Israel/Iran Showdown

Kaos

Full Member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
25,209
Location
Ginseng Strip
Why? It's crucial.

Honestly, your reluctance to even use the word "Islamist" in connection with Iran and their proxies says a lot.
On the contrary, lumping Iran and it’s proxies with the likes of ISIS, AQ and affiliates is lazy false equivalency. Are we seriously suggesting there’s no difference between the likes of Hezbollah and ISIS?

This is one of the bizarre consequences of the discourse produced by a certain section of the anti-Israel left during the Syrian Civil War - you have voices who do everything to paint groups like Hamas in a moderate, reasonable light defending Assad by portraying all the forces fighting against him as fanatic terrorists - despite Hamas sharing basically the same ideology and in most cases having been, historically at least, responsible for far more heinous acts.

People who, often with good reason, criticise Israeli conduct during military operations in Gaza then turn around and justify the destruction of entire cities in Syria by Assad on the ground that "Assad is secular/Christians can celebrate Christmas again", etc. as if those things don't apply to Israel.
Except you’re making the assumption that those who are opposed to the Syrian opposition are by virtue apologists for the Assad regime, you know full well that’s not the case. It’s not mutually exclusive to be critical of Israel, Assad and the Syrian opposition.

Your Hamas example also makes no sense considering they backed the Syrian opposition at Assad’s expense.
 

Fearless

Mighty Mouse
Joined
Apr 24, 2003
Messages
3,811
Location
The 10" dick club
This time last year Hamas said they were willing to accept a pre 67 Palestine as the foundation of their country. That surely can’t be compatible with the right to return. Granted it’s not exactly an olive branch of peace and they’re still reluctant for right or wrong to accept Israel’s sovereignty, but it’s a significant mellowing of viewpoints from Palestine’s most radical faction. What has Israel put forward in terms of compromise?
This time two weeks ago. Significant mellowing indeed.

 

Kaos

Full Member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
25,209
Location
Ginseng Strip
To be fair Sultan, Israel never used nuclear weapons even when a lot of Arab states attacked it, and also doesn't threaten any other state with destruction. Their nuclear weapons are just a guarantee of their existence and I cannot blame them for that considering the treatment the world gave to Jews.

I like both Israel and Iran (I don't like Biby or Ayatollah) and have only good experiences with people from those countries. I hope his doesn't escalate further.
Because it didn’t need to. The Arab militaries were and are an absolute joke, so it never reached a point where they’d have to use it.

As for not threatening the existence of other countries, well take a look at the growth of Illegal settlements in the West Bank.
 

Fearless

Mighty Mouse
Joined
Apr 24, 2003
Messages
3,811
Location
The 10" dick club
Because it didn’t need to. The Arab militaries were and are an absolute joke, so it never reached a point where they’d have to use it.

As for not threatening the existence of other countries, well take a look at the growth of Illegal settlements in the West Bank.
...which was illegally part of Jordan.
 

Carolina Red

Moderator
Staff
Joined
Nov 7, 2015
Messages
24,598
Location
South Carolina
Or simply, the threat of conflict (or conflict itself) makes the oil price soar and the Russians just sit back and watch the cash roll in since 50% of their budget is pegged to fossil fuels.
True that!
mind blown

seriously
Me after having that thought...

Judging by the everyday episodes you sometimes post, the place you live is really something else.
The "Bible Belt" is crazy sometimes. I'll bring the topic up at lunch today and post the responses for posterity.
 

oneniltothearsenal

Caf's Milton Friedman (and Arse aficionado)
Scout
Joined
Dec 17, 2013
Messages
8,652
Supports
Brazil, Arsenal,LA Aztecs
It is a very dangerous move to be carried out by the Iranians, regardless of whether the Golan is occupied or not. The US, Israel and Sunni Arab countries are against them. Turkey has been taking overtures to Saudi lately. All sides should act in a manner so as to deescalate the situation and prevent a war with the Iranis. Conflict and an invasion of Iran will be unbelievably tragic.

The Saudi rulers aren't slaves of the US, as some may think. They are despicably tyrants who want to see the end of Iran. They must be so happy right now.
Sometimes it even feels the opposite - that US foreign policy is slave to Saudi and Israeli interests.
 

2cents

Full Member
Scout
Joined
Mar 19, 2008
Messages
11,372
This time last year Hamas said they were willing to accept a pre 67 Palestine as the foundation of their country. That surely can’t be compatible with the right to return. Granted it’s not exactly an olive branch of peace and they’re still reluctant for right or wrong to accept Israel’s sovereignty, but it’s a significant mellowing of viewpoints from Palestine’s most radical faction. What has Israel put forward in terms of compromise?
I’m assuming you’re referring to the new, ‘moderate’ charter published last year. Here are the relevant sections, people can make up their own minds about how the Israelis might positively engage with these positions:

"18. The following are considered null and void: the Balfour Declaration, the British Mandate Document, the UN Palestine Partition Resolution, and whatever resolutions and measures that derive from them or are similar to them. The establishment of “Israel” is entirely illegal and contravenes the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people and goes against their will and the will of the Ummah; it is also in violation of human rights that are guaranteed by international conventions, foremost among them is the right to self-determination.

19. There shall be no recognition of the legitimacy of the Zionist entity. Whatever has befallen the land of Palestine in terms of occupation, settlement building, Judaization or changes to its features or falsification of facts is illegitimate. Rights never lapse.

20. Hamas believes that no part of the land of Palestine shall be compromised or conceded, irrespective of the causes, the circumstances and the pressures and no matter how long the occupation lasts. Hamas rejects any alternative to the full and complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea. However, without compromising its rejection of the Zionist entity and without relinquishing any Palestinian rights, Hamas considers the establishment of a fully sovereign and independent Palestinian state, with Jerusalem as its capital along the lines of the 4th of June 1967, with the return of the refugees and the displaced to their homes from which they were expelled, to be a formula of national consensus...

...27. A real state of Palestine is a state that has been liberated. There is no alternative to a fully sovereign Palestinian State on the entire national Palestinian soil, with Jerusalem as its capital."

Except you’re making the assumption that those who are opposed to the Syrian opposition are by virtue apologists for the Assad regime, you know full well that’s not the case.

Your Hamas example also makes no sense considering they backed the Syrian opposition at Assad’s expense.
I referred to a “certain section” of the anti-Israel crowd. Having read your posts on here for many years I’d argue that on certain issues your position flirts with these types, without going all-in. Your ‘criticism’ of Assad (and Iran for that matter) tends to be generic and never approaches the level of specificity or vitriol aimed at Israel (or Saudi Arabia) despite the fact that, according to the way you yourself tend to describe the opposition forces facing Assad, both Israel and Assad face very similar enemies.

As for Hamas, it makes perfect sense in terms of my point. Just above you are arguing that Hamas have actually evolved to a reasonable position on the conflict, and have implicitly faulted Israel for not coming to the table. On the other hand, your position on Assad tends to be “well he’s obviously an awful dictator, but just look at who he’s fighting against!” There is no difference in the position Hamas have taken on the legitimacy of Israel and the nature of the Jews, and the position taken by the major Syrian opposition groups on the legitimacy of the Ba’th and the nature of the Alawites.
 

Synco

Lucio's #1 Fan
Joined
Jul 19, 2014
Messages
4,450
On the contrary, lumping Iran and it’s proxies with the likes of ISIS, AQ and affiliates is lazy false equivalency. Are we seriously suggesting there’s no difference between the likes of Hezbollah and ISIS?
No, but have I done that anywhere?

I gather it's because I suggested the term "Islamist" applies to the Iranian theocracy and its followers. If you consider this statement controversial and defamatory, I'm sorry, I don't know what to say anymore. Except that it confirms the impression of apologistic tendencies rather impressively, it's not even just tendencies anymore.
 

Javi

Full Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2012
Messages
2,236
It really is, in fact. MbS boasted that he had complete control over Jared Kushner and that Kushner was sharing confidential material from the US intelligence agency with him. MBS is behind all this, for sure.
The New Yorker piece on MBS seemed to indicate that it's actually both sides:

[...] M.B.Z. arrived at the meeting, in the Trump Tower penthouse, with an entourage of about thirty people. He was dressed in combat boots and jeans, and some of his men were armed. For most of the first hour, he and the Trump aides engaged in a relatively conventional discussion of Middle East policy, but the talk grew more animated as the two sides realized that they shared a common fixation on Iran. The meeting evolved into a planning session on how the Trump White House would confront the Iranian regime in the Gulf. [...]
 

Chairman Woodie

Full Member
Joined
Jul 16, 2017
Messages
1,005
Location
Ireland
The shifting sands of the Middle East in a tweet. Bahrain's Foreign Minister Khalida Khalifa proclaims Israel's right to defend itself.

 

711

Full Member
Scout
Joined
Dec 10, 2007
Messages
20,764
Location
Don't Sign Old Players
To be fair Sultan, Israel never used nuclear weapons even when a lot of Arab states attacked it, and also doesn't threaten any other state with destruction. Their nuclear weapons are just a guarantee of their existence and I cannot blame them for that considering the treatment the world gave to Jews.

I like both Israel and Iran (I don't like Biby or Ayatollah) and have only good experiences with people from those countries. I hope his doesn't escalate further.
Which date are you thinking of, and when did Israel have usable nuclear weapons?
 

endless_wheelies

feeling dizzy
Joined
Apr 22, 2014
Messages
3,224
Israel's doing more to break the Russia-Iran alliance than the entire West put together.
 

Revan

Assumptionman
Joined
Dec 19, 2011
Messages
41,414
Location
CA
Which date are you thinking of, and when did Israel have usable nuclear weapons?
1973. Israel had usable nukes back then. And unlike in the 6 day war, this time it was in real trouble considering that Arabs were much more organised.
 

Wengerscoat

New Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2013
Messages
704
Supports
Arsenal
1973. Israel had usable nukes back then. And unlike in the 6 day war, this time it was in real trouble considering that Arabs were much more organised.
Israel was never in serious trouble in either war. Even during Egypt's best times in that war they barely made any dent on Israel's occupation of the Sinai, 90% of which remained in their hands. Israel has a racist, apartheid regime but due to US supplying them with weapons and due to their own ingenuity they will never be seriously threatened militarily.
 

Revan

Assumptionman
Joined
Dec 19, 2011
Messages
41,414
Location
CA
Israel was never in serious trouble in either war.
They were in serious trouble, and the war might have been prolonged if Israel didn't have a capable general like Ariel Shanon. His strategies during the war are recognized as some of the best since WW2.

Also, there were around 3000 Israeli killed in the war, and more than a thousand tanks destroyed, with US not giving aid Israel until late during the fighting.

Even during Egypt's best times in that war they barely made any dent on Israel's occupation of the Sinai, 90% of which remained in their hands. Israel has a racist, apartheid regime but due to US supplying them with weapons and due to their own ingenuity they will never be seriously threatened militarily.
Bibi is not cool, but that is too much for me. What about Arab countries, Iran and Hamas who want total destruction of Israel?
 

2cents

Full Member
Scout
Joined
Mar 19, 2008
Messages
11,372
1973. Israel had usable nukes back then. And unlike in the 6 day war, this time it was in real trouble considering that Arabs were much more organised.
The nuclear option was definitely considered in 1973, to a greater extent than this interview suggests I think:

 

Revan

Assumptionman
Joined
Dec 19, 2011
Messages
41,414
Location
CA
The nuclear option was definitely considered in 1973, to a greater extent than this interview suggests I think:

As far as I know, it was more to push US to give tanks and artillery to Israel (to replace those that Arabs destroyed) rather than really planning to use nukes. More like giving an excuse to Kissinger to give them weapons and explain to Egypt (US ally) that it was either that or Israel was going nuclear. But it wasn't seriously considered to really use them.

Thing is, Israel has had nukes while it was being attacked from back then two most powerful Arab states, at a time when Israel was under orders from US to not do a pre-emtive strike despite that they knew that they were going to be attacked. And despite casualties, they didn't use nukes even when things weren't going well for them.

All I am saying is that Israel has proven that they are a reliable democratic state whose existence doesn't threaten Arabs or Iranians, while the same thing cannot be said the other way around. I don't believe that Iran would use nukes against Israel in case Iran develop them, but better safe than sorry, until they clearly recognize Israel and don't threaten for their total destruction. Nukes are bad anyway, but especially bad under the hands of extremist regimes who have plans to destroy other countries.
 

Sultan

Admin
Staff
Joined
Sep 1, 2004
Messages
44,737
Location
Redcafe
All I am saying is that Israel has proven that they are a reliable democratic state whose existence doesn't threaten Arabs or Iranians, while the same thing cannot be said the other way around. I don't believe that Iran would use nukes against Israel in case Iran develop them, but better safe than sorry, until they clearly recognize Israel and don't threaten for their total destruction. Nukes are bad anyway, but especially bad under the hands of extremist regimes who have plans to destroy other countries.
They're terrorising Palestinians and continue to land grab. Basically, they have caged men women and children. I call that extremism on the part of Zionist leaders. It's true the general population of Israel will be hard working normal people just wanting to live in peace.
 

Fearless

Mighty Mouse
Joined
Apr 24, 2003
Messages
3,811
Location
The 10" dick club
They're terrorising Palestinians and continue to land grab. Basically, they have caged men women and children. I call that extremism on the part of Zionist leaders. It's true the general population of Israel will be hard working normal people just wanting to live in peace.
It is true, and hopefully thats reflected by the general Palestinian population. But it doesn't help when Hamas and the PA leadership don't.
 

Revan

Assumptionman
Joined
Dec 19, 2011
Messages
41,414
Location
CA
They're terrorising Palestinians and continue to land grab. Basically, they have caged men women and children. I call that extremism on the part of Zionist leaders. It's true the general population of Israel will be hard working normal people just wanting to live in peace.
That is a fair point, but I cannot put the entire blame on them while Hamas throws rocket in Israel. If Arabs will cease attacking Israel and wanting its destruction, I think that Israel will cease terrorizing Palestinians. Unfortunately, it is a complex scenario where it seems that both sides are happy to continue like this forever, with the losers being Palestinians civils (but then, they vote and support Hamas) and the occassional Israeli people.

In all honesty, Palestinians had a great chance in the nineties when Israel seem more able to compromise. Since then the situation has dramatically changed with Bibi being more an extremist, and Israel defense system improving a lot.
 

711

Full Member
Scout
Joined
Dec 10, 2007
Messages
20,764
Location
Don't Sign Old Players
1973. Israel had usable nukes back then. And unlike in the 6 day war, this time it was in real trouble considering that Arabs were much more organised.
I admit I doubted Israel had nuclear weapons so early, but it seems you're right. I'm still a bit puzzled though, as I don't remember any nuclear option being mentioned at all at the time, even though in the early days Egypt seemed to be doing well. Then again my memory isn't the best. :)
 
Last edited:

Fearless

Mighty Mouse
Joined
Apr 24, 2003
Messages
3,811
Location
The 10" dick club
That is a fair point, but I cannot put the entire blame on them while Hamas throws rocket in Israel. If Arabs will cease attacking Israel and wanting its destruction, I think that Israel will cease terrorizing Palestinians. Unfortunately, it is a complex scenario where it seems that both sides are happy to continue like this forever, with the losers being Palestinians civils (but then, they vote and support Hamas) and the occassional Israeli people.

In all honesty, Palestinians had a great chance in the nineties when Israel seem more able to compromise. Since then the situation has dramatically changed with Bibi being more an extremist, and Israel defense system improving a lot.
The sad irony is that the Arabs attempts at destroying Israel actually backfired big time and led to the 'Palestinian' problem. Furthermore, the fact that this is ignored actually sustains the crisis (to the benefit of Hamas, PA leadership, Iran). Until the Arabs take responsibility (and I believe that this may be evolving with Saudi etc.) then we'll still be discussing this in a thousand years.
 

Wengerscoat

New Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2013
Messages
704
Supports
Arsenal
They were in serious trouble, and the war might have been prolonged if Israel didn't have a capable general like Ariel Shanon. His strategies during the war are recognized as some of the best since WW2.

Also, there were around 3000 Israeli killed in the war, and more than a thousand tanks destroyed, with US not giving aid Israel until late during the fighting.


Bibi is not cool, but that is too much for me. What about Arab countries, Iran and Hamas who want total destruction of Israel?
But Israel did have Sharon and despite them losing a lot of men their hold of 90% of the occupied territories was never lost.

As for your second point, I don't remember calling Hamas a peace organisation. When it comes to Iran how is it ''too much for you''. Unlike Israel Iran isn't involved in bombing other countries, infact nor have they attacked any nation for more than a thousand years and this ''they want Israel to end'' has already been debunked more times that I can count.
 

2cents

Full Member
Scout
Joined
Mar 19, 2008
Messages
11,372
From November 1986:

Israeli Arms Sales to Iran

In September, when the Israeli government radio accused Iranian troops of training Lebanese Shiite guerrillas for attacks on the Israeli-backed South Lebanon Army, and said that Iranians themselves might also have been among those who attacked Israeli positions in Lebanon, the US media reported those charges in great detail. None found the time or space, however, to note how ironic it was for Israel to complain about Iranian military activities.

Iran might have been hard put to continue its costly six-year-old war with Iraq—not to mention simultaneously stirring up followers of the Ayatollah Khomeini in Lebanon—if Israel had not been willing to sell the Khomeini government great quantities of the weapons Iran desperately needed to keep its army in the field. That is only one of the anomalies of Israel's booming arms trade. US law and US policy also come in for some stretching and twisting.

Over the course of the Gulf war, Iran's quest for weapons has become legendary, with many countries and hordes of private arms dealers eager to conclude arms deals and reap the premium commissions Iran offers. Israel, with standing access to the same models of US-made arms upon which the Shah based Iran's arsenal, and with its desire to build up an indigenous arms industry, has led the pack. The London Observer estimated that Israel's arms sales to Iran total $500 million annually.

Before 1979, when Shah Muhammad Reza Pahlavi held power, Iran was the world's biggest buyer of Israeli arms. The Islamic fundamentalist government which succeeded the Shah militantly damned Zionism up and down and hung a prominent Iranian Jew for "spying for Israel." In 1980, however, when the Iraq-Iran war began, Iranian representatives met in Paris with Israel's deputy defense minister and worked out a "Jews for arms" deal. Iran permitted Jews to emigrate and Israel sold Iran ammunition and spare parts for Chieftain tanks and US-made F-4 Phantom aircraft. Channeled through a private Israeli arms dealer, this particular agreement appropriately ended in 1984, when Iran was slow in paying its bills.

Although secrecy is the first principle in the netherworld of arms trading, details of several subsequent major Israeli arms sales to Iran have come to light. In 1981, Ya'acov Nimrodi, an intimate of leaders across the Israeli political spectrum, sold the Iranian defense ministry $135,842,000 worth of Hawk anti-aircraft missiles, 155 mm. mortars, ammunition, and other weapons through his Tel Aviv-based company, International Desalination Equipment, Ltd. From 1955 to 1979 Nimrodi had been Israel's military attache in Tehran.

On July 24, 1984, Radio Luxembourg reported that Nimrodi had met in Zurich with the deputy defense minister and the top intelligence officer of Iran and with Rif'at al-Assad, the brother of Syrian President Hafez al-Assad. Swiss government sources said that the meeting resulted in a deal to ship 40 truckloads of weapons a day from Israel to Iran, via Syria and Turkey.

