Israel's Dangerous Shadow War with Iran
foreignaffairs.com
foreignaffairs.com
It's widely believed there is an existing agreement that makes this possible.
From 2013[1]:
> Earlier this year, a senior Nato decision maker told me that he had seen intelligence reporting that nuclear weapons made in Pakistan on behalf of Saudi Arabia are now sitting ready for delivery.
> Last month Amos Yadlin, a former head of Israeli military intelligence, told a conference in Sweden that if Iran got the bomb, "the Saudis will not wait one month. They already paid for the bomb, they will go to Pakistan and bring what they need to bring."
Saudi Arabia funded the Pakistan nuclear program back in the 1970s[2].
[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-24823846
[2] https://www.arabnews.com/node/2069831 "This was the time when Saudi Arabia opened its doors to Pakistani workers and provided financial aid to the Bhutto regime in order to thwart India’s nuclear ambitions."
It's true that the Saudi's want Israeli attacks on Iran to continue. But the article points out (to quote): "Israel’s new leadership is the most extreme right-wing government in its history and has already taken steps that have increased violence between the Israelis and the Palestinians, which puts Arab leaders who have embraced normalization in a difficult position given the widespread popular opposition to Israeli policies."
Israel's policy towards Palestinians is already problematic for other Arab states interested in normalizing relations. Overt strikes on another Muslim country like Iran - even one that is broadly an enemy - doesn't breed popular support.
The politics here are very complex and the article does a pretty good job explaining them. It's very far from "a joke" since there are many more trade offs here than simply "oh the Saudi's don't like Iran either".
I don't think it's an overreaction to at least consider the possibility that they might mean what they say.
https://web.archive.org/web/20070708083524/http://www.iribne...
It's not relevant to the discussion though. We're talking about "Israel" defending itself, not "the Jews".
https://mondoweiss.net/2020/07/we-have-biblical-rights-to-th...
There are women living in Iran, who are on the whole well-treated /s
Oh boi, I have a treat for you.
There are billboards in famous public squares or places in Iran which even have countdown until destruction of Israel! Here is one from a semi-official news agency that has ties with IRGC! The article is from a few years ago, but you can still find these billboards throughout the cities!
Title of the news article: "Countdown of destruction of Zionist regime in Palestine"
On the billboard: "Remaining until destruction of Israel"
https://www.tasnimnews.com/fa/news/1396/05/10/1480680/روز-شم...
This one is installed in the center of Tehran, the capital!
Edited to fix the style
"Iran said they want to destroy Israel. Israel should be worried."
To which you reply: "Well, there are two sides. Israel said they want to drown Palestine."
So now let's ask a follow up question: Israel said they want to drown Palestine, should Palestine worry about Israel?
Secondly, saying "Israel's leadership" said they want to drown Palestinians is a pretty ridiculous claim. Who said it exactly? When? Are they currently Israel's leadership?
Cause Israel is a democracy with many officials. Without something more specific, even if this is a real thing, it's like pointing to US congresspeople from the 1950s saying "segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever" and using that to "prove" that Obama is actually racist.
Whereas Iranian leadership is a dictatorship and the same people claiming they would like to kill all Israelis are the people in power now.
And there are debates about the state of Israels democracy: https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/democracy-means-ju...
That said, you're leaving out context that make clear this is different.
Maybe the biggest difference is - he didn't suggest drowning all Palestinians, unlike the statements calling to "eradicate Israel". He specifically said it's better to drown Palestinian prisoners in the sea rather than release them (as part of a security deal, I believe.) (Which is still a despicable thing to say, don't get me wrong, but a very different thing nonetheless)
Also, the headline from the article that talks about this statement is "Lieberman Blasted for Suggesting Drowning Palestinian Prisoners". His sentiment is far too widespread, but statements like those are still not palatable. (Though to be fair, the situation today is probably worse.)
> And there are debates about the state of Israels democracy
Yeah things are not looking super rosy, but so far everything is speculation. There were also worries about the US's democracy, worries about a potential constitutional crisis, etc. I think it's safe to still call the US a democracy.
