What I find funny is that you NEVER hear how Israel PLANS for attack. All you hear is Israel did it and job is done. Small country takes shit from no one.

Quoted: Israel is like a broken record, thy have been warning the US on an almost monthly basis for at least the last two years that 'Iran is only months away from a bomb'... look Ma! no Bomb! If Israel ws so keen on adetente with Iran it would be constantly encouraging the US to mke up and be friends with Iran, instead it feeds the US with a constant stream of 'Horror Stories' of what Iran intends to do to the US (and Israel). Yet 28 years later, Israel and the US are still there.

Those poor Iranians, so unjustly accused of supporting terror worldwide by those lying Jews. If Israel was convinced that Iran was on the verge of a bomb they'd do the job themselves, no matter how imperfectly. The Israelis have generally been predicting a spring 2006 timeframe as a point of no return. And 24 months is "months", given the unpredictability of figuring out what's going on in secret nuke programs. The CIA and intelligence agencies in general have horrible records of correctly predicting nuclear capabilities. They dropped the ball on Russia, China, India, South Africa, etc. That's a problem inherent with the task. If you think that the intel agencies will magically be able to predict that Iran will be nuclear-capable on April 15th, 2006, at 0800 EST, and that therefore the west needs to strike by 0600, you're living in fantasy land.

Israel just doesn't like the idea of being the biggest swinging dick on the block and their arguments that a muslim country getting nuclear weapons will mean an automatic attack is BS.  Pakistan is if anything FAR more unstable than Iran and is the source of most of the Islamic fundamentalists idealogical 'Shock Troops'. AQ and the Taliban still hold writ in Pakistan and Mushareff is only a heart beat away from assasintion and a hard line Islamic State following.

Yeah, and that's why we don't need another of these states with a bomb.

How do you deter a suicidal death cult? The SSBNs aren't particularly relevant to the task.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: what Israel fears most, a friendly(ish) Iran US detente. ANdy [Patiently waits for someone to throw up the "anti-semite card" in support of Israel] Andy is a wacko on Israel. I don't know if he's an anti-Semite, but he seems to have a Euro-style attitude towards the Jews. The shah was friendly with the US, and in fact Israel and Iran were quite close with each other in that era, precisely because they saw the Iranians as non-Arab and possibly a counterbalance to Arab hostility. There would be hossanas in Tel Aviv if someone like the Shah returned.

If someone like the Shah returned, the Iranians would want to get rid of him as well. He was a brutal dictator and was comparable to the current regime in the area of political repression. Google SAVAK.

Frankly, it's looking like the optimal solution to the problem is for the US to enable the Israelis to whack the Iranian sites. Provide some semi-discreete support and let them go at it. This sidesteps the congressioal approval problem, and for that matter the toothless UN. The results probably wouldn't be decisive, but it might kick the can down the road a couple years, and an Iranian retaliation on US forces would result in a decisive whacking of the sites by the USAF and USN.

Quoted: UHHH GlockGuy40!?! I said a while ago that in order to attack Iran Anyone would have to go in with troops and not just use long range missles. To which you replied i was "full of shit and did'nt know what i was talking about" but now you post this article where the IDF specifically states: The Times also said that special IDF forces would be helicoptered into Iran to take out targets that could not be destroyed in an air strike. So what's your answer to that?????? I know my shit.

My answer to that is... they don't have the capability to do it, and it won't happen. The reporter is just as far off as you were. Secondly, Israel is just blowing hot wind to put pressure on the international community to do something.

Just as with N. Korea, everyone will huff and puff at the UN and nothing will come of it. Sanctions won't even be agreed upon because China and Russia wont go along with them. The Europeans may enact some unilateral political & economic sanctions, but nothing of significance like sanctioning Iran's energy sector. It would be shooting themselves and the world economy in the foot if they embargoed Iranian oil. The price of oil is already too high, and the Europeans are dependent on Iranian natural gas.

And should Israel or the U.S. attempt air strikes, they will ultimately fail do to a lack of intelligence on Iran's nuclear program.  Read below:

On A Nuclear Iran

by Patrick Lang
Sat Jan 14th, 2006 at 01:36:25 PM EST
by Patrick Lang (bio below)

www.boomantribune.com/story/2006/1/14/133625/218

"We won't be intimidated ... You don't even want us to do some research," said Ahmadinejad. "That's not fair. Even if you bring in the international community, we're still not going to listen to you the way you want. You are just tricking us, and this is not fair. You're not going to stop our research."

   He accused the Western nations of using the threat of referral to the U.N. Security Council as a "stick" to threaten Iran. "Every day, they bring in a stick and tell us either we have to listen to them and do what they want or be referred to the Security Council ... You are using it as a stick, you are threatening us with it." Yahoo News

"And I'll huff and I'll puff and I'll blow your house down..." (wolf to little pigs) It appears that the Iranian government (the one that Michael Rubin et al say is unpopular in spite of its recent election) has decided that our bark is worse than our bite. They are probably correct. There is a lot of "action" just now in the blogosphere concerning Western "plans" to raise hell with the Iranian "nucular" program with commandos or a massive air campaign. Forget the commando thing. Iran is a large, hostile country. There are literally millions of people there just waiting for an opportunity to help the "authorities" hunt down a commando force. You could get in, but how would you get out? The complex itself is composed of a large number of facilities, some of them hardened against attack. This is not a suitable target set for special operations forces. Could a US air campaign set back the Iranian program enough to be worth considering? Yes, but a fruitful result would require a maximum effort on the part of US Air Force and US Navy world-wide. We are talking about something in the nature of a thousand strike sorties of aircraft and cruise missiles using platforms deployed from all over the planet. One could do this with nuclear weapons at a fraction of the effort and cost, but the rational among us know that this will not happen.

The Israelis? With what set of imaginary assets could the Israelis do anything more than anger the Iranians? Their smallish air force lacks the strength, range, tanker capability, targeting capability, etc. The target set would require numerous waves of re-strikes after bomb damage assessments were made. The Izzies would have to overfly Jordan, Iraq, the Gulf States, Saudi Arabia. All of these countries would object loudly. They are all allies of the United States. Think about it! Would the Shia run government of Iraq give its assent to overflight or, better yet, to use of Iraqi air bases by Israel? Ignore them? Hey! They are the SOVEREIGN government of Iraq. We made them that, and they become more entrenched in government by the day. A talking head host observed last evening that the Israelis have "THE ARROW..." Say what? The Arrow is an anti-ballistic missile weapon with an engagement slant range of about 100 km. Arrow-Iran strike? Duh!

Oh yeah, Osirak. That always comes up in a discussion of Israel and the Iranian program. It is true that Israel struck the Iraqi nuclear facility at Osirak long ago. The facility was one single set of undefended above ground buildings and the Israelis struck it with half a dozen planes. Not the same thing at all.

So, what is going to happen? ... continued below ...

Probably not much. We and the Europeans will eventually go to the UN for sanctions against Iran. The Iranians will continue with their program and eventually weaponize. The Iranians will seek reprisals against us all in Iraq and elsewhere. With nuclear weapons in hand Iran will become the dominant local power in the Gulf. They will have no pressing need to use these weapons because their mere possession will ensure that everyone in the region, including Israel, will have to deal with them as a major power.

What do I think of that? I think that an Iran armed with such weapons will be a major rallying point and supply source for jihadi forces everywhere. The possession of such power by Iran will greatly undercut the goals of modernism and democracy which the United States has embraced (for good or ill) in the Islamic World. The probability of a major war in the region will have been greatly increased. What will be the posture of the United States if the Iranians have nuclear weapons and we still have forces in the Gulf and in Iraq? Should Europe feel safe? They should contemplate the ranges of ballistic missiles which the Chinese have previously sold to Middle Eastern countries (Saudi Arabia for example). Who knows what China will sell in the future and to whom.

People will ask if it is not "just" that Iran should have nuclear weapons. I don't care if it is "just" or not. A nuclear Iran is too dangerous to be tolerated.

Pat Lang


Col. Patrick W. Lang (Ret.), a highly decorated retired senior officer of U.S. Military Intelligence and U.S. Army Special Forces, served as “Defense Intelligence Officer for the Middle East, South Asia and Terrorism" for the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) and was later the first Director of the Defense Humint Service. Col. Lang was the first Professor of the Arabic Language at the United States Military Academy at West Point. For his service in the DIA, he was awarded the “Presidential Rank of Distinguished Executive.” He is a frequent commentator on television and radio, including MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann (interview), CNN and Wolf Blitzer's Situation Room (interview), PBS's Newshour, NPR's "All Things Considered," (interview), and more .

Also this:

Is the Begin Option Still a Viable Option for Israel

by Shlomo Brom

In Getting Ready for a for a Nuclear Ready Iran

Report by the Strategic Studies Institute, U.S. Army War College, October 2005

(starts on pg. 133 of the PDF)
-------------------------------------------------------------

CHAPTER 6
IS THE BEGIN DOCTRINE STILL A VIABLE OPTION
FOR ISRAEL?

Shlomo Brom

[snip]

The Nature of the Iranian Nuclear Program
and Its Vulnerabilities.

The Israeli attack on the Iraqi reactor, Osiraq, had a deep
impact on the evolution of other nuclear programs in the Middle
East. States that were determined to continue with such programs
learned the lessons of the attack and concluded that they should
strive to decrease the vulnerability of their program by adding more
protection and more redundancy. The new nuclear projects are
much more dispersed and well-protected. That is also true for the
Iranian nuclear program. The most essential part of every military
nuclear program is the production of fissile materials. According
to recent revelations concerning the Iranian nuclear program, Iran
intends to produce fissile materials in two tracks; the uranium track
and the plutonium track. First, using the excuse of a plan to produce
fuel for nuclear power plants, Iran is building uranium enrichment
capabilities. Iran is also pursuing different methods of enrichment
to ensure redundancy. It is vigorously building an industrial size
facility for uranium enrichment with gas centrifuges in Natanz,
and it pursued also LASER enrichment of uranium. In parallel,
it is striving to control technologies that will enable it to build a
plutonium production heavy water reactor. In this context, it was
recently discovered that Iran is building a heavy water production
facility in Arak, and also has an intention to build at the same location
a heavy water so-called “research reactor,” which will probably be
used for irradiating of uranium, and later separation of plutonium
from the irradiated uranium rods.27 Uranium enrichment specifically
enables dispersion of the production facilities in a relatively large
number of small facilities. It is very difficult to assure that there are
no additional facilities other than those that were already traced.
According to one estimate, there are 19 traced suspected nuclear
facilities in Iran without assurance that this number is finite.28
The nuclear facilities that Iran is constructing are also welldefended.
The centrifuge plant built at Natanz is underground, and
it is defended by an extensive ground air defense system.29
It is very difficult to find in the Iranian nuclear program one
vulnerable point that, once it is attacked and destroyed, the Iranian
program is stopped or stalled for a long time. The Bushier nuclear
power plant, which is relatively vulnerable to attacks, is not really
a part of the military nuclear program, and it mostly serves as an
excuse for an Iranian wish to have control over the full fuel cycle,
namely building a capacity for uranium enrichment. Its attack would
not have a real effect on the military program. The net effect is that
any attempt to attack the Iranian nuclear program would necessitate
sustainable attacks on a relatively large number of targets that are
well-defended, passively and actively.

Israeli Operational Capabilities vis-à-vis Iran.

Iran is situated more then 1,000 kms from Israel. It is a vast country,
and all the meaningful nuclear targets are, and most probably will
continue to be, situated far from its Western borders. That means
that once Israel decides to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities, it will have
to plan a sustainable attack on a number of targets that are situated
1,500-1,700 kms from Israel. For that purpose, Israel can use only
its air force. The targets usually are far from the Indian Ocean, and
Israel has no significant seaborne air power assets. Although Israel
has some military relationships with friendly states that are situated
closer to Iran, most notably, Turkey and India, these states also are
keeping a friendly relationship with Iran, and it is highly unlikely
that they would let Israel use their territories for the purpose of
attacking Iran’s nuclear infrastructure. This means that the Israeli
attack aircraft would have to take off from air bases in Israel, fly
1,500-1,700 kms to the targets, destroy them, and then fly back 1,500-
1,700 kms. It is also possible that the flight would be even longer
for the Israeli planes because they would have to fly through the air
space of Jordan and Iraq to use the direct shorter route to Iran. Flying
through Jordan without the explicit or implicit permission of the
Jordanians would hurt relations with a friendly Arab state. Flying
over Iraq without coordination with the United States would lead to
a clash with U.S. interceptors. Any attempt at coordination with the
United States or asking permission from Jordan might compromise
the operation. It is also very doubtful whether Jordan and the United
States would be willing to be involved in such Israeli operations. As
a result, the Israeli planes would have to use the longer route over
the Indian Ocean, with minimal penetration of the air space of other
states.

The IAF does not have any bombers. Its air fleet consists only of
fighter-bombers with limited range of action. Israel has 25 F-15I and
137 F-16C/D fighter-bombers. It is going to improve its long range
capability in 2004 with few operational F-16I aircraft with greater
range of action then the F-15I, but the burden of the attacks would be
laid mostly on the F-15I aircraft that have better capabilities at longer
ranges. F-15I has a radius of action of 1,270 kms. The corresponding
one for F-16C/D is 925 kms and for F-16I, 2,100 kms (but Israel will
have only few of them at the relevant time).30 The real operational
radius is even shorter because for parts of the route, the planes would
have to fly at low altitude to avoid radar detection. That shortens the
range of flight because of higher fuel consumption at low altitudes.
It means that the attack aircraft would need to be refueled at least
twice, on their way to the targets and from the targets. That adds
complication to the operation because Israel has only a few air
refuelers based on Boeing 707 aircraft platforms. Such aircraft are
very vulnerable, and therefore air refueling cannot take place in
hostile air space.

Assuming that the attack aircraft succeeded in entering the Iranian
air space, they would have to avoid early detection and be capable
of dealing with Iranian interceptors. Iran is a vast country, and the
radar assets available to the Iranian air defense system are limited.
If the Israeli planners had good information about their location, it
would be possible to plan approach routes to the targets that would
avoid early detection. If the attacking aircraft were detected and
intercepted, the Israeli F-15s and F-16s enjoy vast superiority over
the Iranian interceptors and would probably defend themselves
successfully. The problem is that such long range attacks are very
sensitive to interferences, and therefore the intercepted attack
formation might have to abort its mission.

If the Israeli attack aircraft succeed in avoiding early detection
and interception, it can be safely assumed that they would be capable
of avoiding the surface to air missile defenses and the antiaircraft
artillery (AAA) defenses deployed closer to the targets and destroy
the targets by use of a combination of tactics, ECM, and smart
munitions.

In any case, any Israeli attack on an Iranian nuclear target would
be a very complex operation in which a relatively large number
of attack aircraft and support aircraft (interceptors, ECM aircraft,
refuelers, and rescue aircraft) would participate. The conclusion is
that Israel could attack only a few Iranian targets and not as part
of a sustainable operation over time, but as a one time surprise
operation.

Even if Israel had the attack capabilities needed for the destruction
of the all elements of the Iranian nuclear program, it is doubtful
whether Israel has the kind of intelligence needed to be certain that
all the necessary elements of the program were traced and destroyed
fully. Israel has good photographic coverage of Iran with the Ofeq
series of reconnaissance satellites, but being so distant from Iran,
one can assume that other kinds of intelligence coverage are rather
partial and weak.

Covert action demands different kinds of operational capabilities
and intelligence. There is no indication that Israel has capabilities
of covert operations in Iran. The recent information about the
development of the Iranian program indicated that it reached a
status of being independent of external assistance. Moreover, the
assistance Iran got was mostly from Pakistan, another place which is
not a traditional area of operations for the Israeli secret services, like
Europe or South America. It seems that there is no real potential for
covert Israeli operations against the Iranian Nuclear program.

[SNIP]

Iranian Possible Responses as a Constraint.

