Thousands of Iranians march demanding Israel destruction in support of their president.

Originally posted by Denied
Will israel bomb the reactor?

That's why it was such a stupid statement to make at this time. Either that or a calculated risk.
It gives a green light to any Israeli operation or at the very least an excuse for others to turn a blind eye.

If I say that I'm gonna beat the crap out of you and then go get myself a stick, isn't everyone else going to say, "Well, the dude was only defending himself" when you come and take the stick away from me?

It's just plain, pisspoor politics unless it was calculated to gain the West's reaction for a specific reason.
Possibly the statement was made in response to recent events in Iraq and to stir up some sort of national unity but either way, the Iranian Guardian Council must know that this was going to cause trouble.

It is entirely possible that they are taking the North Korea line and starting from a hard negotiating stance to get what they want either in Iraq or over their nuclear programme. Focus on Israel, bring it into a frenzy of awareness and you can use that as a bargaining chip.
Belligerence worked for NK (or has up until now). Start at an uncompromising, seemingly extremist viewpoint, with a couple of issues on the table and you might be able to get away from the table with something.

One scenario is that the Guardian Council could be setting their president up for a fall. Show him to be rabidly anti-Israel and then stamp on him. They can then claim that they didn't agree with his politics and that they don't quite see things with his eyes.

"We've proven we're not anti-Israel by getting rid of the guy who was causing all the trouble. Can we now have our reactor please?"

It is a possibility. Especially when you actually look at the power that they have already taken away from this president and given to the guy he actually defeated in the elections!!!



[edit on 28-10-2005 by Leveller]

I think what has most people upset about this is the whole nuclear weapons tie-in.

I think that everyone agrees that nuclear weapons are bad, and that the world would probably be a better place without them. However, the genie is out of the bottle, and you cannot "un-ring" a bell, so we have to deal with them.

Its a simple fact of life that as the 2nd and 3rd world nations evolve socially, educationally, politically, economically and militarily, the possibility that these nations will acquire nuclear weapons increases. Lets face it, nuke technology is simple physics with the right materials of the right quality. Its not a mystery. Nations will gain the ability to manufacture nukes as they grow. It is in everyone's best interest to try to dissuade these nations from taking those first steps. Some nations will want to develop nukes because they feel threatened, some will do it becuase of nationalism or prestige. It is the job of the advanced nations to assuage these feelings through diplomacy and negotiations.

It is also the responsibility of the advanced nations who possess nukes to demonstrate to the rest of the world that they desire to eventually rid themselves (and the world) of their nukes, but more importantly, that they can be trusted to develop and control these weapons responsibly, and that their government control system is stable and secure. You must give the appearance of responsibility and control, even if you do not really have it. Because if you don't, and the rest of the world begins to think of you as unstable or dangerous, they will begin to withdraw from you, and see you as a threat. So, those nations who openly possess nukes dance a certain dance, and recite certain pretty words, even if they do not believe them at all. They do this for the sake of their world neighbors, and to maintain the calm. The Indians and the Pakistanis may be blood enemies, but when they come face-to-face, they smile and shake hands, and speak soothing words. They do this because they know what is at stake, and that their is no room for misinterpretation or offense.

This is exactly why the Iranians (in their current incarnation) cannot be allowed to develop nukes. Because despite their real intentions or motivations, they will never be viewed as a stablizing force. During the Cold War, nukes of both sides stablized our conflict with the Soviets, and our skirmishes were small, or by proxy.

Nuclear weapons in Iran would be a hugely de-stabilizing fact in the Middle East, and given the track record of the current (post-1979) Iraninan leadership, and their implaccable radical Islamic views, even the most serene and gentle of nations will have much reason for panic and alarm. If the current President/government of Iran continues with these types of statements, policies, and social events (all aimed at the destruction of Israel), then I am very afraid they they will force the hand of somebody.....and I am willing to bet it will not be the US government that takes the first step.

Personally, it is my sincere hope that the Iranian President is engaging in nationalistic hate-baiting and acting like a demagogue simply because the Iranians can't or are not willing to develop nukes as of yet, and that he is doing this out of a position of perceived weakness.

My comment on the thread subject is: This isn't unexpected, is it? When you consider that millions of Americans support Iraq's destruction in support of their president. If there was ever an extremist government, we're living in it. Most people just don't realize it yet.

I'm sure the Iranian president is a dangerous idiot. So is ours.

Originally posted by Leveller
But what does annoy me is why the Iranian people voted this plank in. OK, election choices weren't up to much, but as you said, this guy has no brains. ...
I've heard that even the boys upstairs are getting a bit twitchy
...
but if this guy keeps spouting off, he's going to attract some unwelcome attention
...
Not unless they have some plan to use him as a pawn. But they'll have to be quick - this dude is going to attract every radical in the country around him
....
aren't careful they could end up having a loose cannon rumbling around as he attracts more support.

My main comment, though, is that I was amazed and amused at how much of Leveller's response could be appropriately leveled at the US and it's current leader...

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
My comment on the thread subject is: This isn't unexpected, is it? When you consider that millions of Americans support Iraq's destruction in support of their president. If there was ever an extremist government, we're living in it. Most people just don't realize it yet.

there is a difference between destruction and liberation....i dont see Americans outside burning Iraqi flags and say down down Iraq? do u?

Why is it that in every thread in this forum someone has to drag George Bush and Iraq into the context of the discussion, especially when it has no bearing on the point at hand?

Yes, we all know Bush is a blithering idiot who loves his cronies, and is stubborn beyond all hope, and who believes he is doing right when he is probably making huges mistakes......not unlike the Iranian President.

But please, folks. This is about:

1. Iran
2. Israel
3. How the rest of the world will react

Please keep the Bush-bashing to a minimum. He is an easy mark and it does nothing to add to the discussion.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
When you consider that millions of Americans support Iraq's destruction in support of their president.

HUH?

Me, being an EXPERT American natural born citizen and resident of 35 years, have never met one person here who has expressed any desire or interest in the destruction of Iraq. Americans either are for the liberation of Iraq or against any activity in Iraq at all. And if you spent a moment reading news on which you report, under 60% of Americans support its current leader.

Your statements are un-founded, represent zero fact, and are based on nothing but your agenda driven opinion.

This is so interesting...

If thousands of Americans held a public rally with posters of the Iranian President and other local dignitaries and starting shouting Death to Iran and what not, the Anti-American crowd would be spouting off about how horrible it is and how America is a bunch of psycho murderers and all that.

Furthermore, look at the reaction to a private citizen calling for the assassination of a world leader. Remember, Chavez/Robertson? Right... Oh the rage of the Anti-American crowd. Oh the simulated rage.

But when the leader of Iran calls for the destruction of another nation, we have certain posters here claiming they're not so bad because "oh it's just talk". Fabulous.

At least certain people establish their own credibility, or lack thereof, by showing their true colors when things like this happen. No one else need assist them with it.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
My main comment, though, is that I was amazed and amused at how much of Leveller's response could be appropriately leveled at the US and it's current leader...

Heh!!! True, but ol' Dubya isn't exactly gaining support is he?

But I disagree with the statement that the Iranians see the situation in Iraq as a wholly bad thing. Most of the insurgency there is Sunni related and not Shia (Iran is a Shia state). If anything, Iran has a decent opportunity of influencing Iraqi policy whilst the situation is in turmoil.
And the longer the trouble there goes on, the better it is for Iran. Having a democratic nation as a neighbour could turn it's own people to look inwards and that would be pretty risky. It needs a sympathetic Shia government in power that is not too dissimilar to it's own.

We see this situation being enacted by Iran's involvement and support for hardline Shia militias in the South of Iraq. Although attacks against British forces there are pretty infrequent (however much the media blows them up out of proportion), they do serve to create an instabilty in the area which Iran can use to it's favour. Democracy and infrastructure can't be built in an area where tensions overspill.

Iran had no love of Saddam or his regime - the Iran-Iraq war put paid to any relationship between the two countries. If anything, the Iranian regime was secretly pleased that the Baathists were removed and Iran will not want the Sunni insurgency to succeed. What it needs is for the confusion to go on long enough so that it can gain influence with those Shias who are fighting against the Sunnis and who are also opposed to the coalition's presence.

What the Iranian president's outburst against Israel does do is take the spotlight off recent British claims that Iran is supplying Iraqi militant Shias with weapons. And at the time that Syria is coming under immense pressure for doing the same thing on the other border, this could give Tehran some much needed breathing space to work on thier policies regarding Iraq.

I would have to admit that I would be pretty suprised if the Iranian leadership were unaware that their president was going to attack Israel in his speech. Interstingly, they do seem to be giving the impression of distancing themselves from it.

"The Iranian embassy in Moscow, however, sought to soften the effect of the comments by Ahmadinejad, an outspoken former Tehran mayor with little diplomatic experience, propelled to power last year by strong support among the devout poor.

"Mr Ahmadinejad did not have any intention to speak up in such sharp terms and enter into a conflict," the embassy said in a statement, a first official reaction to the West's outrage.
"It's absolutely clear that, in his remarks, Mr Ahmadinejad, president of the Islamic Republic of Iran, underlined the key position of Iran, based on the necessity to hold free elections on the occupied territories."
Moscow is home to one of Iran's key embassies, and the Islamic Republic has used it in the past to comment on broad foreign policy matters."

Link

So it is possible either that Ahmadinejad was let loose to turn attention elsewhere. Or equally possible that he is not under the Guardian Council's control and just blurts out the first thing that comes into his head. In which case, Iran itself has problems. Both with dealing with him internally and trying to sort out their image abroad.




[edit on 28-10-2005 by Leveller]

[edit on 30/10/05 by JAK]

Originally posted by Leveller

Anti-semetic, anti-zionist, anti-Israeli. What's the difference? Don't turn this thread into trash just because of the semantics of a word.

To me they are all entirely different things.

I have never met one person here who has expressed any desire or interest in the destruction of Iraq.

Check out ATS post history then

Someone openly told SyrianSister that her "dirtball of a country" was going to be bombed to bits and they would take great joy in it. Even yourself Skippy have expressed interest in bombing the Middle East. But the difference here is that your not a World Leader and no one really cares (that isn't meant to sound like a dig at you )

We are only focusing on this news about the march cause their leader backs it. For example, sorry to use you Skippy , was to march with his friends and others to call for destruction of Iran, some people would be "oh dear" naughty,naughty, but really, it wouldn't get much news as this. Why you may ask? Cause Skippy isn't the leader of America and doesn't have a nuclear arsenal in the making (well, i hope you don't)

Originally posted by G_o_l_d_y
The only interesting thing is will Israel or USA dare to bomb their reactor and if yes/ will Iran go to war allied with some friends like Siria.

Israel will no doubt bomb their reactor. They did it to Iraq in the early 80's and they will do it to Iran, especially since Israel has already threatened to do something about their reactor.

I for one find this very troubling because I know that there are a lot of Iranians that do not support his remarks. I also really do not like Israel and think that the US should break all dealings off with them.

Originally posted by infinite
Even yourself Skippy have expressed interest in bombing the Middle East.

Number one: There will always be people (nut jobs) who would say they were for the destruction of one nation or group. But Ben said millions of Americans. That’s two entirely different things.

Number two: Find me one post of mine where I condone and recommend the destruction of any nation, let alone a Middle Eastern nation.

Don’t confuse talking about conflict, or talking about action against a nation as the wish to destroy a nation. Confusing those is your own shortcoming.

I must admit I am disappointed that I need to make those distinctions; I have seriously overestimated some of you. And I don’t mean that as an insult..

Originally posted by skippytjc
Number two: Find me one post of mine where I condone and recommend the destruction of any nation, let alone a Middle Eastern nation

Did i say destruction? no, i said you expressed interest, there is a difference.

Originally posted by Leveller
That's why it was such a stupid statement to make at this time. Either that or a calculated risk.
It gives a green light to any Israeli operation or at the very least an excuse for others to turn a blind eye.

Agreed, very poor or very stupid.

This 'type' of rhetoric spewing from Iran has existed for quite some time. However; Iran has previously/historically chosen their method of reinforcing ideals by gray innuendo and power projection via proxy organizations these variables are changing as are the dynamics.

Given the Iran’s known track record concerning hostilities toward the West and Israel, introducing the possible continued proliferation of nuclear weapons, Iran’s record of a two decades long clandestine nuclear development program, non-compliance concerning the IAEA, a bargaining posture which is ‘not really’ open for negotiations, the various possible activities in Iraq, these statements and diplays of support. Iran is eroding trust much faster than she can gain trust on these issues.

Whether for internal consumption or not, dismissing these recent mentioned statements as just ‘rhetoric’ is dangerous, shortsighted and for some plain hypocritical.

Supporting and calling for the eradication of a people and a nation further moves the line of suspect and aligns once merely skeptical nations fully against Iran’s policies; reinforced by less than poor politics and a complete lack of diplomatic abilities.

Iran is moving herself rapidly from the spotlight to under the microscope.

Originally posted by Leveller
It is a possibility. Especially when you actually look at the power that they have already taken away from this president and given to the guy he actually defeated in the elections!!!

Good point, the ‘supreme leaders’ within Iraq are pulling the strings and the power trail leads back to the source, ‘doling out’ power is ‘their’ power to give.

Originally posted by Pyros
Its a simple fact of life that as the 2nd and 3rd world nations evolve socially, educationally, politically, economically and militarily, the possibility that these nations will acquire nuclear weapons increases. Lets face it, nuke technology is simple physics with the right materials of the right quality. Its not a mystery. Nations will gain the ability to manufacture nukes as they grow.

Yes and this topic will begin to surface again:

Are we serious in our efforts to prevent (Iranian) nuclear proliferation, or will we watch the world descend into a maelstrom where weapons-grade nuclear material is plentiful, and unimaginable destructive capability is available to any country or group with a grudge against society?-- Brent Scowcroft, June 2004 (Link)

.

Originally posted by infinite

Did i say destruction? no, i said you expressed interest, there is a difference.

Your EXACT words were "Even yourself Skippy have expressed interest in bombing the Middle East"

Ok then, play with words if you want, but now its time to back your statement up. Regardless of your wording, your intent was to imply that I have stated I want the destruction of middle eastern nations. Its the whole context of your reply and the entire thread.

Where have I "expressed interest" in "bombing the middle east" in the hopes of destroying a nation or people? Please, provide quotes.

[edit on 28-10-2005 by skippytjc]

Doesnt make sense does it........sorry for a one liner but my point has been expressed.

Originally posted by skippytjc
Your EXACT words were "Even yourself Skippy have expressed interest in bombing the Middle East"

Ok then, play with words if you want, but now its time to back your statement up. Regardless of your wording, your intent is, and context, was to imply that I have stated I want the destruction of middle eastern nations.

Where have I "expressed interest" in "bombing the middle east" in the hopes of destroying a nation or people? Please, provide quotes.

Again, i never used the WORDS destroying in reference to YOU. Yes other members have said, but YOU have not. Again you are twisting my words, which were in sense STICKING UP for you. Jesus christ man, you have completely twisted what i said into me taking a dig at you when i CLEARY stated it wasn't. Have you failed to read that part? I have no time to play silly games with you and im not going through ATS post historys just to prove if i was right or wrong, but you have CLEARY taken my words out of context.

So i made a statement ""Even yourself Skippy have expressed interest in bombing the Middle East"" and then defend your comments but saying no one would care cause your not a world leader. Why in the HELL have you decided i was taking a dig at you? I even said sorry for using you as an example. If i have offended you or made you look like a pro military person then i am sorry for words if they offended you.

But as i said in the post, it wasn't a dig at you.


[edit on 28-10-2005 by infinite]

Originally posted by Pyros
Why is it that in every thread in this forum someone has to drag George Bush and Iraq into the context of the discussion, especially when it has no bearing on the point at hand?

I understand and appreciate your question. The WHY, for me at least, is that the government of the US is involved (in some way) in almost every conflict in the Middle East today. I think it DOES have bearing on the point at hand.

The US is gathering reasons to go into Iran.
From the article:

"There has been a long time in which I've been answering questions on Iran with everyone saying to me 'tell us you're not going to do anything about Iran,'" he said.

"If they carry on like this, the question people are going to be asking us is, 'When are you going to do something about this,' because you imagine a state like that with an attitude like that having a nuclear weapon."

Originally posted by Pyros
Please keep the Bush-bashing to a minimum. He is an easy mark and it does nothing to add to the discussion.

Believe it or not, my main intention wasn't to bash Bush, after all, I can walk and chew gum at the same time, too. My intention is to compare 2 situations happening in the world that many people see as entirely different. My intention is to suggest that many of us Americans, in our somewhat unexposed positions, judge one situation as entirely unacceptable, while being fairly comfortable living within a situation is is really, highly comparable.

My question was "Is this unexpected"? Considering the disposition of the world today, the nations going against other nations and the people of those nations supporting their leaders in the hatred and destruction of other nations... AND considering the US's threats to Iran and the US's relationship to Israel, this is not at all unexpected, to me at least.

Perhaps I should have added more verbiage to clarify my point, but I thought it was clear.

Perhaps it adds nothing to the discussion as far as you're concerned, but I still have the right to express my thoughts. And, if not to everyone, they're valid to me.

Originally posted by Djarums
If thousands of Americans held a public rally with posters of the Iranian President and other local dignitaries and starting shouting Death to Iran and what not, the Anti-American crowd would be spouting off about how horrible it is and how America is a bunch of psycho murderers and all that.

I would hope not only the Anti-American crowd, but those of us who love America as well, would think it's horrible.

Remember, Chavez/Robertson? Right... Oh the rage of the Anti-American crowd. Oh the simulated rage.

Again, not only the Anti-American crowd. I was upset, too! And it wasn't simulated.

But when the leader of Iran calls for the destruction of another nation, we have certain posters here claiming they're not so bad because "oh it's just talk". Fabulous.

I must have missed where someone said it wasn't so bad or that it was just talk. I think it's terrible, just not unexpected. I was under the impression that the official position of Iran has, for some time now, been that Israel doesn't have the right to exist, whether it's been outwardly spoken or not...

EDIT: Can someone shorten Leveller's link, please?


[edit on 28-10-2005 by Benevolent Heretic]

Originally posted by cjf
Whether for internal consumption or not, dismissing these recent mentioned statements as just ‘rhetoric’ is dangerous, shortsighted and for some plain hypocritical.

Good point. It shouldn't be ignored but that's not to say that it isn't rhetoric.
There's two ways to look at it:

Was it rhetoric spewed out of the mouth of an idiot.
Or it was calculated to force a reaction?

If it was the former then maybe this guy just spewed it out for domestic consumption without thinking of the wider consequences. If it was just rhetoric then the Iranian president has not just damaged Iran's international relations but he has also damaged his prospects under the Guardian Council.

But if it was the latter, we open a whole realm of possibilities - not all of them leading us to World War 3 as the panic-mongers claim, but certainly making for interesting politics.

I personally reckon that this was state controlled. A type of very aggressive diplomacy with a calculated outcome expected. Iran could have played this story down long before they now. The retractions coming out of Tehran seem to me to say that the point they were making had nothing to do with Israel but rather the bigger picture. I don't for one minute believe that this will lead to conflict, either with Israel or the West. What it does do is give an urgency to talks. Iran is pushed for time over it's nuclear plans and over the situation in Iraq. By making noise it does, as you say, push it under the microscope - it forces the West to negotiate with it, whilst it still has a hand to play with.

I think what we in the West tend to forget is that Iran itself has undergone and is still undergoing huge struggles both internally and externally. The regime wants to sit there, but it knows that to do so it has to make any changes on it's own terms. Forcing the spotlight on things like it's nuclear ambitions whilst the West is still divided and has it's main attention diverted elsewhere may very well be the only option that Tehran feels it has. Give it a few months and it may have no cards to play with. For all the Western media reports, things are happening in the region that may be detrimental to Iran. One example is that Iraq has finalised and accepted it's constitution and elections are due to be held in January. Another is that Syria has it hands tied over Lebanon at the moment. Another is that Israel is actually talking to the PA (who incidentally and very importantly condemned the statement!!). This can't help but have a fallout effect. Regimes like Iran need tensions and instabilities to keep thier populations under control. Peace in the Middle East would be disastrous for some regimes. Take away the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians and what common banner is there to unite around? People look for another enemy and quite often their attentions fall upon their own government - the Iranian Revolution came about in much the same way.

The Iranian regime is operating on borrowed time. It has to create more breathing space.

If we take a look at Tehran's reaction to the outbust, it's almost as if a petulant child has shouted "I hate you!!!", gone off to sulk for an hour or two and then apologised in order to gain attention and get his own way.





[edit on 28-10-2005 by Leveller]

My point was that there was so much anti-american "rage" over the comments of a private citizen about a leader, yet when an ELECTED (right?) world leader calls for a country to be destroyed those same anti-american commentators come back with "it's all bark and no bite" or that they have a right to be angry etc.

Double standards do a wonderful job of proving who's genuine in their beliefs and who pores over news reports looking for things to fit what they like to talk about.

Pat Robertson is not a world leader nor a head of state, nor does he control armed forces and weaponry, yet his call for the assassination of Chavez (which was undoubtedly stupid) was met with more rage from the "anti-america" club i was referring to than the Iranian President calling for a whole country to be destroyed.