1
1

[–] Kurplow 1 point 1 point (+2|-1) ago 

The thread was deleted, but I posted the comment quoted below about three weeks ago in discussion about Israel and the Iran deal. It will seem a bit off topic:

"THIS is the topic sorely lacking from the U.S. public discourse on the Iran deal: focus on Israel, their role in the region, and the prolific way in which Israeli interests pervade U.S. politics.

Israeli hypocrisy on the subject aside, if Pro-Israel groups, PACs, and individuals were worried about Iran getting a Nuclear weapon, they could only like this deal. It moves the breakout time for Iran to make an illegal nuke (of which Israel has many) from being months, or even weeks, to at least a decade according to nuclear experts (http://brook.gs/1hHEPQ1).

One wonders why pro-Israel groups are trying so hard, and spending so much, to get U.S. politicians and citizens to oppose the deal.

I have a theory: the alternative to this deal is some kind of war. Israel has a big army (especially for a country of its size) and if you include their illegal nuclear capability, they are not under any real threat from Iran or any other Muslim state near them. They could, as much Israeli media is saying, "bomb Iran back to the Stone Age." However, it would be a much better deal for the Israelis, both in terms of their regional politics and national economics, if it was the U.S. that did the fighting on their behalf. Our pilots in danger. Our money being spent. Our global reputation as military aggressor cemented."

1
-1

[–] TREDDITFIRST [S] 1 point -1 points (+0|-1) ago 

Great comment! And also Iran has shown no interest in obtaining or using nukes like Israel and the U.S. have been doing.

1
-1

[–] TREDDITFIRST [S] 1 point -1 points (+0|-1) ago