Article

2005-01-23 Europe

Russia Throws Support Behind E-3 On Iran

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Captain America 2005-01-23 00:00:00 AM|| || Front Page|| [3 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1
I expect that Europe will hang together and hang tough in its insistence that Iran refrain from the further development of nuclear weapons. I expect that, if necessary, Europe will impose economic sanctions and will sustain them.
.

Posted by Mike Sylwester 2005-01-23 12:34:43 AM|| 2005-01-23 12:34:43 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 China won't go along with sanctions. France and Russia will play their usual behind-the-scenes games of sanctions-busting.

The only good outcome here is a democratic overthrow of the mullahs by the Iranian people. Then they can have all the nukes they want, and trade to their hearts' content with Russian, the EU whores, China, whomever.

Faster, for chrissake.

Posted by lex 2005-01-23 12:38:07 AM|| 2005-01-23 12:38:07 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 I expect that when Mike's disappointed in #1 above, he'll move the goal posts again

Posted by Frank G 2005-01-23 12:51:21 AM|| 2005-01-23 12:51:21 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 Europe will never impose sanctions here. From their perspective, the worst outcome-- a nuclear Iran menacing Israel and the new Iraqi democratic government-- isn't all that bad. Especially if it slaps the US warmongering hegemon in the face and also hands out billions of euros worth of contracts to Renault, Siemens, Airbus, LUKoil etc.

Posted by lex 2005-01-23 12:55:07 AM|| 2005-01-23 12:55:07 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 Remember, the "carrots" being dangled are not for the Iranians, they're for the EU Dwarves. The mullahs couldn't care less about economic incentives; they've already lined their pocketws with millions. It's the EU3 who are being bribed.

Posted by lex 2005-01-23 12:56:31 AM|| 2005-01-23 12:56:31 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 Same cast of folks that enabled Saddam, how curious

'Tis better to hang together than separately....

Posted by anonymous2u 2005-01-23 1:01:31 AM|| 2005-01-23 1:01:31 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 If the euro stays at $1.30, or goes even higher, then Germany's chances of avoiding negative economic growth are next to nil. The EU export secotr is desperate for foreign contracts. The simple, objective fact of the matter is that Germany and France need Iran's business much more than Iran needs their business. This is simply rope-a-dope by EU whores.

Faster, dammit.

Posted by lex 2005-01-23 1:11:19 AM|| 2005-01-23 1:11:19 AM|| Front Page Top

#8 a nuclear Iran menacing Israel and the new Iraqi democratic government-- isn't all that bad

A nuclear Iran is not a menace to a Shiite dominated gov't in Iraq.

A nuclear dominated N. Korea, however, is a definite threat to the USA.

If you are saying that a nuclear Iran is a threat to Israel, perhaps that is true though I doubt Iran would ever use its nuclear capability against Israel. But if Isreal sees it as a threat then Israel, not the USA, should do something about it.

Let's keep the threats against which country straight. The USA has enough on its plate with Afghanistan, Iraq, and N. Korea without picking a fight with Iran because Israel's peace of mind is troubled.

Posted by 2xstandard 2005-01-23 1:17:41 AM|| 2005-01-23 1:17:41 AM|| Front Page Top

#9 I don't have a problem with that logic. As I say, the best outcome is a democratic Iran that, if it choose to pursue nukes, as it almost certainly would, will at least refuse slip this technology to AQ and hizbullah proxies.

Posted by lex 2005-01-23 1:21:11 AM|| 2005-01-23 1:21:11 AM|| Front Page Top

#10 Didn't the old>Soviet Union and the new>Russia govt.sell Iran most of their nuc technology and hardware.

Posted by curie 2005-01-23 1:26:51 AM|| 2005-01-23 1:26:51 AM|| Front Page Top

#11 I expect that Europe will hang together and hang tough in its insistence that Iran refrain from the further development of nuclear weapons. I expect that, if necessary, Europe will impose economic sanctions and will sustain them.

Mike S., what action do you see forthcoming once Iran successfully tests a nuclear device? Can you envision any sort of effective interdiction being made by this same group that is so actively appeasing Tehran's terrorist sponsors?

I cannot and see no reason that Iran should be allowed to make the least progress towards nuclear capability of any sort. Please state why you feel the Iranians should be permitted even the least latitude towards such ends.

Posted by Zenster 2005-01-23 1:30:47 AM|| 2005-01-23 1:30:47 AM|| Front Page Top

#12 Please state why you feel the Iranians should be permitted even the least latitude towards such ends.
We have tolerated N.Korea, Pakistan, India, Russia, France, Israel, and God knows how many other countries to have nuclear capabilities. We may need to tolerate Iran having nuclear capability too.

The mullahs are pragmatists. They are sellig oil to China and the EU and getting very rich by it. Iran has never shown any interest in expanding beyond its borders. It's an odd man out in the ME, much like the Kurds. Iran is non-Arab. If anything the mullahs want to consolidate their powers in Iran and maybe get palsy-walsy with their Shiite cousins in Iraq, and then make even more money by fixing high oil prices in the future.

Pakistan is at greater risk for allowing AQ to get its hands on nuclear devices than Iran, which is a Shiite country. Iran may turn a blind eye to Sunni AQ folks hiding in its country but Iran is a target itself long term of AQ so I can't see Iran letting OBL getting too close to its nuclear facilities. That would be the Shiite mullahs signing their own death warrants. It makes no sense. If anything the mullahs want nuclear capabilities as a deterrent to US dreams of regime change and also the mullahs want to protect themselves against S. Arabia in the event SA falls into the hands of Sunni radicals.

As I say, the best outcome is a democratic Iran
A"democratic Iran" does not guarantee that it will be pro-USA. When the Shah ruled Iran, it was not a democracy but it was pro-USA. Turkey is a democracy of sorts but it is anti-USA.

Posted by 2xstandard 2005-01-23 1:58:30 AM|| 2005-01-23 1:58:30 AM|| Front Page Top

#13 Currie,
Russia is providing Iran the (up to 3 or 4 1000MW) power reactors that will produce enough plutonium for dozens of bombs each year. The uranium enrichment tech is western European origin via AQ Khan and Euro carelessness, as well as unscrupulous Euro businessmen.

If Israel or the US decides to take out a nuclear armed Iranian mullocracy (either conventionally or with nukes), why wouldn't the mullahs launch all their nuke armed missiles at the infidels. Other than Israel, the nearest infidels are in Europe and Russia. Israel has a limited ABM system. How goes the EU and Russian antiballistic and cruise missile defences?

If Iran successfully nukes Israel as they have repeatedly said they will, why wouldn't Israel reserve 50 or so of their nukes for continental Europeans and Russia, who aided and abbetted the mullahs nuclear ambitions, and nearly wiped out the Jews 60 years ago?

Finally when enough unstable nations get nukes, at what point can it become adventageous for A to clandestinely nuke B and set up C to take the blame (who may be the real enemy target)? What is the optimal response for B if it cannot determine with certainty who attacked it?

Posted by ed 2005-01-23 2:21:27 AM|| 2005-01-23 2:21:27 AM|| Front Page Top

#14 A"democratic Iran" does not guarantee that it will be pro-USA

Obviously, a democratic Iran will be vastly more sympathetic to us and our interests than any mullahcracy ever could be. Right now, popular sentiment in Iran is wildly pro-US. Even Nick Kristof has affirmed this.

I would much rather have a democratic Iran with nukes than a mullah-led Iran harboring AQ and determined to get nukes and continuing to attack us and Israel via proxies. That's an easy choice.

Posted by lex 2005-01-23 2:25:32 AM|| 2005-01-23 2:25:32 AM|| Front Page Top

#15 What part of "Death to America." do you not understand? It has been the standard Iranian chant for 20 years. That and "Death to Israel." So we are just expected to ignore that and all the other evidence like support and aid to terrorists by Iran in hopes the E3 will contain Iran. What a joke I can't believe anyone is that simple minded.

Posted by Sock Puppet of Doom 2005-01-23 2:27:31 AM|| [http://www.slhess.com] 2005-01-23 2:27:31 AM|| Front Page Top

#16 Right now, popular sentiment in Iran is wildly pro-US.
University students' sentiment ( a limited sector) in Iran is anti-mullahs. But they are not "wildly" pro-USA.

Even Nick Kristof has affirmed this
And Nick Kristof lives in Iran? Or at the very least is Nick Kristof an ex-patriate Iranian?

Obviously, a democratic Iran will be vastly more sympathetic to us and our interests than any mullahcracy ever could be.
I don't see an obvious connection between a democratic Iran with pro-USA sentiments. ME'ers hate Israel. Even the newly liberated Iraqis would not let Jewish Iraqis vote in the upcoming election. Perhaps a non-mullah dominated Iran might tolerate America, a bit less than Turkey does because Iran is oil-rich and doesn't need our "stinkin" US aid, but I don't see Iranians wildly pro-USA as long as they perceive us as showing favoritism to Israel.

Posted by 2xstandard 2005-01-23 2:39:05 AM|| 2005-01-23 2:39:05 AM|| Front Page Top

#17 What part of "Death to America." do you not understand
I understand that at this very minute N. Korea has the capability of blowing LA and SF and Seattle to smithereens and I understand that the leader of N. Korea is a certifiable nutcase.

If I need to live with that CERTAIN VERIFIED threat 24/7, then you can live with the perhaps, maybe, what if scenario of Iran developing nuclear weapons in the future that could be, perhaps, not really be threat to Israel.

If you are going to pee your pants about nuclear weaponry threats, it might be prudent to consider first the threat that is in our back yard as of yesterday, a threat that hangs like a Damocles sword over American citizens.

Nukes are a threat but let's get our priorities straight.

Posted by 2xstandard 2005-01-23 2:49:10 AM|| 2005-01-23 2:49:10 AM|| Front Page Top

#18 Alright lets DO get our priorities straight, NK either has or is extremely close to having a couple of nukes (nothing I've read says otherwise). The US has always treated NK with kids gloves for two reasons and thats because of Seoul and the US troops garrisoned in Korea, one those factors have moved further south in order to avoid an actual first strike of potentially wiping the troops out. But not for a moment has anyone cept lunatics suggested that we wouldnt lose hundreds of thousands of civilians if NK shelled Seoul. Even if we did a first strike we couldn't prevent the dug in artillery from causing horrendous civilian casualties. THAT is why its much harder to take out the NKor nukes, with Iran we know they don't have the nukes yet NOR the possibility of directly causing that widespread damage. Curtailing the Iranians is hard as hell to do when the Europeans and Chinese and Russians want to break any sanctions or blockades in order to both sell weapons to the Iranians and exploit their potential resources. You want to take out the NKors? Fine present a plan thats proving more effective than what we're doing right now, NO ONE trusts them as anything but a bunch of lunatics (I think even the Chinese govt. knows that).

Posted by Valentine 2005-01-23 2:58:45 AM|| 2005-01-23 2:58:45 AM|| Front Page Top

#19 Fine present a plan thats proving more effective than what we're doing right now, NO ONE trusts them as anything but a bunch of lunatics (
That's the point. We are not doing anything about NK and so we Americans as well as our ally Japan must live with the threat from NK's nuclear capability.

So I'd suggest that our ally, Israel, needs to do the same as Japan and as West Coast Americans do.

My point is what makes Israel's concern a greater worry to us than our own worry in America and Japan's worry? I see no reason that the USA should hurl itself into a war with Iran when we are not doing the same with NK.

Life is filled with lots of uncertainties. I think if Israel wants to fight Iran, they can go to it but then Israel is on its own because to do a pre-emptive strike against Iran is unwise.

I don't want to fight wars on Israel's behalf, do you?

The same would be true if India decided to attack Pakistan because it got tired of worrying about Pakistan's nuclear capability. Tough. India would be on its own for being impetuous.I sure wouldn't want our GI's dying on India's behalf.

Posted by 2xstandard 2005-01-23 3:12:57 AM|| 2005-01-23 3:12:57 AM|| Front Page Top

#20 I don't want to fight wars on Israel's behalf, do you?
Who cares? It's only the joos. If Iran intends to annihilate them, it's not our problem... any more than it was when the Germans wanted to.
/sarcasm off

The problem is that Iran has a STATED INTENT of killing all the Jews.

I'm not convinced that the mad mullahs are deterred by MAD, and neither are the Israelis.

Posted by Dishman 2005-01-23 3:51:35 AM|| 2005-01-23 3:51:35 AM|| Front Page Top

#21 First things first, this ain't just about Israel so cram that load of crap, this is about a state thats actively been advocating and funding terror for the last 30+ years with full intents on doing as much active damage to israel and the US as possible. Second Japan you apparently didn't read my post clearly, I said we aren't doing anything PRO-actively other than what we are currently doing (which is basically ignore them whenever they start whining or threatening, NK is more dependent on outside help to sustain its hold than Iran is, there is an effectively little to no trade with North Korea currently its more fragile than Iran) and on that note we cannot take a more active stance without endangering anywhere from hundreds of thousands to millions of people. With Iran we CAN take an active and an aggressive move before that situation becomes untenable. Some of you don't seem to grasp, you can't always fight what you wish to fight you have to fight the wars you can win and influence.

P.S. Oh and just to be sure I'm not going to vent outrageously here, are you by any chance doublestandard from the belmontclub btw?

Posted by Valentine 2005-01-23 3:54:52 AM|| 2005-01-23 3:54:52 AM|| Front Page Top

#22 bah inserted Japan in there for absolutely no reason, I should add also that Japan is directly in range of their medium missiles (we know of no missile tests from NK that can reach us even though they have missiles designed to hit Alaska). I am much more scared of NK passing warheads to Iran than I am of them launching a missile, they know in their case they too risk utter annihilation and that somewhat moderates at least the military levels of thinking, this is unlike the iranian mullahs and their govt. however who have no qualms apparently about sacrificing their entire nation into "martyrdom" by nuclear fire.

Posted by Valentine 2005-01-23 3:58:22 AM|| 2005-01-23 3:58:22 AM|| Front Page Top

#23 ..though I doubt Iran would ever use its nuclear capability against Israel.

If given the opportunity at a casino to make a bet on that, how much of your money would you be willing to risk?

Posted by Bomb-a-rama 2005-01-23 4:37:06 AM|| 2005-01-23 4:37:06 AM|| Front Page Top

#24 Money isn't a satisfactory wager... DS would only be out money, while the Israelis would be dead.
Would DS accept a wager against liability and culpability if Iran nuked Israel?

Posted by Dishman 2005-01-23 4:49:38 AM|| 2005-01-23 4:49:38 AM|| Front Page Top

#25 Then they came for me--and by that time no one was left to speak up.

Posted by 2b 2005-01-23 5:37:18 AM|| 2005-01-23 5:37:18 AM|| Front Page Top

#26 Double Standard has an interesting aproach here..

The Israely face the threat of getting nuked by Iran ? Its their problem !

India is harassed by Islamo terror, tough, its their problem !

This is not exactly the wisest policy (long term).

What if one day the 3E, Russia Iran and China gang up on the US ???
would it then be: tough, its a US problem ?

Hopefully not , because we would like to stand by our allies and friends (for what it's worth).

Incidentally I think you are missing the point.
This is not about Israel. I think Nuclearized Iran
is very undesirable in the region and may have a tremendous destabilizing influence on the ME and most of Asia. Barring tactical short term reasons I thing it is an important strategic interest of the US to avoid adding an unstable term to the ME and Asia nuclear power equation.

Posted by EoZ 2005-01-23 6:21:46 AM|| 2005-01-23 6:21:46 AM|| Front Page Top

#27 So your solution is to do nothing,by your appeasing attitude you have no problem if the Somalis and Sudannese go nuke.Why not allow Mexico have nukes,by your logic that would be ok,after all they are no threat to us.Hell let every insane,murderous country in the world have nukes,after all it is not a direct threat to us.Just how long do you think it will be before these mad dogs start lobbing nukes at each other and we get caught in the Fallout or catch 1 or 3 because we are in the way.

Posted by Raptor 2005-01-23 7:19:26 AM|| 2005-01-23 7:19:26 AM|| Front Page Top

#28 #26
Russia+Iran+China,Axis......this is the second time I've heard of such a thing. Easy to type but I wouldn't bet on it. and since it hasn't happened...its fair to speculate I guess...
During Vietnam the Soviets and Chinese bickered like hell.(actually fighting in 70s)
#13
radionucleotides can be detected which can give investigators strong indications of origin. and our satellites can detect the boost phase of missiles and cruise missiles to a lesser extent.
A physicist and/or rocket scientist might help us here?

Posted by Curie 2005-01-23 7:58:39 AM|| 2005-01-23 7:58:39 AM|| Front Page Top

#29 Curie, Good point. Russia and China have too many points of friction for there ever to be an issue that overcomes them. But a Eurabia China alliance is not so far fetched and offers something for everyone; trade for Europe, Technology for China, Cover for Arabs (and Persians and Medes and Paks and whoever else needs cover). Sure China will have to deal with Islam, but that is in the future, after getting Siberia's resources.

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2005-01-23 8:27:04 AM|| 2005-01-23 8:27:04 AM|| Front Page Top

#30 much as things change - they stay the same.

I can't see the Russia, Iran, China axis turning out any better than it ever has in the past. I agree, the stars could temporarily align, with the petty goal of harming the west - but long term, the marriage if doomed. Once Iran has nukes, it's going to step up it's quest for the caliphate, with Russia most immediately in it's sights due to already existing conflicts in the Cascaus. China will not want to give up it's lucrative western markets and Russia's reputation as a whore will limit it's prospects for a long term marriage.

Posted by 2b 2005-01-23 1:58:16 PM|| 2005-01-23 1:58:16 PM|| Front Page Top

#31 The original question goes back to does the US come on board & back the the French/German/Brit/& now Ruskie diplomatic venture? Debateable imo. On one hand some of our polticos will want to look more magnanimous and back such diplomacy but I think Lex nailed the realistic outcome: China won't buy off on sanctions & France/Germans/Russia will pay them lip service but will continue to work back room deals w/the mullahs. After oil for food, the kornet missile/nvg and other sanction busters I've not much trust in the French/Ruskies/Germans. In the end, does it hurt us to back this diplomatic effort? I think it's prolly a waste of time in the long run but I'm willing to jump on board if only for the sake of the Brits. All the while we need to be getting as much ground intel as possible about how the iranian programs are going. The spy rings need to get set up. Trust but verify. Verifying potential F-117/B52/JDAM/Tomahawk targets I mean. I'm sure the pentagon wonks are already or have already planned the strike on Tehran.

A democratic Iran is an obviously good thing to have - nuke free or not. I couldn't begin to speculate on how far off that is.

Posted by Jarhead 2005-01-23 2:13:40 PM|| 2005-01-23 2:13:40 PM|| Front Page Top

#32 So your solution is to do nothing,by your appeasing attitude you have no problem if the Somalis and Sudannese go nuke.
I am not saying that we should do nothing. What I am saying is:
a) to recognize that various countries outside ourselves already own nuclear weapons and that your argument about the "worry" of nukes getting into the hands of terrorists if Iran gets nukes is empty. Pakistan, a wobbly US ally except for its military dictator, is far more likely to have its broad spectrum leadership and general population co-operate with Sunni extremists led by OBL and yet you have no "worry" with that nation.
b)Europe has engaged Iran diplomatically, as they should, because EU countries are within nuclear striking distance from Iran. And because the EU is a major trade bloc with Iran, they have considerable influence they can bring to bear on Iran. Iran is becoming very rich through trade. Why would the mullahs want to throw away its existence, its future with a nuclear strike on Israel or an EU country like Italy? Diplomatic pressure is being used against NK. The same can be done with Iran.
c)We have our hands full militarily with Afghanistan and Iraq, especially the latter. The USA cannot afford to provoke Iran right now without full scale blow back. Who would we have in our corner to help us if that happened? The UK would be pissed at the US's impetuous action that put their troops at grave risk who are stationed in S. Iraq. Ditto Australia. Not to mention that American citizens state side would be royally pissed at the WH for wading into another war with 2 in hand, and this 3rd war on Israel's behalf. There is no way on earth that stateside folks will support a war for Israel. You think that's callous? That's realistic. Btw, did Israel go to war with us against communists in Vietnam? I don't think so. So take your predictable whine anti-semitism and stick it up your a**.

