The Iranian Mexican Assassination Farce

Ehud Barak may be sabre-rattling (it's the season, after all), but that's it. /yawn.

 

You've really only laid out the possibility for any military conflict with Iran, rather than the possibility of Turkey jumping in and siding with Iran.

I wouldn't be so sure to assume that Israel's leaders will fully realize the huge challenges it faces to not go for military action. Iran is not going to stop their nuclear ambitions, so a "diplomatic reconciliation" is out of the question. The question that remains is whether Israel will choose to act on its threats against Iran or not.

We understand the immense disadvantage Israel is in, especially with the US occupied militarily in Afghanistan and Iraq. The only US involvement I would expect is air support for the Israelis and covert operations beyond enemy lines.

We must also understand that it is generally the political leaders that choose to go to war against the advice by their military commanders, typically to score points on the corpses their decisions create. From what I've seen, military commanders are much more open to avoiding military conflict than civilian leaders. I would expect Netanyahu to be enough of a complete retard to go for it.

Now consider that the large majority of Turks view Iran's nuclear program as their right. They also really hate hypocrisy, such as when a nuke-laden country tells another country not to develop any nuclear capabilities. The Turks have never liked the Israelis and have always considered themselves as allies to Palestine. Given Iran's long-time and official support for Palestine, the Turks take a very good impression from it.

Erdogan has been expanding its power base. He's in a power-struggle with the military establishment in Turkey, which is well-respected by the population. He will need any and all domestic backing he can gather. He draws much of his domestic support from his international standing, especially the Islamic world. Erdogan is immensely respected within the international Muslim community, where he shot up the pop charts after his famous confrontation with Israel's Peres at the World Economic Forums. Watch it here:



He has distanced himself diplomatically from the West, cut off diplomatic and military ties with Israel, declared the Palestine situation to change drastically by year's end and is currently very deeply involved to take advantage from the Arab Spring uprisings; all in order to position himself even better with the Arab and Muslim communities. It's paying off and Turkey will undoubtedly be the biggest player in the Middle East sooner than later.

Now, what would a stern politician such as Erdogan do, if presented with the situation of a pre-emptive attack on Iran, and a resulting military conflict between Iran, two of Turkey's neighbours, and Palestine against Israel? Especially, if public opinion within Turkey turns against Israel even more than it already is.

What if the Iran/Allies side makes significant losses against Israel while Turkey sits idly by? It would damage Erdogan's domestic and international standing significantly, something he will most likely not be willing to give up.

 

this is an overview of the construction of iran as Nuclear Menace:\

http://www.aslanmedia.com/news-a-po...mongering-about-a-nuclear-iran-never-gets-old

this is a research project of sorts referenced in the above:

http://www.wideasleepinamerica.com/2010/12/phantom-menace-fantasies-falsehoods-and.html

kinda interesting.

 

That first article covers the issue on the Iran situation very well.

Israel's bullshit rhetoric gets very tiresome. No wonder Sarkozy and Obama were making jokes behind Netanyahu's back.

 

A joint Israeli-U.S. attack appears ever imminent. And Iran is beginning to understand how serious the threat of an attack is. Iran continues to enrich uranium and advance it's nuclear weapon capabilities. Iran's actions have been roundly condemned by all developed nations and new sanctions are in place. However, sanctions will not deter Iran from developing nuclear weapons. It's no secret what Iran intends to do with their nukes. Israel is left with no choice but to act preemptively.

http://news.yahoo.com/iran-threatens-hit-turkey-us-israel-attack-153655802.html

 

Stockpile them as a deterrent to attack like every other nuclear state?

 

Not only has Ahmadinejad said that "israel needs to be wiped off the map"he denies the holocaust ever happened. I'd say Israel has cause to be concerned that this guy has nukes.

 

It would be troublesome if Ahmadinejad had control of the armed forces. Since he doesn't, his opinion isn't the one that counts. Kind of like how what Boehner has to say on foreign policy kind of matters but really not.

 

The "wipe off the map" comment is a sloppy mistranslation of a statement that would more accurately be translated to a hope that the occupation of Palestine would "vanish from the pages of time." Holocaust denial is obviously wrong, but a willingness of someone with no military authority to engage in historical revisionism is not particularly worrying as far as use of force is concerned, especially when that person is quickly falling out of favor with the people actually running the country.

 

He didn't actually say that. There's no idiom "wiped of the map" in Persian. What Ahmadinejad said was that the current regime in Israel should vanish from the page of time/history, meaning it should come to an end. He was quoting Ayatollah Khomeini, who was wishing that Zionism would fade away.

Not that any of this matters, of course, as Iran lacks the military capability of defeating the IDF. Any war between Israel and Iran would be decidedly one-sided. Israel has one of the most powerful militaries in the world, has a very real nuclear arsenal, and has the backing of the world's only current superpower. Iran would be destroyed if they attacked Israel, and they know it.

Edit: shakes fist at MSD You beat me to it!!!

 

Sure he didn't.

How transparent. In an effort to do nothing more than contradict me, you become a Ahmadenijad apologist. Well done.

 

Ad hominem attack. 10 points from Slytherin.

 

Washington Post
Guardian
New York Times
Politifact

Yes, me and my factual claims are positively translucent.

Reality doesn't have an agenda. If the powerless figurehead in Iran is mistranslated, saying he was mistranslated is simply stating a fact. I'm more of an 'apologist' (you're not really using this word correctly, as it's generally used for those who argue in defense of religion) for an objective reality than I am for any particular dictator. But as powerless, idiot dictators go, Ahmadinejad is one of my favorites.