Israel believes Iran is making a nuke? Yes, No, Maybe, Sometimes...

[PointOfViewGun]

I don't really make any threads on Israel but this one seemed too hilarious to pass.

Iran undecided on nuclear bomb - Israel military chief

The head of the Israeli military has said he does not think Iran will develop nuclear weapons.

Chief of Staff Lt Gen Benny Gantz made the statement in an interview with the Israeli newspaper, Haaretz.


He said Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, had not yet made the final decision whether to build a nuclear bomb.



Tehran says it wants nuclear technology for peaceful purposes but the West believes Iran is developing weapons.



In November, the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency published a report which complained it had been unable to "provide credible assurance about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran" and that it continued to have "serious concerns regarding possible military dimensions to Iran's nuclear programme".


The US, European Union, Canada, Japan and Australia are among those who have imposed sanctions on Tehran.



The measures include restrictions on Iranian oil sales, a ban on the supply of heavy weaponry and nuclear-related technology to the country, and an asset freeze on certain individuals and organisations.

On one side we have the head of Israeli military saying that Iranians are not making nukes, on the other side we have Israeli prime minister talking about how sure he is that Iranians are making nukes. Who should we believe in or Israel is suffering from a severe case of multiple personality?

[Caelius]

This isn't really news. There are two known camps, in which the moderate side includes not just Gantz, but also the former head of the Mossad. Whether this really reduces the chances of an attack, I don't think anyone can really say.

What you should probably remember is that them being moderate on the Iranian nuclear question doesn't mean they're also pro pulling back on the whole shadow war between Israel and Iran (say, through Hezbullah, Mossad assasinations, rocket attacks, ship impoundments).

Who should we believe in or Israel is suffering from a severe case of multiple personality?

Severe case of multiple personality (as explained above). At least in terms of government cohesion on the issue.

It's no different in any number of states around the world. Which I do believe I pointed out in that other thread of yours where you made a similar appeal to authority fallacy argument.

[Condottiere 40K]

Sounded like the tail wagging the dog.

[muller227]

Sounded like the tail wagging the dog.

Yeah once again proving the age old fact that militaries try to find a way out the fight there bosses get them into. If the initial requests had been approved we would still be waitng for D-Day.

The worlds militaries by and large are far less aggressive than their political leaders. Even Soviet generalship back in the day was defense oriented, they had no intention of going into the Fulda gap, they thought on the other hand Reagan was just nuts enough to do so. Of course he had no intention of doing so, but he had all those tells!!! God we are playing 5 card stud.

[Da Skinna]

A lot of what Netanyahu is saying is also electoral season rhetoric... same with Iran and the US. Still scary in some ways, still annoying and dishonest, but a lot of hullabaloo.

[Poet]

multiple personality disorder? no, when international players are playing politics and they are talking behind the curtains, they keep all cards in their hand, so one official says, he doesn't think Iraq holds WMDs and other says that there is some evidence in this regard, this is to keep world sure that nothing is sure, if talks turn out to be fruitful, ABC is rational players and if talks go in vain, "We are gonna save the world from ABC", this is how it works.

[Spitfire -WONDERBOLT!]

It's Iserial,who gives a .

[Tiberios]

As has been said, this is probably a case of a lack of cohesion in the Israeli Government. Nothing new and nothing we haven't seen in other countries as well.

multiple personality disorder? no, when international players are playing politics and they are talking behind the curtains, they keep all cards in their hand, so one official says, he doesn't think Iraq holds WMDs and other says that there is some evidence in this regard, this is to keep world sure that nothing is sure, if talks turn out to be fruitful, ABC is rational players and if talks go in vain, "We are gonna save the world from ABC", this is how it works.

So it's a trick on the part of Israel to confuse the world? I really doubt it. More likely it's a case of two factions within the Government holding differing opinions on whether or not Iran is trying to accuire a nuke. Government aren't like hiveminds and as such, it's not a shocking news or unbelievable that here is a lack of cohesion on a matter like this. Just because some parties form a Government it doesn't automatically mean they see eye to eye on every single matter.

[Phier]

Does anyone think the Iran is risking attack and suffering sanctions just because they want nuclear power?

[justicar5]

Does anyone think the Iran is risking attack and suffering sanctions just because they want nuclear power?

Another thought: would the government survive backing down? They may be doing a balance of risk, an internal coup if they appear to waver vs the results of a military strike from an external enemy. If that is the case (and it sounds very similar to the math Saddam must have been doing re WMDs [if he admitted not having them he faced revolt, if he didn't he faced invasion, screwed either way]) Are they counting on a limited strike, targeting the nuclear facilities to unite the nation behind them, vs backing down and having the hard liners (or the moderates) sense weakness and stage a coup.

[Mangalore]

Does anyone think the Iran is risking attack and suffering sanctions just because they want nuclear power?

given they hyped it like their version of the Apollo program to the public and use it as proof how unfair the US is, sure, why not? Sticking it to the "bullies" kind of gives them more applause from non Western corners than we give them credit for.

Though it heightens the chances to get blown up they _already_ think that these chances wouldn't be low whatever they did (with their regime staying where it is)!

[Poet]

So it's a trick on the part of Israel to confuse the world? I really doubt it. More likely it's a case of two factions within the Government holding differing opinions on whether or not Iran is trying to accuire a nuke. Government aren't like hiveminds and as such, it's not a shocking news or unbelievable that here is a lack of cohesion on a matter like this. Just because some parties form a Government it doesn't automatically mean they see eye to eye on every single matter.

I know what you are talking about but it's not some Israeli minister from some other party giving clean chit to Iran but an intelligence agency official and they are bound to speak what Govt. thinks. Officials show Govt. policy in every country unless that is a country so divided like us. Israel is one example of extreme oneness.

[Tiberios]

I know what you are talking about but it's not some Israeli minister from some other party giving clean chit to Iran but an intelligence agency official and they are bound to speak what Govt. thinks. Officials show Govt. policy in every country unless that is a country so divided like us. Israel is one example of extreme oneness.

Actually not. Official have their own agenda at times and high ranking military official occasionally disagree with Government policy and speak out about it. One good example of a military official doing so, would be Gen. Stanley McChrystal . Again, Government and military officials don't always see eye to eye with their Government and sometimes they openly speak out against Government policy. This is mostly likely a case of high ranking officials in Israel doing exactly that.

[Poet]

Actually not. Official have their own agenda at times and high ranking military official occasionally disagree with Government policy and speak out about it. One good example of a military official doing so, would be Gen. Stanley McChrystal . Again, Government and military officials don't always see eye to eye with their Government and sometimes they openly speak out against Government policy. This is mostly likely a case of high ranking officials in Israel doing exactly that.

Stanley did that during a massive war in Afghanistan, he lost his nerves and then his job, I see no reason of believing that an army chief would have different approach, mentioning that on media, in a country like Israel. And I have example of the real game behind this strategy, this is what Americans playing with us, one says Osama had no links with our military top brass, other says military is guilty of hiding him, trump card is those videos of Osama (supposedly) found from his compound and those would never be publicly brought until they decide what exactly to do with Pakistan.

[s.rwitt]

Hang on. April's almost over. Didn't Panetta say we'd be shooting Persians by now?

[Phier]

Hang on. April's almost over. Didn't Panetta say we'd be shooting Persians by now?

October

[magpie]

Lots of agenda,s involved and not just Israel.

The armament industries need loads of tension issue,s to keep the ball rolling.

The hype against Iran by various parties will probably force them to develop nukes, Thus the whole issue becomes a reality rather than theory.

[fkizz]

Lots of agenda,s involved and not just Israel.

The armament industries need loads of tension issue,s to keep the ball rolling.

The hype against Iran by various parties will probably force them to develop nukes, Thus the whole issue becomes a reality rather than theory.

That's a savvy point.

Ironically, Iran being surrounded by enemy armies and invasion threats will make it more likely to be pressured into developing at nuke.

And arms industry keeps making profit in case.

[Justice and Mercy]

I think it's not much of a contradiction of ideas, really, just loose wording. The Iranians are developing nuclear weaponry by laying the foundation for it. Whether or not they actually employ this foundation to that end is another matter.

On that subject, I can only say that I hope Western intelligence agencies have a real good idea what's going on, and at what pace.

[mrmouth]

The general consensus is that Khamenei once again played the voice of reason, as he did in 2003 when the US gave a specific warning via back channels. Probably not a coincidence that this time it happened right about the time that Obama wrote Khamenei, personally. It was far more than direct correspondence, but also seen as a legitimizing factor within Iran for Khamenei, who was embroiled in a significant power struggle with Ahmadinejad.

There was plenty of speculation as to who fell on what side of the nuclear weapons debate. We now know that conventional wisdom, based on Khamenei's previous statements going back to the 90's, that he was and is fundamentally against nuclear weapons. And based on those same statements, likely has serious hangups with nuclear power.

Anyhow - people need to make the differentiation between both leaders when someone makes a statement about Iran being reasonable. There are obviously reasonable parties within Iran with respect to this issue, but that hardly means they act reasonable the majority of the time.