Consider how the Israel-Iran conflict might evolve if the Devil was writing the script. (Even as I was writing this essay on Friday afternoon, the conventional Israeli attack was getting underway.)
It is not Israel that Iran wishes to destroy, but Israel as an apartheid state that holds millions in subjection in Gaza and the West Bank that it illegally occupies, and within Israel proper treats those who are not Orthodox Jews as lesser citizens than those who are.
Establish a unified state, by whatever name, from the River Jordan to the Mediterranean Sea, in which all have equal rights regardless of language, religion, culture, or purported ethnicity, as we have in New Zealand, and the hostility of Iran and other nearby states will disappear.
The problem is not Israel: the problem is Israel an apartheid racist state.
Long before the checkpoints. Long before the snaking West Bank wall. The Islamic Republic of Iran was dedicated to the annihilation of the "Zionist Enemy". The weapons of its proxies, most particularly the suicide bomber, put paid to any hope of a peaceful, secular Israel/Palestine.
Now, it is a fight to the death - and Israel is winning.
Your thinking is both wrong and rotten. Israel is a genocidal state built in that which the west professes to abhor. The breach of sovereignty, the theft of land, and the abuse of human rights.
You’re also somewhat shallow and hubristic as to the nature of this war and the potential consequences. Any escalation will see the strait of Hormuz closed and perhaps another depression - certainly chaos. War is seldom predictable. You, however, are.
Or maybe these European colonisers of West Asia may conclude that they would be more comfortable settling the United States. Trump no doubt will welcome them as he does 'persecuted' white Afrikaners.
Good grief! Judaism is a religion, and European Jews' claims to descent from ancient Hebrews with a 'right of return' is religious myth, which has logical but entertaining consequences:
Ah, but those wishing to drive the Jews from their homeland would say that - wouldn't they, John?
I have often thought that the most vicious of the antisemites are those who seek to convince the world that there are no Jews at all. That they are simply a "religious myth".
The United Nations defines genocide as "a crime committed with the intent to destroy a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, in whole or in part".
Has it ever crossed your mind, John, that the sort of "evidence" you are presenting here evinces just such a genocidal intent?
The accusation of 'anti-Semitism' is the weapon Zionists unfailingly use against those who oppose the apartheid state Israel and its settler policies. It is intended to be the 'kill' button that outlaws contrary argument.
Far from wishing to drive anyone from their homeland, I consistently argue, as you know, that the state of Israel and the territories it illegally occupies must be transformed into a state where all have equal rights regardless of language, culture, religion, or purported ethnicity.
To find the real anti-Semites, take a look at those Jewish Israelis who want to expel all Palestinians from Gaza, the West Bank, and Israel itself; and throw in for good measure Trump's Christian Zionist ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee, who advocates giving Palestinians a 'homeland' not in Palestine but 'somewhere else', perhaps Saudi Arabia. It is among those Jewish Israelis and their American champions that you will see the 'crime committed with the intent to destroy a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group, in whole or in part'.
I always find it fascinating to watch Liberal / Democratic / Egalitarian / Humanist principles evaporate, and Ethic / Religious ? Nationalist / Supremacist principles emerge as soon as the State of Israel enters the chat.
The idea that anyone has exclusive rights based on religion or ethnicity is a direct contradiction of secular humanist liberal ideology, but they fit like a glove into an ethno-nationalist ideology.
And prayers to God, even those said for a thousand years, carry zero weight in any rationalist's calculation. Unless I suppose ALL the prayers from ALL the factions are given equal weight.
Casting your thought back over the history of the last 200 years, Jack, which of the two great political causes - nationalism and socialism - do you consider to have been the most enduring and successful?
And if you (correctly) identify nationalism as the historical victor, then perhaps you should ask yourself whether an unwavering attachment to the "Liberal/Democratic/Egalitarian/Humanist" side of the ideological struggle might indicate a fundamental misreading of human nature?
So the Iranian regime are really just seeking peace, freedom and justice with their death to Israel, death to USA, Death to the UK calls? I don't know how you arrived at that conclusion but you couldn't be more wrong. They don't even believe in those things, even for their own people.
The Persians, the vast majority of the Middle East and the non Jewish Israelis know who the real enemy is - the totalitarian, tyrannical and dangerous Iranian Islamic regime.
John: "It is not Israel that Iran wishes to destroy"
Yet that is what they say so I don't know where you got that idea.
Here is British Iranian Elica Le Bon on the methods and motivations of the Iranian Islamists. They are motivations that are most certainly seriously deranged and dangerous.
" the theory is that the final prophet emerges once justice and equality has been achieved in the world and the thing that achieves this justice is that the last drop of blood of Israel falls so the end of Israel brings back the final prophet"
I haven't watched the clip: I'll take Elica's word for it. I don't, for one moment, defend the existing Iranian regime, any more than I do the Israeli or Saudi regimes. All must be overthrown, but by the people they oppress, not by others.
Always remember that Israel even before its foundation was designed as a genocidal apartheid state that intended to expel non-Jews from all the land the Zionists had, and still have, their eyes on.
If I am mendacious, I seem to be in excellent company. Or should the accuser look in the mirror?
The former head of Human Rights Watch - and son of a Holocaust survivor - says Israel's military campaign in Gaza will likely meet the legal definition of genocide, citing large-scale killings, the targeting of civilians, and the words of senior Israeli officials.
Every anti-Palestinian accusation is a confession. In this case it is your mendacity that is on show. I have spent many years studying genocide and you are not simply wrong, you are willfully and hatefully so. There is no significant debate among genocide scholars about the genocidal nature of Israel's violence in Gaza - even among Zionist Israeli scholars. It is galling that you would deign to mount a high horse and promote your studied ignorance and bias as if you had any authority to speak on the subject whatsoever. You do not.
