"Wiping Israel off the Map"

[Bernie Gunther]

Well, there is the strong possibility that the US will get so overconfident in its military power that it bites off more than it can chew and goes into a situation where other factors outweigh the USAF and Navy's ability to smash stuff up.

For example, suppose it got sucked into an occupation of Iran? The terrain advantages would then allow the Iranians to use guerilla tactics far more effectively than Iraqis can (although they are clearly doing fairly well without such favourable terrain to hide in), and there are very many more of them.

That might actually be enough to inflict a decisive defeat over a decade or so, if the US governement were stupid enough to get sucked in to occupying Iran.

 

[ViolentPanda]

The nuclear bunker busters that DON'T EXIST would that be?

While it's accurate to sy that the nuke bunker busters aren't on the armoury shelf, it's also accurate to say that they're subject to ongoing development.
Probably far more development than Iran's possible future nuclear missiles.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Right, of course it "must" be the "official" version - what version anyway, do you mean what you link to must be a Government sanctioned translation becasue it's from a news agency ?!

In countries like Iran, the news agency is an arm of the govt., or at least under close govt. control.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

What's Arabic got to do with anything

You're worried about mistranslations. That might be a problem if the letter to Merkel was written in arabic, [or, er, Farsi, as the case may be...] but less so if it was written in German or English.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

My guess is that he's playing the game of 'superpower baiting' in order to build global prestige. He knows the US is fucked if it tries to occupy Iran and he knows that if they do to Iran what the Israelis just did to Lebanon, then the almost inevitable result will be to strengthen the Iranian hard-liners. If they don't do anything, then he's successfully defied them. In almost all scenarios, from his point of view 'superpower baiting' leaves him and his friends the winners.

If it's win win for Ahmedinejad, then there's no reason why the Israelis/Americans shouldn't at least make an attempt at bombing the nuke sites to fuck, is there?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

My thinking as well on this - despite all the outcry's about 'mistranslation' the Iranians have had ages to correct this error and haven't, so there must be a reason behind it.

Yeah: he's a crazy antisemitic bastard in charge of a country.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

BG - I think the US is already past the high water mark of it's imperial abilities; .

I tend to agree. I think the high water mark was in the few years post 1945, when American armies occupied much of Europe, as well as Japan, and their control of South America was pretty much complete.

Had they wanted to institute their own Reich, there wasn't much stopping them at that point. In fact, there were generals who wanted to push on to Moscow and Beijing, and just finish the matter there and then, but wiser heads prevailed.

If the US was as malign as you think it is, then it would have pressed its advantage post WW2 to recreate your old empire, but under the stars and stripes instead of the union jack.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

If it's win win for Ahmedinejad, then there's no reason why the Israelis/Americans shouldn't at least make an attempt at bombing the nuke sites to fuck, is there?

That really depends how you feel about the senseless slaughter of civilians I suppose.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

More seriously, I'm not totally sure myself if it is win-win for him, but I'm pretty sure he thinks it is and is acting on that basis. He also might be right.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Personally I think Iran is well within its rights to develop Nuclear Weapons,

How about Taiwan?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

That really depends how you feel about the senseless slaughter of civilians I suppose.

A lot of them seem to be getting killed in Iraq, for what appear to be dubious reasons. How will they feel about civilian deaths when the object is to prevent an enemy from developing nuclear weapons?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

More seriously, I'm not totally sure myself if it is win-win for him, but I'm pretty sure he thinks it is and is acting on that basis. He also might be right.

Well then like I said, if it's win win, there's no downside to the US etc in taking aggressive action to prevent the nuke program.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

More to the point, how will the surviving, but presumably slightly radioactive Iranians feel about it?

I'd imagine they're going to be fairly annoyed about it.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Well then like I said, if it's win win, there's no downside to the US etc in taking aggressive action to prevent the nuke program.

Downside for who?

 

[tangentlama]

I think I've mentioned before that an Iranian mate (whose parents fled during the revolution) said that the original text was very clearly specifying a "Zionist Israeli state", which to him meant getting rid of the political institutions that oppress Palestinians, not getting rid of Jews.
Of course, such distinctions don't play well with those who'd rather see the world in black and white.

It disappointed me that Stephen Sackur, of Hard Talk, mentioned this misquote of 'wiping Israel off the map' repeatedly to Sir Michael Quinlan.

Quinlan said some very sensible things although, Sackur, went unchallenged over this misquote. I would imagine that no-one as yet has challenged this publicly, on the news, unless you know any different, VP?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Downside for who?

You began this scenario by talking about how this is a win win situation for Ahmedinejad, no matter what the US does.

If that's true, there's no downside for the US if it bombs, since Ahmedinejad will, under your scenario, come out smelling like a rose no matter what.

The only diff for the US is that in one scenario, he's smelling like a rose with nukes in his pocket, in the other, he smells good, but without the nukes.

If you were the US, which scenario would you choose?

 

[Bernie Gunther]

You began this scenario by talking about how this is a win win situation for Ahmedinejad, no matter what the US does.

If that's true, there's no downside for the US if it bombs, since Ahmedinejad will, under your scenario, come out smelling like a rose no matter what.

The only diff for the US is that in one scenario, he's smelling like a rose with nukes in his pocket, in the other, he smells good, but without the nukes.

If you were the US, which scenario would you choose?

The reason I said "for who?" is that there are other people involved besides the US and Iranian governments.

Most obviously the soon-to-be-bereaved/radioactive people of Iran.

Your calculation apparently values their lives at zero, so I questioned it.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

The reason I said "for who?" is that there are other people involved besides the US and Iranian governments.

Most obviously the soon-to-be-bereaved/radioactive people of Iran.

Your calculation apparently values their lives at zero, so I questioned it.

Your win/win calculation seemed only to be speaking of governments, so why should I do differently?

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Why?

I was talking specifically about Ahmedinejad and what his thinking might be.

You then started talking about the US dropping bombs.

At that point the people the bombs are dropping on presumably start to come into the reckoning, so I started talking about them too.

This is a really stupid quibble JC. I mean really, what on earth is the point?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Why?

I was talking specifically about Ahmedinejad and what his thinking might be.

You then started talking about the US dropping bombs.

At that point the people the bombs are dropping on presumably start to come into the reckoning, so I started talking about them too.

This is a really stupid quibble JC. I mean really, what on earth is the point?

Seems to me, that the suffering of ordinary citizens isn't really in the thinking of Ahmedinejad, nor of Bush.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

<snip> If that's true, there's no downside for the US if it bombs, since Ahmedinejad will, under your scenario, come out smelling like a rose no matter what.

The only diff for the US is that in one scenario, he's smelling like a rose with nukes in his pocket, in the other, he smells good, but without the nukes.

If you were the US, which scenario would you choose?

What I am suggesting is that there are more factors at stake here than who gets to say 'I won' as important as that might be to the fundamentalist assholes running each of these countries.

First there are the lives of the people who the US would be bombing.

Second there are the lives of everybody else who gets dragged in should the conflagration, as seems likely spreads. Which is potentially most of the Middle East.

Thirdly there is the large potential for horrible things happening to the global economy, at least from the point of view of normal people, when tankers start getting sunk in the Gulf and oil prices go through the roof.

Fourthly, the US seems very unlikely to displace Ahmedinejad and far more likely to have the sort of result that Israel just had against Hezbollah. That means that a few years down the line, the Iranians probably really will have nukes in addition to being very pissed off, slightly radioactive and probably in an active state of war with the US and her subject nations.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Seems to me, that the suffering of ordinary citizens isn't really in the thinking of Ahmedinejad, nor of Bush.

No argument.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

What I am suggesting is that there are more factors at stake here than who gets to say 'I won' as important as that might be to the fundamentalist assholes running each of these countries.

First there are the lives of the people who the US would be bombing.

Second there are the lives of everybody else who gets dragged in should the conflagration, as seems likely spreads. Which is potentially most of the Middle East.

Thirdly there is the large potential for horrible things happening to the global economy, at least from the point of view of normal people, when tankers start getting sunk in the Gulf and oil prices go through the roof.

Fourthly, the US seems very unlikely to displace Ahmedinejad and far more likely to have the sort of result that Israel just had against Hezbollah. That means that a few years down the line, the Iranians probably really will have nukes in addition to being very pissed off, slightly radioactive and probably in an active state of war with the US and her subject nations.

Is Ahmedinejad considering these things as he thumbs his nose at today's deadline?

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Is Ahmedinejad considering these things as he thumbs his nose at today's deadline?

I'm sure he is.

My point though is that if the Iranians really want nukes, there is no feasible miliary way to stop them. Ahmedinejad is clearly quite sure about this. A significant part of the US military/intelligence community seems to believe this too from some of the stuff that various unofficial channels like Seymour Hersh, William Lind, Larry Johnson and Pat Lang have been saying lately.

So if attacking Iran isn't going to stop them getting nukes, and the disastrous consquences I was discussing above really are probable outcomes, it makes no sense to attack Iran for the reasons that are being given, ie to reduce the threat of nuclear terrorism. As with Iraq, it's obviously not going to do what we're being told that it's supposed to do but in fact is more likely to make the worst case scenarios happen.

It makes far more sense on those sort of assumptions to normalise relations, as most of the sane people in the world keep saying. if that's even possible at this stage in the game and with the two fundamentalist assholes in question posturing like two chimps competing for banana rights.

 

[ZAMB]

If it's win win for Ahmedinejad, then there's no reason why the Israelis/Americans shouldn't at least make an attempt at bombing the nuke sites to fuck, is there?

Humanity?
Compassion?
Thou shalt not kill [not that the US govt. are great on keeping the commandments of their religion that they talk about so much]?
Thou shalt not covet?
Thou shalt not steal?
and of course 'Thou shalt not bear false witness' given that there is zero proof that the nukes you talk about even exist? Or are you happy with another war based on lies, with thousands of innocents getting killed, as happened in Iraq?

 

[nino_savatte]

Is Ahmedinejad considering these things as he thumbs his nose at today's deadline?

Why is it that Ahmadinejad is your bogey man du jour?

You exaggerate Iran's capacity for nuclear destruction for the sake of demonisation. I'm only surprised you haven't gone the 'whole hog' and produced some text which dehumanises the Iranian people, though I'm sure that will come.

For someone who claimed, on these boards, to have been a hippy, you spend an awful lot of time wishing for war. I don't know any hippies (former, current or otherwise) who love war and destruction as much as you do, and who are happy to accept the lies of the USG.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Interesting article here from Prof Paul Rogers on the broader implications of Israel's failure to defeat Hezbollah.

There is an extraordinary irony here – although one not widely recognised in the United States or Britain. An intimate connection has long existed between the US army's Training and Doctrine Command (Tradoc) and the Israeli army in relation to counterinsurgency operations in Iraq. The difficulties facing the US forces in trying to control the Iraqi insurgents have made these forces more heavily reliant on the experience of the Israelis in controlling the occupied Palestinian territories. This has included training methods, surveillance equipment and even weapons, with much of the latter bought from Israel or made under licence (see "A week of vengeance", 1 April 2004). Just as the Americans have sought to learn from the Israelis, now many of the Iraqi paramilitaries and the Iranians will be working hard to learn from Hizbollah's experience.

At the very least, this means that one of the original motives for US support for Israel may have backfired in a quite spectacular way. The Lebanon war was seen within the Bush administration as an opportunity for Israel to defeat Hizbollah and, indirectly, decrease Iranian influence in the region. This would put Iran on the defensive in relation to its nuclear ambitions and would remove any Iranian capability to utilise Hizbollah in responding to a US or Israeli attack on its nuclear facilities (see "Hit Beirut, target Tehran", 21 July 2006). Instead, the political effects of the war have been to embolden Tehran, and the military effects will be to increase Iranian capabilities to cause major problems for the United States in Iraq.

source

 

[ZAMB]

Is Ahmedinejad considering these things as he thumbs his nose at today's deadline?

What do you think would happen if any other country tried to do what the US/UK are doing to Iran, with respect to either their domestic nuclear industry or the nuclear weapons which we know they already have?

They'd be told to F--- off and mind their own business, that's what - and probably be censured for daring to ask such a question. Even citizens of the UK get this response if they try and express their concerns too forcefully to their own govt. Do you not think that all countries should receive equal treatment by the UN - especially concerning areas of domestic policy? I doubt if the US would care so much about Iraq's domestic nuclear policy, or want so desperately to go to war there, if it wasn't one of the major oil-exporting regions

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

What do you think would happen if any other country tried to do what the US/UK are doing to Iran, with respect to either their domestic nuclear industry or the nuclear weapons which we know they already have?

They'd be told to F--- off and mind their own business, that's what - and probably be censured for daring to ask such a question. Even citizens of the UK get this response if they try and express their concerns too forcefully to their own govt. Do you not think that all countries should receive equal treatment by the UN - especially concerning areas of domestic policy? I doubt if the US would care so much about Iraq's domestic nuclear policy, or want so desperately to go to war there, if it wasn't one of the major oil-exporting regions

The US told Taiwan to stop trying to produce nukes back in the Seventies.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

.

Your calculation apparently values their lives at zero, so I questioned it.

Not mine, but I suspect that that's the case for the govts involved.