Can someone please debunk the whole Iran wipes Israel off the face of the Earth BS.

[kylejack]

Without the US backing it, Israel might actually have to enter into real negotiations for a two state solution. Oh, the horrors!

 

[wowrevolution]

Israel is no more God's chosen people than the Kings of Europe were when they claimed to be and the mountain of sheep used scripture to justify the rule of Kings. Israel should be treated no different from anyone else. We shouldn't allow our Israel policy to be defined by ancient superstitions and religious idiocy.

 

[RickyJ]

I am trying to reason with somebody who thinks that Iran is dangerous and they want to attack israel. Can anyone post a link debunking this bs?

Many thanks in advance.

I can debunk it with facts.

Iran already has the capability with fuel air bombs to wipe the terrorist gang called Israel occupying Palestine off the face of the map. They have the missiles to deliver them and have had this capability for decades. Yet they have not wiped them out. Why? Cause they aren't stupid! They know attacking that gang of terrorists would mean they would be nuked and wiped out themselves.

 

[RickyJ]

Akus -

Iran is dangerous to Israel. No matter how you spin it, Iran is my enemy. The difference between me and other Jews who don't like Paul is that I want to take care of Iran alone. There are attempts to "reword" what the Ayatollah or Ahmadinejad has said, "wipe off the map" or "remove from the pages of history" but it's spin. Iran doesn't like the idea of Jews with national sovereignty on what they consider Muslim land. So Iran wants Muslims in control of my country. I consider this war talk, as do most people.

So take the route of "Israel can handle Iran" instead of "Iran isn't a threat to Israel." Very few people except for some Paul diehards on this forum actually believe that.

No matter how you try to spin it Raffi, Israel is a terrorist state occupying Palestine. They attacked my nation the USA in 1967 when they bombed the USS Liberty. Israel is an enemy of the USA and we should take care of them ourselves.

 

[RickyJ]

Didn't the US help establish Israel?

No, Great Britain did that. And then what did the Jews do to thank them? They bombed the king David Hotel and killed many British soldiers and diplomats there. Israel has always been from the start a terrorist organization.

 

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

Same reason the US never invaded the Soviet Union or vice versa. Israel has at least 200 nukes and will use them if they feel necessary.

Why does Israel even have nukes, period? Are they operated by Israel or under American supervision? I don't feel safe with just proliferating nukes all over the place, whether they be allies or not.

 

[RickyJ]

Why does Israel even have nukes, period? Are they operated by Israel or under American supervision? I don't feel safe with just proliferating nukes all over the place, whether they be allies or not.

John F. Kennedy didn't want Israel to have them. He was killed shortly later.

 

[sailingaway]

Did you search it? At one point, I think the night of the debate where Ron and Bachmann went toe to toe on Iran, someone who spoke Iranian came on here and translated it with discussion of why that translation was not the right one. Ron in the debate had said it was the wrong translation (that idiom doesn't exist in the original language) but this person explained it well.

 

[GraspingForPeace]

Did you search it? At one point, I think the night of the debate where Ron and Bachmann went toe to toe on Iran, someone who spoke Iranian came on here and translated it with discussion of why that translation was not the right one. Ron in the debate had said it was the wrong translation (that idiom doesn't exist in the original language) but this person explained it well.

Yes, most American idioms do not translate well to other languages. "Wipe off the map" is one of those idioms and thus it is not used in Farsi.

 

[Wolfgang Bohringer]

A few years ago I read a proper translation of Ahmadinejad's "wipe off the map" speech and it was very interesting. Part of the speech was a history lesson that covered 3 different regimes that the Iranians oppose(d): the Soviet occupation regime in Afghanistan, the Sadaam regime in Iraq, and the Israeli regime in Palestine. In his speech Ahmadinejad noted that many thought that the Soviets and Sadaam were invincible and their regimes would never crumble. But eventually and unpredictably they both did. So, Ahmadinejad said hope was not lost and the regime in Israel could eventually fall too.

But, what's most interesting about this "mistranslation" is the exact choice of words "wipe off the map". Juan Cole has proven that there is no such idiomatic equivalent that conjures up such a metaphor in Farsi or any of the languages spoken in Persia.

But let's think of the etymology of such an expression here in the "good ol' USA". From where do we get such a colorful phrase? I'll tell you where: Its an ugly American expression popularized by pathetic loser high school and college students who stay in their dorm room's and play risk while the better adjusted kids are outside having fun. I once read an article about how most of the neo-cons such as Wolfowitz and the fat necked Kagans were of such an ilk. I recall that the gist of the article was that they may not have gotten much sun as kids, but they're getting their revenge now. With the viral spread of "wipe off the map", they seem to be stove-piping exact rhetorical devices to the NYTimes and from there all throughout the Mockingbird network.

 

[dusman]

Dusman,

Thanks for the great post there. +rep coming your way for sure.

But, the obvious follow-up question here is: "Would that capability to deter and defeat an attack from Iran exist if the US withdrew from the region? And how would the defense plan be expected to change (from an UNCLASS perspective, obviously) without nearly instant response capability from US air assets?"

Part of your explanation of how Iran is easily deterred is derived from U.S. assets. So certainly a political opponent is going to ask what happens if us dangerous libertarians get our way and those assets aren't there anymore.

I'm glad you asked, because it's an important question.

Yes, the capability to deter would still exist because the missile defense grid in the region is a large coalition among many countries. In fact, if you observe the map I provided, the majority of those range rings aren't even U.S. systems, but foreign nations whom have purchased our technology. I know for a fact that these foreign operators are just as capable as we are to maintain these defenses, mainly because I trained right next to them. One of the classmates in my 6 month AIT training was a Jordanian Captain. We also had many Israelis and other foreign military members among us.

We should want to pull back our own involvement, because it obviously does create some dependence on our presence. If we are concerned for Israel, we should ask is it better that we transition out of the area with our missile defense or abruptly get forced to end it due to economic crisis? The latter does hinder Israel's defensive capabilities to a degree more than the former.

One other point that is of significance is that our very presence, including that of missile defense causes great alarm and concern for other nations in the region. For example, Russia is amping up its armaments in response to our more recent expansion of missile defense. This would likely not occur if it were Europe taking responsibility, instead of the United States whom not only has the ability to uphold a strong defensive capability, but a far superior offensive capability.

Through coalitions in this region and throughout the world and through diplomacy and trade, we may get to a point in missile defense that makes all nuclear threat by air obsolete. The very threat that had risen during the Cold War would have a much more difficult time coming into existence today. The attractive aspect of the policy is that if any were to dissolve their own involvement in this coalition, it directly hinders their very own defense, creating a much more integrated network of deterrence overall. Its almost inconceivable for this coalition to dissolve across the board.

 

[swissaustrian]

Former Mossad head Meir Dagan:

Israeli attack on Iran must be stopped to avert catastrophe
... saying such a move would likely lead to a regional war involving Hezbollah, Hamas, and Syria.
...
"I'm concerned about possible mistakes and I prefer to speak out before there is a catastrophe," Dagan said in an interview on the Israeli television program “Uvda."
...
Dagan said he was worried about Barak's past comments on Iran, saying Barak believes Israel has less than a year to carry out an military strike.
"I am very concerned," he said. "My understanding of Barak's comments is that Israel must act within this timeframe, but I don't believe this is accurate."
...

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diploma...must-be-stopped-to-avert-catastrophe-1.399046

 

[SaulPaulinsky]

I'm glad you asked, because it's an important question.

Yes, the capability to deter would still exist because the missile defense grid in the region is a large coalition among many countries. In fact, if you observe the map I provided, the majority of those range rings aren't even U.S. systems, but foreign nations whom have purchased our technology. I know for a fact that these foreign operators are just as capable as we are to maintain these defenses, mainly because I trained right next to them. One of the classmates in my 6 month AIT training was a Jordanian Captain. We also had many Israelis and other foreign military members among us.

We should want to pull back our own involvement, because it obviously does create some dependence on our presence. If we are concerned for Israel, we should ask is it better that we transition out of the area with our missile defense or abruptly get forced to end it due to economic crisis? The latter does hinder Israel's defensive capabilities to a degree more than the former.

