Comments on: Iran’s Date with Destiny

By: Chandley

Chandley — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 20:37:47 +0000

The reason Iran sponsors a one-state solution is not out of sympathy for the Palestinian cause or some fuzzy vision of a harmonious levantine utopia with Jew and Arab living side by side. Rather a one-state solution automatically spells the end of Israel in its present form, i.e. a Jewish state.
BTW ‘Zionist’ is obvious code for ‘Jewish’ – I can’t believe you think you can get away with that kind of rubbish on an academic forum.

By: Ryan

Ryan — Mon, 04 Jan 2010 11:01:01 +0000

sorry, re-reading this now. Thomas’ post addresses the risk of NOT attacking Iran

By: Ryan

Ryan — Sat, 02 Jan 2010 15:56:57 +0000

I just saw this a little late…

Excellent post and productive discussion (marred by Pirouz) in the comments. I think we can all agree that the question “To attack or not to attack(Iran)?” posits options that seem to both be undesirable, yes? Thomas’ post thoughtfully addresses the risk of attacking Iran, just as Pat thoughtfully addressed the risks of attacking a couple days before.

Great work from KoW

By: Patrick Porter

Patrick Porter — Sat, 02 Jan 2010 10:39:51 +0000

Yes, as well as the implicit idea that instead of wringing our hands over a difficult question like Iran, we should just get to ACTION

By: Kenneth Payne

Kenneth Payne — Sat, 02 Jan 2010 09:36:07 +0000

The anonymous insult is so manly – don’t you find?

By: BL@KBIRD

BL@KBIRD — Fri, 01 Jan 2010 23:44:45 +0000

Be careful not to chafe your skin with all the hand wringing.

By: Cincinattus Jr.

Cincinattus Jr. — Thu, 31 Dec 2009 22:03:43 +0000

I assumed so–I just find it so disingenuous when political leaders, professors, pundits and others speak of the issues in the “greater middle east” and use the term in contexts that make it rather clear that they are not using it with the same precision as you. Happy New Year.

By: CAG

CAG — Thu, 31 Dec 2009 18:06:11 +0000

I am a little late to this discussion but I still have a couple of thoughts to add to the excellent points already made by others.
According to a Stratfor report today known whistleblower Phillip Giraldi has stated in interviews that the Iranian nuclear programs progress has been exaggerated. That the Iranians are no were near as far along as reported and that the intelligence regarding their progress has been linked to a government who would benefit from the most from the US taking military action;Israel.
A nuclear Iran has the potential to start an arms race in the Gulf. As the Sunni nations will look to have their own bomb as a counter balance to the Persians. With Saudi petro dollars I believe they could easily hire the best minds to build it for them. Or at least out of work Russians.
Another effect of a Persian bomb is driving these same countries into the arms of the west, mainly the US. Who would most likely pressure them not to develop their own nuclear weapons. Instead offering deterrence treaties under its protective umbrella. A situation that would benefit both sides, protection for them and oil/funding for the US.
The West would be greatly hurt by a perceived prejudice against Muslims by our lack of action against N Korea vs. our direct action against Iran. NK is in a key geographic part of the world, is at a xenophobic, isolated, a paranoid unstable country. Ruled by a small man with a messianic complex. Sound familiar? Yet, the West has not bombed him further into the Stone Age. The genie is out of the bottle. More needs to be done to pressure countries not to follow this path and more needs to done to develop counter measures to mitigate long to medium range missiles. The less effective the weapon the less reason ones has to spend the enormous sums of money needed to develop and deploy them.
As to Iran passing on weapons to proxy groups, Iran must know that posession of and use by their proxies will lead to their cities flat, radioactive and thier people dead. No talks just their immeadiate destruction.
To Mr. Pirouz, you describe Israel as a Zionist and hegemonic power. I believe you should reconsider your use of the second word.While leaving the other to the mouth breathing, knuckle dragging blogs.
As to the first word;Israel has been thought to be in procession of nuclear weapons for decades yet she has never threatened to use them on any other country. She has signed peace treaties with any neighbor who will acknowledge her right to exist. She has only gone to war after suffering attacks by groups or countries that kidnap and/or attack her population first. She has offered to recognize Hamas and its authority over the Palestinian territories if they will recognize her right to exist which they declined to do. So please sir refrain from such statements otherwise you marginalize your comments by showing your prejudices.
Best Regards gentlemen.

By: Patrick Porter

Patrick Porter — Thu, 31 Dec 2009 17:23:46 +0000

Hey Cincinattus,

You are right that the word can be used as a shady innuendo, but it can also be used quite precisely to identify a political ideology that is closely linked to settlement expansion in Palestinian territories. Indeed, Zionism has played a leading role in these landgrabs. At any rate, that’s what I was driving at.

By: Cincinattus Jr.

Cincinattus Jr. — Thu, 31 Dec 2009 14:53:39 +0000

IMHO, the use of “zionist” (pro or con varieties) in the context of Pirouz’s post, and the likely inadvertent and unintended repetition in your rejoinder, carries with it the implicit anti-Semitism intended by those who use the term as code for their true prejudice.