Iran-Israeli War...I just don't see it.

[Hondo]

Of course I couldn't see the need to invade Iraq either.

Neither country could field and support an invasion by sea. Airborne assault has it's uses, but is not a game winner. Both sides would require allies to invade by land, probably through Lebanon. The Israelis would be running their supply lines through arab countries and they aren't that stupid. Israel doesn't have a force large enough to invade Iran, occupy it and provide for defense at home.

The Iranians would have the same problems. I think the biggest reason the Iranian President is so mouthy about Israel is because he knows he can't get the allies he needs to do the job. If Syria, the only likely ally, and Lebanon were to allow Iran to cross their borders, I doubt he'd do it anyway.

So let Iran have their nuke if they want it. Should they ever use it or lose it, damn near the entire world will come down on them, hard.

[Eki]

So let Iran have their nuke if they want it. Should they ever use it or lose it, damn near the entire world will come down on them, hard.
True. Unfortunately the same doesn't apply to Israel.

[Hondo]

True. Unfortunately the same doesn't apply to Israel.


If Israel used a nuke as a first strike, it would be over for them too. I think you can safely say that applies to everybody that has nukes.

[Roamy]

If Israel used a nuke as a first strike, it would be over for them too. I think you can safely say that applies to everybody that has nukes.

It depends on how many nukes you have. Apparently Israel can take out quite a bit if they just detonate what they have. A nuke strike on Israel will screw up a lot of the country so they may as well take out what ever they can.

[Eki]

If Israel used a nuke as a first strike, it would be over for them too. I think you can safely say that applies to everybody that has nukes.
They've gotten away with so much this far, so I wouldn't be surprised if they got away using a nuke as a first strike too.

[Hondo]

No they wouldn't.

[chuck34]

So let Iran have their nuke if they want it. Should they ever use it or lose it, damn near the entire world will come down on them, hard.

That's the problem Fiero, they don't care. At least some of them don't care. The Iranian President seems to think that he should bring about the Muslim version of the Anti-Christ. He wants to do this so that Mohammad will come back and bring Paradise. The best way he can do this is to rid the world of the "Little Satan" (Israel). That will start a war between the Muslim world and the "Big Satan" (USA). Then Mohammad will have to step in and vanquish the Big Satan.

So bottom line is, you are right. Iran knows that "the entire world will come down on them, hard", and that is what they want. That, my friend, is the crux of the problem.

[Hondo]

That's the problem Fiero, they don't care. At least some of them don't care. The Iranian President seems to think that he should bring about the Muslim version of the Anti-Christ. He wants to do this so that Mohammad will come back and bring Paradise. The best way he can do this is to rid the world of the "Little Satan" (Israel). That will start a war between the Muslim world and the "Big Satan" (USA). Then Mohammad will have to step in and vanquish the Big Satan.

So bottom line is, you are right. Iran knows that "the entire world will come down on them, hard", and that is what they want. That, my friend, is the crux of the problem.

And maybe, just maybe, that is exactly what needs to happen to show the current rendition of Islam in it's true light and get the show on the road while they're still weak. As much as people like to make sport of Bush's "you're with us or against us..." line, radical Islam has done the same and quite frankly, I don't see "good" Islam taking many active steps to help stop radical Islam.

[Eki]

I don't see "good" Islam taking many active steps to help stop radical Islam.
Iran doesn't represent radical Islam, not at least compared to Saudi Arabia or compared to the radical Zionism or Judaism Israel represents.

[chuck34]

And maybe, just maybe, that is exactly what needs to happen to show the current rendition of Islam in it's true light and get the show on the road while they're still weak. As much as people like to make sport of Bush's "you're with us or against us..." line, radical Islam has done the same and quite frankly, I don't see "good" Islam taking many active steps to help stop radical Islam.

I would rather that "good" Islam would come to the conclusion that "bad" Islam is bad without needing to kill millions of people. But maybe that isn't possible?

[Malbec]

That's the problem Fiero, they don't care. At least some of them don't care. The Iranian President seems to think that he should bring about the Muslim version of the Anti-Christ. He wants to do this so that Mohammad will come back and bring Paradise. The best way he can do this is to rid the world of the "Little Satan" (Israel). That will start a war between the Muslim world and the "Big Satan" (USA). Then Mohammad will have to step in and vanquish the Big Satan.

So bottom line is, you are right. Iran knows that "the entire world will come down on them, hard", and that is what they want. That, my friend, is the crux of the problem.

Bottom line is that Iran wants to make ends meet, just like most other countries.

The Iranians simply aren't going to fight the Israelis, nor are the Israelis going to fight the Iranians. The only people who really seem to think there's going to be a war are the Americans. You do know that Israel and Iran have a long history of supporting each other don't you. You do know that Iran would not have done so well in the Iran-Iraq war had the Israelis not come to their aid with a few large arms deals right? The Middle East is just like F1, there's the public side with talk of war, conflict and people splitting off, then there's whats really going on behind closed doors that the public don't get to see. The public side is just for show.

BTW you know that Muslims believe that the end of the world will be heralded by Jesus returning right? Their vision of the end of the world is almost identical to the Christian vision. Mohamed doesn't feature in it.

[chuck34]

Bottom line is that Iran wants to make ends meet, just like most other countries.

The Iranians simply aren't going to fight the Israelis, nor are the Israelis going to fight the Iranians. The only people who really seem to think there's going to be a war are the Americans. You do know that Israel and Iran have a long history of supporting each other don't you. You do know that Iran would not have done so well in the Iran-Iraq war had the Israelis not come to their aid with a few large arms deals right? The Middle East is just like F1, there's the public side with talk of war, conflict and people splitting off, then there's whats really going on behind closed doors that the public don't get to see. The public side is just for show.

BTW you know that Muslims believe that the end of the world will be heralded by Jesus returning right? Their vision of the end of the world is almost identical to the Christian vision. Mohamed doesn't feature in it.

That may all be true for the people. But some in leadership roles, on all sides, see it differently. I'm not saying that anything will happen, but there are forces at work under the top layer that aren't necessarily towing the party line.

As for the end of the world, they are simmilar but with some key differences.

[Eki]

That may all be true for the people. But some in leadership roles, on all sides, see it differently. I'm not saying that anything will happen, but there are forces at work under the top layer that aren't necessarily towing the party line.

How do you know that? Are you sure it's just not paranoia, like Tazio said?

[chuck34]

How do you know that? Are you sure it's just not paranoia, like Tazio said?

I read some comments attributed to Ahmadenegad (man I can't spell) from before he was President that gave me this impression of him. I'll see if I can dig them up, but I'm not 100% sure I remember where I saw them. And he hasn't really done anything to change my mind. Granted it might all just be talk, but then again maybe not. A healty amount of paranoia at times is not a bad thing. Trust but verify is a good philosophy. And I'm not sure. See my qualifying statements "I'm not saying anything will happen."

[steve_spackman]

The Target is Iran


Throughout 2007 and 2008, the debate raged among concerned parties, including on the www.globalresearch.ca (http://www.globalresearch.ca) website, as to whether the war party would or could mount a military attack against Iran, using the pretext that questions regarding its nuclear program remained open, etc. Statements attributed to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad threatening the existence of Israel, were hyped up, to justify a preemptive strike against Tehran. But certain military realities had to be taken into consideration, at least by those who knew something about warfare.

The concern raised by competent military professionals, including those inside the U.S., was that, were Iran to be attacked (by the U.S. and/or Israel), the asymmetric response on the part of pro-Iranian factors in the region would unleash regional conflict with an immediate potential to become global. This was the thinking which led U.S. officials to tell Israel point blank that they would not endorse a military attack on Iran. Now, further confirming this report, the New York Times has released a timely article detailing Israel's bid and Washington rejection of permission to bomb Iran's plant at Natanz.



http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=11747

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/11/washington/11iran.html?_r=2&th=&emc=th&pagew

[Eki]

Granted it might all just be talk, but then again maybe not.
Talking the talk isn't the same as walking the walk. I don't like Israel either, but I wouldn't blow it up even if I had a chance, and Ahmadinejad doesn't even control the Iranian armed forces.

[chuck34]

Talking the talk isn't the same as walking the walk. I don't like Israel either, but I wouldn't blow it up even if I had a chance, and Ahmadinejad doesn't even control the Iranian armed forces.

Yes but in this case walking the walk only takes one step to have a royal mess on ALL our hands. Care MUST be taken to avoid that.

I've heard all this about Ahmadinejad not controling the armed forces or the nuke program. That is all very true, but does that make anyone feel better or worse? The fact is that Iran is pursuing a nuclear program, and no one at this point knows for sure wether they are doing it for peacefull purposes or not. And while they SAY it is for peace, they are DOING things that cast doubt on that. Ahmadinejad or not.

[Malbec]

Chuck, if Iran is so committed to destroying Israel why isn't it supplying its chemical weapons to Hizbullah so they can gas Israeli cities? Why aren't Iran's proxies in or near Israel using them? Iran has had gas since the 1980s when they developed and bought them to counter the Iraqi use of gas.

Ahmadinejad has had power over gas for a full term now and yet nothing about gassing Israel. He supplied Hizbullah with anti-tank missiles to stop the Israeli army but yet no gas. Not even any normal missiles to give Tel Aviv and Jerusalem a good scare.

Guess why? Iran and Israel have always needed each other because they fear the guys in between the two, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria (Pro-Iranian right now because they don't have many friends but traditionally anti-Shia and therefore anti-Iranian). Supporting the other means the guys in between have to look both ways for threats and thats the way both guys like it. Ahmadinejad isn't singing from the same hymn sheet but Khamenei, his boss, has been playing the long game for the past two decades, he knows how important Israel is for Iran.

[chuck34]

Chuck, if Iran is so committed to destroying Israel why isn't it supplying its chemical weapons to Hizbullah so they can gas Israeli cities? Why aren't Iran's proxies in or near Israel using them? Iran has had gas since the 1980s when they developed and bought them to counter the Iraqi use of gas.

Ahmadinejad has had power over gas for a full term now and yet nothing about gassing Israel. He supplied Hizbullah with anti-tank missiles to stop the Israeli army but yet no gas. Not even any normal missiles to give Tel Aviv and Jerusalem a good scare.

Guess why? Iran and Israel have always needed each other because they fear the guys in between the two, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria (Pro-Iranian right now because they don't have many friends but traditionally anti-Shia and therefore anti-Iranian). Supporting the other means the guys in between have to look both ways for threats and thats the way both guys like it. Ahmadinejad isn't singing from the same hymn sheet but Khamenei, his boss, has been playing the long game for the past two decades, he knows how important Israel is for Iran.

Ok they haven't done anything, yet. That must mean that they are perfect angels that will never do anything to harm anyone, right?

I have never said that Iran WILL attack Iran. I just think we need to proceed along a path assuming that they might at some point if they are able. As for the chemical deal, perhaps they know that the US/UN response to a gas attack would be MUCH different than a nuke attack. I don't know that, and neither do you.

Iran and Isreal have always needed each other you are right, but it goes back farther than that. I just recently re-ran across Cyrus the Great. Very interesting.

And remember it's not all about Ahmadinejad.

[Mark in Oshawa]

I think after the events of the last few weeks, I think Iran will have to re evaluate where they are in the world. Their people are NOT behind that government in the sense you would want your populace to be at a time of war. Iran's bellicose words are hollow, because now we have seen firm evidence the people of Iran are more moderate than their government.

I think Israel will be VERY careful on how they handle things, but they have had a nuke for a while, and it is their insurance policy against Arab aggression. If Iran has a nuke, it isn't going to make some in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem happy BUT I think saner heads will prevail. There will not be a pre-emptive strike.

AS for America? Well Obama has sat on the sidelines of the Iranian election, and wisely I think in this case, just deploring the level of violence. A good way to defuse Iran's using US leaders words as bombs. No...I think differently than I did a few months ago. Iran is NOT quite the monolith people wanted to think, and the US isn't going to be anything but a spectator regardless of what happens.

As it was said above, anyone using a nuke will find a world of hurt coming down on them.

[Malbec]

I have never said that Iran WILL attack Iran. I just think we need to proceed along a path assuming that they might at some point if they are able. As for the chemical deal, perhaps they know that the US/UN response to a gas attack would be MUCH different than a nuke attack. I don't know that, and neither do you.

Do you think that the response to an Iranian chemical attack on Israel would be somehow worse than to a nuclear attack? Because thats the only way your comment would make sense. Plenty of countries have gassed each other without much response beyond use of biological/chemical weapons but as has been mentioned earlier in this thread, ANYONE using nukes can expect to be toast the next day.

Despite all the rhetoric in America and Israel I don't think Iran is developing nukes with Israel in mind, its to keep its traditional enemies the Arabs and Afghans quiet and as the US itself has shown, if you don't have nukes you face the threat of invasion (ie Iraq), have them and you're safe (North Korea). Israel is a red herring.

The Arabs can see the trend, they don't like the rise in Shia power one bit. Thats why when Israel invaded Lebanon a few years back, the Arabs refused to condemn it for the first few days and were quietly hoping the Israelis finished the job. What you should be worried about is the Arab response to an Iranian bomb, it would pressure countries in the area to get a similar weapon. What would happen if America's great friend Saudi Arabia went for the bomb? How would the US and Israel react then?

[chuck34]

Do you think that the response to an Iranian chemical attack on Israel would be somehow worse than to a nuclear attack? Because thats the only way your comment would make sense. Plenty of countries have gassed each other without much response beyond use of biological/chemical weapons but as has been mentioned earlier in this thread, ANYONE using nukes can expect to be toast the next day.

Despite all the rhetoric in America and Israel I don't think Iran is developing nukes with Israel in mind, its to keep its traditional enemies the Arabs and Afghans quiet and as the US itself has shown, if you don't have nukes you face the threat of invasion (ie Iraq), have them and you're safe (North Korea). Israel is a red herring.

The Arabs can see the trend, they don't like the rise in Shia power one bit. Thats why when Israel invaded Lebanon a few years back, the Arabs refused to condemn it for the first few days and were quietly hoping the Israelis finished the job. What you should be worried about is the Arab response to an Iranian bomb, it would pressure countries in the area to get a similar weapon. What would happen if America's great friend Saudi Arabia went for the bomb? How would the US and Israel react then?

Dylan, that is my point. There is at least a faction within the Iranian power structure that wants all out war. And they think that a chemical attack wont do that, they need the nukes. At least that is one theory floating around. I'm not sure that I buy into it 100%.

And you are right, no one wants to see Iran with a nuke, Arabs included. that doesn't change the reality that they are pursuing a weapon. If they should actually ever use one, I don't think it matters if they use it on Israel or Saudi Arabia first, we're all f'ed.

The US is taking great pains to stop Saudi Arabia and Egypt from not starting their own nuclear programs. Both want to in order to counter the percieved threat from the Iranians and we don't want ANY of them to have the bomb.

I wouldn't go so far as to say Israel is a red herring. There is a threat there.

[Malbec]

Sorry I don't buy the whole "Iranians are developing nukes for Armageddon". These guys aren't fanatics, whatever faction you're looking at are playing the long term game, not some silly 'wipe Israel off the earth and get wiped out too' game. The Iranians have been playing a very clever game over the past decades, they're far more intelligent and pragmatic than you give them credit for. I'm afraid those theories are as crackpot as all the Iranian crap about the demonstrations going on now being part of some CIA/MI6 plot.

The threat that is definitely justified is how Iran will behave with the bomb, although they'll never use it the confidence having one will bring will mean they'll expect more influence throughout the Middle East. And their goals will often but not always be at odds with that of the US. But that is all the nukes will ever be, something big to bring to the negotiating table.

[Eki]

There is at least a faction within the Iranian power structure that wants all out war.
I don't believe that.

If you know who they are, please name them here.

[Mark in Oshawa]

I don't believe that.

If you know who they are, please name them here.

Ahmedidjad? (God I wish I could spell his name) Our friend Eki has said numerous times how he wants to wipe Israel off the map. You think he is going to do that with a sling shot? Not to mention get to Isreal with the help of all those Arab nations between Iran and Israel? A missle with a nuke on it would do the job tho.

I don't think he is as crazy as maybe some would like to believe, but no one wants to risk being wrong either Eki. What you always ignore is that these dictator types with the big rhetoric DO eventually do something that the world frowns upon. Do you want to be in the crosshairs of Iran if they have the bomb and their leadership is talking about how your nation doesn't have a right to exist? Damn right the Israeli's are nervous....

I dont believe the Iranians are going to do anything either Eki, but I sure as heck can understand how I wouldn't want to be wrong if being wrong meant my nation was going up in a mushroom cloud.

[Malbec]

I'm one hell of a lot more concerned with North Korea having the bomb than Iran. Ultimately Iran has never invaded anyone in modern history and has observed international treaties it has signed up to fully. It is also not in danger of collapsing into chaos.

Compare that to North Korea which routinely threatens its neighbours with yet another ballistic missile test and, worse, carries them out. It signs treaties with the West regarding its nuclear project then tramples on them. The only reason its noticed at all on the international stage is because it can threaten nuclear war.

Chuck thats who you should be truly worried about, not a country like Iran which may, if lucky, eventually get nuclear weapons, but one like North Korea that is quite happy to threaten its neighbours with the ones it already has.

[chuck34]

I don't believe that.

If you know who they are, please name them here.

As Mark said, our boy Ahmedidjad appears to be in that group. Rumors and inuendo really, as I can't find facts quickly. But a large part of Shia teaching of the end times revolves around the last Mahdi. Some traditions maintain that he will only be brought about by a large war. And some say that our buddy wants to start that war.

I'm not saying that I believe this 100%, just that perhaps the prudent course is to assume it is true.

[chuck34]

I'm one hell of a lot more concerned with North Korea having the bomb than Iran. Ultimately Iran has never invaded anyone in modern history and has observed international treaties it has signed up to fully. It is also not in danger of collapsing into chaos.

Compare that to North Korea which routinely threatens its neighbours with yet another ballistic missile test and, worse, carries them out. It signs treaties with the West regarding its nuclear project then tramples on them. The only reason its noticed at all on the international stage is because it can threaten nuclear war.

Chuck thats who you should be truly worried about, not a country like Iran which may, if lucky, eventually get nuclear weapons, but one like North Korea that is quite happy to threaten its neighbours with the ones it already has.

Did I ever say that I wasn't worried about North Korea? It is wise and prudent to worry about all our enemies. However this thread is about Iran, not North Korea.

It will be interesting to see what happens if/when their rumored 4th of July missile test goes off.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Did I ever say that I wasn't worried about North Korea? It is wise and prudent to worry about all our enemies. However this thread is about Iran, not North Korea.

It will be interesting to see what happens if/when their rumored 4th of July missile test goes off.


Lets just say people in Alaska and Hawaii are probably wondering about the accuracy of these missles.

What is really upsetting the US I suspect tho is the fact that North Korea had made noises about selling this technology of missles and the like to places like Myanmar, which for those not paying attention is Burma and is likely the only other nation as paranoid and delusional as North Korea.

More people are nervous about North Korea in the US, but I also think the US can handle North Korea in a military fashion if it came to that than Iran. Iran is a much more sophisticated and large nation, and the people there are not the pawns the North Koreans are.

[Malbec]

As Mark said, our boy Ahmedidjad appears to be in that group. Rumors and inuendo really, as I can't find facts quickly. But a large part of Shia teaching of the end times revolves around the last Mahdi. Some traditions maintain that he will only be brought about by a large war. And some say that our buddy wants to start that war.

I'm not saying that I believe this 100%, just that perhaps the prudent course is to assume it is true.


Ahmadinejad can't do anything Khamenei doesn't want and Khamenei has never pushed for war with Israel. In fact, it was Khamenei who supported the US in its first war on Iraq and the second, it was Khamenei who supplied the equipment and small arms for the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan to oust the Taliban while the US supplied special forces and air support.

With all due respect from reading posts on Iran from US members I get the impression that you're rather poorly informed on Iran and its internal politics by your media. It is simply not the kind of country where a small group of individuals can push the place into war, certainly not nuclear war. Its rather interesting that there isn't the same kind of dread that Israel, a country that has routinely invaded its neighbours, has nuclear weapons. The very same real reasons for Israel developing nukes exist for Iran, and Iran won't use them for the same reason Israel hasn't. Take a deeper look at the country and learn more about the clandestine relationship Iran has with Israel and the US and you'll start to see why the hysteria regarding Iranian nukes appears so amusing.

[Malbec]

What is really upsetting the US I suspect tho is the fact that North Korea had made noises about selling this technology of missles and the like to places like Myanmar, which for those not paying attention is Burma and is likely the only other nation as paranoid and delusional as North Korea.

More people are nervous about North Korea in the US, but I also think the US can handle North Korea in a military fashion if it came to that than Iran. Iran is a much more sophisticated and large nation, and the people there are not the pawns the North Koreans are.

I don't believe North Korea will invade anyone either, however what I truly fear, and what is quite likely to happen, is a sudden collapse of the North Korean regime with floods of refugees into its neighbours and South Korea, Japan and China having to foot a huge bill for reconstruction and reform in the midst of the current recession. That would bankrupt at least Japan and South Korea, imagine the effect that would have on the global economy.

The other thing I fear is the organised crime wave that would result. The most feared and toughest organised crime gangs in Europe all come from ex-hardline dictatorships, if they can survive hardcore secret police organisations they can kick around soft Western police with their sweet dedication to following the law themselves with ease. I bet North Korean gangs are on the next level compared to their Russian, Chinese and Albanian cousins. And unlike nukes, those guys are definitely going to muscle in on your neighbourhood.

[chuck34]

1) Lets just say people in Alaska and Hawaii are probably wondering about the accuracy of these missles.

2) What is really upsetting the US I suspect tho is the fact that North Korea had made noises about selling this technology of missles and the like to places like Myanmar, which for those not paying attention is Burma and is likely the only other nation as paranoid and delusional as North Korea.

3) More people are nervous about North Korea in the US, but I also think the US can handle North Korea in a military fashion if it came to that than Iran. Iran is a much more sophisticated and large nation, and the people there are not the pawns the North Koreans are.

1) Which ones? The North Korean missiles or the US missiles tasked with shooting down threats? The North Korean's probably don't have too accurate of guidance systems, but they'll probably get the job done. The missile defense shield I'm a bit more worried about. Not only has Obama cut funding for the program, it doesn't have a real great track record, yet.

2) Noises about selling tech? They apparently sold the Syrians nuclear tech back in '07.

3) Right now I am more worried about North Korea, but that doesn't mean we take our eyes off other places.

Now we're off topic again. Sorry.

[chuck34]

Ahmadinejad can't do anything Khamenei doesn't want and Khamenei has never pushed for war with Israel. In fact, it was Khamenei who supported the US in its first war on Iraq and the second, it was Khamenei who supplied the equipment and small arms for the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan to oust the Taliban while the US supplied special forces and air support.

With all due respect from reading posts on Iran from US members I get the impression that you're rather poorly informed on Iran and its internal politics by your media. It is simply not the kind of country where a small group of individuals can push the place into war, certainly not nuclear war. Its rather interesting that there isn't the same kind of dread that Israel, a country that has routinely invaded its neighbours, has nuclear weapons. The very same real reasons for Israel developing nukes exist for Iran, and Iran won't use them for the same reason Israel hasn't. Take a deeper look at the country and learn more about the clandestine relationship Iran has with Israel and the US and you'll start to see why the hysteria regarding Iranian nukes appears so amusing.

Wow Iran supported us against Iraq, what a shock! I'm shocked I tell you! Plus they supported us against Afghanistan? I'm double shocked! You do realize that those two are enemies of Iran and have been for quite some time. The whole "enemy of my enemy" thing. :-)

I do understand that Ahmadinejad can't do anything without Khamenei's approval. Does that make you feel better or worse about his comments and actions, along with the lack of condemnation from Khamenei?

[Mark in Oshawa]

Wow Iran supported us against Iraq, what a shock! I'm shocked I tell you! Plus they supported us against Afghanistan? I'm double shocked! You do realize that those two are enemies of Iran and have been for quite some time. The whole "enemy of my enemy" thing. :-)

I do understand that Ahmadinejad can't do anything without Khamenei's approval. Does that make you feel better or worse about his comments and actions, along with the lack of condemnation from Khamenei?


Chuck..I am agreeing with you on this much. Khamenei said nothing while this wack job was going abroad stirring the pot. Whatever Americans think of Iran, they also know that Khamenei and Ahmadinejad are no friends of the US. The question always comes back to, how nuts are they? The Israeli's cannot afford to guess wrong if these guys get nuclear weapons.

Personally, I think Iran's provocations are going to be lessened because the burgeoning "rich" or middle class in Tehran is the ones advocating more freedom and democratic ideals, and they are the ones who will be motivated to make life miserable enough for the Mullah's that stirring up trouble abroad will be put on the back burner.

[Malbec]

Wow Iran supported us against Iraq, what a shock! I'm shocked I tell you! Plus they supported us against Afghanistan? I'm double shocked! You do realize that those two are enemies of Iran and have been for quite some time. The whole "enemy of my enemy" thing. :-)

I do understand that Ahmadinejad can't do anything without Khamenei's approval. Does that make you feel better or worse about his comments and actions, along with the lack of condemnation from Khamenei?

Finally you're beginning to understand. The whole enemy of my enemy thing... Good, so you can understand why Iran likes a strong Israel to keep its Sunni Arab enemies occupied and Israel likes Iran for the same reason. Or does the whole enemy of my enemy thing only apply when its convenient?

Khamenei doesn't make public comments except in extreme circumstances like last Friday over the election process. He didn't make public comments condemning Khatami when he made overtures to the West when he was president. Does that mean Khamenei agreed with Khatami's reformist ideas?

[chuck34]

Finally you're beginning to understand. The whole enemy of my enemy thing... Good, so you can understand why Iran likes a strong Israel to keep its Sunni Arab enemies occupied and Israel likes Iran for the same reason. Or does the whole enemy of my enemy thing only apply when its convenient?

Khamenei doesn't make public comments except in extreme circumstances like last Friday over the election process. He didn't make public comments condemning Khatami when he made overtures to the West when he was president. Does that mean Khamenei agreed with Khatami's reformist ideas?

Yes it does only apply when it is convenient. If the enemy of my enemy is also my enemy then they are still my enemy. That'll make your head spin. :-)

Exactly Khamenei doesn't make public comments except in extreme circumstances. And you don't think the President of his country, nominally the "voice" of his country, making comments that he wants to wipe Israel off the map are extreme enough?

[Malbec]

Exactly Khamenei doesn't make public comments except in extreme circumstances. And you don't think the President of his country, nominally the "voice" of his country, making comments that he wants to wipe Israel off the map are extreme enough?

Nope, not when Ahmadinejad said the current Israeli regime would be wiped from the pages of history, ie they would eventually be gone and forgotten. He never mentioned wiping the country off the face of the earth. Read his statement in Persian if you can or get an Iranian to translate it for you, not Fox News.

Whilst I really don't like the guy there is nothing to gain from putting false words in his mouth.

[chuck34]

Nope, not when Ahmadinejad said the current Israeli regime would be wiped from the pages of history, ie they would eventually be gone and forgotten. He never mentioned wiping the country off the face of the earth. Read his statement in Persian if you can or get an Iranian to translate it for you, not Fox News.

Whilst I really don't like the guy there is nothing to gain from putting false words in his mouth.

Ok how about his statements about how the Holocaust never happened, or at least was not a historical fact? I know that was translated incorrectly too.

[Roamy]

Well I guess it is about over for me!! I expect the end any day now. Probably around the 4th of July

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,528880,00.html

[Malbec]

Ok how about his statements about how the Holocaust never happened, or at least was not a historical fact? I know that was translated incorrectly too.

Yep, I believe he doesn't agree with some of the facts of the Holocaust, probably the numbers killed. That isn't proof that he wants to erase Israel I'm afraid.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Dylan, you are splitting hairs. Anyone who hosts a conference talking about the "lies" about the Holocaust likely isn't going to Tel Aviv to check out the beach unless he kills all the Jews there first.

It has been obvious to many people that the President of Iran has an axe to grind with Israel. Whether you believe he wants to wipe them out or not, he isn't going to be Israel's friend....