As I have said before here on Winds Iran's Spoiling Attack, Iran will have nuclear weapons early in the next Presidential Administration. This realization is starting to dawn on Media opinion makers overseas and in America. Unfortunately, the Media don’t want to follow the logic chain to its final conclusion and are missing important signs and portents of what is to come -- namely, America’s preparations for the military conquest and occupation campaigns against the Iranian Islamic Republic.
When even the New York Times begins to admit that "diplomacy" has failed, you know we are headed for the final acts of this drama. Fareed Zakaria has just recognized some of the implications of Iran's nuclear program in his latest column in Newsweek. This is Zakaria's key passage:
"That's where things stand now, with the clock ticking fast. If Iran were to go nuclear, it would have dramatic effects. It would place nuclear materials in the hands of a radical regime that has ties to unsavory groups. It would signal to other countries that it's possible to break the nuclear taboo. And it would revolutionize the Middle East. Saudi Arabia and Egypt would feel threatened by Iran's bomb and would start their own search for nuclear technology. (Saudi Arabia probably could not make a bomb but it could certainly buy necessary technology from a country like Pakistan. In fact, we don't really know all of the buyers who patronized Pakistani scientist A. Q. Khan's nuclear supermarket. It's quite possible Saudi Arabia already has a few elements of such a program.) And then there is Israel, which has long seen Iran as its greatest threat. It is unlikely to sit passively while Iran develops a nuclear bomb. The powerful Iranian politician Ali Rafsanjani has publicly speculated about a nuclear exchange with Israel. If Iran's program went forward, at some point Israel would almost certainly try to destroy it using airstrikes, as it did Iraq's reactor in Osirik. Such an action would, of course, create a massive political crisis in the region."
If anything, Zakaria is gravely underestimating the time line America is working with. Articles from London papers in late July make that clear.
This is from the London Daily Telegraph:
"Iran Starts Atom Tests In Defiance Of EU Deal
By Anton La Guardia, Diplomatic EditorIran has broken the seals on nuclear equipment monitored by United Nations inspectors and is once again building and testing machines that could make fissile material for nuclear weapons.
Teheran's move, revealed to The Daily Telegraph yesterday by western sources, breaks a deal with European countries under which Iran suspended "all uranium enrichment activity".
It will also exacerbate fears that the regional power is determined to make an atomic bomb within a few years."
This from the Times of London dated July 27, 2004:
"Iranians Will Soon Be Able To Create A Nuclear Bomb, Claim Diplomats
By Michael Evans, Defence EditorIRAN is just "months away" from having the capability to enrich uranium for a nuclear bomb, Western diplomatic sources said yesterday.
Through diplomatic manoeuvring, Tehran had bought time to complete its research on constructing a centrifuge system to produce highly enriched uranium, the sources told The Times.
The Iranians had clearly chosen that track for developing bomb-grade material over creating plutonium from its nuclear reactor facility at Bushehr, they said.
"Iran appears to be further advanced in acquiring the relevant nuclear technology than we had initially thought," said one British official."
So what has these British diplomats punching the panic button? Try these reports from the Washington Times and Agence France-Presse via Spacewar.com. There were traces of highly enriched uranium found at two separate sites in the Iranian cities of Natanz and Tehran by the IAEA. It is suspected that in addition to getting foreign centrifuges, the 36% enriched uranium traces detected came from a Russian research reactor:
"Nuclear expert David Albright told AFP from Washington that Iran's "centrifuge story just doesn't hold up".
He said the numbers made it look like Iran rather than doing research was seeking "to go into serial production." Highly enriched uranium (HEU) can be nuclear fuel or the explosive in an atom bomb. Particles of 36-percent HEU found at Farayand, a new site after IAEA inspectors had last year detected such particles at the Kalaye Electric Comany in Tehran, leave the IAEA unable to confirm Iran's claims the contamination was from imported equipment, probably from Pakistan, rather than a sign the Iranians may have been trying to enrich uranium on their own.
"This means they're probably lying about the origin of that 36 percent enriched uranium," a Western diplomat close to the IAEA said.
"Obviously they either imported the enriched uranium from abroad or it originated in their own enrichment," the diplomat said, mentioning that the HEU might be from a Russian research reactor."
The reality of Russian pre-enriched unranium feed stock for its centrifuges means that Iran is months, and by that I mean less than a year and perhaps as few as six months, away from having weapons grade highly enriched uranium for nuclear devices.
What was learned when Libya turned "states evidence" and revealed the wide spread dispersal of Chinese fission warhead designs via Pakistani scientist A. Q. Khan, means these devices will be operational missile warheads of a proven design.
SHARON WILL ACT AGAINST THAT THREAT!
In Iran’s Spoiling Attack I said that these were the stakes we faced:
"More than Iraq is at stake here there are other players, notably Israel. Iran's mullahs are developing nuclear weapons, which they view as a magic shield against America and a sword to destroy the Jewish state. They have made overt threats to nuke Israel as soon as they have nuclear weapons, and said they believe Iran would survive any exchange of nukes with Israel. The mullahs do not at all understand that their inflammatory rhetoric intended for domestic political effect has a whole new meaning for other countries when backed up with nuclear weapons.
This brings up the following question:
Does anyone doubt for a moment that Israel will, absolutely, positively WILL preemptively destroy Iranian nuclear facilities, with nukes if necessary, to prevent another holocaust?"
And that as a result we would invade Iran after Israeli air strikes on its nuclear facilities because:
"...I don't see America waiting for an Iranian revolution. We will do it ourselves no later than my friend's fall/winter 2005 prediction. We both feel that the deal between Sharon and Bush on this has already been made. If a successful Iranian revolution makes the invasion unnecessary, fine, but we won't take the risk of delay.
Iran is at war with us whether or not we want to be at war with them. Nukes are on the table now, and they are not our nukes. We are on a count down to invasion to keep the nuclear genie from escaping.
Much more is at stake in November's presidential election than President Bush is willing to admit."
You heard it here before, now you will hear it again... I told you so.
I just have to wonder - what did Russia think it would get out of helping Iran get nuclear weapons? A secure southern border?
Russia probubly hoped Iran would use the nukes us [USA].
Most people tend to wait until events have actually happened before asserting an "I told you so," Trent, so I admire your boldness in not bothering with such petty, and apparently unecessary, details.
It cannot be overstated how devasting a nuclear armed Iran would be to our security and foriegn policy.
There is a scary meme developing (particularly in Europe) that Iran's nuclear program is simply a deterrant to the US, and hence no real problem. We're going to start hearing that is growing murmurs. It must be addressed.
Iranian mullahs have publicly advocated using nuclear weapons on Israel and accepting the responsding strike. Big Satan, Little Satan folks. Even if by some miracle, Iran doesnt use or distribute its nukes, the leverage that such a deterrant would create in the region is chilling. These maniacs are blatantly taking on an angry US in Iraq without nukes, what will they do with that trump card?
This is critical.
The Islamist war began in our embassy in Tehran 25 years ago. The only successful path out of Iraq must perforce lead through Tehran.
No one who knows is worried. No one even cares.
:-(
Here's the URL for today's Iranian nukes story in the Telegraph
- plus an excerpt:
Hand over nuclear weapons and know-how, Iran tells Britain
By Anton La Guardia, Diplomatic Editor
(Filed: 11/08/2004)
Iran has issued an extraordinary list of demands to Britain and other European countries, telling them to provide advanced nuclear technology, conventional weapons and a security guarantee against nuclear attack by Israel.
Teheran's request, said by British officials to have "gone down very badly", sharply raises the stakes in the crisis over Iran's nuclear programme, which Britain and America believe is aimed at making an atomic bomb.
... More astonishingly, Iran said the EU-3 should agree to meet Iran's requirements for conventional weapons and even "provide security assurances" against a nuclear attack on Iran.
This is a reference to Israel's nuclear arsenal, believed to include some 200 warheads and long-range missiles to deliver them.
The EU-3 are still debating over how to respond, but British officials said the Iranian letter was "extremely surprising, given the delicate state of process". Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, will have to decide whether to adopt a more confrontational policy ...
The crucial part of Trent's opening post is that the mullahs are using someone else's pre-enriched uranium to feed their centrifuges. This means that they can produce weapons-grade fissionables years faster than starting from scratch.
And the mullahs have useable warhead designs, courtesy of China and Pakistan, for the particular grade of fissionables they can produce.
IMO Trent's 6-12 month estimate for Iran to have its first home-grown nuclear weapons is right on the money.
I tried to start a pool on the Predictions Market of Jim Dunnigan's Strategy Page for when the first Israeli air attack on Iran takes place, but Jim refused. My money is on October 23, 2004 - about ten weeks off.
Jim did put up my prediction that our invasion of Iran will officially commence no later than October 31, 2005.
http://www.strategypage.com/prediction_market/default.asp
"American Invasion of Iran Officially Commences. Defined as the first embed entering Iran w/o Iranian govt. permission, because our SOF will have already been operating there for some time."
362 pro futures, 898 con.
OK, so with Iran, what do you think of:
1. American public's desire to fight another war after Afghanistan (who?) and Iraq (intelligence failures).
2. World's (including UK's) desire to back us.
I guess my fear is that with all the resources (political, military, economic, emotional) spent on Iraq, a country that nows appears to be not the gathering, immediate threat that people thought it was, that it will negatively impact our response to and success with a legitimate threat.
Gary,
There are none so deaf as those who do not wish to hear and there are none so blind as those who do not wish to see.
The rest of us can read what James Dunnigan has up over at Strategypage.com
See this link
eh. this may all be brinksmanship.
so john bolton and some guys from the Aman leak to the rightwing press to send a message.
will it be received?
if so, there won't be a rumble. there may be some backroom deals going on to allow Iran to save face. "I told you so" is premature.
praktike,
Some people learn from other people's mistakes and experiances. Others must learn it for themselves. You are one of the latter type of people.
What is going down would be easily predictable if you had any sort of training in the process of history.
I thwacked Joe Katzman hard about that in the discussion section of Iran's Spoiling Attack" when he refused to accept how Israel's Jewry is is changing because of the War. This is what I told him:
Anyone with the least understanding of historical process would be aware that no deal is possible with the Iranians.
It is the nature of irrational regimes to act even more irrational under pressure as the factions inside the regime vie for power. The most offensive to the outside world symbolic acts are chosen to further the power interests of one or more factions at the expense of the larger national interest. That is what the snub and Iranian demand for bribes from the "EU-3" Tom Holsinger posted up thread was all about.
Nukes are seen by the Iranian Mullahocracy as the ultimate magical tool guaranteeing protection from the most irrational courses of action. None of the Mullahocracy's power factions will give them up. Getting into a nuclear war scares them less than getting eaten by their political opponents.
You also refuse to accept how Israel's forthcoming air strikes against Iran are going to change American and world politics to facilitate America's conquest of Iran.
If you will not learn from others, events must educate you. Have faith, in this you are just like most Americans.
Quite true. But -- and I'm not clear on whether you noticed this -- I didn't disagree with you in the slightest, or say you were wrong.
I merely observed that most people actually wait until an event has happened before saying "I told you so!" to others, and said I therefore admire your boldness.
You seem to be replying as if I had disagreed with you in some fashion. Did I?
On a separate topic, my goodness, could your response to praktike be any more condescending? I'm not sure I see how, but clearly you have greater skill here than I, and I'm pretty bad about that at times myself.
I think this story from World Tribune leaves no doubt about what is going to happen soon.
Meanwhile in Iran: House says stop nuke program at all costs
SPECIAL TO WORLD TRIBUNE.COM
Monday, May 10, 2004
The House of Representatives has called on the United States and the rest of the international community to stop Iran's nuclear weapons programs by any means.
