Iran publishes book on how to outwit US and destroy Israel

[YmirGF]

I just ran across this minor work by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei that has just been published in Iran. Given that this is the thinking of the Supreme Leader of Iran how seriously do you think we can take any deal that he has the final say on?

The timing of this is also a bit stunning. You would think the would choose this time to publish love sonnets to Allah or something along those lines, but such an "in your face" work while "western powers" think they actually have tamed them and brought us all closer to peace? Seriously?

http://nypost.com/2015/08/01/iran-publishes-book-on-how-to-outwit-us-and-destroy-israel/

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has published a new book called “Palestine,” a 416-page screed against the Jewish state. A blurb on the back cover credits Khamenei as “The flagbearer of Jihad to liberate Jerusalem.”

A friend sent me a copy from Iran, the only place the book is currently available, though an Arabic translation is promised soon.

Obama administration officials likely hope that no American even hears about it.

What do you think?

 

[psychoslice]

I never even knew that they had the intelligence to even write a book.

 

[Riverwolf]

Calling it now: this is some kind of joke.

"Hey! I just thought of a way to outwit a country I don't like in order to destroy an enemy country! I'm going to write a book about my stunning strategic insight and publish it for all the world to see! What? Since it'll be released to the public, my enemies will see it? Nah. That couldn't possibly happen. It's not like they keep very close eyes on us all the time."

 

[YmirGF]

Calling it now: this is some kind of joke.

"Hey! I just thought of a way to outwit a country I don't like in order to destroy an enemy country! I'm going to write a book about my stunning strategic insight and publish it for all the world to see! What? Since it'll be released to the public, my enemies will see it? Nah. That couldn't possibly happen. It's not like they keep very close eyes on us all the time."

Could be, Riverwolf, but not too many paid attention to Mein Kampf when it was published. Hiding in plain sight?

 

[psychoslice]

Could be, Riverwolf, but not too many paid attention to Mein Kampf when it was published. Hiding in plain sight?

A lot of good ideas was in that book.

 

[Tumah]

Don't let the work of a few extremists overcome the important inroads the US and Co. are making with Iran. There's always anytime, anywhere checks as well as snap-back sanctions. So its all under control, Mr. Public.

 

[Augustus]

I just ran across this minor work by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei that has just been published in Iran. Given that this is the thinking of the Supreme Leader of Iran how seriously do you think we can take any deal that he has the final say on?

The timing of this is also a bit stunning. You would think the would choose this time to publish love sonnets to Allah or something along those lines, but such an "in your face" work while "western powers" think they actually have tamed them and brought us all closer to peace? Seriously?

What do you think?

It's not like it signals a change in policy, reveals anything new or says things that haven't been said before though.

The only way to prevent Iran from getting nukes is to either incentivise them not to develop them, or launch a significant military operation against them and neither is guaranteed (or maybe even likely) to work anyway.

As regards the hawkish view, I can't really imagine any greater incentive to create nukes than repeatedly being threatened with military attacks. It is rational to seek things to protect you from being attacked by countries with more powerful militaries. Threatening Iran with war just demonstrates that the development of nukes is essential for their safety.

Even though no one except the Iranians really wants a nuclear Iran, I don't see how it could be considered legal to attack them to prevent it from happening. War as an instrument of US foreign policy hasn't been too successful recently either.

Which leaves some kind of deal as the only real option. It's not done because anyone thinks Iran has a nice, cuddly friendly government, or because anyone has a great deal of trust for Iran and thinks it will 'tame' them, just that they aren't really any viable alternatives. It's better than doing nothing.

 

[Riverwolf]

Could be, Riverwolf, but not too many paid attention to Mein Kampf when it was published. Hiding in plain sight?

Hey, just because I'm calling this as a joke doesn't mean I think it should be ignored. 9/11 dispatchers have to respond to every single crank call they get, and I wouldn't have that any other way. Then again, this also leads to the current very dangerous problem of SWATing.

However, there's a few things about the current situation that are different from back then. The biggest one is this: we have the internet, and I'm following, on Twitter, a Tehran-based indie game studio. I don't want to see fellow indies bombed.

Second biggest one is hindsight. We know what could happen. I don't think of Iran as my enemy (personally), since Iran is its people, who are people like any other people, but I know their ruling organization is the enemy of the ruling organization whom I'm paying (whenever I have a job) to keep me safe among other things, and I'm certainly not terribly upset that the US is keeping such a close eye on Iran's situation considering the instability of the region.

 

[Tumah]

It's not like it signals a change in policy, reveals anything new or says things that haven't been said before though.

The only way to prevent Iran from getting nukes is to either incentivise them not to develop them, or launch a significant military operation against them and neither is guaranteed (or maybe even likely) to work anyway.

As regards the hawkish view, I can't really imagine any greater incentive to create nukes than repeatedly being threatened with military attacks. It is rational to seek things to protect you from being attacked by countries with more powerful militaries. Threatening Iran with war just demonstrates that the development of nukes is essential for their safety.

Even though no one except the Iranians really wants a nuclear Iran, I don't see how it could be considered legal to attack them to prevent it from happening. War as an instrument of US foreign policy hasn't been too successful recently either.

Which leaves some kind of deal as the only real option. It's not done because anyone thinks Iran has a nice, cuddly friendly government, or because anyone has a great deal of trust for Iran and thinks it will 'tame' them, just that they aren't really any viable alternatives. It's better than doing nothing.

What about stronger sanctions as a means for incentive?

 

[Augustus]

What about stronger sanctions as a means for incentive?

50 years of sanctions against a small country on it's doorstep didn't get the US what it wanted in regard to Cuba. Why expect things to be different with Iran?

 

[Tumah]

50 years of sanctions against a small country on it's doorstep didn't get the US what it wanted in regard to Cuba. Why expect things to be different with Iran?

I don't know. Seems like the risk factor to America and its interests with Iran is slightly higher than it was with Cuba. That seems like a good reason to try harder.

 

[Revoltingest]

The OP reminds me of a friend who is big on conspiracies.
He regularly tells me of something he heard or found on the internet.
Some of his recent revelations (saved my favorite for last).....
- Obama was recently photographed secretly kneeling on a Muslim prayer rug.
- The student anti-war movement of the 60s & 70s was entirely due to Soviet infiltrators.
- Universities are liberal factories because of Soviet infiltrators.
- The Muslims are planning to take over the world, but first they'll take over Americastan by reproducing to the point of majority, at which point they'll dump the Constitution, & impose shariah law. Some Muslim group (he couldn't remember the name) out west colluded with some gay group (also not remembered) to form an alliance (despite their mutual disdain) on some issue or other (again, not remembered). This "pragmatism" dispenses with all values, with the only goal being imposition of their "utopia". Universities, communists, & liberals enable this by corrupting Americastanian values so that no one will notice implementation of their plan.....which has Satan behind it.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The timing of this is also a bit stunning.

Seriously?

Oh, and ya gotta love the opening line ...

"While Secretary of State John Kerry and President Obama do their best to paper over the brutality of the Iranian regime ..."​

I can think of nothing better on a Sunday morning than the image of two pieces of sick propaganda competing for attention.

Now, with that said, all those surprised to find that Khamenei still hates Israel, raise your hand.

 

[Nietzsche]

A lot of good ideas was in that book.

God-****ing-damn-it I was going to say that. The Nazi schtick is mine, you mewling quim!

 

[Godobeyer]

What do you think?

timing

It's freedom of speak
just kiding guys


I believe Iran is against US and Israel policy in regine , I don't know about this book credibility , that's your link claim .

btw Israel always threaten Iran and Iran always threaten Israel , so USA too , it's two ways .

I believe it's very possible that USA and Israel don't hit Iran , soon or in future , not because Iran is stronger , but because Iran will hit oil sources and ports in region , so the world will be in big trouble , in issue of oil supply in the world .

that's may will be the begining WWIII , so it's could be the end too.

 

[YmirGF]

Seriously?

Oh, and ya gotta love the opening line ...

"While Secretary of State John Kerry and President Obama do their best to paper over the brutality of the Iranian regime ..."​

I can think of nothing better on a Sunday morning than the image of two pieces of sick propaganda competing for attention.

Now, with that said, all those surprised to find that Khamenei still hates Israel, raise your hand.

I understand, Jay, but what I find incredulous is that people think that they can make a "deal" with this sort of person. It seriously defies logic.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I understand, Jay, but what I find incredulous is that people think that they can make a "deal" with this sort of person. It seriously defies logic.

Then you opposed the P5+1 negotiations as being either pollyannaish or disingenuous or both. At the same time you are smart enough to realize that

1. sanctions did not and will not contain Iran,
2. unilateral sanctions will be even less effective, and
3. there is zero possibility of a P5+1 military strike against that country.

So, your not-so-incredulous recommendation would be?

 

[columbus]

btw Israel always threaten Iran and Iran always threaten Israel , so USA too , it's two way

Why is this hard to understand? The USA has been assaulting Iran for decades. So they want the one weapon that will put a stop to it.

Threatening them with yet more attacks is ludicrous, but happens daily.
Tom

 

[columbus]

I believe it's very possible that USA and Israel don't hit Iran , soon or in future , not because Iran is stronger , but because Iran will hit oil sources and ports in region , so the world will be in big trouble , in issue of oil supply in the world .

This is why the threats of military action carry so little credibility. The last thing the oil powered 1st world wants is a serious war in the oil fields of the middle east.
It won't happen, and the Iranian government knows it.
Tom

 

[LuisDantas]

I understand, Jay, but what I find incredulous is that people think that they can make a "deal" with this sort of person. It seriously defies logic.

Would you prefer them to hide their thoughts? I'm honestly wondering what is the big deal.

But more than that, I wonder what do you see as a better alternative. Particularly if your intent involved not proving Khamenei right.

It's not like it signals a change in policy, reveals anything new or says things that haven't been said before though.

Precisely.

The only way to prevent Iran from getting nukes is to either incentivise them not to develop them, or launch a significant military operation against them and neither is guaranteed (or maybe even likely) to work anyway.

As regards the hawkish view, I can't really imagine any greater incentive to create nukes than repeatedly being threatened with military attacks. It is rational to seek things to protect you from being attacked by countries with more powerful militaries. Threatening Iran with war just demonstrates that the development of nukes is essential for their safety.

Precisely. Also, the military option is morally bankrupt, of questionable viability and certain to have very serious consequences down the line.

Even though no one except the Iranians really wants a nuclear Iran, I don't see how it could be considered legal to attack them to prevent it from happening. War as an instrument of US foreign policy hasn't been too successful recently either.

Unless the goals involve spreading misery, mistrust and the breeding of terrorists.

Or giving money and influence to the military industry in the short term, I suppose.

However, it seems that George F. Will, at least, does want Iran to acquire nuclear weaponry - or, at least, that it is reasonable that they should pursue it:

(...)Iran’s determination is probably related to the United States’ demonstration, in Iraq and Libya, of the perils of not having nuclear weapons.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...2fdc2a-3553-11e5-adf6-7227f3b7b338_story.html

Which leaves some kind of deal as the only real option. It's not done because anyone thinks Iran has a nice, cuddly friendly government, or because anyone has a great deal of trust for Iran and thinks it will 'tame' them, just that they aren't really any viable alternatives. It's better than doing nothing.

And it is worlds better than irresponsible militarism.