Saudis Clear Skies for Israeli Attack On Iran

[Bonam]

Once you stake out a position that essentially only supports one side, you're doomed to fail in efforts at honesty in this debate. Neither side monopolizes supreme moral superiority. I find myself sometimes guilty of this with respect to supporting Israel, but I do consider myself much more honest (resulting from extensive research) on this issue than 99% of other out there. Am I special? No, it's just the natural consequence of seeking out a wide range of sources of information regarding this conflict (no, Wikipedia doesn't count).

I think you are being too harsh on wikipedia. It is an excellent source of information on many topics, including for an intro on the Arab-Israeli conflict, though of course those who want a deeper understanding should read more extensive sources. Wikipedia certainly has more and better information on the conflict than any other encyclopedia.

[Bonam]

The thing is, Gilad Shalit get NO airwaves. I consume a lot of American and Canadian media, and I've barely ever seen Gilad Shalit mentioned on any news program outside of an obscure reference to him from one of the typical "pro-Israel" token commentators in one of those two-minute "debates". Not sure where naomiglover gets the impression that Gilad Shalit gets a lot of coverage. The exact opposite is true.

Well to be fair I think the fact that we've pretty much all heard the name of this one specific prisoner speaks to the fact that it's been publicized pretty well. Besides Israel's failure to take direct action to retrieve Shalit, they've done a good job, in my opinion, of keeping the issue alive diplomatically and in the media.

[Bob]

Well to be fair I think the fact that we've pretty much all heard the name of this one specific prisoner speaks to the fact that it's been publicized pretty well. Besides Israel's failure to take direct action to retrieve Shalit, they've done a good job, in my opinion, of keeping the issue alive diplomatically and in the media.

I completely disagree. Those of us in here know of Gilad Shalit because we consume Middle Eastern news, and/or talk to people that follow the issues of the region. I'm quite certain that 99% of Canadians (and probably Americans) do not know who Gilad Shalit is, and I'm certain many more Canadians (and certainly Americans) know of the arrested American hikers being held captive in Iran.

[Bonam]

I completely disagree. Those of us in here know of Gilad Shalit because we consume Middle Eastern news, and/or talk to people that follow the issues of the region. I'm quite certain that 99% of Canadians (and probably Americans) do not know who Gilad Shalit is, and I'm certain many more Canadians (and certainly Americans) know of the arrested American hikers being held captive in Iran.

You could be right I suppose. Most people I've talked on this topic have heard of the issue but that is a relatively small sample.

[Bob]

I think you are being too harsh on wikipedia. It is an excellent source of information on many topics, including for an intro on the Arab-Israeli conflict, though of course those who want a deeper understanding should read more extensive sources. Wikipedia certainly has more and better information on the conflict than any other encyclopedia.

Since when were encyclopedia's good sources of information on the details of conflicts? Perhaps Wikipedia is a good start for someone who doesn't know where Israel or Palestine are on the map, but beyond the most basic facts (when a war started, when it ended, the number of casualties), you'll never see any valuable analysis there. Which is understandable, as it's an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is also very biased, as the majority of its editors are clearly left-leaning folks with too much time on their hands (perhaps they are unemployed and/or uneducated). My advice to people who are sincerely interested in learning about this conflict, read books by renowned historians. Then read memoirs and analysis from involved parties, when its Kissinger's or Baker's autobiography, or Carter's "Peace, not Apartheid" or even Dershowitz's refutation of much of the anti-Israel bullshit out there, "The Case Against Israel's enemies".

Wikipedia is brutally amateur.

[August1991]

People like naomiglover are a big part of the problem with the entire debate over the Arab-Israeli conflict. According to her, all the blame lies with one party: Israel.

I disagree. For Naomi and the people like her, the blame lies with America.

Those rich, powerful, fat cat Americans are always to blame.

----

For Naomi, Israel is only a prostitute to the rich gangster America. America is the real culprit.

Edited June 14, 2010 by August1991

[Bonam]

Since when were encyclopedia's good sources of information on the details of conflicts? Perhaps Wikipedia is a good start for someone who doesn't know where Israel or Palestine are on the map, but beyond the most basic facts (when a war started, when it ended, the number of casualties), you'll never see any valuable analysis there. Which is understandable, as it's an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is also very biased, as the majority of its editors are clearly left-leaning folks with too much time on their hands (perhaps they are unemployed and/or uneducated). My advice to people who are sincerely interested in learning about this conflict, read books by renowned historians. Then read memoirs and analysis from involved parties, when its Kissinger's or Baker's autobiography, or Carter's "Peace, not Apartheid" or even Dershowitz's refutation of much of the anti-Israel bullshit out there, "The Case Against Israel's enemies".

