I have a question about Iran.

[GottaDiesel]

It is NO secret that Iran hates Israel.

So this morning I read this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/12/AR2006041200477.html

Especially this:

Elder statesman Shimon Peres described Iran's announcement as "worrying and frustrating," but said patience was needed.
"The United States has placed this issue at the top of its agenda. I do not recommend that we should be involved," he told Israel Radio. "I am sure the United States is aware of the expected danger and the matter is in its hands."

My question is, if Israel is "Free to defend herself" and Iran is a threat to Israel, then how did WE end up the position that we are in?????

[Maroon 300D]

Well most people consider Iran a threat to us, too. And it seems like over the years we've encouraged Israel to let us handle things in that region that could be a threat to their security.

You could argue about whether this is good for the U.S. or not, but if I were Israel I would probably find it easier to let other people do the dirty work, too.

Edit: And anyway, Peres is kind of a dove, isn't he?

[Botnst]

Iranian leadership has been, since the brilliant leadership of Jimmy Carter, contemptuous of the "Great Satan" and has called for our destruction only slightly less often than for the destruction of Israel.

The current president of Iran belongs to some apocalyptic Muslim Cult that is pretty sure that Muhammed is going to return immenently to right all the wrongs. Because Muhammed will be on their side they have nothing to worry about except to maintain their pious righteousness and be prepared to kill the infidels. That's us.

One really great way to kill lots of infidels for Muhammed would be to have some nuclear weapons.

B

[Lebenz]

I still have this nightmare that if Iran gets nukes they’ll drop at least one of them into one of their biggest oil/natural gas wells. That will be the ultimate suicide bombing, and forever change the destiny of civilization.

[Botnst]

Originally Posted by Lebenz

I still have this nightmare that if Iran gets nukes they’ll drop at least one of them into one of their biggest oil/natural gas wells. That will be the ultimate suicide bombing, and forever change the destiny of civilization.

I'm just hoping that the French, Spanish and Belgians seize the initiative on this emerging danger to peace.

[450slcguy]

Originally Posted by GottaDiesel

It is NO secret that Iran hates Israel.

So this morning I read this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/12/AR2006041200477.html

Especially this:

Elder statesman Shimon Peres described Iran's announcement as "worrying and frustrating," but said patience was needed.
"The United States has placed this issue at the top of its agenda. I do not recommend that we should be involved," he told Israel Radio. "I am sure the United States is aware of the expected danger and the matter is in its hands."

My question is, if Israel is "Free to defend herself" and Iran is a threat to Israel, then how did WE end up the position that we are in?????

I believe the reason Israel dosen't want to "get involved" is because it would lead to an immediate war. There is nothing for them to negotiate , they exist as a democratic nation, the exact opposite of what their opponants refuse to accept or believe.

[boneheaddoctor]

Originally Posted by GottaDiesel

It is NO secret that Iran hates Israel.

So this morning I read this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/12/AR2006041200477.html

Especially this:

Elder statesman Shimon Peres described Iran's announcement as "worrying and frustrating," but said patience was needed.
"The United States has placed this issue at the top of its agenda. I do not recommend that we should be involved," he told Israel Radio. "I am sure the United States is aware of the expected danger and the matter is in its hands."

My question is, if Israel is "Free to defend herself" and Iran is a threat to Israel, then how did WE end up the position that we are in?????

We are Isreals closest ally. And we are in the position to send all the loons over there to visit Allah in person if they ever went though with their loudmouth claims. Just as we would if they did so with Great Brittan. They are free to defend themselves....but if they get ganged up on we have their backs.

[NKowi]

Originally Posted by boneheaddoctor

We are Isreals closest ally. And we are in the position to send all the loons over there to visit Allah in person if they ever went though with their loudmouth claims. Just as we would if they did so with Great Brittan. They are free to defend themselves....but if they get ganged up on we have their backs.

They've been ganged up on more than once in their recent history. The last time, as I recall, the US did have to intervene - to keep the Israelis from taking the fight all the way to Cairo. They didn't need our backs.

[boneheaddoctor]

Originally Posted by NKowi

They've been ganged up on more than once in their recent history. The last time, as I recall, the US did have to intervene - to keep the Israelis from taking the fight all the way to Cairo. They didn't need our backs.

Not so far...Isreal is a mighty formitible foe. But if they really get ganged up on rather than one country at a time. Now If Iran. and a few of these other equally worthless countries decide to gang up at the same time then they might need our help. Point being is our help is availible if and when its needed.

[koop]

Originally Posted by boneheaddoctor

Not so far...Isreal is a mighty formitible foe. But if they really get ganged up on rather than one country at a time. Now If Iran. and a few of these other equally worthless countries decide to gang up at the same time then they might need our help. Point being is our help is availible if and when its needed.

I believe he was refering to the Yom Kippur war in which Israel was ganged up on by more than one country. Israel proceeded to crack open a drum of industrial strength whupass and had to be pulled off of those fools.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yom_Kippur_War

[NKowi]

Originally Posted by koop

I believe he was refering to the Yom Kippur war in which Israel was ganged up on by more than one country. Israel proceeded to crack open a drum of industrial strength whupass and had to be pulled off of those fools.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yom_Kippur_War

Yup.

[Botnst]

Originally Posted by koop

I believe he was refering to the Yom Kippur war in which Israel was ganged up on by more than one country. Israel proceeded to crack open a drum of industrial strength whupass and had to be pulled off of those fools.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yom_Kippur_War

Yeah I remember that war. That's when Israel's neighbors planned a quick end to Israel and lost their territories in so doing, making it Israel's fault that the belligerent neighbors lost their own territory in a war they started.

It's been Israel's fault ever since.

B

[PC Dave]

Stratfor: Iran: Crossing the Redline?

Summary

Iranian officials are trumpeting a major advance in their country's
nuclear program. Here is what it means -- and does not mean.

Analysis

Former Iranian President and Chairman of the Expediency Council Ali
Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani announced April 11 that Iran has successfully
completed an enrichment cascade using 164 gas centrifuges, Kuwaiti
state news agency KUNA announced. Such a cascade would empower Iran to
produce a richer fissile blend of uranium for use in nuclear power
plant fuel or perhaps a nuclear weapon.

Technically, the announcement means that Iran has established its
ability to enrich uranium in something other than very small amounts.
The Iranians are, however, not yet at the point that they can make
weapons or fabricate nuclear fuel to run a reactor. A weapons program
will require several of these cascades, and a power program requires
dozens of them. Establishing enrichment cascades on that scale is
still -- at bare minimum -- several months off. And even once that is
achieved, enriched uranium would need to be fabricated into fuel for a
reactor, or go through a weaponization process if it is to have
military value. Neither process is simple, quick or cheap.

Politically, however, this step has immediate implications. In Europe,
enrichment of any kind, much less on an industrial scale as the
Iranians are clearly aiming for, is a redline. Once the Iranians move
past enrichment, information on their nuclear weapons program can be
garnered only through intensive intelligence efforts. Iran's
announcement means that European states that see a limited reason to
participate in such intelligence efforts no longer feel they have any
leverage in negotiations. Europe will now simply put its relatively
disinterested diplomatic efforts behind the United States and let
Washington run the show. It is not carte blanche -- the Europeans
still do not want military action -- but it is close.

For Israel, the issue is more complex. As noted above, enrichment does
not automatically equate to weaponization. Israel, unlike Europe, has
a deep and abiding interest in directing intelligence efforts against
Tehran. Thus, Israel's picture of the Iranian nuclear program is more
complete than Europe's. As one would expect, this deeper awareness and
interest translates into a different redline, likely somewhere in the
weaponization process. The world can be certain that Iran has not yet
stepped over Israel's redline; after all, Tehran is still a city, not a crater.

But ultimately the Iranian announcement is about the United States.
Iran and Washington are currently -- for the first time in a
generation -- engaged in direct talks, officially about all topics
Iraqi. This revelation, like the U.S. leaks over the weekend that
nuclear strike options against Iran had been drawn up, are all part of
the ebb and flow of those negotiations .

[Botnst]

Originally Posted by PC Dave

Stratfor: Iran: Crossing the Redline?

Summary

Iranian officials are trumpeting a major advance in their country's
nuclear program. Here is what it means -- and does not mean.

Analysis

Former Iranian President and Chairman of the Expediency Council Ali
Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani announced April 11 that Iran has successfully
completed an enrichment cascade using 164 gas centrifuges, Kuwaiti
state news agency KUNA announced. Such a cascade would empower Iran to
produce a richer fissile blend of uranium for use in nuclear power
plant fuel or perhaps a nuclear weapon.

Technically, the announcement means that Iran has established its
ability to enrich uranium in something other than very small amounts.
The Iranians are, however, not yet at the point that they can make
weapons or fabricate nuclear fuel to run a reactor. A weapons program
will require several of these cascades, and a power program requires
dozens of them. Establishing enrichment cascades on that scale is
still -- at bare minimum -- several months off. And even once that is
achieved, enriched uranium would need to be fabricated into fuel for a
reactor, or go through a weaponization process if it is to have
military value. Neither process is simple, quick or cheap.

Politically, however, this step has immediate implications. In Europe,
enrichment of any kind, much less on an industrial scale as the
Iranians are clearly aiming for, is a redline. Once the Iranians move
past enrichment, information on their nuclear weapons program can be
garnered only through intensive intelligence efforts. Iran's
announcement means that European states that see a limited reason to
participate in such intelligence efforts no longer feel they have any
leverage in negotiations. Europe will now simply put its relatively
disinterested diplomatic efforts behind the United States and let
Washington run the show. It is not carte blanche -- the Europeans
still do not want military action -- but it is close.

For Israel, the issue is more complex. As noted above, enrichment does
not automatically equate to weaponization. Israel, unlike Europe, has
a deep and abiding interest in directing intelligence efforts against
Tehran. Thus, Israel's picture of the Iranian nuclear program is more
complete than Europe's. As one would expect, this deeper awareness and
interest translates into a different redline, likely somewhere in the
weaponization process. The world can be certain that Iran has not yet
stepped over Israel's redline; after all, Tehran is still a city, not a crater.

But ultimately the Iranian announcement is about the United States.
Iran and Washington are currently -- for the first time in a
generation -- engaged in direct talks, officially about all topics
Iraqi. This revelation, like the U.S. leaks over the weekend that
nuclear strike options against Iran had been drawn up, are all part of
the ebb and flow of those negotiations .

That makes sense.

B

[cmac2012]

Originally Posted by Botnst

Iranian leadership has been, since the brilliant leadership of Jimmy Carter, contemptuous of the "Great Satan" and has called for our destruction only slightly less often than for the destruction of Israel.

The current president of Iran belongs to some apocalyptic Muslim Cult that is pretty sure that Muhammed is going to return immenently to right all the wrongs. Because Muhammed will be on their side they have nothing to worry about except to maintain their pious righteousness and be prepared to kill the infidels. That's us.

One really great way to kill lots of infidels for Muhammed would be to have some nuclear weapons.

What is the sound of one mind obfuscating? Carter, clumsy as he was, had very little to do with the powder keg that was Iran in 1979. Them seeds were sown way back when, '53, and in drips and drabs ever since.

As for the rescue attempt, I can scarcely believe that someone in the military know didn't point out that the scheme didn't have the barest chance of working. They were going to somehow bull their way into Tehran with 9 helicopters and spirit the 53 hostages away, after finding them at their various safe houses? I think we were almost lucky the mission self aborted, all due respect and reverence being given to the 8 servicemen who lost their lives. God only knows how it would have played out if they had executed the mission completely.

I can't see how our attacking them is going to make them any less believing that the great Satan must die. Most everyone I've heard on the topic says that a pre-emptive strike will only delay them getting nukes.