N
News Feed
Guest
The supreme leader of Iran issued a blunt warning Friday that a war would be detrimental to the United States.
Continue reading...
Continue reading...
- Joined
- May 17, 2005
- Messages
- 12,259
- Reaction score
- 2,693
Maybe, but Iran has better missiles. The question is whether they are willing to go mad dog or will they sit back and take it. Seems that the set up at the moment is to pen them in with military hardware and let them know that if Israel flies in and takes out a few sites then Iran should sit tight and not react. Indeed, if Israel did just take out a few sites then Iran would best be served by standing down and taking it's case to world opinion (especially if a live reactor gets bombed). It would leave the Mullahs in control and it would preserve the oil contracts with China and India.
However, if the US goal is to take over another oil producing country then there is no loss to Iran in taking out Dimona, if they can, and a few carriers, if they can - and closing Hormuz, if they can. Even just a low level defense and followup guerrilla warfare would be a cost to the US. Look at what Iraq cost and look at the enormous economic damage to the US and the dollar from the two low level wars it has been fighting for a decade (not to mention the enormous cost to the liberty of US and UK citizens).
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2005
- Messages
- 4,767
- Reaction score
- 697
The problem is that he makes statements like this:
I know that you'll probably point out that he's only saying the "Zionist regime" needs to be removed, but I don't buy that for a second. I can't imagine how any government or policy changes in Israel would change his mind about Israel. Israel, which Iran really has no real tangible interest in, has proven to be a wonderful rallying cry for the Iranian regime. Israel is Iran's boogy man and that's really all there is. They think that by making threats Israel won't attack and the US will hold them back. And it just might work. But it might also create a colossal shit storm and a lot of people will die for nothing.
Right away this makes him seem like someone not worth even attempting to negotiate with. He's in effect pushing his nation towards armed conflict instead of taking more steps towards negotiation (or even the appearance of negotiation). At this point the only thing holding back Israel from not launching some nukes towards Iran is world opinion. But chances are if Israel feels Iran is close to getting the bomb, and if they believe statements like those above, they might decide to hell with a conventional attack, let's nuke them before they nuke us. And they may even be able to justify that on the world stage because of idiotic statements like those I quoted. Perhaps Iran thinks they can follow North Korea's lead, but I don't think it's gonna pan out that way.
I know that you'll probably point out that he's only saying the "Zionist regime" needs to be removed, but I don't buy that for a second. I can't imagine how any government or policy changes in Israel would change his mind about Israel. Israel, which Iran really has no real tangible interest in, has proven to be a wonderful rallying cry for the Iranian regime. Israel is Iran's boogy man and that's really all there is. They think that by making threats Israel won't attack and the US will hold them back. And it just might work. But it might also create a colossal shit storm and a lot of people will die for nothing.
- Joined
- May 17, 2005
- Messages
- 12,259
- Reaction score
- 2,693
Unfortunately I don't speak Farsi and nor do you and so we don't know if he actually said this. We have been down this "poor translation" road before. I google your quote and it is being megaphoned through all the usual sites - by which I mean the sites I recognize as being pro-Zionist and pro-war. It would be outrageous to say such things at this time and therefore I suspect it wasn't said in this way. At the moment I don't have access to the source or a fluent Farsi speaker.
This"
and this:
go together and I suspect that it is all part of the PR campaign to change world opinion so as to allow Israel or the US/UK to go ahead with war. It is not unlike PR campaigns that have gone before. It is hard to get people to fight for the benefit of the King, but if you can convince them that the intended target is a danger and is evil and unreasonable then people will willingly die to increase the King's purse.
Even if Iran got a nuke Israel still has over 200. Iran could not attack Israel and expect to survive. Iran getting a nuke only makes it impossible for Israel to attack them with impunity. Of course, without military superiority and strategic value, Israel would likely suffer political upheaval, either greater openness, and thus become a democracy and therefore cease being a "Jewish" state or it will close in on itself and be an enclave of Zionazis and extremists who chase out all the moderate Jews and then collapse completely under it's own dysfunction. So, yes, Iran getting nukes is a danger to the Zionist ideal of a Jews only state, but not because Iran would drop the bomb on them.
How about Israel started respecting the internationally recognized borders, stopped the military occupation of the West Bank, ceased illegal collective punishment of the Gazans, ceased the construction of illegal settlements, gave equal rights under the law to non Jews who live in and are citizens of Israel and started obeying international law. The Zionist regime is truly a bad actor in the region, they do act unlawfully and, as is happening right now, threaten their neighbours for doing things that they are completely within their rights to do. If Israel was a good neighbour then they would have better relations with their neighbours. They don't WANT to have good relations because they like to have the animosity so that they can act aggressively at their discretion.