Between a rock and the hardest of places

Joe Lennar

Iran will have to be dealt with - and soon. I've researched enough myself to be convinced that Iran is as severe a threat, if not moreso, than what were the Nazis.

David M

Yes, I agree with Melanie here totally. I keep reading these articles by British journalists in the press that state how to attack Iran will be catastrophic. The consequences will be dire, they say. Well, of course, there will be horrendous implications but nothing compared to the menace of an Iran armed with nuclear warheads, which is where we're heading!! Worst of all is the U.S. hesitating, half-hoping Iran is a few years away yet from acquiring a bomb. In reality, it could be a matter of just a few months. maybe less. So, I think Israel has to act on its own and do the unthinkable which is to give Iran a very bloody nose via a military strike. Israel also has to make the Iranians understand if they strike back at Telaviv, the gloves will be well and truly off. History shows, at the end of the day, nations such as Sparta or the Roman Empire would never have survived if they had blinked at an enemy that sought their total destruction. For example, where would we have been today if the Spartans hadn't stood outnumbered against the entire Persian army under Darius and crushed them in every pitched battle (against all odds)? The trouble is, as Melanie understands quite well, Iran is not going to negotiate, bargain or be reasonable. This situation has been dragging on for months and no concessions made. Iran merely wishes to stall and buy time so it can eventually hold the West to ransom. Israel now has to make some harsh choices the West seems too floppy to make and this could lead to a major international crisis, and possibly America being drawn into the conflict. However, nothing could be a worse scenario than Iran gaining nuclear weapons. Let's all hope there's a slim chance of Iran backing down but, if not, a strike is the only card left on the table. Better a bloodbath today than a hollocaust tomorrow.

Ben

Israel has no choice but to take out the Iranian nuclear facilities soon, using tactical nukes if necessary. An Iranian atom bomb will otherwise destroy Israel later.

Herbert Thornton

Melanie - You wrote - "Condi Rice says America will protect its allies if Iran attacks them. Really? How? At what stage? After Tel Aviv lies in flames?"

Correct, Melanie. Probably nothing will be done until Tel Aviv does lie in flames - just as nothing was done until the Twin Towers collapsed. Even then, the response was inadequate - and so, I fear, will be the response to devastation in Tel Aviv.

It has been the same with Britain. The London Tube & buses were bombed, but the response has been even more inadequate - to the point of known terrorists being still allowed to walk the streets with the government giving them housing and generous income support while they do it.

You mention the arrogant western illusion that everyone in the world is at root a rational actor governed by a rational understanding of his own self-interest, but it seems to me that there is a strong case for arguing that the description of 'rational actor governed by a rational understanding of his own self-interest' applies to the west even less than it applies to Iran. The Iranian regime's madness is really a form of calculated recklessness, but in common with several others, Britain makes no calculations at all - its actions (and especially lack of them) are based on delusion and amount to sheer, barking madness.

Joe Strummer

Despite talk of wavering America CANNOT flinch now in its support for Israel. With Iran's increasingly sinister and dangerous posturing it is too,too late for that.

Anything that Israel requires, financial, political and military support it should get... and damn quickly.

Dragutin Dimitrijevic

"It is very noticeable that, although Ahmadinejad and co regularly threaten the annihilation of Israel and are building the weapons to carry that out,...."

* * *

Ms Phillips,

Please provide examples and sources to support your claims that:

1.) President Ahmadi-Nezhad or any other official of the Iranian government has actively threatened to annihilate Israel (active voice threats please. An example of an active voice threat is "The Armed Forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran are making preparations and will carry out the destruction of Israel." Passive voice observations such as Israel must vanish, Israel will vanish etc. are not threats. On the other hand, as you remember Israeli Deputy Prime Minister Shaul Mofaz did threaten Iran with attack several weeks ago.)

2.) The Iranian government or some entity inside Iran is manufacturing nuclear weapons.

Thank You.

Dragutin Dimitrijevic

BJ

Quite the maddest article on this blog I have yet read and there have been a few!
"Iran has been at war with us since 1979" No, it was the West who backed Saddam in his war against Iran, bankrolled by our allies, the Saudis. We may no longer talk about the Iran/Iraq war but it won't have been forgotten by the people of Iran.

Indeed with the US army on its borders in both Iraq and Afganistan it is not difficult to see why the Iranians might fear foreign intervention and look to deter an attack.

Yet even if the Iranians did obtain nuclear weapons (and the evidence of such a programme is inconclusive, to say the least) why would our old Cold War friend Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) not apply in the region?
There is no reason to suppose that the Iranians would be mad enough to start a nuclear war, through first use of such weapons, in which of course, Iran itself and with it centuries of Persian culture would be destroyed.
(Oh, I forgot, they're Muslims! so they they don't think like us about war, destruction and death)

field

Why do the BBC and other UK media underplay the range of the Iranian missiles. They refer to UK bases in the Middle East. They could equally say Greek holiday islands. That would bring the message home.

Anyway, it's only a matter of time before the UK is directly in the frame.

Stop Iran now. While it can be done with minimal bloodshed. Or try and stop them later - if you dare.

Dave M. is right to say:

"In reality, it could be a matter of just a few months. maybe less."

The reality is we don't know what help they have been receiving from North Korea. We know they have contacts and co-operate.

BJ's post is pathetic. He asks:

"why would our old Cold War friend Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) not apply in the region? "

Because we are dealing with a theocratic regime that positively welcomes the idea of an apocalyptic crisis when the "hidden Imam" will emerge to save the world. MAD only applies if you're not mad.

S

But that's exactly the point, BJ, they don't. (By their own religious [etc, etc,] admission.)

David M

We've now seen enough religious fanaticism and disregard for human life to justify the use of extreme military force. We've seen bombs placed in nightclubs, children used as hostages in Beslan, theatres taken hostage in Moscow, the 9/11 attacks, indiscriminate mass Jihadist bombings in Madrid and London, frequent suicide bombings in Israel. All these attacks have been cowardly acts carried out by fanatics not in uniform and hiding behind civilians. So, what kind of miscalculation would it be to seriously trust the Iranian regime with a nuclear weapon? This is a regime that evidently idolises martyrs and death and believes Allah supports their cause. Personally, I'll bet my bottom dollar Israel does hit those facilties. True, it could lead to a huge diplomatic crisis but taking direct action against Iran is probably the only thing the clerics will understand.

Bill M

I don't see in the AFP article referenced by Melanie where Condi Rice says, "America will protect its allies if Iran attacks them." It is not even close. What she says is, "We will defend American interests and the interests of our allies," and, "We take very strongly our obligation to defend our allies and we intend to do that". I don't see "if" or "after" anywhere.

Notwithstanding the nonexistent quote, the foolish and dreamy thinking of Rice, reflected in our recent roll-over and surrender to North Korea, (perhaps to show Iran that we can make nice and bring shiny gifts and to show the world that diplomacy works?) shows Israel that we have zero inclination to shove Iran off the track militarily. If Iran is not to have nuclear weapons, Israel is the one that will need to take action. But that won’t happen either because Olmert can’t even handle Hezbollah.

Rice will be gone in seven months or so and Iran will have a nuclear weapon. Just as the Republicans blamed Bin Laden on Clinton, we can blame a nuclear Iran on Rice.

Even though people jumped all over him, I like what Chirac was willing to say (I admit, clearly at no cost to France), "Where will it drop it, this bomb? On Israel?" Chirac asked. "It would not have gone 200 meters into the atmosphere before Tehran would be razed." I hope that will not happen to either nation.

My hope is that the people of Iran will say “enough” and do what needs to be done to reclaim their nation. Unfortunately, I don’t think that will happen in time.

Bill M

Field, you absolutely pegged the bottom line with this one:

"Because we are dealing with a theocratic regime that positively welcomes the idea of an apocalyptic crisis when the "hidden Imam" will emerge to save the world. MAD only applies if you're not mad."

The supreme ruler runs the show and he's just as mad as Ahmadinejad. Hey, "Mad as Ahmadinejad". I like it.

Frank Pulley

I repeat my imperative from another thread on the same subject. Whack 'em. There's no other way. Go, Israel!

You have the perfect legal excuse - self defence against threatened annihilation. The current stand-off will bring down Western Civilisation economically anyway. There are times in history when a civilisation gotta do what a civilisation gotta do - or die.

Frank Pulley

btw I hope the BJ above is not BoJo. That would be pushing the pandering to effnik mineorifices, for votes, just a tad too far.

Gary Vineberg

Look, the U.S. and Soviet Union had thousands of nuclear weapons pointed at each other for decades and only came close once to firing them (the Cuban Missile Crisis).

They fought each other through surrogates and proxies, which is exactly what the U.S. and Iran are doing today: Israel is the American client state in the Middle East, while Syria/Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Mahdi Army do the Mullahs' dirty work.

I truly doubt that the Iranians want to risk their own assured destruction -- if not by Israel's hundreds of nuclear-tipped missiles, then by America's vast arsenal -- by bombing Tel Aviv one day.

Rather, nuclear weapons would allow them to harrass Israel (among other U.S. assets in the region) with greater impunity. Israel, in concert with the U.S., must decide whether that is a less desirable scenario than initiating a preemptive attack on Iran, with all the consequences it implies for regional stability and the global economy.

I don't for a second belive that regimes such as North Korea and Iran are "rational" in any way I would define it. But neither are they suicidal. Indeed, survival seems to be their strongest instinct.

By the way, some of you may have noticed that the level of violence in Iraq has declined precipitiously. This would be impossible without some degree of U.S./Iranian coordination.

Derah Yasque

Dragutin.

Only in Chess and the UN are there such neatly laid out strategies for offence.
Real world, people just get on with aggression and it is either met and matched - or the aggressor prevails.

Dhimmitude sucks

Israel will almost certainly have to take out Iran's nuclear programme, probably some time in November, between the American elections and the new president taking power in January.

If it does this, which I believe it must, this is likely to Herald a much larger war in the ME at least, as Iran hits back at Israel and tries to draw in as many other countries as possible.

Many Christians (and I would expect Jews too) are beginning to look at the prophesies of Ezekiel 38-39 and wondering if these are about to be fulfilled Ezekiel 36-37 having been fulfilled in the last 60 years, with Israel being remade as a nation, with a mighty army, and the deserts blooming with flowers and crops.

