Israel Can't Afford to Bluff

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[quote]Regular Gonzalez wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Regular Gonzalez wrote:

Not to mention the fact that the CIA previously helped to overthrow a democratically elected prime minister in Iran.

The overthrow of Mossadegh gets bandied about a lot on this board, especially by the Grand Mufti of Stockholm. It is taken as an article of faith that since he was “democratically elected” his overthrow was wrong. What never gets mentioned is how and why he was “democratically elected”.

You a right that using the term “democratically elected” without explaining further is slightly misleading. My bad.

It’s not like the involvement of the CIA and the Brits in the overthrow was motivated by Mossadegh being a bad person though.
[/quote]

It was motivated by the cold war. Iran was extremely strategic. Iran could give the Soviet Union something they needed badly, a warm water port. It also could give the Soviets the ability to cut off oil coming from the Persian Gulf. In world war two the allies invaded Iran because they were getting friendly with the Nazis. So it is not like it was an unprecedented move.

82

[quote]Sifu wrote:
Regular Gonzalez wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Regular Gonzalez wrote:

Not to mention the fact that the CIA previously helped to overthrow a democratically elected prime minister in Iran.

The overthrow of Mossadegh gets bandied about a lot on this board, especially by the Grand Mufti of Stockholm. It is taken as an article of faith that since he was “democratically elected” his overthrow was wrong. What never gets mentioned is how and why he was “democratically elected”.

You a right that using the term “democratically elected” without explaining further is slightly misleading. My bad.

It’s not like the involvement of the CIA and the Brits in the overthrow was motivated by Mossadegh being a bad person though.

It was motivated by the cold war. Iran was extremely strategic. Iran could give the Soviet Union something they needed badly, a warm water port. It also could give the Soviets the ability to cut off oil coming from the Persian Gulf. In world war two the allies invaded Iran because they were getting friendly with the Nazis. So it is not like it was an unprecedented move.[/quote]

I was under the impression that the communist threat was just a smokescreen used to justify overthrowing Mossadegh, when the real issue was the nationalization of Irans oil.

83

[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
Sifu wrote:
etaco wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
…
Exactly. So tell me again why we are so worried about a third-rate, decaying Middle Eastern state? Didn’t we go through this song and dance five years ago?

…

Because they are trying to build nukes. We know that the Islamic world is full of suicidal maniacs that would be more than happy to set one off in NYC.

Why take chances with people that routinely march in parades demanding “Death to America”?

Fundamentally this position depends on the notion that the Iranian raison d’etre is to kill Americans/Israelis and that terrorism is the end rather than the means.

Instead a look at the history of this regime over the past couple decades shows behavior that, though quarrelsome, is instrumentally rational within a framework of fairly conventional goals, e.g. the enhancement of power and influence.

You have got to be kidding. How was seizing the American embassy a rational move that enhanced Irans power and influence. It did the exact opposite. It pissed off their most powerful ally and arms supplier at a time when the Soviet Union (who had invaded Iran before) had rolled into neighboring Afghanistan and Iraq was looking to expand into Iran.

I don’t know how old you are but I was old enough back then to be able to remember that America was pisssed off and ready to go to war. That is how Reagan got elected. People thought Reagan would go to war, so did the Iranians.

During Reagans inauguration the news had to cut away from the inauguration to show the hostages coming off of the plane in Germany. The Iranians came within minutes of going to war with the US.

The loss of US support cost the Iranians dearly during the Iran Iraq war. The Iranian military under the Shah was powerful enough to delay an invasion by the Soviets long enough for US reinforcements to arrive. The Shahs army could have steamrolled over Iraq. Instead they fought an eight year stalemate with their former ally helping their enemy.

So you’re equating taking (and eventually repatriating) hostages from the patron state of the ruler you just overthrew with knowingly choosing nuclear annihilation for yourself, everyone you know, and tens of millions of your countrymen? Those are roughly equivalent?

You also seem kind of ill-informed on Iran-Contra. [/quote]

No. You wrote, “the history of this regime over the past couple decades shows behavior that, though quarrelsome, is instrumentally rational within a framework of fairly conventional goals, e.g. the enhancement of power and influence.”

