Propaganda overload. All systems go.
Any way you slice it, it’s reasonably clear that Iran (collectively) would like to get rid of Israel. Just yesterday, one of their leaders stated that the “Zionist regime is a cancerous tumor and it will be removed.”
Post-revolution Iran has never accepted a Jewish state. They have always wanted a single Palestinian state covering the territory of Israel and the occupied territories. However they have never threatened the physical destruction of Israel, which of course would entail the destruction of most of their desired Palestinian state as well.
Semantic quibbling aside, the de facto situation on Israel’s side towards Palestinian State echoes the same feelings. Worse, as it is actually being implemented.
Errr… The very same Hamas ? Which according to some Israeli sources is up to 60-70% underwritten with Saudi money ?
Unless the reason you’re asking this question in this very specific way is that the Saudi government & King don’t officially do it, they merely let private interests (including other members of the royal family) do it ; hem and haw in public communiqués that it’s a very dreadful thing to do and this has got to stop ; then don’t lift a finger to actually try and make it stop.
Does that make any difference ? Or is your beef with Iran that they support Hamas too ostensibly rather than support Hamas at all ?
[QUOTE=Alessan]
I disagree. First of all, the fact that in the 40 years it’s had nukes, Israel hasn’t even threatened to use them is a close to proof as it is possible to get that Israel won’t use nukes unless in response to a existential threat. Whereas for Iran, we have no such proof. And yes, I know that that’s circular logic - but it’s logic nonetheless.
[/quote]
Hey, that’s cool, I don’t even have to point the inherent problem with the reasoning 
But still, even absent that, you can see how it’s a pretty crappy position for any nation-state to be in, lying close to a nation with superior military capabilities, WMDs, and the seemingly blank-check backing of a superpower, even in a vacuum. Or with a history of non-aggression – sure, Israel hasn’t used its nukes in 40 years… but it could. What’s tomorrow going to bring ? What if the more thoroughly nuts Orthodox faction takes power ? What if Israel decided Iranian oil was necessary to its continued existence for some reason ? What if… what if… ?
I mean, up until December 1941, Japan had a couple thousand year’s history of non-aggression with the US (and no, I’m not drawing an exact parallel between this situation and that, or this nation and that. I’m just saying, self-interests conflict in unpredictable ways, and then shit happens).
Yes and no. Or rather, what you say is true, but the other side of the coin (that there are a lot more Muslims around who could be enticed to forget the Shia/Sunni divide for this once and become potential, temporary allies in knocking a competitor out of the game or at least hinder them enough to give Iran an edge) is true as well. Maybe allying with Israel against Arabs would have been a better long-term strat for Iran, maybe not. It’s not the one they’re currently running with. shrug
That being said, I’m not sure you can lay it all down at the feet of the religious meshugahs. The Iranian leadership never striked me as all that interested in sharing local power and influence at all, be it with Arabs, the US, Russia or Zee Tschooz. Might be overly greedy and boneheaded from a geopolitical standpoint, but then again we’ve all been there too.
I’m not sure what you mean by this, since no state is a physical entity.
Anyway, here is a quote from 1982:
I imagine you will respond that “Israel Must be Destroyed” does not actually mean that “Israel Must be Destroyed” in the sense of destroying the actual land over which Israel exercises sovereignty.
But let’s assume that “destroy” does not mean physical destuction of land and let me ask you this: If a state is “destroyed” involuntarily, can we agree that it’s normally a process which involves a lot of pain and bloodshed for the citizenry of that state?
Can we agree that if State X wants to “destroy” State Y, it’s reasonable for State Y to object to State X obtaining nuclear weapons?
Not according to the official English translations given out by the Iranian President’s office and their foreign ministry.
You clearly didn’t read the piece very well then.
And, of course Bronner himself says
You apparently didn’t read this article very well either. No where in the article does Mottaki say that the quote was mistranslated and doing so would be extremely stupid since it was the official Iranian News agency that offered the English translation of the quote that Steele and Cole have tried to dispute and wound up with egg on their faces for doing so. What Mottaki is doing is claiming that the quote has been “misunderstood” which is a completely different thing.
What he’s doing is no different than other politicians who go out their and try and cover for their bosses when their bosses say something stupid by claiming that when their bosses said X they really meant Y.
I.E. “Mitt Romney didn’t really mean he wasn’t concerned about the poor when he said he ‘wasn’t concerned about the very poor’, he just meant his focus was on the middle-class”.
Which merely proves there are multiple ways a statement in Farsi can be translated in English. That doesn’t make the one you don’t like false. You might as well claim that the King James Bible is a mistranslation because the New English Bible is translated differently.
Ok, since you claim that multiple quotes of Ahmadinejad have been mistranslated then perhaps you can list them.
Saudi citizens giving aid to Hamas is not the same as being supported by the Saudi government.
By your standards then the US was supporting the militant/terrorist wing of the ANC because many US citizens gave them money.
For that matter many citizens of both the UK and the US have given money to the PFLP and similar groups.
Are you claiming that the US supported the PFLP?
For that matter, since you seem to classify fundraisers by Saudi citizens to give money to the families of dead suicide bombers as the Saudi government supporting terrorism does that mean that the UK supported the IRA since people regularly raised funds for the “widows and children” of “the prisoners”?
Actually, prior to Saddam Hussein being defanged the Iranian and Israeli leadership were closet allies.
Or you could just be polite and move. The Jewish Autonomous Oblast is nice. They could hardly ask you to move further, could they?
The Generals try to stop an Iran War
And certainly in mine.
Let’s cut through the chase. Israel is here to stay. That said, there will be a Palestinian state; full rights, full stop.
Is Israel committed that’ll happen under their rules/terms? Because short of full out nuclear war, it is not going to happen. End of.
The PBS NewsHour had a good segment on this last night. The gist of it is that, if we assume the US and Israel will strike at Iran to prevent that country from getting the bomb, Israel has a shorter fuse as they don’t have the same capabilities that the US has. We can afford to wait another longer.
And that’s the fear. As I said earlier, I have no doubt Israel will strike if they think they can delay Iran from getting the bomb, and it doesn’t matter what the US says to them. I have to wonder if they would have the tacit approval of the Saudis and maybe even the Turks, both of whom have regional ambitions at odds with Iran.
What does that part about “radioactive toxins being released upon the people of Isfahan…” all about?
Why should they when they can have us do it?
Except they can’t.
Obviously, there are lots of idiots who claim the US does whatever Israel wants, idiots who claim the US does whatever the Saudis want, and idiots who claim both, but that doesn’t make it so.
ZOG is a myth.
You’d have a point, if we were going to do it. And as I said above, even if we want to “do it”, our capabilities allows us to wait longer than Israel. No reason for them to trust that we will eventually “do it”. We’ve never “done it” before, and they’ve “done it” at least twice.
You’d have to assume the US would want them to not do it. The US doesn’t want Iran to have these nukes, either…and like you mentioned, nor do other countries - especially Egypt and Turkey.
I doubt the US would object to an Israeli strike on Iran - they’d just say something about Israel’s right to self-defense and then caution the IDF to ‘use restraint’ against unarmed civilians.
I feel like with all of this “doing it”, someone has to at least mention the US getting to third base. Not that it’s been working thus far.
Sorry. I have a 5th grade mentality today.
You can’t use the phrase “in fact” to mean “what isn’t a fact”.
Well, I mean, you can, but it’s not a very good practice.