• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Bad idea on part of Netanyahu. Drawing a "red line"

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,872
4,212
126
There is a discussion in this vid which explores various approaches to Iran. Yes it's TLDW but the favored approach was a series of verifiable milestones and the worst as setting an absolute red line except as a last resort. The obvious reason being that face saving will automatically result in non compliance. That's bad at this moment.

The link to the story is here.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/world_now/2012/09/israel-leader-demands-red-line-to-stop-iran-nuclear-program.html

Things have a time and place and rushing to the end game which guarantees failure. Fortunately the P5+1 isn't going to change it's measured approach.
 

Doppel

Lifer
Feb 5, 2011
13,306
2
0
I think he's wrong that iran will back down. It won't. It's calling his bluff, if it is a bluff.

The US will take part in no vanguard against Iran. It's Israel or nobody, though I expect when push comes to shove that the US supports it, tacitly at the least and probably outright with intelligence and surveillance.

I still have good money on Israel doing nothing.

But nobody actually WANTS Iran to have a nuke.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
67,187
3,879
126
I think Netanyahu is an Israeli politician who depends of votes to keep his position. It is not unusual to find politicians who need votes to campaign by stoking fear and providing tough guy solutions to it that appeal to the loathing and disgust that occurs in frightened people. I believe it was Hitler that would send in his minions to create some chaos or other then say that he could fix it. The problem with this, though, is that you always become what you fear.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
101,399
5,440
126
there is no situation in which iran doesn't win. unless the ayatollahs are truly crazy, which i don't think they are.

if israel bombs iran first, iran wins
if the US bombs iran first, iran wins
if neither the US or israel bomb iran, iran gets the bomb, which almost ensures that neither israel or the US bomb iran. iran wins.

the only way iran doesn't win is if iran goes and uses the bomb. i just don't think they're that crazy. the world would be against them.
 

Smoblikat

Diamond Member
Nov 19, 2011
5,184
107
106
there is no situation in which iran doesn't win. unless the ayatollahs are truly crazy, which i don't think they are.

if israel bombs iran first, iran wins
if the US bombs iran first, iran wins
if neither the US or israel bomb iran, iran gets the bomb, which almost ensures that neither israel or the US bomb iran. iran wins.

the only way iran doesn't win is if iran goes and uses the bomb. i just don't think they're that crazy. the world would be against them.
Could you even imagine..............EVERYBODY just up in their shit destroying them.
 

woolfe9999

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2005
7,164
0
0
There is a discussion in this vid which explores various approaches to Iran. Yes it's TLDW but the favored approach was a series of verifiable milestones and the worst as setting an absolute red line except as a last resort. The obvious reason being that face saving will automatically result in non compliance. That's bad at this moment.

The link to the story is here.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/world_now/2012/09/israel-leader-demands-red-line-to-stop-iran-nuclear-program.html

Things have a time and place and rushing to the end game which guarantees failure. Fortunately the P5+1 isn't going to change it's measured approach.
Netenyahu's "red line" was not one which he suggested would trigger military action from Israel. He is suggesting it to other western powers. Hence, if the line comes and goes without military action, no one needs to save face. What Netenyahu really wants is for the US to publicly adopt the red line he suggests, but we're clearly not going to do that.

There is something in the article I hadn't been aware of. Apparently we have our own military red line, which is after they have enriched enough uranium but before they build a bomb.

In any event, I highly doubt there will be any military action against Iran, from anyone.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,872
4,212
126
Netenyahu's "red line" was not one which he suggested would trigger military action from Israel. He is suggesting it to other western powers. Hence, if the line comes and goes without military action, no one needs to save face. What Netenyahu really wants is for the US to publicly adopt the red line he suggests, but we're clearly not going to do that.

There is something in the article I hadn't been aware of. Apparently we have our own military red line, which is after they have enriched enough uranium but before they build a bomb.

In any event, I highly doubt there will be any military action against Iran, from anyone.
I understand that the line was for the west to draw and apply to Iran. The problem is that at this time doing so is a tactical error. The ayatollah will refuse because acceptance under the threat of an ultimatum well be viewed as an act of cowardice. Suffering humiliation isn't going to happen and the next move would be an act of overt and significant defiance to prove steadfastness. I couldn't begin to count the number of battles and wars fought because of a refusal to back down. The purpose of a "red line" is not to make a final offer, but to signal an end of discussion and the beginning of armed conflict. I submit that now is not the time for such action.
 

woolfe9999

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2005
7,164
0
0
I understand that the line was for the west to draw and apply to Iran. The problem is that at this time doing so is a tactical error. The ayatollah will refuse because acceptance under the threat of an ultimatum well be viewed as an act of cowardice. Suffering humiliation isn't going to happen and the next move would be an act of overt and significant defiance to prove steadfastness. I couldn't begin to count the number of battles and wars fought because of a refusal to back down. The purpose of a "red line" is not to make a final offer, but to signal an end of discussion and the beginning of armed conflict. I submit that now is not the time for such action.
Oh I agree entirely. We shouldn't adopt a red line for the reasons you gave. I understand why Netenyahu wants us to - it would commit us to following through on an attack or else appear to be weak. However, I highly doubt that either Obama or (hopefully) Romney, would agree to any such red line.

I think it's pretty clear how this will play out. There will be more sabre rattling in the near future. No military action will ensue. Some time mid to late next year, or early following, we'll start hearing that they have enough enriched uranium. But there won't be a nuclear test that year or the next, or the next. Because Iran will be sitting on the capability to build a bomb but not actually build one, or build it but hold off testing it. So the issue will not be resolved for a long time, and Iran will continue to claim it has never had a nuclear weapons program. When and under what circumstances they finally decide to test a nuke is difficult to predict, but I doubt you'll see such a test even this decade. They're just going to keep the ability to make one relatively quickly in their back pocket until the reasons for building one outweigh the reasons for not building one.

- wolf
 

Thump553

Lifer
Jun 2, 2000
11,883
1,221
126
I think about 60% of Benjy's goal is to push President Obama around. He seems to think that the USA needs Israel around more than they need the USA, when the exact opposite is true. In fact, the USA doesn't really need Israel for anything other than a giant sink hole for our foreign aid.

IMO I think Obama putting Netenyahu on ice publically is the exactly correct move to rein him in and to give him a gentle warning to stop trying to interfer with our elections. At the same time Obama and Hillary Clinton have been extremely consistent in pressuring Iran and continuing to tighten the screws. Obama is working towards the best possible solution, stopping Iran from obtaining nuclear arms without having to go to war about it. This is big boy diplomacy, frankly way above most of our heads-especially including Romney.
 

Anarchist420

Diamond Member
Feb 13, 2010
8,645
0
76
www.facebook.com
There is a discussion in this vid which explores various approaches to Iran. Yes it's TLDW but the favored approach was a series of verifiable milestones and the worst as setting an absolute red line except as a last resort. The obvious reason being that face saving will automatically result in non compliance. That's bad at this moment.

The link to the story is here.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/world_now/2012/09/israel-leader-demands-red-line-to-stop-iran-nuclear-program.html

Things have a time and place and rushing to the end game which guarantees failure. Fortunately the P5+1 isn't going to change it's measured approach.
I am not the only one here who makes typos from time to time. For my part, I am sorry for what i meant. I believe I heard that ben netanyahu has been bullshitting us about nukes and Iran since 1992 which means that Iran probably has no intention of building a nuclear weapon. I agree with you that Obama is trying to use your pal Ben Netanyahu, but you're going to get your war because no anti war candidate really has a chance of beating the two pro war candidates... in other words, Obama is trying to get the AIPAC vote and also the anti-war vote. AIPAC would've smeared his ass all over the place by now if they even suspected he was going to vote against their wishes.

Obama is simply trying to pull a Wilson by campaigning on "he kept us out of war" although I don't know whether it's going to work for him like it did for Wilson and FDR.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
62,009
14,176
136
I understand that the line was for the west to draw and apply to Iran. The problem is that at this time doing so is a tactical error. The ayatollah will refuse because acceptance under the threat of an ultimatum well be viewed as an act of cowardice. Suffering humiliation isn't going to happen and the next move would be an act of overt and significant defiance to prove steadfastness. I couldn't begin to count the number of battles and wars fought because of a refusal to back down. The purpose of a "red line" is not to make a final offer, but to signal an end of discussion and the beginning of armed conflict. I submit that now is not the time for such action.
I agree, and I'll go further. I think that the Bush admin getting all puffed up about it way back when was a policy mistake, even though it served as a great asset in terms of domestic politics. That's all too true of a great deal of what the Bush Admin actually did with their fearmongering campaign in hte wake of 9/11. It was all about suckering the voters by waving around various boogeyman "threats".

The harder we've leaned on the Iranians, the more determined they've become. If what they want is to enrich their own nuclear fuel, they've moved beyond our capability to stop them short of a rather large conflict with their hardened facility at Fordow and the stockpiling of 20% enriched uranium. It's their ace in the hole, a game changer, as evidenced by the evolutionary changes in the stance of Western nations. If they want nukes, I believe they have the capability to create them, and that the price for stopping them would be very high. The point is to convince them that they don't want nukes, that they have no reason for that, so Netanyahu's raving is very unhelpful.

It's gone too far already for them to back down from being able to enrich fuel under IAEA supervision, and anybody with a lick of sense needs to realize that. What the world needs is an agreement allowing that with strong safeguards against the creation of weapons grade materials. We'll need to back down from the demand that they cease enrichment entirely in order to get there, if we can, because it's clear they won't stop, and that we lack sufficient cause & the will to make them do so.
 
Feb 4, 2009
29,953
10,492
136
Ps I love how its a Wyle Coyote Acme style bomb. We all know what happens when your stuff comes from Acme...
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
2
0
Ps I love how its a Wyle Coyote Acme style bomb. We all know what happens when your stuff comes from Acme...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Which is undeniably true Fanatical Meat, specially when Iran has no track record of being the beep beep roadrunner.
 

michal1980

Diamond Member
Mar 7, 2003
8,019
43
91
I love this thread.

because it shows the typical liberal line of appeasment.

If the bad guy justs gets hugged more, everything will be ok.

That turned out so well with hitler.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
2
0
IMHO, another clueless Hayabusa post, especially the closing comment as our OP says, "Things have a time and place and rushing to the end game which guarantees failure. Fortunately the P5+1 isn't going to change it's measured approach."

As I assert how damn gulliable are we? As I can agree that Iran's Achmadinejad is the world's number two motor mouth with no credibility, but Bozo Netanyuhu has Achmadinejad beat by a bunch as a serial liar. After all, how long have various Israeli chicken little officials been taking to the world stage and saying Iran would have a nuclear weapon in six months. At least 15 years if not longer.

And now, Bozo Netanyuhu, who is down to attempt #2 has been pressuring the USA and every one else, to set a red line based on cartoons and nothing else. But in this year's recent Israeli red line attempt #1, Netanyuhu got dope slapped as the US state department, the Brits, the Russians, and was told in no uncertain terms, Israel would be in deep doo if they pre-empively attack Iran. But now the motor mouth Netanyuhu still will not take no for an answer, and takes to the UN stage with the same bullcrap and new cartoons with another little boy who cried wolf message that went over like a lead balloon.

As for me, I can ignore a motormouth powerless idiot like Achmadinejad, but every time Netanyuhu rattles Israeli sabers, my gas prices go up by 20 cents a gallon or more. US gas prices are finally are on the way back down, dare we hope oil speculators will push the prices up 30 cents now.

Meanwhile mid East instability is at an all time high, but when it comes time for Israel to do its bit, in terms of forming a Palestinian state, or allowing UN investigations of Palestinian conditions, or even condidering agreeing to making the mid-east into a nuclear weapons free zone, Achmadinejad has far more credibity than Netanyuhu.
 
Last edited:

Farang

Lifer
Jul 7, 2003
10,914
3
0
I love this thread.

because it shows the typical liberal line of appeasment.

If the bad guy justs gets hugged more, everything will be ok.

That turned out so well with hitler.
How'd all the red lines drawn up in treaties turn out during World War I.. nobody could save face, and millions dead for "honor"
 

OneOfTheseDays

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2000
7,052
0
0
What purpose does it serve Iran to develop a nuclear weapon and launch it at Israel or any of our allies in the middle east?

Someone explain this to me before we start drumming the war drums.
 

Farang

Lifer
Jul 7, 2003
10,914
3
0
What purpose does it serve Iran to develop a nuclear weapon and launch it at Israel or any of our allies in the middle east?

Someone explain this to me before we start drumming the war drums.
Mark me down as the opposite of a neocon or hawk.

But words matter--it is not unreasonable for Israel to feel it's existence is threatened by a nuclear Iran. They've said things to the effect that it should be wiped off the map. Looking at history there are many examples we think nutcases can't be serious, when it fact they very much are.

Contrast that to Iraq where Saddam was saying he wasn't doing anything wrong and didn't want to attack anyone, but our cases rested on assumed ulterior motives.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,872
4,212
126
I love this thread.

because it shows the typical liberal line of appeasment.

If the bad guy justs gets hugged more, everything will be ok.

That turned out so well with hitler.
Once upon a time there was a war. Sometimes there were those who spoke bravely as you do. So ready to take the fight to the enemy without a moments thought or hesitation. They were usually the first to fill a body bag.

Child, you do not understand of what you speak. Certainly you would be unwelcome in any planning session since you have no discernment concerning bravery or wise use of resources or an awareness of the complexities and subtleties of international affairs. You demonstrate your usefulness as cannon fodder, but I'd hold off on sending your resume to the Army War College.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
30,057
3,604
126
Bad idea on part of Netanyahu. Drawing a "red line"
That red line means that Iran has a nuclear weapon. Only an imminent attack would stop it then. Netanyahu made perfect sense in his speech, I wish he or men like him were our leaders.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
62,009
14,176
136
That red line means that Iran has a nuclear weapon. Only an imminent attack would stop it then. Netanyahu made perfect sense in his speech, I wish he or men like him were our leaders.
That's kinda like the red line that meant Iraq had WMD's, huh?
 

brainhulk

Diamond Member
Sep 14, 2007
9,418
453
126
there is no situation in which iran doesn't win. unless the ayatollahs are truly crazy, which i don't think they are.

if israel bombs iran first, iran wins
if the US bombs iran first, iran wins
if neither the US or israel bomb iran, iran gets the bomb, which almost ensures that neither israel or the US bomb iran. iran wins.

the only way iran doesn't win is if iran goes and uses the bomb. i just don't think they're that crazy. the world would be against them.
yeah, that's what i was thinking also
 

OneOfTheseDays

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2000
7,052
0
0
It's like people don't remember the Iraq war happened at all.

War is only an answer when all diplomacy has failed and all resources exhausted. Furthermore, war should not be an option here unless we have formidable global support accompanying us. Iran has shown no indication that it wants to send nukes to blow up anyone. That's pure crazy talk and they damn well know it means the end of their existence. The thing about power is that people in positions of power kind of like to keep it. It's the reason why Sadaam was never actually a threat to the US, he damn well knew that if he ever launched a nuke he'd be done for.

Thank God Obama is in office and understands these things. Things stupid Conservative America does not understand. They are literally too dumb to comprehend what foreign policy is actually about. Here's a hint, GWB did not have a good foreign policy. Fucking morons.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY