Last corollary of the development of the Iranian matter about nuclear programs have generated a lot of speculative discussions about what the West will do in case of a rude Iran VS Israel confrontation. I want be clear and straight: in case this rude confrontation will become real? Will we stay with Israel or Iran?
Though third option is accurate and succinct....it does not matter. I voted Israel because it is what would actually happen, the Jewish lobby owns far too many of our politicians for any other possibility to happen.
You give me the occasion to spend a thought about something: why is Jewish lobbying activity so overestimated? It this was true, NATO should have already disintegrated Hamas, Hezbollah and all the other enemies of Israel ... Personally I tend to think that, a part the planetary domination of grapefruit market, Jews are not that influential [it's a kind of easy argument, easy for any purpose, to remind the "Jewish lobby" about this or that].
Like at Munich ... A part this "historical recall", I would like to underline the geopolitical context: Israel and Iran are two regional powers [and Israel is to remain there, some Arab and not Arab powers can like this or not, but ... reality is reality ...] and their interests are not exactly in agreement. This means that in the future risks of direct confrontation will be less and less rare. We cannot exclude that Tel Aviv and Teheran will have to fight it out to state who is the "big guy". The poll actually shows the options we will have: * to stay with Israel [the only Western democracy in Middle East] * to stay with Iran [the only fossil theocracy around the world] * to ignore the matter and see how the confrontation will end [ready, according to Munich appeasement spirit, to be "friendly" with the victorious power, regardless it will be Israel or Iran].
I had forgotten about AIPAC... but look at this long list of Jewish lobbies and note the MONEY> http://www.ifamericansknew.org/us_ints/introlobby.html
Do you care? It's just a matter of proximity. Personally I feel more near to a democracy than to a theocracy ...
Well, a war between Iran and Israel is extremely problematic since there isn't a land route available to either army, so it would have to be an air war fought mostly with missiles and airplanes. I doubt that it could also be kept just between Iran and Israel, for sure there would be all kinds of forces ready to jump in against Israel. Its the one enemy that every one in the region agrees is an enemy.
Iran is hardly the only islamic theocracy. There are various others as well. The Islamic State, Saudi Arabia, and Sudan are the most extreme and obvious examples. A democracy can also be theocratic, if it is a tyranny of the majority. The real question is: Why do we care if there is secular freedom or islamist tyranny in the middle east? For one thing, there are many of us who have empathy for the victims of theocratic tyranny. It is also a matter of fundamental psychological-ideological conflict. Islamism is an ideology that serves the purpose of satisfying the perverse sensation of dominance, much like police authoritarianism does. Dominance is the opposite of the virtuous sensation of humility. Thus it is a global psychological-ideological conflict between dominance and humility, and I am on the side of humility.
Good point, it's evident that the Islamist regimes are a problem, first of all for the populations living under them.
who attacks who and for what reason... if IRAN nuked Israel for no reason, I would stick with Israel, is Israel nuked Iran for no reason I would stick by Iran
Clever stance, it leaves room to "interpret" what happens ... So, let's see. A probable case: While Iran is developing its civil nuclear program, Israel gets enough intelligence information to feel the need for a preventive strike, using conventional weaponry, to damage the Iranian nuclear facilities to stop that program. Which would be your position in this case?
Israeli intelligence says Iran is no where near having the bomb .. and that sure makes Bibi furious.. really queers his extortion racket.
Anticipating change is essential for success in foreign policy. Younger Iranians do not appear to be comfortable under conservative, theocratic rule. Nor do ultra-conservatives in Israel necessarily have a death grip on the future there. Neither regime currently in power should be allowed to dictate US foreign policy to serve its ends. Rather, American influence should be asserted, and the elements conducive to peace in both nations encouraged. Progress can begin by addressing common objectives. Economic liberation for Palestine and Iran could enhance Israeli security far more than the US being dragged into yet another costly and bloody Middle East fiasco.
The human migraine has been hysterical about Iran's imminent acquisition of nuclear weapons since 1992 and, as you affirm, despite his continually meddling in US politics to shed American blood and treasure on Israel's behalf, there is no credible evidence that Iran would repeat Israel's stunt in clandestinely developing a nuclear arsenal any time soon.
Awesome post. - - - Updated - - - Here's what blows my mind.. I had NO idea that there were so many Jewish lobbies in the US. http://www.ifamericansknew.org/us_ints/introlobby.html
American citizens organize and unite to promote their views among elected officials.... Oh the horror of democracy!!! Your beloved Saudi government simply buys election officials, together with lawyers, public relations firms and professional lobbyists. According to Seymour Hersh the power of Prince Bandar and the Saudi lobby was so great that Bandar effectively joined the Bush administration as a virtual member of the cabinet. George Washington University Professor Hossein Askari blames the "power of the Saudi lobby in Washington" for the failure of the American government to defend the democracy protesters in Bahrain in 2011. According to Askari, "our marriage to the Al-Sauds threatens our (American) national security https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Arabia_lobby_in_the_United_States
How would Israel get there? The Israelis have identified 22 targets in Iran.. and they can't cross airspace belonging to Turkey, Syria, Iraq or Saudi Arabia.
Seymour Hersh got that one completely wrong.. Bandar was called back to KSA by the king because Bush ignored his advice and only listened to the dual citizen neocons of the PNAC. There was no trouble in Bahrain. On the really BAD day of protesting in Bahrain 300 Americans from Saudi crossed the causeway for a golf tournament. I have several American friends who have lived in Bahrain for years. They said it was a "media war".
There is also http://jstreet.org/ that advocate for Israel in a far more rational way, but is constantly under attract by the radicals that have purchased enormous influence in the US Congress. They clearly wish US foreign policy in the Middle East to be determined by Benny Netanyahu - sacrificing American lives and money for their ideological agenda.
LOL, poor Saudis and their shills, everyone gets them wrong, Saudi Arabian dollars buying American influence http://www.wnd.com/2011/07/321169/ Note, they are not American citizens, they are oppressive, medieval Saudi Royalty openly bribing and buying American officials and organizations in bulk.
I suppose that, in a way, tyranny of the majority is better than tyranny of somebody else's imaginary friend as interpreted by guys with medieval values. But do I feel passionate enough about the difference to put our country on the line to make sure some other country doesn't fall towards one or the other? No. America was relatively isolationist before WWII, then we swung the other direction. Seems like we either don't learn, or we over-learn our lessons. Did the experience with the 3rd Reich and Japan mean that we should have our hands in every country's affairs throughout the world, killing democratically elected leaders and dictators we don't like and throwing ourselves between Israel and its enemies, or was it an extreme case that reflected a long-gone era?
