<p>"**But his bosses on the ruling council are. And worse, they are iron-firsted rulers with the stated intent of becoming a nuclear power to demonstrate their ability to be players on the world stage.
**</p>
<p>Does anyone have any reason to believe that his bosses don’t share his point of view with regard to Israel?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oh Ahmadinejad has power, he just doesn’t have power in this area - foreign policy being one of the areas of government that is the explicit purview of the Supreme Leader. Khameini is the important actor with regards to the issue of foreign policy, and his explicit statements contradict the “wipe Israel off the map” proclamation, rendering it basically irrelevant.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think Israel is no more willing to engage Iran in drastic war than Iran is willing to engage Israel. I really don’t worry about Israel doing anything drastic.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, as per Khameini’s direct statement: “the Islamic Republic has never threatened and will never threaten any country.” Do I think he was being honest there? Partially - I’m sure he’d be willing and happy to carry out passive-aggressive policies designed to be difficult and keep Israel and America uncomfortable, but I’d say he was being honest about not being particularly willing to go to war with Israel.</p>
<p>Zoosermom, quite honestly, does it really matter what WE (i.e. Americans) think about Ahmedinaja and /or the ruling councils views are in regards to Israel? No, we need to worry about what Israel thinks about the rhetoric.</p>
<p>That is the point I’ve been trying to get across. Israel has been behaving badly; I get it. So has it’s neighbors. OUR role should be to continue to ensure they don’t get stupid and decide to act on it in a manner that could drag the world into WWIII. Carter confirming to the world that Israel has nukes doesn’t help the situation, it only adds fuel to Iran’s intent to build their own.</p>
<p>I find it interesting how quickly people condemn Nevele Chamberlin and the British. The United Kingdom paid an incredible price in blood and treasure to oppose and defeat the Nazis. The thanks they got was Begin blowing them up at the King David Hotel (been there great hotel and an amazing view of the city wall from the terrace). There have been a number of genocides since the 40’s and no one including Israel has stopped them. The moral high ground is a slippery slope.</p>
<p>It sounds perhaps bizarre to say so, but I would think that Iranians would be more interested in provoking an attack on themselves than use a nuclear weapon on another country --even Israel.</p>
<p>One need know no more than the veneration of Imam Hussein and the martyrdom here inspires amongst Iranians, and especially ayatollahs and ahounds like Khameni, to know this truth.</p>
<p>Fund terrorists: sure.
Launch a nuclear strike: I just can’t imagine it.</p>
<p>Still, who knows?</p>
<p>Iranians want political dominance in their region, but I don’t think they want to annihilate any one.</p>
<p>But who knows?</p>
<p>1of42,</p>
<p>We can always hope that Israel will do a “cost/benefit” analysis in regards on what to do about Iran’s nuclear ambitions. A part of me even feels that they may be temtped to be more bold in their actions because they know we would back them up. I really don’t know what would happen i we tell them we wouldn’t be there if they went to war. Would they launch on all-out blitz on several fronts, just declare war on Iran, or sit on their hands? All are possibilities. I do know that they were willing to risk all-out war before by going in and striking Iraq’s unfinished nuclear facility. would they do it again, and would Iran just let it happen this time? All these “what ifs” keep a lot of people up at night. </p>
<p>I’m glad you feel comfortable that the worst can’t happen there. I’m just not so sure, and would rather play it safe by keeping th ecurrent status quo (support of Israel, which doens’t include blabbing their deepest secrets to the media).</p>
<p>And Icantfindaname, I have the deepest respect for the bravery and sacrifice of the British people for their efforts in WWII. In fact, the squadron I currently fly with is one of the “RAF Eagle Squadrons” (look it up), a heritage we are VERY proud of and celebrate. But history has codemned Chamberlin, righfully, for his naivete; actually believing that his appeasing words to a ruthless lunatic would somehow prevent an inevitable war. An overly easy example in regards to the similar situation in this thread? Perhaps. But I just don’t have the guts to try the same tactic again, especially when nukes and islamic extremism are in the picture.</p>
<p>“But history has codemned Chamberlin, righfully, for his naivete”</p>
<p>What does ‘history’ say a macho man like Churchill would have done in Chamberlain’s place? Declare war on Germany BEFORE the invasion of Poland? Is there some kind of proof that Chamberlain’s strategy ultimately made the war longer or bloodier?</p>
<p>Hanna, it would entirely be speculation to ask how the events of WWII would have changed had Churchill been Prime Minister instead of Chamberlain. He WAS Chamberlain’s main oposition in parlaiment in regards to foreign policy towards German aggression., so you can predict he would have been less inclined to just letHitler have his way. Would Churchill have agreed to the Munich Treaty? Or would he have instead told Hitler, “try it buddy and its war”. Even if England did declare war earlier, who knows what would have happened and how different things would have turned out in regards to number of lives lost. Hitler was going to pursue European dominance no matter who was in charge (IMO). </p>
<p>Chamberlain tried the strategy of letting Hitler just have Austria and the Sudetenland portion of Czechoslovokia as a way to prevent him from wanting more. His “appeasement” strategy failed miserably, and sorry to say, THAT is what history remembers.</p>
<p>Well, that’s my point. Chamberlain is constantly brought up as an example of how stupid and naive it is to try to negotiate with evil dictators. I don’t think the story supports that argument very well. There’s really no evidence that the war would have been shorter or easier if it had begun sooner. In other words, Chamberlain failed to prevent the war, but there is no reason to think that he made the situation any worse. You give diplomacy a shot, and if it fails, then you have a war, and you face the same enemy you would have faced anyway. I don’t see where this story provides a lesson in why we shouldn’t even experiment with compromise before we resort to force.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>On the contrary, Nazi Germany was unprepared for a real war in 1938. The earlier the Allies acted against Hitler, the lower his chance of success. The Luftwaffe and Wehrmacht that attacked the Low Countries and France in 1940 largely didn’t exist in 1938. The Germans didn’t even have a medium tank (one with a real cannon instead of a 20mm gun) in widespread use until 1939, and they built over 10,000 military aircraft between 1938 and 1940. Where is the evidence that waiting didn’t make a difference?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>We are told that the New Democratic Party will grant Ahmadinejad a state summit with the new American President within the first 12 months, without precondition.</p>
<p>Britain was just as unprepared as Germany in 1938, and it would have had a devil of a time getting the population on board for a pre-emptive war that, at the time, appeared to be about returning German–speaking territory to Germany. The unity and resolve of the English people had a great deal to do with their country’s ability to withstand attacks (in addition to geography). They didn’t have the wherewithal to invade the continent until 1944 (with US and Commonwealth help). What could England have done to get Hitler out of Sudetenland? Pretty much all it did throughout 1940 was defend itself.</p>
<p>At any rate, my point is that this story doesn’t provide much support for the idea that negotiating with evil dictators is always a mistake. At best, you can speculate that the war might have gone differently, but there’s plenty of reasons to speculate that it would have been the same. That’s not a good guide for making foreign policy decisions today.</p>