Revolutionary Iran

[texascity]

>>history, tradition and spiritual birthplace of the jewish people<<

 

Many jews do not support Zionism .. Zionism is the problem not the jewish people

Zionism is a jewish religion sub-set .. not a race with a genetic claim to a territory.

a huge % of Israeli residents are northern european decendents, germany, poland, russia, .. & US citizens ..

 

all cathlocs are genetically linked to jesus? Jews? European?

 

it's a religion... a spirtual belief in a set of supernatural CONTENTIONS.

 

spirtual birthplace = spiritual & a supernatural land grant..

 

it was GERMANY that did the holy cost ..

What, were the bricks made in palestine?

[MaiLuk]

There is ALOT of chatter going on here in the US amongst conservatives about a military strike against Iran. IMHO a conventional airstrike will be ordered by Bush before the end of 2006 (US congressional elections are in November).

 

Here is why the conventional airstrike will happen. (The idea of a nuclear strike is a red herring and will never happen.) Aside from the nuke issue, Iran has an unhealthy amount of influence in the ME. Not just from a western perspective but from the viewpoint of Iran's neighbors including saudi arabia and egypt. More importantly, the US has set up a predominantly shia gov't in iraq. The US has created a big problem. Iran is shia. When Saddam and the Sunnis ran Iraq, the old enemies checked each other's ambitions. Now Iran and Iraq are likely to become allies.

 

Iran can effectively block US ambitions in Iraq which would tie down the military and make the Bush administration look incompetent (hard to imagine that i know).

 

Iran is in a position to seriously influence affairs in the rest of the ME and to frustrate US and western interests. Ruling regimes in the ME are understandably not happy with the new geopolitical situation created by the americans. It is incumbent on the americans to do something. More accurately, it is incumbent on Bush.

 

This problem will not be passed on to the next president because it is possible that the new president will choose not to deal with it. That is too big of a risk for the interested parties who have Bush's ear. George Bush is the only person on the planet in a position to definitively fix the problem.

 

George Bush's term effectively expires in November 2008.

 

The nuke issue gives the US the reason (or pretext depending on your view) to take action.

 

All signs point to a strike:

 

-The iranians will not back down since they want to be nuclear at all costs.

-Israel wants the US to take action obviously.

-There is a conservative element in the republican party that has always wanted to strike Iran and with Ahmadinejad running his mouth these conservatives are gaining ascendency.

- The US has demonstrated already that it will take action without the UN on board.

-We have a pre-emptive strike doctrine.

-Iran is the # 1 supporter of worldwide terrorism (Ahmadinejad has even named a half dozen terrorist organizations that will retaliate if attacked, proving the connections).

-Bush refuses to take the military option off the table.

-The Pentagon has drawn up plans.

-The fears that Iran can seriously retaliate is seen as overblown (see article below).

[MaiLuk]

from the weeklystandard.com

 

Target: Iran

Yes, there is a feasible military option against the mullahs' nuclear program.

by Thomas McInerney

04/24/2006, Volume 011, Issue 30

 

A MILITARY OPTION AGAINST Iran's nuclear facilities is feasible. A diplomatic solution to the nuclear crisis is preferable, but without a credible military option and the will to implement it, diplomacy will not succeed. The announcement of uranium enrichment last week by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad shows Iran will not bow easily to diplomatic pressure. The existence of a military option may be the only means of persuading Iran--the world's leading sponsor of terrorism--to back down from producing nuclear weapons.

 

A military option would be all the more credible if backed by a new coalition of the willing and if coupled with intense diplomacy during a specific time frame. The coalition could include Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, UAE, Kuwait, Qatar, Turkey, Britain, France, and Germany. Solidarity is important and would surely contribute to potential diplomatic success. But should others decline the invitation, the United States must be prepared to act.

 

What would an effective military response look like? It would consist of a powerful air campaign led by 60 stealth aircraft (B-2s, F-117s, F-22s) and more than 400 nonstealth strike aircraft, including B-52s, B-1s, F-15s, F-16s, Tornados, and F-18s. Roughly 150 refueling tankers and other support aircraft would be deployed, along with 100 unmanned aerial vehicles for intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance, and 500 cruise missiles. In other words, overwhelming force would be used.

 

The objective would be, first and foremost, to destroy or severely damage Iran's nuclear development and production facilities and put them out of commission for at least five years. Another aim would

 

be to destroy the Iranian air defense system, significantly damage its air force, naval forces, and Shahab-3 offensive missile forces. This would prevent Iran from projecting force outside the country and retaliating militarily. The air campaign would also wipe out or neutralize Iran's command and control capabilities.

 

This coalition air campaign would hit more than 1,500 aim points. Among the weapons would be the new 28,000-pound bunker busters, 5,000-pound bunker penetrators, 2,000-pound bunker busters, 1,000-pound general purpose bombs, and 500-pound GP bombs. A B-2 bomber, to give one example, can drop 80 of these 500-pound bombs independently targeted at 80 different aim points.

 

This force would give the coalition an enormous destructive capability, since all the bombs in the campaign feature precision guidance, ranging from Joint Direct Attack Munitions (the so-called JDAMS) to laser-guided, electro-optical, or electronically guided High Speed Anti-Radiation Missiles (HARM) for suppression of Iranian surface-to-air missiles. This array of precision weapons and support aircraft would allow the initial attacks to be completed in 36 to 48 hours.

 

The destruction of Iran's military force structure would create the opportunity for regime change as well, since it would eliminate some or all of Ahmadinejad's and the mullahs' ability to control the population. Simultaneously or prior to the attack, a major covert operation could be launched, utilizing Iranian exiles and dissident forces trained during the period of diplomacy. This effort would be based on the Afghan model that led to the fall of the Taliban in 2001. Not only would the overt and covert attacks weaken the ability of Iran's leaders to carry out offensive operations in retaliation, they would cripple the leaders' power to control their own people.

 

Iran's diverse population should be fertile ground for a covert operation. Iran is only 51 percent Persian. Azerbaijanis and Kurds comprise nearly 35 percent of the population. Seventy percent are under 30, and the jobless rate hovers near 20 percent.

 

Iran's leaders have threatened to unleash a firestorm of terrorism in the event military action is taken against them. Any country involved in the attack would be subject to retaliation by Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and al Qaeda, the Iranians have claimed. If nothing else, this threat demonstrates how closely tied Iran is to terrorist groups. The United States and its allies would have to be prepared for stepped-up terrorist acts. Iran could also project forces into Iraq, but this is unlikely because they would encounter the full strength of the American military. However, Iran might encourage proxies among Iraq's militant Shiites. Coalition forces in Iraq would have to be ready to respond.

 

No doubt the Iranians would attempt to close the Gulf of Hormuz and block the extensive shipping that goes through it. American air and naval forces are quite capable of keeping the gulf open, though shipping might be slowed. The most adverse economic consequences of shipping delays would be felt in Iran itself.

 

President Bush is right when he says Iran cannot be permitted to have nuclear weapons. The prospect of leaders like Ahmadinejad, who advocates wiping Israel "off the map," with their hands on nuclear weapons is a risk we cannot take. Diplomacy must be pursued vigorously, but the experience with

Iraq suggests there's little reason for optimism. Thus, a viable military option is imperative.

[MaiLuk]

>>Simultaneously or prior to the attack, a major covert operation could be launched, utilizing Iranian exiles and dissident forces trained during the period of diplomacy. <<

 

This sounds familiar. Was a miserable failure when tried previously.

[..]

For the opposing side re: it would be easy to take out Iran, deemed "credible" by active duty squid friends, there's this.

 

And besides, we can't handle Iraq with friends, and the Brits have already bailed on Iran, with more to follow I'm sure. Not to mention that common sense says, given what we know about our performance in Iraq, a place that a) is three times the size, more than twice the population and c) has a military that not been decimated by a decade of sanctions would be a threat indeed.

 

I'm just sayin'...fuckin' Republican chickenhawks love to cackle "war" but have no idea what it means, nor have any intention of they or their families fighting it. Impossible to have a milligram of respect for any of them. Fuck 'em.

 

Cheers,

SD

[MaiLuk]

The most brutal criticism came from Senator John Murtha, decorated Korean war veteran.

 

He declared the Iraq war a failure and said we need to bring the troops home. Cheney then launched a broadside against Murtha saying he was unpatriotic.

 

The Cheney/Bush crowd immediately quit criticising Murtha after Murtha told the media: "I like guys who got five deferments and never been there and send people to war, and then don't like to hear suggestions about what needs to be done."

[khwaimaisabai]

Hi sd,

The article in the link is scary indeed. The coast of Iran is probably less than 200 miles from where I sit and type this. Not far for a mushroom cloud.

The Iranian coastal area is indeed very mountainous - in part at least. I have seen it a few times from the air - it is very close to Dubai.

Khwai

[BrownFox77]

Excellent article SD, the more illumination on this subject the better, and in that light am passing on an interesting article recently passed to me: Facing Down Iran