Israel may see the recent U.S. election as a decidedly negative, and possibly hostile, tilt away from Israeli support, therefore making such a targeted killing necessary.
I am an Iranian living in the U.S. for the past 12 years. U.S. and Israel have done similar assassinations of Iranian physicists in the past. Nothing new unfortunately.
The thing here is that it seems Israel wants to provoke the Iranians into some sort of a response so that the U.S. gets involved before Trump leaves office.
It's mind boggling how the U.S. left the JCPOA, assassinated their top general & still somehow tries to pretend they have the moral high ground.
But these sorts of assassinations are known to be mainly Israeli operations.
Netanyahu has always been a hardliner. Perhaps the Israelis are simply expecting that Bidden won't support such actions so are making the most of Trump's last days in office, and perhaps the same goes for the US (Hypothetically if Israel and/or the US were involved, of course...)
I doubt that's it; the last American president to meaningfully oppose anything Israel does was JFK, who tried to get international inspections of Dimona to stop Israel's nuclear weapons program.
There's oppose publicly and there's oppose behind closed doors. There's also being pissed off behind closed doors and taking less public actions to make it felt. The US take action against Israel when there are pissed off, although it's obviously quite mild (like cancelling weapon sales or grants for some time).
My family and everyone I know in Iran has been suffering from the sanctions before they were even born. From a shortage of diapers to medicine. Just look at the numbers of how many Iranians leave their country every year.
Literally, everyone in my family and relatives lives outside of the country (Canada, Sweden, U.S., Dubai, Armenia and etc.) and the sad thing is I don't think I will ever go back.
Or they know that Iran will hold back to not provoke the new Biden administration. If Iran wants the US to rejoin the agreement and loosen the sanctions their hands are tied.
I'm not sure what pinning it on the transition means, but it's suggesting that it seems to be an opportunistic time for controversial actions; the outgoing regime doesn't care and/or fully approves, and the New Boss avoids any association/responsibility.
I would put some serious money on Trump as a lame duck doing a whole lot of nothing. Israel probably sees this as an opening to take out core operatives without reprisal and a low chance of escalation. Iran will probably do what it has always has done, continue their nuke and ballistics program, and attempt to destabilize unfriendly regimes. They don't really have an awesome military tract record outside of guerrilla tactics nor the capacity for a prolonged large scale conflict against a technically superior advisory. I don't know what this has to do with propaganda though; it will always spin conflicts as just, inventible, necessary or simply just sweep it under the rug.
> so that the U.S. gets involved before Trump leaves office
If it's about the difference between Biden and Trump, it would be about the incoming administration being more likely to get involved, not less. Virtually the only thing Trump has done right in office was not finding some excuse to get us involved in military conflict (which I very much expected him to, to cynically whip up patriotism and knee-jerk "unity" to clinch his reelection.) Biden will return us to the conventional U.S. foreign policy of bombing with an easy conscience and wringing our hands with moral anxiety when we think about maybe not bombing.
Trump ordered the assassination of Qassem Suleimani, the head of Iran’s Quds force, earlier this year. So I’m not sure that this argument applies to Iran.
Trump's justification was that Suleimani was planning attacks against US targets, which is a pretty high bar for intervention (unless it was a complete fabrication, which doesn't seem likely.) Any other Democratic or Republican administration would have identified multiple opportunities/obligations per year to improve some situation in the world by military intervention, and counted themselves moderate if they only committed to one or two in four years. Biden's Secretary of State pick, for example, believes we were wrong not to escalate our involvement in Syria until we turned the tide.
Was it really? That guy was leading one of the largest and the most effective ground forces against ISIS in Iraq and Syria. His troops had contact with the U.S. and Russia for air support. I wouldn't be surprised if one of U.S. regional allies that isn't happy about the situation in Iraq and Syria gave U.S. some made up intelligence about an attack to provoke U.S. against him.
I’m not necessarily arguing with any of that. But your assertion was that a Biden administration would be more likely to get militarily involved in Iran, and I don’t think the case for that argument is obvious. Biden wants to rejoin the nuclear agreement, while Trump has actually engaged in a violent confrontation with the country.
While Wikipedia may be technically correct, there's nothing new here. The U.S. has been supporting Marxist terrorists in Iran (PJAK, MEK) for quite a while.
That's sad and unfair, another act of terrorism against what has been a peaceful country for quite a while, after all. Iran has been quite virtuous, while the US and its allies (Israel and Saudi Arabia) have been waging constant war. (Israel vs. Palestine and Jordan / Saudi Arabia against Yemen).
That's deeply shameful. I wonder why isn’t there a “are we the baddies?” moment in the west…
I don’t think we should be assassinating scientists. But Tehran has been no angel [1]. Which is sad, since their people are one of the more peaceful in the region, judging from the limited polling we have.
Neither have been its main nemesis, the Saudis, Israelis and the U.S.
I find this kind of isolated statement doesn't help to explain anything, but paint the Iranians as irrational. I have 1000 problems with their form of government, but I don't think they are irrational.
> Neither have been its main nemesis, the Saudis, Israelis and the U.S.
One of these is not like the others:
Israel for all its warts has been quite consistent in leaving alone those who doesn't mess with them. Of course it makes competely sense given how they are consistently outnumbered in every way but quality, but still.
They also have a long history of peaceful sharing of civilian technology etc etc.
Iran funds Hezbollah that operates next to Israel. It is well known.
Iran is suspected to fund and ship rockets that are used against Israel. I won't say it is confirmed but it will be no bif surprise if the rumors are confirmed.
Iran officials often speak about eradicating Israel. The opposite never happens.
Israel is not known to operate any milits in or around Iran, they are not suspected of shipping rockets to Irans neighbors and they are not known to talk enthusiastically about flattening Iran or killing its inhabitants.
I think we can agree that it is a poorly kept secret that they are probably behind a number of assassinations, industrial espionage and possibly sabotage but the difference is still enormous.
> Neither have been its main nemesis, the Saudis, Israelis and the U.S.
I agree. OP said the Iranians have been virtuous. My point is nobody is virtuous in these sorts of conflicts.
Washington has the original sin of supporting an authoritarian against the Iranian people. But we have supported bad leaders in lots of places, from Cuba and Korea to Vietnam, that didn’t start menacing their neighbours and sponsoring terrorists.
> we have supported bad leaders in lots of places, from Cuba and Korea to Vietnam, that didn’t start menacing their neighbours and sponsoring terrorists
I'd argue Cuba suffered worse sanctions than Iran and yeah, their government is much more humane than Iran's.
1. Assasination of Jacob Israël de Haan (1924), a Dutch-Jewish diplomat, for attempting to make a peace deal with the Emir of Mecca - his plan was a Palestinian state in a Jordanian federation, the Zionists would drop the Balfour declaration and any claim to a state in exchange for unrestricted immigration. He was assassinated when leaving a synagogue by Avraham Tehomi (who admitted to it much later), on the orders of Yitzhak Ben-Zvi, who later became the 2nd President of Israel
2. King David Hotel Bombing (1946) where right-wing Zionist terrorists attacked a British HQ located within the hotel killing 91 and injuring 46. The leader of the perpetrators, Manachem Begin became the Prime Minister of Israel in 1977
4. Deir Yassin Massacre (1948) where 110 villagers were slaughtered, some members of the perpetrators were at a later time, absorbed into the IDF, one even became PM of Israel
5. Document [1] from IDF archives (1948) which after translation states:
"In the villages lying between Nahraiya and Tarshiha there are no foreign troops for the time being.The villages are armed and ready for action[2]. Your orders are to occupy, kill the men[3], destroy and burn down the villages of Kabri, Umm al-Faraj and al-Nahr."
[1]https://i.redd.it/e8q5ore6vi231.jpg
[2] Ilan Pappe notes that the villagers had no proper arms, only for hunting purposes and people who served in the police; without Arab troops that were absent they stood no chance [2] In April 1948, the Intelligence of the Hagana defined men as anyone above the age of 10
6. Palestinian Exodus "Nakba" (1948) was an expulsion of 700,000 Palestinian Arabs from their Homeland during the war and establishment of Israel in May 1948, these includes testimonies of massacres, rape and looting:
7. Assassination of Folke Bernadotte, (1948) UN Mediator for Palestinian Refugees by Israel's Zionist Paramilitary Group, Lehi. The killing was approved by the three-man 'center' of Lehi, one of which, after the assassination, became 7th Prime Minister of Israel (Yitzhak Shamir). No one was convicted for the assassination:
I often struggle to become convinced of what to believe with these sorts of things. Is the media to be believed? Is this state or that nation bad?
But, I know that during the Arab spring the Iranian revolutionary guard killed their own people. That removed all of my doubt, the Iranian government is bad. Anyone that would kill their own people are capable of much worse. They had no due process, no investigation, just killing in the streets. It didn't take the opinion of a news anchor for me to reach that conclusion, I saw it with my eyes.
Not to mention, the current regime in Iran is in power as the result of previous interventions by the U.S. and the UK. And yet we think another regime change is going to fix the mess we created for them years ago.
Whatever you think of it, it's not "terrorism" (the objective is presumably to deter a state nuclear weapons program and not specifically to frighten the masses). While any loss of life is unfortunate, and while the US and Israel are not without blemish, this assassination was very targeted (no collateral) and it plausibly deters Iran from advancing (and thus using) its nuclear weapons program. This seems like a pretty good deal on balance, at least for those who can accept that the world is not perfect and very often the loss of a single life is the best one can hope for to prevent the losses of tens or hundreds of thousands of lives.
Anyway, I want to steer clear of the "which country is more evil?" question because it's so very unlikely to yield productive discourse (we can use enumeration fallacy to support whichever position we like even if we agree on core values).
> it plausibly deters Iran from advancing (and thus using) its nuclear weapons program
Having looked quite deeply into this, Iran does not currently have, nor peruses such a program. Meanwhile Israel not only does have a nuclear program, but refuses to sign any treaties regulating it.
What do you make of the Israeli's sharing of intel to the public regarding a purported illegal nuclear weapons research program currently ongoing inside Iran. Is that evidence fabricated, and if so how do we know that?
Because there wasn't any new credible intelligence in there even per the U.S., which is no friend of Iran [1] and because Israel has been rehashing the same shit forever now.
> Is that evidence fabricated, and if so how do we know that?
It is generally up to the party offering evidence to prove its authenticity, not the other way around.
They don't have a public nuclear weapons program because they don't want to suffer the sanctions that would be imposed on them, but they have a long history of interest in and pursuit of such a program. As for Israel, I fail to see how that's anything but whataboutism.
Let me be clearer: I don’t see how Iran’s intent (or speculation there about) is relevant to the quoted portion of my post:
> it plausibly deters Iran from advancing (and thus using) its nuclear weapons program
As for Iranian intentions; they’ve been quite clear and consistent that they want to wipe out Israel, and I take them at their word about their motives. It seems unrealistic to me that they want nukes for purely defensive purposes (unrelated to their broader desire to wipe Israel off the map), i.e., they think (absent a nuclear Iran) Israel would without provocation initiate a nuclear attack on Iran. It seems obvious to me that Iran wants nuclear weapons as part of its broader desire to eradicate Israel, albeit probably not to launch nukes at Israel directly but rather to derisk a nuclear counterattack. In either case, a nuclear Iran brings us considerably closer to a violent humanitarian crisis.
the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.
From Iran's perspective this is terrorism. From the US/Israel's that is probably not simply because I believe that there's probably a lawful mechanism for these governments to carry out this sort of action on foreign soil. For them it's "raison d'Etat".
> But some American officials argued that the death of Mr. Fakhrizadeh, the latest in a string of such mysterious killings of Iran’s top nuclear scientists, would send a chilling message to the country’s other top scientists working on that program: If we can get him, we can get you, too.
A scientist leading the project of constructing a massive weapon does not compare to a scientist working as part of a cog in the wheel on a service that is used both by the government and other companies that is not related to weapon construction any more than a screw driver is related to weapon construction.
* Israel isn't subject to Iranian jurisdiction, so it can't be "illegal", at least not meaningfully. In other words, if we don't account for jurisdiction then any international conflict could be considered "terrorism", which doesn't pass a common sense test.
* The Oxford definition stipulates "and intimidation", not "or intimidation". There's no indication that the aggressor's intent was to intimidate (rather, if they wanted to intimidate, they would have attacked the target's family or otherwise not been so surgical).
- "Israel isn't subject to Iranian jurisdiction, so it can't be "illegal"
What kind of logic is that? By then logic is it legal for Russian mercenaries to break into your house?
It's illegal in the same way 9/11 was illegal - purposefully targetting civillians is a breach of international law, and, of laws and customs of war. It is not onyl about laws of the host country where attack happens.
The argument that he was warking on a military project could apply if there was an official declaration of war, but that isn't the case.
I didn't imply that Israel/US was subject to Iranian jurisdiction (not least because countries are sovereign). I wrote that it was probably legal (at least within specific boundaries) for the Israeli/US governments to approve such actions on foreign soil, which are after all one of the raison d'etre of the CIA and Mossad.
But of course the operatives in Iran did commit murder under Iranian law and they were subject to that jurisdiction.
It's always a question of perspective.
Regarding your second point, there is obviously a part of intimidation in doing something like that. It's even mentioned explicitly off the record in the article:
"But some American officials argued that the death of Mr. Fakhrizadeh, the latest in a string of such mysterious killings of Iran’s top nuclear scientists, would send a chilling message to the country’s other top scientists working on that program: If we can get him, we can get you, too."
'Terrorism' is a term always used against others, the bad guys. We are the good guys we never do that. Some people have bought this line so much that it's difficult to accept that everyone does terrorism to a varying degree, at least certainly from the perspective of those on the receiving end.
The nature of sovereignty is that sovereign jurisdiction has only those territorial limits that the sovereign chooses; extraterritorial jurisdiction in law is common as is it's practical exercise.
More to the point, Israeli agents acting on Iranian territory are subject to Iranian jurisdiction without extraterritorial jurisdiction entering the picture.
> any international conflict could be considered "terrorism"
The proper crime is “aggression”, and, yes, almost every international conflict involves that on at least one side. (You can construct artificial scenarios where there is a plausible argument that both sides are exercising legitimate response to an apparent imminent threat, but they don't tend to arise in reality.)
> This seems like a pretty good deal on balance, at least for those who can accept that the world is not perfect and very often the loss of a single life is the best one can hope for to prevent the losses of tens or hundreds of thousands of lives.
There are plenty of assumptions here tho. Because I am not sure such an act "can save lifes", or in fact, it keeps reinforcing the hegemony of US, IL and SA in killing systematically and waging wars in the region... My point is: is murdering a top scientist/politician useful to save "tens or hundreds of thousands of lives" or is this facilitating the killing "tens or hundreds of thousands of lives" in Palestine, Yemen, Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq and destabilizing the region?
To be clear about my assumptions, I don't trust the Iranian regime. They have been interested in nuclear weapons consistently for the last 70 years, and they've been rather explicit about their position with respect to Israel (it's a "cancerous tumor that must be uprooted and destroyed" or something to that effect). I think they pretty credibly want to wipe out Israel and emerge as the regional power.
I'm also assuming that the US, IL, and SA are pretty interested in regional stability if only because stability favors their own interests.
You have a few implicit assumptions of your own:
1. Keeping Iran in check "destabalizes the region" (and the corollary, that Iran's objective is stability in the region)
How can you believe this in light of Iran's pretty explicit intent to wipe out Israel? Are Iranian officials merely posturing benignly?
