Israel - Iran [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Israel - Iran

peribsen
11-03-2011, 07:10 PM
Another hot spot capable of dwarfing the Greek crisis may be about to unfold.

What is one to believe? Is Sin Beth ex-director Dagan honest when he says that Netanyahu is an irresponsible gambler and that an attack on Iran "the stupidest idea I've ever heard"? Or is this supposed 'leak' just a not so elaborate attempt at psychological warfare?

Israeli PM orders investigation into Iran leakKuwaiti paper says Binyamin Netanyahu believes the heads of the Mossad and Shin Bet may have leaked plans for attack
Ian Black, Middle East editor
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 3 November 2011

Israel's prime minister has ordered an investigation into alleged leaks of plans to attack Iran's nuclear facilities, it has been reported.

According to the Kuwaiti newspaper al-Jarida, the main suspects are the former heads of the Mossad and the Shin Bet, respectively Israel's foreign and domestic intelligence agencies.

Netanyahu is said to believe that the two, Meir Dagan and Yuval Diskin, wanted to torpedo plans being drawn up by him and Ehud Barak, the defence minister, to hit Iranian nuclear sites. Tzipi Livni, leader of the opposition Kadima party, is also said to have been persuaded to attack Netanyahu for "adventurism" and "gambling with Israel's national interest".

The paper suggested that the purpose of the leaks was to prevent an attack, which had moved from the stage of discussion to implementation. "Those who oppose the plan within the security establishment decided to leak it to the media and thwart the plan," it said.

Both Dagan and Diskin oppose military action against Iran unless all other options – primarily international diplomatic pressure and perhaps sabotage — have been exhausted. In January the recently retired Dagan, a hawk when he was running the Mossad, called an attack on Iran "the stupidest idea I've ever heard".

The Kuwait paper has a track record of running stories based on apparently high-level leaks from Israeli officials.

Even well-informed Israeli observers admit to being confused about what is going on behind the scenes.

"It seems that only Netanyahu and Barak know, and maybe even they haven't decided," commented Amos Harel and Avi Issacharoff, both respected Haaretz writers. "While many people say Netanyahu and Barak are conducting sophisticated psychological warfare and don't intend to launch a military operation, top officials … are still afraid."

The idea that something significant is going on in this highly sensitive area was rekindled last week in comments by columnist Nahum Barnea, who wrote in Yedioth Ahronoth that the officials running Israel's military and intelligence services were opposed to a war with Iran.

"Binyamin Netanyahu and Ehud Barak are the Siamese twins of the Iranian issue," he wrote. "A rare phenomenon is taking place here in terms of Israeli politics: a prime minister and defence minister who act as one body, with one goal, with mutual backing and repeated heaping of praise on each other… They're characterised as urging action.

"Netanyahu portrayed the equation at the beginning of his term as: [Iranian president Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad is Hitler; if he is not stopped in time, there will be a Holocaust. There are some who describe Netanyahu's fervour on this subject as an obsession: all his life he's dreamed of being Churchill. Iran gives him the chance."

The debate in Israel was further fanned on Wednesday when Israel successfully test-fired a missile capable of carrying a nuclear warhead and striking Iran.

peribsen
11-03-2011, 07:17 PM
Good of him to mention the Saudi peace plan from 2002. The whole idea that Israel lacks Arab partners for reaching a peace settlement has always been a tragic lie (at least ever since Tel Aviv simply ignored the Syrian attempt of cooling things down way back in the early 50s). But now, at so late a date, it is particularly tragic and particularly untrue.

Ex-Israeli spymaster takes swipe at Netanyahu

Josef Federman
Associated Press, Jerusalem, June 3rd, 2011

Associated Press= JERUSALEM (AP) — The newly retired head of Israel's fabled Mossad spy agency has turned his sights toward Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, repeatedly criticizing the Israeli leader's approach to Iran and the Palestinians.

After earning a reputation as a fearless operator against Israel's enemies, now Meir Dagan is showing public concern over how Israel's government deals with them.

Dagan's statements, rare for a man known for discretion and secrecy during a three-decade career in the intelligence service, have startled many Israelis.

In a speech at Tel Aviv University on Wednesday, Dagan issued a stern warning against attacking Iran, saying a strike would risk unleashing a region-wide war and only encourage Tehran to push forward with a nuclear program that is widely believed to be aimed at developing weapons. Iran denies that.

"The war won't be against Iran, but will be a regional war," he said, according to a transcript obtained by The Associated Press. "I recommend that the prime minister not decide to attack."

Dagan also lamented the dire state of peace efforts with the Palestinians, which have been frozen for months.

"There needs to be an Israeli peace initiative," he said. "If we don't offer things and don't take the initiative, we might be put in a corner. Given the choice between put in a corner or taking the initiative, initiative is better."

He suggested that Israel accept a nine-year-old peace initiative proposed by Saudi Arabia, offering peace with the Arab world in return for a full withdrawal from all territories captured by Israel in the 1967 war.

With the comments, Dagan took a swipe at two cornerstones of Netanyahu's foreign policy.

Israel considers Iran its most dangerous threat, citing Tehran's nuclear program, its ballistic missile development, repeated references by the Iranian leader to Israel's destruction and Iran's support for the militant groups Hamas and Hezbollah.

Netanyahu has said that international sanctions should be the preferred way to halt the Iranian nuclear program, but he has repeatedly said that the military option should not be ruled out.

"The more Iran believes that all options are on the table, the less the chance of confrontation," Netanyahu said in a high-profile address to the U.S. Congress last week.

In the same address, Netanyahu laid out his vision for peace with the Palestinians. He presented no new ideas for breaking the deadlock and instead repeated a series of red lines on borders and security demands he has set for any future deal. Netanyahu rejects a withdrawal to Israel's 1967 lines.

Dagan's criticism has been noteworthy because he has a reputation as a hard-liner toward Israel's Arab and Muslim adversaries. Foreign press reports have attributed a number of bold operations to the Mossad during Dagan's eight-year term.

Among them were the assassination of a Hezbollah mastermind in Syria in 2008, the assassination of a senior Hamas operative in Dubai in 2010, a mysterious Israeli airstrike in Syria in 2007 that destroyed what was believed to be a nuclear reactor and the release of a computer worm that crippled Iranian nuclear facilities. Israel has never confirmed its involvement in any of these operations.

"He is one of the most right-wing militant people ever born here, somebody who ate Arabs for breakfast, lunch and dinner," wrote Ben Caspit, the chief columnist for the Maariv daily. "When this man says that the leadership has no vision and is irresponsible, we should stop sleeping soundly at night."

Caspit claimed two other recently retired security chiefs expressed similar reservations in private. He offered no proof.

Since leaving office early this year, Dagan has become increasingly outspoken in his criticism of the government, implying that leaders are pushing the country toward war.

Just days after his retirement, an Israeli newspaper quoted him as saying Israel "should not hurry" to attack Iran. Last month, he was quoted as saying a military strike on Iran would be "stupid."

In Wednesday's speech, Dagan said he knew it is inappropriate for public officials to express their opinions. He is currently head of Israel's Ports Authority.

"But I will express my opinion anyway," Dagan said in Wednesday's speech. "I am not prepared for it to be on my conscience that there will be a repeat of what happened in 1973."

He did not elaborate, but Israel suffered heavy losses in the 1973 Mideast war after leaders ignored warnings from intelligence chiefs and were caught off guard by invading Syrian and Egyptian armies.

Netanyahu's office refused to comment.

The speech dominated Israeli newspapers, radio broadcasts and newscasts on Thursday. While some commentators said Dagan was delivering an important wake-up call to the establishment, many officials said he had crossed a line.

"It damages state security. There is no need to give the other side directions of thought, activity or readiness," said Cabinet minister Yossi Peled, a former general who once commanded Israel's northern front. "I am sure he is very worried and is acting out of good intentions, but I still think there are things that shouldn't be declared in public."

JolánGagó
11-03-2011, 08:48 PM
Netanyahu is an utter disgrace but he was elected in a democracy, that's why ppl can "take swipe" at him. Iranians do know what happens to them if one day they decide to "take swipe" at their leaders, we've seen it all. It is fully understandable Israelis would rather keep themselves safe from the criminals in Teheran by whatever means it takes.

peribsen
11-03-2011, 09:36 PM
Netanyahu is an utter disgrace but he was elected in a democracy, that's why ppl can "take swipe" at him. Iranians do know what happens to them if one day they decide to "take swipe" at their leaders, we've seen it all. It is fully understandable Israelis would rather keep themselves safe from the criminals in Teheran by whatever means it takes.

It seems that people from within the inner core of the Israeli intelligentsia would beg to differ from you (in regard to whether "whatever means it takes" should include attacking Iran).

The amount of propaganda people will believe (particularly in the US) is really baffling.

shiaben
11-04-2011, 12:46 AM
The media does a great job depicting Iran as a "barbaric evil" country. They try to exaggerate human rights abuses (and even make them up most of the times) just like they raised conspiracies and rumors about the USSR and other countries they had problems with to get people to hate them. Yes Iran is a conservative country (not as ultra conservative as Saudi Arabia where women can't drive cars and have far less rights) but it's still a pretty conservative country supported by the 60% or more rural population which have conservative values and religious beliefs.

Iran is trying its best to become a peaceful global competitor through the use of its natural resources and its scientific achievements. But of course the West will do anything to prevent Iran from advancing (whether this would be preventing Iran from using nuclear energy as a valuable alternative to electricity or even preventing Iran from purchasing the right technology to advance further in stem cell research).

I don't think there will be wars of this nature. But obviously there will be numerous accounts of espionage and harassment (getting Westernized and Conservative groups to clash and kill each other, assassinate more scientists, spread more dirty rumors about the country i.e. Iran's trying to assassinate an ambassador (biggest joke) and much more.

buddyholly
11-04-2011, 04:38 AM
The media does a great job depicting Iran as a "barbaric evil" country. They try to exaggerate human rights abuses (and even make them up most of the times)

spread more dirty rumors about the country i.e. Iran's trying to assassinate an ambassador (biggest joke) and much more.

You mean those pics of gays being hanged were fake? Who knew?

You mean the story about two soccer players being barred forever for sharing a hug is fake? Who knew?

You mean it was just a rumour about the assassination, and the Iranian guy arrested after talking to the Mexican drug gangs about where the assassination would take place does not exist? Who knew?

I am so gullible. I even thought that that little midget that comes to the UN every now and then and spews hate was real. Maybe he is just one of the muppets.

shiaben
11-04-2011, 05:02 AM
You mean those pics of gays being hanged were fake? Who knew?

You mean the story about two soccer players being barred forever for sharing a hug is fake? Who knew?

You mean it was just a rumour about the assassination, and the Iranian guy arrested after talking to the Mexican drug gangs about where the assassination would take place does not exist? Who knew?

I am so gullible. I even thought that that little midget that comes to the UN every now and then and spews hate was real. Maybe he is just one of the muppets.

It's not a perfect country but countries have their own values.

The Mexican Mafia thing is BS and you're pretty blind for accepting it, what would Iran gain out of that?

I can see some ignorant people like you believe Iran should be bombed.

@Sweet Cleopatra
11-04-2011, 05:23 AM
War is never going to happen between them. May be lesser wars between groups supported by Iran and Israel. But a real war in one of the 2 countries? no

BTW. I don't consider any government of both good, they are not like Saudi Arabia who exceeds the level of insanity by preventing women from showing their faces. But both countries are based on the most stupid idea ever, the religious country. The difference is that Iran can return back to normality in the future cause I feel people there aren't totally happy with dress code and ayatallahs restrictions, while Israel keeps digging in the hole with no way out.

shiaben
11-04-2011, 06:18 AM
The country will might become secular in the future because of globalization issues that are intervening with theocratic issues. But for now I think it will remain the way it is because the majority are rural religious Iranians (who voted for the current president, 60% of Iran) while the minority are Westernized Iranians and semi-religous ones (mostly big cities like Tehran). I'm speaking about this based on knowledge, family (all kinds), and personal experiences.

@Sweet Cleopatra
11-04-2011, 06:44 AM
The country will might become secular in the future because of globalization issues that are intervening with theocratic issues. But for now I think it will remain the way it is because the majority are rural religious Iranians (who voted for the current president, 60% of Iran) while the minority are Westernized Iranians and semi-religous ones (mostly big cities like Tehran). I'm speaking about this based on knowledge, family (all kinds), and personal experiences.

Yeah I get what you mean, but I don't think the minority are going to be silent forever about their personal rights that shouldn't be polled like dress code and this stuff. I also don't think they want to be seen as westernized people against religious. They want to be seen as people who want their personal freedom whether they are religious or not, people that are against ayatallas sticking their noses in every stuff. If there are 1000 of those people today, next decade they are going to be 1000000.
The problem in Israel is far more complicated, they are not able anymore to see their future unless guarded by force, they are not making any other options for their next generations. No country should depend only on force for its existence, you live with other people so you should make bridges with them. Unfortunately extreme religion, any religion, kills all other options.
The area is f@ed, sorry for that word, but the situation between extreme Islam and Judaism is depressing. The only hope is in the rise of strong movement between youths that is based on respecting human civil rights, less religious interfering in politics, or the area is going to be redivided according to religious groups in a bloody way.

peribsen
11-04-2011, 01:40 PM
You mean those pics of gays being hanged were fake? Who knew?

You mean the story about two soccer players being barred forever for sharing a hug is fake? Who knew?

You mean it was just a rumour about the assassination, and the Iranian guy arrested after talking to the Mexican drug gangs about where the assassination would take place does not exist? Who knew?

I am so gullible. I even thought that that little midget that comes to the UN every now and then and spews hate was real. Maybe he is just one of the muppets.

Expected answer from you. You are MTF's pet sophist (common meaning of the word, in case Sophocles barges in to tell us that sophism was originally something else).

This isn't about whether the present Iranian government is more or less atrocious, but about whether attacking Iran is a sound policy, particularly if you see it in the setting of all other policies being upheld in the ME. It would seem some very highly ranked members of the Israeli defence community think it not.

Have we learnt nothing from the Iraq war?

Another issue is that Shiaben is largely right. The image of Iran that is usually rendered in Western media tends to be as slanted as it possibly can. Why do we always hear about the ugly side, but never about the fact that female literacy more than trebled after the Islamic revolution, or that Iran has been set as an example by the WHO for it's sound contraception policy (in the 90s they were the biggest condom manufacturers in the third world and provided education about contraceptive and STDs to over 75% of their youth), or about the fact that Khomeini himself legalized transexual surgery, or about the fact that the Iranian parliament has the highest number of female members of all the Muslim world, or that a young woman inmunologist was the vicepresident of Khatami just a few years ago?

I'm not talking about Ahmadineyad, but of how the far more moderate Khatami was mainly ignored, with the West it would seem actually contributing to the rise of radicals through their incapacity to build bridges with moderates (and let's not even mention the influence that attitude has had on neighbouring Afghanistan... should Washington have derailed Rafsanjani's attempt to avoid the Taliban rising to power in the 90s? would it have been in our wider interest if OBL had never been allowed into Afghanistan?). But those issues remain taboo.

It is so easy to construe an image of Iran that would seem to justify almost any measure taken against it... and behind which to hide all our own guilt for having made things progressively worse.

One thing is clear. Neither Ahmadineyad nor Netanyahu should be part of any solution, because they are both very much part of the problem.

buddyholly
11-04-2011, 02:13 PM
Expected answer from you. You are MTF's pet sophist (common meaning of the word, in case Sophocles barges in to tell us that sophism was originally something else).

This isn't about whether the present Iranian government is more or less atrocious, but about whether attacking Iran is a sound policy, particularly if you see it in the setting of all other policies being upheld in the ME.

Nonsense. I was not answering to you, I was answering to shiaben. I replied to shiaben's post, which had nothing to do with your thread title. So why didn't you berate shiaben for posting about whether the Iran government is more or less atrocious? Without that post I would have passed on commenting in this thread.

But someone who posts that Iran is such a nice place and that the alleged assassination attempt of a Saudi ambassador is a big joke of the western media or governments, I am not sure which, is going to get a reply from me, no matter what the thread title. Do you agree that the assassination plot is a joke perpetrated by the west?

Why do you tell me a few little things including Iran being a great place because they use contraceptives and a woman was VP. That is a big deal in a country where politicians have no power at all and do what the Supreme Leader decides. If all the nice things about Iran are not reported, how do you know them all?

Are the wonderful literacy rates of females that you talk about the ''more than tripling rural literacy rate from of women from 11% to 44%?

JolánGagó
11-04-2011, 02:20 PM
Almost every country in the /underdeveloped/ world has dramatically increased its literacy rate in the last, say, 40yrs. I fail to detect the relevancy of that fact in evaluating Iranian regime, sounds a lot like the "Cubans have free education and world class healthcare" type of crap one usually hears from Castro apologists.

buddyholly
11-04-2011, 02:30 PM
Almost every country in the /underdeveloped/ world has dramatically increased its literacy rate in the last, say, 40yrs. I fail to detect the relevancy of that fact in evaluating Iranian regime, sounds a lot like the "Cubans have free education and world class healthcare" type of crap one usually hears from Castro apologists.

And even if Cubans are literate, what is the point when there are no books, except Fidel's collection of speeches? Good bedtime reading though, everyone gets to sleep right away.

peribsen
11-04-2011, 02:49 PM
Nonsense. I was not answering to you, I was answering to shiaben. I replied to shiaben's post, which had nothing to do with your thread title. So why didn't you berate shiaben for posting about whether the Iran government is more or less atrocious? Without that post I would have passed on commenting in this thread.

Why should I care if you were answering to Shiaben? This is an open thread. Anybody can answer anyone else, at their own free will. You have no need to post here if you don't wish to. I can't understand the boldtype, why should I care?

Do you agree that the assassination plot is a joke perpetrated by the west?

I don't have enough info to answer that oen, only what comes in the press, which never amounts to the full truth in these sort of cases. It all sounds extremely fishy and unlikely, and the US's track record in the UN is suspect after Colin Powell's presentation. Still, I´ll believe almost anything from the Revolutionary Guard, as shady an outfit as is to be found (and who frequently act beyond the reach of the government itself).

Why do you tell me a few little things including Iran being a great place because they use contraceptives and a woman was VP.

Reading comprehension, please. Where have I said that today's Iran is a great place? All I said is that the info one usually gets through the main media is slanted. Iran is not a great place, but it's pretty different from what people like you seem to presume. A bit of balance won't do you harm.

Are the wonderful literacy rates of females that you talk about the ''more than tripling rural literacy rate from of women from 11% to 44%?

Do you think it is easy to raise a literacy rate to 44% when you start with 11% (that's where our great Western friend the Shah left it)? Do you know how long it took Western societies to progress from one figure to the other? And I stand corrected, I thought it had only trebled, thank you for informing me that it actually rose x4.

Anyway, what on earth has all this to do with whether bombing Iran is a sound policy?

Mjau!
11-04-2011, 04:07 PM
Ha1rEhovONU

buddyholly
11-04-2011, 05:46 PM
Anyway, what on earth has all this to do with whether bombing Iran is a sound policy?

Nothing.

Shiaben went off-topic, but I did not want to let his/her lies go unchallenged.

If you want to call us both guilty of sophistry fine, but I see no reason, other than bias, for you tell me my post is irrelevant to your thread, if you have not already pointed it out to shiaben.

Sophist's choice, if you will.

buddyholly
11-04-2011, 05:58 PM
It's not a perfect country but countries have their own values.

The Mexican Mafia thing is BS and you're pretty blind for accepting it, what would Iran gain out of that?

I can see some ignorant people like you believe Iran should be bombed.

One dead Saudi I suppose. The Iranian regime is steeped in terrorism.

But since you know my thoughts, then please continue to post for me.

Sorry, but calling other people ignorant is a sure sign of ignorance. So, unless you have a direct line of communication to ''I'm-in-a-jihad'', I suggest that your comment that the Mexican thing is bullshit is spoken in pure ignorance of any fact at all in relation to what happened.
However, if you are in the Iranian Secret Service, I apologise profusely.

shiaben
11-04-2011, 05:58 PM
Thanks Peribsen, yes, this thread's question is not "Is Iran the best place in the world to live?", it's about the possible imminent war. To answer the question. I think this is how they're going about it. Historically speaking, the last time Israel destroyed nuclear reactors was in the Iran-Iraq war. They waited for Saddam to invade Iran and while the war was in its deep stages, Israel took out Iraq's nuclear reactors since Saddam's hands were full with Iran.

So I think if they were to do it in 2012 or whatever year they "actually" make an attempt. They'd have to do it with collaborative distractions. I would assume since 1 on 1 direct warfare doesn't work (see Iran-Iraq war, North Korea, Vietnam, Cuban War, countries that had civilian support), they would have to create a new type of situation.

I would assume it would go like this:
1. More heavier sanctions= Really puts stress on the economy.
2. Get the majority of the poor populations, working class, rural areas, to go against the govt. (i.e. Libya)
3. Ethnic separatist movements
3. Two pronged attack= NATO/allies attack from Iraq and Afghanistan. Turkey will refrain to avoid destroying its relations.

I honestly think that's the only way they can go about it. Now here is the thing, even if there was a mass slaughter of civilians and the nuclear sites taken out, the Iranian military is clever enough to destroy the Strait of Hormuz and other sensitive areas that would backfire for the Western states.

I personally think there won't be any war any time soon but mostly harassment and intimidation (killing Iranian scientists, arresting innocent Iranians abroad, continuation of sanctions for even none-nuclear technology like stem cell research, and pretty much anything else to get Iran to a point where its people will isolate themselves from the country. Only then would war be possible.

As for Israel. I think it will be around for awhile. The Israelis are quite clever and know how to manipulate most of the world. The large amount of Arabs with their gigantic numbers could not even lay a finger on them. They defeated them in wars, bribed many of them, and continue to bribe them, get themselves divided, and controlled them.

Ilovetheblues_86
11-05-2011, 05:44 AM
The wababists monarchies want a war. They were able to turn the arab spring from east to west, making a big turnaround from Egypt to the Arabian Peninsule to Lybia. First it was Saddam, now Gadaffi, now its only missing Abbas.

After every nacionalist party in the arab world is defeated, they will turn against the last main force of power in the region that goes against theeuropean imperialism: the fundamentalists. Iran will be the goal.

Giant turkey is already focusing on an alliance with the arab world, since an alliance with mother Russia will make them the big bear`s subordinates.

About the attack, I think Obama will take the troops from Iraq and move them to Afghanistan once again, coming from the mountains.

About the strait of Hormuz, how will they destroy it? Blocking with two ships?