News No military option against the Iranian nuclear program

[Count Iblis]

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1242212417034&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull"

 

[drankin]

The stakes are too high not consider a military option.

 

[ExactlySolved]

The stakes are too high not consider a military option.

The stakes might be high for israel, but we have given them more than enough support for them to defend themselves. Free Palestine!

 

[russ_watters]

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1242212417034&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull"

As if he actually has that power?

 

[russ_watters]

The stakes might be high for israel, but we have given them more than enough support for them to defend themselves.

How, precisely, do you propose they defend themselves from a nuclear bomb?

 

[skeptic2]

How, precisely, do you propose they defend themselves from a nuclear bomb?

A preemptory strike? But then who is the aggressor?

 

[turbo]

A military strike on Iran would be a wonderful way to drum up support for radical Muslim groups and de-stabilize the theocratic government there. Unrest would certainly spread to bordering states, most likely along ethnic lines, causing no end of trouble for all the governments in the region.

If Israel wants a region-wide conflagration, they should be forced to go it alone and take the consequences. The US should immediately withdraw from the region in that case - there is no need for us to sacrifice our brave service-members to the political/military adventurism of a state that has been sucking up our taxpayer dollars for many decades. BTW, why is Israel not threatened by Pakistan, which does have nuclear weapons? You don't need to have long-range missiles to be a nuclear threat. A foreign-flagged cargo ship could dock in an Israeli port with some pretty potent nuclear weapons that don't have to be compact enough to fit on a missile. The Israeli government always needs to have a proximate threat, so they can create a sense of urgency in dealing with it and keep Israeli citizens fearful and obedient.

 

[tiny-tim]

Pakistan not a threat to Israel

BTW, why is Israel not threatened by Pakistan, which does have nuclear weapons?

Because Pakistan, unlike Iran, does not hate Israel, does not want to eliminate Israel from the map, and does not give military and financial support to Hamas or Hizbollah.

 

[mheslep]

...BTW, why is Israel not threatened by Pakistan, which does have nuclear weapons? ...

Surely Israel would say they are threatened by Pakistani nuclear weapons, as is everyone else, but not to the immediate degree that a nuclear Iran would pose. Why the difference? That would be because Pakistan does not a) sponsor and control large scale guerilla military organizations like Hezbollah that openly state they want to destroy Israel, and b) Pakistan's president does not make statements that "denies the Holocaust and threatens to wipe Israel off the map" - our President about Iran's president.

 

[mheslep]

Because Pakistan, unlike Iran, does not hate Israel, does not want to eliminate Israel from the map, and does not give military and financial support to Hamas or Hizbollah.

Scooped me! Pakistan no doubt has made plenty of critical, even hateful(?), statements about Israeli policy.

 

[turbo]

I think you guys are missing "the big picture". An Israeli strike on Iran will empower radical Muslim factions all over the region. Pakistan's government is already in trouble, and could easily be de-stabilized by a resurgent Taliban. The army and security forces in that country are already co-operating with rebels in rural areas. Want the Taliban and their associates to gain control of Pakistan's nukes?

 

[Gokul43201]

BTW, why is Israel not threatened by Pakistan, which does have nuclear weapons?

Israel and Pakistan have had a much less adversarial relationship since the '70s and '80s, when Israel supplied and ran guns to the Mujahideen in Afghanistan. Pakistani president Zia ul-Haq is noted for having famously accepted Israel's help so long as the crates didn't have a "<bleeping> Star of David" on them ("quoting" from Charlie Wilson's War). The ISI and Mossad have reportedly been sharing intelligence since at least that time. And in recent years, Musharraf has significantly dialed down the rhetoric against Israel and neither Gilani nor Zardari seem likely to ramp it up again.

Here's an article on Israel-Pakistan relations written by Mossad veteran and professor, Shmuel Bar:
http://www.bitterlemons-international.org/previous.php?opt=1&id=103#418

Pakistan's nuclear capability, along with its radical Islamic body politic and involvement in encouraging radicalism, should have placed it high on Israel's list of potential strategic threats. However, even media references to the Pakistani nuclear program as the "Islamic bomb" did not affect Israel's basic policy: to view Pakistan more as a potential interlocutor than as a potential threat. Pakistan itself clarified on various occasions and at various levels that its nuclear capability is not intended to serve any but its own national security.

As for the Taliban gaining power in Pakistan ... if that happens Israel is hardly the only or even first place that needs to start worrying.

 

[mheslep]

I reject the notion that the West/Israel should affect some kind of neutrality between it and the islamo-fascists, because if someone chooses to fight against them the fascists will have grievances and be empowered. They already have grievances. They're aggrieved when they see an unveiled woman, they're aggrieved when homosexuals and Jews are tolerated. I am not signing on to any big picture that claims the moral high ground lies in neutrality with all of that.

 

[ExactlySolved]

How, precisely, do you propose they defend themselves from a nuclear bomb?

Diplomatic concessions, mutual self-assured destruction proclamations, and various other techniques that are modernized versions of what the USA used to defend itself against the nuclear bombs in the USSR. Really it should not be a concern for the US, anymore than 'how will Iran protect itself from Israel's nuclear bombs?'

The Iranians are not anti-semetic: they don't hate jews; they are anti-zionist: they don't believe that the modern state of Israel should exist.

I look at the modern history of the state of Israel, and I am in agreement with the Iranians on this issue: the modern state of israel should not exist, I believe its existence is blatantly anti-moral.

I really like both Judaism and Islam, and I think that after WW2 the world had something of a moral obligation to help jewish people, but displacing the Palestinians to create a militant state which receives an inordinate amount of aid from the US was a bad idea, in moral and practical terms. News flash: radical islamist are mostly furious over US support for Israel, not over our decadent lifestyles as the media often claims.

Ironically, I think it would be worth incurring the wrath of terrorist to help the palestinians, and so I consider a double-mistake to support Israel the way we do. Going to war on their behalf would be horrible, the most morally despicable US war of all time (at least in Vietnam and Iraq we were trying to help the right side, even if we did more harm than good as usually happens in war).

Also, I'm very open to moral arguments in favor of Israel's existence, in fact looking at the posts in this thread I can't help but feel I am missing some information. Please teach me why it is a good idea to support Israel.

 

[russ_watters]

A preemptory strike? But then who is the aggressor?

What is your point?

 

[russ_watters]

Diplomatic concessions...

The quote I responded to implied you were talking about military support.

 

[ExactlySolved]

Diplomatc Concessions...

The quote I responded to implied you were talking about military support.

I meant that Israel could do the diplomatic thing and agree to disolve their state.

 

[tiny-tim]

Iranian antisemitism and holocaust denial

The Iranians are not anti-semetic: they don't hate jews; they are anti-zionist: they don't believe that the modern state of Israel should exist.

The Iranians have antisemitic media, classic-style antisemitic cartoons, and a government that sponsors holocaust denial.

And their belief that the modern state of Israel, unlike any other modern state, should cease to exist is simply racist.

(Even the Arab League now accept that Israel should exist)

 

[Gokul43201]

The Iranians have antisemitic media, classic-style antisemitic cartoons, and a government that sponsors holocaust denial.

And their belief that the modern state of Israel, unlike any other modern state, should cease to exist is simply racist.

I agree with the statements made in the first sentence but not that made in the second (well, it's just not true). Belief that a nation (rather than its people) ought to cease existing is not racist. Much of the US in the 60s and 70s had been hoping and working towards the eradication of the Soviet Union (the beef was with Communism, not the Russians, just as the issue here may be with Zionism rather than with Jews). Moreover, the "unlike any other state" clause is factually incorrect. Ahmadinejad has repeatedly thrown America into the list of countries that ought to cease existing (list=US, Israel), including in the speech where he fantasized that Israel be removed from the pages of history/face of earth. And "death to America" is hardly an unheard of phrase in Iran. Given that, I would say that the only evidence for anti-Semitism lies in the Holocaust denial and the cartoons (most of which - from my experience - are anti-Zionist, but some are certainly anti-Jew).

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Also, I'm very open to moral arguments in favor of Israel's existence, in fact looking at the posts in this thread I can't help but feel I am missing some information. Please teach me why it is a good idea to support Israel.

There have been jews in that region for centuries, if not longer as they claim. European jews aswell. They were oppressed and treated as second class citizens the majority of that time. After the fall of the Ottoman Empire the brits and french gave jews a say in the government. After that point there were only more and more violent clashes between arabs and jews because the arabs were not happy with the jews holding political power. When the jews fleeing persecution by Nazis in europe were denied immigration to palestine the plalestinian jews revolted and helped them immigrate illegally. The mass exodus was the last straw for the arabs, fearing a jewish majority, and civil war broke out. The jews finished the fight and declared themselves a sovereign nation which was immediately invaded. The Israelis then pushed their enemies back and took yet more territory and have since been using it as a buffer zone between themselves and their enemies. Its a long messy story and I am sure that jews attacked arabs as arabs attacked jews but really I see nothing particularly immoral about the manner in which Israel came about. Perhaps you can point it out to me.

 

[Count Iblis]

From the article: I'm comfortable with an endless string of temporary setbacks.

The first strike would be possible because Iran's nuclear installations are under IAEA inspections, therefore everyone knows the exact locations of these installations. After an attack, Iran will withdraw from the NPT and then there would be no easily accessible information about the precise location of their nuclear installations.

 

[tiny-tim]

I agree with the statements made in the first sentence but not that made in the second (well, it's just not true). Belief that a nation (rather than its people) ought to cease existing is not racist.

Of course it is.

Much of the US in the 60s and 70s had been hoping and working towards the eradication of the Soviet Union …

Oh come off it …

Iran doesn't just want a change in the electoral system, it wants either for the Jews to leave Israel, or for Israel to absorbed into a larger country.

The US never wanted the Russians (and other ethnic groups) to leave the USSR, nor for the USSR to be absorbed into some Greater Asian Republic.

… (the beef was with Communism, not the Russians, just as the issue here may be with Zionism rather than with Jews).

Zionism is Jewish nationalism …

how is being against Jewish nationalism not racist?

And how is being against Jewish nationalism not having an issue with Jews?

Ahmadinejad has repeatedly thrown America into the list of countries that ought to cease existing (list=US, Israel) …

Googled, and found nothing … when and where has he said (repeatedly) that America should cease to exist?

 

[Count Iblis]

As if he actually has that power?

If the IAF cannot overfly Iraq then it will be difficult to atack Iran. James Baker told on CNN a few weeks ago that Bush refused Olmert the codes necessary for safely overflying Iraq.

 

[Count Iblis]

According to an old UN reslution Zionism was racism. The US insisted the UN scrap that resolution in exchange for them getting involved in the peace process.

 

[Gokul43201]

They already have grievances. They're aggrieved when they see an unveiled woman, they're aggrieved when homosexuals and Jews are tolerated. I am not signing on to any big picture that claims the moral high ground lies in neutrality with all of that.

You could just as well be describing the Saudi government here.

PS: Parade recently released the 2009 version of their Worst Dictators series; Abdullah is right up there again.
http://www.parade.com/dictators/2009/ 1. Robert Mugabe, Zimbabwe

2. Omar Al-Bashir, Sudan

3. Kim Jong-Il, North Korea

4. Than Shwe, Myanmar

5. King Abdullah, Saudi Arabia

6. Hu Jintao, China

7. Sayyid Ali Khamenei, Iran

8. Isayas Afewerki, Eritrea

9. G. Berdymuhammedov, Turkmenistan

10. Muammar al-Qaddafi, Libya

 

[Gokul43201]

Of course it is.

Thanks for the erudite argument. My response: of course it isn't.

Oh come off it …

Iran doesn't just want a change in the electoral system, it wants either for the Jews to leave Israel, or for Israel to absorbed into a larger country.

The US never wanted the Russians (and other ethnic groups) to leave the USSR, nor for the USSR to be absorbed into some Greater Asian Republic.

They were might pleased that it was broken down into several smaller states. Same difference (wanting the state to lose its political and military influence).

Zionism is Jewish nationalism …

how is being against Jewish nationalism not racist?

And how is being against Jewish nationalism not having an issue with Jews?

It is not. You can most certainly oppose the religious/social/political philosophy of a group of people without holding a bigotry against the people themselves. You seem to have lost track of what racism needs to be about (a race of people, not their political identity).

Googled, and found nothing … when and where has he said (repeatedly) that America should cease to exist?

What are you winking at?

I see you have chosen to ignore one half of the argument that refutes your claim but nevertheless, here's the most well-known instance:

...Ahmadinejad said, "To those who doubt, to those who ask is it possible, or those who do not believe, I say accomplishment of a world without America and Israel is both possible and feasible."

To a cheering audience that at several points erupted with chants of "death to Israel, death to America, death to England"...

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GJ28Ak03.html

And here's the more recent one that I remember making the news:

Iran's president said on Monday Israel would soon disappear off the map and that the "satanic power" of the United States faced destruction, in his latest verbal attack on the Islamic Republic's arch-enemies.

http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSL0261250620080603

You're really confused by an assertion that Ahmadinejad has repeatedly talked about the destruction of America?

 

[tiny-tim]

UN antisemitisim

According to an old UN reslution Zionism was racism. The US insisted the UN scrap that resolution in exchange for them getting involved in the peace process.

(That was a UN General Assembly Resolution, 3379, of 1975).

The UN General Assembly, and bodies answering to it, have a long history of antisemitism, including that infamous "Zionism is racism" resolution, the Durban Conference, and the recent "Durban II Conference", with Ahmadinejad as its keynote speaker.

 

[Count Iblis]

When it comes to the Mid East, the West will weigh the interests of Israel more heavily than the interests of other countries. So, if Israel is now ambiguous on whether or not they will go for the two state solution, it is not really a big deal. But he fact that Hamas has not recognized Israel is a big deal.


