Can Iran Be Trusted?...
Rational Nation USA
Purveyor of Truth
While the Obama Administration works to negotiate a nuclear arms deal with Iran one of the Revolutionary Guard Militia chiefs, Mohammad Reza Naqdi as stated “erasing Israel off the map” is “nonnegotiable”. Naqdi also went as far as to ... threatened Saudi Arabia, saying that the offensive it is leading in Yemen “will have a fate like the fate of Saddam Hussein." This according to a report from THE TIMES OF ISRAEL.
Such inflammatory rhetoric is certainly not useful and does raise questions as to the real intentions of the Iranian ruling theocrats.
Read the rest BELOW THE FOLD.
Via: Memeorandum
Purveyor of Truth
While the Obama Administration works to negotiate a nuclear arms deal with Iran one of the Revolutionary Guard Militia chiefs, Mohammad Reza Naqdi as stated “erasing Israel off the map” is “nonnegotiable”. Naqdi also went as far as to ... threatened Saudi Arabia, saying that the offensive it is leading in Yemen “will have a fate like the fate of Saddam Hussein." This according to a report from THE TIMES OF ISRAEL.
Such inflammatory rhetoric is certainly not useful and does raise questions as to the real intentions of the Iranian ruling theocrats.
The commander of the Basij militia of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards said that “erasing Israel off the map” is “nonnegotiable,” according to an Israel Radio report Tuesday.While the militia chief may not officially speak for the government of Iran Naqdi's rhetoric sounds terribly familiar to rhetoric we have heard from government officials in the past. At the very least reports like these should speak to caution and advise us not to trust an adversary that speaks out of both sides of it mouth.
Militia chief Mohammad Reza Naqdi also threatened Saudi Arabia, saying that the offensive it is leading in Yemen “will have a fate like the fate of Saddam Hussein.”
Naqdi’s comments were made public as Iran and six world powers prepared Tuesday to issue a general statement agreeing to continue nuclear negotiations in a new phase aimed at reaching a comprehensive accord by the end of June.
In 2014, Naqdi said Iran was stepping up efforts to arm West Bank Palestinians for battle against Israel, adding the move would lead to Israel’s annihilation, Iran’s Fars news agency reported.
“Arming the West Bank has started and weapons will be supplied to the people of this region,” Naqdi said.
“The Zionists should know that the next war won’t be confined to the present borders and the Mujahedeen will push them back,” he added. Naqdi claimed that much of Hamas’s arsenal, training and technical knowhow in the summer conflict with Israel was supplied by Iran.
Read the rest BELOW THE FOLD.
Via: Memeorandum
Such quotations of a rock-solid intent for a new Holocaust are not mere misinterpretations by neocons
ReplyDeleteof friendly statements made by Iran's civilian leaders, as some might have us believe.
This is not a recommendation to "bomb Iran". Just a recognition of the reality of what is faced regardless of what happens.
It is wise to proceed with due caution as we work to secure a workable win-win deal with Iran on their nuclear activities. Trust is certainly an issue and one the west must be concerned with. While we certainly shouldn't start bombing Iran we should be engaging Iran with our eyes (and ears) wide open.
DeleteIf the Iranians are in such a hurry to let the Russians in to put this together, I say let 'em. The Russians have been telling them what to do for a while now and so far it's working to our advantage. They told them to back off in Yemen. If we see that pan out, then we know that leverage is real, and it's better than nothing. It's easy for us to endless put sanctions on Iran. It's a pain in the a$$ for some of it's neighbors. I hope this deal works out. I wouldn't worry about what some crazy general or "commander" says. We have crazies like that too (though to be fair, we throw them out when they say things as crazy as that in public).
ReplyDeleteThere's something I think you don't know here that should be pointed out. The expression "wipe Israel off the map" has become a political sound bite in Iran and around some of the Middle East and it actually refers to "Israel" as a political entity ceasing to be, being absorbed into a new Palestine. It's not actually a literal genocidal expression (though again, to be fair, it's easily inferred).
JMJ
Do you trust the Russians JMJ? Particularly Putin? Putin likely wants to restore the old Soviet influence and Iran certainly has vision of a new Persian Empire. Is it any surprise Russia would court alliance with Iran and vive versa? All that aside I see your point and it makes some sense. Again I say be wary and keep both eyes and ears open. There is the real danger of wolf packs you know.
DeleteI want a deal to be struck too, one that allows both sides to take away a win and for the seeds of trust to be planted. Most of our looney military personnel are retired and now working for Fox News.
Yes JMJ I am aware the phraseology used by Iranian "leaders" very likely means in the political sense. However, It is not the business of Iran nor is it wise to make such asinine statements. I do realize that in the not too distant future Jews in Israel herself will become a minority of the population. It is my perspective that the Israeli people and their government should understand what this reality means and reconsider the hardline Bibi, Attila the Hun, Netanyahu mentality and stance.
Jersey: its not just low level military commanders. The top leaders in Iran are demanding to kill off the Jews as well. And it is not just nasty words: it is backed up with deadly force in the form of thousands of missiles fired (through their HAMAS proxy) at Israeli civilians. A one way war of stated genocide.
DeleteIt's not returned, Jersey. Not even the bellicose "Bibi" is demanding to wipe Iran off the map and murder all Persians who won't convert to Judaeism.
.
ReplyDelete"Can Iran Be Trusted?... "
Can USA be trusted?
"At the very least reports like these should speak to caution and advise us not to trust an adversary that speaks out of both sides of it mouth."
Can not this be said about USA also?
The source of the Mohammad Reza Naqdi quote, "The Times Of Israel" also has to be questioned.
Yes, the negotiations are critical and needed. It is interesting that so many who are not privy to the negotiations are convinced USA is to be blindly trusted and Iran is not. Also, USA has been negotiating successfully with USSR, Russia, China, and other like unfriendly countries, yet the same questioners are convinced USA does not know how to and cannot negotiate with Iran.
Ema Nymton
~@:o?
.
"Can Iran Be Trusted?... "
DeleteCan USA be trusted?
"At the very least reports like these should speak to caution and advise us not to trust an adversary that speaks out of both sides of it mouth."
Can not this be said about USA also?
Sure it can Ema, anything thing can be said by anyone and about anyone. Yes, the USA has been less than totally forthright on the international stage and we certainly have managed to make our share of enemies. Even given that I will trust the USA and western nations more so than I will Middle Eastern nations and this goes for Iran with just a bit more emphasis.
Ema, it is not the USA that is exporting terror throughout the Middle East and Africa , it is not the USA that is calling Iran the Great Satan, nor is the USA saying Death to Iran. These things are, to say the least a bit unnerving, especially in light of 911 and other terror attacks on the USA interests and other western nations.
Yeah, I get the whole Iraq debacle and how it added fuel to the already burning embers in the region, but somehow a way must be found to put all that behind and move forward. Obama is attempting to do this and that is good as it must be done, sooner or later. What I am saying is we must not proceed with a false sense of Iran's trustworthy or a naïve view that giving more than we receive will result in "Peace in Our Time."
Nowhere Ema does this post indicate the USA does not know how to negotiate or cannot negotiate with Iran. It does advocate proceeding with caution and keeping all out sensory faculties fine tuned. IMO very sensible. If you think I might be thinking Obama may be a bit naïve, well, the thought has crossed my mind on occasion.
A few quick thoughts on this post:
ReplyDeleteOverheated rhetoric. Please recall the Cold War years when Nikita Khrushchev said: “We will bury you” and “Better Red than dead.” These words did not prevent hostile governments from signing a nuclear test ban treaty and several ICBM treaties that kept a lid on hostilities. Chants of “Death to America” may not necessarily mean much more than placating the Iranian hardliner base.
Historical Wounds. We should recognize the source of Iranian resentments towards us – the CIA-inspired coup in 1953 against Mohammed Mossedegh, Iran’s first democratically elected president. The CIA installed the Shah, a brutally oppressive regime that tortured its citizens. Viewed from this perspective, there are reasons why Iran calls us “The Great Satan.” During the Cold War, Iran was one of our closest allies in the region, and it was Americans duplicity that soured this relationship.
Cost/Benefit Calculation. Iran knows Israel possesses an arsenal of 200+ nuclear weapons. Any provocation by Iran would bring certain ruin, and Iran knows this. Recently, Saudi Arabia expressed ambitions to develop a nuclear arsenal – a prospect that would trigger an arms race in a highly volatile region. This too alarms Iran. Iran’s best calculation at the moment is to keep their nuclear breakout capacity as short as possible. The hidden wildcard in this calculation is not Iran but the Kimonarchy of North Korea.
War should always be the option of last resort, and I believe Obama is pursuing a sane policy despite criticism from the GOP's neoconservative wing.
The Iranian leadership is not an amorphous and homogenous mass. In some ways the situation resembles the situation here in the US.
ReplyDeleteThe election of President Rouhani in 2013 represented as large a shift from the Ahmadinejad administration as the transition from Bush to Obama did here. Ahmadinejad was completely on the side of the Islamist hard-liners. Rouhani is a genuine reformist who ran on a platform of opening up to the West and negotiating the end of the sanctions. Everybody in Iran knew that that would mean giving up the nuclear-weapons program (anyway, about 50% of Iranians oppose developing nuclear weapons, with only about 30% in favor).
The only reason Rouhani was able to be elected at all was that after the stolen election of 2009, when Ahmadinejad "won" despite obviously losing, the Iranian people staged the largest street protests ever seen anywhere in the world, with millions participating. This threw enough of a scare into the ayatollahs that in 2013 they felt they had no choice but to allow an honest election or risk an explosion.
Iran now has a moderate President committed to diplomacy but opposed by a legislature dominated by militant religious extremists who prefer confrontation (just like the situation in the US). This is why Rouhani's reforms domestically have been incomplete; his authority reaches only to certain aspects of government, and the theocrats are opposing him at every step.
(An Iranian once told me the crucial difference between the two countries is that the religious hard-liners dominating Iran's legislature could never have won an honest election.)
There's also the Supreme Leader (Ayatollah Khamene'i), who has no equivalent in the US system -- he's theoretically superior to the President, but hasn't blocked the nuclear deal. He may favor it, or may be afraid of public reaction if he obstructs Rouhani too openly.
The Basij militia is a large collection of thugs recruited from the dregs of society to impose the theocrats' will on the masses, rather like the early Nazi Brownshirts. They are a danger, but only to liberal Iranians. Their leader certainly doesn't have any authority over foreign policy, even though he does speak for the most extreme religious element.
It's easy to find violent rhetoric from extremist crazies, but that can't be taken as representing the entire Iranian government any more than people like Tom Cotton or Ted Cruz speak for the entire US government. The reality is more complicated than that.
You are right, Infidel. There are some elements of moderation there:
ReplyDeleteclick here
A sure sign of moderation would be to back off the insistence that the Israelis have to be wiped out.
Excellent points Infidel753. I have a very good friend who moved to the USA via Germany not too long after the Islamic revolution that overturned the Shah. We had many conversations as well as several with her Iranian friends and my sense was always that the average Iranian is very much like the average American and deplores violence, as well have being desirous of the same liberties we are.
ReplyDeleteIt is indeed unfortunate that governments can be, and often are, so out of touch with the majority of their people. You drawing parallels with the USA is, in my view, accurate and effective; to those willing to consider something beyond th last sound bite they heard.
Thanks for stopping by, the welcome mat is always out.
dmarks, I note that the friend from Iran lived around and socialized with Jewish people when in Iran. Jewish people where never the problem, rather it was the hard right Israeli politicians that got her bristling.
ReplyDeleteThanks RN. I've known a number of Iranians over the years. I wish more Americans did; as with gays, knowing people personally makes it impossible to demonize them.
ReplyDeleteFor anyone who wants an inside view of things from an intelligent Iranian liberal, I can recommend Kaveh Mousavi's blog. It's one I always read.
Thanks for the link Infidel757. I shall devote time to perusing the site. If the views are like the Iranians I have known then I shall undoubtedly enjoy the site
Delete