AG.

Surely you realise that the psychological warfare between Iran and Israel is mutual.

Should I repost my links & quotes about the non-threat posed by Iran as declared by the former head of Israel's Military Intelligence, Ze'ev Farkash? He's not the first Israeli to poopoo the rhetoric.

I have more faith in the resiliance of the Israelis than you and many others do.

During the run-up to the war on Iraq, the boo-scary tactics twere filling the media along with instructions about gasmasks, safe rooms, anthrax vaccines for 1st responders, etc. Fortunately, there were some wiser heads w/creds who mocked the campaign; citing the real scenario vis a vis the "threat" posed by Saddam's imaginary arsenal.

(In addition, in Dec '02, Sharon had rather derisively declared that Saddam had personally called him when he was FM during Operation Desert Fox to reassure him that Iraq wouldn't be sending any missiles Tel Aviv's way)

In the weeks prior to the onset of the war, Israelis figured out that they were being snookered for political purposes and reacted by outright refusing to follow CD instructions. There was widespread outrage and mockery of the fear tactics being employed on the population.

I was impressed.

The Israeli government is no different than any other in that lying to the citizens is SOP.

The real reason for the Iran as demon scenario is a long-held Israeli policy of absolute military dominance in the region. The declining and emerging ability of other nation-states to challenge that state of affairs is reflected in the designation and subsequent demonization of the enemy du jour. Whether or not said country actually poses a real threat is immaterial.

"And my mind won't open. I'll re-read after my sini clear."

I think you meant "Sinai."

"There is choking off of drug money from Taliban in Afghanistan"

Get your facts straight. The Taliban, contrary to popular opinion, outlawed and drastically reduced the production of opium in Afghanistan which was probably one of the reasons for the US invasion - protecting the supply of heroin. Since the USA invasion, opium production has reached record levels.

http://opioids.com/afghanistan/index.html
.

I was thinking more of the Israelis. They have had a nuclear monopoly in the Mideast, and have been squandering it foolishly of late pandering to their Warsaw Ghetto nutcases in the miserable West Bank cinder blocks. The window of opportunity for cutting a reasonable deal with moderate Palestinians -a large but not growing segment- is not necessarily going to stay open indefinitely while AIPAC drones talk
'til Kingdom comes about how those Palestinians can have their own state after each and every 4 million of them becomes a saint. Time is not on the side of the majority of Israelis who do not want to die in the hell their settlers are helping create.

As for the Iranians -meaning the ones who have not moved to London, Paris, Maryland or West LA- they would like a little more respect. They are not Arabs, they are not Turks, they have done a lot of other things in the history of the world besides run falafel stands and drive cabs. If they had the A-bomb there would less chance of the Mossad or CIA agents that are assumed to be crouched behind every shrub jumping out to bite them. The next Saddam would be less willing to start a war with them if they could make a mushroom cloud or two. That won't help them become computer programmers, have clean air to breath in their cities, or be able to kiss their girlfriends in a public place, however. They need outside assistance for that. After 30 years of "Death to the Great Satan" chants, they are ready for "let's make a deal." So will be the Palestinians once offered something besides oppression, and the Israelis, once given something beside mindless bootlicking.

This same recycled hysteria about the "imminent" attack has been circulating for years. One leading neo-con motor-mouths (can't recall for sure which one) was 90+% certain Bush Jr. would do it before leaving office. Guess what? W is only in his sixties, wants a crack at rescuing his mightily less than stellar legacy, and General Jack Ripper of vital bodily fluid fame is not his great hero.

America did not elect Obama so that he could be the SECOND president this decade to rush into a shock and awe cakewalk to remove nonexistent WMD from a foreign country, in a reckless hurry before credible plans could be made let alone alternative approaches considered.

Every time this BarbraAnn mantra resurfaces intelligent people try to explain that the equipment is too dispersed in a large country, bombing them would be of limited use in stopping the nuke development, while serving on silver platter an ideal excuse for continuing and intensifying such nuke development, etc. The snake oil peddlers then disappear for a while to organize a costume change.

Point 9 is missing. The U.S. and Israeli governments go insane when cued to do so by conspiracy theorists.

It's quite clear that Amedinejad wants the current Israeli system to be destroyed. It's a little less clear whether he wants (a) to remove the Israeli Jews (i.e., genocide) or (b) just remove the Jewish ethnocratic system. A lot of Israel's supporters argue that Amedinejad probably means (a) and, even if he does mean (b), (b) is really equivalent to (a). Some who are sympathetic to Arab/Persian claims that Israel's system is an unjust ethnocrcacy believe that Amedinejad means (b) and that in arguing for the end of the Zionist regime, Amedinejad is simply arguing for the destruction of the Israeli version of apartheid. I don't speak Farsi, so I can't be sure. Another possibility, not often discussed, is that Amedinejad is being purposely ambiguous, so that his statements can be read as (a) by those who want to read them that way, but also explained as (b) when convenient. Again, I don't know Farsi or Amedinejad well enough to know what's correct. But I do think all three possibilities are viable.

Hello MJ -

We have a hard time understanding how that guy, wearing his tan jacket, got elected ... but overall we have a hard time figuring out anything in that country ... for example one-month 'marriages' that are signed off on by one's local clergyman.

I suspect what he says makes sense over there.

We had a president, just now retired, that was absolutely incomprehensible to almost the whole world. Bizarre statements flowed ceaselessly from the man. The world, except for an Australian or two, was baffled and frightened.

I think we need to talk more, not less, with Iran in general. Understanding is always a good thing.