+ Reply to Thread
Page 12 of 15 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 LastLast
Results 166 to 180 of 214

Thread: Endgame in Iran?

  1. #166
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    08 Sep 09
    Posts
    815
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnought View Post
    Its not the West, they already have one defected person with insight into the regime, what the regimes been up to as far as North Korea and Syria are concerned. IMO, Its a night of long knives in Achmadinnerjacket's camp. It just goes to show you that no one is safe in his regime from being silenced.
    You don't think Israel might have tried something like this?

    They might have reasoned it was preferable to bombing the nuclear facilities?

  2. #167
    Defense Professional Dreadnought's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 May 05
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA.
    Posts
    13,516
    Country: United States
    Quote Originally Posted by zara View Post
    You don't think Israel might have tried something like this?

    They might have reasoned it was preferable to bombing the nuclear facilities?
    *Doubtfull it was the Mousaad, If it were IMO chances are they would probably would have favored removing the mouth of that viral regime instead of removing someone they may be able to speak with. Dinnerjacket and his crew is going to insure a one way hell in the bucket ride to the end and his regime will stop at nothing to make sure the Iranian people are all included either by choice or by force (remove the opposition such as in this case) makes no difference. Without the people and the propaghanda he is nothing and he fears that the most.
    Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

  3. #168
    Dirty Kiwi Parihaka's Avatar
    Join Date
    10 Nov 04
    Posts
    15,723
    Country: New Zealand
    Quote Originally Posted by zara View Post
    You don't think Israel might have tried something like this?

    They might have reasoned it was preferable to bombing the nuclear facilities?
    It's far too late in the day to be whacking theorists. Unless he was selling technology ala A Q Khan, this was a grudge hit, not a preventive one.

  4. #169
    Contributor Aryajet's Avatar
    Join Date
    21 Oct 08
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    485
    Country: Iran

    Arart,

    Quote Originally Posted by Ararat View Post
    Do Iranians fighting for their freedom and showing their reactions to years of oppression have a leader?

    It can not be Mousavi.......that is no change.
    Lack of leadership is not a disadvantage. In fact the Iranian freedom movement has the most modern form of leadership. "The collective leadership" that interacts, communicates and reaches consensus at the speed of light through Internet. One example of that is the twitter #iranelection and other 21st communication technologies. The advantages of this form of leadership are obvious. It cannot be diverted for long and it cannot be stopped when individuals are killed, imprisoned or otherwise incapacitated.

    Iranian Constitutional Revolution achieved success in 1906 (the first in entire Asia) and this is 4th bloody revolution (if we accept it is indeed a rev.) Iranians had within span of less than 90 years (the highest in history of human civilization) in search of civil liberty, democracy and rule of law.

    They have learned a big lesson from the past 3, they had leaders who later instead of being 1 step behind the people got themselves way up front and transformed to another despot whom required more bloodshed to get rid of.

    They neither have a leader nor needed at this time, this time around the leader will be elected through transparent election watched over by all parties representation as well as international observers.

    Mousavi, Karoubi, Sazgara and alike are perceived figureheads of Freedom Movement, not leaders.

  5. #170
    Patron Ararat's Avatar
    Join Date
    23 Dec 09
    Location
    Heading bug set to Artsakh
    Posts
    203
    Country: Armenia
    [QUOTE=Aryajet;708807......
    They neither have a leader nor needed at this time, this time around the leader will be elected through transparent election watched over by all parties representation as well as international observers.

    Mousavi, Karoubi, Sazgara and alike are perceived figureheads of Freedom Movement, not leaders.[/QUOTE]

    Aryajet thanks for the explanation and I am glad to hear this because I fully agree with this approach.
    Wolf Hunter

  6. #171
    Patron Ararat's Avatar
    Join Date
    23 Dec 09
    Location
    Heading bug set to Artsakh
    Posts
    203
    Country: Armenia
    Pentagon: No evidence that Iran seeking nukes
    Thu, 14 Jan 2010 12:54:08 GMT



    DIA chief, Lieutenant General Ronald Burgess


    The Pentagon's top intelligence official says there is no evidence that Iran is planning to build nuclear weapons.

    The chief of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), Lieutenant General Ronald Burgess, says the key findings of the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran's nuclear energy program are still valid.

    "The bottom line assessments of the NIE still hold true," he told Voice of America.

    The NIE report was a consensus judgment of all US intelligence agencies, which concluded that Iran halted all activities which could have allegedly led to the development of nuclear arms in 2003.

    Burgess said the Pentagon had seen no indication that Tehran was planning to resume the program allegedly aimed at developing nuclear weapons.

    "We have not seen indication that the government has made the decision to move ahead with the program. But the fact still remains that we don't know what we don't know," he said.

    Burgess said the Pentagon would continue to work on verifying that Iran is pursuing peaceful nuclear activities.

    The Islamic Republic insists its nuclear program is solely aimed at civilian purposes and rejects the West's allegations that it intends to pursue military objectives.

    The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reports and US National Intelligence Estimates issued so far have attested to the civilian nature of Iran's nuclear program.

    Tehran has repeatedly called for the removal of all weapons of mass destruction from across the globe.

    Pentagon: No evidence that Iran seeking nukes
    Wolf Hunter

  7. #172
    WAB Bartender Defense Professional
    Military Professional
    Bluesman's Avatar
    Join Date
    24 Nov 04
    Location
    Nellis AFB, Las Vegas, NV
    Posts
    8,518
    Country: United States
    I despair, I really do.
    "The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it, and if one finds the prospect of a long war intolerable, it is natural to disbelieve in the possibility of victory."
    - George Orwell

  8. #173
    Patron
    Join Date
    10 Apr 09
    Posts
    185
    Country: United States
    seems to be from a VOA interview, so I might as well link the VOA's article on it.

    US Defense Spy Chief: Iran Undecided on Nuclear Bomb | News | English

    Certainly both articles put what he says in different lights.

    US Defense Spy Chief: Iran Undecided on Nuclear Bomb

    In an exclusive VOA interview, the Pentagon's top intelligence official says there is no evidence that Iran has made a final decision to build nuclear weapons. But the chief of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) adds that much about Iran's inner workings remains murky.

    Lieutenant General Ronald Burgess says the key finding that Iran has not yet committed itself to nuclear weapons, contained in a controversial 2007 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), is still valid.

    "The bottom line assessments of the NIE still hold true," he said. "We have not seen indication that the government has made the decision to move ahead with the program. But the fact still remains that we don't know what we don't know."

    General Burgess says it is difficult to ascertain the intentions of Iran's leaders or the level of political infighting among the country's leadership. But he adds that Tehran's statements and behavior have only fueled suspicion in Western capitals.

    "The fact is, Iran is not dealing straight up," he added. "So they can say whatever they would like. I'm an intelligence professional. My job is to verify. And so we continually work on trying to verify what it is the Iranians say. But they are engaged in use of words that is not moving this in a positive direction."

    The 2007 NIE, a consensus judgment of all U.S. intelligence agencies, concluded that Iran halted nuclear weapons design work in 2003. The study sparked a fierce controversy with critics charging that the NIE was flawed and asserting that Iran is clearly on a path to become a nuclear power. Some recently published news reports quote unnamed sources as saying that many of U.S. President Barack Obama's advisors are skeptical of the intelligence estimate.

    Iran has been pushing to enrich uranium, a critical step in building nuclear weapons, but continues to insist that it is for peaceful nuclear energy.

    Talks with Iran on the nuclear issue have been frustrating for Western negotiators. In October, it appeared that an agreement had been reached for Iran to send its uranium to a third country for enrichment. But then Tehran backed away from the deal.

    General Burgess likens Iran's behavior to bargaining in a bazaar, saying that by walking away, Tehran hopes to get a better deal.

    "I think that there is always an idea in their head that they can either ultimately get what they've put on the table or move the ball further in their direction. And I think that's clearly one of their aims," he explained.

    Given the hidden nature of decision-making in Tehran, it is difficult to say how protests by the country's reformist movement might be affecting the government's nuclear ambitions. But Burgess says the movement is resilient and will be difficult to suppress.

    "There is a reform movement in Iran. It has legs," he said. "It is attempting to get its message out. I do not see indication that that movement has been stamped out or put totally under the direction of the government. They still have a voice. They are still attempting to get their message out. And so this will be an interesting dynamic for us to follow in that country."

