I'm not sure if you're deliberately missing the point or if you honestly can't see that Iran is the aggressor. I'm leaning towards the former though. I think you're quite clever enough to understand the concept that the only nation in the region which has any reason to fear Israeli nukes is the nation that's spent decades actively arming terror groups in Israel and making bellicose statements about wiping Israel from the map. I'm not sure why it's necessary to see the Iranian point of view really. Or do you honestly think that if a future Iranian government were to cease support for Hamas and to give up on their nuclear program there would still be any risk of an Israeli strike against them ?

Sass, Iran does not support Hamas. That is for the Muslim Brotherhood and elements of Saudi and Gulf clans.

Iran supports Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad.

Danivon, reading Robert Baer's book on Iran, he says that Iran has become very pragmatic over the years. It's dumped its revolutionary philosophy and will pretty much work with anybody that will further its interests. (Long term interests, mind you) But yes, they do according to him support Hezbollah, and generally are good at playing such factions off against each other rather cleverly. It just would not surprise me if they support, well, anybody at this point. One wonders if they were behind the rise of ISIS and have now realized they have created a monster.

BTW, Freeman, I had a response to your questions to me, and I somehow the bloody draft was erased. Now I cannot remember what I was responding to, Freeman....um....remind me what page we were on?

As pragmatists, I doubt Iran would work with ISIS, which is extremist Sunni and sees all Shia as apostates worthy of death if they do not convert. ISIS started out from Sunni groups opposing Iran's allies the Iraqi Shia. And came to prominence in Syria where they opposed Iran's ally Assad.

The Sunni - Shia split is a major factor in the ME situation

danivon wrote:Sass, Iran does not support Hamas. That is for the Muslim Brotherhood and elements of Saudi and Gulf clans.

Iran supports Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad.

For many years Iran supported Hamas. From Wikipedia:

After the eruption of the second Palestinian intifada, in September 2000 after the collapse of Middle East peace talks at Camp David, Arafat released imprisoned Hamas and Islamic Jihad militants, a decision that restored the relations between Iran and the Palestinian National Authority. The renewed support became evident when Israeli commandos captured the Karine A in 2002, a ship carrying 50 tons of advanced weaponry from Iran to Gaza.[2]
...
Hamas is a militant and political organization currently in power in the Gaza Strip. According to Mahmoud Abbas, President of the Palestinian National Authority, "Hamas is funded by Iran. It claims it is financed by donations, but the donations are nothing like what it receives from Iran.[3][4] Iran also supplies Hamas with military weaponry.[5] Technologies provided include Fajr-5, M-75, and M-302 rockets, as well as drones.[6]

Aid to Hamas increased after Arafat’s death in 2004 and Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza in 2005. Following the Hamas victory in the 2006 Palestinian elections, foreign aid dried up, leading Tehran to send significant financial aid to support the nearly bankrupt, Hamas led Palestinian National Authority.

That support dried up recently because they have taken opposite sides in the Syrian civil war. However, there are reports that Iranian aid is coming back on line:

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340 ... 43,00.html

They further discussed the renewal of Iranian financial and military aid to Hamas, and Tehran's wishes that Hamas publicly acknowledges the alliance and publicly thank the Islamic Republic for the aid it has been providing.

Iranian support for Hamas did not mean that Hamas were under the control of Iran. For instance: they weren't willing to militarily throw in with Iran when Israel was threatening actions against Iran...

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/m ... d-for-iran

Iran has historically been an ally of Syria. Mostly because Syria was not cozy with Saudi Arabia. However, with the popular revolts against Syria, the need to be seen supporting the opposition within Syria, because they are fighting for social justice for the Arab peoples in Syria, has seen Iran change its tune. Hamas was originally quiet on the Syrian revolution, having received aid from Assad in the past. But they also have to support the people in their revolution as they see that it mirrors their own struggles.

It is dangerous to assume that the middle east is a monolith or even largely defined by the by two largest sects of Islam. There is also an underlying narrative of the struggle for economic justice and for increasing liberty. ISIS represent only the former, in that they are fighting to establish what they out out as an alternative that will "free: Muslims from secular governance.

When one simplifies too much, its easy to think that the west can control events and agendas. Its too difficult for even the participants to comprehend all the nuances immediately.

sass

I'm not sure if you're deliberately missing the point or if you honestly can't see that Iran is the aggressor

You know that the Shah had a long and close relationship with Israel right? That the Iranian revolutionaries see Israel as a participant in the subjugation of the Iranian people by the Shah?
This was the original aggression .
The next is Israels' historical and ongoing aggression against the Palestinian people. (Again Iran's POV). The expansion of Israels lands at the expense of Palestinians, and the continued occupation of Palestine are also seen as aggression by Iran.
Iran has been, seen the revolution, an isolated nation threatened by almost everyone. The west sponsored Iraq's war against Iran, and both the US and Israel offered intelligence and other help to Saddam. The Iran Iraq war lasted 8 years and cost half a million Iranian lives and enormous economic damage. Anyone who sided in any way with Saddam is blamed in part for this damage.
If you consider all of this, and the very public threats by Israel to take military action against Iranian sites...can you not understand that they see Israel as an active and aggressive enemy to the Iranian revolution?

If you get past the revolutionaries and the conservative Iranians , Iran is perhaps the closest to West in character after Israel. Which is why the relationship between the Shah and Israel existed. That's the problem with making friends with dictators. They can loose support so quickly when they fail to meet minimal needs for their people. And history has shown that the elites in dictatorships aren't really good at understanding this for overly long periods.
Its also why the definition of "stable" really shouldn't be applied to dictatorships. The Peacock throne was very stable. . Till it wasn't. And it fell very quickly.
Assad's regime was considered stable.
Tunisia...
Libya ..
Things can change in months.Democracies, on the other hand, have institutions that move from government to government and provide genuine stability. And why adhering to a support for democracy and self determination is the best long term strategy.

Danivon:

As pragmatists, I doubt Iran would work with ISIS, which is extremist Sunni and sees all Shia as apostates worthy of death if they do not convert. ISIS started out from Sunni groups opposing Iran's allies the Iraqi Shia. And came to prominence in Syria where they opposed Iran's ally Assad.

The Sunni - Shia split is a major factor in the ME situation

Absolutely true, except like I said, Iran doesn't care who they support as long as it achieves their goal of regional (or even in their wildest dreams, international) hegemony. To do so they will work with the Devil himself, whether he is a Sunni or a Shi'ite. And Iran will work with them like master puppeteers, and in such a way as the groups they are supporting may not even know who the puppeteers are (that being Iran). Baer insists they have "traded the Koran for the Kalashnikov." It's a pretty interesting read, "The Devil We Know". Busts a lot of myths we have about Iran. But probably confirms others. Baer actually thinks the nuclear thing is a smokescreen, in a way. And that Iran could close off the Strait of Hormuz in ten minutes if they want to. (The offshore oil terminal at Ras Tanura is NORTH of the Straits, and Saudi oil must flow SOUTH through the straits to get to the international oil markets, as you no doubt are aware.)

The Grand Ayatollah and the Guardian Council have, I imagine, read more of The Prince than of the Qur'an itself. Sorry if that sounds like blasphemy to any Muslims, Sunni or Shi'ite, but I wouldn't not doubt it (even though I say it figuratively).

BTW, Freeman, what was I supposed to answer for you? I cannot find it, and I honestly meant to give you guys a more detailed answer on my POV regarding my views on American foreign policy (I just need a recap of what we both said and for some reason cannot find it.) since that is what I promised to do. Can you jog my memory?

Ricky:

Israel offered intelligence and other help to Saddam

source?

JimHackerMP wrote:Danivon:

As pragmatists, I doubt Iran would work with ISIS, which is extremist Sunni and sees all Shia as apostates worthy of death if they do not convert. ISIS started out from Sunni groups opposing Iran's allies the Iraqi Shia. And came to prominence in Syria where they opposed Iran's ally Assad.

The Sunni - Shia split is a major factor in the ME situation

Absolutely true, except like I said, Iran doesn't care who they support as long as it achieves their goal of regional (or even in their wildest dreams, international) hegemony. To do so they will work with the Devil himself, whether he is a Sunni or a Shi'ite. And Iran will work with them like master puppeteers, and in such a way as the groups they are supporting may not even know who the puppeteers are (that being Iran).

I stand corrected on Iranian funding of Hamas. I found this which proves me wrong on that, as it's Hamas admitting that Iran cut funding to them. But the reason why is interesting, and suggests that Iran would not have helped ISIS:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... Syria.html

The two former close allies have also ceased military cooperation, effectively ending a warm relationship that saw Tehran provide weapons, technical know-how and military training to Hamas fighters.

The rupture has been caused by Hamas's refusal to toe the Iranian line by supporting President Bashar al-Assad, whose Alawite regime is religiously loosely related to the Shia Islam practiced by Iran's ruling theocracy.

Hamas - which runs the Gaza Strip - has sided with its Sunni co-religionists trying to unseat Mr Assad, in common with other mainly Sunni countries like Turkey, Egypt and Saudi Arabia.

Baer insists they have "traded the Koran for the Kalashnikov." It's a pretty interesting read, "The Devil We Know". Busts a lot of myths we have about Iran. But probably confirms others. Baer actually thinks the nuclear thing is a smokescreen, in a way. And that Iran could close off the Strait of Hormuz in ten minutes if they want to. (The offshore oil terminal at Ras Tanura is NORTH of the Straits, and Saudi oil must flow SOUTH through the straits to get to the international oil markets, as you no doubt are aware.)

Well, I won't take one bloke's word for it, even if he did write a book.

The Grand Ayatollah and the Guardian Council have, I imagine, read more of The Prince than of the Qur'an itself. Sorry if that sounds like blasphemy to any Muslims, Sunni or Shi'ite, but I wouldn't not doubt it (even though I say it figuratively).

Not sure how many negatives are in that last sentence, but I'm not so sure - and there are ways to be devious that long predate Machiavelli.

Of course. And yeah, I wrote that quickly enough to have employed a double negative, haha.

ray, source for the use of Israelis intelligence by Iraq was an article in Atlantic. But upon review it didn't link Israel and Iraq. Only the US and Iraq. And referred to the possibility that the US had passed on things they may learned from Israel.
Israel provided a great deal of support to Iran during the war.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_su ... 93Iraq_war

Makes one wonder why this support didn't earn the Israelis a little more accommodation from Iran after this...

rickyp wrote:ray, source for the use of Israelis intelligence by Iraq was an article in Atlantic. But upon review it didn't link Israel and Iraq. Only the US and Iraq. And referred to the possibility that the US had passed on things they may learned from Israel.
Israel provided a great deal of support to Iran during the war.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_su ... 93Iraq_war

Ok, so you misremembered.

Makes one wonder why this support didn't earn the Israelis a little more accommodation from Iran after this...

My view is that it is because Israel is a Jewish state. It's not complicated.

Ray Jay is right: what is there to wonder about? This is exact proof of why the "Jewish State" (AKA State of Israel) needs to be there. Nowhere else on earth are Jews "safe" from anti-semitic views of other countries. Even the United States isn't perfectly safe for Jews, for heaven's sake.

One wonders what would happen if the United States suffered a massive attack (a la "Jericho" if any of you are familiar with the series) that crippled its ability to function domestically and internationally (and what was left of our government had to recall its troops from abroad for domestic protection and rebuilding, maintaining order, and so forth). Or we just elected a totally isolationist president (there was a documentary where that happened that was rather interesting).

What would become of Israel and the Middle east as a whole if the USA were to cash in its chips?

JimHackerMP wrote:Ray Jay is right: what is there to wonder about? This is exact proof of why the "Jewish State" (AKA State of Israel) needs to be there. Nowhere else on earth are Jews "safe" from anti-semitic views of other countries. Even the United States isn't perfectly safe for Jews, for heaven's sake.

That's different than what I was saying. My view is that Iran (and Saudi Arabia) and many other middle east countries have an ideological basis, and a lot of that relates to Koranic and historical attitudes to Judaism. A strong Jewish state is anachronistic to the ideology of their regimes.

One wonders what would happen if the United States suffered a massive attack (a la "Jericho" if any of you are familiar with the series) that crippled its ability to function domestically and internationally (and what was left of our government had to recall its troops from abroad for domestic protection and rebuilding, maintaining order, and so forth). Or we just elected a totally isolationist president (there was a documentary where that happened that was rather interesting).

What would become of Israel and the Middle east as a whole if the USA were to cash in its chips?

Israel would be fine. It can defend itself; it has a growing economy; it is able to absorb large numbers of immigrants; it has a vibrant democracy; and more energy reserves than it knows what to do with. I think that the rest of the Middle East would be worse off. It's not clear that Saudi Arabia and Iraq could defend themselves. Without the US, I'd also be worried about Ukraine, Georgia, the Baltic nations, and other European countries.