Interesting how there is very little discomfit about that from non Israelis.
But I am not sure if this discussion thread is intended to be factual or not.
https://twitter.com/khamenei_ir/status/1018803983543078912
https://twitter.com/JasonMBrodsky/status/1262782215756361730 The "final solution" when talking about Jews... hmmm, what could they possibly mean?
All I said in my original comment was that it's not an overreaction to at least consider the possibility that they might mean what they say. Is it so obvious to you that there's literally nothing to worry about?
100%, and obviously Iran is an adversary of Israel's.
But expressing hope that your adversary falls (and wishing ill on their people) and directly threatening them are distinct. Given the heat of this discussion, I think that's a fair delineation to make.
Not sure how some originality changes the sentiment. I don't think it's relevant in the slightest.
> Not a credible threat by a head of state.
I don't think you have looked up what credible means. National leadership is credible. That's the nature of the role. Political posturing are tactics of leadership as well, but that doesn't make the sentiments less credible. Opportunity often changes a feint into an actual assault, in conflicts.
I think we're talking about the fact that much of the Iranian leadership would press a button that made Israel magically disappear without additional consequence, if they could...following that, what would they be willing to sacrifice to do it?
If you don't think there is any possibility that Iran would want Israel gone, that's fine. At least come out and say it.
Much of every country's leadership would do this to their adversaries. That shows credible intent, not a credible threat.
There is motive. There is opportunity. The lacking element is means.
There are a large number of conditions (access to nuclear ordinace, among others) wherein means is achieved. Threat is not simply about what means exist now, but the conditions and consequences of change. The world conditions ensure it's a credible threat and countries take it seriously, despite your misgivings.
Apparent capability is an important component of threat credibility under practically every military doctrine.
The more fundamental question is: does this represent a policy stance or domestic messaging point? One can reasonably disagree on the answer. But the quotes I've been shown sound more like bluster than actual threats. For evidence of Iran's belligerence, these statements are relatively par for the course. (Their extraterritorial meddling makes a stronger pitch for credible intent and threat.)
Is it not a credible threat because they don't have means? 'Cause I'm not sure what you might mean otherwise.
(How on earth these are still up on Twitter is a separate discussion)
You posted a link from 2011 about Ahmedinejad being mistranslated but there are plenty of other times the Iranian authorities have called for the destruction of Israel.
What do you expect the Iranian government to do.
(Which is what the post you replied to was talking about…)
Unlike John McCain singing "bomb bomb Iran" during his 2008 campaign https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7s5pT3Rris
Iran has also never shot down a US passenger flight https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655
"Public timer, which is set to mark destruction of Jewish state in 2040 as predicted by Khamenei..."
I don't know how Iranian leadership can make it any clearer they want Israel gone? What more should they say or do?
Is wanting an Israel state gone different than wanting the Israeli inhabitants gone?
I see a possible difference, especially if Iranians are forced to choose between Palestine and Israel existing.
Not really imo no. I'm not necessarily saying Iran wants to kill every last Israeli but the "solution" they are planning for the region is definitely a violent one. Why else would they invest so much in Hezbollah/Hamas etc.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/18/world/middleeast/iran-nuc...
Everybody will see that you can invade a weaker country, for whatever made up reason, and nothing happens. Everybody will try to posses nuclear weapon, as this is the only effective way of scaring potential enemies.
A lot of local conflicts will start. Turkey against Greece. Azerbaijan against Armenia.
Hungary might try to bring back their old territories, lost because of Treaty of Trianon (that's why I am so surprised Northern Hungary, sorry, I meant Slovakia, is not so eager to help Ukraine and a lot of people are pro-Russian).
Belarus will become part of Russia soon, Kazakhstan will follow, hybrid war against Baltic States will began ("defending" Russian minority, etc.).
If Russia will be forced to leave Ukraine and pay contribution we will be back in the World we peacefully lived since 1989, if not, well, interesting times ahead.
USA understands this that's why it helps Ukraine, US domination, control over trade, dollar as an only mean to pay for oil, hence, reserve currency for all countries, will be questioned immediately. Asia is looking on Ukraine right now since maybe, maybe it will be time to change patron.
Western Europe understands this too, but they dream about "multi-polar world" with Western Europe becoming one of the key players. The crux is you cannot be a key player if you have barely 800 tanks altogether, with an unknown number of those who are not even able to move out of garage (Spain).
Multipolar world will not be a nice place to be, it will be a brutal place with competing forces among which Western Europe will need to fight for its position. And this will not be easy.
Until new superpower will arise, if this will be China with its mixture of communism and technological control over societies then, we will really miss USA as a hegemony.
I am astounded that so many intelligent people in the USA and EU fail to grasp the stakes of what is happening in Ukraine.
I think that most people who make foreign policy decisions in countries around the world already knew that if you are strong enough, you can invade a weaker country, for whatever reason, and nothing happens. This is just plain common sense and has been discussed going back to Thucydides' Melian Dialogue or earlier. And if anyone somehow did not realize that the strong can get away with invading the weak, they should have realized it in 2003 when the US invaded Iraq.
No. Iran does not recognize Israel's right to exist, even if Israel goes back to pre-1967 borders.
Possibly. Israel and Iran have friends in Moscow, so the usual Sinorussian veto party could be sidestepped. But this would require Russia extending its nuclear umbrella over Iran. That, in turn, gives Putin a say in Iran's extensive extra-territorial meddling. Tehran may figure they can get their own nukes out of Russia for a cheaper price.
Tellingly, America has only extended strategic ambiguity to Israel, the same as we give Taiwan, not a red-lined nuclear umbrella like we do to NATO or Japan. This doesn't seem like a problem great powers care to resolve.
Jews don't believe in the legitimacy of christianity's theft of their holy book or christian holy books, christians dont believe in the koran even if islam claims jesus as an islamic prophet, and islam doesn't believe in the revelations of the bahai even if the bahai claim it to be another revelation after islam.
This "its all the same god" is feel good western stuff that has nothing to do with religious adherents of those religions. Nobody believes the next guy's book is legitimate, they just borrow the one before them to take the previous group's legitimacy.
It's not the same god, its this massive game of gaslighting everyone is playing that the actual religious people do not play the same way.
> This "its all the same god" is feel good western stuff that has nothing to do with religious adherents of those religions.
The joint declaration between the (Roman Catholic) Pope and the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar would seem to disagree. [0] Similarly, the many joint declarations between the Vatican and Chief Rabbinate of Israel, which frequently invoke shared faith in the same God and shared Scripture. [1]
[0] https://www.vaticannews.va/en/pope/news/2019-02/pope-francis...
[1] https://ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements...
We've spent so long gaslighting everyone about religious declarations we've lost the fundamental plot. Those people do not believe that the other religions have any legitimacy about what god says, except to borrow the legitimacy of previous religions for their own self interest.
The vatican and the israeli rabbinate are largely political entities. The chief rabbinate is not credible a religious authority even within israel - its a political appointment. You're being gaslit about what people believe because religious politics make 'playing well together against the nonbelievers' more important than telling the truth.
This is important because there is a strong fundamentalist Christian lobby group in the US that supports Israel politically for these religious reasons.
So what christians believe is very self serving in terms of taking judaisms books to coopt for their benefit. Jews definitely dont believe any part of the new testament and believe jesus to be a false messiah.
the feel good nature of "let the believers band together against the nonbelievers" is the gaslighting that lets people talk about how its all the same god, when it clearly isn't.
You should read my imaginary friendship book bro, my imaginary friend wrote it with the help of some random dude because despite being ommipotent my imaginary friend cannot write his own book apparently.
And despite being everywhere you need to visit my imaginary friend by entering a specific structure built by some random dude.
If you sacrifice your non imaginary life you can go to my imaginary friend's crib in an imaginary afterlife. It's a more than fair deal.