Today on Blogcritics
Home » Why We Can’t Live With A Nuclear Iran

Why We Can’t Live With A Nuclear Iran

I've noticed something about people. When provided an out in a sticky situation, people tend to take it, regardless of future consequences. This is known as a dynamic inconsistency, a situation where people's preferences change over time. A great example is the high school kid who drops out. His present self is thrilled with the decision to sleep late and watch daytime TV as opposed to buckling down in class, but his future self likely won't be nearly as happy with the reduced ability to earn as life goes on. Generally speaking, it's much better to consider your future self, and not the immediate happiness of the present self, when making long range decisions.

Dynamic inconsistency has been on full display here in New York this week with the Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad came to the UN as well as Columbia University to lay out his platform for his nuclear program and the impacts this has on global policy. The first shot across the bow of the USS What’s Best For America was fired last week when Retired Army General John Abizaid commented that the US could abide by a nuclear Iran. Following this, Ahmadinejad was provided with multiple platforms including the aforementioned university in order to sound byte his softened message to the masses.
Far be it for me to differ with an experienced and partial leader of the military, especially someone as esteemed as General Abizaid. And I don't think the essence of what he said was wrong. Certainly the US could manage with just one more nuclear state.

However, I think the General misses the bigger point, and perhaps he made his comments with only his present self in mind. For example, Iran isn't just another country. Iran has designs to be the super power of the Middle East (and eventually the world). Such aspirations are not necessarily appreciated by its neighbors. Following the development of Iranian nuclear capability, there is a distinct possibility that Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey or other countries might engage in a Middle East version of a nuclear arms race in order to create a balance of power. Certainly, such an arms race is not something that the US or any country could or should abide, but at that stage, we'd be in a difficult position to stop it. Alternatively, Iran could simply use its new found nuclear power to lord over all of the other Middle East and neighboring nations, as they attempt to do currently without nukes. Either scenario is extremely destablizing for the Middle East, and the world considering our dependence on oil.

Other arguments have been made to further calm concerns of Iran becoming nuclear. One argument says that the US has it all wrong, Iran's quest is for peaceful nuclear energy for the Iranian people. Another says that the nuclear goal is really to help Iran gain more respect on the world stage (as stated by their own UN Ambassador). These points are at odds with each other – if the goal is peaceful energy, how would that give Iran any more respect as a country? Alternatively, Iran is already one of the most feared nations in the region, and they have plenty of trading partners among UN members (as evidenced by the UN's lack of willingness to support sanctions). So what kinds of additional respect are they trying garner exactly?

The fact is that if Iran really wanted to expand its energy resources and independence, they could build oil refineries to process all of the oil resources that are abundant naturally within Iranian borders into petroleum. Right now, Iran runs the (unlikely) risk being cut off from gas by UN sanctions. Some postulate that the Iranians are not interested in this idea as oil is not a clean technology. However, I've not heard any plans from Iran to stop drilling for oil once nuclear energy generation has been achieved, so clearly the concern for the environment isn't a driver in their quest to split the atom.

About The Obnoxious American

  • Ahmadinejad

    If you want to know more about Jewish control check out this article. Steve sailer is pretty controversial, but he has some interesting stuff in regards to jews. I don’t want to promote racism or anything, but you might as well know how the world works (by the way sailer is part jewish himself).

  • Ninja

    Obnoxious:

    (Your attempts to live up to your name are praiseworthy.)

    “I will explain why no one cares about the attack on the USS liberty.”

    Your explanation defies reality.

    There are 174 American survivors and the families of 34 dead Americans who still care very much — just as they have cared for the past 40 years.

    “In fact, [Israel is] one of the US’s main allies in the middle east.”

    The US has no allies in the Middle East. All the US has in the Middle East is a bunch of foreign aid recipients of US welfare.

    “It’s similar to how back 30 years ago, Saddam was an ally and eventually became an enemy. You realize that relationships are not static, don’t you?”

    You believe Saddam was an ally of the US? He was a stooge that outlived his usefulness.

    “Listen Ninja, try and rake up any kind of fact that will help your anti jewish hatred spread,”

    Obviously you are programmed to use your worn out epithet and vituperation in response to any fact you don’t like.

    “if anything you are brainwashed into believing terrorism is somehow ok.”

    That comment is unworthy of a response but I will be generous and try to help you understand how you have been deluded.

    Don’t be brainwashed into believing there can be a “war on terror” just because the media says so. Terrorism is a tactic which has been used for thousands of years. Recently it’s been used by nationalists such as the Basques, the IRA, and groups in the Middle East fighting occupation. The tactic should not be condoned but it should be understood in the context of nationalism denied.

    “I will repeat my prior refrain: Check yourself fool!”

    Some advice: Please practice on how to write without using epithets. You may think it helps you make a point but it just points your finger back at you.

  • Zedd

    Dave, Biffle and someone else (lazy to scroll back),

    I think the problem is that you are arguing against definitions and concepts that are and have been well established in the academic world for quite some time. To Cindy and some others (i would assume), your objections reflect a lack of understanding of some basic concepts regarding power, class and social relationships (if I can state things that simply avoiding sounding too academic). Because this is my area of interest and learning, I find it fascinating and would suggest that you do a quick study. You might think that it is a waste of time however…. I would suggest that you do take a tiny look at some of these ideas as they will help you to make better conclusions and possible predictions about social phenomena. Just a thought. Understanding some patterns also reduces the ones stress level. One comes to the understanding that people are just people as Cindy said earlier.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Your beliefs contradict the facts. You merely need to scroll up to see comments you did make about me.

    I did scroll up. I made one generalization about the mental weakness of sociology majors as a group. Did you take that personally? If so you should have studied a discipline which supported critical thinking rather than indoctrination.

    “As for understanding what you last posted, it wasn’t exactly complex.

    What I last posted was the same thing I posted before in a slightly different way.

    And it wasn’t complex then either.

    And if it is so simple then why is it that you still don’t understand it yet.

    I do understand it. But understanding does not, in fact, mean that I will automatically agree with you through some magical process of revealed truth.

    It’s not this simple:

    “Of course we should seek input from everyone before forming opinions of them.”

    This assumes we are capable of seeing their position as relevant. It assumes we don’t idealize ourselves and simply confirm this ideology with a utopian view of ourselves.

    Which is an expansion of exactly what I said in the next sentence which you chose not to quote.

    But, we do this. I do this. Whether I like it or not.

    You certainly do.

    The fact that you do this (idealize your position and cling to a utopian view of your ideology), without even thinking about it, is evident in many of your beliefs posted as objective facts.

    I make a very clear distinction between my opinions, observations and facts. I don’t really accept the concept of ‘objective’ fact. But my opinions are at least informed by facts as I have observed them.

    As for my ‘ideology’, I doubt you even have any idea what it is.

    Dave

    And now here, I am talking about the US, as a nation. But, don’t make the assumption–again– (please) that I am comparing us to someone else. When I do you will be able to detect it by the mention of the some one else’s name.

    We say we are for justice and freedom. We call ourselves humanitarians. Yet we exploit each other, enslave each other, oppress each other, wage wars (like Iraq among others), design a system that favors 3% of our society and allows millions of children to live in poverty.

    Then we sing God Bless America with tears in our eyes.

  • Cindy D

    #51 an example of what Dave claims “…made one generalization about the mental weakness of sociology majors as a group…”

    But Baronius, isn’t the kind of racism which Cindy and Zedd and Moonraven display – racism born of self-righteous elitism – inherently ignorant? At the very least they’re ignorant of how their supposedly enlightened beliefs are indistinguishable from other forms of racism.

    Racism and cultural elitism is so strongly ingrained in internationalist socialism that most of them aren’t even aware it’s there.

    Dave

  • Zedd

    Dave,

    What does this mean to you Dave??

