• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Iranian threat

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.


the US also is the only country in the world to use these weapons on people.....



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.
 
Last edited:
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 must also ask the same things. I might however get different answers then you. Could be all the prune juice I drink.

Look I am no fan of the Iranian regime. I think its treatment of women, gays, Bahaiis, Zoroastreans, Kurds, trade unionists, student activists, Christians, Jews, atheists, communists, political opponents, journalists, outrageous. I believe myself it is a facist regime run by extremist religious fundamentalists with prehistoric beliefs and I believe its current President is an unstable, bafoon whose ego makes him dangerous.

However I think there is far more at stake than nuclear bomb fear at play and the nuclear bomb fear.

Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas, Syria, countless terrorist cells, already have sufficient know how to engage in terrorist attacks on Israel or the US using chemical weapons. If they were to attack Israel it would be easier to use anthrax or other chemicals or germs. In this manner it would not devestate the infrastructure and leave radioactivity behind and would be less likely to spread and kill so many Muslims (and I suppose some would have be point out non Zionist Jews as the germs will be programmed to tell the difference between Zionist and non Zionist Jews).

For all we know the real fear is not nuclear weapons but the fact that Iran may have perfected some chemical or germ that Israel or the US fears. So we many never know if the nuclear bomb story is just the cover story.

We also know Iran has destabilized the world economy by engaging in devestating tactics against the US and the West in regards to controlling the trade and price of oil. For all we know that could be the true fear the West has of Iran not nuclear weapons.

I personally believe Iran is the greatest threat to its own people before anyone else. I believe the real tragedy is what it inflicts to the millions of Iranians who are under its tyranical control and wish to become free and reject the fundamentalist theocratic Muslim views it shoves down the throat of its people.

That said while I believe Iran is a huge destablizing factor in the Middle East and one of the primary financiers of terrorist groups and no doubt is and would love to assist other nations hostile to the U.S. and Israel develop nuclear weapons, I also believe the real threat is already here-chemical warfare.

I also believe the cold reality is such that any fool can get on the internet and get enough info to construct a dirty bomb, a bomb with sufficient radioactive fallout, to devestate a large population without the need of detonating with the force of an a-bomb.

So while I do not understimate the capability of the current Iranian regime's ability to continue to violate and oppress its own citizens and finance terrorists who harass other innocent civilians in other nations-and yes I believe it may be making nuclear bombs, I would also argue the nuclear bomb issue may be the least of the issues we have to worry about when it comes to Iran.
 
Last edited:
I'm completely sure stephen walt overlooked this little detail.

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 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?

Because an Iranian nuclear weapons capability would have an adverse impact on vital U.S. interests. States seek to safeguard their interests.
 
I just noticed this line from the article:

This behavior is clearly a problem, but Iran is not an existential threat to anyone.

I have to strongly disagree with the notion that Iran does not pose an existential threat to anyone. Even without nuclear weapons Iran certainly poses an existential threat to Israel. While by itself Iran would be relatively harmless to Israel its ties with Syria, Hezbollah, and Hamas give them a great deal of power and influence that can be used against Israel. The power Hamas has continues to grow and the same goes for Hezbollah. Even Syria is building up its power, partly with the help of Russia. For Israel the greatest risk of Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon is that it would deny Israel its last resort when faced with such a threat.

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?

What an exaggeration. Everyone familiar with AIPAC recognizes it as one of the most powerful lobbying groups in Washington. The Israel lobby in general is quite powerful and noting this is simple honesty. Not having read the book I cannot comment on what it specifically claims, but from what I have read about it there does not appear to be anything antisemitic about the book.
 
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?

Something tells me you don't know what it contains, also, that's not his claim to fame. His reputation is excellent. Read the book for yourself. it basically states the relationship between the US and Israel does not benefit either of them.
 
Last edited:
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.

From the page you linked to:

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:


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.
 
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?

Silly, because America is in charge. That's what happens when all of the other empires fall like dominoes and leave the world in the hands of one. Fortunately, the U.S. isn't Germany, Japan, the Soviet Union, or others who abolutely exploited their power and were irresponsible towards humanity. It is true that the U.S. is the only country to drop the bomb. But the fact is that nobody else would have stopped with two. You should be thankful that America leads this mission and not other nations.

Israel is a violent racist state, yet the US supplied them with nuclear weapons.

Israel is the only nation in the Middle East where Muslims of all tribes are truly free and represented in government (except Iraq now). Arabic is also a national language. Roads signs are written in Arabic. Where are the Hebrew road signs in Arab nations? With Israelis being of all colors, why is it that the Arab propoganda machine portrays Israelis as always white? Despite your unsubstantiated accusations, it is in the Arab states where you will find great racism and religious persecution of even their own Muslims. The Shia are persecuted and unequal by national laws on the Arab peninsula. Where are the churches and synagogues in Arab nations? Mosques are clearly protected and constructed in Israel.


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.

And how far do you think this campaign of misfits, terrorists, losers, and whiners would get?
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
... Don't think I can comment on what you said.

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.
 
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.

Just a little problem, "to wipe off the map" is an English expression that does not exist in Farsi.
 
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.

Wow thanks...
 
Just a little problem, "to wipe off the map" is an English expression that does not exist in Farsi.

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.
 
Last edited:
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.

read the speech

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/30/w...r=1&ex=1161230400&en=26f07fc5b7543417&ei=5070

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".

"WIPED OFF THE MAP" - The Rumor of the Century by Arash Norouzi


Now read the context


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

Iran’s President Did Not Say “Israel must be wiped off the map” | The Official Website of Representative David Duke, PhD



No problem. I'm an Arab studies Major.

The only problem is that Ahmadinejad doesn't speak Arab, he speaks Farsi.
 
Last edited:
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 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 offering a fundamentally different 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.
 
Last edited:
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.

Any proof that they are actually seeking to get nukes?
 
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 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
 
  • Like
Reactions: bub
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

Maybe if there was an actual balance of power over there, there would be less conflicts.
 
Any proof that they are actually seeking to get nukes?

I didn't suggest that there is "proof." But Iran needs to address the IAEA's concerns. To date, it has not. The states with interests in the matter cannot reasonably be expected to assume Iranian good faith. Having said that, I am not advocating military strikes at this time, though I do note Israel's margin for error is much smaller than the United States' for obvious reasons. Personally, I still think a deterrence regime is feasible if it is necessary and I described the outlines of one such regime.
 
Maybe if there was an actual balance of power over there, there would be less conflicts.

Even putting aside Israel, I highly doubt that the moderate Sunni states would define Iranian regional preeminence as an "actual balance of power."
 
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

That's a bogus claim. Israeli nuclear restraint is well-established (at least when one looks at the matter objectively). After all, even when it was attacked in 1973 and was losing significant ground early into the Yom Kippur War, a time when it possessed a small nuclear arsenal, it never threatened to use nuclear weapons, much less resorted to doing so.
 
Back
Top Bottom