Time is Not on the World's Side: The Iranian Threat

[ajwps]

Who will dare to do the honors?

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/article.php3?id=4018

On August 4, 2004, the New York Times published a lead editorial on the Iran question in which it rightly understood that a nuclear Iran presents a danger to the world. It also understood that European negotiations with Iran will probably not move Iran at all. And so it recommended that the US move to have the question taken up by the Security Council.

What the Times does not understand is that that action is another form of delay, too, another waste of time, another act of Western self-delusion. The Security Council, in which Iran's allies and fellow opponents to the United States, Russia and China sit, will impose a veto on any sanctions imposed on Iran. And to go one step beyond that, and this a very remote possibility indeed, should sanctions be voted at the UN, Iran will simply ignore them and continue with its nuclear program. And this is the sad and painful news for the world.

Iran will not be stopped by peaceful means. No dialogue, no sanctions, no blah-blah-blah. Iran is working assiduously to further develop its nuclear weapons programs and will continue doing so.

Thus, the only option for stopping Iran is a military option. However, it may already be the case that there is truly no such option, that the Iranian nuclear weapons facilities are so scattered, and so well-protected, and so hidden that no one can reach them. This is a real possibility. But in contradiction to this, there are major Iranian facilities whose location is well-known - the huge one-thousand megawatt plant the Russians are now completing at Bushehr, the uranium enrichment-by-centrifuge pilot plant and main plant in Natanz, the heavy-water plant in Arak, the facilities at Esfahan. These plants cannot be hidden and are legitimate targets. An attack on them and destruction of them would be a major blow not only to the Iranian nuclear programs, but to the whole Revolutionary Islamic Terror regime in Iran.

The question is the price for such a strike. If Iran already has nuclear weapons or the capacity to quickly assemble such weapons, it would attempt a nuclear strike at its enemies. Most likely it would try to hit Israel. It would also try to destroy US bases and personnel in the Middle East. Should Iran already have the capacity to do this, then a strike against it now would be self-defeating.

The question here is an intelligence question, whether Iran does have such a retaliatory power, or whether it is, in fact, already too late. But it is most likely that it is not and there is a still a certain small interval of time in which the US and perhaps Israel can act to stop a nuclear Iran from becoming the nightmare of the world.

If no such preventive effort is taken, sitting and waiting as Iran develops it programs will be disastrous. Once Iran's nuclear weapons program goes online, there will be a very short period of a year or two before it acquires a considerable stock of weapons. In other words, the Iran of two years from now will be much more dangerous than the Iran of today.

The United States is now engaged in a presidential campaign and it seems very unlikely that President Bush would take the risk now of attacking Iran. By not doing so, he gives Iran a little more time. And a little more time here and a little more time there and Iran may be a major nuclear power.

It is again impossible to gauge accurately on the basis of publicly available sources the retaliatory capacity of Iran. What can be said with certainty is only one thing: the more time goes by, the worse the situation will be.

And this, when the critical question of whether an attack now should be made can only be answered by those with the proper intelligence to know just exactly what Iran's nuclear capacity is now.

 

[Annie]

Who will dare to do the honors?

AJ, please add a link....

 

[ajwps]

AJ, please add a link....

Here is the link Kathianne...

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/article.php3?id=4018

 

[smirkinjesus]

Who will dare to do the honors?

Its going to be rather difficult to garner support for a military action against Iran after we invaded Iraq by mistake. We will do the only thing we can do, try to undermine the theocracy by supporting the students, and try to prevent them from buiding nukes. I wouldn't be surprised to see an airstrike against Iran to destroy some research centers. Plus Bush & co wouldn't hestitate to do it for an election boost. Of that I have no doubt. But war with Iran? That's just not possible right now.

 

[JIHADTHIS]

I wouldn't be surprised to see an airstrike against Iran to destroy some research centers. Plus Bush & co wouldn't hestitate to do it for an election boost. Of that I have no doubt.

Talk about left field

 

[Annie]

Here is the link Kathianne...

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/article.php3?id=4018

Thanks AJ, I'm go to edit it in!

 

[smirkinjesus]

Talk about left field

What was left field about it? How are we going to attack Iran? We can barely maintain our force in Iraq and we're virtually drafting former soldiers as is. In fact, how in the world would you explain to some poor grunt in Iraq that he has to turn right and head into Iran now? I'm not far left, you're just so far right, the center looks like Left Field.

 

[Mr. P]

I have a bit different slant on this......

Under a deal brokered in October with Britain, France and Germany, Iran agreed to suspend sensitive uranium enrichment programs, stop making centrifuges, allow tougher inspections and file a complete declaration of its nuclear activities.

This will be interesting...Can you say "imminent threat"? in German, French maybe?

http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040729-065222-7284r.htm

 

[Annie]

I have a bit different slant on this......



This will be interesting...Can you say "imminent threat"? in German, French maybe?

http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040729-065222-7284r.htm

Very good! You might be interested in this thread, I think it ran for awhile last week-but a lot on this and the failure of the Euros to face up to:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?t=9471

 

[JIHADTHIS]

What was left field about it? How are we going to attack Iran? We can barely maintain our force in Iraq and we're virtually drafting former soldiers as is. In fact, how in the world would you explain to some poor grunt in Iraq that he has to turn right and head into Iran now? I'm not far left, you're just so far right, the center looks like Left Field.

Alright lets try again shall we?

Its going to be rather difficult to garner support for a military action against Iran after we invaded Iraq by mistake. We will do the only thing we can do, try to undermine the theocracy by supporting the students, and try to prevent them from buiding nukes.

This statement on its own can be debated rationally.

I wouldn't be surprised to see an airstrike against Iran to destroy some research centers.

Possible, but whoever carries it out better be ready for the response.

Plus Bush & co wouldn't hestitate to do it for an election boost. Of that I have no doubt.

See, you had to throw this assinine statement in here. By injecting your anti Bush crap (as you seem to do a lot) you make yourself look foolish. Hence the snide and sarcastic replies you bring upon yourself

But war with Iran? That's just not possible right now.

And what if a year from now Iraq is stabilized fully. Iran now has 140,000 US troops on 1 border and another 20,000 plus on the other side....

 

[drac]

I have a bit different slant on this......



This will be interesting...Can you say "imminent threat"? in German, French maybe?

http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040729-065222-7284r.htm

Nothing is going to happen. What are they will do? Sanctions? Europe has a lot of business going on in iran. War? hell no, unless some one specifically can connect lines to show direct threat, they will do nothing (think india, pakistan), so is UN, so is usa. We have no political or millitary means to wage war on 2 sides alone, especially against muslim fundamentalist.

 

[drac]

And what if a year from now Iraq is stabilized fully. Iran now has 140,000 US troops on 1 border and another 20,000 plus on the other side....

I understand this is what if statement, but in no way iraq will be stable in one year fully. In order to do it, the goverment can not be democratic. Theological or totalitarian type of goverment will stabilize country fast imho.

 

[ajwps]

I understand this is what if statement, but in no way iraq will be stable in one year fully. In order to do it, the goverment can not be democratic. Theological or totalitarian type of goverment will stabilize country fast imho.

Many do not understand the covert relationship between the United States and Israel in the fight against world terrorism. For the past several years the US has been sharing technology and actions with America investing in Israel's activities against the same enemies that threaten the US.

The United States has been using Israel to covertly prevent power accumulation' in the ME dictatorships that threaten our shores. The US has used Israel to test new weapons systems against in actual battle and to control Muslim coalitions in the Arab countries. To this goal, Israel has been very effective.

Right now GW Bush is in his campaign mode and cannot afford to take this dramatic step to end Iran's nuclear threat but Israel can be used by its relationship with America to do what is necessary in a timely manner.

In the end, it probably won't be the US who attacks Iran. The unknown factor is the ability of Iran to retaliate if their nuclear weapons centers are wiped out. The time window is closing rapidly for once the Iranian government has enough nukes and delivery systems, the ability to end this threat will be nullified. This equation is probably being weighed and developed as we speak with 'sources' that are giving this vital information to both countries intelligence agencies.

Israel will probably be the one to do the deed, take the world's wrath but be doing what the two allies have agreed is both right and necessary to end the threat to the world and Israel.

Time is short....

 

[dilloduck]

Many do not understand the covert relationship between the United States and Israel in the fight against world terrorism. For the past several years the US has been sharing technology and actions with America investing in Israel's activities against the same enemies that threaten the US.

The United States has been using Israel to covertly prevent power accumulation' in the ME dictatorships that threaten our shores. The US has used Israel to test new weapons systems against in actual battle and to control Muslim coalitions in the Arab countries. To this goal, Israel has been very effective.

Right now GW Bush is in his campaign mode and cannot afford to take this dramatic step to end Iran's nuclear threat but Israel can be used by its relationship with America to do what is necessary in a timely manner.

In the end, it probably won't be the US who attacks Iran. The unknown factor is the ability of Iran to retaliate if their nuclear weapons centers are wiped out. The time window is closing rapidly for once the Iranian government has enough nukes and delivery systems, the ability to end this threat will be nullified. This equation is probably being weighed and developed as we speak with 'sources' that are giving this vital information to both countries intelligence agencies.

Israel will probably be the one to do the deed, take the world's wrath but be doing what the two allies have agreed is both right and necessary to end the threat to the world and Israel.

Time is short....

poor Israel---being used by a big country like the US to do the dirty work and then having to suffer the hate of the world for doing so.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Invaded by mistake? how is that?

took a wrong turn at kuwait maybe? :cof:

 

[ajwps]

poor Israel---being used by a big country like the US to do the dirty work and then having to suffer the hate of the world for doing so.

Dill do you know what the word symbiosis means?

 

[ajwps]

took a wrong turn at kuwait maybe? :cof:

Whether by mistake or purpose, the destruction of the nuclear potential in Iran would give the world a chance to take a sigh of relief and the world of Islamic terrorists another loss of face.

Which wrong turn?

 

[DKSuddeth]

Whether by mistake or purpose, the destruction of the nuclear potential in Iran would give the world a chance to take a sigh of relief and the world of Islamic terrorists another loss of face.

Which wrong turn?

lighten up, francis. accept the sarcastic joke for what it is and stop trying to read an offensive statement out of everything in response to your posts. If you were half as smart as you'd like people to think you are you'd know by now that i'm a supporter of the war on terror. :read:

 

[dilloduck]

Dill do you know what the word symbiosis means?

yup--so what do you think would happen to the US if Israel were wiped off the map?

 

[ajwps]

lighten up, francis. accept the sarcastic joke for what it is and stop trying to read an offensive statement out of everything in response to your posts. If you were half as smart as you'd like people to think you are you'd know by now that i'm a supporter of the war on terror. :read:

Sorry but I confused you with William Joyce for just a nano-second. That was my mistake as WJ is a verifiable nincompoop.