-
The Forgotten Art of Thinking About the Bomb
December 5, 2012 | 5 comments
-
The Deadly Arithmetic of Nuclear Proliferation
October 15, 2012 | 91 comments
-
Neo-Disarmament
February 10, 2012 | 40 comments
-
Nuclear Terrorism Sinks Savannah — and U.S. Civil Society
January 6, 2012 | 54 comments
-
Can Israel Save America?
September 9, 2011 | 98 comments
Special Report
Cuba 1962 and Iran 2010: Will There Be a Mideast Nuclear Castro?
A hothead like Fidel was controlled by his Moscow handlers. But who will restrain the Mullahs when they decide to act?
In the euphoria the Obama administration feels upon attaining final agreement with Russia on the New START Treaty, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton spoke of how American and Russian strategic arms reductions have set an example for others to follow. Yet shortly after that announcement, Iran aired one of its own: The regime plans to build additional nuclear plants. Our latest national intelligence adjustment anticipates that with “sufficient foreign assistance” Iran could field an ICBM by 2015. Iran’s rocketry program is quite sophisticated, and the regime may not even need assistance. Finally, a UN report concludes that Iran already has enough enriched uranium to make two atomic bombs. Iran it seems, is responding to the example we have set by running all nuclear engines full speed ahead.
Team Obama has jettisoned sanctions against Iran that would prevent the regime, a crude oil producer with a shortage of refinery capacity, from importing refined oil, as part of American concessions to win passage of a fourth weak UN sanctions resolution. In testimony to Congress, Secretary of State Clinton likened the confrontation with Iran to diplomacy during the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis:
[We] are engaged in very intensive diplomacy. My reading of what happened with President Kennedy is that it’s exactly what he did. It was high-stakes diplomacy. It was pushing hard to get the world community to understand, going to the UN, making a presentation, getting international opinion against the placement of Russian weapons in Cuba, making a deal eventually with the Russians that led to the removal of the weapons. That is the kind of high-stakes diplomacy that I’m engaged in, that other members of this administration are, because we take very seriously the potential threat from Iran.
As to high stakes, Secretary Clinton has a point indeed. But her analogy applies beyond diplomacy. Other factors played a huge role in 1962, and bid fair to play an even bigger role in possible future confrontations in a nuclear Mideast. Specifically, consider four: (1) vulnerability to nuclear first-strike; (2) short warning times; (3) lack of communication channels; (4) lack of leader impulse control.
Vulnerability to Nuclear First-Strike. In the 1950s and early 1960s the two superpowers faced each other with strategic forces that were primarily above ground and small in number. As Peter Huessy, president of the defense consulting firm GeoStrategic Analysis notes, Iran’s nuclear forces may not be readily identifiable as such; conversely the Gulf States, lacking nuclear missile capability, must use readily identifiable aircraft as their delivery systems, making them vulnerable to a nuclear first-strike. Given far fewer military installations and few cities with populations above 100,000 in tiny countries of the Gulf (plus Israel), countries could face, if not national extinction, devastation beyond recovery if caught in a surprise salvo of Hiroshima-size bombs.
Short Warning Times. A Russian ICBM launched from the Ural Mountains will travel the roughly 6,000 miles to America’s Atlantic coast in about thirty minutes. With flight distances between potential targets in the Mideast often less than 1,000 miles, a high-speed jet can cover the distance in little more time than an ICBM can traverse oceans. Factor in missiles that fly several times the speed of sound. While far slower than ICBMs hurtling through space at twenty times the speed of sound, they are fast enough over short ranges; in some cases times from launch to impact will be less than ten minutes. Also, Iran’s solid-fuel models can be rapidly launched.
Lack of Communication Channels. Start with numbers. Between Washington and Moscow the only functioning channel was commercial telegraphy in 1962. Imagine a Mideast with a nuclear Iran, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Turkey and Egypt and Israel. With six nations there are 64 possible two-way interactions, with all the attendant prospects for misunderstandings during a crisis. Israel has used hot-line telephonic communications with adversaries, including the Palestinians, with mixed results. If with a single channel results are mixed, how will the result be with many diplomatic channels, and hours — perhaps minutes — to Mideast Armageddon? Add in that these countries do not trust each other, making communication problematic at best. Assurance that a single unintended missile launch was in fact accidental may easily fail to convince a nervous target.
