Will Israel Vs Iran start world war 3?

paddylanger · 15-08-2012 10:50AM #1

There has been a awful lot of rhetoric coming from Israel (and Iran too) lately and been reported in the press about a pre emptive strike against Iran's nuclear facilities.

Is this the precursor to world war 3?

We all know or at least we should understand that israel cannot mount such attack with out the express permission of their number 1 and bff America. Simply because an attack by israel on iran will be seen by the iranians as an american attack on iran.

Likewise any attack by israel will more than likely unite the muslim world in such a way that israel would face their own demise. surely they must realize this and thus not really conceive that an attack on iran is possible or likely and its all talk to try to enhance their own political strength among their own voters and to try an get more finance from america to.

israel states that they are just protecting themselves and a pre emptive strike is vital in their eyes so that Iran can not develop nuclear weapons and thus use them on israel! Are we seeing the propaganda machine in motion. its beginning to sound similar to the other lies we were told like that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or that Bin laden was in Afghanistan.

As it is asserted by certain individuals that iran has not attacked directly another state in over 300 years. However they have shown support to other groups like Hamas and Hezbollah .

I tried to have a reasonable debate on one of the irish newspaper sites recently and i was surprised by the amount of pro zionist contributors. I was approaching the topic from an unbiased view and open to learn about both sides of the argument. but their fervor in stating that Iran wants to push the jews into the sea and they were all adamant that israel has to strike first and put iran back into the dark ages got me really concerned.

When i queried the fact that israel is an apartheid state and they should consider trying to make an acceptable peace with the palestinians first rather than worrying about Iran, i was immediately jumped on as almost anti israel, anti jew. which i am not, but it got me thinking i maybe was leaning toward the anti zionist end of the spectrum.

I was trying to figure out if there is a difference between being anti israel and anti zionist and indeed some research lead me to find that even in israel there are jewish people that are anti zionist and had no conflicts with their faith about that fact, indeed they even believe that it is the zionists that have lost their faith or a portion of it.

I believe that all organized religion is a bad thing for this world and religion has caused more wars and deaths and often contrary to the beliefs and practices of those religions. But i can accept that people choose to believe and they are perfectly entitled to do so imho. But there are serious consequences of their beliefs that they use as an excuse to incite hatred and indeed kill and murder in the name of one god or another but those are the faults of man and not necessary the religion or belief structure .

It is also difficult to assume that the true conflict between iran and israel and palestine is due to different religions. less than 20% of muslims in the world are arabs/ persians. so not all muslims for the time being anyways has any grievances with israel despite what they themselves might think.

Also i when the pro zionists mentioned that iran wants to push all jews into the sea that they are interpreting the fact that iran has indeed stated that israel will be wiped off the map. It follows that indeed if it wasn't for the Balfour declaration by the british that the state of israel that exists today wouldn't even be there. So maybe that is what Iran is talking about.

So are we just dealing with another consequence of britain and america interfering in countries thousands of miles away and leaving a trail of destruction behind them?

the people of palestine had elections that former us president carter described as the most fair and democratic elections seen anywhere in the world and when they elected a Hamas majority to represent them both america and israel refused to deal with the elected officials as in their eyes they are a terrorist organization. How can they try to force democracy on the palestinians and yet then refuse to accept the results of that democracy when it happened? to me it makes no sense.

I find it incredulous to read that israel want to refuse iran the right to science and provide nuclear energy for its people. they know the oil will run out one day and are preparing to address their energy concerns. Should religion differences be allowed for one state to deny anothers a right to science ? when science is based on facts and reality and religion is based on fiction and beliefs?

Again i will admit i am a pacifist and have no religious belief despite being raised R.C. there might be some similarities with what happened in ireland and palestine so maybe i have some understanding and sympathy for the palestinian people. but i sincerely hope that a war of words and a symptom of the problems of the middle east does not end up in a third world war. surely we have learnt our lessons from history and that it is not the way forward and even a threat of war is infact one of the worse forms of global terrorism we could see and no better than the terrorist organizations that the supposed war on terror is trying to defeat.

So if anyone has anything to add . please do . i am eager to try an understand things better. if thousands of more lives are going to be lost maybe we should try to understand why and hopefully inquire together and find a way to save lives. Of course i wouldn't be presumptuous enough to think a discussion on boards.ie will solve the crisis but i certainly would want to question both sides of the argument and not accept all things at face value as i am sure there will be propaganda from both sides of the divide.

Eggy Baby! · 15-08-2012 03:24PM

Unfortunately there is no real way to tell if it will lead to a global war. Before WW1, nobody could really predict beforehand that their world was going to be turned upside down. If there was a world war, however, NATO and the SCO would screw each other up badly.

Higher · 15-08-2012 04:52PM

paddylanger wrote: »

We all know or at least we should understand that israel cannot mount such attack with out the express permission of their number 1 and bff America. Simply because an attack by israel on iran will be seen by the iranians as an american attack on iran.

Israel doesn't need permission from America, they certainly didn't need it in 1967 when they launched preemptive strikes and this has not changed. If Israel finds itself in difficulty it can count on the extraordinarily powerful Israeli lobbies in America to guarantee both military and economic support from politicians.

Likewise any attack by israel will more than likely unite the muslim world in such a way that israel would face their own demise. surely they must realize this and thus not really conceive that an attack on iran is possible or likely and its all talk to try to enhance their own political strength among their own voters and to try an get more finance from america to.

