Iran: Calculated Madness and Common Sense

Jane graciously invited me over to share some thoughts about the developing scare-a-thon with Iran, and considering the amount of required reading this has entailed, all I can say is … well, thanks. An irony here is that I’m really not even the Iran expert on my own blog — that honor belongs to the equally pseudonymous Fubar, who posted in 2004 a pair of simple graphics that explained the issue from Iran’s perspective, including this one (the flags represent U.S. military bases or overflight privileges): So you can see why the powers that be in Tehran might be feeling a little paranoid these past few years, and why they might perhaps be interested in developing nuclear weapons as a deterrent. Another reason is demonstrated in this graphic: Do you think Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei wants to end up like Saddam, or thrive happily like Kim Jong-il? It’s not a hard choice.

[more]

The Nuclear Power Beside Iraq
Now that Iran unquestionably intends to build a nuclear bomb, the international community has few options to stop it—and the worst option would be a military strike

Iran issues stark military warning to United States

Iran said it could defeat any American military action over its controversial nuclear drive, in one of the Islamic regime's boldest challenges yet to the United States. "You can start a war but it won't be you who finishes it," said General Yahya Rahim Safavi, the head of the Revolutionary Guards and among the regime's most powerful figures. "The Americans know better than anyone that their troops in the region and in Iraq are vulnerable. I would advise them not to commit such a strategic error," he told reporters on the sidelines of a pro-Palestinian conference in Tehran. The United States accuses Iran of using an atomic energy drive as a mask for weapons development. Last weekend US news reports said President George W. Bush's administration was refining plans for preventive strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities. "I would advise them to first get out of their quagmire in Iraq before getting into an even bigger one," General Safavi said with a grin. "We have American forces in the region under total surveillance. For the past two years, we have been ready for any scenario, whether sanctions or an attack."

[more]

  thanks to Drudge Report

Iran suicide bombers ‘ready to hit Britain’

Bombs That Would Backfire

WHITE HOUSE spokesmen have played down press reports that the Pentagon has accelerated planning to bomb Iran. We would like to believe that the administration is not intent on starting another war, because a conflict with Iran could be even more damaging to our interests than the current struggle in Iraq has been. A brief look at history shows why.

[more]

  thanks to Whiskey Bar

Iran: The Day After

The airwaves and the headlines are full of talk of a U.S. military strike against Iran. That is as it should be - the danger of such a reckless move is real, and rising, and we should be talking about it. The Bush administration claims that negotiations are their first choice. But they have gone to war based on lies before, and there is no reason to believe that they are telling the truth this time.

[more]

A threat to the Navy?

Whether we attack Iran with tactical nukes or just the usual barrage of conventional bombs, our naval vessels located in the Persian Gulf will be at great risk. Why? Because Russia and China have been supplying Iran with the latest technology in anti-ship warfare: supersonic cruise missiles. [...] So what do we know? Iran has likely acquired cruise missiles with speeds up to 3 times faster than current American anti-ship cruise missiles. The ones it has likely acquired from the Ukraine have a range of up to 3000 kilometers. It probably also has a number of shorter range supersonic cruise missiles (we can't be certain of exactly how many) to augment its inventory of slower Silkworm cruise missiles (the Silkworm is a Chinese variant of the French Exocet). And even these slower Silkworms can be very dangerous to our naval forces as demonstrated by the 1987 incident involving an Iraqi Exocet missile attack against the USS Stark: [...] Imagine these cruise missiles being deployed in mass attacks against our ships in the Gulf, and against oil tanker traffic (the reason our ships would be in the Gulf in the first place). The chance of incidents much worse than the one that happened to the USS Stark becomes greatly magnified. Unless we know the location of these cruise missiles and can take them out before they are launched, our sailors will be at tremendous risk in the event of a shooting war with Iran.

[more]

This is food for thought:

Does Iran's President Want Israel Wiped Off The Map - Does He Deny The Holocaust?
An analysis of media rhetoric on its way to war against Iran - Commenting on the alleged statements of Iran's President Ahmadinejad .