2. The US, IL, SA objective is "systematically killing tens or hundreds of thousands of lives and waging wars in the region" (and not to stabilize the region)
Of course, these countries aren't "systematically killing" anyone. You can criticize them for their actions, but they haven't been "systematically killing" anybody, nor expressed interest in the same.
3. There is a dichotomy between Iran killing tens or hundreds of thousands and the US/IL/SA killing tens or hundreds of thousands (i.e., if we prevent Iran from killing tens or hundreds of thousands then we implicitly allow its adversaries to kill tens or hundreds of thousands)
Of course, there is no such dichotomy. Thwarting Iran's nuclear program and stabilizing the region are two sides of the same coin.
> I'm also assuming that the US, IL, and SA are pretty interested in regional stability if only because stability favors their own interests.
A completely stable and peaceful region is very much NOT in the interest of Israeli right-wing politicians (currently in power) hell-bent on expanding illegal settlements. Israel is the only modern nation in the world without a fixed border. This can only be maintained by denying Palestine statehood, and the only moral way to do that is by selling this image of "our savage, uncivilized neighbors will destroy us if we grant them statehood. We're in an extraordinary circumstance, so that's why we're taking the extraordinary measure of denying millions of people their human rights for 70 years."
Btw, 2014 Gaza war killed 5 Israeli civilians vs around 1500 Palestinian civilians (UN). It amazes me how Israel still manages to play the victim card in the western world.
> Btw, 2014 Gaza war killed 5 Israeli civilians vs around 1500 Palestinian civilians (UN). It amazes me how Israel still manages to play the victim card in the western world.
Of course there were fewer Israeli casualties. Israel took the fight to Hamas for the express purpose of protecting Israeli lives. Safeguarding their own citizenry is the primary objective of any nation’s military, and Israel did that by fighting Hamas on their home turf (as opposed to inviting Hamas to fight inside Israel).
The point is that by taking the fight to Hamas, they were fighting among Palestinian civilians and not among Israeli civilians, so naturally there would be more Palestinian civilian casualties. For the same reason that there are relatively fewer US casualties in any US foreign war (how many US civilian casualties were there in Afghanistan relative to Afghan civilian casualties?). Adding to that is the fact that Hamas hide among the Palestinian citizenry, making collateral damage all the more likely.
Because the Iran I know funds Hezbollah. It's not a well kept secret either.
> while the US and its allies (Israel and Saudi Arabia) have been waging constant war. (Israel vs. Palestine and Jordan / Saudi Arabia against Yemen).
Are we talking about the same Israel?
Because for all their warts the Israelis are extremely restrictive and has been for a couple of decades even in the face of constant missile attacks, tunnel digging etc etc.
Even before that they have given away massive areas for peace agreements - and kept their part of the deal.
I agree Palestinians are in a rough spot, but lets not forget an almost equal amount of Israelis/Jews were chased from their homes at the same time, and lets not forget that Israeli officials tried to get the locals to stay (because they were afraid to get carpet bombed if they were alone, but still.)
I've read books upon books on Israeli history, general middle East history, the Iran-Iraq conflict etc since I got interested back in 1994, so I'm probably more aware of many of the nuances than many others.
I feel extremely sorry for the poor Palestinian people but I place the blame mostly where I think it fairly and squarely belongs: on the thoroughly botched UN.
Also note that just because media keep repeating the Palestinian myth doesn't mean it is true. The has never been a Palestinian country before 1948 when Israel was created.
It was always part of Syria, Iraq, Egypt or something else.
> There were people who lived in a place and they were kicked out of their homes by the UN mandate.
In the same way as Jews were kicked out of their homes all the way to Iraq. The difference being that Israel took care of the Jews while the Arabs used their Palestinian brothers as pawns in an international chess game.
> I don't think whether Palestine had been incorporated into the Western westphalian system is really relevant to the moral claims at hand.
Good point. I've already pointed out my opinion about UN above and it seems we aren't too far apart on certain points.
> The has never been a Palestinian country before 1948 when Israel was created.
> It was always part of Syria, Iraq, Egypt or something else.
Syria (1946) and Iraq (1933) were also never distinct sovereign countries until decolonialization of British and French Mandatory territories in the 20th Century, either, and neither ever included Palestine.
> Also note that just because media keep repeating the Palestinian myth doesn't mean it is true. The has never been a Palestinian country before 1948 when Israel was created.
I don't get the point here. Whether it was named Palestinian or not, it doesn't change the fact that Israel occupied those territories! We are talking about land, not names.
Well, in those books that you read, was it mentioned why Hezbollah was created and what it is doing now? Would you say they are terrorists but Israeli government is not? And what would you say if someone acts directly in a terror operation or via proxies? Does it matter?
> I don't get the point here. Whether it was named Palestinian or not, it doesn't change the fact that Israel occupied those territories! We are talking about land, not names.
The point is that kind of like in Pakistan/India UN decided to split the area in two ethnic areas.
In the middle east 70% was given to the Arabs and 30% to the Jews.
(Well kept secret: While the international community keep asking for a state for the Palestinian people it has existed since the start. It is called Jordan and was created on 70% of the land that was considered for the Jewish national home.)
Again: I'm not here to defend UNs actions, only (parts of) what Israel has done afterwards.
> Would you say they are terrorists but Israeli government is not?
That is absolutely my opinion yes.
The Israeli government is a democratic government. Hezbollah was a terrorist organization last I heard.
(Actually I looked it up right now. Here is what Wikimedia says:
> Either the entire organization or just its military wing has been designated a terrorist organization by at least 21 countries, by the European Union and since 2017 by most member states of the Arab League, with the exception of Iraq and Lebanon, where Hezbollah is the most powerful political party.)
By the way, if you need to hear it from former CIA director:
>I do not know whether a foreign government authorized or carried out the the murder of Fakhrizadeh. Such an act of state-sponsored terrorism would be a flagrant violation of international law & encourage more governments to carry out lethal attacks against foreign officials.
Your beloved democracy can be terrorist too. We have good reasons to believe Israel was behind the attack. Even if not in this case, there are a dozen more.
Calling Iran a “peaceful country” and “virtuous” is not supported by the facts. Iran develops nuclear weapons despite its negotiated agreements.[1] It engages in hostile acts throughout the region directly and through proxies like Hezbollah. [2] It interferes with domestic elections of other countries. [3]
Perhaps [1] has something to do with this? "Iran has openly announced all violations of the nuclear deal in advance, which have followed the decision by the U.S. to pull out unilaterally in 2018."
The US breaks its negotiated agreements, engages in hostile acts throughout the world, and interferes in elections in other countries. If we were to believe America is a peaceful country, then we'd have to say the same about Iran.
What the hell? US withdrew from agreement, took out enriched uranium, brought back and amplified sanctions, killed the head of the military... What are Iranian leaders supposed to do!
The US pulled out, but the other signatories (China, France, Russia, United Kingdom, Germany) did not. If Iran was unhappy with the agreement after the U.S. withdrew, the virtuous thing to do would have been to also withdraw. It is not virtuous to break their promise by remaining in the agreement yet willfully violating it.
Well if Israel did it, it was almost assuredly in consultation with the Pentagon.
I'm not sure how much credence to put in these ideas, but given Trump is still attempting a coup, some say that given his legal strategy is failing, he might try to start a military situation with Iran to create a crisis and make him a wartime president.
Trump has been a sore loser in this election, but to my knowledge he's only pursued legal avenues to overturn the election results. He also stated that he would leave office if the electoral college voted him out, even if he won't acknowledge that he lost the election. This is bad, tasteless behavior, but not a coup in any sense of the term.
I read it as misinformation--i.e., the legal onus is on Biden to prove that his 80M votes weren't fraudulent; not that Trump would use the military to prevent Biden from taking office. In fact, I had to re-read it several times to even determine what coup-like meaning you were suggesting it contained.
This could be seen as setting the stage for something worse down the line... Come the week before inauguration day, and Biden still hasn't "proven" (whatever proven means to Trump anyway) the 80M votes... what will Trump do? refuse to leave because his stipulation wasn't met?