On September 15, 1985, a DC-8 cargo plane returning from Iran and supposedly bound for Malaga, Spain, made an emergency landing in Tel Aviv. Investigation revealed that the plane— recently acquired from an obscure Miami firm by a shadowy Brussels-based "Nigerian" company—had been flying Hawk missiles from the US to Iran via Israel. A Boeing 707 registered to the company had been carrying loads of 1,250 TOW missiles from Israel to Iran via Malaga.

At about the same time the London Observer reported that a ship carrying 25,000 tons of Israeli material was making a rush delivery, sailing directly to the Iranian port of Bandar Abbas rather than first going to Zaire where the Iranian buyers would inspect the cargo.

In May, 1986, West German authorities foiled an $81 million ammunition deal and uncovered a tank deal in the process. Charged in the case were an Israeli and a former Israeli citizen. The West German weekly Stern said a telex from the state-owned Israeli Military Industries dated April 1 indicated official Israeli involvement.

In June of this year a Swedish businessman was reported to have acted as intermediary for Israeli sales of explosives to Iran. The shipments went from Israel to Iran via Argentina. In September, 1986, United Press International reported that the Danish Sailor's Union had logs and records to prove that since May a Danish freighter had taken four 900-ton shipments from the Israeli port of Eilat to Bandar Abbas in Iran. The union was certain the arms were US-made.

Re-selling without permission arms acquired from the US and the sale of US weapons to Iran are both prohibited by US law. In separate incidents involving sales negotiated within the US, federal authorities have arrested two Israeli military reservists and a Yugoslav-American, Paul Cutter. Cutter, who has connections to Israeli Minister of Trade and Industry Ariel Sharon, and who also told co-workers he was authorized to sell arms Israel captured in Lebanon in 1982, has been convicted and jailed. The Israeli government disassociated itself from these men.

Now, however, a federal "sting" operation has cracked the biggest arms deal yet. US Customs Service agents drew retired Israeli army general Avraham Bar-Am and 12 co-conspirators (three of them Israelis) into a carefully-laid trap last April, Tapes made by the Customs Service reveal Israeli government involvement in a $2.6 billion conspiracy to sell US-made arms to Iran through third countries.

On recordings made available to the Chicago Tribune, Samuel Evans, a London-based American lawyer who coordinated two separate conspiracies to offer sophisticated aircraft, missiles, and ordnance to Iran, is heard to say that he would be discussing the deal with Israeli Defense Minister Yitzhak Rabin and that the authority for the transaction went "right through to (Prime Minister) Peres."

The case is particularly serious because federal authorities presented evidence in their indictment that the deal included phony re-export certificates attesting that Israel was re-selling surplus arms to Turkey, which is legal, rather than to Iran, which is not.

General Bar-Am claimed from his jail cell that he had an Israeli government license to sell arms. Denying any involvement, Israeli officials insisted that the license was only to prospect for sales, one of a thousand distributed to former military officers. The Israelis have worked hard to bolster this contention. In late September Defense Minister Rabin called a press conference to say the permit process would be changed to avoid the appearance of government approval. But an earlier statement by Ya'acov Nimrodi that such sales are government-authorized and that permits come from a special department in the Israeli Defense Ministry and are difficult to get contradicts Rabin—as have many reports over the years that it is common Israeli practice to sell arms through fronts and agents.

The US government has avoided dealing head-on in public with the Israeli government over this issue. When the Bermuda conspirators were arrested it was reported that the Israeli ambassador was called in for a stern warning. It is unlikely, however, that prosecutors will focus on the Israeli government's role when the Bermuda conspirators stand trial in New York this November.

Over the last six years Washington has several times expressed its disapproval of arms sales to Iran. During the 1979-1981 hostage crisis, Israel was specifically asked to stop deliveries while Iran was holding US hostages and it is possible that Israel complied. At an October I luncheon he hosted, Secretary of State George Shultz assured diplomats from the Arab states of the Gulf that Israel had told US officials it had stopped selling arms to Iran in 1983. Shultz, in fact, accused the Soviet Union of not clamping down on sales by its allies to Iran!

During the Reagan administration US policy has swung through various levels of support for Iraq. Israel's often-stated policy on the Gulf war is to keep it going as long as possible because the dreadful carnage ties up the combatants and prevents either from attacking Israel.

In 1983, then-Defense Minister Ariel Sharon blurted out duringa US speaking engagement that Israel sold arms to Iran because it regarded Iraq as the greater enemy, and that the sales had been thoroughly discussed with US officials. US officials acknowledged such discussions but denied that Israel had US permission."

Last spring what turned out to be an Israeli disinformation campaign propounded the notion that the US had asked Israel to sell arms to Iran. The tapes in the Bar-Am case are said to suggest that the US was considering shifting its support to Iran while the conspiracy-sting was being hatched.

