G
gilliam
Guest
The timing for the push has more to do with a possible attack from Israel and the potential loss of their Syrian ally than US elections, I think.
- Status
L
louis91766
Guest
Why is it fair for the USA, France, England, Russia, India, Pakistan, Israel, North Korea, and China etc. to have nuclear weapons, but not Iran? And doesn’t the USA have chemical and biological weapons? Why is that OK?
T
Trigonometric
Guest
Nuclear weapons are never a good thing, but Iran poses more of a threat by having them than a nation like the U.S. or France does. Iran has leaders who might be insane enough to use them.
G
gilliam
Guest
Mainly because it would be a game changer. We need to anticipate what would happen if Iran obtained nukes.
If they do, the Sunni states in the region would want to counter them with their own nukes. As we have seen this year, the region is not stable, and it would be very easy for these nukes to get into the hands of people who are not nation states and not friends of Western nations and would not have any qualms about using them.
Assuming Iran doesn’t just give terrorists the weapons outright.
It would only take one nuclear explosion in Israel to equal another holocaust and devastate a boarding state (probably Jordan, because of the prevailing winds). There are terrorists who would love to do this if they could.
I
ishii
Guest
The above is such a great post that it deserves repeating. The fact is, Israel is surrounded by hostile powers. That some would use the moral equivalency argument in a kind of “why can’t we all just get along” mentality is the height of ignorance of the political reality in the region. Israel is not perfect, and sometimes does things with a heavy hand, but one has to consider the position they’re in.The whole premise of your complaint reveals an extreme naivete about the history and situation in the Middle East and, for that matter, about how the U.S. Congress works.
Israel has never threatened Iran except to the extent that it has threatened to defend itself against attack. Does this require forgiveness? You cannot say that Israel has a history of aiming nuclear-tipped missiles at Iran, since it had no ability to aim a missile at anyone until about 2008 – years after Iran already had missiles and had begun violating the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (signatory 1968) by seeking to develop nuclear weapons. Until recently, Israel could only deliver a bomb by airplane, and airplanes are not aimed at anyone. In any case, the idea that Israel threatens Iran is silly. Iran has thirteen times the population of Israel. Iran’s standing forces are almost half the size of Israel’s entire population, and Iran’s arms industry is tremendous. The rest of the Middle East may loathe Israel, but they fear Iran, and they especially and properly fear a nuclear Iran.
It is likely that when nuclear exchanges begin, they will spread much in the way that that WWI spread from an isolated assassination, except that they will spread much more rapidly within the minutes following detection rather than the hours or days of reflection before conventional forces have historically been committed. The world is in a Mexican standoff. The last thing we need is to introduce an irrational madman with a 12th Iman end-of-the-world fantasy and a hatred of all things non-Shi’a Muslim. Iran is that madman.
Hitler could have been stopped in short order if he had been stopped early enough. What if he had nuclear missiles before he invaded Poland? Would dialogue make a difference given that it made no difference without the nukes? Some people are better forgiven after they are dead, and that includes the Iranian leadership. With any luck, they will die at the hands of Iranian citizens who are tired of sanctions and do not want war with anyone.
But let us examine your Chamberlain-like hands and knees approach to geopolitics in a practical light. Can I forgive someone for engaging a third party to threaten and attack you? I don’t seem to be in a position to do such a thing, as I am not the one being attacked. How can western Christians possibly forgive a bunch of radical Muslims for manipulating a neighboring country of mostly Muslims into threatening and repeatedly attacking a Jewish state for no reason other than their religion? If you don’t understand this question, then I suggest you are far from understanding the myriad forces at work in the Middle East and even further from being in a position to object to sanctions while decrying them as a step toward war. Perhaps you would rather wait for the flash and the sheet of glass that used to be the only democracy in the Middle East.
Given the lopsidedness of the whole region - i.e. Israel is pretty much on its own in a sea of hostile powers - some of which have sworn to wipe Israel off the map, its a wonder why so many here in America almost automatically fault Israel for everything. Iff one only looks at local events in and around Israel - the bombing of west bank, the settlements, etc. then one could understand the view that Israel is the aggressor not the victim. But if one looks at the big picture and the history, its obvious that its the other way around - Israel is indeed the only democracy in the area and its fighting for its own existence and is the victim. While there are those who are ignorant of the facts and genuinely believe that Israel is the aggressor, or that both sides are morally equivalent, I suspect that there are others whose position on the issue is informed more by base anti-Israel bias and anti-semitism than by any real cogent arguments.
Ishii
M
Monte_RCMS
Guest
Because the USA once had a monopoly on nuclear weapons … for several years. The US could have nuked the USSR and China, but chose not to.
During this time period, the USSR was actively working to destabilize many countries in the world: eastern Europe, for example. And Italy. And France. And there was a civil war in Greece. And the Soviets blockaded Berlin. And in 1950, North Korea invaded South Korea and very nearly captured the whole Korean peninsula.
So, the UK did not trust the United States to come to its aid in the event of a Soviet attack in Europe. So, the Brits designed and built their own nuclear weapons systems.
France did not trust the United States, either. So they expelled the U.S. and NATO from France and built their own nuclear force of land-based bombers, land-based missiles, and submarine based missiles. AND aircraft carriers, which “may” have had nuclear bombs on board.
The former Soviet Republics “inherited” nuclear weapons after breakup of the Soviet Union. But they didn’t want them and got rid of them as fast as they could.
China has threatened war over Taiwan. And went to war over small islands such as Quemoy and Matsu. And invaded Vietnam.
But the United States has applied an effective deterrent threat.
Iran is a separate issue. The current government doesn’t care what happens to Iran; they want ONLY to destroy Israel and the United States. If there is Armageddon, then the regime in Iran believes that the 12th Imam will emerge.
And with respect to the parallel thread to this one; about Russia making threats against eastern European countries that host anti-ballistic-missile components: if Iran fired an ICBM against the United States, that missile or those missiles would pass over or within the defensive radar arcs based in Poland and other countries in eastern Europe.
So, you need to ask: whose side is Russia on, if they want to shut down defensive radars arrayed against Iranian ICBM launches against the United States.
C
colmywaykurtz
Guest
It ISN"T fair. But the problem is, if they get it, or even just put up a convincing-enough front of having one, Israel will bomb them—perhaps not just with bunker-busters, but with nukes. Nothing is going to dissuade Israel from that.
I personally don’t think they’re actually working to get a bomb—but they seem to be intent on generating the APPEARANCE of getting one, probably for deterrent purposes.
Or perhaps, they WANT Israel to nuke them; the net propaganda value, in the end—after Israel nukes them, and the US and Israel bomb other targets and/or invade, reach stalemate militarily, and then pull out—would be inestimable.
It would cast the whole Iranian nation in a martyr’s role, in the eyes of the entire Islamic world, and quite possibly quell anti-government resistance at home. It may be even easier for neighboring Islamic nations to see them that way if they themselves are suffering the ill-effects from the huge amount of atomic fallout generated by the Israeli nuclear blasts.
It would also cast the nation in a hero’s role, too—after the US and Israel sickened of being in a quagmire and pulled out—which is easily spun into “defeat” by propaganda machines.
I personally don’t think it’s worth giving up the alliance with Israel even if they use nukes on Iran, but the fallout—both literal and political—may be a source of immense disruption worldwide. One that may affect us, in our daily lives—at this end of the gas pump, for instance.
Diplomatically, through direct contacts, the UN, and the IAEA—all stops should be pulled out in an attempt to negotiate a way out of this. We were close, a few years back. I think we could get there again.
All stops should be pulled out prayer-wise, too. Above all.
D
Darryl1958
Guest
Nuclear weapons are a good ting for America and France and Britain to have. Raw power in the hands of responsible government is the only thing that gets the attention of the pyschopaths that have risen to the top of too many nations in the world. Nuclear weapons in the hands of nations that are mature and measured is the best guarantee that the psychopathic dictators will limit themselves.
Iran has been the chief sponsor of terrorism in the world since 1979. It is not a responsible nation. It has an agenda that make all of its neighbors nervous, and provides protection for dictators such as Syria to continue in their murderous ways. Iran provides support to such organizations as Hizbollah, which is basically an arm of the Iranian government, and to Hamas as well.
Unfortunately, people that do not understand the extent that America has been a net force of good in the world, will not understand that Iran is a net force of evil in this world either.
S
saveusfromhell
Guest
please, a no fly zone,
next your going to say iraq had weapons of mass destruction.what is the difference in rebel forces needing to be protected and the town gaddafi was from not needing to be protected. are some civillans more innocent than others
M
Monte_RCMS
Guest
What on earth does “FAIRNESS” have to do with nuclear weapons???
The fairest approach is to limit nuclear weapons to the most stable countries.
The United States is a stable country. The UK is a stable country. France is a stable country.
North Korea is certainly not a stable country.
And Iran says it wants to wipe Israel off the face of the map … does that sound to you like stability?
[And what makes you think that Iran isn’t *REALLY working on nuclear weapons?]
S
Seamus_L
Guest
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s actual statement about Israel is more accurately translated as “This regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time” About two years later however, Ahmadinejad stated that Iran would accept a two state solution to Palestine, if that was what the Palestinian leaders wanted.
S
saveusfromhell
Guest
working on nuclear weapons?]
M
Monte_RCMS
Guest
The New York Times
THE WORLD
By ETHAN BRONNER
Published: June 11, 2006
EVER since he spoke at an anti-Zionism conference in Tehran last October, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran has been known for one statement above all. As translated by news agencies at the time, it was that Israel “should be wiped off the map.” Iran’s nuclear program and sponsorship of militant Muslim groups are rarely mentioned without reference to the infamous map remark.
INTERPRETATIONS The Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, in Tehran last October.
Here, for example, is R. Nicholas Burns, the under secretary of state for political affairs, recently: “Given the radical nature of Iran under Ahmadinejad and its stated wish to wipe Israel off the map of the world, it is entirely unconvincing that we could or should live with a nuclear Iran.”
But is that what Mr. Ahmadinejad said? And if so, was it a threat of war? For months, a debate among Iran specialists over both questions has been intensifying. It starts as a dispute over translating Persian but quickly turns on whether the United States (with help from Israel) is doing to Iran what some believe it did to Iraq — building a case for military action predicated on a faulty premise.
“Ahmadinejad did not say he was going to wipe Israel off the map because no such idiom exists in Persian,” remarked Juan Cole, a Middle East specialist at the University of Michigan and critic of American policy who has argued that the Iranian president was misquoted. “He did say he hoped its regime, i.e., a Jewish-Zionist state occupying Jerusalem, would collapse.” Since Iran has not “attacked another country aggressively for over a century,” he said in an e-mail exchange, “I smell the whiff of war propaganda.”
Jonathan Steele, a columnist for the left-leaning Guardian newspaper in London, recently laid out the case this way: “The Iranian president was quoting an ancient statement by Iran’s first Islamist leader, the late Ayatollah Khomeini, that ‘this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time,’ just as the Shah’s regime in Iran had vanished. He was not making a military threat. He was calling for an end to the occupation of Jerusalem at some point in the future. The ‘page of time’ phrase suggests he did not expect it to happen soon.”
Mr. Steele added that neither Khomeini nor Mr. Ahmadinejad suggested that Israel’s “vanishing” was imminent or that Iran would be involved in bringing it about. “But the propaganda damage was done,” he wrote, “and Western hawks bracket the Iranian president with Hitler as though he wants to exterminate Jews.”
If Mr. Steele and Mr. Cole are right, not one word of the quotation — Israel should be wiped off the map — is accurate.
But translators in Tehran who work for the president’s office and the foreign ministry disagree with them. All official translations of Mr. Ahmadinejad’s statement, including a description of it on his Web site (www.president.ir/eng/), refer to wiping Israel away. Sohrab Mahdavi, one of Iran’s most prominent translators, and Siamak Namazi, managing director of a Tehran consulting firm, who is bilingual, both say “wipe off” or “wipe away” is more accurate than “vanish” because the Persian verb is active and transitive.
The second translation issue concerns the word “map.” Khomeini’s words were abstract: “Sahneh roozgar.” Sahneh means scene or stage, and roozgar means time. The phrase was widely interpreted as “map,” and for years, no one objected. In October, when Mr. Ahmadinejad quoted Khomeini, he actually misquoted him, saying not “Sahneh roozgar” but “Safheh roozgar,” meaning pages of time or history. No one noticed the change, and news agencies used the word “map” again.
M
Monte_RCMS
Guest
continued:
Ahmad Zeidabadi, a professor of political science in Tehran whose specialty is Iran-Israel relations, explained: “It seems that in the early days of the revolution the word ‘map’ was used because it appeared to be the best meaningful translation for what he said. The words ‘sahneh roozgar’ are metaphorical and do not refer to anything specific. Maybe it was interpreted as ‘book of countries,’ and the closest thing to that was a map. Since then, we have often heard ‘Israel bayad az naghshe jographya mahv gardad’ — Israel must be wiped off the geographical map. Hard-liners have used it in their speeches.”
