ISRAEL - IRAN - SYRIA - HAMAS - HEZBOLLAH - WWWIII?

The issue here is that the pattern of actions being taken by the Iranian government fundamentally contradict the rather defensive rhetoric with which it has clouded and rationalized its activities.

While there are profound and long-standing political divides within Iran, the government there is in the hands of religious zealots who see the current age as one of conflict between a resurgent Islam and a decadent modern world.

This is a complex but critical overlay of important issues ranging from the confrontation certain quarters within the Islamic world seek with the West; to the massive transfers of wealth involved in the petroleum market; the inherent complexities of the Middle East with its ghastly relics of failed European Imperialist policies throughout the 20th century (augmented by American attempts toi sustain some of them during the Cold war); and the evolving new strategic situation vis a vis Russia and China. No simple answers here, and most of the "conventional wisdom" of self appointed political commentators with respect to Iraq and out strategy generally is woefully superficial and lacking in a comprehension of the complexities involved.

McTag wrote:

I think Israel will attempt to take out the Iranian nuclear bases/ manufacturing capability, and I for one would not condemn them if they do: for reasons outlined by Foxy.

But if they do, and even if they are 100% successful, I'm not sure what they will have achieved in the long term- buying some time probably is all they could hope for. As George said, there are no easy answers, and no attractive options. The best outcome would be a change of heart by the Iranian religious leaders, but there seems to be no chance of that happening, and depressingly, martyrdom for their combatants seems to be accepted with equanimity.

I just HATE it when you are reasonable and force me to appreciate your perspective on something.

You are correct that there are no attractive options at this point. I was watching an analysis on TV tonight including Robert Gates and others. Here's what we have:

1. Israel cannot afford to allow Iran to have nuclear weapons along with a delivery system that can launch those against Israel.

2. Iran and Syria have armed Hezbollah with tens of thousands of rockets that will undoubtedly be launched against Israel at such time as Israel makes any kind of aggressive move against Iran. This of course has occurred right under the nose of the UN peacekeepers.

3. The UN as usual is toothless and will not do anything to either intervene or diffuse the situation.

4. And the U.S.A. has a defense pact with Israel that could be forced if there is an active attack on Israel.

5. And Russia, who for a long time has had political and emotional ties to Iran, may have to consider what to do should Iran be attacked by anybody other than Israel.

The best we can hope for is that the Iranian leaders are not of the martyr type and will decide a death wish is not in their best interest even if Israel does take out their nuclear capability.

I was watching "So You Think You Can Dance" tonight and, following an especially entertaining Indian cultural dance routine, it was said how wonderful it would be if nations would engage in cultural exchanges of dance instead of what they now do.

I agree with that wholeheartedly.

That was the component I forgot to put on my scenario list. Iran has suggested that if it is pushed it would close down the Straight of Hormuz and thus cut off oil supply to a great deal of Europe et al as well as that imported by the USA. This would be viewed as an Act of War. Not sure if we are maintaining a presence for that reason specifically or just to be prepared to defend Israel if necessary or as a part of the UN sanctions against Iran.

Foxfyre wrote:

That was the component I forgot to put on my scenario list. Iran has suggested that if it is pushed it would close down the Straight of Hormuz and thus cut off oil supply to a great deal of Europe et al as well as that imported by the USA. This would be viewed as an Act of War. Not sure if we are maintaining a presence for that reason specifically or just to be prepared to defend Israel if necessary or as a part of the UN sanctions against Iran.

Iran doesnt have the military power to close the straits of Hormuz.
It is international waters, and any attempt to close them would and should be considered an act of war.
The USN has the firepower to reach any part of Iran, if it becomes necessary.

At most, Iran could make it interesting for a short time, but only until the US Navy decided to force the issue.

As I said, it was nice to have a pleasant discussion if for even just a moment. I should have included reasonable.

Foxfyre wrote:

As I said, it was nice to have a pleasant discussion if for even just a moment. I should have included reasonable.

What did I do? I repeated your words, that's all.

It seems things are only "pleasant" when folks agree with you.

The Times (London) newspaper today (although right-wing) has some unpleasant or un-Foxy articles today. I'll get one for you.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article4312737.ece