In partnership with CBSSports.com
The Web's No. 1 forum for coverage and discussion of Terps sports
Visitor discussion of University of Maryland and college sports
A place for lively discussion for all other sports unrelated to Maryland athletics
Feedback for IMS and 247Sports
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
Iran is committed to Israel's destruction ideologically...whether and how they try to carry that out themselves will determine how Israel and the West respond.
But we may find ourselves in a war with Iran that has nothing to do (at first) with their nukes. The Israeli airstrike in Syria is being whispered as a Big Deal (rumor is that high level Al Qods officers and other similar VIPs were targeted) and Iran and Syria are promising a big response, backed by Russia's public condemnations. Any number of incidents could spark a war even before the next SecDef is confirmed.
That's why this is the one confirmation battle that needs to be scrutinized more than most, due to current events. Just think about the effects of a Middle East regional war occurring at the same time as sequestration.
He was a shitty senator - that's a pretty low bar to reach.
I find that very hard to believe. I have no doubt that Syria and Iran want to divert attention from their, um, internal problems, but this assumes that Syria has the capacity to fight Israel and the rebels at the same time. They definitely don't.
Iran's MO in these situations is to respond asymetrically, but I'm not even sure how that would go right now. Hamas is in no position to start another war with Israel. Hizballah might be (notice that Israel deployed Iron Dome to Haifa earlier this week) but I doubt they're interested in really escalating things and risking a war with Israel AND the loss of their key patron at the same time. More likely, Iran and Syria will bitch some try to find some asymmetric option.
Of course these things are unpredictable, so you never know.
For better or worse, I don't see how this really ends up hurting Obama, no matter how it turns out. Either he gets his guy, or this nomination goes nowhere and he puts up a Democrat instead and then spends the next four years talking about how he wanted to be bipartisan but the Republicans were obstructionists.
Heck, it might just better for him if this nominee is not confirmed. What are Republicans going to do with that information? Talk about how the Republican nominee sucked on defense and some Democratic replacement was better?
This post was edited by terps99 18 months ago
I don't agree with this interpretation. First of all, Iran's surrogates (by which I assume you mean Hizballah, Hamas, and PIJ) have no chance of doing any serious damage to Israel in a combined offensive. Lobbing some rockets into Ashdod or engaging Israel in guerrilla warfare in Lebanon is one thing, but a truly consequential offensive attack is something completely different.
Iran might give lip service to destroying Israel, but I don't think they have any illusions about whether or not they can accomplish that (they cannot, and they know that). But what they can realistically do, and what they really want, is to become a regional hegemon. The benefit of Hizballah/Hamas/PIJ/Other surrogates to Iran is that they can use them to threaten Israel to deter retaliation when they do things like consolidate influence in Iraq, arm rebels on the Saudi-Yemeni border, or any number of other things aimed at elevating their power in the region.
Finally, keep in mind that rhetoric aside, Iran has actually acted pretty "rationally" (rational in the sense that they act in what they perceive to be their own interest) historically. They used religion to justify the war against Iraq for years and then ended it because it made strategic sense, etc.
Wow, that would REALLY be out of character for him.
I think the Rs realize that, took their pound of flesh today and many will vote against. But they won't filibuster so he'll still be confirmed with D votes. They've been actively trying to shed the "obstruction" label before we get into this budget fight and a successful filibuster of a high profile nominee will not exactly help their case.
But then again half of those people are crazy, so who knows.
Yeah, that's consistent with what I'm saying though...asymmetric options are part of those "incidents" I was referring to. Dragging Israel into regional spats is a favorite ME pastime, and the two most hostile ME nations are falling apart at the seams at the moment (Syria politically, Iran economically), so this is as good a time as any for them to lash out.
Yeah the fact that the Democrats have the majority in the Senate gives the Republicans a little cover in that they can vote en masse against Hagel but they know he's going to get nominated anyway. So they get to tell their base they fought Obama and stood up for Izzrull, but they aren't picking a real fight or obstructing anything.
Fair enough, but I'm saying that I think Syria and Iran will be relatively restrained. Partially because their options are somewhat limited, and partially because I'm not sure this is the best time for them to be picking that particular fight (moreso for Syria...Iran wouldn't surprise me as much).
This post was edited by umdnc02 17 months ago
suicide bombing at the US embassy in Ankara...relatively little damage though. Syria involved, IMO. Makes sense.
Or could also be a faction of the PKK trying to torpedo the peace deal about to go into effect.
Kind of a waste either way, of course. Poor choice of target/effect. IMO if it were PKK they'd be more interested in disrupting stability in Turkey without bringing the US into it. That'd be a more effective statement against a peace deal.
BTW I like how Israel is basically owning up to the airstrikes and threatening more. They seem to know when they can be brazen and when they can't these days.
This post was edited by frode 17 months ago
Sen. Blunt suggests that GOP won't filibuster Hagel (just vote against him) in interview on Fox.
Scott Brown won't run for Kerry's seat.
Congrats Sen. Markey!
They separately, or even together, maybe not, but suppose they were part of a major attack by other Arab nations, and from Iran by missiles?
To quote you, I do not agree with the following interpretation:
"....Finally, keep in mind that rhetoric aside, Iran has actually acted pretty "rationally" (rational in the sense that they act in what they perceive to be their own interest) historically. They used religion to justify the war against Iraq for years and then ended it because it made strategic sense, etc.."
Not sure that merely using the license of "acting in their best interests" which yield substantial economic sanctions that penalize a Country's population can be viewed as rational. Besides isn't a theocracy by its nature irrational; I'd bet most here would think so...
This post was edited by tagterp 17 months ago
I heard it was a home grown Turkish left wing splinter group previously only involved with attacking Turkish military targets of opportunity.
Ugh. Not having Brown even running is terrible for the state and the country.
What I've been hearing is somewhere in the middle...
Turkish interior minister Moammer Guler identified the suicide bomber who detonated an explosive Friday, Feb. 1 at the US embassy in Ankara killing a Turkish security guard as Ecevit Sanli, 31, a member of the Revolutionary People’s Liberation Party/Front (DHKP/C), a left-wing terrorist group outlawed in Turkey. He was released from Turkish jail eight months ago. debkafile: The DHKP/C, which is associated with Lebanese terrorist groups and Syrian left-wing factions, was suspected of the attack in Burgas, Bulgaria last July, which left five Israeli tourists dead.
You never want to say "thank God" in the context of a terrible attack like this, but "thank God this didn't happen two months back" ... it was hard enough convincing my girlfriend to accompany me on a trip to Turkey recently when it was just Syria lobbing random bombs ... an attack on the US embassy would have killed what ended up being one of the greatest trips ever. That's a beautiful country.
He'll run for gov in 2014.
Even brutal sanctions are still worth it if they view the security benefits of pursuing a nuclear bomb/retaining ties to terrorist organizations as more important than the economic costs. Obviously neither of us are Khameini so we're both trying to guess where the thinking of Iran's leadership lies along that scale. We disagree, which is fine.
I would also say I also don't think "penalizing their population" enters into the calculation. We're not talking about a benevolent regime here. Their people suffering from economic calculations doesn't become a problem unless it threatens the regime (by inciting them to overthrow the government).
Anyway, I'm sure this will be an unpopular opinion, but I don't really see much empirical evidence of Iran acting irrationally. And by "rational" I don't mean nice or peaceful or kind to their people or any other good trait. Just that they behave in whatever way they think is best for the regime
Yep, he learned his lesson on winning a runoff election and having to win the seat again a short time (2014) later.
Your post shows little knowledge of Muslim eschatology in general and Iranian eschatology in particular. Ahmadinejad has repeatedly called for to the destruction of Israel, he personally believes he is the one to bring it about. Iran is waiting for the ascension of The Mahdi before it attacks Israel.
For such a time as this.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports