Iran Super Thread- Merged

[tomahawk6]

I think an Israeli strike on Iran is going to happen. The Israelis though arent going to take that step unless they are prepared on the ground for a possible response from Lebanon,Syria and Gaza. If it was practical I would use the Jericho missiles against the primary targets and save the IDF for the counterattack from Iran's proxies. I just wouldnt risk losing aircraft and pilots.

 

[GAP]

I would agree....something is coming, either by internal stealth, or outward strike, but I honestly can't see Israel tolerating this in their back yard...

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Hmmm I wonder if the uranium stockpile and mine are worthwhile targets?

Civilian use?
It is a peaceful civilian effort to become energy independent. But a new report by government scientists reveals that Iran is either misguided or lying. Close examination of the Iranian energy market shows that this is at best a misguided quest, and far more likely a cover for a nuclear weapons program.

Why does a country with 90 years of oil reserves and 220 years of natural gas reserves need nuclear energy? A study entitled "The Economics of Energy Independence for Iran" in the March 2007 Nonproliferation Review stated, "If energy independence is the goal, the logical strategy is conservation and stewardship of national oil and natural gas resources."

But Iran is notably inefficient in utilizing its fossil fuels. Iran "flares" or burns off over eight percent of its natural gas, 17 times the flare rate in North America and equal to the energy output of four nuclear reactors like the one at Bushehr. Simple efficiencies in handling natural gas would make Iran more energy independent, without the political fallout from building a nuclear program. The report concludes that Iran's "investment in front-end nuclear fuel cycle facilities is not consistent with the economics of nuclear power." But it is consistent with a weapons program.

Iran's Atomic Energy Agency claims that it has uranium to last for decades, but the available facts say otherwise.

The Nonproliferation Review study found that Iran's uranium reserves are four-tenths of one percent of other fuel reserves. Even Iran's paltry coal reserves have six times the energy output of its uranium. Furthermore, Iran is quickly running through what limited uranium reserves it has. A February 2009 report from the Institute of Science and International Security notes that Iran is only operating one of its two uranium mines, adding "Iran could be close to exhausting its supply of uranium oxide while lacking the adequate resources to sustain indigenous commercial-scale uranium processing and enrichment." The report noted that the uranium shortfall underscored a "fundamental inconsistency" in Iran's stated intentions to construct a "commercially viable, indigenously fueled, civil nuclear power industry." But there is enough uranium to sustain a nuclear weapons program.

Other reports underscore the fallacy of a nuclear-powered energy-independent Iran. In November 2008, the International Atomic Energy Agency estimated that Iran has used two-thirds of its original uranium stockpile dating back to the days of the Shah, but also noted that it is difficult to determine the precise scope of Iran's stockpile because Iran has refused to give the agency access to all of its uranium mining, milling, and enrichment facilities. The question remains why Iran would hide these and other aspects of its purportedly peaceful energy program. The report also noted that Iran has continued to defy the United Nations Security Council by continuing to enrich uranium necessary for a weapons program.

Iran's rationale of attaining energy independence through nuclear power is clearly unsustainable in the face of other less costly domestic options. Also, Iran would not have the domestic uranium production capacity necessary to sustain an independent nuclear power program.

We are driven to the conclusion that Iran is not seeking energy independence but desires a nuclear weapons capability. "Iran's progress in the nuclear field cannot be stopped," said Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei in his recent New Year's address to the nation. Maybe. But there is no credible economic justification for having started it in the first place.

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/02/civilian-use-new-evidence-casts-doubt-on-irans-nuc/print/

 

[Rifleman62]

Iranian president Mahmud Ahmadinejad calls President Obama and tells him, "Barack, I had a wonderful dream last night. I could see America , the whole beautiful country, and on each house I saw banner."

"What did it say on the banners?" Obama asks. Mahmud replies, "UNITED STATES OF IRAN."

Obama says, "You know, Mahmud, I am really happy you called, because believe it or not, last night I had a similar dream. I could see all of Tehran , and it was more beautiful than ever, and on each house flew an enormous banner."

"What did it say on the banners?" Mahmud asks.

Obama replies, "I don't know. I can't read Hebrew."

 

[CougarKing]

So what are they waiting for?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article6115903.ece

Israel stands ready to bomb Iran's nuclear sites

Sheera Frenkel in Jerusalem
The Israeli military is preparing itself to launch a massive aerial assault on Iran's nuclear facilities within days of being given the go-ahead by its new government.

Among the steps taken to ready Israeli forces for what would be a risky raid requiring pinpoint aerial strikes are the acquisition of three Airborne Warning and Control (AWAC) aircraft and regional missions to simulate the attack.

Two nationwide civil defence drills will help to prepare the public for the retaliation that Israel could face.

“Israel wants to know that if its forces were given the green light they could strike at Iran in a matter of days, even hours. They are making preparations on every level for this eventuality. The message to Iran is that the threat is not just words,” one senior defence official told The Times.

Officials believe that Israel could be required to hit more than a dozen targets, including moving convoys. The sites include Natanz, where thousands of centrifuges produce enriched uranium; Esfahan, where 250 tonnes of gas is stored in tunnels; and Arak, where a heavy water reactor produces plutonium.

The distance from Israel to at least one of the sites is more than 870 miles, a distance that the Israeli force practised covering in a training exercise last year that involved F15 and F16 jets, helicopters and refuelling tankers.

The possible Israeli strike on Iran has drawn comparisons to its attack on the Osirak nuclear facility near Baghdad in 1981. That strike, which destroyed the facility in under 100 seconds, was completed without Israeli losses and checked Iraqi ambitions for a nuclear weapons programme.

“We would not make the threat [against Iran] without the force to back it. There has been a recent move, a number of on-the-ground preparations, that indicate Israel's willingness to act,” said another official from Israel's intelligence community.

He added that it was unlikely that Israel would carry out the attack without receiving at least tacit approval from America, which has struck a more reconciliatory tone in dealing with Iran under its new administration.

An Israeli attack on Iran would entail flying over Jordanian and Iraqi airspace, where US forces have a strong presence.

Ephraim Kam, the deputy director of the Institute for National Security Studies, said it was unlikely that the Americans would approve an attack.

“The American defence establishment is unsure that the operation will be successful. And the results of the operation would only delay Iran's programme by two to four years,” he said.

A visit by President Obama to Israel in June is expected to coincide with the national elections in Iran — timing that would allow the US Administration to re-evaluate diplomatic resolutions with Iran before hearing the Israeli position.

“Many of the leaks or statements made by Israeli leaders and military commanders are meant for deterrence. The message is that if [the international community] is unable to solve the problem they need to take into account that we will solve it our way,” Mr Kam said.

Among recent preparations by the airforce was the Israeli attack of a weapons convoy in Sudan bound for militants in the Gaza Strip.

“Sudan was practice for the Israeli forces on a long-range attack,” Ronen Bergman, the author of The Secret War with Iran, said. “They wanted to see how they handled the transfer of information, hitting a moving target ... In that sense it was a rehearsal.”

Israel has made public its intention to hold the largest-ever nationwide drill next month.

Colonel Hilik Sofer told Haaretz, a daily Israeli newspaper, that the drill would “train for a reality in which during war missiles can fall on any part of the country without warning ... We want the citizens to understand that war can happen tomorrow morning”.

Israel will conduct an exercise with US forces to test the ability of Arrow, its US-funded missile defence system. The exercise would test whether the system could intercept missiles launched at Israel.

“Israel has made it clear that it will not tolerate the threat of a nuclear Iran. According to Israeli Intelligence they will have the bomb within two years ... Once they have a bomb it will be too late, and Israel will have no choice to strike — with or without America,” an official from the Israeli Defence Ministry said.

 

[tomahawk6]

Timing is everything. You just dont do an op like this unless you are fully prepared for the blowback.

 

[Xiang]

Is there any confirmation whether or not Iran has the Russian S400?  There has been a lot of speculation.  If so, it would certainly wreak havoc on the Israeli air force.

The Israeli's had an exercise with Greece not too long ago to test their air forces ability against the S400 and it didn't turn out well.

 

[a_majoor]

Moving the goal posts closer:

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/05/iran-launches-airstrikes-on-iraqi-villages/

Iran Launches Airstrikes on Iraqi Villages
By Noah Shachtman  May 4, 2009  |  10:18 am  |  Categories: Iraq, Paper Pushers, Beltway Bandits, Politicians, Rogue States, Tactics, Strategy and Logistics

Iranian aircraft attacked three villages inside Iraq over the weekend. The airstrikes — Iran’s first on Iraqi soil since the U.S. invasion — could complicate the Obama administration’s efforts to normalize relations with Tehran.

“The bombardments appeared to have targeted the Party of Free Life of Kurdistan (PJAK), an Iranian Kurdish separatist group which has launched attacks on Iran from rear-supply bases in the mountains of northern Iraq,” AFP reports. Iran has attacked the Kurdish group before, with artillery. But this is the first time the Iranians followed up, with assaults from the air.

“The incident comes a week after reports of a clash between Iranian police officers and suspected PJAK fighters in the country’s western province of Kermanshah,” Al-Jazeera reports. “At least 10 policemen and 10 fighters were killed in the gun battle.”

Details on the airstrikes remain sketchy. Voice of America says the attacks were carried out by helicopters, which remained in Iranian airspace. Al-Arabiyah television, on the other hand, says it was “Iranian planes [that] raided those villages.”


It is a serious development because the Iraqi airspace is under the control of the US Air Force and under US protection.  So the raids are either approved by the United States, as was the case when a US nod was previously given to the Turkish Army, or such operation was a surprise by the Iranians.  According to eyewitnesses, the planes were flying at very low altitudes, which may indicate that they were trying to escape detection by radars. So these planes were able to attack many locations.  Eyewitnesses and official Kurdish sources said that the raids were carried out by fighter jets and not helicopters.

In February, American fighter jets shot down an Iranian drone flying over Iraq. Such an incursion would’ve likely provoked an angry response from the previous administration. But the reaction to the drone incident was muted — perhaps in the interest of keeping the dialogue with Tehran going.

and:

http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/

Funny this hasn’t gotten more attention. But maybe the press is taking its cue from this: “In February, American fighter jets shot down an Iranian drone flying over Iraq. Such an incursion would’ve likely provoked an angry response from the previous administration. But the reaction to the drone incident was muted — perhaps in the interest of keeping the dialogue with Tehran going.”

UPDATE: Reader Fred LaSor thinks the causation works the other way: “My reading is that our ‘muted’ reaction after the drone shootdown was a consideration when the Iranians contemplated their weekend airstrikes inside Iraq. I take this action on their part to be more than a random act — it is another probe to see if Obama will react. Far from keeping dialogue going, our muted response will only encourage Iran to continue its belligerence. Not a good sign.”

 

[Xiang]

Sensational articles like these really irk me.  Iran is simply defending itself against a group that has caused the death of Iranians from terrorist attacks.  Iran saw an opportunity to strike and they took it.

Isn't this no different from the US attacking Afghanistan and Iraq? 

Isn't it no different from when Turkey conducted their operation against the PKK?

Iran is not being belligerent.  They are not a threat to the world because of this.  They simply did what any responsible nation would do when threatened.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Which opportunity was that, Obama?

I don't recall this group conducting any recent operations, do you have links to recent attacks they claim they have done?

 

[Xiang]

The PJAK killed 24 Iranian security forces in 2006.  These strikes against them should be considered very minor considering the scale of operations taken against Lebanon/Hezbollah at the abduction of 2 soldiers.

And if you want to talk about taking advantage of administrations (which is why you mentioned Obama isn't it?) then what are your views on the Turkish incursion into Northern Iraq during their operation against the PKK at the near end of the Bush administration?

Turkey knew Bush was quite literally a lame duck in office and used that opportunity to invade Northern Iraq.  That theory is pure speculation of course, much like your Obama theory is as well.

After all, there is no statute of limitations when going against terrorist organizations.

 

[a_majoor]

Sorry Xiang, but your arguments can be parsed down to the playground "he did it first" sort.

Consider:

Iran is defying international convention by carrying on with a clandestine nuclear program which aims to create nuclear weapons.

Iran publicly and repeatedly threatens the destruction of Israel

Iran exchanges nuclear and missile technology with the DPRK, another rogue regime

Iranian weapons, resources and members of their military and paramilitary forces have been repeatedly captures in Iraq starting with the rise of the 2003 Insurgency.

Iranian weapons have been captured in Afghanistan in use against ISAF forces

Iranian weapons, money and military and paramilitary members have been reported and captured in Lebanon and the Gaza strip, supporting Hezbollah and Hamas operations against Israel

The question boils down to do "we" sit by idly as Iran seeks to become a regional hegemon and put its foot on the oil arteries of Europe, India and China (and also destabilize the global energy markets by doing so?) Do we allow a capricious and barbarous regime to expand and grow at the expense of ourselves and others, or do we take positive steps to thwart their ambitions and prevent them from reaching their goals?

 

[Xiang]

Iran is defying international convention by carrying on with a clandestine nuclear program which aims to create nuclear weapons.

Incorrect.  Their energy pursuit has so far been strictly peaceful.  Read some of my earlier comments in this topic regarding Iran's nuclear ambitions.  They are at a point now where they need it for stability, even if that means it will tick off the US.

So far, there are no definitive conclusions of any nuclear weapons programs.  All there has been is fear mongering, war mongering and rhetoric.

Iran publicly and repeatedly threatens the destruction of Israel

Incorrect again.  They called for the elimination of Zionism.  Again, read some of my previous entries in this thread explaining the difference.

Iran exchanges nuclear and missile technology with the DPRK, another rogue regime

And the US trained and armed the Contras in Nicaragua.  Should the US be liberated?  The US supplied weapons and intelligence to Saddam during the Iran/Iraq war.  Nations will do what is in their best interests for survival, especially when you have worlds only super power itching for a go at you.

Iranian weapons, resources and members of their military and paramilitary forces have been repeatedly captures in Iraq starting with the rise of the 2003 Insurgency

Of course they have.  The US created a wave of instability with their invasion, which in turn created a power vacuum.  It is in Iran's best interests to do what ever they can to ensure Iraq is no longer a threat, and would be working in Iran's interests. 

Remember, Iran was the victim of the Iran/Iraq war, and Iraq had already invaded its neighbors. 

I don't see anyone here complaining when, as mentioned above, the US supported "less than favorable" people in their own best interests.  It's all part of geopolitics.

Iranian weapons have been captured in Afghanistan in use against ISAF forces

So have Chinese weapons.  There is no proof the Iranian government is directly responsible.

US weapons have been found to be in use by the FARC against Colombian forces.  Does that mean the US is responsible for arming these rebels?  No, it just means some rogue elements were able to sell these weapons to people, in turn have them fall into the wrong hands.

Iranian weapons, money and military and paramilitary members have been reported and captured in Lebanon and the Gaza strip, supporting Hezbollah and Hamas operations against Israel

Again, this is all proxy warfare.  Nearly every nation has done this in one form or another.  It's hipocritical for one nation to do it, then call foul when another does it.

Let Iran sort itself out. The people are coming around.  My last visit to Iran was a real eye opener.  The people aren't savage, flag burning terrorists. 

The people are pro-Western.  The majority do not agree with what their government is doing.  Things will eventually change, but they will not change for the better at the end of a gun barrel.

 

[Shec]

in this

Incorrect again.  They called for the elimination of Zionism.  Again, read some of my previous entries in this thread explaining the difference.

.

Sorry Xiang.    Subtle, even pedantic, semantic distinctions aside the fact remains that Zionism = the Jewish state = Israel which to its many opponents, including the Iranian leader,  should not exist as such and should be called Palestine or Canaan or anything but a name associated with the quest for a sovereign Jewish homeland (ie. Zionism).

 

[Xiang]

the fact remains that Zionism = the Jewish state = Israel 

That's quite a bold statement considering its completely erroneous.

 

[Shec]

How so?

 

[Xiang]

Zionism is an ideology/movement, not a physical entity.  Zionism exists outside of Israel as well.

 

[Shec]

Zionism is an ideology/movement, not a physical entity.  Zionism exists outside of Israel as well.

Yes, a political movement calling for a sovereign Jewish homeland, named Israel,  and since that movement was founded in 1887 1897 it's ideology has actualized into the form of a physical entity.  The movement's existance outside of Israel consists principally of support for the state as the Jewish homeland.

The movement has several political gradations: Labor, Liberal , Religious, and Revisionist Zionism, that like political parties have varying degrees of  left or right-wing platforms.  But the commonal value is that they all call for the state of Israel as a sovereign Jewish state.  So I stand by my equation.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Editted by writer, I was out by 10 years when I referenced the formal founding at the First Zionist Congress in Basle.

 

[Xiang]

You have a very simplistic view on Zionism.

 

[dale622]

I wouldn't so much call it narrow minded....... more like a dictionary definition. Therefore it is understood by the majority to be just that!