Well, you would say that, wouldn't you David!?
Rhrosty.

Yep Rhrosty

We can rely on one thing. Sayan Singer's articles never change.

Cheers

Pete

Rhrosty,

What exactly are you objecting to?

There are indeed material documented differences between the English and Farsi versions of the 'understanding', or are you disputing those differences?

The outcome of the P5+1 talks is a major letdown, following the repeated announcements that an agreement must be reached by the end of March. It's basically business as usual - let's continue the status quo as we have been for the past decade or so and postpone any further discussion to the future. I will be extremely surprised if any agreement is actually signed by the June 30 deadline.

Avw

The US accepted Pakistan's right (US knew all about it - in the media) to build a nuclear deterrent against already nuclear India.

Why shouldn't the US be democratic and humantarian in permitting Iran that right against very nuclear armed Israel?

Pete

Pete

There is one small difference that is quite relevant to this discussion: Pakistan has never claimed that its ambition is to wipe India off the map, whereas Iran has been repeatedly promising to do exactly that to Israel. The Iranian regime tells you clearly what they would like to do, and you suggest giving them the means to do it?

Avw: Read my post again and identify where in that single sentence I have objected to, or disputed anything!?

You'd have to put words in my mouth I just didn't say or go the verbal to find a single, inferred by you, example!

All I've noted is David's same old same old/broken record (pro-Israel) rhetoric!

Which by the way, seems to shift attention away from the endless illegal new settlements! (His goal?) The real seemingly insolvable problem in that part of the world!?

Perhaps we need to wait just a little longer, to see if the east and west can reach a workable agreement with Iran, before we bomb them and any chance whatsoever, to hell and away forever, from an enduring peace!

And unless settled, it probably is only a question of time before Iran acquires some IBM's from an increasingly sympathetic, more radicalized, sabre rattling Pakistan; looking for an unholy unjust cause to become?

And with only one possible goal!? A first strike/killer blow; and a new ally against India!?

I mean, one doesn't need the wisdom of Solomon, to understand this thing not only needs to get no bigger or gather more players, but must be settled for once and for all!

There's a much bigger picture here, and much more important than the survival of a single imposed occupying nation; but rather, that of the entire M.E; or indeed, the entire planet!

And hardly helped by the same old Singer song! You'd think they'd---?

I don't know who they are, but they've got so much to answer for; and from Hyde Park to Hallswell.
Rhrosty.

Avw

You may be referring to the previous President of Iran not the incumbent who they say is a "kindly old man".

You therefore haf to tell your boss bwana Netanyahu.

"If Israel can't stand a regular nuking, get outta dah Middle East".

I understand there is some land to rent in Tasmania.

Nice weather. Fewer fights.

Rhrosty:

It doesn't take a genius to figure out from your first post that your opinion of David's article is quite negative, what exactly you were objecting to was not clear however. I am glad you have now clarified your objection.

"Perhaps we need to wait just a little longer, to see if the east and west can reach a workable agreement with Iran..."

How much longer do you propose we wait? We have already been waiting for over a decade, while Iran continues to advance towards becoming a nuclear power. Would you suggest we wait another decade? By then none of this would matter because Iran would have achieved its goal and be able to threaten any of its neighbours with annihilation.

"...before we bomb them..."

Bombing should be the very last resort. Continued and escalated sanctions are very likely to convince the Iranian regime to give up their nuclear ambition (or else risk a coup d'etat), making any bombing campaign unnecessary.

"There's a much bigger picture here, and much more important than the survival of a single imposed occupying nation..."

I assume you are referring to Israel here, but we can argue the 'occupying nation' term elsewhere where it's more relevant to the discussion. You are absolutely correct, a nuclear armed Iran will be a danger to the entire ME, which explains why many Arab states are now lining up against Iran and are calling for the sanctions to continue. This is exactly why we need to put more pressure on Iran to stop this madness, rather than allow the negotiations to go on indefinitely while they continue to develop the bomb.

Pete:

I'm not sure whether the current president of Iran is a "kindly old man" or not, what I do know is that he is largely irrelevant in determining Iran's policies. Policy is dictated by the unelected Ayatollah of the day, regardless of what any president says. We all know what he is pushing for, but just in case you have any doubt, here it is again:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2014/11/09/iran_s_khamenei_israel_must_be_annihilated.html

Hi Avw

All is complex and personalised, like Israel and Australia. The comparative status of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and President http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hassan_Rouhani depends on many more factors than official powers.

