Posted on 03/15/2006 12:03:31 PM PST by anotherview
Iran’s Ahmadinejad: West opposes our nukes to let Israel live on
Wed. 15 Mar 2006
Iran Focus
Tehran, Iran, Mar. 15 – Iran’s radical President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Wednesday that the circumstances were ripe for the “collapse of the Zionist regime” and that the West was highlighting the Islamic Republic’s nuclear program in the world arena in order to “divert attention away from the issue of Palestine”.
“The regime occupying Qods (Jerusalem) was set up to create insecurity and confrontation in our region. If one day tranquillity came about, it would mean the death of this regime”, Ahmadinejad said in the northern town of Ramyan during a speech broadcast live on state television.
“Our enemies on the one hand oppose our nation’s acquisition of nuclear energy and on the other hand want to divert the attention of other nations from the key issue of Palestine to give an opportunity to the Zionist regime to prolong its existence”, he said.
“One of the main reasons why the big powers oppose Iran on the nuclear issue is for the sake of the Zionist regime, so as to let this regime live on. But they are unaware that not only will the Iranian nation continue in the path of obtaining nuclear energy till the end, it will not even for one instant divert its attention from the issue of Palestine”.
“The regime occupying Qods [Israel] is the key to [Western] countries’ domination in Muslim lands, and with every blow at this occupying regime, it’s the pillars of the Global Arrogance (the West) that are targeted”.
Wow, never heard about that one.
It is, but this isn't a novel where all the threads are clear and the final chapter written.
Well, this is where we part ways.
I think the Europeans are bluffing. At the end of the day, they so fatally tied themselves to the UN in the Iraq War episode, that no European government dares to do anything without the UN. The European people bought the whole "UN uber alles" arguments that their governments or opposition parties were spewing, and they believe it. Their governments cannot go to war without the UN.
And China will veto anything done against Iran.
So, the UN will NEVER authorize the use of force.
And that means that Europe will not move.
The US is battle fatigued. The left will oppose anything.
And even the right is divided. The lesson I draw from the War On Terror is that American must NEVER go to war again without respecting the Constitution and getting a full, formal declaration of war. Period. No declaration of war, no war, because we can't WIN undeclared wars. They turn into guerillas, and we wear out, because we can't commit the murder we need to in order to win.
I don't see the people of the US supporting a war against Iran. The well's too poisoned now.
The ayatollah's are crazy, but so's Kim Jong Mentally-Ill, and we let him get the bomb because he was willing to accept war in order to get it, but we weren't willing to go to war to stop it.
It's the same thing with Iran.
Unfortunately.
It didn't need to be this way.
I'd love to go back and resurrect all of my arguments back in September, 2001. I was at World Trade, and survived that day; got home covered with white soot. And I was screaming them "We must DECLARE WAR!" You have GOT to get the declaration, because then the President has unlimited power, opposing the war is sedition, censorship prevents the bad stories from damaging morale, and nobody gives a crap (or knows) about Abu Graibs or bombing cities flat. Civilian casualties are a given, and the information cycle is not competitive: opposing a declared war effectively is a criminal offense. You can also move much more swiftly. The President had to ask to go into Afghanistan. He had to ask to go into Iraq. He will have to ask to go into Iran. He has to keep on asking for more money. Declare war, and the President simply issues orders, open fronts as necessary. Also, in September, 2001, NATO was ready to invoke Article 16 and come in with the US. The alliance was solid then, and once Article 16 was invoked, there was no going back, and no careful explanation needed.
But we DIDN'T.
And now we're in the position where we have to try and build political will to attack Iran. Not without a declaration of war. We have made that error over and over again. Not again.
I don't think Iran will attack once it gets nuclear weapons.
Arab Sunnis are suicide bombers.
When was the last time anyone heard of a Persian Shi'ite suicide bomber? Arab Sunnis are 10% of the population of Iraq, and fighting a guerilla, even provoking a civil war. Shi'ite Arabs are 75% of the country, and they didn't fight the Sunnis or keep fighting a civil war when Saddam came after them.
I think the Shi'ites, and particularly the Persians, are rational. They have a medieval religion, but they are not suicidal, not like Sunni Arabs are.
I think that the Iranians want the bomb to make a sanctuary out of Iran. From behind that sanctuary, they will continue to support terrorism, and continue to try and build their neo-Persian empire (and I think that Shi'ite Iran, provoked to civil war by the Sunnis, will be quite close to Iran too, giving them a buffer, and frustrating our intentions for the Iraqi future). But I don't think they'll attack Israel with nuclear weapons, nor release any of their nukes to terrorists to attack us or Israel. That would be suicide, and Persians and Shi'ites are not suicidal.
I think the Iranian President is focusing on Israel to rouse the rabble and keep the country focused externally, to avoid the internal threat of unrest. It's probably going to be successful, because the hatred of Israel among committed Muslims is real and sincere. But Iran won't do anything to Israel that will involve the death or Iran itself.
I hope.
I don't think Hitler ever said "I will exterminate all the Jews!".
And he definitely didn't say it in public, in 1933.
"Regardless of whether Israel acts or not.
Israel is too far away and doesn't have the capacity to block Iran from getting the bomb. Only America does, and America does not have the political will to do it.
Bush goes to Congress and asks for a use of force resolution. Democrats filibuster in the Senate. No use of force."
Well, I think the question of whether Israel can block Iran from getting the bomb may be problematical. On the one hand, getting the bomb is a complex process. On the other hand, Iran has dispersed their capabilities and has a certain amount of redundancies.
Israeli capabilities are also hard to assess.
In addition, one can look at two different possible outcomes: delaying the bomb and completely blocking the bomb. I have a feeling that Israel can probably delay the bomb if they make an all-out effort to do so, but maybe not ultimately block it. I am not sure that they will delay it, however. They may decide it is better to wait and see what happens. They have a good anti-missile system and massive retaliatory capabilities.
Of course, I'm not saying that doing nothing is a good option for Israel. It is just that if they take action, they might end up finding themselves even more politically isolated than they are now.
For example, I think there's a good chance Hillary will be the next President and I believe that if she gets into office, she will drop the façade of support for Israel. An Israeli attack on Iran could be used by Hillary as a pretext for severely weakening American support of Israel.
So it is not completely obvious that an attack on Iran will enhance Israeli security. Maybe it will, maybe it won't. It seems far from a sure thing that the government of Iran, as a functional body, wants suicide for the Iranian nation---whatever the beliefs of the president of Iran might be. Because launching a nuclear tipped missile at Israel that got through and hit a city would be national suicide. Israel reportedly has more than 500 nuclear weapons.
It may be a better strategy for Israel to wait---I'm not sure.
As far as the United States, I disagree with you on the process but agree on the outcome. I think that if Bush decided to act he would be able to do it. However, I doubt that he will decide to act.
Action would create many immediate political problems. Inaction would probably create worse problems---but they will likely occur further down the line, specifically, in someone else's administration. I think Bush is played out to an extent in terms of creating new initiatives in the war on terror. He may decide to act, but I think the odds are against it.
If he does decide to act, however, I do not believe the Democrats will form a decisive action to stop him. Rather, I believe the support will be weaker and end up being "symbolic opposition". The Democrats, of course, keep up a steady drumbeat of criticism of Bush's actions. But so far, it has been no "put up", all "shut up". The Iraqi war opposition, the renewal of the the Patriot Act, and this latest, the idea of censoring Bush because of the wire taps. All show and no dough.
" But the return trip home would also have to overfly enemies."
They can get there through Jordan and Iraq. Iraqi airspace is currently controlled by Americans and an arrangement would be possible there. Jordan would be a possibility too, in my opinion.
I guess all we can say at this point is "We'll see."
Finally someone said it.
An Israeli attack on Iran can't happen without the US making Iraqi airspace available.
Allowing such usage would be a very loud declaration that the US is on Israels side.
Since we're trying very hard to pretend that peace is possible between Israel and their muslim neighbors
we'll not take sides and we'll not give Israel that permission.
We need to take out Iran ourselves, but I don't see us having the will to do so anymore.
Standard Disclaimer: If I really knew I'd not be talking.
There's a wrinkle.
Iraq is a sovereign nation. An Israeli airstrike can't happen without IRAQ authorizing overflight, or the US overriding the government whose sovereignty we're supposed to be protecting in order to favor the Jews flying over a Shi'ite country to hit the Shi'ite homeland.
There's a whole lot of bad in that.
Sure, the US could force Iraq to accept the overflight, but at that INSTANT, the mood of the allied Iraqis would shift to resentment, and the Shi'ites themselves would be seeking a much quicker American exit than they currently are. Once the government of Iraq asks the US to leave, we have to go, or our entire justification for being there falls utterly to ashes, we become a naked colonial power, and we face an insurgency that involves everybody.
We can't let the Israelis overfly Iraq without Iraqi permission, which they will not give. We can't override Iraq without losing them as an ally and rendering our entire war there for nought. At the end of the day, American forces and the American project's success in Iraq is more important than Israel. Because Iraq is US. Israel is a foreign country. We are more important than them, to us (or better be).
Didn't see a single thing in your post with which to disagree.
Somebody should clue in Ahmadinejad, the bearded river rat, that Israel is not screaming about nuking other nations of the map, although there is one terrorist régime in Tehran which should be and soon.
That's the point! He DIDN'T say it! But this Persian Pig IS saying it! And no one, it seems, is paying any real attention to just exactly what he is saying............
"We need to take out Iran ourselves, but I don't see us having the will to do so anymore."
I wish I could disagree with you. I'm afraid there is some truth in your statement.
Right, he is saying it and he probably means it.
Therefore, the responsibility should be upon the Jewish state to rid themselves of this threat.
It shouldn't be incumbent upon us to spill our blood and treasure in defense of them, while they sit there risking nothing.
Read this quote from the Jerusalem Post, uttered by a senior Israeli defense official, who said the US wasn't doing enough to stop Iran: "America needs to get its act together. Until now, the U.S. administration has just been talking tough. But the time has come for the Americans to begin to take tough action."
That is beyond gall, for them to say that.
I would drop a dirty bomb at their facilities - even if we didn't destroy all their equipment, we would render the area unusable.
Regards, Ivan
Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.