    “ingrained in internationalist socialism”

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Oops sorry, Cindy. I didn’t scroll up quite that far. Lumping you in with Zedd and Moonraven is cruel, but you have yet to prove my initial assessment to be off the mark.

    Dave

  • Irene Wagner

    Bring the Iranian invasion on! Let their filmmakers detonate a “reverse dirty bomb” in Hollywood–one that would suck up all the filth coming out of there, replacing it with films like “Children of Heaven.” Wouldn’t the Right Wing Christian Evangelical Rag-Head-Hating Warmongers (am I stereotyping here?) be pleasantly surprised? More than a few Left Wing Liberals With a Homosexual Agenda (am I stereotyping here?) would be less than pleased, no doubt.

    People are complicated. Every day people who might be good friends are giving one another the back of their hand, because, being far removed from one another geographically and linguistically (or idealogically), they are depending on their political (or idealogical) leaders to let them know what The Enemy is really like.

    Diogenes of Guayaquil–The shared nuclear power idea sounds good. I prefer, though, the idea of a world-wide concerted effort to develop technology to harness wind power. There are no alternate military uses to which the technology could be applied. No risk of meltdowns. No need to monitor raw materials or waste.

    And every country has its own wind, produced by the rotation of the earth over the land, or by its politicians.

  • Cindy D

    “But my opinions are at least informed by facts as I have observed them.”

    Fair enough. But, I’m not sure that there is anyone this wouldn’t apply to. Who isn’t informed by the facts as they observe them?

    “As for my ‘ideology’, I doubt you even have any idea what it is.”

    To be sure. I wouldn’t claim I do. I’m describing something I have seen in some of your writing , it doesn’t require an understanding of your ideology.

  • Clavos

    “And every country has its own wind, produced by the rotation of the earth over the land…”

    Um, Irene.

    Since the earth’s atmosphere rotates with the globe, the rotation of the earth does not actually produce wind. What the rotation does do, through the Coriolis effect, is change patterns of direction (“swirling”) of wind flows. If there were no rotation, all winds would flow in a straight line.

    Surface winds are produced by meteorological phenomena: jet streams (which are the result of upper atmosphere circulation cells rubbing against each other), temperature and pressure gradients, surface changes (of the earth; sea-land, e.g.) etc. All these (except jet streams) are the winds we feel at surface level (synoptic winds), and are what drive wind generators.

  • Reza Palahvi

    Blowhard

  • Clavos

    Thanks!

  • moonraven

    Diogenes: Racism is alive and well in Guayaquil. I spent 4 months there in 2003 as dean of a private university callled UEES–and saw that the honest man also did not exist there.

    That said, gringo is not a racist term. It is used here in Mexico to refer to folks from the US.

    I am Native American–and since we were first on Turtle Island I will be as “racist” as I damn please.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    What does this mean to you Dave??

    “ingrained in internationalist socialism”

    It means that the believers in internationalist socialism have integrated racism as a fundamental cornerstone of their ideology. It’s not the racism of white hoods and burning crosses, but thr racism of liberal condescension and hypocritical multiculturalism.

    Dave

  • Irene Wagner

    Clavos–you know a LOT about wind, man!

    May I live to see the day when President Ron Paul–what would be a Constitutional way to do this?–appoints you as Secretary of the Department of Energy. Then, when you’ve furnished every nation in the world with the Uber Efficient Wind Power Generating Technology your team has developed, he can get rid of the Department of Energy! And probably decimate the DoD budget!

  • Zedd

    Dave,

    What is Internationalist Socialism? Are you talking about the international coalescing of trade unions? If so, what does race or racism have to do with that?

    If you are talking about Socialist ideology being applied globally, and it only being applied to non Europeans by Europeans who would not live in Socialist nations…. please expound on that.

    The paternalism of the West is not limited to prescribing socialist ideas. It is an overall lording over the entire planet, ascribing ideas to people and assuming a superior ability to determine THEIR well being. Whether the suggestion is for them to adhere to socialist ideas or adopt capitalistic principles, Christianity or Democracy; feng shui or mood rings. The eye rolling, yet assumed racial superiority that Whites (in general) posses is tiresome to the rest of the planets inhabitants and is an endless baby sitting job which we cant seem to rid ourselves of. It is the consistent 20 ton gorilla in the room.

    Iran wants nuclear capability but they have to jump all sorts of loops including making ridiculous speaking engagements, just so their humanity is somewhat considered. Just to prove to the delusional of our planet that they are not the apes that they are thought to be. They have to be “approved” by people who have stacks of nukes and are currently involved in a slaughter of their neighbors and have managed to get the entire world at war twice in the past 100 yrs. Yet it is they who are feared. Help!

    Perspective is something else… sigh

  • Zedd

    OA
    “And you think I am evil because I am concerned that this liar and holocaust denier, and someone who expressed interest in wiping a country off the map might actually use his newfound nuclear power?”

    What does one have to do with the other? Questioning the holocaust means that you intend to blow up Israel with nukes, when doing so would kill Palestinians? Now really… think man! Politicians lie. Ours do all the time so should we loose nuclear capability because of it?

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

    “It’s not the racism of white hoods and burning crosses, but thr racism of liberal condescension and hypocritical multiculturalism.”

    Amazing to me that anyone could write this with a straight face. Sheer baloney. “PC” rhetoric can certainly be wrongheaded and excessive, but simply turning it inside out is no better. Give us a break.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Zedd invoked:

    the consistent 20 ton gorilla in the room

    Zedd, I think you’ve started one of those curious inflationary metaphors. You know, like that other one, “the 64,000-dollar question” which, over time, became the 64 million-dollar question…

  • The Obnoxious American

    Zedd,

    “What does one have to do with the other? Questioning the holocaust means that you intend to blow up Israel with nukes, when doing so would kill Palestinians? Now really… think man! Politicians lie. Ours do all the time so should we loose nuclear capability because of it?”

    But he wasn’t just questioning whether the holocaust happened, he’s also calling for the destruction of Israel. And he’s also complicit in the deaths of American soldiers in Iraq. As far as the Palestinians, ask yourself how many Iraqis have “martyred” themselves by way of Iranian agents? Your flimsy position depends on the Iranians actually caring about Palestinians. Judging by the number of Iranian built schools and hospitals in the west bank or gaza, I happen to think any Palestinians that might die in an Iranian attack on Israel would get the 72 virgin consolation prize.

    With all due respect Zedd, your comments are written with an obvious intellect. So I find it very difficult to understand why you’d cherry pick Ahmadinejad’s history to make some point about me. Please read up on his words and actions, then let’s have the discussion as to why he should have nukes.

    Ruvy,

    I gotta repeat what I said earlier: “The US isn’t of one heart and mind, and the view doesn’t always stay the same. ”

    In a free country, even government officials can choose their own platforms. So while there are people like Bush who really do support Israel on an almost religious and ideological level, there are also people like Condi Rice whose actions haven’t been all that good for israel. We are not a contiguous nation operating in lockstep, we’d have to be a tyranny for that.

    The other points I made are also valid, Israel wouldn’t exist without the US. Allies, like friends, don’t always see eye to eye. That doesn’t mean the friendship should die. This is similar to the relationship between the US and France. Without France, the US would likely not be here. The US alliance with France is centuries old, and is still vital to both countries existence. However, we certainly disagree with France on an awful lot.

    Reza,

    I think I’ve made enough specific arguments to prove that I am not “blindly supporting Israel” as you’ve suggested. Your absolute lack of actually being a part of this debate means that this will be the last time I waste my time typing to you, unless you can make it back to earth and join the debate with the rest of us.

    Just one last piece of advice – I would quit working for ahmadinejad if i were you. Information ministers for tyrants don’t usually need a retirement plan.

    Ninja,

    Terrorism is a tactic for sure. But the war on terror isn’t against the IRA or any of the other groups you’ve cited, it’s about Islamic fundamentalists who are willing to die in order to destroy our society. Clearly you don’t see it this way, and that’s to your detriment. If you think that there is some equality between the type of attacks carried out by the IRA (who were fighting for their independence) and attacks by the Al Qaeda and their ilk (designed to enforce Islamic dominance over the world), you are seriously deluded.

    As far as the USS liberty, clearly you are missing the point so I will attempt to make this as clear as possible for you as to why this is very very different:

    Is there any threat of Israel attacking the US or it’s interests?

    Is there any threat of Al Qaeda attacking the US or it’s interests?

    Simple right?

    Irene,

    I love wind power. Why can’t we have like a million windmills in the desert somewhere? And solar is great too. Wouldn’t that just resolve a lot of the issues? I think yes. Shame on these liberal elites that reject windmills on their mansions!!

  • Ruvy in Jerusalem

    Obnoxious,

    I’m going to give this one more try – that’s all.

    Please read this article by Emmanuel Winston. It’s a long read, but it makes my point. If you honestly want to understand what is actually going on between the United States and Israel, this article is a fundamental place to begin.

    Lynching Israel has been the State Department?s goal since 1947 and has not stopped or faltered a day since. While Rice is the “talking head” for Bush, look for James Baker as the “masked” arranger, only slightly off in the shadows, advising Rice how to best get at the Jews — as he did in the spectacularly failed “Road Map” plan and many plans and papers before that.

    I initially had thought that the Liberty attack in the Trib was the “Kick-off Campaign of Propaganda” but, then remembered CNNs Christiane Amanpour?s high profile series “The Warriors of God,” aired twice in August 2007. Christiane, herself an Iranian, opened the series by positioning Israel, using decades-old incidents involving marginal and minor Israeli fringe groups — as the baseless attacker of those poor innocent Palestinians. Perhaps the Amanpour series was the real “Kick-off” of State’s preparation to Lynch Israel.

    CNN is sort of like the New York Times of TV and well connected to State. And hey, whaddya know, it just so happens that Christiane is married to James Rubin, former spokesman of, you guessed it, the State Department.

    This is not going to be pleasant reading, but Manny Winston has called a lot of shots way ahead of time. Pay close attention. The man knows what he is talking about.

  • The Obnoxious American

    Ruvy,

    I don’t disagree with you or are surprised by what the article is saying. Not one bit.

    A quick aside, I think Christiane Amanpour’s CNN special was total crap, just another liberal excersize in moral relativism. People can try to say that Islamic terror is nothing worse than what’s been engaged in by fringe groups of other religions. In fact, some have made that very point here (Ninja’s comments to wit).

    While Christian and Jewish fringe groups may (or may not) have been responsible for some pretty bad things over the years, the simple fact is that both Judaism and Christianity are rooted in a respect for life and living. And when a fringe Christian or Jewish group acts in a violent way, it’s generally not supported by the religion as a whole. Take the IRA for example, or David Koresh, Jonestown, crusades, etc, all movements that were highly disavowed by believers of the associated religions.

    The difference between god’s warriors is that at least the Christian and Jewish ones seem to realize that life is better than the alternative. I don’t see the outcry from most Muslim groups when a terrorist attack is carried out. Instead groups like CAIR and even the general Muslim populace make excuses for why the attack happened, pointing at things like US foreign policy.

    And that viewpoint is even evident here on these boards – I remember a conversation the other week where we were debating OBL’s fatwah BECAUSE people actually seem to give it meaning. We didn’t give that same meaning to any number of religiously motivated killings by groups of other religions. In fact we view them as they should be, weird, fringe groups that have lost their way that need to be put in jail. I just don’t see that kind of backlash against terrorist in the Islamic community. In fact, I see the opposite – support and excuse making (for example, election of Hamas).

    How many times have we heard that we need to understand why 9/11 happened? Just saying that is engaging in a blame the victim mentality. Nothing can excuse the killing of thousands of civillians who are on their way to work by a bunch of hijackers in commercial jets. This isn’t even close to a legitimate warfare tactic – it’s reprehensible terrorism plain and simple. I just wish more people such as Ms Amanpour realized the murder that they are abetting by making excuses for it.

    (And before every liberal and anti semite crawls out of the wood work and starts citing lists of atrocities carried out by Israel or Christians, scroll back up – you obviously missed the point I was making).

    Back to the original point here, I’ve heard the charge that state hates Israel. So does Hillary, although she’s gotten better at hiding it. So do many Americans, including people whom I know personally. Some just hate Jews. Many people here in the US raise the same question you did, but in reverse, essentially saying that our support of Israel is not at all in line with our interest. I view our alliance with Israel as tenuous at best, honestly. Of course, part of the reason I am here is in hopes of possibly changing the views of some who are more open minded.

    Ruvy, not really sure what your goal is here. You’re not showing me anything or revealing anything to me I don’t already know. You’re not going to get a bit “Aha!” moment out of me. Nothing you are saying changes my view that America is a great country, that it’s my home, and that it’s an important ally (possibly the only one) for Israel.

    I don’t expect alliances to be easy or to be agreed by all involved. But our alliance with Israel is an important one. I am trying to help establish support for it. I happen to think that Israelis talking badly about America doesn’t really help your cause, or help Americans like myself who want to do more for Israel. I know that Israel is no island, and you need allies like the US, even if there are some factions here that might try to throw a wrench in the works.

  • Ruvy in Jerusalem

    “I don’t disagree with you or are surprised by what the article is saying. Not one bit.
    ………………
    Ruvy, not really sure what your goal is here. You’re not showing me anything or revealing anything to me I don’t already know. You’re not going to get a bit “Aha!” moment out of me. Nothing you are saying changes my view that America is a great country, that it’s my home, and that it’s an important ally (possibly the only one) for Israel.”

    If you “agree” with me, then I’m only trying to get you to take that final step and admit to the bitter truth: the United States government is not an ally of my country – as it is devoted itself to the destruction of my country.

    I’m not telling you to leave the States (tempted though I am), I’m not telling you that America is not a great country, even if I think it isn’t anymore, I’m not telling you that you shouldn’t love it, if that is what your heart leads you to do – even though I believe otherwise.

    I’m pleading with you to look at facts that you yourself agree to and admit that lynching a nation to force it to cough up strategic territory that it has begun to settle is not the action of an ally, but that of an enemy.

    There may yet be elements in your government that are friendly to us – certain congressmen or senators, certain departments in the government.

    But the folks who matter are enemies. People like the president and his prominent advisors.

    That is not a pleasant truth – but it is nonetheless true.

  • Zedd

    OA,

    It would seem that you need for Ahmadinejad to be evil in order for you to harbor the feelings that you have. Its been explained over and over again what his statement about Israel meant. It seems that you want their meaning to have the worst spin possible. Why? Lets say that he didn’t say that he wants Israel blown off the face of the Earth. Now where is the foundation for your position? It would seem that you need for him to have said that in order to justify your ideas.

    Iran should be involved in the Iraqi war. If our enemy attacked Mexico and was destroying it, proclaiming that they were going to change our entire region, would we not get involved? They are prudent to engage. If you want to blame anyone for the deaths of OUR soldiers, blame everyone who played a role in getting them there in the first place. Not the people who want to be left alone.

  • MAOZ

    Ruvy, what Winston is describing: Mamash Gog uMagog!

  • Zedd

    Doc,

    I was feeling colorful at the moment. I love the phrase “inflationary metaphors”. I suppose with advancement taking place in just about every aspect of our experiences, bells and whistles going off all over the place, one has to overstate in order to be heard. Wow, I think I understand Ruvy better now.

  • Ninja

    Obnoxious:

    “Terrorism is a tactic for sure.”

    You got that right, but it’s clear you really don’t get it. Most of the attacks around the world which are terrorist in nature can be traced to some state action that instigated it. The tactic has always been around and it probably always will be. It’s a tactic, nothing more.

    “But the war on terror isn’t against the IRA or any of the other groups you’ve cited, it’s about Islamic fundamentalists who are willing to die in order to destroy our society.”

    You conveniently forget that 20 years ago al-Qaeda did not exist and that bin Laden was our friend. You have to understand what happened to change that.

    “If you think that there is some equality between the type of attacks carried out by the IRA (who were fighting for their independence) and attacks by al-Qaeda and their ilk (designed to enforce Islamic dominance over the world), you are seriously deluded.”

    The equality is obvious. It’s independence. Keep in mind that 25 years ago Hamas and Hezbollah did not exist. You have to understand what happened in Lebanon and the occupied Palestine lands that caused these groups to form.

    “As far as the USS liberty, clearly you are missing the point so I will attempt to make this as clear as possible.”

    Your response did nothing to clarify it. I asked why was the USS Liberty attack swept under the Congressional carpet? There are 174 American survivors and the families of 34 dead Americans who still care very much — just as they have cared for the past 40 years. Why, for over 40 years, has the US Congress refused to grant the survivors and the families of the dead a hearing?

    If you google “USS Liberty” you will get 221,000 hits.

    Come back when you learn something.

  • Biff

    More paranoia.

    I hope it’s your or your kids that get shipped off to Iran to baby sit them after regime change.

  • Lev

    Last I heard, Iran was an independent country. Meaning it doesn’t have to get approval from the ignorant fascist U.S. or from anyone else before they decide to develop whatever kinds of weapons they want and whatever kind of electricity generation they want. The world will be a much better place when Americans realise that they don’t own it.

    Furthermore, just what the hell is America going to do if Iran DOES develop nukes? Huh? It’s bogged down in Iraq and couldn’t spare a battalion if there was a crisis in Haiti let alone trying to bully Iran. It would have to be with air power alone and if you think that American air power is going to be able to crush Iran or even destroy its capacity to develop nukes, keep dreaming.

    If the U.S. launches airstrikes against Iran four things will happen just about immediately:
    1.Iran will close the Strait of Hormuz with sea mines covered by anti-ship missile batteries, meaning no oil tankers leaving the Gulf, meaning the price of gas is going to go through the roof overnight; 2.Iran will turn the Persian Gulf into a shooting gallery and sink every U.S. Navy ship in it inside of an afternoon using anti-ship cruise missile batteries, well-positioned in the mountains all along the Iranian littoral, including the latest Russian ones that skim just above the wavetops and take evasive manouevres just before impact, and against which the U.S. Navy has NO COUNTERMEASURES able to deal with them; 3.Iran would rain battlefield ballistic missiles down on every U.S. base in Iraq and probably in Kuwait and Bahrain as well; and 4.Iran would, either by using its Shiia proxies in Iraq, or by using Iranian Army and Revolutionary Guard regulars, invade Iraq, besiege the U.S. firebases there and make the U.S. occupation of Iraq about ten times more untenable than it already is. They would very quickly kick the U.S. out of the Middle East once and for all. So poking a not-very-sharp stick at Iran would be the biggest mistake the U.S. policymakers could possibly make, and would make the humiliation of not being able to put down the Resistance in Iraq by a bunch of guys in track suits with old small arms look like a glorious victory. Don’t screw with Iran or you’ll seriously regret it.

  • http:.//ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy in Jerusalem

    Lev,

    You sound like a Russian – you keep mentioning Russian weaponry. If the Americans are stupid enough to pull off the kind of attack you describe, the Iranians would have little trouble making life hell for Americans.

    That is why the surgical approach is necessary with a butcher knife – a nuclear bomb with a number of megatons (at least 10) that turns Tehran into nuclear glass and steam – destroying the Iranian government and command and control center there while it is at it. If the command and control center is elsewhere, then the 10+ megaton nuke goes to destroy it elsewhere as well.

    Don’t think that the Protestant oil and banking conglomerate that controls the United States would shrink from such an act, either. Underneath the fancy suits and ties, they are brutal, heartless bastards.