Iran Admits It Could Pull Nuke Trigger on US, Israel

[scribblet]

They should've taken out that site when they could....

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/iran-nuclear-weapons-israel/2010/10/05/id/372644

By: Ken Timmerman

For the first time since the expansion of Iran’s nuclear program was exposed in 2002, the Iranian government is dropping the pretense that it is developing nuclear technology purely for peaceful purposes. Iran has developed nuclear war plans to deter U.S. and Israeli aggression and retaliate against it, a top adviser to Defense Minister Ahmad Vahidi announced in a strategic analysis.

Defense Ministry analyst Alireza Saeidabadi’s detailed analysis, published last week on a website that Iran’s intelligence ministry runs, examines several scenarios in which Iran could become embroiled in a shooting war with the United States or Israel.

One of the scenarios Iranian military planners must consider is a strategic nuclear U.S. strike on Iran, he writes. If that occurred, Iranian planning documents call for attacks against U.S. interests “on the world stage,” his analysis says.

The Iranian military should “prioritize its air force and ballistic missile fleet” in dealing with a conventional attack from Israel, Saeidabadi writes.

But in the event Israel uses unconventional weapons against Iran, “then Iran should employ a nuclear strategy.”

Similarly, if Iran and the United States get engaged in naval clashes in the Persian Gulf, Iran should “use its sea power for hit-and-run attacks, commando attacks, and use anti-shipping missiles” against U.S. naval vessels.

“But if the United States launches an unconventional attack, Iran needs to respond with a nuclear strategy,” the Iranian defense ministry analyst contends.

The meaning is clear to former Revolutionary Guards officer Reza Kahlili. “He means that Iran should be prepared with the capability of nuclear weapons to respond” if an enemy were to launch a nuclear strike against Iran, says Kahlili, author of a recent memoir, “A Time to Betray.”

“The use of nuclear technology for peaceful means is just a front,” Kahlili told Newsmax. “They are prepared to go to war and will not give up the bomb project, which they feel is very close to being able to arm their ballistic missiles with nuclear war heads.”

cont...

[Topaz]

I don't don't if the report is true, but the reason the Tories are pushing for the F-35 is that US and other countries may do something about Iran and N. Korea in the future and want the F-35 to do it. So its not about Canada's protection as it is other countries. Who knows what true any more.

[scribblet]

This is true - You have a point as far as knowing what's true and what isn't. Take the two different stories about the Strippers and Job Bank from the Star and the Post, in this case I would take the Posts. Different topic though.

[waldo]

This is true - You have a point as far as knowing what's true and what isn't.

anything verifiable... from other than the heavily slanted right-wing/Conservative mouthpiece, 'Newsmax.org'... and the article's very suspect author, 'Ken Timmerman'... of course, his article now spread across a brazillion sites?

Sourcewatch offers a little ditty on Timmerman in this same Iranian nuclear theme (within a broader reference to Newsmax.org):

There is ample evidence to support the theory that NewsMax is one of a growing number of right-wing "news" sources and blogs that act as an echo chamber for the conservative viewpoint.

A classic example of this is a December 4, 2007 article by conservative author and activist Kenneth R. Timmerman. Responding to a National Intelligence Estimate report stating Iran had halted its nuclear bomb program in 2003, Timmerman attacks the study by smearing its authors. Timmerman's piece has few verifiable facts. Most of his "sources" are "unnamed."It is, however full of innuendo and opinion.(In the piece Timmerman quotes one of his own books six times.) The echo chamber effect is apparent when a quick Google search for news on the NIE study produces hundreds of right wing sites that quote the Timmerman article's conclusions as fact

somehow, today's CNN article on the upcoming planned nuclear talks seems to miss that Timmerman 'scoop'

[dre]

They should've taken out that site when they could....

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/iran-nuclear-weapons-israel/2010/10/05/id/372644

By: Ken Timmerman

cont...

Disarding the Authors opinion and going by the alledged quotes from the Iranian Defense Minister... I really dont see much here. Hes saying things like "we should" and "we need". This doesnt seem at all suprising to me. Thats a military standpoint... of course hed like to have that capability. And like any other defense agency of course theyre going to go through hypothetical scenarios.

Hes saying that in his opinion, if someone uses Nukes on Iran, that Iran "should" have the capability to respond with nukes. Well... Duh.... this guys the Minister of defense what the hell else is he going to say?

"If the US uses nuclear weapons against Iran we should respond with.... spears!".

[dre]

And this part...

The meaning is clear to former Revolutionary Guards officer Reza Kahlili. “He means that Iran should be prepared with the capability of nuclear weapons to respond” if an enemy were to launch a nuclear strike against Iran, says Kahlili, author of a recent memoir

Again... OF COURSE the guy in charge of Irans defense is going to think this. The defense apparatus of ANY country under threat of foreign aggression would love to have a nuclear deterent. That doesnt mean hes going to get one.

[grainfedprairieboy]

What I always find amazing is the friends of those long haired hippy type pinkos who together see the West as the enemy and strongly advocate for a complete disarmament of our own nukes but for those countries who are antithematic to every social issue they believe in, from women to gays to justice to religion, they will go out of their way to defend and promote the rights of these terrorist, theocracies and dictators to acquire their own nuclear weapons.

[dre]

What I always find amazing is the friends of those long haired hippy type pinkos who together see the West as the enemy and strongly advocate for a complete disarmament of our own nukes but for those countries who are antithematic to every social issue they believe in, from women to gays to justice to religion, they will go out of their way to defend and promote the rights of these terrorist, theocracies and dictators to acquire their own nuclear weapons.

Thats just an outright willfull and deliberate strawman, and a complete mischaracterization of the opposing position. Dishonest quite frankly.

[grainfedprairieboy]

Thats just an outright willfull and deliberate strawman, and a complete mischaracterization of the opposing position. Dishonest quite frankly.

Yes but how do you feel about my position?

[dre]

Yes but how do you feel about my position?

I dont know what your position is... Heres your only post in this thread.

What I always find amazing is the friends of those long haired hippy type pinkos who together see the West as the enemy and strongly advocate for a complete disarmament of our own nukes but for those countries who are antithematic to every social issue they believe in, from women to gays to justice to religion, they will go out of their way to defend and promote the rights of these terrorist, theocracies and dictators to acquire their own nuclear weapons.

You dont even weigh in on the OP. Nor do you express any opinions about Irans nuclear program, or whether or not they have substancial weaponization programs, or what the article means.

Whats your position?

[grainfedprairieboy]

I dont know what your position is... Heres your only post in this thread.

Um......it was sarcasm, reread your original rebuttal.

You dont even weigh in on the OP. Nor do you express any opinions about Irans nuclear program, or whether or not they have substancial weaponization programs, or what the article means.

I don't like any country possessing nuclear weapons so the addition of each new country to the nuclear club is a step in the wrong direction in my opinion. If we as a species are ever going to evolve beyond our capabilities to destroy ourselves we need to draw a line in the sand and say no more.

Whats your position?

That Iran is probably one of the top three states that if they possessed nuclear weapons would use them to advance the agenda of Allah.

That while the classic M.A.D. may prevent nuclear war with everyone else, it is a whole different ball game when the button pusher thinks he is fulfilling the wish of his god and will be eternally rewarded and the obliteration of his own nation is seen as god's will.

As such, I strongly oppose any new member of the nuclear club, including Canada, and especially oppose their possession by any theocratic state. When it comes to theocratic states, I believe that conventional warfare is justified in preventing their acquisition of nuclear weapons.

[Jack Weber]

What I always find amazing is the friends of those long haired hippy type pinkos who together see the West as the enemy and strongly advocate for a complete disarmament of our own nukes but for those countries who are antithematic to every social issue they believe in, from women to gays to justice to religion, they will go out of their way to defend and promote the rights of these terrorist, theocracies and dictators to acquire their own nuclear weapons.

Gee...

Other than the last statement,you've hit all the usual right wing kook talking points in one sentence!!!

Kudos...

[eyeball]

What I always find amazing is the friends of those long haired hippy type pinkos who together see the West as the enemy and strongly advocate for a complete disarmament of our own nukes

That's odd, I probably fall into the category you describe and I have no problem whatsoever with Canada having nukes.

but for those countries who are antithematic to every social issue they believe in, from women to gays to justice to religion, they will go out of their way to defend and promote the rights of these terrorist, theocracies and dictators to acquire their own nuclear weapons.

No not defend so much as understand perfectly well why they would want their own too.

In addition to the other social issues I believe in I also believe most of the terrorists, theocracies and dictators you mention would never have got off the ground if the West had just minded it's own god damn business and not caused so much anathematism towards itself.

Edited October 16, 2010 by eyeball

[grainfedprairieboy]

Gee...

Other than the last statement,you've hit all the usual right wing kook talking points in one sentence!!!

Kudos...

Oh...OK,....I see how this works with you;

then by golly I must object to Iran having nukes because they are all hairy hook-nosed, uni-browed dune coons who either come here and steal all our cashier and janitorial jobs then wear garish jewelry and beat our good white women or stay in Iran where 75% are terrorists and the other 25% are girls married off and covered before puberty.

If I wasn't such a sheeple and actually looked at the evidence I would see how Bush and his people pulled off 9/11 and blamed it on the muslims and that Amerikkka is a puppet of the Jew and the real enemy of world peace.

[grainfedprairieboy]

That's odd, I probably fall into the category you describe and I have no problem whatsoever with Canada having nukes.

What the world doesn't need is more countries with nuclear weapons or any types of weapons of mass destruction. We need to ban the research and production of such things and not base their acceptability on whom is doing the stockpiling.

No not defend so much as understand perfectly well why they would want their own too.

Every country could use them for that matter. Hey, remember when the Spanish were fishing our territorial waters years ago? Instead of warships and bow shots we could've saved a great deal of effort and threatened to nuke them.

In addition to the other social issues I believe in I also believe most of the terrorists, theocracies and dictators you mention would never have got off the ground if the West had just minded it's own god damn business and not caused so much anathematism towards itself.

So if I agree with you and evil western political and corporate interests created these dictators then I should have to suck it up that they deserve nukes?

I really disagree with your thinking here.

[Jack Weber]

Oh...OK,....I see how this works with you;

then by golly I must object to Iran having nukes because they are all hairy hook-nosed, uni-browed dune coons who either come here and steal all our cashier and janitorial jobs then wear garish jewelry and beat our good white women or stay in Iran where 75% are terrorists and the other 25% are girls married off and covered before puberty.

If I wasn't such a sheeple and actually looked at the evidence I would see how Bush and his people pulled off 9/11 and blamed it on the muslims and that Amerikkka is a puppet of the Jew and the real enemy of world peace.

No...

Not shockingly,you don't know how it works with me,kiddo...

The above that you posted gets filed in the "pinheaded gibberish" category...

Enjoy your cluelessness...

[dre]

Um......it was sarcasm, reread your original rebuttal.

I don't like any country possessing nuclear weapons so the addition of each new country to the nuclear club is a step in the wrong direction in my opinion. If we as a species are ever going to evolve beyond our capabilities to destroy ourselves we need to draw a line in the sand and say no more.

That Iran is probably one of the top three states that if they possessed nuclear weapons would use them to advance the agenda of Allah.

That while the classic M.A.D. may prevent nuclear war with everyone else, it is a whole different ball game when the button pusher thinks he is fulfilling the wish of his god and will be eternally rewarded and the obliteration of his own nation is seen as god's will.

As such, I strongly oppose any new member of the nuclear club, including Canada, and especially oppose their possession by any theocratic state. When it comes to theocratic states, I believe that conventional warfare is justified in preventing their acquisition of nuclear weapons.

That Iran is probably one of the top three states that if they possessed nuclear weapons would use them to advance the agenda of Allah.

That while the classic M.A.D. may prevent nuclear war with everyone else, it is a whole different ball game when the button pusher thinks he is fulfilling the wish of his god and will be eternally rewarded and the obliteration of his own nation is seen as god's will.

Your assumption that Irans leader is reckless and suicidal is unfounded. Hes actually a relatively carefull person thats focused mostly on holding onto power. Iran is essentially run by a clerical oligarchy... these are men with good lives, tons of wealth and power... not likely to commit suicide on behalf of the entire persian race with a first Nuclear strike.

Its more likely that Iran sees itself as more of a regional player now that Saddam is gone, and theyre interested in projecting their influence in the region to a greater extent. A nuclear deterent will make it a little safer for them to do that.

[grainfedprairieboy]

No...

Not shockingly,you don't know how it works with me,kiddo...

I know you're the site dramacrat.

[grainfedprairieboy]

Your assumption that Irans leader is reckless and suicidal is unfounded. Hes actually a relatively carefull person thats focused mostly on holding onto power. Iran is essentially run by a clerical oligarchy... these are men with good lives, tons of wealth and power... not likely to commit suicide on behalf of the entire persian race with a first Nuclear strike.

Its more likely that Iran sees itself as more of a regional player now that Saddam is gone, and theyre interested in projecting their influence in the region to a greater extent. A nuclear deterent will make it a little safer for them to do that.

Every single point here is good and I agree to varying levels believe it or not.

But nothing here either suggests to me that Iran deserves to possess weapons of mass destruction or more importantly, should possess such weapons.

[Jack Weber]

I know you're the site dramacrat.

You know absolutely nothing... And your feeble minded response only underscores that fact...And the knowledge of that probably hurts your pea brained Albertan feelings...

Go make your pissant self useful and pump us some oil...

[grainfedprairieboy]

You know absolutely nothing... And your feeble minded response only underscores that fact...And the knowledge of that probably hurts your pea brained Albertan feelings...

Go make your pissant self useful and pump us some oil...

Are you sure you're not Scott Reid?

C'mon Scott...........C'mon outta the closet...........

[Jack Weber]

Are you sure you're not Scott Reid?

C'mon Scott...........C'mon outta the closet...........

Scott Ried is a partisan shill...

You're a scumbag traitor...

And you still know nothing..

Now go try to seperate so we can kick you pissant ass's back to Montana...Or into the mountains were you can survive on mountain goat hide and moss...And then your property can be confiscated and resold to Canadians who want to be Canadians...

One less traitor in this country is'nt going to hurt this country one iota....

[grainfedprairieboy]

Scott Ried is a partisan shill...

Oops....found some common ground here.

You're a scumbag traitor...

Must make you feel like a real dirt bag that a traitor is a better Canadian then you. Does that inspire confidence in your side?

And you still know nothing..

Au...hilt.

Now go try to seperate so we can kick you pissant ass's back to Montana...Or into the mountains were you can survive on mountain goat hide and moss...And then your property can be confiscated and resold to Canadians who want to be Canadians...

That's what happened to us the first time. We won't be so easy this century.

One less traitor in this country is'nt going to hurt this country one iota....

But one patriot more would really help. When you gonna stand up for Canada Jack? When you going to put up something more then bluster?

Edited October 17, 2010 by grainfedprairieboy

[Jack Weber]

Oops....found some common ground here.

Must make you feel like a real dirt bag that a traitor is a better Canadian then you. Does that inspire confidence in your side?

Au...hilt.

That's what happened to us the first time. We won't be so easy this century.

But one patriot more would really help. When you gonna stand up for Canada Jack? When you going to put up something more then bluster?

1. Nope...Not a fan of the Liberal Party or the Left,actually...

2.You can't be a better Canadian...You're advertizing treason!

3.You won't stop anything...Again...Montana or mountian goat hide...Your choice!

4.You are'nt a patriot at all...You're scumbag traitor promoting a secession...

[Moonlight Graham]

Your assumption that Irans leader is reckless and suicidal is unfounded. Hes actually a relatively carefull person thats focused mostly on holding onto power. Iran is essentially run by a clerical oligarchy... these are men with good lives, tons of wealth and power... not likely to commit suicide on behalf of the entire persian race with a first Nuclear strike.

Its more likely that Iran sees itself as more of a regional player now that Saddam is gone, and theyre interested in projecting their influence in the region to a greater extent. A nuclear deterent will make it a little safer for them to do that.

I agree with this assessment. However, i think another primary reason for Iran wanting nukes is for self-defense against western aggression. The west has invaded the 2 states flanking Iran (Iraq and Afghanistan), so why wouldn't Iran want to protect itself against future aggression? It also sees its regional enemy Israel having nukes, and thus a nuke deterrent is also favourable to even the power-game.

As you stated, a nuclear first strike against Israel would be suicide, as would providing nukes to a terrorist organization if said nukes were to ever be traced back to Iran. Those that control Iran are not irrational, suicidal, martyring idiots.