« Chevy Chase Remembers President Ford | Main | Was Power Line Hacked? »

Reports: Israel Planning Nuclear Attack on Iran

Sunday am update: Israel denies the Sunday Times report that it's planning a nuclear attack on Iran:

A British newspaper reported Sunday that Israel has drafted plans to strike as many as three targets in Iran with low-yield nuclear weapons, aiming to halt Tehran's uranium enrichment program. The Israeli Foreign Ministry denied the report.

Link via Lucianne.

Sunday am update II: Captain Ed has a good post on this Sunday Times report:

Of course they would deny this, even if true; it would be an attack on a sovereign nation and just the plans could present Iran with a casus belli. Does anyone see Ehud Olmert as the man most likely to launch such a war?


More likely this is a training exercise to determine the feasibility of such an attack. Perhaps the difficulties could be overcome, but they seem near insurmountable. Any attack by air will show up on the radars of several nations very unfriendly to Israel well before the bombers cross over into Iranian airspace. Those nations would consider the overflight a hostile act in itself, and would likely respond militarily even before Israeli pilots could lock onto their targets. The low-percentage nature of the plan's final stage would convince most that the entire mission would best remain a curious academic exercise and not a serious strategy for handling Iranian nuclear ambitions.

DrudgeIsraelnuke.gif


Drudge has the headline in red.

Israel has drawn up secret plans to destroy Iran's uranium enrichment facilities with tactical nuclear weapons, the SUNDAY TIMES of London is planning to report, British media sources tell DRUDGE... MORE...
No links yet, but I'm going to nose around a bit and see what else I can find.

Update: Here's the Sunday Times of London report:

ISRAEL has drawn up secret plans to destroy Iran's uranium enrichment facilities with tactical nuclear weapons.


Two Israeli air force squadrons are training to blow up an Iranian facility using low-yield nuclear "bunker-busters", according to several Israeli military sources.

The attack would be the first with nuclear weapons since 1945, when the United States dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The Israeli weapons would each have a force equivalent to one-fifteenth of the Hiroshima bomb.

Under the plans, conventional laser-guided bombs would open "tunnels" into the targets. "Mini-nukes" would then immediately be fired into a plant at Natanz, exploding deep underground to reduce the risk of radioactive fallout.

"As soon as the green light is given, it will be one mission, one strike and the Iranian nuclear project will be demolished," said one of the sources.

There is a disclaimer:

However, the nuclear-tipped bunker-busters would be used only if a conventional attack was ruled out and if the United States declined to intervene, senior sources said.

Update II: Possibly both Israel and the US? From The Spectator in the UK:

Within the next 12 months, the Americans or the Israelis, possibly both, are likely to launch military strikes aimed at crippling Iran's nuclear ambitions. Those strikes may come sooner rather than later. And they will probably be nuclear.

There has been talk of Israel using tactical nukes against Iran before, but nothing concrete from what I understand.

Newly elected House Majority Leader Democrat Steny Hoyer says an attack on Iran is a possibility:

"I've not ruled that out," he said, but added, "It's not an option we want to consider until we know there is no other option."

Allahpundit's response to Hoyer's hardline: Until Israel actually acts, in which case he'll repudiate his support, declare that he was misled, and do a photo op with Cindy Sheehan.

Daniel Freedman at It Shines for All thinks an attack on Iran will happen.

A few weeks ago, PM Olmert slipped and acknowledged that Israel has a stockpile of nuclear weapons. I questioned whether that slip was truly accidental. I doubt that these reports of a "likely" nuclear strike in the next twelve months coming on the heels of newly passed UN sanctions, against Iran, at which Ahmadinejad is already thumbing its nose, are accidental either.

Not everyone inside Iran is enthusiastic about Ahmadinejad's nuclear baby because of all the trouble that's about to come their way:

Iranian reformist parliamentarians on Saturday blamed President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's government for failing to prevent United Nations sanctions.


The U.N. Security Council voted unanimously on December 23 to impose sanctions on Iran's trade in sensitive nuclear materials and technology in an attempt to stop uranium enrichment work that could produce material that could be used in bombs.

