Netanyahu Speach to US congress. Predict his revelations

[Fern]

if they seriously wanted one they could just pay whatever north korea asks

Nope.

They seriously want one or they wouldn't have endured sanctions for so long or spent so much trying to develop the capability.

Iran can send the money to NK, but how will NK deliver the bomb to Iran? They can't; that's the problem.

A overland route won't work. A sea route won't work. The possibility of any shipment from NK to Iran going uninspected and undetected is zero. Info? Yes. A bomb or materials for a bomb? No.

Fern

 

[Oric]

Some of the theories about Iran rest on the assumption that the state of Iran is governed by people who think a "Mehdi" will come. I am sorry to tell that you are fundamentally missing the picture !

Any state existing on Earth (i leave out short term fantasy states) knows better than that, states/nations rise on pragmatic pillars and those pragmatic rules are as we all know "eat or be eaten" "there are no real friends or enemies, just positions for loss and gain"

Iran or Persia has one of the oldest "state" tradition and pragmatism. if you look at their history on a 1000 year perspective, ypu will see that physical arms combat of their nation got less frequent over time, that is accumulated knowledge of lessons learned and we see increased portion of cunning use of diplomacy and soft powers in relations with the regional actors.

So aftwr ww i and ww ii, it became clear that their country had the potential to be one of the richest nations on earth but had to bow to imperialistic powers of the globe: britain, usa and russia if it could not play good diplomacy. They did play one on the other and with the first sign of relief they nationalised their oil production (1952). What follows after is in short story, us+britain overthrew the government and positioned shah pehlevi to oversee their benefits in Iran.

The state of iran then had no other choice but get rid of shah, but because he was backed by US and controlled the army and media, they had to play the religion card to equalise the playing field against him and the foreign power. There came Humeyni and the teocratic regime afterwards, but this is only the window dressing. The state of Iran does not think in terms of religous nonsense, they are traders and diplomats. They see everything as bargaining chips and nuclear power is an ace chip for and against them. In other words they like the idea of having a bomb although it is used against them as a sanction excuse, because if they have a bomb they can bargain better. (Like you can no longer threat sending a fleet in persian gulf for intimidation, like you can not get close to russia or china beyond a certain limit, if you can not flex muscles against them, you can not hope to get hold of the oil fields or who gets to run them etc.) Using a bomb to hit Istael on the other hand closes barganing and its a catastrophy, they know that very well. So the game is played behind close doors like this.

Here on At you speak of how israel is going to disappear the next day iran gets a bomb, it is so far from the truth but because it is the "perception" that is shoveled to you by the media, controlled by various states, i don't question why you hold on to it so tightly.

Sorry for grammar and syntax mistakes.

 

[Fern]

Do people really believe Iran would launch a weapon? Or provide one to a terrorist group? Im convinced they want a weapon because their neighbors have been invaded, conquered and destroyed by the United States. We have made it perfectly clear the best way to keep us from destroying your nation is if you hold a nuclear weapon.

So, why would the US attack Iran thus motivating them to obtain nukes?

Answer that question and I'll think you'll see things a bit more clearly.

----------------------

We aren't going to just up and attack Iran for no reason. We didn't attack Iraq for no reason. People forget. Saddam was:

- Attacking neighbors to gain territory, capture oil and expand his nation. Saddam was said to have aspirations of recreating the old empire.

- Committing genocide (e.g., Kurds)

- Engaging in terrorism (e.g., Palestinian suicide bombers)

- Defying UN etc, being a rogue nation

Now why might Iran be concerned about the USA attacking them? Think it's because they have plans to go (more) rogue and busy themselves with the above activities? I do. They're already engaged in most of the above now. (I recently reports where they're funneling money to AQ.) How much do they want to accelerate it, thus causing concern about attacks from Western nations?

Iran is a bad player. They want nukes to allow them to allow them to proceed unfettered with their batshit crazy agenda.

You are aware of, and believe in, the animosity between Shia and Sunni? You know each wants to destroy the other? You know that Persians are not Arabs, right? You know that the Persians had a great empire and have stated its reestablishment is an objective?

Have you ever asked yourself why Iran has this extreme fixation with Israel? They don't even share a border. They've never had a war. You'd think Jordan and Egypt would have such a fixation, but those have had treaties with Israel (IIRC the Muslim Brotherhood dumped Egypt's). So why the fixation on Israel?

It's because they're a batshit effing insane extreme islamo fundie nutjob nation. Anybody thinking they can trust Iran is a fool.

Uh, yes. That's the whole reason for the controversy.

If Iran were considered trustworthy and normal, we wouldn't be having this argument.

The whole problem with Iran getting the bomb is that they might use it.

No, bombing Israel is not the "whole problem".

See above. Iran is dangerous. If they get a nuke Other countries in the M.E. will move to acquire one as well. Iran is Shia, the others are Sunni (except Iraq, which is mixed and may well fall more firmly into Iran's sphere. Heck, Iran troops are in Iraq and attacking Tikrit and all this was a huge surprise to us!)

As bad as the M.E. is now, imagine a nuclear arms race over there. Is there any problem with a M.E full of nukes? What could possibly go wrong, huh?

So, there are more problems with Iran getting a nuke than just bombing Israel. a lot more.

Fern

 

[Fern]

Some of the theories about Iran...
-snip-

Thanks.

Please explain the irrational fixation Iran has on destroying Israel.

Fern

 

[Fern]

So the answer to my question is no. The only thing Bibi has done is bitch about Obama's efforts. If you listen to him the only answer is war.

I listened to him and that is certainly not true. That's merely what Obama said.

I heard the speech. Bebe suggested sanctions and/or a better deal. The main point being that an acceptance of a bad deal, a deal that will ensure Iran gets nukes, must be avoided for any number of reasons. Those reasons, or problems, will still be there in 10 yrs when the Obama deal apparently allows Iran to have them.

I think bebe (I can't spell his name so I'll go with bebe) is having his hand forced here. I do not see how Israel can allow Iran to have nukes. Israel is small. Firing back a nuke, retaliation is of no consequence. Israel would have been destroyed. If Iran hits Israel, what does Israel care if other countries attack Iran? If Israel is dead, it's dead.

Fern

 

[spacejamz]

Do people really believe Iran would launch a weapon? Or provide one to a terrorist group? Im convinced they want a weapon because their neighbors have been invaded, conquered and destroyed by the United States. We have made it perfectly clear the best way to keep us from destroying your nation is if you hold a nuclear weapon.

They aren't going to openly hand deliver one to Hamas or whoever or launch one directly from Iran...maybe I have been watching too much '24', but I think the most likely scenario would be that one would be smuggled in somehow (tunnels???)...

What happens if such a plan is foiled? what would be an appropriate response to that?

MAD only works when you have sensible parties who do not wish to be destroyed... Not sure how well that would apply in this situation...

 

[Brainonska511]

They aren't going to openly hand deliver one to Hamas or whoever or launch one directly from Iran...maybe I have been watching too much '24', but I think the most likely scenario would be that one would be smuggled in somehow (tunnels???)...

What happens if such a plan is foiled? what would be an appropriate response to that?

MAD only works when you have sensible parties who do not wish to be destroyed... Not sure how well that would apply in this situation...

So you believe Iran is run by insane people? What actions have they taken to demonstrate this insanity?

 

[feralkid]

Thanks.

Please explain the irrational fixation Iran has on destroying Israel.

Fern

It's like the GOP and the ACA...red meat for the true believers, nothing more.

 

[spacejamz]

So you believe Iran is run by insane people? What actions have they taken to demonstrate this insanity?

The hatred that exists in that region is beyond sane to me....How would sane people harbor such hatred for such a long time??

 

[feralkid]

The hatred that exists in that region is beyond sane to me....How would sane people harbor such hatred for such a long time??

I dunno, maybe because they feel like they got totally fucked by the West for generations?

 

[Balt]

I dunno, maybe because they feel like they got totally fucked by the West for generations?

If you're raised and taught every day to think something like that, odds are pretty good you'll think something like that.

 

[highland145]

I dunno, maybe because they feel like they got totally fucked by the West for generations?

Or that shit has been going on for thousands of years before the "West" existed.

 

[spacejamz]

I dunno, maybe because they feel like they got totally fucked by the West for generations?

Is that confirmation then that they are not sane??? Would that feeling like you have been fucked over for generations would make you act irrationally?

 

[feralkid]

Is that confirmation then that they are not sane??? Would that feeling like you have been fucked over for generations would make you act irrationally?

Dunno; I don't really think the fact that they are extremely pissed off about the shit we pulled over there makes them "insane".

That would actually be a rather rational response, don't you think?

 

[feralkid]

Or that shit has been going on for thousands of years before the "West" existed.

Perhaps, but I think it's mostly more recent shit we did, like with the Shah and his father, the CIA training Savak, etc.

 

[highland145]

Perhaps, but I think it's mostly more recent shit we did, like with the Shah and his father, the CIA training Savak, etc.

Mount Moriah

 

[feralkid]

nm.

 

[feralkid]

Mount Moriah

Fascinating; however, I thought we were talking about why Iran hated the West, not the Jews.

Oh well, that's certainly another worthy discussion.

 

[Jhhnn]

So, why would the US attack Iran thus motivating them to obtain nukes?

Answer that question and I'll think you'll see things a bit more clearly.

----------------------

We aren't going to just up and attack Iran for no reason. We didn't attack Iraq for no reason. People forget. Saddam was:

- Attacking neighbors to gain territory, capture oil and expand his nation. Saddam was said to have aspirations of recreating the old empire.

- Committing genocide (e.g., Kurds)

- Engaging in terrorism (e.g., Palestinian suicide bombers)

- Defying UN etc, being a rogue nation

Now why might Iran be concerned about the USA attacking them? Think it's because they have plans to go (more) rogue and busy themselves with the above activities? I do. They're already engaged in most of the above now. (I recently reports where they're funneling money to AQ.) How much do they want to accelerate it, thus causing concern about attacks from Western nations?

Iran is a bad player. They want nukes to allow them to allow them to proceed unfettered with their batshit crazy agenda.

You are aware of, and believe in, the animosity between Shia and Sunni? You know each wants to destroy the other? You know that Persians are not Arabs, right? You know that the Persians had a great empire and have stated its reestablishment is an objective?

Have you ever asked yourself why Iran has this extreme fixation with Israel? They don't even share a border. They've never had a war. You'd think Jordan and Egypt would have such a fixation, but those have had treaties with Israel (IIRC the Muslim Brotherhood dumped Egypt's). So why the fixation on Israel?

It's because they're a batshit effing insane extreme islamo fundie nutjob nation. Anybody thinking they can trust Iran is a fool.



No, bombing Israel is not the "whole problem".

See above. Iran is dangerous. If they get a nuke Other countries in the M.E. will move to acquire one as well. Iran is Shia, the others are Sunni (except Iraq, which is mixed and may well fall more firmly into Iran's sphere. Heck, Iran troops are in Iraq and attacking Tikrit and all this was a huge surprise to us!)

As bad as the M.E. is now, imagine a nuclear arms race over there. Is there any problem with a M.E full of nukes? What could possibly go wrong, huh?

So, there are more problems with Iran getting a nuke than just bombing Israel. a lot more.

Fern

You bought Benghazi too, right?

 

[highland145]

Fascinating; however, I thought we were talking about why Iran hated the West, not the Jews.

Oh well, that's certainly another worthy discussion.

Start at the beginning. Hitting chapter 38 of 40 is useless.

 

[Fern]

Unless Obama reacts to the concerns of Sunni regimes and Israel, I think there's a good chance we'll see a "preventative war".

There's a very old, very popular maxim that you cannot allow your enemy to attain military superiority. History is full of those who did, either through inaction or ignorance, and paid the ultimate price. It's also full of those who acted preemptively.

It's been said that Saddam Hussein acted as the lid to keep things down in Iraq. Well, IMO, the USA has been the lid keeping things down on the entire M.E. Obama has, for all intents and purposes, removed us from that role.

Indications are that some very odd coalitions are forming. In some of the foreign news sites I visit great anger and fear has been directed at Obama. These are from Sunni parties. I've see support from them toward Israel. It isn't everyday Sunni's side with Israel.

The concern among the Sunni is a Shia block to the North: Iran, Iraq and Syria. I.e., the expansion of Iran. That Iranian troops are already fighting in Iraq has not gone unnoticed.

Looks like Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan are moving to partner together with Israel to counter Iran and Shias.

Preventative war has often been practiced in the M.E. To be specific, I'm saying that there's a real possibility these countries will act militarily to prevent Iran from getting nukes, whether they have approval or not.

I'm not saying they want to do it. I'm saying they are desperate.

I think our admin would be well served to pay attention to those countries' concerns.

It also seems to me that we're asking an awful lot of them as regards handling their own 'business' over there. Not only do they have to contend with Iran, but also ISIS/AQ. That's a two front battle, and I think likely too much.

Fern

 

[feralkid]

It's been said that Saddam Hussein acted as the lid to keep things down in Iraq. Well, IMO, the USA has been the lid keeping things down on the entire M.E. Obama has, for all intents and purposes, removed us from that role. Fern

I think a more accurate analogy would be that the previous administration blew off the lid, busted the diaphragm and thoroughly screwed every pooch in the paddock.

Then they left it for the new guy to put the genie back in the bottle.

This is all academic, of course, but before we start debating where we should go, let's not forget how we got here.

 

[nickqt]

Unless Obama reacts to the concerns of Sunni regimes and Israel, I think there's a good chance we'll see a "preventative war".

There's a very old, very popular maxim that you cannot allow your enemy to attain military superiority. History is full of those who did, either through inaction or ignorance, and paid the ultimate price. It's also full of those who acted preemptively.

It's been said that Saddam Hussein acted as the lid to keep things down in Iraq. Well, IMO, the USA has been the lid keeping things down on the entire M.E. Obama has, for all intents and purposes, removed us from that role.

Indications are that some very odd coalitions are forming. In some of the foreign news sites I visit great anger and fear has been directed at Obama. These are from Sunni parties. I've see support from them toward Israel. It isn't everyday Sunni's side with Israel.

The concern among the Sunni is a Shia block to the North: Iran, Iraq and Syria. I.e., the expansion of Iran. That Iranian troops are already fighting in Iraq has not gone unnoticed.

Looks like Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan are moving to partner together with Israel to counter Iran and Shias.

Preventative war has often been practiced in the M.E. To be specific, I'm saying that there's a real possibility these countries will act militarily to prevent Iran from getting nukes, whether they have approval or not.

I'm not saying they want to do it. I'm saying they are desperate.

I think our admin would be well served to pay attention to those countries' concerns.

It also seems to me that we're asking an awful lot of them as regards handling their own 'business' over there. Not only do they have to contend with Iran, but also ISIS/AQ. That's a two front battle, and I think likely too much.

Fern

Quick, name the wars Iran has started in the last 2000 years.

ISIS and AQ are Sunni. They don't get along because they have different means and different goals, so the moderate Sunni regimes should count themselves lucky for now.

Iran is Shia, along with the non-ISIS actors in Iraq.

At the end of the day, the US has more in common with Shia Iran than it does with ISIS, AQ, and Sunni Saudi Arabia and its satellites.

That says a lot.

Iran is really good at Kabuki. So is the US Government. Death to the Great Satan! Iran is in the "Axis of Evil"! Both sides play that propaganda BS to create an US v. THEM mindset, because it's simple minded and keeps the rabble gullible.

What needs to happen is normalized relations. If the US Government and the Iranian Government are unable to be adults, then everyone suffers. So, first thing first, let's drop the notion that Iran is super ultra mega evil because of 1979 and their overthrow of our US-sponsored Puppet that we installed in 1953, and start fresh.

But nuculure weapons!

Well, I hear constantly that libruuls are dumb about science and lurnin' because some of them are against nuclear energy, which is relatively clean and safe.

Well, uh, why is it that we can't negotiate with Iran to help them have clean, relatively safe nuclear energy, while also providing incentives for them to not develop nuclear weapons? Because IRAN BAD, 'MURRICA GOOD?

Again, Kabuki.

North Korea got nukes, and yet we're not suffering from nuclear winter yet, and I think most people would agree that North Korea is far more insane than Iran.

Just like with Cuba, we need to stop the Kabuki and mindless fearmongering regarding Iran. They aren't Saints, and the US isn't either.

Netanyahu has been warning that Iran is 6 months away from a fully operation nuclear arsenal for the past 20 years. Mossad has said that it isn't. As has multiple other third parties that have investigated Iran's nuclear program. I trust an intelligence operation like Mossad more than a politician. But that's just me.

 

[Jhhnn]

Unless Obama reacts to the concerns of Sunni regimes and Israel, I think there's a good chance we'll see a "preventative war".

There's a very old, very popular maxim that you cannot allow your enemy to attain military superiority. History is full of those who did, either through inaction or ignorance, and paid the ultimate price. It's also full of those who acted preemptively.

Yeh, the Nazis acted pre-emptively against Poland. We acted pre-emptively wrt Iraq, too.

It's been said that Saddam Hussein acted as the lid to keep things down in Iraq. Well, IMO, the USA has been the lid keeping things down on the entire M.E. Obama has, for all intents and purposes, removed us from that role.

Yeh, that's why we're flying sorties against ISIS, providing training & support to anybody other than Iran who's willing to fight them.

Indications are that some very odd coalitions are forming. In some of the foreign news sites I visit great anger and fear has been directed at Obama. These are from Sunni parties. I've see support from them toward Israel. It isn't everyday Sunni's side with Israel.

Link that up.

The concern among the Sunni is a Shia block to the North: Iran, Iraq and Syria. I.e., the expansion of Iran. That Iranian troops are already fighting in Iraq has not gone unnoticed.

Iran's presence is welcomed by the Iraqi govt.

Looks like Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan are moving to partner together with Israel to counter Iran and Shias.

Linky-linky.

Preventative war has often been practiced in the M.E. To be specific, I'm saying that there's a real possibility these countries will act militarily to prevent Iran from getting nukes, whether they have approval or not.

I'm not saying they want to do it. I'm saying they are desperate.

I think our admin would be well served to pay attention to those countries' concerns.

Hence current negotiations.

It also seems to me that we're asking an awful lot of them as regards handling their own 'business' over there. Not only do they have to contend with Iran, but also ISIS/AQ. That's a two front battle, and I think likely too much.

Fern

Demonstrate that Iran is acting aggressively rather than responding to calls for help from those aggrieved by aggression.

 

[feralkid]

snip

Weren't you warned about talking sense in this forum?