Speculation mounting of an attack on Iran

[russ_watters]

However, the threat is often more effective than the execution.

Yes. It is just plain incorrect foreign policy to take the threat of force off the table. Obama knows this, which is why he doesn't do it.

 

[Evo]

And I refuse to sit back and watch *every* single aspect of every discussion turn into a rambling anti Neo-con session.

Discussions go where discussions go. Unless you're the OP or a moderator, there's not a lot you can do about it.

And something is going to be done about it. We will be raising the level of maturity of discussions here to an adult level. No more hysterics, no more name calling, no more hate mongering.

I am working on a new sticky on what is acceptable here. In the mean time I advise all posters to keep discussions civil and adult.

 

[turbo]

And something is going to be done about it. We will be raising the level of maturity of discussions here to an adult level. No more hysterics, no more name calling, no more hate mongering.

I am working on a new sticky on what is acceptable here. In the mean time I advise all posters to keep discussions civil and adult.

Thanks, Evo.

 

[OmCheeto]

Tsu. I only quoted your post because I would like to see you at the OCF this year.

As far as this thread goes... I've had this argument at another website:
http://www.mkaku.org/forums/showthread.php?t=939&highlight=iran

I have to out myself... I'm the Crackpot...

Anything that we can do to keep us from attacking Iran would, in my opinion, save this world from a whole lot of grief.

Iran and the USofA need to start talking, and it should not be in the language of bombs.

 

[lisab]

Iran and the USofA need to start talking, and it should not be in the language of bombs.

It EXTREMELY pains me to think we may bomb Iran. I had so many friends from college who were Iranian. They were always smart, generous, well-read, funny.

 

[Tsu]

Tsu. I only quoted your post because I would like to see you at the OCF this year.

As far as this thread goes... I've had this argument at another website:
http://www.mkaku.org/forums/showthread.php?t=939&highlight=iran

I have to out myself... I'm the Crackpot...

Anything that we can do to keep us from attacking Iran would, in my opinion, save this world from a whole lot of grief.

Iran and the USofA need to start talking, and it should not be in the language of bombs.

OmCheeto, I go to the Oregon Country Fair EVERY year!
http://www.oregoncountryfair.org/


In fact, I'll be there while you are at your OCF (Obsessive Compulsion Foundation?) meeting, and, trust me, I'll be having LOTS more fun than you.

I agree with you about the US and Iran needing to start talking. Vote Obama.

 

[mathwonk]

even i am not that cynical.

 

[OmCheeto]

OmCheeto, I go to the Oregon Country Fair EVERY year!
http://www.oregoncountryfair.org/


In fact, I'll be there while you are at your OCF (Obsessive Compulsion Foundation?) meeting, and, trust me, I'll be having LOTS more fun than you.

I agree with you about the US and Iran needing to start talking. Vote Obama.

Uh uh... I just went back and found the first picture taken of me at the OCF. I always thought it was one of my best pictures. But I did a 90' rotation and see now that I was completely out of my mind that evening. My friends will confirm that I never remember anything from the fair, and therefore, by the definition of the 60's, I've been to the fair, and you haven't. I think... errr... Go Obama! Sho Ma Chatori!

 

[Tsu]

Uh uh... I just went back and found the first picture taken of me at the OCF. I always thought it was one of my best pictures. But I did a 90' rotation and see now that I was completely out of my mind that evening. My friends will confirm that I never remember anything from the fair, and therefore, by the definition of the 60's, I've been to the fair, and you haven't. I think... errr... Go Obama! Sho Ma Chatori!

Hey, I said I GO to the fair every year. I NEVER said I REMEMBER it!

p.s. OMG! Was that YOU in that picture? I always wondered who that out-of-his-mind-guy was...

 

[Cyrus]

It EXTREMELY pains me to think we may bomb Iran. I had so many friends from college who were Iranian. They were always smart, generous, well-read, funny.

But, what do they have to do with the government of Iran? I'm Iranian and I don't trust the gov. of Iran with a nuclear anything.

 

[vanesch]

Comparing Iran / Israel to the cold war rather poor analogy. Iran is not the Soviet Union. They do not completely behave as a nation-state, they still behave in part as a revolution in progress. A nation state has defined, limited goals and can be readily negotiated with; Iran is at least in part something else:

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/12/14/10132.shtml

That's bully talk, one shouldn't take it seriously. That's like way back, Saddam giving bully talk. One shouldn't believe all that. The Iranians want power and influence, they don't want smoking smoldering cities. Certainly the guys on top.

With regards to third parties, Iran blatantly sponsors Hezbollah in Lebanon w/ cash, arms, and training. What is to stop them from likewise supplying Hezbollah or some other non-state actor w/ a weapon?

Well, the former soviet union and the Chinese also sponsored certain terrorist organisations. But they didn't distribute nukes.

Then of course the geographical reality of MAD ala the cold war doesn't remotely apply to Iran / Israel. Iran very well could destroy Israel entirely w/ a first strike of 10 weapons not to mention its ability to strike back. Israel can not afford a guaranteed retaliatory arsenal via a massive nuclear submarine missile fleet, nor a 24/7 always in the air bomber fleet, nor a 24/7 satellite launch coverage, and certainly has no 5000 mile flight distance to give it a few minutes to prepare.

Not at all. Even with 10 nukes, you cannot be sure that you have taken out all launching capability of Israel. In fact, it is pretty certain that you haven't. Even if Israel has only 10-20% of its retaliation capability left, that would still hurt badly, and Iran would still be bombed into the middle ages. And hey, if ever they do that, they might not only face Israelian nukes. They are SURE they will get several Israelian nukes on their head, and they can expect also several other nukes on their heads.

No, this situation would be nothing like Cold War MAD, on the contrary it would likely force Israel into first strike move.

Israel will also never do a first strike. They are reasonable. They would loose ALL support worldwide if they do so, and they might get some nukes on their heads too.

Finally, Iran and Israel are very likely not going to be the only players. The other Sunni Arab states are going to want to match Iran, especially Saudi Arabia who can afford to do it.

Which would bring the whole middle east to a big stale mate, probably the best thing that can happen there.

I believe Iran most likely can be dissuaded diplomatically and/or through sanctions from getting a nuclear weapon, but it also can be stopped by force if necessary.

I'm not against putting pressure on them to change their minds. But if they are decided to get a nuke, then they will sooner or later get one. And the more they feel threatened, the more they are likely to want one.

There is something which is illogical in the whole thing. If you think that the Iranians are ready to sacrifice 3/4 of their cities and people just to be able to level Israel (which I don't think they are REALLY ready for, even though they might say so: I call them bluff), what might make you think that some sanctions and some minor bombing will make them change their minds ? And if that can make them change their minds, that means that BY FAR they are not going to risk (despite their saying) a nuclear conflict with Israel.

And, again, if they really want to make a nuke, they will sooner or later have one. It might take 5 years, or it might take 20 years, or 50, but they will make one if that's what they want. The laws of nature are the same for everybody.

 

[seycyrus]

That's bully talk, one shouldn't take it seriously. That's like way back, Saddam giving bully talk. One shouldn't believe all that.

Unfortunately, world history has shown what can happen when words are just dismissed as "bully" talk.

Compound this with the fact that we are faced with zealots who think that straping a vest on and blowing up a wedding is a perfectly legitimate sense of action.

Well, the former soviet union and the Chinese also sponsored certain terrorist organisations. But they didn't distribute nukes.

Vanesch, I do not believe that representatives of these countries have proclaimed that they will wipe another country off the map. Have they or any other governments made any statements that rise to this level?

Israel does not have the luxury to believe that Iran is bluffing.

The Cuban missile crisis would never have been averted if it was just assumed that both sides were bluffing. Negotiations were made (even if they were behind the door) not because both sides were willing to call the other guys bluff, but because both sides believed the other sides intentions were as stated.

Do we want to reach *that* level again? I use the word *we* in a global sense. Certainly the US will not be the one that has to decide if anyone is bluffing.

The guys making *that* call will be Israel and Iran.

That is why this is a serious issue, the fact that two most important players (Iran and Israel) might *not* be joking.

To simply throw down the words *neo-con plot* marginalizes the very real, the very historical, and the very deadly potential of this crisis.

This issue did not suddenly popped up in the last 8 years. It has evolved to the present crisis, in my opinion because we have in the past ignored it, or decided that both sides were bluffing.

The fact's are as follows.

A) Iran has stated that it will destroy Israel.

B) Isael has stated that it will not give Iran the opportunity to do so.

Maybe we should take them at their word and work on changing these two facts?

 

[vanesch]

Unfortunately, world history has shown what can happen when words are just dismissed as "bully" talk.

I guess you refer to Hitler and Chamberlain. The difference is, Hitler didn't think that he was going to level Germany when he started WWII. The Japanese didn't think they'd get some nukes on their head when they bombed Pearl Habor. However, Israel as well as Iran (assuming they both have nuclear weapons one day) *know* that if they nuke the other, they are going to be fried themselves, one way or another. It is *this* situation which has to prevail: that each side knows very well that he will be leveled when he pushes the button. I think you can search through history, this has never happened, that leaders wage a war of which they know beforehand that it will lead to total destruction of their own country. True, it happened to Germany and Japan, but their leaders thought it wouldn't.

Compound this with the fact that we are faced with zealots who think that straping a vest on and blowing up a wedding is a perfectly legitimate sense of action.

Well, playing with nukes is strapping on *yourself* with the vest, instead of sending a few lunatics doing it. In other words, you know that you will blow up your own country, even if you succeed in blowing up the other.

Vanesch, I do not believe that representatives of these countries have proclaimed that they will wipe another country off the map. Have they or any other governments made any statements that rise to this level?

Words are only to impress someone. What counts are genuine intentions, and deeds.

Israel does not have the luxury to believe that Iran is bluffing.

Of course it has that luxury. It's just words.

The Cuban missile crisis would never have been averted if it was just assumed that both sides were bluffing. Negotiations were made (even if they were behind the door) not because both sides were willing to call the other guys bluff, but because both sides believed the other sides intentions were as stated.

It was a poker game. What was a possibility was that the US would have attacked the Cuban bases. The real danger at that point was that the Soviet military *in Cuba* had the possibility of launching an attack themselves, even without Russian consent. What was also a danger was that that crazy general Power was just itching to launch an all-out strike on the Soviet Union. But if the Americans would have attacked Cuba, and there wouldn't have been any local initiatives at launching the missiles by the local military under attack, then I'm 100% certain that the Soviets wouldn't have gone for a war.

Now, you cite the Cuban missile crisis. It was part of the risk to pay. But I cited you the fact that nuclear weapons stopped the Soviet invasion of Western Europe. Conventionally, they could do it. My father, who worked as a military for NATO, has participated in studies that showed that it would take them less than a week to run over Europe if they put all their means to it in the 70ies. Western Europe has to thank its freedom in the second half of the 20ieth century to the threat of nuclear missiles. Now, I agree that it was a dangerous game to play, but it paid off. You win some, you lose some.

I think that a similar effect might play in the ME.

Do we want to reach *that* level again? I use the word *we* in a global sense. Certainly the US will not be the one that has to decide if anyone is bluffing.

The guys making *that* call will be Israel and Iran.

That is why this is a serious issue, the fact that two most important players (Iran and Israel) might *not* be joking.

I'm 100% sure that they are. Well, 99.999%. In fact, the most dangerous moment is *now*, when Israel might be tempted to use its nuclear supremacy while it still had it - in the same way as the years 46-beginning '50 were the most dangerous ones, because the US was hesitating whether to use its temporary nuclear supremacy to bomb the Soviet Union.

Best would be if all the major players in the area would have a reasonable arsenal of nukes. Them staring at each other, watching every move, playing poker games, and, 50 years later, decide to call it off and disarm together.

This issue did not suddenly popped up in the last 8 years. It has evolved to the present crisis, in my opinion because we have in the past ignored it, or decided that both sides were bluffing.

The fact's are as follows.

A) Iran has stated that it will destroy Israel.

B) Isael has stated that it will not give Iran the opportunity to do so.

Maybe we should take them at their word and work on changing these two facts?

Well, the best thing to do is to just let them face their own words and decisions, and they will realize themselves (just as the US and the Soviet Union did) that they are before an impossible choice - no matter how big-mouthed they were before.
Of course, the game is not without a risk. It can turn wrong. They can blow themselves up. That's a risk to run. So be it. It's the price to pay for "cold" in a cold war.

 

[seycyrus]

Words are only to impress someone. What counts are genuine intentions, and deeds.

Who are they trying to impress, and to what effect? Like it or not, one of the best ways we have to gauge intent is their words.

Of course it has that luxury. It's just words.

Words can indicate intent. Due to the high stakes, words cannot just be dismissed.

It was a poker game...

I think you too casually dismiss the high level of tension. It was genuine! The situation was resolved because both players negotiated as if the other side wasn't bluffing.

Now, you cite the Cuban missile crisis. It was part of the risk to pay. But I cited you the fact that nuclear weapons stopped the Soviet invasion of Western Europe.

The Soviet Union would not have been able to threaten Western Europe if it did not have nuclear weapons.

That is an important factor. Mere possession would give Iran the freedom to do basically whatever it wanted, not neccessarily resorting to nuclear means. Think the rocket and suicide attacks on Israel are bad now? Wait until Iran formally begins financing them.

I'm 100% sure that they are. Well, 99.999%. In fact, the most dangerous moment is *now*, when Israel might be tempted to use its nuclear supremacy while it still had it -

I sense a disparity here in the fact that you seem to assign a smaller likelihood that the Israel's are *just bluffing*.

It is my contention that we are in our present pickle because of the belief that Iran doesn't really mean it.

...
Of course, the game is not without a risk. It can turn wrong. They can blow themselves up. That's a risk to run. So be it. It's the price to pay for "cold" in a cold war.

That is too casual of an attitude.

I for one, do not have to watch my grandchildren read their history books and ask me, "Granpa, If Iran kept saying they were going to destroy Israel, why did we let them do it? Were the Jews bad men?"

 

[Art]

People seem to be forgetting Iran does not have a nuclear weapon program according to the US intelligence services. The idea that Iran should be attacked in case they ever do have one is more than a little insane.

It is also bemusing that those so quick to call for the destruction of Iran because of a weapon they may one day develop make no such condemnation of the serial aggressor nation Israel who has at least 150 nuclear bombs. Why not call for a totally nuclear free ME? I am sure Iran and others would be far less likely to ever even attempt to develop nuclear weapons if they didn't feel threatened by Israel's.

In the meantime the only real bargaining chip Iran has to ward off an illegal attack by the 'peace loving' Israelis is their ability to close the gulf to shipping and so starve the world of oil. There is a pipeline to Israel which could be used instead but America's supposed best friend Saudi Arabia won't ship oil through Israel. That leaves Syria as a possible export outlet which no doubt explains the sudden flurry of diplomatic activity to try to reach a settlement with Syria.

 

[seycyrus]

People seem to be forgetting Iran does not have a nuclear weapon program according to the US intelligence services.

The NIE report stated that the ONE program was shut down. Incidently, this is the same program that Iran, to this day, claims never existed.

The idea that Iran should be attacked in case they ever do have one is more than a little insane.

Not when iran has unequivocally called for the destruction of Israel.

It is also bemusing that those so quick to call for the destruction of...

I am not callign for Iran's destruction. Merely that they fully comply with the IAEA on all matters pertaining to the NPT, which they signed.

...serial aggressor nation Israel who has at least 150 nuclear bombs.

That's more than a bit of an exageration. The list of countries that Israel has invaded is very short indeed.

Why not call for a totally nuclear free ME? I am sure Iran and others would be far less likely to ever even attempt to develop nuclear weapons if they didn't feel threatened by Israel's.

Unfortunately, the public policy of Iran towards Israel is very clear. Maybe they should think about rewording it, just a tad?

In the meantime the only real bargaining chip Iran has to ward off an illegal attack by the 'peace loving' Israelis ...

Am I going to get in trouble here, by assuming that when you put that phrase in quotes, you in fact are suggesting just the opposite?

If this indeed your intent, I ask you this. If the Israelis were such war-mongers, (given the fact that they have such a strong military, and the backing by the US), why have they not simply taken over every other surrounding country?

If the situation were reversed and Iran had a huge military advantage, is there any doubt that the Israelis would in fact, be "driven to the sea"?

 

[OmCheeto]

hmmm...

iran
The next war
.
1. Iran allows nuclear inspections
2. only 3.5% vs 60% enrichment of uranium has been reached
3. America developed Iran's nuclear program
4. America is preparing for war with Iran
5. Iran has not invaded another country in over 100 years
6. America encouraged Iraq when they invaded Iran
7. America has troops in Iraq, Kuwait, Bahrain, & Qatar
8. America controls the Persian Gulf and Arabian Sea
9. America says Iran's nuclear program is the cause of the current conflict
10. Iran has the 2nd largest untapped oil reserve in the world.(125 Gbbl) and 15% of the world's natural gas(1 quadrillion cubic feet)
11. Iran is building a gas pipeline to India and Pakistan.

