# Iran threatens a "pre-emptive strike" against Israel **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 22, 2008, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iran-threatens-a-pre-emptive-strike-against-israel/469100 "2008-10-22T19:04:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![jackdavinci](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackdavinci/32/3259_2.png) [@jackdavinci](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jackdavinci)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2008, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iran-threatens-a-pre-emptive-strike-against-israel/469100/61 "2008-10-25T22:01:28Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > Wrong that was exactly his point, namely, a thoroughly and heartfelt defense of the right of theocratic murderers to invade and conquer nations that are begging them for peace (as long as it pisses off America, natch) > Der’s original point was, among other things, that Iran had every right to attempt to conquer a nation that was continually begging for peace so that Iran could spread its murderous theocracy there. And that for opposing them, we were bastards. He certainly did no such thing. And frankly you are coming dangerously close to direct attacks on a poster. Please constrain yourself to attacks on the arguments and not the poster. If you don’t care about the rules of the board, you should least care about the fact that your vitriol is coming off as much more like the work of a hating nut job than DT. Even assuming you had all your facts right, the way in which you present them makes you seem extremely distrustworthy. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2008, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iran-threatens-a-pre-emptive-strike-against-israel/469100/62 "2008-10-25T22:11:46Z")
> [@jackdavinci](#): > > He certainly did no such thing. Bullshit, Jack. Obviously, blatant bullshit. I’d also point out that “Nuhn Unh!!!” is not a rebuttal of the clear logical progression I just outlined. Der clearly and unambiguously claimed that we were in the _wrong_ and somehow were ‘attacking Iran’, when we offered help to Iraq while Sadaam and the UN were offering ceasefires and Iran was trying to conquer Iraq Der clearly and unambiguously claimed that it was not Iran that was attacking the US and Iraq after Iraq and the UN were pleading for a ceasfire and the US that was acting defensively, but that it was the US that was attacking Iran and Iran that was acting defensively. Der clearly and unambiguously said that he couldn’t fucking care less that Iran’s own people want peace and good relations with the US, and instead parroted the Mullah’s propaganda that they need to “defend” themselves. That is, without a doubt, support of Iran’s right to spread its murderous theocracy by force and the demonetization of those who tried to stop them. He also, clearly and explicitly, claimed his support for the Mullahs. Here, let me quote it for you since you seem to have missed it. > [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > It is their clear duty for their national survival to acquire nukes, as well as in their leadership’s self interest. Thus, the Mullahs’ self interest (ya know, the gay-killing, Jew-killing, theocratic murderers?), their self interest is a valid means to nuke up. That’s _support_. Der _supports_ murderous theocracy. And, as I pointed out several times and you’ve steadfastly ignored, Iran’s actual population wants peace with America and Israel, Iran’s Mullahs’ propaganda is that they’re under direct threat and need to protect themselves. Der spits in the Iranians face and embraces the Mullah’s claims 100%. That’s _support_ Der _supports_ murderous theocracy. Face it, you’re arguing in the teeth of the facts and the closest you can get to even an attempt at an actual logical rebuttal is “He certainly did no such thing.” > [@jackdavinci](#): > > And frankly you are coming dangerously close to direct attacks on a poster. Please constrain yourself to attacks on the arguments and not the poster Whatever. Not that I’m not in awe of junior modding, but save us both time and just hit ‘report post’ if you can’t deal with what I’m saying. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2008, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iran-threatens-a-pre-emptive-strike-against-israel/469100/63 "2008-10-25T22:22:31Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > Wrong that was exactly his point, namely, a thoroughly and heartfelt defense of the right of theocratic murderers to invade and conquer nations that are begging them for peace (as long as it pisses off America, natch) > Der’s original point was, among other things, that Iran had every right to attempt to conquer a nation that was continually begging for peace so that Iran could spread its murderous theocracy there. And that for opposing them, we were bastards. Iraq attacked Iran, Iran defended itself. We backed Iraq because we wanted them destroyed. > [@FinnAgain](#): > > From, roughly, the hostage crisis to the present, the US never once used its direct military might to attack Iran, even though Iran murdered hundreds of US soldiers and wounded many, many more. So what ? Dead’s dead, regardless of whether we use our own soldiers or proxies. > [@FinnAgain](#): > > Even though Iran was in bed with Al Quaeda and helped train them in explosives, among other things, even after Bin Laden’s goals and methods were crystal clear. And we support our own terrorists in Iran, and supported Saddam for a long time, till he lost his usefulness. > [@FinnAgain](#): > > Given the fact, then, that Iran has relentlessly been the aggressor in the region Don’t be ridiculous. WE’VE conquered Iraq, and Israel hasn’t exactly been passive either. > [@FinnAgain](#): > > why on Earth do you claim that the constant aggressor is the victim, and the nation that had many opportunities to bomb Iran to hell, but never did, is a real and significant threat to them? Because we’ve hurt them, repeatedly, and badly in the past. Right back to the Shah. Nor are they “the constant aggressor”. Aggressor’s, both local and foreign are one thing the region isn’t short of. > [@FinnAgain](#): > > For instance, Iran’s own populace wants warm relations with the US, wants their government to quit their theocratic shit and support democracy and is even amenable to peace with Israel. And yet, Der opposes the Iranian population (which doesn’t feel the US is a threat but rather a potential friend, for instance), and enthusiastically supports the actions of the Mullahs, down to parroting their propaganda about how threatened they are. So, clearly, Der opposes Iranians and supports the Iranian regime. No; it’s just that they’ve been lied to so often that they don’t believe their own government even when it tells the truth. Which is why the Iranian populace is one of the few groups on Earth that actually still buys American propaganda. And once again, I don’t support the Iranian regime. I just don’t support our right to slaughter people for their own good, and DO accept the right of any country to defend itself. > [@FinnAgain](#): > > Did he not spend a single word on any of the very valid reasons why Iran’s continual aggressive, militaristic, expansionist theocracy provides valid reasons for worry for the entire region and should indeed be opposed, or did he immediately and without equivocation excuse all of Iran’s behavior by talking about how much he hates the United States? America is ALSO militaristic and expansionist. And we’ve CONQUERED IRAQ, right next to them. If the Soviet Union had conquered Mexico or Canada, would you have considered it irrational for Americans to worry about what they might do next ? > [@FinnAgain](#): > > Come on, this isn’t rocket science. Not only will Der not condemn Iran’s long history of religious brutality and murder, but he goes as far as to explicitly support their right to engage in it without the US trying to stop them. If that isn’t support, nothing is. Fine, I condemn it. Just as I condemn every religion on the face of the Earth. I didn’t think it necessary to bother. And we aren’t trying to oppose their religious brutality; we are indifferent to it at best. ---
**Author:** ![jackdavinci](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackdavinci/32/3259_2.png) [@jackdavinci](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jackdavinci)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2008, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iran-threatens-a-pre-emptive-strike-against-israel/469100/64 "2008-10-25T22:24:13Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > Bullshit, Jack. Obviously, blatant bullshit. I’d also point out that “Nuhn Unh!!!” is not a rebuttal of the clear logical progression I just outlined. But “Bullshit” is? 😕 > [@FinnAgain](#): > > Der clearly and unambiguously claimed that we were in the _wrong_ and somehow were ‘attacking Iran’, when we offered help to Iraq while Sadaam and the UN were offering ceasefires and Iran was trying to conquer Iraq > Der clearly and unambiguously claimed that it was not Iran that was attacking the US and Iraq after Iraq and the UN were pleading for a ceasfire and the US that was acting defensively, but that it was the US that was attacking Iran and Iran that was acting defensively. > Der clearly and unambiguously said that he couldn’t fucking care less that Iran’s own people want peace and good relations with the US, and instead parroted the Mullah’s propaganda that they need to “defend” themselves. > > That is, without a doubt, support of Iran’s right to spread its murderous theocracy by force and the demonetization of those who tried to stop them. How is saying “it’s in a murderer’s self interest to avoid detection by the police” support of murderers? He already rebutted you on this point but I’ll say it again for emphasis, pointing out what is the most beneficial strategy for someone is not a showing of support for them. If it were, then all military strategy would be considered treason, since you cannot anticipate an enemy without considering what they would likely do. > [@](#): > > Face it, you’re arguing in the teeth of the facts and the closest you can get to even an attempt at an actual logical rebuttal is “He certainly did no such thing.” I’m calling you on your vacuous assertions. You haven’t backed up your crazy claims with any quotes from DT other than one that you have wildly misinterpreted. It’s pretty clear that you have some kind of weird grudge against DT from some other thread (which you yourself mentioned) and will take any opportunity to chew him out regardless of what he actually says. > [@](#): > > Whatever. Not that I’m not in awe of junior modding, but save us both time and just hit ‘report post’ if you can’t deal with what I’m saying. I can deal with it just fine. But it’s not doing your arguments any favors. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2008, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iran-threatens-a-pre-emptive-strike-against-israel/469100/65 "2008-10-25T22:26:45Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > Thus, the Mullahs’ self interest (ya know, the gay-killing, Jew-killing, theocratic murderers?), their self interest is a valid means to nuke up. That’s _support_. Der _supports_ murderous theocracy. Garbage. that’s pointing out the obvious fact that it’s in their self interest **to stay alive**. And the odds of them surviving a conquest un-executed by us or our puppets is low. And just for the record, since we are expressing opinions about other poster’s true beliefs, I don’t believe for one second that you have the slightest concern for the people of Iran, or would be unhappy if we killed a few million of them and subjugated the rest. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2008, 10:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iran-threatens-a-pre-emptive-strike-against-israel/469100/66 "2008-10-25T22:50:09Z")
Luckily Jack, Der has decided to help me prove my point some more. > [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Iraq attacked Iran, Iran defended itself. We backed Iraq because we wanted them destroyed. Notice, again, that Der is claiming that even once Iraq was 100% out of Iranian territory and both Iraq and the UN were pleading for a ceasefire agreement, that Iran invading Iraq and continuing a war for roughly _half a decade against a defeated for suing for peace_ is “defense”. That mean he is clearly and unambiguously supporting Iran’s right to expand its theocracy, by force, and justifying it as “defense”, while demonizing those who tried to stop it. When it’s pointed out that Iran has a 30 year history of being an aggressor, Der excuses it with a tu quoque fallacy and (surprise surprise!) talks about how much he hates the US. He then goes on to claim that the Irianian people are idiots who can’t tell the difference between truth, and the Mullahs are the honest ones looking out for Iran’s best interests. He says that the Iranian people themselves should be totally fucking ignored, and that the theocrats are the ones who should not only dominate and tyrannize their own populace who are sick of them, but that they’re the ones who get to make all the calls. That is support. This isn’t rocket science. Speaking of which, WTF? > [@jackdavinci](#): > > But “Bullshit” is? 😕 Confused, eh? Here, I thought that the numerous posts where I set out exactly what my claims were, as well as the text after the word “bullshit”, which was also 100% a logical rebuttal, would count as, oh, I don’t know… a logical rebuttal? Do you really not understand the difference between calling bullshit and offering a thorough rebuttal, and the simple handwaving you’ve been engaged in? Really? > [@jackdavinci](#): > > How is saying “it’s in a murderer’s self interest to avoid detection by the police” support of murderers? Are you really unaware of what pure bullshit that analogy is? It’d be closer to say that after murdering numerous people, it was not only in the murder’s self interest to get a rocket launcher, but he needed it for purposes of “defense”. Defense has an actual meaning, you can’t make it up. And anybody who actually claimed that murderers should get rocket launchers to “defend” themselves from the police would _certainly and without any ambiguity at all_, be supporting murderers. Just like Der supports the Mullahs even while offering a luke warm flimsy denial of his support (in the same post as he enthusiastically supports their right to authoritarian rule and to disregard that the Iranians actually want peace and good relations with the US.) > [@jackdavinci](#): > > He already rebutted you on this point but I’ll say it again for emphasis, pointing out what is the most beneficial strategy for someone is not a showing of support for them. Er… if by “he rebutted you” you mean “he proved your point with his own words”, then yes. Again, he went on to spit in the Iranian people’s faces, saying they were too fucking stupid or brainwashed or whatever, to tell truth from lies. And, what’s more, he’s now on record in black and white supporting the Mullahs as the only ones with the real, authentic vision of what is best for Iran. Again, that’s support. He supports the theocrats and, what’s worse actively and vocally opposes the Iranian people themselves, saying in essence that they should just shut up and let the theocrats rule over them. So, if I was being really thorough, I’d point out that Der supports a murderous theocracy that destabilizes the region and makes open conflict much more likely, and opposes secular democracy and the Iranian peoples’ wishes for peace and safety. (of course with the addendum that his argument is talking out of both sides of its mouth as it claims that theocrats are bad, but then says they should rule Iran, engage in aggressive imperialistic expansionism as “defense”, nuke up, and not give a fuck that their own people want peace with the United States.) If you really want to get into it, I could point out how even more of his argument is based on a fantasy-land with claims about how the US ‘uncritically’ supports Israel, and such. But, eh. That’s just icing, right? ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2008, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iran-threatens-a-pre-emptive-strike-against-israel/469100/67 "2008-10-25T23:11:17Z")
My, you really are fond of distorting what people say, aren’t you ? > [@FinnAgain](#): > > Notice, again, that Der is claiming that even once Iraq was 100% out of Iranian territory and both Iraq and the UN were pleading for a ceasefire agreement, that Iran invading Iraq and continuing a war for roughly _half a decade against a defeated for suing for peace_ is “defense”. Of course. Just as it was defense for the Allies to conquer Germany and Japan; they started it. > [@FinnAgain](#): > > That mean he is clearly and unambiguously supporting Iran’s right to expand its theocracy, by force, and justifying it as “defense”, while demonizing those who tried to stop it. Nothing of the sort. They defended themselves; your complaint is they did so successfully. > [@FinnAgain](#): > > When it’s pointed out that Iran has a 30 year history of being an aggressor, Der excuses it with a tu quoque fallacy and (surprise surprise!) talks about how much he hates the US. No, I’m pointing that you define everything Iran does as aggression, and everything we and our proxies do as NOT aggression. You come across as the sort who’d beat up an Iranian and justify it by holding up your bleeding fists and saying “See what he did !” > [@FinnAgain](#): > > He then goes on to claim that the Irianian people are idiots who can’t tell the difference between truth, and the Mullahs are the honest ones looking out for Iran’s best interests. At least in this matter, they are. > [@FinnAgain](#): > > He says that the Iranian people themselves should be totally fucking ignored, and that the theocrats are the ones who should not only dominate and tyrannize their own populace who are sick of them, but that they’re the ones who get to make all the calls. > That is support. No, it’s not. I said that ANYONE in charge of Iran should do the same thing. If the mullahs were all executed tomorrow, whoever replaced them should still go for nuclear weapons. It’s America’s hostility and general aggression that makes getting nuclear weapons a good idea; the Iranian leadership has nothing to do with that. I’ve said in the past that it’s the logical thing to do for **every** country to get nuclear weapons, and point them at us, because the US has become a rabid dog of a nation. > [@FinnAgain](#): > > Are you really unaware of what pure bullshit that analogy is? It’d be closer to say that after murdering numerous people, it was not only in the murder’s self interest to get a rocket launcher, but he needed it for purposes of “defense”. No, the analogy doesn’t work because our hostility toward Iran has zero to do with them being “murderers”. We’ve never cared about that, with the Iranians or anyone else. Including ourselves. > [@FinnAgain](#): > > So, if I was being really thorough, I’d point out that Der supports a murderous theocracy that destabilizes the region and makes open conflict much more likely, and opposes secular democracy and the Iranian peoples’ wishes for peace and safety. WE destabilize the region and oppose democracy. That how Iran GOT a theocracy - we didn’t want democracy there. > [@FinnAgain](#): > > If you really want to get into it, I could point out how even more of his argument is based on a fantasy-land with claims about how the US ‘uncritically’ supports Israel, and such. But, eh. That’s just icing, right? That’s no fantasy. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2008, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iran-threatens-a-pre-emptive-strike-against-israel/469100/68 "2008-10-25T23:33:11Z")
MAD governs Israeli/Iranian relations. Though at this point it favors Israel, but maybe not for very long. One nuke on Qom might actually serve to break the Theocracy and lead to a more liberalized Iran. Not saying that this should be done pre-emptively, but if Iran attacks Israel, maybe it’s what needs to happen. Regardless of what happens, if Iran hits Israel with a credible pre-emptive attack of some kind American boots will need to be on the ground immediately to protect them from the Arab nations that surround them. ---
**Author:** ![Crackhead06](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/77aa72/32.png) [@Crackhead06](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crackhead06)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2008, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iran-threatens-a-pre-emptive-strike-against-israel/469100/69 "2008-10-25T23:51:02Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > From, roughly, the hostage crisis to the present, the US never once used its direct military might to attack Iran, even though Iran murdered hundreds of US soldiers and wounded many, many more. Even though Iran was in bed with Al Quaeda and helped train them in explosives, among other things, even after Bin Laden’s goals and methods were crystal clear. Wait. Don’t get me wrong. I think the US should be trying to stop Iran from making problems in the middle east, along with all the anti-Israel threats. But I’d like to get this statement straigtened out. Al Qaeda has no ties with Iran. Al Qaeda, you see, is sunni, or at least the leader, [Osama Bin Ladin](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden) is sunni. [QUOTE=wikipedia (Osama Bin Laden: Childhood, education and personal life)] Bin Laden was raised as a devout Sunni Muslim. [/QUOTE] On the other hand Iran is predominantly shiite and [Iran said to support shiite militias in Iraq](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/14/AR2006081400477.html). I don’t think that means supporting organizations with Sunni leaders. > [@](#): > > Everybody on the “The US is a threat to Iran!!!111oneone!!!” bandwaggon ignores the major glaring logical flaw there, so maybe you’ll answer it. > > From, roughly, the hostage crisis to the present, the US never once used its direct military might to attack Iran, even though Iran murdered hundreds of US soldiers and wounded many, many more This is not a bandwaggon, it’s reality. Maybe the US didn’t respond to attacks from Iran, but that doesn’t mean the US isn’t a threat. The US is not on great terms with Iran for it’s carrying out sanctions and is in fact, carrying out missions to fight Iranian prescence in Iran. The US has the potential to wipe out Iran any day. I’d call that a threat, good thing or not. Now weather you think the US will respond to Iran in the future, we can debate that any day. Israel is also a threat to Iran. People miss that Israel has a pretty strong military and is nuclear armed (while Iran is still trying to make nuclear weapons). I’m not saying Israel will use nuclear weapons, I’m just saying that Iran won’t be able to just wipe out Israel out of the map without themselves paying the price, even if Iran does one day does get a Nuclear weapon (but let me make it clear the US should still stop Iran from getting Nuclear weapon. It would still be a _big_ problem if it did). Now I think that Iran is the _agressor_ here. The US and Israel havn’t done as much violence or propose radical things, don’t get me wrong, I agree with that, but I feel like you’re completely dismissing arguments coming from the other side. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2008, 12:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iran-threatens-a-pre-emptive-strike-against-israel/469100/70 "2008-10-26T00:07:15Z")
> [@jackdavinci](#): > > Please constrain yourself to attacks on the arguments and not the poster. If you don’t care about the rules of the board, you should least care about the fact that your vitriol is coming off as much more like the work of a hating nut job than DT. I do hope you see the irony of these two sentences in their juxtaposition. Claiming that one must take the high road or else one’s words look like those of a “hating nut job” is not exactly living by one’s own advice. = = = **Everyone** : back off and cool down. [/Moderating] ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2008, 12:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iran-threatens-a-pre-emptive-strike-against-israel/469100/71 "2008-10-26T00:18:53Z")
> [@Crackhead06](#): > > Wait. Don’t get me wrong. I think the US should be trying to stop Iran from making problems in the middle east, along with all the anti-Israel threats. But I’d like to get this statement straigtened out. Al Qaeda has no ties with Iran. Al Qaeda, you see, is sunni, or at least the leader, [Osama Bin Ladin](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden) is sunni. Al Quaeda most certainly had ties with Iran. I’m about to cook dinner now, but I’ll be happy to re-post cites I’ve posted around here before detailing how Iran, for instance, gave Al Quaeda explosives training, safe passage, etc… even after Bin Laden made his goals and methods clear. It’s not fiction. The 9/11 report goes on at some length about Iran’s support (pre-9/11) for Al Queada. > [@Crackhead06](#): > > This is not a bandwaggon, it’s reality. Not only is it a bandwaggon, it’s a bandwaggon that’s pulled by a team of oxen made of fail. Honestly, can you list, say, a dozen friendly nations that the US has invaded? There is absolutely no reason, at all, to come to the conclusion that an Iran which had warm relations with the west, didn’t support terrorism and was openly democratic would have any cause to fear US strikes. > [@Crackhead06](#): > > Maybe the US didn’t respond to attacks from Iran, but that doesn’t mean the US isn’t a threat. Yeah, it pretty much does. If someone attacks your soldiers numerous times, kidnaps your civilians, supports global terrorism that targets your friends and allies, and you do not engage y our actual military might _even once_? It’s very odd to call that nation a threat. Folks can’t ignore the fact that if America wanted, we could’ve rubbled Iran at any time in the last three decades. We didn’t. We weren’t going to. We’re not going to. Unless, of course, Iran does something spectacularly stupid like gives nuclear material to Hezbollah. > [@Crackhead06](#): > > The US has the potential to wipe out Iran any day. I’d call that a threat, good thing or not. But we _haven’t_ even when savagely provoked with at least two direct, fairly major military assaults against our soldiers by Iran. It might be accurate to say that if Iran goes to extraordinary lengths to cause conflict that we might be a threat, but if Iran was minding its own bussiness and acting as a responsible nation-state, then no, we’d not be a threat at all. Any more than we’re a threat to, say, Saudi Arabia. ---
**Author:** ![Crackhead06](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/77aa72/32.png) [@Crackhead06](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crackhead06)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2008, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iran-threatens-a-pre-emptive-strike-against-israel/469100/72 "2008-10-26T01:00:11Z")
> [@](#): > > Al Quaeda most certainly had ties with Iran. I’m about to cook dinner now, but I’ll be happy to re-post cites I’ve posted around here before detailing how Iran, for instance, gave Al Quaeda explosives training, safe passage, etc… even after Bin Laden made his goals and methods clear. > > It’s not fiction. The 9/11 report goes on at some length about Iran’s support (pre-9/11) for Al Queada. Enjoy your dinner I guess. I know there’s claims about Iran having ties to al qaeda, supplying them arms, training, etc. but it doesn’t make sense for reasons I just explained. Maybe your links might persuade me, I’ll take a look at your links you previously posted but I gotta eat dinner too. > [@](#): > > Honestly, can you list, say, a dozen friendly nations that the US has invaded? There is absolutely no reason, at all, to come to the conclusion that an Iran which had warm relations with the west, didn’t support terrorism and was openly democratic would have any cause to fear US strikes. No. But I can say that there is support in the US to stop Iranian terror regime, definitely not as radical as Iran though and that the US is keeping troops in Iraq partially to keep Iranian presence out. > [@](#): > > It might be accurate to say that if Iran goes to extraordinary lengths to cause conflict that we might be a threat… Yeah, which is why I’m saying the US is a threat. We havn’t provoked anything, but the US striking back is the hazard if Iran does anything provokitive. I define “threat” as anything “potentially harmful”. and the US will fight Iran if it carries out its regime. I think it’s a little definition trouble of the word “threat” we have. Rather than calling the U.S. a threat, I’ll say the U.S. is potentially harmful and an obstacle to Iran’s plans of terror. Is this wording you can agree with? ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2008, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iran-threatens-a-pre-emptive-strike-against-israel/469100/73 "2008-10-26T01:07:14Z")
> [@Crackhead06](#): > > Enjoy your dinner I guess. I know there’s claims about Iran having ties to al qaeda, supplying them arms, training, etc. but it doesn’t make sense for reasons I just explained. Maybe your links might persuade me, I’ll take a look at your links you previously posted but I gotta eat dinner too. Pasta sauce is simmering, so I found the previous links. [ > [@](#): > > Turabi sought to persuade Shiites and Sunnis to put aside their divisions and join against the common enemy. In late 1991 or 1992, discussions in Sudan > between al Qaeda and Iranian operatives led to an informal agreement to cooperate in providing support—even if only training—for actions carried out primarily against Israel and the United States. Not long afterward, senior al Qaeda operatives and trainers traveled to Iran to receive training in explosives. In the fall of 1993,another such delegation went to the Bekaa Valley in Lebanon for further training in explosives as well as in intelligence and security. Bin Ladin reportedly showed particular interest in learning how to use truck bombs such as the one that had killed 241 U.S. Marines in Lebanon in 1983.The relation- > ship between al Qaeda and Iran demonstrated that Sunni-Shia divisions did not necessarily pose an insurmountable barrier to cooperation in terrorist operations. As will be described in chapter 7,al Qaeda contacts with Iran continued 52 in ensuing years. ]([http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/pdf/sec2.pdf](http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/pdf/sec2.pdf)) [ > [@](#): > > Intelligence indicates the persistence of contacts between Iranian security officials and senior al Qaeda figures after Bin Ladin’s return to Afghanistan. Khallad has said that Iran made a concerted effort to strengthen relations with al Qaeda after the October 2000 attack on the USS Cole, but was rebuffed because Bin Ladin did not want to alienate his supporters in Saudi Arabia. Khallad and other detainees have described the willingness of Iranian officials to facilitate the travel of al Qaeda members through Iran,on their way to and from Afghanistan.For example,Iranian border inspectors would be told not to place telltale stamps in the passports of these travelers. Such arrangements were particularly beneficial to Saudi members of al Qaeda. Our knowledge of the international travels of the al Qaeda operatives selected for the 9/11 operation remains fragmentary. But we now have evidence suggesting that 8 to 10 of the 14 Saudi “muscle”operatives traveled into or out of Iran between October 2000 and February 2001. ]([http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/pdf/sec7.pdf](http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/pdf/sec7.pdf)) As for whether or not Iran knew of Bin Laden’s ideology and methods: > [@](#): > > In February 1998, the 40-year-old Saudi exile Usama Bin Ladin and a fugitive Egyptian physician,Ayman al Zawahiri, arranged from their Afghan headquarters for an Arabic newspaper in London to publish what they termed a fatwa issued in the name of a “World Islamic Front.” A fatwa is normally an interpretation of Islamic law by a respected Islamic authority,but neither Bin Ladin, Zawahiri, nor the three others who signed this statement were scholars of Islamic law. Claiming that America had declared war against God and his messenger, they called for the murder of any American, anywhere on earth, as the “individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it 1 is possible to do it.” > > Three months later, when interviewed in Afghanistan by ABC-TV, Bin 2 Ladin enlarged on these themes. > > He claimed it was more important for Muslims to kill Americans than to kill other infidels.“It is far better for anyone to kill a single American soldier than to squander his efforts on other activities,” he said. Asked whether he approved of terrorism and of attacks on civilians, he replied:“We believe that the worst thieves in the world today and the worst terrorists are the Americans. Nothing could stop you except perhaps retaliation in kind. We do not have to differentiate between military or civilian.As far as we are concerned, they are all targets.” > > […] > > Bin Ladin continued to push his public message. On May 7, the deputy head of al Qaeda’s military committee, Mohammed Atef, faxed to Bin Ladin’s London office a new fatwa issued by a group of sheikhs located in Afghanistan.A week later, it appeared in Al Quds al Arabi,the same Arabic-language newspaper in London that had first published Bin Ladin’s February fatwa, and it conveyed the same message—the duty of Muslims to carry out holy war against the enemies of Islam and to expel the Americans from the Gulf region.Two weeks after that,Bin Ladin gave a videotaped interview to ABC News with the same slogans, adding that “we do not differentiate between those dressed in military uniforms and civilians; they are 90 all targets in this fatwa.” > [@Crackhead06](#): > > I think it’s a little definition trouble of the word “threat” we have. Rather than calling the U.S. a threat, I’ll say the U.S. is potentially harmful and an obstacle to Iran’s plans of terror. Is this wording you can agree with? Sounds roughly doable. I’d probably say “The US could potentially retaliate strongly and is an obstacle to Iran’s designs for dominance of the region.” It’s the difference between saying that a father out with his daughter at a playground is a ‘threat’, and you might be in serious shit if you walk up in front of him and punch his girl. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2008, 9:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iran-threatens-a-pre-emptive-strike-against-israel/469100/74 "2008-10-26T09:57:45Z")
Another [interesting bit](http://www.cfr.org/publication/11275/) on how theologically opposed terrorist groups sometimes find common ground. It’s CFR stuff so it should pass the ‘quality’ test, and it’s fairly objective and gives both sides and discusses various experts’ views. TLDR version: yes, there exists great animosity between the two major factions in Islam. But yes, sometimes terrorists with strong theological disagreements are willing to work together, on a limited basis, to attack commonly loathed targets. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2008, 7:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iran-threatens-a-pre-emptive-strike-against-israel/469100/75 "2008-10-27T07:38:24Z")
And as long as this thread is on the front page, [here](http://www.metimes.com/Opinion/2008/08/27/syria_and_iran_an_alliance_of_convenience/3543/) is a bit about Iran’s cooperation with Syria, even though they have significant ideologically differences. Hate and a desire to dominate your neighbors/the region/the world can make for very, very strange bedfellows sometimes. ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2008, 1:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iran-threatens-a-pre-emptive-strike-against-israel/469100/76 "2008-10-27T13:51:10Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > That mean he is clearly and unambiguously supporting Iran’s right to expand its theocracy, by force, and justifying it as “defense”, while demonizing those who tried to stop it. Oh, the thick, rich, buttery irony of a hard-line supporter of Israel typing that sentence. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2008, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iran-threatens-a-pre-emptive-strike-against-israel/469100/77 "2008-10-27T16:33:34Z")
Well, as long as the thread picked up a free bump, I might as well point out last month’s [IAEA report on Iran.](http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2008/gov2008-38.pdf) The long and the short of it is that Iran is still not in full compliance and without that compliance, the IAEA cannot verify the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear program. And as the recent NIE certified with a high degree of confidence that Iran’s nuclear program was, in fact, a nuclear weapons program, things might get interesting. If folks remember, the NIE assessed with a high degree of confidence that Iran’s nuclear weapons program was suspended for at least a few years, but due to that judgment not being “based on high-quality information, and/or that the nature of the issue makes it possible to render a solid judgment.”, they only concluded with moderate confidence that Iran’s nuclear weapons program remains halted. They also concluded that it was possible, but very unlikely, that Iran would have a working nuke by 2009. Although, the report did not address the North Korea —\> Syria —\> Iran connection and especially the Syrian, North Korean [nuclear connection.](http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/14/washington/14weapons.html?hp) We may very well see Israel take action after the US election especially since, if the claims in the OP’s link are accurate, America would have much more reason to allow Israel to initiate a strike since Iran’s policy would not only included targeted retaliation at Israel, alone, and not the US. Then again, the next US administration may be able to capitalize on the [substantial support for the US](http://www.publicdiplomacy.org/75.htm) among Iranian citizens and avoid further nuclear buildup. How awesome would it be if for the first time in a long, long time, Iranians could walk the streets without worrying about the thugs of the religious police? If their economy could be strengthened again by international trade and their sponsorship of terrorism a vestigial relic of an ugly, ugly past. There’s great potential there. Khomenism has run its course in almost all but the most fanatical. The Iranian people are ready for peace, and a popular tide is a hard thing for even a theocracy to stifle. If our next President can effectively reach out to the Iranian people, directly, we may very well be able to avert the entire situation _and_ gain another strong democratic ally in the ME. This is how the battle for ‘hearts and minds’ should have been fought the last eight years. Details from the polls: > [@](#): > > Discontent with the current system of government, the state of Iran’s economy, and isolation from the West is widespread throughout Iran. In this context, nuclear weapons are the lowest priority for the Iranian people. > > Iranians even overwhelmingly support their government providing full inspections and a guarantee not to develop nuclear weapons in return for trade and assistance from other countries. The popular will to live in a democracy open to the West and the United States, with greater economic opportunity, comes from every region and segment of Iranian society… > > Developing nuclear weapons was seen as a very important priority for the Iranian government by only 29% of Iranians. By contrast, 88% of Iranians considered improving the Iranian economy as a very important priority for their government. > > Rather, 80% of Iranians favor Iran providing full inspections and a guarantee not to develop or possess nuclear weapons in return for outside aid. A majority of Iranians (52%) also favor the development of nuclear weapons and believe that the people of Iran would live in a safer world if Iran possessed nuclear weapons. However, support for nuclear weapons drops to below 17% if Iran were to receive outside assistance in return for full inspections and a guarantee not to have nuclear weapons. > > Some 68% of Iranians also favor normal relations and trade with the United States. In return for normal relations, a majority of Iranians favor recognizing Israel and Palestine as independent states, ending Iranian support for any armed groups inside Iraq, and full transparency by Iran to the United States to ensure there are no Iranian endeavors to develop nuclear weapons. > > Yet the most significant finding of our survey for Iran’s present rulers may be the Iranian people’s opposition to their current system of government. > > Some 61% of Iranians were willing to tell our pollsters over the phone that they oppose the current Iranian system of government, where the Supreme Leader rules according to religious principles and cannot be chosen or replaced by direct vote of the people. > > Even more telling, however, more than 79% of Iranians support a democratic system instead, where the Supreme Leader, along with all leaders, can be chosen and replaced by a free and direct vote of the people. > > Only 11% of Iranians said that they would strongly oppose having a political system where all of their leaders, including the Supreme Leader, are chosen by popular election. 80% of Iranians also oppose a return to monarchy… > > These are among the significant findings of the first nationwide public opinion survey of Iran on these issues since President Ahmadinejad took office in August 2005. The survey was conducted by telephone from June 5th to June 18th, 2007, with 1,000 interviews proportionally distributed according to the population covering all 30 provinces of Iran, with a margin of error of +/- 3.1%. ---
**Author:** ![Crackhead06](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/77aa72/32.png) [@Crackhead06](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crackhead06)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2008, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iran-threatens-a-pre-emptive-strike-against-israel/469100/78 "2008-10-28T01:19:38Z")
My dinner took a little long;)…just kidding. I was a little busy with other things. Sorry with the delay > [@](#): > > Sounds roughly doable. I’d probably say “The US could potentially retaliate strongly and is an obstacle to Iran’s designs for dominance of the region.” Okay, we agree on something then. But now there’s this other stuff to sort out. > [@](#): > > It’s the difference between saying that a father out with his daughter at a playground is a ‘threat’, and you might be in serious shit if you walk up in front of him and punch his girl. I see where you’re coming from, but the analogy could use a little work. the U.S. isn’t just some dad that Iran’s a stranger to. The US isn’t in good terms with Iran. I’m not trying to imply that the US is a threat to just any old country like Cuba. I’m not going to use the word “threat” anymore. It’s not worth it arguing about definitions (the english language is plain old confusing with exactly how you define words, that we can both agree with). I used threat because that’s the wording you used to describe the bandwagon you disagreed with and I wanted to adress to that. But now I think we both see each others’ perspective so I think we can look over definition difference. As for your sites. From what I’ve read, they all imply that al qaeda has in the past cooperated with Iran and Hezbollah ifor the purpose of defeating a common enemy. Okay, you made your case that terrorist groups do at times work together. I don’t know if you can make a solid case that ties between al qaeda and Iran have ties today necessarily (but it could be possible). The reports seem to be about the late 90’s and a bit after 911 and things might’ve changed since, for these ties don’t seem very solid. One quote did say that strengthened relations between al qaeda and Iran were rebuffed because Osama did not want to risk losing Saudi Arabian support. What gets me though is when the media makes the case that al qaeda is tied to something as if there’s solid evidence when there isn’t really. ---
**Author:** ![Crackhead06](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/77aa72/32.png) [@Crackhead06](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crackhead06)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2008, 1:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iran-threatens-a-pre-emptive-strike-against-israel/469100/79 "2008-10-28T01:31:05Z")
My dinner took a little long;)…just kidding. I was a little busy with other things. Sorry with the delay > [@](#): > > Sounds roughly doable. I’d probably say “The US could potentially retaliate strongly and is an obstacle to Iran’s designs for dominance of the region.” Okay, we agree on something then. But now there’s this other stuff to sort out. > [@](#): > > It’s the difference between saying that a father out with his daughter at a playground is a ‘threat’, and you might be in serious shit if you walk up in front of him and punch his girl. I see where you’re coming from, but the analogy could use a little work. the U.S. isn’t just some dad that Iran’s a stranger to. The US isn’t in good terms with Iran. I’m not trying to imply that the US is a threat to just any old country like Cuba. I’m not going to use the word “threat” anymore. It’s not worth it arguing about definitions (the english language is plain old confusing with exactly how you define words, that we can both agree with). I used threat because that’s the wording you used to describe the bandwagon you disagreed with and I wanted to adress to that. But now I think that we both see each others’ perspective so I think we can look over definition difference. As for your sites. From what I’ve read, they all imply that al qaeda has in the past cooperated with Iran and Hezbollah ifor the purpose of defeating a common enemy. Okay, you made your case that terrorist groups do at times work together. I don’t know if you can make a solid case that ties between al qaeda and Iran have ties today necessarily (but it could be possible). The reports seem to be about the late 90’s and a bit after 911 and things might’ve changed since, for these ties don’t seem very solid. One quote did say that strengthened relations between al qaeda and Iran were rebuffed because Osama did not want to risk losing Saudi Arabian support. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2008, 1:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iran-threatens-a-pre-emptive-strike-against-israel/469100/80 "2008-10-28T01:33:27Z")
> [@AK84](#): > > Israel is supporting pretty much every “naughty” group in Iran. As is the US. And I am surprised that the discussion has been reduced to a"baddies v goodies" rant. Nation states are not good or bad, they act in their interests. It is in Irans interests to support Hizb as much as it is Israels to support the Kurds and whosoelse they are helping in Iran. Or at least in what the two coutries _percieve_ as their interests. You’ll have to be a little more specific. What “naughty” activity are you putting up against a well funded Hezbollah who fired thousands of rockets at Israel. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iran-threatens-a-pre-emptive-strike-against-israel/469100.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iran-threatens-a-pre-emptive-strike-against-israel/469100.md?page=5)