Nuclear politics — will Israel attack Iran?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by OutThere, Feb 20, 2012.

  1. OutThere macrumors 603

    OutThere

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2002
    Location:
    NYC
    #1
    There's a lot bubbling about this recently. So Israel wants to delay Iran in their quest for a nuclear bomb by bombing their facilities. I think it's lunacy, and the ultimate outcome, were Israel to attack, would be that the U.S. would be dragged in to finish the job and protect Israel from what could well be a vicious counterattack.

    This is exactly what we don't need right now. The repercussions and destabilization would be dramatic and terrible. Economic sanctions and diplomacy have to be pushed as far as they will go. While Iran's government can be very concerning, the Israeli and western approach to this reeks of "do as I say, not as I do". Israel is widely known to have nuclear arms even if it pretends it does not, and the US is the worst of the bunch. Multilateral nuclear disarmament accompanied by non proliferation is, in my view, the only good solution for the long term (and this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3W7koH-isE ;)).

    Anyhow, getting caught up in a war with Iran instigated by a pre-emptive Israeli strike would be devastating. Increased terrorism, continued and intensified ill-will towards the west from Middle Eastern countries, countless dead.

    I seem to remember hearing something like this before, except it was from American leaders, and we were about to launch a preemptive strike on Iraq. That went pretty well. :rolleyes:

    Bull ****.

    Reading material:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/20/w...ary.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&ref=general&src=me

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/27/w...s-of-retaliation-as-bluff.html?pagewanted=all
     
  2. thewitt macrumors 68020

    thewitt

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2011
    #2
    If Israel cannot stop Iran from the inside, they will attack before Iran can field a nuclear weapon. Iran is on record as willing to take any steps necessary to destroy the Israeli regime, so Israel feels very threatened and will not simply wait to be destroyed.
     
  3. niuniu macrumors 68020

    niuniu

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2009
    Location:
    A man of the people. The right sort of people.
    #3
    More Western propaganda. He never made that threat.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel

    Translation controversy

    Many news sources repeated the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting statement by Ahmadinejad that "Israel must be wiped off the map",[5][6] an English idiom which means to "cause a place to stop existing",[7] or to "obliterate totally",[8] or "destroy completely".[9]

    Ahmadinejad's phrase was "بايد از صفحه روزگار محو شود" according to the text published on the President's Office's website.[10]

    The translation presented by the official Islamic Republic News Agency has been challenged by Arash Norouzi, who says the statement "wiped off the map" was never made and that Ahmadinejad did not refer to the nation or land mass of Israel, but to the "regime occupying Jerusalem". Norouzi translated the original Persian to English, with the result, "the Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time."[11] Juan Cole, a University of Michigan Professor of Modern Middle East and South Asian History, agrees that Ahmadinejad's statement should be translated as, "the Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e eshghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad).[12] According to Cole, "Ahmadinejad did not say he was going to 'wipe Israel off the map' because no such idiom exists in Persian." Instead, "he did say he hoped its regime, i.e., a Jewish-Zionist state occupying Jerusalem, would collapse."[13] The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) translated the phrase similarly, as "this regime" must be "eliminated from the pages of history."[14]

    Iranian government sources denied that Ahmadinejad issued any sort of threat. On 20 February 2006, Iran's foreign minister Manouchehr Mottaki told a news conference: "How is it possible to remove a country from the map? He is talking about the regime. We do not recognize legally this regime."[15][16][17]
     
  4. thewitt macrumors 68020

    thewitt

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2011
    #4
    Did you even read my comment before copying and pasting the back peddling denial? If you did, you should have noticed I said remove the regime, not the country - though for all practical purposes Iran means the same thing.
     
  5. flopticalcube macrumors G4

    flopticalcube

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2006
    Location:
    In the velcro closure of America's Hat
    #5
    Right. Because any country that seeks to change the regime of another should be attacked. Oh... wait.
     
  6. thewitt macrumors 68020

    thewitt

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2011
    #6
    The question was will Israel attack, and I answered I believe it will because Iran has made it clear they will take any measure they can to destroy Israel.

    Why is that hard to understand?
     
  7. Happybunny macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2010
    #7
    I am willing to bet that if Israel attacks Iran, things will go down hill very fast.

    This is not 1980. The world has changed, the repercussions would be devastating.
     
  8. likemyorbs macrumors 68000

    likemyorbs

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2008
    Location:
    NJ
    #8
    If Israel decided to go for it they better go all the way and destroy Iran, Hiroshima style. If not, then don't bother.
     
  9. niuniu macrumors 68020

    niuniu

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2009
    Location:
    A man of the people. The right sort of people.
    #9
    When has Iran said they will destroy Israeli anything? Regime or otherwise? Do you speak Persian?
     
  10. iJohnHenry macrumors P6

    iJohnHenry

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Location:
    On tenterhooks
    #10
    Conveniently for you, probably no.

    Another 'shoot the messenger' situation.

    What does Al Jazeera have to say on this. They speak Persian.
     
  11. niuniu macrumors 68020

    niuniu

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2009
    Location:
    A man of the people. The right sort of people.
    #11
    Al Jazeera have reported on translation problems with Iran in the past, there was a separate controversy in 2010. But this specific incident - BBC, Al Jazeera, US media all picked up on the quote without verifying it.

    Why?

    Because it was given to them by Iran, they had no reason to question it.

    Except that it actually came from an extreme right wing Iranian propaganda channel, the The Islamic Republic News Agency. They don't speak for Ahmadinejad, just like FOX news doesn't speak for Obama, or the SUN newspaper doesn't speak for David Cameron.

    There are many full and proper translations. Including translations from US University professors. A member of Congress wanted these used in the UN resolution at the time. Congress wouldn't allow it. They were more than happy with their mistranslation - and we all know exactly why.


    The full quote translated directly to English:


    "The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time".

    Word by word translation:

    Imam (Khomeini) ghoft (said) een (this) rezhim-e (regime) ishghalgar-e (occupying) qods (Jerusalem) bayad (must) az safheh-ye ruzgar (from page of time) mahv shavad (vanish from).


    Of course the whole speech needs to be read in context, and that particular sentence was him referring to a comment by the Imam. And the context, like nearly every single speech a politician makes is about.. change.

    Iran even have Jews that sit on their Council. They might not be the trusted government in the world, and we may not like their religion or their fervor - but they aren't warmongering like the West is making out.



    Iraq 2.
     
  12. Macky-Mac macrumors 68030

    Macky-Mac

    Joined:
    May 18, 2004
    #12
    IIRC, even the website of president Ahmadinejad had the "wiped off the map" translation posted for a while


    the difference is primarily a quibble between translators......"must vanish from the page of time" may be less colorful than "wiped off the map" but it isn't exactly a declaration of a desire for peace either
     
  13. niuniu macrumors 68020

    niuniu

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2009
    Location:
    A man of the people. The right sort of people.
    #13
    They had the full transcript in farsi up - not the translation. I never saw it certainly and I took a lot of interest nearer the time.

    And no about the quibble. Wiping something of the map is an extreme expression of aggression we use in the West. They don't use that expression in the Middle East.

    You can't compare that to a quote to the Imam. He wasn't even saying it himself and never said he was going to do anything that would bring about a regime change. He's a politician that at times does try to cater to the more right wing for votes. Our politicians do exactly the same - remember Bush Snr? '..atheists shouldn't be allowed to vote'? Yes Iran are full of right wing nutjobs. But so are we.

    Lets put it in proportion. How many invasions have Iran led in modern history?

    How many have the US and the UK led?

    But no, it's some mistranslated, out of context quote that we should all be afraid of.
     
  14. Fazzy macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2011
    Location:
    check the tracking device
    #14
    Probably not directly- one will try to provoke the other into making the first move, methinks.
     
  15. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #15
    ...though frankly I see no compelling reason why the Iranians should NOT view the Israeli state as an abomination.
     
  16. Macky-Mac macrumors 68030

    Macky-Mac

    Joined:
    May 18, 2004
    #16
    indeed, given the views of the regime that occupies tehran, it's not at all surprising that they would view israel, or for that matter anybody that doesn't agree with their religious beliefs, as an abomination.

    Given that Iran is an Islamic republic, they certainly don't disagree with the concept of a state based on the supremacy of a specific religious belief........they just feel it should be THEIR religious belief
     
  17. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #17
    I think its very far from clear that Iran has expressed that intention (see the controversy regarding translations of idiomatic phrases); and its even more unlikely that Iran (should it actually succeed in weaponizing a nuclear device) would use it to attack Israel.

    For other, related, reasons it seems just as unlikely that Israel would launch a pre-emptive strike on Israel.

    Quite simply it wouldn't be in the best interests of either nation to follow those paths. On the other hand talking about those options can, given the internal politics of each country, pay dividends.

    We need to be realistic about Iran. One, they have a long-standing, and some would say well-justified, suspicion of the West. The US and UK in particular. However, Israel makes a highly convenient "whipping boy", being viewed by the vast majority of ordinary Iranians as a creation of Britain and America.

    Secondly, nuclear development is seen internally as fulfilling two objectives: It provides a locus of national pride; and it provides the best incentive against a US-led ground invasion. What US General would commit large numbers of troops to an environment where they could - with some legitimacy - be attacked by a nuclear device?

    But its also worth noting that exploding a nuclear device in a defensive manner on your own territory is a very different kettle of fish from detonating one in Tel Aviv or Los Angeles. Not only are the technical hurdles much easier to clear; but also the legal and international repercussions much more manageable. An Iranian nuclear strike on any foreign nation would invite the almost instant incineration of the country's political and military infrastructure. And most of the world would stand up and cheer it.

    The people running Iran are not insane or suicidal. They know the possibility of them having a nuclear device is a tremendous disincentive to outside intervention. But they also know the use of such a device in an offensive capacity would destroy them and their nation.

    Israel's political and military leadership knows this. And they are also cognizant of the difficulties of trying to destroy Iran's nuclear capability by military means. The Israeli's would have to hope that their first strike totally destroyed any and all nuclear weapons the Iranians had. They simply don't have the intelligence assets to guarantee that they knew the location of every device. And they don't have the conventional assets to mount a sustained air or ground campaign against Iran. All that an Israeli first-strike would achieve is the one thing they don't want to happen - giving legitimacy to Iran in retaliating against Israel.

    For the foreseeable future its best for each country to continue on the path they've been following: Iranian leaders rattling potentially-nuclear sabers. And Israel continuing its intelligence and covert action campaign to frustrate and delay the Iranians.
     
  18. Macky-Mac macrumors 68030

    Macky-Mac

    Joined:
    May 18, 2004
    #18
    even the wikipedia article you quoted doesn't agree with the idea that there's agreement about the translation. In reference to the part you quoted, their article continues saying;

    Clearly it's a matter of dispute between translators.

    Do Ahmadinejad's own translators feel it's correct to use "wiped off the map" as a translation? Here's an example from a different speech that was summarized on the english version of the president's own website several years later. Web.achive.org has an archived copy of the page


    It certainly seems they do. Is it the best translation? I'll leave it to the translators to quibble over
     
  19. niuniu macrumors 68020

    niuniu

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2009
    Location:
    A man of the people. The right sort of people.
    #19
    There isn't any room for what that archived translation makes out. Just look at it - it's clearly written by some right wing nut-job who's filled in extras to make it all very juicy.

    "O dear Imam (Khomeini)! You said the Zionist Regime that is a usurper and illegitimate regime and a cancerous tumor should be wiped off the map

    How can you get that from:

    Imam (Khomeini) ghoft (said) een (this) rezhim-e (regime) ishghalgar-e (occupying) qods (Jerusalem) bayad (must) az safheh-ye ruzgar (from page of time) mahv shavad (vanish from).

    ?

    Independent translators all agree on the translation. There isn't any quibble between them and that includes US translators. There's only denial and an intent to bend his words out of shape. Cancerous tumour? Wiped of the map? NT Time editor said blah blah? Why not throw in some WMDs while we're at it, liven it up a bit.
     
  20. thekev macrumors 604

    thekev

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    #20
    It's either Farsi or Arabic:p.

    Iran isn't 100% Muslims. It's kind of a misconception there. The translation thing is another thing. US reporting can be really biased. It's just some channels are a little better than others. They do show footage at times that simply isn't correct.
     
  21. Macky-Mac macrumors 68030

    Macky-Mac

    Joined:
    May 18, 2004
    #21
    perhaps you should write Ahmadinejad and tell him what his translators are putting on his website?

    the source you referenced makes it quite clear that they don't.....inconvenient for you perhaps, but that's what your own source clearly shows
     
  22. niuniu, Feb 21, 2012
    Last edited: Feb 21, 2012

    niuniu macrumors 68020

    niuniu

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2009
    Location:
    A man of the people. The right sort of people.
    #22
    Name me independent translators that disagree with the translation? The only rogue versions are coming from right wing media in the West and right wing Iranians in Tehran.

    Some even go so far as to extend Ahmedinejad wanting to kill 'every Jew in the middle East' and to 'the US' : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLtv6lnLRx0
     
  23. Macky-Mac macrumors 68030

    Macky-Mac

    Joined:
    May 18, 2004
    #23
    I refer you to your own previously cited source.
     
  24. niuniu macrumors 68020

    niuniu

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2009
    Location:
    A man of the people. The right sort of people.
    #24
    And I just re-read it. No independent translators have disagreed with the following translation.

    the Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e eshghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad

    The only detractors are the Iranian right wing and some bilingual guy. Clearly, if you're taking sides with the right wing media, and not the University of Michigan and the Middle East Research Institute then you have a bias and are looking for a way to justify it.

    No facts nor reasoning will change your mind, or the mind of most people by this stage.
     
  25. Macky-Mac macrumors 68030

    Macky-Mac

    Joined:
    May 18, 2004
    #25
    Your problem is you're objecting to the use of a particular idiom in a translation. Yes, the idiom doesn't match the literal translation, but that's always the case with idioms as anyone who's studied a foreign language knows. Here we have, as your source makes quite clear, different professional translators disagreeing over the appropriateness of a certain idiom.....yet you want to deny that reality.

    Are the translators working for the president of Iran on his website a bunch right wing fanatics? :eek: Maybe, but they're the translators he's used for his website. And they continued to use the idiom you don't like several years after the issue first came up.

    Not speaking farsi myself (do you?) I don't have any basis for disagreement with either translation. I actually prefer the "must vanish from the page of time" as I think it's a bit more poetic and less colloquially western than "wiped off the map".

    including yours for that matter
     

Share This Page