And what, pray tell, Mr Kelly, apart from your own, self-directed, "studies", confers the slightest "authority" upon you to pontificate on this subject so unequivocally?
Ad Hominem arguments; appeals to authority: both of these are indications of a weak case.
As I advised Mr Trezise: go spread your Hamas propaganda somewhere else.
In reality Israel won't use nuclear weapons, neither will Russia.
Will Iran definitely go for nuclear weapons? Will Pakistan help them in that goal?
Nether can be definitively be ruled out. Not unless there is a new Iran nuclear deal.
I think that this is a quite likely scenario. But it will require a greater level of US engagement than we have hitherto seen. A deal that is a true reset. Iran truly giving up nuclear aspirations in return for removal of all economic sanctions. With a side deal of much less assistance to Russia.
Wishful thinking, maybe. But I would suggest it is more likely than the devils scenario.
In a regime under enormous pressure, ruled over by an 86-year-old despot whose key advisers are all dead, and whose life's work is crumbling before his eyes, a rush to acquire nuclear weapons may present itself as the last, best, hope of his regime's survival.
If Khamenei attempts to actualise this scenario, and the USA's bunker-busters fail to destroy the Fordow enrichment facility, then I wouldn't rule out a tactical strike. Israel simply cannot permit Iran to produce a weapon capable of destroying the State of Israel in an afternoon.
The Devil is always at his most persuasive, Wayne, when our backs are against the wall.
"whose life's work is crumbling before his eyes". I doubt that he sees it that way. Yes, his country has been attacked and key leaders killed. But that is still a long way from the Iranian regime being overthrown. It is the existence of the Islamic Republic which is his life's work, not whether it has nuclear weapons. Notwithstanding these initial strikes, it seems pretty clear that neither Israel nor the US is going to invade in order to overthrow the Islamic Republic.
Does the Israeli attack fundamentally weaken the Iranian Islamic Republic? Probably not, in fact more likely the reverse. Although I appreciate that this is an unknown.
The Islamic republic is now 46 years old and it certainly has many opponents. It had these before the Israeli strike. Is it now more likely that the Iranian people will rise up sufficiently to overthrow their government?
I would suggest doing a deal would be more likely to enhance the survival of the regime rather than the alternative of going all out for nuclear weapons. That was the calculus in 2015. I suggest it is still the calculus.
In any event, it looks like my optimistic scenario won't happen. It seems that Trump is going to get involved militarily, urged on by the pro Netanyahu section of the Republicans which is most of them. I see Trump has blithely dismissed the evidence from his National Intelligence Advisor that Iran was not building a bomb, not that adherence to facts ever matters to Trump.
What is the end game?
Is it elimination of Irans's nuclear potential, or is it widespread destruction with the aim of regime change?
It certainly seems Iran is on its own. Even those who could supply Iran with anti-air missiles (Pakistan, China) appear not to be doing so.
However, a widespread bombing campaign is hardly a guarantee of regime change. It might just mean a cowed Iran, but still dangerous in its lair. I suspect China would resupply Iran with weapons on return for oil. There are land transport links from China to Iran, which I can't see the US attacking.
Overall these attacks with continue to strengthen the global south. By that I mean they will continue to strengthen their south - south links and reduce their connections to the global north. China will continue its drive for self sufficient in high tech. In particular China will want to establish a fully self reliant civil aircraft industry so they don't need to buy from either Boeing or Airbus.
The present rulers of Iran, unlike the Shah, have ensured that they have the self-interested support of 15 to 20% of the population, bound to them by economic ties and benefits. I think the consensus is that that is pretty much all you need to keep control of a country. Not to mention that if you are attacked "pre-emptively" it's bound to bring the people together more than it divides them.
I wonder what your reaction would have been Chris if the Iranians had attacked Israel "pre-emptively"?
So you're suggesting it is ethical for a nuclear armed state to nuke a non-nuclear armed state on the basis that it believes the other country might develop nuclear weapons and then be foolish enough to use them? Do you not understand the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction?
One thing I will predict and put a considerable sum of money on is that with the latest behaviour of the US and Israel (influenced by people with views such as yours) Iran will now proceed to develop nuclear weapons within the next 2-3 years. In hindsight they have been foolish not to have done so sooner - as per Israel itself and North Korea. I'll put even more money on them NOT attacking Israel with them once they get them. And, by the way, even US bunker busters won't reach them.
Israel and the US's current ruse is simply so that they can remain the regional bullies and assert their own dominance on the region.
I've been anti nuke since the 1980s but the failure of the nuclear powers, as signatories to the NPT, to bring about disarmament and instead engage in wars of aggression, I have come around to support Iran's right to build nuclear weapons. I expect they'll withdraw from the NPT too. More undermining of international law - in large part due to Western hubris.
Their response to Israel's latest aggression is also showing the limits of Israel power. No wonder Israel has had to call in their benefactor to save them and once again play the victim card. Disgraceful and a clear violation of multiple UN articles.
Pakistan has already threatened to use nuclear weapons on Israel if Iran is attacked with them. Probably rhetoric, but many here would regard it as hard evidence given that they seem to hate Muslims.
Over the last few days I've read the back and forth of the comments to this post with fascination and a degree of misbelief. From the Balfour Declaration of 1917 onwards until the creation of the state of Israel in 1948 there were various attempts to find political solutions for a Jewish homeland. If ever there was a committee decision that was likely to cause conflict this partition of Palestine by the UN was it. The Jewish leadership accepted it as a pragmatic decision, most of the Arab states did not, hence the seeds were sown for our current situation. I fail to see how anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear can believe that Iran and its satellites will not do anything to annihilate Israel, any more than that Israel will meekly allow this to happen without retaliation or indeed, pre-emptive strikes, as has been the case. What I have the most difficulty understanding is the strength of the hatred of Israel that comes through - why is this the case in a country so far from ethnic divisions? Or at least, until recently. We have no history of religious wars and division like the Crusades, the divisions in what was previously Yugoslavia and the Moorish conquest of Spain. Perhaps I'm naive and over-simplifying, but I do not understand the hatred expressing here like that that led to pogroms in Russia, the formation of ghettos throughout most of Europe culminating in the horrors of WWII. Why is the personification of the Jew as "other" and something to be feared and reviled so alive and well in a country so removed from European roots? What am I missing?
A little while ago GS provided evidence that the Israelis never intended to abide by that agreement either. For some odd reason Mr Trotter refused to acknowledge it.
Aroha I've seen the same level of hatred levelled against the people of Ukraine.
The comments from those that claim to be on "the left" that have cheered on Russia. I don't understand where the vitriol comes from for people they've never met, except that it just seems to be a hatred of "The West(™)" that means that people like Putin are viewed as defenders of all that is good in the world, and whose actions are therefore beyond reproach.
And now those that have defended Russia have elevated the rulers of Iran to the same sainted level.
I knew an Iranian family that had moved to New Zealand and bought a farm just outside my home town, they were Bahāʾī - that most gentle of religions was founded in Iran. They were almost supernaturally good looking, intelligent and divinely proud but humble. This was a little before the Islamic revolution but their faith had been repressed and followers persecuted in Iran (and elsewhere in the M.E.) for decades. After the Iranian revolution things got much worse so perhaps their move was prescient.
The Bahāʾī world HQ is now in Israel as are many of it's followers. What does it say that they are safer in that country, the one under existential threat, than anywhere else in the ME? The Israelis welcomed and protected them; so much for the claim that they are intolerant of others. Or for the frankly ludicrous claim that the Islamic regime are motivated by their respect for human rights. This is the outfit that bludgeons young women to death for not wearing the veil. It's appalling.
Iran's M.E. allies and proxies are collapsing - Assad, Hezbollah and Hamas gone or going and the Iranian people have had more than enough so hopefully they are on the way out themselves.
Plenty to object to in this one but I'll just focus on one point for now.
"the fall of the Islamic Republic of Iran would suit Beijing’s long-term strategic objectives admirably."
Why do you think that? The direct opposite is most likely to be the case.
I'm not going to quickly summarize thousands of years of history between Persia and China but this little piece gives a good idea of the modern situation between the two states.
The Iran–China 25-year Cooperation Program or Comprehensive Strategic Partnership, signed 2021
"China is to invest US$400 billion in Iran's economy over that time period in exchange for a steady and heavily-discounted supply of oil from Iran".
Any regime change in Iran won't be a pushing a button for a smooth transition to a Liberal Democracy friendly to Israel and America. It would be a long and bloody civil war that would wreck the country for years and Chinese investments in long term fuel supplies with it.
This would suit Washington and Tel Aviv's long-term strategic objectives admirably.
If you need weapons to defend yourself you will do anything to get them. If you can't make them you will buy them from whomever you can. The two most likely suppliers are Russia and China.
Iran could fall under their security umbrella and a strategic balance could thereby be achieved. America pressures Russia / China from the East & West, and Russia / China pressures America from the East & West.
That is far from a sufficient answer. it isn't even a proper sentence.
The answer to the question "Will Beijing support Tehran?" is not "SYRIA".
Syria...what? When? Who?
The best guide to future behavior is always past behavior, and a 25 year 400 billion dollar deal between Beijing and Tehran indicates that Beijing both expects and wants the current Tehran regime to stick around for at least another 20 years to fulfill their side of the deal.
I think such a feeble and non grammatical reply just indicates you are uneasy in fully engaging with the topic.
I value your thoughtful, well considered post, Chris.
But, by golly (if that's not deemed "racist"?), you have some crackpot comments to contend with!
But I believe that Israel have taken out Iran's near-bomb capability with their usual precision strikes; totally unlike Iran (or Russia's) missiles aimed at civilians.
Also bear in mind the USA placed a major "strategic stealth bomber" force of B2s at Diego Garcia way back in April 2025. That implies Iran (or any other Middle-Eastern nation) well within range.
There was an agreement wasn't there that as far as I know, the Iranians were keeping to with regards their nuclear material. Of course all that turn to custard when the man baby Trump, who seems to still be a hero to some around here, abrogated the whole thing.
So if the Iranians were not seeking to develop nuclear weapons then they certainly will be now. A counterweight perhaps to the many nukes that Israel has.
"Not even the certain destruction of the entire Iranian population would deter the ayatollahs."
Evidence? Because that's just a bald assumption. I think both sides realise that if you drop a nuclear weapon in the Middle East you can't avoid killing a whole lot of your own people one way or another.
And I think it's a mistake to assume that the Iranian leadership want martyrdom for everyone in the country. Not at least without some form of nonemotional evidence which you simply don't have.
Plenty of emotion from either side of this debate. Of course the comments from Iran that the enriched uranium is for domestic use is a lie. They are known to have plenty of uranium enriched to a far higher standard than needed for power ect, so the aim has been to produce nuclear weapons.
Would they use those weapons, maybe. If they used them on Israel I believe the US would take the opportunity to do the same to Iran itself and I believe the leaders there, would believe this as well. Although these leaders would be happy to martyr some of their own for the cause, I'm not sure they would be as willing to see the complete destruction of their country. The people of Iran and their desire for change will be the deciding factor. These attacks by Israel may be the catalyst.
Its common knowledge that half of the population of Iran would like a change of leadership, and as discussed by the Iranian NZr speaking on the breakfast show, many would see this as an opportunity to get rid of this régime, but of course will be hating the destruction to their country.
I believe Netanyahu sees this attack as a last opportunity for him to deal with Iran, who seems to be the major player behind the scenes. Whether Iran was a few days away from producing a bomb is debatable and most likely an excuse. Will the US keep supporting Israel, yes imo.
I don't do ad hominem nor to I do sarcasm. I was enraged by your outrageous post and as I am not a paid subscriber I wanted to quickly test whether I could make a comment (some authors restrict comments to paid subscribers) so posted a short one (which is why I said "I'll explain why if I can post a reply.").
Sorry to offend you but the term "rubbish" succinctly described my feelings at the time. On reading your post it comes across as full of religious zealotry and assertion based opinion as you accuse the Iranian regime of. I'd be interested in knowing more about what makes you such a staunch supporter in spite of the evidence they are on wrong track. It's clear it isn't rational or evidence based so I'm not interested in your rationalisations but I am interested in your personal heritage, as a long time admirer of yours. Something I am now struggling to maintain to be honest.
To your mind though the Ayatollah is the devil while the US empire an Netanyahu are your saints. I accept plenty of other viewpoints than my own, but I don't have much respect for purely ideological arguments that bear much resemblance to reality.
Neither the US Empire nor Netanyahu are saints, Malcolm, on that at least we are in agreement. (Although quite how an empire could even be a saint eludes me.) But the Iranian theocratic regime - that is unquestionably Devil-adjacent!
A heart pumps fluid. Occasionally, a tear in the main pipe carrying the pressurised fluid away leaks, and squeezes the outside of the heart, to death. This is called tamponade.
A heart full of self interest can sometimes be forced to stop by overwhelming leak of illwill. Nemesis. I’ve seen it.
Nothing similar seems to operate in hearts pumping illwill. They go on and on. And on.
Bill Sykes vs Fagin characters, to personalize the distinction.
Crooks prosper under Commies, up to the point the mob with torches comes after both. The reference to Fagin will have meaning for the anti Israel crowd, getting it wrong, as usual.
I thought Dickens had a v appropriate ending for Bill Sykes.
If you will insist on using the Western literary canon as your prime means of explaining and/or commenting on current events, Kevin, then you might consider fleshing out the references for those less familiar with the original texts than yourself.
Oh, and employing the coarsely demotic "commies" comports most uncomfortably with your otherwise scholarly tone. You're either one of the patricians, Kevin, or you're one of the plebs. You can't be both.
Oh dear. Too much, too little, its hard to get it right. Better not to bother? I don't think so. NZ the Promised Land for JS Mill, cutting all the spaghetti to little pieces, hostile to lifting of the sheeps head from the assigned pasture... the language, thank God, is beyond control of those that would. "You have no power here!" as the famous quote of the bearded wizard vs Balrog goes. Are you on the side of the Balrog, Chris?
I will try not to be inflammatory if the word in quotes bothers you. Lovers of Big Mommy Government is a bit clunky, and does not have the inherent menace of the thing described, awful as BMG and its adherents is and are.
And Chris, you can so be neither category you list at the end. We have had this discussion before. I am a bemused subject independent of thought and conclusions. Little Bo Peeps be damned.
Neither, because they are fictions. All who are not fictions choose, wisely or badly, up to the point they die, what kind of person they are. We don’t have a wide range of choice, which is why fiction is illustrative, I think, but the decisions, which are individual and not collective, matter.
You don’t find literature useful? Fine. I don’t find cookiecutter political assumptions useful.
Gandalf is annoying, anyway. Up until the point he saves his friends he’s an irritating know it all and afterwards, more so.
Some of your commentators probably regard the bearded bloviator in Teheran with benign regard because their hatred is pleasurably massaged. And you criticise my take on your article? They, of course, are very easy to understand.
I suspect that Kevin is a bright man with some useful insights. Unfortunately, reading his posts requires so many assumptions that I too am left bewildered. Is that the intention? Is it a device to appear smarter that everyone else? A bit of both?
"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." Albert Einstein
It is not Israel that Iran wishes to destroy, but Israel as an apartheid state that holds millions in subjection in Gaza and the West Bank that it illegally occupies, and within Israel proper treats those who are not Orthodox Jews as lesser citizens than those who are.
Establish a unified state, by whatever name, from the River Jordan to the Mediterranean Sea, in which all have equal rights regardless of language, religion, culture, or purported ethnicity, as we have in New Zealand, and the hostility of Iran and other nearby states will disappear.
The problem is not Israel: the problem is Israel an apartheid racist state.
I have no doubt, John, that you believe this.
Nevertheless, it is not true.
Long before the checkpoints. Long before the snaking West Bank wall. The Islamic Republic of Iran was dedicated to the annihilation of the "Zionist Enemy". The weapons of its proxies, most particularly the suicide bomber, put paid to any hope of a peaceful, secular Israel/Palestine.
Now, it is a fight to the death - and Israel is winning.
Your thinking is both wrong and rotten. Israel is a genocidal state built in that which the west professes to abhor. The breach of sovereignty, the theft of land, and the abuse of human rights.
You’re also somewhat shallow and hubristic as to the nature of this war and the potential consequences. Any escalation will see the strait of Hormuz closed and perhaps another depression - certainly chaos. War is seldom predictable. You, however, are.
Ah, Tadhg, here you go again, thoroughly triggered, and lashing out with your usual reflexive hatred of Israel and its defenders.
Let this be the last such outburst. There is no need to reiterate a point of view with which we are all wearily familiar.
I didn't call you pompous, Tadhg, but I am calling you rude.
In consequence, I am suspending your participation here for 30 days.
Please use the time to brush up on the elements of acceptable social behaviour.
Or maybe these European colonisers of West Asia may conclude that they would be more comfortable settling the United States. Trump no doubt will welcome them as he does 'persecuted' white Afrikaners.
Hard to colonise your own homeland, John. "Next year in Jerusalem!" has been a Jewish toast for a thousand years.
Good grief! Judaism is a religion, and European Jews' claims to descent from ancient Hebrews with a 'right of return' is religious myth, which has logical but entertaining consequences:
https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/article-815079
The true descendants of the ancient Hebrews are the indigenous Palestinians, whose ancestors switched from Judaism to Christianity, then to Islam.
Ah, but those wishing to drive the Jews from their homeland would say that - wouldn't they, John?
I have often thought that the most vicious of the antisemites are those who seek to convince the world that there are no Jews at all. That they are simply a "religious myth".
The United Nations defines genocide as "a crime committed with the intent to destroy a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, in whole or in part".
Has it ever crossed your mind, John, that the sort of "evidence" you are presenting here evinces just such a genocidal intent?
The accusation of 'anti-Semitism' is the weapon Zionists unfailingly use against those who oppose the apartheid state Israel and its settler policies. It is intended to be the 'kill' button that outlaws contrary argument.
Far from wishing to drive anyone from their homeland, I consistently argue, as you know, that the state of Israel and the territories it illegally occupies must be transformed into a state where all have equal rights regardless of language, culture, religion, or purported ethnicity.
To find the real anti-Semites, take a look at those Jewish Israelis who want to expel all Palestinians from Gaza, the West Bank, and Israel itself; and throw in for good measure Trump's Christian Zionist ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee, who advocates giving Palestinians a 'homeland' not in Palestine but 'somewhere else', perhaps Saudi Arabia. It is among those Jewish Israelis and their American champions that you will see the 'crime committed with the intent to destroy a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group, in whole or in part'.
https://archive.ph/k2VWu
I always find it fascinating to watch Liberal / Democratic / Egalitarian / Humanist principles evaporate, and Ethic / Religious ? Nationalist / Supremacist principles emerge as soon as the State of Israel enters the chat.
The idea that anyone has exclusive rights based on religion or ethnicity is a direct contradiction of secular humanist liberal ideology, but they fit like a glove into an ethno-nationalist ideology.
And prayers to God, even those said for a thousand years, carry zero weight in any rationalist's calculation. Unless I suppose ALL the prayers from ALL the factions are given equal weight.
Casting your thought back over the history of the last 200 years, Jack, which of the two great political causes - nationalism and socialism - do you consider to have been the most enduring and successful?
And if you (correctly) identify nationalism as the historical victor, then perhaps you should ask yourself whether an unwavering attachment to the "Liberal/Democratic/Egalitarian/Humanist" side of the ideological struggle might indicate a fundamental misreading of human nature?
Wrong Israel will eventually be wiped out
By who, Mark? Hamas? Hezbollah? The Houthis? The Iranian Revolutionary Guard?
Oh, wait a minute ....
So the Iranian regime are really just seeking peace, freedom and justice with their death to Israel, death to USA, Death to the UK calls? I don't know how you arrived at that conclusion but you couldn't be more wrong. They don't even believe in those things, even for their own people.
The Persians, the vast majority of the Middle East and the non Jewish Israelis know who the real enemy is - the totalitarian, tyrannical and dangerous Iranian Islamic regime.
John: "It is not Israel that Iran wishes to destroy"
Yet that is what they say so I don't know where you got that idea.
Here is British Iranian Elica Le Bon on the methods and motivations of the Iranian Islamists. They are motivations that are most certainly seriously deranged and dangerous.
" the theory is that the final prophet emerges once justice and equality has been achieved in the world and the thing that achieves this justice is that the last drop of blood of Israel falls so the end of Israel brings back the final prophet"
Elica on Triggernometry, 10 minute clip. https://youtu.be/JjBV_WxY4gY
I haven't watched the clip: I'll take Elica's word for it. I don't, for one moment, defend the existing Iranian regime, any more than I do the Israeli or Saudi regimes. All must be overthrown, but by the people they oppress, not by others.
Always remember that Israel even before its foundation was designed as a genocidal apartheid state that intended to expel non-Jews from all the land the Zionists had, and still have, their eyes on.
https://imeu.org/article/explainer-plan-dalet-the-ethnic-cleansing-of-palestine
That, manifestly, is still the plan.
I'm sorry, John, but I am not willing to allow the accusation of genocide to stand here any longer.
What is happening in Gaza is tragic, but it is not genocide. Those who say it is are not only wrong, they are mendacious.
Please peddle your Hamas tropes somewhere else.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_genocide
If I am mendacious, I seem to be in excellent company. Or should the accuser look in the mirror?
The former head of Human Rights Watch - and son of a Holocaust survivor - says Israel's military campaign in Gaza will likely meet the legal definition of genocide, citing large-scale killings, the targeting of civilians, and the words of senior Israeli officials.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/in-depth/565175/watch-30-minutes-with-the-godfather-of-human-rights-ken-roth-on-genocide-trump-and-standing-up-for-democracy
Every anti-Palestinian accusation is a confession. In this case it is your mendacity that is on show. I have spent many years studying genocide and you are not simply wrong, you are willfully and hatefully so. There is no significant debate among genocide scholars about the genocidal nature of Israel's violence in Gaza - even among Zionist Israeli scholars. It is galling that you would deign to mount a high horse and promote your studied ignorance and bias as if you had any authority to speak on the subject whatsoever. You do not.
And what, pray tell, Mr Kelly, apart from your own, self-directed, "studies", confers the slightest "authority" upon you to pontificate on this subject so unequivocally?
Ad Hominem arguments; appeals to authority: both of these are indications of a weak case.
As I advised Mr Trezise: go spread your Hamas propaganda somewhere else.
The islam of Iran is a death cult.
Well, as you note, this is a worst case scenario.
In reality Israel won't use nuclear weapons, neither will Russia.
Will Iran definitely go for nuclear weapons? Will Pakistan help them in that goal?
Nether can be definitively be ruled out. Not unless there is a new Iran nuclear deal.
I think that this is a quite likely scenario. But it will require a greater level of US engagement than we have hitherto seen. A deal that is a true reset. Iran truly giving up nuclear aspirations in return for removal of all economic sanctions. With a side deal of much less assistance to Russia.
Wishful thinking, maybe. But I would suggest it is more likely than the devils scenario.
In a regime under enormous pressure, ruled over by an 86-year-old despot whose key advisers are all dead, and whose life's work is crumbling before his eyes, a rush to acquire nuclear weapons may present itself as the last, best, hope of his regime's survival.
If Khamenei attempts to actualise this scenario, and the USA's bunker-busters fail to destroy the Fordow enrichment facility, then I wouldn't rule out a tactical strike. Israel simply cannot permit Iran to produce a weapon capable of destroying the State of Israel in an afternoon.
The Devil is always at his most persuasive, Wayne, when our backs are against the wall.
"whose life's work is crumbling before his eyes". I doubt that he sees it that way. Yes, his country has been attacked and key leaders killed. But that is still a long way from the Iranian regime being overthrown. It is the existence of the Islamic Republic which is his life's work, not whether it has nuclear weapons. Notwithstanding these initial strikes, it seems pretty clear that neither Israel nor the US is going to invade in order to overthrow the Islamic Republic.
Does the Israeli attack fundamentally weaken the Iranian Islamic Republic? Probably not, in fact more likely the reverse. Although I appreciate that this is an unknown.
The Islamic republic is now 46 years old and it certainly has many opponents. It had these before the Israeli strike. Is it now more likely that the Iranian people will rise up sufficiently to overthrow their government?
I would suggest doing a deal would be more likely to enhance the survival of the regime rather than the alternative of going all out for nuclear weapons. That was the calculus in 2015. I suggest it is still the calculus.
And yet, Wayne, as Israeli ordnance lit up the night sky over Tehran, female voices could be heard crying "Death to Khamenei! Death to Khamenei!"
The Shah thought he was safe, too.
Well, you might be right. We will soon know.
In any event, it looks like my optimistic scenario won't happen. It seems that Trump is going to get involved militarily, urged on by the pro Netanyahu section of the Republicans which is most of them. I see Trump has blithely dismissed the evidence from his National Intelligence Advisor that Iran was not building a bomb, not that adherence to facts ever matters to Trump.
What is the end game?
Is it elimination of Irans's nuclear potential, or is it widespread destruction with the aim of regime change?
It certainly seems Iran is on its own. Even those who could supply Iran with anti-air missiles (Pakistan, China) appear not to be doing so.
However, a widespread bombing campaign is hardly a guarantee of regime change. It might just mean a cowed Iran, but still dangerous in its lair. I suspect China would resupply Iran with weapons on return for oil. There are land transport links from China to Iran, which I can't see the US attacking.
Overall these attacks with continue to strengthen the global south. By that I mean they will continue to strengthen their south - south links and reduce their connections to the global north. China will continue its drive for self sufficient in high tech. In particular China will want to establish a fully self reliant civil aircraft industry so they don't need to buy from either Boeing or Airbus.
The present rulers of Iran, unlike the Shah, have ensured that they have the self-interested support of 15 to 20% of the population, bound to them by economic ties and benefits. I think the consensus is that that is pretty much all you need to keep control of a country. Not to mention that if you are attacked "pre-emptively" it's bound to bring the people together more than it divides them.
I wonder what your reaction would have been Chris if the Iranians had attacked Israel "pre-emptively"?
So you're suggesting it is ethical for a nuclear armed state to nuke a non-nuclear armed state on the basis that it believes the other country might develop nuclear weapons and then be foolish enough to use them? Do you not understand the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction?
One thing I will predict and put a considerable sum of money on is that with the latest behaviour of the US and Israel (influenced by people with views such as yours) Iran will now proceed to develop nuclear weapons within the next 2-3 years. In hindsight they have been foolish not to have done so sooner - as per Israel itself and North Korea. I'll put even more money on them NOT attacking Israel with them once they get them. And, by the way, even US bunker busters won't reach them.
Israel and the US's current ruse is simply so that they can remain the regional bullies and assert their own dominance on the region.
I've been anti nuke since the 1980s but the failure of the nuclear powers, as signatories to the NPT, to bring about disarmament and instead engage in wars of aggression, I have come around to support Iran's right to build nuclear weapons. I expect they'll withdraw from the NPT too. More undermining of international law - in large part due to Western hubris.
Their response to Israel's latest aggression is also showing the limits of Israel power. No wonder Israel has had to call in their benefactor to save them and once again play the victim card. Disgraceful and a clear violation of multiple UN articles.
I'm pretty sure, Malcolm, that your theory re: the USA's "bunker-busters" is about to be given a reality check.
It is to be hoped that you are proved wrong.
Pakistan has already threatened to use nuclear weapons on Israel if Iran is attacked with them. Probably rhetoric, but many here would regard it as hard evidence given that they seem to hate Muslims.
"millions of martyrs would simply expand the dimensions of paradise"
This is the mentality we are up against; it's a death cult. Besides, terrorists are not going to heaven, it wouldn't be heaven if they did.
Over the last few days I've read the back and forth of the comments to this post with fascination and a degree of misbelief. From the Balfour Declaration of 1917 onwards until the creation of the state of Israel in 1948 there were various attempts to find political solutions for a Jewish homeland. If ever there was a committee decision that was likely to cause conflict this partition of Palestine by the UN was it. The Jewish leadership accepted it as a pragmatic decision, most of the Arab states did not, hence the seeds were sown for our current situation. I fail to see how anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear can believe that Iran and its satellites will not do anything to annihilate Israel, any more than that Israel will meekly allow this to happen without retaliation or indeed, pre-emptive strikes, as has been the case. What I have the most difficulty understanding is the strength of the hatred of Israel that comes through - why is this the case in a country so far from ethnic divisions? Or at least, until recently. We have no history of religious wars and division like the Crusades, the divisions in what was previously Yugoslavia and the Moorish conquest of Spain. Perhaps I'm naive and over-simplifying, but I do not understand the hatred expressing here like that that led to pogroms in Russia, the formation of ghettos throughout most of Europe culminating in the horrors of WWII. Why is the personification of the Jew as "other" and something to be feared and reviled so alive and well in a country so removed from European roots? What am I missing?
A little while ago GS provided evidence that the Israelis never intended to abide by that agreement either. For some odd reason Mr Trotter refused to acknowledge it.
Aroha I've seen the same level of hatred levelled against the people of Ukraine.
The comments from those that claim to be on "the left" that have cheered on Russia. I don't understand where the vitriol comes from for people they've never met, except that it just seems to be a hatred of "The West(™)" that means that people like Putin are viewed as defenders of all that is good in the world, and whose actions are therefore beyond reproach.
And now those that have defended Russia have elevated the rulers of Iran to the same sainted level.
I knew an Iranian family that had moved to New Zealand and bought a farm just outside my home town, they were Bahāʾī - that most gentle of religions was founded in Iran. They were almost supernaturally good looking, intelligent and divinely proud but humble. This was a little before the Islamic revolution but their faith had been repressed and followers persecuted in Iran (and elsewhere in the M.E.) for decades. After the Iranian revolution things got much worse so perhaps their move was prescient.
The Bahāʾī world HQ is now in Israel as are many of it's followers. What does it say that they are safer in that country, the one under existential threat, than anywhere else in the ME? The Israelis welcomed and protected them; so much for the claim that they are intolerant of others. Or for the frankly ludicrous claim that the Islamic regime are motivated by their respect for human rights. This is the outfit that bludgeons young women to death for not wearing the veil. It's appalling.
Iran's M.E. allies and proxies are collapsing - Assad, Hezbollah and Hamas gone or going and the Iranian people have had more than enough so hopefully they are on the way out themselves.
Plenty to object to in this one but I'll just focus on one point for now.
"the fall of the Islamic Republic of Iran would suit Beijing’s long-term strategic objectives admirably."
Why do you think that? The direct opposite is most likely to be the case.
I'm not going to quickly summarize thousands of years of history between Persia and China but this little piece gives a good idea of the modern situation between the two states.
The Iran–China 25-year Cooperation Program or Comprehensive Strategic Partnership, signed 2021
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-China_25-year_Cooperation_Program
"China is to invest US$400 billion in Iran's economy over that time period in exchange for a steady and heavily-discounted supply of oil from Iran".
Any regime change in Iran won't be a pushing a button for a smooth transition to a Liberal Democracy friendly to Israel and America. It would be a long and bloody civil war that would wreck the country for years and Chinese investments in long term fuel supplies with it.
This would suit Washington and Tel Aviv's long-term strategic objectives admirably.
If you need weapons to defend yourself you will do anything to get them. If you can't make them you will buy them from whomever you can. The two most likely suppliers are Russia and China.
Iran could fall under their security umbrella and a strategic balance could thereby be achieved. America pressures Russia / China from the East & West, and Russia / China pressures America from the East & West.
A one-word answer will suffice here, I think, Jack.
SYRIA.
That is far from a sufficient answer. it isn't even a proper sentence.
The answer to the question "Will Beijing support Tehran?" is not "SYRIA".
Syria...what? When? Who?
The best guide to future behavior is always past behavior, and a 25 year 400 billion dollar deal between Beijing and Tehran indicates that Beijing both expects and wants the current Tehran regime to stick around for at least another 20 years to fulfill their side of the deal.
I think such a feeble and non grammatical reply just indicates you are uneasy in fully engaging with the topic.
I value your thoughtful, well considered post, Chris.
But, by golly (if that's not deemed "racist"?), you have some crackpot comments to contend with!
But I believe that Israel have taken out Iran's near-bomb capability with their usual precision strikes; totally unlike Iran (or Russia's) missiles aimed at civilians.
Also bear in mind the USA placed a major "strategic stealth bomber" force of B2s at Diego Garcia way back in April 2025. That implies Iran (or any other Middle-Eastern nation) well within range.
There was an agreement wasn't there that as far as I know, the Iranians were keeping to with regards their nuclear material. Of course all that turn to custard when the man baby Trump, who seems to still be a hero to some around here, abrogated the whole thing.
So if the Iranians were not seeking to develop nuclear weapons then they certainly will be now. A counterweight perhaps to the many nukes that Israel has.
"Not even the certain destruction of the entire Iranian population would deter the ayatollahs."
Evidence? Because that's just a bald assumption. I think both sides realise that if you drop a nuclear weapon in the Middle East you can't avoid killing a whole lot of your own people one way or another.
And I think it's a mistake to assume that the Iranian leadership want martyrdom for everyone in the country. Not at least without some form of nonemotional evidence which you simply don't have.
Plenty of emotion from either side of this debate. Of course the comments from Iran that the enriched uranium is for domestic use is a lie. They are known to have plenty of uranium enriched to a far higher standard than needed for power ect, so the aim has been to produce nuclear weapons.
Would they use those weapons, maybe. If they used them on Israel I believe the US would take the opportunity to do the same to Iran itself and I believe the leaders there, would believe this as well. Although these leaders would be happy to martyr some of their own for the cause, I'm not sure they would be as willing to see the complete destruction of their country. The people of Iran and their desire for change will be the deciding factor. These attacks by Israel may be the catalyst.
Its common knowledge that half of the population of Iran would like a change of leadership, and as discussed by the Iranian NZr speaking on the breakfast show, many would see this as an opportunity to get rid of this régime, but of course will be hating the destruction to their country.
I believe Netanyahu sees this attack as a last opportunity for him to deal with Iran, who seems to be the major player behind the scenes. Whether Iran was a few days away from producing a bomb is debatable and most likely an excuse. Will the US keep supporting Israel, yes imo.
What rubbish - I'll explain why if I can post a reply.
Temperate and non-abusive replies are always welcome, Malcolm. Ad hominem attacks - not so much.
Have you ever considered writing: "I do not agree - and here are the reasons why I do not agree", as opposed to "What rubbish."?
Just common courtesy, really. You should try it.
I don't do ad hominem nor to I do sarcasm. I was enraged by your outrageous post and as I am not a paid subscriber I wanted to quickly test whether I could make a comment (some authors restrict comments to paid subscribers) so posted a short one (which is why I said "I'll explain why if I can post a reply.").
Sorry to offend you but the term "rubbish" succinctly described my feelings at the time. On reading your post it comes across as full of religious zealotry and assertion based opinion as you accuse the Iranian regime of. I'd be interested in knowing more about what makes you such a staunch supporter in spite of the evidence they are on wrong track. It's clear it isn't rational or evidence based so I'm not interested in your rationalisations but I am interested in your personal heritage, as a long time admirer of yours. Something I am now struggling to maintain to be honest.
If you had bothered to read the subtitle, Malcolm, you would have noted that the post was framed as if the Devil was writing the script.
A grim satire, in other words.
I would note, however, your refusal to accept the possibility of any other valid viewpoints on this most controversial of subjects.
Not a good sign.
To your mind though the Ayatollah is the devil while the US empire an Netanyahu are your saints. I accept plenty of other viewpoints than my own, but I don't have much respect for purely ideological arguments that bear much resemblance to reality.
Neither the US Empire nor Netanyahu are saints, Malcolm, on that at least we are in agreement. (Although quite how an empire could even be a saint eludes me.) But the Iranian theocratic regime - that is unquestionably Devil-adjacent!
A heart pumps fluid. Occasionally, a tear in the main pipe carrying the pressurised fluid away leaks, and squeezes the outside of the heart, to death. This is called tamponade.
A heart full of self interest can sometimes be forced to stop by overwhelming leak of illwill. Nemesis. I’ve seen it.
Nothing similar seems to operate in hearts pumping illwill. They go on and on. And on.
Some comments here are in this vein.
Bill Sykes vs Fagin characters, to personalize the distinction.
Crooks prosper under Commies, up to the point the mob with torches comes after both. The reference to Fagin will have meaning for the anti Israel crowd, getting it wrong, as usual.
I thought Dickens had a v appropriate ending for Bill Sykes.
If you will insist on using the Western literary canon as your prime means of explaining and/or commenting on current events, Kevin, then you might consider fleshing out the references for those less familiar with the original texts than yourself.
Oh, and employing the coarsely demotic "commies" comports most uncomfortably with your otherwise scholarly tone. You're either one of the patricians, Kevin, or you're one of the plebs. You can't be both.
Oh dear. Too much, too little, its hard to get it right. Better not to bother? I don't think so. NZ the Promised Land for JS Mill, cutting all the spaghetti to little pieces, hostile to lifting of the sheeps head from the assigned pasture... the language, thank God, is beyond control of those that would. "You have no power here!" as the famous quote of the bearded wizard vs Balrog goes. Are you on the side of the Balrog, Chris?
I will try not to be inflammatory if the word in quotes bothers you. Lovers of Big Mommy Government is a bit clunky, and does not have the inherent menace of the thing described, awful as BMG and its adherents is and are.
And Chris, you can so be neither category you list at the end. We have had this discussion before. I am a bemused subject independent of thought and conclusions. Little Bo Peeps be damned.
Well, that was definitely English, Kevin, but, alas, I really don't have a clue what you're trying to say.
A Balrog? Not Gandalf? I'm cut to the quick.
Neither, because they are fictions. All who are not fictions choose, wisely or badly, up to the point they die, what kind of person they are. We don’t have a wide range of choice, which is why fiction is illustrative, I think, but the decisions, which are individual and not collective, matter.
You don’t find literature useful? Fine. I don’t find cookiecutter political assumptions useful.
Gandalf is annoying, anyway. Up until the point he saves his friends he’s an irritating know it all and afterwards, more so.
Some of your commentators probably regard the bearded bloviator in Teheran with benign regard because their hatred is pleasurably massaged. And you criticise my take on your article? They, of course, are very easy to understand.
Refreshingly coherent, Kevin. Keep it up!
I suspect that Kevin is a bright man with some useful insights. Unfortunately, reading his posts requires so many assumptions that I too am left bewildered. Is that the intention? Is it a device to appear smarter that everyone else? A bit of both?
"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." Albert Einstein
99 or some large no. of National Socialist physicists said Einsteins theory was wrong, apologists for BMG of that flavour said.
Einstein replied, that it didn’t take 99. Only one, one that was correct.