In Ezekial 38-39, Iran and Russia, together with most of the ME nations apart from Egypt and Iraq, attack Israel with overwhelming armies.

No nation comes to Israel's aid, and the whole world watches as they face seemingly certain destruction.

Fortunately, G-d intervenes, utterly destroying all of the armies that attack Israel. It takes Israel 7 months to bury the bodies of their attackers, and 7 years to burn their weapons as firewood. (The Russian armies weapons are made of lignite, hard as stone, but burns like wood).

This may not be what is happening now, but if no-one else takes out Iran, Israel may have to, for all of our sakes. And if all our western nations stand at the sidelines to watch Israel's destruction, then I truly hope G-d comes to her aid.

dhimmitude sucks

BJ: MAD only works with sane adversaries.

Armageddon-ijad is literally MAD: his stated goal is to bring about Armageddon, thus heralding the arrival of the 12th iman, the Islamic Mahdi (and quite possibly the Christian anti-christ).

The leader of Iran is not worried about triggering a global war, unleashing nuclear devestation and the collapse of the world order - in fact, beyond the destruction of Israel and the US, it is is ultimate long term goal.

To treat a lunatic like this (and there are many others who share both the eschatology and the strategy in the Islamic world) the same as the Kremlin in the cold war is to totally misjudge the goals and strategies of the enemy.

Mike Brearley

Dragutin, I don’t know how well you know English, but it is bizarre to say “Passive voice observations such as Israel must vanish, Israel will vanish etc. are not threats”.

If a heavily-armed man who hates me says to me, “You must die” I would certainly feel very worried, and any court of law in an English-speaking country would agree that I was right to feel that way. (Incidentally, the sentences you cite are not passive constructions, but that doesn’t matter)

Anyway, I must go.

pete woodhouse

will this do Dragutin Dimitrijevic

http://www2.irna.ir/en/news/view/line-17/0806031049094727.htm

paul hill

Like everybody else I am unable to say if Iran intends to develop it's enrichment programme to the point where it can produce nuclear weapons

The current inspection regime says that it would take six months to reach this point from such a programme being commenced and that this level of enrichment could not be carried out covertly

One thing that is beyond argument is that it is impossible to point to any weapons technology that has remained the exclusive property of any country or group of countries and that holds true for everything from bronze spears to neutron bombs

If we accept this historical truism it is inevitable that Israel and Iran will have to reach some sort of modus vivendi as nuclear armed NATO and nuclear armed Warsaw Pact did (despite blood curdling rhetoric on both sides).

One thing that might be helpful is for the USA to stop rewarding regimes that illegally develop nuclear weapons quite so lavishly India ,Korea,Israel and Pakistan all receive lavish largesse courtesy of the American taxpayer

dhimmitude sucks

Paul Hill:

you are right, nuclear weapons could not be developed covertly. That's why the world was taken aback in surprise by every new state to acquire nuclear weapons in the last few decades. After all, we all *knew* India, Pakistan and North Korea couldn't have such things!

Tosh.

Ann

"the west has studiously refused to fight back"

That should be stupidly, not studiuously. The same single-digit IQs that regarded Hitler as merely a ridiculous little man in 1937, are making exactly the same mistake with regard to Ahmadenijad now.

Ann

Joe, America IS flinching. It is still fawning on a total prat like Obama, who has nil grasp of military strategy or international politics. More talk is needed, indeed! This asshole would have said the same after Germany's invasion of Poland.

Ann

"Look, the U.S. and Soviet Union had thousands of nuclear weapons pointed at each other for decades and only came close once to firing them (the Cuban Missile Crisis)"

Factually untrue. Do some basic research.

Ann

The usual nonsense from Paul Hill about Israel's nuclear weapons being 'illegal' because they had not asked PH's permission first.
Get it into your head: the Jews do not need to apologise to you or ask you for permission to defend themselves. I know that it's difficult for you to grasp, but there it is.

effnik mineorifices

And the BNP prize for racism and hatred goes to Frank Pulley for "effnik mineorifices".

Well done Frank. In a crowded field you've really stood out.

Ann

"By the way, some of you may have noticed that the level of violence in Iraq has declined precipitiously. This would be impossible without some degree of U.S./Iranian coordination"

So you say, but it is pure speculation verging into fantasy. It's mainly down to a general (P.) who knows what he's doing.

obliterate Iran

David, who says he agrees with Melanie totally, writes

"So, I think Israel has to act on its own and ...give Iran a very bloody nose via a military strike. Israel also has to make the Iranians understand if they strike back at Telaviv, the gloves will be well and truly off."

Which sounds to me like he's advocating an Israeli nuclear attack on Iran.

And all inspired by Sparta! Where indeed would we be if they hadn't crushed the Persians/Iranians all those years ago?

Ah, on the one hand the value of a classical education, and on the other, the satisfactions of Melanie-inspired obliterationism.

Louise

"Crying Peace, Peace, when their is no peace." It's one minite to midnight for Israel and the West. But the BBC (especially) is trotting out "experts" who assure the viewer that Iran is merely "sabre-rattling". And behind the scenes the leaders of the free world appear to be pussy-footing. It looks as if valiant Israel will have to do alone what its lily-livered allies should be doing.

Dorian Hack

As someone whose family lives in Israel, I find the tone of some of the responses just a way too gung-ho. Yes Israel does most certainly have the where withall,military capability and shear guts to do what apparently no other country is prepared to do ie face down a monster, but at what human cost to itself.
Must Jewish blood be spilt yet again, because the world has become used to this. I am not for appeasement - not a peacenik, but somebody else better fess-up to the responsibility of keeping the world on track, now and for the future

dhimmitude sucks

Apologies, I should correct earlier post:
Lignite is (I think) a form of coal.
I should have said lignostone, a form of beech laminate, stronger than steel. The Dutch use it as fuel in their power stations; the Russians use it in the construction of most of their weapons. What proportion of Iranian weaponry is sourced from Russian I have no idea, but it would be interesting to know.

Dorian Hack

Quote from Mark Regev (Israel government spokesman) - Israel "seeks neither conflict nor does it seek hostilities with Iran. Nevertheless, Iran,s nuclear program together with their ballistic missile program SHOULD BE A MATTER OF GRAVE CONCERN FOR THE ENTIRE FAMILY OF NATIONS"
Now you heard it as they say from the horses mouth.

Roy

There was also a lot of enthusiasm for a fight against Iraq, a stand against communist insurgents and it's eventual takeover in S.Vietnam, the cold war, etc. Yet once committed to action the world comes tumbling down around the ears of our American friends. Were it not for US support for Israel now, as an ally, things would look really bleak for them. Anti-Americanism in the world at large is as bad an infection as is Islamification. America bled itself white against the cold war threat with the USSR, and trying to hold the front against hard core communism (still held as a joke by many). Today America still bleeds, we still have Russia flexing it's muscles along with a score of countries looking for a fight. We should give the US a tiny bit more support ... as in the past ... they are your only hope. Even if they make many mistakes and are too overenthusiastic by far. They also have that internal enemy who can't believe of any threat, plus their usual infections of jihads, and are the only ones not subverted (yet) by Saudi bank rolls.

Paskalis

Nothing enrages America more, and rightly so, than a weak country it wants to invade and destroy attempting to defend itself.

Adam B.

Dragutin,

When did Hitler publicly announce "I'm going to kill the Jews"? Sometimes you have to read between the lines if you want to stay alive.

Joshua

"Nothing enrages America more, and rightly so, than a weak country it wants to invade and destroy attempting to defend itself."

With regard to this particular matter, this sounds very much like something Joseph Goebbels might have said in December 1941.

Joshua

What has struck me is the equivalency, moral and otherwise, that has been drawn between Israel and Iran. Some examples:

A cartoon by Garland in the Daily Telegraph:

http://tinyurl.com/682m75

A piece by Gerard Baker in the Times:

http://tinyurl.com/5ov5ls

A cartoon by Bell in the Guardian

http://tinyurl.com/6nluw2

Paskalis

Thank God for Hitler and the Nazis: Where else would those who have no argument at all consistently, predictably and tiresomely reach for slander when all logic and sense escape them.

It often appears that Hitler has endowed the mentally bankrupt with a wealth of polemic clichés.

Noel

To this debate we must remind ourselves of the other scenario, the one that means the clock is ticking faster than many realize.

Of course Iran wants a nuclear warhead for the leverage such a weapon would apply and the destruction one could create.

But even before Iran gets even that far, merely by enriching uranium it could then pass on a dirty bomb to one of its proxies, for example, Hezbollah, and get them to use it on Israel.

With no state “fingerprints” on such a bomb, Iran could weep crocodile tears to the international community of: “It wasn’t me”.

Iran is the past master of using terrorist proxies. Look at how little the Western media talks about what they’ve been sneakily stirring up in places such as Iraq and Lebanon.

This is the Iranian regime’s preferred modus operandi so why would it slip out of character?

So let’s say this scenario occurs, what happens in Israel?

Possibly a huge shift in population away from any nuclear fall-out site with the consequence of Israel struggling to feed and defend itself.

And then what?

Just over the borders are Hezbollah and Hamas, well armed and with a ferocity of purpose no-one needs reminding of – it is the classic smoke them out and pick them off scenario.

For Iran, there would never be a more tactically advantageous time for such chicanery than under an Obama presidency.

You’re nearly out of egg-timer sand, Israel.

michael

The wider picture here is that the US has been after Iranian oil since the 50s.

Iran has been invaded, surrounded, threatened, boycotted and embargoed by the US, its then ally Iraq, the UK and now Israel, in an increasingly provocative series of economic and military moves.

Dinner Jacket might well be a little creep, but he does not speak for the Iranian people. He is a Berlusconi like figure who can spout off whatever he likes without anyone really listening.

Iran has never bombed anyone, and is as about as likely to bomb Israel as it is Iceland. The reasons really are too obvious, but suicide is the biggest one.

Israel and the US know that, but are happy for Dinner Jacket's tomfoolery to play into their wider plan, and now Israel ends up with the short stick, being moved into position to do the neocons', Likud's and oil firms' bidding - what an unholy alliance - and bomb another middle eastern country.

And you all, under the guiding light of Mad Mel, the warmongerin crusader, lead the charge.

Excellent.

Stop, think and act. Iran will go nuclear, and deterence, which has worked for the West since the 40s, will work in the Middle East.

Yes, Israel's influence will be curbed, and the US will have to get used to it and pay market rates for Iran's light crude - the best on the market, but nobody will bomb anyone.

On pain of death.

Bill M

Joshua,
Apparently, Paskalis is the new Joseph Goebbels.

Adam B.

Paskalis, you believe Iran has been slandered? The persecution of the Bahai and the Jews, the public hangings of minors, the stoning of homosexuals and those deemed to have loose morals? Whose leader has repeatedly made reference to the destruction of the Jewish state? A regime which supports and provides weapons to organizations which are openly genocidal in intent (read the charters of Hizbollah and Hamas)? Yes, I can see how the Iranian regime is the victim here.

Idiot.

logdon

Watching Question Time last night you'd be lead into thinking that this was a game. The asinine 'we've got them, why not Iran?' created huge whoops of applause from an admittedly teen audience but also, unforgivably from some members of the panel, in particular the self made business woman whose name passes my memory. (Thank God for the redeeming mercies of getting on a bit!) This is the result of years of the pummeling of cultural relativism in State Schools whereby right and wrong cease to exist. However what will be will be and my guess is that John Bolton is nearer than most in his prediction of hostilities pretty soon. The alternative of a nuked up Iran is a doomsday scenario which transcends all logic. As in most Arab and Middle Eastern affairs the opacity of complexity is virtually impenetrable such is the multitude of issues whether Sunni/Shia standoff's or the destruction of the Zionist Entity and all points in between. Stand by for eye watering oil prices is my advice.

Paskalis

I am in no position, Adam B., to defend Iran (I assume she can defend herself). I (the “idiot” as you so cleverly put it) was defending my statement and now, it appears, myself. There is a chance that your rushed and inflamed misreading of a few sentences might be the very cause of your excitability.

Your rudeness, I presume, comes naturally.

Best,

steve

Sorry to intrude with facts but Ahmadinejad is not the leader of Iran nor is he in charge of the country's nuclear program. In fact, if the West plays its cards right by keeping up the economic pressure, he'll likely be out of a job next year as inflation is currently running in the 20-30% range and ordinary Iranians are hurting. It also needs to be pointed out that the missile tests were aimed at sending a message to both the United States (warships off the coast of Iran and thousands of troops next door) and Israel (recent military exercise conducted with aircraft with the message being to Tehran that it will strike at it) that Iran will respond if attacked. It would also be nice if instead of Melanie starting the history of this problem in 1979 she might drift back a little earlier and address things like Britain and the U.S. toppling the democratically elected prime minister of Iran in 1953 and then spending decades supporting a dictatorship in the form of the Shah.

David M

This David M would like to make it clear that I am not the David M who has already posted on this topic.

I use the name David M because that is my real name and initial and I presume the same can be said for my doppleganger.

There really is a need for user registration on this site.

Joe Strummer

-Ann

That is my biggest fear and concern....Barak Obama.

Despite his "assurances" if and when he gets elected, God forbid. I do not trust him one iota when it comes to the long term in regards to Israel or the Middle East itself.

More reason for the USA to act publicly NOW in solidly backing the Israeli government with the most recent anti-missile defence systems and to threaten to de-capiitate the current Iranian regime forthwith if the sabre-rattling continues.

Harvey

Dragutin

You state that ;

'Passive voice observations such as Israel must vanish are not real threats'

Perhaps not to you but to an Israeli it is very real indeed!
After the last attempt to exterminate us we tend to sit up and take note when the next tyrant comes along and informs the world that we will soon cease to exist .

Israels detractors such as yourself will of course attempt to put a benign slant on it alluding to some deeper philosophical meaming -a sort of 'Lost in Translation'

Sorry we dont buy it nor are we asking him for an explanation or retraction -not that we would get one of course.

Iranian hate filled rhetoric is one thing . Combined with the drive to obtain WMDs, well thats a different ball park .

Iran will not achieve their nuclear ambition . Israel will not enter into the jaws of the crematoria a second time

Adam B.

Paskalis,

I assume that the epithet "mentally bankrupt" is a term of politeness in your parts?

Danni

So michael and Steve want to go back before 1979?

Let's go back, then, to the Gates of Vienna - do you know there wasn't any oil around back then.

Just the same old threat to freedom as we're facing now – and that's coming from exactly the same source.

Paskalis

Your employment of facts, Steve, only serves as a devious digression in this spirited discussion. I myself have always felt that accuracy has no place in human communication. It only inhibits it, and leads to no good.

Indeed, it is ignorance of any topic that frees the mind and inspires the tongue. “I know nothing about this, so I feel I can speak at length” is my favourite and impregnable preamble.

Knowledge is restrictive and confining. It can only trip you up if you’re running blind-folded, especially with the scissors of conviction. It is best avoided.

Mladen Andrijasevic

Dragutine, how about this:
http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/1784.htm
http://www.memritv.org/clip_transcript/en/1784.htm
http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/1222.htm
http://www.memritv.org/clip_transcript/en/1222.htm

But you apparently do not seem to understand WHY Ahmadinejad WANTS a nuclear showdown with Israel . Here is why:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/09/who_is_mahmoud_ahmadinejad.html
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008768

Joe Camel

SAVAK is alive and well, assiduously protecting the ayatollahs from Iranians who might one day call for change they can believe in.

Ever heard of Ahmad Batebi? I'd never heard of him until yesterday, although I realize now I did once see his photograph. Quite a story he's starting to tell:

http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?source=hptextfeature&story_id=11707464

Brian Moshe

Bravo, Melanie. Spot on as usual.

I am currently living with the feeling that the summer of 2008 is rather like the early summer of 1914 and that the next 35 years will be as momentous and world-changing as the sequence of world events that followed the seemingly obscure assassination of the Austrian Archduke in Sarajevo.

From 1914 to 1949, in just 35 short years, the world changed out of recognition and empires and leaders vanished in seas of blood and were replaced by new tyrants.

Our media is rightly concerned about mortgage rates, oil prices and escalating food costs, but this is really the smaller picture. A few months from now people may well be worrying about just surviving at all...the media apparently sees nothing that will potentially destroy our whole way of life, Iran is a sideshow as the media bog us down in myopic trivia.

Dave M

I used the example of Sparta because Sparta was a tiny democracy, surrounded by bigger, aggressive neighbours. That is also the case regarding Israel, which is why, I believe, history is a factor. Persia under Darius around 400 B.C. was a huge Empire and had vast resources as well as client States. Darius sought the subjugation of democratic Greece and Europe but offered the Greek States client status. The Greeks chose to unite and fight, led mainly by Sparta. The outcome was decided by the fact Sparta, at that time, was a nation whose citizens were raised to be warriors, superior to all other nations on the battlefield. One Spartan was, in fact, a match for 10 Persians. Now, the point is the Persian army was huge but the Persians were also soft and not quite the force they appeared to be. Today it's the same case with the Arab World. There are hundreds of Jihadist fanatics to every Israeli but Israel has some advantages Europe and America lack. Israelis have been raised in military training and the history of Israel has been built on the pure need to survive. Thus, the defeatist, apologetic, hand-wringing political correctness we see over here hasn't gnawed away at Israel's democracy. Neither does Israel placate radical Islam as we do in the U.K., when politicians hope that more mosques, banking systems and incorporation of Sharia Law might lead to appeasement. In other words, Israel is tiny but it can pack a heavy punch and, hopefully if I'm not mistaken, Israel is determined to strike at those who seek the State's destruction. The Jihadists, on the other hand have never been anything like the force pre WW2 Germany represented so it's quite amazing the West seems so ready to compromise democracy and security by placating Islamic extremism. So, if all negotiation fails and Iran refuses to back down, yes, I still believe the example of history points to the military option. I also think if Iran is made to understand the dire consequences of any attack on Telaviv it will think twice about the threats it has made. One swift, overwhelming military operation by Israel could make the world a far safer place. Any war that does result would be far less catastrophic than one in which Iran had the bomb.

Birdman

Iran is the new Nazi Germany and its president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the new Hitler.....right????

but wait a minute!!!

what is this i have discovered!!

Binyamin Netanyahu, Israel’s opposition leader, told us: “It’s 1938 and Iran is Germany. And Iran is racing to arm itself with atomic bombs.” Of Ahmadinejad, he said: “He is preparing another Holocaust for the Jewish state.”

Israel’s military intelligence claimed -- as it has been doing regularly since the early 1990s -- that Iran is only a year or so away from the “point of no return” on developing a nuclear warhead, and what is this Netanyahu is at it again. “Iran could be the first undeterrable nuclear power,” he warned, adding: “This is a Jewish problem like Hitler was a Jewish problem … The future of the Jewish people depends on the future of Israel.”

oooo here is change we can believe in!!!!

But Netanyahu has been far from alone in making extravagant claims about a looming genocide from Iran. Israel’s new president, Shimon Peres, has compared an Iranian nuclear bomb to a “flying concentration camp.” And the prime minister, Ehud Olmert, told a German newspaper last year: “[Ahmadinejad] speaks as Hitler did in his time of the extermination of the entire Jewish nation.”

So why hasn’t Iran started by wiping its own Jews off the map?

There is an interesting problem with selling the “Iran as Nazi Germany” line. If Ahmadinejad really is Hitler, ready to commit genocide against Israel’s Jews as soon as he can get his hands on a nuclear weapon, why are some 25,000 Jews living peacefully in Iran and more than reluctant to leave despite repeated enticements from Israel and American Jews?

This myth has been endlessly recycled since a translating error was made of a speech Ahmadinejad delivered nearly two years ago. Farsi experts have verified that the Iranian president, far from threatening to destroy Israel, was quoting from an earlier speech by the late Ayatollah Khomeini in which he reassured supporters of the Palestinians that “the Zionist regime in Jerusalem” would “vanish from the page of time”.
(bit like all these "intelluctuals" on thuis site quoting from the qu'ran)

Ciamak Moresadegh, an Iranian Jewish leader, observed: “If you think Judaism and Zionism are one, it is like thinking Islam and the Taliban are the same, and they are not.” Iran’s leaders denounce Zionism, which they blame for fueling discrimination against the Palestinians, but they have also repeatedly avowed that they have no problem with Jews, Judaism or even the state of Israel. Ahmadinejad, caricatured as a merchant of genocide, has in fact called for ‘regime change’ -- and then only in the sense that he believes a referendum should be held of all inhabitants of Israel and the occupied territories, including refugees from war, on the nature of the government.

Despite the absence of any threat to Iran’s Jews, the Israeli media recently reported that the Israeli government has been trying to find new ways to entice Iranian Jews to Israel. The Ma’ariv newspaper pointed out that previous schemes had found few takers. There was, noted the report, “a lack of desire on the part of thousands of Iranian Jews to leave”. According to the New York-based Forward newspaper, a campaign to convince Iranian Jews to emigrate to Israel caused only 152 out of these 25,000 Jews to leave Iran between October 2005 and September 2006, and most of them were said to have emigrated for economic reasons, not political ones.

To step up these efforts -- and presumably to avoid the embarrassing incongruence of claiming an imminent second Holocaust while thousands of Jews live happily in Tehran -- Israel is now backing a move by Jewish donors to guarantee every Iranian Jewish family $60,000 to settle in Israel, in addition to a host of existing financial incentives that are offered to Jewish immigrants, including loans and cheap mortgages.

The announcement was met with scorn by the Society of Iranian Jews, which issued a statement that their national identity was not for sale. “The identity of Iranian Jews is not tradeable for any amount of money. Iranian Jews are among the most ancient Iranians. Iran’s Jews love their Iranian identity and their culture, so threats and this immature political enticement will not achieve their aim of wiping out the identity of Iranian Jews.”

However, this financial gesture may not only be unwelcome but self-fulfilling too, if past experience is the yardstick. Israel introduced a similar scheme a few years ago, when Argentina’s economy plunged into deep recession, broadcasting an offer of $20,000 to every Jew who settled in Israel. Months later the Israeli media reported a rise in anti-Semitic attacks in Argentina, only adding to the pressure on Jews there to leave. Of course, there was no mention of a possible causal connection between the attacks and Israel’s generous offer to Jews to abandon their homeland as other Argentinians sank into poverty.

coming up soon lies and fabrications from MEMRI!!! now there is shocker!!!!

MEMRI lying noooooooooooooo, tell me it cannot be true

psst it is true!!!

Birdman

steve-

mel does not do history she likes to cut and paste...

and besides Mel does not have to answer to you!!! her history is right damn it!!

Dragutin Dimitrijevic

Pete,

The Iranian News Agency is not the President of Iran nor is it an Iranian government official. IRNA did not accurately translate into English what President Ahmadi-Nezhad said.

What he did say, transliterated into Roman text, was:

"Imam ghoft een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad."

Word by word translation into English:

Imam (Khomeini) ghoft (said) een (this) rezhim-e (regime) ishghalgar-e (occupying) qods (Jerusalem) bayad (must) az safheh-ye ruzgar (from page of time) mahv shavad (vanish from).

i.e.

"The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time."

The Persian word for map is "nagsheh." That word is not contained anywhere in the text of President Ahmadi-Nezhad's speech. The ubiquitous "wipe Israel off the map" faux "quote" is a faulty translation at best.

From Dr Juan Cole:

"As most of my readers know, Ahmadinejad did not use that phrase ["wipe Israel off the map"] in Persian. He quoted an old saying of Ayatollah Khomeini calling for 'this occupation regime over Jerusalem' to 'vanish from the page of time.' "

Ref:

'Wiped off the Map' – The Rumor of the Century

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/norouzi.php?articleid=11025

Full text of President Ahmadi-Nezhad's speech (no longer available at this address but an electronic copy is available at the second address below)

http://www.president.ir/farsi/ahmadinejad/speeches/1384/aban-84/840804sahyonizm.htm

http://www.irandefence.net/archive/index.php/t-11027.html

Dr Juan Cole's site

http://www.juancole.com/2007/06/ahmadinejad-i-am-not-anti-semitic.html

http://www.juancole.com

* * *

Mike,

If someone made a public statement "Mike Brearley must vanish from the page of time" which would be a proper analogy as opposed to the incorrect analogy you presented, no court in any English speaking country that I know of (well, perhaps in the UK) would consider that to be a breach of law.

On the other hand, if Deputy Prime Minister Shaul Mofaz tells Yediot Ahronot, Israel's largest mass-circulation daily "If Iran continues its program to develop nuclear weapons [sic] we will attack it" that is a direct threat.

* Note: There has been no material presented by Israel or any legitimate organisation that suggests Iran is in the process of manufacturing nuclear weapons. Even if there were evidence that does not negate the fact that Israel has directly threatened Iran, not the reverse.

jerry

"Between a rock and a very hard place, indeed."

Not so hard. A rule of war that has as one of its sources in Islam, states that one should threaten every form of devastation should the enemy engage in opposition to the rolling Islamist party line. It is the primitive animal behavior of snarling and showing of teeth in order to prevent a confrontation that will end in damage to all parties. Iran is not strong enough to defeat anyone. It has no clear military successes in recent memory and no standoff weapons that could prevent destruction of the homeland. Thus, suicide bombers and Pyrrhic plans for polluting the world represent their best strategy. However, good sense will overtake them as defeat comes to their homeland, as it did with Germany and Japan. Too bad it has to come to that, but with the overthrow of the Iran and its military, the world will be able to go back to business as usual without the mental contortions and illusions that are necessary to justify Iran's plans for hegemony in the world.

Derah Yasque

Dragutin.

So how does your semantic wrangling leave us?

I shouldn't think that to be 'vanished from the page of time' is going to be an enjoyable experience.

Ann

"Indeed, it is ignorance of any topic that frees the mind and inspires the tongue"

In your case, all too true.

Harvey

Dragutin

Nice piece of academic posturing .Unfortunately it cuts no ice .You can dress it up how you like . When your near neighbour tells you that you will soon disappear from the pages of time ,you take him at his word .

Ahmadinejaad has the motivation ,he is just lacking the means . He will not go on to realise his nuclear ambitions.Israel will follow the political coercion route up to a point but no further .No one in Israel wants to see an escalation to this crisis but neither will they tolerate an existential threat from such a mortal enemy.

alan143

Steve @ 12:55 said: “Ahmadinejad is not the leader of Iran nor is he in charge of the country's nuclear program.”

I see - only the REAL leader of Iran is developing the nukes. Phew, let’s all relax then.

You said: “In fact, if the West plays its cards right by keeping up the economic pressure, he'll likely be out of a job next year”.

Hang on a minute. In the previous sentence you implied that he doesn’t matter – do you mean to say that all our sanctions & expensive diplomats have been a complete waste of time?

You said: “the missile tests were aimed at sending a message ... that Iran will respond if attacked”.

Well what a dumb message that is too, since every country will respond if attacked. No, sorry, even I don’t think he’s as dumb as you make out. I think he’s mad enough to worship the god of suicide.

You suggest we: “address things like Britain and the U.S. toppling the democratically elected prime minister of Iran in 1953”.

That toppling happened when all our sanctions & expensive diplomats had proved to be a complete waste of time. What’s your point exactly? That democracies are always right or something?

Dragutin Dimitrijevic

Hi Derah,

Compare and contrast:

1.) Deputy Prime Minister Shaul Mofaz tells 'Yediot Ahronot,' Israel's largest mass-circulation daily "If Iran continues its program to develop nuclear weapons [sic] we will attack it"

2.) President Ahmadi-Nezhad of Iran tells 'Hamshahri,' Iran's largest mass-circulation daily "If Israel continues its program to develop nuclear weapons we will attack it."

Is the first example of fact acceptable to you? What do you think of the second hypothetical and would that be acceptable to you as well?

If Israel, a non-signatory to the NPT, a state which does not permit IAEA inspections of its facilities at Dimona and elsewhere has a right to nuclear technology then Iran, a country that IS a signatory and DOES permit IAEA inspections has every right to it as well.

Joe

"Iran has been at war with us since 1979" No, it was the West who backed Saddam in his war against Iran, bankrolled by our allies, the Saudis. We may no longer talk about the Iran/Iraq war but it won't have been forgotten by the people of Iran.Iraq war can better be described as playing both sides off against the middle (al la Iran/Contra affair.)

Harvey

Dragutin

From your last post .
One big difference
Israel has never threatened or implied the cessation of the Iranian state .

Do get a grip on your thought processes !

Herbert Thornton

One obvious point seems to be missing from this discussion. It seems to me that if - or when - a nuclear bomb is detonated in Tel Aviv, it will have been done by some terrorist group: the government of Iran will deny that it was in any way connected with Iran.

advocatus diaboli

Dragutin,

Why does having a nuclear weapon suddenly an inalienable universal right the Iranians are entitled to? If it is, then surely so are the extensive liberties that the civil societies in the West, whose scientific advances have produced those weapons in the first place, have guaranteed (for or less) to their citizens.

Why don’t you take your arguments to President “Ahmadi-Nezhad” (as your superior Farsi allows you to spell his exalted name) and start insisting that he’s entitled to all the nuclear weaponry he wants so long as he’s willing to go along with installing democracy, women’s rights, religious freedoms, freedom of the press and other such trifles?

Ah okay, I get it. All these rights already do exist in Iran in their purest, god-given forms; it’s just that we bigoted, benighted Islamophobes in the west refuse to acknowledge the everlasting humanitarian achievements of the Great Islamic Theocracy....

Dr Martin Meenagh

Brian Moshe--I keep thinking of the guns of August too. I keep trying to think of ways out of what might come soon, and looking for others to blame than Iran.

The exercise is quite useful. Because, although neoconservatives and war parties do bear some blame, and Iran is splitting internally, the same conclusion recurs. Just as, for all the attempts of the past ninety years, the same one recurs about the Great War--that that was Germany's war, and this one may be Persia's.

I hope this dismal summer doesn't end in war over there. 1914 was a disaster the first time around. The Great War may have been German at the start, but it was the fact that no one in power stood back and tried to break the logic that ultimately led to the disasters of the twentieth century.

May God have mercy on us all.

Dave M

To quote Birdman:

" the Iranian president, far from threatening to destroy Israel, was quoting from an earlier speech by the late Ayatollah Khomeini in which he reassured supporters of the Palestinians that “the Zionist regime in Jerusalem” would “vanish from the page of time”."

And on what historical basis does the Iranian President claim his version of Political Islam has some specific right to control Jerusalem? And this "page of time" referred to by the Cleric seems to me to be a pretty lengthy one as it's at least 3000 years old. Thus, how can the Mullahs' version of Islam claim it has more rights over these territories than Zionism? Or, if you prefer, historical revisionism which Zionism is based on? Let's be clear: Islam came to us as a mediaeval belief system that actually doesn't have ancient roots in Israel or Judea or even the Classical World. In fact, there is no Latin term for "Islamic" or "Islam". On the other hand, there exists the adjective "iudaicus" and "christianus". In other words, the Romans who once occupied Jerusalem as a governing power had no knowledge of Islam. They only had to contend with highly nationalistic Jews and varied forms of Christianity. I'm not specifically knocking Islam as I know there are muslims who do respect other belief systems and recognised Judaism has been around for a long long time. However, this whole flawed idea that the Palestinians "own" these territories on the basis if Islam and its place in history is pretty much nonsense. The idea has been repeated by the media so often, people just accept it without question because the other side of the story is hardly ever related. The Palestinians today occupy these territories due to ethnic cleansing of Jews in ancient times, chiefly by the Romans. The Jews, therefore, are the aboriginees of these lands - the indigenous population that was displaced. Zionism is a reversal of this process and came about after millions of Jews were slaughtered in Europe by Hitler. Seems to me like a pretty good reason for Jews to retake their homeland. Today, Political Islam seeks to manipulate the Palestinian situation by turning them into victims who had their land taken away. Yet Israel has never ethnically cleansed these people and has lately bent over backwards to make some kind of peace with them.

Harvey

Who is this other Harvey person?

Reads like a standard issue melmuppet to me...

Adam B.

To all those who are trying to spin us the line that Iran doesn't want to destroy Israel: the missiles which are paraded through the streets of Tehran with the Revolutionary Guard have one message painted on them - Death to Israel. Would you have us believe that this is just "sabre-rattling"?

Bill Corr

Disagreeable choices, really.

The simple answer is to nuke Iran really thoroughly while there is still time. In fact, it would make sense to nuke Pakistan while we're about it.

Derah Yasque

Dragutin.

I see we have left the former point dangling somewhat. That's blogs I suppose, but fact remains, Ahmendinejad's threat is no less a threat for anything in the revised reading.

As for your two example statements: they show an unwillingness to acknowledge the basic fact which prevails, in that Israel is surrounded by hostile, massively more populous nations which seek its annihilation. That movement is and has been for the last thirty years, scotched in large part by the assurance that Israel could defend itself with, if need be, nuclear weapons. Never have they been used to threaten neighbouring countries in the manner we have seen this week from Tehran.

Please don't even think of giving reassurances that Iran seeks only peaceful applications of its nuclear advances.

Paskalis

"Mentally bankrupt", Adam B., was a generic appellation that was not directed at a specific individual. It was a paradigm of politeness and diplomacy from which others might learn.

Again, a more careful reading should solve most of your distress.

best,

Ed Hummer

@birdman etc.

The contortions to mitigate Ahmamadman's statement about destroying Israel are typical of the moronic justifications of marxists and their ilk. As if the use of euphemism only exists in English. I often hear George Galloway refer to "the north of Ireland". Does anyone doubt that this is a mechanism for him to register his distaste for the existence of Northern Ireland, yet retain an element of denialability while his supporters (scousers and glaswegians in the main) laugh at his sophistry. Really, the attempts to suggest that somehow "the zionist regime" is separate from the state of Israel in the mind of someone who widened the streets of Tehran so the hidden Imam wouldn't be embarrassed would be laughable if it didn't smack of ex-communist anti-semitic dullards who haven't revisited the opinions they have held since they were 18 years old.

skydog

David M.:

''where would we have been today if the Spartans hadn't stood outnumbered against the entire Persian army under Darius?''

Perhaps David, the question should be: Will the Israeli 'Spartans' receive the same iron resolve and backing from we latter-day Thespians as did the Lacedaemonians at Thermopylae or will we fail them and as a result be held to ransom by the Persian hordes?

raymond joseph douglas

By putting off action on Iran for so many years,we are in the same posistion as we were in 1939 when faced with another fanatical regime i.e. Nazi Germany!The cost of going to war in 1939 was terrible and more destructive than it would have been if we had acted earlier,but it had to be done.Can we,at last,find the courage to stand up to another fanatical ideology/regime?Somehow,I feel,we would continue to prefer attacking Israel.And for that we will pass into slavery!

Ronnie Smith

Yes Melanie, quite right. We should have avoided going to war with Iran now by going to war with Iran years ago. No war with Iran can happen soon enough, in the interests of the State of Israel. There can only be a military solution and it seems that surrounding Iran with hundreds of thousands of western troops in Irag and Afghanistan, US carrier groups off the Iranian coast, imense air bases in near-by Arab neighbours cannot satisfy your lust for a military solution. And wait! We have not mentioned Israel's possession of nuclear weapons, which apparently don't threaten anybody... Suddenly, Melanie, your shrieking doesn't scare me so much.

Ann

Dave, everything you say is spot on - the so-called 'Palestinians' haved no claim on Israel whatsoever, it is the country of the Jews - but this

'Zionism is a reversal of this process and came about after millions of Jews were slaughtered in Europe by Hitler'

is incorrect. Modern political Zionism predates WW2 by some 60-70 years.

The barrack-room lawyers who claim that Iran is not threatening to attack Israel because of some grammatical nonsense they have dreamt up, are really just displaying the usual ignorance or worse.

Ann

Nonsense, Ronnie. Do learn some basic history before posting such silly stuff. Israel is surrounded by enemies who have tried many times to destroy her and are still sworn to do so. Those weapons are for her defence. Israel has never threatened to destroy Iran or any other country, nor has tried to do so.

phil

Paskalis what are you on -please tell us as I would like some too-it seems to obliterate all the real problems we face along with reason -sadly it also turns your words into gobbledegook so we will need the word converter too -If you cannot see dinner jacket is the most dangerous man since Hitler and one who cannot be trusted for one moment then your potion has done serious damage to your brain.do you realise that you along with millions of us could be dead within a year if this man is allowed to continue on his noxious path-the ordinary man in Tehran can do nothing about it and you had better believe that Tel Aviv will just be the starting point ,not a convenient capsule for you to spout about .Start worrying about yourself and your family and stop joking at the worlds expense .

phil

HerberT I am glad to find we can find some common ground:)

Paskalis

Please pay attention: I made an amusing reference to the Americans.

I went on to make a brilliant point or two about metaphores and similies, and then emailed a devestating reposte to someone who had made a personal comment.

Here's the truth if you bother to read it: I am not defending the music of ABBA; I am not supporting the closure of Disneyworld; I am not advocating The Destruction of Israel (TDI).

Take your feverish paranoia elsewhere and get off my back.

You people are nuts. You don't need enemies. You are destroying your own position, whatever that may be, through salivating hatred.

Marcus from the USA

Zionist double standards on display once again.

Sickening.

Maybe if Israel stops threatening Iran with simulated bombing runs, then perhaps Iran would'nt need to conduct the missile tests.

"Palestine belongs to the Arabs in the same sense that England belongs to the English, and France to the French".
- Mahatma Gandhi

Boaz Arad-Erder

With or Without Nukes, Iran Is a Mortal Threat

read at the ARI: http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=19681&news_iv_ctrl=1021

john doe

"Palestine belongs to the Arabs in the same sense that England belongs to the English, and France to the French".
- Mahatma Gandhi

Anyone who quotes that nasty individual Ghandhi is a misguided idiot. Ghandi was a repugnant anti-semite who advised the Jews not to resist Hitler in the 30s. He was a corrupt hypocrite....blocking a representative party for the untouchables in Congress, reserving whole train carriages for his entourage, exploiting two young women and hurting his wife to constantly test and prove his perverse celibacy, telling the Indian people to lie down and practice passive non-violent resistance upon a Japanese invasion. And so on. He was a vicious, heartless opportunist full of fanatical and ultimately useless ideals that have had no bearing on India's destiny in the end.

Manchester United with Palestine

Josh, you are absolutely right.
There is NO moral equivalency between Iran and Israel.

Iran is a nation that has continously existed for thousands of years, transcending wars, conquests, and colonialism.

Israel is a nation that was founded only 60 years ago, and its existence is due to the immoral colonialization of the Near East, and the expulsion of its native Arab population.

Iran is a nation that is a signatory to the NPT and therefore has a legal right to its nuclear program.

Israel operates a rougue nuclear program, where none of its facilities are monitored by the IAEA.

Israel is playing the West for a fool, getting us to do its dirty work.

I sincerely hope Britain does not get tricked into a war with Iran, like we got tricked into a war with Iraq.

john doe

Marcus from Noddyland:

The Palestinians are the newest of all the peoples on the face of the Earth, and began to exist in a single day by a kind of supernatural phenomenon that is unique in the whole history of mankind, as it is witnessed by Walid Shoebat, a former PLO terrorist that acknowledged the lie he was fighting for and the truth he was fighting against:
“Why is it that on June 4th 1967 I was a Jordanian and overnight I became a Palestinian?”
“We did not particularly mind Jordanian rule. The teaching of the destruction of Israel was a definite part of the curriculum, but we considered ourselves Jordanian until the Jews returned to Jerusalem. Then all of the sudden we were Palestinians - they removed the star from the Jordanian flag and all at once we had a Palestinian flag”.
“When I finally realized the lies and myths I was taught, it is my duty as a righteous person to speak out”.
This declaration by a true "Palestinian" should have some significance for a sincerely neutral observer. Indeed, there is no such a thing as a Palestinian people, or a Palestinian culture, or a Palestinian language, or a Palestinian history. There has never been any Palestinian state, neither any Palestinian archaeological find nor coinage. The present-day "Palestinians" are an Arab people, with Arab culture, Arabic language and Arab history. They have their own Arab states from where they came into the Land of Israel about one century ago to offset the Jewish immigration. That is the historical truth.

David M

"'Palestine belongs to the Arabs in the same sense that England belongs to the English, and France to the French'.
- Mahatma Gandhi"
There's an example of a self-defeating quotation. In more ancient historical terms, England doesn't belong to the English anyway. France was also known to the Romans as part of Gaul. populated by Gallic tribes and Romanised. If you take a map dated 50 B.C. or beyond, you will find no representation of England or France. You will, of course, find an island known to the Romans as Britannia, occupied by various tribes and an active Druid religion. By the same token, you will find no Islamic presence in Jerusalem but Judaism and the Jewish language was quite alive and well. Go right back to 1000 B.C. and there was an active Jewish Empire that embraced much of the present Islamic World, Syria included. Thus, the whole concept that modern Jews "occupy" a stretch of land, as if they'd fallen from outer space, has always been propaganda, fueled by resentment. The problem is it's O.K. for the British to populate Australia and displace the indigenous Aboriginees, even if they have no ancient historical roots in that land. Maybe Mr Gandhi can offer a quotation on that particular injustice? Or maybe some of the indigenous peoples displaced by Arabs? It all boils down to a very simple question: Should a displaced population retake a land they were once removed from if they have the chance? What about those peoples displaced by Stalin's purges, for example? Given the attacks on Jews in France by the more recent Arab populations, the anti semitism of the BBC and hostility towards Israel by an ill-informed generation of Europeans, why should Jewish people trust Europeans again? Even a State surrounded by hostile enemies but armed to the teeth for self defence is better than being without a homeland.

Marcus from the USA

Johnny Boy you have been taken for all your worth by "Shoebat".

Walid Shoebat is a huckster, out to make a buck. No source, including the Jerusalem Post has ever been able to verify his claims.

The bank in Israel that Mr. Shoebat claimed to bomb, denied any such bombings ever took place.

Now for some history. In 1917 when Lord Balfour signed away the Arab Land of Palestine to the Zionists, Lord Balfour himself wrote that there were 700,000 Arabs living in the land. In 1948, the Arab population had grown to 1.3 million which is consistent with the high Arab birth rates.

The point is that there is no evidence for large scale Arab immigration into the Land of Palestine. There is however, lots of evidence for high Arab birth rates. Even PM Churchill commented about the fact.

Dave M

Field made the observation:

"Why do the BBC and other UK media underplay the range of the Iranian missiles."

Why indeed? It's also odd that when the Beeb reports from Iran they always have a reporter there, covered in a veil and dressed in a way to satisfy Iranian customs. I'm told this is a show of "solidarity". Funnily enough, if a BBC journalist reports from Israel, normal clothes are used. Neither do you see them donning a 10 gallon hat when reporting some disaster in Texas.

Harvey

Marcus

And Texas still belongs to the Mexicans - Move on son!

Harvey

Did it ever occur to you that you dont have the sole rights to the name . I would have acknowledged your seniority and taken a different moniker but resent being labelled a 'Melmuppet. As an ardent supporter of Israel and noting your antipathy ,I will keep my name .The resulting confusion and your new found support of Israel will be punisishment enough for your rudeness. That or change your name

Birdman

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/2290903/Iran-missile-tests-destroyed-old-equipment-and-showed-no-new-capabilities%2C-says-US-official.html

oh dear quick to judge!!!!

change we can believe in then??? what you say to that sweet dear Mellie???

phil

All of you---- ahmajinidad has had every opportunity to say exactly what he meant and to clarify his meaning -we should not be arguing amongst ourselves as to the translation-is that really too simplistic ?-he could dispel any ideas about war very easily by assuring the world also that Iran would never attack Israel ---answers anyone ?

Dragutin Dimitrijevic

Hi Derah,

* I see we have left the former point dangling somewhat. That's blogs I suppose, but fact remains, Ahmendinejad's threat is no less a threat for anything in the revised reading.

To what threat are you referring? Israel has directly threatened Iran, not the reverse.

* As for your two example statements: they show an unwillingness to acknowledge the basic fact which prevails, in that Israel is surrounded by hostile, massively more populous nations which seek its annihilation.

Israel creates its own enemies. If the Israeli collective neuroses and paranoia are meant to excuse its misbehaviour in the region and across the planet there are many millions of us who are not persuaded or sympathetic. "I see demons all around me. Therefore I can do what I please and excuse it as self-defence" is not a legitimate argument. Virtually all nations of the world, indeed all individuals could use that same argument to "pre-emptively" attack perceived enemies if it were legitimate. See the American invasion of Iraq as the most recent example.

* That movement is and has been for the last thirty years, scotched in large part by the assurance that Israel could defend itself with, if need be, nuclear weapons.

That same rationale could be embraced by many nations of the world, especially Iran. Countries X, Y and Z proclaim that possession of nuclear weapons (weapons which Iran does not possess) is the only protective measure those countries have against attack. It seems to work. Pakistan and North Korea as well as India come immediately to mind. They've all produced nuclear weapons but the Americans have not invaded or attacked them as of yet.

* Never have they been used to threaten neighbouring countries in the manner we have seen this week from Tehran.

As I've shown, Israel has done the threatening, not Iran.

First off, the Iranians do not have nuclear weapons. The Israelis have something in the neighbourhood of 200 or more. The Israelis have made the fact that they do possess nuclear weapons the world's least-well-kept secret for years. They've practically made it a point to advertise the fact that they have them, along with their various delivery systems. That, ahem, "badly kept secret" in itself is a tacit threat which the Israelis exploit politically. Yet they persist with this theatrical cringing and proclamations of fear regarding Iran, a B-List developed country with no nukes and little more than a home defence force.

* Please don't even think of giving reassurances that Iran seeks only peaceful applications of its nuclear advances.

Iran is a signatory to the NPT (Israel is not). Iran permits IAEA inspections (Israel does not). Iran is perfectly within its rights to pursue a nuclear energy program.

Groovy Times

BJ finds Melanie's article mad because he refuses to acknowledge the exterminationist anti-semtism inherent in the ideology of Iran's leadership. Did you know, for example, dear BJ, that Iran is the first country since Nazi Germany to officially showcase an anti-Semitic art exhibition? That Iran is the first country in the world to officially sponsor a Holocaust denial conference with special guests like David Duke of the Ku Klux Klan in attendance.
It's seems BJ, that either you are ignorant of these facts, or that the anti-racist badge you are proud to wear on your sleeve and use as a shield to defend Iran's actions - because they are Muslims - does not extend to Jews.
Iran's behaviour should be an anathema to any reasonable, civilised person who is appalled by state-institutionalised racism that fantasises about obliterating another race/religion/nation from the face of the earth. The fact that you are not disturbed by these developments might be difficult to justify in light of that badge you like to flaunt on this site.

phil

marcus from usa why not go back again -you pop up like a demented jack in the box from time to time doling out anti Jewish nonsense -never a practical suggestion ,who do you think wants to here from you ?buy a brain from a nickel and dime store and come back with some knowledge -these are serious problems we all face .no time for your hate-ok?

Harvey

I am Harvey!

Manchester City for Isael

To those like Marcus from the good ol' U.S of A and the glory boys obsessed with premiership football scores - holding up Iran as a paragon of virtue in comparison to Israel is an indictment against the innate prejudices you hold against the Jewish state, and are obviously proud to share with a country governed by racist and morally bankrupt demagogues.

Harvey

No. I am Harvey!

(And I, too, support Israel)

Harvey

I'm Harvey!!!

(Also an Israel supporter).

Harvey

Oi! Stop it! I'm Harvey!

(And yes, I support Israel).

Adam B.

Marcus from the USA,

Is that the same Gandhi who said it was immoral for the Jews to resist Hitler? Thanks for showing your complete cluelessness.

What's sickening is your delusion that the missile tests are an Iranian "response." Iran talks for years about destroying Israel and the USA (where you live) and weekly Friday prayers end with chanting for the deaths of these two nations. Missiles are paraded with vows to destroy Israel and the USA, referred to as the Little Satan and the Great Satan respectively. Ahmadinejad speaks of Israel being destroyed "in a storm". How outrageous for the Jews to take these threats seriously. After all, they know nothing of such threats in the past, do they?

Adam B.

Manchester United,

Israel advised the US against the invasion of Iraq. Sharon publicly said that the WMD were no longer in Iraq, weeks before the air campaign and invasion started. The US dismissed this. So your theory about the Jews being puppet masters of the west is tosh. Sorry to disappoint you.

Paskalis

It is very soothing to read all this stuff. It removes any regrets over the pending extinction of our species.

Herbert Thornton

Phil - Thanks - I'm sure we have a lot of common ground. I just wish you could see more of it.....

Mladen Andrijasevic

To : "Manchester United with Palestine" . To the Muslims Iranian history before the Hijra (622 CE) is irrelevant. “The time before Islam is a time of blackness: that is part of Muslim theology ( V.S.Naipaul)

As for Israel being 60 years old : “When their ancestors were announcing eternal truths to humanity in the hills of Judea,” said Disraeli to the members of Parliament, “your ancestors, my dear Gentlemen, were wild herdsmen trotting behind herds of pigs in the hills of these isles.”

Ann

""Palestine belongs to the Arabs in the same sense that England belongs to the English, and France to the French".
- Mahatma Gandhi

It seems that Gandhi is not the only ignorant antisemitic prat peddling this drivel.

Ann

"In 1917 when Lord Balfour signed away the Arab Land of Palestine to the Zionists"

ROFL. You really should sue your teachers, because your ignorance and stupidity are pretty spectacular.

Harvey

Birdman

Ahmad announced today that any attack on Irans nuclear capacity and Israel would be destroyed along with 32 US bases.From your last post I presume he has stockpiled snowballs.

Ann

"Israel is a nation that was founded only 60 years ago, and its existence is due to the immoral colonialization of the Near East, and the expulsion of its native Arab population."

LOL. Where DO these ignorant idiots come from? Israel was a Jewish land 1500 years before the Arabs invaded it from ... hint ... hint ... still don't get it? From ARABIA, many hundreds of miles away, and colonised it.

john doe

I'm Harvey....and so is my wife.

Huw Thornton

Can someone help me out here?

I agree totally with those who see Iran as a dangerous threat. But what is the war objective if Iran is to be attacked? Is it to destroy the nuclear facilities, change the government, or merely shock and awe? And would any of these be achievable from a single strike (perhaps someone with a military background could help here)? And if success isn't certain from a single strike, should the attack be escalated or abandoned?

I think there is a rock and a hard place here, and a genuine dilemma. If it is not certain that nuclear facilities can be destroyed in a single strike, how would the situation be improved from what it is now?

My feeling is that those who advocate a single strike should be prepared to envisage an all-out war. Undoubtedly Iran could be defeated militarily, but the big question would be........what then?

