Iran wants Israel “wiped off the map”

October 27th, 2005 at 1:33 pm by David Farrar

The new President of Iran has said he wants Israel “wiped off the map”.

Now we all know Iran is developing nuclear weapons, so one can’t just laught this off as rhetoric. This is a statement from the *President* of Iran.

Now what would you do if you were Israel? If the rest of the world doesn’t take some action to stop Iran gaining nuclear weapons, then Israel will have very legitimate fears for its security.

Tags:

40 Responses to “Iran wants Israel “wiped off the map””

  1. LMD () says:

    I guess I would invade Iraq and install an Iranian backed regime. That ought to help.

    BTW the link is to ‘a Senior Iranian Diplomat” not the President.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. LMD () says:

    oops, I was wrong it was the President. Apologies for being too smart….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. dim () says:

    If only Israel had a massive nuclear arsenal of it’s own to act as a deterrent . . .

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Kimble () says:

    Ah to be LMD, for whom a complete fuck up means he is too smart.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. LMD () says:

    Ah to be Kimble. An irony free zone.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. tim barclay () says:

    I guess this is the reason why Israel has had nuclear weapons for years and if Iran gets the weapons then Israel may well end up using them as a pre-emptive strike. Israel has as far as I am see never made a direct threat to the security of any other country including Iran. Its responses have all been defensive.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Kimble () says:

    If only we could be confident that a deterant would always work on a theocratic regime.

    Note how the typical religious nutjob suicide bomber has no problem with mutually assured destruction.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Seano () says:

    Nuke ‘em till they glow and shoot them in the dark…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Kimble () says:

    Ah to be LMD and consider a person a zone.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. stef () says:

    I personally think we should give both sides nukes, they can blow eachother up. The sand will turn to glass and it will be a whole lot easier to find the oil

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. dim () says:

    Israel has as far as I am see never made a direct threat to the security of any other country

    Israel has:

    threatened to blow up the Aswan Dam

    actually blown up the Saddam Husseins nuclear reactor at Osirak.

    Made numerous threats to attack Iran.

    Invaded Lebanon, beseiged Beirut and burned down dozens of it’s apartment buildings with phosphorous bombs.

    Some of these threats and acts of aggression were a pretty good idea at the time (like Osirak), some were plain dumb (threatening to flood all of Egypt), but Israel ain’t a defenseless, blameless little lamb over there.

    If only we could be confident that a deterant would always work on a theocratic regime.

    The mulluhs of Tehran may be evil, but they ain’t stupid, and they ain’t crazy. They’re not going to bring about the total annihilation of their country by attacking Israel.

    I think that if anyone’s going to get bombed by islamic fundamentalists it’s gonna be the Russians. There’s a lot of very upset, very dangerous, very crazy people in the Causcaus, and a lot of badly guarded old ICBM silos. They’re much more likely to resort to nukes than an Iranian President rattling his sabre to try and impress a domestic audience.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Whitebread () says:

    It’s only a matter of time until Israel launches a mission to pulverize Iran’s nuclear ambitions, as they did in Iraq. One can argue that such strikes are aggression and are offensive as opposed to defensive measures, but clearly it is in Israel’s best defensive interests (as well as the rest of the world’s best interests) not to have tyrannical, oppressive, Muslim fundamentalist regimes with nuclear strike capability. Unfortunately the US is tied up elsewhere, so it will probably fall to Israel to bring another fundamentalist regime to heel. The UN has certainly proven (yet again) that they are not up to the job.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Kimble () says:

    Consider the intelligence and sanity of rattling your sabre with a gun pointed at your head.

    “Israel ain’t a defenseless, blameless little lamb over there.”

    If there is peace to be had, only one sides leaders have publicly demanded the erradication of the other sides entire race as a prerequisite.

    If there is a war to be had, then who do you really think are most likely to start it?

    Who would you rather live next door to? Iran or Israel?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. baxter () says:

    I think New Zealands Foreign Minister should speak out on what his Goverment’s viewpoint is on this matter.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Pete () says:

    Whitebred:
    “One can argue that such strikes are aggression and are offensive as opposed to defensive measures, but clearly it is in Israel’s best defensive interests (as well as the rest of the world’s best interests) not to have tyrannical, oppressive, Muslim fundamentalist regimes with nuclear strike capability.”

    This is like saying a that maniplitive, zionist regime which carries out Nazi styled perscution against the Palastinians shouldn’t be allow nukes either and should be disarmed.

    If a country is prepared to invest in the development of nuclear weapons why shouldn’t they be allowed to? Why should the nuclear haves dictate to everybody else that they’re not allowed to be on an equal footing?

    Until the Nuclear haves are prepared to give up their weapons they have no right to dictate to others that they’re not allowed them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. dim () says:

    Who would you rather live next door to? Iran or Israel?

    Based on the last fifty years of history I’d rather live next to Iran.

    Having lived in Israel, and travelled around Iran, I’d probably choose to go live in Iran – but only if I got to live in Isfahan.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. tim barclay () says:

    Israel has had nuclear weapons for years but has never threatened their use nor has it threatened to wipe a country off the map while clearly having a capacity to do so. The President of Iran has placed his country’s security at risk when he threatens Israel in this way. If Iran obtains nuclear weapons and then makes these broadside threats then I do not think Israel will do nothing or nor could they be expected to.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. tim_osman () says:

    1. “There is a huge gap between us (Jews) and our enemies

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Tony () says:

    tim osman.

    Manufactured quotes just prove your bigotry – you even throw in names of nonentities that sound Jewish, just to fill out the list. Get them from a “Pali” site did you?

    The simple fact is that the President of Iran declares his country will wipe out Israel and its Jewish inhabitants. No amount of dissembling can remove that fact.

    As for stef and her desert glass – pretty enlightened form of freedom you subscribe to – oh, as long as it doesn’t affect you then let’s see a democratic country be destroyed by a theocratic country that stones its adulterers and executes its Bahai and other non-believers.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Tony () says:

    Logix.

    Now do you understand?

    The bigger the lie (especially wrapped in authoritative sounding quotes, and mixing some truth with a host of lies), the more credible it becomes. What’s changed since The Protocols, l’affaire Dreyfuss, the Inquisition, the Crusades etc etc?

    dim.

    Reference please for Israel “threatening to blow up the Aswan dam”. The nearest I can see to such a threat came from Sudanese / Muslim Brotherhood terrorists.

    As for the Osirak reactor, everybody now says what a great job it was – at the time Israel was roundly condemned in world fora.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. dim () says:

    Reference please for Israel “threatening to blow up the Aswan dam”. The nearest I can see to such a threat came from Sudanese / Muslim Brotherhood terrorists.

    That’s some exhaustive research you carried out there Tony. Try a google search on the cryptic phrase ‘israel threatened to bomb aswan’ and you’ll get plenty of links detailing Avigdor Liebermans threat to bomb the dam.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Tony () says:

    dim.

    So now it’s MK Avigdor Lieberman (not Israel) who threatened to blow up the Aswan Dam! Shifting sands there dim.

    And my Google search came up with a big fat zero – because all the alleged quotes were “reported”s, acquiring the cloak of a myth. And there’s nothing to indicate a date on when he is alleged to have said it (except “some years ago”). I guess your research ain’t none too hot either.

    Please find me an original quote from a contemporary newspaper (preferably Israeli) and then you can have MK Lieberman on toast. Until then, he remains a fringe party MK and sometime minor functionary / Minister in an occasional Israeli government.

    Minister Winston Peters MP also has a problem with shooting his mouth off, or so I understand.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. TheProphet () says:

    Ahh Dim

    And so it goes on.

    Has Tony answered your question yet?
    He’s talking to logix who hasn’t even posted on this thread.
    Me thinks Big T has ‘issues’

    Allah Protect us.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Tony () says:

    dim.

    And while you’re at it, maybe you could also document those “numerous threats to attack Iran” that Israel is alleged to have made. And please, don’t try and quote some former “Mossad Head” or “informed commentator”, or especially some Zundel / Mona Baker website (like tim osman).

    The simple truth is that, if Iran were to complete its development of nuclear weaponry, it would be a threat to the wider world (e.g. “the Great Satan” and all Bush’s “fellow-travellers” from Musharraf to Mubarak to Blair to Koizumi to … ) as well as Israel. Have a guess why all those al-Qaeda leaders are running around free in Tehran right now – they serve a useful purpose.

    By the way, New Zealand would not be exempt, despite Hobbs, Goff and Clark hosting Iranian FM Kharrazai last year and exchanging nuclear sympathy for primary product trade.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. dim () says:

    Please find me an original quote from a contemporary newspaper (preferably Israeli) and then you can have MK Lieberman on toast.

    Why don’t you offer to donate to the charity of my choice, Tony? Put something tangible behind all your tedious challenges and denials.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. tim barclay () says:

    If there is nuclear war in the middle east NZ would be completely safe as we have a law the porhibits them. And Geoffrey Palmer could get an injunction from the world court that would stop an ICBM, in its tracks, from landing on NZ. And all those cities that have declared themsleves nuclear free they would be safe too.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Simon () says:

    Well it doesn

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. tim barclay () says:

    If Israel gets wiped off the map then the palastinians would be wiped off too. I look forward to the PLO and Hammas condemning those remarks.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. dim () says:

    ‘Wiping Israel off the map’ would also kill the million or so Arab citizens of Israel – but they’re only Sunnis, so presumably Mr Ahmadinejad would be comfortable with their annihilation.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Simon () says:

    Good point about 20% of Israel is Arab and Sunni not Ahmadinejad’s voting demographic. But landslide Ahmadinejad seems a bit hang up with Zionism. Sounds familiar. I tried finding the entire speech yesterday on line but without success there must be some real gems in the rant.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. dim () says:

    Hi Tony – that’s cowardly but sensible response I predicted. Presumably you found the same Ha’aretz articles I did.

    Cheers,

    dim

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. the deity formerly known as nigel6888 () says:

    This debate is just weird as the usual suspects assume the usual postures.

    Here are a few random thoughts that occur to me on this issue that might be fruitful to debate:

    Here you have the President of Iran, standing in front of a banner denouncing zionism, whipping up a crowd to chant “death to israel”.

    He is the President (ok yes the ballot was rigged but that is hardly important in this context).

    Why do you think he gave that speech?

    Why do you think the biggest lettering was in English?

    Don’t you think he is trying to send some sort of message?

    How should we think about responding to that message?

    How is his clandestine nuclear weapons programme getting on incidentally? Is this bit of theatre a sign it’s near complete or is it a double bluff?

    Is he talking tough domestically because someone has just sent him an ultimatum he must listen to?

    Has the EU stiffening its backbone had an effect?

    Is he defying them, or is he about to back off and is simply managing his constituency?

    In which case why the big banner in English?

    Is the balance of power in the region tipping against him with the successful referendum in Iraq?

    Is he trying to intimidate Iraqis to maintain pressure for the insurgents?

    Is he trying to distract the US and EU to make some more space for the insurgency?

    Surely thats some useful starters for a conversation we could usefully be having here, rather than the usual squabble?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Jimmy () says:

    How exactly is the balance of power tipping against him with the outcome of the referendum in Iraq Nigel? The Shia’s got what they wanted and they are closely aligned with Iran. The Iranians are in a relatively good position at the moment, waiting to see what happens the incredibly shrinking President.

    Stratfor has a good summary in their latest newsletter.

    “The most important feature of the landscape at this moment is the decision by Iran that it is time to move toward direct discussions with the United States. To be sure, the United States and Iran have been talking informally for years about a variety of things, including Iraq. But this week, the Iranian foreign minister did two things. First, he stated that the time was not yet right for talks with the United States — while acknowledging that talks through intermediaries had taken place. And second, he described the conditions under which discussions might occur. In short, he set the stage for talks between Washington and Tehran to move into the public eye.

    It appears at this point that Iran has taken note of the U.S. pressure against Syria and is adjusting for it. However, what is holding up progress on public talks between the United States and Iran are not the reasons stated by the foreign minister — doubts about Washington’s integrity and unclarity about its goals — but rather, the status of the presidency in Washington. Support for President George W. Bush is running at 39 percent in the polls. He still hasn’t bounced upward, and he still hasn’t collapsed. He is balanced on the thin edge of the knife. Indictments in the Plame investigation might come this week, which would be pivotal. If Bush collapses, there is no point in talks for Tehran.

    Thus, the Iranians are waiting to see two things: Does the United States really have the weight to back the Syrians into a corner? And can Bush survive the greatest crisis of his presidency?

    The Middle East is not a simple place, but it is a predictable one. Power talks, and you-know-what walks. “

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Rockey Boy () says:

    What an absolute load of drivel being talked on this blog. The problems in the middle East will never be solved with guns and bombs – never. And there is no such thing as a limited war in this part of the world that will not end up affecting us all to a greater or lesser extent. The only way peace can come to this area is by the nations involved actually talking to each other. However meaningful construction dialogue almost never gets the headlines unlike the ‘wiped off the map’ comments being discussed here.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. waymad () says:

    Oh, we are back to Dialogue, posited by the exquisitely mis-monikered Rockey. Full circle.

    Thing is, dialogue takes place between rational beings. Not between RB’s and theocrats with nukes. Who (the TWN’s, for the avoidance of ambiguity) have consistently used dialogue to buy more time for – guess what?

    And a leetle piece of research for the hotter heads out there: read the Atlantic Monthly article (James Fallows, this year, from memory) where the response to a belligerent and nuclear armed Iran was war-gamed by the Pentagon. Not too many good or easy options emerged from that, ‘fraid.

    So, what’s Plan B again?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. tim barclay () says:

    Wiping off the map remark has been strupid as it rallies world opinion firmly behind Israel and the efforts to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons. Bellicose remarks backed up by nuclear weapons mean that Iran must be stopped. And if the Bush administration or even Israel take a preemptive strike against Iran I doubt that world opinion would be too concerned. The Preseident of Iran has reduced his country’s security with such remarks.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. the deity formerly known as nigel6888 () says:

    Hey Jimmy, they were conversation starters.

    I think you can pose a reasonable argument that with 100+ Divisions stood up, nearly a third of them at fighting fitness, and a nearing stable (maybe) Iraqi Government it is going to be a little harder to Iran to act with impunity in the region.

    I don’t necessarily buy your argument that the Shia Iraqis got what they wanted or are satellites of Iran. But i certainly accept that Iran would like them to be, and is almost certainly running a gameplan that to skew Iraq them to Iranian ends.

    My take is based on the following: The US are still there (come back to this later), the Kurds are very powerful and are quite interested in destabilising Iran themselves, and the Sunnis are adamantly opposed to Iranian rule or influence – whether more so than to US is unclear to me. I also think most Shias lost a lot of family in the war, so Iran may not be greatly trusted even if Shiite.

    Hence I think that Iraq is setting off down a track of its own general making – working between the opposing factions to come up with something which will be uniquely Iraqi.

    Yes Stratfor is normally pretty interesting, I tend to give a fair bit of weight to its analysis.

    I think you are also right to emphasise the way M/East actors respond to, calibrate by,and attempt to influence US domestic opinion. Its a shame US liberals havent woken up to this.

    When this period is taught in school I think the relationship(s) between the fourth estate and the insurgency will be found to have had a quite profound impact. Possibly not as great as Vietnam, but if its not, it won’t be for want of trying. [incidentally the only reason i think not is that people are more cynical about the media these days]

    Overall tho, I basically agree with your analytical framework, i would weight elements differently, but it provides a basis for a reasoned discussion.

    This is why I suggested a few starter questions. This looks to me to be a multi-part game of exactly the sort waymad mentioned.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. rightkiwi () says:

    don’t worry about this. the aids foundation requiring 50% of its board to be maori is much more worrying, don’t you know

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. peacenik () says:

    An eye for an eye and the whole world is blind…

    2 wrongs never make a right…

    What scares me is that even those debating cannot ever see what the reality is (e.g. Tony and his attitude that Israel’s behaviour and attitude is beyond reproach and should bomb Iran as soon as possible and Tim and Dim who take the otherside of the argument or both maybe morally fence sitting like I do!!)let alone those with their fingers on the buttons, that’s how wars are started!

    Any action unfortunatly has the risk of spiralling the whole reigon to the brink of annihilation and no one really wants that…

    The unfortunate mess we are left with is Iran left unchecked is negative long term and any action taken by Bush/Cheney and or Israel could make things a lot worse…

    peace everyone…

    Peacenik

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote