Ah... Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called to account before Iranian parliament

As is often the case, foreign affairs and sabre rattling might be more about internal wrangling than being about real intent:

The move is unprecedented in the history of the Islamic republic.

After a year of internal debate and unsuccessful attempts to question or impeach the president, MPs secured enough signatures for an attempt to summon Ahmadinejad. They succeeded in persuading the parliament's presiding board to read the motion during Tuesday's open session.

The move comes at a time of discontent at home owing to western economic sanctions and growing international isolation over Iran's nuclear programme. In recent weeks, fears of a major confrontation between Iran and the west have grown.

and, perhaps crucially....

Ahmadinejad's summoning comes less than a month before the country's parliamentary elections, in March. The vote will be the first national ballot since the 2009 disputed presidential poll, when popular uprisings against the results challenged the legitimacy of the regime.

Iran's intelligence minister, Heidar Moslehi, has described the March vote as "the most sensitive" elections in the history of the Islamic republic".

http://business.financialpost.com/2012/ ... a=2f7544ec

It may be that the economic sanctions are really starting to turn the screws ... It takes time for the full affect to really hit. The fact that the iranian parliament has left for a month's break without responding to the nuclear issue suggests that as the Iranian economy reels the importance of the nuclear program may be called into question. As will the nature of the rhetoric of Ahmadinejad and others. In Iran, as elsewhere, the domestic economy usually takes priority, and too much economic sacrifice may be shifting opinion. Where the nuclear program has been a popular point of pride for most, perhaps the cost of that pride is hard to justify.

http://rockcenter.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2 ... l-nbc-news

NBC News

Deadly attacks on Iranian nuclear scientists are being carried out by an Iranian dissident group that is financed, trained and armed by Israel’s secret service, U.S. officials tell NBC News, confirming charges leveled by Iran’s leaders.

The group, the People’s Mujahedin of Iran, has long been designated as a terrorist group by the United States, accused of killing American servicemen and contractors in the 1970s and supporting the takeover of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran before breaking with the Iranian mullahs in 1980.

The attacks, which have killed five Iranian nuclear scientists since 2007 and may have destroyed a missile research and development site, have been carried out in dramatic fashion, with motorcycle-borne assailants often attaching small magnetic bombs to the exterior of the victims’ cars.

U.S. officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the Obama administration is aware of the assassination campaign but has no direct involvement.

The group, the People’s Mujahedin of Iran, has long been designated as a terrorist group by the United States, accused of killing American servicemen and contractors in the 1970s and supporting the takeover of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran before breaking with the Iranian mullahs in 1980.

So a group who would have been a focus of "the war on terror" are now a major weapon in the attempts to derail the Iranian nuclear ambitions?
Should we be glad that the "war on terror" wasn't entirely effective?

Thank you RJ. Interesting angles. I agree with most everything you laid out. The current Iranian leadership on both the political and spiritual levels are mental.

I believe Israel has every right to protect itself from anyone who pledges to eliminate it. No problem there. It's "how" they go about defending themselves that I'm interested in. How they justify a pre-emptive strike, at one point is that decision made, how is intelligence gathered, by who, and is that intelligence trustworthy (remember the Iraqi wmds?) or fabricated.

I believe Israel is a theocracy for sure but I believe theocracies can and do vary from culture to culture. A theocracy that governs one of the Peruvian tribes still untouched by civilization will look different than say a northern hemisphere, western nation whose set of laws are permeated, or at the very least heavily influenced by a Judeo- Christian worldview.

Are there alternatives to pre-emptive strikes? I think so. Certainly the cyber war attests to as much. Although I realize certain tactics can only take you so far.

And yes, I am referring to the hunts that have gone on for Nazi war criminals or terrorists over the years and recently I'm fascinated by the Mozad. I'm fascinated by the notion of revenge or justice as some call it. I find it interesting that nations whose heritage includes Judeo-Christian worldviews and truth claims can assasinate civilians or anyone for that matter while maintaining any semblance of manifest destiny in whatever form that loaded concept takes in a particular culture. Maybe there's no way to avoid a pre-emptive strike when the stakes are this high. But it sure seems like there should be. There's also something to to be said about one nation's track record versus its threats. Anyone can saber rattle.

And then that there is so little coverage or national debate on the issue bamboozles me. How is that?

It's true that we don't know the whole story. But I'm certainly more suspicious of Mozad than some Iranian faction taking the man out. And this from a country that claims its right to exist is rooted in revelation? Revelation sure is a tricky thing.

Rickyp, I love your last point but I must admit it's difficult for me to take you seriously given your choice of avatar. Please change it immediately for the sake of humanity.

Wait a minute, what happened to your Justin Beaver avatar? That was quick.

Nevermind.

dag hammarsjkold wrote:Wait a minute, what happened to your Justin Beaver avatar? That was quick.

If you don't choose an avatar new Redscape chooses one for you out of a handful including JB, but it changes all the time. You were right the first time though, Ricky should choose an avatar.

I believe Israel is a theocracy for sure but I believe theocracies can and do vary from culture to culture. A theocracy that governs one of the Peruvian tribes still untouched by civilization will look different than say a northern hemisphere, western nation whose set of laws are permeated, or at the very least heavily influenced by a Judeo- Christian worldview.

We certainly don't agree here. First of all, here's the definition of theocracy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theocracy

Theocracy should be distinguished from other, secular, forms of government that have a state religion, or are merely influenced by theological or moral concepts.

From the same website:

Israel operates under a parliamentary system as a democratic republic with universal suffrage.[11] However, Israel is frequently described as being a theocratic state.[12]

Since Israel was founded by the Zionist movement as a Jewish state, and Judaism as a religion is often conflated with Judaism as a nationality,[12] Israel can have the semblance of guiding theocratic principles in its government. Mitchell Bard writes:[12]

By blurring the distinction between nationality and religion, Israelis find themselves frequently accused of living in a theocratic state and in many ways it would seem Israel fits the mold of a sacred state.
...
Others point out that Israeli citizens have diverse religions, even as the country only grants instant citizenship to Jews.

Such attributes, while appearing somewhat theocratic do not qualify the country as a theocracy, Emanuel Gutman argues:[12]

The organs of government and state power neither derive their legal authority from religion or church nor their legitimation from any divine source. It cannot be claimed with any semblance of realism that state and church are coequal partners in the governance of the state. Indeed, all legal powers of the religious institutions and organs are ultimately devolved upon them by the state.

Dag:

manifest destiny

I think that you use a lot of loaded language, and I wonder why. For the most part, the Israelis want to survive. I don't recall the Mexicans or Indians doing everything they can to build nuclear weapons and threatening to annihilate the United States of America as a cancer.

And this from a country that claims its right to exist is rooted in revelation? Revelation sure is a tricky thing.

I think that the Jewish people have a right to a homeland. We have 2,000 years of documented mistreatment ranging from forced conversion, to inquisition, to gassing my relatives. The right to exist is rooted in tragedy and a documented historical claim on real land. Why is that so tricky for you?

Dag really doesn't help advance the case that assassination is bad by bringing in the history of Israel's refounding. Whatever our views, it's quite frankly irrelevant.

RJ - Nazi hunting was good. Assassinating the Munich hijackers was not. Especially when one person killed by Mossad was innocent and a case of mistaken identity. Better to have captured them, brought them to justice, as happened with Eichmann. Extra judicial killings by States are murder in my book. Whoever is killing these nuclear scientists are murderers.

Also, it may perhaps delay the Iranian programme, but in the mean time is seriously adding to tensions.

I'm bettting that Iranian Nuclear scientists are particularly tense. And probably get jumpy every time they hear a Vespa.

danivon wrote:
RJ - Nazi hunting was good. Assassinating the Munich hijackers was not. Especially when one person killed by Mossad was innocent and a case of mistaken identity. Better to have captured them, brought them to justice, as happened with Eichmann. Extra judicial killings by States are murder in my book. Whoever is killing these nuclear scientists are murderers.

I guess you are right, but it's not so easy to capture people in other countries. The Munich "hijackers" (really murderers) were allowed to leave by Germany. The world's reaction was insufficient considering the magnitude of the crime. The Israelis policy is not different than US policy as it relates to both Osama as well as others in Yemen, Pakistan and Afghanistan. The US has killed many more civilians, unfortunately. I would distinguish this from Hamas (which is funded and armed by Iran) where killing civilians is the point, as opposed to an undesirable aspect of war.

I would also distinguish between the Munich "hijackers" (boy that term pisses me off every time I write it) and Iranian nuclear scientists. The former had blood on their hands.

It was still murder, though. Whoever the victim is, whatever they did or might do. The US policy on Osama was not as bad, as theý did at least try to capture him and killed him as he fought back. At other times, however, the US appears to just go for the kill.

Retaliation?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/fe ... iran-bombs

Depressing, isn't it?