Bang goes that conspiracy theory...

Michelle

You mean it's not a Zionist plot?

Sunsetman

Here is Weeklylicks, Berlusconi response to Wikileaks...
http://betweentwosouths.blogspot.com/2010/11/wikileaks-documents-italian-weeklylicks.html

C.Gee

The new version of the conspiracy - explained by Achmadinejad today - is that these are not 'leaks' at all, but a carefully contrived plot to drive a wedge between Arabs and Iran.

Nansen

Leftists suffering conspiracy-theoritis can find one comforting piece of evidence... as there is no word that America attacked itself on 9/11, Wikileaks must be part of the conspiracy...

cityca

Iran was always the elephant in the room - thanks to Wikileaks, the rest of the world has just woken up.

Fine - now what?

RPK

But to paraphrase an old arab saying, at the end of the day the gulf states will still say of Israel
" The enemy of my enemy will still be my enemy"

Portland

And what price now the genocidical attribute attached often enough on this blog to Iran's bomb ??

Is Abdullah really giving the USA a hard time because he wishes to prevent Iran bombing Israel?

David Lindsay

I hope that the Israelis and the American neocons are very proud of the company that they are keeping here: several of the most repressive, backward, misogynistic, Jew-hating and anti-Christian regimes on earth, with which they have lined up to demand the nuking of an emerging democracy with a high culture, with more women than men at university, and with reserved parliamentary representation for Jews, for Armenians (how different from NATO, and putatively EU, Turkey) and for Assyrians (how different from "liberated" Iraq).

Dr Michael Grave

How come none of the hugely overpaid and self-important BBC "Middle East experts" picked up on this?

Not Bowen. Not Davis. Not Gueran. Not Plett. Not Franks. Not Simpson. In fact, not anybody.

To busy blaming Israel for everything, I'm guessing. What a sorry bunch of bigots and losers.

Nick

The Saudis and the Israelis calling for the bombing of Iran aren't mutually exclusive phenomena. Both countries would be delighted to see Tehran in flames, metaphorically speaking. Fortunately the Obama administration is sensible enough to ignore these pleas.

Israel has an enormous vested interest in maintaining its (massively destabilising) nuclear hegemony, of course. In this respect the Iranian bomb is sensible development.

Louis Berk

An inconvenient truth: the barrier to middle east peace is not Israel but the Iranians, as voted for by the desire to see regime change, according to several neighbouring Arab states. Thank you, Wikileaks.

nice

Not sure I get the point here.

How exactly does the (apparent) fact that the rulers of certain Arab states would have the US take military action against Iran, prove that the US and Israel are not conspiring against Iran? Surely the one does not exclude the other.

Some people clearly have been conspiring to kill Iranian scientists however, and today they have had some success. We don't know who these people are, but Arab dislike of Iran doesn't, I'm afraid, take the US and Israel off the list of possible sponsors of these assasinations.

David Lindsay

"Voted for", Louis Berk? They don't much go in for voting in the countries in question. You must be thinking of Iran, or of Lebanon.

david elder

David Lindsay: I never cease to be amazed at the thought processes of such people. Faced with evidence that Iran is deeply and understandably feared by her neighbours, Lindsay fixes on Israel and the US for not denouncing the neighbours.

Andy Gill

The liberals are reeling from shock.

Peaceful Muslims urging the US to 'bomb Iran'. Arab states denouncing Iran as 'evil'.

They'll have a tough time pinning that on Israel, although I expect they'll have a bloody good try.

Adam B.

Lindsay, wasn't it you who, in an earlier blog, was saying how these Gulf states were Britain's friends, and how Israel wasn't?

You've changed your tune.

Linda Smith

David Lindsay really is barking if believes Iran is an “emerging democracy with a high culture” . In October, Iran imposed new restrictions on 12 university social sciences deemed to be based on Western schools of thought and therefore incompatible with Islamic teachings. The list includes women’s studies, human rights, law, philosophy, management and political science.

Keep taking the tablets Lindsay!

Iran, - I think not.

Ian G

I don't know who the moderator is but he or she clearly does not understand irony, history or Old Testament Biblical quotations (A JEWISH book).
My previous post has been censored. Why?

I gave an example of how conspiracy theorists are already seeking to implicate Israel. I then drew a parallel with peasant medievalist 'thinking'. Finally, I finished wirh a quote from the JEWISH King Solomon and author of Ecclesiastes.

Where is the offence?

Now kindly post this, the original post and an apology - not an excuse.

C.Gee

Nick:
"Israel has an enormous vested interest in maintaining its (massively destabilising) nuclear hegemony, of course. In this respect the Iranian bomb is sensible development."

Please explain "massively destabilising" and how Iran getting the bomb will help.

Finzi Holst

Typical Prince-Feisal behavior from the Suadis: if they can get others to do there work, they will.

As one very well-known commentator said in the States: "Since the Saudis (which most thinking people already knew) are funding al-Qaeda, they should just pay them to turn the focus on to Iran."

Just as they did nothing to produce or develop oil, Arabs are happy to buy up weapons, but not use them and leave it to others to protect their backsides.

Daniel Lionsden

I did wonder on hearing these 'revelations' (to be the BBC anyway) whether, in spite on wikileaks, the guardian and the leftist media's intentions, this might actually strengthen the hand of the hawks against Iran?
It is hard to depict the US as a warmonger when it has repeatedly not responded to calls from Iran's own supposed friends to attack it.
These wikileaks 'revelations' make actually backfire on the anti-American agenda of those supplying and publishing it.

Larry in Tel Aviv

Where the Zionist conspiracy?

Easy - Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordanian govts are controlled by the Zionist lobby in America, they are made to tow the neo-con line on Iran through the Jewish control of the US economy. Therefore the Zionists threatening manipulation and curtailing of trade and commerce with the Arab world (since they control America) can get the Arabs to kowtow to their masters' whims in Israel.

See how easy that was?

steve

It's interesting that King Abdullah also warned that the US had given Iraq to Iran on a "golden platter" by invading. I'm sure Melanie will reflect on that in a future post.

Dave

The neocons derive satisfaction from the WikiLeaks that allegedly show 'Arab' support for an attack on Iran, because it is always more comforting to share the blood around and then deny complicity for crimes against humanity!

But the real WikiLeaks message is there is no need to attack Iran.

This is because it confirms what Iran already knows, that all their neighbours are against them acquiring WMDs.

That's why Iran hasn't any WMDs and has no intention of acquiring them, because they know it would undermine their security to do so.

The WikiLeaks also shows up the zionist lie that all 'the Muslims' (Israels neighbours) are united against them and itching to push all the jews into the sea, when in fact there are many disputes within the region.

Corvinus

Sunni and Shia muslims have been at war for over 1,000 years. Why the surprise the the Sunni Saudis want to bomb the Shi'ite Iranians? It's a war we should kep out of - but probably can't because we need the oil the the Shi'ites control.

Si, N

David Lindsay
November 29th, 2010 5:17pm

Well said David - don't expect such a logic bomb to go down very well here though.

Keep up the pertinent comments.

tiki

The ONE country that came out OK and happened to be 'telling the trues all along is Israel. Even BIBI happens to be a nice and charming man (not always telling the truth, but what politician is)? All this Praise & Positivity? It MUST be a ZIONIST/JEWISH conspiracy after all!

Nick

C. Gee - I'll be delighted to explain. An Iranian bomb will guarantee Israel's (and the Americans) good behaviour. The balance of power is restored. Israel is an aggressive nation, with little respect for international law or state borders. Iran is run by religious fanatics. Neither country will risk MAD.

non prophet

what are the chances, of erm "Ummah" being lit up in the region....considering their hair trigger sensitivities :-)
hey then they can can all hate the US a little easier :-)
so the thug in chief of saud, urges the thug in chief of iran
to get bombed, a smidgeon of "taqiya" anyone

Julius O'Malley

That Saudi Arabia and other gulf states urge the Great Satan to take out the Iranian nuclear facilities is only news for those who choose not to live in the real world and instead fixate on the Zionist world domination conspiracy theory and variants thereof.

In the middle of this year Israel and Saudi Arabia, with the blessing of the US, came to an arrangement to allow the Israeli air force free passage over Saudi airspace for a strike upon Iran's nuclear facilities. In concrete furtherance of this arrangement some months ago, the Saudi's tested the deactivation of their air defence systems on selected air corridors to make sure there would be no accidental shootings at Israeli planes if and when the latter utilized Saudi airspace en route to bombing Iran.

Of course the Israelis understood that if and when they did carry out this mission, Saudi Arabia and the Arab gulf states would be bleating vehement protest at the horrific illegal behaviour of the Zionist scourge etc. And the Saudi's tacitly expect that Israel will have the requisite decorum and keep quiet over the Saudi's crucial role in the exercise. Welcome to the real world.

BTW One has to admire the ahh, intellectual suppleness of the blogger above who in response to this favourably characterises Iran as an "emerging democracy" - even Iran unashamedly admits it is a theocracy - "with a high culture" and where more women than men go to university, etc. Could such blogger please identify the countries with a "low culture"?

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Nick: "Nick
November 30th, 2010 10:40am
C. Gee - I'll be delighted to explain. An Iranian bomb will guarantee Israel's (and the Americans) good behaviour. The balance of power is restored. Israel is an aggressive nation, with little respect for international law or state borders. Iran is run by religious fanatics. Neither country will risk MAD."

Thank God we have another twaddlemeister in our midsts. I was beginning to get bored with the usual fare.

Nick, you must be delighted North Korea has nukes, right?:)) Keep the US, Russia, China, India, Pakistan NATO - all in their boxes... bloody nutters, the lot of 'em!!

Keep it up, Nick!

Wm. H.

The tone of triumphant "I told you so!" is curious. All those who rely on US hegemony in the region to sustain their regimes want the US to attack the one serious power in the region that has defied the US, and they tell the US what it wants to hear in the hope of persuading it to do their dirty work (again). Why is this taken as vindication of war-mongering?

Reuven

For "Tiki". VERY well said.

Tancred

Well, opening the windows and letting in some air may be good in the end.

Now we explicitly know about the tensions in the Muslim world, the existence of Iranian long range missiles targeting Europe, Israel, the Gulf and Russia, Chinese frustration with North Korea, the insecurity of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal etc.

This spikes the guns of many on the Liberal Left who have been in denial for so long.

It is also good that we citizens of the world have a clearer idea of what is going on, and being done, behind our backs.

Joshua

"An Iranian bomb will guarantee Israel's (and the Americans) good behaviour."

Translation

There are many of us who have always believed that it is an outrageous notion that the Jewish state should be allowed to defend itself. In that the Iranian bomb will put a stop to that, it is a very good thing indeed.

Pat Dolan

Why don't we just cut the Gordian Knot and take the Saudi oil fields?

MArk2

"All those who rely on US hegemony in the region to sustain their regimes want the US to attack the one serious power in the region that has defied the US, and they tell the US what it wants to hear in the hope of persuading it to do their dirty work (again)."

This is oddly phrased. Are you saying there is some difference between "rely(ing) on US hegemony" etc and the US doing what it might need to do to maintain that hegemony? If not then what do you mean when you say they tell the US "what it wants to hear". Surely they tell the US what they want it to hear. And just worth pointing out the US has not as yet at least done "the dirty work" and appears reluctant to do so.

phil

Nick
November 29th, 2010 5:53pm
"""""""""Israel has an enormous vested interest in maintaining its (massively destabilising) nuclear hegemony, of course. In this respect the Iranian bomb is sensible development.""""""""

