Is Iran currently rushing to build a Nuclear weapon? Opinions

Amerika

Jonny7 wrote: »

Helps millions of frustrated Iranians, their businesses and industry. Shows hardliners in Iran, Israel and the Sunni world that their positions are increasingly pointless. Demonstrates a willingness for nations to work with Iran rather than against. Drives the price of oil down. Opens up future possibilities rather than shuts doors. The list goes on and on really.

Or Taqiyya perhaps.

How did things work out with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani in his role as Iran’s top nuclear negotiator last time around? Weren’t those agreements merely a ploy to buy Iran needed time to get heavy-water production, produce yellow cake, and increase the number of centrifuges tenfold?

And we should believe him now becasue ______________________ (fill in the blank).

Be like Nutella

Unless this is an Iranian trick to somehow buy time to complete a weapon and test it, I would think that the deal could be done in six months. An Iranian ploy to create cover for building a weapon would also demand a reliable missile and a launch pad invisible to surveillance satellites and the CIA, National Security Agency, Mossad, MI6 and other intelligence agencies. The Iranians would likely fail at this, triggering airstrikes however risky they might be and putting Iran back where it started economically. While this is a possibility, the scenario is not likely when analyzed closely.


two countries intensely oppose it: Israel and Saudi Arabia. Though not powers on the order of the P-5+1, they are still significant. There is a bit of irony in Israel and Saudi Arabia being allied on this issue, but only on the surface. Both have been intense enemies of Iran, and close allies of the United States; each sees this act as a betrayal of its relationship with Washington.


With this opening to Iran, the United States will no longer be bound by its Israeli and Saudi relationships. They will not be abandoned, but the United States has broader interests than those relationships, and at the same time few interests that rise to the level of prompting it to directly involve U.S. troops. The Saudis will have to exert themselves to balance the Iranians, and Israel will have to wend its way in a world where it has no strategic threats, but only strategic problems, like everyone else has. It is not a world in which Israeli or Saudi rigidity can sustain itself.
http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/israelis-saudis-and-iranian-agreement?utm_source=freelist-f&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20131126&utm_term=Gweekly&utm_content=readmore

Mr.Micro

Amerika wrote: »

Or Taqiyya perhaps.

How did things work out with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani in his role as Iran’s top nuclear negotiator last time around? Weren’t those agreements merely a ploy to buy Iran needed time to get heavy-water production, produce yellow cake, and increase the number of centrifuges tenfold?

And we should believe him now becasue ______________________ (fill in the blank).

It has to be given a chance. The Syrian chemical weapons thing so far has worked by diplomacy and negotiations. This current Iran deal needs to be allowed to develop, so future dialogue is possible to achieve a peaceful end. At the moment Israel is like a spoilt child at being let down by the US.

Jonny7

Mr.Micro wrote: »

The Syrian chemical weapons thing so far has worked by diplomacy and negotiations

?

100's killed in that attack

Over 10,000 children dead so far, hundreds deliberately targeted by snipers, children as young as one being tortured

The Syrian chemical weapons side show continues without hindering the daily slaughter - great compromise

Amerika

Mr.Micro wrote: »

It has to be given a chance. The Syrian chemical weapons thing so far has worked by diplomacy and negotiations. This current Iran deal needs to be allowed to develop, so future dialogue is possible to achieve a peaceful end. At the moment Israel is like a spoilt child at being let down by the US.

I’m for keeping a diolog going, but when sanctions are working this disaster of a deal appears to be little more than the Obama administration attempt to distract from his signature legislative achievement of ObamaCare that is proving to be a disaster for the nation. And why did Iran get so much and we get so little?

But if Iran decides to proceed based on it’s past actions in these deals rather than it’s rhetoric, at least Obama and Kerry will have a piece of paper they can wave over their heads, right?

ChicagoJoe

I don't want to see Iran developing nuclear arms but I have to admit, it useless asking them or anyone else in the middle east to not pursue nuclear capability so long as Israel, the biggest threat to the peace in the middle east if not the world, has them. One obvious way to mitigate or eliminate this threat is to establish a nuclear weapons-free zone (NWFZ) in the Middle East.

The 51st state of America Israel of course refuses, Washington agrees - and there's the problem. Obama's technique of evasion is to adopt Israel's position that any such proposal must be conditional on a comprehensive peace settlement, which the US can delay indefinitely, as it has been doing for 35 years, with the odd temporary exception. So much for Obama the ' peace maker '.

Eggy Baby!

sin_city wrote: »

If they were....should we be worried?

But I don't think they are. They have been a peaceful country for a long time and only been in wars when attacked first.

Thank God I use my brain when I am fed the crap propaganda on news

Whilst Iran has not been a directly aggressive nation throughout it's modern history, there are concerns, perhaps justified, that Iran will funnel nuclear material or weaponry to Hezbollah et al. Being Jihadi Boom Booms, Hezbollah et al might not show the same restraint that Iran would with such arms.

However, this is not really a concern on many commentators minds. Many would suggest preventing Iran from acquiring such weaponry simply by the virtue that they are nuclear weapons, despite the fact that a certain American ally in the region has a sizeable arsenal of its own.

My suggestion? Allow them to develop their nuclear technology, but have the international community (not the U.S or Israel) keep a strict eye on the procedures to make sure that crap doesn't slip past the radar into Hezbollah's lap.

The Japanese did not "nuke" any nation during WWII, nor did they have the capability. Only the US has ever used nuclear bombs on a civilian population. The Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor with conventional weapons, not nuclear, in their attempt to sink the US Pacific fleet based there.

And Pearl Harbour itself was provoked by the Americans, who cut oil supplies to Japan because Japan's expansionism threatened American/British/Dutch/French puppet states in Asia. History tends to be a hell of a lot more nuanced than a simple "X happened" approach that the person you directed your reply at was taking.

Secondly, the Hiroshima/Nagasaki bombings were an act of state terrorism directed against civilian targets. Pearl Harbour was a military operation directed against the U.S Pacific Fleet. The bombings of Hiroshima/Nagasaki were launched because the Soviets were about to steamroll Japan and the Americans wanted to salvage an allied Japan as soon as possible before the Soviets got their boot in.

old_aussie

Be like Nutella wrote: »

with all due respect that's why I asked could people answer the question stated... Is Iran rushing for the bomb and if so how will that unfold i.e. how will they rationally get from 'we're not after it' to 'oh look we just tested one' ?

No rush, it's not a race.

They have the maps, plans and the drive to make the bomb.

Iran will be like north korea, and just detonate when ready.

srsly78

Making a baby nuke could be done quite quickly, but is only step #1. As mentioned already lots of testing would need to be done, and this could be detected easily.

Step #2: To fit a warhead on a missile it needs to be miniaturized, this is very difficult. Again lots more testing involved.

Step #3: You need loads of warheads and loads of missiles, otherwise your single missile will be easily shot down and you will look silly.

And that's only for simple fission warheads. To get proper nukes you need a Teller-Ulam thermonuclear design, which basically uses a fission bomb as the initiator. This is another 20 years of testing and development.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Teller%E2%80%93Ulam_design Don't click this if in america, you will end up on a watchlist

old_aussie

Eggy Baby! wrote: »

And Pearl Harbour itself was provoked by the Americans, who cut oil supplies to Japan because Japan's expansionism threatened American/British/Dutch/French puppet states in Asia. .

Japan had only invaded China, and not began it's expansion through Asia until after it had bombed Pearl Harbour to get the US fleet out of the way so Japan had a "free run" in the Pacific'Asia area.

The US cut oil supplies to deter Japan from further slaughter of Chinese population.

The Japanese army, for its part, was originally concerned with fighting the Soviet Union, because of the army's preoccupation with Manchuria and China.

