Boy who cried wolf.

[BPSCG]

The Wall Street Journal has an editorial today that has an unblinkered view of what's going on with Iran and the "negotiations":

All of this should make it obvious that Iran fully intends to develop the nuclear bomb into which it has sunk some $16 billion over the years. It also seems obvious that Iran is using its so-called dialogue with the Europeans to win the time and diplomatic wriggle room to do so. So why are the Europeans going along with this charade? Maybe they really believe that Iranian good faith can be purchased by what they have to offer in terms of carrots and sticks. But we doubt it. Europeans are not as self-deceived as all that.

A more plausible explanation is that the Europeans are complicit with Iran in this diplomatic charade. That's not to say Berlin, London or even Paris welcome the idea of a nuclear Iran. But they see it as a soon-to-be fact of international life that will have to be managed, just as other unsavory nuclear powers such as the Soviet Union and China were managed.

By contrast, what the Europeans really seem to dread are the potential consequences of a more determined American effort to halt Tehran, especially if that effort includes a pre-emptive military strike against Iranian nuclear installations. No wonder British Foreign Minister Jack Straw could be heard on the BBC the other day saying, "I don't see any circumstances in which military action would be justified against Iran. Full Stop." Any circumstances, Minister?

This, then, is what the latest Iranian-European deal is about. It is not mainly intended to stop Iran from getting a bomb. Mainly, it is intended to stop the U.S. from stopping Iran.

Link requires paid subscription.

The point of the editorial:

Then again, if the President is prepared to see Iran go nuclear, he must also be prepared to abandon the doctrine that famously goes under his name. "We make no distinction," says the 2002 National Security Strategy, "between terrorists and those who knowingly harbor or provide aid to them." How is this to be enforced once the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism builds a nuclear fence around itself? Another key tenet of that strategy is to prevent the emergence of dominant regional powers. But it is hard to see how the U.S. could restrain a nuclear Iran from playing precisely that role, its influence spreading wide in Iraq, Lebanon, Afghanistan, the Caspian and the Gulf.

We are not suggesting that the only feasible alternative to Europe's current effort is military action. But as Mr. Bush considers his options, it's important that everyone acknowledges just what the Europeans are offering. It is not diplomacy with the country of Iran. It is pre-emptive capitulation in the war on terror. Surely that's not what the American people intended when they returned this President to office.

 

[Jim Bowen]

Israel has a record of launching attacks against its neighbours and things can change in foreign policy throughout time. Anyone having weaponsof mass destruction in the middle east is bad news, but at least if Iran also has a nuclear capability it may make Israel think twice about possibly using them.

The Versailles treaty reduced Germany's armed forces, but not her capacity to rebuild them. It did not destroy their industry and even the reparations benefitted Germany (we loaned them far more money than they repaid in order that they could export consumer goods to us).

The point about rearming with modern weapons is extremely relevant. The Israelis have access to the latest military technology, whereas the Arabs are one step or more behind.

Israel should renounce their nuclear weapons as part of a broader regional agreement to keep the area free of WMDs.

up, I saw how the French reliance on international diplomacy worked out - they won in the end. Germany was able to smash through France, whereas the Arab nations are not able to do the same to Israel.

You may not want the US to get involved in saving Israel, but do you think that the US would leave Israel in the lurch? I also find it odd that you think that almost everyone will want to see them destroyed or simply turn a blind eye. Can you substantiate this? Attitudes have changed a fiar bit since the 1940s.

Also, why do you think that Iran will target Israel without there being a threat from Israel itself? Mycroft and co are puzzled on this and might appreciate seeing the working behind it.

Jim Bowen

 

[hammegk]

Jim Bowen:
"The idea of Israel being driven into the sea is pretty ludicrous"

...... Israel, with its 200 nukes on the verge of being wiped out by stone-throwing Palestinians .....

You seem to forget that most of the arab world would also be happy to see Israel disappear (or is that just propaganda for the 'arabs in the streets').

The xx # of nukes makes a damn handy deterent anyway.

Europe's moral and democratic decay because it wouldn`t support an illegal war etc etc etc.
I think it's disturbing to read - there's real paranoia here, a sense of people who are excessively fearful driving themselves mad.

Quoted like that as standalone version your words make perfect sense -- to others -- about you and much of Europe.

 

[Atlas]

Also, why do you think that Iran will target Israel without there being a threat from Israel itself?

That really was an amazing post Jim. You seem to see the world hopefully rather than rationally.

I could've picked out almost any sentence from your post and my view would be opposite to yours. Sure keeps the place interesting, I guess.

The question above, you are requesting AUP answer I think, but I couldn't help chiming in.

The answer... Because they HATE Israel! The region is awash in hate. You underestimate it in presenting this question. If Israel were to do so they would be doing so at their peril.

Iran funds terrorists explicitly to attack Israel now. Do you really think it's because Israel has nuclear weapons? They attacked Israel before thaey had nukes and until there is regime change in the Arab states funding terrorism against Israel the politics of hatred will prevail.

 

[Jim Bowen]

Cheers for the reply, Atlas. Although me and thee probably disagree on a heck of a lot more than we agree on, you do give straight answers. Definitely keeps the world interesting all of this disagreement

I pretty much suspected the answers about Iran, but one or two people had been raising doubts about Iran's attitude to Israel, so I thought I'd see what other people thought of it all.

Jim Bowen (who on a personal note, is quite glad that he doesn't live in the Middle East)

 

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Jim Bowen
Israel has a record of launching attacks against its neighbours…

First, Israel has a record of attacking its neighbors after being provoked into attacking it’s neighbors. Second, Iran is not a neighbor of Israel. They share no borders, and Jordan lay between them. Third, I’ll point out you’ve failed to cite any issues between Iran and Israel.

Originally posted by Jim Bowen
…and things can change in foreign policy throughout time.

Right. Iran building nuclear weapons is not a positive change.

Originally posted by Jim Bowen
The Versailles treaty reduced Germany's armed forces, but not her capacity to rebuild them…

It destroyed Germany’s legal ability to rearm. Germany rearmed illegally.

Originally posted by Jim Bowen
Israel should renounce their nuclear weapons as part of a broader regional agreement to keep the area free of WMDs.

This would make some sense if there was any reason to believe other nations in the region would also do so.

Originally posted by Jim Bowen
up, I saw how the French reliance on international diplomacy worked out - they won in the end…

I think given the opportunity for a do-over, France would choose a strategy other than getting stomped, occupied, and then waiting around to be bailed out.

Originally posted by Jim Bowen
Also, why do you think that Iran will target Israel without there being a threat from Israel itself? Mycroft and co are puzzled on this and might appreciate seeing the working behind it.

I’m not puzzled at all. I’ve read too many articles such as the following:

http://www.iran-press-service.com/articles_2001/dec_2001/rafsanjani_nuke_threats_141201.htm

RAFSANJANI SAYS MUSLIMS SHOULD USE NUCLEAR WEAPON AGAINST ISRAEL

TEHRAN 14 Dec. (IPS) One of Iran’s most influential ruling cleric called Friday on the Muslim states to use nuclear weapon against Israel, assuring them that while such an attack would annihilate Israel, it would cost them "damages only".

"If a day comes when the world of Islam is duly equipped with the arms Israel has in possession, the strategy of colonialism would face a stalemate because application of an atomic bomb would not leave any thing in Israel but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world", Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani told the crowd at the traditional Friday prayers in Tehran.

Analysts said not only Mr. Hashemi-Rafsanjani’s speech was the strongest against Israel, but also this is the first time that a prominent leader of the Islamic Republic openly suggests the use of nuclear weapon against the Jewish State.

"It seems that Mr. Hashemi-Rafsanjani is forgetting that due to the present intertwinement of Israel and Palestine, the destruction of the Jewish State would also means the mass killing of Palestinian population as well", observed one Iranian commentator.

(Thank Ed, who posted this in another thread)

 

[Jim Bowen]

An amazing post, Mycroft. It's not often that one sees someone contradict themselves in a post. You claim that a link between Iran and Israel has not been demonstrated and then go and demonstrate one yourself. Saved me some leg work, anyway. I've often suspected you of posting without really reading what other people post, but now it appears that you post without even reading what you, yourself, write. Extraordinary.

Jim Bowen

 

[zenith-nadir]

I pretty much suspected the answers about Iran, but one or two people had been raising doubts about Iran's attitude to Israel, so I thought I'd see what other people thought of it all.

Dude, are you for real? Honestly. If you do not grasp the political attitude of Iran towards Israel then I have to say you are just trolling for responses here. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to add up Iran's words and deeds to make a honest judgement in that regard.

There is no evidence - especially that you have provided - which shows Iran feels threatened by Israel. In fact all evidence points to the contrary.

 

[Atlas]

The Rafsanjani story is more than a little unsettling. One is tempted to write off his quotes as more examples of the distinctly dishonest puffery that is so much a part of Arab political rhetoric. Arab politicians pay no price calling for the destruction of Israel, it actually seems to enhance their political prestige.

Still, I think it's been borne out often through history that when Arabs call for Israel's destruction they do mean it. No method is too violent or horrific to bring about Allah's will.

His expressed sentiments are not devoid of logic, as mad as they seem to be. Wiping Israel away, along with the Palestinians and the al Aqsa mosque, the third most holy site in all Islam, might just be worth it.

Let's assume that they are able to launch a sneak attack against Israel that disable Israel's ability to respond and takes out all of Israels population centers. I think we agree that no one will care how many Palestinians are incinerated in the rising columns of fire. Al Jazeera will show Arabs somewhere dancing in the street.

After a day of jubilation however the real price would begin to reveal itself. The radiation clouds would begin to drift across the Arab states bringing a kind of slow death that will be unappealing even if those dying are each given martyr medals of recognition for their sacrifice.

How will the world community respond? First, of course, with outrage. Even the French will scream murder, but will soften it with words to the effect that Israel brought it on herself. The US will vow to make Iran pay. If the clouds only threaten death in Arab countries there will be no calls for nuclear attack against Iran though. That would happen only if the Russians feel like they are paying a price for Iranian aggression, especially after Iran promised them that they would only use the nuclear technology the Russia provided for peaceful purposes. Russia is the only nation that might decide to nuke Iran for an attack on Israel, and only if the Russian people experience threat and death beyond Chernobyl.

The UN will meet to discuss the matter. The US will be asked to lead a coalition to topple the mullahcracy. But only using conventional weapons. Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Jordan will join the coalition. Syria will be asked to stay home and breathe deep. If the clouds are responsible for deaths in Turkey, we might be able to to exact harsh judgements on the deposed leaders. Banishment to the land of holy glass to die slowly of radioactive poisoning will be discussed, stoning as well, but because the mullahs are holy men they will merely be shot.

The son of the Shah will be called back and installed as a figurehead and elections will be scheduled after the remaining fascists are rounded up and disposed of. Many will escape to Osama's hideout in the mountains between Afghanistan and Pakistan. Others will escape to France.

Israel will remain Israel and be left on all maps for 1000 years as it cools. But the world will go forward. Rafsanjani will be proved correct even if he is not around to enjoy it.

OK, that is the rosy scenario. But there is another more likely one. Israel launches a counterstrike and Several cities in Iran go up in smoke and the clouds continue to rise and poison the surrounding countries.

There is also the possibility that the American president will choose not to lead the coalition. What's the benefit to America?... Israel is gone.
In this scenario Iran becomes the focal point of Arab power, growing and threatening and believing the world is afraid of its nuclear might. Europe will try to manage the problem. France will send a special envoy and many concessions will be given. In the end it will only put off the inevitable and a new war in the Middle East will ensue.

I fear I am painting this way too bright and cheerful. I suspect that things would be a lot worse, I just don't know how.

 

[zenith-nadir]

I fear I am painting this way too bright and cheerful. I suspect that things would be a lot worse, I just don't know how.

One can be judged by actions not words. Therefore; Iran court slaps ban on dancer

An Iranian dancer who has been living in Los Angeles has been given a 10-year suspended prison sentence in Iran on charges of corrupting the nation's youth.

He left Iran 22 years ago and had been making a living giving lessons in Iranian traditional dance and performing for the large Iranian community in California.

After learning that his mother had died, Mr Khordadian returned to Iran and spent a couple of months visiting relatives and friends. But he was arrested at the airport when he tried to leave.

After several months in jail he has finally been released, following sentence by a Tehran court. It found him guilty of enticing and inciting the nation's youth to corruption.

In addition to the suspended jail sentence, he was banned from leaving the country for 10 years, banned from attending weddings for three years, except for those of close relations, and banned from giving dance lessons ever again.

There is and example of the mindset of the Iranian government.

 

[Mycroft]

An amazing post, Mycroft. It's not often that one sees someone contradict themselves in a post. You claim that a link between Iran and Israel has not been demonstrated and then go and demonstrate one yourself. Saved me some leg work, anyway. I've often suspected you of posting without really reading what other people post, but now it appears that you post without even reading what you, yourself, write. Extraordinary.

Then perhaps you could answer these questions:

What reason did this cleric give for Iran to feel threatened by Israel?

Did he indicate in any way that he thought of nuclear weapons as a deterrent?

In what way did he show concern for the Palestinian-Arabs?

 

[Jim Bowen]

Very funny, Mycroft. I show that you don't even read your own posts and contradict yourself and you try to test me. I guess that is evading the issue.

I'll tell you what, Mycroft, I get the impression that you have little interest in a truly objective debate and just prefer playing at who's the king of the castle. If you want an objective debate, then let me know, rather than just the contradictory rubbish that you tend to come out with. At least most of the other people who I don't agree with at least try to play the game.

Ref. Israel and Iran, see my previous answers and think of Israel's attitude to Iran. I doubt very much whether Iranian attitudes to Israel are secret and I daresay that Israel has planned accordingly, which is probably something that Iran can also guess at.

Now gents, you'll have to excuse me for a day or so, as I'll be away from both the works and mine own computer for the next couple of days, so there may be a late reply to anything posted .

Jim Bowen

 

[Mycroft]

Very funny, Mycroft. I show that you don't even read your own posts and contradict yourself and you try to test me. I guess that is evading the issue.

Translation: It's obvious the animosity between Iran and Israel comes from Iran and is directed towards Israel. Jim Bowen doesn't wan't to say that because it makes him look like an ignorant jerk, so he's rather dodge the issue and run away.

Thanks for playing, Jim. See you around.

 

[Jim Bowen]

I see that you are still dodging points, Mycroft. Like I've already said, when you want a true objective debate and not a pissing contest, then let me know.

Jim Bowen

 

[Mycroft]

I see that you are still dodging points, Mycroft. Like I've already said, when you want a true objective debate and not a pissing contest, then let me know.

Okay, let's start with these questions:

What reason did this cleric give for Iran to feel threatened by Israel?

Did he indicate in any way that he thought of nuclear weapons as a deterrent?

In what way did he show concern for the Palestinian-Arabs?

Answer or dodge?

 

[Jim Bowen]

An amazing post, Mycroft. It's not often that one sees someone contradict themselves in a post. You claim that a link between Iran and Israel has not been demonstrated and then go and demonstrate one yourself. Saved me some leg work, anyway. I've often suspected you of posting without really reading what other people post, but now it appears that you post without even reading what you, yourself, write. Extraordinary.

Jim Bowen

Address the issues raised here first, Mycroft. Convince me that you are actually interested in a debate. I'm happy to debate with you, but I get the impression that you aren't after a debate, as you seem more interested in dodging issues, not reading posts and merely trying to challenge everyone else without answering any awkward questions.

Jim Bowen

 

[Atlas]

Mycroft,

I think Jim Bowen raises some issues that you should address just so we get the preliminaries out of the way before the debate.

As I read his post he seems to believe that you...

1) Don't read other people's posts.
2) Don't read your own posts.

Will you or will you not answer? Do you or don't you. Um, don't answer if you don't read this post.

Jim, I think you may have him cornered here. Keep it up.

 

[crimresearch]

Mycroft,

I think Jim Bowen raises some issues that you should address just so we get the preliminaries out of the way before the debate.

As I read his post he seems to believe that you...

1) Don't read other people's posts.
2) Don't read your own posts.

Will you or will you not answer? Do you or don't you. Um, don't answer if you don't read this post.

Jim, I think you may have him cornered here. Keep it up.

Mycroft has asked me to not read his posts while he is away, but he didn't ask me not to read other's posts...

 

[Mycroft]

Jim, I feel terrible. You don’t seem to have the sense to be embarrassed for yourself, so I feel embarrassed for you. Atlas and crimresearch make fun of you, but I doubt that will be enough that you will get it.

I asked you a simple question. Why would you link Iran's nuclear program to Israel’s when Israel has never threatened Iran? You didn’t answer.

I asked, What issues are there between Israel and Iran? You didn’t answer that either.

I make a statement, …they don’t share any borders, have never been in any direct conflict, and the only animosity between the two countries comes from Iran. and bizarrely you say, "I pretty much suspected the answers about Iran, but one or two people had been raising doubts about Iran's attitude to Israel, so I thought I'd see what other people thought of it all."

Then when I post the article about what Rafsanjani said, who is an important figure in Iranian politics, you bizarrely claim I have somehow contradicted myself.

Jim, I read these posts. Do you?

Everybody here is well aware of Iranian hostility towards Israel. The issue here, if you claim Iran is justified in building nuclear weapons because of a threat from Israel, is if there is hostility towards Iran from Israel.

That’s why I asked why you associate Iran’s nuclear program with Israel’s when Israel has never threatened Iran. That’s why I asked you what the issues between Iran and Israel were. That’s why stated that these two countries don’t share any borders, have never been in any direct conflict, and that the animosity between them comes from Iran and not Israel. And that’s why posting the article where Rafsanjani threatens Israel with nuclear attack doesn’t contradict anything I said.

 

[Jim Bowen]

That's bizarre. You ask me to show that there are issues between Iran and Israel and then you show that there are issues. I don't believe you want a debate. You're just a troll with something to prove. Sad.

Jim Bowen