Remember when Likud and Labour worked with the president of the United States.

That was before Barack Obma engaged Iran when Tehran was threatening a nuclear Holocaust against Israel and insulted the PM of Israel over and over again. That was before the president got close to signing a deal with Iran that is eventually going to allow them to enrich uranium.

That is your fabrication and distortion of what the Iranians actually said.

Considering how many fabrications you have posted on this forum, you should be an expert on them, however, we can add another one - a straw man - to your long list. Iranians have made many threats, not just one. These are just a few of them:

The Statements of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei

The elimination of Israel from the region – January 15, 2001

In the Iranian system, the highest-ranking political authority is

the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who succeeded

Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in 1989. Khamenei has made

statements about Israel similar to Ahmadinejad’s. In a Friday

sermon on December 15, 2000 (shown on Iranian TV), he

declared: “Iran’s position, which was first expressed by the

Imam [Khomeini] and stated several times by those responsible,

is that the cancerous tumor called Israel must be uprooted from

the region.”11

Many more threats:

http://jcpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/IransIntent2012b.pdf

When will Israel allow IAEA inspections of its nuclear facilities and nuclear arsenal?

When they decide to. They are under no obligation to do so, unlike Iran who have signed a treaty that they are violating.

If I was leading Iran, I would insist that Israel, the USA and everybody else get rid of all they weapons of mass destruction. Then we can talk.

Thats fair.

Remember when Likud and Labour worked with the president of the United States.

That was before Barack Obma engaged Iran when Tehran was threatening a nuclear Holocaust against Israel and insulted the PM of Israel over and over again. That was before the president got close to signing a deal with Iran that is eventually going to allow them to enrich uranium.

That is your fabrication and distortion of what the Iranians actually said.

Considering how many fabrications you have posted on this forum, you should be an expert on them, however, we can add another one - a straw man - to your long list. Iranians have made many threats, not just one. These are just a few of them:

The Statements of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei

The elimination of Israel from the region – January 15, 2001

In the Iranian system, the highest-ranking political authority is

the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who succeeded

Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in 1989. Khamenei has made

statements about Israel similar to Ahmadinejad’s. In a Friday

sermon on December 15, 2000 (shown on Iranian TV), he

declared: “Iran’s position, which was first expressed by the

Imam [Khomeini] and stated several times by those responsible,

is that the cancerous tumor called Israel must be uprooted from

the region.”11

Many more threats:

http://jcpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/IransIntent2012b.pdf

Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs is not really an unbiased source...

Your point is rejected.

Remember when Likud and Labour worked with the president of the United States.

That was before Barack Obma engaged Iran when Tehran was threatening a nuclear Holocaust against Israel and insulted the PM of Israel over and over again. That was before the president got close to signing a deal with Iran that is eventually going to allow them to enrich uranium.

That is your fabrication and distortion of what the Iranians actually said.

Considering how many fabrications you have posted on this forum, you should be an expert on them, however, we can add another one - a straw man - to your long list. Iranians have made many threats, not just one. These are just a few of them:

The Statements of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei

The elimination of Israel from the region – January 15, 2001

In the Iranian system, the highest-ranking political authority is

the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who succeeded

Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in 1989. Khamenei has made

statements about Israel similar to Ahmadinejad’s. In a Friday

sermon on December 15, 2000 (shown on Iranian TV), he

declared: “Iran’s position, which was first expressed by the

Imam [Khomeini] and stated several times by those responsible,

is that the cancerous tumor called Israel must be uprooted from

the region.”11

Many more threats:

http://jcpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/IransIntent2012b.pdf

That is hardly a credible source.You can see their hidden agenda from the tone of the first couple of parapgraphs. I prefer The Guardian.

It is you who is creating the straw man.There is always a danger in translating flowery idioms from another language.

Iran said ""this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time"...and I agree with them. I want regime change in Israel too. Maybe we will get it in the forthcoming elections.

You have completely distorted those words saying Iran is threatening a nuclear holocaust. Untrue.

Thank you for the clarification.

This thread is starting to wobble a little off-topic, so let's get back to a discussion of the issue at hand.

I dunno. Israel possesses a lot of deterrence to a really serious attack. Not only does it have about 200 nukes, but it has some of them deep underwater in two Dolphin class subs that were built jointly with Germany. These subs can launch nukes from deep under water on SLCMs (submarine launched cruise missiles) which would in fact blow Iran off the map as a second strike if Iran struck first.

Iran first started mouthing off in the 1980's but things have changed a lot since then. Iran has actually gone backward militarily compared to Israel.

As we know, Israel is one of only 5 countries which have all of the ways to launch nukes. The club of 5.

What is more horrendous and why I wish the US would step up to the plate with Iran is that if Israel believes its all alone, and that Iran is about to get a nuke, I expect Israel to strike first against it. Israel also has the big bunker busters and good intelligence on the ground, but what if it decided it was in fact all alone and used tactical nukes?

I don't know if those Persian leaders are ready for their 72 virgins. I'm not sure how far they would push this "blow Israel off the map" part.

Thanks, NS, that's an interesting post.

For all the tough talkers here who are constantly claiming how Obama is a failed president.... Obama has no idea what he is doing, Obama is weak..... Blah blah blah.....

I have one question. What is the alternative to an attempted deal? Should the US go to war with Iran? It worked so well in Iraq and Afghanistan. Not to mention the fact that war with Iran would prove to be far, far more disastrous.

For all the tough talkers here who are constantly claiming how Obama is a failed president.... Obama has no idea what he is doing, Obama is weak..... Blah blah blah.....

I have one question. What is the alternative to an attempted deal? Should the US go to war with Iran? It worked so well in Iraq and Afghanistan. Not to mention the fact that war with Iran would prove to be far, far more disastrous.

The only reason the Mullahs started talking was due to the economic sanctions.

The screws should be tightened even more to make them come to their collective senses.

For all the tough talkers here who are constantly claiming how Obama is a failed president.... Obama has no idea what he is doing, Obama is weak..... Blah blah blah.....

I have one question. What is the alternative to an attempted deal? Should the US go to war with Iran? It worked so well in Iraq and Afghanistan. Not to mention the fact that war with Iran would prove to be far, far more disastrous.

The only reason the Mullahs started talking was due to the economic sanctions.

The screws should be tightened even more to make them come to their collective senses.

Sanctions are better than bunker busters but it makes me sad the average citizen suffers. The Iranians I have known are excellent people.

For all the tough talkers here who are constantly claiming how Obama is a failed president.... Obama has no idea what he is doing, Obama is weak..... Blah blah blah.....

I have one question. What is the alternative to an attempted deal? Should the US go to war with Iran? It worked so well in Iraq and Afghanistan. Not to mention the fact that war with Iran would prove to be far, far more disastrous.

The only reason the Mullahs started talking was due to the economic sanctions.

The screws should be tightened even more to make them come to their collective senses.

So you advocate even harsher collective punishment on the Iranian people so that Israel gets what it wants?

For all the tough talkers here who are constantly claiming how Obama is a failed president.... Obama has no idea what he is doing, Obama is weak..... Blah blah blah.....

I have one question. What is the alternative to an attempted deal? Should the US go to war with Iran? It worked so well in Iraq and Afghanistan. Not to mention the fact that war with Iran would prove to be far, far more disastrous.

The only reason the Mullahs started talking was due to the economic sanctions.

The screws should be tightened even more to make them come to their collective senses.

So you advocate even harsher collective punishment on the Iranian people so that Israel gets what it wants?

You should stop trying to put words in the mouth of other posters.

It is not sanitary and is, quite frankly, rather stupid.

I spent five years of my life in Iran and had many good Iranian friends.

How about you?

This is the problem with sanctions. The people they are aimed at rarely suffer because of them.

The idea I am sure is to try and create a rebellion in Iran - somewhat stupid when you need them to fight ISIS.

For all the tough talkers here who are constantly claiming how Obama is a failed president.... Obama has no idea what he is doing, Obama is weak..... Blah blah blah.....

I have one question. What is the alternative to an attempted deal? Should the US go to war with Iran? It worked so well in Iraq and Afghanistan. Not to mention the fact that war with Iran would prove to be far, far more disastrous.

The only reason the Mullahs started talking was due to the economic sanctions.

The screws should be tightened even more to make them come to their collective senses.

So you advocate even harsher collective punishment on the Iranian people so that Israel gets what it wants?

You should stop trying to put words in the mouth of other posters.

It is not sanitary and is, quite frankly, rather stupid.

I spent five years of my life in Iran and had many good Iranian friends.

How about you?

So what does "tighten the screws" mean, and how will tightening the screws affect the populace, including your friends?

This is the problem with sanctions. The people they are aimed at rarely suffer because of them.

The idea I am sure is to try and create a rebellion in Iran - somewhat stupid when you need them to fight ISIS.

Being somewhat stupid is to believe the Shiites of Iran won't eventually end up fighting the Sunnis of ISIS anyway.

Everyone should have nukes. Absolutely everyone. History has proved that they work as a deterrent. The only safety is the certainty of absolute mutual destruction. Israel knows this as well as North Korea. Iran does too. As does the the US the UK, France, China, Russia, India and Pakistan. Nuclear weapons are peacekeepers and only tree huggers and foolish pacifists say differently. The more the better as far as I'm concerned. Proliferation is peace. In our time.

For all the tough talkers here who are constantly claiming how Obama is a failed president.... Obama has no idea what he is doing, Obama is weak..... Blah blah blah.....

I have one question. What is the alternative to an attempted deal? Should the US go to war with Iran? It worked so well in Iraq and Afghanistan. Not to mention the fact that war with Iran would prove to be far, far more disastrous.

The only reason the Mullahs started talking was due to the economic sanctions.

The screws should be tightened even more to make them come to their collective senses.

So you advocate even harsher collective punishment on the Iranian people so that Israel gets what it wants?

You should stop trying to put words in the mouth of other posters.

It is not sanitary and is, quite frankly, rather stupid.

I spent five years of my life in Iran and had many good Iranian friends.

How about you?

So what does "tighten the screws" mean, and how will tightening the screws affect the populace, including your friends?

I wrote it in English, you apparently understand the language.

Pretend you are somebody who has the power to influence something, anything, and wanted to "tighten the screws" on sanctions.

Use your imagination and come up with your own solution.

I suppose it means that you've got to destroy the village to save the village?

Everyone should have nukes.

ISIS would strongly agree with you.

For all the tough talkers here who are constantly claiming how Obama is a failed president.... Obama has no idea what he is doing, Obama is weak..... Blah blah blah.....

I have one question. What is the alternative to an attempted deal?

Target and completely destroy all of Iran's nuclear facilities. Israel has done it twice and stopped two different nuclear weapons programs in their tracks.

Everyone should have nukes.

ISIS would strongly agree with you.

Nukes don't kill people, people kill people. Just because there are few crazy actors out there doesn't detract from the fact that everyone would be safer if everyone had them. Stands to reason, just as it does with guns.

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

For all the tough talkers here who are constantly claiming how Obama is a failed president.... Obama has no idea what he is doing, Obama is weak..... Blah blah blah.....

I have one question. What is the alternative to an attempted deal?

Target and completely destroy all of Iran's nuclear facilities. Israel has done it twice and stopped two different nuclear weapons programs in their tracks.

Iraq's was one of these programs. In which case it was a complete lie that Iraq had them in 2003 and a complete lie that Iraq having them justified the Iraqi war. If Iraq did have them - or a viable program to have them - then the Israeli strikes didn't stop the program in its tracks. Pretty much one or the other: Israel's strikes did work in which the pretext for the war was a lie, or they didn't work in which there's little to suggest that they would with Iran.

No, I am pretty sure that Nukes kill people. They cover a pretty big area. You don't even have to be very close to get killed by those things. Heck, they can even kills years l,ater by just living in the area where they have gone off.

Nukes are not something to mess with unless you really, really, really need to.

But their use is in not using them and the only way to ensure that no one uses them is by everyone having them. Responsible use of Nuclear weapons, as they have been used responsibly since 1945, is in not using them and they have been responsibly used by more people having them. Pakistan uses them responsibly by not using them on India and India uses them responsibly by not using them on Pakistan. But they can only use them responsibly by having them and not using them. This is why everyone having them will make everyone responsible and ensure peace by deterrence.

I dunno. Israel possesses a lot of deterrence to a really serious attack. Not only does it have about 200 nukes, but it has some of them deep underwater in two Dolphin class subs that were built jointly with Germany. These subs can launch nukes from deep under water on SLCMs (submarine launched cruise missiles) which would in fact blow Iran off the map as a second strike if Iran struck first.

Iran first started mouthing off in the 1980's but things have changed a lot since then. Iran has actually gone backward militarily compared to Israel.

As we know, Israel is one of only 5 countries which have all of the ways to launch nukes. The club of 5.

What is more horrendous and why I wish the US would step up to the plate with Iran is that if Israel believes its all alone, and that Iran is about to get a nuke, I expect Israel to strike first against it. Israel also has the big bunker busters and good intelligence on the ground, but what if it decided it was in fact all alone and used tactical nukes?

I don't know if those Persian leaders are ready for their 72 virgins. I'm not sure how far they would push this "blow Israel off the map" part.

You are absolutely correct in so many ways. Getting the US involved to keep Israel from sinking the entire ship is likely the only real reason for any US involvement in this fight. But, blackmailing the US seems a bit hard to take for the American people.

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

For all the tough talkers here who are constantly claiming how Obama is a failed president.... Obama has no idea what he is doing, Obama is weak..... Blah blah blah.....

I have one question. What is the alternative to an attempted deal?

Target and completely destroy all of Iran's nuclear facilities. Israel has done it twice and stopped two different nuclear weapons programs in their tracks.

Iraq's was one of these programs.

Completely wrong. Operation Opera was a surprise Israeli air strike carried out on 7 June 1981, which destroyed an Iraqi nuclear reactor under construction. It had nothing to do with what you are trying to divert the subject to.

But their use is in not using them and the only way to ensure that no one uses them is by everyone having them. Responsible use of Nuclear weapons, as they have been used responsibly since 1945, is in not using them and they have been responsibly used by more people having them. Pakistan uses them responsibly by not using them on India and India uses them responsibly by not using them on Pakistan. But they can only use them responsibly by having them and not using them. This is why everyone having them will make everyone responsible and ensure peace by deterrence.

This was what the schoolbooks said when I studied political science at university in northern Europe, it was only refering to US-Soviet and the cold war though. Mutual destruction or something along those lines.

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

For all the tough talkers here who are constantly claiming how Obama is a failed president.... Obama has no idea what he is doing, Obama is weak..... Blah blah blah.....

I have one question. What is the alternative to an attempted deal?

Target and completely destroy all of Iran's nuclear facilities. Israel has done it twice and stopped two different nuclear weapons programs in their tracks.

Iraq's was one of these programs.

Completely wrong. Operation Opera was a surprise Israeli air strike carried out on 7 June 1981, which destroyed an Iraqi nuclear reactor under construction. It had nothing to do with what you are trying to divert the subject to.

Completely wrong. You said the strike stopped Iraq's nuclear program in it's tracks. It didn't. Well, not if the reasons given for the invasion of Iraq in 2003 were true. That is, the Iraqis did have a Nuclear Program posing immanent existential threat to the US and to Iraq's neighbors. If the Iraqis has a nuclear program capable of producing nuclear weapons - the Mushroom Cloud spoken of of Condoleeza Rice - then the strike didn't stop anything in it's tracks. Just like it in all probability wouldn't with Iran.

Maybe you had a different nuclear program in mind that was stopped by Israeli strikes, in which case I'll pull my head in.

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

But their use is in not using them and the only way to ensure that no one uses them is by everyone having them. Responsible use of Nuclear weapons, as they have been used responsibly since 1945, is in not using them and they have been responsibly used by more people having them. Pakistan uses them responsibly by not using them on India and India uses them responsibly by not using them on Pakistan. But they can only use them responsibly by having them and not using them. This is why everyone having them will make everyone responsible and ensure peace by deterrence.

This was what I was told by my teacher when I studied political science at university in northern Europe, he was only refering to US-Soviet and the cold war though.

A beautiful thing isn't it? We're still living in it's loving embrace. Would but all world peace be like that brokered by the two great nuclear peacekeepers. We should all learn from their proliferating kindnesses.