Facts are Iran never said anything close to that. Fact is you are making up facts. Fact is you consume and regurgitate scaremongering tactics in order to further your political goals. Either that or you are an idiot. You show me the quote where an Iranian said he would destroy Israel with nuclear weapons and I will start supporting the glorified Nazi that is currently the Israeli prime minister

So 43% of the worlds Jewish population "don't" live in Israel then? The U.S. "did" kill more than 43% of Japan's population with the atomic bombs? I'm making up facts?

Please disprove anything I just said in that last post.

And I'm sorry that my disagreeing with you makes me an idiot. :)

Me disprove? You made a statement. Support it. Where does amadinejahn ever say he is going to destroy anyone with nuclear weapons.

I didn't take issue with your demographics. I took issue with your bull shit statements on Iran's nuclear ambitions.

And people like you are why there won't be an israel in 50 years...

*ahmadinejad

"Largeham...one of the U.S. targets was a military base and both were cities with major war industries."

Sorry, are apologists for the gratuitous nuking of Japanese civilians wringing their hands about Iran, who has had a nuclear program since the Shah, and was discontinued under the now hated mullahs?

I don't really care if Israel is here in 50 years. And Iran has been threatening nuclear force for years.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/01/us-iran-idUSBRE8600HG20120701
Says on that link that ahmadinejad said in 2005 Israel must be Wiped off the page of time

The regime in Jerusalem. C'mon, you have to bring up that old canard. That's like people here saying the Mullah's regime has to be removed.

I think that the national anthem of Israel isn't wrong when it says it was "the dream of 2,000 years."

And such a dream won't be extinguished easily--it's been a notoriously-tough state, considering all the enemies around it.

But ultimately, a two-state solution WILL be needed, and such a situation IS just.



Iran is, by no means or measure, just.

"the now hated mullahs"

I never understand why you aren't more anti-Iranian, Putin33. If you get so wound up about Christians opposing gay marriage and things like that how can a literal theocracy in Iran be held in anything but contempt by you? Forget about gay marriage, they actually execute homosexuals there.

'"I can see the upside for Israel, but I said I couldn't see an upside for Iran. Iran is pushing this and the only outcome if they don't stop development is going to be an Israeli attack. What does Iran get out of that?"

I misread you, SpeakerToAliens. Whoops.

To answer your question, I honestly don't know whether Iran would be strengthened or weakened in the aftermath of an Israeli strike. If I had to guess I'd say strengthened, since it would legally be aggression on Israel's part and much of the world needs little provocation to pile on Israel. In the event, however, that Iran did get nuclear weapons then they would pretty much be masters of everything between the Hindu Kush and the Nile.

Take Bahrain. This speck on the map with a population about equal to New Hampshire is mostly Shia and historically ruled by various Persian states. Its rulers and elites, however, are Sunni and it serves as a base for the US Navy in the Persian Gulf. Say some oppressed Shia group backed by Iran stages a successful coup. A nuclear Iran which guarantees this new regime's independence will complicate American or Saudi intervention. A Persian Gulf dominated by Iran is unacceptable to basically every other state in the region, so this crisis has the potential to escalate into a general war and would at the very least wreak havoc on the world economy.

Or, take Lebanon. Say Hezbollah launches a some sort of attack. Maybe it blows up the airport in Tel Aviv or kidnaps an Israeli Minister. Doesn't really matter for our purposes besides that it's something big. Big enough to warrant a serious invasion of Lebanon. Israel may not be able to effectively respond to a serious attack like that if Iran threatens nuclear retaliation should the IDF enter Lebanon. This could easily apply to Hamas in the Palestinian territories as well. What other country would be asked to tolerate such a position?


What I'm getting at is that Israel is right to fear a nuclear Iran. So does America, but to a lesser extent and for different reasons. Israel's interests are not the same as America's. They do overlap in areas, however. We're a long way from war being necessary from the American point of view, but possibly not that long from the Israeli.

Israel attacking Iran will strengthen the Iranian government, and if they manage to get a propaganda victory over Israel, it will make Iran heroic in the eyes of most people in that region. It will do for Iran what the Suez Crisis did for Egypt. Israel, frankly, doesn't have the naval power to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, and will be preoccupied with Hizballah rocket attacks. The US will have to do the heavy lifting for Israel, as reopening won't exactly be easy. In the meantime oil prices will rise even more, even if Iran doesn't close it down the conflict will raise prices due to speculation. So basically everybody else is going to bear the costs of Israel's military adventurism here.

Frankly I don't see the upside for Israel. They should outsource the showdown with Iran to Saudi Arabia. A direct attack on Iran will only galvanize the Arab Spring governments to be more pro-Iranian than they already are.

"That's like people here saying the Mullah's regime has to be removed."

No, because Iran without the mullahs is still Iran. Israel without the Israeli government is Palestine from the river to the sea.

Who said I wasn't anti-Iranian? I've criticized Iran extensively on here, Invictus, and fought with you about the Palestinian issue. Do you have the memory of a goldfish?

I guess Invictus's neoconnery can't countenance ever opposing a military adventure. He absolutely must portray anybody who is skeptical about military force as a supporter of whatever government he suddenly loathes.

"No, because Iran without the mullahs is still Iran. Israel without the Israeli government is Palestine from the river to the sea."

So it's Zionism or nothing? Really? You couldn't imagine a Lebanon-type situation in Israel? What a lack of imagination you gunners have.

I'm not a neo-con, and if America attacked Iran tonight I would oppose it. But the current Iranian government is an enemy of the United States and we should do what we can to help the oppressed people of the country overthrow that theocracy and, if and only if they really are in possession of nuclear weapons, destroy those weapons. Israel, however, will be threatened just by Iran being ABLE to produce nuclear weapons. So it may have to attack well before the United States would have to, and I won't second guess what Israel thinks it has to do to protect itself.


"You couldn't imagine a Lebanon-type situation in Israel?"

God, I hope not. Lebanon hasn't been anything like a functioning state since 1975.

If the current Israeli government is destroyed then the Palestinian refugees (or, more accurately, their descendants) will flood into the area. Israel has done enough bad things to the Palestinians (and Palestinians enough bad things to Israelis) that a bi-national state is impossible and we'd have ethnic conflict like the former Yugoslavia. A bi-national system may have been possible if it were implemented in the 1930s and 1940s in the area, but today there is too much bad blood to ever have these people live in the same state peacefully. The end of Israel as it exists now can only be a humanitarian disaster unseen since the end of the Second World War. It's really too bad, but that's how it is.

"Invictus's neoconnery can't countenance ever opposing a military adventure."

Also, I opposed intervention in Libya. Extensively. Nice try at pigeonholing me, though.

"I'm not a neo-con"

You're just always beating the war drums and generally acting as an apologist for everything the US does, got it.

"Also, I opposed intervention in Libya. Extensively. Nice try at pigeonholing me, though."

You opposed it by heaping abuse on the embattled government there and acting as a cheerleader for the rebels.

"But the current Iranian government is an enemy of the United States and we should do what we can to help the oppressed people of the country overthrow that theocracy and, if and only if they really are in possession of nuclear weapons, destroy those weapons"

You call for intervening in the internal affairs of 'enemy states' but aren't a neo-con? Why the weird dichotomy between Libya, a country far less integral to regional stability than Iran, and Iran?

Iran oppressed? Iran a theocracy? Not really. The Iranian President is no cleric, and is more of a heterodox Muslim than anything. He's a Iranian nationalist more than an Islamist. Iranian judicial system is governed by French style civil legal system.The sharia courts basically were disabled after Khomeini died and to the extent Islamic courts exist they only deal with clerics. We don't need propaganda and we don't need distortions. This is the same system that brought the Iranians Khatami and Rafsanjani, and the same system that brought the Iranians Mousavi in the 80s, although now he's hailed as some kind of western democrat.

The emirates who are all buddies of the US are much more theocratic and authoritarian than Iran. This isn't about form of government. This is about geopolitics.

"Lebanon hasn't been anything like a functioning state since 1975. "

That's because of the Palestinian issue and the refugee problem. From 1948-1975 it was highly functional. Name a country that could withstand the influx of refugees that Lebanon had to deal with.

"A bi-national system may have been possible if it were implemented in the 1930s and 1940s in the area, but today there is too much bad blood to ever have these people live in the same state peacefully."

You're a defeatist when it comes to everything. There are plenty of other areas of the world where "bad blood" has existed to a greater extent and yet the populations are able to coexist. People made the same predictions with regard to South Africa, which I would argue was far worse than Israel and the Palestinian issue, and yet the doomsday predictions didn't come to fruition. Think of the Hutus & Tutsis who have to live together in Burundi & Rwanda. Granted, their governments aren't very nice, but there isn't non-stop bloodshed and partition either.

"You're just always beating the war drums and generally acting as an apologist for everything the US does, got it."

That's just not true. I even said I'd oppose an attack on Iran. You're just making things up.


"You opposed it [intervention in Libya] by heaping abuse on the embattled government there and acting as a cheerleader for the rebels."

Yeah, I opposed Gaddafi. He was a monster and a lunatic. If you oppose intervention then you also have to be neutral on which side is right? I'm sure you wouldn't have been neutral during the Spanish Civil War.


"Iran oppressed? Iran a theocracy? Not really."

What world do you live in? Why would the Green Movement have happened if Iran weren't a dictatorship? How is it not a theocracy if the head of state is the clerical Supreme Leader and there are religious police who hassle women that don't wear the veil and execute homosexuals? Is your opposition to America so great you can't even side against a system like that?


"You're a defeatist when it comes to everything."

Cynics are usually right. After the experience of sixty years in exile and occupation the Palestinians will not just be happy to live with Jews, and after sixty years of terrorism and constant threats of annihilation the Jews will not tolerate being a minority in a bi-national state. In this situation I'd really, really like to think you were right, Putin33. It would be wonderful if these two people could share the whole of the Holy Land and live in peace with one another. I just can't see how it's possible. The two-state solution is the only solution.

"That's just not true. I even said I'd oppose an attack on Iran. You're just making things up."

You talk out both sides of your mouth. You claim you're opposed to an attack on Iran but say that if Israel doesn't attack Iran Iran will control the entire region. And it's funny you claim I'm making things up when you claim, yet again, that I'm supporting the Iranian system. I guess being hyperbolic and hysterical about the enemy du jour is necessary, else I'm a regime supporter.

"He was a monster and a lunatic. "

Yeah, having free access to education, healthcare, and being on the forefront of women's equality in a region where women are oppressed (which is something you supposedly care about when it comes to Iran), is "monstrous lunacy".

Every 'enemy state' is deemed a lunatic state by the US, and yet the US is the one who goes around bombing everybody into the stone age and installing puppet governments that murder heads of state with a knife through the anus.

"If you oppose intervention then you also have to be neutral on which side is right? "

When a bully goes up and punches a smaller kid in the face and you sit on the sidelines heaping abuse on the smaller kid, then you're not being neutral. It sounds like you just want to keep your hands clean while actively helping the bullies of the world.

"What world do you live in? Why would the Green Movement have happened if Iran weren't a dictatorship?"

Do you even know anything about this 'Green movement' that you love so much? The Green Movement didn't claim to want to overthrow the Islamic Republic. Mousavi has always been an integral part of the Islamic Republic. Plenty of countries have big protests where one side or the other claims the election was rigged. The fact that these elections were so competitive to begin with demonstrably proves that Iran is no 'dictatorship'. These same reformers protesting in the streets were in power for over a decade. How is that a dictatorship? You apparently think that whenever your favored side loses somewhere, it must be because it's a dictatorship. You have no sense of history and no ability to make a comparative analysis.

"How is it not a theocracy if the head of state is the clerical Supreme Leader and there are religious police who hassle women that don't wear the veil and execute homosexuals?"

Because the legal system isn't based on religious law and the religious leader doesn't run the day-to-day affairs of government, he controls the military. Goodness, you have always have to be so hysterical about everything. If the government was a dictatorship and a theocracy why do the Supreme Leader and President hate each other so much? Why do these elections matter? Why do you have senior figures in the Expediency Council condemning the elections of 2009 and threatening to remove the Supreme Leader? Explain.

"Is your opposition to America so great you can't even side against a system like that?
"

I've always sided against Iran, liar. I just don't buy into every lie you neo-cons spout off in your rush to war. You don't need to lie to make an argument. You neo-cons always have to bring up regime types because you can't fathom a social system different than yours.

I also enjoy it that Republicans suddenly care about "executing homosexuals" when you support a political party that actively aids in the passage of laws executing gays in Uganda, and actively opposes anti-bullying programs throughout our school systems. What a fucking joke. Human rights only matter, social equality only matters when you want to beat the war drums and make some country into a 'lunatic state'.

"Cynics are usually right."

Actually, no, you're usually wrong. Cynics predicted a return to interwar style security competition after the Cold War. You were wrong. Cynics predicted a disaster and race war after the fall of apartheid. You were wrong. You were wrong. Cynics predicted that 'democracy' (whatever that means) could never take place in the Arab world. Wrong.

