Israel, Iran, and the US: Here Comes Nuclear War...

[Pahlevoon Nayeb]

October 17, 2005

Israel, Iran, and the US: Nuclear War, Here We Come
by Jorge Hirsch
The stage is set for a chain of events that could lead to nuclear war over chemical weapons in the immediate future. If these events unfold, the trigger will be Israel, the target Iran, the nuclear aggressor the U.S. These are the reasons:

• The U.S. State Department determined in August 2005 that "Iran is in violation of its CWC [Chemical Weapons Convention] obligations because Iran is acting to retain and modernize key elements of its CW infrastructure to include an offensive CW R&D capability and dispersed mobilization facilities."
• According to the CIA, "Iran likely has already stockpiled blister, blood, choking, and probably nerve agents – and the bombs and artillery shells to deliver them – which it previously had manufactured."
• According to (then undersecretary for arms control and international security, now U.S. ambassador to the UN) John Bolton's testimony to the House of Representatives (June 24, 2004), "We believe Iran has a covert program to develop and stockpile chemical weapons," and on Iran's ballistic missiles, "Iran continues its extensive efforts to develop the means to deliver weapons of mass destruction," and "The 1,300-km range Shahab-3 missile is a direct threat to Israel, Turkey, U.S. forces in the region, and U.S. friends and allies."
• In the IAEA resolution of Sept. 24 [.pdf], Iran was found to be in "noncompliance" with its NPT safeguards agreements.
• Members of the Israeli parliament from across the political spectrum are urging the United States to stop Iran's nuclear programs, or Israel will "act unilaterally." Statements of grave concern about Iran's nuclear program have been made by Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz, Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom, and Mossad chief Meir Dagan (Iran poses an "existential threat" to Israel). Shin Bet chief Avi Dichter accuses Iran of plotting relentlessly to attack Israeli targets.
• According to the head of the Russian Atomic Energy Organization, Alexander Rumyantsev, Russia will ship the first cargo of nuclear fuel for Iran's Bushehr's reactor at the end of 2005 or early 2006.
• Israel bombed Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor (which was under IAEA supervision) in 1981 just before nuclear fuel was loaded into it (to prevent nuclear fallout).
• President Bush has said that "all options are on the table" if diplomacy fails to halt Iran's nuclear program.
• The U.S. House of Representatives on May 6, 2004, by a vote of 376-3, called on the United States to use all appropriate means to deter, dissuade, and prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.
• In the recently released draft document "Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations" [.pdf], the Pentagon states that it will respond to the threat of WMD (which includes chemical and biological weapons) with nuclear weapons.

Conclusion: according to Israel, the U.S. administration, and 99.2 percent of the U.S. House of Representatives, Iran will not be allowed to have access to any nuclear technology. No diplomatic options to achieve that goal will remain when Russia and China veto Security Council sanctions, or if the IAEA refuses on Nov. 24 to refer Iran to the Security Council. Military action will occur before Russia ships uranium fuel to Iran, and will inevitably lead to the use of nuclear weapons by the U.S. against Iran.

How will it all get started? No matter how much Bush and Cheney want it, the U.S. Senate is unlikely to authorize the bombing of Iranian installations out of the blue. Unless there is some major disturbance in Iraq that can be blamed on Iran, Israel is likely to pull the trigger. It knows how to and has every motivation to do so.

Once Israel drops the first bomb on an Iranian nuclear facility, as it did with Iraq's Osirak reactor in 1981, there is no return. Bushehr is likely to be the first target; other installations will follow.

Iran will respond – how can it not? At a minimum, it will shoot missiles at Israel. It may or may not shoot at U.S. forces in Iraq initially, but given the U.S.-Israel "special relationship," there is no way the U.S. will stay out of the conflict. Many of Iran's targeted facilities are underground, and U.S. bombs will be needed to destroy them all.
Once the U.S. enters the conflict, 150,000 U.S. troops in Iraq will be at risk of Iranian missiles with chemical warheads, or of being overrun by Iran's conventional forces streaming into Iraq. According to the Pentagon planning [.pdf], nuclear weapons will be used:

• "To demonstrate U.S. intent and capability to use nuclear weapons to deter adversary use of WMD."
• "Against an adversary using or intending to use WMD against U.S., multinational, or alliance forces or civilian populations…"
• "[O]n adversary installations including WMD, deep, hardened bunkers containing chemical or biological weapons or the C2 infrastructure required for the adversary to execute a WMD attack against the United States or its friends and allies"
• "[T]o counter potentially overwhelming adversary conventional forces…"
• "For rapid and favorable war termination on U.S. terms…"
• "To ensure success of U.S. and multinational operations…"

That makes six independent reasons for nuking Iran.

The first nuclear bomb used in an act of war after "Little Boy" and "Fat Man" should be code-named "Demo" – for "demonstration" that we can do it, don't mess with us, for "democracy" on the rise in the Middle East, and for the "Democrats" in Congress who will go along with the program. As with Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we will be told it saved lives, ours and theirs. You know the script.

The upshot: a nuclear superpower will have nuked a non-nuclear state that is an NPT signatory and is cooperating with the IAEA, at the instigation of a state that is not an NPT signatory, that reportedly has over 100 nuclear bombs of its own, and that initiated hostilities with an unprovoked act of military aggression.
Given these prospects, the U.S. government should be doing its utmost to restrain Israel, yet it is doing exactly the opposite. It should be trying to achieve a diplomatic solution, but it refuses to even talk to Iran. The ongoing diplomatic effort by the EU is simply designed to provide cover for the planned military action, just as in the case of Iraq. How many times must Bush play the same game before the EU finally learns it is being used?

And how many times will it take for the U.S. citizenry to learn? The U.S. public and its representatives in Congress, preoccupied with the deception and subsequent disaster of the Iraq invasion, are blind to the enormously bigger deception and disaster unfolding just before their eyes. Do the majority of American citizens, from whom the authority of the administration is derived, really want to be drawn by Israel into a nuclear conflict? Is this really in the United States' best interest?

The sane world needs to tell the U.S. and Israeli governments to back off. And the United States needs to tell Israel, in no uncertain terms, that it will not allow (American-supplied) Israeli bombers carrying (American supplied) bunker-busting bombs over Iraqi airspace, and that it will not aid, abet, or condone such an attack. By not demanding this of the Bush administration, the U.S. Congress is complicit in what is about to happen and is betraying the trust of the people it represents.
There is a rational way to avoid this disaster.

• Let Iran pursue a civilian nuclear program. Over 30 countries have civilian nuclear programs, while only nine have nuclear weapons. Let the Nobel-prize winning IAEA and Mohamed ElBaradei do their job!
• The U.S. can guarantee Israel's safety by assuring Israel that any threat to its existence from a non-nuclear nation will be met with the full force of U.S. conventional forces, and any threat from a nuclear nation will be met with U.S. nuclear forces.
  
• If Iran were to withdraw from the NPT and not allow international supervision of its programs, it would still take several years for it to acquire a nuclear weapon. There would still be plenty of time to act.

Otherwise? Welcome to the new world order, where the U.S. can nuke any non-nuclear country at will. Refrain from having a nuclear deterrent at your own risk. All nations that can will become nuclear, others on their way will be nuked, and all-out nuclear war will become an absolute certainty. Bye-bye, world.



http://www.antiwar.com/orig/hirsch.php?articleid=7649

 

[mt74i]

Israel goh khord. :madcomp:

 

[Motori]

Israel in among Industrial countries and surrounded by rich consumer countries but has to sell his product in western Europe and South America. Israel is desperate for good relations with Arab world and evacuating the Gaza proves they are after this relation.
Israel will be stormed by Muslim countries if they commit any aggression against Iran. I don't know about Jordan and Egypt but certainly Syria and Lebanon will not remain quite. Also Iran himself is capable of reaching any Israeli city with its Shahab missles and God knows what kind of warhead they will carry. New Iraqi govmt will deffinately back Iran among 100s of other countries in the world.
US international image has tarnished enough by invading Iraq, and they know any more aggression against a Muslim Country will cause an adverse consequences from Muslim world and the Whole World in that matter. May be I'm too optimistic and US is ready to take such a chance but will pay a heavy price for it and I don't know if they can afford it at this moment.
I think all this HYPE is planned to scare and push Iran to point of submission and so far it is not working. Just my 2 cents.

 

[shahinc]

I doubt it if US and Israeli are planning any such attack on Iran for the time being. US are very busy with Afghanistan and Iraq at the moment and simply can not afford another war.
On the other hand, Israeli is really looking forward to some peace in the region. Israeli’s withdraw from the Gaza is a clear indication. Israeli‘s economic is suffering heavily from all the instability on the region and after 30-40 years of war with their neighbors, They are realizing that negotiation might be a better way to go to solve their problems.


However, getting cocky about our “Shahb3” and the help of our “Muslim brothers” in other Muslim country is a big mistake which will cost us dearly. The only group that will support Iran against Israeli is a “Hezbollah” in south of Lebanon which is practically an Iranian military branch


The rest of the Arab countries will sit quietly and will not do anything. Please, Lets not forget 1967 and what happened when all Muslim brother’s of Arab world decided to raise against Israeli.:bye::happy:

As far as our Shahb3 goes, this is mistake the Saddam made during the first Gulf war and thought he can rain missiles on Israeli if a war happens and we all see how many of Saddam’s top of line Russian missiles hit Israeli.:drunk:

Israeli’s Anti Missiles defense system is very advanced and will protect them against most of our almighty Shahb 3 and minimizes the damage.

 

[Old-Faraz]

Israeli’s Anti Missiles defense system is very advanced and will protect them against most of our almighty Shahb 3 and minimizes the damage.

Not arguing about the rest of your post, some of it such as not depending on our Arab "brothers", I agree with.

However, as far as I know, there is no reliable (or even close to reliable) missle defense system anywhere. A Harvard study after the first Gulf War showed that the Patriot missle hit rate was around 5% or so if I remember correctly. They have improved since, but failed test after test. It is very very difficult to hit an object in free fall.

The missle defense program in the US is basically welfare for the defense industry.

 

[Chief]

HAHAH!!! This guy had too much beans in his falafel when he wrote this

 

[Tehrani53]

Are we going to war with Iran?

Dan Plesch evaluates the evidence pointing towards a new conflict in the Middle East

Tuesday October 18, 2005



The Sunday Telegraph warned last weekend that the UN had a last chance to avert war with Iran and, at a meeting in London last week, the US ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, expressed his regret that any failure by the UN security council to deal with Iran would damage the security council's relevance, implying that the US would solve the problem on its own.
Only days before, the foreign secretary, Jack Straw, had dismissed military action as "inconceivable" while both the American president and his secretary of state had insisted war talk was not on the agenda. The UN's International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors have found that Iran has not, so far, broken its commitments under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, although it has concealed activities before.


It appears that the UK and US have decided to raise the stakes in the confrontation with Iran. The two countries persuaded the IAEA board - including India - to overrule its inspectors, declare Iran in breach of the non-proliferation treaty (NPT) and say that Iran's activities could be examined by the UN security council. Critics of this political process point to the fact that India itself has developed nuclear weapons and refused to join the NPT, but has still voted that Iran is acting illegitimately. On the Iranian side there is also much belligerent talk and pop music now proudly speaks of the nuclear contribution to Iranian security.
The timing of the recent allegations about Iranian intervention in Iraq also appears to be significant. Ever since the US refused to control Iraq's borders in April 2003, Iranian backed militia have dominated the south and, with under 10,000 soldiers amongst a population of millions, the British army had little option but to go along. No fuss was made until now. As for the bombings of British soldiers, some sources familiar with the US army engineers report that these supposedly sophisticated devices have been manufactured inside Iraq for many months and do not need to be imported.

But is the war talk for real or is it just sabre rattling? The conventional wisdom is that for both military and political reasons it would be impossible for Israel and the UK/US to attack and that, in any event, after the politically damaging Iraq war, neither Tony Blair nor George Bush would be able to gather political support for another attack.

But in Washington, Tel Aviv and Downing Street, if not the Foreign Office, Iran is regarded as a critical threat. The regime in Tehran continues to demand the destruction of the state of Israel and to support anti-Israeli forces. In what appeared to be coordinated releases of intelligence assessments, Israeli and US intelligence briefed earlier this year that, while Iran was years from a nuclear weapons capability, the technological point of no return was now imminent.

Shortly after the US elections, the vice-president, Dick Cheney, warned that Israel might attack Iran. Israel has the capability to attack Iranian targets with aircraft and long-range cruise missiles launched from submarines, while Iranian air defences are still mostly based on 25-year-old equipment purchased in the time of the Shah. A US attack might be portrayed as a more reasonable option than a renewed Israeli-Islamic confrontation.

The US army and marines are heavily committed in Iraq, but soldiers could be found if the Bush administration were intent on invasion. Donald Rumsfeld has been reorganising the army to increase front-line forces by a third. More importantly, naval and air force firepower has barely been used in Iraq. Just 120 B52 and stealth bombers could target 5,000 points in Iran with satellite-guided bombs in just one mission. It is for this reason that John Pike of globalsecurity.org thinks that a US attack could come with no warning at all. US action is often portrayed as impossible, not only because of the alleged lack of firepower, but because Iranian facilities are too hard to target. In a strategic logic not lost on Washington, the conclusion then is that if you cannot guarantee to destroy all the alleged weapons, then it must be necessary to remove the regime that wants them, and regime change has been the official policy in Washington for many years.

For political-military planners, precision strikes on a few facilities have drawbacks beyond leaving the regime intact. They allow the regime too many retaliatory options. Certainly, Iran's neighbours in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf who are worried about the growth of Iranian Shia influence in Iraq would want any attack to be decisive. From this logic grows the idea of destroying the political-military infrastructure of the clerical regime and perhaps encouraging separatist Kurdish and Azeri risings in the north-west. Some Washington planners have hopes of the Sunnis of oil-rich Khuzestan breaking away too.

A new war may not be as politically disastrous in Washington as many believe. Scott Ritter, the whistleblowing former UN weapons inspector, points out that few in the Democratic party will stand in the way of the destruction of those who conducted the infamous Tehran embassy siege that ended Jimmy Carter's presidency. Mr Ritter is one of the US analysts, along with Seymour Hersh, who have led the allegations that Washington is going to war with Iran.

For an embattled President Bush, combating the mullahs of Tehran may be a useful means of diverting attention from Iraq and reestablishing control of the Republican party prior to next year's congressional elections. From this perspective, even an escalating conflict would rally the nation behind a war president. As for the succession to President Bush, Bob Woodward has named Mr Cheney as a likely candidate, a step that would be easier in a wartime atmosphere. Mr Cheney would doubtless point out that US military spending, while huge compared to other nations, is at a far lower percentage of gross domestic product than during the Reagan years. With regard to Mr Blair's position, it would be helpful to know whether he has committed Britain to preventing an Iranian bomb "come what may" as he did with Iraq.

· Dan Plesch is the author of The Beauty Queen's Guide to World Peace.

 

[Chief]

Psyhc Ops don't work on Iran anymore........been there done that and got the T-shirt too

 

[Pahlevoon Nayeb]

The US economy headed for Stagflation (stagnation on top of inflation), US public opinion decidedly turning against the chickenhawks, and the American military seemingly in bleed mode, it only makes sense to find possibilities of a widening confrontation ridiculous sounding.

Except, these aren’t normal times and we’re not dealing with normal, sane human beings at the helms of governments.

Starting with President George “Nukealar” Shrub and the insane Israeli loving neocons around him, we see dogmatism, cronyism, and corruption previously not seen in America (with the possible exception of the 1930’s Chicago where the politicians were in the organized criminals’ pockets, wholesale). These are determined, powerful, corrupt individuals who will stop at nothing to achieve their ends.

And, what are their ends, you might ask. Well, at the upper echelons, it is essentially to impose US hegemony in the world and Israeli hegemony locally; and at the lower end of this bunch we have the bible-thumping, foam-at-the-mouth armagedonists, the prime example of whom is the dry-drunk president Shrub.

Add to this mess, the British Imperialism of the old, with a new make over for the 21st century. As comical as the old cliché about the British having a hand in everything in Iran might have been, this is the same pig with new lipstick applied.

Throw into this mix the “Old Europe’s” fear of taking a stance for anything of any significance, India’s newfound lovefest for GW, and the uncertainty of where the Al Qaeda murdereres will hit next, and the triangulation is nearly complete.

And, when we finally add the Neanderthal ruling mullahs and mullah wannabe’s in Iran, we suddenly have all conditions necessary (and sufficient, for math buffs) for un-thinkable disaster.

All the grandstanding by the neocon criminals and the Israeli Zionists is not because they even think they can win a conventional battle with Iran. Hell , they’re not even THINKING of such a battle. Time and again it is clearly stated that an Anglo/American/Zionist invasion of Iran WILL be accomplished using, NOT conventional force, but nuclear weapons! All you have to do to see this for yourself would be to look at the publicly available Pentagon plannings for such a war.

So, we have a man so far removed from reality that he claims he’s on a mission form god to bring about Armageddon in GW; a deeply fundamentalist and racist Israeli government who already sees its people as the chosen people helping to bring about the end days; a lunatic, murderous, group of pre-Neanderthal Wahabis hell bent on proving their manhood against the “infidels”; and add to this a cabinet in Ahmadi Nejad’s government who’d sooner prepare the path for the return of the Emam Zaman, rather than protect Iran’s national interests and integrity; and you have the almost perfect recipe for a NUCLEAR attack on Iran!

I wish I could share in the false sense of security shared by some!

 

[Motori]

Israeli’s Anti Missiles defense system is very advanced and will protect them against most of our almighty Shahb 3 and minimizes the damage.

Shahin Jaan,
I agree with Old Faraz,
Shahab3 or Scud type missiles have NO strategic significance unless they carry a real destructive warheads which in this case it can only be Nuclear because small amount of conventional warheads will not be destructive enough to be considered as strategic weapon.
These missiles are designed for propaganda war, just disrupt stability, generate panic and lower the moral in society. Even if they get intercepted by Patriots and explode in the aerospace of a city still the objective will be achieved.
Also I don't count on my arab BROTHERS to support us when such a bad blood exists in between, they never did and never will. You can't believe how many POWs we captured during the war and how many of them were Jordanian, Egyptian, Palestinian and many other arab nationals some of them volunteers and some mercenaries.
I just think they will get a good reason to jump on the bandwagon and oppose US and Israel.
IMHO attacking Iran will not be a freebie like Iraq or Afghanistan there will be serious consequences. US must teach himself how to live with Iran's Nuclear Energy Program, specially when Iran is insisting on transparency of all his nuclear energy activity.

 

[JazzedUp]

I very much doubt we'll see Iran gettig nuked by anyone. I don't think the whole world will sit on its arse and watch this happen. Not so much they care about Iran or Iranians but if at any case this happens then the after effects of a nuclear bomb will be hazardous to neighbouring countries and that includes Russia and Europe. Not only that it's too close to home for Russia and EU countries for them to let this happen. I doubt if they want to let the US get away with everything she wants.

I truely believe if they are crazy enough to go ahead and do this we might see the next world war starting.
Honeslty the way I see it is that Isreal or US will attack Iran's nuclear facilities at some point then IRI will go around crying and victimising themselves.

 

[Khorus]

aakhoonds may be the greediest people in the world, but they are also the most chickenshit!! So, they will back off, bend over, and accept the best offer the US has for them. They will take the money and run, and no military confrontation will happen.

 

[Tehrani53]

:bday: I also think that Iran, or the regime there, will back off after making all the noise, and some more...........

After all they have children too, as the song by Sting/Police cleared that the Russians will back off. It was a long time ago.................

 

[Pahlevoon Nayeb]

Folks,

The question is not whether the Mullahs will back off or not, it’s what the neocons have already decided will be the path of US foreign policy.

If you remember, Saddam was not particularly itching to have Iraq invaded either. Despite all the hoopla about him throwing out the weapons inspectors, the truth is that not only he did not throw anyone out, according to the head of UNSCUM, Scott Ritter, by late 90’s it was already a well known fact that Iraq’s arsenal of WMD had been destroyed, the Iraqi military was a shadow if its former self, and Saddam posed NO immediate threat to anyone but the people within his own borders. We already know that none of this stopped the lunacy today known as the Iraq war.

The fact of the matter is that, short of Mullahs abdicating power and allowing an American installed regime in Tehran, the current neocon murderers are hell bent on invading the country, regardless of how much the Mullahs back off. In other words, Khatamy would have seriously been in the American/Israeli military cross-hair, forget about Ahmadi Nejad and his big-mouth gangster cabinet.

Do you really think the Mullahs are going to just up and let go of power, especially now that these Basiji goons are at the helm?!!

 

[payan]

Pahlevon jan , welcome back , as far as Iran or any other country in the middle east will be nuked is beyond a believe , simpley if any county would be under nuclear attack, then the intire region will be polluted and harmed, defintely not a living place for a long time ,even isreal will be damaged by itself .
btw the whole world rely on source of energy from middle east , the immidiate consequences will be the price of oil which will go again beyond of imagination ,in other words the global econmy will be collapsed .
just my two cents . do stay around more ofen if you can .

 

[Khorus]

Pahlevoon jaan, despite what you might think, the neo-cons are not idiots - unlike their mouthpiece - and would much rather achieve their goals without casualties and the expense of war, not to mention damnation from the entire world, including the people in the US. Also, AN and the rest of the Sendehaa are also a mouthpiece, much like Dubya, and the people behind the scenes, none of whom have a name, are not idiots either. They will make a deal, take the money and live in luxury the rest of their lives. Iran is a much more difficult and bigger military headache for US than Iraq was and you can see the kind of mess they are in now, so they won't be looking for a bigger headache. On the other hand if the folks in Iran get stupid, you may well see some type of confrontation.

 

[Chief]

HAHAHA!!!! baba get a clue...it's the top dog and it's poodels that are backing off.
Read and get informed

BERLIN, Oct 20 (Reuters) - The International Atomic Energy Agency will most likely not refer Iran to the U.N. Security Council when the U.N. agency's board meets next month despite fears Tehran is seeking nuclear weapons, diplomats said. The 35-nation governing board of the IAEA, the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog, declared last month that Iran had violated the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) by hiding activities for 18 years that could be used to make atom bombs, paving the way for a Security Council referral and possible U.N. sanctions.

European and U.S. officials said at the time the IAEA board would refer Iran to the Security Council when it meets in November if Tehran continued to process uranium at a plant at Isfahan, which was mothballed until August under the Paris Agreement last year with France, Britain and Germany.

Tehran has so far refused to reinstate the suspension of sensitive nuclear work, which was the conerstone of the Paris Agreement, but the European Union's three biggest powers have decided not to press for a Council referral at this time.

"The approach is not to refer Iran to the Security Council at the moment," an official from one of the so-called EU3 countries told Reuters. "The idea is not to provoke Iran."

Iran, which Western countries suspect is developing atomic weapons under cover of a civilian programme, insists its programme is intended only for peaceful electricity generation.

One of the reasons for the decision to back off from a Security Council referral next month is that Tehran has improved cooperation with agency inspectors since the IAEA passed its resolution


and.....


Meanwhile Korea is totally goozpich, something TM needed to do to them in Korea last week but I digress , anyway they are sending their assistant FM to Iran to find out what hit them..ouch!!!!!


Iran Import Blockade to Punish Korea for IAEA Vote¡¯
The Korean government and the Iranian ambassador say they have no official notification that Iran is blocking imports from Korea. However, it emerged that Tehran blocked imports on two previous occasions, making it look ever more likely that an ongoing unofficial blockade of Korean goods aims to hit the country where it hurts most for voting against Iran in the IAEA.
"We have not yet been able to formally confirm that the Iranian government has restricted imports" from Korea, the government said Thursday. Iran's Ambassador Jahanbakhsh Mozaffari said, "I have not received any formal dispatches from the home country that make reference to measures of prohibition placed on Korean imports.¡± But Seoul is taking no chances and is dispatching Vice Foreign Minister Lee Kyu-hyung to Tehran. The recurrent disruption of Korean imports is seen as retaliation for Korea¡¯s endorsement of a resolution in the IAEA last month condemning Iran¡¯s development of nuclear weapons. ¡°It¡¯s true that since the vote, Iran has expressed its grievance with us a few times, even though it has not made any official protests,¡± a government official said. ¡±Vice Minister Lee will be sent to Teheran to explain Korea¡¯s position and settle this situation without delay.¡± As of Thursday, goods including PVC worth US$100,000 from LG, 5,000 Samsung refrigerators, polypropylene worth $560,000 from Lark International, and steel products worth around $1.8 million from Daewoo International were held up in Iranian customs.

 

[Pahlevoon Nayeb]

Pahlevoon jaan, despite what you might think, the neo-cons are not idiots - unlike their mouthpiece - and would much rather achieve their goals without casualties and the expense of war, not to mention damnation from the entire world, including the people in the US. Also, AN and the rest of the Sendehaa are also a mouthpiece, much like Dubya, and the people behind the scenes, none of whom have a name, are not idiots either. They will make a deal, take the money and live in luxury the rest of their lives. Iran is a much more difficult and bigger military headache for US than Iraq was and you can see the kind of mess they are in now, so they won't be looking for a bigger headache. On the other hand if the folks in Iran get stupid, you may well see some type of confrontation.

Khorus Jon,

I’m not convinced that the necons are not idiots! Not that they lack intelligence, but that they are ideologues who are striving for some “historical destiny.”

Add to this rampant cronyism, corruption, and sheer incompetence and you have one out of control gorilla on your hands!

Witness how Bush has F’d up pretty much anything he’s touched. From the 9/11 debacle, to seriously damaging the US economy, to his Iraq lunacy, to his administration’s utter disregard for US’ own constitution and popular will, to his elections chicanery, to his systematic destruction of FEMA, US Army, the Pentagon, and the job market.

So, I’m just wondering, if I were in Bush and Co.’s shoes, having done all this damage; two, possibly three of my very high administration members are indicted; and my popularity has plunged to lowest levels of my presidency, how would I make it out without potentially being impeached for my sheer moronic incompetence?

This administration truly scares me for its arrogance and ignorance! I am fearful both for Iran and for America!

 

[Pahlevoon Nayeb]

I very much doubt we'll see Iran gettig nuked by anyone. I don't think the whole world will sit on its arse and watch this happen. Not so much they care about Iran or Iranians but if at any case this happens then the after effects of a nuclear bomb will be hazardous to neighbouring countries and that includes Russia and Europe. Not only that it's too close to home for Russia and EU countries for them to let this happen. I doubt if they want to let the US get away with everything she wants.

I truely believe if they are crazy enough to go ahead and do this we might see the next world war starting.
Honeslty the way I see it is that Isreal or US will attack Iran's nuclear facilities at some point then IRI will go around crying and victimising themselves.

JazzedUp Jon,

God forbid, should such a confrontation come about we seriously DO stand the risk of a potentially a world-ending world war!

We already know that, using conventional force, US, already heavily bogged down in Iraq, even with Israel’s help, could not pick a fight with a large, ready, and quasi-modern military in Iran.

It is also an absolute certainty that, should ANY attack be attempted on Iranian soil, it WILL be considered as an act war by the Mullahs and they will attack from the Iraqi border.

But, the direction Americans are taking by not showing an interest in a diplomatic solution, or even simply easing on their barrage of provocations, is pointing directly to a confrontation!

As the Gulf of Tonkin incident triggered the American invasion of Vietnam, so we might see an “Iranian aggression” when the war party feels the time is ripe.

The question is, just how committed and ready are China and Russia, the only two countries able to stand their grounds up against the American might.

Nevertheless, the war drums are rolling yet once again!

 

[Pahlevoon Nayeb]

Pahlevon jan , welcome back , as far as Iran or any other country in the middle east will be nuked is beyond a believe , simpley if any county would be under nuclear attack, then the intire region will be polluted and harmed, defintely not a living place for a long time ,even isreal will be damaged by itself .
btw the whole world rely on source of energy from middle east , the immidiate consequences will be the price of oil which will go again beyond of imagination ,in other words the global econmy will be collapsed .
just my two cents . do stay around more ofen if you can .

payan jon,

Agha Man Mokhlessam!

Initially, the plan is not to Nuke Iranian cities, like Americans did at the end of WWII. The plan is to hit and destroy Iranian nuclear facilities using Bunker Buster mini nukes with depleted Uranium warheads.

In fact, the widely held fear is that Israel will attack Iran sooner rather than later as to preempt the nuclear generation cycle facilities, which is to say before the fuel arrives. This way, they expose far less people to the fallout as compared to waiting until after the nuclear fuel arrives.

Once this happens, things will careen out of control, following which all the possible scenarios are ugly!

Regarding the oil traffic flow, believe or not, Colin Powell’s aid only this week disclosed that the State Departments policy planning bureau had discussed “actually mounting an operation to take the oil fields in the Middle East, internationalize them under some sort of UN trusteeship, and administer the revenues and the oil accordingly."
http://www.antiwar.com/lobe/?articleid=7703

May reason prevail!