The fact that Israel continues to occupy the West Bank is not a big deal. If Iran suggests a one state solution using fiery rhetoric that can be misinterpreted to mean literally mean "destroying Israel", this is seen to be unacceptable.


While the West does care about the interests of the Palestinians and wants to see peace in the region, it seems to me that when it comes to sovereign rights, the West only looks at this from the Israeli point of view. So, we are then only sensitive to any infringement of the Israeli sovereign rights, like the right to be recognized as anindependent state, the right to defend the state against aggression.


The fact that Israel infringes on similar rights the Palestinians have is not considered. So, while we do consider the inconvenience Palestionans face when having to wait at roadblocks, we don't also take the view that, in principle the Palestinians do have the right to resist the occupation. We are quick to point to the existence of a peace process to shut down any discussion of whether or not a resistance against the occupation is legitimate.


This also explains the position the West takes regarding the Iranian nuclear program. The West, lacking any consideration of sovereign rights other than those of Israel, simply does not appreciate the fact that banning Iran from using their own uranium to make fuel for their own powerplants is a grave violation of Iranian sovereign rights that cannot be justified on any reasonable grounds.


The West only considers the potential threat to Israel. If Iran were to develop an indiginous enrichment capabability then that would already be a treat, even if it is under a very strict inspections regime, simply because Iran could theoretically decide to leave the NPT and make nuclear weapons.


Then since Israel has the right to live in peace and, as a sovereign nation, has the right to defend itself, also against potential future threats, Israeli statements about attacking Iran are not considered to be a big deal by the West because the violation of Iranian sovereignity is not taken into account at all.


If we had some notion of the fact that Iran is a sovereign country too, we wouldn't have considered the incentives deal that Iran has rejected. Instead we would have negotiated more inspections of the Iranian nuclear activities in exchange for lifting sanctions.


To Iranians statements from the West like: "Iran does not need nuclear power", "Iran's rejecton of the incentives deal proves that they are only interested in making nuclear weapons", etc. etc. are as insulting as any anti-Israel statements are to Israelis.

 

[tiny-tim]

Ahmadinejad has repeatedly thrown America into the list of countries that ought to cease existing

And here's the more recent one that I remember making the news:

Iran's president said on Monday Israel would soon disappear off the map and that the "satanic power" of the United States faced destruction, in his latest verbal attack on the Islamic Republic's arch-enemies.

http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSL0261250620080603

Well, that (from 2008) doesn't help you …

that's not calling or hoping for the destruction of America, but just of its international power.

(btw, that Reuters report continues … "Turning to the United States, Ahmadinejad said the era of decline and destruction of its "satanic power" had begun.")

… here's the most well-known instance:

...Ahmadinejad said, "To those who doubt, to those who ask is it possible, or those who do not believe, I say accomplishment of a world without America and Israel is both possible and feasible."

To a cheering audience that at several points erupted with chants of "death to Israel, death to America, death to England"...

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GJ28Ak03.html

(I think it's the only instance )

The fuller, and authoritative, version of this 2005 speech, published by the Iranian Students News Agency (translated at http://www.memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Area=sd&ID=SP101305&Page=archives#_edn1)
(which btw, shows your quotation slightly differently …

They [ask]: 'Is it possible for us to witness a world without America and Zionism?' But you had best know that this slogan and this goal are attainable, and surely can be achieved…

clarifies this by showing him adding, a few sentences later…

However, our nation stood firm, and by now we have, for 27 years, been living without a government dependent on America. Imam [Khomeni] said: 'The rule of the East [U.S.S.R.] and of the West [U.S.] should be ended.' But the weak people who saw only the tiny world near them did not believe it.

So Ahmadinejad's words "without America" seem to mean "without American influence or power", not "without America's existence".

(And even with your interpretation, it was in 2005, and has never been repeated, so hardly qualifies as "repeatedly")​

 

[ExactlySolved]

There have been jews in that region for centuries, if not longer as they claim. European jews aswell. They were oppressed and treated as second class citizens the majority of that time.

I agree with you so far.

After the fall of the Ottoman Empire the brits and french gave jews a say in the government. After that point there were only more and more violent clashes between arabs and jews because the arabs were not happy with the jews holding political power.

The British gave the Jews more than political power, the Balfour Declaration of 1917 stated that the British Government "view[ed] with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people...it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine."

When the jews fleeing persecution by Nazis in europe were denied immigration to palestine the plalestinian jews revolted and helped them immigrate illegally.

It was not very moral for hundreds of thousands of Jews to illegally emmigrate to Palestine, even if they were WW2 refugees.

The mass exodus was the last straw for the arabs, fearing a jewish majority, and civil war broke out. The jews finished the fight and declared themselves a sovereign nation which was immediately invaded.

The UN, with major support from the USA, declared Israel to be a sovereign nation. The Brits sided with the Arabs. Why such a difference between British and American opinion? I don't know the answer to this question.

The Israelis then pushed their enemies back and took yet more territory and have since been using it as a buffer zone between themselves and their enemies. Its a long messy story and I am sure that jews attacked arabs as arabs attacked jews but really I see nothing particularly immoral about the manner in which Israel came about. Perhaps you can point it out to me.

The British wanted to help the Jews live in Palestine peacefully, coexisting with the established Arab state, but the Jews eventually revolted against the British in Palestine because they wanted their own state. They exploited the British generosity for 25 years and then dumped them when they became strong enough to fight the Arabs.

A long mess about enemies killing enemies is not immoral, but right now Israel receives more support from the USA than does nay other country. Israel is a state that would never have been created without western intervention, and now it is being sustained (to a larger degree than any other state) by western intervention. In the abscence of further evidence I am forced to conclude that the western intervention arises from anti-arab religious and racial prejudice in the west. I implore someone else to give me a more benign explanation for why the US supports Israel.

 

[Gokul43201]

(And even with your interpretation, it was in 2005, and has never been repeated

This assertion requires you to know every single sentence uttered by Ahmadinejad in public.

Moreover, your own source states pretty clearly that Ahmadinejad sees Israel as nothing more than a "front" put up by the West against the Islamic world, and that the battle against Israel is merely a part of the broader battle against the West. QED.

so hardly qualifies as "repeatedly")

I'll take back the repeatedly (it doesn't take a dozen couterexamples to disprove an assertion), as I have no desire to go about wasting my time digging up instances when Ahmadinejad has spoken of the destruction of America in the same vein as a destruction of Israel. What's more, this thread is veering away from the OP, and I have no desire to take it any farther away.

If you wish to continue arguing this point, do so, but I shall not be responding.

 

[tiny-tim]

This assertion requires you to know every single sentence uttered by Ahmadinejad in public.

No, it only requires me to be confident that any call by Ahmadinejad for America to cease to exist would be found on a google search, together with Americans complaining about it.

QED

QED of what?

This all started when I said …

And their belief that the modern state of Israel, unlike any other modern state, should cease to exist is simply racist.

… and you started talking about America.

I don't recall you subsequently putting forward any proposition for there to be a QED of.

It was not very moral for hundreds of thousands of Jews to illegally emmigrate to Palestine, even if they were WW2 refugees.

It only became illegal because the British had to impose quotas in order to try to keep the peace, because the Palestinian Arabs, instead of welcoming their new legal Jewish neighbours, were increasingly trying to kill them.

Killing your neighbours is immoral (and killing immigrants is both immoral and racist), even if it does persuade the government to halt immigration.

 

[AhmedEzz]

It only became illegal because the British had to impose quotas in order to try to keep the peace, because the Palestinian Arabs, instead of welcoming their new legal Jewish neighbours, were increasingly trying to kill them.

Killing your neighbours is immoral (and killing immigrants is both immoral and racist), even if it does persuade the government to halt immigration.

It is like saying that the native Americans didn't welcome their newly "rightful" neighbors to establish a colony on their territory, instead, they tried to kill them (bad Americans!). This act was considered immoral and therefore, they had to be exterminated.

I didn't want to get involved in this discussion. However, I had to say this.

 

[tiny-tim]

It is like saying that the native Americans didn't welcome their newly "rightful" neighbors to establish a colony on their territory, instead, they tried to kill them (bad Americans!). This act was considered immoral and therefore, they had to be exterminated.

The Palestinian Jews, and later the Israelis, have never tried to exterminate the Palestinian Arabs.

The Palestinian Arabs (well, some of them) did try to drive out the Jews.

(and I was under the impression that the Native Americans did welcome the Europeans, and traded with them, and even sold them Manhattan)

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

It was not very moral for hundreds of thousands of Jews to illegally emmigrate to Palestine, even if they were WW2 refugees.

This seems to be the major point for your argument regarding your original statement so I will focus on it. If we digress onto this topic (in general) too much the thread will probably be locked.

Personally I do not see illegal immigration as immoral. Perhaps we will simply agree to disagree on that, but if one were to see it as morally correct at any point I would imagine it would be when the immigrants are the target of a genocidal pogram. Of course Iran apparently does not recognize the holocaust as historical fact.

The actions of the Palestinian jews in support of the immigrants could potentially be considered immoral but I am not sure what all they did. I am also not certain that I would personally find the assistence of persons fleeing genocidal persecution, even by violent means, to be morally unjust. I don't know that anyone has ever considered the underground railroad of the civil war to be immoral but I suppose that the north did not impose quotas on the number of slaves allowed to "immigrate" from the south. If they had would the immigration have been immoral though? or the quotas?

At any rate I do not see any reason for Iran to consider it to have been immoral or to interfere even if they have. The only reason I can see for denouncing the existence of Israel is to promote instability for political ends. Perhaps this would be immoral if it is the case?

The British wanted to help the Jews live in Palestine peacefully, coexisting with the established Arab state, but the Jews eventually revolted against the British in Palestine because they wanted their own state. They exploited the British generosity for 25 years and then dumped them when they became strong enough to fight the Arabs.

I believe that the jews had wanted a "piece of the pie" for centuries and when the brits gave it to them they finally had something to fight for so they defended it tooth and nail. The Palestinian jews revolted against the British when the British instituted quotas to reduce the number of refugees able to immigrate from Europe. This is the only major issue I am aware of that the jews fought the brits on. As discussed above, perhaps this was justified and perhaps not but either way it does not appear to have simply been a matter of using them and then tossing them aside when they no longer needed them.

A long mess about enemies killing enemies is not immoral, but right now Israel receives more support from the USA than does nay other country. Israel is a state that would never have been created without western intervention, and now it is being sustained (to a larger degree than any other state) by western intervention. In the abscence of further evidence I am forced to conclude that the western intervention arises from anti-arab religious and racial prejudice in the west. I implore someone else to give me a more benign explanation for why the US supports Israel.

This goes to the current point. I can see Iran taking issue with the interference of the US in regional matters. That makes sense. It seems though that they focus on Israel because they are just down the street while the US is across town. Where this tactic may earn them points in the region with their allies I believe that it only hinders them on the world stage. It would seem to be a poor long term strategy unless they can provoke attack from Israel.

 

[turbo]

We have wandered very far from the OP. To reiterate, any Israeli attack on Iran on whatever pretense will not only strengthen Muslim fundamentalist groups (including the most radical ones) and harden the region's resistance to Zionism and scuttle any hopes for peace. There were Christians and Jews living all over the middle east in harmony with Muslims not so long ago. Military adventurism and ethnic cleansing born of opportunism have changed that, and such harmony may never be recaptured. Americans in the south still manage to be enraged by actions taken in the US Civil War, over 100 years before they were born. Don't expect countries in the ME (with MUCH longer histories and traditions) to turn on a dime. Ain't going to happen!

 

[jreelawg]

I don't think the support for Israel is perpetuated by Anti-Arab religious and racial prejudice at it's core. My personal belief is that at the core, the struggle is one of power and control. This struggle never began as a difference in belief or skin color, the struggle was one to expand an empire, to control trade, and a quest for world dominance. Religious and racial prejudice have only played a background role as a natural consequence of the clashing of cultures, and this is fostered and used as fuel to keep the war machines driving for both sides. At it's core, I think it is about the expansion of an empire, and in this case, Israel represents this in a fundamental way. This is why the west is so supportive of Israel in my opinion, because they share a common ancient enemy.

 

[turbo]

I don't think the support for Israel is perpetuated by Anti-Arab religious and racial prejudice at it's core. My personal belief is that at the core, the struggle is one of power and control. This struggle never began as a difference in belief or skin color, the struggle was one to expand an empire, to control trade, and a quest for world dominance. Religious and racial prejudice have only played a background role as a natural consequence of the clashing of cultures, and this is fostered and used as fuel to keep the war machines driving for both sides. At it's core, I think it is about the expansion of an empire, and in this case, Israel represents this in a fundamental way. This is why the west is so supportive of Israel in my opinion, because they share a common ancient enemy.

Are you aware that the "ancient enemy" was defined by the Zionists less than a century ago? Have you any support for your claim that the Arab states intend to control world trade and establish world dominance? Please post reasonable references if you can.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

We have wandered very far from the OP.

Oops. I was trying to tie back here..
When I should have been tying it back here..
Sorry about that.

 

[ExactlySolved]

I think its funny that arguing for the position that the US should not be supporting Israel at all, and much less so by going to war with Iran, is somehow off-topic in a thread about whether the US can/will/should go to war with Iran.

StatutoryApe, thanks for responding to my argument and I agree with most of what you said. Suppose I am willing to concede that the existence of Israel is not immoral. Then is its existence so super-moral that the US should be supporting it at the expense of pissing off radical terrorists?

I don't think the support for Israel is perpetuated by Anti-Arab religious and racial prejudice at it's core. My personal belief is that at the core, the struggle is one of power and control. This struggle never began as a difference in belief or skin color, the struggle was one to expand an empire, to control trade, and a quest for world dominance. Religious and racial prejudice have only played a background role as a natural consequence of the clashing of cultures, and this is fostered and used as fuel to keep the war machines driving for both sides. At it's core, I think it is about the expansion of an empire, and in this case, Israel represents this in a fundamental way. This is why the west is so supportive of Israel in my opinion, because they share a common ancient enemy.

Thanks for your analysis, although I find it unfortunate that the US would participate in such an illogical quest.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I think its funny that arguing for the position that the US should not be supporting Israel at all, and much less so by going to war with Iran, is somehow off-topic in a thread about whether the US can/will/should go to war with Iran.

Threads regarding the middle east often wind up on the topic os the Israel / Palestine conflict. We have at least a few members such as Ahmed who live in the region and have justifiably strong feelings and opinions on the issue. Obviously the discussion gets heated and after several such threads its a near sure fire lockdown. To keep a thread active its best to only brush on the topic and try to keep to the OP as much as possible.

StatutoryApe, thanks for responding to my argument and I agree with most of what you said. Suppose I am willing to concede that the existence of Israel is not immoral. Then is its existence so super-moral that the US should be supporting it at the expense of pissing off radical terrorists?

Thanks for your analysis, although I find it unfortunate that the US would participate in such an illogical quest.

Working toward world cohesion its important to ally with and support countries all over the world. In the long run such support is mutually benefitial and you will generally expect that countries best able to benefit one another will ally more closely. This is an ideal though. In reality there are far stronger under currents of self interest than for the general world interest or, in some cases, even the interest of the supposed ally.
The US seems to use Israel as a sort of political and military wedge. This could theoretically be done in a manner beneficial to the region, especially if the US is willing to put pressure on Israel to reconcile and make peace, but more often Israel seems to be used to protect US interests in the middle east than middle eastern interests in general.
The US threatens and puts pressure on Iran to keep Israel happy and elicit concessions from them to keep them from doing things that may threaten US interests. I see no benefit to any actual military intervention in Iran though. Iran is no where near nuclear capability, as far as I know, and continued frustration of Iran will only serve to insure the danger of Iran possessing nuclear weopons when that day comes. I think that Obama's desire to open a dialog with Iran is good and refusal of a policy to threaten and consider military force against Iran without clear and present danger a good first step.

 

[jreelawg]

Are you aware that the "ancient enemy" was defined by the Zionists less than a century ago? Have you any support for your claim that the Arab states intend to control world trade and establish world dominance? Please post reasonable references if you can.

I guess my point is that wars in general have and are traditional fought over tangible things. I don't buy the idea that man goes and spends billions and costs millions of lives because of racist or religious motives. Not that it doesn't often appear to look like a religious war from the outside, and each side like to tell their people that god is on their side.

I never meant to imply that Arab states are struggling to expand their empires, they are more or less struggling to maintain their empires. Most of them are in no position to dominate world trade. I think it is obvious from historical fact why we have an interest in the middle east. History has shown that the U.S. supported S.H. while he was committing genocide, but when the oil supply was threatened, only then was he demonized, and only then did the religious and racist pandering come into play.

 

[Phrak]

The correct strategy for the US is to stop pushing on Iran through the use of aggressive rhetoric. This self defeating process only served to strengthen the popular support of the Abedinejad coalition. It doesn't play well in the Iranian press. Duh.

Obama would do well, if he has our interests in mind, to listen to the spooks at the CIA. Apparently, he has. At least he's making the right noises.

The upshot is that the more aggressively the US responds, the more likely Iran is to develop nuclear weapons. The more aggressively the US responds, the more likely the Abedinejad coalition will maintain power.

Rather, the US should urgently pursue a strategy encouraging the international community to press for monitoring nuclear energy development in Iran to ensure that Iran is not tempted to develop nuclear weapons.

 

[mheslep]

You could just as well be describing the Saudi government here.

I am indeed talking about Wahibists there and those that fit my description around the world.

PS: Parade recently released the 2009 version of their Worst Dictators series; Abdullah is right up there again.
http://www.parade.com/dictators/2009/


1. Robert Mugabe, Zimbabwe

2. Omar Al-Bashir, Sudan

3. Kim Jong-Il, North Korea

4. Than Shwe, Myanmar

5. King Abdullah, Saudi Arabia

6. Hu Jintao, China

7. Sayyid Ali Khamenei, Iran

8. Isayas Afewerki, Eritrea

9. G. Berdymuhammedov, Turkmenistan

10. Muammar al-Qaddafi, Libya

How is this list of bad guys relevant to the discussion? Last I looked Robert Mugabe wasn't making periodic threats against Israel.

 

[Gokul43201]

How is this list of bad guys relevant to the discussion? Last I looked Robert Mugabe wasn't making periodic threats against Israel.

I took your previous post in isolation, and responded to it in isolation (thus running things a little off the topic). Given that, I should add that the entire list isn't terribly relevant as much as simply pointing out that Abdullah, an ally, is right up there with Khamenei.

 

[signerror]

The first strike would be possible because Iran's nuclear installations are under IAEA inspections, therefore everyone knows the exact locations of these installations.

That's absurd! The IAEA only knows about nuclear installations that are declared to them, or otherwise discovered. If Iran wanted a clandestine nuclear weapons program, by definition they would not be reporting it to weapons inspectors.

Look at the history of Iraqi isotopic enrichment:

The Tarmiya site had no security fence and no visible electrical capacity; only later did inspectors discover that it was powered by a 30-kV underground electrical feed from a 150 MWe substation several kilometers away. Tarmiya was also situated within a large military security zone, thereby needing no additional perimeter security or military defenses at the site. At this same site, the Iraqis built a multimillion-dollar “chemical wash” facility for recovering uranium from refurbished calutron components. This facility was reportedly as sophisticated and clean as any in the West, and triple-filtered so as not to release any trace effluents into the atmosphere that might have led to its detection once it began operation.

Prior to the first IAEA inspection after the Gulf War, the only known nuclear facilities in Iraq were those at the Al Tuwaitha nuclear center, where nuclear material was being safeguarded. No other facilities were declared in the initial Iraqi statements. That the Tarmiya facility housed a substantial piece of the Iraqi nuclear program was only confirmed after the Gulf War in the early summer of 1991, when the movement there of large saucer-like objects (just prior to the first IAEA inspection of the site) led to the positive identification of the Iraqi calutron program. Much of the equipment at this site was disassembled unilaterally by Iraq, and the components hidden from IAEA inspector teams. These pasts were eventually turned over to IAEA personnel and destroyed in place.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/facility/tarmiya.htm

According to Dr. Greenman on this forum, the IAEA knew nothing about this secret enrichment program, and wrongly concluded that Iraq was in full compliance with NPT:

However, under the inspections of the IAEA; the IAEA stated that Iraq was in full compliance with
the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Get the History Channel DVD "Saddam's Weapons". They cover this. They state that the IAEA gave
Iraq an "A+" [ that's a quote ] for compliance with the NPT; when all the while they were enriching
uranium in their EMIS "Calutrons".

We nor the IAEA NEVER SAW that because the amount is so SMALL! Just a few football fields.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=121166&p=2099932

 

[Gokul43201]

Related reading, from a recent Newsweek article on Iran, by Zakaria:

Everything you know about Iran is wrong, or at least more complicated than you think. Take the bomb. The regime wants to be a nuclear power but could well be happy with a peaceful civilian program (which could make the challenge it poses more complex). What's the evidence? Well, over the last five years...

More here: http://www.newsweek.com/id/199147

 

[Count Iblis]

That's absurd! The IAEA only knows about nuclear installations that are declared to them, or otherwise discovered. If Iran wanted a clandestine nuclear weapons program, by definition they would not be reporting it to weapons inspectors.

Well, you still know more than in the hypothetical case in which Iran would not be part of the NPT. So, Russ proposal of striking again if Iran rebuilds its nuclear installations will progressively work less and less well, due to lack of intelligence. Indeed, the Iraqi example proves this: Even the IAEA didn't know about the Iraqi clandestine nuclear sites.

 

[Count Iblis]

Related reading, from a recent Newsweek article on Iran, by Zakaria:

More here: http://www.newsweek.com/id/199147

This is one of the few articles that presents the relevant facts in this dispute. The last line of the article says:

Why not try this before launching the next Mideast war?

I think the EU-3 draft proposals did originally leave room for that, but the US would not approve of it, so it was amended. Under US pressure it was decided that Iran cannot have any enrichment capability. This caused some delay in the finalization of the EU-3 proposals. When Iran finally got the proposals, it was unacceptable to Iran. Iran had suspended all their enrichment activities pending the negotiations for two years and that suspension then ended at that point.

The EU-3 and the US condemned Iran for breaking the agreement because of the resumption of their enrichment activities which was, of course, absurd because Iran had never signed on to permanently stop their enrichment activities.

This condemnation would only have made the Iranians more defensive about their rights and be more distrustful toward the West.

All this points to what I wrote in an earlier posting in this thread: The West doesn't take the sovereign rights of countries in the Mid East very serious if Israeli interests are somehow involved.

 

[mjolnir80]

The Iranians have antisemitic media, classic-style antisemitic cartoons, and a government that sponsors holocaust denial.

And their belief that the modern state of Israel, unlike any other modern state, should cease to exist is simply racist.

(Even the Arab League now accept that Israel should exist)

sorry but how do you know they have antisemitic media, classic-style antisemitic cartoons?
and only the ahmadinejad denies it not the government