One has to question the reason why this information was leaked now. My guess is that Israel or the US wants Iran to be paranoid about a secret agent within their nuclear facilities and go hunting for a mole. Imagine if Israel planted evidence on a prominent Iranian physicist? Good luck proving your innocence.
The whole Stuxnet story would make for a great spy novel, that's for sure.
We've been at covert war with them for some time, and this is just another shot fired.
That said, one hell of a shot. They hit Iran, Syria, Russia, China (and Germany!) with one little leaked bullet...each of those countries is eyeing their industrial processes and engineers just a but more closely after today.
There's no subtlety to what Israel is doing. They aren't encouraging paranoia or planting evidence, they're literally killing the scientists involved. I don't care which side of the fence you sit on, assassinating scientists for a presumed 'greater good' is awful.
That's a disingenuous argument. If you're building nuclear weapons for a hostile government, you're as much a target as anyone else. It doesn't matter if you're a scientist or a solider.
Like I said below I don't think it's ever justifiable, and it goes both ways. There are thousands of good scientists working with the DoD. The US is technically at war. However I do not believe their scientists should be considered legitimate targets.
It's also debatable as to whether they're developing a nuclear weapon.
Who needs justice when there are obscure and author-less articles floating around the internet to justify the killing of civilians?
Remember this goes both ways. There are people who think American civilians assisting the occupation in Iraq are legitimate targets. I am not one of those people.
Very interesting take: in other words maybe the infection did really come from a russian technician as originally reported, but now the "leak" will add doubt within the scientist circles. Still it feels the Iranians are one step ahead in much of this. After all the stuxnet failed
UPI is (or was) a legitimate news organization and, anyway, Richard Sale was there before it was bought by Rev. Moon. If you're trying to imply there's a connection there, I think you're wrong.
Is your contention that, because the original author once worked for a subsidiary of a newspaper founded by a religious nutjob that the story is unreliable?
Without wanting to downplay the seriousness of Iran's nuclear program, this is incorrect on two counts. Firstly, Iran has not enriched to weapons-grade - the highest levels it has gone to is just under 20%, which is still LEU (Low-Enriched Uranium).
Secondly, there are other uses for weapons-grade HEU other than weapons - for example, Brazil enriches to weapons-grade to produce fuel elements for its nuclear submarines (HEU is used in naval reactors so that they can be more compact). Iran doesn't have naval reactors, though.
Some people would argue that Iran with weapons grade uranium could reasonably increase the chances that 50,000 Americans will die in the next 10 years by more than 1 in 10,000. That suggests the US could reasonably kill 5 Iranians to deal with the threat. However, Iran would respond to such action which suggests a more limited response such such as planting a virus is reasonable as long as the US can get away with it.
PS: That's how these people think, rare events vs lot's of deaths = covert and deniable action.
I think a nuclear armed Iran would greatly decrease the probability of Americans being killed by Iranians.
The logic is simple: nukes bring a country into MAD (mutually assured destruction) mechanics. Most likely Iran would use Israel as a hostage since it would not have the ICBMs necessary to attack the US directly. It would be like North Korea and Japan, only "Japan" would be nuclear armed.
I consider invasion of Iran by the US the most likely vector for Iranians killing Americans. MAD should prevent this, like it does in North Korea.
(I don't buy neo-conservative anti-Muslim ideology around suicidal leaders for a second. NK is far worse in this respect, IMO; that whole country is being led on a suicidal basis.)
>MAD should prevent this, like it does in North Korea
I thought MAD only worked with rational players. Do we know the people who would hold the levers would be rational? We (the west) don't seem to have the same feedback network (i.e. spies) we could depend on as we did with the USSR. That and we had the "red phone" thing. Dunno if that was more gimmick than actual tool.
>I don't buy neo-conservative...
We don't know what the control structure behind such threat there would be. Can one person cause a launch, conversely, can one person override a launch order?
Yes, I believe that leaders who are able to control a country are rational players.
(I think nuclear weapons are probably the greatest ever contributory factor to world peace in absolute terms. I'm certain that the 20th century would have been far, far bloodier throughout its span had they not been invented.)
>>Yes, I believe that leaders who are able to control a country are rational players.
Maybe you should read some history about some of the kings we've had in Europe? (Or of some of the African dictators over the last century. Same thing, different name.) [Edit: Just consider this; because someone is rational doesn't mean they stay rational.]
Then please check "the resource curse" on Wikipedia.
In short, oil countries don't become democracies. It is too lucrative for leaders of countries with lots of natural resource income to oppress the population and steal the money. (Norway was a democracy long before the oil.)
Do you really want to condemn the Iranians to a religious dictator until the oil is gone?
Edit: Instead of the word "Iran" and "they", how about you use a more relevant term like "torturing and terrorist junta"? The (upper class!) Iranians I've known around Sweden were, more or less, as west oriented as any Scandinavian.
Do you think there is a rational alternative for Iran other than pursuing nuclear weapons? (I don't think there is.)
Do you think there is a way of stopping Iran from gaining nuclear weapons? Short of a pre-emptive nuclear strike or an invasion, I don't think there is - and I don't believe either will be pursued.
So what happens when you have to think what you seem to think is unthinkable?
Iran will get nuclear arms. What then?
Listen, I'm not arguing that it is right that Iran gets nuclear arms. I just think it's inevitable and it is obviously in their own best interests given the situation they are facing.
I'm trying to figure out what the situation is after the inevitable occurs, and Iran already has nuclear arms. Debate over whether the players are rational or not is actually irrelevant. If they are not rational, Iran will be wiped from the earth. But there's really little that can or could have been done in that scenario, so it doesn't really need much thought.
>>, I'm not arguing that it is right that Iran gets nuclear arms.
Sorry, but you do sound like you have an agenda.
You made a claim that the Iran junta won't be insane, I showed it is wrong by trivial historical examples. Now you make a different claim. [Edit: And ignored my other point.]
Edit: If I should bother to answer the new point, about what will happen: Saudi Arabia Turkey and others will start high speed nuclear weapons programs. That is not even in the Iranian interest.
What agenda do you think I have? That I want Iran to be nuclear armed? I do not; but I think the alternatives are worse (nuclear strikes on Iran, US invasion of Iran; I think a conventional strike on Iran would have a similar effect to the Israeli one on Iraq in 1981).
Please tell me what you think my agenda is before discussing anything further. It's a pretty serious accusation.
(a) that Iran would not be irrational. This is my considered opinion based on all I've read - Iranian politics seem subtle to me, with a tug of war between president, chief cleric and "Guardian Council" - a long, long way short of a despotic single point of failure.
and (b) if it was irrational, there's little we could do about it, unless the preemptive strike / invasion route is taken, and that level of US aggression would encourage even more countries to pursue nuclear weapons. The US would essentially be a huge armed bully roaming the neighbourhood threatening people not to get guns, and breaking into random houses searching for guns. I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that that policy is eventually going to convince the neighbours to get some guns.
I think there's a range of options here; I tend towards de-escalation and looking at things with a cool head. There's far too much drum beating and propaganda pumping going on for my liking.
PS: I wish you would reply, rather than edit your comments after the fact. It makes things very hard to read.
1. I killed an argument (rational is just not in "kings" historically) -- you just ignored it.
I addressed it twice: firstly, that it does not apply (no single point of failure like a king, in this answer here), and secondly, it does not actually matter. By my score I "killed" your own argument twice!
2. I noted that this would probably result in a nuclear race with at least the traditional competitors of Iran -- Turkey and SA.
Sure. And your point is?
(My point is that when something is inevitable, talking about the bad consequences of it is pointless. It's going to happen. And bad consequences will happen too. Just is. But do you honestly think a US invasion of Iran would be a better outcome than a nuclear-armed Turkey? SA?)
3. This religious junta will almost certainly torture, rape and oppress the Iranian population as long as there is oil, without external intervention.
Lots of regimes oppress their populations far more than Iran does. How about starting with North Korea? Invasion, particularly as recent experience has shown, does not usually result in "saving" the population. Most countries in oppressive rule don't have the social infrastructure built up for a better system, and besides, particularly in the Middle East, they suffer from Dutch Disease. (This is actually your own earlier point, FWIW; I ignored it because it wasn't relevant, but it is relevant here to your apparent (yet cowardly silent!) advocation of intervention.)
I think you will just repeat your position while ignoring everything else. Hence, an agenda of some sort that you want to get out.
You're lucky I even saw what you wrote here, because you didn't actually reply to my comment.
>firstly, that it does not apply (no single point of failure like a king, in this answer here)
I'm a bit late coming into this discussion. But I think I should like to clarify that Kings were not all powerful autocrats. They had councils and other Kings they had to answer to. Still, some went "rogue" as it were.
So to me the question is, could one of the people who control the levers "go rogue" do they/would they have controls to guard against that?
You argue like there is only two alternatives -- total war or that Iran's junta gets hundreds of nuclear weapons on strategic missiles. It just isn't true.
1. mc32 adressed this, so the historic precedent stands. You acknowledge that you have no clue how Iran's junta is -- or how it will be in the coming ten years. (Sure, no one else has a clue, maybe not even in Qom.) The president do seems out, he didn't take orders well enough. We just cannot rely on sanity in the Iranian junta over the coming decade, since we just don't know; if the junta wanted peace, they can get it tomorrow.
2. There were occasions close to buttons pressed in the cold war... A nuclear race in the unstable Middle East is NOT a good thing; many millions might die. (Already Assad threatened the whole Mid East, to stop regime change!)
3. No one will use many billions of dollars on regime change to protect the Iranians from their present regime. Even if it is the humane thing to do. Dictators today rely on this.
But to leave the present situation alone is just not an alternative, because the next crazy junta will go for nuclear weapons with that as a motivation (South America?).
Iran's junta can be dealt with. It is a matter of motivation.
At present, Russia support any large weapon customers; given enough motivation, they'd change tune. The West can change Russia/China on this. Then you can start by e.g. finish destroying the Iranian economy. If they can't sell oil, the junta will react.
It is just a question if you want to pay a price now or maybe millions of lives, later. I can't do the evaluation; I hope that Obama is not too preoccupied with the next election.
The (claimed) risk isn't that Iran would use nuclear weapons against the US in any official capacity. The risk is that Iran will simply leak nuclear weapons to a proxy terrorist organization (i.e. Hezbollah, Hamas, etc.) If you accept the US government's claims that Iran has used state sponsored terrorism as a political and social tool, then it follows that a nuclear armed Iran is a large risk to the United States.
I never said the claimed risk was that Iran would use nuclear weapons against the US - you seem to be attacking a straw man there. I believe the risk is that Iran would use nuclear weapons against Israel in retaliation to an attack on itself.
I don't buy Iran arming terrorists with nukes either. Both the US and USSR have used state sponsored terrorism as political and social tools, but never armed them with nuclear weapons. Without extremely plausible deniability, the repercussions of MAD would reach through if such weapons were ever used.
I think Iran sees nuclear weapons as its ultimate defense against continuing belligerent and threatening rhetoric from the US. And from my perspective as a neutral observer, it's hard to disagree with them. I think it's inevitable that Iran will get nuclear weapons, and the sooner that reality is dealt with on a rational basis, the better. If anything, the US should be bargaining with Iran to get a quid pro quo in return for acceptance of nuclear armament.
This is silly thinking. The only thing that a MAD based stalemate is better than is a nuclear holocaust. Otherwise it's worse than every other option.
The Cold War was better than WWIII but it wasn't something to be cavalier about, over a hundred million people died due to the oppression in communist countries, and a far larger number of people's lives were irrevocably damaged by over a half century of tragedy. Even if a nuclear armed Iran likely won't end in a nuclear war that doesn't give license to simply pretend as though the prospect of a nuclear armed Iranian regime is anything other than a huge step backward for the world.
I think well over 100 million people would have died if the US could have attacked the USSR in conventional warfare, if nuclear weapons had never been invented; actually, I think the USSR would have overrun Europe, the US would have been driven back, and communism would have had even more victims to feast upon.
A nuclear armed Iran is inevitable, IMO. The only means of trying to stop it - bigger and bigger threats, short of invasion no-one has the stomach for - seem to me to only guarantee this, because they reinforce the motivation for getting there.
Less than 100 million people died in WWII, and Russia had fewer allies after WWII than Germany did. Civilians killed totaled from 40 to 52 million, including 13 to 20 million from war-related disease and famine. Total military dead: from 22 to 25 million, including deaths in captivity of about 5 million prisoners of war.
Let's put this in perspective. At the end of WWII America was producing 50% of the WORLDS manufactured goods. Russia had fewer allies, a vastly inferior conventional Army, and infrastructure from WWII all the way to it's fall. America has had sufficient nuclear weapons to be concerned about a large scale invasion and never really geared up for a large scale war. So, America had basically no reason to attack Russia or fully mobilize as long as the rest of the world did not become communist they had little interest in what happened.
However, after WWII Russia was paranoid with good reason. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_War_II_Casualties2.s... Close to 13% of their population had just died and they had little interest in being so weak that a country could decide to attack them while in the middle of a war with several other countries.
I had a discussion with a friend of mine who is a postdoc in Nuclear Physics and he said that the type of reactor Iran chose to build only makes sense if you are trying to make a weapon... Something to the effect of better/more standard nuclear power is easier/cheaper/more efficient than what they were doing.
...or energy production. But, yeah, let's just say they're going to make a nuclear weapon, so that we can be "justified" when we invade them for their resources.
Look, you can say that Iran has a right to have nuclear weapons (I would prefer they didn't).
You can say that the US only cares because of oil (I'll agree with you), though you only mean Iranian oil while I mean Iran's pressure on the gulf states and their oil trade.
But you can't legitimately say that Iran is not working on a nuclear weapons program. Too many secret facilities, too well protected, for their program to be merely civilian.
Well, Iran's leaders have stated that they wish to wipe Israel off the map. At least Israel has a legitimate reason to what they are doing and then some.
No they haven't. That convenient mistranslation is widely reported because it suits the narrative of the major political powers [1].
They've essentially said the current political regime in Israel must / will disappear. However that sentiment is less useful if your aim is to portray the Iranian state as an aggressive, modern-day Nazi regime though.
Anyway that aim (essentially portraying Iran as a country dedicated to the extermination of Jews in the Middle East) completely falls apart in the mind of anyone who cares to review the facts: Iran houses the largest population of Jews in the Middle East outside Israel, with population estimates ranging between 30,000 and 90,000 people (most sources put it at 75 000) [2], and they are represented in the Iranian parliament.
The current Iranian regime is certainly terrible, and can and should be condemned for many reasons, but pushing the notion that Iran threatens Israel with genocide is pr-fueled nonsense. Useless for intelligent discussion, but handy for manipulating public opinion.
You either see Israel as an intentionally aggressive religiously driven racist (different license plates, voting laws, roads, id cards, laws) nuclear state with a colorful history of terrorism, espionage, invasions,
spying, and assassination convictions in multiple countries, or you choose to ignore all of history and blindly support it. Either way, please stop acting surprised when people claim Israels' foreign policy is antagonistic, as if her detractors are mistaken and fabricating... as if Chomsky and Kofi Anaan are liars...
You don't like Israel, fine. To what in my post do you object? How do I act surprised?
BTW, the _government_ of Israel has never been religiously driven, rather it has always been security conscious. The racism, nuclear deterrent, invasions, and assassinations are all a result of security policy (what do you call terrorism?). Condemning countries for espionage/spying (twice!) is kinda strange - all countries engage in espionage. The most egregious, in both this respect and invasions is the US. Do you perchance live on land stolen from Mexico or the American Natives? Enjoying a standard of living dependent on world wide projection of military power? Even if you don't, I think Israel receives a disproportionate amount of criticism for the amount of evil it does.
Israel was founded by Lehi, Irgun, and Haganah. The evacuation plan which led to the population growth of Israel was invented by Irgun commander Ze'ev Jabotinsky. The sixth prime minister of Israel, Menachem Begin, was also a commander in Irgun. Irgun and Lehi led to Herut, which is now the modern controlling Likud party in Israel. Lehi also had Yitzhak Shamir who became prime minister in the 1980s.
Lehi is famous for the Ankara document which proposed a pact with Nazi Germany to help start a totalitarian state (their words) in Palestine, to fulfill Zionism. They sponsored multiple sabotage and espionage operations against the British and in the Middle East. They were instrumental later in the invasion of Iran in 1942.
Lehi assassinated politicians in Britain and was described as a terrorist organization by the British authorities.
Irgun is an even easier case to make. Its motto: a hand holding a rifle with the words "only thus" underneath it. It was self-described as a terrorist organization by spokespeople from it at the time (1940s) and openly spoke of terrorism as the only effective way for a Zionist state.
So yes, Israel exists because of terrorism and is deeply rooted in it at a fundamental basis.
The whole point is that to point out that the current political manifestation known as Israel is a danger for the geopolitical stability of the region is actually a valid observation that historians will see as clear as day in 500 years. I know how politically unwise it is currently, but that doesn't make the reality false. There's lots of bitter pills out there.
I don't know anything about Lehi being "instrumental in the invasion of Iran in 1942". Do you have any more information on this?
Saying that Israel engages in terrorism and is deeply rooted in terrorism based on actions of two small factions (Lehi was no more than a couple hundred people at its peak) from before the War of Independence which were then shut down by Ben Gurion and Haganah (e.g. the Altalena Affair) and were not allowed anywhere in government is... strange. American patriots in 1775 were also properly called terrorists by the British, but you don't claim that the USA is a terrorist organization deeply rooted in terrorism, do you? Anyway, the maximalists were not in government for the first thirty years and by then realities and their position changed a lot. The beliefs of Netanyahu are not the same beliefs as those of Jabotinsky, though they both support an independent Jewish State.
Your point is very difficult to take seriously because of all the hyperbole. If you support an unbroken Muslim land from Morocco to Indonesia, just say that, don't say "Israel is bad because they fought the British for independence". Who didn't fight the British for independence? Jeanne d'Arc did it! Why don't you rage on the British for all the suffering they caused in all corners of the world for centuries? All the people they killed?
>>Saying that Israel engages in terrorism and is deeply rooted in terrorism based on actions of two small factions [...] not allowed anywhere in government is... strange.
You don't usually read much from hate propagandists? :-(
An explanation:
Facts don't matter, the important point is to throw garbage in the right direction -- the believers know they are true, because the jews/blacks/white/israelis/democrats/etc are evil.
dear lord ... all I was saying is that "Here is why people think this" not "you should think this" or even "I support this" other than for the fact that I want cultures to be more open (and that is all cultures ... really).
I was just trying to back up the idea that these aren't just hateful things concocted out of thin air because people are evil or something trivial and without context.
There's a history to all of this ... that's all I'm saying. Don't need to get offended by it.
South Africa had a nuclear program, apartheid, and a few interesting property laws. But then they had a regime change and the previous way of thinking have been wiped "from the pages of history"; npt signing in 1991, cwc in 95.
SA split in two forming Namibia in 1990, the same year that the talks to end Apartheid started ... leading to the release of Mandela and the multi-racial 94 elections.
Sure, in California English, I'd be using different idioms for describing that transformation, but that is the whole point here ... sometimes idioms don't translate well and the nuanced connotative punch of a colloquialism can have different impacts in different areas. Some things just don't translate well; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_will_bury_you (although that one feels more like this: http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/195/treehouse2.jpg/sr=1 ... who's to know?)
I would be in wide support for something similar to Israel, but instead of having say, a non-jewish prime minister, they take a Jewish State loyalty oath; an interesting opposite. Statehood ecumenism is seen as a radical idea in Israeli political discourse.
I'd just like them to be more inclusive and a bit less violent.
I'm referring to the current "regime" in South Africa (do people ever use that word to describe a state they feel is legitimate?). If you had some kind of agenda and wanted to spin it the way you're spinning Israel, you could say the South African regime is even more deeply rooted in terrorism--Mandela was the founder and leader of the "terrorist organization" MK, and two of the next three successive presidents of South Africa were also members. Just as you point out that the Jewish militants were designated terrorists by the British, MK was designated as a terrorist organization by the South African government as well as the United States. You could even point out that once the "terrorist regime" took over in South Africa, MK was even folded into the regular military.
Of course, no one really says these things about South Africa. People seem to realize that Africans who have suffered from centuries of colonization and repression might be justified in fighting back. People even seem to realize that Ireland can be its own country now, even if they were founded by terrorists who killed British people, and even if some of them tried to engage Germany in a round of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". Funny to wonder why people are less understanding with Israel, isn't it?
Why, according to you, combined state should have non-Jewish PM is beyond me, giving that PM elections are democratic and even today both Israelis and Jews are majority in the area of former Brittish mandate of Palestine, and even much stronger majority when you talking about de-facto Israeli-controlled land, which excludes Gaza.
I'm supporter of giving Israeli citizenship to all residents of Judea and Samaria (so called West Bank), at least to those who will accept it.
Israel is not a South Africa were minority controlled majority.
Unlike USA or Japan, we do not have discrimination of who can be elected as a PM, except of-course criminal charges.
All your complaints should be directed to Greeks who invented this stupid system called democracy.
Your CounterPunch source seems to have quite an agenda. It goes on to claim that Iran has no nuclear weapons program at all- a claim that is not well supported by all the things we see Iran doing.
Even if the article is correct, Ahmadinejad has said things like "this regime that is occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time" and "I have no doubt that the new movement taking place in our dear Palestine is a wave of morality which is spanning the entire Islamic world and which will soon remove this stain of disgrace from the Islamic world." The simplest interpretation of these statements is that Ahmadinejad strongly supports military action against Israel. (Unless you think Ahmadinejad is talking about a more peaceful way for Israel to "vanish from the page of time?")
Also: who cares if Iran has a Jewish population? That doesn't mean Ahmadinejad isn't a threat to Israel.
> Also: who cares if Iran has a Jewish population?
It's a simple fact to illustrate that Iran is not bent on destruction of the Jewish people. Cultivating that idea in the public mind is the aim of that mistranslation, because the false idea of a genocidal Iran garners more worldwide support for the Israeli Government.
> That doesn't mean Ahmadinejad isn't a threat to Israel.
The only people threatened in any serious way by the Iranian regime are the Iranian people themselves. The idea that Iran poses a threat to Israel or the West is merely the public story to garner support for any military action.
Iran is surrounded by the largest military super-power in history, and has a hostile and aggressive neighbour who is armed with a significant number of nuclear weapons. Iran's military posture is defensive, and all serious military analysis does not regard Iran as a threat. A politician talking things up for a domestic audience does not qualify as a serious threat, but it certainly helps feed into a narrative for Western audiences.
The nuclear ambitions of Iran are also clearly defensive. North Korea remains untouched where Iran's neighbour Iraq is completely overrun. Obtaining nuclear-power status delivers much more political leverage, but that's it. Iran's leaders know any move to aggression would quickly result in military annhilation by Israel / US.
> Iran...has a hostile and aggressive neighbour who is armed with a significant number of nuclear weapons.
There isn't a single time in history Israel has gone to war or engaged in military action except to address a direct threat to its own security. Aggressive? No. Hostile? Only when threatened, which Israel constantly has been.
Geographically, Iran is nowhere near Israel. Israel has no realistic way of projecting force as far as Iran, and no reason to initiate a nuclear strike.
> Iran's leaders know any move to aggression would quickly result in military annhilation by Israel / US.
