Jump to content

Israel, Palestine and Iran


Swerbs

Recommended Posts

Foreign Affairs is an American magazine, so it's wise to take it all with a pinch of salt. Although the article I linked is indeed by an Iranian chap, but I don't think the argument is completely invalid, even if there does seem an alarming lack of talk on Israel, and a bit too much 'Washington are playing silly buggers with us'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How popular is the Iranian regime internally? I would have thought that covert political subversion leading to regime change and a client government (that hands out McDs, Cokes and Nike trainers to everybody) would be a cheaper (and safer) option.

Not withstanding Ads' reply on the geographic and demographic split in support for the mullahs, covert political subversion has 'allegedly' been going on for some years.

The difficulty, as seen during the abortive rising of the Green Movement, is the monopoly on violence held by the State and their willingness to use it, ruthlessly. Between the IRGC, regular armed forces and the fanatical Basij paramilitaries, any overt political opposition can and has been viciously crushed.

The weakness of that structure (like any dictatorship) is the rigidity of the chain of command. Dislocate that and the opposition groups might have a chance to do something. Achieving that dislocation through overt military action probably stands the least chance of success, unless the mullahs go 'full retard' and take preemptive action somewhere in the region.

A wholescale unprovoked bombing campaign would most probably have the opposite effect on the population than that intended, unifying them behind their despotic leadership - particularly if it's the Red Sea pedestrians delivering HE ordnance.

Aside from a few minesweepers in Bahrain this is academic for the UK anyway. I strongly suspect that in the near future 'we' will be up to our nuts in Somalia and far too busy :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is something I have never understood, and I'd like to know if anyone has the answer.

Leaving aside what the Iranians are actually up to... which we all know, why should they not be allowed to get on with it without foreign or UN interference?

Or to put it differently... did we supply them with nuclear materials or technology on certain conditions for their usage? Or have they got this far entirely on their own... in which case what right have we to comment?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is something I have never understood, and I'd like to know if anyone has the answer.

Leaving aside what the Iranians are actually up to... which we all know, why should they not be allowed to get on with it without foreign or UN interference?

Or to put it differently... did we supply them with nuclear materials or technology on certain conditions for their usage? Or have they got this far entirely on their own... in which case what right have we to comment?

..... clearly I'm not the only person who doesn't know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

which we all know, why should they not be allowed to get on with it without foreign or UN interference?

Because they are seemingly on route to developing nuclear weapons and have a stated desire to wipe another nation off the map.

I think that is an exceptionally good reason why they shouldn't be allowed to get on with it.

Or to put it differently... did we supply them with nuclear materials or technology on certain conditions for their usage? Or have they got this far entirely on their own... in which case what right have we to comment?

I very much doubt we did so I'd imagine they have done it by themselves or if they have hadd assistance it has come from the likes of Russia or China rather than the UK or US.

It is a difficult question really, what right do we or anyone else have to be the moral guardian

Well not having a desire to wipe a nation of the face of the earth is a good start. It is a complex arguement, it is easy to make a strong case for saying we or any nation have no right to act as moral guardians but then it is very easy to make a case to say we have a moral obligation to do so as well.

Sure there are times when I wish we weren't sticking our nose into affairs abroad, especially when it results in British boots on the ground and ultimately the loss of our boys in combat. Nobody ever wants to see that.

What though is the alternative? We can't as supposed developed countries sad back and allow events like those in Bosnia to happen, we shouldn't stand back and let the leaders of countries like Lybia, Syria and the like murder their own people to stay in power. We shouldn't stand back and let a country that wishes to wipe another from the face of the earth develop nuclear weapons.

Sure people talk about oil and self interests and they would have a point, we do often pick the fights that we stick our nose into but we can't deal with all the problems of the world so its hardly surprising we pick the ones we have a vested interest in.

Do we have a right to stick our nose in what Iran is upto? Probably not but that doesn't mean its not the right thing to do. We didn't really have a right to tell German to stay out of Poland either though did we.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

which we all know, why should they not be allowed to get on with it without foreign or UN interference?

Because they are seemingly on route to developing nuclear weapons and have a stated desire to wipe another nation off the map.

When did they actually say that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

which we all know, why should they not be allowed to get on with it without foreign or UN interference?

Because they are seemingly on route to developing nuclear weapons and have a stated desire to wipe another nation off the map.

When did they actually say that?

26th October 2005.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

which we all know, why should they not be allowed to get on with it without foreign or UN interference?

Because they are seemingly on route to developing nuclear weapons and have a stated desire to wipe another nation off the map.

When did they actually say that?

26th October 2005.

did he actually say that though ?

I'm aware of the speech he made and the way it was reported in the west ..but I've a Iranian friend (he's no Ahmadinejad sympathiser ftw ) but he was telling me that loosely what was said was " “this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time.” .. and it's actually a quote from Ayatollah Khomenei

now the west have reported that as him saying something alone the lines of " wiping Israel off the face of the map" .. but the word map (or earth for that matter) was never used in the original speech

Also wasn't Egypt , Libya (and now Syria) about regime change ... last time I looked those countries still exist

Quite possibly Ahmadinejad knew exactly what he was saying with those words and it's just a case of semantics .. but it's also just possible that it's just another part of the justification for the next US war on terror

Link to comment
Share on other sites

which we all know, why should they not be allowed to get on with it without foreign or UN interference?

Because they are seemingly on route to developing nuclear weapons and have a stated desire to wipe another nation off the map.

I think that is an exceptionally good reason why they shouldn't be allowed to get on with it.

Or to put it differently... did we supply them with nuclear materials or technology on certain conditions for their usage? Or have they got this far entirely on their own... in which case what right have we to comment?

I very much doubt we did so I'd imagine they have done it by themselves or if they have hadd assistance it has come from the likes of Russia or China rather than the UK or US.

It is a difficult question really, what right do we or anyone else have to be the moral guardian

Well not having a desire to wipe a nation of the face of the earth is a good start. It is a complex arguement, it is easy to make a strong case for saying we or any nation have no right to act as moral guardians but then it is very easy to make a case to say we have a moral obligation to do so as well.

Sure there are times when I wish we weren't sticking our nose into affairs abroad, especially when it results in British boots on the ground and ultimately the loss of our boys in combat. Nobody ever wants to see that.

What though is the alternative? We can't as supposed developed countries sad back and allow events like those in Bosnia to happen, we shouldn't stand back and let the leaders of countries like Lybia, Syria and the like murder their own people to stay in power. We shouldn't stand back and let a country that wishes to wipe another from the face of the earth develop nuclear weapons.

Sure people talk about oil and self interests and they would have a point, we do often pick the fights that we stick our nose into but we can't deal with all the problems of the world so its hardly surprising we pick the ones we have a vested interest in.

Do we have a right to stick our nose in what Iran is upto? Probably not but that doesn't mean its not the right thing to do. We didn't really have a right to tell German to stay out of Poland either though did we.

Don't misunderstand me... I'm not defending the Iranians... as far as I'm concerned the Israelis can nuke them tomorrow... but I'd still like a clarification.

Incidentally, I'm pretty bloody certain the third of your above quotes was NEVER written by me!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Putin says West seeking 'regime change' in Iran

MOSCOW — Prime Minister Vladimir Putin on Friday accused the West of seeking "regime change" in Iran and warned Washington that Russia intended to keep its nuclear weapons to keep US power in check.

"Under the guise of trying to prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction... they are attempting something else entirely and setting different goals -- regime change," news agencies quoted Putin as saying.

"We have such suspicions," said Putin. "And we are trying to take a stand that differs from the one they are trying to force on us... concerning the ways that the Iranian nuclear problem might develop."

Russia has longstanding commercial and military ties with Iran and has condemned unilateral sanctions imposed by the United States and the European Union over its suspected pursuit of nuclear weapons.

Putin's tough talk came as he toured a nuclear research centre in the once-secret city of Sarov ahead of a March 4 presidential election in which he is widely expected to secure a return to the Kremlin.

Footage showed the former KGB spy inspect research stands and then chair a security meeting in which he lashed out at US plans to deploy a missile defence shield in Europe that Russia fears might make its nuclear forces ineffective.

Putin often clashed with the United States while president between 2000 and 2008 and has remained a key decision-maker in the past four years who spearheaded Russia's criticism of the NATO-led air campaign in Libya.

Russia now faces both Western and Arab world condemnation for its refusal to blame Syrian President Bashar al-Assad for an 11-month crackdown on street protests that the opposition says has claimed more than 7,600 lives.

The Russian strongman earlier this month accused Western powers of acting "like a bull in a china shop" in Arab conflicts and on Friday firmly defended Russia's veto of a UN Security Council resolution that blamed the violence on Assad.

Vlad laying down a marker that 'his' country will maintain it's traditional support of mass murder by the State when it comes to chopsy civilians.

Iran and Syria are rank amateurs in comparison to Russia's historical pedigree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have heard Russia's foreign policy may well change once he has secured the presidency again.

Quite likely. He will of course exact a price for his, erm, 'change of heart'. Like the Chinese, Russian foreign policy maneuvering is all about the long game..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 7 months later...

Israel's Netanyahu urges 'red line' over nuclear Iran

Israel's prime minister has urged the world to draw a "clear red line" over Iran's nuclear programme.

In a speech at the UN, Benjamin Netanyahu said time was running out to stop Tehran from having enough enriched uranium to build a nuclear bomb.

Israel and Western countries suspect Iran is seeking such a capability. Tehran says its programme is peaceful.

Earlier, Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas asked the General Assembly to upgrade the Palestinians' UN status.

Mr Netanyahu told delegates at the annual meeting of the assembly that Iran could have enough material to make a nuclear bomb by the middle of next year, and a clear message needed to be sent to stop Tehran in its tracks.

"Red lines don't lead to war, red lines prevent war," he said. "Nothing could imperil the world more than a nuclear-armed Iran."

He said sanctions passed over the past seven years had not affected Tehran's programme. "The hour is very late," he told delegates. "The Iranian nuclear calendar does not take time out."

He said he was convinced that faced with a "clear red line, Iran will back down".

He added that he was confident the US and Israel could chart a common path on the issue.

On Tuesday, in his own address to the General Assembly, US President Barack Obama stressed the US would "do what we must" to stop Tehran acquiring nuclear arms.

However, while the Obama administration has not ruled out a military option, it says sanctions and multilateral negotiations with Iran must still be given time to work.

Earlier this month, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the US was not prepared to commit to drawing "red lines".

On Wednesday, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad accused Western countries of nuclear "intimidation".

"Continued threat by the uncivilised Zionists [israel] to resort to military action is a clear example of this bitter reality," he told the General Assembly.

Expect it to kick off before the middle of next year then.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Israel seems more interested in giving the Palestinian conflict another stoking, given they've just assassinated some Hamas officials (admittedly a fairly grim one included) in their favourite indiscriminate manner - air strike in the middle of a civilian population.

...My dissertation on Israeli state terrorism is out of date already :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nothing to do with the fact they've been rocketed to buggery in Southern Israel from Gaza recently (130 in the last two days alone), Chindie?

If someone did that to the UK I'd be expecting our leaders to order RAF assets to knock spots of those doing the firing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We've the had the rocket debate before, around the time of Cast Lead IIRC. It isn't right that Palestine launches them, but response is entirely disproportionate (Palestinian rockets have been fired for donkeys years in the thousands and, as a weapon of war, they've proven pretty shit). In response, Israel launches cutting edge weaponry at civilian areas and, based on previous, eventually rolls out the tanks and appears to not give a **** who gets hurt.

I don't think I can ever support assassination, let alone assassination by such indiscriminate means that always (arguably intentionally) hurts innocents in their droves. It's basically terrorism, they attempt to compel the Palestinian population to do as Israel desires by sending the message that they are powerful and will inflict pain on Palestine if they don't. Fear used to bring about political aims...

I don't think the UK comparison stands - there's not a real allegory there. To be even close to accurate, you'd have to posit a situation where... say, Wales, was incredibly poor and run down, a Third World country, and the rest of Britain intent on expanding into Wales, forcing the population into smaller and smaller pockets and not really giving a **** what the Welsh think, and when the Welsh threw metaphorical stones at us from, say, Swansea, we retaliated by sending up the RAF and bombing a city with a main aim of killing a resistance leader by with a secondary, unspoken aim of killing a load of Welsh people to send the message 'Behave'.

The comparison doesn't work without that additional information - if France hit us their military might for no reason, I'd agree with you. But this isn't France. This is a country that is broken, taking on a state equipped to the highest levels, and with a quite genuine grievances to do so. As much as I don't like Hamas and would like to avoid conflict (I'm not idealistic enough to believe conflict is never justified), I cannot support Israel on this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â