Article

2015-04-10 Syria-Lebanon-Iran

Krauthammer: The Iran deal - Anatomy of a disaster

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Besoeker 2015-04-10 03:03|| || Front Page|| [14 views ] Top
File under: Govt of Iran

#1 Youknowwho's legacy will be a mushroom cloud somewhere in the US.

I am convinced the focus of the Iranian program is the US not Israel.

Posted by Bill Clinton 2015-04-10 12:04|| 2015-04-10 12:04|| Front Page Top

#2 Well Bill, they certainly don't need intercontinental ballistic missiles to attack Israel now do they ?

Posted by Besoeker 2015-04-10 12:07|| 2015-04-10 12:07|| Front Page Top

#3 Besoeker, not necessarily. They could put it on a ship, transfer it a couple of times, sail it into a US port like NY or LA, and detonate it via remote control.

On the other hand, I think Israel will be the first target.

Posted by Rambler in Virginia 2015-04-10 13:51|| 2015-04-10 13:51|| Front Page Top

#4 They could also probably drive it across our wide-open southern border. Pay off a few Drug Cartels for landing and smuggling to the border. load it in a truck and drive it across. Fill it with Central American "kids" - the border patrol have orders from Obama to simply wave them thru anyway.

Posted by CrazyFool 2015-04-10 15:39|| 2015-04-10 15:39|| Front Page Top

#5 The reason the ship-borne nuke is less likely as that the possibilities for error increase. It's not just detection, but the length of time, number of hand-overs, etc make for an uncertain process. Whereas with an ICBM, there is a well worked out probability table for the missile launching and landing where it's supposed to land.

Posted by Steve White 2015-04-10 15:41|| 2015-04-10 15:41|| Front Page Top

#6 But with an ICBM you can usually compute it's origin with a fair amount of certainly fairly easily. Unless Iran has boomer submarines now.

Burying it under a stack of containers on a container ship or in an oil tanker - especially from a 'friendly' country would be just uncertain enough to allow Obama to refer it to the U.N. Security Council - "We mustn't be rash now..."

Posted by CrazyFool 2015-04-10 15:52|| 2015-04-10 15:52|| Front Page Top

#7 Sampling of the fallout would point to the aggressor state in less than a day.

Posted by Shipman 2015-04-10 20:57|| 2015-04-10 20:57|| Front Page Top

#8 That's why Obama is moving to Hawaii!!!!!!!!!! Getting down range so to speak.

Posted by Vernal Spavins7649 2015-04-10 21:09|| 2015-04-10 21:09|| Front Page Top

#9 Apparently Iran has different interpretation of the deal as per its allowed use of advanced centrifuges, + Khameini is warning "no deal" or no deal will be signed unless any + all US-Western sanctions agz Iran are immediately lifted.

The Bammer has repor said that sanctions will be selectively lifted as pertinent, i.e. as soon as there is evidence that Iran is abiding by the terms of the deal.

THE NUCLEAR DEAL MAY BE OVER BEFORE IT EVEN BEGINS.

* ION BIGNEWSNETWORK, TOPIX > [US SecState Kerry]US AWARE OF IRAN SUPPORT FOR HOUTHIS/YEMEN REBELS.

PHYSICAL/MATERIEL SUPPORT = KERRY-CLAIMED "WEEKLY [Air]FIGHTS" TO YEMEN FROM IRAN.

versus

* DEFENCE.PK/FORUMS > CHINA-IRAN-PAKISTAN NEXUS TO CONTAIN OR ISOLATE US, INDIA, + SAUDI ARABIA | INDIA STRANDED AS REGION PREPARES FOR IRAN [post-NucleaR Deal] SURGE - WSJ

Posted by JosephMendiola 2015-04-10 22:43|| 2015-04-10 22:43|| Front Page Top

23:38 James
23:09 JosephMendiola
22:57 JosephMendiola
22:43 JosephMendiola
22:31 JosephMendiola
22:27 JosephMendiola
21:28 Frank G
21:09 Vernal Spavins7649
20:57 Shipman
20:46 JosephMendiola
20:39 JosephMendiola
20:27 swksvolFF
20:21 swksvolFF
19:54 Alaska Paul
19:47 Alaska Paul
19:42 Bobby
19:19 swksvolFF
19:13 swksvolFF
18:45 charger
18:40 charger
17:58 Thing From Snowy Mountain
17:47 Pappy
17:43 CrazyFool
17:18 DarthVader