Iran, Iran, What to do? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

stevo · 10-26-2005, 10:35 AM

Does anyone still think Iran is not a threat to the west? if so you should read this and re-think your position. Do you think Iran is persuing nuclear weapons or peaceful nuclear energy? This article should spell it out for you.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlates...371437,00.html

Quote:

Iran Leader Calls for Israel's Destruction

Wednesday October 26, 2005 6:16 PM

AP Photo NY190

By NASSER KARIMI

Associated Press Writer

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad declared Wednesday that Israel is a ``disgraceful blot'' that should be ``wiped off the map'' - fiery words that Washington said underscores its concern over Iran's nuclear program.

Ahmadinejad's speech to thousands of students at a ``World without Zionism'' conference set a hard-line foreign policy course sharply at odds with that of his moderate predecessor, echoing the sentiments of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the founder of Iran's Islamic revolution.

The United States said Ahmadinejad's remarks show that Washington's fears about Iran's nuclear program are accurate.

``I think it reconfirms what we have been saying about the regime in Iran,'' White House press secretary Scott McClellan told reporters in Washington. ``It underscores the concerns we have about Iran's nuclear intentions.''

Ahmadinejad also condemned Iran's neighbors which seek to break new ground in their relations with Israel. ``Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury,'' state-run television quoted him as saying.

Relations between Israel and several Persian Gulf states have been thawing amid Israel's withdrawal from the Gaza Strip in September. Bahrain announced in September it was ending a decades-old law banning trade ties with Israel. In October, Qatar said it was donating $6 million to help build a soccer stadium for a mixed Arab-Jewish team, the first such financial assistance by an Arab state for any town inside Israel.

Israel has been at the forefront of nations calling for an end to Iran's nuclear program, which the United States and many others in the West say is aimed at acquiring weapons of mass destruction. Iran insists the program is for generating electricity.

Referring to Palestinian suicide bomb attacks in Israel, Ahmadinejad said: ``there is no doubt that the new wave in Palestine will soon wipe off this disgraceful blot from the face of the Islamic world.''

Ahmadinejad's speech came hours before a Palestinian suicide bomber blew himself up in the Israeli town of Hadera, killing five people. Iran aids several militant Palestinian groups, including Hamas and Islamic Jihad, with support and training through proxies among Lebanese Hezbollah guerrillas.

``Ahmadinejad has clearly declared the doctrine of his government,'' said Mohammad Sadeq Hosseini, an expert on Middle Eastern affairs. ``He is returning Iran to the revolutionary goals it was pursuing in the 1980s.''

Reacting to the Iranian president's speech, Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Mark Regev said Ahmadinejad and Hamas leader Mahmoud Zahar ``speak openly about destroying the Jewish state ... and it appears the problem with these extremists is that they followed through on their violent declarations with violent actions.''

Ebrahim Yazdi, a former Iranian foreign minister, said Ahmadinejad's remarks harmed Iran.

``Such comments provoke the international community against us. It's not to Iran's interests at all. It's harmful to Iran to make such a statement,'' he said.

Ahmadinejad became president in August after winning elections two months earlier. He replaced Mohammad Khatami, a reformist who advocated international dialogue and tried to improve relations with the West.

Iran announced earlier this year that it had fully developed solid fuel technology for missiles, a major breakthrough that increases their accuracy. The Shahab-3, with a range of 810 miles to more than 1,200 miles, is capable of delivering a nuclear warhead to Israel and U.S. forces in the Middle East.

Lebell · 10-26-2005, 10:40 AM

Nothing will be done as nothing was done about North Korea.

Iran will get the bomb and then *somebody* will blow up Tel Aviv. Iran will deny it knew anything but Isreal will incinerate Tehran.

Then the hand wringers will complain that America should have done something about it when we could have.

At least that's my prediction.

stevo · 10-26-2005, 10:45 AM

Its either that or a pre-emptive strike by Israel. but your scenerio is more likely.

Mojo_PeiPei · 10-26-2005, 10:48 AM

What kind of preemptive strike is feasible at this point?

Any action taken by Israel would only piss off the Arabs and Muslims world wide, and probably lead to an all out conflict.

superiorrain · 10-26-2005, 10:56 AM

I ran, I ran and I ran then i realised that there was no need for my running and that the only country that has ever used nuclear weapons is America. Am i scared of them, slightly, is there anything that should be done? i ask what can anyone do? answer being nothing. So the answer to Iran is nobody wants another middle easten war and not only that nobody who wants to do anything has any resources to do anything. It will be left alone and more pressure should be applied in different ways - talking is always a nice place to start.

Lebell · 10-26-2005, 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

What kind of preemptive strike is feasible at this point?

Any action taken by Israel would only piss off the Arabs and Muslims world wide, and probably lead to an all out conflict.

Given the alternative, an all out conventional conflict might be preferable.

And given the Arab's record in wars with Israel, I'll put my money on Israel.

Mojo_PeiPei · 10-26-2005, 12:14 PM

Some may not be afraid of Iran using nukes, I really wouldn't put it past them.

But the bottom line is, you don't fuck with Israel. They are a lil' tweaked when it comes to their security, shouting fiery death threats from a "World Without Zionism" conference isn't what I would call a bright fucking idea.

pan6467 · 10-26-2005, 12:57 PM

Perhaps instead of Iraq we should have gone into Iran, I think there may have been far more support.

But we didn't and now they are close to getting nukes and rattling sabres and making statements to incite hate and war. So much for Bush's "Triangle of Terror countries" and getting rid of the hateful regimes. Seems we have allowed Iran to get stronger and stronger and have not done a damned thing to prevent it.

I am afraid that Iran and Isreal would rather destroy the world than try to find peace with each other.

