I think the world of John Bolton, but this business about if-Israel-doesn’t-bomb-Iran-within-a-week-it’s-over has me scratching my head. The thing about it that most agitates and perplexes me is this tacit assumption that the Sarkozy Option exhausts the policy alternatives.
According to this view, either we acquiesce to a nuclear Iran, or we bomb it. I’ve always taken a dim view of bombing Iran, because there are better ways to deal with it. And I don’t think it would be good for us, or for common decency, to appease an Islamic Republic with atomic bombs. But those are not the only options. Indeed, they are both lousy policies.
I thought it was better to support democratic revolution. I figured that if we could bring down the Soviet empire by helping the dissidents, it should be a lot easier to topple the mullahcracy in Tehran. This policy has not attracted enthusiastic support from the political and intellectual elites, to put it mildly. For many years the consensus was that, well, I was nuts. There could be no revolution in Iran. There were no revolutionary leaders, there was no revolutionary mass, and the regime was in firm control. Kinda like what the elite analysts said about the Soviet Union until two minutes before midnight.
Those illusions were destroyed in June, 2009, and the months of mass demonstrations against the regime. The consensus then became: revolution in Iran is inevitable. The Green Movement has mass support, and good leadership, and the regime is shaky. Even top Revolutionary Guards commanders are defecting.
Wrong again, because revolution is not a spontaneous event, it requires more than popular passion. Most modern revolutions, including our own, have had outside support. The events following the phony elections of 2009 screamed for an active Western policy of support for the dissidents. But the policy makers did not do that. If we did, there would probably be a freely elected, and quite reasonable, government in Tehran today. Since we didn’t, the process is bubbling and the outcome is uncertain. But the policy option is still “on the table.”
I wrote many years ago that the Iranians had made a grave strategic blunder in launching a crash program to build atomic bombs. Why? Because if they didn’t have that program, nobody would give two hoots about the evil they have unleashed on the world, from killing Americans to savaging their own people. I argued that if Iran ever got the bomb, it would hasten the demise of the regime because it would make support for democratic revolution in Iran more urgent.
This is a great post, Michael. Logical, brilliant and optimistic. I wish the US government would listen to what you say.
me2, winston.
I agree with you, but I fear one of Iran’s proxies will make the first move.
Ditto, Winston. Precisely why it will be ignored by the current administration.
Winston, we all know that as long as the “o” and company are in control, nothing will ever happen. . . The “o” is hell-bent on appeasing the Iranian regime, and the majority of our gutless, ball less politicians are right with him. Sadly I most throw most of the Repubs in there with the Dumbocrats. . . We can’t even get the Repubs to take a stand on the mosque in NYC. . .
I have always believed, from the beginning of this crisis with Iran, that the best way to deal with the mullahs is through massive covert operations to overthrow the current regime. Support any group hostile to the mullahs and supply them with money, training, and weapons and have them attack the regime. Sabotage, political assasinations, stirring up massive protests, huge general strikes, the works. It seems insane that we should only allow our enemies to have these tools to overthrow regimes friendly to the United States, but we never seem to use these same weapons against regimes that are hostile to the United States. This is where the CIA needs to start erning their paychecks big time.
And we should start playing our trump card, the Kurds. Use them. They hate the Iranians and are basically a semi-autonomous state anyway, so why not help them? In fact, they are the one of the few people in that part of the world that actually LIKE the United States. And they also have not forgotten that we helped them out when Saddam Hussein tried to exterminate them all. The Kurds could provide us a secure base of operations from which to launch covert attacks against the Iranians. Use them, now.
As for all those far-left multicultural nuts out there who would be shocked, shocked mind you, that we would even think of overthrowing any regime in this manner, ask yourself one question. Which would be worse, bombing Iran and starting a war in the Middle East that could consume the whole world and maybe kill millions of people, or supporting large-scale covert operations designed to overthrow the mullahs with almost no collateral damage?
We missed our best opportunity to overthrow the mullahs last year after the Iranian “elections.” Obama was too stupid to take advantage of the situation and we could have probably pushed the regime over the edge if we wanted to. But no, Obama was a wimp and we lost our chance. But it’s not too late. In Ken Follett’s book, “On Wings of Eagles,” there was an incident during the fall of the Shah of Iran where Ross Perot sent into Iran a small group of men to free some of his executives. The book showed how easily it is to start a riot to create a diversion so that an act of sabotage can take place. In this instance, the riot was a cover to free some executives from an Iranian jail. So when a country is in political turmoil, anything is possible.
We need to act now, before it really is too late. Bombing not only is the last solution, it’s the worst solution. I hope Obama doesn’t miss this last chance to stop the world from sliding into major chaos.
Ross Perot? A name only Bill Clinton could love, and all those called ‘Bush’ will hate forever.
Right, the Soviet Empire, totally eradicated by “democratic revolution” and “out of our hair” clearly no longer a real threat, I’m sold!
hey, david p, don’t let the best be the enemy of the good, ok?
I read the piece carefully, Michael. I like the idea of a free Iran. I’ve read all the comments about the greens back and forth, and have no idea if they are the potential decent rulers you project, or just a device to sustain the Mullahs’ regime beyond its otherwise sad shelf life. The example of the Russians is instructive because not that much has really changed there, at least if we believe the ex-Russian intellectuals and Soviet bloc intelligence agents that are featured at places like FPM. Okay, the gulags are gone, but army recruits are brutalized, journalists fall out of many windows, Putin and friends control everything, and so on. The feeling I have now is that you are absolutely against an attack against their facilities, even if failing to do so results in their getting the bomb (which they might already have several of). I just don’t understand that.
Larry, it’s because–I keep saying it but nobody really digests it–this regime is killing Americans today. I want to bring down that regime. They kill us without nukes, and will keep it up, nukes or no nukes. Concerning Russia, it’s going to hell, but it no longer seriously threatens the Western world. As usual, we botched it after a great victory. But it’s a lot better than the Soviet Empire. Ask the Poles and Czechs, for example.
Aside from trying to hurt the Mullahs today, I guess the next step is to write a book or long article that tries to explain why successive US Admins failed to deal with the Mullahs in Iran. Agreed, they have embarked on a 30 year war against US and Israel; I have seen this for a long time. I remember being in Israel when the first Argentina attack – against the embassy or Jewish community center occurred – and thinking it must be Iran behind this.
I suppose that 1) the US ‘elites’ either never serious contemplated overthrowing the regime or 2) just failed to help, at least until recently. It’s also clear that at various points they were happy to have Iran bloodying Saddam and Iraq (though in the early Reagan years the US helped Saddam).
I don’t know that John Bolton is really saying that the US should have been passive barring a nuke on the cusp. I think he is saying, ‘Now it is certainly too late.’ I am not sure he is right on the timing, that is, maybe it will take them weeks or months to get Bushehr up and pumping out plutonium, but I think he is right in general.
I basically agree about Russia too. The greatest disappointment is for decent average Russian citizens to have to tolerate these shmucks forever and a day. I think the Jamie Glazov line is a bit exaggerated, but I do wonder. Pacepa (sp?) from Rumania – have you read his stuff on the USSR?
Pacepa is a great source and a good friend.
I’ll quote Pied Piper below, Michael. They really are not too distressed if a ‘few’ civilians get killed – just so long as it does not rise to the level of lawsuits, impeachments or losing an election.
‘Better the devil you know than the devil you don’t’ “Every creator painfully experiences the chasm between his inner vision and its ultimate expression.” It’ll always look better in your head…
Michael – With all due respect, I don’t agree with you. Yes, there might be a revolution but this Administration, such as it is, is likely to stand-by and never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. But, if I were to bet on this, I would have to say that the current regime in Iran is going to be there for a long time and we Americans will pay the price for the inaction of our leaders, past and present (and I include George W. Bush in that for letting those toads in Europe talk him out of strong action).
I would be interested in reading why the Kennedy Airport guys were clearly in cahoots with the Iranian terror masters. Have you written about that before?
I share your puzzlement at the reluctance of the pres. to do anything for the protesters in Iran. It seems a natural. Who would not want to become known for supporting freedom in Iran? Neither GWB nor BHO seem to have done much. My first political action was in the early 80s when I was in UAW and we were shipping $$ to Solidarnosc. Why not now? It just does not compute.
X Contra: http://pajamasmedia.com/michaelledeen/2010/07/22/iran-and-the-plot-to-blow-up-jfk-airport/
Uh oh, I missed that one. Thanks for the link.
And what precisely is an EMP bomb going to do to their plant that can’t be fixed in a day?
takes months, at a minimum.
The problem is that you need to replace the “EMP” with “nuclear” since that’s all an EMP is, the result of a high-altitude nuclear explosion. The only defense we have against an attack that would bring our society to a screeching 300-million-car pileup is that it’s technically a nuclear attack and in that situation we’re going to be very technical.
In effect we’d be skipping right over bombing in terms of escalation and going straight for the top.
Plus EMP’s aren’t the most precise things in the world. When you’re mucking about with the ionosphere it’s difficult to use finesse. We’d either have to only blackout a small region in the middle of Iran, which would be useless, or we’d have to cause parts of Iraq, Afghanistan, Turkey, Kuwait, UAE, Oman, and the civilian sea traffic (OIL!!!) to go dark.
An EMP strike is not really a better option than a direct bombing, nuke or otherwise, in terms of ultimate human suffering. For one, it would cripple their industry and civilization, to the degree they rely on technology. Communication, out; transportation, out; anything electronic, out; also drinking water, medicine, food, etc. Ironically, there was a commission/congressional hearing a few years ago that investigated the US’ exposure to an EMP attack on us.
http://www.empcommission.org/docs/GRAHAMtestimony10JULY2008.pdf
There are also a few good fiction books like “One Second After” that speculate on the effects.
Yea, there’s lots of other options. We can convert to Islam or die in a Nuclear war. I guess Michael just doesn’t believe a total maniac who has repeatedly called for the destruction of every non-believer would ever dare to use a nuke bomb. Like they haven’t used every other weapon they can get their hands on. Sorry, the USSR was ruled by a bunch of corrupt but sane people, Iran isn’t. Wasn’t there a Brittish diplomat who who exclaimed at the beginning of WWII “if only I could have talked to Hitler!” Well, “Hitler” ain’t gonna become rational once he gets the means to kill those who he had repeatedly claimed God wants dead.
Bolton’s comments leave me scratching my head, too. You can bomb an operating nuclear power plant into unusability without breaching the containment and releasing radioactive material. Just smart-bomb the control room, for example. Why bomb a power plant in the first place? Unless we see them changing the fuel every two months, they can’t be using it to make bomb-grade plutonium. They have the uranium enrichment facilities for their bomb explosive in any case. Therefore, if we don’t bomb the plant this week we can do it later. The enrichment facilities are another matter and we should have taken them out a year ago, but that doesn’t effect the power plant. What’s Bolton’s rush?
Exactly, speaking as a nuclear engineer, this is much ado about nothing. I dare them to try to build a bomb out of reactor grade plutonium. Now, if this were a heavy water reactor or an RBMK reactor, I’d be with Bolton, but a light water reactor is no cause for concern.
Ok, now I’m officially confused. I read this on another website:
Virtually any combination of plutonium isotopes . . . can be used to make a nuclear weapon. . . .
Use of reactor-grade plutonium complicates bomb design for several reasons. . . . Pre-initiation can substantially reduce the explosive yield, since the weapon may blow itself apart and thereby cut short the chain reaction that releases the energy. Calculations demonstrate, however, that even if pre-initiation occurs at the worst possible moment . . . the explosive yield of even a relatively simple device similar to the Nagasaki bomb would be of the order of one or a few kilotons.
While this yield is referred to as the “fizzle yield”, a 1-kiloton bomb would still have a radius of destruction roughly one-third that of the Hiroshima weapon, making it a potentially fearsome explosive. . . . With a more sophisticated design, weapons can be built with reactor-grade plutonium that would be assured of having higher yields. . . .
In short, it would be quite possible for a potential proliferator to make a nuclear explosive from reactor-grade plutonium using a simple design that would be assured of having a yield in the range of one to a few kilotons, and more using an advanced design.
Prof. Marvin Miller, Defense and Arms Control Studies Program, MIT: “[W]ith an amount on the order of 10 kilograms, it is now possible for a small group, conceivably even a single ‘nuclear unibomber’ working alone, to ‘reinvent’ a simplified version of the Trinity bomb in which the use of reactor-grade rather than weapon-grade plutonium is an advantage.”
Office of Arms Control and Nonproliferation, Department of Energy: “There is clear scientific evidence behind the assertion that nuclear weapons can be made from weapons-grade and reactor-grade plutonium. Since a central goal of plutonium disposition is to help prevent the re-use of this material in nuclear weapons, isotopic conversion is not a technically valid basis on which to achieve this goal.”
National Academy of Sciences: “The plutonium in the spent fuel assembly would be of lower isotopic quality for weapons purposes than the still weapons-grade plutonium in the glass log, but since nuclear weapons could be made even with the spent fuel plutonium this difference is not decisive.”
NOW YOU SEE IT, NOW YOU….
——————————
There is no question but that Islamic Iran (formerly Zoroastrian Persia) will have the “bomb” within 4 years.
Everyone in “intelligence” and the upper reaches of power in Western countries has accepted that fact, including the USA.
The question is why. Why have they accepted the fact and are apparently doing very little about it?
The answer is this: it has become a cornerstone of foreign policy that it is better to have a few Americans (or Westerners) killed than to risk a major distabilization in the Middle East with perhaps Israel the first to suffer the consequences.
Other consequences would be a tripling (easily) in the price of oil (and the consequences of THAT), a hardening of anti-Western sentiment throughout the Islamic world (and the consequences of THAT), proving true Bin Laden’s declaration that the West is fighting a war against “Islam” and so on.
In other words, our “troubles” vis a vis the Middle East would increase exponentially and the time-line for a resolution for Middle Eastern problems would extend almost to infinity should Iran be bombed.
Rather than risk this totally devastating scenario, Western governments have decided it is better to simply “contain” a nuclear Iran and sacrifice a “few” Western lives in the process.
In this view, even another 9/11 would be “acceptable”. You watch and see.
Therefore, although I agree with Bolton that the UN should be abolished, that Iran’s nuclear capability should be bombed, I know for a fact that that is not going to happen. Not a chance.
The price would simply be too high.
I also agree that there are other ways to “neutralize” Iran (and other Islamist countries), but that’s another story…..and it’s not worth telling, actually, because even those measures would be “unacceptable” to the Western powers that be.
After all, the US currently has over 300 million citizens (ditto the European Union)……what are the lives of a few thousand of those if the status quo can be maintained in the Middle East?
PP: that is one dang cold assessment of the situation-but I am afraid you are right. Since WW2 our government has made it a policy to sacrifice some American lives for the “good” of all-Do a little reading on Ishi and Japan’s BW program. They experimented on captured American airmen, but it was hushed up because Ishi cooperated after the war.Our gov’t. is full of corruptionand it sure ain’t gettin’ any better now. . .
I agree that Bolton is pontificating and a little beyond the realm of reality with his one week deadline. But, and I repeat but, you need to remember that Obama is really Jimmy Carter II as far as realistic foreign policy is concerned. The Iranians will have at least 2 more years to advance their nuclear ambitions. I do not believe that most Iranians have any ill will toward the USA and for the most part don’t hate Israel. These people are not rabid Muslims like the Wahhabis in Saudi. If we were to look for friend in the Muslim Middle East I would think Turkey Jordan, and Iran would be the most likely to be reasonable nations. The Afghans, Saudis and Syrians should be at the bottom of the list. But these are just my opinions.
Between gas pipelines being blown up, as referenced here: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/concoughlin/100050959/whos-blowing-up-irans-gas-pipelines/ and other stuff that is going on which the folks over at http://www.worldthreats.com write about regarding Persia,
some stuff is being done, but not enough.
It seems that we have seen this predicament before.
“…..you need to remember that Obama is really Jimmy Carter II as far as realistic foreign policy is concerned.”
Thank you, Forgotten Man, for that excellent, terse summation of our current president.
I’d only add that while Carter in all of his naif, flawed approaches to foreign affairs at least gave the impression of his personal integrity and sincerity. Carter didn’t seem devious.
Obama, the polar opposite in that respect, seems to present only the thinnest facade of an empty suit of clothes with a nice porcelain smile. He’s a devious, shallow, wraith-like emptiness.
Very troublesome for us Americans.
Michael Ledeen – question -
When someone continually says that they are going to kill you, do you believe them. When they are attempting to get nuclear and biological weapons, delivery systems, space launch capabilities, do you believe them? When the opposition in their country says that they also have the same goals, do you believe them. My handle, f47, was originally foerenvalt47, I was born in a dp camp, my mothers’ complete family, including extended family were killed by people telling the world what they intended to do, my fathers’ family with the exception of 2 brothers were wiped out, but were not believed. Do you believe now?
I believe them and so should all Americans and Israelis believe them – do you believe them?
f47 yes i believe them. i have been calling for action against the iranian regime for twenty years. what is your point?
I can guess f47′s point, Michael, but will not claim to know it for sure. Mine is that it’s too late, that it doesn’t matter if Bolton is off-date by a few weeks or months. It is too late, and the Iranian people and their aspirations for a better society can’t stop others from saving themselves and even large parts of humanity.
My point is that hope is a town in arkansas not a realistic way to fight a war. I too have Iranian friends and they do not believe that the bazaari will do anything except go along. If they were serious about a revolution, they would have cut off funding for the regime, I don’t see that happening. They are ‘good’ muslims maybe at one time they were just about business, but not anymore.
When they see the stoning, whipping and other atrocities, how do the enlightened ones behave?
Michael – when I was younger I asked my mother, whose yahrzeit Z”L was was 5 Ellul, why didn’t you and your family run away, leave Europe, her answer was ‘who believed that hitler yamachshemo was serious, anti-semites always were around. Some of the times were more difficult sometimes less.
But who believed that it was possible in ‘modern’ times for the killing of 6 million and the world was silent’
That’s why I believe.
f47: i wrote “Accomplice to Evil” precisely to address the refusal to believe when the evil is at the end of your nose. it’s not just Hitler; it’s Stalin and Mao, Castro, Mussolini and Hirohito…on and on
I agree with Jack in Silver Spring, the Mullahs show neither the desire or need to surrender power. If they retain the loyalty of 10% of the population, those diehards who would die defending the regime and are armed, plus an intact internal security apparatus (read internal terror apparatus) while the opposition has neither guns or organization or millions disciplined enough to face death for freedom then the Mullahs are going to retain their power. Like I wrote earlier that stuff about right defeating might only happens in the movies. Worse, once they get the bomb no one will be able to touch them. BTW, the Soviet Union fell from the inside the power hierarchy, not because of street protests. Imagine what would happened to those pro-Yeltsin protesters if Stalin were still around.
As for the Americans the Iranians have killed; the US did nothing concerning the Lockabie bombing except pretend it was not the work of Ghaddafi, nor attacked Iran and Syria over the marine barracks bombing (recall that is why Haig resigned), exchanged the Iranian terrorists behind the Kerbala attack that resulted in the deliberate murder of five US military personnel and now is ignoring the murders of hundreds of its soldiers by Iranian trained terrorists because America is too busy watching TV. Cowardice, indifference and stupidity are the hallmarks of modern America. The colors, red, white and blue always run. Even more so now that an American hating president sits in the white house, elected by a silly people because he was sexy and many who consider Sarah Palin a greater than a nuclear Iran.
Mike L. and everyone else, please show me that I am dead wrong about everything. But from what I have seen over the last 30 years I doubt whether the US could fight a sustained war against Andorra. I was amazed when the US actually hit back after 9/11, but that was a fluke, Obama has returned things to normal.
BTW Obama is not Carter II IMHO; he is far worse. At his worse J. Carter made human rights a hallmark of his foreign policy, Obama has actively sought to undermine human rights in his, see Honduras, the Cairo speech, lack of support for Iraqi democracy and the Iranian protesters, to say nothing of ignoring the wishes of the American public. That last item may slightly reduce his chances of re-election even if the economy improves, but probably not by that much.
Mr. John Bolton has been making statements of this nature for many years.
The talking heads show love him because of bizarre statements routinely made, it brings in viewers and responses.
Bombing Iran is not a good first option, there was opportunity to close a swapping deal with the LEU, but this was nixed by the US a few months ago. So here we are.
Bombing Iran is not the same as bombing Iraq, it is very different for reasons already stated, and for results we just cannot predict. When we cannot predict what will result, is like opening Pandora’s box. It may sounds great today, regardless of the Paranoid statements of John Bolton. But then tomorrow is a very different world.
The troubles in Iran today are directly traceable to the overthrow of 1953, a coup of Democratically elected prime minister Mosaddegh by the CIA. It was called “operation Ajax”, as the prime minister was organizing the petroleum industry to assist the nation of Iran, instead of all profits flowing offshore.
Im sure it appeared as a great idea at the time, but the end result was the revolution in Iran in 1979 and the resulting troubles with Iran since.
alex, actually operation ajax failed. mosaddegh was overthrown by persians, mostly clerics and soldiers. i have removed your false accusations against ambassador bolton.
I can near about guarantee you that if we rattled a sabre Irans ears would perk up. Begs the question, “What in Hell do the Mullahs have over us”?
The Holy City of Makkah and the Iranian Bomb
=========================================
Sometimes, fundamental questions are asked. But seldom are fundamental questions satisfactorily answered.
Such a question is: why does/would Iran want a nuclear arsenal?
(I don’t doubt that it does, but why?)
To bomb Israel out of existence? To defend itself against the “West”? To defend itself against the “East”? To threaten Gulf oil supplies (and suppliers)? To “dominate” the region? To show the “world” that Iran has entered the “modern world” as a member in good standing? To restrain a possibly resurgent, unfriendly and ambitious “Soviet Union”? To place “Europe” in jeopardy if the situation so warrants?
None of these answers is satisfactory. Even taken together as a whole, they are unsatisfactory though each might have a grain of truth to it.
In fact, they are totally absurd. The origins of Iran’s nuclear ambitions can be answered by none of the above.
The ultimate source of Iran’s nuclear ambitions, in fact, has nothing to do with “politics” or geography or Ahmadinajad’s megalomania.
It has to do with the world-historical split in Islam between Shia and Sunni, an event that occurred more than a thousand years ago. It goes back even further to her Zoroastrian glory days.
I don’t know how many of you have ever actually lived in the Middle East….I mean really lived there, not just “visited”.
Or who amongst you has actually been to Iran and seen what passes for Islam there.
But Islam in Iran is like Islam in no other Islamic nation. In fact, Iranian Islam is really a thin veneer covering a never extinguished or lost Zoroastrian base. The “everlasting flame” still burns strongly in Iran.
The so-called “Mullahs” are really Zoroastrian priests masquerading as Islamic “scholars”.
Remember Ahmadinajad’s infamous speech to the UN about 3 years ago? When he returned and “reported” to his religious “superiors”, he emphasized that as he was speaking at the podium, a “light” or “halo” surrounded him engulfing him with some sort of religious “ardour”.
(Really? Talk about being unislamic!! That’s pure Zoroastrianism).
Iran has never forgotten, forgiven or accepted the imposition of Islam that was the result of the Arab Conquests by the untutored and barbaric Arab Bedouin way back when. It is still smarting at this gross humiliation.
In the end, Iran had no choice but to convert to Islam, but it was a very “Persianized” Islam that took hold and Farsi remained the language of the country (unlike, for example, in Egypt, Syria, Iraq, all of north Africa and so on which not only converted to the desert religion but replaced the native languages with Arabic).
Persia not only retained its native language, it retained its culture and forever blotted Islam with the Shia heresy.
The source of Iran’s nuclear ambitions therefore has to do with national and cultural pride, not with territorial or other more mundane ambitions.
It is a final revenge to show the Arab master that in the end, Persia and its Shia Islam (which is really Zoroastrianism in Islamic garb) triumphed over the humiliation of the Conquest.
In other words, as far as the rest of the world is concerned, “Iran and the Bomb” is simply a tempest in a teapot being exploited by all kinds of international ambitions.
Bottom line: “nothing” will happen of significance to the West.
I don’t disagree with you on motives, you sound like you know what you’re talking about vis a vis Iranian Islam. However I strongly disagree with you when you say nothing will happen. Something profound will happen when Iran gets nuclear weapon capabilities. One, Israel may cease to exist as a Jewish nation. As VDH put it they would be experiencing a Cuban Missile Crisis 24/7 day after day for years. Many say they would leave. The balance of power would greatly shift in Iran’s favor and Iran would wield that power for even greater mischief in Iraq, Lebanon, Gaza, the West Bank, Africa and on to South America. Again parallels to the Soviet Union abound. Finally a Shia bomb would have to be countered by a Sunni bomb and there are many countries that would be scrambling to get their own nukes. The danger level to all Muslims in the area would exponentially increase. All of these factors will impact the entire world, especially if M.E. oil becomes radioactive.
Rancher: Thanks for your comment.
But I am disappointed that what I wrote in my previous postings here has had no affect on your thinking insofar as “Iran and the bomb” is concerned.
As far as I can determine, your ideas fall in line with almost every other commentator on this and other blogs on this issue. To wit, that a nuclear-armed Iran would have devastating consequences world-wide.
This is simply not true and it’s not going to happen.
1. The idea that such an event would cause an “arms race” in the region cannot be justified, not if you know the Gulf area like I do.
Who exactly would “build a Sunni bomb”? The Saudis? That idea is so preposterous that it’s beyond jocular.
To be blunt, the level of incompetence is so ingrained in that society and they are so backward in almost every respect you can name, that the idea that they could go nuclear is simply risible.
Just to justify my description, you should know that although they “control” their oil wells, the important strings are still pulled from Houston and what Houston says goes.
The other popular idea that somehow we are beholden to the Saudis is totally untrue. In fact, it is the opposite that is the true state of affairs. Trust me.
The Iraqis? They have rampant electricity blackouts, running water is a luxury and most public and private toilets don’t work and haven’t for years (and won’t for generations yet unborn). That Iraq could even contemplate building a nuclear arsenal is again a laughable proposition.
So who is left? The Kuwaitis? Dubai? The Bahrainis? Abu Dhabi? Sharjah? All I can say to that is hahahahaha. And you would too if you knew the area like I do.
2. Why on earth would “Israel cease to exist?” Why would Iran nuke Israel? It simply doesn’t make any sense. To believe that this could happen is pure fantasy.
After all, Islamic Pakistan, right next door to Iran, has had the bomb for decades. Why haven’t they threatened the “enemy” Israel or just gone ahead and nuked it? Presumably, Pakistan “hates” Israel as much as Iran does, at least according to its public statements.
3. You say the “balance of power would greatly shift” if Iran goes nuclear. What balance of power? There is no balance of power in that area. You’re using terminology and scenarios applicable to the Cold War era that apply purely to Western historical events but that have no applicability in the Middle East whatsoever. None at all.
You can’t project and transfer Western standards, terminology, concepts, templates, computer models and so on to the Middle East without ending up looking like a dodo bird.
But that is exactly what Westerners do, both governments and the public in general and that’s why the West nearly always comes out with egg in the face when it gets involved in Middle Eastern affairs.
4. That Iran could possibly have any influence in Latin America, well, I don’t know what to say. Two sets of basket cases don’t make a healthy one.
This is getting too long.
Remember this about the Middle East…..what you see (hear, are told etc) is NOT what you get…..not 99% of the time…100% of the time. More often that not, the opposite is closer to the reality and usually, nothing comes of it.
The Sahara blows a lot of “hot air” in more ways than one.
Who would build a bomb? United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Algeria, Turkey and Yemen are all in the market for reactors. You’re saying only Iran and Pakistan are smart enough to build a bomb?
A Middle East Arms Race http://online.wsj.com/article/NA_WSJ_PUB:SB122973267337523001.html
“the important strings are still pulled from Houston and what Houston says goes.”
Please, if anything it’s the other way around, Bush was the one kissing Crown Prince Abdullah, Obama was the one bowing to King Abdullah.
“Why on earth would ‘Israel cease to exist?’”
As a Jewish nation. Victor Davis Hanson explains why here:
Israel’s Cuban Missile Crisis — All the Time
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/227597/israels-cuban-missile-crisis-all-time/victor-davis-hanson
A recent poll revealed that a quarter of Israel’s population quite understandably might emigrate if Iran gets the bomb. And it seems likely that within a decade or two, a nuclear Iran could so demoralize the Israelis by such psychological intimidation that it could unravel Israel demographically without dropping a bomb.
“There is no balance of power in that area. You’re using terminology and scenarios applicable to the Cold War era that apply purely to Western historical events but that have no applicability in the Middle East whatsoever. None at all.”
Now you’re just being naive or else I have to believe you’re an agent of Iran. Balances of power have always existed. Ask the people of Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Gaza if the Iranians have any power in the region.
“That Iran could possibly have any influence in Latin America, well, I don’t know what to say. Two sets of basket cases don’t make a healthy one.”
Iran’s Push Into Nicaragua: Why Is No One Concerned?
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/irans-push-into-nicaragua-why-is-no-one-concerned/
The press, quite rightly, has swarmed like migrating wildebeest all over the the Islamic Republic of Iran’s burgeoning economic and diplomatic ties to Hugo Chavez’s Venezuela and, to a certain degree, Iran’s spread to other anti-U.S. countries in South America, such as Bolivia. But with the exception of my own coverage, there’s been hardly a peep about the fact that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad planted the Iranian flag so far north in Nicaragua as soon as the time-tested American nemesis Daniel Ortega took office in January 2007. In fact, Ahmadinejad considered Ortega’s ascension so important that he was in Nicaragua to attend the inauguration. Within months, Iran was promising hundreds of millions in economic projects — and quickly set up a diplomatic mission in a tony Managua neighborhood where it could all supposedly be coordinated. Now Iran is extending its reach even further north, right into Mexico City with equally under-covered proposals to vastly expand tenuous ties to America’s immediate southern neighbor.
When you realize that the Ayatollahs are worse than Hitler only then will you wake up from your spoiled child self-delusions. Either or.
Ayatollahs are much worse than Hitler.
Take them out or they will surely take you out.
Now what do you wish to indulge in, more wishful thinking?
’nuff said
Thanks Michael. At last asomeone has said something intelligent about all this.
A revolution to bring the Iranian people back into the 21st century is a great idea. The problem is that the US and its allies lack the fire and rhetoric to bring about a revolution. Hints and innuendo won’t be enough: it will take direct talk of support and direct violations of Iran’s sovereignty to bring about a revolution. Is there a western country out there that is capable of carrying this burden.
All the west is good at is denying any involvement in Iran’s affairs, when it should be saying, “Yes, yes, we are meddling in your country’s affairs and will continue to do so until you freaks/mullahs are gone.”
Come on, call a spade a spade and stand up and be counted.
That’s a subtle point most people ignore: no revolution has been successful without outside support.
The question is, are we supporting revolutionaries within Iran? I would certainly hope so.
no, allston, we’re not. that’s the main point here.
The State Department, never notable for courage, was badly spooked by the hostage crisis under Carter and has never recovered. And the community organizer in charge today is even less fit for office than the peanut farmer in charge at the time.
What to do about Iran? Talk, talk, talk. Dither dither dither.
Dither while the French harbor an Ayatollah whose poisonous taped sermons are raising opposition to the Shah. Dither while a Soviet Union, whose demise wasn’t forseen, rises from the ashes to become a threat once again. Dither as the our brief freedom from nuclear terror is lost and Islamists develop nuclear weapons.
The revolution this American is waiting for is not in Iran but in Foggy Bottom. Wise heads need to roll.
I have felt for some time now that there are a number of persons and entities trying to spur Israel into bombing Iran. Bolton’s comments are simply the latest in a series of provocative and alarmist statements by various persons that seem to have this purpose.
The question is “why” do these persons and entities want Israel to attack Iran? Is there some underlying desire to see Israel do the dirty work for the rest of the world (we’ve seen this before!), or is there some more sinister purpose at work here? Who gains by having Israel bomb Iran? It seems everyone has something to gain except Israel (and Iran, of course).
I believe Israel is being used as a foil by those unwilling to face down Russia and China. You can be sure that Iran would be supported by Russia and China against whoever destroys this facility. That is why both are supporting it. Iran is being used by both these countries as an “in your face” provocation and offense against the US (Israel is irrelavent to them).
I hope Israel does not bomb Iran. I hope they invest in their anti-ballistic missile technology and their intelligence services and hope they can prevent a nuclear attack against themselves and make good their threat to respond in kind should it happen. I hope the west has to deal with Iran without Israel as their attack dog! The situation in Iran is the result of cowardly and feckless administrations in the US and (especially) Europe for nearly a hundred years. The Iranian chickens are coming home to roost! If forced to deal with the mess they’ve created, maybe the western governments will finally learn their lesson! However, they didn’t learn after Hitler, so I have little hope.
“I hope the west has to deal with Iran without Israel as their attack dog! The situation in Iran is the result of cowardly and feckless administrations in the US and (especially) Europe for nearly a hundred years. The Iranian chickens are coming home to roost!”
You have absolutely nailed it! I also hope the West has to deal with this on their own. That’s one reason I don’t want Israel to bomb them. I don’t quite know how Israel could pull off defending itself without attacking, but I’d love to see those chicken**** European governments and the U.S. State Department forced to take a stand while Israel stays safely above the fray.
Part of the problem, I think, is that few people understand the uncanny accuracy of the Iran/Soviet Union analogy. For those who remember the Soviet Union at all these days, they think of it as the sclerotic basket case it was universally recognized to be in the 1980s. They’re not familiar with its earlier character: as a dynamic, aggressive, confident regime with a docile, long-suffering population, true believers in its hierarchy, and global hegemonic ambitions driven by messianic faith in its inevitable victory and utterly devoid of moral inhibitions.
Needless to say, those who don’t remember this earlier Soviet Union don’t understand that what brought about the change was the Reagan Doctrine. As long as the Soviet Union was on the march worldwide, with opponents lacking the confidence to mount much resistance, its deep internal weaknesses could be papered over. Faced with determined resistance, though, it succumbed with amazing speed.
Khomeinist Iran is far weaker than the Soviet Union was at its weakest, and would surely collapse in a jiffy if seriously challenged. Pity that it hasn’t been.
Right on Michael.
As a famous Brit once said waving a piece of paper we will have “peace in our time.” Your distorted ideas of the evil in the human mind along with your valium RX for treatment are leading us to hell.
Remember history is the story of wooden shoes going uphill and satin shoes going downhill. Look at your feet along with the rest of us overfed, over toyed, and
guilt ridden Americans.
Operation TPAJAX did not fail, it was a CIA managed plot and succeeded;
Mr. Roosevelt Jr was the CIA in charge, Donald Wilber was agent in charge on the ground.
http://www.google.com.hk/search?q=Operation+Ajax&hl=en&safe=off&prmd=vb&tbs=tl:1&tbo=u&ei=o0JtTJrFA4XkuAPl9LGEDQ&sa=X&oi=timeline_result&ct=title&resnum=13&ved=0CFcQ5wIwDA
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB28/
I don’t mind editing, It is very easy for anyone to Google John Bolton and read his Bio, past comments and personal history of agencies he served on.
But we cannot change History. Operation TPAJAX was a Successful CIA operation operating in conjunction with British Intelligence services to overthrow The Prime Minister of Iran. I enjoy discourse on these boards, but we cannot change history.
read ray takeyh’s piece in yesterday’s Washington Post, based on recently declassified documents.
Thanks for this piece. It’s quite correct in the sense that the Bushehr reactor isn’t a point of no return for Iran’s nuclear weapons program. The operative word there is “weapons.” A light-water reactor is a very inefficient source of weapons-grade material, and from that standpoint, Bushehr will matter only a little to the weapons program, and it won’t matter soon.
The focus on the character of the regime is key. Iranians with the “Green Revolution” perspective, who during their September protests rejected the mullahs’ obsession with gaining ascendancy for the Mahdi over Jerusalem, would be much more trustworthy with nuclear reactors. Change regimes in Tehran, and we don’t have to worry about how many reactors the country has.
The tripwire beyond which military strikes against the weapons program are no longer an option for Israel is Iran getting a modern air defense system (the S-300 or a knock-off). Every word of that sentence is important: even with the S-300, Iran isn’t too hard a target for the US military. We’d take some casualties having to deal with the S-300, but we could still set back the nuclear weapons program for years with a full-scale strike.
I agree with Mr. Ledeen wholeheartedly that the absolute best outcome is regime change, and it’s not as unlikely as Western observers insist. There’s a lot roiling inside Iran that we never hear about. The Obama administration could be doing more to promote regime change, but instead is engaged in the kind of Secret Squirrel cutesy CIA tricks that presidents thought were really cool in the ’50s and ’60s. Such tricks never aided the freedom groups in target nations then, and they don’t now.
Dyer: This is the MOST ACCURATE COMMENT I HAVE READ in a long time! You are exactly correct. the “red line” for Israel is the S-300 missile system. And since there are MULTIPLE VERSION of a software/hardware system, it’s the “maximum version that is the red line — lesser, or watered down versions of the S-300 are ones Israel probably CAN deal with.
But the “MAX” version of the S-300 is such that ANY plane (with the only exception being, I believe, the F-35?) can NOT pierce it’s “dome” (and survive) of defensive airspace… and how big is that dome? That’s the key question! The dome is 90 MILES(!) IN ALL DIRECTIONS — a HEMISPHERE of air that NO JET can enter (unless Russia gave the invaders “the codes”).
On to Ledeen. Ledeen AS USUAL — being a VERY SMART MAN — and having written more books on this subject than most of you armchair posters have written comments — has correctly pointed out that firstly, NOBODY can say that if we were, starting TODAY, to give FULL ON support to the insurrection in Iran, it could only be a matter of weeks or a few months before we would be looking at a new regime.
OK, say that doesn’t happen (obviously it likely won’t), and looking at it now from Israel’s perspective, even Israel has the time to DELAY Iran by 3 – 5 years. In Jeffry Goldberg’s recent article he said that the Pentagon has specifically told the Iraqi US Air Command (sp?) (in answer to their specific questions on the subject every few months) to “no, do not shoot down 100+ Israeli Jets if you detect them streaking across Iraqi airspace towards Iran” (and thank G-d for that!). Thank G-d the US Military has a pro-Israeli bent. L-rd knows they need every favor they can get right now.
Back to “delay vs. destroy.” One MUST remember that Begin did NOT think he was “destroying” Iraq’s nuclear program at Osirak — in fact nobody in Israel did! They ALL thought they were merely DELAYING it! And the EXACT SAME THING IS TRUE TODAY.
Israel does NOT believe she can “destroy” Iran’s nuclear program, she only believes she can DELAY it. Furthermore Ledeen gave some good off the cuff answers for Bushehr — and even over and above what Ledeen said, Israel can simply BYPASS that plant. It is NOT as if Israel needs to “destroy” every plant … again, Israel is ONLY looking to DELAY. A THOUSAND GEO-POLITICAL events can take place in 3 – 5 years — EXACTLY as they took place AFTER Israel bombed Osirak.
Also, back to Israel and Bushehr: it depends on WHEN they strike and exactly HOW MANY rods are there, and EXACLTY how much radiation is in each rod. Let’s remember that by simply moving from sea level to Denver, you are exposing yourself to a considerable amount of additional radiation that you would never have received had you stayed put. So numbers mean everything in this calculus.
Bolton is a good man and an ally in this fight. Ledeen is one of the VERY FEW Western Journalists whose Iranian opinions and information are 100% TRUST-ABLE and believable. For more you’d need to speak Farsi. There is simply no reason for this arm-chair ganging up of Ledeen here today — and frankly I don’t understand it at all.
– FF
Sorry, I don’t see ‘ganging up.’ Why, just the other day you complimented me for my assessment of Syria and Hizbollah. You’ve got ‘armchair’ in there twice, Frumious.
Want to know why Michael’s piece stirred this reaction? Because if he’s wrong, millions might die. It’s that simple.
Please get a grip…
Thanks, FF (nice handle, BTW). If you’re interested you can click on my name and see my recent posts about the Bushehr reactor kerfuffle.
The version of the S-300 definitely matters. It’s been reported that the agreed-on sale by Russia was for the S-300PMU-2, which would be a mo-fo. That’s short of what NATO designates the “S-400,” which essentially tracks more targets more automatically and is supposed to resist countermeasures more effectively, with some further extension of the missile intercept range. But the PMU-2 still gives the user extended range, some countermeasure resistance, and integrated tracking and control.
The F-22 Raptor is the one aircraft that is still superior to the most upgraded S-300s and the S-400. This doesn’t mean it will defeat the AD systems every time, but that if operated well it has good odds against them. Tactical aircraft (as opposed to standoff cruise missiles) are key in taking these systems out, because the missile batteries and control/radar vehicles are mobile, and because the S-300/400 can just shoot existing cruise missiles down. They’re an ugly problem, to which you have to devote substantial assets just to pave the way for your fighter-bombers who are actually going to hit the main targets.
It’s the need to take them out first that complicates the problem for Israel so much. The US can spend hours knocking them down and then bomb nuke and Rev Guard targets later — hours or days — but Israel won’t get more than a window of a few hours to do everything. Every fighter-bomber pair that has to be dedicated to taking out the S-300 is one less that can be used to bomb main targets or fend off other air defense threats for the main bombing sorties. The probability of losses also goes up significantly for the attacker once something like the S-300PMU-2 is in operation.
One of the most difficult problems for targeteers now, whether Israeli or US, is that we are past the stage at which the greatest delays can be achieved by hitting Natanz and Esfahan. Those are still essential targets, but the critical node has shifted now to the underground labs in the Tehran area where the weaponization effort is worked. The “underground” aspect isn’t necessarily the most problematic; the collateral damage aspect is. To make a meaningful dent in the program, attackers have to penetrate the Tehran ADZ now and produce damage that will affect a lot of civilians. Two years ago, that wasn’t the case.
But it has always been the case that hitting ONLY the nuke sites would produce as much backlash as hitting a more comprehensive target set, one that sought to cripple the regime by shwacking the Revolutionary Guard. In fact, it could well produce MORE. Cripple the regime and the backlash would be reduced. But the political decision to inflict a crippling strike has been — for obvious and understandable reasons — a bridge too far for the leaders in Washington and Jerusalem.
I favor pushing the revolutionary regime to collapse using non-kinetic methods, with the coup de grace being administered by the Iranian people themselves, and the transition managed by them. They are well capable of doing it. Iran won’t disintegrate under a regime change — although we (the US) do need to stand guard over her and prevent the Russians from trying to exploit a regime change to their advantage. The best posture, in my view, is to do what we can to promote regime change from within (which we are not doing), while keeping our military options updated and on the table and understanding the tripwires. Because Iran’s current regime cannot be allowed to obtain nuclear weapons.
I think that American administration are reluctant to openly support the opposition more because it would be counter-productive internally in Iranian politics. The mullahs already use the strategy of playing off the opposition as puppets and/or allies of the Great Satan, and that strategy has apparently worked so far, as the Mullah supporters and the uncommitted center seem to be winning the day. They showed that they had the power to demonstrate and disrupt, but then it went poof. Does anyone think that if Obama expressed open enthusiastic support of the opposition and promised to help that that would push the center in Iran TOWARDS supporting the opposition?
I will admit that the hardest part is to know when that moment has arrived. WHEN will there truly be enough disenchantment with the mullahs to make revolution possible? Michael has already apparently jumped the gun a few times on that already.
#22 David thinks that we should openly pressure them with rhetoric and action NOW, but alas, we don’t know if he actually knows any more than we do, or it is just in his character to advise and act that way.
Yes, remember how we dropped all efforts at revolution when it became apparent the French were going stick their noses into Britain’s affairs and aid us? The Torries had a field day and Washington’s troops abandoned him.
Your parallel is essentially non-existent as the Revolutionary War HAD ALREADY STARTED. The French came in after we won at Saratoga (which was after the Brits had evacuated Boston and invaded NY., leaving you with not much of a point, eh? The French did not come in to aid us at Tea Party time.
the iranian revolution has been under way for many years.
You have had the Boston Massacre, but not the Battles of Bunker Hill and Saratoga. The Tories are also still in power everywhere, both of which are essential differences.
“I figured that if we could bring down the Soviet empire by helping the dissidents….”
Did we help Yeltsin et al when they ended the Soviet Union? I thought we were publicly and emphatically hands-off.
have a look at sharansky’s memoirs…
Maybe Bibi is closer to your viewpoint than good old John’s.
Thank you for your response and allowing me to post response in return, people of good character may not agree but can certainly debate in civil manner.
The article supports what the CIA operation intended; destabilize the Iranian economy and influence the overthrow of the prime ministers govt. If Mr. Takeyh would have posted the wires and cables he speaks of, there might be a better overview of his points. Mr. Takeyh has been promoting stronger actions by the US…and sits on the CFR which has vested interests in intelligence and foreign policy matters.
But his article proves out what is generally known; British and US Govts destabilized the Iranian economy because the Prime minister moved to maintain more of the petroleum profits for the people of Iran. The CIA was on the ground in Iran, whispering in peoples ears, and succeeded.
This same template was later used to varying degrees of success in Africa, Central and South America, East Asia, etc.
Bomb Scares as written is accurate and defines many of the problems with US foreign Policy, the point to emphasis is to push deeper into the underlying causes of foreign policy failures, in this case Iran and Middle East policy in general.
The pivotal point was President Nixon removing the US dollar from the Gold standard and replacing it with the Petro Dollar System. This gave exceeding leverage to the middle east petroleum kingdoms and Petroleum Companies to dictate US foreign Policy.
thanks alex. very much. i’m happy to blame nixon, heh. on takeyh, he’s generally been pretty dovish on iran, and recently has sort of hinted he thinks we should help the opposition
glad of your kind words; civil discourse is always welcome here.
Won’t work because Øbowmao wouldn’t (and won’t) support the uprising against the mullahs, and because the iranian people gave up after a few hundred dead and few thousand imprisoned.
Until we see mullahs and Revolutionary Guards being knifed and hung from lampposts on a nightly / weekly basis, no one is going to take the Iranian “democracy” movement seriously.
Also, I believe their “leader” is only a “milder” islamicist” not secular so it’s doubtful he would invite the world into dismantle the Iranian nukes.
Bomb them, bomb them now, and bomb them again when they rebuild.
The alternative is a nuke hitting Tel Aviv.
System Engineering axiom:
Hardware is cheap (compared to software).
Military / diplomatic equivalent:
Carrying out any of several levels of attack on Iran
is easy compared to securing accurate evaluations of
the intentions of the Iranian regime.
SEA part Deux: One experiment is worth 1000 guesses.
As an experiment, the US could secure the permission
of the Iraqi government to perform some ICBM accuracy
tests on targets in some particularly worthless part
of the desert, using dummy warheads with terminal
guidance; Dig a hole 50 feet wide and five hundred feet
deep, then stop and invite some Iranian Inspectors to
look down into the depths for inspiration in finding
a reasonable compromise on inspection of their buried
facilities.
As an extra bonus, at no added cost, the Iranians, and
the Russians, could be allowed to set up antimissile
sites on the bulls-eye, and try to intercept the attack.
As a patriotic touch, the reentry vehicles could be
coated in ablative materials which would trace fiery
streaks across the night sky over the Middle East,
in glorious Red, White, and Blue.
Dear Ahmedinijad and your mullah mates,
We in the west are sick of your shocking human rights record, interference in regional politics, promotion of terrorist groups and threats to annihilate Israel.
The presidents/leaders of the US and our allies will do everything in our power to bring about a revolution and toss you scum-bags out of office. Humanity will once again prevail over what was once a free and democratic country.
You have been warned. This is not a threat to bomb the crap out of you; that is unless all else fails and we sense you have your finger on the nuclear button.
This is our pledge – from the civilized west to you barbarians. Lift your game and show some respect for human lives…
I’ve little doubt that you have more current intelligence regarding the internal workings of Iran than do I, however, a revolution may not necessarily solve all of our problems with Iran. I acknowledge that the Iranians, as a people, are far more educated, more western leaning and perhaps even less fundamentalist than most muslims, however, I believe they are also fiercely nationalistic. Even if the mullahs were overthrown tomorrow, it seems likely that whoever took over would also want the bomb while being less likely to immediately employ it against Israel and other infidels. The mere fact of Iran’s possession of such weapons would inevitably lead to a nuclear arms race in the region for many reasons that would make all kinds of sense to the other nations in the region, including the fact that the United States under Barack Obama would be hectoring, indecisive and unpredictable and could not be relied upon as an ally.
While I too greatly respect Ambassador Bolton, I suspect that the Israelis would see the release of radiation at Iranian nuclear facilities as a plus rather than a deterrent. Any attack would provoke as much retaliatory violence as the Iranians are capable of producing. Spreading radiation around weapons sites would only make the rebuilding process more difficult for the Iranians, surely a good thing for Israel and the world, while provoking no stronger response from Iran. Therefore it seems likely that the Israelis, who almost certainly have intelligence far superior to ours, will make their strike decisions on other factors that would be likely to enable them to cause the greatest damage with the greatest likelihood of success. Let us also not discount the possibility that, in order to guarantee the greatest chance for success, the Israelis may resort to nuclear weapons in a strike. After all, if Iran is an existential threat to Israel, what’s the rationale for holding back so as merely to continue that threat for another day?
The wisest choice would be a massive, sustained assault by our forces, in cooperation with Israel, that would not only cause substantial, crippling damage to nuclear and research facilities, but to Iran’s ability to retaliate. We have this capability. When the dust settles, we may well have established the conditions for regime change from within, particularly if the power centers of the mullahs are obliterated. But in any case, we’d be foolish to strike Iran, or require Israel to through foolish inaction, only to leave Iran with substantial capabilities to retaliate. As the ancient saying goes, if you’re going to strike the king, be sure you kill him.
The Bomb
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SL321ehEkNs
to mikemcdaniel: All you need to look at is Iran before the take over of the Islamic regime. Iran and Iranians had always been in peace with the rest of the world and nations. At no time Iranians had the sort of “nationalistic” views of Hitler or Stalin that you may compare it to or even believe in. The term “nationalistic” has always been so loosely thrown out by everyone that its true meaning and purpose has been muddled in our modern history. To Iranian people “nationalistic” means more of “Patriotic” than anything else.
So a mere look at the event before this radical take over of Iran by these barbaric regime will show you that actually and indeed Iranians are among the most not only educated and modern nations of the world, but among its most peaceful and forward thinking as well.
Remember it never matters which nation has the bomb as many do, but who has the control of the key. No democratic forward thinking nation jeopardizes its stance in the world to use such power against other nation or nations. Only fascist regimes do such barbaric acts. Iran of tomorrow will be a free secular society and at peace and in friendship with the rest of the civilized world, exactly as it has always been before 1979.
Fukushima Daiichi reactors has been breached it’s really terrible for all Japanese
Radiation fears after Japan blast, as if not enough …