Wikipedia is brutally amateur.

Wikipedia isn't there to provide analysis or opinion. It's there to provide facts, and it is excellent for that (quite beyond just finding them on the map). A neutral observer should be interested in the facts and form their own opinions, rather than simply reading and agreeing with books espousing a particular point of view. I disagree with wikipedia being very biased towards the left. It does a good job of presenting facts in a relatively neutral tone, and opinionated statements in heavily used articles are almost always sourced rather than presented as fact in the voice of the article.

Consider this part of the article on the Arab-Israeli conflict:

Before the adoption by the United Nations of Resolution 181 in November 1947 and the declaration of the State of Israel in May 1948, several Arab countries adopted discriminatory measures against their local Jewish populations.[26][27] There were riots in Yemen and Syria. In Libya, Jews were deprived of citizenship, and in Iraq, their property was seized.[28] As a result, a large number of Jews were forced to emigrate from Arab lands, although many also emigrated for ideological reasons.[29] Over 700,000 Jews emigrated to Israel between 1948 and 1952, with approximately 285,000 of them from Arab countries.[30][29] Overall, about 850,000 Jews had left the Arab World by the early 1970s (according to official Arab documentation), with many of them leaving their property behind.[31] Today, these displaced Jews and their descendants represent 41% of the total population of Israel. For details, see Jewish exodus from Arab lands.

As a result of Israel's victory in its 1948 war of independence, any Arabs caught on the wrong side of the cease-fire line were unable to return to their homes in what became Israel. Likewise, any Jews on the West Bank or in Gaza were exiled from their property and homes to Israel. The main difference between the two is that Arabs were allowed to stay in Israel and gain citizenship post-1948, while Jews were completely removed from Arab-held areas after 1948. Today's Palestinian refugees are the descendants of those who left, either out of fear for their lives or in response to instructions from the Grand Mufti and/or Arab armies to leave their homes, so the Arab armies would have a free-fire range to evict the Jews from the new UN-created State of Israel.[citation needed]

In 1956, Egypt closed the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping, and blockaded the Gulf of Aqaba, in contravention of the Constantinople Convention of 1888. Many argued that this was also a violation of the 1949 Armistice Agreements.[32][33] On July 26, 1956, Egypt nationalized the Suez Canal Company, and closed the canal to Israeli shipping.[34]

Israel responded on October 29, 1956, by invading the Sinai Peninsula with British and French support. During the Suez Canal Crisis, Israel captured the Gaza Strip and Sinai Peninsula. The United States and the United Nations soon pressured it into a ceasefire.[34][35] Israel agreed to withdraw from Egyptian territory. Egypt agreed to freedom of navigation in the region and the demilitarization of the Sinai. The United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF) was created and deployed to oversee the demilitarization.[36] The UNEF was only deployed on the Egyptian side of the border, as Israel refused to allow them on its territory.[37]

On May 19, 1967, Egypt expelled UNEF observers,[38] and deployed 100,000 soldiers in the Sinai Peninsula.[39] It again closed the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping,[40][41] returning the region to the way it was in 1956 when Israel was blockaded.

In 1966-67, Egypt's leader, Gamal Abdel Nasser, began a pan-Arab campaign seeking unified support to conquer Israel and expel the Jews. Freshly armed with the latest in Soviet supplied planes, tanks, and other military stocks, Egypt felt, for the first time since 1948, that they were in a position to overrun Israel. Egyptian media began a relentless and supportive jingoist campaign whipping up a fervor of popular support for war. This enthusiasm spilled over to the other Arab capitals.

On May 30, 1967, Jordan entered into the mutual defense pact between Egypt and Syria. Egypt mobilized Sinai units, crossing UN lines (after having expelled the UN border monitors) and mobilized and massed on Israel's southern border. Likewise, armies in Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan also mobilized, encircling Israel for an imminent coordinated attack. In response, on June 5 Israel sent almost all of its planes on a preemptive mission into Egypt. The Israeli Air Force (IAF) destroyed most of the Egyptian Air Force in a surprise attack, then turned east to destroy the Jordanian, Syrian and Iraqi air forces.[citation needed] This strike was the crucial element in Israel's victory in the Six-Day War.[39][41] At the war's end, Israel had gained control of the Sinai Peninsula, the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, eastern Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights. The results of the war affect the geopolitics of the region to this day.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab–Israeli_conflict

Doesn't seem overly left-biased to me.

Edited June 14, 2010 by Bonam

[dre]

The main concern here isnt really that Iran would nuke Israel. The rulers of Iran are interested in their own self-preservation like anyone else in that position... which of course why nuclear hostilities are so rare.

Whats really at stake here is allowed an adversary of the west and Israel to move a powerfull piece onto the board. A nuclear armed Iran will be tougher to deal with, tougher to push around, and make it harder for countries like the US and Israel to throw their weight around in the region.

Its all about a shift in the balance of power... thats why Iran might want nuclear weapons, and thats why various other countries DONT want Iran to get them.

[ToadBrother]

I could care less if Iran gets nukes. Despite all the western rhetoric Iran has been one of the least problematic countries in the middle east and has for the most part historically been the victim of the agression of others.

Except for the arms export, in particular to the Palestinians. Oh, and basically pulling Hamas's strings.

In any case youre right. At best an Israeli strike would set Iran back by a little bit. Irans nuclear program is designed for such a strike... its scattered amongst almost 300 locations with many of them positioned deep underground. And Iran has at least some capacity to respond to such an attach as well... they would likely attack Telaviv.

I doubt very much Iran would do it, because a direct attack on Israel would likely make it impossible for Russia to stop supporting the regime (which it does, often quietly) and would basically give the Americans the thumbs up to knock out Iran in a big way. The US has been building technologies for several years, in particular bombs like the bunker busters, which are designed to knock out things hidden underground. But I don't think it would have to go that far. I suspect turning Qom into a crater would be enough to destabilize the regime.

Edited June 14, 2010 by ToadBrother

[ToadBrother]

Wikipedia isn't there to provide analysis or opinion. It's there to provide facts, and it is excellent for that (quite beyond just finding them on the map). A neutral observer should be interested in the facts and form their own opinions, rather than simply reading and agreeing with books espousing a particular point of view. I disagree with wikipedia being very biased towards the left. It does a good job of presenting facts in a relatively neutral tone, and opinionated statements in heavily used articles are almost always sourced rather than presented as fact in the voice of the article.

Consider this part of the article on the Arab-Israeli conflict:

Before the adoption by the United Nations of Resolution 181 in November 1947 and the declaration of the State of Israel in May 1948, several Arab countries adopted discriminatory measures against their local Jewish populations.[26][27] There were riots in Yemen and Syria. In Libya, Jews were deprived of citizenship, and in Iraq, their property was seized.[28] As a result, a large number of Jews were forced to emigrate from Arab lands, although many also emigrated for ideological reasons.[29] Over 700,000 Jews emigrated to Israel between 1948 and 1952, with approximately 285,000 of them from Arab countries.[30][29] Overall, about 850,000 Jews had left the Arab World by the early 1970s (according to official Arab documentation), with many of them leaving their property behind.[31] Today, these displaced Jews and their descendants represent 41% of the total population of Israel. For details, see Jewish exodus from Arab lands.

As a result of Israel's victory in its 1948 war of independence, any Arabs caught on the wrong side of the cease-fire line were unable to return to their homes in what became Israel. Likewise, any Jews on the West Bank or in Gaza were exiled from their property and homes to Israel. The main difference between the two is that Arabs were allowed to stay in Israel and gain citizenship post-1948, while Jews were completely removed from Arab-held areas after 1948. Today's Palestinian refugees are the descendants of those who left, either out of fear for their lives or in response to instructions from the Grand Mufti and/or Arab armies to leave their homes, so the Arab armies would have a free-fire range to evict the Jews from the new UN-created State of Israel.[citation needed]

In 1956, Egypt closed the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping, and blockaded the Gulf of Aqaba, in contravention of the Constantinople Convention of 1888. Many argued that this was also a violation of the 1949 Armistice Agreements.[32][33] On July 26, 1956, Egypt nationalized the Suez Canal Company, and closed the canal to Israeli shipping.[34]

Israel responded on October 29, 1956, by invading the Sinai Peninsula with British and French support. During the Suez Canal Crisis, Israel captured the Gaza Strip and Sinai Peninsula. The United States and the United Nations soon pressured it into a ceasefire.[34][35] Israel agreed to withdraw from Egyptian territory. Egypt agreed to freedom of navigation in the region and the demilitarization of the Sinai. The United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF) was created and deployed to oversee the demilitarization.[36] The UNEF was only deployed on the Egyptian side of the border, as Israel refused to allow them on its territory.[37]

On May 19, 1967, Egypt expelled UNEF observers,[38] and deployed 100,000 soldiers in the Sinai Peninsula.[39] It again closed the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping,[40][41] returning the region to the way it was in 1956 when Israel was blockaded.