Leader Impulse Control. Which brings us to perhaps the most important personality of the 1962 crisis, one whose impulse control was, to put it charitably, weak: Fidel Castro, flush with his improbable revolutionary triumph and seething with rage at the United States, partly borne of ideological Marxist fervor and partly due to the efforts of the Kennedy administration to get rid of him. Fidel wanted the Russians to incinerate the United States and was willing, even eager, to sacrifice his six million subjects in a nuclear holocaust.
It is today’s Islamic Castro who should worry us the most. Religious messianism and secular militarism can be as lethal as romantic revolutionary fervor. Compound this with several new Mideast nuclear powers and the recipe for accidental nuclear war is cooking in the regional pot. Fidel’s reckless abandon may well be the future augury of nuclear wars to come. It should be noted that although Israel has been a nuclear power (albeit undeclared) for over forty years, its status has not ignited a Mideast arms race. And when Israel took out Iran-backed Syria’s North Korea-supplied nuclear plant in September 2007, the silence in the Mideast was deafening.
A Mideast arms race can rapidly be ignited if Iran crosses the nuclear weapons threshold. The Gulf States will not start a 25-year development program. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Qatar can simply call Pakistan and ask how many atomic bombs the Pakistanis will part with for how many petrodollars. With dozens of nuclear weapons plus in-place weapons production capability, cash-strapped Pakistan can easily afford to sell part of its arsenal or make A-bombs to order. The current Pakistani government might decline, but this could change should a militant Islamic government seize power.
The advanced jets that the Gulf States purchased from the United States can carry nuclear bombs. Then parties would be armed fully, without the extended learning curve that enabled America and the former Soviet Union to learn how to safeguard their weapons from accidental or unauthorized use, and to base forces securely protected from surprise attack. In the face of an apparent surprise attack indicator — which could be a flock of geese on a radar screen — countries with a “use or lose” launch alert posture (known in the strategic community as “launch on warning”) could feel compelled to launch. Even a small-scale attack can extinguish tiny states, unlike the United States and Russia, whose huge territories and vast, dispersed populations make only a large-area attack capable of ending national life.
Put simply, an arms race in the Mideast will be a collection of nuclear accidents waiting for places to happen. Just as Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev was then the lesser danger, so today Russia’s leaders, though dangerous adversaries, pose less of an immediate nuclear first-strike threat than do Iran’s leaders. The 21st century Castro most likely to unleash a nuclear war likely lives in the Mideast, not Moscow. Setting an example by reducing our nuclear arsenal further than the vast reductions we have already made will only embolden the world’s most dangerous leaders.
Mention should also be made of Iran’s other delivery mode: terror proxy Hezbollah. Hezbollah has implanted several dozen terror cells within the United States. The group was nicknamed by Colin Powell’s State Department deputy, Richard Armitage, “terrorism’s A-Team” — this coming after 9/11. If Iran gives Hezbollah nukes to set off in one or more American cities, tracing the devices definitively back to Iran could prove beyond the current state of nuclear forensics.
Nuclear crises arise suddenly, take novel forms and impose immense stress on leaders, with little margin for error. With survival at stake, the temptation to strike first could well prove irresistible. The result would be global catastrophe.
Melvin| 6.15.10 @ 7:07AM
Where is the center of the universe for for the radical sect of Islam called Wahhabism?
Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia build this Islamic monster called Iran now let them deal with it.
RCV| 6.15.10 @ 11:02PM
Melvin: Saudi Arabia did not "build" Islamic Iran. The Iranians are Shiites. The Wahabbis don't even consider them Muslims; they believe they are polytheistic idolators. The Saudis hate the Iranian regime and are the ones who, along with Israel, have the most to fear from a Nuclear Iran.
Brian Mc| 6.15.10 @ 7:25AM
I am wondering when Israel will say once more, enough is enough. How long can she afford to sit on hands that can strike with such swiftness and boldness that leaves her enemies only to whine about the unfairness of it all?
Occam's Tool| 6.15.10 @ 10:18PM
Brian Mc:
Thou kicketh ass, my friend. I've been wondering why the Israelis are waiting, too. Perhaps to cause the maximum setback for the Iranians?
coal carrier| 6.15.10 @ 7:47AM
“It was pushing hard to get the world community to understand, going to the UN, making a presentation, getting international opinion against the placement of Russian weapons in Cuba, making a deal eventually with the Russians that led to the removal of the weapons.”
Is this woman out of her mind? She is engaged in a “high-stakes diplomacy” process like Kennedy? If that were the truth, then her boss would be on worldwide television explaining to Iran that we were about to “kick you ass!” Oh, that’s right, kicking ass is only meant for corporate CEOs.
davelnaf| 6.15.10 @ 8:57AM
Hezbollah’s capability to smuggle a nuke into the US is debatable. But the mere fact that it could be done or they could be lucky enough to succeed makes getting rid of all Arabs in this country that have come here illegally an absolute priority. It goes without saying that this is certainly not included on any list of Obama administration or any previous administration’s to-do list of top priorities. But it absolutely should be. And while we’re at it thought should be given to ridding the country of Muslim Arabs that have come here legally but have not come here for professional reasons.
None of this will happen, of course, because PC is the ruling religion of the Federal government and if those of its employees dedicated to our security were to entertain such blasphemously non-PC ideas they would never voice them. One of the most likely places for Hezbollah to secret a nuke would be in a mosque, but, once again, and even if we did not have a tacit prohibition against targeting mosques for this kind of scrutiny, PC would tie the hands of anyone who wanted to look.
My one big disagreement with the author is his assumption that if a US city were destroyed by a hidden nuke the government would not take immediate action against Iran. My guess is that the Iranians have been put on notice that if such a thing ever occurred they would suffer an immediate and horrendous retaliation of at least a conventional nature. And one has to assume that Hezbollah could also kiss its you-know-what goodbye.
Occam's Tool| 6.15.10 @ 10:20PM
A nuclear attack on the US would end in swift impeachment of Obama, etc. To see what would happen in response, read Caliphate by the greatest military science fiction writer on the planet, Tom Kratman. (And no, I am not he.)
goldman| 6.15.10 @ 9:04AM
any discussion about nuclear armed rogue states in the middle east that excludes Israel at the top of the list is a pointless waist of time and is more or less ideological masturbation.
goldman| 6.15.10 @ 9:04AM
any discussion about nuclear armed rogue states in the middle east that excludes Israel at the top of the list is a pointless waist of time and is more or less ideological masturbation.
Ken (Old Texican)| 6.15.10 @ 10:36AM
"Goldman" (Moohamed),
You are precisely correct, and you and your fellow stupids had better not forget it for an instant.
Israel is literally "locked and cocked" and loaded for ALL the bears.
Furthermore, they have sephardic jews who blend with the "bears"...right down to their circumcision techniques or lack of any. They have intelligence agents in every fold of the "bears'" clothes. They won't NEED to "launch on warning", or at a flock of geese. They will KNOW!
I don't think...think mind you...that they would melt Mecca, but I am endlessly curious about where their missiles are pre-targeted and multi- tasked.
Muslims claim they like martyrdom, but most of you have forgotten Masada
goldman| 6.15.10 @ 2:41PM
seriously dude? what about killing and annihilation do you enjoy the most? A nuclear armed Israel (a reality) is just as much a threat to international security as is a nuclear armed Iran (which isn't even close at this point). Israel is a rogue state. Imagine what the response would be if Iran had killed people like Israel just did with the flotilla raid. Criticizing the state of Israel doesn't make one anti-semitic. That's just a ridiculous deflection technique. Remember also that the Palestinians are semites also.
coal carrier| 6.15.10 @ 3:18PM
When Iran finally develops their nuclear capability and has a launch vehicle, how long do you think it will take before they use it on Israel or some other sovereign country?
If Israel is a “rogue state”, as you said, why haven’t they used their nukes on anyone?
“…. killed people like Israel just did with the flotilla raid.” Apparently you haven’t seen the video where the peace activists aboard the flotilla plummeted the Israeli solders with lead pipes.
Oh, I see, they were only defending themselves as the Israelis were decending on the ropes.
Occam's Tool| 6.15.10 @ 10:21PM
Goldman,
who have the Israelis threatened with total annihilation? (Unlike the Iranians.) You are an antisemitic twerp. I say so, and I'm Jewish.
Christopher Holland| 6.15.10 @ 11:07PM
What a load of crap. If Israel was the rogue state you claim it is, people like you would have got a bullet between the eyes a long time ago and Arab cities would be smoking piles of rubble. If Israel is a rogue state it is a remarkably restrained one, it resists endless provocations to strike back. There has not been an unrestrained rogue state in history and Israel is no rogue state.
Personally, I do not care a whit how feral Israel acts, they can do what they like to the Arabs and to people like you because they and you ask for it, time and time again.
goldman| 6.16.10 @ 2:05PM
the video the IDF released was obviously heavily edited... nevertheless if the Israelis board their flotllia in international waters guns blazing the passengers have a right to defend themselves. how many Israeli soldiers are dead? how many civilians are dead? hmm... its pretty simple. The state of Israel has killed vastly more civilians in the last few years than Israeli civilians have been killed in the last few decades. You people have all drank a dangerous kool aid - anytime someone criticizes your positions you label them a dirty arab or an anti-semite. maybe you could try the actual application of logic for a change.
Louis Jenkins| 6.15.10 @ 9:35AM
Yes, and I understand that Saudi Arabia has just lent permission for Israel to overfly its territory. Strangely the Saudi's are looking at Iran too.
Melvin| 6.15.10 @ 10:20AM
Then if Saudi Arabia fears a nuclear Iran, then let Saudi Air Force Jets fly alongside Israel's.
Occam's Tool| 6.15.10 @ 10:22PM
I don't know about the Saudis flying "with" the Israelis. Would we want the help of the Mexican air force?
Christopher Holland| 6.15.10 @ 11:10PM
You could probably have a nice tortilla after landing from the first strike. Every little bit helps
Al Adab| 6.15.10 @ 12:55PM
The Left learned the wrong lesson from the "missle crisis". Ever since they have been trapped in a mindset which believes incremental response to a threat will bring the other side to the table. That would be nice in a diplomatic world where nations discuss and work out their differences and compromise. USSR and USA both had a stake in surviving the missle crisis.
Unfortunately, N. Korea and Iran and others have no such stake in their opposition to Israel and to us. They seek to do harm and damage to the U.S. and little or nothing will deter them from that goal. Surrogates like Hamas et al will be used to deliver weapons. That avoids the direct confrantation any would lose. Given the preference of the Left for talk over action, nothing would happen if Houston or Seattle disappeared in a mushroom cloud.
The U. S. needs leaders committed to its safety, defense and preservation. All we have now are those described above. We are under threat and need to act first to prevent a bigger disaster later. N. Korea is left over from Clinton days, Iran needed action under Bush. Simply placing blame does no good when action is required. Time is running out.
Will | 6.15.10 @ 1:10PM
Excellent article, but why dismiss Israel's possession of nuclear weapons with such insouciance? Iran has enough uranium to produce 2 bombs, if it wants too, if it massively improves its infrastructure and gets foreign help. It also has no delivery systems.
Israel has 200 warheads based on state-of-the-art German submarines, and has had nuclear weapons for a long term.
Surely, the side that gets the nukes first is the one that starts the arms race, so this is to a very great degree Israels fault.
Also, you fail to mention that if Iran so much as sneezed with its (hypothetical) nuclear weapons, Israel has the capability to wipe it, and Syria, off the face of the Earth. So would Iran really be made enough to use them?
Ken (Old Texican)| 6.15.10 @ 4:06PM
Will,
Moohamed,
No one will change your upside down hatred of Israel. That is fine. I have "chosen sides" too.
I don't hate Palestinians or muslims in general. Actually I pity the enslaved schmucks. I am also saddened by the muslims "slavery-of-the-spirit religion".
I am also saddened that muslims have such a hard time finding deep affection for women, and merely use them for egg-bearers and beasts of burden.
Yeah, the Israelis BOUGHT a sliver of ground in their ancient homeland TO CALL HOME.
It was a sorry ass "fixer-upper" when they bought it, a veritable desert . They fixed it up. Then the Philistines tried to steal it back for 60 years. OOPS!
Even in 73, in the Yom Kippur war, caught totally flat footed, surrounded ...and outnumbered a 100 to 1, they forbore nuking the thieves in self defense.
Israel has proven to my mind that they are on defense, and would only nuke the thieves in a last stand.
(But oh my goodness they would do so in an efficient manner).
So Will,
and Moohamed,
Hate them if you wish...but fear them....and we Christians who will stand by them.
Will| 6.15.10 @ 4:38PM
I'm not denying the right of Israel to exist, or supporting Islam as a religion, and I certainly do not hate Israel. However, I do feel that a two-state solution is the only solution, because the Palestinians have a pretty good claim to the land as well. After all, if we based national boundaries on tribal homelands, I would have to move to Britain and give my house to an Algonquin family.
The debate is about nuclear weapons in the Middle East, and Israel's role in nuclear proliferation in the region cannot be denied. Nuclear weapons are the ultimate deterrent, so can we really blame Iran for seeking to build bombs as a deterrent to what they percieve to be a nuclear threat from Israel? If indeed they are seeking nuclear weapons, which is far from certain.
John II| 6.15.10 @ 5:20PM
Interesting, in a gruesome sort of way. How old are you, Will? Fifteen? Sixteen? Where did you pick up on that moral equivalence thing? Does it make you feel warm and fuzzy, or smug, or what?
You see, the problem is that when you say "can we really blame Iran for seeking to build bombs as a deterrent to what they percieve [sic] to be a nuclear threat from Israel," you're not really asking a question.
Let me try to explain it to your fifteen-year-old mind. Consider the following question: "Can we really blame Will for projecting a relativist ethos when he's not very bright to start with and the degenerate school system to which he's constantly exposed rewards him for embracing and expressing that ethos?"
Now here's a real question: Do you notice any claims buried in my sample question?
And here's another: If you discern any claims, do you think any of them might be plausible, even if you believe they are not true?
Or are they true?
Will | 6.15.10 @ 5:35PM
My God, I'm so sorry for asking a leading question! Clearly this common rhetorical technique is the work of the devil!
Please, enough of the fundamentalist garbage about me being guilty of "moral relativism". Iran is a terrible country, and although Israel is guilty of some terrible crimes nobody in their right mind would class it in the same category as Iran.
Still, the fact remains that when one power gets nuclear weapons, its rivals will try to acquire them as well to prevent their rivals gaining a relative advantage. It's simple realist international relations theory, and as a conservative (I presume) you should sign up to that. Israel has nuclear weapons, has had them since the late '60s/early '70s, and now Iran, its most important local rival since the defeat of Saddam in 2003, is trying to get them as well. Attempting to get nukes alone does not make Iran evil in this context.
Although, I must add a big caveat- we don't know if Iran wants nuclear weapons. They certainly want nuclear power, but even if they do want weapons they will need foreign assistance, much better infrastructure, far more enriched material & a decent delivery system.
Iran knows that Israel and the US will never let it get the bomb. The threat of a nuclear program seems to be a bargaining chip for Iran, though of course they may well be serious.
John II| 6.15.10 @ 6:11PM
"My God, I'm so sorry for asking a leading question! Clearly this common rhetorical technique is the work of the devil!
"Please, enough of the fundamentalist garbage about me being guilty of 'moral relativism'."
Why did you put "moral relativism" in quotation marks? I didn't use the term.
But I was certainly at fault with my own expression "fifteen-year-old mind."
Revise that to "ten-year-old mind."
Occam's Tool| 6.15.10 @ 10:27PM
They are damn serious, Will.
The last time we were pooh-poohed about a guy threatening to wipe Jews off the Planet, his name was Adolf Hitler. And we all know how well appeasing and ignoring him went. Will, do you know any history at all?
G-d Love you, Ken.
Ken (Old Texican)| 6.15.10 @ 6:07PM
John II
Thanks for trying, but I don't think Will can ever grasp the difference, and "Goldman" is obviously a muslim sympathizer and or hates Israel.
I decided to simply tell them the facts as I understand them, and to advise them that they are on the losing team. (of evil)
John II| 6.15.10 @ 6:17PM
Will knows that "Iran" is responding defensively to evil Israel's nuclear arsenal, but he says that "we" don't know whether "Iran" wants nuclear weapons.
It's rather like poking at a tar baby. A ten-year-old tar baby.
Occam's Tool| 6.15.10 @ 10:24PM
Unlike the Iranian leadership, Netanyahu is not mad.
The Iranians are the enemies of the USA. They also threaten extermination of their neighbors. I do not want them getting nukes. Is that simple enough for you,Will?
Christopher Holland| 6.15.10 @ 11:14PM
Iran has frequently threatened to wipe Israel off the map. How does this fit into your deterrance model? And why do you say that it is far from certain that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons when they they are taking so many steps to make them. You are easily fooled.
RCV| 6.15.10 @ 11:08PM
Ken - this is the first post of yours I've agreed with - every word.
AMENBRO| 6.15.10 @ 6:07PM
Who controls all ANIMALS in the jungle.
The ahem, stronger animal.
With a bonnified PUSSEY in the WH. Russia & China benefitting from CHINA's cynical nuclear proliferation., shitfire all you liberal ipschticks no damn body. Have you figured out just why RONAld REAGAN kicked the Soviets' asses all over the planet.
SURE AS HAIL wasn't the UN,,,WAS IT??????
Still believe if you idiot liberals can proffer the USA's hinnie for global UN directed abuse they will love us.
SMELLIN THE COFFEE YET, Al, PURPLE, & TODDIE da trolls so long as I'm calling out PUSSSSEYS.
Ken (Old Texican)| 6.15.10 @ 6:09PM
AMEN, BRO! AMEN!
JmsA| 6.15.10 @ 6:34PM
Kennedy, though it pains me to admit it, got read like a cheap novel and played like a drum by the Soviets insofar as the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 is concerned. Allow me to explain. By Kennedy allowing the failure of the Bay of Pigs in April 1961, the Soviets came to various conclusions, including that the Castro regime had enough staying power absent U.S. influence, and that Kennedy lacked either the experience if not also the conviction to thwart the Soviets’ strategic long-term Marxist aims, namely the political subversion of Latin America. Castro’s dictatorship once firmly established following the defeat of the exile forces at the Bay of Pigs, the Soviets came to realize that they had a viable vehicle with which to erode and ultimately defeat American hegemony in the western hemisphere. Uncertain still regarding the long term viability of socialism in Cuba, given the proximity of the U.S. and further action from either Kennedy’s or some other administration in the future against Castro given the increasing involvement of the U.S. in southeast Asia as well as in post-colonial Africa, the Russians played their most if not only plausible strategic card: forward deployment of offensive nuclear weapons in America’s backyard. The Soviets fully aware they stood no chance of anything but a Pyrrhic victory at best given the United States’ overwhelming nuclear superiority at the time, they settled for long range strategy to preserve their ideological foothold in the western hemisphere, from which as subsequent events have demonstrated, socialism has sprung forth from Cuba, to Venezuela, Ecuador, Argentina, etc.—and ultimately into the U.S. by indoctrinated masses of Latin Americans, fully complementing those in American academia, press, political class, etc. The Soviets further understood the Kennedy administration’s domestic political needs if not exigencies, including the imperative to secure a relatively prompt and face-saving solution palatable to the American electorate. The Soviet thus opted for, as Air Force General David Burchinal put it, to freeze in place as they thoroughly stood down, allowing Kennedy to exercise his advantageous strategic prerogative during the so called missile crisis. Hence, the swap of obsolete U.S. missiles in Turkey and Italy, as well as a guarantee of non-aggression from the U.S. to Cuba, for the removal of Soviet missiles from the latter. In concluding, the Soviets infinitely pragmatic as opposed to the apparently fanatically ideological, messianic Iranians, the world was never further from nuclear war than during the October 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis—as opposed to most in danger of it should the Iranians accomplish their apparent nuclear arming goals.
Yosemeti Sam| 6.16.10 @ 2:19AM
" ... Will There Be a Mideast Nuclear Castro? ...."
Um - do pigs fly?
LOL.
Jeffry| 6.16.10 @ 3:27AM
The Iranians have every right to produce nuclear weapons. Hillary Clinton has already said this. Why should Israel have atom bombs, but not Iran? It's the right of every nation to defend themselves and if it takes a nuke to do so, from the brutal Jews of Israel, so be it.
Answers1| 6.16.10 @ 3:30AM
Drill for oil in US, crash the price, and Iran goes as bankrupt as Greece.
bernardo meza | 6.17.10 @ 8:36AM
Golman: you got to be joking to compare the danger of a nuclear Iran and a nuclear Israel.
Please be serious.
The42| 6.17.10 @ 3:46PM
Good article, one more point to take into consideration: atheism vs. religion. I think the atheism of the USSR leaders also played a part in restraint. They knew if we exchanged nucs (M.A.D.), they were DONE. No more good times for them. But now we are faced with a religious zealot who believes he would be REWARDED for M.A.D. His life only gets BETTER when a nuclear exchange happens. THAT makes Ahmadinejad a thousand times more dangerous than Castro or Khrushchev.
In addition (one more point and I'm done) Ahmadinejad also believes in the Shiite stance of the coming world leader, Mahdi, and believes it is his purpose to cause world chaos to usher in the Mahdi. He is not seeking energy; he is seeking chaos, Mahdi, and martyrdom.
Nathan Pilson| 6.29.10 @ 11:56AM
I agree with the Jewish Goldman..enough of this zionist dogma against Iran.. who has been named the #1 Top anti drug nation..on earth..who has created the first organic trachea.who hasn`t staged any war in decades.. who would be a great and wealthy benefactor to the west..and who has been in the nuclear development industry for decades ..and could have easily prduced a nuclear weapon if intended ,but they chose not to.The World is witnessing ulgy Israel via New York City.. and all zionist are doing now is targeting corporate officiers, lobbyist, themselves and the Jewish community.. but Jews are speaking out against the pangs of zionism.. and to those Jews who do.. you are to be commended .even Zionism has gotten a bad name from crooks.. but The United States through zionist intervention has attacked many Muslim Nations.. If Iran is attacked it will be the last. and it will spark attacks on U.S. western amd Jewish institutions globally.,as well as saudi oil piplines.. (the corporate lifeline of their survival. And New York is far more of a target to Muslims who are tired of murderous looters, than Israel.. seeing that everyone from Chomsky to Jewish Rabbi to Chavez to The Iranian government to The C.I.A. knows that ,The capital of Israel is New York City..There are 1.6 billion Muslims ..who are peaceful good citizens..for the most part.. but we have attacked so many muslim nations it is begining to look like ethnic cleansing and genocide.. all for their natural resource which we don`t need.. simply because we are an innovative people.. it is the oil barons who need the oil to keep control over our tax dollars ( trillions a year and yet we are a bankrupt nation.. why is that. ask the Jewish run federal reserve..( well is ain`t negro run) ..or Goldman Sach.. again..it ain`t Tyrone and Carver.. ask them where is the money going.. maybe to pricey million dollar condo settlements in Israel. where there is more emmigration than immigration..I think it is more about crooks using zionism as a front ,which is targeting Jews ..than it is zionism..either way zionism is racism..and it will not be tolerated in a civilised society
fdjk| 7.1.10 @ 5:09AM
beijing massage