Naturally relations between the Iran and the US are important. The Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution (Iranian Revolutionary Guards) would be considered a terrorist outfit by Israel. However Iran with its Revolutionary Guards Special Forces (directing Shiite militia) are recognised by the US as the most effective ground forces against IS in Iraq and Syria.

It is quite obvious that Netanyahu is frustrated that the US now considers Iran, its Revolutionary Guards and Shiite militia's, as valuable allies - though not in Yemen, of course.

The US also sees a nuclear armed Iran as inevitable - when not if. A nuclear armed Iran is not only a regional deterrence balance against nuclear Israel. It also a balance against the nuclear potntial of the Saudis. The Saudis have financially supported Pakistan's nuclear program for decades. The deal is if strategic tensions rise the Saudis can place Pakistani nuclear warheads on the ballistic missiles the Saudis bought from China.

See Saudi issues towards the end of my 2014 home sigint collection article mainly concerning Iran http://gentleseas.blogspot.com.au/2014/01/iranian-nuclear-program-iranian.html .

Regards

Pete

#Rhrosty and #plantaganet

Even President Obama is now belatedly expressing doubts about the "understanding" with Iran - as this following news item makes clear.

"Obama admitted that "there are a lot of details to be worked out, and you could see backtracking and slippage and real political difficulties, both in Iran and obviously here in the United States Congress."

Speaking more generally, he said, "If in fact we can resolve these issues diplomatically, we are more likely to be safe, more likely to be secure, in a better position to protect our allies, and who knows? Iran may change." The nuclear negotiations, he said, are "this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity."
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/obama-deal-with-iran-in-trouble/article/2562737?utm_campaign=Washington%20Examiner:%20Opinion%20Digest%20PMI&utm_source=Washington%20Examiner:%20Opinion%20Digest%20PMI%20-%2004/09/15&utm_medium=email

I wonder if the good President indeed read this article in OLO

Get a life boys.

The Iran understanding is becoming less understandable with every passing day.

Shooting the messenger and ignoring the message is making you both look increasingly out of touch.

What is scaring Israel is that relations between Iran and the US are becoming closer. Iran's Revolutionary Guards, who direct Shiite militia, are recognised by the US as the most effective ground force against IS in Iraq and Syria.

The US also sees a nuclear armed Iran as inevitable - when not if. A nuclear armed Iran is not only a regional deterrence balance against nuclear Israel. It also a balance against the nuclear potential of the Saudis. The Saudis have financially supported Pakistan's nuclear program for decades. The deal is if strategic tensions rise the Saudis can place Pakistani nuclear warheads on the ballistic missiles the Saudis bought from China.

See Saudi issues towards the end of my 2014 home sigint collection article mainly concerning Iranhttp://gentleseas.blogspot.com.au/2014/01/iranian-nuclear-program-iranian.html .

Hi Pete:

The Iranian president's power is limited by the Supreme Leader. "It is the supreme leader -- not the elected president -- who controls Iran's armed forces and makes decisions on security, defense, and key foreign-policy issues... [the president] can be overruled by the clerical establishment via the judiciary or the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps". As for the president’s candidacy, he must pass the vetting process overseen by the Guardian Council. "a candidate's devotion to Shi'ite Islam, the state religion, and their belief in the principles of the Islamic republic are factored into the equation". In other words, candidates must win the approval of the clergy before they are even allowed to stand for election. Their thinking and philosophy must not be radically different to that handed down by the Supreme Leader. The above is from here:
http://www.rferl.org/content/guide-iran-presidential-election/24996324.html

Iran's Revolutionary Guards might indeed be the most effective ground forces against IS in Iraq and Syria, but this comes with a price. Iran is not doing this for nothing – at the end of the day (once IS forces are defeated) it will have control over vast territory that will include Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and some Gulf States. It will threaten the security of Arab states (let alone Israel) and will be in a position to destabilise the entire ME. We are trading the immediate problem of dealing with the (relatively small) IS now, in order to deal with a much bigger problem (a nuclear Iran controlling vast areas) in the future. This is not sound policy.

"A nuclear armed Iran is not only a regional deterrence balance against nuclear Israel. It also a balance against the nuclear pot[e]ntial of the Saudis"

According to current theories, Israel obtained nuclear capability in the 1950s/1960s. I cannot remember the last time Israel threatened any of its neighbours with a nuclear strike, can you?
Regarding the Saudis, the main reason they are looking at nuclear weapons is a nuclear Iran, not a nuclear Israel. Allowing Iran to develop nuclear weapons is a sure way to guarantee a nuclear arms race in the ME.

Hi Avw

Always a pleasure to debate with you.

President Rouhani is unusual in carrying religious weight, a major plus in Iran, in his own right. Inter alia, he has a Doctorate in Iranian Islamic Law.

see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hassan_Rouhani#Early_life_and_education

The comparative status of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and President Rouhani depends on many more factors than official powers (position descriptions). Put another way their differing constitutional status' doesn't prevent the backchannels and understandings present in all countries.

Yes Iran's Revolutionary Guards will temporarily gain more influence outside Iran but a reversion to the Shiite militia, as part proxies.

Note the default positions of the Shiite militia - powerful in Lebanon and dominant in Iraq for most of the last 10 years. Israel and the US are very aware that these militia were/remain partly armed by and under the advice of Iran's Revolutionary Guards. So what's new?

Re: "I cannot remember the last time Israel threatened any of its neighbours with a nuclear strike, can you?"

In the 1967 and 1973 War Israel indicated it had nuclear devices - an implicit threat to Egypt to back off.

In the 1970s Israeli representitives in Moscow indicated to Russia (concerning Russian advisers and materiel support in Egypt and Syria) that if the Russians did not back off in the Middle East then Israel was prepared to modify Jericho missiles for use against Russian forces in the Middle East and against Russia itself.* Such nuclear deterrence started with Ben-Gurion's "never again" policy.

In the 1970s the US (including Rumsfeld and Cheney) seriously thought of the Shah's Iran as a fitting candidate to receive US assistance to build nuclear weapons. The US at that time saw Iran as another Deputy Sheriff in the Middle East like the US (up to 2008) considered Israel.

The Saudis decided by 1974 (first Indian nuclear test) to start funding India's nemesis Pakistan's nuclear effort. This is 5 years before the wrong Iranian government (this time undeserving of US nuclear weapon assistance) took power.

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jericho_%28missile%29

A good read is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_Option before you buy the book.

Regards

Pete

Pete,

While the Iranian influence in Lebanon and Iraq has been known for a while, it has been steadily growing over recent years, especially in Iraq, as Iran pours more resources into the conflict. They are also increasing their influence in Syria, Yemen and the Gulf States, a situation that did not exist 10 years ago. Iran’s influence will grow exponentially once they successfully obtain nuclear capabilities, with more Arab States falling victim to their strategy. Whether the Iranian control of those countries is exercised using the Revolutionary Guards or their Shi’ite proxies makes little difference.

I am quite familiar with The Samson Option, in fact I have a dusty hard copy sitting on my shelf and I have read it years ago. It does make an interesting read, but does not have a lot of credibility, since most of the theories are based on hearsay from a number of individuals who may or may not be pushing their own agenda, with little evidence to shore up the arguments presented. It is quite obvious that the Egyptians were not influenced by this theory either, since they did not back off in 1967 or in 1973: In 1967 it was the Israeli pre-emptive strike that forced the Egyptians to withdraw. The 1973 war was started by Egypt and Syria, both countries seemingly unaware of any Israeli nuclear threat. It was the crossing of the Suez Canal by Israeli forces and the encirclement of the Egyptian Third Army that compelled the Egyptians to stop fighting, not any theoretical nuclear intimidation by Israel.

Hi Avw

Yes Shiite dominated Iraq now shares its destiny and open border with Iran. The spectre that Iraq may support Iran's nuclear effort is an additional reason the US is in Iraq.

Good that you already have the Samson Option. As Israel won't even confirm it has nuclear weapons all evidence like that book will always be "hearsay".

In such issues of secrecy one decides on the scale of likelihood without necessarily direct proof. "Hearsay" it is. For example one could accept Israel's argument that the Jericho series of missiles are actually built for non-nuclear warheads in mind.

Also why lockup http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mordechai_Vanunu if Israel had no nukes to hide. Why build Dimona to power a fertiliser factory or other patently thin excuses.

On the other foot - why assume a rather fit Iranian male tourist in Lebanon is in Revolutionary Guards special forces when his papers are in order?

The Middle East lives and runs on hearsay as all the countries do not have an efficient https://www.mossad.gov.il/eng/Pages/default.aspx or Shin Bet/Shabak http://www.shabak.gov.il/english/Pages/default.aspx .

Pete

I see the Singer is still jerking the strings of some OLO readers and making them dance to his discordant tunes.

I see also that, world-wide, a myriad god-botherers are still given open slather when it comes to entrapping followers who clearly have feeble intellects and over-active gullibility.

It's also obvious that the U.S. is still engaged in trying to gain domination of our world using a collection of servile nations (Australia included) that either have imperial leanings or no national pride or maturity.

What a sad place our world is!

Hi Pete,

We could go on speculating about Israel’s nuclear capability, but I suspect we’ll never reach an agreement because no one really knows. But I do not consider this to be the main issue.

Iran, with its appalling human rights record, a stated desire (expressed repeatedly) to destroy Israel, and its continuous (and increasing) meddling in its neighbours’ affairs should not be allowed to possess nuclear weapons under any circumstances. A nuclear Iran makes a very poor choice as a regional deterrent against a (theoretically) nuclear Israel, assuming such a deterrent is actually required: nuclear weapons are already present in the region (Russia in the north, Pakistan and India to the east), we should be concentrating on reducing the number of countries with nuclear capabilities, not increasing it.
Once Iran obtains this technology, Saudi Arabia will escalate its efforts to obtain it too, and will undoubtedly be followed by others. This is the last thing we need in a fanatic and unstable area like the Middle East.

Tasmania is too cold by the way (just looking back at one of your comments further back).

David G:

I am saddened to hear of all the suffering you have to put up with, living in a servile, imperial-leaning country with no national pride or maturity. Perhaps you should consider migrating to Iran, or possibly North Korea, I’m confident you’ll be much happier there. I’ll be looking forward to reading your posts once you settle in. Just take a little extra care in criticising the regime when you’re there, I hear they don’t take kindly to negative feedback.

Hi Avw

Yes the debate goes on. In December 2006 one of Israel's less talented PMs admitted Israel had the Bomb. In that same interview the Iranian threat was raised. All indicating how stale the Israel-Iran "I have the bomb, but you can't have it" debate is.

As http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3338783,00.html repots:

"'...Iran explicitly, openly and publicly threatens to wipe Israel off the map."

[Olmert said] "Can you see that is the same level when you are aspiring to have a nuclear weapon as America, France, Israel and Russia?" he asked. Officials at the Prime Minister's Office later attempted to minimize the damage and rejected the claim that Olmert violated the ambiguousness policy by admitting that Israel possesses nuclear weapons."

In any case, with Pakistan already having built what it calls "the Islamic Bomb" for purchase, lease or rental, Iran should be happy with a nuclear time-share arrangement - like a condo on the Gold Coast.

And naturally Israel never indulges in "continuous (and increasing) meddling in its neighbours’ affairs".

I admit it, Tasmania is cold, full of (frequently anti-Semitic) Greenies and also anti-intellectual, anti-Greenie bogans.

This http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Steinberg#Freeland_League may interest you. That area of WA also interests the Chinese.

Cheers

Pete

Hi Pete

Very few countries in the world have not, at some point, been meddling in their neighbours’ affairs. By the same token, very few countries have repeatedly declared their intention to wipe out one of their neighbours.

I have heard about the idea of the Freeland League many years ago. It would have been interesting to see an alternative universe where such a plan got approved

Hi Avw

Yes, only democracies like Israel get permanently blamed for moving different ethnic groups out. Anti-Semites or anti-Israelis are dictators at heart.

Russia starved millions of Ukrainians and forcibly relocated millions of Muslims and 100,000s of Jews to Siberia-Mongolia during the Stalin years.

OLO has a hardcore of anti-Semitic punters who don't know if they're extreme Right or Extreme Left who live for their hatred of Israel and Jews.

I have my criticisms of Israel, especially Netanyahu, but it is mainly to make the country better than to eradicate it.

Pete