impressions versus reality - Israel vs. Iran

After the international atomic agency, based on data collected of the state of advanced setup of centrifuges, declared that Iran has only a month needed to assemble a nuclear weapon, Israel publicly announced that they will shortly strike iran to prevent this.

A public announcement by Iran is thus really a political move to move away from such a possible disastrous course, or is it a vindication of their actual action, whether their disclosure will be a sign of a real follow up of their words?

There is so much uncertainty in the world, so much hedging, deceptive threats meant to move adversaries away from resolves, much apparent sabre rattling, often to mask media assaults, that for the average person on the street, nothing is really what it seems, and the cynical attitude becomes one of relegating news items into media hype.

However, given the history of both israel, who has been known to strike out in unexpected ways and times,and of iran, who maybe has learned a thing or two from the Argos incident relating the hostage crises, under the Carter administration, is this becoming more than a show of words, a barring of fangs? Is geopolitical stability once again , just more work for think tanks to mull over and declare their verdict based on the most probable scenario, or is here a new quirk slipping , a quantum event of both: literal and figurative substance?

The theatre of the absurd of middle eastern shifts of diplomatic wrangling means something more than just business as usual, the explosion over an unhappy region is overtly obvious, and the band aid solutions have all but failed to contain the anger,justified or not, coming out of almost insane sources of the societal psyche, reverting the so called wondrous arab spring into it’s usual obsessive preoccupation over the paranoiac disposition of age old arch enemies.

High placed personages in the World’s diplomatic community present a picture of a different sort. There is a feeling projected that the world’s premier powers are just too big, too clever in their saturated power to have their feathers ruffled much by insignificant areas of the world. But is this sort of thinking an old Klaunzerberg relic, still unaccepting the last vestiges resisting the application of quantum consciousness which has been capture by the fission, rather than the vision of a totally new set of rules?

This whole Israel-Iran nuclear squabble has been on for a long time. Iran clearly is trying to develop nuclear weapons. Israel pretend not to have nuclear weapons, but everyone knows they do. It’s a bit childish really.

The much bigger news is Saudi Arabia turning down a seat on the UN Security Council in the wake of the failed attempt to topple Assad in Syria.

I have no idea what your last paragraph means.

 There seems at least a public perception that the world capitalism is holding together vastly superior in all ways, to rebellious and negligible minor sabre rattlers, who do so on account of their innate need to attain significance at any cost.  

The fall of the soviet union is a prime reminder of how even grand powers can be brought down, so what do 98 pound weaklings like iran and north Korea think? They are just being paranoid on account of not being able to see the reality of the modern world’s values all around them.

 Saudi Arabia is another matter, agreeably. However their stance and actions may be only cashing in on the foreign policy inadequacies of the current US administration, correctly calculating, that he is a lame duck, and a below par intellect in the second place, and they will have a seat for sure during the succeeding administration to be sure, while earning unexpected credits world wide. They may have more to gain by deferring a mostly symbolic good will gesture toward them by the international community, who see nothing in the Saudis except black gold.

Israel has nuclear weapons. Israel is a nation of hypocrites.

Perhaps Iran’s nuclear arms is a defense against Israeli nuclear weapons.

For this I don’t blame the Iranians or any other nation for building them.

It’s clear that nations who aren’t nuclearly armed are bullied by much larger aggressors.

How does not wanting your enemy (perceived or real) to have the same power as you make you a hypocrite?

In part, but it’s also just an extension of Iran/Persia’s Will To Power as a nation-state.

I do, because building abominations is suicidal.

Syria has never had nuclear weapons, but they had the good sense to get into bed with someone who did.