September Bloom

WOW - Nuke Iran suggested by an "Iranian"?

by MM on Sat Jul 31, 2010 07:21 AM PDT

Any relations to John Bolton?

There is 15% chance that these "smart bombs" stray and hit other targets.  That may be ok with some Iranian who are completely removed from Iran, but many of us do not like to see that day.  As Mehrdad said: Do you think the US will want to be the only country that has used nuclear weapons twice while telling every one else not to have one? 

Yet again, another case of "do as I say, not as I do".

PS, one nuclear enrichment site is inside Sharif University, beside 22 others that I counted near cities: //www.nti.org/e_research/profiles_pdfs/Iran/iran_nuclear_sites.pdf

Dites Moi Sont Ils Tous Aussi Cons Les EYE RANICAINS ? ;0)

by Darius Kadivar on Sat Jul 31, 2010 03:55 AM PDT

Les Nuls - Ils sont cons ces ricains :

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHuIftC5_Xk&feature=related

The Imperial CLOWN Reza Pahlavi is sooo irrelavant

by i_support_khamenie on Sat Jul 31, 2010 03:17 AM PDT

Irrelavant to Iranians in Iran
Irrelavant to Politcal POwer Play in Iran

Non issue to US legislators.

Ms September Bloom, take it from me. Don't demean yourself so much that you would make this "Guiness World Record Hodling Unemployed Guy" into someone who should pay attention to you.

Plus, US policies are dictated by their National Interests not one Iranian who passes out Gaz to his guests had to say

Differences of opinion

by Bavafa on Fri Jul 30, 2010 09:03 PM PDT

Differences of opinion remains just as far apart as ever with eroonman, however

To answer your direct question, I must say that if I knew the answer, maybe I would have collected what was offered to Sharam Amiri, the $5M, but I don't know and I suspect only a few do.

But as an Iranian, I along with many many other Iranians have some very legitimate security concern. I am not suggesting that those concerns will nullify if Iran acquires the bomb, but that maybe one way to gain concessions from its enemies to ease those concerns.

As for the aftermath of the dropping the big one, specially if they use any nuclear tipped bomb, I would think such action will have a far reaching negative affect then just in Iran. US will be the only country to have used nuclear bomb on civilian and in a country that is not at war with. It ain't going to happen and it MUST not happen otherwise the feature of man kind is for sure doomed.

Mehrdad

bavafa is bavafa...

by eroonman on Fri Jul 30, 2010 04:39 PM PDT

Thanks back a you...

I would like to point out that you started by suggesting that Iran doe snot plan to get a nuke, and that the US and Israeli propaganda against her is ample, which I agree. But then you end by defending Iran right to have one and even justify it to some degree.

Which is it? Is Iran after a Nuke or isn't she?

The technical assumptions of the attack, and on a morbid note, right now are that Israel will most likely drop a couple of accurately targeted American bunker busting bombs that can penetrate into the ground and detonate after penetration. The sexual metaphor aside, this kind of bomb is not likely to explode above ground. So the damage done and the people killed, will unfortunately be the workers who don't heed the warnings and leave well before the attack has begun. There is virtually 0 chance that any civilians (other than the workers) would be killed in such an attack. Given these facilities are far from any major metropolitan area, the chances of a stray bomb are negligibly minuscule.

One additional option being considered by Israel and the US to ensure that the facilities are rendered completely useless, is to tip the bunker busting bombs with nukes. This will generate a larger explosion that goes farther under ground, and will also irradiate the subsurface (not the surface). Again, 0 chance of contamination above ground, all of this according to the experts being paid to play out these insane scenarios.

In a sick way, if I knew I was going to be attacked by Israel, this is about the best way I would want it to happen.

Which now begs the question as to whether or not Iran in fact has a Nuke under development, or is this all a big ruse designed to lull Israel into an aggressive first attack so that Iran can justly retaliate, now with the world's support behind it, after it successfully proves that it never had a nuke at all.

Iran has ample evidence to pull this kind of ruse off, having seen how the world reacted when no WMDs were found in Iraq, and how well this same ploy worked in WWII when some say the US under Roosevelt ignored the warnings, and allowed the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor easing the US entry into the war in the Pacific.

Is Iran that Smart? So far I must say, given the level of undeniably impressive brinkmanship it has portrayed being the thorn in the side of Israel in Lebanon, and the US in Iraq, I think it could very well be.

So far, Eroonman has

by Bavafa on Fri Jul 30, 2010 04:17 PM PDT

So far, Eroonman has proven to be more responsive to open letters then our leaders have been.

So, he deserve my gratitude for that, but it also highlights the great differences of opinion among many of us Iranians, vis a vie Iranian nuclear program and possibility of acquiring nuclear bombs. We need to remember that there has been NO credible proof for such illegal arms yet.

While we are in complete agreement about the nature of IRI, specially towards its own citizen, you seem to be taking the West word far more at face value than I am willing to give them credit for. Their past history have proven to be any thing but trustworthy, specially when it comes to ME and Iran.

For one thing, I am not by any means willing to accept that an attack by Israel or any other country on nuclear sites would be risk free to Iranian people. I see a great degree of danger and risk, whether by radiation or an escalating the conflict to a full fletch war which millions could be losing their lives and livelihoods.  Would Israel find it an acceptable risk that since Iranians bomb are inaccurate therefore there is no risk of Israel being hit by Iranian bombs? 

In either case, I would put the responsibility on the shoulder of invading/attacking army as the international law would do so. If some empty rhetoric by a "puppet" such as AN which incidentally does not even command a police station, never mind an army could not be taken as a real threat, there would be wars around the world on a weekly basis. The threats that have been coming from US and Israel have been far greater then what IRI has been barking about, yet no one sees Iran justified as attacking either country.

The case for Iran to go for the Nuke or not, is simply a much more complicated discussion. As I fully agree that Nukes are a barbaric tool and should be banned around the world, none of Nuked armed nations have shown any intention to do so and yet it has proven to keep some nations at bay from invading other countries.

Iran, being surrounded by hostile nations and with as many of them already armed with such barbaric arms, such as Pakistan, India, Israel, US and Russia, may indeed have some legitimate concern in its long term security. This is regardless of what regime is in Tehran.

Would US or Russia sign a treaty to keep Iran under its nuclear umbrella? Would US sign a treaty for non-hostile intentions towards Iran, if Iran gives up its right to nuclear energy.

Mehrdad

I bet it was some random

by benross on Fri Jul 30, 2010 02:48 PM PDT

I bet it was some random IRI progoganda floating around with his words twisted.

More accurately, it was not random, but systematic, and it was coming from the 'left'overs and Mosadeghists abroad. It's still coming as you see in this blog and yes, it serves IRI propaganda but ganging up against the so called 'neocons' was not an act of patriotism. It was -and is- an easy target to validate their rotten lefty or Massadeghist ideas. They couldn't possibly do it without wrapping themselves with patriotism and anti-war rethoric, which apparently was never in Bush administration plan, much less in Obama plan. But they keep talking about it because they don't have anything else to say. And yet, I'm not getting in to this, that ganging up against 'neocon' was -and is- denying individual rights of Iranian citizens to be of right wing persuasion. The substance of their 'human rights' is as profound as their relentless anti-Shah propaganda.

In reply to bavafa/Mehrdad

by eroonman on Fri Jul 30, 2010 02:25 PM PDT

Uh, NO. I don't think I am giving up my right to live by allowing Israel to bomb Iran. I also don't think there wil be any radiation if as reported the facilites are far underground. At least that is what the Brookings Report simulating the atack on Iran by Israel shows.

And Yes, I think that the damage done by Israel bombing Natanz and other far flung facilities is acceptable. Because I don't think Iran should EVER have a nuke. The Iran I yearn for is a Nuclear-Free-Zone. You see, that is more civilized (albeit naive) than falling into the arms race that the foolish Indians and Pakestanis seem to think is a sign of "culture".

Israel, while not on my personal list of favorite nations is justified purely because the Iranian government (which you and I do not endorse or approve of or consider to be valid, representative, or legal) happens to have threatened it repeatedly, publicly, almost every chance it gets, and is pursuing a madman's path towards a Nuke (which you and I probably also do not approve of).

Unless you are one of those who actually support Iran having "the right" to a nuke and support Iran joining in on what has been the singularly most condemnable sin of post modernism in the history of the world. Namely, the nuclear arms race.

If you support Iran's right to have a nuke you are less enlightened than you ought to be, because the real truth is that we as free Iranians, having the luxury of being free to express our views, withall the hindsight available to us, ought to be smarter than to fall for this 3rd world joining the arms race ploy they would have us fall into.

We should be above this barbarism. The reality is that anyone who falls back into the outmoded 50's ways, to think that in the middle of it's most dangerous period of history, while it sorts out mere God from it's day to day affairs, that Iran, of all countries, should now have the right to a nuke and to threaten other countries with it, and bear no consequences for it's retarded reckless stupidity.

Don't mistake this Iran, for your and my Iran. Thsi isn;t real Iran, this is a hijacked Iran.

No, we should be much more smarter than this.

While I encourage antiwar

by Sargord Pirouz on Fri Jul 30, 2010 02:21 PM PDT

While I encourage antiwar activities, in general, I see no need for a letter to RP. The man is irrelevant. 

If you're an American citizen, write your congressmen and president. NIAC has some easy forms to do this, and you can modify the text fields. That means you can use the forms to write personalized messages. It's really convenient. 

Those who accused RP also Accused Milani &Nafisi on same grounds

by Darius Kadivar on Fri Jul 30, 2010 02:42 PM PDT

To name a Few Hamid Dabashi,Kaveh Afrasiabi, Mohamad Sahimi aka mammad ( Don't think he accused Milani though ...), Soraya Ulrich Sepanpour Kam Zarrabi,  or the Leverettes to name a few ... and did everything in their power to Character Assassinate RP and the Regime Change Think Tanks on each and every occasion.

We know where their credibility stands ... since all are Pro IRI Reformists at best ... and never even wished to see the advent of the Green Movement as an Anti IRI revolution which happens to be Green only by coincidence:

How YOUR "Green" Color Was Chosen & By WHOME !

 

Flynt Leverett & Hamid Dabashi: Iranians do not want to overthrow the Islamic Republic:

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJw7bGr6qvA

Kam Zarrabi :

//www.payvand.com/news/09/jun/1310.html

Kaveh Afrasiabi:

//iranian.com/afrasiabi.html

Soraya  Sepahpour-Ulrich and Hillary  Mann-Leverett :

//iranian.com/main/blog/darius-kadivar/iri-apologists-out-full-force

Mohammad Sahimi on How We Monarchists invented International Terrorism a few months after Sept 11th :

Dream On : Monarchists and international terrorism Mohammad Sahimi (iranian.com, November 2, 2001)

Yet Milani was and is against Military Strikes against Iran :

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRtVqeQPPIY

but it did not stop him to meet Bush in private ( See Below):
 

Recommended Reading:  

The Iranian Optimist

Karim Sadjadpour, an Iran expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and a friend of Milani's. "Many others put the onus of blame on Washington for the tension between the two countries. But Abbas was always brutally honest about the character of this regime."

Milani met with former undersecretary of state Nicholas Burns, the Bush administration's point man for dealing with Iran. "We had to reach out to people in the American community who know about Iran," Burns told me. "Abbas has a great sense of history and an intimate understanding of the complexities of the situation. He was careful in his judgments and backed them up with facts." Over the next two years, in meetings with Burns and other high-ranking officials, including National Security Adviser Steve Hadley, Milani laid out the case for eschewing military strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities in favor of negotiating with the regime—even if, as subsequent events have confirmed, those negotiations produced limited results.

 "Abbas has been the single most persuasive voice among Iran analysts in the U.S. arguing that military action would entrench the SOBs in power for another decade or two, devastate democratic forces and have all kinds of destabilizing effects in terms of Iranian retaliation," Diamond says.

In 2006, Milani was invited to a dinner with President Bush at the home of former Secretary of State George Shultz, just down the road from Stanford's Hoover House. Hadley had asked Milani to write a memo for Bush to read in advance, in which Milani reiterated his position that democracy was achievable in Iran if the United States and its allies refrained from using force against the regime. When Bush met Milani, the president told him to stay after the other guests left. "I want to talk to you one-on-one," Bush said. Milani and Bush chatted privately for 15 minutes. Bush asked if there were any reliable intermediaries who could negotiate with the mullahs on Washington's behalf. As they were leaving, Milani told Bush, "You know, you've got a lot of popularity in Iran for standing up to these guys." The president wheeled around and stared at Milani. Then he said, "You're not bullshitting me, are you?"

when you hear by your own ears and see by your own eye

by afshinazad on Fri Jul 30, 2010 11:15 AM PDT

my hamvatan when you hear by your own ears and see by your own eye then belife some, otherwise don't trust what you heard.

Reza Pahlavi, never been for war and his messages always been clear which is by nonviolent movement and he always been advocating for free Iran. about foreign goverments or the republic or democrats all them want to keep Iran in 7th century and they could milk Iran doesn't matter what.

Mr. Pahlavi is not a great choice for american, because he is educated and knowlegeable about every thing and their short coming and so that is the reason someone like mousavi is good and AHMADINEJAD is the best choice to western powers.

dear Sean

by Bavafa on Fri Jul 30, 2010 11:03 AM PDT

"Why would anyone want war when we can take down this regime ourselves, all we ask is not to support this regime. Russia, china, France, Germany, and even USA"

I could not have said it better and I welcome RP call against the war. I would hope and wish for even more active participation on his part to do what ever he can to prevent one, at the same time push for above goal/statement by you.

In regards to his past statement, even though my experience was first hand and not thru words of mouth, but it was a couple of years ago and I am more interested in present and future. NOW.

Respectfully.

Mehrdad

Dear Bavafa

by seannewyork on Fri Jul 30, 2010 10:40 AM PDT

I really would like to see a video, writing, a clip or somehting.  He has never ever ever been for war with Iran or sanctions actually the total opposite.

I bet it was some random IRI progoganda floating around with his words twisted.

Every time soneone says Mr. Pahlavi is for war or sanctions and i ask them to show me something, not one person has come up with a piece of evidence. 

Why would anyone want war when we can take down this regime ourselves, all we ask is not to support this regime. russia, china, france, germany, and even usa.

thank you

Bet September Bloom Your Ali Reza the EYE-Ranian from NY ? ;0)

by Darius Kadivar on Fri Jul 30, 2010 09:39 AM PDT

Move to 10:29:

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=2m97F0e3SS0&feature=fvw

 

Très Amusant ;0)

by Darius Kadivar on Fri Jul 30, 2010 09:27 AM PDT

Keep Them Coming ...

Reza Pahlavi: "Ne bombardez pas mon pays".Le Journal du Dimanche Propos recueillis par Claude ASKOLOVITCH

Recommended Reading:

REZA's CALL: An Iranian Solidarnosc... by Darius KADIVAR

On the other hand!

by farokh2000 on Fri Jul 30, 2010 09:06 AM PDT

Why is Reza Pahlavi even relevant in this situation?

Did our Nation not suffer enough because of his father?

Was his father not a CIA agent/pupet?

Would he be any different than the criminal Mullahs?

The issue really is the fact that as long as you have the Natural Resources and the Geograpghy that is needed and sought for by the Super Powers, they would never leave you alone. Any leader, unless they are in their pockets would have a very short life expectancy.

Pahlavi and the Mullahs just wear different cloths, but both are and would be pupets of the pupet masters.

Open letter to eroonman,

by Bavafa on Fri Jul 30, 2010 08:58 AM PDT

With such statement such as

"All we need is the resolve to demand our right, not as Iranians, but as human beings. And our right that you so easily seem to want to give away to RP with your rather pathetically poised polite plea, is FREEDOM"

aren't you easily giving away your right and other Iranians right to live to Israelis by bombing Iran?

Are you all content and assured that such attack, even if they managed to bomb only nuclear sites will not harm Iranians by possibly spreading harmful radiation or when Iran [justifiably] counter attack and escalating it into a full fletch war.

Seannewyork: Although I can not find it on the net, but I have seen his interview with Faux news during Bush years that he was in agreement of "stopping Iran at any cost" which of course they were talking of war at the time.

Mehrdad

interesting

by seannewyork on Fri Jul 30, 2010 08:17 AM PDT

i think you make some interesting requests, I have never heard Mr. Pahlavi being pro war.  Can you pull up an interview, document, ect to show this?

 But I think you have some good suggestion.

Useless Open Letters...

by eroonman on Fri Jul 30, 2010 07:53 AM PDT

I am SO TIRED of these monthly "Open Letters to..." Do you actually think you are talking to the person? Worse, do you think RP and his many rightwing monarchist handlers would actually listen? Don't get me wrong, if you wrote me an open letter and I heard about it, I can guarantee that not only would I read it, but I would write you back, and if your guidance was useful I would thank you. If not, I would object.

But to think that your "letter" would be read by RP, is the height of naivete (and not a little arrogance).

1) WE DON'T NEED RP: I'm not sure if you've read the papers since 1979 but the Pahlavis, after 30 years of corruption and ineptitude, committed the ultimate betrayal AND LEFT US! I will never give credit to the mollahs for merely stepping into the GREAT VOID OF 1979 during which the top businessmen and other wannabes, who had cozied up to the Shah, upon hearing he was about to repeat his 1953 cowardice and leave Iran for the West, got up sold off and left Iran with their children and wives for the very same Westwood you apparently yearn for with your respectful observation of RP's recent bi-sexual performance there.

2) Have you been to Natanz and the other locations of Iran's nuclear facilities? They are nowhere near Tehran, nor any major population. Israel and the US have conducted publicly available wargames, simulations, and video games of the potential attack on these facilities, and at NO TIME have there been any assumptions, rumors, or threats that they would attack your Uncles and Aunts, or any population centers of a regime that you repeatedly and routinely seem to support with your visits and more damaging your dollars. The attack, when and if it comes will be surgical and focused on stopping Iran's nuclear intentions, which if you still think are peaceful, I have a bridge to nowhere in Natanz to sell you. Yes, there is a possibility that the bombs that are dropped on Natanz could be swept away by a sudden gust of unexplainable wind and accidentally hit some innocent people. But that will be Allah's fault.

3) STOP EXPECTING POWER TO SAVE YOU; It's really simple. In spite of our heritage and historic tendency to need one, we don't actually need a hero.

What we need, is to bury Rostam.

All we need is the resolve to demand our right, not as Iranians, but as human beings. And our right that you so easily seem to want to give away to RP with your rather pathetically poised polite plea, is FREEDOM.

Don't worry once we have that, your Uncles and Aunts will be happier and won't need to see you so much, and you can get on with your life.