Would it though? Its not the first time Israel will have attacked a Muslim state and survived. In addition to this, Iran is a Shia Muslim country and would simply not invoke the same kind of fervor across the Muslim world as an attack on a Sunni state by Israel would. In fact, a lot of Muslim states such as Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Oman, Bahrain, UAE would love for a situation to develop that would weaken BOTH Israel and Iran.

israel states that they are just protecting themselves and a pre emptive strike is vital in their eyes so that Iran can not develop nuclear weapons and thus use them on israel! Are we seeing the propaganda machine in motion.

The middle east is a very unstable region and the last thing it needs is an assertive, nuclear armed Iran upsetting this balance. This may be unfair to Iran but it is genuinely in the interest of stability that Iran is denied a nuclear weapon.

its beginning to sound similar to the other lies we were told like that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or that Bin laden was in Afghanistan.

Neither were lies. The Americans generally did believe Saddam had WMDS, why? Because the Americans supplied them to him during the Iran-Iraq war. Bin Laden was in Afghanistan by the way, he had a camp near Kandahar where he housed his family and most loyal fighters. This is not even in doubt. He was more than likely smuggled out of Afghanistan after his escape from Toro Boro.

When i queried the fact that israel is an apartheid state and they should consider trying to make an acceptable peace with the palestinians first rather than worrying about Iran

Well a nuclear armed Iran is a much bigger threat to their safety than the Palestinian issue.

I believe that all organized religion is a bad thing for this world and religion has caused more wars and deaths and often contrary to the beliefs and practices of those religions. But i can accept that people choose to believe and they are perfectly entitled to do so imho. But there are serious consequences of their beliefs that they use as an excuse to incite hatred and indeed kill and murder in the name of one god or another but those are the faults of man and not necessary the religion or belief structure .

Religion is but one part of what is a greater clash of civilizations.

Also i when the pro zionists mentioned that iran wants to push all jews into the sea that they are interpreting the fact that iran has indeed stated that israel will be wiped off the map. It follows that indeed if it wasn't for the Balfour declaration by the british that the state of israel that exists today wouldn't even be there. So maybe that is what Iran is talking about.

Common mistake. The Iranian president did not say Israel should be wiped off the face of the map, he was mistranslated at the time. What he actually said was that he hoped that Israel would vanish from the pages of time which was a direct reference to the Balfour declaration and not the confrontational aggressive threat it was subsequently portrayed to be.

the people of palestine had elections that former us president carter described as the most fair and democratic elections seen anywhere in the world and when they elected a Hamas majority to represent them both america and israel refused to deal with the elected officials as in their eyes they are a terrorist organization. How can they try to force democracy on the palestinians and yet then refuse to accept the results of that democracy when it happened? to me it makes no sense.

What has this got to do with Israel's relationship with Iran?

I find it incredulous to read that israel want to refuse iran the right to science and provide nuclear energy for its people. they know the oil will run out one day and are preparing to address their energy concerns. Should religion differences be allowed for one state to deny anothers a right to science ? when science is based on facts and reality and religion is based on fiction and beliefs?

Firstly Israel aren't denying Iran anything based on religion, its purely to protect their own security. Secondly there is little doubt that Iran are indeed attempting to build a nuclear bomb and while they should be entitled to one in a fair and utopian world, it is not in the interest of stability in the Middle East and would result in a plethora of Sunni states acquiring their own Nuclear Weapons.

Again i will admit i am a pacifist and have no religious belief despite being raised R.C. there might be some similarities with what happened in ireland and palestine so maybe i have some understanding and sympathy for the palestinian people. but i sincerely hope that a war of words and a symptom of the problems of the middle east does not end up in a third world war. surely we have learnt our lessons from history and that it is not the way forward and even a threat of war is infact one of the worse forms of global terrorism we could see and no better than the terrorist organizations that the supposed war on terror is trying to defeat.

Back to Palestine on a thread supposed to be about Iran?

spank_inferno · 15-08-2012 05:27PM

short answer is no.

The big world players wont want to duke-it-out with each other.

It could well be a proxy war of sorts, but similar to Vietnam, isolated to just that theatre.

SamHarris · 15-08-2012 06:05PM

paddylanger wrote: »

There has been a awful lot of rhetoric coming from Israel (and Iran too) lately and been reported in the press about a pre emptive strike against Iran's nuclear facilities.

Is this the precursor to world war 3?

Almost certainly not. Its incredibly difficult to see how this would escalate to the point where Russia, China, the US and the European states are all pulled in. Iran is very far from a close ally of anyone.

paddylanger wrote: »

We all know or at least we should understand that israel cannot mount such attack with out the express permission of their number 1 and bff America. Simply because an attack by israel on iran will be seen by the iranians as an american attack on iran.

If it feels like it is sufficiently threatened it will attack without American consent. It has a long history of, rightly or wrongly, defneding itself to the hilt. The chance of a nuclear Iran leaves very little room for equivocations.

paddylanger wrote: »

Likewise any attack by israel will more than likely unite the muslim world in such a way that israel would face their own demise. surely they must realize this and thus not really conceive that an attack on iran is possible or likely and its all talk to try to enhance their own political strength among their own voters and to try an get more finance from america to.

It wouldnt unite Muslims against Israel, or more likely it would not unite Muslim states against it - anymore than they already are. Suadi, Qatar, Yemen and more all have a massive stake in Iran not attaining a weapon. They might well make noises about the "Zionist aggressor" but almost certainly no more.

It WOULD however push the Iranian people into further supporting the Iranian regime, as is always the case following an attack.

paddylanger wrote: »

israel states that they are just protecting themselves and a pre emptive strike is vital in their eyes so that Iran can not develop nuclear weapons and thus use them on israel! Are we seeing the propaganda machine in motion. its beginning to sound similar to the other lies we were told like that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or that Bin laden was in Afghanistan.

