Iran’s Manhattan Project Rushing Ahead

World • Views: 4,415

With each missile test, Iran’s capability to deliver nuclear weapons is increasing. And with this new announcement today, we see that they’ve been carefully analyzing the best ways to protect their nuclear development sites, even if Israel launches a surprise attack: Iran put nuclear site near base in case of attack.

TEHRAN, Iran – Iran’s nuclear chief said Tuesday his country built its newly revealed uranium enrichment facility inside a mountain and next to a military site to ensure continuity of its nuclear activities in case of an attack.

The train is rushing at us, and we can’t seem to move off the tracks.

Jump to bottom

329 comments
1 Douchecanoe and Ryan Too  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 9:20:36am

Iran and the mad mullahs may be a lot of things, but in general, they're not stupid (well, at least not as much as the Norks). They've been very careful about orchestrating the world stage thus far, and this report indicates they've put some thought into strategic, long-term thinking. "Peaceful purposes", indeed. /snort

2 vxbush  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 9:21:57am
The train is rushing at us, and we can’t seem to move off the tracks.

And most world leaders don't seem interested in moving off the tracks...

3 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 9:22:47am

This will not end well.

4 tesvov  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 9:23:16am

Move of the tracks? Did you mean to type "derail the train?"

5 redshirt  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 9:24:10am

Don't worry, Obama's on it!

6 PatriotLizardoid  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 9:24:53am
The train is rushing at us, and we can’t seem to move off the tracks.

Oh heck, they have to acknowledge that such a thing as "tracks" exist before they can even see that they're on them. Once again, our leaders are like ants standing on a tire.

7 vxbush  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 9:25:21am

re: #5 redshirt

Don't worry, Obama's on it!

And he may send you down to the surface, Red Shirt. I wouldn't make any long-term plans...

8 Kosh's Shadow  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 9:25:29am

What bothers me are the people who say that we can't stop the Iranian nuclear program.
Well, we'd better do something, or the program will be stopped when Iran is nuked.

Better a conventional war now than Iranian nukes exploding in Tel Aviv and NYC. (Yes, they cannot reach the US from Iran with their missiles, but they could from a ship or just ship the container to a harbor.) And Iran refers to the US as the "Great Satan"; they aren't going to content themselves with the "Little Satan".

Too bad the UN is spineless. Russia and China should be told that if they reject sanctions, they will be held responsible, especially Russia, who supplied Iran with quite a bit.
But if Tel Aviv were nuked, and Israel retaliated with nuclear weapons, the UN would condemn Israel for war crimes.

9 psyop  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 9:25:32am

Those fists still tightly clenched, I see.

10 Randall Gross  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 9:25:47am

There's a rumor going round that some countries are ticked off that Obama delayed release of the info until after the UN meeting, a couple of countries are somewhat aggravated that Iran wasn't confronted in front of all nations.

11 Ben Hur  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 9:26:07am

Why does El Baradei still have a job?

12 Kosh's Shadow  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 9:26:15am

re: #6 PatriotLizardoid

Oh heck, they have to acknowledge that such a thing as "tracks" exist before they can even see that they're on them. Once again, our leaders are like ants standing on a tire.

Actually, I think most of them think the train is oncoming but will hit Israel only. They don't realize Western civilization is on the same track.

13 redshirt  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 9:26:33am

re: #7 vxbush

And he may send you down to the surface, Red Shirt. I wouldn't make any long-term plans...

It's my purpose in life, and no caps in my nic btw...

14 mj  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 9:26:48am

Part of the problem is that we have a incompetent CIA which no one trusts. They screwed up big time on the fall of Soviet Union, weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and that politicized NIE report.

Here's the latest in-fighting with other spy agencies:

A Nuclear Debate: Is Iran Designing Warheads?

WASHINGTON — When President Obama stood last week with the leaders of Britain and France to denounce Iran’s construction of a secret nuclear plant, the Western powers all appeared to be on the same page.

Behind their show of unity about Iran’s clandestine efforts to manufacture nuclear fuel, however, is a continuing debate among American, European and Israeli spies about a separate component of Iran’s nuclear program: its clandestine efforts to design a nuclear warhead.

The Israelis, who have delivered veiled threats of a military strike, say they believe that Iran has restarted these “weaponization” efforts, which would mark a final step in building a nuclear weapon. The Germans say they believe that the weapons work was never halted. The French have strongly suggested that independent international inspectors have more information about the weapons work than they have made public.

Meanwhile, in closed-door discussions, American spy agencies have stood firm in their conclusion that while Iran may ultimately want a bomb, the country halted work on weapons design in 2003 and probably has not restarted that effort — a judgment first made public in a 2007 National Intelligence Estimate...

[Link: www.nytimes.com...]

15 psyop  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 9:26:53am

re: #10 Thanos

There's a rumor going round that some countries are ticked off that Obama delayed release of the info until after the UN meeting, a couple of countries are somewhat aggravated that Iran wasn't confronted in front of all nations.

The glitter of his magical personality is flaking off rather fast.

16 bosforus  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 9:27:03am

Hopefully sooner than later some aerial videos of the "ex-nuclear site" will show up on liveleak.

17 vxbush  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 9:27:21am

re: #10 Thanos

There's a rumor going round that some countries are ticked off that Obama delayed release of the info until after the UN meeting, a couple of countries are somewhat aggravated that Iran wasn't confronted in front of all nations.

Where did I read that the idea seemed to be to release the information at G-20, where there would be more agreement that action needs to be taken, rather than at the UN where everything bogs down from sheer inanity?

18 albusteve  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 9:27:42am

I can only imagine a joint effort between the US and Israel (plus some others, mostly for political effect), to relieve everyone of this problem...almost everybody on the planet is scoffing off more diplomatic blather and sanctions are too late to have much effect, unless they were extreme and in place by tomorrow...Russia and China are calling the shots on this one while the POTUS dithers

19 Creeping Eruption  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 9:27:49am

re: #11 Ben Hur

Why does El Baradei still have a job?

He is just waiting it out until he can assume his post as Iran's nuclear spokesman.

//(?)

20 bosforus  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 9:28:03am

Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran...

21 vxbush  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 9:28:09am

re: #13 redshirt

It's my purpose in life, and no caps in my nic btw...

Sorry, no offense meant; a cheap joke, alas, that I could not resist making. I hope Obama does do something, but I fear it may only be a strongly worded letter.

22 psyop  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 9:28:31am

Anyone aware of Israel's current bunker busting tech?

23 Four More Tears  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 9:29:06am

I'm curious about what the rest of the Middle East thinks about this. Iraq can't be happy with this knowing their history.

24 Randall Gross  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 9:29:42am

re: #17 vxbush

Where did I read that the idea seemed to be to release the information at G-20, where there would be more agreement that action needs to be taken, rather than at the UN where everything bogs down from sheer inanity?

I'm just reporting the rumor, releasing when and where it was released might have been the smarter option. G-20 are the nations with the real clout, and if you want to convince nations that actually can influence outcomes you might be better off doing it there.

25 Kosh's Shadow  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 9:29:55am

re: #14 mj

Part of the problem is that we have a incompetent CIA which no one trusts. They screwed up big time on the fall of Soviet Union, weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and that politicized NIE report.

Here's the latest in-fighting with other spy agencies:

A Nuclear Debate: Is Iran Designing Warheads?

[Link: www.nytimes.com...]

I thought that some of Khan's designs were found in Iran.

And 5 years ago even the IAEA found some materials in Iran that are only needed for warheads, not power production.

26 PatriotLizardoid  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 9:30:02am

re: #23 JasonA

A nuclear arms race in the middle east? Perfect!

27 Honorary Yooper  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 9:30:11am

re: #23 JasonA

I'm curious about what the rest of the Middle East thinks about this. Iraq can't be happy with this knowing their history.

I'm willing to bet the Saudis aren't too happy with the Iranian Manhattan Project either.

28 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 9:30:21am

I feel for the innocent people of Iran who are caught up in the psychosis of their leadership...

29 mj  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 9:30:25am

re: #18 albusteve

I can only imagine a joint effort between the US and Israel (plus some others, mostly for political effect), to relieve everyone of this problem...almost everybody on the planet is scoffing off more diplomatic blather and sanctions are too late to have much effect, unless they were extreme and in place by tomorrow...Russia and China are calling the shots on this one while the POTUS dithers

The Obama Administration will never join with Israel on the Iranian issue. Just not gonna happen.

30 war_eagle  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 9:31:15am

re: #11 Ben Hur

He doesn't. Wikipedia

After several rounds of voting, on 3rd of July 2009, Mr. Yukiya Amano, Japanese Ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency, was elected as the next IAEA Director General.

31 vxbush  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 9:31:33am

re: #24 Thanos

I'm just reporting the rumor, releasing when and where it was released might have been the smarter option. G-20 are the nations with the real clout, and if you want to convince nations that actually can influence outcomes you might be better off doing it there.

Stupid question on my part: How did we jump from G-8 to G-20 so quickly? That was rather surprising. Or I've been asleep for the last two years.

32 Randall Gross  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 9:31:49am

re: #28 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

I feel for the innocent people of Iran who are caught up in the psychosis of their leadership...

Now that school's restarted there is some dissent visible still, but it's going under reported with the missile launch saber rattling and the "new" information.

33 PatriotLizardoid  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 9:32:02am
The Obama Administration will never join with Israel on the Iranian issue. Just not gonna happen.

The way he was behaving w/ Hugo Chavez I wouldn't be surprised if he just dithered for a bit, fiddled around in Copenhagen then went on Letterman or SNL.

34 Kosh's Shadow  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 9:32:44am

When the Iranians say their nuclear program is "peaceful" we need to analyze what they mean.
To them, "peace" means submitting to Allah.
Thus, a "peaceful" program makes peace by getting everyone to submit to Allah. While that might use violence, its purpose is "peace".

This way, they're not lying, but their program is dangerous.

35 tradewind  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 9:32:53am

re: #29 mj

At this point, I would imagine that Israel doesn't so much look for US help in this matter, as hope that we stay the hell out of their way.
It should be obvious to the administration, but the key word is should ... that Iran is not NK, rattling chains for effect . I dearly hope they aren't planning to treat them the same way.

36 John Neverbend  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 9:33:02am

re: #23 JasonA

I'm curious about what the rest of the Middle East thinks about this. Iraq can't be happy with this knowing their history.

Not at all happy, as far as I can tell.

37 The Sanity Inspector  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 9:33:18am

Your text to link...Hope the guys in charge of this program are on time and on budget...

38 HypnoToad  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 9:33:49am

The rest of the world is just waiting to condemm us for doing what needs to be done, but Obama is too clever to play into their hands!

/

39 Dianna  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 9:34:11am

re: #21 vxbush

Sorry, no offense meant; a cheap joke, alas, that I could not resist making. I hope Obama does do something, but I fear it may only be a strongly worded letter.

I think I'd faint dead away at even that.

More sanctions, I understand, are on the way. Do we really think that will get their attention? Or are we hoping that they laugh themselves to death?

40 Randall Gross  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 9:34:22am

re: #31 vxbush

Stupid question on my part: How did we jump from G-8 to G-20 so quickly? That was rather surprising. Or I've been asleep for the last two years.

Both still exist, however G-20 is beginning to supercede G-8.

G-8

G-20

41 Guanxi88  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 9:34:41am

re: #4 tesvov

Move of the tracks? Did you mean to type "derail the train?"

Why derail the train when you can just take out the conductor. Maybe, if you get rid of a few of the guards, the other passengers will take care of the conductor for you.

42 MandyManners  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 9:34:45am

re: #10 Thanos

There's a rumor going round that some countries are ticked off that Obama delayed release of the info until after the UN meeting, a couple of countries are somewhat aggravated that Iran wasn't confronted in front of all nations.

Which ones?

43 Kosh's Shadow  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 9:34:54am

re: #37 The Sanity Inspector

Your text to link...Hope the guys in charge of this program are on time and on budget...

Of course, if the Israelis shoot down a nuclear missile, they'll be blamed for damage wherever the missile lands.
no sarc.

44 Danny  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 9:34:58am

The way all this is unfolding, you'd think Iran was planning to blackmail us at a diplomatic meeting this Thursday or something. Probably just coincidence.

45 Diamond Bullet  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 9:35:00am

You know, when you have a country brimming with oil that hid its nuclear program for 18 years until outed by dissidents, and then hid another separate enrichment site until it suspected its security had been breached, you can only think one thing: they must REALLY want that peaceful civilian nuclear power.

Sincerely,
every liberal I know

46 ointmentfly  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 9:35:02am

With the largest pair of balls seeming to belong to Hillary Clinton in this administration, I'd say we're screwed.

47 Randall Gross  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 9:35:09am

re: #42 MandyManners

Which ones?

Britain and France

48 StillAMarine  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 9:35:10am

At this point, it seems more and more certain that Israel will need to launch an attack on Iranian nuclear facilities. It will be on its own since our GEL (Great Esteemed Leader) does not seem to be ready to lend any support. After all, General Cartwright, Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told Israel exactly where it stands in the US order of priorities:
First: US homeland
Second: US forces overseas (so far, so good)
Third: NATO countries, US allies (are they really our friends?)
Fourth: Friends like Israel

Upon such an attack, Iran will likely send out a fleet of small craft to mine the Strait of Hormuz and cut oil supplies from the Middle East. If one thinks we are in the middle of a bad recession now, just wait. This is to say nothing about the resulting war in the Middle East, with Israel trapped in the middle, likely with no help.

This is not President Obama's fault; he inherited most of the problem. However, he did nothing but attempt to placate the insane mullahs when he could have ameliorated the situation by showing strength to the barbarians, especially when the Iranian people risked and gave their lives to show their displeasure with their leadership.

49 Douchecanoe and Ryan Too  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 9:35:10am

re: #35 tradewind

Here's the problem: Historically, US policy in the Middle East has been to treat all Arab statements as posturing, saber rattling, and the like. This is a dangerous misconception that should've been made crystal clear by the 1967 Six-Day War at the least. Saying you are going to push the Jews into the sea, then preparing to launch a united pan-Arab offensive to do just that, should be a pretty doggone good indicator that when you say something, you mean it. The US has never taken the Arab world (or the Persians, who are not Arabs but are currently under Muslim rule and operating in concert with them) seriously enough.

50 Haole  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 9:35:50am

This just proves... We need Universal health care...For the world

/

51 Kosh's Shadow  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 9:36:02am

re: #38 HypnoToad

The rest of the world is just waiting to condemm us for doing what needs to be done, but Obama is too clever to play into their hands!

/

That reminds me of Monty Python, when Professor Gumby says "Drake was too smart for the German fleet."

52 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 9:36:09am

I find it odd that they think putting it near a base would head off an attack. Who is afraid of a Iranian base? Let's bomb the shit out of both.

53 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 9:36:27am

re: #11 Ben Hur

Why does El Baradei still have a job?

Perhaps he does (but not that which is listed in his job description.)

/just sayin'

54 Equable  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 9:36:34am

What was Biden's bit about a crisis early in his term as our president?

Carnac the Magnificent?

55 Randall Gross  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 9:36:35am

re: #42 MandyManners

Which ones?

RCP is already teeing off on this:

[Link: www.realclearpolitics.com...]

56 Kosh's Shadow  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 9:36:50am

re: #38 HypnoToad

The rest of the world is just waiting to condemm us for doing what needs to be done, but Obama is too clever to play into their hands!

/

Or maybe Obama's got a cunning plan?
(Baldrick, you wouldn't know a cunning plan if it danced naked on a harpsichord singing "cunning plans are here again".)

57 MandyManners  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 9:37:02am

re: #14 mj

The Israelis, who have delivered veiled threats of a military strike

Veiled? Netanyahu did everything short of shouting to the rafters at the UN that Israel is gonna' bomb the shit out of Iran.

58 albusteve  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 9:37:11am

re: #48 StillAMarine

At this point, it seems more and more certain that Israel will need to launch an attack on Iranian nuclear facilities. It will be on its own since our GEL (Great Esteemed Leader) does not seem to be ready to lend any support. After all, General Cartwright, Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told Israel exactly where it stands in the US order of priorities:
First: US homeland
Second: US forces overseas (so far, so good)
Third: NATO countries, US allies (are they really our friends?)
Fourth: Friends like Israel

Upon such an attack, Iran will likely send out a fleet of small craft to mine the Strait of Hormuz and cut oil supplies from the Middle East. If one thinks we are in the middle of a bad recession now, just wait. This is to say nothing about the resulting war in the Middle East, with Israel trapped in the middle, likely with no help.

money quote...this is a huge problem and as far as I'm concerned the outcome is all on BO

This is not President Obama's fault; he inherited most of the problem. However, he did nothing but attempt to placate the insane mullahs when he could have ameliorated the situation by showing strength to the barbarians, especially when the Iranian people risked and gave their lives to show their displeasure with their leadership.

59 Buck  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 9:37:14am

Obama is getting an eye opening experience. The Mullahs are reacting exactly the way we knew they would. Obama, and his "left" centered advisors thought that they could reason, and even charm their way out of this mess.

It might take us to the brink, but they will realize, what we have known all along. You can't reason with the unreasonable.

You would think that the history with North Korea would have taught them a lesson. Well, the truth is that those who fail to learn from history are failed to repeat it.

No one ever talks about Carters failure with NK.

Obama liked to call McCain the new Bush. Well, Obama is the new Carter.

60 vxbush  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 9:37:19am

re: #40 Thanos

Both still exist, however G-20 is beginning to supercede G-8.

G-8

G-20

Thanks. I thought I had lost my mind this week...

This makes me wonder if the G-20 is then going to become, based on Obama's deciding to release the information in Pittsburgh, rather than New York, a more powerful entity with regard to international politics than the UN. Unlikely, I guess, given the supposed power of the UN Security Council, but it is interesting when he chose to release the info.

61 StillAMarine  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 9:37:33am

re: #14 mj

Link: [Link: www.nytimes.com...]...]

You mean you actually read that rag?

62 The Sanity Inspector  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 9:37:43am

re: #23 JasonA

I'm curious about what the rest of the Middle East thinks about this. Iraq can't be happy with this knowing their history.

All the arab nations are chary of a Persian predominance in the region.

63 cliffster  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 9:37:51am

I've got a really bad feeling. And I'm not given to drama and histrionics, but this is giving me a queasy feeling in my stomach.

64 tradewind  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 9:37:55am

re: #49 thedopefishlives
Not sure that Charlie Wilson would agree with you there. And Carter certainly threw his hat into the ring against the Shah.
I am afraid that the Persian horse is out of the barn, re stopping their program. The best that can be done now is to severely damage and slow it down, in the hope that sanity and a different regime will help mend things later.
I am really sorry that BushII didn't handle this before he left office... it's not as if they were going to love him any less.

65 CommonCents  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 9:38:13am

Al Qaeda Bombers Learn from Drug Smugglers

Asieri had a pound of high explosives, plus a detonator inserted in his rectum.

Is explosive diarrhea Haram?

66 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 9:38:41am

If we do not stop this.

We can assure ourselves that all of the Arab states will want atomics because they fear the Shia. For all the rhetoric about Israeli nuclear capacity, no one is cared that the Israelis actually want to use them.


If Sunni and Shia face each other with nukes, they will use them. If you believe that you get 72 virgins in heaven for martyrdom, then MAD does not obtain as a deterrent.

IN the process, Israel will be hit too.

Letting Iran, a state that sent small children to clear minefields by stomping on them, as children's martyr's brigades, have atomics is like letting a chimpanzee have a loaded revolver. Nothing good can possibly come from it.

67 Kosh's Shadow  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 9:38:41am

re: #48 StillAMarine

And everyone will blame Israel.
Too many people think the only good Jew is a dead Jew, and second best is one that doesn't try to defend himself.

68 mj  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 9:38:55am

re: #25 Kosh's Shadow

I thought that some of Khan's designs were found in Iran.

And 5 years ago even the IAEA found some materials in Iran that are only needed for warheads, not power production.

The CIA is preventing any meaningful action. At this point, it's probably safe to assume that CIA is just another interest group with a set of lobbyists whose main function is no longer the assessment of intelligence data but rather just another government agency devoted to protecting it's ass while seeking additional funding.

Last week State said that the NIE Report still stands despite the fact that the newly revealed uranium enrichment facility was just revealed though it's existence obviously did not appear in the NIE Report.
How's that for Doubletalk?
In other words, there is no information that will alter that reports conclusions.

69 John Neverbend  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 9:39:07am

re: #49 thedopefishlives

Here's the problem: Historically, US policy in the Middle East has been to treat all Arab statements as posturing, saber rattling, and the like. This is a dangerous misconception that should've been made crystal clear by the 1967 Six-Day War at the least. Saying you are going to push the Jews into the sea, then preparing to launch a united pan-Arab offensive to do just that, should be a pretty doggone good indicator that when you say something, you mean it.

I knew an Egyptian who, when I took him to task for Nasser's casus belli just prior to the Six-Day War, said that "Nasser was bluffing." Some bluff.

70 Equable  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 9:39:09am

Do we know whether or not Bush gave Irsael some of those new kick ass "bunker busters" before he left office?

71 Douchecanoe and Ryan Too  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 9:39:59am

re: #69 John Neverbend

I knew an Egyptian who, when I took him to task for Nasser's casus belli just prior to the Six-Day War, said that "Nasser was bluffing." Some bluff.

Yes, surrounding Israel with the combined arms of the entire Middle East is "a bluff". And I'm Mickey Mouse.

72 Buck  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 9:40:00am

re: #65 CommonCents

Al Qaeda Bombers Learn from Drug Smugglers

Is explosive diarrhea Haram?

No Shit? A pound of explosives and a detonator cap?

73 Douchecanoe and Ryan Too  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 9:40:38am

re: #72 Buck

No Shit? A pound of explosives and a detonator cap?

Let's hope they didn't pull his finger. /

74 Kosh's Shadow  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 9:40:49am

re: #63 cliffster

I've got a really bad feeling. And I'm not given to drama and histrionics, but this is giving me a queasy feeling in my stomach.

Is that because you see the Iranian Death Star looming over the Millennium Falcon?

75 Killgore Trout  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 9:40:58am

re: #55 Thanos

Hmmm... It seems they're reading a lot of things into Sarkozy's comments that aren't really there.

76 Guanxi88  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 9:41:12am

re: #65 CommonCents

Al Qaeda Bombers Learn from Drug Smugglers

Is explosive diarrhea Haram?

In a different context, I'd have no problems with the idea of having these SOB's to keester high explosives.

77 theheat  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 9:41:24am

How is a nuclear Iran a boost for any part of Europe, or the world? That's just it: it's not. But the perceived solution is that America should go in, guns blazing, and fix that little problem for everyone; the POTUS should throw down the gauntlet, call Dinnerjacket a MF, and "get some shit" stirred up. You know, like our last POTUS did.

Oops. My bad. Never happened.

That approach makes for really good television, but it's not quite that simple. Lately, we've been great at starting wars, but pretty much suck at finishing them. We can't even get a consensus to send more troops to Afghanistan, let alone open a whole new can of whupass on Iran without the support of a coalition.

Just for once, I'd be pleasantly surprised if the United States didn't have to play big brother and wet nurse to the rest of the world, while simultaneously being demonized, and someone else would man the fuck up.

No, Obama is not the guy to start shit with Iran - at least not at this stage. But who the hell is? I hear a lot of crickets and woulda/shoulda/coulda that doesn't mean jack shit from the rest of the civilized world.

78 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 9:41:34am

re: #71 thedopefishlives

Yes, surrounding Israel with the combined arms of the entire Middle East is "a bluff". And I'm Mickey Mouse.

While shouting they will kill all the Jews and drive them into the sea...

79 Buck  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 9:41:39am

re: #69 John Neverbend

I knew an Egyptian who, when I took him to task for Nasser's casus belli just prior to the Six-Day War, said that "Nasser was bluffing." Some bluff.

Yep, and so was Saddam... and so was the Taliban... and so was Hamas... and Hezbollah...

See a pattern?

80 subsailor68  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 9:41:43am

re: #65 CommonCents

Al Qaeda Bombers Learn from Drug Smugglers

Is explosive diarrhea Haram?

Note to self. Never, ever, tell an Al Qaeda member to blow it out his...

81 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 9:41:58am

re: #75 Killgore Trout

How are you today?

82 vxbush  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 9:42:01am

re: #68 mj

The CIA is preventing any meaningful action. At this point, it's probably safe to assume that CIA is just another interest group with a set of lobbyists whose main function is no longer the assessment of intelligence data but rather just another government agency devoted to protecting it's ass while seeking additional funding.

Last week State said that the NIE Report still stands despite the fact that the newly revealed uranium enrichment facility was just revealed though it's existence obviously did not appear in the NIE Report.
How's that for Doubletalk?
In other words, there is no information that will alter that reports conclusions.

I find it difficult to believe that the CIA would not take its job seriously and simply cover its ass. Or are you suggesting this behavior has changed how that Holder is seeking to investigate the CIA?

83 lawhawk  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 9:42:09am

We can't move off the tracks because we're trapped in an intel policy/fact fight. The same people who proffered that Iraq was a threat now claim the same of Iran, and the fact that we now know after the fact that Iraq's WMD programs weren't nearly as advanced as we thought puts the same intel community on the defensive, even as they claim that the two situations are different. However, the politicians who have to pursue policy based on the intel have come to different conclusions. They're far more cautious than they were in the Iraq runup, even if the data from Iran shows far more serious problems - the incessant Iranian missile launches, the revelation of Iranian nuclear facilities other than Natanz (and which refute the 2007 NIE in terms of scope, size, and how far along they are - combined with the statements from Iran itself, along with the IAEA).

It's as though we've learned the lessons from Iraq by becoming far more cautious in dealing with Iran, and Iran remains as big as, or bigger threat, than Iraq was.

84 Kosh's Shadow  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 9:42:12am

re: #68 mj

The CIA is preventing any meaningful action. At this point, it's probably safe to assume that CIA is just another interest group with a set of lobbyists whose main function is no longer the assessment of intelligence data but rather just another government agency devoted to protecting it's ass while seeking additional funding.

Last week State said that the NIE Report still stands despite the fact that the newly revealed uranium enrichment facility was just revealed though it's existence obviously did not appear in the NIE Report.
How's that for Doubletalk?
In other words, there is no information that will alter that reports conclusions.

The way the US intelligence establishment is behaving, it is becoming difficult to believe they aren't anti-Semitic.

85 StillAMarine  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 9:42:15am

re: #63 cliffster

I've got a really bad feeling. And I'm not given to drama and histrionics, but this is giving me a queasy feeling in my stomach.

As well it should ...

86 CommonCents  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 9:42:31am

re: #76 Guanxi88

In a different context, I'd have no problems with the idea of having these SOB's to keester high explosives.

Those signal scanners we use to pre-detonate IED's with cell phone triggers would be fun near their "training" camp.

87 tradewind  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 9:42:35am

re: #75 Killgore Trout

I'm very curious as to why Obama thought it a good idea to keep the news of Iran's nuke timeline quiet until after the UN. If there's anything we don't need, it's a timid TOTUS.

88 Kosh's Shadow  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 9:42:43am

re: #70 Equable

Do we know whether or not Bush gave Irsael some of those new kick ass "bunker busters" before he left office?

I don't think so; last I heard, Gates blocked shipment of them.

89 Danny  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 9:42:44am

Western diplomats from the six do not expect the meeting to resolve their long-running nuclear standoff with Iran. The most likely outcome, they say, is that all sides will confirm their positions and the overall dispute will remain unresolved.

Nothing like ineffective diplomacy to resolve a nuclear standoff.

/

90 mj  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 9:42:50am

re: #61 StillAMarine

Link: [Link: www.nytimes.com...]...]

You mean you actually read that rag?

Always. I read several dozen news sources a day. This report is straight up and reports what everyone already knows...our allies spy agencies no longer trust the CIA on this issue.

91 Diamond Bullet  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 9:43:04am

re: #14 mj

Part of the problem is that we have a incompetent CIA which no one trusts. They screwed up big time on the fall of Soviet Union, weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and that politicized NIE report.

Here's the latest in-fighting with other spy agencies:

A Nuclear Debate: Is Iran Designing Warheads?


[Link: www.nytimes.com...]

Just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. I'm getting more cynical in my crotchety old age, but I think trying to parse out Iran's decades-old clandestine nuclear program into specific pieces ("sure, they're enriching uranium and testing ICBMs, but they probably haven't started work on widget #345") is just a way for Obama's Administration to stall until Iranian nukes become a fait accompli and they can blame the CIA for missing it or something. Hell, we're talking about a country that actually has atomic energy symbols on its currency for pete's sake. These guys are committed, in the fanatical Islamist way that still somehow hasn't been understood by post-9/11 Americans.

92 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 9:43:18am

re: #77 theheat

How is a nuclear Iran a boost for any part of Europe, or the world? That's just it: it's not. But the perceived solution is that America should go in, guns blazing, and fix that little problem for everyone; the POTUS should throw down the gauntlet, call Dinnerjacket a MF, and "get some shit" stirred up. You know, like our last POTUS did.

Oops. My bad. Never happened.

That approach makes for really good television, but it's not quite that simple. Lately, we've been great at starting wars, but pretty much suck at finishing them. We can't even get a consensus to send more troops to Afghanistan, let alone open a whole new can of whupass on Iran without the support of a coalition.

Just for once, I'd be pleasantly surprised if the United States didn't have to play big brother and wet nurse to the rest of the world, while simultaneously being demonized, and someone else would man the fuck up.

No, Obama is not the guy to start shit with Iran - at least not at this stage. But who the hell is? I hear a lot of crickets and woulda/shoulda/coulda that doesn't mean jack shit from the rest of the civilized world.

Which is why we have to do it. As long as we depend on oil, and our allies in Europe do too, it is in our vital strategic interest to prevent an Iranian nuke.

BTW, another benefit of taking AGW seriously is getting off of oil.

93 Haole  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 9:43:18am

Trying to make Jimmah Carter look like Kimbo Slice.

94 tradewind  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 9:44:06am

re: #82 vxbush

Or are you suggesting this behavior has changed how that Holder is seeking to investigate the CIA?

... oh, snap.
It's certainly a well-documented phenomenon in the law enforcement community.

95 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 9:44:14am

re: #80 subsailor68

Note to self. Never, ever, tell an Al Qaeda member to blow it out his...

But they're good learners ... at least by the t*rd attempt.

96 mj  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 9:44:17am

re: #82 vxbush

I find it difficult to believe that the CIA would not take its job seriously and simply cover its ass. Or are you suggesting this behavior has changed how that Holder is seeking to investigate the CIA?

No. The agency has been in this mode since Bush. Holder has nothing to do with it.

97 Equable  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 9:44:32am

re: #88 Kosh's Shadow

Greeeat.

Anybody get the notion that this may not be a long, protracted military conflagration? Don't forget how incredibly bad ass the Mossad is.

By the way I am monitoring some short wave numbers stations and I am getting a LOT of chatter from the frequencies that Mossad is known to frequent.

98 The Sanity Inspector  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 9:44:44am

re: #43 Kosh's Shadow

Of course, if the Israelis shoot down a nuclear missile, they'll be blamed for damage wherever the missile lands.
no sarc.

And if they miss, then of course...

99 Killgore Trout  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 9:44:56am

re: #81 pre-Boomer Marine brat

Doing well, recovering from the flu. I promised myself I'd go out to my favorite greasy spoon diner and get a big fat omelet and hashbrowns. I'm trying to work up the appetite.

100 Randall Gross  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 9:45:17am

re: #75 Killgore Trout

Hmmm... It seems they're reading a lot of things into Sarkozy's comments that aren't really there.

To me the focus ought to be on "what's next?" rather than coulda, shoulda, woulda, games.

101 captdiggs  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 9:45:40am

Iran will be the defining moment of the Obama presidency. There is no greater threat to world peace, the stability of the middle east, and the issue of a nuclear arms race in that region.
The Iranian problem makes all other issues pale in comparison.

102 Buck  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 9:45:45am

re: #87 tradewind

I'm very curious as to why Obama thought it a good idea to keep the news of Iran's nuke timeline quiet until after the UN. If there's anything we don't need, it's a timid TOTUS.

Because he knew, if he exposed it too soon, it would become a "baby formula" factory. He wanted to have the Iranians admit to what it is, and show Russia and China that Iran was lying. And he wanted to protect human intelligence he has on the ground in Iran.

Make no mistake about it, Bush also held this information back from the Public.

103 Killgore Trout  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 9:46:28am

re: #87 tradewind

I think it was all carefully choreographed. to get China and Russia to sign on this is is a big deal. If we can bring them along to endorsing sanctions it would be pretty helpful.

104 Killgore Trout  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 9:46:44am

re: #100 Thanos

To me the focus ought to be on "what's next?" rather than coulda, shoulda, woulda, games.

Agreed.

105 Charles Johnson  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 9:46:49am

re: #55 Thanos

RCP is already teeing off on this:

[Link: www.realclearpolitics.com...]

Wow. That article is completely nuts! Sarkozy mildly criticized Obama, and Jack Kelly is calling it "contempt?" Unbelievable.

A little context on Jack Kelley:

Jack Kelley was a longtime USA Today reporter and nominee and finalist for the Pulitzer Prize in 2002.

He is perhaps best known for his professional downfall in March 2004, when it came out that he had long been fabricating stories, going so far as to write up scripts so associates could pretend to be sources during an investigation of his actions by others at the newspaper.

The newspaper conducted an extensive review of Kelley's stories, going so far as to send investigators, including reporter and former mid-level editor Mark Memmott, to Cuba, Israel, and Serbia to check his work and sift through stacks of hotel records to determine if Kelley was where he claimed to be filing stories from. Kelley resigned but denied the charges. The USA Today publisher, Craig Moon, issued a public apology on the front page of the newspaper. The scandal led to the resignations of two key staff members at the newspaper, top editor Karen Jurgensen and News section managing editor Hal Ritter in April 2004.

He's a dishonest hack.

106 jdog29  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 9:46:54am

I predict a military strike by Israel before Thanksgiving, but after Halloween.

btw, I remember distinctly the U.S. selling Israel a boatload of the latest in bunker busting missiles before Bush left office.

107 Kosh's Shadow  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 9:46:58am

re: #97 Equable

Greeeat.

Anybody get the notion that this may not be a long, protracted military conflagration? Don't forget how incredibly bad ass the Mossad is.

By the way I am monitoring some short wave numbers stations and I am getting a LOT of chatter from the frequencies that Mossad is known to frequent.

I've been wondering about covert action for a while.
Even setting them back several years could help; best if they can come out with warheads or parts of them (I hope the Iranians don't have whole warheads, but if they did, I'd expect them to use them quickly) to show that the Iranian program is a weapons program.

108 Equable  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 9:47:00am

re: #102 Buck

Yeah I was thinking that too. It was well played and damn near an Adlai Stevenson moment.

109 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 9:47:05am

re: #99 Killgore Trout

Doing well, recovering from the flu. I promised myself I'd go out to my favorite greasy spoon diner and get a big fat omelet and hashbrowns. I'm trying to work up the appetite.

Good news!
A manly alternative to chicken soup!

110 Douchecanoe and Ryan Too  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 9:48:10am

re: #97 Equable

Greeeat.

Anybody get the notion that this may not be a long, protracted military conflagration? Don't forget how incredibly bad ass the Mossad is.

Israel doesn't have the resources to get into a long, drawn-out fight. They need to deliver a knockout punch with the first strike, or the entire Arab world is going to come down on their heads, which they would be hard-pressed to fight off on their own and may spark off World War III. You can see this with the history of all of Israel's wars.

111 tradewind  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 9:48:30am

re: #102 Buck

The Israelis have been telling us this for a long time, though. And Bush definitely alluded to Iran's nuke program as something that could not stand.
TOTUS seems to be hedging with his ' every country has the right to peaceful nuclear power ' mantra.
In fact, every country does not have that right. You can't get a license to carry a gun if you're in a database of most mental patients, for example. Same thing applies, IMO.

112 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 9:49:13am

re: #101 captdiggs

Iran will be the defining moment of the Obama presidency. There is no greater threat to world peace, the stability of the middle east, and the issue of a nuclear arms race in that region.
The Iranian problem makes all other issues pale in comparison.

I agree. I strongly agree.

It is in our interest to even let the Iranis have Iraq if it means ending the damn nuclear program.

A nuclear Iran will try yo dominate the region. It will export even more terrorism funded by oil money and it will go by the maxim of having nukes means never having to say you are sorry.

They could completely shut down the world oil market at that point, and again, having nukes means never having to say you are sorry.

113 Four More Tears  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 9:49:18am

re: #105 Charles

He's a dishonest hack.

Wow. He's Scott Templeton from The Wire.

114 StillAMarine  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 9:49:39am

re: #101 captdiggs

And our GEL seems more intent on getting the Olympic Games for Chicago, pushing his dead in the water healthcare plan, and stifling our economy with his cap and trade plan that will do nothing for the global warming problem.

115 tradewind  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 9:50:07am

re: #105 Charles

He's a dishonest hack.


Working for Gannett?
No way...
///

116 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 9:50:37am

re: #105 Charles

He's a dishonest hack.

And since when has being utterly dishonest and making things up, stopped the Obama hate machine?

117 captdiggs  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 9:50:41am

re: #106 jdog29

The problem is that, imo, Israel can't do the best job of it. Though they will try.
The damage will be limited, but the fallout virtually the same as thorough US strike.
The only way to seriously set back this program via military action is if the US uses its assets to deliver enough damage to cause a setback of at least 3 years or so.

118 Randall Gross  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 9:50:47am

re: #105 Charles

He's a dishonest hack.

I stuck that in spinoffs, not knowing Kelley's background, please delete it.

119 lawhawk  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 9:50:51am

re: #107 Kosh's Shadow

The Iranians benefited greatly from the AQ Khan network. They got details on the P-2 centrifuges, which the Iranians worked into their IR-2 centrifuges. That's in addition to the P1/IR1 centrifuges that have been in operation at Natanz for some time.

The Iranians also benefited from the Pakistani warhead designs and from North Korean missile technologies. They've gotten crib sheets on how to build the entire weapons supply chain - from processing to warhead. That's why it's only a matter of time before they have a functioning nuclear weapon and IRBMs to send them against all of Iran's enemies (and they are a multitude - from the Europeans to Israel to the Sunni majority nations around the region).

120 jdog29  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 9:50:58am

I think the over/under date on the military strike by Israel against Iran's nuclear capabilities has been set on November 10th. I'm not sure if it's on the board in Vegas yet, but I'm pretty sure Lloyds of London is already taking all the action it can. //

There's nothing like joking about nuclear war possibilities to take the edge off the rest of the day !

121 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 9:51:38am

re: #102 Buck

Because he knew, if he exposed it too soon, it would become a "baby formula" factory. He wanted to have the Iranians admit to what it is, and show Russia and China that Iran was lying. And he wanted to protect human intelligence he has on the ground in Iran.

Make no mistake about it, Bush also held this information back from the Public.

Good analysis.

122 Racer X  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 9:51:41am

Nuke the site from orbit. Its the only way to be sure.

123 Equable  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 9:51:50am

re: #110 thedopefishlives

Precisely, fish. The only real resources that Israel can use and knock this dick in the dirt are their own nukes (extraordinarily bad) or their Mossad.

I'd prefer that they use clandestine measures. But what would cause more furor, taking out the head people in charge of these programs or blasting them to hell outright? I mean, turning Ahmadinejad's head into goulash with a nice and shiny 50 caliber sniper round would sure as hell throw a sabot into the works, but he's just a figurehead. I am positive that even if he were smoked the program would still run... but more than likely with a crash program.

The pieces on the board are now in play.

124 Dianna  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 9:52:22am

re: #92 LudwigVanQuixote

BTW, another the only obvious benefit of taking AGW seriously is getting off of oil.

FTFY.

125 Guanxi88  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 9:52:26am

If memory serves, Iran's strategic missile program (and, presumably, its nuclear weapons programs, as well) are under the control of the Revolutionary Guard. Crush them, destroy their leadership, impair their ability to receive reliable information and transmit secure, credible orders (signals spoofing - issue phony and contradictory orders, slip false reports in throughout, and make the whole commo net just plain stink out loud) and their capacity for harm is greatly diminished. I think sometimes that a strike on the leadership would be enough to spark a retaliation, but simply impairing and degrading their c&c might be enough to reduce the likelihood of push coming to shove before the Guard and their leadership are destroyed.

126 mj  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 9:52:37am

re: #84 Kosh's Shadow

The way the US intelligence establishment is behaving, it is becoming difficult to believe they aren't anti-Semitic.

I don' think that's the motivation here.
The NIE Report was designed to kill off any action that the Bush Administration
was contemplating re: Iran. It did just that. If there was political motivation in the NIE, it was anti-Bush. There was a continual war between the Bush Administration and the CIA.

127 jdog29  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 9:53:09am

re: #117 captdiggs

The problem is that, imo, Israel can't do the best job of it. Though they will try.
The damage will be limited, but the fallout virtually the same as thorough US strike.
The only way to seriously set back this program via military action is if the US uses its assets to deliver enough damage to cause a setback of at least 3 years or so.

The real question, I believe, is will the Obama administration sell additional bunker busting missiles to Israel afterwards to replace the missiles it used AND THEREBY endorsing the self protecting action Israel will have taken.

128 Dianna  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 9:53:24am

re: #99 Killgore Trout

Doing well, recovering from the flu. I promised myself I'd go out to my favorite greasy spoon diner and get a big fat omelet and hashbrowns. I'm trying to work up the appetite.

Go. You really need to eat, if you've had the same fever my household did.

Take care of yourself.

129 Kosh's Shadow  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 9:54:12am

re: #122 Racer X

Nuke the site from orbit. Its the only way to be sure.

Or G-d can drop a meteor on the place and send the world a message.
It would be nice, but I don't expect it.

130 Randall Gross  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 9:54:17am

re: #118 Thanos

I stuck that in spinoffs, not knowing Kelley's background, please delete it.

Here's the article with the facts which they are basing it on

[Link: online.wsj.com...]

131 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 9:54:17am

re: #124 Dianna

FTFY.

Lol, I'm pissed off enough at Iran and the crazy Obama Hitler people that I'll even not rebut...

:)

132 Racer X  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 9:54:59am

re: #77 theheat

Just for once, I'd be pleasantly surprised if the United States didn't have to play big brother and wet nurse to the rest of the world, while simultaneously being demonized, and someone else would man the fuck up.

Don't hold your breath.

Even if Obama were to loudly proclaim "The U.S. will not take any action on Iran if it commits hostile acts against anyone", the rest of the world will either yawn or huddle in a corner and whimper.

America is the world's policeman and everyone knows it, and prefers it that way.

133 Equable  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 9:55:25am

re: #125 Guanxi88

So destroy the Republican Guard, a lot of the theocratic toolbags who run the show and this will light a huge fire with the populace?

Well a lot of Iran's population is staunchly pro West, but if we kill civilians in the process that may galvanize them into being anti West.

134 albusteve  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 9:55:36am

sanctions...

[Link: www.foxnews.com...]

135 Kosh's Shadow  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 9:55:39am

re: #126 mj

I don' think that's the motivation here.
The NIE Report was designed to kill off any action that the Bush Administration
was contemplating re: Iran. It did just that. If there was political motivation in the NIE, it was anti-Bush. There was a continual war between the Bush Administration and the CIA.

Then why aren't they willing to say new evidence has surfaced that change their opinion? They can say they didn't know about the Qum site until after Bush was out.

136 Buck  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 9:56:29am

re: #111 tradewind

The Israelis have been telling us this for a long time, though. And Bush definitely alluded to Iran's nuke program as something that could not stand.

In this case I think we are talking about this specific hidden 'factory'. The idea that you would not want the enemy to know that you know... so that you could continue to watch the going in and out...

AND more importantly show the evidence to the Russians and the Chinese Before the Iranians can clean up their act.

IMO it is the naiveté of both administrations that assumed the Russians and Chinese didn't know.

137 StillAMarine  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 9:56:47am

re: #119 lawhawk

They won't need a warhead small enough to fit in a missile to hit the U.S. They could place a large and klunky nuclear bomb in a shipping container and blow it up in New York Harbor, or in most other port cities in the world. Imagine -- a suicide ship.

These guys are really the whole enchilada when it comes to nastiness.

138 Haole  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 9:56:53am

This just proves...We need more Czars.

139 Oh no...Sand People!  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 9:57:18am

re: #5 redshirt

Don't worry, Obama's on it!

/

(Better)

140 PatriotLizardoid  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 9:57:44am

re: #138 Haole

Didn't Dennis Kucinich want a department of "peace"? Well there's your czar. He'll fix it.

141 lawhawk  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 9:58:02am

re: #126 mj

There's a continual war between the CIA and any Administration - particularly when that Administration changes priorities, targets, or direction. We're seeing some of that with the Obama Administration too - since their recent intel on Iran directly contradicts the 2007 NIE, which they helped put together to quash any action on Iran during the Bush Administration, but which is pushing Obama to have to take a harder line than Obama may otherwise want.

The CIA had intel showing that Iran had multiple nuclear sites - heck, Global Security, FAS, and several other sites already had the lo-down on the Iranian nuke sites, including the one outside Qom. They just downplayed its role/existence for the NIE. Now that Iran admitted to its existence, it bolsters the fact that Iran has a far larger and more active nuclear program than the NIE previously suggested. By being far too cautious, the NIE led to inaction and underplaying a grave and gathering threat.

As cagey as Saddam was with his WMD programs, the Iranians have learned all the lessons and have exploited the situation to their advantage. They're pressing it to their maximum advantage. The revelation of the Qom facilities gets everyone focused on that, all while Iran's other centrifuges continue spinning furiously. It means Iran continues doing what it has been doing.

142 lurking faith  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 9:58:34am

re: #122 Racer X

Nuke the site from orbit. Its the only way to be sure.

One of my favorite movies.

143 Guanxi88  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 9:58:50am

re: #133 Equable

So destroy the Republican Guard, a lot of the theocratic toolbags who run the show and this will light a huge fire with the populace?

Well a lot of Iran's population is staunchly pro West, but if we kill civilians in the process that may galvanize them into being anti West.

Not saying it's perfect, but it beats strikes on the sites, which are so heavily embedded in civilian areas as to make "collateral damage" figures truly appalling. Knock the gun from the bad guy's hand (in this case, the cut the Rev Guard's connection to weapons) and you reduce his potential for mischief.

Attacks on the theocratic leadership are an iffy proposition, as are attacks on the "civil" leadership - but the Rev Guard, well, they can go.

144 Equable  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 9:59:23am

I feel so awful for the Iranian populace.

THESE are the people that come to mind when I think of the Persians:

Iranians pay homage to 9-11 catastrophe

145 Kragar  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 9:59:38am

Don't worry, I'm sure the talks will settle all this, right?

Iran has said it is not willing to discuss its "nuclear rights" during an upcoming meeting with the five permanent UN Security Council members.

OK, maybe not.

146 lawhawk  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 9:59:57am

re: #137 StillAMarine

They could always go that route, but the chances of an interception before the weapons gets into place is high. A warhead means that they can use less nuclear materials - a far more efficient use of the weapons grade uranium on hand. Besides, it's not like Iran is learning how to do this from scratch. They've got all the advantages of decades of known nuclear weapons, testing, and technological advances that miniaturize all the various components.

147 Guanxi88  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 10:00:04am

re: #144 Equable

I feel so awful for the Iranian populace.

THESE are the people that come to mind when I think of the Persians:

Iranians pay homage to 9-11 catastrophe

Exactly why we gotta take the boot off their necks.

148 Douchecanoe and Ryan Too  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 10:00:18am

re: #144 Equable

When I think of the Persians, I think of the proud Iranian women taking beatings from the brute squads in the aftermath of the demonstrations.

149 Buck  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 10:00:34am

re: #134 albusteve

sanctions...

[Link: www.foxnews.com...]

The only sanctions that I think MIGHT work is for the USA/EU to make it illegal to handle any financial transactions that effect Iran in any way.

The Mullahs are businessmen. They own car dealerships and grocery distribution. I think they would toss dinnerjacket under the bus in two days.

150 vxbush  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 10:00:40am

re: #141 lawhawk

There's a continual war between the CIA and any Administration - particularly when that Administration changes priorities, targets, or direction. We're seeing some of that with the Obama Administration too - since their recent intel on Iran directly contradicts the 2007 NIE...

Emphasis mine to ask a question: where did the White House intel come from, if not CIA?

151 Equable  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 10:00:47am

re: #148 thedopefishlives

If I could upding this 50 times I would. Awesome point man.

152 WindHorse  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 10:00:52am

Since Sarah Palin's book is due out on Nov 17th... I predict a strike on Nov 16th... (also a "New Moon" that day)

153 Haole  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 10:01:02am

re: #145 Kragar (proud to be kafir)

Don't worry, There's always sign language.

154 lawhawk  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 10:01:50am

re: #150 vxbush

Their in the highlighted section refers to the CIA, but the intel also comes from the NSA and other intel agencies, each of which has competing interests (same as always really).

155 captdiggs  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 10:02:14am

re: #127 jdog29

I still don't believe that Israel can do enough damage. There are a lot of logistic problems, distance, types of aircraft, etc.
Israel will only have one shot. And I think that to do it correctly would require multiple raids. It's the way a bombing campaign works, dating back to WWII.
You do it, then evaluate damage, then do it again...

My personal opinion is that if Israel does their one shot, that the political effects will be the same as a US raid, therefore, the US should do it, or join Israel.

In any case, the shit will be hitting the fan.

As John Mccain said; The only thing worse is a nuclear war with Iran.
I agree. There are no "good" options any more.

156 Randall Gross  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 10:02:42am

Here's the soft side debating it, Politico and Carnegie institute discussion

[Link: www.carnegieendowment.org...]

157 mj  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 10:03:06am

re: #135 Kosh's Shadow

Then why aren't they willing to say new evidence has surfaced that change their opinion? They can say they didn't know about the Qum site until after Bush was out.

The CIA itself hasn't commented, at least in what I can find. However, State did comment and said that information on the new facility was known to the people who wrote the report back in 2007. However, none of that information appears in the report since it was just released publicly last week. So it comes down to whether you trust the CIA to do it's job in a professional manner.
Considering I thought the original 2007 NIE was a political document and not an intelligence assessment, I don't really trust the CIA. But then, I haven't trusted them since the fall of the Soviet Union which they also did not predict.

158 tradewind  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 10:03:14am

re: #134 albusteve

Oh so vewwy scawwy.

159 Oh no...Sand People!  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 10:04:00am

I dare the middle east to surprise us and actually have a 'good technology to benefit the world race'...(Israel is exempt in this race...since they already won.)

160 Equable  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 10:04:13am

re: #147 Guanxi88

I totally agree. The contemporary pro West populace far outnumber the mullahcracy, but I'd hate to see us incite a horribly and unspeakably bloody civil war. When you take the boots of the necks, they usually find themselves having to lace their own.

161 Equable  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 10:04:38am

Oops, I meant boots OFF of the necks.

162 tradewind  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 10:04:50am

re: #156 Thanos

Here's the soft headed side debating it, Politico and Carnegie Institute discussion.


FTFY/

163 Kosh's Shadow  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 10:05:25am

re: #149 Buck

The only sanctions that I think MIGHT work is for the USA/EU to make it illegal to handle any financial transactions that effect Iran in any way.

The Mullahs are businessmen. They own car dealerships and grocery distribution. I think they would toss dinnerjacket under the bus in two days.

Actually, they should welcome financial transactions, but make it clear that any Iranian money will be subject to seizure in the case of any Iranian use of nuclear weapons. And, in fact, encourage them to keep the money in the West. Just don't let them make any sudden large transfers out.

164 Killgore Trout  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 10:05:33am

re: #128 Dianna


Go. You really need to eat, if you've had the same fever my household did.

Take care of yourself.


You too.

165 StillAMarine  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 10:05:38am

re: #144 Equable

I am very glad for your posting that. I have known many Iranians, and they have proven to be people you can count on as friends and helpers in times of need. My neighbor is a member of our wine club (yes, she is a Muslim) and I have had the opportunity to meet her mother who periodically visits from Tehran. She also reports that the U.S. and Canada are very much liked and respected by the Iranian people.

When you think of the Iranian people, bring Neda Soltan to mind.

166 brent  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 10:06:23am

I keep going back to last year's NIE - the one that effectively took any military option off the table for Bush, even the threat of one.

Re-reading it, it's basically right - the wording made it seem less likely, but it all points at a restart of covert programs around 2005. And now, voila, we're surprised that these folks are going to be a nuclear power in a very short time. Assuming no "then a miracle happens" moment.

Thanks Intelligence Agency - you got your wish, Bush looked like a warmongerer, and you got Iran the bomb. Huzzah.

167 PatriotLizardoid  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 10:06:32am

re: #165 StillAMarine

True, the Iranian populace in general is very pro-American.

168 Equable  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 10:07:21am

re: #165 StillAMarine

I am very glad for your posting that. I have known many Iranians, and they have proven to be people you can count on as friends and helpers in times of need. My neighbor is a member of our wine club (yes, she is a Muslim) and I have had the opportunity to meet her mother who periodically visits from Tehran. She also reports that the U.S. and Canada are very much liked and respected by the Iranian people.

When you think of the Iranian people, bring Neda Soltan to mind.

I too have known many Persian people and they're warm, friendly and loyal almost to a fault.

And I think of Neda sir, believe me I do.

169 Dianna  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 10:07:51am

re: #164 Killgore Trout

You too.

Always!

170 Flyers1974  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 10:08:08am

Why doesn't China and Russia care more about Iran getting nuclear weapons? I would say the prevailing wisdom is business/economic considerations combined with "It's not our problem."

If Iran and Israel engage in a nuclear war, wouldn't both countries, along with the rest of the world suffer great economic harm? Who could predict what such an exchange would do to Iran's oil flow? What would happen to the world markets? What would the US public say about continuing to trade with China and Russia? Aside from economics, how would the US be changed? Would the US public and politicians not be enraged and never again say the cost of war war is not worth preemptive attacks? Would the US not have a pretty good reason for attacking N. Korea with nukes? And what would that do to the world economy?

Has Russia and China considered these possibilities and decided they are outweighed by current business/economic benefits? Have they calculated that Israel will solve the problem itself before Iran gets nukes? Or has China and Russia calculated that Iran will not use nukes once acquired and the resultant emboldened Iran is not going to harm them?

171 Guanxi88  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 10:08:30am

re: #160 Equable

I totally agree. The contemporary pro West populace far outnumber the mullahcracy, but I'd hate to see us incite a horribly and unspeakably bloody civil war. When you take the boots of the necks, they usually find themselves having to lace their own.

Rule by the thugs there now is already a low-grade civil war - waged, in this case, by the leadership on the people. Persians are nowhere near as divided by sect, ideology, or history as were the Iraqis, and I'm confident that they could probably work things out without too much trouble on their own.

Again, this is only a targeted series of actions, intended primarily to disrupt or destroy the command and control functions of the thugs with the guns. It could be mild (phone lines cut, radios jammed, etc.) or it could be heavy (targeted attacks on barracks, offices, and other personnel resources) directly realted to them

172 sattv4u2  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 10:09:31am

re: #170 Flyers1974

Why doesn't China and Russia care more about Iran getting nuclear weapons? I would say the prevailing wisdom is business/economic considerations combined with "It's not our problem."

That and the fact that neither has ever given two hoots about Israel

173 Kosh's Shadow  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 10:10:19am

re: #170 Flyers1974

Why doesn't China and Russia care more about Iran getting nuclear weapons? I would say the prevailing wisdom is business/economic considerations combined with "It's not our problem."

I don't know, since there is a fair chance the Iranians would give the Chechens nuclear weapons anyway. And the Uighurs (sp?).

If Tel Aviv is nuked, It won't bother me if Moscow is by the Chechens; I'll consider it a down payment on what the Russians deserve.

174 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 10:10:24am

Gee, I wonder what Mesbah Yazdi thinks about his acolyte (Short Shit) getting the bomb ...

/utter SARC

175 sattv4u2  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 10:11:54am

re: #170 Flyers1974

re: #172 sattv4u2

Why doesn't China and Russia care more about Iran getting nuclear weapons? I would say the prevailing wisdom is business/economic considerations combined with "It's not our problem."

That and the fact that neither has ever given two hoots about Israel

Who could predict what such an exchange would do to Iran's oil flow?

FURTHER,, the rest of the world (i.e. Russia and China) would put pressure on the remaining oil producers to up their production to make up any shortfall

176 tradewind  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 10:12:05am

re: #67 Kosh's Shadow

And everyone will blame Israel.

... Verbal Sticks and stones won't break their bones, but nukes would surely hurt them.

177 Truth Stick  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 10:12:26am

I don't understand why we don't just talk to the Iranians, I mean they wouldn't talk to us, and then do the total opposite.

///

178 Buck  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 10:12:47am

re: #163 Kosh's Shadow

... any Iranian money will be subject to seizure in the case of any Iranian use of nuclear weapons...

I think the idea is to STOP the use of Nuclear weapons... If you believed that right after you used your nuclear weapon, the 12th Iman would come forth and make everyone muslim...Well you would not worry about someone seizing your money...

179 [deleted]  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 10:13:01am
180 Gearhead  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 10:13:04am
The train is rushing at us, and we can’t seem to move off the tracks.

It's just a light at the end of the nuclear proliferation tunnel. Move along.

/

181 Kosh's Shadow  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 10:13:33am

re: #175 sattv4u2

re: #172 sattv4u2

Who could predict what such an exchange would do to Iran's oil flow?

FURTHER,, the rest of the world (i.e. Russia and China) would put pressure on the remaining oil producers to up their production to make up any shortfall

But by the law of supply and demand, the prices for oil would go up. And if Iran (or its terrorist allies) were still in a position to disrupt Gulf shipping, the price would skyrocket.

182 Equable  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 10:13:57am

re: #171 Guanxi88

Well what worries me in this scenario, is that if you cut the ears off of the chicken (do chickens have ears?) the boot will come down extremely heavy on the people, probably resulting in the deaths of many, many Persians. You don't need walkie-talkies to understand that your infrastructure is under siege and that you need to put the (recently and hugely protesting) populace under control with guns immediately.

183 Randall Gross  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 10:14:31am

Security council meets 10/1, so it will be interesting the next few weeks. There's a whole gamut of options both sides could pull. Oil prices are already rising in fear of the Strait of Hormuz gambit that Iran has.

184 Flyers1974  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 10:14:40am

re: #175 sattv4u2

re: #172 sattv4u2


Who could predict what such an exchange would do to Iran's oil flow?

FURTHER,, the rest of the world (i.e. Russia and China) would put pressure on the remaining oil producers to up their production to make up any shortfall

Agreed. But it's still a pretty risky proposition that that will work out like they want. o.k.

185 Kosh's Shadow  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 10:14:45am

re: #178 Buck

I think the idea is to STOP the use of Nuclear weapons... If you believed that right after you used your nuclear weapon, the 12th Iman would come forth and make everyone muslim...Well you would not worry about someone seizing your money...

True. My original idea was that this would be applied to any country voting against strict sanctions, like Russia and China.

186 Sharmuta  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 10:15:02am

I think it will be pressure from the saudis that will get Obama to act.

187 Kosh's Shadow  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 10:15:11am

re: #180 Gearhead

It's just a light at the end of the nuclear proliferation tunnel. Move along.

/

Sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel is a detonating bomb.

188 tradewind  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 10:15:22am

re: #177 Truth Stick
I think this is what might work better...

Youtube Video

(pretty cool video on this one, btw).
189 Racer X  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 10:15:23am

The time for a military confrontation with Iran has passed. Iran will NOT attack another country directly; they will instead pass off a nuke to a third party terrorist group to do the dirty work. Then Iran can deny any involvement, hence no retaliatory strike by the West.

We're fucked.

190 Ray in TX  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 10:15:42am

I still think that Iran wants to portray their weapon development as a "defensive" stance against an aggressive and nuclear Israel. The problem is that, once you have nukes, they become bargaining chips in any foreign diplomacy -- even if that wasn't their original intent.

I think most people are in agreement that it is imperative that Iran not become a nuclear power. Not just because their leadership is megalomaniacal, but simply because global nuclear proliferation decreases the security of all nations.

Iran's program will have to be stopped, militarily if necessary. It will have to be an international coalition, though, and we'll see if Obama's previous diplomatic maneuvering pays off in this regard.

In addition, North Korea needs to be disarmed but they are not the immediate threat.

191 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 10:15:49am

re: #186 Sharmuta

I think it will be pressure from the saudis that will get Obama to act.

You might very well be right.

192 Randall Gross  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 10:16:09am

re: #189 Racer X

The time for a military confrontation with Iran has passed. Iran will NOT attack another country directly; they will instead pass off a nuke to a third party terrorist group to do the dirty work. Then Iran can deny any involvement, hence no retaliatory strike by the West.

We're fucked.

That's the other option I didn't mention.

193 Equable  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 10:16:17am

re: #189 Racer X

Yup they love their frigging proxy wars. We should've stomped them a new mudhole when the first copper projectile roadside bomb thing took out its first Humvee.

194 McSpiff  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 10:16:45am

re: #189 Racer X

The time for a military confrontation with Iran has passed. Iran will NOT attack another country directly; they will instead pass off a nuke to a third party terrorist group to do the dirty work. Then Iran can deny any involvement, hence no retaliatory strike by the West.

We're fucked.

Its impossible to deny the source reactor. Iran will not be able to hide behind any front groups.

195 tradewind  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 10:16:51am

re: #190 Ray in TX

Never thought I would say this, but I kind of trust the Chinese to ride herd on the Norks and their nukes. They're in the danger zone more than anyone.

196 albusteve  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 10:17:00am

re: #189 Racer X

The time for a military confrontation with Iran has passed. Iran will NOT attack another country directly; they will instead pass off a nuke to a third party terrorist group to do the dirty work. Then Iran can deny any involvement, hence no retaliatory strike by the West.

We're fucked.

and the economic aftermath will be unprecedented...hold onto your socks

197 Flyers1974  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 10:17:43am

re: #184 Flyers1974

Agreed. But it's still a pretty risky proposition that that will work out like they want. o.k.

198 Kosh's Shadow  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 10:17:47am

re: #189 Racer X

The time for a military confrontation with Iran has passed. Iran will NOT attack another country directly; they will instead pass off a nuke to a third party terrorist group to do the dirty work. Then Iran can deny any involvement, hence no retaliatory strike by the West.

We're fucked.

It is still possible to determine where the bomb came from, and if the US is nuked, there will be overwhelming pressure in the US to nuke Iran and take their oil. (The American people would probably be willing to share the oil with what is left of Israel.)

199 sattv4u2  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 10:17:52am

re: #181 Kosh's Shadow

But by the law of supply and demand, the prices for oil would go up. And if Iran (or its terrorist allies) were still in a position to disrupt Gulf shipping, the price would skyrocket.

That presupposes Iran would withstand any type of military action by thw west. I'm positive our fleet would be in control of the area insuring the shipping lanes from Qatar, Suadi and Kuwait et al were still open

200 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 10:18:03am

re: #170 Flyers1974

If Iran has a nuke and a Russian alliance, then between Iran and Russia, the oil going to Europe can be choked and it gives Russia vastly more influence.

China does not care as long as Iran keeps sending them oil and does not want Iran pissed off.

And the whole thing is ultimately funded by people like you and me all around the world every time we go to the pumps.

201 StillAMarine  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 10:18:11am

re: #170 Flyers1974

The Russians want to use Iran as a proxy to cause problems for the US in order that Russia may reassert it influence in the "near abroad" without the US getting in their way by doing things such as supporting the Ukraine in its attempts to establish itself in the World and giving the Baltic, Central Asian and East European countries an opportunity to develop themselves. Europe, especially Germany, now depends on Russian oil. Russia is very effectively using that as a lever to keep Western Europe in check. China does want the US for a market for their trade goods and as a source of foreign currency, but also desires to keep the US at bay in Asia.

The problem for them is that Iran may easily be a double edged sword.

202 gregb  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 10:18:58am

I did a photo analysis of both of the open thread "supposed" ocean and flower photographs against the Iranian missile news photos.

It looks highly suspect.
Image: missile-conspiracy.jpg

I sent email to Michelle.

203 tradewind  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 10:19:00am

re: #196 albusteve

and the economic aftermath will be unprecedented...hold onto your socks

...or maybe head to the nearest Wal*Mart and buy 'em in bulk, just in case...
///

204 Equable  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 10:19:01am

re: #196 albusteve

and the economic aftermath will be unprecedented...hold onto your socks

And the morons who blocked us drilling Anwr are going to go into hiding.

205 [deleted]  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 10:19:17am
206 Kosh's Shadow  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 10:19:21am

re: #199 sattv4u2

That presupposes Iran would withstand any type of military action by thw west. I'm positive our fleet would be in control of the area insuring the shipping lanes from Qatar, Suadi and Kuwait et al were still open

All it takes are a bunch of crazies in rubber boats loaded with explosives. Take out one oil tanker in the Straits, and insurance will be unavailable.

207 Sharmuta  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 10:19:58am

re: #191 pre-Boomer Marine brat

You might very well be right.

The saudis may be a lot of things, but ready to cower to Iran isn't one of them.

208 Flyers1974  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 10:20:14am

re: #173 Kosh's Shadow

I don't know, since there is a fair chance the Iranians would give the Chechens nuclear weapons anyway. And the Uighurs (sp?).

If Tel Aviv is nuked, It won't bother me if Moscow is by the Chechens; I'll consider it a down payment on what the Russians deserve.

If that is true, then in makes no sense at all that Russia wouldn't be freaked about this - or at least not do harm. Something doesn't add up.

209 albusteve  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 10:20:27am

re: #204 Equable

And the morons who blocked us drilling Anwr are going to go into hiding.

I hold them personally responsible...however harsh that sounds

210 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 10:20:28am

re: #202 gregb

I did a photo analysis of both of the open thread "supposed" ocean and flower photographs against the Iranian missile news photos.

It looks highly suspect.
[Link: www.bolcer.org...]

I sent email to Michelle.

LOL
We'll remember that you "said" it first.

211 Randall Gross  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 10:20:35am

What should Israel's response be if they aren't going pre-emptive? I would say that keeping extra eyes on Syria, Hezbollah, and Gaza is called for, but that's obvious. What about West Bank?

212 Equable  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 10:20:50am

re: #207 Sharmuta

The saudis may be a lot of things, but ready to cower to Iran isn't one of them.

They don't gotta, they usually have us to wet nurse them and tuck them in and put ourselves into economic indentured servitude in the process.

;-)

213 mj  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 10:20:59am

re: #186 Sharmuta

I think it will be pressure from the saudis that will get Obama to act.

Maybe. I don't know if the Saudis really trust the Obama Administration to use force if it becomes necessary. They weren't exactly jumping for joy over the prospect over his election.

By the way, probably more British press nonsense but this way interesting:

SAUDIS WILL LET ISRAEL BOMB IRAN NUCLEAR SITE

[Link: www.express.co.uk...]

214 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 10:21:12am

re: #207 Sharmuta

The saudis may be a lot of things, but ready to cower to Iran isn't one of them.

NO not at all, they would rather cower behind Israel and then blame them afterwards.

215 Equable  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 10:21:31am

re: #209 albusteve

I hold them personally responsible...however harsh that sounds

I do too Mr. Steve. Big time.

216 Kragar  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 10:22:03am

re: #204 Equable

And the morons who blocked us drilling Anwr are going to go into hiding.

If we had simply ignored all the people who said "it will take us 10 years to get to the oil" the first time, we would have had access to it for the last 20 years.

Something to think about.

217 gregb  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 10:22:32am

re: #206 Kosh's Shadow

All it takes are a bunch of crazies in rubber boats loaded with explosives. Take out one oil tanker in the Straits, and insurance will be unavailable.

I'm holding out hope against hope that in 10 years time, the whole middle east oil stranglehold will be completely obsoleted by technology. In particular, I think Green Crude--algae produced light sweet crude that works in the same equipment as the whole petroleum supply chain and doesn't compete with human food production--will be able to ramp up and offset any saber rattling from the middle east.

218 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 10:22:57am

bbl

219 Racer X  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 10:23:16am

Iran using nuclear power = OK
America using Nuclear power = NOT OK
- Obama administration

220 Equable  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 10:23:23am

re: #216 Kragar (proud to be kafir)

Exactly. Nations and their dependency on mullahcracy oil (thus giving them untold riches with which to cause much mischief) helped put us into this mess.

And no, right now at this point in history a dopey looking Prius isn't going to frigging save us.

221 Flyers1974  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 10:23:29am

re: #201 StillAMarine

The Russians want to use Iran as a proxy to cause problems for the US in order that Russia may reassert it influence in the "near abroad" without the US getting in their way by doing things such as supporting the Ukraine in its attempts to establish itself in the World and giving the Baltic, Central Asian and East European countries an opportunity to develop themselves. Europe, especially Germany, now depends on Russian oil. Russia is very effectively using that as a lever to keep Western Europe in check. China does want the US for a market for their trade goods and as a source of foreign currency, but also desires to keep the US at bay in Asia.

The problem for them is that Iran may easily be a double edged sword.

I agree, because you could say goodby to further diplomatic solutions.

222 Gearhead  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 10:23:38am

Somebody needs to "out" Ahmadinejad (and maybe a few key scientists) as a U.S. or Israeli mole.

That might put a little grease on the tracks.

223 PatriotLizardoid  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 10:24:48am

re: #217 gregb

I'm holding out hope against hope that in 10 years time, the whole middle east oil stranglehold will be completely obsoleted by technology. In particular, I think Green Crude--algae produced light sweet crude that works in the same equipment as the whole petroleum supply chain and doesn't compete with human food production--will be able to ramp up and offset any saber rattling from the middle east.

Exactly, new energy sources won't spring from wind or solar, though they are lofty attempts. It will come from production by biomasses.

224 Flyers1974  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 10:25:00am

re: #219 Racer X

Iran using nuclear power = OK
America using Nuclear power = NOT OK
- Obama administration

Which may make sense. Israel has no allies to lose.

225 Gearhead  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 10:25:38am

re: #219 Racer X

Iran using nuclear power = OK
America using Nuclear power = NOT OK
- Obama administration

It's all part of Obama's bold "America Last" initiative.

226 MandyManners  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 10:25:54am

Mental health break.

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

227 John Neverbend  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 10:26:00am

re: #189 Racer X

The time for a military confrontation with Iran has passed. Iran will NOT attack another country directly; they will instead pass off a nuke to a third party terrorist group to do the dirty work. Then Iran can deny any involvement, hence no retaliatory strike by the West.

We're fucked.

I have to agree with this, and I don't believe Israel is going to carry out any attack. Rather, the West will eventually realize that they have to switch off the SEP field that they've thrown around Iran (SEP = Somebody Else's Problem, hat tip to Douglas Adams) and focus extremely seriously on covert or even overt operations which will deny third party nut-jobs access to nuclear weaponry. If, during this fun time, there's a regime change for the better in Iran, perhaps the problem will go away. Also, if Iran stays silent on the day when they become a nuclear power (if that day hasn't already occurred), there'll be less pressure for a regional nuclear arms race, another thing that really should be avoided at all costs.

228 Guanxi88  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 10:27:14am

re: #182 Equable

Well what worries me in this scenario, is that if you cut the ears off of the chicken (do chickens have ears?) the boot will come down extremely heavy on the people, probably resulting in the deaths of many, many Persians. You don't need walkie-talkies to understand that your infrastructure is under siege and that you need to put the (recently and hugely protesting) populace under control with guns immediately.

All true, all correct, and all undeniable. Crackdowns would be inevitable, and there would be loss of life. Far less, though, than the losses of life certain to be the result of strikes on the nuke facilities, or, in the event the unthinkable should happen, nuke strikes on Tel Aviv or elsewhere.

In any event, I doubt the prospects for a "velvet Revolution" in Iran occurring before they have a nuclear weapon and the means to deliver it. It's bound to be bad.

229 sattv4u2  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 10:27:49am

re: #207 Sharmuta

The saudis may be a lot of things, but ready to cower to Iran isn't one of them.

They were cowering at the spectre of Saddam, and Iran is more dangerous, imho

230 StillAMarine  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 10:28:12am

Must go. Work calls.

231 Flyers1974  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 10:28:39am

re: #211 Thanos

What should Israel's response be if they aren't going pre-emptive? I would say that keeping extra eyes on Syria, Hezbollah, and Gaza is called for, but that's obvious. What about West Bank?

Great question. Obviously the West Bank would be very difficult to keep eyes on. I would say Israel would be much more aggressive in general.

232 Eowyn2  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 10:30:47am

re: #8 Kosh's Shadow

the UN believes that the existence of Israel is a war crime.

233 Flyers1974  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 10:31:08am

re: #189 Racer X

The time for a military confrontation with Iran has passed. Iran will NOT attack another country directly; they will instead pass off a nuke to a third party terrorist group to do the dirty work. Then Iran can deny any involvement, hence no retaliatory strike by the West.

We're fucked.


I disagree. What would be their gain? And once a terrorist group gets a bomb, I think you can say goodby to the US being cautious. There would be hell to pay if this happened.

234 Sharmuta  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 10:33:30am

re: #213 mj

Maybe. I don't know if the Saudis really trust the Obama Administration to use force if it becomes necessary. They weren't exactly jumping for joy over the prospect over his election.

By the way, probably more British press nonsense but this way interesting:

SAUDIS WILL LET ISRAEL BOMB IRAN NUCLEAR SITE

[Link: www.express.co.uk...]

That's very interesting.

235 Flyers1974  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 10:34:22am

re: #227 John Neverbend

I have to agree with this, and I don't believe Israel is going to carry out any attack. Rather, the West will eventually realize that they have to switch off the SEP field that they've thrown around Iran (SEP = Somebody Else's Problem, hat tip to Douglas Adams) and focus extremely seriously on covert or even overt operations which will deny third party nut-jobs access to nuclear weaponry. If, during this fun time, there's a regime change for the better in Iran, perhaps the problem will go away. Also, if Iran stays silent on the day when they become a nuclear power (if that day hasn't already occurred), there'll be less pressure for a regional nuclear arms race, another thing that really should be avoided at all costs.

I agree that Israel will not attack Iran and Iran won't use the bomb. Or atleast that is the calculation made by the powers that be. This would explains many things: (1) Bush going to Iraq not Iran; (2) China/Russia not caring; (3) Iran's continuation of the program.

236 Oh no...Sand People!  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 10:35:32am

Encore: Benjamin Netanyahu Interview
CNN: Glenn Beck
Aired May 9, 2008 - 19:00:00 ET

NETANYAHU: We`re just the first way station en route to you. So there is this fundament fanaticism that is there. It`s a messianic cult. It`s a religious messianic cult that believes in the Apocalypse, and they believe they have to expedite the Apocalypse to bring the collapse of the West...

NETANYAHU: So imagine David Koresh with nuclear weapons. Imagine David Koresh, not with hundreds of followers, but millions of followers, with nuclear weapons, wanting to obliterate America, wanting to obliterate America`s allies, wanting to take over the world`s oil supply.

If the lunatics escape from the asylum, that`s one thing. But if they can get their hands on a nuclear weapon, that`s another. And this is that kind of cult. It`s the cult of the Mahdi, a holy man that disappeared a thousand years ago. And the president of Iran believes that he`s supposed to -- he was put here on Earth to bring this holy man back in a great religious war between the true Muslim believers and the infidels. And millions will die in this Apocalypse, and the Muslim believers will go to heaven.

That`s dangerous, if they have nuclear weapons to realize this fantasy. And that is where the world is coming to. Now, people said that of Hitler in the 1930s. They said this man has a mad ideology, very fanatic, very dangerous, and if he gets his hands on a military power, he would use it. Hitler did use it, but Hitler developed atomic weapons, tried to develop them only after embarking on the world conflict.

Ahmadinejad, the president of Iran, is first trying to develop nuclear weapons and then going about his mad fantasy of global conflict. So he has to be stopped. I think when you have something as fanatic and as dangerous as this, the question now is not whether he should be stopped, but how`s he going to be stopped?

NETANYAHU: What your father says is absolutely true in the case of deterrable powers. The Soviet Union had enough firepower to destroy the United States, but they realized that you would destroy them, so they were deterred. They were not suicidal.

But militant Islam is suicidal. They often put their zealotry, their ideology above their survival. That`s why you didn`t have any Communist suicide bombers, but militant Islam produces hordes of them, battalions, and they smash into buildings in New York.

Now, do you doubt that if, for example, Al Qaeda had nuclear weapons, this city would not exist today?

NETANYAHU: I think the most important thing to understand is that -- you know the best sign of how dangerous things are? That the president of Iran is not even trying to fake it.

You know, normally, if he wasn`t as fanatic as he is, he`d say, "Well, you know, yes, I think we could recognize Israel if it made the right concessions to the Palestinians." He`d play along; he`d play the game. He`d say, "We`re not really developing nuclear weapons. We just want nuclear energy for peace." You know, he`d say all that.

But that`s not what he`s saying. He`s saying -- and listen to him carefully. He`s saying, "We`re going to wipe Israel off the map. The Holocaust didn`t happen. America`s the great Satan. Iran will have the power to reshape history."

Now, a normal person would not say that. An insane person says that. In the 1930s, an insane person wrote in a book called, "Mein Kampf," "My Struggle," and that was Adolf Hitler. He said exactly what he would do. He was stark-raving mad, but he communicated.

You asked for a sign? That was a sign, 300 pages of signs, OK? Ahmadinejad every day is writing a page. He`s saying what he`s going to do. That`s the best sign. That tells you that there`s a fanaticism at work here which is not even calculating. He`s just going to do it. And let`s not enable him to do it. Let`s stop him.

At least this one gets it.

237 Racer X  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 10:36:11am

re: #233 Flyers1974

I disagree. What would be their gain? And once a terrorist group gets a bomb, I think you can say goodby to the US being cautious. There would be hell to pay if this happened.

Look at what Iran has been doing in Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon. Not to forget Israel. Iran has a long history of stirring shit up and then denying it.

To this day there are people who say we should not have attacked Afghanistan for 9/11, we should have attacked Saudi Arabia. Think about Hizbullah or some other group setting off a nuke in Israel - who gets the return shot?

238 Dianna  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 10:37:32am

re: #206 Kosh's Shadow

All it takes are a bunch of crazies in rubber boats loaded with explosives. Take out one oil tanker in the Straits, and insurance will be unavailable.

The return of the Tanker War.

239 Flyers1974  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 10:39:09am

re: #237 Racer X

Look at what Iran has been doing in Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon. Not to forget Israel. Iran has a long history of stirring shit up and then denying it.

To this day there are people who say we should not have attacked Afghanistan for 9/11, we should have attacked Saudi Arabia. Think about Hizbullah or some other group setting off a nuke in Israel - who gets the return shot?

Denying it wouldn't cut it if a nuke goes off. Not to be flippant, but the fun and games would stop, I think. Iran would get the return shot. A nuke going off changes everything.

240 sattv4u2  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 10:40:14am

re: #236 Oh no...Sand People!

At least this one gets it.
He always has!

241 Racer X  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 10:41:39am

re: #239 Flyers1974

Denying it wouldn't cut it if a nuke goes off. Not to be flippant, but the fun and games would stop, I think. Iran would get the return shot. A nuke going off changes everything.

But how would we really know the first nuke did not originate from Pakistan?

242 Flyers1974  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 10:45:48am

re: #241 Racer X

But how would we really know the first nuke did not originate from Pakistan?

Maybe Ludwig can answer that. Couldn't physicists tell where a bomb came from by the type of material used?

243 gregb  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 10:50:50am

re: #241 Racer X

But how would we really know the first nuke did not originate from Pakistan?

We'd nuke them too-- twice, and then the moon just to make sure they knew.

"Gotta nuke something."
-20th century philosopher Nelson Muntz
[Link: www.imao.us...]

244 drcordell  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 10:51:07am

re: #242 Flyers1974

Maybe Ludwig can answer that. Couldn't physicists tell where a bomb came from by the type of material used?

Yes, they can analyze the specific radiological signature of the nuclear materials used, and trace that back to the nuclear program it originated from.

245 Racer X  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 10:52:13am

re: #242 Flyers1974

Maybe Ludwig can answer that. Couldn't physicists tell where a bomb came from by the type of material used?

Yes they could.

May 27th, 2011 - Haifa is nuked
-
-
-
-
-
February 2012 - Investigators gather evidence for analysis
-
-
-
-
-
March 2013 - Investigators determine there is a 72.5% probability that nuclear material originated from Iran.
-
-
-
-
Oct 2014 - Iran still refuses to provide sample materials to refute nuclear material origin.
-
-
-
-
-
Aug 2015 - retaliatory strike against Iran.

Does not make sense does it?

246 Kosh's Shadow  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 10:54:06am

re: #242 Flyers1974

Maybe Ludwig can answer that. Couldn't physicists tell where a bomb came from by the type of material used?

The isotope ratio can be used to determine the source of nuclear weapons.

247 Flyers1974  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 10:54:40am

Can terrorists acquire nuclear weapons? [Link: nuclearweaponarchive.org...]

Claims have been made that a terrorist weapon could:

Produce a yield of many kilotons;
Be made with reactor grade plutonium, perhaps even with unrefined plutonium reactor fuel;
Be made by a single individual in a matter of weeks, with commonly available materials (given that fissile material is also available);
Be made small enough to transport easily by car. These claims have even been conflated, so that it is asserted that most or all of them are true simultaneously.
These claims are all conditionally true: they may be valid, but only under a restrictive set of assumptions. And they also conflict strongly. Some are completely incompatible; others cannot be categorically eliminated as impossible in combination, but in any event it seems that no more two of them could be simultaneously possible under any scenario.

248 Kosh's Shadow  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 10:55:06am

re: #245 Racer X

Yes they could.

May 27th, 2011 - Haifa is nuked
-
-
-
-
-
February 2012 - Investigators gather evidence for analysis
-
-
-
-
-
March 2013 - Investigators determine there is a 72.5% probability that nuclear material originated from Iran.
-
-
-
-
Oct 2014 - Iran still refuses to provide sample materials to refute nuclear material origin.
-
-
-
-
-
Aug 2015 - retaliatory strike against Iran.

Does not make sense does it?

This is if the UN investigated.
Israel would respond quickly, as would the US.

249 Kosh's Shadow  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 10:55:52am

re: #247 Flyers1974

But we're discussing whether the Iranians would supply nuclear weapons to terrorists, not if the terrorists could make them themselves.

250 rwmofo  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 10:57:34am

re: #236 Oh no...Sand People!

"NETANYAHU: ...But militant Islam is suicidal. They often put their zealotry, their ideology above their survival. That`s why you didn`t have any Communist suicide bombers, but militant Islam produces hordes of them, battalions, and they smash into buildings in New York.

Now, do you doubt that if, for example, Al Qaeda had nuclear weapons, this city (NYC) would not exist today?"

...and to think that there are still those who would laugh this off as "nothing to worry about."

251 Racer X  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 10:58:33am

re: #248 Kosh's Shadow

This is if the UN investigated.
Israel would respond quickly, as would the US.

Israel would immediately nuke whoever they thought was responsible. Unfortunately there are several groups who would love to attack Israel with nukes.

252 drcordell  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 10:59:43am

re: #245 Racer X

Yes they could.

May 27th, 2011 - Haifa is nuked
-
-
-
-
-
February 2012 - Investigators gather evidence for analysis
-
-
-
-
-
March 2013 - Investigators determine there is a 72.5% probability that nuclear material originated from Iran.
-
-
-
-
Oct 2014 - Iran still refuses to provide sample materials to refute nuclear material origin.
-
-
-
-
-
Aug 2015 - retaliatory strike against Iran.

Does not make sense does it?

Remember when it was Russia that everyone was worried about launching a first strike? When everyone started hoarding canned goods for the nuclear apocolypse and building bomb shelters in their back yards? It never happened, just like an Iranian first strike will never happen. I don't want Iran to get the bomb. I think we should do everything we can to prevent Iran from getting the bomb. But an Iranian first-strike just isn't going to happen.

253 Flyers1974  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 11:00:31am

re: #249 Kosh's Shadow

But we're discussing whether the Iranians would supply nuclear weapons to terrorists, not if the terrorists could make them themselves.

Agreed. The link I provided contemplates black market.

254 Ojoe  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 11:01:01am

Watch "Dinnerjacket's" face in this video while he lies.

255 Racer X  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 11:02:15am

re: #252 drcordell

Remember when it was Russia that everyone was worried about launching a first strike? When everyone started hoarding canned goods for the nuclear apocolypse and building bomb shelters in their back yards? It never happened, just like an Iranian first strike will never happen. I don't want Iran to get the bomb. I think we should do everything we can to prevent Iran from getting the bomb. But an Iranian first-strike just isn't going to happen.

You keep telling yourself that.

256 Oh no...Sand People!  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 11:02:58am

re: #252 drcordell

Remember when it was Russia that everyone was worried about launching a first strike? When everyone started hoarding canned goods for the nuclear apocolypse and building bomb shelters in their back yards? It never happened, just like an Iranian first strike will never happen. I don't want Iran to get the bomb. I think we should do everything we can to prevent Iran from getting the bomb. But an Iranian first-strike just isn't going to happen.


Ah, the audacity of hope...

257 Leonidas Hoplite  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 11:04:22am

I guess someone should have told Hillary and the State Department that in the Farsi language, "Reset" means "Launch"

258 Kosh's Shadow  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 11:04:42am

re: #251 Racer X

Israel would immediately nuke whoever they thought was responsible. Unfortunately there are several groups who would love to attack Israel with nukes.

Israel would retaliate, but the main target would be the country that supplied the nukes.
This is different from conventional warfare.

259 Flyers1974  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 11:05:39am

re: #252 drcordell

Remember when it was Russia that everyone was worried about launching a first strike? When everyone started hoarding canned goods for the nuclear apocolypse and building bomb shelters in their back yards? It never happened, just like an Iranian first strike will never happen. I don't want Iran to get the bomb. I think we should do everything we can to prevent Iran from getting the bomb. But an Iranian first-strike just isn't going to happen.

The counter-argument would be the Soviets were athiests and didn't have 72 virgins to look forward to - in other words, they wanted to live as much as us. Which has merit when comparing the Soviets to suicide bombers. Are the Mullahs the equivalent to suicide bombers? I would argue no, they use them but don't want to die personally.

260 Ojoe  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 11:06:27am

re: #252 drcordell

Russia has a Christian background, and thus some constraint that the Islamic world culturally does not have. There's a difference, and in my mind enough of a difference that I could imagine a nuclear first strike from a mullocracy and not from Holy Mother Russia.

261 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 11:06:29am

re: #242 Flyers1974

Maybe Ludwig can answer that. Couldn't physicists tell where a bomb came from by the type of material used?

Yes. All nuclear reactors are a little different and so are all processing techniques. As a result, when you assemble a bomb there will be different levels of trace elements in your fissionable material. The reactor here meant a little more polonium or a little more of that isotope, the reactor there got it's uranium from a different mine , so there was more or less of something else.

All you need to do is a spectral analysis to see what is in there.

In many ways this is analogous to identifying a murder weapon by ballistics.

262 Kosh's Shadow  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 11:06:31am

re: #252 drcordell

The Russians believe in paradise in this world, and the Russian premiers never wanted to rule over a nuclear ruin.

The Mullahs and Ahmadinejad believe a war will bring the Mahdi.

263 Flyers1974  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 11:08:25am

re: #261 LudwigVanQuixote

Yes. All nuclear reactors are a little different and so are all processing techniques. As a result, when you assemble a bomb there will be different levels of trace elements in your fissionable material. The reactor here meant a little more polonium or a little more of that isotope, the reactor there got it's uranium from a different mine , so there was more or less of something else.

All you need to do is a spectral analysis to see what is in there.

In many ways this is analogous to identifying a murder weapon by ballistics.

I believe in science but I sure don't understand it.

264 Oh no...Sand People!  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 11:09:11am

Oh come on! Really! An Islamic theocratic regime that kills it's own 'believer' citizens would be willing to 'first strike' an infidel? Really?
///

265 SFGoth  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 11:09:35am

Si' se puede!
It's not like Bush did much; of course, he was in no position to shoot for the trifecta after trying to remake Iraq and Afghanistan in our image. Europe doesn't want to defend itself - so be it.

266 brent  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 11:10:42am

The only equation I worry about is this - is DiinerJacket crazy, or is he milking that image to keep himself scary? If he's crazy and has the backing of the mullahs, eg they believe what he's saying, we're fucked if they get the bomb.

If not, I see the danger in proliferation to Joe BagofAbombs - Iran won't launch a first strike if they're sane. Big if.

267 Kosh's Shadow  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 11:11:45am

Anyone consider the irony of calling the Iranian nuclear program their "Manhattan project", when that is a city they're likely to attack?

268 drcordell  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 11:12:26am

re: #262 Kosh's Shadow

The Russians believe in paradise in this world, and the Russian premiers never wanted to rule over a nuclear ruin.

The Mullahs and Ahmadinejad believe a war will bring the Mahdi.

Now that its 2009, all of you have no problem talking about how the "godless" Soviets never really wanted to nuke us. Yet if you were to have uttered those words 30 years ago you would have been tarred with the same pejoratives that you currently lob in my direction. Now it's the Iranians that are the soulless bastards hellbent on forcing nuclear apocalypse. Until 30 years from now the nuclear holocaust hasn't come to pass, and then it will be another nation that takes Irans place as the first-strike bogeyman.

Regimes don't oppress their people, rig elections and create totalitarian states to cede their power by launching a nuclear attack. Accumulating worldly power is their goal, not having their entire nation turned into a sheet of radioactive glass. If it's just about nuking Israel, why bother keeping dinner-jacket in power? Even Mousavi was 100% behind the continuation of the nuclear program.

269 Oh no...Sand People!  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 11:13:06am

re: #266 brent

The only equation I worry about is this - is DiinerJacket crazy, or is he milking that image to keep himself scary? If he's crazy and has the backing of the mullahs, eg they believe what he's saying, we're fucked if they get the bomb.

If not, I see the danger in proliferation to Joe BagofAbombs - Iran won't launch a first strike if they're sane. Big if.

Innocent protesters of his own country were murdered in order for Dinnerjacket to keep in power. I have no doubts in his sincerity when he wants Israel wiped off the map.

270 drcordell  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 11:13:30am

re: #267 Kosh's Shadow

Anyone consider the irony of calling the Iranian nuclear program their "Manhattan project", when that is a city they're likely to attack?

I am in Manhattan right this second. And my fear of an Iranian nuclear attack taking my life is right up there with my fear of winning the lottery and being crushed to death by a massive pile of cash.

271 Flyers1974  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 11:14:03am

re: #264 Oh no...Sand People!

Oh come on! Really! An Islamic theocratic regime that kills it's own 'believer' citizens would be willing to 'first strike' an infidel? Really?
///

Many serious people think not - China for one doesn't have to worry about public opinion polls regarding what action to take here. That they have not jumped on board, despite the consequences to their own interests should Iran attack with nukes, tells me they calculate no first strike. China, most would agree, is good at looking after its own interests.

272 Ojoe  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 11:14:06am

re: #268 drcordell

You underestimate the madness of which men are capable.

273 drcordell  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 11:14:54am

re: #269 Oh no...Sand People!

Innocent protesters of his own country were murdered in order for Dinnerjacket to keep in power. I have no doubts in his sincerity when he wants Israel wiped off the map.

You do realize that logic makes absolutely no sense. Ahmadinejad is murdering his own people, rigging elections and brutally clinging to power... in order to die in a nuclear blast?

274 CommonCents  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 11:14:58am

re: #268 drcordell

Thank you for the insight Neville Chamberlain.

275 Flyers1974  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 11:15:18am

re: #266 brent

The only equation I worry about is this - is DiinerJacket crazy, or is he milking that image to keep himself scary? If he's crazy and has the backing of the mullahs, eg they believe what he's saying, we're fucked if they get the bomb.

If not, I see the danger in proliferation to Joe BagofAbombs - Iran won't launch a first strike if they're sane. Big if.

My understanding is that he doesn't have much power to make foreign policy decisions.

276 drcordell  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 11:16:00am

re: #274 CommonCents

Thank you for the insight Neville Chamberlain.

Ah, I was wondering how long it would take for the Chamberlain/Nazi appeaser comment. Less than 10 comments, not a new record but close!

277 sardonic  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 11:17:54am

I really don't see why anybody is very concerned. After all, Barack Obama is the president now. The whole world loves us now, right? I mean, Castro and Chavez and Ghadafy love the guy, don't the mullahs over there and Ahmadenijad love him too?

Pretty amazing when the leader of France has this to say, isn't it?

It will be interesting to see what the Leader of the Free World (that would be Netanyahu) is going to be able to do about this. Surely if one is concerned about the survival of Western civilization, free markets, liberty and all that good stuff, it makes no sense to look to the Community Organizer In Chief over here for leadership.

The American president used to be the free world's leader. Now he's the appeaser of dictators and tyrants.

278 Leonidas Hoplite  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 11:18:09am

re: #252 drcordell

I don't want Iran to get the bomb. I think we should do everything we can to prevent Iran from getting the bomb. But an Iranian first-strike just isn't going to happen.

I mostly agree with the good doctor. I think it is highly unlikely that Iran will initiate a first strike because the retaliation from Israel would be catastrophic for Iran.

I think there is little doubt an Iranian A-bomb would shift the balance of power further toward Tehran and that would not be a good thing. However, short of an intense aerial assault to destroy thier facilities, which I don't think is going to happen, there is little we can do to stop them especially if there isn't any real will for it from anyone beside Israel.

279 brent  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 11:18:31am

Innocent protesters of his own country were murdered in order for Dinnerjacket to keep in power. I have no doubts in his sincerity when he wants Israel wiped off the map.

I see that as kind of a "useful idiots" analogy - DinnerJacket keeps the trains running on time, so the mullahs like him (eg, keeps protesters scared to death of just dead).

Will they let him start a real shooting war is a different question. I hope that answer is Hell No.

280 Kosh's Shadow  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 11:18:57am

re: #268 drcordell

The Soviets at their worst never used the vitriol the Iranians say against both Israel and the US.

Once I was old enough to think for myself, I realized that MAD would work against the Soviets, so you are incorrect in thinking that I thought they'd launch a first strike when retaliation was assured.

281 Oh no...Sand People!  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 11:19:31am

re: #273 drcordell

You do realize that logic makes absolutely no sense. Ahmadinejad is murdering his own people, rigging elections and brutally clinging to power... in order to die in a nuclear blast?


NETANYAHU: What your father says is absolutely true in the case of deterrable powers. The Soviet Union had enough firepower to destroy the United States, but they realized that you would destroy them, so they were deterred. They were not suicidal.

But militant Islam is suicidal. They often put their zealotry, their ideology above their survival. That`s why you didn`t have any Communist suicide bombers, but militant Islam produces hordes of them, battalions, and they smash into buildings in New York.

Now, do you doubt that if, for example, Al Qaeda had nuclear weapons, this city would not exist today?

But what would this guy know about militant Islam.
/

282 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 11:19:32am

re: #263 Flyers1974

I believe in science but I sure don't understand it.

Then I failed to explain it well.

There are many different techniques to tell one isotope or element from another. For instance, all atoms, because of their electron structures, literally, how many electrons they have and in what orbits, absorb and radiate certain frequencies of light. In other words, sodium for instance gives off a lot of bright yellow light. In fact, it is two shades of yellow that are very close together. It also gives of some other colors less so, and the rest, not at all.

As a result, each element has a fingerprint associated by which colors it gives off, and you can tell what element you are looking at, by what light it gives off if you heat it up. This is spectral analysis.

There are other techniques you wold use to look at one isotope vs. another. That is another story.

Now, if I go to make the uranium or plutonium core of my bomb, I never use pure uranium or plutonium. I can't really. There will always be, as a result of the manufacturing process some mix of other crap in there that would be specific to the facilities I used to make the materials and the mines I ultimately got the raw materials from.

Therefore, if I collect the fallout from a bomb, I can look at what trace elements were in it and I can verify whose nuke it was - or at least who made the core.

283 Kosh's Shadow  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 11:20:11am

re: #273 drcordell

You do realize that logic makes absolutely no sense. Ahmadinejad is murdering his own people, rigging elections and brutally clinging to power... in order to die in a nuclear blast?

Because fighting his own people - or working with them - won't bring the Mahdi.
How many virgins does he get for martyring his entire country?

284 SFGoth  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 11:20:46am

re: #273 drcordell

You do realize that logic makes absolutely no sense. Ahmadinejad is murdering his own people, rigging elections and brutally clinging to power... in order to die in a nuclear blast?

If it's what the guy in the well wants, the guy in the well gets.

285 Buck  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 11:21:44am

re: #189 Racer X

The time for a military confrontation with Iran has passed. Iran will NOT attack another country directly; they will instead pass off a nuke to a third party terrorist group to do the dirty work. Then Iran can deny any involvement, hence no retaliatory strike by the West.

We're fucked.

Every nuclear event has a signature. Like DNA. This is why inspections are so important. Iran knows this.

BUT THEY DON"T CARE about denying. They think the 12th Iman will come forward and make everything right.

286 Flyers1974  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 11:21:55am

It seems to me that if Israel calculates that Iran is likely to use the bomb, they will quietly tell Iran that they definitly will be nuked if they don't abandon the program - quietly so as to allow them to save face with their public and to gain rewards for doing so. If Iran called Israel's bluff, Netanyahu for example, could make a public statement - which Iran would know would be very hard to go back on - promising to take preemtive action by such and such a date. If Israel is facing extinction, why not? Who cares about criticism when the game is over?

287 Oh no...Sand People!  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 11:23:05am

re: #273 drcordell

You do realize that logic makes absolutely no sense. Ahmadinejad is murdering his own people, rigging elections and brutally clinging to power... in order to die in a nuclear blast?

You ever read the Koran or the Hadiths?

I've read the Koran and parts of the Hadiths. I admire your 'secular relativity' in applying it to the Mullah's, but it is naive thinking.

288 Flyers1974  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 11:27:27am

re: #282 LudwigVanQuixote

Excellent job explaining - it wasn't you anyway its me. My wife is a neuroscientist and get very frustrated trying to explain to me what she does.

289 drcordell  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 11:28:29am

re: #287 Oh no...Sand People!

You ever read the Koran or the Hadiths?

I've read the Koran and parts of the Hadiths. I admire your 'secular relativity' in applying it to the Mullah's, but it is naive thinking.

It's always "naive thinking" in the present, until 15 years later everyone talks about how crazy it was to assume your enemy would have launched a first strike. You ever read the book of revelations? That's some batshit crazy apocalyptic stuff, but you rightfully don't assume the U.S. is about to start a nuclear war to bring on the 2nd coming of Christ.

Iran and its leadership have concerned themselves entirely too much with the trappings of worldly power to willingly vaporize themselves. Iran wants the bomb because it is the ultimate power preserver. No "regime change" when you have an A-bomb. If anything their quest for the bomb shows that at the end of the day they are just power-hungry assholes like any other dictators.

290 Cygnus  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 11:33:22am

re: #57 MandyManners

Veiled? Netanyahu did everything short of shouting to the rafters at the UN that Israel is gonna' bomb the shit out of Iran.

Maybe he should have mentioned The Sampson Option.

291 transient  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 11:33:23am

re: #52 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

I find it odd that they think putting it near a base would head off an attack. Who is afraid of a Iranian base? Let's bomb the shit out of both.


My understanding of their statement was that putting the facility near a military base meant they would not need to install a separate set of anti-aircraft defenses.

292 Oh no...Sand People!  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 11:34:17am

re: #289 drcordell

It's always "naive thinking" in the present, until 15 years later everyone talks about how crazy it was to assume your enemy would have launched a first strike. You ever read the book of revelations? That's some batshit crazy apocalyptic stuff, but you rightfully don't assume the U.S. is about to start a nuclear war to bring on the 2nd coming of Christ.

Iran and its leadership have concerned themselves entirely too much with the trappings of worldly power to willingly vaporize themselves. Iran wants the bomb because it is the ultimate power preserver. No "regime change" when you have an A-bomb. If anything their quest for the bomb shows that at the end of the day they are just power-hungry assholes like any other dictators.

Believe me. I want you to be right. This really is an argument I want to be wrong on.

293 transient  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 11:35:34am

Does anyone know if American state of the art nonnuclear bunker busters are sufficient to destroy a facility carved inside a mountain?

294 AZDave  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 11:35:35am

re: #6 PatriotLizardoid

Oh heck, they have to acknowledge that such a thing as "tracks" exist before they can even see that they're on them. Once again, our leaders are like ants standing on a tire.

Tracks, hell; many of the elite believe the train is still at the station.

295 transient  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 11:37:18am

re: #294 AZDave

Tracks, hell; many of the elite believe the train is still at the station.


And don't forget, it's a peace train.
/

296 AZDave  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 11:39:13am

re: #15 psyop

The glitter of his magical personality is flaking off rather fast.

Well, when the only thing you have going for you is smoke and mirrors sooner or later the smoke tends to disappear.

297 reloadingisnotahobby  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 11:40:03am

re: #293 transient
Bunker Busters and other Tunneling Munitions use depleted Uran... and conventional means (HE)to gain entrance to underground facilities. but most I've heard of go nuc...once they reach the
depth they are intended to reach!
I've only heard this from a friend who just retired from Mercury Nevada...

298 Cygnus  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 11:40:11am

re: #73 thedopefishlives

Let's hope they didn't pull his finger. /

That would be a Category 5 fart. Clear the room!

299 drcordell  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 11:40:27am

re: #292 Oh no...Sand People!

Believe me. I want you to be right. This really is an argument I want to be wrong on.

I agree with you completely. That's what makes this such a contentious issue is that the margin for error is no joke. There are definitely lives hanging in the balance here.

I guess my main reluctance for further sabre-rattling at Iran is two-fold. First and foremost, it seems to me that threatening military action / regime change is only going to serve as a further catalyst for Iranian bomb development. The mullahs know that if they can announce they have a bomb, no military action to overthrow their regime is feasible.

And second, who knows exactly what would come from an invasion that results in the current regime being deposed. Yes Iran is currently a problem in the region. But they are a relatively stable problem, at least compared with Iraq and Pakistan. Overthrowing the current regime certainly doesn't guarantee an outcome that is more favorable than the current situation. And I think alot of the current rhetoric doesn't reflect this fact.

300 transient  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 11:40:49am

re: #286 Flyers1974

It seems to me that if Israel calculates that Iran is likely to use the bomb, they will quietly tell Iran that they definitly will be nuked if they don't abandon the program - quietly so as to allow them to save face with their public and to gain rewards for doing so. If Iran called Israel's bluff, Netanyahu for example, could make a public statement - which Iran would know would be very hard to go back on - promising to take preemtive action by such and such a date. If Israel is facing extinction, why not? Who cares about criticism when the game is over?


Two Iranian presidents, Ahmadinejad and Rafsanjani, have publicly stated that Iran could absorb nuclear retaliation. One nuke would essentially destroy Israel, but even half a dozen nukes would probably not annihilate Iran. They seem to feel it would be worth it.

301 drcordell  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 11:42:59am

re: #300 transient

Two Iranian presidents, Ahmadinejad and Rafsanjani, have publicly stated that Iran could absorb nuclear retaliation. One nuke would essentially destroy Israel, but even half a dozen nukes would probably not annihilate Iran. They seem to feel it would be worth it.

Israel's nuclear arsenal is estimated at 60-85 warheads. I can guarantee you that they could turn every square inch of Iran into sheet glass if they so desired.

302 AZDave  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 11:43:21am

re: #18 albusteve

I can only imagine a joint effort between the US and Israel (plus some others, mostly for political effect), to relieve everyone of this problem...almost everybody on the planet is scoffing off more diplomatic blather and sanctions are too late to have much effect, unless they were extreme and in place by tomorrow...Russia and China are calling the shots on this one while the POTUS dithers

I don't see that happening anytime soon...not with Obama's so-called advisors (i.e., America & Jew haters) calling the shots.

303 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 11:44:39am

re: #274 CommonCents

Dude, there is a distinct difference between appeasement and, you know, not believing something will happen. Sheesh. 9_9 I agree with cordell, I don't think there'll be a first strike by Iran either. Doesn't mean I think they're not dangerous.

304 transient  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 11:45:03am

re: #297 reloadingisnotahobby

Bunker Busters and other Tunneling Munitions use depleted Uran... and conventional means (HE)to gain entrance to underground facilities. but most I've heard of go nuc...once they reach the
depth they are intended to reach!
I've only heard this from a friend who just retired from Mercury Nevada...


Most bunker busters are not nuclear. Israel used some in Lebanon and I believe we used them in Iraq. But I'm not sure they would take out a mountain. Conventional busters do not set off a nuclear explosion at depth; as far as I understand it, they are only HE with delay.

I think we have nuclear bunker busters in theory, although I'm not sure they are current technology or whether we are working to update/upgrade the nuclear variety. I don't think we would use them in a preemptive strike, hence the question about nonnuclear busters.

305 Cygnus  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 11:46:37am

re: #114 StillAMarine

And our GEL seems more intent on getting the Olympic Games for Chicago, pushing his dead in the water healthcare plan, and stifling our economy with his cap and trade plan that will do nothing for the global warming problem.

I'd like to see Flint, Michigan put in a bid for the Games. It sure would help the economy there. /

306 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 11:48:55am

re: #300 transient

Two Iranian presidents, Ahmadinejad and Rafsanjani, have publicly stated that Iran could absorb nuclear retaliation. One nuke would essentially destroy Israel, but even half a dozen nukes would probably not annihilate Iran. They seem to feel it would be worth it.

Or it could be politically motivated to make such a statement, because it would probably not be popular for an Iranian president to say "Yep, we'd be hosed! Screwed!" Bravado is popular, even if it's not true.

Also, the word "absorb". Would their government survive retaliation?

307 transient  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 11:48:56am

re: #301 drcordell

Israel's nuclear arsenal is estimated at 60-85 warheads. I can guarantee you that they could turn every square inch of Iran into sheet glass if they so desired.


Actually, I think their arsenal is estimated at over 100, I've heard estimates as high as 200. But if they are mostly land based, they might be destroyed or incapacitated by an Iranian first strike. Retaliation would then rely on submarines carrying nuclear missiles. It is probable they have this ability (German subs with this capability were purchased several years ago), but no one knows how many missiles they might have on these subs.

308 AZDave  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 11:52:31am

re: #101 captdiggs

Iran will be the defining moment of the Obama presidency. There is no greater threat to world peace, the stability of the middle east, and the issue of a nuclear arms race in that region.
The Iranian problem makes all other issues pale in comparison.

Currently, the 2012 Olympics for Chicago seems to be the number one thing on his list of to-dos.

309 transient  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 11:52:44am

re: #306 WindUpBird

Or it could be politically motivated to make such a statement, because it would probably not be popular for an Iranian president to say "Yep, we'd be hosed! Screwed!" Bravado is popular, even if it's not true.

Also, the word "absorb". Would their government survive retaliation?


Their statements were generally gratuitous. There was no need for them to make any statement at all. And the fact that two separate presidents have made the same statement, years apart, tends to indicate they are more serious than the average Ahmadinejad rant.

As was noted above, everyone thought that the Arabs were "just saber rattling" when they threatened to throw the Jews into the sea. People said Hitler was just mouthing off when he threatened to annihilate the Jews.

You blow off fanatics at your own peril. Jews have learned to take these threats seriously because more often than not, they are serious.

310 reloadingisnotahobby  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 11:55:15am

re: #304 transient

He built blast doors at extreme depths...
Literally had water pumps to make it possible!
When tests were done all personel were confined to a bunker/bar/bowlling alley(Cantene)...He only felt the blasts.
Yet he was 15 miles from the site!
They tested things there no one can talk about!
A truck driver was found with a camera phone and was taken
...straight to the fed pen!
Scary powerful and cutting edge testing goes on there !
He retired a year ago ...

311 Kosh's Shadow  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 11:58:07am

re: #289 drcordell

It's always "naive thinking" in the present, until 15 years later everyone talks about how crazy it was to assume your enemy would have launched a first strike. You ever read the book of revelations? That's some batshit crazy apocalyptic stuff, but you rightfully don't assume the U.S. is about to start a nuclear war to bring on the 2nd coming of Christ.

Iran and its leadership have concerned themselves entirely too much with the trappings of worldly power to willingly vaporize themselves. Iran wants the bomb because it is the ultimate power preserver. No "regime change" when you have an A-bomb. If anything their quest for the bomb shows that at the end of the day they are just power-hungry assholes like any other dictators.

Mainstream Christians aren't trying to bring the Apocalypse, and the fringe nutcases aren't running a nuclear program.

312 sagehen  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 12:02:45pm

re: #311 Kosh's Shadow

Mainstream Christians aren't trying to bring the Apocalypse, and the fringe nutcases aren't running a nuclear program.

Except for how they're working so hard to try to take over the Air Force.

313 doubter4444  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 12:05:04pm

re: #141 lawhawk

There's a continual war between the CIA and any Administration - particularly when that Administration changes priorities, targets, or direction. We're seeing some of that with the Obama Administration too - since their recent intel on Iran directly contradicts the 2007 NIE, which they helped put together to quash any action on Iran during the Bush Administration, but which is pushing Obama to have to take a harder line than Obama may otherwise want.

The CIA had intel showing that Iran had multiple nuclear sites - heck, Global Security, FAS, and several other sites already had the lo-down on the Iranian nuke sites, including the one outside Qom. They just downplayed its role/existence for the NIE. Now that Iran admitted to its existence, it bolsters the fact that Iran has a far larger and more active nuclear program than the NIE previously suggested. By being far too cautious, the NIE led to inaction and underplaying a grave and gathering threat.

As cagey as Saddam was with his WMD programs, the Iranians have learned all the lessons and have exploited the situation to their advantage. They're pressing it to their maximum advantage. The revelation of the Qom facilities gets everyone focused on that, all while Iran's other centrifuges continue spinning furiously. It means Iran continues doing what it has been doing.

This is a good point, and one of the reasons why I can't jump on the CIA as heroic spies" bandwagon, even in the Holder mess (which I don't thing he should have started now, though investigating in general, I'm not completely opposed to). The CIA's always had a diva aura, even though they've been wrong on most of the important turning points over the last three decades. However, they were misused and thrown under the bus with Iraq, and now can only be charitably called gun-shy on the Iran situation, when we need them the most.
This is also always been one of my fundamental problems with the Iraq war.
I was against the adventure from the beginning, for the exactly this: Iran was ALWAYS more dangerous, and was an had a long and venomous hatred of the US.
Committing all the effort and money to Iraq gave Iran years of freedom to do what they need, eliminated their one most dangerous enemy, allowed them to establish networks against the US as animosity grew in the wake of the invasion, and left us overstretched, broke and without a long term game plan.
I'm sorry but, while I care about the terrible things that happened under Saddam, I just do not think it was a geopolitically wise thing to do, and now, because of the way it was presented and the result of going in the CIA is hedging it's bets.
What a mess.
It's going to take a while to find a solution, because we can't exactly go in guns blazing... we don't have the manpower or equipment, nor the collective willpower to do it.
Anyone up for a draft?
You want to see Obama win only one term?
He calls for a draft to preemptively invade Iran. That'll do it.
As Gates said on Sunday, any strike will only buy time, and set back any other alternative attempt at solving the mess.

My guess is that they'll try anything before a strike, work with the internal green party as much as possible to create fissures within the government, bribe and plan escape routes for dissenters and and see if they can't destablize it from the inside out.
As for a strike, we wait as long possible to do it.
It's like hoping for a good card on the river... maybe not a great bet, but it's not dithering, it's reality.

314 Bagua  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 12:05:31pm

re: #299 drcordell

Wishful thinking will not eliminate the Iranian threat. Your crystal ball has one fatal flaw, it assumes that the Iranian Mullah regime are reasonable people, in the way that the US and Soviet leaders have proven to be. Sadly, there is a great deal of evidence to the contrary, the Mullah regime makes no secret of its belief in the messianic cult of the 12th Imam, apocalypse appears to be their goal, not regime security. Preservation of the regime is a means to the end, not an end in itself.

Regardless, even if it were true that the Iranians had no intention at first use, their mere possession of a nuclear weapon is unacceptable and destabilizing in the face of their threats, and act of war by proxies against Israel, Iraq, Lebanon and the US.

You worry that “sabre rattling at Iran is two-fold. First and foremost, it seems to me that threatening military action / regime change is only going to serve as a further catalyst for Iranian bomb development.” There is great evidence that the Iranians need no additional motivation to develop nuclear weapons, it is quite clearly their obsession independent of outside influences. Backing down will do nothing to deter them and confronting them will do nothing to encourage them.

Finally you say “Overthrowing the current regime certainly doesn't guarantee an outcome that is more favorable than the current situation.” No, there are no guarantees, however if we look at historical precedent, the overthrow of Saddam Hussein was most clearly effective in thwarting his agenda.

There is every reason to expect that military action by the competent US military would be very successful in eliminating this threat. The Iranians field a second rate military, they would be essentially blind and incapable of resisting the US military.

At the present, the only prudent end game is to use the military option to interrupt Iran’s march towards nuclear Armageddon. With or without an invasion, it would be quite easy to reduce their nuclear and missile programs to rubble, if not eliminating the threat, then at least setting it back for decades.

315 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 12:09:10pm

re: #309 transient

Their statements were generally gratuitous. There was no need for them to make any statement at all. And the fact that two separate presidents have made the same statement, years apart, tends to indicate they are more serious than the average Ahmadinejad rant.

As was noted above, everyone thought that the Arabs were "just saber rattling" when they threatened to throw the Jews into the sea. People said Hitler was just mouthing off when he threatened to annihilate the Jews.

You blow off fanatics at your own peril. Jews have learned to take these threats seriously because more often than not, they are serious.

I do not think the conditions in 2009 are the same as the conditions before WWII. I do not think Iran is equivalent, or can become equivalent to Hitler's Germany. And the statements are not gratuitous if they make Iran's government more popular. They'd actually be quite useful! I mean, who doesn't want to hear that their country is totally tough enough to survive nukes? And I'm sure they're meant to appear incredibly serious. Is it totally bizarre that I believe that Ahmadinejad is a politician?

I'm not blowing off fanatics, not pretending they're not dangerous, I just don't believe they'll strike first.

316 jvic  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 12:12:04pm

re: #156 Thanos

Here's the soft side debating it, Politico and Carnegie institute discussion

[Link: www.carnegieendowment.org...]

From that link (boldface mine):

Deepti Choubey: ...The goal now is to get Iran to recognize that they have crossed some lines and that they have a major problem they need to negotiate their way out of. The second uranium enrichment facility and questions about whether there may be other secret facilities raises serious questions for states that until now have listened with an open mind to Iranian claims. The world is becoming increasingly unified in their concerns about Iran’s nuclear activities. This means that Iran’s strategy of dividing key powers against one another is on shaky ground. Iran should realize that seriously negotiating sooner rather than later is in its best interest. The goal is to get genuine negotiations to resolve the current problem and make appropriate accommodations on both sides. Iran has not engaged in genuine negotiations since 2004.

Dear heaven, what is wrong with this person? Is she insane? Yes and no:

If she spoke bluntly about the threat, her soft-side colleagues/competitors would shred her career.

American political playas behave similarly toward each other.

Russia, China and other countries are presumably making similar calculations.

And, face it, if America were allowed to lead a coalition against Iran, there are people in our government who would take advantage of the situation wrt other geopolitical--and domestic--issues.

An American President who acted decisively, and the people who obeyed the orders, might well spend the rest of their lives in court or jail.

And that's how this shabby old world rubs along. Everybody is too sophisticated to get saddled with the smelly dirty work that most everyone knows needs to be done. Far easier, far more intelligent, is to deny the necessity or pass the back.

So crises are inevitable. The wise guys in financial districts goad each other into using too much leverage. Elsewhere, unnuanced people accumulate a critical mass of power.

Can such a system break with business as usual and deal with an existential threat? Well, however imperfectly, we've probably averted a second Great Depression (but we left the West's longer-term economic decline unreversed). The outcome with Iran and the like may be similar, or it could be catastrophically different.

For we are here as on a darkling plain.

317 transient  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 12:18:15pm

re: #315 WindUpBird

I do not think the conditions in 2009 are the same as the conditions before WWII. I do not think Iran is equivalent, or can become equivalent to Hitler's Germany. And the statements are not gratuitous if they make Iran's government more popular. They'd actually be quite useful! I mean, who doesn't want to hear that their country is totally tough enough to survive nukes? And I'm sure they're meant to appear incredibly serious. Is it totally bizarre that I believe that Ahmadinejad is a politician?

I'm not blowing off fanatics, not pretending they're not dangerous, I just don't believe they'll strike first.


I'm sure your denial allows you to sleep well at night. Your beliefs, however, are insufficient grounds to ignore the threat. If I were Israeli, your reassurances wouldn't be worth the electrons that sent them into cyberspace.

You misconstrue or misunderstand my argument. Iran is not Germany-- That's not news. Does it mean we shouldn't take Iran's threats seriously? That we can blow them off? Hitler's threats were taken to be exactly what you suppose Iran's to have been-- politics. You are reacting pretty much the way the Western powers reacted to Hitler in the '30s. You choose to downplay Iran's threats because it's so darned inconvenient and dangerous to deal with them. Well, the West felt the same way about Hitler, and they ended up having to fight a World War when perhaps, if they'd decided to preempt, the whole bloody mess could have been avoided.

318 drcordell  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 12:29:01pm

re: #314 Bagua

Wishful thinking will not eliminate the Iranian threat. Your crystal ball has one fatal flaw, it assumes that the Iranian Mullah regime are reasonable people, in the way that the US and Soviet leaders have proven to be. Sadly, there is a great deal of evidence to the contrary, the Mullah regime makes no secret of its belief in the messianic cult of the 12th Imam, apocalypse appears to be their goal, not regime security. Preservation of the regime is a means to the end, not an end in itself.

Regardless, even if it were true that the Iranians had no intention at first use, their mere possession of a nuclear weapon is unacceptable and destabilizing in the face of their threats, and act of war by proxies against Israel, Iraq, Lebanon and the US.

You worry that “sabre rattling at Iran is two-fold. First and foremost, it seems to me that threatening military action / regime change is only going to serve as a further catalyst for Iranian bomb development.” There is great evidence that the Iranians need no additional motivation to develop nuclear weapons, it is quite clearly their obsession independent of outside influences. Backing down will do nothing to deter them and confronting them will do nothing to encourage them.

Finally you say “Overthrowing the current regime certainly doesn't guarantee an outcome that is more favorable than the current situation.” No, there are no guarantees, however if we look at historical precedent, the overthrow of Saddam Hussein was most clearly effective in thwarting his agenda.

There is every reason to expect that military action by the competent US military would be very successful in eliminating this threat. The Iranians field a second rate military, they would be essentially blind and incapable of resisting the US military.

At the present, the only prudent end game is to use the military option to interrupt Iran’s march towards nuclear Armageddon. With or without an invasion, it would be quite easy to reduce their nuclear and missile programs to rubble, if not eliminating the threat, then at least setting it back for decades.

Right. Overthrowing Saddam Hussein was effective at thwarting his agenda. And in his place there is now an unstable regime, that is not effectively ruled by anyone, and serves as a potential haven for terrorists. Oh, and additionally, Iraq was formerly a natural enemy of Iran in the region, as it was ruled by the Sunni Saddam Hussein. Now the Shia majority has power, and is a natural ally of Iran.

319 Ojoe  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 12:43:15pm
The so-called strengths of Islamic terrorism: fanatical intent; lack of a centralized leadership; absence of a final authority and cellular structure guarantee uncontrollable escalation once the nuclear threshold is crossed. Therefore the 'rational' American response to the initiation of terrorist WMD attack would be all out retaliation from the outset.

The "three conjectures" post by Bellmont Club
Is very relevant to this thread.

320 Cheese Eating Victory Monkey  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 12:51:49pm

The current situation reminds me of this apocolyptic article by Benny Morris.

321 Bagua  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 1:11:04pm

re: #318 drcordell

Right. Overthrowing Saddam Hussein was effective at thwarting his agenda. And in his place there is now an unstable regime, that is not effectively ruled by anyone, and serves as a potential haven for terrorists. Oh, and additionally, Iraq was formerly a natural enemy of Iran in the region, as it was ruled by the Sunni Saddam Hussein. Now the Shia majority has power, and is a natural ally of Iran.


I’m not at all bothered about the follow on regime, that is a concern, but a secondary one. The Iraqi government post Saddam may or may not be “unstable” according to your criteria, however, its military threats against its neighbors is vastly reduced and its government is vastly superior to that of Saddam. A major military threat was eliminated, that was a win.

Also, wittering on the Sunni/Shia schism is of also of secondary importance. All is of secondary importance in regards to the existential threat posed by the Iranian quest for nuclear weapons. We must remove this threat, surely we should do so in the most expedient and sensible manner, that I leave to the Generals, but remove it we must.

The aftermath is a separate discussion. Whether we should trouble ourselves with nation building, or spreading democracy, and so on, is highly debatable. First we must remove the threat of nuclear war, then we can worry about the little things.

322 Mini_Burkha_Fan  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 1:20:48pm

The coordinates for the nuclear site are: 34°53′8.74″N — 50°59′45.90″ E

But very close to this site are what looks like about 8 underground bunkers for SAM missiles. Take a look at coordinates:
34°53′55.95”N - 50°58′29.25” E

Anyone have a clue what these are?

323 gregb  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:20:32pm

re: #293 transient

Does anyone know if American state of the art nonnuclear bunker busters are sufficient to destroy a facility carved inside a mountain?

BGU-57A/B will MOP them up.

324 gregb  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:26:05pm

re: #322 Mini_Burkha_Fan

The coordinates for the nuclear site are: 34°53′8.74″N — 50°59′45.90″ E

But very close to this site are what looks like about 8 underground bunkers for SAM missiles. Take a look at coordinates:
34°53′55.95”N - 50°58′29.25” E

Anyone have a clue what these are?

Are you looking in the same spot? I can see the mountain and only two side structures.

[Link: tinyurl.com...]

325 BryQan  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:44:30pm

I personally think Iran is doing this to say hey we're a big player talk to us please. No matter what the Supreme Leader is not going to use nuclear weapons. This IMO is just a ploy to force sanctions to be lifted. Unfortunately for them, they are short-sighted and may not even have the support of normal allies in China and Russia.

326 chotii  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 8:42:32pm

The main question I have right now is:

Is it paranoid, or prudent, to invest in some Potassium Iodide tablets?

327 spaceman spiff  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 11:32:37pm

re: #22 psyop

Not sure where i read it, but heard something about a mega bunker buster that the US was developing for just this type of purpose. Will try and post link.

328 Zebra  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 4:11:47am

re: #48 StillAMarine Excellent Post!

329 gregb  Thu, Oct 1, 2009 5:48:25am

re: #223 PatriotLizardoid

Exactly, new energy sources won't spring from wind or solar, though they are lofty attempts. It will come from production by biomasses.

The first sign that these biomass production systems are going to succeed, there will be a glut of oil sold on the market. I read an article earlier this year about long term asset planning in the oil industry. One of the executives quoting said their projections were based on $20/barrel averaging out over 25 years.


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
Ranked-Choice Voting Has Challenged the Status Quo. Its Popularity Will Be Tested in November. JUNEAU — Alaska’s new election system — with open primaries and ranked voting — has been a model for those in other states who are frustrated by political polarization and a sense that voters lack real choice at the ...
Cheechako
6 days ago
Views: 180 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0