In 1966-67, Egypt's leader, Gamal Abdel Nasser, began a pan-Arab campaign seeking unified support to conquer Israel and expel the Jews. Freshly armed with the latest in Soviet supplied planes, tanks, and other military stocks, Egypt felt, for the first time since 1948, that they were in a position to overrun Israel. Egyptian media began a relentless and supportive jingoist campaign whipping up a fervor of popular support for war. This enthusiasm spilled over to the other Arab capitals.

On May 30, 1967, Jordan entered into the mutual defense pact between Egypt and Syria. Egypt mobilized Sinai units, crossing UN lines (after having expelled the UN border monitors) and mobilized and massed on Israel's southern border. Likewise, armies in Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan also mobilized, encircling Israel for an imminent coordinated attack. In response, on June 5 Israel sent almost all of its planes on a preemptive mission into Egypt. The Israeli Air Force (IAF) destroyed most of the Egyptian Air Force in a surprise attack, then turned east to destroy the Jordanian, Syrian and Iraqi air forces.[citation needed] This strike was the crucial element in Israel's victory in the Six-Day War.[39][41] At the war's end, Israel had gained control of the Sinai Peninsula, the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, eastern Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights. The results of the war affect the geopolitics of the region to this day.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab–Israeli_conflict

Doesn't seem overly left-biased to me.

A rather well-done recounting which demonstrates my point that Israel's territorial gains happened because of inept Arab attempts to wipe them out, which lead, in general terms, to routes on every occasion.

Now will one of these Israeli-haters be fair and start demanding the return of the Kurils to Japan and Danzig to Germany?

[sharkman]

The main concern here isnt really that Iran would nuke Israel. The rulers of Iran are interested in their own self-preservation like anyone else in that position... which of course why nuclear hostilities are so rare.

Whats really at stake here is allowed an adversary of the west and Israel to move a powerfull piece onto the board. A nuclear armed Iran will be tougher to deal with, tougher to push around, and make it harder for countries like the US and Israel to throw their weight around in the region.

Its all about a shift in the balance of power... thats why Iran might want nuclear weapons, and thats why various other countries DONT want Iran to get them.

That all sounds good and reasonable, dre, until one puts the Iranian president under the microscope. He's a certifiable nutbar who thinks the holocaust never happened, Israel should be pushed into the sea, and there is a Muslim Messiah hiding at the bottom of a well waiting for him to bring as much chaos into the world as he can.

It's not about a shift in the balance of power, it's about a crazed lunatic with a hatred for one specific race who wants to 'improve his power grid' when he's already got the wealth of the world under his feet(oil) to supply his electricity needs. It doesn't add up, which means he's lying about his nuclear ambitions, which you obviously recognize but don't care about. When did you stop caring about crazed dictators who want the bomb so bad that they'll say anything to get it?

[dre]

That all sounds good and reasonable, dre, until one puts the Iranian president under the microscope. He's a certifiable nutbar who thinks the holocaust never happened, Israel should be pushed into the sea, and there is a Muslim Messiah hiding at the bottom of a well waiting for him to bring as much chaos into the world as he can.

It's not about a shift in the balance of power, it's about a crazed lunatic with a hatred for one specific race who wants to 'improve his power grid' when he's already got the wealth of the world under his feet(oil) to supply his electricity needs. It doesn't add up, which means he's lying about his nuclear ambitions, which you obviously recognize but don't care about. When did you stop caring about crazed dictators who want the bomb so bad that they'll say anything to get it?

The Iranian president has absolutely nothing but symbolic power. He has now more power to launch potential Iranian nukes than Oprah Winfrey has of launching US nukes.

The Ayatolla is the person that makes those decisions and hes know for self preservation and being a relatively careful guy. Thats why hes lasted for so long.

