...it's not dark yet, but it's gettin' there...

August 11, 2005

What To Do About Iran

Doug Tennapel has it right.

America has too many Democrats and Anti-Israel Presbyterians to help Israel, so they will be forced to do what the UN and Europe can't do...they will take out Iran's nuclear facilities with a pre-emptive attack. The Muslim street will erupt, which will suit the hated Iran leadership just fine, changing their status from hated regime to just martyr overnight.

Israel is surrounded by radical Muslims where part of their religion is to force Zionist monkeys and Christian pigs into submission. When these religions get nuclear bombs Israel will be history. Is Israel safer now that they are withdrawing from occupied territory? Hell no. Because this was never about Israeli occupation...it's about an Islamic desire for genocide.

i only think that we should have the guts to send a few F-117s over there and do it ourselves. Israel may be target number one, but we are target number two on the Iranians' list. We could eliminate their nuclear plant tommorow if we wanted to. Of course we won't. Thick-skinned as Bush has been up to this point, he knows the world will call him a monster even as he gives the order that might save millions of lives. i don't think he will do it, nor do i see any other solution to the Iranian problem. Do you?

Posted by annika, Aug. 11, 2005 | TrackBack (0)
Rubric: annikapunditry


Too many people have concluded that because "deterrence" worked against the Soviet Union for 50 years, it will also work against Iran (or whoever). This is very dangerous reasoning.

Posted by: David Foster on Aug. 11, 2005

On the other hand. the mullahs wont last forever. And an attack would strengthen their hand. I think if the democraticaly elected government in Iraq can stabilize it might cause a change in Iran.

Posted by: Kyle on Aug. 11, 2005

I am afraid that we can't expect Israel to pull our bacon (to use a non-kosher term) out of the fire this time. Destroying the Iranian nuclear weapon program by air strike would be much more difficult for Israel than the 1981 attack on Iraq;s Osiraq plant. The distance is much farther; the refueling problems much more daunting, especially since the US would probably not assist. Also, the Iranians, having learned a lesson from Osiraq, have scattered their program sites across the country in protected bunkers. 2 ironies: Before Israel's attack, the Osiraq plant was unsuccessifully attacked in Sept. 1980 by--Iran! Also, one of the Israeli pilots was Ilan Ramon, later Israel's 1st astronaut, who died in the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster on Feb. 1, 2003.

There is no neat and quick military solution to this problem.

Posted by: Ralphyboy on Aug. 11, 2005

There have been massive demonstrations against the Iranian goverment during the past two summers. They are greatly encouraged by Bush's speeches over the last 3 years. Plus the nuclear war talk of the government has the people scared to death.

I predict that the Iranian government will fall this year because the Iranians will rise up and throw the dictators out. I don't think we will need to get involved anymore than giving the rebels weapons.

Posted by: Jake on Aug. 11, 2005

The mullah's decision to restart ore processing was not done just to thumb their noses at the west. They had to draw a strong hand against the most formidable force ever assembled. A force that just happens to be assembled on two of their borders. Their choice, while scary to us, is also a sign that they are just as scared of the U.S. military.
This just points to the race that Jake mentioned. Will the mullahs last long enough to get the bomb? I can't begin to estimate a timeline, but the necessity of a revolution in Iran speaks for itself. Unfortunately the admin can't do too much publicly lest it risk handing the mullahs an excuse to crack down on "western-backed" insurgents. I hate to say it, but we won't know how effective any clandestine operations will be until we see a free Iran, or a mushroom cloud over Jerusalem.

Posted by: Trevor on Aug. 11, 2005

First, I don't know if we're target number 2 on Iran's list. They might want to kill the Sunnis first. Remember that big religious war they had with predominantly Sunni Iraq during the 1980s.

Second, most Democrats aren't anti-Israel -- do you remember John Edwards repeatedly reaffirming American support for Israel during the VP debate? Well, if you don't, he went on about that for quite a while. Green Party figures like Ralph Nader and Michael Moore are strongly pro-Palestinian, but the majority of Democratic politicians don't go that way.

I'm with Kyle on this. If you want to strengthen the Iranian reformers, you probably shouldn't drop bombs on their country. It'll just make the populace get behind their mullahs more.

Posted by: Neil the Ethical Werewolf on Aug. 11, 2005

Is it any coincidence that the US gave the "Bunker-Buster" technology to Israel last year?

You know, those 10,000 pounders that go beneath the surface and penetrate ten or twenty feet of concrete and steel?

What does one suppose Israel wanted this for, digging for oil or water? Perhaps to mine for gold?

Israel will not wait for a U.N. Resolution before taking out any serious threat to their existance. The only thing that I see as standing between Israel and the destruction of Iran's capability is the time from here to start-up.

When Sharon, or Nehetanyu or anyone else who is in the P.M.'s seat at the moment, decides that Iran is too close to having the bomb, they will strike.

Re-fueling, as we know, is not brain surgery. They will not concern themselves with the nicities of violation of soverign airspace or illegally violating some country's borders.

They will strike to maintain their safety and wait for the UN resolutions condemning them, which I predict will be vetoed by our man Bolton, with great pleasure.

Does anyone doubt this, besides the Iranians?

Posted by: shelly on Aug. 12, 2005

"There is no neat and quick military solution to this problem."

Neat no, quick yes.

We could kill everysingle living thing in Iran and anyone who decided that they should fight us. If we were not so nice, we would be running this place with force and fear not bribery (aka captialism).

Posted by: cube on Aug. 12, 2005

Like Shelly said. The IDF would really have no problem getting the job done. They have done the miraculous before, a couple of times. This job won't require a miracle, just guts.

Posted by: annika on Aug. 12, 2005

while i agree with shelly, i have always thought that this type of operation will require a ground component as well.
i don't think the israelis will want to chance 75% destruction of the facilities.
100% would be nice, with confirmation.
this could get messy.
i just hope arik is around to do the planning.

annika is really swinging for the bleachers with these last two comments. who needs that condi girl when we got annika in the wings.

Posted by: louielouie on Aug. 12, 2005

I still think there might be a fly in the ointment re: Israel taking out the site from the air. Depending on the hardening of the bunker, the use of conventional bunker busters could be in doubt. Here's a telegraph article on the whole thing, via Drudge:
Israeli hawks
Assuming that the bunkers are hardened enough to withstand one or two shots from a conventional bunker buster, and assuming that there really are nine sites to deal with, then the IDF is left to decide between a massive mission with conventional BB's (using several conventional BB's at each site,) or an attack with nuclear BB's. I'll leave it to everyone else to understand the ramifications of either tactic. Either choice leads to such a high price to pay (even assuming complete mission success,) that one wonders if that is worth merely delaying the Iranian nuke a little longer.

Posted by: Trevor on Aug. 12, 2005

Great question. The Iranian government is kind of like Russia on steroids. Clearly the Iranian powers that be want America now or to appear that way. Is there a correlation betwen Ahmadinehad being brought forward and the shaped charges blowing up our best Marines on the AAV? I think partly the critcism Bush is getting is to keep him from going to Iran. He'll wait on a nuclear strike for a counterpunch unless he is absolutely sure it's coming.

Posted by: Michael Brophy on Aug. 16, 2005