Issue: Foreign Policy: Iran - Threat?

[IrrigatedPancake]

Often when arguing that we must regard Iran as a threat, people refer to what Ahmadinejad was reported to have said he wants to wipe Israel off the map. However, that's is just a spun version of the translation.


The Actual Quote:

So what did Ahmadinejad actually say? To quote his exact words in Farsi:

"Imam ghoft een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad."

That passage will mean nothing to most people, but one word might ring a bell: rezhim-e. It is the word "regime." pronounced just like the English word with an extra "eh" sound at the end. Ahmadinejad did not refer to Israel the country or Israel the land mass, but the Israeli regime. This is a vastly significant distinction, as one cannot wipe a regime off the map. Ahmadinejad does not even refer to Israel by name, he instead uses the specific phrase "rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods" (regime occupying Jerusalem).

So this raises the question.. what exactly did he want "wiped from the map"? The answer is: nothing. That's because the word "map" was never used. The Persian word for map, "nagsheh" is not contained anywhere in his original Farsi quote, or, for that matter, anywhere in his entire speech. Nor was the western phrase "wipe out" ever said. Yet we are led to believe that Iran's president threatened to "wipe Israel off the map." despite never having uttered the words "map." "wipe out" or even "Israel."


The full quote translated directly to English:

"The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time."

Word by word translation:

Imam (Khomeini) ghoft (said) een (this) rezhim-e (regime) ishghalgar-e (occupying) qods (Jerusalem) bayad (must) az safheh-ye ruzgar (from page of time) mahv shavad (vanish from).

Here is the full transcript of the speech in Farsi, archived on Ahmadinejad's web site


http://www.antiwar.com/orig/norouzi.php?articleid=11025

[ratsbew]

Iran is a serious threat to the civilized world, the current administration realizes this and I would hope that all of the candidates aren't blind to this fact. I would never suggest a preemptive strike unless Iranian aggression is imminent, but to ignore Iran would be like ignoring a lit firecracker. North Korea falls in a very similar category.

[SAVEamerica]

Iran is NOT a threat to the civilized world.

How is Iran a danger to us ratsbew?

[beermotor]

Yeah, that is a pretty ridiculous statement. Iran is hardly a threat to "the world," much less the US.

[Seadeus]

After Alexander the Great conquered the Gauls, he asked then what they feared? The Gauls responded that they feared nothing. Alexander's response;if you had feared me, you would still be free.

So Iran wants to eliminate the regime in Israel, and not Israel. What was that guys name....Neville Chamberlain. Yeah, "peace in our time".

Isn't there a saying about never underestimate your enemies?

I can't hear Ron Paul supporters talk about foreign policy without questioning my support for Ron Paul.

[beermotor]

After Alexander the Great conquered the Gauls, he asked then what they feared? The Gauls responded that they feared nothing. Alexander's response;if you had feared me, you would still be free.

So Iran wants to eliminate the regime in Israel, and not Israel. What was that guys name....Neville Chamberlain. Yeah, "peace in our time".

Isn't there a saying about never underestimate your enemies?

I can't hear Ron Paul supporters talk about foreign policy without questioning my support for Ron Paul.

What? A brief look at this article about Alexander the Great (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_the_great) supports my suspicion that Alexander the Great, a Greek, never conquered no Gauls (heathen French/Germanic peoples). Someone want to enlighten me?

Your point has absolutely nothing to do with the United States of America. If Iran wants to go to war with Israel, how does that affect me? In fact, such a war would be suicidal for all involved - I am certain the Iranians are smarter than that, ever persian I've ever met has been pretty reasonable and intelligent. It is foolish in the extreme to consider the Persians the enemies of the US. Do you really think the persians want to control the world? do you really think they could? Now, ask yourself that same question, except substitute in the Federal Government turkeys, Bush, Cheney, et al.

That alone should show you that the position you've outlined is silly.

[mdh]

I like the analogy of Iran to a lit firecracker... now, you can try to step on a lit firecracker and put it out, and maybe get your foot blown off. You can just stand there and maybe get burned. Or you can consider that the more logical option is to get away from the freakin thing! :)
I don't think it's a big enough firecracker to reach the other side of the world, y'know...

[Bossobass]

Iran represents a huge potential to destroy the US.

More specifically, it could disrupt the Bamker's plans more than just about anything.

Their plan to sell oil for Euros (and other currencies) in direct competition with London and New York, the only 2 commodity exchanges in the world where you can trade oil, all of which trades MUST be dollar denominated, would have immediate and devastating effects.

Since Nixon removed the dollar from amy ties to Gold in 1971, the big boys in oil and banking (the same people) have insisted that all worldwide oil trades be dollar-denominated. This has been the single reason the dollar has survived as long as it has.

All countries must buy and hold dollars to purchase oil. Iran threatens that. Neocons aren't having it. Here's a good article:

http://www.newswithviews.com/public_comm/public_commentary31.htm

Bosso

[RonPaul4President]

Think about who has been brainwashing America into believeing that IRAN is a threat. George W. Bush(the mouthpiece for tyranny) and mainstream media(the shackled press). It is the purest propoganda, not unlike all the other LIES the White House has been spewing out for years. The United States government is enslaved by big money and fear. War is big business, and it's soldiers, slaves of corruption.

[beermotor]

Iran represents a huge potential to destroy the US.

More specifically, it could disrupt the Bamker's plans more than just about anything.

Their plan to sell oil for Euros (and other currencies) in direct competition with London and New York, the only 2 commodity exchanges in the world where you can trade oil, all of which trades MUST be dollar denominated, would have immediate and devastating effects.

Since Nixon removed the dollar from amy ties to Gold in 1971, the big boys in oil and banking (the same people) have insisted that all worldwide oil trades be dollar-denominated. This has been the single reason the dollar has survived as long as it has.

All countries must buy and hold dollars to purchase oil. Iran threatens that. Neocons aren't having it. Here's a good article:

http://www.newswithviews.com/public_comm/public_commentary31.htm

Bosso


That's very true, but slightly inaccurate - Iran represents a threat to the non-gold-backed DOLLAR, not to the US. I.e., Iran isn't going to come marching up the street, ever. However, quantifying threats in this manner, as you've done with Iran, you might as well add Congress, the Executive, and the Supreme Court to the list of Mortal Enemies Deserving Bombing. :)

[NMCB3]

The biggest threat to America is our lawless government. Compared to that, the Iranian threat is nothing.

[Bob Cochran]

That's very true, but slightly inaccurate - Iran represents a threat to the non-gold-backed DOLLAR, not to the US.
Threatening the USD is threatening the USA, or at least is perceived as such by the USA gummint. Maybe rightly so.

Some say the real reason we invaded Iraq was to preserve "dollar imperialism".

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Iraq/Iraq_dollar_vs_euro.html

[Bob Cochran]

The biggest threat to America is our lawless government. Compared to that, the Iranian threat is nothing.
Can I get an Amen!

[Bossobass]

That's very true, but slightly inaccurate - Iran represents a threat to the non-gold-backed DOLLAR, not to the US. I.e., Iran isn't going to come marching up the street, ever. However, quantifying threats in this manner, as you've done with Iran, you might as well add Congress, the Executive, and the Supreme Court to the list of Mortal Enemies Deserving Bombing. :)

Sorry for the quick post. Thanks for clarifying the omission.:cool:

Oil/dollar worldwide is a much more complex issue that involves many other countries, including Chavez's Venezuela and the EU itself.

And, certainly it's implied that Iran, like Iraq is in no way a military threat to the US.

Still, I think the point is made that our huge Embassy and 14 more permanent bases smack dab in the middle of the ME, with subsequent threats to Iran (which implies threats to everyone else who is entertaining the oil/Euro thoughts) is about preserving the fiat dollar until...

Isn't there a new NAU currency in the wind...the Amero?

Bosso

[beermotor]

It's funny how it all comes back to Economics, isn't it? As if making war on Iran is going to somehow stop them from refusing to take dollars for their oil . . .

[mdh]

Haven't you learned anything from Iraq, beermotor? Wars fix all our problems! :p

[IrrigatedPancake]

I don't think I would call Iran and Iraq potentially switching to selling oil in Euros instead of US dollars a threat to the US. I would call it a consequence of the fundamental threat, which is the steady devaluing of the us dollar that makes it economically logical to switch currencies.