Skip to main content

Once again Iranian leadership has made an announcement declaring the government's enmity towards the country of Israel.

The Iranian regime's "We Hate Israel" merry-go-round of announcements brass ring was pulled this time by their military's chief of staff, Maj. Gen. Hassan Firouzabadi who stated before a defense related audience that

“The Iranian nation is standing for its cause and that is the full annihilation of Israel,”
However, this time instead of just stating a wished for desire, the chief of staff, the person whom could be called upon to enact its evil wishes, states it is indeed a 'cause', a cause which the government states it 'will remain committed.  So by remaining committed to the goal of annihilation of Israel it is clear the policy is in effect and has been in effect in the past.  

One which they stand for as it is their 'full religious duty'.  

The top military official reminded that the Iranian Supreme Leader considers defending Palestine as a full religious duty and believes that any kind of governance and rule by anyone other than the Palestinians as an instance of usurpation.
As mentioned, this is not the first utterance of Iranian government desire to eliminate Israel as they have gone so far as to erecting billboards in English declaring the depraved point of view,
Karim Sadjadpour, an Iranian specialist at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, notes that Iranian government entities began to erect billboards and signs with the “wipe off” phrase in English. Joshua Teitelbaum of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs compiled an interesting collection of photographs  of these banners, such as one on the building that houses reserve military forces of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. “Israel should be wiped out of the face of the world,” the sign reads in English. (emphasis mine)
These words and actions do nothing to promulgate peace and much towards laying the path to potential violence.

And as for the US policy? While Obama has called for patience, according to the Daily Beast, at least one top military commander already envisions Iran as the most significant threat to the middle east.  Gen. James Mattis, CentCom commander who is known

by admirers as the “warrior monk” and by detractors as “Mad Dog Mattis,” said his three top concerns in the Middle East were “Iran, Iran, and Iran.”
The latest Iranian government announcement will do nothing to offset such a view.

Originally posted to JNEREBEL on Tue May 22, 2012 at 11:29 AM PDT.

Also republished by Team Shalom.

Tags

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  So what are you saying (0+ / 0-)

    bomb them now?

    Republican Family Values: Using the daughters from your first wife to convince everybody that your second wife is lying about your third wife.

    by jsfox on Tue May 22, 2012 at 11:35:29 AM PDT

    •  Please advise where you read that statement (6+ / 0-)

      in the above diary.

      Thank you.

      •  I posed it as a question (5+ / 0-)

        because I really don't understand what you are trying to say in this diary.

        Maybe I should have just asked your point?

        Republican Family Values: Using the daughters from your first wife to convince everybody that your second wife is lying about your third wife.

        by jsfox on Tue May 22, 2012 at 11:39:57 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  To provide information regarding an issue of (6+ / 0-)

          utmost importance.

          •  Well Ok my apologies (12+ / 0-)

            Now are the rantings of these two ass hats more critical than the fact that we well may be on the verge of a real breakthrough in talks with Iran?

            The head of the UN nuclear agency, Yukiya Amano, has said an agreement would be signed "quite soon" with Iran to allow an investigation into claims it had tried to develop nuclear weapons.
            And Israel even might be rattling it's sabers a little less
            Though Israel has been expressing zero flexibility regarding a possible deal with Iran, Defense Minister Ehud Barak a few weeks ago issued a written statement that Israel would consent to Iran's continuing enrichment of uranium to a low level of 3.5 percent, as well as to allowing a few hundred kilograms of 3.5-percent enriched uranium to remain in that country.

            Republican Family Values: Using the daughters from your first wife to convince everybody that your second wife is lying about your third wife.

            by jsfox on Tue May 22, 2012 at 11:52:46 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  There's also this: (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              jrooth, AoT, Karl Rover, blueoasis
              Israel’s serving military chief, Benny Gantz said he did not believe the Iranian leadership was prepared to “go the extra mile” to acquire nuclear weapons because it was “composed of very rational people” who understood the consequences.

              In what was seen as a veiled rebuke to the prime minister, Gantz added: “Decisions can and must be made carefully, out of historic responsibility but without hysteria.”

              and this:
              ....the former head of the Mossad, Meir Dagan, who has said that attacking Iran was “the stupidest thing I have ever heard” and that the Iranian regime was rational.
              and, most recently, this:
              Israel’s former security chief has censured the country’s “messianic” political leadership for talking up the prospects of a military stike on Iran’s nuclear programme.

              In unusually candid comments set to ratchet up tensions over Iran at the top of Israel’s political establishment, Yuval Diskin, who retired as head of the internal intelligence agency Shin Bet last year, said he had “no faith” in the abilities of the prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, and the defence minister, Ehud Barak, to conduct a war.

              The pair, who are the foremost advocates of military action against Iran’s nuclear programme, were “not fit to hold the steering wheel of power”, Diskin told a meeting on Friday night.

              My major problem is that I have no faith in the current leadership, which must lead us in an event on the scale of war with Iran or a regional war,” he said.

              “I don’t believe in either the prime minister or the defence minister. I don’t believe in a leadership that makes decisions based on messianic feelings. Believe me, I have observed them from up close … They are not people who I, on a personal level, trust to lead Israel to an event on that scale and carry it off.

              They are misleading the public on the Iran issue. They tell the public that if Israel acts, Iran won’t have a nuclear bomb. This is misleading. Actually, many experts say that an Israeli attack would accelerate the Iranian nuclear race.

              Unfortunately, the I/P issue seems to viewed through a prism with which both sides  only see what they want to see, and only the most strident voices make it out to be consumed by the general public, and any call for moderation are met with outrage.

              I weep for humanity.

              "One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors." - Plato

              by Bcre8ve on Tue May 22, 2012 at 01:30:11 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  Is that what he said? I just thought he (6+ / 0-)

      was providing info.

      Is every diary critical of Israel a diary stating "Wipe out Israel now"? If so, then man oh man.

      •  Volley (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jrooth, sunbro, Smoh, MBNYC

        I actually posed it as a question because I had not clue one what the diarist was trying to say.

        We have two generals saying dumb stuff? If that's it fine, but again so what?

        Republican Family Values: Using the daughters from your first wife to convince everybody that your second wife is lying about your third wife.

        by jsfox on Tue May 22, 2012 at 11:42:15 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  It is information... it goes towards understanding (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Mets102, stevenaxelrod

          the problem.

          I guess I don't get why you even asked that question. Do you ask that in the Pro-P diaries? No. Why not?

          See my point?

          •  I usually stay (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Bcre8ve

            the hell away from I/P diaries for a reason, I don't think either side has an ounce of moral high ground left to stand on. AndI should have stayed out of this and I will now withdraw with apologies for sticking my nose into something I shouldn't have..

            Republican Family Values: Using the daughters from your first wife to convince everybody that your second wife is lying about your third wife.

            by jsfox on Tue May 22, 2012 at 11:58:53 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  So it's possible to discuss information (0+ / 0-)

            without having an underlying agenda?  I thought you didn't believe in that.

            “What’s the use of having developed a science well enough to make predictions if, in the end, all we’re willing to do is stand around and wait for them to come true?” - Sherwood Rowland

            by jrooth on Tue May 22, 2012 at 12:02:21 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Ahhh so are you here to carry over our argument (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Mets102

              from yesterday? You do know that is not supposed to happen.

              Now do you have anything of substance to add to this diary or will you be trying to trash this diary with your own little petty grudge?

              Oh and don't try thinking. It doesn't work so well for you.

              •  Don't flatter yourself. (0+ / 0-)

                I found the diary in Recent Diaries as I generally do.  As for substance, I commented below.

                But I would like an answer to my question.  Is it possible to seek or express information without an underlying agenda?

                “What’s the use of having developed a science well enough to make predictions if, in the end, all we’re willing to do is stand around and wait for them to come true?” - Sherwood Rowland

                by jrooth on Tue May 22, 2012 at 12:19:37 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Yes it is though it doesn't happen much (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Mets102

                  on this site. I happen to know this diarist and I know he is NOT a Bombs away type.

                  •  Since you concede that much (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Smoh

                    you ought to have the courtesy of not assuming those you barely know at all are liars when they say that's what they are doing.

                    “What’s the use of having developed a science well enough to make predictions if, in the end, all we’re willing to do is stand around and wait for them to come true?” - Sherwood Rowland

                    by jrooth on Tue May 22, 2012 at 12:37:56 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Hey... can you just give it a fucking rest? (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Mets102

                      This is not your diary and it's not a diary for your personal grievances with me. Take it somewhere else. Right now you are being a bad guest.

                      Do you have something to add about this subject or not?

                      I tipped you down below btw. for your comment. So... if you have something else share it. Otherwise, please stop with trying to continue an argument from another day and another diary here.  

    •  no, but I'll say this: (4+ / 0-)

      Deterrence keeps the peace.

      Iran should be given to understand that if it makes the first move toward an attack on Israel, there will be a concerted military response by Israel and by the US, resulting in a regime change at very least.  

      And despite his rather quiet way of conducting these things, Obama's damn good at war.

      Further, the Iranian regime should be given to understand that eliminationist rhetoric, even if intended only for domestic consumption as some kind of asinine propaganda, makes it look like ignorant fools in the eyes of the world, and like blasphemers against the words of The Prophet Mohammed in the Islamic world.  

      Beyond that, whatever covert intelligence means can be used to develop information with which to make Ahmadinejad and other key Iranian leaders look bad in the eyes of the Iranian people, should be used relentlessly.  Photos of them in embarrassing positions and otherwise looking like impotent incompetent fools might be a good place to start.

      "Minus two votes for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

      by G2geek on Tue May 22, 2012 at 02:32:52 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  In the Sacha Baron Cohen movie the dictator. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    auron renouille, Vinnie Vegas, MBNYC

    His character Admiral General Aladeen addresses the people of his fictional nation and talks about how his uranium enrichment program is for "peaceful medical research" and would not be used at Israel.

    While saying this he cannot keep a straight face.

    I'd take the Iranians at their word

  •  I found this part of the Fars article (8+ / 0-)

    very telling:

    "Wherever Iran interferes, it announces it in a very straightforward manner. For instance, we interfered in confrontations against Israel, which resulted in the (Lebanese) victory in the 33-day war and (Palestinians' victory in) the 22-day (Gaza) war," Ayatollah Khamenei said, addressing millions of Friday Prayers worshippers on Tehran University Campus in February.

    "In future too, we will support and help everyone who opposes the Zionist regime," the Leader underscored.

    "The Zionist regime is a real cancerous tumor that should be cut and will be cut, God Willing," Ayatollah Khamenei underscored.

    I wonder how Juan Cole and apologists will try to "whitewash" this one.

  •  War...what is it good for? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JNEREBEL, BigAlinWashSt

    -4.75, -5.33 Cheney 10/05/04: "I have not suggested there is a connection between Iraq and 9/11."

    by sunbro on Tue May 22, 2012 at 11:46:19 AM PDT

  •  Someone has a hard on for yet another desert (0+ / 0-)

    adventure.

    NOW SHOWING
    Progressive Candidate Obama (now - Nov 6, 2012)
    Bipartisan Obama returns (Nov 7, 2012)

    by The Dead Man on Tue May 22, 2012 at 12:01:48 PM PDT

  •  The rhetoric is disgusting, I agree. (10+ / 0-)

    I don't know how much it bears on whether Iran is willing to make peace on some reasonable grounds, but the endless voicing of extremism like this has got to make that a much more difficult thing internally.

    “What’s the use of having developed a science well enough to make predictions if, in the end, all we’re willing to do is stand around and wait for them to come true?” - Sherwood Rowland

    by jrooth on Tue May 22, 2012 at 12:06:24 PM PDT

    •  Very true. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      volleyboy1

      The reality is, though, that the Islamic Republic will never make peace with Israel as it is currently constituted.  Hassan Nasrallah, leader of Hezbollah (the Iranian proxy in Lebanon) has, as recently as the RT interview with Julian Assange, said that Israel must be one state for all; Jews, Palestinians, and Christians.  His views are generally in line with those of Khamenei.  Since this view is unacceptable to the Zionists, for obvious reasons, Iran will never be "at peace" with Israel and will never recognize its right to exist.

  •  Invading Iran (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bobdevo, Bisbonian, Mas Gaviota

    would be a very stupid and avoidable mistake.  I don't think the Iranians in charge are stupid enough to provoke a war with Israel and the United States.

    The general you've mentioned could just be like their version of Rush Limbaugh...all mouth and no substance.

    When Khamenei starts saying that he wants to bomb Israel, THEN I will start to worry.

    -4.75, -5.33 Cheney 10/05/04: "I have not suggested there is a connection between Iraq and 9/11."

    by sunbro on Tue May 22, 2012 at 12:07:38 PM PDT

    •  Ummm I don't think Rush Limbaugh (3+ / 0-)

      is an American General.

      But read the quote at the bottom of the Fars article:

      "Wherever Iran interferes, it announces it in a very straightforward manner. For instance, we interfered in confrontations against Israel, which resulted in the (Lebanese) victory in the 33-day war and (Palestinians' victory in) the 22-day (Gaza) war," Ayatollah Khamenei said, addressing millions of Friday Prayers worshippers on Tehran University Campus in February.

      "In future too, we will support and help everyone who opposes the Zionist regime," the Leader underscored.

      "The Zionist regime is a real cancerous tumor that should be cut and will be cut, God Willing," Ayatollah Khamenei underscored.

      Apparently they have been and want to be involved in that.
    •  Exactly. It is possible to find loud mouth (5+ / 0-)

      fools in any nation who are willing to spout provocative bullshit.  This diary does nothing to advance any deeper understanding of the issues, which is why I commented earlier that "talk is cheap" and so, in my opinion was this diary.

      Three people determined to suppress discussion then immediately violated HR rules and HR'd me to hide any dissent.

      I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever. ~Thomas Jefferson

      by bobdevo on Tue May 22, 2012 at 01:16:49 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  the US has been working the careful diplomacy... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      downsouth, sunbro, Terra Mystica

      .... with Israel, to get them to tone down the rhetoric at their end.  

      The Iranian regime's rhetoric isn't helping things at this point.

      Both sides need to take chill pills and climb down from this stuff.

      "Minus two votes for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

      by G2geek on Tue May 22, 2012 at 03:04:11 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  if iran is an existential threat (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    G2geek, Bisbonian, jm214

    do the israelis get to wear turtlenecks & smoke gallois?

  •  This is very problematic. (12+ / 0-)

    The economy of Iran is cratering as we speak -- inflation for key necessities is at some astronomical number I can't seem to find right now -- and we all know there's nothing like a foreign enemy to help a given government cement its power. Hell, it happened here in the U.S. under Bush. And I also forget where I read this - probably Daily Beast - but Iran may be actively trying to goad the Israelis into war. I don't think it's an accident that sign was in English.

    Needless to say, none of this is good news. Netanyahu may just be off the rocker enough to pull off an attack, and now, he has a nice shiny new coalition to support it.

    I'm starting to get worried, frankly.

    Fuck me, it's a leprechaun.

    by MBNYC on Tue May 22, 2012 at 12:40:03 PM PDT

  •  This is all just big talk from Iran without actual (5+ / 0-)

    substance.

    Iran cannot wipe Israel off the face of the earth.

    Let me quote Juan Cole:

    Moreover, Iran cannot fight Israel. It would be defeated in 72 hours, even if the US didn’t come in, which it would (and rightly so if Israel were attacked). Iran is separated by several other countries from Israel. It has not attacked aggressively any other country militarily for over a century (can Americans say that of their own record?) It has only a weak, ineffective air force. So why worry about it?
    http://www.juancole.com/...
    •  Right now, Iran cannot wipe Israel off the Earth (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Mets102

      but they can cause problems like the ones they admit they are involved in... Lebanon, Gaza... Terror....

      But that is not the point, and here is where Cole is wrong. Everyone knows they can't do it now (or they would have) what people are worried about is what they will do if they have Nukes and Can.

      That is the fear.

      •  They are not going to get nukes. There is a fatwa (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        BigAlinWashSt, aliasalias

        against nukes in Iran. Let me quote Cole again:

        “The Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has issued the Fatwa that the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons are forbidden under Islam and that the Islamic Republic of Iran shall never acquire these weapons.”
        http://www.juancole.com/...
        and,
        Iran Issues Statement at IAEA Board of Governors Meeting
        Corrected version: added additional material after IRNA update
        IRNA
        Wednesday, August 10, 2005 T11:39:36Z
        Journal Code: 2736 Language: ENGLISH Record Type: FULLTEXT
        Document Type: FBIS Transcribed Text
        Word Count: 1,962

        Vienna, Aug 10, IRNA — Iran is a nuclear fuel cycle technology holder, a capability which is exclusively for peaceful purposes, a statement issued by the Islamic Republic at the emergency meeting of the Board of Governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) read here Tuesday evening.

        The Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has issued the fatwa (religious decree) that the production, stockpiling, and use of nuclear weapons are forbidden under Islam and that Iran shall never acquire these weapons, it added.
        http://www.juancole.com/...

        Watch Cenk say the same thing here:

        Just remember Iran may bark but it doesn't bite.

        •  Well, fatwas can be superseded. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          PhilJD

          I think it very likely the Iranian government wants nuclear weapons.  I certainly would were I in their position, as a deterrent not as an offensive weapon.

          Unfortunately, there's little tolerance on our side of this dispute for trying to understand the fears on the Iranian side.  It's much easier to paint them as an implacably evil foe, bent on destruction of Israel even at the cost of their own existence.

          “What’s the use of having developed a science well enough to make predictions if, in the end, all we’re willing to do is stand around and wait for them to come true?” - Sherwood Rowland

          by jrooth on Tue May 22, 2012 at 01:09:40 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Well Shawn (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Mets102, JNEREBEL

          I like to think of it as "Iran may bark but it doesn't bite... until it does".

          I think I will take the Chef of Staff of the Iranian Military's word over that of Western Bloggers and Professors.

          If he tells me he wants the "Zionist Regime" and Israel "wiped out". Ok... I believe him. Straight from the "horses mouth" (so to speak).

          I mean this is not some random general or some low level yahoo. This is the Chief of Staff of Iranian Armed Forces. This is their top guy. All the fatwa's in the world don't change what he said.

          •  And why shouldn't we be worried about the (3+ / 0-)

            nuclear weapons that Israel has?  Why does no one seem to ever mention that?  No one is going to wipe Israel off of anything unless they are suicidal, and I haven't seen a country that fits that bill.

            There revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

            by AoT on Tue May 22, 2012 at 01:49:53 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Because Israel doesn't and hasn't threatened (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Mets102

              to wipe anyone out. AND Israel hasn't threatened to Nuke anyone either. That is pretty much why. That is the difference here. Israel is not talking about annhilating Iran. Other way around - Just FYI.

              •  Except Palestine (0+ / 0-)

                And part of the reason they are free to act as they do is the fact that they have overwhelming military superiority, including but not limited to nuclear weapons.

                There revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

                by AoT on Tue May 22, 2012 at 02:08:28 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  First off, that is not part of this diary (0+ / 0-)

                  and second of all.. that is simply not true. Israel has NOT threatened to wipe Palestine off the map. Palestine does not exist on the map in the first place. There is no nation called Palestine.

                  But in any case, Israel's political Leader PM Netanyahu, nor it's Military leader have threatened to wip Palestine off the map. Sorry but, that is not there. They may want only to give the Palestinians a portion of what they want, but they have not said that they would annhilate "Palestine".

                  •  They;ve said time and time again that there will (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    aliasalias, Terra Mystica

                    not be a palestine and they use violence to enforce that.  Far more than Iran has ever done to Israel.  And there is no state called Palestine but there is most certainly a nation.  Although I imagine state was probably what you meant, but there is a difference.

                    There revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

                    by AoT on Tue May 22, 2012 at 02:36:42 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Can you show me their comments saying that? (0+ / 0-)

                      I did mean that there is NO recognized State as Palestine.  You are right.

                      As for Netanyahu and Co. they have not said there will never be a Palestine, what they have said is that it might not be West of the Jordan River. BUT even Netanyahu and Lieberman have not said that.

                      Now they say there will be a Palestine just not quite what the Palestinians expect.

              •  Well Volley it seems I cannot convince you. Just (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                aliasalias, Terra Mystica

                know that an ex-Mossad chief has said that Iran poses no existential threat to Israel.
                http://www.rt.com/...

                Also when you claim that Israel never threatened any nation with nuclear weapons, that may not be wholeheartedly accurate.

                Journalist Seymour Hersh claims

                Israel threatened to use nuclear weapons on the third day of the 1973 Yom Kippur War, blackmailing U.S. President Richard Nixon into airlifting military supplies in his book The Samson Option: Israel's Nuclear Arsenal and American Foreign Policy
                http://en.wikipedia.org/..._(book)#Hersh_revelations_and_allegations

                •  But Shawn... I don't think they (0+ / 0-)

                  are an existential threat right now. I agree with Diskin and Dagan...

                  As for nukes... Seymour is wrong. What happened (I just finished reading a first hand account of this) is that when things looked really bad in the first days of the '73 war, it was brought up in a cabinet discussion and then it was thoroughly dismissed with an emphasis on "NO WAY"...

      •  I have yet to see any evidence (5+ / 0-)

        that the Iranians are suicidal.  And that's what they would have to be to attack Israel in a way that threatened them existentially.

        Don't get me wrong, I'm against any further proliferation of nuclear weapons.  I think Iran getting the bomb would be a bad thing.  But I don't agree, crazy rhetoric from some politicians and generals notwithstanding, that Iran would be likely to attack Israel with nuclear weapons if they had them.  And one can hardly think it irrational for the Iranians to want them given the way they find themselves surrounded.  After all, the one thing that has historically proved an effective deterrent to a US attack is having some nukes.

        “What’s the use of having developed a science well enough to make predictions if, in the end, all we’re willing to do is stand around and wait for them to come true?” - Sherwood Rowland

        by jrooth on Tue May 22, 2012 at 12:58:19 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I can't really disagree with much of what you (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          jrooth, Mets102, downsouth, PhilJD

          said here.

