someone threatening the American way of life to get people riled up. I know that a lot of people are not willing to bet on Ahmadinejad's rationality, but he is not in control and he is not as loony as portrayed. So if my choice is betting on Ahmadinejad's rationality or bombing Iran, I choose betting on his rationality.

I don't think I made any such assessment that Iran would not view a takeover of one of its embassies as an act of war. Such interpretations will vary with facts and circumstances--in other words, it is case by case. What I said was that the revolutionaries did not view their takeover of the American embassy as an act of war. They viewed it as a thumb in the eye of a party who had for too long interfered in Iranian affairs. That we believe we have a rationable and excusable explanation for all of our transgressions against Iran, that we don't even consider them to be transgressions, and that the current Iranian regime has none for what we believe to be very real transgressions against us should be a giant red flag.

The revolution was about politics. It was not about communist politics, but it was about politics. Even the Vatican is about politics. Islam provided the motivating force to oust the Shah, but the ouster of the Shah was very much about politics and about his autocratic manner of rule. Religion and politics are inseparable and always have been. That is why we try to separate them as much as possible--to the point of even claiming that we have succeeded.

Economy a mess and the population dissatisfied? Iran? Hmmm.... I would say that when Israel makes such a show of war maneuvers, Iran is within its rights to issue a reminder that an attack upon it will have serious consequences. Everybody--except possibly Obama--needs to tone down the rhetoric.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I think that the charges of extremism against Iran and against Ahmadinejad are a bit overblown.

For goodness sakes. They sponsered a holocaust-denial conference and Ahmadinejad invited neo-Nazi David Duke as a keynote speaker. Wake up.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

WilliB - Isreal has the nukes. Remember?

Iran doesn't have nukes.

Again, how would Iran destroy Isreal?

Face the facts, not the lies put forth by the george bush administration.

Where's the proof they have nukes? < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SezWho2,

Hmmm...I was responding point for point because I assumed you wanted more of my opinion. Anyway, both sides bluster on and on about 'the enemy'. Iran has made the US a 'satan' for quite some time. So, I would be careful about putting all the blame on the US. As for the revolution being about communism. I didn't write that about the 1979 revolution. I was writing about the 1950's revolution or coup. My history is correct and I am sorry to tell you that it was the Shah's favoring the secular world over Islam that was a core of the 1979 revolution. Are you seriously under the impression that human rights have improved that much in Iran since 1979? The players in the government might have changed, but I doubt very much you would be happy with the legal system in Iran now were you to live there.

The fact that the revolutionaries in Iran did not see their take over of the embassy as an act of war is rather moot. This is like saying the killer in Akihabara did not see his acts as crimes. It does not matter. What matters is that it was a crime. What Iran did was an act of war and wrong.

By the way, comparing the US and Iran's attitudes toward government and religion is like comparing a house cat to a lion. They may have some similarities, but the differences are what make them dangerous.

I think Obama is interesting, however do not forget that just a short time ago I believe he was suggesting attacking Pakistan. So, he probably has a bit to learn about self-control as well.

Iran has been threatening Israel and the US for quite some time. Yes, Israel did maneuvers, however one could argue that Iran's negative talk all these years have also contributed to a very bad atmosphere.

Lastly, you may want to gloss over it, but the population of Iran are getting a bit tired of the Iranian president's ramblings and want him to focus more on Iran and its problems. It seems the Iranian people would prefer improvements in their country over getting into scraps with other countries. I agree with them.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Adaydream,

It seems you are having trouble keeping up with the conversation. I don't see anyone here claiming Iran has nuclear weapons now. Some are expressing concern that they will develop them. In addition, the discussion about an attack on Israel was referring to an attack by Iran using nuclear weapons.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

kinniku - Read the post below. WilliB just made the claim. < :-)

WilliB at 12:23 AM JST - 2nd July

Adaydream:

" How would Iran's attack destroy Isreal? "

One single nuclear bomb is enough to make Israel unviable as a country.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

adaydream,

Thank you for your response. While I cannot speak for the poster, I was under that impression that the quote was referring to if Iran had even one single nuclear bomb, not that they now have one. However, I could be mistaken in my impression.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

HelterSkelter,

Yes, Ahmadinejad engineered a holocaust denial conference and he invited David Duke. So what?

I'm pretty sure that I'm awake. I'm also pretty sure I draw different conclusions from the same facts that you are looking at.