The Japanese army governed Manchuria indirectly through the "puppet" state of Manchuria and developed heavy industry there under its favorite agencies, disliking and distrusting the zaibatsu (large Japanese corporations). But the Soviet army's resistance to Japanese attacks was sufficient to discourage northern expansion

Be like Nutella

never ceases to amaze in these discussions is the total omission of Israel's nuclear weapons in U.S. policy debates about confronting Iran. There is an unspoken understanding that Israel's bombs are an option best left off the table, even as Israeli officials routinely hint at missions where they would be used -- specifically for deterrence or to threaten deeply buried targets in Iran. This tacit agreement within Washington policy circles of focusing on Iran's nonexistent nuclear bombs, while consciously ignoring Israel's actual nuclear arsenal (which is itself directly pertinent to discussions about Iran), should be retired, especially as a more comprehensive solution between Iran and the P5+1 (the five permanent U.N. Security Council members -- the United States, China, France, Russia, and the United Kingdom -- plus Germany) is pursued in the coming months.
Israeli officials provide several theories for what Iran would do with nuclear weapons: transfer them to terrorists groups, increase its support for proxy groups, and even coerce the world with nuclear-armed ballistic missiles. The most commonly asserted objective, however, was offered by Netanyahu to an American television audience in early October: "Everybody knows that Iran wants to destroy Israel and it's building, trying to build, atomic bombs for that purpose."
according to LexisNexis, since Jan. 1, 2000, "Iran" and "nuclear" appear in New York Times headlines 603 times; "Israel" and "nuclear" appear 21 times. (Over that same time period, New York Times headlines also mention "nuclear" with Russia 86 times, with China 52 times, and with Pakistan 48 times.) One reason for this was offered by nuclear scholar George Perkovich: "It's like all things having to do with Israel and the United States. If you want to get ahead, you don't talk about it; you don't criticize Israel; you protect Israel."

Either Israel's nuclear capabilities play no role vis-à-vis strategies to prevent an Iran from acquiring a bomb, in which case why have them at all, or they matter in terms of the missions they support, in which case they should be open for discussion.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/11/25/the_real_nuclear_option_israel_iran?page=full

Jonny7

Be like Nutella wrote: »

never ceases to amaze in these discussions is the total omission of Israel's nuclear weapons in U.S. policy debates about confronting Iran.

Israel has nuclear weapons, it's done. It's not a child's playground with "fairness" rules. Once a country has nuclear weapons (India, Pakistan, N Korea) the clock isn't going to be wound back

To the major countries, China, US, Europe and so on - Israel's nuclear weapons are as much of a realistic direct and indirect threat as Russia's nuclear weapons - i.e. negligible

Hypothetically many scenarios can be posed but they are considered unlikely

However Iran/Saudi acquiring nukes is an avoidable headache - so all nations are pushing to avoid such a scenario

Be like Nutella

The Deal:

• Halt enrichment of uranium above 5% purity.
• "Neutralise" its stockpile of near-20%-enriched uranium, either by diluting it to less than 5% or converting it to a form which cannot be further enriched
• Not install any more centrifuges
• Leave half to three-quarters of centrifuges installed in Natanz and Fordo enrichment facilities inoperable
• Not build any more enrichment facilities
• Not increase its stockpile of 3.5% low-enriched uranium
• Halt work on the construction of its heavy-water reactor at Arak,
• not attempt to produce plutonium there
• Provide daily access to Natanz and Fordo sites to IAEA inspectors and access to other facilities, mines and mills

I guess 'No Further Enrichment' means stop enriching for now rather than explicitly denying them any future right to enrich at all to any level. It's a face saving mechanism.

It's an interim deal. The fight in congress starts now. I'm depressed thinking of the crap that's going to happen in congress now. The Republican game of 'how many times can we shoot ourselves in the foot' starts now.

The most important thing is the daily IAEA access to the sites.

There can be no 'End-Run' towards a nuke in Iran under this deal or any future deal which is more limiting than this one... and that's good

But if Iran is a good boy and the sanctions don't start to lift within the next 6 months we're back at the table again.

It's incredible that the Rep congress will use their ability to stop the repeal of sanctions against Iran which will actually reduce the success of preventing a future nuclear Iran... it's mind blowing how crazy politics is in the US. It's all about suicidal party politics and incredible greed based calculations about re-election. It has to change it's very sad.

Be like Nutella

and the 2013 Hyperbolic games begin

first up

Steve Forbes and that old chestnut - NAZI Feckin Germany haha what a sap

http://www.forbes.com/sites/steveforbes/2013/11/27/a-shameful-deal-and-a-dangerous-one-too/


haha check it out

'...there was Secretary of State John Kerry, oblivious to what Churchill knew about implacable opponents. His deal with Iran is a disaster. The sanctions will begin to crumble. Iran’s nuclear weapons efforts will be barely dented by an agreement that has loopholes bigger than the proverbial dump truck to drive through. And now this negotiating process will take on a life of its own. Iran knows the U.S. must keep the talks going lest it look like it failed.

Kerry may not know what he’s doing, but President Obama knows exactly what this means: Iran will become a nuclear power. Obama’s position is for us to get over it and cope with the new reality. To him the U.S. presence in the world is a force for bad, and Iran is an aggrieved power that the U.S. and Britain didn’t do right by back in the 1950s, if not earlier.

Israel’s security? Obama thinks it brought on most of its troubles itself; anyway, Iran probably won’t nuke it, so what’s the big deal?

Will the Saudis and the Turks now go nuclear? In Obama’s worldview they can do what they want. As long as the U.S. isn’t involved, the world is a better place.

But an increasingly dangerous and hostile world won’t leave us alone. Sorry, Mr. President, America is not the source of evil. Trouble is, the American people will pay the price for your folly....'

Eggy Baby!

The US cut oil supplies to deter Japan from further slaughter of Chinese population.

So it said. But it had obvious geopolitical interests in the region which Japan was obviously threatening.

Regarding the Soviets, the Japanese attempted to expand their borders north into Mongolia and therefore Siberia, but were turned back at Khalkin Gol. Then they looked south, towards the Phillippines and Indochina (the rest is history...)

cyberhog

Headline from Maariv 1984

Khomeini’s atomic bomb enters final stages of production with German assistance.

http://www.richardsilverstein.com/2013/11/26/israeli-media-reign-of-error-predicting-iranian-nuke-1984-2013/

We've been hearing this nonsense that Iran is close to a bomb for 30 years. I don't know why people still waste their time on this non-story. There are far more pressing issues we should be discussing.

Jonny7

cyberhog wrote: »

We've been hearing this nonsense that Iran is close to a bomb for 30 years. I don't know why people still waste their time on this non-story. There are far more pressing issues we should be discussing.

Agreed, we don't need more threads repeatedly maligning certain countries by presenting a distorted and twisted version of the truth

cyberhog

Jonny7 wrote: »

Agreed, we don't need more threads repeatedly maligning certain countries by presenting a distorted and twisted version of the truth

I would also like to see an end to those threads but sadly I don't think the pro western provocateurs will ever give up maliging Iran.

Jonny7

No matter what Iran does, the current Israel gov attitude of them and line toward them does not change

There's genuine common-sense criticism, then there's obsessive criticism, like the above

People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones

MonaPizza

Be like Nutella wrote: »

with all due respect that's why I asked could people answer the question stated... Is Iran rushing for the bomb and if so how will that unfold i.e. how will they rationally get from 'we're not after it' to 'oh look we just tested one' ?

Iran haven't invaded a country in centuries. They have suffered threats to their sovereignty including sanctions, internal stoking, assassinations, etc.

There was never a military option "on the table"..EVER. It was an empty pistol. The only people who are worried about Iran developing nuclear weapons are the ones who already have them.

Iran is a powerful, sovereign state. DEAL WITH IT. The destruction of Iraq has strengthened Iran. The pathetic effort at destroying Syria and Lebanon over the course of the last 3 years has strengthened Iran even further. China are heading to the moon while America's train are derailing and killing people or their bridges and roads are collapsing on a monthly basis.

Iran, do not want a war. They had 8 years of that sh!t with Iraq thanks to the US, UK and France. They want recognition as a regional power and they're going to get it.

Conas

MonaPizza wrote: »

Iran haven't invaded a country in centuries. They have suffered threats to their sovereignty including sanctions, internal stoking, assassinations, etc.

There was never a military option "on the table"..EVER. It was an empty pistol. The only people who are worried about Iran developing nuclear weapons are the ones who already have them.

Iran is a powerful, sovereign state. DEAL WITH IT. The destruction of Iraq has strengthened Iran. The pathetic effort at destroying Syria and Lebanon over the course of the last 3 years has strengthened Iran even further. China are heading to the moon while America's train are derailing and killing people or their bridges and roads are collapsing on a monthly basis.

Iran, do not want a war. They had 8 years of that sh!t with Iraq thanks to the US, UK and France. They want recognition as a regional power and they're going to get it.

Not at all, every effort will be made to have a war with Iran. The Military Industrial Complex of America are licking their lips for any excuse possible to wage war on that country. Install a pro-American goverment, and steal their oil. Israel and America will always get their way always! The whole Nuclear Weapons thing is just deception, the same way as it was with Iraq. There will be a war with Iran, the question is when!

War is profit, peace is stagnation.

cyberhog

The Prime Minister of the United Arab Emirates does not believe Iran is seeking to build a nuclear bomb.

“I think they’re telling the truth when they say just for civilian power,” Sheikh Mohammed said in the interview.

http://gulfbusiness.com/2014/01/dubai-ruler-calls-for-easing-of-iran-sanctions/

BuilderPlumber

The West should have learned their lesson with Iraq!! They are more paranoid than even North Korea at times it would seem!

Any time I hear the West talking up a weak, poor country like Iraq or Iran as some sort of a 'threat to the world' I almost laugh! The threat to the world is the economic recessions that result from disasterous Western wars on these places. We are in the current mess due to Iraq for the most part. But our world leaders won't admit all the billions squandered on that silly war and all the hedge funds and stocks and shares set up to take advantage of a 'golden era in a post Saddam Middle East'.

Iran may or may not want nuclear weapons. Maybe, Ahmadinejad wanted them I don't know. Maybe Khamenei wants them. Rouhani wants more openness and peace and moderation. Now, even if Iran wanted nukes, it is a long way from getting them. Even if they had them, they would be no match or threat to the advanced nuke states. Also, they are not likely to give their weapons to terrorist organisations either because Iran does not trust or support these as much as Western propaganda allow us to believe. If Iran had nukes, Iran would keep them! As a deterrent. Also, ironically, the only time when Iranian nukes would be under threat from terrorists taking them would be in the case of a revolution or war against the current regime!!

Iran's regime has been and is a lot of things. It has shown a moderate and tolerant side as well as a hardline and intolerant side largely based on who the president is and how the West treats them. Basically, if the West shows kindness to Iran, Iran would be a friend of the West. Iran does not seek a war it knows it can't win and now with the moderate Hassan Rouhani at the helm, it is a good time to take advantage of fostering good relations with a strategic regional country that could solve a lot of the current problems the world has.

In short, the West needs to stop making bogeymen and creating wars. Ever since WW2, there seems to be a paranoid streak in the US which did not exist prior to this. Korea, Vietnam, Grenada = all fought against communists. Weak communists. Animosity toward Cuba the same. Yet, the US licked up to a strong communist rival of the USSR = China. Sometimes they get it kind of right: Admittedly, the regimes of Milosevic's Yugoslavia and Taliban Afghanistan are better off totally gone. Now, the US seems to be genuinely paranoid of Iran, and before that Iraq. I think it is based on not a fear of what they are now, but of them becoming modern, prosperous countries that have superpower potential under moderate governments. Ahmadinejad was the ideal Iranian president for the West (he was a living stereotype of anti-Iran propaganda) whereas Rouhani is not.

Jonny7

Conas wrote: »

Not at all, every effort will be made to have a war with Iran. The Military Industrial Complex of America are licking their lips for any excuse possible to wage war on that country. Install a pro-American goverment, and steal their oil. Israel and America will always get their way always! The whole Nuclear Weapons thing is just deception, the same way as it was with Iraq. There will be a war with Iran, the question is when!

War is profit, peace is stagnation.

This is a misconception.

Take for example the Iraq war - it cost thousands of lives, billions of US dollars drained from the country, US and UK image and credibility badly damaged, Iraq turned from one kind of hell into another, arguably worse, kind of hell. Oil prices rose dramatically, this affected negatively affected thousands of businesses, companies and large corporations.

The repercussions are being felt on a daily basis.

Basically the US, EU, Russia and China and most regional countries want to make sure Iran does not weaponise (unlikely) or tech up to a level where they can quickly weaponise (more likely). Hence the endless international pressure.

Thankfully a moderate candidate has been elected.

Western-Iranian relations are the best they've been in a very long time.

Sligo Quay

Jonny7 wrote: »

Western-Iranian relations are the best they've been in a very long time.

Absolutely agree, but Israel's Benjamin Netanyahu is intent on destroying that, Iran's nuclear program is only a smoke screen, Israel does not want the west getting ''friendly'' with Iran.
In a very ironic way, the USA and Iran have common enemy in Al Qaeda, you only have to look at this link where Al Qaeda in countries have a foot hold, Iran does not feature http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Main_countries_of_activity_of_Al-Qaeda.png Al Qaeda mainly surpports the Sunni in the middle east, they have commited terrible crimes against the Shai in Iraq, so in a strange ironic way, the west USA etc have a common enemy in Al Qaeda with Iran, but Israel does not want this support with Iran, the nuclear program is only a smoke screen, now Israel is getting ''friendly'' with Saudi Arabia, ''my enemy's enemy is my friend'' all very cosy, Benjamin Netanyahu like Sharon before him, is the greatest threat to peace in the Middle East.

Conas

Sligo Quay wrote: »

Absolutely agree, but Israel's Benjamin Netanyahu is intent on destroying that, Iran's nuclear program is only a smoke screen, Israel does not want the west getting ''friendly'' with Iran.
In a very ironic way, the USA and Iran have common enemy in Al Qaeda, you only have to look at this link where Al Qaeda in countries have a foot hold, Iran does not feature http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Main_countries_of_activity_of_Al-Qaeda.png Al Qaeda mainly surpports the Sunni in the middle east, they have commited terrible crimes against the Shai in Iraq, so in a strange ironic way, the west USA etc have a common enemy in Al Qaeda with Iran, but Israel does not want this support with Iran, the nuclear program is only a smoke screen, now Israel is getting ''friendly'' with Saudi Arabia, ''my enemy's enemy is my friend'' all very cosy, Benjamin Netanyahu like Sharon before him, is the greatest threat to peace in the Middle East.

We have been hearing about Iran getting Nukes for 6 years, and they still haven't. Yet everyone knows Israel has Nukes, and they never get questioned. Netanyahu lied through his teeth in 2002, before Congress when he said there was "No question whatsoever that Saddam has Nuclear Weapons". The same man who also said that 9/11 was good for Israel.

BuilderPlumber

Conas wrote: »

We have been hearing about Iran getting Nukes for 6 years, and they still haven't. Yet everyone knows Israel has Nukes, and they never get questioned. Netanyahu lied through his teeth in 2002, before Congress when he said there was "No question whatsoever that Saddam has Nuclear Weapons". The same man who also said that 9/11 was good for Israel.

Netanyahu is the most dangerous and troublesome leader in the Middle East at the moment when it comes to stirring up trouble with neighbouring countries. True, the mentality of the likes of him is to take advantage of global situations like 9/11 as an excuse to eliminate Israel's (or should I more specifically say hardline Israeli politicians'!) enemies. Of course, Israel wanted the rabid anti Israeli Saddam gone at any cost and 9/11 was their godsend as they knew the Bushs also wanted him gone and now the US had the perfect excuse as they could somehow fool the US public into believing Saddam did 9/11! The US pay more attention to hardliners from Israel for their advice on what to do and what direction to take and whatever grip these gangsters have on the US fathoms belief.

The Israeli regime to me is a sort of a North Korea in luxury and disguise. People have their freedoms, can vote, can do a lot more things than in many of its neighbours. True, the economy is paradise compared to its neighbours and it is the only first world nation in the region. BUT: there are many Israelis (at least 65% of the population) who are tired to wars and not making peace with Palestinians and with neighbours. Anyone who attempted peace and a new dawn for Israel and its foreign policy ended up sidelined mysteriously: Rabin (a moderate) was shot dead; Sharon (a moderate by the early 2000s willing to do a deal with the Palestinians) also ended up sidelined and in a coma to never recover. Israel has elections, but the military and Mossad clearly are the real regime and hold a tight grip. That said and done, Israel under a moderate leadership would be a bright light for the Middle East and a two state solution where Palestine and Israel could work in a federal republic where both are independent and where Palestine could enjoy the wealth of the richer Israeli state would work well. With this, reform could blossom in Iran under Rohani and even conservative Arab states like Saudi Arabia could follow suit.

Conas

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

The Israeli regime to me is a sort of a North Korea in luxury and disguise. People have their freedoms, can vote, can do a lot more things than in many of its neighbours. True, the economy is paradise compared to its neighbours and it is the only first world nation in the region. BUT: there are many Israelis (at least 65% of the population) who are tired to wars and not making peace with Palestinians and with neighbours. Anyone who attempted peace and a new dawn for Israel and its foreign policy ended up sidelined mysteriously: Rabin (a moderate) was shot dead; Sharon (a moderate by the early 2000s willing to do a deal with the Palestinians) also ended up sidelined and in a coma to never recover. Israel has elections, but the military and Mossad clearly are the real regime and hold a tight grip. That said and done, Israel under a moderate leadership would be a bright light for the Middle East and a two state solution where Palestine and Israel could work in a federal republic where both are independent and where Palestine could enjoy the wealth of the richer Israeli state would work well. With this, reform could blossom in Iran under Rohani and even conservative Arab states like Saudi Arabia could follow suit.

An economy can never be really considered paradise considering they get $3 billion in Foreign aid from the United States. The weapons, military hardware, Iron Dome etc is all created and paid for by the United States. Israel is far from being the democratic, peace loving nation that it preaches. Look at the vicious attacks, and abuse that the African immigrants who fled there were subject too. A state that only wants Jews and Jews only is not a democratic state. If there is a war between Iran and the US, it will be started by Israel. I have no doubt that the Mossad were responsible for the assassinations of the Iranian nuclear scientists, is that not an act of terrorism against Iran? Yes it is, and the whole world says nothing, and does nothing.

America just can't afford another war, and the last thing they need is another war, Joe Biden even said it during the 2012 Presidential Debates.

BuilderPlumber

Conas wrote: »

An economy can never be really considered paradise considering they get $3 billion in Foreign aid from the United States. The weapons, military hardware, Iron Dome etc is all created and paid for by the United States. Israel is far from being the democratic, peace loving nation that it preaches. Look at the vicious attacks, and abuse that the African immigrants who fled there were subject too. A state that only wants Jews and Jews only is not a democratic state. If there is a war between Iran and the US, it will be started by Israel. I have no doubt that the Mossad were responsible for the assassinations of the Iranian nuclear scientists, is that not an act of terrorism against Iran? Yes it is, and the whole world says nothing, and does nothing.

America just can't afford another war, and the last thing they need is another war, Joe Biden even said it during the 2012 Presidential Debates.

Israel in its current form exists as a legacy from WW2. On the face of it, Israel looks a democracy but be under no illusions: the army and Mossad are the real government. Of course, Netanyahu perfectly dovetails with the army and Mossad line.

Of course, Mossad were involved with these and other such assassinations. I would not be surprised either if Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was some sort of placed Mossad agent instructed to act like Iran's answer to Saddam Hussein with an aim to undermine and weaken the regime from within (a Trojan horse policy). In his later presidency, Ahmadinejad and his entourage fell out with the regime. Now, I'm not a fan of Khamenei, but Khamenei made the right decision to allow Hassan Rohani to stand and win in the election. I wonder if Khamenei saw through Ahmadinejad (whose rhetoric was too contrived to be not a set up).

Another incident was this bombing in Bulgaria of an Israeli tour bus. Israel immediately blamed Iran, once again without proof (now, if this was real wouldn't Israel have bombed Iran?). Iran's Revolutionary Guards are the regime and they are not fools and it would be against their interest to do anything like that (the international wing of the RGs is al Quds and its leader is a nasty piece of work: but their main aim is to assassinate Iranian dissidents abroad). Iran's 'support for terrorism' is greatly exaggerated. They support Hezbollah as a part of the Shia v Sunni power play but Hezbollah are hardly an international terror group. Hamas are more funded by the Sunni states and Iran has fell out with them. Al Qaeda are sworn enemies of Iran. Iran once wanted to collaborate with the Provos: their main use of the Provos? To kill dissident Iranians in the UK. The Provos turned down the offer. So, even the worst people in Iran's regime really do not have an interest in meddling with other countries and just talk and grandstand on 'oppression of the world by Western aggression'. Instead, their action rather than words focuses on stamping out rival Iranians who are a threat to their throne.

Israel will be directly or indirectly responsible for any future Middle East war the US get involved in. Obama is too clever to be dragged into such a scenario. I could see Bush though get bogged down in Syria and this could open up a Middle East version of WW1 with all the alliances of the regional powers sucked in.

But you can also never doubt the total double standards of Israel: when Saddam was around, especially in the 1980s, who was Israel courting secretly? Iran! Israeli support of Iran during the Iran-Iraq war was motivated by the fact that Saddam was a real enemy: an Arab nationalist regime that supported fellow Arabs in Palestine. Iran and Israel never had any animosity and I still find it hard to believe they hate each other as much as they say. Iran would not like to be seen as pro-Israel as this would create hostility from Arab neighbours. Israel's dispute is over taking Arab not Persian land. Persians and Arabs have always been rivals, and so have Shias and Sunnis. In a way, Shia Persian Iran being concerned for Sunni Arab Palestinians is like the Provisional IRA being concerned for the welfare of the UVF. So, I'd say that Israel need Iran as a bulwark against Arab states but Israel oppose a nuclear Iran because Israel want to be the only Middle Eastern nuclear power (of course they are not: India and Pakistan have joined them, and Israel opposed this too). Any Israeli action against Iran thus would be directed at stalling its nuclear facilities rather than overthrowing its government. Israel want a weak Iran but want it to be there as a bulwark between Sunni Arabs and other Sunnis in Pakistan etc that could unite to become a serious threat to Israel.

Jonny7

Conas wrote: »

An economy can never be really considered paradise considering they get $3 billion in Foreign aid from the United States. The weapons, military hardware, Iron Dome etc is all created and paid for by the United States. Israel is far from being the democratic, peace loving nation that it preaches. Look at the vicious attacks, and abuse that the African immigrants who fled there were subject too. A state that only wants Jews and Jews only is not a democratic state. If there is a war between Iran and the US, it will be started by Israel. I have no doubt that the Mossad were responsible for the assassinations of the Iranian nuclear scientists, is that not an act of terrorism against Iran? Yes it is, and the whole world says nothing, and does nothing.

There's criticising the administration/policies.. but personifying a country/race as above is borderline mentalist stuff, not to mention the ridiculous emotional assertions