The final translation issue is Mr. Ahmadinejad’s use of “occupying regime of Jerusalem” rather than “Israel.”
To some analysts, this means he is calling for regime change, not war, and therefore it need not be regarded as a call for military action. Professor Cole, for example, says: “I am entirely aware that Ahmadinejad is hostile to Israel. The question is whether his intentions and capabilities would lead to a military attack, and whether therefore pre-emptive warfare is prescribed. I am saying no, and the boring philology is part of the reason for the no.”
But to others, “occupying regime” signals more than opposition to a certain government; the phrase indicates the depth of the Iranian president’s rejection of a Jewish state in the Middle East because he refuses even to utter the name Israel. He has said that the Palestinian issue “does not lend itself to a partial territorial solution” and has called Israel “a stain” on Islam that must be erased. By contrast, Mr. Ahmadinejad’s predecessor, Mohammad Khatami, said that if the Palestinians accepted Israel’s existence, Iran would go along.
When combined with Iran’s longstanding support for Palestinian Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah of Lebanon, two groups that have killed numerous Israelis, and Mr. Ahmadinejad’s refusal to acknowledge the Holocaust, it is hard to argue that, from Israel’s point of view, Mr. Ahmadinejad poses no threat. Still, it is true that he has never specifically threatened war against Israel.
**So did Iran’s president call for Israel to be wiped off the map? It certainly seems so. **
Did that amount to a call for war? That remains an open question.
Nazila Fathi contributed reporting from Tehran for this article.
Ahmad Zeidabadi, a professor of political science in Tehran whose specialty is Iran-Israel relations, explained: “It seems that in the early days of the revolution the word ‘map’ was used because it appeared to be the best meaningful translation for what he said. The words ‘sahneh roozgar’ are metaphorical and do not refer to anything specific. Maybe it was interpreted as ‘book of countries,’ and the closest thing to that was a map. Since then, we have often heard ‘Israel bayad az naghshe jographya mahv gardad’ — Israel must be wiped off the geographical map. Hard-liners have used it in their speeches.”
The final translation issue is Mr. Ahmadinejad’s use of “occupying regime of Jerusalem” rather than “Israel.”
To some analysts, this means he is calling for regime change, not war, and therefore it need not be regarded as a call for military action. Professor Cole, for example, says: “I am entirely aware that Ahmadinejad is hostile to Israel. The question is whether his intentions and capabilities would lead to a military attack, and whether therefore pre-emptive warfare is prescribed. I am saying no, and the boring philology is part of the reason for the no.”
But to others, “occupying regime” signals more than opposition to a certain government; the phrase indicates the depth of the Iranian president’s rejection of a Jewish state in the Middle East because he refuses even to utter the name Israel. He has said that the Palestinian issue “does not lend itself to a partial territorial solution” and has called Israel “a stain” on Islam that must be erased. By contrast, Mr. Ahmadinejad’s predecessor, Mohammad Khatami, said that if the Palestinians accepted Israel’s existence, Iran would go along.
When combined with Iran’s longstanding support for Palestinian Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah of Lebanon, two groups that have killed numerous Israelis, and Mr. Ahmadinejad’s refusal to acknowledge the Holocaust, it is hard to argue that, from Israel’s point of view, Mr. Ahmadinejad poses no threat. Still, it is true that he has never specifically threatened war against Israel.
**So did Iran’s president call for Israel to be wiped off the map? It certainly seems so. **
Did that amount to a call for war? That remains an open question.
Nazila Fathi contributed reporting from Tehran for this article.
C
colmywaykurtz
Guest
working on nuclear weapons?]
Iran is a sovereign nation. To some extent, developing nuclear power (their stated aim) is their own business. In the same sense, no nation would have had any business telling the US that IT was wrong to develop the uses of nuclear power, peaceful or military. In some sense of the word “fairness,” it applies here. But, as JFK said, “Life isn’t fair.” Sometimes other considerations take precedence over fairness. The mere fact of Israel making its own threats, and our lack of ability to control them, and the paramount importance of the alliance with them (however unofficial it is), is a set of considerations that HAS to take precedence over Iran’s sovereign rights, in this particular case.
Who said Iran is “stable”? I take those statements in the vein of Ahmadinejad being a politician in an Islamic country. Reagan was being a politician, too, when he made his infamous joke (near a microphone he didn’t think was on): “My fellow Americans, today I have signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes”—in front of what he THOUGHT was a very small, select audience. Did he follow through on that? No. Was he being a politician? Yes. I think there is still room to see Ahmadinejad’s rhetoric in a similar vein.
All nuclear activity in Iran can so far can still plausibly be attributed to either its construction of a power-production infrastructure or the procurement of medical isotopes. There is as yet no “smoking gun” that proves with finality that they are working to procure weapons. There is reason for suspicion, yes. But a “smoking gun”? No.
M
Monte_RCMS
Guest
Hey, read this:
11/22/2011
Why sanctions on Iran are not serious
Sanctions rarely work. They are even less likely to impose a significant cost on a country when other neighboring countries aren’t interested in imposing sanctions. If Russia, China, and other countries are refusing to participate, what chance do these sanctions have? From VOA:
Iran and its powerful ally Russia have denounced new Western sanctions on Tehran’s financial, petrochemical and energy sectors, calling them illegal and futile.
The U.S., Canada, and Britain each announced new steps Monday to increase economic pressure against Iran in response to international concerns that Tehran is developing nuclear weapons.
Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast said Tuesday the unilateral measures by the the three countries amounted merely to “propaganda and psychological warfare.” He predicted they would prove ineffective, saying Iran’s trade and economic ties with the U.S. and Britain are small anyway.
Separately, Russia’s foreign ministry called the sanctions “unacceptable and contradictory to international law.” Moscow, together with Beijing, has blocked further punitive measures against Tehran from reaching the United Nations Security Council for approval. Four rounds of U.N. sanctions against Iran have already been passed.
Washington said Monday it is imposing sanctions on goods and services used by Iran’s oil and gas industry to discourage foreign companies from investing in the sector. The U.S. also announced a worldwide diplomatic campaign to encourage countries to buy petrochemicals from other suppliers. . .
link: johnrlott.blogspot.com/2011/11/why-sanctions-on-iran-are-not-serious.html
If Iran is merely blustering, then why was Stuxnet such a big deal?
11/22/2011
Why sanctions on Iran are not serious
Sanctions rarely work. They are even less likely to impose a significant cost on a country when other neighboring countries aren’t interested in imposing sanctions. If Russia, China, and other countries are refusing to participate, what chance do these sanctions have? From VOA:
Iran and its powerful ally Russia have denounced new Western sanctions on Tehran’s financial, petrochemical and energy sectors, calling them illegal and futile.
The U.S., Canada, and Britain each announced new steps Monday to increase economic pressure against Iran in response to international concerns that Tehran is developing nuclear weapons.
Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast said Tuesday the unilateral measures by the the three countries amounted merely to “propaganda and psychological warfare.” He predicted they would prove ineffective, saying Iran’s trade and economic ties with the U.S. and Britain are small anyway.
Separately, Russia’s foreign ministry called the sanctions “unacceptable and contradictory to international law.” Moscow, together with Beijing, has blocked further punitive measures against Tehran from reaching the United Nations Security Council for approval. Four rounds of U.N. sanctions against Iran have already been passed.
Washington said Monday it is imposing sanctions on goods and services used by Iran’s oil and gas industry to discourage foreign companies from investing in the sector. The U.S. also announced a worldwide diplomatic campaign to encourage countries to buy petrochemicals from other suppliers. . .
link: johnrlott.blogspot.com/2011/11/why-sanctions-on-iran-are-not-serious.html
If Iran is merely blustering, then why was Stuxnet such a big deal?
C
colmywaykurtz
Guest
‘There is reason for suspicion, yes. But a “smoking gun”? No.’ The reaction to Stuxnet is another reason for suspicion.
T
Trigonometric
Guest
I was in no way arguing Iran was trustworthy. In fact, in my post I was arguing why it was fair to prohibit Iran from having WMDs even if other nations are allowed to have them.
However, this is not an accurate statement, according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
CCC 2314
.
CCC 2315
T
Trigonometric
Guest
It is no longer their own business when they start posing a significan threat to other nations.
C
colmywaykurtz
Guest
If it at some point, all confusion is removed and it were to become apparent that Iran IS in fact developing nuclear energy solely for peaceful purposes, it will once again BE their own business; in fact, it will be incumbent upon nations like the US to help them develop it, as per the provisions of the Non Proliferation Treaty, to which treaty the US is a signatory and the Congress of the US a ratifying body.
- Status