    The Obama administration has been careful in its support of the protestors so as not to compromise the activists' efforts in the eyes of the Iranian government. At the same time, the United States is considering new sanctions aimed specifically at the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps. The Revolutionary Guards has not only spearheaded the crackdown on the protestors, but also plays a critical role in Iran's nuclear program.
    Last edited by diablo49; 16 Jan 10, at 10:12.

  9. #174
    Dirty Kiwi Parihaka's Avatar
    Join Date
    10 Nov 04
    Posts
    15,723
    Country: New Zealand
    Quote Originally Posted by Lieutenant General Ronald Burgess View Post
    But the fact still remains that we don't know what we don't know.
    That fact remains that I don't know what he knows either, but I don't think he knows that I don't know.

  10. #175
    S2
    S2 is offline

    Military Professional
    Military Professional S2's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 06
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Posts
    8,252
    Country: United States

    Rumsfeldspeak

    "There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we now know we don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns. These are things we do not know we don’t know."

    It is to laugh...

    as Bugs Bunny would say.)
    "This aggression will not stand, man!"
    Jeff Lebowski

  11. #176
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    08 Sep 09
    Posts
    815
    Dont know if it means anything, but I was just looking at some Iranian currency and I noticed the 5000 Toman note has a nuclear symbol on it...
    Attached Images  

  12. #177
    Patron
    Join Date
    06 Dec 08
    Posts
    218
    As far as attacking Iran goes, I guess Israel could be a likely candidate to carry it out...
    An Israeli columnist sums it up by saying is it worth it?

    Jan 3, 2010.
    The Region: The most-asked questions - will Israel attack Iran?
    By BARRY RUBIN.


    Is Israel capable of launching an effective attack? Without going into all the complex details, the basic answer is "yes."

    If destroying Iran's nuclear capability is an existential imperative, could Israel weather the diplomatic criticism and terrorist or other attacks? Again, yes. Hamas and Hezbollah would escalate and launch rockets, but they could be deterred or defeated.

    It is the last point, however, that is critical: Would an attack achieve considerable success in putting back Iran's nuclear program by years? That cannot be taken for granted. In military action lots can go wrong. Planes can crash; mechanical breakdowns or bad weather may cause failure. The distances involved are huge, the margin of error very fine.

    What if the bombs miss and hit civilians? (Yes, Israel cares a lot about this despite all the slander and lies regarding its behavior.) Will dispersion of facilities mean that only a small portion of Iran's facilities will be damaged or destroyed?

    In short, is it worth launching an attack that only inflames the situation further, costs lots of diplomatic capital and doesn't do any good?



    And Dan Murphy Staff writer / October 13, 2009 Christian Science Monitor, suggests that Israel will only attack when Iran is [proven] to be on the verge of getting weapons.........

    Can Israel stop Iran's nuclear program?

    The consensus among experts is that an Israeli attack could slow Iran's nuclear progress for a few years, but would be unlikely to stop it. Why? Iran is prepared.

    Israel's lightning strike that destroyed Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor in 1981 is often spoken of as a model for potential Israeli action against Iran, along with a 2007 strike on an unguarded, unfinished nuclear plant in Syria.

    The Iraqi and Syrian targets were single, above-ground sites. Attacking Iran is a much different proposition: It involves multiple sites and underground facilities, and would require Israeli jets to fly far longer distances and potentially face more advanced enemy weapons.

    "It would be a very complex operation," says Brig. Gen. Shlomo Brom (ret.), former head of strategic planning for the Israeli military's general staff and now a senior researcher at the Institute for National Security Studies in Tel Aviv. "I don't think you can make the comparison to Osirak or Syria. In those cases it was one target ... and the ability of those two countries to do anything [against Israel] was nonexistent."

    Iran has at least 17 widely dispersed nuclear sites in addition to the main facility at Natanz, built underground with at least some measures to withstand the "bunker buster" bombs in Israel's arsenal.

    Brom says estimating the efficacy of an attack is difficult, but that it could probably slow Iran's nuclear program by about five years at most.


    How would an attack be carried out?

    Israel would probably use F-15 or F-16 fighter jets, which would have to fly 1,100 miles to reach Natanz and further for targets such as the nuclear reactor at Bushehr in the south. That distance is near the outer limit of such an aircraft's ability, though the planes can go longer distances by attaching additional fuel tanks or re-fueling in midair. The most direct routes go over Saudi Arabia, some
    via Iraq

    Though Saudi Arabia is unlikely to engage Israeli aircraft, and Iraq has no capabilities of its own, neither country is likely to officially approve such an attack and would be unlikely to participate in search and rescue efforts if an Israeli plane is damaged. An Israeli plane forced to land in either country would prove a diplomatic nightmare.


    How might Iran respond?

    The Iranians would undoubtedly try to shoot the planes down during their roughly 400-mile trip in its airspace. Iran has 29 Russian-built Tor-M1 mobile missile defense systems, which the country publicly unveiled at a military parade in late September, during which President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad vowed to cut the hands off any attacker. Iran recently tested missiles that, like previous versions, have the ability to reach Israel and US military bases in the region.

    Other options for retaliation against Israel would be through Hezbollah, the movement Iran has helped arm and train that has the capacity to fire missiles and mortars at Israel from its base in southern Lebanon. Gerald Steinberg, a politics professor at Israel's Bar Ilan University who studies proliferation issues, says that while such retaliation is likely, it's something Israel would be willing to endure, since that threat is seen as far less than that of an Iranian nuclear weapon.


    How likely is an attack?

    The probability of an Israeli attack at the moment is very low. President Obama has opposed unilateral action by Israel, and Israeli officials appear willing to give the recently restarted nuclear dialogue with Iran at least until the end of the year. "If nothing happens in a few months and Iran is going full steam, [and] there's no greater monitoring, then I think the Israeli view will be, 'Let's go and look at our other options,' " says Professor Steinberg.


    What would be the cost of a strike?

    Brom says that the political costs for Israel of a unilateral attack could be huge, as could the consequences for the US.

    "Iran has a very limited ability to strike out directly at Israel, but they have much more influence closer to home," he says, pointing out that retaliation against US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan would be probable. "They can affect the behavior of others in Iraq and Afghanistan and in the Arab Gulf states, and they can cause much harm to the export of oil from the Gulf, which hurts everybody.

    For Israel's part, he says, because its relationship with the US is "of central strategic importance" that implies that Israeli leaders will "try to delay the decision as much as possible, and when it is impossible to delay anymore then it will still be a tough and difficult decision."

    Steinberg agrees. "Even the more hawkish Israelis are very aware of the costs of a military operation, not just in terms of retaliation but in long-term Israeli-Iranian relations and in the stability of the region. Military action is the last and least desirable option."


    On isreal attacking would probably be that it will only attack when Iran is on the verge of getting weapons. Not only would that situation make the decision about responding an immediate task, but also because that would be when Teheran has the maximum equipment installed and the most damage can be done. There is no sense bombing half-empty buildings.

  13. #178
    Defense Professional Dreadnought's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 May 05
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA.
    Posts
    13,516
    Country: United States
    I often wonder if Aerial Sharon was still in charge, would he have waited this long given Irans amount of rhetoric and threats.
    Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

  14. #179
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    08 Sep 09
    Posts
    815
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnought View Post
    I often wonder if Aerial Sharon was still in charge, would he have waited this long given Irans amount of rhetoric and threats.
    I would have thought Netanyahu would be more Hawkish than Sharon was. But im sure if an Israeli attack comes it will be a calculated strategy, not out of rage or response to any Iranian rhetoric.

  15. #180
    Patron
    Join Date
    10 Apr 09
    Posts
    185
    Country: United States
    Iran spurns nuclear fuel deal in writing: diplomats | Reuters


    and the wheels spin spin spin, but we don't seem to be moving anywhere!

    certainly this wasn't a suprise, just that so much dithering was allowed.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

     

Similar Threads

  1. US exports to Iran increase in Bush years
    By troung in forum International Economy
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12 Jul 08,, 20:34
  2. Stopping Iran:Why the Case For Military Action Still Stands
    By urmomma158 in forum The Middle East and North Africa
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11 May 08,, 02:58
  3. When Is Islamic Terrorism Actually "Anti-Islamic Activity"?
    By dalem in forum International Economy
    Replies: 72
    Last Post: 30 Jan 08,, 08:45
  4. Candidates, How would you grapple with Iran's nuclear drive?
    By FibrillatorD in forum American Politics & Economy
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: 16 Aug 07,, 17:11
  5. A Preemptive Attack on Iran's Nuclear Facilities: Possible Consequences
    By lulldapull in forum The Middle East and North Africa
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 20 Nov 04,, 21:27

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts