The dehumanising thing is to steadfastly believe that deep down everyone holds secular liberal values, regardless of their words and actions.

Secular discussion about conflict in the Middle East frequently discounts the possibility that self-professed religious fundamentalists are in fact religious fundamentalists. A lot of Israeli settlers really do believe that they are fulfilling a sacred duty. A lot of Palestinians really do believe that becoming a martyr for al-Aqsa guarantees them an eternity in paradise. A lot of American Evangelicals really do believe that conflict in the Middle East will bring about the day of judgement.

I might believe that we live in a godless and meaningless universe in which death is final, but that puts me in a very small minority. Most people -throughout history and across the world - frequently act in ways that are totally irrational from a secular perspective, but are perfectly logical within a framework of faith.

You’d need to make a distinction between the Iranian regime, a corrupt band of thieves in charge of the government, infused by religion, and the Iranian people, who have been suffering through this for almost half a century. Any criticism is directed against the former, and fully valid: These people are fanatical idiots, albeit dangerous.

That is why they formed the Axis of Resistance. They will act through their proxies. And imagine if Hezbollah or the Houthis got nuclear weapons, the whole world would be threatened.

> the whole world would be threatened.

Why? What do Hezbollah or the Houthis care about the world? They fight Israel, which is a genocidal regime.

This even ignoring the ludicrous idea that if they got a nuclear weapon they could deliver it anywhere.

Why do Al-quaeda organzied september 11 attacks? I can give countless example to show that they doesnt need a reason to attack. Its just religion that matters and their goal of global islamisation. Recently in pahalgam they killed 26 civllians by asking their religion and verifying it by asking them to pray.

You said israel regime as genocidal? What was the cause of all this issues? How many was killed in october attacks in israel? Why did they held hostages from different countries? So, yes i strongly believe that those terrorist doesnt need a reason to attack. Their goal is global islamisation. Khamenei had openly said that their number 1 enemy is America.

  > To suggest Iran would do it anyway is equivalent to saying that they're completely, crazy, fanatical, genocidal and stupid

It's the Iranian government saying they'd do it, not westerners. And you seem to have some sort of culture complex. Their culture is different than yours (not better, not worse, but different) and for them dying to liberate land from infidels is not crazy, it is the highest honour their society bestows.

There is nothing racist or dehumanising about acknowledging cultures different from your own. In fact, I would say that assuming everybody adheres to your cultural values is the racist position.

Isn't Israel a defacto theocracy too?

No, Israel is not using religious norms or holy scriptures as the law, and establishes no state religion. Iran's constitution directly says that the norms of the Sharia law are its foundation, and makes Shia Islam the state religion.

"Jewish State" literally means religious norms and holy scriptures are considered a law. Rabbinical courts are part of the Israeli legal system, which operates religious courts in parallel to the civil court system.

The rabbinical courts exist for sorting out religious issues, such as religious marriages and divorces of Jewish citizens. Judaism is not even special-cased: «Such courts exist for the recognized religious communities in Israel, including Muslim courts, Christian courts, and Jewish Rabbinical courts.» (Wikipedia).

The Basic Laws, which sort of comprise the makeshift constitution of Israel, don't seem to make any religious references, but rather refer to the founding UN principles like human rights.

My apartment rental agreement had a clause all "all disagreements are to be resolved in rabbinical court". Reach of the religious courts is unlimited.

Even civil courts are allowed to refer to holy texts if the law is not clear.

Wow, that's wild! :-/

i believe it's only in some specific cases when both parties agreed to defer to religious laws.

could you please show me any law in israel, that gives blanket approval to civil courts to refer to holy texts if the law is not clear ?

you know such a clause in a rental agreement would be legal in the US as well, right? Binding arbitration clauses are legal in rental agreements at least in many parts of the US and agreeing to a rabbinical court to be the arbitrator is legal as well.

I would say the US is too at this point, given continued references to god by its leaders. A country where a senator can say he supports a certain foreign policy because it's written in the Bible?

Let's call them what comes with that too, then; do we have AIPAC sympathizers in here?

Can you explain your comment a bit more please?

No, it's not.

They might be fanatical, but to the point of desiring the destruction of themselves, their loved ones, their country, their culture, their literature, their history.. just to inflict genocide on others? This is a dehumanising thought.

Besides, the fanatical leader of that country has said in clear terms that they consider nuclear weapons forbidden by their religion. They have also said in clear terms that oppose the "Israeli regime" and the existence of Israel as a political entity- that's what they mean by "destruction of Israel", not nuking it.

In 1930s and early 1940s, emperor Hirohito of Japan approved of a number of terrible things done by the Japanese imperial armed forces to people of China and Korea, and warred bitterly with the US. But once he realized that he's losing the war, and Japan can be just destroyed by nuclear bombs, he decided to surrender, in order to avoid the complete destruction of his country and senseless deaths of Japanese people. (This is somehow documented.) He cared about the Japanese and Japan more than he cared about his majesty, or honor, or abstract ideas; he agreed to abdicate of all his powers.

Sadly, I highly doubt that the regime of the ayatollahs is going to act like that, instead of fighting fanatically to the bitter end and the last drop of Iranian blood if need be. (A bitter end is very far from the current situation though.)

yes I think so, if they believe that they are stopping another genocide then they'd conceivably be willing to risk their own genocide to help do what's right.

To suggest Iran would do it anyway would actually just be taking Iranian leadership at their word.