saus on July 27, 2008 at 5:59 PM

I never thought we were too far apart. Just differences in how we think arabs/persians perceive certain Israeli actions. I do believe that OldEnglish really nailed a major Israeli feeling. I think it’s even stronger among many American Jews, with respect to Israel. That’s why so many, as far as I can figure it, were supportive of the ridiculous gifting of Gaza to the Pals without demanding anything in return.

Foolish spin? No problem. What is the left currently saying?

I feel that many Israelis do not feel so assured of their place on the map, that they can take action which will end hostilities.

OldEnglish on July 27, 2008 at 1:19 AM

Ahmadinijad is a loon, but he understands Western vulnerabilities, which are not military but political.

Aristotle on July 27, 2008 at 1:57 AM

I could not agree more. To me, these two statements describe the problems as simply and directly as possible. Being a lover of parsimony, I am smitten.

How long before a photoshop of a Iranian nuclear test blast shows up?

The way we should fight this regime is to fax pictures of Israeli fighters to all of the Iranian military installations at once!!!

SteveMG on July 26, 2008 at 11:43 PM

What I found curious in his commentary was no speculation about the missile tests…i.e., high alt detonation.

Jim, Ahmedinejad is full of crap, but he is only a figurehead for the Imams. Iran is run by the Mullahs in Qom.

I am pretty sure that is what I said above:

Of course with Iran’s governmental structure, Ahmedinejad is only serving at the mullahs’ whim…

That’s a pretty good BBC link, if you click on the chart and poke around a little, it is easy to see just how entrenched the Supreme Leader and his mullahs really are.

hillbillyjim on July 26, 2008 at 10:47 PM

Jim, Ahmedinejad is full of crap, but he is only a figurehead for the Imams. Iran is run by the Mullahs in Qom. They are alleged to have no interest in dying, but they have a great history for gasbaggery.

The best of all worlds would be to change the calculus such that “toppling a bunch of megalomanic terror-supporters” is seen as a good thing for its own sake. We’d have a lot less of this saber-rattling if their options were “we nuke somewhere and get glassed”, “we saber-rattle and get glassed, and the world laughs at us as idiots”, or “we knock it off and act responsibly”. That’s not the way they’re reading it today, however.

He may assess (correctly) that the pre-election Bush administration is paralyzed, and that Israel is not vigilant enough to enact a Second Strike. His saber rattling and photoshopping are test trials to see what will the response be, much like a hyeena testing if it’s wounded prey is weak enough.

If Israel could wipe Natanz by a single AF and special ops operation – it would already be wiped out. A complex operation is most certainly needed, which means an all-out war on multiple fronts – Iran, Iraq, Hizballah and Syria. The stakes are high, the intel is low – and Ahmadi thinks he will be the last to blink.

They all believe that Israel should not exist, and many Israelis seem to hold to the view that they would be best served in hanging on to what they were granted, in case it should be taken from them. In other words, I feel that many Israelis do not feel so assured of their place on the map, that they can take action which will end hostilities.

His answer: Yes.

It’s a good read and excellent summary on where we are and how we got there.

I fear that Ahmedinejad is a megalomaniac and cares not one whit whether or not the Iranian people are bombed into oblivion. He sees himself playing a historical, earth-shaping role, and his puffery serves to stroke his ego and keep the Iranian masses’ focus outward, not inward, where he is an abject failure.

Of course with Iran’s governmental structure, Ahmedinejad is only serving at the mullahs’ whim, so you have to ask what do the mullahs benefit by his posturing and high-stakes nuclear poker gambits?

Is their end game retaining and strengthening their hold on the populace of Iran, or are they pushing for Persian dominance in the Middle East or even the much-bandied Caliphate scenario?

They have positioned themselves well.

saus on July 26,2008 at 9:40PM.

saus: That was very insightful,and thank-you,
and as your a Canadian Israeli,hello to
you in Israel from Canada:)

Guys, let’s look at the history, I understand your concerns.

Israel’s wars have been with enemies on its borders, we have never had any desire to conquer or hit capitols, the goals were to eliminate the armies and clear them back from our borders as opposed to conquer their countries and effectuate regime change. We sought mass gains for barter in peace trades, not toppling them

Yes. The problem is that none of the peace deals were ever kept. The Karin A came up the Suez. How effective was the peace treaty with Egypt? In fact, so many weapons came through Sinai that it makes ones head spin. Israel has had a quieter border with Syria than with Egypt. Almost nothing comes across the Syrian border, as I’m sure you’re well aware.

- please recall the cold war was still going on & these were soviet client states, invading Damascus or Cairo would have spread the conflict to the US & Soviet Union away from regional, toppling any of those regimes would threaten the soviets directly & result in world war in those years.

Yes. This was a complicating situation that I should not have glossed over. But it did not stop bombs from dropping, really. The Cold War aspects came more into play in the end game of every war. But it did make each conflict part of something much larger.

We did drive to Beirut and put it under siege in the 80’s,

Everyone had Beirut under seige in the 80’s. The place was a total mess – and that was before Israel got there!

and went to the very edge without causing a soviet freak out every time – We stood on the outskirts of Cairo, with the entire Egyptian army burned out behind us. We did the same at Damascus, and we have done the same at Amman. So in actuality we have been poised on every enemy capitol around Israel..

But they never got attacked and their civilians never worried about them getting attacked, not after the first feint or two.

But there was no reason to hit civilians in mass bombing or capitols, none of our border conflicts resulted in our enemies bombing us either then!

They certainly tried their hardest. And waiting for your enemy to hit you first is exactly what I’m talking about.

The Iranians use it for their deterrent in bluster, but it is a sign of desperation not strength.. It is all they have and they can’t even exercise it properly compared to the return fire, we are in possession of the only nationwide missile shield..

Maybe, maybe not. I don’t think the Iranians are fooling around and I don’t trust Israel’s missile shield, either.

It is important to note that despite the threat voiced of hitting tel aviv in a month long conflict, no long range missiles which Hezbollah had were actually fired at Tel Aviv. Neither Lebanon, nor Tehran wanted anything to do with that, we warned tehran openly in the public that we would hit back not at Hezbollah, but at Iran. It is interesting the missiles never came, Iran told Hezbollah to not fire them.

Olmert said lots of things during that war that he never carried out. I don’t know what the calculus was on the Iran/Hezbollah side, but they hit Haifa as much as they could.

Yet, we bombed south Beirut with abandon, we dropped ordinance on Beirut for weeks,

But don’t forget that Israel put the whole war on hold for a week to let everyone get to safety before the really intense bombing (which was still pinpoint). That delay in the war was enough to convince Iran, I’m sure, that they could take down Israel if they were prepared from the start. Don’t forget, they were all caught off-guard by Olmert’s reaction of war – which is one of the only times I’ve ever agreed with the retard, Olmert.

these were decapitation strikes, they did not kill Nasrallah, but that did not stop us from bombing an Arab capitol again, and then again, and then again..WHEN they did launch missiles at our population in the north.

But there were no casualties on the Lebanese side, really. Nothing significant, because of what I said above.

I think there’s ample precedent for us not doing it when an enemy refrained from the same, and precedent for doing it when they did attack our civilians, and even precedent for the Iranian fear of hitting us when we warned them.

I just can’t agree with this. Israel bombed empty buildings. As to Iranian fears, I just doubt they fear Tehran being hit by Israel. I just don’t see it. But, maybe I’m wrong – hopefully.

I can only surmise no question Israel will retaliate directly on Tehran if attacked in this manner, Iran knows this reality as much as the Egyptians, Syrians, Jordanians & Lebanese did enough, not too.

saus on July 26, 2008 at 9:40 PM

I have to strongly disagree with you here. I don’t think that Israel is willing to be as ruthless as necessary. When I was in Israel I used to have this argument with my friends all the time. The answer I used to get quite a bit was (from Meretz and Labor folks): “You’re probably right, but I don’t want to be around if we have to do that.”

We have much the same problem in the US. Iran doesn’t fear the US, either. And the people of Iran know that, if the US attacks, we won’t attack them and we’ll give them tons of money and rebuild everything after. That’s why they have no fear of publicly calling for “Death to America” on a weekly basis.

Or when they launched a preemptive attack and destroyed the entire Egyptian air force in the Six Days war?

TheBigOldDog on July 26, 2008 at 8:53 PM

An interesting note on this that touches a bit on current events – Israeli intelligence in ‘67 was so good that not only did Israel destroy the Egyptian Air Force on the ground, but knew and left all of the decoy planes intact.

If they launch without testing, and the device fails, Israel will turn Iran into glass.

I believe Israel knows with precision what is real, and what is belicose rhetoric coming from Iran. There is a certain prestige to the attention Iran gets with this silly game, and I believe that’s the game afoot. I think we can relax until they make a move to test, and keep taking the fight to the Taliban – AQ’s first perimeter.

Troops in Iraq. Troops in Afghanistan. Each bordering Iran. What a coincidence.

Israel’s wars have been with enemies on its borders, we have never had any desire to conquer or hit capitols, the goals were to eliminate the armies and clear them back from our borders as opposed to conquer their countries and effectuate regime change. We sought mass gains for barter in peace trades, not toppling them – please recall the cold war was still going on & these were soviet client states, invading Damascus or Cairo would have spread the conflict to the US & Soviet Union away from regional, toppling any of those regimes would threaten the soviets directly & result in world war in those years.

We did drive to Beirut and put it under siege in the 80’s, and went to the very edge without causing a soviet freak out every time – We stood on the outskirts of Cairo, with the entire Egyptian army burned out behind us. We did the same at Damascus, and we have done the same at Amman. So in actuality we have been poised on every enemy capitol around Israel.. But there was no reason to hit civilians in mass bombing or capitols, none of our border conflicts resulted in our enemies bombing us either then!

The Iranians use it for their deterrent in bluster, but it is a sign of desperation not strength.. It is all they have and they can’t even exercise it properly compared to the return fire, we are in possession of the only nationwide missile shield..

It is important to note that despite the threat voiced of hitting tel aviv in a month long conflict, no long range missiles which Hezbollah had were actually fired at Tel Aviv. Neither Lebanon, nor Tehran wanted anything to do with that, we warned tehran openly in the public that we would hit back not at Hezbollah, but at Iran. It is interesting the missiles never came, Iran told Hezbollah to not fire them.

Yet, we bombed south Beirut with abandon, we dropped ordinance on Beirut for weeks, these were decapitation strikes, they did not kill Nasrallah, but that did not stop us from bombing an Arab capitol again, and then again, and then again.. WHEN they did launch missiles at our population in the north. I think there’s ample precedent for us not doing it when an enemy refrained from the same, and precedent for doing it when they did attack our civilians, and even precedent for the Iranian fear of hitting us when we warned them.

I can only surmise no question Israel will retaliate directly on Tehran if attacked in this manner, Iran knows this reality as much as the Egyptians, Syrians, Jordanians & Lebanese did enough, not too.

OldEnglish on July 26, 2008 at 8:58 PM

Exactly. The way I used to explain it is that Israel never really fights ‘wars’, Israel only fights defenses. The enemy population has never really suffered from their country going to war against Israel. And then, when it’s all over, Israel gives back everything they can. I mean, how many times can you give back the Suez Canal without Egypt no longer worrying about losing it? That’s why ‘73 happened after ‘56 and ‘67. (’56 and the Suez is a whole story, itself, but still an example of Egypt losing nothing, in the end)

My view is that in the last Lebanon War, Israel should have TAKEN/annexed a 5 mile strip of Lebanon – never to give it back again. NEVER. That’s the only thing that these countries understand. If Hizbollah was seen to lose Lebanese land because they tried an attack on Israel, you would have seen the shiites ripped to shreds in Lebanon. But, instead, not only did Israel take no land from the last war, but put Shebaa Farms back on the table after they had already signed a border deal that was supposed to have solved the Israel-Lebanon border.

To me the key is that if a country attacks Israel, then Israel must take something significant from that country. But as it is, countries feel as if they can attack Israel, they’ll lose no land (and Israel will give back whatever it wins) and their people will not suffer too much. That’s a recipe for exactly what has been happening, an attack every decade. Eventually, if given chance after chance after chance, Israel will lose one – as ‘73 was just about lost. And the first one Israel loses will be the last one.

My recommendation to Israel, to turn the situation around, is to take the first small, simple step and pull out of the UN. That will probably kill the UN, since that institution seems designed to do nothing but condemn Israel (just look at the percentage of UNSC resolutions directed at Israel!) and it will signal the world that Israel is tired of messing around. Israel wouldn’t be alone in this, either, as Switzerland has refused to participate in the Utopian Nightmare organization. And I guarantee the arabs will take notice. But Israelis are even scared of this move. So, here we are.