Israeli Ex-Intel Chief Slams PM's Iran Stance

[Dino Velvet]

http://news.yahoo.com/israeli-ex-intel-chief-slams-pms-iran-stance-130242419.html

Israeli Ex-Intel Chief Slams PM's Iran Stance
http://l.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/oXh_6AJBHy_uEbdrklkymA--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Zmk9Zml0O2g9Mjg-/http://l.yimg.com/os/152/2012/04/21/image001-png_162613.png (http://us.lrd.yahoo.com/_ylt=AqGYFcGo6iJc1e3kF2slAPoKewgF;_ylu=X3oDMTFmaGt wZmpuBG1pdANBcnRpY2xlIEhlYWQEcG9zAzEEc2VjA01lZGlhQ XJ0aWNsZUhlYWRUZW1w;_ylg=X3oDMTNhbWYxaWlnBGludGwDd XMEbGFuZwNlbi11cwRwc3RhaWQDOTAyMTdlMDQtY2E0Yy0zMmR lLTliYzgtNDRjMWNiMjc0ZmRjBHBzdGNhdAN3b3JsZHxtaWRkb GUgZWFzdARwdANzdG9yeXBhZ2UEdGVzdAM-;_ylv=0/SIG=1161urqi9/EXP=1336852629/**http%3A//www.ap.org/)By DAN PERRY and DIAA HADID | Associated Press – 1 hr 46 mins ago

JERUSALEM (AP) — The former head of Israel's Shin Bet security agency has accused the country's political leaders of exaggerating the effectiveness of a possible military attack on Iran, in a striking indication of Israel's turmoil over how to deal with the Iranian nuclear program.
Yuval Diskin said Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak — who have been saber-rattling for months — have their judgment clouded by "messianic feelings" and should not be trusted to lead policy on Iran. Diskin, who headed Shin Bet until last year, said a strike might actually accelerate the Iranian program.
Shin Bet addresses security in Israel and the Palestinian Territories only and is not involved in international affairs.
Iran says its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes. Israel, like the West, believes that Tehran is developing weapons technology, but there is intense debate over whether international economic sanctions accompanying the current round of negotiations might prevent Iran from developing a bomb, or whether at some point a military strike should be launched.
Diskin's comments deepened the sense that a rift is growing between the hawkish Netanyahu government and the security establishment over the question of a strike — and Netanyahu allies quickly rushed to his defense.
In Israel, security figures carry clout well into retirement. Although they frequently pursue political careers, Diskin had been seen as relatively apolitical, perhaps lending his words even greater weight.
"I don't have faith in the current leadership of Israel to lead us to an event of this magnitude, of war with Iran," Diskin said at a public meeting Friday, video of which was posted on the Internet the next day and quickly became the lead news item in Israel.
"I do not believe in a leadership that makes decisions based on Messianic feelings," he continued. "I have seen them up close. They are not messiahs, these two, and they are not the people that I personally trust to lead Israel into such an event."
Diskin said it was possible that "one of the results of an Israel attack on Iran could be a dramatic acceleration of the Iran program. ... They will have legitimacy to do it more quickly and in a shorter timeframe."
Several members of Netanyahu's coalition issued statements questioning Diskin's motives and suggesting that in effect he had allied himself with Israel's dovish opposition.
The prime minister's office called the former Shin Bet chief's remarks "irresponsible," while Barak's office accused Diskin of "acting in a petty and irresponsible way based on personal frustration" and "damaging the tradition of generations of Shin Bet leaders."
Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman also took a swipe at Diskin.
"If you do not trust the prime minister and not the defense minister, you should have resigned and not waited for the end of your term," he said.
Further complicating the picture is the widely held suspicion that Israel's threats may actually amount to a bluff of historic proportion which has if anything been effective in compelling the world to boycott Iranian oil and isolate its central bank. From that perspective, criticism such as Diskin's, based on a literal approach, could be construed as simplistic and self-defeating.
Israeli security officials have taken issue with the political leadership on several issues: whether sanctions will make a strike unnecessary, whether a strike will be militarily effective, and whether Israel should strike unilaterally if it cannot gain American approval.
Diskin's speech — in which he also attacked the government for not actively pursuing peace with the Palestinians — came days after the country's current top military commander, Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz, also seemed to disagree with the country's leadership on the likelihood that Iran will pursue a nuclear weapon.
Gantz told The Associated Press this week that Iran is seeking to develop its "military nuclear capability," but that the Islamic Republic would ultimately bow to international pressure and decide against building a weapon. The key to that pressure, he said, were sanctions and the threat of a military strike.
One of the first criticisms voiced by a security figure came last summer from Israel's recently retired spy chief, Meir Dagan. He called a strike against Iran's nuclear program "stupid." Dagan, who headed the Mossad spy agency, said an effective attack on Iran would be difficult because Iranian nuclear facilities are scattered and mobile, and warned it could trigger war.
Other senior figures with security backgrounds have questioned whether Israel should act alone, as Netanyahu insists the country has a right to do.
Last month Shaul Mofaz — a former military chief and defense minister who has since been elected head of the opposition Kadima Party — said the threats of an imminent military strike are actually weakening Israel. Mofaz, who was born in Iran and moved to Israel as a child, said Israel "is not a ghetto" and that despite its military might must fully coordinate with the U.S. on any plan to strike Iran.
Dan Halutz, who led the military from 2005 to 2007, also criticized Netanyahu last month for invoking Holocaust imagery in describing the threat posed by a nuclear-armed Iran. "We are not kings of the world," Halutz said. "We should remember who we are."
A recent poll suggested the public agrees. The survey, conducted by the Israeli Dahaf agency for the University of Maryland, said 81 percent of Israelis oppose a solo attack on Iran. At the same time, it said two-thirds of Israelis would support military action if coordinated with Washington. The poll, released last week, questioned 500 Israelis and had a margin of error of 4.3 percentage points.
In a recent report the U.N. nuclear agency found Iran continues to enrich uranium — a key step toward developing a bomb. Although few in Israel would dispute that a nuclear-armed Iran is an existential threat, debate has revolved around the cost-benefit analysis of an attack.
On the cost side is the possible retaliation, in the form of Iranian missiles as well as rocket attacks by Iranian proxies Hezbollah and Hamas on its northern and southern borders. Especially daunting is the prospect of sustained missile strikes on Tel Aviv, a bustling business and entertainment capital whose populous is psychologically ill-prepared for a homefront war.
It also would likely cause oil prices to skyrocket at a time when the global economy is already struggling — risking a new recession for which Israel would absorb much if not most of the blame. Some also fear that Iran might attack American targets in response to any Israeli strike — a scenario that could directly influence the outcome of this fall's U.S. presidential election.
___
Follow AP Jerusalem bureau chief Dan Perry at: www.twitter.com/perry(underscore)dan (http://www.twitter.com/perry%28underscore%29dan)
Follow Diaa Hadid at: www.twitter.com/diaahadid (http://www.twitter.com/diaahadid)

[Stavros]

If opinion in Israel is this divided, it suggests that it will be difficult for the politicians to persuade the military to strike, while the US is opposed to it also. Netanyahu in theory could arrange an 'October surprise' for Obama whom he considers a one-term wimp, but the risks of Iranian retaliation outweigh the costs, and Ayatollah Khamane'i has publicly claimed Iran does not want the bomb.

Iran has showed over the years that it has an uncompromising response to attacks, even if it uses proxies to make its point. Ex-CIA agent Robert Baer in his book See No Evil [Chapters 10-11] has argued that it was not a publicity stunt when Yasser Arafat went to Iran to congratulate the Ayatollah Khomeini in 1979: he put the Palestinians well-honed machinery of sabotage and assassination at the service of the Iranians. When Hafiz al-Asad discovered that Fatah had been supplying the Muslim Brotherhood in Hama at the time of the uprising there in 1982, he expelled Fatah from Syria and began an internecine war in Lebanon among Palestinian groups to weaken them. The PLO-or factions in it- thereafter relied on the Iranians for support in Lebanon after Arafat was expelled in 1983, but there was a lot of internecine fighting among Palestinians at this time. In the meantime, the Iranian intelligence agency, the Pasadaran learned how to engage in guerilla warfare: the man who drove the truck bomb into the US Embassy in Beirut in 1983 was a Lebanese Shi'a working through ex-Fatah member Imad Mughniyah who was in turn working for the Iranians; Mughniyah is also claimed to have organised the suicide bombing of the US Marines base in Beirut in 1983; and most of the hostages captured in Lebanon in the 1980s were taken by Mughniyah on behalf of the Iranians or the Syrians. As Baer believes Lockerbie was a revenge attack for the USS Vincennes downing of Iranian Airbuss 655 in July 1988, the US does not want to provoke Iran and believes US targets would be vulnerable from an Israeli attack.

[hippifried]

While Israel's driving all the paranoia here, it seems like everybody's convinced that they have some kind of "superpower" power here. I beg to differ. The US is the only military "superpower" on this planet. Irrespective of Benjamin Netanyahu's overinflated ego & irrational desire to be seen as even more crazy than Begin, Israel can't take us on. They have nukes, but they don't have MRVs. They can't get to Iran with enough firepower to do anything without flying through airspace that we control. Ergo, Israel cannot attack Iran without permission from the US. I don't see them getting it anytime soon, & we're not going to act as their proxy unless there's a change of administrations in January.

Netanyahu's a pissant. What's he gonna do? Cry louder? Keep stamping his feet? Hold his breath until he turns blue? Is he really insane enough to start a nuclear conflagration? Would the Israeli military go along with it if they thought there was any chance of physically butting heads with us? Politicians come & go.

[Dino Velvet]

While Israel's driving all the paranoia here, it seems like everybody's convinced that they have some kind of "superpower" power here. I beg to differ. The US is the only military "superpower" on this planet. Irrespective of Benjamin Netanyahu's overinflated ego & irrational desire to be seen as even more crazy than Begin, Israel can't take us on. They have nukes, but they don't have MRVs. They can't get to Iran with enough firepower to do anything without flying through airspace that we control. Ergo, Israel cannot attack Iran without permission from the US. I don't see them getting it anytime soon, & we're not going to act as their proxy unless there's a change of administrations in January.

Netanyahu's a pissant. What's he gonna do? Cry louder? Keep stamping his feet? Hold his breath until he turns blue? Is he really insane enough to start a nuclear conflagration? Would the Israeli military go along with it if they thought there was any chance of physically butting heads with us? Politicians come & go.

Good post, Hippi. What do you think about the Israel/Azerbaijan Arms Deal?

http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/trend-lines/11645/israel-azerbaijan-arms-deal-signals-close-ties-while-raising-tensions-with-iran


http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/images/blog-trend_lines.png

Home (http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/) | Trend Lines (http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/trend-lines) | Israel-Azerbaijan Arms Deal Signals Close Ties, While Raising Tensions With Iran
Login to Discuss http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/images/discuss_icon.gif (http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/discussion/show/11645) http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/images/email_icon.gif Email (http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/trend-lines/11645/israel-azerbaijan-arms-deal-signals-close-ties-while-raising-tensions-with-iran#) | http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/images/print_icon.gifPrint (http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/print/11645) | http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/images/share_icon.gif Share (http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=250) | http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/images/reprint_icon.gifRepublish
Israel-Azerbaijan Arms Deal Signals Close Ties, While Raising Tensions With Iran

By Catherine Cheney (http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/authors/780/catherine-cheney) | 01 Mar 2012
Israeli defense officials confirmed Sunday a deal to sell $1.6 billion in arms (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=147443811), including drones and missile defense systems, to Azerbaijan.

The deal reflects the close relationship between Israel, which finds itself increasingly isolated in an increasingly hostile region, and Azerbaijan, which shares a border with Iran and is building up its military capability in the midst of its own dispute with Armenia.

The news comes at a delicate time, with tensions flaring between Israel and Iran dominate headlines and analysts warning that an Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear facilities could spiral into a regional conflict. Now, growing tensions between Iran and Azerbaijan have created another cause for concern.

“This deal is not a surprise in a sense, in that Azerbaijan has staked itself out as a sort of pro-Western power in the region,” said Thomas de Waal (http://carnegieendowment.org/experts/?fa=expert_view&expert_id=479), a senior associate in the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace’s Russia and Eurasia Program.

De Waal described Azerbaijan as a mainly Muslim country with a secular government that must balance building strong ties with the United States (http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/11614/global-insights-u-s-must-strengthen-ties-with-azerbaijan) and Israel with steering clear of a conflict with Iran.

The main motivation for Azerbaijan to buy these weapons, he said, is to intimidate Armenia in their ongoing conflict over Armenian-occupied Nagorno-Karabakh, a disputed separatist region that is predominately ethnic Armenian, but internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan.

“Azerbaijan is trying to build up its military because of this conflict,” said de Waal, adding that the country’s military spending is among the world’s fastest-growing over the past five years. “In doing this, they are looking for partners and training to professionalize their army, which was really nothing 10 years ago. And so Israel is obviously someone they can rely on to do that.”

The partnership with Israel also casts Azerbaijan in a positive light as it competes against the Armenian lobby in Washington, de Waal explained.

“The U.S. is one of the mediators in [the Nagorno-Karabakh] conflict,” he said. “There is a strong Armenian-American community and a strong Armenian lobby in Congress, and Azerbaijan is looking for any ways of gaining influence.”

But these attempts to win favor with Washington could come at a major cost, for as Azerbaijan grows closer to Israel, it risks a conflict with neighboring Iran.

“If Azerbaijan were to get this wrong, they would be very vulnerable,” said de Waal. “Israel and Azerbaijan have managed their relationship okay until now, but if it starts to deteriorate, it could be quite destabilizing for both countries.”

Azerbaijan and Iran share many ties beyond their shared border. Iran is home to a large population of ethnic Azeris, and Azerbaijan has the second-largest Shiite population after Iran (http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/12750/azerbaijan_iran_relations.html).

Recently, those ties have been strained by Iranian accusations that Azerbaijan has allowed Israeli intelligence to operate on its territory and Israeli accusations that Iran was behind a foiled attack on Israeli targets in Azerbaijan. As a result, the just-announced arms deal risks exacerbating tensions that are already high.

Nevertheless, despite its friendship with Israel, Azerbaijan is hesitant to damage relations with neighboring Iran. As an example, although Israel opened its embassy in Azerbaijan 16 years ago, Azerbaijan has yet to open an embassy in Israel (http://www.rferl.org/content/The_Blooming_Friendship_Between_Azerbaijan_And_Isr ael/1978312.html) due to pressure from Tehran.

“Israel is desperate for friends anywhere in the region, given the hostility of the Arab world and Iran,” de Waal said. “So a friendly near-neighbor in the region is obviously very valuable.”

Israel has also looked increasingly to Azerbaijan as relations with Turkey have deteriorated. And with the threat of a nuclear Iran becoming the major focus of Israeli foreign policy, Israel is likely to work even harder to nurture the relationship.

But Azerbaijan must tread carefully, de Waal warned. “I suppose some people in the U.S. might think that a conflict between Iran and Azerbaijan could pose a threat to the regime in Tehran,” he said. “The trouble is that it would do so only by destabilizing Azerbaijan, which is a country the U.S. wants to remain stable for a lot for reasons. So we don't want anything to set off a new war there.”

[hippifried]

It's insanity. Well actually, it's really just dishonesty. While Israel's whining about Iran, they're selling all kinds of weaponry to Iran's next door neighbor who has more in common with them than any other country on the planet. On top of that, Azerbaijan's only stated enemy is Armenia, the oldest Christian nation in the world who has no truck with Israel at all. I guess cash speaks louder than any kind of nationalism, ideology, or religious convictions.

[yosi]

I guess cash speaks louder than any kind of nationalism, ideology, or religious convictions.


1,000s of dead Syrians who were killed by Asad forces will agree with you.

the world is talking how awful it it is , but nobody is DOING anything about it.
especially not the Russians who sold weaponary to Syria for billions os $ , and they wil not get any money if Asad falls...

Israel knows that if they have to defend themselves from Iran who claim all the time that they want to erase Israel from the map , nobody else will.

[Stavros]

Israel knows that if they have to defend themselves from Iran who claim all the time that they want to erase Israel from the map , nobody else will.

Yosi the notorious quote of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, which was itself in part a quote of the Ayatollah Khomeini, has been mis-translated, and does not even include the word 'map' in it: you can read two dissections of this hoax here:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles...7offthemap.htm (http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2007/260107offthemap.htm)

http://www.fair.org/blog/2012/04/19/...l-off-the-map/ (http://www.fair.org/blog/2012/04/19/now-they-tell-us-iran-didnt-actually-threaten-to-wipe-israel-off-the-map/)

I am not belittling the threat from Iran, whose desire is to remove Zionism and return what is now Israel to what it was, as Palestine in1948. In addition, there is an argument that Iran has been in direct and indirect conflict with the USA since 1979: each side believing that acts of violence prove something. Israelis like Netanyahu have been making threats to Iran for years without actually doing something, and the real issue is, what would an attack achieve, and what retaliation by Iran would it produce? The Generals -in Israel and the USA- are very wary indeed of direct action. Ahmadinejad will be out of power next year and anyway has lost the support of the Guardian Council and Ayatollah Khamane'i; Qassem Suleimani is the flavour of the month for the hardliners.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/8933482/The-Quds-force-man-who-inspired-the-British-embassy-outrage-in-Tehran.html

The situation in Iran is that elections next year will be a significant test of the Guardian Council whose primary aim is to maintain the 'legacy' of the Ayatollah Khomeini and the Islamic Revolution, even though the regime has few economic successes to point to, and for most Iranians the economy is what matters most. They fixed the last election, can they fix the next one?

Iraq, Syria and Lebanon in the west; Bahrain in the south; Afghanistan in the East are Iran's main concern.

Howeever, in the north there are elements in Azerbaijan who want to re-name the country the 'Republic of Northern Azerbaijan' setting in motion the 're-unification' of historic Azerbaijan which they claim was split in two by the Russian and Persian Empires in the 19th century. In the worst case scenario this would eventually lead to an attack from Russia or Turkey on the northern province of Azerbaijan in Iran, not dissimilar to the attempt by Iraq to re-unite the south west of Iran with the 'mother country' in 1980. It would be another drain on Iranian resources, although again, Iranian retaliation could be severe for all concerned. Iran backs Armenia in the dispute over Nagorno-Karabagh, while Turkey supports Azerbaijan. These unesolved issues ought not to erupt into war but who knows? The primary aim of the west is to undermine the Islamic regime in Iran. I don't think the value of human life comes into it.

[Dino Velvet]

The situation in Iran is that elections next year will be a significant test of the Guardian Council whose primary aim is to maintain the 'legacy' of the Ayatollah Khomeini and the Islamic Revolution, even though the regime has few economic successes to point to, and for most Iranians the economy is what matters most. They fixed the last election, can they fix the next one?


Stavros, it's been mentioned many times that the fix was in during the Iranian Election. In your opinion, what do you think might have been the possible outcome if the election were legitimate? I realize predicting elections is difficult but any general information would be helpful. Were there other interesting candidates or people not allowed to run?

[Stavros]

Dino, the main challenger to Ahmadinejad in 2009 was Mir-Hossein Mousavi. Mousavi was Prime Minister in Iran in the 1980s during the war with Iraq, the post was then abolished and he went into retirement before returning to politics for the elections. His lineage is Azeri, and he was on the Iranian left and imprisoned for a while by the Shah; he later became associated with the so-called 'Reformists' under Rafsanjani and Khatami, both of whom were keen to mend relations with the USA and embark on much-needed economic reform in Iran. He has also condemned Ahmadinejad's remarks denyng the Holocaust. His Green movement is now called the The Green Path of Hope -he himself, along with his wife, has been under house arrest since 2009.

Bear in mind Mousavi is a 'dangerous reformist' from the perspective of the hard-liners, which doesn't make him a cuddly puppy for most American tastes, as the article in Time below indicates. But in the Iranian context, his domestic agenda of economic reform is -or should be- the primary concern, but it isn't clear yet if he will either stand next year, or be allowed to. He could, for example, be assassinated (his nephew was murdered in suspicious circumstances).
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1904194,00.html

[Dino Velvet]

Dino, the main challenger to Ahmadinejad in 2009 was Mir-Hossein Mousavi. Mousavi was Prime Minister in Iran in the 1980s during the war with Iraq, the post was then abolished and he went into retirement before returning to politics for the elections. His lineage is Azeri, and he was on the Iranian left and imprisoned for a while by the Shah; he later became associated with the so-called 'Reformists' under Rafsanjani and Khatami, both of whom were keen to mend relations with the USA and embark on much-needed economic reform in Iran. He has also condemned Ahmadinejad's remarks denyng the Holocaust. His Green movement is now called the The Green Path of Hope -he himself, along with his wife, has been under house arrest since 2009.

Bear in mind Mousavi is a 'dangerous reformist' from the perspective of the hard-liners, which doesn't make him a cuddly puppy for most American tastes, as the article in Time below indicates. But in the Iranian context, his domestic agenda of economic reform is -or should be- the primary concern, but it isn't clear yet if he will either stand next year, or be allowed to. He could, for example, be assassinated (his nephew was murdered in suspicious circumstances).
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1904194,00.html

Read the article. He does have a colorful past indeed. Iran needs to get itself out of isolation from the rest of the World if they're ever going to be any kind of success. A steadier hand might be good for them to replace the clown in the Member's Only jacket. As an American, I do realize Israel is a huge pain in the ass for everyone involved. I'm an idiot so don't ask me how to solve that mess.

[yosi]

Iraq, Syria and Lebanon in the west; Bahrain in the south; Afghanistan in the East are Iran's main concern.
.

Iran and the nuclear power ,is also the main concern of: Iraq, Syria and Lebanon in the west; Bahrain in the south; Afghanistan in the East , not to mention Saudi Arabia , Qatar and all other countries which are much closer to Iran than Israel.

If you will find the reasons which led to the almost endless war between Iran and Iraq , you will realise that Israel is just the excuse.......

[hippifried]

Iran and the nuclear power ,is also the main concern of: Iraq, Syria and Lebanon in the west; Bahrain in the south; Afghanistan in the East , not to mention Saudi Arabia , Qatar and all other countries which are much closer to Iran than Israel.

If you will find the reasons which led to the almost endless war between Iran and Iraq , you will realise that Israel is just the excuse.......
Find? Are the reasons missing or something? Israel wasn't the excuse. Israel wasn't relevant to the Iran-Iraq war at all. Since no 2 "experts" agree on how best to channel Saddam Hussein & have his ghost impart his thinking at the time, I have my own theory as to why he decided to invade Iran:

All you really need to do is look at a map. Iraq is landlocked. Their only access to the sea is the river channel. All the fighting occured in that little piece of no-man's-land at the north tip of the Gulf, just east of fthe river. With some development, it's a harbor with full capabilities to load tankers. Don't think so? Who was the next target? Kuwait already had a developed harbor with full capabilities to load tankers.

But all that's irrelevant because were talking about Iran, right? So far, Iran hasn't invaded anyone, & really hasn't shown any inclination to do so. They're not doing anything to anybody. Personally, I don't give a shit if Israel is collectively paranoid. I'm sick & tired of all the incessant whining. Hey Netanyahu; a little hemlock to wash down the oleander will cure all your psychoses, & relieve everybody else's trepidations.

[Dino Velvet]

Personally, I don't give a shit if Israel is collectively paranoid. I'm sick & tired of all the incessant whining.

I don't mind making them a little nervous either. Their manipulation is like having a cape being pulled over you.

[Stavros]

Iran and the nuclear power ,is also the main concern of: Iraq, Syria and Lebanon in the west; Bahrain in the south; Afghanistan in the East , not to mention Saudi Arabia , Qatar and all other countries which are much closer to Iran than Israel.
If you will find the reasons which led to the almost endless war between Iran and Iraq , you will realise that Israel is just the excuse.......

Yosi, if you are saying that nuclear proliferation in the Middle EAst is a concern, you would be right, and it has been debated since the 1970s when the Shah first indicated he wanted a nuclear facility.

There is a theory in stratetgic studies about nuclear proliferation which argues that small states can opt for nuclear defence as a compensation for a weakness in conventional defence in a hostile region: in the 1950s this was partly Israel's argument for the adoption of nuclear energy, provided for the most part by the French. In fact, Israel on the battlefield has shown itself to be superior in conventional warfare to the Arabs, notwithstanding a few moments in 1973 and 2006. On the other hand, small states can choose not to in order to prevent a larger neighbour from mounting a pre-emptive strike, which is the mess Cuba got itself into in 1962. Cuba was evidently more likely to be attacked by the USA when it had Soviet missiles on its territory, than since that time -after all the USA could, in theory invade Cuba at any time. Pakistan is a relatively small state which has opted for nuclear defence against India, North Korea ditto re South Korea/Japan/USA.

Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Syria have already announced their intentions to explore the nuclear option, so I don't know if Israel's adoption was a genie escaping from the bottle, because as I say, this debate has been going on for decades without it happening in practice, and its not as if Saudi Arabia never had the money for it. A de-nuclearisation of the whole region would be better for all concerned; it would save on water, and be less of a strain on the national budget.

[Dino Velvet]

If you de-nuke the area the Israelis must comply as well. Rules apply to those people too.

[yosi]

So far, Iran hasn't invaded anyone, & really hasn't shown any inclination to do so. They're not doing anything to anybody.


they are not doing anything to anyone, the are just the leading terrorism sponsors in the world:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8028064.stm

with nuclear power in their hands , with Iran calling America the big satan , the concern is not only of Israel......

[hippifried]

they are not doing anything to anyone, the are just the leading terrorism sponsors in the world:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8028064.stm

with nuclear power in their hands , with Iran calling America the big satan , the concern is not only of Israel......
Okay, I read that bullshit, & just like every other article making that claim with a headline, there's no specific incident pointing to Iran. Not one. Just some vague references to those horrible countries who aren't looking for an excuse to start a war with Iran. Iran isn't directly involved with alQaeda, the Taliban, the Muslim Brotherhood, or any other Sunni organizations that are being bitched about. It's a bunch of crap.

They're going to finish their reactors. There's no reason that they shouldn't refine their own fuel. Especially since they mine their own raw material. Like everyone else, they don't want to be dependent.

Of course the US is the "great satan". We overthrew their democracy & put the Shah on the throne. We've had them under sanction since 1979, & have never released the assets we "froze" (took). What are we calling them?

Iran's not doing anything to anybody.

[Stavros]

they are not doing anything to anyone, the are just the leading terrorism sponsors in the world:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8028064.stm

with nuclear power in their hands , with Iran calling America the big satan , the concern is not only of Israel......

Yosi, Pakistan has nuclear weapons and is a more volatile country and currently, as anti-American as Iran. The use of nuclear weapons is a different agenda to having them, as the key is, supposedly, deterrence. This I think is why North Korea has them, in spite of its frothy threats to attack its enemies. Incidentally, the USA has a plan to either neuter or physically remove Pakistan's nuclear warheads should there be a def-con 4 type crisis there.

Iran I believe has tended to use violence in retaliation rather than as a leading strategy -sponsoring its clients in Afghanistan is not unusual given it not only has a border with the country but houses substantial number of refugees; it has concerns in Bahrain and Iraq which are legitimate from the context of the regional Shi'a community, and if it makes mischief, is it any worse than Saudi Arabia's meddling? Most of the 9/11 hikackers after all were from Saudi Arabia not Iran, which condemned the attacks.

Iran is not a nice place, it is not innocent, it is badly managed, but it is also rational, and if there is a new regime next year, Obama's second term should make some effort to draw down the tensions, and find some practical means of engagement: Afghanistan, where there are shared strategic/military, and commercial interests could be a wedge: assuming Obama insists that Kabul give US corporations a crack at the crocks of mineral 'gold' being sold to other powers at the moment.

That is a relatively positive assessment in a hostile region. Who knows?

[yosi]

Okay, I read that bullshit, & just like every other article making that claim with a headline, there's no specific incident pointing to Iran. Not one.
Iran's not doing anything to anybody.


http://www.meforum.org/670/irans-link-to-al-qaeda-the-9-11-commissions


http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/286751/iran-and-al-qaeda-clifford-d-may#

http://www.defenddemocracy.org/irans-sponsorship-of-terrorism-worldwide/

http://www.realite-eu.org/site/apps/nlnet/content3.aspx?c=9dJBLLNkGiF&b=2315291&ct=11203021