Time running out for Israeli-Iranian showdown?

[Skybird]

It... could be.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...559925,00.html

The Israeli government no longer believes that sanctions can prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons. A broad consensus in favor of a military strike against Tehran's nuclear facilities -- without the Americans, if necessary -- is beginning to take shape.
(...)
In reaching this conclusion, the Israelis are expressly contradicting the assertion, put forward in a report by US intelligence issued last December, that Iran shut down its nuclear weapons program in 2003. "The Iranians resumed the program at full speed in 2005," says Yossi Kuperwasser, the director for intelligence analysis with Israeli military intelligence at the time.

While the Europeans continue to pin their hopes on diplomacy and are convinced that a negotiated solution that would allow Tehran to save face is still possible, the Israelis already view the UN sanctions regime as a failure. Russia and China, they say, sabotaged the boycott from the very beginning, and even the Europeans have only half-heartedly supported sanctions.

According to the Israelis, companies from Austria and Switzerland have recently signed agreements for the delivery of natural gas with Tehran, and even the German government has only slightly limited trade with the mullah-run regime. "The Iranians don't even feel the sanctions," says Tzachi Hanegbi, chairman of the Knesset's Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee. According to Hanegbi, the international community will have to unite if it hopes to achieve anything -- "and soon."

[Iceman]

Intresting no one has commented on this.

This is a very serious piece of the middle east puzzle that when plopped down will have an enormous impact on the world economy me thinks not to mention the potential loss of life.

The world appears ripe for kaos.

Put this on top of the Afghanistan leader tired of Taliban peeps coming across from Pakistan and put this all togther and looks very hairy in the middle east almost to the point of boling over.

[Stealth Hunter]

Doubtful they'd get far with their war.

The majority of the Middle-East should not be known for its hospitality towards the Jews and their practices. I should imagine that not only would the conflict involve Iran, but also Afghanistan, Pakistan, and probably the radical portion of Saudi Arabia. You would probably also have a third of the Iraqis (that third being the religious radical portion) participating to fight against the Israelis, but I would not imagine any sort of official Iraqi government/military involvement.

It's a delicate situation over there right now. Thanks to Bush's movements in Iraq, the entire Middle-East has begun to boil. As Shakespeare wrote, "Something is rotten in the state of Denmark."

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Stealth Hunter

Doubtful they'd get far with their war.

Not much a long-lasting war, but a series of air strikes to try taking out key installation, and as it sounds: not even all (probably becasue several key sites are so deeply buried in the rocks that they cannot be reached by conventional bombs as lomng as there is no new superbomb the public so far has not heared of).

The majority of the Middle-East should not be known for its hospitality towards the Jews and their practices. I should imagine that not only would the conflict involve Iran, but also Afghanistan, Pakistan, and probably the radical portion of Saudi Arabia. You would probably also have a third of the Iraqis (that third being the religious radical portion) participating to fight against the Israelis, but I would not imagine any sort of official Iraqi government/military involvement.

Religiously motivated nutheads are always beyond calculation, but the governments of all Gulf States as well as most sunni governments like Egypt and Saudi Arabia will not move a finger for iran being hit. nothing better than the Israelis doing the dirty work for them and removing a major threat to them could happen to them. Only if nukes get involved, the diplomatic situation becomes more unpredictable.

It's a delicate situation over there right now. Thanks to Bush's movements in Iraq, the entire Middle-East has begun to boil. As Shakespeare wrote, "Something is rotten in the state of Denmark."

This is one of the opportunities when I must stay away from Bush criticising. the Iraq war certainly have helped to harden the Irnian detemrination, nevertheless they have had the motivation to go nuclear since long before the Iraq war.


----


The translation thing, that has a grain of truth, and one should remember that the temper of people in that part of the world is more "spiking" and their languages idioms are more colourful, exaggeration is it'S daily bread and butter. However, if remarks about a nations destruction are being made several times, in several contexts, and at several opportunities, and dressed in different set opf words, the chance that it always, in each opf these combinations, is just not meant serious, becomes thin, and declining each time another such opportunity is being used to threaten Israel. Also, relgious nutheads are not known for thei sense of realism, even less so when they adore martyrdom and also argue in favour of martyr fellow muslims if it helps their casue. After all, death for them holds no fear, and they are not shy to sacrifice Muslims if it helps the holy cause. Do not assume reason nor realism in such minds.

And if that does not convince you and you still want to follow the EU's fruitless effort to leave it to meaningless words, not even enforcing sharp sanctions, not to mention to prevent Iranian nukes by force: then see it this way: if you were Israel - would you really be willing and would you really think you can afford it to think of it as just a translation error...? Would you be willing to put the existence of Israel and the life of hundreds of thousands of Israelis at risk?

You would be both stupid and irresponsible if you do.

I also have problems to imagine the Israelis lack language experts making them aware of possible translation errors. Instead I am sure their language experts for the region's countries are more aware than those of any other Western nation.

The situation in the ME is boiling hot indeed, but Bush only has helped in that, he has not raised it. the situation does not come from Iraq, but the challenge the Shia regime in Teheran is posing to the sunni governmnts in the region, and the war they are already fighting against each other in the hidden - and that one since centuries. Seen that way, Iraq served as a catalysator to speed some things up, but the basic problöems has been there since long. And the Palestine question or the existence of Israel are not the most urgent questions at all. Get them solved - and the major conflict still would be there, boiling. They are little more than propaganda ammunition to please the crowds in islam's streets. Most Araba nations have learned that if they leave Israel alone, it poses no threads to their regimes, dictatorships or theocracies, and they have arranged themselves with Israel's existence. the powerinterests of the governments nowadays focus on different things than driving Israel back into the ocean.

At the same time one needs to be aware that a healing between sunni and shia powerfactions also is not in our interest, because that would mean that Islam now has more power to turn even united against Europe. No matter if you wish them peace or wish them war - you always get your fingers burnt when touching it. we should be thanlful that they are so split amongst themselves, for we even have both hands full with dealing with Islam in the fractured political status it is in right now - and we prove to be unable to handle it successfully, and fall back in face of its claims.

The world is a chess board. And it is more complicated than just a translation error. Focussing on the latter only helps to extend the European diplomacy game, that so far has created no substantial results, and even more: gets actively corrupted by China, Russia, and lacking determination of the Europeans to even enforce their own sanctions. to put trust in that not even-half-hearted effort, is the worst of all options.

[MothBalls]

Iran said that Israel needs to be wiped off the map. If you were Israel would you just sit there and wait for them to make good on their threat? One nuclear bomb can ruin your whole day. Seems like the **** is going to hit the fan and everyone will be drug into it.

We need to build some time capsules with our history documented in a way that will last a million years. When the dust settles and another intelligent humanoid species evolves on the planet, they'll have a better chance of survival by making sure their technology doesn't surpass their humanity. Maybe we can keep future civilizations from making the same mistake we are about to make.

I think it's time to call some friends and go share a few pints, while we still can.

[Stealth Hunter]

President Ahmadinejad NEVER said that Israel should be wiped off the map. That's a lie which spread all over the news and Internet. This is what he said:

"The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time."

I'm going to give you a link to the website that details what he said. It's not a conspirator website or anything like that, but it does have some very interesting and well-researched information. May I suggest you investigate further.

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/norouzi.php?articleid=11025

[CptSimFreak]

Originally Posted by Stealth Hunter

President Ahmadinejad NEVER said that Israel should be wiped off the map. That's a lie which spread all over the news and Internet. This is what he said:

"The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time."

......

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by MothBalls

Iran said that Israel needs to be wiped off the map.

1. Iran has never said that. One person, the President has made statements that have been mistranslated (perhaps even innocently)

cf http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud...nism.22_speech

Wiped off the map is an English Idiom. There is no equivalent idiom in Persian. Therefore it is most unlikely that the President would use the words that would be translated in to the English "wiped off the map".

As a clarification, President Ahmadinejad compared Israel to the Soviet Union in the first speech. This part is often not included in English translations. Now the Soviet Union was not destroyed by military action, it was "destroyed" from within. What President Ahmadinejad meant was that the people of the area would dissolve the state of Israel and form a new jointly governed state representing all the people of the area.

2. President Ahmadinejad has no authority over the military at all. It is confusing as he holds the title of President which usually means the boss. Even if he did mean that he wanted the destruction of Israel (which was not the meaning in Persian) he simply can't do anything about it.

3. The person who does have authority over the military is the Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. He has made two separate official declarations that Iran has no intention of attacking Israel. One in 2005 and one in 2007.

So this raises an interesting question

Why do we put credence on the words of the person who does not have control over the military but we don't put credence on the words of the person who does have control over the military?

The answer is that the words of President Ahmadinejad (when mistranslated) support our perception of Iran and the words of the Supreme Leader Khamenei refute our perception of Iran.

However if the media keeps repeating that Iran wants to destroy Israel enough times, it becomes a "fact".

[August]

So when they chant "Death to Israel" or "Death to America" they don't really mean it in a threatening way?

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by August

So when they chant "Death to Israel" or "Death to America" they don't really mean it in a threatening way?

Probably not, it is just an emotional outburst as is common in that culture.