3 ms·

> That's garden-variety anti-Semitism. Not sure how some originality changes the sentiment. I don't think it's relevant in the slightest. > Not a credible thr

> That's garden-variety anti-Semitism. Not sure how some originality changes the sentiment. I don't think it's relevant in the slightest. > Not a credible threat by a head of state. I don't think you have looked up what credible means. National leadership is credible. That's the nature of the role. Political posturing are tactics of leadership as well, but that doesn't make the sentiments less credible. Opportunity often changes a feint into an actual assault, in conflicts. I think we're talking about the fact that much of the Iranian leadership would press a button that made Israel magically disappear without additional consequence, if they could...following that, what would they be willing to sacrifice to do it? If you don't think there is any possibility that Iran would want Israel gone, that's fine. At least come out and say it.

JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> much of the Iranian leadership would press a button that made Israel magically disappear without additional consequence, if they could Much of every country's leadership would do this to their adversaries. That shows credible intent, not a credible threat.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- Supermancho 4y ago
  > That shows credible intent, not a credible threat. There is motive. There is opportunity. The lacking element is means. There are a large number of conditions (access to nuclear ordinace, among others) wherein means is achieved. Threat is not simply about what means exist now, but the conditions and consequences of change. The world conditions ensure it's a credible threat and countries take it seriously, despite your misgivings.
  - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    > lacking element is means Apparent capability is an important component of threat credibility under practically every military doctrine. The more fundamental question is: does this represent a policy stance or domestic messaging point? One can reasonably disagree on the answer. But the quotes I've been shown sound more like bluster than actual threats. For evidence of Iran's belligerence, these statements are relatively par for the course. (Their extraterritorial meddling makes a stronger pitch for credible intent and threat.)

JumpCrisscross 4y ago

> much of the Iranian leadership would press a button that made Israel magically disappear without additional consequence, if they could Much of every country's leadership would do this to their adversaries. That shows credible intent, not a credible threat.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
Supermancho 4y ago
> That shows credible intent, not a credible threat. There is motive. There is opportunity. The lacking element is means. There are a large number of conditions (access to nuclear ordinace, among others) wherein means is achieved. Threat is not simply about what means exist now, but the conditions and consequences of change. The world conditions ensure it's a credible threat and countries take it seriously, despite your misgivings.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > lacking element is means Apparent capability is an important component of threat credibility under practically every military doctrine. The more fundamental question is: does this represent a policy stance or domestic messaging point? One can reasonably disagree on the answer. But the quotes I've been shown sound more like bluster than actual threats. For evidence of Iran's belligerence, these statements are relatively par for the course. (Their extraterritorial meddling makes a stronger pitch for credible intent and threat.)