NUCLEAR
به زبان فارسی
PICTORY
LATEST MUSIC
SEARCH
Wicked Wisdom
28-Jan-2010
The conventional wisdom among a lot of US pundits, particularly on the right, is that if Iran continues to push forward on the nuclear front, Israel will attack.
Bill O’Reilly, in his recent interview with Sarah Palin: “The Israelis are getting very, very close.”
Former UN Ambassador John Bolton: “I think Israel views an Iran with nuclear weapons as an existential threat to the state of Israel, and I think as the Israelis demonstrated last December when they destroyed that North Korean reactor in Syria that they’re prepared to take the necessary steps.”
Bret Stephens of The Wall Street Journal: “Events are fast pushing Israel toward a pre-emptive military strike on Iran's nuclear facilities, probably by next spring.”
And so on.
Count me a skeptic. If the Israelis truly thought bombing Iran was a feasible option, they likely would have done it already. Consider the history:
In 2007 the Israelis did in fact destroy a suspected nuclear facility in Syria. What the Israelis pointedly didn’t do, however, is spend the better part of a decade telling the Syrians they better stop building it or else, thereby giving the Syrians time to build tunnels and reinforce everything with massive concrete slabs and develop sophisticated anti-aircraft defenses. Same goes for the bombing of Iraq’s Osirak reactor in 1981. Days before French nuclear fuel was scheduled to be delivered, the Israelis carried out an attack that caught the Iraqis, and much of the rest of the world, at unawares. In both instances, the Israelis acted well before the Syrian or Iraqi nuclear programs were anywhere close to being as developed as Iran’s are now. And Israel certainly didn’t telegraph their plans before carrying them out.
Below are a few relevant milestones in Iran’s nuclear program, none of which resulted in a pre-emptive Israeli attack, but all of which Israel likely viewed as a threats equal to or greater than those posed by Syria or Iraq:
In 1993, Argentina delivered enriched uranium (19.75%) to Iran for use in the US-built Tehran Nuclear Research Center.
In 2002, the National Council of Resistance of Iran disclosed the existence of a uranium enrichment facility in Natanz, and a heavy water facility in Arak.
In 2006, Ahmadinejad announced that Iran had successfully enriched uranium to 3.6% through the use of centrifuge technology. In that same year, satellite data was released indicating tunnels had been dug around Esfahan, and that much of the Natanz facility had been buried and further protected by layers of concrete.
In 2007, Iran announced they had 3000 centrifuges working to enrich uranium. Also in that year, Russia finally delivered nuclear fuel to the reactor under construction at Bushehr.
In 2009, Iran announced the existence of a second uranium enrichment facility, located north of Qom.
In 2010, Iran and Russia announced they plan to start the nuclear plant at Bushehr in March.
The list above is by no means exhaustive. The point is that year after year, when it comes to Iran’s nuclear program, the Israelis have threatened to attack while actually exercising restraint—whereas with Syria and Iraq, they attacked early on, without real warning, despite being faced with what arguably were lesser provocations. The reason the Israelis have held back is threefold:
1. It would be difficult, if not impossible, for them to stage such a long-range attack on their own. And even if they could get the planes there, the targets are heavily protected. And the Israelis may not even know where all the targets are.
2. Although they’re certainly gravely concerned, the Israelis probably don’t consider a nuclear Iran an existential threat. After the disputed election, it seems clearer than ever that the primary goal of the IRI—above even promoting their questionable interpretation of Twelver Shiism—is maintaining power. Using a nuclear weapon against Israel, or slipping one to Hezbollah for the same purpose, would likely mean the end of their power. After all, Israel could retaliate with their own nukes and destroy 80% or so of the heavily-urbanized Iranian population in a day. My God. The IRI may be crazy (and certainly they are anti-Semitic), but they’ve given no indication that they’re that crazy. They haven’t, for example, given biological or chemical weapons to Hezbollah. To get to the nuke-Israel level of crazy, you have to descend into the Sunni suicide-bomber mindset. Which is why Pakistan’s existing nukes should be more of a concern than Iran’s theoretical ones. I have to believe Israeli defense experts appreciate the difference between the IRI and nihilistic Sunni radicals.
3. The costs of an attack would outweigh the benefits. Some of the costs are obvious: innocent lives would be lost, oil prices would spike after the Straight of Hormuz was temporarily blocked, US troops would be attacked in Iraq, Israel would be attacked by Hamas and Hezbollah and likely by Iran directly, etc. The less-obvious and less-quantifiable consequence is the extra time an attack could buy the IRI. Ninety percent of Iranians support Iran’s nuclear program. In the past, the Shah supported it, and in the future, if they ever come to power, the Greens will support it. If Israel or anyone else tries to disrupt Iran’s nuclear program militarily, it’s going enrage a lot of people across the political spectrum. When Iranians rally around the flag after an attack, as many will, how many extra years will that give the IRI? Ten? Twenty? Who knows, but I bet the IRI would gain more years from an attack than the few years (at most) the nuclear program would be delayed.
The Israelis are aware of all this, despite the bluster. Which is why, unless something happens to fundamentally change the cost-benefit equation, they’ll just continue to push for sanctions—sanctions that will be meaningless because Russia and China won’t support them, but that’s another article.
| Recently by DM | Comments | Date |
|---|---|---|
| This Revolution Might Take a While | 15 | Jan 13, 2010 |
| Jumping the Shark | 3 | Dec 03, 2009 |
| UN Sanctions…Going Through the Motions | 7 | Dec 02, 2009 |
RECENT COMMENTS
IRANIANS OF THE DAY
| Person | About | Day |
|---|---|---|
| نسرین ستوده: زندانی روز | Dec 04 | |
| Saeed Malekpour: Prisoner of the day | Lawyer says death sentence suspended | Dec 03 |
| Majid Tavakoli: Prisoner of the day | Iterview with mother | Dec 02 |
| احسان نراقی: جامعه شناس و نویسنده ۱۳۰۵-۱۳۹۱ | Dec 02 | |
| Nasrin Sotoudeh: Prisoner of the day | 46 days on hunger strike | Dec 01 |
| Nasrin Sotoudeh: Graffiti | In Barcelona | Nov 30 |
| گوهر عشقی: مادر ستار بهشتی | Nov 30 | |
| Abdollah Momeni: Prisoner of the day | Activist denied leave and family visits for 1.5 years | Nov 30 |
| محمد کلالی: یکی از حمله کنندگان به سفارت ایران در برلین | Nov 29 | |
| Habibollah Golparipour: Prisoner of the day | Kurdish Activist on Death Row | Nov 28 |
Niloufar
by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on Mon Feb 01, 2010 03:31 PM PSTWho are going to be on two sides? In WWI there were many treaties and alliances. They obligated various nations to take sides. IRR has no real friends. There are blood suckers who "protect" Iran the way the mob does. But they will abandon her if things get tough.
As for the greater Islamic word: they cannot even handle Israel. That is if they all decide to join. IRR alone vs. the whole world is not a war it is massacre.
AO
by Niloufar Parsi on Mon Feb 01, 2010 03:14 PM PSTyou are being a little unfair! go ahead and have your fun but this level of conjecture is pointless for anything other than entertainment.
as for how a world war gets started, it can be with a single assassination that escalates in time into a world war, as was the case with WWI.
i think i will leave at that!
AO: your points were just proven
by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on Mon Feb 01, 2010 10:30 AM PSTBy the article just published and written by Ardeshir Ommani. It proves everything you said about the old unrepentant Bolshevik left.
Re: Hamsadeh and VPK
by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on Mon Feb 01, 2010 05:13 AM PSTAO: Brilliant analysis. I agree with you and all your points. These people are despicable. Risking Iranian people for their insane and genocidal "cause".
Their weakness is that Iranian people are not into this cause thing. They just want to live normal lives like they used to before the "revolution". When they used to be able to travel; have jobs; go to the beach and generally live a normal life.
The irony of these cause heads is that they are totally unwilling to risk themselves. They like to sit in their comfortable Western homes and demand Iranian people get fried for their cause. They are not even honest enough to go fight their own war.
Now I see why we make them so angry. We don't want to play their little cause. We don't care about the "cause" we want the same thing as the majority of Iran: normal lives.
ao
by hamsade ghadimi on Sun Jan 31, 2010 08:58 PM PSTi didn’t think that i or for that matter anyone can get through the iri apologists. it’s become sort of an exercise to reply to them. you are correct in your assessment that they hope for an armed conflict to quash the uprising in iran. for the very least, they use the war notion as a deterrent. whenever i see mention of israel, palestine or nukes on featured blogs or news about the iranian uprising, it’s apparent that the commenter is trying to take attention away from the topic at hand. what i’m not sure is whether some of them try to act stupid (e.g., xerxes, nojanthegreat) to portray that people within the full spectrum of intelligence are pro-iri, or really have that level of intelligence. and i’m sure that each has multiple ids with different personas. at any rate, i find it more understandable for an arab to be (not act) the devil’s advocate. thanks for the heads up.
VPK
by Anonymous Observer on Sun Jan 31, 2010 08:31 PM PSTyou're wasting your time if you expect any civility from "iranmilitaryforum". he is incapable of it. He was blocked once before for bad behavior when he used to write under user name "Shah Gholam". Now he's back with a new ID, and he's back to his old games. Just read his posts and his response to people who leave him comments. He attacks everyone who disagrees with him and calls ALL of them Zionists. The funny thing is that he's not even an Iranian. From what I gather, he is from South Lebanon--hence his obsession with Israel.
Hamsadeh and VPK
by Anonymous Observer on Sun Jan 31, 2010 08:01 PM PSTHamsadeh:
with such foresight, may i ask how long this world war (iran vs. world) would last?
The answer: 5 minutes. It will be the shortest world war in the history of human civilization. Let me explain to you folks the mentality that you're dealing with here. To these folks, the issue is not whether there may be a world war involving Iran and Israel, but rather, that the issue is their hope and desire to see such a war. The people that you see here on pages of Iranian.com constantly talking about Israel / Palestine (most of whom aren't even Iranians) are a bunch of ideologues for whom the welfare of Iran and Iranians is the absolute last priority.
Here's this sorry bunch's thought process and the wish list. They see the world in black and white. They are the leftovers of the old Bolshevik and Islamo / Bolshevik schools of thought (a'la Shariati, Fadayian Islam, Toudeh, etc.). They divide the world into the cold war categories of imperialist vs. non-imperialist. The grand imperialists, of course, is the United States, and by extension, Israel. This is notwithstanding the obvious fact that the people whole came up with this whole concept, the Soviets or today's Russians, have occupied, and to this day, forcefully occupy, more of other nations' lands--including Muslim lands--than any other country in the world. That little nugget is, of course, irrelevant to them. But, let's not digress. The non-imperialists are the rest of the world, who are "oppressed". Now, in the two dimensional world that these comic book characters live, the only "oppressed" nation that has "broken the chains of slavery" and is "standing up" to the "imperialists" is the Islamic Republic of Iran--not necessarily the people, most of whom have no desire to be involved in this action / adventure fantasy, but people who rule (by force, i.e, themselves "oppress") the Iranian people. So, where do these event cross paths you may ask? Here's who this works. These characters hope that a conflict ignites between Iran and Israel, which somehow entangles the "West".
They hope that by the time the conflict begins, the IRI will have some chemical warheads, a crude nuclear device or may be a "dirty bomb" that they can fit atop of one of their scuds and fire into the center of Tel Aviv. They also hope that when that happens, Israel and the U.S. will retaliate with massive counter-nuclear attack, which will pulverize Iran and will perhaps result in the deaths of 50-70 million Iranians (hence, the mention of WWIII).
This is the apocalypse that they have been longing for since the IRI took power 30 years ago. They hope that when this happens, despite Israel's massive response, it will still be in a weakened state, which will allow "freedom fighters" from Hamas and Hezbollah to waltz in and take over the country, "liberate" the people and drive the "imperialists" out. They will also claim victory because they have survived the battle--mainly because they are not in Iran. And you can rest assured that you will see a lot of crocodile tears fro them after millions of Iranians have been vaporized in a nuclear holocaust that they had cheered on from the sidelines. At the end of the day, these people are cause-heads, and theircause has nothing to do with the welfare of Iran and Iranians. The dead Iranians in that equation are just collateral damage and clutter that has to be taken out just so that cause advances. In fact, in their minds, the Iranian nation is an obstacle to the greater cause. So, next time you have a debate with one of these characters, know who you are dealing with and don't waste your time trying to discuss what's good for Iran and Iranians with them. Trust me, they won't know what you're talking about.
A question IMF
by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on Sun Jan 31, 2010 06:54 PM PSTYou mentioned the Palestinian problem. I agree that it is wrong to take someone's home. It is wrong to foce them to leave their nation.
The IRR did just that to my family. They took our house and forced out into exile. We have not committed any crimes. My father was a n honest businessman. He provided jobs for Iranians. Why are you not outraged about the Iranian people who lost their homes. If it is wrong to take Palestinian home it's also wrong to take Iranian home?
IMF here are detailed replies and not profanities
by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on Sun Jan 31, 2010 06:49 PM PSTI have no problems in engaging in discussions and receiving replies,
that is natural. But I think you are purposely sidelining or you simply
have not seen the replies I am taking about.
So the discussion tone gets quite heated up. You are doing it yourself. If you don't like it that is too bad.
W bhat do you mean "by us"? What subgroup do you think you belong to
here?
Yes. I meant I have not read anyone here getting convinced by you.
"
Our society is being polarized by us vs. them with a total disregard of
the fact that I have as much right on Iran subject as you do and so
does any other Iranian.
Well when people say either follow Islam or die it is us against them. When people tell my sister she has to put on a hijab they are making it "us against them".
Why can't you guys mind your own business. What if I want to leave Islam. What if my sister wants to put on a mini skirt and what if I want to have a beer. The one thing the Islamic mentality does not understand is minding their own business. Then the whine that people think of them in terms of "us against them".
Can you exactly define what you think I am presenting here to begin
with? I am not vying for popularity contest here that you can be sure
You and your friends are representing the Islamists point of view. It means that you want to force Islam or Islamic behavior on everyone specially in Iran. I disagree with that. I don't have any problem with you praying as you want. Just don't tell me what to do. Say if I want to eat during Ramadan it is no one's business.
I suppose you are covering those very characters who trash others
here! Did you ever think think that while you "think" Iran is being
trashed other Iranians may have a right not to think like you do? Or is
it that those Iranians don't count to you or you think your political
ideas are the best? if you do then you cannot possibly talk about
Democracy for Iran, as simple as that!
You do not understand democracy. It is about disagreement. Just see how many people were angry ast Bush here; I was anrgy at Bush. Now many are angry at Obama. Democracy does not mean everyone gets along.
And what is that supposed to mean? What right do you have to think
that one is not Iranian because he/she has religion convictions? What
is your religo? and what would be your solution if such people do exist
I suppose yu "democratic"
ideology will be very comfortable to get rid of this portion of
population. How about putting them in concentration camps? or shooting
them all? or force migrate them like the Palestinians have been
subjected to?
You are confused. That is how IRR acts not me. "... hame ra be keeshe khod pendarad". Just because that is how IRR acts it does not mean other people do that. No one here wants to kill or displace Muslims. But IRR displaced my family and stole our house.
What exactly are you proposing for Muslim Iranians who do not share
your views of their very country?
I said before. Practice Islam but don't force me to live by Islamic rules. Why does IRR want me to fast or pray? Why do they want to kill people for leaving Islam. See it is your IRR that kills people for disagreements not me.
You see, this is what I am hating
here. A bunch of seemingly Western educated self declared Iranians who
have no interest in accepting that Iran is not what they see it as. It
is a mosaic of people, ethnicities, religions and political ideas.
Nonsense. You are describing the Islamists. Most secular Iranians do not have any problem with race; political ideas; religion; language. They just don't want to be forced to be practicing Muslims.
IMF:
The problem with Islam is that it wants to forcibly convert all the people. Read Iranian history and the forced conversions. Muslims want to apply Islamic law to all other people. They also do not allow people to leave Islam. As long as you do this you will have problems. People don't like to be forced into a religion or be killed.
VPK
Veiled
by IranMilitaryForum.net on Sun Jan 31, 2010 06:02 PM PSTIf we did not have time for the opposite view then what are we doing
replying to you? Plus if IC did not allow the opposite view why is it
that all your stuff it posted.
I have no problems in engaging in discussions and receiving replies, that is natural. But I think you are purposely sidelining or you simply have not seen the replies I am taking about.
Most of the time, I do not get replies for discussion I get prophanities. If you think Being called a terrorist, thug, paid IRI agentis is the norm then would like me to call you such ? Read some of replies that I get from in particular a few people here.
ou have stated your opinion many times.
But you have not convinced any of us.
W bhat do you mean "by us"? What subgroup do you think you belong to here? can you dfine it? The reality is, Iranian.com allows character assisination as a rule, if I take my own interaction here as evidence! Many who visit IC and do not subscribe to the Whatever is presented here as "Green" do not dare to post and express themselves because the prevelent charactor assasination here at IC. In the absence of opposite view, is there any wonder you think what you think "But you have not convinced any of us.
" Our society is being polarized by us vs. them with a total disregard of the fact that I have as much right on Iran subject as you do and so does any other Iranian. This unhealthy approach of us "against them" will serve no Iran and any Iranian except the ones who wish the demise of Iran and I believe are among us here to create that divide as much as possible. I am sure you can detect those if you wish.
What some of us have is a "disagreement" with you.
Can you exactly define what you think I am presenting here to begin with? I am not vying for popularity contest here that you can be sure
But I admit many
people are angry to see our nation trashed.
I suppose you are covering those very characters who trash others here! Did you ever think think that while you "think" Iran is being trashed other Iranians may have a right not to think like you do? Or is it that those Iranians don't count to you or you think your political ideas are the best? if you do then you cannot possibly talk about Democracy for Iran, as simple as that!
Just for one minute imagine
Iran being more important than Islam to a person. The rest is obvious.
And what is that supposed to mean? What right do you have to think that one is not Iranian because he/she has religion convictions? What is your religo? and what would be your solution if such people do exist (and that may not be a small number either)? I suppose yu "democratic" ideology will be very comfortable to get rid of this portion of population. How about putting them in concentration camps? or shooting them all? or force migrate them like the Palestinians have been subjected to?
What exactly are you proposing for Muslim Iranians who do not share your views of their very country? You see, this is what I am hating here. A bunch of seemingly Western educated self declared Iranians who have no interest in accepting that Iran is not what they see it as. It is a mosaic of people, ethnicities, religions and political ideas.
IMF
by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on Sun Jan 31, 2010 03:57 PM PSTThey also claim wishing Iran "freedom and Democracy" while having no patience for for an opposite view or worse for the person who believes such views.
If we did not have time for the opposite view then what are we doing replying to you? Plus if IC did not allow the opposite view why is it that all your stuff it posted. ou have stated your opinion many times. But you have not convinced any of us.
What some of us have is a "disagreement" with you. But I admit many people are angry to see our nation trashed. Just for one minute imagine Iran being more important than Islam to a person. The rest is obvious.
Xerxes
by IranMilitaryForum.net on Sun Jan 31, 2010 03:45 PM PSTGhorbone Harfe Sanjideh!
I also share your views. The irony is that so meny posters at IC are on a vengence mission, sacrificing the very entities they claim they beat their chests for, that is , Iran and Iranians. They also claim wishing Iran "freedom and Democracy" while having no patience for for an opposite view or worse for the person who believes such views.
Almost all ignore the modern history of Iran and Middle East as related to their political solutions. But they are consistant on one thing, bullying their opinions through name calling and accusations just because they think their hate for IRI justifies anything. I think they should search the misfortune in Iran (as they see it) in themselves , in their own bigotry, selfishness, lack of vision and so on. Is it any wonder why they can't debate anything nor they allow healthy debates here at IC. Their less than sophisticated behaviour only points to one thing, they don't know enough to carry any meaninful discussion. With individuals like these what possibly could Iran's future look like? Hint: A Colony of another nation!
Let's hope the future of Iran will be shaped by those who genuinlt in for democracy and have deep sound political vision not bunch of hot headed students running on the streets killing and getting killed and those bullies who sit comfortably outside of Iran and send orders of uprising to quench their hate for whomever.
Sad indeed!
xerxes
by hamsade ghadimi on Sun Jan 31, 2010 01:11 PM PSTi know you're not very bright, but do you have a comprehension problem with reading a simple sentence. the idea of a world war was mr. niloufar parsi's, your fellow apologist, not mine. and somehow my question to mr. parsi about his idea of a world war makes me a racist. you're a gem. keep it up. by the way, any proud iranian who wants to use the pseudonym xerexes would at least know how to spell it. unless.... (see first sentence)
Nukes
by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on Sun Jan 31, 2010 11:32 AM PSTJust wanted to clarify my comment. I don't think the US will ever use tactical or any other type of nukes in Afghanistan or against the Taliban. I was talking about a hypothetical WWIII with some imaginary army of billions of Muslims stopping the oil. It was purely hypothetical:there is no large Muslim army.
False xerxes
by Cost-of-Progress on Sun Jan 31, 2010 11:22 AM PSTAs someone said before, you bring shame to the name Xerxes while beating your chest about the islamic thugs you support.
For the millionth time, being anti mullahcracy is not anti Iranian no matter how much you advertize this falacy. In fact it is you and your likes who are ANTI IRAN. Your policies of the past 30 years have proven so.
The current regime of the islamic thugs is the anti-nationalisit entity destryoing Iran. You people are too blind to realize it.
____________
IRAN FIRST
____________
The apparent "failure" in Afghanistan...
by Cost-of-Progress on Sun Jan 31, 2010 11:03 AM PSTIraq and Afghanistan are pointed out by some folks as a failure of US in the region.
True that the Christian Right Wing policies in the US for the last 10 years could be questioned, but it is very easy for the US to use tactical nukes (as VPK pointed out) and eliminate a large number of enemy combatants in a blink of an eye. Will it? Unlikely is the answer. Just as easily, they could carpet bomb large areas of afghanistan and Paki border regions to eliminate Taliban strongholds and hideouts. Will they? Probably not - at least not yet.
So, when we say they have failed, we are saying that they have held back the use of deadly force for obvious reasons. More like exercizing restraints than anything else. The US military machine is an amazing powerhouse unique in human history.
Just ask yourself this: If a muslim country was as powerful as the US and had a 9/11 happen to it, what do you think they'd do to those whom they thought were responsible? To their home country, to their women, children, animals, and, and....
The argument of right or wrong, just or unjust are nice for discussion points, but when there's a definite need for action, the thoughts of repersussions and consequences are the last thing on the mind of thsoe whose job is to defend their country and its interests.
I'd hate to have Iranians be on the recieving end of those decisions.
____________
IRAN FIRST
____________
hamsade ghadimi's another racist remark
by XerXes. on Sun Jan 31, 2010 10:58 AM PSTThe amount of hate against the Islamic Republic of Iran has blinded many Iranian foreign citizens about the realities. Your remark that Iran wants WWIII against the world is childish and lacks logical thinking, as expected from haters. It makes me sad to see that they are so many anti Iranian forces here at IC community. I don't care how much someone hates their government but to go and make them look evil is way beyond desperate. How low can hamsade ghadimi (and like minded IC memebers) go?
Dorud bar Khatami, Dorud bar Mousavi, dorud bar Sabz haay e Iran (na kharej az Iran).
Niloufar
by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on Sun Jan 31, 2010 10:47 AM PSTThe US military is bad at occupation and nation building. It is good at blowing things up. It is very good at taking out any missiles or other weapons that may close the Hormozd straights. Naval was is not the same as guerrilla war.
Keeping the Hormozd straights open is what US navy is good at. All they have to do is to: sink suspicious vessels; blow up any land based threat and shoot down any air threat. They don't need to go into villages. They cannot be reached by suicide bombers. How is one going to get to a ship sitting in the Persian Gulf or the Indian Ocean?
As for Islamic anger we have seen it all before with Palestine. We both know that to Muslims the issue of Palestine is near and dear. Yet they have not been able to do one thing execpt for acts of terrorism. Despite those acts oil is flowing and world runs.
The few times the Muslims nations did fight they were defeated; routed. Not by US but by Israel. The US is 100 times as powerful as Israel. Most Isamic nations are in the pocket of the US anyway with two of them outright occupied. The government and military of Pakistan is under heavy US influence. Even if every remaining Islamic nation joined forces (which they won't) they won't last a week. US has weapons that we don't even know about. Besides US has made it clear that if things go bad they will use tactical nukes. This is false bravado. You can be angry at the US that is your right. But is wrong to badly underestimate an opponent and send brave Iranian soldiers to their deaths. Don't allow your anger to get in the way of your judgment.
VPK
by Niloufar Parsi on Sun Jan 31, 2010 08:38 AM PSTyou may be right, but i doubt it. you are patently unaware of the level of support the iri - and ahmadinejad in particular - enjoys among muslims throughout the world. an attack against iran would have repercussions from egypt to lebanon to iraq, afghanistan and the arabian peninsula.there will be instability of a kind we have not seen yet in recent decades. the strait does not need sophisticated weapons to block. the very ships that cross it would become the strongest weapons for a block. they just have to hit and sink a few tankers either with mines or their high speed underwater torpedoes that were launched a few years ago. they are very difficult to intercept.
given the plethora of us military failures throughout the region, i am baffled by your belief in their effectiveness. if you check the news today you will see that they are ready to cut a deal with the taleban. after eight years of fighting. their project in iraq gave the iri the upper hand. they lost in vietnam. their intelligence capability is poor.
i am not beating a drum war. that would actually be more like your position. i am trying to explain why the us has so far no engaged iran in war. the costs are too high. and they include the collapse of the world economy and the potential for a major regional war that can escalate into a world war. such wars are more likely when the global economy collapses.
world war iii?
by hamsade ghadimi on Sun Jan 31, 2010 08:35 AM PSTthe scare tactics of the apologists have risen to a new level. with such foresight, may i ask how long this world war (iran vs. world) would last?
Niloufar
by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on Sun Jan 31, 2010 08:31 AM PSTno the world will not be ok. there will be a wordwide recession
comparable to the situation in the 1930s. it could lead to a world war.
Nonsense. They will have the Hormozd straights open in in no time. Others have pointed out. The US and its allies monitor every single move of not just IRR but all the nations in the world. If they get wind that Iran wants to do anything that endangers the oil flow the danger will be taken out.
The US had the weapons to do it. The danger is that in a rush they may not be too particular about who they kill. I know you deeply desire to see the US fail. But it ain't gonna happen in that way. The US strong point is all out assaults. Not just IRR but no nation has a chance to go head to head with US right now.
As for the "world war" exactly who are the sides? Do you think Russia and China will side with IRR? If so you are not looking at the facts. Do you know how much America owes China? The Chinese would have to be crazy to hurt America and make her unable to pay. It will be all against IRR and take 1 day.
mammad
by Niloufar Parsi on Sun Jan 31, 2010 01:50 AM PSTagree with you. the nuclear issue is all about israel and us hegemony in our region and little else.
anonymouse
by Niloufar Parsi on Sun Jan 31, 2010 01:51 AM PSTno the world will not be ok. there will be a wordwide recession comparable to the situation in the 1930s. it could lead to a world war.
The influential Islamist
by Fred on Sun Jan 31, 2010 01:42 AM PSTThat the Islamist nuke lover is a liar is a demonstrable fact.
The liar says the “crux” statement was said “loud and clear”. Liar liar. This is the “crux” statement:
"The crux of the issue about Iran's nuclear program is, in my opinion, as follows: If Iran has the ability to make the bomb on a short notice, it becomes unattackable. That is not something that the US and Israel can tolerate. They want to be the hegemone of the Middle East. “
Islamist liar prove what you say. That is the above statement was said verbatim in the "conference" or "the article" , “bomb” and all. Where? When? Liar, liar!
Also while you are at it see if you can fit this morsel of Islamist justification of the crime of American diplomats taken hostage into your next Islamist act:
“Yes, the regime has raped. Yes, storming the embassy, WHEN LOOKED AT WITH THE PRESENT HINDSIGHT, was wrong (although it must be looked at in the context of its time, and although the intention of the student leaders was not to drag that on” Capitalization is by the Islamist nuke lover.
“when looked at with the present hindsight” ? “storming”? and not what it acuatully was Islamists taking Americans hostage?
Like his Islamist brethrens who all have multiple identity, the Islamist liar might play this Islamist double, triple identity game and say one thing here another thing there, yet something entirely different someplace else. But with his track record it takes an Islamist to make such a boast:
“Who listens to you? Who have you influenced? Who knows who you are? Where have you published? What is your track record? What is your significance in the ongoing debate over Iran, the Green Movement, etc.?”
Ps. read FT, it has some stuff about Karubi that you are so big on, that is also part of your illustrious Islamist track record that you are so proud of and boast about all the times.
VPK
by Mammad on Sat Jan 30, 2010 07:15 PM PSTThe right wing of Israel's military/political establishment is, in my view, the mirror image of Iran's hardliners. They blame their problems on Iran and the Arabs, but never accept any blame for their own actions, just as the criminal hardliners blame everybody under the sun, except themselves, for what is going on in Iran.
So, I agree with your second point.
Mammad
Freddo
by Mammad on Sat Jan 30, 2010 07:11 PM PSTUnlike what you claim, it was said loud and clear (in addition to the article) in the radio interview with the most important radio station of Seattle in which both Professor Lustik and I participated. It was there that I talked about the crux of the issue and the conclusion that the real threat was emmigration not the capability to make the bomb.
Fat chance according to whose perspective? You? Who the heck are you, other than an isolated person, carrying water for God knows who? Who listens to you? Who have you influenced? Who knows who you are? Where have you published? What is your track record? What is your significance in the ongoing debate over Iran, the Green Movement, etc.?
I won't come back to read your "response." You have the thread to "expose" me again!
Mammad
The crux of an Islamist
by Fred on Sat Jan 30, 2010 05:45 PM PSTThe Islamist nuke lover wants to bet Iranian and Israeli lives on his say so that his Islamist brethrens will not act like the savage Islamist Rapists that they are. Fat chance.
If the “crux” was not a momentary truth telling by the Islamist, then how come in the world famous “Seattle conference” it was not read out verbatim? How come it is never owned up to verbatim? Islamists are funny that way.
Mammad
by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on Sat Jan 30, 2010 05:49 PM PST1) You are probably right about the Nuclear thing. A democratic nationalistic Iranian government is unlikely to give up the right. It will be politically impossible. However they will be able to put on a nice enough face to shut up the West.
2) No question many Israeli citizens are lining up jobs outside. The problem is not Iran. The problems are internal to Israel so they are going to leave regardless. Therefore Israel would do well to stop blaming Iran and focus on its own problems. Just as Iran would do well to stop blaming Israel and worry about her own.
The threat is about leaving Israel
by Mammad on Sat Jan 30, 2010 05:23 PM PSTAt the "risk" of having Freddo jumping in (!) (he has waited too long!), it was explained in an article several months ago what the crux of the issue is (which is what marhoum kharmagas quoted, and Freddo pretends that when it was stated, it was just a slip of tongue!):
//www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/tehranbureau/2009/05/israel-irans-nuclear-program.html
As explained in the above article,
1. Unless the West invades Iran and installs a puppet government in Tehran, no Iranian government - no matter how fascistic or democratic - will set aside Iran's uranium enrichment program.
2. If Iran has the capability of producing nuclear warhead on short notice, it may destabilize the Israel society and cause a large fraction of the elite leave. That is the real existential threat, not the physical threat.
In a conference in Seattle in early December, Professor Ian Lustik of the U of Pennsylvania, a Jew and a well-known expert on Israel, and Keith Weismann, former AIPAC deputy director (who speaks persian and is actually quite pro-Iran, NOT pro-IRI) agreed with the premise. In fact, Lustik was suprised that someone else, who seemingly has no expertise on Israel society, has the same thesis as his.
Professor Lustik also revealed an interesting statistics that lends credence to what the article says: 25% of all Israeli academics have lined up jobs outside Israel.
All the participants in the conference agreed that there is no conceivable scenario under which an IRI armed with nuclear warhead will attack Israel, or give it to someone else to do it (unless, of course, it is attacked first), precisely because of what DM also says: The IRI leaders know that any such attack will bring a counterattack by Israel and the US that will evaporate Iran.
Mammad
No Fear and rpRoshan
by XerXes. on Sat Jan 30, 2010 05:02 AM PSTKhatami was not the person who handled the Nuclear Issue. Majles and the Shuray e negahban and everything else were conservatives. Khatami realized that the economy was sick and tried to help Iranian production, for that he needed better relations with outside world. He said that he is nothing but "tadarokchi".
rpRoshan, You judge people by the way they look and dress, shows the level of your intelligence and judgment. I judge Khatami by what he says and what he stands for. I like the Islamic Republic of Iran because it has people like Mousavi and Khatami. You don't, that's fine. Khatami is a hojatol Eslam, but he is more intelligent and has better understanding about the world that any Iranian leader within the past 100 years.
tane adami sharif ast be jane adamiyat
na hamin lebase zibast neshane adamiyat