Iran Thread

[Alleya]

http://blog.independent.org/2012/02/...ar-propaganda/

Relevant. 70% of americans believe Iran has or is working to get a nuclear weapon, same number of people who thought Saddam was behind 9/11 in 2003.

In 2002 and early 2003, the Bush administration made its case for war with Iraq. There were assertions given about Saddam’s maintenance of weapons of mass destruction and ties to al-Qaeda. What was never said explicitly, however, was that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11. Yet by late 2003, seventy percent of polled Americans thought Saddam Hussein was personally behind 9/11. Bush’s Republican voters were especially convinced of this.

Yet Bush and his officials never said this. And after the multiple disasters of the Iraq war began to present themselves with great clarity, the Bush officials were questioned about their pre-war intel. Yet they could say, strictly speaking, one thing they never claimed was Saddam was behind 9/11.

Condoleezza Rice had said something about the attacks originating in the same region or area as Iraq. There was all sorts of insinuation that Saddam might have been involved. And surely the Bush team never put an ounce of effort into disabusing the American people of the completely false notion that Saddam was behind 9/11. The vast majority of Americans believed it—indeed, at times, more Americans thought Saddam was behind the attacks than believed the Iraq War was just!—yet it was not only completely untrue, but not directly rooted in any explicit assertion given by the administration. Various pro-war commentators had said it, but Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Powell—none of them ever did.

Fast forward a decade to the current day. Seventy-one percent of Americans—almost exactly the percentage that thought Saddam was behind 9/11—think that Iran has nuclear weapons. It’s a small sample, but it is consistent with polls over the last couple years, each one showing a majority believing Iran already has nukes, and almost nine out of ten Americans sure that Iran is seeking them.

Indeed, talking with “respectable” liberals—the type who listen to NPR and watch Jon Stewart—I find repeatedly that even folks who don’t want to go to war assume that every reasonable American knows that Iran is on the brink of having nukes, if the regime doesn’t already have them.

What’s bizarre about this, other than the fact that there is no credible evidence that Iran has nuclear weapons, is that no one in a position of official authority is claiming it either! Every report from the International Atomic Energy Agency, even when framed in a way to make Iran seem ominous, confirms the “non-diversion” of nuclear materials to weaponization purposes. The CIA and intelligence community have consistently stood by the National Intelligence Estimate findings that Iran has not sought a nuclear weapon since 2003 (and Iran doing so back then is only suspected based on very scant evidence produced by the Israeli government).

What’s more, in the last week or so, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta stressed that not only does Iran not have nuclear weapons; there is no evidence that Iran even wants nuclear weapons!!

Even if Iran wanted to make nuclear weapons, it would probably take three or more years. Iran is reportedly attempting to enrich its uranium to 19.75% LEU. Nuclear weapons require 95%—and there is no evidence that Iran has the means to do this. It is even more dubious to believe a nuclear-armed Iran would be some sort of unprecedented threat for the United States, but that’s neither here nor there.

So what’s the deal? The Obama administration (and the Bush administration, and the UN) have all had the same official position: Iran doesn’t have nukes, and the Iranians probably aren’t looking to get them. Yet seven out of ten Americans think Iran already has them. Meanwhile, every Republican presidential candidate except Ron Paul warns about the unparalleled threat of a nuclear Iran, and the Obama White House punishes the country with tighter sanctions and ever more threats.

Indeed, Obama has thrived on the insinuation that Iran has nukes. When he acted tough back in 2009 because Iran had been caught red-handed with its fledgling nuclear facility at Qom—a civilian nuclear facility that Iran readily alerted the international community to, consistent with its continuing adherence to the Non-Proliferation Treaty to which Iran is a signatory—he did so against a backdrop of insinuation that of course everyone knows Iran wants nuclear weapons. He did this even though all that existed at Qom, according to an IAEA official, was a “hole in a mountain.” Why didn’t the president remind the public instead that there is little to worry about, since the entire Defense Department and intelligence community confirm that Iran has no nuclear weapons program?

If a war begins with Iran, it will largely be on the basis of propaganda believed by the public, propaganda that the government has never officially articulated. In the past, the U.S. thrived on outright lies for war: the Gulf of Tonkin Incident, Kuwaiti babies being ripped from incubators, and so forth. There has long been a fair share of unsubstantiated allegations involved behind major U.S. wars—the USS Maine being sunk by the Spanish, the Zimmerman Telegram posing an actual threat to the United States, the Serbians committing genocide of ethnic Albanians, killing many tens of thousands of civilians in the late 1990s, and so on.

Yet today lies and unproven allegations are not enough. The U.S. warfare state appears to thrive on insinuation in its war propaganda. The U.S. war machine’s top brass never outright declare the most provocative claims about U.S. enemies. That way, when the war goes south and people begin accusing the political class of misleading them, the empire’s defenders can easily say (accurately in word if not in spirit): “Bush never claimed Saddam was behind 9/11! Obama never claimed Iran had nuclear weapons!”

But don’t think for a moment that our rulers aren’t glad the American people believe what they do. It makes wars so much easier to wage when the public buys into all sorts of nonsense. The plausible deniability that insinuated propaganda gives the ruling class is just icing on the cake.

[Andalusian girls]

Iran doesn't have them, intelligent estimates put the time of them achieving nuclear power between 1.5-4 years and it will take longer to weaponize, but if you honestly believe the regime's endgame isn't to become a nuclear power i am at a loss for words

Pakistan has nukes, Isreal has nukes, they are surrounded by America's Arab allies and two successive administrations of a preemptive superpower have made regime change the stated goal; from their perspective it's quite logical they'd seek a deterrent, and there are none better than fission and fusion.

[kuronosan]

That's the most retarded argument ever conceived.

[Mazmaz]

Once again Kurono chimes in with his brilliance.

[Outlaw]

From the article you posted:

Why isn't Keith Ellison, a Muslim, advocating the death penalty for apostasy?

Or Harris Zafar?

We have Muslim posters on BG too. I think 'Tyre' is a Muslim. He's American as well AFAIK.

If you hate Islam, then what do you think of American Muslims?

<sigh> I guess I should have been more specific. I just didn't feel like typing out a long post at the time. I do not hate all Islam. It just disgusts me that this practice happens in Islam in the middle east. I know that all Muslims don't agree with this and even condemn it. Also, I am fully aware of what Jews have done to Muslims in Israel. In a way I hate all religion cause it always drives some people to do terrible things to others. I'm not small minded. In fact I'm one of the most open minded people you will ever meet.

[Thiefami]

Russia has basically warned Israel if they decide to attack Iran there will be severe consequences. Que WW3.

[Kuya]

Russia isn't going to attack Israel, pls don't post here again.

[kuronosan]

Once again Kurono chimes in with his brilliance.

I try. One-liners are hard to come by these days.

Actually, it probably wasn't the most retarded argument ever. Really what I should have done is ask why nuclear weaponry is the focus of a regime just because they're enriching uranium (given that they can't achieve deliverable weapons for a while) and why anything should be done about it.

Sorry. I guess I should be more clear next time people make sweeping generalizations.

I'm just curious as to how a country's main goal in preventing other countries from attacking it for possessing nuclear weapons should be to... possess nuclear weapons?

[Elvis]

Israel thrives under minimal concern for it's actions. Operation Cast Lead was a disaster for Israel PR-wise and it did not achieve any strategic goals. Hamas and Fatah signed a unity deal recently.

Israel can achieve it's goals of colonizing the remainder of Historic Palestine slowly and over time. This is why it does not go out and kill people, Syria-style. It has already defeated the Palestinian resistance militarily. It doesn't know how to deal with non-violent resistance though.

So, it would prefer not to get mixed up in long, drawn-out wars outside it's comfort zone (shooting Palestinian protesters in the face w/ tear-gas canisters).

No one is going to do anything about all this saber-rattling. The Chinese and Russians will just sit back and laugh at the continuing charade going on in the ME. It's a distraction from the real issue - the continued colonization of Palestinian land and the refusal to settle the conflict.

[Mazmaz]

I'm just curious as to how a country's main goal in preventing other countries from attacking it for possessing nuclear weapons should be to... possess nuclear weapons?

Because nuclear weapons work as a deterrent. Once you have nukes, invading you is off the table because they'll be afraid that you'll launch your nukes. I mean look at Pakistan, they got in NO trouble for harboring Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. The idea hasn't changed from what it was in the Cold War.

[kuronosan]

Well then what he said wasn't retarded, the entire idea of nuclear deterrence is retarded. Essentially the powers that be want to take Iran out of the equation before they can't take them out of the equation anymore, even if there isn't a large chance of them being in the equation in the first place.

[ronin sparthos]

The idea of a country like Iran firing nuclear warheads at Israel is silly but the idea of nuclear material being smuggled out and used by 3rd party terrorists is far more likely.

[Elvis]

Pakistan has nukes and terrorists. No smuggling so far. *knock on uranium*

[ronin sparthos]

Pakistan has nukes and terrorists. No smuggling so far. *knock on uranium*

So the solution is to allow Iran to obtain nukes? The Iranians won't be stopping at energy, no matter how the colorful rhetoric and their open hostility with Israel will only end in one fashion - with bloodshed.

I like my bloodshed without nuclear weapons on the table, dunno about you.

Pakistan got nukes and within 5 years they were ready to use them against India.

[Elvis]

So the solution is to allow Iran to obtain nukes? The Iranians won't be stopping at energy, no matter how the colorful rhetoric and their open hostility with Israel will only end in one fashion - with bloodshed.

I like my bloodshed without nuclear weapons on the table, dunno about you.

When will this paranoia stop, do you think? When everyone in the region is pro-American and pro-Israel?

You cannot fight what has become a natural opposition to American hegemony in the region without engendering more opposition and hatred.

Is there any precedent for terrorist groups getting nuclear technology and then using them? No. Only in the movies.

I see no end to these wars because you can always justify them by what-if scenarios.

[ronin sparthos]

When will this paranoia stop, do you think? When everyone in the region is pro-American and pro-Israel?

You cannot fight what has become a natural opposition to American hegemony in the region without engendering more opposition and hatred.

Is there any precedent for terrorist groups getting nuclear technology and then using them? No. Only in the movies.

I see no end to these wars because you can always justify them by what-if scenarios.

More or less US exertion in the region is irrelevant since at the end of the day it's a war of religion at play here coupled with sides jockeying for political gains. The Iranians want to expand their sphere of influence and that means amassing the power to do so. What's the best way to keep the Americans and other enemies of the regime at bay? A nuclear weapon.

Why no large-scale research into solar power if this program is all about creating glorious energy for the people of Iran? I kid, I kid.

Paranoia? I wouldn't even care if Iran got a nuke if they weren't so hellbent on causing damage to the Israeli state and by proxy the West by funding anti-American terrorist organizations. North Korea is no ally of the US and has nukes but would they use them? No. Could you say the same about a Iran and the current regime? Doubtful given the previous rhetoric coming out of their leaders mouths.

Endangering more anti-American opposition and hatred? We're not Islamic, we have more power than the nations in the Middle East, the people are easily driven to rash action based on religious grounds, dictators terrorize their people while the Arab world sits on their hands but if some Qur'ans get torched? The entire Arab world demands blood instantly.

I can't see the end of these wars because they are justified by two sides who believe that a region of land is sacred and thus must be fought over indefinitely. With or without America this tiresome battle would see no end. Israel has many atrocities under their belt and are quick to pre-emptive action but selling this as if we're picking on poor little Iran is overly simplifying this situation.

[Andalusian girls]

Well then what he said wasn't retarded, the entire idea of nuclear deterrence is retarded. Essentially the powers that be want to take Iran out of the equation before they can't take them out of the equation anymore, even if there isn't a large chance of them being in the equation in the first place.

the entire logical circuit is pretty terrific

we must get nuclear weapons so they don't attack us
we must attack them so they don't get nuclear weapons

on such will lives be destroyed

[Elvis]

More or less US exertion in the region is irrelevant since at the end of the day it's a war of religion at play here coupled with sides jockeying for political gains.

This is a long subject that is thoroughly documented so I'm not sure where to begin. This comment is going to appear disjointed because your argument is a sweeping generalization and unsubstantiated.

You're categorically wrong - our involvement is indelible. You put so much, baseless, emphasis on the aspect of religious extremism since it's attention-grabbing and simplistic.

The following excerpts are from Treacherous Alliance: The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran and the United States - by Trita Parsi.

(The ramifications of the Cold War for Iran and the ME)

Spoiler: show

The two clear winners of the Second World War were the United States and the Soviet Union. But their defeat of the Axis powers entangled them in a global rivalry, and soon after the war they began carving up the world into their respective spheres of influence.

The Middle East was no exception; its abundance of oil made it a particularly valuable piece in the geopolitical chess game played by Washington and Moscow which drew regional states into their respective camps. In return for their cooperation, those states were offered friendship and protection.

For Iran, the choice was clear. Centuries of war between Iran and Russia had bred in the Shah a natural suspicion of Soviet intentions. The Communist ideology was a real threat to the Shah's rule in Iran, where the uneven distribution of wealth created fertile ground for pro-Soviet groups such as the Iranian Tudeh ("People's") Party. The Shah hoped that joining the Western camp would entitle Iran to economic and military assistance from the United States in order to prevent Soviet adventurism in the Middle East and the Persian Gulf.

(On the proposed Partition Plan)

Spoiler: show

Iran, together with India and Yugoslavia, opposed this idea and predicted that partition would lead to more rather than less violence.' At the time, Iran was ruled by Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the second emperor in the Pahlavi dynasty. His father, Reza Shah, had staged a coup d'etat in February 1921 and ousted the ruling Qajar dynasty. Twenty years later, Reza Shah was deposed by the British and the Russians, who put his young son, Mohammad Reza, on the throne. Even before the creation of the Jewish State, Mohammad Reza Shah had predicted that partition of Palestine would lead to decades, if not centuries, of violence.

Only through the creation of a single federal state containing both Jewish and Arab constituent states could peace be established, the Pahlavi regime maintained. Against Tehran's quiet objections, the partition plan was adopted by the General Assembly as Resolution 181 on November 29, 1947.

For the Shah, who saw the world primarily through the prism of the Cold War, Israel's ambiguous relations with the Soviet Union and its efforts to cultivate ties with both superpowers made it suspect. The Shah adopted a policy of "calculated ambivalence," maintaining a healthy distance from the Jewish State while waiting for it to clarify its allegiances.

For the first two years of Israel's existence, Iran recognized it neither de facto nor de jure. But as Tel Aviv distanced itself from the Soviet camp, and as its pro-Western orientation solidified, Iranian suspicions were dispelled.

In 1951, the Mossadeq government in Iran recognized Israel as a fact in the region but still refused de jure recognition, meaning that it did not officially establish relations with the Jewish State. Still, the de facto recognition had significant political implications-it essentially meant that Iran recognized the creation of the state of Israel and would not seek or support its undoing.

(Pan-Arabism: the overlapping fears - of a different context - of Iran and Israel)

Spoiler: show

(Israel)

The doctrine held that the improbability of achieving peace with the surrounding Arab states forced Israel to build alliances with the non-Arab states of the periphery-primarily Iran, Turkey, and Ethiopia-as well as with non-Arab minorities such as the Kurds and the Lebanese Christians. This network of alliances would drive a wedge between Israel's enemies, weaken the Arab bloc, and halt the spread of pan-Arabism in the region, the reasoning went

(Iran)

Meanwhile, Iran's relationship with the Arab states was swiftly deteriorating.' Though Iran sympathized with Arab nationalism and its quest for Arab independence from the European colonial powers (Iran was, after all, still emerging from its own painful history of British and Russian interference), the Shah felt increasingly uncomfortable with its pro-Soviet expressions.' In Egypt, for example, the free officers' coup of 1952 ousted King Farouk and achieved final independence from Britain, slowly drifting into the Soviet orbit as a result. By no choice of their own, Iran and Israel soon found themselves facing a common security dilemma.

Both feared Soviet designs on the region and the threat of radical pro-Soviet Arab states, and both saw the pan-Arab, anti-Western regime in Cairo, led by Gamal Abdel Nasser, as the main villain of the Middle East.

Iran was particularly concerned about the territorial expansionism of pan-Arabism and Arab claims over Iran's southern oil-rich province of Khuzestan because this pushed Arab nations to ally against Iran even though their respective national interests may have dictated a different course. "The Iranians felt like [they were] surrounded by the Arabs. And the Arabs always adopted policies that were anti-Iranian;" said Fereydoun Hoveyda, who served as Iran's ambassador to the UN during the 1970s while his brother, Amir Abbas Hoveyda, served as the Shah's prime minister.'

TL : DR:

The current enmity between the two states has more to do with the shift in the balance of power in the Middle East after the end of the Cold War and the defeat of Iraq in the first Persian Gulf War than it does with the Islamic Revolution in 1979.

Though the Iranian revolution was a major setback for Israel, it didn't stop the Jewish State from supporting Iran and seeking to improve its relations with the Khomeini government as a counter to Israel's Arab enemies.

Ironically, when Iranian leaders called for Israel's destruction in the 1980s, Israel and the pro-Israel lobby in Washington lobbied the United States not to pay attention to Iranian rhetoric.

Today, even though Iran's revolutionary Islamist zeal is far from what it was in the 1980s, things have changed quite a bit. The Iranian government, in turn, has pursued a double policy throughout this period: In the 1980s, Iran made itself the most vocal regional supporter of the Palestinian cause.

Yet its rhetoric was seldom followed up with action, since Tehran's strategic interest-reducing tensions with Israel and using the Jewish State to reestablish relations with the United States-contradicted Iran's ideological imperatives.

After 1991 and the efforts by the United States and Israel to create a new Middle East order based on the Israeli-Palestinian peace process and on Iran's prolonged isolation, however, Iran's ideological and strategic interests overlapped, and Tehran decided for the first time to become a front-line opponent of the Jewish State.

At this stage, both Israel and Iran used their influence to undermine U.S. foreign policy initiatives that they deemed beneficial to the other.

See: The Iran-Contra affair.

All in all, according to Ahmad Haidari, an Iranian arms dealer working for the Khomeini regime, roughly 80 percent of the weaponry bought by Tehran immediately after the onset of the war originated in Israel.

Israel also sold weapons to Latin American dictatorships during the 1980s when we were unable to do so for legal reasons.

There was a book called It's No Secret: Israel's Military Involvement in Central America, which documents in detail these clandestine dealings.

The Iranians want to expand their sphere of influence and that means amassing the power to do so. What's the best way to keep the Americans and other enemies of the regime at bay? A nuclear weapon.

The Iranians want to expand their influence like any other country on the face of the Earth and throughout history.

Good job, Captain Hindsight.

---

Let me also add some comments about Hamas, since you mentioned terrorist proxies. But before I proceed: Israel supports terrorist proxies as well. So do Zionist organizations in the US. So do American politicians who are actively lobbying to get MEK off the terrorist list.

Throughout the Cold War, we supported genocidal regimes in Latin America and Indochina. Declassified diplomatic cables available at the George Washington University NSA archives show that American officials knew about these atrocities and did nothing because it wasn't within our interests.

When we could not send money and arms and training to these governments - we had Israel do it instead.

Israel supported racist, apartheid South Africa when virtually no one else in the world did.

You go on and on about Iranian antagonism towards Israel but it's mostly just rhetoric. Parsi's book shows the historical relations between Israel and Iran and how they changed over the course of the Cold War. Religion takes a backseat to strategic interests (economic in nature) (big surprise).

What is especially puzzling to me is that you start history when hostile STATEMENTS are made toward Israel. What's more absurd is your characterization of anti-American sentiment as 'rash religiously motivated'.

I don't think Iraqis need Islamism to become anti-American. They have real, physical examples to contend w/ (the Iraq sanctions).

Promo for Joy Gordon's Invisible War: The United States and the Iraq sanctions, from Harvard University Press:

In a sharp indictment of U.S. policy, Joy Gordon examines the key role the nation played in shaping the sanctions, whose harsh strictures resulted in part from U.S. definitions of “dual use” and “weapons of mass destruction,” and claims that everything from water pipes to laundry detergent to child vaccines could produce weapons. Drawing on internal UN documents, confidential minutes of closed meetings, and interviews with foreign diplomats and U.S. officials, Gordon details how the United States not only prevented critical humanitarian goods from entering Iraq but also undermined attempts at reform; unilaterally overrode the UN weapons inspectors; and manipulated votes in the Security Council. In every political, legal, and bureaucratic domain, the deliberate policies of the United States ensured the continuation of Iraq’s catastrophic condition.

They don't need abstract ones. Same goes for the Iranians.

Back to Hamas:

In June 2009, the United States Institute of Peace (created by the US Congress), published a report entitled Hamas: Ideological Rigidity and Political Flexibility.

The report was concludes several points, some of which include the following:

As evidenced by numerous statements, Hamas is not hostile to Jews because of religion. Rather, Hamas’s view toward Israel is based on a fundamental belief that Israel has occupied land that is inherently Palestinian and Islamic.

[...]Although Hamas, as an Islamic organization, will not transgress shari’a, which it understands as forbidding recognition, it has formulated mechanisms that allow it to deal with the reality of Israel as a fait accompli. These mechanisms include the religious concepts of tahadiya and hudna and Hamas’s own concept of “Palestinian legitimacy.”

[...]Palestinian legitimacy is a term employed by Hamas to describe its willingness to consider accepting a binding peace treaty, such as the proposal set forth in the API [My interjection: "API" stands for the Arab Peace Initiative of 2002], so long as the treaty is first ratified by the Palestinian people in a referendum. Although Hamas would not directly participate in peace negotiations with Israel, Hamas has indicated that it would be willing to be part of a Palestinian coalition government with Fatah under which Fatah would negotiate the actual treaty.

The last point just came true. Hamas has entered into a unity government w/ Fatah.

From Paul Findley's (former Member of the U.S. House of Representatives from 1961-1983) book, Deliberate Deceptions: Facing the Facts about the US-Israeli Relationship (published in 1993):

(On the first Intifada, circa. 1987)

In supressing the uprising, Israeli troops appear to especially seak out for beatings of old men, women, and children. An official of the UN Relief and Works Agency in the Gaza Strip, acting director Angela Williams, early on said:

We are deeply shocked by the evidence of brutality with which people are evidently being beaten. We are especially shocked by the beatings of old men and women.

The Swedish Save the Children Fund, in research financed by the Ford Foundation, reported by mid-1990 that Israeli troops used "severe, indiscriminate and recurrent" violence against Palestinian children. It said 159 children with an average age of ten had been killed in the first two years, 6,500 wounded by gunfire, and 35,000 to 48,000 others (40% of them ten years old or younger) treated for injuries during the first two years of the intifada.

Rest of the quotes scanned, too lazy to retype it all:

Spoiler: show

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v450/NSix/Scan5.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v450/NSix/Scan7-1.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v450/NSix/Scan8.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v450/NSix/Scan9.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v450/NSix/Scan10.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v450/NSix/Scan11.jpg

Quick side-note on Israeli torture techniques or 'enhanced interrogation' carried out by the Shin Bet. Until September 6th, 1999, Israel had legalized torture of detainees under interrogation (Palestinians). Israel was the only country where torture was legally sanctioned.

Spoiler: show

In January 2000, B'Tselem published a position paper titled, Legislation Allowing for the use of Physical Force & Mental Coercion in Interrogations by the General Security Service (link is to the download of the report, B'Tselem does not have it in PDF form).

In the report, B'Tselem compares Israel's use of torture to the British in Northern Ireland during the 1970s.

The sub-section of the paper is titled:
"The Hypocrites' Way?" - How Democratic States Fight Terrorism

Excerpt:

A common argument heard in Israel supporting use of physical force by the GSS is that other democratic countries facing terrorist threats and attacks also use such kinds of interrogations to defend their citizens. . The Landau Commission was the first to make this argument: "The customary practice is the same in democratic countries subject to threats of terrorism." Since then, representatives of the Israeli government have raised this argument in international forums and before the Supreme Court. For example, in January 1999, attorney Yehuda Shefer, of the State Attorney's Office, argued before the High Court of Justice that, "all liberal democracies faced with such dilemmas acted similarly."

So the subsequent comparison w/ a democracy like Great Britain, was suitable for many reasons (it was cited in the Landau Commission, Britain is one of the major Western democracies, etc.).

Excerpt:

The British experience is instructive because it is often mentioned in this context, and also because the United Kingdom is frequently considered the "mother of democracies." Most importantly, the British case was the sole relevant legal support that the Landau Commission brought for its determination that "human nature is the same throughout the world" - the claim of Ireland against the Great Britain in the European Commission and European Human Rights Court. Since the Landau Commission, Israel's representatives have repeatedly raised this case in the attempt to prove that GSS interrogation methods, which included physical force and psychological coercion, are not unique to Israel, and do not constitute torture.

Quick-note on what the Landau Commission was (summary from B'Tselem):

In 1987, an official governmental commission, headed by former Supreme Court President Moshe Landau, was appointed to examine GSS interrogation methods. Four months later, the commission submitted a two-part report. Only the first part, which reviewed the nature of GSS activities, was made public. The second part - which remained secret - contained, among other things, guidelines for permissible interrogation methods.

The "GSS" is another name for the Shin Bet. The Israeli security service.

Anyways, the commission was founded to examine interrogation methods in the aftermath of the deaths of two Palestinians under Shin Bet custody.

Back to B'Tselem's comparison of the British torture/interrogation techniques vis a vis the IRA in the 70s:

The early 1970s was the most violent period Northern Ireland had experienced in recent history: from 1971 to March 1975, more than 1,100 persons were killed and 11,500 wounded. During 1971 and 1972 alone, 1,130 planted bombs exploded, and an armed group, the IRA, was responsible for these attacks. During a short period in 1971, British security forces in Northern Ireland used coercive interrogation methods against fourteen IRA suspects. These methods, known as "the five techniques," were the subject of the action in Ireland v. United Kingdom. The European Human Rights Court described them as follows:

1. Wall-standing: Forcing the detainees to remain for periods of some hours in a “stress position,” described by those who underwent it as being “spread-eagled against the wall, with their fingers put high above the head against the wall, the legs spread apart and the feet back, causing them to stand on their toes with the weight of the body mainly on the fingers”;
2. Hooding: Putting a black or navy colored bag over the detainees’ heads and, at least initially, keeping it there all the time except during interrogation;
3. Subjection to noise: Pending their interrogations, holding the detainees in a room where there was a continuous loud and hissing noise;
4. Deprivation of sleep: Pending their interrogations, depriving the detainees of sleep;
5. Deprivation of food and drink: Subjecting the detainees to a reduced diet during their stay at the center and pending interrogations (par. 96).

Israel relied on the majority ruling of the ECHR that, even if these methods constitute "inhuman" and "degrading" treatment, and are prohibited, they are not considered torture. Israel also argued that, "a comparison of the five methods ruled on by the court in that decision to the methods that are the subject of the petitions before this court clearly indicates that the methods involved in that case are certainly more severe than those in our case."

B'TSelem then commented on the 5 techniques and compares them to how they were implemented in Israel. The argument the Israeli government used was that Israel interrogates its opponents like any other democratic country.

However, a comparison of Britain's "five techniques" and the GSS's methods of interrogation leads to a different conclusion:

1. Direct violence: The British interrogations did not include direct physical violence. In contrast, the GSS used violent means, such as shaking, painful shackling, slapping, beatings.
   
2. Length of Use of the Method: Clearly, the longer the GSS uses methods like painful positions, hooding, playing of loud music, and sleep deprivation, the greater the suffering. The total time they were used in Britain was four to five days. In contrast, the GSS often used its methods for weeks. Thus, the British method of keeping the detainee in a painful position was used for no more than twenty to thirty hours, which included several rest breaks. The GSS methods involving painful positions lasted, according to the GSS itself, up to sixty hours (less time for interrogations, though this, too, was likely conducted while the detainee was seated bound on a low chair). With longer breaks for "rest," they went on for weeks and even months. The British deprived detainees of sleep for no more that four to five days, also with interruptions. The GSS used sleep deprivation for much longer periods, at times for more than ten days.
   
3. Deprivation of Food and Drink: In Northern Ireland, British interrogators at times reduced detainees' food intake to bread and water, but the European bodies could not precisely state the degree of use of this technique. Detainees interrogated by the GSS often complained that the food was extremely poor quality, and that they were forced to eat with their hands in a filthy cell containing a toilet, and were only given a few minutes to eat.

The most salient conclusion by the B'TSelem report is that in spite of the comparable situations both countries faced themselves in - Great Britain did not use the terrorist attacks by the IRA to justify the continued usage of torture/'enhanced interrogation' techniques.

Furthermore, the '5 techniques' were thus considered criminal actions after the ECHR report was published. The British government officially ceased using such tactics - and if it had still used them, it would be considered a criminal offense.

Summary:

Spoiler: show

The above indicates that the GSS used methods comparable to those used by the British in 1971, i.e., sleep deprivation, infliction of physical suffering, and sensory isolation. But the GSS used them for much longer periods, so the resulting pain and suffering were substantially greater. In addition, the GSS used direct violence. Thus, even if we accept the Landau Commission's contention that it recommended (at the time) more moderate methods than those used by the British, in practice, the GSS methods were substantially more severe than those used by the British in 1971. The conclusions reached by the European court regarding "the five techniques" cannot, therefore, be applied to GSS methods of interrogation.

Furthermore, already in March 1972, before the ECHR had given its decision prohibiting use of the "five techniques," the British government, in the midst of a wave of terrorist attacks, stated that it would no longer use these interrogation methods. Great Britain did not try to justify its use of the methods to the court, by arguing that the wave of terrorism and the need to obtain information to save lives required their use. Rather, it admitted that "the five techniques" were unacceptable and forbidden, and undertook to cease using them. Since the British government's decision in this matter, Great Britain has not deprived IRA interrogees of sleep, has not covered their heads, placed them in painful positions, or played loud music in their ears. If ill-treatment does occur, whether of terrorists or other detainees, the action is considered a criminal offense and the perpetrators are subject to punishment.

Thus, Israel in 1999 continued to rely on interrogation methods used in Great Britain in 1971, twenty-eight years ago, for an extremely short period against only fourteen persons [My Interjection: This is referring to the British methods, which were used for a short time in response to IRA terrorism; the 'short time' is not in reference to the Israeli usage of similar techniques], which ceased immediately afterwards and became absolutely prohibited. In the meantime, European and international legislation and case law have increasingly strengthened the prohibition on torture and ill-treatment. Not only are interrogation methods that inflict physical and mental suffering no longer used, other basic rights of detainees are also ensured, such as the right to meet with their attorneys shortly after being detained.

Terrorist acts in England and Northern Ireland did not cease in the 1970s. Despite this, protection of prisoner rights in particular has steadily improved. In accordance with the recommendations of the Bennett Commission, Great Britain enacted legislation ensuring the right of detainees - including those suspected of terrorist acts - to meet with their attorneys within forty-eight hours of being detained, and all interrogations are taped in their entirety. As a result, the number of complaints of torture and ill-treatment fell sharply.

Back to Iran:

Recently, Gen. Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said about Iran's nuclear ambitions (Feb. 20, 2012):

We also know or believe we know that the Iranian regime has not decided that they will embark on the — or the effort to weaponize their nuclear capability.

General Dempsey on Iranian behavior - are they a rational actor w/ respect to their nuclear ambitions?

[Xno Kappa]

Russia has basically warned Israel if they decide to attack Iran there will be severe consequences. Que WW3.

lmao

[Elvis]

I forgot to add that Hamas was nurtured by the Israeli government (not Iran) as a counter to the secular PLO.

From

In a conscious effort to undermine the Palestine Liberation Organization and the leadership of Yasser Arafat, in 1978 the government of then-Prime Minister Menachem Begin approved the application of Sheik Ahmad Yassin to start a “humanitarian” organization known as the Islamic Association, or Mujama. The roots of this Islamist group were in the fundamentalist Muslim Brotherhood, and this was the seed that eventually grew into Hamas – but not before it was amply fertilized and nurtured with Israeli funding and political support.

Begin and his successor, Yitzhak Shamir, launched an effort to undercut the PLO, creating the so-called Village Leagues, composed of local councils of handpicked Palestinians who were willing to collaborate with Israel – and, in return, were put on the Israeli payroll. Sheik Yassin and his followers soon became a force within the Village Leagues. This tactical alliance between Yassin and the Israelis was based on a shared antipathy to the militantly secular and leftist PLO: the Israelis allowed Yassin’s group to publish a newspaper and set up an extensive network of charitable organizations, which collected funds not only from the Israelis but also from Arab states opposed to Arafat.

Ami Isseroff, writing on MideastWeb, shows how the Israelis deliberately promoted the Islamists of the future Hamas by helping them turn the Islamic University of Gaza into a base from which the group recruited activists – and the suicide bombers of tomorrow. As the only higher-education facility in the Gaza strip, and the only such institution open to Palestinians since Anwar Sadat closed Egyptian colleges to them, IUG contained within its grounds the seeds of the future Palestinian state. When a conflict arose over religious issues, however, the Israeli authorities sided with the Islamists against the secularists of the Fatah-PLO mainstream. As Isseroff relates, the Islamists:

“Encouraged Israeli authorities to dismiss their opponents in the committee in February of 1981, resulting in subsequent Islamisation of IUG policy and staff (including the obligation on women to wear the hijab and thobe and separate entrances for men and women), and enforced by violence and ostracization of dissenters. Tacit complicity from both university and Israeli authorities allowed Mujama to keep a weapons cache to use against secularists. By the mid 1980s, it was the largest university in occupied territories with 4,500 students, and student elections were won handily by Mujama.”

Again, the motive was to offset Arafat’s influence and divide the Palestinians. In the short term, this may have worked to some extent; in the longer term, however, it backfired badly – as demonstrated by the results of the recent Palestinian election.

The Hamas infrastructure of mosques, clinics, kindergartens, and other educational institutions flourished not only because they were lavishly funded, but also due to being efficiently run. Sheik Yassin and the future leaders of Hamas acquired a reputation for “clean” governance and good administrative practices, which would greatly aid them – especially in comparison to the PLO, which was widely perceived as corrupt. Indeed, “clean government” – and not the necessity of armed struggle – was the main theme of their successful election campaign.

Source: Hamas, Son of Israel - Antiwar.com