That’s what former Bush administration top arms control official Robert Joseph told reporters at the Heritage Foundation yesterday. Iran has many retaliatory options, from using oil as an economic weapon, unleashing Hezbollah, to attacking U.S. installations in the Gulf, if it’s hit from the air. Even if Israel carried out strikes, the U.S. would be blamed, he said. Because so many potential unforeseen consequences could result, Joseph said he was no fan of striking Iran.
– Greg Grant
{ 104 comments… read them below or add one }
Too strong now missed the chance. What benefit do we get from hitting them anyways just becase Isreal wants it done?
What rock have you been under for the passed fifty two years?
Is that a serios question or are you just pretending to be clueless?
Well, I think it's in our interest to keep them from goign nuclear capable….of course how do you accomplish that? I think anything short of nuclear strikes will not totally eliminate their capabilities. Containment, support for Iran's opposition groups and economic pressure seem to be our best options at this point….and of course let them know via back channels that should they ever use WMDs Iran will cease to exist after that.
Can't really use economic pressure anymore as we have few if any ties with them, CH has taken over and is there main customer now just like NK so unless CH who I don't trust gets on ourt side there is no changing anything.
Iran has no practical case to strike at US interest in the Gulf and we have no practical case to use military force against Iran. The situation has been status quo since the Iranian hostage crisis. Even a radical regime in Tehran understands a nuclear strike against Isreal will be retaliated in kind and in large numbers. There are always the politician's making hot air for local consumption, but to engage in a real war against the west they know is not in their best interest. They couldn't defeat Iran and the US sliced through that military in weeks. They would lose, even with nuclear weapons. To use them is tantamount to suicide.
So no problem. Radical Muslims have NEVER been known to commit suicide just to attack their enemies. /sarc Also, they may be convinced that we wouldn't retaliate. Saddam Hussein didn't believe we would invade right up until the end. They may be convinced that we would never actually use our nuclear weapons against them and that they could survive a conventional strike, AND THEY VERY WELL MAY BE RIGHT!
Sorry guy, but you are way off base. Iran has in the past, and still does, call for the destruction (obliteration) of all infidels. That my friend is every U.S. citizen. They have not been the least bit squeamish about their goal of destoying the United States. And in case you havent been paying atention for the last 30 years, they have no qualms about sacrificing anybody and anything to achieve those goals. Suicide in their eyes is an honorable and rewarding end.
Well I'm afraid you are quite wrong there. And it's this kind of ridiculous clap-trap that is stirring everybody up. It just ain't true.
Iran is a peaceful nation that hasn't attacked any other country in 200 years. Something that definitely can't be said of Israel, the US or the UK. The stories about attacking Israel originate in Israel, because it's in their interests to keep their population and ours afraid. Time to look a bit farther afield for your news sources perhaps.
I don't think most are thinking long term or on a global scale.
In the short term we would have a huge headache to address were we to strike Iran. I'm not terribly worried about potential retaliation because it isn't as if we are just going to strike their nuclear facilities. Their total ability to control their own country, let alone bother others, should be addressed in any air strikes.
If we don't facilitate the demise of the regime through potential strikes the mid term will be a reset of the way things are now.
Then there are the long term consequences of doing nothing effective. The issue of non-proliferation goes beyond Iran. The thugs in Burma are now possibly trying to obtain nukes. Who knows who is next and the mentalities that control these nations cannot be trusted. Counting on the leadership of Iran to not be suicidal isn't prudent in my opinion.
If we actually want a NPT that works, at some point Iran will have to be struck if they don't relent. The short and mid term consequences will have to give way to the long term best interests. I don't think we are at that point yet, but we will be, and hopefully whoever is CINC at that point can make a military option work if need be.
The troops in Iraq are highly vulnerable to Iranian retaliation if we strike them. There's still 90,000 troops within missile, mortar, and car bomb range and they're sitting on easy to hit FOBs. Iran still has significant influence over Iraqi politics. It wouldn't take much for them to fan the flames and get the Shiite militias attacking us en mass again.
The upside to that is that we have 90,000 troops within driving distance of Tehran. We are just finishing turning the country to the south of them blue. We are actively working on turning the country to the east of them blue. If I were them I would be crapping my pants. I just hope they are stupid enough to give us a reason to go in and turn their country blue.
I agree with most of the above comments, I would like to add some options here;
1) The US could do a strike first against the Iranian air defences and air force, these should be completely destroyed, with there naval forces. Once that is accomplished a total air,sea and land blockade of Iran should be put in place. To force them to allow in inspectors to see all sites so they can be dimantled. If they refuse continue the air attacks to systemactically destroy the sites and there government.
2) Do covert ops to KILL all the scientist and engineers working on these facilities.Using agents, SOF, Drones and even pay offs.
3) Do a combination of the 2 or both of them together. No full scale ground invasion is needed.If any territory of Iran is to occuipied it should be at the strait of Hormuz to keep it open.
Are you serious? What's your plan, sneak into Iran and shoot every man with a lab coat or a hard hat?
I know, that part made me cringe a little. Kill scientists? Civilians? Thats against so many things it wouldn't happen, even with Iran.
This is to TMB & Alexander,what do you think we were doing in previous wars when we bomb factories duh! killing civilians & Destroying the equipment that make the weapons of are enemies. They are legitimate targets.War is not pretty or nice. Do you think that are enemies would not do the same to us if they could???
And do yout think the Iranians are just going to sit back and let you blockade and bomb them without hitting back with all theyve got?
I mean honestly, no one can seriously argue that the United States could not easily crush Iran if it wanted to. But whoever thinks Iran does not have the capacity to inflict some grevious wounds on US economic and military interests does not have a brain.
Aside from their terror proxy hez they have nothing to hit back with.
Their conventional army is a joke, arm our boy scouts and I think we win. As another poster said iraq and iran fought to a stand still. Iran's military has NOT grown more powerful since then. A handful of planes and missiles with minimal upkeep and training is nothing to worry about.
Those toy soldiers in speed boats do not pose a threat to our navy and their anti ship missiles pose very little threat as well. A lot of people make the threat out to be much more then it is. The navy does it for additional funding.
Iran can't use oil as a weapon because that is their main if not only source of income. They cut off the oil they cut of their funding.
They can not blockade the straights because they have no navy, they have a poor coast guard posing as a navy, any anti ship missiles could be be blasted with air power relatively easily.
The problem is not that iran can really do any harm to the world by striking back. The problem is a political one for people who want to be reelected.
Israel has shown time and time again the only weapon these people possess is that of your own people's lack of political will to wipe them out and treat them out and finish IT.
Iran should be struck as a warning to anyone with ambitions of their own nukes. Sanctions do not work because most nations do not honor them and still trade with sanctioned countries. iran and cuba have been doing it for decades.
The first intelligent post in this particular set. Iran can't stop shipping oil or their economy STARVES. As far as being concerned about strikes on our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.. who do you people think would be going over the border?
Iran is a political threat, not a military or economic one. Iran's capability to wage war could probably be crippled or destroyed with a well-planned joint Air / Naval strike with a very minimal land component. Instead, we should be more concerned about Iran's soft power, and capacity to covertly support non-state actors.
Please! What do you think that the US is scared of the Iranians? You really don't have a brain.The only thing the US lacks is political resolve.Don't under-estimate the American people and US. president change reguarly. You should know this.
The consequences of not striking Iran is a nuclear Iran, followed by nuclearization of the entire Middle East and uncontrolled proliferation of nuclear weapons across every capable nation with an interest in doing so.
In short we will set ourselves up for the end of civilized society.
Against that, any price is worthwhile, even full blown regime change.
I think on the crazy side if military force is necessary one of the first things I would do if have Special Forces raid the headquarters of the Revolutionary Guard and one or two other key facilities for their nuclear program to acquire intelligence. This intelligence could be used in a broader program to target the Iranian nuclear program and cause fewer casualties in the long run.
Strike Iran first will make the population support the iranian goverment, sometimes being the world police doesn't pay off, and by sometimes I mean 90% of the time.
Doesn't matter even if what you say is true. The costs of allowing them to obtain nukes are just too staggering.
Why has no one suggested killing the dictators that the Iranian people hate anyway? They're easy to find in their million-dollar villas. The HVTs would include some mullahs, the so called "religious police," certain squads of the IRG, etc. Then let the people decide. Most Iranians want to be done with the fanatics. The average Persian want Nikes, not nukes, and couldn't care a hoot about the 12th Imam. Then if some fanatic remnants launch missles, hit them next. The nuclear facilities are scientific factories, and can be converted to peaceful uses, subject to inspection and verification. It's not the centrifuges that are the threat, it's the fanatics, stupid!
Unfortunately a lot of Iranians support their government, in particular the less well off, less educated rural population (in the US they would probably be having tea parties.) If attacked by an outside enemy, even more would rally behind their government. Sure winning a conventional war against Iran would be possible, but dealing with the aftermath would be a lot harder than it is now in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Like it or not – and I don't – we might jjust get used to the thought of nuclear Iran.
I love how anyone who sides against obama must be less educated etc "tea parties comment"
And there all gun swingin violent thugns right, your getting brain washed by the media.
Don't disagree with your comment just your mentality about the on going tea parties in the states. Called free speech buddy thats what makes us great or used to at least!
Why when the country is going bust should we be funding everyone's health care etc but thats for another day! ahh
Actually the New York TImes commissioned a study of Tea Party groups and they tended to be better educated than the population as a whole and with slightly higher incomes. A lot of them are independent professionals or small business owners.
Good call Stu. Assassination is a good way to go. Why punish an entire country when you can just punish the leaders.
http://eightiesclub.tripod.com/id344.htm Reagan/Bush and Iran
Soon there will be sufficient numbers of connected proxies for Iran to distribute carefully assets and escape forensic blame. Perhaps Joseph was using the Bush competency quotient and now dubs Iran to hard a nut. Needless to say prior mistakes made this situation worse than it should have been.
It only gets worse and a bogus Grand Bargain would be the undoing of the Democrats having promised the world….
Interesting article as to why Liberal Intellectuals defend dubious players….http://www.michaeltotten.com/2010/05/the-flight-o…
It doesn't matter! We MUST NOT allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon, because war WILL breakout whether we like it or not. When Iran retaliates HAVE A GOD DAMN RESPONSE! We're the US frickin A and we're worried about an Iranian military response! Get a backbone! We can fight back! Thats what the military is for! Imagine if Hitler was doing what Iran was and we didnt respond for fear of retaliation, would Hitler stayed peaceful for long? Would he not use a nuclear weapon? Of course he would and so will Iran if we don't STOP THEM NOW!
Nuclear weapons make a country feel safe without having to start a war, MAD concept works quite fine. And nice use of the goldwin's law.
People need to realize that as technology progress and becomes more accessible, more and more countries will obtain nukes if they want.
MAD worked when it was mainly the US and the Soviets eyeing one another for world domination. It will never work when you have dozens and dozens of small countries all possessing small amount numbers of nukes. There will be no mutually assured destruction. Just destruction, period. We'll face a Balkanized, powder keg world in which we are powerless to intervene even in places that are vital to our interests (because we'll never risk getting our troops nuked). The international order we know today will break down completely and there will be a race to the bottom to accomodate dictators and strongmen around the world while trying to figure out how to prevent them from nuking their neighbors. In the end, it won't work. There will be nuclear wars around the world and our interests will take devastating hits.
who do you think you are attacking? you think iran is weak like iraq? im not even a military expert yet i've counted over 218 ways in which iran can respond militarily against america or israel if they attack! and dont think that america is out of range from iranian counter attacks either.
Well warlord, I am guessing you are an Iranian. Iran could not defeat Iraq. When Iran completes their nuclear weapon and launches it at Israel, the western world will bring the final end to the Persian empire.
It will take less than two weeks.
So why would Iran do such a thing? Do you think they're stupid?
The US cannot afford another military commitment as it is. While recruitment numbers are at an all time high (due to the economic conditions), the retention numbers are at an all time low. This military is losing its trained soldiers to the civilian sector where they can expect to see salaries ranging from 2x-10x what they made in the military depending on their MOS. Soldiers are tired of constant deployments, tired of saying goodbyes to their families, tired of returning home to a country who views them as a tool to get another job done. Soldiers are out there everyday right now discarding their freedoms to fight for yours, and those who cannot stand up and fight themselves. Yet you stand here unwilling to do the same but willing to put those fighting men and women in harms way again and again.
Deployments wouldn't be so long if the military's hand wasn't tied behind it's back.
War against Iran? How many wars would you see the american military fighting at once? When would you be happy? The US only has the best military fighting force in the world because of the technology behind it. When those who operate that technology are offered $200k yearly as a civilian instead of 25-30k as a soldier who will you have left to keep our military going? China is out there, and they are molding themselves into the next super power. And instead of realizing that, you would weaken our military more with yet another war… until what? Will you be happy when 1 billion chinese men invade our home? Will you still hide your sons and daughters and yourself behind 'volunteers' then? Or will you who has something so important to say and no fortitude to stand before it welcome a real regime change.
To all of you: One, I am joining and if I have to be deployed 10-20 or more times to defend the people I love and what we stand for I will go in a heartbeat. We need another Patton! Patton right after WW2 wanted to take on the Russians because he knew the threat they posed. he wanted to push them back within their borders and draw a line they could not cross. He was right but our president at the time wouldnt allow it. Then we had the Cold War, Cuban Missile Crisis, and Russia supplying our enemies today. So yes we do need another war! And we can win it! We can do to Iran's military what we did to Iraq's military twice! We just MUST NOT allow them to have nuclear weapons and ICBMs! And if need be we will have a draft, but I doubt that because we OWN the battlefield. We just need to keep this INSANE, GENOCIDAL, ANTISEMETIC, ANTIUS DICTATOR from aquiring WMDs!
Which dictator are you referring to?
If you count the war against Iraq and the war in Afghanistan as two wars because they are geographically separated, you are mistaken. They are the same war. They are all the war against China. This is the same adversary we have been fighting since we liberated them from the Japanese at the end of WW2.
Take a good hard look at the map. Iraq and Afghanistan are now blue. Iran is soon to follow. Afghanistan has a border with China. South Korea has had US troops since 1950, we actively fought the Chinese there. Our Naval assets are what keep the communist Chinese from invading Taiwan. The North Vietnamese were funded and supplied by the Chinese. We have been at war with the Chinese for 60 years.
We are in the process of surrounding them.
If war is inevitable then let us goto war… and let those who pushed us to that point lead the way. American nukes have gone a long way since the atom bomb and if push came to shove a strong republican leader would authorize a tactical nuclear strike (nukes with no radiation or fall out). America can however not afford to spread its military as thin as it is now – or worse (which is what youre proposing) unless its ready as a country to reap the consequences of turning an all volunteer military into an all mandatory military (just like Israel).
There is no such weapon as a tactical nuke that doesn't produce radiation and consequently fall out. You cannot have a nuclear weapon without ionizing radiation.
Thank you for telling him that, I wonder how many more people out there think that tactical nuclear weapons don't produce radiation. The word tactical only mean weapons used against an enemys military forces.
yeah, low yield still produces radiation.
Against Iran, even ruling out ground forces, the US has the option of doing strategic bombing on a scale not seen since WWII, in this case using precision guided weapons that will be as devestating towards Iranian industry and economy as nuclear strikes. Because a substantial portion of the Iran's industrial complexes and infrastructure are dual use or owned by the Revolutionary Guards, doing this would be perfectly legitimate.
In other words, while Iran may be able to commit terrorist options against US interests, the US holds the Sword of Damocles over Iran's existence as a modern state.
I must say im 2 sided on this issue. Part of me feels this could be peacefully resolved by offering a simple deal…
Offer to drop ALL sanctions in return for full compliance with Nuclear Poliferation Act . Then and only then, sign a declarated peace treaty between us.
Refusal or failure then threaten a war of devastation. Not an invasion. Complete obliteration. Am amongst many civilians who are tired of this dispute. Its not much different from Saddam & even worse because their army is stronger then Iraq's … Their position tactically is more of a risk because of the Straits. And their weaponry is find ways into enemy hands fighting us in Iraq and Afghanistan already.
In this current world of high crime and terrorism, any country possessing nuclear technology MUST be monitored & secured.
I'm sure the Iranian theocracy would respond in good faith to any logical, mutually beneficial suggestion.
I've read the U.S. Strike Plan for Iran and its not pretty for Iran; it would be total annialation and not even nuclear. Its all missiles from every piece of missile delivery system available in the U.S. arsenal. Iran would not have time to even retaliate and that's the bottom line.
I'm going to call BS on this Flymast, unless you're carrying around a SIOP/ESI clearance you're just talking out of the side of your neck, and if you do then you shouldn't be on defensetech running your mouth about it.
hmmmm you have read the strike plan? ha ha! howcome iran hasnt been attacked yet then? iran would have time to retaliate and america would loose ships, aircraft carriers, subs, planes, troops, command centers, supply centers and much much more!
"In this current world of high crime and terrorism, any country possessing nuclear technology MUST be monitored & secured."
I agree. When can we send the IAEA teams to Omaha and Hanford and Oak Ridge?
Jeez, the readership of this site is embarrassing. So many basement commandos, shouting "war MUST come!…. destroy them from the air!…. kill all their leaders!" And without skipping a beat they yammer on about "threats" and "terror" and such. These are the people who thought our Iraq adventure was so "necessary", that it would be a "cakewalk". It is sobering that so many people could learn so absolutely little.
You clowns need to be honest with yourselves. You don't really give a damn about the Iraqi "threat" or the Iranian "threat" or, back in the day, the Soviet "threat". You just **need** an enemy. For so many of you, it's the closest thing you've got to having some meaning in your life.
I am a firm believer that nuclear proliferation and control is a must. Should we extend our exhausted military into yet another conflict? I think not, our military could not sustain another battle front. There is no clear answer to this dilemma. I believe that we should continue with a peaceful solution however if backed against the wall with an eminent nuclear strike against our shores we should take profound actions against that strike to the best of our abilities. To act is to rationally weigh all options before the strike. To react would be to blindly and blatantly strike without regard to collateral damage or the regards to consequences of the action. I am not a politician. I am a soldier and I will obey the commands of my superiors as long as they are legal, I may not like them, but I have a duty to uphold them.
Plainly you're not one of the hysterical idiots infesting this thread, Mr. Johnson.
"There is no clear answer to this dilemma. I believe that we should continue with a peaceful solution however if backed against the wall with an eminent nuclear strike against our shores we should take profound actions against that strike to the best of our abilities."
When you put it that way, who could disagree? But here's the crucial point — Do you honestly believe Iran is going to launch **any** kind of attack on the U.S? Why would they do that? How?
The hysterical idiots infesting this thread seem to be oblivious to any actual history or geography. The Iranian government isn't one that I'd want to live under, but the fact is that since the '79 revolution it's been markedly reluctant to launch any foreign adventures. Of course it wants to maintain and increase its position in Southwest Asia — it's IN Southwest Asia! It sure isn't clear to me how that desire implies an Iranian attack on the U.S.. If anything, it probably implies the opposite.
Look, time's really running out. We Americans really need to understand how much money and reputation we've pissed away. We don't have the resources or the competence to mold the world to our liking. The rest of the world knows this, even if it hasn't dawned on many here at home. But if we keep listening to bellicose gasbags like the morons bellowing in this thread, we are going to set ourselves up for a very, very grim future.
>Jeez, the readership of this site is embarrassing.
You have to understand that they are globalization's big losers and feel humiliated. They have given up on America ever being an economic superpower again and can see it frittering away it's military power on failed adventures.
What Robert Joseph is saying is that if the US attacks Iran then China will be the big winner, that it will just drive the US further down into strategic irrelevance. But the rubes here don't care they just want a show so they can feel big again for an afternoon.
What I find interesting is that it seems you've all fallen hook, line and sinker for the idea that Iran is trying to produce nuclear weapons. There is ZERO proof of this. Did we learn nothing from the Iraq war? We were told about the weapons of mass destruction, but that turned out to be a fabrication (there is ample evidence the Bush administration and the CIA did not believe it). Here we are, all doing the exact same thing. Before any contemplation of military action, I want to see actual proof (once bitten, twice shy). That does not meat a laptop with fabricated documents procured from the terrorist NEK and originally supplied by the Mossad (just like the good old forged Niger uranium documents of old).
Do you really believe Iran is not after nuclear weapons? You might need to do a little research about the issue. As for the WMD's, Saddam had them, and Saddam used them against his own people. What he did with the later ones, few people probably know.
“As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map,”
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
Personally I don't trust the Iran's President and its Ayatollah. I believe the president of Iran is dangerous and have bad plans. Stoking nuclear stockpile has made the world worry.Taken its posture on its ambition on nuclear electricity and medical use are very doutfull since oil alone can produce electricity and they have alot of that; and there are no medical use of nuclear means. I believe Irans President and its Ayatolah is dangerous because they have a disturbing logic, supporting terrorist like hte Hisbollah, Hamas, Militant Shea of Iraq and are not respecting the United Nation laws.
"they have a disturbing logic, supporting terrorist like hte Hisbollah, Hamas, Militant Shea of Iraq and are not respecting the United Nation laws."
this is because it makes them money. If Isreal was to be recognized as a 2 state country and stop claiming land and the sanctions were dropped there would be less need to supply them.
Current sanctions, Isreal's occupations with our military backing… USA's invasionof Iraq, takeout of their leader and our actions in Afghanistand look just as disturbing & just as disrespecting of International laws.
Taking out another country's leader is against the Geneva convention and UN laws. We didn't kill him ourself but we did arranged it
That being said, Iran will continue to be resistant while it profits them. If we made a better offer it may be different.
who do you think you are attacking? you think iran is weak like iraq? im not even a military expert yet i've counted over 218 ways in which iran can respond militarily against america or israel if they attack! and dont think that america is out of range from iranian military counter attacks either.
A man are you crazy, you totally over-estimate them which is as bad as un-estimating your enemy. With your logic, Iran is the worlds most powerful country. Get real. The US would crush them in a fight, we know it and they know it…
america would win only if nukes are used. that is a truth that america is unwilling to accept.
you tell me the american order of battle and i'll tell you how iran would respond. simple
Invading Iran would be a logistical nightmare, it's just simply a bridge too far even for US. I believe the Iranian people by and large are good and well meaning people more or less effectively held hostage by a corrupt and fanatical gang of thugs who are the real problem. I agree with the post about how we can obliterate Iran's infrastructure with air/missile power, and if we kept our mouths shut and just did it suddenly and without warning, unlike the way we totally announced the scheduled bombing of Iraq, we might even take out the HVT's – i.e. specific humans – successfully.
BUT it would exact a heavy toll on the mostly peaceful and blameless population who don't give a rat's patoot about their government leaders in the first place.
Now, I have no doubt that the nut-case president of Iran would immediately try to annihilate Israel as soon as he had enough nuclear weapons to do so. He wouldn't hesitate one minute. We simply need a POTUS who will not perpetuate the non-assassination clause that prevents us from taking out individual mad-men. We tie our own hands with political-correctness and it has and will continue to get a lot of innocent people killed. Stupidity is not a survival trait.
Another war! Enough is enough! The politicians are not being maimed or murdered in the waars…our troops are!!!!
Just like a football game. The couch potato's sitting around giving their expert opinion. Guess what – China is half way to owning the US with all it's buying of US bonds. You're bankrupt and your industries are stuck in the 70s. Your Rome is falling from under your noses cowboys…Funny watching from a distance.
to bad we can still fuck you up and every other person on this earth if we wanted to.
I'm so special…I'm so special.
Whatever makes you feel better at night.
I imagine addressing the trade deficit is more important than who owns the bonds of who. I suppose government could default on Chinese bonds and totally send the economies of both nations into the toilet.
If there is to be change in Iran it will come from within the power structure. Social change from the masses is too easily crushed by tanks, and the original revolution required motivation from religion and complicitity by the Iranian army, which failed to crush the demonstrators.
If the army makes no moves to support democratic protestors all bets are off, and that's basically the way its been.
When the Islamo-fascists drop a nuclear payload on someone, all of those "potential unforeseen consequences " will seem like reasonable risks in comparison.
For a moment they will but the only target ordered it when they invented the propervertcent in the first place. The after image where western people must comprehensively admit that some type of idiots manage under capitalist rule with no sorrow and some kind of idiots manage under religious rule with no sorrow is all worth that.
The resuting freedomwar will kill all you rich who could not be rich even by your father without the starting grime of stealing land to a king or being the king.
ALL FOR FREE PROPERTYLESS WORLD AYYYYYY.. :) :)
/When/. /When/.
With that logic the Soviets would have nuked us at first opportunity.
@WILLY: "ALL FOR FREE PROPERTYLESS WORLD AYYYYYY.. :) "
That sounds an awful lot like something a person who doesn't actually own any property would say..
@blight: if != onTopic
print "Your reply is gibberish."
Forget about Israel , they are done. The West needs control of Iran and Iraq's oil and Gas deposits asap before China does .
Bribe , cajole and use every method possible to bring about the middle class revolution in Iran . The political egg is cracked in Iran and it is only a matter of time.
Remember Iran's middle class are very pro America and the West.
All America has to do is not fall into the Israeli plan of keeping the anti west status quo in the Middle East by causing a conflict with Iran.
Israel is the real threat as they know that once Iran is done with the Mullahs then Israel is finished as it has no enemy !
ease up on the kool-aid dude…..
hear hear maxture, hear hear
im pretty sure Sun Tzu would only go to war as a very last resort, and when he does, leaves almost nothing to chance. Seems like the greatest warriors really knew the cost of war, in blood and treasure. IRAN will collapse from within, with a little push here and there. Would Sun opt for this plan? I think so.
well BLOT, he who laughs LAST laughs the hardest..and WE WILL BE STANDING AT THE END…
Want to bet?
North Korea is a very serious threat along with Pakistan.Korea because of its crazed leader and Pakistan because it is THE rogue nation in the world. Iran is not going to use a nuclear weapon as it is counter to their long term agenda .
The biggest threat to the West though is Israel and its machinations !
Iran with the right sanctions , assassinations and meddling will see the Mullahs go . Then we have a friend in the Middle East with the largest oil and gas deposits going.
What machinations? If anything, Israel is surprisingly short-sided and is focused on short term local security by targeting Palestinian groups and their leaders in the middle east. That's it. Unless there's manipulation of the United States involved…
Do you really want a country that believes in world domination, and that the holocaust never even happened have nukes?
That country has a president that has no constitutional power over its military, and who doesn't actually deny the holocaust, but questions its numbers, and wonders why in liberal democracies, people who thought they had freedom of speech can be jailed for it. World domination? Where'd you get that gem from?
Of course striking Iran isn't a good option. But it may be the best one.
Do we wait for Iran to start a nuclear war because we feared a lack of oil? Or even Hezbollah?
Wouldn't it have been a good thing to take care of Hiter, Stalin, and Saddam BEFORE they wrecked havock?
Just sayin . . .
Why would Iran start a nuclear war?
Please note the intent behind some of the anti-US comments here, the noble defense of Iran and the ridicule of the US. Even before Iran has the means to back up their bravado, the intent is clear. And it will only get worse. Iran has the western intellectual Left to pave the way.
No. What bravado? Despite what you think, Iran has threatened no one. They have said that they would retaliate if they are attacked, which is their right under international law. Israel and the US however have continuously threatening them.
When you say their intent is clear, what do you mean? Are you referring to the (even accepted by the BBC) fabricated "wipe off the map" story? It didn't happen.
What makes you think that Iran would start a nuclear war?
It is an idiotic concept dreamt up by Israeli interests to get you stirred up. It is absolutely inconceivable that Iran would do that.
You are seriously uninformed. Iran is working on many nuclear facilities. All have been declared, none of them has been shown to be related to a nuclear weapons program and all of them are under the inspection of the UN, which has certified that no uranium has been misappropriated. You really should stop watching Fox propaganda.
********.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-Prolifer…
And you should take your head out of the sand.
We (USA) should always promote peace and always on the defensive mode. Even if rougue nations attack. We should only be on the defensive mode. But we should always be stronger than the enemy when they attack us.
Iran already declared themselve as a nuclear nation. So what does that tells you?
Horse.. carriage guys there is no need for high intensity operations instead target the foriegn companies and government officials allowing Iran to purchase parts, technology and know-how in their countries.
A few black-ops that reveal real or fabricated information about these politicians, CEO's, companies etc or even the occasional wet-op would send the message that greed is no excuse to trade this technology with Iran and there are serious consequences for this kind of reckless action in the name of a few dollars more.
So we're going to do wet-ops against the Chinese and Russian governments?
Where exactly, Do all these Iranian, NORK,CHICOM, etc apologists come from? LOL And on Defense Tech…..
Europe is much closer to Iran than the U.S. I don't see them up in arms and declaring war on Iran. They are waiting for the U.S. to do their dirty work. The only reason that the U.S. is putting up a stink is because of Israel. What have the Jews done for you lately? I remember their deliberate attack on the U.S. Navy ship, the USS LIBERTY where they straifed the decks with both aircraft and patrol boats. We should have attacked Israel and ended these problems. I don't mean to be an isolationist but it is time that Europe fought their own wars. We have bailed them out enough.
In the coming strike against the "Hitlerians" of Iran, Saudi-tankers will probably re-fuel IDF warplanes, because the Saudis can't afford to allow Iran, or even Syria, to go nuclear (–likewise, nor can Egypt allow a nuclear Iran/Syria). I can ASSURE you, a nuclear Iran/Syria WILL beget the Saudis & the Egyptians going in the same direction(nukes). Technology is never used to the End of things–we're always pulling-back, before the last "Nazi" is killed, but the Iranians have nothing (–except the complete Destruction of the "Plan of Islam") we desire. –A non-EU/Globalist Dane of Note, states: USA, –Islamic in 20 years, –EU, in 10, France/England within 5. He said, we can't follow the Nazis, can we? Well, I'm no Nazi, but the Islamists INTEND to "Nazi"…US! Military-industrial complex or not–should we LET THEM?!!! I've still got balls, –Jek Silberstein says "NO!"(–and you're been Told!)
One must assume that Iran will supply terrorist with dirty nukes, and they will not have to be large. In addition if you are so worried about our military numbers, then how about some of you signing on for military duty. We could really use your help right now and in the future. Talk is cheap, action is for honorable men and women that are willing to give all for the defense of their loved ones and America. Be pro-active sign up now.
What is sad, is that we, the United State's of America or our Politician's are worried about IRAN.
Look, I agree that they would use oil as a weapon against us. However, IF, the OIL speculator's were regulated and we would put their dumbazzes in jail, then we would still only have to worry about $2 a gal gas.
The Middle east is NOT the one's gaining from the gas price's now. It is those that have Stock in oil in the US, not the middle east that keep gas price's where they are. The MIDDLE EAST is still getting less than 99 cent a gallon for their oil. Whomever think's that gas price's are or have been high over the last couple of year's, are wrong. The US Gov't and stock holder's have bought off the Speculator's, plus the speculator's have their own stock's.
This has only been a problem over the last 10-12 year's since gas was deregulated. CHECK IT OUT.
As far as Iran. Wow, how long do we let this go on? israel is an Ally, we protect our Allies. Plian and simple. With exception of Obama, and why is that, hmmmm could there be a connection, hmmmmm????
Think of Hezbollah with a nuclear big brother; think of Iran with regional nuclear armed missiles; think of Iran with nuclear armed intercontinental ballistic missiles; think of waiting until there is a justifying event. Think!!! When a maniac says he is going to shoot you, you don't wait for him to return with a gun.
iran is not the one to worry, Obama, Barack H. POTUS (PBUH) ain't gonna attack iran or anybody! I would bet that iran and every other enemy nation will continously attack America and her interest and allies though for some time to come.
Much as palistinian's attack Israel America will sumbit to strike after strike and be expected to stand still and take it.
Waiting to do something about Iran is exactly what happened with Hitler. Hit them now and destroy all military sites. If they do anything continue to pound them into the stone age.
This a sick country with a religion that want war. WE ARE FIGHTING A RELIGIOUS WAR which started with the crusades. End it now by destroying any country that believes it has the right to keep 50% of it's population slaves/second class citizens. Waiting was what allowed WWII in Europe to start.
I would agree with you that it's a religious war in a sense, more a war of civilizations, but it started way, way before the crusades. This war, between eastern tyranny and western societies began arguably with the Trojan war, which was used as the excuse for the original Persian invasion of south eastern Europe, and all the consequent wars that ensued up until Alexander's conquest.
The new Air Force Global Strike Command needs to be utilized by Washington using all of the policies and tactics of the dormer Strategic Air Command. Missles and Bombers need to be placed BACK on alert and very publically targeted on Tehran and all it's nuclear and military facilities.
The timing of an actual Iranian Nuke Strike on Israel will not allow for an equally swift retaliatory strike on Iran by the US. Therefore, the US needs to make it clear that a nuclear strike on Israel by any Islamic nation or terrorist group such as Iran will result in a retaliatory strike by the US on the perpetrators and on every site Islam considers holy tops among which would be Mecca and Medina Moderate Islam will be tolerated, but Radical Islam will be wiped off the face of the Earth if they step over that line. Moderate Islam will pay the price for not having more strenuously opposed the radicals by losing all of their holy sites and a large portion of their population.
If we don't do it; GOD will do it, but I think He wants US to do it as part of His Plan.