This kind of last-ditch Israeli government defense, probably supported by pro-Israel political obscurantists in Washington, has almost certainly been used before. When it was revealed that Israel was shipping arms to the Soviet-supported government of Ethiopia to fight Western-assisted resistance movements, and arms to the Argentine junta during the Malvinas-Falklands war, Israeli disinformationists in Washington sought to argue that Israeli actions which directly contravened stated US government objectives were really part of a "double game" somehow coordinated with Washington. This time, arrests by the US government of Israeli "players" have left no doubt that the US interest is to halt, not abet, Israeli arms sales to America's enemies.

https://www.wrmea.org/1986-november/israeli-arms-sales-to-iran.html
 

2cents

Full Member
Scout
Joined
Mar 19, 2008
Messages
11,372
nor have they attacked any nation for more than a thousand years
This is a new variant of this argument, it's normally presented as around 300 years, never heard the "more than a thousand years" one before though (the correct answer is just over 150 years, although technically Iran invaded Iraq in the course of the Iran-Iraq War which Iraq initiated).

this ''they want Israel to end'' has already been debunked more times that I can count
They have a fecking clock set up in Tehran and have a festival to mark it counting down the seconds to Israel's demise - http://ifpnews.com/exclusive/iran-hold-international-israel-hourglass-festival/
 

Wengerscoat

New Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2013
Messages
704
Supports
Arsenal
This is a new variant of this argument, it's normally presented as around 300 years, never heard the "more than a thousand years" one before though (the correct answer is just over 150 years, although technically Iran invaded Iraq in the course of the Iran-Iraq War which Iraq initiated).



They have a fecking clock set up in Tehran and have a festival to mark it counting down the seconds to Israel's demise - http://ifpnews.com/exclusive/iran-hold-international-israel-hourglass-festival/
So they do, I stand corrected. I am myself of Pakistani background nd I believe all Muslim nations should recognise Israel but to draw a comparison with them and Israel and even USA, two of the fecking biggest war-mongering nations on the planet, is hilarious. Iran can make a thousand hour-glasses, they don't and will never have the capability to wipe out Israel. Heck never even the capability even now to strike Israeli cities yet the latter does and has been threatening for more than a decade now. One nation is surrounded by American bases, American allies and now even the Wahabi states getting warmer to the Israelis against it yet Iran is the mother of all evil. Some of you need to have a fecking word with yourself. As for the Iran Iraq war, obviously it was attacked so it would attack back. What do you expect? :houllier: Even then every Muslim nation, the West were with Iraq. Imagine America being in a war right now and the other side's 100% weaponry came from Iran, the US would obliterate Iran but it was okay back then and seemingly okay to forget such things.
 

2cents

Full Member
Scout
Joined
Mar 19, 2008
Messages
11,372
So they do, I stand corrected. I am myself of Pakistani background nd I believe all Muslim nations should recognise Israel but to draw a comparison with them and Israel and even USA, two of the fecking biggest war-mongering nations on the planet, is hilarious. Iran can make a thousand hour-glasses, they don't and will never have the capability to wipe out Israel. Heck never even the capability even now to strike Israeli cities yet the latter does and has been threatening for more than a decade now. One nation is surrounded by American bases, American allies and now even the Wahabi states getting warmer to the Israelis against it yet Iran is the mother of all evil. Some of you need to have a fecking word with yourself.
It's not about arguing that Iran is the "mother of evil", my opinion is that it's perfectly natural for a country of Iran's stature, with its history and self-image, to want to project power in its neighbourhood. It's about showing why Israel has some legitimate, understandable concerns about a nuclear armed Iran. Consider that Iran supports militants dedicated to Israel's destruction both on Israel's northern border and in Gaza, and is seemingly attempting to build a similar infrastructure on the Golan. Consider the Iranian role in the Argentina bombings. Consider the fact that the regime has held a Holocaust-denial cartoon competition, and has had a president who openly denies the Holocaust. Consider the words of the founder of the Islamic Republic:

"From the very beginning, the historical movement of Islam has had to contend with the Jews, for it was they who first established anti-Islamic propaganda and engaged in various stratagems, and as you can see, this activity continues down to the present. Later they were joined by other groups, who were in certain respects, more satanic than they."

(I believe he's referring to the Baha'is here)

"We must protest and make the people aware that the Jews and their foreign backers are opposed to the very foundations of Islam and wish to establish Jewish domination throughout the world. Since they are a cunning and resourceful group of people, I fear that—God forbid!—they may one day achieve their goal, and that the apathy shown by some of us may allow a Jew to rule over us one day. May God never let us see such a day!"

https://www.al-islam.org/printpdf/book/export/html/12118

Consider the repeated "Death to Israel" marches and parades held regularly throughout the year, and the repeated forecasts of the imminent demise of Israel proclaimed by Iran's leaders. Now ask yourself honestly, with knowledge of what the Jews have been through within living memory - why the feck would Israel ever allow a regime like this to have a nuclear weapon if it could prevent it somehow? This isn't some conspiratorial mystery, it's just plain common sense.

:houllier: Even then every Muslim nation, the West were with Iraq
You should read a couple of posts up.
 

Wengerscoat

New Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2013
Messages
704
Supports
Arsenal
It's not about arguing that Iran is the "mother of evil", my opinion is that it's perfectly natural for a country of Iran's stature, with its history and self-image, to want to project power in its neighbourhood. It's about showing why Israel has some legitimate, understandable concerns about a nuclear armed Iran. Consider that Iran supports militants dedicated to Israel's destruction both on Israel's northern border and in Gaza, and is seemingly attempting to build a similar infrastructure on the Golan. Consider the Iranian role in the Argentina bombings. Consider the fact that the regime has held a Holocaust-denial cartoon competition, and has had a president who openly denies the Holocaust. Consider the words of the founder of the Islamic Republic:

"From the very beginning, the historical movement of Islam has had to contend with the Jews, for it was they who first established anti-Islamic propaganda and engaged in various stratagems, and as you can see, this activity continues down to the present. Later they were joined by other groups, who were in certain respects, more satanic than they."

(I believe he's referring to the Baha'is here)

"We must protest and make the people aware that the Jews and their foreign backers are opposed to the very foundations of Islam and wish to establish Jewish domination throughout the world. Since they are a cunning and resourceful group of people, I fear that—God forbid!—they may one day achieve their goal, and that the apathy shown by some of us may allow a Jew to rule over us one day. May God never let us see such a day!"

https://www.al-islam.org/printpdf/book/export/html/12118

Consider the repeated "Death to Israel" marches and parades held regularly throughout the year, and the repeated forecasts of the imminent demise of Israel proclaimed by Iran's leaders. Now ask yourself honestly, with knowledge of what the Jews have been through within living memory - why the feck would Israel ever allow a regime like this to have a nuclear weapon if it could prevent it somehow? This isn't some conspiratorial mystery, it's just plain common sense.



You should read a couple of posts up.
Not really, if Israel is allowed to have nuclear weapons then every nation has that right. The Iranians aren't any worse than North Koreans who every single day play up videos of the destruction of American cities on their national news channels, yet Kim hasn't used them and he's a massive nutter. Why on earth would the Iranians use them if it guaranteed their destruction.

Its a very poor excuse. If I was Iranian I'd want to be a nuclear power so I could sleep safely in my bed at night knowing my country has a deterrent and it won't be blown to smithereens by America and its allies. As for 'death to Israel', that isn't any different to American politicians singing 'bomb bomb bomb Iran' or Israeli leaders regularly advocating war on Iran.
 

Chairman Woodie

Full Member
Joined
Jul 16, 2017
Messages
1,005
Location
Ireland
But Israel did have Sharon and despite them losing a lot of men their hold of 90% of the occupied territories was never lost.

As for your second point, I don't remember calling Hamas a peace organisation. When it comes to Iran how is it ''too much for you''. Unlike Israel Iran isn't involved in bombing other countries, infact nor have they attacked any nation for more than a thousand years and this ''they want Israel to end'' has already been debunked more times that I can count.
Iran uses proxies instead.

http://www.thetower.org/article/mee...preads-its-empire-through-terrorist-militias/

 

Wengerscoat

New Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2013
Messages
704
Supports
Arsenal
Every nation uses proxies, and has done for decades. Using proxies, while not praise worthy, is different than mercilessly bombing nations and killing millions. Once Iran does that like the USA has done to numerous nations or Israel mercilessly killing thousands in Lebanon and even now bombing Syria than we can draw an equivalence.

The fact educated clever folks on Redcafe can't see this simple point is very disappointing.
 

2cents

Full Member
Scout
Joined
Mar 19, 2008
Messages
11,372
If I was Iranian I'd want to be a nuclear power
Me too. However I'm not sure what this has to do with a discussion on the sincerity or legitimacy of Israeli concerns with the prospect of a nuclear Iran - on that topic, you've shown zero interest in attempting to see things from the Israeli perspective in the same way you seem so easily to be able to see things from the Iranian perspective.
 

Wengerscoat

New Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2013
Messages
704
Supports
Arsenal
Me too. However I'm not sure what this has to do with a discussion on the sincerity or legitimacy of Israeli concerns with the prospect of a nuclear Iran - on that topic, you've shown zero interest in attempting to see things from the Israeli perspective in the same way you seem so easily to be able to see things from the Iranian perspective.
Your point is that somehow if Iran gets nukes it will nuke Israel, that is the Israeli perspective right?

My point is bigger nutters, who regularly threaten to nuke nations ie the North Koreans, have had nukes and nothing has happened. Nor it ever will. The moment a nation does that it is guaranteeing its own destruction. I am sure any nation is not stupid enough to do that. The point of nukes is to ensure you're never invaded. And these constant calls for war on Iran by Americans and Israelis going back decades would end.

And please don't paint me as someone anti-Israel, as I said if it was upto me I'd recognize Israel, they have a right to exist but then so does every nation without fear of being invaded by foreign powers.
 
Last edited:

Raoul

Admin
Staff
Joined
Aug 14, 1999
Messages
111,084
Location
Los Angeles
Your point is that somehow if Iran gets nukes it will nuke Israel, that is the Israeli perspective right?

My point is bigger nutters, who regularly threaten to nuke nations ie the North Koreans, have had nukes and nothing has happened. Nor it ever will. The moment a nation does that it is guaranteeing its own destruction. I am not any nation is stupid enough to do that. The point of nukes is to ensure you're never invaded. And these constant calls for war on Iran by Americans and Israelis going back decades would end.

And please don't paint me as someone anti-Israel, as I said if it was upto me I'd recognize Israel, they have a right to exist but then so does every nation without fear of being invaded by foreign powers.
North Korea have only recently acquired them and are negotiating giving them up.
 

Wengerscoat

New Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2013
Messages
704
Supports
Arsenal
North Korea have only recently acquired them and are negotiating giving them up.
Yeah so did Iran before Trump tore up the deal. And we'll see how that goes re: Korea. The only way they did get to the table is by getting nukes. Otherwise the war monger Trump would have bombed them, no question.
 

Raoul

Admin
Staff
Joined
Aug 14, 1999
Messages
111,084
Location
Los Angeles
Yeah so did Iran before Trump tore up the deal. And we'll see how that goes re: Korea. The only way they did get to the table is by getting nukes. Otherwise the war monger Trump would have bombed them, no question.
The deal was short term. The Iranians could easily resume once it expires.
 

nickm

Full Member
Joined
May 20, 2001
Messages
7,770
Not really, if Israel is allowed to have nuclear weapons then every nation has that right.
I see this argument a lot and it's just naive. I'm not sure any nation should have the 'right' to weapons that can end the world, but given it's an imperfect world, and that some nations DO have them, we should recognise that's not ideal, we should de-nuclearise as much as possible, and stop nukes proliferating in general. It's not about 'rights'. It's about making the best of it.
 

Raoul

Admin
Staff
Joined
Aug 14, 1999
Messages
111,084
Location
Los Angeles
I see this argument a lot and it's just naive. I'm not sure any nation should have the 'right' to weapons that can end the world, but given it's an imperfect world, and that some nations DO have them, we should recognise that's not ideal, we should de-nuclearise as much as possible, and stop nukes proliferating in general. It's not about 'rights'. It's about making the best of it.
It also ignores the reality of being in an anarchic international system where powerful states can impose their will on less powerful ones. In the case of nukes, if the most powerful states don't want one to have nukes - then it won't.
 

Chairman Woodie

Full Member
Joined
Jul 16, 2017
Messages
1,005
Location
Ireland
Every nation uses proxies, and has done for decades. Using proxies, while not praise worthy, is different than mercilessly bombing nations and killing millions. Once Iran does that like the USA has done to numerous nations or Israel mercilessly killing thousands in Lebanon and even now bombing Syria than we can draw an equivalence.

The fact educated clever folks on Redcafe can't see this simple point is very disappointing.
Neither the United States or Israel set out to target civilians. In contrast, Iran's proxies, like Hezbollah, target and justify targeting civilians.
 

2cents

Full Member
Scout
Joined
Mar 19, 2008
Messages
11,372
Your point is that somehow if Iran gets nukes it will nuke Israel, that is the Israeli perspective right?
No. The argument that Iran would actually use nuclear weapons to attack Israel rests on the idea that as a regime which celebrates the ideal of martyrdom in the cause of Islam above all other values, it would be to some degree less restrained by the prospect of annihilation than more conventional regimes. That is a view probably held by a good number of Israelis, whose history has conditioned them to believe that people who express hostility to Jews generally aim to hurt them.

However I doubt this view is too much on the minds of the Israelis responsible for understanding Iran and shaping policy, or at least not in the forefront of their thoughts. For these, the problem of a nuclear Iran poses a less dramatic but still extremely potent threat. The core doctrine of Israel's regional doctrine is the maintenance of military dominance over its rivals - this edge allows it to punch above its demographic and territorial weight which would otherwise condemn it, at best, to a fate such as Jordan or Lebanon, states which are not players but are rather played upon. And that would contradict the core goal of Zionism, which is to ensure that the Jews have the capability to shape their own destiny on their own terms, rather than to be one of history's perennial losers as they were for so long (that is the Zionist view).

A nuclear Iran would remove Israel's military dominance overnight, allowing Iran to act with a degree of freedom in the region (particularly through its proxies) which Israel would find impossible to restrict. Israel understands this instinctively since its own military dominance (symbolized by its nuclear capabilities) has allowed it a degree of freedom to act in the region which its rivals have been unable to counter. A nuclear Iran would make military parity between a nation with 7-8 million people on a narrow strip of the eastern Mediterranean and a nation of 80 million with a vast amount of strategic depth. It would provide an unacceptable (in the Israeli view) amount of cover for the Iranian-backed proxies which now surround Israel to wreak havoc and make life in Israeli cities intolerable. It would make the possibility of the destruction of Israel not just imaginable but very real in the minds of those who actually desire to see that happen, in turn emboldening them to never give up the struggle until the day when the twists and turns of history result in it actually happening.

That is, I believe, the dominant Israeli perspective on the matter.
 
Last edited: