NationStates Jolt Archive

IIRC, my prediction was to use a Trident missile submarine to launch ballistic missiles at Iran, in the final effort to prevent them from obtaining nuclear weapons.

Looks like that's in the plan.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/02/12/wiran12.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/02/12/ixnewstop.html

US prepares military blitz against Iran's nuclear sites
By Philip Sherwell in Washington
(Filed: 12/02/2006)

Strategists at the Pentagon are drawing up plans for devastating bombing raids backed by submarine-launched ballistic missile attacks against Iran's nuclear sites as a "last resort" to block Teheran's efforts to develop an atomic bomb.

Central Command and Strategic Command planners are identifying targets, assessing weapon-loads and working on logistics for an operation, the Sunday Telegraph has learnt.

Technically, the warheads may be conventional - but an incoming ballistic missile looks like an incoming ballistic missile.

Well, if it's necessary, it's necessary. However, I think we should wait until Iran either pulls out of the NPT or all diplomatic opportunities fail...we need to maximize international consensus if possible, and we already have a good deal of it as is.

So it is wrong now to prepare for the worst possible outcome?

Looks like Iran is getting nervous that we're actually going to take action, since their foreign minister is reaffirming their allegiance to the NPT. I think brinksmanship might very well stop Iran's program if we keep it up.

Looks like Iran is getting nervous that we're actually going to take action, since their foreign minister is reaffirming their allegiance to the NPT. I think brinksmanship might very well stop Iran's program if we keep it up.

Brinksmanship is a fancy way of saying you're going to roll the dice.

Kissinger's pet theory was that if you are playing chicken with cars, it's best to very visibly convince your opponent that you are far crazier than he is - throw the steering wheel out the window so that he can see you're not going to turn - throw the brake pedals out the window - scream like a maniac.

The last time we played chicken for real was the Cuban Missile Crisis.

We could very well have had the Russians call our bluff - and poof!

I'm betting that in the end, the Iranians call our bluff.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/02/13/wiran13.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/02/13/ixworld.html

An update.

Doesn't look good.

IIRC, my prediction was to use a Trident missile submarine to launch ballistic missiles at Iran, in the final effort to prevent them from obtaining nuclear weapons.

Looks like that's in the plan.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/02/12/wiran12.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/02/12/ixnewstop.html



Technically, the warheads may be conventional - but an incoming ballistic missile looks like an incoming ballistic missile.
Completely off topic, but i was curious ... how was your vacation?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10413631&postcount=27



EDIT: learnt? *shakes head*

I glanced at the story on the paper this morning- didn't really pay much heed to it. Now thats its out in the public glare- the odds of it being carried out along those lines, I'd assume, would have dropped significantly.

And even if a strike does happen... would it be legal?

And even if a strike does happen... would it be legal?
"I will make it legal."~Emperor Cheney
http://hem.bredband.net/b232251/stuff/cheneyemperor.jpg

I glanced at the story on the paper this morning- didn't really pay much heed to it. Now thats its out in the public glare- the odds of it being carried out along those lines, I'd assume, would have dropped significantly.

And even if a strike does happen... would it be legal?

I suspect that this is actually an intentional leak to gauge where public perception is atm on the issue.

The leaders by the way don't give two hoots about the nuclear thing - it's just a convenient excuse. They'd be going in, regardless. It's all in the Iranian Oil Bourse (attacks brought courtesy the Petrodollar Protection Squad (aka the US military).

After Iraq, do you REALLY think TPTB care if it's legal?

"I will make it legal."~Emperor Cheney
http://hem.bredband.net/b232251/stuff/cheneyemperor.jpg

I wouldn't mind a Palpatine in power...he kicked ass.

I wouldn't mind a Palpatine in power...he kicked ass.
Yeah, but Cheney doesn't.

Yeah, but Cheney doesn't.
He's a twitch away from kicking the bucket, not an ass.

"I will make it legal."~Emperor Cheney
http://hem.bredband.net/b232251/stuff/cheneyemperor.jpg
Weird thing is he kinda looks a lil' like Skinner from X-Files there, too.

I was predicting the same thing... I heard plenty of noise claiming we didn't have the capability to launch enough simultaneous strikes, and just as I would respond, it's all about the submerines..

Don't tell you I told you so

Is it just me failing to understand this part of the sentence?

Is it just me failing to understand this part of the sentence?
Pssst ....
*just humour him*

Let's hope they don't miss. And that we actually know about all the installations.

Wouldn't want to leave some intact. Oh...and it would be good if we were ready for the Iranian counterattack on Iraq.

He's a twitch away from kicking the bucket, not an ass.

Now that's just cruel! :D

I say we won't use a trident, but I bet we use an Ohio class sub. I mean the newly recommissioned USS OHIO (SSGN-726). She can now saturate the facilities with 154 TLAMs. That would end the program.

I say we won't use a trident, but I bet we use an Ohio class sub. I mean the newly recommissioned USS OHIO (SSGN-726). She can now saturate the facilities with 154 TLAMs. That would end the program.
It would also ruin any chance of the US ever getting any oil from the Middle East ever again. Now, we don't get that much from them as it is, but if you want to see $200 a barrel oil and $6.00 a gallon gas, then by all means, nuke the hell out of them.

Oh yeah--expect China to be mighty pissed about it as well, since Iran is their largest foreign supplier of oil, and China is only the second largest holder of US debt.

I'm not saying that I want Iran to have nukes, but we need to remember that this situation is larger than just the US and Iran.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/02/13/wiran13.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/02/13/ixworld.html

An update.

Doesn't look good.
Bottom line of the report:

The report concludes: "A military response to the current crisis is a particularly dangerous option and should not be considered further. Alternative approaches must be sought, however difficult these may be."

As if Bush would pay heed to anything suggesting a cautious approach.

DONT DO IT! Seriously, if that is done, Israel is semi-screwed. Remember the first Gulf War? If they do that, I'm going to assassinate the entire administration! BWAHAHAHAHAHA! *Secret Service agents appear* Come with us, please!

Bottom line of the report:

The report concludes: "A military response to the current crisis is a particularly dangerous option and should not be considered further. Alternative approaches must be sought, however difficult these may be."

As if Bush would pay heed to anything suggesting a cautious approach.
Yeah, well, sun comes up in the east, sets in the west a couple billion times, you get to expect it. Kind of like Bush not paying attention to good advice.

Yeah, well, sun comes up in the east, sets in the west a couple billion times, you get to expect it. Kind of like Bush not paying attention to good advice.
Exactly. There is more to this than meets the eye. One also needs to consider that any occupation of Iran puts US forces scattered across three contiguous countries and within easy reach of both China and Russia. I am sure that this encroachment would make these other powerful nations a tad uneasy especially since China gets a lot of oil from Iran?

http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/middle_east_and_asia/middle_east_pol_2003.jpg

http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,grossbild-572265-398087,00.html
Better map here. :)

Exactly. There is more to this than meets the eye. One also needs to consider that any occupation of Iran puts US forces scattered across three contiguous countries and within easy reach of both China and Russia. I am sure that this encroachment would make these other powerful nations a tad uneasy especially since China gets a lot of oil from Iran?


Especially close to Russia. Armenia, Georgia/Azerbailan are unlikely to offer any resistance... With this, strategically, you would then have access to the Black Sea (therefore access into the Mediterranean) and also the Persian Gulf.

Now, the oil's in Western Iran (which is what they're REALLY after, the Nooks are just a convenient excuse). So all you need do is control Iraq and Western Iran (which also happens to be strategically significant for access to Russia.

Strategically, Iran is VERY important.

Now that's just cruel! :D
Hey, look at the score. He had a good run for an evil f*cking bastard. And i'm not really kidding about how iffy his health is. Could be that not as many of the Republicans believe in him anymore and he needs more sacrifices. :D

One also needs to consider that any occupation of Iran puts US forces scattered across three contiguous countries and within easy reach of both China and Russia. I am sure that this encroachment would make these other powerful nations a tad uneasy especially since China gets a lot of oil from Iran?so you are saying what? that the us military scattered across three countries would be scattered too thin for the job or that it would be even more formidable and look like a bigger threat?

so you are saying what? that the us military scattered across three countries would be scattered too thin for the job or that it would be even more formidable and look like a bigger threat?
Speaking only for myself, I think scattered is the problem. Thing is, the US has showed its hand in the Iraq conflict. In a head to head conflict, no one is eager to tangle with the US, because of the technological superiority the US currently enjoys. But it's pretty clear that the US doesn't currently have the manpower to sustain a long term drawn out affair. Nor does it have the political willpower to sustain an extended conflict.

It would also ruin any chance of the US ever getting any oil from the Middle East ever again. Now, we don't get that much from them as it is, but if you want to see $200 a barrel oil and $6.00 a gallon gas, then by all means, nuke the hell out of them.

Oh yeah--expect China to be mighty pissed about it as well, since Iran is their largest foreign supplier of oil, and China is only the second largest holder of US debt.

I'm not saying that I want Iran to have nukes, but we need to remember that this situation is larger than just the US and Iran.

Not to mention that doing it wouldn't end the program either, just drive it underground.

It looks like Iran has plans for Israel.

Rather than just calling for Israel to be "wiped off the map" or calling for Europeans to take back all the Jews, it's a new tack:

Take back the Jews, or else. Iran, the Palestinians, and "other" nations will "remove" Israel.

I guess a few nuclear weapons would come in handy there.

For any of you who don't believe for a second that Iran is serious about acquiring nuclear weapons and using them to achieve its foreign policy goals (getting rid of the Jews is #1), think again.

Yes, it's rather difficult to attack Iran without turning the whole oil market and Persian Gulf upside down - but if Iran threatens the oil production, they aren't just threatening the US - they are threatening everyone else - the EU, China, Russia, Japan, etc.

I can foresee a multinational asskicking - yes, the oil prices will go up, some nukes WILL go off, millions of people are going to be wasted, but in the end, it won't be just the Americans standing on Iranian soil.

I can also foresee that in the interest of stabilizing the oil situation, this multinational force, once assembled, might very well just crush the rest of Arabic Islam, and engage in a long term multigenerational occupation in order to re-goverment and re-educate the Middle East.

Frankly, I'm tired of the whole Middle East, and when Iran pushes the world to the last straw, they're going to die.

http://www.bangkokpost.com/breaking_news/breakingnews.php?id=78985

Welcome to the resource wars. We've been fighting this for the last three or four hundred years, but they're getting really, really serious now, because cheap energy resources are getting scarcer and scarcer.

If we assume that Iran is a rational actor on the world stage, that the rhetoric is a way of strengthening domestic power and alienating moderates, then whether Iran has nukes or not is irrelevant. Iran's leaders have to know that tossing a nuke at Israel will likely get them nuked, far more severely, in return, and for all their bluster, Iran's leadership has thus far acted in a way that is rational. They've talked a lot and they've tweaked the US by inviting Moqtada al Sadr and treating him like a hero, but their actions haven't been hostile yet. Iran has a lot to lose by becoming actually belligerent--their leadership has been in charge for a long time now and has become comfortable in power, unlike, say, the Taliban.

Here's the real issue--can you count on the Iranian leadership to stay a rational actor globally, despite their domestic rhetoric? You have to be able to crawl inside their heads and empathize, something this administration has not been very good at, quite frankly. It was that ability that kept the US and the USSR from nuking each other on more than one occasion. This threat is not nearly as bad--Iran at its very worst couldn't do a fraction of the damage we faced during the Cold War.

IIRC, my prediction was to use a Trident missile submarine to launch ballistic missiles at Iran, in the final effort to prevent them from obtaining nuclear weapons.

Looks like that's in the plan.
I never thought about the 'how', only the inevitability of an attack on Iran. With South Korea be next, do you think?

I never thought about the 'how', only the inevitability of an attack on Iran. With South Korea be next, do you think?
North Korea...

No, actually I think Syria is next.

The litmus test doesn't seem to be if you have nuclear weapons.

It's "do you have face to face dealings with terrorists groups, and do you finance and support terrorists groups" along with "you have nuclear ambitions".

The two together are not going to be permitted.

The recent, repeated demands by Iran for the West to dissolve Israel and take all the Jews out of the Middle East, "or else", is a clear, unambiguous indication of where Iran is taking this.

North Korea... Kehehehehe...I was hoping people would start screaming about 'that communist haven of terrorists, the big, bad, SOUTH KOREA! You always have to ruin things, don't you!

No, actually I think Syria is next.

The litmus test doesn't seem to be if you have nuclear weapons.

It's "do you have face to face dealings with terrorists groups, and do you finance and support terrorists groups" along with "you have nuclear ambitions".

The two together are not going to be permitted.

The recent, repeated demands by Iran for the West to dissolve Israel and take all the Jews out of the Middle East, "or else", is a clear, unambiguous indication of where Iran is taking this.
Does the US really have the resources to extend themselves further? Or do you think they'll stop hanging about once the initial bruhaha is done? As in, enough with the occupations, let's stick to the old in and out?

The recent, repeated demands by Iran for the West to dissolve Israel and take all the Jews out of the Middle East, "or else", is a clear, unambiguous indication of where Iran is taking this.
I still have to wonder just how seriously to take Iran's demogoguery on Israel. In terms of domestic politics, it makes perfect sense to talk smack about Israel--there's no downside. It defangs any moderate opposition because it makes the moderates look like they're cowtowing to the dreaded enemy (shades of the Republican rhetoric on Iraq in 2002), and the people in power in Iran need to demogogue because the reformers have been, until recently, making progress. Ahmadinejad could be using this rhetoric merely to strengthen his position at home and quell popular opposition.

The question, again, is whether or not Iran is willing to sacrifice their power on the world stage over the ravings of the most radical people in the country, because they have to know that any nuclear attack on Israel will be revisited tenfold upon them, first by Israel and then probably by the US.

They could also be trying to provoke a first strike by Israel, but that's a loser politically, because you're giving initiative to the other side. If they don't strike, you never get to slap back.

I don't have an answer, by the way. I'm just trying to point out that just because Iran's leaders are talking about destroying Israel, they have other reasons for the rhetoric. It's the politically cynical side of me, but I keep thinking about Iran's relationship with Israel in the same terms as the Republicans' relationship with abortion--it's far more useful as a whipping boy than as an actual enemy.

I laughed the first time I heard that the US were criticising Iran for their nuclear programme.

A few minutes later I realised they were being serious :headbang:

My prediction to go with Kimchi's:

If/when Bush launches strike, Muslim world, already incensed from recent political/religious events, and paranoid about a war on muslim culture, will rally.
Throw in a little China, getting pissed off at losing their oil source, and seeing the US stretched to the limit in three neighbouring countries, and some Russian Revenge and splat: I'm seeing red in North America.
I better start learning Chinese and Russian...

My prediction to go with Kimchi's:

If/when Bush launches strike, Muslim world, already incensed from recent political/religious events, and paranoid about a war on muslim culture, will rally.
Throw in a little China, getting pissed off at losing their oil source, and seeing the US stretched to the limit in three neighbouring countries, and some Russian Revenge and splat: I'm seeing red in North America.
I better start learning Chinese and Russian...


The sky is falling?

I don't have an answer, by the way. I'm just trying to point out that just because Iran's leaders are talking about destroying Israel, they have other reasons for the rhetoric. It's the politically cynical side of me, but I keep thinking about Iran's relationship with Israel in the same terms as the Republicans' relationship with abortion--it's far more useful as a whipping boy than as an actual enemy.

It's not a good situation, no matter how you slice it.

Think of it this way - a lot of Hitler's rhetoric was for local consumption - in no real terms could Germany logistically support an army capable of defeating all of Europe and the Soviet Union - especially if the US became involved in the war.

But Hitler, right after the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, declared war on the US. Wasn't very smart - in fact it was completely stupid, but he did it anyway.

Historically, when nations look like they're going to go to war, it pays to count on them doing the stupid thing.

It's not a good situation, no matter how you slice it.

Think of it this way - a lot of Hitler's rhetoric was for local consumption - in no real terms could Germany logistically support an army capable of defeating all of Europe and the Soviet Union - especially if the US became involved in the war.

But Hitler, right after the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, declared war on the US. Wasn't very smart - in fact it was completely stupid, but he did it anyway.

Historically, when nations look like they're going to go to war, it pays to count on them doing the stupid thing.
Yeah, Heinlein said to never underestimate the power of human stupidity, and he knew what he was talking about more often than not. I've been reading some Thomas Friedman lately, and he'd argue that Iran will never attack first because it would lose its place in the global supply chain, and if we could be sure that the Iranian leadership were rational actors, Friedman would probably be right. What makes me think that he might be in this case is that despite the Taliban-esque rhetoric, they haven't pulled any stupid Taliban moves. Give Mullah Omar a nuke, and it's going off in Israel, no question, because he seems to be a true believer. But I think the mullahs in Iran may--and I emphasize the "may" here--have gotten comfortable with the trappings of power and would think twice about getting involved in an actual nasty war.

At least that's what I'm hoping.

Speaking only for myself, I think scattered is the problem. Thing is, the US has showed its hand in the Iraq conflict. In a head to head conflict, no one is eager to tangle with the US, because of the technological superiority the US currently enjoys. But it's pretty clear that the US doesn't currently have the manpower to sustain a long term drawn out affair. Nor does it have the political willpower to sustain an extended conflict.
Which is why the US would use their technology to destroy Iran and not bother to fix it. I think that's what we should've done in Iraq. Let them kill each other. It isn't our problem. The US can use its technology to lay waste to Iran and let things settle on their own.

My bet is we don't need that. USS Ohio can fire 154 TLAMs with a 1,000 lb warhead each. Target a couple at every nuclear site and that program is offline. 1000 lb of high explosives is quite a punch.

Yeah, Heinlein said to never underestimate the power of human stupidity, and he knew what he was talking about more often than not. I've been reading some Thomas Friedman lately, and he'd argue that Iran will never attack first because it would lose its place in the global supply chain, and if we could be sure that the Iranian leadership were rational actors, Friedman would probably be right. What makes me think that he might be in this case is that despite the Taliban-esque rhetoric, they haven't pulled any stupid Taliban moves. Give Mullah Omar a nuke, and it's going off in Israel, no question, because he seems to be a true believer. But I think the mullahs in Iran may--and I emphasize the "may" here--have gotten comfortable with the trappings of power and would think twice about getting involved in an actual nasty war.

At least that's what I'm hoping.That was today's, wasn't it?

That was today's, wasn't it?
Was it? I read an excerpt of "The World Is Flat" recently and just applied the theory to the current situation. Friedman, in my experience, tends to underestimate the power of the rogue state, of the psycho in charge. I mean, if both sides in a conflict are rational, then Friedman's theory works--he pointed to the India-Pakistan conflict as a prime example. The problem is, if you count on both sides to be rational, then one irrational move fucks everything up, and in this case--US and Iran--you've got the potential for two irrational sides.

Which is why the US would use their technology to destroy Iran and not bother to fix it. I think that's what we should've done in Iraq. Let them kill each other. It isn't our problem. The US can use its technology to lay waste to Iran and let things settle on their own.

My bet is we don't need that. USS Ohio can fire 154 TLAMs with a 1,000 lb warhead each. Target a couple at every nuclear site and that program is offline. 1000 lb of high explosives is quite a punch.
What you're neglecting in your calculation is that we need what they've got. We don't need it in the sense that we import Iranian oil, but we need their supply to the rest of the world in order to keep our supply as cheap as it is. Take out Iran's ability to produce, and suddenly every oil-producing country in the world is not only listening to other countries who want their oil now, but they're charging the US a "fuck you for destroying that much supply" premium.

Somehow, I find the fact that many people are comfortable with the concept of going to war with Iran over it's nuclear program, and that many of those same people harshly criticized our going to war with Iraq, to be ironic, to say the least.

The only major difference I can see in all this, really, is that if we did go to war over this, that we would have the support of the world this time around.

I mean, it's all about the oil, isn't it?

Was it? I read an excerpt of "The World Is Flat" recently and just applied the theory to the current situation. Friedman, in my experience, tends to underestimate the power of the rogue state, of the psycho in charge. I mean, if both sides in a conflict are rational, then Friedman's theory works--he pointed to the India-Pakistan conflict as a prime example. The problem is, if you count on both sides to be rational, then one irrational move fucks everything up, and in this case--US and Iran--you've got the potential for two irrational sides.
From today's ...

..."Let me explain: If Iran develops a nuclear bomb, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and possibly other Sunni Arab states are bound to follow. The Sunni Arabs can overlook Israel's bomb, but they will never stand for the Persian Shiites having a bomb and them not. That's about brothers with a centuries-old rivalry. And if the Arab world starts to go nuclear, then you will see the crumbling of the whole global nuclear nonproliferation regime.
A world with so many nuclear powers, particularly in its primary oil-producing region, could only be a more dangerous and unstable place, compared with the post-Cold War world. Imagine Iran with $60-a-barrel oil to make all the mischief it wants, and a nuclear weapon to shield it from any retaliation. Indeed, if you want to know what the post-post-Cold War world would sound like, listen to Iran's poisonous president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. He was quoted in The Guardian of London the other day as saying: "Our enemies cannot do a dam thing. We do not need you at all. But you are in need of the Iranian nation.
...
As for America, its leadership task has shifted. If the Bush team continues to let Dick Cheney set its oil policy - one that will keep America dependent on crude oil - the post-Cold-War democracy movement that was unleashed by the fall of the Berlin Wall will be either aborted, diluted or reversed. If regimes like those in Iran, Venezuela, Syria, Burma, Sudan and Nigeria have the benefit of 10 years of $60-a-barrel oil, whatever democratic tide President Bush thinks he is unleashing will be stymied. The worst regimes in the world will have the most power to support the most regressive political and religious trends."
...
"Give me even $30-a-barrel oil and I will give you an Iranian regime that is a lot less smug - an Iran that will need to be tied into the world much more in order to create real jobs for its exploding population.
That's why we need an urgent national effort, starting with a gasoline tax, to move the U.S. economy onto a path of more fuel-efficient cars and renewable energy. If we do it, everyone will follow.
If we don't then say hello to the post-post-Cold War world and say goodbye to the post-Cold War world. It was fun while it lasted."

Somehow, I find the fact that many people are comfortable with the concept of going to war with Iran over it's nuclear program, and that many of those same people harshly criticized our going to war with Iraq, to be ironic, to say the least.

The only major difference I can see in all this, really, is that if we did go to war over this, that we would have the support of the world this time around.

I mean, it's all about the oil, isn't it?
I'm trying to figure out who in this thread you're talking about, and I'm having some difficulty.

From today's ...

..."Let me explain: If Iran develops a nuclear bomb, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and possibly other Sunni Arab states are bound to follow. The Sunni Arabs can overlook Israel's bomb, but they will never stand for the Persian Shiites having a bomb and them not. That's about brothers with a centuries-old rivalry. And if the Arab world starts to go nuclear, then you will see the crumbling of the whole global nuclear nonproliferation regime."

*more to come - damned time outs*
Ah. Friedman's recycling his arguments again, I see. He's made that claim before--not that it's any less accurate now, mind you. He's right--the only reason there's any semblance of stability between the traditionally warring Persians and Arabs is their combined loathing of Israel.

Ah. Friedman's recycling his arguments again, I see. He's made that claim before--not that it's any less accurate now, mind you. He's right--the only reason there's any semblance of stability between the traditionally warring Persians and Arabs is their combined loathing of Israel.
IIRC, his book was more personal musings and historical anecdotes with a few glimpses of reasonable deduction. But i didn't scrutinize - i'm reading far too many other things to have to get to know the guy that well. *shrug*

I originally spotted this particular link on an American forum... it seems relevant to me. I can't think of any other comments to add, so I'll let the article do the talking:



www.washingtontimes.com
Later than we think
By Arnaud de Borchgrave
Published February 6, 2006


The man in charge of hoodwinking the Western powers about Iran's now 18-year-old secret nuclear program believes the apocalypse will happen in his own lifetime. He'll be 50 in October.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's Shi'ite creed has convinced him lesser mortals can not only influence but hasten the awaited return of the 12th Imam, known as the Mahdi. Iran's dominant "Twelver" sect holds this will be Muhammad ibn Hasan, the righteous descendant of the Prophet Muhammad. He is said to have gone into "occlusion" in the 9th century, at age 5. His return will be preceded by cosmic chaos, war, bloodshed and pestilence. After this cataclysmic confrontation between the forces of good and evil, the Mahdi will lead the world to an era of universal peace.

"The ultimate promise of all Divine religions," says Ahmadinejad, "will be fulfilled with the emergence of a perfect human being [the 12th Imam], who is heir to all prophets. He will lead the world to justice and absolute peace. Oh mighty Lord, I pray to you to hasten the emergence of your last repository, the promised one." He reckons the return of the Imam, AWOL for 11 centuries, is only two years away.

Mr. Ahmadinejad is close to the messianic Hojjatieh Society, which is governed by the conviction the 12th Imam's return will be hastened by "the creation of chaos on Earth." He has fired Iran's most experienced diplomats and scores of other officials, presumably those who don't share his belief in apocalyptic conflagration.

The Iranian leader's finger on a nuclear trigger would be disquieting under any circumstances. Positively alarming would be a nuclear weapon in the hands of a man who badgers Israel, the U.S. and the European Union in belief a pre-emptive aerial attack on Iran's nuclear facilities will hasten the return of the missing Mahdi. Such an attack presumably would trigger anti-Western mayhem throughout the Middle East.

When he became Iran's sixth president since the 1979 revolution last summer, Mr. Ahmadinejad decided to donate $20 million to the Jamkaran mosque, a popular pilgrimage site where the faithful can drop their missives to the "Hidden Imam" in a holy well. Tehran's working-class faithful are convinced the new president and his Cabinet signed a "compact" pledging themselves to precipitate the return of the Mahdi -- and dropped it down Jamkaran's well with the Mahdi's zip code.

In Mr. Ahmadinejad's eyes, Iran is strong, with oil inching up to $70 a barrel and America, dependent on foreign oil, is weak. He has said publicly America and Europe have far more to lose than Iran if the U.N. Security Council votes for tough economic sanctions. He also figures if Israeli and/or U.S. warplanes strike Iran, all he has to do is give the U.S. a hard time in Iraq as American forces prepare to withdraw.

Moving two or three Iranian divisions into Iraq and activating Shi'ite suicide bombers and hit squads throughout the region would not be too hard for a country that fought an 8-year war against Iraq (1980-88) and had no compunction about giving thousands of youngsters a key to paradise and 72 virgins before sending them across Iraqi minefields.

A top Ahmadinejad officer, Brig. Gen. Mohammad Kossari, who heads the political watchdog, or Security Bureau, of Iran's armed forces, recently taunted the U.S. when he bragged "we have identified all the weak points of our enemies" and have sufficient cannon fodder -- i.e., suicide operation volunteers -- "ready to strike at these sensitive locations." Iranian television recently broadcast an animated film for Iranian children glorifying suicide bombers.

So far, Supreme Leader and Chief of State Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who sits in the holy city of Qom, has not expostulated. Mr. Ahmadinejad appears to have his religious rear well covered. His ideological mentor and spiritual guide is Ayatollah Mesbah Yazdi who heads the ultraconservative acolytes who believe the 12th Imam's return is "imminent."

The son of a blacksmith, Mr. Ahmadinejad earned an engineering Ph.D. and is a former member of Iran's notorious Revolutionary Guards at a time when dissidents and "counterrevolutionaries" were executed by the thousands.

A.Q. Khan, father of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal, first showed Iran how to build a nuclear weapon 18 years ago. He opened his nuclear black market to Iranian engineers and scientists.

The Bush administration is anxious to clear the decks in a democratic Iraq before facing the Islamist counterpart of the "Rapture" in the "Left Behind" series of books on the end of times by Tim LaHaye and Jerry B. Jenkins.

President Bush says all options are on the table. But the military option is probably the one the "twelvers" would look forward to. Some Washington think tank strategists argue if Iran's Dr. Strangelove attacked Israel with a nuclear weapon, five Iranian cities would be vaporized next day.

It might behoove the United States to sit down with "axis of evil" Iran to find out if the MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) doctrine that kept the Soviet Union and the U.S. at peace for a half-century could still be made to work.

In any event, one would have to be irredeemably myopic not to see that Iran has an active nuclear weapons program. The only question is how far this secret program is from delivering a usable weapon and fitting it in the nose cone of a Shahab-3 missile with the range to reach Israel. The Israeli Air Force will be "overhead" Iran long before.


Arnaud de Borchgrave is editor at large for The Washington Times and for United Press International.

IIRC, his book was more personal musings and historical anecdotes with a few glimpses of reasonable deduction. But i didn't scrutinize - i'm reading far too many other things to have to get to know the guy that well. *shrug*I only read an excerpt--I was considering using it in my Composition class--went with Malcolm Gladwell's "Something Borrowed" instead, about the nature of intellectual property. I've read a lot of Gladwell lately--just finished Blink and I'll start The Tipping Point sometime this week.

I'm trying to figure out who in this thread you're talking about, and I'm having some difficulty.

It was a general comment about a broader issue made about no-one in particular, and certainly not about anything that any particular person had posted in this thread. Does that clear it up for you?

If not, allow me to explain. Most of the people who thought war against Iraq over WMD's that we know did exist (ask the Kurds, if they believe Saddam had them) was immoral and evil, are now lining up to support Bush in firebombing Iran's cities for a nuclear capability that they do not even yet have.

Seems hypocritical to me.

It was a general comment about a broader issue made about no-one in particular, and certainly not about anything that any particular person had posted in this thread. Does that clear it up for you?

If not, allow me to explain. Most of the people who thought war against Iraq over WMD's that we know did exist (ask the Kurds, if they believe Saddam had them) was immoral and evil, are now lining up to support Bush in firebombing Iran's cities for a nuclear capability that they do not even yet have.

Seems hypocritical to me.
Allow me to distinguish myself from your generalization, if i may.
I don't accept the idea of supporting Bush firebombing ANYBODY except Bin Laden and his cohorts.

No no no ... I've got an idea ... see fist we say Iran has got WMD. Then we invade. Problem solved.

No no no ... I've got an idea ... see fist we say Iran has got WMD. Then we invade. Problem solved.
That's the beaut. It would appear that the Russians and a few others aren't likely to side so well with us (as well as the Iraq thing went :rolleyes: )
Coalition of the Unwilling.

I originally spotted this particular link on an American forum... it seems relevant to me.
You're aware that there is no evidence that Ahmadinejad actually belongs to that sect, right?

All Shi'ites believe in the 12th Imam, but only a select few weirdos think that creating chaos will make him come back sooner. And although Ahmadinejad has once expressed his admiration for an Imam who was one of those weirdos, I don't think there is anything to implicate that he himself is one of them - apart of course from conspiracy theories.

This article is an opinion piece by someone who wants confrontation, no more, no less. Ahmadinejad's personal beliefs shouldn't concern us in the least.

This is a very dangerous situation. Israel has been gearing it's military up for a while. Even did a fly over all ready. If Israel goes at it alone, you can bet that it will explode to an all out war in the region. Israel has said they will not tolerate this. It's up to diplomacy at this point and if it fails, the US has no choice. I never believed Saddam had WMD, however, I do believe Iran is seeking them. Iran can not be allowed to produce nuclear weapons. I guess in this case I would support a pre-emptive strike. Odds are the Iranians would back down at that point. I highly doubt they would try to further invoke tensions by say attacking our troops in Iraq, etc.

Pity we can't go back in time to when America turned up late for wars, instead of the current situation where they seem to have a list of people they want to start them with.

It was a general comment about a broader issue made about no-one in particular, and certainly not about anything that any particular person had posted in this thread. Does that clear it up for you?

If not, allow me to explain. Most of the people who thought war against Iraq over WMD's that we know did exist (ask the Kurds, if they believe Saddam had them) was immoral and evil, are now lining up to support Bush in firebombing Iran's cities for a nuclear capability that they do not even yet have.

Seems hypocritical to me.
Well, if you're going to make a general accusation of hypocrisy, it might be wise for you to, you know, point out some actual hypocrisy.

What you're neglecting in your calculation is that we need what they've got. We don't need it in the sense that we import Iranian oil, but we need their supply to the rest of the world in order to keep our supply as cheap as it is. Take out Iran's ability to produce, and suddenly every oil-producing country in the world is not only listening to other countries who want their oil now, but they're charging the US a "fuck you for destroying that much supply" premium.
How will TLAMs hurt their ability to produce? They are conventional weapons. The TLAM is your standard cruise missile that we've been launching for 2 decades at various places like Iraq and Yugoslavia.

How will TLAMs hurt their ability to produce? They are conventional weapons. The TLAM is your standard cruise missile that we've been launching for 2 decades at various places like Iraq and Yugoslavia.

A wandering missile perhaps?

Shades of the Chinese Embassy in Yugoslavia for example.

A wandering missile perhaps?

Shades of the Chinese Embassy in Yugoslavia for example.
There wouldn't be any embassies near a uranium enrichment facility. TLAMs will hit within a couple of feet 99% of the time. And that embassy was hit because of old maps the pilots were using, not a flaw in the bomb. TLAMs are very effective and if 1 hits an oil well it is one out of thousands, no big deal.

There wouldn't be any embassies near a uranium enrichment facility. TLAMs will hit within a couple of feet 99% of the time. And that embassy was hit because of old maps the pilots were using, not a flaw in the bomb. TLAMs are very effective and if 1 hits an oil well it is one out of thousands, no big deal.

Hey, I'm just giving an example of human error thats all. ;)

Ohhhhooo! Nifty Kimchi!

When do you think the bombs will start to fall? Tomorrow? Next week? 'Cause it better be fast! By march the Iranians will have this new nifty nuclear reactor working.. bombing it would risk spreading ratiation throught the entire middle east :D

Oh hell, everyone knows arabs aren't really people, so bomb them to hell, as long as the oil keeps on flowing!

Oh well.

Sarcasm aside, click here (http://www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk/home.htm) and then go print the "Iran: consequences of a war" paper.

If you people want to see bombs fly so much go play computer games, gawd damnit. There are consequences in wars, it isn't just a cakewalk, no matter what bush and the pack of dimwits will tell you.

Hey, I'm just giving an example of human error thats all. ;)
fair enough.

IIRC, my prediction was to use a Trident missile submarine to launch ballistic missiles at Iran, in the final effort to prevent them from obtaining nuclear weapons.

Looks like that's in the plan.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/02/12/wiran12.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/02/12/ixnewstop.html



Technically, the warheads may be conventional - but an incoming ballistic missile looks like an incoming ballistic missile.
Just contingency plans. I've planned many a strike that was never executed. And I've planned some that have. This is just business as usual. We wouldn't want to be caught unprepared.

Just contingency plans. I've planned many a strike that was never executed. And I've planned some that have. This is just business as usual. We wouldn't want to be caught unprepared.

Just out of curiosity, do your plans include what happens afterwards or is that left to someone else if at all?

Especially if you plan for something that constitutes the opening shot in an act of war.

Just out of curiosity, do your plans include what happens afterwards or is that left to someone else if at all?

Especially if you plan for something that constitutes the opening shot in an act of war.

Thats only if you consider it an act of war.

Thats only if you consider it an act of war.
Which, of course, bombing another government's vital installations isn't?

Which, of course, bombing another government's vital installations isn't?
See, the trick is, bully/BS your congress into giving authority to use force WHILE NOT ACTUALLY DECLARING WAR!
And chide their infidelic unpatriotic behaviour if they ever call you on it .. even if they ... *GASP* ...provide PROOF!

Just out of curiosity, do your plans include what happens afterwards or is that left to someone else if at all?

Especially if you plan for something that constitutes the opening shot in an act of war.
I was a Captain in the Marine Corps. Not exactly privvy to the strategy that might be employed. At my pay grade, we weren't concerned with anything more than the two or three hours that flying a strike would require.

The types of contingency planning that I did were single missions. Say we went to war with Hawaii, I might be tasked to plan the mining of Pearl Harbor. Of course, we never did that. I did plan a few strikes that we flew against agressors in Nevada and in the Philippines.

Then there was El Dorado Canyon. The aggressors weren't quite as friendly. We didn't have those strikes preplanned, either. There was a lot of work that went into the plans, only to have the Air Force butt in where they weren't needed.

See, the trick is, bully/BS your congress into giving authority to use force WHILE NOT ACTUALLY DECLARING WAR!
And chide their infidelic unpatriotic behaviour if they ever call you on it .. even if they ... *GASP* ...provide PROOF!
Yeah, that's actually one situation where I have to cut Bush a little slack as far as Iraq was concerned--he only used the power Congress provided him. Now, he's used it badly, but they did give him the authority, mainly because they wanted to cover their own asses. The declaration of war is a repsonsibility Congress ditches with regularity, and it's a shame.

Somehow this whole business in the last couple of years is quite reminiscient of the never-ending wars of George Orwell's 1984. For that reason I do think the US is at least going to be reluctant about barging in Iran, especially with the Iraq situation being what it is.

By the way, is it that I haven't been getting enough sleep lately or does Ahmedinejad look like he's cooperating with the US? I mean conscious, willing cooperation. The one thing he accomplished best recently was greatly raise suspicion against Iran world-wide while retaining a reasonable degree of favor domestically.