Comments

You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name

Your e-mail (optional)

Website (optional)

	My Original Nic Pic-a-Nic Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Foto

Submit your comments on this article

Syria-Lebanon-Iran

"No worries about Israel's Nuclear Capabilities or Nuclear Arms Ever Again"

2006-07-19

(via anti-Mullah blog, salt to taste)
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad has declared he will make an announcement - earliest on Wednesday July 19th, 2006 or in the next few days which:

"WILL LET THE MOSLEM WORLD AROUND THE GLOBE KNOW THAT AFTER THE ANNOUNCEMENT THEY WILL NOT HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT ISRAEL'S NUCLEAR ARMS OR NUCLEAR CAPABILITY EVER AGAIN"

This provides three possible scenarios:

1. Iran is about to nuke Israel.

2. Iran will declare they have nuclear capability with at least four missiles with NUCLEAR warheads (common knowledge in intelligence circles) that can easily reach all of Israel and threaten to use these against Israel if that country does not immediately cease attacks on the Hezbollah and Lebanon.

3. In the event that Israel does not immediately comply, Iran will declare war on Israel and fire nuclear missiles, which would not leave much of a country over which any more fighting is logical.

HOPED FOR RESULT: Depending on the extent of damage to Israel and the ability of that country to continue as a nation in a radioactively polluted environment, already weak-kneed Western powers will call for creating non-aggression pacts with nuclear Iran.

He has already told a group of Arabs meeting in Tehran around the time the Hezbollah/Hamas attacks began a similar general concept:

RIA Novosti reported that just before the attacks by Hamas and Hezbollah on Israel. Ahmadinejad addressed a high-profile Muslim forum held in Tehran saying "the main issue faced by the Islamic world is Israel's existence. The Islamic countries should mobilize their efforts to do away with this issue," and that "all the conditions for eliminating the Zionist regime" are "currently in place."

Posted by:Anonymoose

#16 It seems to be a fact that moonbats and muzzies (muzzbats) are unique in that they have a special "ability" to hold multiple contradictory "beliefs" simultaneously, apparently without the pesky migraines it causes the rest of humanity.

Heh, Ima like.

Posted by: 6 2006-07-19 17:02

#15 This could work in our favor if Kimmee strikes Hawaii - we could tell the native islanders - you want separatism?

Here you go, you handle him.

So what's your tribute for his landing party?

Posted by: anonymous2u 2006-07-19 16:34

#14 South Korea.
L'ill Kim's first goal would be reunification.

Posted by: wxjames 2006-07-19 16:29

#13 "All paths now lead lead to dark places." Well, that summs it all up very nicely. My question to everybody on the home front is this: when the Iranians light the candle will the North Koreans do the same? If so, where? California? Hawaii?

Posted by: Secret Master 2006-07-19 15:16

#12 On his belmont blog Wretchard had this statement to make about rocketing Hafia which applies here too:

At a meeting between RAND and the Airforce in the 1950s, one analyst sketched out the logic behind counterforce. It went thus: if you strike a country's weapons with nukes without touching his cities, your deterrence does not diminish, because despite the fact that he has been stricken, you have your hostages still. When Hezbollah struck Haifa, it did a very subtle thing. It killed the hostage.

This destroyed any Israeli incentive for restraint. Now it knows that Hezbollah is only limited by capability. Hezbollah's intentions have already been revealed. It is worse if the trigger were pulled from Teheran. In that case, there is even less of case for restraint.

These events put the IDF on the road they are on. All paths now lead lead to dark places.

Posted by: 3dc 2006-07-19 14:31

#11 Having salted to taste, I
followed the links back to

http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20060715/51404951.html

This is a Russian news analysis, I especially like the irony in paragraph #3 and the overt suggestion that Putin thinks AmmadandIneedajihad lied to him personally.

Posted by: J. D. Lux 2006-07-19 14:15

#10 The dumbasses in charge think they can weather a US and Israeli attack, then rebuild their nukes. The counter to that, which I've long advocated, will be to partition Iran. Doing so will solve several problems.

First of all, Persia will no longer dominate the region, it will be on more of a par with all the other countries in the area. Second, they will no longer have the oil to pay for nuke tech, nor the uranium mines to get the ore.

Second, the US won't have to invade Persia, which is the tough nut. It can carve up the rest of Iran by blasting hell out of their army and revolutionary guard. Since those parts will all be incorporated into other countries, they will be hard to win back.

Kurdish Iran to Kurdistan. SW Arab Iran to Iraq. Northwest Iran to Azerbaijan, and Baluchistan to Pakistan. Azerbaijan is the only weak nation in the bunch, so US forces will have to stay in their new territories for a long time.

Persia itself will evolve in an odd direction, hopefully to give up on the mullahtocracy and become more cosmopolitan centered.

Posted by: Anonymoose 2006-07-19 13:57

#9 Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad would not be any less sane on LSD!

Fricking mental cases!

The main problem with muslims is that the make their insane raving lunatics into leaders instead of instutionalizing them and dosing them with at the minimum thorazine!

Posted by: 3dc 2006-07-19 13:52

#8 Neither Israel nor the United States would suffer a nuclear Iran.

If Iran fires missiles at Israel from Iranian territory, that's effectively a declaration of war against Israel and the United States. An invitation to all-out war against Iran.

If Iran announces that it has nuclear capabilities, but does not torch one off, it invites attack by the United States which says it will not tolerate a nuclear-armed Iran. It also invites attack by Israel which absolutely cannot tolerate even the potential of a nuncear-armed Iran.

Either way, Iran ends up on the business end of a very large smoking gun.

Iran and Ahmaneedastraightjacket is inviting not only war, but courting national extinction with its rhetoric.

Posted by: FOTSGreg 2006-07-19 12:49

#7 Neither Israel nor the United States would suffer a nuclear Iran.

If Iran fires missiles at Israel from Iranian territory, that's effectively a declaration of war against Israel and the United States. An invitation to all-out war against Iran.

If Iran announces that it has nuclear capabilities, but does not torch one off, it invites attack by the United States which says it will not tolerate a nuclear-armed Iran. It also invites attack by Israel which absolutely cannot tolerate even the potential of a nuncear-armed Iran.

Either way, Iran ends up on the business end of a very large smoking gun.

Iran and Ahmaneedastraightjacket is inviting not only war, but courting national extinction with its rhetoric.

Posted by: FOTSGreg 2006-07-19 12:48

#6 And the other reason that the Arabs won't have to worry about Israeli nuclear arms ever again? They will used in their entirety during the Israeli retaliation, known as the Sampson Option. The sudden loss of say 30% of the Arab population will be balanced by the loss of all major urban centers in the Arab world. No worries about a collapsing real estate market there.

Posted by: Shieldwolf 2006-07-19 12:42

#5 bigjim-ky: I disagree. Both the US and Israel have spent a fortune on building layered anti-missile defenses against Iran. We will defend Israel, so they won't have to use their nukes to do so.

The Israelis have 3 Patriot batteries in Haifa against any Syrian missiles, and the Arrow ABM system against Iran. The US has Patriots, PAC-3s, maybe THAAD, which is under "emergency" production, and indeterminate airborne assets.

The best the Iranians have is a recent Chinese MIRV arrival that might be good enough to evade Arrow, but everything else is 1960s technology.

I will also note that a big concern of mine, that Iran might attack one of our carrier fleets, seems to be moot, as there hasn't been a US carrier in the Persian Gulf or Arabian Sea for weeks now.

We do have a Command ship in the Red Sea, along with its escorts. And, of course, we aren't saying diddly about our bases in Iraq or Bagram in Afghanistan.

And, on the plus side, if Iran does launch anything, assuming a shoot down, Iran will be our bitch. That will invoke all sorts of Cold War protocols which will mean that Russia and China and France *have* to back off and let us do anything we want to.

Posted by: Anonymoose 2006-07-19 12:41

#4 Heh, SteveS. Reminds me of the BrilliantMoronBusHitler...

It seems to be a fact that moonbats and muzzies (muzzbats) are unique in that they have a special "ability" to hold multiple contradictory "beliefs" simultaneously, apparently without the pesky migraines it causes the rest of humanity.

As a magnetic "bottle" can contain plasma, the muzzbat mind can contain cognitive dissonance.

I smell a big juicy grant. :)

Posted by: Whineter Gloger7385 2006-07-19 12:12

#3 I think, no, I know Israel would have their missiles in the air before the Iranian missiles hit. There would be no Iran left either. What the U.S. would do is a mystery to me , but I'm sure it would include some very strong language in a UN draft.

Posted by: bigjim-ky 2006-07-19 12:11

#2 the main issue faced by the Islamic world is Israel's existence.

Leaving aside the ugly implications, this is totally hilarious. Your governments suck, your people are uneducated, your economies unproductive, your science non-existant and you are worried about 6 million Israelies. Them evil Jooz is certainly influential sumbitches! I don't know whether to laugh or weep.

Posted by: SteveS 2006-07-19 12:01

#1 Reaching for my sunglasses and ear plugs....

Posted by: Besoeker 2006-07-19 11:12

00:00