          While I agree with you that nukes would act as a deterrance, I also think the Iranian regime has other ideas in mind such as Regional Power. Remember, the Iranians are also in competition with the Saudi's in religious terms and they are trying to politically build a power base in the M.E.

          So I would add that aspect of things.

          That said, I think you are correct that the Iranians ARE NOT suicidal. At least they have shown nothing like that yet.

          •  Well, sure. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Bisbonian, Terra Mystica

            With effective deterrence comes the freedom to assert more regional influence.  And clearly Iran wants that - no argument there.

            Would that be a bad thing?  I really don't know.  Can't say I'm too fond of the Saudis either.

            “What’s the use of having developed a science well enough to make predictions if, in the end, all we’re willing to do is stand around and wait for them to come true?” - Sherwood Rowland

            by jrooth on Tue May 22, 2012 at 01:48:32 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Can't disagree with you re: the Saudis. (0+ / 0-)

              As for the Iranians... yeah I think their attempts at regional hegemony are just as bad as the Saudis. Iran though has wanted Nukes for years. Back in the Shah's days they were angling for them (with help from the Israelis or so it was thought).

              This is a power play now. It will be interesting to see how it turns out.

          •  Then there is no worry about them attacking (0+ / 0-)

            Israel.  If this is about checking their power in the region then we need to talk about that and not pretend like they are going to attack Israel.

            There revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

            by AoT on Tue May 22, 2012 at 01:50:50 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Well given the comments from the Supreme (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Mets102, auron renouille

              Leader AND the Chief of Staff of the Iranian Military.. that is cause for concern. I don't know if they will attack Israel or not. I personally don't think they would with nuclear weaponry, but, I do think that Hizbollah, Hamas and whatever happens in Syria would be getting a large increase in Iranian weaponry and Iranian "advisors" should Iran itself have nuclear cover.

      •  I have to say I agree with this one: (0+ / 0-)
        That is the fear.
        But fears better are grounded in reality. The last ten years have shown I think how distorted and twisted they may become.

        H'mm. I'm not terribly into this, anymore.

        by Knarfc on Tue May 22, 2012 at 03:17:42 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Well, I worry about it ... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      volleyboy1, stevenaxelrod, AoT

      because the endless saber-rattling makes it much harder for a peaceful settlement to happen.  The more of it that goes on (on both sides) the harder-line the positions (on both sides) get.

      And the longer this indeterminate mess drags on, the greater the prospect that things really do blow up into a hot war one day.

      “What’s the use of having developed a science well enough to make predictions if, in the end, all we’re willing to do is stand around and wait for them to come true?” - Sherwood Rowland

      by jrooth on Tue May 22, 2012 at 12:46:37 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  A Losing Battle (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    volleyboy1

    Israel will certainly not lie down and roll over for Iran.  And the rest of the world powers will defend Israel.  If Iran were to attack Israel, Iran might find it has some unexpected enemies.

  •  This where the despots missed George W Bush. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    AoT

    They were able to say something crazy and the Bush administration would come right back with their own bit of crazy.  And help give them a bit of legitimacy by rallying around the flag.

    What is going on requires a bit of carrot and a bit of stick.  Even if many on the right are too dumb to realize that a carrot is sometimes needed and those on the left are wary of the stick due to it's most recent misuses by the Bush administration.

    We can only thank the heavens that real actual adults are making decisions right now.

    The lady was enchanted and said they ought to see. So they charged her with subversion and made her watch TV -Spirogyra

    by Taget on Tue May 22, 2012 at 01:29:19 PM PDT

  •  Lets see here (7+ / 0-)

    Israel:

    - Refuses to sign onto the nuclear non-proliferation treaty

    - Not so secretly has dozens of nuclear weapons

    - Refuses to comply with the IAEA

    - Has threatened and made specific plans to bomb Iran

    - Has supported terrorist attacks that have killed Iranian scientists and injured their family members

    Iran:

    - a party to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty

    - does not have nuclear weapons

    - there is no evidence whatsoever that their nuclear program is for anything but peaceful purposes

    - Is compliant with the IAEA

    - has made some abstract statements about wanting the destruction of Israel in context of Israel's support of terrorist attacks on Iranian nuclear scientists and their families and constant threats of bombing

    Now tell me why are you so angered by Iran but so blinded to Israel's overt and aggressive actions?  

    I don't think there is a single reasonable person who thinks Iran is going to attack Israel anytime soon.  Even the former Israeli Mossad and Shin Bet chiefs have said Iranian leaders are rational actors, as have military officials in the U.S.  This is empty political rhetoric.

    The only country here who is serious about being an aggressor and starting a war is Israel.

    •  forgot to mention that Iran does support (0+ / 0-)

      Hezbollah, and Islamic Jihad I believe.

      •  Yeah that is a big thing to forget.... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Mets102
        •  At least I'm willing to admit both countries (0+ / 0-)

          are bad.  You can't or won't admit that about Israel.

          •  This is not a "who is worse" contest. (0+ / 0-)

            Let's try to stick to the subject at hand shall we? SO..

            •  I think Iran is worse overall (0+ / 0-)

              but in this context Israel is worse.  Israel is being far more aggressive towards Iran and non-compliant with the international community on this issue.

              •  Hmmm I don't really care who is "worse" (0+ / 0-)

                I don't agree that Israel is necessarily being more aggressive either. Iran is using proxies to threaten Israel.

                But, look, I am not in favor of Israeli Bombs over Iranian Reactors so I am not sure what you are getting at.

                •  I'm annoyed that this story has generally (0+ / 0-)

                  received one-sided treatment in the media and the general public.  Iran is generally viewed as the aggressor (as evidenced by this very diary), whereas Israel is merely responding to them.  This narrative has be promoted to varying degrees.  That is what annoys.

                  •  Oh so are you saying (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    JNEREBEL

                    we should NOT publish the words of the Chief of Staff of Iran's miltary because it runs counter to what you and others might believe?

                    BTW, you may want to look at how many diaries are TEH IZRAILEES ARE TEH EBILZ - DON'T BOMB Iran compared to... HEY... here is what the Iranian leaders themselves say.

                    Let me know what you find out. Ok?

                    •  Yes that is exactly what I am saying (0+ / 0-)

                      You have succinctly and accurately crystallized the very essence of my argument.  Kudos. (end sarcasm)

                    •  And the diaries on the daily kos (0+ / 0-)

                      are not so representative of the MSM. LOL.

                      •  And this diary is not in the MSM now is it? (0+ / 0-)

                        It's on Daily Kos... You might have noticed that.

                        This is a report from FARS (that is the Iranian REGIME's) news service.

                        Don't you just hate it when the Iranians blow your meme's about them? They should just shut up and cut out saying what they want - huh?

                        •  By the way isn't it bizarre how the (0+ / 0-)

                          Israeli Mossad and Shin Bet chiefs agree with me and not you?

                          •  NO... what is really bizarre (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            JNEREBEL

                            Is that apparently you have chosen to have an argument with someone that does not exist. You are arguing (once again) with the Zionist in your head... not me.

                            So when you say this:

                            By the way isn't it bizarre how the Israeli Mossad and Shin Bet chiefs agree with me and not you?
                            You mean that Diskin and Dagan both think that Israel should go to war with Iran? I say this because I think Israel should NOT go to war with Iran as of now.

                            Had you actually read any of my comments in the diary like this one:

                            But Shawn... I don't think they are an existential threat right now. I agree with Diskin and Dagan...

                            by volleyboy1 on Tue May 22, 2012 at 01:58:07 PM PDT

                            or this comment:

                            Right now, Iran cannot wipe Israel off the Earth (1+ / 0-)

                            Recommended by:Mets102

                            but they can cause problems like the ones they admit they are involved in... Lebanon, Gaza... Terror....

                            But that is not the point, and here is where Cole is wrong. Everyone knows they can't do it now (or they would have) what people are worried about is what they will do if they have Nukes and Can.

                            That is the fear.

                            by volleyboy1 on Tue May 22, 2012 at 12:45:38 PM PDT

                            or perhaps you mean this one that they don't agree with me about:
                            Oh I don't think we should go to war (5+ / 0-)

                            Recommended by:jrooth, sunbro, dancesonpedal, JNEREBEL, Mets102

                            I think boycotts and sanctions until compliance and then inspections are the way to go. I don't think War is necessary right now.

                            by volleyboy1 on Tue May 22, 2012 at 12:35:51 PM PDT

                            So could you please tell the Zionist in your head to quiet down and let you focus on exactly what is being said to you here?

                            Thanks, it would make the discussion a lot better if you could actually take part in it.

                          •  That wasn't what I was referring to (0+ / 0-)

                            This:

                            Dagan tells 60 Minutes’ Lesley Stahl that the regime in Iran is a rational one. When asked whether Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is rational, Dagan responded that he was.

                            “Not exactly our rational, but I think he is rational,” Dagan said. Adding that though their rationality was different from the Western way of thinking, “they are considering all the implications of their actions…They will have to pay dearly…and I think the Iranians at this point in time are…very careful on the project,” says Dagan. “They are not running…”

                            http://www.haaretz.com/...

                            basically Iran is not going to "wipe Israel off the map" anytime soon.  Heh.

                          •  Again.. who are you arguing with? (0+ / 0-)

                            I just provided three examples of where I agree with them (Dagan and Diskin) and then one very specific example where I said that Iran doesn't have the power to "wipe Israel off the map"at this time.

                            So when you say:

                            By the way isn't it bizarre how the Israeli Mossad and Shin Bet chiefs agree with me and not you?
                            You mean you don't think they agree with this:
                            Right now, Iran cannot wipe Israel off the Earth(vb1 emphasis) but they can cause problems like the ones they admit they are involved in... Lebanon, Gaza... Terror....
                            But that is just what you said Dagan said... So I don't get your comment.

                            Really... you need to stop arguing with the Zionist in your head. I think you pretty much have heard that before but for some reason, you choose to ignore it. I am concerned for you....

                          •  ... (0+ / 0-)

                            If you agree with me why did you respond to my origninal post in such an aggressive manner?

                          •  Yeah... except I don't agree with your first (0+ / 0-)

                            comment. I thought it was wrong and I told you why.

                            The only thing we do agree on is the thought that Iran can't wipe Israel off the map at this time.

                            Again, if you actually read what I have written we could have cut this conversation by 75%.

                          •  What in my first comment did you disagree with? (0+ / 0-)
                          •  and of course it is because *I* haven't read (0+ / 0-)

                            what YOU wrote.  Not because you have shifted positions throughout the discussion (like saying Iran is trying to acquire nuclear weapons to trying to acquire nuclear power).  You are so patient and understanding.  Thank you.  Thank you for bearing with us mere mortals. (sarcasm off)

                      •  So you are NOT annoyed that this diary is up (0+ / 0-)

                        at Daily Kos? I am just not getting your meaning here.
                         ;-)

            •  And sew buttons ;) (0+ / 0-)

              that is what my grandma always used to say.  God rest her soul.

    •  Hi Romo... We missed you (not really).... (0+ / 0-)

      Abstract statements about destroying Israel like this:

      "The Iranian nation is standing for its cause that is the full annihilation of Israel."

      or this:

      "In future too, we will support and help everyone who opposes the Zionist regime,"
      or perhaps this "abstract" quote from the Ayatollah Khamenei:
      "The Zionist regime is a real cancerous tumor that should be cut and will be cut, God Willing,"

      Oh let's not forget this comment:

      "Wherever Iran interferes, it announces it in a very straightforward manner. For instance, we interfered in confrontations against Israel, which resulted in the (Lebanese) victory in the 33-day war and (Palestinians' victory in) the 22-day (Gaza) war," Ayatollah Khamenei said, addressing millions of Friday Prayers worshippers on Tehran University Campus in February.

      So let's see - Iran has threatened to wipe Israel out AND they admit to being mititarily active against Israel.

      Gee, who could be worried about them rationally? eh?

      •  I don't know who this Romo person is (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Bisbonian

        but It is well known that Israel has plans on the books to bomb Iran in the near future.  Whereas, this is not the case with Iran, and I have high ranking Israeli and U.S. intelligence and military officials to back me up on this.

        What you are citing is empty political rhetoric.  No serious person expect Iran to attack Israel anytime soon.  Whereas people do expect that of Israel.

        •  SOME people expect that of Israel not all (0+ / 0-)

          Personally I don't think they will.

          But here is the difference... No one is saying that Israel is threatening to wipe Iran off the map. Not Israelis, not even Iranians. The Iranian political and Military leadership is threatening to wipe Israel off the map.

          See the difference.

          •  What I see is a very specific threat (0+ / 0-)

            towards Iran.  On the other side of the ledger I see empty political rhetoric.  Rhetoric that has been recycled for the past 30 years, which Iran has never acted on.  But this time it will be different! (end sarcasm)

            •  Wait... you mean (1+ / 0-)

              empty rhetoric that has never been acted on like this:

              "Wherever Iran interferes, it announces it in a very straightforward manner. For instance, we interfered in confrontations against Israel, which resulted in the (Lebanese) victory in the 33-day war and (Palestinians' victory in) the 22-day (Gaza) war," Ayatollah Khamenei said, addressing millions of Friday Prayers worshippers on Tehran University Campus in February.
              So you are saying that Iran HAS NOT acted militarily against Israel even though it's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khameini admits to it?

              Interesting.

              •  Iran has never attempted to wipe Israel off the (0+ / 0-)

                map.

                The instances you cite were actions to remove Israel from Arab land (Gaza and Lebanon).  Not Jewish land.  So your example makes no sense.

                Anyhow, do you want me to count the times that Israel has launched terrorist attacks on Iran through its proxies and directly?

                Furthermore, I have already stated that Iran has terrorist proxies in and around Israel (i.e. Hezbollah).

                •  Wait.... Gaza was an "action" removing Israel (2+ / 0-)

                  from Palestinian land? So... am I to understand that S'derot, and Ashkelon ARE NOT Israeli territory? Who knew?

                  As for Lebanon... So the kidnapping and execution of Israeli soldiers in 2006 that led to the Lebanon II was to toss Israel off of Lebanese land.

                  You have an interesting take on this.

                  But yeah Iran has NOT tried to wipe Israel off the map.. yet. My point was that they have been involved militarily against Israel and now they are making threats. Do deny that?

                  You can certainly list off Israeli attacks on Iranian scientists and part of the effort to create nuclear weaponry. However, that is a false equivalency. If wanted to create that, you would have to list how many verifiable Israeli attacks there were on Iranian cities.

                  •  I don't support those actions (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    aliasalias

                    And I don't deny that.  But you are way overexaggerating the threat.  You are making inappropriate connections and assumptions.

                    You can certainly list off Israeli attacks on Iranian scientists and part of the effort to create nuclear weaponry. However, that is a false equivalency. If wanted to create that, you would have to list how many verifiable Israeli attacks there were on Iranian cities.
                    Well firstly there is no evidence they are making nuclear weapons.  Israel is killing Iranian scientists to stop a peaceful nuclear program.  And many of those attacks on Iranian scientists were on Iranian soil.

                    Secondly, that is my point.  You can engage in military actions without attempting to wipe a country of the map.

                    •  What "inappropriate connections" am I making? (0+ / 0-)

                      Well, the Israelis and Western Intelligence thought they were. Who here denies that Israel has taken shots at Iranian scientists.. Not me. I don't even think the Israelis are denying it.

                      BUT The Israelis are NOT shooting rockets into Israeli cities as Hamas and other militant groups did. That is something that Iran is actually taking credit for.

                      As for this:

                      Secondly, that is my point.  You can engage in military actions without attempting to wipe a country of the map
                      .

                      Of course you can... hence my comment:

                      But yeah Iran has NOT tried to wipe Israel off the map.. yet. My point was that they have been involved militarily against Israel and now they are making threats. Do deny that?
                      Let me break this down for you....  While Iran has not YET tried to destroy Israel, can you see how given their previous military involvement coupled with their elminiationist rhetoric and attempts at acquiring Nuclear Power would make Israel nervous. Simple question. Yes or No?
        •  Yeah, sorry. (3+ / 0-)

          Nobody in their right mind buys "brand-new" users diving head-first into I/P diaries. And your style is disturbingly familiar.

          Fuck me, it's a leprechaun.

          by MBNYC on Tue May 22, 2012 at 02:34:18 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Ok. (4+ / 0-)

    Very disturbing comments by the General, which go right along with some very concerning statements by Imam Khamenei in recent speeches.  Saying things like "Israel is a cancer, and we must cut that cancer.  And we will" does not exactly make one hope for peace.

    Some say that this is just "tough talk", intended to placate the masses.  I disagree to an extent.  Some of it is, undoubtedly, done for domestic political reasons.  An example of this is the statements of the idiot Ahmadinejad that "Israel should be annihilated".  I can't dismiss the words of the General or Imam Khamenei so easily though.  Neither man really cares about political appearances.  The Supreme Leader is nigh on impossible to remove, and it can't be done by the populace (without revolution).  The General is, of course, a tool of Khamenei, and also cares nothing of politics.  At a time when common sense says they should be reducing the animosity toward Israel to avoid the destruction of the regime, they are going in the opposite direction.

    That should frighten everyone involved: Israeli, Palestinian, and American alike.

    •  YES... (2+ / 0-)

      Ahmadinejhad is one thing. But Khameinei and the Military's Chief of Staff are quite another.

      Personally I think they are only "barking" now, but if they
      feel real pressure they could bite in a regional way, through Hizbollah or Hamas.

      •  Well... (0+ / 0-)

        I can't deny the possiblity of a regional "bite", especially from Hamas.  I know we won't agree on this, but I see Hezbollah a little differently.  I don't think Nasrallah will stupidly waste his force at Iran's bidding, not in this situation.  He has two overriding concerns at the center of his universe: resolution of the Palestinian issue, and protecting the people of Lebanon.  Attacking Israel at the behest of Khamenei does not serve either interest.  And also, right now he has a bit of a mess on his hands inside Lebanon itself, with the spillover from Syria and neighborhoods in Beirut once again falling under shelling.  

        Sigh.  It never ends.

        •  On Hamas... Haniyeh has said he will NOT (0+ / 0-)

          go to war to support Iran, AND Hamas has formed a 300 man unit to suppress Rocket fire from Gaza. Personally I think this was at the behest of the Egyptians who want the border quiet, especially during elections.

          It seems to be that is where Hamas will head for support particularly with the new government coming up. I may be wrong but that is my bet right now.

          As for Hizbollah... I don't think much will come from them until the Syrian situation calms down. SO... I agree, at this moment and for a bit of time ahead things should be quiet. But once Assad either gains control or is overthrown, depending on who takes power, I can see them "stirring the Hornets nest" at some point.

          And I agree with your "Sigh... it never ends comment" I wish it would.

    •  He didn't say "Israel is a cancer" (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      downsouth

      He said, "The Zionist regime is a real cancerous tumor that should be cut and will be cut, God Willing."  A significant difference. A difference like that between wanting to remove a neo-con regime in the United States, and wanting to destroy the United States.  Best not to put words in their mouths.  There are enough words flying around already.

      •  Wait... there is a difference between (0+ / 0-)

        saying you are a cancer and saying you are a cancerous tumor????? Really???? Is that your point? That is what you are sticking on???? WOW!

        ROFL.

        •  Well ... I'm not really agreeing with this ... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          downsouth, volleyboy1

          but I think he's drawing a distinction between Israel and the "Zionist regime."

          Personally I doubt Khamenei was making that distinction.

          “What’s the use of having developed a science well enough to make predictions if, in the end, all we’re willing to do is stand around and wait for them to come true?” - Sherwood Rowland

          by jrooth on Tue May 22, 2012 at 06:47:55 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  So you might just as well change his words (0+ / 0-)

            for him, to make erase any possibility of distinction.

            •  Based on many things I've seen in the past (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              downsouth, volleyboy1

              from Iranian government officials, it appears to me that "Zionist regime" in their usage equates with a Jewish state of Israel.  That is, what they're talking about is a one state solution with full right of return for Palestinians (including descendants born outside Israel) and with no Jewish state religion.

              Now we can argue about whether Israel can exist as a non-Jewish state, but it certainly would be a very different thing than it is now.  And as a practical matter, a two state solution is vastly more probable than a one state solution abandoning Israel's Jewish identity.

              “What’s the use of having developed a science well enough to make predictions if, in the end, all we’re willing to do is stand around and wait for them to come true?” - Sherwood Rowland

              by jrooth on Tue May 22, 2012 at 08:38:08 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Exactly. (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                volleyboy1, jrooth

                It's why they always use that phrasing.  "Zionist regime" refers specifically to a Jewish State of Israel.  When you get down to it, its not the State of Israel that they object to, though they'd prefer to call it the State of Palestine.  It's the Jewish nature of the current State that they object to.

                At least, thats the argument they give.

      •  You're right. (0+ / 0-)

        I was paraphrasing from memory when I should have looked up the quote.  I most definitely should have said "Zionist regime" instead of Israel.

  •  How would one resolve the (0+ / 0-)

    seeming disparity in these views:

    While Obama has called for patience, according to the Daily Beast
    and
    at least one top military commander already envisions Iran as the most significant threat to the middle east...(some general) known by admirers as the “warrior monk” and by detractors as “Mad Dog Mattis"
    Part of the answer may include an accomodation to the issue of: just who works for who here?

    By the way, the President has his admirers, and his detractors, and an associated range of nicknames, as well. Why not mention them here? Or where is it meaningful to menton the general's?

    H'mm. I'm not terribly into this, anymore.

    by Knarfc on Tue May 22, 2012 at 03:06:36 PM PDT

  •  Just more pathetic saber rattling (4+ / 0-)

    from a powerless gold leaf wearing "military" man.  Iran is just about as  likely to attack Israel as Pakistan is going to attack India.  Suicide is not a military strategy.  But by all means take some idiot's macho posturing as a real warning just to stir shit up.

    "Es mejor morir de pie que vivir de rodilla." E. Zapata

    by Mas Gaviota on Tue May 22, 2012 at 06:37:38 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site