Cynics have been wrong far more often than they have been right.

There's no talking to you. For the sake of the thread let's drop the back and forth on your onanism over Gaddafi and apologetics for the apparently wonderful Iranian domestic system and get back to the issue of an Israeli strike and its consequences.

But not without me saying that your last post (or at least the 8:57 one) is outrageous beyond belief. Show me proof the GOP supports executing gays in Uganda. I certainly have heard only outrage about what they do there. Show me proof they oppose anti-bullying programs as such, and not just oppose federal education policy generally, if that's even the case. Implying parity between minor policy issues in America and judicial executions for sodomy in Iran is libelous and if you were a better man you'd apologize. If you do respond, please do it in a PM.


End of tangent.

This probably wouldn't have become a problem if we hadn't overthrown the democratically-elected Iranian government at the behest of BP back in 1953.

"Cynics predicted a return to interwar style security competition after the Cold War. You were wrong. Cynics predicted a disaster and race war after the fall of apartheid. You were wrong. You were wrong. Cynics predicted that 'democracy' (whatever that means) could never take place in the Arab world. Wrong."

You? Anyway, there kind of is security competition now that the unipolar moment has passed. Look at Venezuela and Iran cooperating, for example. South Africa may well be headed to disaster with Julius Malema's populism and the ANC's descent into corruption. Democracy isn't in place in the Arab World. An election does not democracy make. I for one won't be really confident about Iraq or Egypt or anyplace else until one party peacefully transfers power to another. From the increasingly hazy memories I have of my political science classes that is a pretty standard criteria for a real democracy.


Now, to tie it back to Israel-Iran, the cynical perspective is that Israel will attack because it is threatened by the consequences of even a potentially nuclear Iran under the current regime. I'd love to be wrong, but I don't think I am as things stand now.

"This probably wouldn't have become a problem if we hadn't overthrown the democratically-elected Iranian government at the behest of BP back in 1953."

I don't know how that would have changed the theology of the mullahs. The Shah was always doomed since he was too secular.

I don't like many things about Iran. However, I don't see what moral high ground USA and Israel have to deny Iran nuclear capability. When your enemies are as hawkish and expansionist as Iran's, you'd think building the bomb would be a logical progression.

There likelihood of Iran being attacked without the bomb is far greater than the chances if they had the bomb. As long as that is true, I can't fault them for trying.

Now, would I like to see them with the bomb? Of course not. Nuclear proliferation is pretty awful but Israel dismantling Dimona would be a prerequisite for me demonizing the Iranian nuclear program.

Also, they certainly have the right to a civilian nuclear program and, if Canada was willing to supply them with reactors, NU, ad expertise, I'd support the initiative.

The mullahs wouldn't have had popular support to overthrow the illegitimate Shah, dip. The Iranian Revolution was originally led by a broad coalition of nationalists, leftists, and Islamists (similar to the Arab Spring, the Islamists come along at the end and hijack the thing).The Shah also got into trouble with the clerics when he started cracking down on Islam more and more toward the end of his rule.

"I'd love to be wrong, but I don't think I am as things stand now."

We could make a Invictus post generator with the obligatory "I'd love to be wrong" qualifier followed by doomsday predictions that never come true.

"You? Anyway, there kind of is security competition now that the unipolar moment has passed. Look at Venezuela and Iran cooperating, for example."

Wow, and that certainly conforms to the realist prediction that Europe was going to the center of renewed military competition after Germany reunified. A couple of countries targeted by the US for destruction cooperate, and that's "security competition"? NATO is more unified than ever, and even expanded eastward without much of a protest from Russia. South America is more unified than ever. African regional cooperation is strengthening. Japan hasn't bothered to ditch its pacifist constitution despite China. Security competition is extremely rare, the exception not the rule. Cynics were totally and absurdly wrong.

"Democracy isn't in place in the Arab World. An election does not democracy make. I for one won't be really confident about Iraq or Egypt or anyplace else until one party peacefully transfers power to another. From the increasingly hazy memories I have of my political science classes that is a pretty standard criteria for a real democracy."

You're really still clinging to the culturally biased notion that democracy isn't possible in the Arab world, even now? Keep waiting and watching, and being wrong.

Im kinda worried about the Arab democracies...hopeful but worried. Especially after they killed an ambassador and are holding protests against us. But I also understand that the protesters are a minority not a majority.