Target: Iran

[August1991]

Afghanistan was not about a pipeline. To a certain segment of the political spectrum, its always about America and oil. They will stretch to fit the facts around the thesis, as all ideologues do.

But on topic, America will not invade Iran but there may be a military strike against any perceived nuclear capabilities.

I too am perplexed by the way some people cling to this "It's the Crude, Dude" thesis.

As for your other point, I too agree there will be no invasion but I fear that a military strike is becoming more likely.

The United States says Iran is only further isolating itself with its nuclear decisions, the latest being Wednesday's removal of U.N. inspectors' seals at its Isfahan uranium plant. U.S. officials say consensus is building for a strong rebuke of Iran by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

VOA

What are the Iranians up to?

[Toro]

I think its pretty simple. And rational. There are nuclear powers to the east of Iran - China, India and Pakistan, a nuclear power to the north of Iran - Russia, and nuclear powers to the west of Iran - the US in Iraq and Israel.

[SirSpanky]

What are the Iranians up to?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Placation?

[Black Dog]

Afghanistan was not about a pipeline. To a certain segment of the political spectrum, its always about America and oil. They will stretch to fit the facts around the thesis, as all ideologues do.

I too am perplexed by the way some people cling to this "It's the Crude, Dude" thesis.

You guys ever look at a map?

As for your other point, I too agree there will be no invasion but I fear that a military strike is becoming more likely.

Given that a military strike against Iran would be the stupidest move possible, I expect one is coming.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Black Dog,

Given that a military strike against Iran would be the stupidest move possible, I expect one is coming.

I would expect it to come in the form of some of the 100 or so bunker-busters the US recently sold to Israel.

[Black Dog]

I would expect it to come in the form of some of the 100 or so bunker-busters the US recently sold to Israel.

Which would somehow be an even stupider move.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Black Dog,

I would expect it to come in the form of some of the 100 or so bunker-busters the US recently sold to Israel.

Which would somehow be an even stupider move

Many believe it was the sole purpose for the sale. Check out ...

http://www.globalsecurity.org/

Also, in the book "By Way of Deception", by Victor Ostrovsky, Israel evidently sold Iran it's (faulty) air-defense systems for their nuclear facilities. (though it was some time ago, they may have been upgraded)

[Black Dog]

Dear Black Dog,

I would expect it to come in the form of some of the 100 or so bunker-busters the US recently sold to Israel.

Which would somehow be an even stupider move

Many believe it was the sole purpose for the sale. Check out ...

http://www.globalsecurity.org/

Also, in the book "By Way of Deception", by Victor Ostrovsky, Israel evidently sold Iran it's (faulty) air-defense systems for their nuclear facilities. (though it was some time ago, they may have been upgraded)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Oh, I don't doubt that at all. I'm just saying, from a strategic standpoint, sending Israel to take out Iran's nuclear facilities would open a can of worms that would not benefit the U.S. in the region.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Black Dog,

I'm just saying, from a strategic standpoint, sending Israel to take out Iran's nuclear facilities would open a can of worms that would not benefit the U.S. in the region.

Israel would not be acting on the US' orders. Israel only acts with Israel's interests in mind, period. Israel has a lot of contempt for the US, their love-affair isn't a two-way street.

They would have a bit of a tougher time because Iran is at the extreme range of Israeli delivery capability (from fighters-bombers) but it is possible.

However, the US might like the idea, because they themselves couldn't do it without repercussions, while Israel could, and could also count on the US coming to their aid should there be a 'Muslim, anti-Israel backlash'. Then, the US would have a much freer hand in the Middle East, and it wouldn't look like the US started the obliterations.

[Black Dog]

Israel would not be acting on the US' orders. Israel only acts with Israel's interests in mind, period. Israel has a lot of contempt for the US, their love-affair isn't a two-way street.

I don't know about contempt, but the economic realities (and the reality that Israel's military is almost wholly dependent on US equipment) wold say that Israel would not step out of line. They've done so in teh past, of course, but not in a situation that would damage U.S. interests and threaten U.S. lives to the degree a a strike on Iran would.

They would have a bit of a tougher time because Iran is at the extreme range of Israeli delivery capability (from fighters-bombers) but it is possible.

However, the US might like the idea, because they themselves couldn't do it without repercussions, while Israel could, and could also count on the US coming to their aid should there be a 'Muslim, anti-Israel backlash'. Then, the US would have a much freer hand in the Middle East, and it wouldn't look like the US started the obliterations.

Um..I think an Israeli attack, using American jets dropping American bombs after flying over American-controlled airspace would be easily and quickly laid at the U.S.'s doorstep. Imagine the hornet's nest that attacking a Shiite nation like Iran would stir up in the Shiite dominated Iraq (where the majority has been mostly amenable to American intervention). As for the backlash, I expect most Arab nations kno wbetter than to try Israel one on one. Instead, we'd see more support for militant groups like Hizbullah from Iran and Syria. You'd probably see a sudden upswing in the number of "insurgents" crossing the Syrian and Iranian borders to fight the U.S. in Iraq, and these insurgents would be better trained and equipped than ever before. In short an attack on Iran, either by the U.S. or israel, would hamstring the U.S's efforts in the Middle East.

[Argus]

Oh, I don't doubt that at all. I'm just saying, from a strategic standpoint, sending Israel to take out Iran's nuclear facilities would open a can of worms that would not benefit the U.S. in the region.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There is no doubt that an Israeli and/or American attack on Iran's nuclear facilities would enrage many in the Muslim world and would, as you say "open a can of worms" to say the least. It is to be deeply hoped such a thing can be avoided.

but...

Are the consequences of bombing Iran's nuclear facilities worse or better than allowing Iran to gain nuclear weapons, presuming that is their intent, and I think most agree it is.

Recall that former Iranian president Rafsanjani stated that the moment Iran gets nukes they should use them on Israel, no matter what the retaliation, because the Muslim world is spread out and would survive, but Israel would not.

And recall that he was the moderate in the last election... and lost.

[August1991]

In short an attack on Iran, either by the U.S. or israel, would hamstring the U.S's efforts in the Middle East.

I agree, BD, and I think that's why Iran is pushing the envelope by removing the UN seals. Iran wants to see how far it can go.

OTOH, Israel doesn't get involved in deep philosophical speculation on such issues.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Argus,

Are the consequences of bombing Iran's nuclear facilities worse or better than allowing Iran to gain nuclear weapons, presuming that is their intent, and I think most agree it is.

Recall that former Iranian president Rafsanjani stated that the moment Iran gets nukes they should use them on Israel, no matter what the retaliation, because the Muslim world is spread out and would survive, but Israel would not.

I do believe that this is, and always will be, the thinking of Israel. (not that it is wrong) It is also the reason that Israel wouldn't care too much about the US' interests in the region, if they feel that their survival is threatened.

Black Dog,

I don't know about contempt, but the economic realities (and the reality that Israel's military is almost wholly dependent on US equipment) wold say that Israel would not step out of line. They've done so in teh past, of course, but not in a situation that would damage U.S. interests and threaten U.S. lives to the degree a a strike on Iran would.

Yes, Israel stuck at the Osirak nuclear facility in Iraq, and I don't know that Iran would be seen in any different light than Iraq by Israel.

[Black Dog]

Are the consequences of bombing Iran's nuclear facilities worse or better than allowing Iran to gain nuclear weapons, presuming that is their intent, and I think most agree it is.

Recall that former Iranian president Rafsanjani stated that the moment Iran gets nukes they should use them on Israel, no matter what the retaliation, because the Muslim world is spread out and would survive, but Israel would not.

Sounds like he took a page out of Nixon's "madman" approach to foreign policy. I think it's posturing, a bit of bluster to keep the populace riled up against the "Zionist enemy" and distracted from their own lot in life.

[Argus]

Are the consequences of bombing Iran's nuclear facilities worse or better than allowing Iran to gain nuclear weapons, presuming that is their intent, and I think most agree it is.

Recall that former Iranian president Rafsanjani stated that the moment Iran gets nukes they should use them on Israel, no matter what the retaliation, because the Muslim world is spread out and would survive, but Israel would not.

Sounds like he took a page out of Nixon's "madman" approach to foreign policy. I think it's posturing, a bit of bluster to keep the populace riled up against the "Zionist enemy" and distracted from their own lot in life.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That would be nice. And posturing might well have been a part of it. But we know there are those in the Muslim world who would believe that to be a perfectly reasonable suggestion, and what Allah would want. And the man who beat Rafsanfani is worse than he ever was.

And how do you expect Israel to react to a country whose president once told a crowd (to thunderous applause) that he would nuke israel the moment he gets nukes, as they watch Iran trying to develop nukes? I do not think there is any way that Israel will allow Iran to develop nukes. I think that if negotiations, sanctions, or whatnot fails and it looks to Israel like Iran is close to developing nukes Israel will hammer them, no matter what it takes and no matter who it outrages.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Argus,

Rafsanjani: IAEA Board resolution on Iran "tyrannical"

IRNA - Islamic Republic News Agency

Tehran, Aug 12, IRNA

Iran-Nuclear-Rafsanjani

Tehran's Friday prayers substitute leader Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani on Friday dismissed the Thursday resolution of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Board of Governors on Iran's peaceful nuclear program as "very tyrannical."

Rafsanjani told multitudes of worshipers, "One should not take yesterday's event easily."

He said that's a "highly important" event and will put us and the region possibly under new conditions, opening a new chapter in our revolution.

He criticized certain Board members for turning back to Iran and stopping support for Tehran.

"It's highly surprising and amazing some countries initially supported us and even superficially delayed the meeting for two days but then through agreement adopted what the three European states and the US wanted and nobody opposed."

Rafsanjani said he would later elaborate on the reasons and the causes the resolution was adopted at the IAEA Board meeting.

He said the same center, which explicitly says all countries have the right to benefit from the peaceful advantages of the latest and profit-making nuclear technology, has adopted such a "tyrannical" decision against Iran.

He went on to say, "We are now in the preliminary stage of enriching a substance which exists in our country to use the product for energy generation, medical, agricultural and other scientific purposes."

He said Tehran has accepted all the safeguards agreements and implemented them even before ratification of the additional protocol of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) at Majlis.

The Expediency Council Chairman said Iran has excessively been humble and cooperative in the field and even suspended its activities for the sake of winning others' confidence

Rafsanjani said, "We could hardly think a global center will before eyes of the world adopt through a consensus a resolution which would mandate Iran to suspend all its activities and return to the past."

He said there are certain people saying Iran should not at all have nuclear technology and there are certain others who keep Iran waiting and order it to suspend the activities as a confidence- building gesture.

"The big powers are falsely thinking that through such a tyrannical move Iran will go backward and certain groups such as Israel also issue military threats against us," said Rafsanjani.

"Meanwhile," Rafsanjani said, "(the US Defense Secretary Donald) Rumsfeld and Britain-- despite their knowledge that Iran has a big role in Iraq's development and spread of democracy there and that Iran has done and will continue doing nothing other than Iraq's progress and restoration of calm to the country -- claim that we are sending arms to Iraq," said Rafsanjani.

Addressing himself to the west, Rafsanjani said, "You should know that Iran is not a place with which you can treat like Iraq and Libya."

He said, "You might drag us on and not let Iran tread the path to development of knowledge but you are mistaken."

Insisting that Iran's decision is irreversible, Rafsanjani said "That's for 25 years that you have been treating us this way and eventually dealt a blow both on us and yourself but Tehran's decision is irreversible."

Rafsanjani called on the officialdom to treat the issue prudently.

He also advised foreigners not to deal with the region, Iran and the nuclear energy issues that way because such behaviors might have temporary results but have no results on the long-run.

He stressed that Iranian people are vigilant and on the scene and would not allow others to deprive Iranian nation of the big right.

Looks like Rafsanjani is still at it...this was taken from www.globalsecurity.org. Not sure how much power he still has, but if he was the moderate, things don't look good. Assuming, of course, that the plan to eventually use the nukes. It looks as though the development of them is destined to move beyond posturing.

[theloniusfleabag]

Here is another link to the technical side...

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iran-strikes.htm

[theloniusfleabag]

I think that if negotiations, sanctions, or whatnot fails and it looks to Israel like Iran is close to developing nukes Israel will hammer them, no matter what it takes and no matter who it outrages.

I think most of the world has to reluctantly agree with that statement.

[August1991]

In a wide-ranging speech, Mr Bush also tackled the issue of Iran's nuclear ambition - which Tehran insists is solely to provide power, but the US believes may be used to develop weapons.

"Iran's active pursuit of technology that could lead to nuclear weapons threatens to put a region already known for instability and violence under the shadow of a nuclear holocaust," he said.

"Iran's actions threaten the security of nations everywhere.

"We will confront this danger before it is too late."

BBC

Huh? What's that supposed to mean?