Will Israel attack Iran?

[pianolearner]

Will Israel attack Iran's nuclear facilities? What will be the consequence? More terrorism?

[gyzzzmo]

I think we should put all americans, israelians and other barbaric countries all on 1 continent, build a big wall around them and let them kill each other. Safes us from alot of annoying news.

[mephisto]

I hope not I hope no country will attack any other country...

If Israel attacks Iran I believe that Hezbollah will attack Israel, and at this point I don't think Israel wants that.

[thalbergmad]

I think we should put all americans, israelians and other barbaric countries all on 1 continent, build a big wall around them and let them kill each other. Safes us from alot of annoying news.

Bloody good idea.

Round them all up, put them in a large field and let them destroy each other until there are none left.

Thal

[cherub_rocker1979]

I wish people would just stop fighting over religion and other bullshit.  It annoys the *** out of me as well.

[thierry13]

I wish people would just stop fighting over religion and other bullshit.  It annoys the *** out of me as well.

Have you not understood it's all politic.

[ahinton]

I do not pretend to know the answer to that qusetion but I sincerely hope that they will not be so stupid (just as I hope the same thing the other way around).

Best,

Alistair

[dnephi]

I can guarantee you that the path of the government not the fault of every citizen of any country: it's usually the majority, and that leaves the rest of us unfairly quartered with those you wish to kill off.

[Essyne]

Perhaps. . . we could all be like Obama and propose to eliminate ALL nuclear programs in the world. . . !? Now THAT'S a laughable idea. . . People seem to forget that nukes are the only things that have kept a relative level of peace since the end of WWII.

And Thal. . . cut the crap. Really. At least us "damn Americans" are pro-active and don't sit around crying all day.

[enderw20]

Bloody good idea.

Round them all up, put them in a large field and let them destroy each other until there are none left.

Thal

We'll you better throw england, russia, france, spain, iran, china, japan, vietnam, korea, Iraq, somalia, ethiopia, greece, italy, egypt, syria, columbia, turkey, pakistan, india, argentina on and on and on and on.....

all of which have invaded or started wars in their history, thats going to have to be a pretty big continent.

[a-sharp]

Bloody good idea.

Round them all up, put them in a large field and let them destroy each other until there are none left.

Thal

$hit, Man. ALL of us? Darn.

[ahinton]

Perhaps. . . we could all be like Obama and propose to eliminate ALL nuclear programs in the world. . . !? Now THAT'S a laughable idea. . . People seem to forget that nukes are the only things that have kept a relative level of peace since the end of WWII.

Not only that, had it not been for the French nuclear programme, the citizens of that country would be paying far more than they do for their electricity.

And Thal. . . cut the crap. Really. At least us "damn Americans" are pro-active and don't sit around crying all day.

Well, some might, but not all do, of course. Anyway, since Thal is not president of Europe, I wouldn't worry too much about what he might claim to wish to do if he were, since his avowed desire to encourage (if not actually instigate) massive human extermination programmes to rid the world of the vast majority of its population are such as to make the combined genocidal activities of Mao, Stalin and Hitler seem exceedigly small fry by comparison - but then that's all part of Thal's unique charm, wouldn't you say?...

Best,

Alistair

[goldentone]

I read that if McCain is elected, Israel plans to strike between the election and the inauguration.

[pianolearner]

We'll you better throw england, russia, france, spain, iran, china, japan, vietnam, korea, Iraq, somalia, ethiopia, greece, italy, egypt, syria, columbia, turkey, pakistan, india, argentina on and on and on and on.....

all of which have invaded or started wars in their history, thats going to have to be a pretty big continent.

And especially New Zealand...bloody trouble makers they are...

[ahinton]

I read that if McCain is elected, Israel plans to strike between the election and the inauguration.

The likelihood of McCain being elected appears to be getting little credence in UK (indeed, his profile here is not especially high), although many American friends speak of it as though it's almost as much of a foregone conclusion as the outcome of that widely publicised recent - er - non-election in a certain African country. In all seriousness, the likelihood of a small nation such as Israel undertaking a military offensive against a mighty one such as Iran seems far more remote, I'd say, notwithstanding the arguable provocation offered by Ahmadinejad's barely credible declarations a while ago about wanting to wipe it off the map. If a strike such as that to which you refer actuall does occur, I imagine that it will likely be sponsored by another country or countries rather than by Israel itself.

Best,

Alistair

[gyzzzmo]

We'll you better throw england, russia, france, spain, iran, china, japan, vietnam, korea, Iraq, somalia, ethiopia, greece, italy, egypt, syria, columbia, turkey, pakistan, india, argentina on and on and on and on.....

all of which have invaded or started wars in their history, thats going to have to be a pretty big continent.

Not really, they dont have to be self-sustainable and you dont have to feed them. They would kill each other anyway.

[gyzzzmo]

Perhaps. . . we could all be like Obama and propose to eliminate ALL nuclear programs in the world. . . !? Now THAT'S a laughable idea. . . People seem to forget that nukes are the only things that have kept a relative level of peace since the end of WWII.

And Thal. . . cut the crap. Really. At least us "damn Americans" are pro-active and don't sit around crying all day.

Relativ peace.... Having nukes is a pretty risky 'stableness', i dont want to be on earth when some barbaric proves that stableness wrong.

[horizontal]

Perhaps. . . we could all be like Obama and propose to eliminate ALL nuclear programs in the world. . . !? Now THAT'S a laughable idea. . . People seem to forget that nukes are the only things that have kept a relative level of peace since the end of WWII.

And Thal. . . cut the crap. Really. At least us "damn Americans" are pro-active and don't sit around crying all day.

praise jesus and pass the ammunition

[enderw20]

In all seriousness, the likelihood of a small nation such as Israel undertaking a military offensive against a mighty one such as Iran seems far more remote, I'd say, notwithstanding the arguable provocation offered by Ahmadinejad's barely credible declarations a while ago about wanting to wipe it off the map.
Best,

Alistair

I wouldn't exactly compare Israel's military might to Iran's in such a way as to imply that Iran is so much more powerfull. Do not forget the Yom Kippur War of 73 when Israel handily defeated the combined attack of Egypt and Syria, not to mention they have some of the most advanced military technology available, and thier Air Force is one of the most highly trained and equipped in the world. 

[mephisto]

I believe an attack on Iran will be counterproductive for these reasons:

1. Hezbollah will start to attack Israel.
2. The moderats and reformists in Iran will get more anti USA and anti-Israel.

[thalbergmad]

. At least us "damn Americans" are pro-active and don't sit around crying all day.

Yeh, pro-active at invading countries and only the ones you know won't put up much of a fight.

I do not understand the sit around crying all day remark, although i did once myself when one of our soldiers got killed in "friendly" fire by some trigger happy "yeah hah" yank.

Thal

[enderw20]

Yeh, pro-active at invading countries and only the ones you know won't put up much of a fight.

I do not understand the sit around crying all day remark, although i did once myself when one of our soldiers got killed in "friendly" fire by some trigger happy "yeah hah" yank.

Thal

Still a little angry over the revelotionary war huh? It's o.k., we love England in America, especially after you guys gave us Posh Spice and David Beckham.

[thalbergmad]

You can keep them. We don't want them back.

Hopefully, we will also send you Abul Hamza so you can attach electrodes to his testicles. However, we have to spend a few more millions to ensure that his human rights will not be infringed.

Thal

[gyzzzmo]

At least us "damn Americans" are pro-active and don't sit around crying all day.

No, you Americans do far more intelligent stuff, like supplying mr Bin Laden with weapons, call countries 'axis of evil' and giving countries like Israel shitloads of money to buy...... weaponry.

Essyne, do you know that America even accepted a law wich allowes them to invade Holland? In case an American has to appear for the International Tribunal in The Hague.....
You guys are surely 'pro-active' lol.

[enderw20]

No, you Americans do far more intelligent stuff, like supplying mr Bin Laden with weapons, call countries 'axis of evil' and giving countries like Israel shitloads of money to buy...... weaponry.

Essyne, do you know that America even accepted a law wich allowes them to invade Holland? In case an American has to appear for the International Tribunal in The Hague.....
You guys are surely 'pro-active' lol.

Its just that we really like those wooden shoes.

[michel dvorsky]

Does Iran's nuclear ambitions pose a threat to the region?

Yes.  The Iranian regime is fanatical, psychotic, and apocalyptic and are obviously keen on acquiring nuclear weapons.  If the DPRK has taught us anything it is that even the most pathetic, failed states can acquire WMD if they want them badly enough.

Agents of the Islamic Republic are currently busy equipping nasty Shi'ite thugs throughout the region including Hezbollah and those who butcher innocents in Iraq.  Ahmadinejad is not a fan of Israeli, as his spookily genocidal comments suggest.  Luckily many / most Iranians are moderate and are not well disposed to their government's insanity. 

Is an Israeli attack imminent?

No.

Olmert is toast.  His administration is dying.  He doesn't want to be perceived as the faltering weakling he is.  Thus the tough talk.

The Israeli military exercises, tough talk, etc. don't suggest to me that an attack is imminent.  They are to convince observers (esp. moderate Iranians) that they are able and possibly even ready to do it, which is a form of deterrence. 

Will the Israelis ever attack Iran

Probably not, but maybe.

There is precedence. The IAF has a modern air-force, skilled pilots, and a history of executing stunning attacks under the most difficult circumstances...

But right now, the costs outweigh the benefits.

[michel dvorsky]

The likelihood of McCain being elected appears to be getting little credence in UK (indeed, his profile here is not especially high),

Luckily, Americans choose the president of the United States.

[pianogeek_cz]

Michel Dvorsky's comments I agree with rather completely.

1. Hezbollah will start to attack Israel.
2. The moderates and reformists in Iran will get more anti-USA and anti-Israel.

As far as no. 1 is concerned, the only reason Hezbollah is not attacking -now- may be the fact that they have suddenly found themselves with a country to run. That may or may not be a bad thing, in the end, but it keeps them pretty busy. I think that in case they dropped governing for warfare, at the point services falter, they will lose domestic support. It's a question of how long would their propaganda keep the Lebanese blame pointed at Israel.
It's true, though, that Israel might have a hard time smoking Hezbollah out of their holes. The last war was mightily botched up (Winograd report, anyone?), but that doesn't mean the potential next one is going to be a piece of cake, even if led precisely. And the domestic pressure from the bombarded north it would put on the Israeli government... well, Olmert & co. is definitely -not- up to it, and it would pose tremendous demands on the leadership to end the war as quickly as possible, which may lead to further mishandlings, etc., etc. An all-out war with Hezbollah would probably -hurt-.

As to no. 2, that may be just what Ahmadinejad is hoping for: that a preemptive strike would pull the country's public opinion closer to his, so that he'll have domestic support instead of riots in a potential aggression of his. Also I do not dare guess what percentage of the Iranians is moderate - are there any data as to that?

But all these reasons for -not- attacking Iran may be outweighed by the risks involved in Iran reaching a certain tipping point in their nuclear progress. It's choosing the lesser of the two evils: not costs/benefits, but risks 1/risks 2. And my guess is the IAF is up to the task.

[mephisto]

Ahmadinejad is not a fan of Israeli, as his spookily genocidal comments suggest. 

I don't like Ahmadinejad but can you give me the exact quote(S)?


And here are some interesting words (they are not mine):

It would hardly be surprising if it were discovered that Iran has some kind of nuclear weapons program, perhaps contingency plans. The reasons were explained by one of Israel’s leading military historians, Martin van Creveld.  He argued that Iran would be “crazy” if it were not developing a nuclear deterrent in its current predicament: with hostile forces of a violent superpower on two borders and a hostile regional power (Israel) brandishing hundreds of nuclear weapons, both calling loudly for
“regime change.”  Nevertheless, the available evidence indicates that if Iran had such a program, they stopped pursuing it several years ago.


And is this not an direct threath:

"Attacking Iran, in order to stop its nuclear plans, will be unavoidable," - Shaul Mofaz

[thalbergmad]

Luckily, Americans choose the president of the United States.

Unluckily, the rest of the world suffers

[mephisto]

Does Iran's nuclear ambitions pose a threat to the region?

Yes. 

Ok. Now try to look at the conflict from an Iranian perspective.

In 1953 the first democraticly elected Iranian Prime Minister was toppled in an american-backed coup d'etat wich removed him from power. His position was given to a tyrannical despot; namely the Shah of Iran Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.

The Shah of Iran was hated by the people of Iran and massivly supported by America. Btw t was under the Shah that Iran's nuclear program first began. America strongly supported him.

This pro-American dictator was so much hated by the puclic that the people staged a  popular revolution wich transformed Iran into an Islamic state. This was as you probably know in 1979.

When Saddam began an awfull war against Iran in 1980, America supported Saddam. This led to even more hate of America, since the war killed around half a million Iranians.

In 2001 America invaded Afghanistan (Iran actually supported this because they dissliked the Taliban) and installed a pro-American government and much millitary.

In 2003 America invaded Iraq, and now there is a pro-American government there too. As well as a lot of millitary.

By chance both of these two countries are next to Iran. Do you wonder why Iran sees America as a threath? The way I see it America poses a much bigger threath to Iran than Iran does to any country.  Iran is interlocked between to countries with huge American millitary bases. And American attack on Iran doesn't seam to be that improbable.

Israel is basicly seen as an American proxy-state, and therefore the negative image ( ok so it is as bit more complicated than that).

Btw I am not a muslim and I find it impossible to support the Iranian regime. But surely Iran is heaven compared to Americas best friend; Saudi Arabia

[enderw20]

I don't like Ahmadinejad but can you give me the exact quote(S)?

On October 26, 2005, IRIB News, an English-language subsidiary of the state-controlled Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting, filed a story on Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's recent speech to the "World Without Zionism" conference in Asia. The story was entitled: Ahmadinejad: Israel must be wiped off the map.[1] The story was picked up by Western news agencies and quickly made headlines around the world. On October 30, The New York Times published a full transcript of the speech in which Ahmadinejad was quoted in part as follows:

Our dear Imam (referring to Ayatollah Khomeini) said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map and this was a very wise statement. We cannot compromise over the issue of Palestine. Is it possible to create a new front in the heart of an old front. This would be a defeat and whoever accepts the legitimacy of this regime has in fact, signed the defeat of the Islamic world. Our dear Imam targeted the heart of the world oppressor in his struggle, meaning the occupying regime. I have no doubt that the new wave that has started in Palestine, and we witness it in the Islamic world too, will eliminate this disgraceful stain from the Islamic world.[

You can get the full picture here


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel

[gyzzzmo]

Well i cant blame them. Iran has alot more reasons to be pro-palastina than America has reasons to be pro-Israel. And dont forget that the USA are giving Israel a shitload of money for expanding and renewing their weaponry.

[mephisto]

Our dear Imam (referring to Ayatollah Khomeini) said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map......I have no doubt that the new wave that has started in Palestine, and we witness it in the Islamic world too, will eliminate this disgraceful stain from the Islamic world.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel

First of all I believe that he didn't say "wiped off the map", but rather "vanish from the page of time".

Anyway that is not my point. No part of that quote gives me the impression that Ahmadinjad wants all the jews in Israel dead. (i.e commit a genocide on them).

He is talking about the zionist regime (i. e the state of Israel). He wants the state to go away. I can't see that he sais that Iran will make sure of it, or that it will be bloody. Simply that he believes and want the (zionist) regime to be " wiped off the map" or "vanish from the page of time".

Btw I don't like to defend Ahmadinjad, because I don't like the guy. But I can see no part of that quote as implying any kind of genocide.

For instance read this quote: I want to tell them (western countries) just as the Soviet Union was wiped out and today does not exist, so will the Zionist regime (in Israel) soon be wiped out."

Did all the people of the Soviet Union die when it collapsed? Did a genocide happen?

And if Ahmadinejad really hates the jews so much, why don't he kill all of the 20 000-25 000 jews living in Iran? 

When that is said I am not saying that Ahmadinejad hasn't said anything implying genocide on Israel, but I have personally not seen such a statement.

[michel dvorsky]

Mephisto has brought up some interesting points, so lets talk about 'em.

After the Iranian revolution, hostage taking, and Carter screw-ups, the US was more worried about Iran than Iraq.  The US did arm Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war, but much less than people realize. Behind Russia, France, and China, the US supplied only about 2% of Saddam's arsenal.  This is not to defend the policy, but to give it some perspective. 

By chance both of these two countries are next to Iran. Do you wonder why Iran sees America as a threath?

We (the West) are sacrificing hundreds of lives and a ton of money to get Iraq and Afghanistan to become stable democracies.  If the efforts of Petraeus et al. continue their success, few can seriously argue that the world is worse off with democracies where totalitarian regimes once stood. The leadership of Iran is helping to kill Americans in Iraq and ruin these plans.  It might be a crass question, but now might be the time to ask yourself who's side you're on. 

Btw I am not a muslim and I find it impossible to support the Iranian regime. But surely Iran is heaven compared to Americas best friend; Saudi Arabia Shocked

American foreign policy is complicated.  US' support of such an appalling dark ages state as Saudi is appalling, I agree.  However, Saudi is seen as the converse of Iran.  Saudi's regime is friendly but its people hostile to the US, whereas Iranians are more or less friendly to the US but their regime is hostile.  Something to keep in mind.

He is talking about the zionist regime (i. e the state of Israel). He wants the state to go away. I can't see that he sais that Iran will make sure of it, or that it will be bloody. Simply that he believes and want the (zionist) regime to be " wiped off the map" or "vanish from the page of time".

Iran's government has faith based leadership.  All of us would prefer that the remarks are just hateful and not genocidal.  Still, you have to wonder if they're crazy enough to bring about Armageddon, as long as it means the destruction of Israel.

And if Ahmadinejad really hates the jews so much, why don't he kill all of the 20 000-25 000 jews living in Iran? 

Iran's Jewish community is interesting.  They've had a continued presence in Iran/Persia for something like 5000 years.  The fact that they're allowed to persist suggests that even Iran's government acknowledges the place of Jews in Persian history.

But the idea of a Zionist state occupying a sliver of land along the Mediterranean! That is just too much!

[ahinton]

Mephisto has brought up some interesting points, so lets talk about 'em.

After the Iranian revolution, hostage taking, and Carter screw-ups, the US was more worried about Iran than Iraq.  The US did arm Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war, but much less than people realize. Behind Russia, France, and China, the US supplied only about 2% of Saddam's arsenal.  This is not to defend the policy, but to give it some perspective. 

We (the West) are sacrificing hundreds of lives and a ton of money to get Iraq and Afghanistan to become stable democracies.  If the efforts of Petraeus et al. continue their success, few can seriously argue that the world is worse off with democracies where totalitarian regimes once stood. The leadership of Iran is helping to kill Americans in Iraq and ruin these plans.  It might be a crass question, but now might be the time to ask yourself who's side you're on. 

American foreign policy is complicated.  US' support of such an appalling dark ages state as Saudi is appalling, I agree.  However, Saudi is seen as the converse of Iran.  Saudi's regime is friendly but its people hostile to the US, whereas Iranians are more or less friendly to the US but their regime is hostile.  Something to keep in mind.

Iran's government has faith based leadership.  All of us would prefer that the remarks are just hateful and not genocidal.  Still, you have to wonder if they're crazy enough to bring about Armageddon, as long as it means the destruction of Israel.

Iran's Jewish community is interesting.  They've had a continued presence in Iran/Persia for something like 5000 years.  The fact that they're allowed to persist suggests that even Iran's government acknowledges the place of Jews in Persian history.

But the idea of a Zionist state occupying a sliver of land along the Mediterranean! That is just too much!

You've made more sense and raised and discussed more interesting issues in this one post than I have seen you do in all the rest of your posts put together, if you'll pardon my so saying (and I would understand if you don't!).

Whatever the intentions may be, however, I have little faith or expectation that the presence of US, British and other armed forces personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan is likely to bring about the stable and sustainable democratic régimes for which you and the rest of us naturally hope. Afghanistan is perhaps the harder but of the two to crack, given that its recent history involves even more sources of embattlement than is the case in Iraq.

The tolerance of Jews in Iran is indeed an interesting phenomenon. Of course hardly any Jews ever get to high positions in any walks of life in that country, but there is less of a history of persecution of Jews in Iran than in quite a few other countries. Likewise, there are Christians who are allowed to live peaceably in Iran and even the Zoroastrians who originate from Persia are not hounded out or persecuted. They all have to be somewhat careful of their behaviour, no doubt, but as long as they don't cause too much trouble the régime doesn't mete out trouble to them.

You write that
"Saudi's regime is friendly but its people hostile to the US, whereas Iranians are more or less friendly to the US but their regime is hostile."
That remark is as perceptive and valuable as it is interesting.

Thank you for your thoughtful and well-balanced contribution here.

Best,

Alistair

[mephisto]

Mephisto has brought up some interesting points, so lets talk about 'em.

Thanks for finding my points interesting. You appear not to dissagree with any of them.

Iran's Jewish community is interesting.  They've had a continued presence in Iran/Persia for something like 5000 years

They have lived in Iran for a long time, but not 5000. More like a little less than 3000 years.

American foreign policy is complicated.  US' support of such an appalling dark ages state as Saudi is appalling, I agree.  However, Saudi is seen as the converse of Iran.  Saudi's regime is friendly but its people hostile to the US, whereas Iranians are more or less friendly to the US but their regime is hostile.  Something to keep in mind.

Can you give me the polls of wich you got that information? All moderats and reformists in Iran aren't pro-American, obviously.

[gyzzzmo]

1) We (the West) are sacrificing hundreds of lives and a ton of money to get Iraq and Afghanistan to become stable democracies.  If the efforts of Petraeus et al. continue their success, few can seriously argue that the world is worse off with democracies where totalitarian regimes once stood. The leadership of Iran is helping to kill Americans in Iraq and ruin these plans.  It might be a crass question, but now might be the time to ask yourself who's side you're on. 


2) Iran's government has faith based leadership.  All of us would prefer that the remarks are just hateful and not genocidal.  Still, you have to wonder if they're crazy enough to bring about Armageddon, as long as it means the destruction of Israel.

1) America and GB (so not 'We, the west) attacked Iraq because of the so called 'mass destruction weapons' wich werent there after all. Sacrificing hundreds? how about the hundreds of THOUSANDS of Iraq people who got killed? Ton of money? America and GB secured a steady flow of cheap oil by putting another regime there. And you were right about the old regime, that was bad. But now it only got worse, and its easy to 'hope for a better future' if you live 15,000 km away.
And honostly, i dont have to choose sides. America sucks, Iran sucks, but America killed alot more people for their 'good cause', Iran only has vague intentions to do that.

2) I dont know if Iran is crazy enough, but America already prooved to be crazy enough to achieve thing they believe in, with military action.

Maybe i might have hurt some American feelings, but americans get alot of propaganda about how great that war is, and hardly know anything about how bad it actually is in Iraq.

[michel dvorsky]

Ton of money? America and GB secured a steady flow of cheap oil by putting another regime there. And you were right about the old regime, that was bad.

Not true.  The Iraqis are in control of their oil.  Currently, Iraq actually has one of the lowest reserves to supply ratios of all major producers.  The Iraq War was not designed to be, and is not, a lucrative endeavor for the invading powers in the short run.   The French, Russians, etc. were very happy to deal with Saddam for a steady supply of cheap oil in exchange for weapons. 

The benefit of Iraq as a democracy, however, is that Iraq may become a supplier that is friendly to the West.

But now it only got worse, and its easy to 'hope for a better future' if you live 15,000 km away.
And honostly, i dont have to choose sides. America sucks, Iran sucks, but America killed alot more people for their 'good cause', Iran only has vague intentions to do that.

The situation in Iraq has improved markedly in the last year.  And no, America has not killed more Iraqis than Saddam. 

2) I dont know if Iran is crazy enough, but America already prooved to be crazy enough to achieve thing they believe in, with military action.

Maybe i might have hurt some American feelings, but americans get alot of propaganda about how great that war is, and hardly know anything about how bad it actually is in Iraq.

On the contrary, it actually seems to be the good news that is the slowest in filtering back. 

[general disarray]

Israel will only attack Iran if prompted by her cynical ally, the US.

It's about OIL, people.  Hello?  You think all this conflict is about "freedom?"  Get real.  The world is run by the top 1 per cent richest.  Understand?  We are their slaves.  War is always about money. 

Our only weapon is to be above their xenophobic rhetoric. 

Respect one another.  Period.

 Just do it.

 Let it be.  (Oh, damn, I quoted the Beatles . . .)

[pies]

They are to convince observers (esp. moderate Iranians) that they are able and possibly even ready to do it, which is a form of deterrence.

And a form of terrorism, if you accept the general definition of terrorism being the use of violence or the threat of violence for political, religious, or ideological goals. 

I have a feeling that such threats will only push Iranian moderates toward the extremes.

[michel dvorsky]

And a form of terrorism, if you accept the general definition of terrorism being the use of violence or the threat of violence for political, religious, or ideological goals. 

Which is it:

a) That the Israeli government is unwilling to accept the existence of Iran
b) That the Iranian government is unwilling to accept the existence of Israel

It is clear that Iran is the one posing a threat to Israel's existence and the latter must deter the former from destroying it or remove its ability to do so.

I have a feeling that such threats will only push Iranian moderates toward the extremes.

You would be surprised.  There is a large reasonably moderate, educated, middle class in Iran that is dissatisfied with the living in an Islamic regime...i.e., confronted with the hanging of 'adulterous' women from cranes etc...

[pies]

Can you elaborate on why you perceive Iran as posing a clear threat to Israel's existence?

[michel dvorsky]

Stated Intent:

Israel, the cancerous state, tumour, stinking corpse...etc etc...must be removed from the region, wiped of the map, erased from the page of time etc. etc.

- Khamenei, Ahmadinejad, etc.

+ faith based leadership
+ uranium enrichment, nuclear aspirations

[pies]

a

[gyzzzmo]

Dvorsky, you have a typical American way of talking wrong things right.



- I was talking about a steady flow of oil, not about reserves nor control.



- The situation in Iraq has improved yes, from 'extremely bad' to 'very bad' and its actually the first year it improved abit, saying nothing about the future. And btw, i was talking about Iran-America, that America killed alot more people than Iran.

- I was talking about that American news about Iraq is dominated by 'another 6 US (very brave and heroic) soldiers got killed'. The amount of Iraques that get killed every day doesnt seem to matter much to US media.