On bloggingheads.tv, www.RaceForIran.com publisher Flynt Leverett and Reuel Marc Gerecht debate the wisdom of (either Israel or the United States) bombing Iran. This debate is noteworthy, in our view, primarily as an entrée into the neoconservative mindset about Iran. The full video can be watched at this link: http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/30306?in=00:00&out=58:41
–Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett
Flynt did a tactically error. Because he did not answer Gerecht’s claims about Iran’s internal policy at the beginning. Becaue of it he lost the control in the middle of the debate. It is quit clear, that if you demonize a regime no rational argument can help you, so prevent the demonize at the very beginning.
Also Eric, you don’t participate or vote in the Iranian political system – for the people who make Iranian foreign policy or nuclear policy decisions. You vote in the US political system. What should the US, your country, do? What gesture that is “no big deal” should the people who represent you make?
Michael… It might be because George didn’t go to University… he postponed an early miseducation….
James,
You wrote to Castellio:
“Castellio – – Iraq, not Iran (in first sentence).”
It’s often difficult to distinguish them these days, James.
George Galloway’s interview with President Ahmadinejad is available on PressTv.Ir
Log on to site,click on PROGRAMS and select The Real Deal. The interview was on 15th August and is available for download. He also has the show Comment
Both shows are on air weekly
George does not have a University education but there are not many in the world who can match his debating skills.
Here comes CNN to demonize Turkey for distancing from Tel Aviv and building friendly relations with Tehran.
For its second warning since Israeli murdered nine Turkish aid workers in cold-blood on May 31, 2010 at international waters – Al-Qaeda picked Israeli hasbara outlet CNN. CNN analysts claim the voice on the video matches that of al-Zawahiri, who said: “The Turkish troops will carry out the same operations in Afghanistan that the Jews are carrying out in Palestine, so how would the pious, free Turkish Muslim people accept such a crime against the Islam and the Muslims?”…
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2010/08/22/al-qaeda-israel-and-turkey/
Atlantic is getting all the mileage it can out of its Goldberg-model lemon of a vehicle for mass confusication.
In the ‘ongoing debate’ that Atlantic promised, one person posted this comment:
The “forum” has been useful insofar as it evidence that the most fundamental and improtant questions about “Iran, Israel and the Bomb” fall outside the spectrum of permissible topics:
1. As an American, why should I give a crap about helping Israel? What has Israel done for the US lately?
2. How do you blow up a whole country with a non-existent bomb?
3. Doesn’t the “hawkish” perspective depend on the proposition (flogged endlessly by CIA washout Gerecht) that the Mullahs are insane?
4. How in the world could an Iranian nuclear weapons program, which does not even exist, ever be any kind of actual threat to the US–even if one did?
5. If as seems obvious an Israeli strike will trigger Iranian reprisals against the US, including destruction of its economy by closure of Hormuz, isn’t the Obama administration obligated to warn Israel — and mean it — that the US will bomb Israel if it makes such an idiotic move?
6. As a condition to point no. 3, isn’t it necessary to do what basic ethics and good governance demands, which is preclude those with actual or apparent conflicts of interest from having any involvement in or association with Middle East policy in general and Palestine (Israel) and Iran in particular–that is, Jewish Americans? Yes, of course, grossly un-PC–but are not the potential consequences of decisions that will need to be made (e.g., a third and final world war, a nuclear holocaust, economic and social chaos) too important to be derailed by such sensitivities?
Castellio – - Iraq, not Iran (in first sentence).
Castellio,
Did you see Adil E. Shamoo’s piece in Foreign Policy in Focus: “US occupation of Iran more than doubles poverty, sickness – - leaves country a total disaster”? A quote: “So, why are people in the US not concerned and saddened by the [appalling] conditions in Iraq? Because most people in the US do not know what happened in Iran and what is happening there now.” The astounding ignorance of the American people explains in part why US foreign and “defence” policy is so idiotic.
An Iranian parliamentary spokeman said today that the P5+1 talks will include Brazil and Turkey, and the plan will be to proceed with the Tehran Declaration of this past May. I hope the UK sees that this is the logical way forward at this juncture. I have considerable confidence in the judgement of William Hague.
Castellio,
Stern obviously is intelligent and well-informed. And the figure of $7 trillion or more, to keep the Gulf open, is significant, to say the least. The problem arising from the gross ignorance of the American people, is that they are unable to comprehend what the real security situation is in the world, and to insist that US foreign policy (and defence spending) bear a reasonable relationship to that real security situation.
James, if I had a dollar for every time you claim the problem is stupidity or ignorance…
Roger Stern, who wrote the article, is from Princeton University. He is very educated, very smart… we have to look at other factors.
Fiorangela,
I too was sorry to see the Likud-style rubbish that George Will published in his most recent column.
Will apparently is unable to comprehend that either the US tells Israel to get out of the West Bank, and ensures it does so, or Palestine will have to obtain recognition from the UN of its independence based on the June 1, 1967 borders.
Faram,
Thanks. The preposterous contention that Iran is “hegemonic” should be derided by intelligent commentators, but sadly the liar opportunistic neocons, and the promoters of idiotic levels of “defence” spending by the US, do their best to convince the appallingly ignorant American public that it is true. Most Americans cannot find Iran on the map.
Michael Kerwick,
Bravo! The US is squandering trillions on what ostensibly is an effort to keep the Gulf open to shipping- – when this already is Iran’s policy! Utter stupidity on the part of American “defence” planners. And utter stupidity on the part of the ignorant US public.
@RSH
There are videos on youtube with the Iranian drone
filming the aircraft-carrier.
Masoud,
“It seems like you’ve given this some thought Eric, but I would strongly suggest finding the thing on Youtube or the DN! website and playing it next time you’re doing the dishes anyway.”
Your “anyway” at the end suggests you don’t think I agree with you about the importance of “keeping to your frame” in a debate. I do agree – if it’s feasible. Bear in mind that the Galloway/Hitchens debate had a moderator and a time-keeper. The ground rules called for timed 15-minute openings for each debater, followed by three timed periods of 10 minutes, 5 minutes and 5 minutes each. Except for much briefer opening statements in the Leverett/Gerecht debate, in which normal debating protocol (aka “don’t interrupt”) was more or less observed, the only “moderator” in the Leverett/Gerecht debate consisted of whatever good manners were left from a debater’s upbringing.
Much tougher to “keep to one’s frame” in that setting.
I’ve so far got only about 25 minutes into the Galloway/Hitchens debate (which I’m enjoying – thanks again for the reference), and so some of what I say may not seem valid when I reach the end. Nevertheless, it’s worth noting already that Galloway is doing exactly what I’ve suggested needs to be done with (to?) some debating opponents. Galloway opened by reminding Hitchens of a speech Hitchens had given 25 years earlier in Galloway’s home town, in which Hitchens had courageously praised Palestinian resistance groups, whom Hitchens apparently did not consider to be “terrorists’ at the time. Then Galloway reminded Hitchens how eloquently he (Hitchens) had opposed George H.W. Bush’s decision attack Iraq in 1991. He added a few similar examples and wound up this part of his introduction by describing Hitchens’ subsequent transformation as the “metamorphosis of a butterfly back into a slug,” closing with a reminder that a slug leaves “a trail of slime” wherever it goes.
As I mentioned, I’m only 25 minutes into the debate, and have little doubt that Hitchens came back at his first opportunity with an eloquent rebuttal. Indeed, he was chafing at the bit so much that he did interrupt Galloway a bit at the beginning (until Galloway asked him to stop: the advantage, once again, of participating in a moderated debate where rules are followed). But the fact remains that Galloway challenged Hitchens’ credibility by reminding the audience that Hitchens had once felt quite differently about the matters on which he was now speaking, thereby drawing the audience’s attention – and Hitchens’ – away from what Hitchens was now saying to the credibility of the person who was saying it.
By the way, when I wrote earlier that Hitchens deserves respect for both style and substance, I didn’t mean to suggest that I agree with the substance of what Hitchens writes. Sometimes I do, usually not. I meant simply that he presents well-formed ideas, not, like some other writers and speakers, half-baked thoughts that survive only because they’re presented either in echo chambers or in unmoderated debates where the purveyor of those half-baked ideas can defend them with shouts, exaggeration and interruptions.
Another interesting addition to Iran’s defense capabilities:
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/139770.html
Once again, Iran makes it clear they will attack the US on a “world-wide” basis well outside the Middle East region.
Iran threatens to attack U.S. interests around the world if provoked
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/115313-iran-threatens-to-attack-us-interests-worldwide-if-provoked
Quote:
“In case of any illogical move, the Islamic Republic’s hands and advocates will be powerfully activated against the interests of the hegemonic system and US bases outside the region,” IRGC Politburo Chief General Yadollah Javani said, according to the semi-official Fars News Agency.
“If Americans make a strategic mistake and choose the military option against the Islamic Republic and our nation’s interests, Iran will not confine its defense to the region,” he said.
End Quote
Note that well: “outside the region”.
If I were them, I’d consider blowing up AIPAC headquarters in Washington on a day when they’re holding an event and all the leaders and rich supporters are there. It’s probably the most effective way to hurt Israel.
one theory to explain the proliferation of “let’s bomb Iran” wild-arse dissertations and discussions holds that foot soldiers (human wave?) are being sent into the minefields to test public reaction and to desensitize public reaction.
the good news based on that theory is that Gerecht’s and Goldberg’s handlers obviously consider them expendable. (wonder if they got plastic keys to heaven.)
the better news is that there’s not that much depth on the bench: George Will made a fool of himself spouting the likud line (how can someone reach his age and stature and still be so easily blackmailed by likud handlers?), and the public already knows how disreputable is the KKK — Kristol, Kagan, Krauthammer.
It’s up to Bibi now, and the audacity of chutzpah: There is a campaign underway to demand American endorsement of Bibi’s views as more authoritative than Obama’s. The zionist PR machine is accustomed to running a three ring circus, and as Castellio observed, center ring is at ground zero.
Turkey becomes more explicit about how far it will go to support sanctions on Iran. Their attitude appears to jibe with Russia and China: we’ll support UN sanctions, NOT unilateral sanctions.
Ankara tells US it won’t adhere to new sanctions on Iran
www dot todayszaman dot com/tz-web/news-219798-102-ankara-tells-us-it-wont-adhere-to-new-sanctions-on-iran.html
It seems like you’ve given this some thought Eric, but I would strongly suggest finding the thing on Youtube or the DN! website and playing it next time you’re doing the dishes anyway.
Masoud,
“George [Galloway] clearly demonstrates the importance of keeping to your own frame in such a debate. Hitchens, btw, was an absolutely more formidable opponenet then Gerecht.”
Thanks for the reference, Masoud.
Hardly a surprise that Hitchens is more formidable than Gerecht. I can say that without taking anything away from Gerecht (not that I’d hesitate to do that). Like or not what he writes and says, Hitchens is one very articulate guy, in speech and (especially) in print – and one whose articulateness doesn’t mislead a reader to believe that the substance of what he writes is more impressive than it really is. Style and substance are both there.
Back to the Leverett/Gerecht debate. It’s always preferable to stick to a pre-planned “frame,” but a shoot-from-the-hip opponent like Gerecht can easily disrupt such a plan. If one’s opponent has a major credibility problem, as Gerecht does, it’s prudent to add an alternate “Plan B” “frame:” Start and stick with the agenda you planned until your opponent starts making baseless opposing arguments, then switch suddenly and indignantly to Plan B: attack your opponent’s credibility. Nail him firmly to the wall, then switch back to Plan A if and when you can.
But just forget about switching back to Plan A if your opponent doesn’t let you spend more than half a minute on it without distracting you again. If you interrupt your presentation repeatedly to deal with distractions, you soon appear weak to the audience, which concludes that your argument must be shaky if your opponent finds it so easy to divert you from it. If that happens, just give up on Plan A and focus on Plan B. When the debate ends, the audience probably won’t have a clue whether you or the other guy has a better argument on whether, for example, Iran poses a threat to civilization as we know it. But who cares? They will know this: the next time they read something written by a guy named Reuel Gerecht, they’ll take it with a very large grain of salt. But not if it’s written by a guy named Flynt Leverett (or his wife).
In short, Flynt can accomplish more by discrediting Gerecht generally than by discrediting Gerecht’s arguments on Iran. This might seem like a recommendation to “lose the battle, win the war.” If that’s an apt description, most would argue there’s nothing wrong with that. But when one bears in mind that the “battle” in a debate like this – let’s be honest with ourselves – is a low-brow drunken-sailor affair when compared to a “print debate” conducted through thoughtful, carefully researched articles, essays or books, it’s not hard to persuade oneself that he has even won the battle with such a “Plan B” approach.
To kick this up a level of generality, is it even appropriate to label my suggested debate strategy a “Plan B?” Whatever one’s particular motivations for participating on this website, or generally in the heated debate on Iran-related issues, and regardless of how much we may disagree at times on several key issues, have not most of us been strongly motivated from the outset by shock and disbelief that the very same drivel that “sold” Iraq to the American public is being recycled – more often than not by the very same individuals – to “sell” a war on Iran? Are we all not outraged that someone like Reuel Gerecht can have gotten it so wrong on Iraq and yet still be considered a credible source by the mainstream media – even an authority – on Iran? Is putting a stop to this really just a “Plan B” fall-back strategy? Or is it an opportunity to do exactly what we’ve all vowed from the outset to do?
Plan A.
Mr. Canning: As a further statement along those lines, the same article states:
“Still, Laura Holgate, vice president for the Russia/New Independent States Programs at NTI, offered some ideas “in order to advance the discussion of an IAEA fuel reserve.” According to Holgate, NTI believes that such a reserve should be in the form of uranium hexaflouride enriched to a level of 4.9 percent, which is a typical enrichment level for reactor fuel. The initial $150 million would be sufficient to purchase 50-60 metric tons of such materials, the equivalent of one loading of a standard power reactor.
“In order to be seen as a true backup to an extant commercial fuel service contract,” the stockpile would have to be physically placed outside the current six supplier states, Holgate argued.
NTI President Charles Curtis, who chaired the IAEA special event, emphasized in a Sept. 28 interview with Arms Control Today that NTI wanted to shift the discussion from setting conditions to providing assurances for states to dissuade countries from investing in domestic fuel-cycle capabilities. “You’re not going to have states trading away their rights to technology,” Curtis stated.”
“The thrust of the proposal is to increase the confidence that export approvals will be given by placing the final judgment on the export of LEU in the hands of the IAEA and that other issues or political considerations will not stand in the way of nuclear trade.”
Except, of course, the IAEA can be manipulated. It’s not certain that ANY mechanism installed with the purpose of preventing non-proliferation by restricting enrichment by definition does not prevent manipulation. The article notes that some people make that point as well.
Here is the link to this article:
wwwd dot armscontrol dot org/print/2401
Mr. Canning: I found an article which has some info on the various international fuel bank proposals, such as the US GNEP and the Russian GNPI.
Here is a statement of precisely the problem with those solutions:
“Under the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP), launched in January by the United States, countries that renounce fuel-cycle activities would become eligible to receive U.S. nuclear fuel. Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy Dennis R. Spurgeon explained Sept. 19 at the IAEA special event that “the purpose of GNEP is to facilitate the safe, secure, and economic expansion of nuclear energy.” It intends to accomplish this by developing and providing novel, proliferation-resistant nuclear technologies as well as fresh fuel and spent-fuel management, with a particular focus on developing countries.
Spurgeon also provided additional details about a separate U.S. offer to down-blend 17.4 tons of highly enriched uranium (HEU) removed from the U.S. defense program and set the resulting LEU aside in a domestically held reserve, a proposal first announced a year ago. Such a stock, equivalent to six to eight core refuelings of an average light-water reactor, could complement reserves established under control of the IAEA, Spurgeon said. Gregory Schulte, the U.S. ambassador to the IAEA, said in a Sept. 20 interview with Arms Control Today that the United States is not willing to consider making this material part of an international stockpile because U.S. law requires national control over such material. Schulte conceded that, “for some countries, that will provide reassurance, but for others, perhaps it won’t.””
Exactly. Nobody trusts the US and probably not a lot of people trust Russia.
The second problem with these mechanisms is that BY DEFINITION the whole point is to provide access to them ONLY to countries which satisfy the “non-proliferation requirements” of the system.
Well, look at how easy it was for the US to get Iran’s nuclear file referred to the UN Security Council in breach of UN and IAEA regulations. Why should Iran or any other country trust the international system when it can so easily be manipulated by the US or other countries for political purposes?
Iran is right to reject such an approach until a system is set up which cannot be manipulated by the one remaining superpower.
Masoud: I agree with your Galloway-Hitchens statement. Hitchens was hardcore, but if anybody could take him it would be Galloway who seems always to know exactly what to say.
I enjoyed it when Galloway tore apart the US Senate in his appearance before them, and also when he tore into the Sky News anchor during the 2006 Lebanon war.
I recently watched a video of him interviewing Ahmadinejad.
Meanwhile…http://mondoweiss.net/2010/08/report-from-ground-zero.html
Mr. Canning: “I think Russia can supply the fuel for the Iranian reactors, and any built by Syria and Turkey.”
Do you have a cite for that? I’d like to know for sure one way or the other whether Russia can generate that kind of product.
“For Iran, the issue is more one of pride than need.”
I wouldn’t call it pride, although I’m sure that’s involved. It’s more lack of trust in Russia, which after all took a hell of a long time to finish that reactor. If I were Iran, I wouldn’t trust my fuel needs to any one country either.
George and anybody, I would think. He’s such a strong speaker that Canada wouldn’t let him in the country.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/mar/20/george-galloway-banned-canada
I think you get what I’m saying Eric.
For a great example of how to wrestle with a pig and come out squeaky clean, not to mention slaughter the pig, readers should look up the George Galloway vs. Christopher Hitchens debate moderated by Democracy Now’s Amy Goodman in New York from a couple of years ago. George clearly demonstrates the importance of keeping your to your own frame in such a debate. Hitchens, btw, was an absoloutely more formidable opponenet then Geretch.
Masoud
Flynt Leverett should have heeded the wise advice, “Don’t get into a fight with a pig. You will just get dirty and the pig will enjoy it.”
Seriously, you cannot debate someone who feels entitled to fabricate and outright lie.
On August 5, British Prime Minister David Cameron, who is proud to have Jewish roots – said that “Iran is in possession of nuclear weapons”. The Opposition made fun of his ignorance. The Labour party blasted Cameron as a “foreign policy klutz” with his feet “firmly planted in his mouth”. Well, I guess the paranoid dude must have a big mouth because in April 2010, he called Chinese being the greatest threat to United Kingdom. Frankly, I wonder why did he say that because both the US and Israel are doing billions of dollar business with communist China? Oops! China just signed a US$10 billion contract to help Iran build its new oil refineries….
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2010/08/23/cameron-iran-has-nuclear-bomb/
The line regarding Iran in the paper’s conclusion is: “Unfortunately, force projection is not a remedy for market power but a strategy to contend with its consequences. Since market power has never been challenged by any sustained US or importer monopsony policy, the strategy of force projection was bound to fail as Iran’s emergence as a regional hegemon seems to demonstrate.”
Calling Iran a hegemon is strange, I thought. What are the facts for that?
Israeli academics such as Haggai Ram attach the label “-phobia” to Israel’s obsession with Iran.
A phobia is an “intense, irrational, unrealistic fear of certain objects or situations.” Note the key words: a phobia is IRRATIONAL and UNREALISTIC.
This weekend, Time magazine used its front cover to promote an article by Bobby Ghosh; it is labelled, “Is America Islamophobic?”
If the source of American Islamophobia is traced, one arrives at the same group of propagandists of which Reuel Gerecht is a member: neocon propagandists. They are sick and they are deliberately spreading their psychopathology for amorphous and unfathomable reasons. Tragically, the consequences of their propaganda are concrete and devastating. Yet, they have not been held accountable for the propaganda that they spread. Why are liars not held accountable for the destructive consequences of their lies?
Propaganda is the precursor to genocide.
Dr. Gregory Stanton has studied genocide and can affirm this.
Why do we stand passively and tolerate lies and propaganda that are intended to eventuate in grievous harm to the Iranian people?
James Canning; I agree that the idea of Iran as the region hegemon is totally delusional.
why does anybody hold Gerecht and his cellmates in any regard? The only reason Flynt should have been as respectful and attentive to Reuel as he was is for the same reason a psychiatrist attentively observes a client: to objectively the extent and precise nature of the psychopathology in order to determine whether or not the subject was a danger to society such that the public should be protected from him. I think the answer is Yes. Gerecht and his cohort are psychopaths. Why are we indulging this lot? They should be at least under supervision and treatment, at worst, sequestered from normal society for their own good and for the public wellbeing.
Why do we tolerate somebody who would say something like, “US should have acted sooner to damage the Iranian scientific community?” Is this what America stands for? Does this uphold the Constitutional values the US purports to stand for?
WHY DO WE TOLERATE THIS?
The best use Flynt should make of this “debate” is as a psychiatric intake interview.
Gerecht is sick; he and his lot are sickening the American public with their lies and propaganda. They should be quarantined to protect the American public.
Faram,
Has Iran “emerged as a regional hegemon”? Surely this is rather delusional.
Scott,
Thanks. If Russia could supply the fuel plates for the TRR, it probably would do so. I hope Obama can comprehend how foolish it was for the “west” to make an issue of fuel for the TRR. Utter stupidity of the worst sort.
R S Hack,
Russia urged Iran to allow itself to supply all of the nuclear fuel for all Iranian nuclear reactors. Russia tried to obtain US support for this programme. I think Russia can supply the fuel for the Iranian reactors, and any built by Syria and Turkey. For Iran, the issue is more one of pride than need.
Michael Kerwick, thank you for the ref to R. Stren.
The link to Stern’s paper (in press) is www dot princeton dot edu/oeme/articles/US-miiltary-cost-of-Persian-Gulf-force-projection.pdf
Among his conclusions are:
“The estimate presented here provides anew perspective on the magnitude of oil market power as a societal problem for the US…If most cost of US navy in the persian gulf is now incurred under Wolfowitz, combined market power effects are approximately $ 1 trillion per year,7%
of USGDP.
Unfortunately, force projection is not a remedy for market power but a strategy to contend with its consequences. Since market power has never been challenged by any sustained US or importer monopsonypolicy, the strategy of force projection was
bound to fail as Iran’semergence as a regional hegemon seems to
demonstrate.”
Richard / Eric
It would have been much easier by attacking his credibility from the get go ( which he totally lacks) and keep him constantly to defend his credibility rather than giving him the chance to attack, with every assertion he made Flynt must have said you made the same assertions in 02 and 03 and you were wrong.
I agree, the last few days have been full of good news for Iranians. Such accomplishments have created a new degree of pride and self-confidence among many young people. In addition to Bushehr, the defense industry’s ability to regularly produce new high-tech weapons and the display of such new weapons systems over the past few days has especially been the talk of the town.
Mr. Brill: I agree with your post on Flynt vs Gerecht. This sort of “debate” is a losing proposition for the rational side since it’s going to end up a PR stunt for the irrational side rather than a debate, unless one is very aggressive on the rational side.
The problem in many debates is that some issues can only be analyzed as a series of propositions leading to a conclusion, or an accumulation of facts leading to a conclusion. In a debate format, as opposed to a written piece, it’s very hard to pull that off either without looking weak, or without simply losing the audience because of interruptions in the logical progression of one’s argument.
Flynt should have used my enumeration of points to set the agenda, regardless of the spurious claims of Gerecht at the beginning, and stuck to proving those points which by definition dismantle all the claims against Iran and any argument for war. Establish the facts then put the onus on the other side to disprove them rather than allowing your opponent to do so.
To repeat the points from my earlier post below:
1) There is ZERO evidence that Iran has a nuclear weapons development, manufacturing and deployment program and ZERO evidence that Iran wants one.
2) There is SOME evidence that Iran MAY have had a nuclear weapons research program which according to 16 US intelligence agencies consensus ended in 2003 and according to at least some US intelligence agencies had not restarted as of February 2010.
3) The Iranian nuclear energy program has been certified by the IAEA as being in compliance with the NPT.
4) That Iran complied with the Additional Protocol for two years and during that time the IAEA did not discover either a nuclear weapons program or any undeclared nuclear activities.
5) That based on the relative nuclear weapons arsenals of Israel and the United States versus Iran’s potential to actively manufacture nuclear weapons from a “break-out” perspective, Iran would achieve almost NO benefit from doing so.
6) The IAEA making the statement that it “cannot certify that Iran’s nuclear energy program is strictly for peaceful purposes” is BY DEFINITION 1) not within the IAEA’s purview, and 2) is an attempt to put the onus on Iran to prove a negative.
7) The onus is therefore on the US to prove its case by releasing whatever evidence it has for its accusations publicly rather than for Iran to attempt to prove a negative.
8) On that basis, and absent any UN resolution under Article 39 that Iran’s nuclear energy program is a “direct threat to peace in the region”, the US and Israel have ZERO basis for considering a military attack on Iran, and are therefore in violation of the UN Charter by threatening to do so.
To: PMR9
Roger J Stern, Princeton University, has calculated that it has cost $6-8 Trillion to keep the U.S. Navy carriers in the Persian gulf from 1976-2007. Most of us cannot visualize a Trillion Dollars.
If Race For Iran, Inc, had gone into business on the day Jesus was born and the business lost a million dollars a day, day in and day out, 365 days of the year up to the present day. Cheer up it would only take another 727 years to loose a Trillion
In Dec 2006 Britain paid off the last £43 million on it’s 1945 War Loan to the U.S.
In 1931 President Herbert Hoover Declared a debt moratorium on the British WW1 debt
Chairman Mao was once asked what he would like and he said he would like the Royal Air Force Red Arrows aerobatic display team. Just this week the newly appointed Liberal Democrat Minister, Nick Harvey, could not guarantee the future funding of the Red Arrows. It costs £8.8 million to keep the unit flying. This is at the same time the keeping of 55,000 troops and dependents in Germany helps the German economy to the tune of £1.5 billion.
History has a way of repeating itself. The current official U.S. debt is $13.3 Trillion and if everything is factored in could be $40 Trillion.
I afraid I shut the video down after a few minutes.
Mr. Canning: “Yes, apparently Russia will supply the nuclear fuel for Bushehr #1 for ten years. Hans Blix seems to favor Russia supplying fuel for all of the Iranian nuclear power plants, on grounds it would eliminate the dispute.”
Just a note. Today one Iranian official pointed out that Iran’s nuclear energy program is targeted to produce 20,000 megawatts of electricity, of which Bushehr will only produce 1,000. So it’s not apparently feasible for anyone to supply Iran’s fuel needs in total. He emphasized this is why Iran would continue uranium enrichment even if Russia supplies fuel for Bushehr or other reactors.
It is the US official who said Bushehr “proved” that Iran did not need a uranium enrichment program who is completely wrong.
James,
Thank you re Russia offer on TRR — I missed that when I read the NYT report on Bushehr.
It does look potentially significant, especially if Moscow discussed with US before making offer. Have posted in today’s updates at http://enduringamerica dot com/2010/08/22/the-latest-from-iran-22-august-intimidation/.
Scott
James Canning
Thanks for the link
Dan Cooper,
You put your finger on one of the most insidious facts of this entire matter: known liars and other promoters of idiotic wars in the Middle East, often are rewarded substantially! This process creates even more whores serving the warmongers.
I recommend Joshua Holland’s “Is Abe Foxman Actively Pushing for a Clash of Civilizations?”.
http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/2010/08/20/is-abe-foxman-actively-pushing-for-a-clash-of-civilizations/
Eric A. Brill
RE: Reuel Marc Gerecht
I agree with your statment.
You wrote:
===========================
“Well, Reuel, the IAEA’s had inspectors crawling all over Iran for years now, and they’ve looked at these so-called ‘bomb design’ documents you mention, and they’ve said over and over:
‘We don’t think Iran is diverting any nuclear material to weapons. We know some people claim to believe that, but we’ve never found any evidence of it. None. Period.’
Now maybe you know more than they do, Reuel, but what you’re saying here sounds to me like what you were saying before the Iraq war.
A lot of people believed you then, until they found out you were dead wrong.
Maybe some people watching today don’t know your track record on Iraq. But nobody with a good memory is going to just accept what you say this time, especially when we’ve got the IAEA saying exactly the opposite.
Here, let me read just a few lines you wrote for the Weekly Standard before the Iraq war, and then you tell me why people should accept your speculation this time around: ‘______’”
============================
Reuel Marc Gerecht has lost all credibility. He lied about Iraq and is now lying about Iran to satisfy his Israeli masters.
In USA, Anybody in the public eye who supports Israel will end up getting financial rewards and lucrative job promotions.
people with intellect can see through Reuel’s propaganda in support of Israel, perhaps Flynt should have attacked his track record more and discredit his argument. However, from what I know of flynt, he is not that type of character, he is mild mannered man who likes to engage in an honest and intellectual argument without trying to belittle his opponent and force his opinion upon them.
On the other hand, Reuel is propagandist who supports Zionist murderous ideology, anybody who supports this ideology, cannot believe in rule of law, justice and fairness. This type of people will always lie, manipulate and do anything to brainwash public opinion.
In my opinion, leverets are highly educated, intelligent, honourable and peace-loving people who are defending justice and rule of law.
Leveretts have worked in US government and they know how the system works.
They are desperately trying to prevent thousands of Iranians and Americans from being slaughtered in a similar fashion to Iraq. They are preventing a catastrophe.
Eric,
Yes, apparently Russia will supply the nuclear fuel for Bushehr #1 for ten years. Hans Blix seems to favor Russia supplying fuel for all of the Iranian nuclear power plants, on grounds it would eliminate the dispute. Iranian pride likely will not make this solution possible.
You are almost certainly correct, that the story is being spun, to lessen the impact of the fact Bushehr #1 will go online, even if Israel is unhappy about it.
James,
“Is it not a good thing for The New York Times to be reporting that Iranian operation of nuclear power plants does not pose a security problem (re nukes)? Clearly the US must accept Iran’s operation of such plants, and Iran’s production of LEU to do so. The UK indicates it accepts Iranian LEU production.”
Indeed it is a good thing. My only point was that it acknowledging that the Bushehr plant is going to open required some spinning, which the NYT artfully accomplished.
Though it is beyond the point I was making, I’ll note that the US’ acceptance of Bushehr does not (though I wish it did) mean that the US also accepts “Iran’s production of LEU to do so.” As you know, the Bushehr fuel for the first several years will come from Russia.
Hans Blix has commended Russia for its assistance to Iran (Bushehr power plant #1), and its supplying the nuclear fuel for the plant.
Eric,
Is it not a good thing for The New York Times to be reporting that Iranian operation of nuclear power plants does not pose a security problem (re nukes)? Clearly the US must accept Iran’s operation of such plants, and Iran’s production of LEU to do so. The UK indicates it accepts Iranian LEU production.
Scott,
Thanks. Did you see the report in The New York Times today, regarding Russia intending to supply some of the materials needed for the TRR?
Persian Gulf,
A number of Obama’s advisers want a negotiated resolution of the dispute regarding Iran’s nuclear programme. The role of warmongering neocon journalists, like Gerecht, is to try to prevent Obama from achieving it.
If Iran has added terminal guidance to its ballistic missiles, this is a game-changer. It means that the US Navy’s carriers are vulnerable not only in the Gulf but far out in the ocean. Carriers have no defence against ballistic missiles, and one missile hitting the deck of a carrier is enough to disable it as a launch platform, leaving the whole battle group without air cover and vulnerable to air-launched sea-skimming missiles (
I think that US analysts underestimate the advantage that indigenous design and manufacture of armaments gives Iran. This allows Iran to tinker with its weapon systems, and especially to upgrade their software. For instance missile systems can be upgraded with geolocation to allow terminal guidance, or an air defence radar system can be upgraded with frequency-hopping algorithms to overcome jamming. This, combined with a strategy based on cheap precision-guided weapons (missiles, UAVs and torpedoes) that can destroy big expensive weapons platforms (carriers and manned aircraft) gives Iran a far greater defence capacity than other countries with much larger defence budgets.
Liz,
“The last few days have made Iranians very proud. You can visibly see how the news on nuclear as well as defence achievements have had an effect on people in the country.”
I’m glad to hear this.
I’ve been paying attention to how the Western press plays the Bushehr-opening story. Undoubtedly a thumb in the eye to those who prefer to believe that the Russians have linked arms with the US and think about nothing but turning the sanctions screws tighter and tighter on Iran.
Fear not: Western journalists are nothing if not imaginative, especially when it comes to spinning bad news. According to the NY Times’ Robert Worth, for example (writing on Aug. 14), the Bushehr opening is properly viewed as a “good thing” for the US – yet another tightening of the screws on Iran’s nuclear program:
“The Kremlin … says the Bushehr plant is a critical step in the process of bringing all of Iran’s nuclear activities under the aegis of the International Atomic Energy Agency.”
The last few days have made Iranians very proud. You can visibly see how the news on nuclear as well as defence achievements have had an effect on people in the country.
During testing a new home-made UAV, Ahmadinezhad said;
english dot aljazeera dot net/news/middleeast/2010/08/201082284951981270.html
Referring to Israel’s occasional threats against Iran’s nuclear facilities, Ahmadinejad called any attack unlikely, but he said if Israel did, the reaction would be overwhelming.
“The scope of Iran’s reaction will include the entire the earth,” he said.
“We also tell you – the West – that all options are on the table.”
Iran also test-fired, on Friday, a new liquid fuel surface-to-surface missile, the Qiam-1, with advanced guidance systems.
Iran has been producing its own light, unmanned surveillance aircraft since the late 1980s.
Since 1992, Iran has produced its own tanks, armoured personnel carriers, missiles, torpedoes and a jet fighter.
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/139629.html
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/139690.html
Masoud,
Certainly Gerecht was more aggressive than Flynt, but I thought Flynt was more aggressive than I’ve seen him in the past. He interrupted Gerecht’s interruptions several times, and even initiated a few interruptions of his own.
One can argue Flynt should have done all that you recommend, but in the end he and Gerecht appeal to different audiences in different ways. I think each impressed his target audience. You may be concluding that Flynt “lost” because you were assessing his appeal to those viewers who did not recognize that Gerecht was flinging out misstatements and exaggerations faster than Flynt or anyone else could swat them away. Gerecht’s target audience is not moved by the careful step-by-step sort of argument that would persuade someone familiar with the issues. Baseless assertions are good enough if presented in a loud enough voice, or with a smirk, or prefaced with provocative phrases such as “Surely you’re not claiming to know that …”
As we learned with Iraq, that style of debate works. As Gerecht’s survival shows, it works again and again for the same person, even if he was flatly wrong the last time around. Any well-educated, well-informed person like Flynt understands the methods of people like Gerecht. But they don’t always adjust their own style to deal with street-fighters – insisting on maintaining some intellectual self-respect and clinging to the forlorn hope that the debate can be kept on a high plane.
I probably would have too – this time. I learned from watching this debate, however, that one must either skip entirely a debate with someone like Gerecht, or else lower one’s expectations and “adjust” one’s style downward to just above the “self-respect line.”
Gerecht, for example, might as well be wearing a “Hit Me” sign after all of the silly things he wrote before the Iraq war. Why not attack his credibility at every opportunity, and try to inject your own positive arguments only after you’ve got him reeling (or even just keep him reeling and ignore the prescribed subject matter of the debate)? When Gerecht said, for example, that the US and other Western countries are certain that Iran is working on a bomb, rather than respond by explaining in great detail that the IAEA has never found evidence of that, ultimately leaving oneself open to the “can’t prove a negative” argument that underpinned Condi Rice’s “mushroom cloud” speech and brought us the Iraq war, how about this instead:
“Well, Reuel, the IAEA’s had inspectors crawling all over Iran for years now, and they’ve looked at these so-called ‘bomb design’ documents you mention, and they’ve said over and over: ‘We don’t think Iran is diverting any nuclear material to weapons. We know some people claim to believe that, but we’ve never found any evidence of it. None. Period.’ Now maybe you know more than they do, Reuel, but what you’re saying here sounds to me like what you were saying before the Iraq war. A lot of people believed you then, until they found out you were dead wrong. Maybe some people watching today don’t know your track record on Iraq. But nobody with a good memory is going to just accept what you say this time, especially when we’ve got the IAEA saying exactly the opposite. Here, let me read just a few lines you wrote for the Weekly Standard before the Iraq war, and then you tell me why people should accept your speculation this time around: ‘______’”
http://www.mehrnews.com/fa/newsdetail.aspx?NewsID=1138091
with the presence of a sinister like Reuel Marc Gerecht in American side, that of course shows the evil character of the U.S regime, Iran must be ready to target,in the case of an attack, every single American related interest in her periphery. The American side is still in the Tanker War’s mindset, it seems. when war is inevitable, we have nothing to loss. so, we will stand, fight and die.
Rehmat,
Your question was “What is stopping Islamists in Tehran for going after acquiring nuclear arsenal?” I responded merely that you’d neglected to list one possible answer, which I didn’t specify because it seemed obvious: fear of being bombed before it had acquired that nuclear arsenal.
I really don’t how FL ‘won’ in this debate. Geretch controlled this debate one hundred percent of the time. He was able to harp on all his favorite points, and was challenged on maybe 10 percent of the allegations he made vis a vis Iran. He handily stole the show and accomplished just what he set out to do: demonise Iran and normalize talk of war. Apologies to Flynt, but he was just completely ineffective in this debate. He is well informed, usually right, and forms very thoughtfull arguments but he came off as weak, indecisive, and less informed. He performs better in settings were both sides are ‘acting in good faith’, but if he wants to fight these kinds of fights, he needs to challenge every single lie, no matter how ‘off course’ it may take the talk from the official discussion parameters, be more unequvical, quicker to the point, and most importantly, to debate his interlocutor ie, past/current (mis)statements, credibility etc.. not just the subject matter. Maybe for the next one he can pour icewater down his pants, chug four red bulls, and have someone stomp on his toes just before going out.
Masoud
Eric A. Brill – And may I ask which possiblity I missed on the list?
I hope it’s not another Al-Qaeda tape released by CNN to implicate both Turkey and Iran governments as American agents but pretending to be anti-Israel.
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2010/08/22/al-qaeda-israel-and-turkey/
James,
Thank you for your reading of the situation….
Scott
Fiorangela writes: “As well, using US institutions to defraud Iran of its right to freely participate in the world economy and financial markets, that is, imposing economic sanctions on Iran, is a baldfaced gambit to eliminate competition.”
Yes, and a very successful one, don’t you think?
It is American tax money that goes to Lester Crown of General Dynamics, who then uses a tiny little fraction of the profits to buy his candidate for President, who then spends more on wars, even listening to Mr. Crown, his benefactor, as to who he should fight.
But no… that couldn’t happen….
The founders of America are spinning in their graves.
James Canning, you wrote: “Jewish financiers undermining the national security of the US, in their insane effort to “protect” Israel . . .”
Two comments on blogs recently suggest that Israel’s “Jewish financiers” are most concerned with “Protect[ing] Israel” cash flow.
Several weeks ago, Helena Cobban reported that foreign direct investment in Israel had dropped by 64%, from 2008 levels, to only $3.9 billion: that means that the US subsidy to Israel is the equivalent of foreign direct investment from all other sources. When a stock picker sees that no one else in investing in Brand X, if he’s rational, he asks himself what everyone else knows that he doesn’t know. The rest of the world seems to think Brand Israel is not the best investment; why is Uncle Sam sticking with this falling brand — on margin, no less.
And, in a discussion of the correlation between challenges to democratic government posed by resource-rich states that can rely on revenues other than tax revenues, one person noted that Israel was squarely in that category. Oil was the resource contemplated by the original article, but a commenter pointed out that Israel “has access to easy money” from donations from wealthy Jews abroad, from shakedown payments based on holocaust, on subsidies from US government. :http://mondoweiss.net/2010/08/the-oil-curse-explains-iraq-power-struggle-better-than-sunni-shiite-divide.html#comment-227872
It should be added that Israel was the beneficiary of Russia’s investment in the education of many, many of technologists who formed the brain trust that scooped Israel out of its recession in the 1980s.
The commenter observed that as Israel’s contributed revenue streams run dry, Israel may face “political instability, fueling religious extremism and possibly causing military adventurism.”
From that point of view, Israel’s strenuous efforts to keep a wedge between Iran and the US is, at its base, a business move by Israel, to ensure its Uncle Sam cash flow. As well, using US institutions to defraud Iran of its right to freely participate in the world economy and financial markets, that is, imposing economic sanctions on Iran, is a baldfaced gambit to eliminate competition.
Cengiz
For the best article on 2009 Iran election.
Click on: Eric A. Brill
http://www.iran2009presidentialelection.blogspot.com/
Israel: Iran’s Bushehr nuclear plant totally unacceptable
www dot jpost dot com/IranianThreat/News/Article.aspx?id=185512
The really disgusting quote is:
“‘It is totally unacceptable that a country that blatantly violates decisions of the United Nations Security Council and the International Atomic Energy Agency, and ignores its commitment to the Non-Proliferation Treaty charter, will enjoy the fruits of using nuclear energy,’ Foreign Ministry spokesman Yossi Levy said.”
This from a country that stole nuclear material from the United States to help make its undeclared nuclear weapons and that isn’t even a member of the NPT and a country which has ignored more UN resolutions than even Saddam Hussein did!
Zionists have ZERO shame and ZERO intellectual honesty.
Interesting Wayne Madsen piece. He’s basically saying the Israelis are conducting covert inspections of ships in the Gulf. I don’t think he makes the case very well – sounds like a lot of work (subs, drones, etc.) for the Israelis without any direct payoff. If they were trying to make people believe Iran was doing it, I think that failed big time.
Israelis conducting covert maritime operations in Persian Gulf
www dot prisonplanet dot com/israelis-conducting-covert-maritime-operations-in-persian-gulf.html
Gerecht comes across as someone unaccustomed to debating with intelligent and well-informed opponents. Indeed, if he’d foresworn his two favorite rhetorical weapons – shouting and hyperbole – and maybe cut down his smirk and eye-roll count about 50%, the debate would have been so lopsided that I’d have faulted Flynt for not graciously invoking the “mercy rule” to end it half-way through – just as they do in Little League baseball when one team gets ahead by 12 runs or more.
What’s frightening, though, is that many people do listen to people like Gerecht – principally because much of his audience is not well-informed enough to recognize the weakness of his arguments. And what’s especially frustrating to me is that his strongest argument (“strongest” being a relative term, of course) is the very argument I’ve drawn attention to several times: the “What is Iran trying to hide?” argument. Though he didn’t use that exact phrase, the word “clandestine” popped up several times, along with several equally sinister synonyms, in just the first 10 minutes or so. At no other times did he seem quite so pleased with himself.
Rehmat,
“What is stopping Islamists in Tehran for going after acquiring nuclear arsenal? Is it Imam Khoeini’s ‘fatwa’ against acquiring the weapons of mass destruction (WMDs)… or is it that Iran doesn’t have the resources to make a nuclear bomb?”
I don’t know the answer, but I do know you’re leaving one important possibility off the list.
Personally, I believe Ayatullah Ali Khamenei should climb down from the high moral ground and order the Iranian nuclear agency to go ahead and make atleast a few nuclear bombs – as military deterrant and put a ‘duct-tape’ on the mouths of the warmongering Zionists.
What is stopping Islamists in Tehran for going after acquiring nuclear arsenal? Is it Imam Khoeini’s ‘fatwa’ against acquiring the weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), which is the line-of-thinking of the Spiritual Leader, Ayatullah Khamenei – or is it that Iran doesn’t have the resources to make a nuclear bomb?
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2010/08/22/will-iran-make-a-nuclear-bomb/
Castellio,
Good story. Lester Crown is a prime example of the Jewish financiers undermining the national security of the US, in their insane effort to “protect” Israel (meaning, to enable permanent suppression of the legitimate national aspirations of the Palestinians), by causing the US to act in ways contrary to the national interests of the American people. The veteran journalist, Taki, calls them the Israeli Fifth Column.
I recommend Glenn Greenwald’s “Jeffrey Goldberg’s fabrication on NPR” on the salon.com site today. Apparently Goldberg falsely claimed on NPR (National Public Radio) that Greenwald had retracted some of this statements (that demolished Goldberg and showed him to be a liar). Not true! Amazing.
If one reads this, one may suspect, as some on this Board have suggested, that Obama has had the support to get into power precisely because he is willing to strike Iran…. It’s sad, too, how the first black president is so committed to maintaining the legal structures of Israeli racism.
http://alethonews.wordpress.com/2010/08/20/israel-big-money-and-obama/
The British Foreign Office appears to confirm the UK will accept Iran’s domestic nuclear power programme, including enrichment of LEU, provided sufficient transparency is achieved.
Scott,
Since Russia and China have urged Iran to suspend enriching to 20%, while both countries support Iranian enrichment of LEU, to me it seems clear the way forward, as seen by Iran, is to try to proceed with the exchange of LEU for TRR fuel, with suspension of enriching to 20% as part of the arrangements.
I think the US needs to accept Iranian enrichment of LEU, and that Khamenei is making this point clear.
Thanks for replies. I agree with Liz and Iranian that the Supreme Leader spoke out clearly against direct talks with the US Government.
My surprise is that the President, less than 24 hours later, appeared not only to endorse direct talks with the US — as part of “discussions” with the 5+1 powers — but to say they would be occurring within weeks.
Some explanations have been advanced. For example, one is that the Supreme Leader and the President were implementing an approach — after their meeting on Wednesday — of “tough cop”, “nice cop” towards the US and European powers. Another is that the Supreme Leader was drawing a line against any discussion of Iran’s pursuit of uranium enrichment while Ahmadinejad was holding open prospect of talks on narrower issue of a fuel swap.
Any thoughts welcomed.
S.
Gerecht was more aggressive and angrier, but Leverett won the debate pretty decisively as far as I could tell. A couple of things:
1) Gerecht refuses to differentiate between the ability to make a weapon and a weapon. This is a deliberate attempt to deceive less informed viewers. It can be dealt with as follows:
Does Japan have a weapon?
Japan has the ability to make a weapon.
If Iran moves in the direction of, like Japan, having the ability to make a weapon, does that mean Iran is working on a weapon?
Is Japan working, or has Japan been working, on a weapon?
These questions are just dealing with Gerecht’s deceptive use of the word “weapon”. If Iran is working on achieving a Japan option but not working on making an actual device that would explode, then by the rules of language, it is not working on a weapon. There is no evidence that Iran is working on a weapon, and if the term weapon is reasonably defined, nobody even believes Iran is working on a weapon. It would be hard to get Gerecht to admit it, but after a bunch of backsliding and evasion, he could be cornered to admit that even he doesn’t believe Iran is working on building a weapon.
Gerecht’s deceptive use of the word “weapon” – a special definition he uses only for Iran is easy to address if brought out. Gerecht depends on it not being brought out.
2) Leverett didn’t really get Gerecht to either spell out what he thinks the cost to the US would be of attacking Iran or allowing Israel to attack Iran – which means he couldn’t get a comparison. He couldn’t get a basis to say whether or not an attack would have a value greater than the cost. If the question is should it happen, that is the single most important question.
Scott Lucas
It’s really very simple, Ayatollah Khamenei was speaking about direct talks with the US government. This was in response to recent statements made in Washington. Liz was a bit harsh, but it is surprising that you don’t know these things. It appears that you were trying to portray the leadership in Iran as being divided and this reinforces the argument that your work is propaganda.
Kooshy: ““The agreement signed between Manama and Washington is a defensive deal, and we will never agree to allow our soil to be used (as a launch pad) for attacking another territory,” the Bahraini official told Arabic daily Asharq Alawsat.”
The loophole there of course is that the US doesn’t HAVE to INITIATE an attack on Iran from Bahrain. The US can attack from anywhere and as soon as Iranian missiles land on US assets in Bahrain – and probably hit Bahrain assets by accident as well, Bahrain will backtrack on that notion very fast.
So will all the other Gulf States. And if they don’t, Washington will quickly inform them how fast they can be considered “allies of Iran” and subject to military strikes and cutoff of foreign aid of their own. Only Turkey is big enough to not be subject to that kind of pressure.
Cengiz,
Hello! The election took place well over a year ago and people in Iran know that Ahmadinejad won a landslide. There was no evidence of fraud and despite the fact that western countries were advocating mob rule and trying to overthrow the people’s elected president, they failed utterly.
I think best article on 2009 Iran election crisis:
http://exiledonline.com/war-nerd-irans-cedar-show-aka-dont-get-excited-the-protestors-are-just-letting-off-some-steam/
Scott Lucas,
I think it is clear Iran will proceed with the deal set out in the Tehran declaration, and suspending enrichment to 20% would be part of the arrangements even if no mention is made explicitly. The P5+1 should ensure the deal goes through expeditiously.
Iranian@Iranian,
I agree that when Gerecht is rudely interrupting Leverett, he should push back.
What an ironic title for Gerecht’s outfit: Foundation for Defense of Democracies! Subverting democratic results in Iran, Palestine and other places seems the real purpose of the organization.
Rehmat,
Lt. Gen. Hamid Gul is quite right to say: “Israel is hell bent to draw America into a wider war attacking Iran.” He means any Israeli attack would be undertaken with a view it would immediately drag the US into yet another insane military adventure in the greater Middle East. How many trillions of dollars does Israel expect the US taxpayers to spend, to enable continuing suppression of the Palestinians by the Israelis? Is it fair to say the country most dangerous to the national security of the US, is Israel?
The idea that a war with Iran could be justified because they have the capability (including merely just the knowledge) to produce a nuclear is an outrage, especially in light of the saber rattling by the US – specifically the Bush axis of evil declaration and subsequent invasion if Iraq – and the subsequent tough talk that has existed ever since. If the world desires a nuclear free Middle East, Israel should be forced to give up their nuclear weapons. Better yet, complete nuclear disarmament by all nations would be a reasonable endeavor.
Towards the end of the debate Reuel Marc Gereckt says the war in Iraq was not a debacle. That says all that needs to be said for me. That is a common theme among those on the right,…that the war in Iraq was necessary and that someday George W. Bush will be seen as a great, visionary leader. The same hawk mentality still believes that the US – Vietnam War was justified and that we didn’t exercise enough commitment to win it (remember Reagan’s comments on this). Some will never learn.
A report in the Financial Times today said Ahmadinejad has renewed Iran’s offer to stop enriching to 20% if the TRR fuel deal goes through.
Richard
FYI is very confirmed that this policy will stand for every neighboring country of Iran, including the US occupied ones. So the only way is to use non land based platforms at least 300 miles away from Iran’s south east coast, which makes the operation very tuff like “eagle claw” that is the directions they are to come up and therefore easier to defend by concentration the land and see distance of at least 1500 miles with great danger for close combat aerial fueling, I am not saying is not possible but it’s extremely dangerous and will takes weeks if defensive systems can be safely subsided in first couple of weeks. Further it’s completely different then the situation in Iraq both in 92 and 03.
Manama not to Allow US to Launch Attack on Iran from Bahrain’s Soil
TEHRAN (FNA)- Bahrain’s Foreign Minister Sheikh Khalid bin Ahmad bin Muhammad Al Khalifa underlined on Saturday that his country will not allow Washington to use Bahrain’s soil as a launch pad for attacking other states, Iran in particular.
“The agreement signed between Manama and Washington is a defensive deal, and we will never agree to allow our soil to be used (as a launch pad) for attacking another territory,” the Bahraini official told Arabic daily Asharq Alawsat.
“What is important for Bahrain is that no new war occurs in the region,” Sheikh Khalid added.
Sheikh Khalid further added that he has ensured Iranian officials in his recent visit to Tehran that Manama is opposed to any possible military attack against Iran.
The US Navy’s 5th Fleet headquarters is based just across the Persian Gulf from Iran in Bahrain.
The comment by Bahraini minister came after Iranian officials underlined that in case of a military attack by the US or Israel, Tehran would not confine itself to one single battlefield and would strike back at the interests of the aggressors all across the world.
Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei warned the US against the grave consequences of any military aggression against Iran, stressing that Tehran’s response to such an attack will not be limited to Washington’s interests in the region.
“The Americans’ resorting to military attack is a remote possibility, but if so, Iranians’ counter-attack will not be merely regional, but covering a vaster scene,” Ayatollah Khamenei said here in Tehran on Wednesday.
A senior Iranian lawmaker also cautioned of Tehran’s unlimited reaction to any US or Israeli attack on the country, saying that Iran’s response will not be confined to the region.
If military threats to Iran were materialized, the nation’s counter-attacks will spread to other regions, member of the parliament’s National Security and Foreign Policy Commission Mohammad Karami-Raad said on Thursday.
The United States has always stressed that military action is a main option for the White House to deter Iran’s progress in the field of nuclear technology.
Iran has warned that in case of an attack by either the US or Israel, it will target 32 American bases in the Middle East and close the strategic Strait of Hormoz. Tehran has also warned that it would target Israel and its worldwide interests in case it comes under attack by the Tel Aviv.
@ Pirouz_2.
I’m not a military expert either – just an amused observer of the black hole for money known as the Military-Industrial Complex.
There are several things wrong with the B-2 which would tend to limit its usefulness.
1. It doesn’t have a vertical stabiliser – so it’s more a crash waiting to happen than an aeroplane. It would have virtually zero ability to perform, and/or recover from, violent evasive manoevres.
2. It is sub-sonic – mainly because it has no vertical stabiliser and funny things happen on the way through the sound barrier.
3. Its engines exhaust above, and forward of, the trailing edges of the wings in an attempt to dilute/minimise its heat signature from below. But from above the heat would be easily detectable.
4. At moderately high altitude it leaves a visible vapour trail. (ALL the photos of it are taken at low altitude for PR purposes).
There is also something about the B-2 ’story’ which doesn’t add up.
If stealth paint really worked, it wouldn’t have been necessary to eliminate the vertical stabiliser(s). That tells me that the quoted ‘tiny’ radar signature is measured from one very specific orientation and is not the average of readings taken from every possible orientation.
Like so much irrelevant/redundant US military hardware, the B-2 has never been deployed against a defended target and, imo, never will be.
Cengiz,
What he meant was that THERE WERE NO HUMAN WAVE ATTACKS. That is merely western propaganda.
Scott Lucas,
Ayatollah Khamenei said “no” to negotiations with the US. Don’t you know anything?
pmr9:
You might be right about US capabilities (or lack thereof).
I heard that for an air war against Iran, US has to gather her air assets from all over the world – leaving other areas vulnerable.
Lucas: “Any perspectives on the possible differences in the Wednesday speech of the Supreme Leader (no negotiations on uranium enrichment unless US withdraws sanctions)and President Ahmadinejad’s statement in a Thursday interview that discussions could start as early as “late August or early September”?”
I think Ahmadinejad is saying that if the US agrees to Khamenei’s conditions – dropping threats and sanctions – they are ready to talk immediately. Iran has been ready to talk all along. Khamenei appears to be fed up with the US at this point, which is a correct interpretation of the situation. If Iran can’t get ANY concessions from the US, it’s pointless to continue talking. Iran has done everything it possibly could to reassure the West that it doesn’t have a nuclear weapons program and gotten nothing for it but more sanctions. It’s time for them to draw the line in the sand. If the US wants to attack Iran over nothing but lies, it’s going to have to.
Oystein:
“The US long-range B52 & B2 bombers can operate directly from the US itself, but these big planes, especially the B52s can not operate without any form of fighter escort over Iran. The fact that they could do so over Iraq in 2003 was because of the fact that Iraq didnt have a single aircraft at that time. Their airdefence & radar network was a bad joke. Iran has a wellfunctioning airforce & airdefence network.”
Unfortunately that is all irrelevant. What everyone is basically saying here is that the multi-hundred billion dollar US Air Force is COMPLETELY HELPLESS against Iran!
Give me a break!
The US Air Force was designed and equipped to go up against the Soviet Union. The US military is quite well aware of the capabilities of Iran’s Air Force. If you will read the military estimates of Iran’s strengths as provided by various think tanks such as Cordesman’s, you will see that Iran comes off as a relatively weak military power. It’s equipment is OLD, not well maintained due to the lack of spare parts, and can’t begin to compare with the latest US Air Force equipment.
“Some of it old, but a lot of it top modern.”
No it is not.
“The Serbs used old radars & AD-missiles from the 60s to shoot down an F-117 & damaging another.”
Irrelevant.
“Then because of the financial situation the Serbs were not able to maintain their airfleet or give their pilots any training.”
Also irrelevant. What do you think the US pilots are doing in the meantime? Sitting on their asses?
“The Iranians on the other hand are training their pilots all the time.”
On old equipment. And again, they will be no match for US pilots who have THE best training regimen and equipment in the world by definition.
“Regarding Balad- or any other airbase in the area, you must take into account the fact that Iran has a range of options to choose from. Iran, in addition to using local insurgents has the option of using UAVs, helicopters, planes, missiles, groundtroops, specialforces etc.”
The Iranians will not be able to get any of their air vehicles over Balad without being shot down. Their ground troops cannot get close enough to seriously damage the aircraft because of the size of the base, the security support the base will have, and the hardened shelters on the base. So all of this is irrelevant.
“An Iranian UAV was monitoring a US aircraftcarrier for 25 minutes a couple of years ago, without anyone onboard noticing.
That was an IRANIAN claim, unsupported by any evidence whatever.
“I wouldnt take for granted that any country in the region would allow the US using their bases or airspace. These countries are heavily dependent on trade & tourism, and their economies would suffer heavily if a major conflict broke out in the Persian Gulf.”
I didn’t say I would take it for granted. I said the US can put plenty of pressure on these countries to get them to allow the US to operate from those bases. Some of those countries paid hundreds of millions of dollars to BUILD the bases the US has there. Also, if Iran is spending more time fighting off the US, those countries are likely not to be affected much, except by a few Iranian missiles initially, which most countries can take without much damage.
Iran does not have an unlimited number of missiles. After it has shot them off, that avenue of retaliation will be closed. While those other countries and US bases will remain.
“There are 500000 Iranians just in the UAE, with Dubai having major debtproblems). Iran is just next door & will always remain there, but the US is 1000s of kilometers away, and could in theory leave the Gulf at any time if it so choose.”
All that is true, and I expect that to be considered by those countries. I also expect Iranian agents to operate against the US in those countries. This doesn’t mean Iran is invulnerable.
“A war against Iran has a lot more potential to harm the Gulfstates than any of the wars against Iraq, simply because Iran has a range of options to defend itself that Iraq never had.”
True, but once again irrelevant to whether the US can attack Iran. The US does not care what damage may be done to any other country (except Israel, of course.)
“One of those options is to close the Gulf. for the US to reopen the Gulf with aircover would be extremly costly & without it would be suicide.”
The US will HAVE air cover – and more of it than any other nation on earth can put up. If you will look at Wikipedia’s list of aircraft in the Iranian Air Force, most of them were built or based on technology from the 1960’s and 1970’s! Only FIVE aircraft were built since 2007!
The total number of fighter aircraft is somewhere around 300 – the US can field two or three times that with far better quality aircraft.
“Lastly I dont believe in Iran conducting suicide missions with their vessels, since most of them are equipped with torpedoes & antiship missiles.”
Once again, if you’ve shot your torpedoes and you’ve shot your missiles and your target has not gone down, it might be nice to point your explosives laden vessel at the target and jump over the side. That’s all I’m saying.
“Its a waste of resources to use your personel & boats in that way.”
If your target hasn’t gone down, it’s quite likely the US naval vessel is going to sink your boat anyway in the next five minutes.
“You dont even have to sink the vessel, because if hit, it will probably be rendered
useless and have to be towed away.”
Very true. But sinking it means it won’t come back. If it’s towed away, it will.
“Whether or not this will stop the US from going to war, Im not so sure about. I guess the zionist lobby & their puppets couldnt care less about any human cost, if of course they think they can get away with it.”
Exactly.
So let’s stop talking about the Iranian military is in some position to prevent this, because BY DEFINITION IT CAN’T. The ONLY retaliatory capability the US needs to be worried about is what Iran can do in Iraq, Afghanistan, and via Straits interdiction, and via asymmetric methods around the region. These are serious enough. But the Iranian military is absolutely no match for the US military in the air.
Thanks, kooshy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XuG9_m5K3s
“What a victory it is for all independent nations, that is, nations independent of US hegemonic power when it comes to energy interests. And what a victory also for those Russian families and corporations outside the United States’ sphere of influence.” — Afshin Rattansi
Some Pictures of the fueling process in Bushehr nuclear power plant
http://www.tabnak.ir/fa/pages/?cid=115469
Dear All,
Any perspectives on the possible differences in the Wednesday speech of the Supreme Leader (no negotiations on uranium enrichment unless US withdraws sanctions)and President Ahmadinejad’s statement in a Thursday interview that discussions could start as early as “late August or early September”?
Scott
“Saddam had the full support of global powers is itself evidence of Iran’s sophisticated fighting techniques.”
Human wave attacks are not sophisticated fighting techniques!!!
Cengiz:
The article on the Iran Iraq war is trash. A million of us Iranians served in that war and the fact that the Iranian side had many successes despite having an acute shortage of weapons while Saddam had the full support of global powers is itself evidence of Iran’s sophisticated fighting techniques.
When Gerecht keeps interupting Flynt Leverett, Mr. Leverett shouldn’t be so passive. He should push back a bit more.
The article on the Iran Iraq war is trash. A million of us Iranians served in that war and the fact that the Iranian side had many successes despite having an acute shortage of weapons while Saddam had the full support of global powers is itself evidence of Iran’s sophisticated fighting techniques.
A good article on Iraq-Iran war. Iranians are really bad at fighting wars! :http://www.exile.ru/articles/detail.php?ARTICLE_ID=7113&IBLOCK_ID=35&PAGE=1
“And the Iranians kept coming. Like the Russians in WW II, they just didn’t mind dying, and it started to spook the Iraqis. Saddam tried pretending nothing had happened: in the spring of 1982 he pulled all Iraqi forces back to the 1980 border. All that did was get the Iranians excited. They kept coming, with a huge human-wave attack on Basra. The poor militia bastards, with no training or coordination, just ran at the enemy yelling about Allah. They died like flies, up against Iraqi tanks and minefields. It was one of the most bloody, stupid assaults since 1945.”
Rehmat; thanks for sharing the video’s of General Hamid Gul’s (at 8:08 PM), very insightful. Must watch.
@ Richard Steven Hack : Sorry for this long reply, I hope you have time.
The US long-range B52 & B2 bombers can operate directly from the US itself, but these big planes, especially the B52s can not operate without any form of fighter escort over Iran. The fact that they could do so over Iraq in 2003 was because of the fact that Iraq didnt have a single aircraft at that time. Their airdefence & radar network was a bad joke. Iran has a wellfunctioning airforce & airdefence network. Some of it old, but a lot of it top modern. The Serbs used old radars & AD-missiles from the 60s to shoot down an F-117 & damaging another. Then because of the financial situation the Serbs were not able to maintain their airfleet or give their pilots any training. Even the few planes that were sent up, suffered technical problems. The Iranians on the other hand are training their pilots all the time.
Regarding Balad- or any other airbase in the area, you must take into account the fact that Iran has a range of options to choose from. Iran, in addition to using local insurgents has the option of using UAVs, helicopters, planes, missiles, groundtroops, specialforces etc. ( An Iranian UAV was monitoring a US aircraftcarrier for 25 minutes a couple of years ago, without anyone onboard noticing).
I wouldnt take for granted that any country in the region would allow the US using their bases or airspace. These countries are heavily dependent on trade & tourism, and their economies would suffer heavily if a major conflict broke out in the Persian Gulf. ( There are 500000 Iranians just in the UAE, with Dubai having major debtproblems). Iran is just next door & will always remain there, but the US is 1000s of kilometers away, and could in theory leave the Gulf at any time if it so choose.
A war against Iran has a lot more potential to harm the Gulfstates than any of the wars against Iraq, simply because Iran has a range of options to defend itself that Iraq never had. One of those options is to close the Gulf. for the US to reopen the Gulf with aircover would be extremly costly & without it would be suicide.
Lastly I dont believe in Iran conducting suicide missions with their vessels, since most of them are equipped with torpedoes & antiship missiles.
Its a waste of resources to use your personel & boats in that way. A missile with a
range of 25-200 km has a lot bigger chance of hitting its target.
You dont even have to sink the vessel, because if hit, it will probably be rendered
useless and have to be towed away. Just look what happened to the Israelis in 2006.
Whether or not this will stop the US from going to war, Im not so sure about. I guess the zionist lobby & their puppets couldnt care less about any human cost, if of course they think they can get away with it.
Neil M: More bullshit
Iran does not have S-300’s, although they are working on constructing their own variant. They may have a version of the missiles, but they don’t have the integrating radar and electronics.
There is no evidence Iran has the Yakhont, only rumors, which is also the case with the Sunburn.
“Until Iran’s defenses have been neutralised, as was done prior to the destruction of Iraq, there’s less than zero possibility that it will be attacked by either America or Israel. It took almost a decade to disarm Iraq sufficiently to make it soft enough for America to bomb, and Iraq’s defenses were in poor shape to begin with.”
Complete bullshit. How do you “neutralize” Iran’s defenses without attacking them? Deny them spare parts? From Russia or China? Good luck.
Where do you get this crap from?
Poll – Israeli support in the West is waning
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2010/08/21/poll-israeli-support-in-the-west-is-waning/
@Neil M:
I have no military knowledge so I can’t agree or disagree with you. I just want to learn, are you telling us that the 2-billion-dollar “fancy” bomber of USA is just a piece of junk?
Could you please elaborate a bit more on what you say regarding the vulnerability of B-2’s -if possible with some sources?
Re B-52 and B2 (stealth) bombers and Iran. It is an eagerly overlooked fact that neither of these updated relics can, or will, be deployed against Iran. The B-52 is perfectly suited to being shot out of the sky by a wide range of conventional anti-aircraft missiles. The B-1 can be dispatched with ease by the S-300.
The B-2, if they haven’t all crashed with no outside assistance due to the excessive aerodynamic compromises in the design, can be easily killed by the the best of the Russian SS-N series of “anti-ship” missile – the ramjet-powered, Mach 2.5 Yakhont.
This missile can operate in several modes. The mode which would cause the Pentagon concern is the one in which it is launched in ’seek’ mode, wherein in zooms to 80,000 feet (about 20,00 feet higher than the service ceiling of a B-2), looks around for a hot target (a B-2 exhaust is only ‘cool’ from below), locks on, and destroys it. The B-2 is incapable of evasive manoevres and is suitable ONLY for attacking undefended targets.
Until Iran’s defenses have been neutralised, as was done prior to the destruction of Iraq, there’s less than zero possibility that it will be attacked by either America or Israel. It took almost a decade to disarm Iraq sufficiently to make it soft enough for America to bomb, and Iraq’s defenses were in poor shape to begin with.
Pmr9: Don’t forget B-52’s and Stealth bombers. These are long-range bombers that can operate from bases as far away as Diego Garcia – which is why Diego Garcia has been accumulating munitions for some time now according to reports.
From Federation of American Scientists:
“Barksdale AFB and Minot AFB normally supports 57 and 36 aircraft respectively on-station. In a conventional conflict, the B-52H can perform air interdiction, offensive counter-air and maritime operations. During Desert Storm, B-52s delivered 40 percent of all the weapons dropped by coalition forces.”
From Wikipedia on the Stealth Bomber:
“It was responsible for destroying 33% of selected Serbian bombing targets in the first eight weeks of U.S. involvement in the War.[4] During this war, B-2s flew non-stop to Kosovo from their home base in Missouri and back…B-2s have conducted 27 sorties from Whiteman AFB and 22 sorties from a forward operating location, releasing more than 1.5 million pounds of munitions,[4] including 583 JDAM “smart bombs” in 2003.”
Also, despite the exposed supply lines in Iraq, it is likely US air bases in Iraq could be used to mount at least some sorties, especially during the early part of the war. The same for Afghanistan.
Balad Air Base in Iraq is huge: Balad Airbase is one of the largest Airbases in Iraq. The airfield is served by two runways 11,300 and 11,200 feet long respectively. Balad occupies a 25 square kilometer site and is protected by a 20 kilometers security perimeter. According to the “Gulf War Air Power Survey, there were 39 hardened aircraft shelters. At the each end of the main runway are hardened aircraft shelters knowns as “trapezoids” or “Yugos” which were build by Yugoslavian contractors some time prior to 1985. Also it is in Northern Iraq north of Baghdad, not in southern Iraq so it is in less danger from Shia forces in southern Iraq.
Carriers in the Gulf would also be used despite the Iranian missile threat since the carriers are well protected. Unless the US is dumb enough to try to put a carrier in the Straits of Hormuz, I don’t think carriers will be under much threat from Iranian missiles.
There is also Incirlik in Turkey, unless Turkey decided to not allow US flights from there, which is quite possible.
There are also bases in Spain, Germany and the United Kingdom from which long-range sorties of B-52’s and Stealth bombers can be conducted.
I also wouldn’t assume that all the Gulf states will refuse to allow US aircraft to operate from their territory. Even if they did, frankly I’m not sure the US would care. All these states benefit from US influence in the region and I suspect none will wish to enrage the US by denying them access to the bases already present. They may not like it, but I think most of them will acquiesce.
During the first Gulf War, in 1991, the Coalition flew 100,000 sorties, including from Saudi Arabia and from six aircraft carriers, including some in the Red Sea.
Also during the first Gulf War, 655 Coalition fighters flew 1,322 sorties on the first day.
More importantly, the capability of the Air Force assets have changed dramatically due to technology advances. I found an article arguing for a reduction in Air Force budget which said the following:
Quote
At the time of the 1991 Persian Gulf war, less than 8 percent of America’s combat aircraft – USAF, USN, and USMC – had the ability to deliver guided weapons autonomously. Since then, this capability has generalized throughout the combat air fleets, including large bombers. (The capacity of America’s fleet of 97 mission-authorized bombers to precision munitions makes it, in this regard, the equivalent of more than 7 wings of tactical aircraft.)…
In light of the advances in US air attack capability, it is not surprising that the 2003 Iraq war involved only one-third as many combat aircraft sorties as its predecessor and less than nine percent as many air-delivered munitions. Notably: the proportion of air-delivered munitions that were precision-guided grew from 8 percent to 68 percent. The number of fighters and bombers deployed by the United States declined from approximately 1,100 for the 1991 Gulf War to 655 for the 2003 war. And deployed aircraft were worked much harder in 1991 than in 2003: about 1.3 sorties per day per plane versus 0.9.
Looking forward to 2010, the advances in US guided-weapon attack capability will continue as the combat air fleets add all-weather munitions of substantially longer range, smaller size, and greater accuracy with more numerous and “smarter” submunitions. Over the next five years we will see the introduction of (or more general use of) extended-range, jam-resistant JDAMs, the Sensor Fused Weapon, the Wind-Corrected Munitions Dispenser, Joint Air-to-Surface Stand-off Missiles, and the Low-Cost Autonomous Attack System. Perhaps most significant is the introduction of the GBU-39 Small Diameter Bomb (SDB) which, as noted by Defense Industry Daily, will “dramatically increase the strike capability of every combat aircraft in the US inventory.” Indeed, theoretically, the SDB will increase the PGM carrying capacity of America’s combat air fleets five-fold – from 8,000 weapons to 40,000.
In 2010, America’s combat aircraft will possess twenty times the interdiction capability — on average and unit for unit, as their 1990 counterparts…
How much is enough? We can gain some insight from America’s recent wars. During the past 15 years, the United States deployed air armada’s of various sizes to fight its wars: 1,100 combat aircraft in 1991; 300 for Operation Allied Force (plus 200 allied); approximately 250 for Operation Enduring Freedom; and 655 for the main combat phase of Operation Enduring Freedom. The average number of combat sorties flown each day varied widely: 1,400 for Desert Storm, 140 for Allied Force, 82 per day for the first 78 days of Enduring Freedom, and 700 for Iraqi Freedom.
Given current capabilities and those new ones now emerging and being introduced, the United States might handle comparable contingencies with combat air packages comprising 200 to 500 fighters and bombers. With a future all-service force of 1,920 mission-assigned fighters and bombers, the United States could surge as many as 1,250 combat aircraft at one time – a sufficient number to handle multiple war and deterrence tasks. And this total is consistent with the proposed rollback in numbers of USAF and USN air wings.
End Quote
So I wouldn’t assume the US can’t provide sufficient Air Force assets to deliver a very punishing attack on Iran.
US Navy rescues Iranian fishermen: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100820/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_bahrain_rescued_iranians
I don’t think US should have done that Iran people are very ungrateful by nature. Iranians would probably claim they were kidnapped and escaped! Iran Navy would have held Americans hostage and accused them of spying!
“They would have us (Pakistanis) believe that Iran is our enemy. Iran is not our enemy. There has been no hostility between Iran and Pakistan. This is an utter lie, it is only to malign Iran. But I tell you Israel is hell bent to draw America into a wider war attacking Iran. If they go in unilaterally to attack some targets, even drop a few bombs here and there, I think it will flare up a conflict that it will not be able to control.” Lt. Gen. Hamid Gul, former director general Pakistan’s intelligence agency ISI.
http://rehmat2.wordpress.com/2010/08/21/hamid-gul-only-god-could-help-america/
Kooshy: “For the same reason Iran would not want to lose the moral ground on an illegal American attack by resorting to “terrorism” on civilian Americans inside the US, there are plenty of other soft US interests that Iran can damage.”
I generally agree with the idea that Iran might be better off not exporting terrorism to the US IF the situation is not one of “total war”.
However, if Iran attacks US interests elsewhere using the same tactics, I think it’s clear the US won’t distinguish that from any other form of “terrorism”.
If, for example, Iran sends agents into a Middle Eastern country such as Dubai or Saudi Arabia to blow up the US embassy there, the US will consider that “terrorism” – not a “Special Forces operation” even if in fact it is Iranian Special Forces doing the operation. But you would never hear a US Special Forces operation described as “terrorism” by the US.
So Iran is likely to be “damned if they do and damned if they don’t” regardless. In that situation, if I were Iran, I’d rather be “damned for doing” and thereby get the benefit of “doing”. But I have no idea how Iran would see it. If it sees the US retaliation as too great a cost, then obviously it should not do it.
That’s why I say it may come down to being an issue of whether the circumstances constitute “total war” and “regime change”. If the US is killing scores of thousands of Iranian civilians and clearly does not intend to stop until Iran surrenders to the degree Iraq surrendered (regardless of whether that is a reasonable end goal for the US that is even possible of achievement), then Iran will have some tough choices to make. Should they escalate to the US mainland and start making the US pay some of the cost Iran is paying? I’m sure at least some members of the Iranian military or intelligence organizations will think so. Whether the leadership will agree is another matter.
pmr9
You got it very accurate; most attacks will be from carriers and Diego which is some 1200 miles away and above 40k ft is unlikely they even get any over flight permit to fly from Europe, so down from the Indian Ocean is the only way. As you said bases in Afpak and Iraq are useless and golf states wouldn’t want to play, especially Bahrain, Qatar, Oman, and SA.
I’m puzzled that the advocates of bombing Iran, and even some contributors to this forum who are opposed to bombing Iran, take for granted that the US would have enough land- or sea-based launch platforms to sustain an intensive bombing campaign. Let’s look at this. A sustained air campaign on a scale equivalent to the attacks on Iraq in 1991 and 2003 would require the USAF and Navy aircraft to fly several thousand sorties per day. This would require at least 1000 aircraft flying from bases within something like 1000 km of their targets in Iran. Carriers in the Gulf would be too vulnerable to anti-ship missiles, so would probably have to be kept far out in the ocean. USAF bases in Iraq and Afghanistan have exposed supply lines and would be occupied in protecting US land forces, so this leaves the USAF bases in the Gulf as the main launch platforms for attacking Iran. The USAF has 12 bases in the Gulf (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/centcom.htm): 2 in Kuwait, 3 in Saudi, 1 in Bahrain, 1 in Qatar, 1 in UAE, and 4 in Oman. One problem is that unless hardened shelters for large numbers of aircraft have been constructed, these bases are vulnerable to Iran’s missiles. More fundamentally, it’s not clear that the US could simply use these bases to attack Iran, without the ability to implement an instant regime change where any local ruler fails to acquiesce. For instance Qatar would be unlikely to allow a US attack, and other rulers less sympathetic to Iran might still fear retaliation by Iran or even by their own populations. Do the Iran hawks really think that the US could just use these bases for attacking Iran, without even the pretence of obtaining agreement from local rulers?
RSH
“The point is that Iran MAY – not necessarily WILL – send agents to the US to conduct direct physical attacks against various targets. That’s all I was saying.”
“Again, I don’t see the Iran-Iraq war as making it any sort of certainty that Iran might not export terrorism against the US.”
Yes agree everything can be categorized as a “may” and possible, who knows, but I don’t see a big “may” or a big “possible” or recommend as you also do, the reason that Iran did not directly harm the Iraqi civilians in Iran, Iraq war was to keep the moral ground which was a correct decision since the moral ground is the reason for the real soft power it is exercising in Iraq now. For the same reason Iran would not want to lose the moral ground on an illegal American attack by resorting to “terrorism” on civilian Americans inside the US, there are plenty of other soft US interests that Iran can damage.
Somewhat off topic:
Lebanese army, Hezbollah appear closer after Israel clash
www dot cnn dot com/2010/WORLD/meast/08/20/mideast.peace.analysis/index.html?eref=mrss_igoogle_world
Leaving aside the usual CNN assumption that Hizballah is somehow the bad guy in all this because it won’t disarm, the article does give details on the recent border altercation:
Quote
The Lebanon mission to the U.N. has told CNN in a written statement that the Israeli Military “ignored a request by the LAF (Lebanese Armed Forces) and UNIFIL (United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon) to postpone cutting down trees in a contested area along the “Blue line”, the U.N. border line demarcating Israel and Lebanon.
The statement goes on to say: “The LAF fired warning shots asking Israeli soldiers to desist from their activities. However, the Israeli response came in the form of heavy gunfire and mortar shelling of three Lebanese villages killing one journalist and two Lebanese soldiers in addition to wounding six soldiers.”
While Lebanon acknowledges Israel made proper notification of its tree cutting plans through proper U.N. channels — by advising UNIFIL the work would commence — the statement says the Lebanese Army was only informed of the plans 15 minutes before the work actually began and slams Israel for not “respecting” the “tripartite coordination” by preventing the Lebanese from requesting a delay on the work in the disputed area.
The document provides details about the firefight. The Lebanese mission says that 10 soldiers were immediately dispatched after hearing the IDF would begin work within minutes “to protect its sovereign borders from any Israeli infringement.” It was presumably these soldiers who fired the “warning shots.”
End Quote
Interesting question:
Who’s blowing up Iran’s gas pipelines?
blogs dot telegraph dot co.uk/news/concoughlin/100050959/whos-blowing-up-irans-gas-pipelines/
Also seen on Twitter:
“Funny that we just spent $1 trillion & fought wars for “freedom” in the heart of the Muslim world, yet we debate where mosques can go in US.”
Oh, and the fact that MANY nations are in the exact same position as Iran vis-a-vis their nuclear energy programs and the “Japan option” should be explicitly cited.
I must admit I’m not inclined to sit through 58 minutes of this neocon idiot (sorry, Flynt).
I did read some of the comments. It appears some of the people commenting weren’t clear on Flynt’s attitude toward the overall Iranian nuclear energy program, and that they weren’t clear on the fundamental distinction between 1) a nuclear energy program, 2) a nuclear weapons research program, and 3) a nuclear weapons development, manufacturing and deployment program. They also didn’t appear to know what the “Japan option” was.
I think in future debates, the following needs to be made clear:
1) There is ZERO evidence that Iran has a nuclear weapons development, manufacturing and deployment program and ZERO evidence that Iran wants one.
2) There is SOME evidence that Iran MAY have had a nuclear weapons research program which according to 16 US intelligence agencies consensus ended in 2003 and according to at least some US intelligence agencies had not restarted as of February 2010.
3) The Iranian nuclear energy program has been certified by the IAEA as being in compliance with the NPT.
4) That Iran complied with the Additional Protocol for two years and during that time the IAEA did not discover either a nuclear weapons program or any undeclared nuclear activities.
5) That based on the relative nuclear weapons arsenals of Israel and the United States versus Iran’s potential to actively manufacture nuclear weapons from a “break-out” perspective, Iran would achieve almost NO benefit from doing so.
6) The IAEA making the statement that it “cannot certify that Iran’s nuclear energy program is strictly for peaceful purposes” is BY DEFINITION 1) not within the IAEA’s purview, and 2) is an attempt to put the onus on Iran to prove a negative.
7) The onus is therefore on the US to prove its case by releasing whatever evidence it has for its accusations publicly rather than for Iran to attempt to prove a negative.
8) On that basis, and absent any UN resolution under Article 39 that Iran’s nuclear energy program is a “direct threat to peace in the region”, the US and Israel have ZERO basis for considering a military attack on Iran, and are therefore in violation of the UN Charter by threatening to do so.
Castellio
“Doesn’t the visual capture the hypocrisy?”
Castellio you are right, Billy boy and company at “The Weakly Standard” haven’t “yet” had the chance to update their archives with Iran’s newer missiles profile, but I am sure they are working on it.
I was long convinced that Gerecht has a screw loose after reading this memoir of his little incognito trip to Iran hiding in a box smuggled across the border by a truck driver. Much to his chagrin, it turned out that the driver had told everyone about him, and no one cared.
Doesn’t the visual capture the hypocrisy?
Shouldn’t it be Bibi with his nuclear weapons, since that is the actual threat?
Surely Gehrecht is aware the CIA has ZERO intelligence that the Iranian government wants nukes. Yet he writes this week in the neocon propaganda organ, The Weekly Standard: “[A]n Israeli bombardment remains the only conceivable means of derailing or seriously delaying Iran’s nuclear program.”
Time and again, warmongering neocons employ the term “Iran’s nuclear programme” as a reference to a totally unproven nuclear weapons programme. Relentless dishonesty.
Did anyone notice George Wills column this week? Will claimed in effect that there would be 200 millions Jews in the world today if it had not been for the Holocause and other oppressive measures taken against “Jews”. He seems unaware that the Palestinians are largely descended from the Jews who lived in Palestina (Roman province) 2000 years ago.
Is it fair to say Gerecht is a shameless liar? He claims Iran is “virulently anti-Semitic” when he surely knows the Iranian government is not hostile toward Jews, but insead is hostile toward Zionist and the attendant oppression of the Palestinians.
Thge “Foundation for the Defnse of Democracies” is code for Foundation for Facilitation of Continuing Opression of the Palestinians”.
Flynt Leverett:
I hope you will not be offended by the following observations:
2 Americans debating whether another state should bomb yet a third statte (albeit that third state is virulently anti-American.
2 Ashkenazi Jews debating if the State of Israel should attack a country that has had the largest continuous Mizrhai presence in historical times – 2500 years at the very least – to help State of Israel, an Ashkenazi-dominated polity and state.
2 citizens of the highest exponent of the dominant civilization on Earth indulging in a public discourse on merits of war against an NPT member-state
Where are the American Christians, Hindus, Muslims in this debate?
Why is debate here, in the United States and in English? Why is it not in Israel, in Hebrew, among all these assorted Jews from all over the world?