Amadinejaad has no power, and wont last long anyways.

wants to 'improve his power grid' when he's already got the wealth of the world under his feet(oil) to supply his electricity needs. It doesn't add up, which means he's lying about his nuclear ambitions

Oil sucks for providing primary electricity needs, plus Iran has little refining capacity or the means to build it. Iran relies on imports for Gasoline and Deisel just like the US.

Like I said... this whole thing is about the balance of power in the region and Irans ambition to be a regional player after the largest check against Iranian power (Saddam Hussein) was conveniently removed by the west.

[dre]

Except for the arms export, in particular to the Palestinians. Oh, and basically pulling Hamas's strings.

I doubt very much Iran would do it, because a direct attack on Israel would likely make it impossible for Russia to stop supporting the regime (which it does, often quietly) and would basically give the Americans the thumbs up to knock out Iran in a big way. The US has been building technologies for several years, in particular bombs like the bunker busters, which are designed to knock out things hidden underground. But I don't think it would have to go that far. I suspect turning Qom into a crater would be enough to destabilize the regime.

Except for the arms export, in particular to the Palestinians. Oh, and basically pulling Hamas's strings.

All countries that fancy themselves as players in regional or geo-politics export arms and fight wars by proxy.

[sharkman]

The Iranian president has absolutely nothing but symbolic power. He has now more power to launch potential Iranian nukes than Oprah Winfrey has of launching US nukes.

The Ayatolla is the person that makes those decisions and hes know for self preservation and being a relatively careful guy. Thats why hes lasted for so long.

Oil sucks for providing primary electricity needs, plus Iran has little refining capacity or the means to build it. Iran relies on imports for Gasoline and Deisel just like the US.

Like I said... this whole thing is about the balance of power in the region and Irans ambition to be a regional player after the largest check against Iranian power (Saddam Hussein) was conveniently removed by the west.

You don't need nuclear bombs to be a player. Iraq proved that many times. Iran is already a player, they don't need nukes.

I can't believe your analysis of the situation. Iran has little refining capacity? They don't have the means to build it? You just described to a 'T' Iran's nuclear capacity. 5 years ago they had no ability to produce, refine or make nuclear energy. They also didn't have the means to build it, maybe I'm going back 7 or 8 years. That didn't stop them from procuring the means to produce it.

They could have procured the means to refine oil, make dams or several other strategies to produce electricity. History proves your sentiments wrong. They went after nuclear technology by illegal means when they could have gone after oil refining, dam building or wind power technology. But I think you know the wanted the nuclear technology for the A bomb, and you are fine with their lies. I don't understand why you are fine with that though.

As for the Ayatolla being the real power in Iran, if that is true then he is the one who installed Ahmadinejad the nutbar, and that seriously puts into question the Ayatolla's judgement, who seems to be fine with the Jewish Holocaust hate speech and the Muslim Messiah needing world calamities before he appears nonsense.

The bottom line is Iran didn't need to spend billions on nukes. They are an oil rich country, which means they should have spent money on upgrading their oil industry instead. They don't want electricity, they want to bring about world crises so the Muslim Messiah appears.

[ToadBrother]

The Iranian president has absolutely nothing but symbolic power. He has now more power to launch potential Iranian nukes than Oprah Winfrey has of launching US nukes.

I'm well aware of that.

The Ayatolla is the person that makes those decisions and hes know for self preservation and being a relatively careful guy. Thats why hes lasted for so long.

He is also known as a theological and political lightweight that has largely been overawed by the Revolutionary Guards. It's pretty clear now that they control Khamenei, that they have the president they want, with a lot of ties to the Revolutionary Guard. The Guardian Council itself seems practically sidelined, or at the very least since the election last year, has gone in a big way into circle-the-wagons mode.

A lot of observers have commented that the Iran that existed between 1979 and June of 2009 no longer exists, and the Iran that exists now is a thinly veiled military dictatorship. In large part this is because Khamenei is no Khomeini. The first Supreme Leader, on top of everything else, was a damned clever old fox who was smart enough to know the rules of running a country that was basically governed by a military-secret police apparatus. His successor was always viewed by the other Ayatollahs as a light weight and now he's become a figure head.

Oil sucks for providing primary electricity needs, plus Iran has little refining capacity or the means to build it. Iran relies on imports for Gasoline and Deisel just like the US.

Like I said... this whole thing is about the balance of power in the region and Irans ambition to be a regional player after the largest check against Iranian power (Saddam Hussein) was conveniently removed by the west.

Oh I agree Iran wants to be a regional player, but it is still an ineptly run one. It's very clear that a large part of the populace wants out from underneath the Islamic Republic, but until the Iranian Army finally decides to make a choice, the whole thing is in limbo, and the Revolutionary Guard can happily expend valuable resources on its nuclear program while the economy remains in a thirty year funk. It isn't going to take a revolution of the people, it's going to take the Army dismantling the Revolutionary Guard and the Basij, probably through civil war, which is what has likely stayed their hand this long. Iran seems to be in the same state of affairs as the mid Roman Empire, caught between the Legions on one side and the Praetorian Guard on the other. Ultimately the solution to the toxic effects of the Praetorian Guard on Roman politics was essentially a civil war in Italy that saw Constantine utterly defeat the Praetorian Guard. I think that's what is going to have to happen in Iran.

[dre]

You don't need nuclear bombs to be a player. Iraq proved that many times. Iran is already a player, they don't need nukes.

I can't believe your analysis of the situation. Iran has little refining capacity? They don't have the means to build it? You just described to a 'T' Iran's nuclear capacity. 5 years ago they had no ability to produce, refine or make nuclear energy. They also didn't have the means to build it, maybe I'm going back 7 or 8 years. That didn't stop them from procuring the means to produce it.

They could have procured the means to refine oil, make dams or several other strategies to produce electricity. History proves your sentiments wrong. They went after nuclear technology by illegal means when they could have gone after oil refining, dam building or wind power technology. But I think you know the wanted the nuclear technology for the A bomb, and you are fine with their lies. I don't understand why you are fine with that though.

As for the Ayatolla being the real power in Iran, if that is true then he is the one who installed Ahmadinejad the nutbar, and that seriously puts into question the Ayatolla's judgement, who seems to be fine with the Jewish Holocaust hate speech and the Muslim Messiah needing world calamities before he appears nonsense.

The bottom line is Iran didn't need to spend billions on nukes. They are an oil rich country, which means they should have spent money on upgrading their oil industry instead. They don't want electricity, they want to bring about world crises so the Muslim Messiah appears.

I can't believe your analysis of the situation. Iran has little refining capacity? They don't have the means to build it? You just described to a 'T' Iran's nuclear capacity. 5 years ago they had no ability to produce, refine or make nuclear energy. They also didn't have the means to build it, maybe I'm going back 7 or 8 years. That didn't stop them from procuring the means to produce it.

You keep talking as if the only reason to develop nuclear technology is lack of fossil fuels and that since Iran has oil, they have no need for nuclear power. This is just patently false. The only countries you could accurately make that statement about that I can think of are France and Germany. They developed nuclear power because they had little in the way of coal, oil, or natural gas.

Fossil fuel and nuclear energy are not mutually exclusive. Having oil reserves is NOT a reason to not develope nuclear energy. That whole line of reasoning with regard to Iran is faux.

As for the Ayatolla being the real power in Iran, if that is true then he is the one who installed Ahmadinejad the nutbar

You need to do a bit of research on the Iranian system before you come to conclusions like this. The president in Iran is a mechanism to make people in Iran "think" they have democratic representation. He isnt "installed" by the supreme ruler.

The president is chosen by universal sufferage (adults over 18). The catch of course being that candidates have to be approved by Irans Guardian council. Which is exactly why Amadinjaad says some of the stupid shit he does... hes hamming it up for a population that is relatively anti western.

The idea that Iran wants to wipe out all the jews has no real basis in fact. If they wanted to do that, they would probably start at home. But they havent. The Iranian constitution actually declares that jews are equal to muslims and in fact jews have more representation per capita in parliament.

[dre]

I'm well aware of that.

He is also known as a theological and political lightweight that has largely been overawed by the Revolutionary Guards. It's pretty clear now that they control Khamenei, that they have the president they want, with a lot of ties to the Revolutionary Guard. The Guardian Council itself seems practically sidelined, or at the very least since the election last year, has gone in a big way into circle-the-wagons mode.

A lot of observers have commented that the Iran that existed between 1979 and June of 2009 no longer exists, and the Iran that exists now is a thinly veiled military dictatorship. In large part this is because Khamenei is no Khomeini. The first Supreme Leader, on top of everything else, was a damned clever old fox who was smart enough to know the rules of running a country that was basically governed by a military-secret police apparatus. His successor was always viewed by the other Ayatollahs as a light weight and now he's become a figure head.

