-
Coal Matters — Even in Manhattan
June 25, 2012 | 14 comments
-
An Unprecedented Two-Track Move
March 14, 2012 | 37 comments
-
He Kept His Eyes on the Prize
January 9, 2012 | 83 comments
-
A 2012 Conservative Case for America’s Future
January 4, 2012 | 23 comments
-
Trust, Don’t Verify
November 17, 2011 | 27 comments
A Further Perspective
If Israel Strikes…
When Ehud Barak joins this conversation, you know it’s serious.
The headlines are stark indeed. “Israel Readies a Pre-Emptive Strike.” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is said to be working to persuade reluctant members of his coalition cabinet to go along with such a military option against Islamist Iran. The Huffington Post’s British edition first reports Netanyahu saying this:
“One of those regional powers is Iran, which is continuing its efforts to obtain nuclear weapons. A nuclear Iran would constitute a grave threat to the Middle East and the entire world, and of course it is a direct and grave threat on us.”
The report goes on:
One day later, defence minister Ehud Barak, struck a similar tone. “A situation could be created in the Middle East in which Israel must defend its vital interests in an independent fashion, without necessarily having to reply on other forces, regional or otherwise,” he said.
Ehud Barak’s comments are most interesting. He was the Labor Party Prime Minister in 2000 who offered the Palestinians 97 percent of the territory they claimed as theirs, reserving only those limited regions thought absolutely essential to Israeli security. The Palestinians balked and commenced yet another “intifada” uprising. The leaders of the PLO (Palestine Liberation Organization) preferred to send stone-throwing teenagers to confront armed Israeli soldiers and tanks rather than engage in serious negotiations for peace.
Ehud Barak could qualify as an Israeli “dove,” but he is first and foremost a soldier and an Israeli patriot. It’s not so surprising that the hawkish Benjamin Netanyahu should be talking of a military strike against Iran. When Ehud Barak joins this conversation, you know it’s serious.
This is a most serious situation. No one knows what might happen if Israel strikes the Iranian nuclear weapons research stations. What is clear is that the efforts of the Obama administration to restrain Iran over the past three years have been an utter failure.
After extending an “open hand instead of a clenched fist” to the Iranian mullahs, President Obama saw his proffered olive branch stomped into the dust. He even sent Persian New Year greetings to the Iranian people and their dictatorial rulers. When Iranians rose up in the streets following fraudulent elections in June 2009, the Obama administration weakly claimed it did not want to “interfere” in an internal matter for Iran. The fact that Iran is daily interfering with internal affairs all over the Middle East seemed not to faze this administration.
The Obama administration invested precious time and resources in getting toothless sanctions voted by the UN. Russia and China made sure these sanctions didn’t bite. And Tehran has the active support of Venezuela’s anti-American Hugo Chavez in laundering its petro-dollars. Three U.S. administrations have said that a nuclear Iran is “unacceptable.” But beyond that, they have done little to make it unacceptable.
We in the U.S. are understandably focused on our stricken economy and our presidential elections. Distractions like “Occupy Wall Street” could not come at a better time to keep Americans from thinking long and hard about the gravest danger in the world: A nuclear Iran with intent to use those weapons for terror purposes.
The recent discovery of a bomb plot in Washington, D.C., should sober us all. The Shiite Muslim rulers of Iran were said to be preparing to set off a bomb in the favorite Georgetown restaurant of the Saudi ambassador to the U.S. They were more than willing to kill hundreds of innocent Americans in their drive to murder a hated Sunni Muslim foe.
As terrifying as that prospect was, the mullahs’ real purpose in assassinating the Saudi envoy would have been to show us they could as readily place a nuclear weapon in our nation’s capital, raising the death toll from scores of innocents slaughtered to perhaps hundreds of thousands. And a national government crippled.
One thing should be clear: If Israel strikes Iran’s nuclear weapons facilities, it will not be a first strike. Iran has been waging war against Israel for decades. Iran’s Ahmadinejad has announced to the world that Israel will be “wiped off the map.”
Tehran has been arming Hezbollah in Southern Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza for years. These cats’ paw terror groups have been doing Iran’s bidding in murdering Israelis, kidnapping their soldiers, and raining rockets down on Israeli settlements.
Israel’s dovish Defense Minister Ehud Barak is giving fair warning to the Obama administration: Israel will act to defend itself whether other powers take part or not.
The right of self-defense is an inalienable right. The reason Israel was created was so that Jews would have a national home and would not have to rely on the kindness of strangers. If Israel strikes Iran’s nuclear weapons program, we cannot say we have not been warned. Not much this administration has done in the Middle East should give Israelis confidence that they can rely on their feckless friends in Washington to support them when push comes to shove.
About the Author
Ken Blackwell, the former mayor of Cincinnati, Ohio is Vice Chairman of the Republican National Committee’s Platform Committee. He also serves on the boards of the Club For Growth and the National Taxpayers Union.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (154) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Ken Blackwell
More Articles From A Further Perspective
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/11/04/if-israel-strikes
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
The Spectacle Blog
Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder
Robert Stacy McCain | 4:12PM
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Brian Mc| 11.4.11 @ 6:47AM
Funny that this very morning Newsmax sent me an email headline which caught my attention. Something to do with Britain, the U.S. and a proposed first strike against Iran? I will need to go back and read it. A new wrinkle to this old story?
Funny how we are all in the back kitchen quibbling over the broth while Iranians, or dare I say Muslims are out front trying to light a fuze...
Alan Brooks| 11.4.11 @ 4:37PM
"The reason Israel was created was so that Jews would have a national home and would not have to rely on the kindness of strangers."
The Germans, and their romanian, Hungarian, Italian, and other allies, directly created this situation 1941- '45:
they are culpable, not Iran.
Stan Redmond| 11.5.11 @ 2:33PM
Germans, Romanians, Hungarians, Italians, are not threatening to wipe Israel off the map. Nor are they launching missiles in to their town. nor are they blowing themselves up in Israeli cafes. Nor are they.... Unless you are saying the Germans, Romanians, Hungarians, and Italians should go blow up the Iranian nuclear infrastructure.
Alan Brooks| 11.5.11 @ 3:55PM
"Germans, Romanians, Hungarians, Italians, are not threatening to wipe Israel off the map."
If you are not willing to hold the Axis culpable for the creation of Israel, then you can't hold the Soviets accountable for the invasion of Afghanistan and the consequences.
Remember, the consequences of 1979 continue to this day in Central Asia, as the consequences of 1941 continue to this day in the Mideast.
DaveS| 11.5.11 @ 7:10PM
[yawn.]
Alan Brooks| 11.5.11 @ 10:16PM
"Becket Fund for Religious Liberty.'
Appears AS asked a black writer to write a crusader piece: "sic 'em Israel!"
Appleby| 11.4.11 @ 7:24AM
Its all there in the Book of Daniel; not to mention Amos, of course. These are the End Times and its time to be prepared.
Or you could continue marching and Demanding.
Buck Ofama| 11.4.11 @ 10:38AM
"When you see these things begin to come to pass, look up, for your redemption draweth nigh."
Flamesuit on.
Alan Brooks| 11.4.11 @ 4:39PM
Appleby likes white-trash, Hal Lindsey eschatology.
Buck Ofama| 11.4.11 @ 5:49PM
You seem to be uninformed on the topic.
Moreover, Lindsey is not considered a reputable biblical scholar, but rather, a mere sensationalist.
Quartermaster| 11.4.11 @ 5:56PM
News to me. Lindsey has been highly regarded in eschatology circles. Perhaps you should get out more.
Brooks, however, is uninformed on the subject, as he is on most anything he posts on.
Alan Brooks| 11.4.11 @ 6:43PM
"Lindsey has been highly regarded in eschatology circles"
Because eschatologists are wingnuts. What you wrote, Quartermaster, is like writing:
'News to me. Michael Moore has been highly regarded in 9/11 conspiracy circles. Perhaps you should get out more.'
OR:
'News to me. Mark Lane has been highly regarded in JFK assassinology circles. Perhaps you should get out more.'
OR:
'News to me. Ward Churchill has been highly regarded in academic circles. Perhaps you should get out more.'
OR:
'Johnnie Cochran and the rest of the Dream Team have been highly regarded in activist circles. Perhaps you should get out more.'
Alan Brooks| 11.5.11 @ 5:57PM
geez, I always thought the Right didn't appreciate trash culture. But you have a soft spot (a weak spot) for eschatology hermeneutics. Studying Revelation, Daniel, is legit., however I've read Lindsey, and Pat Robertson's 'The New World Order' a few others, it's garbage.
You don't like trashy books-- yet you read them anyway.
The last film the creator of the quality film 'Citizen Kane' did was a cinematic version of Lindsey's 'Late Great Planet Earth':
it was positively senescent..
DaveS| 11.5.11 @ 7:11PM
[Yawn.]
Alan Brooks| 11.5.11 @ 10:44PM
I mean, for a religious black writer to do a 'sic 'em Israel' piece, one message may be:
"even though I'm black, I don't dislike Jews or Israel."
Tina B| 11.7.11 @ 5:42PM
yes, Appleby, just hold on, it's going to be a wild ride. . .
R Martin| 11.4.11 @ 8:03AM
If Obama is concerned about Israel striking Iran it is only because he wants to do that himself next September as a re-election surprise tactic.
