"Like it or not, the Zionist regime is heading toward annihilation"

There has to be some reason why he is being so confrontational on so many fronts. But I can't figure out what he can gain by this game. There is no move he can make where Iran isn't the worst loser among a field of losers.

 

Iran invented moonbats.

 

http://dailytelegraph.news.com.au/story/0,20281,18819508-5001028,00.html

 

Which arab states would attack israel? no arab state will. most of the arab states are friendly with usa. And why wouldnt iran flex its muscle right now since usa is at war in afghanistan and iraq and iran knows that usa has no capability of attacking iran right now.

 

The answer lies in the history of the region. In fact, you can find similar leaders in Western history. It's more a political maneuver than a military posturing, although one has to be ready to back his words which he feels he can. But this is his way of gaining "political capital" in Iran, ME, and across the world amongst [at least some of] those who disagree with US's plan to dominate the world, and unconditional support for Israel, regardless of her policies. His political posturing is to bring back some of the "control" of the region, and its resources, back to its rightful people, instead of foreign entities. The more the "West" confronts him, the more credible his words and cause becometo the ordinary people -- to them it proves the point about foreign interest in "resources", stopping their natural right to progress, and not "spreading democracy". he could use many examples, from current and past, to prove his point if challenged.

The way I see it, he is riding on a white horse.

 

Although no Arab "state" would attack Israel, one has to take into consideration how fragile and unpopular some of these Arab "states" are amongst their own people and therefore, these "states" are ALWAYS vulnerable to sudden storm in social change, and further the ripple effect in neighboring countries. The situation could easily get out of control cuz many of the "states" have very repressive behaviour at home, and are mostly dictatorial an despotic. The ripple effect would not end with just "revolutions". You have to also consider the unpopularity of American policies in many non-ME countries, and their fragile state of being -- such as some in S. America, parts of Africa (N. Africa as most concern), and crisis in SE Asia along with its moslem populace, plus add to that the uneasiness inside America in itself. There are a lot of ordinary people that are against Bush's foreign policies. Add to all this the economic side effects. Hope it helped seeing the bigger picture.

 

Seems like others have made similar statements, Hitler, Tojo, Saddam, the list goes on. Just a bunch of words from someone who has no hope of actually backing them up.

But if they are so sure of themselves, let them make the first strike. They sure do talk tough for a nation whose military couldn't win an 8 year war with a weak country like Iraq.

 

Everything that u have stated is a possibility............ but a very slim possibility. In my view saudi arabia is very stable. They have a very efficient security which was shown by their capture of almost all the persons they had listed as terrorists. And in toppling governments such as saudi arabia has a very very low chance of that happening.

So if iran does gets attacked ( which i think wont be happening), it has to deal by itself. And about syria, i dont think they have good military and sophisticated weapons. Unless china and russia does something about it, iran has to face the war alone.

 

One could argue over the "probability" of such events, but from my readings, it doesn't seem like House of Saud is very liked or democratic. Again, social dynamics can change and spin out of control quite rapily inany of those countries. Most US planners know and consider that.

I am sorry if my message came across the wrong way. I have no proof to lay on the table, but I don't think any Iranian would be banking on any of those as part of the plan-- specially a country like Saudis that financed the last war against Iran. My comment was about the possibility of booty changing hands.

 

But this doesn't make sense. He doesn't need political capital because he was just elected and he is pretty popular. And he isn't about to do anything that requires a special amount of support above and beyond what he has.

Because any such action would be stupid.

 

While Ahmadinejad's rhetoric feeds well into the anti-Iran propaganda in the West, it helps Iran with anti-Western forces in the region.

Since Iran has decided that it cannot and will not appease the West and a collision (economic or possibly military) is likely regardless as long as Iran sticks to its nuclear plans, it has been trying to strengthen its hand elsewhere. That elsewhere has been in part in the "Arab street" as well as with anti-Israeli Arab groups supported by Iran.

Any military operation against Iran is made infinitely more complicated if the US is denied platforms within the region. Arab countries in the region are far less likely to support US plans against Iran if their own constituencies are rallied to Iran's cause.

If there is war, moreover, it will be war that will involve many theaters: Iraq (Iraqi shias: SCIRI-Badr Brigade as well as the Mahdi Army, along with some pro-Iranian Iraqi Kurdish groups), Afghanistan (shia Hazzars, Persian speaking Tajiks etc), Syria (Alawite Asad regime)-Lebanon (Hezbollah)-Palestine (Hamas), Persian Gulf and the Arab sheikdoms there (shias in Bahrain and Eastern Saudi Arabia as well as facilities within Iran's range), the Caucasus (especially Azerbaijan, with Iran having levers through the shia Azeris as well as the Persian speaking Talesh groups), Central Asia (Persian speaking Tajiks in Tajikistan especially) as well as ripples being felt from south Asia to the Balkans. With some of these groups, Iran relies on old Iranian nationalist sentiments and shared cultural roots, with others Iran relies on shared shia faith, and yet within the larger mosaic of politics in the region, Iran uses the anti-Israeli card.

That is the kind of war Iran is preparing for and this kind of war requires that Iran use the cards that Western antagonists find most appealing. In many of these areas, there is no card as appealing as the anti-Israeli one.

 

By his solemn duty, he is entrusted to defend his country against any threat. The biggest superpower in the history of the world is making statements of nuclear threat. I would say that's pretty big.

 

I would like to see a direct quote where Nuclear Weapons are going to be used against Iran.

Iran has not made any statements about using nukes either, however they have made some not so very subtle or veiled threats towards Israel in regards to wiping them off the map and them facing annihilation.

 

So what should Iran do to prevent war?


How is quoting someone propaganda? Are you saying he's been misquoted? And if so, what is he really saying?

 

Well, it started off with calling Iran part of the "Axis of Evil", and then shortly after asserting "Evil will be eradicated". Later on, more statements such as "All options remain on the table" coming from different people, including Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld.
Another comment about using the so called "tactical" nuke. Imagine, God forbid, if there is a war, and starts off with "tactical nuke", and how is it supposed to end???? That's WWIV to me. I think all the non-sense threatening talks should end from both sides.

 

You mean WWIII.

Well calling Iran a part of an axis of evil is not quite the same as Iran calling for the destruction of Israel, saying they will be wiped off the face of Earth or will be annihilated.

But nothing the US has ever said about Iran compares with the fiery rhetoric that spews from the sewer called a mouth from armanass.

The all options remain on the table is a reference to possible military action should all other processes fail. Kinda like the 13 years Iraq had.

I have heard the talk of a "tactical nuke" but please find the link where it was said one would be used on Iran.

I would think though that if a Tactical nuke were used to start the war, that Iran would not be capable of doing much of anything to continue the war. I am sure that the US would be certain to wipe out all military targets in Iran if they chose to go the Nuclear Route right from the start. I doubt any sane person in the World doubts that the US has the capability to finish Iran off in a couple of hours if they chose that route.

But that isn't going to happen. Nukes will not be a first choice weapon. I can not imagine anyone in the world who would stand by the US if that happened. Hell I would say most Americans, including those in the Military would not stand for that, myself included.

 

Finally, I've figured it out!
Ahmedinejad is a Zionist plant who's going to force the US into destroying Iran. Its brilliant!
And its a good thing the Persians invented Zionists, because only someone invented by Persia could come up with such a diabolical plots, because all diabolical plots are invented by Persia.

 

Thanks! This thread was just aching to be relegated to "international news". And now its battle against the axe is over.

 

I would have thought that this is where the thread should have been anyway.

 

Be strong enough, and devise appropriate tactics to accentuate its strengths and hide its weaknesses, to deter any potential attacks.

Quoting someone can be propaganda. It is like quoting an opponent of slavery in the US in the 1850s in a way to suggest the person is a war monger, conveniently leaving out the context and surrounding issues behind the more belligerent sounding words.

Ahamdinejad was delivering a speech to a conference in Tehran to support the Palestinians, where 80 different countries are represented including 26 through high ranking governmental delegations. Some of these countries are not Islamic ones either as Venezuela, Zimbawbe and several other non-Islamic countries were also represented. The prevailing view of those participating in these kind of conferences is that the Zionist entity is at an outlaw state that should not exist. Some may be willing, for purely prudential and practical reasons, accept its existance while others insist that the ideological foundations giving rise to "Israel" (Zionism) be changed lest the source of threat and injustices persist.

As long as the idea behind Israel rests on the premise that the Jewish people deserve a homeland even if built on someone else's land by force, then the countours of that ideology are a threat to the entire region. And that is why a world without (political) Zionism is a worthy concept to advocate.