Link to Israel News Site

I'm surprised this wasn't posted sooner. If true, this would greatly hurt Obama's support.

As I've said before, I'm starting to see some things saying that Obama has decided that Iran is inevitably going to get its nukes, and that'll make it the dominant player in the region, so we are trying to build an alliance with Iran. I don't know whether I believe that or not, but it would explain a lot of things.

The problem I see is that it runs the risk of pissing off the Arabs. If Iran gets a nuke, the Saudis will do the same in short order. Where do things go from there?

A lot of discussion is focusing on the idea that a nuclear Iran is a threat to Israel. I don't see that as the big problem, or the big reason why Iran wants nukes. IMO, Iran wants nukes so they can dominate the region and recreate the Persian empire, from Istanbul to Kabul to Aden to Cairo. Israel is only incidental to that goal. Even if Iran gets nukes, it will lack a nuclear arsenal sufficient to take on Israel for decades.

There must be a change in position when it comes to Iran.

Iran is much like the Soviet Union in that even though their ideology was far different than predecessor, the Russian Empire/Persian Empire, they have pursued the exact same foreign policy.

The Iranians think they ought to be a world power, one of the select nations of the world. A nuclear weapon is their trump card.

The end game is not nuking Israel, or anybody else. It is forcing their way onto the world stage. That is the end and at that point the entire paradigm shifts. For all of the Obama administration's failings, of which there are many, this may be a redeeming good call.

The whole Israeli-Iran argument is for the unwashed mashes.

The Iranians haven't gotten over being humiliated at Thermopylae.

(03-02-2015 10:16 AM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  The Iranians haven't gotten over being humiliated at Thermopylae.

Why? The Persians won.

(03-02-2015 08:59 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  There must be a change in position when it comes to Iran.

Iran is much like the Soviet Union in that even though their ideology was far different than predecessor, the Russian Empire/Persian Empire, they have pursued the exact same foreign policy.

The Iranians think they ought to be a world power, one of the select nations of the world. A nuclear weapon is their trump card.

The end game is not nuking Israel, or anybody else. It is forcing their way onto the world stage. That is the end and at that point the entire paradigm shifts. For all of the Obama administration's failings, of which there are many, this may be a redeeming good call.

The whole Israeli-Iran argument is for the unwashed mashes.

I'm not saying that you might not be correct, but nukes alone do not a world power make. Just look at Pakistan and North Korea. If Iran wants to be taken seriously a la Turkey then it needs to implement changes that would entice foreign investment. Otherwise they will be viewed as a dangerous irrational actor with access to weapons of mass destruction.

(03-02-2015 08:59 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  There must be a change in position when it comes to Iran.

Iran is much like the Soviet Union in that even though their ideology was far different than predecessor, the Russian Empire/Persian Empire, they have pursued the exact same foreign policy.

The Iranians think they ought to be a world power, one of the select nations of the world. A nuclear weapon is their trump card.

The end game is not nuking Israel, or anybody else. It is forcing their way onto the world stage. That is the end and at that point the entire paradigm shifts. For all of the Obama administration's failings, of which there are many, this may be a redeeming good call.

The whole Israeli-Iran argument is for the unwashed mashes.

Excellent post.

(03-02-2015 10:27 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(03-02-2015 08:59 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  There must be a change in position when it comes to Iran.

Iran is much like the Soviet Union in that even though their ideology was far different than predecessor, the Russian Empire/Persian Empire, they have pursued the exact same foreign policy.

The Iranians think they ought to be a world power, one of the select nations of the world. A nuclear weapon is their trump card.

The end game is not nuking Israel, or anybody else. It is forcing their way onto the world stage. That is the end and at that point the entire paradigm shifts. For all of the Obama administration's failings, of which there are many, this may be a redeeming good call.

The whole Israeli-Iran argument is for the unwashed mashes.

Excellent post.

I'm not sure about the good call on the part of Obama. The rest is pretty much the same as I wrote, and is excellent.

(03-02-2015 08:01 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  As I've said before, I'm starting to see some things saying that Obama has decided that Iran is inevitably going to get its nukes, and that'll make it the dominant player in the region, so we are trying to build an alliance with Iran. I don't know whether I believe that or not, but it would explain a lot of things.

The problem I see is that it runs the risk of pissing off the Arabs. If Iran gets a nuke, the Saudis will do the same in short order. Where do things go from there?

A lot of discussion is focusing on the idea that a nuclear Iran is a threat to Israel. I don't see that as the big problem, or the big reason why Iran wants nukes. IMO, Iran wants nukes so they can dominate the region and recreate the Persian empire, from Istanbul to Kabul to Aden to Cairo. Israel is only incidental to that goal. Even if Iran gets nukes, it will lack a nuclear arsenal sufficient to take on Israel for decades.

I thought the Saudis already had nukes?

To be honest, I'd rather have an alliance with Iran than the Saudis anyway. The Saudis fund most of the terrible **** that happens in the world, yet we give them weapons, money, intelligence, and god only knows what else.

While Iran is still conservative and crazy in a lot of ways compared to western culture, their values are more in line with ours than the Arabs. That's not to say they're even remotely comparable to ours, but Iranians at least place some value on women's rights, limited democracy, art, science, and culture.

I've had some Iranian friends (that visited home Iran somewhat regularly) and they said the people there are generally neutral towards the west and not big fans of their government. They said it is quite easy to find alcohol, western music, and other western norms if you know where to look. The difference is that everything like that is done in private homes / establishments and isn't immediately evident from the street.

I said this in the past, but I hope if there is any chance of pushing the Ayatollah out of power when the current one dies, we need to seize the opportunity to not let the system extend for another generation.

(03-02-2015 10:21 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(03-02-2015 08:59 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  There must be a change in position when it comes to Iran.

Iran is much like the Soviet Union in that even though their ideology was far different than predecessor, the Russian Empire/Persian Empire, they have pursued the exact same foreign policy.

The Iranians think they ought to be a world power, one of the select nations of the world. A nuclear weapon is their trump card.

The end game is not nuking Israel, or anybody else. It is forcing their way onto the world stage. That is the end and at that point the entire paradigm shifts. For all of the Obama administration's failings, of which there are many, this may be a redeeming good call.

The whole Israeli-Iran argument is for the unwashed mashes.

I'm not saying that you might not be correct, but nukes alone do not a world power make. Just look at Pakistan and North Korea. If Iran wants to be taken seriously a la Turkey then it needs to implement changes that would entice foreign investment. Otherwise they will be viewed as a dangerous irrational actor with access to weapons of mass destruction.

But you're forgetting the big thing that Iran has but Pakistan and NK don't.

Oil production.

Iran is #6. Pakistan is #59. North Korea is #110.

Also, Turkey itself doesn't have nukes. It just hosts them.

(03-02-2015 03:12 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-02-2015 10:21 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(03-02-2015 08:59 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  There must be a change in position when it comes to Iran.

Iran is much like the Soviet Union in that even though their ideology was far different than predecessor, the Russian Empire/Persian Empire, they have pursued the exact same foreign policy.

The Iranians think they ought to be a world power, one of the select nations of the world. A nuclear weapon is their trump card.

The end game is not nuking Israel, or anybody else. It is forcing their way onto the world stage. That is the end and at that point the entire paradigm shifts. For all of the Obama administration's failings, of which there are many, this may be a redeeming good call.

The whole Israeli-Iran argument is for the unwashed mashes.

I'm not saying that you might not be correct, but nukes alone do not a world power make. Just look at Pakistan and North Korea. If Iran wants to be taken seriously a la Turkey then it needs to implement changes that would entice foreign investment. Otherwise they will be viewed as a dangerous irrational actor with access to weapons of mass destruction.

But you're forgetting the big thing that Iran has but Pakistan and NK don't.

Oil production.

Iran is #6. Pakistan is #59. North Korea is #110.

Also, Turkey itself doesn't have nukes. It just hosts them.

Conceded, but if Iran's goal is to get to a place like Turkey and Poland, I think more than anything else they are going to have to demonstrate that they are willing to maintain tight control over their fissionable products. The best way to prove that would be to divulge and destroy in rogue elements within Iranian borders. It doesn't even have to be the the US or NATO, they achieve validation through Russia or China.

Saudis have already purchased nuclear capable Chinese Ballistic Missiles. Now they just have to buy Pakistani Nukes.

NK and Iran have been on a joint development program of nuclear warheads and ballistic missiles since 1994.

When the Ayatollahs start their mischief with the Sunnis expect the Kim family to start their garbage as well against Japan & S Korea.

Attacking Iran could be a guarantee of Israel's destruction. Regardless of whether or not an attack works, the dynamic behind the Islamic states in the region put up against Israel's defenses would have horrific consequences. Even though Israel has military prowess, they are outnumbered so severely in the region and are without major support in the area. Such an act of war COULD have quite literally brought the Israeli homeland to rubble.

(03-03-2015 01:25 AM)Ole Blue Wrote:  Attacking Iran could be a guarantee of Israel's destruction. Regardless of whether or not an attack works, the dynamic behind the Islamic states in the region put up against Israel's defenses would have horrific consequences. Even though Israel has military prowess, they are outnumbered so severely in the region and are without major support in the area. Such an act of war COULD have quite literally brought the Israeli homeland to rubble.

Maybe. It only took them 6 days last time. If the Arabs underestimate the resolve of the Israelis it would be a mistake.

Susan Rice to AIPAC:

Susan Rice Wrote:Some of you will be urging congres to insist that Iran forgo it's domestic enrichment capacity entirely... [interrupted by lengthy applause]
But, as desirable as that would be, it is neither realistic nor achievable. Even our closest international partners in the P5+1 do not support denying Iran the ability EVER to pursue peaceful nuclear energy. If that is our goal then our partners will abandon us, and undermine the very sanctions we have imposed so effectively together.

Simply put, that is not a viable negotiating position. Nor is it even attainable. The plain fact is that noone can make Iran unlearn the scientific and nuclear expertise it already possesses. We must also understand what will happen if these negotiations collapse. I know that some will argue that we should impose sanctions and walk away. My friends, let's remember that sanctions, unfortunately, have never stopped Iran from advancing its program. So, here's what's likely to happen without a deal. Iran will install and operate advanced centrifuges. Iran will seek to fuel its reactor in Iraq. Iran will rebuild its uranium stockpile. And, we'll lose the unprecedented inspections and transparency we have today.

Congress has played a hugely important role in helping to build our sanctions on Iran. But, they shouldn't play the spoiler today. Additional sanctions or restrictive legislation enacted during the negotiation would blow up the talks, divide the international community, and cause the United States to be blamed for the failure to reach a deal, putting us in a much weaker position and endangering the sanctions regime itself. Meanwhile, the Iranians are well aware that if the walk away from the deal, Congress will pass sanctions immediately, and President Obama will support them.

The lie is that the enrichment that Iran is pursuing is not related to a peaceful nuclear energy program - it is related to weapons development. I have to question what she means by "rebuild" their stockpile. Where has the highly enriched uranium gone? The entire sanctions regime and negotiations are geared towards preventing enrichment beyond what is needed by their civilian, peaceful program (outside of research reactors used for medical supplies, which is a very small amount of material needed).

What Rice is offering is that congress either blows up a bad deal, or allow the administration to offer Iran a deal that would handcuff the ability of Congress or future administrations to take any action at all. I expect that Congress will in fact blow this up unless the administration changes tack.

edit: note also the curious statement about unprecedented transparency (from this administration for whom transparency equates to opacity)

(03-02-2015 09:22 PM)WMD Owl Wrote:  Saudis have already purchased nuclear capable Chinese Ballistic Missiles. Now they just have to buy Pakistani Nukes.

NK and Iran have been on a joint development program of nuclear warheads and ballistic missiles since 1994.

When the Ayatollahs start their mischief with the Sunnis expect the Kim family to start their garbage as well against Japan & S Korea.

Note that the Norks Nukes are also related to Pakistani weapons development.

(03-03-2015 06:54 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(03-03-2015 01:25 AM)Ole Blue Wrote:  Attacking Iran could be a guarantee of Israel's destruction. Regardless of whether or not an attack works, the dynamic behind the Islamic states in the region put up against Israel's defenses would have horrific consequences. Even though Israel has military prowess, they are outnumbered so severely in the region and are without major support in the area. Such an act of war COULD have quite literally brought the Israeli homeland to rubble.

Maybe. It only took them 6 days last time. If the Arabs underestimate the resolve of the Israelis it would be a mistake.

That was a different era and one where Iran and Saudi Arabia, the two regional superpowers, did not even engage. I fear the result could be drastically different with their involvement and the involvement of other regional military powers like Jordan, UAE, etc. As long as you can avoid the whole "holy war" issue, Israel should be OK.

(03-03-2015 06:54 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(03-03-2015 01:25 AM)Ole Blue Wrote:  Attacking Iran could be a guarantee of Israel's destruction. Regardless of whether or not an attack works, the dynamic behind the Islamic states in the region put up against Israel's defenses would have horrific consequences. Even though Israel has military prowess, they are outnumbered so severely in the region and are without major support in the area. Such an act of war COULD have quite literally brought the Israeli homeland to rubble.

Maybe. It only took them 6 days last time. If the Arabs underestimate the resolve of the Israelis it would be a mistake.

therein lies the real danger of the willingness of the unknown coupled with the residual effect....

(03-03-2015 11:46 AM)Ole Blue Wrote:  

(03-03-2015 06:54 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(03-03-2015 01:25 AM)Ole Blue Wrote:  Attacking Iran could be a guarantee of Israel's destruction. Regardless of whether or not an attack works, the dynamic behind the Islamic states in the region put up against Israel's defenses would have horrific consequences. Even though Israel has military prowess, they are outnumbered so severely in the region and are without major support in the area. Such an act of war COULD have quite literally brought the Israeli homeland to rubble.

Maybe. It only took them 6 days last time. If the Arabs underestimate the resolve of the Israelis it would be a mistake.

That was a different era and one where Iran and Saudi Arabia, the two regional superpowers, did not even engage. I fear the result could be drastically different with their involvement and the involvement of other regional military powers like Jordan, UAE, etc. As long as you can avoid the whole "holy war" issue, Israel should be OK.

Egypt and Saudi would both back Israel in a strike against Iran, even if their rhetoric said otherwise. There is no standing army that would move against Israel in a meaningful way. The Syrians could, and even the moderate Syrian opposition may call a timeout in the civil war to redirect against Israel. But, they wouldn't be strong enough to advance.

It would light up the northern border and Gaza, but I think Israel could withstand that pretty easily. Jordan's not likely to move on Iran's behalf. Iran may retaliate directly, but I don't see it moving large numbers of troops to do so.

Saudi Arabia will probably never be stable enough to send troops beyond its borders. Most armies in the region are geared more towards defending internal threats than deterring invaders... even the Syrians. The army is more about defending Alawite/Shia Syrians from Sunni Syrians.