As Jonathan noted, the New York Times seems determined to downplay Iran’s verbal threats against Israel, first eliminating them from its report on Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei’s speech last week and then dismissing them as mere “posturing and saber-rattling.” And I can understand why: Israel is the only country to be openly weighing military action against Tehran’s nuclear program. So dismiss the validity of the threat Iran poses to Israel, and you’ve also seemingly dismissed any need for military action.
The only problem with this approach is that far from being the only country seriously threatened by Iran, Israel may well not even be at the top of the list. To understand why this is so, it suffices to recall Saddam Hussein. Saddam also threatened night and day to destroy Israel. Yet the country he actually tried to wipe off the map wasn’t Israel, but Kuwait.
Nor is this surprising: Saddam’s Iraq, like today’s Iran, aspired to dominate the region. And for that purpose, taking over neighboring Kuwait was far more useful than attacking Israel, both to acquire Kuwait’s bountiful oil fields and to undermine another contender for regional dominance, Kuwaiti ally Saudi Arabia.
Because Israel is isolated from the rest of the Middle East, it is completely irrelevant to the internal jockeying for supremacy among the region’s various Muslim powers. Hence, if Iran’s goal is regional hegemony, then attacking Israel would be a sideshow, just as it was for Saddam – who, while launching a full-scale invasion of Kuwait, made do with lobbing a token 40 Scuds at Israel. The most important targets would be Iran’s regional rivals, first and foremost Saudi Arabia and its allies.
That is why, as Wikileaks revealed two years ago, Arab countries have consistently demanded more forceful American action against Iran. Saudi Arabia, for instance, delivered “frequent exhortations to the U.S. to attack Iran,” demanding it “cut off the head of the snake.” Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed of Abu Dhabi warned that “[Iranian President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad is Hitler.” King Hamad of Bahrain said Iran’s nuclear program “must be stopped,” because “the danger of letting it go on is greater than the danger of stopping it.” Lebanon’s Saad Hariri urged military action by saying, “Iraq was unnecessary. Iran is necessary.” A senior Jordanian official said even though bombing Iran would have “catastrophic” consequences, “he nonetheless thought preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons would pay enough dividends to make it worth the risks.”
What all these countries know is that they, rather than Israel, might well be Iran’s first targets – but unlike Israel, they lack the military capability even to credibly threaten to attack Iran themselves. And because these countries include some of the world’s major oil producers, that should be of great concern to the West.
None of this means the Iranian threat to Israel isn’t real: Even if a nuclear Iran never attacked Israel directly, it could still wreak havoc via satellite groups like Hamas and Hezbollah. But Israel is far from being the only country threatened by Iran. And it’s about time Western pundits and policymakers woke up to that fact.
And the Russians and Chinese are backing Iran to become the regional hegemon, to the detriment of the Saudis, Gulf states and American influence. Israel is their stalking horse.
Where in the world do you people get those ideas from? Ever taken a look at how the US backs Israel so that they become the hegemon in the region to the detriment not only of the entire ME but the rest of the world?
In the confrontation with the Iranians, I hear echos of the West's confrontation with the Serbs. "You better not do that." "We protest in the strongest possible terms." "Hey, we told you not to do that!" "You better not do that, or else." "There will be consequences." Etc. etc. until the bloodbath was well underway. n nSanctions are the wimp solution. They are passive. They signal an unwillingness or inability to use force. The West lie when they say the sanctions against Iran are "beginning to work". Sanctions do not "work" simply because they are hurting the target. Sanctions only work if they make the target comply with your demand. Sanctions may have caused the Iranians economic pain, but they have NOT altered Iranian behavior. In fact, the sanctions have only made the Iranians more resolute in going nuclear. n nIt looks like all the "better not do that" rhetoric and feckless sanctions will continue until Iran has nuclear weapons. And then what?
And then what? At last, there will be some kind of balance in the ME and then, maybe, those people will be left alone to charter their own destiny. Tall order, I know!
Grasping straws here, ain't we? The last time Iran attacked anyone was in 1855 and that is because they had been invaded themselves. And then, of course, there's the war with Iraq in which they were attacked and invaded and we all know who was behind that, don't we? So what do you think is the likelihood that Iran will attack anyone, huh? Do people engage their gray matter when they start flapping their yap or does the one process cancel the other?
Part I: People can hardly seem to get over this Jewish 'Why don't you and him fight.'. syndrome.' Seems to me that an IAF who's jets have never fought an enemies jet, an IDF tank that has never fought another tank would somehow be anxious to 'get it on'' just to gage their 'macho man' skills. Insteasd the Jewish cowards find solice in attacking rock throwing kids in their teens and farmers working their land near the Gaza/Israeli border or teenaged kids salvaging rocks and pebbles for construction purposes, Cont'd
I have read some no-sense, baseless, and stupid comments before, but I must admit that yours top the chart by far. The facts of history show without any doubt the Israeli military superiority against all the Arabs combined armies in their wars, since the creation of the state of Israel. That is why Egypt and Jordan have both signed peace treaties with Israel. If those two countries did it, it was clear that they knew that in spite of all of their military spending, sacrifices and efforts, they were no match for Israel. That is why Israel is still there, surrounded by enemy countries bent on its destruction. It is not because of any form of brotherly love. Why do Hamas, Hizbollah, and other terrorist organizations use "asymetrical war" instead of "conventional war? BECAUSE THEY KNOW THEY DON'T STAND A CHANCE IF THEY DECIDE TO FIGHT ONE ON ONE WITH THE I.D.F. And what is Israel supposed to do if its citizens are being attacked by violent mobs? Let them be murdered, kidnapped, and cut in a thousand pieces? THINK AGAIN!!
Part II: with their 60,000 lb. Merkava Mk II Merkava tanks (If there such a thing as a border around 'borderless' Israel).The last time the IDF met head-to-head with fully armed and trained Arabs – Hezbollah, they got their clocks cleaned as Hezbollah's high tech Russian RPG-29 rockets took out or disabled some 25 Merkava tanks sending the baby faced IDF cowards retreating south of the Litani river crying for their Mama's as they retreated towards Tel Aviv. 6th toughest army in the world, huh? Seems the Taliban with their Vietnam era antiquated AK-47's and RPG-7's are showing the US/NATO baby killers 'how its done.' After all, it's not the size of the dog in the fight – But, the size of the fight in the dog.Let us hope this summers 'cat fight' with Iran, Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas will show the world what the 'taste' of a shell shocked and bloody Dimona, Tel Aviv and Haifa looks like and just how sanguine Jewish state can get in their genocidal behavior against a basically unarmed Palestinian people without an army to defend its people with. Viva Palestina – death to the kosher pig cowards!