-
BBC World Survey Ranks Israel Near Bottom in Global Popularity
May 24, 2013 | 13 comments
-
Muslim, Er, Youth Riots in Sweden
May 24, 2013 | 9 comments
-
Good Luck Quin
May 24, 2013 | 6 comments
-
One of The London Soldier Beheading Suspects British Born
May 23, 2013 | 9 comments
-
The Religion of Peace Strikes London Again
May 22, 2013 | 7 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Jim Antle argues that the discussion over whether Iran is a rational actor misses the bigger picture of whether we ought to go to war with Iran.
The discussion of whether Iran is or isn’t a rational actor is germane because the Obama Administration believes Iran to be a rational actor and it is this belief plays a role in its policy towards it. Jim writes:
We are talking about going to war with a country based on assumptions about its objectives that may not be true, to disarm of it weapons it may not have, without much thought for the consequences or results. This was the road we traveled to Baghdad. Are we eager for a sequel?
Relax, Jim. We’re not going to war with Iran.
The Obama Administration (through General Dempsey) says it isn’t even sure if Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapons program. No doubt this view is colored by our failure to find WMDs in Iraq. But what started the whole discussion about Iran being a rational actor in the first place was the Obama Administration’s efforts to dissuade Israel from launching a military invasion against Iran.
Clearly the United States and Israel disagree not only about how close Iran is to a nuclear weapon, they disagree on whether Iran is building them in the first place. But even if Israel’s intelligence is more reliable than ours on that question it doesn’t necessarily mean Israel will opt to take that course. Unlike Iraq and Syria, the Iranians have multiple facilities which are underground quite possibly rendering an airstrike to be hopelessly impractical. It might very well be the case that the only way Israel can undermine Iran’s nuclear weapons program is through covert ops rather than through a full scale military invasion.
View all comments (56) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Aaron Goldstein
http://spectator.org/blog/2012/03/16/were-not-going-to-war-with-ira
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
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
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
Fiscal| 3.16.12 @ 2:56PM
Your view coincides with that of the former Mossad chief who backs Obama's (and your) view of the situation.
http://www.washingtontimes.com.....-rational/
Timothy L. Pennell| 3.16.12 @ 4:54PM
You still don't understand what we're dealing with, do ya, Aaron?
If his chances of re-election go in to the tank, I GUARANTEE YOU that he will hit Iran from the air.
I wrote it this morning on Kaminsky's piece, and I'll say it, again.
Bill Clinton did it when he had to testify before a Federal Grand Jury. He did it the day of the Impeachment Vote, and he did it during the height of the Lewinski Scandal.
NEVER underestimate these people, or the way they think.
"By any means necessary!"
Mark My Words.
Zombie Reagan| 3.17.12 @ 1:52PM
Your tinfoil hat is on a bit tight, isn't it?
Jack in Wi.| 3.17.12 @ 6:55AM
Obama probably won't attack Iran because he wants to be re-elected. The price of Gas is already over 5 dollars a gal. in some places. That is dispite the fact that Obama has been the step and fetchit for the Israeli lobby his whole political career.
Romney isn't going to attack Iran either. He has 5 sons that he could not keep hiding from the military if he attacked Iran. He also knows that a huge spike in gas would destroy the world economy. He has always said that he would never allow the Iranians to develop nuclear weapons. Well the answer for that is that they aren't and won't. There is virtually no one in the military and intelligence communities that believes Iran is either developing such weapons or would use them. What would they get out of such weapons if they had them? They could not use them or they would be destroyed.
Now little warmongers like Arron can rest easy. Israel won't be destroyd by anyone but their own racism and stupidity. Eventually the world and sane Israeli's will put an end to the racist apartheid experiment on the banks of the Dead Sea and hopefully integrate into the area it has chosen to live in.
Occam's Tool| 3.18.12 @ 7:05PM
Jack: yup, thopse wonderful forwaed looking states you like so much. Don't think so. Hey, have you noted Ronulans behaving like the mangy, rabid dogs they are in Mo.?
Purple Lips| 3.16.12 @ 3:23PM
"The Obama Administration (through General Dempsey) says it isn't even sure if Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapons program."
Ah yes, Iran is playing one giant shell game. And I suppose those 90 centrifuges that were rendered useless by the Stuxnet virus were used to develope baby formula. Why don't the Progressives just tell the truth - the only value Jews have to them is thier ability to contribute big bucks to thier campagin coffers.
Zombie Reagan| 3.16.12 @ 4:24PM
So Israel should keep infecting Iran with the computer virus, instead of shooting missiles into Tehran. What's wrong, a virus not bloody enough for yous?
Mike| 3.16.12 @ 5:21PM
Hey,
Could I buy some of your left over "Henry Wallace for President" buttons left over? I would love to have one as a collector's item.
Drek| 3.16.12 @ 3:26PM
The American foreign policy establishment has reconciled itself to Iran going nuke, for they foolishly believe that the regime can be, as they term it, "contained." This accounts too for Prime Minister Cameron's folly in gushing over obama the last few days. The FO is thoroughly given over to the Arab line, the Arab narrative, and now they've finally got an American President even more given over to that line and narrative.
None of this is going to end well, especially for the Big Apple and Washington D.C.
They think that such a conflagration can be confined to the near and mid east. FOOLS!
Al Adab| 3.16.12 @ 3:33PM
Of course we will not "go to war" with Iran. It requires nothing like an invasion (even if we used the 82nd or 101st to dismantle the plants - in and out, few hours max) to destroy the processing facilities at question. Think thermobaric weapons. That is a military action, but not a war.
Drek| 3.16.12 @ 3:46PM
We're not going to get any action at all against Iran, not by sea, land or air.
Iran is going to be allowed to go nuke.
Iran is going to be allowed to establish a sphere of influence.
The United States presence in the Persian Gulf is going to come to an abrupt conclusion.
States such as Kuwait and those of the Gulf emirate are going to have to make their peace with the new order.
The House of Saud is going to go full bore nuke.
Proliferation, which is already beginning, is going to become a full blown cascade of proliferating powers.
On a yearly basis the whole world will be brought to the brink of crisis due to endless provocation of Tehran, or her proxies, such as Hezbollah, Hamas or Damascus.
I'd say a conservative bet for the first detonation of a nuclear device about a dozen years after Iran goes nuke, a baker's dozen that is.
Washington and New York City are going to cease to exist.
Al Adab| 3.16.12 @ 4:08PM
I don't think you're wrong about this administration policy at all Drek. I'm just stating that the action required to prevent a nuclear Iran doesn't require a war. How they might respond of course is another matter, but it won't be with a war.
Drek| 3.16.12 @ 4:11PM
Yes, there are all kinds of lesser measures that could have been taken, indeed, that still can be taken, to prevent them going nuke.
I want that regime destroyed.
That regime would be the first target for me, were I in control of a campaign against them.
I would use neutron strikes, and tactical nuclear strikes against their hardened targets.
I would make no mistake.
There would be no remaining personnel alive in Iran to resume their Manhattan project.
I would make them an example to the nations, of what happens when regimes dare speak openly of their genocidal desires.
And China would learn that there is still an America to be reckoned with...........
aware| 3.16.12 @ 5:05PM
You have no clue what dumping 800 billion in Treasury bills by China would do, have you? It means the stone age in 6 weeks. And not a shot fired.
You might find out that the "sole superpower" that has hocked itself to the eyelids isn't as super as you think. This just one of the prices you pay when you are ruled by a criminal gang bent on plunder. And I don't just mean the current bunch of bandits.
Drek| 3.16.12 @ 5:12PM
You really think China would go to the mattresses over third rate dirtballs from a fourth rate country.............
I don't think so.
Now don't get me wrong, I'm fully convinced that there are issues and locales over which China would go to the mattresses, and fully intends to go to the mattresses, but Iran isn't one of them.
A little calculated recklessness can go a long way with powers themselves that deliberately cultivate a certain savagery.
Did the Chinese consult us when they occupied the Spratlys?
No. Did they go to the Hague to resolve the various claims to the Spratlys and the resources thereunder?
No.
Drek| 3.16.12 @ 5:17PM
And one more thing, AWARE, the Chinese aren't yet in a position to unleash that kind of havoc upon the American economy without simultaneously causing chaos with their own.
Have you any idea the total number of jobs the Chinese regime has to create every year, just to keep those in the rural areas from stampeding their urban environs?
China has their own problems to deal with, and the moment that America finally begins to avail herself of her natural resources, once America starts to reverse trade imbalances and currency outflows, you'll see a China with the wind knocked right out of it.
Be mindful, China only rises via serious cooperation of our own establishment, which has done all it can to preserve American reliance on foreign crude, has done all it can to inflate America's currency, has done all it can to create a regulatory environment injurious to job creation.
aware| 3.17.12 @ 4:53PM
Keep telling yourself that. You will see that economic self interest is no detriment to war. WW1 being the all time best example of that fact.
Your attitude is reminiscent of Soviet hubris as they headed to Afghanistan and eventually the ash heap. Our rotten financial and economic system is dragging us to the same place in spite of military power.
Drek| 3.18.12 @ 12:50AM
Hold it, are you concerned about blowback from the Iranians or the Chinese?
Or from both.
There isn't going to be any blowback from the Chinese, they're not in a position to play games us, at least not hardball, despite their not infrequent cyber-sword rattling.
And we also have a card or two to play with them.
Discussions, behind closed door of course, on Capitol Hill, concern neutralizing the debt held by the Chinese.
And I can surely tell you that I've put forward ideas about rendering that debt null and void, because of Chinese support for known terror sponsors, and for their past cyber strikes on this nation.
Don't any of you guys recall that during the GW tenure there was a blackout that struck the upper Ohio valley, west to Chicago, encompassing sections of Canada?
Who do you think was behind that?
People died for that by the way. Well, I know exactly who was behind that, as does our government.
Do you think everyone in Washington has forgotten that?
Drek| 3.18.12 @ 12:53AM
One more thing, can you go into some detail how the Chinese would actually wage military actions against the forces of the United States?
The Chinese would be taking on an Air Force, a Marine Corps and an Army fully possessed of combat experience and accustomed to waging operations at wartime tempo.
Have you any idea how long it would take China to come up to speed against our boys?
Have a little bit more faith..............
aware| 3.18.12 @ 1:16PM
My point is that they do not need to "wage military actions" against us.
Even the Pentagon understands that our debt/spending will eventually be the gravest risk we face. They just happen to be wrong on the timing. It already is.
Servicing, not paying off but just servicing, is already set to overtake "Defense" spending as 2nd biggest expense after "entitlements"(actually payoffs and bribes collected through an extortion scheme).
Nobody "waged military actions" against the Soviets directly, they had a military that may at different times been superior to even ours, and the complete and total domination of the citizens(no Cindy Sheehans there, at least none capable of holding "protests", or even breathing privileges), yet the whole thing fell to pieces almost at once.
Military adventurism isn't the leading cause of bringing us to the same precipice, but it is a major contributor. It was for the Soviets, too. In Feb. we borrowed 51 cents of every dollar we spent. Half of Welfare State spending and half of Warfare State spending was borrowed.
If we "neutralize" the debt, i.e. default(?), who is going to lend us money so we can pretend to be world policeman? Why were we not "surgically" striking North Korea, or Pakistan, or the other nuclear powers to "prevent" their getting them? Who appointed the whole world as our backyard to be made over in our image?
This run up to war stinks even worse than the Iraq run up.
Drek| 3.19.12 @ 3:50PM
You're conflating issues, first you hint at direct involvement by the Chinese military, then when asked about the specifics of such an involvement, you become rather vague and now hint at ominous financial considerations.
Now I'll stipulate that our financial situation is well nigh dire, but not dire enough to hold the hand of the United States military.
Again, you have to thoroughly grasp the nature, the specifics, of the various military proposals to end that Manhattan project.
If you observed some commentary at the end of the thread, there was a quote by an Army General.
And that was offered as if his judgement was final.
Unmentioned was the fact that the guy is an ARMY General, and that the views of the capabilities of our Air Force, and our Naval Air, don't square with the judgement of some of our Army officers. The later are more skeptical of what American air can accomplish.
That's not unusual in any way, and that there should be differences of opinion on the various proposals to "degrade" shouldn't shock anyone.
Should America's debt be addressed? Of course.
Which is why Gingrich has proposed America availing itself of its natural resources, so as to resolve all existing debt, by the federal government as well as the several states, within a generation.
aware| 3.19.12 @ 5:50PM
Look at my 1st post, no where do I "hint" at Chinese military action. In fact, my point is they don't need to go that route. What's so hard for you to understand about that? I reiterated that point repeatedly in my replies.
I think you are avoiding my point purposely. Do you understand my reference to Suez? Do you grasp the proverb "the borrower is slave to the lender"?
" Should America's debt be addressed? Of course."
Asked and answered exactly the same way for the entire walk up to the edge of the abyss you don't seem to see. Yeah someday we going to have to do something about that. Ha! These disasters always creep up slow to the fulcrum point. After that events proceed very rapidly, as you will see.
Newt? Come on, man! You are never going to get different results by putting the same guys back in power. Been a lot of "natural resources" used up to now but I don't see any magic effect of
"resolving" any debt. Dude, can't you tell when you being pandered by forked tongued career criminal politicians?
My overall point is, and has been, that the debt/spending is far more deadly to America than Iranian nukes. You really think we can go on living like we are still the greatest creditor nation when we are now the biggest debtor nation in the entire history of earth?
Dan Phillips| 3.16.12 @ 7:09PM
Drek, I don't think I have ever seen a better example of a lack of self awareness than this post.
You say, "I would make them an example to the nations, of what happens when regimes dare speak openly of their genocidal desires," in the same post in which you say "I want that regime destroyed" and call for the preventive use of nuclear weapons.
You are both an idiot and a blood thirsty warmonger. That is a dangerous combination. Thankfully for the rest of us you are just a chest thumping keyboard warrior.
Drek| 3.16.12 @ 10:20PM
Wrong on both fronts.
I'm not talking about wiping out the Persian people. Rather, I've said I'm for directed, narrowed, precision nuclear strikes against the regime and the related infrastructure.
You're not dealing here with someone unaware of the level of hardening, nor are you dealing with someone unaware of the specific requirements of an air campaign against those facilities.
It's precisely because of the depth of my understanding of how difficult it is going to be to thoroughly destroy those targets that I've sadly concluded that only tactical nuclear strikes will suffice.
Bunker Buster BDA {bomb damage assessment for the layman} in Iraq revealed that our bunker buster capacity was far more rhetoric than reality. In as much as the Iranians have used top notch German and Russian firms to harden some of their more important targets, ---------- no other option remains for us but to ensure their destruction by availing ourselves of repeated tactical nuclear strikes against them.
I say repeated because the structures are believed to be so hardened, so buried under granite, that repeated strikes alone will ensure their destruction.
As for neutrons, again, you're not dealing with someone unfamiliar with their capacity for a narrowed diameter.
In WWII, when we targeted German weaponry in Pannemunde, {sp?} we targeted the related personnel as much as we did any of the equipment, infrastructure and design facilities.
It's not us who have embarked on this genocidal path. It's the Iranian regime.
So spare one and all the theatrics, the hysterics and the shabby morality.
If you can't think clearly, if you can't handle the inexorable logic that is now pressing down upon us, ----- go take up a sleeping bag at some occupy rally or something, but leave the heavy strategic lifting to those of us trained for it, and mentally and morally prepared as well.
Kingofthenet| 3.17.12 @ 1:05PM
There is NOTHING 'Precision' about a Nuclear Strike.
Drek| 3.17.12 @ 2:17PM
You're in a time warp, and sadly not up to speed on the advances made with nuclear weaponry, particularly neutron weaponry.
As such, you really ought to consider yourself estopped from pronouncing upon these serious subjects.
Allow me to spell it out for you just a bit.
The whole purpose of sending in aircraft and missiles is to make sure the facilities are destroyed.
Towards that end, we try to use precisely that amount of explosive that will do the job.
But when there is hardening, as there has been significant hardening with these targets, ----------------- WE KNOW THE EXACT AMOUNT of that hardening because we elicited that information from the Germans and the Russians who did the job, ------------- then it's necessary to increase the explosive power of our ordnance.
The hardening is such that conventional explosives will only rattle, not erase the target.
Which means we're not left with any other option than tactical nuclear strikes, against the same targets.
Not even one tactical nuke will suffice for several of their targets.
Now do you get the picture.
I can't go into much more detail than that, but everything that I've related can be gleaned from open source intelligence.
Now I can understand that for some the prospects of pulling nuclear weaponry one again out of the closet can be unnerving.
But Iran didn't go to the lengths they've gone to harden those targets because they are peaceful facilities.
The cat is out of the bag.
All pretense has been dropped.
They have come around the final turn and are now heading, full speed, down the homestretch.
C Bowen | 3.17.12 @ 6:26PM
Drek--
Are you writing from a mental institution or are our intelligence and security services really hiring such loose lips types these days?
I am betting on mental institution.
aware| 3.17.12 @ 7:21PM
He'll be right at home with this:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/“we-are-far-turnkey-totalitarian-state-big-brother-goes-live-september-2013
Lunatics run this world, especially the political/military/industrial parts.
Drek| 3.18.12 @ 12:44AM
I've divulged nothing that isn't open source.
Nothing.
Clint| 3.18.12 @ 5:36AM
Captain Queeg,
" Ahh, but the strawberries that's... that's where I had them. They laughed at me and made jokes but I proved beyond the shadow of a doubt and with... geometric logic... that a duplicate key to the wardroom icebox DID exist, and I'd have produced that key if they hadn't of pulled the Caine out of action. I, I, I know now they were only trying to protect some fellow officers.."
Drek| 3.18.12 @ 4:08PM
Whatever..........
Occam's Tool| 3.18.12 @ 7:08PM
No, Bowen, as he is considerably more sane than you are.
Occam's Tool| 3.18.12 @ 7:10PM
Yup, Drek.
By the way, China wouldn't dump those 800 Billion in bonds. They aren't stupid. And, given their impending demographic crisis, they can't afford it.
aware| 3.19.12 @ 5:51AM
Yeah, the communists have always proven that their "citizens" lives are real important to them.
Tell you what, Dr. Bombgood, why don't you investigate Suez in 1956, when the British found out they no longer had the power to act independently because their lender(us) told them to vamoose. We didn't "dump" the pound, we just threatened to.
You give a whole new meaning to the term useful idiot.
Drek| 3.19.12 @ 3:42PM
Britain should have called our bluff.
Real simple, but it wasn't American threats that overthrew the Suez policy, it was the reaction on the homefront, by the Left, which got all sentimental about Arab nationalism. That was in the final measure definitive, not the bogus threats from the United States.
If we had threatened the pound, they could have easily threatened to take a powder on NATO.
aware| 3.19.12 @ 5:57PM
BS. The Sterling was about to collapse and needed a cool billion from Ike and he said no pullout no bailout. They were in no position to call anything, least of all a "bluff". Ike wasn't bluffing and Eden knew it.
Occam's Tool| 3.18.12 @ 7:07PM
Drek: Hopefully, the first bomb will explode with Clint or Jack's home precisely under ground zero. Fitting, I think.
But I have hope in Bibi's will and sanity to stop this thing, if not Barack's.
Kingofthenet| 3.18.12 @ 8:40PM
This is idiot talk, using Nuclear Weapons first is a Red line the USA(and everyone else) will NEVER cross.To do so would invite escalation to doomsday.
aware| 3.19.12 @ 5:52AM
There is no reasoning with homicidal maniacs.
Dan Phillips| 3.16.12 @ 7:13PM
"We're not going to war with Iran."
Give me a break Aaron. What is all your alarmist catastrophizing about Iran if not an attempt to make the case for a preventive US first strike?
Kingofthenet| 3.16.12 @ 7:18PM
If you can, you don't HAVE To build a bomb, Iran knows this, apparently America and Israel don't.
Drek| 3.16.12 @ 10:26PM
Iran needs specific personnel to make their Manhattan project and their desires for the bomb a reality.
Without those people making their desires a reality, then those desires become nothing more than a pipe dream.
Which is why I've suggested a single strike against those personnel.
Drek| 3.16.12 @ 10:27PM
And one more thing King, ------------------- all of us in various ways involved in preparing for that campaign fully intend on targeting those people as well as the infrastructure.
Kingofthenet| 3.17.12 @ 12:57PM
That's not really what I mean, Iran KNOWS that producing a bomb while the IAEA is sniffing around is a surefire way to cause themselves unneeded grief. No doubt they will refine the ore, design delivery systems, triggers etc. but they KNOW they don't have to put it together to have a deterrent effect. Just like the USA has hundreds(Thousands) of Plutonium 'Cores' sitting in storage, by themselves they aren't a bomb but EVERYONE knows they can be weaponized very quickly. Short of an attack, that's all they are going to do for a LONG while.Israel and the USA have to decide if destroying this 'possibility' is worth the price, in other words can the world live with the POSSIBILITY that Iran can do a bomb?
aware| 3.17.12 @ 7:28PM
So when are "we" going in General Ripper?
Drek| 3.18.12 @ 4:07PM
You forgot my first comment on this thread.
I've already concluded that America's foreign policy establishment has reconciled itself to Iran going nuke.
So Ripper isn't going anywhere..........
Occam's Tool| 3.18.12 @ 7:07PM
Shortly after the bomb explodes in your back yard, aware.
aware| 3.19.12 @ 5:41AM
I feel sorry for your poor weak minded victims...I mean "patients", Dr. Mengele. I knew you wouldn't be far away when the genocide talk got to flying.
Funny how you 4Fs who can't even shoulder a rifle are always the biggest foam at the mouth nationalists screaming for some other mother's son to do the dying. But then the most rabid fans are never on the field, are they?
Drek| 3.19.12 @ 3:39PM
Speak for yourself clown, there's nothing 4F about me...........
aware| 3.19.12 @ 6:00PM
When the replies follow directly under a post it means the reply is to that post. It was directed at Dr Dementia. And neither am I 4f.
Clint| 3.17.12 @ 1:46AM
" Lt. Gen. David Fridovich, the former deputy commander of U.S. Special Operations Command, looks straight out of central casting for a hard-nosed and hawkish military leader. Since retiring in December, he's become a senior official at the conservative Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs.
And yet, not even Fridovich is arguing for a military strike on Iran: “What’s really gained by doing an overt strike? And the answer is, it’s never good. The outcomes are just not good,” Fridovich told The Jerusalem Post.
When it comes to the potential results of an attack on Iran, Fridovich suggested that such a course would not achieve the desired result of ending Iran’s nuclear program.
“While military [action] might give you some short-lived response, are you really going to stop them from gaining what they want?” he asked rhetorically.
He also spoke of an external strike “galvanizing the people of Iran,” when international efforts should be focused on them turning against their leaders.
“Why would you do that for them? That’s the first part of it being counterproductive,” he said."
crazy| 3.17.12 @ 12:48PM
Arguing about how rational Iran may or may not be is a waste of time. US policy is clearly drifting in the direction of containment. Regardless of whether that's a good or bad idea doesn't much matter - that's where we're headed.
So let's argue about how the regime will be contained and who is going to do what. Nature abhors a vacuum. A new world order is evolving in which US influence diminished - not a very pretty picture. So let's spend less time trying to make Iran into the USSR so it fits the DOS paradigm for dealing with emerging nuclear powers and more time dealing with what's happening right before our eyes.
After Libya no emerging nuclear power is ever going to surrender its nuclear weaponization efforts in exchange for acceptance by the int'l community. That would be pretty irrational now, wouldn't it?
Zombie Reagan| 3.17.12 @ 1:54PM
Exactly, helping out Libya guaranteed that every tinpot dictatorship is going to start a nuke program. So much for peaceful intervention.
vtwin| 3.17.12 @ 5:50PM
Israel doesn't need to bomb any of those plants, they know better than that because a nuclear plant "per se" is not the problem, the thugs who run it, are at the root of the problem. The very best option for Israel is to wait for a national holiday (like that one :
http://www.indexmundi.com/iran.....liday.html) where all the powerful people have to gather and be seen. If such a holiday draws crowds of pasdarans, ayatollahs and high ranking officers, it's even better. Next thing you know, there's a two square mile smoldering lake of molten rocks in the middle of Teheran, and every leader in the world sighing in relief while conspicuously weeping on the cruel fate of a few thousand Iranian victims.
Clint| 3.17.12 @ 10:19PM
" Israel Is Not About to Attack Iran and Neither is the United States: Get Used To It
By Barry Rubin
Does Iran have such deliverable weapons now? No.
If Israel attacks Iran now does that mean Iran would never get nuclear weapons? No, it would merely postpone that outcome for at most a year or two more than it would take otherwise. And then it would ensure an all-out endless bloody war thereafter.
If Israel attacks Iranian nuclear installations would that ensure future peace between the two countries? Would it make it less likely that the Tehran regime uses such weapons to strike at Israel in future? No. On the contrary, it would have the exact opposite effect. Again, it would ensure direct warfare between the two countries and make Iran’s use of nuclear weapons against Israel 100 percent probable.
Why is this different from Israeli attacks on Iraqi and Syrian nuclear facilities? Because in those case a single strike by a small number of planes would be sufficient to destroy a single building. And the two regimes, precisely because of the strategic situation, would and could not respond. And if you believe Iran's regime to be so totally irraitional then factor that point into how it would respond to a direct attack like that.
If Israel attacks Iran would it have backing from anyone else in the world? No, in fact the United States strongly opposes such an operation. Iranian retaliation against oil shipping and terrorist attacks would lead (not overly brave and already appeasement-oriented) Western governments to blame Israel, not Iran. Launching such an attack would ensure a level of international isolation for Israel far higher than what exists today. The idea that a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq makes an Israeli attack more attractive is absurd. U.S. forces and interests are in the Gulf and an Israeli attack would--according to the Obama Administration--endanger U.S. interests there.
Would such an attack by Israel be likely to succeed even in doing maximum damage to Iranian facilities? No, a great deal could go wrong, especially against multiple hardened targets at the planes’ maximum range. Planes could get lost or crash or have to turn back. Planes arriving over the targets could miss, or accidentally drop their bombs on civilians, or simply not do much damage. Many targets would remain unscathed.
Additional waves of attack would be needed in a situation where Iran would be better prepared to shoot down the planes. And the second wave would face huge Western opposition. But it would be too late either way since Israel would now be in a full war with Iran.
Imagine a media report after an Israeli attack: A dozen Israeli warplanes hit Iranian nuclear installations today. Three places were damaged to some extent but Iran has a large number of such facilities. Iran and Israel are now in a full state of war. Oil prices zoomed up. The Obama Administration and EU condemned the attack. Iran said it would redouble its drive for nuclear weapons and use them in its defense. Tehran is expected to put the priority on facilities outside of Israel's range.
So given all of these factors why should Israel possibly attack Iran? It is an absurd idea.