Does anybody here really think Iran is nutty enough to attack Israel?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

What benefit would THAT give them?

[mikelgb]

1. publicity stunt?

[Selatius]

2. The Mullahs in Tehran would likely do it if they felt they were about to be destroyed

For instance, I have no doubt in my mind that Kim Jong-Il would attempt to drop nuclear weapons on the west coast or our ally South Korea or Japan if we decided to invade North Korea and destroy him and his regime. In short, "use them or lose them" scenario.

WMD's greatest asset is in its deterrent power. This is why the US and the USSR never dared to fight a hot war against each other, for fear of absolute annihilation.. If that deterrent power fails, then WMDs' only purpose for existence in such a scenario is to be exercised to deny the opponent victory. The logic is if you can't win, then you can deny your opponent victory as well by making him dead.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

6. So, you'd say the increasing warmongering is actually detrimental to Israel.

Makes Iran attack MORE likely.

Yes. Makes sense.

[JHB]

10. If he won't say it, I will. n/t

[BlooInBloo]

15. Me two!!

[Selatius]

14. It would be a monumental disaster for the entire world and the major powers if war started.

Russia and China would lose a valuable asset as far as oil, and Israel would likely be struck, and our troops in Iraq would be pinched from both sides between the homegrown insurgency and attacks by Iranian-backed guerrillas operating next door in retaliation for us bombing and possibly mini-nuking parts of Iran.

[LeftishBrit]

29. YES! Right you are! Playing with fire near a powder-keg is generally dangerous for anyone anywhere

near that powder-keg.

Ahmadejinad is not a good leader or even a harmless fool, and the situation does need careful watching. But unfortunately I don't trust Bush to do ANYTHING in the region that wouldn't make matters much WORSE.

[Bucky]

3. Iran is not just one person.

There are people in Iran nutty enough to attack Israel, altho most of them aren't so stupid that they'd attack Israel outright--and such people are a distinct minority.

Iran's got a troublesome government and we fuck with them arbitrarily at our peril, and at Israel's too. We really do need some non-assclowns running our foreign policy.

[atreides1]

4. No Iran isn't that stupid

They'll let Israel strike first, and then they'll have the same right as the US did, to defend themselves against an aggressor, that and it will put the Iranian people all on the same side.

At least that's what I think.

[cherokeeprogressive]

5. I do.

If President Oh-my-gin-is-bad can get the backing of the other arab countries in the region.

The whole of the Islamic world will applaud and support him.

[JHB]

16. Yeah, those Persians are really hot for the backing of "other arabs"

The situation needs to be watched, and closely, but make no mistake: the present noisemaking is to prepare a path for an attack ON Iran, not to prevent one FROM it.

[Clark2008]

23. Thanks for catching that.

I was getting ready to also point out that Persians aren't Arabs.

[wuushew]

17. You grossly misunderstand ME politics

Iran is both Shia and Persian. The divisions in the Middle East along national, religious and economic lines are pretty deep.

Even the dream of Pan-Arabism eventually died.

[The Stranger]

7. Benefit whom? Dicks Cheney and Perle and company would benefit by illegally seizing more oil land,

probably grafting a few no-bid billion dollar government contracts, squelch some more dissent, rule as a junta for 30 more years -- those are some pretty good benefits.

Wait -- you mean how would the "I-Ranyuns" benefit? Shoot. Stop asking such questions.

[saracat]

8. Nope But Bushco would like to promote that idea.

[Behind the Aegis]

9. Depends on the circumstance.

An assault by the US would more than likely result in an attack on Israel. However, Iran doesn't need to attack Israel out-right, it outsources that to groups like Hizb'allah, that way their country doesn't get fucked up when Israel responds.

[Jack Rabbit]

11. I don't think Iranians are, but Ahmadinejad might be

Just as I don't think Americans are crazy enough to strike Iran, but the neoconservatives might be.

[PA Democrat]

35. According to Iran's constitution, Ahmadinejad is not the commander-in -chief

It's the Supreme Leader, currently the Ayatollah ali Khamenei who has control of the military and has the power to declare war.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Leader_of_Iran#Supreme_Leaders_of_Iran_.281979-Present.29

[no_hypocrisy]

12. Think outside the box you guys. Bush would bomb Israel and blame Iran.

[soothsayer]

13. hell no.

[NeedleCast]

18. Oh yeah, they're nutty enough

I don't think they will, but I think they're nutty enough.

For the the Iranian leadership, dead Jews is benefit enough.

