- Joined
- Oct 5, 2009
- Messages
- 10,621
- Reaction score
- 2,104
- Location
- In your dreams...
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Independent
If Iran gets nuclear weapons, Arabs will demand and achieve their own arsenol.
And what can Iran do with nuclear power ? hit Israel ? it will destroy the palestinains and Hizbollah in south Lebanon as well before getting hit by Israel and destroyed ..
How about Pakistan ? It's got nuclear power, a Muslim country packed with Taliban and Al Qaeda members. Why isn't anyone afraid of Pakistan ?
I'm completely sure stephen walt overlooked this little detail.
why should the only country to have ever used nuclear weapons on civilian populations be the one to decide who can or can't have said weapons?
This behavior is clearly a problem, but Iran is not an existential threat to anyone.
Why even worry about the views of a person whose claim to fame is that that he co-authored a book that is little more than the modern equivalent of the Protocals of the Elders of Zion?
Why even worry about the views of a person whose claim to fame is that that he co-authored a book that is little more than the modern equivalent of the Protocals of the Elders of Zion?
Your point is to criticize Israel at all costs, because this is a dead issue. You know, I usually don't produce this, because I believe it is as foolish as when people argue that WMD exists in Iraq despite the truth waving wildly in front of them. This is from his speech to the "World Without Zionism" conference in Asia in 2005....
The man clearly stated how wise Khomenin's statement was and then he followed it up by validating it. His immediate sentence is "We cannot compromise over the issue of Palestine." How do you reconcile what he stated as being something he doesn't believe is "wise" when he states it right there. How do you define his word, "wise" and "no compromise?" And please don't come back and insist that his real meaning of goodwill and Jewish joy was misunderstood.
Recognize the man you place in your corner here. He showers Israel constantly with insults and he has threatened through voice and through terrorism via Hezbollah. He has remarked on how wise Khomeini's mission was and clearly stated that there can be no compromise. Calling Israel a hypocrit for lashing back is your complaint? Are we so interested in criticizing Israel that we are willing to forgive and dismiss people like him? You bash on Rumsfeld for remarking on "Old Europe," but Ahmenedejed gets your love? I just don't get how you seek to defend him and are willing to roll the dice on his nuclear program. It's a tough and violent world out there. By all means, arm the zealots because they are just misunderstood.
According to Cole, "Ahmadinejad did not say he was going to 'wipe Israel off the map' because no such idiom exists in Persian." Instead, "he did say he hoped its regime, i.e., a Jewish-Zionist state occupying Jerusalem, would collapse.
From the page you linked to:
why should the only country to have ever used nuclear weapons on civilian populations be the one to decide who can or can't have said weapons?
Israel is a violent racist state, yet the US supplied them with nuclear weapons.
how about we get a campaign going to rid the world of US nuclear weapons, and its allies, instead of Iran, who hasn't done a thing lately to its neighbors, or to anyone.
I'm completely sure stephen walt overlooked this little detail.
Stephen Walt? A classroom veteran? No wonder you are confused of international matters. You heroes look at the world through text books.
... Don't think I can comment on what you said.
Oh, no no. You don't get to dance around and pretend that a University of Michigan Professor gets to interpret and redesign his speech for you. The world is full of Persians and Arabs and interpreters. His words were very clear. The man stated....
"Our dear Imam (referring to Ayatollah Khomeini) said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map for great justice and this was a very wise statement. We cannot compromise over the issue of Palestine."
His sentiments were clear. Allow the man his responsibility instead of your affections.
Well sure you can. You can defend a man with no worldy experience beyond the classroom. Of course, I would just give you a plethora of analysts and scholars who are Muslims and can speak better about their Middle Eastern cultures than a white man who focuses on classroom theories. Vali Nasr (the cultural expert who helped turn Iraq around in 2006) is an Iranian and analyzes these cultures in a Washington Think Tank. Perhaps he would be a better fit for a source of knowledge. There are others like Mark Juergensmeyer who deal solely in religious terrorism with the helpof personal interviews with relgious activists around the world and would certainly have a better idea of the possibles when it comes to extremism. Thene there's always the former military contributions who specialized in intel and offices in Central Command (CENTCOM) that have some insights into the reality of this region. Irshad Manji (an Arab) is a good bet if you wish to see the underbelly behind the Islamic rhetoric that would have you believe they are victims of others instead of themselves. Bernard Lewis is a safe bet when it comes to Middle Eastern history, but he does ten to lean towards the probable rather than the beneifit of the doubt angle.
Since you are a college kid, there are some good text books. "Politics and Change in the Middle East" by Anderson, Seibert, and Wagner is good. Also there is Lapidus' "A History of Islamic Societies." Hourani wrote a great book called "A History of the Arab Peoples." There is also the duology, "The West and the World I & II" by Reilly that mentions key moments in history that have brought us to today's environment.
There are plenty of good writers that are fair, with the global experience to back up their summaries. You may not agree with everything they write, but they do offer you the knowledge base and deliver you the proper questions. Too often, the opinionated, educated through the Internet, criticize either the wrong things or miss the point all together. But whatever you do, do not use the Bible or the Qur'an as a source other than when dealing with religious subjects. This is another mistake people make.
Just a little problem, "to wipe off the map" is an English expression that does not exist in Farsi.
Wow thanks...
It's not a problem at all. "To wipe off the map" is a western expression of the same sentiment in Farsi. Let's not pretend that his sentiments were substituted to some extreme Western term maliciously as if the entire interpretating world just went along with it. Or do you really want people to believe that "to wipe off the map" really means "here's to hoping it merely collapses?" I guess Khomeini was just misunderstood too. This is a cop out you apologists keep using. His words.....
"Our dear Imam (referring to Ayatollah Khomeini) said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map for great justice and this was a very wise statement. We cannot compromise over the issue of Palestine. Is it possible to create a new front in the heart of an old front. This would be a defeat and whoever accepts the legitimacy of this regime has in fact, signed the defeat of the Islamic world. Our dear Imam targeted the heart of the world oppressor in his struggle, meaning the occupying regime. I have no doubt that the new wave that has started in Palestine, and we witness it in the Islamic world too, will eliminate this disgraceful stain from the Islamic world."
This time I bolded the end of the paragraph. Praying for the "elimination of a disgraceful stain" is hardly helping your case of a misinterpretation. Arabs have aggressed since 1948 to destroy Israel. The history of these Arab and Iranian zealots matches the rhetoric through and through. Oh...and while you may try to use that he wished otherfs to eliminate Israel, let's not forget that the man's government funds Hezbollah. And what is there mission? Why am I even entertaining you with this? And why do you insist on defending him? "Eliminate" is hardly an internal collapse. Or maybe Nazi Germany merely collpased. You're supposed to be smarter than this. I'm dissapointed.
THE ACTUAL QUOTE:
So what did Ahmadinejad actually say? To quote his exact words in farsi:
"Imam ghoft een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad."
That passage will mean nothing to most people, but one word might ring a bell: rezhim-e. It is the word "Regime", pronounced just like the English word with an extra "eh" sound at the end. Ahmadinejad did not refer to Israel the country or Israel the land mass, but the Israeli regime. This is a vastly significant distinction, as one cannot wipe a regime off the map. Ahmadinejad does not even refer to Israel by name, he instead uses the specific phrase "rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods" (regime occupying Jerusalem).
So this raises the question.. what exactly did he want "wiped from the map"? The answer is: nothing. That's because the word "map" was never used. The Persian word for map, "nagsheh", is not contained anywhere in his original farsi quote, or, for that matter, anywhere in his entire speech. Nor was the western phrase "wipe out" ever said. Yet we are led to believe that Iran's President threatened to "wipe Israel off the map", despite never having uttered the words "map", "wipe out" or even "Israel".
Ahmadinejad acknowledges that the removal of America’s powerful grip on the region via the Zionists may seem unimaginable to some, but reminds the audience that, as Khomeini predicted, other seemingly invincible empires have disappeared and now only exist in history books. He then proceeds to list three such regimes that have collapsed, crumbled or vanished, all within the last 30 years:
(1) The Shah of Iran- the U.S. installed monarch
(2) The Soviet Union
(3) Iran’s former arch-enemy, Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein
No problem. I'm an Arab studies Major.
Even if one sets aside the disputed version of Mr. Ahmadinejad's remarks, the Iranian Presidents words and policies are hostile to Israel. A nuclear-armed Iran would overturn the region's balance of power. It would be a development with life-and-death implications for Israel. Israel, precisely because it is a tiny state, would be highly vulnerable. The temptation for a preemptive attack aimed at even buying a delay in a nuclear-armed Iran would be very strong as Iran moves closer to the threshold of attaining such a capability. Explanations from Secretary Gates that an armed attack would only delay not kill the program would matter little to Israel, where a delay would provide some breathing room. For the U.S., which is largely invulnerable to the threat (distance and size) and which possesses the capacity to deliver a retaliatory strike that would eliminate Iran so to speak, the margin for error and psychological tolerance is much larger.
This does not mean that an effective deterrence regime can't be constructed. The outlines of such a regime would probably include automatic (and mechanisms can be designed for such an outcome) and certain U.S. nuclear retaliation that would be sufficient to decimate Iran if any nuclear strike was attempted or carried out against Israel by Iran or a non-state entity. The immediate objection would be that such a standard is unfair, as it would hold Iran accountable with such devastating consequences even if Iran didn't launch/attempt the strike. But such a high standard would be imperative. Otherwise, Iran could gain an incentive to launch what amounts to a first strike against a tiny state via indirect means. Only such a severe standard could deter Iran from sharing any nuclear capability/knowledge with terrorist groups. Given the Iranian leadership's responsibility for the lives of more than 75 million people, such a standard of a certain and automatic catastrophic response would make the costs of direct/indirect efforts to use nuclear weapons against Israel far too excessive to pursue. Moreover, precisely because the response would be certain and automatic, there would be no question in the minds of the Iranians as to whether the U.S. would be willing to respond. Hence, the psychological barriers that could cause deterrence to fail would not exist. Of course, were Iran or any of its proxies to attempt such a strike, it would be crucial that the U.S. deliver on its threat even if the Iranian/proxies' attempt failed. Otherwise, deterrence would be shattered.
In any case, a diplomatic outcome before things reach such a stage would be vastly preferable. Whether the Iranian leadership is serious about a diplomatic resolution remains doubtful. The forthcoming meeting with the EU seems to bear more the hallmarks of a diplomatic tactic aimed at buying the Iranians time than to offer a fundamentally different Iranian position than the one's Iran has assumed to date. Of course, no such deterrence approach has been considered to date. Hence, Israel might well calculate that a preemptive attack against Iran's nuclear facilities might be necessary at some point down the road, even if prospects for success are only modest given the extreme danger a nuclear-armed Iran would present.
not overturn the region's balance of power, you insistEven if one sets aside the disputed version of Mr. Ahmadinejad's remarks, the Iranian Presidents words and policies are hostile to Israel. A nuclear-armed Iran would overturn the region's balance of power. It would be a development with life-and-death implications for Israel. Israel, precisely because it is a tiny state, would be highly vulnerable. The temptation for a preemptive attack aimed at even buying a delay in a nuclear-armed Iran would be very strong as Iran moves closer to the threshold of attaining such a capability. Explanations from Secretary Gates that an armed attack would only delay not kill the program would matter little to Israel, where a delay would provide some breathing room. For the U.S., which is largely invulnerable to the threat (distance and size) and which possesses the capacity to deliver a retaliatory strike that would eliminate Iran so to speak, the margin for error and psychological tolerance is much larger.
This does not mean that an effective deterrence regime can't be constructed. The outlines of such a regime would probably include automatic (and mechanisms can be designed for such an outcome) and certain U.S. nuclear retaliation that would be sufficient to decimate Iran if any nuclear strike was attempted or carried out against Israel by Iran or a non-state entity.
The immediate objection would be that such a standard is unfair, as it would hold Iran accountable with such devastating consequences even if Iran didn't launch/attempt the strike. But such a high standard would be imperative. Otherwise, Iran could gain an incentive to launch what amounts to a first strike against a tiny state via indirect means. Only such a severe standard could deter Iran with close to 100% confidence from sharing any nuclear capability/knowledge with terrorist groups/other actors. Given the Iranian leadership's responsibility for the lives of more than 75 million people, such a standard of a certain and automatic catastrophic response would make the costs of direct/indirect efforts to use nuclear weapons against Israel far too excessive to pursue. Moreover, precisely because the response would be certain and automatic, there would be no question in the minds of the Iranians as to whether the U.S. would be willing to respond. Hence, the psychological barriers that could cause deterrence to fail would not exist.
Of course, horrific as it might be, were Iran or any of its proxies to attempt such a strike, it would be crucial that the U.S. deliver on its threat even if the Iranian/proxies' attempt failed. Otherwise, deterrence would be shattered.
In any case, a diplomatic outcome before things reach such a stage would be vastly preferable. Whether the Iranian leadership is serious about a diplomatic resolution remains doubtful. The forthcoming meeting with the EU seems to bear more the hallmarks of a diplomatic tactic aimed at buying the Iranians time than to offer a fundamentally different Iranian position than the ones Iran has pursued to date. Of course, no such deterrence approach has been considered to date. Hence, Israel might well calculate that a preemptive attack against Iran's nuclear facilities might be necessary at some point down the road, even if prospects for success are only modest given the extreme danger a nuclear-armed Iran would present.
not overturn the region's balance of power, you insist
that balance of power where the arab/persian nations have NO military parity
quit fudging. say it like it is
israel does not want to be deprived of intimidating the other states in the region because it is the sole nuclear power
Any proof that they are actually seeking to get nukes?
Maybe if there was an actual balance of power over there, there would be less conflicts.
quit fudging. say it like it is
israel does not want to be deprived of intimidating the other states in the region because it is the sole nuclear power
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?