View Full Version : Iran could be next
article (http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0817/dailyUpdate.html)
This will stir up a hornet's nest
The problem as I see it is this:
The intel agencies / the current administration (depends on your point of view, I don't want to go there) screwed up in presenting Iraq as an existential threat to the world, when it was clearly not.
Iraq was contained and was not a threat to the West (in WMD terms).
The subsequent invasion, defeat of the regular Iraqi army, and the onset of the insurgency has created a situation that has tied up massive military & economic resources (US$1Bilion per week according to Time Magazine).
At this point the US (and lets not kid ourselves, as much as other countries - the "coalition" - are involved, their commitments are small and dwindling) has two options:
1. Stay the course however long it may take to get Iraq stable and functioning (5 yrs? 10? 20?)
2. Declare "victory", pull the troops out and leave Iraq to implode and become either an Iranian proxy state or a new pre-2001 Afghanistan (terror central).
IMO if it becomes an Iranian proxy state it may well become terror central in any event.
I don't believe that the US pop. will cop the casualties they are currently experiencing for another 5 / 10 / 20 years.
This leaves option 2.
Iran is already sponsoring the insurgency in Iraq - is basically fighting the US using Iraqi and foreign insurgents, just it did using Hezbollah for so many years.
The country in the region that poses a real existential threat to Western countries is Iran, and they have been building their WMD capabilities and terror infrastructure over the past few years while Iraq has been the focus of US attention.
I don't believe the US populace would allow their administration to "shlep" the country into another war in the ME. It probably isn't economically or politically feasable.
SO....I think the bad news is that that leaves two further options:
1. an airstriake by the US / Israel or
2. Nothing
Cynic that I am, I feel, in the current world climate, probably nothing will happen till it's too late, and then what happens is anyones guess.
G
Bill Harsey
08-18-2005, 20:03
Just a small detail here, Iraq may have been contained but did that stop them from sharing what they could do or provide safe haven for those that would?
Mr Harsey
Iraq may well have been sharing what they knew or harbouring some minor groups or individuals from major groups - but so are any no. of the West's "Allies" in the region not to mention Pakistan (In the case of AQ Khan who has individually been responsible for the spread of more WMD knowledge to those we would not want to have it than any other individual / gvt and is currently being harboured by the Pakistani gvt, probably because he did what he did as a part of a covert Pakistani gvt program). Whew...what a mouthful!
In addition, I imagine that there are many wealthy individuals in that part of the world who are providing funding for the insurgency, just like they are / have for AQ, yet they seem "untouchable".
While I wish the US, UK & Aus had the willingness to do something about those countries / individuals, I think that any willingness that may have been there has evaporated because of where things stand in Iraq right now. And the Europeans sure as hell aren't going to start anything!
I am not saying that Iraq wasn't a danger - I just think that Iran was and remains more dangerous, that we (the West) got our priorities wrong, and that this mistake will probably bite the world hard (God Forbid) in the future.
G
The Reaper
08-18-2005, 21:01
Not if they should have a terrible nuclear "accident" while trying to build a weapons program.
You know, those things can be quite dangerous and experimenting with nukes is a high risk business.
Not that I would wish any ill-will on a hostile Islamist state developing a nuclear weapon. :rolleyes:
TR
TR
Love the way you think! Anyone from The Company hearing this? We're trying to save the world here!! :cool:
CoLawman
08-18-2005, 23:03
The intel agencies / the current administration (depends on your point of view, I don't want to go there) screwed up in presenting Iraq as an existential threat to the world, when it was clearly not.
You seem confident that Iraq was not a threat to the world "clearly". Yet in your follow up post you state that you are not saying that Iraq wasn't a threat :confused: .
Iran is already sponsoring the insurgency in Iraq - is basically fighting the US using Iraqi and foreign insurgents, just it did using Hezbollah for so many years.
The country in the region that poses a real existential threat to Western countries is Iran, and they have been building their WMD capabilities and terror infrastructure over the past few years while Iraq has been the focus of US attention.
You claim that the current administration screwed up by getting us involved in Iraq. And further denigrate this President by using the verb Shlep to describe how he drug this country to war in Iraq. You are entitled to your opinion, not necessarily shared by me. But sir, you are advocating this adminstration take action against Iran now. Your argument being that they are now, and have always been a more viable threat than Iraq.
So please list for me the Number of United Nations Resolutions that are in place to justify such action. Have you forgot that the United States acted on a UN Resolution to invade Iraq?
The President and his administration did not use smoke and mirrors to concoct an excuse to invade Iraq. They acted on the information they had available. They presented that information and obtained the legal authority to act.
Russia, France, and Germany chose not to stand with us. The evidence is clear why they did not want us going into IRAQ. I think that the evidence is clear why Kofi Annan was a vocal dissident as well.
We were attacked! The President was clear in his speech to the nation and the world. If you were a sponsor of terror you are an enemy to the United States. Iraq chose to test his and our country's metal. He lost.
The IMF just reported that Iraq'a oil production is just shy of it's production level, pre-invasion, of 2 million barrels a day. Seems impressive to me.
Libya came into the fold.
Lebanon is seeking freedom.
Saudi Arabia gunned down one of AQ's top guys today.
Pakistan has had excellent success in capturing and killing these fricking terrorists.
We do not need to go into Iran, Syria, or Korea. We need to stay the course in Iraq. Success there insures that those rogue nations will not test our country like Iraq did. And Iran knows that our success in Iraq insures their defeat without wasting any lead or steel.
I get personal enjoyment on a daily basis watching the gas prices continue to climb. Why? Because that means that the Germans, French, and Russians are suffering more than we are. Their gas prices are a higher percentage of their household income. I will gladly pay $3.00 a gallon knowing that they are paying $7 to $8 a gallon. Maybe just maybe they might be forced into assisting in stabilizing Iraq.
A stroll down memory lane and one might recall that after World War II we were an occupying force in two countries. At the same time, dealing with the saber rattling of Russia and China. It has never been easy, and alot of American blood has been left on foreign soil to insure the freedom of those people we have liberated from tyrants, dictators, and despots.
I firmly believe that our success is expedicted by giving our support to the President. And our success is slowed by publicly denigrating him.
Enough said, probably more than enough said.
Enough said, probably more than enough said.
That maybe, but it was WELL said!!!!
IMHO just too many arm chair quarterbacks with just too much time on their hands.
CoLawman
No denigration intended. I respect your opinion, but have an inbuilt distrust for politicians. We (The US, Aus, UK) must stay the course now; but call me cynical, I don't think we will. I think our leaders will find a way to get us out without achieving the stated aims. That's not armchair quarterbacking, that's an assessment.
To make myself clear, I said that Iraq was not an existential threat, as evidenced by the lack of WMD.
Of course there are varying levels of threat - harbouring terrorist groups / individuals poses some level of threat, but I am not going to spend my time analysing the groups / individuals that were being harboured prior to 2003. I do think that the groups that exist now pose more of a danger to the West than those that were there prior.
A major problem for all of us in the current situation is that a new generation of radical Islamists from all over the world are being blooded and battle hardened and may be returning to somewhere near you (or me) sometime in the future. Much like Afghanistan blooded the radicals of the 80's.
I hope I'm wrong!
Have a good weekend...
G
magician
08-19-2005, 03:20
Not if they should have a terrible nuclear "accident" while trying to build a weapons program.
You know, those things can be quite dangerous and experimenting with nukes is a high risk business.
Not that I would wish any ill-will on a hostile Islamist state developing a nuclear weapon. :rolleyes:
TR
Screws do fall out.
:)
The Reaper
08-19-2005, 08:37
CoLawman
No denigration intended. I respect your opinion, but have an inbuilt distrust for politicians. We (The US, Aus, UK) must stay the course now but call me cynical, I don't think we will. I think our leaders will find a way to get us out without achieving the stated aims. That's not armchair quarterbacking, that's an assessment.
To make myself clear, I said that Iraq was not an existential threat, as evidenced by the lack of WMD.
Of course there are varying levels of threat - harbouring terrorist groups / individuals poses some level of threat, but I am not going to spend my time analysing the groups / individuals that were being harboured prior to 2003. I do think that the groups that exist now pose more of a danger to the West than those that were there prior.
A major problem for all of us in the current situation is that a new generation of radical Islamists from all over the world are being blooded and battle hardened and may be returning to somewhere near you (or me) sometime in the future. Much like Afghanistan blooded the radicals of the 80's.
I hope I'm wrong!
Have a good weekend...
G
G:
The fact that we haven't found WMD doesn't mean he didn't have any.
We destroyed tons of nerve agent and mustard gas at Khamisiyah in 1991 which were reported in Iraq's 16 May 1991 declaration to the United Nations. In that declaration, Baghdad listed 2,160 destroyed sarin-filled 122-mm rockets at "Khamisiyah stores" and 6,240 intact mustard-filled 155-mm artillery shells at "Khamisiyah stores (Nasiriyah)."
They had long range missiles which were equipped with chemical warheads.
They had definitely used chemical weapons against the Iranians and Kurds, and probably biological weapons against the Kurds as well.
The Iraqis were well on their way to building a plutonium nuclear weapon in 1981. Saddam awaited completion of a French-built Osirak-type nuclear reactor to turn out plutonium at Tuwaitah. According to some estimates, Iraq in 1981 was still as much as five to ten years away from the ability to build a nuclear weapon. Others estimated at that time that Iraq might get its first such weapon within a year or two.
The questions were what remained after the first Gulf War, what happened to it, where it was located, and if further development of such capabilities had taken place.
Saddam's refusal to cooperate, obstructionism, and periodic denial of access to UN inspectors exacerbated the suspicions that he was continuing with his WMD program. Given his past behavior and large stockpiles, it was only prudent to assume that he had retained his capability and hidden it away for use at a future date.
The story that President Bush lied about WMD and that there never was any is a popular misconstruction of the left. I believe that they had chemical and bio weapons, and the ability to disseminate them. I suspect that Saddam would have liked to have had nuclear weapons, and was working to obtain them through R&D or purchase. Look at what assistance the Pakistanis nuclear scientists gave to other Islamic states seeking nuclear capability.
Thus we took action and find ourselves where we are now.
Your analysis of the proper CoA now is correct. If we cut and run before the job is finished, this will be a disaster, and the sacrifices of blood and treasure will have been for naught. Like it or not, we have to stay in Iraq (and Afghanistan) until there is a stable government friendly (or at least non-hostile) to the coalition, with systems in place, a military/paramilitary sufficient for internal security, and in relative security. To pull out prematurely leaves an unstable, factionalized state ripe for Islamic extremists to move in and set-up another sanctuary for terrorists to plan, train and equip for their international operations, or to risk Iranian aggression and territorial expansion.
TR
TR; I agree, it is the mantra of the left/pro Islamic terrorists to chant, "NO WMDs."
In the Jordanian Star, a terrorist attack was prevented. It was a Chemical Weapon, with the capacity to kill up to 80,000 people. The weapon came by truck from Syria. Where did Syria get it?
Saddam is responsible for up to 2,000,000 lives that he had slaughtered in 25 years of oppressive rule. In his own country one year alone (1989?) about 189,000 people. I would suggest, reading the Atlantic Magazine on the human right investigation of Saddam.
The left chants their "NO WMDs" mantra so loud as to drown out all the other reason to take out Saddam, and any one of the other reasons carried sufficient merit to justify taking him out.
The actions by our government to take out the Taliban and Saddam, has given us a more secure nation. Rogue nations who once thought about openly supporting and aiding terrorist attacks on the USA will no longer do that. They know Regime change is very plausible even for being linked to such a attack. Iran only seems like the most obvious next target, because the Taliban and Saddam are no longer in the picture.
There are great reasons to "wait and see " with Iran. It maybe the most unstable nation in the middle east where change is likely to come internally. It is only through oppression that Islam has maintain control and a toe hold in Iran. Persians do not wanted to be made into Arabs and consider Islam doing this. 75% of the Iranis want Islam out of Iran.
IMHO, The choices are how to help the Iranis to liberate themselves from oppression.
I know that Irans intentions were well known, but now that their President has gone on record calling for Israel to be wiped off the map, and, with their ongoing quest to go nuclear it'll be interesting to see what the world does.
Will the next war be fought in Iran?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4384024.stm
Annan 'dismayed' by Iran remarks
It is rare for Annan to publicly rebuke a UN member state
UN Secretary General Kofi Annan has voiced his "dismay" over remarks by Iran's president calling for Israel to be "wiped off the map".
In a rare rebuke, Mr Annan reminded Iran that, as a UN signatory, it had undertaken not to threaten the use of force against another state.
While President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's words provoked international outrage, Tehran said the West was over-reacting.
Israel has called for Iran to be expelled from the UN.
A statement released by the UN said the secretary general "read with dismay the remarks about Israel attributed to Mr Mahmoud Ahmadinejad".
It is rare for Kofi Annan to publicly rebuke a UN member state, says the BBC's Laura Trevelyan in New York.
Our correspondent says Mr Annan, like other secretaries general, sees himself as the servant of the 191 countries that make up the UN.
Israeli demand
Mr Ahmadinejad made his comments at a conference on Wednesday in Tehran entitled The World without Zionism.
We must submit a clear-cut request to the UN (...) to obtain Iran's expulsion from the United Nations
Shimon Peres
Israeli Deputy Prime Minister
Referring to Iran's late revolutionary leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, Mr Ahmadinejad said: "As the imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map."
Mr Ahmadinejad's speech drew a chorus of global condemnation, not least from Israel, which called for Iran to be kicked out of the UN.
"We must submit a clear-cut request to the UN secretary general and the Security Council to obtain Iran's expulsion from the United Nations," Israeli Deputy Prime Minister Shimon Peres said.
Correspondents say it is unlikely that such a request would be followed through.
British Prime Minister Tony Blair expressed "revulsion" at Mr Ahmadinejad's words, which he called "completely and totally unacceptable."
"Can you imagine a state like that with an attitude like that having a nuclear weapon?" he said.
Negotiations have stalled between the EU and Iran over attempts to persuade Tehran to abandon its nuclear ambitions.
In Washington, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said the Iranian leader's words underlined US concerns about Tehran's nuclear programme.
The US suspects Iran of wanting to acquire atomic weapons but Tehran insists its nuclear programme is for peaceful purposes.
'Over-reacting'
French President Jacques Chirac said Iran was at risk of becoming "an outlaw state".
"I was profoundly shocked by the statements of the Iranian president, which are totally senseless and irresponsible," he said.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, on a visit to Israel, called Mr Ahmadinejad's comments unacceptable.
He said they gave ammunition to those seeking to refer Iran to the UN Security Council over its nuclear policy.
Russia is seen as a supporter of Iran in the international row over its nuclear programme.
But the mood in Tehran seems defiant, says the BBC's diplomatic correspondent, Bridget Kendall.
She says officials there played down their president's comments as nothing out of the ordinary.
Instead, our correspondent says they accused the West of deliberately over-reacting in an attempt to smear Iran's image abroad and bolster their claim that Iran might be seeking nuclear weapons.
As folks have mentioned previously, no WMD seems to be a chant of the left. However, there seems to be an abundance of support for the fact that Saddam had WMD and was agressively working on improving the same.
In The Secret History of the Iraq War by Yossef Bodnsky, the author discusses WMD in Iraq. On page 1 he writes:
"In the fall of 2002 Iraq crossed an unacceptable threshold, supplying operational WMD to bin Laden's terrrorist. These developments are confirmed to Westenr intelligence services after several terrorist -graduates of WMD training programs--were capured in Israel, Chechnya, Turkey and France, along with documents related to their activities."
Pg. 7
"The primary reason the United States went to war was the revival and rejuvenation of Iraq's WMD programs in recent years, which had progressed to the point the Hussein could credibly threaten the entire Middle East, unbalancing the region's strategic posture."
Pg. 54
"Using their wide array of techincal capailities, U.S. Intelligence tracked Iraqis as they used barges and other river craft, particularly in northwest Iraq near the Syrian border, to transfer and store materials used in its WMD programs, laboratories, and technical facilities. The patterns of heavy security and specialized communciations, as well as the shape and size of some oft he cargo, strongly inidcated the natruye of this river traffic. Meanwhile, Jordanian intelligence learned from its own sources that Iraq had also converted barges into mobile launch platforms for ballistic missiles."
Pg. 72
"According to senior Arab security officials who visited Baghdad in July, Saddam had already"put the final touches to a plan for a counterattack that involves the use of biological and chemical weapons. The plan calls for launching attackes in the whole of the Middle East.""
I'm not saying that Mr. Bodansky is the final authority on WMD or on the Iraq war. However, much of his documentation appears to be very credible.
What is irritating to me, is that there's appears to be this prevailing attitude among the media and Americans that there is no evidence of the existence of WMD. I have not undertaken exhausting research related to this subject, yet there appears to be a fair amount of available documentation showing the opposite to be true.
I believe it is comforting at times to pick a position. For instance, " I just purchased the best car on the market." As people we sometimes need to accept such statements to eliminate uncertainty. However, reality is a much different animal and ignoring it is a mistake. Who can really determine what the best car is, and I believe the jury is still out on WMD and ignoring this fact is not a prudent course.
I'm not SF or a specialist in any field.
If biological and chemical weapons are considered WMD's, and Mustard Gas is considered a chemical weapon, and a favorite of Saddam, then wouldn't Saddam be guilting of having WMD's.
From what I've read Mustard Gas is Carbon, Hydrogen, Chlorine, and Sulfur. I figure since Carbon and Hydrogen are two of the most abundant elements, and Chlorine can be bought from a pool store along with Sulfer(Charcoal) then it wouldn't take much more then having a lab to create these things.
Which is where those Chemical lab buses that we photographed going into Syria come in. As well as that bus we captured near Mosul.
Then a delivery system would need to be hashed out, perhaps the crop dusting equipment that they attached to helo's and jets.
If the above is true, why doesn't the government plaster it on commercials or put up some kind of arguement to the left?
Information used:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mustard_gas
http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraqi_mobile_plants/
http://www.s-t.com/daily/09-02/09-05-02/a01wn009.htm
Please forgive any mistakes I made, I shall go back to lurking.
The Reaper
12-30-2005, 10:37
Joe:
We know from the Iran-Iraq War and DS that Iraq had WMDs.
He had blister agents, choking agents, blood agents, and nerve agents, as well as mycotoxins.
He had manned and unmanned delivery systems.
He likely had additional bio agents.
He tried to build a system which would allow him to produce nukes.
The real question is what happened to all of them between 1991 and 2003.
Do not assume too much about how to manufacture WMD here. You do not seem to understand basic chemistry and it isn't like making a cake.
TR
Just a small detail here, Iraq may have been contained but did that stop them from sharing what they could do or provide safe haven for those that would?
I guess that by that reasoning we should have attacked the PRC and DPRK decades ago!!
Another media genius!!:rolleyes:
Columnist Robert Robb of the Arizona Republic says when Mr. Bush makes threats of this sort, he is in danger of becoming a "lame duck president" regarding foreign affairs.
I believe that by definition, Bush is a lame duck president. Unless he changes the term limits -- that takes a Constitutional ammendment.:munchin
The Reaper
12-30-2005, 16:28
I guess that by that reasoning we should have attacked the PRC and DPRK decades ago!!
Another media genius!!:rolleyes:
Pretty harsh personal attack on someone expressing an opinion.
TR
Pretty harsh personal attack on someone expressing an opinion.
TR
I was refering to Columnist Robert Robb of the Arizona Republic who was mentioned in the cited article.:confused: The quote was below the Header "Media Genius:!!
Bill Harsey
12-30-2005, 19:44
Darn it, I thought someone finally called me a genius! :D
carry on.
Sacamuelas
01-02-2006, 18:53
Darn it, I thought someone finally called me a genius! :D
carry on.
LOL :cool:
VelociMorte
01-23-2006, 08:30
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mofaz threatens to halt Iran's nuke plans
By Abraham Rabinovich
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Published January 23, 2006
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JERUSALEM -- Israel's defense minister hinted strongly over the weekend that his country would act unilaterally if necessary to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.
Shaul Mofaz, who hails from the same hometown as Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, also warned the Iranian leader that his policies risked bringing destruction to his own people.
"I want to address President Ahmadinejad, who is from the city where I was born," said Mr. Mofaz at the opening session Saturday of the Herzliya Conference, an annual strategic seminar.
"I address you as someone who leads his country with an ideology of hate, terror and anti-Semitism. I suggest you look at history and see what happened to others who tried to wipe out the Jewish people. In the end, they brought destruction on their own people."
Mr. Mofaz said Israel was relying "at present" on international efforts to forestall Iran's nuclear efforts, but suggested that it would take the matter into its own hands if necessary.
"Israel is not prepared to accept the nuclear arming of Iran and it must prepare to defend itself, with all that that implies," he said.
The warning was the sharpest yet by an Israeli leader. Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, who remains in a coma after a stroke three weeks ago, had been circumspect on the subject, saying the issue was not one on which Israel was taking the lead.
Maj. Gen. Dan Halutz, head of the Israeli armed forces, was cautious when asked to respond to Mr. Mofaz' remarks.
"I am not going to deal with the solutions to the Iranian nuclear problem," he said. "Israel is not helpless -- that it is enough of an answer."
Iran's state-controlled news agency quoted Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi as dismissing the Israeli remarks as part of "a psychological war" and as "child's play."
Both Mr. Mofaz and Mr. Ahmadinejad hail from the city of Garmsar, southeast of Tehran, which Mr. Mofaz left at age 9 with his family in 1957 to emigrate to Israel. Mr. Ahmadinejad was born there in 1956, so the pair apparently resided in proximity for a year.
Mr. Mofaz's mention of his Iranian roots might have been intended to counter Mr. Ahmadinejad's call for Israelis to be "sent back" to Europe. Half of Israeli Jews hail from the Muslim world, including Iran.
In addition to Mr. Mofaz, Israeli President Moshe Katsav was born in Iran, as was a former Air Force commander, Eitan Ben-Eliyahu. Gen. Halutz, the present chief of staff, has partial Iranian roots as well.
Mr. Mofaz's remarks were sharply criticized by some Israelis, including a former Likud Defense Minister Moshe Arens.
"This issue is too sensitive for public threats," he said.
The Likud chairman of the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, Yuval Steinitz, accused Mr. Mofaz of electioneering.
I say let Israel strike if they choose. Unilaterally.
Right now we need to take a lesson from Hitler -- too many wars on too many fronts.
If Israel wants to strike, they should do so, but this public pi$$ing match is not productive. They are just making the natives restless.
A few things:
1. This time will not be so simple as the previous time (Osirak reactor, Iraq, 1981). The Iranians have learned the lesson - their sites are well spread out, better defended, and better built.
2. This is not just Israel's problem. To a large extent this is the world's problem - Europe is within range of Irans latest missiles.
3. Israel is not taking the lead on this issue - the EU & US are. Probably for good reason (coalition building).
4. Interesting times ahead. :munchin
Take Care...
G
My thoughts in southern english;
The President is not going to allow this to happen. The prospect of Iran having that type of sword over our head is unacceptable.
I'd rather give a 6 year old a 5 gallon can of gas and a pack of matches than this latest re-creation of Adolf Hitler a nuclear arsenal. Think about it.
Time to do the hard right over the easy wrong which is President Bush's trademark. Some here may think he's not up to it but he keeps a promise and the one that was made was he's not going to allow Iran to get the bomb.
We're going to kill some people very soon over this mess.
A $100.00 barrel of oil is the least of our problems right now.
Peregrino
01-23-2006, 18:46
My thoughts in southern english;
The President is not going to allow this to happen. The prospect of Iran having that type of sword over our head is unacceptable.
I'd rather give a 6 year old a 5 gallon can of gas and a pack of matches than this latest re-creation of Adolf Hitler a nuclear arsenal. Think about it.
Time to do the hard right over the easy wrong which is President Bush's trademark. Some here may think he's not up to it but he keeps a promise and the one that was made was he's not going to allow Iran to get the bomb.
We're going to kill some people very soon over this mess.
A $100.00 barrel of oil is the least of our problems right now.
We can only pray you're right. I don't think it'll happen though. With the Europeans, Russians, Chinese, Republican Doves, Democrats of all stripes, and the MSM all opposed to decisive action AND this President, I don't see anything happening. Besides, I think this is primarilly a European problem and I don't think they have what it takes to solve it. Tony Blair may have a set of "stones" but they aren't Winston Churchill sized and no other European leader even has any. I think the Iranians could nuke Tel Aviv and nothing would happen. In fact I believe many Europeans would breath a sigh of relief if Israel ceased to exist. After all - aren't they the ones causing all of the tensions in the Middle East that are making everybody so uncomfortable? France's "peace at any price" attitude is a contagion that has blinded most people to the true cost of appeasment. Europeans should study their own recent history. This has all the earmarks of 1936-38 all over again. Does anybody remember Nevile Chamberlain and the price of "peace in our time"?
OK - I stuck my oar in and stirred the pot. But can anybody refute me? :munchin Peregrino
Peregrino,
I cannot refute you with any logic, only that I believe that good will always eventually triumph over evil.
At what cost the "eventually" part? Hmmmm......
By taking on the West (read Christians & Jews) *and beating them* Ahmedinijad achieves two aims:
1. Proves that he can bring about the return of the Islamic Messiah(the Mahdi) thereby showing the Islamic world that the Shi'ite way is the "right way". By achieving what the Sunni's (Al Qaeda) are unable to do, he establishes the dominance of Shi'a Islam.
This point has connotations - could there be a race between radical Shi'ites and radical Sunni's to bring the West to it's knees through use of nukes, in order to establish the dominance of their particular stream (understanding that Shi'ites are considered apostates by Sunni's)?
2. Recreates the caliphate, the base from which to turn the world to Islam.
I think this dude has big plans.......I can only hope that there is much (joint) planning going on behind the scenes in Western countries.
G
Weazle23
01-23-2006, 21:25
It's times like these when young NCO's enjoy spreading rumors to all the new Privates in the DRF1 battalion of the 82nd of combat jumps into Iran. Other unsespection NCO's can also be caught up in the net. Misinformation can be fun.
aricbcool
01-23-2006, 22:03
OK - I stuck my oar in and stirred the pot. But can anybody refute me? :munchin Peregrino
Peregrino,
To start, I think it doesn't matter what the EU and the rest of the world is doing. The POTUS has proved his willingness to go unilaterally if it means protecting this country. (To clarify, I don't think OIF was unilateral. We had a large coalition. However, I do think it proves his willingness to go it completely alone if need be.)
I think the biggest problem is Bush's credibility. In their ever persistent attempts to gain political power by any means necessary, the dems have repainted the Iraq war, and the president, as a misguided mistake. The idea that Iraq was a kite flying, happy dictatorship, and the president was wrong about WMDs (whether intentionally, or inadvertantly) has, with the help of the MSM, essentially "stuck" with the American politicos, if not the American public. As a result, the US legislature will not be "fooled twice" by any attempt by the POTUS to expand the GWOT to Iran. This not only creates a credibility problem for Bush, but also for the agencies gathering intel for Bush, and Congress.
Thus, we end up in a Catch 22 in regards to Iran and intelligence. While the POTUS is bold enough to present a war with Iran with all necessary intelligence to back it up, the congress will be too timid to vote on it. At the same time, if the intelligence is channeled directly to Congress, no one will have the guts to step forward and do something about it.
Getting to the point... I think the only way that force will be authorized on Iran is if the US is given proof beyond any doubt (rather than reasonable doubt) that Iran has nuclear capability and intends to use it on the US, or one of our allies. That said, Iran nuking Tel Aviv would do the trick. Also, I think that Iran's outspoken president could also manage it by admitting nuclear capability and then openly threatening the US with it (provided it's widely covered on CNN :rolleyes: )
In the event of a pre-emptive strike by Isreal: I think the US would eventually back the Isrealis with force, if only to ensure the Isrealis don't use nukes.
All of that IMHO and respectfully,
Aric
VelociMorte
01-24-2006, 08:25
Last update - 09:26 24/01/2006
Iranian official: UN sanctions may lead us to seal off Persian Gulf
By Yossi Melman, Haaretz Correspondent
A senior Iranian official threatened that Tehran may forcibly prevent oil export via the Straits of Hormuz if the UN imposed economic sanctions due to Iran's nuclear program, an Iranian news Web site said on Monday.
This is the first time an Iranian official makes military threats in a public statement on Tehran's recent disagreements with the West.
The news site, affiliated with the radical student movement in which President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was once a member, quoted Mohammed-Nabi Rudaki, deputy chairman of the Iranian parliament's National Security and Foreign Policy Commission.
According to the report, Rudaki said that "if Europe does not act wisely with the Iranian nuclear portfolio and it is referred to the UN Security Council and economic or air travel restrictions are imposed unjustly, we have the power to halt oil supply to the last drop from the shores of the Persian Gulf via the Straits of Hormuz."
25% of the world's oil production passes through the Straits of Hormuz, which connect the Persian Gulf with the Indian Ocean. The meaning of Rudaki's threat is that not only will Tehran stop its oil production from reaching the West, it may also use force to prevent the other oil prodoucers in the region (the United Arab Emirates and Kuwait) from exporting to the West.
Raduki also warned that his country might quit from its membership in the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
Apparently Ahmedinijad's intention is to force a "confrontation" with the West. There are relgious reasons for this (Google will give you the relevant articles, but as a taste: http://www.worldthreats.com/middle_east/Iranian_intentions.htm).
I imagine he would not provide the West with casus belli until he feels ready to back up an act like closing the Straits of Hormuz with force.
Btw, would closing the Straits provide casus belli? RL?
Take Care...
G
Last update - 09:26 24/01/2006
Iranian official: UN sanctions may lead us to seal off Persian Gulf
By Yossi Melman, Haaretz Correspondent
A senior Iranian official threatened that Tehran may forcibly prevent oil export via the Straits of Hormuz if the UN imposed economic sanctions due to Iran's nuclear program, an Iranian news Web site said on Monday.
This is the first time an Iranian official makes military threats in a public statement on Tehran's recent disagreements with the West.
Deja vu all over again... How can Iran think that would end well for them?
If this keeps up, it will be an interesting election in 2008.
Bravo1-3
01-24-2006, 23:00
2008? Hell, they're bringing this to a head for the mid-terms.
N.Franklin
01-25-2006, 00:59
I may be a little late in the conversation, but in the first couple posts it was brought up about WMDs, whether Saddam had them or not. Think for a second how a probation or parole officer acts if a criminal or juvenile delinquent decides to violate their agreement with the courts, how is that handled? Does the parole officer and judge talk and throw stones, or do they come together to apprehend the violator and put them behind bars? My personal opinion is that we are 8-10 years delinquent in OIF, this is an issue that should have been handled during the early-mid 90s. For Iran, tomorrow is going to be too late. There is no reason to wait to act on Iran, every day that passes that nothing is done to resolve the issue, the harder it will be to fix the problem. I highly doubt the public will support any full scale action, but it has to be resolved. A temporary fix would be done from the air, but again it is a temporary fix. Why copy our actions in Iraq and find ourselves going back 10 years later to do the job the right way? It is best fixed while we already have people on the ground.
The Reaper
01-25-2006, 08:58
A nice insurgency there would be much more effective than a conventional air strike.
TR
magician
01-25-2006, 09:31
I also found it interesting that bombs went off in Iran, recently.
I also found it interesting that bombs went off in Iran, recently.
And that they're blaming the US and Britian for same.
Was originally going to post in the Soapbox, but since it's semi-related I'll post here. Please move if appropriate.
http://www.gopusa.com/theloft/?p=200
To Be or Not To Be (Unilateral), That’s Hillary’s Question
Posted by Bobby Eberle
January 20, 2006 at 7:31 am
The joy of watching the Democrats in action comes from the fact that they are consistently inconsistent. They say one thing in an attempt to win favor with middle America, yet their actions show them to be as left-wing as ever. Now, Hillary Clinton is blasting President Bush for working with other nations in dealing with Iran. However, when it came to Iraq, Clinton and other Democrats criticized President Bush for allegedly “going it alone.”
Despite the fact that rangling between the U.N. and Iraq had been going on for more than a decade regarding Iraq’s compliance with U.N. sanctions, the Democrats hammered the president relentlessly for his supposed unilateral approach to Saddam Hussein’s regime. America and other nations saw Iraq 1) as a threat to export their weapons and weapons technology to groups such as al Qaeda and 2) in clear violation of U.N. Security Council resolutions.
The president worked with other nations to hold Iraq to account. The U.N. Security Council passed resolution 1441 demanding Iraq to account for all WMDs. Only after all negotiations failed did the U.S., along with a multi-national coalition, go into Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein from power. But for the Democrats, the U.S. (in the person of President Bush) was the lone wolf. We were going it alone and did not have the “national community” on our side.
Now, we fast forward to the present and the growing threat that Iran poses not only to the region but to the entire world. Iran is bent on developing nuclear weapons. Their hatred for America is well-known, but their immediate target is Israel. The president is working through the U.N. and the EU-3 (a negotiating coalition of France, Germany, and Great Britain) to see that Iran does not become a nuclear weapons power.
Yet, now the Democrats are complaining that President Bush in not engaged in the situation — that the U.S. should be forcing Iran to comply. In a speech this week at Princeton University, Hillary Clinton blasted the president on the situation in Iraq. According to the report Senate Democrat Will Introduce Resolution on Iran, Clinton said, “I believe that we lost critical time in dealing with Iran because the White House chose to downplay the threats and to outsource the negotiations.”
Outsource the negotiations? Question to Sen. Clinton, “Should we be bringing other nations to the table or not?”
The Democrats are now poised to put forward a resolution restricting certain dealings with Iran as part of their “get tough” strategy. However, the Democrats have proven over and over again that when it comes to national security and world affairs, it is they who are more apt to “outsource” leadership to the U.N. or nations like France.
Consistently inconsistent. I guess being unilateral is OK when it’s Hillary Clinton and the Democrats doing the talking.
VelociMorte
01-26-2006, 08:52
Suicide bombers on Iran kids' TV
Sun. 06 Nov 2005
Sunday Telegraph
By Toby Harnden, Chief Foreign Correspondent
Iranian state television has broadcast a cartoon that glorifies suicide bombings against Israelis, depicting a young boy blowing himself up after being told: "Go and show the Zionists how brave and heroic are the children of Palestine."
The cartoon, one of a series shown by the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting on "Jerusalem Day" nine days ago, presents the actions of a boy who kills himself to strike back against Israelis as a noble example for children to follow.
More professionally produced and graphic than previous Iranian propaganda aimed at children, the cartoon appears to be part of a campaign led by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to elevate the issue of the destruction of Israel. The day before the cartoon was shown, he declared at a World Without Zionism conference: "This stain of disgrace [Israel] will be wiped off the face of the world - and this is attainable."
His comments were greeted with outrage in the West and prompted Tony Blair to suggest that military action might be required against Iran if progress towards a nuclear bomb continued.
At the start of the 10-minute animated film, translated into English by the Middle East Media Research Institute (Memri), Abd al-Rahman, a Palestinian youth, watches as Israeli soldiers murder his family.
They are depicted laughing as they strike his mother in the face with a rifle butt and then shoot his father, whose blood splashes the oranges on the trees he cultivated.
Abd comforts his sister and weeps, declaring: "Oh God, I must take revenge upon these bloodthirsty aggressors, who murdered my father, mother and brother." His cousin Karim introduces him to a neighbour's son, Jassem, who is a member of a "resistance group".
Jassem instructs the boys to take part in an attack against Israeli soldiers, applauding their "deep faith" and telling them that they "may become martyrs". Abd's aunt bids the boys a tearful farewell. "God willing, you'll be successful," she says. "Go, my children. Go and show the Zionists how brave and heroic are the children of Palestine."
As he lies in wait, Abd ties a string of grenades around his waist. The convoy approaches and the cartoon shows satanic-faced Israeli soldiers sitting in a lorry around an ammunition box decorated with a Star of David.
Abd shouts, "I place my trust in God. Allah Akbar", pulls the grenade pins and leaps onto the lorry. When the smoke clears, the bodies of Abd, the Israeli troops and the attackers are strewn around the road.
A young Palestinian boy then walks over to Abd's body, takes his bloodstained keffiyeh head-dress, drapes it over his own shoulders and walks off into the sunset.
Dan Shaham, a spokesman for the Israeli embassy in London, said: "This phenomenon of inciting children to commit suicide attacks is revolting. It corrupts young minds and makes sure conflict continues. President Ahmadinejad is not only dangerous in the here-and-now but the Iranian extremist ideology is affecting future generations. Something needs to be done today."
The Iranian embassy declined to comment. Last week, it emerged that Mohammad Hossein Adeli, Iran's ambassador to Britain, was being recalled to Teheran in a worldwide purge of about 40 Iranian diplomats ordered by Mr Ahmadinejad.
Ali Ansari, an Iranian analyst at St Andrew's University, said the cartoon was "gory stuff" and different from previous anti-Israeli propaganda. "It's interesting they've gone to these lengths to develop a cartoon like this that is obviously directed towards kids.
"Anti-Zionism is one of the ideological pillars of the Islamic republic. But Ahmadinejad's comments went beyond the standard ideological diet, because by implication they applauded suicide bombers and condemned anyone who makes peace with Israel."
This was the equivalent of trying to be "more Catholic than the Pope", he said, because the Palestinians now accepted that there must be a two-state solution to the Middle East conflict - in contrast to President Ahmadinejad's policy of destroying Israel and replacing it with a new Palestinian state.
A spokesman for Memri said that the cartoon was one of 10 being translated. In another, Palestinian children throw aubergines at Israeli soldiers who think they are being attacked with grenades and flee.
Such naive propaganda fits in with Mr Ahmadinejad's simplistic world view and is likely to alienate most ordinary Iranians who, as Shia Persians, rather than Sunni Arabs, are far from fixated on the Palestinian issue.
"Ahmadinejad is not a shrewd political operator," said Dr Ansari. "Most Iranians want to focus on domestic problems and this [his anti-Israeli stance] is alarming the international community and creating huge anxiety in Iran."
A British diplomat in London said: "The increase in anti-Israeli propaganda and Ahmadinejad's dangerous rhetoric will only serve to alienate him from his people and further isolate Iran. For the West, as well as Israel, the prospect of this man having his finger on a nuclear button is truly horrifying."
See it in all it's glory at: http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=countries&Area=iran&ID=SP101805
The Washington Times
Chirac, the bomb and terrorism
By Allan Topol
Published January 26, 2006
In the past several years, we have often seen bizarre positions emanating from Paris on matters of foreign policy. Even with all of that, it was surprising to hear French President Jacques Chirac's statement last week that France was prepared to launch a nuclear strike against any country that sponsors a terrorist attack against French interests.
This wasn't a casual offhand comment by Mr. Chirac. Rather, it was made during a visit to a nuclear submarine base in Brittany. The text of his speech was posted on the presidential Web site. In it he stated, "All of our nuclear forces have been configured in this spirit." Although Mr. Chirac did not name any specific countries, which might be targets of a French nuclear attack, it doesn't take a genius to figure out the likely targets. These include Iran, as well as Arab countries in the Middle East.
What is so surprising is that Mr. Chirac's government has in the past favored an approach of conciliation or even appeasement toward Iran and the Arab nations. He was, after all, the vociferous foe of the U.S.-led war in Iraq and a hard line against Iran. That approach benefited French companies that were able to obtain lucrative contracts in competition with corporations based in the land of the great Satan. So, what happened? There are two contributing factors. The first is the civil unrest in France several months ago, which involved nightly riots and a myriad of car burnings in many areas of the country. This violence had the same kind of impact upon Mr. Chirac and the French government that September 11 had upon the United States.
In his speech, Mr. Chirac bluntly declared, "In numerous countries, radical ideas are spreading, advocating a confrontation of civilizations." Mr. Chirac now understands the problem. The jihadists are attempting to capture town by town, areas within Western Europe. As one French government official put it, "This is more than a clash of civilizations. It is a cancer within our country that if unchecked will destroy all of France."
With his statements, Mr. Chirac is warning Iran and the Arab countries to desist in supporting and encouraging residents of France who launched last year's attacks and are undoubtedly planning to do far worse. His approach is to cut off terror at the source. This resembles the policy being pursued by the U.S. government, although it is hard to imagine how great the public outcry would be if President Bush threatened to use nuclear weapons.
The second contributing factor is the failure of the Europeans -- namely France, Germany and England -- to reach an agreement with Tehran controlling the development of Iranian nuclear weapons. About a year ago, the Bush administration, having been subjected to constant criticism about the destruction of Saddam Hussein's despotic and menacing Iraqi regime, wisely said to the Europeans, "You go deal with Iran." It meant making the Europeans part of the process.
After a year, the results are clear. Tehran did nothing but mislead and stonewall the Europeans who now have nothing except a record of deceit to show for several months of negotiations which were in good faith from their side. Moreover, the official Iranian government statements emerging from the fanatical elected president demonstrate that if anything Tehran's position is hardening on the development of nuclear weapons.
There is no point gloating over the Europeans' failure to deal with Tehran. The new radicalism of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has now emerged front and center as one of the toughest foreign policy issues for the Bush administration. At this point, we don't have a policy for dealing with Tehran and we haven't had one for several years.
In Washington, the time has come to act. We can forget about the United Nations. Russia and China will veto any U.N. resolution calling for action. We have to sit down with our European allies. Mr. Chirac may suddenly be more agreeable to a hardline approach. Newly elected Chancellor Angela Merkel in Germany seems more sympathetic to the U.S. position, and Prime Minster Tony Blair should be amenable.
We should develop a consensus for an attack on Iranian nuclear facilities even if it means a reduction in Iranian oil with a significant impact on Western economies. We have to act before the lunatics in Tehran have nuclear weapons.
Allan Topol is an international lawyer and the author of several novels, including the bestseller "Enemy of My Enemy."
http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20060125-095139-5283r.htm
I read this article by Victor Davis Hanson written on the 13th of January at his website. Towards the latter third of the article he examines four courses of action regarding Iran.
You might find it interesting. http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson011306.html
Firebeef
04-09-2006, 18:26
Hope I do this right. Victor Davis Hanson always offers some real gems of insight into a lot of different subjects. This is a great read for anyone, but is especially relevant in this forum, enjoy:
http://victorhanson.com/articles/hanson040706.html
"U.S. Is Studying Military Strike Options on Iran: Any Mix of Tact, Threats Alarms Critics", By Peter Baker, Dafna Linzer and Thomas E. Ricks. Washington Post, Sunday, April 9, 2006; A01 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/08/AR2006040801082_pf.html)
"The Nuclear Power Beside Iraq", By James Fallows. The Atlantic Monthly , May 2006 (http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200605/fallows-iran)
"THE IRAN PLANS", by SEYMOUR M. HERSH. The New Yorker, 2006-04-10 (http://www.newyorker.com/printables/fact/060417fa_fact)
Can't say I care much for Sy Hersh but its a worthwhile read.
The Reaper
04-10-2006, 09:05
Can't say I care much for Sy Hersh but its a worthwhile read.
Hersh has made up outlandish stories and been wrong so many time, that I do not bother with his articles or his paper which prints them.
I certainly hope that our government and our military have a full range of force options to employ, from harsh language to the burning of Iran down to bedrock.
At the same time, if the Iranian development program has a timeline which permits, I believe that working a UW angle and creating an internal movement to destabilize the current Iranian regime is a much better COA.
If in fact they do create a nuclear weapon (in violation of international accords and their own stated policies), I would not be opposed to obliterating it with conventional or nuclear means, preferably clandestinely, and blaming it on their own nuclear accident.
TR
As we've all probably heard by now, that planning (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/04/09/politics/main1483022.shtml?source=RSS&attr=HOME_1483022&source=GoogleRSSTopStories&creative=topkeyword)for an attack on Iran is further along than you think, and that nukes might be involved. Don't you just love the Media. :D
Both papers reports that one of the military's initial option plans, as presented to the White House by the Pentagon this winter, calls for the use of a bunker-buster tactical nuclear weapon, such as the B61-11 (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2006/04/09/wbush09abig.jpg;jsessionid=IRRTTG3AGFXRXQFIQMGSFFW AVCBQWIV0), Against underground nuclear sites. One target is Iran's main centrifuge plant, at Natanz (http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/1030/we-are-not-going-to-nuke-iran), nearly two hundred miles south of Tehran. Natanz (http://www.isis-online.org/publications/iran/natanz03_02.html)... reportedly when completed, the two largest underground structures are designed to be the main buildings for the production of enriched uranium in gas centrifuges, commonly called cascade halls. Their large floor area implies that Iran intends to install tens of thousands of centrifuges buried approximately seventy-five feet beneath the surface. The elimination of Natanz would be a major setback for Iran’s nuclear ambitions, but the conventional weapons in the American arsenal could not insure the destruction of facilities under seventy-five feet of earth and rock, especially if they are reinforced with concrete. Do we have the hardware (http://www.defensetech.org/archives/001688.html)? Look around (http://www.defensetech.org/archives/001688.html).
Sounds a lot like when Israel had bombed (http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/june/7/newsid_3014000/3014623.stm) the Osiraq nuclear plant near Baghdad in 1981 in an effort to thwart Iraq's nuclear program. Lets take headline from the pass maybe.
The SF UW option?
Interesting article.
Does SF really have a future in the leadership of SOF or the Army?
TR
Yes we do (http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/story.php?F=1520947_0306), just wish SF (or SOF) could have ran the full Guerrilla Warfare (http://www.highbeam.com/library/docfree.asp?DOCID=1G1:132536205&ctrlInfo=Round19%3AMode19b%3ADocG%3AResult&ao=) or COIN within Iraq.
Would DoD, let along the US Government use White SOF as a UW means? See we have to remember that Direct Action is also one of Army Special Forces’ “seven principal missions.” Even if it was a joint interagency venture, COIN a full Military and Diplomatic action. Huh what an idea :cool:
A nice insurgency there would be much more effective than a conventional air strike.
TR
Yes TR, a nice little war would do the work, Conventional Bombs will open all kinds of doors.
Seems some within the Iranian Cabinet have some different views (http://www.strategypage.com/qnd/iran/articles/20060202.aspx) than others do within the country. Some of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad supporters are urging a hard-line against the US and adventurism abroad, while others believes that war with the US is not inevitable and that Iran can benefit from maintaining a low profile. Ahmadinejad has apparently let all the international media attention go to his head.
See no matter how deep down the Natanz facility is, less important than what's covering it. In Natanz' case we're talking about a lot of orck and soil. A 5,000-pound Conventional bunker-buster (http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,93616,00.html), ought to do the job?
Seems like a two front war pushed some buttons of the American pubic, and Congress didn't like it. Look at the Poll (http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm)now. Glad to see SECDEF nor President Bush didn't change their stand to the American pubic. No Sheehan effect here!! :D Iran war?? Think about it, is GOWT big now?
The Reaper
04-10-2006, 17:25
Goat:
You don't have to have a bunker buster if you have enough ordnance and TOT.
IIRC, the Israelis ran into this with their attack on the Osirak facility. The practiced till they could put one 2000 pounder after another on the same spot.
75 feet is nothing if you hammer a dozen or two heavies on top of one another.
From a targeting perspective, I would wait till they obtained and installed the centrifuges. Those things are expensive, and hard to come by.
TR
At the same time, if the Iranian development program has a timeline which permits, I believe that working a UW angle and creating an internal movement to destabilize the current Iranian regime is a much better COA.
Sir, I was wondering what it means. How can someone tell when it is right to start UW, what factors etc....show this? how has this happened in history?
And could you please explain further on what is happening in Iran that points to that?
Not asking any classified information or trying to second guess you, just wondering......
First I beg Reapers pardon for horning in on this conversation. But its four in the morning here and I ain't got nothing to do. So here is my shot...
Choose, Iran is probably pretty ripe for it. When the Shah was running the country actually most of the people were happy. It was fairly secular as I remember it. We had been running MTT's in there for a number of years and they were sending their guys to us. We had a pretty good relationship with the troops and the Shah as well. Generally the folks in Iran like Americans. The radical Imams got the wacos fired up and some of the fringe guys and some folks got drawn in because they were just flat scared. Sooooo, I believe that it "might" be possible to pull it off. It wouldn't be easy but it could be done. And using the same guys that were working Afghanistan and Iraq would of course be preferred. At least initially. So as Mao used to say...."the water is fine in Iran come on in." Oh well, it was something about fish...."Q".
Getting bold, hmm?
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/04/15/060415084241.xdv0o3w3.html
Iran issues stark military warning to United States
Apr 15 4:42 AM US/Eastern
Iran said it could defeat any American military action over its controversial nuclear drive, in one of the Islamic regime's boldest challenges yet to the United States.
"You can start a war but it won't be you who finishes it," said General Yahya Rahim Safavi, the head of the Revolutionary Guards and among the regime's most powerful figures.
"The Americans know better than anyone that their troops in the region and in Iraq are vulnerable. I would advise them not to commit such a strategic error," he told reporters on the sidelines of a pro-Palestinian conference in Tehran.
The United States accuses Iran of using an atomic energy drive as a mask for weapons development. Last weekend US news reports said President George W. Bush's administration was refining plans for preventive strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities.
"I would advise them to first get out of their quagmire in Iraq before getting into an even bigger one," General Safavi said with a grin.
"We have American forces in the region under total surveillance. For the past two years, we have been ready for any scenario, whether sanctions or an attack."
Iran announced this week it had successfully enriched uranium to make nuclear fuel, despite a UN Security Council demand for the sensitive work to be halted by April 28.
The Islamic regime says it only wants to generate atomic energy, but enrichment can be extended to make the fissile core of a nuclear warhead -- something the United States is convinced that "axis of evil" member Iran wants to acquire.
At a Friday prayer sermon in Tehran, senior cleric Ayatollah Ahmad Janati simply branded the US as a "decaying power" lacking the "stamina" to block Iran's ambitions.
And hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told AFP that a US push for tough United Nations sanctions was of "no importance."
"She is free to say whatever she wants," the president replied when asked to respond to comments by US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice highlighting part of the UN charter that provides for sanctions backed up by the threat of military action.
"We give no importance to her comments," he said with a broad smile.
On Thursday, Rice said that faced with Iran's intransigence, the United States "will look at the full range of options available to the United Nations."
"There is no doubt that Iran continues to defy the will of the international community," Rice said, after Iran also dismissed a personal appeal from the UN atomic watchdog chief Mohamed ElBaradei.
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) chief must give a report at the end of April on Iranian compliance with the Security Council demand. In Tehran he said that after three years of investigations Iran's activities were "still hazy and not very clear."
Although the United States has been prodding the council to take a tough stand against the Islamic republic, including possible sanctions, it has run into opposition from veto-wielding members Russia and China.
Representatives of the five permanent members of the Security Council plus Germany are to meet in Moscow Tuesday to discuss the crisis.
In seeking to deter international action, Iran has been playing up its oil wealth, its military might in strategic Gulf waters and its influence across the region -- such as in Iraq, Lebanon and the Palestinian territories.
At the Tehran conference, Iran continued to thumb its nose at the United States and Israel.
"The Zionist regime is an injustice and by its very nature a permanent threat," Ahmadinejad told the gathering of regime officials, visiting Palestinian militant leaders and foreign sympathizers.
"Whether you like it or not, the Zionist regime is on the road to being eliminated," said Ahmadinejad, whose regime does not recognise Israel and who drew international condemnation last year when he said Israel should be "wiped off the map."
Unfazed by his critics, the hardliner went on to repeat his controversial stance on the Holocaust.
"If there is serious doubt over the Holocaust, there is no doubt over the catastrophe and Holocaust being faced by the Palestinians," said the president, who had previously dismissed as a "myth" the killing of an estimated six million Jews by the Nazis and their allies during World War II.
"I tell the governments who support Zionism to ... let the migrants (Jews) return to their countries of origin. If you think you owe them something, give them some of your land," he said.
Iran's turbaned supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, also accused the United States of seeking to place the entire region under Israeli control.
"The plots by the American government against Iran, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon aimed at governing the Middle East with the control of the Zionist regime will not succeed," Khamenei said.
There was no immediate reaction from Washington, but French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy severely condemned Ahmadinejad for his latest remarks on Israel.
"As I have had occasion to do before, when the Iranian president made similar statements, I condemn these inacceptable remarks in the strongest possible terms," Douste-Blazy said in a statement.
"Israel's right to exist and the reality of the Holocaust should not be disputed," he added.