[quote]Mufasa wrote:
What we have to understand is that Ahmadinejad is closer to a glorified Press Secretary than anything else.
[/quote]
Thank you. It’s an inconvenient reality for the kind of crowd that listens to anything John Bolton has to say.
[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
Mufasa wrote:
What we have to understand is that Ahmadinejad is closer to a glorified Press Secretary than anything else.
Thank you. It’s an inconvenient reality for the kind of crowd that listens to anything John Bolton has to say.[/quote]
A glorified press secretary for who?
So he’s a mouth piece for the Ayatollahs who feel the same way?
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
Mufasa wrote:
What we have to understand is that Ahmadinejad is closer to a glorified Press Secretary than anything else.
Thank you. It’s an inconvenient reality for the kind of crowd that listens to anything John Bolton has to say.
A glorified press secretary for who?
So he’s a mouth piece for the Ayatollahs who feel the same way?[/quote]
Precisely. If Bush’s press secretary was saying Iran will be “erased from the pages of history” and other such nonsense would he be ignored because he is only a press secretary or would people think that maybe, just maybe the president shared similar views?
I’m getting into territory that people on this site have a LOT more knowledge on; but there is a difference between public pronouncements and Saber rattling and actual edicts pronounced by the Ayatollahs.
Also, Ahmadinejad has sometimes overstepped his bounds with his public rhetoric.
I’m not suggesting that Israel does not listen to Ahnadinejad; but most likely they look much more closely at what “officially” comes from the Ayatollahs.
Mufasa
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
I’m getting into territory that people on this site have a LOT more knowledge on; but there is a difference between public pronouncements and Saber rattling and actual edicts pronounced by the Ayatollahs.
Also, Ahmadinejad has sometimes overstepped his bounds with his public rhetoric.
I’m not suggesting that Israel does not listen to Ahnadinejad; but most likely they look much more closely at what “officially” comes from the Ayatollahs.
Mufasa[/quote]
Right on all counts. There is a lot to it. Ahmedinejad is in some ways in line with the clerical consensus, in that he’s more conservative (if that’s the right word) than the cautiously reformist Iranian politicians of the late Nineties, but at the same time his appeal partly depends on populism, which ties into anti-corruption initiatives that hit too close to home for many in the hierarchy.
Anyway, all that aside, he is not nobody, but he does not run the country, not by a longshot. Ayatollah Khamenei, for one, is far more important, and has issued a fatwa against nuclear weapons. Am I actually naive enough to think Iran doesn’t want them? No. But the Supreme Leader condemned September 11, while his chief foreign policy adviser said the Holocaust was a genocide and would not attend Ammedinejad’s revisionist conference. Two things that weren’t too well reported in the Western press.
But go on, post about Ahmedinejad, the next Hitler, and Iranian desire for mass martyrdom. Don’t worry about the facts.
[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
Mufasa wrote:
I’m getting into territory that people on this site have a LOT more knowledge on; but there is a difference between public pronouncements and Saber rattling and actual edicts pronounced by the Ayatollahs.
Also, Ahmadinejad has sometimes overstepped his bounds with his public rhetoric.
I’m not suggesting that Israel does not listen to Ahnadinejad; but most likely they look much more closely at what “officially” comes from the Ayatollahs.
Mufasa
Right on all counts. There is a lot to it. Ahmedinejad is in some ways in line with the clerical consensus, in that he’s more conservative (if that’s the right word) than the cautiously reformist Iranian politicians of the late Nineties, but at the same time his appeal partly depends on populism, which ties into anti-corruption initiatives that hit too close to home for many in the hierarchy.
Anyway, all that aside, he is not nobody, but he does not run the country, not by a longshot. Ayatollah Khamenei, for one, is far more important, and has issued a fatwa against nuclear weapons. Am I actually naive enough to think Iran doesn’t want them? No. But the Supreme Leader condemned September 11, while his chief foreign policy adviser said the Holocaust was a genocide and would not attend Ammedinejad’s revisionist conference. Two things that weren’t too well reported in the Western press.
But go on, post about Ahmedinejad, the next Hitler, and Iranian desire for mass martyrdom. Don’t worry about the facts.[/quote]
There are no facts to argue with regard to this issue only, opinions based on observations. Everyone forms a different opinion based on limited knowledge.
He may not “run” the country, but as you noted, he is a senior member of the ruling junta. He is also the elected leader and the face of foriegn policy in Iran. As the elected leader if he chooses to mislead the world about his intentions with regards to Israel it should come as no suprise that the Israeli’s take his word at face value and will act accordingly.
If he was a rogue, he would be replaced by those with more power then he. More likely he is passionate about the choices Iran has made and convinced that they are doing the right thing.
With regards to Bolton it should be obvious that he no longer holds a postion in the administration and he is speaking for himself. His idea about the timing of an Israeli strike make sense. A new president will take time to get up to speed and certainly niether of these two will hit the ground running. A new presisdent can also blame the issue on Bush and deny involvment with the planning. Since Obama has an edge at this time and is weak on foriegn policy and military affairs it would make sense to make a move before he gets in. Weakness doesn’t deter an enemy. Strength does. Israel may roll the dice and not let his weakness stop them from knocking out Iranian capability.
[quote]hedo wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
Mufasa wrote:
I’m getting into territory that people on this site have a LOT more knowledge on; but there is a difference between public pronouncements and Saber rattling and actual edicts pronounced by the Ayatollahs.
Also, Ahmadinejad has sometimes overstepped his bounds with his public rhetoric.
I’m not suggesting that Israel does not listen to Ahnadinejad; but most likely they look much more closely at what “officially” comes from the Ayatollahs.
Mufasa
Right on all counts. There is a lot to it. Ahmedinejad is in some ways in line with the clerical consensus, in that he’s more conservative (if that’s the right word) than the cautiously reformist Iranian politicians of the late Nineties, but at the same time his appeal partly depends on populism, which ties into anti-corruption initiatives that hit too close to home for many in the hierarchy.
Anyway, all that aside, he is not nobody, but he does not run the country, not by a longshot. Ayatollah Khamenei, for one, is far more important, and has issued a fatwa against nuclear weapons. Am I actually naive enough to think Iran doesn’t want them? No. But the Supreme Leader condemned September 11, while his chief foreign policy adviser said the Holocaust was a genocide and would not attend Ammedinejad’s revisionist conference. Two things that weren’t too well reported in the Western press.
But go on, post about Ahmedinejad, the next Hitler, and Iranian desire for mass martyrdom. Don’t worry about the facts.
There are no facts to argue with regard to this issue only, opinions based on observations. Everyone forms a different opinion based on limited knowledge.
He may not “run” the country, but as you noted, he is a senior member of the ruling junta. He is also the elected leader and the face of foriegn policy in Iran. As the elected leader if he chooses to mislead the world about his intentions with regards to Israel it should come as no suprise that the Israeli’s take his word at face value and will act accordingly.
If he was a rogue, he would be replaced by those with more power then he.
[/quote]
It’s not really that simple. “The ruling junta” is the mullahs. He is in a totally different hierarchy, as an elected official, one that is subordinate to the religious authorities. And when he has gotten out of line, they have disavowed his statements (see Khamenei’s response to the “wipe Israel off the map” comment). He will not simply be removed, because Iran, like many authoritarian states, values the pretense of democracy. But to take anything he says at face value, or as constituting a serious threat to Israel or (you’ve got to be joking) the U.S. is stupid.
Leaving aside the Iran stuff for the moment, can you explain what makes Obama “weak”? I won’t be voting for him, but if you’re a fan of pointless wars and stupid foreign policy, you can still vote for him safely, if not as happily as if you were voting for McCain. He has numerous caveats to withdrawing from Iraq, he cheered on the Israeli attacks on Lebanon, and he called for attacking Al Qaeda on Pakistani soil without Pakistan’s permission (a statement too dumb for even McCain). Liberal internationalism and neoconservatism are not miles apart.
The weakness of Obama is this. Obama is friendly and wants to be everybodies friend in a world where not everybody is friendly.
Some of the people Obama would meet with are butchers. They are the kind of people you would meet in a penitentiary. People like that will not respect or respond well to a nice guy being friendly. Especially if he is bigger and much more powerful. What they will respect and respond well to is a big unfriendly intimidator.
