News Biden: New Israel would be 'ill-advised' to attack Iran

[Count Iblis]

The nuclear experts at the IAEA were not in favor of referring Iran to the UNSC at all. That decision was made during a governors meeting in which the foreign ministers of the member countries casted their vote. El Baradei was always against referral to the UNSC.

This whole mechanism of referral to the UNSC is meant to be used as a last resort when the IAEA signals a violation of the NPT that is extremely serious and constitutes a clear and present threat to international peace and security so that the SC has to intervene urgently.

Instead, wat happened was that Iran was referred for political reasons and that later you had a dispute with Dr. Rice and El Baradei about whether or not Iran could have any enrichment facilities. Dr. Rice said that the role of the IAEA is now to simply to check if Iran is complying with securuty council demands and that they must stop suggesting what the best way forward is.

That comment by Dr. Rice proves my point. The US wanted to take the nuclear dosier on Iran out of the hands of the experts and take charge of it themselves. Dr. Rice, Dick Cheney and Bush not El Baradei should tell Iran what to do.

A far as Russia and China are concerned, they look at what is best for them. They recognize that the US has interests in the Mid East and upsetting the US will strain relations.

 

[Count Iblis]

AhmedEzz is 100% correct. Iran's technical violations of the NPOT safeguard rules are quite similar to those of Brazil. Brazil refused to give the IAEA data on their enrichment activities. This lead to negotiations and a compromize was worked out in which Brazil would not have to give all the details originally requested by the IAEA on the grounds that this data is an industrial secret.

 

[AhmedEzz]

AhmedEzz is 100% correct. Iran's technical violations of the NPOT safeguard rules are quite similar to those of Brazil. Brazil refused to give the IAEA data on their enrichment activities. This lead to negotiations and a compromize was worked out in which Brazil would not have to give all the details originally requested by the IAEA on the grounds that this data is an industrial secret.

I guess Israel had no problems with Brazil, else it would have been BOMBED.

 

[WhoWee]

The INTENT of Iran is clear...they want to destroy Israel. If Israel attacks...it's because of the stated intent.

 

[seycyrus]

The nuclear experts at the IAEA were not in favor of referring Iran to the UNSC at all. ...

This seems to be a matter of opinion. Was there a formal record of their opinion, or are you merely stating what you heard firsthand?

A far as Russia and China are concerned, they look at what is best for them. They recognize that the US has interests in the Mid East and upsetting the US will strain relations.

Yes, because as we have seen from other issues, China and Russia are *oh so worried* about upsetting the US.

That was sarcasm.

 

[Count Iblis]

The INTENT of Iran is clear...they want to destroy Israel. If Israel attacks...it's because of the stated intent.

Iran does not want to destroy Israel at al. Iran wants the Palestininans to rule all of Palestine plus Israel. If Iran were to "destroy Israel" in the literal sense, that would destroy most of Palestine as well. So, the Palestinians would have even less compared to what they have now.


Iran, like many Arab states have never recognized Israel. So, they talk about the "Zionist entity" as an illegal entity that is occupying the land that belongs to the Palestinians.


Now, these views the Iranians have about Israel are in total contradiction with how we view Israel. But these Iranian points of view on Israel are not inherently "genocidal" in nature. They don't advocate gassing all the Jews or anything of the sort. Note that there are many Jews living in Iran.

When Western news agencies translate an Iranian text to English which then becomes "Wipe Israel off the map", then this whole context is missing. Also, the translation is not 100% accurate in the first place as the word "Israel" is never mentioned. Instead Iranians will tent to use the word "Zionist entity". Translating a comment in this more accurate way would be far less alarming. The difference between the two translations is similar to the difference between these two statements:


1) We need to remove the Saddam regime from power.

2) We need to wipe Iraq off the map.


Another thing is that Iran has many times clarified what they mean with their "wiping Israel off the map" statements. They say that Israel will cease to exist all by itself. Then, for Israel or the US to deliberately make propaganda about this shows that they don't really care about the truth. They want to paint a picture of an Iran that is about to attack Israel in order to justify an attack on Iran.

