An Iranian EMP

[Reub]

"Obama Fails to Grasp Iranian Threat"

http://www.newsmax.com/FrankGaffney/Oba ... /id/428688

Please read this before lookiing to cut the military budget.

Imagine what an Iranian EMP would do to us.

Sometimes, as Neville Chamberlain found out, you just cannot look the other way.

[craigr]

Iran is a two-bit third-world country. They could close off the Gulf with surface to sea missiles. They could perhaps do some other things similar. But attacking inside the US would be suicide for them. We would melt that entire country and they know it.

That doesn't even include what the other Arab states would do if Iran kept oil from leaving. They would piss off everyone in the region. They would be completely isolated and would soon succumb to multiple military and political pressures.

Iran is not Nazi Germany. Iran is not perfect, but we can't police the entire planet.

[Ad Orientem]

Iran is not Nazi Germany. Iran is not perfect, but we can't police the entire planet.

Can I have an Amen please?

It's time we stop comparing every country in the world we have differences with to Nazi Germany.  It discredits the analogy and it demonstrates a lack of comprehension for the true evil that was Hitler's Reich.

[murphy_p_t]

if this short clip is 2b believed, most are not falling for the propaganda

http://revolutionarypolitics.tv/video/v ... o_id=17662

[Reub]

Iran, once they finalize their nuclear weapon arsenal (months, not years), will have far more destructive power than Nazi Germany ever dreamed of having. Sorry!

If this thread angers the libertarians and leftists in here, I will gladly delete my entries. I can certainly enjoy this great website without bringing up this sore subject.

[moda0306]

Reub,

Maybe you've posted this elsewhere, but what do you suggest we do about Iran?  At what point do we invade/bomb them?

[craigr]

Iran, once they finalize their nuclear weapon arsenal (months, not years), will have far more destructive power than Nazi Germany ever dreamed of having. Sorry!

How are they going to deliver this weapon here? What do you think would happen to them if they did? One US SSBN would wipe out most of that region. Tehran would be glowing for the next 250,000 years.

Why don't we go after North Korea? When Kim Il was alive he was a far bigger nutcase than some mullahs in Iran.

If this thread angers the libertarians and leftists in here, I will gladly delete my entries. I can certainly enjoy this great website without bringing up this sore subject.

Leftists love wars, as long as their team started them. Didn't hear them complaining when Nobel Peace Prize Winner Obama was bombing Libya.

I've noticed for a long time that Switzerland and other similar places are able to buy all the oil they want without going around bombing anyone. And if you think about it, it must be this way. Those oil producing countries have really nothing to offer the planet other than the oil. But the rest of the planet has a lot to offer them: Food, water desalination technology, cell phones, internet, cars, planes, etc. So they will trade their oil for these things because it's all they've got. What other major exports do these regions really have that the world is clamoring to have?

The point is you can just ignore them and buy their oil and they will continue on in their existence. If they choose not to sell their oil that is fine, too. They will be broke and will not have any resources to pose a threat. We can get oil from other regions (we already get most of our petroleum imports from Canada, Mexico and Venezuela anyway).

[Tyler]

So I'm not an expert on Iran or Islam, but here's the argument I've heard.

Iran is a theocracy run by people who are not afraid to be annihilated because they believe that sacrificing themselves to start Armageddon (destroying Israel in the process) will initiate the prophetic emergence of the 12th Imam and ultimately usher in universal Islamic world rule.  

This is not the Cold War -- mutually assured destruction is a feature, not a deterrent, to the Mullahs.  

I don't know what the correct path is to defusing the situation.  But I don't believe inaction is a realistic option.

[MediumTex]

That link is to a story on Newsmax.  Their angle is always to stir things up and make it seem like the world is about to end.

I understand Iran's interest in getting a nuclear weapon.  I don't really understand, however, why Iran would want to actually use it, since it would mean a more or less instant end to the current regime.  It's not like the Iranian people are actually supportive of what the Iranian government is doing in the first place.

I understand the impulse to want to stop Iran from becoming any more dangerous, but I really don't understand how you do that without taking military action that would probably cause the Iranian people to rally around the current Iranian political leadership and not necessarily seriously degrade their nuclear plans.

It's also a reasonable point to make that we went down this exact same road with Iraq in 2002-2003 and what actually turned out to be true was far different from what we were told was the justification for preemptive military action.  If the intelligence community got it so wrong back then, how do we know that they don't have it wrong again this time?

If there was some military action that was certain to completely neutralize Iran's nuclear capability for the next 20 years, it would be reasonable to discuss whether such action might be a good idea, but the reality seems to be that there is no certainty that military action against Iran right now will set them back more than a few years at the most.

I locked the last Iran thread because everyone's blood pressure seemed to be rising, so if we are going to have this discussion again all I ask is that it be a little more courteous than the last one.

[Reub]

Reub,

Maybe you've posted this elsewhere, but what do you suggest we do about Iran?  At what point do we invade/bomb them?

Listen, I am not an expert on war tactics. I would propose that we take out as much of their nuclear assets as possible while at the same time subverting their illegitimate govt. They should know that any attempt to strike back will be met with overwhelming military force.

[MediumTex]

So I'm not an expert on Iran or Islam, but here's the argument I've heard.

Iran is a theocracy run by people who are not afraid to be annihilated because they believe that sacrificing themselves to start Armageddon (destroying Israel in the process) will initiate the prophetic emergence of the 12th Imam and ultimately usher in universal Islamic world rule.  

This is not the Cold War -- mutually assured destruction is a feature, not a deterrent, to the Mullahs.  

Don't assume that theocrats aren't ultimately just as pragmatic as typical politicians.

Making people think you are crazy is often just a negotiating tactic. 

For Iran, keeping the tension level as high as possible is just good business, since high tension means high oil prices and high oil prices mean happy mullahs.

[craigr]

So I'm not an expert on Iran or Islam, but here's the argument I've heard.

Iran is a theocracy run by people who are not afraid to be annihilated because they believe that sacrificing themselves to start Armageddon (destroying Israel in the process) will initiate the prophetic emergence of the 12th Imam and ultimately usher in universal Islamic world rule.  

This is not the Cold War -- mutually assured destruction is a feature, not a deterrent, to the Mullahs.  

I don't know what the correct path is to defusing the situation.  But I don't believe inaction is a realistic option.

By constantly being an adversary, we give the Iranian government power. They can always point to the big bad US as the reason why they should be in charge and things shouldn't change.

Wars have many unintended consequences.

[moda0306]

I think there is a real question to ask about the nature of the "loony" Islamic dictators vs the "loony" Islamic terrorists.

I tend to think only the latter are truly as crazy as they're made out to be.  I bet Iran's government is worried about retaining power first, pushing abusive policies second, and not that interested in "punishing the west for their support of Israel," or "jihad."

That's based on a few observations, not really much analysis.

[craigr]

Listen, I am not an expert on war tactics. I would propose that we take out as much of their nuclear assets as possible while at the same time subverting their illegitimate govt. They should know that any attempt to strike back will be met with overwhelming military force.

Taking down their other government is what got us the current one. We were involved in the 1953 coup to install the Shah that lead to the late 1970s revolution.

We also sold them many weapons that will be used against our own people. Iran still uses F-14s in their air force!

[Storm]

Reub, taking a news fast might be a good idea for you.  Especially from right-wing biased news.  If you're not worried about Iranian EMPs, they'll just make you worried about some other event that is not likely to happen.

Want to know what is the most likely scenario for Iran?  They are angered at the sanctions and feeling desperate when their people riot in the streets because of hyper-inflation, so they mine the strait of Hormuz.  Mining international waters, however, is considered an act of war, and vengeance would be swift in the form of join Isreali, US, and European air strikes.  If Iran retaliated in any way a ground war could happen.

[Gosso]

Reub, taking a news fast might be a good idea for you.  Especially from right-wing biased news.  If you're not worried about Iranian EMPs, they'll just make you worried about some other event that is not likely to happen.

To help keep things light I thought I'd include the thoughts of legendary Bill Hicks on the news and war.  Everything he said 20 years ago still applies to today...we haven't grown at all

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKDSQ5Hcds4

[Reub]

What I would like is for Iran to take a nuke fast. Sticking one's head in the sand is not always prudent.

[MediumTex]

What I would like is for Iran to take a nuke fast. Sticking one's head in the sand is not always prudent.

Iran is almost completely surrounded by U.S. military installations.

I don't think anyone is talking about the U.S. sticking its head in the sand.

[Lone Wolf]

While the dangers of nuclear proliferation are deeply troubling, are we not ignoring the real issue?

Namely, Iran's burgeoning female ninja program.

But as Israel steps up pressure on Iran, over fears the country is building nuclear weapons, these lethal ninjas could be called upon to represent their country if relations descend into military conflict.

Here's video of them in action if you're brave enough to click.  I think that I've been wasting my money buying all this potassium iodide fretting about Iran's nuclear program.  What I really needed was some kind of heavy-duty anti-katana wear or shuriken-proof chaps.

[MachineGhost]

Here's video of them in action if you're brave enough to click.  I think that I've been wasting my money buying all this potassium iodide fretting about Iran's nuclear program.  What I really needed was some kind of heavy-duty anti-katana wear or shuriken-proof chaps.

Maybe they can be featured in Red Dawn III: Attack of the Jihad Ninjas?

Fear is not an excuse to pre-emptively murder innocent people in other countries.  That's a huge thoughtcrime, putting us on the track to Orwell's 1984 and Minority Report.  Look at how much privacy and civil liberties we've lost already since 09/11.  Premptive war over a foreign nation's alleged nuclear capability isn't going to fix that gaping wound.

I suggest the real reason the NeoCons don't want Iran to ever have nuclear weapons capability is because they want be able to implement "regime change" as they can't with North Korea.  Everything else is just a pandering sideshow.

But yes, I realize I'm pissing into the wind. 

MG

[Reub]

I too would like for the "Neocons" to help the oppressed citizens of Iran implement regime change. Wouldn't you?

[Ad Orientem]

I too would like for the "Neocons" to help the oppressed citizens of Iran implement regime change. Wouldn't you?

The last time I checked Iran was a sovereign country.  Interfering in the internal affairs of another country and acting against its government is generally considered an act of war under international law.  This sort of naked imperialism is why we are so loathed in much of the world.

[MediumTex]

I too would like for the "Neocons" to help the oppressed citizens of Iran implement regime change. Wouldn't you?

The last time I checked Iran was a sovereign country.  Interfering in the internal affairs of another country and acting against its government is generally considered an act of war under international law.  This sort of naked imperialism is why we are so loathed in much of the world.

Even if you were on board with the whole imperial thing, it doesn't even have a track record of working all that well in recent decades.

Foreign countries have a way of arranging their affairs the way they want to no matter how much the U.S. government may think it has a better idea about how other sovereign nations should be run.

I feel for people anywhere in the world who live miserable lives because some thug is in power, but I don't think that attacking those countries without first being attacked is going to actually improve the lives of those miserable people very much (though it could make their lives a lot worse).

Have the people in Cuba had better lives because of U.S. pressure on Castro's regime?

Have the people in Vietnam had better lives because of the U.S. military action there in the 1960s and 1970s?

Have the people in Afghanistan had better lives because we supported the Taliban in the 1980s and then fought against it in the 2000s?

Have the people in Iraq had better lives because the U.S. supported Iraq in its war against Iran in the 1980s, then attacked it in the 1990s, then attacked it again and occupied it in the 2000s?  Saddam Hussein was a bad man, but for whatever reason we didn't seem to be troubled by that in the 1980s when he was fighting Iran.

I am certain that the generals and politicians have good motives with all of these military adventures, but the fact is they typically don't work out the way we think they are going to, and often the exact opposite of what we want to happen is what actually happens.

The debacle of the Iraq war offers lessons that few seem interested in paying attention to.  The U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003 based upon a completely false story of weapons of mass destruction, then occupied the country for eight years for reasons that were never clear to me (i.e., if the pretense for war turned out to be false, shouldn't we have apologized for the misunderstanding and pulled out immediately?).  Then when the Iraqis finally had enough of a political structure to tell us to leave we left, and I would expect the country to fall into a civil war in the next 3-5 years, which will probably necessitate another U.S. invasion.  And for what?  Why are we doing all of this?  Because George Tenet thought Hussein had WMDs 10 years ago, but it turned out that he didn't?

[stone]

Medium Tex, "And for what?  Why are we doing all of this?  Because George Tenet thought Hussein had WMDs 10 years ago, but it turned out that he didn't?"

Do you think there is no credence to the notion that it was because Saddam refused to accept USD as payment for oil?

Isn't the Iran sabre rattling at the moment  really about: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_oil_bourse

"The Iranian Oil Bourse[1] (Persian: ? ??) International Oil Bourse,[2] Iran Petroleum Exchange Kish Exchange[3] or Oil Bourse in Kish[4] (IOB; the official English language name is unclear) is a commodity exchange which opened on February 17, 2008.[5][6][7][4] It was created by cooperation between Iranian ministries, the Iran Mercantile Exchange and other state and private institutions. The IOB is intended as an oil bourse for petroleum, petrochemicals and gas in various currencies other than the United States dollar, primarily the euro and Iranian rial and a basket of other major (non-US) currencies. The geographical location is at the Persian Gulf island of Kish which is designated by Iran as a free trade zone.[8]

During 2007, Iran asked its petroleum customers to pay in non US dollar currencies. By December 8, 2007, Iran reported to have converted all of its oil export payments to non-dollar currencies.[9] The Kish Bourse was officially opened in a videoconference ceremony on February 17, 2008, despite last minute disruptions to the internet services to the Persian Gulf regions. Currently the Kish Bourse is only trading in oil-derived products, generally those used as feedstock for the plastics and pharmaceutical industries. However, officially published statements by Iranian oil minister Gholamhossein Nozari indicate that the second phase, to establish trading in crude oil directly, which has been suggested might one day perhaps create a "Caspian Crude" benchmark price analogous to Brent Crude or WTI will only be started after the Bourse has demonstrated a reasonable period of trouble-free running.[10]
[edit] Background
See also: Iran Mercantile Exchange, National Iranian Oil Company, and National Iranian Petrochemical Company

The three current oil markers are all US dollar denominated: North America's West Texas Intermediate crude (WTI), North Sea Brent Crude, and the UAE Dubai Crude. The two major oil bourses are the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX) in New York City and the IntercontinentalExchange (ICE) in London & Atlanta. As the Oil Bourse in Kish is developed through successive stages, the plan is to establish a Petrobourse as a fourth oil market, denominated by the Iranian rial, the euro and other major currencies.

Iran sits on some of the largest oil and gas reserves in the world.[11] The bourse will offer 40 kinds of oil products. Iran produces over 25 percent of the total output of petrochemical products in the Middle East. At least 30 domestic companies and 20 foreign firms are active in the oil and petrochemical industries on Kish Island.[12]"

[MediumTex]

stone, of course that's a big part of what it was really about, but if that was one of the primary reasons it should have been shared with the American people in an honest way.