War with Iran is Inevitable

[WildCat]

That's nice, but your argument wasn't that Iran displayed their pathological hatred of Israel because they were diverting resources to groups in Lebanon while in the midst of a horrific war with Iraq to fight against Israel, while they were merely diverting resources to groups in Afghanistan while in the midst of a horrific war with Iraq just to spread their influence and ideology.

Your argument was, and I'll even quote it again for you, "Iran must really have a psychopathic hatred of Israel to divert their resources to it while in the midst of a horrific war with Iraq." And you meant that their willingness to divert their resources, period, was highly significant in that regard, since you made this statement in a reply to a post where I detailed just how desperate Iran's situation was during the war against Iraq.

And you accuse me of moving goalposts?

The goalposts are right where they've always been, despite your attempts to move them. Iran's Afghanistan adventures had nothing to do with fighting adversaries.

The fact remains that from the time of the revolution until the present day Iran has relentlessy fought Israel merely for existing, while other spats have come and gone.

You may disagree that this makes Israel their #1 adversary, but I'm standing by the assertion.

 

[A'isha]

The goalposts are right where they've always been, despite your attempts to move them.

Yes, that's why you went from "Iran only diverted resources to support terrorist groups attacking Israel when they so desperately needed those resources in their war with Iraq because they have a psychopathic hatred of Israel" and "Iran didn't do anything during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan but let a few mujahidin cross their porous border" to "Iran provided military and financial support to mujahidin groups in Afghanistan and founded entire mujahidin groups in Afghanistan and even tried to give money and arms to the main group battling the Soviets (and all at the same time they were engaged in a brutal and horrific war with Iraq), but they weren't fighting against anyone in particular there!"

Because I'm moving the goalposts.

Iran's Afghanistan adventures had nothing to do with fighting adversaries.

Perhaps.

But it certainly had everything to do with the very thing you claimed was so revealing when it came to their "psychopathic hatred" of Israel - diverting resources to it while in the midst of a horrific war with Iraq.

 

[A'isha]

IMO, there's no moving of goalposts, just this need to level the playing field by you as if Iran's pre-2001 relationship with certain groups in Afghanistan is on a 1:1 to that of Iran's proxy warfare with other groups against Israel and the US.

I'm not trying to argue that what Iran did in Afghanistan pre-2001 is on a 1:1 to that of Iran's proxy warfare with other groups against Israel and the US. I am, however, trying to argue that the claim "Iran has always viewed Israel as its No. 1 adversary" is false.

When I stated that, for instance, there was a period in the 1980's where Iran was much more focused on Iraq as an adversary than Israel as an adversary, Wildcat attempted to argue otherwise by pointing to Iran's diversion of resources that they desperately needed during the war with Iraq to strike at Israel.

The whole Afghanistan derail came about when I pointed out that Iran also diverted resources that they desperately needed during the war with Iraq to intervene in Afghanistan during the Soviet occupation, and therefore Wildcat's argument about the "diverting resources" thing doesn't mean at all what he was trying to claim it meant.

That's all.

 

[AlBell]

@ANTpogo

Do you continue to dispute that "Israel was and continues to be Iran's top enemy"? It looks like a true statement to me, but damned if I know why Iran would feel that way. Israel=The Little Satan, maybe?

 

[A'isha]

I won't dispute that Israel is either Iran's top enemy right now, or is tied with the US as Iran's top enemy right now, and has been so for at least a decade (there was a period where relations with the US warmed up a bit after 9/11, whereas there was no corresponding thaw in the Iranian/Israeli relationship that I'm aware of).

 

[Travis]

If Iran thinks that Israel is there enemy now then what is the point arguing about whether they were back in early 80's? The war would happen now.

 

[bigjelmapro]

I'm not trying to argue that what Iran did in Afghanistan pre-2001 is on a 1:1 to that of Iran's proxy warfare with other groups against Israel and the US. I am, however, trying to argue that the claim "Iran has always viewed Israel as its No. 1 adversary" is false.

I've read over this thread again and the exchanges between you and Wildcat. This quote you've made, WC didn't state. Otherwise point out where this quote was made.

Otherwise I call strawman and sheer fabrication.

I've only seen where he made the statement that Iran saw Israel as an adversary and as a target immediately after the 1979 revolution.

When I stated that, for instance, there was a period in the 1980's where Iran was much more focused on Iraq as an adversary than Israel as an adversary, Wildcat attempted to argue otherwise by pointing to Iran's diversion of resources that they desperately needed during the war with Iraq to strike at Israel.