[Robbien]

21. That is exactly the rightwinger's stance

Rightwingers are so afraid that all those brown skinned non-christians are going after all jews/christians, they want to bomb all brown skinned muslims back to the stone ages. Talk about nutty. To them a dead muslim is the only good mulim. Completely and totally nuts.

[LeftishBrit]

27. That is true but it doesn't mean that everyone who is suspicious of Ahmadejinad buys the right-wing

myths, or wants to bomb Muslims into the stone age.

To lump all anti-Ahmadejinad views together is a bit like saying that anyone who is anti-Bush is on the side of Al Quaeda and supports terrorism against America.

Anti-Bush does not equal support for anti-American terrorism; and similarly anti-Ahmadejinad does not equal support for anti-Muslim terrorism (and yes, the extreme right-wing war-mongering policies *are* a form of terrorism).

[Robbien]

31. When someone states

that to Iranian leadership, dead jews are enough

I automatically think fundie rightwing crazy. Only reacting in kind to the post as originally written.

I do not favor Ahmadejinad myself, but I do not support posts spewing bigoted shit about him.

[The Vinyl Ripper]

19. Frankly..

I suspect the Iranian leadership is more rational than our own current resident and his crew.

Yeah, they spout off a lot of bluster for domestic consumption but it's been a damn long time since Iran actually invaded anyone.

The US on the other had has a long history of invading other nations at the drop of a hat.

Even the current regime in Iran is a direct result of American meddling in the region.

Google (Mossadegh CIA) if you don't believe me.

[sinkingfeeling]

24. Ding! Ding! Ding! And if our lovely Neocons believe that there will be no

consequences if we merrily drop a few megaton of bombs on Iran, they are sadly mistaken. In such a case, Iran would probably go after two countries in retaliation: Iraq (where they could really pick off Americans) and Israel (our bestest buddy in the region).

[Megahurtz]

37. You Got It! n/t

[emilyg]

20. No.

[AlCzervik]

22. no.

[Democrats_win]

25. Was it Iran or Iraq who sent tanks to fight Israel in one of those wars?

By the time they got there, the war was over and the treads on the tanks were wore out. Surely they know not to mess with Israel--even an Israel that isn't the bright light it once was.

[nealmhughes]

38. Iran has never waged war against Israel. Never. Not once -- unlike Iraq, Egypt, SA, Jordan and

Syria and Iraq.

Iran's only sticky point with Israel is the presence of an occupation government in control of Jerusalem -- hence the al Qods name. They give support to the Syrians and to some Palestinian groups, but Iran is not really into the Arab game at all these days.

Attacking Tel Aviv-Yaffa result in the destruction of Teheran and Qom and other Shia holy sites in retaliation and they would not dare bomb Jerusalem for fear of damaging the Haram al Sharif.

[LeftishBrit]

26. It wouldn't; but they *could* be nutty enough

On balance, I think they won't - especially if the Bushnuts don't open another Pandora's box nearby. They have enough power struggles in their own country to worry about; not to mention the complexities of Iran/Iraq relationships. I think they'd only attack Israel if they felt that it was the only way to unite Iranians behind their government and thus reduce threats to their power. Which wouldn't necessarily be the result anyway.

However, one can never *fully* predict the actions of insane leaders; and religious and ethnic bigotry are forms of insanity.

As I've said elsewhere, I don't think the current situation justifies any form of military action, but it does justify careful watching.

[Captain Hilts]

28. No., They've no motivation to do so. Persians and Israelis think of themselves as the Newport Set

of the Middle East.

[EFerrari]

30. No. And they couldn't possibly be as insane as BushCo. n/t

[BuyingThyme]

32. Isn't' that the kind of think Dinner Jacket was hired to do?

I mean, after the Hostage Crisis and the Holocaust convention, there's only so many things left for Dinner Jacket to do.

[Yael]

33. My money says yes -- they will attack and with Sryia at their side

[mmonk]

34. No.

They may support groups hostile to Israel, but they won't attack them without provocation in any straight out attack. They aren't stupid enough for that.

[WinkyDink]

36. Yes. Hope springs eternal in the anti-Israel circles.

[kenny blankenship]

39. I don't know but they'd be much smarter to keep their yap shut

They aren't the only religious nutcases in that part of the world.

[Megahurtz]

40. No.

The U.S. is just hyping up Bullshit for an excuse to attack Iran and steal all of their resources and Israel is chiming in and going along with the hype just so they can continue to sponge Billions upon Billions of U.S. Dollars for themselves.

It's a convenient little "alliance". :sarcasm:

I think Iran just wants to be left alone and they should be left alone!