The nonbinding House resolution, passed 376-3, was said to have endorsed the Bush administration's doctrine of preventive war in the case of Iran's nuclear weapons. The resolution called on the United States and other members of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to "use all appropriate means to deter, dissuade and prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons."
The House resolution called on Europe, Japan and Russia to sever commercial and energy ties with Iran, Middle East Newsline reported. House members said the resolution was meant to pave the way for a more aggressive U.S. stance toward Iran's secret development of nuclear weapons.
They said this could include additional sanctions on nuclear suppliers to Iran as well as military options.
Rep. Dennis Kucinich, an Ohio Democrat, said similar wording was used by the Bush administration to justify its decision to launch war against the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein. Kucinich voted against the resolution.
The resolution passed on May 6 referred to Iran's long-secret Natanz uranium enrichment facility. The House said Natanz could produce enough highly enriched uranium for between 25 to 40 nuclear weapons a year.
"It has engaged in a systematic campaign of deception and manipulation to hide its true intentions and keep its large scale nuclear efforts a secret," Rep. Dan Burton, an Indiana Republican, said.
The resolution said Iran was continuing "deceptions and falsehoods" in concealing its nuclear weapons program.
"It is abundantly clear that Iran remains committed to a nuclear weapons program," the resolution said.
and direct from Iran....
Khamenei: We Send a Curse to the Zionists and to America
If anyone has any doubt about Iran's intentions, just have a look at the videos from MEMRI TV
This one is rather disturbing.
6/3/2004 Clip No. 115
Iranian Leader, 'Ali Khamenei, spoke on the 15th anniversary of Khomeini's death, during which he attacked the US. Following are excerpts from his address, broadcast by Channel 1 of the Iranian TV.
Crowd:
Allah Akbar
Allah Akbar
Allah Akbar
Khamenei is the leader
Death to the opposers of the rule of the jurisprudent
Death to America
Death to England
Death to the hypocrites (Mojahedin-e Khalq) and Saddam
Death to Israel
Ali Khamenei:
The Zionists' crime…
Crowd:
Oh free leader, we are prepared, prepared
Oh free leader, we are prepared, prepared
Oh free leader, we are prepared, prepared
Oh free leader, we are prepared, prepared
Ali Khamenei:
We condemn the Zionists' crime in Palestine. The barbaric behavior of the Zionist pillaging regime in the State of Palestine towards the population, destroying homes, killing children, killing a crippled, sick old man like Sheikh Ahmad Yassin, turning thousands of Palestinian children into refugees – we denounce these horrific crimes and send a curse to those who committed these crimes and to America who supports these criminals.
Crowd:
Allah Akbar
Allah Akbar
Allah Akbar
Khamenei is the leader
Death to the opposers of the rule of the jurisprudent
Death to America
Death to England
Death to the hypocrites (Mojahedin-e Khalq) and Saddam
Death to Israel
'Ali Khamenei:
Despite the enemy's claims, we are not involved in Iraq's affairs. Iraq belongs to the Iraqi people. The occupiers must not remain in Iraq for even one more day. Not a drop of Iraqi oil belongs to them. They must not appoint even one man to a position in Iraq. They are nobodies.
Crowd:
Allah Akbar
Allah Akbar
Allah Akbar
Khamenei is the leader
Death to the opposers of the rule of the jurisprudent
Death to America
Death to England
Death to the hypocrites (Mojahedin-e Khalq) and Saddam
Death to Israel
'Ali Khamenei:
We believe that today, in comparison to last year, America's business in Iraq is more entangled and will get more entangled with every day that goes by. Whether America accepts it or not, whether it wants to or not, it has failed in Iraq. Thus far, it has failed.
Crowd:
Allah Akbar
Allah Akbar
Allah Akbar
Khamenei is the leader
Death to the opposers of the rule of the jurisprudent
Death to America
Death to England
Death to the hypocrites (Mojahedin-e Khalq) and Saddam
Death to Israel
They proclaim they are ready, the question is, are we??
SBD
Again without addressing the substance of anyone's arguments here, I'd like to address a completely tangential point, I'm afraid.
SBD, this is purely a personal opinion, but I'd never heard of the "World Herald Tribune," so naturally I went to look at it, to see if it seemed a credible source.
I'd kinda suggest -- purely a personal opinion -- that in future when you want to make a point, you use a credible source (not that I'm saying there's anything wrong with the specific article you quoted), because also on the site of the WHT is this: So, y'know, it's just barely possible not everyone will go "oh, the Tribune, sure, I'd never question them."I might be wrong, of course.
On the MEMRI quote, again, I'm not disagreeing that Khamenei isn't thoroughly and entirely hostile and aggressive towards the U.S. (let alone The Zionist Entity), but I do keep in mind that they've been doing exercises such as you cite for twenty-five years now, so this, in itself, is not news.
Iran a 'radical regime that has ties to unsavory groups'? To me, that sounds like Israel or the US of A. Before bombing Iran, lets bomb those two countries first. I'm sure Iranians will feel much safer.
praktike,
I'd have to wager than will not be the Iranians who are offered a graceful way to save face.
Mark Buehner raises a great point about a potential EU climbdown. My prediction (since this is seems to be the thread for it) is that the EU support for preventing Iran from acquiring nukes is going to erode.
The good cop (EU) has failed - and this realization is dawning on them. Rather than concede the abject failure of the soft and the gentle, and let the bad cop (US) take things to the UNSC and create diplomatic ultimatum, the EU will simply turn on the bad cop. "OK Iran, I see, you have to face those nasty Americans and Israelis. Never mind".
Not that the EU really wants Iran to have nukes, it just can't prevent it. How high does the pain level have to be for the EU to admit diplomatic failure and back the US? Perhaps higher than the pain level of a nuclear Iran...
At this juncture it seems appropriate to bring up the 1000+ fusion weapons already in the hands of Vladimir Putin, not the world's nicest character. We should also remember that the only country to have used nukes on civilians still has several thousand around for reasons of "deterrence", i.e. to incinerate millions of hapless civilians who happen to live near the enemy political leadership.
So you'll forgive me if I'm not that worked up over this latest batch of crazed nutjobs who may (or may not) succeed in cobbling together a few fission devices.
Side Note: Every guard in the Strategic Rocket Forces who has declined the opportunity to sell out the nuclear materials he's guarding is My Personal Friend. If Ivan Ivanov Ivanovich, who's sold his blood for food rather than sell nukes to crazies, shows up at my front door tomorrow, he gets to crash on my couch for as long as he needs to.
The same obviously goes for the guardians of the Pakistani nuclear arsenal as well.
Being a good honest guard is tough. Long boring hours, low pay, ceaseless vigilance, and the eventual bullet to the back of the head.
T.J. Madison:
There is a serious distinction between rational and irrational brutality. Putin is the former, and the mullahs the latter.
I had expected the spin, back sliding and disinformation machine to kick off quickly on Iran, but this passage from the London Daily Telegraph article Tom Holsinger exerpted:
...strikes disheartenly close to home.
First we have diplomats speaking to AFP saying that we have Russian enriched uranium in the Iranian IAEA finding and now the Telegraph is only speaking of Pakistanis fissile material.
We can expect more of these kind of games to kick off soon.
A note to those who insist on comparing the US or Israel to rogue regimes like Iran: serious people roll right past your nonsensical comments. If you cant tell the difference you've already surrendered. I hope there is room enough under the bed for the appeasers, the relativists, and the Euros. When Iran has a 200+ year history of fighting for democracy, standing against fascism, stamping out racism, and inventing peaceful institutions like the UN, then maybe we wont consider them a threat. Instead they have a twenty year record of brutal fascism, stamping on human rights, training and deploying terrorists aimed specifically at women and children, and basically destabalizing the entire region. If you cant see the difference I honestly feel sorry for you, and worried for the rest of us.
Ed Morrisey seems to think that Iran already has nukes, which explains their ultimatum to EU-3.
Trent: Spectacular post! I've been waiting for it. :-)
I went back and read 'Spoiling Attack' again, and I do believe you're entitled to say "I told you so!", IMHO. Actually, you may be a little prescient.
But when you say "Does anyone doubt for a moment that Israel will, absolutely, positively WILL preemptively destroy Iranian nuclear facilities, with nukes if necessary, to prevent another holocaust?", I'm still not sure the Iraelis would use nukes in a preemptive strike. And I can't really get a handle on the logistics for conventional weapons adequate for the task. Does Israel have the conventional weapons to exercise a preemptive strike against that many hardened reactor sites?
Ed Morrisey seems to think that Iran already has nukes, which explains their ultimatum to EU-3.
mark buehner:
Have a look at this - Babak is, well... nuts.
Trent:
Thought this might be of interest: Iran has two Kazakh nuclear weapons
>And I can't really get a handle on the
>logistics for conventional
>weapons adequate for the task.
jinnderella ,
One EMP nuke will wipe out the Iranian power grid, most unshielded electronic equipment and every piece of electrical equipment plugged into the electrical grid including operating nuclear centrifuges.
You cannot make nukes without a great deal of electrical power and no Israeli conventional weapons air campaign of any duration could be as effective as one high altitude nuke in halting Iranian nuclear production.
Jinderella,
Israeli logistical problems in attacking Iran would be much simplified if they aren't limited to bases in their own territory. Can you think of bases in other countries which might be made covertly available for Israeli uses?
Colt: From your excellent link-- "A top-secret report from the newly formed Russian intelligence service claims that Iran has obtained at least two nuclear warheads from a batch listed as missing from Kazakhstan. The nuclear weapons were reportedly smuggled across the border to Iran in 1991 and are under the control of Reza Amrollahi, who is head of the Iranian Organization for Atomic Energy and is also in charge of recruiting..." Those are Mr. Pol's weapons-- but he was not sure that they are still operational-- if they are Russin built and have plutonium triggers, how old are they and are they still operational?
It's a bit worrisome to see such a thread of comments in which no one has said anything about the Iranian people. The Iranian people are the greastest threat to the Islamist Mullahs who maintain the worst dictatorshsip currently in the world. If you look at the dynamics in the region, the two groups of people who are pro-American are Israelis and Iranian people. I wish that many of you would stop calling the Mullahs(Fanatics like Rafsanjani and Khamenei) Iranians. They are not Iranians, they are filthy scumbags. Btw, the Islamic Regime didn't take over or begin it's reign in the American Embassy - it began it's reign in the capitals of the WEST when they decided to create a GREEN BELT around communism and thought it was a genious idea to install fanatic regimes around the russians (ie: Afghanistan, Iran, etc..) Policies of Brezenski, the French, Brits, etc.. ast the time have brought us to the current scenario.
The discussion of nuclear weapons is so superficial and doesn't take much brains to think through. Yes, the fanatics want nukes - simple as that. The more complicated thought process and discussion we should really be having is that since we recognize the fact that the Iranian people are strongly Anti-Mullah and are pro-freedom and want nothing more than the acknowledgement from the west that "WE SUPPORT THEM IN THEIR STRUGGLE" - we must ask ourselves, why has the US not developed any clear policy in support of the people - and why do the Europeans, especially the Brits continue to maintain their strong business ties with such a repressive regime who wants TWO THING and two things only = US out of Iraq, and maximum power!???? These are the important questions..
To go on and on and on and babble about Nuclear Weapons is nonsensical and is an open declaration of our careless intelligence. The intelligent, ethical, and most productive thing to discuss is how can we as Americans, as Europeans and as all people of the world - CAMPAIGN and Push our governments to support the will of the Iranian people which will inevitably lead to the COMPLETE REMOVAL OF THIS ISLAMIC VIRUS THAT has the potential of enflaming not only the Middle East further, but the rest of the world!
