Another Myth: Non-Support for Israel

For the zillionth time, Pakistanis are sunnnis, financers of Taleban and AQ, best buddies of Saudi Arabia.

For them, Iranians are shia heretic infidels that have to be exterminated and Iran is after India tied with the US in the second place on the Pakistani list of “countries we would like to drop the bomb on”

So worrying about Pakistan giving the bomb to Iran is like worrying that North Korea will procure weaponry from the US.

Also, Russia is more than happy to provide Iran with advanced air defense systems, but like every nuclear power they have no interest in nuclear proliferation.

1 Like

From the WP article, which pretty much negates your point. In factional infighting everybody is trying to gain the moral high ground with such grandstanding.

What that evidence was is unclear, but it all fits a purpose for Ahmadinejad. His grandstanding on the Hidden Imam is a matter of domestic politics – a means of snatching some of the messianic figure’s moral authority away from Iran’s religious establishment, with which he has feuded in the past. Ahmadinejad’s tense political battles with other factions in the Islamic Republic even led to the arrest of a number of his close allies.

As the Iran scholar Abbas Amanat observed a few years ago, the link between political authority and signs of the Mahdi is a relatively new phenomenon, made most prominent in recent decades by the doctrines of the Islamic Republic.

Even then, Amanat notes, the "majority of the more cautious and circumspect members of the clergy seem to be paying only a lip service to [the] idea and treat [Ahmadinejad’s] repeated statements about the impending advent of the Mahdi with silent skepticism.

Ahmadinejad is pretty much sidelined, back to his old shitty job of a schoolteacher. One of the reason for his popularity among the poor and uneducated that enabled him to win rigged elections (he had to have some support to win) was his incorruptibility. He’s a Holocaust denying, gay hating antisemite but everyone pretty much agrees that he didn’t steal anything during or before his term in office - he still lives in a small dingy apartment with his family. And in a country with massive inequality where pretty much everyone in power abused it in petty ways that resonated with the marginalized parts of the society.

As far as apocalyptic end-of-times vocabulary goes, Saudi propaganda, both internal and external intent for radicalization is absolutely rife with such terms. AQ as well.

On several instances Pakistani-born engineers (once even in the US) opened up google maps to show me the exact location where the end-of-times battle with the Jews (!) will take place.

Many rich Gulf sheiks and other assorted scum are funneling money to ISIS as an insurance policy for the apocalypse.

Also, surprise, suprise - the last guy who clamied to be Mahdi was a proto-wahabbist

Not knowing and knowing that you don’t know is far preferable and leads to far better decisions that believing you know something that you do not. People here are claiming to know the hearts and minds of Iran’s leaders. Those people are full of shit, even if they’ve “painstakingly” applied themselves. People are irrational, large groups even more so. Incentives and punishments have unintended and unpredictable consequences at the scale of a nursery school. You and the policy makers have no clue what the long term consequences will be.

1 Like

And you trust that they are going to keep letting you verify?

So, real question, if it’s so awesome why was Netanyahu against it? Especially when from what I’ve read the IDF seems to think it was pretty good.

1 Like

Just a guess, but I would think Netanyahu would be against anything that benefits Iran in any way shape or form. Prior to the agreement, Iran’s economy was shit due to the sanctions. Now that Iran can freely trade their economy will likely flourish and it’d be easy to arguable that that is not in Israel’s favor. Especially since they’ll be buying Russian arms soon if they aren’t already.

Note, I am not a big fan of the JCPOA.

1 Like

Relax. I was asking for education not confrontation.

The reason I was curious regarding Pakistan is that I read ~ 20% of the population is Shia, there are some high level Shia in government, Sunni and Shia have gotten along in Pakistan to the point of intermarriage being not uncommon. So just curious

I apologize, didn’t mean to sound confrontational. Saudi Arabia also has a substantial shia population which is probably their best keep secret, so having a sizeable minority (or even majority) actually hardens the government stance as the rulers strive for religious/ethnic purity. Case in point, Bahrain riots.

Egypt was 10% Christian just a few years ago and that didn’t have any effect on their foreign policy.

. Pakistan is ran by the ISI and the intermarriage thing did occur among the “Black Brits” - Baluchi elites that that used to run the country.

Well, it seems someone really want the nuclear deal to succeed. Ahmadinejad was outright banned from the next presidential elections by the Supreme Leader. It seems Khameini and his clique do not want to take any chances with the guy who ran the country economically into the ground and almost got them bombed.

Maybe the Sunni Shia split.

There’s so much confrontation on these boards nowadays it’s totally excusable.

Trust? No. Expect as a function of Iranian interests? Yes. If you read what I wrote on extensively above, the deal is a windfall for western security agencies and significantly increases the capability, credibility, and international legitimacy of military action against Iran’s nuclear infrastructure

P.S. Anyone that suggests that the JCPOA is based on trust hasn’t read the text of the ageeement, doesn’t understand the virtuous circle of IAEA inspectors and western intelligence, and doesn’t understand the specter of economic/political collapse and American military force that brought Iran to the bargaining table in the first place.

I have a feeling people here are just being contrary for it’s own sake at this point. This has gotten to be one of the dumber tangents. Iran was barely mentioned as an aside for being asked when Obama has supported the enemies of Israel. If you guys who started jumping down my throat would care to go back and look I never even said I was against any of it or that Obama shouldn’t have done it. (I’ve even poised questions illustrating that I didn’t understand why Israel would be against it). I also never made any such statement about anything being based on trust, I said you can’t sign deals with people you cannot trust which is a very different thing. I do think it will fail and not accomplish it’s aims, which I pointed out only once I was asked about it, but that is in no way part of anything I claimed in the original argument. Let’s just say you guys are right and THIS deal is super awesome and going to accomplish everything you’ve laid out despite all history. Since when is aiding a country by giving them money, helping them avoid war and possibly nuclear Holocaust while saving face and opening their economy so they can grow and become wealthy NOT a show of support? I can only assume we have different definitions of support.

Either way it is maybe just a little bit of an insult and a mixed message to our special ally to unilaterally negotiate an “arms deal” in their back yard against their wishes with a country who’s vowed to wipe them off the earth. I mean can you imagine if Mexico was trying to go nuclear while having a history of trying to destroy America and Israel stepped in and unilaterally negotiated a deal with them that the Obama administration was against? I’m thinking that might strain relations a bit.

[quote=“DoubleDuce, post:94, topic:221772”]
I mean can you imagine if Mexico was trying to go nuclear while having a history of trying to destroy America and Israel stepped in and unilaterally negotiated a deal with them that the Obama administration was against??[/quote]

And unfroze millions of dollars for them to spend on advanced weaponry and terrorists who vowed to destroy your country. Oh, I forgot…Iran would NEVER think of doing such a thing according to some the people on this board.

Good luck corroborating that strawman.

Better to unfreeze the money and bribe them to stop their nuclear program and let them spend the money on weapons and terrorists than being a nuclear power, I guess.

A conventional strong Iran with a robust economy which funds terrorists < a nuclear Iran.

Give um all they money they want, at least they can’t launch a nuke at us was the general consensus.

So, unfreezing the money wasn’t a good idea? Please explain.

No, you hopeless rube. The strawman you put forth is that supporters of the JCPOA here on PWI deny that Iran would purchase conventional arms and continue to support its proxy groups. The deal was intended to prevent a nuclear Iran. An Iran with the bomb is far more difficult to contain than an Iran without it.

1 Like

Ok, possibly they didn’t deny it, they just refused to address it and their refusal to address it I took as denial. So we agree, then that Iran will do these things?

I claimed Iran could become a stronger power in the Middle East with or without nukes. Even if they do not get nuclear weapons, having the ability to strike out conventionally or using terrorist proxies would still present a significant problem, no?

Granted, they would be a worse threat with nukes, but I still say they pose a greater threat then they do now with the robust economy the unfrozen money will generate.

This is possibly why Israel would be against the treaty, I am assuming.

Would Israel think a military solution is the only solution? Worked real well in Lebanon a few years back, no?

Who has denied that?