IAP Political Forum

Ahmadinejad: Israel anniversary won't save it from 'annihilation'
Wednesday, May 14, 2008

Hard-line Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says Israel is dying and that celebrations marking the 60th anniversary of its creation won't save the Jewish state from "annihilation."

Iran doesn't recognize Israel, and Ahmadinejad has repeatedly called for Israel's destruction.

His remarks coincided with the arrival of U.S. President George W. Bush in the Middle East to celebrate Israel's 60th birthday and try to energise peace efforts complicated by a corruption scandal that could topple Prime Minister Ehud Olmert.

Opposition to Israel is a fundamental principle in Shi'ite Muslim Iran, which backs Palestinian militants opposed to peace with the Jewish state.

"The Zionist regime is dying," Ahmadinejad said in a speech in the northern city of Gorgan, referring to Israel. "The criminals imagine that by holding celebrations ... they can save the Zionist regime from death."

"They should know that regional nations hate this fake and criminal regime and if the smallest and briefest chance is given to regional nations they will destroy (it)," said Ahmadinejad, who often rails against Israel and the United States.

A 2005 statement by Ahmadinejad saying that "Israel should be wiped off the map" outraged the international community.

Last month, a senior Iranian army commander said Iran will respond to any military attack from Israel by "eliminating" it, in comments condemned by Washington.

Iran, the world's fourth-largest oil producer, says it has developed ballistic missiles able to hit Israel and U.S. bases in the region.

Some analysts have speculated that Israel might attack Iran to stop its nuclear activities, which the West fears are a front for weapons development.

Iran, which does not recognise Israel, insists it wants nuclear technology only for electricity.

Washington says it wants a diplomatic resolution to the nuclear dispute but has not ruled out military action if that fails. Tehran insists it will not bow to Western pressure.

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/world/article.html?in_article_id=147644&in_page_id=64
 

The 1953 Iranian coup d'état saw the overthrow of the democratically-elected administration of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammed Mosaddeq and his cabinet from power by British and American intelligence operatives working together with Iranian agents and elements of the Iranian army. Bribing Iranian officials, news media and others with British and American funds, Kermit Roosevelt, Jr. of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), organized the covert operation aiding retired Iranian General Fazlollah Zahedi and Imperial Guard Colonel Nematollah Nassiri. The project to overthrow Iran's government was codenamed Operation Ajax.

the Shah gradually lost support from the great Shi'a clergy of Iran, particularly due to his strong policy of Westernization and recognition of Israel. Clashes with the religious right, increased communist activity, Western interference in the economy, and a 1953 period of political disagreements with Mohammad Mossadegh, eventually leading to Mossadegh's ousting, caused an increasingly autocratic rule.

SAVAK was founded in 1957 to strengthen the Shah's regime by placing political opponents under surveillance and repress dissident movements. SAVAK had the power to censor the media, screen applicants for government jobs, "and according to reliable Western source, use all means necessary, including torture, to hunt down dissidents."

...SAVAK was created with the help of American and Israeli advisers who modelled the agency on the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).

Where is kactus with Israeli 400 nuclear warheads ?

Iran, the world's fourth-largest oil producer, says it has developed ballistic missiles able to hit Israel and U.S. bases in the region.

CIA and MOSSAD help form and train SAVAK, the internal security apparatus of the Shah. CIA provides SAVAK with lists of Communists who the Savak would either imprison or execute.

The CIA worked with the Mossad and SAVAK to covertly support uprisings of Iraqi Kurds in 1975 to destabilize Pre-Saddam Iraq.

It was alleged by private intelligence agency Stratfor, based on "sources close to Israeli intelligence", that Dr. Ardeshir Hosseinpour, a scientist involved in the Iranian nuclear program, was killed by the Mossad on January 15, 2007.

A US intelligence official told The Washington Post that Israel orchestrated the defection of Iranian general Ali Reza Askari on February 7, 2007. This has been denied by Israeli spokesman Mark Regev. The Sunday Times reported that Askari has been a Mossad source since 2003, and left only when his cover was about to be blown.

In July 1973, Ahmed Bouchiki, an innocent Moroccan waiter in Lillehammer, Norway, was killed while walking with his pregnant wife. He had been mistaken for Ali Hassan Salameh, one of the leaders of Black September, the Palestinian group responsible for the Munich massacre, who had been given shelter in Norway. The Mossad agents had used fake Canadian passports, which angered the Canadian government. Six Mossad agents were arrested, and the incident became known as the Lillehammer affair.

In 1997, two Mossad agents were caught in Jordan, which had signed a peace treaty with Israel, on a mission to assassinate Sheikh Khaled Mashal, a leader of Hamas, by spraying him with poison at a pro-Hamas rally in Amman. Again, they were using fake Canadian passports. This led to a diplomatic row with Canada and Jordan. Israel was forced to provide the antidote to the poison and to release around 70 Palestinian prisoners, in particular the Hamas leader Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, in exchange for the Mossad agents, who would otherwise have faced the death penalty for attempted murder.

By the mid 1970s, Israel's relations with South Africa had warmed. In 1975, increasing economic co-operation between Israel and South Africa was reported, including the construction of a major new railway in Israel, and the building of a desalination plant in South Africa. In April 1976 South African Prime Minister John Vorster was invited to make a state visit, meeting Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin. Later in 1976, the 5th Conference of Non-Aligned Nations in Colombo, Sri Lanka, adopted a resolution calling for an oil embargo against France and Israel because of their arms sales to South Africa. In 1977, South African Foreign Minister Pik Botha visited Israel to discuss South African issues with Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin and Foreign Minister Moshe Dayan.

In 1981, Israeli Defence Minister Ariel Sharon visited South African forces in Namibia for 10 days, later saying that South Africa needed more weapons to fight Soviet infiltration in the region.

In 1984, Pik Botha again visited Israel but this time only for an unofficial meeting with Israeli Foreign Minister Yitzhak Shamir.

U.S. Intelligence believed that Israel participated in South African nuclear research projects and supplied advanced non-nuclear weapons technology to South Africa during the 1970s, while South Africa was developing its own atomic bombs. According to David Albright of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, "Faced with sanctions, South Africa began to organize clandestine procurement networks in Europe and the United States, and it began a long, secret collaboration with Israel." although he goes on to say "A common question is whether Israel provided South Africa with weapons design assistance, although available evidence argues against significant cooperation." According to the Nuclear Threat Initiative, in 1977 Israel traded 30 grams of tritium in exchange for 50 tons of South African uranium and in the mid-80s assisted with the development of the RSA-3 ballistic missile.  Also in 1977, according to foreign press reports, it was suspected that South Africa signed a pact with Israel that included the transfer of military technology and the manufacture of at least six atom bombs.

Chris McGreal has claimed that "Israel provided expertise and technology that was central to South Africa's development of its nuclear bombs". In 2000, Dieter Gerhardt, Soviet spy and former commander in the South African Navy, claimed that Israel agreed in 1974 to arm eight Jericho II missiles with "special warheads" for South Africa.

Double standard: Iran has said that the double standard applied to Israel is unjust and disturbing given its possession of nuclear weapons, its non-adherence to the NPT, and its treatment of the Palestinians over many years. Israel has unofficially stated it needs to have nuclear weapons to assure its survival in a predominantly hostile Middle East environment, since its independence in 1948 and following the Holocaust. Iran has responded that Arabs and the Middle East should not bear responsibility for crimes against humanity and atrocities committed by the Nazis during World War II against the Jews in Europe.

I said Israel is alleged to have between 200-400 nuclear warheads at their disposal.

Wow! Israel has more fireworks than Chinese, wowow. Even though production there is much cheaper.
Now we will show them, hahahaha.

We should invite Israel-haters like kactus to raise the overall confidence.

200-400 = -200
So, Israel is in minus with their nukes. It means that they don't only have none, but are in debt of nukes (to the US, South Africa?) for an amount of 200.

...or did you mean 200~400...?

Seriousely,
Iran doesn't need nukes. If they don't want war, they just have to not build them.

It's lame and pathetic.

When you have a proof that they are infact building a nuclear bomb then let's talk. Until then this is all hypothetical and you know it.

Actually the FAS report you are getting that info from suggests it's highly improbable that Israel has more than 200 nuclear warheads. While it maybe easy to hide a warhead the conveyance of these weapons (missiles) is much harder to hide, suggesting further that Israel's potential capability is even less than that.

By the late 1990s the U.S. Intelligence Community estimated that Israel possessed between 75-130 weapons, based on production estimates. The stockpile would certainly include warheads for mobile Jericho-1 and Jericho-2 missiles, as well as bombs for Israeli aircraft, and may include other tactical nuclear weapons of various types. Some published estimates even claimed that Israel might have as many as 400 nuclear weapons by the late 1990s. We believe these numbers are exaggerated, and that Israel's nuclear weapons inventory may include less than 100 nuclear weapons. Stockpiled plutonium could be used to build additional weapons if so decided.

...

Based on plausible upper and lower bounds of the operating practices at the reactor, Israel could have thus produced enough plutonium for at least 100 nuclear weapons, but probably not significantly more than 200 weapons.

When you have a proof that they are infact building a nuclear bomb then let's talk. Until then this is all hypothetical and you know it.

Sooo...they're buying billions in weaponry..sophisticated weaponry...from the Chinese and Russians, calling on Israel's wholesale destruction every other week, continue to develop and further long range missile technology capable of carrying nuke warheads, and admittingly continue to enrich uranium(while being sanctioned by the international community), uranium you're gonna tell me will power their new oil drill that will dig up a whole newoil field for world consumption? Hardly.

We should already be all over this, I pray Bush acts before his term is out.

So? The point still stands. There's no proof that Iran has a nuclear bomb to date.

Look every country in that region is already being militarised. Large defence contracts are signed between the british firms and saudi royal family. Israel to date has been the largest benefactor of multi billion dollar contracts from the US annually. Some countries in the region with big fat budgets are spending their fare share on defence and Iran is no exception.

The whole notion of nuclear weapon and I say IF Iran choses to go down that path is a deterrent.

If you say so. I think that would be one of the most stupid things Bush could do before he leaves the office or influenced by one of his advisors.You can quote me on this.

Welcome on board by the way.

No, I don't see anyone having proof of Iran having a nuclear weapon to date.

But Kactus...doesn't it stand to reason that Iran is a tad different than your other countries listed?

One simply cannot merely assume this. And if you're Israel, you MUST assume the worst and you need to have another Osirak party.

Iran is developing longe range missile technology, rather than building an army against an invasion or to 'deter', they seem to be building a special weapons force that can reach Israel.

Commemorating the Unforgivable

Jews in Israel and around the world will commemorate May 14. It's the 60th anniversary of the State of Israel's founding. Thousands of other Jews everywhere along with everyone of conscience stand with the Canadian Palestine Support Network (CalPalNet). They cannot celebrate. They will not celebrate. They remember the Nakba. They know it continues. They condemn 41 years of occupation; the starving and bombing of Gaza; the oppressive Separation Wall; the theft of Palestinian land; the building of illegal settlements; the denial of the right of return; the killings, torture, imprisonment and harassment; the denial of basic human rights; and Israel's disdain for international law.

So we agree there's no proof as you just said so.

Iran is a whole lot more different from Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia and Pakistan were the main sponsors for funding Al Qaeda. The identity of the majority of 9/11 attacker was saudi arabian FACT. I just find it ironic that the country you consider an 'ally' is infact the very culprit for 9/11. 

Yeah right make sure that the Osirak party does not back fire this time!

Are you actually serious about this? The nuclear facilities in Iran are scattered all across the country and deep underground for security reasons. Bombing the nuclear facilities will release radiation with catastrophic environmental and humanitarian consequences in the region for generations. I can not even fathom why people make such comments without even thinking this through.

LOL... After the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan did you expect Iran to build an army to resist an attack/ invasion instead of long range missiles? Or expecting the deployment of army to 'deter' the incoming missiles and B52 bombers with embraces?

The long range missiles you are talking about has not suddenly materialised and become a new invention in Iran. Iran has had this technology for many years and if they wanted to hit Israel they could have done it long ago, which is why I believe nuclear power is perceived by Iran as a deterrent.

Coming to the original topic being discussed here.
I really don't care about Israel celebrating its 60th anniversary. For all I care they can celebrate their centenary if they feel justified to do so. However, whilst there are so many unresolved issues

Yes, we agree. We're probably not going to always agree, let's agree however to not denying reality. Iran, as 
far as I can determine, has not a nuclear weapon as of today. We agree and I'm coming in late to the 
conversation so...apologize for confusion.

I'm sorry, where do you quote me using "ally" to describe Saudi Arabia? I was making a point concerning Iran. 
These are not Saudi Bombs killing American soldiers Sir, the Saudi military is not supplying rockets fired into 
Green Zones. And please do not attribute words to me I didn't write. Thank You.

May 5, 2008. A World to Win News Service. U.S. presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s recent threat to “totally obliterate” Iran was truly alarming, not just for what she said, but for what didn’t happen: for the firestorm of condemnation and repudiation that didn’t take place, either in Washington or any other Western capital. Even her rival for the Democratic Party nomination, Barack Obama, confined himself to gently chiding her for a poor choice of words—“It’s not the language we need right now.” What he didn’t say, and what no American politician likely to have a voice in the matter did not say either, is that what she is threatening is genocide, that genocide is a crime, and that even threats of genocide are unacceptable.
Clinton’s shocking threat revealed a great deal more than her own ambitions. It brought to light a certain mood in Washington as a whole, a consensus that Iran is a threat to American interests and that the U.S. should plan for and carry out whatever it takes to achieve political goals they all agree on.

So much for the idea that Bush’s impending exit from the White House might lessen the danger of an attack on Iran, before or after he leaves office.

Last November, a U.S. National Intelligence Estimate concluded that Iran was probably no longer engaging in a nuclear weapons program. The public release of that document indicated unease about the advisability of attacking Iran and contention within the ranks of those who make such decisions. But the situation has evolved somewhat since then. Ironically, as the stated end of Bush’s term in office appears on the horizon, it seems that the strategic assessment he made, in, for instance, his April 10 speech, has been broadly accepted among those who make such decisions. “Iraq is the convergence point of the two greatest threats to America in this century: Al Qaeda and Iran.”

Contrary to what he and others repeatedly imply or claim, the two are different in many basic ways. They are enemies, with no connection between them that anyone has ever provided the slightest evidence for. But you only have to rearrange these words a little to decode what Bush really meant, and what really is the truth: the Shia Islamic Republic of Iran and armed Sunni anti-U.S. Islamic fundamentalism are the sharpest threats to the locking in of the global “American century” the U.S. is seeking. Both reflect an Islamic fundamentalist tide, and the success of any of the diverse and mutually opposed components of this trend in confronting the U.S. emboldens and spurs on the others.

Even more ironically, if irony is appropriate when discussing calls for mass murder, Bush’s statement is far more true now than when he launched the “war on terror” and put Iran alongside Iraq on the “axis of evil.” What has made it truer is the U.S.’s whole international rampage since the 2001 attack on the World Trade Center. The American-led invasion of Afghanistan brought back to life a Taliban that had made itself hated and discredited among many Afghans. American attempts to keep hold of Pakistan have pushed armed Islamic fundamentalism there out of control. Looking to the other side of the horizon, the U.S.-backed Israeli invasion of Lebanon resulted in an unprecedented stalemate for the Israeli army and encouraged the growth of Hezbollah as one of Iran’s most militarily and politically potent allies, with a real army and modern weapons under its command and probably more sympathy throughout the Middle East than any of the American-dependent rulers.

In the eye of this hurricane sits Iraq. Of course Bush is lying when he blames Iran for the war against the U.S. occupation in Iraq. But there is no denying that that war is the best thing for Iran’s mullahs since they came to power. If they are overconfident that the U.S. will not dare attack or that such a war would end in an American defeat, perhaps it is because if there is a god, he has certainly been munificent to them in this regard. He gave them an American occupation in Iraq that, as concluded in a recent paper by U.S. Department of Defense analyst Joseph Collins, the U.S. can’t win and can’t afford to lose. (“Choosing War: The Decision to Invade Iraq and Its Aftermath,” Institute for Strategic Studies, National Defense University) Yet there is little hope for a political solution that would enable the U.S. to continue to rule Iraq without the help of forces tied to Islamic fundamentalism in general and especially to the Islamic Republic of Iran, the sister regime to the Islamic government the U.S. ended up installing in Iraq.

If American authorities are increasingly casting the Iraq war as about Iran, a “proxy war,” as U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker recently said, it is because the invasion of Iraq was never just about the Saddam Hussein regime, or just Iraq itself, but a U.S. bid for regional control which made a collision with Iran inevitable. While the ruling mullahs in Tehran are carefully calibrating their moves (for instance, supporting Shia forces both inside and opposed to the U.S.-installed Iraqi government), and trying to avoid or postpone a direct collision with the U.S. over Iraq, they are certainly seeking to advance their interests in what is, for them, an advantageous situation.

There is another side of the picture for the Iranian regime: It is completely surrounded on all sides by the American military, in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and the states of the Persian Gulf and Central Asia. Near the southeastern Iraq town of Kut, about 58 kilometers from the Iranian border and near a main border crossing between the two countries, American contractors are busily expanding barracks to comfortably house 6,000 U.S. troops. Until now, the installation has been a main base for spying on Iran. The U.S. sent first one and recently a second aircraft carrier strike group to the Gulf, and another one to the eastern Mediterranean off Lebanon. Few times in history has so much firepower been concentrated. On several occasions now, the U.S. and the UK have provoked naval clashes close to the Iranian shoreline. The additional amount of weapons of mass destruction the U.S. could quickly deploy from the Indian Ocean, Europe and the imperialist “homeland” itself is horrendous.

Yeah right make sure that the Osirak party does not back fire this time!

Hell will be unleashed if they do.

What isn't being thought thru is IRan with an atomic weapon...and how that changes the equation 
overnight.

No. I expected them to excel in roadside bombs. Short range rockets now being used today. I expected them to keep funding and supporting and training terrorism like they're currently doing in southern Lebanon with their lil proxy army Hezbollah or the undeniable support they feed Hamas and other Palestinian charities. I expected uranium enrichment with their claim its for civilian purposes only while your claim is they want the actual weapon as a deterrent.

The long range missiles you are talking about has not suddenly materialised and become a new invention in Iran. 
Iran has had this technology for many years and if they wanted to hit Israel they could have done it long ago, 
which is why I believe nuclear power is perceived by Iran as a deterrent.

http://www.janes.com/press/press/pc080411_1.shtml

You gotta be paying attention

And, they're startng to get resolved, huh?

Absolutely Charles... Israel certainly fears Iran attaining strategic nuclear capability, but not because it expects Iran to launch a suicidal nuclear exchange. That’s the sort of scare-story fueling 24/7 as a propoganda for public consumption. The reality is different. Israel with its nuclear arsenal is more than capable to take care of itself even a nuclear armed Iran is not a threat to Israel’s existence. The whole concern with Israel is based on maintaining an overwhelming strategic advantage over challengers. A nuclear armed Iran poses that challenge as Israel will no longer have the nuclear monopoly status in the region.

Your sarcasm is duly noted. Again my recollection of history in the region is different from yours and that's where we depart and go our separate path in seeking the truth. Let's not forget that Iran was the same country that Saddam invaded back in the eighties with the full backing and military support from US in a bloody war that lasted 8 years and cost many lives. Yet when was the last time Iran invaded another country? Hmmm, let me think.

Let's be clear about one thing. Iran has always maintained they’re enriching uranium for civilian purposes and to date NO ONE can prove otherwise. I on the other hand still maintain that nuclear weapon is generally a strategic deterrent should Iran face a threat to its national security and its existence and wish to go down the nuclear path. I'd like to think that this is generally the accepted view since deployment of nuclear weapons results in MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) and trust me the Iranian government despite some of his remarks is not stupid.

Tell me something that I didn't know. The article says Kavoshgar 1 was tested on 4th Feb and is no more advanced than Shahab 3. Shahab 3 on the other hand is a missile technology that Iran has possessed for many years capable of hitting Israel. The point remains if Iran wanted to attack Israel they could have done it long ago. This confirms what I have been saying that these weapons are there to serve as deterrent.

I sleep fairly comfortably each and every night...and so do you...in full awareness of Israel's nukes and their ability to both deploy and engage. Every single night. Iran acquires an atomic bomb...and people who pay attention...people like you and I don't sleep as comfortably. The Israelis don't sleep at all. They simply cannot permit it.

I will sleep comportably irrespective of whether Iran goes down the nuclear path or doesn't and so do you...fully aware of what Iran can do and can't do. Indeed what I would question in my conscience is the morality by which US engages herself in yet another attack on another country killing many more civillians and US soldiers in the process, coupled with yet more chaos and havoc and hatred of more people in the name of "War on Terror" for the sake of nuclear armed Israel.

Again, kactus doesn't care at all if Iran is involved in another war, get carpet bombed, and have thousands of death because they will be building nukes.
The only thing he cares about is the "morality of the US leading such attack". Go figure.

I mean it's totaly irresponsible to continue to be in favor of uranium enrichement and/or nuclear weapon programs in Iran, knowing that if they do that they will be a devastating air bombing campains upon them with absolute certainty.

I'm against the iranian nuclear program, not because I fear for the safety of Israel or UK, but because I fear for the safety of ordinary Iranian civilians.

Almost ALL the Arab nations fear Irans expansionism in the Mid-East. An attempt by Iran to rule the region and its hegemony will not be quiet, it will result in the whole Mid-East at war.

...today you are sleeping quite soundly. Israeli nukes do not affect your slumber today

they will be a devastating air bombing campains upon them with absolute certainty.

Only the centrifugues

Only civilians work near the centrifuges.

+ I always said that such attack will involve the total destruction of their army, at least of all their airforce and naval fleet.

It will be Israel that pulls the trigger

Shiis and Sunnis, they hate each other

and the US who receives the bullet.


urban myth of the western part-time news experts on everything. There are polls showing positive Arab attitudes toward Iranian nuclear program. You're always confusing Arab street and Arab palace.

any thing else to declare, Terry, besides medical assessments of the forummers, the 4 000 year old tribal warfare, and the "mission-capable" Israel ??

I bet you weren't so attached to Israel before marriage. What do you want, - Judea and Samaria "redeemed", the Temple rebuilt, the Arabs cleansed, and the rabbis sorting people out to determine who deserves to marry and who doesn't? Heroic revolutionary vision/

and the US who receives the bullet.


urban myth of the western part-time news experts on everything. There are polls showing positive Arab attitudes toward Iranian nuclear program. You're always confusing Arab street and Arab palace.

but Israeli walls and checkpoints and settlements and guns very much affect some people in this world.

It's not about a Western burger-eater "sleeping quite soundly" in his mort-gaged house assured of the peaceful nature of the Israeli nukes. There are other people besides you in this world.

An entire nation is systematically crippled by Israel's behaviour. I have more concern for people in refugee camps than for your sound sleep.

but Israeli walls and checkpoints and settlements and guns very much affect some people in this world. It's not about a Western burger-eater "sleeping quite soundly" in his mort-gaged house assured of the peaceful nature of the Israeli nukes. There are other people besides you in this world. An entire nation is systematically crippled by Israel's behaviour. I have more concern for people in refugee camps than for your sound sleep.

Freddie prophesized:


you used to argue the bombing would only affect nuclear sites and not touch even military objects. Iranian people have absolute certainty in America's humanistic nature, and are soundly sleeping in full knowledge that the US will never bomb innocent civilians. Only the centrifugues.

and the US who receives the bullet.


urban myth of the western part-time news experts on everything. There are polls showing positive Arab attitudes toward Iranian nuclear program. You're always confusing Arab street and Arab palace.

Arab populous doesn't have much leverage though, while Arab regime does...palace it is and palace is what opposes a nuclear Iran.  Quietly, most Arab regimes will support a strike on Iran.