So you believe they are lying that they actually believe they are a threat and looking for a nuclear weapon? Why would they strike the sites if they didnt? Just to cause mischief?

Bin Laden was in Afghanistan before and during the 9 11 attacks. They were planned there. The Taliban made no secret of their support for and harbouring of al Qaeda - they still dont.

paddylanger wrote: »

I tried to have a reasonable debate on one of the irish newspaper sites recently and i was surprised by the amount of pro zionist contributors. I was approaching the topic from an unbiased view and open to learn about both sides of the argument. but their fervor in stating that Iran wants to push the jews into the sea and they were all adamant that israel has to strike first and put iran back into the dark ages got me really concerned.

When i queried the fact that israel is an apartheid state and they should consider trying to make an acceptable peace with the palestinians first rather than worrying about Iran, i was immediately jumped on as almost anti israel, anti jew. which i am not, but it got me thinking i maybe was leaning toward the anti zionist end of the spectrum.

I was trying to figure out if there is a difference between being anti israel and anti zionist and indeed some research lead me to find that even in israel there are jewish people that are anti zionist and had no conflicts with their faith about that fact, indeed they even believe that it is the zionists that have lost their faith or a portion of it.

Something tells me from your choice of language and position that you are very far from unbiased, or at least already have an entrenched position on the issue. Stating thing like "The Israeli apartheid state" indicates an already very politicised view of the conflict and region.

Zionism is the belief that Jews should have a homeland in that region and a
state of their own. To be "anti" a particular groups right of self determination is an ideology that too many people are comfortable declaring themselves part of.

paddylanger wrote: »

It is also difficult to assume that the true conflict between iran and israel and palestine is due to different religions. less than 20% of muslims in the world are arabs/ persians. so not all muslims for the time being anyways has any grievances with israel despite what they themselves might think.

Also i when the pro zionists mentioned that iran wants to push all jews into the sea that they are interpreting the fact that iran has indeed stated that israel will be wiped off the map. It follows that indeed if it wasn't for the Balfour declaration by the british that the state of israel that exists today wouldn't even be there. So maybe that is what Iran is talking about.

Its not just religion - there is an incredibly strong ethnic component to the conflict. Anti -semitism (indeed rascism in general) is rampant in Arab states - to the point where 99% of Yemenis polled expressed a negative view of jews. There is also a cultural clash. It is an incredibly complex conflict.

The president of Iran and various officials are near constant in their confrontational rhetoric. Even if that particular quote is mis interpreted and misreprented (which it seems to be) there is more than enough statements and actions by both sides for them to be considered strong enemies of each other.

paddylanger wrote: »

So are we just dealing with another consequence of britain and america interfering in countries thousands of miles away and leaving a trail of destruction behind them?

British colonialsm has played a massive part in creating todays situation but if you can boil it down to that - and this goes for every conflicy/issue the world over - you dont know enough / your willfully ignoring any number of factors.

paddylanger wrote: »

the people of palestine had elections that former us president carter described as the most fair and democratic elections seen anywhere in the world and when they elected a Hamas majority to represent them both america and israel refused to deal with the elected officials as in their eyes they are a terrorist organization. How can they try to force democracy on the palestinians and yet then refuse to accept the results of that democracy when it happened? to me it makes no sense.

It makes perfect sense - there is no rule saying one state must deal with another state, elections or no. Hamas' positions are sufficiently radical for any reasonable person to at least ackowledge the right of another state to refuse to deal with them.

That the US/Israel's position is, at the very least, unhelpful and perpetuates the conflict is undeniable, however.

paddylanger wrote: »

I find it incredulous to read that israel want to refuse iran the right to science and provide nuclear energy for its people. they know the oil will run out one day and are preparing to address their energy concerns. Should religion differences be allowed for one state to deny anothers a right to science ? when science is based on facts and reality and religion is based on fiction and beliefs?

They, and the international community, have to recognise their right to civilian nuclear energy. However the IAEA, US and assorted others are very much opposed to the manner in which Iran pursues it. Infractions include hiding nuclear facilities and equipment and not allowing IAEA full access to said facilities. Every country under international law must adhere to certain rules when dealing with this technology, for extremely good reasons, Iran refuses to do so.

paddylanger wrote: »

Again i will admit i am a pacifist and have no religious belief despite being raised R.C. there might be some similarities with what happened in ireland and palestine so maybe i have some understanding and sympathy for the palestinian people. but i sincerely hope that a war of words and a symptom of the problems of the middle east does not end up in a third world war. surely we have learnt our lessons from history and that it is not the way forward and even a threat of war is infact one of the worse forms of global terrorism we could see and no better than the terrorist organizations that the supposed war on terror is trying to defeat.

You may be a pacisift but no country is. Indeed, there is a powerful argument that no government could or even should be - a states first and most important priority is to defend its own citizens. You may argue that in individual cases there are better ways of doing so, but a state cannot "turn the other cheek" when its people are directly threatened and or harmed (thats not a statement regarding this particular situation).

plasmaguy · 15-08-2012 07:45PM

An attack on Iranian facilities is probably going to happen in the next few months anyways as all the signs are the Iranians are hell bent on acquiring nuclear weapons which cannot be a good thing for the entire region. They hate Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Israel to name just a few countries, basically anyone who isn't Shia.

Whether it happens before or after the US Presidential elections, who knows. Obama is loath to get the US involved in anything in the middle east while in office and that includes both Syria and Iran.

Iranians seem to be itching for a fight with Israel and might just get their wish next year. As for the Russians and Chinese getting involved, I doubt it, so it probably won't lead to WW3.

