What are the Iranians doing?

Have the Iranians completely lost it?

Iran defends Israel remark

What are they thinking? Now is not the time to stoke up already high emotions with this kind of talk. They're further isolating themselves, forcing so many countries and groups to isolate themselves from Iran, at a time when some allies might be helpful. Why are they continuing to push this? Are they really looking for a confrontation?

•  Unfortunately

  it appears they have the same kind of reactionaries running their country that we have running ours.

  by QuestionableSanity on Fri Oct 28, 2005 at 07:58:13 AM PDT

•  Broadening Their Role

  Iran sees the dethroning of Saddam and the turmoil in Iraq as a unique, historic opportunity to become the dominant state in the MIddle East.

  Public talk of wiping out Israel appeals to a broad segment of the Arab world.  It's the easiest way to assume a "leadership" position in that part of the world.

  It also begs for confrontations with the United States, which also tends to rally people to your flag in that part of the world.

  Finally, it assumes that our military will remain bogged down in Iraq and that Bush has made it nearly impossible for future American politicians to take dramatic military steps in the region for awhile to come.

  I am not suggesting any of these assumptions on Iran's part are accurate, but these are the general trends in analysis I see in Foreign Affairs and other solid commentary on the region's politics.

  by heel90 on Fri Oct 28, 2005 at 08:03:31 AM PDT

  •  Agreed

    Their actions are predicated on their perception of US weakness, unpopularity in the region & the fact that the Cheney-Rumsfeld cabal is in disarray, distracted by legal troubles.

    Also, fundamentally (fundamentalistically?) I reckon they are as eager for a confrontation with the US as the RW here is for a confrontation over SCOTUS. Iow, a long-cherished dream.

    by Tulip on Fri Oct 28, 2005 at 08:45:18 AM PDT

•  Provoke an attack

  The Iranians are wanting to provoke an attack that would provide the excuse for a massive Iranian offensive in Iraq.  It's a sign of how overextended the rest of the world knows our military to be.

  The Iranian president, not having ever been to the US, underestimates the amount of firepower, if not troops, that the US holds in reserve.

  This game of chicken is getting very dangerous, not only for our troops but for the entire Middle East.

  by TarheelDem on Fri Oct 28, 2005 at 08:08:19 AM PDT

  •  That's what's scaring me

    I hope these guys aren't really serious.

    One, I agree with you, overextended as we are, we'd still wipe the floor with them in any sort of conventional conflict.

    Two, I think if they tried anything like that, they'd find themselves also fighting Israel, and maybe even Egypt. Egypt would not be happy about a powereful Iran calling the shots in the region.

    Third, my stoking up the temperature, they also rrun a great risk of being the instigator of the "attack" rather than the responder. A local commander at the border or along the gulf gets a little overzealous and BOOM.

    by Muwarr90 on Fri Oct 28, 2005 at 08:17:42 AM PDT

    •  Exactly -- Bush and Anti-Bush

      Just like matter and anti-matter.

      by TarheelDem on Fri Oct 28, 2005 at 08:55:52 AM PDT

•  What are they thinking?

  They obviously not able to think.They may believe that the Muslim world will back them against Israel and America.Remember they believe that God is on their side....fuck it most lunatics do, don't they ?

  by madbernie on Fri Oct 28, 2005 at 08:12:53 AM PDT

•  Your link doesn't work

  My perspective is that Iran is involved in a game of brinksmanship to both enhance its power and to ensure its nuclear program.

  This sort of talk is both to preempt a strike on its nuclear facilities, and to create a more outrageous diplomatic atmosphere that will prevent a cogent strategy by the US, Europe, and the UN on its nuclear program.  Now world diplomats are forced to discuss the issue of Israel with Iran, and no other matters can be dealt with regarding Iran until it is resolved.  The Iranians are counting on Israel's reticence to enter into a serious military conflict with so many issues regarding the Palestinians and Syria, while the US is bogged down in Iraq and the rest of the world chooses not to involve itself in the region for a myriad of reasons.

  This is one of the further disasters of the Iraq war: it effectively eliminates the threat of force to limit what other far more dangerous rogue regimes can do.

  by Jay Elias on Fri Oct 28, 2005 at 08:15:07 AM PDT

  •  Fixed it

    Thanks!

    by Muwarr90 on Fri Oct 28, 2005 at 08:23:36 AM PDT

•  IMO

  Israel has stated in no uncertain terms that Iran's nuclear program could not be tolerated by Israel. A pre-emptive attack by Israel against Iran's nuclear capability has precedence and is a real possibility in the near future.

  Iran is ratcheting up the heat on Israel so when the attack happens, the greater middle east will rise up to Iran's defense.

  I believe the Israelis would not think twice about unleashing their own nuclear capability if they felt threatened by millions of Arabs/Persians/Egyptians etc. mobilizing against them.

  This is a very dangerous time in the "Holy Land" but  I'm afraid the sweep of history has taken much of what will occur out of our hands.

  by Michael Alton Gottlieb on Fri Oct 28, 2005 at 08:17:52 AM PDT

•  Persians Rallying the Base

  My opinion is that Iran has resigned itself that they will be attacked by either Isreal or the USA and this is a way to start the ol' fanatic ball rolling.

  People won't just be suicide bombers because it's the hip thing to this season, they need to feel they are striking a blow for Islam (I know, this does not represent a vast majority of Muslims, as the abortion clinic bombers do not reflect upon a vast majority of Christians). And what better way to insure your 40 virgins (I have always wonder what the girl suicide bombers get) than to strike out against the 'Great Satan and it's puppet state."

  But the real question here is, when did Iran stop calling for the destruction of Isreal?

  And for the record, there are nukes in the region already, Isreal has them. As does Pakistan, but that's more an India-Pakistani issue which seems to have subsided with the horrifc earthquake and the opening of hearts on both sides of the border.

  And as for our conviental forces romping in Iran, they repelled a SURPRISE attack by Iraq in the 80s when Saddam was armed to the teeth with American firepower. They have a landscape that is tailored made for defense.

  Yes, we would win but it would get ugly. Not to mention China has their back both economically, and military wise, in an alliance I have yet seen publicized in the MSM.

  Not sure if China would roll against Isreal, but who is willing to roll the dice against the Big Red Machine. Isreal? The USA (side reason Rumsfield was there last month was a rumor I heard that if we attacked Iran, China would call in our debt and flood the market with their Dollar Reserves in a conversion to Euros and collasping the dollar and winning the war without a single shot)? You want to mess with that? Good luck.

  by pinche tejano on Fri Oct 28, 2005 at 08:36:42 AM PDT

  •  Iraq

    Iraq's military arsenal was always mostly eastern bloc supplied. Their armor was all soviet stuff. Not that it really matters to the discussion.

    And who said I wanted a war with Iran? I think it would be awfull for all involved. However, that doesn't mean I think Iran gets a blanket pass to do and say whatever it wants without criticism or concern.

    by Muwarr90 on Fri Oct 28, 2005 at 08:43:59 AM PDT

    •  Iraq was supplied by USA, but just evil stuff

      I stand corrected:

      American Supplies during the Iran-Iraq War

      The figures in the table above suggest that the United States was a relatively minor supplier of conventional weapons, and did not play a major role in arming Iraq for its attack on Iran. The US did support Iraq through various financial and political means, and permitted the sale of dual-use technology to Iraq, including WMD precursors like anthrax, botulinum, West Nile Fever, and e-coli, as well as mainframe computers, armored ambulances, helicopters, chemicals, and the like, with potential civilian uses as well as military applications.

      Their conventional was Soviet junk, but we gave that crazy bastard purely evil shit.  

      I agree, the Persians are knuckleheads for saying what is obviously a very inflammatory statement.

      I wish we could all stop fighting and killing each other over who is the legitmate son of Abraham, I'm sure God would love to see that.

      by pinche tejano on Fri Oct 28, 2005 at 10:12:35 AM PDT

      •  No link

        Was there supposed to be a link?

        by Muwarr90 on Fri Oct 28, 2005 at 10:14:20 AM PDT

        •  Sorry, was reading indictments at same time

          Arms Sales to Iraq 1973-1990

          by pinche tejano on Fri Oct 28, 2005 at 10:29:25 AM PDT

•  Here's What Happened

  The Iranian President, who holds an office with absolutely no power whatsoever (Ayatollah Khameini(sp?) is the country's de facto dictator), said something stupid.  It got a lot of notice around the world, inspired a deserved negative reaction in a lot of places, and Iranian ambassadors have been summoned for chastisement the world over.  The Iranians have decided to flip the rest of the world the bird, staging anti-Israelis demonstrations, and otherwise engaging in behavior that will have no effect outside their own borders.

  Two other points:  1)  Iran's Arthur Fonzarelli lookalike President was quoting Ayatollah Khomeini when he set off this brouhaha.  Khomeini indulged in a lot of ugly anti-Israeli rhetoric, but did very little to try to destroy Israel, even keeping open back door channels with them, and accepting their assistance in his war against their mutual enemy, Saddam Hussein. 2)  The Iranian regime is facing a great deal of discontent on the home front, and this bit of sabre-rattling gives them a chance to distract the grumbling populace for a little while.

  In the meantime, what I want to know is WHICH TWIN HAS THE TONI?

  

  "L'enfer, c'est le GOP!" - JJB, from an idea by oratorio

  by JJB on Fri Oct 28, 2005 at 08:46:18 AM PDT

  •  Yeah, I dunno where you get your information

    But Iran is the #1 source of funding and training for Hamas and Islamic Jihad.  That isn't doing "very little" to try to destroy Israel.

    Second, it wasn't like this was some quote taken out of context.  He stood at a podium emblazoned with a giant logo written in English saying "The End Of Zionism".  Whether or not he and/or Iran are serious about the goal of "wiping Israel of the face of the earth", there is no doubt that he clearly meant to say so.

    by Jay Elias on Fri Oct 28, 2005 at 08:57:02 AM PDT

    •  Where Do You Get Your Information?

      Frankly, I don't believe your first claim, they do give a good deal of support to Lebanese Hezbollah, but that organization is content to sit in Southern Lebanon and make themselves more of a factor in Lebanese politics.  They currently have no stomach for a fight with the Israelis as long as the latter stay out of Lebanon.

      As to the second, what's the news, that the Iranian regime is anti-Israeli?  Gee, who'd a thunk it?  Add this to all the moronic anti-Israeli rhetoric spewed out by Arab and Iranian leaders the last 6 decades, and what does it amount to?  Bupkis.

      The guy is a clown.  If he ever takes a stand against the mullahs, they'll cut him down to size in no time.  He counts for nothing.

      "L'enfer, c'est le GOP!" - JJB, from an idea by oratorio

      by JJB on Fri Oct 28, 2005 at 09:18:49 AM PDT

      •  Try these sources

        The US State Department on Hamas and PIJ:

        http://www.state.gov/...

        http://www.state.gov/...

        Wikipedia on Hamas and PIJ:

        http://en.wikipedia.org/...

        http://en.wikipedia.org/...

        The US State Department report on State sponsorship of Terrorism:

        http://www.state.gov/...

        Who suggested that the Iranians have the stomach for a fight with Israel?  Certainly not me; I said it is a ploy.  And I don't think Lebanon is the issue to Iran either; they certainly didn't change their activities much during the Israeli occupation of Lebanon.

        Yes, "this guy" is just a mouthpiece of the mullahs.  So why is this something the mullahs want him to say right now?

        What does all this anti-Israel rhetoric add up to?  Over 1000 dead Israelis since the signing of the Oslo accords.  Over 70% of those are civilians.
        

        by Jay Elias on Fri Oct 28, 2005 at 09:58:50 AM PDT

        •  How Many Palestinians Have Died

          Since the Oslo accords were signed?

          Likudnik.
          

          "L'enfer, c'est le GOP!" - JJB, from an idea by oratorio

          by JJB on Fri Oct 28, 2005 at 10:53:45 AM PDT

  •  Moral relativism, much

    Imagine for a moment that the President of Israel made the same comments about an Arab State--or even about the Palestinians. Gauge your reaction. Then assess in light of your making excuses for what Iran said, and tell us what you come up with.

    by brittain33 on Fri Oct 28, 2005 at 09:05:46 AM PDT

    •  Don't Be Such A Pompous Twit

      This statement doesn't even rate being called a tempest in a teacup.  

      Try laughing at it.  That's all it deserves.

      "L'enfer, c'est le GOP!" - JJB, from an idea by oratorio

      by JJB on Fri Oct 28, 2005 at 09:21:15 AM PDT

    •  BTW

      Next time deal with what someone actually writes rather than build a strawman with words you try to put in their mouths.  There isn't anything I wrote that suggests "moral relativism" between the Israelis and the Iranians.

      "L'enfer, c'est le GOP!" - JJB, from an idea by oratorio

      by JJB on Fri Oct 28, 2005 at 09:23:30 AM PDT

    •  While what he said was totally wrong..

      You have a point. Bush has said in not so many words (and more by their actions in Iraq, just look at Fallujah) that he wants to wipe Islam off the map. If he did come out and actually say that without cloaking it by using terms like "spreading Democracy", would he face the same condemnation? Look at all they have done including the torture at Abu Ghraib and other places, and the fact that he really is not receiving the level of world condemnation for these actions that he should be getting.

      Now please, don't misunderstand me, I think what the Iranian president said was totally wrong and he should be condemned for it. But yes, we need to also look at it under the circumstances we now live in and see that this type of hate is being sold on all sides. Perhaps if the world community treated such statements on all sides with the same level of condemnation, we might not see such statemens being made? However, there is one thing that truly upsets me. Their cries of "death to America" are BS. Most of the people in this country have no want for more war, we want peace. Their hatred is certainly not something to be accepted or placated either. It is frightening to me that both sides of this equation are being run by Conservative warmongering ideologues with no concern for the repercussions of their words or actions. TRULY frightening.

      by Patriot for Al Gore on Fri Oct 28, 2005 at 09:24:24 AM PDT