Although presently Israel enjoys vast superiority in long range
strike capabilities in comparison with Iran, Iran is succeeding
in maintaining a balance of mutual deterrence with Israel. Until
recently, Iran’s deterrence was based on the use of proxies, terror
groups that operated from areas close to Israel or in the global arena.
Iran could balance Israel’s ability to strike at targets in its territory
with the ability of these proxies to attack Israeli towns in northern
Israel or Israeli interests all over the world, using the infrastructure
that these terror groups have established in many states. The most
salient of these groups is Hezbollah in Lebanon. It succeeded, with the
support of Iran, in building a large array of surface to surface rockets
in South Lebanon that presents a constant threat over the civilian
population in a large part of Israel. In recent years, Hezbollah has
acquired from Iran longer range rockets (Fajr 3 and 5) and expanded
its strike capability to a larger part of Israel.36 Iran also demonstrated
its ability to hurt Israeli interests in others states when its agents
were involved in the bombing of the Israeli embassy and the Jewish
community center in Buenos Aires.

Iran is developing a 1,330 kms range ballistic missile, Sheab-3,
that will give Iran the capability to strike directly at targets in Israel’s
territory. The missiles have reached initial operational capabilities.37
Iran admitted after signing the Chemical Weapons Convention
(CWC) that it developed and stockpiled chemical weapons, probably
mustard gas and nerve agents. It was supposed to destroy these
weapons in accordance with the provisions of the CWC, but there is
no report that this was done and Iran is suspected of continuing its
activities in this area.38

If Israel decides to attack Iran’s nuclear installations, it will have
to take into account a response in kind. Iran may use its ballistic
missiles to attack Israeli nuclear installations. Such attacks will not
be effective because of the inaccuracy of its missiles. The probability
of an attempted Iranian attack with aircraft is lower, although strike
aircraft may be more accurate. Iran has a very small number of
long range SU-24 strike aircraft and some air-refueling capability,
but such a long range attack with the challenge of the Israeli air
defense system is a formidable task for its air force. It is possible
that Iran would follow the example of Iraq, and, being aware of the
ineffectiveness of the missile attack on nuclear installations, it would
launch its missiles against Israeli cities.
Iran would probably use its proxies to hit at Israeli targets and
interests in Israel and elsewhere. Under the present circumstances,
striking Israel from Lebanon would be difficult because Israel
probably would react harshly against Syria, Iran’s ally, which is
in a position of weakness; and that does not serve Iran’s Interests.
Hitting Israeli and Jewish targets abroad may look to the Iranians as
less risky.

If an Israeli strike in Iran caused some radioactive contamination,
Israel would have to take into account Iranian use of chemical
weapons. In all other circumstances, such use is highly improbable
because an Iranian chemical attack would be a blatant violation of
the CWC, and might lead to international action against Iran.

It is not possible to ascertain accurately what would be the Iranian
response, but the experience of the Israeli- Iranian relationship in
the last 2 decades and the declarations of the Iranian leadership39
indicate clearly that there would be a violent Iranian reaction to any
Israeli attack in Iran.


But you're right... you know your shit.

Here's a thought.   How about getting some of Iran's neighbors to complain about Iran destabilizing the middle east further and getting them to strike?   There would be alot less bitching if Jordan and Saudi dumped a few bombs than if we did.   I'm sure we could send them an old destroyer or few F15s from the boneyard to make it worth their efforts.

Quoted: Frankly, it's looking like the optimal solution to the problem is for the US to enable the Israelis to whack the Iranian sites. Provide some semi-discreete support and let them go at it. This sidesteps the congressioal approval problem, and for that matter the toothless UN. The results probably wouldn't be decisive, but it might kick the can down the road a couple years, and an Iranian retaliation on US forces would result in a decisive whacking of the sites by the USAF and USN.

As pointed out in Is the Begin Option Still a Viable Option for Israel by Shlomo Brom, Israel only has the capability to hit at a maximum, a couple of sites in a one time suprise attack. They do not have the capability to engage in a sustained air campaign to destroy the Iranian program.

We aren't going to lend them B-52's and B-2's to get the job done. Either we will do it, or Iran will get the bomb.

In order for us to stop them, we would have to engage in a concerted air campaign. We would first have to knock out their whole air defense network, then destroy their air force and establish air dominance (No bg deal... it would take a couple days with cruise missiles and fighters). We would then have to bring in B-52's and B-2's to drop bombs like dump trucks around the country at 150 to 300 sites in order to destroy their program. It would be a campaign that would have to last several weeks. And this all assumes we would have the intelligence to pull it off.

Not to mention the fact that everyday that passed in which we continued to bomb, we would be denounced from Brussels to Bejing. Then you would have to factor in Iran's response... and holy shit you have a cluster-fuck on your hands. Doubtful it will happen.  

Quoted: Here's a thought.   How about getting some of Iran's neighbors to complain about Iran destabilizing the middle east further and getting them to strike?   There would be alot less bitching if Jordan and Saudi dumped a few bombs than if we did.   I'm sure we could send them an old destroyer or few F15s from the boneyard to make it worth their efforts.

The Saudis already have F-15's. Secondly, Iran's military is much larger than both Saudi Arabia's and Jordan's. And Iran has the power projection capability to reach them easily. Moreover, why would the Arabs lift a finger to help when the US could do their heavy lifting for them.

Ok, lets get down to tin tacks-

* Iran is probably working to aquire nukes
* Iran's president is an apocolyptic nutjob that is in the middle of a power play with the mullahs, who don't like him very much and have been on a liberalisation path since the death of Khomani.
* Ahmadinijad's playing the conservative card, and may have the Revloutionary guards on his side.
* Iran's population is generally pro-western, or at least sympathetic to our lifestyle.
* Israel can't allow anyone else in the ME to have nukes as it would diminish their deterence towards a region that hates them
* Israel can't, with confidence, get all of the nuclear sites, even using nuclear weapons
* The U.S. can't, with confidence, get all of the nuclear sites, even using nuclear weapons.
* Usining nuclear weapons would be the biggest foreign policy disaster since Xerxes attacked Greece- The U.S. will NEVER, EVER have ANY infulence in the Middle East EVER AGAIN. NO access to the oil, NO happy resolution to Iraq or Afghanistan, U.S. Muslim population becomes a 5th column of hajjis, as does the Muslim population of just about every other Western nation. Can the West take on a billion people? Are we willing to commit genocide? I doubt it, but if Iran gets nuked, the Muslims will be.
* The above doom and gloom scenario is exactily Ahmadinijad's stated aim- why give it to him.

So, given military force is a bad move, and this whole "nukes and death to Israel' thing is part of an internal political powerplay (and yes, I do think that Ahmadinijad would nuke Israel to boost his position in Iran), why not either

a) sit this one out, accept that its going to happen, and embrace a second Islamic nuclear power
   Answer- The anti-nuclear rhetoric has already gone too far. Giving up now would boot Ahmadinijad's presitige AND               give them nukes.

b) assasinate Ahmadinijad and make it look like political opponants
   Answer- The clerics run the show, and they are the ones that started the nuclear program. Killing Ahmadinijad, as desireable as it might be, would strengthen the clerics' position, and give them nukes. Moreover, they have seen that being pro-nationalist (not necessarily pro-muslim) is good politics. This means that they will use this nationalist sentiment to our detriment.

c) continue protest against Iran going nuclear, take it to the UN, work out some sort of sop conciliation deal, such as agree to drop all sanctions if Iran does their reprocessing in Russia, or even agrees to do it in Iran under strict IAEA supervision (or let the Europeans do the deal, and let them take the blame ). Ahmadinijad gets a little victory (so hopefully wont get desperate), but doesn't get all of the prestige he would have otherwise, the Mullahs then have more wiggle room to get rid of him and continue their liberalisation program without having to play ultra-nationalist, and we work to flood Iran with as much Western culture as their ports and roads can handle.

In the meantime, let it be known that Israel is backed by America's nuclear arsenal. If Israel comes under nuclear attack, then the U.S. will respond as though it were an attack on U.S. soil. Iran will automatically be considered the culprit, and be burned back to bedrock. If the Israeli nuclear arsenal doesn't constitute a deterent, then that will. The Mullahs will have an incentive to keep a lid on the nukes that they will go ahead and develop anyway, and have more ammunition to restrain Ahmadinijad.

I'd go with option c). Everyone gets to save face, everyone gets a little of what they want, but ultimatly Israel and the West win. Why?

Because the above denies the various Iranian factions too much of a victory to be useful. It also provides Iran a major incentive to keep a lid on their nukes. They might be able to shoot down Israeli nuclear bombers, but the wont get the wing of Minutemen coming over the horizon. It also gives maximum maneuvering room to the "moderates" inside Iran (I know moderate is a relative term, but you pick the side that will give YOU the best outcome) to continue the liberalisation trend. This plan would also boost U.S. prestige, because they backed the multilateral, UN-style solution and came out looking like a peace-maker. This will give the U.S. kudos that it can call on the next time somemthing goes wrong. Moreover, you won't turn the majority of the world's Muslim population into active killers. The small proportion that already are killers are hard enough to deal with.

At the end of the day, if Iran wants nukes, Iran will get nukes. As someone said, A.Q. Khan more or less put the plans on the internet- anyone will get them. Iran will get the right bits somehow, and turn them into a bomb. Why not try to make the best of a bad situation, instead of making a bad situation catostrophic?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quoted: UHHH GlockGuy40!?! I said a while ago that in order to attack Iran Anyone would have to go in with troops and not just use long range missles. To which you replied i was "full of shit and did'nt know what i was talking about" but now you post this article where the IDF specifically states: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Times also said that special IDF forces would be helicoptered into Iran to take out targets that could not be destroyed in an air strike. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So what's your answer to that?????? I know my shit. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- My answer to that is... they don't have the capability to do it, and it won't happen. The reporter is just as far off as you were. Secondly, Israel is just blowing hot wind to put pressure on the international community to do something. Just as with N. Korea, everyone will huff and puff at the UN and nothing will come of it. Sanctions won't even be agreed upon because China and Russia wont go along with them. The Europeans may enact some unilateral political & economic sanctions, but nothing of significance like sanctioning Iran's energy sector. It would be shooting themselves and the world economy in the foot if they embargoed Iranian oil. The price of oil is already too high, and the Europeans are dependent on Iranian natural gas. And should Israel or the U.S. attempt air strikes, they will ultimately fail do to a lack of intelligence on Iran's nuclear program.

You keep making conclusions like you know anything about Isreals and the US's capabilities. You dont. You sound like all those defeatest nervous nellies in both Gulf wars that would say things like "OMG they have the 4th largest army in the world! were gonna need a half million body bags! The sky is FALLING!" PHOOOOEY! Why are you afraid of Iranians? dont want to hurt your pals? is that it? They are'nt shit, never will be. I dont care how much "hardware" they have they still suck. Proof? Look at the Iran Iraq war. Iran had plenty more Men and material than Iraq but could not launch an offensive except with "human waves" And we kicked the iraqi armies ass in what 3 weeks? so why would'nt we or Isreal kick Irans ass in a week? gimme a good reason? And I'm not talking about a invasion war im talking about just striking her nuclear facilities. I can't think of any. You  seem to be a passive defeatist who say "oh just let it happen, there is nothing we can do about it anyway" Leave the fighting to the men, you can stay with the women. Another comparison is the Wars with the middle east arab states. On paper it looked like Isreal would be swamped by superior numbers and equal Soviet hardware and so on and so on. All the pussys would be like OH no! They will destroy us! Can't we all just get along? Oh no their 'retribution' will be terrible! But did the Isrealis with balls take this tack? NO! they acted with Bold initiative . God protects them! he does'nt protect barking mad moon worshipping goat killers! They kicked the enemies ass's what 4 times in 20 years? So now you're gonna raise doubts in order to help your Jihadi friends? BAH! These clowns are nothing to fear. <-- King Imam of Iran! They are all bluster and no balls. The only way they can react is to bomb school buses then run when the real men show up. It's NOT a question of IF but when and how. I pray that we will help them at least. But i dont care how many Ghandi's come out of the wood work with naive op-ed pieces Iran cannot become Nuclear and the US and Isreal cannot be cowed by defeatists!!!

Quoted: What about an Ahmadinejad assassination followed by a military coup ??

Much better idea.

[singing]  All we are saying is give assassination a chance [/signing]

Ok, so I'm no expert on Iran, or Persians for that matter; however, what do we think their chances are of enriching enough depleted uranium to make a dirty bomb, and how long?

And, how would Israel launch a pre-emptive air strike?

I have no doubts that WE would; but how would we simultaneously fight Iran, Afghanistan, and Iraq, and what about Pakistan’s current sentiment towards the US now?

This seems like the start of WWIII, some say were have been in it since Sept 11th.

I agree with the western cultural influence.

Every Iranian I've ever chatted with online (maybe 20-30 in 10 years) all love the US, US culture, etc...

Quoted: Israel only has the capability to hit at a maximum, a couple of sites in a one time suprise attack. They do not have the capability to engage in a sustained air campaign to destroy the Iranian program.

That's why I said it wouldn't be decisive. But it may kick the can down the road for a couple years if they hit the right sites--a setback for the program rather than wiping it out.

Whatever happens, I'm sure our guv will do it's best to fuck it up.

Quoted: Could it do so safely?   I dont think the AF would be very happy about losing one in hostile territory.

At $2 billion per plane, the USAF better use the B2 to bomb Iran's nukular facilities! I want my tax dollars put to work.

Quoted: How to deal with Iran?  Easy enough, drop all the rhetoric, open up all and every trade route to Iran, bombard them with the Western consumer dream. ANdy

You mean alcohol & porn?  Hmmm......  Should work!  

Quoted: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quoted: UHHH GlockGuy40!?! I said a while ago that in order to attack Iran Anyone would have to go in with troops and not just use long range missles. To which you replied i was "full of shit and did'nt know what i was talking about" but now you post this article where the IDF specifically states: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Times also said that special IDF forces would be helicoptered into Iran to take out targets that could not be destroyed in an air strike. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So what's your answer to that?????? I know my shit. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- My answer to that is... they don't have the capability to do it, and it won't happen. The reporter is just as far off as you were. Secondly, Israel is just blowing hot wind to put pressure on the international community to do something. Just as with N. Korea, everyone will huff and puff at the UN and nothing will come of it. Sanctions won't even be agreed upon because China and Russia wont go along with them. The Europeans may enact some unilateral political & economic sanctions, but nothing of significance like sanctioning Iran's energy sector. It would be shooting themselves and the world economy in the foot if they embargoed Iranian oil. The price of oil is already too high, and the Europeans are dependent on Iranian natural gas. And should Israel or the U.S. attempt air strikes, they will ultimately fail do to a lack of intelligence on Iran's nuclear program. You keep making conclusions like you know anything about Isreals and the US's capabilities. You dont. You sound like all those defeatest nervous nellies in both Gulf wars that would say things like "OMG they have the 4th largest army in the world! were gonna need a half million body bags! The sky is FALLING!" PHOOOOEY! Why are you afraid of Iranians? dont want to hurt your pals? is that it? They are'nt shit, never will be. I dont care how much "hardware" they have they still suck. Proof? Look at the Iran Iraq war. Iran had plenty more Men and material than Iraq but could not launch an offensive except with "human waves" And we kicked the iraqi armies ass in what 3 weeks? so why would'nt we or Isreal kick Irans ass in a week? gimme a good reason? And I'm not talking about a invasion war im talking about just striking her nuclear facilities. I can't think of any. You  seem to be a passive defeatist who say "oh just let it happen, there is nothing we can do about it anyway" Leave the fighting to the men, you can stay with the women. Another comparison is the Wars with the middle east arab states. On paper it looked like Isreal would be swamped by superior numbers and equal Soviet hardware and so on and so on. All the pussys would be like OH no! They will destroy us! Can't we all just get along? Oh no their 'retribution' will be terrible! But did the Isrealis with balls take this tack? NO! they acted with Bold initiative . God protects them! he does'nt protect barking mad moon worshipping goat killers! They kicked the enemies ass's what 4 times in 20 years? So now you're gonna raise doubts in order to help your Jihadi friends? BAH! These clowns are nothing to fear. <-- King Imam of Iran! They are all bluster and no balls. The only way they can react is to bomb school buses then run when the real men show up. It's NOT a question of IF but when and how. I pray that we will help them at least. But i dont care how many Ghandi's come out of the wood work with naive op-ed pieces Iran cannot become Nuclear and the US and Isreal cannot be cowed by defeatists!!!

First off, in one of your earlier posts, you spelled God like this ----> G-d. Which means you are Jewish or at least part Jewish. So I can understand your blatant distortion of the facts in your hope for the best outcome for the Israelis. However, you again, are missing the point. First off, you totally ignored all the factual evidence I posted (by an Israeli author no less) that  indicates that they have a very limited capability to strike Iran and that at best, if they were even able to pull off the operation, they could only destroy a few sites at most. That in no way would ensure that Iran's nuclear program was destroy, or even delayed.

Secondly, the U.S. does have the military capability to destroy Iran's program, but it lacks the intelligence direct that capabilitiy successfully. There is no way to know if hitting Iran's known nuclear sites will do substantial damage to their program; it is rumored they have over 350 sites. Many of these sites are in urban and populated areas, which would expose civilians to radioactive contamination and collateral damage. Many of the sites are deeply buried and would require several strikes to ensure their destruction. I could go on, but let's just say the operation would be messy, it would be a several week campaign, it would rally Iranians behind the regime, and ultimately would end up hurting our interests in the region, all for an outcome we can't be sure of.

Lastly, your personal attacks at me mean nothing. You're a fucking clown that can't tell his head from his ass. I don't like where this situation with the Iranians is going anymore than you do; however,  I can't stick my head in the sand like you and ignore reality. Short of an invasion and regime change, everything else is a stop-gap half measure. We won't be able to delay them forever. They will get the bomb sooner or later, and the Isrealis will just have to learn to deal with it. The Israelis will simply have to abandon their nuclear ambiguity and take an overt nuclear posture, letting Iran know that resorting to nuclear conflict would be a mistake. The U.S., for its part, will move more nuclear assets into the gulf as an added deterent to further clarify the situation for the mullahs.  It worked with a delusional Stalin, it will work with the Iranians too.

You call me a defeatist, I call you ridiculously optomistic... but more than that, you are in a horrible state of denial.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: This makes quite a bit of sense... Although I am no expert on international affairs I did live and work with Iranians up to and after the Iranian Revolution.  Unlike the Arabs, Iranians are well educated, understand Democracy and are used to it, don't particularly like Arabs, (they regard them as uncivilised savages), and are basically 'western' in their outlook. ANdy Which is why they took and held 70+ Americans hostage for 444 days.    That's quite an expression of their 'Western' outlook. You neglect to mention that they support a range of terrorist organizations, including Hezbollah, and that they are an Islamic theocracy with all the goodness that goes with it.   The Iranian people may be fine and dandy, but the Iranian government is teh ghey and cannot be allowed nuclear weapons.  If they won't open up for the world to see that they don't have them, then they should be taken by force.

The iranian citizens weren't the one who took hostages or support terrorist organizations. It's all the government, which, as has been stated before, is led by a nutcase leader.

Very informative thread.  I think I have learned more about Iran here than in the freakin' newspapers and publications.

Which is why they took and held 70+ Americans hostage for 444 days.    That's quite an expression of their 'Western' outlook.




+ 1,000,000

Fuck Iran

Quoted: Ok, so I'm no expert on Iran, or Persians for that matter; however, what do we think their chances are of enriching enough depleted uranium to make a dirty bomb, and how long?

First off, you don't enrich depleted uranium.

Depleted uranium results from the enriching of natural uranium for use in nuclear reactors. Natural uranium is a slightly radioactive metal that is present in most rocks and soils as well as in many rivers and sea water. Natural uranium consists primarily of a mixture of two isotopes (forms) of uranium, Uranium-235 (U235) and Uranium-238 (U238), in the proportion of about 0.7 and 99.3 percent, respectively. Nuclear reactors require U235 to produce energy, therefore, the natural uranium has to be enriched to obtain the isotope U235 by removing a large part of the U238. Uranium-238 becomes DU, which is 0.7 times as radioactive as natural uranium. Since DU has a half-life of 4.5 billion years, there is very little decay of those DU materials.

www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/du.htm

Secondly, you don't have to enrich any material to create a dirty bomb. A dirty bomb consists of conventional explosives mixed with radioactive material in order to cause widespread radioactive contamination. Iran possesses plenty of material that is radioactive and definitely possesses explosives; they could make any number of dirty bombs they desired tomorrow.

Dirty bombs are a weapon of terror though; they have no military utility. They mainly render an area unusable for a period of years and cause panic in the local population due to fear of radiation exposure (thyroid cancer).

The only time enrichment is necessary is when making nuclear fuel for reactors or nuclear weapons.

Quoted: And, how would Israel launch a pre-emptive air strike?

Read the study I posted by Brom above.

Quoted: I have no doubts that WE would; but how would we simultaneously fight Iran, Afghanistan, and Iraq, and what about Pakistan’s current sentiment towards the US now?

We wouldn't fight Iran full on. We would engage in air strikes on their nuclear program and then stop our attack. It wouldn't be a full scale war. However, if we attack Iran, Iran will increase the intensity of the war in Iraq (especially in the South where they have considerable influence).

As for the Pakistanis, we recently launched an attempted assassination of a top Al-Queda leader there, killing several civilians. This has pissed off the Pakistanis, but they already hated us, so its no real big change. It just puts more pressure on the Pakistani govt. because they continue to serve as a US ally. The head of the Pakistani govt, Gen. Musharrif, has already had 3 assassination attempts made on his life..... our killing of Pakistani civilians probably won't help Musharrif's popularity any.  

Quoted: This seems like the start of WWIII, some say were have been in it since Sept 11th.

Yes some do say that.... but I don't think we've seen anything yet. The worse is still over the horizon.

Quoted: The iranian citizens weren't the one who took hostages or support terrorist organizations. It's all the government, which, as has been stated before, is led by a nutcase leader.

Fair enough - let's just attack the government & their nuclear facilities.   Oh wait, that's what's likely going to happen anyway....

You need to put that 444 days at the feet of the stupid fuckwit that let it happen! They were also going to grab the Russian Embassy when the Russian invaded Afghanistan. Do you know why they called off the mobs and didn't? Simple enough. The Russian Ambassador got on the horn to Moscow and told them they were going to be stormed. The Russian Foreign Minster then got on the Horn to Khomeini and told him that if the embassy was stormed they would flatten Tehran 20 minutes later... he wasn't fucking about and the Mullahs knew it. Carter reacted like a Rabbit caught in the headlights. Just one agressive comment would have defused things, after all it was only meant to be a symbolic storming of the Embassy. Instead he showed utter weakness and things spiraled out of control. ANdy

Andy,

Generally speaking I respect your knowledge and insight but in this case I think you are way off base. The above quote is like trying to blame a rape victim. I thought/think Carter was/is a wimp but to blame OUR President for the Internationally unlawful actions by the Iranians is purposterous. Carter's problem was he didn't respond.

Me thinks you are living in some European pacisfist nirvana. SOME of the Iranian populace may be pro western, pro consumerism, pro etc  etc, but guess what? They haven't been in power for 30 years. Iran has a 30 year history of supporting hardline Islamic values and terrorism. Europe can continue to cosy up to these rogue nations that support terrorism under the misguided notion that their public "neutralism" will be a deterent to terrorism on THIER SOIL. That doesn't help the US. For the record, your own experience this summer and the experience of Spain should be providing you a clue.

There is no good solution for sure. Selling the Iranians Ipods is not going to improve the situation that they have pirposely created either.

Bomber

Israel attacking Iran

My 2 cents

Too many targets, too little time.

Quoted: You keep making conclusions like you know anything about Isreals and the US's capabilities. You dont. You sound like all those defeatest nervous nellies in both Gulf wars that would say things like "OMG they have the 4th largest army in the world! were gonna need a half million body bags! The sky is FALLING!" PHOOOOEY! Why are you afraid of Iranians? dont want to hurt your pals? is that it? They are'nt shit, never will be. I dont care how much "hardware" they have they still suck. Proof? Look at the Iran Iraq war. Iran had plenty more Men and material than Iraq but could not launch an offensive except with "human waves" And we kicked the iraqi armies ass in what 3 weeks?

First off, the Iran-Iraq war is a very poor example to gage Iran's strength on. At the time the Iran-Iraq war started, 1980, the revolution had just occurred. The Iranian military had just been purged; the new regime had just lopted off the top tier of the Iranian military, killing generals and  sending the rest they didn't catch fleeing. The whole Iranian armed forces was in a state of disarray.

Secondly, the U.S. embargo on Iran left the Iranian military without essential spare parts for their US made equipment. This eventually caused their military to grind to a halt. They were forced to reverse engineer the spare parts they needed which took several years, and when that wasn't possible, to seek foreign equipment as replacements for their US material. New foreign weapons required crews to be trainned in their use; it's not the best time to learn how to use your equipment during the middle of a war.

Even with all these difficulties, by 1983 Iran had expelled the Iraqis from Iranian territory, and was making advances into Iraq. The only thing that prevented Iran from reaching Baghdad and seizing victory was Western Interference. German, French, and US companies sold Saddam the necessary equipment and chemicals to create chemical weapons. It was chemical warfare that caused the Iran-Iraq war to bog down and turn into a stalemate.... not Iraq's conventional military strength.

But of course you knew that didn't you T-stox????

What does this mean as far as Iran's strength today. They are much stronger militarily today; there is no question that they the are dominant power in their region (with the exception of the US of course). But the U.S. military would still make short work of them.

I made this post just to point out how T-stox has no idea how to do a proper strategic analysis or military comparison.

How Iran's oil factors in:

World can't afford to lose Iran's oil: US EIA

By Tom DoggettTue Jan 17, 10:29 PM ET

news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060118/bs_nm/energy_iran_oil_dc_6

A disruption in Iran's crude oil exports because of a dispute over that country's nuclear program would further crimp the already tight global oil market and lead to higher petroleum prices, the head of the U.S. Energy Information Administration warned on Tuesday.

"The market is so tightly balanced, clearly, we can't afford to lose a large supply of crude to the market," EIA chief Guy Caruso told Reuters in an interview.

Even though the United States does not directly import Iranian crude, Caruso said a cutoff of Iran's oil would affect the U.S. market because other countries that buy Iranian crude would compete with America to find new supplies.

"It's a fungible world oil market, and any disruption in supply affects everyone, because the price would go up for everyone," he said.

U.S. crude oil prices shot above $66 a barrel to a 3-1/2 month high on Tuesday, as the market fretted about the dispute with Iran and problems in Nigeria.

Caruso declined to say whether he believed a disruption of Iran's oil exports could send oil prices to $100 a barrel.

"I wouldn't want to speculate on that. Hopefully (the nuclear dispute) would be resolved without any disruption of supply," he said.

The United States and European Union want the United Nations Security Council to consider action against Iran to prevent, or punish, that country for moving forward with an uranium enrichment program that the West fears could lead the development of a nuclear bomb.

Iran says its uranium program is intended to create fuel to run nuclear power plants and boost electricity supplies.

Economic sanctions, which could affect Iran's oil exports, are possible but thought to be unlikely.

Iran, the world's fourth biggest oil exporter, has warned that global crude prices would go higher if the United Nations imposes sanctions.

Copyright © 2006 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters shall not be liable for any errors or delays in the content, or for any actions taken in reliance thereon.
Copyright © 2006 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.

Again, the problem is the Iranian government, not the people. And the government has supported terrorism for decades, including the suicide bombing of the US Marines in Beruit.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Iran is responsible for the 1983 suicide bombing of a U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut, Lebanon, that killed 241 American servicemen, a U.S. District Court judge ruled Friday.

More than 200 young men and women presented themselves Thursday as volunteers to carry out suicide bomb attacks against Americans in Iraq and against Israelis. The meeting was organized at Behesht-e-Zahra cemetery, south of Tehran, by the Headquarters for Commemorating Martyrs of the Global Islamic Movement, a shadowy group that has sought volunteers for attacks in Iraq and Israel since last year.

There are many more examples. Most estimates have maybe 20% or so of the Iranian population as true believers, and of course the government that controls the country are fanatics. And the government is what matters, since they will be the ones with their fingers on the button.

Manijeh Kazemi is a sports woman. She is doing air-pistol. In 2000 she was the only woman of Iran qualifying for the Olympic Games in Sydney




At Golestan shopping centre young group of women are meeting each other to go out




Boys are waiting on Iran-Zamin-Avenue in Northern Tehran to meet up with girls

Something else to consider- if Iran decides to close the Straits of Hormuz with silkworm missiles and mines because of international action, then we're all screwed. Why?

Because the world has about 2% slack oil production capacity. Just under 50% of the worlds oil comes from the Persian Gulf/OPEC. If that supply gets disrupted, then the cost of oil will skyrocket. The $72/barrel that we suffered from Katrina/Rita will look like a blip by comparison. I'm talking hundeds of dollars a barrel. That means gas in the tens of dollars per gallon. Could you personally get around at that price? I couldn't.

To compare, the GOM fields and refineries produced about 2% of the world's oil.

I have no doubt that the U.S. Navy will succeed in reopening the Gulf if it ever came to that, but the response time, no matter how short, would be too long. The oil markets would panic as soon as the news hits, like they did after Katrina/Rita, and then the stock markets would panic. THAT would start a stockmarket crash, which would hurt everyone. Iran would be fairly insulated from it, as the 26 years of U.S. sanctions have made them rather self sufficient.

Iran knows this, the U.S. knows this, China and Russia(who buy alot of Iran's oil) know this.

I know that this sounds like doom and gloom, but its not. The simple fact of the matter is that the world is short of oil due to over demand and under supply (mostly since China's massive expansion in 2004). The global economy is backed by oil, and any disruption will ripple through every sector. Remember that the oil shocks in the '70s came from a 5% reduction in the oil supply. What would happen if 50% was disrupted?

Quoted: Quoted: BTW, Andy, don't think you'll get off easy: And Jack Straw's mullah-coddling is particularly unworthy in that, insofar as Iran has a strategy, the president's chief adviser, Hassan Abbassi, has based it on the premise that "Britain is the mother of all evils" - the evils being America, Australia, Israel, the Gulf states and even Canada and New Zealand, all of which are the malign progeny of the British Empire. "We have established a department that will take care of England," said Mr Abbassi last May. "England's demise is on our agenda." Apropos the ayatollahs, England could at least return the compliment. The situation is hosed. Make no mistake about it, whacking Iran would be a mess. They'd stir up trouble in Basra, instruct their terror groups to attack us all, and maybe try to close down the Staits of Hormuz. But the alternative--mullahs with canned sunshine--ain't too hot either. I always love it when people issue dire warning of impending doom to the Euros, and Britain, about Iran. Since the Iranian Embassy Seige, Iran has been vey careful to do nothing in Britain that may cause offence. Those words are just rhetoric for local consumption. Now, as to the 'Nuclear Threat.?  Why should we be even vaugley worried about this hypoythetical threat?   Does anyone in the US even know that both Britain abd France have SSBN's armed with nukes? Britain has 4 SSBNS's , each armed with 16 Tident D5's carrying 3 warheads a piece, France has 5 SSBN's each armed with 16 missiles that carry 6 wearheads a piece. That's a lot of firepower.  An attack on any EU country is likely to result in the culprit having a very bad hair day. ANdy

Invest in middle eastern glass shares

Quoted: It's starting already.... SINGAPORE — Crude oil prices gained Wednesday as traders fretted over threats to supply if sanctions were to be made against Iran, OPEC's second-largest producer, over its nuclear ambitions. Disruptions in Nigerian oil supplies amid rising civil unrest also fueled prices.

It's too bad that the Democraps are blocking the drilling of more oil from US territory.

Who's afraid of big, bad Iran?

Philip Bowring

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 18, 2006

www.iht.com/articles/2006/01/18/opinion/edbowring.php?rss

HONG KONG By exaggerating the importance of Iran's nuclear developments, the West is showing up the waning of its power in that region, despite the presence of some 200,000 allied troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, while the influence of China and India rises.

The situation now has three possible outcomes, none favorable to the West.

First, after a lot of huffing and puffing, a diplomatic dance continues which makes little headway and reveals that the West has few cards it can play.

Second, the United States launches an attack whose economic consequences can only be guessed at, but which does the kind of global diplomatic damage to the U.S. that the British/French Suez invasion did to those nations.

Third, after effectively blocking Security Council sanctions, China, India and Russia quietly lean on Iran to stop being provocative and make just enough conciliatory noises to allow the "crisis" to subside, but not to significantly retard its nuclear program.

As the major prospective customers for Iran's oil and gas, China and India have a huge vested interest in not seeing this issue escalate, via the Security Council, into an oil crisis.

They are in a position to influence Tehran partly because of their status as future customers, but equally because of the perception that they are not a threat and share anti-imperialist sympathies.

Both India and China developed nuclear capabilities in the face of Western attempts to sustain a West/Soviet duopoly. While no existing nuclear power wishes to see their number increased, India and China appear to accept Iran's eventual acquisition of such weapons as inevitable - and non alarming.

There is no doubt that Iran has been dissembling about its nuclear program. It scarcely needs nuclear power and ultimately wants to have the ability to build nuclear weapons.

But then most countries lie about their nuclear programs. While Iran may well be in breach of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which it signed, so are other countries. India and Israel refuse to sign.

In Washington, Iran's nuclear ambitions are viewed with such alarm that the normally level-headed Senator John McCain has said that a nuclear Iran would be worse than a war to prevent it. Most of Asia, by contrast, seems to follow the view of the Chinese and Indians that possible American reaction is as far more dangerous than Iran's developments.

There is some parallel with North Korea, whose nuclear ambitions are viewed with more alarm in far-away Washington than in nearby Seoul. Many South Koreans who detest the Pyongyang regime barely conceal a grudging admiration for intransigent nationalistic stance on the nuclear issue.

Likewise, Iranians who detest the clerical regime (including hundreds of thousand of exiles who have prospered in the West) find little fault with its nuclear program. A democratic Iran would, like India, have just as much demand for nuclear independence as any other major country.

The election of the worryingly crude and ignorant Mahmoud Ahmedinejad has raised the level of Iranian rhetoric. But Ahmedinejad is clearly frowned on by his more diplomatic predecessors, Presidents Khatami and Rafsanjani, not to mention by liberal and democratic Iranians. And the nuclear program appears to have broad support within and without the clerical regime.

Iranian grudges against the West are deep and well founded - the British oil grabs, the deposing of Reza Shah I, the British-Russian wartime hegemony, the CIA-engineered overthrow of secular nationalist Mohammed Mossadeq in 1952, the arming and encouragement of the 1980 Iraq invasion which cost more than a million Iranian lives.

Just as leadership in that patriotic war against Saddam Hussein probably saved the oppressive clerical regime from self-destruction, so Western pressure now to deprive Iranians of what they see as their national rights are likely to sustain the clerical grip.

The hypocrisy of the West is obvious, not just in the special dispensation it gives to an expansionist, nuclear Israel, but also to Pakistan, a country which may be aligned with the West but is inherently unstable and, unlike Iran, a major source of Taliban-trained fanatics and al Qaeda-following suicide bombers.

India meanwhile was recently rewarded by the United States with a nuclear cooperation agreement despite India's refusal, for reasons of national sovereignty, to join the Non-Proliferation Treaty. So much for a consistent non-proliferation policy.

For sure, the more countries that have nuclear weapons, the greater than danger of use. But Western bullying, regime-change policies, threats of war and selective condemnation of nuclear ownership are even better reasons for Tehran to want nuclear technology than the fact that Iran is surrounded by those who do.

If the West wants to get its way on this, it must offer Iran some juicy carrots instead of its traditional stick.

Iran is preparing for the long haul ahead:

Iran: Ready to repatriate oil profits
Facing pressure over nuclear plans, Iran says it will move on oil money if provoked; buying gold?
January 18, 2006: 10:48 AM EST

money.cnn.com/2006/01/18/news/international/bc.economy.iran.earnings.reut/index.htm?section=money_latest


TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran, facing mounting international pressure over its nuclear plans, will repatriate oil earnings held in foreign accounts if that proves necessary, Central Bank Governor Ebrahim Sheibani said on Wednesday.

Iran is facing referral to the U.N. Security Council for possible sanctions over its disputed nuclear programme. It has bitter memories of its money being frozen in U.S. accounts shortly after the 1979 Islamic revolution.

"Whenever that proves necessary, we will do whatever needs to be done," Sheibani told reporters, when asked about the possible need to repatriate oil earnings.

Iran is the fourth biggest oil exporter in the world and the second largest in the Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries.

Eighty percent of Iran's export earnings come from oil.

Economists estimate Iran will have earned more than $40 billion in oil revenues by the end of the year to March 2006. Of this, $16 billion goes straight to budgeted government spending.

The rest goes to the Central Bank of Iran which keeps an unknown amount of holdings in foreign accounts.

The Naftiran Intertrade Company (NICO), the powerful trade and financing arm of the National Iranian Oil Company, is based in Switzerland.

Gold traders on Monday said a surge in the price of the precious metal could be due to buying from a Middle Eastern central bank.

Some traders pointed fingers at Iran which does not report its gold reserves to the International Monetary Fund. But they admitted they had no direct evidence for this.

When contacted by Reuters about any major change in the distribution of its assets, the Central Bank of Iran declined to comment.

The West suspects Iran is seeking nuclear arms. Tehran, which resumed uranium enrichment research last week, says its atomic programme aims only to generate electricity.

The Iran Charade, Part II

By Charles Krauthammer
Wednesday, January 18, 2006; A17

"It was what made this E.U. Three approach so successful. They [Britain, France and Germany] stood together and they had one uniform position."

-- German Chancellor

Angela Merkel, Jan. 13

Makes you want to weep. One day earlier, Britain, France and Germany admitted that their two years of talks to stop Iran's nuclear weapons program had collapsed. The Iranians had broken the seals on their nuclear facilities and were resuming activity in defiance of their pledges to the "E.U. Three." This negotiating exercise, designed as an alternative to the U.S. approach of imposing sanctions on Iran for its violations of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, had proved entirely futile. If anything, the two-year hiatus gave Iran time to harden its nuclear facilities against bombardment, acquire new antiaircraft capacities and clandestinely advance its program.

With all this, the chancellor of Germany declared the exercise a success because the allies stuck together! The last such success was Dunkirk. Lots of solidarity there, too.

Most dismaying was that this assessment came from a genuinely good friend, the new German chancellor, who, unlike her predecessor, Gerhard Schroeder (now a wholly owned Putin flunky working for Russia's state-run oil monopoly), actually wants to do something about terrorism and nuclear proliferation.

Ah, success. Instead of being years away from the point of no return for an Iranian bomb, as we were before we allowed Europe to divert anti-proliferation efforts into transparently useless talks, Iran is probably just months away. And now, of course, Iran is run by an even more radical government, led by a president who fervently believes in the imminence of the apocalypse.

Ah, success. Having delayed two years, we now have to deal with a set of fanatical Islamists who we know will not be deterred from pursuing nuclear weapons by any sanctions. Even if we could get real sanctions. Which we will not. The remaining months before Iran goes nuclear are about to be frittered away in pursuit of this newest placebo.

First, because Russia and China will threaten to veto any serious sanctions. The Chinese in particular have secured in Iran a source of oil and gas outside the American sphere to feed their growing economy and are quite happy geopolitically to support a rogue power that -- like North Korea -- threatens, distracts and diminishes the power of China's chief global rival, the United States.

Second, because the Europeans have no appetite for real sanctions either. A travel ban on Iranian leaders would be a joke; they don't travel anyway. A cutoff of investment and high-tech trade from Europe would be a minor irritant to a country of 70 million people with the second-largest oil reserves in the world and with oil at $60 a barrel. North Korea tolerated 2 million dead from starvation to get its nuclear weapons. Iran will tolerate a shortage of flat-screen TVs.

The only sanctions that might conceivably have any effect would be a boycott of Iranian oil. No one is even talking about that, because no one can bear the thought of the oil shock that would follow, taking 4.2 million barrels a day off the market, from a total output of about 84 million barrels.

The threat works in reverse. It is the Iranians who have the world over a barrel. On Jan. 15, Iran's economy minister warned that Iran would retaliate for any sanctions by cutting its exports to "raise oil prices beyond levels the West expects." A full cutoff could bring $100 oil and plunge the world into economic crisis.

Which is one of the reasons the Europeans are so mortified by the very thought of a military strike against Iran's nuclear facilities. The problem is not just that they are spread out and hardened, making them difficult to find and to damage sufficiently to seriously set back Iran's program.

The problem that mortifies the Europeans is what Iran might do after such an attack -- not just cut off its oil exports but shut down the Strait of Hormuz by firing missiles at tankers or scuttling its vessels to make the strait impassable. It would require an international armada led by the United States to break such a blockade.

Such consequences -- serious economic disruption and possible naval action -- are something a cocooned, aging, post-historic Europe cannot even contemplate. Which is why the Europeans have had their heads in the sand for two years. And why they will spend the little time remaining -- before a group of apocalyptic madmen go nuclear -- putting their heads back in the sand. And congratulating themselves on allied solidarity as they do so in unison.

[email protected]
© 2006 The Washington Post Company

Quoted: Drop the trade barriers, prices drop, smuggling goes up, flood the fuckers with the stuff! It's a 'win-win' for the US! You undermine the clerics and make money doing it! ANdy

It's not US goods being smuggled into Iran. It's any goods that might contain "evil western influences" like Japanese TV. The simple fact is what you are suggesting won't work because it takes two governments to allow free trade and even if we did, they wouldn't, as evidenced by their refusal to allow other "western" goods freely flow into their country.

Sorry bud, you're way off base here. Regime change needs to happen, before they get the bomb. And while you bitch about the Israelis hyping the Iranian bomb, our intelligence sources weren't exactly a spectacular success in identifying WMD in Iraq, now where they?

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: You need to put that 444 days at the feet of the stupid fuckwit that let it happen!   They were also going to grab the Russian Embassy when the Russian invaded Afghanistan. Do you know why they called off the mobs and didn't? Simple enough. The Russian Ambassador got on the horn to Moscow and told them they were going to be stormed. The Russian Foreign Minster then got on the Horn to Khomeini and told him that if the embassy was stormed they would flatten  Tehran 20 minutes later... he wasn't fucking about and the Mullahs knew it. Carter reacted like a Rabbit caught in the headlights. Just one agressive comment would have defused things, after all it was only meant to be a symbolic storming of the Embassy. Instead he showed utter weakness and things spiraled out of control. ANdy So now it's Carter's fault the Ayatollah held hostages. Wow, rationalization at its best. The simple fact is civilized nations do not hold diplomats hostage. They might detain them and then return them, but not hold them hostage. Correct civilized nation do not hold diplomats hostage. But it would have helped if Carter had immidately gotten on the phone and said let them go you MFers or I'm coming in mob handed to get them back as soon as it happend. He didn't and the rest is history and you know it. They let them go because they knew that Ronnie WOULD come and pay a House Call mob handed and not knock first. ANdy

Blaming the victim for the crime is BULLSHIT. You and I both know it. It's a weak anti-American argument to compliment your anti-Israel argument.

Containing Tehran

By David Ignatius
Friday, January 20, 2006; A17

How should the United States think about Iran? What explains the fanaticism of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and what can America and its allies do to change it?

These baseline questions are at the heart of an informal review of Iran policy that's taking place at the highest levels of the Bush administration. The discussions, led by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and national security adviser Stephen Hadley, are an effort to anchor America's opposition to the Iranian nuclear program in a broader strategy. The goal is not simply to stop the Iranians from making a bomb but to change the character of a regime that under Ahmadinejad has swerved onto a new and dangerous track.

In crafting their Iran policy, administration officials don't want the nuclear issue to be isolated from the more basic problem of Tehran's erratic and potentially destabilizing role in the Middle East. The message to Iran is that while the United States opposes Iranian nuclear weapons, it supports a technologically advanced Iran that, as it matures, can play a leading role in the region. A shorthand for the administration's policy aim might be: No to Ahmadinejad, yes to the Iranian people and a modern Iran.

The administration wants to engage key allies in these Iran discussions. In the short run, the goal is to gain agreement among European allies, Russia and China that the International Atomic Energy Agency, at its meeting next month, should refer the Iranian nuclear issue to the U.N. Security Council. But over the longer term, the administration hopes these allies will work with Washington to change Iranian behavior on issues such as terrorism and regional stability. Officials don't like the Cold War term "containment," believing that it connotes a static policy, but the word suggests the strategic commitment they want on Iran.

Rice and Hadley recognize that the United States carries a lot of baggage in its dealings with Iran. They want to avoid, if possible, a situation that appears to be a Bush vs. Iran confrontation. The administration decided last year to work the nuclear problem through the European Union countries negotiating with Iran -- Britain, France and Germany -- in part to avoid making America the issue. Although the E.U. negotiations have failed to stop the Iranian nuclear program, administration officials hope to maintain a united front as the issue moves toward the United Nations.

A key question for U.S. officials is how to assess Ahmadinejad's radicalism. Many were surprised by the belligerent tone of his speech to the U.N. General Assembly last September, and worries deepened after his reckless statements denying the Holocaust and calling for Israel's destruction. The toxic spirit of the 1979 revolution seemed to have returned.

An intellectual benchmark in the Iran debate was a briefing given to officials last fall by Jack A. Goldstone, a professor at George Mason University who is an expert on revolutions. He argued that Iran wasn't conforming to the standard model laid out in Crane Brinton's famous study, "The Anatomy of Revolution," which argued that initial upheaval is followed by a period of consolidation and eventual stability. Instead, Ahmadinejad illustrated what Goldstone called "the return of the radicals." Something similar happened 15 to 20 years after the Russian and Chinese revolutions -- with Stalin's purges in the late 1930s and Mao's Cultural Revolution in the 1960s, Goldstone explained. He argued that Iran was undergoing a similar recrudescence of radicalism that, as in China and Russia, would inevitably trigger internal conflict.

The gist of Goldstone's analysis gradually percolated up to Rice, Hadley and others. What has intrigued policymakers is the argument that Ahmadinejad's extremism will eventually trigger a counterreaction -- much as the Cultural Revolution in China led to the pragmatism of Deng Xiaoping. Officials see signs that some Iranian officials -- certainly former president Hashemi Rafsanjani and perhaps also the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei -- are worried by Ahmadinejad's fulminations. Unless the Iranian president moderates his line, wider splits in the regime are almost inevitable, officials believe. They also predict that his extremism will be increasingly unpopular with the Iranian people, who want to be more connected with the rest of the world rather than more isolated.

Getting Iran policy right is the biggest foreign policy challenge of the new year. Ahmadinejad's wild statements have had the beneficial effect of concentrating the minds of policymakers, who in the past have often differed over Iran and have had trouble framing a formal policy. Officials don't yet have a clear strategy that could bend Iranian radicalism back toward an acceptable norm, but they're assessing the tools that might work. This time they are looking carefully -- and thinking seriously -- before they leap.

[email protected]
© 2006 The Washington Post Company

It looks like the administration is contemplating an intelligent strategy.
Realising your own limitations is the first step towards innovating your way around them. With luck we might even avoid a useless, counter-productive and destabilising war. Maybe...