Israel's Dangerous Shadow War with Iran(foreignaffairs.com)
foreignaffairs.com
Israel's Dangerous Shadow War with Iran
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/israel/israels-dangerous-shadow-war-iran
113 comments
This article is a joke, it claims that expansion of normalization between Israel and Saudi Arabia is threatened by strikes against Iran by Israel. But the basis of the Israel-Saudi agreement is anti-Iranian. The Saudis would love Israel for attacking Iran more aggressively, effectively doing their dirty work.
They both have a very strongly vested interest (as does the rest of the world) in not seeing a nuclear Iran. I remember seeing somewhere that Saudi Arabia has also started their own nuclear program, or at least is looking into it.
Most likely the Saudis will just either outright buy nukes from Pakistan or purchase Pakistani expertise in building their own nuclear weapons program.
This is true.
It's widely believed there is an existing agreement that makes this possible.
From 2013[1]:
> Earlier this year, a senior Nato decision maker told me that he had seen intelligence reporting that nuclear weapons made in Pakistan on behalf of Saudi Arabia are now sitting ready for delivery.
> Last month Amos Yadlin, a former head of Israeli military intelligence, told a conference in Sweden that if Iran got the bomb, "the Saudis will not wait one month. They already paid for the bomb, they will go to Pakistan and bring what they need to bring."
Saudi Arabia funded the Pakistan nuclear program back in the 1970s[2].
[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-24823846
[2] https://www.arabnews.com/node/2069831 "This was the time when Saudi Arabia opened its doors to Pakistani workers and provided financial aid to the Bhutto regime in order to thwart India’s nuclear ambitions."
It's widely believed there is an existing agreement that makes this possible.
From 2013[1]:
> Earlier this year, a senior Nato decision maker told me that he had seen intelligence reporting that nuclear weapons made in Pakistan on behalf of Saudi Arabia are now sitting ready for delivery.
> Last month Amos Yadlin, a former head of Israeli military intelligence, told a conference in Sweden that if Iran got the bomb, "the Saudis will not wait one month. They already paid for the bomb, they will go to Pakistan and bring what they need to bring."
Saudi Arabia funded the Pakistan nuclear program back in the 1970s[2].
[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-24823846
[2] https://www.arabnews.com/node/2069831 "This was the time when Saudi Arabia opened its doors to Pakistani workers and provided financial aid to the Bhutto regime in order to thwart India’s nuclear ambitions."
They have basically said if Iran gets them they will get them too. This is the whole reason why you don’t want nuclear proliferation, it will be terrible if Iran gets them because so many other countries will also get them. The more countries that have them the more chance for both accidents and terrorism. It’s a small miracle one hasn’t gone off so far given some of the countries that have them!
This undersells the nuanced point that the article is making.
It's true that the Saudi's want Israeli attacks on Iran to continue. But the article points out (to quote): "Israel’s new leadership is the most extreme right-wing government in its history and has already taken steps that have increased violence between the Israelis and the Palestinians, which puts Arab leaders who have embraced normalization in a difficult position given the widespread popular opposition to Israeli policies."
Israel's policy towards Palestinians is already problematic for other Arab states interested in normalizing relations. Overt strikes on another Muslim country like Iran - even one that is broadly an enemy - doesn't breed popular support.
The politics here are very complex and the article does a pretty good job explaining them. It's very far from "a joke" since there are many more trade offs here than simply "oh the Saudi's don't like Iran either".
It's true that the Saudi's want Israeli attacks on Iran to continue. But the article points out (to quote): "Israel’s new leadership is the most extreme right-wing government in its history and has already taken steps that have increased violence between the Israelis and the Palestinians, which puts Arab leaders who have embraced normalization in a difficult position given the widespread popular opposition to Israeli policies."
Israel's policy towards Palestinians is already problematic for other Arab states interested in normalizing relations. Overt strikes on another Muslim country like Iran - even one that is broadly an enemy - doesn't breed popular support.
The politics here are very complex and the article does a pretty good job explaining them. It's very far from "a joke" since there are many more trade offs here than simply "oh the Saudi's don't like Iran either".
I mean, Iran's leadership have literally and publicly called for Israel to be wiped off the map. Several times.
I don't think it's an overreaction to at least consider the possibility that they might mean what they say.
I don't think it's an overreaction to at least consider the possibility that they might mean what they say.
The translation for that is questionable
https://archive.nytimes.com/thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/0...
Unlike John McCain singing "bomb bomb Iran" during his 2008 campaign https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7s5pT3Rris
Iran has also never shot down a US passenger flight https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655
Unlike John McCain singing "bomb bomb Iran" during his 2008 campaign https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7s5pT3Rris
Iran has also never shot down a US passenger flight https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655
https://www.timesofisrael.com/irans-doomsday-clock-for-israe...
"Public timer, which is set to mark destruction of Jewish state in 2040 as predicted by Khamenei..."
I don't know how Iranian leadership can make it any clearer they want Israel gone? What more should they say or do?
"Public timer, which is set to mark destruction of Jewish state in 2040 as predicted by Khamenei..."
I don't know how Iranian leadership can make it any clearer they want Israel gone? What more should they say or do?
>Ayatollah Ali Khamenei predicts there will no longer be a State of Israel.
Is wanting an Israel state gone different than wanting the Israeli inhabitants gone?
I see a possible difference, especially if Iranians are forced to choose between Palestine and Israel existing.
Is wanting an Israel state gone different than wanting the Israeli inhabitants gone?
I see a possible difference, especially if Iranians are forced to choose between Palestine and Israel existing.
> Is wanting an Israel state gone different than wanting the Israeli inhabitants gone?
Not really imo no. I'm not necessarily saying Iran wants to kill every last Israeli but the "solution" they are planning for the region is definitely a violent one. Why else would they invest so much in Hezbollah/Hamas etc.
Not really imo no. I'm not necessarily saying Iran wants to kill every last Israeli but the "solution" they are planning for the region is definitely a violent one. Why else would they invest so much in Hezbollah/Hamas etc.
On 8 January 2020, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (of Iran) shot down an American-manufactured plane flown by the flag carrier of Ukraine, carrying a bunch of Iranian Canadians (dual citizens).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine_International_Airlines...
Shooting down an "American-manufactured" plane is not the same thing as shooting down "an American plane".
5 days after Trump killed Suleimani, who led the Quds within the IRGC, which was only labelled as a terrorist organization one year prior.
The USA once grouped Iran in the "Axis of Evil," including North Korea and Iraq. And then Iraq got invaded based on made-up evidences, its leader was executed, and nobody in the US faced any legal consequences for those made-up evidences.
What do you expect the Iranian government to do.
What do you expect the Iranian government to do.
None of that has anything to do with Israel?
(Which is what the post you replied to was talking about…)
(Which is what the post you replied to was talking about…)
I'm just saying, if "the other country made threatening remarks" is a basis for justifying things, then it will justify a whole lot of things, including stuff Israel would not appreciate at all.
I expect them to invest everything they have in trying to destroy Israel, support militias in the middle east and also very brutally kill/imprison any Iranian citizen who doesn't want to live under their religious theocracy /s
Stop being evil? Resign, retreat into a distant village, and let Iran become a peaceful democratic country. Just one idea.
Except that they never said that, because there's no such idiom in Persian.
What?! This is nonsense! My mother tounge is Persian and I have lost count how many time I have heard this in TV, public places, etc.
Oh boi, I have a treat for you.
There are billboards in famous public squares or places in Iran which even have countdown until destruction of Israel! Here is one from a semi-official news agency that has ties with IRGC! The article is from a few years ago, but you can still find these billboards throughout the cities!
Title of the news article: "Countdown of destruction of Zionist regime in Palestine"
On the billboard: "Remaining until destruction of Israel"
https://www.tasnimnews.com/fa/news/1396/05/10/1480680/روز-شم...
This one is installed in the center of Tehran, the capital!
Edited to fix the style
Oh boi, I have a treat for you.
There are billboards in famous public squares or places in Iran which even have countdown until destruction of Israel! Here is one from a semi-official news agency that has ties with IRGC! The article is from a few years ago, but you can still find these billboards throughout the cities!
Title of the news article: "Countdown of destruction of Zionist regime in Palestine"
On the billboard: "Remaining until destruction of Israel"
https://www.tasnimnews.com/fa/news/1396/05/10/1480680/روز-شم...
This one is installed in the center of Tehran, the capital!
Edited to fix the style
“Wiped off the map” was the English translation by the government-run IRIB of Ahmadinejad's famous speech.
https://web.archive.org/web/20070708083524/http://www.iribne...
https://web.archive.org/web/20070708083524/http://www.iribne...
Here is what I found on this claim: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/did-a...
The Iranian government is very open about its goal to destroy Israel. However they also make sure to point out that "destroying Israel" does not mean "kill all Jews".
There are Jews living in Iran, who are on the whole well-treated.
It's not relevant to the discussion though. We're talking about "Israel" defending itself, not "the Jews".
It's not relevant to the discussion though. We're talking about "Israel" defending itself, not "the Jews".
> There are Jews living in Iran, who are on the whole well-treated
There are women living in Iran, who are on the whole well-treated /s
There are women living in Iran, who are on the whole well-treated /s
Except that Israel uses religious reasons to explain why they have a right to the land:
https://mondoweiss.net/2020/07/we-have-biblical-rights-to-th...
https://mondoweiss.net/2020/07/we-have-biblical-rights-to-th...
[deleted]
I mean, Israels leadership have literally said once to drown all palestinians in the sea would be a good idea.
There are always two sides minimum...
Firstly, Palestine is not Iran.
Secondly, saying "Israel's leadership" said they want to drown Palestinians is a pretty ridiculous claim. Who said it exactly? When? Are they currently Israel's leadership?
Cause Israel is a democracy with many officials. Without something more specific, even if this is a real thing, it's like pointing to US congresspeople from the 1950s saying "segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever" and using that to "prove" that Obama is actually racist.
Whereas Iranian leadership is a dictatorship and the same people claiming they would like to kill all Israelis are the people in power now.
Secondly, saying "Israel's leadership" said they want to drown Palestinians is a pretty ridiculous claim. Who said it exactly? When? Are they currently Israel's leadership?
Cause Israel is a democracy with many officials. Without something more specific, even if this is a real thing, it's like pointing to US congresspeople from the 1950s saying "segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever" and using that to "prove" that Obama is actually racist.
Whereas Iranian leadership is a dictatorship and the same people claiming they would like to kill all Israelis are the people in power now.
It was Lieberman, one source: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2013/02/israeli-and-pale...
And there are debates about the state of Israels democracy: https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/democracy-means-ju...
And there are debates about the state of Israels democracy: https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/democracy-means-ju...
I want to be clear that I'm not defending Lieberman, I hate him and think statements like his are horrible.
That said, you're leaving out context that make clear this is different.
Maybe the biggest difference is - he didn't suggest drowning all Palestinians, unlike the statements calling to "eradicate Israel". He specifically said it's better to drown Palestinian prisoners in the sea rather than release them (as part of a security deal, I believe.) (Which is still a despicable thing to say, don't get me wrong, but a very different thing nonetheless)
Also, the headline from the article that talks about this statement is "Lieberman Blasted for Suggesting Drowning Palestinian Prisoners". His sentiment is far too widespread, but statements like those are still not palatable. (Though to be fair, the situation today is probably worse.)
> And there are debates about the state of Israels democracy
Yeah things are not looking super rosy, but so far everything is speculation. There were also worries about the US's democracy, worries about a potential constitutional crisis, etc. I think it's safe to still call the US a democracy.
That said, you're leaving out context that make clear this is different.
Maybe the biggest difference is - he didn't suggest drowning all Palestinians, unlike the statements calling to "eradicate Israel". He specifically said it's better to drown Palestinian prisoners in the sea rather than release them (as part of a security deal, I believe.) (Which is still a despicable thing to say, don't get me wrong, but a very different thing nonetheless)
Also, the headline from the article that talks about this statement is "Lieberman Blasted for Suggesting Drowning Palestinian Prisoners". His sentiment is far too widespread, but statements like those are still not palatable. (Though to be fair, the situation today is probably worse.)
> And there are debates about the state of Israels democracy
Yeah things are not looking super rosy, but so far everything is speculation. There were also worries about the US's democracy, worries about a potential constitutional crisis, etc. I think it's safe to still call the US a democracy.
I've always heard Palestinians (hamas, PLO) calling for all the Israelis to be pushed into the sea and drowned.
Interesting how there is very little discomfit about that from non Israelis.
Interesting how there is very little discomfit about that from non Israelis.
[deleted]
That seems to reinforce the idea that Israel should be worried about Iran.
"Iran said they want to destroy Israel. Israel should be worried."
To which you reply: "Well, there are two sides. Israel said they want to drown Palestine."
So now let's ask a follow up question: Israel said they want to drown Palestine, should Palestine worry about Israel?
"Iran said they want to destroy Israel. Israel should be worried."
To which you reply: "Well, there are two sides. Israel said they want to drown Palestine."
So now let's ask a follow up question: Israel said they want to drown Palestine, should Palestine worry about Israel?
Sure, if this continues, both sides should be concerned.
I just wanted to point out that I don't believe that one side is the lone aggressor and the other side is completely innocent.
I replied further down, but according to this fact check by WP this isn't true: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/did-a...
But I am not sure if this discussion thread is intended to be factual or not.
But I am not sure if this discussion thread is intended to be factual or not.
How's this?
https://twitter.com/khamenei_ir/status/1018803983543078912
https://twitter.com/JasonMBrodsky/status/1262782215756361730 The "final solution" when talking about Jews... hmmm, what could they possibly mean?
https://twitter.com/khamenei_ir/status/1018803983543078912
https://twitter.com/JasonMBrodsky/status/1262782215756361730 The "final solution" when talking about Jews... hmmm, what could they possibly mean?
and another one: https://twitter.com/khamenei_ir/status/1003332853525110784
(How on earth these are still up on Twitter is a separate discussion)
(How on earth these are still up on Twitter is a separate discussion)
That's garden-variety anti-Semitism. Not a credible threat by a head of state.
> 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.
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.
> 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.
Much of every country's leadership would do this to their adversaries. That shows credible intent, not a credible threat.
> 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.
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.
> 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.)
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.)
[deleted]
"will witness the day when the fabricated Zionist regime will be eradicated", posted by the head of state of a country that is pursuing nuclear weapons.
All I said in my original comment was that it's not an overreaction to at least consider the possibility that they might mean what they say. Is it so obvious to you that there's literally nothing to worry about?
All I said in my original comment was that it's not an overreaction to at least consider the possibility that they might mean what they say. Is it so obvious to you that there's literally nothing to worry about?
> not an overreaction to at least consider the possibility that they might mean what they say
100%, and obviously Iran is an adversary of Israel's.
But expressing hope that your adversary falls (and wishing ill on their people) and directly threatening them are distinct. Given the heat of this discussion, I think that's a fair delineation to make.
100%, and obviously Iran is an adversary of Israel's.
But expressing hope that your adversary falls (and wishing ill on their people) and directly threatening them are distinct. Given the heat of this discussion, I think that's a fair delineation to make.
> By God’s grace, the Palestinian nation will certainly gain victory over the enemies and will witness the day when the fabricated Zionist regime will be eradicated.
Is it not a credible threat because they don't have means? 'Cause I'm not sure what you might mean otherwise.
Is it not a credible threat because they don't have means? 'Cause I'm not sure what you might mean otherwise.
What sort of antisemitism are you growing in your garden at home?
>but according to this fact check by WP this isn't true
You posted a link from 2011 about Ahmedinejad being mistranslated but there are plenty of other times the Iranian authorities have called for the destruction of Israel.
You posted a link from 2011 about Ahmedinejad being mistranslated but there are plenty of other times the Iranian authorities have called for the destruction of Israel.
A bit surprising that they don't mention Israel's ongoing assassination campaign targeting Iranian nuclear scientists, which is another component of this "shadow war".
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/18/world/middleeast/iran-nuc...
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/18/world/middleeast/iran-nuc...
Everything depends on the final result of the Russian invasion on Ukraine. If Russia will manage to enforce peace agreement, something like Minsk deals, that, effectively, would let them keep part of Ukraine and go away with sanctions then whole post 2WW collective security system will be smashed.
Everybody will see that you can invade a weaker country, for whatever made up reason, and nothing happens. Everybody will try to posses nuclear weapon, as this is the only effective way of scaring potential enemies.
A lot of local conflicts will start. Turkey against Greece. Azerbaijan against Armenia.
Hungary might try to bring back their old territories, lost because of Treaty of Trianon (that's why I am so surprised Northern Hungary, sorry, I meant Slovakia, is not so eager to help Ukraine and a lot of people are pro-Russian).
Belarus will become part of Russia soon, Kazakhstan will follow, hybrid war against Baltic States will began ("defending" Russian minority, etc.).
If Russia will be forced to leave Ukraine and pay contribution we will be back in the World we peacefully lived since 1989, if not, well, interesting times ahead.
USA understands this that's why it helps Ukraine, US domination, control over trade, dollar as an only mean to pay for oil, hence, reserve currency for all countries, will be questioned immediately. Asia is looking on Ukraine right now since maybe, maybe it will be time to change patron.
Western Europe understands this too, but they dream about "multi-polar world" with Western Europe becoming one of the key players. The crux is you cannot be a key player if you have barely 800 tanks altogether, with an unknown number of those who are not even able to move out of garage (Spain).
Multipolar world will not be a nice place to be, it will be a brutal place with competing forces among which Western Europe will need to fight for its position. And this will not be easy.
Until new superpower will arise, if this will be China with its mixture of communism and technological control over societies then, we will really miss USA as a hegemony.
Everybody will see that you can invade a weaker country, for whatever made up reason, and nothing happens. Everybody will try to posses nuclear weapon, as this is the only effective way of scaring potential enemies.
A lot of local conflicts will start. Turkey against Greece. Azerbaijan against Armenia.
Hungary might try to bring back their old territories, lost because of Treaty of Trianon (that's why I am so surprised Northern Hungary, sorry, I meant Slovakia, is not so eager to help Ukraine and a lot of people are pro-Russian).
Belarus will become part of Russia soon, Kazakhstan will follow, hybrid war against Baltic States will began ("defending" Russian minority, etc.).
If Russia will be forced to leave Ukraine and pay contribution we will be back in the World we peacefully lived since 1989, if not, well, interesting times ahead.
USA understands this that's why it helps Ukraine, US domination, control over trade, dollar as an only mean to pay for oil, hence, reserve currency for all countries, will be questioned immediately. Asia is looking on Ukraine right now since maybe, maybe it will be time to change patron.
Western Europe understands this too, but they dream about "multi-polar world" with Western Europe becoming one of the key players. The crux is you cannot be a key player if you have barely 800 tanks altogether, with an unknown number of those who are not even able to move out of garage (Spain).
Multipolar world will not be a nice place to be, it will be a brutal place with competing forces among which Western Europe will need to fight for its position. And this will not be easy.
Until new superpower will arise, if this will be China with its mixture of communism and technological control over societies then, we will really miss USA as a hegemony.
This is the best interpretation of the geopolitical events which we are living through that I have read on this website.
I am astounded that so many intelligent people in the USA and EU fail to grasp the stakes of what is happening in Ukraine.
I am astounded that so many intelligent people in the USA and EU fail to grasp the stakes of what is happening in Ukraine.
>Everybody will see that you can invade a weaker country, for whatever made up reason, and nothing happens.
I think that most people who make foreign policy decisions in countries around the world already knew that if you are strong enough, you can invade a weaker country, for whatever reason, and nothing happens. This is just plain common sense and has been discussed going back to Thucydides' Melian Dialogue or earlier. And if anyone somehow did not realize that the strong can get away with invading the weak, they should have realized it in 2003 when the US invaded Iraq.
I think that most people who make foreign policy decisions in countries around the world already knew that if you are strong enough, you can invade a weaker country, for whatever reason, and nothing happens. This is just plain common sense and has been discussed going back to Thucydides' Melian Dialogue or earlier. And if anyone somehow did not realize that the strong can get away with invading the weak, they should have realized it in 2003 when the US invaded Iraq.
Is there no de-escalation mechanism? Maybe through the UN?
>Is there no de-escalation mechanism?
No. Iran does not recognize Israel's right to exist, even if Israel goes back to pre-1967 borders.
No. Iran does not recognize Israel's right to exist, even if Israel goes back to pre-1967 borders.
Interestingly neither do the radical parts of the Democratic party. Iran just walks the walk as well. It is interesting to me to see an ideological alliance between a radical Muslim movement and a radical left wing movement, I think Israel's "disappearance" is the only thing they agree on.
The UN is just a forum and has very little ability to actually force a de-escalation.
guykdm(5)
The security council is the only part of the UN with bite and it can only act when there’s such wide consensus that they aren’t necessary.
De-escalation requires willingness. It's convenient for both Israel and Iran to escalate considering they both have hardline governments and growing opposition.
> no de-escalation mechanism? Maybe through the UN?
Possibly. Israel and Iran have friends in Moscow, so the usual Sinorussian veto party could be sidestepped. But this would require Russia extending its nuclear umbrella over Iran. That, in turn, gives Putin a say in Iran's extensive extra-territorial meddling. Tehran may figure they can get their own nukes out of Russia for a cheaper price.
Tellingly, America has only extended strategic ambiguity to Israel, the same as we give Taiwan, not a red-lined nuclear umbrella like we do to NATO or Japan. This doesn't seem like a problem great powers care to resolve.
Possibly. Israel and Iran have friends in Moscow, so the usual Sinorussian veto party could be sidestepped. But this would require Russia extending its nuclear umbrella over Iran. That, in turn, gives Putin a say in Iran's extensive extra-territorial meddling. Tehran may figure they can get their own nukes out of Russia for a cheaper price.
Tellingly, America has only extended strategic ambiguity to Israel, the same as we give Taiwan, not a red-lined nuclear umbrella like we do to NATO or Japan. This doesn't seem like a problem great powers care to resolve.
"My imaginary friend is better than yours"
It's even self-acknowledged to be the same imaginary friend!
All the fantastic stories about my imaginary friend stopped as soon as some random monkeys discovered how to write and how to cross verify evidence. Dude, trust me, my imaginary friend is legit.
You should read my imaginary friendship book bro, my imaginary friend wrote it with the help of some random dude because despite being ommipotent my imaginary friend cannot write his own book apparently.
And despite being everywhere you need to visit my imaginary friend by entering a specific structure built by some random dude.
If you sacrifice your non imaginary life you can go to my imaginary friend's crib in an imaginary afterlife. It's a more than fair deal.
You should read my imaginary friendship book bro, my imaginary friend wrote it with the help of some random dude because despite being ommipotent my imaginary friend cannot write his own book apparently.
And despite being everywhere you need to visit my imaginary friend by entering a specific structure built by some random dude.
If you sacrifice your non imaginary life you can go to my imaginary friend's crib in an imaginary afterlife. It's a more than fair deal.
this is nonsense.
Jews don't believe in the legitimacy of christianity's theft of their holy book or christian holy books, christians dont believe in the koran even if islam claims jesus as an islamic prophet, and islam doesn't believe in the revelations of the bahai even if the bahai claim it to be another revelation after islam.
This "its all the same god" is feel good western stuff that has nothing to do with religious adherents of those religions. Nobody believes the next guy's book is legitimate, they just borrow the one before them to take the previous group's legitimacy.
It's not the same god, its this massive game of gaslighting everyone is playing that the actual religious people do not play the same way.
Jews don't believe in the legitimacy of christianity's theft of their holy book or christian holy books, christians dont believe in the koran even if islam claims jesus as an islamic prophet, and islam doesn't believe in the revelations of the bahai even if the bahai claim it to be another revelation after islam.
This "its all the same god" is feel good western stuff that has nothing to do with religious adherents of those religions. Nobody believes the next guy's book is legitimate, they just borrow the one before them to take the previous group's legitimacy.
It's not the same god, its this massive game of gaslighting everyone is playing that the actual religious people do not play the same way.
Certainly, Jews, Christians and Muslims believe different things about God, that doesn’t mean that they don't see themselves as believers in the same God.
> This "its all the same god" is feel good western stuff that has nothing to do with religious adherents of those religions.
The joint declaration between the (Roman Catholic) Pope and the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar would seem to disagree. [0] Similarly, the many joint declarations between the Vatican and Chief Rabbinate of Israel, which frequently invoke shared faith in the same God and shared Scripture. [1]
[0] https://www.vaticannews.va/en/pope/news/2019-02/pope-francis...
[1] https://ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements...
> This "its all the same god" is feel good western stuff that has nothing to do with religious adherents of those religions.
The joint declaration between the (Roman Catholic) Pope and the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar would seem to disagree. [0] Similarly, the many joint declarations between the Vatican and Chief Rabbinate of Israel, which frequently invoke shared faith in the same God and shared Scripture. [1]
[0] https://www.vaticannews.va/en/pope/news/2019-02/pope-francis...
[1] https://ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements...
Its feel good nonsense. Jews dont believe in the revelations of christianity or islam. Christians don't believe in the revelations of islam and have written off most of the requirements of judaism, and islamic people dont believe in the bahai revelations. When they pretend this 'same god' has schizophrenia and lied to the other groups its just that - pretend.
We've spent so long gaslighting everyone about religious declarations we've lost the fundamental plot. Those people do not believe that the other religions have any legitimacy about what god says, except to borrow the legitimacy of previous religions for their own self interest.
The vatican and the israeli rabbinate are largely political entities. The chief rabbinate is not credible a religious authority even within israel - its a political appointment. You're being gaslit about what people believe because religious politics make 'playing well together against the nonbelievers' more important than telling the truth.
We've spent so long gaslighting everyone about religious declarations we've lost the fundamental plot. Those people do not believe that the other religions have any legitimacy about what god says, except to borrow the legitimacy of previous religions for their own self interest.
The vatican and the israeli rabbinate are largely political entities. The chief rabbinate is not credible a religious authority even within israel - its a political appointment. You're being gaslit about what people believe because religious politics make 'playing well together against the nonbelievers' more important than telling the truth.
While this is mostly true, it is worth noting that Christians believe they worship the same god as Jews (even if Jews don't believe what Christian's believe).
This is important because there is a strong fundamentalist Christian lobby group in the US that supports Israel politically for these religious reasons.
This is important because there is a strong fundamentalist Christian lobby group in the US that supports Israel politically for these religious reasons.
as I said, each group is happy to co-opt the holy books of the one before it to assert their own credibility. christians take the jewish holy books and add their own ending, but the idea of a son of god is anathema in judaism. Muslims take jesus as a prophet, and judaism as well, but disregard both for their own rules. etc etc.
So what christians believe is very self serving in terms of taking judaisms books to coopt for their benefit. Jews definitely dont believe any part of the new testament and believe jesus to be a false messiah.
the feel good nature of "let the believers band together against the nonbelievers" is the gaslighting that lets people talk about how its all the same god, when it clearly isn't.
So what christians believe is very self serving in terms of taking judaisms books to coopt for their benefit. Jews definitely dont believe any part of the new testament and believe jesus to be a false messiah.
the feel good nature of "let the believers band together against the nonbelievers" is the gaslighting that lets people talk about how its all the same god, when it clearly isn't.
You realize we are in strong agreement here right?