Right, I now see that this Tweet could be interpreted as a veiled threat; I just think it's far more likely that Trump misunderstands (or is lying about) the law. Especially given his recent remarks that he would leave if the electoral college votes for Biden.
Inviting Michigan lawmakers to the white house to discuss "voter fraud", directly calling Michigan electoral polling officials, firing defense officials and installing super loyalists to positions of power, firing officials who oversaw the election that don't tow his official stance of a "rigged election" (Krebs). Refusal to acknowledge the win of an opponent, instead spreading disinformation and outright lies. Getting into fights with the Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger (a republican) to try to force him not to certify the results of the election. Talking about trying to use the state legislatures to override the results of the election itself.
This is pretty sketchy stuff and is very much in line with a coup. While not necessarily "troops in the street" coup it's very important not to underplay this.
He's using as much soft power as possible to undermine the results of the election and to influence it in his favor.
Every sentence you wrote is true, and you're only bringing up politics to respond to someone else who did, yet you're the one who's receiving downvotes.
It's sad that countries target scientist with moral impunity to achieve their strategic and geopolitical objectives. If it was a nuclear scientist assassinated in the West, the same moral indifference wouldn't apply.
The Iranian nuclear scientist in question was building a nuclear bomb to destroy Israel. Iran is building an offensive nuclear weapon. In the U.S. our nuclear arsenal is a defensive weapon. So, not morally equivalent.
Not a valid analogy. The allies were trying to beat a fascist autocracy that had just ravaged multiple countries and committed heinous war crimes with no indication of having a willingness to slow their pursuit. That's in no way comparable to the current situation of Iran building a nuke to deter or obliterate Israel.
Yes and that's exactly my point... Iran building a nuke to counter Israel is not morally equivalent to the US building a nuke to counter the axis powers.
If you believe that majority (just become more people are influenced through media with the same view as yours) can force a political view onto a minority, then I think we need a more serious talk on whether or not you might find a better life in China or Iran.
I am serious here. Do not think I intend to mock you. Rule by majority is not what I approve for myself to live in US.
Oh, come on, history is written by the victors. I am not saying that they have not did bad things, but if Germany had won, they would say the same about U.S., who, just as a reminder, dropped two nuclear bombs in civilian cities.
Both sides thought what they were doing was right and there is always a way to justify the means.
Disclaimer: I am from a country which was neutral during the WW2.
Edit: Here is the thing, I do not want this to become a "Who is the most evil?" thread, so I will not be responding except for this edit (I suggest everyone to do the same).
The point of this comment was that, public perspective is something that can easily be manipulated. The phrase "History is written by the victors." means exactly that. I just wanted to mention that Germany would use the example I gave to justify their actions "Wow they are evil. see what they did?". One should always be mindful where they are standing and check if they are being manipulated or not.
If this comment starts a flame war, dang, please feel free to delete the whole thread.
Sure Germany would have said they were the good guys. The difference is in what they did: seek out to exterminate tens of millions of Slavs, Jews, and other groups they considered inferior.
I get that it's important to see history from multiple points of view, but this idea that "Both sides thought what they were doing was right and there is always a way to justify the means" is just unabashed moral relativism.
True, but the nuclear bomb's original target was Germany and the parent comment was referring to Germany. Much of the same observations can be made about the Empire of Japan. I'm sure Imperial Japanese soldiers earnestly believed their subjugation of China and other mainland powers was just, but that doesn't alter it's depravity.
There's value to be had in honestly recognizing that if I was born in Japan or Germany during the 1920s I'd probably have turned out just like the people I'm criticizing. But we also have to have conviction in what is good and what is evil.
An order of magnitude fewer people died in the atomic bombings than did in the conventional land advance into Germany. Japan had a larger population and more mountainous terrain suitable for defense. Japan intended to expend tens of millions of its own people's lives in operation Ketsugō.
Between letting the Empire of Japan continue to exist without reform, a conventional invasion, and the atomic bombings the last option was by far the most humane.
I don't know what you're going with this line of discussion, but this over-emphasis on the atomic bombings are a common talking point among Japanese apologists and nationalists to try and depict Japan as a victim rather than an aggressor. The atomic bombings, combined, claimed fewer lives than several individual conventional strategic bombing campaigns in both Germany and Japan.
Right that's what the US, France, and Britain did with Germany in WWI. And we know how that turned out. Fortunately, the Allied powers did not intend to repeat the mistake of settling for peace without reforming hostile powers into states that would coexist peacefully in the long term.
Your disclaimer doesn't excuse your painful ignorance about the scale of atrocities of the nazi regime. If you are trying to put any kind of moral equivalence between the attack on Hiroshima and the murderous war waged by the nazis you are either a very stupid or a very vile human being.
Yes, we also killed over a million in North Korean fire bombing (and wonder why they despise us). Doesn't make dropping the atomic bomb on cities any less heinous.
Of course one atrocity doesn't justify another. I'm attacking your wavering statements about the moral standing of the two sides in WWII. There is simply no fathomable comparison.
> Israel. Israel has never said that they want to destroy Iran.
Israeli politicians have said enough very questionable statements to fill a book. But everybody sorts of understands them to be targeted at a domestic audience for pandering. Why is Iran supposedly different here?
Meh. He's an old, fragile, religious leader, he can't actually implement it himself.
On a serious note, I think the many Palestinians imprisoned on questionable grounds would disagree with you.
Apart from that, Israel is known to have tested experimental drugs etc. on Palestinians[1] and aims to cripple[2], so as far as inflicting harm, they're quite credible.
Who does decide what defensive and what not? The facts on the ground shows if any country is to be judged, it is US with all wars it began in the past century. I can't believe I'm reading this!!!
> The Iranian nuclear scientist in question was building a nuclear bomb to destroy Israel.
You can't just say that without tons of credible evidence to back it up.
Especially given Iran has no nuclear weapons while Israel does have them and refuses to sign any regulating treaty.
> In the U.S. our nuclear arsenal is a defensive weapon. So, not morally equivalent.
think you forgot the sarcasm tag.
The U.S. is the ONLY country in history to have ever used nuclear weapons offensively.
The Iranians have followed the nuclear deal, the U.S. has pulled out and violated the agreement. If anything, it is the U.S. that has shown itself as the irrational player here.
Additionally, Iran often has not allowed international inspectors access to its nuclear facilities. This is required to audit that Iran is actually following the terms of the deal.
> No country would ever allow inspection of absolutely ALL MILITARY SITES,
Nobody asked for that. They asked for inspection of sites that show radionuclides emissions or specific heat signatures indicative of enrichment. I believe these are detected from satellite and environmental sensors. See:
I am suggesting that Jan 14, 2020 is indeed way past May 2018 when the U.S. pulled out.
The EU was not able to ensure the benefits Iran agreed to the deal under because of secondary U.S. sanctions, so Iran pulled out. They would have no credibility left if they didn't.
I can pull quotes from the articles you're linking too. Here's one from the first one:
> Trump has argued that Iran is violating the agreement struck under President Obama, although he has offered no evidence to support his claim and his administration has twice certified to Congress that Iran is in compliance.
For your second, that is no indication of any violation of the deal.
"Before July 2015, Iran had a large stockpile of enriched uranium and almost 20,000 centrifuges, enough to create eight to 10 bombs, according to the Obama administration.
...
The agency's director-general, Yukiya Amano, said the report concluded that until 2003 Iran had conducted "a co-ordinated effort" on "a range of activities relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device"."
August 30, 2012: The IAEA reports that Iran increased the number of centrifuges installed at the Fordow enrichment plant and is continuing to produce uranium enriched to 20 percent in excess of its needs for the Tehran Research Reactor.
There are numerous indications that Iran did not live up to the deal for many years from credible sources that are NOT American.
But if you want to keep your head in the sand, there's nothing I or anyone else can do to change that. You've got your version of the truth, and I've got mine.
Your ad hominem is irrelevant. The evidence of Iran’s nuclear weapons research is incontrovertible, and the point is that Israel believes it to be an existential threat if Iran obtains nukes.
They believe that because Iran’s leaders specifically call for the destruction of Israel, just taking Iran at its word.
Hardly a leader of Israel, the leader of a political group with 7 seats out of 120 in their equivalent of the House of Representative. The Palestinians say the same thing about Israel, at least in Israel it is the minority viewpoint.
In Iran it’s the Ayatollah saying it on the regular, and they’ve made it basically a national holiday. [1]
> Japan attacked the U.S. at Pearl Harbor. We were defending ourselves against their original attack.
That happened in 41, the bombs were dropped in 45.
Hardly any civilians died at Pearl Harbor, it was a military target. Hundreds of thousands civilians died after U.S. launched the bombs.
This was not a proportional response to Pearl Harbor or any other attack by the Japanese. There was no need for nukes to "defend" yourselves. In fact the U.S. was one of the least impacted countries of WWII among the major powers.
Statements at the time by U.S. officials indicate this was deliberate aggression to show the power of the bomb to the world as not to challenge U.S. dominance.
You're moving the goal posts. Japan attacked the U.S. We were defending ourselves against Japan in WW2. We used the nukes to win that war. So, it was a defensive use of nukes.
Japan proved it would not surrender, so the only option was to nuke them into submission. Otherwise, hundreds of thousands of American soldiers would have died.
The United States is literally the only country ever to have used a nuclear weapon offensively. Nations build nuclear weapons as a defence against invasion and regime change. Democratic or authoritarian, five eyes or 'axis of evil' the motivations are the same. M.A.D doesn't stop applying just because a nation is a theocracy.
I mean I wouldn't be cool with someone assassinating Oppenheimer or any of the team that worked on the U.S. nuke which was clearly meant as an offensive weapon from the very beginning (even though I could sympathize if it was a Japanese time traveler). AFAIK the U.S. is still the only nation on earth to ever use this weapon of mass destruction.
Claiming that the own nuclear arsenal is defensive while the empirical evidence suggests otherwise is a pretty strange notion. If the going gets tough, the U.S. is probably going to use nukes again. Hopefully it won't get that tough. I'm not even sure how you can use a nuke defensively. Kill them all first because they kill us...I guess it could be argued to be defensive technically.
Even if Iran did have nuclear weapons, does anyone honestly believe they would try to destroy Israel with it? I mean Israel not only have nuclear weapons, they are 10/11 th most advanced military in the entire world, with history of single-handedly defeating multiple neighbors combined. This is nothing but shallow rhetoric by Iranian politicians desperate to maintain an unpopular regime.
A far, far more likely scenario is Israeli right-wing hawkish politicians starting a war with Iran in the name of "pre-emptive" strike.
> Energy consumption in Iran is 6.5 times that of global average. It is estimated that 18.5% of electricity generated in Iran is wasted before it reaches consumers due to technical problems. Electric power wastage hit $1.1 billion in 2006.
Interesting (if true/correct) - I guess that they could first fix this if they really want nuclear for the purpose of generating electricity.
If we take Iran’s stated goal of producing electricity at face value, how does solar compare to nuclear? My impression is that the country has near-ideal climate and latitude for solar, so what’s holding them back? Is the terrain unsuitable, or are the sanctions preventing solar technology from being used?
Do they supply the mafia, or a opposition party? Use domestic flights? Offer citizenships/$ to citizens? How do they protect the families of those who help? Where did the pickup truck they blew up come from?
What is the point of assasinating a scientist? I'm sure he was not single handedly doing everything. It seems just an effort to provoke Iran into a conflict with the U.S.
183 comments
[ 0.20 ms ] story [ 287 ms ] threadWikipedia page dedicated for this matter: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Iranian_nucle...
It's mind boggling how the U.S. left the JCPOA, assassinated their top general & still somehow tries to pretend they have the moral high ground.
But these sorts of assassinations are known to be mainly Israeli operations.
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/kennedy-letter-to-ben-g...
Literally, everyone in my family and relatives lives outside of the country (Canada, Sweden, U.S., Dubai, Armenia and etc.) and the sad thing is I don't think I will ever go back.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_diaspora
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_War_(2008%E2%80%932009)
I don't think you can pin that entirely on the transition.
See eg: https://jacobinmag.com/2020/11/joe-biden-administration-cabi...
Trump admin's hawkishness varied wildly over time as various people moved in and out.
The US Presidents do not run the country. They are just as much figureheads as the Queen of England.
The Establishment is who really runs the country. They do not have to answer to any electors, and they never 'go out of office'.
If it's about the difference between Biden and Trump, it would be about the incoming administration being more likely to get involved, not less. Virtually the only thing Trump has done right in office was not finding some excuse to get us involved in military conflict (which I very much expected him to, to cynically whip up patriotism and knee-jerk "unity" to clinch his reelection.) Biden will return us to the conventional U.S. foreign policy of bombing with an easy conscience and wringing our hands with moral anxiety when we think about maybe not bombing.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/02/world/middleeast/qassem-s...
"BBC: Qasem Soleimani: Why his killing is good news for IS jihadists" https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-51021861
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93PJAK_conflict#Uni...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Mujahedin_of_Iran#T...
That's deeply shameful. I wonder why isn’t there a “are we the baddies?” moment in the west…
I don’t think we should be assassinating scientists. But Tehran has been no angel [1]. Which is sad, since their people are one of the more peaceful in the region, judging from the limited polling we have.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_state-sponsored_ter...
Neither have been its main nemesis, the Saudis, Israelis and the U.S.
I find this kind of isolated statement doesn't help to explain anything, but paint the Iranians as irrational. I have 1000 problems with their form of government, but I don't think they are irrational.
One of these is not like the others:
Israel for all its warts has been quite consistent in leaving alone those who doesn't mess with them. Of course it makes competely sense given how they are consistently outnumbered in every way but quality, but still.
They also have a long history of peaceful sharing of civilian technology etc etc.
Technically that's true of the Iranians too. You can't credibly say that Israel or the U.S. hasn't been 'messing with them' for ages, can you?
Iran is suspected to fund and ship rockets that are used against Israel. I won't say it is confirmed but it will be no bif surprise if the rumors are confirmed.
Iran officials often speak about eradicating Israel. The opposite never happens.
Israel is not known to operate any milits in or around Iran, they are not suspected of shipping rockets to Irans neighbors and they are not known to talk enthusiastically about flattening Iran or killing its inhabitants.
I think we can agree that it is a poorly kept secret that they are probably behind a number of assassinations, industrial espionage and possibly sabotage but the difference is still enormous.
Both Israel and the United States extensively fund political parties around the world, some of which have military wings.
> Israel is not known to operate any milits in or around Iran,
There is a long history of Israeli-funded paramilitaries in the region, I know someone who worked in one. They also funded militias in Syria.
> they are not suspected of shipping rockets to Irans neighbors
The US does that for them.
> hey are not known to talk enthusiastically about flattening Iran or killing its inhabitants.
Hamas offered Israel a ceasefire and Netanyahu responded by going on camera and ripping up the offer.
Like armenians?
I agree. OP said the Iranians have been virtuous. My point is nobody is virtuous in these sorts of conflicts.
Washington has the original sin of supporting an authoritarian against the Iranian people. But we have supported bad leaders in lots of places, from Cuba and Korea to Vietnam, that didn’t start menacing their neighbours and sponsoring terrorists.
I'd argue Cuba suffered worse sanctions than Iran and yeah, their government is much more humane than Iran's.
1. Assasination of Jacob Israël de Haan (1924), a Dutch-Jewish diplomat, for attempting to make a peace deal with the Emir of Mecca - his plan was a Palestinian state in a Jordanian federation, the Zionists would drop the Balfour declaration and any claim to a state in exchange for unrestricted immigration. He was assassinated when leaving a synagogue by Avraham Tehomi (who admitted to it much later), on the orders of Yitzhak Ben-Zvi, who later became the 2nd President of Israel
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_Isra%C3%ABl_de_Haan
2. King David Hotel Bombing (1946) where right-wing Zionist terrorists attacked a British HQ located within the hotel killing 91 and injuring 46. The leader of the perpetrators, Manachem Begin became the Prime Minister of Israel in 1977
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel_bombing
3. USS Liberty (1967) where Israel deliberately attacked an American Cargo Vessel killing 34 without any repurcussions: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident
4. Deir Yassin Massacre (1948) where 110 villagers were slaughtered, some members of the perpetrators were at a later time, absorbed into the IDF, one even became PM of Israel
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deir_Yassin_massacre
5. Document [1] from IDF archives (1948) which after translation states:
"In the villages lying between Nahraiya and Tarshiha there are no foreign troops for the time being.The villages are armed and ready for action[2]. Your orders are to occupy, kill the men[3], destroy and burn down the villages of Kabri, Umm al-Faraj and al-Nahr."
[1]https://i.redd.it/e8q5ore6vi231.jpg [2] Ilan Pappe notes that the villagers had no proper arms, only for hunting purposes and people who served in the police; without Arab troops that were absent they stood no chance [2] In April 1948, the Intelligence of the Hagana defined men as anyone above the age of 10
6. Palestinian Exodus "Nakba" (1948) was an expulsion of 700,000 Palestinian Arabs from their Homeland during the war and establishment of Israel in May 1948, these includes testimonies of massacres, rape and looting:
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium.MAGAZINE-how-is...
7. Assassination of Folke Bernadotte, (1948) UN Mediator for Palestinian Refugees by Israel's Zionist Paramilitary Group, Lehi. The killing was approved by the three-man 'center' of Lehi, one of which, after the assassination, became 7th Prime Minister of Israel (Yitzhak Shamir). No one was convicted for the assassination:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folke_Bernadotte#Assassinati...
These are just some of many incidents.
They hang dissidents from cranes in the streets or straight up executing them after torturing a confession out of them.
But, I know that during the Arab spring the Iranian revolutionary guard killed their own people. That removed all of my doubt, the Iranian government is bad. Anyone that would kill their own people are capable of much worse. They had no due process, no investigation, just killing in the streets. It didn't take the opinion of a news anchor for me to reach that conclusion, I saw it with my eyes.
1 - https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20201117/12384545723/gover...
Every country has killed its own people. The United States isn't morally bankrupt for winning the civil war.
Anyway, I want to steer clear of the "which country is more evil?" question because it's so very unlikely to yield productive discourse (we can use enumeration fallacy to support whichever position we like even if we agree on core values).
Having looked quite deeply into this, Iran does not currently have, nor peruses such a program. Meanwhile Israel not only does have a nuclear program, but refuses to sign any treaties regulating it.
> Is that evidence fabricated, and if so how do we know that?
It is generally up to the party offering evidence to prove its authenticity, not the other way around.
1 - https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/netanyahu-s-info-iran-n...
Has it ever occurred to you the Iranians might be interested in such a weapon because Israel already has one?
This is not without precedent. We know for example that Pakistan developed its nukes to deter India when they demonstrated they have nuclear weapons.
> it plausibly deters Iran from advancing (and thus using) its nuclear weapons program
As for Iranian intentions; they’ve been quite clear and consistent that they want to wipe out Israel, and I take them at their word about their motives. It seems unrealistic to me that they want nukes for purely defensive purposes (unrelated to their broader desire to wipe Israel off the map), i.e., they think (absent a nuclear Iran) Israel would without provocation initiate a nuclear attack on Iran. It seems obvious to me that Iran wants nuclear weapons as part of its broader desire to eradicate Israel, albeit probably not to launch nukes at Israel directly but rather to derisk a nuclear counterattack. In either case, a nuclear Iran brings us considerably closer to a violent humanitarian crisis.
the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.
From Iran's perspective this is terrorism. From the US/Israel's that is probably not simply because I believe that there's probably a lawful mechanism for these governments to carry out this sort of action on foreign soil. For them it's "raison d'Etat".
> But some American officials argued that the death of Mr. Fakhrizadeh, the latest in a string of such mysterious killings of Iran’s top nuclear scientists, would send a chilling message to the country’s other top scientists working on that program: If we can get him, we can get you, too.
* Israel isn't subject to Iranian jurisdiction, so it can't be "illegal", at least not meaningfully. In other words, if we don't account for jurisdiction then any international conflict could be considered "terrorism", which doesn't pass a common sense test.
* The Oxford definition stipulates "and intimidation", not "or intimidation". There's no indication that the aggressor's intent was to intimidate (rather, if they wanted to intimidate, they would have attacked the target's family or otherwise not been so surgical).
What kind of logic is that? By then logic is it legal for Russian mercenaries to break into your house?
It's illegal in the same way 9/11 was illegal - purposefully targetting civillians is a breach of international law, and, of laws and customs of war. It is not onyl about laws of the host country where attack happens.
The argument that he was warking on a military project could apply if there was an official declaration of war, but that isn't the case.
It's always a question of perspective.
Regarding your second point, there is obviously a part of intimidation in doing something like that. It's even mentioned explicitly off the record in the article:
"But some American officials argued that the death of Mr. Fakhrizadeh, the latest in a string of such mysterious killings of Iran’s top nuclear scientists, would send a chilling message to the country’s other top scientists working on that program: If we can get him, we can get you, too."
'Terrorism' is a term always used against others, the bad guys. We are the good guys we never do that. Some people have bought this line so much that it's difficult to accept that everyone does terrorism to a varying degree, at least certainly from the perspective of those on the receiving end.
The nature of sovereignty is that sovereign jurisdiction has only those territorial limits that the sovereign chooses; extraterritorial jurisdiction in law is common as is it's practical exercise.
More to the point, Israeli agents acting on Iranian territory are subject to Iranian jurisdiction without extraterritorial jurisdiction entering the picture.
> any international conflict could be considered "terrorism"
The proper crime is “aggression”, and, yes, almost every international conflict involves that on at least one side. (You can construct artificial scenarios where there is a plausible argument that both sides are exercising legitimate response to an apparent imminent threat, but they don't tend to arise in reality.)
There are plenty of assumptions here tho. Because I am not sure such an act "can save lifes", or in fact, it keeps reinforcing the hegemony of US, IL and SA in killing systematically and waging wars in the region... My point is: is murdering a top scientist/politician useful to save "tens or hundreds of thousands of lives" or is this facilitating the killing "tens or hundreds of thousands of lives" in Palestine, Yemen, Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq and destabilizing the region?
I'm also assuming that the US, IL, and SA are pretty interested in regional stability if only because stability favors their own interests.
You have a few implicit assumptions of your own:
1. Keeping Iran in check "destabalizes the region" (and the corollary, that Iran's objective is stability in the region)
How can you believe this in light of Iran's pretty explicit intent to wipe out Israel? Are Iranian officials merely posturing benignly?
2. The US, IL, SA objective is "systematically killing tens or hundreds of thousands of lives and waging wars in the region" (and not to stabilize the region)
Of course, these countries aren't "systematically killing" anyone. You can criticize them for their actions, but they haven't been "systematically killing" anybody, nor expressed interest in the same.
3. There is a dichotomy between Iran killing tens or hundreds of thousands and the US/IL/SA killing tens or hundreds of thousands (i.e., if we prevent Iran from killing tens or hundreds of thousands then we implicitly allow its adversaries to kill tens or hundreds of thousands)
Of course, there is no such dichotomy. Thwarting Iran's nuclear program and stabilizing the region are two sides of the same coin.
A completely stable and peaceful region is very much NOT in the interest of Israeli right-wing politicians (currently in power) hell-bent on expanding illegal settlements. Israel is the only modern nation in the world without a fixed border. This can only be maintained by denying Palestine statehood, and the only moral way to do that is by selling this image of "our savage, uncivilized neighbors will destroy us if we grant them statehood. We're in an extraordinary circumstance, so that's why we're taking the extraordinary measure of denying millions of people their human rights for 70 years."
Btw, 2014 Gaza war killed 5 Israeli civilians vs around 1500 Palestinian civilians (UN). It amazes me how Israel still manages to play the victim card in the western world.
Of course there were fewer Israeli casualties. Israel took the fight to Hamas for the express purpose of protecting Israeli lives. Safeguarding their own citizenry is the primary objective of any nation’s military, and Israel did that by fighting Hamas on their home turf (as opposed to inviting Hamas to fight inside Israel).
I guess it was an honest mistake on your part, though there are too many people out there with "all Palestinian are terrorist" belief.
Are we talking about the same Iran?
Because the Iran I know funds Hezbollah. It's not a well kept secret either.
> while the US and its allies (Israel and Saudi Arabia) have been waging constant war. (Israel vs. Palestine and Jordan / Saudi Arabia against Yemen).
Are we talking about the same Israel?
Because for all their warts the Israelis are extremely restrictive and has been for a couple of decades even in the face of constant missile attacks, tunnel digging etc etc.
Even before that they have given away massive areas for peace agreements - and kept their part of the deal.
I agree Palestinians are in a rough spot, but lets not forget an almost equal amount of Israelis/Jews were chased from their homes at the same time, and lets not forget that Israeli officials tried to get the locals to stay (because they were afraid to get carpet bombed if they were alone, but still.)
Have you ever considered researching what Hezbollah is and is not? Or its origin and history?
> Are we talking about the same Israel?
It seems we are not! I think searching "occupied territory of Palestine" would shed some light on what we are talking about.
I feel extremely sorry for the poor Palestinian people but I place the blame mostly where I think it fairly and squarely belongs: on the thoroughly botched UN.
Also note that just because media keep repeating the Palestinian myth doesn't mean it is true. The has never been a Palestinian country before 1948 when Israel was created.
It was always part of Syria, Iraq, Egypt or something else.
There were people who lived in a place and they were kicked out of their homes by the UN mandate.
I don't think whether Palestine had been incorporated into the Western westphalian system is really relevant to the moral claims at hand.
In the same way as Jews were kicked out of their homes all the way to Iraq. The difference being that Israel took care of the Jews while the Arabs used their Palestinian brothers as pawns in an international chess game.
> I don't think whether Palestine had been incorporated into the Western westphalian system is really relevant to the moral claims at hand.
Good point. I've already pointed out my opinion about UN above and it seems we aren't too far apart on certain points.
> It was always part of Syria, Iraq, Egypt or something else.
Syria (1946) and Iraq (1933) were also never distinct sovereign countries until decolonialization of British and French Mandatory territories in the 20th Century, either, and neither ever included Palestine.
I don't get the point here. Whether it was named Palestinian or not, it doesn't change the fact that Israel occupied those territories! We are talking about land, not names.
Well, in those books that you read, was it mentioned why Hezbollah was created and what it is doing now? Would you say they are terrorists but Israeli government is not? And what would you say if someone acts directly in a terror operation or via proxies? Does it matter?
The point is that kind of like in Pakistan/India UN decided to split the area in two ethnic areas.
In the middle east 70% was given to the Arabs and 30% to the Jews.
(Well kept secret: While the international community keep asking for a state for the Palestinian people it has existed since the start. It is called Jordan and was created on 70% of the land that was considered for the Jewish national home.)
Again: I'm not here to defend UNs actions, only (parts of) what Israel has done afterwards.
> Would you say they are terrorists but Israeli government is not?
That is absolutely my opinion yes.
The Israeli government is a democratic government. Hezbollah was a terrorist organization last I heard.
(Actually I looked it up right now. Here is what Wikimedia says:
> Either the entire organization or just its military wing has been designated a terrorist organization by at least 21 countries, by the European Union and since 2017 by most member states of the Arab League, with the exception of Iraq and Lebanon, where Hezbollah is the most powerful political party.)
Ok, I needed to hear those! So the books didn't teach you much.
>I do not know whether a foreign government authorized or carried out the the murder of Fakhrizadeh. Such an act of state-sponsored terrorism would be a flagrant violation of international law & encourage more governments to carry out lethal attacks against foreign officials.
https://twitter.com/JohnBrennan/status/1332400793559949312?s...
Your beloved democracy can be terrorist too. We have good reasons to believe Israel was behind the attack. Even if not in this case, there are a dozen more.
1- https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2020-11-11/un-age...
2- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Persian_Gulf_crisis
3- https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/oct/21/russia-iran-...
I'm not sure how much credence to put in these ideas, but given Trump is still attempting a coup, some say that given his legal strategy is failing, he might try to start a military situation with Iran to create a crisis and make him a wartime president.
Trump has been a sore loser in this election, but to my knowledge he's only pursued legal avenues to overturn the election results. He also stated that he would leave office if the electoral college voted him out, even if he won't acknowledge that he lost the election. This is bad, tasteless behavior, but not a coup in any sense of the term.
This is pretty sketchy stuff and is very much in line with a coup. While not necessarily "troops in the street" coup it's very important not to underplay this.
He's using as much soft power as possible to undermine the results of the election and to influence it in his favor.
What makes you say that? I would think Israel intelligence often operates independently from the U.S.
https://thehill.com/policy/international/527724-iranian-scie...
If you believe that majority (just become more people are influenced through media with the same view as yours) can force a political view onto a minority, then I think we need a more serious talk on whether or not you might find a better life in China or Iran.
I am serious here. Do not think I intend to mock you. Rule by majority is not what I approve for myself to live in US.
Both sides thought what they were doing was right and there is always a way to justify the means.
Disclaimer: I am from a country which was neutral during the WW2.
Edit: Here is the thing, I do not want this to become a "Who is the most evil?" thread, so I will not be responding except for this edit (I suggest everyone to do the same).
The point of this comment was that, public perspective is something that can easily be manipulated. The phrase "History is written by the victors." means exactly that. I just wanted to mention that Germany would use the example I gave to justify their actions "Wow they are evil. see what they did?". One should always be mindful where they are standing and check if they are being manipulated or not.
If this comment starts a flame war, dang, please feel free to delete the whole thread.
I get that it's important to see history from multiple points of view, but this idea that "Both sides thought what they were doing was right and there is always a way to justify the means" is just unabashed moral relativism.
There's value to be had in honestly recognizing that if I was born in Japan or Germany during the 1920s I'd probably have turned out just like the people I'm criticizing. But we also have to have conviction in what is good and what is evil.
The holocaust was bad, but it's going to be a hard stretch to justify what we did in Japan because of the depravity of their soldiers in China.
I have a conviction that that was an evil, evil, evil thing to do.
Between letting the Empire of Japan continue to exist without reform, a conventional invasion, and the atomic bombings the last option was by far the most humane.
I don't know what you're going with this line of discussion, but this over-emphasis on the atomic bombings are a common talking point among Japanese apologists and nationalists to try and depict Japan as a victim rather than an aggressor. The atomic bombings, combined, claimed fewer lives than several individual conventional strategic bombing campaigns in both Germany and Japan.
Intended to expend tens of millions of its people's lives if the United States tried to take and occupy Japan.
Most wars don't end with the other country being occupied or its government being overthrown.
I thought that is precisely how most wars end.
Well I don't know what to tell you, it usually isn't.
Israel already has a nuclear bomb that could be used to destroy Iran, though.
>So, not morally equivalent.
Are you implying that Iran's leaders are suicidal fanatics?
I'm not sure whether Iran's leaders are suicidal fanatics, but they're definitely fanatics.
Israeli politicians have said enough very questionable statements to fill a book. But everybody sorts of understands them to be targeted at a domestic audience for pandering. Why is Iran supposedly different here?
https://www.dailysabah.com/mideast/2014/07/14/mothers-of-all...
This is Iran's LEADER:
https://apnews.com/article/a033042303545d9ef783a95222d51b83
On a serious note, I think the many Palestinians imprisoned on questionable grounds would disagree with you.
Apart from that, Israel is known to have tested experimental drugs etc. on Palestinians[1] and aims to cripple[2], so as far as inflicting harm, they're quite credible.
1 - https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20190220-israel-pharmaceut...
2 - https://apnews.com/article/6035b1d3293c4a298145afbff50ab844
https://www.washingtonpost.com/gdpr-consent/?next_url=https%...
P.S. I wanted a non-paywalled article.
Well, I think all reasonable minds see that the intent of the US is to stay as the world's power and it is a bad intent to have a nuclear weapon for!
You can't just say that without tons of credible evidence to back it up.
Especially given Iran has no nuclear weapons while Israel does have them and refuses to sign any regulating treaty.
> In the U.S. our nuclear arsenal is a defensive weapon. So, not morally equivalent.
think you forgot the sarcasm tag. The U.S. is the ONLY country in history to have ever used nuclear weapons offensively.
The Iranians have followed the nuclear deal, the U.S. has pulled out and violated the agreement. If anything, it is the U.S. that has shown itself as the irrational player here.
What are you talking about?
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-nuclear/britain-fran...
Additionally, Iran often has not allowed international inspectors access to its nuclear facilities. This is required to audit that Iran is actually following the terms of the deal.
That’s why America pulled out of the deal.
There is no deal if the signatories pull out. Prior to America pulling out, international inspectors were allowed access.
“ Iran says military sites are off-limits for nuclear inspections despite U.S. pressure”
https://www.latimes.com/world/asia/la-fg-iran-nuclear-201708...
American withdrew from the deal in May 2018 because Iran would not allow independent auditors to inspect all known or suspected sites.
See also this from 2015:
“The Iranian Nuclear-Inspection Charade Iran is allowed ample time, up to 24 days, to hide or destroy evidence before inspectors are given access.”
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-iranian-nuclear-inspection-...
There were other instances going back to 2005.
The UN atomic watchdog certified the Iranians were following the deal until sometime after the U.S. pulled out.
Nobody asked for that. They asked for inspection of sites that show radionuclides emissions or specific heat signatures indicative of enrichment. I believe these are detected from satellite and environmental sensors. See:
https://news.mit.edu/2018/explained-detecting-threat-nuclear...
Update: Yes, this can be detected from satellite imagery:
http://www.princeton.edu/~aglaser/IT009-Glaser-2010-iGSE-New...
> The UN atomic watchdog certified the Iranians were following the deal until sometime after the U.S. pulled out.
Source?
The U.S. has claimed that. The UN watchdog says they followed the deal. I trust them over the U.S. for sure.
> American withdrew from the deal in May 2018
And yet, the Iranians STILL followed the deal for quite a bit longer.
> Source?
https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2019-04/news/iaea-says-iran-...
Indeed, I would, too. But it’s not just the US. It’s Britain, France, and Germany:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-nuclear/britain-fran...
Are you suggesting that all 4 countries are colluding together on this?
The EU was not able to ensure the benefits Iran agreed to the deal under because of secondary U.S. sanctions, so Iran pulled out. They would have no credibility left if they didn't.
Indeed, I would, too. But it’s not just the US. It’s Britain, France, and Germany:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-nuclear/britain-fran...
(Jan 14, 2020)
Are you suggesting that all 4 countries are colluding together on this?
Yeah, exactly. This is way past the U.S. pullout from the deal. You're proving my point.
> Trump has argued that Iran is violating the agreement struck under President Obama, although he has offered no evidence to support his claim and his administration has twice certified to Congress that Iran is in compliance.
For your second, that is no indication of any violation of the deal.
From the BBC:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-33521655
"Before July 2015, Iran had a large stockpile of enriched uranium and almost 20,000 centrifuges, enough to create eight to 10 bombs, according to the Obama administration. ...
The agency's director-general, Yukiya Amano, said the report concluded that until 2003 Iran had conducted "a co-ordinated effort" on "a range of activities relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device"."
August 30, 2012: The IAEA reports that Iran increased the number of centrifuges installed at the Fordow enrichment plant and is continuing to produce uranium enriched to 20 percent in excess of its needs for the Tehran Research Reactor.
There are numerous indications that Iran did not live up to the deal for many years from credible sources that are NOT American.
But if you want to keep your head in the sand, there's nothing I or anyone else can do to change that. You've got your version of the truth, and I've got mine.
> Until 2003 ...
> August 30, 2012 ....
> There are numerous indications that Iran did not live up to the deal for many years from credible sources that are NOT American.
The Iran deal was signed in July 2015, so unclear how they were "not living up to the deal" prior to being a signatory.
I am not the one with their head in the sand here, have a good day.
In one of those presentations Netanyahu specifically called out Fakhrizadeh saying, “Remember that name.”
They believe that because Iran’s leaders specifically call for the destruction of Israel, just taking Iran at its word.
There's no evidence Iran has pursued anything since entering the agreement, the Israeli intel is rehashed old news[1].
> They believe that because Iran’s leaders specifically call for the destruction of Israel, just taking Iran at its word.
Israeli leaders call out for the destruction of Palestine and its people, should we take them at their word?[2][3].
1 - https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/netanyahu-s-info-iran-n...
2 - https://www.dailysabah.com/mideast/2014/07/14/mothers-of-all...
3 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposed_Israeli_annexation_of...
In Iran it’s the Ayatollah saying it on the regular, and they’ve made it basically a national holiday. [1]
[1] - https://apnews.com/article/a033042303545d9ef783a95222d51b83
Or, you know, the minister of justice.
No, we used 2 nuclear weapons against Japan. Japan attacked the U.S. at Pearl Harbor. We were defending ourselves against their original attack.
That happened in 41, the bombs were dropped in 45.
Hardly any civilians died at Pearl Harbor, it was a military target. Hundreds of thousands civilians died after U.S. launched the bombs.
This was not a proportional response to Pearl Harbor or any other attack by the Japanese. There was no need for nukes to "defend" yourselves. In fact the U.S. was one of the least impacted countries of WWII among the major powers.
Statements at the time by U.S. officials indicate this was deliberate aggression to show the power of the bomb to the world as not to challenge U.S. dominance.
Japan proved it would not surrender, so the only option was to nuke them into submission. Otherwise, hundreds of thousands of American soldiers would have died.
The US is the only country that has deployed nuclear weapons - and additionally have modern, adjustible-yeild tactical nukes. How is it "defensive"?
Claiming that the own nuclear arsenal is defensive while the empirical evidence suggests otherwise is a pretty strange notion. If the going gets tough, the U.S. is probably going to use nukes again. Hopefully it won't get that tough. I'm not even sure how you can use a nuke defensively. Kill them all first because they kill us...I guess it could be argued to be defensive technically.
You can argue that Iran is not trustworthy, or that it's proliferation, but the way you put it, it's pure hypocracy.
A far, far more likely scenario is Israeli right-wing hawkish politicians starting a war with Iran in the name of "pre-emptive" strike.
> Energy consumption in Iran is 6.5 times that of global average. It is estimated that 18.5% of electricity generated in Iran is wasted before it reaches consumers due to technical problems. Electric power wastage hit $1.1 billion in 2006.
Interesting (if true/correct) - I guess that they could first fix this if they really want nuclear for the purpose of generating electricity.
I think the claim is they need enriched uranium for medical purposes, not producing electricity.
Similarly -
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/13/world/middleeast/al-masri...
Do they supply the mafia, or a opposition party? Use domestic flights? Offer citizenships/$ to citizens? How do they protect the families of those who help? Where did the pickup truck they blew up come from?
Like there’s no chance Iran or specific scientists could actually planning any evil.