Iran's economy is hemorrhaging and in free fall!

DogOnPorch · October 2, 2012

They already ARE a threat. ISrael is openly talking about attacking Iran, even though Israeli intelligence says that all Iran has no nuclear program. They are threatening war with Iran over something Iran as an NPT signatory has the legal right to do... enrich uranium.

I'm not sure of the status of Iran's bomb-plans, but their ICBM program has been proceeding without much interruption...or real notice given by the media obsessed with the part that goes 'bang'. They now have MIRV capability, high speed reentry shrouds and are busy perfecting the mating of the Samen SRB with the Safir/Shahab 3. They've actually done a few test launches of small satellites into LEO which means it can get a payload to over 7.5km per second. That was with, I believe, 2 of the SRBs. Four will up the payload dramatically.

dre · October 2, 2012

I'm not sure of the status of Iran's bomb-plans, but their ICBM program has been proceeding without much interruption...or real notice given by the media obsessed with the part that goes 'bang'. They now have MIRV capability, high speed reentry shrouds and are busy perfecting the mating of the Samen SRB with the Safir/Shahab 3. They've actually done a few test launches of small satellites into LEO which means it can get a payload to over 7.5km per second. That was with, I believe, 2 of the SRBs. Four will up the payload dramatically.

They now have MIRV capability

They claimed they had that, but western intelligence doesnt believe they do. In fact, they believe the test Iran touted as an MIRV test was nothing more a modified artillary shell.

dre · October 2, 2012

I thought the issue was how MUCH enriched uranium Iran is making!

Even if Iran does not use it in a bomb, it appears to be far more than what is needed for reactors. Why does Iran need so much? Is there a good reason?

If they have such a surplus, are there unfriendly powers or groups that would buy it?

Thats exactly why the IAEA monitors the nuclear programs of NPT signatories, and thats why it was a huge mistake for us to demand a halt to enrichment instead of proper monitoring regime. We knew full-well they were not going to stop enrichment. That demand is an attempt to escalate not to solve the underlying issues.

DogOnPorch · October 2, 2012

They claimed they had that, but western intelligence doesnt believe they do. In fact, they believe the test Iran touted as an MIRV test was nothing more a modified artillary shell.

I'd be interested in a link for that one. Iran's ICBM program is secret, robust and with much resources spent. It has been able to overcome problems in the past.

The reality remains is that Iran proceeds down to the road to intercontinental capability with both solid (Sejjil) and liquid (Shahab and its cousins) lines of rockets. They're only going to get better...not worse.

Pakistan and North Korea, of course, are two other potential global threats in this area. Nutz with bombs n' rockets.

bleeding heart · October 3, 2012

The problem is we have a huge propoganda machine thats purpose is to make you think our adversaries are crazed animals with nothing on their mind but killing. Our governments do that because if we thought folks on the other side were just "other people" we wouldnt tolerate our government slaughtering them.

So you need to ignore that all the rhetoric from our politicians, and try to be objective.

The Sandanista "terrorists and subversives are two days driving time from Arlington, Texas." --Ronald Reagan

TimG · October 3, 2012

This is a situation where people should calm the hell down, and go by the letter of the law. Iran has a legal right as an NPT signatory to enrich. The IAEA has the legal right to open access to monitor facilities. That process broke down because we made unlawful demands, and now we marching towards a conflict.

Please elaborate - what were these unlawful demands? (preferably by referring to the legal documents that you claim have been violated). Edited October 3, 2012 by TimG

Wild Bill · October 3, 2012

Thats exactly why the IAEA monitors the nuclear programs of NPT signatories, and thats why it was a huge mistake for us to demand a halt to enrichment instead of proper monitoring regime. We knew full-well they were not going to stop enrichment. That demand is an attempt to escalate not to solve the underlying issues.

I don't understand. You agree that they are enriching far more than reactors would need, in a quantity that would be appropriate to making a nuclear weapon or at least, selling it to some other power trying to do such.

And it is OUR fault for demanding they stop? That instead we should have demanded a more "proper monitoring regime" so that we would have a better tally on how much extra uranium they had enriched?

If they indeed are producing that much enriched uranium, does that not make them a valid threat?

I don't follow you here at all, my good Dr. Dre!

GostHacked · October 3, 2012

I'm sure Iran and the socialist apologists in Canada will say it's the fault of Israel.

Ask Iraq and Syria about Israel's actions on their nuke sites. Israeli apologists?

kraychik · October 3, 2012

The economic war on Iran has been going on for a few years now. Sanctions don't hurt the government, they hurt the citizens of the country.

I agree with this, for the most part. I don't think the tyranny in Iran will collapse without revolution or war.

kraychik · October 3, 2012

Iran is not suicidal. If all your neighbouring countries were being invaded and taken over, what would you do? Iran is acting logical in the sense that the bomb would give them a sense of protection. We can see how quick the west backed off on North Korea once they obtained the ability.

Yes. Iran is acting logically, in its own way.

If you are worried about a nuke attack, I'd be concentrating on the trouble in Pakistan where they do have nukes and the country is in bad shape where the possibility of stolen nuclear material can happen much easier.

Yes, but Iran adds to that threat.

I can say with certainty that Iran will not be throwing the first punch. But if they are attacked by anyone in the west, the you can be sure they will retaliate.

You cannot say that with certainty. And Iran has been engaged in "low-level" conflict with America and Israel for decades. It supplies Hamas and Hezbollah, as well as terrorist organisations that operate in and around Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Lebanon, Gaza, and Pakistan. Iran has plenty of blood on its hands, and certainly doesn't have good intentions that line up with our interests that it seeks to act upon once it secures nuclear weapons.

kraychik · October 3, 2012

They already ARE a threat. ISrael is openly talking about attacking Iran, even though Israeli intelligence says that all Iran has no nuclear program. They are threatening war with Iran over something Iran as an NPT signatory has the legal right to do... enrich uranium.

This a all a huge micharacterisation of these events. Where do you think Hezbollah and Hamas get their weapons and technology that they use for their terrorism against Israel? I guess when Iran does something, it's not a threat, but when Israel says something, it is a threat.

It's unsurprising to get this narrative from you, considering you don't think the Muslim Brotherhood is an Islamist organisation. They're "largely secular", right?

Michael Hardner · October 3, 2012

I agree with this, for the most part. I don't think the tyranny in Iran will collapse without revolution or war.

Tyrannies seldom do, it's true. But there is some room for hope. Bloodless or near-bloodless coups happen too.

DogOnPorch · October 3, 2012

This a all a huge micharacterisation of these events. Where do you think Hezbollah and Hamas get their weapons and technology that they use for their terrorism against Israel? I guess when Iran does something, it's not a threat, but when Israel says something, it is a threat.

It's unsurprising to get this narrative from you, considering you don't think the Muslim Brotherhood is an Islamist organisation. They're "largely secular", right?

Like most of his sort, AK-47s come from the AK-47 tree, of course.

GostHacked · October 3, 2012

You cannot say that with certainty. And Iran has been engaged in "low-level" conflict with America and Israel for decades. It supplies Hamas and Hezbollah, as well as terrorist organisations that operate in and around Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Lebanon, Gaza, and Pakistan. Iran has plenty of blood on its hands, and certainly doesn't have good intentions that line up with our interests that it seeks to act upon once it secures nuclear weapons.

And the west has not been screwing with Iran for as long, or longer?

jacee · October 3, 2012

So you think that a nuke armed Iran would be responsible and would never use those nukes?

Do you think a nuke armed US would be responsible and would never use those nukes?

DogOnPorch · October 3, 2012

And the west has not been screwing with Iran for as long, or longer?

The 'West' has been 'screwing with' Iran/Persia since the Ionian Revolt and Marathon.

GostHacked · October 3, 2012

This a all a huge micharacterisation of these events. Where do you think Hezbollah and Hamas get their weapons and technology that they use for their terrorism against Israel? I guess when Iran does something, it's not a threat, but when Israel says something, it is a threat.

Iran did not bomb Iraq's nuclear site.

Iran did not bomb Syria's nuclear site.

Guess who is going to bomb Iran's?

kraychik · October 3, 2012

And the west has not been screwing with Iran for as long, or longer?

Hardly. Are you now going to tell us all that the CIA "installed" the Shah, and that things in Iran would have been completely different had it not been for American "interference"? If anything, America should be criticised for allowing Iran to plunge into Islamism via Carter, assuming that America had the means to prevent the tyrannical takeover of Iran in 1979.

kraychik · October 3, 2012

Do you think a nuke armed US would be responsible and would never use those nukes?

Is it your contention that nuclear weapons cannot be justifiably used under any circumstances? I'd make an easy few dollars betting that you believe the bombings on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were unjustifiable and constitutes "war crimes". You are a communist, after all.

DogOnPorch · October 3, 2012

Hardly. Are you now going to tell us all that the CIA "installed" the Shah, and that things in Iran would have been completely different had it not been for American "interference"? If anything, America should be criticised for allowing Iran to plunge into Islamism via Carter, assuming that America had the means to prevent the tyrannical takeover of Iran in 1979.

It's a standard story...but that's all it is. The reality is that the Shah was put on the Peacock throne by Stalin and Churchill when his father started thinking the 3rd Reich was the horse to bet on in 1941. The 1953 coup, although assisted by the CIA with logistics (their role was essential), was very much an Iranian military coup against the Mossadegh government.

Edited October 3, 2012 by DogOnPorch

GostHacked · October 3, 2012

Hardly. Are you now going to tell us all that the CIA "installed" the Shah,

Don't take my word for it ....

https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/csi-studies/studies/vol48no2/article10.html

At an NSC meeting in early 1953, President Dwight Eisenhower said "it was a matter of great distress to him that we seemed unable to get some of these down-trodden countries to like us instead of hating us."1 The problem has likewise distressed all administrations since, and is emerging as the core conundrum of American policy in Iraq. In All the Shah's Men, Stephen Kinzer of the New York Times suggests that the explanation may lie next door in Iran, where the CIA carried out its first successful regime-change operation over half a century ago. The target was not an oppressive Soviet puppet but a democratically elected government whose populist ideology and nationalist fervor threatened Western economic and geopolitical interests. The CIA's covert intervention—codenamed TPAJAX—preserved the Shah's power and protected Western control of a hugely lucrative oil infrastructure. It also transformed a turbulent constitutional monarchy into an absolutist kingship and induced a succession of unintended consequences at least as far ahead as the Islamic revolution of 1979—and, Kinzer argues in his breezily written, well-researched popular history, perhaps to today.

and that things in Iran would have been completely different had it not been for American "interference"? If anything, America should be criticised for allowing Iran to plunge into Islamism via Carter, assuming that America had the means to prevent the tyrannical takeover of Iran in 1979.

The 1979 revolution in Iran seemed to be due to the meddling of entities like the CIA.

DogOnPorch · October 3, 2012

Is it your contention that nuclear weapons cannot be justifiably used under any circumstances? I'd make an easy few dollars betting that you believe the bombings on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were unjustifiable and constitutes "war crimes". You are a communist, after all.

Meh...the US had plans to use up to 7 devices in the tactical role if Operation Olympic/Cornet went ahead. That would have been MILLIONS dead.

kraychik · October 3, 2012

It's a standard story...but that's all it is. The reality is that the Shah was put on the Peacock throne by Stalin and Churchill when his father started thinking the 3rd Reich was the horse to bet on in 1941. The 1953 coup, although assisted by the CIA with logistics (their role was essential), was very much an Iranian military coup against the Mossadegh government.

I completely reject the "conventional wisdom" of the left which asserts that American involvement was the be all and end all of events as they led up to and unfolded after the 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran. The narrative is that without American involvement, things would have been completely different and likely with better outcomes.

kraychik · October 3, 2012

Don't take my word for it ....

https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/csi-studies/studies/vol48no2/article10.html

The 1979 revolution in Iran seemed to be due to the meddling of entities like the CIA.

So you think the CIA composed the material you're posting because it's linked to the CIA's official domain? In other words, you're trying to assert that the CIA in on-board with your narrative?