Obama: "I'm ready to negotiate with you, Iran." Iran: "Fuck you."

[classicman]

..

[TheMercenary]

I would like to bring to the attention of anyone interested in this subject to two articles from the Sept addition of the Atlantic, one of my two fav magazines subscriptions....

One is a bit long, the other not so much. Two interesting views. Please read and feel free to comment. I would be interested in your views.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/...ear-iran/8193/

This one is a bit longer but worth the read.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/...o-return/8186/

[Undertoad]

Kaplan goes over the line. "We must be more willing, not only to accept the prospect of limited war but, as Kissinger does in his book of a half century ago, to accept the prospect of a limited nuclear war between states."

I don't think there is such a thing as a limited nuclear war. Anyone using a nuke preemptively has to face total destruction. That is why the US needs to stand up against Iran. There should be aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf right now. This problem only gets bigger while we wait it out hoping it will go away.

I like Hitchens' point (in the video) that Iran is making a joke of international law. The world has told Iran this is unacceptable. Iran has thumbed its nose right back. There are no consequences other than the respect and admiration of Syria, Lebanon, and now Turkey, whose leaders need to suck up to the bully or live in terror of being the next victim.

You don't get nukes unless you are mature enough to understand your responsibilities in the world. This is like giving keys to a Ferrari to a 16 year old boy and telling him to drive safely and under the speed limit. It's almost not even the kid's fault when he wrecks it and kills a bunch of people. The world is responsible for this situation and the world should get on with addressing it.

[piercehawkeye45]

I read a lot of the Iran debate on The Atlantic and the strongest point that sticks with me is what can we actually do about Iran getting the bomb and is it worth it? Ideally, I think is agreed across the board that Iran getting a nuclear weapon is hazardous to the interests of many countries in the area, notably Israel, but many of the disagreements lie on what we could actually accomplish and how Iran will react to our actions. Besides North Korea, Iran is possibly the country we have the least knowledge, or confidence in our knowledge, to predict a reaction. If we bomb them willl they curl up in a ball and play victim? Shut down the gulf and step up attacks from Hezbollah and Hamas? Go even further? If we bomb their nuclear facilities will they stop the program? Will it just be delayed and they try even harder to get the bombs? How will civilians in Iran act to an attack? etc.

Personally, I am against bombing Iran. Most people I've read have stated that there is nothing we can do stop the nuclear program and that Iran will most likely react violently and become more isolated after an attack. I can go into more detail but that is a more dangerous Iran in my opinion.

The unknowns are what makes it tough for any administration to make a good logical decision for this situation.

[TheMercenary]

I am against the US bombing Iran. But I don't really care if someone else does it.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Further Developments

We'd be a lot more okay with Iranian uranium-fueled nuclear power were Iran a democratic republic instead of an anti-Western Islamofascistic oligarchy. Just sayin'... 'bout how many dead Islamofascists should it take? A tenth the total population or just a tenth of the ruling party?

[TheMercenary]

Great, just frigging great.....

Afghan private security forces with ties to the Taliban, criminal networks and Iranian intelligence have been hired to guard American military bases in Afghanistan, exposing United States soldiers to surprise attack and confounding the fight against insurgents, according to a Senate investigation.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/08/wo...ontractor.html

[classicman]

Blasts hit secret Iranian missile launching-pad for US, Israeli targets

Iranian military installation was struck by a triple blast Tues. Oct. 12 the day before Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad arrived in Lebanon. debkafile's military and intelligence sources report the site held most of the Shehab-3 medium-range missile launchers Iran had stocked for striking US forces in Iraq and Israel in the event of war - some set to deliver triple warheads (tri-conic nosecones).

The 18 soldiers officially reported killed in the blasts and 14 injured belonged to the Revolutionary Guards (IRGC) main missile arm, the Al-Hadid Brigades.
The Imam Ali Base where the explosion occurred is situated in lofty Zagros mountain country near the town of Khorramabad in the western Iranian province of Lorestan. This site was selected for an altitude which eases precise targeting and the difficulty of reaching it for air or ground attack. It lies 400 kilometers from Baghdad and primary American bases in central Iraq and 1,250 kilometers from Tel Aviv and central Israel. Both are well within the Shehab-3 missile's 1,800-2,500-kilometer operational range.

Our Iranian sources report that Tehran spent hundreds of millions to build one of the largest subterranean missile launching facilities of its kind in the Middle East or Europe. Burrowed under the Imam Ali Base is a whole network of wide tunnels deep underground. Somehow, a mysterious hand rigged three blasts in quick succession deep inside those tunnels, destroying a large number of launchers and causing enough damage to render the facility unfit for use.
In its official statement on the incident, Tehran denied it was the result of "a terrorist attack" and claimed the explosion "was caused by a nearby fire that spread to the munitions storage area of the base." In the same way, the regime went to great lengths to cover up the ravages wrought to their nuclear and military control systems by the Stuxnet virus - which is still at work.

From here

Has anyone heard anything about this? Can anyone confirm?

[Urbane Guerrilla]

A little something on the missile type itself and its development. Clickable large pics.

You can describe the missile as a material expression of the Axis of Evil. I'm rather concerned about the CEP they cite of roughly 190 meters. That compares well with an ICBM, perhaps because of its shorter range and flight time.

[classicman]

'WikiLeaks shows U.S. dismissed Israel's warnings about Iran bomb'

In one cable dated June 2009 quoted Defense Minister Ehud Barak, a U.S. diplomat says Barak told visiting officials that a strike on Iran's nuclear facilities was viable until the end of 2010, saying that after :any military solution would result in unacceptable collateral damage"

"He also expressed concern that should Iran develop nuclear capabilities, other rogue states and/or terrorist groups would not be far behind," the U.S. diplomat said.

The cable also quoted Barak as describing the Iranian leadership "chess, not backgammon players," with the U.S. diplomat quoting the defense minister saying would "attempt to avoid any hook to hang accusations on, and look to Pakistan and North Korea as models to emulate in terms of acquiring nuclear weapons while defying the international community."

Another cable, from later 2009, the U.S.-Israel Joint Political Military Group, Mossad representatives said Iran was using repeated attempts to resolve the nuclear issue through diplomacy to "play for time" and evade sanctions, "while pursuing its strategic objective to obtain a military nuclear capability."

"From Mossad's perspective, there is no reason to believe Iran will do anything but use negotiations to stall for time so that by 2010-2011, Iran will have the technological capability to build a nuclear weapon -- essentially reducing the question of weaponizing to a political decision," the cable said.

Bold mine.

Heads are going to roll over this.

from here

[Undertoad]

Wikileaks: Saudi Arabia urges US attack on Iran to stop nuclear programme

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010...es-saudis-iran

King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia has repeatedly urged the United States to attack Iran to destroy its nuclear programme, according to leaked US diplomatic cables that describe how other Arab allies have secretly agitated for military action against Tehran.

The leaked US cables also reveal that:

• Officials in Jordan and Bahrain have openly called for Iran's nuclear programme to be stopped by any means, including military.

• Leaders in Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Egypt referred to Iran as "evil", an "existential threat" and a power that "is going to take us to war".

• Robert Gates, the US defence secretary, warned in February that if diplomatic efforts failed, "we risk nuclear proliferation in the Middle East, war prompted by an Israeli strike, or both".

wheeeeeee

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Wikileaks: Saudi Arabia urges US attack on Iran to stop nuclear programme

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010...es-saudis-iran



wheeeeeee

We've seen them gang up on Israel, let them gang up on Iran. We don't need to get involved.

[xoxoxoBruce]

But they're proven to be inept at that ganging up shit.

[TheMercenary]

Time to water board Assange and send him to a third world country prison. I have about had enough.

[piercehawkeye45]

Something I just thought of with Arab nations supporting the bombing of Iran's nuclear facilities...

If the US bombs Iran's nuclear facilities and in response Iran cuts off the Strait of Hormuz, sky rocketing the price for oil, how much money would Arab nations make off that?

There is much more that goes into consideration for supporting an attack on Iran but I'm curious to know a ballpark prediction for that.