Ynet reports on discussions its held with an Iranian blogger and journalist who warns Israel that attacking his country would be deeply counter-productive to the interests of those who oppose the regime. While Hamid (a pseudonym), the Iranian, concedes that his country’s leaders are “crazy,” he warns:
You’d do yourself a favor if you took seriously the responses of the Ayatollahs to your threats. We’re used to such threats. We’ve heard them all before. The Iranian people don’t attach any importance to them.
The blogger says that Iranians do not fear an Israeli attack nor do they have reason to:
If the Revolutionary Guards detect a real military threat they will start World War III. Israelis understand that such a war wouldn’t be worth fighting.
Hamid believes it’s most likely that if Iran were attacked, its army would launch missiles at Israel, while at the same time its ships would attack American targets in the Persian Gulf. He doesn’t discount the possibility that Iran would launch missiles at Iraq, Afghanistan and even Europe, if attacked:
This is a crazy regime. Tell Mr. Netanyahu not to attack.
The Iranian source says that if Iran is struck that it will unite the entire nation around the extremist regime. He believes that 70% of Iranians support the regime:
The number of opponents isn’t that large. Many support them, and to the rest it doesn’t matter whether they survive or fall.
Hamid says that Iran’s media has given little attention lately to Israel’s statements about the former’s nuclear program. He explains the way typical Iranians view it:
Iran needs to develop nuclear technology in order to become more industrially self-sufficient and to force western nations to take us more seriously.
He concludes by dismissing once again Israel’s threats:
We’ve been hearing the same threats for 20 years. We no longer attach any importance to them.
I’m afraid I don’t agree with Hamid that there’s little chance Israel will attack Iran. But I do agree that if Israel or anyone in the world thinks that Israeli threats will cause anyone’s heart to flutter or skip a beat in Teheran, they’re sadly mistaken. That doesn’t mean they’re not prepared to receive such a blow. They are. They know Israel and its history of attacking enemies and imagined enemies. But just as they fought a war for eight years with Iraq, so they’re willinig, if they have to, to defend against an Israeli attack and take the fight to the enemy.
RE: “They know Israel and its history of attacking enemies and imagined enemies.” ~ R.S.
BOYS JUST WANNA HAVE FUN (Facebook jpeg image) – http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=152832719154#!/photo.php?fbid=2516344104571&set=o.152832719154&type=1&theater
You’re treating this as a case of “who has the biggest”. The handling of Iran is not a matter of Bravado. The new IAEA report on Iran will conclude that Iran actively developing nuclear weapons. Hopefully, a new round of even worse sanctions against Iran will either convince or force them to relinquish their quest for nuclear weapons.
Do you believe that the IAEA report will be considered as trustworthy? “Strange” that the coming IAEA report is leaked in details and with force in Israeli and US propaganda.
The last IAEA “report” (some weeks ago) of Hasaka uranium enrichment plant was buried in the news with embarrassed silence. Rather fast it was revealed that the “enrichment factory” was in reality a textile spinning mill built in the decades ago by East Germans. Not in 2003 like the news based on the IAEA report claimed.
It is astonishing that countries are ready to start wars, which will cost hundreds of thousands or millions of lives, using this kind of insane badly prepared propaganda. Sad that IAEA showed that it is nothing else besides an arm in of US/Israeli propaganda. Iraq war was started using “mobile chemical weapon factory trucks” as the excuse. A war against Syria is prepared using an enrichment (=textile) factory and a war against Iran because a a bus-sized container for conducting “experiments”.
The most amusing part in this bad “nuclear fiction” is that the main designers are Israel and its servant USA. Israelis justify that it is right to demand Iran (like Iraq before) to be inspected and judged because Iran has signed the NTP treaty (and Israel not because it has not signed the treaty). Astonishing demand coming from people who normally wipe their behind with international treaties and regulations.
Let us remember that Israel has more nuclear weapons than China has and a delivery system prepared to attack most of the world. Iran is at the best a potential threat to world peace in the coming decades, Israel is a present and acute danger. Destroying Iran’s industrial capacity and development basis doesn’t solve anything. The big Arab and Muslim nations will only be convinced (mainly Turkey and Egypt) that they need nukes and fast. The Israeli military historian Martin van Creveld has said Iranians are crazy if they are not developing their nuclear deterrence. The Iranian “nukes” are needed for correct the badly imbalanced military situation and in the end of survival and sovereignty of the nation. Israel’s nukes and behaviour are the core of the problem, not that Iran, Egypt, Turkey etc will create nukes.
Richard Silverstein says
“Hopefully” my arse. It will do no such thing & you know it. So if it fails as every previous attempt has, what’s your fallback position? War of course. You have no other option & yr position leads inexorably toward violence as the only final option.
What a gentleman.
Yes, if the diplomatic efforts fail, which every sane person hopes they don’t, then the ultimate fallback can be war. But war is the last possible solution, and all solutions should be exhausted before it. Perhaps the harsh IAEA report will give the US better tools with which to drive sanctions against Iran.
To me, it seems as though you are clamoring for war because you’d actually like to see a war where Israel is pounded with missiles. Keep in mind, however, that Iran is also likely to target Jewish targets that don’t necessarily have links with Israel, so you might get more than you bargained for. 🙂
Richard Silverstein says
I find that statement deeply offensive & if you wish to publish another comment here you’ll take it back. This may be for you a statement you threw off in a moment & didn’t consider seriously. But I assure you I don’t take what you wrote lightly & you won’t publish another comment here until you respond as I’ve asked.
And you think that one more round of talk will solve the problem?, you think the Iranian will stop with the nuclear weapons boomb?! you are wrong thats what they do for the last 13 years, tell the whole world stories, and the world know that it is only to buy more time. It’s about time that all of you guys understand, they will have the boomb if we will not stop them. the main countries as US,UK,Germany, France and all the oil countries that wish for the same act. Distroy the Iranian leadrs. you guys don”t know how it use to be in Iran before the Ayatullas, ask the non religous peaple!
RE: “You’re treating this as a case of ‘who has the biggest’. ~ Hezi
MY REPLY: Isn’t that what Ze’ev Jabotinsky’s “iron wall” is all about?
What do you want?
Think of the looming conflict between Israel and Iran in terms of geopolitical balance of power; there are two points of view: first, as a matter of who wants to be the big machismo in the region and, second, as stemming from the religious-ethnic conflict of the so-called Jewish state of Israel dominating over the Palestinian people. One or the other or both?
Consider, in the world of make-believe, a what-if; if a real and sustainable peace happened between Israel and the Palestinian people, either by a 2 state or 1 secular state solution. Obviously, only the machismo reason would remain. But, a real peace between Israel and the Palestinians would diminish the machismo reason in two ways: first, inasmuch as the religious-ethnic hatreds play into the machismo (where each believes the other is a religious-ethnic existential threat) and, second, inasmuch as Israel could become a diplomatically viable country in the ME and thereby can further national interests by alliances and negotiations in the region. So, it would seem to be rational in terms of removing (irrational) existential threats, and insuring a better life for both populations, to counter the looming conflict with the Iranians by making peace with the Palestinians.
But Netanyahu has re-worked the dynamics, slowing the peace process to a stop and accelerating the conflict with Iran. It is really crazy, but it does seem that the looming conflict with Iran has distracted attention from the absence of a peace process, when the opposite should be true.
Classic propaganda, seriously a right-wing extremist newspaper like ynews get a iranian blogger. Where does this iranian sit? In Teheran? In Washingtong? Is he objective?
Enough said. Zero credibility.
ynet is a left leaning news outlet, certainly not a “right-wing extremist” newspaper.
Richard Silverstein says
“Left-leaning?” That tells us all we need to know about your politics. That’s like saying that the Washington Times is left-leaning. At best, Ynet is center-right leaning farther right than center. Haaretz is left-leaning…on a good day. On a not so good day it’s centrist.
“This is a crazy regime.”
No, that distinction is reserved for the Zionist regime. Maybe they’re willing to share the “dis” honor.