Alan Brooks| 11.5.11 @ 3:58PM
McCain would have screwed it up had he been elected in '08; if McCain hit Iran, he'd have a heart attack.
Mimi| 11.4.11 @ 8:05AM
The mistake of Nov. 2008 has it's tentacles. We elected a President with a sympathy towards the enemies of Israel.
When Ronald Reagan was president and heard Israel bombed Iraq's nuclear sites he said : "BOY's WILL BE BOY"S".....Ah to be back in that place today!!!
Double (D)erek| 11.4.11 @ 3:32PM
I pray at the altar of The Gipper!
Occam's Tool| 11.5.11 @ 10:51AM
Mimi, you are as adorable as your name.
Moe Blotz| 11.4.11 @ 8:11AM
Right, our diplomats extended an open hand and the Iranians turned it around to punk slap us across our open face. Rather than imitate Teddy Roosevelt, our BO speaks eloquently whilst carrying a concealed dagger hoping to stab our antagonists in the back.
Con Chef (NB) | 11.4.11 @ 8:27AM
I hope the Israelis glass those cro-magnon douchebags in Iran back to their pre-stone age state. And when they do, rest assured that Ru Paulites & libs will scream at those of us who support such actions as "Israel Firsters" while the whole time betraying THEIR status as Iran/"Palestine" FISTERS. As they allow themselves to be fisted by the thugs of Islam whom they believe pose no threat to our nation. Funny, Rome thought that once too, didn't they? Look how well THAT worked out. Or look how well Demosthenes' philippics against Philip of Macedon worked out for Athens. Demosthenes BEGGED the Athenians to wake up. They didn't. Athens ceased to be what it was & Demosthenes later committed suicide, rather than be arrested by Philip's son, Alexander, who had ordered him arrested for his attempts to warn his countrymen.
If Israel does this, then we'd better be ready to back their play, in the naval capacity. Iran will shut down the Straights of Hormuz, or try. And since the once vaunted Royal Navy doesn't even have carriers anymore, who's left? Us, the French, & maybe the Danes & Aussies. But we'd better be ready. And this "president" in the White House doesn't inspire much confidence that we'll do this right, if it goes down.
In a perfect world, we'd take New Jersey & Iowa out of mothballs, park one at the entrance to the straights & one off the Iranian coast. Then let's just start a show with 16 & 5 inch shells. Oh, if ONLY!!! In a perfect world....
Buck Ofama| 11.4.11 @ 10:40AM
>In a perfect world...
we'd not have this silly cvnt, Ovomit for "president".
Appleby| 11.4.11 @ 10:53AM
In a perfe ct world we would have done this in 1991. "You want Shock and Awe? Watch this, boys and girls!"
Red Phillips | 11.5.11 @ 2:04PM
Con Chef, to be against our current Israelcentric foreign policy does not mean you are for a Muslimcentric foreign policy. There is such a thing as neutrality. Don't be so dense.
Occam's Tool| 11.6.11 @ 5:30PM
Red,
there are no neutrals in this. If you stand on the side in the fight against sharia, you ARE on their side. Sorry.
WJ| 11.4.11 @ 9:15AM
"If Israel strikes" - more like if pigs could fly.
They aren't going to strike. They are going to try and sucker the US tax payer into doing it for them.
On the other hand, I work in the energy business. If Israel cons the US into striking Iran then I will get a very big bonus after oil prices go out of sight.
Con Chef (NB) | 11.4.11 @ 9:50AM
Maybe you can tell us the last time we ever fought a war for Israel. They don't need us. They have the tacit authorization from the Saudis for flyover. They just got bunker buster bombs. The only thing that we'd be involved in, is as I stated above. The Naval component of protecting the Straights of Hormuz.
Al Adab| 11.4.11 @ 11:09AM
I would question why the US didn't hit the Natanz facility at any time over the last ten years. Granted we were engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan but certainly we had the ability with thermo-baric weapons or a fast strike by say the 101st. One of the actions the Bush administration failed to maintain was the prevention of the centrifuge plant in Iran. A nuclear capable Iran is in no nations best interest. Just as the Clinton administration allowed the development of a nuclear N. Korea which still poses a significant geo-political problem in Asia.
Why do we expect Israel to do our dirty work when the US is more than capable of handling the matter? The longer we wait the more dangerous the world becomes.
loulou| 11.4.11 @ 11:39AM
Of course we're more than capable but we've always relied on Israel to do our dirty work. The problem is that with the Muslim Obama in office we are actively supporting our enemies.
WL| 11.4.11 @ 12:35PM
Yours and Con Chef's comments ARE SPOT ON...
It just funny to me how some of the other commenters STAY away from the obvious and nit pick canards to death...
Bottom line...we have a muslim in the white house....
He sides with the mulsims...
And Netanyahu is about to blow up a muslim nuclear reactor...
I hope they blow it of the map and this Administration has to learn about it on the NEWS!!!!!
That's probably some real wishful thinking...but it sure would be SWEEEETTTT!!
WL| 11.4.11 @ 12:40PM
I would give anything to see the look on Obamsters face when he learns that Bibi took out Mahmood Ahnadenajad (however you spell the roach's name)...at the same time...It probably wouldn't do their cause any good..but the sweeetness of making THE ONE mad as hell...sure would be a good time.....
RCV| 11.5.11 @ 10:57PM
He'd be delighted.
W| 11.4.11 @ 1:33PM
Al Adab,
I agree that sooner or later we have to destroy the nuclear plants of Iran, unless there is a change of leadership in Iran.
Bush seemed focused only on Iraq, especially after 2006, and I believe the barrage of criticism and lack of support affected him, similar to the lack of support for LBJ and Nixon on Vietnam. It affected him in that he would not risk another war with Iran.
With Obama, there is no chance he will strike Iran. He prefers the low risk attacks of drone attacks on individual terrorrists, and bombing in Libya. Both are low risk, but attacking Iran is beyond Obama's pay grade. It is not above Bibi's pay grade.
If Obama wins in 2012 then Israel has no choice but to bomb the facilities, otherwise it risks destruction.
Frank Drackman| 11.4.11 @ 11:32AM
at WJ,
yeah, right, like they didn't strike the Osirik Reactor..
which if they hadn't, Desert Storm would have had a lot closer point spread...
and yeah, I know all about the USS Liberty, thats what happens when you spy on Souvereign nations.
And I guess "Jiffy Lube" is technically the "Energy Biz-ness"
Frank
Occam's Tool| 11.4.11 @ 1:55PM
Frank,
you kick ass all the time. I imagine you are correct on autobahns, as well. I stand corrected.
Clint| 11.5.11 @ 4:44PM
Barney Frank Dorkman & Tool Job Prove That They Are A Pair Of Israel Firster Traitor Bastards.
On June 8, 1967, US Navy intelligence ship USS Liberty was suddenly and brutally attacked on the high seas in international waters by the air and naval forces of Israel. The Israeli forces attacked with full knowledge that this was an American ship and lied about it.
USS Liberty' veterans demand investigation
Jun. 3, 2007 12:00 AM
Conclusions submitted in October 2003 to the Office of the U.S. Secretary of Defense by the USS Liberty Veterans Association, Inc., in demanding a congressional investigation into the aborted rescue during the attack of the USS Liberty and subsequent alleged cover-up.
The group also calls for a new Naval Court of Inquiry and that June 8 be officially recognized as USS Liberty Remembrance Day.
1. That on June 8, 1967, after eight hours of aerial surveillance, Israel launched a two-hour air and naval attack against USS Liberty, the world's most sophisticated intelligence ship, inflicting 34 dead and 173 wounded American servicemen (a casualty rate of 70 percent, in a crew of 294);
2. That the Israeli air attack lasted approximately 25 minutes, during which time unmarked Israeli aircraft dropped napalm canisters on USS Liberty's bridge and fired 30mm cannons and rockets into our ship, causing 821 holes, more than 100 of which were rocket-size; survivors estimate 30 or more sorties were flown over the ship by a minimum of 12 attacking Israeli planes which were jamming all five American emergency radio channels;
3. That the torpedo boat attack involved not only the firing of torpedoes, but the machine-gunning of Liberty's firefighters and stretcher-bearers as they struggled to save their ship and crew; the Israeli torpedo boats later returned to machine-gun at close range three of the Liberty's life rafts that had been lowered into the water by survivors to rescue the most seriously wounded;
4. That there is compelling evidence that Israel's attack was a deliberate attempt to destroy an American ship and kill her entire crew; evidence of such intent is supported by statements from Secretary of State Dean Rusk, Undersecretary of State George Ball, former CIA Director Richard Helms, former NSA Directors Lt. Gen. William Odom, USA (Ret.), Adm. Bobby Ray Inman, USN (Ret.), and Marshal Carter; former NSA deputy directors Oliver Kirby and Maj. Gen. John Morrison, USAF (Ret.); and former Ambassador Dwight Porter, U.S. Ambassador to Lebanon in 1967;
5. That in attacking USS Liberty, Israel committed acts of murder against American servicemen and an act of war against the United States;
6. That fearing conflict with Israel, the White House deliberately prevented the U.S. Navy from coming to the defense of USS Liberty by recalling Sixth Fleet military rescue support while the ship was under attack; evidence of the recall of rescue aircraft is supported by statements of Capt. Joe Tully, Commanding Officer of the aircraft carrier USS Saratoga, and Rear Admiral Lawrence Geis, the Sixth Fleet carrier division commander, at the time of the attack; never before in American naval history has a rescue mission been cancelled when an American ship was under attack;
7. That although Liberty was saved from almost certain destruction through the heroic efforts of the ship's captain, William L. McGonagle (MOH), and his brave crew, surviving crewmembers were later threatened with "court-martial, imprisonment or worse" if they exposed the truth; and were abandoned by their own government;
8. That due to the influence of Israel's powerful supporters in the United States, the White House deliberately covered up the facts of this attack from the American people;
9. That due to continuing pressure by the pro-Israel lobby in the United States, this attack remains the only serious naval incident that has never been thoroughly investigated by Congress; to this day, no surviving crewmember has been permitted to officially and publicly testify about the attack;
10. That there has been an official cover-up without precedent in American naval history; the existence of such a cover-up is now supported by statements of Rear Adm. Merlin Staring, USN (Ret.), former Judge Advocate General of the Navy; and Capt. Ward Boston, USN, (Ret.), the chief counsel to the Navy's 1967 Court of Inquiry of Liberty attack;
11. That the truth about Israel's attack and subsequent White House cover-up continues to be officially concealed from the American people to the present day and is a national disgrace;
12. That a danger to our national security exists whenever our elected officials are willing to subordinate American interests to those of any foreign nation, and specifically are unwilling to challenge Israel's interests when they conflict with American interests; this policy, evidenced by the failure to defend USS Liberty and the subsequent official cover-up of the Israeli attack, endangers the safety of Americans and the security of the United States."
Jim| 11.4.11 @ 12:53PM
Don't be a moron all of y0ur life. Americans will pay for "it" regardless, either in higher gas prices, or more killings. At least with higher gas prices we won't be worrying so much about have the SH*T blown out of us.
Boar Hunter| 11.4.11 @ 2:32PM
Don't be a moron all your life?
Pop quiz for ya Jim;
Within the last few weeks, what facility on "American soil," did the Iranians intend to blow up in order to kill a hated Sunni envoy? Who, in your well considered opinion would have paid for that Jim? What action did America take in response?
Since Iran remains so terrified of American reprisal that it has continued to support terrorism and pursue its quest for nuclear weapons unabated for years, here's a math equation for you Jim;
Iran supports terrorism + Iran has nuclear weapons =
If Iran sets off a nuke in Manhattan, who will pay for that Jim? Do you think your gas prices might go up just a tad if Iran nukes Israel and establishes the Caliphate it wants to bring about in the middle east?
As for geography; Can you even find Israel on a world map and by looking tell me what percentage of the middle east does Israel comprise geographically?
Is Israel supposed to "wait and see" if Iran really means what it says about eradicating all of the Jews? Even you might have noticed that consistent with their religion, muslims raise their children to hate and kill Jews wherever they are found.
What you might not know Jim, is that Israel does not reciprocate by teaching their children the same values and it even allows Palestinians to run for and hold public office. Do the Muslims you hold in such high regard allow the same of Jews?
Since liberals, stand in the way of drilling oil, burning coal, nuclear energy, and the wind mills because they kill birds, after Iran takes over and establishes a religious Caliphate in the middle east, how, pre-tell Jim-bo, do you plan on powering your computer after they set the prices for the fuel you can no longer obtain regardless of price?
Of course Americans will pay for it. Americans have always paid for it, but since America will continue to do exactly doodely-squat in response to Iran's continued support of terrorism and nuclear weapons, what will the price be when they obtain their goal?
You Jim, are apparently willing to allow Israel to pay the price by its own destruction. Are you willing to allow America to pay the price? Never mind, Yeah, I guess you probably are.
victor| 11.4.11 @ 2:59PM
WJ:
"On the other hand, I work in the energy business."
Maybe you could tell us why, instead of tossing out red herrings such as "dependence on foreign oil", we are not drilling every barrel we have and flooding the market with cheaper oil.
Is it possible that you would lose your whole raison d'etre, which is stomping on Israelis whenever you can?
Hmm?
Yeah, it's the fault of those filty Jews and their allies in the US that keeps the price of oil high, eh?
I don't hear you screaming how the tree huggers in the government keep us from drilling our own oil.
Da Jooos have nothing to do with it, but you keep on banging that drum.
Les Nesman| 11.4.11 @ 10:24PM
On this site I keep hearing about all this oil we have here in the US. I've been investing in oil & gas plays for years & I can assure you that we have nowhere near the production capacity to supply 20+ million BOPD which is current consumption. You guys must be counting all the oil shale in Wyoming etc but the production numbers are not there for kerogen. You can be sure that any supply problems from the Persian Gulf will amount to severe supply problems which will change how we live. A guaranteed severe depression which will make our current economic problems look like a square dance. You may say we'll conquer Iran & then steal all their oil but it doesn't work that way as the Iraq experience has demonstrated.
In short, if you like driving, you don't want to see any supply problems from the Middle East.
Blackwatch| 11.5.11 @ 2:49AM
Wouldn't it be easier and cheaper to set up a guerilla insurgency inside Iran? Get the Shia all riled up to start killing the Sunnis and get the students to start killing the Mullah government?
D Roamer | 11.5.11 @ 7:04PM
Obama missed the chance to support the last uprising; so there are thousands ready to go again. My thought is that when the "worm" that disabled a great portion of Iran's armament last year, I believe it was in my opinion Israel/U.S. friendly "hackers" or someone inside. Disabled systems, when the "strike" is ongoing, is the best defense and counter attack. I can see them frantically pressing their buttons and nothing but disaster comes forth.
Skippy| 11.5.11 @ 2:04PM
A lack of will is all that kept US from owning Iraq outright, and pumping $25/bbl oil till the camels came home.
We missed our chance once; let's not go all PC and squishy again.
Nuke Iran.
Nationalize their fields.
Dare Islam, the EU and the UN to object.
Cowardice in the face of naked aggression is getting to be a bad habit.
Les Nesman| 11.5.11 @ 11:40PM
You're a riot. If you nuke the place you can forget about oil production from there for about a thousand years, unless we have an army of robotic roughnecks you want to tell us about.
Skippy| 11.6.11 @ 5:39PM
Robotic roughnecks indeed.
As if the oil fields are in the Ayatollah's front yard.
Your fear of high oil prices is a poor motivation for inaction in the face of aggression.
If you will only get rich if my suggestion is taken, why would you have an objection?
Unless of course, you're totally full of shit.
Les Nesman| 11.6.11 @ 8:38PM
Fear of oil prices he says. How about rationing at best, unavailable at any price at worst. I don't know what you're talking about with this getting rich stuff. Another tough guy with the insults but pretty slow on calculating likely consequences. Your earlier post were funny, I thought is was satire.
Occam's Tool| 11.6.11 @ 5:42PM
Les, Hiroshima is lived in. As is Nagasaki. One can restart oil production within the year.
Les Nesman| 11.6.11 @ 8:34PM
LOL. Those were microyield weapons compared to what is available today. In order to reach the deep bunkers you are assured of massive fallout with lots of inhospital isotopes. Better choose a good wind day or those oil fields will be a real quiet neighborhood for a long long time.
TennesseeVolunteer| 11.5.11 @ 8:01PM
Their market pricing goes inn the dumper when we drill like we should and start using natural gas for big trucks, and then have a nationwide weatherization project for all houses which could cut heating and cooling costs by 50%. I'm in that business and it could be done in less than two years. the price for oil would drop like a stone and the albatross of dollars going out of our country would end!
ncatty| 11.4.11 @ 10:10AM
What kind of pre-emptive strike is Israel considering? Non-nuclear or nuclear? That will make a difference in terms of consequences.
Mike D.| 11.4.11 @ 10:33AM
Targeted conventional weapon strike.
Double (D)erek| 11.4.11 @ 3:58PM
Initially and hopefully all that will be required. If to no avail, then unleash the dogs of war.
Paul Kotik| 11.4.11 @ 10:34AM
We've always taken it as a given that nuclear weapons and their use are a fundamentally distinct strategic sphere.
I wonder if this is actually true, though.
In physical terms, Allied conventional weapons did vastly greater damage and inflicted many times the casualties in Japan than did the two nuclear bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Not all nuclear bombs are multi-megaton city-busters, and, too, the specifics of delivery and detonation (airburst vs. penetrator, for example) have widely differing physical effects.
In short, at the lower-yield end of the nuclear weapons scale, the effects are similar to those of conventional bombing. What differs, in physical terms, is the efficiency: one nuclear device on one delivery platform does the work of many conventional devices on many conventional delivery platforms.
It may be that we are entering an era in which the nuclear-conventional boundary in strategic conception is giving way to one in which distinctions of effect dominate: very powerful bombs ( i.e., high-yield thermonuclear) vs. smaller bombs such as low-yield nuclear and conventional explosives.
The um, conventional wisdom that Israel lacks the sheer quantities of platforms to effectively take out the Iranian nuclear weapons enterprise would be obso'ed if Israel instead chose to employ low-yield nuclear weapons, of which a managably small number could likely do the job.
And would, in fact, such an attack by Israel elicit distinctly different responses from her enemies or from other players? Why would their calculations be different because one nuclear bomb has done the work of, say, 100 conventional bombs?
Is there really a nuclear threshold? I think that as time passes, the answer tends toward "no". There are only strategic thresholds in terms of effect. City-busting will always be different from precision strikes on military facilities, regardless of the technology used.
Mike D.| 11.4.11 @ 11:34AM
The disadvantage of using Nuclear Weapons unless as a last resort is the possible showering of nuclear fallout on potential allied or friendly countries. Multi-Megaton city busting warheads are pretty much being phased out as targeting accuracy has increased to within several hundred feet or less of target. Most Nuclear devices employed nowadays are in the hundreds of kilotons with some smaller for demolition purposes or specialty use. A nuclear strike using ground burst weapons also causes a lot more fallout than an air burst above a city. When Cheyenne Mountain was operational it was built to withstand a near miss by I think a 5 megaton hit. Later records showed that the Soviets had targeted it with some 7-10 20 megaton equipped ICBM's. Cheyenne Mountain would have dissappeared about 25 minutes into a nuclear exchange. Whats in the Isreali arsenal as far as weapon size is open to speculation. They do have thermonuclear weapons in the megatonnage range thats a given, but their arsenal is as modern as ours and maybe more so.
Paul Kotik| 11.4.11 @ 11:46AM
Indeed, the radioactivity thing.
But how bad would it be, really? I think we must assume that Israel, unlike post-Carter America, has been working hard with customary Israeli brilliance and diligence on developing and upgrading its nuclear weapons suite. We - you and I - are likely thinking about nuclear weapons as we knew them 30-40 years ago. Imaging that we had been working hard on R&D those long decades, and evolved our nuke designs as much as we've evolved, say, our television sets.
Solving the fallout thing would certainly be a top priority for Israeli designers, given the very cramped quarters of that theatre. I think the defector Vanunu described Israeli low-yield enhanced radiation designs far in advance of ours (when Carter stopped work in that area) so goodness knows what kind of progress they've made.
Especially in minaturization. Hundreds of kilotons? That seems mighty big for the IRan job. A 1 kiloton bomb is the equivalent of what, 500 strikes by a B2 dropping 2,000 pounders?
SpiralArchitect| 11.4.11 @ 12:36PM
The answer is simple enough.
The stigma attached to the usage of nuclear weapons is the reason why they would not be used in a first strike capacity against Iranian nuclear developments.
When Iran & possibly other nations want to retaliate they will be deterred by the US & other 'allied fores'.
Consider:
12-21-12 is the supposed date the Mayan calendar ends said to be the 'end of the world'.
Perhaps that was the day the designer was working on when he died and that is why the calendar ends on that date.
Yea, speculation is fun :/
Mike D.| 11.4.11 @ 1:28PM
Maybe the mayans should have concentrated on what the Spanish were up to more than whats happening in 2012 and they might have been around a tad longer!
Paul Kotik| 11.4.11 @ 1:36PM
But why the stigma? That's what I'm wondering about.
In a world where every Tom, Dick and Ahmed has nuclear weapons, one would think some of the mystery is gone. What stigma would really attached nowadays to somebody who took out a bunker complex with a 1 kiloton nuke that didn't generate any more fallout than, say, the Japanese reactor accident?
Israeli leaders would have to weigh any such stigma against the possible outcomes of risking hundreds of pilots and aircraft and taking days or weeks to accomplish the same end with conventional bombs. One of those outcomes would be the vastly greater opening for Iranian retaliation, a capability that the shock and awe of a near-instantaneous, comprehensive breakdown the nuclear option could eliminate or greatly reduce.
DickF| 11.6.11 @ 12:18AM
Paul, I can see that you know quite a bit about this topic. (So do I; ex-USAF).
I think you might just be right, at least in part. A single low-yield ER weapon dropped on Natanz would definitely put the place out of business for good (with very little fallout beyond the immediate point of detonation).
It would also scare hell out of the Iranian leaders (something that has been badly needed for more than three decades), although I would still expect Iran to retaliate with its Shahab 3s and through its proxies (Hezbollah and Hamas).
What might happen in the event of high Israeli civilian casualties is unknowable, but it's obviously true that Israel can climb the "escalation ladder" a lot higher than Iran or any of its allies if that becomes necessary.
I'm not so sure about the stigma issue. No one has used a nuclear weapon in combat since 1945 and that's a threshold I'm reluctant to see crossed, even in the case of very bad actors like the Iranian mullahs. Lowering the bar might encourage others (Pakistan or DPRK, for example) to cross that threshold in the future.
That's why I strongly favor a U.S. conventional attack. We have aircraft and conventional munitions that can put the Iranian nuclear program out of commission overnight.
Too bad that we lack the political will, even after the Iranians were caught red-handed planning to assassinate a foreign ambassador in our own capital city.
One thing I can say with reasonable certainty: if the Israelis do attack, they will use whatever ordnance is needed to obtain the desired probability of kill for each target (which will be very high in the case of some of them). If part of the target set requires the use of nuclear weapons, that's what they will employ.
Buck Ofama| 11.4.11 @ 10:49AM
I recalled the following from Revelation.
"And the third angel sounded, and there fell a great star from heaven, burning as it were a lamp, and it fell upon a third of the rivers, and upon the springs of water; And the name of the star is called Wormwood: and a third of the waters became Bitter; and many people had died of the waters, because they were made bitter." (Revelation 8:10, 11 - KJB).
The following is quoted from Wikipedia, so your mileage may vary:
"A number of Bible scholars consider the term Wormwood to be a purely symbolic representation of the bitterness that will fill the earth during troubled times, noting that the plant for which Wormwood is named, Artemisia absinthium, or Mugwort, Artemisia vulgaris, is a known Biblical metaphor for things that are unpalatably bitter.
One interesting theory is that nuclear weaponry could be called wormwood. For example: Ukrainian synonymy 'wormwood'. They do poison the water where they are detonated, thus explaining the correlation.
Some even point to the Chernobyl disaster as a possible fulfillment of this prophecy, as the name Chernobyl is said to translate to "wormwood.""
Dai Alanye | 11.4.11 @ 11:24AM
'Cherny' and similar words mean 'black' or 'dark' in Slavic languages. As for 'obyl,' make your own guess.
John786| 11.4.11 @ 11:39AM
Conequences. Thats a nice word. The isrealis-USA will start it. I suspect the Iranians will finish it. The in-between story. Who knows. Oil at infinity may be Armageddon. The rapturers will be chearing, I'm sure. From madness to insanity.
WL| 11.4.11 @ 12:50PM
You are an idiot. Shut up and go back to Huffpo.
Jim| 11.4.11 @ 12:57PM
How will the Iranians finish it? Like Saddam did, with utter defeat and a rope around his neck?
I submit that an IQ test be required to post here, so we'll have no more of your silly comments.
Les Nesman| 11.5.11 @ 12:22AM
You assume that they do not have the power of retaliation. From this I suppose you believe that Iran does not yet possess a nuclear weapon. I think you are being naive.
Many here assume that Iran will attack once they have nuclear technology. The fact that they have not yet done so belies your fears.
Only the naive or the suicidal will call for war with Iran.
Al Adab| 11.4.11 @ 1:00PM
Hello John,
Rather some interesting postulates and don't overlook the geography where an invasion (or missle overflight) would pass. Nonetheless, I don't think we need to be concerned.
John786| 11.4.11 @ 6:11PM
Haji Aladab,
I'm very disappointed. Destroying Persia an ancient and beutiful civilisation because the isrealis want to maintain hegenomoy in the ME- is part of philosophy of armgeddon and annihilation. If this comes to pass it will cause global interfaith strife as yet another Muslim country is wiped of the map. The US intrest in the islamic world will most likely become toast. Isreal fails to understand that it's insecurity is caused by its treatment of the palestinans. Not by third parties. The planned destruction of Iran may be its last hurrah. The Shia will be caught in an internecine war with Jews drawing in the Sunnis. This may turn into a global faith war. Destablising the planet and causing the death perhaps of 100s millions of muslims. Only those with extreme hatred of humanity would think this is rational policy. And god knows best.
Al Adab| 11.4.11 @ 7:43PM
John,
We need to meet someday.
shipley130| 11.5.11 @ 2:13AM
They ceased being beautiful when they went Mussie.
Occam's Tool| 11.4.11 @ 1:57PM
Saudis have given them overflight rights, and they have bunker busters. They might be waiting to see who's going to go into the office of POTUS. But best to strike early 2012, when Obama handcuffed into NOT doing what he wants to do.
Occam's Tool| 11.5.11 @ 10:54AM
Yes, the Iranians will finish it by boo-hooing over their dead and blaming Israel for being a bully, just like all the other child rapists that you support, 786.
nathan| 11.4.11 @ 11:40AM
You all understand right that the Iranians, having gone to school after the Israelis hit the Iraq facility, have buried those nuclear facilities so far underground that nothing short of a nuke would have much of an impact on them. With conventional weapons they could take out the above ground facilities but those could be rebuilt in a short time. In short it would buy Israel a year or two but not much beyond that. And a nuclear strike crosses lines that would be hard to uncross and allow Iran to respond in kind. Iran is big enough to absorb an nuclear strike. Is Israel?
But also, let them attack Iran and all of Iran will be united behind the mullahs. Opposition, what opposition? It will evaporate overnight.
The writer here can talk about Iran having been "attacking" Israel for years but they weren't doing anything we didn't do to the Russians in Afghanistan. In short, no direct nation to nation warfare. Let the Israelis launch such a strike and right or wrong under the international rules of warfare, this will be viewed by most of the world as an unprovoked attack on Iran and Israel will be largely isolated. Further more, Iran will be viewed as very sympathethic in this, and under the rules of war as we understand them would be allowed to launch a retaliatory strike back. Are you all okay with this?
Finally, the Iranians can and would close the gulf immediately. Not a single oil tanker would move through. War games showed that no ship could survive there if the Iranians started cruise missile attacks. They could also respond by blowing up oil facilities throughout the region. Oil could easily go to 500 dollars a barrel or higher at least for a year. Gasoline would go past 6 dollars a gallon at least. The American economy already teatering, could partially collapse. The market, at close to 12,000, could possibly drop to 5 or 6. Unemployement could go past 30 percent.
All of you playing cheer leaders for this exercise need to understand what you're signing on for. The strike, from a military standpoint, probably wouldn't accomplish much in the long run. In the short run it could devastate our economy. Is the safety and security of 350 million Americans worth this to you and where exactly should our priorities be at this point?
RCV| 11.4.11 @ 12:44PM
I can understand the panic that Iran defenders have over the imminent prospect of a strike on their nuclear facilities. But the reality is that the prospect of nuclear weapons in the hands of the mad Shia mullahs and Ahkmenijad, who believe nuclear chaos will hasten the arrival of the Mahdi, is not something the rational world can afford the risk of. A strike by Israel would not only have the support of the Western powers, but the tacit support of most of the Sunni powers in the region -- most certainly Saudi Arabia -- who see Iran as the biggest long term threat to the region.
WL| 11.4.11 @ 12:57PM
Nathan..While I understand your rational fears...
Isreal has 1 or 2 choices...
1. Take the installations out...
or...
2. Mushroom cloud in Tel-Aviv...
Do you really think they care about 500 dollar barrels of oil...
There is always risks...and make no mistake..we know this...
But when a home invader is in your house....or a murderer approaches you in the parking lot of Whole foods....the people who can't seem to get themselves to grasp the gravity of the situation... USUALLY DIE.
The rest of us...says damn the topedos...
BOMB BOMB BOMB
BOMB BOMB BOMB IRRRAAAAYAAANNN!!!!!!!!!!!
SpiralArchitect| 11.4.11 @ 1:06PM
Three cheers for sensibility!
nathan| 11.4.11 @ 1:44PM
The problem is sir, that based on everything that is in the public domain, everything in Aviation Week, Defense Technology International, everything we are allowed to know and understand, there is no conventional "bunker buster" out there, in our inventory or anyone elses, that can reach deep enough to disrupt those centrifuges. Can they take out the above ground facilities? Yes. Can they impact some of the communication tunnels? Yes. Can they "take the facilities out" as everyone is talking about? Not according to anything out in the public domain today. And if they use a nuke, in what would be considered by most of the world to be an unprovoked strike, that would give Iran a "legitimate" reason to do exactly what everyone fears they may do anyway, strike back with a nuclear strike in return. It may that Iran wants Israel to do just what is being contemplated here to give Iran the pretext and the cover to do what otherwise would be considered unacceptable. Israel could just be playing into their hands.
But even with a conventional strike consider this. We have been told that the facilities are located in built up areas with a lot of civilians. Any strike would undoubtably kill large numbers of Iranians civilians and we would be treated to video of the carnage. Talk about "collateral damage" all you want. But as we are finding out with the Predator strikes, start killing innocent civilians no matter how justified, and you get lit up like a Christmas tree. If the civilian death toll goes much above 100 and it may very well go several hundred to a thousand, this will lead to more isolation for Israel even if Iran chooses not respond.
Let me ask you all this. You're the American president, and I mean any American president. The Israelis ask you for overflight rights over Iraq. Your oath of office is to the American Constitution. Not to Israel, not to anyone else. Allow the attack to go forward and America will be economically devastated. Do you allow the attack, or do you tell the Israeli PM that the Israeli planes will be shot down. Make the call.
Occam's Tool| 11.4.11 @ 2:01PM
The Israelis will not have their planes shot down. Puhlease. We can steal their oil effortlessly if we are willing to kill Iranians.
Occam's Tool| 11.4.11 @ 2:01PM
The Iranians don't have nukes yet, that's the bloody point of a first strike. It would be pre-emptive.
Occam's Tool| 11.4.11 @ 2:02PM
The Iranians going down would not economically devastate the US. It would reduce our military outlay considerably.
Occam's Tool| 11.4.11 @ 2:04PM
Iran supplies 5 % of the world's oil. 5%. Build the pipeline to Canada and nuke Iran.
Skippy| 11.5.11 @ 2:25PM
The Chinese have cursed me.
They wished for me to live in "interesting times".
Indeed!
Occam's Tool| 11.4.11 @ 1:59PM
They (the Iranians) can try to close the gulf, and they can die. Remember, this military was fought to a standstill by an enemy we went through like tissue paper. Or, to be more direct---they suck. And they are scum. Seeing their military men die by the hundreds of thousands is a cheery holiday thought.
Red Phillips | 11.4.11 @ 2:33PM
But of course people who want to cut foreign aid to Israel are anti-Semites. Good grief OT, are you deliberately trying to discredit the interventionist position?
Occam's Tool| 11.5.11 @ 11:01AM
No. I'm pointing out that waging war demands an understanding that people will be killed. The Uranians have been at war with us for over 30 years. Pussyfooting like you do, Red, has resulted in worsening US position in the ME.
I can't "discredit" what you will never agree with anyway, Red.
If you are in a war, you want to 1) win it with 2) the fewest casualties and the least amount of damage to your own side. Curtis LeMay and the bombing of Japan was the perfect example of this. It should be noted that with conventional arms alone, LeMay killed more Japanese on a single night in Tokyo than either A-bomb did to Hiroshima or Nagasaki on their days of destruction.
In short, I 1) believe that nothing can deter Iran except sufficient hecatombs of death and 2) it's past time to deliver it. I respect my enemies' hatred and desire to kill me, which you do not. Being a Jew, I have learned the lessons of history which you ignore. There has already been Islamic infiltration of the US through Mexico.
In short, Red, when we are hit, please feel free to clean up the nuclear mess in, say, Tucson without the aid of protective clothing, and take Clint and Jack with you. Like Burton K Wheeler, a name which is NOT held in high esteem when he is even remembered, you fail to assess the threat matrix correctly.
Occam's Tool| 11.5.11 @ 11:51AM
Sorry--Iranians. U is next to I on the damn qwerty.
Al Adab| 11.4.11 @ 2:38PM
OT:
Correct as usual. Of course what we require is a C-in-C who understands that world security depends on American security. It would help if that one had huevos as well.
Red Phillips | 11.5.11 @ 2:17PM
Why does world security depend on American security? America's security and America's security alone should depend on American security. Where is maintaining world security in the Constitution?
Chaim Goldman| 11.4.11 @ 9:48PM
This guy needs counselling. If OT is a psychiatrist I feel bad for his patients. EVERY Iranian is scum? Really? My prescription for is more temple time.
Occam's Tool| 11.5.11 @ 11:05AM
Every Iranian in their armed forces is scum until proven otherwise. Thanks, Chaim, for your 30 second diagnosis. I did not stae that every Iranian is scum. I was discussing their military. However, it is safe to assume that most Iranians would be happy with Israel and the US destroyed, because most Iranians, like most populations everywhere, are sheep for their rulers to herd.
I pity you Chaim, for you have inherited the traits that led to docile submission in the camps.
By the way, this is where I vent my politics. It has nothing to do with my professionalism towards my patients. One sphere is completely different from the other. I'm sure Ron Paul didn't refuse care to Zionists.
loulou| 11.5.11 @ 2:10PM
He's a hand-wringer.
nathan| 11.7.11 @ 2:00PM
Okay I'll bite. We have no way of knowing if the vast majority of Iranians want Israel and the US destroyed without accurate polling data. Have you sir, seen any? My guess is that most people in most countries, Iran included just want to be left to their lives, whatever their lives are.
But a convincing case can be made that maybe just maybe we attacked them first? In 1953 when Eisenhower greenlighted the coup that overthrew the Mossadegh government, a government that had not threatened us, not attacked us, was not hostile to us in any way, was that not an unprovoked act of war sir? And what did we replace Mossadegh with? A human rights violating kleptomaniac. And helped sustain him in power for decades? How much of the current situation is our fault? And to make it worse during the invasion of Afghanistan, the Iranians who didn't like the taliban any more than we do came in with us on in the western provinces. Now we had a chance for some sort of rapproachment. Now was the time to say, what else can we cooperate on? Especially now after having backed Saddam against these guys. You know that evil beyond evil Saddam? The guy we spent 200,000 civilian lives, destroyed the Christian community over, spent around 2 trillion dollars to get rid of Saddam? And replaced him with a sharia based "democracy"? That Saddam?
But now, we've worked together let's see what else we can do to tone things down. And what does Bush do? He gives one of the worst speeches in the history of the country, the axis of evil speech that throws these guys under bus. Sheer insanity. When Bush should have been reaching out to them, he virtually declares war on them. Neocons at their very worst.
So if they are just a "little" annoyed with us, with all this history of missteps on our part, maybe they have some justification here. Maybe. And maybe we need to do something here to tone things down.
People in areas like this have very long memories and often fight wars over things that go back centuries. We need to remember that. And think first before we do things like engineer coups against lawful governments over things like oil prices.
nathan| 11.7.11 @ 2:33PM
Oh and by the way, "inherited the traits that led to the docile submission in the camps"? Really? There's a docile trait gene?
One of the early survivors of the camps suggested that much of the lack of resistance was due to what he called "personal inertia". Just as likely was the lack of leaders willing to come forward and say we have to act.
But read the survivor accounts like I have. Start with Yitzakh Zuckermans "A Surplus Of Memory". He was the second in command of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. I've been to Mila 18. A very moving experience to say the least. Anyway a constant in so many of these accounts is that Germany was the "civilized country of Europe" and they certainly were incapable of mass murder. Zuckerman made this comment and every survivor account I've read and I've read who knows how many makes the same statement. Zuckerman said by the time they figured out what was going on, it was too late to act. Notice that during the summer deportations in 1942 where some 300,000 plus were sent to Treblinka, even though there was some knowledge by some of the people who would form the leadership of the ZOB the following year, NOTHING HAPPENED. Marek Edelman watched them pass through the gates of the Umschlagplatz. Did he issue a call for revolt? No because no one would have believed him.
The problem for most of the people caught up in the Holocaust, or caught up in Rwanda is that they literally didn't know what they were facing or how to respond to it. In so many cases they were either just paralyzed with fright or felt there was no way out. How do you account for the virtual lack of resistance in Rwanda decades later? The docile submission gene there too?
We look at Birkenau and the sonderkommandos. 13 kommandos only one revolted even though they all knew they were going to die.
Even Sobibor, the most celebrated of all the revolts (watch the movie folks) even they waited until it literally didn't matter and the camp was going to be shut down.
Over the years I've become more understanding of these folks. Confronted by a horror they had no way of comprehending, with no leadership to give them a sense of what to do and how to act, it's easy to understand how they failed to revolt. One of the Sobibor survivors was asked why them? She said the Germans allowed them to dress in civilian clothes, she said it made all the difference in the world.
I've reached the point where I refuse to condemn these people any more. We need to understand what happened, understand why they failed to act, and do lessons learned. I want to see this taught in schools, certainly in college, maybe senior level HS. We need to impress upon our kids the need to not go quietly. Because who knows if they will be caught up in something they never expected would happen just like these people were.
Sir, we need to be serious here. Insulting Chaim with things like "docile submission" genes isn't being serious.
SpiralArchitect| 11.4.11 @ 12:44PM
Surprising that no one has mentioned Russia.
The new career President of Russia takes over shortly. Any action against Iran would be done before Putin is once again in control of Russia.
This is sure to be something considered by the nations directly involved.
SpiralArchitect| 11.4.11 @ 12:47PM
Medvedev, current Russian President, is quite benign especially compared to Putin.
Mike D.| 11.4.11 @ 1:29PM
Medvedev is a puppet.
WL| 11.4.11 @ 2:25PM
Haven't you heard????? The russians are dying off...They will probably be extinct before the Mayan Calendar ends next year!!!!!
Oh, if only the Glorious General Patton was here to see this....
He would smile...
Occam's Tool| 11.5.11 @ 11:12AM
WL---indeed, the combination of hepatitis, HIV, alcoholism, abortion, asnd suicide is killing off the Russians.
Here's some interesting data from the CIA factbook website:
total population: 66.29 years
country comparison to the world: 161
male: 59.8 years
female: 73.17 years (2011 est.)
Total fertility rate:
1.42 children born/woman (2011 est.)
country comparison to the world: 196
Note the male life expectancy.
The trick with the Russkies, like the Chinese, is to contain until implosion.
International affairs is no place for unneccessary sentiment. The plan should be: "We win. They lose."
We need to contain China and Russia, and destroy Iran's war machine to " encouragement des autres." No nation building need follow, until complete Japanese style submission follows.
William R| 11.4.11 @ 2:16PM
If Israel tries to attack we should shoot down their planes. Attacking Iran will do nothing but draw the United States into another war and that's the last thing we need right now. Our already fragile economy would collapse when the price of oil goes through the roof.
loulou| 11.4.11 @ 2:20PM
Please. We will do what is in OUR self interest and Israel will do what is in HER self interest.
Don't be such a nervous nellie.
WL| 11.4.11 @ 2:28PM
I'm telling you...it's something how people get real scared...I can understand it, really....
For THOUSANDS of years...people have allowed themselves to be MURDERED BY THE MILLIONS....because they are afraid of what will happen if they don't allow themselves.......to be MURDERED BY THE MILLIONS.
Think about that.
WL| 11.4.11 @ 2:31PM
If the price of oil DID go up to Mr. Nathan's 500 bones a barrel....
I wonder if we would ask Cuba if we could put a rig next to theirs....off the coast of Florida...????
William R| 11.4.11 @ 3:47PM
Time to get a little payback anyway. The 34 sailors Israel murdered in 1967
Paul Bot| 11.4.11 @ 2:33PM
Now we are suddenly throwing in with the Muslims. This is and has always been antisemitism. Thanks for the look behind the sheet William R.
William R| 11.5.11 @ 2:11AM
I've seen anti Americans in my time, but you might be one of the worst.
Paul Bot| 11.5.11 @ 11:09AM
I am more of the stay out of it if it happens. You are wanting to throw in with the Muslims. You exposed yourself. You look good in your conical cap.
Occam's Tool| 11.5.11 @ 11:14AM
Hey Will, nice to see you enjoy child rape and baby girl beheadings.
Don't be too sure we would shoot down the Israelis, by the way. I think we would avoid that in an election year. Sorry, Klan boy.
Nite| 11.4.11 @ 5:59PM
The price of oil goes through the roof because of Obama sticking his nose into the middle east now controlled by radical Islam, and the lack of producing our own energy.
Occam's Tool| 11.5.11 @ 11:52AM
5% of the world oil supply and the cost goes through the roof.
Nick| 11.5.11 @ 1:59PM
William R.,
Brilliant solution....I think NOT!
I guess we should have helped Hitler out and attacked Great Britain and France in 1939, so, that we wouldn't get dragged into that European war?
This is why conservatives of your ilk will never be given the reins of power, ever.
Mazzuchelli| 11.4.11 @ 2:32PM
I don't care if the price of oil sky-rockets. It will be temporary. Drilling, fraccing and pipelines will then proceed unimpeded. Have at it, Israel.
Red Phillips | 11.4.11 @ 2:35PM
That Israel might pre-emptively strike Iran is one reason why we should immediately disengage from the Middle East and get the heck out of there. If they do so and we are still over there we will inevitably get draw into a disasterous war.
Occam's Tool| 11.5.11 @ 11:48AM
Don't think so, Red. It wan't the "war" which was problematic with Iraq, it was the "nation building." No nation building, just military power destroying. The Iranians couldn't defeat the Iraqis, for cryin' out loud. Avoid insurgent warfare and put them on a modern head to head battlefield, and they will be shredded.
Red Phillips | 11.5.11 @ 2:45PM
"It wan't the "war" which was problematic with Iraq,"
Well the war wasn't the problem unless you are the type of person who is troubled by technicalities like the fact that wars are supposed to have a just cause.
Occam's Tool| 11.6.11 @ 5:33PM
Red,
if we withdraw, it will affect us. Sorry.
RCV, Israel attacking the Iranians may have an effect on the election if Obama pulls his socks up and supports them. Otherwise, i'm not sure much will result.
Occam's Tool| 11.6.11 @ 5:33PM
Red,
if we withdraw, it will affect us. Sorry.
RCV, Israel attacking the Iranians may have an effect on the election if Obama pulls his socks up and supports them. Otherwise, i'm not sure much will result.
Red Phillips | 11.5.11 @ 2:45PM
"It wan't the "war" which was problematic with Iraq,"
Well the war wasn't the problem unless you are the type of person who is troubled by technicalities like the fact that wars are supposed to have a just cause.
Occam's Tool| 11.6.11 @ 5:40PM
Attempt made on the life of a former POTUS by Iraq. Sufficient casus belli.
Red Phillips | 11.6.11 @ 9:16PM
Assuming the alleged Iraqi attempt was real, which is far from certain (that Iraq was behind it is uncertain), then it would justify a proportionate response but not necessarily an invasion. It certainly wouldn't justify an invasion years after the fact.
riz| 11.4.11 @ 3:24PM
Ah, what false propaganda is fed to you all.. How you believe all this and hold all this contempt and hatred in your hearts... Explore the truth for yourselves, don't just believe all that you read.
Naturalborn Texicanette| 11.4.11 @ 8:54PM
The Israelis are God's chosen people. He will not allow them to fail, because He is in control. However, the choices of man will have an effect, because God has given man free will and the ability to choose.
So I would say...choose wisely . In the end , the Lord God Jehovah will be the winner. And if man wants to win as well, man will choose Him.
Look at the history of Israel......winning against all odds, against overwhelming numbers and superior military forces, and even winning by existing at all.
God wants Israel to survive...yes, and prosper. Choose carefully....it could determine where you spend eternity..........
Jesus is!!!!
Les Nesman| 11.4.11 @ 9:54PM
Israel is the Christian church according to the New Testament. We should not have a foreign policy based on the Old Testament, as the New Testament represents a new Covenent.
If we are red hot to attack somebody with nukes I think North Korea is past due; proven nuclear explosion, obviously unstable & terminally ill leader; still in a state of war with the US. Let's not forget the missile test they launched towards Hawaii. Somebody needs to explain to me how represents more of a threat than this place.
Les Nesman| 11.4.11 @ 9:55PM
should read "how IRAN represents more of a threat than this place"
Occam's Tool| 11.5.11 @ 11:50AM
Right, Les, G-d has forgotten Israel---which is why it is a nation that was contemporary with the Babylonians and the USA, and contributes to the welfare of mankind all out of proportion to numbers.
Les Nesman was a dweeb, by the way. Good choice.
Les Nesman| 11.5.11 @ 8:13PM
If God is to protect Israel, then what does Israel need with US protection?
Bible Idolator| 11.5.11 @ 1:27PM
"That is true. They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand fast only through faith. So do not become proud, but stand in awe.
For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you.
Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God's kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness; otherwise you too will be cut off.
And even the others, if they do not persist in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God has the power to graft them in again.
For if you have been cut from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and grafted, contrary to nature, into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these natural branches be grafted back into their own olive tree.
Lest you be wise in your own conceits, I want you to understand this mystery, brethren: a hardening has come upon part of Israel, until the full number of the Gentiles come in, and so all Israel will be saved; as it is written, "The Deliverer will come from Zion, he will banish ungodliness from Jacob"; "and this will be my covenant with them when I take away their sins."
Rom. 11:20-27.
Nick| 11.5.11 @ 2:06PM
Margie,
Didn't you state, once, that you weren't sure what Saint Paul meant by the remnant being "grafted in"? Did you find an answer to this question?
USAF brat| 11.5.11 @ 4:28AM
At this point, it appears that Netanyahu is seeking support for readying a preemptive strike as a military option. An option to what? -- Israel taking the first hit when they know beforehand that it's coming?
Perhaps we should consider what Israel may view as Iran's windows of opportunity for a successful strike on Israel.
It's hard to argue against the fact that Obama's foreign policy in the Middle East, especially as it relates to Israel, is so weak that it amounts to nothing more than the ephemeral text on his telecrapters. Should Iran orchestrate an attack on Israel while Obama is still in the White House, its chances of success will be better than they would be if Obama is replaced by a president who is American and fully committed to Israel's defense. Assuming that Obama loses his reelection bid, that gives Iran a window of approximately twelve months in which to launch an attack that will force Obama onto another golf course to escape the pressures of being clueless as to what to do about it. And while he farts around trying to put little white balls into little white cups, rockets will be raining down on the Israelis.
But there's another scenario that is even worse, which Iran might be considering, and has as its premise: Obama winning a second term. In that case, Iran will have at least four years added to its attack window. During that time there is such a high probability that it will not only develop a nuclear weapon, but also build an arsenal of them, that it's almost a certainty. And Obama will continue to do exactly what he has been doing to stop it: nothing!
Iran must be watching and weighing Obama's chances of winning a second term very closely. As the likelihood of Obama being successful diminishes, the probability of Israel being attacked in the next thirteen months increases. On the other hand, if Obama's chances improve, so does the opportunity for Iran to wait until it can nuke Israel into a glass wasteland in less time than it will take Obama to answer the proverbial 3:00am phone call.
Red Phillips | 11.5.11 @ 2:37PM
"It's hard to argue against the fact that Obama's foreign policy in the Middle East, especially as it relates to Israel, is so weak"
So America's foreign policy should be judged by whether it is "weak" or "strong" toward Israel? I have a patriotic idea. How 'bout we judge whether American foreign policy is weak or strong toward America. And the way for it to be strong toward America would be to disengage from the Middle East and quit making other peoples' problems our own.
But that said, how has Obama's foreign policy been "weak" toward Israel? Obama's foreign policy has been Bush's third term. His first Chief of Staff was Rahm Emanuel. Who would he need as his Chief of Staff to reassure you he isn't "weak" on Israel? Bibi Netanyahu?
Nick| 11.5.11 @ 3:47PM
Mr. Phillips,
Does America have to disengage from the world, or just the Middle East?
I can never keep the non-interventionist credo straight on this point.
Red Phillips | 11.5.11 @ 10:09PM
Easy. We should disengage militarily from the world. We shouldn't be protecting South Korea any more than Israel. This is clearly the non-interventionist position and I suspect you know it. If non-interventionists focus on the Middle East it is because interventionists focus on the Middle East.
Nick| 11.5.11 @ 11:21PM
Mr. Phillips,
"If non-interventionists focus on the Middle East it is because interventionists focus on the Middle East."
Oh, come on, not the old, "the devil made me do it" defense.
We should be involved where ever America has interests. Which happens to be all over the world, last time I checked.
Red Phillips | 11.6.11 @ 12:40PM
Is Peru, for example, which has interests all over the world, militarily involved all over the world? This is the fundamental problem with interventionism. It assigns to the US an exaggerated military role in world affairs beyond that of a "normal" country. This is why it is a form of radical Jacobinism, not conservatism.
Nick| 11.6.11 @ 2:39PM
Mr. Phillips,
"Is Peru, for example, which has interests all over the world, militarily involved all over the world?"
Because Peru can really be compared to the United States on an apple to apple basis, correct. Try the old British Empire, or, the Roman.
Also, Peru is involved diplomatically all over the world, I believe. The military is the sword of diplomacy. If Americans want to do business all over the world, which they always have, then we must project our power all over the world. It's as simple as that.
Red Phillips | 11.6.11 @ 9:05PM
So America is better compared to the British and Roman Empires and not to a normal country? Thanks for the admission and thanks for making my point. Would you at least have the intellectual integrity to admit that what you are peddling has nothing whatsoever to do with conservatism?
If "projecting our power" is necessary for global commerce, then why doesn't every country that engages in commerce need a military equal to ours?
Nick| 11.6.11 @ 11:51PM
Mr. Phillips,
"So America is better compared to the British and Roman Empires and not to a normal country?"
Um...yes. Are you really this unaware of U.S. history for the past 50 to 60 years? We aren't a conquering empire, like the Romans were. And, we aren't a colonial empire, like the British were. But, we are still an empire. An economic and cultural empire. After WWII, America stood alone in the world in economic might. Try reading Niall Ferguson sometime.
"Would you at least have the intellectual integrity to admit that what you are peddling has nothing whatsoever to do with conservatism?"
I'm not peddling anything. I'm just stating the way the world actually operates, not some pie-in-the-sky delusion that I've convinced myself was the way it used to be. Dealing with the real world, and protecting American interests in that world, is very conservative, in my opinion.
To answer your last question, you are again comparing apples and oranges. From the past, which you seem to willfully forget, we had the Soviet Union. Now, we have the Red Chinese trying to take the Soviet's place in the world.
I guess we should let them, huh Red?
USAF brat| 11.5.11 @ 9:08PM
Red:
"How 'bout we judge whether American foreign policy is weak or strong toward America...."
brat:
Okay. Considering that Obama has not only refused to secure our border with Mexico, but he's also suing states that have taken it upon themselves to enforce the federal immigration laws that Obama has chosen to ignore, I can't give him high marks for strength at home either. To make matters worse, running free guns to the murderous Mexican drug cartels through the "Fast and Furious" fiasco indicates that he is profoundly clueless about national security.
Red:
"And the way for it to be strong toward America would be to disengage from the Middle East and quit making other peoples' problems our own."
brat:
Before we do that, we should consider bolstering our defenses in preparation as follows:
• Secure our borders -- all of them.
• Deport all illegal aliens.
• Enforce our immigration laws.
• Rebuild our missile defense systems.
• Rebuild our missile offense systems.
• Make treason a hanging offense and enforce it.
• Establish a military policy that leaves absolutely NO weapon option off the table if we are attacked.
• Get the U.S. out of the U.N. and get the U.N. out of the U.S.
• Adopt a permanent doctrine that has as its essence: in the event of an attack on America, we will counter-attack swiftly, and with such force to completely disable the ability of the attacking enemy to wage war. Collateral civilian casualties would not limit our military response. In other words: our wars would be over with our first counter-attack. No more of these ridiculous decade-plus periods of inserting our troops into foreign countries to take pot shots at guerilla fighters who are protected by our own candy-ass rules of engagement.
• Finally, bring ALL of our troops back home to protect America from our side of our borders.
And that's just a start.
Nothing in that list will ever happen though, and since it won't, we'll still be farting around with our troops spread all over the world until the costs involved with it collapse our nation.
Sucks, doesn't it?
Red Phillips | 11.6.11 @ 12:49PM
I agree that we need to get a handle on immigration. I have said all along that terrorism on our shores is an immigration problem, not a military problem. I agree with getting out of the UN and bringing our troops home. I disagree with your endorsement of total war. An ostensibly Christian country should be guided by the principles of Christian Just War doctrine which includes the concept of proportionality. Wiping out your enemy for any infraction is the tactic of barbarian Huns and Mafia Dons and is not befitting a civilized Christian nation.
Occam's Tool| 11.6.11 @ 5:35PM
Yup. So the UK is an uncuivilized nation because of Dresden and Hamburg, Red. In war, you hit to the degree you need to, but proportionality is a way to lose.
Skippy| 11.6.11 @ 5:49PM
If I am struck by a rock, I must respond with no force greater than a rock.
You mean like a policeman?
Mmmm...I don't think so.
When struck by a rock, I mercilessly kill the thrower.
It teaches the other rock-throwers the true meaning of proportionality.
USAF brat| 11.7.11 @ 1:58AM
Especially when the rock-thrower is a suicidal Islamist Jihadi.
USAF brat| 11.7.11 @ 12:50AM
Red:
"...An ostensibly Christian country should be guided by the principles of Christian Just War doctrine which includes the concept of proportionality..."
brat:
The Christian Just War doctrine does not apply in the context of the enemy being driven by Islamist Jihad. Consider the following quotes from Col. Thomas Snodgrass, USAF (retired):
'...In totality, Just War has historically provided a set of mutually agreed upon rules of combat, generally between similar enemies acting within a Judeo-Christian tradition and a European heritage. It has been argued by war theorists that Just War theory should be universal, but the utter impracticality of imposing artificial moral standards in a “kill or be killed” scenario became strikingly evident in the Pacific Theater during World War II, where the Japanese refused to be bound by international protocols because their battlefield behavior was dictated by the Japanese Shinto religion and its Bushido warrior code...'
'...Ironically, the utter disregard for even basic humanity in the conduct of war by the strategically inferior Japanese caused the strategically superior US military “to do as they must” and adopt a “take no prisoners” mentality. In other words, when our superior military forces confronted inferior and overwhelmed Japanese forces, we could not war as we might against another Christian nation and take prisoners as is common for the stronger force. The Japanese quite effectively precluded such jus in bello war tactics by employing suicide grenade attacks and hidden pistol deceptions. As a consequence, American forces had no choice but to do as they must and burn out trapped Japanese with flamethrowers or to destroy them with satchel charges in their caves and bunkers...'
'...And just as was the case in the World War II Pacific Theater, the Islamic enemy’s disregard for any human or Judeo-Christian standard of morality makes the application of normally acceptable jus in bello criteria absolutely impossible and therefore inapplicable. Furthermore, as World War II-era Americans accepted this reality and went on with the war approving whatever was necessary because “no prisoners” and “fire/nuclear bombing” were essential to quickly end an unjust Japanese-initiated war, so too Americans must now accept that all weapons and targets are justly within the “engagement” for US war fighters in this existential war against Islamic Jihad. In this war, the stakes are even higher than they were in 1941.'
His full essay is available here:
http://www.intellectualconserv.....nst-islam/
It's an enlightening read.
USAF brat| 11.7.11 @ 1:00AM
Red:
"I have said all along that terrorism on our shores is an immigration problem, not a military problem."
brat:
I think terrorism is a military problem requiring a military solution, regardless of whether or not it happens on our shores.
USAF brat| 11.7.11 @ 1:21AM
I meant to reply to this much earlier. Sorry so late.
Red:
"...how has Obama's foreign policy been "weak" toward Israel? Obama's foreign policy has been Bush's third term."
brat:
This reads like I must have said something to piss you off. I never intended anything like that. I'll assume that it's just emotional rhetoric and that you've been paying enough attention to reality to accept that I don't believe you're really serious here.
Red:
"His first Chief of Staff was Rahm Emanuel. Who would he need as his Chief of Staff to reassure you he isn't "weak" on Israel? Bibi Netanyahu?"
brat:
I couldn't care less who Obama's Chief of Staff was or is. Rahm Emanuel, Bill Daley, Mickey Mouse, Daffy Duck...I just don't care. If Netanyahu was his C.O.S., Obama would ignore him. The problem lies with Obama being a clueless pantywaist when it comes to foreign policy. There's no C.O.S. or anyone else who can fix that. It's in Obama's cotton-pickin' DNA.
Dimitri Aleksandrovich| 11.5.11 @ 4:16PM
Does anyone here understand that if Israel strikes Iran they will be pretty much doing the bidding of the Wahhabist Kingdom of Saudi Arabia? Also this supposed Iranian plot to use Mexican drug traffickers and an ex-pat used car salesman to bomb a DC restaurant and kill a Saudi ambassador seems a little far fetched doesn't it? If they wanted to assassinate the Saudi's for their anti-Shia activities in the Middle East wouldn't they do that in the Middle East and why would they want to do it on American soil guaranteeing a war with America that would destroy much of Iran and its place as the protectorate of Shia Muslims throughout the world (who by the way are hated by the Osama Bin Laden Wahhabist/Salafist types as heretics)? Even if they were to assassinate the Saudi ambassador on American soil why would they contract out to a Mexican drug cartel. Hitting the ambassador on American soil with a bomb in a a public place that would kill Americans is a statement and why wouldn't the Iranians want one of their own seasoned professionals to carry such an operation out?
I think the Israelis are just sabre rattling. Iraq is now in the hands of pro-Iranian Arab Shia and Hezbollah (the Shia political party and paramilitary force) is in power in Lebanon. An attack on Iran at this time would mean that Israel will be at war with Iran, Syria, Lebanon and maybe even Iraq. Israel would be crazy to start such a war and the Americans would be even crazier to go along with it and stark raving nuts to get involved militarily. The Israelis are bluffing.
For all the sabre rattling in Tehran the Ayatollah's there know that too much is at stake to want to go to war with Israel. If Bahrain falls to the Shia opposition it will be in Iran's orbit and right now the Shia in eastern Saudi Arabia are being brutally oppressed by the regime there. Syria's Shia Alawite President Assad is facing the prospect of civil war at the hands of Saudi backed Wahhabists. Iran simply has to much to lose in a war with Israel and America. Of course they have to play the role in support of the Palestinians and in support of the Shia in Lebanon and elsewhere, but that doesn't mean they want a war.
By the way the Islamist maniacs who are setting the world on fire are usually Wahhabist/Salafists and the only nation on earth where the official religion is the Wahhabist school of Sunni Islam is the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
Chaim Goldman| 11.5.11 @ 8:11PM
You display a depth of understanding that I do not frequently see on the comment board. I await with interest the response from those who are so vociferous on the use of force against Iran. I suspect that most of them believe that Iran is not yet a nuclear power. Perhaps they have failed to consider the story of Mr Khan from Pakistan...
Occam's Tool| 11.6.11 @ 5:38PM
The Israelis will not allow Iran to get nukes. Sorry, Chaim (if that's your name this week, Clint), Israel is a 1 nuke country. If they have to work with the Saudis to get it done, fine. Israel is also a master of realpolitik.
I don't think the Iranians are thinking rationally. So much the worse for them.
Clint| 11.6.11 @ 7:07PM
I Gotv$1000.00 that says that Poster Isn't Me, Screwball Israel Firster Neo-Chickenhawk Maniac,Tool Job.
You're A Worldclass Asshole.
The Tea Party Steps On Tool Job's Face.
TennesseeVolunteer| 11.5.11 @ 8:07PM
Ken, don't tell me you really believe the used car bomber was a clear and present danger. You really think that was true?
The Used car bomber makes the underwear bomber look like Atilla the Hun!
Kingofthenet| 11.5.11 @ 8:23PM
The problem I see is this, a strike against Iran made sense 6-8 years ago when their program was in it's infancy, you could have destroyed ALL capability. Now you have a well oiled machine that while still having issues, solved many of the technical problems, replacing equipment is easy, gaining the skills and expertise is what takes time. You also have the issue that while Iran is definitely creating the 'capability' to produce weapons, it isn't currently doing so, and can't easily under the watchful eye of the IAEA, basically you have a program 90% civilian and 10% Military, a military strike would cause the Iranians to go 100% Military in secret, and the inspectors will be kicked out. not to mention a strike would cause oil prices to go ballistic, actually putting more money in the pockets of Tehran.
John II| 11.6.11 @ 11:05PM
Am I the only one who's noticed that Israel has absolutely NOTHING to lose with a punishing strike against the mullahs and their compliant nuclear scientists (after all, they're going to be vilified by their overt enemies AND by a feckless West, no matter WHAT they do)--and absolutely EVERYTHING to lose with a piss-ant Munich-like "diplomatic" approach to the provocations of Islamic fanatics with nuclear weapons? Well--AM I?
And now back to "Masada" (1981), in which the 1st-century A.D. Roman siege of the JEWISH fortress in "Palestine" (a Roman term for an impossibly recalcitrant geographical area) is dramatized. Naughty, naughty Jews, defending themselves like that when the whole damn world expects them to roll over and be dead. Peter O'Toole took the time between bouts of severe alcoholism to play the role of the astonished Roman imperator, Flavius Silva.
Vly Walker| 11.11.11 @ 9:06AM
I don't think what Israel does to any country is our concern. All foreign aid should be stopped to Israel and all foreign countries, period. We can't afford it, and quite frankly, Israel is led by Zionist thugs. They own 99% of all global news organisations. They work for the 45#Rothschilds35 and help to bleed America dry. Zionist Mercantilism has gotten so bad that capitalism has all but vanished in America. We desperately need to rid America of government (Mercantilism) and the burdens of other peoples' insanity and thievery.