We must defend freedom PERIOD!
FREE IRAN!
Tom: Iraq of course-- but wouldn't that mean both the Iraqi provisional council and the US would have to be complicit in Israel's plans?
Trent: Don't the Iranians have launch monitoring eq from the Russians-- wouldn't they launch the Kazahkstan nukes if they see incoming? If they're operational I'm sure they're armed and targetted. But I like the idea of taking down the grid.
>>There is a serious distinction between rational and irrational brutality. Putin is the former, and the mullahs the latter.
I see. What form of rational brutality is Putin saving all those nukes for?
>>Instead they have a twenty year record of brutal fascism, stamping on human rights, training and deploying terrorists aimed specifically at women and children, and basically destabalizing the entire region.
Hmm. I'm sure the civilian populations of Nagasaki and Dresden would understood these important differences.
Look, people are talking seriously about Israel using 50+ nukes against Iran in the very near future as something that may be necessary and proper. I'm not saying the leaders of Iran aren't demons -- of course they are. I'm not even sure preemptive strikes won't be justified. Maybe the plans being discussed are the best possible under the circumstances -- 1 million dead Iranians vs. 4 million dead Israelis. That said, I don't trust the Zionist leadership to act morally and ethically at other times, so why should I think they will do the right thing now?
I consider a nuclear "deterrence", Final Retaliation based "strategy" to be absolutely despicable. Using nukes proactively to hit other nations nukes before they can be launched might be acceptable. The mass murder of other nations' civilians in retaliation for WMD attacks is not acceptable. Hence I consider the "Samson Option" to be just as abominable as similar Russian, American, or Iranian war plans.
Trent, if I wanted personal insults, I'd call up my ex-girlfriend. Since I'm a nice guy, I'll refrain from embarrassing you by posting some winners from the WoC archive. Instead, I'll just say this: we'll see what happens.
FreeIran: "To go on and on and on and babble about Nuclear Weapons is nonsensical and is an open declaration of our careless intelligence. The intelligent, ethical, and most productive thing to discuss is how can we as Americans, as Europeans and as all people of the world - CAMPAIGN ..." Prob'ly the US at least is doing a lot of covert ops in Iran, and supporting a popular uprising would would be everyones's first choice. But Khomeni and company have the controls, and at least two nuclear warheads already. I think it is pretty essential to deal the current situation-- like I always say, there maybe moderates, or even progressives, but the fundamentalists have the controls.
The WEST (Namely Brits, French Germans) must stop advising and doing business with the Mullahs! Bush should take a STRONG STRONG stance against the Mullahs ASAP - likely during Convention. GIVE ULTIMATEM - Provide FREE REFERENDUM for the Iranian people - and agree to all conditions! No buts involved..
It's a SMALL Mafia of fanatics thast have the control. Stop calling people reformers.. there are no reformers in the current government. Reform is a bad word - stop using it. It was created by Khamenei and friends to fool the Iranian peple and most importantly the WEST into thinking there was some voice of reform in the Islamic Republic.. It's a card they play all the time - and it's getting OLD!
the iranian people don't want REFORM - they want an OVERHAUL of the current system. PURE - REAL freedom like Americans have in the United States - they are more than capable of having it and living in such environemnt.. you're forgetting who th eIranian people are: they are what is left of the Persian Empire - they have long and strong culture long before the invasion of ARABS and ISLAM -
don't underestimate the Iranian people -
yes - deal with the current situation by announcing a real policy - so far US has declared no POLICY!!!
"Hmm. I'm sure the civilian populations of Nagasaki and Dresden would understood these important differences."
The victims never do, but the survivors of future Nankings and Auschwitzs that were prevented can speak to it. Iran with a nuclear assembly line could make those places look like minor footnotes in history.
"Look, people are talking seriously about Israel using 50+ nukes against Iran in the very near future as something that may be necessary and proper"
And the point is perhaps acting now will prevent that eventuality. The Europeans and appeasers are making that scenario more likely and more necessary. Wishful thinking is not a strategy.
We should let the Iranians change the regime. USA and EU are evil states looking for Iranian OIL and resources.
Bush & Kerry both are evil.
FREEDOM FOR THE IRANIAN PEOPLE NOW!
CUT THE HANDS OF SUPPORTERS OF THE REGIME IN USA AND EU governments.
To speak to the problem with the EU, these diplomats are encountering the classic dilemna that they always encounter with fascists: what to do when the people you are negotiating with arent negotiating in good faith. The Euros simply are flummoxed by Iranian actions for the simple reason that they dont understand Iran isnt buying what theyre selling. There is nothing the Mullahs want more than nukes, hence there is nothing that can be offered them that will help. Obviously the lessons of Munich never registered with these folks. Iran doesnt want to disarm and you cant talk them out of it.
FreeIran: You are not realistic. If I may quote our host, Katzman's Law states, 'What is the practice of diplomacy in a Hobbesian Universe? The art of saying 'nice doggy' while picking up a really big rock.' We need to drop some rocks now-- sanctions won't operate fast enough. You are naive if you think you derail this freight train with sanctions.
Ummm, all? I've seen a lot of discussion on this scenario all over the blogverse-- ALL the solutions seem kind of thin to me. Everyone agrees something must be done, no one has a good handle on exactly what. I am a nut-n-bolts kind of grrrl, I would love to see a detailed PLAN put forward. T.L., at LGF this discussion always devolves into bigelization and a frenetic slanging match on the "Sampson Option".
If we had confidence in the intelligence we would launch a cruise missile or B-2 conventional strike. Simply deny everything, things blow up sometimes (remember that North Korean train?). My best guess is there is little faith in the intelligence which is terrifying.
Jinderella,
That's what the covert part is for.
Unless the nukes the mullahs got the x-USSR use fissionables cooked in the period 1989-91, it is unlikely they will create a chain reaction sufficient for a true detonation. IMO they were most likely useable for only a few years and now at best can create only a real messy "fizzle".
The Soviets accepted a much higher proportion of impurities than other nations for their weapons-grade fissionables as a trade-off of shelf-life for cheapness of manufacture. This required that the Soviets constantly remove fissionables from wareheads and recook them. They found that cost-effective given the numbers of warheads they had and their relative scarcity of really competent nuclear engineers.
Few, if any, Soviet nukes are still useable to create detonations as opposed to fizzles. Furthermore putting new weapons-grade fissionables in them is not advisable as warheads are designed for use with particular grades of fissonables. Soviet designs work properly only with Soviet-grade fissionables.
China sold Pakistan nuclear warhead designs for use with fissionables with less impurities which the Pakistanis sold to lots of other countries, such as Libya (which is how we know this) and Iran.
First of all you guys are acting as though the Europeans are stupid and don't know what they are doing. They know clearly what they are doing by supporting the Islamists who hold onto power in Iran. This is their leverage of the United States. LISTEN AND LISTEN WELL: The reason the Europeans maintain a stranglehold on the Iranian people by dealing with the Mullahs is that the EUROPEAN BIG SHOTS fear that a future Iranian government that is free will be a VERY VERY VERY STRONG ALLY OF THE UNITED STATES and due to the fact that the Iranian people hate the Britsh, French, Germans and many other governments of the world but LOVE THE UNITED STATES - they will not do business with Europeans who currently have amazing deals with the mullah govenrment and will instead deal with ISRAEL AND THE UNITED STATES -
THIS Alliance/Major power gain for the United States is unwelcome by most other nations in the world. Stop acting as though the Mullahs are developing these things and maintaining power all by themselves. They are EXTREMELY WEALTH and have extremely strong ties to European governments, etc..
You cannot sacrafice the Iranian people for such a stupid strategy.
I wish Joe would come on here and state his views, because I don't really think he can agree with what a lot you are saying.
The Iranian people are America's strongest ally and we should treat them as such.
wake up people and stop acting like you're foreign policy experts who think the solution is more bombing - and forgetting completely the Iranian people..
come on!
FREE IRAN!
What worries me just as much is that John Kerry's foreign policy seems to be based on the misconception that hostile nations such as Iran and North Korea will behave themselves if we Just Ask Nicely: that America has been tarnished because Bush has not kow-towed to the whims of France. And millions of people are committed to electing the guy.
Mark Buehner: There are 26 suspected sites!! Are you going to have 26 simutaneous "accidents" ?
Tom: Thanx. That is prob'ly why Iran has not used the nukes they have, yet.
Jinnderella,
You and I must have been reading different posts; I don't see where FI claimed that sanctions alone would "derail this freight train".
What I see FI saying is that those European countries still doing business with the mullahs must stop; AND we must provide an ultimatum, to be followed up (quickly) with action.
I don't think anyone would disagree with you that supporting a popular uprising is "everyone's first choice". I'd suggest that it is not an either/or choice: any action agains the IRI regime should be complete and comprehensive, including:
(1) Disabling nuclear weapons capabilities.
(2) Removal of the islamist regime and its organs of repression.
(3) Empowering the Iranina people to take charge of their own affairs.
(4) Enabling the transition to a free, open, and democratic government in Iran.
There's a petition being circulated that addresses all of the relevant points. Please take a moment to read, and consider signing:
Iran Regime Change Petition
"Mark Buehner: There are 26 suspected sites!! Are you going to have 26 simutaneous "accidents" ?"
Hence the intelligence problem. Ultimately however, why shouldnt we make ridiculous claims when everyone else is? Iran is making power plants? The Europeans are serious about something? By those standards a whopper about a couple dozen simultaneous explosions isnt that startling, plus it ends the problem. People underestimate that. Its easier get forgiveness than to get permission. We've sure as heck learned that lately.
jinnderella:
Not sure.
T. J. Madison:
I see. What form of rational brutality is Putin saving all those nukes for?
I don't know. But arguing that Iran getting nukes isn't so bad when you remember Russia and the U.S. has them strikes me as, well, insane.
Free Iran!:
Specifically, how are the Iranian people going to remove the regime in the next few months?
Asher: EXACTLY!
When dealing with the Mullahs you must utilize a comprehensive well-thought approach. I agree with your points -
In regard to the Iranian people - America can work wonders if we OPENLY SUPPORT THE WILL of the Iranian people to be free and educate the people throughout the world what supporting the Iranian people entails - and how the future of the world depends on the realization and reality that all people be free.
If the Mullahs have ALL SUPPORT removed - they will fall almost immediately
But because the Europeans and others support the regime, they are able to maintain their dictatorship.
FREEDOM!!!! NOW!!!! ACCEPT NOTHING LESS!!!!
Reality check:
-The EU is not going to stop recognizing the Mullahs
-The EU is not going to embargo Iran under any circumstances
-Iran will not stop producing nukes because of sanctions
-The Iranian populace is not going to overthrow the Mullahs before they can develop nukes (if they havent already)
back to the discussion
Mark,
Yes, everybody knows that.
asher abrams: Sorry. :( I guess I should have said 'diplomacy in general'. I meant FI is naive in expecting any sort of sort of diplomatic action to derail the freight train at this point.
"(1) Disabling nuclear weapons capabilities.
(2) Removal of the islamist regime and its organs of repression.
(3) Empowering the Iranina people to take charge of their own affairs.
(4) Enabling the transition to a free, open, and democratic government in Iran."
I'll agree with all those, but 1) is where I feel a real sense of urgency. Did you read Trent's article? And I haven't seen a plan to execute 1). How are the nuke capabilities going to be disabled?
2) thru 4) And what's your plan there? Ground invasion? I'm sure those are all strategy components-- are you and FI advocating a ground invasion for regime change over a preemptive strike? Do you think Congress would sanction that?
BTW, all this stuff gets gamed and threat matrixed. Regime change would be great, but I argue the logistics are unsupportable at this time.
Colt: Let me take a second to clarify a few things and then I have to run - but hope the discussion will actually go somewhere in the following posts.
The reason the regime is still in power are TWO REASONS:
(1) Continued support/business ties with Europe and others & Hardly any tough action/policy fro the United States in support of Iranian people and against the Mullahs!
(2) The repression and fear that the Mullahs have used throughout society and thoughout the Military in order to maintain their rule. The Iranian Revolutionary guard is made up of Iranian citizens who all have Iranian family members and all Iranians hate the regime - they know what has been done to them and what has been done to their wonderful country over the past 25 years.
You must understand that the brutal CHECKS and BALANCES of fear the regime has placed within society and within military keeps the opposition sort of in a BOX. Because army soliders and generals, factory workers, school teachers, doctors all know what happens when they speak up and revolt. There is bloodshed and arrests. Now don't get me wrong, being of Iranian descent as well as knowing Iranian history - Iranians are some of the last people on the planet to fear losing their lives when freedom is on the line and have fought valiantly throughout their history from colonial rule and against Islamists.
The thing is - The society and all Iranians are in a sense waiting to see what happens - waiting for the RIGHT TIME - ie: Waiting for full and true condemnation along with real and useful support from the United States of America! Now this support can come in many different packages but it must be true and it must be real.
When the Iranian people see that the US Government has made a clear policy of regime-chansge and support of the Iranian people - they will be emboldened and strengthened to act. ALSO: There are countless Iranians in important positions sin ARMY and Government who are not on the side of the Mullahs and when they see that the TIDES ARE CHANGING they will work to help the Iranian people and freedom take hold.
The WILL IS THERE- but action will not happen unless there is a policy backed up by action from the United States.
"The WILL IS THERE- but action will not happen unless there is a policy backed up by action from the United States"
What specifically does that mean? If Bush came out tomorrow and gave his full endorsement of regime change and best wishes to the uprising? I assume there is some concrete physical help you are referring to, what is it?
Generally, you make demands before acting, even when you know the demands aren't going to be met. You know and I know that the EU isn't going to stop doing business with the mullahs, and it's doubtful any popular uprising can be organized in time to stop the nuke program.
Probably a pre-emptive strike against nuclear facilities will have to happen first (and no, I don't fancy waiting around for UN resolutions and all that crap). What I'm saying is, it shouldn't stop there.
Mark, I don't think we are really in disagreement here, so there's no need to go lecturing others about who needs a "reality check". The point Free Iran and I are trying to make - and again, I don't think you would disagree with this - is that a counter-nuclear strike ALONE is not enough.
Colt: Tom Holzinger 'splains all ^^^. :)
T.L.: Colt is correct about the differnce between the "old adversary" and the mullahs. Detente doesn't work with people who love death.
MARK: You're leaving out the point about WHAT AMERICA CAN DO TO ACTUALLY RESOLVE THE SITUATION -
Trust - bombing is not the solution. Supporting Iranian People, Funding Opposition, Forcing Europeans to assist in remvoing Regime because if they don't they will be complicit in anything nuclear that goes off, covert ops, supporting regime-change is the solution..
bombing will only make things work and will not take out the regime -
YOU NEED TO TAKE OUT THE REGIME PERIOD! ALSO, no one who is right-minded is advocating invasion.. no Iranians want an invasion.. they want freedom and they want United States to recognize their struggle!!!!
"Mark, I don't think we are really in disagreement here, so there's no need to go lecturing others about who needs a "reality check".
AA, that wasnt aimed at anyone in particular, just a general reminder about rhetoric and reality. All those subjects are being bandied about as though they have some realism to them, thats fine for diplomacy, bad for policy.
"Supporting Iranian People"
How?
"Funding Opposition"
Who do we give the money to? How do we get it to them?
"Forcing Europeans to assist in remvoing Regime"
Via what? Force? Trade sanctions? Arm wrestling contests?
"covert ops"
What targets? Assassination? saboutage? Staged out of where? Supported by whom?
"supporting regime-change is the solution.."
Much like noting that 'world peace' is the solution to 'war'. True but to general to be helpful.
Jin, thanks for the clarification. I hope my response to Mark clears up your concerns.
I'd second FI's comment that "support can come in many different packages but it must be true and it must be real." I doubt any of us on this forum are knowledgeable enough (I know I'm not) to plan all the details of this action; let's trust that our Intelligence and SpecOps people are.
(CIA SPOOKS MONITORING THIS BOARD: THIS MEANS YOU!)
As citizens, we can let our government(s) know what goals we support ... did I mention something about a petition?
MARK:
Not just best wishes.. Lets not joke about this issue please - lets be serious:
A public announcment to the World and the American People - during an exclusive speech on prime-time that supports the Iranian people.
A threat to the MULLAHS not to launch any offensive on the Iranian people and not to attack any American or regional assets.
A demand to release ALL POLITICAL PRISONERS from the prisons of Iran!
A demand to hold FREE REFERENDUM
The United States could move it's battlegroups tigtly around Iranian ports - but declare they are there for the protection of Iranian people and Iraqi people - and DEFENSE OF FREEDOM!
Bush should publicly announce all intentions and updates on a regular basis..
Bush should demand European governments stop dealing with the regime..
etc.. etc..
all these things would help the Iranian people to rise-up!
Mark, I kinda like the arm wrestling idea ...
"A public announcment to the World and the American People - during an exclusive speech on prime-time that supports the Iranian people."
Ok
"A threat to the MULLAHS not to launch any offensive on the Iranian people and not to attack any American or regional assets."
What is the threat? What will we do to retaliate? I thought you were against bombing?
"A demand to release ALL POLITICAL PRISONERS from the prisons of Iran!A demand to hold FREE REFERENDUM"
We can demand all we want.
The United States could move it's battlegroups tigtly around Iranian ports - but declare they are there for the protection of Iranian people and Iraqi people - and DEFENSE OF FREEDOM! "
Ok, we could. What would they do?
Bush should publicly announce all intentions and updates on a regular basis..Bush should demand European governments stop dealing with the regime.."
Free, fine ideas, but what good is a demand without an 'or else'. I can demand my boss triple my salary, but so what? Unless the Mullahs and Euros believe there is some consequence for defying our will, the demand will be ignored. And if we are taking force off the table and know the EU isnt going to do anything proactive, what exactly is the consequence?
Believe me, im taking this deadly seriously, and many of your ideas have merit. But you have to realize none of what you suggest will have the slightest impact on the Mullahs. Whether it will put a spine in the resistance is debateable, and if it doesnt we will be out on an awful creaky limb all by ourselves.
FreeIran: "YOU NEED TO TAKE OUT THE REGIME PERIOD! ALSO, no one who is right-minded is advocating invasion.. no Iranians want an invasion.. they want freedom and they want United States to recognize their struggle!!!!"
Ridiculous bombastics-- just HOW do you propose taking out the regime without invasion? BTW, the Iranians have nukes now-- wouldn't an invasion trigger a launch? You are not contributing, you are wasting bandwidth.
Scott, Colt,
I have read the same reports Ed Morrisey has about the Iran obtaining a pair of ex-Soviet nukes from Kazakakstan. Whether the Iranians have them or not is subject to debate. The one thing that is certain is that those devices are not functional.
According to Steven Zaloga’s Target America: The Soviet Union and the Strategic Arms Race, 1945-1964 the Soviets did not build and maintain nukes as America did for long, reliable service life with hordes of highly trained technicians. The Soviets just could not produce the trained manpower and high quality industrial processes necessary for that. Instead they built them nuclear devices with much more impure nuclear materials for a low maintenance, lower reliability, five-seven year life cycle. The cycle took a device fresh from the factory and sent it to delivery systems – bombers, plus land and sea based missiles -- for 2-3 years of front line service. As the nuclear material degraded, the device was removed from the delivery systems and placed in reserve. At the end of the life cycle, as the weapon degraded to the point of being unusable, it was sent back to the various Soviet nuclear cities to have its nuclear fissile materials "recooked" for front line service.
The funding to the Soviet nuclear cities was cut off in 1989. Those Kazak devices would at best produce a subcritical event with lots of nasty highly radioactive, short half life, nuclear waste rather than an explosion.
This also makes surplus ex-Soviet devices without nuclear material a low threat. Nuclear devices are optimized to use a specific blend of nuclear material. Third world countries like Iran want something they can afford to keep a small number of weapons available for the long term – i.e. they are following the Chinese nuclear weapons development model. They have access to western high purity fissile material production processes and a Chinese bomb design adapted to take the kind of fuel.
Those wanting to get a current reference on the ex-Soviet/Russian nuclear program can go read Zaloga’s latest -- The Kremlin's Nuclear Sword: The Rise and Fall of Russia's Strategic Nuclear Forces, 1945-2000
Trent, awful big assumption. Perhaps they shouldnt be working, but with all the unemployed Russian nuke scientists running around, who knows?
Trent, interesting info, thanks.
Asher: "(CIA SPOOKS MONITORING THIS BOARD: THIS MEANS YOU!)" Damn skippy!
" let's trust that our Intelligence and SpecOps people are."
I've worked for CIA/ORD as a defens con-- the "tipping" equation (where the bad guys turn into good guys) is always EXTREMELY conservative-- FI is espousing some nice sentiments, but we have to be sure regime change is a certain outcome. What if we operate on all FI's laudable suggestions (including no bombing) and we don't get any change in the regime? Wouldn't there be some retaliatory measures from the mullahs?
Right on Trent! As I've long stated before.
Odds a nuke goes off in the next 4 years:
Bush - 10%
Kerry - 40%
Few seem to take this threat seriously.
Guess it's a "lack of imagination", no?
Anyone thought of what disaster it'll bring to the people and the land for generations and decades after, if the nuclear sites are hit?
this is absolutely stupid that mullahs are refered to as a "government", and some in US admin. even call it 'sort of a democracy!' and they are allowed to have embassies worldwide and do billion dollar trades with the world!
IT IS STUPID BECAUSE IF THE MULLAHS ARE SO DANGEROUS THAT THEY DESERVE TO BE ATTACKED, WHY THEN SUCH DANGEROUS TERRORIST GET TO HAVE EMBASSIES?
HOW IS IT THAT THESE TERRORISTS CAN TRAVEL WORLDWIDE WITH DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY?
CLOSE DOWN THE IRI EMBASSIES, AND BOYCOTT ALL THEIR TRADES SO THEY CAN'T SPEND BILLIONS ON NUKE SITES AND TERRORISM ABORAD!
HOW BACKWARD OF WORLD POLITICS, TO ATTACK A REGIME IS SO KEENLY CALLS LEGINITMATE!
HOW STUPID IS IT THAT THE WORLD BANK GIVES AYATOLLAHS BILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN LOAN AND NOW THE PEOPLE OF IRAN HAVE TO SUFFER THE CONSEQUENCES OF A WAR!
TO THIS DAY AND AS YOU READ THIS, EUROPEANS ARE SELLING WMD TO THESE TERRORIS MULLAHS!
ISN'T THIS THE MAKING OF A CIVIL WAR, TO DIVIDE IRAN? YOU BET IT IS.
TIME FOR THE WORLD TO GET SERIOUS ABOUT THE MULLAHS AND CUT THEIR CORD: THEIR BANK ACCOUNTS, EMBASSIES, TRADES, AND WEAPONS!
WHY SHOULD I PAY THE PRICE OF WMD AND EU TRADES AND WORLD BANK LOANS WITH MY BLOOD?
WHAT DO THEY EXPECT TO GET IN RETURN WHEN THEY SUPPORT SOME TERRORIST FASCISTS FINANCIALLY?
DIALOGUE?
I'd kinda suggest -- purely a personal opinion -- that in future when you want to make a point, you use a credible source (not that I'm saying there's anything wrong with the specific article you quoted), because also on the site of the WHT is this:
Hi Gary,
Thanks for your purely personal opinion. As for your comment, I suggest that you at least get the name of the source correct before stating that it is not credible.
FYI:
Robert Morton, Editor and Publisher
Robert J. Morton is Managing Editor of The Washington Times National Weekly Edition and President of East West Services, Inc. which publishes World Tribune.com, Geostrategy-Direct.com and East-Asia-Intel.com. A former newspaper correspondent based in Tokyo, he obtained a Masters in Journalism from the University of Texas at Austin. He is a Media Fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. Previous posts include Editor in Chief of the New York City Tribune, Managing Editor of the Global Affairs quarterly and publisher of the Free Press International Report, a bi-weekly newsletter dedicated to geostrategic affairs.
To reinforce my previous argument:
" What we know of the Iranian nuclear weapons program indicates that it is at a very advanced stage of development—and, of course, we do not yet know its full scope. There is only a very limited time to stop Iran before the world confronts the realization that the leading sponsor of international terrorism possesses the ability to produce a nuclear weapon."
From the June 3, 2004 Letter to President Bush: Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) led a bipartisan effort in sending a letter to President Bush, calling for him to push for the adoption of a common strategy at tomorrow's G-8 Summit to confront the threat of Iran’s nuclear weapons programs. 209 House Members signed the letter, which can be read here: (pdf)
If you look at Iran on a map, you will see that the US now has Iran completely surrounded. Iraq is now the perfect launching pad into Iran especially since we have years of data from the Iran/Iraq war. I say Trent is absolutely right.
SBD
Iran has received nuke material from North Korea as well as from Russia and Pakistan. In fact, the reason why Iran is not using its brand new international airport in Tehran is that last year they were off-loading some enriched uranium from a North Korean cargo plane and spilled it on the tarmac. As far as striking their facilities? You beter be ready to use a deep penetrating tactical nuke because thats the only type of weapon that can hit as deep as we will need to go to put these facilities out of business. Actually, the US has developed and just recently tested a weapon that mimics the electromagnetic pulse of a nuke which basically fries the electrical grid and all electronic equipment within a five mile radius. If one fries the power grid, they can't run the centerfuges.
Thanks for clarifying that it's a site with Moonie ties, SBD.
On other fronts, people keep repeating variants of this: I'm unclear: are people proposing we, or Israel, just keep firing off one of these periodically so Iran never has any electricity? Does anyone not think this might -- just might -- have some impractical implications?"If one fries the power grid, they can't run the centerfuges."
Unless the facility is specially hardened to withstand EMT like Cheyenne Mountain, and if the facility is indeed in an elaborate underground complex that seems likely (its basically copper mesh). Have we considered the consequences of a failed strike?
EMT=EMP
PETITION: TRUE SECURITY BEGINS WITH REGIME CHANGE IN IRAN
http://activistchat.com/petition4.html
SIGN THIS PETITION!
As House Resolution 398 (May 06, 2004) has rightly recognized, the illegitimate government of the Islamic Republic of Iran has engaged, and continues to engage, in efforts to acquire nuclear weapons. Such weapons would pose an immediate threat not only to Iran's neigbors, but ultimately to the entire world.
The cruelty of the IRI regime is well known and abundantly documented. The regime has been implicated in assassinations throughout the Middle East, Europe, and the United States; the murder of more than 100,000 Iranians; continuing policies of rape, torture, and arbitrary imprisonment as political tools; and the kidnapping of thousands of women and girls for sale into prostitution and slavery.
According to the Department of State report released by the Department of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor on February 25, 2004: “The Government's poor human rights record worsened, and it continued to commit numerous, serious abuses. The right of citizens to change their government was restricted significantly. Continuing serious abuses included: summary executions; disappearances; torture and other degrading treatment, reportedly including severe punishments such as beheading and flogging; poor prison conditions; arbitrary arrest and detention; lack of habeas corpus or access to counsel and prolonged and incommunicado detention. Citizens often did not receive due process or fair trials. The Government infringed on citizens' privacy rights, and restricted freedom of speech, press, assembly, association and religion.” These and other abuses clearly indicate that the regime constitutes a grave threat to the people of Iran and to free people everywhere.
It has come to our attention that Israel and/or the United States may be contemplating a pre-emptive military strike against Iran's nuclear facilities. If the United States follows a policy based exclusively on the nuclear issue, however, the results will be catastrophic both for the Iranian people and, ultimately, for the Middle East and the world. Merely striking at Iranian nuclear facilities would at best delay the regime's nuclear program, driving it deeper underground; would certainly provoke even harsher measures against the Iranian people; and would likely lure the West into a false sense of security with the mullahs of the IRI regime plotting their ultimate retribution against America, Israel, and all others who have stood in their way.
The Islamist regime continues to actively undermine American efforts to rebuild Afghanistan and Iraq. Regime-backed agents and mercenaries are killing American soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines every week. To wait until Iraq and Afghanistan are “secure” before confronting the Iranian mullahs is folly; rather, the United States must take the battle to the enemy in Tehran.
The vast majority of freedom-loving Iranian people support the right of Israel and all of Iran's Middle Eastern neighbors, as well as the United States, to live in peace and security. Therefore, it is in our common interest that:
1. President Bush must support clear and open policy calling for regime change in Iran.
2. The Administration must abandon its policy of “Afghanistan yesterday, Iraq today, Iran maybe tomorrow”, and confront the threat from the IRI regime immediately.
3. President Bush must deliver an ultimatum to the IRI's primary hidden supporters (Britain) and secondary supporters (France, Germany, EU, Japan, Canada, Russia, and China) to stop giving economic assistance, intelligence assistance, or other assistance to the regime. The EU, in particular, should not use resources stolen from the Iranian people to finance its own failed welfare state.
4. The United States must deliver an unequivocal ultimatum to the Iranian regime to step down peacefully and immediately, and transfer power to a team of Iranian and Iranian-American leaders; this team would set up a referendum under US and international supervision with military presence of US, Sweden, Denmark, and the Netherlands in Iran as the peacekeeper. If the mullahs do not agree to step down peacefully, then the US should provide all necessary financial and military support for the freedom-loving Iranian opposition both inside and outside Iran to remove the regime in a short period of time.
The Bush Doctrine advocates America's active role in supporting freedom, democracy, and human rights throughout the world. We call on the Government to act in accord with this wise and noble policy, and help the Iranian people achieve their dream of a free and democratic Irn.
"Human beings are all members of one body.
They are created from the same essence.
When one member is in pain,
The others cannot rest.
If you do not care about the pain of others,
You do not deserve to be called a human being."
A Quote from Famous Persian Poet Saadi Shirazi
( 13th century Persian poet from Shiraz / Iran )
Mark, you make some good points, however, I'm not proposing such actions be undertaken. I was just pointing out that conventional weapons can't deal with these types of deep sites. One either hits it with the deep penetrating nuke (I don't think we or Israil have such a weapon, although it is rumored that we are working on one) or you knock out the power supply as part of a larger operation.
Does anyone not think this might -- just might -- have some impractical implications?
{Wry grin}
Figures that this goes live when my Internet connections are all shot to hell. Ok, time to compose off-line and see if I can lay this out in one fast go...
Trent - we should be specific about the nature of our disagreement last time. It was around Israeli use of nuclear weapons as part of their pre-emptive strike on Iran. I really don't think so - and while we can never exactly predict the actions of our fellow humans, I'll continue to stand by my arguments.
That said, my comments also noted the very real possibility of a future nuclear war. So it's not like I'm being cavalier or blind to the stakes here. They're very, very high - for everyone - and I hope the readers here recognize this.
I've written here before about the stakes for the Iranian people themselves, and for the world at large. Not to mention Israeli plans to strike the reactor at Bushehr, which are well advanced. All of those links can be found here - and make for sobering enough reading on their own.
Right now, here's the situation. Iran is set on its course. Trent's point about irrational regimes becoming more irrational in crisis is true. So are my points re the possibility of a nuclear war that pretty much wipes out the Middle East as the result of a mistake - a scenario well grounded in real Cold War events, where the ultra-low warning time and zero margin for error situation directly justifies the difference in outcomes.
Iran, if it succeeds, will also become a "secondary proliferator" a la Pakistan. Assuming it, and the rest of the Middle East, are still around for very long.
So, what to do?
Here's the bottom line. So far, every key actor that has become involved in this drama has been shown to lack the capability of making a difference (Europe), the will and interest (Russia), or both (the Iranian people generally, with some notable exceptions). Israel's choice is a conventional attack that may buy it time (or may not), or a full-scale nuclear attack on Iran that would almost certainly end its existence as a viable state with any sort of future - even if no military retaliation was forthcoming.
The USA remains the only player in the game with the possibility of creating a long-term solution: ending the mullahcracy, defusing this time bomb, and returning that nation to its historical status as a civilized nation.
But success is not certain (never is), and the choices are not yet made. Or even, I would argue, laid out clearly for the American people.
Oh yes, this American election will definitely matter. And this is an issue that had better be on the debating table- because it will surely come to the White House table very early in the next Presidential term.
And most importantly of all, time is not on our side. To delay is to acquiesce.
Jin,
Thanks for your comments. That's exactly my point, we need to eliminate the nuclear threat AND the regime, and yes, the prospect of retaliation against the Iranian people is a top consideration.
There was a good deal of discussion regarding just these issues on the ActivistChat bulletin board some weeks ago, resulting in the present text of the Iran Regime Change Petition which Keyvan has thoughtfully posted here. I hope this addresses your concerns.
>Trent - we should be specific about the nature
>of our disagreement last time. It was around
>Israeli use of nuclear weapons as part of their
>pre-emptive strike on Iran. I really don't
>think so - and while we can never exactly
>predict the actions of our fellow humans, I'll
>continue to stand by my arguments
Joe,
And I still say you are wrong.
Go see Caerdroia's strategy tree analysis of Israel's options in the track back link for this post.
Needs must as the Devil drives and Israel is facing Islamofascism's founding evil with nukes.
Go see Caerdroia's strategy tree analysis of Israel's options
Right ... nuking Pakistan? Is that really in the cards?
Something for Joe Katzman to chew on: Can you say "Cuban Missile Crisis?"
Israel's turn has come.
And the orbat for the invasion and occupation of Iran (more capable military than Iraq, more populous, greater area, and more difficult terrain) is what exactly? We're picking up our troops at the Stone of Erech?
If an invasion of Iran were desirable, that would be yet another strike against the sideshow in Iraq.
praktike
>Right ... nuking Pakistan? Is that really in
>the cards?
The original target for the Osirik raid was Pakistan.
The Israelis had a deal the Indian government to stike the Paks nuclear facilities from Indian air bases. The deal fell through when there was a change of Indian government (Indira Ghandi was assasinated, IIRC).
Israel has ballistic launchers and nuclear armed subs now that it lacked then.
I personally don't for see Israel using nukes unless Kerry is elected.
Then all bets are off.
asher: "...resulting in the present text of the Iran Regime Change Petition which Keyvan has thoughtfully posted here..."
Grrr. I would have appreciated a link more-- I hate people spamming Joe's threads!
"I hope this addresses your concerns."
Dude, it's a Hobbesian world-- petitions aren't woth the paper they're printed on without backup. Where's the consequences? Check this! The mullahs aren't going to dig your persian poetry and suddenly open up the reactor sites for inspection-- I find your petition foolish and unrealistic indeed.
If Iran does indeed have substantial amounts of moderate enriched Uranium for use as a feedstock in enrichment then it might be only a matter of months (or weeks) before they have enough HEU for a weapon. My calculations indicate that 36% feedstock would reduce the number of enrichment steps by about a factor of three.
My bet for an invasion:
If Kerry wins: about Nov 15.
The precident is Lincoln who was contemplating how to win the awr if McClellan won.
If Bush wins: about 15 Jan.
Evidence for the European "blame America" strategy anticipated in my previous comment:
From Fareed Zakaria, we learn that the Europeans have managed to alienate even the former Madame Secretary:Bravo. Memo to EU: when you’ve lost Madeleine, you’re lost the blue states as well as the red.And via Alan and Max's Iraq Report, we learn from this Guardian news item that it is not Iranian duplicity but the impatience, unilateralism, and intransigence of the Bush administration which is responsible for the current impasse. But of course.
Andrew Lazarus has a very good point: Where are the combat-ready divisions going to come from for a ground invasion of Iran? And then there is that nasty point Iraq has taught us that occupation may actually require more troops than the initial conquest.
I don't disagree with the analysis of the deadly threat that a nuclear-armed Islamic Republic of Iran will pose. Trent Telenko and Tom H. and Joe K. and Jinnderella (and many others) have made a great case for the necessity of a pre-emptive invasion. I just don't see where we (and our allies) can come up with the troops in the near term for a purely conventional invasion. "Purely conventionsl" is not an accidental phrase. Nuclear preparation of the battlefield would change the force-ratio calculations a bit.
Let's stick with conventional invasion analysis. Iran looks like a 3 to 5 corps operation. That figure translates to 6 to 20 divisions or divisional equivalents if you go with the US Army standard of 2 to 4 divisions per corps. The US Army only has 10 Active Army divisions now and the Marine Corps only has 3. Active Guard and Reserve units bump those numbers up some. But we still have to keep 4 to 5 divisions in Iraq, another division in Afghanistan, and a couple of divisions (or more) on guard against N. Korea. Oh by the way, our soldiers and Marines also need to train, rest, refit, attend schools, sort of have a family life, etc.
The school solution for sustained combat operations is one-third of units in active combat, one-third of units in training for combat, and one-third of units in rest, refit, recuperation, non-combat training/schools, etc. We're already exceeding that ratio and have been for over a year. Thank goodness for the allies that have sent troops to Iraq and Afghanistan. Without them, we would break the Army and the Marines.
So how do we pull off a purely conventional invasion of Iran AND the occupation that will follow in the next 6 - 12 months?
Regards,
Jim
Andrew J. Lazarus so wisely says:
"If an invasion of Iran were desirable, that would be yet another strike against the sideshow in Iraq."
Now Andrew. I am well aware of your military expertise. So I have a question:
Is it easier to defend in a two front war or a one front war?
Will Iran have an easier time if it is only attacked from Afghanistan or from Afghanistan and Iraq?
You know. I'm just askin'
===================================
John Kerry is proud of his military service. In 1971 before Congress he claimed he comitted war
crimes. But hey, I can understand his pride. Not every one gets the opportunities he had.
What is the War Hero Afraid of?
Form 180. Release the records.
James Jones says:
Andrew Lazarus has a very good point: Where are the combat-ready divisions going to come from for a ground invasion of Iran? And then there is that nasty point Iraq has taught us that occupation may actually require more troops than the initial conquest.
The Iran problem is easier because they have had a quasi-democratic government for 25 years. It will not take 2 years to sort out politics and get elections underway. Six to nine months ought to do it.
BTW I see you are a follower of Sun Tzu.
Appear strong when you are weak. Appear weak when you are strong.
As I recall there was no way we could get sufficient forces to Afghanistan.
This is just a guess, but I'd bet the officers in charge of the operation have better imaginations and abilities in the military realm that you do.
In '91. I could predict most military moves in that conflict. These days our military follows no pattern. I find it quite unpredictable. This is very good.
I think you underestimate our military at your own peril. They have never been better.
===========Why did Kerry run on his Vietnam record?
Because sleeping in the Senate doesn't sound near as good as shooting a man in the back.
What is the War Hero Afraid of?
Form 180. Release the records.
James Jones says:
Andrew Lazarus has a very good point: Where are the combat-ready divisions going to come from for a ground invasion of Iran? And then there is that nasty point Iraq has taught us that occupation may actually require more troops than the initial conquest.
The Iran problem is easier because they have had a quasi-democratic government for 25 years. It will not take 2 years to sort out politics and get elections underway. Six to nine months ought to do it.
BTW I see you are a follower of Sun Tzu.
Appear strong when you are weak. Appear weak when you are strong. Appear far when you are near. Near when you are far.
As I recall there was no way we could get sufficient forces to Afghanistan. Six weeks. The battleof Baghdad was going to be a Stalingrad. Total campaign - three weeks.
This is just a guess, but I'd bet the officers in charge of the operation have better imaginations and abilities in the military realm that you do. Or me.
In '91. I could predict most military moves in that conflict. These days our military follows no pattern. I find it quite unpredictable. This is very very good.
I think you underestimate our military at your own peril. They have never been better.
Also Master strategist Jones is matching Iranian divisions with American Divisions 1:1. And also assumes the Divisions in Iraq are imobilized in a quagmire.
Something is happening but you don't know what it is do you.......
===========Why did Kerry run on his Vietnam record?
Because sleeping in the Senate doesn't sound near as good as shooting a man in the back.
What is the War Hero Afraid of?
Form 180. Release the records.
James Jones says:
Andrew Lazarus has a very good point: Where are the combat-ready divisions going to come from for a ground invasion of Iran? And then there is that nasty point Iraq has taught us that occupation may actually require more troops than the initial conquest.
The Iran problem is easier because they have had a quasi-democratic government for 25 years. It will not take 2 years to sort out politics and get elections underway. Six to nine months ought to do it.
BTW I see you are a follower of Sun Tzu.
Appear strong when you are weak. Appear weak when you are strong. Appear far when you are near. Near when you are far.
As I recall there was no way we could get sufficient forces to Afghanistan. Six weeks. The battleof Baghdad was going to be a Stalingrad. Total campaign - three weeks.
This is just a guess, but I'd bet the officers in charge of the operation have better imaginations and abilities in the military realm that you do. Or me.
In '91. I could predict most military moves in that conflict. These days our military follows no pattern. I find it quite unpredictable. This is very very good.
I think you underestimate our military at your own peril. They have never been better.
Also Master strategist Jones is matching Iranian divisions with American Divisions 1:1. And also assumes the Divisions in Iraq are imobilized in a quagmire.
Something is happening but you don't know what it is do you.......
===========Why did Kerry run on his Vietnam record?
Because sleeping in the Senate doesn't sound near as good as shooting a man in the back.
What is the War Hero Afraid of?
Form 180. Release the records.
From #26737 and #26761 above, we get that the russians have weapon designs that can use material that is not as much purified.
And maybe the iranians have a couple of model weapons that show just how to set up those weapons, and also the iranians might get russian documents or technical help one way or another.
That would let them create a larger number of working bombs quicker. The drawback is that those bombs would only last 2-3 years before they'd have to be reprocessed. But for iran that would be necessary. If they can get through the next 2-3 years then they can worry about reprocessing. By that time they might get the other design going.
So there's the possibility that they already have soviet-style bombs, and that they're making more faster than we predicted.
Even in that case, though, they wouldn't have as many as israel, and the USA could destroy iran easily. So there's a strong chance they'd try to negotiate a stalemate, just like every other nuclear power with a nuclear enemy has done.
Back when the USSR was going strong we had stories about how their insane leaders didn't care about nuclear war, if they destroyed us and the leaders survived they'd spread communism other places, and they didn't even care if they had to stay in their shelters for 20 years if it meant destroying us.
And then when the chinese got nukes we had stories how they thought they had so many people we couldn't kill them all, they wanted to start a US/USSR war so they could inherit the world.
I hate it when we have to hope that somebody else isn't crazy enough to get us all killed. But it's worked out every time so far, and if we have to hope once more it probably won't kill us.
#26813 Posted by J Thomas,
The Iranians have promised to use nukes against Israel as soon as they have enough weapons.
They believe they can kill nearly all the Israeli Jews and still recover from a counter attack.
You want to play chicken with such fools?
You want to condemn the Persian people to 78 years of misery? Suppose the mad mullahs want a slice of Afghanistan and a little of Iraq or they go boom? The real question is war now or war later.
"No war" is not on the table.
==================John Kerry told us cut and run was the right thing to do in Vietnam. Three million died. He is proposing withdrawal from Iraq.
I suppose three million was not enough.
What is the War Hero Afraid of?
Form 180. Release the records.
"I personally don't for see Israel using nukes unless Kerry is elected.
Then all bets are off."
Trent, why would you expect the israelis to do it then? Kerry's stand is at least as zionist as Bush's.
Do you figure Kerry would just not be as competent as Bush?
M Simon, suppose for a moment that the iranians already have nukes. They haven't used them against israel yet.
It would be absurd for them to use nukes against israel if their justification is to help out palestinians -- 20% of israeli citizens are palestinians, and it would be hard to nuke israel without dusting the west bank, and supposing the israelis were wiped out or evacuated, what kind of land would they be giving the palestinians then? Not to say the iranians can't be absurd.
Would they nuke israel out of sheer hate? I dunno, maybe.
Would they do it out of fear, thinking that they have a better shot if they hit first instead of after israel nukes them? Maybe, that one is at least rational and most of us here have agreed that it's inevitable that israel will attack them unless somebody else takes them out first. But then, would israel attack if the iranians could hit back? We don't usually figure the israelis as attacking from absurdity or sheer hate.
The whole point of saying they're crazy is to say we don't understand how they think or what they'll do. It isn't inevitable they'll use the things.
I'm saying they might already have their nukes. I came up with a reason they might be ahead of schedule. And if they do have nukes already, do we want to invade them, or nuke them, or what?
If they already have nukes our best bet is to find out whether they just want a stalemate. Maybe they're as rational as every other nuclear power has been so far. I don't want to depend on that. But if they already have nukes then what else would we do? Start a nuclear slugfest on the assumption that if we don't they might use their nukes irresponsibly?
praktike asks:
Go see Caerdroia's strategy tree analysis of Israel's options
Right ... nuking Pakistan? Is that really in the cards?
The question is - do we wish to let things get to such a state where we might find out?
======================================250 decorated veterans all liars? Kerry still sliming vets? Reversion to form . I’d say.
Now what are the odds that the 2% who support Kerry and are paid by him are telling the truth and the 98% who don’t get a dime are liars? Kinda stretches the old credulity don’t it. Unless Kerry is accusing the officer corps of the US Navy to be made up of untrustworthy liars.
Good old John.
============What is the War Hero Afraid of?
Form 180. Release the records.
J Thomas,
You are mirror imaging. One of the biggest problems in grand strategy.
We let our fleet defences in the Pacific decline in the 30s because everyone including the Japanese knew it would be suicide to attack America.
You cannot count on "rational" decisions from an opponent whose values differ significantly from yours. Suppose they care not a wit for country and people but only honor and heaven.
I want to deal with them the way we should have dealt with the German Chancellor in the 30s. Take him at his word.
I'm willing to admit they have 1 to 10 nukes now. All the more reason to take the hits now instead of waiting until they have 100. Besides the Islamics would have the onus of first use and it would significantly hurt their cause.
My guess is they have zero.
===============================Do you know why the CIA man gave John Kerry the magic hat?
So John could get to Cambodia without a boat.
What is the War Hero Afraid of?
Form 180. Release the records.
Why does the USA "need" to keep troops in Iraq? So the (Iran supported) militants don't kill so many Iraqis.
1) What happens if the US mostly evacuates troops from Iraq -- en route to Tehran?
a) pro-Iraq vs pro-terrorist forces do more fighting; that's Iraq vs Iraq; no US disaster (certainly sub-optimal for Iraqis; yet smaller difference than the Iran earthquake.)
b) Iran's "great army" is decimated. It will be NO CONTEST. The US military is so superior, every known/ identifiable target will be easily destroyed.
c) some 1000< X < 5 000 US casualties; "huge" by today's name-reading on TV.
d) Iran stops sending agents/ support to anti-Iraq forces (Saudi & Syria maybe don't stop)
e) ?? Maybe Israel marches on Demascus??
2) I'm so glad to see Trent here again, and his reasonable alarmism. But I think Joe K is correct that Israel will do A LOT to avoid first use of nukes. Who knows what they should do? Impose an Israeli/ US/ UN occupation control with local democracy and free press (my choice)? nobody knows or has any solutions, because irrational Palis and Arabs must change.
a) Israel should declare that any religiously motivated attack on it with WMDs will make Mecca and Medina targets?
b) Israel should be ready to enforce regime change on Syria?
I strongly suspect Israel will accept a first strike against Tel Aviv before using nukes; more 1973 than 1967. But likely they'll launch special ops attacks (suicide?) before that, not nukes.
I just had a seductive nightmare -- after a strike, the Israeli gov't resigns; accepts "anarchy", and the generals become free to attack all threats. No "real" attempt at a new gov't; merely parties sitting and agreeing to disagree, and ALL disavowing & condemning the "generals" ... as regime changes come to the ME.
The highly enriched traces have been matched with a Pakistani source, not Russian. Refer to Janes.
Jim: "So how do we pull off a purely conventional invasion of Iran AND the occupation that will follow in the next 6 - 12 months?" I agree with you, the logistics aren't there. So what do we do? I was hoping Trent or someone had a believeable plan.
J Thomas: "Would they nuke israel out of sheer hate? I dunno, maybe." Well, yes. But also the idea of a successful Iraq model has got to terrify them. Iran may strike Israel to embroil the ME in a proxy war that lets them destroy progress in Iraq.
Jinn,
Thank you for your helpful comments.
-It might be noted that had Iraq not been conquered, we would have nowhere to stage a ground campaign against Iran. An amphibious invasion would be required, with the requisite casualties. Does anyone think the American public (well media anyway) would stand for D-Day type casualties at this time of the day?
-Moreover, our troop situation wouldnt greatly improve had we not gone to Iraq as tens of thousands of troops and planes would have been required to keep Hussein in check, dispersed from Turkey to Saudi Arabia to Kuwait. Now they are all concentrated near Iran's border.
-Furthermore we are assuming a massive Iraq style invasion would be utilized. This is unlikely for a number of reasons. First Iran is 4 times larger than Iraq, and the terrain is varied but generally mountainous especially through the western population concentrations. Another rapid conventional strike would be impossible. Neither does Iran have the concentrated political power of Hussein focused in one city. Taking Tehran would not likely end the war. Basically Iran is a tough nut to crack, but a much more ambitious Afghanistan style war would be far more likely using Kurds and rebellious Iranians with special forces, and overwhelming air power while conventional forces keep the Iranians pinned down on their western border. This is obviously facilitated by having access to Iran's entire western border via Iraq. Something similar would not be possible solely via Afghanistan due to the sparsely populated desert covering eastern Iran and the lack of a land bridge.
Bottom line: we almost certain will not need/use the levels of force contemplated in conventionally conquering Iran, mainly because it would be a bloody and difficult affair under any circumstance. The conquest of Iraq has actually opened further options to our military.
Second to Mark B. Probably every conflict entails a mix of covert and overt operations that's unique to the environment.
My concern about inferring any planning in Iran at the government levels at least, is that if the current administration were attempting to bring the US populace on board with regards to, say, a relatively immediate invasian of Iran/wholescale restructuring of the ME, wouldn't there be some propaganda (in the least critical sense of the word) in play?
I would expect the mainstream media to be reporting that we're currently engaged in fighting with Iranian fighters in Iraq, or perhaps an emphasis from administration spokespersons w/r/t either the threat posed by the Iranian nuclear weapons program, or the fact that Sadr's militias are being funded by the Mullahs back in Tehran.
The absence of this (as near as I can tell) makes me wonder - is this all being shelved until after the November elections, or what? I can't imagine that hyping the (very likely real, IMO) Iranian threat wouldn't bolster Bush's re-election chances, so what gives? I can't imagine that Bush and Sharon haven't had a sit down over this one, so there must be a strategic plan, and a pretty tight timeline if these estimates of Iranian nuclear capability are right. Does it not call for US popular support? Any thoughts?
asher: Sorry. Backslided into LGF speak :)
Won't happen again.
>Trent, why would you expect the israelis to do
>it then? Kerry's stand is at least as zionist
>as Bush's.
>
>Do you figure Kerry would just not be as
>competent as Bush.
It isn't a matter of competence, it is a matter of self-confidence and nerve.
Say what you will about George W. Bush and Clinton before him, both had the nerve to face down their uniformed senior leadership for over riding national interests. Clinton did it with both Bosnia and Kosovo and Bush43 did the same with Iraq.
Kerry's back and forth Iraqi war votes shows he cannot make a decision and stick with it when things get tough. That speaks to his lack of nerve.
Kerry's 'Secret life of Walter Mitty on a swift boat in Cambodia' means he will lack the will to face down the brass when the tough calls come.
A weak and indecisive President will get both America and a major portion of the Islamic world nuked. Israel will look to its own defenses and not the good word of the President as an agent of the will of the American people.
Gene,
That is Israel's job. Its attack on Iran will do more to focus attention on the need to take out the mullahs immediately than anything the Bush administration can possibly say.
Especially when the enriched uranium and its degree of purity appears in aerial testing of plumes from the sites attacked. That's how we discovered the first Soviet nuclear test in 1949.
Events will drive this one.
Trent,
I saw a great line about Kerry in a post on, I think, the Captain's Quarters; that Kerry's LBJ-style whoppers show he is trying "to be the bride at every wedding".
Jinnderella, can you imagine the islamic fanatics so terrified of the example of a democracy next door that they'd start a nuclear war so their people won't have that example to look at?
To do that they would have to believe that secular democracy is so enticing that they can't compete. And if they believe that they wouldn't be islamic fanatics. This is what Trent calls "mirroring". Sure, americans think that way, it was very important to us that there not be a successful communism in cuba etc. We couldn't trust our belief that communism can't compete, we had to sabotage them as completely as we could just in case, to make sure that our people weren't misled into thinking that communism might be worth doing. But there's no particular reason to think that the islamists runing the iranian government think that way.
Every reason to think they believe the resistance movement is composed of a tiny minority of dead-enders who can't quite believe the Shah isn't coming back, plus foreign agitators and a few deluded iraqis in the pay of the foreigners.
But ideally we would get experts on iran to tell us what the mullahs probably think. American iran experts, not israeli experts.
A weak and indecisive President will get both America and a major portion of the Islamic world nuked. Israel will look to its own defenses and not the good word of the President as an agent of the will of the American people.
Trent, that wasn't completely clear. Are you saying that israel would nuke the USA and a major portion of the arab world unless the USA solves israels' problem first?
That's blackmail, and I hope that any american president faced with that choice would immediately take out israel and israel's submarine nukes.
We mustn't take that kind of threat from anybody.
J Thomas: Umm, actually I do. The mullahs are fundamentalists in the sense that they represent a coalition with a will to power. This coalition must be protected from cheap and therefore easy defection at all costs. Consider Salmon Rushdie and the haad beheasdings of religious dissidents in Saud. At some level the mullahs recognize the attraction of western style freedoms. THis would be only part of their decision tree, but it is definitely a component.
all you people talk the talk..
but when war with iran comes.. i wonder how many of you will go over there and walk the walk...
>Trent, that wasn't completely clear. Are you
>saying that israel would nuke the USA and a
>major portion of the arab world unless the USA
>solves israels' problem first?
Where did you get that from?
Think in these terms:
A weak American President guarentees that we will get hit by an ISO container nuke.
So what would America have done the day after Pearl Harbor if it had access to 6,000 nuclear weapons?
What kind of President would it have taken to harness and control that anger such that the majority of those weapons would not be used...and what would a weak President do in such a situation?
As for the rest, Israel will act. The type of American President in charge at the time it acts will determine the actions it takes.
I am surprised no one else has taken tom Holsinger up on the thought of the aftermath of an Israeli strike on Iran. The evidence from released highly enriched uranium we will analyze will tell us much about where Iran is getting its fissile material from as well as confirming they are working on the bomb in a way that will have a huge political effect here in America.
The CIA cannot do spies, but America does do electronic sensor "national technical means" that are bullet proof inside their technical limits.
"to be the bride at every wedding".
To the best of my knowledge first said by Alice Longworth Roosevelt of her father Theodore Roosevelt:
It sounds like an Irish proverb to me.
"To the best of my knowledge first said by Alice Longworth Roosevelt of her father Theodore Roosevelt...."
She's certainly the famous person credited with turning it into a cliche almost one hundred years ago.
"If you have nothing good to say, come sit by me" was another famous saying associated with her; she reportedly had it tatted onto a cushion she kept next to her at her famous soirees in her latter-day doyenne hostess period.
I wouldn't in the least surprised if others had used either or both in the 19th century or earlier; there are few new bon mot under the sun.
J Thomas says:
"To do that they would have to believe that secular democracy is so enticing that they can't compete. And if they believe that they wouldn't be islamic fanatics."
If you knew even the least bit about the situation in Iraq you would know they can't compete. If they could they would not need to overrule their Parilment's Deviation from their theocratic line.
Like any dictatorship they know force.
They don't know much else.
Free Iran.
John Kerry is no liar. I believe his 1971 Senate testimony when he said he committed war crimes.
What is the War Hero Afraid of?
Form 180. Release the records.
"the situation in Iran"
Actually Iraqis on the way to consensual government.
===============John Kerry is emblimatic of America. A country where any decorated war criminal can run for President.
What is the War Hero Afraid of?
Form 180. Release the records.
Trent, I see what you're saying now. You aren't saying that israel would nuke both the USA and most of the middle east. You're saying that insane arabs would nuke the USA and then the USA or israel would nuke most of the middle east.
This story makes no sense. But it doesn't have to make sense because insane arabs don't make sense. We don't understand them so we must take pre-emptive action just in case.
I want to point out that our response to terrorism has been extremely weak.
If we want to prevent airplane hijackings there is an easy foolproof method. Stripsearch all passengers, issue them transparent jumpsuits, and give them their stuff back when they arrive. Trivial.
If we want to prevent container bombs, all we have to do is search all the containers. Sure, it would be expensive. So what? War is expensive.
We are talking about killing lots of people so we can avoid the inconvenience of wearing transparent jumpsuits on airliners and the inconvenience of searching containers. We are pretending that nothing has changed, except that we have to be at war.
The aftermath of an israeli strike on iran -- could they hit hardened sites? If the israelis nuke iranian sites, the radioactive signatures will be pretty blurred. And one likely aftermath of a nuclear attack will be sanctions by europe and every nation bordering the mediterranean. I don't think the israelis would do that. They'd be more likely to tell us they'd do it so we'll pull their chestnuts out of the fire.
If we want the israelis not to attack iran, there's a simple way to stop them. Tell them no.
M Simon, I didn't say that the Mullahs can't compete. I said they can't believe they can't compete.
gijoe,
That's a classic ad hominem argument. We could all be SGT York or we could all be Eddie Slovik; it doesn't in the least affect the validity of our arguments. By your logic, we should dismantle the interstate system. It's based on the autobahn which was built by Hitler. Hitler was an evil man, ergo the interstate system is evil. Nonsense.
It's hilarious to see the majority of people making comments here have no clue wtf they're talking about. You people are all acting like experts. If you were Iranian, had an ounce of Iranian blood in you, or were better educated on this topic you would be discussing more the issue of the Iranian people vs. the regime and wouldn't be talking so much about invasion.
And nuclear strikes, etc..
Can you all wake up and realize it is not an issue about nuclear this and nuclear that - it's an issue of will the POWERS OF THE WORLD support an Iran that is free from the tyrannical Mullahs. a 'Free Iran' is not in the interest of the current business partners of the MULLAHS. a 'Free Iran' greatly strengthens the United States and Israel (clarity: Iranian people love Israel/Jews as well as Americans - if you don't know what I'm talking or think I'm bsing you - go read a book, and try starting with Persian History and Cyrus The Great - then you'll know what's going on.
An alliance between United States, Israel, 'Free Iraq', 'Free Iran', etc.. Is a major major alliance- do you think China, Europe, and Russia want this?
WAKE UP PEOPLE - you are all smarter than this - and listen to Joe, he knows what he talking about.
Out -
#26908
Priority one: No nukes for the Mullahs.
Priority two: Freedom for Iranians.
If #1 is allowed to occur, then how much more difficult will #2 be?
I don't get the magical thinking. Somehow, if Europe would quit trading with the Mullahs, then the nuke problem just goes away! I don't get it.
If we couldn't even enforce reliable sanctions on Saddam, how are we supposed to do it on the Mullahs? Saddam was still in power after 12 years of sanctions. We don't have that kind of time with the Mullahs.
Faster please!
From an Iranian American:
The Islamic bomb of the Mullah$ is tied to the Iranian people's struggle for freedom, and the west cannot afford to ignore one for the other, because they are both inherently interconnected.
The bomb will not save the regime of the Mullah$, and it will spell disaster for the west and the world. The Soviet Union had hundreds of nuclear bombs when it collapsed, so a nuclear bomb is no guarantee that the much despised and hated Mullachracy is safe or stable. Despite the Mullah$' hopes, I don't see the Islamic bomb as an end to the struggle of the Iranian people to free themselves of the hideous Murderous Mullah$ and their Terrorist mercenaries. That will happen with or without the Islamic Bomb.
However, the world cannot afford a nuclear Islamic Republic, because the Mullah$ will give the technology to terrorists who at best will hold the western world hostage (as they have with so many in the last 25 years), or at worst use it.
The Mullah$ in Iran rely exculsively on foreign terrorists (Palestinian, Hamas, Hezbollah etc.) at this point for their personal security, since they don't trust Iranian guards. The entire regime is currently held up by hardliners, brainwashed revolutionary guards, and Palestinian Hamas & Hezbollah. The Mullah$ don't trust Iranians for their security. This regime relies on international terrorism for its survival, and as the tensions rise, and the unpopularity of this regime continues to threaten the Mullah$, the terrorists will have greater say over the Mullah$. Given the Mullah$ vulnerability and dependance on international terrorism, the terrorists will demand the technology before the Mullahcracy collapses, and the Mullah$ will deliver it out of desperation.
So like I said, the Iranian people will overthrow the Mullah$, with or without a bomb, but can the west afford a nuclear bomb in the hands of international Islamist terrorists, because the Mullah$ will pass the bomb over to their terrorist network, out of desperation. And then like I said its a question of being held hostage by nuclear armed terrorists, or worst yet, having them use it!
What should the west do? Don't wait, finish them up now, through multilateral sanctions and aggressive aid to the opposition groups and a commitment to back the people in ending the tyranny of the Murderous and terrorist Mullah$! Iran is not Iraq, there is a viable and real internal opposition. And its also not China after Tiannemon sqaure, the Mullah$ are depised and hated by the majority of the Iranians, and their government is far more dysfunctional than the Chinese. Waiting is disastrous for the world.
Russia announces Iran's Bushehr reactor is 90 percent finished
Link to story
Looks like Trent's timeline is right on.
"By now, the first power unit of the Bushehr nuclear station is 90 percent ready," a Russian Atomic Agency official told the Moscow-based Tass news agency. "All heavy equipment, including the reactor, has been brought and assembled at the station building."
Federal Nuclear Energy Agency chief Alexander Rumyantsev postponed his visit to Iran several times and was said to be planning talks in Teheran by November 2004 to complete negotiations for the signing of the nuclear fuel accord.
Officials said nuclear fuel for Bushehr has been produced and would be delivered to Iran only after the agreement was signed.
Taking from the North Korea Playbook, Iran will sign it as soon as it is possible which looks like November 2004. After all, it really won't matter once the reactor goes live what the agreement said.
SBD
Lurker - you see, if Europeans and others don't fund and assist the SOB mullahs then the Iranian people will have a much better opportunity at overturning the regime. Currently the Europeans, Chinese, Russians and the liberal media are making love to the Mullahs - and don't give a damn about the Iranian people.
The Iranian people are the key to defusing the Mullah's Bomb!
Spenta, you are exactly right I believe. At least it is the best view yet I have heard. Everyone says, "look, we've given the Iranian people a chance to overthrow the regime and they haven" <-- This statement is absolutely wrong and completely bullshit. The Iranian people haven't been given the chance! They hasve been beaten down and repressed for 20+ years and now they are the strongest they have ever been. It is now that the US must say screw what the Europeans and other goons think. This is abou tfreedom and we are going to support the Iranian people.
The Europeans haven't done a damn thing to help defuse the situation .. they go to Tehran a couple times a year and vice-versa, and drink tea, play with each other, smile, laugh, giggle and continue to propogate this major threat to the world.
WHAT THE HELL IS THE UNITED STATES DOING?
FASTER NOW AGAINST THE MULLAHS BASTARDS!!!!
One factor that is missing from this discussion is missile defence. According to SpaceWar, Israel's Arrow II hits a real Scud missile on its 7th successful test.
"Some six minutes after the 11-meter-long (38 feet), seven-ton Scud was launched at a height of dozens of kilometers above the Pacific Ocean, it was intercepted and destroyed by the Arrow II, or Hetz in Hebrew, which traveled nine times faster than the speed of sound, the papers said.
The test was carried out jointly with the US Missile Defense Agency at the Point Magu Sea Range in California."
Lest we forget, Israel was hit with 39 Scud missiles during the first Gulf War. With Iran likely to go nuclear, and threatening Israel with a nuclear holocaust, its comforting to know that Israel can knock their missiles out of the stratosphere.
Anti-missile systems are a lot harder to build than missiles. This is an arms race that Israel is winning and one certain to give the mad mullahs pause. In 2002, Ayatollah Hashemi Rafsanjani, Iran's former president said that on the day the Muslim world gets nuclear weapons the Israeli question will be settled forever "since a single atomic bomb has the power to completely destroy Israel, while an Israeli counter-strike can only cause partial damage to the Islamic world." But if you can't guarantee that your bomb will get through the missile shield, and you have no shield of your own, you risk annihilation by launching a strike. Israel can now say, "Go ahead punks, make our day!"
Iran's mullahs know that they are a minority government that only holds power by inflicting a reign of terror on their own people. They have very little popular support, in a population of 60 million, the pro-government types are less than 2 million - but the internal secret police and revolutionary guard have terrorized any opposition, and the French (how can you not "love" the French?) have arrested Iranian opposition activists living in France and jaled them for "terrorism." !!!! Is there any question as to which side the French are on? Now Jack Straw has come on TV and said that any military action against Iran would be "unthinkable."
He was not talking about the UK, he was talking about any US action. So apparently the Brits are vetoing action against Iran , one would presume they are threatening to withdraw from the coalition in Iraq and that is the leverage they are using. How Tony Blair and Jack Straw decided that US action against Iran was "unthinkable" is anybody's guess, I did not know that either Mr. Blair or Mr. Straw were part of the US electorate! Also it is entirely possible that Mr. Blair's party will be voted out of office in the next UK election and that a Euro-Weenie will take over (or should I say "Euro-Weasel" )
and presumable Jack Straw and Tony Blair, looking to fend off the threat from their own left wing politicians, are trying to diggress, dissemble, and blame the Jews - once again, Mssrs Straw and Blair are saying that the Israel-Palestine problem is the most urgent in the middle east, and has to be resolved before any other matters can be considered...this again reflecting the extreme anti Israel passions of the UK Guardian and the left wing establishment in the UK that is threatening Tony Blair...
but really very silly - is the Israel- Palestine situation an emergency, like Iran about to be armed with Nukes and ICBMS? Hardly. The UK is the country that pulled out all the stops and had the Nazi heavy water project in Norway destroyed so as to preclude any possibility of the Nazis getting the bomb. Now for some mysterious reason the Iranian Mullahs, who are every bit as degenerate and violent as the Nazis, can be allowed to get the bomb, if Mssrs Blair and Straw can just stay in office...Does Mr. Blair really believe that if the Mullahs bomb Israel, that the UK will be far behind? The Mullahs do not care how many of their own people they kill, remember that Ayatollah Khomeini has Iranian children run across minefields to set off the mines, and prepare the way for Iranian charges against the Iraquis . The Iranian boys running across the minefields were issued blue plastic "keys to paradise,"
ALLOWING THE MULLAHS TO GO NUCLEAR IS INSANE THEY MUST BE STOPPED..
Iran's mullahs know that they are a minority government that only holds power by inflicting a reign of terror on their own people. They have very little popular support, in a population of 60 million, the pro-government types are less than 2 million - but the internal secret police and revolutionary guard have terrorized any opposition, and the French (how can you not "love" the French?) have arrested Iranian opposition activists living in France and jaled them for "terrorism." !!!! Is there any question as to which side the French are on? Now Jack Straw has come on TV and said that any military action against Iran would be "unthinkable."
He was not talking about the UK, he was talking about any US action. So apparently the Brits are vetoing action against Iran , one would presume they are threatening to withdraw from the coalition in Iraq and that is the leverage they are using. How Tony Blair and Jack Straw decided that US action against Iran was "unthinkable" is anybody's guess, I did not know that either Mr. Blair or Mr. Straw were part of the US electorate! Also it is entirely possible that Mr. Blair's party will be voted out of office in the next UK election and that a Euro-Weenie will take over (or should I say "Euro-Weasel" )
and presumable Jack Straw and Tony Blair, looking to fend off the threat from their own left wing politicians, are trying to diggress, dissemble, and blame the Jews - once again, Mssrs Straw and Blair are saying that the Israel-Palestine problem is the most urgent in the middle east, and has to be resolved before any other matters can be considered...this again reflecting the extreme anti Israel passions of the UK Guardian and the left wing establishment in the UK that is threatening Tony Blair...
but really very silly - is the Israel- Palestine situation an emergency, like Iran about to be armed with Nukes and ICBMS? Hardly. The UK is the country that pulled out all the stops and had the Nazi heavy water project in Norway destroyed so as to preclude any possibility of the Nazis getting the bomb. Now for some mysterious reason the Iranian Mullahs, who are every bit as degenerate and violent as the Nazis, can be allowed to get the bomb, if Mssrs Blair and Straw can just stay in office...Does Mr. Blair really believe that if the Mullahs bomb Israel, that the UK will be far behind? The Mullahs do not care how many of their own people they kill, remember that Ayatollah Khomeini has Iranian children run across minefields to set off the mines, and prepare the way for Iranian charges against the Iraquis . The Iranian boys running across the minefields were issued blue plastic "keys to paradise,"
ALLOWING THE MULLAHS TO GO NUCLEAR IS INSANE THEY MUST BE STOPPED..