Iran and the Bomb

[BrainWaves]

Please, think for your selves, insted of, paying attention to the media propaganda and tell me that I do not have a BRAIN.
Tell me, that Israel, does NOT, possess a BOMB?, and or nuclear weapons ???
or Pakistan, does NOT possess nuclear weapons ???
or United States, does NOT possess nuclear weapons ???
or India, does NOT possess nuclear weapons ???
or North Korea does NOT possess nuclear weapons ???
or Russian, does NOT possess nuclear weapons ???.
If,if, all the above countries, can have nuclear weapons, WHY not Iran ???.
Where is the LOGIC of it ???. (is this because there are Muslims???).
Please, read, the non-propaganda information, make your own conclusions, and tell me that I do not have a brain.
Indicator, I am not for or against the above.
I am against, governments destroying lives, for the Bankers-sake.

BrainWaves

[Haggis@wk]

You forgot Grand Fenwick, I'm pretty sure they have one, I saw it in the movies

[dai bread]

Pakistan and India off-set each other, and both are off-set by China.

I'm not sure who off-sets the U.S. these days. It used to be the Soviet Union, and to an extent it is still Russia.

North Korea is off-set by China, Japan, South Korea and the U.S.

Theoretically that leaves Israel and Iran to off-set each other. Unfortunately Iran is a known sponsor of terrorism, whereas Israel confines itself to ill-advised attempts to get Canadian & NZ passports for its Mossad agents. There's a discrepancy there that negates the theory of off-set.

[analog]

Here is a powerpoint slideshow, interesting but painful to navigate, that steps through what it takes to build a bomb program and just how far along they think Iran is compared to Israel and N Korea. Well, what they thought last December anyhow. From the physical evidence Iran could be either on a weapons track or just bungling down a clumsy civilian power program. It's their lack of candor that gives concern.
http://www.largeassociates.com/3158%20E ... 0final.ppt

If you're curious about how a bomb works you'll enjoy the slideshow just for that.

AS I say without a soundtrack it's a bit tedious. Some of the slides give a narrator time to talk but he's not there so right click to 'next slide'. There's enough embedded notes to make it understandable. Don't start unless you have maybe twenty minutes to spare.

If you're like me and running the stripped-down Home version of windows sans Office, there's a free Powerpoint viewer download from microsoft (who'd have expected ANYTHING free from them?) that works pretty well...

[BigJon@Work]

That presentation needs a graphic design proefessional's touch. The guy with the soulless black eyes got to me. Too much time in the radiation labs?

[jamiebk]

My personal favorite was the "floating hand"...

[Haggis@wk]

How Iran plans to drag the U.S. into war if Israel dares to attack its nuclear program.

I view this as more than just a theory; it’s similar to Iraq “Scudding” Israel in the first Gulf War in an attempt to split the coalition by involving Israel in the war.

I don’t think that we will be able to stay out if Israel does attack Iran. Iran would claim that the USAF assisted the raid and start attacking our assets in the Persian Gulf. That way when Iran gets spanked by the much larger U.S. Forces it won’t loses as much face as it would when handed the same defeat by the smaller Israeli forces.

It’s going to be a tense autumn, winter and spring.

[Haggis@wk]

When Israel attacks Iran

ISRAEL will almost surely attack Iran’s nuclear sites in the next four to seven months — and the leaders in Washington and even Tehran should hope that the attack will be successful enough to cause at least a significant delay in the Iranian production schedule, if not complete destruction, of that country’s nuclear program. Because if the attack fails, the Middle East will almost certainly face a nuclear war — either through a subsequent pre-emptive Israeli nuclear strike or a nuclear exchange shortly after Iran gets the bomb.

Shapley’s 2012 “The world ends” schedule might be off by 3-4 years.

If Israel attacks Iran, U.S. military and civilian shipping in the Persian Gulf will be attacked by Iran almost immediately.

If we have an aircraft carrier in the Gulf an attack on it will constitute an attack on a national resource and would invite retaliation just shy of nuclear weapons.

Based on information available to me, news, opinions, etc, an attack on Iran by Israel has more downside than up, especially for the U.S. and the U.S. Navy. We have some ground based resources in the area but the chances are better than average that the host countries will forbid any attack on Iran because they don’t want to be seen as supporting Israel.

In that event the U.S. Navy will be the only significant force available. Plus 12 hour, one way missions of B-52s from Diego Garcia to RAF Fairford in the UK. Famously, Gen. Swartzkopf, when advised of the flight time required to get the B-52 on target over Iraq/Kuwait in the first gulf war commented that in the time for them to get “here” we would all be POWs.

I am disquieted

[tranquill]

Many Israeli officials argued against the Iraqi war. Like Shoher here: http://samsonblinded.org/blog/iraq

[jamiebk]

Many Israeli officials argued against the Iraqi war. Like Shoher here: http://samsonblinded.org/blog/iraq

Welcome to the pit Tranquill. Look forward to your posts! Have fun and join in.

[Shapley]

Advertisement from the 1970s. President Eisenhower started the Shah down the nuclear path with the "Atoms For Peace" programme. Of course, the revolutionary government of Iran inherited the remnants of the programme when they overthrew the Shah.

[Haggis@wk]

DoD approves sale of bunker buster missiles to Israel

The US Department of Defense has notified Congress of a potential sale of 1,000 small diameter bunker-buster missiles to Israel, which would likely be used in the event of a military strike against Iran's nuclear facilities.

I don't think this situation is going to be resolved peacefully.

[shostakovich]

Business is business.

[Haggis@wk]

Iran has spent the last two years demanding unconditional, direct talks between themselves and the US before negotiating on their pursuit of nuclear power/weapons. Now that the US has elected a President who agreed to those terms, Tehran has changed its mind. Now they claim that the differences between the two nations are too great for unconditional talks:

Since 2006, Iran’s leaders have called for direct, unconditional talks with the United States to resolve international concerns over their nuclear program. But as an American administration open to such negotiations prepares to take power, Iran’s political and military leaders are sounding suddenly wary of President-elect Barack Obama.

“People who put on a mask of friendship, but with the objective of betrayal, and who enter from the angle of negotiations without preconditions, are more dangerous,” Hossein Taeb, deputy commander of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps, said Wednesday, according to the semiofficial Mehr News Agency.
“The power holders in the new American government are trying to regain their lost influence with a tactical change in their foreign diplomacy. They are shifting from a hard conflict to a soft attack,” Taeb said.

For Iran’s leaders, the only state of affairs worse than poor relations with the United States may be improved relations. The Shiite Muslim clerics who rule the country came to power after ousting Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, a U.S.-backed autocrat, in their 1979 Islamic revolution. Opposition to the United States, long vilified as the “great Satan” here in Friday sermons, remains one of the main pillars of Iranian politics.

Thus dies another Bush Derangement Syndrome fallacy. Critics blamed Bush for not having normal relations with the Iranians. In truth, the Europeans didn’t — and don’t — want the US to have direct negotiations with the Iranians yet, because it would reduce the leverage they have on Iran as trading partners. The Iranians never wanted direct talks; they hate the US and Israel and aren’t interested in being buddies.

[Shapley]

According to today's news, the low price of crude is putting a damper on Iran's nuclear ambtions. It seems that, without the large flow of petrodollars into their coffers, the programme is just too expensive to justify.

[jamiebk]

According to today's news, the low price of crude is putting a damper on Iran's nuclear ambtions. It seems that, without the large flow of petrodollars into their coffers, the programme is just too expensive to justify.

I feel so sad for them (NOT!)

[analog]

Nuclear program? Who, us? Naaaahhh. The programme is just too expensive to justify.

[Selma in Sandy Eggo]

“People who put on a mask of friendship, but with the objective of betrayal, and who enter from the angle of negotiations without preconditions, are more dangerous,” Hossein Taeb, deputy commander of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps, said Wednesday...

I'm sure he'd know - I'll consider that an expert opinion, well based in observation and experience.

[dai bread]

The little man in Teheran was always posturing for local consumption. George Bush's mistake was in taking that posturing seriously.

As for petrodollars flowing onto Iran, I'm not the only one who says you're financing your enemies. I suspect the current drop in oil prices is due as much to the seriousness of research into alternatives as anything. That research must continue.

[Haggis@wk]

From Reuters:

U.S. President-elect Barack Obama plans to offer Israel a strategic pact designed to fend off any nuclear attack on the Jewish state by Iran, an Israeli newspaper reported on Thursday.

Which all sounds very nice, but implicit in such a "pledge" is that the United States now accepts that Iran's going nuclear and there's nothing anyone can (or will) do about it. That's a significant shift.

As to whether such a pledge will deter Tehran, in this NR column that Hashemi Rafsanjani, one of those famously "moderate" types compared to President Ahmadinejad, described Israel as "the most hideous occurrence in history" which the Muslim world "will vomit out from its midst" with "a single atomic bomb."

I think we are entering a scary time.