Ties into the previous. Using superlatives won't make this go away.

Iran sent funding and was directly involved against adversaries like Israel more so than with pre-2001 Afghanistan. That point still sticks.

I don't see WC making the claim that the resources against the decade-long war against Iraq was greater for Israel. Different reasons to boot.

The whole Afghanistan derail came about when I pointed out that Iran also diverted resources that they desperately needed during the war with Iraq to intervene in Afghanistan during the Soviet occupation, and therefore Wildcat's argument about the "diverting resources" thing doesn't mean at all what he was trying to claim it meant.

That's all.

The Afghanistan derail came after the Iran-Iraq derail, here, which you did quite well with that baited question.

Again, Iran didn't 'intervene' in Soviet Afghanistan. Throwing some money and small munitions to pro-Iran/Shia groups against a full-fledged invasion by the Soviets is by no means 'intervening'.

I don't quite get how you're making all these different claims of what was stated in merely 2 pages of this thread. Attempting to pulling the wool over my eyes?

 

[A'isha]

I've read over this thread again and the exchanges between you and Wildcat. This quote you've made, WC didn't state. Otherwise point out where this quote was made.

Okay.

The specific quote in question, "Iran has always viewed Israel as its No. 1 adversary", came from the original commentary article that the thread started linked in the OP.

In the second post in this thread (ie, the very first reply to the OP), Gazpacho quoted that sentence from the commentary article, and said "citation needed" (with that being a link to the wikipedia entry on the "Great Satan" appellation that Khomeini gave to the US).

In the very next post, the third post in this thread, Wildcat quoted Gazpacho's request for a citation for the claims made in the quoted statement (which, remember, was "Iran has always viewed Israel as its No. 1 adversary"), posting images of billboards and banners that quoted Ahmadinejad's statements.

In the sixth post, Gazpacho replied to Wildcat's images post, challenging Wildcat on the usage of the specific word "always" in that quote from the original article, which again was "Iran has always viewed Israel as its No. 1 adversary".

In the seventh post, Wildcat replied to Gazpacho's challenge on the usage of the specific word "always" in the quote "Iran has always viewed Israel as its No. 1 adversary". Wildcat indicated that the usage of "always" in that statement was accurate at least since the 1979 revolution, and accused Gazpacho of wanting to bring in events "ack to the days of Xerxes" as an "out" to falsify the claim made in the quote "Iran has always viewed Israel as its No. 1 adversary".

In the eighth post, I asked Wildcat just how he was able to make the determination described by the quote "Iran has always viewed Israel as its No. 1 adversary".

From that point forward, he had effectively adopted the position described by the quote "Iran has always viewed Israel as its No. 1 adversary" as his own position, and did not contest the usage of even direct quotes of it enclosed in quotation marks in posts addressing his arguments and his position (such as in post thirty-five).

Otherwise I call strawman and sheer fabrication.

Do I get an apology now, or are you sticking with the "sure he supported it and argued for it and even defended its specific wording, but since Wildcat didn't actually type that sentence himself at any point, it doesn't count as him 'saying' it" technicality?

I don't quite get how you're making all these different claims of what was stated in merely 2 pages of this thread. Attempting to pulling the wool over my eyes?

I hope things are clearer for you now.

 

[Minoosh]

... but damned if I know why Iran would feel that way. Israel=The Little Satan, maybe?

Trying this on for size: Maybe Iran has genuine sympathy for the Palestinian cause? I've always thought Israel was just a proxy for the U.S. and that Iran's anti-Israel stance was theater, which maybe bought it street cred with Arab neighbors (Iran doesn't particularly like Arabs in general). But once Ahmadinejad said something like, "If Hitler killed those Jews why not give them Germany?" The displacement seemed like the issue with him.

IMO the Palestinian cause of annihilating Israel is infantile and what they really need is state-building skills. The IRI also seems stuck in infancy to me - relying on resentment at the U.S. to define/unite itself and relying on oil to buy persistent intransigence vs. building a mature, diverse economy.

It's a complicated country, with significant pro-U.S. (and secular) sentiment among the population yet extreme touchiness at the idea of being interfered with.

ETA: I liked ANTPogo's post-by-post analysis of the thread, being a word geek and also raising my eyebrows at the "always." In context I immediately thought in terms of the Islamic Republic of Iran and not, say, Xerxes ... Anyway seeing how the bickering evolved was an education in applied forensics. I'd say Israel has always been one of the IRI's defining enemies but not always its top one.

 

[MaGZ]

I hope at least Europe will try to make some kind of stand against Israel if they try to pull off this craziness. Probably not though.

Unlikely, Germany gave Israel their submarine fleet so she could launch her nuclear weapons.

 

[MaGZ]

Well first of all you should get your facts straight because that's wrong, and secondly a war with Iran is potentially disastrous for the world economy that's already hurting (which is one of the reasons why Obama probably will do everything to prevent it from happening).

Hillary Clinton and Susan Rice run America’s foreign policy. Obama is too busy raising campaign money from Hollywood celebrities and playing golf to be bothered by such things like that.

 

[MaGZ]

I'm thinking this is part of a bluff.

Logistically how would Israel even pull this off? It's not like they have aircraft carriers in the Gulf.

They have a secret airbase in east Africa so there may be others near Iran.

India?

 

[Garrison]

Israel is sabre rattling in the hopes that China and Russia will get nervous enough to back tougher sanctions against Iran to head off an all out conflict. The EU had already decided to cut oil imports as of July but Iran has pre-empted that. Bluntly unless the US is willing to provide active support the Israelis don't have the firepower to take on Iran, and they know it.

 

[bigjelmapro]

Okay.

The specific quote in question, "Iran has always viewed Israel as its No. 1 adversary", came from the original commentary article that the thread started linked in the OP.
...

Talk about a stretch. A link of "citation needed" with an embedded link to the Great Satan wiki article equates to WC stating this very thing?

There's a disconnect between WC actually being quoted as stating this and that of supporting this assertion that Panetta made in that article link. You might accuse me of being pedantic, but there is a clear distinction here.

So no, there's no reason for an apology here.

The argument itself of whether Israel is considered Iran's no. 1 adversary is moot, to a certain degree.

The underlying problem with your argument though has been the same as it has in the beginning. You've included Afghanistan's pro-Iran/Shia pre-2001 as a counter-example. This had been pointed out to be a poor one. Then you used Iran-Iraq war, which was a war predominantly about oil fields and shipping lanes and who has a right to it, as another counter to the no. 1 adversary, which concluded with a number of compromises and peace agreements. Hence, for the most part, concluded. So a retired adversary per se.

Israel, on the other hand, has been consistently been the focus of the Iranian regime since post-1979, with more resources thrown at it, to a number of terrorist groups, in a number of different countries, than has been in places like previously coalition-occupied Iraq, and still continues. The issue of resources and the amount contributed to each war/region/conflict is not the only measure to go by here.

It would not be difficult to argue the merits behind Israel being the no. 1 adversary in these regards on matters of consistency, direct Iranian involvement outside their country's borders, and the ongoing resources and training provided to these terrorist groups.

 

[bigjelmapro]

Israel is sabre rattling in the hopes that China and Russia will get nervous enough to back tougher sanctions against Iran to head off an all out conflict. The EU had already decided to cut oil imports as of July but Iran has pre-empted that. Bluntly unless the US is willing to provide active support the Israelis don't have the firepower to take on Iran, and they know it.

Israel is sabre rattling to push tougher sanctions....

How does that even work?

Problem is, in terms of war games, both sides have been doing this quite frequently. Israel has apparently been actively playing the role of saboteur, but who is to say how many other nation's intelligence services are involved in this regard. Iran, on the other hand, has been involved in proxy warfare against and in the US, Israel, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Argentina and more recently Thailand with its state-funded terrorist groups.

There have been already a number of acts of war committed by Iran, but yet Israel is the sole sabre rattler?

Strange.

In terms of capability. Iran has no real airforce, its naval capabilities are smaller than Israel, but its ballistic missile deterrent and ability to attack on multiple fronts via it proxy groups will be the main issue here. Not solely the ability to take eachother one on one. I do agree though that Iran has significantly more cannon-fodder to throw at Israel than visa versa.

The main issue here is approval of US bases in the ME for re-fuel stops, not firepower.

Needless to say, the overwhelming majority of Israelis are against war with Iran (and war in general) as is most of the Israeli government. There is, however a point where Israel cannot ignore Iran, beyond that of its state-sponsored terrorism against Israel and elsewhere.

 

[A'isha]

Talk about a stretch. A link of "citation needed" with an embedded link to the Great Satan wiki article equates to WC stating this very thing?

Actually, no. That plus all those other posts, the ones where Wildcat defended that statement to the point where he was arguing in support of the way specific words were used in it, equates to him stating this very thing.

Which is probably why you snipped out where I detailed all those other posts, so you could make the dishonest statement above about what I was saying.

There's a disconnect between WC actually being quoted as stating this and that of supporting this assertion that Panetta made in that article link.

Actually, Panetta didn't make that assertion, either. It was made by the author of that Yahoo! Contributor Commentary piece, Simon Nguyen, which is why it refers to Panetta in the third person. Nguyen was merely repeating what he read about Panetta in this Fox News article and this AP report, and adding his own thoughts (one of which being the assertion that "Iran has always viewed Israel as its No. 1 adversary").

You might accuse me of being pedantic, but there is a clear distinction here.

I don't think you're pedantic. Just apparently either someone with rather poor reading comprehension skills, or someone being deliberately dishonest.

So no, there's no reason for an apology here.

I see.

EDIT: Make no mistake here, bigjelmapro. You are (or had been, up until now) one of the posters here whose posts I always read with interest, and you really helped me understand that controversy over Obama's Israel speech a while back. So I'm more than a little surprised and disappointed at the way you're misreading things in this thread.

 

[Minoosh]

Then you used Iran-Iraq war, which was a war predominantly about oil fields and shipping lanes and who has a right to it, as another counter to the no. 1 adversary ...

I know this wasn't your main point but Iran wasn't fighting solely for shipping lanes, it started fighting in self-defense, for its existence, against a very well-armed Saddam. To me that war is a valid counterexample.

Israel, on the other hand, has been consistently been the focus of the Iranian regime since post-1979, with more resources thrown at it to a number of terrorist groups, in a number of different countries, than has been in places like previously coalition-occupied Iraq, and still continues. The issue of resources and the amount contributed to each war/region/conflict is not the only measure to go by here.

I don't immediately see what the comparison is when you cite "more resources." More than what? Than what was spent on the Iran-Iraq war? You then say resources aren't the only measure to go by, and point to consistency, wide-range training and meddling, etc.

Do we actually know enough to quantify the "resources" argument?

In terms of actual terrorist attacks - what has been the extent of Iran's proven involvement? Don't get me wrong, I have extreme suspicion of the IRI's well-organized thuggery. But I don't quite see the straight line of culpability that I do with the Saudi/Taliban axis, Libya, etc. I don't mind admitting my ignorance here, it's not something I've researched. But who was the relatively recent U.S. ally actually bombing Israel in 1991? Anyone think Iran had a hand in that?

 

[bigjelmapro]

Actually, no. That plus all those other posts, the ones where Wildcat defended that statement to the point where he was arguing in support of the way specific words were used in it, equates to him stating this very thing.

Which is probably why you snipped out where I detailed all those other posts, so you could make the dishonest statement above about what I was saying.

I snipped because nowhere was WC quoted as saying such a thing. Still a disconnect and no distinction. How this equates to dishonestly, is beyond me.

Actually, Panetta didn't make that assertion, either. It was made by the author of that Yahoo! Contributor Commentary piece, Simon Nguyen, which is why it refers to Panetta in the third person. Nguyen was merely repeating what he read about Panetta in this Fox News article and this AP report, and adding his own thoughts (one of which being the assertion that "Iran has always viewed Israel as its No. 1 adversary").

Alright then, the author of the article.

Strangely enough, you feel the need to make the distinction between what Panetta stated and what the author did. Do you understand it now? Quoting and supporting said assertion?

I don't think you're pedantic. Just apparently either someone with rather poor reading comprehension skills, or someone being deliberately dishonest.

Yep, ad hom. Couldn't have guessed it. Relates to the prior.

EDIT: Make no mistake here, bigjelmapro. You are (or had been, up until now) one of the posters here whose posts I always read with interest, and you really helped me understand that controversy over Obama's Israel speech a while back. So I'm more than a little surprised and disappointed at the way you're misreading things in this thread.

A difference of opinion on different matters is to be expected. We're not joined at the hip so don't patrionize me if I happen to have a difference of opinion with a detailed justification for it.

 

[fishtumor]

I'm learning Farsi right now and when I have it down I'm going to do my best to bring critical thinking into Iran. Well I hope this goes well.

 

[Toontown]

I'm thinking this is part of a bluff.

Logistically how would Israel even pull this off? It's not like they have aircraft carriers in the Gulf.

Good cop bad cop?

But there aren't any good cops from the ayahtollah perspective, except maybe China and Russia. And those godless bastards will have to be nuked eventually as well.

OTOH, it is entirely possible that you might be surprised at who might lend Israel a couple of airfields. A nuclear Iran doesn't seem serious to people who have spent their entire lives within the relatively safe confines of a warm protective bubble. But to those outside the bubble and in reach of the ayahtollahs, it is very serious. Perhaps serious enough to invoke "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."