Regarding Iran nuking Israel

[Scriptor Ignotus]

I read that Newt thinks Iran will nuke Israel into the next holocaust. I've also read numerous other commentators, on the right and left, claiming that Iran is serious about "wiping Israel off the map". Here is what I don't understand.

Would Iran really nuke Jerusalem?

Jerusalem is a very holy city for all Muslims, Shia or Sunni. Most notably it is home to the Al Aqsa mosque and the Dome of the Rock. Jerusalem is the third holiest city in all of Islam. Would any Muslim, even the most fanatical, demolish such a holy place knowing it would be inhabitable from radiation for decades if not centuries?

Tel Aviv, Haifa, Eilat, yes I can see terrorists wanting to destory. But I do not think they would EVER attempt to bomb Islam's third holiest site. If Iran were to nuke Tel Aviv, I do not think it would be a stretch to say that Tehran would be reduced to a pile of rubble within 24 hours. But Jerusalem would stand and Israel would survive. If Iran launched a conventional strike against Israel, again, the US and NATO would rise to Israel's defense.

So why is there all this Iran nuking Israel hype, now also being repeated by John Edwards? I just don't see it.

[burythehatchet]

1. For God sakes, ITS NEWT!

The stupidest, wrongest motherf***er in the brain dead punditocracy.

[Scriptor Ignotus]

5. but also John Edwards

http://www.totallyjewish.com/news/world/?content_id=5400

[Poll_Blind]

2. Our Empire and influence in the Middle East is crumbling and...

...in a last, desperate, grab for power, we're resorting to militarily threatening the countries to retain our power. If Arab countries ever have nuclear energy programs, nuclear weapons programs will be within their reach. Should they ever have nuclear weapons, Israel (which has up to several hundred nuclear weapons) will no longer be able to have a "qualitative edge" as the Democratic Party Platform for 2004 puts it.

  This has little to do with nuclear anything. If we gave a crap about nuclear proliferation, we wouldn't have just transferred nuclear technology to India who has nuclear weapons and who has not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

  Iranians want to continue living just as much as the Israelis. For decades, Israel has had nuclear weapons. If Iran really had a death wish, there have been ample opportunities in the last three decades, or more, where they could have exercised it and been burned right off the map for their efforts.

  No, it boils down to: If countries other than Israel have nuclear weapons, we lose our "trump card" in the Middle East. Already, with the highest top-shelf military hardware, Israel is able to, for instance, buzz the Syrian capital with F-16's to "make a point" (re: Start of Second Lebanon War) with impunity.

PB

[The Magistrate]

3. So Long, Sir

As the mullah's regime makes hatred for Jews and Israel corner-stones of its policy, there will be legitimate concerns over what course it might adopt, it possessed of certain equipments. Persons in the grip of hatred, and particularly persons in the grip of hatred who make a cult of martytdom, cannot be relied on to behave in a wholly reasonable manner.

[burythehatchet]

7. We good, they evil

We sane, they crazy
No, Sir, the Muslim world has legitimate grievances, and the world powers have failed to seek redress on their behalf. It is no more complicated than that. For every Muslim who seeks martyrdon, there is a settler who would like exterminate every Palestinian. No, Sir, Muslims do not have a monopoly on lunacy.

[The Magistrate]

9. Not A Sound Argument, Sir

Legitimate grievances do not extend to calls for extermination, and the destruction of a state and its people. When such is the declared policy, whether or not the grievance is legitimate becomes irrelevant.

Nor is anyone under any obligation to redress grievances felt by one party towards another. Parties seeking such assistance must behave in a manner that enlists support for their cause, and even then, they may not get it, if it does not suit the parties they are addressing.

That individual citizens may urge outrages is a thing quite different from heads of state urging outrages: the former has little power to make these happen, the latter has, or may have, means actually available to put them into practice.

It is worth something, of course, that you do not seek to deny the primacy of the cult of martyrdom in the outlook of the clerical leadership of Iran, and do not diagree with characterizing it as an unreasonable belief.

[burythehatchet]

12. Lets address your post, point by point

Legitimate grievances do not extend to calls for extermination, and the destruction of a state and its people. When such is the declared policy, whether or not the grievance is legitimate becomes irrelevant.

The destruction of a state and its people actually occurred half a century ago, and the occupation and additional, gradual encroachment continues to this day despite many UN resolutions calling for the madness to end. While I am no student of history I do not recall the indiginous people of Palestine, Jews and Muslims, taking actions to warrant their land being confiscated

Nor is anyone under any obligation to redress grievances felt by one party towards another. Parties seeking such assistance must behave in a manner that enlists support for their cause, and even then, they may not get it, if it does not suit the parties they are addressing.

Again, the world has spoken many times on this matter, with no result. The United States has supported and continues to support brutal dictators (see: Shah of Iran, Saddam Hussein, Hosni Mubarak, House of Saud, etc.) who would be unable to hold power if the will of their people were exercised. And if no one is under any obligation to redress grievances felt by one party towards another, then is it not the obligation of the aggrieved party to act on its own behalf?

That individual citizens may urge outrages is a thing quite different from heads of state urging outrages: the former has little power to make these happen, the latter has, or may have, means actually available to put them into practice.

The Saudi peace proposal that was summarily rejected included recognition of the State of Israel, this included Iran. No, Sir, the West has no interest in a peaceful settlement because such an outcome would result in an ability to control the natural resources of the reason by force

It is worth something, of course, that you do not seek to deny the primacy of the cult of martyrdom in the outlook of the clerical leadership of Iran, and do not diagree with characterizing it as an unreasonable belief.

If I were living under the constant threat of annihilation, foreign interference in my country's internal affairs, constant calls for regime change, no recognition of electoral process unless our guy wins, I would be as militant as anyone in order to assure my continued existance.

[The Magistrate]

14. It Is Best Not, Sir, To Side-Track Into An Israel v. Palestine Wrangle

That is sufficiently addressed by pointing to the legal fact that no state existed, and observing that a people was not exterminated.

People are free to act in their own behalf, but have no right to succeed in the endeavor. The world is what it is, and makes a regular practice of defeating hopes, pious and otherwise.

You do not address the third point, the difference between statements by a private citizen urging outrages, and the chiefs of a state stating outrages are a policy of its givernment, at all.

Nor do you add anything of signifigance to consideration of what weight should be attached to a clerical leadership's exaltation of martyrdom should be given in attempting to predict its policies in regard to war and peace.

[Poll_Blind]

15. Tell me more about this Cult of Martyrdom. I'm all ears!

  Because the way I see it, a Cult of Martyrdom would busily be, urm, martyring itself. What I think you call a Cult of Martyrdom is a Cult of Inflammatory Rhetoric. There is a difference. You did realize that that story about Iranians making non-Muslims wear flair was a hoax, don't you? And that the permanent Jewish appointee to the Iranian parliament has, for weeks, been calling Ahmadinejad an insulting ass for his rhetoric with impunity?

  Kim Jong Il received success with it. Ahmadinejad and Chavez are following suit for different reasons and in different ways but it's the next step in the evolution of combating what regional leaders see as undue influence by the United States and it's proxies in their affairs.

PB

[The Magistrate]

16. Martyrdom, Sir

Is an element in several religious traditions, as you will be well aware. It is, at bottom, the idea that for persons to sacrifice their lives in the upholding or furtherance of the faith is a high and good thing, perhaps even the holiest thing, that anyone can do. Where a belief system attaches such a value to heedlessness of one's own life in matters touching a religion, when some otherwise garden variety state objective is infused with a religious quality, some weight must be given to the thought that the ordinary check on overly aggressive behavior, that it may well lead to your death, may not apply in the normal manner. There is no doubt that the clerical leadership of Iran regards its hostility to Israel as a religious dictate, and this overlays and undergirds whatever secular reasons may also be present in that hostility. Neither factor can be reasonably disregareded in assessing the situation. That a leadership does not actively seek its own martyrdom immediately, but rather holds it up as an ideal for emulation by others, whose actions in doing so may advance its policies, is simply the normal hypocrisy of persons holding power. It does not demonstrate that, at some future juncture, that leadership will not decide that a course that will lead to its own death is the proper and holy one to adopt.

[Poll_Blind]

17. In light of Ayatollah Khamenei's snub of Ahmadinejad recently...

...I fail to see how your analysis applies to Iran currently. Ayatollah's snub ominous for Iranian President I see Ahmadinejad continuing to exercise inflammatory rhetoric at his own political peril both inside and outside of Iran. I do not see this cult you describe, or the necessary fellowship to make it considerable in the situation.

PB

[The Magistrate]

18. This Action Of the Leading Ayatollah, Sir

Bears only on the tactical question of what face is best presented to the world while the Iranian nuclear program proceeds. It has no bearing whatever on underlying ideology or policy.

[Poll_Blind]

19. So the Ayatollah is now kow-towing to world perception?

How can that image of the Ayatollah's motivations be juxtaposed with the Cult of Martyrdom effect that you describe and make sense?

  I realize you may view this as a false choice analogy but I see it boiling down to either the Ayatollah supporting Ahmadinejad and strengthening the argument for the Cult of Martyrdom or not supporting him and isolating Ahmadinejad in his stance and rhetoric.

  But when you imply that the Ayatollah is doing this as a political move for the world's consumption, I think you misunderstand the seriousness with which the Ayatollah takes his position or how concerned he is about the West's opinion. Someone who is regarded as "the guardian of the Islamic Revolution" does not typically dip and curtsy for the West's benefit, would you agree?

  At what level of action would you consider the Ayatollah's actions to be based on genuine motivation?

PB

[The Magistrate]

20. The Fellow Is Being Diplomatic, Sir

In the sense of the classic formulation "Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie....' while reaching around for a brick." He feels that some of the diplomatic and possible economic actions being undertaken by the world comunity will be detrimental to the Islamic Republic of Iran, and would just as soon avoid these effects while continuing the nuclear program. Hence a small slap directed at an underling with a loud mouth.

Why you feel that a desire to achieve objectives of state policy is not a genuine motivation for a country's political leader escapes me. Like anyone else, the man wishes the greatest possible power for his country at the least cost to it. What can make the calculation dicey is that the goal that power is to be used for may be dictated by religiousity, and that religiousity places a very high value on personal extinction when encompassed in vindication of the faith. That, too, of course, is a genuine motive, that has led to the deaths of many throughout history.

[alfredo]

4. Even if Iran wasn't nuked in return, the fallout would

poison their land.

[PATRICK]

6. The actual threat

is simply population pressures. the only viable purpose of an iranian nuke is as a deterrent and likely NO faction would allow a nutcase even as bad as Bush to get the idea that a first strike against Israel was a) possible b)the best and only thing to do.

All the nuke does is remove one of a few unique chips that guarantee Israel's security. Those are: alliances with the US and certain Sunni interests, military supremacy, a bunch of nukes. The first two are shaky and probably can deteriorate dangerously. Israel can't be militarily invincible forever. The temptation of the bomb which is always THERE carries with it one weakness. the other guy has only to get one to do the same. There can be no suicidal, idiotic intention to actually use the bomb but once you have it, lunacy and tongue sticking out.

That done a nuclear exchange is not necessary although the chessboard becomes more dangerous. Pressures will drive Jews to other homelands. The Muslim population will continue to grow and press in for rights. To survive will Israel become Lebanon? It certainly has not helped Christian Lebanon become a peaceful model of thriving in diversity. Constant struggle has kept the Israeli hardline stance growing ever more to these violent confrontations, yet the real threat, a peaceful one perhaps is that the religious state of Israel must surrender to diversity or disappear altogether. In all its history the shining moments of security and strictly Jewish national identity have been few and doomed.

The answer to the whole mess, nukes included, is global will and guarantee of peace and security- maybe the globalization control the RW fear of such, the end of Armageddon and all the fun glory games and oneupmanship. That wasn't in the Bible which details the failure of everything and nothing so certain as becoming of the big guys and having a king and a kick-ass army. The reactions to antagonistic pressures always lead to escalation of the wrong answers. The world and Israel and Iran are going have to work it out without the benefit of a Messiah knocking their heads together. Or the Messiah, to the immense satisfaction to RWers ghoulishly spectating from afar will arrive at a radioactive graveyard.

[Norquist Nemesis]

8. Well, I'd tell you my opinion of the hype

but I don't own the indestructable flamesuit required to fend off attacks. Just look at what's happened to Jimmy Carter.

[MadHound]

10. Well, Iran isn't going to nuke Israel, at least not in the relatively near future

Iran has a few grams, at most, of fuel grade uranium. This means that it has been enriched five percent. Weapons grade material has to be enriched to 85% or more. To accomplish this in a reasonably short time, like a few years, it would take the operation of 50,000 centrifuges. Iran currently has 300, though they have stated that they are wanting to up that amount to 3000 over the next year.

In addition, if Bush and Israel would stop rattling the Iranian cage, we would see a much more moderate regime installed there. Many, many Iranian citizens are working towards a less nationalist, fundamentalist government. In fact most experts concur that Ahmadinejad wouldn't have had a prayer in Iranian politics if it wasn't for the fact that Bushboy started rattling sabers and beating the war drums.

Please, don't fall for this line of bullshit. Iran is not and will not be a nuclear threat for awhile. If we normalize relations with them, and stop threatening war, they will never be a nuclear threat to either Israel or the US.

[The Magistrate]

13. That Is Quite True, Sir

Even if they cracked on all sail, it would take the Iranians many years to achieve an actual nuclear capability. This is a debate over potentials, not present realities, and the potentials certainly do not warrant actual military action at this time. The threat of military action is a useful prop just now for the mullah's regime: even people who disagree with their government will tend to rally to its support against outside threat and pressure.

[Bombtrack]

11. I agree with Adam Carollas suggestion of getting all the Israeli Jews to move to Baja

[Scriptor Ignotus]

21. i didn't hear that

is it because the climate is the same?