Advertisement
Advertisement
DIALOGUE
A "Special Relationship," Indeed |
||
| America should not be persuaded to plunge the entire Middle East into violence | ||
 by Justin Raimondo, May 25, 2007
20 comments
|
||
TAGS:
From this Dialogue
To: Michael Freund
Subject: The Special Relationship
Michael,
Yes, it is indeed a shame that you addressed none of my points—most prominently, Israel’s possession of nuclear weapons, in brazen violation of international law. I don’t recall making any “personal attacks,” as you put it, unless you consider pointing out Israel’s violation of international law to be a slur against your person. And, of course, “extraneous taunts” can sometimes illuminate larger issues, such as the exact value of Israel to the U.S., although the lack of specificity in this regard renders your complaint mysterious, at least to me.
The great problem in “dialogues” of this sort is that, all too often, the “dialoguers” wind up talking past, or at, one another. This is unfortunate, but also, perhaps, unavoidable. I will, however, try to bridge the gap, and hopefully we can at least be talking about the same subject, even if we aren’t agreeing in any measure.
As with the case of Iraq’s alleged “weapons of mass destruction,” the “evidence” of Iran’s vaunted nuclear weapons program doesn’t really exist. Nor was there anything “illicit” about the “secrecy” in which you insist the Iranians cloaked their nuclear research. Unlike Israel, which refuses to sign the Nonproliferation Treaty, Iran has acted in full compliance with guidelines set down by the IAEA. The IAEA didn’t require disclosure of the facilities you mention until its rules were amended (after the disclosures). As for not allowing a more stringent inspection policy by the IAEA, this news article points out that “diplomats in Vienna, where the IAEA is based, said Iran had the right to reject any inspector it wanted and such a step was not prohibited by its accord with the agency.”
Former IAEA Deputy Director-General for safeguards Bruno Pellaud, when asked if Iran was bent on building a nuclear bomb, replied: “My impression is not. My view is based on the fact that Iran took a major gamble in December 2003 by allowing a much more intrusive capability to the IAEA. If Iran had had a military program they would not have allowed the IAEA to come under this Additional Protocol. They did not have to.” Former British Foreign Minister Jack Straw has said: “There is no smoking gun and therefore no justification for a military attack.”
U.S. intelligence agencies have concluded, contra Freund, that Iran is a decade away from developing usable nuclear weapons. As for their “racing to develop intercontinental missiles” that could supposedly hit New York and Washington, here is what one Iran expert has to say:
Iran’s medium-range Shahab-3 missiles are modeled after the North Korean Nodong missiles, which are, in turn, based on an early Soviet model. Most experts agree that the Iranian missile system has reached its maximum potential and cannot be stretched into developing longer-range missiles. Iran would need to master the extremely complex “multistage” missile technology in order to build them. So far, only a few countries have been able to reach this advanced stage of missile development and some of them, i.e., India and Israel, reportedly have had significant difficulty manufacturing reliable long-range missiles.
Experts note the technical difficulty of manufacturing such missiles, which is why only the United States, Russia, and China have developed them. In the event the Iranians do develop such long-range missiles, it would be hard to conceal that fact from the international community—and, then again, there is the question of tipping them with nuclear warheads, a technology way beyond present Iranian capabilities.
It may be that Israel cannot afford to take the risk, however small, of leaving Iran alone. The United States, however, being on the other side of the globe, could well afford to wait before acting precipitously—and recklessly. Last time we did that, we landed ourselves in a quagmire. As Professors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt put it in their Harvard University study of the Israel lobby: “Iran’s nuclear ambitions do not pose a direct threat to the U.S. If Washington could live with a nuclear Soviet Union, a nuclear China, or even a nuclear North Korea, it can live with a nuclear Iran. And that is why the [Israel] Lobby must keep up constant pressure on politicians to confront Tehran. Iran and the U.S. would hardly be allies if the Lobby did not exist, but U.S. policy would be more temperate and preventive war would not be a serious option.”
