US Presidential & VP Debates

[camberiu]

Now, not that I agree with everything Dagan said. But it is a lot more complicated then you guys make it out to be. Even Dagan, who is against a preemptive strike against Iran right now, does not put it as simply as you did, that the Iranians are not a threat and they are rational people (He said they're rational but explained what he meant by it too). Its always good to see things in context.

I don't think this is a simple issue at all, quite the opposite. I think it is a complex issue full of nuances, and that is why I don't think you should limit the argument to "crazed doomsday mullahs" or "most dangerous regime in the world". Is the theocratic regime in Tehran today made up of peace loving priests? Nope. But that does not mean that they represent a meaningful threat to either the US, Israel or most of the western developed world. The issue of Iran and nukes is tightly linked to the struggle for power in the middle east. Creating these simplistic doomsday scenarios is part of the game for control in the region. I fear that those who simply accept and repeat those arguments are just being pawns on the propaganda game. here are some facts that I'd like to clarify:

1) The Iranian theocratic regime has consistently shown to be a rational and pragmatic player bent on survival since the the 1979 Revolution. First by not alienating all other western powers (just the US) after the revolution. Secondly by accepting Israeli help against Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war. Thridly to make peace with Iraq after one of the longest, bloodiest and most destructive wars in the history of the region. Fourthly by remaining neutral during Desert Storm. Finally by providing covert assistance to the US after 9/11 and remaining neutral during operation desert Freedom.

2) Based on the latest information made public by the Mossad, there is still no evidence that Iran has decided yet to pursue nuclear weapons. If that has changed since March, the Mossad and the CIA has not made that public. Therefore, unless someone here works for either the Mossad or the CIA, the last reliable information you had was that Iran had not (at least yet) started the pursuit of a nuclear bomb. There is nothing out there that is public that should make anyone here think otherwise.

3) The big fear of Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon is not that they will go bananas and start nuking everyone, as this would mean the end of Iran (see item #1). The concern is that once (and if) Iran acquire nuclear weapons, it will then be able to more openly play an active role within the gulf without fearing punitive attacks. What do I mean by that? I mean that Iran would be able to openly support Shia minority groups and even uprisings in Bahrain, Kuwait, Yemen, Iraq, Azerbaijan, Lebanon and even Saudi Arabia. It completely changes the balance of power in the region and represents a MAJOR headache to Israel, the USA, the Saudi Kingdom and even to Qatar and the UAE. That is the reason why Iran having a nuke ruffles so many feathers. It has nothing to do with crazy mullahs and everything to do with real politik. But in order to gather public support for war, you have to paint the picture of crazy mullahs. You can't go to the public and sell preemptive strike on "upsetting the balance of power in the region". it has to be "most dangerous regime" or "crazy doomsday worshiping mullahs".

 

[nicoenarg]

I don't think this is a simple issue at all, quite the opposite. I think it is a complex issue full of nuances, and that is why I don't think you should limit the argument to "crazed doomsday mullahs" or "most dangerous regime in the world". Is the theocratic regime in Tehran today made up of peace loving priests? Nope. But that does not mean that they represent a meaningful threat to either the US, Israel or most of the western developed world. The issue of Iran and nukes is tightly linked to the struggle for power in the middle east. Creating these simplistic doomsday scenarios is part of the game for control in the region. I fear that those who simply accept and repeat those arguments are just being pawns on the propaganda game. here are some facts that I'd like to clarify:

1) The Iranian theocratic regime has consistently shown to be a rational and pragmatic player bent on survival since the the 1979 Revolution. First by not alienating all other western powers (just the US) after the revolution. Secondly by accepting Israeli help against Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war. Thridly to make peace with Iraq after one of the longest, bloodiest and most destructive wars in the history of the region. Fourthly by remaining neutral during Desert Storm. Finally by providing covert assistance to the US after 9/11 and remaining neutral during operation desert Freedom.

2) Based on the latest information made public by the Mossad, there is still no evidence that Iran has decided yet to pursue nuclear weapons. If that has changed since March, the Mossad and the CIA has not made that public. Therefore, unless someone here works for either the Mossad or the CIA, the last reliable information you had was that Iran had not (at least yet) started the pursuit of a nuclear bomb. There is nothing out there that is public that should make anyone here think otherwise.

3) The big fear of Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon is not that they will go bananas and start nuking everyone, as this would mean the end of Iran (see item #1). The concern is that once (and if) Iran acquire nuclear weapons, it will then be able to more openly play an active role within the gulf without fearing punitive attacks. What do I mean by that? I mean that Iran would be able to openly support Shia minority groups and even uprisings in Bahrain, Kuwait, Yemen, Iraq, Azerbaijan, Lebanon and even Saudi Arabia. It completely changes the balance of power in the region and represents a MAJOR headache to Israel, the USA, the Saudi Kingdom and even to Qatar and the UAE. That is the reason why Iran having a nuke ruffles so many feathers. It has nothing to do with crazy mullahs and everything to do with real politik. But in order to gather public support for war, you have to paint the picture of crazy mullahs. You can't go to the public and sell preemptive strike on "upsetting the balance of power in the region". it has to be "most dangerous regime" or "crazy doomsday worshiping mullahs".

I will just go through each point, briefly:

#1: The situations you have so far described have Iran involved in a way where it did not have the upper hand. That has been the modern history of the middle east. Whenever any hostilities have happened, they have happened because a state decided that it had the upper hand and decided to go to war. Iraq attacking Iran and then Kuwait and Saudi Arabia shows that clearly. Arab countries attacking Israel in 1948 and then lining up tanks on the border in 1965 and then attacking Israel in 1973, all of these wars preceded with Arabs claiming in public, "We will drive the Jews into the sea and reclaim the holy land." They thought they had the upper hand. The reason Israel hasn't been attacked again is because the Arabs lost that unity and the upper hand that they had before.

Its the same with Iran. They have not had the upper hand so far. And that is why it is dangerous for Iran to acquire nuclear weapons.

#2: The article you keep on referring to, and the report that NYT lovingly hailed as, "They all say Iran has not decided to acquire nuclear weapons" does not specifically say that at all. This is from NYT itself: (EDIT: Sorry, I had forgotten to link the article)

Today, as suspicions about Iran’s nuclear ambitions have provoked tough sanctions and threats of military confrontation, top administration officials have said that Iran still has not decided to pursue a weapon, reflecting the intelligence community’s secret analysis. But if that assessment changes, it could lift a brake set by President Obama, who has not ruled out military options as a last resort to prevent Iran gaining nuclear arms.

Publicly and privately, American intelligence officials express confidence in the spy agencies’ assertions. Still, some acknowledge significant intelligence gaps in understanding the intentions of Iran’s leaders and whether they would approve the crucial steps toward engineering a bomb, the most covert aspect of one of the most difficult intelligence collection targets in the world.

Much of what analysts sift through are shards of information that are ambiguous or incomplete, sometimes not up to date, and that typically offer more insight about what the Iranians are not doing than evidence of what they are up to.

As a result, officials caution that they cannot offer certainty. “I’d say that I have about 75 percent confidence in the assessment that they haven’t restarted the program,” said one former senior intelligence official.
Another former intelligence official said: “Iran is the hardest intelligence target there is. It is harder by far than North Korea.

“In large part, that’s because their system is so confusing,” he said, which “has the effect of making it difficult to determine who speaks authoritatively on what.”

And, he added, “We’re not on the ground, and not having our people on the ground to catch nuance is a problem.”

Iran says its nuclear program is for peaceful civilian purposes, but American intelligence agencies and the International Atomic Energy Agency have picked up evidence in recent years that some Iranian research activities that may be weapons-related have continued since 2003, officials said. That information has not been significant enough for the spy agencies to alter their view that the weapons program has not been restarted.

Mossad, Israel’s intelligence service, agrees with the American intelligence assessments, even while Israeli political leaders have been pushing for quick, aggressive action to block Iran from becoming what they describe as an existential threat to the Jewish state.

“Their people ask very hard questions, but Mossad does not disagree with the U.S. on the weapons program,” said one former senior American intelligence official, who, like others for this article, would speak only on the condition of anonymity about classified information. “There is not a lot of dispute between the U.S. and Israeli intelligence communities on the facts.”

In trying to evaluate the potential perils of Iran’s nuclear program, the United States’ spy agencies have spent years trying to track its efforts to enrich uranium and develop missile technology, and watching for any move toward weaponization — designing and building a bomb.

Hunting for signs of the resumption of a weapons program is more difficult than monitoring enrichment and missile-building activities, both of which require large investments in plants, equipment and related infrastructure. American intelligence officials said that the conversations of only a dozen or so top Iranian officials and scientists would be worth monitoring in order to determine whether the weapons program had been restarted, because decision-making on nuclear matters is so highly compartmentalized in Iran.

“Reactors are easier to track than enrichment facilities, but obviously anything that involves a lot of construction is easier to track than scientific and intellectual work,” said Jeffrey T. Richelson, the author of “Spying on the Bomb,” a history of American nuclear intelligence. “At certain stages, it is very hard to track the weapons work unless someone is blabbing and their communications can be intercepted.”

Not saying you're completely wrong. Just saying that they are not a 100% sure. The evidence so far, to them, according to the article, does not suggest that they have restarted the program halted in 2003. And any evidence they have collected that suggests otherwise, they have said in the article, is not strong enough.

Now again, I am just trying to quote from the source because the meaning all gets lost when it is quoted over and over without the source.

I am in no way saying that I agree or disagree with the article.

Here is the problem with the article that I think is important: It is inconclusive.

There are many things that count as counter evidence to what the article suggests. The intelligence agencies, especially the Mossad, have been trying or reportedly trying to sabotage the Iranian program. The Iranian program has been very clandestine. The Iranian regime has been pretty blood thirsty (literally) in the recent years.

Again, that depends on the way you interpret things. From a western perspective, it does not make any sense thatIran would want to do anything stupid. I mean, survival is all that its about. But from where I come from, survival is not the most important thing.

#3 While describing the HEADACHE for Israel, you forgot to mention Hezbollah. Let's say Iran does not use the nuke on anyone but uses it to get their way. What makes you think they will only support "uprisings" in the rest of the middle east? That would be a nice way of putting the terrorist activities of Hezbollah (and even Hamas, even though that's a Sunni faction). Why coudn't they use Hezbollah style tactics in the rest of the middle east? I wonder why that scenario didn't cross your mind.

Do I think the Iranian regime is crazy enough to use a nuke on Israel, come what may? Yes, I do think so. Once the Iranians have the upper hand, well, I just hope that the rest of the countries in the region are prepared for it.

And Israel is considered a temporary thorn in the middle east, not only by the Iranians but also by the rest of the Arab countries. Whether it is a political ploy to gather the support of the people or whether it is real does not matter at the end, because the people of the region really believe that one day they will be powerful enough to drive all the Jews into the water. If you don't consider that a serious problem then, again, you are not looking at the whole picture.

Am I parroting what Bibi or, as you put it, Neocons are saying? No, I have a personal interest in the Middle East. My folks still live there. I have to stay informed about Iran and the region. This isn't just a foreign policy issue for me.

 

[nicoenarg]

Oh just to add to this, since I haven't gotten the chance so far with everyone going apeshit over me calling the Iranian regime dangerous. I think the Iranian regime is the most dangerous regime in the world at the moment, but that is not to say they will remain dangerous once they are neutralized...either economically or through an uprising or militarily.

With their recent currency crisis, my hope is that the regime collapses with their economy and the people of Iran finally get a chance to get their Persia back. If that happens, that would be the most welcome of all scenarios.

 

[jeff1234]

My two cents about Iran:
In 1994 I moved to a new corner of Manhattan (built on the dirt from the World Trade Center excavation). For 7 years it was a quiet and safe as I'd hoped for my family.
We went across the street to the WTC for a pharmacy, shoeshine, books, restaurants, even for good coffee. It was like our town square. Always safe and serene.
In addition my office on the 79floor had a phenomenal view, although it swayed in a wind and our morning coffees would jump out of our cups.
On tv and in print people argued about the seriousness of threats from Afghanistan, Iraq, etc but that was far away.
One sunny day I was at my beach house when I passed a tv and saw my Manhattan neighborhood covered in dust.
My friend, a doctor ran to St. Vincents Hospital to treat the injured. But no one came.
A few weeks later I was allowed into my apartment under military guard. I cried and cried at the destruction.
The Israelis have a hard-earned saying "Never Again"

 

[camberiu]

I will just go through each point, briefly:

#1: The situations you have so far described have Iran involved in a way where it did not have the upper hand. That has been the modern history of the middle east. Whenever any hostilities have happened, they have happened because a state decided that it had the upper hand and decided to go to war.

I think this is true anywhere and anytime in human history, no? Why restrict this to the arab nations and the middle east? Yes, states attack other states when they think they have the upper hand. That is why Galtieri attacked the falklands. That is why Great Britain when to the Crimea. That is why Russia invaded Georgia just a couple of years ago. That is why there was the Mexican-American war. So, yeah, maybe if Iran truly believed it had the upper hand, it might start a land grab campaign. I am not so sure that would be a certainty, but I could see a valid argument for it.

But I think the main point here is that I disagree with you that nukes would give Iran "an upper hand" or even a false sensation of having "the upper hand". The most Iran can hope to gain from a nuke is a deterrent. There is no "upper hand" when both you and your opponent have nukes. All you have is the guarantee of mutually assured destruction. Israel and the US have many more nukes than Iran can ever hope to have. Not only that, they have a much greater quantity and better quality of delivery systems, and anti-missile technology, that Iran simply does not have the money or the technology to match within our lifetimes. So, your argument that Iran might go on a "land grab" once it has the "upper hand" of nuclear weapons seems difficult to justify. Even with nukes, Iran remains outnumbered and outgunned by the US and Israel at a ratio of 100:1, and they know it.

#2: The article you keep on referring to, and the report that NYT lovingly hailed as, "They all say Iran has not decided to acquire nuclear weapons" does not specifically say that at all.

I am not just referring to the NYT article. I am refering to General Benny Gantz, current head of the IDF. I use several articles published by the israeli media as source and public statements from former Mossad high level staff. They all point to the same thing: That Iran is not (yet) working to build a bomb. They also say that an attack from the west might be the catalyst that will push Iran to actually seek the bomb.

There are many things that count as counter evidence to what the article suggests. The intelligence agencies, especially the Mossad, have been trying or reportedly trying to sabotage the Iranian program. The Iranian program has been very clandestine.

Of course they have. They want to limit Iran's nuclear knowledge as much as possible, to restrict Iranian options in the future and make as difficult as possible for them to build a bomb, if they ever make the decision . But that is very different from saying that they are trying to build a bomb.

The Iranian regime has been pretty blood thirsty (literally) in the recent years.

That does not mean anything. So has the government of Bahrain, which the US supports, or the government of Kyrgyzstan back in 2005 or Ethiopia today, which all have or had the backing of the US. So, blood thirty regimes should not be the criteria we use to classify the danger level specific countries represent internationally.

Again, that depends on the way you interpret things. From a western perspective, it does not make any sense that Iran would want to do anything stupid. I mean, survival is all that its about. But from where I come from, survival is not the most important thing.

Please do elaborate on that. I am not aware of any regime in the middle east that has chosen to commit suicide, ever. Individuals, yes. A whole ruling cast, a whole regime? Never heard of it.

#3 While describing the HEADACHE for Israel, you forgot to mention Hezbollah.

No, i did not forget. Hezbollah was very much in my mind when I wrote that. Yes, with a nuke Iran would be able to much more openly support Hezbollah. This means that Israel would loose much of the freedom of action it currently have in South Lebanon. That is a major headache for Israel and that is why they can say that a nuclear Iran is a threat. A a threat and an EXISTENTIAL threat are two different things. Even a much stronger Hezbollah cannot hope to "drive the Jews into the sea". Yes, it can make the life in northern Israel much more difficult. it can hold up great chunks of the IDF. It might be even able to one day force concessions out of Israel if left unchecked. But it could never hope to destroy or conquer Israel. And Iran could also create Hezbollah like militias all over the middle east. In Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait, you name it. As I said before, it would completely change the balance of power in the region. That is the key issue here. it is not some crazed Iranian mullah firing nukes at random that is the sticking point. It is Iran having the ability and freedom to prop up Shia uprisings all over the region without having to fear a military attack. it is not an issue of nuclear holocaust. It never was. That is just the smoke screen. it is an issue of who will control the middle east. It is an issue that involves geo-politics, sectarianism and economics. The "crazed mullahs" is just a story they tell the crowds to justify the conflicts.

Do I think the Iranian regime is crazy enough to use a nuke on Israel, come what may? Yes, I do think so.

So, let me see if I understand you correctly: You think that one day ayatollah khamenei will be notified that the nuke is ready. He will then pick up the phone, call the head of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, which is one of the most corrupt, nepotistic and privileged institution in Iran, and will tell him that his days of luxury and comfort are over and that he is to let the nuke birds fly into Israel, for no reason. This military guy, who is not a mullah, and has a life of luxury and wealth unimaginable to the majority of Iranians will then hang up the phone, press the red button and kiss all his family and privileges goodbye because a mullah told him so, out of the blue? You honestly think that? if the top Iranians are as devout and fanatic as you seem to imply, how do you explain the level of corruption that Iran has?

Am I parroting what Bibi or, as you put it, Neocons are saying? No, I have a personal interest in the Middle East. My folks still live there. I have to stay informed about Iran and the region. This isn't just a foreign policy issue for me.

so have I. One of my best friends is an officer at the Israeli Air Force (IADF), so I care a lot about what happens there. We also talk a lot about the subject and he happens to agree with me. Actually, according to him, most officers do not believe Iran would just nuke Israel out of the blue, if it had a nuke.

 

[camberiu]

My two cents about Iran:
In 1994 I moved to a new corner of Manhattan (built on the dirt from the World Trade Center excavation). For 7 years it was a quiet and safe as I'd hoped for my family.

Not sure why you posted this as Iran had NOTHING TO DO with 9/11. They and the Taliban and Bin laden were actually sworn enemies. Even Dick Chenney was not crazed enough to imply that Iran was involved.

 

[Conorworld]

On Iran, I think the US (and Europe too) are doing the right thing in slowly squeezing Iran financially etc. This week's rial depreciation may be the beginning of the end. Regardless of whether or not Iran or Iraq have or had a nuclear programme or considered it, going to war the way the US under Bush Jr did was wrong. The financial tightening of the noose that is going on now is the better option because it could prevent an all out war if it happens and has the ability to cause an internal revolt against the Iranian regime so that the US does not get involved and is thus not blamed for war.

As for the presidential debates, in the matter of the Al Gore statement, I get the hint of humor in that. But he was right in one thing, he wasnt prepared. Obama has a handicap, he can be very hubristic and last night felt like that. YES you are the presidential incumbent and have proven yourself a good orator and are debating against a guy who has shot himself in the foot the past few weeks ("47%" etc), but don't think it will always go your way and that your facts will win the argument. One can say Nixon had better facts in 1960 and still lost. Charisma and content are needed and Obama was dangerously short of both.

Romney did a good job and I commend him for it. The main issue about last night was that Obama was unprepared and seemed hubristic and did not take out the big guns. Maybe it will be a slap in the face and make him think about the next one.

Usually it is the first debate that people watch and pass judgment on and I think the same. But Obama has the chance to learn from last night and make a forceful attack that will make headlines and get people on Youtube or whatever and watch and maybe change their minds.

 

[camberiu]

On Iran, I think the US (and Europe too) are doing the right thing in slowly squeezing Iran financially etc. This week's rial depreciation may be the beginning of the end.

That is true. Just watch out for that damned "blowback".

 

[camberiu]

With their recent currency crisis, my hope is that the regime collapses with their economy and the people of Iran finally get a chance to get their Persia back. If that happens, that would be the most welcome of all scenarios.

All I say to that is "Remember the treaty of Versailles"

 

[nicoenarg]

I think this is true anywhere and anytime in human history, no? Why restrict this to the arab nations and the middle east? Yes, states attack other states when they think they have the upper hand. That is why Galtieri attacked the falklands. That is why Great Britain when to the Crimea. That is why Russia invaded Georgia just a couple of years ago. That is why there was the Mexican-American war. So, yeah, maybe if Iran truly believed it had the upper hand, it might start a land grab campaign. I am not so sure that would be a certainty, but I could see a valid argument for it.

But I think the main point here is that I disagree with you that nukes would give Iran "an upper hand" or even a false sensation of having "the upper hand". The most Iran can hope to gain from a nuke is a deterrent. There is no "upper hand" when both you and your opponent have nukes. All you have is the guarantee of mutually assured destruction. Israel and the US have many more nukes than Iran can ever hope to have. Not only that, they have a much greater quantity and better quality of delivery systems, and anti-missile technology, that Iran simply does not have the money or the technology to match within our lifetimes. So, your argument that Iran might go on a "land grab" once it has the "upper hand" of nuclear weapons seems difficult to justify. Even with nukes, Iran remains outnumbered and outgunned by the US and Israel at a ratio of 100:1, and they know it.



I am not just referring to the NYT article. I am refering to General Benny Gantz, current head of the IDF. I use several articles published by the israeli media as source and public statements from former Mossad high level staff. They all point to the same thing: That Iran is not (yet) working to build a bomb. They also say that an attack from the west might be the catalyst that will push Iran to actually seek the bomb.




Of course they have. They want to limit Iran's nuclear knowledge as much as possible, to restrict Iranian options in the future and make as difficult as possible for them to build a bomb, if they ever make the decision . But that is very different from saying that they are trying to build a bomb.



That does not mean anything. So has the government of Bahrain, which the US supports, or the government of Kyrgyzstan back in 2005 or Ethiopia today, which all have or had the backing of the US. So, blood thirty regimes should not be the criteria we use to classify the danger level specific countries represent internationally.




Please do elaborate on that. I am not aware of any regime in the middle east that has chosen to commit suicide, ever. Individuals, yes. A whole ruling cast, a whole regime? Never heard of it.



No, i did not forget. Hezbollah was very much in my mind when I wrote that. Yes, with a nuke Iran would be able to much more openly support Hezbollah. This means that Israel would loose much of the freedom of action it currently have in South Lebanon. That is a major headache for Israel and that is why they can say that a nuclear Iran is a threat. A a threat and an EXISTENTIAL threat are two different things. Even a much stronger Hezbollah cannot hope to "drive the Jews into the sea". Yes, it can make the life in northern Israel much more difficult. it can hold up great chunks of the IDF. It might be even able to one day force concessions out of Israel if left unchecked. But it could never hope to destroy or conquer Israel. And Iran could also create Hezbollah like militias all over the middle east. In Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait, you name it. As I said before, it would completely change the balance of power in the region. That is the key issue here. it is not some crazed Iranian mullah firing nukes at random that is the sticking point. It is Iran having the ability and freedom to prop up Shia uprisings all over the region without having to fear a military attack. it is not an issue of nuclear holocaust. It never was. That is just the smoke screen. it is an issue of who will control the middle east. It is an issue that involves geo-politics, sectarianism and economics. The "crazed mullahs" is just a story they tell the crowds to justify the conflicts.



So, let me see if I understand you correctly: You think that one day ayatollah khamenei will be notified that the nuke is ready. He will then pick up the phone, call the head of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, which is one of the most corrupt, nepotistic and privileged institution in Iran, and will tell him that his days of luxury and comfort are over and that he is to let the nuke birds fly into Israel, for no reason. This military guy, who is not a mullah, and has a life of luxury and wealth unimaginable to the majority of Iranians will then hang up the phone, press the red button and kiss all his family and privileges goodbye because a mullah told him so, out of the blue? You honestly think that? if the top Iranians are as devout and fanatic as you seem to imply, how do you explain the level of corruption that Iran has?



so have I. One of my best friends is an officer at the Israeli Air Force (IADF), so I care a lot about what happens there. We also talk a lot about the subject and he happens to agree with me. Actually, according to him, most officers do not believe Iran would just nuke Israel out of the blue, if it had a nuke.

On whether what I said can be true for other countries or not. Let me say is explicitly, I DO NOT CARE. Like I said before, I am only talking about the middle east and Iran. I don't care whether there have been other countries in the past, and I am aware that there have been such countries in the past, that might have acted similarly.

Let's stick to the one topic we are talking about shall we? Flip flopping back and forth isn't going to get us anywhere.

Bahrain has called for the annihilation of another country and made explicit threats against its existence? Where? When? I'd love to know what you're actually referring to.

Existential threat...again? Okay, again, you claimed that I said it was an existential threat, and after claiming that, you have started attacking it as if it was my idea, strawman...look it up. I got nothing else to say to this because you seem to be having an argument with yourself.

And then this little gem:

So, let me see if I understand you correctly: You think that one day ayatollah khamenei will be notified that the nuke is ready. He will then pick up the phone, call the head of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, which is one of the most corrupt, nepotistic and privileged institution in Iran, and will tell him that his days of luxury and comfort are over and that he is to let the nuke birds fly into Israel, for no reason. This military guy, who is not a mullah, and has a life of luxury and wealth unimaginable to the majority of Iranians will then hang up the phone, press the red button and kiss all his family and privileges goodbye because a mullah told him so, out of the blue? You honestly think that? if the top Iranians are as devout and fanatic as you seem to imply, how do you explain the level of corruption that Iran has?

Okay this is why when I started with this discussion, I asked the other poster if he knew anything about the Shiite sect of Islam. You are showing blatant ignorance on the subject. And then you ask, "if the top Iranians are as devout and fanatic as you seem to imply, how do you explain the level of corruption that Iran has?" Are you trying to joke around here or actually making a statement? I gotta say, I actually thought you knew a little more than the others, that is why I continued this discussion with you. Now I am not so sure. I neither have the time nor the interest in sitting down here and teaching you the culture of Iran in particular and the middle east in general. Do that on your own. I am not going to waste my time with you here on the subject.

Finally, you have a friend in the IAF who has an opinion that agrees with yours. Congratulations? Or did you think I was under the impression that every Israeli agreed with me? Because I never said that.

As for my folks, they are not in Israel. If they were, I would worry a little less about Iran than I am doing right now. But hey, I'd rather not discuss those details.

Anyway, apart from your jumping around, our differences arise from the different understanding of the middle eastern culture we have. Like I said, I neither have the time nor the interest in going into detail about the culture. I am sure if you were interested, you'd figure it out on your own.