This article is a joke, it claims that expansion of normalization between Israel and Saudi Arabia is threatened by strikes against Iran by Israel. But the basis of the Israel-Saudi agreement is anti-Iranian. The Saudis would love Israel for attacking Iran more aggressively, effectively doing their dirty work.
They both have a very strongly vested interest (as does the rest of the world) in not seeing a nuclear Iran. I remember seeing somewhere that Saudi Arabia has also started their own nuclear program, or at least is looking into it.
They have basically said if Iran gets them they will get them too. This is the whole reason why you don’t want nuclear proliferation, it will be terrible if Iran gets them because so many other countries will also get them. The more countries that have them the more chance for both accidents and terrorism. It’s a small miracle one hasn’t gone off so far given some of the countries that have them!
Most likely the Saudis will just either outright buy nukes from Pakistan or purchase Pakistani expertise in building their own nuclear weapons program.
It's widely believed there is an existing agreement that makes this possible.
From 2013[1]:
> Earlier this year, a senior Nato decision maker told me that he had seen intelligence reporting that nuclear weapons made in Pakistan on behalf of Saudi Arabia are now sitting ready for delivery.
> Last month Amos Yadlin, a former head of Israeli military intelligence, told a conference in Sweden that if Iran got the bomb, "the Saudis will not wait one month. They already paid for the bomb, they will go to Pakistan and bring what they need to bring."
Saudi Arabia funded the Pakistan nuclear program back in the 1970s[2].
[2] https://www.arabnews.com/node/2069831 "This was the time when Saudi Arabia opened its doors to Pakistani workers and provided financial aid to the Bhutto regime in order to thwart India’s nuclear ambitions."
This undersells the nuanced point that the article is making.
It's true that the Saudi's want Israeli attacks on Iran to continue. But the article points out (to quote): "Israel’s new leadership is the most extreme right-wing government in its history and has already taken steps that have increased violence between the Israelis and the Palestinians, which puts Arab leaders who have embraced normalization in a difficult position given the widespread popular opposition to Israeli policies."
Israel's policy towards Palestinians is already problematic for other Arab states interested in normalizing relations. Overt strikes on another Muslim country like Iran - even one that is broadly an enemy - doesn't breed popular support.
The politics here are very complex and the article does a pretty good job explaining them. It's very far from "a joke" since there are many more trade offs here than simply "oh the Saudi's don't like Iran either".
> Is wanting an Israel state gone different than wanting the Israeli inhabitants gone?
Not really imo no.
I'm not necessarily saying Iran wants to kill every last Israeli but the "solution" they are planning for the region is definitely a violent one. Why else would they invest so much in Hezbollah/Hamas etc.
On 8 January 2020, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (of Iran) shot down an American-manufactured plane flown by the flag carrier of Ukraine, carrying a bunch of Iranian Canadians (dual citizens).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine_International_Airlines...
Sure, if this continues, both sides should be concerned.
I just wanted to point out that I don't believe that one side is the lone aggressor and the other side is completely innocent.
Secondly, saying "Israel's leadership" said they want to drown Palestinians is a pretty ridiculous claim. Who said it exactly? When? Are they currently Israel's leadership?
Cause Israel is a democracy with many officials. Without something more specific, even if this is a real thing, it's like pointing to US congresspeople from the 1950s saying "segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever" and using that to "prove" that Obama is actually racist.
Whereas Iranian leadership is a dictatorship and the same people claiming they would like to kill all Israelis are the people in power now.
I want to be clear that I'm not defending Lieberman, I hate him and think statements like his are horrible.
That said, you're leaving out context that make clear this is different.
Maybe the biggest difference is - he didn't suggest drowning all Palestinians, unlike the statements calling to "eradicate Israel". He specifically said it's better to drown Palestinian prisoners in the sea rather than release them (as part of a security deal, I believe.) (Which is still a despicable thing to say, don't get me wrong, but a very different thing nonetheless)
Also, the headline from the article that talks about this statement is "Lieberman Blasted for Suggesting Drowning Palestinian Prisoners". His sentiment is far too widespread, but statements like those are still not palatable. (Though to be fair, the situation today is probably worse.)
> And there are debates about the state of Israels democracy
Yeah things are not looking super rosy, but so far everything is speculation. There were also worries about the US's democracy, worries about a potential constitutional crisis, etc. I think it's safe to still call the US a democracy.
The USA once grouped Iran in the "Axis of Evil," including North Korea and Iraq. And then Iraq got invaded based on made-up evidences, its leader was executed, and nobody in the US faced any legal consequences for those made-up evidences.
I'm just saying, if "the other country made threatening remarks" is a basis for justifying things, then it will justify a whole lot of things, including stuff Israel would not appreciate at all.
I expect them to invest everything they have in trying to destroy Israel, support militias in the middle east and also very brutally kill/imprison any Iranian citizen who doesn't want to live under their religious theocracy /s
Not sure how some originality changes the sentiment. I don't think it's relevant in the slightest.
> Not a credible threat by a head of state.
I don't think you have looked up what credible means. National leadership is credible. That's the nature of the role. Political posturing are tactics of leadership as well, but that doesn't make the sentiments less credible. Opportunity often changes a feint into an actual assault, in conflicts.
I think we're talking about the fact that much of the Iranian leadership would press a button that made Israel magically disappear without additional consequence, if they could...following that, what would they be willing to sacrifice to do it?
If you don't think there is any possibility that Iran would want Israel gone, that's fine. At least come out and say it.
> That shows credible intent, not a credible threat.
There is motive.
There is opportunity.
The lacking element is means.
There are a large number of conditions (access to nuclear ordinace, among others) wherein means is achieved. Threat is not simply about what means exist now, but the conditions and consequences of change. The world conditions ensure it's a credible threat and countries take it seriously, despite your misgivings.
Apparent capability is an important component of threat credibility under practically every military doctrine.
The more fundamental question is: does this represent a policy stance or domestic messaging point? One can reasonably disagree on the answer. But the quotes I've been shown sound more like bluster than actual threats. For evidence of Iran's belligerence, these statements are relatively par for the course. (Their extraterritorial meddling makes a stronger pitch for credible intent and threat.)
"will witness the day when the fabricated Zionist regime will be eradicated", posted by the head of state of a country that is pursuing nuclear weapons.
All I said in my original comment was that it's not an overreaction to at least consider the possibility that they might mean what they say. Is it so obvious to you that there's literally nothing to worry about?
> not an overreaction to at least consider the possibility that they might mean what they say
100%, and obviously Iran is an adversary of Israel's.
But expressing hope that your adversary falls (and wishing ill on their people) and directly threatening them are distinct. Given the heat of this discussion, I think that's a fair delineation to make.
> By God’s grace, the Palestinian nation will certainly gain victory over the enemies and will witness the day when the fabricated Zionist regime will be eradicated.
Is it not a credible threat because they don't have means? 'Cause I'm not sure what you might mean otherwise.
>but according to this fact check by WP this isn't true
You posted a link from 2011 about Ahmedinejad being mistranslated but there are plenty of other times the Iranian authorities have called for the destruction of Israel.
What?! This is nonsense! My mother tounge is Persian and I have lost count how many time I have heard this in TV, public places, etc.
Oh boi, I have a treat for you.
There are billboards in famous public squares or places in Iran which even have countdown until destruction of Israel! Here is one from a semi-official news agency that has ties with IRGC! The article is from a few years ago, but you can still find these billboards throughout the cities!
Title of the news article: "Countdown of destruction of Zionist regime in Palestine"
On the billboard: "Remaining until destruction of Israel"
The Iranian government is very open about its goal to destroy Israel. However they also make sure to point out that "destroying Israel" does not mean "kill all Jews".
A bit surprising that they don't mention Israel's ongoing assassination campaign targeting Iranian nuclear scientists, which is another component of this "shadow war".
Everything depends on the final result of the Russian invasion on Ukraine. If Russia will manage to enforce peace agreement, something like Minsk deals, that, effectively, would let them keep part of Ukraine and go away with sanctions then whole post 2WW collective security system will be smashed.
Everybody will see that you can invade a weaker country, for whatever made up reason, and nothing happens. Everybody will try to posses nuclear weapon, as this is the only effective way of scaring potential enemies.
A lot of local conflicts will start. Turkey against Greece. Azerbaijan against Armenia.
Hungary might try to bring back their old territories, lost because of Treaty of Trianon (that's why I am so surprised Northern Hungary, sorry, I meant Slovakia, is not so eager to help Ukraine and a lot of people are pro-Russian).
Belarus will become part of Russia soon, Kazakhstan will follow, hybrid war against Baltic States will began ("defending" Russian minority, etc.).
If Russia will be forced to leave Ukraine and pay contribution we will be back in the World we peacefully lived since 1989, if not, well, interesting times ahead.
USA understands this that's why it helps Ukraine, US domination, control over trade, dollar as an only mean to pay for oil, hence, reserve currency for all countries, will be questioned immediately. Asia is looking on Ukraine right now since maybe, maybe it will be time to change patron.
Western Europe understands this too, but they dream about "multi-polar world" with Western Europe becoming one of the key players. The crux is you cannot be a key player if you have barely 800 tanks altogether, with an unknown number of those who are not even able to move out of garage (Spain).
Multipolar world will not be a nice place to be, it will be a brutal place with competing forces among which Western Europe will need to fight for its position. And this will not be easy.
Until new superpower will arise, if this will be China with its mixture of communism and technological control over societies then, we will really miss USA as a hegemony.
>Everybody will see that you can invade a weaker country, for whatever made up reason, and nothing happens.
I think that most people who make foreign policy decisions in countries around the world already knew that if you are strong enough, you can invade a weaker country, for whatever reason, and nothing happens. This is just plain common sense and has been discussed going back to Thucydides' Melian Dialogue or earlier. And if anyone somehow did not realize that the strong can get away with invading the weak, they should have realized it in 2003 when the US invaded Iraq.
Interestingly neither do the radical parts of the Democratic party. Iran just walks the walk as well. It is interesting to me to see an ideological alliance between a radical Muslim movement and a radical left wing movement, I think Israel's "disappearance" is the only thing they agree on.
De-escalation requires willingness. It's convenient for both Israel and Iran to escalate considering they both have hardline governments and growing opposition.
> no de-escalation mechanism? Maybe through the UN?
Possibly. Israel and Iran have friends in Moscow, so the usual Sinorussian veto party could be sidestepped. But this would require Russia extending its nuclear umbrella over Iran. That, in turn, gives Putin a say in Iran's extensive extra-territorial meddling. Tehran may figure they can get their own nukes out of Russia for a cheaper price.
Tellingly, America has only extended strategic ambiguity to Israel, the same as we give Taiwan, not a red-lined nuclear umbrella like we do to NATO or Japan. This doesn't seem like a problem great powers care to resolve.
You obviously don't know much about them, they would completely agree with the religious war against Israel being a core tenant. If WW2 teaches one thing, is that we shouldn't believe what is soothing, but what we see.
And why are you acting as if Israel is some kind of peaceful country?
Its an illegal apartheid occupation, and its not only Iran that's against it, ask almost any Muslim about the occupation and figure out if its an Iran thing for yourself.
The criticism was about the need for a military strike.
When the narrative is that violence against you is a joke, it's easy to want to do anti-social/unambiguously bad things to protect yourself. [1]
But anyway, you're not supposed to post things like (nationalistic calls to violence) that on HN - I'd probably delete it while you still have the chance.
I would post the same during the appeasement of Hitler, particularly following the anschluss, which obviously was a grave mistake. The "pragmatic" west has a habit of believing others are as peaceful as it is, later waking up to a horrible reality. Same thing will happen with Iran if we don't wake up now.
1967 saved us big time. Also we preemptively destroyed Saddam's and Assad's nuclear weapon reactors, someone thinks that was a mistake? a nuclear sadam?
Interesting not to also link Operation Scorched Sword.
But saved whom from what? The US still invaded Iraq to the loss of 100's of thousands of lives. Israel has been subject to low-level war with its neighbor states for a half century.
I'm failing to see how any of this violence led to good outcomes.
It's a tell of a weak argument to not answer questions directly and instead fear-monger with 'what-ifs.'
To answer your question, a nuclear weapon is an extremely complex system with an international supply chain and I think there are plenty of ways to keep states non-nuclear that aren't direct acts of war.
Now to play Devil's Advocate:
What if Iran strikes Israel's suspected nuclear sites? Would that be justifiable to you?
Because to your very point, there are plenty of people in Iran who see a nuclear Israel to be just as catastrophic as you see a nuclear Syria.
(Again, this is why this content shouldn't be posted to HN per the rules, because now what? We are going to argue about whether or not Iran is an inherently evil state?)
I guess you never were in Iran and spoke to some people from that country?
Throwing bombs at people won't help much, and regarding the complex history of both countries I can't say who's right there with having prejudices, but I think you have really big unhealthy ones...
As far as I know, nothing about Iran's foreign policy decisions in the last 43 years shows that Iran's government makes foreign policy decisions in a less pragmatic way than the average country. If Iran got nukes, they would almost certainly just use them for deterrence purposes like all other countries have since 1945. Even if they didn't, though, I have no desire to definitely go kill Iranians now just to prevent some hypothetical future deaths of Israelis. If it was up to me I would cut off all US support of Israel tomorrow and let them figure out their own issues. If you personally want to go fight against Iran, there is nothing stopping you. I would rather not get dragged in to it, though, and I would not want my tax money as a US tax payer to go to murdering Iranians for the sake of soothing your bloodlust and/or your fears.
The Amnesty report does not accuse Israel of genocide.
That's a very specific accusation under international law. The Amnesty report makes a credible case that it is an apartheid system and illegal under international law but they clearly do not find evidence of genocide.
They're referring to the Saudis attacking Yemen. At present, on the global stage, Israel/Palestine is not considered two states but rather a single apartheid state.
> Certain civilizations are really only able to comprehend a pile of corpses as a reason to stop doing something.
How does one come to that conclusion? That is super extreme, dehumanizing and jingoistic. You are advocating mass death and saying that this civilization deserves it as they understand nothing else.
I guess that is why you are doing with a throwaway.
It's horrible, but also true. Germany had to be beaten to complete submission, fighting to the last inch until Berlin itself fell. Just recently, ISIS was huge, controlling vast oil reserves. The middle east is problematic to say the least and IRI fanaticism is in the hitler-isis category. The west has built a nice cocoon but this is the world in which we live.
It's also important to note that even though the west basically caused all these issues in the middle east, that doesn't absolve the countries and people of things they have done of their own accord. I can understand some middle eastern countries saying Israel shouldn't be there, since it was placed their by western fiat basically, but that is not a justification for wanting to nuke them.
Iran isn't about to nuke Israel, rather looking for a MAD outcome. Instead Israel prefers to have freedom of action and avoid a MAD like scenario. Of course it is best for Israel to not have a MAD like scenario so we can play up Iran's evilness for sure...
History teaches we shouldn't play with such fire. They absolutely might nuke us. Nobody thought the holocaust was possible before it happened. That is not a sane risk to take.
Iran, while they do have a pretty shitty leadership, have not historically been starting hot wars. They have proxies yes, but they haven't invaded anyone to conquer territories in recent history.
While would Iran do something that results in their destruction?
You are comparing them to Hilter who had taken over almost all of Europe, and had motivated the nation to take over those other countries. Nothing of the sort is happening in Iran like that. Iran has historically been defensive in its military spending and investments -- excluding the proxies it has funded.
> History teaches we shouldn't play with such fire.
I feel you are not viewing things as they are, but are imagining things based on faulty reasoning.
You are analyzing in a hyper rational manner that does not align with how geo politics and indeed history works.
- While would Iran do something that results in their destruction?
Because it might not lead to their destruction (lots of scenarios for this)
because they are fighting for their lives due to some unrelated circumstances,
because the regime is falling and someone thinks it's the last chance to destroy israel,
because the Mahdai revealed itself to someone and ordered Israel bombed,
because it's what the most religious man who trusts in god would do
--You are comparing them to Hilter who had taken over almost all of Europe, and had motivated the nation to take over those other countries. Nothing of the sort is happening in Iran like that. Iran has historically been defensive in its military spending and investments -- excluding the proxies it has funded.
all the facts here regarding Iran are wrong. Hitler took over europe due to appeasment from a world tired of WW1, that's exactly what Iran will do with the Gulf, Iraq and syria given the chance.
So you say we have to do this to people of the USA and China when the climate change's consequence becomes more apparent (or rather taken more seriously)? This is one of the shallowest take on the geopolitics and history of the civilization and people anywhere, not just in Iran or Israel.
All the fantastic stories about my imaginary friend stopped as soon as some random monkeys discovered how to write and how to cross verify evidence. Dude, trust me, my imaginary friend is legit.
You should read my imaginary friendship book bro, my imaginary friend wrote it with the help of some random dude because despite being ommipotent my imaginary friend cannot write his own book apparently.
And despite being everywhere you need to visit my imaginary friend by entering a specific structure built by some random dude.
If you sacrifice your non imaginary life you can go to my imaginary friend's crib in an imaginary afterlife. It's a more than fair deal.
Jews don't believe in the legitimacy of christianity's theft of their holy book or christian holy books, christians dont believe in the koran even if islam claims jesus as an islamic prophet, and islam doesn't believe in the revelations of the bahai even if the bahai claim it to be another revelation after islam.
This "its all the same god" is feel good western stuff that has nothing to do with religious adherents of those religions. Nobody believes the next guy's book is legitimate, they just borrow the one before them to take the previous group's legitimacy.
It's not the same god, its this massive game of gaslighting everyone is playing that the actual religious people do not play the same way.
Certainly, Jews, Christians and Muslims believe different things about God, that doesn’t mean that they don't see themselves as believers in the same God.
> This "its all the same god" is feel good western stuff that has nothing to do with religious adherents of those religions.
The joint declaration between the (Roman Catholic) Pope and the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar would seem to disagree. [0] Similarly, the many joint declarations between the Vatican and Chief Rabbinate of Israel, which frequently invoke shared faith in the same God and shared Scripture. [1]
Its feel good nonsense. Jews dont believe in the revelations of christianity or islam. Christians don't believe in the revelations of islam and have written off most of the requirements of judaism, and islamic people dont believe in the bahai revelations. When they pretend this 'same god' has schizophrenia and lied to the other groups its just that - pretend.
We've spent so long gaslighting everyone about religious declarations we've lost the fundamental plot. Those people do not believe that the other religions have any legitimacy about what god says, except to borrow the legitimacy of previous religions for their own self interest.
The vatican and the israeli rabbinate are largely political entities. The chief rabbinate is not credible a religious authority even within israel - its a political appointment. You're being gaslit about what people believe because religious politics make 'playing well together against the nonbelievers' more important than telling the truth.
While this is mostly true, it is worth noting that Christians believe they worship the same god as Jews (even if Jews don't believe what Christian's believe).
This is important because there is a strong fundamentalist Christian lobby group in the US that supports Israel politically for these religious reasons.
as I said, each group is happy to co-opt the holy books of the one before it to assert their own credibility. christians take the jewish holy books and add their own ending, but the idea of a son of god is anathema in judaism. Muslims take jesus as a prophet, and judaism as well, but disregard both for their own rules. etc etc.
So what christians believe is very self serving in terms of taking judaisms books to coopt for their benefit. Jews definitely dont believe any part of the new testament and believe jesus to be a false messiah.
the feel good nature of "let the believers band together against the nonbelievers" is the gaslighting that lets people talk about how its all the same god, when it clearly isn't.
