When Will Isreal Attack Iran ?

[lwien]

.............and do you think they will?

IMHO, there is no way in hell that Israel would allow nukes next door. I don't believe that the question is if, but when, and it ain't gonna be pretty and we WILL be involved, if not directly, than on the sidelines offering up weapons, technology and intel. It won't destroy their nuclear program, but it will slow it down and set it back and they will continue to slow it down and set it back over and over again, so that it never becomes a threat to her existence. What I fear though is that she may push that red button herself if she feels her back is really up against the wall, and that's some scary shit right there.

I think the only thing holding them back right now is the development of non-nuclear bunker busting bombs powerful enough to do the job while small enough to either fit under the wings of their fighters or small enough to top their ground to ground missiles. They really need to have these to hit Iran's well protected under ground facilities. We and Israel have these, but they may not be strong enough to do the job yet while being small enough that it doesn't take a B2 to deliver it. A small clean tactical nuke my be the only solution but the ramifications of using such a device would be humongous. She may feel, though, that she doesn't have any other choice.

My guess?.............From tomorrow to 3 years out.

 

[Plotinus]

It won't happen while Obama is in office. Israel would never green light such an attack without at least tacit US support, and the US will not support them for the following reasons:

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/07/23/stop_hyperventilating_obama_will_not_choose_war_wi/

I suspect that as long as we're engaged in land wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, an Iranian military option will not be on the table for us or Israel, unless we are counter-attacking.

 

[bcleez]

I agree with everything you said Plotinus. I imagine they are waiting for Obama to get voted out for a right wing war monger that would just love to strike.

I don't think that a strike on Iran is even necessary or even smart for that matter. Look at the mess that Afghanistan & Iraq have become. Plus Iran's sovereignty should be respected. Israel has nukes but no one complains... but for some reason people justify that they are more civil so they can have them (Ethnocentric viewpoint as Muslims would argue the opposite point). Well their human rights, war crimes, and other international records would say quite the opposite.

It is kind of a waste especially since if Israel is a true democracy in less than 50 years it will be a muslim state due to the high rate of reproduction of the muslim population.

I think that Israel should just focus on anti missle technology as we have just tested some lasers fired from a ship to knock down 4 drones. Double down on the defense and if Iran does fire a nuke pop it with a laser or have a Mossad inside agent program the nuke to detonate if it is fired so it rains radiation all over Iran. Israel has tons and tons of agents in Iran and could easily just sabotage the technology, even a gasket in the rocket could cause failure on launch.... So basically I don't think that a strike is the answer, its the balls out war monger solution that would probably lead to World War III.

 

[Plotinus]

Bcleez, the reasoning behind allowing Israel to have nuclear weapons is pretty different from what you just outlined. It has three tenets:

1) Israel already has nukes, so there's not much point arguing about it. (The Israelis having perceived the wisdom of that old adage, "It is easier to obtain forgiveness than permission.") This does not change the fact that nukes are objectively bad, and we should discourage countries from obtaining them.

2) Israel has a legitimate need for extreme deterrence because of its extremely violent history with its neighbors - an average of one war every 10 years with a neighboring country, none of them provoked by Israeli actions. Iran does not have this history or geopolitical situation to contend with. Can it demonstrate a rational need for extreme deterrence?

3) Even with a war every decade for the past 60+ years, Israel has never fired a nuclear weapon at a neighbor. And, not knowing your opinion about the country, I still would like to point out that even now, in the face of a nearly-nuclear threat whose political and military leadership regularly speak in public about destroying Israel, the Israeli government has made no suggestion that it would launch a nuclear strike against Iran. I think this is a good illustration of extreme restraint on Israel's part. Can you imagine the United States muting its rhetoric so much if, for example, Brazil were on the verge of obtaining nuclear weapons, and freely spoke of an apocalypse on American soil?

We are in agreement, though, that Israel needs to be focusing its energies on intelligence-gathering and defensive measures. If a war with Iran is necessary, the US will have to fight it, not Israel. Military exercises for supposed bombing runs are a waste of time.

 

[bcleez]

Plotinus, Where are these tenets from? Is it your opinion or a matter of fact like M.A.D.?

1. Israel has never admitted to having nukes. Sure we know they have them other countries have given up their programs.

2-a. This is from your perspective. If you put yourself on the side of Israel's enemy they would see Israel as the aggressor. Just because one nation might be the first to fire a bullet does not mean they have not been provoked in other ways. Look at Palestine - People will blow themselves up - that is a pretty desperate person. Not to mention that Israel is far superior in Military force

2-b. I would say that Iran could say they would need to protect themselves from US (the USA) We already have overthrown their government not too long ago, and currently are to their east and west. Also we have military bases all around them and well... We have people calling for us to nuke them...so I would say that they would see the USA as a threat. They know they could not defeat our war machine so it would make sense to have a powerful deterrent.

3. North Korea has nukes, made threats to USA, Japan, South Korea, and just about anyone who will listen. (North Korea & South Korea are still at war)

I don't think we owe Israel our forces to fight a war that is not even needed.

I think my main point that you might have misunderstood is that... WHO says that Israel can have nukes? It depends who you ask. Why is the opinion of the USA better than that of Russia or China? I don't want to point counter point but I felt I had to reply to your points because I still think that it is objective depending on your position on Israel/Iran.

Iran is demonized in this country, but its just winding everyone up for this upcoming conflict. Iran actually isn't that bad if you can get some solid facts about what is going on there, and not use an Ethnocentric viewpoint.

 

[Plotinus]

lwien, I hope we're not veering too far off topic for you. It was not my intention, but whenever Israel is the topic things can get going fast.

bcleez, I wrote you a long reply below, but I just wanted to say first that any disagreements I might have with you I want to have respectfully and kindly, after the fashion of how we do things on this forum. We might disagree on Israel, but we agree on vapor, and that should count for something.

Anyway...

Israel's general stance in the media is to neither confirm nor deny its possession of nuclear weapons, but in practice over the years it has become an open secret, to the point that even retired military commanders from the IDF will speak about the arsenal pretty much openly. Sorry, I would have added that the first time around but the tone of your first post made it sound like you took this for a given, as well.

I don't deny that partisans for Jordan, Syria, Iraq, etc. would make the claims you say they would make, but I don't accept the idea that because there are competing claims we cannot reason for ourselves which are more correct. I am neither Jordanian nor Israeli, and feel comfortable saying that when Jordan's standing army invaded Israel in 1967, this was in collusion with surrounding states, and not a response to any of Israel's actions.

In other words, when four separate countries - Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, and Egypt - invade Israel simultaneously, it doesn't sound like they're responding to individual outrages on their sovereignty. It sounds, on the contrary, like they've hatched a plan to essentially drive-by shoot a regional neighbor that they don't like. That's not an acceptable move, and it's not fair to hang their recklessness around Israel's neck, even if that's what their citizens are inclined to do. I'm open to hearing an argument that this is not the case, but my impression is that this is pretty much settled historic fact.

Regarding Palestine, it's certainly true that Israel's continued abuses there fuel global anger toward the country. But it's worth noting that for the first 20 years of its existence, including its first two defensive wars, Palestine was under the sovereignty of Egypt and Jordan. It's hard to see how the massive Independence War and '67 War could have been provoked by a political issue that didn't exist yet.

As for the way you have recast our stance vis-a-vis Iran, I agree with you that we have perverted the incentives system that is supposed to deter states from trying to go nuclear, and I think you're correct to say that our invasion of Iraq has done the largest amount of damage to our credibility as a diplomatic power. (I once read a great satire on this point, but can't find it online. It took the form of a three-way dialogue between the US, North Korea, and Iran, and essentially demonstrated what I think you are saying here: that we attack countries illegally and with impunity, but only when they are *not* nuclear. Therefore, the smart move for semi-rogue states like Iran is to seek out nukes, not avoid them.)

Still, we have been to the table with Iran literally dozens of times over the past two years, many times with very reasonable offers. They have refused to make any deals. Again, it is legitimate to point out that different state actors will have different points of view, but that doesn't relieve us of the very necessary (and hard) work of figuring out who is being more truthful. Iran may have a reasonable case in saying that it is worried about a US incursion, but we have been very forthright in our diplomacy for the past two years, and I think a reasonable observer would agree that we've made an honest effort to avoid a military confrontation. If the Iranian government refuses to recognize this, that's their problem, not ours.

Finally, to the North Korea thing, I'm not sure what you meant by bringing them up, but I think we agree on this point and maybe don't realize it. The point I was trying to make is that, despite being a nuclear power, Israel does not use this power belligerently (even when others might.) North Korea is a great example of a country that *does* use its nuclear muscle belligerently, making frightening and/or ridiculous threats and essentially holding an entire nation (South Korea) hostage. If Israel were doing anything like this, I would be much more receptive to calls for them to disarm. But Israel doesn't do things like this. It has never threatened another country with a nuclear strike that I know of.

 

[lwien]

lwien, I hope we're not veering too far off topic for you. It was not my intention, but whenever Israel is the topic things can get going fast.

Not veering too far off topic at all. As a matter of fact, this is exactly where I would hope that it would go. An interesting debate coming from different view points. A possible learning experience for us all.

And as a side note, Plotinus, I just want to commend you on your post above. It's just really refreshing to see such a well constructed argument being communicated as well as you have done above. Well done.

And bcleez, you have interesting points as well.

This whole Palestinian issue affects all of us, if not the whole world, in such a negative way, that a solution, although a seemingly impossible solution, should be at the top of the worlds agenda.

I can't help though but draw the parallels to what we did to the Native Americans in our not too distant past to what is happening with Israel and the Palestinians. It's a real cluster-fuck that needs to get resolved.

 

[bcleez]

I agree and apologize if I came off as rude. I enjoy the discussion.

I know Israel has Nuke's I was semi alluding to their deceit in that Iran also is claiming not to be researching nuclear bombs. I think that you are cherry picking scenarios to make your point. I could cherry pick the US annexation of the Texas Territory & the Mexican American war to contrast the war of 1967 as a war between neighbors.

I find it hard to believe that someone as obviously intelligent as you are can't know why I would bring North Korea into the fray. It is to draw the comparison between Iran and North Korea. Not Israel. Once again though, if you go back in history we have been belligerent with our Nuclear arms.
"bomb bomb bomb Iran" I know McCain is not talking Nuke Iran... but this guy was running for president and singing that in public to a beach boys song. I would be scared shitless if the most powerful war machine in the world was going to have that guy in charge.

Israel does threaten countries with Nuclear strikes. They just word them differently "We need to look at all options with Iran" etc etc.

I don't want to type out a long post as I just have then deleted most of it. To simplify it I just don't agree with you. I don't feel that any country should preemptively attack another. Why should the country A get nukes but country B can't?

I am not sure if you read Chomsky but the best way that I could explain my perspective on world events is by reading him. While you are painting with a broad brush I feel that many of the situations that these countries feel they are in is justified. I mean the World Bank, IMF, Multinational Corporations, Trade agreements/disputes. Powerful countries like the US & Israel can inflict great pain on countries with these tools. We want to keep American Hegemony.

 

[bcleez]

I agree with you Iwien.

The only point that I really want to make is to really question the information. In the USA people know they are supposed to hate Iran after the fall of the puppet shah. But why? Because they didn't want America to decide their leader, albeit a very cruel unjust leader. I can understand that.

Who decides who can have what? Why? Is one culture better than another? In a democratic world does a population of 8 million trump a population of 72 million?

(And no one ever argues the Iran point).

I don't believe in any war or violence being any type of answer. I don't even like weapons. I hope a nuclear device is never ever used again. We talk about threats... but the USA is the only country to ever nuke another... so we should be the scariest.

I would like to suggest a book "Understanding Power" by Noam Chomsky.

 

[lwien]

I agree with you Iwien.


Who decides who can have what? Why? Is one culture better than another?

Who decides is the country or tribe, that has the power. It's been that way since the beginning of time and I don't, in reality, see that changing anytime soon.

 

[Plotinus]

I have read some of "Year 501," but no other Chomsky. I've listened to a few of his political lectures and watched him debate William Buckley on Vietnam. Don't know anything about his linguistics work.

I think if Chomsky is your patron political saint then we just don't have much common ground. I think Chomsky is a very smart guy, but too uncompromising in his outlook. He reads exploitation into every event, and as every motive. It's a very airless way to look at political exchange, in my opinion.

Perhaps you're right that I'm cherry-picking examples. It wasn't intentional. As a thought experiment, we could take one of Israel's nastier wars instead. Let's take Lebanon II, the 2006 war. Again, a war with a neighbor, though this time the target was an insurgent force supported by the state remotely. This was a very rough war, in which I think many would agree Israel came away the loser.

In your favor, I think it's legitimate to say that Palestinian grievances were a major motivating factor for 2006. The general world sentiment, and the even more acute feeling in the Arab world, re: Palestinians has really poisoned Israel's public image for a long time. It's undeniable that this is the central issue in Israel's past two wars (Gaza and Lebanon II).

That said, Israel once again does not use or threaten to use its nuclear deterrence. You interpret the diplomatic talking point "we need to keep all options on the table" as indicating that Israel is making a veiled nuclear threat. I have always interpreted this to be a much vaguer suggestion that military force of some kind is possible. There are euphemisms specific to nuclear threats, and I don't think this is one of them. That's a matter of interpretation though.

But Israel certainly didn't make any sort of threat in Lebanon II. Nor Gaza, nor Lebanon I, nor the '73 War (assuming they had nukes that far back.) And I don't know of any nuclear threats made when they were absorbing senseless SCUD fire from Hussein during Desert Storm.

Even if you do insist that "all options" is euphemistic nuclear threat, contrast this with North Korea, your example: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/24/opinion/24sat1.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=korea&st=cse

Note that N. Korea is explicitly threatening multiple other countries with a nuclear strike. Are they responding to a provocation? Yes, our war games with the south. But their response is completely out of proportion.

Can you imagine Israel making threats like this? Maybe that just means they're more media savvy than the Koreans (it would be hard to be less...), but I think Israel's refusal to be belligerent in this way is a big reason why they are accepted as a nuclear power.

 

[lwien]

Maybe that just means they're more media savvy than the Koreans (it would be hard to be less...)...

So funny but so true. Kind of akin to 5 year old kid throwing a temper tantrum 'cause they need some attention. But they're pretty darn good at it so maybe, from one point of view, they actually could be pretty media savvy, in a quirky kind of way.

 

[bcleez]

I agree with you but it is also in the context of the culture. Things that we see as normal are beyond insulting to others. A good example would be a graphic representation of the prophet Mohammed. Saber Rattling in other countries is seen as a awesome display of power. To us it is laughable. Also some of these threats are a little lost in translation.

So you obviously understand my position. But my question is where do you lay your viewpoint. Surely you must believe that these nation states do everything they can to thwart each other. Mossad killings in Dubai, stealing scientists, etc. I mean its a well known fact that the USA faked the Gulf of Tonkin incident. Also the USS Liberty incident where Israel attacked a US Navel ship. I bring those issues up because not only are they fact, but they show the length that the 2 countries will go through to mislead and reshape reality. Even to cause conflict.

Israel tried to sell nuclear weapons to South Africa. Can Pakistan sell information to another country?

North Korea is allowed to do what it wants even allegedly attacking a naval vessel of South Korea. Once again I am stating that the focus is on IRAN when Kim Jung Il is the guy who has the loaded gun to the head of a US Ally.

Once again with your final statement you say they are accepted as a nuclear power... by who? They have not signed the Nuclear Non Proliferation treaty.

I took that All options quote from an article titled " Israel threatens Iran with nukes" http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=96209&sectionid=351020101 I believe that you are correct they are much more media savvy. They just need to sell the idea to the USA and they are doing a great job. Not a great source by any means but just to show where I took the quote from.

I take it as a nuclear threat because Israel's military capability is not a threat in any other capacity. Now I am not downplaying it's power or technology, they don't have aircraft carriers. They basically have the capacity to defend or attack in their small region. 3 submarines 13 warships. Just put IDF into wikipedia and you can see what their basic focus is. They won't invade Iran etc etc... So their threats are basically conventional or nuclear. That is my opinion. Soldier to Soldier I think the IDF is probably one of the best forces in the world.

Also I want to add that the whole Iran has nukes argument... does it sound familiar? (Iraq has WMD!! - We should know we gave them to him to use on Iran).

It's funny though with the media relations. I still see George Bush Jr. landing on the aircraft carrier in the flight suit with the Mission Accomplished sign. What a mistake!

 

[Plotinus]

When I say that Israel is "accepted" as a nuclear power, I mean they don't face consistent or strong international pressure to dismantle their nuclear program, despite its status as an open secret. Again, the comparison with North Korea is apt. The Koreans do face consistent, strong pressure to disarm, in the form of the six party talks that the US regularly organizes.

This state of affairs is beginning to evolve, particularly w/r/t that UN summit on nuclear arms that was scheduled, and which at the last minute the US pulled out of because we realized it was going to focus solely on Israel. That's a new evolution in the conversation surrounding Israel's nuclear weapons.

My own perspective is that Israel does need to have nukes for at least the mid-term future, and that it needs to make use of them exactly the way it has made use of them thus far: by never saying much of anything about them, and certainly never threatening to use them. (For what it's worth, we simply disagree in interpreting "all options", not least because Israel has one of the best conventional air forces is in the world, and one that has destroyed two foreign nuclear installations in the past 20 years, to boot - more than enough credibility for Israel to make a "conventional" military threat, not a nuclear one.)

I do hope I live to see the day when all states, Israel included, disarm. And I also hope never to live through a nuclear war. But I think it is a little senseless to make Israel - a country which, I'll repeat, has gone to war at least once in every decade of its short existence - disarm first. And certainly it does not make sense to me to allow other states, including those that I would consider more belligerent, to go nuclear merely because a regional neighbor has had nukes for the past 20 - 30 years.

As is often the case when it comes to politics it sounds like we mostly want the same things, but have different ideas of how to reach them.

 

[lwien]

And do we not think that Iran's other neighbors such as Jordan and Saudi Arabia, would be more than just a bit concerned if Iran had nukes? That's a big issue. If I Iran had nukes, her neighbors would feel that they would need to have them too, and to have that many nukes in such an unstable area of the world is a VERY scary proposition.

 

[Plotinus]

And do we not think that Iran's other neighbors such as Jordan and Saudi Arabia, would be more than just a bit concerned if Iran had nukes? That's a big issue. If I Iran had nukes, her neighbors would feel that they would need to have them too, and to have that many nukes in such an unstable area of the world is a VERY scary proposition.

This is one of the things that worries me about the changing world tone over Israel's nukes. I'm hearing more and more voices calling for them to reveal the status of their nuclear program, ostensibly in the name of peace. But there can be only one result of shining a bright light on Israel's program: a regional nuclear arms race. This is the opposite of peace.

The best course is to continue to treat Israel's nuclear weapons as an open secret, and to continue to discourage proliferation at all reasonable cost.

 

[bcleez]

Plotinus. One issue I have with your arguments and I in no way mean to be insulting but you make things up. You communicate your points very effectively but you start with a made up fact. It is almost a form of sophistry. You weave your opinion as fact when it is quite incorrect by international documentation. I respect your viewpoints and your obvious intellect about the situation, but presenting opinion as fact is not a fair representation of truth.

Israel does face pressure to disarm their nuclear program. Do Arab countries Israel not count as "International Pressure"? How could you rationally say that they are not pressured. It simply is not true.

The truth is that the US protects Israel's nuclear program and has full veto power etc etc. Most of the international complaints are NEVER reported in the USA. Most countries know that there is nothing that they can do. If you check UN records you can see that there are many votes where all but 2 countries (US & Israel) vote on these types of things. US has a full veto vote on all international councils.

There is nothing new about the US throwing its weight around to protect Israel. We are strong allies it is what we do.

Some of your logic is very worrisome. Germany was heavily involved in starting 2 World Wars so should they be punished. The USA has fought major wars in almost every decade ( not 20's or 80's) does that give us the right to do whatever we want anywhere in the world? How many wars and skirmishes have India & Pakistan been involved in (they are both nuclear).

I suggest you read "understanding power" it is a very quick read and while Chomsky is Jewish he is quite honest about the U.N. voting records and etc. While you might not like him he backs up ALL of his facts and cites all of his sources.

Shining a bright light on an open secret? You have to be kidding me. How can you have a regional arms race when Israel will attack any country in the area that tries to start a program? Anyone can type "Israel Nuclear Program" in google and see http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/nuke/ first site that pops up. So in 2 seconds you can really shine a light on it.

 

[Plotinus]

I'm at work now but will respond at length later. In the meantime I was reading this article and thought anyone following this thread would find it extremely interesting. It's an interview with current Israeli prez Shimon Peres, that discusses in detail, among other things, Israel's nuclear program.

http://www.tabletmag.com/news-and-politics/40409/making-history/

 

[SSS]

Iran is demonized in this country, but its just winding everyone up for this upcoming conflict. Iran actually isn't that bad if you can get some solid facts about what is going on there, and not use an Ethnocentric viewpoint.

america as a whole is ignorant about iran. contrary to what most americans think, iran is not a backwater muslim country with cave dwellers. it's actually very progressive (for a muslim country) and tehran makes about 75% of american cities look like a dump.

the president of iran gets a lot of press in the u.s. but americans don't seem to understand that he speaks for iran as a whole in the same way that jackass w. and bush's third term placeholder obama speak for me. not at all.

also, let's not forget that the republicans worked in cahoots with the iranian kidnappers in 1979 through george bush and the c.i.a. to force carter out of the whitehouse. i distinctly remember the news reporting that the hostages would be killed if jimmy carter was re-elected.

 

[Plotinus]

Ok, a chance to respond a bit more in-depth.

It looks like we were talking past each other on the subject of "international pressure". I'm not offended, but I do think it's unfair to accuse me of "making things up" when we are, again, dealing with a difference in perspective, not facts.

It's certainly true that Arab states have been agitating for an end to Israel's nuclear program since it became public knowledge. But no, I don't consider this international pressure in the the current context, precisely because these states have always agitated for this. In other words, the point I was trying to make was that nothing about the state of world opinion re: Israeli nukes has changed since they first obtained them. Arab states have always objected to this. And no one else has.

As I alluded to before, I think that is gradually beginning to change. But we're in the very earliest stages of seeing true international pressure - not just hostile states futilely bringing UN resolutions, but actual sanctions/negotiations a la North Korea or Iraq - brought to bear on the Israeli program. And I think it's far too early for anyone to be able to accurately say whether this pressure will grow or diminish, and how Iran's nascent program will affect everything.

Re: the US's protection of Israel at the UN, that's all certainly true and I wouldn't dispute it. I would only add this bit of nuance: when the US is always relied upon to veto anti-Israel UN resolutions, it means that other countries with veto power (the Security Council and the rotating slots) don't need to worry about submitting a veto. This doesn't necessarily mean that they agree with the resolution. It also doesn't mean that they disagree. I merely bring this up to point out that your data point of the US always being Israel's veto may not mean quite as much as you think it means, although it certainly does mean something.

Finally, re: Iran, count me as one of the Americans who does appreciate Iranian culture (especially their cinema), and does not for a moment dream that Iranians are unsophisticated cave-dwellers.

I do disagree with SSS in his comparison between Ahmadinejad and GWB. I'll grant you that they engage in similarly stupid rhetoric, and employ the same kind of "folksy charm" to pander to a poorly-educated base, but their roles in government are very different, and it's dangerous to conflate them merely because they both hold/held the title of "President." At the end of the day, Iran is an authoritarian regime. That means that, clown though he may be, Ahmadinejad holds considerably more actual power than GWB ever did, even at the height of his Patriot Act wet dream.

 

[bcleez]

Plotinus. I would like to point out your false information one more time.

No other states have objected to Israel's nuclear program. False.
Eliminate all Arab states opposition for your sake of an argument. Okay you want to eliminate the opinion of lets say 1.5 billion people (total muslims in the world not population of muslim countries but in your universe we can assume that every muslim would oppose Israel - population of 8 million and world wide 12 million Jews - Let's just throw Democratic policy making out of the window though) Many other states have objected to Israels nuclear program. Even non muslim. Let's remember that there are many states and groups that are anti-semitic. It is not just an arab thing.

Does it mean that other UN Veto powers disagree when they vote against Israel? Once again I must call out your statement as it is based on nothing other than your false statement. Why don't you bring up Russia helping Iran in building nuclear plants? Russia has equal standing in all councils (as USA) yet they are complicit in helping Iran.

Please re read your statement that US being Israels Veto does not mean quite as much... It means EVERYTHING. As we are expected to be pulled into this war (and also give clearance to another countries sovereign airspace that is anti israel)

I also must disagree with your GWB vs Ahmadinejad. The president of Iran is subordinate to the Supreme Leader. "Unlike some other countries, for example the United States, in Iran the office of presidency does not bestow full control over foreign policy, the armed forces, or the nuclear policy of the Iranian state, which are ultimately under the control of the Supreme Leader.[2]"

Once again you are quite incorrect. It is a great example on how good grammar and rhetoric can mislead people though. You present information quite well, too bad it is not valid.

 

[lwien]

Once again you are quite incorrect. It is a great example on how good grammar and rhetoric can mislead people though. You present information quite well, too bad it is not valid.

See, I take a different stance on this. I think both of you bring up very interesting but opposing points of view, and that both are equally valid, depending of course, upon one's perspective.

 

[bcleez]

I agree that both perspectives are valid and I respect his perspective, however he is making statements that are not based in fact or even true for that matter. For that I have an issue. I do not dispute his opinion, I dispute his facts that he uses to back that opinion up. ( I really like Israel btw just don't think they should strike Iran)