2013 iranian elections and the legitimacy of an israeli attack

[Etienne]

From an israeli perspective a portion of the legitimacy for an attack on Iran comes from Ahmadinejad's statements which they claim to perceive as threats. Could the current Israeli hastiness to implement such an attack be influenced by the fact that by 2013 there will be another president? Since this of course has the potential to reduce the legitimacy of an attack on Iran.

 

[Serpentine]

I don't think Iran-Israel relations would change by another president.Israel sees whole Iran as its enemy and Iran sees whole Israel as its enemy.Maybe a 2 state solution solve all problems in ME,or maybe if Israel government falls and Palestinians get all their land back,otherwise,there would be more hostile incidents.

 

[Etienne]

I agree that the Iran-Israel relation will stay the same. But one might argue that their argumentation for an attack could possibly be weakend.

 

[KingMamba]

I don't think Iran-Israel relations would change by another president.Israel sees whole Iran as its enemy and Iran sees whole Israel as its enemy.Maybe a 2 state solution solve all problems in ME,or maybe if Israel government falls and Palestinians get all their land back,otherwise,there would be more hostile incidents.

I believe it was Musharraf of Pakistan who tried to bridge the gaps between Muslims and the Zionist state. For this cause he went to Iran and spoke to the supreme leader of Iran about being apart of the negotiations to which the supreme leader of Iran said there cannot be any relations with the Zionist state regardless of an end to the Palestinian conflict.

 

[Serpentine]

I agree that the Iran-Israel relation will stay the same. But one might argue that their argumentation for an attack could possibly be weakend.

Maybe a new reformist president can cool things down,both domestically and internationally.Also,if Obama get reelected again,there are chances Iran and U.S reach a deal that can also affect Iran and Israel.

 

[Etienne]

Maybe a new reformist president can cool things down,both domestically and internationally.Also,if Obama get reelected again,there are chances Iran and U.S reach a deal that can also affect Iran and Israel.

There is a possibility this could happen. I think the question then is, what is the extent of US-Israeli relations Obama will be ready to sacrifice for a normalization of relations between US and Iran. In other words, what are the overlapping interest of the two and is there a net gain or even political space to work towards those interests?

 

[Surenas]

The truth is indeed that Israel benefitted a lot of Ahmadinejad's idiotic rhetoric nonsense. The question is if a new Iranian president will behave different. In my opinion that wouldn't change a thing. Without Ahmadinejad, you still have religious zealots like Khamenei in power who will come up with all kind of idiot statements.

 

[Serpentine]

There is a possibility this could happen. I think the question then is, what is the extent of US-Israeli relations Obama will be ready to sacrifice for a normalization of relations between US and Iran. In other words, what are the overlapping interest of the two and is there a net gain or even political space to work towards those interests?

I'm not necessarily talking about normalization of Iran-U.S relations.Iran can agree with some of their terms and they will lift all sanctions.I think it's enough to cool things down.

The truth is indeed that Israel benefited a lot of Ahmadinejad's idiotic rhetoric nonsense. The question is if a new Iranian president will behave different. In my opinion that wouldn't change a thing. Without Ahmadinejad, you still have religious zealots like Khamenei in power who will come up with all kind of idiot statements.

The problem is,on the other side,you have messianic nutjobs like Netanyahu and Ehud Barak who are ready to nuke whole ME for their interests.

 

[Etienne]

I'm not necessarily talking about normalization of Iran-U.S relations.Iran can agree with some of their terms and they will lift all sanctions.I think it's enough to cool things down.

Even with a bargain as you say, the questions still stand.

 

[Surenas]

The problem is,on the other side,you have messianic nutjobs like Netanyahu and Ehud Barak who are ready to nuke whole ME for their interests.

If I was a Israeli leader I would also be ready to nuke some Middle Eastern countries. Why even develop such weapons if you aren't ready to use them? Sounds quite stupid, isn't it? The fact is that Iran is the only country in the world who's threatening another country with annihilation because some poor Palestinians are being 'oppressed' by the so-called Zionists.

I agree with your first assertion. But the facts are that the statements coming from Khamenei or other clerics have not received the same amount of attention as those coming from Ahmadinejad, and compared to his statements rarely been used as a basis for an attack.

That's because Ahmadinejad was Iran's public leader, while Khamenei try to picture himself as the wise leader who's above all parties. Still Khamenei, and other mullah's, have made all kind of idiot statements and will continue to do this even if Ahmadinejad is gone. And then I can assure you that the western media will probably choose another Iranian official to highlight such statements.

 

[Serpentine]

If I was a Israeli leader I would also be ready to nuke some Middle Eastern countries. Why even develop such weapons if you aren't ready to use them? Sounds quite stupid, isn't it? The fact is that Iran is the only country in the world who's threatening another country with annihilation because some poor Palestinians are being 'oppressed' by the so-called Zionists.

First,who says Iran is making nuclear weapons?I'm surprised that you believed that though.
Second,If nukes are not good,it should be right about ALL countries.Israel is the only country in ME that has nuclear weapons.
Third:What do you mean annihilation?You mean by nuclear weapons or generally,military means?One should be stupid to think like that.Iran want the government/system/regime in Israel gone,the same way U.S wanted USSR gone,or wants Iranian establishment gone,or the same way the world wanted Apartheid state in SA gone.

Even with a bargain as you say, the questions still stand.

I don't think U.S must sacrifice something to reach a deal with Iran.As I said,if Iran gives U.S guarantees that it won't make a nuclear weapon,they can lift sanctions.There is a big IF here: If U.S main problem with Iran is nuclear program,which I believe it isn't,it's just an excuse.

 

[Surenas]

First,who says Iran is making nuclear weapons?I'm surprised that you believed that though.

Is there any individual with intellect who's doubting that?

Second,If nukes are not good,it should be right about ALL countries.Israel is the only country in ME that has nuclear weapons.

To be honest, I don't care if nukes are good or not. All I know is that Israel has nuclear weapons and are also probably ready to use them.

Third:What do you mean annihilation?You mean by nuclear weapons or generally,military means?One should be stupid to think like that.Iran want the government/system/regime in Israel gone,the same way U.S wanted USSR gone,or wants Iranian establishment gone,or the same way the world wanted Apartheid state in SA gone.

What I mean by annihilation? By talking about whipping Israel from the map for example. The US never threatened to wipe USSR of the map, nor was the US ruled by religious messianic zealots. You talking about the Apartheid state, that's quite funny, because Palestinians (economically and socially) have it much better in Israel than in other Arab states.

 

[Etienne]

That's because Ahmadinejad was Iran's public leader, while Khamenei try to picture himself as the wise leader who's above all parties. Still Khamenei, and other mullah's, have made all kind of idiot statements and will continue to do this even if Ahmadinejad is gone. And then I can assure you that the western media will probably choose another Iranian official to highlight such statements.

Sure, but don't you agree that there are nuances in the impact of these statements even if you think of them as idiotic? Of course a statement such as Ahmadinejad's "Wipe Israel of the map" statement will have a stronger backlash than a typical "Israel is evil" statement even if you group them as "idiotic statements". Evidently some statements can be used as a basis for war and some can not. Don't you agree?

As a basis for an attack i should say

 

[Serpentine]

Is there any individual with intellect who's doubting that?

Provide us with your proofs that Iran is making nuclear weapons.You are saying this because of your hatred toward the government,not by logic.It's very funny,Israel and U.S intelligence say that Iran has not started nor decided to make nuclear weapons yet,but you,a typical guy living in Netherlands,say otherwise.

 

[SOHEIL]

The truth is indeed that Israel benefitted a lot of Ahmadinejad's idiotic rhetoric nonsense. The question is if a new Iranian president will behave different. In my opinion that wouldn't change a thing. Without Ahmadinejad, you still have religious zealots like Khamenei in power who will come up with all kind of idiot statements.

Hello Sureshas !

bazam ba zanet daavat shode !?