If that's the status quo, then it's in the interests of the world to keep it that way. If Iran gets nuclear weapons, they will be free to act with aggression against its neighbors, including Iraq, because the US will have no means to stop them.
Iran has insurgents and clerics in Iraq actively attacking Sunni civilians and Saudi-backed militias and NATO soldiers. Iran sends weapons and money to Hamas in Gaza. Iran funds and sends weapons to Hezbollah, a paramilitary and political organization that has metastasized in Lebanon, accused of assassinating the Lebanese president. Iran sends weapons and money to Bashar Al-Assad in Syria.
Can you explain what is to be gained by pushing apologist rhetoric for the Iranian regime?
I'm genuinely curious to know what you personally gain or what is gained 'in the abstract' by sugar-coating Iran's international ambitions. There seems to be a certain faction within the left that is very bent on this mission and I'm hoping you can explain the rationale behind it.
> Iran has insurgents and clerics in Iraq actively attacking Sunni civilians...
Yes it does, as outlined in the Defense Intelligence Agency's statement on Iran's military power (from 2010)[1]. However I simply said Iran's military posture is defensive, which it is:
"Iran’s military strategy is designed to defend against external threats, particularly from the United States and Israel." and "This reflects its defensive military doctrine, which is designed to slow an invasion and force a diplomatic solution to hostilities"
A more recent analysis from the US military (from 2012)[2] also concludes: "However, it is unlikely to initiate or intentionally provoke a conflict or launch a preemptive attack".
The actual military analysis is very clear that Iran is not a military threat, but the narrative for public consumption is that Iran is a major threat. That's the difference between reality and public relations.
> Can you explain what is to be gained by pushing apologist rhetoric for the Iranian regime?
What apologist rhetoric? I specifically condemn the regime in an earlier comment. It is certainly possible to point out facts (such as "Iran's military posture is defensive") without condoning or supporting the Iranian regime. It seems where I type "Iran's military posture is defensive", you read "Iran is a good actor", which is a very different sentiment (and one I don't hold!).
> I'm genuinely curious to know what you personally gain or what is gained 'in the abstract' by sugar-coating Iran's international ambitions. There seems to be a certain faction within the left that is very bent on this mission and I'm hoping you can explain the rationale behind it.
What sugar-coating? I've simply observed in this thread that the Iranian regime is not genocidal, and has a defensive military posture. I've also said the current regime is certainly terrible. It appears you think that striving to understand the geopolitical reality rather than buying in to the pr story immediately makes someone a 'left' Iranian regime sympathiser, which is rather odd (and untrue).
In terms of Iranian strategies and ambitions, it's really worth looking at the military context Iran is operating within[3]. The "Iranian Threat" is not an existential threat to Israel or the world (which is how it is portrayed in the media), but simply a threat to US interests in the region. Iran naturally wants to enhance and assert its regional influence, which obviously conflicts with US regional ambitions.
The reality is a war with Iran would be a war of aggression for territorial gain and subjugation[4], but to make the action palatable to the public it needs to be perceived as a war of self-defense. As much as I despise the Iranian regime, I agree with the statements at the Nuremberg Trials: "To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole".
The Jewish and Armenian members of Parlament are just puppets.
Iranian regime only tolerate tiny minorities, because they do not represent any threat, while large minorities like Azeris and Kurds are forcefully iranized and denied any signs of cultural and ethnic autonomy.
That suggests there was a first attack in this conflict; AIUI, the Israel vs. middle east conflict is centuries old, and this is just the latest chapter of escalation and posturing. Once could also argue that Iran is justified in wanting to eliminate Israel because Israel is acting to prevent Iran's growth.
Don't mistake my words for wanting to live in Iran -- I just find myself disgusted when we westerners use a ridiculous double standard when judging our own behavior as compared to that of some country we don't like.
It's more than judging "behavior," Iran has specifically said that they want to wipe Israel off the map. More than once. So it is, or it may be a matter of life and death, not just tolerating someone's odd choice in clothes, or whatever.
Is Iran bluffing, are Iran's leader rational or brainwashed religious fanatics? When all it takes is one nuke, why should Israel wait to find out?
Many in the US have said the same thing about Iran. When all it takes is one nuke, why should Iran wait to find out? See the hypocrisy? Existential threats work both ways. Are those US talking heads and politicians "brainwashed religious fanatics?" A more important question is why Iran('s government) wants (or claims to want) to eliminate Israel, and how to change their mind (or their government) peacefully.
Ostensibly, Iran's theocracy wants to eliminate the State of Israel (not the land itself, duh) because it's a non-Muslim occupier of Muslim land. That is what they say, and it is inline with their religious texts.
Israel has never threatened to nuke anyone. It has stated that it is preparing for a potential MAD situation, but that's not a threat - it's a defensive move. Israel does not state that Iran has no right to exist or that its regime must be changed or anything of the sort. I don't think Iran can legitimately claim they have an existential fear of Israel and any attack on Israel is in their own defense. They proclaim Israel as their enemy _in the name of other Muslims_, because they are a big defender of Islam from the Western invaders, not because they are directly threatened.
>I don't think Iran can legitimately claim they have an existential fear of Israel and any attack on Israel is in their own defense.
300+ Israeli nuclear weapons, undeclared, and Israel not a signing member of the NPT pact. This is more than an existential threat - its a real threat of destruction. Why else would the Zionists invest so heavily in these weapons?
I think that Israeli Nuclear Weapons are quite a valid threat towards Iran, and every single other life on the planet.
Israel should sign, ratify, and obey the NPT. They should declare their nuclear inventory (which includes subs, by the way.. far more threat to Europe than Iran.)
Until Israel does this, it can not exert rights over who should, and should not, have nuclear weapons, and any posturing over the 'threat' posed by Iran is simply an effort to obfuscate the Israeli threat, itself, to the world at large.
Israel has 300+ nuclear weapons in order to dissuade their unneighborly neighbors from making a third attempt to push them into the sea. They exist, essentially, and literally, to prevent anyone from finishing the Holocaust. Which is not an argument that has much traction with Mr. Ahmedinejad, the esteemed host of international Holocaust denial conferences, or with his similarly inclined sympathizers.
Suffice it to say that Israel's Arab neighbors, and the rest of the world in general, have been trying to wipe out the Jews for much, much longer than the occupation of the Palestinian territories. Whatever wrong the Israeli government or Israeli settlers have done since that point, while worthy of criticism, shouldn't be used to excuse or justify a preexisting anti-Semitic agenda.
Yep, the whole situation is just sad. Until both sides lower their egos, empathize, and treat each other as they would want to be treated, it's just going to be an endless cycle of conflict. Humanity deserves better.
if I was Iran's leader I'd want a nuke, as the ultimate weapon. If I was Israeli's leader, I'd everything to to stop them from getting it. Both sides understand this, it's business, so let the cat and mouse games continue. Who said what and when doesn't even matter
Even if Iran's goal is to build a nuclear weapon -- which, from all rational reports, doesn't seem to be the case -- I'm having a hard time sympathizing with a country that already has several hundred nuclear warheads trying to prevent another neighboring country from acquiring one.
Whatever I cite will never be good enough for you because you believe in the BS "finders keepers" colonialist mindset of occupation. No text, however sacred, no higher-power or imaginary friend can grant you dominance over others and their land. It's simply immoral to fly people from all over the world, so they may replace a forcibly expelled population.
You made a claim. You don't have sources -- and when questioned, you attack the one asking.
Why shouldn't we write you off as just another hate propagandist?
And if I would write an argument, not that you deserve the chance to change the subject:
Please explain why the land area lost in present Israel was worse than most other land area losses after the world wars? They have been let go, they are accepted. I'd say e.g. Karelia was a worse change, from any moral evaluation.
The main reason I can see that the Palestine question survived to this day, is because the refugees' lives where destroyed by the Arab states which forced them to live in camps, etc.
The whole Stuxnet story would make for a great spy novel, that's for sure.