You point to Iranian support for “Hamas, Hizbullah, Islamic Jihad, and the Iraqi insurgency” as evidence that Tehran is the enemy of the U.S. as well as Israel. But this conflation of widely disparate groups with various goals and ideologies into a single, monolithic anti-U.S.-Israel conspiracy is really not in accord with the facts. Hizbullah’s enemy is Israel, not the U.S., and, as for Hamas and Islamic Jihad—these guys, too, are Israel’s problem, not ours.
The Iraqi insurgency is a problem that could be easily solved by an immediate U.S. withdrawal from Iraq, which is precisely what ought to be done. In any case, evidence for Iranian “aid” to the “Iraqi insurgency” is extremely dubious, and seems to be of the same tenor and character as the pre-invasion “evidence” of Iraqi WMD, i.e., cherry-picked “raw” intelligence that is unverified and based on supposition, speculation, and outright disinformation.
I am glad to see that you have mastered the art of linking. But let me give you some advice: When putting in a link, make sure it has something to do with what you are trying to prove. For example, if you are trying to prove that Iran is a threat both to Israel and the United States, then the links you provide should contain some significant mention of the United States as well as Israel. Unfortunately for you, the articles you link to—essentially a collection of bad-boy quotes from the Iranian president compiled by the Anti-Defamation League—do not mention the U.S. as a target of Iran’s wrath, except for the rather cryptic comment that “there is no significant need for the United States”—whatever that means.
You intone that this issue is a matter of “grave international significance,” and yet one wonders if you realize just how grave. Do you understand what you are advocating? An attack on Iran would plunge the entire region into a maelstrom of violence from which it would not soon emerge. It would mean a land war, and not just antiseptic bombing raids, with Iranian soldiers and Iraqi Shiites arrayed against U.S. forces: It would mean many thousands of Iranians killed in bombing raids, and, finally, it would give Al Qaeda a huge propaganda victory. Osama bin Laden’s contention that the U.S. is allied with Israel in a genocidal war against Muslims would gain new credibility. And the U.S. itself would be in increased danger of a terrorist attack.
Ah, but Israel would be safe from the almost purely imaginary “threat” of annihilation from Iranian blustering. Another enemy of the Israelis would be humbled, and the Americans would be doing all the dirty work. How convenient—and grossly exploitative. But, then again, that’s always been the essence of the U.S.-Israeli “special relationship.”
 |
Justin Raimondo is the editorial director of Antiwar.com. He is the author of Reclaiming the American Right: The Lost Legacy of the Conservative Movement (1993), |
20 comments | leave a comment
In which hulk destroy television antisemites!
A spurious lawsuit has given Canadian journalists reason to be...
Why Starbucks is being targeted by British Islamists
Herschel Grynszpan and the limits of Jewish self-defense
How to do the low-carb holiday in a post-Heston world
| Dev Blog | Privacy Policy & Terms of Use | FAQ | |  | | Comment Policy | About Us | Contact | Submissions |
| Hosting provided by Tilted Planet | ||
lester
Justin Raimondo is the evel knieval of rap. Another stellar column. Israel's appraoch to it's issues with it's neighbors reminds me of what Henry hazlitt warned against in "Economics in one lesson", that we shouldn't just look at how our decisions affect a single group and in the immediate future , but how a decision affects everyone in the long run. Are there any neo cons who have any books columns or even thoughts abuot what the day after and attack on Iran would look like for Israel, Iran and the rest of the world?
Amit
I don't recall any international law against posession of nuclear weapons. The US has them, the brits have them, the french and russians have them. Israel has never been a party to any treaty forbidding them, this there is no violation of any law or treaty in Israel's posession of nuclear weapons.
If anything, this posession - coupled with Iranian nuclear weapons - could be a controlling force for the mideast, in which a balance of power would force everyone to sit around and yell empty threats at each other.
Mahler
I don't know why Freund continues to let Raimondo get away with such ridiculous assertions as these-
1. That the regime in Tehran would behave as rationally as the Soviet, Chinese, or North Korean regimes would.
2. Israel's nuclear program is the real problem because it already exists, was all "secretive" and because Israel isn't a signatory of the NPT. Oh and I think you threw something in there about it being illegal, even though it's not.
I'll address #2 first. Israel's nuclear weapons program has been the worst-kept secret in the Middle East since the mid 60's. Oddly enough, several all-out conventional wars later, Israel's nukes never started a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. But now, in the past couple of years, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Algeria, and Jordan have all hinted that they are considering starting nuclear programs. Why do you think that is? Because Israel's neighbors knew that the Israeli government was secular and rational. Sunni Arabs feel almost as threatened by an Iranian bomb as those paranoid Jews.
And why is this? Back, to #1, If you try to base this argument on something called EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE you will not have much to say. Students of the Islamic Revolution and Khomeinism, or Mahdiism, know that there is a lot more in the regime's ideology that is troubling than reassuring. This debate shouldn't turn into a preoccupation with Ahmadinejad. One need not only look at what he has said. Look at what Khomeini said all throughout his life, before and after he was in power. Look at what Rafsanjani, the so-called "moderate" had to say about the desirability of nuking Israel and the acceptability of Israel/America's nuclear retaliation. I don't need to post links because this information is two clicks away on google.
And look at what Iran has already DONE. This regime is accused of being behind the Hezbollah attack on American and French soldiers in Beirut in '83, and the worst terrorist attacks in the history of South America when a Jewish community center in Buenos Aires was bombed. Nearly 100 people were murdered.
Even if Iran doesn't try to nuke Tel Aviv, we can all expect Iran's proxies to become more violent and aggressive than they already are, because Iran will feel for the first time that it can carry it out its policy of sponsoring terrorism and waging an eliminationist proxy war against Israel without fear of direct retaliation.
Maybe, based on where you live, where you work, and from what I can infer from your writings here, this scenario suits you just fine. Maybe you are so cynical as to know that this is what will happen and you desire it anyway.
If Freund's and my country of residence inspire you to take such umbrage at our having an opinion on what America should do vis-a-vis Iran, please reciprocate and keep your opinions to yourself the next time Israel defends itself.
lester
" don't need to post links because this information is two clicks away on google."
is that the EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE you were referring to?
"2. Israel's nuclear program is the real problem because it already exists, was all "secretive" and because Israel isn't a signatory of the NPT"
oh yeah. israels nuclear program hasn't effected the politics of the middle east whatsoever. it's a non issue. especially in debates like this.
Detain this.
Stop the presses! Iran accused of being behind attacks!
Our sources also tell us that Hizballah is accused of being guilty of the '83 Marine barracks bombing!
Neocons were quoted as saying, "We can't let the perpetrators get away. We must accuse someone of this heinous act of aggression against our occupying troops!"
NonZionist
+(
This debate shouldn't turn into a preoccupation with Ahmadinejad. One need not only look at what he has said. Look at what Khomeini said all throughout his life, before and after he was in power. Look at what Rafsanjani, the so-called "moderate" had to say about the desirability of nuking Israel and the acceptability of Israel/America's nuclear retaliation. I don't need to post links because this information is two clicks away on google.
)+
-- Mahler, 27 May 2007 7:49 am
You accuse Iran is preparing to annihilate Israel and indeed, much of the human race, but you are so indifferent that you don't even bother to post a link! That suggests that there is a part of you that doesn't quite believe the demonizing dehumanizing propaganda you imbibe.
War propaganda is designed to press our buttons: It exploits fear, self-righteousness, rage, etc.. It does NOT encourage us to THINK and it does not present a balanced view of reality. But for those who are sucked in by it, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. We become addicted to fear, and so we create demons where none exist. We forget that this addiction bankrupts us and destroys us, even as it destroys the apparent Demon. Live by the sword, die in the gutter.
For a more balanced view of Iran, see:
http://www.antiwar.com/bidwai/?articleid=8947 -- Iran: Stereotype versus reality
http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_arti... -- Iran: Surprising first-hand account
http://www.counterpunch.com/walsh09122006.html -- Huntington's Clash or Khatami's Dialogue?
Mahler
lester, instead of thinking you made a witty comeback, why dont you actually do what i suggested and search for these quotes. they're not hard to find at all. that would be much more constructive than "cleverly" insinuating that i'm lying, or talking about statements that weren't actually made. you may think i'm not backing up my argument, but really it's just too tedious.
then, once you discover that these things were actually said, maybe you can respond to the statements themselves and what they mean.
as for the second part of your response, you start off my putting words in my mouth. where did i say " israels nuclear program hasn't effected the politics of the middle east whatsoever. it's a non issue. especially in debates like this."
it's such a cheap tactic to take someone's valid point that you can't refute and twist it into a hyperbolic straw man.
the simple fact remains that israel's nuclear program did not cause a nuclear arms race in the the arab countries. iran's will. the implications of this shouldn't be lost on you. even middle easterners, not just westerners, recognize that the government of israel has proven itself to be a rational, responsible member of the nuclear club. there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING out there to prove that Iran would be this way. So go ahead and point at Israel's nuclear arsenal and cry "no fair". This playground logic has no place in international relations.
Mahler
"You accuse Iran is preparing to annihilate Israel and indeed, much of the human race, but you are so indifferent that you don't even bother to post a link! That suggests that there is a part of you that doesn't quite believe the demonizing dehumanizing propaganda you imbibe."
you made an incorrect inference in suggesting that my lack of link-posting means that i'm indifferent, or subconsciously doubtful of the "demonizing dehumanizing propaganda [I] imbibe." (can you get any more pretentious?)
the real reason I didn't put a footnote to every assertion i make is because i was naive enough to think the people reading this aren't so hopelessly lost in their biased, self-referential "indy media". another reason is because i get my information from books, not blogs. i actually laughed out loud to see that you think antiwar.com and counterpunch.org are the "balanced" views on iran.
your own wishful thinking about the ideology of the regime in iran is not a valid response to the ample evidence in iran's media and in the statements of its leaders and leading commentators. visit www.memri.org and simply browse the content. i dont need to point out anything specific. there is as much that should make us nervous about iran's intentions as there is nothing that should make us relax (apart from more baseless wishful thinking).
I find it highly condescending and arrogant of you that you consider the opposing view in a debate nothing but "war propaganda", a human design that "exploits fear, self-righteousness, rage" as if you had a monopoly on reason itself. Clearly, you have no interest in actually challenging your conceptions but rather you just refine your soundbytes and wait for your turn to respond.
druid
You, just like Mr. Freund, have still failed to point out why America should be the one bombing Iran.
lester
"visit www.memri.org and simply browse the content. i dont need to point out anything specific"
you are a MASTER DEBATER as they say.
just because israels nuclear program didn't lead to a middle east arms race doesn't mean it isn't horrible for other reasons. and i don't at all look at bib netanyaho and benito liebman or whatever his name is as "rational actors" at all. is the guy who wrote the first column in this battle of the titans, the one titled "bomb iran now" a rational person? if a nigerian columnist wrote on called "bomb israel now" would we know that nigeria was the new home of jeffersonian democracy and rational ...ness?
and why would i give a rats ass if there is a nuclear arms race in the middle east? I don't live there.
If the "actors" in your neighborhood are so abhorent why don't you LEAVE? the people who have lived there for thousands of years seem to like it just fine. You can't move into a neighborhood and demand everything be moved aroiund to your liking.
really, directing people to memri only confirms israel is doomed if they are trying to co exist with such violent, anti democratic zealots as shown in those clips. why would we want to help you try and do something that is clearly impossible? really, I can't thank you enough for posting that. You've shown me there is no hope for Israel
Cesco
Hi Mahler,
you seem like a very smart guy. Like most of the people posting here. I don't think you are crazy. I believe that you really think Iran is a big problem for Israel. You are convinced, or have been convinced that Iran is a very dangerous country and Israel existence is in great danger.
I believe that you are wrong. Not in the sense that there is not crazies in Iran. Indeed, there are crazy people in Iran, but also in the USA and Israel.
Israel is the most powerfull country in the middle east. Not only they can beat the crap out of every arab country in the region in a conventional war but they also have nuclear war heads. So, you and I will agree that Israel existence is NOT in danger AT ALL. Not because of a belligerant Arab country or Iran. At worst, a very very crazy and very very stupid Iran might launch 1 nuclear bomb on 1 Israel city and then, Iran will be "wiped out of the map". Are iranians crazy enough to go for the anihilation of one Israel city versus the anihilation of their entire country? Sorry, but any rational mind will conclude that Iranians may be crazy BUT not that crazy. Fair enough?
So behaving rationaly when you have nuclear weapons is indeed NOT using them. I laughed a little bit when you put North Korea in the "rational" group along with the soviets and China. KIM JONG IL?????? Not crazy???? wow!
Wasn't Noth Korea part of the axis of evil??? What has the bomb done for Kim? hint: not a war...
You say that " ...Israel's nukes never started a nuclear arms race in the Middle East." WHAT????? what about that nuclear installation Saddam was building and that was bombed by .. oh yes ... israelis??? Why did they do it? Do you mean they thought it was peacefull but the decided to destroy it anyways?
And I guess you did not know that the current Iranian nuclear program was started by the Sha, sponsored by .. the USA.
Another amazing thought of yours: " But now, in the past couple of years, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Algeria, and Jordan have all hinted that they are considering starting nuclear programs. Why do you think that is? Because Israel's neighbors knew that the Israeli government was secular and rational" ..LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL! what are you talking about? This is serious nonsense!!! So I guess India and Pakistan went nuclear because they did not believe the other to be "secular and rational"????????????? And China went Nuclear because they did not believe (who??) the soviets to be secular and Rational? and the Soviets went Nuclear because they did not believe the USA to be secular and rational??? Because, for you, it's OK if the neighbour can get military advantage over you as long as you believe him to be secular and rational. What a load of crap!
The USA used the nuclear bomb. I guess you think they were rational in their decision to nuke the japs. What if Japan was a nuclear power?
C'mon man! in the world affairs, the only thing that matters is power. If you call me evil and i know for a fact that you are a bully and you won't hesitate to attack me for a number of things including my natural resources, I'll be stupid if I don't try to defend myself...
Saddam was stupid enough to destroy his WMDs ... what a mistake!
You say "Sunni Arabs feel almost as threatened by an Iranian bomb as those paranoid Jews." ... I guess the fact that Iran could feel threatened by Israelis bomb is a non issue for you.
You say " Students of the Islamic Revolution and Khomeinism, or Mahdiism, know that there is a lot more in the regime's ideology that is troubling than reassuring." Empirical evidence you say? hhhmmm let's see:
- there is a president who have declare your country part of an axis of Evil
- the first country of the so called axis has been destroyed
- the country that has labeled you evil have used nuclear bombs before
- there is a presidential in that country candidate who has been singing "BOMB BOMB BOMB IRAN".
- that same country has helped crush an elected official (1953) in your country and put a brutal dictator in power.
-that country has NEVER attacked another one with a nuclear arsenal INCLUDING the last member of the axis of evil.
But hey, don't worry! They are secular and rational. If you conclude that the only way you can be safe is by having a good deterent... you must be crazy! wow!
You say: "And look at what Iran has already DONE. This regime is accused of being behind the Hezbollah attack on American and French soldiers in Beirut in '83, and the worst terrorist attacks in the history of South America when a Jewish community center in Buenos Aires was bombed. Nearly 100 people were murdered." OK OK OK. Let me get this straight: in the modern history, all you can find to prove that Iran is crazy is:
- 241 SOLDIERS in lebanon (Iran supposedly involved by proxy)
- 100 people killed in a terrorist attack (by proxy)
That's a total of 341 people including a majority of SOLDIERS!
HOW MANY INNOCENT PEOPLE HAVE BEEN KILLED IN LEBANON in the last "WAR"??? but hey! I guess, that's different. 2 (or was that 3) SOLDIERS were "kidnapped"... so, more than a 1000 civilians death is fair. That's what this dude calls "secular and rational".
You say: "Even if Iran doesn't try to nuke Tel Aviv, we can all expect Iran's proxies to become more violent and aggressive than they already are"
huh huh .. Hizbollah could be more violent ... what does that mean? oh yeah ... they killed 241 foreign SOLDIERS IN THEIR COUNTRY and killed and/or kidnapped several Israeli soldiers in the past decade (mostly IN THEIR OWN COUNTRY Lebanon). What could they do IF Iran is a nuclear power? Oh ... may be INVADE Israel right? or send suicide bombers in Israel... they haven't done that before. But if Iran gets the bomb .. they might think about it right... CRAP!!!!!!
You say: " ...because Iran will feel for the first time that it can carry it out its policy of sponsoring terrorism and waging an eliminationist proxy war against Israel without fear of direct retaliation"
welcome to the world of military power. The USA does this ALL THE TIME in many parts of the world. The Soviets did the same. The only difference is the perspective. When the US was backing Ben Laden against the soviets, Ben laden was a freedom fighter for the USA and a terrorist for the soviets. Yes indeed, the USA was sponsoring terrorism if you were a soviet of course.
So drop the "sponsoring terrorism" crap... your freedom fighter is always the terrorist for someone else.
Bottom line is this:
- Iran needs the nuclear bomb as a deterent.
- acquiring the nuclear bomb changes the balance of power in the region. Israeli does not want that to happens because the only thing that matters is Israel domination of the region.
- any nuclear power is a de facto threat to its neigbours. The might makes right. If I'm stronger than you, you are stupid if you believe that i can sit down with you as equals. For any fair discussion to take place, both parties have to have something important to gain or lose if things don't go right. And things have not been right in the region because there is only ONE superpower (Israel).
So cool down. Israel is safe. With the billions of US tax money, the 100s of nuclear bombs and the tanks, F15s, ...etc + the US war machine, Israel is going to be around for a long time. And the arabs won't go away...
PS: IRAN has chemical weapons. You know, the kind of weapons that Saddam was accused of having.
If the mullahs are so crazy, I wonder why there has never been a chemical or biogical terrorist attack on Israel. They could have (in their crazyness and hate for Israel) provided those WMDs to terrorists. Why didn't they?
leser
sunni countries don't feel threatened by irans bombs. the unelected leaders of those countries feel threatened by Iran's refusal to sell out to the US as they have.
Anonymous
Another Zionist settler squatting on Palestinian land trying to get the US to bomb Iran. just as they got the US to destroy Iraq. Maybe it's time for the Zionist regime "to be wiped off the face of the earth".
Chada
It's getting pretty vicious in these, here parts....
Seriously, though. I think Druid'd point is still valid. Even assuming all that Mahler contends is plausible, it still doesn't answer the very fundamental question of this debate: Why should the USA get involved?
It quite simply has no reason to.
Advocate4Liberty
You don't understand why Fraud "continues to let Raimondo get away with such ridiculous assertions..." because you believe that you are rational and because of their "stated" ideologies that the Iranians are not. Being only 23 you can be forgiven for your ignorance which is, after all, synonymous with youth.
Your first mistake is your unstated but obvious assumption that the Iranian leaders actually BELIEVE the crap they preach, any more than your MKs believe the religious dogma. Ideology exists to control the peasants, whether Revolutionary Guard or Jewish settlers. It exists, first, to benefit the priests, second the politicians and third, the priests. True in Iran, true in occupied Palestine, oops, Israel.
They will behave rationally out of pure self-interest. They don't want to get blown up. Same as your politicians. They're greedy, power-hungry, controlling and thoroughly evil. But first and foremost, they want to survive. And they are more than willing to sacrifice fools in the Guard or IDF to do so.
You need to face reality: when you invade someone's home, run a large risk of getting capped. And your intended victim is perfectly justified in doing so.
Shingo
Mahler
It's ironic that you should infer that the Iranian Mullahs somehwo have a death wish when in fact, it was Israel that gave birth to the idea of the Sampson option and the Massada complex. In fact, Golda Meir herself confirmed this position, that Israel would take the Middle east with it should it face destruction. In spite of this, you simply perpetuate the racist myth that all Muslims are predisposed to self destruction in the pursuit of giving Israel a black eye.
As for the nuclear arms race in the Middle East, you seem oblivious to the fact that after the 203 Iraq invasion (which the Likudists promoted) it became abundantly cle4 that the way to avoid being on the pointy end of US or Israel aggression, was to have nuclear weapons.
As for the notion of rationality, let's be real here. It is the US and Israel that refuses to rule out nuclear pre-emptive strikes against a non nuclear power. Need I remind you that Iran made the grand bargain offer in April 2003 to regco0gnise Israel and normalize relations with the US and that this was rejected by the neocons?
Shingo
Mahler
"This regime is accused of being behind the Hezbollah attack on American and French soldiers in Beirut in '83, and the worst terrorist attacks in the history of South America when a Jewish community center in Buenos Aires was bombed. Nearly 100 people were murdered."
What is noticeable is the omission of the fact that this took place AFTER the USS new Jersey shelled Lebanon, killing hundreds. Or that there has been no proof tying Iran to the attack in South America.
No mention of Israel slaughtering those at the UN compound during the rocket attacks in Qana.
"Even if Iran doesn't try to nuke Tel Aviv, we can all expect Iran's proxies to become more violent and aggressive than they already are, because Iran will feel for the first time that it can carry it out its policy of sponsoring terrorism and waging an eliminationist proxy war against Israel without fear of direct retaliation."
Sponsoring terrorism? This comming from someone who lives in a country that was founded on attacks like the bombing of the King David Hotel? Or is it only terrorism when it's violence perpetrated by Muslims? Care to comment on the 1300 dead Lebanese civilians from the 2006 attack on Lebanon? Care to comment about Iran's offer to normalize relations with the US and recognize Israel in 2003, that was shunned? What about the wars Israel is perpetrating every day in Gaza, the West Bank and the collective punishment meted out to all Palestinians for daring to elect a government contrary to Israel’s and America’s wishes?
As for the next time Israel defends itself, we await with bated breath. The last time Israel legitimately defended herself was in 1948. All conflicts since then have been purely in the name of maintaining Israel’s supremacy in the region.
Anonymous
"visit the US propaganda office of the likudnik party"
Strike
"In fact, Golda Meir herself confirmed this position, that Israel would take the Middle east with it should it face destruction."
Which is essentially a rational, cold war approach. If you don't see the difference between Israel's claiming second-strike capabilities as a deterrent and Iran's repeated declarations of its willingness to launch a nuclear first strike and suffer the casualties of retaliation only in order to see Israel destroyed, then you probably aren't even able to parse this sentence and certainly aren't worth wasting time trying to convince. But it is interesting, and disturbing, to see how low a standard so many people here are willing to hold the Iranian regime to, while taking any excuse at all to deride the very existence of Israel. There's something perverse about anti-war folk getting behind the Islamic Revolution; it's either some new form of idiocy, or Iranian propaganda has been far more potent than anyone would have expected.
Anonymous
"But it is interesting, and disturbing, to see how low a standard so many people here are willing to hold the Iranian regime to, while taking any excuse at all to deride the very existence of Israel", says Strike.
Let's see, Israel has perpetrated a 40 year-long occupation, has invaded or attacked its neighbors with sickening regularity, holds children without charge or access to counsel for indefinite periods, rationalizes a patently racialist notion of nationality which privileges its Jewish citizens, has a disgusting history of abetting the crimes of regressive swine like apartheid South Africa, the Contras et al....shall I go on?
Iran has not initiated hostilities towards another country in recent memory-its defensive war with Iraq was its only modern adventure.
Obviously, critics of Israel are really reaching for any petty indiscretion it may commit in order to hang the plucky Zionist state, while overlooking the numerous egregious crimes against other nations that Iran commits daily. Do I have that right?
One needn't approve of Iran's social medievalism or the more deranged rhetoric of its president to be alarmed by the calls to attack Teheran emanating from the Zionist Right, nor to denounce Israel's culture of aggression.
Grow up.