Cheerful Spring · 16-08-2012 12:37AM

Russia would likely not interfere in any attack on Iran by outsiders, but if Syria joins its ally in a war against the "Westerners" there could be a scenario of were Russia would stop an invasion of Syria. How actually that would play out i do not know. You got to remember the only reason there wasn't a Libya Style fly zone adopted for Syria. The Russians wouldn't allow it and sent warships to the area as a warning sign to the west.

Iran is already nuclear but they have no nuclear weapon missile technology. Least that we know of. The worry for other Islamic states if Iran gets a nuclear weapon. They too might have to require the technology. This likely does worry Israel longtern. While Iran doesn't get on well with lot of its Arab neighbours, this countries are essentially still Muslim. But out of fear this Arab countries will seek the weapon once Iran has them.

Israel would not tolerate this kind of arms race to occur. It probably one of the prime reasons they will attack Iran. How far we are away from that nobody knows. I am guessing Israel would like American involvement. But they have the weaponry to go it alone. if that is their choosing.

Victor · 16-08-2012 12:46AM

Higher wrote: »

Secondly there is little doubt that Iran are indeed attempting to build a nuclear bomb and while they should be entitled to one in a fair and utopian world ...

Interesting idea.

delad · 16-08-2012 12:53AM

plasmaguy wrote: »

Whether it happens before or after the US Presidential elections, who knows. Obama is loath to get the US involved in anything in the middle east while in office and that includes both Syria and Iran.

Romney is a warmonger though so almost guaranteed to be a strike on Iran if he wins the election.

nyarlothothep · 16-08-2012 12:58AM

The thought of a nuclear exchange arising from such a conflict makes me naseous and angry, angry that any cohort of high ranking officials would be stupid enough to think, "oh yeah, nuclear weapons are good, lets use them." Instead of entering into a conflict, nuclear or otherwise, which will cost the lives of ordinary people on both sides why not, lets see, calm the fck down? I just find it absurd that a lot of innocent people are going to die/endure pain, suffering and misery due to regional struggles for dominance, it's so primitive, especially with the religious/cultural aspect to it.

Chuck Stone · 16-08-2012 01:14AM

All the while Israel's nuclear arsenal (the only one in the Middle East) does not come up for discussion because their nukes, of course, aren't allowed to be part of the narrative.

Israel isn't really concerned with Iran committing nuclear suicide by attacking it with its non-existent nukes - let's face it that's exactly what an attack by Iran would be.

Israel is concerned with losing its theatre dominance i.e. the choice to knock the shit out of its neighbours, subjugate the Palestinians, and fulfil the Zionist project.

As for a world war? Highly unlikely. Imo an attack on Iran is highly unlikely too.

Cheerful Spring · 16-08-2012 01:20AM

nyarlothothep wrote: »

The thought of a nuclear exchange arising from such a conflict makes me naseous and angry, angry that any cohort of high ranking officials would be stupid enough to think, "oh yeah, nuclear weapons are good, lets use them." Instead of entering into a conflict, nuclear or otherwise, which will cost the lives of ordinary people on both sides why not, lets see, calm the fck down? I just find it absurd that a lot of innocent people are going to die/endure pain, suffering and misery due to regional struggles for dominance, it's so primitive, especially with the religious/cultural aspect to it.

Nuclear exchange would only happen when those extreme circumstances have happened in the World. The middle east is a tinder box, but its very unlikely a nuclear exchange will occur there. Is their a potential yes, but Russia, and the USA have no interest in starting World War 3 anytime soon, i can tell you that.

World peace is likely to be more in threat when China outpaces the United States economically.

Cheerful Spring · 16-08-2012 01:25AM

Chuck Stone wrote: »

All the while Israel's nuclear arsenal (the only one in the Middle East) does not come up for discussion because their nukes, of course, aren't allowed to be part of the narrative.

Israel isn't really concerned with Iran committing nuclear suicide by attacking it with its non-existent nukes - let's face it that's exactly what an attack by Iran would be.

Israel is concerned with losing its theatre dominance i.e. the choice to knock the shit out of its neighbours, subjugate the Palestinians, and fulfil the Zionist project.

As for a world war? Highly unlikely. Imo an attack on Iran is highly unlikely too.

An attack on Iran is very real. Jews live in a hostile land and Iran of all countries requiring a nuclear weapon, is not going to be accepted. Simply isn't something they can live with. I think they might wait, but don't anyone be surprised if they go it alone in next few weeks.

paddylanger · 16-08-2012 01:28AM

Higher wrote: »

Israel doesn't need permission from America, they certainly didn't need it in 1967 when they launched preemptive strikes and this has not changed. If Israel finds itself in difficulty it can count on the extraordinarily powerful Israeli lobbies in America to guarantee both military and economic support from politicians.

.. Do you honestly believe that without america, israel will attempt anything? especially as i said iran views america and israel as one and the same in many ways. Can america afford to go toe to toe with iran especially when iran has support from both russia and china. why do you think both russia and china are also blocking americas attempts to intervene in syria? there are many american politicians, advisors that don't even want to touch iran because they can't afford to and also because in reality they have no reason to.

Higher wrote: »

Would it though? Its not the first time Israel will have attacked a Muslim state and survived. In addition to this, Iran is a Shia Muslim country and would simply not invoke the same kind of fervor across the Muslim world as an attack on a Sunni state by Israel would. In fact, a lot of Muslim states such as Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Oman, Bahrain, UAE would love for a situation to develop that would weaken BOTH Israel and Iran.

weaken maybe. but in irans case the economic sanctions are putting an awful lot of pressure on the iranian people. it looks like america is hoping for an uprising from inside iran and are just biding time for that to happen. the reason i said what i said is because one of the pro zionist comments on the other site said that israel had to attack iran for that exact reason, that all the other muslim states have 1000's of missiles aimed directly at israel. So i was just paraphrasing what was said to me and curious to find out more. that is certainly what the israelis seem to believe, or have been told. another note i am not calling them pro zionist out of any maliciousness it is what they described themselves as, actually they said " far right zionists" what ever that may be.

Higher wrote: »

The middle east is a very unstable region and the last thing it needs is an assertive, nuclear armed Iran upsetting this balance. This may be unfair to Iran but it is genuinely in the interest of stability that Iran is denied a nuclear weapon.

Pat Buchanan said recently that the situation between america and russia during the cold war was a hundred times worse that any situation between iran and america. He mentioned that america does not fear Iran and has no reason to. Nuclear is always a deterrent and at worst that is what it should be. i still don't understand why the right of a country to use science is a reason for attack. Iran has stated many times they have no intension of making bombs. it is purely for energy resources. Most of irans wealth comes from selling oil. if they have nuclear then they can sell more oil. Oil that the chinese are desperate for. hence chinas interest in iran.

you mention stability but surely the fact that israel has 200 - 300 nuclear bombs is also creating and enhancing that instability. whats good for the goose is good for the gander except that ducks don't need nuclear..... hopefully.

Higher wrote: »

Neither were lies. The Americans generally did believe Saddam had WMDS, why? Because the Americans supplied them to him during the Iran-Iraq war. Bin Laden was in Afghanistan by the way, he had a camp near Kandahar where he housed his family and most loyal fighters. This is not even in doubt. He was more than likely smuggled out of Afghanistan after his escape from Toro Boro.

...so where was the big announcement when they found the WMD's? It is a well known fact that the intelligence report and final excuse to go into iraq was a fabrication.... so you have the proof that the rest of the world was looking for that it was Iraq that caused 9-11? ..... Regarding bin laden are you serious? if a man of his means knew the americans were coming to Afghanistan to look for him the first thing any intelligent person would do is get out of there. Bin laden might have been a loon but he wasn't stupid. America go into Afghanistan in 2001 and bin laden found in pakistan in 2011. Some game of hide n seek then.

Higher wrote: »

Well a nuclear armed Iran is a much bigger threat to their safety than the Palestinian issue.

why do you think iran has a problem with israel in the first place. the fact that people that they see as brothers of sorts are being treated like second class citizens. they certainly use it as an excuse to throw at israel. hence why israel feels so intimidated and hence announcing that they will attack first.

Israel continually says that the reason for all the walls and compounds is to protect their citizens from attacks. refusing to sort out the palestinian issue is one of the main reason for those attacks. Any oppressed people will eventually fight back. its human nature.

Higher wrote: »

Religion is but one part of what is a greater clash of civilizations.

there was a time when jews, christians and muslims all lived there together in harmony and as i said less than 15% of muslims are persians or arabs. So religion is once again being used as an excuse but it cannot be the problem. again i don't understand what else would iran have to clash with israel over apart form the occupation and their treatment of the palestinians.

Higher wrote: »

Common mistake. The Iranian president did not say Israel should be wiped off the face of the map, he was mistranslated at the time. What he actually said was that he hoped that Israel would vanish from the pages of time which was a direct reference to the Balfour declaration and not the confrontational aggressive threat it was subsequently portrayed to be.

i was just repeating what the pro zionists told me. i didn't even try to find his original comments. tbh. so i took them for their word. i just tried to look it from a neutral view and could interpret that he meant that the state of israel shouldn't be there in the first place. but again i was hoping that some one would enlighten me further.

Higher wrote: »

What has this got to do with Israel's relationship with Iran?

I see you are approaching it from the assumption that it is just about israel and iran. which it clearly isn't. America will always be heavily involved and the palestinians live there too, so they are even more involved. Any attack on israel will involve the deaths of thousands of palestinians even as collateral damage. why do you think the israelis have built all jewish towns scattered between all palestinian slums. It is the best form of human shields you can get, another deterrent if you will. If you don't understand that the palestinians and americans are involved in this situation too even by association then you will never understand the complexities of the situation imho.

Higher wrote: »

Firstly Israel aren't denying Iran anything based on religion, its purely to protect their own security. Secondly there is little doubt that Iran are indeed attempting to build a nuclear bomb and while they should be entitled to one in a fair and utopian world, it is not in the interest of stability in the Middle East and would result in a plethora of Sunni states acquiring their own Nuclear Weapons.

They are denying them the right to science. whilst they themselves have nuclear. pot kettle and black springs to mind. when has iran ever attacked another country in the past 300 years? the pro zionists kept on telling me israel only acts in self defense. why are they saying israel must attack first then ? The israelis have given iran weeks to destruct their nuclear plants or they will attack.

Iran will never attack israel first as they know if they did then the americans will be right in to protect their little brother and thus iran would risk their own destruction. again we need to inquire what makes israel so insecure in the first place especially with the yanks right behind them. If over 200 nuclear weapons and one of the biggest military superpowers in the world on your side doesn't give israel security then they have major mental problems.

Higher wrote: »

Back to Palestine on a thread supposed to be about Iran?

... why do you differentiate between palestine and israel. in irans eyes israel is occupying palestine. the two can never be separate imho. As i said i am trying to investigate things more and increase my understanding and ask question so i can then decide for myself and find some truth in it all.

I didn't wish this discussion to be a but you said, i said argument as it might be tedious for others to read. i was just curious to see peoples views and not get down to semantics especially when i'll admit i am not an expert on the situation. but i can still hopefully express an informed opinion despite my fairly limited knowledge. i am neither trying to convince people one way or the other and of course i'll respect the opinions of all.

there has long been an unwritten rule in this country to not talk about politics or religion as it can incite trouble. but i think by not talking about it can also lead us to where we currently find ourselves, in deep doo doo, especially in this country.

paddylanger · 16-08-2012 01:29AM

spank_inferno wrote: »

short answer is no.

The big world players wont want to duke-it-out with each other.

It could well be a proxy war of sorts, but similar to Vietnam, isolated to just that theatre.

i do hope its just all talk from both sides and no lives are lost.

i don't think america will want to ever get involved with another vietnam type scenario .

nyarlothothep · 16-08-2012 01:32AM

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Nuclear exchange would only happen when those extreme circumstances have happened in the World. The middle east is a tinder box, but its very unlikely a nuclear exchange will occur there. Is their a potential yes, but Russia, and the USA have no interest in starting World War 3 anytime soon, i can tell you that.

World peace is likely to be more in threat when China outpaces the United States economically.

I'd be worried about Israel nuking Iran, that would be my main concern. I just don't see the point either of adding yet another war to the ME. It will just destabilise the region even further. Not to mention the human cost which can't be measured and which seems to be stubbornly ignored by politicians. It's a cliche, lost amongst the myriad of different personality types that inhabit this planet and who percieve things in a very different way with their radically divergent cognitive setups, but...can't we all just get along? I mean seriously, what would it cost apart from pride and a little bit of self interest in return for long term gain and an overall improvement of happiness and wellbeing in the world.

paddylanger · 16-08-2012 01:36AM

SamHarris wrote: »

Almost certainly not. Its incredibly difficult to see how this would escalate to the point where Russia, China, the US and the European states are all pulled in. Iran is very far from a close ally of anyone.

don't think thats correct. we just have to look at syria atm. russia and china are telling the americans to back off . precisely because of the ties between syria and iran. likewise china wants the oil from iran and has more interest in them and thier oil than america. plus they both don't want america to have any more power or control over the oil rich countries.

SamHarris wrote: »

If it feels like it is sufficiently threatened it will attack without American consent. It has a long history of, rightly or wrongly, defneding itself to the hilt. The chance of a nuclear Iran leaves very little room for equivocations.

again how is it defense if they attack first? in football fair enough attack is the best form of defense but in war one attack only leads to retaliation.

SamHarris wrote: »

It wouldnt unite Muslims against Israel, or more likely it would not unite Muslim states against it - anymore than they already are. Suadi, Qatar, Yemen and more all have a massive stake in Iran not attaining a weapon. They might well make noises about the "Zionist aggressor" but almost certainly no more.

It WOULD however push the Iranian people into further supporting the Iranian regime, as is always the case following an attack.

as i said above in the reply. i was paraphrasing what the pro zionists said to me. So was just seeing was this also the general consensus.

SamHarris wrote: »

So you believe they are lying that they actually believe they are a threat and looking for a nuclear weapon? Why would they strike the sites if they didnt? Just to cause mischief?

Bin Laden was in Afghanistan before and during the 9 11 attacks. They were planned there. The Taliban made no secret of their support for and harbouring of al Qaeda - they still dont.

i'm not sure what you meant here. Israel have stated that they will strike first. they have given weeks for iran to disarm all nuclear ability. not just nuclear bombs( cause they don't have any, so they say) but nuclear energy. if you think the only reason america went to Afghanistan was to find bin laden then you are very much mistaken in my view. but you can research that for yourself.

SamHarris wrote: »

Something tells me from your choice of language and position that you are very far from unbiased, or at least already have an entrenched position on the issue. Stating thing like "The Israeli apartheid state" indicates an already very politicised view of the conflict and region.

Zionism is the belief that Jews should have a homeland in that region and a state of their own. To be "anti" a particular groups right of self determination is an ideology that too many people are comfortable declaring themselves part of.

If you know that little about palestine then why are you commenting here? have a read of this ( http://www.bloggingisfree.com/2012/08/israel-fails-civil-rights-and-democracy.html ) then show why you believe it isn't an apartheid state? palestinians are not allowed to use roads (some are for jews only) and palestinians are denied basic human rights. the facts are there for all to see. if thats not apartheid then i dunno what is.

Regarding " To be "anti" a particular groups right of self determination is an ideology that too many people are comfortable declaring themselves part of"

.... exactly shouldn't the palestinians have had a right for self determination before the british gave their country to the israeli's. I believe that i am destined to marry angelina jolie and we will live happy ever after. it doesnt mean it will happen and can be a dangerous belief too, in that if i then decide to take brad out of the equation because of my initial belief, after all it is my destiny. you would say i was mad and you would be dead right. but never the less those were my beliefs and i am sure you could see how dangerous beliefs can be. ( disclaimer ... i don't believe i will marry angelina jolie, a quick fling would do,

)

SamHarris wrote: »

Its not just religion - there is an incredibly strong ethnic component to the conflict. Anti -semitism (indeed rascism in general) is rampant in Arab states - to the point where 99% of Yemenis polled expressed a negative view of jews. There is also a cultural clash. It is an incredibly complex conflict.

The president of Iran and various officials are near constant in their confrontational rhetoric. Even if that particular quote is mis interpreted and misreprented (which it seems to be) there is more than enough statements and actions by both sides for them to be considered strong enemies of each other.

Yes i agree that their seems to be long term issues. but no worse than northern ireland to be fair. Especially those on the receiving end of constant racism and discrimination. Most people are willing to sacrifice themselves for their families sake and hence why suicide bombing is seen as doing something good for their families. they see it as a way to help their families and ease the oppression. i'm not saying its right but most people will do anything to try to protect their loved ones even if it costs their own lives.

