Article

2006-01-01 Syria-Lebanon-Iran

Hardline Iran media reject Russian nuclear offer

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 Fred 2006-01-01 00:00|| || Front Page|| [9 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Fred and other Rantburgers,
is it only my overactive imagination or do other rantburgers also notice the ominous (apathetic ?) silence of the west in general and US in particular, as the Iranians cross one redline after the other in their untiring race to the coveted nuke ? Do people ignore the fact that once they have reached their nuclear goal, the entire middle east will be severely destabilized with dire consequences to any american plans in Iraq, Afganistan, Pakistan and maybe the entire asian continent.
What would prevent Ahmadinagad from "donating" to Al Qaida a few nuclear devices to be smuggled into key cities in Europe and the US. What could the US do when a nuke goes off in NY ? blame Iran ? how would they prove this was an Iranian warhead ?
Can you imagine the new levels of grovelling and arab-asslicking that would be reached by the European Dhimmies once they learn about hidden arab nukes in Paris and Berlin?.

Has Dubia finally lost his Iron Balls(TM) ?

I do admit that we Israelis may not have a good way of dealing with this situation with minimal collateral damage. However,I am afraid that once we see that we are alone in this and once we consider the risk of a nuke on Tel-Aviv, we will start something that will ignite the entire region in a bloody conflagration (of the kind that glows in the dark).

Any comments ?

Posted by Elder of Zion 2006-01-01 10:06|| 2006-01-01 10:06|| Front Page Top

#2 "Has Dubia finally lost his Iron Balls(TM)?"

No, I think when he says Iran will NOT be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons, I think he means it; and he'll do whatever it takes to make sure they don't.

Just my hunch...

Posted by Dave D.">Dave D. 2006-01-01 11:07|| 2006-01-01 11:07|| Front Page Top

#3 Dave D.
I certainly hope what you say is right.
All I can add is: It's damn inconvenient to feel Ahmadinagad's stale breath on the nape my neck !

Posted by hupully trallalong 5938 2006-01-01 11:11|| 2006-01-01 11:11|| Front Page Top

#4 Dave
Sorry "hupully" Twas me

Posted by Elder of Zion 2006-01-01 11:14|| 2006-01-01 11:14|| Front Page Top

#5 "All I can add is: It's damn inconvenient to feel Ahmadinagad's stale breath on the nape my neck!"

Yes, I imagine that must be a distinctly uncomfortable feeling.

I think we've all known-- for all of the past 26 years-- that this showdown would someday come. Now it looks like it will come this year. I hope that when it does, it is sufficiently violent that it convinces the Arab/Islamic world to abandon utterly its dreams of conquering the Infidels.

I hope.

Posted by Dave D.">Dave D. 2006-01-01 11:36|| 2006-01-01 11:36|| Front Page Top

#6 Dave
Being a old staunch infidel myself I cannot but agree with you wholeheartedly.
I also think such a showdown may even proove to be (in the long term) beneficial to those arabs who can still think for themselves.

Posted by Elder of Zion 2006-01-01 11:42|| 2006-01-01 11:42|| Front Page Top

#7 We haven't heard from you in a while, EoZ. You've been missed. The debate here has been whether Dubya is in the process of getting his ducks in a row to do something along the lines of decapitating and disarming the Mad Mullah regime one dark night (destroying Republican Guards in their barracks, assassination of key Mullahs, partial destruction of underground nuclear facilities, but not a boots-on-the-ground invasion followed by nation building) or whether Israel will have to make her own war. Nobody seems to think the Europeans will do anything more than look for more reasons to talk, even as more and more of Europe comes within reach of Iran's latest iteration of nuclear-capable missiles. My own key question has been where that first Iranian missile will land after being deflected by Israel's improvement on the Patriot anti-missiles, and whether Sharon will wait for that first missile to be launched before taking the war to the Mullahs.

So no, the whole world isn't ignoring Israel's predicament. Rantburgers, at least, have been paying very close attention.

Posted by trailing wife 2006-01-01 11:58|| 2006-01-01 11:58|| Front Page Top

#8 I'm having trouble separating rhetoric from facts, I think that Dubyah has a real fear that it's all a smokescreen along the lines of Saddam's supposed WMD's, and he necessarily must tread very carefully through this particular minefield.

The only "Proof" of Nuclear Weapons Building is their own word, since no inspections are permitted it's near impossible to tell if they're lying or not.

I personally think it's a trap to get the US to respond with a full scale attack, that the Mullahs can then use to whip up fury against us, and by NOT biting Dubyah has infuriated them.

Far safer to arm Israel (500 and 1000 pound "Bunker Busters" etc., and then if (Very big IF) they're not lying, while Israel pounds them into sand, we (The US) can shift focus toward Saudiland and end the threat permanently (Just as the munitions run low in Israel, we take up the slack)

Taking turns pounding the "Nuke" sites makes a tremendous statement, but only if you're hitting the right places.

Posted by Redneck Jim 2006-01-01 11:59|| 2006-01-01 11:59|| Front Page Top

#9 Trailing Wife
I "disappeared" for a while since I have opened a new bussiness which kinda sucks up all my available free time. Good to know I've been missed.
As for Dubia I hope he is indeed getting all his marbles arranged.
Technically, I dont think the US can or should sustain a full boots-on-the-ground operation in Iran. To be effective, it will have to be a short decapitation (maybe combined airstrike + special forces at key sites) followed by a political coup and regime change. Any direct occupation by American forces will be strategically and politically unwise and may also spread US forces too thin.
As for Israel, I dont think we can afford to wait till the Iranian cruise missiles show as blips on our radar screens. It will have to be done at a much earlier date. However, unfortunately, Sharon is too occupied with the coming elections to do something. OTH some successful counter- operation may be all he will ever need to win the coming election (as stupid as this may sound).

Whatever happens, I wish you and all fellow Rantburgers a Happy New Year and a great and fruitfull 2006.

Posted by Elder of Zion 2006-01-01 12:21|| 2006-01-01 12:21|| Front Page Top

#10 then the Borg has to be wiped out

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2006-01-01 12:23|| 2006-01-01 12:23|| Front Page Top

#11 Frank
Who's the Borg ??

Posted by Elder of Zion 2006-01-01 12:26|| 2006-01-01 12:26|| Front Page Top

#12 "However, unfortunately, Sharon is too occupied with the coming elections to do something."

How sure are you that this is so? Bush, also, gives the appearance of being preoccupied (NSA surveillance "scandal", etc.), but my guess is they are both focusing on the Iranian problem nearly full-time.

Posted by Dave D.">Dave D. 2006-01-01 12:38|| 2006-01-01 12:38|| Front Page Top

#13 Dave
you may be right but only time will tell if this is indeed so.

Posted by Elder of Zion 2006-01-01 12:49|| 2006-01-01 12:49|| Front Page Top

#14 Star Trek reference - in response to your comment about some of the Arabs being outside the hive mindset....

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2006-01-01 12:54|| 2006-01-01 12:54|| Front Page Top

#15 RJ said: "The only "Proof" of Nuclear Weapons Building is their own word, since no inspections are permitted it's near impossible to tell if they're lying or not."

I offer two observations...

First, the IAEA did find a number of reasons which clearly pointed to the fact that the Iranians were on track for weapons, not just a nuke power plant to supplement their 100 years worth of proven oil reserves. Though el Baradai tried to downplay it in every way he could, there were too many eyes on the inspection team who weren't stooges for him to cover up the evidence. Their obvious real intent is what brought the EU3 into play in the first place - otherwise it would've been left to the IAEA and the UNSC to which it reports. And knowing full well the Iranian intent, that alone makes the following year+ of EU3 "negotiations" a classic example of the utter failure of their dearly held and, particularly in this case, extremely dangerous "soft power" foolishness. The old saying, "When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.", constantly used against the US due to ~~penis~~ power envy, comes to mind... When all they have is knee pads, everything looks like a stiffy. Sucks to be them, LOL.

Secondly, your point regards Bush's position today, after the SNAFU of Tenet's CIA intel failure ("slam dunk" indeed) on Iraq's WMD materials, is spot on, indeed. He must have rock-solid proof of the Iranian intent to hold back the baying BDS hounds. Whether before or after action is not as important as finding proof even the tools will have to believe - and presuming it occurs before he leaves office... the bandying about of various dates and deadlines on the Iranians' capabilities are all over the map. Bush has found himself between a rock and a hard place not only on the intel question, but domestically with the US Senate pulling all of the teeth from the House Resolution to stop Iran from getting nukes "by all reasonable means". I am beginning to accept the fact that the current marriage of convenience between the forces seeking the fall of the US must be addressed in extra-legal ways... Though, for the world at large, the Islamofascists are the most obvious threat - the most dangerous to the US, by far, is the internal threat and it must be dealt with immediately, else the larger WoT is irrelevant.

Posted by Jitle Cluger8838 2006-01-01 17:00|| 2006-01-01 17:00|| Front Page Top

#16 This whole thing is a distraction. Since when did the "War on Terror" become the "War on WMD Proliferation"?

If Iran suddenly gave in on the WMD issue, or if USA managed to destroy its nuclear capabilities but without removing its leadership -- do you think that this will be a huge victory for our side, rather than a mere retention of the status quo? Iran hasn't needed WMDs in order to export terror and Islamofascism the last three decades.

Somewhere between Afghanistan and Iraq, people started thinking that WMDs were the thing to target, not governments that supported and financed terror and the Islamofascist ideology that promoted it.

Fact is that an Islamofascist Iran without WMDs would still need to be crushed (or atleast contained, as it currently isn't).

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2006-01-01 19:32|| 2006-01-01 19:32|| Front Page Top

#17 I'm starting to agree with Aris more with each passing day -- maybe I've been eating too many mushrooms lately.

Posted by Darrell 2006-01-01 19:36|| 2006-01-01 19:36|| Front Page Top

#18 a distraction?

Fact is that an Islamofascist Iran without WMDs would still need to be crushed (or atleast contained, as it currently isn't).

I agree, but the nuke/WMD issue makes it important when and how and by whom. We already know the Dhimmi sheep will come bleating about "over-reaction" and "Let the UN do its' work" and yadd yadda yadda. Liars, suckers and Donks will come ankle-biting when they offered no other alternatives. Time to crush a few empty skulls (rhetorically speaking, of course).

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2006-01-01 19:39|| 2006-01-01 19:39|| Front Page Top

#19 I fail to see how liars, suckers and Donks could do any more ankle-biting than they already do. They're complaining about the White House counting web visitors, government web sites using cookies, and the government listening in on the international communications of suspected terrorists. Obviously GWB has become Big Brother, just 21 years late. There's no chance they can triumph over Big Brother.

Posted by Darrell 2006-01-01 19:47|| 2006-01-01 19:47|| Front Page Top

#20 "Fact is that an Islamofascist Iran without WMDs would still need to be crushed (or at least contained, as it currently isn't)."

True... sort of. A few observations...

What the addition of the WMD threat does is compress time and make the regime change needed in Iran at least a tad more urgent and puts it on a schedule of the best available intel estimates of their acquisition.

Why?

For one - magnified lethality by several thousand times. To ignore this aspect of the addition of deliverable WMDs to the inventory of Islamic terrorists is simply dumb.

It also increases the likelihood of even bolder acts and the export of even more terror since they apparently believe this will make them invulnerable once acquired.

The odds of them using WMDs once they are acquired is certainly great enough to take on the face value of their threats. They have made their intentions clear enough.

Agreed, even without WMDs, they must be removed from power, just as the House of Saud, if global Islamic terrorism is to be checked. Would that more governments came forward and assisted openly, actively, seriously... instead of posturing in the UN and press and cutting favorable under the table deals which merely undermine the WoT at every turn.

With WMDs, they are far more lethal, emboldened, and, thus, far more dangerous.

An attitude in the "at least contained, as it currently isn't" leads to another point...

Who is actually actively doing something about Islamic terrorists? Very few, publicly, actually. Perhaps, no make that probably, very few more even behind the scenes. Most of those who might have been expected to both take it seriously as well as actively oppose it are either sitting on their hands or buying it off / appeasing it.

Nations supposedly act in their own interests. That is rational, but ignores the short-term vs the long-term consequences. In the short-term, perhaps they improve their economy with a shady dual-sue tech deal here and a little arms treaty busting there. But long-term all of these are, whether large or small, cumulatively suicidal acts. World-wide, the number of nations willing to forgo immediate gain for future security has dwindled to a tiny few.

It's also rather clear that those few who are actively opposing Islamic terror have not lost focus, nothing of the kind -- they've become more focused, in fact. The Iranians, in a remarkable show of underestimating the resolve of the leadership of those few, have accelerated the showdown, in fact.

Posted by Chomomp Anguling3713 2006-01-01 20:09|| 2006-01-01 20:09|| Front Page Top

#21 did someone lose their NSA/Rantburg/J Edgar Hoover cookie?

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2006-01-01 21:06|| 2006-01-01 21:06|| Front Page Top

#22 What's in a name?

It's the article info and the commentary that count, no?

;)

Posted by Chomomp Anguling3713 2006-01-01 22:56|| 2006-01-01 22:56|| Front Page Top

23:24 Frank G
23:17 xbalanke
23:14 xbalanke
23:07 Rafael
22:58 Red Dog
22:56 Chomomp Anguling3713
22:55 Red Dog
22:54 JosephMendiola
22:53 Rafael
22:50 JosephMendiola
22:48 Alaska Paul
22:46 JosephMendiola
22:45 phil_b
22:35 JosephMendiola
22:32 JosephMendiola
22:05 mjslack
22:04 Oldspook
22:03 trailing wife
21:54 Frank G
21:52 trailing wife
21:41 Barbara Skolaut
21:40 Oldspook
21:39 mjslack
21:23 49 Pan