I would not take Obama’s hawkish comments seriously. He has to take a certain tone in regards to Israel because the Jews are an important democrat voting bloc. His other comments are purely for political reasons to reassure those who might be worried he would be too weak.
Think about it. Obama doesn’t have the stomach to see things through in Iraq, yet he would have the stomach to start lobbing nukes into another country that has it’s own nukes to throw back. Given all of Obama’s other statements this is not credible.
UPDATE
Today, the Israelis stated that they want some type of action taken on Iran before Bush leaves office. In listening to the analyst, its seems that its not so much a case of them thinking Bush is more “hawkish”, but the uncertainty that a new administration would bring, at a period when they feel time is running out. (The validity of those statements certainly can be debated).
The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is now heading to Israel for talks. Israel has in no uncertain terms said that either the U.S. takes care of the “Iranian Problem”, or they will.
Things seem to be escalating.
Mufasa
“Joint Chiefs Chairman Admiral Mike Mullen leaves Tuesday night on an overseas trip that will take him to Israel, reports CBS News national security correspondent David Martin. The trip has been scheduled for some time, but U.S. officials say it comes just as the Israelis are mounting a full court press to get the Bush administration to strike Iran’s nuclear complex”.
CBS consultant Michael Oren says Israel doesn’t want to wait for a new administration.
“The Israelis have been assured by the Bush administration that the Bush administration will not allow Iran to nuclearize,” Oren said. “Israelis are uncertain about what would be the policies of the next administration vis-a-vis Iran.”
Israel’s message is simple: If you don’t, we will. Israel held a dress rehearsal for a strike earlier this month, but military analysts say Israel can not do it alone.
“Keep in mind that Israel does not have strategic bombers,” Oren said. “The Israeli Air Force is not the American Air Force. Israel can not eliminate Iran’s nuclear program.”
The U.S., with its stealth bombers and cruise missiles has a much greater capability. Vice President Cheney is said to favor a strike, but both Mullen and Defense Secretary Gates are opposed to an attack which could touch off a third war in the region.
U.S. intelligence estimates Iran won’t be able to build a weapon until sometime early in the next decade. But Israel is operating on a much shorter timetable.
“The Iranians, according to Israeli security sources, will have an operable nuclear weapon by 2009. That’s not a very long time,” Oren said.
“For now, the Bush administration is counting on new economic sanctions which took effect Tuesday to persuade Iran to give up its nuclear program. But nobody’s counting on it”.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
The weakness of Obama is this. Obama is friendly and wants to be everybodies friend in a world where not everybody is friendly.
Some of the people Obama would meet with are butchers. They are the kind of people you would meet in a penitentiary. People like that will not respect or respond well to a nice guy being friendly. Especially if he is bigger and much more powerful. What they will respect and respond well to is a big unfriendly intimidator.
I would not take Obama’s hawkish comments seriously. He has to take a certain tone in regards to Israel because the Jews are an important democrat voting bloc. His other comments are purely for political reasons to reassure those who might be worried he would be too weak.
Think about it. Obama doesn’t have the stomach to see things through in Iraq, yet he would have the stomach to start lobbing nukes into another country that has it’s own nukes to throw back. Given all of Obama’s other statements this is not credible. [/quote]
Huh? Negotiations do not equal “friendly.” I don’t know where this huge misperception came from, but everyone seems to take it for granted. Nixon negotiated with the North Vietnamese and with Mao, who had (literally) thousands of times the blood on his hands of the ayatollahs, Assad and Chavez put together. Reagan negotiated with the Soviets. Were they both “weak?” Eschewing negotiations is not a sign of strength, it’s a sign of stupidity.
Is obstinate “victory” talk on Iraq the be-all and end-all of “strength” these days? Even though the vast majority of the folks doing that kind of talking were MIA when we had a war forty years ago (Bush, Cheney, every older neocon you can think of - McCain is the honorable exception), while people like Chuck Hagel (face on fire in Vietnam), Max Cleland (lost what, three limbs?), Colin Powell (two tours I believe), Anthony Zinni (wounded in Vietnam), and Jim Webb (Navy Cross, knee torn up, etc.) had doubts about the invasion and the wisdom of staying? Funny how that works.
I’m not totally for pulling out of Iraq, and I do not like Obama at all, but I think the arguments advanced on both here are stupid.
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Israel’s message is simple: If you don’t, we will.
[/quote]
Let them do their own dirty work.
[quote]Regular Gonzalez wrote:
Mufasa wrote:
Israel’s message is simple: If you don’t, we will.
Let them do their own dirty work.
[/quote]
I hear ya.
Them and Europe.
[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
Sifu wrote:
The weakness of Obama is this. Obama is friendly and wants to be everybodies friend in a world where not everybody is friendly.
Some of the people Obama would meet with are butchers. They are the kind of people you would meet in a penitentiary. People like that will not respect or respond well to a nice guy being friendly. Especially if he is bigger and much more powerful. What they will respect and respond well to is a big unfriendly intimidator.
I would not take Obama’s hawkish comments seriously. He has to take a certain tone in regards to Israel because the Jews are an important democrat voting bloc. His other comments are purely for political reasons to reassure those who might be worried he would be too weak.
Think about it. Obama doesn’t have the stomach to see things through in Iraq, yet he would have the stomach to start lobbing nukes into another country that has it’s own nukes to throw back. Given all of Obama’s other statements this is not credible.
Huh? Negotiations do not equal “friendly.” I don’t know where this huge misperception came from, but everyone seems to take it for granted. Nixon negotiated with the North Vietnamese and with Mao, who had (literally) thousands of times the blood on his hands of the ayatollahs, Assad and Chavez put together. Reagan negotiated with the Soviets. Were they both “weak?” Eschewing negotiations is not a sign of strength, it’s a sign of stupidity. [/quote]
There is a difference negotiations like we had with the Iranians in Baghdad recently and presidential level meetings like Obama is willing to give away. Presidential level meetings convey an importance to whoever is being met with and can enhance their status.
Nixon had negotiators like Kissinger meet with the North Vietnamese because we were fighting a war with them, he did not go himself.
Nixon went to China in order to restore relations with a country the size of the US with four four times the population and a nuclear arsenal, because it was a strategic counterweight to the Soviet Union.
Reagan negotiated with and then met with the Soviets because they were almost a match for us militarily. But the meetings were only after he had ordered and engaged in a massive build up of America’s military power that put him in a position of obvious superiority that the Soviets had to take notice of. Reagan scared the hell out of everyone including the North Koreans and Ayatollah Khomenei.
The bad guys were overjoyed when Regan offered to talk to them, but it was only after he had been in the white house long enough to establish himself as the the scariest MoFo on planet Earth.
There is a right way and a wrong way to go about negotiating. When you are by far the stronger side, an unwillingness to talk is a negotiating position you can and should take. It is not stupidity to make the other guy acknowledge your superiority.
What is stupidity is being eager to talk when you obviously are much much stronger. It puts the ball in the other guys court where he can now be the one who refuses to talk until he gets something he wants.
[quote]
Is obstinate “victory” talk on Iraq the be-all and end-all of “strength” these days? Even though the vast majority of the folks doing that kind of talking were MIA when we had a war forty years ago (Bush, Cheney, every older neocon you can think of - McCain is the honorable exception), while people like Chuck Hagel (face on fire in Vietnam), Max Cleland (lost what, three limbs?), Colin Powell (two tours I believe), Anthony Zinni (wounded in Vietnam), and Jim Webb (Navy Cross, knee torn up, etc.) had doubts about the invasion and the wisdom of staying? Funny how that works.
I’m not totally for pulling out of Iraq, and I do not like Obama at all, but I think the arguments advanced on both here are stupid.[/quote]
Things are going our way in Iraq. Obama would sacrifice all that we have gained and snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, all for the sake of getting elected.
One important thing about getting out of Iraq that Obama never talks about is the cost in American lives of “pulling out”. As the numbers came down we would not be pulling out as much as we would have to fight our way out. We have over four thousand dead, imagine whatit would be like to be one of the last four thousand American soldiers retreating from an imploding Iraq.
[quote]Regular Gonzalez wrote:
Mufasa wrote:
Israel’s message is simple: If you don’t, we will.
Let them do their own dirty work.
[/quote]
If Israel does it America will still be targeted in the backlash. This argues for America to be the one to do it. Because America can do it in a way the Israelis and Europeans combined could not.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
Regular Gonzalez wrote:
Mufasa wrote:
Israel’s message is simple: If you don’t, we will.
Let them do their own dirty work.
If Israel does it America will still be targeted in the backlash.[/quote]
That’s because the US gives billions of dollars of “aid” to Israel.
Kind of like how if a country provided weapons to Al Qaeda wich were then used to attack the US on their own soil, that country would face a serious backlash.
“Total U.S. aid to Israel is approximately one-third of the American foreign-aid budget, even though Israel comprises just .001 percent of the world’s population and already has one of the world’s higher per capita incomes”.
[quote]Regular Gonzalez wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Regular Gonzalez wrote:
Mufasa wrote:
Israel’s message is simple: If you don’t, we will.
Let them do their own dirty work.
If Israel does it America will still be targeted in the backlash.
That’s because the US gives billions of dollars of “aid” to Israel.
Kind of like how if a country provided weapons to Al Qaeda wich were then used to attack the US on their own soil, that country would face a serious backlash.
“Total U.S. aid to Israel is approximately one-third of the American foreign-aid budget, even though Israel comprises just .001 percent of the world’s population and already has one of the world’s higher per capita incomes”.
[/quote]
That is an over-simplification of it. The Iranians have beef with the US irregardless of Israel. There are American armies in two countries that border Iran. The Iranians can use proxies like Sadr or they can release from house arrest all the Alqaeda people they have. It is just not that hard to get at the US now.
You know there’s a long history of people over estimating almost everything in regard to these middle eastern dictatorships. They talk trash like pros but when the wheel hits the road they have nothing to back it all up.
It’s quite possible Israel could wipe out a key part of their nuclear fuel cycle (setting them back years) and not lose a single aircraft and there might be no backlash at all.
Israel took out Syria’s nuclear reactor last year? and there was total silence. The Syrians didn’t say anything about it because it was embarrassing. And Syria and Israel are next door to each other.
And how would Iran retaliate? They have an ancient air force and no land connection to get to Israel except through Iraq … and us. The mullahs are crazy but I don’t think they’ll attack the US. They would risk everything to do so. They fought Sadam tooth and nail for a decade and by the end were reduced to throwing human waves at him. I doubt it passed their notice that we took him out in a week.
I think I’ve read they have some newer Russian air defense capabilities but Russia was supplying Sadam as well and they were pretty ineffectual against us and the Israelis have similar tech to ours of course.
I wouldn’t be surprised if Jordan and Kuwait and Egypt and the Emirates and the Saudis are ALL privately hoping Israel takes out the Iranian nuke program.
It could be one of those things with a huge buildup that ends in a whimper.
Iran is too embarrassed to acknowledge it and Israel says nothing publicly.
[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
hedo wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
Mufasa wrote:
I’m getting into territory that people on this site have a LOT more knowledge on; but there is a difference between public pronouncements and Saber rattling and actual edicts pronounced by the Ayatollahs.
Also, Ahmadinejad has sometimes overstepped his bounds with his public rhetoric.
I’m not suggesting that Israel does not listen to Ahnadinejad; but most likely they look much more closely at what “officially” comes from the Ayatollahs.
Mufasa
Right on all counts. There is a lot to it. Ahmedinejad is in some ways in line with the clerical consensus, in that he’s more conservative (if that’s the right word) than the cautiously reformist Iranian politicians of the late Nineties, but at the same time his appeal partly depends on populism, which ties into anti-corruption initiatives that hit too close to home for many in the hierarchy.
Anyway, all that aside, he is not nobody, but he does not run the country, not by a longshot. Ayatollah Khamenei, for one, is far more important, and has issued a fatwa against nuclear weapons. Am I actually naive enough to think Iran doesn’t want them? No. But the Supreme Leader condemned September 11, while his chief foreign policy adviser said the Holocaust was a genocide and would not attend Ammedinejad’s revisionist conference. Two things that weren’t too well reported in the Western press.
But go on, post about Ahmedinejad, the next Hitler, and Iranian desire for mass martyrdom. Don’t worry about the facts.
There are no facts to argue with regard to this issue only, opinions based on observations. Everyone forms a different opinion based on limited knowledge.
He may not “run” the country, but as you noted, he is a senior member of the ruling junta. He is also the elected leader and the face of foriegn policy in Iran. As the elected leader if he chooses to mislead the world about his intentions with regards to Israel it should come as no suprise that the Israeli’s take his word at face value and will act accordingly.
If he was a rogue, he would be replaced by those with more power then he.
It’s not really that simple. “The ruling junta” is the mullahs. He is in a totally different hierarchy, as an elected official, one that is subordinate to the religious authorities. And when he has gotten out of line, they have disavowed his statements (see Khamenei’s response to the “wipe Israel off the map” comment). He will not simply be removed, because Iran, like many authoritarian states, values the pretense of democracy. But to take anything he says at face value, or as constituting a serious threat to Israel or (you’ve got to be joking) the U.S. is stupid.
More likely he is passionate about the choices Iran has made and convinced that they are doing the right thing.
With regards to Bolton it should be obvious that he no longer holds a postion in the administration and he is speaking for himself. His idea about the timing of an Israeli strike make sense. A new president will take time to get up to speed and certainly niether of these two will hit the ground running. A new presisdent can also blame the issue on Bush and deny involvment with the planning. Since Obama has an edge at this time and is weak on foriegn policy and military affairs it would make sense to make a move before he gets in. Weakness doesn’t deter an enemy. Strength does. Israel may roll the dice and not let his weakness stop them from knocking out Iranian capability.
Leaving aside the Iran stuff for the moment, can you explain what makes Obama “weak”? I won’t be voting for him, but if you’re a fan of pointless wars and stupid foreign policy, you can still vote for him safely, if not as happily as if you were voting for McCain. He has numerous caveats to withdrawing from Iraq, he cheered on the Israeli attacks on Lebanon, and he called for attacking Al Qaeda on Pakistani soil without Pakistan’s permission (a statement too dumb for even McCain). Liberal internationalism and neoconservatism are not miles apart.[/quote]
“But to take anything he says at face value, or as constituting a serious threat to Israel or (you’ve got to be joking) the U.S. is stupid.”
GD when discussing world affairs with knowledgable folks calling their opinion “stupid” really doesn’t compensate for a weak argument. Your statement above is a well worn but tired one, often put forth by those who see inaction as always being better then proactive measures. Inaction is rarely the best course to take in any scenario.
Iran could launch ground to ship missles at the 5th. fleet.
Iran could, thru proxies, raise hell in the west bank
Iran could hit Saudi oil terminals.
Iran could set off a nuke via a shipping container in either the US or Israel.
Can they…yes. Will they…who knows.
All of those things could happen and much worse. When they have the ability to launch a nuke, on a ballistic missle, then the actions they could take expand quiet a bit.
I fail to see how interpeting the cloaked messages from a rogue regime, in the most favorable and hopeful light, demonstrates more intelligence then clear and precise communication, which is well documented, repetitive and reinforced by action.
Why is Obama weak? One needs to look no further then his actions. Despite overwhelming ecidence to the contrary he voted against the Iraq war. He didn’t rely on hindsight or good judegement. He is purely a pacifist. You can argue how the war was prosecuted all day long but the reasons for the war were clear. He voted against it because he would never use military action. It’s against his nature. Not a good quality for a commander in chief. That’s why our enemies overwhelmingly endorse him. They want a weak man in the office.
Negotiation is a technique not a strategy. Meeting with a rogue state without the threat of military action is pointless and has been demonstrated time and time again. To date Obama has proven himself to be naive in his foriegn policy statements and has had to correct himself. His statement about hitting Pakistan is a joke. I don’t think he would throw a water balloon at a picnic if he thought it might offend someone.
flyboy brings up an important point.
All of these Oil Wells with a Country on top (Dubai,UAE, Kuwait, etc.) have on more that one occasion alluded to the fact that Iran (like Saddam in the past), makes them “nervous”. Iran can really put a damper on things if they stir up an already volatile region.
While most of the Islamic World dislikes the Saudi Monarchy, they are pretty much shielded from armed aggression because of the existence of the Holy Sites of Mecca and Medina.
Mufasa