I hope Obama's gambit of trading missile defense to the Russians in exchange for their support on the issue of Iran's programme

The Iranians are not going to stop their program.  I'm amazed at the naivety of polticians across the globe who think that they can talk or threaten Iran into stopping its weapons program through "diplomacy".  Sanctions have never served to do anything other than earn the sanctioner the disdain of the sanctionee's citizens. Sudan, Iraq, Cuba, North Korea all have been targets of sanctions which ultimately failed to bring about the changes that the sanctions were designed to ignite.

If anybody expects the Iranian program to cease, it will have to be done through military means.

Mind you I am not advocating an invasion or targeted bombing run, but those are the facts.

To date the only nuclear power to disarm itself was South Africa, but that happened after a wholesale regime change which was unrelated to the nuclear thing.

Keep an eye on them? In the 30's that's what Britain and France said about Hitler!

Sat's absolutely right, as soon as Ahmadenijad has working nuclear weapons, he's going to use them! I say we move some planes over from Iraq and bomb their nuke plants into oblivion, BEFORE they try to launch them against Russia, Israel, or anyone else that madman feels like killing!

Here you have it, folks. Eight months into this sham of an administration and Obama Bin Laden has already, and unforgivably, jeopardized our National Security by sending Hellary around to kiss the butts of the outlaw regimes, instead of taking the necessary hardline that President Bush did, with sanctions & blockades!

Your Outraged Pal,
Doc

But blockades and sanctions, will only an already trigger happy, Ahmadenijad to want to nuke America.  The last time someone tried that, all heck nearly broke out.

We should atleast try using dipolomacy first, and see where that take us, and in the mean time, keep a really close eye on  Ahmadenijad.
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/06/madgo.gif

Just struck me that this is becoming even more appropriate than when I wrote it a couple of years ago - When Iran Gets an A-Bomb (to the tune of "When a Man Loves a Woman")

To date the only nuclear power to disarm itself was South Africa, but that happened after a wholesale regime change which was unrelated to the nuclear thing.


While I agree with the rest of your post, this isn't true.  Canada also willingly disarmed its nukes (although they are ironically the world's largest uranium supplier).

Keep an eye on them? In the 30's that's what Britain and France said about Hitler!

Sat's absolutely right, as soon as Ahmadenijad has working nuclear weapons, he's going to use them! I say we move some planes over from Iraq and bomb their nuke plants into oblivion, BEFORE they try to launch them against Russia, Israel, or anyone else that madman feels like killing!

Here you have it, folks. Eight months into this sham of an administration and Obama Bin Laden has already, and unforgivably, jeopardized our National Security by sending Hellary around to kiss the butts of the outlaw regimes, instead of taking the necessary hardline that President Bush did, with sanctions & blockades!

Your Outraged Pal,
Doc
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/06/madgo.gif



Shouldn't this be in the "What's the Last Thing You Bought" thread

Thought I would check in with everybody here as to what y'all think about the Iranian nuclear situation.

Being a pragmatist I am 100% sure that Iran is doing this for the primary purpose of developing nuclear weapons.

However... I have a problem with the US, France, and Britain, three of the world's nuclear-armed states, trying to prevent Iran from having them.  This appears to me to be supremely hypocritical, and especially since Israel is not even a signator to the Nonproliferation Treaty and most likely has a cache of nukes.

Mind you I would rather that Iran not have nuclear weapons, but I also would rather that nobody else does too.

As such I see the current actions against Iran to be counterproductive and doomed to fail, because they are not being made from a position of moral strength.

What say you?


I say same

While I agree with the rest of your post, this isn't true.  Canada also willingly disarmed its nukes (although they are ironically the world's largest uranium supplier).


Oh, I didnt know that the Canucks ever had nukes.  Cool.

I am guessing this happened of their own initiative and not due to sanctions.

While I oppose the spread of nukes, the assumption that Iran, or N. Korea for that matter would use them is, I think, fallacious because MAD would enter the picture.  The real worry is that a nuke would fall into the hands of a terrorist group which, being stateless, could not itself be nuked.

While I oppose the spread of nukes, the assumption that Iran, or N. Korea for that matter would use them is, I think, fallacious because MAD would enter the picture.  The real worry is that a nuke would fall into the hands of a terrorist group which, being stateless, could not itself be nuked.


The terrorist angle is certainly one to worry about.  Heck we got enough problems with old Soviet and Pakistani nukes getting into the wrong hands, let alone have to worry about these Iranian schmuks.

But MAD may be less of a deterrent to an Iranian leader (or even Pakistani regime if a fundamentalist gets into power there).  After all, you see Islamic schools teaching people how glorious it is to shove high explosives up their backsides and blow themselves up for Allah.  This is much different than the rest of the world, whose mantra of aggressiveness is "whack the other guy, but by all means possible try to come out in one piece yourself".

Oh, I didnt know that the Canucks ever had nukes.  Cool.

I am guessing this happened of their own initiative and not due to sanctions.


Yep, I think it was in either the 60s or 70s when they had a missile shield working in concordance with America's installations.  For a while, we pressured them into maintaining their nukes for fear of a possible WW3, but eventually, they disarmed their nukes and sold the uranium to other countries.

Not surprisingly, Canada is most of the reason why India and Pakistan have nukes.

The terrorist angle is certainly one to worry about.  Heck we got enough problems with old Soviet and Pakistani nukes getting into the wrong hands, let alone have to worry about these Iranian schmuks.

But MAD may be less of a deterrent to an Iranian leader (or even Pakistani regime if a fundamentalist gets into power there).  After all, you see Islamic schools teaching people how glorious it is to shove high explosives up their backsides and blow themselves up for Allah.  This is much different than the rest of the world, whose mantra of aggressiveness is "whack the other guy, but by all means possible try to come out in one piece yourself".



I tend to agree with Carlos on this.  I don't see the Ayatollah as crazy enough or stupid enough to use nukes on anyone, although the use of dirty bombs in terror attacks is certainly still possible.

Yep, I think it was in either the 60s or 70s when they had a missile shield working in concordance with America's installations.  For a while, we pressured them into maintaining their nukes for fear of a possible WW3, but eventually, they disarmed their nukes and sold the uranium to other countries.

Hang on, I'm pretty sure that Canada never developed nuclear weapons of its own. Canada used to have US nuclear weapons deployed in its territory as part of NATO's programme of "nuclear sharing":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_sharing

This is a NATO programme whereby countries that possess nuclear weapons use the territory of non-nuclear nations to deploy them. According to that Wikipedia article, the countries that currently participate in the programme are Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey, which means that the United States has some of its nuclear weapons stationed in them. The Wikipedia article says that Canada and Greece used to be participants in the programme, but they withdrew, Canada in 1984 and Greece in 2001.

While I agree with the rest of your post, this isn't true.  Canada also willingly disarmed its nukes (although they are ironically the world's largest uranium supplier).


(Thanks, Macphisto, for beating me to the punch while I got bogged down in Canadian aerospace history and trying to come up with a good Sun City joke :)

The Canucks never had their own weapons.  There may or may not have been US weapons stored on Canadian soil as part of joint defense agreements.  In the years before the ICBM, the threat was manned bombers.  The BOMARC surface-to-air missile was so inaccurate that it would have been useless against squadrons of inbound Soviet bombers, had it been armed with a conventional warhead.  And yet, Canada scrapped the Avro Arrow - a manned interceptor that outperformed of anything the US had for sale - in favor of BOMARCs.  So, what was on the tips of some of those BOMARCs, and who was actually at the firing console, is a matter of legal and historical nitpicking.  Technically, however, Canada was never a nuclear-armed state.  Just like various European countries, where US bases may or may not have had certain weapons.

(Side note: The Arrow is a pet peeve of mine -- it was a better interceptor than anything the US had fielded, and in 1959, had prototype #6 flown, it would have changed the North American aerospace industry.  The first 5 prototypes flew with ~34,000 pounds of thrust from US-sourced J75 engines, and even with the low-power engines, it did Mach 2 in a climb.  RL206 would have had 50,000 pounds of thrust from the Iroquois engines for which the plane was originally designed, and would have beaten anything in the sky (with the exception of certain skunkworks projects that probably existed only on paper) for at least a decade.  The project was cancelled days before the test flight of #6, and all prototypes, rather than being mothballed or sold to other contractors, were cut into scrap metal.  20,000 Canadian engineers who lost their jobs... but not for long -- they all wound up working for US or UK contractors, on everything from the Concorde to the Apollo programme.  The Canadian aerospace industry effectively ended that year, and over something that was essentiall a political squabble.)

Back on topic, there is an example of a state voluntarily relinquishing its weapons programme.  Whether or not they were working with the Israelis, or were working alone, or had nothing to do with whatever happened in 1979 is still up for debate.  But the fact that South Africa pulled the plug on an advanced weapons programme is pretty much undeniable.  They didn't want to go down that road, they came clean on it, and that was that.  And yes, this was years before they tossed out Apartheid, so even South Africa's crazies had limits to their craziness.

Iran's?  Well, we can hope.  But I'm not betting on it.

"Our government tells us we're doing all we can,
'Constructive engagement' is (Politician's) plan,
Meanwhile, people are dying, and giving up hope,
Aaw, this playing diplomacy ain't nothin' but a joke..."
    - Artists United Against Irony.

Insert your own punchline about Artists United Against Apartheid (because diplomacy's ineffective when dealing with nuclear-armed fanatics), South Africa, Iran, and how playin' diplomacy is suddenly wonderful again.  Bonus style points for working the line "Somebody tell me why we're always on the wrong side."  Triple word score if you can fit the President's race into it!

Watching the UN deal with proliferation issues has been like Team America: World Police come to life.  In defense of the left, hey, we tried the alternative in 2003, and it sucked even worse.  It's a catch-22.

Sometimes you gotta break a few eggs to make an omelet.  Sometimes you just gotta lose a couple cities to make it to the next wave in Missile Command.  War.  War never changes...

Ah well then...  you learn something new everyday.  Thanks for the info, Satish and Foo.

I agree with what LB said, they Iranians are not going to dismantle their nuke program.  Like the Iranian regime or not, from the perspective of Iran, I can't blame them for wanting to have nukes.  Nuclear arms designate your country as one with clout and status, that's for sure.  The other thing is, if they back down now, they'll look like wimps!

I mean, for chrissakes, I wish NOBODY had nuclear weapons, but the genie's been outta the bottle for over sixty years, and he ain't going back in.

http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/08/saeek.gif

I agree with what LB said, they Iranians are not going to dismantle their nuke program.  Like the Iranian regime or not, from the perspective of Iran, I can't blame them for wanting to have nukes.  Nuclear arms designate your country as one with clout and status, that's for sure.  The other thing is, if they back down now, they'll look like wimps!

I mean, for chrissakes, I wish NOBODY had nuclear weapons, but the genie's been outta the bottle for over sixty years, and he ain't going back in.

http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/08/saeek.gif


Well that, and as long as Israel has nukes, Islamic nations should invest in the technology for their own defense.

I have some fear here, because Iran is another word for Aryan. The Iranian Language has ties to the European Languages and many people feel that Aryans are the perfect race with Blond Hair, Blue Eyes, and White Skin.

I feel that a new Hitler and/or antichrist is on his way! :-\\

I have some fear here, because Iran is another word for Aryan. The Iranian Language has ties to the European Languages and many people feel that Aryans are the perfect race with Blond Hair, Blue Eyes, and White Skin.

I feel that a new Hitler and/or antichrist is on his way! :-\\


There is much more likelihood that the next Hitler will come from the European Union, which history will eventually show to be a supreme mistake.

The "Hitler" figure will rise as an ultranationalist leader of one of the EU member countries, and he will grow in popularity and power as he blames his country's problems on the EU's incursion on the sovreignity of his country.  That will be his excuse to launch a war of aggression against the rest of the EU.

There is much more likelihood that the next Hitler will come from the European Union, which history will eventually show to be a supreme mistake.
"Supreme mistake"?

Unlikely.


The "Hitler" figure will rise as an ultranationalist leader of one of the EU member countries, and he will grow in popularity and power as he blames his country's problems on the EU's incursion on the sovreignity of his country.  That will be his excuse to launch a war of aggression against the rest of the EU.

The only country that could ever be powerful enough to launch a war of aggression against the rest of the EU from inside is Germany, and it might just be noticeable if they started to rearm.

The whole point of the original European project was to so entangle the economies of the countries that it would be just too darn confusing to unravel if one country were to try fighting against another.  Your scenario is not even remotely feasable within the foreseeable future (catastrophic climate/food/asteroid collision sort of events excepted).

I have some fear here, because Iran is another word for Aryan. The Iranian Language has ties to the European Languages and many people feel that Aryans are the perfect race with Blond Hair, Blue Eyes, and White Skin.

I feel that a new Hitler and/or antichrist is on his way! :-\\


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_(name)

The use of Iran as a name predates Hitler by thousands of years.  If anything, it was simply a matter of Hitler misusing the term Aryan that gives us much of our modern connotations for this word.  Aryans weren't anything like the blond-haired blue eyed people that Hitler idolized.

While I oppose the spread of nukes, the assumption that Iran, or N. Korea for that matter would use them is, I think, fallacious because MAD would enter the picture.  The real worry is that a nuke would fall into the hands of a terrorist group which, being stateless, could not itself be nuked.


QFT. and karma.

Ant

The real worry is that a nuke would fall into the hands of a terrorist group which, being stateless, could not itself be nuked.



It was with the fall of the Soviet Union that nukes, and the ability to gain the materials to make them, became black market fodder.
That is one of the reasons why, when everyone was dancing around celebrating the fall of the Berlin Wall, I was shaking my head wondering what they must be thinking cheering on that buffoon Yeltsin sitting drunk on top of a tank, after receiving the blessings of GHWbush.  It is my opinion that Gorbachev had a very difficult job, but if he had been able to retain power the chaos that followed would have been averted.

Couldn't resist pointing this out.. anybody else spot the story that Ahmadinejad used to be (well, from a genetic rather than religious perspective, still is) Jewish?

...I wrote a song about it :)

While I oppose the spread of nukes, the assumption that Iran, or N. Korea for that matter would use them is, I think, fallacious because MAD would enter the picture.  The real worry is that a nuke would fall into the hands of a terrorist group which, being stateless, could not itself be nuked.


The only problem with MAD is that it only works in the absense of extreme emotions, when both sides feel like they have something to loose.

While Hitler had WMDs, who knows what he might have done with them towards the end of the war if he himself was not so personally against their use?  Many historians are still surprised that he never even authorixed their use against the Soviets.

And during the Soviet downfall, many people were worried that some generals, with nothing else to use, might have ordered their release.

Fortuniately, MAD worked because both the US and USSR are (and were) at heart rather logical and emotionless nations.  They both resisted the impulse to use the damned things, where many other nations might have ordered their release.

If Egypt, Jodan, Syria, or Iraq had an atomic bomb in 1967, they probably would have used it against Israel.  Those wars were fought purely on rage and emotion, and had no goal other then to destroy Israel.  And I don't believe that it was to "Liberate Palestine" as they claim, since Jordan was already holding most of that territory at the time, and showed no interest in turning it loose to allow an independent Palestine to form.

If Egypt, Jodan, Syria, or Iraq had an atomic bomb in 1967, they probably would have used it against Israel.  Those wars were fought purely on rage and emotion, and had no goal other then to destroy Israel.  And I don't believe that it was to "Liberate Palestine" as they claim, since Jordan was already holding most of that territory at the time, and showed no interest in turning it loose to allow an independent Palestine to form.


Well, to be fair, Israel isn't exactly the most rational nation either, but they've had nukes since the late '60s or '70s.  If any nation had a temptation to use them, it would be them.

Then again, the very fact that Israel has nukes makes it impossible to demand that Iran disarm itself without seeming very hypocritical.

Well, to be fair, Israel isn't exactly the most rational nation either, but they've had nukes since the late '60s or '70s.  If any nation had a temptation to use them, it would be them.

Then again, the very fact that Israel has nukes makes it impossible to demand that Iran disarm itself without seeming very hypocritical.


But there are big differences.

Israel has gone out of their way to deny they even have them.  They are not screaming to the world "Hey, we got nukes!  If you invade us we will smash you!"  Nor are they going "We have nukes, do what we say or we will smash you!"

The presence of nukes does not bother me, no more then the presence of a gun bothers me.  What bothers me is who is holding it, and how stable they are.

Israel has had times in the past where it could easily have used nukes.  The 1973 war springs immediately to mind.  But even when it looked like they might be over-run, they did not use them.  That shows a huge degree of restraint.  The US and USSR many times also showed similar restraint.

I do not think that Iran has that kind of restraint.  It is not about the weapons, it is about the leaders that would have control over them.

But there are big differences.

Israel has gone out of their way to deny they even have them.  They are not screaming to the world "Hey, we got nukes!  If you invade us we will smash you!"  Nor are they going "We have nukes, do what we say or we will smash you!"

Deceiving the world about your nukes isn't a positive thing.  Remember, this is how this whole problem started with Iran.  They claimed that they were only researching nuclear technology for power, not for bombs.

It wasn't right that they lied about their intentions, and it wasn't right that Israel lied about their arsenal.  It also wasn't right that France gave Israel nukes, knowing the turmoil this would eventually cause.

Unless, of course, you're suggesting that lying about WMDs is a good thing -- which is what both Dubya and Saddam did.


The presence of nukes does not bother me, no more then the presence of a gun bothers me.  What bothers me is who is holding it, and how stable they are.

Israel has had times in the past where it could easily have used nukes.  The 1973 war springs immediately to mind.  But even when it looked like they might be over-run, they did not use them.  That shows a huge degree of restraint.  The US and USSR many times also showed similar restraint.

When it comes to nukes, yes.  When it comes to just about everything else, Israel isn’t exactly restrained.  Granted, I have to admit that we’d be even less restrained if we were in their situation.


I do not think that Iran has that kind of restraint.  It is not about the weapons, it is about the leaders that would have control over them.


I agree to a point.  However, I believe that MAD is just as effective on Iran as most other nations.  Since Israel already has nukes, they serve as a counterbalance to Iran.

It wasn't right that they lied about their intentions, and it wasn't right that Israel lied about their arsenal.  It also wasn't right that France gave Israel nukes, knowing the turmoil this would eventually cause.


Actually, they do not lie about them.  Their standard reply is the exact same one that the US gives when somebody asks about their possession of nuclear weapons.

"We will neither confirm nor deny..."

I used to guard the damned things, and that was the reply I had to give whenever I was asked if they were being held on my base.  And you can not rely on that phrase to be a positive answer, since they last of the nukes were pulled out in 1984, but we continued to use the "confirm nor deny" response until 1986, then the US Navy finally anounced that we had removed the nukes.


I agree to a point.  However, I believe that MAD is just as effective on Iran as most other nations.  Since Israel already has nukes, they serve as a counterbalance to Iran.


But Israel and Iran are not traditional enemies.  They do not share a common border, they have no disputed territory, they are not competitors in trade.  And Israel has no reason to wish war with Iran.  In fact, the two nations have never been in conflict.  Even during the "Arab-Israeli" wars, Iran was never involved.

And ironically, during that period Iran and Israel were actually allied.  Iran was worried about what a large combined Arab state might mean to them (since they are not an Arab nation), and they frequently worked together to help either remove tensions or prevent conflicts.

The entire issue now is not political, it is religious.  As the Arab nations have grown to accept their presence, the findamentalists have come to see them as a threat in their goal of achieving an "Islamic Nation", with Iran of course as the leading power.

And the problem with dealing with any Fundamentalist is that they are by their very nature not very logical as a rule.  Their basis for most things is belief and dogma, not logic and reconciliation.  In many ways, it reminds me of Nazi Germany and Japan in WWII.

Japan entered the war based on financial need, and did not have the intent of "destroying" the nations they were at war with.  Germany on the other hand wanted to destroy everything in it's path and make a "new world order".  And once defeated, Japan became a strong ally and important trading partner without the need to replace their entire form of Government.  Germany on the other hand remained beligerant, and their entire former government had to be excised, through "De-Nazification".
And nobody in the region felt safe until it was further divided for the next 50 years.

Israel is never going to invade Iran, and Iran is never going to invade Israel.  However, both have the ability to do vast damage to each other.  And I do not remember hearing a single speech by the Prime Minister of Israel in the Knesset saying that Iran should be destroyed, or that Iranians (or any other Muslims) should be killed or removed from the region.

But speeched like that by I'm-A-Dinner-Jacket make the news on almost a weekly basis.

Actually, they do not lie about them.  Their standard reply is the exact same one that the US gives when somebody asks about their possession of nuclear weapons.

"We will neither confirm nor deny..."

I used to guard the damned things, and that was the reply I had to give whenever I was asked if they were being held on my base.  And you can not rely on that phrase to be a positive answer, since they last of the nukes were pulled out in 1984, but we continued to use the "confirm nor deny" response until 1986, then the US Navy finally anounced that we had removed the nukes.

To me...  that’s just semantics.


But Israel and Iran are not traditional enemies.  They do not share a common border, they have no disputed territory, they are not competitors in trade.  And Israel has no reason to wish war with Iran.  In fact, the two nations have never been in conflict.  Even during the "Arab-Israeli" wars, Iran was never involved.

And ironically, during that period Iran and Israel were actually allied.  Iran was worried about what a large combined Arab state might mean to them (since they are not an Arab nation), and they frequently worked together to help either remove tensions or prevent conflicts.

The entire issue now is not political, it is religious.  As the Arab nations have grown to accept their presence, the findamentalists have come to see them as a threat in their goal of achieving an "Islamic Nation", with Iran of course as the leading power.

And the problem with dealing with any Fundamentalist is that they are by their very nature not very logical as a rule.  Their basis for most things is belief and dogma, not logic and reconciliation.  In many ways, it reminds me of Nazi Germany and Japan in WWII.

Japan entered the war based on financial need, and did not have the intent of "destroying" the nations they were at war with.  Germany on the other hand wanted to destroy everything in it's path and make a "new world order".  And once defeated, Japan became a strong ally and important trading partner without the need to replace their entire form of Government.  Germany on the other hand remained beligerant, and their entire former government had to be excised, through "De-Nazification".
And nobody in the region felt safe until it was further divided for the next 50 years.

Israel is never going to invade Iran, and Iran is never going to invade Israel.  However, both have the ability to do vast damage to each other.  And I do not remember hearing a single speech by the Prime Minister of Israel in the Knesset saying that Iran should be destroyed, or that Iranians (or any other Muslims) should be killed or removed from the region.

But speeched like that by I'm-A-Dinner-Jacket make the news on almost a weekly basis.


Israel may not give many hateful speeches like Ahmadinejad, but the IDF certainly does many hateful things to Palestinians.

That aside, I’m not suggesting that Iran is virtuous by any stretch of the imagination.  I still must say though that it is simply not feasible to expect Iran to disarm as long as Israel has nukes.

If you were in their position, would you?

Israel may not give many hateful speeches like Ahmadinejad, but the IDF certainly does many hateful things to Palestinians.


And what does Palestine have to do with Iran?

Face it, not one Islamic nation in the region gives a damn about Palestine.  To most of them, they are nothing but a bunch of barbaric peasents.  They make convenient cannon fodder, and come in handy so they can act all pious and upset at what their "enemy" is doing to them.

But in reality, they could not care less.  Instead of helping them establish Palestine in the region given over to them in the 1948 partition, they locked them up in "Refugee camps", and kept them in absolute poverty.  Instead of giving them grants and loans to rebuild their economy, they simply look at them and shake their heads at Israel.  And don't do a damned thing to actually help the Palestinian people.

And since they are Arabs, the Iranians could not care less either.  The Iranians are not Arabs, and consider the entire Arab culture to be upshoot barbarians.  To Iran, the Arabs have no culture, and would still be a bunch of nomadic camel riders if not for the presence of oil.  While Iran is a Caucasian nation, and is descended from one of the oldest cultures in the world.

And if Iran really cared about Palestine, they would be sending them aid to rebuild their nation, not weapons.  It is in their interest to keep Israel and Palestine at war.  Because it gives them cannon fodder to use against Israel (and any Government they do not like).  And a region in constant turmoil is prime breeding ground for fundamentalists.

And what does Palestine have to do with Iran?

As long as Israelis keep the Palestinians desperate, they are used as pawns by the Islamic World.  It's not the Israelis' fault that this happens, but they could do themselves a big favor by actually normalizing relations with the Palestinians.  Iran is one of the supporters of Hezbollah, but their support for Hezbollah would likely decrease by a large amount if the Palestinians weren't so desperate.

Face it, not one Islamic nation in the region gives a damn about Palestine.  To most of them, they are nothing but a bunch of barbaric peasents.  They make convenient cannon fodder, and come in handy so they can act all pious and upset at what their "enemy" is doing to them.

But in reality, they could not care less.  Instead of helping them establish Palestine in the region given over to them in the 1948 partition, they locked them up in "Refugee camps", and kept them in absolute poverty.  Instead of giving them grants and loans to rebuild their economy, they simply look at them and shake their heads at Israel.  And don't do a damned thing to actually help the Palestinian people.

I agree, but Israel hasn't taken the appropriate steps either.

And since they are Arabs, the Iranians could not care less either.  The Iranians are not Arabs, and consider the entire Arab culture to be upshoot barbarians.  To Iran, the Arabs have no culture, and would still be a bunch of nomadic camel riders if not for the presence of oil.  While Iran is a Caucasian nation, and is descended from one of the oldest cultures in the world.

And if Iran really cared about Palestine, they would be sending them aid to rebuild their nation, not weapons.  It is in their interest to keep Israel and Palestine at war.  Because it gives them cannon fodder to use against Israel (and any Government they do not like).  And a region in constant turmoil is prime breeding ground for fundamentalists.


Then again, realizing all this, why does Israel continue to allow this situation to exist?  Considering that Israel is right next door to Palestine, you would think that they would take a more pro-active approach to helping the Palestinians escape their vulnerable position.

So, again, I'm not absolving Iran of responsibility, but I'm not doing that for Israel either.