Next week, the head of the IAEA is expected to reveal intelligence on Irans nuclear arms experiments. Ahead of the report, a top US Treasury official traveled to Europe for talks on new sanctions. Obama said The United State will continue "to apply the toughest sanctions"... http://bit.ly/vx71Hy
Israel `bout to smite Iran... Israel mulling Iran attack: official Fri, Nov 04, 2011 - NUCLEAR THREAT: The official confirmed a report that the Israeli prime minster and defense minister both favor an attack, but that they do not yet have enough support
That would be a mistake for Israel. Even if Iran developes a nuclear capability, it's almost as big a step to weaponize the warhead, and Iran doesn't have the capability to air deliver a nuclear warhead against Israeli air defenses. Miniturization on the scale needed for an IRBM to be an effective strike would be a whole other matter. And I won't even get into the lack of accuracy of the Shahab 3. That thing might land on Tel Aviv or it could land on Beruit. Just not a real good system. Not yet, at any rate. I can understand Israel rattling sabers, Iran does it enough. However, the political cost of an actual strike by Israel on Iran with such a minimal threat doesn't make good political sense. Isreal gets a lot more mileage in the international community by playing the hugely threatened underdog; fortunately for them, with the multiple invasions and continuous terrorist activity they've endured, it's an easy sell. They give a bunch of that away with each foray into offensive action, no matter what the cause. That's to say nothing of Iran attacking Israel; you can never really tell which way Ahmedenijad is going to go, but it's a good bet the Ayatollahs have him on enough of a leash to keep that from happening. They don't want a war with Israel, just enough conflict to keep them on the zionist hordes on the local evening news. Keeps their own population in check if they believe they have an enemy just waiting for the chance to hit them.
The former Mossad chief and the Minister of the Interior say Iran has no nuclear bombs.. You remember Meir Dagan? In late 2002 he told the world that Iraq had no WMDs.. He was Mossad Chief at the time. http://www.politicalforum.com/curre...nity-not-logic-guides-israels-leadership.html
Margot, et al, And (minding my manners here), what are you saying? (COMMENT) In 2002, Iraq did not have any WMD (Nuclear, Chemical, or Biological). We spent years searching for them. We spent about a Billion Dollars searching; to have David Kay say: "we were almost all wrong" about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD)." I would give the them a little room here. Regionally, the Israelis and the Jordanians have the best eyes and ears on the ground. Most Respectfully, R
I agree that the Israelis and Jordanians have the best intel.. That's why I am listening to Meir Dagan.. We couldn't find Saddam's WMDs because he kept trucking them between Syria and Sudan according to Bush's posse.
I am curious, though. Why is Saudi so fearful of Iran? I don't care for the government there, and the animosity between the US and Iran is pretty well established as a hisotry of interference on our part (whatever the intentions were), diplomatic stupidity on Iran's part and all but open warfare between our two nations during the late 80s. They don't like us, we don't like them. Our relations--Iran and the US--are not going to change any time soon. But why is Saudi Arabia and the rest of the GCC so fearful of Iran and her intentions? If their intel is so good they know Iran is hiding nothing and intends them no harm, why arm up like Saudi has? Why shore up Bahrain? An old argument that none of us here are going to leave behind satisfied. Let's try to learn something here and not rehash what we can not change.
Margot, et al, This was a hypothesis, but the ISG never found any evidence of that. (COMMENT) The problem with these types of claims are trying to prove a negative (something did not happen); it is an assertion, without evidence, that is accepted as true because it cannot be proven false. But there are a couple things we can say. Most of the Bio-Chem and Nuclear Weapons cannot exist in isolation. They cannot be held in some sort of SECRET facility without maintenance for more than a decade without discovery by someone. And they cannot go without maintenance for a decade without degradation. If there was some very SECRET remnant organization out there, somewhere in the Middle East/Persian Gulf, that was trying to save these thousands and thousands of tons of WMD, they have either failed and dispersed --- or --- they would have been discovered by now. No, there is something wrong with the idea that stealthy spirited away. If the material were to appear without forensic markers, with the wrong forensic markers, or known Iraqi markers, then ---there might be some basis for the argument. But nothing of the kind has been observed. Most Respectfully, R
Granny says cut `em off... Of Top Ten U.S. Aid Recipients, Only One Voted for U.N. Resolution on Irans Human Rights Abuses November 22, 2011 A U.N. General Assembly committee has passed a draft resolution condemning the human rights situation in Iran by a larger margin than in past years, although there are still more countries either opposing the measure or abstaining than there are willing to vote in favor.
Sadly without Russia and China getting on board it doesn't look likely sanctions will be effective. And both of those figure a nuclear attack on the US would be delightful and have little motivation to get on board with sanctions. I think the only move on the political front that might be effective is if the Unisted States started talking about developing "peaceful nuclear programs" in Georgia and Taiwan. That might get them to realize two can play at that game. Delivering a nuclear warhead is a trivial thing. You put it on an unmarked or false flagged fishing boat along with a few 72 virgin seeking martyrs and sail as close to the port of your choice before detonation. The significance of this method isn't just the ease with which any country could do it, but also that you'd have no way of proving which nation is behind it, so mutually assured destruction is off the table. Unless you're willing to just nuke everybody you don't like and figure you got the perpetrators while you were at it. Somehow I don't see Obama or anybody remotely like him doing that if it happens to New York. I suppose Israel might just launch on Iran and Pakistan if it happened to them.
Two already DID play that game. Turkey/Cuba/Kennedy '62, anyone? True. All the more reason to cut all ties to Israel and try to smoke the peace pipe with Iran.
Only problem with that is it encourages geater and greater proliferation. Russia and China both see the United States as an existential threat, even if we do not see them in the same light, so them helping out a small-time annoyance of the US fits right in with their own stratgey of countering the US. From their point of view, it's a simple call. Sure, if you don't mind retaliation. The Iranian government is fanatical, not stupid. There is a difference. And they're also not likely to let such an exspensvie investment go quite so easily--nukes are not cheap nor easy to make. Why would they give up one to a terrorist who they know is only going to bring ruin down on Iran? Nonsense. "Nuking erverybody" is not necessary. Narrowing down the target list is very, very easy. rst off, it's a good bet it won't be the British, Chinese, French or Russians. Probably a safe be it's not the Israelis or the Indians. Your only three real choices will be North Korea, Pakistan or Iran (should they actually succeed). That alone narrows your choices down, without any analysis of the detonation or dust plume or relying on what has apprently already proven to be faulty intelligance. You can further narrow your list down by finding out what isotopes were released by the detonation, something the US has been very good at over the years. Analysizng nuclear explosion from their plumes has been a common practice for decades. It's also a good bet somebody else knows who got that weapon and who gave it to them and will be willing to talk all about it. (One common thread amongst terrorists--they love to talk. And UBL did warn us he was going to come after the US.) We'd find out. It might not be the instant gratification we're entirely too fond of here in the United States, but we'd find out, one way or another. And even Obama couldn't ignore that kind of provocation. It may not be a nuclear response, but you can bet it would be a strong one.
