Article

2006-01-05 Syria-Lebanon-Iran

US freezes assets of two Iranian nuclear firms

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 2006-01-05 00:00|| || Front Page|| [11137 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Bet France Quietly protests then remains silent when their companies are implicated. This is a great move by Bush that needs massive support. Again Bush is doing the right thing here and will probably be hammered by the Dems and other trolls.

The Iranians don't need a functional nuclear bomb to destroy parts of Isreal or America. All they need is Atomic waste from a power plant, a detonating device and delivery system. They have two of the three right now, capable of reaching Isreal anyway. We should be very concerned in that our Mutually Assured Destruction policies will not work as a deterant with these idiots.

Posted by 49 pan">49 pan 2006-01-05 07:38|| 2006-01-05 07:38|| Front Page Top

#2 Do we have a MAD policy with respect to these idiots? I do not recall hearing it enunciated publicly even once. Bush is doing the wrong thing by not clearly spelling out the consequences of actions for the MM, all the Iranian sheeple and the rest of the world. We don't need sabre rattling, but we do need to make sure there is no surprise when Iran ceases to exist.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-01-05 07:58|| 2006-01-05 07:58|| Front Page Top

#3 Yeah, I think MAD was Ronald Reagan's policy. I don't know if it is official policy still, but it kind of sounds like common sense, doesn't it? Amadinajad is a religious nut that thinks the 12th Imam is going to come out of a well and end the world in two years. He has nothing to lose philosophically, and I think that makes him one of the most dangerous people around. Just like the assholes that think they will get 72 raisins for blowing up a classroom full of kids.

Posted by bigjim-ky 2006-01-05 08:19|| 2006-01-05 08:19|| Front Page Top

#4 Good stuff, keep turning the nut crank!

Posted by Besoeker 2006-01-05 08:58|| 2006-01-05 08:58|| Front Page Top

#5 Do we have a MAD policy with respect to these idiots?

MAD only works with nations that have significant nuclear arsenals. America's reaction to any Iranian terrorist attack would more likely follow our "Respond in Kind" doctrine devolving from guidelines surrounding nuclear, biological and chemical warfare.

Essentially, "Respond in Kind" is a policy of retaliating in kind with whatever sort of NBC weapon was used against us. Our doctrine also permits us to escalate through the ranks to nuclear reprisal if such devastation is warranted.

Right about now would be a really good time to notify Iran regarding this. Again, the one truly significant problem is Iran's lack of participation with the IAEA. The result is that we have no samples of nuclear material from Iran's purification facilities or (when they finally have them) breeder reactors.

Detailed mass spectroscopy permits us to quickly identify exactly which reactor nuclear material comes from. Individual purification facilities and breeder reactors all have uniquely different "fingerprints" with respect to ratios of peculiar isotopes like americium and thorium. Each facility tends to express these trace elements in minute quantities while creating fissile material. In the absence of an incoming ballistic track, our defense forces would use such identifying markers to isolate exactly who it was that initiated a nuclear attack upon American soil.

Rogue nations that do not submit samples of fissile material represent an enormous risk for us in that we cannot evolve an appropriate response doctrine without proof of origin.

It is for this reason that I continue to support Mrs. Davis's suggestion that North Korea, Iran and all other rogue nations aspiring to nuclear armaments be put on notice that a single nuclear terrorist attack on American soil will result in the immediate incineration of all such parties.

Terrorism has taken the gloves off of conventional warfare. We are idiots to think that traditional rules of engagement still apply. American defense strategists must evolve new policies concerning exactly how the threat of nuclear terrorism will be countered.

I feel that it is important for us to put terror sponsors on notice that they all face annihilation should any single one of them attempt an attack upon Americal soil.

As noted by bigjim-ky, when dealing with a monster raving loon like Amadinejad, even threats of reprisal carry little weight. Amadinejad has already made it clear that Iran's complete destruction is a price he's willing to pay in order to eliminate Israel. The conspicuous silence of surrounding Arab neighbors regarding condemnation of this suicidal pronouncement should serve as notice that they willingly support such a monstrous notion.

Summed in total, these extremely dire indications all point to one vital solution. It is one that .com and I have been advocating for some time now. Iran's entire leadership structure needs to be eliminated in a single decapitating non-nuclear cruise missile strike. We no longer have the luxury of adopting a retaliatory posture against the insane fanaticism of Amadinejad. He has literally dug his own grave and we are strongly obliged to nudge him into it, along with the entire Revolutionary Guard and the twisted imams that govern them.

Failure to do so will eventually result in a nuclear terrorist attack on American soil. A combination of direct action against Iran and general notification to all proliferating nations that they are hastening their own doom is one of the few functional deterrents we have left.

The 9-11 atrocity served notice to the civilized world that this one is for all the marbles. If we do not begin acting as such, we merely seal our own fate.

Posted by Zenster 2006-01-05 12:40|| 2006-01-05 12:40|| Front Page Top

#6 Zenster said: As noted by bigjim-ky, when dealing with a monster raving loon like Amadinejad, even threats of reprisal carry little weight. Amadinejad has already made it clear that Iran's complete destruction is a price he's willing to pay in order to eliminate Israel. The conspicuous silence of surrounding Arab neighbors regarding condemnation of this suicidal pronouncement should serve as notice that they willingly support such a monstrous notion.

Not to belittle Zenster's excellent comment, I recall that Iran is Shia and insists it is PERSIAN, not Arab, while the surrounding Arab states that call themselves Arab are Sunni. The rivalry between these two sects of Islam has been long, intense, and is probably the reason why Saudi Arabia intervened in GWI to stop the removal of Sunni Saddam, in order to prevent the development of a democratic Iraq with a ruling majority Shia government.

It would seem to me that, other than the downside of any radioactives blowing into Sunni lands from a nuked Iran, the Sunni Arabs would not at all object to the nuking of Shia Iran. Just because relations between the Catholics and Protestants TODAY is amicable doesn't mean that there never was a series of civil wars in France between the two centuries ago. Shias/Sunnis have been told that Sunnis/Shias are heretics, which means the death penalty in BOTH sects: so much the better if one side is nuked by Israel/USA.

Posted by Ptah">Ptah 2006-01-05 13:11|| http://www.crusaderwarcollege.org]">[http://www.crusaderwarcollege.org] 2006-01-05 13:11|| Front Page Top

#7 Zen, Thanks for correcting me on the MAD vs. Respond in kind. But neither program will work. One of these policies keeps an enemy a bay and the other gives us justification for a counter attack. They donât care about being destroyed and the last thing I want to be part of is a counter attack. That implies we have a large part of America laid to waste by this idiot. This guy is perhaps the most dangerous man and government we have faced in the history of the US. All of our enemies prior to the WOT were nations that wanted to dominate and control us. This fuck wants to wipe us from the face of the earth down to the last American. This guy has been at war with us since he took our embassy in 79. Itâs time he gets the credibility he is seeking and we give him his historic war. One B-52 with one bomb will do the job just fine, you me and .com can ride as observers. Weâll tie Cassini to it and he can do a Boon Pickens ride for life.

Posted by 49 pan">49 pan 2006-01-05 13:14|| 2006-01-05 13:14|| Front Page Top

#8 I recall that Iran is Shia and insists it is PERSIAN, not Arab, while the surrounding Arab states that call themselves Arab are Sunni.

Thanks Ptah and for the rest of that insightful post. Gotta love Rantburg U!

Back in the late 80's I once worked with a girl who was Iranian. I was making small talk and asked her where she was from (due to her accent) She said she was from "Persia". Confused (yes I was stupid) that there was still a country called Persia I asked more details and I felt bad for her when it was clear she just didn't want to admit she was Iranian - as I guess she felt it was negative to admit that.

Posted by 2b 2006-01-05 13:30|| 2006-01-05 13:30|| Front Page Top

#9 They donât care about being destroyed

Ofcourse they care about being destroyed. What makes you think otherwise?

My own conviction is that they want to have nuclear weapons not in order to launch a first attack on Israel or anyone else (tantamount to suicide) but rather to deter both America and any other country in the region from conventional attacks on Iranian soil. They want to use MAD in their favour, in essense proclaiming "If you attempt to destroy the Iranian regime, we'll go down taking down Tel Aviv as well."

Once they have such a deterrent against conventional attacks, their imperialistic tactics in the region can truly become unrestrained. I think at that point we'll no longer even see any *attempt* on their part to hide their infiltration and interference in Iraq for example.

Posted by Aris Katsaris">Aris Katsaris 2006-01-05 16:03|| 2006-01-05 16:03|| Front Page Top

#10 Fear not, Ptah, I am well aware of Iran's Persian ethnicity. I just happen to be at an end of discriminating between the various Middle Eastern he||holes that all want to see America vaporized.

Zen, Thanks for correcting me on the MAD vs. Respond in kind.

No problem, 49 pan, I knew you were hunting for an appropriate policy.

But neither program will work.

I also noted this at the end of my commentary when I cited bigjim-ky's observations and diverged into why it is so important to decap Iran's leadership.

One of these policies keeps an enemy a bay and the other gives us justification for a counter attack. They donât care about being destroyed and the last thing I want to be part of is a counter attack. That implies we have a large part of America laid to waste by this idiot.

Not at all. Iran is far from having multiple delivery vehicles that can reach the United States. Furthermore, they would much rather attack us covertly to avoid immediate reprisal. A far more likely scenario is that Iran hands off a functioning nuclear device to some proxy terrorist group and they smuggle it into a major American harbor via oceanic shipping container then detonate it in close proximity to a large metropolis.

There is no need for large tracts of American countryside being laid to waste. A single nuclear attack would wreak havoc with our nation and put it into economic stasis or even possibly collapse our economy altogether.

This guy is perhaps the most dangerous man and government we have faced in the history of the US.

I disagree. Hitler was a much greater threat, as he commanded sufficient troops and materiel to have attacked our nation in force. Imagine if the V-2 program had been able to bear full fruit. Guided missiles raining down upon eastern seaboard cities, still largely built out of wood, would have been devastating to our nation.

All of our enemies prior to the WOT were nations that wanted to dominate and control us. This fuck wants to wipe us from the face of the earth down to the last American.

Here, you are correct. This is a distinguishing difference which does make it a priority to eliminate Iran's government post haste.

This guy has been at war with us since he took our embassy in 79. Itâs time he gets the credibility he is seeking and we give him his historic war.

Here, you are incorrect. A boots on the ground war with Iran is the very last thing we need. Have you looked at a map of Iran? It's the size of California with disparate theaters separated by significant mountain ranges. This is why I have routinely advocated a shift towards decapping hostile governments. It is far less costly in both domestic and enemy lives, plus gets the essential message across along with temporarily halting adversarial nations.

One B-52 with one bomb will do the job just fine, you me and .com can ride as observers. Weâll tie Cassini to it and he can do a Boon Pickens ride for life.

Here, you are totally off of the rails. America would have to be insane to initiate the use of nuclear force against any modern foe. It would declare open season for any and all terrorist groups to use nuclear weapons against us. We possess conventional firepower (i.e., F/A Bombs) that can attain the destructiveness of nuclear weapons without the release of any radiation. While it might be gratifying to consider the mullahs watching their buildings slag down around them, a nuclear attack is peruile fantasy.

Sadly, conventional military intervention is pretty much a fantasy as well. This is most likely why we have sold Israel all of those bunker-buster bombs. They will more likely be the ones who strike against Iran. I can only hope our own military is given rein to do this important job as a nuclear armed Iran would be one of the greatest historical follies since appeasing Hitler.

Posted by Zenster 2006-01-05 16:19|| 2006-01-05 16:19|| Front Page Top

#11 from Zenster "Summed in total, these extremely dire indications all point to one vital solution. It is one that .com and I have been advocating for some time now. Iran's entire leadership structure needs to be eliminated in a single decapitating non-nuclear cruise missile strike. We no longer have the luxury of adopting a retaliatory posture against the insane fanaticism of Amadinejad. He has literally dug his own grave and we are strongly obliged to nudge him into it, along with the entire Revolutionary Guard and the twisted imams that govern them."

This is a real good tactic here Zenster. After all, Iran is a rulled by a select group of criminals posing as theologians. Once removed saner heads will take over. This would completely bypass the MAD scenario; though, one has to wonder if there aren't some "fail safe" plans in place to wipe out Isreal if a decapitation strike is done.

Posted by TomAnon 2006-01-05 16:25|| 2006-01-05 16:25|| Front Page Top

#12 My own conviction is that they want to have nuclear weapons not in order to launch a first attack on Israel or anyone else (tantamount to suicide) but rather to deter both America and any other country in the region from conventional attacks on Iranian soil. They want to use MAD in their favour, in essense proclaiming "If you attempt to destroy the Iranian regime, we'll go down taking down Tel Aviv as well."

I beg to differ, Aris. Ahmadnejad has already stated that Iran's own destruction would be an acceptable price for anihilating Israel. While this may well be sabre rattling intended for public consumption in Iran, we owe it to ourselves to take this maniac seriously and put paid to all of his offensive rhetoric.

If Iran is allowed to go nuclear, it will be the first of many small regimes to do so and global stability will become even more precarious than during the Cold War's height. Additionally, it is crucial that Iran be taken to task for their sponsorship of international terrorism. If they are permitted to build a nuclear shield in order to avoid their well deserved punishment, then a significant administration of justice will have been foresaken.

Iran's leadership must be ~~decapped~~ pilloried for the incredibly hostile agenda they are flaunting. Nothing less will suffice.

Posted by Zenster 2006-01-05 16:31|| 2006-01-05 16:31|| Front Page Top

#13 This is a real good tactic here Zenster. After all, Iran is a rulled by a select group of criminals posing as theologians. Once removed saner heads will take over. This would completely bypass the MAD scenario; though, one has to wonder if there aren't some "fail safe" plans in place to wipe out Isreal if a decapitation strike is done.

Thank you, TomAnon, although .com also deserves credit for this strategy. Even if "saner heads" do not prevail after a decap strike, it would merely make the "rinse and repeat" light come on.

We need to be doing this in Iran, Sudan and numerous other places. When they finally install elected representation that is not he|| bent on propelling terrorism or proliferation of WMDs, then they get to stay alive.

Finally, this is why it is so important to decap Iran right now. They must never be allowed to be in a position whereby they could exercise some sort of deterrent by threatening Israel, let alone the United States. We need to take these loons at their word and treat their threats as credible, no matter how much puffery they may be. It would certainly decrease a lot of the bu||shit that currently clogs the airwaves.

Posted by Zenster 2006-01-05 16:46|| 2006-01-05 16:46|| Front Page Top

#14 Zenster, it is already my belief that Iran's regime must be taken down -- we also agree on the instability that Iranian nukes will cause.

We only disagree on the likely usage of these nuclear weapons, whether it is to deliver genocidal-suicidal blows (as per Ahmadnejad's rhetoric) or to boost their defense deterrent to such a degree that their invasion becomes essentally impossible due to fears of their reaction to same. (no nuclear power has yet been invaded on its own soil)

As for Ahmadnejad's rhetoric, *he* might personally feel than Iran's complete annihilation is an acceptable outcome, but I doubt he'll be able to convince many others of the top leadership of his country.

And his comments needn't be for public consumption only *inside* Iran. They may also be meant to make the Iran the official leader of the whole (antisemetic-in-its-vast-majority) Muslim world, increase Iran's political influence amongst Palestinians, etc, etc. By portraying a seeming "selfless" attitude ("we're willing to sacrifice our own nation to destroy the eeeevil jews"), Ahmadnejad and Iran get the support of every single antisemite in the Middle East, even ones that might otherwise have opposed it (e.g. because Sunnis might not have otherwise desired a Shiite nuclear power).

Posted by Aris Katsaris">Aris Katsaris 2006-01-05 16:50|| 2006-01-05 16:50|| Front Page Top

#15 Ya, OK, the B-52 comment was a bit of a rant, and I would not strap LA/Cassini to a nuke. God knows I don't want to start up another thread like yesterday.

Hitler might have been a larger more capable military threat to the US, I agree there. Iran has a tough time keeping their limited aircraft flying at best and not a big military threat on their best day. Hitler saw the Jews, not America, at needing to be exterminated. This guy wants all of Western civ to be eliminated, a little different scale. With a few well placed nukes, and your delivery mode is much more feasable, the numbers could be in the millions. We must stop this threat before it gets to this.

At the end of the day I would hate to have to go to yet another shithole country before I retire. I agree totally that boots on the ground would be, and always should despite my rants, the last resort. But this leader and all of his government must be removed. IF we don't recognize his declaration of war and meet him with either soldiers or bombs, then how?

Posted by 49 Pan">49 Pan 2006-01-05 16:53|| 2006-01-05 16:53|| Front Page Top

#16 Aris, regardless of which scenario Iran truly anticipates, America (and the world in general) owes it to itself to nail Iran to the mainmast for its inflammatory posturing. None of their bilious spewing does anyone any good, save Iran. I welcome the day when such antagonistic drivel earns its spewer swift onset lead poisoning.

49 pan, thank you for reconsidering. It would seem that we are largely in agreement. Iran must be stopped immediately. You are right in saying that they have declared war upon our nation. We are idiots if we wait around for one of Iran's terror proxies to carry out their agenda for them.

Posted by Zenster 2006-01-05 17:16|| 2006-01-05 17:16|| Front Page Top

#17 Excellent discussion. Thx, folks - great read.

Posted by .com 2006-01-05 18:01|| 2006-01-05 18:01|| Front Page Top

#18 I think the post from Aris makes a lot of sense. If the Mad Mullahsâ¢ can shield themselves with nukes, they can become much more aggressive in regional affairs and certainly more aggressive in sponsoring terrorism and terror client states like Syria. That's essentially the Soviet style -- carry a good shield, and under it use a short sword to stab at your enemies.

But I also believe their President Nutjob when he says he wants to remove Israel from the map, and I think he'll do so if he can get away with it. It's not like the EU-3 will stop him.

I still don't think nuking Iran is in our interest. I keep waiting for the internal revolution. If not that, it's time for the Special Ops guys to take out as many MMs as necessary.

Posted by Steve White">Steve White 2006-01-05 18:59|| 2006-01-05 18:59|| Front Page Top

#19 Though couched in the IHT's agenda, this article (h/t LGF) suggests that Ahmedjihadi has served at least one useful purpose: he's reactivated the Persian citizens who don't want to be led into a conflagration. I still hold out hope they will be the saner heads who take control once the entire mullahcracy is decapped. And yes, I still believe that will happen. We shall see.

Posted by .com 2006-01-05 19:10|| 2006-01-05 19:10|| Front Page Top

#20 jeesh..I've been agreeing with Aris lately too. What's up with that?

Posted by 2b 2006-01-05 19:10|| 2006-01-05 19:10|| Front Page Top

#21 Sheesh, 2b! Didn't your mom tell you not to pick at your scab? I'm liking the reasonable discourse and positions taken. Nice stuff. ;-)

Posted by .com 2006-01-05 19:19|| 2006-01-05 19:19|| Front Page Top

#22 That's essentially the Soviet style -- carry a good shield, and under it use a short sword to stab at your enemies.

I think this argument is overrated. Nukes can be used as a shield only in the sense that no sides will come out the victor, should nukes ever be used. In other words, "we might not win, but neither will you, so think before you act".

Iran is strongly mistaken if they think that nukes will give them a licence to export more terror. The world could respond as deemed necessary to counter the increased terrorism, and if Iran is the first to use nukes, then they will pretty much cease to exist.

Even if they do get nukes, this does not rule out a full scale invasion of Iran, by anyone. Iran is not the Soviet Union.

Posted by Rafael 2006-01-05 19:20|| 2006-01-05 19:20|| Front Page Top

#23 Nukes can be used as a shield only in the sense that no sides will come out the victor

To put in another way: if the first use of nukes on the part of Iran means a total destruction of Iran, then it can't really be considered a shield.

Posted by Rafael 2006-01-05 19:29|| 2006-01-05 19:29|| Front Page Top

#24 What the MM's would do were they to acquire nuclear weapons, is a really, REALLY tough call in my opinion.

On the one hand, I can easily see them behaving exactly as Aris predicts: using their nukes to deter outside interference (whether from us, from Europe, or Israel) with their imperialistic machinations. By holding these weapons in reserve and leaving open the question of whether-- or in what circumstances-- the MM's would use them, they gain an enormous increase in regional and global influence.

Certainly, if they're rational, far-thinking and as cunning as they sometimes seem, that's what they'll do-- especially if they don't really want to risk their own annihilation.

On the other hand, I can't help but think that for people like Ahmadinejad, the acquisition of nuclear weapons would bring along with it an overwhelming and irresistable temptation to use them at the earliest opportunity. I can see the MM's calculating that they could get away with destroying Israel because they figure (a) Israel probably could not mount a devastating counterattack in kind, (b) American domestic politics will not permit Bush to do anything about an Iranian attack on Israel, and (c) the Europeans will do nothing, either.

I'm tempted to say Aris' scenario is more likely, but that "blue light from heaven" that Ahmadinejad claimed he saw surrounding him as he gave his UN speech tells me I'd better not lay odds on it.

Please, God, make the Black Hats go away; just get rid of the darned lunatics, please? Oh, and take Pat Robertson while you're at it, too...

Posted by Dave D.">Dave D. 2006-01-05 19:44|| 2006-01-05 19:44|| Front Page Top

#25 Mad as Nuts isn't bluffing about wiping Israel off the map. He isn't just posturing. He intends to do it. Is it really that hard to see it? Damn, some of you need glasses reeeal bad.

Posted by 2b 2006-01-05 19:46|| 2006-01-05 19:46|| Front Page Top

#26 sorry Dave, my comment was posted before I read yours and it wasn't directed at you.

It's just that some things are so obvious that I can't believe others can not see them. Ahammadinjihad is predictable. He will wipe Israel off the map if given the means and opportunity. The only question is will he be given both.

Posted by 2b 2006-01-05 19:53|| 2006-01-05 19:53|| Front Page Top

#27 Rafael> To put in another way: if the first use of nukes on the part of Iran means a total destruction of Iran, then it can't really be considered a shield.

For this chain of reasoning to work, you have to believe NOT ONLY that Iran will never EVER use nukes no matter what, but also that everyone else in the region also *believes* that Iran will never use nukes.

Or to put it another way, a nuclear deterrent isn't about *using* nukes, it's about the *perception* of the possibility of using them.

Some (e.g. Zenster) think that the Iranians are mad enough to possibly use nukes even if they are not first attacked. I think that they are mad enough to use nukes only in a time where their regime would be in threat of imminent collapse (I'm going under the assumption that they care about their regime's survival more than they do about their country's).

But one way or another I've seen few people yet who would bet their lives that the Iranians would never ever use nukes, no matter what. So, IMO, the deterrent has a very good chance of working.

Posted by Aris Katsaris">Aris Katsaris 2006-01-05 19:53|| 2006-01-05 19:53|| Front Page Top

#28 The world could respond as deemed necessary to counter the increased terrorism, and if Iran is the first to use nukes, then they will pretty much cease to exist.

Pardon my cynicism. The 'world' will likely do little, provided their own respective bits of turf aren't on the receiving end of any Iranian non-nuclear aggression and the oil still flows.

Posted by Pappy 2006-01-05 20:05|| 2006-01-05 20:05|| Front Page Top

#29 Acckkk! I find myself in agreement with Aris AGAIN this week??? Who are you and what did you do with the real Aris? Or was it the pod placed under my bed last night?

:-)

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2006-01-05 20:09|| 2006-01-05 20:09|| Front Page Top

#30 So, IMO, the deterrent has a very good chance of working.

Nonetheless, if they increase their export of terrorism, they should not be dealt with any less vigour just because they have acquired nukes. I would call their bluff, in fact. They are not a superpower yet, and have a long way to go to catch up technologically. OTOH, the greatest threat, I believe, is for Iran to use a nuke in some low-tech way, such as via a proxy terrorist group.

Posted by Rafael 2006-01-05 20:17|| 2006-01-05 20:17|| Front Page Top

#31 The 'world' will likely do little,

That's why I wrote "...the world could respond..." :-)

Posted by Rafael 2006-01-05 20:23|| 2006-01-05 20:23|| Front Page Top

#32 In regards to #29 -- it's you people who started seeing my own point of view about the real regional terrorist threat being that of the active and connected imperialisms of Iran (and Syria), rather than the defeated imperialism and isolated tyranny of Saddam Hussein. It was inevitable that such a convergence of opinions would happen -- reality proved me right after all and now *everyone* sees the threat of Iran.

I've held these opinions for two years now -- what about you? Do you people still think that a democratic domino from Iraq is gonna cause the collapse of the Iranian regime, without need for further intervention?

Posted by Aris Katsaris">Aris Katsaris 2006-01-05 20:26|| 2006-01-05 20:26|| Front Page Top

#33 a decapitation strike to loose the reins of power, but then, yes we people/I do. Don't go puffing up

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2006-01-05 20:33|| 2006-01-05 20:33|| Front Page Top

#34 ah for one brief moment - Aris was able to actually participate in a discussion rather than wag his finger and proclaim that we should all bow before his God given wisdom. I guess our nice comments made him feel uncomfortable and he felt it necessary to return to being annoying - lest he actually connect on some sort of level and lose his grip on his own feelings of superiority.

Posted by 2b 2006-01-05 20:35|| 2006-01-05 20:35|| Front Page Top

#35 Four years ago...

"Iran aggressively pursues these weapons and exports terror, while an unelected few repress the Iranian people's hope for freedom." -- George W. Bush; "Axis of Evil" State of the Union speech; January 29, 2002.

Posted by Darrell 2006-01-05 20:37|| 2006-01-05 20:37|| Front Page Top

#36 The discussion from Aris would hold if the Iranian leaders were westerners. But they are not, western logic does not apply here. This guy is a nut case and will use a nuke on Isreal just as soon as he can. Any talk of deterance is foolish, deterance only works when values are mutual. Zen is right, this guy and his guys need to go. I would much rather find a way to strike this guy and fuck world opinion than go help Isreal with a mass casualty and cleanup.

Posted by 49 Pan">49 Pan 2006-01-05 20:56|| 2006-01-05 20:56|| Front Page Top

#37 I've held these opinions for two years now -- what about you? Do you people still think that a democratic domino from Iraq is gonna cause the collapse of the Iranian regime, without need for further intervention?

I agree with you on this, Aris; though I donât remember not agreeing with you on this particular issue. I think most of us hoped that the Iranian regime would be overthrown from within, but realized that it was unlikely.

Posted by Secret Master 2006-01-05 20:57|| 2006-01-05 20:57|| Front Page Top

#38 BTW - .com, Zen, myself, many others (I don't remember your pipsqueak voice) have advocated decap strikes, with no measurable boots on the ground (other than SPFOR), otherwise the battle ceases to be Mullahs vs the world, and becomes Iran vs the world, which isn't what we want

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2006-01-05 21:04|| 2006-01-05 21:04|| Front Page Top

#39 The discussion from Aris would hold if the Iranian leaders were westerners. But they are not, western logic does not apply here.

The desire for survival is not exclusively "western logic". Pakistan, India, China, Soviet Union, they've all had nukes.

Now, ofcourse, the argument may be that the Islamofascists of Iranians are the first *religious* nuts with nukes, and thus they may have delusions of surviving after death. That's a point there, I'll grant you. But the way I see it Iran's regime has so far almost always acted consisted in its own perceived best interests in this world. I doubt that godly inclinations will distract them from their *worldly* imperialist ambitions -- they haven't so far.

ah for one brief moment - Aris was able to actually participate in a discussion rather than wag his finger and proclaim that we should all bow before his God given wisdom

Not *God-given* wisdom. This is an atheist-leaning agnostic here, remember?

As for my arrogance, my humility, and lack thereof, it's entirely irrelevant to the accuracy of my statements, and the worth (or verifiability) of my opinions, and only relates to the ability of your own egos to accept them -- your mockery on the other hand is a mere distraction and irrelevant, and contains no relevancy to the thread.

Posted by Aris Katsaris">Aris Katsaris 2006-01-05 21:10|| 2006-01-05 21:10|| Front Page Top

#40 I was all for Decap strikes the first time they told the EU to get screwed and I have not changed my mind.

Posted by djohn66 2006-01-05 21:12|| 2006-01-05 21:12|| Front Page Top

#41 I think that they are mad enough to use nukes only in a time where their regime would be in threat of imminent collapse (I'm going under the assumption that they care about their regime's survival more than they do about their country's).

You make a very cogent point, Aris. Even by itself this one single observation still carries the day. Iran mullahcracy (thanks, .com) is sufficiently unstable, by dint of its hyper-repressive doctrine and lack of true representative government. This lack of permanence makes it very important to consider (per Aris's observation) the strong likelihood that the mullahs might lob some nuclear bombs as part of their regime's death throes.

I continue to maintain that, either way, Iranian possession of nuclear weapons will bode extremely ill for the entire Middle East. Even if they do not initiate a nuclear exchange with Israel, they will (per Steve White) act with a much stronger sense of immunity in terms of increased exporting of terrorism.

One can only imagine just how extensively the psy-ops shrinks at the Pentagon are poring over Ahmadinejad's obsession with his own particular apocalyptic Shiite theology. I have already had to do some hard examination of Bush's potential for allowing his belief in eschatology affect foreign policy in the Middle East.

Suffice to say that any such concerns simply vanish in light of Ahmadinejad's own delusional ravings about halos surrounding him and the mahdi being found at the bottom of a well and so forth. Per Dave D.'s observation, Iran's president exhibits a sufficient number of unstable syptomologies that all bets are off in terms of how they might regard possession of nuclear weapons.

Russia and China's meddling in how they shield Iran from international sanctions must be addressed as well. These two enablers run very little risk of blowback from any regional instability if, as Putin does, one disregards niggling little atrocities like Beslan. Europe's absolutely ineffectual response to this threat makes unilateral action mandatory. The perverse nature of Islamist politics poses a situation where hatred for America engenders a bizarre solidarity whilst sectarian friction and doctrinal divisions simultaneously permit disregard for the potential immolation of Iran in their obsessive anti-Semitism. What would normally serve as potentially moderating influences instead represent runaway control factors.

Do you people still think that a democratic domino from Iraq is gonna cause the collapse of the Iranian regime, without need for further intervention?

Given enough time, a functional Iraqi democracy might have been able to sustain a similar groundswell in Iran. The nuclear factor forever changes those equations. So long as Iran does not have elected representation, freedom of religion and basic human rights, they have no business possessing nuclear technology of any sort, electrical power generation included.

Finally, I'll concur with others here about the informative quality and civilized tone of this thread. It has been most enjoyable and I hope we at Rantburg can sustain this quality of exchange.

Posted by Zenster 2006-01-05 21:14|| 2006-01-05 21:14|| Front Page Top

#42 Finally, I'll concur with others here about the informative quality and civilized tone of this thread. It has been most enjoyable and I hope we at Rantburg can sustain this quality of exchange.

*g* Well, you may have spoken just a tiny bit too soon, since I didn't fight off the temptation of dealing with the smartasses and their mock surprise at our convergence of opinion.

But yeah, I enjoyed most of the debate. I'll withdraw from it for now, since I've said everything I had to say, and the time being 4:30 am I'm only gonna get more snappy and impatient from now on, besides.

Frank G, there's a very good reason that I've not yet supported "decapitation strikes" against Iran's government, which is that I don't yet remember seeing historical precedent of such strikes succeeding in toppling a fascist regime. As such, decap strikes *might* be better than nothing, but I've not seen proof to show it. I'm also worried that Iran, just like China, has more redundancy built in its top leadership position than many other fascist countries.

I think it much more likely that eventually the whole military engine of Iran may need to be destroyed, or atleast seriously impaired before actual regime changes occur.

Posted by Aris Katsaris">Aris Katsaris 2006-01-05 21:32|| 2006-01-05 21:32|| Front Page Top

#43 Bare in mind, that whatever Ahmadinejad would like to do, Iran does not have a presidential system of government, and Ahmadinejad has no authority to make changes to foreign policy, that power rests with Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamanei and the Expediency Council.

While i'm not sure about Ahmadinejad, I get the strong impression that those handling the real reins of power in Iran care as much about Islam as I do, and wouldn't be willing to give up their mansions and swiss bank accounts to try and destroy either the Greater or Lesser Satan.

Posted by Paul Moloney 2006-01-05 21:57|| 2006-01-05 21:57|| Front Page Top

#44 Iranians I work with agree, PM - it's a kleptocracy using Islamic Revolution as its' excuse. Think about Lenin vs Khomeini....not much different, is there?

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2006-01-05 22:04|| 2006-01-05 22:04|| Front Page Top

#45 I dunno. Nasser used to make similar comments back in the day. I tend to agree with Paul and Frank G that A-i-N is an attack dog/hatchet man for the mullahs. Maybe a pet Stalin. Someone has to save the Revolution, and it sure as hell ain't the mullahs. I'm not saying that he couldn't pull a Hitler and get supreme power, but I don't think that he has it right now.

Decapitation sounds nice, but how do you do it without nukes or boots on the ground? I seem to recall USAF decapitation strikes didn't work real well against Saddam and OBL. A decapitation strike could have several outcomes. I think that the significant axes are kill/miss, demoralize/unite, more more reasonable/less reasonable follow-on leadership. I don't like the odds that we'll score on all three.

My own proposal is a strategic raid. Go in as a combined arms team, break and take as many of their nuclear toys as possible and get out. They'll try to rebuild, but it'll take them another five years or decade. That's probably as good as we can get. Kind of like attacking Khan's network. We'll never shut it down completely, but we can reduce its effectiveness a lot. And we'll humiliate the mullahs, which in that part of the world is probably more effective than killing them.

Of course, given the failure to find significant amounts of WMD in Iraq, I don't know if we'll take any military action. I hope that we do something.

Posted by 11A5S 2006-01-05 23:55|| 2006-01-05 23:55|| Front Page Top

21:46 Pagan Allah
22:09 Pagan Allah
21:57 Pagan Allah
22:12 Muhamhead screw my Pig Allah
22:06 Aris Katsaris Gay
22:17 Muhamhead Screwed My Pig Allah
23:03 Muhamhead Screwed My Pig Allah
00:01 Bardo
23:55 11A5S
23:48 Sock Puppet OÂ´ Doom
23:47 3dc
23:11 bgrebel9
23:10 bgrebel9
23:07 Matt K.
22:58 Matt K.
22:46 twobyfour
22:44 twobyfour
22:34 SteveS
22:25 SteveS
22:18 49 Pan
22:18 .com
22:17 2b
22:17 Frank G
22:04 Frank G