Iran says it wants nuclear power to generate electricity.

Reformist former President Mohammad Khatami suspended Iran's nuclear work for more than two years in an effort to build confidence and avoid confrontation with the West, but resumed uranium enrichment in February last year.

"The only way to pass the crisis is to build confidence ... but a holding Holocaust conference and financing the Hamas government creates mistrust and tension," Noureddin Pirmoazzen, the spokesman of parliament's reformist faction, told Reuters.

Update III: Jay at Stop the ACLU isn't buying what Drudge is selling. And I don't blame his skepticism.

John Little of Blogs of War is also questioning the accuracy of the report:

A conventional attack would seem much more likely. I'm starting to think 2007 may be there year. But nuclear? That event would be so disruptive worldwide that I just can't imagine it being used. I'm inclined to view this as both a warning for Iran and an attempt to scare Washington into taking more direct action on the issue.

LGF:

[T]he Times has been wrong before with "secret Israeli plan" stories.

Update IV: Ralph Peters opines in today's New York Post on the possible reasons why President Bush placed Admiral William Fallon in charge of central command of the Middle East:

WORD that Adm. William Fallon will move laterally from our Pacific Command to take charge of Central Command - responsible for the Middle East - while two ground wars rage in the region baffled the media.


Why put a swabbie in charge of grunt operations?

There's a one-word answer: Iran.

ASSIGNING a Navy avia tor and combat veteran to oversee our military operations in the Persian Gulf makes perfect sense when seen as a preparatory step for striking Iran's nuclear-weapons facilities - if that becomes necessary.

While the Air Force would deliver the heaviest tonnage of ordnance in a campaign to frustrate Tehran's quest for nukes, the toughest strategic missions would fall to our Navy. Iran would seek to retaliate asymmetrically by attacking oil platforms and tankers, closing the Strait of Hormuz - and trying to hit oil infrastructure in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf emirates.

Only the U.S. Navy - hopefully, with Royal Navy and Aussie vessels underway beside us - could keep the oil flowing to a thirsty world.

Others following this:

Pamela at Atlas Shrugs
Argghhh!
Macsmind


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Reports: Israel Planning Nuclear Attack on Iran:

» Stop The ACLU linked with Drudge: ISRAEL PLANS NUCLEAR STRIKE ON IRAN

» Macker's World linked with Israeli Nuke Strike on Iran?

» Plains Feeder linked with Rumors of War

» rightlinx.com linked with Flash: Jews Capable Of Planning

» Passionate America linked with ISRAEL PLANS NUCLEAR STRIKE ON IRAN

» Right Pundits linked with Israel Plans a Nuclear Strike on Iran

» Outside The Beltway | OTB linked with Israel Planning Nuclear Strike on Iran?

» Caerdroia linked with Unsurprising to Me

Comments (41)

Well, isn't this special. ... (Below threshold)
aRepukelican:

Well, isn't this special. With Bush set to appoint an admiral, Fallon, as Centcom chief & with the deployment of the Eisenhower to the Persian Gulf, not to mention Kim's report on Drudge & the Israelis set to attack Iran, we can watch the meglamaniacs Bush/Cheney unfold their plans to incinerate the 21st Century w/ their aiding & abetting Israeli nuclear folly in Iran.

Happy New Year, Wizfools...hope you are ready for $25/gal gasoline and the total collapse of the US dollar...not to mention world-wide total economic depression.

If I were in the Israeli hi... (Below threshold)

If I were in the Israeli high military command, I would draw up plans like these too. I would also draw up plans for conventional strikes, and many other possibilities. It's good to have plans as contingencies. It doesn't mean you expect to carry them out. Just that you think one day there might be s situation where it becomes necessary.

I'm sure the US drew up plans to launch nuclear missiles against the USSR too, but that doesn't mean that the policy was to start a nuclear war. It's only prudent to have plans so you know what to do, in the event it happens, though.

There's also the possibilit... (Below threshold)

There's also the possibility that the weapons will not be nuclear bombs, but nuclear bunker-busters, which don't have the radioactive fallout that nuclear bombs are often condemned for.

But then, there's all kinds of possibilities.

What a pile of dogpoo. Why ... (Below threshold)
Mike D:

What a pile of dogpoo. Why does it seem like there is some possibility of a nuclear war being started by a Drudge headline? That itself would warrant another Drudge headline!

This might be more of that stuff where a "plan" is shoehorned into the paper by implying it's going to happen. For crying out loud, the US must have a "plan" somewhere to invade Mexico. The US has a plan to invade Mexico! That's what these guys do all day, is play wargame scenarios and be prepared. Running a bunch of test plans lets you get all the logistical crap right.

Newsflash: Israel has a military which draws up "plans"!! Even if true, who do these guys think they are reporting a pending attack like this?! I call bullshit. We'll see.

Both Israel and the US woul... (Below threshold)

Both Israel and the US would be derelict if they have NOT drawn up such plans. Having a plan doesn't mean it moves forward, necessarily; it just means lots of research and planning for such an operation is already done and waiting, if the world situation shifted and required it to be implemented.

Even a Democrat should be a... (Below threshold)
bill:

Even a Democrat should be able to read the intelligence coming out of Iran, sadly they can't seem read. But hey, what do you expect, they're Democrats.

Good thing the terrorists, that would be the Iranian sponsored terrorists, have an affinity for libtard U.S. cities.

Israel is not the U. S. Th... (Below threshold)
Paper Tigers:

Israel is not the U. S. They would use a nuke.
They are backed into a corner and their survival depends upon this. If Ahmadinejad gets his first, Israel is history. No one will do anything to help Israel, beyond hyperventilating.

On the other hand, maybe th... (Below threshold)
cirby:

On the other hand, maybe the "Israelis are gonna nuke the Iranians" angle is actually from the Iranians, so when the Israelis take out the facilities with standard bombs and the radioactive fallout starts, the Iranians can claim it was "imported" radiation, and not from thei peaceful baby-milk plants.

cirby....w/ your dimb bulb ... (Below threshold)
aRepukelican:

cirby....w/ your dimb bulb rationality, wouldn't you be better off playing in your sandbox w/ a bunch of pre-five year old playmates so you could carry on a discourse commensurate w/ your pea-sized intellect?

Drudge? heck I can post lef... (Below threshold)
nogo postal:

Drudge? heck I can post lefty hot air sites...
There is no way...probably... that Israel would launch any sort of attack...if they were the response would not be directed toward them....Our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan...."this ain't no party, this ain't no disco, this ain't no fooling around.."
.....anyone believing this would be a good thing are sitting at home and not in the Middle East..(of course if you are 42 or younger you can join up and if you're lucky be a part of the patriotic action)..
Naw...your effort is required here...
"Wrapped in my binky...
warm till I snore...
I'll be bellicose..
and let others go to war"

cirby....w/ your dimb bu... (Below threshold)
cirby:

cirby....w/ your dimb bulb rationality,

You might want to do some research before you start trying to think. Not that it would stop you, but...

Look up those reports from Lebanon, where some people swore that the Israelis were using nuclear/radiation-based weapons. Which, of course, turned out to be false. A Google with the words "Lebanon Israel radiation" turns up all sorts of craziness.

Same thing. They'll probably use the old (proven false, but still on record) stories for the "research," too.

By the way: "rationality" is not an insult, except to non-rational people.

Where did all the warmonger... (Below threshold)
civil behavior:

Where did all the warmongers go? I would have thought most of the right wingers would be in here barking at the moon thrilled to hear that Israel was going to take care of Iran for us.


Are they cuttting and running when they absorb the reality of what ANYONE using "nukelar" weapons might unleash?


Haven't I heard a lot of tough talk in here? Now that the possibility of all out annihalation makes the headlines do I hear a bit of backpedaling? Why don't I hear the roar of the right wing crowds crying out for "victory" in Iran.


We may be getting the wish that the right wingers have been pushing for huh? Your pimped ride could be coming to an end. ARepukelican has it right.


Foolish Americans..........

we can watch the m... (Below threshold)
we can watch the meglamaniacs Bush/Cheney unfold their plans to incinerate the 21st Century w/ their aiding & abetting Israeli nuclear folly in Iran.

Happy New Year, Wizfools...hope you are ready for $25/gal gasoline and the total collapse of the US dollar...not to mention world-wide total economic depression.

Posted by: aRepukelican at January 6, 2007 06:38 PM

Good GRIEF...you sound like one sick little (and horrible) screenwriter. Why don't you pitch this to Harvey Weinstein or better yet, get Paul Haggis to develop the characters for your apocalyptic nightmare you donny darko felching nitwit.

Civil Behavior - N... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

Civil Behavior -

Nuclear war isn't something that ANYONE wants to see. It's the ultimate of a line of really bad options, and anyone who cheers for its possiblity because it'll end someone else's 'pimped ride' is an utter fool.

At the same time, as JohnAnnArbor said, if they DIDN'T have plans to either pre-emptively strike if it seems like Iran was going to use one first or retailiate in case Iran DID use a nuke, the Israeli military would be quite derelict in their duty.

Israel and other countries ... (Below threshold)
jpm100:

Israel and other countries like Japan have varying degrees of an implied dependence of the US for defense.

That fact we are cutting and running from Iraq among other neglect in the world has caused these countries to no longer count on US support when it is needed. A more aggressive Israel baring its teeth is one consequence. We'll see a nuclear Japan likely next.

Hey, we're pussies. I wouldn't count on us if I were them either.

Hey nogo postal, you idiot.... (Below threshold)
Luke:

Hey nogo postal, you idiot.......

"Wrapped in my binky...
warm till I snore...
I'll be bellicose..
and let others go to war"

Have you given any thought that many, many of us who read and post on this blog site have "gone to war" and that is the reason suck ilk as you are continually allowed to post such "drivel" in this free and great country of ours?

You are about as necessary as a bucket of warm spit.
Go away.

civil behavior, <bloc... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

civil behavior,

Haven't I heard a lot of tough talk in here? Now that the possibility of all out annihalation makes the headlines do I hear a bit of backpedaling? Why don't I hear the roar of the right wing crowds crying out for "victory" in Iran.

Because of all the lefty whining we have to wait for Iran to make the first move. Otherwise all we'll hear for the next decade is how the U.S. and it's puppet Israel attack a peace loving and harmless Iran.

Foolish Americans..........

Now that we elected a Democratic majority I have to agree with you.

Hey nogo, those over 43 can... (Below threshold)
epador:

Hey nogo, those over 43 can join the Reserves and sign a waiver acknowledging they might not be eligible for retirement, and go AD in a heartbeat.

Saber rattling.

Ye Haw, let Drudge get all hard on this one.

This has been floated with similar details over a year ago.

Yawn.

J Lawson....."Nuclear wa... (Below threshold)
aRepukelican:

J Lawson....."Nuclear war isn't something that ANYONE wants to see. It's the ultimate of a line of really bad options"

Sorry, but nuclear war IS NOT AN OPTION, except to a genetically malprogrammed misfit. Your comment above is INSANE.

And to Luke, w/ his whining binky: just what war did you fight in that has preserved the freedom of "such ilk" as myself to post here? If it was WWII, perhaps you have a point as you would if you were referring to the American Revolution. If you are referring to Viet Nam, Korea and this Bush/Cheney Iraq mania, you can shove it.

And to Luke, w/ hi... (Below threshold)
marc:
And to Luke, w/ his whining binky: just what war did you fight in that has preserved the freedom of "such ilk" as myself to post here? If it was WWII, perhaps you have a point as you would if you were referring to the American Revolution. If you are referring to Viet Nam, Korea and this Bush/Cheney Iraq mania, you can shove it. :: by aRepukelican on January 7, 2007 6:46 AM ::
Would accept someone who spent thousands of hours patrolling the Arabian Gulf aboard two different guided missle Destroyers and two different guided missle cruisers?

Those hours were spent escorting oil tankers thru the Gulf and out of the Straights safely during the tanker war of the early eighties.

More hours were spent thruout the rest of the eighties insureing safe passage for the very same oil tankers.

Even more hours providing air intercept control during the '91 Gulf War and after performing Maritime Intercept Operations catching, boarding and arresting oil smuggled from both Iraq (breaking UN sanctions as they did it) and aided & abetted by the Iranian revolutionary guard.

And the point to these thousands of hours? To keep not only the price of oil for the US but the rest of the world at a reasonable level.

You know... a reasonable level vice the $25 per gallon you were peeing your pants about aRepukelican.

And BTW, who do you suppose would perform the security patrols in the Arabian Gulf if the US were to turn tail and run from the area?

Just who aRepukelican? You? Would you join up?

I think we all know that answer.

aRepukelican, you seemed to... (Below threshold)
bobdog:

aRepukelican, you seemed to have missed the part that this report was from the British press and it was about the Israelis. It wasn't about Bush/Cheney/Rove and their plans to conquer the universe.

Your comment is as irrelevant as you are.

But it was an insulting comment about the League of E-vill, so of course Nogo wants to warm his hands in your campfire of hate.

Idiots.


bobdog....you ignorant slut... (Below threshold)
aRepukelican:

bobdog....you ignorant slut

You just don't get it, do you? The US naval positioning in and around the Persian Gulf, the UK story about Israel's nuke planning and the appontment of an ADMIRAL, Fallon at Centcom.

Not exactly the kind of situatiuon that appears to be oriented toward the land war in Iraq.

aRepuke,Appointmen... (Below threshold)
Faith+1:

aRepuke,

Appointment of an Admiral at CENTCOM is neither new nor unprecedented. It seems all the way back to the concept of a Joint Forces Air Combat Command (JFACC) option where command of forward deployment area would rotate between Air Force and Navy 2+ star command level. I believe around the mid-90s that extended to include the Army as well.

Also, carriers and carrier born aircraft have been in direct support of the land war in Iraq and Afghanistan since the beginning.

It's pretty clear you really aren't educated on even basic military doctrine--I don't mean it as an insult, but as a statement. Your pretense at sounding like some sort of expert is only showing how much you don't know.

Yes, former military. Yes, served in Iraq during the first Gulf War. Did work with the 32nd AOG on several deployment (including the other unilateral US pre-emptive strike war we are still stuck in but the left doesn't care about because Clinton did it--Kosovo).

BTW, Proclaiming Israel is making plans to strike Iran shoudl Iran go nuclear is about as "newsworthy" and a scoop as saying one day, there might be an earthquake in California.

There are good points in yo... (Below threshold)

There are good points in your article. I would like to supplement them with some information:

I am a 2 tour Vietnam Veteran who recently retired after 36 years of working in the Defense Industrial Complex on many of the weapons systems being used by our forces as we speak.

If you are interested in a view of the inside of the Pentagon procurement process from Vietnam to Iraq please check the posting at my blog entitled, "Odyssey of Armaments"

http://rosecoveredglasses.blogspot.com/2006/11/odyssey-of-armaments.html

The Pentagon is a giant, incredibly complex establishment, budgeted in excess of $500B per year. The Rumsfelds, the Administrations and the Congressmen come and go but the real machinery of policy and procurement keeps grinding away, presenting the politicos who arrive with detail and alternatives slanted to perpetuate itself.

How can any newcomer, be he a President, a Congressman or even the new Sec. Def.Mr. Gates, understand such complexity, particularly if heretofore he has not had the clearance to get the full details?

Answer- he can't. Therefore he accepts the alternatives provided by the career establishment that never goes away and he hopes he makes the right choices. Or he is influenced by a lobbyist or two representing companies in his district or special interest groups.

From a practical standpoint, policy and war decisions are made far below the levels of the talking heads who take the heat or the credit for the results.

This situation is unfortunate but it is absolute fact. Take it from one who has been to war and worked in the establishment.

This giant policy making and war machine will eventually come apart and have to be put back together to operate smaller, leaner and on less fuel. But that won't happen until it hits a brick wall at high speed.

We will then have to run a Volkswagen instead of a Caddy and get along somehow. We better start practicing now and get off our high horse. Our golden aura in the world is beginning to dull from arrogance.

A real possibility is that ... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

A real possibility is that Ackonmydinnerjacket will self-destruct, given his wacky pronouncements, but more importantly, his inattention to oil and gas infrastructure that is falling apart.

They couldn't supply nat. gas to Turkey recently due to their inefficiencies.

If the Iranians can't sell oil, they can't survive as a nation.

Sorry, but nuclear war <... (Below threshold)
cirby:

Sorry, but nuclear war IS NOT AN OPTION, except to a genetically malprogrammed misfit.

Then you're in favor of letting Israel strike Iran, since the only other option is to let an insane bunch of Islamist assholes get control of a nuclear arsenal that they have repeatedly announced they will use - offensively and in a first strike - on various countries around the world.

You see, that's the problem. Being a "rational" player in a world full of batshit non-rational ones does nothing except get millions of people killed.

The problem is that you're one of the non-rational people, working off a bunch of half-learned myths and propaganda bits that have nothing to do with any sort of real-world basis. And the other side just loves guys like you. They even have a name: "useful idiots."

cirby, rather than take the... (Below threshold)
aRepukelican:

cirby, rather than take the World down w/ nuclear suicide, why don't you just commit it, suicide, on an individual basis? People like you should never be permitted near a voting booth.

The fall-out from the Novem... (Below threshold)
bryanD:

The fall-out from the November elections begins! As the neo-con/likudnik members of the administration are getting their alibis straight and Cheney prepares his retreat to the sanitarium, "our closest ally" attempts nuclear blackmail. Not on Iran, but on US. It's a Hail Mary "stop me from committing national suicide by doing it yourself" kind of play. Or "if you don't invade Iran, I hope you all die" thing.

cirby, rather ... (Below threshold)
cirby, rather than take the World down w/ nuclear suicide, why don't you just commit it, suicide, on an individual basis? People like you should never be permitted near a voting booth.

Posted by: aRepukelican at January 7, 2007 12:33 PM

You have got to be one of the more dumber trolls around repuke...

cirby, rather than take ... (Below threshold)
cirby:

cirby, rather than take the World down w/ nuclear suicide,

...why not let the Islamists take it down with nuclear homicide? That's their DECLARED POSITION.

No, thanks.

It's also not an either/or proposition. We can have nukes, and possibly use them, without everyone on the planet suddenly deciding to fire off all of their weapons, just for the hell of it. That's the thing: if we have a policy of never, ever using nuclear weapons, it gives the other guys complete free rein to use them whenever and wherever they wish.

More than half of the nuclear weapons in the world are in the hands of people who are NOT our allies, and who are famously bad at keeping things intact. Two of the newest nuclear programs in the world are in the hands of complete bastards, who have publicly declared they they INTEND to use them on us, or on our actual allies, and there's a solid possibility that they might decide to "use them or lose them" if they're on the verge of losing power.

On the other hand, folks like you want the US and Israel to, er, do nothing. That way, when a couple of major cities go up in mushroom clouds, you get to take some sort of pretend-moral stance and pretend it's our fault, for not talking crazy people out of doing crazy things.

It's a Hail Mary "stop m... (Below threshold)
cirby:

It's a Hail Mary "stop me from committing national suicide by doing it yourself" kind of play.

You DO realize that, for the Israelis, letting Iran have nuclear weapons is national suicide? The Iranians have said, repeatedly, that they plan on using nuclear weapons on the Israelis when they get them.

We have an unstable Islamic theocracy, with a shaky economy and increasing domestic unrest, which would consider the elimination of Israel to be a good and useful propaganda ploy to keep the masses in line, while garnering support from across the region.

And you want to let them have nuclear weapons.

cirby, the whole PR campaig... (Below threshold)
bryanD:

cirby, the whole PR campaign is a psy-ops against the American people. And the Israeli people. AND the Iranian people, by the Likud/PNAC gangsters desperate to insure that Israeli and American foreign policy are ONE. And the most efficacious way to bind us permanently is for the US to nuke a bunch of muslims! No going back then!

Well I can see the logic in... (Below threshold)
914:

Well I can see the logic in the U.S. preemptively protecting ourselves but I cannot see Iran nuking Israel which is home to many muslims and muslim holy sites??

Its senseless? Then again Amajinidad does seem rather nuts!

Wah! Wah! Boo Hoo! <p... (Below threshold)
John S:

Wah! Wah! Boo Hoo!

Don't get too panicky over nuclear annihilation. A nuclear exchange would be quick and very one sided. The worst the Iranians could do in the next five years is build a few 100 kiloton fission bombs. And they'll have to destroy their economy to do that and then pray to Allah the damn thing will actually go off.

If everything went right, they'd be able to kill maybe 200,000 Democrats in one of our cities. Not exactly a holocaust, and if it were Berkeley or Hollywood, not too bad either.

Then we respond. We have dozens of 25 megaton thermonuclear city killers left over from the Kennedy administration. They're not in the currently active stockpile, but I'm sure they would be in a hurry. If you've ever seen the movie "Dr. Strangelove," you've seen the Mach52 bomb. It's so damn big a B52 can carry exactly one. Notice we still have 55 year-old B52s in our air force... kind of makes you wonder.

I'm sure Iran has noticed as well.

IRAN SAYS 2007 COULD BRING ... (Below threshold)
Alex:

IRAN SAYS 2007 COULD BRING ISLAMIC MESSIAH, POSSIBLY THIS SPRING
http://www.crusade-media.com/news42.html

Also an article on why Ahmadinejad should be indicted:

http://www.crusade-media.com/news44.html

John S...Did you i... (Below threshold)
aRepukelican:

John S...

Did you inadvertently omit the "as" before your initial?

but I cannot see Iran nu... (Below threshold)
cirby:

but I cannot see Iran nuking Israel which is home to many muslims and muslim holy sites??

The Muslims will go to Paradise (martyrs, ya know), and the holy sites just really aren't that important (for a primer in this, note how many "holy sites" in Iraq have been bombed by Muslims just to kill other Muslims).

Iran is allowed, under the ... (Below threshold)
aaron:

Iran is allowed, under the Nonproliferation treaty, to enrich uranium. The only nation that is currently in violation of the NPT is the United States. The US has violated the treaty by ignoring the demand to disarm. Not only did it refuse to disarm; it built new warheads.

To discuss Iran nuking Israel is ridiculous. There is currently no evidence that it even has ambitions for a nuclear bomb. That is still speculation.

Bush has said he will not rule out a nuclear first strike against Iran, he has declared them part of the "axis of evil", and he has said he would understand if Israel attacked Iran.

If a leader of another nation made those comments about the US, all of us would expect our government to develop a deterrent to aggression. I'm not suggesting that Iran should have a nuclear weapon, but I am suggesting that Iran has a duty to protect its people.


Any attack against Iran in its current state is defined as "aggression" (which is considered the "supreme war crime") in the Nuremberg Tribunals. If that attack is nuclear, it would compound the atrocity. It would be the supreme war crime for the United States and Israel, its client state, to attack Iran.

hold on there people, we do... (Below threshold)
UKPhil:

hold on there people, we do not have to do anyting, the Hamas government supported by Iran is started to crumble right befor our eyes, palestinians are fighting each other, hamas vs Fatah, hamas vs palestinian people. Just watch as Irans puppet government falls apart. Then we will see what will happen, there will be uproar all over the Mid-East, Iran will go down the swanny, Y, well i believe once its beleagured peaople find out what has happened they will string their tin pot president up from a crane's jib.

oh and repuke, go home fell... (Below threshold)
UKPhil:

oh and repuke, go home fella, u do not have clue about sweet FA, i suggest u try doing a degree in international relations and polotics. Then throw in a short course and basic military doctrine-planning and preparations module, then u might just be educated enough to make goddamned sense boy.

Just checking in. Sorry to ... (Below threshold)
Dub53:

Just checking in. Sorry to upset, but no one's got it, yet. Ken Larsen is close on the process, but all events in this final scenario started in the 80's. Keep up the good work though. Back next quarter when the real action begins.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy