Iranian leader denies Holocaust

**Dundeegeorge** · 14 December 2005, 09:22

******* towelheads

I wish that Israel would just get a move on and nuke all these ******* barbarians into glass.

**Mailman** · 14 December 2005, 09:25

Naw its ok. Firstly people wont have any problems with this because its something chico posted and secondly, people wont have any problems with this because the comments made were not made by an american.

Mailman

**Churchill** · 14 December 2005, 10:00

You've got to admit that every time Israel is castigated the topic of the Holocaust gets dragged up to try and instill a sense of guilt in the rest of the world.

Does it really matter what anyone thinks?

What are we supposed to do, invade Iran?

**Chico** · 14 December 2005, 11:23

Dealing With Irrational Iran

By HILLEL HALKIN
December 13, 2005

How is one to think about Iranian nuclear weapons and Israel? Two things should be clear, even if all the rest is arguable:

1. The current regime in Iran would happily carry out its threats to destroy Israel if it believed that, once it acquired nuclear weapons, it could get away with it.

2. Israel would therefore be entirely justified, morally and legally, in attacking and destroying Iranian nuclear installations if it believed it could get away with it.

The rest, as I say, including what "getting away with it" might mean, is subject to debate.

For the Iranians, whose Shihab missiles have the range and ability to hit Israel even today (less sophisticated and shorter-ranged Iraqi Scuds already hit Tel Aviv during the first Gulf War), and who could effectively annihilate the geographically tiny and highly urban Jewish state by delivering a small number of atomic bombs to three or four of its major cities, this would presumably involve, apart from the willingness to risk severe international repercussions, the assumption that (a) Israeli anti-missile defenses could be penetrated, and (b) Iranians would not have too much of their own geographically huge and highly rural country destroyed in return.

Assumption (a) might be questionable, given the existence of Israel's Arrow anti-missile missile, which has already been tested successfully against Scuds and will undoubtedly be far more advanced by the time - which is at least quite a few years away - that Iran would be ready to launch a nuclear strike.

Assumption (b) would depend on what "too much" was in Iranian eyes. Iran is a country with 70,000,000 inhabitants, of which approximately one-third live in its 25 largest cities. Supposing that an Israeli counter-strike were to decimate every one of these cities and badly pollute the rest of the country with radioactivity, bringing widespread illness and economic havoc: Would not this be "too much" even for an Iranian who thought, as does his country's prime minister Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, that Israel deserves to be "wiped from the map"?

From Israel's point of view, "getting away with it" - once more, disregarding the international reaction - would also involve two assumptions. The first would be that it could indeed destroy or effectively damage installations that are two thousand kilometers or more from its own air bases and are said to be widely scattered, buried underground, and heavily defended. The second would be that Iran could not then strike back with missiles bearing conventional warheads whose havoc to Israeli civilians would again be "too much." Although one would have to be privy to secret intelligence information to assess either of these assumptions in an informed manner, they too would appear to be highly iffy.

From a purely rational point of view, therefore, it is difficult to conceive of even the most rabidly anti-Israel government in Iran ever actually ordering an atomic strike - and difficult too, therefore, to conceive of Israel taking the chances it would have to take in order to forestall such a remote danger. If Israeli politicians and generals have nevertheless taken to speaking out publicly about the possible need for an attack on Iran, this is most likely a deliberate policy aimed at scaring a reluctant world into doing something more than simply bewailing the Iranian nuclear program. "If you don't act," the message is, "we will have to."

In fact, however, Israel would be highly unlikely to hit Iranian nuclear installations without at least tacit American approval, not only because of its overall dependence on the United States, but also because its attacking F-16 fighter-bombers would either have to fly either across Iraq on their way to their targets, or else across Saudi Arabia, in which there are American airbases.

Moreover, if America is prepared to give Israel the green light, it would make far more sense for it to do the job itself. Its airbases would be closer and its planes could carry bigger bomb loads and avoid midair refueling - and if any were shot down, it would be far easier to mount rescue missions for their pilots.

Indeed, if the United States should ever come to the decision that Iran's nuclear facilities need to be destroyed, it would be manipulative and hypocritical in the worst way for it to ask Israel to do it in its place. The only reason for acting in such a manner would be to disclaim American responsibility by making Israel take the rap in the international arena and be the country to pay the price for having made the world a safer place for everyone.

But of course, if the world were not so craven, there would be no need even to contemplate military action against Iran, since sufficient other means exist to make the Iranians scuttle their nuclear weapon program. Concerted economic and diplomatic pressure could do the job - yet they would also mean the loss of many fat business contracts for both European and American companies and a steep rise in the price of oil, which no one on either side of the Atlantic is interested in.

Why should the world not, then, simply resign itself to a nuclear Iran, which can be expected to act rationally and refrain from using its atomic weapons out of the same calculations of mutual deterrence that have kept other countries from using theirs? There are many reasons, of which the most persuasive perhaps is that when the man next door is standing in the middle of the street and threatening to burn down your house, you cannot, alas, count on him being rational.

And an Israel that, knowing something about the irrationality of modern political anti-Semitism, cannot count on the rationality of an anti-Semitic Iranian government is an Israel that cannot ultimately be counted on to be rational itself.

Mr. Halkin is a contributing editor of The New York Sun.

**AlfredJPruffock** · 14 December 2005, 13:13

Fascinating if you invert the text above ....

1. The current regime in Israel would happily destroy Iran if it believed that, once it launched its nuclear weapons, it could get away with it and keep its Oil.

2. Iran would therefore be entirely justified, morally and legally, in attacking and destroying Israeli nuclear installations if it believed it could get away with it.

Discuss the above Chico.

Include a reference by Jesus in your reply or simply make one up if you prefer.

**hugebrain** · 14 December 2005, 13:25

At least they have more freedom in Iran.

In Europe and you can be arrested for expressing even a hint of doubt about the holocaust:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20051213...e_051213192820

This guy just said it was "up to historians to decide".

**DodgyAgent** · 14 December 2005, 17:52

Originally posted by AlfredJPruffock

Fascinating if you invert the text above ....

1. The current regime in UK would happily destroy Germany if it believed that, once it launched its nuclear weapons, it could get away with it and keep its Oil.

2. Germany would therefore be entirely justified, morally and legally, in attacking and destroying UK nuclear installations if it believed it could get away with it.

Discuss the above Chico.

Include a reference by Jesus in your reply or simply make one up if you prefer.

You could invert it, however Israel has no oil. According to your logic Alf then all wars fall into your "moral equivalence" view of the world

**snaw** · 14 December 2005, 18:12

[QUOTE=AlfredJPruffock]Fascinating if you invert the text above ....

1. The current regime in Israel would happily destroy Iran if it believed that, once it launched its nuclear weapons, it could get away with it and keep its Oil.

2. Iran would therefore be entirely justified, morally and legally, in attacking and destroying Israeli nuclear installations if it believed it could get away with it.
QUOTE]

Can't say I agree there Alf. Israel would have no need to attack Iran if that country wasn't actively involved in terrorist attacks on it's own country, and also in the process of developing nuclear weapons with a leader running around saying the holocaust never happened and that Israel should be wiped off the face of the map.

No matter what your politics on Israel as regards the palestinians, you can't seriously be suggesting some sort of justification for Iran's actions of late. Actually you could, but then again I've had you filed under nutter for a long time so maybe you can empathise with Mahmoud in a way the rest of us can't.

**Fungus** · 14 December 2005, 19:50

At least we now see that Iran is led by extremist loonies. Anyone remember the Iranian embassy siege?

The problem with the Arab and Persian countries is that too many of them have their heads up their own arses. They focus popular hatred on Israel, to take away criticism of their own undemocratic regimes where to criticise the leaders is to sign your own death warrant. If you want to see where the greatest wrongs are being done to Arabs and Persians, then don't just look at Israel, but also look at the surrounding countries.

It wouldn't surprise me if Israel launched a preemptive strike on Iran. They did it against Egypt (wiping out the entire air force) and Iraq. And would you want an unstable country led by extremist religious fanatics (Iran) on your doorstep building nuclear weapons?

Unfortunately the brutal treatment of Palestinian civilians by Israel (flying jets at supersonic speed over cities to scare the tulip out of them all including children, ritual humilation at check points, shooting dead civilians for fun etc), and the mistreatment of detainees held without trial by America merely serves to help these extremist nutters recruit uber-nutters to the cause. The infighting between Palestinian factions, the lack of any unified discipline and leadership, and the denial of Israel's right to exist by many of them do as much harm as Israel's brutality.

The whole pile of tulipe in that region is too depressing.

Ah but fortunately Tony got his pal George to promise to sort it all out ... So that's sorted then. Next!

Fungus

Iranian leader denies Holocaust