As to the title of the thread: yes it is. Also, it depends upon where and when. If attacked, or if it attacks.
If Iran directly attacks Israel, killing a large number of civilians, they might be soon wiped off the map.
If Israel starts a war of aggression against a tricky and unsympathetic regime, it could turn the opinion of history against Israel though. People
will say after the World War: Never again!
It seems this whole thing, as endless threads so far did, keeps on revolving around one single issue:
whether a war of aggression by Israel is justified.
Well it is clearly not. Read this:
War of Aggression
Plus the fact that it is illegal according to UN standards the US is participatory to.
It is against core Western values. It is like a policeman arresting you without probable cause. Merely because they don't like your face or your
political stance. I agree Ahmadinedjad is nasty as was Saddam. But are we judging this in a fair and impartial manner or simply taking sides?
Otherwise it will quickly degenerate into a tribal war without any moral principles. Two tribes are ready to fight it out: Iran and Israel. (Plus a
third one: Sunnis). Both have Theocratic leadership, one has more nukes and tech the other has more defensive capabilities on its own soil. And the
rest of the world is supposed to take sides in this insane Theocratic fight.
Haaretz had an article the other day on a poll conducted in today's Israel - well, close to 80% believed they are granted the land by God. (I actualy
doubt that the same percentage of Iranians would really believe in the 12th Imam, or that an aggressive war against a lot of advanced nations can be
won.) I cannot find the source but it was a few days back. Haaretz writers - liberal cosmopolitan Jews I sympathize with - were devastated. (It
confirms my suspicion that hundreds of thousands of liberal Jews had left Israel because they felt the military right is destroying the country.)
If independent intelligence proves that the Iranian leadership actually wants to smuggle nukes to Hezbollah then I would support strikes (after UN
measures) to take the threatening installations out. But that is yet to be proven.
What we have now is Israeli sources (close to the extremist government) saying every second day that they think Iran is ready to build the bomb etc.
Every second day. No matter if uranium enrichment is only 20% which is not useful for bombs. Well they are not exactly in a position to judge the
matter with any degree of objectivity. As much as I sympathize with Israel, that would be a steep claim. And so very-very Middle Eastern.
It is only thinly veiled that they simply want to attack another country in an act of aggressive warfare, not even bothering to manufacture an
incident to justify it. Return to Bushist doctrines.
Well to refresh history, that is partly what differentiated the US from the Japanese Empire. Otherwise it would have been simply one against teh other
We seem to have forgotten all that and sank into the amoral morass of a tribal us versus them mentality.
Who cares about niceties when Israel and Iran are about to fight it out and we are sided with Israel?
Well I do. And many others. From the moment Bush took on with his fascist rhetoric I refused to go back to the US. Because this stuff with preemptive
warfare is simply non-Western mentality, it is amodern, medieval. No wonder the guy was a religious nutcase who admitted to French press that he was
told by God to attack Iraq.
So how different is that from Khamenei? Well Khamenei is more upfront.
That is the only difference I see.
Bu I would love to see more difference. Because that is what made us the democratic West. That difference.
It would be a useless argument in a totalitarian country that police has to have probable cause and courts would have to have material evidence to
arrest or imprison people. It would be a mere nicety, armchair philosophy in the face of might makes right.
The same applies to international law. It did not matter to Hirohito that it was illegal to bomb the forces of another country without provocation. He
felt the Empire was stonger.
He was wrong.
We still have a choice to think like Hirohito or like Roosevelt. Or, if we already lost our difference, and we simply attack yet another country
without justification, like we did Iraq, I feel it is the start of the going down. And then I actually no longer care which side wins. (As if a
nuclear confrontation could be won at all...)
WW2 was won partly on the basis of morals, not only army superiority. As the war progressed, more and more people - civilians, partisans, resistance
etc. all over the world felt bad about the Nazis, the Italian and Japanese fascists. Even Stalin seemed better at the time. Notable Western military
and state leaders appealed to a sense of morals. Not only "might makes right" and sheer superiority of force