One other point that is of significance is that our very presence, including that of missile defense causes great alarm and concern for other nations in the region. For example, Russia is amping up its armaments in response to our more recent expansion of missile defense. This would likely not occur if it were Europe taking responsibility, instead of the United States whom not only has the ability to uphold a strong defensive capability, but a far superior offensive capability.

Through coalitions in this region and throughout the world and through diplomacy and trade, we may get to a point in missile defense that makes all nuclear threat by air obsolete. The very threat that had risen during the Cold War would have a much more difficult time coming into existence today. The attractive aspect of the policy is that if any were to dissolve their own involvement in this coalition, it directly hinders their very own defense, creating a much more integrated network of deterrence overall. Its almost inconceivable for this coalition to dissolve across the board.

Terrific answer. I agree that the defense coalition is unlikely to crumble in the near future if only because of the Sunni/Shia divide and their own distrust of Iran. But I am not sure Paul would have been in favor of establishing this in the first place, would he? I guess maybe if it comes through the diplomacy and trade you talk about, though he wants also to cut off the funding that the major defense contractors get to develop those kinds of systems. One possible issue...if the US was not in play, would any of those countries effectively refuse to use their capability to protect Israel? Who do they dislike more, Israel or Iran? Who do they distrust more? That second one may not be the easiest to answer. The other side is that without the US, there's still not the capability to make Iran accountable if it does try something, even if it isn't successful. Depending only on a missile defense system to prevent nuclear attack with no effective countermeasure available sounds like a very tense situation.

I definitely agree that with action against Iran and Syria (of any kind) comes antagonizing Russia and putting us on China's watch. That's the #1 reason that I find the "bomb Iran" crowd to be the most reckless, dangerous and potentially ruinous of anything I've seen in my lifetime -- the potential for escalation. You know and I know, that is not a fight we want.

My initial feeling is that a good in between solution would be to completely withdraw from IRQ, AFG, Yemen, Germany, Japan, Honduras, Colombia, etc. but maintain our presence in Qatar and possibly the UAE. They both seem to want us there, and they're both very close to the Straits of Hormuz and so their presence would keep global markets confident that there will be no interruption of oil supplies despite whatever Iran's government is babbling about at a given time. There would also be a US air power presence readily available. I do think the presence of US military has been invaluable in South Korea's development as a country and would not have been successful without it. At this point, only a very limited presence in South Korea IMO is still warranted -- much smaller than what we have there now -- again, as a force to deter as well as in theory neutralize any nuclear action taken by the North. But I would also try to get greater involvement from other air forces around the world in this so that it's not all on the United States. We've had some of this, but IMO not enough and in what I'm envisioning, there would be one truly joint mission, with standardized equipment and training, but the manpower and money coming proportionally from many countries.

But as you've said, as long as we wish to take an offensive posture in the region, that won't happen.

 

[slamhead]

I just tell people that we should stop interfering with Israel's sovereignty. Take Israel off the leash and I guarantee Iran will never overtly threaten Israel again. Having the U.S. involved only emboldens Iran to make threats.

 

[PastaRocket848]

there's no doubt iran doesn't like israel much. they are not, however, a threat to them. that would be like suggesting that cuba is a threat to the u.s. simply not liking someone, even wanting to do harm to them, does not constitute a legitimate threat. have you seen the video of the iranian "navy" harassing the us boats in the persian gulf? they look like grey wake boarding boats with m-2's mounted to the top. to consider that a threat to your country must mean you think very, very lowly of your own military's defensive capabilities. intent != threat when the ability to do anything significant simply isn't there. israel has more nuclear weapons that iran has aircraft.

the purpose of pointing out the "wipe israel off the face of the earth" myth is that everyone knows that was not what was said. the idiom doesn't even exist in the persian language. it is widely known that was the result of a mistranslation, yet conservative talk radio hosts, chickenhawk politicians, etc all act as though they are completely unaware and repeat it as though it is truth.

general rule: when a politician repeats that myth, you can know for damn sure that they are knowingly misleading you. it's about exposing propaganda.

 

[Muwahid]

Who said they can't? How do you know absolutely? Look at MacArthur. He advocated using nuclear weapons on China. I've also heard many neocons who have said they'd start a conventional war with China if China invaded Taiwan despite the fact that it would be global and undoubtedly someone would get butthurt and use nuclear weapons. lol

You realize I'm not speaking about current 21st century geopolitcs, I'm talking about a thousand years of preservation of holy lands, if you don't get the mentality of people from Iran and the Middle East don't try to gauge what they can or can't do, ask anyone from Iran, any one of them about nuking Israel/Palestine, the second holiest place in Islam and see their response, I know we like to think these are just a bunch of crazies, fanatics who will do anything but not quite.

Logic fail. If the U.S. attacked Iran, who would Iran and their proxies attack?

What are you talking about, my point was all these Arab countries warred with Israel at one point or another but Iran has never attack Israel, historically Iran has no history of behaving such a way and trust me, their eyes aren't set on Israel, it's set on Iraq, they're controlling Iraq by proxy through the Iraqi shi'i government, and Muqtada al Sadr's militant wing, they aim to control the oil of the region, they don't care about Israel besides in speeches and rallies, they have a close relationship with Jews anyway, they have tens of thousands living in their borders more than any other middle eastern country.

The point is Iran will NOT nuke Israel, anyone who thinks that is deluded and eating up the neocons talking points.

 

[PastaRocket848]

The point is Iran will NOT nuke Israel, anyone who thinks that is deluded and eating up the neocons talking points.

...and even if they did, Israel is pretty damn far away, doesn't have any oil, provides us virtually nothing in our one-sided "relationship" except headaches. why should american kids be sent off to die to protect a country thousands of miles away? america has, as michael scheuer does so well at pointing out, exactly NO vital national interest in Israel. they've been poking hornets nests over there for decades, if they get stung, it's their problem.

that position probably wont win a republican primary, but it's the moral and constitutional one.

 

[goliberty78]

All arguments are going to go on deaf ears, unless you present the scenario of what happens if in fact Iran went through with a nuclear attack. The argument is far stronger from this perspective and it still doesn't change the fact that Iran is no threat. I've posted this on several threads before and I wanted to put together all of that information for you guys.

My credentials on Iran: I was 1 of 4 Primary Missile Defense Operators under PATRIOT assigned exclusively to counter the Iranian air threat. My unit was also the first unit to deploy to South Korea in 50 years. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/31/iran-nuclear-us-missiles-gulf http://www.fbmonitor.com/monitor/2007/03 March/032207/PDF/16.pdf

Iran's Threat Potential: Iran does have various capabilities that do make it a fairly strong adversary. It's strength is predominately by air. Namely, a fairly strong Air Force and large arsenal of missile types. It is also assumed that they have UAV and cruise missile technologies. They have an Army, the Revolutionary Guard, but it is insignificant in comparison to its air capability.

Since we are interested in nuclear threat potential, we have to first identify how they would use a nuclear weapon.

1) We can rule out suitcase nukes for now, because the United States and Russia are the only countries whom have successfully made a nuclear weapon small enough to be carried by a person. Considering Iran has yet to create even a single weapons-grade warhead, its reasonable to assume that they are even further from having the technical knowledge to scale one down.

2) The only means therefore to make an attack with a nuclear weapon is by a missile capable of carrying a warhead. Iran's missile arsenal consists of Shahab-1 through Shahab-6, Scud-B and Scud-C missile types and various other short range missiles. Most of these are IRBMs (Intermediate Range) and none are ICBMs (Inter-Continental). Iran currently has no ICBM capability. This rules out any potential they could launch a warhead at the United States.


Missile Defense Systems in the Region: All of the following is public record and UNCLASSIFIED, just so it is clear.

I know for a fact that PATRIOT, AEGIS, and Israel's Iron Dome is deployed in the region. Other systems that are likely to be active are MEADS, THAAD, Arrow-2, and Phalanx 1B. We have sold PATRIOT PAC-2 missile defense systems to Taiwan, Egypt, Germany, South Korea, Greece, Israel, Japan, Kuwait, Netherlands, Saudi Arabia, and United Arab Emirates.

I've created a very rough map highlighting the approximate locations and coverage of PAC-2/PAC-3 (PATRIOT) systems in the region. These reflect both U.S. and foreign systems. Keep in mind, this does not reflect ANY OTHER systems that are active in the region.

Range rings and locations are only rough approximations. Again, all public domain and unclassified. Foreign missile defense systems are reflected, but the number of systems emplaced is uncertain. This map assumes less systems than are likely active.

As you can see, Iran's missile capability is almost entirely isolated from being any threat to Israel. In order for Iran to launch any nuclear payload at Israel, they would have to first defeat the missile defense systems in Iraq, UAE, Jordan, Kuwait, Israel, etc. Just look at line of sight from Iran to Israel and you'll see it's a foolish argument. Since there is no way for Iran to defeat these systems, their only option would be to overwhelm them. In order to do that, they'd likely have to launch their entire arsenal of missiles, which is essentially impossible due to the amount of logistics that would involve, without clearly setting of early warning WORLDWIDE.

We have great early warning systems that would allow us to send in our Air Force to take out most launch locations, prior to launch. These would primarily be the mobile launch platforms and any mobilization on the ground would obviously be identified by satellite. Emplacement of these mobile launch systems takes hours to conduct, allowing more than enough time to respond. Further, any missiles that are launched would then allow us to immediately identify launch locations we initially missed, so it is unlikely they could fire more than one volly from each location. This means that logistically, they not only have to beat our early warning systems, but they'd also have to launch from multiple thousands of locations.

If Iran Does Launch: Iran would obviously not launch the few nuclear warheads they would have from locations anywhere near its borders as they would not want these locations to be vulnerable to air raids. Therefore, these warheads would much more likely be launched from mid-country. This is an important fact and poses major challenges to Iran, because any nuclear payload launched from Iran has a very high probability of being shot down over their own country and would cause widespread nuclear fallout for IRAN itself. It would then be followed by probably the largest counter-offensive in human history by the United States and Israel.

Conclusion: Iran would have to be 100% suicidal to engage in such tactic. Doing so has nearly 0% probability of achieving anything but causing fall-out upon their own citizens and then being obliterated by a massive counter-offensive. This fact, armed with the above knowledge, shows that it is unreasonable to even entertain the idea that Iran would be so ridiculous to engage in such warfare. Even if you were to assume that they were entirely motivated by Islamic Radicalism to carry out Jihad, this hardly seems like any efficient manner to fulfill such means.

This is an ongoing side project of mine to piece together more details through public sources to round out a strong argument. I'm working towards a more formal presentation that can be used by the grassroots. I'm hoping someone might have a better way to get this publicized so that its more useful and reputable. I contacted Ben Swann to cover this argument, but I haven't gotten a response. If there is a lot of support to go that route, it might be worth going at him as a group.

Excellent assessment and very informative. However, aren't you missing something? Shouldn't there be a 3rd delivery method somewhere between Missile and Suitcase? What about the theory that Iran could use its nuclear capabilities to assist a terrorist organization in building a nuke or dirty bomb? Not saying I think these are true capabilities, but I'd like to hear your assessment and I think it would form a more complete presentation if you included them

 

[thoughtomator]

Look, people, it is more likely that if there is a war in the absence of the US, Israel will end up with the Sinai again, parts of Lebanon, end the dispute over WB/Gaza, and take good chunks of Jordan and/or Saudi Arabia as well. Nearly every man, woman and child in Israel knows how to use a rifle and can serve in the armed forces if necessary, and where the circumstances dictate it Israel has a 4000 year history of literally biblical retribution on its enemies. They are not soft like us.

 

[alucard13mmfmj]

no country should not have the ability to fry the earth multiple times. its selfish to use nuclear weapons as it affects everyone else with fallout throughout the world and death of innocent civilians. eventually someone is going to use nukes (besides in japan) on actual targets.