http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,423961,00.html
IMO, this may decrease the odds of a pre-emptive strike in Iran’s nuclear facilities, emboldening Iran.
I’ll be interested to see if Palestinian violence worsens or lightens up in the next six months.
[quote]pwilliams wrote:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,423961,00.html
IMO, this may decrease the odds of a pre-emptive strike in Iran’s nuclear facilities, emboldening Iran.
I’ll be interested to see if Palestinian violence worsens or lightens up in the next six months.[/quote]
There will be no peace over there without one side making concessions to the other that would be wholly unacceptable to large numbers of constituents on the conceding side.
The Israelis aren’t going anywhere (at least meaningful to the Palestinians) and the Palestinians will keep killing until they do.
In other words nothing will fundamentally change in the foreseeable future. We’ve been round and round and round this block before.
As far as Iran is concerned, even Livni may be forced to eliminate the nuclear threat, especially as Iran gets closer. Even her own supporters probably wouldn’t be comfortable with a nuclear Iran and Ahmadinejad at the helm. At least I hope that’s how it would go, for their sake and ours.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
There will be no peace over there without one side making concessions to the other that would be wholly unacceptable to large numbers of constituents on the conceding side. [/quote]
Which ain’t gonna happen. The cycle of violence and hatred are very much ingrained on both sides.
[quote]The Israelis aren’t going anywhere (at least meaningful to the Palestinians) and the Palestinians will keep killing until they do.
In other words nothing will fundamentally change in the foreseeable future. We’ve been round and round and round this block before.[/quote]
Agreed.
I wholly disagree with this. Kidnapping Palestinians and bombing Beyrouth is one thing, attacking Iran is another. When a militia group like Hezballah stood toe to toe with Tel Aviv, just think about what their main foreign backer can do if its sovereignty is violated. It’ll be raining bombs on Israel from all sides. Hamas would be more than happy to lend a hand.
Arab states will cheer at Israel to kick Iranian butt, and that’ll create serious stability issues as the populations hold a radically different views from the dictators’.
Ahmadinejad has less than a year to go. His approval rates are as abysmal as Bush’s. And the President of Iran has little say in such foreign affairs issues anyway. It’s the domain of the Ayatollah, whose office has always been more conciliatory than that of the President.
So no, Israel will not attack Iran. Israelis will try to get the US to bomb Iran, but I’m not sure the American public will go along with it.
Not this time.
For a minute I thought I must be wrong if you agreed with me on something I said.
I laughed at Clinton and I laughed at Bush when they went over there thinking anything they did or said would make a spits worth of difference in that conflict. That is one the most bizarre cultural/political/historical/religious etc. situations in history in my opinion.
Both sides are absolutely right and absolutely wrong on some or other major issue that that whole debacle revolves around depending on which point in history you base your perspective on.
To be perfectly frank I tend to side with the Palestinians on the regional issues though I abhor their methods of protest. On the other hand I don’t know what else is available to them.
However I won’t be a hypocrite. We need Israel there though I have no illusions about their motivations with us which are entirely their own.
As far as Iran is concerned, lemme put it this way. SOMEBODY is going to see to it that Iran does not go live with unconventional weaponry that has any range capability at all.
I also think you underestimate their strength. They have state of the art hardware (as well we should know) and unwavering commitment to go along with possibly the world’s finest intelligence operation.
Don’t mistake a sub maximal effort with Hezballah in Tel Aviv with what would happen in an actual war. Not only that they would have our backing and Israel has strong support here. The resources would be made available.
I’m not calling this inevitable, but a credible threat from a nuclear Iran will not be sat on for very long. Only if the program were actually stopped or they were convinced that the leadership weren’t going to use it militarily would that be ultimately averted.
You are right though that Iran’s citizens are tired of the oppressive government in that country and the whole situation may change as common Iranians seem more interested in getting on with their lives than anything else. We’ll see who replaces the present regime.
Actually she has 40 days to try and form a new coalition government. She won %43 of her party support. Her election rival Mofaz got %42 and his supporters are upset that he was not treated fairly in the press and are deserting Kadima for Likud.
Part of the governing coalition she needs to rely on is ultra orthodox. So this thing is not settled yet. But if you look at the timing it look like they want to have it settled before the US election.
The reason why is this, Barack Obama has not inspired confidence in the Israelis that he will be tough on the Iranians. If he gets elected expect the Israelis to attack the Iranians before Bush leaves office.
A carrier battle group is being deployed to the Eastern Mediteranean close to Israel and Lebanon. Which leads me to think they are getting ready for trouble there.
Another thing to be aware of is the Iranians recently were conducting tests in the Caspian sea where they were launching modified Scuds off of a merchant ship. They could use such a system as a stand off weapon to launch nuclear armed missiles at American coastal cities.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
However I won’t be a hypocrite. We need Israel there though I have no illusions about their motivations with us which are entirely their own.[/quote]
That’s interesting. Why exactly do you think you “need Israel there”? And since when do you think that “need” arose?
A 100,000 Iranians were killed by Iraqi “unconventional weaponry”. They took the hit and didn’t escalate despite the fact that they had biological and chemical capabilities themselves. It is worth noting that the countries that were backing Iraq during that period are the the very same ones waiving their arms in outrage over Iran’s civil nuclear program.
Iran has a top-grade pharmaceutical industry, that it uses locally as well as for exporting. It can already produce WMDs on a massive scale, and the range of their missiles, while far from state-of-the-art, is nothing to be sneezed at. Everybody knows that.
The issue here, as all MAD scenarios, has to do with perceived power and spheres of influence. Should Iran acquire nukes, it’ll adopt a policy of deliberate ambiguity (made famous by a country nearby). This will make them a power to be reckoned with, and that’s something upsetting the big dogs.
[quote]I also think you underestimate their strength. They have state of the art hardware (as well we should know) and unwavering commitment to go along with possibly the world’s finest intelligence operation.
Don’t mistake a sub maximal effort with Hezballah in Tel Aviv with what would happen in an actual war. Not only that they would have our backing and Israel has strong support here. The resources would be made available.
I’m not calling this inevitable, but a credible threat from a nuclear Iran will not be sat on for very long. Only if the program were actually stopped or they were convinced that the leadership weren’t going to use it militarily would that be ultimately averted. [/quote]
At this point, I believe it is very very unlikely. Israelis will pay dearly if they were to attack Iran. I’m not underestimating the power of T’sahal or anything. I firmly believe that, should push come to shove, they could take Tehran down in a snap and have enough firepower left to kick the ass of a few dozen other countries. But making a decision about engaging a decent country upfront would be the death of any politician who makes that decision. For the simple reason that Hezbollah and Hamas will go all-in at that point, killing a shitload of Israelis. To make a little analogy, imagine if Iraq was geographically close to the US, and Iraqis managed to kill a million American civilians after the US bombed and invaded Baghdad.
Ultimately, the aggressor would evidently be Tel-Aviv and I’m not sure the population will not riot at that point.
What is sad, is that the more confrontational and terroristic the West’s rhetoric gets, the more the progressives put their agenda on hold to rally around the current regime.
Somehow, feminism doesn’t seem a priority when your country is about to be attack by a foreign military force.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
Actually she has 40 days to try and form a new coalition government. She won %43 of her party support. Her election rival Mofaz got %42 and his supporters are upset that he was not treated fairly in the press and are deserting Kadima for Likud.
Part of the governing coalition she needs to rely on is ultra orthodox. So this thing is not settled yet. But if you look at the timing it look like they want to have it settled before the US election.
The reason why is this, Barack Obama has not inspired confidence in the Israelis that he will be tough on the Iranians. If he gets elected expect the Israelis to attack the Iranians before Bush leaves office.
A carrier battle group is being deployed to the Eastern Mediteranean close to Israel and Lebanon. Which leads me to think they are getting ready for trouble there.
Another thing to be aware of is the Iranians recently were conducting tests in the Caspian sea where they were launching modified Scuds off of a merchant ship. They could use such a system as a stand off weapon to launch nuclear armed missiles at American coastal cities. [/quote]
If you believe, despite nearly thirty years of evidence to the contrary, that Iran is governed by people who want to annihilate every single one of their countrymen.
[quote]lixy wrote:
It is worth noting that the countries that were backing Iraq during that period are the the very same ones waiving their arms in outrage over Iran’s civil nuclear program.
[/quote]
edit-Russia is helping Iran.
[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Actually she has 40 days to try and form a new coalition government. She won %43 of her party support. Her election rival Mofaz got %42 and his supporters are upset that he was not treated fairly in the press and are deserting Kadima for Likud.
Part of the governing coalition she needs to rely on is ultra orthodox. So this thing is not settled yet. But if you look at the timing it look like they want to have it settled before the US election.
The reason why is this, Barack Obama has not inspired confidence in the Israelis that he will be tough on the Iranians. If he gets elected expect the Israelis to attack the Iranians before Bush leaves office.
