January 29, 2006
Iran and the bomb - how long?
"When some moron like Charles Krauthammer claims Iran is now just “months” away from a bomb, you can pretty much ignore him: He has no idea what he is talking about."
Part one of three.
Part Two on Iran's ability to deliver a warhead.
Part 3 on what some of the options are.
A couple of other posts by the same author.
We should invade. What could go wrong?
Wow... that Gary Brecher is... strange.
I've never laughed so hard reading about Iraq, I don't think.
Well, I for one don't see why if Bush gets nuclear bombs, the Iranians shouldn't.
Of course if we're willing to disarm, then maybe we could talk, but until then, this is all satellite photos we saw of Iraq and kettles talking about pots.
(not sure I believe this myself, but with religious fundies running our government, global warming isn't real, neither is evolution, keep burning fossil fuels, embryonic stem cells are murder, other religious fundies don't seem nearly so bad)
N. Korea
I don't think there's much the US can do about it. If we do attack Iran, they'd probably do something like retaliate against their neighbors to disrupt oil supplies. And we'd be totally fooked.
Nuclear technology is sixty years old, ICBM technology is fifty years old.
I'm surprised they've kept the genie in the bottle as long as they have.
Well, I for one don't see why if Bush gets nuclear bombs, the Iranians shouldn't.
True -- but for me the more immediate question is: Why does Israel get to have nukes, but Iran does not? If Western powers want to grasp the nettle of nuclear proliferation, they need to take hold of the whole plant, not just one leaf.
And here is a wholly unconvincing rebuttal from HonestReporting.com, a site dedicated to fighting "anti-Israel bias".
There's a really interesting article in this month's Atlantic about how with Mutually Assured Destruction gone with the USSR, America's overwhelming nuclear capability makes it less safe:
Confronted with the growing nuclear imbalance, Russia and China will be forced to try to redress it; but given America's advantages, that effort, as Lieber and Press note, could take well over a decade. Until a nuclear stalemate is restored—if it ever is—Moscow and Beijing will surely buy deterrence by spreading out their nuclear forces, decentralizing their command-and-control systems, and implementing "launch on warning" policies. If more than half a century of analyzing nuclear dangers and "crisis stability" has taught us anything, it is that all these steps can cause crises to escalate uncontrollably. They could trigger the unauthorized or accidental use of nuclear weapons; this could lead to inadvertent nuclear war.
American military preponderance now embraces the entire "spectrum of conflict," as Pentagon planners put it. That is to say, we're miles ahead of everyone in every type of warfare. But if that preponderance is leading to a world in which Russian and Chinese launch commanders are fingering nuclear hair triggers, the game may not be worth the candle. Without any public scrutiny or debate the United States has emerged as the nuclear hegemon, in possession of a destabilizing first-strike capability. It does not matter whether this has come about by accident or design, or whether America's motives are worthy or malign; the condition itself is the problem. The ramifications of this state of affairs are of the gravest significance to America's security—and the world's. It's time for scrutiny and debate to begin.
Apparently the standard is are you a democracy, scartol. The Palestinians just had a vote too...
I really wonder if there is any non-hypocritical stance other than "throw ALL the damn things away" or live in a continuous state of detente.
Let's all have them. A nuclear deterrent in every home would give us safe neighbourhoods.
Hmm, there's a Tom Lehrer song about that ... Who's Next?.
not sure I believe this myself, but with religious fundies running our government...other religious fundies don't seem nearly so bad.
Their religious fundies are far worse. Ask anyone who's lived under both systems. Better yet, ask a female who's lived under both systems.
Both of them will kill because they believe its what God wants. In that light, I don't think either of them should have nuclear weapons.
A nuclear deterrent in every home would give us safe neighbourhoods.
Yes! A nuclear-armed society is a polite society.
Why does Israel get to have nukes, but Iran does not?
When the president of a country publicly states that he would like to wipe another country off the map, wouldn't letting that country have nuclear weapons be unwise?
Well, gee, StoreyBored, it's not like Israel has done anything like sell nuclear weapons to rogue states (South Africa), or that its antics in Lebanon would give one cause for concern.
>When the president of a country publicly states that he would like to wipe another country off the map, wouldn't letting that country have nuclear weapons be unwise?
Um... when the president of a superpower invades a country that's right next-door to Iran, and generally makes it clear that he has no interest in being checked-or-balanced and is going to do whatever God tells him to, wouldn't letting THAT country have nuclear weapons be unwise? Is it really hard to imagine that Iran is feeling the need of a "deterrent" right now?
Stan & Rodgerd, I actually agree:
If I was an Iranian I would want the Bomb.
But having gotten the Bomb, I would also be very nervous about which of my countrymen had the finger on the button.
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said he would like to wipe Israel off the map. He believes that the Holocaust was a hoax. He believes he's got a direct line to the Big Guy upstairs.
None of Israel's leaders have ever declared they would wipe out any Arab country. They have had the bomb for over thirty years and not used it. They had over 20 nuclear warheads when they were attacked during the Yom Kippur war in 1973 and did not use them. (See here
Iran doesn't have the bomb yet and the President is already talking about using it.
The analogous situation in America is this: Whose finger would you rather have on the American bomb? Bush or Pat Robertson? I'm no fan of Bush, but there is a difference between the two, right?
Another piece.
Actually StoryBored, my understanding is that the President of Iran does not have any real access to power.
Of course, Israel would only use the bomb for defensive purposes. Iran sounds pretty offensive to me, however.
Actually StoryBored, my understanding is that the President of Iran does not have any real access to power.
If so, that does change things a bit. What exactly are his powers?
And who is behind the "scientific" conference they recently announced on Holocaust denial?
I think some people here are trying to draw parallels between US religious fundamentalism and Iranian religious fundamentalism, at their peril.
As rocket said, while we can see the ills of religious zealotry in US (and to a much lesser extent, Canadian) politics, the difference may not be one of kind, but it for darn sure is one of scale.
The argument of "Well, the US and Israel have nukes, why shouldn't Iran?" is foolish nearly to the point of ridiculousness.
Setting aside the fact that since 1945, the US has never detonated a nuclear weapon in the various and numerous wars and armed conflicts, it is not the stated intent of either the US or Israel to commit genocide, whereas to my knowledge every islamic fundamentalist group in that region has the explicit aim of the destruction of all of Israel and jews in the middle east. And that's the rub.
rocket88 says,"their religious fundies are far worse." (than ours)
I'm not so sure. Our religious fundies have not run free rein unchecked. Yet. But we may be on the way.
If you are aware of some of what Pat Roberson et al.
spew, you may develop some insight to just where "our" religious fundies would take us if they had the same power that "their' religious fundies have.
Iran: we're just as fucked up as you guys, so where are our goddam nukes?
I would contend that you made rocket88's point for him, nippurr.
Nuke + kook = fook
Yet, the U.S. is the only one ever to have detonated one in anger...
Like I said, the only solution I can see is noone gets them. Pat Robertson could (it may not be likely) but he could take power in a democracy. Unable to exclude that possibility, and knowing that Iran is *that* possibility, I don't think anyone should be allowed to have such weapons.
Not that everyone SHOULD. I just don't think we have a right to create this double standard because "at the moment, we're not as bad"
Noone is clean enough to have this power.
Which is awkward, because I think we did the right thing in Japan. Had I the power, I would have been forced to use it, in that position. But then to say "only I am ethical enough to wield this power, but you, who hate your enemies more than I hate mine, you are not."
Speaking of Democracy, the Palestinians just voted the people who command the people who blow up women and children. Yay Democracy!
Yeah, not like the US and its client states..
Noone is clean enough to have this power.
Who could disagree with that?
But how do you enforce a complete ban? other than having the U.N. take over the world...
And the prospect of a Pat Robertson or "Rapturist" taking power in the U.S. *is* mighty scary. It's a low probability but not infinitesimally low.
Step 0, stop being dependent on the people you want to control. Stop buying oil from these people who want to destroy Israel, if you're so worried about Israel, or nuclear terrorism.
Step 1, identify the real threats. I don't for a second believe our intelligence services on this. This is another political convenience for Bush to stoke his base and justify putting bases in Iraq. Next thing you'll be telling me they have a secret chemical weapons program, too.
As for step 2? well, if we had the ethical high ground, we could go in and destroy reactors and the world would be with us. But since we have no credibility with the rest of the world, and our intelligence services are probably wrong at identifying reactors and centrifuge yards (decoys), I think we have to content ourselves with the notion that if one of our cities does turn to ash, with Iranian plutonium, the oil of Iran won't ever be burned because it will be too radioactive.
Or we could nuke them now, preemptively. I mean, if they are really dead set on destroying their neighbors and "Death to America", why leave the threat sitting there.
Oh right, a complete ban. Well, you can't. But we'ld have an easier time of preventing rogue states from getting them if we stopped acting like a rogue state ourselves.
Most people agree that we'd all be better off if nobody had nukes (although a case can be made that large-scale war would be more likely without a nuclear deterrant). The fact is, however, it's not going to happen.
So the issue is: Who should be allowed to have them, and who should decide? Let's tackle the second question first...Of all the countries that *do* have them: USA, Russia, UK, France, China, India, Pakistan, and Israel; I most trust the US and UK to decide who should and shouldn't have weapons development programs - and even to unilaterally destroy development facilities if need be. As for the first question: Iran is very near the top of my list of countries that shouldn't be allowed to develop nukes. I hope it doesn't take force to stop them, but it's better than the alternative. If they're allowed to proceed, Israel *will* attack them preemptively...and then loads of shit will hit a very large fan. Better to nip this in the bud...
(Pat Robertson is a TV personality who generates controversy for the purpose of increasing ratings. Whether or not he actually believes what he says is irrelevant. He represents the political right about as much as Noam Chomsky represents the left.)
Pat Robertson doesn't represent the political right *as it exists today*. Agreed.
I can imagine a scenario though where he could though. As I said before it's a *low probability* scenario.
Nevertheless:
Nuclear bombs are detonated in three American cities: NYC, LA and Chicago.
Note how 3000 deaths on 9/11 took the U.S. immediately rightward.
Question: How far right would the US swing after 3,000,000 deaths?
Suddenly Pat Robertson is the reasoned voice of calm.
I shudder to think at what would happen if terrorists detonated nuclear bombs sufficient to kill 3M people in our three largest cities. The call for retribution, in varied forms, would be long and loud.
But worse, I think that just might break us, economically and internationally. And that, I think, would precipitate a third world war, one with at least some nuclear engagements. I don't think that the big players would go for the total MAD nuke-out, but once that particular door is open, all those small tactical nukes whose use has in the past only been the subject of military theory would at once moved over into the realm of tactical expedience. And that is not a good thing.
Let me add: The call for retribution, in varied forms, would be long and loud, and we would almost certainly heed it.
Pat may not be the one with his finger on the button, but the Christian Coalition and their money have a lot more influence over the Republican elite that I'm comfortable with.
"The argument of "Well, the US and Israel have nukes, why shouldn't Iran?" is foolish nearly to the point of ridiculousness."
I wouldn't phrase the argument that way -- I would say that those countries with nukes have no moral authority to say that other countries should not be allowed to develop them too. I disagree with those weapons completely, but I also believe that those who do have them have no right to forbid others from doing the same.
As for the case of Iran -- I can't imagine that it would ever be allowed to get to that point where Iran actually had weapons. Israel would send out a few fighter-bombers, blow up the plants, set the country's plans back another 20 years. Wouldn't be the first time.
That's a good article. The insane part is the U.S. 's massive tariff on imports of ethanol from Brazil. Talk about a Step backwards.
Israel would send out a few fighter-bombers, blow up the plants
Now why would ye be thinking that?
This is exactly why the UN security council needs to grow some balls and force Iran to comply, with real threats of force to back up the demands. It would be far better for mid-east stability if the UN were to approve a bomb attack on Iran's Uranium enrichment facilities than for Israel to do it themselves.
We really don't want to be encouraging Brazilian ethanol production; you're cutting down rainforest to grow sugarcane. We should also be happy that ethanol is NOT really a viable energy source, because it conveniently ties food prices into the global energy market. You'll potentially have countries letting their citizens starve so that they can make a killing on the global commodities market.
Solar, wind, tides, nuclear. I'm still not quite sure we haven't taken the nuclear test site and turned it into a solar farm for the Southwest U.S.
What I read seems to say that ethanol is a viable energy source. Also, new methods allow the use of waste products such as corn stalks and husks, thereby not threatening the food supply.
Anything to back up your statements, Mord?
The wikipedia article on Brazil's Ethanol
And the July 2005 issue of Bioscience talked about here.
Thats just a quick google, I heard these problems originally other locations.
But honestly, how much cropland do *you* think needs to be sacrificed or created to generate the biomass to sustain current energy needs and liberate us from oil?
Not to mention you're still creating CO2, so if you think global warming is a problem, ethanol is just a stop-gap.
"Finally, although our analysis suggests that ethanol is preferable to gasoline from a dynamic footprint perspective, this does not necessarily mean that it would be unproblematic if sugarcane ethanol became a dominant fuel in the transportation sector. If the 200 million cars in Europe ran on ethanol, they would require some 40 to 100 Mha of land (7 to 15 times the area used today for sugarcane in Brazil). Clearly, the scale of the potential demand is a cause for concern about potential negative environmental impacts. Other, complementary ways to solve the energy problem for transport are thus warranted."
I don't disagree that it is useful, but encouraging Brazil to grow sugarcane is a bad idea, and thats what your original post was talking about. If we make it ourselves from waste, it will never supply all our needs, but its better than nothing.
Also most of these studies are limited to the transport problem alone. Ethanol could NEVER replace oil in terms of electricity production and as industrial fuel. We're burning about 100 years stored global biomass every year in terms of oil, last I checked.
I may have said that wrong, it took 100 years worth of global biological productivity (way back when) to produce 1 years worth of oil consumption. Not biomass.
Also, here's an article about concerns about ethanol being tied to the price of food. And of course they say that they'll just produce more food and more fuel simultaneously, but if you can make more money producing fuel from corn than selling it as food, obviously the price of food will rise.
It could make sustainable agriculture a lot harder, that's for sure. Maybe it will reduce our addiction to high fructose corn syrup?
Well, actually I was looking at Ethanol more for the US, to get our financial interests out of the mideast. And according to the article I've linked to, it could be produced with the waste from current corn crops. So we eat the corn, make fuel from the stalks and husks. So it doesn't have to take land or resources from the food supply.
"Instead of coming exclusively from corn or sugar cane as it has up to now, thanks to biotech breakthroughs, the fuel can be made out of everything from prairie switchgrass and wood chips to corn husks and other agricultural waste. This biomass-derived fuel is known as cellulosic ethanol."
Still less of a finite supply than oil. Especially since flexible fuel cars can drive either or. We wouldn't have to stop using gasoline, but a car could drive on gas one day, ethanol the next.
... make more money producing fuel from corn than selling it as food, obviously the price of food will rise.
Which would actually be good for developing countries who are still heavily agricultural...
Solar, wind, tides, nuclear.
And geothermal!
Its just a question of amounts. I certainly don't oppose turning waste material into ethanol. But, there is a scientific debate about whether when you factor in the oil that is consumed to make fertilizer, crush limestone, transport corn to factories, boil the 8% alcohol solution to distill the ethanol, whether one achieves breakeven.
Right now, the chaff, the waste from corn ethanol production, is used to fire the boilers for the distillation process. So if you're now going to use the waste directly, through cellulose degrading bacteria to produce the ethanol, then there is going to be another cost associated with the distillation.
Its just not that simple. Solar panels, the math is pretty much figured out. Ethanol, well, the technology still needs to evolve, at least in my understanding. It could be that the studies I've been reading are by oil company shills, but its complicated enough that the environmental impact probably isn't negligible, and it won't completely cut our fossil dependence. We *might* be better off with natural gas, if ethanol isn't a net energy producing process. If it appears to be a net producer, the net is either from sunshine (at most a 2% efficient recovery from photosynthesis, compared to 10% from photovoltaics), or from unrecoverable soil losses.
Iran: who holds power.
Older beeb article, but still accurate as far as I know.
"Supreme Leader
The role of Supreme Leader was established by Ayatollah Khomeini, and placed him at the top of Iran’s political power structure. The Supreme Leader - currently Ayatollah Ali Khamenei - appoints the head of the judiciary, the clergy members on the powerful Council of Guardians, the commanders of all the armed forces, Friday prayer leaders and the head of radio and TV. He also confirms the president's election. The leader is chosen by the clerics who make up the Assembly of Experts."
and
"It is the Supreme leader, not the president, who controls the armed forces."
All hail Supreme Leader Bush!
For those trying to keep track in the Plame case, this is a very handy guide to the main players.
Thanks for the Beeb article on Iran's power structure, poly.
One former defense official, who still deals with sensitive issues for the Bush Administration, told me that the military planning was premised on a belief that “a sustained bombing campaign in Iran will humiliate the religious leadership and lead the public to rise up and overthrow the government.” He added, “I was shocked when I heard it, and asked myself, ‘What are they smoking?’”
Oh, the bombs. They are tactical nukes.
I wish Bush were dead.
Well. I guess if there's a full-fledged attack on Iran, the army's gonna need more soldiers. So, draft would be instated, right?
Ah. I guess that, if THAT doesn't make the USA population finally wake up and face the actions of the bumbling morons they elected, well, nothing else will.
So many things we've all seen, no reaction aside from a very vocal minority. Surely this would make a difference for the other 51%, eh?
Eh?
>So, draft would be instated, right?
No, it wouldn't be necessary, as all the people with the 'support our troops' magnets on their cars would voluntarily enlist.
Right?
Nukes. No soldiers necessary.
More on the buildup to Iraq.
I would love to see the Iran memos that must be flying around at the moment.
In one sense, I cannot believe that there is even the slightest chance of a strike against Iran. Not with 150,000 US troops pinned down in Iraq. But on the other hand, I would never have thought it possible that a $250 billion dollar war would be started just for the hell of it either.
Nuclear strike in Iran? Meh. Hope he's wrong but I wouldn't care to bet on it.
US outsourcing special ops, intelligence to Iraq terror group, intelligence officials say
US military, intelligence officials raise concern about possible preparations for Iran strike
On the blue: The Last Stand
I know, lets sell their ancient historical artifacts. That'll show 'em.
1. It is perfectly understandable that Iran wants the bomb. The fact is that deterrance works. Ask Pakistan if you don't believe it. There is absolutely no doubt that India would have invaded and taken over Pakistan a few years ago if Pakistan hadn't had the bomb.
2. I always laugh when people say that we should trust Isreal because it is a functioning democracy. Approximately half of the citizens of Isreal, the Arabs, have no legal rights. If you consider apartheid to be democracy, i guess that's okay.
3. Considering how many countries have the bomb, and how many of those are in states of erratic flux, sooner or later someone who shouldn't will get hold of a bomb. All it would take is one nuke in the middle of Wall Street to cause world wide economic collapse, martial law, and the end of democracy.
There is absolutely no doubt that India would have invaded and taken over Pakistan a few years ago if Pakistan hadn't had the bomb.and you base this statement on what, exactly?
Approximately half of the citizens of Isreal, the Arabs, have no legal rights.arab israelis make up 15% to 20% of the israeli population (depending on whether you include residents of east jerusalem). i woudl say that they are discriminated against, but they do have legal rights. they have the right to vote and there are 12 arab israelis in the 120-member knesset.
I base it on reports from India itself. Basically officials there have admitted that the only reason they didn't invade Pakistan when the two countries came to serious blows a few years ago was because of Pakistan's nukes. India knew that they had an overwhelming superiority in conventional forces and could have, relatively easily, captured all of Pakistan. If they had done that Pakistan made it clear that they would respond with nukes.
Dude, I heard from like this Indian official dude at Shalimar - you know, that place in the Mall where you get that curried shit - anyway they were all like "Yo, we're gonna invade Pakistanistan" but then like those other dudes were all like "Yo I'll bomb you motherfucker" and anyways the Indian dudes were all half arabs and they didn't even have the right to go to the bathroom dude. It was fucking HARSH dude.
I don't think these have been posted, sites about Iran's military and a little history.
Those opposed to nuclear annihilation are appeasers and guilty of "handwringing"
I could have used a touch of nuclear winter back in July, but it's cooled off now, thanks.
No link, but some of the "journalists" on Fox "News" are starting to backpedal. Along the lines of "It's not so bad if Iran has a nuclear industry, as long as it's for domestic energy". Then they had an in depth look at Eva Longoria's career.
Yes To India, No To Iran: Bush Administration Sends Contradictory Message On Nuclear Programs
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has called on U.S. President George W. Bush to participate in a "direct television debate with us," so Iran can voice its point of view on how to end world predicaments.
"But the condition is that there can be no censorship, especially for the American nation,"
Bring it on baby, I would pay to watch
King Abdullah II of Jordan: "I don't think the Middle East could afford another war... A war with Iran would sort of open a Pandora's Box and one that I don't think the Middle East would recover from."
A Western diplomat called it "deja vu of the pre-Iraq war period".
You don't say...
Yeah, but they learned from their mistakes, so it's all cool.
In a replay of Iraq, a battle is brewing over intelligence on Iran
I wonder how Ahmadinejad feels about Anousheh Ansari.
I don't know about Ahmadinejad, but I think she makes for one hell of a gorgeous astronaut...
Sources: August terror plot is a 'fiction' underscoring police failures
Ah hell, wrong thread.
Common sense says U.S. won’t attack Iran. But who says common sense is guiding this White House?
Iran: US-led exercises aimed at fomenting crises
Hope my tinfoil hat has not completely flaked away
The US lies (if ye wish to be harsh) or is misinformed (if ye wish to be diplomatic).
The truth is not in them, so who cares what they say?
New from Seymour Hersh: Is a damaged Administration less likely to attack Iran, or more?
Hersh: Bush, Cheney Stovepiping Intelligence On Iran, Hiding Information From CIA
From the Hersh New Yoker piece (long read, but a very good one):
...intelligence professionals are always aghast when Presidents ask for stuff in the raw. They see it as asking a second grader to read ‘Ulysses.’
Heh!
“It’s 1938 and Iran is Germany. And Iran is racing to arm itself with atomic bombs,”
Benjamin Netanyahu, the Likud leader, in a speech in Los Angeles last week.
EXCLUSIVE: Iranian Weapons Arm Iraqi Militia
WASHINGTON, Nov. 30, 2006 — U.S. officials say they have found smoking-gun evidence of Iranian support for terrorists in Iraq: brand-new weapons fresh from Iranian factories. According to a senior defense official, coalition forces have recently seized Iranian-made weapons and munitions that bear manufacturing dates in 2006.
Iran Article Is Blocked Amid Dispute on Cause
Redacted Version of Original Op-Ed
Here's that redacted NYTimes op-ed on the author's website: What We Wanted to Tell You About Iran
Scary stuff. Why is this story not Beebworthy?
And maybe this is *exactly* the type of thing, h-dawgitty, that jb meant as worthy of its own fpp?
I considered that, but I'm especially picky about posting political links to the frontpage, and this is still essentially a rumor.
(or a contingency)
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's office said it would not respond to the claim. "We don't respond to publications in the Sunday Times," said Miri Eisin, Olmert's spokeswoman.
Israeli Minister of Strategic Threats Avigdor Lieberman also declined to comment on the report.
They're not exactly denying the report outright...
Maenwhile, Dubya shops for new warheads (NYT, ususal hassles apply).
"ususal"? Freudian slip, maybe.
Shit. Everyone else is getting new nukes, so we need some now, too?
What is this, high school?
*gives nunia a wedgie*
It's been a while...
Yeah, my sores had all but healed.
*wrestles smt to the ground until he cries uncle*
Just in case you haven't had the shit scared out of you lately.
So Ralph, how is the "camp" looking these days? I hope I still have an open spot out back...
I give, uncle!!!
It's a little snowy, but the beer bunker is almost fully stocked. Nunia was supposed to clear the rocks away, but she keeps hugging them and giving them pet names.
Yeah, uh-huh, they didn't know it was the Iranian consulate... yup... and they surely don't know the nationalities of the individuals they've detained, sure 'nuff.
Pete, I keep thinking stormtroopers...
I'll call this one Little Tosser, because I can throw it just hard enough to break the windshield out of Ralph's truck from here.
Pet rocks eh?
*rifles through pockets*
*pulls out my best friend, Henrietta*
*gives nunia a much-needed hug*
And it's 1, 2, 3
What are we fightin' for?
Don't ask me, I don't give a damn
The next stop's Iraq-Iran.
And it's 5, 6, 7
Open up the pearly gates
Well, there ain't no time to wonder why
Whoopee....we're all gonna die.
[from the comments of above link]
The NY Times Op Ed piece was quite a read. I believe that's the first time I've run across such redactions... Thanks for the linkage!
All kinds of media comment today about how Bush has finally achieved bi-partsan support. Unfortunately for him it is bi-partisan opposition to the senseless tactics he outlined in his speech and his apparent planning for not an exit strategy from Iraq, but an entrance strategy into Iran.
Can we please connect this thread to the LSD thread so that I can turn on, tune in and drop out?
In other nuke news: After Negotiating India Nuclear Deal, State Dept. Official Gets Lucractive Job Lobbying For India
Cheny: Iran fishing in troubled waters
This is bound to get better folks... just wait
Military gear bound for Iran, China traced to Pentagon surplus sales
Oh right, and I bet you're going to make some crack about how Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush were involved in a conspiracy to sell arms to Iran so that they would keep the American hostages "on ice" until after the 1980 election!
Well . . you should. 'Cause that's pretty darned despicable.
Move over eBay, now there's something meatier: Pentagon Surplus!
I'm planning to swoop in at the last minute and get this bad boy... current bid is still $0.00!! Hoot!
Heh!.
Damascus is lookin' kinda nice these days as well...
As Bush's War Strategy Shifts to Iran, Christian Zionists Gear Up for the Apocalypse
Iran announces new short-range missile tests as a second U.S. carrier is dispatched to the Persian Gulf.
*cues The Imperial March theme*
The Middle East isn't a region to be dominated by Iran. The Gulf isn't a body of water to be controlled by Iran. That's why we've seen the United States station two carrier battle groups in the region.
Nicholas Burns, U.S. Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs, in his speech to Gulf Research Center.
Iran has converted one of its most powerful ballistic missile into a satellite launch vehicle.
Escalation of US Iran military planning part of six-year Administration push
Top Cheney Aide: 2007 Is ‘The Year Of Iran,’ U.S. Attack ‘A Real Possibility’
Bush-Backed Shiite Group Receiving Weapons Shipments From Iran
Happy Valentines! With Love, Dick.
And yes, I hope not! Though, all the "arrows" seem to be flying in the same direction...
> US sponsored terrorism? Let's hope not!
it's always gone so well in the past.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi:
I do believe that Congress should assert itself, though, and make it very clear that there is no previous authority for the president, any president, to go into Iran.
Here's how it's gonna go down:
Israel will attack Iran's nuclear facilities in a surprise bombing run. Iran will, of course, retaliate with futile missile attacks on Israel. Now the US can jump in under the guise of protecting their ally; and nobody in congress (R or D) is gonna vote to stop them, for fear of losing support in the upcoming elections.
Iran hangs man convicted of Revolutionary Guards attack
Islamic Republic News Agency quoted an unnamed official as saying on Friday that Zehi confessed that the attacks were part of U.S. plans to provoke ethnic and religious violence in Iran.
US 'Iran attack plans' revealed
BBC security correspondent Frank Gardner says the trigger for such an attack reportedly includes any confirmation that Iran was developing a nuclear weapon - which it denies.
Alternatively, our correspondent adds, a high-casualty attack on US forces in neighbouring Iraq could also trigger a bombing campaign if it were traced directly back to Tehran.
Democratic leaders are stripping from a military spending bill for the war in Iraq a requirement that President Bush gain approval from Congress before moving against Iran.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and other leaders agreed to remove the requirement concerning Iran after conservative Democrats as well as other lawmakers worried about its possible impact on Israel
The Seymour Hersh Mystery: A Journalist Writing Bloody Murder… And No One Notices
“We’ve got the ability to capture a nice bunch of blue-eyed blond-haired officers and feed them to our fighting cocks,” he said.
Language is funny.
This is not good: Fifteen British Navy personnel have been captured at gunpoint by Iranian forces, the Ministry of Defence says.
Just read that rory. Hope it's not going to be a Gulf of Tonkin flashpoint.
Yeah, not exactly the greatest time for such an incident. Here's to hoping that they can resolved this situation quickly and diplomatically (i.e., before Bushco jumps in to "save" the ally).
Not to worry, lads! Just 442 more days to go.
Cue Nightline theme. Straighten Koppel's rug.
US Show of Force in Persian Gulf
"This is not in response to recent events" says some Navy dude.
Second letter apparently written by Faye Turney released by Iranian embassy in London:
Isn't it time for us to start withdrawing our forces from Iraq and let them determine their own future?
This story is starting to take a not-so-good-sounding twist.
Starting to?
I'd say it was bad news fron the start. What on earth does Iran hope to gain from this?
What, with Bush referring to the seized Brits as hostages, and an American gone missing in Iran - - I can't help but wonder if we're being primed.
What..? Oh, yes -- allright.
*cough*
I am shocked -- shocked -- to find that gambling is going on in here!
We good? Can I go now?
The American -- described as older and retired -- is believed to have been in Iran working for an independent author/producer, trying to set up an interview, several senior U.S. officials said.
If I were a more cynical sort, I'd say that description, plus the lack of a name, suggested a covert operative of some kind. Luckily, I'm not that suspicious, and I'm sure no-one else here is, either.
Homunculus, I love your posts but Salon.com can go fuck themselves. (register to read this article, my ass)
Dear Salon: Zee internets, Zay are supposed to be free.
Ahmadinejad is a dangerous politician.
> (register to read this article, my ass)
Or you can click a couple of times and get a 24-hour pass.
Or you can click a couple of times and get a 24-hour pass.
No.
Never.
That's the main reason why Salon.com sucks. They just don't get it.
I will never be the poodle through the hoop.
Its worth it.
Although I share the sentiment, it's not like Salon is Clear Channel or Fox.
Salon.com sucks because their writers don't work for free?
I will never be the poodle through the hoop.
I hope you don't watch TV, or listen to the radio as well. As much as I hate to click on an ad to get to the meat of a Salon.com article, I generally find that I was glad that I did. What zee petesbests said.
Britain's government is vulnerable in the region. It has already reduced troop strength at Basra in the south of Iraq, and the British public's patience with the deployment has waned. Surrounded by Iraqi Shiites, many of them pro-Iranian, the remaining contingent of British troops in Iraq might well face large and possibly deadly public protests if the British were to attack Iran. In essence, the small British garrison in Basra is itself hostage to Iran's latest political gambit, and it is therefore unlikely that Tony Blair will resort to military action...
...the incident could hasten the departure of the rest of the British troops from Basra. If a great power cannot so much as avoid having its military personnel kidnapped in a region where it has a major garrison, that is a sign that it is overextended and must either commit more forces or leave.
A failed American attempt to abduct two senior Iranian security officers on an official visit to northern Iraq was the starting pistol for a crisis that 10 weeks later led to Iranians seizing 15 British sailors and Marines.
Sheez, don't you people ever get tired of blaming botched American military action for the current problems in the Iraq region? I mean - it was 10 weeks ago - let it go already!
Mr. Interception
Go ahead suckle on the teat of the Salon for all I care... damned hippies
That jpost site is covered in ads. I hope I didn't catch teh capitalizm.
Hippies!? I'm punk, baby, punk!
*mists self with patchouli oil*
But you are forced do do nothing. Zee internet is free there. Free I say. Nothing force fed. --No "do this and then you may read". Pffft.
Deuce!
Sorry for the derail. Please carry on with the liberal pinko agenda
Agenda Item 2: Liberally painting the walls pink, then making all the puppies become communists.
Capt. called it here first:
Officials: Disappearance of American in Iran routine
Relatives of a former FBI agent who has been missing in Iran for three weeks said Wednesday they are worried and doing "everything possible" to find him. U.S. officials, meanwhile, downplayed the disappearance as routine.
Yay!
The peaceful conclusion to the Iran hostage drama suggests that the US and UK could achieve more with diplomacy than with threats of force.
Nine eleven! NIiiiiiiiNe Eleeeeeveeennn!!one1! Geez, has that guy missed everything the Bush administration has stood for regarding foreign relations?? Nine frickin 11, Commie McWussydrawers!
Kill! Spend! Quagmate! Terrah terrah terrah!
Shocyk and Awe!
Iran has shown the British what kind of people we really are: without honour and without shame.
Iran plans book, CD on Britons' detention
"The childish British play-acting after the release of the sailors, instead of thanking Iran for its generous and kindly behavior, once again demonstrated the British aggressive nature and their lack of respect for international conventions," the Iranian general said.
Found in the Comment is Free article:
The goody bags given to the released sailors as they left Iran contained a "load of junk", sailor Arthur Batchelor has complained.
Bonded at Birth: How a CIA Coup d'État in Iran and My Life Became One
From the Bonded at Birth link:
In my solitude, I wonder how my neighbors in New York will treat me if a war breaks out. Will they display American flag decals on their windows? Will they tie yellow ribbons to trees?
Not this New Yorker.
Excellent links, homunculus...
Thanks, homunculus - this ought to be required reading.
This is high treason on the part of ABC.
*hides eyes from homunculus' link*
Oh yeah right! Like the U.S. would even think about encouraging some kind of removal of a democratically elected government in Iran! Pffft! Hey, it must get cold up there on Jupiter where your tinfoil-hat crowd lives! Ha ha!
Bush met with Dobson and conservative Christian leaders to rally support for Iran policy
Yo ho-ho and a bottle of rum!!
Many people in a position to know are talking about the possibility of losing a city to nuclear or biological or chemical attack. And if we can lose one we can lose ten.
"If we can lose ten we can lose a hundred," he added, “especially if North Korea and Russia and China pile on.”
Talk about tinfoil mad-hattery! Someone please wake me when the dream is over. Oops, it already is...
Dobson described Bush as “upbeat and determined and convinced, adding, “I wish the American people could have sat in on that meeting we had.”
*spittake*
Yeah, don't we all? What an incredibly novel idea - making the public aware of what's being discussed in government and give them a voice in that discussion! Why didn't someone think of that earlier?
“The world looked at Hitler and just didn't believe him and tried to appease him the way we're hearing in Washington today,” Dobson remarked. “You know, the President seems to me does understand this, as I told you from that meeting I had with him the other day, but even there it feels like somebody ought to be standing up and saying, ‘We are being threatened and we are going to meet this with force -- whatever's necessary.’”
Dobson continued, “Some of our listeners might not like that but I tell you, if we didn't stand up to Hitler, we'd be speaking German today.”
Sigh.
Nuclear weapons contribute to global
thermonuclear warwarming, which doesn't exist.
Hey, I know; let's nuke North Korea.
Oh good.
So, what's going on here? Is the US going to start a war with Iran? Can Congress prevent that, considering the amazing amount of power Bush has bestowed himself with?
Also, I like how they say there are nine ships but only show eight in the picture.
C'mon minda25, everyone knows that the ninth "ship" is a tactical nuclear submarine just below water's surface - eagerly waiting to launch its glory!
One of the worst parts about current events is sugarmilktea only thinks that's a joke.
On the contrary, Pez:
1. I think there is a lot of serious, far-reaching, and deadly consequential shit going down at this very moment (in regards to Iran and the Gulf region in general).
2. I have a cousin on one of those subs.
3. I don't think it's a joke, although my comment was tongue-in-cheek...
I think Pez was accusing you of being right, not of being flippant.
As my name is Phil, I always get confused when people seemingly accuse me of being flippant. And a philistine. And a Philippine bald eagle. And Phyllis Diller...
Thanks for your input though, quid, as I am not able to make these differentiations on occasion.
I was actually agreeing with you sugarmilktea, though trying to make a joke out of that agreement. I would not be even a little suprised if what you said was in fact the case, but I was trying to make light of it, because frankly it's depressing to be reminded that the people we have in power are looking for reasons to get us in a fight with Iran that we can neither afford nor win, (at least not in any useful sense of the word).
Thanks for the clarification, Pez. I suppose on occasion I, like everyone else on these internets, can mis-read comments (with the human vocal element of tone effectively missing, it happens to me more often than I would like). My apologies for having assumed otherwise...
Yes, it is depressing.
fight with Iran that we can neither afford nor win
Why do you hate ill-conceived, unbelievably expensive intractable occupations of geopolitically unstable regions?
THIS IS FUCKING WEIRD!!
Someone keeps calling me, and my colleagues, this morning. The number is showing on the caller ID as originating from Iran.
The last call I just took:
Me: Hello?
Man X from Iran: Where are you from??!
Me: I'm sorry, who are you calling for?
Man X from Iran: What is your name?? Where are you from?
Me: My name is Phil. Who are you trying to reach?
Man X from Iran: I LOVE YOU! I LOVE YOU! GOODBYE!!
He's left voicemails, and keeps calling. Needless to say, it's a bit bizarre. Colleagues are already half-joking that it's a warning of impending t377orusht attacks! How should I respond if he calls again?
"Congratulations! You've won tickets to see REO Speedwagon, Saturday June 20th at SLAPCO Park Amphitheatre! Who's the station that Rocks Your World?!?"
Now, smt, coming out of the closet is hard for anyone, especially men in Iran. Be as supportive as you can. But be sure to tell him you're taken -- you don't need to give this guy any false hope.
I'm equally torn between both suggestions.
That is some spooky shit.
It's probably Ahmadinejad taunting the infidel again.
It appears the calls have stopped. I'm feeling a bit confused by this manly love from Iran. The eerie distant voice thick with accent... sounding as if he were truly saying "goodbye" in the literal sense.
It's a bit disconcerting considering we are 50 floors up in Manhattan, and that we manage untold billons across the globe... I still have my itchy 9/11 nerves.
ABC News Reports CIA Cleared to Mess With Iran; Readers Call Them Traitors
Umm, I'm no expert at running an Axis of Evil state or terrorist network or anything, but wouldn't standard operating procedure be to assume that the other guys are trying to mess with you and listen in on your plans and stuff?
OR
Umm, I'm no expert at running a superpower or anything, but wouldn't standard operating procedure be to make Axis of Evil states or terrorist networks assume that you're trying to mess with them and listen in on your plans and stuff?
Their plans. Obv.
From the ABC report:
Bush has signed a "nonlethal presidential finding" that puts into motion a CIA plan that reportedly includes a coordinated campaign of propaganda, disinformation and manipulation of Iran's currency and international financial transactions.
After reading this, the calls we received this morning seem even more suspicious. Another colleague just played back a voicemail she recieved, and this time the caller simply repeated "I'm Iranian" over and over. Bizarre. The company I work for is a huge player in so-called international financial transactions.
And uh, following the tone of Capt's comments, DUH!!
Sugarmilktea's caller sounds funnny/ or some sort of strange psych-ops stuff, but I really don't want it to be us, (or rather them representing us) because I'd like to think we could do better, ya know? On the other hand, yeah it does seem like a fairly large coincidence.
fwiw, caller id spoofing is over-the-counter now, apparently.
Were it not for the accent and tell-tell international long distance delay, I might be game for thinking the caller ID was spoofed. Nah, I'm not going to buy it on this one.
All in all, about 5 coworkers received these bizarre calls. The calls were made to our direct-dial numbers, which are not readily available to the general public. Had the calls come on one or two lines, perhaps I would cast it aside as silly pranksters.
'Fer the love of American Idol, the calls have begun again!!
First, a male caller with the usual "Hi, how are you? Goodbye!" And now, a new tactic as I've just received three calls in a row from a female caller.
In the first one, she used an overly-seductive sounding voice, "Haalooww! Hiiiii!" (I could hear males in the background laughing).
The last call, just moments ago, she asked me if I am able to speak Farsi. Anyone able to help me out on some quick Farsi slang to make the call more intersting?
My colleague just received one as well, the caller said, "I will see you tomorrow".
Perhaps I will call in sick tomorrow...
I take it you are recording these calls, smt?
Could it be just some inter-office prank?
Pleeze . . fundle . . my buttocks.
(Or: a few Farsi phrases for the friendly phone phreakers)
I'm not recording the calls, as I'm quite busy here today (yet, I always seem to find time for MoFi!), and I didn't think to carry my digital recorder with me today.
Definitely not an inter-office prank.
Thanks, pete!! I'm going to have a go-at some of these Farsi phrases next time they call. See where it gets me...
That link leads to a blank page for me, homunculus. Perhaps it's been updated, link changed...
Hmm, it works for me. Maybe you need a cookie.
Bingo. My PC at work is so eager to eat the cookies, but the Mac at home "resists". Thanks!
Thanks for depressing me this evening, h-dogg!
I don't know if there's any hope left. If it is out there somewhere, it does not reside within the existing two-party system. All I can think is that the US is one step closer to a major defining moment in its history... It's going to rain shit and piss before the sun shines again.
Thanks for depressing me this evening, h-dogg!
It's not about you, sugarmilktea. I'm just flirting with Medusa.
Damn, I hate to be a third wheel!
Bush Will Veto Any Antiwar Measures By Congressional Dems On Iraq -- And Iran
On Heels Of Senate’s Iran Vote, Brownback Declared I’m Ready To Strike Iran
Yeah, 'cause a war on three fronts is EXACTLY what we have the resources for right now. *sticks head back in bucket*
We need regime change. Quick.
of course I mean in Washington, DC; not in Tehran
C'mon people, do you honestly think that the US would even consider striking Iran?? Puleeeez!
Obviously the current Bush Administration is concerned with the ongoing effort in Iraq. Like, really!!
*makes considerable contribution to the Canada fund*
Iranian Unit to Be Labeled 'Terrorist': U.S. Moving Against Revolutionary Guard
November cannot come quickly enough. Wait! November next year? Shit.
I bet Dick Cheney loved playing Risk when he was a kid. Too bad he never grew up.
Too bad he must have sucked at Risk.
I hope the US *does* attack Iran.
*readies the car for the journey to Ralph's camp*
Ahmadinejad steps up war of words with US over nuclear aims
Oh yeah, that's helpful. Sometimes I almost forget that their president is even stupider than ours.
When Bush Comes to Iran: The view of American tough talk from Tehran.
Sources confirm Israeli airstrike on Syria
Sources in the U.S. government and military confirmed to CNN's Barbara Starr that the airstrike did happen, and that they are happy to have Israel carry the message to both Syria and Iran that they can get in and out and strike when necessary.
My bolding. The Iran "name-dropping" continues...
Wait a minute...if Bush is like Hitler *and* Saddam Hussein...then that means Saddam was like Hitler...which means Bush was right to get rid of him...which means *head asplodes*
Best not to think about it, dear.
Sy Hersh on Bush and Iran: Shifting targets: New Propaganda push to attack their Revolutionary Guard
Intel Community To Release Iran Reports To Slow Bush War Machine
Is anyone else enjoying the new subplot to this story, with Putin jumping out from behind the curtain and thumbing his nose at Bush?
Now, that gives me a chuckle...
What should generals do if Bush orders a foolish attack on Iran?
The Secret History of the Impending War with Iran That the White House Doesn't Want You to Know
Great read. I especially liked the ending (picking up the kids toys, nobody is listening, etc... rings true for me!!).
Excellent stuff.
This week's Frontline had quite a bit on that Swiss fax, and how the Bush administration rebuffed all attempts on the part of Iranian reformers to come to any sort of agreement whatsoever, thus exacerbating the situation all round.
Can't make the link to the article work for some reason, but an excellent piece in this week's Newsweek by Fareed Zakaria: Stalin, Mao And … Ahmadinejad? Hysteria Over Iran
"...The American discussion about Iran has lost all connection to reality. ... Iran has an economy the size of Finland's and an annual defense budget of around $4.8 billion. It has not invaded a country since the late 18th century. The United States has a GDP that is 68 times larger and defense expenditures that are 110 times greater. Israel and every Arab country (except Syria and Iraq) are quietly or actively allied against Iran. And yet we are to believe that Tehran is about to overturn the international system and replace it with an Islamo-fascist order? What planet are we on?"
ElBaradei: Military Strike On Iran ‘Would Lead Absolutely To Disaster’
Remember, remember the fifth of November: Bush meeting with Erdogan
Won't stop the US invading.
Won't stop the US & Israel from making practice runs on Syria...
Yup, don't doubt it a bit. If not the beginning of next year, before Bush leaves office. Assuming he does, of course.
The Neoconservative Agenda to Sacrifice the Fifth Fleet – The New Pearl Harbor
Wait, what?
Presently, it is led by the USS Enterprise (CVN-65), the first nuclear powered aircraft carrier commissioned in 1961.
If TV has taught us nothing, it's that the Enterprise can be blown up to serve a greater purpose, and we'll just get a newer, bigger one anyway.
Okedokey. As long as we have their word.
And after the invasion, we'll find out that "being prepared" and "in the offing" have some special technical meaning other than their plain English one. Like, it's not officially "in the offing" until the ink dries on the check to Blackwater.
> US strike on Iran ‘not being prepared’
Could also mean it's ready.
In other nuclear news: U.S. Secretly Aids Pakistan in Guarding Nuclear Arms
And speaking of Pakistan: This Sounds Like a Really Fun Mission
Chris Hedges: "I will not pay my income tax if we go to war with Iran. Neither should you."
FLASHBACK: As Halliburtion CEO, Cheney Evaded U.S. Law To Do Business With Iran
Despite Knowledge That Iran Halted Nuke Program, White House Continued To Warn Of False Threat
Sy Hersh: We Pay Bush to Know These Things - What Did He Know When?
And now, with today's NIE, we see the entire U.S. intelligence community not only, in effect, coming down on the side of the doves but concluding that the threat animating the hawks doesn't even exist.
Not that such unimportant details stopped past military adventures...
‘Filipino Monkey’ may be behind radio threats, ship drivers say
Bush Disowns U.S. Intel, Tells Israelis Iran NIE ‘Doesn’t Reflect My Own Views’
The Cheneyites nearly started WWIII over "Filipino Monkey" radio signal...
Mr Bush said Iran threatened the security of all nations and should be confronted "before it's too late".
And as if that weren't enough, he went on to say that America and its democratic allies would prevail over extremists like al-Qaeda because they have "freedom and justice written into our hearts by Almighty God..."
/me headdesks
and once again thankyou to homunculus for being the bringer of All The Good Links
Fabulous! I think we should adopt the Filipino Monkey as our new mascot. Let him heckle all of the self-posters and the likes...
Following Podhoretz’s Lead, Right Wing Continues Push For ‘Bombing Campaign’ Against Iran ‘Now’
Preparing the Battlefield: The Bush Administration steps up its secret moves against Iran.
Beat me to it, h-dogg.
The piece sure doesn't help my theory that's been burning in the back of my mind for the past year!
Americans Don't Know: There's a Plan on the Table to Resolve the Nuclear Standoff with Iran
Now it's definite: No attack on Iran
Iran: Engagement, Finally
*shifts in seat*
*blinks*
*waits for the next chapter to begin*
Why Israel Will Bomb Iran: The rational argument for an attack.
« Older Singer of Songs | Curious, George Newer »
To post comments to a thread you must login or create a profile.