Oh I agree Iran wants to be a regional player, but it is still an ineptly run one. It's very clear that a large part of the populace wants out from underneath the Islamic Republic, but until the Iranian Army finally decides to make a choice, the whole thing is in limbo, and the Revolutionary Guard can happily expend valuable resources on its nuclear program while the economy remains in a thirty year funk. It isn't going to take a revolution of the people, it's going to take the Army dismantling the Revolutionary Guard and the Basij, probably through civil war, which is what has likely stayed their hand this long. Iran seems to be in the same state of affairs as the mid Roman Empire, caught between the Legions on one side and the Praetorian Guard on the other. Ultimately the solution to the toxic effects of the Praetorian Guard on Roman politics was essentially a civil war in Italy that saw Constantine utterly defeat the Praetorian Guard. I think that's what is going to have to happen in Iran.

Thats an interesting analysis, thanx. Ill definately make an effort to read more about it.

But it doesnt conflict with what I said before. I still dont see any evidence that if Iran is building nuclear weapons its because they want commit suicide on behalf of the entire persian race by nuking Israel or any other western ally. Whats much more likely is that they would want nukes for the same reason that all the other countries that have them wanted them.

[ToadBrother]

Thats an interesting analysis, thanx. Ill definately make an effort to read more about it.

But it doesnt conflict with what I said before. I still dont see any evidence that if Iran is building nuclear weapons its because they want commit suicide on behalf of the entire persian race by nuking Israel or any other western ally. Whats much more likely is that they would want nukes for the same reason that all the other countries that have them wanted them.

Iran is chasing after nuclear weapons for the same reason North Korea is, to stave off an invasion. As you say, it gives them far greater presence in regional, and even international affairs, but just as importantly, perhaps more so, it makes them largely immune to more direct forms of force.

Frankly, I don't think short of an all-out invasion we can hope to end their nuclear program. Unfortunately, for the Iranian people themselves, having people like the Revolutionary Guard with their hands on the button means even destabilizing the regime from the outside is a non-starter. Who knows, maybe the real rulers of Iran want the nuclear option to contain the regular army as much as they want to stave off invasions. Regimes like this work in weird ways.

Edited June 14, 2010 by ToadBrother

[bloodyminded]

The thing is, Gilad Shalit get NO airwaves. I consume a lot of American and Canadian media, and I've barely ever seen Gilad Shalit mentioned on any news program outside of an obscure reference to him from one of the typical "pro-Israel" token commentators in one of those two-minute "debates". Not sure where naomiglover gets the impression that Gilad Shalit gets a lot of coverage. The exact opposite is true.

The number of people who know the name "Gilad Shalit" compared to the number of people who can name ONE Palestinian prisoner--and there are a lot of them, and we do not know that they are all guilty of something--isn't even comparable.

[WIP]

Perhaps WWII could have been avoided if we simply submitted to Nazi Germany.

So let's double down and bring on the nukes!

During the long Cold War, the U.S. and the Soviet Union had enough sense to realize that the era of winner-take-all wars was coming to an end, so they fought a strategic battle of fomenting revolutions and military coups, along with the occasional proxy war as a substitute to total all out war.

In the new cold war that pits the USA against Russia, China, the Muslim World and a possible alliance with other nations that oppose U.S. hegemony; we have been led to believe that the only crazies out there who would actually use nukes are the Iranians, or some other Muslim nation that has the bomb. But, now some of us are getting suspicious that Israel is also a reckless, unstable regime that jeopardizes the world with its nukes.

Over the years, the assumed wisdom has been that Israel only has those secret nukes as a trump card or last resort defense. But now it looks like they are actively trying to provoke a regional war to unleash a nuclear attack. It has become pretty damn obvious to everyone including Israel's most ardent defenders, that Israeli governments are no longer interested in any sort of peace process, since they have decided in recent years to go it alone and build walls and blockade Palestinians in occupied territories. They are trying to starve out the Palestinian population in Gaza with the blockade, where 40% of children are showing signs of malnutrition.

So, exactly what makes them so confident that they are going to have their cake and eat it too? The IDF struggled in battles with Hezbollah in Lebanon in 2006 and Hamas in Gaza in 2008 against mostly home-made rockets and missiles. Their tanks are vulnerable to Russian-made rocket-propelled grenades; their ships are vulnerable to Chinese missiles obtained by Hezbollah; and the Russian S-300 surface-to-air missiles that are being sold to Iran, may also find their way to Lebanon...... so what makes Israel so confident that they do not have to even make an attempt at a peace agreement? Unless, they are already planning to use the nukes on Iran. If the U.S. doesn't feel confident that they can hit all of the secret underground targets in Iran, how the hell do the Israeli's think they can do it.... unless their bombing raid will be a nuclear attack.

[WIP]

The bottom line is Iran didn't need to spend billions on nukes. They are an oil rich country, which means they should have spent money on upgrading their oil industry instead. They don't want electricity, they want to bring about world crises so the Muslim Messiah appears.

Right! But you think it's fine to support the Christian Zionists over here who want Israel to fulfill their role in Prophecy!

[Bonam]

Over the years, the assumed wisdom has been that Israel only has those secret nukes as a trump card or last resort defense. But now it looks like they are actively trying to provoke a regional war to unleash a nuclear attack.

Insane lies.

It has become pretty damn obvious to everyone including Israel's most ardent defenders, that Israeli governments are no longer interested in any sort of peace process, since they have decided in recent years to go it alone and build walls and blockade Palestinians in occupied territories. They are trying to starve out the Palestinian population in Gaza with the blockade, where 40% of children are showing signs of malnutrition.

All false.

So, exactly what makes them so confident that they are going to have their cake and eat it too? The IDF struggled in battles with Hezbollah in Lebanon in 2006 and Hamas in Gaza in 2008 against mostly home-made rockets and missiles.

They "struggled" because they were fighting with their hands tied behind their backs trying to avoid civilian casualties among the enemy.

Their tanks are vulnerable to Russian-made rocket-propelled grenades; their ships are vulnerable to Chinese missiles obtained by Hezbollah;

Both technical deficiencies are already being remedied.

and the Russian S-300 surface-to-air missiles that are being sold to Iran, may also find their way to Lebanon

Those weapons are no longer going to be sold to Iran. As part of the last round of sanctions, Russia agreed not to sell the S-300 system to Iran.

...... so what makes Israel so confident that they do not have to even make an attempt at a peace agreement? Unless, they are already planning to use the nukes on Iran. If the U.S. doesn't feel confident that they can hit all of the secret underground targets in Iran, how the hell do the Israeli's think they can do it

Obviously by trying harder than the US would be willing to, since it is an existential matter for Israel. If it came to it, they would be willing to launch multiple air raids and endure some casualties to get the mission complete. The US assessment of not being "confident" means that they don't think they could do it with trivial ease and almost complete certainty of zero American casualties. If they wanted to and were willing to accept a harder mission, though, then they could certainly do it.

.... unless their bombing raid will be a nuclear attack.

Israel would be crazy to launch a nuclear attack unless either they had just been nuked themselves or unless Jerusalem or Tel Aviv were being overrun by enemy troops. Not gonna happen in any other situation.

[dre]

Frankly, I don't think short of an all-out invasion we can hope to end their nuclear program. Unfortunately, for the Iranian people themselves, having people like the Revolutionary Guard with their hands on the button means even destabilizing the regime from the outside is a non-starter.

Of course it wont end their nuclear program it will accelerate it. It will prove that they were RIGHT to want to aquire a nuclear deterrent, and it will radicalize MORE of the Iranian population. Theres really nothing you could possibly do to make the problem worse there and empower militant conservatives in Iran than attacking the country over Iranian enrichment (something they are legally entitled to do as an NPT signatory).

[Bob]

Of course it wont end their nuclear program it will accelerate it. It will prove that they were RIGHT to want to aquire a nuclear deterrent, and it will radicalize MORE of the Iranian population. Theres really nothing you could possibly do to make the problem worse there and empower militant conservatives in Iran than attacking the country over Iranian enrichment (something they are legally entitled to do as an NPT signatory).

By the same logic, attacking the Nazis would only make them angrier. Avoiding violence at all costs isn't a defensible moral principle, in fact - it's the position of one with no principles at all.

[Oleg Bach]

Dear Bob...if you are immigrating to Israel soon I suggest that you run for public office and perhaps get rid of the occupying AMERICAN forces - they are much like the Romans of old...maybe you can stand up to them - and maybe you can be the new Messiah . and maybe it will all end badly as they turn you into a religion much like the oppressive and perverse version of Christianity that we all suffer from these days.