Article

2005-12-07 Syria-Lebanon-Iran

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 ed 2005-12-07 14:50|| || Front Page|| [8 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 ..and getting the Europeans to back targeted economic sanctions against Iran if it fails to shut down its most sensitive nuclear activities.

Good luck on that one.

Posted by Bomb-a-rama 2005-12-07 16:12|| 2005-12-07 16:12|| Front Page Top

#2 Why do I have the feeling that stupidity is a result of my tax dollars at work? Maybe we should find out who's on the distribution list and send them a copy of .com's greatest Rants, with forward by Zenster.

Posted by Jeng Phanter8644 2005-12-07 16:17|| 2005-12-07 16:17|| Front Page Top

#3 I think that the Iranian coast of Hormuz could be made inhospitable for the Iranian army and Navy units. Unfortunately it would be much harder to prevent attacks by irregular forces and "terrorists" using camouflaged dhows armed with missiles.

Posted by Super Hose 2005-12-07 16:30|| 2005-12-07 16:30|| Front Page Top

#4 Super Hose! You're back from Korea? We'd thought you'd been run over by an elevator!

Posted by Phil 2005-12-07 16:32|| 2005-12-07 16:32|| Front Page Top

#5 Note that the document omits even the suggestion that as soon as more than one nuclear weapon is available to Iran, they might use it. Their obvious target is a US fleet, for the same reason that Japan attacked Pearl Harbor: to get the US out of "their pond".

Posted by Anonymoose 2005-12-07 16:34|| 2005-12-07 16:34|| Front Page Top

#6 Actually Phil, I've been doing quite a bit of babysitting. Chasing a 9 month-old seems a lot tougher than it was last time (eight years ago.) Been playing a lot of X-mas Tree goalie this last week.

As for getting a fleet nuked, I would think that obtaining the bomb does not in anyway mean that you can reliably: 1. load one on a missile 2. shoot said missile in the right direction 3. have it reach the target sucessfully 4. explode effectively.

It would really suck to attack the USN ineffectively.

Posted by Super Hose 2005-12-07 17:30|| 2005-12-07 17:30|| Front Page Top

#7 It would really suck to attack the USN ineffectively.

Yeah, the only thing worse would be to have attacked it successfully. Ask the Japanese.

Posted by Ulinert Spinerong4550 2005-12-07 17:45|| 2005-12-07 17:45|| Front Page Top

#8 Just declaring that they have a nuke will give the Iranians a strong political tool against its neighbors and the Europeans.

Posted by canaveraldan 2005-12-07 17:54|| 2005-12-07 17:54|| Front Page Top

#9 I'm not so sure the Iranians will be so glad they have nukes. I don't think the Euros will be amused, especially as Bush will rub their noses in it every chance he gets.

It may also create some NATO like structure, CENTO, perhaps, that will line lots of the locals up more firmly than they or the Irqanians would like, but the only way they can be sure to survive or at least reduce the MMs ability to intimidate them.

Having nukes has really bought the Paks little, except a nuclear India now in alliance with the US.

Posted by Thique Fleager3950 2005-12-07 18:00|| 2005-12-07 18:00|| Front Page Top

#10 Though the Iranians have fairly capable missiles, and are getting better ones all the time, an attack on a US fleet would most likely be done in the Straits of Hormuz with either a naval mine or a fire ship, disguised as a normal Gulf cargo ship.

By that strategy, it would not only take out a fleet, but it would create an involuntary oil boycott by blocking the Strait, and might even have a bare minimum of plausible deniability.

Every calculation they would make, however, would go back to their guiding principal: to get the US out of the Middle East. Any means is a good means for this end, they would say.

Posted by Anonymoose 2005-12-07 21:58|| 2005-12-07 21:58|| Front Page Top

#11 I think there are two very likely catastrophic outcomes of Iran having nuclear weapons. The first is an open attack on Israel. The Iranians have taken the measure of the Europeans and see them for the spineless wimps they are. They present no deterrent. I suspect the Iranians believe if they quickly nuke Israel out of existence and present the world with that fait accompli there won't be any response other than verbal remonstrances and a resolution or two at the UN. They hate Israel so badly it blinds them to reality; they can't see how anyone who isn't Jewish doesn't share their same feelings, if only to a lesser degree.

The MMs would, of course, have to be worried about an American response. I suspect they intend to defuse that threat by claiming that there is at least one nuclear weapon under their control already inside an American city and that any American response to their nuclear attack on Israel will see it/them detonated. They don't think America would risk its own civilians simply to save that "s****y little country." They may be right. I'm not sure that any American president would call that bluff. Certainly no Democrat would.

I am very worried that we are rapidly moving into a situation where we will be faced with the terrible choice of using nuclear weapons first or responding to a well-planned Iranian nuclear attack that has left millions dead. IMNSHO, we should be moving heaven and earth to inspire a popular uprising in Iran while they still don't have nukes. Once they get nuclear weapons even that possibility becomes fraught with peril because of who might get their hands on the nukes during the chaos of a coup. If Bush is going to make a move to defang the MMs, which I sincerely hope he does, he better do it soon. Time is not on our side.

One last thought: if we're finding ourselves looking at the horns of this particularly nasty dilemma, the Israelis are even closer to it. Moral as I believe the Jews to be, I wouldn't bet ten cents against them using a first nuclear strike against Iran. If the Mossad ever truly believes the Iranians are ready to launch, I think the Israelis will do whatever they can to take them out. Given Israel's inability to muster sufficient conventional power for a task of that magnitude, that means nukes and every major Arab and Muslim city glowing in the dark for two hundred years. (That fait accompli logic cuts both ways, you see.} The day Iran gets nukes the world is going to become a much, much more dangerous place.

Posted by mac 2005-12-07 23:01|| 2005-12-07 23:01|| Front Page Top

02:17 dhgmk
23:49 Omeresh Thraitch4407
23:44 Barbara Skolaut
23:25 gromgoru
23:22 RG
23:20 Zhang Fei
23:17 Zhang Fei
23:11 gromgoru
23:01 mac
22:57 gromgoru
22:53 gromgoru
22:43 Frank G
22:38 DMFD
22:37 Mahou Sensei Negi-bozu
22:33 DMFD
22:27 Frank G
22:18 Rafael
22:02 BA
21:58 Anonymoose
21:49 Frank G
21:37 Sliting Glamp4591
21:37 Rafael
21:26 Mike
21:21 Steve White