Mladen Andrijasevic

To Huw Thornton

Here is what you were looking for:
Osirak Redux? Assessing Israeli Capabilities to Destroy Iranian Nuclear Facilities
http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/isec.2007.31.4.7

eh-oop

Rockets parading year after year with banners proclaiming "Death to Israel". Crowds chanting the same message. Iran bombing a community centre in Buenos Aires. Iran sponsoring Hizbollah terrorism. Iran threatening Jewish targets all over the world. Hizbollah rhetoric expressing the hope that Jews will gather in Israel to make the job of destroying them easier. Ahmadinejad sponsoring an exhibition of anti-semitic art. Ahmadinejad sponsoring a conference of Holocaust deniers. Following Streicher who likened Jews to rats, Ahmadinejad likens Israel to bacteria. Iranian leaders, like many Muslims, claiming the Jews of Israel are not Jews for the laughable reason that, as they would have it, Jews have deserted the laws of Moses. Iranian leaders, since Khomenei, proclaiming the destruction of Israel. Ahmadinejad's devotion to the "return" of the "Hidden Imam" at the end of days who will lead the Muslims to victory against the Jews. In word and deed it's crystal clear that Ahmadinejad wants to finish the job that Hitler started. What is the excuse of those posting their hatred of Israel? Are they blind to the facts or are they victims of Ahmadinejad's mindgames? Israel can't afford to be.

Charles

Mladen,

“When their ancestors were announcing eternal truths to humanity in the hills of Judea,” said Disraeli to the members of Parliament, “your ancestors, my dear Gentlemen, were wild herdsmen trotting behind herds of pigs in the hills of these isles.”

The first time I heard this phraseology it was from a Persian (ie. in the days of the Shah), excepting that he used the example of women and beds vs caves and livestock. I have lost count of the variations I have heard since.

Mike Brearley

Dragutin - Reading your posts, I have the distinct feeling that if Iran ever does launch a missile at Israel, you will be posting here insisting that the missile is not heading for Israel. You will say that it is merely not heading for somewhere that is not Israel.

skydog

Harvey:''I'm Harvey!!!''

Well I'm NOT Marticus From The USA ... go crucify some other bugger! :ob

phil

HARVEY I AM THINKING OF BECOMING HARVEY TOO!!! Now listen guys a solution the original Harvey becomes Harvey uno and the second one Harvey dos-que pasa hombres? you both speak yiddish dont you :)

Leslie

I believe the real Harvey is a rabbit.So it's not surprising that we are being inundated with Harveys.

Ann

"Israel creates its own enemies. If the Israeli collective neuroses and paranoia are meant to excuse its misbehaviour in the region and across the planet"

What utter ignorant drivel. Israel was attacked by its genocidal neighbours many times with the express and openly declared intention of annihilating her.

Across the planet, eh? I am sure you check under your bed every night for those pesky Mossad agents, eh? Oops, I forgot, they can't enter your house, your tinfoil hat protects you.

Ann

eh-oop: unfortunately, the world is full of deranged antisemites, and being pathologically obssessed, small wonder that many of those mouth-foaming lunatics come here.

Charles: I believe the original version was the one with swineherds.

phil

eh-oop-well put, but it will not stop the idiots and hate mongersI think it is necessary to be aware of them at least we know what they are doing rather than it being underground -well done

Ronnie Smith

Poor Ann, screaming insults from deep within the bunker of your righteous certainty. The Iranian regime needs people like you to scare their own people into keeping them in power. You are their mirror image. There are three consequences of your military solution. Lots of people (Mum's, Dad's and kids) die. The line of people wanting to kill you gets longer. One day you realise that it has to stop because it isn't actually solving the problem you first thought you had (does Israel only exist to fight wars or can it explore other ways of creating a successful future?). I know its a gamble but it was successfully taken with Egypt and Jordan. I think its your turn to come out into the light and read some history.

Huw Thornton

Thanks, Mladen, that's an interesting link.

I still think that such a strike would be a first step in a wider war - we can't assume a similar reaction from Iran to that from Saddam Hussein's regime in 1981.

But I agree that the alternative is also horrible.

Adam B.

eh-oop - excellent! Those who sing Iran's praises on this blog do so not because they are impressed with Ahmadinejad, but because they hate the Jews. Therefore anyone who lines themselves up against the Jews becomes a hero, and all the human rights abuses, racism, misogyny and bigotry of the Iranian regime cease to matter, because there is a bigger prize in the picture - the destruction of the Jewish state. In the 30's we would have had such people singing Hitler's praises, explaining how he didn't want war and how we in the west misunderstood him. These people are sick, but unfortunately ever present through the ages.

George

Ronnie,
Please explain to me how you negotiate a peace treaty with a country/entity that denies your very right to exist.

Ronnie Smith

George
You can't and I am not suggesting for a minute that you do. The Iranian regime behaves in such a loudly threatening manner largely for domestic consumption and to gain support on the streets of all the Arab captitals in the region. They seek influence in the region and they seem tobe getting it. If Israel didn't exist then the Iranian regime would find another enemy to demonise in its place. Isreal is an obvious enemy and that isn't going to change. My initial point was that there is plenty of military power already in place to 'deal' with Iran if required. Melanie chose to ignore that in her blog. I do not agree with raising the temperature, particularly when all those who advocate immediate action seem to be ignoring a lot of what is going on in the wider region. My question is, bomb Iran...then what? I don't think that is an unreasonable question and it seems not to have been answered adequately before we decided to invade Iraq.

Harvey / Israel

Ronnie Smith

This blog and countless others like it serves no real useful purpose other then to bring out the armchair general inherent in us all .

Let me assure you that in reality every word ,every action by Iran is gathered and closely analysed in an unemotional detached manner by teams of experts in Israel. They will seperate the rhetoric from the actual mounting risk and continue to report their findings and recommend as appropriate to the evolving situation .Until now it is evident that faith in the political process has held sway.However I believe that the fine balance is slowly tipping the other way as Iran draws ever closer to acquiring a nuclear device .

Israel will not allow a nuclear armed Iran dedicated to Israels eradication . One can only pray that economic and political pressure will win over the minds of the Iranian hierarchy but somehow I think this is a hopeless cause

john doe

Did the Allies ask "If we bomb Germany, then what will happen? Then what will we do?"

Seraph

“So why hasn’t Iran started by wiping its own Jews off the map?”

Birdman, you must be a loon! That there are still Jews living in Iran proves nothing more than the human capacity for denial. By 1939 approximately 282,000 Jews had left Germany, but some 202,000 remained. They deluded themselves that they were Germans, had lived for countless generations in Germany and had served their country in WWI and would therefore be safe. Some thought that their lack of commitment to Judaism would somehow give them a free pass. Many of them were just old and others thought they could hunker down until the storm passed.

Jews have lived in Persia/Iran for thousands of years. In 1948 there were some 150,000 Jews in Iran. In 1979 there were approximately 80,000 Jews. Today, according to your estimate there are 25,000. If things were so good for Jews, then why have they left in droves over the years?

The Jews in Iran are constantly discriminated against in terms of employment, education, housing, etc. There is not one Jew in any position where any decision-making is involved. Jews are regularly reminded that they can have everything stripped of them by accusing them of spying for Zionists. No evidence need be presented. In a word, they are the epitome of dhimmitude.

If there have been efforts to bring them to Israel it is because they are in effect hostages waiting to happen – a crime that Iran and this president in particular are very comfortable with perpetrating. If they have not been “wiped out” it is because for now they are more valuable to the Iranians alive.

Seraph

To Dragutin, who brought us: Juan Cole’s “Wiped off the Map' – The Rumor of the Century”

Since pictures speak louder than words, I suggest you check out this poster that was put up by Iranian students in Iran. Since they conceivably know Farsi better than you, it is interesting that they translated “Ahmadi Nezhad’s” comments as “wiping Israel off the map”. http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=29219_A_Call_on_the_Clue_Phone_for_Juan_Cole&only

It has been said that reading something in translation is like kissing a woman through a veil. Perhaps the Iranian people who are so used to veils do not have such a hard time understanding “Ahmadi Nezhad’s” intent?

Seraph

To Marcus who gave us - "Palestine belongs to the Arabs in the same sense that England belongs to the English, and France to the French" by Mahatma Gandhi

It is too often forgotten that Gandhi was a man and a politician living in a certain place at a certain time. Gandhi’s statements in favor of Palestinians had nothing to do with principle and everything to do with a transparent attempt to pander to India’s Muslims. A whole lot of good that did him.

Ian Miller

Having read all the comments, it seems that the elephant-in-the-room that everyone is ignoring is the question of whether it is POSSIBLE to militarily end Iran's nuclear program. Of course, it will be possible to damage it, but given how well it is protected and dispersed, it will be very very difficult to do it serious damage. The Iranians can always rebuild and after an attack are likely to do so with far more vigour.
Nothing short of invasion and permanent occupation would be truly effective.

I seriously doubt whether any plausible action will significantly delay their acquisition of nukes. It is entirely possible that an attack would actually accelerate it, if the damage is slight.

Military action just isn't going to work. The options are:-
1 - Accept that eventually other nations in the regions will have nukes, and hope deterence works.
2 - Negotiate for an enforceable ban on anyone in the region having nukes.

Personally I think that option 2 is better for Israel. Nukes aren't worth having if it means your enemies have them too.

There is no path that is 100% safe and there never will be. The best you can do is choose the least dangerous path. I do not believe the least dangerous path includes attacking Iran.

I don't think Iran is really as bellicose as it pretends. They are doing very nicely out of the increased oil price. How much of their aggressive rhetoric is just talking-up the price?

Frank Pulley

Don't worry folks. Carla Bruni's short-arsed spouse has
sorted it all out today. Peace in our time!

paul hill

Ian Miller 18.44-spot on all the rest is just irrelevant and myopic baloney in which the tics and predjudices of posters can be exercised to humorous or tragic ends.

The elephant is the irrefutable fact that NO group of individuals has EVER maintained forever a superiority in any type of weapons technology

As you correctly say you then have the two ways you outline in order to deal with it

Most of us hope the respective leaders of these two countries engage in some Realpolitik pretty smartly;there's enough posturing on here to meet all foreseeable requirements

Al Ramy

Those who do not remember May-1967-may have a chance for a replay.A weak -lame duck U.S president, sandbagged in another war, could not meet a solemn commitment made by a previous U.S President and a 4 star general which was the basis of Israel departure from the Sinai (10-1956. The threat were mounting, the straits were blocked, supplies were short and promises made were not kept. Soviets diplomats were falsifying information, creating panic among the over confident and poorly trained Arabs which resulted in a preemptive assault to neutralize Arab air-power. The winds of war are alarming, the indifference is remarkably similar and the consequences are too dire to contemplate. Did anybody consider oil at $300/barrel? It could happen withing 24 hours period! Nuclear cloud over a parking lot known as Iran? Flattened Israel with thousands of dead civilians, including Arabs (Sunnis), this is one way of visualizing a coming jib-jab! In 1967 Israeli were freaked out, worried of chemically charged Russian made land-to land rockets, none were fired, this time, God only knows what's on the menu.

field

Ian Miller -

No I don't think your analysis is completely correct, although there are plenty of examples that support it.

We have seen however that the Byzantine Greeks defended themselves for hundreds of years with "Greek fire", a technology they were careful to ensure that their Muslim enemies never obtained.

Also we have examples such as Rome's eradication of Carthage, to show that a nation's rise can be stopped definitively if its enemy is ruthless enough.

I think that it is actually possible for the West and Israel to prevent Iran developing nuclear weapons.

Whilst it is true you can hide facilities. You can't hide everything that supports those facilities: the road networks, electricity power generation, electricity grids, housing for staff, imports of sophisticated goods etc.

If the West - or even better the democratic natinos of the world - had sufficient will power they could bring Iran's nuclear programme to a halt without recourse to invasion. A policy of bombing of facilities, interdiction of supplies, and sea blockade would bring the programme to a halt.

Whether Israel by itself could produce those results by itself may be questionable, but it is possible.

gurbach

What do you think will happen if Iran becomes nuclear? - What do you think will happen to your standard of living with oil at $300? Will you have a job, a future? Do you think the Iranians care about the Palestinians? Do you think this is a standoff with Israel - sure - and the EU really cares about Israel. Open your eyes and look around. The BBC is not going to tell you anything. They may be clueless themselves.
BTW - the 1952 Muzadek putsch was British driven not CIA.

paul hill

"Ian Miller" makes a temperate well thought out posting and "Field" a highly lucid reply (with a clever historical precedent)

Come ,come gentlemen where's your moronic insults and imputations of pro and anti semitism? This will never do

TD

Sadly, I agree that the major administrations have secretly decided that Israel is expendable. I also think that Iran already has a nuke.

The idea is probably that with Israel gone, it might be possible to turn the region into a peaceful and benign community of arab and nation states, united under the umbrella of Islam (a delusion). Alternatively, a cynic might take the view that a major war in the region would seriously weaken all the major players - including Israel, Iran, Syria and even Saudi - giving the major western nation states more power as they reconstruct the region (worst case scenario but a possibility). It really is that close, folks.

Ann

Paul Hill, you can simply take it as read. Anyone who knows the first thing about Jews and Israel also knows where you are coming from and it isn't pretty or sane, and none of your posts has done anything to dispel that knowledge.

Max Kaye

The most amusing aspect of Iran's 'strength' is that should - in the course of an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities - Iran's supplies of refined petroleum also be destroyed (and access to imported supplies shut off by the closure of the Straits of Hormuz as promised by the Iranians themselves) then the Iranian economy will be paralysed.

They'll be begging for the west to buy their useless, overpriced, crude stuff

Huw Thornton

@ john doe:

"Did the Allies ask "If we bomb Germany, then what will happen? Then what will we do?" "

I see what you're getting at, john, but I must say that I hope the Allies did ask such questions - it would be no good taking any form of military action without working out the consequences - especially in WW2 bombing raids which apart from any other consideration caused tens of thousands of casualties in Bomber Command.

I think that you're right to raise the issue of WW2. The war aim then I suppose was to defeat and occupy the enemy, which was certainly achieved after six years of contiual fighting and millions of deaths. No one then suggested an alternative war objective of carrying out a single pre-emptive attack in the hope that the enemy would come to his senses.

Having read the article that Mladen kindly referred me to, I certainly see that it is conceivable that the Iranian nuclear programme could suffer substantial damage in one strike. But would this be the end of a dangerous situation, or the start of a wider war? If it turned out to be a wider war, is it something which we could be certain would be seen through to its conclusion?

Given that it's difficult to find a single person now who acknowledges that he or she was ever in favour of the Iraq invasion (despite 60% approval at the time) I wonder whether it is realistic to count on public support for a long military stand-off with Iran.

Ann

I was always in favour of invading Iraq, and have never changed my mind for one second.

N

You hit the nail on the head:
"Obama says more talking is needed. Every time he says this – not to mention the fact that if this man becomes US President American military power will almost certainly be neutralised..."
Sadly that's America's fault. They've mishandled Iraq so the People are now sick of war. Obama, being a politician, and democrat has used the unhappiness of the American people to ride to where he is today. When he is elected, America will be screwed. On a personal note, i think we (the world) are doomed. Obama has stated that when elected he will pull out of Iraq. This is exactly what Iran needs. Once out of Iraq Iran will strike Iraq most likely for oil because any oil related disruptions affect everyone, and will have affects against "the great satan" the united states. The US won't be able to counter-attack because they would have just left Iraq and the People will never agree to go back. Israel will have to respond in the desire for self preservation which will ignite the rest of the Arab world against her because lets face it, the Arabs still hate Israel. Iran has Russia and China in their back pocket so they will most likely do nothing and as this article has stated the rest of the world has "prostrated ourselves before it."

Harvey

Ann says...

I was always in favour of invading Iraq, and have never changed my mind for one second.

Why am I not surprised...

Nice pile of dead bodies by the way.

Adam B.

Harvey,

Didn't you notice the 1,300000 dead bodies caused by Saddam?

Harvey

Adam B asks...

Harvey,

Didn't you notice the 1,300000 dead bodies caused by Saddam?

My body count's bigger than your body count!

Bloody hell...

Adam B.

Harvey,

Such a lucid argument.

Ann

I understand the ME. Harvey doesn't know the first thing about it (other than hating Jews), and spews nonsense in reponse. Quelle surprise.

Ann

Adam, don't expect lucidity from someone who is either totally ignorant about the last 70 years of world history, or can't get his head around the relevant lessons to be learned from them, or refuses to do so, being more concerned with expressing his Jew-hatred.

Adam B.

Thanks Ann, I don't expect any lucidity from the America-bashing brigade who go on about the casualties of the Iraq war, (a war which is now being won with Al-Qaeda in disarray) but were silent during the 80's when Saddam's invasion of Iran resulted in the deaths of a million people. Where were the protests, the marches, where was CND? Nowhere! It's the same now with the genocide taking place in Darfur (literally as we speak). Can't blame America or the Jews for that, so we won't bother to make a fuss.

Paskalis

Actually, many. many people who are now protesting the invasion of Iraq also strongly protested the murderous Saddam when he was the US's henchman and he was protected by the Americans. Seen the picture of the Rumsfeld handsake?

Sorry, are facts allowed on this blog.

I, too, think Al Quaeda should be destroyed, but it's a matter of priorities: The Munchkins and Cinderella's evil stepmother first.

Adam B.

Paskalis, I must have missed those thousands of people marching through London, the outraged articles, the CND protests after the gas attack at Halabja, or Saddam's war that killed a million people. Where were they? Where ARE they now, with events in Sudan or the Congo (4 milion dead since 1997 - 4 MILLION!)?

Paskalis

You are right, Adam. It seems you have missed quite a lot. Which also explains a lot.

Si, N

A dumB, those people marching through the streets of London and elsewhere did so to protest against the mooted British involvement in the Iraq fiasco - you thicky.

Adam B.

Si N, ignoring your pathetic low level abuse, are you trying to tell me that the left cared one iota about the crimes of Saddam's regime, or the crimes currentlt taking place in Sudan? It seems that people like you only complain about Israel, the Us or the UK. If they can't be blamed, you don't care. I also seem to have touched a nerve - you know it's true.

Adam B.

Paskalis, I missed it did I? Perhaps you can refer me to evidence of said demonstrations. If not, what the hell are you talking about?

Adam B.

Paskalis, the biggest arms supplier to Saddam's Iraq (80%)was the Soviet Union (then Russia after the collapse of the USSR)followed distantly by the French. US and UK arms made up about 5% of his arsenal. Sorry to disturb your anti-American rant.

Paskalis

It never fails. Those devoid of argument and frothing in frustration always end up screaming “anti-American!” or “anti-Semitic!” or anti-something-or-other and stomping there feet. Shrug.

Adam B.

Paskalis, when did I say you were anti-semitic? This is one of the attempts by the left to stifle debate. Anyone who legitimately questions the anti-Israel hysteria of the left gets accused of using the anti-semitism card. Pathetic. I also note you haven't been able to provide any evidence of these demonstrations you talk about.

Paskalis

You seem determined to continue your monologue with yourself, and I have no desire to interrupt. You are right to think, though, that actually listening to what the other person says only leads to comprehension and might weaken your position.

best,

Adam B.

P,

If it's a monologue, why do you keep responding? Any evidence on those demos yet?

Si, N

A dumb, you just don't get it do you - as I said, the massed ranks of BRITISH protesters (not necessarily 'left' [twit]) marched against BRITISH involvement in what they anticipated would be a disaster - it may have escaped your attention - it was a disaster.

Another thing that may have escaped your attention (much does, especially where it concerns the psychopath [Israel] that you so cherish) - the BRITISH government ignored the protesters and forged ahead with its filthy war. In view of that - what makes you think that foreign regimes are going to heed the protestations of BRITISH people - particularly in view of the bad reputation enjoyed by our warmongering nation.

But more importantly, you bleat incessantly about the complaints against Israel - well, if you want to stop those complaints, cease celebrating tyranny and calling for more war you barbarian.

Adam B.

SiN, the violence and vulgarity of your language demonstrates that you aren't interested in any kind of reasoned debate, but would rather bludgeon someone who dares to challenge your world view, a parallel universe of inverted morality where the Jewish democratic nation is a psychopath and genocidal regimes the victims. By the way, there was an iraqi embassy in britain at the time of saddam's atrocities, and there is a Sudanese embassy in London now. Were all you Israel/America haters physically unable to voice your disapproval of these regimes at their embassies?

Paskalis

You are all invited to enter the snakepit of Adam's mind.

Adam B.

Paskalis, when you sink to nothing but insults, I know the argument is won.