There is an old story I remember.... it said that the US, Europe, and even Asia, want to keep the Arabs and Isreal at odds, because if for some reason they ever got together and found peace, the economics of the world would change fast.... Have no idea how much truth there is to that but it is an interesting thought.

irateplatypus · 10-26-2005, 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

Perhaps instead of Iraq we should have gone into Iran, I think there may have been far more support.

But we didn't and now they are close to getting nukes and rattling sabres and making statements to incite hate and war. So much for Bush's "Triangle of Terror countries" and getting rid of the hateful regimes. Seems we have allowed Iran to get stronger and stronger and have not done a damned thing to prevent it.

gotta disagree w/you on that one, big time. the immediate fallout of Bush's "axis of evil" speech (as it concerns iran) was that their government was slowly warming to westernization... that such speech would only stunt that movement. invading iran in place of iraq would have been much more costly in lives and treasure and would have been greeted with even more domestic resistance.

i love it how we've "not done a damn thing" comes up when it serves a political end... in fact, we are doing exactly what many thought we should have continued to do in iraq despite 12 years of evasiveness on Saddam's part... leaving it to the UN. At this moment the much-vaunted IAEA has been trying to keep accountablilty with Iran's nuclear facilities despite being shut out of the process by a defiant theocracy. isn't that what the "international community" deems the acceptable approach? what else should be done?

it's really quite fascinating, to watch alternatives methodologies run their course. the spiteful part of me is curious to see how europe's "soft power" dorks this one up, but i am genuinely worried about the wellbeing of people in europe/israel. Iran will acquire nukes and Israel and Europe will soon be under its threat.

the problem with dealing with thugs in such a way (be they soviets or islamic fascists) is that it just doesn't work. i am concerned that politicians who take the easy way out will leave western democracy vulnerable to the blackmail that will arise with a nuclear powered ayatollah.

Seaver · 10-26-2005, 03:11 PM

Quote:

Any action taken by Israel would only piss off the Arabs and Muslims world wide, and probably lead to an all out conflict.

Quote:

And given the Arab's record in wars with Israel, I'll put my money on Israel.

The more I study the Arab countries, I take the more I agree with Lebell on this one.

You can give them the best equipment in the world, teach them how to do it, and train them how to maintain it. But they still dont.

We gave an M1-A1 Abrams tank factory to the Egyptians, taught them how to use/maintain the most powerful tank in the world, and offered any support possibly needed. A year later we went back, they left them in the desert sitting there, and were stunned when the tanks wouldnt start.

politicophile · 10-26-2005, 04:24 PM

Iran has just had a democracy with a majority Shiite population established next door. That same country is now an ally of the United States, as is Iran's neighbor to the west, Afghanistan. Waging a conventional war on Iran would be no more complicated than it was in Iraq, albeit the troops currently in Iraq will not be available for use until Iraq takes over its own security.

We can't invade Iran in the next, say, two years. After that... let's just say that I don't like the thought of Iraq possessing nuclear weapons: religious zealots are prone to being extremely irrational and MAD only works if all the actors are behaving rationally.

hunnychile · 10-26-2005, 04:29 PM

Pack it up and leave. Period.

cyrnel · 10-26-2005, 04:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hunnychile

Pack it up and leave. Period.

We don't currently have anything going on in Iran, do we? Do you mean sever all talks?

AngelicVampire · 10-26-2005, 04:49 PM

I don't know about Iran, they may be "volatile" however I believe them to be more stable than perhaps some other regimes, giving them Nukes elevates them to the same level as the US/UK/France/Germany/god know who else in that they have nukes, the question is would they use them? In this I am more inclinded to say that they are more likely to than the countries I listed (IMO).

What I am more worried about is Israel, currently its well funded by the US and has a good military. Palestinian attacks are responded to however Israel is always in the wrong (I don't understand this part). However if the peace protesters get their way and the US stops funding Israel I would not be surprised if that ends up with someone going Nuclear.

Well my 2cents, possibly not useful however...

powerclown · 10-26-2005, 05:22 PM

It's odd that Iran would call for Israel to be "wiped off the map" as Israel does not appear on Iranian maps to begin with. It would be surprising to me if Ahmadinejad even used the word "Israel" in his ranting. Israel is usually referred to as the "Zionist Regime" by the Iranian government and in the Iranian press.

At any rate, this represents no change of policy for Iran.

Elphaba · 10-26-2005, 06:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

It's odd that Iran would call for Israel to be "wiped off the map" as Israel does not appear on Iranian maps to begin with. It would be surprising to me if Ahmadinejad even used the word "Israel" in his ranting. Israel is usually referred to as the "Zionist Regime" by the Iranian government and in the Iranian press.

At any rate, this represents no change of policy for Iran.

I agree with powerclown that this is political rhetoric intended for national flag waving and little more. The US response is what makes me nervous...

Quote:

The United States said Ahmadinejad's remarks show that Washington's fears about Iran's nuclear program are accurate.

That is a major leap in logic and one that strikes me as another attempt to distort the facts in support of ... who knows what?

Locobot · 10-26-2005, 07:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by politicophile

Iran has just had a democracy with a majority Shiite population established next door. That same country is now an ally of the United States, as is Iran's neighbor to the west, Afghanistan. Waging a conventional war on Iran would be no more complicated than it was in Iraq, albeit the troops currently in Iraq will not be available for use until Iraq takes over its own security.

We can't invade Iran in the next, say, two years. After that... let's just say that I don't like the thought of Iraq possessing nuclear weapons: religious zealots are prone to being extremely irrational and MAD only works if all the actors are behaving rationally.

It would be foolish though to think that the Shiite government in Iraq is more loyal to the U.S. than to Iran. Richard Clark was on NPR this evening pointing this out. As well as the fact that the U.S. invasion did what Iran was trying to accomplish for 20 years: the toppling of Saddam Hussein and an installation of a Shiite government. He also brought up that the majority of al qaeda leadership is in Iran under "house arrest" while they refuse to extradite. But everything that comes out of his mouth is fiction right Karl Rovians?

They're not stupid though, it's quite obvious that any attack on Israel means that large portions of their country would be vaporized by the U.S. The only thing that would prevent this would be if they could ally with Russia (really unlikely) or China (even more unlikely).

Lebell · 10-26-2005, 10:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elphaba

I agree with powerclown that this is political rhetoric intended for national flag waving and little more. The US response is what makes me nervous...

That is a major leap in logic and one that strikes me as another attempt to distort the facts in support of ... who knows what?

The events of the 20th century do not support your view.

The Arab nations have tried several times to "wipe Israel off the map".

The logical conclusion is that given the example of the history of the region, Iran very well means it.

aswo · 10-26-2005, 11:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebell

The events of the 20th century do not support your view.

The Arab nations have tried several times to "wipe Israel off the map".

The logical conclusion is that given the example of the history of the region, Iran very well means it.

I wonder if china or russia two other countries with large land armies presumably could or would invade iran to make sure there oil supply doesnt get screwed with

Dragonknight · 10-26-2005, 11:44 PM

I doubt it aswo, it seams like no one makes a move unless the US goes first. Well not were the Middle East is concerned that is.

dlish · 10-27-2005, 02:51 AM

'regime change' sabre rattling i hear. where is the justification?

highthief · 10-27-2005, 02:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebell

The events of the 20th century do not support your view.

The Arab nations have tried several times to "wipe Israel off the map".

The logical conclusion is that given the example of the history of the region, Iran very well means it.

Iran is not an Arab nation, nor has it ever fought a war with Isreal.

dksuddeth · 10-27-2005, 04:02 AM

Quote:

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad declared Wednesday that Israel is a ``disgraceful blot'' that should be ``wiped off the map'' - fiery words that Washington said underscores its concern over Iran's nuclear program.

It's THIS particular attitude and ideology that made me a supporter in the WOT.

dlish · 10-27-2005, 04:22 AM

well its amazing how u can mould the 'WOT' to mean whatever people want it to mean. initially it was to chase a few tribesman around a desert. then it was to overthrow a government from power. any war the americans will fight for the next 50 years can be moulded to fit the 'WOT'.

i never bought into this war on islam crap, but im really starting to have my doubts. is this really a WOT or is the aim a war on islam?

if iran stupidly did decide to exterminate the jews off the map, my bet is that the US would be involved. does this automatically make it a WOT? and if so, would the prisoners of war be given protection under the geneva conventions, or would they lurk in shady jails in obscure islands?

Charlatan · 10-27-2005, 05:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aswo

I wonder if china or russia two other countries with large land armies presumably could or would invade iran to make sure there oil supply doesnt get screwed with

Russia has traditionally had good relations with Iran... I am fairly certain that China has as well.

I don't think they would have need of invasion, just diplomacy.

As others have pointed out, the only real threat here is between Israel and Iran. I don't feel that Iran would declare war or take agressive actions against the US (at least not openly).

If there is any agression between the US and Iran it will be the US making a "pre-emptive strike" against some perceived threat and not the other way around.

roachboy · 10-27-2005, 06:41 AM

Quote:

Iran condemned over anti-Israel call
by
Thursday 27 October 2005 5:43 AM GMT

Shimon Peres: Iran poses a clear and present danger

A call by the Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for Israel to be wiped off the map has sparked widespread condemnation, with Israel urging Iran's expulsion from the United Nations.

France, Spain, Britain, Canada and Australia condemned the Iranian leader's remarks and the European trio said their foreign ministries would summon Iranian envoys and demand an explanation.

On Wednesday at a conference in Tehran entitled: The World without Zionism, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Israel's establishment was "a move by the world oppressor against the Islamic world".

"As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map," he added, referring to Iran's late revolutionary leader Ayatollah Khomeini.

Reacting to the comments in an open letter to Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon, Deputy Prime Minister Shimon Peres said Iran posed a "clear and present danger".

"We must submit a clearcut request to the UN secretary general (Kofi Annan) and the Security Council to obtain Iran's expulsion from the United Nations," Peres said.

Israeli Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom said he believed the Iranian leaders comments reflected an effort by Tehran to "buy time ... so it can develop a nuclear bomb."

European reaction

Responding to Ahmadinejad's comments, French Foreign Minister Phillippe Douste-Blazy said in a statement that "if these (reported) comments are true, they are unacceptable. I condemn them with the greatest firmness."

In Madrid the Spanish Foreign Ministry said " ... Foreign Minister Miguel Angel Moratinos has expressed his rejection in the most emphatic terms and has decided to urgently call in the Iranian ambassador to ask him for an explanation".

In the UK, a British Foreign Office spokesman described the Iranian leader's comments as "deeply disturbing and sickening."

"We have seen in Israel today the horrible reality of the violence he is praising," he said, referring to a Palestinian bombing in the Israeli town of Hadera that killed five people and wounded 30.

"Saying Iran wants to wipe Israel from the map will only heighten concerns about Iran's nuclear ambitions ... We will be protesting to the Iranian charge d'affaires," he said.

Canadian Foreign Minister Pierre Pettigrew told reporters "We cannot tolerate comments of such hatred, such anti-Semitism, such intolerance. And these comments are all the more troubling given that we know of Iran's nuclear ambitions."

Muslim states warned

"Anyone who signs a treaty which recognises the entity of Israel means he has signed the surrender of the Muslim world"

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
Ahmadinejad's comments were the first time in years that such a high-ranking Iranian official has called for Israel's eradication, even though such slogans are still regularly used at government rallies.

"Anyone who signs a treaty which recognises the entity of Israel means he has signed the surrender of the Muslim world," Ahmadinejad said.

"Any leaders in the Islamic umma who recognise Israel face the wrath of their own people."

Ahmadinejad, a veteran of Iran's hardline Revolutionary Guards, took office in August after scoring a landslide win in a June presidential election.

His tone represents a major change from that of former president Mohammad Khatami, whose favoured topic was "dialogue among civilisations" and who led an effort to improve Iran's relations with the West.

Aljazeera + Agencies
By

You can find this article at:
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exer...F6310AAD9A.htm

a new conservative president in iran does what it appears that conservatives do best: use nationalist rhetoric to generate a certain degree of hysteria, the lynchpin of solidarity in conservative mode. the united states, dominated by the mirror image of such discourse, reacts predictably--with nonsequitors and saber rattling--which in turn sets of an excited series of posts here from folk who seem to imagine that an american invasion of iran would play out the way it does in computer simulations.

all based on wishful thinking in the matter of american military capabilities at the moment, a wholesale underestimation of what would be required to invade iran, a total lack of understanding and interest in iran, iranian politics, the history of the relations between iran and the united states. and, typically, not even an attempt to wonder if there might be a trigger on the part of the israelis--like this pattern:

Quote:

Israel expands West Bank settlements

Aerial photos reveal extent of land grab, say peace groups

Chris McGreal in Jerusalem
Tuesday July 27, 2004
The Guardian

Months after Ariel Sharon announced his dramatic plan to pull Jewish settlers out of Gaza, portraying it as a sacrifice for peace, the government is grabbing more land for West Bank settlements.

Israeli peace groups and Palestinian officials say thousands of homes are under construction in the main settlements, in addition to an expansion of Jewish outposts that are illegal under Israeli law. Mr Sharon has promised the US he will dismantle the outposts, which are usually clusters of containers or trailer homes serviced by government-built roads, but has failed to do so.

One Israeli group, Settlement Watch, says in the three months to May, West Bank settlements expanded by 26 hectares (65 acres).The government has approved construction of thousands more homes in the three main settlement blocs on the West Bank, encouraged by an apparent endorsement by George Bush for their eventual annexation.

In a letter to Mr Sharon, Mr Bush praised the Gaza pullout and agreed that "in light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centres", it was unrealistic to expect a full return to the 1967 borders.

Dror Etkes, head of Settlement Watch, said that the expansion of Jewish outposts and continuing house building since Mr Sharon announced his plan in December was evidence that the government was seeking more territory.

"The government is trying to push the boundaries of the settlements as much as possible before they are frozen," he said. "The new rule of the game we have seen in past weeks is the diameter of permitted construction area in the West Bank has grown. The purpose is to expand as fast as possible because of negotiations with the US to limit future construction to areas already under construction."

American officials have been appointed to agree limits to settlement expansion in order, Washington says, to preserve land for a future Palestinian state. Mr Sharon is pressing the US to allow building to continue in areas already under construction, to cater for the "natural growth" in families.

But Settlement Watch says aerial photographs reveal that in some settlements, construction has begun on the outer limits of the municipal boundaries, often some distance from the settlement. It believes the government will claim the right to build on the intervening territory or use the outposts to link settlements.

The pictures show new houses, roads and other infrastructure around about 12 of the 90 or more outposts, sometimes linking them to established colonies.

Last week Ephraim Sneh, an opposition Labour party MP, presented photographs of the outposts and infrastructure expansion to his party's caucus in parliament.

"In blunt violation of the promise to the US president, the government doesn't dismantle the illegal outposts. With government money they are expanded, asphalt roads are paved - all the necessary preparations to turn them into permanent settlements," he told the Guardian.

"It casts a shadow on the real intent of Sharon's disengagement plan. The disengagement may be just a cover for the real intention of the prime minister to deepen and solidify the Israeli hold in the West Bank." He added that the expansion was possible only with official cooperation. "It can't be done without government encouragement and financing," he said. In May, the state comptroller said Israel's housing ministry had illegally funnelled about £3.8m to fund unauthorised settlement expansion, half of it to the illegal outposts.

Incentives

Last month, the defence and finance ministries authorised a £37m budget to fortify settlements outside the steel and concrete barrier Israel is building through the West Bank. Last week, it was revealed that dozens of prefabricated homes which the government had authorised for established settlements were sent to the outposts.

"This is a well-placed deal cut between the settlers in the area and the ministry of defence," said Mr Etkes. "If they're dismantling at times there is the immediate intensification of construction of another outpost in the area."

The government is offering additional incentives to persuade Israelis to move to empty housing on the settlements and newly arrived Jews frequently find themselves placed there. But concrete and asphalt are more important than people in staking Israel's claim to the West Bank.

Last month, Shaul Mofaz, the defence minister, told the civil administration in the West Bank - which is under military control - to draw up plans for rapid expansion of the Etzion settlement bloc near Bethlehem. In recent weeks, the government has approved expansion of Efrat, part of Etzion bloc, which is also expanding into what was the Palestinian village of Walaja.

"The land was taken by the Jewish National Fund," said Jeff Halper, a veteran Israeli campaigner against settlement expansion. "Almost every house has a demolition order."

Mr Mofaz also reassured settlers' leaders of continued expansion of the other two main blocs in the West Bank, Ariel and Ma'ale Adumim, which already eat into Palestinian territory.

Mr Halper said that the government planned to more than double the size of Ma'ale Adumim, east of Jerusalem, to provide homes for about 70,000 people.

Ehud Olmert, Israel's deputy prime minister, who rarely makes policy statements without Mr Sharon's approval, recently said that Jewish West Jerusalem must grow to Ma'ale Adumim.

The Israelis are also looking further east to Mitzpe Jericho, which is home to about 1,500 people. Giant billboards picturing clusters of blocks of flats mark the limits of the municipality several miles from the existing housing.

"The government plans to link Jerusalem to Ma'ale Adumim and Ma'ale Adumim to Mitzpe Jericho. Eventually it will all fall under the Jerusalem municipality. Jerusalem is being transformed from a city into a region," said Mr Halper.

Mr Sharon's spokesman, Raanan Gissin, denied West Bank settlements were being expanded, saying that construction remains within the existing boundaries.

"Anything that is illegal will be removed as the prime minister has promised the Americans," he said of the outposts.

Critics say the argument about boundaries is part of the deception because the government has drawn them beyond the settlements in order to allow for considerable expansion. Settlement Watch says the government's lack of sincerity can be seen in its failure to provide a full list of illegal outposts to the US. The government admits to only 28 outposts. Settlement Watch says there are 91, of which 51 were established after Mr Sharon came to power and therefore should have been removed under an agreement with the US.

from july, 2004
source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Sto...269880,00.html

and this from 10/21/05:

Quote:

Israel 'still expanding West Bank settlements'
By Tim Butcher, Middle East Correspondent
(Filed: 21/10/2005)

Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian leader, yesterday accused Israel of building Jewish settlements in the West Bank at a faster rate than ever before, breaching the "road map" peace plan.

His remarks were supported by a leading Israeli human rights group which found that the Israeli government last year oversaw a large influx of Jewish settlers into the West Bank, outweighing the 7,500 settlers withdrawn from Gaza this summer.

The barrier is nearing completion

"Israel has accelerated its settlement expansion in the Palestinian heartland," Mr Abbas wrote in The Wall Street Journal ahead of a meeting with President George W Bush in Washington. "The 26 months since Israel announced its plans to disengage from Gaza have witnessed the highest rate of West Bank settlement construction in all the occupation years."

The road map obliges Israel to freeze all settlement activity. Israel argues the plan is stalled until the Palestinian Authority stops the extremist groups that employ terror tactics against Israel.

Speaking after an hour-long meeting with Mr Abbas, Mr Bush called on Israel to stop building West Bank settlements. He said Israel would be "held to account" for any actions that hamper peacemaking or burden Palestinians, but offered no idea what sanctions could be imposed.

The report by Settlement Watch found that the loss of 7,500 Jewish settlers from Gaza will be outweighed by the arrival this year of 14,000 residents in Jewish settlements in the West Bank.

Mr Bush said Mr Abbas must begin by "confronting the threat that armed gangs pose to a genuinely democratic Palestine". For the Palestinians, the most pressing concern is that Israel is no longer pursuing a negotiated agreement but wants to impose a settlement, using the West Bank separation barrier, which is nearing completion, to define its borders.

The security fence, which Israel claims is intended solely to stop suicide bombers, has in effect annexed 10 per cent of the West Bank.

Advisers to Ariel Sharon, the Israeli prime minister, argue that unilateralism is better for Israel as it would enable it to grab land and create an infrastructure of roads, perimeter fences and population centres as a de facto border.

Unilateralism was the thinking behind the withdrawal from Gaza. It was done on terms dictated by the Israelis, not negotiated with the Palestinians. The willingness to go it alone comes, in part, from signals sent by the Bush administration.

Last year, Mr Bush wrote to Mr Sharon indicating that America would not insist on Israel giving up all the land it occupied in 1967.

source: http://portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/m...1/ixworld.html

a more detailed analysis from peace now (israeli left political organization)
http://www.peacenow.org.il/site/en/p...=62&docid=1502

so let's summarize: a new iranian president--a conservative--makes a public prnouncement that aligns (realigns) iranian political rhetoric with its post revolutionary conservative tradition by using the current situation vis-a-vis israel/palestine as a wedge. this move, roundly condemned, triggers a series of pseduo-machiavellian fantasy-posts here from the lumpenconservative set who use it as an occaison to speculate about an american invasion of iran. in the course of this, no-one even considers the context within which the speech was made, any relations it might have to politics either in iran or vis-a-vis the palestinians--who here, as always, are fucked.

of course, the site of the conference at which the speech was made is not mentioned--a conference entitled "the world without zionism" which would be the functional equivalent of a speaker series at aei or brookings, at which there is doubtless an endless series of lunatic propositions advanced by american conservatives equally or more inflammatory. but in these cases, context matters: in the case of a pseech by the president of iran that suits the instrumental purposes of the bush administration, context does not matter.

i dont know, folks: it seems that there is a segment of the american population that imagines all the administration's political problems could be resolved with a fresh war, it seems, and these same people imagine that iran would be a logical target. what is alarming is that these folk also imagine that this scenario makes sense.

and why not, really: it worked out so well in iraq.....

Elphaba · 10-27-2005, 10:04 AM

Quote:

I agree with powerclown that this is political rhetoric intended for national flag waving and little more. The US response is what makes me nervous...

"The United States said Ahmadinejad's remarks show that Washington's fears about Iran's nuclear program are accurate."

That is a major leap in logic and one that strikes me as another attempt to distort the facts in support of ... who knows what?

Quote:

The events of the 20th century do not support your view.

The Arab nations have tried several times to "wipe Israel off the map".

The logical conclusion is that given the example of the history of the region, Iran very well means it.

- The events of the 21st century do support my view.

- Iran is not an arab nation.

- As Roachboy pointed out, the context of the statement matters.

cyrnel · 10-27-2005, 10:31 AM

Some international reaction to Iran's rattling:

Quote:

Iranian President Sparks Global Outrage With Israel Comment
Thursday, October 27, 2005
AP

LONDON — Governments around the world expressed shock and scorn Thursday at the Iranian president's call for Israel to be "wiped off the map," and several summoned Tehran (search)'s envoys in their capitals for a reprimand.

However, Israeli calls for Iran to be expelled from the United Nations over the remarks by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (search) were not immediately taken up by other natan Mark Regev said Israel had not decided whether to ask officially for Iran's removal.

Israel's deputy ambassador to Britain, Zvi Rav-Ner, said it was unheard of for a U.N. member state to call "for genocide and wiping off of another member state of the U.N."

"This is a clear contravention and breach of the U.N. charter and it should be dealt with by the international community," he told British Broadcasting Corp. radio.

