"Israel, Iran, and the US: Nuclear War, Here We Come"

#1
The author of the linked paper concludes that a US tac nuke strike on Iranian nuclear facilities is a lead pipe cinch.

He outlined what he views as the expected precipitants:

1. US State Department made a "finding" that Iran is in material breach of its obligations under the Chemical Weapons Convention.

2. CIA says that Iran has stockpiles of blister, blood, and nerve agents, and suitable bombs and shells for delivery.

3. Shihab-3 ballistic missile, claimed, by State Department, to have 1,300 km range.

4. Couple of weeks ago, International Atomic Energy Agency passed a resolution asserting (on somewhat dubious grounds in my opinion) that Iran was in violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

5. Israeli Knesset is demanding that USA launch a strike against Iranian nuclear energy facilities or face the possibility that Israel will so act alone.

6. Russian Atomic Energy Agency contemplates making first shipment of nuclear fuel to Bushehr by end of '05 or beginning of '06.

7. Israel bombed the Iraqi Osirak reactor shortly before fuel delivery. Author implies that history will repeat itself.

8. Pres. Bush, in a famously self-contradictory formulation, has said that "all options are on the table" in dealing with Iraqi nuclear energy program.

9. US House of Representatives, by overwhelming majority, called for use of all appropriate means to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

10. Latest Pentagon doctrine declares US willingness to make first use of nuclear arms to deter adversary state from using chemical, biological, or nuclear arms.

"The upshot: a nuclear superpower will have nuked a non-nuclear state that is an NPT signatory and is cooperating with the IAEA, at the instigation of a state that is not an NPT signatory, that reportedly has over 100 nuclear bombs of its own, and that initiated hostilities with an unprovoked act of military aggression."

" Israel, Iran, and the US: Nuclear War, Here We Come" by Jorge Hirsch. 17 October 2005
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/hirsch.php?articleid=7649

The author doesn't mention this, but the thought occurs to me that an assault on Iran might have some value to the administration in distracting the public mind from its growing annoyance and anger at Washington, a topic discussed here:

"An Angry America" by Doug Thompson.
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7539.shtml
 
#2
Be afraid, be very afraid. Sounds familiar though doesnt it. I'm sure the shaved simian could continue to invade a row of countries until his time is up just to distract each previous fcuk up. I'm sure he could play a world game of Connect Four and end up just short of Hawaii.

5. Israeli Knesset is demanding that USA launch a strike against Iranian nuclear energy facilities or face the possibility that Israel will so act alone.
How suprising.

At what point will they learn? Marble floored carpark stage or 'back into the stone age' stage?
 
#3
George Bush told the Prime Minister two months before the invasion of Iraq that Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran and North Korea may also be dealt with over weapons of mass destruction, a top secret Downing Street memo shows.

The US President told Tony Blair, in a secret telephone conversation in January 2003 that he "wanted to go beyond Iraq".

He implied that the military action against Saddam Hussein was only a first step in the battle against WMD proliferation in a series of countries.

Mr Bush said he "wanted to go beyond Iraq in dealing with WMD proliferation", says the letter on Downing Street paper, marked secret and personal.

No 10 said yesterday it would "not comment on leaked documents"


Bush to Blair: First Iraq, then Saudi
By Marie Woolf, Political Editor
Published: 16 October 2005

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/article319993.ece
 
#4
And we thought the Communists were attempting to push their world order on us back during the Cold War?

Although, I'm sure we can slip France into his 'to do' list. No one would notice.

How 'reliable' is the source?

I very much doubt he would tackle Saudi Arabia (unless Israel or 'God' told him to).

Not_Whistlin_Dixie, any idea if GWB will be travelling to Dallas in the near future? Open topped Lincoln X-100 would be ideal.
 
#5
There is a certain insanity on the left. The only solution to Nuclear proliferation you seem to have is blame Bush and all will be well. Nuclear weapons are spreading to more and more countries. The world with more nations having Nuclear weapons will become infinitely more dangerous.So how does the left handle the problem, blame Bush.

The solution in the link scenario is to get the EU to place sanctions on Iran instead of the UN. It seems a rather simple approach that might do some good but you are blinded by Bush hatred If your only solution to solve the problem of Nuclear proliferation is to blame Bush.Let me suggest another Idea that is just as worthwhile. Build a bomb shelter. It may not do much good in the case of a nuclear exchange but in the mean time you will have lots of storage space.
 
#6
Blame Bush? Seems like a good idea actually. Not Bush personally but seeings how he is the bloke in the job at the time, he can take it on the chin. It's a chain of events that has its roots firmly based in US foreign policy dating back several decades. You can shift authority but not responsibility.

Maybe the US should try uninventing the Nuke.

The big bucket of sunshine option is a scary thought. Just remind me who the world terrorist is again?
 
#7
NEO_CON said:
There is a certain insanity on the left. The only solution to Nuclear proliferation you seem to have is blame Bush and all will be well. Nuclear weapons are spreading to more and more countries. The world with more nations having Nuclear weapons will become infinitely more dangerous.So how does the left handle the problem, blame Bush.
Part of the reason being that North Korea has proved quite conclusively that if you want to keep the Septics off your back, the best thing to do is to get a nuke.
But won't nuking Iran mean that not only all the oil-fields in the area, but also the Israelis will be in danger from the fallout?
I can't see it happening personally. But with Bladdered Bush and the dangerous bunch of clowns surrounding him, anything's possible!

MsG
 
#8
You guys like to make fun of military.com but you are its leftist equivalent seeing things that dont exist. Get this through your heads - the US is not going to use nuclear weapons against Iran. Its just not going to happen. Nor will the US take out Iran's nuclear weapons program. The US is prepared to live with a nuclear Iran. So have no worries about the US starting a war with Iran. But what is Iran up to ? Thats the real question. Do they want to live peacefully in the world or do they have ambitions to spread their brand of islam throughout the world ?
 
#9
I am not sure if these reports are correct but maybe someone will start a thread to ask the queation if God is talking to these guys. Equall time.





Two recent reports from inside of Iran, if accurate, are very troubling.


Iran's Government Seeks Agreement with 12th Imam - in hiding since 13th century?

Kamal Tehrani, Rooz Online: a "reformist" website

In a formal cabinet meeting chaired by Iran's new president’s first deputy, the ministers printed and ratified an agreement with the Shiites' 12th Imam. In his opening remarks, Parviz Davoudi, Ahmadinejad' first deputy suggested that the cabinet ministers should sign an agreement with 12th Imam, the same way they signed a pact with the new president. The ministers collectively agreed and so there is now an agreement between the two! The ministers then questioned how the 12th hidden Imam will sign the agreement!

The solution was resolved when the government's cabinet ministers agreed to ask Saffar Harandi, Minister of Culture and Islamic Guidance how president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad planned to take the letter to the holy Imam. Next Thursday night, Saffar Harandi dropped the signed agreement to the Jamkaran well, a spot that Moslem religious groups believe is where the Shiite 12th Imam is hidden. This well is also the resting place for tons of letters and requests from Muslim pilgrims. ...

The most important contemplating issue is that a large number of Ahmadinejad's close allies are talking about preparing the grounds for the hidden Imam's imminent manifestation and seriously and explicitly relate it to Iran's nuclear program. Based on informed sources in their conservative inner circles, they believe that resisting the international pressures and insisting on Iran's right to have nuclear capabilities will help the manifestation of the 12th Imam.

Some analysts believe that such talk among senior members of the new Iranian government indicates how deeply Ahmadinead and his supporters are influenced by ayatollah Mesbah Yazdi and his students in Qom's religious circles. The unprecedented presence of many of his strong supporters in senior government positions and presidential offices is a good indication of these claim.
 
#10
tomahawk6 said:
You guys like to make fun of military.com but you are its leftist equivalent seeing things that dont exist. Get this through your heads - the US is not going to use nuclear weapons against Iran. Its just not going to happen. Nor will the US take out Iran's nuclear weapons program. The US is prepared to live with a nuclear Iran. So have no worries about the US starting a war with Iran. But what is Iran up to ? Thats the real question. Do they want to live peacefully in the world or do they have ambitions to spread their brand of islam throughout the world ?
It's just dawned on me, T6, that you might well be right. Until the Palestine/Israel problem is sorted out, there's not much chance of lasting peace in the region, but that also means that the Septics could expend much less effort to make their influence felt in the region. So they "allow" a little bit of uncertainty for the Israelis to creep into the equation.
Hmmmm. I wonder who thought that one up. Certainly not Bladdered Bush, that's for sure.

MsG
 
#11
Thanks, tomahawk. I have to say, I would like to believe that too.

You are right, what is Iran up to? Its a fine line though isnt it. Do we pre empt like the last time by using the excuse of 'intel tells us' then change the reasons when it is dicovered that they didnt have a credible capability and just go for regime change? I dont think the rest of the world will be so understanding this time let alone the Muslim world.

Or do we wait until they do something then react? That, unfortunaltey is the only proof positive way. Catch 22.

If Iran is next, I'm sure it will be a catalyst to a point of no return. But wouldnt it be prudent for us, the supposed civilised industrial nations to be able to look further than the next objective?
 
#12
Bugsy, I have to agree too. Israel and that region are the little tinkers that enable this to continue. If the US 'stood back' a bit more, it would certainly relieve a lot of tension. Muslim states just see it as a red rag to a bull when they see Israel being the 51st state.
 
#14
NEO_CON said:
There is a certain insanity on the left. The only solution to Nuclear proliferation you seem to have is blame Bush and all will be well. Nuclear weapons are spreading to more and more countries. The world with more nations having Nuclear weapons will become infinitely more dangerous.So how does the left handle the problem, blame Bush.

The solution in the link scenario is to get the EU to place sanctions on Iran instead of the UN. It seems a rather simple approach that might do some good but you are blinded by Bush hatred If your only solution to solve the problem of Nuclear proliferation is to blame Bush.Let me suggest another Idea that is just as worthwhile. Build a bomb shelter. It may not do much good in the case of a nuclear exchange but in the mean time you will have lots of storage space.
OK, do me a favour and look back over the past four years at what John Bolton was doing prior to becoming US Ambassador to the UN. You'll basically find that as Undersecretary of State, it was his job to get the US out of as many international agreements and treaties as possible. These include, but are not limited to, The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (especially those pesky Articles V and VI) and the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. Meanwhile the current administration has reneged on the CTBT and, with the help of Congress has continued to underfund Cooperative Threat Reduction program.

Add to that the litany of peurile, thinly veiled threats the US has already made and you can begin to understand the rationale for Iran to tool up in the face of an overbearing schoolyard bully that has had a chip on its shoulder since it got kicked out of the country in 1979. The recent round of diplomacy by UK-Germany-France was always going to come to nothing as all the Iranians could hear was the sound of rattling sabres from across the pond.

The quite frankly amateurish way that Rumsfeld, Rice, Bolton, Wolfowitz and, most recently, Karen Hughes have handled the situation over the past has totally backfired. Like it or not, Iran is the closest thing to a democracy in the Persian Gulf Region, and the fact that the Iranian people have chosen to vote for a hardliner, rather than the moderate speaks volumes about how the US is winning the "hearts and minds" campaign. As with Iraq, the overwhelming majority of Iranians have no problem with the American people, it's just that there is always going to be an adverse reaction when you start threatening invasion and nuclear attack (ffs) against them.

For all the hyperbole, the bottom line is as follows; the US is not going to get involved in a nuclear war over Israel and Israel knows it. Even in the extremely unlikely event that the Israelis are stupid enough to launch a pre-emptive nuclear attack against Iran (which is quite beyond their capacity anyway), the backlash from the rest of the world would hit them like a ton of bricks. It's largest trading partner, the EU, would immediately impose an embargo. There would likely be a sanctions resolution before the UNSC, from which the US would almost certainly abstain, since there's no way that they could veto it with a straight face and still hope to procliam themselves leaders of the free world. The US Congress will undoubtedly end that sweet little aid package that Israel gets every year that funds 70% of its defence budget. Before they would know it, the Israeli army would be throwing rocks in the street with the Palestinians.
 
#15
tomahawk6 said:
[T]he US is not going to use nuclear weapons against Iran. Its just not going to happen. Nor will the US take out Iran's nuclear weapons program. The US is prepared to live with a nuclear Iran. So have no worries about the US starting a war with Iran.
Fcuk me! We agree on something! I still maintain that it would be better for all concerned if the Administarion cuts back on the snarling and baring of teeth though. We might actually talk them into climbing down a bit.
 
#16
I mentioned in my first post on this thread that the International Atomic Energy Agency passed a resolution holding Iran to be in non-compliance with its obligations under the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Many are wondering if the resolution will result in referral of the question of Iranian non-compliance to the UN Security Council.

Iran's parliament has approved a bill requiring the government to block UN inspections of its nuclear sites if Tehran is referred to the Security Council for possible sanctions.

...

"There is no legal or logical reason for Iran's case to be referred," Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza told reporters.

There is no other justification for [the referral] but the U.S. political pressure on Iran," top parliamentarian Alaeddin Boroujerdi told reporters. A recent report by IAEA director Mohamed ElBaradei's does not provide any reasons for a referral, he added.

ElBaradei, however, recently said his inspectors had obtained black-market documents showing Iran has instructions for building the core of a nuclear warhead.

The report, obtained by Reuters, said one document mentioned "the casting and machining of enriched, natural and depleted uranium into hemispherical forms." One European diplomat described it as a "cookbook" for the enriched uranium core of a nuclear weapon.


"Iran may block nuclear checks"
Last Updated Sun, 20 Nov 2005 09:45:57 EST
http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2005/11/20/iran-nuclear051120.html

The Security Council could theoretically order imposition of sanctions against Iran. On the other hand, Russia and China have extensive investments in Iran. I could guess that they might be expected to block sanctions.

Russia could perhaps argue that it is imposing or is willing to impose sufficient supervision over Iranian uranium processing so as to render it nonfeasible for Iran to divert fissionable material to a weapons program.
 

Goatman

ADC
Book Reviewer
#17
From The Economist, a while back:
http://www.economist.com/World/africa/displayStory.cfm?story_id=5115248

Iran

Is the new president truly an exterminator?

Nov 3rd 2005 | TEHRAN
From The Economist print edition

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's diatribe against Israel and the United States was made against a backlog of muddle, infighting and weakness


“YOU can't sow the wind and not reap a hurricane.” Thus Saeed Leylaz, an Iranian economist, the day after Tehran's stockmarket plunged to its lowest level for two years in response to worldwide condemnation of a venomously anti-Israel (and anti-American) speech by Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, on October 26th. Mr Leylaz bleakly notes a discrepancy between “running a country” and “pursuing transformative ideals”.

His message may be lost on Mr Ahmadinejad. The president's description of Israel's “occupying regime” as a “disgraceful blot” that should be “wiped off the map” recalled a time, after the revolution of 1979, when Iran's leaders competed to sound outrageous. The inexperienced and unworldly Mr Ahmadinejad probably had no idea that his comments would provoke such revulsion—or lead Tony Blair, Britain's prime minister, to muse that he might have to “do something” about Iran. After all, the president explained, he was only quoting Iran's revolutionary leader, the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.

Mr Ahmadinejad's reiteration of that bit of orthodoxy was a gift to those nations, led by America, Britain, France and Germany, that want the governing board of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the UN's nuclear guardian, to refer Iran's nuclear activities to the UN Security Council with a view to imposing punitive sanctions. Discussion of the programme, which Iran insists, to American and European scepticism, is purely peaceful, is sure to dominate the IAEA's next meeting later this month.

In Tehran, embarrassed commentators suggested that Mr Ahmadinejad had spoken figuratively; his target was not Israel, but the “Zionist mindset”. A government spokesman asserted that Iran “has never used force against a second country”. But a pattern, baleful for Iranian diplomacy, is starting to emerge. An earlier aggressive speech by the president, to the UN General Assembly in September, also backfired, shoring up support for a tough anti-Iran resolution at the IAEA's last meeting.

For the conservative establishment that helped Mr Ahmadinejad to power in last June's election, the president's comments underline the dangers of promoting untested ideologues. Publicly bound to Khomeini's radical legacy, Iran's ruling clerics have quietly abandoned important parts of it. For instance, they have shelved the death-penalty fatwa that Khomeini served on Salman Rushdie for writing an allegedly blasphemous novel, and they have cultivated ties with Saudi Arabia, whose kingdom Khomeini detested. In public, they now regret the West's wilful “misinterpretation” of their president's comments; in private, they rue the new man's habit of saying what he thinks.

Iran's opposition to Israel and support for the Palestinians, while enshrined in the constitution, has always been less straightforward than the rhetoric suggests. In the 1980s, when Iran's Revolutionary Guards were helping Syria to set up the Hizbullah movement in Lebanon, Iran's government was secretly using Israel as a conduit to buy American arms for use in the war against Saddam Hussein's Iraq. More recently, during the presidency of Mr Ahmadinejad's reform-minded predecessor, Muhammad Khatami, Palestine policy became a domestic issue. Though he was deliberately vague, it is thought that Mr Khatami did not share his conservative opponents' abhorrence of a two-state solution. He too has rubbished Mr Ahmadinejad's recent remarks.

In public, they now regret the West's wilful “misinterpretation” of their president's comments; in private, they rue the new man's habit of saying what he thinks

But sometimes, plainly, Iran has tried to help Palestinian rejectionists in their war against Israel. Conservative ideologues are said to have been the senders of a cache of Iranian arms, bound by ship for Palestine, which the Israelis intercepted in 2002. The incident helped persuade President Bush to include Iran in his “axis of evil” in the same year, ending Mr Khatami's efforts at détente with the Americans, which did not displease Iran's conservatives.

Iran lionises Palestinian suicide bombers and goes through the motions of preparing its own, though no Iranian “volunteer” is known to have carried out a mission. Iran also still backs Lebanese Hizbullah, which, having helped oust Israeli forces from southern Lebanon in 2001, nowadays portrays itself as a mainstream political party, albeit still dedicated to the elimination of Israel as a Jewish state. Iran may still help finance such violent Palestinian groups as Islamic Jihad and Hamas. And various prominent Iranians, not just the new president, have praised the idea of Israel's destruction. Rockets at parades have been inscribed with calls for Israel to be eradicated from the annals of history. Israelis are disinclined to assume that such threats are merely rhetorical.

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Khomeini's successor as Iran's supreme leader, trumpets the influence that Iran, despite being Shia and non-Arab, supposedly enjoys in the Sunni-dominated Arab world. But few Arabs joined Iran in observing Jerusalem Day, Khomeini's “worldwide” day of solidarity with the Palestinians, which fell this year on October 21st. As for Mr Ahmadinejad's remarks, Arab countries greeted them with stony silence, while the Palestinian Authority condemned them.

Just bluster, then?
Given Iran's cocktail of fierce rhetoric, double-dealing, ambiguity and pragmatism, it is questionable how much of a threat it truly poses to Israel. For sure, Israel was bound to react with horror to Mr Ahmadinejad's bellicosity; across the political spectrum, Israelis regard Iran's nuclear programme, secretly developed over the past 19 years, as an existential threat. But the CIA reckons that Iran is unlikely to achieve a bomb-making capacity for five to ten years. Iran's main threat now comes through proxies in Hizbullah and among the Palestinians. Israel would certainly react fiercely to any direct attack.

Moreover, it is arguable that Iran's leaders, by seeking to achieve a nuclear capacity for purposes that are (to say the least) ambiguous, are keener to secure their own regime's survival in the face of American hostility than they are to destroy the Israeli state. Indeed, despite Mr Ahmadinejad's diatribe, they know that any serious attempt to attack Israel would be more likely to provoke a large-scale assault, perhaps terminal, on the Islamic republic.

Plainly, Mr Ahmadinejad's remarks have done Iran little good. It is easier, now, for America to paint Iran as a menace that needs confronting. Yet far from showing any sign of backing down, he seems set to overturn Mr Khatami's more conciliatory foreign policy. He has recalled several top Khatami-era ambassadors to Tehran. He vilifies Muslim countries that recognise Israel, and favours imposing economic penalties on countries that backed America and the Europeans at the IAEA.

By talking tough, Iran's president has actually weakened his country in the world


In any event, other challenges loom. Syria, a longtime friend, is under pressure for its apparent role in the killing of Rafik Hariri, a former Lebanese prime minister, earlier this year. And Sunni-run Arab countries, especially Saudi Arabia and Jordan, condemn what they say is Iran's effort to turn Iraq into a chauvinistic Shia state.

Yet Iran's attitude to Iraq is ambiguous too. The Iranians want Iraq's emerging Shia-dominated democracy to survive but probably do not want it to thrive, lest Iraq then feels strong enough to let the Americans set their sights on Iran. The Americans and British in Iraq suspect Iran of giving money and arms to Iraqi Shia groups who have attacked the occupying forces. But the Iranians have tricky relations with Muqtada al-Sadr, the most belligerent of Iraq's Shia leaders, and shrink from picking a sectarian fight with Sunni fanatics. At least 150 Iranian pilgrims have died in attacks on Iraqi Shias by Sunni rebels in the past few months, but Iran has been careful not to respond with anti-Sunni invective.

So, despite Mr Ahmadinejad's noises, Iran knows it is vulnerable. In the past five months, at least 13 people in Iran's part-Arab city of Ahwaz, quite near Iraq's border, have died in bomb attacks. Iranian officials blame, variously, Baath party remnants, Arab separatists and the British.

The effect of Mr Ahmadinejad's diatribe, and the muddled foreign policy that underpins it, is already being felt. Confidence in the sector that Mr Leylaz works in, carmaking, has been shaken by rumours that Iranian customs officials are holding up South Korean auto-parts to punish the Koreans for backing the Americans at the IAEA. Capital has flown, making the Tehran stockmarket's loss Dubai's gain. Like other Iranian technocrats, Mr Leylaz rues his inability to “plan ahead”. So do many other Iranians. All in all, by talking tough, Iran's president has actually weakened his country in the world.
Lee Shaver
 
#19
tomahawk6 said:
The US is prepared to live with a nuclear Iran. So have no worries about the US starting a war with Iran.
Support.

PS. Two linguistical questions.

Insignificant: would it be more right to say 'The US are prepared...'?

Significant: would it be more right to say 'The US are preparing...'?

Originally a passive construction was used. So, mysterious, unknown powerfull force (obviously not Israel) is preparing the USA to live with a nuclear Iran. As a result the USA are being prepared.

PPS. I don't mean anything insulting toward our friend Tomahawk6.
 
#20
It is not better for all concerned if Iran gets nuclear weapons.

I love your statement crabtastic
We might actually talk them into climbing down a bit
Which means.
The the Europeans might get the Iranians to sign a statement that, the Iranians have no intention of following and the Europeans have no intention of enforcing,

To tell the truth about the agreement is
snarling and baring of teeth
perhaps I am a bit cynical.



but the lack viable options at this time, means that we are willing to pretend something is being done.
 

New Posts

Latest Threads