--------------------------Accusations without explanations are as useful as rolling skates on water or was it just a blast of hot air because you can ?

zikomo

Corvinus. Agreed,however if you change the spelling of and remove the apostrophe from the penultimate word of your posting and you've got the whole grab bag.

blue_&_white_avenger

David Lindsay. I'm going to propose your literary effort on Iran for the next book prize. I'm sure that Ahmadinejad's best ghost writers would find it difficult to match you.
Presumably, yoa are paid a handsome commission for attracting tourists, even settlers to this "heaven on earth".
They need some - to make up for the thousands desperate to leave the place. But then, not everyone appreciates what's good for them - eh David?

Stuart Seacole Smith

Sunsetman: Berlusconi's weeklylicks - love it!

And the weird twisted thought-processes you get in some of the comments thread here never cease to amaze. David Lindsay, Nick, Si N - good work on that. Though perhaps Si N you may've meant bum logic instead of logic bomb?

Wm. H.

MArk2
November 30th, 2010 1:21pm
I'm puzzled by your puzzlement, which usually means I've missed the point.

Since WW2, the US has seen it as vital in its national interest to maintain hegemony in the Middle East (declassified documents from the 1940s and 50s say so in as many words). When its hegemony is threatened, for example, by nationalist movements, as in Iran in the 1950s, or by thugs who used to be "our" thugs but are no longer, as with Saddam in the 1990s, the US takes whatever measures it deems necessary (coup, invasion, collective punishment of a population etc.). Normally it relies on the system, perfected by the British Empire, of compliant local rulers (again, explained in as many words by, for example, Lord Curzon). Anyone who disobeys the hegemon is a threat both to the hegemon and to the compliant local rulers (especially those with Shia minorities or oppressed and exploited populations). Such compliant local rulers are not likely to tell the US that Iran, surrounded by enemies, is acting in its own defence, to deter attack, not to provoke it. (I would have thought it obvious that the regime in Tehran is as venal and self-interested as any other, and therefore unlikely to choose annihilation. Surrounded by enemies who threaten its destruction, what is the regime to do? Certainly not go out and seek a fight it knows it can't win) The compliant local rulers are going to tell the US that their security is threatened, and that US security is threatened, and that something must be done. They share a common interest with Israel and the US in seeing any potential regional power neutralised (Iraq before, Iran now).

You say the US is reluctant. There was in the previous administration a powerful lobby for immediate attack. In the meantime, the US has used its other usual tactics of economic warfare, subversion, sabotage, and the funding of terrorists. Some of its joint endeavours with Israel are mentioned in the leaked diplomatic memos.

phil

Wm. H.
November 30th, 2010 4:41p I doubt that your "book will outsell FINKLER but as a work of fiction it does have the benefit of amazing passages,""Surrounded by enemies who threaten its destruction, what is the regime to do? Certainly not go out and seek a fight it knows it can't win)"" --was that your comedy section?. If dinnerjacket isn't looking for a fight he certainly is making an impressive job of looking that way --it was him that caused a walk out at the UN with a speech that I will not disgrace this thread with ,or am I mistaken ,perhaps it was Laurel and Hardy .Btw what happened to the Hazlett ,are you in disguise ? its not a good one and JR will find you I am sure .

Nick

John Roosevelt, as you ask, no, I don't have a problem with North Korean nukes. If everybody has them, nobody will use them. Simple, but effective. Read up on the history of the Cold War, why don't you?

Incidentally, if Israel and Iran want to nuke themselves into radioactive slag, go for it, I say. In the long run the world would be a better place without both countries.

Tancred

Pat Dolan
November 30th, 2010 1:14pm
Why don't we just cut the Gordian Knot and take the Saudi oil fields?

Quite right. Why do we allow the whole of Western Civilisation to be held to ransom by a bunch of Arabs.

We found it, we drilled for it, we developed the technology and distribution capability and provided the markets.

If we just took them over - Saudi, Emirates, Libya - we could secure supply AND cut off the money supply to Al Qaeda and assorted Islamist zealots.

Just pay them rent for the property and a cut of the profits.

Then, perhaps, they will develop a mixed economy rather than wallow in the income from a shrinking resource.

Adam B.

Nick thinks the world would be a better place with millions of dead Israelis and Iranians.

How's that for callousness?

Nick, I think it is you who needs to "read up". The circumstances of Iran acquiring the bomb bear little resemblance to the Cold War. Iranian and Soviet mentalities are entirely different, so the concept of MAD (mutually assured destruction) no longer applies.

wonderer

@Nick
November 30th, 2010 6:23pm. Noting your sentiments towards Israel and Iran, obviously you wouldn't be antisemitic but one could be forgiven for concluding that you're a tad selectively xenophobic. Can you offhand name any other countries without which you think the world would be a better place or about which, historically, it would have been reasonable to hold such an opinion in the past?

Nick

Adam B, we have 100,000 dead Iraqi civilians thanks to the US Govt's recent oil crusade, how's that for callousness?

Wonderer. I don't consider myself especially xenophobic. Radical Islam is the source of many problems in this world, but equally so is an expansionist and belligerent Israel. You get the neighbours you deserve, I suppose.

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Nick: "Adam B, we have 100,000 dead Iraqi civilians thanks to the US Govt's recent oil crusade, how's that for callousness?

Wonderer. I don't consider myself especially xenophobic. Radical Islam is the source of many problems in this world, but equally so is an expansionist and belligerent Israel. You get the neighbours you deserve, I suppose."

Given the profound isight which Nick displays re international politics and military strategy, we must assume he feels Iraq deserves the US as its neighbour.

Ah, the global village, Nici! Doesn't it just get your toe taping your gills a quivering?

I think the UK deserves N. Korea, too, don't you?

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Are you not heartened that we have Nick to decide who and how many should be exterminated for the sake of his notion of the greater good?

Plus ca change...plus ca change...

Adam B.

Nick, the difference between you and I is that I don't rejoice in it. You said the world would be a better place with millions of dead. And what has Israel got to do with what the US does? (Or are you one of those "the Jews control the US" racists?)

Seems that you are unable to reason as well as being callous.

C. Gee

Nick:

Your response did not explain how Israel's nuclear capabilities have been "massively destabilizing", nor how Iran's getting the bomb would "restore" the balance of power. Your “guarantee of good behaviour” is also meaningless without further explanation.

Your musings on nuclear war how you have learned to love the Iranian bomb also did nothing to clarify your position (pose?) on Middle East politics.

The idea that Israel is a destabilizing force has become one of the favorite rationales for allowing Iran to get the bomb. I am not surprised that you have so gauchely avoided defending it, but it is worth setting out why it is an unfounded and dangerous myth.

The existence of Israel has helped maintain the fragile alliance of Arab nations (many of which were created at about the same time as Israel). The rivalries and hatreds among the Arab nations have been papered over by the existence of a mutual enemy. The Arab war with Israel (declared at Israel’s birth and never rescinded, except for Egypt and Jordan) has provided a foreign policy distraction from and excuse for domestic oppression - otherwise known as “stability”. The history of war since 1947 in the region shows the Israeli/Arab wars, including counter-insurgency operations against militant groups (PLO, Hamas, Hizbollah) to be far less deadly in aggregate than the Arab/Arab, Iraq/Iranian wars, and the internal massacres in Syria, Iraq, Jordan and Turkey. You could even throw your 100,000 Iraqis killed by the coalition into the calculation, and it would be offset by the 250,000 killed by Sadam. Where is the evidence of Israel’s massive destabilization of the region? Or is your compassion for Arabs, or dislike of Israel, taking you beyond the necessity for reason?

Throughout the decades when Israel has had the bomb, it has never used it as an existential threat against any Arab nation - in war or in peace. Israel continues to fight conventional military actions, and there was no nuclear threat to Egypt or Jordan forcing them to the peace table. In fact, the issue of Israel’s bomb as a destabilizing force has been raised only in the context of the nuclear ambitions of one of the regional despotisms (Iraq, Syria and Iran). It is only now that the leftists - including the English, who are not frightened that their own bomb will be used in further of their own belligerence - has decided that the Israeli bomb is dangerous and needs to be offset by an Iranian bomb. Fair play demands that Iran get the bomb. And what is more, the anti-Zionists cry, Iran has signed up to the non-proliferation treaty, which makes it more responsible than Israel. By the way, Achmadinejad has made it clear that Iran is prepared to martyr Muslims in obliterating the Zionist enemy, because the Muslim world will survive. There is no mutually assured destruction logic. The destruction will end with Islam surviving. Muslims win in heaven and on earth. The religious factor in calculating deterrence makes MAD no guarantee of stale-mate stability.

The Cold War stand-off did not make for a stable world. Proxy wars were fought all over the globe - including the Middle East. The PLO was a largely a Soviet artifact.

The regional power before the Ottoman carve-up and reallocation, was held by Britain and France. Ottoman rule was not "stable", either, but I do not suppose you are suggesting a return to that. Turkey is now attempting to reassert its influence through backing Iran, but this push to establish Iran as regional bully is having the most destabilizing effect since the Iraq/Iran war (which had nothing to do with Israel). The Arabian (including Egyptian) interest in acquiring the bomb for themselves - not the secret nudging of the US or Israel to take out Iran's nuke capabilities (a cheaper alternative) - is profoundly destabilizing. And what would the compassionate suggest? That it would be fairest of all for every one of these disgusting tyrannies who loathe each other and who have a long and bloody history of belligerence against each other, to get the bomb? They won’t use it! And they can all sign treaties for monitoring and verification. And if they all wipe each other out? Tant pis - at least Israel will be gone too. No more rogue Israel to “massively destabilize” the region through its nuclear hegemony.

A.

A nuclear-free Middle East would be more in keeping with the treaties everyone has signed, except Israel.

JOHN ROOSEVELT

C.Gee: A superb post.

JOHN ROOSEVELT

A: "A nuclear-free Middle East would be more in keeping with the treaties everyone has signed, except Israel."

Time to elaborate, A. Which state would "everyone" comprise?

celato

C.Gee:

Till I read your (Dec 2nd)response to Nick, I pictured you as the sort of person who would have booed and hissed at CND marchers, dismissing them as naive tree-hugging liberals and lefties.

So sorry.

It's now plain that you think nukes never were a deterrent to war and of no value whatsoever on the Mutually Assured Destruction score as long as nutters are out there, desperate to get hold of the technology; that the best bet for humanity always was to scrap the damned things all round.

I now look forward to future postings from you, urging Israel to stop wasting resources on armaments it never intends to use...

J Dalton

The weirdest aspect of this story is that we have just sold a huge consignment of top class military equipment to the Saudi's.

Armed to the teeth, they now want America to bomb Iran?

Why don't they do it themselves?

C.Gee

Celato:

The CND was a Soviet creature, like the PLO.

At no place in my discussion of the logic of nuclear deterrence did I suggest that Israel never intends to use its nukes, which would be nonsensical. Israel has a policy of deliberate ambiguity on the existence of its nuclear weapons. It therefore, obviously, has no stated policy on the circumstances in which it would use them, including “no first strike”, or other war-game subtleties. I said, and this perfectly consistent with the policy of ambiguity, that Israel has not threatened to use nuclear weapons on its enemies: either to get them to the peace table, or in the ongoing war which is fought conventionally. And my points were made in the context of rebutting a poster’s casually dropped porker that Israel’s nuclear capability has been “massively destabilizing” in the region.

I’m afraid I must dash your hopes of my urging Israel not to waste resources on weapons it will never use. I am pretty confident Israel would use them under certain circumstances, and, of course, Israel has resources for nukes and food. The peace dividend to be gained by turning swords into ploughshares is the sort of homily CND blokes should - but don’t, funnily enough - give to command economies and despotisms with impoverished and oppressed people. You should give it a go. Dust off the “Make love, not war” signs, strap on the sandals, toggle up the duffel, collect the old crowd for a mass shuffle on Trafalgar Square to say “no” to the bomb for Iran, Egypt, Syria and Saudi Arabia - before they get it.

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Celato: I think the world might be a safer place if the Earth were flat..

Please discuss...

celato

C. Gee:

Your confidence that Israel 'would use [nukes] in certain circumstances' is no doubt shared by Iran.

Come to think of it ... maybe that's the unspoken fear of an awful lot of Jews who would rather not see the earth flattened by ANY bunch of loonies, regardless of ethnic ties, religious affiliation, political leanings, military strategy, or geographical location.

JOHN ROOSEVELT:

Please see above. It's not a 'flat' earth I regard as safe, but the beautiful, round, lumpy, wart-ridden one we have.

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Celato: "C. Gee:

Your confidence that Israel 'would use [nukes] in certain circumstances' is no doubt shared by Iran.

Come to think of it ... maybe that's the unspoken fear of an awful lot of Jews who would rather not see the earth flattened by ANY bunch of loonies, regardless of ethnic ties, religious affiliation, political leanings, military strategy, or geographical location.

JOHN ROOSEVELT:

Please see above. It's not a 'flat' earth I regard as safe, but the beautiful, round, lumpy, wart-ridden one we have."

Are you serious that you believe that Israel threatens - with its nuclear arsenal - any state that that would not want it destroyed?

Iran does not want the jews wiped off the global map simply because Israel may have nuclear weapons. if you believe this, I will definitely organise for you an honorary life membership to the Guild of Twaddlemeisters (all of whom belong to the Flat Earth Society, of course - de rigeur)

celato

JOHN ROOSEVELT:

You seem to think that a nuclear bomb confines its havoc to the target on which it's dropped: a couple of million enemy civilians killed, a city reduced to rubble, and there's an end of it.

Nukes don't work that way. A teeny 'terrorisist-sized' one is enough to destroy most of New York City; a single standard megaton warhead (eg the type carried on a Trident) is 100 times more powerful.

Not only is immediate death and destruction on a much wider scale than a city, the radioactivity fallout spreads for hundreds of miles, killing and polluting for years after the initial explosion.

And even THAT'S not the end of it.

In the Middle East, for eg, it was assessed that the radioactivity from a nuclear assault on Iraq would have destroyed Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, too. End of oil production; US and Europe consequently suffer crippling blows to industry, agriculture, transport; potential economic collapse and civil strife loom, etc, etc.

Of course I don't think Israel would directly target a state that did not threaten its existence. What worries me (assuming C: Gee is right in his/her analysis) is that its readiness to use nuclear force 'in certain circumstances' on an enemy state hinges on a mindset that any lethal fallout - to foes and friends alike - can blithely be written off as 'collateral damage'.

In those circumstances, Israel will not safeguard its existence at all. Utterly friendless, the gravestone over the blighted landscape will read, 'Those whom God wishes to destroy He first makes mad'.

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Celato:"JOHN ROOSEVELT:

You seem to think that a nuclear bomb confines its havoc to the target on which it's dropped: a couple of million enemy civilians killed, a city reduced to rubble, and there's an end of it."

Really, Celato? if you can give any evidence of that bit of twaddle, we'd be delighted to hear it.

"Nukes don't work that way. A teeny 'terrorisist-sized' one is enough to destroy most of New York City; a single standard megaton warhead (eg the type carried on a Trident) is 100 times more powerful.

Not only is immediate death and destruction on a much wider scale than a city, the radioactivity fallout spreads for hundreds of miles, killing and polluting for years after the initial explosion.

And even THAT'S not the end of it.

In the Middle East, for eg, it was assessed that the radioactivity from a nuclear assault on Iraq would have destroyed Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, too. End of oil production; US and Europe consequently suffer crippling blows to industry, agriculture, transport; potential economic collapse and civil strife loom, etc, etc.

Of course I don't think Israel would directly target a state that did not threaten its existence. What worries me (assuming C: Gee is right in his/her analysis) is that its readiness to use nuclear force 'in certain circumstances' on an enemy state hinges on a mindset that any lethal fallout - to foes and friends alike - can blithely be written off as 'collateral damage'.

In those circumstances, Israel will not safeguard its existence at all. Utterly friendless, the gravestone over the blighted landscape will read, 'Those whom God wishes to destroy He first makes mad'."

Sounds like an exceptionally compelling argument for wanting iran to get the bomb. Interesting logic. Did you consult with the logician par excellence - dear harold?

Stop being a patronising, arrogant and disingenuous twirp.. The Israelis need your advice about nuclear miltary technology and its implications like a prok chop in a synagogue. save your twaddle for the moslems ravenous for the bomb.

Adam B.

celato, the bomb is Israel's last defence, a guarantee that anyone destroying it will themselves be destroyed. Never again will genocide be visited on the Jews without a consequence. You say that Israel would be friendless if it used it. I would rather be friendless and alive than dead and pitied.

As Golda Meir observed at the Evian Conference as the world sealed the fate of European Jewry with sympathy, but no action:

"That's the last time I wish to be pitied."

celato

JOHN ROOSEVELT:

If you spent a bit less time dreaming up sparky little insults, you might find a minute or two to read my posts more carefully.

I never said - and never would -that I wanted Iran to have the bomb.

For the record: I think the possession of nuclear bombs is A Bad Thing All Round.

Okay?

Adam B:

The reason I oppose the possession of nuclear bombs is summed up precisely by your post.

For Israel it is 'a guarantee that anyone destroying it will themselves be destroyed'.

Iran can say exactly the same thing.

In other words, the rationale of both countries is the Mutually Assured Destruction (M.A.D) principle on which the Cold War was based.

The underlying logic of M.A.D was that no country would ever be - quite literally - mad enough to invite its own destruction by deploying the bomb against an enemy.

But this didn't take into account that one day ... sooner or later ... some nation, or dictator, or rag-tag bunch of crazies would decide that self-obliteration was a price well worth paying if it meant the simultaneous obliteration of a hated foe.

In that event, the only 'guarantee' the bomb ever offered was vengeance - not deterrence, not survival, just a holocaust.

'Alive and friendless/dead and pitied' may be options in a conventional war, but not where nukes are concerned.

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Celato: "JOHN ROOSEVELT:

If you spent a bit less time dreaming up sparky little insults, you might find a minute or two to read my posts more carefully.

I never said - and never would -that I wanted Iran to have the bomb.

For the record: I think the possession of nuclear bombs is A Bad Thing All Round.

Okay?"

..and there I was thinking you were not spending the time to read my post and you were making up stuff I said. You go figure.

So, Celato, you are not apologising for Iran's nuclear program by saying Israel is an agressor state which cannot be trusted NOT to use its nukes and this is why iran is gung ho for them?

Well, Celato, if you're not saying that what are you saying?

celato

JOHN ROOSEVELT:

Hopefully this recap will bring some clarification once and for all:

C.Gee wrote (on December 4th, 4.05pm): 'I am pretty confident that Israel would use them [nuclear weapons] in certain circumstances.'

I replied (December 5th, 12.48 am): 'Your confidence ... is no doubt shared by Iran.'

This was not an 'apology' for Iran's nuclear programme. It was simply an OBSERVATION - on the likelihood that a country which regarded Israel as an dangerous enemy would hold precisely the same belief as C.Gee (a friend of Israel) about Israel's preparedness to deploy nuclear force.

What Iran SHOULD believe, or SHOULD do in response to such a belief, was never addressed directly by me at all. I certainly did not argue that Iran would be justified in developing a nuclear arsenal in retaliation, or even as a 'deterrent'.

Indeed, the only (generalised)argument I made was that the Mutually Assured Destruction principle was utter lunacy (see my post to you and Adam B, Dec 6th, 8pm).

If you still can't see that I don't condone the development, possession, or threat of nuclear force in ANY circumstances, by ANY country - including Israel and Iran - then I'm afraid there's not much point in further correspondence on this issue.

A.

John Roosevelt
I have only just noticed your odd question. The only states NOT to sign are India, Pakistan, and Israel, North Korea withdrew,