Someone let me know if it's inappropriate for me quote myself. But as I mentioned, I've been involved with this argument before. And I promise only to use the good stuff.

 

[Art]

The NIE report stated that the ONE program was shut down. Incidently, this is the same program that Iran, to this day, claims never existed.

Not only Iran says it, the IAEA also said they found no evidence of post revolutionary Iran ever having had a nuclear weapon's program. If you wish to disagree with the IAEA please provide sources to support your allegations and preferably something better than a link to where Israel or America said so.

Not when iran has unequivocally called for the destruction of Israel.

Again source please?

I am not callign for Iran's destruction. Merely that they fully comply with the IAEA on all matters pertaining to the NPT, which they signed.

As explained in another thread they are in compliance with the NPT agreement they signed and ratified. They are not in compliance with the additional protocol which they withdrew their support for because of the sanctions levied against them and they are not in compliance with UN resolutions but then again who in the ME pays any attention to them?

That's more than a bit of an exageration. The list of countries that Israel has invaded is very short indeed.

Okay let's keep it simple which of Israel's neighbours hasn't it invaded.

Unfortunately, the public policy of Iran towards Israel is very clear. Maybe they should think about rewording it, just a tad?

Why? Does Israel make any attempt to hide it's hatred for Iran?

Am I going to get in trouble here, by assuming that when you put that phrase in quotes, you in fact are suggesting just the opposite?

If this indeed your intent, I ask you this. If the Israelis were such war-mongers, (given the fact that they have such a strong military, and the backing by the US), why have they not simply taken over every other surrounding country?

We'll ignore the land they took from their neighbours in 1949 and just look at since 1967. Have you by any chance ever heard of the West Bank or perhaps the Gaza strip or maybe even the Golan heights. Now where do you think all those territories came from? I'm sure Israel would have liked to have held onto a lot more of the land it has occupied at one time or another but unfortunately for them there is a big, big difference between taking land and holding it, Iraq being a good example of the problems entailed.

If the situation were reversed and Iran had a huge military advantage, is there any doubt that the Israelis would in fact, be "driven to the sea"?

I think there is a lot of doubt. When did Iran ever attack Israel or anybody else for that matter.

 

[seycyrus]

Not only Iran says it, the IAEA also said they found no evidence of post revolutionary Iran ever having had a nuclear weapon's program.
If you wish to disagree with the IAEA please provide sources to support your allegations and preferably something better than a link to where Israel or America said so.

I've played this game before where I'm required to provide documentation from the IAEA ad infinitum and it is then ignored. To be honest, I had viewed the NIE as a legitimate source.
You cast aspersions on the NIE report? So be it. Since you have raised the topic of the IAEA report, please show me the IAEA report where it states what you claim.

Again source please?

I am not sure what you would consider a legitimate source for this one?

http://www.worldpress.org/Mideast/2170.cfm

Are going to play semantics?

As explained in another thread they are in compliance with the NPT agreement they signed...

No, as was blatantly demonstrated by multiple posts of actual statements from the IAEA, the IAEA does not consider Iran to be in compliance with its obligations.

Okay let's keep it simple which of Israel's neighbours hasn't it invaded.

Right, and when I look at a world map, I am SOOOOOO awed by the size of the Israeli empire!

Why? Does Israel make any attempt to hide it's hatred for Iran?

There is none that I am aware of. Please provide me with ANY quotes from an Israeli leader calling for Iran to be wiped off the face of the map.

We'll ignore the land they took from their neighbours in 1949 and just look at since 1967. Have you by any chance ever heard of the West Bank or perhaps the Gaza strip or maybe even the Golan heights.

I'm sorry, but we can't just easily dismiss the multitudes of attacks that stem from these territories.

Now where do you think all those territories came from? I'm sure Israel would have liked to have held onto a lot more of the land it has occupied at one time or another but unfortunately for them there is a big, big difference between taking land and holding it, Iraq being a good example of the problems entailed.

Unfortunately, the logic does not follow. Given its military Israel would be quite capable of holding onto much larger chunks of land if it wanted to. That is the point, it doesn't want to.

I think there is a lot of doubt.

There is only doubt, if we assume they are *bluffing* or outright lying or both. And that's just great, we have to assume a liar is bluffing.

When did Iran ever attack Israel or anybody else for that matter.

The key point was *the situation being reversed*. The situation was, in the past, not in danger of being reversed. Now that is...

 

[seycyrus]

hmmm...
Someone let me know if it's inappropriate for me quote myself. But as I mentioned, I've been involved with this argument before. And I promise only to use the good stuff.

These factoids merely provide speculation as to motive. Nothing more.

So, what's your vote?

 

[Gokul43201]

The fact's are as follows.

A) Iran has stated that it will destroy Israel
...

This is a fact? Sounds more like an opinion.

 

[seycyrus]

This is a fact? Sounds more like an opinion.

Well I guess we could debate the semantics of comments such as "wipe Israel off the map" and "erase the zionist regime from the pages of history", but then we'd have to go into the details of what is meant by Iran when they use the phrases zionist regime and such.

Iran does fund Hamas and Hizbolah which does not mince words.

What's your opinion of Iran's stance toward Israel? Do they want to have a bake sale?

 

[Gokul43201]

What's your opinion of Iran's stance toward Israel?

I think Ahmadinejad has a more extremist (and nutty) stance than both the population in general and the Parliament. And this is about as extreme a Parliament as Iran has had in recent history, thanks in large part to the machinations of the Guardian Council in the last two elections as well as the raging anti-US sentiment following the Iraq War.

Ahmadinejad's popularity[1] in Iran is lower than GWB's is here. The odds of his re-election, next year are pretty small. The official stance of the Iranian Government towards Israel has been one of guarded animosity, but definitely not one speaking of obliteration. In fact, the Government went to great pains to tell the world that Ahmadinajad's words had been misinterpreted [2,3,4] and that Iran has absolutely no intentions of wiping Israel of any map.[1] http://www.iraniantruth.com/?p=960
[2] http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2005/12/16/iran_holocaust051216.html
[3] http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/2006/02/20/iran_denies_wanting_to_wipe_israel_off_the_map/
[4] http://english.people.com.cn/200705/19/eng20070519_375995.html

Do they want to have a bake sale?

Probably no less than Bush would like to have one with Iran.

 

[mheslep]

I think Ahmadinejad has a more extremist (and nutty) stance than both the population in general and the Parliament.

I am not sure his views relative to the population/Parliament are that relevant. I think his nuttiness relative to the Assembly of 'Experts', the 'Guardian Council', or the Supreme Leader is what counts, and in that company its by no means clear that he has extreme views. Almadinejad's populartity can go to near zero, but nobody can oppose him without prior approval of the Guardian Council.

...The official stance of the Iranian Government towards Israel has been one of guarded animosity, but definitely not one speaking of obliteration.

How do you go about discounting Ahmadinajad as the official voice of the government and selecting some other? What other?

In fact, the Government went to great pains to tell the world that Ahmadinajad's words had been misinterpreted [2,3,4] and that Iran has absolutely no intentions of wiping Israel of any map.

Well they need to restart the 'he was misunderstood' bureau.

"Today the reason for the Zionist regime's existence is questioned, and this regime is on its way to annihilation," he said.
Ahmadinejad added that Israel "has reached the end like a dead rat after being slapped by the Lebanese" - a reference to the 2006 war between Israel and the Shiite Hezbollah militia.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/981727.html

 

[mheslep]

Finally, Iran and Israel are very likely not going to be the only players. The other Sunni Arab states are going to want to match Iran, especially Saudi Arabia who can afford to do it.

...Which would bring the whole middle east to a big stale mate, probably the best thing that can happen there.

Your best ME policy is to go down a path to get everybody there a nuclear weapon?

 

[seycyrus]

misinterpreted [2,3,4] and that Iran has absolutely no intentions of wiping Israel of any map.

...

[2] http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2005/12/16/iran_holocaust051216.html
[3] http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/2006/02/20/iran_denies_wanting_to_wipe_israel_off_the_map/
[4] http://english.people.com.cn/200705/19/eng20070519_375995.html

There is a far cry from a public policy statement directly countermanding the president of Iran's public statement and the semantical backsliding shown in those three links.

Why do we all of a sudden discount the meaning behind Ahmanj's words, and insist on the strictest interpretatation, and smile when this interpretation is so obviously twisted?

***
i.e.
How can we remove Israel from the map? Who's map? What if we don't find all the maps?
***

Israel is a region in addition to a state, there is word in Farsi for this area. They cannot remove a *region* from the map.

This is doubletalk.

Who/what comprises the zionist regime? Take a guess.

 

[mjolnir80]

most people underestimate iran
first off its military is allot more advanced than most people think it is
second i doubt Russia and China would be very happy if america or israel suddenly decided to attack iran

 

[Gokul43201]

There is a far cry from a public policy statement directly countermanding the president of Iran's public statement and the semantical backsliding shown in those three links.

There's no semantic backsliding or doubletalk here:

Mohammad Larijani, Iran's national security chief said Friday that his country was not intending to wipe Israel "off the map."

That's the official government position, presented at the World Economic Forum, and it countermands any translation of A'jad's words that involves "wiping Israel off the map."

 

[Ivan Seeking]

most people underestimate iran
first off its military is allot more advanced than most people think it is
second i doubt Russia and China would be very happy if america or israel suddenly decided to attack iran

Just for the record: Iraq had the 4th most powerful military in the world, and it tooks all of 100 hours to eliminate it.

 

[seycyrus]

There's no semantic backsliding or doubletalk here:That's the official government position, presented at the World Economic Forum, and it countermands any translation of A'jad's words that involves "wiping Israel off the map."

Do you think that the western media deliberately distorted Ahmanj's words?

Perhaps this new "peaceful" Iran should discuss it's position with Hamas and Hizbollah?

 

[Art]

Just for the record: Iraq had the 4th most powerful military in the world, and it tooks all of 100 hours to eliminate it.

Iran probably wouldn't be as obliging in waiting for the US to build up their forces before kicking off.

Iran's main strength is probably it's missile forces which it is believed includes the Russian sunburst missile which could pose a genuine threat to US carriers. Maybe the layered defence the USN employs would be successful in countering such an attack but as no-one is quite sure what the full capabilities of the sunburst are other than it has a long range, is very fast and self-manouverable to avoid anti-ASMs it could be dangerous finding out especially if a swarm attack was used with numerous, cheaper more plentiful missiles timed to arrive at the same time as them.

Their older silkworm ASCMs would also be extremely dangerous to any commercial shipping in the gulf whilst they have many missiles more than capable of hitting US assets in Iraq plus targets in Israel including their nuclear reactor.

Obviously Iran's missile assets would be something the US and Israel would target first but one would think the Iranians have contingency plans for that.

Ultimately Iran would be beaten but I wouldn't expect the cake-walk the US and it's allies found in Iraq.

 

[seycyrus]

Here's an interesting article about some of these issues just recently raised.

http://globalpolitician.com/24904-syria-iran

 

[mheslep]

There's no semantic backsliding or doubletalk here:That's the official government position,

Official according to who? He's a bureaucrat, even if highly placed. He's not Supreme Leader Khamenei, he's not President Ahmadinejad.

 

[mheslep]

...There is something which is illogical in the whole thing. If you think that the Iranians are ready to sacrifice 3/4 of their cities and people just to be able to level Israel (which I don't think they are REALLY ready for, even though they might say so: I call them bluff), what might make you think that some sanctions and some minor bombing will make them change their minds ? And if that can make them change their minds, that means that BY FAR they are not going to risk (despite their saying) a nuclear conflict with Israel.

I don't expect a conventional bombing would change their minds, I expect it would seriously set back their ability to make a bomb as the Israeli's did with S. Hussein's Osirak nuclear facility.

And, again, if they really want to make a nuke, they will sooner or later have one. It might take 5 years, or it might take 20 years, or 50, but they will make one if that's what they want. The laws of nature are the same for everybody.

Twenty, fifty years would likely be a far different story internally in Iran. I think that amount of time will give the democratic movements there time enough to eject the nutty Mullahs.

 

[mjolnir80]

Just for the record: Iraq had the 4th most powerful military in the world, and it tooks all of 100 hours to eliminate it.

it might have had a strong military but it was not a united country. no Iraqi liked their current regime