For years now, Tehran has been working hard to acquire sophisticated Russian antiaircraft missiles that would make it far tougher for Israeli planes to stage a successful attack on Iranian nuclear facilities. One Israeli lawmaker, Zeev Elkin, even warned last week that delivering the missiles could even speed up the timing of an Israeli air raid. "I hope Moscow understands that the deliveries will at least speed up such events, if not trigger them," Elkin told the Russian daily Kommersant. Experts estimate that a working Iranian nuclear weapon is still probably at least a year away, depending on a host of contingencies. But the Russian missiles, which just might ensure that Iran's nuclear installations can be protected from attack, could be delivered at any time. So it's easy to understand why, right now, Israeli minds seem to be focused on the more urgent of these two ticking clocks.

Add to Newsvine
Add to StumbleUpon
I don't know why this is being brought up once again on this board. Israel can not make a preemptive air strike on Iran without US consent. US forces presently control the airspace of Iraq and the Persian Gulf. How are they going to make the strike? Over Turkey? Georgia? Doubt it very much. And to carry this forward, if Israel attempts a preemptive strike, unauthorized by the United States, American forces should shoot them out of the sky. (Followed immediately by suspension of all American financial aid to the Israeli statelet.) The blowback to our American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan will be immeasurable.
I'm going to get the last word here, and say again, for the umpteempth time that any true Zionist (defined as someone who really cares for real Israelis and their safety) should oppose the Israeli Right/Likud.
Attacking Iran and pursuing increased settlements on the West Bank would - will - both have catastrophic consequences for Israel.
Not to mention for the United States, since we are seen throughout the Muslim World as being linked to the hip with Israel (2 billion + in aid every year folks, plus all sorts of diplomatic and other support - far and away our largest foreign beneficent, doubly so when you consider the 2 billion or so that we shovel Egypt's way to maintain Mubarak's corrupt regime, and so Camp David, which is more or less entirely to benefit Israel.
"Free Iran" - Dude, if you look at the map and see Iran's position from their point of view, you see two large U.S./NATO Armies on either side (Iraq & Afghanistan), American fleets in the Persian (or as the Arabs have "Arab") Gulf to the South, a more or less unfriendly Sunni regime in Pakistan, instability in the Caucuses and Central Asia to the North, haunted by both nuclear armed Russia and China not all that far away, a strong pro- Western/Israeli allied Turkey to the west..
I think the Iranians have a lot to be afraid of. Mostly, they're afraid of us. And our Israeli client state.
And they should be. All this talk is not a game. There's nothing the likes of Rumsfeld, Cheney, King Abdullah, and Netanyahu would like, than to bomb them, even start a ground war with them.
The Iranians remember what happened in 1980. Just as much as we remember what happened in 1979.
Everyone remembers violence done them, and tends to forget the violence done the other guy.
But if you really want to understand "your enemy" and either defeat him, or else make peace with him without violence, you need to remember history, and try (I say, please just try, Rod) looking at it from their point of view.
I used to be a Leon Uris "Exodus" Zionist, just like you, Rod.
Then I went and learned Arabic, lived in Turkey, lived in Egypt, traveled throughout the Middle East, met a lot of Arabs, a lot of Turks, some Israelis, a few Persians, Christians, Jews and Muslims, and realized..
That we are being fed a whole heaping load of propaganda.
The Iranians are rational actors. They will never attack Israel with an nuclear weapon. Neither will Pakistan (who already have the bomb, and are just as crazy as the Iranians, only you will never hear ablout it, because they are our "allies.."
But whatever. "Your Name's" probably right, Rod. You shouldn't get bellicose without understanding what you're talking about. Your support of the Iraq boondoggle has empowered your new bete noire in Iran.. It's a Shiite triumph, when we ultimately leave..
You get that right?
While conservatives love to bandy about Santayana's warning, "Those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it," they remain hopelessly unable to see the forest through the trees.
They remember the Munich Treaty as a lesson against appeasment, but they fail to recall a more recent and salient one, which happened less than ten years ago: Neo-cons LIE. Prevarication, subterfuge and outright lying are acceptable if it helps advance the greater good envisioned by the neo-con annointed. The same people who lied to us to get us into Iraq are now lying to us to get us into war with Iran.
An eight year old knows not to trust someone who's falsely cried wolf before. It's a pity "smarter" people haven't learned to do the same.
Bruce G wrote: "Iran has threatened to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth. Israel has threatened to blow up a facility. Disproportionate reaction?"
I take it, then, you're fluent in Farsi? Or, like most of us, do you simply take at face value whatever someone says Ahmadinejad says? I have heard quite a different interpretation of what Ahmadinejad said and prefer not to spill more American blood and waste more American treasure on a war based upon what someone said someone else said.
Free Iran wrote: "(And while you're doing that, list all the Israeli technological and agricultural and scientific and medical discoveries and advances and developments that you unthinkingly use every day as a vital and necessary part of your life and job and health...")
In other words it's acceptable, if a society is technologically superior or has made more "contributions" to world history, to wipe out or oppress a less sophisticated society or nation?
Does the same apply to the more gifted intellectually? Is their disregard for others made acceptable by their brilliance?
Leopold and Loeb would, no doubt, concur.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.