In particular, I don't think that sponsoring such a conference implies that they are ready to destroy Israel. I think it more implies that they are not going to apologize, as a lot of the rest of the world has done, for that which they did not do.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

kinniku,

You never have to be sorry to tell me what I already know.

I know you were not writing about the 1953 revolution. I know you were writing about the 1979 revolution. I know the Shah favored a secular state. None of that in any way makes the revolution less political.

Who said anything about conditions improving in Iran since 1979? I don't think I would have been happy with legal system then or now. And I am seriously under the impression that Iran is not our business.

The fact that the revolutionaries did not see their embassy as an act of war is hardly moot. We did not treat it as an act of war. We treated it as an indignity and as an outrage. Over the years it has matured into an act of war.

I'm not quite sure what you are talking about when you speak of me comparing the US and Iran in terms of government and religion. But I do agree that it is the difference that makes them dangerous. Most worldwide polls that I am aware of rate the US as the greatest danger to world security. That doesn't mean it's so. It does mean there is a difference of opinion as to which is the lion and which is the house cat.

Obama, by the way, was not talking about attacking Pakistan. He was talking about attacking known terrorist targets in Pakistan. We are doing that now, not always with good communication with the Pakistanis.

I also agree that Iran has been threatening--although I would say warning--Israel and the US almost continuously since the 1979 revolution. Not coincidentally, Israel and the US have been threatening--and I would say threatening--Iran from the same time. That revolution threatened our plan for the Middle East. We didn't like that.

And I have done anything but gloss over Iranian dissatisfaction with Ahmadinejad. At least twice I have pointed to how he was rebuked in elections subsequent to his presidential election. I agree that Iran should work on improving the country over getting into scraps with other countries. I don't agree that Iran is prioritizing belligerence. I think that is clearly a different country.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"That revolution threatened our plan for the Middle East. We didn't like that."

Who is "we" and what was "the plan"?

Did the Soviets have a "plan" for the ME?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Iran has never threatened Israel. It is the same type of BS propaganda the Bush administration came up with before invading Iraq. Iran is not anti Semetic for holding a Holocaust conference. If Iran really hates Jews as some of the Christian fundamentalists in US believe then how come Iran does not arrest the thousands of Jews who live in Iran and are even represented in the parlament. They can move to Israel if they wish but choose to stay in Iran. Iran is home of the largest community of Jews outside Israel in Asia. They are tolerated and there are synagogues all over the country.

This proves that Iran is not a Jew hating country. It dislikes Israel not because Israel is Jewish but because Israel is an apartheid state. A better question to ask is why are Americans so much in love with an apartheid country?

Speaking of Nazis. Invading a soverign nation is exactly what the Nazis did. This makes USA and Israel Nazi like countries and not Iran.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

To compare the US or Israel to Nazi Germany is a gross over-exaggeration. Furthermore denying the Holocaust as a myth, is to some degree anti-Semitic.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

RedMeatKoolAid,

"We" is the US and "our plan", then as now, was energy security.

I'm sure the Soviets had a plan for the Middle East, but we were not fighting the Soviets in the Middle East on behalf of the Middle East.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Iran intergrations with global community/other global nations, is best way to solve the woes with Israel. Israel intergrations with global community/global nations also needs more efforts.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Speaking of Nazis. Invading a soverign nation is exactly what the Nazis did. This makes USA and Israel Nazi like countries and not Iran."

Outsourcing such activity to Hezbollah does not get one's country off the hook.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Let's not get hung up on semantics. I would say that Hezbollah's activity in Lebanon the past few years looks very much like occupation.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

nethanyahubush - You make a good point when you posted, "Speaking of Nazis. Invading a soverign nation is exactly what the Nazis did. This makes USA and Israel Nazi like countries and not Iran."

I remember going to school during the 50s and 60s when Nazi Germany was still in recent memory to the teachers and my elders. I would listen to them tell about Hitler attacking other lands, just because he was a bad man and wanted to dominate the world. How he took his advanced forces and strampled through his neighbors and killed jews like they were a sickness.

Then I relook at george bush's attack on a virtually defenseless country, kill anybody and everybody who got into their way and then occupied their country, just because we can.

I can't and won't blame the Germans for what Hitler did, like I can never blame us American people for their patriotism because of what george bush did. he brain washed the American people and the world the same as Hitler did and they had their followers. As delusional as they may have been, they had their followers.

Now we have the same kind of crap happening again. Lies being told about Iran, just like the lies about Iraq. Like when England became the US's little puppet follower, now we have Isreal the US's little puppet country now. Any attack by either the US or Isreal only goes to quantify the above statements.

So, Iran is doing the smart thing and just play the game and see who sticks their foot up their butts.

Pssst, Iran won't be the cake walk Iraq was. They actually have weapons and ammo, not like Iraq. We'd bombed Iraq for 10 years and had already destroyed their arsenals. Iran's sitting there with everything, except nukes. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

nethanyahubush -

" "Speaking of Nazis. Invading a soverign nation is exactly what the Nazis did. This makes USA and Israel Nazi like countries and not Iran." "

No, imposing a totalitarian ideology, and preparing the "real holocaust" against the Jews (remember, Iran does not accept the first one) is comparable to the Nazis.

To compare Bushes misadventure in Iraq to the nazis is ludicrious. The nazis did not overthrow dictatorships in the hope that democracy would break out; what a thought.

Then again, if you only wanted to demonstrate the muslim speech tactic of "turn speak" (turning facts upside down), then yes, this is a good example.

<strong>Moderator: All readers back on topic please. References to the Nazis are not relevant to this discussion.</strong>

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SezWho2,

Thank you again for your response. I understand what you want to say about the 1979 revolution. Of course, there was a political aspect. However, I think you are overstating how much of a political action it was. The 1979 revolution was a wonderful thing for Iranian Muslims. They finally had the Islamic country of which they had been dreaming. Upon the ousting of the Shah they set up an Islamic state that followed the rules of Sharia. Please do not take this shining moment away from them. It was a specially event in Islam. Personally, I was very happy when it happened. Sadly, I never expected Iran to change quite in the ways that it did. I never imagine a fatwa being issued against Mr. Rushdie for his book. I never imagined the US Embassy being taken over. Finally, the Shah was out and they could have religious freedom. Unfortunately, that freedom was only fully extended to Muslims. Members of the Bahai faith in particular were singled out for punishment. Iran could have become a beacon, but it did not.

As to the US Embassy being invaded and the occupants being captured. You surmised that Iranian did not consider such an act an act of war. Again, I beg to differ. When there was an incursion in the Iranian Consulate in in Iraq in 2007, the Iranians did in fact considered that action an act of war. Rules regarding consulates are far less restrictive than those involving embassies. The incursion on the US Embassy in Iran was factually an act of war. You argue (successfully I might add) that Carter's administration did not act as though it was an act of war. However, that does not matter. It was.

I think Iran has been missing out on a chance to make better friends with countries around the world. You argue that we should not concern ourselves with Iran's internal affairs such as whether or not they are planning to develop nuclear weapons. I would counter that every country in this day and age is concerned with every other country and manages to stick its nose into other countries business. There is no longer any escape from this. There is only compromise and discussion. Iran certainly sees fit to butt into Israel's affairs whenever it has the chance.

As far as the US being potentially more dangerous to the world than Iran. I would say that, of course, that is true. My point about Iran being dangerous was the internal use of religion to create laws and rules in Iran as compared with countries such as Japan or the US that you mentioned.

You mentioned Mr. Obama's comments about Pakistan. Yes, you are correct. However, when he made those statements he did so without any discussion with the leader of Pakistan which could have created an even more unstable environment in Pakistan. I think even Mr. Obama realized he overspoke.

You say that you don't agree that Iran is prioritizing belligerence. Well, many people in Iran seem to think they are, as you pointed out when you agreed about the population's dissatisfaction. Iran has better things to do then get involved in these kinds of rhetorical sparrings. The Iranian people deserve better.

Thank you for the interesting discussion.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

adaydream,

Pssst, Iran won't be the cake walk Iraq was. They actually have weapons and ammo, not like Iraq. We'd bombed Iraq for 10 years and had already destroyed their arsenals. Iran's sitting there with everything, except nukes.

Before I respond, I want to state categorically that I am against an invasion on Iran. I think it would solve nothing. However, what makes you think the US would not do things they way they did with Iraq? They could bomb Iran and avoid and invasion for quite a long time. Even with their hands in two countries they still outfirepower Iran. They could realistically just keeping up air attacks to wear down Iran's strength.

As I said, I don't think this would solve anything. It would make a lot of things a lot worse.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Drudge posted this today

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/former-cia-agent-in-iran-comes-in-from-the-heat/

0 ( +0 / -0 )

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