If anyone is in doubt, then just imagine Bush and Cheney in the White house and Cheney informing Bush about Ahmadinejad saying "Wipe Israel off the map". Then which of the two things was more likely to have happened next:

1) Bush becoming very worried.

2) Bush cheering up, replying to Cheney: "Great news, just what we need. Let's open the champagne bottle!"

 

[Count Iblis]

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5i5vgqHnYljuvveDyQGJpV3ZbaRkw"

 

[Count Iblis]

This seems to be a matter of opinion. Was there a formal record of their opinion, or are you merely stating what you heard firsthand?



Yes, because as we have seen from other issues, China and Russia are *oh so worried* about upsetting the US.

That was sarcasm.

El Baradei has stated his opinion many times.

Russia and China want the West not to interfere in what they regard as their sphere of influence, so what hey do is they allow the US to conduct its foreign policy interests in areas that even remotely affect Israel.

The US does not propose SC resolutions condemning Tibet or does not push fr independence of Taiwan, and the US e.g. tolerates China dealing with Sudan. The US won't table a SC resolution calling for an oil embargo against Sudan.

When the US broke this unofficial agreement by condemning Russia very strongly when Russia attacked Georgia in response to Georgian aggression in South-Ossetia, this deal was severly weakened.

Russia is now reconsidering agreements made with the US on Iran. E.g., it is reconsidering their agreement with the US not to sell the S-300 SAM system to Iran.

 

[seycyrus]

El Baradei has stated his opinion many times.

It was not El Baradeis opinion that you were referring to. You spoke of the Nuclear experts at the IAEA and what they were in favor of...

Have htey made public statements regarding this that are a matter of record?

Russia and China want the West not to interfere in what they regard as their sphere of influence, so what hey do is they allow the US to conduct its foreign policy interests in areas that even remotely affect Israel.

Either that, or they agree with the US! Why do you feel that you can so blatantly throw down your opinions?

When the US broke this unofficial agreement by condemning Russia very strongly when Russia attacked Georgia in response to Georgian aggression in South-Ossetia, this deal was severly weakened.

Yet despite all that, they agree with the US in regards to Iran and IAEA!

Russia is now reconsidering agreements made with the US on Iran. E.g., it is reconsidering their agreement with the US not to sell the S-300 SAM system to Iran.

Uh yeah. They are trying to make money. Are they going to make an official statement rejecting the IAEA's view on Iran?

Get back to us when they do.

 

[seycyrus]

When Western news agencies translate an Iranian text to English which then becomes "Wipe Israel off the map", then this whole context is missing. Also, the translation is not 100% accurate in the first place as the word "Israel" is never mentioned."

Nice SPIN! Israel is never mentioned by name because that might look like they are give Israel legitimacy!

Instead Iranians will tent to use the word "Zionist entity". Translating a comment in this more accurate way would be far less alarming."

It is only less alarming to those who don't understand that Israel as we know it today would not exist without the "Zionist entity". Yes, it is a deliberate decepion of intent.

The difference between the two translations is similar to the difference between these two statements:

1) We need to remove the Saddam regime from power.

2) We need to wipe Iraq off the map."

Ha, you think that back in 2000, the Iraqi's would have been happy with #1? I think not.

But enough of this deception. Everyone knows that we are not talking about a complete and utter removal of the Irqui countryside.

Another thing is that Iran has many times clarified what they mean with their "wiping Israel off the map" statements. They say that Israel will cease to exist all by itself. "

Yeah right. That's what they mean. Israel will just fade away into the sunset...

If anyone is in doubt, then just imagine Bush and Cheney in the White house and Cheney ..."

Are you *&%%$ serious? You are offering up your little imagined scenario as some sort of proof of your statement?

Talk about a logical fallacy!

Attempting to use an emotional trigger (response to Bush and Cheny) as a validation of your point of view!

 

[AhmedEzz]

When Western news agencies translate an Iranian text to English which then becomes "Wipe Israel off the map", then this whole context is missing. Also, the translation is not 100% accurate in the first place ...

This is true, the word "wipe off the map" is not even present in the original speech of Nejad. Check it out for yourself.


http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/print.asp?ID=5866

...So this raises the question.. what exactly did he want "wiped from the map"? The answer is: nothing. That's because the word "map" was never used. The Persian word for map, "nagsheh", is not contained anywhere in his original farsi quote, or, for that matter, anywhere in his entire speech. Nor was the western phrase "wipe out" ever said. Yet we are led to believe that Iran's President threatened to "wipe Israel off the map", despite never having uttered the words "map", "wipe out" or even "Israel".

[URL="The "Wipe Israel Off The Map" Hoax"][URL]http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2007/260107offthemap.htm

Professor Juan Cole concurs, arguing, "Now, some might say, "So he didn't say, 'wipe off the map,' he said 'erase from the page.' What's the difference? Anyway he's saying he wants to get rid of Israel. Ahmadinejad was not making a threat, he was quoting a saying of Khomeini and urging that pro-Palestinian activists in Iran not give up hope -- that the occupation of Jerusalem was no more a continued inevitability than had been the hegemony of the Shah's government. Whatever this quotation from a decades-old speech of Khomeini may have meant, Ahmadinejad did not say that 'Israel must be wiped off the map'...

http://www.daily.pk/world/worldnews/7283-iran-president-ahmadinejad-did-not-say-wipe-israel-off-the-map.html

About two years ago, TV news magazine 60 Minutes aired an exclusive interview with Iran’s President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Watched by tens of millions of Americans, the program seemingly showed Ahmadinejad as being evasive and essentially agreeing with Jewish extremist, Mike Wallace’s portrayal of him as threatening to “wipe Israel off the map.” In fact, Ahmadinejad has never called for “wiping Israel off the map,”, not in that interview nor at any time. The proper translation of Ahmadinejad’s comments in his native language Farsi was that he believed that the Zionist Regime in Israel would pass away with time much in the same fashion that the Soviet regime fell in Russia.

I was in Tehran and only a few feet from Ahmadinejad during one of the times he was quoted as saying that he threatened to “wipe Israel off the map.” In fact, he said that he believed simply that the Zionist regime would be overthrown and then gave the example of the overthrow of the Communist regime in Russia. He also said that if he Zionist regime fell, there must be respect for the civil rights of everyone, including Jews, Muslims, and Christians. Of course that is a far cry from the image of a nuclear holocaust presented by the heavily Zionist-influenced media around the world, of Israel “being wiped off the map.”

 

[seycyrus]

This is true, the word "wipe off the map" is not even present in the original speech of Nejad. Check it out for yourself.

This is pure deception. A parsing of what actual words were used in order to distract from the intended meaning of the words.

Iran's feelings towards the state of Israel are apparent when one consides it's habitual funding of terrorsit organizations that target innocent Israeli citizens.

None of this "it depends on what your definition of the words is, is". Ridiculous.

 

[AhmedEzz]

I think you chose not to read the text I provided, and instead just came up with the regular phrase the media dictates...

 

[OmCheeto]

Looking at the map of nuclear powers in the region, knowing of the uneasy alliance of Persia with the Arab states against Israel, the marriage of convenience of Persia with Russia and China, the animosity of the west towards their revolutionary theocratic dictatorial state, I would imagine that they feel a bit in the center of a potential kickboxing match with their legs bound.

Saudi Arabia to their southwest may as well be a blue country, given their alliance to America.
How many military bases do we have there? How many fleets do we have cruising around in the various gulfs?

Ha! If you look at the map, Israel is the size of fly poo. Amazing how pissy so many countries can get about something so insignificant.

 

[tiny-tim]

I think you chose not to read the text I provided, and instead just came up with the regular phrase the media dictates...

just read https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2163424&postcount=111" … ​

(and why are you again not providing a link?)

what do you say the literal meaning of Ahmadinejad's words is?

 

[Count Iblis]

The reason Israel's nukes comes up in these discussions is because of the double standards used by the West. You have a rhetoric that says: "The Arabs want to push the Jews in the Sea". "Iran wants to produce nukes". "Iran will give those nukes to terrorists". etc. etc.
But none of this is based on actual facts. Nevertheless, we have ended up punishing Iran based on such baseless allegations.

On the other hand you have Israel that is illegaly occupying Palestinian lands and that has nuclear weapons. Of course, Israel won't actually use their nuclear weapons. However, if Iran were to actually develop nukes then most analysts will also say that Iran won't actually use their nukes either.

But they will say that Iran's strategic position would become much stronger as it would take away the option for Israel or the US to start a big war (aimed at regime change) against Iran. So, Iran could do something and then the world could not act. But then this is what Israel has already done. They have occupied the West Bank and it is not possible to attack Israel to take the territory back from Israel as Israel has nuclear weapons. This situation is not unacceptable to the West.

So, this is a huge double standard and that makes the position of the West that Iran isn't even allowed to enrich uranium under IAEA supervision untenable.

 

[mheslep]

... Nevertheless, we have ended up punishing Iran based on such baseless allegations.

Misinformation, again. The UN SC sanctions (imposed w/ a 14-0 vote) are based on IAEA findings, not baseless allegations.

Resolution 1737 (2006)
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/iran/2006/resolution1737.pdf

...
Reaffirming its commitment to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear
Weapons, and recalling the right of States Party, in conformity with Articles I and II
of that Treaty, to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for
peaceful purposes without discrimination,

Reiterating its serious concern over the many reports of the IAEA Director
General and resolutions of the IAEA Board of Governors related to Iran’s nuclear
programme, reported to it by the IAEA Director General, including IAEA Board
resolution GOV/2006/14,

Reiterating its serious concern that the IAEA Director General’s report of
27 February 2006 (GOV/2006/15) lists a number of outstanding issues and concerns
on Iran’s nuclear programme, including topics which could have a military nuclear
dimension, and that the IAEA is unable to conclude that there are no undeclared
nuclear materials or activities in Iran,

Reiterating its serious concern over the IAEA Director General’s report of
28 April 2006 (GOV/2006/27) and its findings, including that, after more than three
years of Agency efforts to seek clarity about all aspects of Iran’s nuclear
programme, the existing gaps in knowledge continue to be a matter of concern, and
that the IAEA is unable to make progress in its efforts to provide assurances about
the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran,

Noting with serious concern that, as confirmed by the IAEA Director General’s
reports of 8 June 2006 (GOV/2006/38), 31 August 2006 (GOV/2006/53) and
14 November 2006 (GOV/2006/64), Iran has not established full and sustained
suspension of all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities as set out in
resolution 1696 (2006), nor resumed its cooperation with the IAEA under the
Additional Protocol, nor taken the other steps required of it by the IAEA Board of
Governors, nor complied with the provisions of Security Council resolution
1696 (2006) and which are essential to build confidence, and deploring Iran’s
refusal to take these steps, ...

 

[Count Iblis]

The UN ambassadors at the UNSC can hardly be called experts on nuclear matters.

Neither the suspension of enrichment nor adherence to the "additional protocol" constitute breaches of the NPT. What has happened is that the UNSC demanded this and then asked the IAEA to verfity if Iran is complying with these extra demands. Then the IAEA reported that Iran is in breach with these additional demands, which then led to a new UNSC resolution condemning Iran because they were not sticking to the previous UNSC resolution.

This is the well known "dossier building tactic". I.e. when the evidence isn't there, you can always argue on the basis of the size of the dossier and expand the dossier by passing newe resolutions because the contry refuses to stick to the previous resolution. No discussions on the actual basis of the resolutions take place.

Even today, if you raise the fact that Saddam had no WMD, then the pro-Iraq war people will say that Saddam was in beach of many SC resolutions. But then these resolutions were mostly saying that Saddam was either in breach of some previous resolution or was refusing to cooporate with inspections.

Now, that "resufal to cooporate" was established on the basis that Saddam failed to point out where all the missing anthrax was and it was later proven that these stockpiles of missing anthrax didn't exist in the first place (as Saddam had been claiming all along).

 

[mheslep]

...Neither the suspension of enrichment nor adherence to the "additional protocol" constitute breaches of the NPT.

Misinformation. Yes it is a breach, per article III:

1. Each non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes to accept safeguards, as set forth in an agreement to be negotiated and concluded with the International Atomic Energy Agency in accordance with the Statute of the International Atomic Energy Agency and the Agencys safeguards system, for the exclusive purpose of verification of the fulfillment of its obligations assumed under this Treaty with a view to preventing diversion of nuclear energy from peaceful uses to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices. Procedures for the safeguards required by this article shall be followed with respect to source or special fissionable material whether it is being produced, processed or used in any principal nuclear facility or is outside any such facility. The safeguards required by this article shall be applied to all source or special fissionable material in all peaceful nuclear activities within the territory of such State, under its jurisdiction, or carried out under its control anywhere.

 

[Count Iblis]

Misinformation. Yes it is a breach, per article III:

The additional protocol is not part of any NPT rules. Also, read article X of the NPT. Iran could simply leave the NPT after giving a three months notice. Since Iran's enrichment program does not depend on anything they got by virtue of being part of the NPT, they could simply continue to enrich uranium and that would be 100% legal.

So, banning Iran from enriching uranium because of alleged breaches of the NPT doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

 

[mheslep]

The additional protocol is not part of any NPT rules.

The additional protocol, to be negotiated by individual states and the IAEA, is required by Article III. Non-compliance with the negotiated protocol is then a breach of article III of the NPT. Please stop with the misinformation.

 

[Count Iblis]

The additional protocol, to be negotiated by individual states and the IAEA, is required by Article III. Non-compliance with the negotiated protocol is then a breach of article III of the NPT. Please stop with the misinformation.

This issue is irrelevant, as the NPT clearly does not ban countries from enriching uranium, which is what the whole dispute is about.

Also, it doesn't make any sense to argue on the basis of any NPT rules that Iran's past behavior means that they cannot now enrich uranium if the NPT has a clause allowing Iran to leave the NPT. The whole point of the NPT is to give countries nuclear technology while making sure they don't divert what they acquire by virtue of being part of the NPT to make nuclear weapons.

But Iran did not acquire any of the technology used in their enrichment program from the NPT. So, while some aspects of Iranian actions may have been a techical breach of the NPT, Iran did not even use what they acquired from outside the NPT for a weapons program. So, to summarize:

a) They didn't get anything by virtue of their NPT membership, as the US was blocking Iran's access to obtain nuclear technology via the usual IAEA procedures.

b) What they acquired from outside the NPT was not used for a weapons program.

Then, if we say that we still don't trust Iran and Iran cannot have access to nuclear technology, then this can only apply to whatever Iran can get using the IAEA procedures. So, we should then kick Iran out of the NPT. But that is exactly not what we want. We want Iran to stay in the NPT and ban it from operating its own enrichment program, even if this whole process is under IAEA inspections.

Now that doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

 

[seycyrus]

The reason Israel's nukes comes up in these discussions is because of the double standards used by the West.

And by the "west" you mean, russia,china,france, germany, etc. etc. etc.

 

[AhmedEzz]

And by the "west" you mean, russia,china,france, germany, etc. etc. etc.

Is that supposed to be funny? His words were very clear, the west uses double standards, which is obvious to ANYONE, even those who are no experts in politics. However, it takes a real hardliner to deny that FACT (IMO)

Please, using selecting sentences out of whole paragraphs and commenting on those while neglecting the others in order to undermine those words is not a clever strategy.

what do you say the literal meaning of Ahmadinejad's words is?

I think it just shows how powerful Zionist media is. Simply twisting a statement made by Iranian president and making it sound like a real threat and finally taking it as a basis for an attack ! Wow, you guys are disappointing if you approve this.

I still don't understand why you love Israel so much? What did Israel ever give in return of the west -US/EU- turning its back on its crimes and occupation? Please someone answer this direct question.

 

[tiny-tim]

what do you say the literal meaning of Ahmadinejad's words is?

I think it just shows how powerful Zionist media is. Simply twisting a statement made by Iranian president and making it sound like a real threat and finally taking it as a basis for an attack ! Wow, you guys are disappointing if you approve this.

(what "Zionist media"? )

Well, he (Ahmadinejad) said something.

He meant something.

You say the literal meaning of his words isn't "wipe off the map" …

but what do you say the literal meaning of his words is?

Why are you so anxious to avoid answering this?

 

[AhmedEzz]

Should you simply READ the articles I quoted, you would've known but no, you simply want to ask and ask , even if the answer is right there.

In fact, he said that he believed simply that the Zionist regime would be overthrown and then gave the example of the overthrow of the Communist regime in Russia

http://www.daily.pk/world/worldnews/7283-iran-president-ahmadinejad-did-not-say-wipe-israel-off-the-map.html

 

[tiny-tim]

Should you simply READ the articles I quoted, you would've known but no, you simply want to ask and ask , even if the answer is right there.

No, the literal meaning isn't "right there" … you avoided the literal meaning of Ahmadinejad's words, and only quoted a paraphrase, made by an unknown reporter on Pakistan Daily (WWW.DAILY.PK[/URL]), a couple of years after the event, of "[I]one[/I] of the times he was quoted as saying that he threatened to “wipe Israel off the map." " …
[QUOTE]In fact, he said that he believed simply that the Zionist regime would be overthrown and then gave the example of the overthrow of the Communist regime in Russia[/QUOTE]

This is very clearly [I]not[/I] the literal meaning of Ahmadinejad's words … he no more used the word "overthrown" than "map" …

it is just as much a paraphrase as what [I]you[/I] objected to when you said (to[B] seycyrus[/B]) …
[quote="AhmedEzz, post: 2164150"]I think you chose not to read the text I provided, and instead just came up with the regular phrase the media dictates...:rolleyes:[/QUOTE]

Well, since Ahmadinejad didn't say "map", as most of the media seem to think, and he clearly didn't say "overthrown" either …

[CENTER]what do [I]you[/I] say the literal meaning of his words is? :mad:

Why are you so anxious to avoid answering this?[/CENTER]

 

[AhmedEzz]

I didn't expect you wanted ME to give my own opinion. I am not anxious at all and I clearly and directly state my opinions whenever asked. :D

I think this statement is no more than one of his and Iran's comments about their outright rejection of Israel. However, this statement seems to have been put under the magnifier for an propaganda and massing people against Iran. His words were taken as a direct threat to Israel (which it wasn't) and was even reported to the UN. Israel made such "threat" to Iran a couple of days ago and I didn't see the newspapers' headlines wrapped in Peres's quote.
To put it again, Nejad's words were the usual serving of con-Israel speech which has nothing to do with actual threats. Nothing more.

 

[tiny-tim]

I didn't expect you wanted ME to give my own opinion. I am not anxious at all …

Clearly.

Ahmadinejad used the farsi word for "page" instead of "map", and you made a big thing of it not being "map" …

hmmm … wipe off the page/wipe off the map …

no wonder you're quick to object to other people's translation, but slow to give your own!

 

[Count Iblis]

To some in the West, Israel is like what to conservative Muslims the Koran is. Ahmadinejad's comments on Israel were taken to be almost a declaration of war, just like the Mohammed cartoons were blown out of all proportions by some Muslims.

 

[AhmedEzz]

Clearly.

Ahmadinejad used the farsi word for "page" instead of "map", and you made a big thing of it not being "map" …

hmmm … wipe off the page/wipe off the map …

no wonder you're quick to object to other people's translation, but slow to give your own!

Mate,it really is an immature attitude talking like this. Throwing my words out of the window while constantly asking for it just to state yours again is simply disrespectful. You asked for my opinion, I gave it and you re-stated your already known position. As regards to the wipe of the floor issue, I think we have talked enough about it (and you had your laughs for no apparent reason). Anyway, for this to be meaningful, we need to take each other's words in consideration (especially if we asked for them) else, just state your opinion and leave. (this is me being un-welcoming but this is me being realistic; for if we were going to state our opinions again and again, this thread would be no better than SPAM).

 

[AhmedEzz]

To some in the West, Israel is like what to conservative Muslims the Koran is. Ahmadinejad's comments on Israel were taken to be almost a declaration of war, just like the Mohammed cartoons were blown out of all proportions by some Muslims.

Lets not talk about religions here. This is absolutely politics and there is nothing to do with Muslims , Jews , Christians , etc...

 

[Evo]

Locked pending moderation.