As for the following comment:
why wouldn't Israel reserve 50 or so of their nukes for continental Europeans and Russia, who aided and abbetted the mullahs nuclear ambitions, and nearly wiped out the Jews 60 years ago
If you honestly think Israel would contemplate doing this, then Israel is no true friend of anyone except herself. Many more millions of Christian men and women from the EU and from Canada and the USA died at the hands of the Nazis than Jews at the hands of the Nazis. Where it not for Christian soldiers valiently fighting the Nazis, there would be no Israel today, no Jews alive in continental Europe. If Israelis and Jewish Americans alike neither recognize nor have gratitude for the sacrifices of Christian nations during WWII, than it is very sad indeed.

Posted by 2xstandard 2005-01-23 2:15:17 PM|| 2005-01-23 2:15:17 PM|| Front Page Top

#33
Re #11 (Zenster):

what action do you see forthcoming once Iran successfully tests a nuclear device?

I think Europe would impose economic sanctions.

Can you envision any sort of effective interdiction being made by this same group that is so actively appeasing Tehran's terrorist sponsors?

I don't think Europe is "actively appeasing Tehran's terrorist sponsors.

Please state why you feel the Iranians should be permitted even the least latitude towards such ends.

I don't think they should be permitted. I also don't think the USA will take military action, and the USA can't impose economic sanctions, because we have practically no trade with Iran.

I also don't think Israel can effectively bomb Iran's nuclear program.

So, Europe's threat to impose economic sanctions is the only game in town, in my opinion.
.

Posted by Mike Sylwester 2005-01-23 2:18:37 PM|| 2005-01-23 2:18:37 PM|| Front Page Top

#34
Re #12 (2xstandard):

The mullahs are pragmatists. They are sellig oil to China and the EU and getting very rich by it.

Iran is not getting rich. The country's economy is stagnating. Unemployment and bankruptcies are growing. Iran sorely needs trade with Europe.
.

Posted by Mike Sylwester 2005-01-23 2:20:51 PM|| 2005-01-23 2:20:51 PM|| Front Page Top

#35 The Europeans are selling tickets to a game that the Iranians ahve already said they aren't going to play. It may be the only game in town - but only suckers are going to buy.

Posted by 2b 2005-01-23 2:30:40 PM|| 2005-01-23 2:30:40 PM|| Front Page Top

#36 Mike S., 2xs meant the mullahs themselves getting rich, not the populace in Iran. What you say about the country's economy as a whole is accurate.

Posted by Jarhead 2005-01-23 2:34:25 PM|| 2005-01-23 2:34:25 PM|| Front Page Top

#37 Mike S.: "I also don't think the USA will take military action..."
ROTFL

Posted by Tom 2005-01-23 3:27:52 PM|| 2005-01-23 3:27:52 PM|| Front Page Top

#38 The only reason that the NORKS are still in business is that other countries (and that includes the US until recently) have brought some kind of aid to the regime. This has enabled the NORKS to keep their military machine alive, when the government should have collapsed.

With high oil prices, Iran is awash with cash. They use their excess cash to buy reactors for electricity [snicker] when they are flaring off enough gas to handle that. Hell, I read a report that Bam is still not rebuilt after the earthquake. The Chinese are doing some $35 billion in improvements in the oil sector. The Chicoms despirately need oil to fuel their economy.

Iran is in the catbird seat. They will keep Baby Assad afloat. Hisb'Allah is being financed by Iranian money. The Paleos and the PA and Hamas are waning, while Hisb'Allah is poised to run the terror show against Israel because they got the cash flow.

Instead of building up their country and their people, the MMs think respect will come from carrying a big nuclear stick. The EU-3 and Russia are looking for a piece of the financial action to make up for the loss of Iraq, AND they want to stick it to the US. They have convinced themselves that Iran under no circumstances will rattle its sabre against them. Delusional thinking. These are dangerous times.

Posted by Alaska Paul 2005-01-23 3:34:43 PM|| 2005-01-23 3:34:43 PM|| Front Page Top

#39 Mike, the Germans are in desperate economic straits. They are far more dependent on manufactured exports than any other European nation, and the high euro is crushing their export sector. German economists contend that if the euro remains in the current 1.30 range, then German GDP growth will not even reach 1% this year, which means unemployment will go even higher and Schroeder's government will fall. The Germans desperately need new export markets such as Iran.

As for the mullahs, they're swimming in oil wealth and have no need for new trade partners. Their game is purely about increased influence and leverage abroad and continuing their monopolization of power at home, ie repressing any democratic voices. Trade and growth are the least of their concerns.

The "negotiations" with the EU3 are a farce. It's the Euros, esp the Germans and the French, who are desperate for trade carrots, not the mullahs. Sanctions will not happen unless and until the euro falls by 40%. Not bloody likely anytime soon....

Posted by lex 2005-01-23 3:43:26 PM|| 2005-01-23 3:43:26 PM|| Front Page Top

#40 DS: Why would the mullahs want to throw away its existence, its future with a nuclear strike on Israel or an EU country like Italy?

So you don't believe their stated intention of destroying Israel? What if they end up feeling like they've nothing to lose?

Posted by Dishman 2005-01-23 4:29:10 PM|| 2005-01-23 4:29:10 PM|| Front Page Top

#41 So you don't believe their stated intention of destroying Israel?

They want to destroy Israel, but they've never wanted it enough to threaten their own existence. It's typical to mock them by calling them "mad mullahs" but in truth they've never once revealed themselves mad or self-destructive.

What if they end up feeling like they've nothing to lose?

Yeah, that's the actual problem of a nuclear Iran. NOT that it will automatically mean the nuclear bombing of anywhere, but rather that a nuclear Iran will scare away intervention because of the fear that (through invasion or bombing or support of revolution) we'll bring them to the point of "nothing to lose"

In short they're themselves playing the game of M.A.D. from the *other* side. Call them the M.A.D. Mullahs.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2005-01-23 4:55:59 PM|| [http://www.livejournal.com/~katsaris/] 2005-01-23 4:55:59 PM|| Front Page Top

#42 Great points, Aris! I'm a little unclear on how they aren't threatening their very existence at this very moment, but I'm sure you can enlighten me. Please, dear Aris, come back and give us additional field guidance so we here at Rantburg can fully understand your perspective.

Posted by Tom 2005-01-23 5:00:49 PM|| 2005-01-23 5:00:49 PM|| Front Page Top

#43 2xstandard, you clearly do not understand, or are ignoring, that this is an existential threat for Israel. Losing any war means extermination of the entire population at the hand of the Arabs. Under the circumstances, why should they not strike a few blows at those whose attempt/acquiescence to the previous, partially successful genocide attempt forced the establishment of an independent Jewish nation, and whose current actions would have led directly to completion of that attempt except for the remnant in the rest of the world and the rump population in the U.S.?

Posted by trailing wife 2005-01-23 5:33:22 PM|| 2005-01-23 5:33:22 PM|| Front Page Top

#44 2xstandard, you clearly do not understand, or are ignoring, that this is an existential threat for Israel. Losing any war means extermination of the entire population at the hand of the Arabs

Here's what I understand, tw. The mullahs have used rhetoric against Great Satan since the days they drove the Shah out of power, and nothing has come of their threats.

The mullahs are getting very rich and very accustomed to the perks of selling oil to the EU and China. Though the mullahs may still use rhetoric against the US and Israel, these same mullahs are not going to do anything whatsoever to jeopardize their power.

Israelis better get used to the fact that it is not liked by the majority of UN countries and especially its neighbors. Some countries like Egypt and Jordan and Turkey have civil relations. But some countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran loathe Israel. What causes the latter 2 countries not to act on their desire to annihilate Israel is simple self-preservation, the desire of the ruling class in Iran and Saudi Arabia to continue motoring along in their corrupt self-serving ways.

The West would not permit a nuclear strike against Israel [ yes, even the greatly maligned French and Germans] to happen without major devastating results to Iran and its rulers. On the other hand if Israel [ or the US] launched a pre-emptive attack against Iran based on iffy intelligence causing blowback on coalition troops in Iraq, this would be a disaster for Israel politically. The few allies Israel has - the leadership of the USA, UK, Australia - would quickly face outrage from their own citizens back home as the body bags from Iraq increased to new highs.

Posted by 2xstandard 2005-01-23 7:00:27 PM|| 2005-01-23 7:00:27 PM|| Front Page Top

#45 2xstandard, it would take a very strange reading of history to say that the Christian nations of Europe fought Hitler on the behalf of the Jews. Most Europeans obediantly turned the Jews over to the Nazis as good riddance to bad rubbish. The nations that destroyed Hitler, the communist USSR, the Christian USA, and the Christian United Kingdom, did so for their own national survival. Jews were not a concern. As for Israelis thanking the Europeans, I think more of them thanked their God that they were no longer at the mercy of the Europeans.

Posted by RWV 2005-01-23 7:31:44 PM|| 2005-01-23 7:31:44 PM|| Front Page Top

#46 2xstandard seems to have a very strange reading of a lot of things.

Posted by Bulldog 2005-01-23 7:35:15 PM|| 2005-01-23 7:35:15 PM|| Front Page Top

#47 Every nation, including Israel, does what is in its best national interest. Any extras that accrue from actions involving national interest are an added plus.

Christian nations fought for their own national interest and also these same nations liberated Jews from death camps and also they helped establish Israel and through generous foreign aid helped Israel flourish. Three million Polish Christians were annihilated by the Nazis. The first people killed in death camps were Polish Christians, so stop with only the Jews died in death camps and the Christians all helped send Jews to death camps. That's a lie. If you want to carry around unreasonable grudges about Christians, Christians don't have to look very far back to realize that Jewish dominated Bolsheviks did their own purges against Christians in Russia and the Ukraine.

There is evil in every group. No one group is perfect. It makes more sense to look at the positive elements in each group rather than dwelling on evil segments.

Right now Israel is faced with a choice. It can act on iffy intelligence about Iran and attack it before the diplomatic channels are exhausted. But Israel should realize that if it does this, it has to live with the very high risk of causing blowback to coalition troops in Iraq and the subsequent loss of support from its allies, the US, UK, and Australia.

Posted by 2xstandard 2005-01-23 9:44:51 PM|| 2005-01-23 9:44:51 PM|| Front Page Top

#48 Yup you're starting to sound like the same DoubleStandard from BelmontClub, who by the way was also a troll that just ruined any sane discussion by always changing the subject to Bush or Israel being at fault.

Posted by Valentine 2005-01-23 10:05:03 PM|| 2005-01-23 10:05:03 PM|| Front Page Top

#49 generous foreign aid Riiiight.

Jewish dominated Bolsheviks Members, yes. Dominated? Only if Lenin, Stalin, and hundreds of others were secretly circumcised.

But Israel should realize that if it does this, it has to live with the very high risk of causing blow back to coalition troops in Iraq and the subsequent loss of support from its allies, the US, UK, and Australia. Just like when Israel destroyed the Osiraq complex.

Oh, and Israel is highly aware that the world in general doesn't like it, at best, and is actively working for its destruction, at worst. If the survivors of the camps and their descendants gave a damn, they would have walked en masse into the sea years ago.

Posted by trailing wife 2005-01-24 12:02:07 AM|| 2005-01-24 12:02:07 AM|| Front Page Top

#50 Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by 2xstandard 2005-01-23 9:03:55 PM|| 2005-01-23 9:03:55 PM|| Front Page Top

#51 Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by 2xstandard 2005-01-23 9:03:55 PM|| 2005-01-23 9:03:55 PM|| Front Page Top

21:03 2xstandard
21:03 2xstandard
11:27 Half
11:27 Half
00:02 trailing wife
00:01 Bomb-a-rama
23:54 lex
23:49 trailing wife
23:49 trailing wife
23:31 nada
23:30 trailing wife
23:18 lex
23:16 lex
23:15 Barbara Skolaut
23:13 Barbara Skolaut
23:12 Sherry
23:12 Silentbrick
22:21 Wuzzalib
22:16 Mike Sylwester
22:15 Alaska Paul
22:09 Phil Fraering
22:06 Mark Espinola
22:05 Valentine
22:02 trailing wife