SamHarris wrote: »

British colonialsm has played a massive part in creating todays situation but if you can boil it down to that - and this goes for every conflicy/issue the world over - you dont know enough / your willfully ignoring any number of factors.

I am here to try to inquire and have honest debate and try to learn something. i openly admit i don't know the full story and to my shame have never really considered it properly untill recently.

SamHarris wrote: »

It makes perfect sense - there is no rule saying one state must deal with another state, elections or no. Hamas' positions are sufficiently radical for any reasonable person to at least ackowledge the right of another state to refuse to deal with them.

That the US/Israel's position is, at the very least, unhelpful and perpetuates the conflict is undeniable, however.

you miss the point. the americans and israelis forced their version of democracy on the palestinians and then when they did vote they were told they got it wrong. something is either democratic or not.

if the british and irish refused to deal with sinn fein/ IRA then where would we be now. but i agree it is unhelpful and thus very confusing for the palestinians . Also very foolish from the americans and israel because after a while the palestinians could have decided feck that and like we constantly do with FF and FG ,call for a change. Given enough of a chance hamas could have been their own worst enemy. but denying them their democratic rights only furthers their cause and makes the usa/isr seem all the more unreasonable.

SamHarris wrote: »

They, and the international community, have to recognise their right to civilian nuclear energy. However the IAEA, US and assorted others are very much opposed to the manner in which Iran pursues it. Infractions include hiding nuclear facilities and equipment and not allowing IAEA full access to said facilities. Every country under international law must adhere to certain rules when dealing with this technology, for extremely good reasons, Iran refuses to do so.

I think you will find that america, britain and israel also deny iaea the same things. so iran is just copying them. again why should iran do different when the same standard don't apply to others..

SamHarris wrote: »

You may be a pacisift but no country is. Indeed, there is a powerful argument that no government could or even should be - a states first and most important priority is to defend its own citizens. You may argue that in individual cases there are better ways of doing so, but a state cannot "turn the other cheek" when its people are directly threatened and or harmed (thats not a statement regarding this particular situation).

.. i agree with you. but i assume you said that from the israel point of view, forgive me if you didn't. . if you read it from an iranian point of view the same also is true. but i do agree with you 100%. hence why i want to learn more about it all and filter the propaganda from the truth. they main reason i am investigating it all is the almost vicious response i got from some of the pro israel side on the other site and i thought something wasn't quiet right.

So if i do have tendencies as i believe i said i was leaning towards anti zionist was because of they way they considered any discussion at all, is all of a sudden anti jew. which i am definitely not. i am more pro human being regardless of race or religion. chances are i will never visit iran or israel/ palestine but when nuclear weapons are involved it is my planet too like its yours and everyone else's. so we do have the right to be concerned.

golden lane · 16-08-2012 01:41AM

never let facts get in the way of a good war......history tells us that most conflicts are based on assumptions,,not facts...

if israel feels threatened, it will act. nobody can stop that....

paddylanger · 16-08-2012 01:42AM

plasmaguy wrote: »

An attack on Iranian facilities is probably going to happen in the next few months anyways as all the signs are the Iranians are hell bent on acquiring nuclear weapons which cannot be a good thing for the entire region. They hate Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Israel to name just a few countries, basically anyone who isn't Shia.

Whether it happens before or after the US Presidential elections, who knows. Obama is loath to get the US involved in anything in the middle east while in office and that includes both Syria and Iran.

Iranians seem to be itching for a fight with Israel and might just get their wish next year. As for the Russians and Chinese getting involved, I doubt it, so it probably won't lead to WW3.

Why do you say that the iranians are hell bent on acquiring nuclear weapons?

when every time they deny this. indeed if they are telling the truth, it is an insult in their eyes that we would not believe them. what reason have we not to believe them? as far as i know the only governments that have lied to us before have been america and britain. these are what the facts and what history shows us.

i agree that the american elections are being used to pile pressure on the americans to find a solution.

we'd have to agree to disagree about iranians iching for a fight . All the reports are currently about israel striking first.

paddylanger · 16-08-2012 02:01AM

golden lane wrote: »

never let facts get in the way of a good war......history tells us that most conflicts are based on assumptions,,not facts...

if israel feels threatened, it will act. nobody can stop that....

i do agree with you but america does control the airspace over iraq . we could see a strange situation where americans will shoot down israeli planes. unlikely but it could happen.

iran has numerous nuclear plants spread all over the country. so to destroy them all in an attack would mean out right war and invasion of iran imho.

golden lane · 16-08-2012 02:03AM

paddylanger wrote: »

Why do you say that the iranians are hell bent on acquiring nuclear weapons?

when every time they deny this. indeed if they are telling the truth, it is an insult in their eyes that we would not believe them. what reason have we not to believe them? as far as i know the only governments that have lied to us before have been america and britain. these are what the facts and what history shows us.

i agree that the american elections are being used to pile pressure on the americans to find a solution.

we'd have to agree to disagree about iranians iching for a fight . All the reports are currently about israel striking first.

the iranian government has vowed to wipe israel off the map.......

now....if i was an israeli, i wonder what i would do..?????

Chuck Stone · 16-08-2012 02:05AM

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

An attack on Iran is very real.

For the moment it's just posturing. We're discussing whether it will become 'real'.

I think they might wait, but don't anyone be surprised if they go it alone in next few weeks.

Israel's problem with attacking Iran is losing the support of the public in the US of which the majority are against the US getting involved in a war with Iran (in spite of the fawning corporate media).

maddragon · 16-08-2012 02:07AM

I've been following this for years as I spent alot of time in the ME and also have some Iranian friends. The amazing thing for me is that a strike against Iran has not taken place already. Mark my words, it will happen and in fact the Iranian leadership have held a conference recently where the Ayatollah stated that Iran would be at war in a matter of weeks. The consequences of a strike on Iran are many but some possible scenarios include massive rocket attacks on Israel from Iran, Syria, Lebanon and Gaza. Israeli retaliation will be very heavy and unless the US gets involved, we could have full scale regional conflict in the ME, sky high oil prices and worldwide economic depression.
http://www.debka.com/article/22229/Khamenei-Warns-Iran’s-Top-Leaders-WAR-IN-WEEKS

golden lane · 16-08-2012 02:07AM

paddylanger wrote: »

i do agree with you but america does control the airspace over iraq . we could see a strange situation where americans will shoot down israeli planes. unlikely but it could happen.

iran has numerous nuclear plants spread all over the country. so to destroy them all in an attack would mean out right war and invasion of iran imho.

i have a feeling that israel will threaten to do something, if the rest of the world (mainly the usa) does nothing.....

decisions by people who are not in danger, tend to be completely different to those who are.....

and all of us armchair warriors have no right to say if it is right or wrong...

paddylanger · 16-08-2012 02:13AM

golden lane wrote: »

the iranian government has vowed to wipe israel off the map.......

now....if i was an israeli, i wonder what i would do..?????

Again it is open to interpretation, especially if iran sees israel as an occupation of palestine. Hence there is no israel to begin with in their eyes.

Iran knows that they cannot literally blow up israel . because all the force of america would retaliate against Iran. they are not foolish enough to think they could just blow up israel and get away with it. Do you think they hate israel more than their own lives and culture? of course they don't.

plus why would iran kill all the Palestinians too.

paddylanger · 16-08-2012 02:19AM

golden lane wrote: »

i have a feeling that israel will threaten to do something, if the rest of the world (mainly the usa) does nothing.....

decisions by people who are not in danger, tend to be completely different to those who are.....

and all of us armchair warriors have no right to say if it is right or wrong...

can the planet survive 200 nuclear bombs going off? And thats just israel!

its our planet too no matter what the rest of the world thinks. so indeed we do have a say in what happens to the planet. otherwise the only thing left could be curiosity probe on mars....

paddylanger · 16-08-2012 02:23AM

maddragon wrote: »

I've been following this for years as I spent alot of time in the ME and also have some Iranian friends. The amazing thing for me is that a strike against Iran has not taken place already. Mark my words, it will happen and in fact the Iranian leadership have held a conference recently where the Ayatollah stated that Iran would be at war in a matter of weeks. The consequences of a strike on Iran are many but some possible scenarios include massive rocket attacks on Israel from Iran, Syria, Lebanon and Gaza. Israeli retaliation will be very heavy and unless the US gets involved, we could have full scale regional conflict in the ME, sky high oil prices and worldwide economic depression.
http://www.debka.com/article/22229/Khamenei-Warns-Iran’s-Top-Leaders-WAR-IN-WEEKS

yeah thats what got me concerned. israel has also said war within weeks.

Presidential elections in america is also having an influence.

its a scary game of poker coz if both sides go ALL in then we are all in deep trouble...

golden lane · 16-08-2012 02:29AM

paddylanger wrote: »

can the planet survive 200 nuclear bombs going off? And thats just israel!

its our planet too no matter what the rest of the world thinks. so indeed we do have a say in what happens to the planet. otherwise the only thing left could be curiosity probe on mars....

well, if i was an israeli....and a country threatened to wipe me off the map...would i be concerned about what other people thought.....

our presumed life or death situation......and israels real life or death situation......who has the right..????

paddylanger · 16-08-2012 02:37AM

golden lane wrote: »

well, if i was an israeli....and a country threatened to wipe me off the map...would i be concerned about what other people thought.....

our presumed life or death situation......and israels real life or death situation......who has the right..????

Name one country Iran has attacked ? they have never done it before in the last 300 years.

Also it is not a real life or death situation for the israeli's yet! their fear is as hypothetical as ours.

Reality is that palestinians are being murdered , women and children.

Only last week an israeli sniper received a 45 DAYS. yes days, sentence for killing 2 palestinian women who were holding a white flag at the time. that is the reality...

they plea bargained from murder, to manslaughter to finally " illegal use of a weapon" hence the 45 day sentence..... these are facts and have happened not idle threats.

Going to war based on what someone said is the worst reason to go to war imho.

RobbingBandit · 16-08-2012 02:42AM

Where would Turkey come into this equation, given their unresolved issues with Isreal and the fact that they share a boarder with Iran.

golden lane · 16-08-2012 02:48AM

paddylanger wrote: »

Name one country Iran has attacked ? they have never done it before in the last 300 years.

Also it is not a real life or death situation for the israeli's yet! their fear is as hypothetical as ours.

Reality is that palestinians are being murdered , women and children.

Only last week an israeli sniper received a 45 DAYS. yes days, sentence for killing 2 palestinian women who were holding a white flag at the time. that is the reality...

they plea bargained from murder, to manslaughter to finally " illegal use of a weapon" hence the 45 day sentence..... these are facts and have happened not idle threats.

Going to war based on what someone said is the worst reason to go to war imho.

and in my opinion also......but i am not threatened.....

as far as i'm concerned, there never should have been an israeli state...and i do not agree with that state....

but there is, and i don't know what the israeli's know....i only know that a religeous nutter that runs iran.....has threatened to wipe israel off the map....if the israeli's believe that, then for their own safety, if they believe that is threatened....they must act first......second is too late.....

Will Israel Vs Iran start world war 3?

Comments