A carrier battle group is being deployed to the Eastern Mediteranean close to Israel and Lebanon. Which leads me to think they are getting ready for trouble there.
Another thing to be aware of is the Iranians recently were conducting tests in the Caspian sea where they were launching modified Scuds off of a merchant ship. They could use such a system as a stand off weapon to launch nuclear armed missiles at American coastal cities.
If you believe, despite nearly thirty years of evidence to the contrary, that Iran is governed by people who want to annihilate every single one of their countrymen.[/quote]
What evidence to the contrary? The Iranian leadership deeply believes in final days messianic saviour ideology. This is the same type of ideology the ancient Israelites were following when they rebeled against Rome.
You should listen to what Ahmadinejad has been saying. He gave a speech about the coming of the Mahdi to the UN just last year.
If they did get anihilated, they would not be the first authoritarian government that got mass numbers of their people killed pursuing some cray ideology.
Barak, Netanyahu move forward on bloc for early election to tackle Iranian nuclear threat
http://www.debka.com/headline.php?hid=5601
DEBKAfile�??s political sources disclose that, while Israeli president Shimon Peres was solemnly entrusting Kadima leader Tzipi Livni with the task of forming a government, defense minister, Monday night, Sept. 22, Labor�??s Ehud Barak and opposition leader Likud�??s Binyamin Netanyahu were quietly moving forward with a rival plan.
The two party leaders, both former prime ministers, are discussing an early election to preempt a Livni government. The plan is for their two parties to face the voter as a single bloc committed to form an emergency government for urgently confronting the Iranian nuclear threat.
Peres and Livni were perfectly aware of the Barak-Netanyahu power-sharing initiative. They knew that without Barak and his Labor party, she lacks the numbers for a coalition government. Therefore, Peres commented when he designated the Kadima leader Monday night, that if she cannot form a viable coalition, he will not turn to another candidate but dissolve the Knesset and call a general election.
Livni in her acceptance speech, said she would not waste her own and the public�??s time by dragging out the coalition negotiations. If she sees no way forward, said the foreign minister, she will to go to the country.
Her main problem, according to DEBKAfile�?? sources, is that the election option is not in her hands, but up to Barak and Netanyahu. The two leaders have not closed their deal as yet but are feeling the pressure of time to come to terms.
DEBKAfile was first to report that Barak and Netanyahu were talking about an alternative administration to undermine the Kadima leader�??s bid to head a government on Sept. 17.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Actually she has 40 days to try and form a new coalition government. She won %43 of her party support. Her election rival Mofaz got %42 and his supporters are upset that he was not treated fairly in the press and are deserting Kadima for Likud.
Part of the governing coalition she needs to rely on is ultra orthodox. So this thing is not settled yet. But if you look at the timing it look like they want to have it settled before the US election.
The reason why is this, Barack Obama has not inspired confidence in the Israelis that he will be tough on the Iranians. If he gets elected expect the Israelis to attack the Iranians before Bush leaves office.
A carrier battle group is being deployed to the Eastern Mediteranean close to Israel and Lebanon. Which leads me to think they are getting ready for trouble there.
Another thing to be aware of is the Iranians recently were conducting tests in the Caspian sea where they were launching modified Scuds off of a merchant ship. They could use such a system as a stand off weapon to launch nuclear armed missiles at American coastal cities.
If you believe, despite nearly thirty years of evidence to the contrary, that Iran is governed by people who want to annihilate every single one of their countrymen.
What evidence to the contrary? The Iranian leadership deeply believes in final days messianic saviour ideology. This is the same type of ideology the ancient Israelites were following when they rebeled against Rome.
[/quote]
Yup, you’ve used that analogy before. I’m talking about actions, not words. Iran has, in its actions, been a pretty conservative status quo power in the region. They mess with Israel via Hezbollah and us via Badr and JAM, but so would you if you were in their shoes. Iraq attacked them in 1980, not the other way around.
He doesn’t run the country, and never has. Are you unaware of this or just hoping others are?
I use that analogy because there are a lot of similarities. History can repeat itself. Iran has not been able to do much in the region because it is surrounded by powerful neighbors. The war with Iraq seriously depleted their military also. So their actions in the region is not much to go by.
Iran has been attacking Israel through proxies. Iran also blew up a Jewish community center in Argentina. Committing terroist attacks all the way around the world in South America speaks volumes about their aggressiveness.
Ahmadinejad may be junior to the Ayatollah but he does control the Republican guards. The are not as far apart in their ideology as you might like to think they are.