5 ms·

Iran has military ties and grants aid to Hezbollah and Bashar Al Asad the Syrian dictator (both are neighboring enemies of Israel), has missiles that could pote

Iran has military ties and grants aid to Hezbollah and Bashar Al Asad the Syrian dictator (both are neighboring enemies of Israel), has missiles that could potentially threaten Israel, and has publicly threatened death and hellfire upon Israel. I am certain that nuclear weapons or not, Israel considers Iran enemy #1 and a real threat to be dealt with. A stronger Iran (via sanctions relief) is not in their interest.

TaylorAlexander 6y ago
I did some digging and it seems both countries have been threatening each other for decades. Israel has repeatedly blocked their nuclear program and has threatened offensive action if it continues. Not just recently but even in an article from 2006. It seems both sides are throwing threats around and it seems unfair to only mention Iran’s threats. https://m.dw.com/en/israel-threatens-iran-over-nuclear-research/a-1864693 https://m.dw.com/en/israel-threatens-iran-over-nuclear-resea... https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-israel-iran-iran-nuclear-middle-east-79ef89b7f7d8df1974856eaeb5a69905 https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-israel-iran-iran-nuclea...
- kortilla 6y ago
  The discussion is about Israel’s rationale - not whether or not Iran’s aggression is justified.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- yurielt 6y ago
  Why are you downvoted is ridiculous well we know who the cowards are in this at least
- javajosh 6y ago
  "it seems unfair to only mention Iran’s threats" If that's unfair, then it is also unfair to leave out the fact that the Iranian government has murdered innocent US citizens and funded organizations that seek to murder large numbers of innocent US civilians. We should also mention the two countries differing views on religious freedom and women's rights, or even their differing views on the others right to exist. Israel is built on the suffering of the Palestinians, taking their land and homes by force in the 1940's, but why didn't Iran take those displaced people in if they were so concerned about them? Or any other of the loudly protesting states that surround Israel? The answer is that the Mullahs only really care about holding on to the power they have, and just like the elite in the US like to use racism to distract from wealth inequality, so too do the Mullahs use Israel to distract Iranians from the fact that Iranian government isn't actually very good at its job of providing a peaceful, prosperous life of freedom for it's citizens. It seems a real pity that such a wonderful people like the Persians must live under a feudal, fundamentalist religious dictatorship in the 21st century. That must really suck. My guess is that if there is ever going to be an Islamic Reformation, it will happen in the US or Iran, and it will make the Arab Spring look like a blip on the radar, and it will be wonderful.
  - radycov 6y ago
    I'm really glad you mentioned innocent US citizens. Have you heard of Rachel Corrie murdered by the IDF?
    - javajosh 6y ago
      No, but I'm talking about the official position of the Iranian government is to destroy America and kill Americans. This equivocating about Israel vs. Iran's moral status, from the American point of view, is rather sickening. But then again, in 2016 we recently proved that 40% of Americans have a good chance of walking out of Star Wars believing that Darth Vader was the good guy. So what do I know?
      - Daho0n 6y ago
        Darth Vader is leading an imperial army fighting terrorists. I guess some might find some similarities in the real world. Not to mention the politics remind me of something..
        javajosh 6y ago
        Indeed. Darth Vader stands for purity, civilization, order. He's a go-getter: he's got a job to do, he does it and doesn't let anything stand in his way. By contrast the rebellion is all about chaos. Indeed, if only the rebels would stop their vain attempt to overthrow the just and good Empire, then all could enjoy peace!
        Daho0n 5y ago
        Too many drugs..
    - adolph 6y ago
      The exact nature of her death and the culpability of the bulldozer operator are disputed, with fellow ISM protestors saying that the Israeli soldier operating the bulldozer deliberately ran over Corrie, and Israeli eyewitnesses saying that it was an accident since the bulldozer operator could not see her.* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Corrie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Corrie
- ROARosen 6y ago
  Taking the names/policies/abuses of given countries out of the equation I would hardly consider it "threatening each other" where: Country 1: Has actually threatened multiple times of wiping Country 2 off the map, all the while developing advanced military capabilities and sometimes unveiling them with writings on them of wiping Country 1 off. Country 2: Has been threatening (and delivering) consequences to Country 1 over nuclear research and other offensive activities they have undertaken.
- radycov 6y ago
  Predictably any attempt at an objective, neutral discussion on this topic is immediately downvoted by the extremist Zionist lobby on HN.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
koheripbal 6y ago
One of the big regrets of the arms control community, was that the JCPOA did not contain any limitations on missile development. With the current arms race with drones, missiles, hypersonic missiles, etc... I think Israel is worried that Iran will begin handing these weapons out to their proxies in Syria, Lebanon, Gaza, and escalate the war. Iran's drone strike against Saudi Arabia's top oil refinery really highlighted that. I think ensuring that no deal is better than the current format of the JCPOA. At least in the current situation, they can strike at Iran's weapons program to slow it down, and that there are no major inflows of money. Personally, I think they'd be open to a new JCPOA that includes broader weapons controls.

TaylorAlexander 6y ago

I did some digging and it seems both countries have been threatening each other for decades. Israel has repeatedly blocked their nuclear program and has threatened offensive action if it continues. Not just recently but even in an article from 2006. It seems both sides are throwing threats around and it seems unfair to only mention Iran’s threats. https://m.dw.com/en/israel-threatens-iran-over-nuclear-research/a-1864693 https://m.dw.com/en/israel-threatens-iran-over-nuclear-resea... https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-israel-iran-iran-nuclear-middle-east-79ef89b7f7d8df1974856eaeb5a69905 https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-israel-iran-iran-nuclea...

kortilla 6y ago
The discussion is about Israel’s rationale - not whether or not Iran’s aggression is justified.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
yurielt 6y ago
Why are you downvoted is ridiculous well we know who the cowards are in this at least
javajosh 6y ago
"it seems unfair to only mention Iran’s threats" If that's unfair, then it is also unfair to leave out the fact that the Iranian government has murdered innocent US citizens and funded organizations that seek to murder large numbers of innocent US civilians. We should also mention the two countries differing views on religious freedom and women's rights, or even their differing views on the others right to exist. Israel is built on the suffering of the Palestinians, taking their land and homes by force in the 1940's, but why didn't Iran take those displaced people in if they were so concerned about them? Or any other of the loudly protesting states that surround Israel? The answer is that the Mullahs only really care about holding on to the power they have, and just like the elite in the US like to use racism to distract from wealth inequality, so too do the Mullahs use Israel to distract Iranians from the fact that Iranian government isn't actually very good at its job of providing a peaceful, prosperous life of freedom for it's citizens. It seems a real pity that such a wonderful people like the Persians must live under a feudal, fundamentalist religious dictatorship in the 21st century. That must really suck. My guess is that if there is ever going to be an Islamic Reformation, it will happen in the US or Iran, and it will make the Arab Spring look like a blip on the radar, and it will be wonderful.
- radycov 6y ago
  I'm really glad you mentioned innocent US citizens. Have you heard of Rachel Corrie murdered by the IDF?
  - javajosh 6y ago
    No, but I'm talking about the official position of the Iranian government is to destroy America and kill Americans. This equivocating about Israel vs. Iran's moral status, from the American point of view, is rather sickening. But then again, in 2016 we recently proved that 40% of Americans have a good chance of walking out of Star Wars believing that Darth Vader was the good guy. So what do I know?
    - Daho0n 6y ago
      Darth Vader is leading an imperial army fighting terrorists. I guess some might find some similarities in the real world. Not to mention the politics remind me of something..
      - javajosh 6y ago
        Indeed. Darth Vader stands for purity, civilization, order. He's a go-getter: he's got a job to do, he does it and doesn't let anything stand in his way. By contrast the rebellion is all about chaos. Indeed, if only the rebels would stop their vain attempt to overthrow the just and good Empire, then all could enjoy peace!
        Daho0n 5y ago
        Too many drugs..
  - adolph 6y ago
    The exact nature of her death and the culpability of the bulldozer operator are disputed, with fellow ISM protestors saying that the Israeli soldier operating the bulldozer deliberately ran over Corrie, and Israeli eyewitnesses saying that it was an accident since the bulldozer operator could not see her.* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Corrie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Corrie
ROARosen 6y ago
Taking the names/policies/abuses of given countries out of the equation I would hardly consider it "threatening each other" where: Country 1: Has actually threatened multiple times of wiping Country 2 off the map, all the while developing advanced military capabilities and sometimes unveiling them with writings on them of wiping Country 1 off. Country 2: Has been threatening (and delivering) consequences to Country 1 over nuclear research and other offensive activities they have undertaken.
radycov 6y ago
Predictably any attempt at an objective, neutral discussion on this topic is immediately downvoted by the extremist Zionist lobby on HN.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

koheripbal 6y ago

One of the big regrets of the arms control community, was that the JCPOA did not contain any limitations on missile development. With the current arms race with drones, missiles, hypersonic missiles, etc... I think Israel is worried that Iran will begin handing these weapons out to their proxies in Syria, Lebanon, Gaza, and escalate the war. Iran's drone strike against Saudi Arabia's top oil refinery really highlighted that. I think ensuring that no deal is better than the current format of the JCPOA. At least in the current situation, they can strike at Iran's weapons program to slow it down, and that there are no major inflows of money. Personally, I think they'd be open to a new JCPOA that includes broader weapons controls.