Bomb Iran

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Here is an interesting report from the International Crisis Group, an organization that seeks to resolve worldwide conflicts, that reflects neither the "bomb Iran now!" or the "Iran poses no threat" camps (both of which I think are equally deluded.

In Heavy Waters: Iran’s Nuclear Program, the Risk of War and Lessons from Turkey

[vison]

That was an excellent article, Voronwë, thank you for posting it.

. . . and is probably years away from the capability to manufacture a deliverable atomic weapon . . .

That is the key sentence, IMHO.

Militaristic posturing, threats - waving the big stick - seem to me to often means of enabling any government (anywhere) of diverting attention away from problems it can't or won't solve.

My sympathies, if sympathies are important, lie with Israel. But the state of Israel is as prone to power plays as any other.

[Ghân-buri-Ghân]

I found this article in the Guardian supporting the idea that there is a "full spectrum" propaganda exercise vilifying Iran. I had forgotten the wikileaks exposure of how

the US charge d'affaires, Geoffrey Pyatt, wrote: "[head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)]Amano reminded [the] ambassador on several occasions that he would need to make concessions to the G-77 [the developing countries group], which correctly required him to be fair-minded and independent, but that he was solidly in the US court on every key strategic decision, from high-level personnel appointments to the handling of Iran's alleged nuclear weapons program."

It would appear that there is a growing chorus of experts questioning the growing impartiality of the IAEA, and how the IAEA increasingly "cherry-picks" intelligence data. This was most apparent with how dossier after dossier refuting claims that Iran has a nuclear weapons programme are ignored in favour of febrile, politically motivated pronouncements.
It is astonishing that when a nuclear nation (Israel) threatens an unprovoked, act of aggression against a nation state (Iran), rather than outright condemnation, the USA equivocates. Is this simply that the USA wishes Iran to be attacked, and is content for its symbiotic co-proxy (I'm never sure who is the proxy in the Israel/USA relationship, when watching the US politicians genuflecting to AIPAC) to strike first.
I find this all deeply disturbing.

My sympathies, if sympathies are important, lie with Israel.

Why?

[vison]

Because.

Or, I could say, "Why not?"

I got into a big pot of hot something-or-other on another forum for saying, "Because they're like me. Iran is not."

That's part of the reason, but certainly not all. And, no, I don't only like people that are "like me". Unless the part where they aren't "like me" is composed of things I loathe.

[Ghân-buri-Ghân]

Because.

Or, I could say, "Why not?"

I got into a big pot of hot something-or-other on another forum for saying, "Because they're like me. Iran is not."

That's part of the reason, but certainly not all. And, no, I don't only like people that are "like me". Unless the part where they aren't "like me" is composed of things I loathe.

Ok, that's fair...

But I wonder how much your impression of Israel is romanticised, based on the Tel Aviv cosmopolitans rather than the zealots of Jerusalem and the hundreds of thousands of Israeli occupiers of the West Bank?

I wonder, vison, have you ever been to Israel? Or Iran?

Voronwë, I meant to respond earlier to your link to the International Crisis Group. I, too, found the article interesting, but I am wary of the underlying politics of the group. A perusal of who instigated the group calls into question its impartiality. Again, it places even-handedness in a skewed position IMHO; there is no drive for subjecting Israel to the same pressure over its nuclear programme as Iran is. Thus "fair" is not that fair.

The impression I have of the ICG is that it is an incredibly slick propaganda organisation pushing a Western biased agenda in the most reasonable of terms.

[vison]

Never been to Israel or Iran.

Am not particularly worried about Iran in the "world threatening" sense. Am worried that Israel might jump the gun.

Still "on Israel's side". One does not dump one's friends because one is worried that they might make a mistake. Not that Israel would miss me.

"Fairness" is a concept that . . . well, belongs on the playground. It will never be a part of international affairs unless everyone agrees on the rules.

[Ghân-buri-Ghân]

Never been to Israel or Iran.

Am not particularly worried about Iran in the "world threatening" sense. Am worried that Israel might jump the gun.

Still "on Israel's side". One does not dump one's friends because one is worried that they might make a mistake. Not that Israel would miss me.

"Fairness" is a concept that . . . well, belongs on the playground. It will never be a part of international affairs unless everyone agrees on the rules.

I meant "fair" as in even-handed. I would say that, in international affairs/diplomacy, being even-handed should be the goal, rather than such an approach being left "on the playground".

I am interested in this idea that your "friends" might make a mistake. This does sort of imply that you believe, sol far, that they have made no mistakes. Is that what you mean? And I would be even more interested in ascertaining how you have arrived at your "friendship", considering you have not actually visited either Israel or Iran...

[Griffon64]

It isn't practical to personally visit any place one might have an opinion on in order to see what it's like over there, any more than it is practical, say, to conduct a one-on-one, in depth chat with every politician that represents one somehow, all the way up to the presidential candidates.

So we're all left to make do as best as we can with reports, information, news, and other things of that nature. For the most part, it doesn't work too badly. Sometimes there are misrepresentations and cover-ups. Some of them get uncovered, because in the real world and especially with the internet, it is difficult to suppress something forever - and the bigger it is, the harder it is. ( Support your local press! The more the merrier! )

Now, if you have a practical idea for how everybody can do better, out with it.

[vison]

Never been to Israel or Iran.

Am not particularly worried about Iran in the "world threatening" sense. Am worried that Israel might jump the gun.

Still "on Israel's side". One does not dump one's friends because one is worried that they might make a mistake. Not that Israel would miss me.

"Fairness" is a concept that . . . well, belongs on the playground. It will never be a part of international affairs unless everyone agrees on the rules.

I meant "fair" as in even-handed. I would say that, in international affairs/diplomacy, being even-handed should be the goal, rather than such an approach being left "on the playground".

I am interested in this idea that your "friends" might make a mistake. This does sort of imply that you believe, sol far, that they have made no mistakes. Is that what you mean? And I would be even more interested in ascertaining how you have arrived at your "friendship", considering you have not actually visited either Israel or Iran...

I said nothing about the past. And, furthermore, I won't. I'm talking about the future, the pretty immediate future.

As for the concept of "fairness" and "even-handedness"? Sure. You figure out a way to ensure it - every player in the game agreeing, even the really big powerful bully-shouldered players and the little wee nasty ankle-biting players and I, personally, will start a petition to see that you get the Nobel Peace Prize.

I admire the state of Israel for many reasons. Offhand, I can't think of one thing I admire about Iran. Maybe I could if I wanted to spend the time on the project, but, hey, I have a busy life and far, far, far, far more important things to worry about.

[Ghân-buri-Ghân]

It isn't practical to personally visit any place one might have an opinion on in order to see what it's like over there, any more than it is practical, say, to conduct a one-on-one, in depth chat with every politician that represents one somehow, all the way up to the presidential candidates.

So we're all left to make do as best as we can with reports, information, news, and other things of that nature. For the most part, it doesn't work too badly. Sometimes there are misrepresentations and cover-ups. Some of them get uncovered, because in the real world and especially with the internet, it is difficult to suppress something forever - and the bigger it is, the harder it is. ( Support your local press! The more the merrier! )

Now, if you have a practical idea for how everybody can do better, out with it.

Oh, I agree. I lived in Israel for three years (Herzliya), and I have visited Teheran a number of times. I think that provides me with some insight, but it doesn't give me definitive knowledge.

What does frustrate me is how prejudiced people are, forming bias from information that is filtered through marked propagandist lenses. So my practical idea for how everybody can do better is... don't believe a word the MSM broadcasts; it is at best distorted, and at worst diametrically opposite to the truth. Hold ones own country (and allies) to the same critical standard enemies are held to. Hubris is wearyingly prevalent, everywhere!

My reading of history tells me that we sleepwalk into conflict by not challenging the assumptions that take us there. And they really are assumptions.

[axordil]

Hold ones own country (and allies) to the same critical standard enemies are held to. Hubris is wearyingly prevalent, everywhere!

My reading of history tells me that we sleepwalk into conflict by not challenging the assumptions that take us there. And they really are assumptions.

Well put. I'd add that alternative media sources have their own agendas as well, so healthy all-around skepticism and sampling of a variety of sources on the important stuff to put together a picture of what's "real" is suggested.

ETA: and rare is the situation where one side is unblemished and the other purely evil. Sometimes, really, it's unclear that there IS a side in a conflict worth supporting.

[SirDennis]

Well I'm sure you admire, or at least recognize that there are a lot of people there just like "us" who are trying to live their lives the best way they can... people on both sides that will suffer (and have suffered) under the dictates of boys who appear to like to play with their guns.

It is also understood, that is there is agreement in general, that even limited nuclear war would be bad for the entire planet and it's inhabitants.

The deeper question I think Ghân is driving at (though I can probably guess the answer already) is, leaving aside the argument for their necessity, why do we trust some nations (which is essentially their leaders) with nuclear arms but not others?

ETA: note to self, read all the replies before responding. What Ghân and ax said.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Here is an excellent article from Reuters that is not slanted either to the "bomb Iran now!!!!!" nor to the "Iran is no threat" camps, both of which I consider to be equally irresponsible.

Special Report: Intel shows Iran nuclear threat not imminent

One thing that is abundantly clear from this article is just how dangerous it would be to the world if President Obama is replaced by any of the current GOP candidates.

[vison]

Iran is no threat to the US.

And, I agree with whichever commentator that said, "We must treat Iran as a rational nation". For a minute my head went wugga-wugga but then, as he went on, I understood what he meant: for all the hateful rhetoric, it HAS been only rhetoric.

I really truly hope that Israel does not alienate the US by bombing Iran. I don't see that the US would "abandon" Israel, but it would still be a bad idea.

I watched Bill Moyers interview Andrew J. Bacevich the other night, he has written and compiled a book titled "The Short American Century". It was a fascinating interview with a very thoughtful and reasonable man and I wonder if anyone else here saw it?

[Ghân-buri-Ghân]

Iran is no threat to the US.

And, I agree with whichever commentator that said, "We must treat Iran as a rational nation". For a minute my head went wugga-wugga but then, as he went on, I understood what he meant: for all the hateful rhetoric, it HAS been only rhetoric.

I really truly hope that Israel does not alienate the US by bombing Iran. I don't see that the US would "abandon" Israel, but it would still be a bad idea.

I am still puzzled by what appears to be prejudice. vison, you describe Iran's "hateful rhetoric". Could you give some examples? How does it compare with the threats of attacking Iran repeatedly made by Israel, or the USA? The sanctions regime imposed by the EU? There is continuous manoeuvring by "the West" to instigate "regime change" in Iran, including targetted assassinations and incursions by special forces based in Iraq. Should not this induce your opprobrium? Yet it seems that unexplained "hateful rhetoric" is, somehow, more deserving of notice.

It is... strange.

As a caveat, the MSM lazily trots out claims that Iran has threatened to "wipe Israel off the map". Iran hasn't, of course. But why let facts get in the way of prejudice?