You are trying to paint the Iranians as perfectly rational people who make wise choices that always help them. You are also trying to sell the idea that the motivations of the Iranians are fairly conventional, or in other words they think just like us.

People like you amaze me. It is obvious that your are totally in denial of the harsh reality that there are people in other parts of this world who do not look, think and act exactly like you.

I have news for you that is going to burst your bubble. There really are people in this world who have motivations, values and priorities that are not exactly the same as yours.

Iran contra doesn’t disprove my point at all, if anything it proves it. The Iranians went from being able to walk in the front door of the department of defense and buy F14 Tomcats (Before the American navy got them) along with all the accessorys, spare parts and a factory service program with factory trained technicians. To having to do a backdoor deal for a couple hundred missiles and some F4 phantom spare tires from the Israelis. The Iranians went from being able to buy a thousand Chieftain Main Battle Tanks at a time to having to roll children in rugs across minefields to clear mines ahead of the irreplaceable tanks.

84

[quote]Regular Gonzalez wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Regular Gonzalez wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Regular Gonzalez wrote:

Not to mention the fact that the CIA previously helped to overthrow a democratically elected prime minister in Iran.

The overthrow of Mossadegh gets bandied about a lot on this board, especially by the Grand Mufti of Stockholm. It is taken as an article of faith that since he was “democratically elected” his overthrow was wrong. What never gets mentioned is how and why he was “democratically elected”.

You a right that using the term “democratically elected” without explaining further is slightly misleading. My bad.

It’s not like the involvement of the CIA and the Brits in the overthrow was motivated by Mossadegh being a bad person though.

It was motivated by the cold war. Iran was extremely strategic. Iran could give the Soviet Union something they needed badly, a warm water port. It also could give the Soviets the ability to cut off oil coming from the Persian Gulf. In world war two the allies invaded Iran because they were getting friendly with the Nazis. So it is not like it was an unprecedented move.

I was under the impression that the communist threat was just a smokescreen used to justify overthrowing Mossadegh, when the real issue was the nationalization of Irans oil.

[/quote]

The Soviet threat was a smokescreen!?!? Try telling the people of Eastern Europe that the Soviet threat wasn’t real.

85

[quote]Sifu wrote:
Regular Gonzalez wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Regular Gonzalez wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Regular Gonzalez wrote:

Not to mention the fact that the CIA previously helped to overthrow a democratically elected prime minister in Iran.

The overthrow of Mossadegh gets bandied about a lot on this board, especially by the Grand Mufti of Stockholm. It is taken as an article of faith that since he was “democratically elected” his overthrow was wrong. What never gets mentioned is how and why he was “democratically elected”.

You a right that using the term “democratically elected” without explaining further is slightly misleading. My bad.

It’s not like the involvement of the CIA and the Brits in the overthrow was motivated by Mossadegh being a bad person though.

It was motivated by the cold war. Iran was extremely strategic. Iran could give the Soviet Union something they needed badly, a warm water port. It also could give the Soviets the ability to cut off oil coming from the Persian Gulf. In world war two the allies invaded Iran because they were getting friendly with the Nazis. So it is not like it was an unprecedented move.

I was under the impression that the communist threat was just a smokescreen used to justify overthrowing Mossadegh, when the real issue was the nationalization of Irans oil.

The Soviet threat was a smokescreen!?!? Try telling the people of Eastern Europe that the Soviet threat wasn’t real.[/quote]

No,

The threat that Iran (and its oil reserves) would fall into communist control. This was the justification that the CIA used for the coup.

86

Eisenhower was a highly respected general. I think his assessment of the strategic implications was probably the right one.

It is real easy to sit here 55 years later and second guess. The cold war was a serious business. The Soviet Union was no joke. They starved over twenty million Ukranians to death. They were a ally of Hitler during the invasion of Poland through to the end of the Battle of Britain. After the war the Soviet army was supposed to pull out of Eastern Europe and allow free elections.

It’s not like the Soviets were playing nice and if we slipped up they would cut us some slack. It was a different world back then, it was 1953 not 2008. If you want to analyze and understand historical events you sometimes need to put your twenty first century values, morals, predjudices aside for a moment and try to imagine how people at the time saw them.

When Harry truman left office he had the lowest approval ratings ever. People had wanted him to start world war three and he refused. Today we all say thank god he didn’t start world war three.

What can seem obviously right or wrong at any given time can seem the exact opposite fifty years later.

87

[quote]Sifu wrote:
What can seem obviously right or wrong at any given time can seem the exact opposite fifty years later.[/quote]

Or, as Iraq shows, it can take a lot less time than that.

88

[quote]Sifu wrote:
Regular Gonzalez wrote:
Sifu wrote:
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”.

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.

Not to mention the fact that the CIA previously helped to overthrow a democratically elected prime minister in Iran.

This time you have given a gross over-simplification. You are doing good.

The overthrow of Mossadegh gets bandied about a lot on this board, especially by the Grand Mufti of Stockholm. It is taken as an article of faith that since he was “democratically elected” his overthrow was wrong. What never gets mentioned is how and why he was “democratically elected”.

Before Mossadegh was “democratically elected” Iran had another Prime Minister who was democratically elected, Sepahbod Haj Ali Razmara.

Razmara was assasinated by a member of the militant Islamic group Fadayan-e Islam. The Fedayan was controlled by the Ayatollah Kashani (Ayatollah Khomenei’s mentor).

Razmara’s successor, Mossadegh was the leader of the National Front, whose leading ally in Parliament was the assembly speaker, another National Front member, Ayatollah Kashani.

That is why I say the “democratically elected” arguement is an over simplification. It is easy to get “demcratically elected” when your supporters are assasinating everyone who stands in the way of your getting elected.

I will admit that I over-simplified the situation in order to make a point. Americas unwavering support for Israel is certainly one of the main reasons that the US is so hated throughout much of the Middle East.

[/quote]

Good post.

89

[quote]vroom wrote:
Sifu wrote:
What can seem obviously right or wrong at any given time can seem the exact opposite fifty years later.

Or, as Iraq shows, it can take a lot less time than that.[/quote]

In 50 years people are going to look back at Iraq and be thankful the US did what it did.

90

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
vroom wrote:
Sifu wrote:
What can seem obviously right or wrong at any given time can seem the exact opposite fifty years later.

Or, as Iraq shows, it can take a lot less time than that.

In 50 years people are going to look back at Iraq and be thankful the US did what it did.[/quote]

I hope you are right.

However, I also expect that people will look back and realize that invading Iraq was the wrong action – even though the results could eventually turn out well.

The alternative is that the Taliban resurge in Afghanistan and that Iran finds a way to use the situation to cause strife in the region for the next 100 years, oil prices rise to insane levels, and we have a global economic collapse.

Realistically, I don’t expect either your prediction or mine to come to fruition… but the jury is still out.

91

Just a word on Iran “handing over” a Nuclear Tipped shell to Hezboallah or Hamas, as proxy, to do their bidding against Israel.

These groups, and others like them, are often run covertly, fully imbedded with, and often receive direction and financing from Iranian (and other) operatives and advisors.

A “mini-nuke” or “dirty bomb” that “fell” into the hands of one of these groups would be in completely controlled by the sponsoring Nation.

Mufasa

92

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Just a word on Iran “handing over” a Nuclear Tipped shell to Hezboallah or Hamas, as proxy, to do their bidding against Israel.

These groups, and others like them, are often run covertly, fully imbedded with, and often receive direction and financing from Iranian (and other) operatives and advisors.

A “mini-nuke” or “dirty bomb” that “fell” into the hands of one of these groups would be in completely controlled by the sponsoring Nation.

Mufasa[/quote]

I really don’t think that’s the case. Hezbollah, and to an even greater extent Hamas, are their own entities. They were not created by Iran, and they would continue to exist (although Hezbollah would be far worse off) without Iran. Iranian weapons have transformed Hezbollah into a major player, but they still are ultimately Lebanese Shia, and are at heart a domestic political faction. Think about the VC and NVA in the Vietnam War, armed by Russia and China but, at the end of the day, independent.

93

The parallels make sense, GDollar…thanks!

A point I made earlier is that a lot of people are thinking Israel is being too “edgy” and jumping the gun because Iran can never reach the Nuclear capabilities of the U.S. and Israel.

They don’t have to.

One “primitive”, inefficient nuclear shell can cause a lot of damage and destruction…and for Israel, this is not fantasy but a scenario that is well within the realm of possibility.

Even now, Israel has been unable to completely stop the almost daily shelling by conventional projectiles that occurs. And yes…a nuclear device is a lot more difficult to deliver, but motivated people, bent on your destruction, can find a way.

Israel understands that.

Mufasa

94

I sincerely think Israel is more worried about the new balance of power a nuclear Iran will create than the possibility of Hamas getting its hands on Iranian nukes (the idea that Hezballah would ever jeopardize its gains by launching a nuclear strike on Israel is ludicrous).

It is odd that people do not realize that this same doom-and-gloom scenarios were dished out by the American and Israeli press when Pakistan (which refused to sign the NPT) was after the bomb. I distincly remember Hamas’ Sheikh Ahmed Yassin laud the Pakistani bomb as a victory. And the people of Pakistan are far more radicalized and Al-Qaeda-friendly than Iranians can ever be.

At the end of the day, we all know that the only thing Pakistan’s nuclear test changed is its relation vis-a-vis India. It might also have kept a US full-blown invasion at bay.

What we have here, is a case of a country that got away with three decades of successful defiance and the US foreign policy architects are pissed about it. Tehran’s inalienable right to pursue a civil nuclear program is challenged because it may, somewhere down the line, allow Iran to acquire nukes. In which case, it becomes a serious threat to American interests in the region. Israel is merely jumping on the bandwagon.

95

I still don’t see what we’re waiting for.

Oil is $140/barrel. Either continue to send trillions to evil regimes, or simply take the oil. Bomb the fuck out of Iran but save the oil fields. Those belong to British and American oil companies anyway.

Why let Iran have nukes? Then we’ll never get any oil.

If we don’t have the balls, give the Israelis the planes. They’ll happily bomb those shitheads.

96

[quote]GDollars37 wrote:

As for minimizing the threat…sometimes the best action is inaction. Strange but true. And as you seemed to be leaning toward saying, if the rest of the world, or at least China and Russia, will trade with Iran anyway, our options are limited.[/quote]

We can no longer be like Bill Clinton, do nothing, and hope that a terror strike is delayed until he’s out of office.

97

Lixy:

Just to clarify…

Is it your view that what Israel is doing is a lot of geopolitical posturing and maneuvering; and not responding to a real threat?

Also, how would lobbing a Nuke and/or dirty bomb into Israel weaken Hezboallah in the eyes of the Arab world?

(I certainly would agree that it would be a terrible move that would bring a measured and equally destructive response from Israel and the U.S.)

Mufasa

98

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Lixy:

Just to clarify…

Is it your view that what Israel is doing is a lot of geopolitical posturing and maneuvering; and not a response to a real threat? [/quote]

First of all, you cannot speak of “real threat” when Iran evidently has no nukes. You could argue that Tehran acquiring the bomb would make most Israelis uncomfortable, but that is more due to the fact that it’ll challenge the status quo (in which Israel gets away with pretty much anything) than some potential strike. If anyone is to feel “a real threat”, it is Iranians themselves.

Then, of course, you must understand that Israeli leaders are generally very pragmatic. If they felt Iran posed a serious threat, they would have attacked it already. They know that open war with a country such as Iran will have dire consequences and there is a possibility, however remote, of it jeopardizing Israel’s existence. Not to mention a serious domestic backlash on whatever Israeli government engaging in that madness. Israeli public opinion is a lot harder to deceive seeing how it is their asses that are on the line if a war was to break out. That is why israel is trying to get the US to attack. Luckily, for all parties involved, it has thus far failed.

Nobody believes Tehran will ever give up its right to enrich uranium. The US had its chance to pressure Iran and blew it when they turned down the negotiations offer five years ago. Way too much effort, money and bile went into setting up the infrastructure for Iran to now give it up. Tehran is not only unhindered by the threat of violence, but is very unlikely to give up even in the face of bombs raining on its cities.

[quote]Also, how would lobbing a Nuke and/or dirty bomb into Israel weaken Hezboallah in the eyes of the Arab world?

(I certainly would agree that it would be a terrible move that would bring a measured and equally destructive response from Israel and the U.S.) [/quote]

Hezballah isn’t after getting glorified “in the eyes of the Arab world”. It is a political entity trying to grab ever more power in Lebanon. Sure, they do so by demonizing Israel but the latter’s hands are far from clean. It caused massive pain and suffering in the region. In fact, without the Zionist entreprise, the Lebanese people would have never tolerated Hezballah - let alone raise it to the level of prominence it currently enjoys.

And just as a reminder, the majority of Iranians think nukes are un-Islamic.

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/apr08/Iran_Apr08_rpt.pdf

99

[quote]Sifu wrote:
Eisenhower was a highly respected general. I think his assessment of the strategic implications was probably the right one.

It is real easy to sit here 55 years later and second guess. The cold war was a serious business. The Soviet Union was no joke. They starved over twenty million Ukranians to death. They were a ally of Hitler during the invasion of Poland through to the end of the Battle of Britain. After the war the Soviet army was supposed to pull out of Eastern Europe and allow free elections.

It’s not like the Soviets were playing nice and if we slipped up they would cut us some slack. It was a different world back then, it was 1953 not 2008. If you want to analyze and understand historical events you sometimes need to put your twenty first century values, morals, predjudices aside for a moment and try to imagine how people at the time saw them.

When Harry truman left office he had the lowest approval ratings ever. People had wanted him to start world war three and he refused. Today we all say thank god he didn’t start world war three.

What can seem obviously right or wrong at any given time can seem the exact opposite fifty years later.[/quote]

I wasn’t passing judgment, I was simply responding to your assertion that the US would be blamed even if they had no direct involvement in an attack on Iran.

100

[quote]lixy wrote:
I sincerely think Israel is more worried about the new balance of power a nuclear Iran will create than the possibility of Hamas getting its hands on Iranian nukes (the idea that Hezballah would ever jeopardize its gains by launching a nuclear strike on Israel is ludicrous).

It is odd that people do not realize that this same doom-and-gloom scenarios were dished out by the American and Israeli press when Pakistan (which refused to sign the NPT) was after the bomb. I distincly remember Hamas’ Sheikh Ahmed Yassin laud the Pakistani bomb as a victory. And the people of Pakistan are far more radicalized and Al-Qaeda-friendly than Iranians can ever be.

At the end of the day, we all know that the only thing Pakistan’s nuclear test changed is its relation vis-a-vis India. It might also have kept a US full-blown invasion at bay. [/quote]

When was the US treatening to invade Pakistan? That is a rhetorical load of shit. You are such a cliche Lixy. There is no way American public opinion would have supported such an action, without a reason.

For crying out loud the US sold Pakistan F16’s before they tested their nukes. The US doesn’t sell F16’s to countries it is about to invade.

Countries that are about to get invaded by the US don’t hand over billions of dollars to the US for weapons purcases either. The only countries that have threatened to invade Pakistan were the Soviet Union and India.

The Pakistani’s did their nuclear tests in response to the Indians. Everyone knew they both had nukes for years before the ninties tests. The Indians did their first test in 72.

The reason why the Indians did their next test in the ninties was domestic politics. People in India were excited by it. The Pakistani’s did their tests to put a check on Indian hubris and they did. Because the Indians got real sober, real fast.

[quote]
What we have here, is a case of a country that got away with three decades of successful defiance and the US foreign policy architects are pissed about it.

Tehran’s inalienable right to pursue a civil nuclear program is challenged because it may, somewhere down the line, allow Iran to acquire nukes. In which case, it becomes a serious threat to American interests in the region. Israel is merely jumping on the bandwagon.[/quote]

No. What we have here is a country (Iran) has been able to radically increase the price of it main export (oil) by creating a great deal of uncertainty about what will happen to the worlds oil supply. Everytime now that this pot gets stirred by Iran or the Israelis oil takes a big jump and Iran cashes in.