[davidwitt415]

The more salient questions are, a.) why would they think that way, and b.) why would you characterize their stance that way?

Briefly, the anger felt by Iranians is due to their support for their fellow Muslims, the Palestinians, and their extreme mistreatment at the hands of the Israeli government. Note this support even though Iranians are Shia and Palestinians are Sunni.

To answer b.) both Israel and Saudi Arabia view Iran and an enemy due to a regional power struggle, where Iran stands in opposition to both. The promotion of Iran as Public Enemy #1 in the ME says more about maximalist Zionist power projection, and Natanyahu's lust for power than anything else. For example, Iran was abiding by the JCPOA, as verified by IAEA inspectors, while Natanyahu was inciting action against Iran, as rapproachment was not in his interests. The canard here is that Natanyahu was claiming Iran was trying to make nuclear weapons and that was unacceptable, despite the fact that Israel already has a well-known but never publicly acknowledged nuclear arsenal, and are famously not a part of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Even with nuclear weapons it is ridiculous to think that the Iranians do not understand the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction vis a vis Israel.

[jariel]

"why would you characterize their stance that way?" Because it's the publicly stated intentions of the current government there. We should take their statement at face value.

[davidwitt415]

Citation please.

[jariel]

No - I don't need to provide citations for widely publicized, factual information.

But why don't you take Khamenei's own words, literally from his Twitter account: "Our stance against Israel is the same stance we have always taken. #Israel is a malignant cancerous tumor in the West Asian region that has to be removed and eradicated: it is possible and it will happen." [1]

Or a random sampling of the same stated objective through the times:

"Israel should be wiped off map, says Iran's president" - The Guardian [2]

"Referring to comments by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the leader of the Islamic revolution, Admadinejad said, "As the imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map."" - NY Times [3]

"Brigadier General Mohammad Reza Naqdi, who leads the Basij volunteer force, made the declaration to mark Islamic Republic Day in Tehran on Tuesday. “Wiping Israel off the map is not up for negotiation,”" The Independent [4]

This is not a single statement or an off-hand remark - it's made consistently, publicly and empathetically by many representatives of the Iranian regime, without retraction or contextualisation afterwards, throughout the entire history of the regime.

These statements must be taken as a credible articulation of the objectives of Iran - and considered in the context of their goals of obtaining nuclear weapons.

As for the article, I would love to visit Iran, but they are grabbing Western tourists willy nilly, accusing them of being spies etc., so that won't be happening.

[1] https://twitter.com/khamenei_ir/status/1003332853525110784

[2] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/oct/27/israel.iran

[3] https://www.nytimes.com./2005/10/27/world/africa/wipe-israel...

[4] https://www.jpost.com/International/Merkels-govt-says-Irans-...

[refurb]

Huh? They’ve said it several times.

https://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/27/world/africa/wipe-israel-...

[yyyk]

"Briefly, the anger felt by Iranians is due to their support for their fellow Muslims, the Palestinians, and their extreme mistreatment at the hands of the Israeli government."

Yes, we see how angry they are when the extreme mistreatment of Syrian Sunnis or Chinese Uighur. Ah, wait, they even take part in the former. They do a fine job of making it appear the real issue is religious.

"For example, Iran was abiding by the JCPOA, as verified by IAEA inspectors,"

JCPOA and UNSC 2231 included far more than IAEA inspections, and Iran was NOT abiding by the other issues (ballistic missiles, heavy water, keeping a spare set of nuclear tubes for Arak, etc.).

People mostly repeat IAEA because they are unaware of the other issues, or that the deal had time limits on most inspection issues. Some are aware but prefer to elide it.

"The canard here is that Natanyahu was claiming Iran was trying to make nuclear weapons and that was unacceptable, despite the fact that Israel already has a well-known but never publicly acknowledged nuclear arsenal"

Israel isn't threatening to destroy Iran, it's the other way around.

"Even with nuclear weapons it is ridiculous to think that the Iranians do not understand the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction vis a vis Israel."

Some Iranian don't[0]. If you want to entrust the safety of the world to that, well...

[0] https://www.memri.org/reports/former-iranian-president-rafsa...

[davidwitt415]

MEMRI is a well-known neocon propaganda outlet, so your arguments merely reflect this.

From Sourcewatch: "Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) is an Israeli propaganda organization that selectively translates materials from the Arab/Muslim/Iranian press purportedly demonstrating hostility against Israel/Jews."

https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Middle_East_Media_Rese...

[yyyk]

Note how nothing at your 'source' has any evidence that MEMRI tends to mistranslate quotes or provide them out of context.

When it comes down to it, it seems the complaint is that the people Sourcewatch quotes don't like MEMRI's alleged politics, and therefore we should ignore all evidence. IMHO, an ideological echo chamber is bad for the mind.

[davidwitt415]

Easy enough to find, here's an editor of the Guardian calling out the President of MEMRI for just that:

"The fact is that you gave evidence to Congress claiming that Gallup had found "a large majority of the Arab world" who believed the September 11 attacks "were the work of the United States government itself and/or a Jewish conspiracy". What you said is untrue, and Gallup has confirmed that. I trust you will now apologise to Congress for your false testimony. Finally, in the light of your most recent remarks about me personally, I will make clear now that your nationality and religion do not bother me in the slightest. What does concern me is your political agenda, and the deceitful way you go about promoting it."

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/jan/28/israel2

Regarding the 'ideological echo chamber,' I fully concur. MEMRI's board has included such characters as Elliot Abrams, Donald Rumsfeld, and John Bolton, so the discriminating reader should take that into consideration as well.

[refurb]

Hmmm... looks like it was a Pew poll and indeed, most citizens of Arab nations don’t believe Arabs were responsible for 9/11.

When asked who was responsible, they said “America or Israel”[1]

So while MEMRI’s statement is not factually correct (it wasn’t Gallup and they didn’t ask the question of who did 9/11 to everyone), it’s not that far off base.

[1]https://newrepublic.com/article/94546/middle-east-radical-co...

[calcifer]

> [the] statement is not factually correct

"not factually correct" is a sickening euphemism for "a lie".

[yyyk]

In that exchange, both sides agree that Carmon was referring to a poll whose details - even at the time of the exchange - were not publicly available on the net. Given that such finding would not contradict other polls of the time, it's quite possible that this is in fact what the poll found. So I'm not sure this exchange establishes what you think it does.

I do agree that readers should take into account possible biases of their sources.

[refurb]

As selective as they might be, they are shedding light on what is being said in Iran and other countries in the region.