PDA

View Full Version : Israel has 'eight days' to hit Iran nuclear site: US envoy



Ne0
17 Aug 10,, 16:04
WASHINGTON: Israel has "eight days" to launch a military strike against Iran's Bushehr nuclear facility and stop Tehran from acquiring a functioning atomic plant, a former USenvoy to the UN has said.

Iran is to bring online its first nuclear power reactor, built with Russia's help, on August 21, when a shipment of nuclear fuel will be loaded into the plant's core.

At that point, John Bolton warned Monday, it will be too late for Israel to launch a military strike against the facility because any attack would spread radiation and affect Iranian civilians.

"Once that uranium, once those fuel rods are very close to the reactor, certainly once they're in the reactor, attacking it means a release of radiation, no question about it," Bolton told Fox Business Network.

"So if Israel is going to do anything against Bushehr it has to move in the next eight days."

Absent an Israeli strike, Bolton said, "Iran will achieve something that no other opponent of Israel, no other enemy of the United States in the Middle East really has and that is a functioning nuclear reactor."

But when asked whether he expected Israel to actually launch strikes against Iran within the next eight days, Bolton was skeptical.

"I don't think so, I'm afraid that they've lost this opportunity," he said.

The controversial former envoy to the United Nations criticized Russia's role in the development of the plant, saying "the Russians are, as they often do, playing both sides against the middle."

"The idea of being able to stick a thumb in America's eye always figures prominently in Moscow," he added.

Iran dismissed the possibilities of such an attack from its archfoes.

Foreign MinistryspokesmanRamin Mehmanparast said Tuesday that "these threats of attacks had become repetitive and lost their meaning."

"According to international law, installations which have real fuel cannot be attacked because of the humanitarian consequences," he told reporters at a news conference in Tehran.

Iranian officials say Iran has stepped up defensive measures at the Bushehr plant to protect it from any attacks.

Russia has been building the Bushehr plant since the mid-1990s but the project was marred by delays, and the issue is hugely sensitive amid Tehran's standoff with the West and Israel over its nuclear ambitions.

The UN Security Council hit Tehran with a fourth set of sanctions on June 9 over its nuclear programme, and the United States and European Union followed up with tougher punitive measures targeting Iran's banking and energy sectors.

The Bushehr project was first launched by the late shah in the 1970s using contractors from German firm Siemens. But it was shelved when he was deposed in the 1979 Islamic revolution.

It was revived after the death of revolutionary founder Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in 1989, as Iran's new supreme leaderAli Khamenei and his first president, Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, backed the project.

In 1995, Iran won the support of Russia which agreed to finish building the plant and fuel it.

Read more: Israel has 'eight days' to hit Iran nuclear site: US envoy - Middle East - World - The Times of India Israel has 'eight days' to hit Iran nuclear site: US envoy - Middle East - World - The Times of India (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/middle-east/Israel-has-eight-days-to-hit-Iran-nuclear-site-US-envoy/articleshow/6325488.cms#ixzz0wsMiYf4W)

Media Source : Times Of India

bigross86
17 Aug 10,, 16:40
I don't get it. They have a nuclear program, they stopped their nuclear program 5 years ago, they're about to go active in a week. Can someone please make up their damned mind?!

astralis
17 Aug 10,, 16:56
it's john bolton being john bolton.

Dreadnought
17 Aug 10,, 18:34
I dont know, A spokesmen for Israel on CNN the other night made it pretty clear that if Obama fails to act in either diplomacy or other then Israel herself will. Given the facts that Iran has threatened Israel's destruction numerous times who would we be to criticise the Israeli's when it is their future that is threatened not ours. If you notice, the Saudi's have fallen silent on this matter as well which means one thing given the fact that the Saudis have given the Israeli's the "greenlight" to overfly their airspace. It would pretty much be akin to the times of the Cuban Missle Crisis. And we all know through history just how close they came that time. Iran shows no signs of compliance, so now the ball is on the Israeli's court. Interesting days lie ahead no doubt.

Maybe we as in the US should just step back, allow the Israeli's to do what they must because we all know that Iran is no doubt in the process of building weapons, they tell enough lies everyday about the west, whats to stop them from lying about a clandestine arms program, past posts on the facility bombing in Syria show that Iran along with Syria and North Korea surely cannot be trusted in being truthfull.

IMO, The only time these people will ever come clean is when they have a nuclear weapon ready and pointed at someone. Then who do we blame besides ourselves for failure to act when we saw the writing on the wall.

And just think, Iran being a state sponsor of terrorism just makes the future all that bleaker, particularly if they aqquire such a weapon to use. Damned if you do, damned if you dont. Which do you prefer?

In contrast, this would be aikin to the Israeli's giving Georgia the very same tech to aim at Russia. Think about it.

Aryajet
17 Aug 10,, 19:19
I voted No.
Why should Israel or any other nation destroy Bushehr Plant? (not a rhetorical question, inquiring mind wants to know)?
In what regard Bushehr will let IRI to advance toward nuclear weapons?
Natanz, Arak, Fredo and Isfahan are different story but Bushehr is a light water reactor and entire fuel rods will be supplied and waste hauled away by Russians. Also there are probably over 1000s Russian scientists, engineers and tech reps. working in and around the plant 24/7, will they be forewarned to evacuate asap before operation begins?

Dreadnought
17 Aug 10,, 19:47
I voted No.
Why should Israel or any other nation destroy Bushehr Plant? (not a rhetorical question, inquiring mind wants to know)?
In what regard Bushehr will let IRI to advance toward nuclear weapons?
Natanz, Arak, Fredo and Isfahan are different story but Bushehr is a light water reactor and entire fuel rods will be supplied and waste hauled away by Russians. Also there are probably over 1000s Russian scientists, engineers and tech reps. working in and around the plant 24/7, will they be forewarned to evacuate asap before operation begins?

Hmm, perhaps I should have been more specific. Medical Isotopes from Bushehr are normal and permitted by the regs, its the other sites that should be targeted provided that Bushehr's not be enriched beyond medical limits, anything above that enrichment level and club that reactor as well.

With this regime and its backers, its no longer a question of "if" they will produce enough for a weapon its a question of "when".

Is the civilized world ready for a nuclear armed terror supporting state such as Iran will become? Ask yourself that question.
And then ask yourself who they will share that tech with in as much as China did with Pak, etc.

Aryajet
17 Aug 10,, 21:59
Hmm, perhaps I should have been more specific. Medical Isotopes from Bushehr are normal and permitted by the regs, its the other sites that should be targeted provided that Bushehr's not be enriched beyond medical limits, anything above that enrichment level and club that reactor as well.

With this regime and its backers, its no longer a question of "if" they will produce enough for a weapon its a question of "when".

Is the civilized world ready for a nuclear armed terror supporting state such as Iran will become? Ask yourself that question.
And then ask yourself who they will share that tech with in as much as China did with Pak, etc.
Dread,
That was the point I was trying to make. There is no enrichment facility in Bushehr, fuel rods (around 3% enriched AFAIK) will all be supplied by Russia and the waste will be hauled away by them.
Now Arak is a different story, it is a heavy water reactor with plenty of questionable intentions, and I don't have to ask myself again:tongue: b/c I know nuclear weapons capable barbaric republic will be a disaster for Iranians and rest of the civilized world as well, but bombing Bushehr facility is not the solution.

Skywatcher
18 Aug 10,, 00:18
If Israel bombs Bushehr and kills Russian nationals, what do you think Putin is going to do?

Hint, he's not going to take it lying down like the French did with Osirak.

Parihaka
18 Aug 10,, 00:43
it's john bolton being john bolton.

Yep

Dreadnought
18 Aug 10,, 03:34
If Israel bombs Bushehr and kills Russian nationals, what do you think Putin is going to do?

Hint, he's not going to take it lying down like the French did with Osirak.

IMO, Israel is not going to take that chance, they could with their capabilities take it whenever they want it and already have a clear path to do it if prevoked. They would'nt risk causing a crisis with Russia. They are much smarter then that. As Aryajet mentioned above its only a light water reactor, its only capable of so much output. Its the heavy water reactors they are planning (Arak, Nantez etc.) against UN sanctions and in violation of the NPT that would fuel a weapons program. Bushehr could eventually produce enough but it would take much longer then they plan on waiting apparently. They have however greatly increased their cascades as well from what past news reports have shown.

Hydra
18 Aug 10,, 04:13
Don't strike Iran now! That would ruin everything, wait until Iran has nuclear warheads than both sides will be prepared for nuclear war. A nuclear war would be much more decisive, if we (US and or Israel) have conventional war with Iran now, we will only have to fight them again later. It would be much better to have a nuclear war, that way we would never have to fight Iran again.

Skywatcher
18 Aug 10,, 04:54
Don't strike Iran now! That would ruin everything, wait until Iran has nuclear warheads than both sides will be prepared for nuclear war. A nuclear war would be much more decisive, if we (US and or Israel) have conventional war with Iran now, we will only have to fight them again later. It would be much better to have a nuclear war, that way we would never have to fight Iran again.

Well, I guess there won't be an Israel after wards then.

Hydra
18 Aug 10,, 05:06
Well, I guess there won't be an Israel after wards then.

I would not bet against Israel, they have more than 300 nuclear warheads, nuclear capable sea, air, and land based delivery systems, Arrow ABM system, and a history that includes the Holocaust. Iran would last 15 to 30 minutes. Probable casualties: Israel, five hundred thousand. Iran 25 million.

JAD_333
18 Aug 10,, 06:45
Don't strike Iran now! That would ruin everything, wait until Iran has nuclear warheads than both sides will be prepared for nuclear war. A nuclear war would be much more decisive, if we (US and or Israel) have conventional war with Iran now, we will only have to fight them again later. It would be much better to have a nuclear war, that way we would never have to fight Iran again.

You can't be serious. How old are you? How about introducing yourself in the intro section (while you still have time).

Kilo 2-3
18 Aug 10,, 06:52
Even if Israel won the nuclear war with Iran, would it ultimately benefit them in the long run? Smothering angry neighbors with massive (or even just surgical) nuclear attacks can have very negative implications for international relations...

Consider the massive flak Israel has taken abroad for the "collateral damage" s of a (relatively) small number of Palestinian civilians. Now, magnify that outcry a thousand times.

Willingly nuking hunreds of thousands or even millions of Iranian men, women, and children would probably mean the end of US support for Israel, and the animosity of nearly many nations in the region and the world proper.

Skywatcher
18 Aug 10,, 07:09
I would not bet against Israel, they have more than 300 nuclear warheads, nuclear capable sea, air, and land based delivery systems, Arrow ABM system, and a history that includes the Holocaust. Iran would last 15 to 30 minutes. Probable casualties: Israel, five hundred thousand. Iran 25 million.

You obviously don't know how nuclear weaponry targeting works. Let's say that ten Iranian warheads land on Israel. Because Israel is such a small country, and heavily urbanized too, that will probably kill at least one million Israelis. And many more will die from fallout and the fact that Israel's infrastructure has been completely totaled.

And Israel doesn't have 300 nuclear warheads.

Arrow BMD? You have to face at least a couple hundred Iranian ballistic missiles with HE and chemical warheads. Can you tell the difference between a non nuclear IRBM and one with a nuke mated to it? What's to stop the Iranians from buying or building a ABM system of their own?

Parihaka
18 Aug 10,, 09:25
Sorry gentlemen, Hydra is a former troll returned as sockpuppet.

bigross86
18 Aug 10,, 09:28
Damn. And here I though I had another rabid Israel-supporter on my side... :biggrin:

Rastagir
18 Aug 10,, 10:17
I hate the idea of a nuclear Iran.... But then again, I really don't see any way to avoid such thing in the future.

I am against a military strike on the sole reason that it will solve nothing in the long term, but will create more instability here and now. It will be a drawback for Iran's nuclear program, but I really don't see how it will nullify the possibility eventually. Iran is hell-bent on the matter and I do not believe that a strike will curb it's ambitions, on the contrary it will strengthen their resolve and give more stupid rhetoric to A-jan and his cronies to aim at Israel, while silencing any opposition within Iran.

dave lukins
18 Aug 10,, 11:17
Damn. And here I though I had another rabid Israel-supporter on my side... :biggrin:


Tarry a while, I'm sure another will be on the way:biggrin:

1979
18 Aug 10,, 11:48
Skywatcher reply

Because Israel is such a small country, and heavily urbanized too, that will probably kill at least one million Israelis. And many more will die from fallout and the fact that Israel's infrastructure has been completely totaled.

What kind of yield are we taking into account ?
The Little Boy nuclear device killed 140.000 but the conditions were near perfect ( few concrete buildings and shelters and little information or assets to deal with radiation sickness )
As far as medical infrastructure for instance , is concerned , are u sure that just 10 warheads can do that ?

bigross86
18 Aug 10,, 12:04
What's to stop the Iranians from buying or building a ABM system of their own?

Sanctions will stop them from buying an ABM system. As for building one, the Arrow ABM system has been in development for 20 years. How easy do you think it is to build a system capable of shooting down ballistic missiles? If it were that east, everyone would be doing it...

Dreadnought
18 Aug 10,, 13:01
A nuclear war would be a nightmare. Do you really think fallout dont travel on weather currents? Plus this would open the gates for the next two countries that have a major confrontation. It would start an irreversable trend of whats acceptable. Ask the Russians about Chernoble and its repercussions how many years later and just think that was just a meltdown of a reactor not a bombing with a nuke. Nuclear war?:rolleyes:

Officer of Engineers
18 Aug 10,, 14:32
What kind of yield are we taking into account ?
The Little Boy nuclear device killed 140.000 but the conditions were near perfect ( few concrete buildings and shelters and little information or assets to deal with radiation sickness )
As far as medical infrastructure for instance , is concerned , are u sure that just 10 warheads can do that ?10 warheads would be more than Israel can handle. A million casualties and you would overwhelm the hospitals and people would be left on the streets to die. It is not a pleasant thought. Most certainly, any C3 would be left in shambles.

One Soviet boomer was enough to scare Israel into accepting peace.

bigross86
18 Aug 10,, 14:50
In that case, Israel would probably just launch a retaliatory attack and to hell with everyone. Sort of a final "I told you so" and "F*ck you" to the world

diablo49
18 Aug 10,, 14:57
In that case, Israel would probably just launch a retaliatory attack and to hell with everyone. Sort of a final "I told you so" and "F*ck you" to the world

small comfort to Israelis whose country is destroyed and perhaps dead :frown:.

Better if none of this happens at all.

Officer of Engineers
18 Aug 10,, 14:59
I would expect nothing less but the point being being hit with nukes is not something you would want to absorb. 10 nukes on countries the size of China, Russia, and the US would not mean the destruction of those countries. China and Russia alone lost more than 10 cities and over 10 million lives each during WWII and they emerged victorious.

Israel is just too small to have that kind of redundancy. Provincial governments cannot take over for the federal government. And if Israel loses a million people, she doesn't have another million to replace them.

The point here is that nuclear war should never be considered lightly nor half heartily. You will lose and lose big. Just because the other guy loses more does not mean you can bear your own loses lightly.

In short, Iran could never be allowed nuclear weapons.

bigross86
18 Aug 10,, 15:15
I agree with you completely. Israel might be able to survive one nuke, perhaps even two, but there's no way we could survive 10 and still remain a functioning country.

1980s
18 Aug 10,, 15:43
In short, Iran could never be allowed nuclear weapons.

Neither should Israel. The Arab League has long put forward the idea of declaring the Middle East a nuclear-weapons free zone. The Islamic regime in Iran backs that call, as does Turkey i believe. So you have the entire Middle East that is willing to bring such a scenario into force, legally. The entire Middle East that is, except for Israel. That is the real problem here, not the Iranian nuclear program.

I dont know how many here would agree with the contents of this blog-post, but i certainly find much merit in this piece: Bombing Iran: Why Israel is obsessed with Iran | The Economist (http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/08/bombing_iran)

Officer of Engineers
18 Aug 10,, 17:15
Neither should Israel.Israel didn't sign the NPT. I know that is a sore point but what the ME nations who did, including Iran, have stated is that they did not need nukes for their defence ... and they're right.

sykore
18 Aug 10,, 17:29
It's time to stop negotiating. They will not stop making the nukes. It's time to use the only thing they understand, War.

JAD_333
18 Aug 10,, 17:56
I would expect nothing less but the point being being hit with nukes is not something you would want to absorb. 10 nukes on countries the size of China, Russia, and the US would not mean the destruction of those countries. China and Russia alone lost more than 10 cities and over 10 million lives each during WWII and they emerged victorious.

Israel is just too small to have that kind of redundancy. Provincial governments cannot take over for the federal government. And if Israel loses a million people, she doesn't have another million to replace them.

The point here is that nuclear war should never be considered lightly nor half heartily. You will lose and lose big. Just because the other guy loses more does not mean you can bear your own loses lightly.

In short, Iran could never be allowed nuclear weapons.

This practical side of the equation is what's missing in a lot of the reporting and analysis. I agree with your implication: Israel has two choices 1) get rid of its nukes or 2) defend by all means its sole possession of them in the ME. Nothing else will do. For its nukes to be an effective deterrence to attack, it must be the only one in the region to have them. So, if it is to be number 2 then it's a foregone conclusion that Israel will act militarily the moment its clear no other means is succeeding in deterring Iran's nuke ambitions.

astralis
18 Aug 10,, 19:23
i wonder what the iranian capacity is for absorbing nukes. as i understand it, iran would take at least 10:1 in any nuclear exchange with israel, which is lopsided enough where iran would die along with israel.

Skywatcher
18 Aug 10,, 19:39
Given how Khameini is so desperate to make his son the next Supreme Ayatollah, regime survival seems to be his overriding goal, the Armored Dinner Jacket's antics notwithstanding.

NUS
18 Aug 10,, 19:57
Looks like you think that Israel won't survive nuclear war, but what makes you think Israel will survive total war with Islam world after attack on Iran?

Even if Israel will achive military victory (with a lot of american blood shed) what will be the price?

The best solution, in my opinion, is Soviet-style collapse of Iran regime. Any military action will be ultimate stupidity.

Dreadnought
18 Aug 10,, 20:48
Looks like you think that Israel won't survive nuclear war, but what makes you think Israel will survive total war with Islam world after attack on Iran?

Even if Israel will achive military victory (with a lot of american blood shed) what will be the price?

The best solution, in my opinion, is Soviet-style collapse of Iran regime. Any military action will be ultimate stupidity.

*Dont see how you get (with alot of American bloodshed) here?

America's not about to waste any troops lives on the POS regime.

Blademaster
18 Aug 10,, 21:14
Israel didn't sign the NPT. I know that is a sore point but what the ME nations who did, including Iran, have stated is that they did not need nukes for their defence ... and they're right.

Well Israel shouldn't have gotten the nukes then. They should have known that once they got the nuke and started lording over others, the other countries are gonna feel pissed and want a come uppance and get their own nukes. The best thing for Israel is to develop its BMD program and then give up the nukes as long as US promises to include Israel under its nuclear umbrella against any Middle Eastern country. Then all the middle eastern countries would have no justification for a nuke program.

citanon
18 Aug 10,, 21:29
Ooops, voted the wrong choice before understanding the question (2nd time in 2 days.......). Israel needs to strike the Iranian nuke infrastructure, yes. This particular reactor, no.



Looks like you think that Israel won't survive nuclear war, but what makes you think Israel will survive total war with Islam world after attack on Iran?

Why would there be 'total war with the Islam world'?

citanon
18 Aug 10,, 21:38
Well Israel shouldn't have gotten the nukes then. They should have known that once they got the nuke and started lording over others, the other countries are gonna feel pissed and want a come uppance and get their own nukes. The best thing for Israel is to develop its BMD program and then give up the nukes as long as US promises to include Israel under its nuclear umbrella against any Middle Eastern country. Then all the middle eastern countries would have no justification for a nuke program.

Blademaster,

They went nuclear because they are a country of 7.5 million on a 50 mile wide strip of land in the midst of neighbors who have tried to wipe them out repeatedly since 1948.

"Justification" doesn't mean much when you are dead.

If Israel was overrun in some military disaster, is the US going to nuke it's neighbors?

It seems to me that they would be crazy to give up their nukes, and they need to stop that Iranian program by any means necessary.

Officer of Engineers
18 Aug 10,, 21:49
Well Israel shouldn't have gotten the nukes then. They should have known that once they got the nuke and started lording over others, the other countries are gonna feel pissed and want a come uppance and get their own nukes. The best thing for Israel is to develop its BMD program and then give up the nukes as long as US promises to include Israel under its nuclear umbrella against any Middle Eastern country. Then all the middle eastern countries would have no justification for a nuke program.As with everything else, things are not that simple. Israeli nukes were trumped by Soviet nukes. A single Soviet boomer could have delivered more fire than Israel could had hoped and Soviet clients in the ME were under the Soviet nuclear umbrella. That kept the Israelis in check. Since the fall of the USSR, the ME countries no longer have Moscow's guarantee, especially when Saddam was left on his own against the US.

The US nuclear umbrella over Israel ... and over China for that matter ... was a matter of Cold War strategic necessity. Washington could not afford Soviet nuclear strikes to go unchallenged. Since the fall of the USSR, that umbrella is no longer available to both Israel and China.

Blademaster
19 Aug 10,, 02:01
Blademaster,

They went nuclear because they are a country of 7.5 million on a 50 mile wide strip of land in the midst of neighbors who have tried to wipe them out repeatedly since 1948.

"Justification" doesn't mean much when you are dead.

If Israel was overrun in some military disaster, is the US going to nuke it's neighbors?

It seems to me that they would be crazy to give up their nukes, and they need to stop that Iranian program by any means necessary.

At least you can always try to take the land back. Losing the war conventionally does not mean the end of the people. However getting into an nuclear exchange DOES mean the end of your people especially for Israel when a single nuclear weapon could mean the end of Israel. Not exactly a good strategic move.

I am so surprised that everybody is so concerned about Iran but what about Pakistan? As far as I know, Pakistan does not like Israel and regularly calls for action against Israel. Hell, 80% of Pakistan's population hates Israel and thinks that the "Jews" are behind everything along with the evil yindoos. Pakistan aids some of the most rabid Islamic groups who regularly calls for jihad against Israel. Why is Pakistan not given the same treatment as Iran accorded by Israel?

gunnut
19 Aug 10,, 02:01
Looks like you think that Israel won't survive nuclear war, but what makes you think Israel will survive total war with Islam world after attack on Iran?

Even if Israel will achive military victory (with a lot of american blood shed) what will be the price?

The best solution, in my opinion, is Soviet-style collapse of Iran regime. Any military action will be ultimate stupidity.

Because most Middle East regimes will be glad if someone takes out Iran's (non-existent) nukes.

Skywatcher
19 Aug 10,, 02:12
Blademaster,

They went nuclear because they are a country of 7.5 million on a 50 mile wide strip of land in the midst of neighbors who have tried to wipe them out repeatedly since 1948.

"Justification" doesn't mean much when you are dead.

If Israel was overrun in some military disaster, is the US going to nuke it's neighbors?

It seems to me that they would be crazy to give up their nukes, and they need to stop that Iranian program by any means necessary.

I doubt that the mechanized genderamie of Egypt and Syria qualifies as a realistic threat.

citanon
19 Aug 10,, 04:57
I doubt that the mechanized genderamie of Egypt and Syria qualifies as a realistic threat.

People might have said that about Hezbollah before 2008.

Skywatcher
19 Aug 10,, 05:41
People might have said that about Hezbollah before 2008.

Hezbollah generally doesn't fool around with propping up the domestic strongman at bayonet point and its C2 structure is not deliberately retarded to discourage coup attempts. And they were on the defensive for the duration of the war.

Officer of Engineers
19 Aug 10,, 05:58
People might have said that about Hezbollah before 2008.Hezbollah proved that the IDF was not a WWIII army, nothing more. A Canadian Mechanized Brigade Group would have made short work of those fortifications.

citanon
19 Aug 10,, 07:21
Hezbollah proved that the IDF was not a WWIII army, nothing more. A Canadian Mechanized Brigade Group would have made short work of those fortifications.

Col I agree, but my point is that Israel (and perhaps the wider world as well?) was surprised by the capabilities of an enemy right on its doorstep, and could not decisively defeat said enemy. This shows that:


Surprises can happen.
Victory is not an Israeli birthright.


Israel's geography gives it razor thin margins of error. What if another surprise were to occur in the future, against an enemy attacking in unexpectedly effective ways? What if said situation were to occur during the tenure of an American administration that was not fully committed to Israel's defense? What then would be the guarantor of Israel's survival?

astralis
19 Aug 10,, 15:12
it's a world of difference between launching a poorly-planned, poorly-executed assault vice defending against an attack.

the role of israeli nukes has always been primarily deterrence and secondarily the samson option; ie nukes aren't the guarantor of Israel's survival, just the guarantor that everyone else in the region goes does with Israel.

Bluesman
19 Aug 10,, 15:58
Well, here we are, just exactly where I predicted we would be four years ago, when it was said that Iran was five years from being nuclear-armed. And all the Smart Guys said we should negotiate, as if that was going to produce anything but an Iranian advantage, which it surely did, as expected by all of us that had the brains to think clearly for one dam' second.

Everybody happy with this state of affairs, then? Would everybody like to take just a little bit of extra time to make sure the upgrade of Iran's startegic air defenses are completed?

We have wasted time, and now we'll waste money and soon we'll waste blood. We blew an absolutely heaven-sent opportunity to topple this regime, and sold our honor along with the courageous Iranians that faced death at the hands of their murderous rulers. It is so tragic, and it was all so easily forseen and preventable. The might-have-beens that everybody loves to talk about before the World Wars were in razor-sharp relief as a backdrop to what happened while we stood around and watched the whole mess happen...AGAIN.

Liberals, YOU did this. This is a direct result of your cowardice and fecklessness. All the hand-wringing, bed-wetting, nuanced thinkers that took all those complicated factors into account have made it impossible to do anything but watch what could have been stopped ten years ago occur.

Europe at large and Democrats here played their roles in this, and if anybody wonders why I consider these idiots the enemy within, well, stay tuned, because you're going to see what happens when anybody listens to their bad, foolish counsel.

We're screwed now.

Blademaster
19 Aug 10,, 16:34
Oh please give me a break! :rolleyes: Bluesman, the Democrats and Europe are not at fault.

The circumstances back at that time just simply did not work in US's favor and Iran knew that and took advantage of it. Actually Bush is at fault because in 2003, the moderates who were in power in Iran offered to dismantle its nuclear program to US in exchange for certain things and Bush didn't even want to consider it. So how about them apples?

It's BUSH's fault!! It's the Republicans' Fault!! It is all the Republicans' fault!!!
:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: Give me a break.

Bluesman
19 Aug 10,, 17:30
It dam' sure IS their fault. No breaks for YOU.

JAD_333
19 Aug 10,, 18:20
Blues:

You are correct that many opportunities to act militarily against Iran have come and gone in the past 5 years. This does not mean, however, that not acting was a failure, nor that we will never act. We have to consider not only the threat posed by Iran but the reaction of the public and other countries to any military move on our part. The time to act is when the preponderance of evidence leaves no doubt in the public mind of Iran's duplicity and it is clear that we and and our allies did everything we could to resolve the issue peacefully. That time is getting close. Then we can judge whether our leaders had the balls to act and the wisdom to act at the best moment.

Skywatcher
19 Aug 10,, 18:56
Well, here we are, just exactly where I predicted we would be four years ago, when it was said that Iran was five years from being nuclear-armed. And all the Smart Guys said we should negotiate, as if that was going to produce anything but an Iranian advantage, which it surely did, as expected by all of us that had the brains to think clearly for one dam' second.

Everybody happy with this state of affairs, then? Would everybody like to take just a little bit of extra time to make sure the upgrade of Iran's startegic air defenses are completed?

We have wasted time, and now we'll waste money and soon we'll waste blood. We blew an absolutely heaven-sent opportunity to topple this regime, and sold our honor along with the courageous Iranians that faced death at the hands of their murderous rulers. It is so tragic, and it was all so easily forseen and preventable. The might-have-beens that everybody loves to talk about before the World Wars were in razor-sharp relief as a backdrop to what happened while we stood around and watched the whole mess happen...AGAIN.

Liberals, YOU did this. This is a direct result of your cowardice and fecklessness. All the hand-wringing, bed-wetting, nuanced thinkers that took all those complicated factors into account have made it impossible to do anything but watch what could have been stopped ten years ago occur.

Europe at large and Democrats here played their roles in this, and if anybody wonders why I consider these idiots the enemy within, well, stay tuned, because you're going to see what happens when anybody listens to their bad, foolish counsel.

We're screwed now.

And do what exactly? Magically march into Tehran? The Republicans controlled Congress and the Presidency in 2005, FYI.

USSWisconsin
19 Aug 10,, 19:37
IMO--Weapons grade fissile materials could be purchased if a bomb is all that is desired and cost is no object, a light water power reactor is no more of a weapons risk than the blackmarket purchase of weapons grade materials. The steps to process spent fuel into weapons grade material are just as big as the steps to build a power reactor, and with that material, a weaponized bomb is another big step. If the Iranians are detemined enough - I beleive they could eventually manage to build or acquire a nuclear weapon, LW reactor or not. If their power reactor is bombed with no state of war in effect - they will have a real grudge against Israel.

Skywatcher
19 Aug 10,, 20:09
IMO--Weapons grade fissile materials could be purchased if a bomb is all that is desired and cost is no object, a light water power reactor is no more of a weapons risk than the blackmarket purchase of weapons grade materials. The steps to process spent fuel into weapons grade material are just as big as the steps to build a power reactor, and with that material, a weaponized bomb is another big step. If the Iranians are detemined enough - I beleive they could eventually manage to build or acquire a nuclear weapon, LW reactor or not. If their power reactor is bombed with no state of war in effect - they will have a real grudge against Israel.

Well, I suppose they already have several grudges against Israel, but the LW reactor isn't going to contribute anything to the Iranian nuclear weapons program, primarily due to the constant onsite presence of Russian personnel, so bombing it isn't going to do anything. Places like Arak should receive targeting priority.

citanon
19 Aug 10,, 20:16
it's a world of difference between launching a poorly-planned, poorly-executed assault vice defending against an attack.

Yes it would be different, but then again, surprises always are different.


the role of israeli nukes has always been primarily deterrence and secondarily the samson option; ie nukes aren't the guarantor of Israel's survival, just the guarantor that everyone else in the region goes does with Israel.

And under the circumstances, that's the closest thing to a "guarantor" that Israel has.

Bluesman
19 Aug 10,, 20:24
And do what exactly? Magically march into Tehran? The Republicans controlled Congress and the Presidency in 2005, FYI.

Oh, well, my bad. I wasn't aware that the choice was magic marching into Tehran OR the equally impossible acceptance of Iran as a nuclear-armed hegemon.

I guess all the idiots that froze the entire world into inaction weren't so dumb after all. I just didn't know that there weren't any other options but the plainly unworkable two that you have identified.

I guess I'm not qualified to pass judgement, then. YOU, though, seem to really have a lot on the ball.

That last sentence? If that fact were the only relevant consideration of what could have realistically been done, then I might think you were trying to make a point, like, oh, say, the President and Congressional Republicans shared some of the blame for the position we find ourselves in.

But because that's not even CLOSE to the case, I have no idea what the hell you were trying to say there.

Blademaster
19 Aug 10,, 20:27
Oh, well, my bad. I wasn't aware that the choice was magic marching into Tehran OR the equally impossible acceptance of Iran as a nuclear-armed hegemon.

I guess all the idiots that froze the entire world into inaction weren't so dumb after all. I just didn't know that there weren't any other options but the plainly unworkable two that you have identified.

I guess I'm not qualified to pass judgement, then. YOU, though, seem to really have a lot on the ball.

That last sentence? If that fact were the only relevant consideration of what could have realistically been done, then I might think you were trying to make a point, like, oh, say, the President and Congressional Republicans shared some of the blame for the position we find ourselves in.

But because that's not even CLOSE to the case, I have no idea what the hell you were trying to say there.

And you think that today the Democrats have this magical ability to walk through Tehran when the Republicans in 2005 don't and this somehow is the Democrats' fault. You know what? You just sound like those Islamic crazies or conspiracy theorists who don't hesitate to blame the Jews or US behind every calamity or disaster or event every time you start blaming the Democrats for every US failure.

Bluesman
19 Aug 10,, 20:27
And it is absolutely unworkable when you're dealing with a millenarian, suicide-nation like Iran.

BOTTOM LINE: Once Iran has deliverable nuclear weapons, Israel has NO 'guarantor', AT ALL.

Anybody that doesn't see this, that does not recognize the nature of the Iranian regime, really has NO IDEA just exactly what it is we've bumbled into, here. If Iran gets those weapons, there WILL BE a nuclear exchange. Take it to the bank.

Skywatcher
19 Aug 10,, 20:33
Oh, well, my bad. I wasn't aware that the choice was magic marching into Tehran OR the equally impossible acceptance of Iran as a nuclear-armed hegemon.

I guess all the idiots that froze the entire world into inaction weren't so dumb after all. I just didn't know that there weren't any other options but the plainly unworkable two that you have identified.

I guess I'm not qualified to pass judgement, then. YOU, though, seem to really have a lot on the ball.

That last sentence? If that fact were the only relevant consideration of what could have realistically been done, then I might think you were trying to make a point, like, oh, say, the President and Congressional Republicans shared some of the blame for the position we find ourselves in.

But because that's not even CLOSE to the case, I have no idea what the hell you were trying to say there.

Lets see, to use force to destroy the Iranian nuclear weapons program, you'd have to make sure that its gone, rather than just launch a few air strikes and hope it gets the job done so they don't start it up again, which at the least would require a very sustained bombing campaign.

During which the Iranians would use their Shia militia proxies in Iraq to launch attacks on American and allied armed forces. To deal with a Shia Insurgency, you'd have to march into Iran itself unless you think duking it out with Shia insurgents and the Pasdaran like its 1969 is acceptable.

So what's the other options for dealing with Iran besides military action?

And yes, the Republicans are at fault here too, certainly to the point that we liberals can hardly presume to take credit for the whole mess.

Bluesman
19 Aug 10,, 20:33
Hey, I just conceded that I don't know anything about this subject; why can't you just take your rhetorical victory?

Oh, wait; I was being sarcastic. You do realize, I hope, that I do not, have not, and will not concede to you that the only thing we can possibly do to stop Iran's weapons program to be an invasion of their territory, and a seizing of their capital. Because if THAT is what you think, then 1) you're not equipped to even offer an opinion on this question, and 2) you're not really equipped to use the keyboard you typed it out on.

C'mon, fellas. The whole point, ALWAYS, has been that Iran need not be destroyed, invaded, nor paid off. None of those three 'plans' is workable. But is there anything in between those to maximalist positions? All-out general war with the object of compelling unconditional surrender of the Iranians, OR a granting that they're just the exact same as us, viz, the right to acquire nucelar weapons?

Skywatcher
19 Aug 10,, 20:39
C'mon, fellas. The whole point, ALWAYS, has been that Iran need not be destroyed, invaded, nor paid off. None of those three 'plans' is workable. But is there anything in between those to maximalist positions? All-out general war with the object of compelling unconditional surrender of the Iranians, OR a granting that they're just the exact same as us, viz, the right to acquire nucelar weapons?

Are you suggesting sanctions?

Bluesman
19 Aug 10,, 20:39
Lets see, to use force to destroy the Iranian nuclear weapons program, you'd have to make sure that its gone, rather than just launch a few air strikes and hope it gets the job done so they don't start it up again, which at the least would require a very sustained bombing campaign.

During which the Iranians would use their Shia militia proxies in Iraq to launch attacks on American and allied armed forces. To deal with a Shia Insurgency, you'd have to march into Iran itself unless you think duking it out with Shia insurgents and the Pasdaran like its 1969 is acceptable.

So what's the other options for dealing with Iran besides military action?

And yes, the Republicans are at fault here too, certainly to the point that we liberals can hardly presume to take credit for the whole mess.

Do you HAVE to bomb the nuke facilities? USE YOUR DAM' HEAD for something more than a hat rack.

And if you'd even bother to read what I posted above I ALREADY TOLD YOU how we COULD have achieved a total, sweeping change in the entire region, without spilling a single drop of American blood, and dam' little Iranian blood, too. But you and the other mooks on this Board are just FIXATED on the idea that I'm FIXATED on the idea of an overland march into Tehran, a seizing of territory, and a surrender signed on the deck of a US warship.

IT DID NOT NEED TO BE LIKE THAT, but for the utter and complete incompetence of DEMOCRATS, particularly the President. And judging by your lack of perception, I know WHY it is that your one of 'em.

Bluesman
19 Aug 10,, 20:40
No; they never work. They empower the powerful, punish the powerless, and are ALWAYS AND EVERYWHERE a total failure.

Skywatcher
19 Aug 10,, 20:45
Liberals, YOU did this. This is a direct result of your cowardice and fecklessness. All the hand-wringing, bed-wetting, nuanced thinkers that took all those complicated factors into account have made it impossible to do anything but watch what could have been stopped ten years ago occur.



Oh, supporting the Iranian opposition?

If that's what you're saying I apologize :redface: I was reading a George Friedman piece and another one on the distributed nature of the nuclear weapons programs in other windows. It that's what you're saying, I apologize again:redface:

It's a bit early to wait for the results, look at how long it took the Islamic Revolution to topple the Shah. And the sort of CIA help to the Opposition isn't the sort of thing we can just read about the NYT or watch on Fox News.

Skywatcher
19 Aug 10,, 21:07
Thinking more about the Iranian political situation, I think that the ayatollahs are probably going to be dumped before 2015.

Let's see, to continue economic growth Tehran will have to introduce reforms (which the IRG business elite will demand and get) that will literally cut the throats of the bazaari merchants, an act that will dissipate whatever leftover support the bazaaris had for Khomeneism. If they don't make the reforms, the IRG's business cronies will get mad and the general Iranian population will get even more vocal due to economic hardship. Tehran can't win either way.

Khameini's obsession with making his unqualified nitwit son the next Supreme Ayatollah, along with Khameinei's abysmal academic credentials means that support for him along most clergy, rank and file as well as the elite, is at best indifferent and more than likely passively hostile.

Sooner or later something will set the Iranian people off and they'll have the regular Army, and probably elements of the IRG, to join the festivities. Any operational Iranian nuclear weapons (a very BIG if) by 2015 is unlikely to deter people, since those few weapons at best can possibly only blow up some city blocks, not destroy Iran completely. And by using nukes, the zealots lose because that will be the complete end of Khomeneism in Iran (without using nukes, they can at least cling to delusions of seizing power again one day) and the plutocrats know that the next Iranian government is going to send out hit squads to kill them and all their families and friends.

The reason I choose 2015 is that eventually some crisis is going to come along and the incompetence of the Iranian government means that more likely than not they will mismanage it and wind up with a revolution.

Parihaka
19 Aug 10,, 23:13
Nice theory but the Sepāh-e Pāsdārān are already the de-facto rulers of Iran. With the willing help of the Basij in suppressing the populace I suspect any 'peoples revolution' is going to have a much harder time than you think

Bluesman
19 Aug 10,, 23:16
Nice theory but the Sepāh-e Pāsdārān are already the de-facto rulers of Iran. With the willing help of the Basij in suppressing the populace I suspect any 'peoples revolution' is going to have a much harder time than you think

It has zero chance at this point. The leaders are locked up, dead, or exiled. It has been smashed. We had a window of opportunity, but Obama helped the ayatollahs slam it shut.

We'll all pay for that.

Skywatcher
19 Aug 10,, 23:38
That is assuming that the Pasdaran and their Basiji minions can maintain that level of control over Iranian society in the long run (from my cursory research, the Pasdaran's position in Iran looks like that of the Shah in the late 1970s, ruling from the gun barrel with a very narrow support base).

Bluesman
19 Aug 10,, 23:47
That is assuming that the Pasdaran and their Basiji minions can maintain that level of control over Iranian society in the long run (from my cursory research, the Pasdaran's position in Iran looks like that of the Shah in the late 1970s, ruling from the gun barrel with a very narrow support base).

That's what I'm assuming. I've seen nothing since the last street protest was brutally put down that tells me there is anything happening on that front.

They won. The rest of the world lost. Shouldn't have happened. Democrats assured the outcome, for who knows what reason.

Skywatcher
19 Aug 10,, 23:51
I don't suppose any of the board's Iranian members could chip in on the stability of Padasran control?

Bluesman
20 Aug 10,, 00:34
I don't suppose any of the board's Iranian members could chip in on the stability of Padasran control?

Now, whatever would be gained by THAT? We have two types of Iranian poster here: 1) an apologist for the government, usually madder than a rat in a coffee can, and 2) an apologist for all things Persian, possibly a member of the first cohort, possibly not, but an undying belief that if it's Persian, it's better, and feircely nationalistic, and absolutely chauvanistic and anti-Semitic. (Oh, and that applies to the first cohort, as well.)

But what you will NOT get is dispassionate analysis, an objective seeking-out of The Truth. They, like most any Muslim, will seek to make themselves the victims of some powerful but occult force, OR the conquering champion, simply by membership in the triumphalist group (Iran, Persian, Islam, whatever).

So, you're welcome to ask 'em, but may I respectfully recommend a big healthy dose of Don't-Buy-What-They-Sell-You?

astralis
20 Aug 10,, 01:17
connected to this...the vast majority of those supposed heroic protesters want an iranian bomb too, and are anti-semitic as well. a democratic government certainly doesn't preclude nukes or anti-israeli feeling.

plainly put, how much more comfortable would we be with an nuclear-armed iran had the protesters overrun the IRGC? also, considering how the protesters didn't want to be associated with the US, it's hard for me to believe that US support would have toppled the IRGC-military clique. in fact, the biggest piece of propaganda the regime used was to call the protesters US or UK lackeys.

Parihaka
20 Aug 10,, 01:24
Now, whatever would be gained by THAT? We have two types of Iranian poster here: 1) an apologist for the government, usually madder than a rat in a coffee can, and 2) an apologist for all things Persian, possibly a member of the first cohort, possibly not, but an undying belief that if it's Persian, it's better, and feircely nationalistic, and absolutely chauvanistic and anti-Semitic. (Oh, and that applies to the first cohort, as well.)

But what you will NOT get is dispassionate analysis, an objective seeking-out of The Truth. They, like most any Muslim, will seek to make themselves the victims of some powerful but occult force, OR the conquering champion, simply by membership in the triumphalist group (Iran, Persian, Islam, whatever).

So, you're welcome to ask 'em, but may I respectfully recommend a big healthy dose of Don't-Buy-What-They-Sell-You?

Actually you'd be surprised, we've got some pretty damn rational ones about the place, though most IIRC are now American resident.

Bluesman
20 Aug 10,, 01:30
connected to this...the vast majority of those supposed heroic protesters want an iranian bomb too, and are anti-semitic as well. a democratic government certainly doesn't preclude nukes or anti-israeli feeling.

plainly put, how much more comfortable would we be with an nuclear-armed iran had the protesters overrun the IRGC? also, considering how the protesters didn't want to be associated with the US, it's hard for me to believe that US support would have toppled the IRGC-military clique. in fact, the biggest piece of propaganda the regime used was to call the protesters US or UK lackeys.

I disagree with a lot of that post, but only one comment, for now:

I don't care that Iran isn't our bestest buddy. I want regime change to ANYthing but the suicide cult that they've built NOW. Having China in the Nuke Club is hardly desirable, but it is orders of magnitude more dangerous to have THIS crew of nutters so armed. My position is that whatever outcome that saw the current regime replaced is an improvement. It need not be GREAT to be BETTER.

Frankly, we could have bought ourselves any amount of goodwill with the people taking the risks and doing the dieing if we'd weighed in on their side. But standing around clucking our tongues and REAFFIRMING the right of the guy that stole the dam' election to govern his internal matters however he saw fit...just what do you think the boys think of us NOW?

No, I don't care how you spin it, that was a complete boneheaded fumble of a once-in-a-lifetime chance to get out of the corner we put ourselves into on the cheap. It was forevermore blown, comprehensively. And now...if we want to prevent the unthinkable from happening...and we BTTER...we'll have to take higher risks and pay a higher cost.

It was a disaster, and twenty years from now, it will be seen as the tragedy that it truly is.

Skywatcher
20 Aug 10,, 01:58
Actually you'd be surprised, we've got some pretty damn rational ones about the place, though most IIRC are now American resident.

I was referring to them (they have Iranian flags on their profiles), so I'd assume they were speaking to their families and such.

Blademaster
20 Aug 10,, 16:44
Now, whatever would be gained by THAT? We have two types of Iranian poster here: 1) an apologist for the government, usually madder than a rat in a coffee can, and 2) an apologist for all things Persian, possibly a member of the first cohort, possibly not, but an undying belief that if it's Persian, it's better, and feircely nationalistic, and absolutely chauvanistic and anti-Semitic. (Oh, and that applies to the first cohort, as well.)

But what you will NOT get is dispassionate analysis, an objective seeking-out of The Truth. They, like most any Muslim, will seek to make themselves the victims of some powerful but occult force, OR the conquering champion, simply by membership in the triumphalist group (Iran, Persian, Islam, whatever).

So, you're welcome to ask 'em, but may I respectfully recommend a big healthy dose of Don't-Buy-What-They-Sell-You?

So the only one that is rational is somebody who agrees with you and your demonizing of their country, Iran? Fat chance of that happening.

Bluesman
20 Aug 10,, 17:56
So the only one that is rational is somebody who agrees with you and your demonizing of their country, Iran? Fat chance of that happening.

You're a bad analyst. Maybe that's because your reading comprehension is poor, or perhaps personal bias leads you to jump to incorrect conclusions when you read things into something that you read that isn't there.

You should work on that, though. Good analysis requires you to be more objective.

Blademaster
20 Aug 10,, 18:32
You're a bad analyst. Maybe that's because your reading comprehension is poor, or perhaps personal bias leads you to jump to incorrect conclusions when you read things into something that you read that isn't there.

You should work on that, though. Good analysis requires you to be more objective.

:rolleyes: Good luck with those ad hominem attacks. That's all you are really good at. Just launch personal attacks on those who disagree with you. :rolleyes:

Zinja
21 Aug 10,, 02:33
Bluesman,

An internal revolt is not going to take away the Iranian headache. In fact, perhaps the Obama administration did right this time by staying out of it. The green movement just wanted to use whoever they can lay their hands on to get into power, and once there they would not have been any less a headache than their predecesors. The Iranians (the regime, the green movement and the general populace) is united on the nuke issue. Obama did the right thing last year. The US should not allow itself to be used again and again only to be spite at next time round chanting death to America and sponsoring elements to kill US service man.

In any case in my opinion there will never be a revolt in Iran. The security apparatus, military and the janjaweed(Basiji) are firmly in the control of the regime.

captain
22 Aug 10,, 15:12
Bluesman,

An internal revolt is not going to take away the Iranian headache. In fact, perhaps the Obama administration did right this time by staying out of it. The green movement just wanted to use whoever they can lay their hands on to get into power, and once there they would not have been any less a headache than their predecesors. The Iranians (the regime, the green movement and the general populace) is united on the nuke issue. Obama did the right thing last year. The US should not allow itself to be used again and again only to be spite at next time round chanting death to America and sponsoring elements to kill US service man.

In any case in my opinion there will never be a revolt in Iran. The security apparatus, military and the janjaweed(Basiji) are firmly in the control of the regime.

I think this is about as good an assessment as could be made at this stage.

When the shooting of "NEDA" took place there was a great outpouring of affinity for the Iranian green movement from the world and also on the WAB.
At the time, although I felt sorry for her, I was not convinced the Green movement leadership, had they overthrown the election results and the present regime, would have had that much of a different foriegn policy outlook to the present mob in charge.

I have no doubt that there are many amoung the young Green protesters who, if they could, would be almost perfectly amenable to Israel and the west generally but how big of a percentage of them would feel that way is a corncern.
Specifically, how many of them would be prepared advocate the cutting of all ties with Hamas, Hizbollah, Shia militants in Iraq and the total cessation of any nuclear weapons development.

The following article altough nearly twelve months old, deals with that concern.


Who's Really Running Iran's Green Movement

Despite being lauded as modernizers, opposition front-runner Mousavi and his two green movement colleagues are deeply loyal to the ideals of Ayatollah Rouhollah Khomeini, the founder of the Islamic Republic, and advocate a theocratic political system. Had Mousavi come into office following the June 12 presidential election, he would not have challenged the political order. He would have tried to fix the Islamic Republic's internal and external crises through slight policy tweaks. Nor would the West have seen an "opening" of the sort that some suggest. Indeed, Mousavi's rivalry with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has little to do with the current regime's foreign policy and far more to do with internal power struggles, economic policy, and, to some extent, cultural agendas. A new leader would not have fundamentally changed Iran's position on nuclear policy or its regional role. The reason is simple: Everyone who ran for president concedes that foreign-policy decisions should fall to Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
..............

If you want to know the unconventional nature of this movement -- and what the people who have bravely taken to the streets really want - don't listen to Mousavi, Karroubi, and Khatami.

Since the true representatives of reform owe little to them, a successful green movement would likely push them aside anyway.

This is why it is not only the regime in Tehran -- but also the reformist "leaders" who pretend to lead this movement -- that fear the success of the green movement. Democracy in Iran will emerge only through a rupture with the late Ayatollah Khomeini's ideals and Islamic ideology -- concepts to which the accidental leaders of the green movement are still loyal.

Source and aticle in full; Who's Really Running Iran's Green Movement | Foreign Policy (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/11/04/whos_really_running_irans_green_movement?page=0,0)

Unfortunately I do not see anything on the horizon except a continual sabre rattling from all sides that must eventually lead to confrontation.

Cheers.

1980s
22 Aug 10,, 18:58
I don't suppose any of the board's Iranian members could chip in on the stability of Padasran control?

The situation in Iran is more complicated than it being a simple question of who wields more tangible power; the clerical establishment or the Revolutionary Guards. Clerics themselves play a role within the IRGC such as regularly consulting with commanders and playing a role in supervising and monitoring the cadre alongside providing ideological ‘training’ if you want to call it that. So the clerical establishment and the IRGC cannot properly be said to be two wholly separate entities.

The Islamic Republic is a highly paranoid regime and this paranoia is largely due to the clerics own insecurity and their uncertainty over how loyal, or committed at least, the population, and their own security forces, really are to the I.R’s ideological linchpin; clerical oversight of the state. So with the fear of a coup and overthrow always having been in their minds since the revolution the clerical establishment has a representative in just about every organ, branch and tool of the state to both watch-over and try to influence things like the parliament, armed-forces etc. The IRGC is no exception. So it cannot be assumed that the cadre are necessarily loyal to their commanders and to their branch of the military rather than to the theocracy and its preservation given that they are not free from its indoctrination and have the presence of clerics among them.

Revolutionary Iran’s politics is complicated to say the least. Anyway, i hope you find this article useful reading on the subject:


Aug 18, 2010
Ahmadinejad feels the heat at home (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/LH18Ak01.html)
By Mahan Abedin

In a sure sign that Iran's factionalized politics is making a comeback, the right-wing and conservative forces that last year engineered the marginalization of the reformists, are slowly splintering. At the center of this latest bout of factional in-fighting is the divisive personality of President Mahmud Ahmadinejad.

While few people expected the political scene to be dominated by a unified conservative front for long, the speed at which the right-wing factions are dividing between pro- and anti-Ahmadinejad camps has caught many analysts by surprise.

The polarization of the right wing will continue as long as Ahmadinejad is at the helm; the president's provocative and controversial style guarantees that. But the key question is under what conditions (if any) Ahmadinejad's conservative detractors will make a decisive move against him, for instance by trying to have him impeached in parliament. This scenario is far-fetched, at least for the foreseeable future, but it cannot be ruled out altogether, especially if the president's indiscretions reach a point where Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is forced to make a public stand.

A strange relationship
To many conservatives, the most contentious aspect of the Ahmadinejad presidency is his deep and largely inexplicable relationship with Esfandyar Rahim Mashayee, the head of the Presidential Office and Ahmadinejad's effective chief of staff. A natural self-publicist with an eye for controversy and an equally strong proclivity for pseudo-intellectual grandstanding, Mashayee has caused deep upset with a series of controversial remarks over the years.

In August 2008, Mashayee rocked the conservative camp with his assertion that Iran was friendly towards all people in the world, "including Israelis". This was explosive stuff in a regime that believes in the political destruction of the state of Israel and its replacement with a Palestinian state. What made matters worse was Mashayee's refusal to bow under tremendous pressure and retract his apparently pro-Israeli statement. This earned him a direct rebuke from Khamenei, who called his comments "illogical". The supreme leader rarely comments on the sayings of Iranian officials, a clear sign of the seriousness of the situation.

Mashayee has also courted controversy by his lax attitude towards the Islamic hijab (a head-covering scarf) and by at least one speech in which he predicted the demise of "Islamism". The sum effect of these indiscretions was the galvanization of conservative forces against his appointment as first vice president in July 2009, barely a few weeks after the disputed presidential elections.

Ahmadinejad initially resisted calls for Mashayee's immediate resignation, but was forced to relent after the supreme leader issued a written edict to that effect. But in a gesture that was widely perceived as a snub to the supreme leader, Ahmadinejad appointed Mashayee as the head of the Presidential Office.

Mashayee's latest audacious remarks came in a gathering of Iranian expatriates in early August in Tehran, at which he waxed lyrical about the "ideology of Iran" [Maktab-e-Iran]. This drew immediate and fierce criticism from every noteworthy religious, ideological, political and security node of the Islamic Republic. Mashayee appeared to be promoting nationalism (long a taboo subject in the Islamic Republic) at the expense of the state's expressly pan-Islamic ethos and geopolitical objectives. Indeed, Mashayee explicitly stated that the only "Islam" that he recognized was the one found in Iran, thus dealing yet another blow to the Islamic Republic's carefully cultivated image as the standard-bearer of Islamic unity.

The rebukes came thick and fast. Besides an uproar in the conservative media, a number of high-ranking personalities harshly berated Mashayee for his controversial remarks. Ayatollah Ahmad Khatami, the Friday prayer leader at Tehran University and a rising clerical politician, dismissed Mashayee's remarks as tantamount to "pagan nationalism". A far more significant rebuke came from Ayatollah Mohammad Taqi Mesbah-Yazdi, widely regarded as the spiritual leader of the hardline right-wing faction led by Ahmadinejad, who lamented Mashayee's apparently strange and "inappropriate" comment.

The most blistering attack, however, was delivered by General Hassan Firouzabadi, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, who described Mashayee's remarks as a "crime against national security". The involvement of a non-political and non-religious figure, especially one with the stature of Firouzabadi, may indicate the beginning of the end for Mashayee, who characteristically has refused to bow under this tremendous pressure and has even threatened to sue Firouzabadi in court.

While there may be an element of political maneuvering in these attacks, with key conservative figures attempting to undermine or at least constrain Ahmadinejad through the political assassination of his controversial chief of staff, there is doubtless a significant degree of ideological consideration at play too.

Whereas many conservatives eventually let Mashayee off the hook over his apparently pro-Israeli remarks, this time he is unlikely to be as lucky insofar as he has been judged to have violated one of the cardinal taboos of the regime. By championing nationalism, Mashayee has struck at the core identity of the Islamic Republic and inadvertently questioned many of its underlying ideological, political and strategic premises. This helps explain the ferocity of the backlash.

This latest controversy has focused attention on the nature of the relationship between Ahmadinejad and Mashayee. In the past, Ahmadinejad (whose son is married to Mashayee's daughter) has fiercely defended Mashayee and praised him for the clarity and prescience of his ideas. Some analysts believe Mashayee to be Ahmadinejad's secular ideological mentor and thus a man with a strong influence over the running of the government. It has been alleged that both men display at best a lackluster and perfunctory support for Velayat-e-Faqih (Rule of the Jurisprudent), the cornerstone of Iran's unique system of Islamic government.

Whereas Velayat-e-Faqih is supposed to fill in the religious and temporal vacuum in the absence of the twelfth and "hidden" imam (Imam al-Mahdi), it has been alleged that Ahmadinejad and Mashayee believe their government is in effect the "Mahdi's" government, thus rendering Velayat-e-Faqih obsolete.

It is difficult to verify these allegations and while Ahmadinejad has positioned the idea of "Mahdaviyat" (Mahdivism) at the center stage of politics, he has never openly questioned any aspect of Velayat-e-Faqih. It is equally difficult to establish to what extent these esoteric religious and ideological beliefs are driving the clash among the conservatives, but doubtless influential centers are raising serious concerns.

The hardline Keyhan daily, which up to now had been a vocal supporter of Ahmadinejad and played a key role in preparing a strong media backlash against the losing candidates in last year's disputed presidential elections, has dramatically raised the stakes in this intra-conservative squabble by questioning the loyalty of Ahmadinejad to the supreme leader.

The daily's political editor, Mehdi Mohammadi, writing on July 22, went so far as to place key Ahmadinejad supporters alongside the "forces of sedition", a reference to the losing candidates in last year's disputed presidential elections and the reform movement more broadly. Mohammadi does not rule out an open confrontation between this tendency (ie core Ahmadinejad supporters) and the more conventional loyalists of the Islamic revolution.

It is noteworthy that Keyhan is close to Khamenei, but that does not mean that everything it publishes meets the approval of the leader of the Islamic revolution. Equally important, Keyhan is a barometer of hardline conservative thinking and the fact that the lead editorial carries such a damning indictment of Ahmadinejad and his inner circle is a clear indication of massive fissures beneath the surface.

Indeed, in yet another indication of the deep anxieties gripping the conservative camp, the managing director of the centrist conservative paper Resalat, in an interview with the Panjereh weekly, warned of the emergence of a the so-called principlist force (Osoolgerayan) that consciously seeks to exclude the clergy from politics. According to him, the distinguishing feature of this tendency is its claims to be in direct communication with the "Hidden" imam, thus bypassing Velayat-e-Faqih altogether.

Ahmadinejad is also in the midst of a bitter political dispute with the speaker of the Majlis, or National Assembly, the arch-conservative Ali Ardeshir Larijani. The dispute revolves around a long-running row over parliamentary legislation allocating US$2 billion from the oil reserve fund to the expansion of Tehran's metro network. Ahmadinejad's refusal to discharge his legal duties on the basis that his government has secured "25 million votes" is viewed by many conservatives as an indicator of his dictatorial tendencies. It appears unlikely that this political and legal dispute can be resolved without the decisive intervention of the supreme leader.

In addition to all this, Iran's polarizing president has been sharply rebuked for his choice of language, which appears to be getting more colloquial and offensive by the day. In the same expatriates' conference in which Mashayee indulged in nationalistic rhetoric, Ahmadinejad dismissed American-led efforts to isolate and coerce Iran by employing the expression "the boogeyman snatched the boob". (See 'The boogeyman snatched the boob' (http://www.rferl.org/content/The_Language_Of_Ahmadinejad_The_Boogeyman_Snatched _The_Boob/2125263.html)Asia Times Online, August 13, 2010.)

While this had the audience consumed by laughter, outside the conference hall it was judged to be deeply offensive and inappropriate in a political culture that puts a premium on sophisticated and pious language. A few days later, in an unrelated incident involving a senior journalist - but in an atmosphere no doubt influenced by Ahmadinejad's boogeyman comment - head of the judiciary Ayatollah Sadiq Larijani (Ali Ardeshir Larijani's brother) berated the president for his choice of words and advised him to use language that is "composed, dignified, correct and fair". This was a humiliating dressing-down for a serving president.

Whither Ahmadinejad?
The recent spate of attacks on Ahmadinejad and his key allies by conservatives needs to be balanced by the fact that the majority of right-wing factions still detect more positives than negatives in Ahmadinejad's government. Indeed, the people who have launched strong attacks on Mashayee have been careful to point out that their statements should not be construed as indicating a lack of recognition for the achievements of the Ahmadinejad administration.

Broadly speaking, conservatives and the principlists credit Ahmadinejad with reversing the liberal policies of the previous reformist administration by placing the rhetoric and program of the Islamic Revolution at the center stage of politics. In particular, they praise Ahmadinejad's foreign policy, which they believe has once again revived the authentic discourse of the Islamic Republic in international forums and subsequently enabled Iran to negotiate from a position of strength with its opponents and enemies.

Nonetheless, Ahmadinejad's peculiar leadership style reinforced by his esoteric beliefs, and coupled by the questionable intellectual and ideological heritage of his key supporters, point to further friction with the key nodes of the conservative and principlist front. Whether or not there is an eventual showdown depends on several factors, chief among them the strength of the internal opposition to the regime and the nature and intensity of external threats.

For instance, if the Green movement and the reformists behind it make a comeback, then the conservatives and principlists are likely to close their ranks to meet that challenge, as they did throughout last year. By the same token, should the United States and Israel ratchet up their threats of military action on Iran over its nuclear program, then that is likely to unify (at least superficially) the entire Iranian political elite, conservatives and reformists alike.

In the final analysis, the decisive factor is the role and future decisions of Supreme Leader Khamenei. Hitherto, he has supported Ahmadinejad, even to the point of expending from his own political, ideological and spiritual prestige. The continuation of this support is a sure indicator that as far as the leadership is concerned, Ahmadinejad has not strayed radically from the core ideological parameters of the revolution.

However, the more Ahmadinejad polarizes the conservative and principlist front, the more difficult it will be for the leadership to sustain this support. Even a relatively mild public rebuke by the supreme leader could be enough to embolden Ahmadinejad's enemies to set the stage for his political demise by initiating impeachment proceedings in parliament.

Mahan Abedin is an analyst of Middle East politics.

1980s
22 Aug 10,, 19:06
The Iranians (the regime, the green movement and the general populace) is united on the nuke issue.

That is because it is the right of the Iranian nation to engage in a civilian nuclear program. Big surprise. Altho for the 'general populace', the nuclear issue is not a priority, nor is it an expression of 'Iranian national pride' or whatever other bollocks some outsiders think it is. That is propaganda from the regime. Many Iranians, including myself, do not even know why the regime wants to invest in nuclear power at a time when Iran does not even meet its domestic petroleum refining needs.

Mihais
23 Aug 10,, 05:59
The situation in Iran is more complicated than it being a simple question of who wields more tangible power; the clerical establishment or the Revolutionary Guards. Clerics themselves play a role within the IRGC such as regularly consulting with commanders and playing a role in supervising and monitoring the cadre alongside providing ideological ‘training’ if you want to call it that. So the clerical establishment and the IRGC cannot properly be said to be two wholly separate entities.


Are the clerics involved in planning of operations,in a way analogous to the Soviet Commisars?

p.s Let me guess.There aren't too many Zoroastrians in positions of power.:biggrin:

Mihais
23 Aug 10,, 06:03
That is because it is the right of the Iranian nation to engage in a civilian nuclear program. Big surprise. Altho for the 'general populace', the nuclear issue is not a priority, nor is it an expression of 'Iranian national pride' or whatever other bollocks some outsiders think it is. That is propaganda from the regime. Many Iranians, including myself, do not even know why the regime wants to invest in nuclear power at a time when Iran does not even meet its domestic petroleum refining needs.

Maybe,but oil will eventually run out.In a long term it makes sense.The problem,as you know,is the nuke program.

S2
23 Aug 10,, 06:29
Nobody has a problem with a properly-run civilian nuclear energy program inside Iran. Being a signatory to the NPT allows exactly that and it makes perfect sense for those who've a dependance on fossil-fuels for their energy needs (and bankroll). It's the compliance issues and attendant subterfuge where all the funkiness lies. That funkiness now includes a long history of evasion that's particularly disturbing.

I'm trying to politely soft-peddle my thoughts here, btw.:rolleyes:

Mihais
23 Aug 10,, 15:32
Yeah,little details.Maybe our friend can tell us how are these small matters,like evasions, considered by those ordinary Iranians that know those facts.
p.s Politely,just like an Officer and Gentleman,ehh?:biggrin:

S2
23 Aug 10,, 15:57
"p.s Politely,just like an Officer and Gentleman,ehh?"

Ahhh..., errr yes. Polite. One of the last, btw, to be commissioned by an act of Congress.:tongue:

Albany Rifles
23 Aug 10,, 16:11
"p.s Politely,just like an Officer and Gentleman,ehh?"

Ahhh..., errr yes. Polite. One of the last, btw, to be commissioned by an act of Congress.:tongue:

And as one of my company commanders told me, "Lieutenant, the Army may have made you an officer but its obvious it will take more than an act of Congress to make your ass a gentelman!" CPT Jim O'Donnell, Goeppingen, FRG, DEC 1982.

Mihais
23 Aug 10,, 17:02
Ahhh..., errr yes. Polite.

Ahh,damn it.Yes:frown:

1980s
24 Aug 10,, 19:45
Are the clerics involved in planning of operations,in a way analogous to the Soviet Commisars?

p.s Let me guess.There aren't too many Zoroastrians in positions of power.:biggrin:

If im not mistaken then yes, during the Iran-Iraq war mullah's were present at military briefings and did have some input into military strategy, at least with the operations carried out by IRGC. But im not sure what oversight or input the mullahs had with regards to the main Iranian military (known as 'artesh') other than the mullah's never really trusted it, even during the war. Today i think it is still likely that the clerics would still be involved to some degree in military strategy in the event of any future war. Afterall, it was the clerics of Iran who prolonged the war with Iraq for 6 years longer than it should have gone on for. Despite rumblings of opposition from within the military (artesh) itself, and from the non-Islamist political factions that still existed for upto 2 years after the revolution.


Yeah,little details.Maybe our friend can tell us how are these small matters,like evasions, considered by those ordinary Iranians that know those facts.
p.s Politely,just like an Officer and Gentleman,ehh?:biggrin:

People inside Iran have limited access to information from outside the country. So you should not readily assume that large numbers of Iranians are too informed about the nuclear stand-off with the rest of the World from the whole Western perspective. Neither should anyone assume that all liberal, educated Iranians inside Iran necessarily understand English. So for a lot of them too, their access to credible information on the nuclear stand-off is limited. They know only what the propaganda of the regime is. But with that said, the Iranian nuclear-program is not a priority for ordinary people. When i have met and continue to meet with recent arrivals from Iran, we rarely, if ever, discuss this issue. Only its associated sanctions.

Mihais
24 Aug 10,, 20:43
People inside Iran have limited access to information from outside the country. So you should not readily assume that large numbers of Iranians are too informed about the nuclear stand-off with the rest of the World from the whole Western perspective. Neither should anyone assume that all liberal, educated Iranians inside Iran necessarily understand English. So for a lot of them too, their access to credible information on the nuclear stand-off is limited. They know only what the propaganda of the regime is. But with that said, the Iranian nuclear-program is not a priority for ordinary people. When i have met and continue to meet with recent arrivals from Iran, we rarely, if ever, discuss this issue. Only its associated sanctions.

Yeah,just as I thought, but I needed some confirmation.Some friends that worked as consultants in Tehran told me the same things.Btw,they were pleasantly impressed by the people and conditions for work(unlike those from the Arab states which sucked).What will happen will be a tragedy,regardless of how this crisis ends.

Aryajet
26 Aug 10,, 18:04
connected to this...the vast majority of those supposed heroic protesters want an iranian bomb too, and are anti-semitic as well. a democratic government certainly doesn't preclude nukes or anti-israeli feeling.

plainly put, how much more comfortable would we be with an nuclear-armed iran had the protesters overrun the IRGC? also, considering how the protesters didn't want to be associated with the US, it's hard for me to believe that US support would have toppled the IRGC-military clique. in fact, the biggest piece of propaganda the regime used was to call the protesters US or UK lackeys.

No they don't. They have been supporting nuclear R&D b/c they are promised that nuclear R&D is for energy only. There was a reason why supreme nacho publicly announced over 3 times that "Possession and use of any type of WMD is against Islam".

Now! Do ayatollahs lie? Of course they do, but in order to maintain popular support they must tell Iranians that there is no weaponization program on the ticket.

Skywatcher
26 Aug 10,, 18:42
If half the things in this article are true, then the IRGC and the Ayatollahs may be even further along to road to implosion that I previously thought. How reliable is Mr. Ledeen?



Cracks in the Iranian Monolith
Opposition is spreading in the streets, in prisons, and even in the military.
By MICHAEL LEDEEN

The Iranian regime loves to boast of its military strength, international clout and hold on domestic power. Much of this is accepted by outside experts, but in fact the regime is in trouble. Iran's leaders have lost legitimacy in the eyes of the people, are unable to manage the country's many problems, face a growing opposition, and are openly fighting with one another.

A few weeks ago, according to official and private reports, the Iranian air force shot down three drones near the southwestern city of Bushehr, where a Russian-supplied nuclear reactor has just started up. When the Revolutionary Guards inspected the debris, they expected to find proof of high-altitude spying. Instead, the Guards had to report to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei that the air force had blasted Iran's own unmanned aircraft out of the sky.
Apparently, according to official Iranian press accounts, the Iranian military had created a special unit to deploy the drones—some for surveillance and others, as President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad bragged on Sunday, to carry bombs—but hadn't informed the air force.

These incidents have taken place against a general backdrop of internal conflict within the regime. In late July, Mohammad Ali Jaffari, commander of the Revolutionary Guard Corps, the regime's Praetorian Guard, admitted publicly that many top officers were supporters of the opposition Green Movement. Shortly thereafter, according to official government announcements, some 250 officers suddenly resigned. In the past weeks, several journalists from the Guards' FARS news agency have defected, some to France and others to the United States.

Meanwhile, Iran has suffered a series of attacks against its petroleum industry. As Iranian media reported (detailed in the London Telegraph), a pipeline to Turkey was blown up last month, most likely by Kurdish oppositionists. Soon afterwards there was an explosion in a natural gas pipeline near Tabriz.

That was followed by a spectacular blast at the Pardis petrochemical plant in Assalouye, which—being a major facility for converting natural gas to fuel for vehicles—is central to Iranian efforts to cope with the new United Nations, U.S. and European Union sanctions against refined petroleum products.

The same plant was similarly sabotaged six months ago. No one has taken responsibility for that attack, but it suggests an activist opposition with considerable "inside" assistance.

That opposition is fed by enduring social and economic crises. Unemployment last month reached 15% and is as high as 45% in some regions. In Tehran, health officials warned pregnant women and mothers of young children not to drink the water. Electrical failures are widespread. Taxi drivers have been striking around the country this summer, some because of the long lines at gas stations and others because of a shortage of compressed natural gas. The sanctions seem to be having an effect.

As these pressures have mounted, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei—against whom Iranians chant "Death to the Dictator!" at public gatherings and nightly from their rooftops—has sought to reaffirm his authority. Late last month he issued a fatwa declaring that his opinions had a status equal to those of the prophet Mohammed. The fatwa caused such consternation that it was removed from his website, then quietly returned a few days later.

Shortly thereafter, the country celebrated the funeral of Iran's most cherished performer, the singer Mohammed Nouri. Nouri was no dissident and was often praised by clerics as a "pious" man. But Mr. Khamenei chose the moment to issue a broad fatwa against music. "It's better that our dear youth spend their valuable time in learning science and essential and useful skills and fill their time with sport and healthy recreations instead of music," he declared.

Only "Western music" had previously been banned by Mr. Khamenei, and Iranian youth reacted with predictable hostility. In the days that followed, a Canadian-made remix of the 1979 Pink Floyd song "Another Brick in the Wall" went viral on the Internet with the new chorus, "Hey Ayatollah, leave those kids alone."

President Ahmadinejad has also tried to buttress his popular support, first by claiming that "stupid Zionists" were trying to kill him, and then by putting out a story—which few in Iran took seriously—of an assassination attempt on his motorcade. As usual, the "report" went through various iterations: first it was a grenade, then a firecracker, then nothing at all.

Even the government's campaign of repression seems increasingly sloppy. Recently the Judiciary Minister, in an extraordinary case of buck-passing, asked Mr. Khamenei for permission to execute 1,120 prisoners—as if the minister could imagine being prosecuted himself some day, and he wanted to be able to say it was Mr. Khamenei's fault.

These various debacles have strengthened the Green Movement, and opposition leaders Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi continue to launch serious verbal attacks on the regime. When the head of the powerful Guardian Council recently accused the Greens of receiving money from the Saudis and the Americans, Mr. Karroubi gave him the back of his hand: "If I am a conspirator because I object [to the rigged presidential election], then you are a partner of those who stole this nation's vote and are disloyal to the nation."

To add insult, Zahra Rahnavard, Mr. Mousavi's firebrand wife, wryly commented that the accusation would "make a cooked chicken laugh." Mr. Mousavi himself said that the Islamic Republic has become worse than the shah's regime, because "religious tyranny is the worst form of tyranny."

Challenges to the regime now come even from prisoners. When Mr. Ahmadinejad challenged Barack Obama to a debate this month, a Green Movement website reported with grim admiration that five journalists in Tehran's infamous Evin Prison had invited Mr. Ahmadinejad to come to jail and debate them.

Very little of this news reaches a mass Western audience, and one wonders to what extent Western governments understand what's going on. If they do, their failure to support the democratic revolutionaries is all the more lamentable.

Mr. Ledeen, a scholar at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, is the author of "Accomplice to Evil: Iran and the War Against the West" (St. Martin's, 2009).

Michael Ledeen: Cracks in the Iranian Monolith - WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704017904575409611936612020.html)

Aryajet
26 Aug 10,, 18:51
There are 2 issues related to this thread and following comments.
1) The nuclear issue. 2) support for terrorists group like hamass and Hezbol.
I will try my best to shed some light on these.


To clarify the first issue you can check the web for 1000s of pix of Iranians holding placards and slogans which they exactly say this "Nuclear ENERGY is our inalienable right". I'm sure there are few regime supporters who constantly dream about nuclear weapon equipped islamic republic, but they are not majority who believe Iran like the other 185 nations in the world can live and prosper without having nuclear weapons.

Also if you check the pix from last year massive street protests you will notice a very dominant slogan in which Iranians repeatedly mentioned " No Gaza, No Lebanon, I sacrifice my life for Iran".

Iranians in general do not approve aid to hamass and hezbolla, they are not happy with islamic republic's fabricated animosity with Israel. We never had a slightest dispute with Israel and never shared a inch of border in between.

1979
27 Aug 10,, 16:19
10 warheads would be more than Israel can handle. A million casualties and you would overwhelm the hospitals and people would be left on the streets to die. It is not a pleasant thought. Most certainly, any C3 would be left in shambles.

One Soviet boomer was enough to scare Israel into accepting peace.

I have read that article , sir and I was not impresed. It sounded to much as conspiracy theory to me.
Pushing the service date of the mig -25 a few years ahead and assigning strategic submarines to the Black sea fleet when they weren't any , did not help either.
Unless the Golf and Hotel class were somehow able to evade the SOSUS network unheard , the theory does not hold.