Get the Ricochet app
Ricochet will work fine in a browser on your mobile devices, but for the best experience please download our app.
If you were curious how MSNBC was presenting Monday night’s news about the ceasefire, read on. Warning: may cause slight dizziness and nausea.
They interviewed an Iranian journalist working in Tehran. He explained that Iran agreed to the ceasefire for the following reasons. (1) The regime was confident that any damage done to the nuclear program was temporary. The enriched uranium was in a safe place, all facilities and equipment could be rebuilt or replaced, and, notwithstanding recent losses, Iran had a large cadre of experts in the field of nuclear weapons. (2) He asserted that Israel’s and America’s attacks had unified the country in supporting the government. (3) Iran achieved its war objectives by demonstrating that it could go toe-to-toe with both Israel and the United States by sending missiles in the direction of both.
He also asserted that Israel needed the ceasefire because it was running out of missile interceptors, while Iran still had plenty of unfired missiles.
Unlike Baghdad Bob or Monty Python’s Black Knight, this guy did not deliver his lines with entertaining braggadocio. His tone and demeanor were closer to a hostage reading from his captor’s script.
While watching, I tried to imagine attempting to negotiate a ceasefire agreement when the other side was dedicated to never uttering a true word during negotiations.
Then I wondered what possible value a ceasefire agreement could have if there was zero confidence that the other side would comply. Where is the quid pro quo if your side is honor-bound to comply and the other side feels honor-bound to not comply?
Gratuitous advice to Israel: negotiate nothing, sign nothing. Simply articulate the conditions under which Israel will, or will not, take further kinetic actions. Draw red lines. What Iran says in response is meaningless. Draw red lines and assert your intention to unilaterally enforce them. Is this approach disrespectful to Iran’s current leadership? Absolutely. They lie, cheat, and seek to kill you. Disrespect is called for.
G-Pub
Discussion (50)
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
In other words: identify one thing Iran has done ever to demonstrate trustworthiness. It’s like dealing with an addict - you can’t influence their behaviour, only manage your own. Respect is irrelevant. Addicts will lie, so will tyrants.
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
You're right: it's enough to make you sick. I think you are precisely right in your last paragraph. Iran cannot be trusted and Israel must draw its red lines.
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
Bravo Grandpa. This is not the time for a cease fire. This is the time for a total obliteration of Iran’s offensive capabilities, nuke program and governance. Our present advantage is only one Dem president away from being lost and so we must get complete capitulation while we can.
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
For every missile Iran launches, destroy that launcher and one more . . .
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
The following is from The Middle East Forum:
meforum.org
Open link
"To better understand Islam, one must appreciate the thoroughly legalistic nature of the religion. According to sharia (Islamic law) every conceivable human act is categorised as being either forbidden, discouraged, permissible, recommended, or obligatory.
“Common sense” or “universal opinion” has little to do with Islam’s notions of right and wrong. Only what Allah (through the Quran) and his prophet Muhammad (through the Hadith) have to say about any given issue matters; and how Islam’s greatest theologians and jurists – collectively known as the ulema, literally, “they who know” – have articulated it.
According to sharia, in certain situations, deception – also known as ‘taqiyya’, based on Quranic terminology, – is not only permitted but sometimes obligatory. For instance, contrary to early Christian history, Muslims who must choose between either recanting Islam or being put to death are not only permitted to lie by pretending to have apostatised, but many jurists have decreed that, according to Quran 4:29, Muslims are obligated to lie in such instances."
Overall, I cannot vouch for this forum being unbiased. However, the above does comport with other sources I've read over the years, particularly books by Bernard Lewis, and the Q'ran.
You're seeing five of 50 comments. Sign in, or join for just $5 per month, to read them all and add your own.