"I think Iran is bound for nuclear weaponry...if they get it there is every chance they will use it against Israel..."
"...Israel must consider the military option."
"Bush a true and trusted friend."
"Israel has never threatened any country with destruction..."
"the Iranians on the other hand...have been threatening Israel with destruction for the past few years."
Iran is "driven by religious fanaticism."
"Iranian regime is completely different...these people are not rational by our lights."
"[the Iranians] look offensively and aggressively at places like Israel...want to destroy it..they say that every day."
To his credit Siegel mentions Israel's nuclear arsenal, but he never mentions that Iran has not attacked or threatened to launch an offensive military attack on any state for over a hundred years. And of course, Siegle never mentions that Israel has a history of invading and (as in the 2006 invasion of Lebanon) trying to destroy sovereign states. He doesn't mention that much of Israel's occupation and annexation is driven by religious fanaticism. Siegel also doesn't challenge the idea of Iran being completely irrational: he could have noted that Iran has actually behaved quite rationally for the last several years - it's manuevering in Iraq would have been an excellent case in point where it has played its political hand in a very rational manner or he might have mentioned Iran's willingness to accept a two state solution if Palestinians approve it.
1 comment:
Thanks for the excellent analysis of this brain-dead conversation.
I say brain-dead because talk is cheap. I remember how wigged out the 'free' world was when Khrushchev said 'we'll bury you', so that gave the US license to go into the arms race full throttle.
So now, the freak-out is : 'Did you hear what Iran SAID??? They want to destroy Israel!!!!' More cheap talk, probably planted by CIA operatives in Iran itself, just to get everyone horror-struck, just to prevent Iran's balance of power in the region. The US wants Iran 'back', they don't want any sort of confident capable, NUCLEAR-ARMED power in the region. US/Israel wants the region to remain weak and in disarray, so they can be bossed around. Sounds juvenile? It is.
Plus, here's something NONE of these blabberers EVER mention: MAD: Mutual Assured Destruction. As in: say Iran has the brilliant idea to actually lob a nuke at Jerusalem (even though the Dome of the Rock is there). Do any of these 'experts' ever mention the absurdity of such a prospect? That is, Iran would be committing suicide. Oh sure, they touch on the subject, but it's as if they don't want to acknowledge that the actuality of Iran nuking Israel is highly improbable, if not impossible. I know, that's not the point. US/Israel wants to 'get' Iran before Iran achieves ANY sort of status of regional power - that you don't get to muck with.
Years ago I heard a talk from Ali Mazrui, who posited that Africa as a whole should acquire the Bomb, not only to keep the superpowers in line, but to keep them off Africa's back.
MADdening though the concept is, 'nukes for peace' can have a crazy logic to it.
Even Gen. John Abizaid said that a nuclear Iran wasn't the end of the world. Indeed, it might stabilize the region, though not the way US/Israel want it to be, of course!
Post a Comment