Australian Prime Minister John Howard (search) called Ahmadinejad's remarks "dangerous" and said they required a U.N. response, although he wasn't specific.

"To have the president of any country saying another should be wiped off the face of the earth is a reminder of the psychological pressure, quite apart from the actual pressure, that the state of Israel is under, and this obviously is an issue that the United Nations has to address," he said.

The 25 European Union (search) leaders, meeting at Hampton Court Palace near London, also condemned the remarks, saying they "will cause concern about Iran's role in the region and its future intentions."

"Calls for violence, and for the destruction of any state, are manifestly inconsistent with any claim to be a mature and responsible member of the international community," the EU leaders said in a statement.

Relations between the EU and Iran have deteriorated in recent months after negotiations with Tehran failed to get Iran to drop its nuclear program, which the EU and the United States fears is being used to build weapons. Iran says its nuclear program is peaceful.

On Wednesday, White House press secretary Scott McClellan said Ahmadinejad's remarks "serve to underscore our concern as well as the international community's concern about Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons."

Newspapers across the Middle East, meanwhile, reported Wednesday's speech by Ahmadinejad without comment, many of them on their front pages.

Egyptian Foreign Ministry and Cabinet officials said Cairo would have nothing to say on the address. Jordanian Deputy Prime Minister Marwan Muasher also declined comment.

European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso said the Iranian leader's comments were "completely unacceptable," but when asked whether Iran should be expelled from the U.N., he said: "I will not make any concrete proposal now."

Britain's Foreign Office called Ahmadinejad's comments "deeply disturbing and sickening," and said Iran's charge d'affaires would be summoned later Thursday.

France, Russia, Spain and The Netherlands summoned the Iranian ambassadors in their capitals to explain the remarks.

French Foreign Ministry spokesman Jean-Baptiste Mattei said the ambassador "was reminded that the right of Israel to exist cannot be contested."

The German and Austrian foreign ministries also called in Iranian diplomatic representatives to protest the comments, while Italy said the remarks confirmed concerns over Tehran's nuclear program.

"The contents and tone of such unacceptable statements confirm worries over the political positions pursued by the new Iranian leadership, especially concerning the nuclear dossier," the Italian Foreign Ministry said in a statement.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, on a visit to Israel, criticized the Iranian leader. "I don't agree that anyone should challenge the right of any U.N. member to exist, this is indeed inadmissible," Lavrov said.

But on Wednesday he brushed off Israel's calls for Security Council action, saying the matter is "too serious to be guided by politics."

Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister Pierre Pettigrew condemned the comments in a strongly worded statement.

"We are in the 21st century. Canada will never accept such hatred, intolerance and anti-Semitism. Never," the statement said.

Doesn't seem to be going over well. Al Jazeera avoided judgement but carried the same reactions.

I'm trying to imagine what people would say to Germany or France, or anyone, using similar language about another nation.

But, will anything come of it?

Xazy · 10-27-2005, 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

Its either that or a pre-emptive strike by Israel. but your scenerio is more likely.

No one will ever thank Israel for a pre-emptive strike on Iraq. I am all for a pre-emptive strike if neccesary!

tecoyah · 10-27-2005, 02:11 PM

The chance of Iran using a Nuke on the US is so small as to be non existant. They are well aware of the consequence of such a move....and the cinder left in the ocean of nuclear glass that was once Iran, would be of little use to the three people left alive.

Willravel · 10-27-2005, 02:28 PM

IF Iran were to make a serious move like a nuclear attack on the US, it would obviously be through a radical group that has no provable connections to Iran. The problem is that a great deal of those groups have so many political leanings that you'd never get a whole group that supported the Iranian government. The only other option is to try and make Iranian governmental officers or military officers appear to be from a radical group, but run the huge risk of being connected later. They don't know who has what intel on them right now.

roachboy · 10-27-2005, 03:08 PM

i'm sorry, folks, but the idea of iran posing a serious threat to the united states is absurd.
the idea of anything like a nuclear strike on israel originating in iran also seems to me absurd. the consequences are obvious. why on earth would the iranians do it, knowing that israel is a nuclear power itself with the capability to reduce every urban centre in iran to ashes in a minute.
so i really do not understand the rationale behind any of the paranoia that seems to animate the right/hawks who posted in this thread.
and given that the "analyses" this paranoia rests on assume a wholesale stripping of any context that might enable the statements from the president of iran to be interpreted rationally, i doubt seriously that any of these folk could convince me of it.

more generally, if the americans were really interested in problems associated with nuclear proliferation, maybe they would not sell so much of the technology that enables the process to get under way.

sometimes it seems that the americans indulge in the sale of nuclear technologies that are obviously adaptable to weapons production as prompt for future policy initiatives--a few nights ago i watched "atomic cafe"--if you want to get a visceral sense of the extent to which conservative consensus building has relied upon periodic bouts of collective hysteria, you should watch it too.

1010011010 · 10-27-2005, 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

Do you think Iran is persuing nuclear weapons or peaceful nuclear energy?

How about peaceful nuclear weapons?

If I were a relatively small country concerned about my losing my sovereignty, both in practice and in actuality, you'd be damn tootin' that I'd have a nuclear weapons program going.

North Korea has served as a lesson to the world.

Nimetic · 10-27-2005, 04:26 PM

To be honest - after all the WMD stuff I heard in relation to Iraq, and with the stuff that I keep hearing from my local politicians, I don't particularly care anymore.

*sigh*

I don't think that the democratic western world has the moral authority at this time, or credibility, to seriously question Iran over this. And that is sad, because such remarks are stupid and a problem.

Xazy · 10-28-2005, 03:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

i'm sorry, folks, but the idea of iran posing a serious threat to the united states is absurd.
the idea of anything like a nuclear strike on israel originating in iran also seems to me absurd. the consequences are obvious. why on earth would the iranians do it, knowing that israel is a nuclear power itself with the capability to reduce every urban centre in iran to ashes in a minute.
so i really do not understand the rationale behind any of the paranoia that seems to animate the right/hawks who posted in this thread.
and given that the "analyses" this paranoia rests on assume a wholesale stripping of any context that might enable the statements from the president of iran to be interpreted rationally, i doubt seriously that any of these folk could convince me of it.

more generally, if the americans were really interested in problems associated with nuclear proliferation, maybe they would not sell so much of the technology that enables the process to get under way.

sometimes it seems that the americans indulge in the sale of nuclear technologies that are obviously adaptable to weapons production as prompt for future policy initiatives--a few nights ago i watched "atomic cafe"--if you want to get a visceral sense of the extent to which conservative consensus building has relied upon periodic bouts of collective hysteria, you should watch it too.

Yes similiar thoughts cross my mind about suicide bombers...

Also consider if Saddam had a nuke, before the gulf war. We would have been afraid to go in after he invaded Kuwait. This would give Iran that same power.

highthief · 10-28-2005, 05:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xazy

Yes similiar thoughts cross my mind about suicide bombers...

Also consider if Saddam had a nuke, before the gulf war. We would have been afraid to go in after he invaded Kuwait. This would give Iran that same power.

Because Iran has invaded who, exactly, in recent memory?

Oh, right, no one.

Now the US, Britain, France, Russia, on the other hand...

samcol · 10-28-2005, 05:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

i'm sorry, folks, but the idea of iran posing a serious threat to the united states is absurd. .

Exactly. This is shaping up to be Iraq 2.0, except we don't have the resources to invade them mostly by ourselves this time. I can't believe people already forgot about all the pre-war Iraq propaganda that got us in there.

Lebell · 10-28-2005, 07:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by highthief

Iran is not an Arab nation, nor has it ever fought a war with Isreal.

I was afraid someone would notice this

Anyway, in terms of the current situation, I feel comfortable lumping Iran in with the rest, but yes, I am aware of both facts.

Lebell · 10-28-2005, 07:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

i'm sorry, folks, but the idea of iran posing a serious threat to the united states is absurd.

Prior to 9/11 I think everyone would have said that the idea of any nation harboring and refusing to turn over to the US the man responsible for 2000 deaths and billions of dollars of damage on American soil and risk a US invasion was also absurd, yet it happened.

Further, there are still people here that find said invasion unjustified, which is the greatest absurdity of all, but that is another discussion.

roachboy · 10-28-2005, 09:01 AM

lebell: i understand your argument, but i do not find it compelling.
maybe inside this is an explanation for our political divergences.
keep in mind also that the iranian nuclear program was sully supported by the united states under that swell guy the shah--keep in mind also that folk do not forget the american support of the shah and would react to an american invasion of iran in ways that would make iraq seem like a day at the beach.
of course, none of this necessarily impedes the dovetailing of paranoia into rationalizations of wholly insane military adventures--but in iran, the picture into which the americans would walk is a picture the americans themselves have made.

why is it so implausible that much of the posturing from iran on the question of nuclear weapons is just that?

10-26-2005, 10:40 AM	#2 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	Nothing will be done as nothing was done about North Korea. Iran will get the bomb and then somebody will blow up Tel Aviv. Iran will deny it knew anything but Isreal will incinerate Tehran. Then the hand wringers will complain that America should have done something about it when we could have. At least that's my prediction. __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

10-26-2005, 10:45 AM	#3 (permalink)
stevo Rail Baron Location: Tallyfla	Its either that or a pre-emptive strike by Israel. but your scenerio is more likely. __________________ "If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser

10-26-2005, 10:48 AM	#4 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	What kind of preemptive strike is feasible at this point? Any action taken by Israel would only piss off the Arabs and Muslims world wide, and probably lead to an all out conflict. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

10-26-2005, 10:56 AM	#5 (permalink)
superiorrain Psycho Location: London	I ran, I ran and I ran then i realised that there was no need for my running and that the only country that has ever used nuclear weapons is America. Am i scared of them, slightly, is there anything that should be done? i ask what can anyone do? answer being nothing. So the answer to Iran is nobody wants another middle easten war and not only that nobody who wants to do anything has any resources to do anything. It will be left alone and more pressure should be applied in different ways - talking is always a nice place to start. __________________ "The only way to discover the limits of the possible is to go beyond them into the impossible." - Arthur C. Clarke

10-26-2005, 12:14 PM	#7 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	Some may not be afraid of Iran using nukes, I really wouldn't put it past them. But the bottom line is, you don't fuck with Israel. They are a lil' tweaked when it comes to their security, shouting fiery death threats from a "World Without Zionism" conference isn't what I would call a bright fucking idea. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

10-26-2005, 12:57 PM	#8 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	Perhaps instead of Iraq we should have gone into Iran, I think there may have been far more support. But we didn't and now they are close to getting nukes and rattling sabres and making statements to incite hate and war. So much for Bush's "Triangle of Terror countries" and getting rid of the hateful regimes. Seems we have allowed Iran to get stronger and stronger and have not done a damned thing to prevent it. I am afraid that Iran and Isreal would rather destroy the world than try to find peace with each other. There is an old story I remember.... it said that the US, Europe, and even Asia, want to keep the Arabs and Isreal at odds, because if for some reason they ever got together and found peace, the economics of the world would change fast.... Have no idea how much truth there is to that but it is an interesting thought. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?" Last edited by pan6467; 10-26-2005 at 01:01 PM..

10-26-2005, 04:24 PM	#11 (permalink)
politicophile Addict	Iran has just had a democracy with a majority Shiite population established next door. That same country is now an ally of the United States, as is Iran's neighbor to the west, Afghanistan. Waging a conventional war on Iran would be no more complicated than it was in Iraq, albeit the troops currently in Iraq will not be available for use until Iraq takes over its own security. We can't invade Iran in the next, say, two years. After that... let's just say that I don't like the thought of Iraq possessing nuclear weapons: religious zealots are prone to being extremely irrational and MAD only works if all the actors are behaving rationally. __________________ The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. ~John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

10-26-2005, 04:29 PM	#12 (permalink)
hunnychile Alien Anthropologist Location: Between Boredom and Nirvana	Pack it up and leave. Period. __________________ "I need compassion, understanding and chocolate." - NJB

10-26-2005, 04:49 PM	#14 (permalink)
AngelicVampire Insane	I don't know about Iran, they may be "volatile" however I believe them to be more stable than perhaps some other regimes, giving them Nukes elevates them to the same level as the US/UK/France/Germany/god know who else in that they have nukes, the question is would they use them? In this I am more inclinded to say that they are more likely to than the countries I listed (IMO). What I am more worried about is Israel, currently its well funded by the US and has a good military. Palestinian attacks are responded to however Israel is always in the wrong (I don't understand this part). However if the peace protesters get their way and the US stops funding Israel I would not be surprised if that ends up with someone going Nuclear. Well my 2cents, possibly not useful however...

10-26-2005, 05:22 PM	#15 (permalink)
powerclown Junkie Location: Detroit, MI	It's odd that Iran would call for Israel to be "wiped off the map" as Israel does not appear on Iranian maps to begin with. It would be surprising to me if Ahmadinejad even used the word "Israel" in his ranting. Israel is usually referred to as the "Zionist Regime" by the Iranian government and in the Iranian press. At any rate, this represents no change of policy for Iran.

10-26-2005, 11:44 PM	#20 (permalink)
Dragonknight Insane Location: Hawaii	I doubt it aswo, it seams like no one makes a move unless the US goes first. Well not were the Middle East is concerned that is.

10-27-2005, 02:51 AM	#21 (permalink)
dlish Currently sour but formerly Dlishs Super Moderator Location: Australia/UAE	'regime change' sabre rattling i hear. where is the justification? __________________ An injustice anywhere, is an injustice everywhere I always sign my facebook comments with ()()===========(}. Does that make me gay? - Filthy

10-27-2005, 04:22 AM	#24 (permalink)
dlish Currently sour but formerly Dlishs Super Moderator Location: Australia/UAE	well its amazing how u can mould the 'WOT' to mean whatever people want it to mean. initially it was to chase a few tribesman around a desert. then it was to overthrow a government from power. any war the americans will fight for the next 50 years can be moulded to fit the 'WOT'. i never bought into this war on islam crap, but im really starting to have my doubts. is this really a WOT or is the aim a war on islam? if iran stupidly did decide to exterminate the jews off the map, my bet is that the US would be involved. does this automatically make it a WOT? and if so, would the prisoners of war be given protection under the geneva conventions, or would they lurk in shady jails in obscure islands? __________________ An injustice anywhere, is an injustice everywhere I always sign my facebook comments with ()()===========(}. Does that make me gay? - Filthy

10-27-2005, 02:11 PM	#30 (permalink)
tecoyah Illusionary	The chance of Iran using a Nuke on the US is so small as to be non existant. They are well aware of the consequence of such a move....and the cinder left in the ocean of nuclear glass that was once Iran, would be of little use to the three people left alive. __________________ Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

10-27-2005, 02:28 PM	#31 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	IF Iran were to make a serious move like a nuclear attack on the US, it would obviously be through a radical group that has no provable connections to Iran. The problem is that a great deal of those groups have so many political leanings that you'd never get a whole group that supported the Iranian government. The only other option is to try and make Iranian governmental officers or military officers appear to be from a radical group, but run the huge risk of being connected later. They don't know who has what intel on them right now.

10-27-2005, 03:08 PM	#32 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	i'm sorry, folks, but the idea of iran posing a serious threat to the united states is absurd. the idea of anything like a nuclear strike on israel originating in iran also seems to me absurd. the consequences are obvious. why on earth would the iranians do it, knowing that israel is a nuclear power itself with the capability to reduce every urban centre in iran to ashes in a minute. so i really do not understand the rationale behind any of the paranoia that seems to animate the right/hawks who posted in this thread. and given that the "analyses" this paranoia rests on assume a wholesale stripping of any context that might enable the statements from the president of iran to be interpreted rationally, i doubt seriously that any of these folk could convince me of it. more generally, if the americans were really interested in problems associated with nuclear proliferation, maybe they would not sell so much of the technology that enables the process to get under way. sometimes it seems that the americans indulge in the sale of nuclear technologies that are obviously adaptable to weapons production as prompt for future policy initiatives--a few nights ago i watched "atomic cafe"--if you want to get a visceral sense of the extent to which conservative consensus building has relied upon periodic bouts of collective hysteria, you should watch it too. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

10-27-2005, 04:26 PM	#34 (permalink)
Nimetic Junkie Location: Melbourne, Australia	To be honest - after all the WMD stuff I heard in relation to Iraq, and with the stuff that I keep hearing from my local politicians, I don't particularly care anymore. sigh I don't think that the democratic western world has the moral authority at this time, or credibility, to seriously question Iran over this. And that is sad, because such remarks are stupid and a problem. Last edited by Nimetic; 10-27-2005 at 05:36 PM.. Reason: To tone done my inflammatory rant... now I'm awake.

10-28-2005, 09:01 AM	#40 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	lebell: i understand your argument, but i do not find it compelling. maybe inside this is an explanation for our political divergences. keep in mind also that the iranian nuclear program was sully supported by the united states under that swell guy the shah--keep in mind also that folk do not forget the american support of the shah and would react to an american invasion of iran in ways that would make iraq seem like a day at the beach. of course, none of this necessarily impedes the dovetailing of paranoia into rationalizations of wholly insane military adventures--but in iran, the picture into which the americans would walk is a picture the americans themselves have made. why is it so implausible that much of the posturing from iran on the question of nuclear weapons is just that? __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite