I fall into that category of individuals whom critics of Israel accuse of being a Zionist, but Israeli apologists condemn as being too pro-Palestinian. I frequently find myself angry at both groups. That said, while I wish no nuclear existed in the Middle East, I would feel far more uneasy were those existing weapons in the hands of Iran or the Arab states rather than under Israeli control. For all its many sins -- and like the US, they are many -- Israel has never deployed those weapons against its neighbors. Do you doubt the Arab states would have shown similar restraint in any of the wars of the past 65 or so years? As for an Iranian state, I would be very concerned if they possessed the bomb. Perhaps it's my anti-religious feelings asserting themselves, but I absolutely distrust people who know they are God's chosen instrument in the world, who believe all who oppose them are so evil as to merit death, and who confuse their self-pride with divine favor.

The Voice of America February 19, 2010 Iran's Supreme Leader Khamenei Says Islam Opposes Nuclear Weapons Quoting analyst Alex Vatanka of Jane's Islamic Affairs,

"Khamenei's statement of February 22, 2012 from Iran's PressTV"

New York Times February 24, 2012 U.S. Agencies See No Move by Iran to Build a Bomb

Voice of America April 13, 2012 "Iran, World Powers Launch Nuclear Talks"

Yet the drumbeat for an Israeli or Israeli/American attack on Iran continues.

I agree that there are far too many warmongers sounding the call for war with Iran. It seems as if some people learned nothing from our recent adventures in Iraq.

Still, I would advise caution to those who view Khamenei as a voice of reason. Yes, it is true that he has spoken out against atomic weaponry. But he has, in the past, also spoken out against human rights abuses. Consider how his actions match his rhetoric. Khamenei has encouraged the religious persecution of the Bahá'ís, a religious minority that can only be described as inoffensive. He possesses considerable influence over the Basij, the paramilitary organization responsible for the murder of scores of pro-democracy demonstrators following the disputed 2009 elections. Khamenei's opponents and their families are sometimes subjected to beatings and imprisonment while political opponents abroad are sometimes assassinated. He is a supporter of Ahmadinejad, his fellow Holocaust denier. And, finally, Khamenei himself does the peace process no favors by calling for the destruction of Israel. Why should the Israel trust the works of a man who speaks of peace one day and the elimination of Israel the next?

I am not defending the those who desire war, but I am suggesting that the Iranian government is not as innocent as a kitten with respect to the unease troubling the region today. We rightly and consistently discount the words of peace mouthed by ideologues like G. W. Bush and Netanyahu when their actions prove their utterances to be lies. Why hold Khamenei to a lesser standard?

I still say this nuclear hyberbole is due to major elections going on in Iran, Israel, and the U.S.
It's pure election hype. They are trying to frighten people into electing them.

Israel’s Minister of Intelligence and Atomic Energy Agrees Ahmadinejad Never Said Israel 'Must Be Wiped Off the Map' (thelede.blogs.nytimes.com)

The "fear" of Iran is a manufactured problem.

True. But he does refer to Israel as an illegal occupying power. What do you think he means by that? What should become of illegal occupying powers? He says Israel "is an artificial state and Jews should return to their 'fatherlands' in Europe"

http://articles.cnn.com/2006-04-24/world/iran.nuclear_1_nuclear-activity-nuclear-issue-iranian-president-mahmoud-ahmadinejad?_s=PM:WORLD

And his boss, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has: “The Zionist regime is a true cancer tumor on this region that should be cut off. “And it definitely will be cut off.” http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/iran-says-it-launched-satellite/2012/02/03/gIQARNuDmQ_story.html

And some of that "manufactured" fear of Iran was manufactured by Iran itself. Just ask the pro-democracy demonstrators butchered by para-military forces. Or the peaceful Bahá'í persecuted for their religion. Or the tourists sentenced to inhuman prisons on trumped up charges of spying. Or the gays hanged for failing to hide their lifestyle deep enough. Or those women who are violently forced to accept second class citizenship. Or the innocents murdered by Iran's state sponsored terrorism?

You know the Iranian leaders are murderers. Why do you doubt that they can also be liars?

When Israel threatens the peace or violates human rights, it is rightfully censored. So why do we go out of our way to defend Iran? Would we defend Stalin's Soviet Union of those who accuse it of being dangerous? After all, right up to the invasion of Poland, Hitler's Germany had its defenders. I suspect that the Islamic Republic of Iran will have defenders praising its peaceful nature right up to the point it slaughters its final victim.

When will we learn that dictatorial regimes are always a threat to peace?

Really? They had half a million kids die while under US sanctions like Iraq? Or any number of other violently disgusting "punishments" we're placed on not-Israel Middle Eastern Countries? Or you could count the number UN Security Council votes we've allowed to take action against Israel on nothing, no significant have been put on Israel because we won't allow it.

They' never been called out for this, either:



Or the murder of American naval personnel.

Israel has never been "called out?" That's absurd. Just read a newspaper. Yes, the US far too often prevents the UN from taking measure of Israel behavior, but there is no disagreement there, is there?

My comments addressed Iranian behavior. You cannot defend Iran, and then when someone factually describes Iranian behavior, point to Israel and say, "But look at them instead." I described Iran as a threat to peace and a menace to its own citizens. No misconduct by Israel, the United States, or any other nation excuses the crimes of Iran's leaders.

Also, as there are somewhat fewer than four-million Arabs total living within the occupied territories, I would be interested to learn how you arrived at your figure of the Israelis being responsible for the deaths of one-half million children. If your figure is correct, Israel is responsible for the deaths of about 13% of the Arab population -- children all. I would need a source for your claim.

Also, you should realize that Israel is not a monolithic entity. It consists of many groups comprising an unwieldy whole. Many of its citizens oppose their government's behavior. In this respect, they are similar to Iran. Unlike Iran, they are typically free to do so.

Israel's intelligence community thinks Israel's political leaders are not up to the job nor are they being truthful:

“I don’t believe in either the prime minister or the defence minister. I don’t believe in a leadership that makes decisions based on messianic feelings. Believe me, I have observed them from up close … They are not people who I, on a personal level, trust to lead Israel to an event on that scale and carry it off.

“They are misleading the public on the Iran issue. They tell the public that if Israel acts, Iran won’t have a nuclear bomb. This is misleading. Actually, many experts say that an Israeli attack would accelerate the Iranian nuclear race.” (Harriet Sherwood, The Guardian via Raw Story)

Reminds me of georgie and rummy and that idiot cheney.

Gak.

Today is the anniversary of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima. I am among those who believe, with only some evidence, that this saved both Japanese and Allied lives. Was it worth the cost to the canons of "just war?"

The above discussion concerned Hitler's known atomic program; there is also very likely to have been a Japanese atomic program, as well as a Japanese biowarfare program. AFAIK, we did not try to "take out" any of these programs, perhaps because of very good intelligence that they were not succeeding.

In the years after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, have we learned anything that might illuminate U.S. policy towards a potential Israeli or Israeli/U.S. attack on Iran's nuclear facilities? Is it the lesson that Israel must at all costs protect itself against its own Hiroshima? "At all costs" means a lot, including questions not only of strategy but also of morality. Is the lesson that sometimes a militarily sound move is morally questionable or even repugnant? That assumes that an Israeli attack on Iran would be militarily sound, which I think is a laughable assumption.

If all options were not "on the table," would we be seeing a different dynamic playing out between Iran and Israel?

I too feel the dropping of two atomic weapons on Japan saved lives. Looking back on the fanatical and suicidal resistance offered US forces and Japanese mobilization of its population and remaining resources to repel an American invasion suggest the human toll would have been exceptionally high. Furthermore, had the war been allowed to continue, more than US and Japanese lives would have been lost. The bulk of Japan's army was engaged in China. The Japanese military treat China with the same tenderness Poland received from Germany. How many thousands of Chinese would have died had the war been prolonged by two or more months because American policy makers decided not to use atomic weapons.

Even after the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Japanese surrender was not a certainty. Two atomic weapons and the implicit threat of more to follow, the Soviet invasion of Manchuria which created fears of a possible Soviet occupation of at least some home islands, and a guarantee to maintain the Japanese monarchy were all required to force the Japanese capitulation. Even then, many military officers wanted to continue fighting, and some actually sought to sabotage Japan's accepting the Allied terms.