[N.B Alan M. Dershowitz: "Obama's Legacy and the Iranian Bomb" -- Warning That Obama Is Becoming the Next Chamberlain
Mr. Dershowitz is a law professor at Harvard. His latest book is "The Case for Moral Clarity" (Camera, 2009).
Dershowitz is a liberal and a Democrat and strongly supported Obama during his campaign. Therefore Dershowitz's warning that Obama is becoming the Chamberlain of today deserves special attention. It is significant, however, that Dershowitz was evidently unable to publish his article in a liberal publication, e.g. The New York Times, and had to resort to the conservative Wall Street Journal.]
-------------------------------------------------------------------
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704869304575110042827617582.html?mod=rss_Today
MARCH 23, 2010
Obama's Legacy and the Iranian Bomb
Neville Chamberlain was remembered for appeasing Germany, not his progressive social programs.
By ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ
The gravest threat faced by the world today is a nuclear-armed Iran. Of all the nations capable of producing nuclear weapons, Iran is the only one that might use them to attack an enemy.
There are several ways in which Iran could use nuclear weapons. The first is by dropping an atomic bomb on Israel, as its leaders have repeatedly threatened to do. Hashemi Rafsanjani, a former president of Iran, boasted in 2004 that an Iranian attack would kill as many as five million Jews. Mr. Rafsanjani estimated that even if Israel retaliated with its own nuclear bombs, Iran would probably lose about 15 million people, which he said would be a small "sacrifice" of the billion Muslims in the world.
The second way in which Iran could use nuclear weapons would be to hand them off to its surrogates, Hezbollah or Hamas. A third way would be for a terrorist group, such as al Qaeda, to get its hands on Iranian nuclear material. It could do so with the consent of Iran or by working with rogue elements within the Iranian regime.
Finally, Iran could use its nuclear weapons without ever detonating a bomb. By constantly threatening Israel with nuclear annihilation, it could engender so much fear among Israelis as to incite mass immigration, a brain drain, or a significant decline in people moving to Israel.
These are the specific ways in which Iran could use nuclear weapons, primarily against the Jewish state. But there are other ways in which a nuclear-armed Iran would endanger the world. First, it would cause an arms race in which every nation in the Middle East would seek to obtain nuclear weapons.
Second, it would almost certainly provoke Israel into engaging in either a pre-emptive or retaliatory attack, thus inflaming the entire region or inciting further attacks against Israel by Hezbollah and Hamas.
Third, it would provide Iran with a nuclear umbrella under which it could accelerate its efforts at regional hegemony. Had Iraq operated under a nuclear umbrella when it invaded Kuwait in 1990, Saddam Hussein's forces would still be in Kuwait.
Fourth, it would embolden the most radical elements in the Middle East to continue their war of words and deeds against the United States and its allies.
And finally, it would inevitably unleash the law of unintended consequences: Simply put, nobody knows the extent of the harm a nuclear-armed Iran could produce.
In these respects, allowing Iran to obtain nuclear weapons is somewhat analogous to the decision by the victors of World War I to allow Nazi Germany to rearm during the 1930s. Even the Nazis were surprised at this complacency. Joseph Goebbels expected the French and British to prevent the Nazis from rebuilding Germany's war machine.
In 1940, Goebbels told a group of German journalists that if he had been the French premier when Hitler came to power he would have said, "The new Reich Chancellor is the man who wrote Mein Kampf, which says this and that. This man cannot be tolerated in our vicinity. Either he disappears or we march!"
But, Goebbels continued, "they didn't do it. They left us alone and let us slip through the risky zone, and we were able to sail around all dangerous reefs. And when we were done, and well armed, better than they, then they started the war!"
Most people today are not aware that British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain helped restore Great Britain's financial stability during the Great Depression and also passed legislation to extend unemployment benefits, pay pensions to retired workers and otherwise help those hit hard by the slumping economy. But history does remember his failure to confront Hitler. That is Chamberlain's enduring legacy.
So too will Iran's construction of nuclear weapons, if it manages to do so in the next few years, become President Barack Obama's enduring legacy. Regardless of his passage of health-care reform and regardless of whether he restores jobs and helps the economy recover, Mr. Obama will be remembered for allowing Iran to obtain nuclear weapons. History will not treat kindly any leader who allows so much power to be accumulated by the world's first suicide nation—a nation whose leaders have not only expressed but, during the Iran-Iraq war, demonstrated a willingness to sacrifice millions of their own people to an apocalyptic mission of destruction.
If Iran were to become a nuclear power, there would be plenty of blame to go around. A National Intelligence Report, issued on President George W. Bush's watch, distorted the truth by suggestion that Iran had ended its quest for nuclear weapons. It also withheld the fact that U.S. intelligence had discovered a nuclear facility near Qum, Iran, that could be used only for the production of nuclear weapons. Chamberlain, too, was not entirely to blame for Hitler's initial triumphs. He became prime minister after his predecessors allowed Germany to rearm. Nevertheless, it is Chamberlain who has come to symbolize the failure to prevent Hitler's ascendancy. So too will Mr. Obama come to symbolize the failure of the West if Iran acquires nuclear weapons on his watch.
Showing posts with label IRAN. Show all posts
Showing posts with label IRAN. Show all posts
Sunday, March 28, 2010
Thursday, June 25, 2009
IRANIAN REVOLUTION #2.?
OBAMA/CHAMBERLAINE ATTEMPT AT RECONCILIATION.
So US.President Obama thinks that he should still pursue dialogue with the Iranian rulers.
The Mullahs, Ayatollas and their spokesman Ahmadinejad have chosen to rule according to "Mein Kampf", complete with the trappings of a "democratic election", setting up a Gestapo (Revolutionary Guard), the Hitler Jugend (Basij militia), spending vast sums of money on arms rather than on their people and of course getting stuck into the "Zionists to be wiped off the earth". Those theocratic rulers don't seem to care anymore than Hitler did, who gets killed in their boundless ambitions to expand their hegemony not only at home but over ever vaster territories and nations like Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and beyond.They want a Shia hegemony apparently.
A policy of intimidation with all resistance to be quashed is part of it, but perhaps the Iranian people who are slightly more sophisticated and independent of thought than the Germans were, have recognised their leaders for what they are and are prepared to cast off this kind of rule.They probably realize that they will only lead them to the same self-destruction as did the Nazis.
Let us hope that at least some good will arise from the current Iranian people's sacrifices and not finish up to have been in vain, or all our free nations may end up suffering a WW2/3 fate,- in spite of Obama's Chamberlaine-like advances!
But with the US and its allies deserting the Iraqis, who will help the Iranian people now?
JUST AS THE AMERICAN ARMY IS PREPARING TO LEAVE IRAQ TO THE IRAQI ARMY, THE VIOLENCE HAS ERUPTED WORSE THAN EVER AGAIN, WITH DOZENS KILLED AND HUNDREDS MAIMED.
Perhaps Israel could save the Iranian people?! Wouldn't that be ironic!So much for their Islamic revolutions and Islamic Theocracies. Hopefully Hamas, Hetzbollah, Taliban etal. are taking note.
mm
So US.President Obama thinks that he should still pursue dialogue with the Iranian rulers.
The Mullahs, Ayatollas and their spokesman Ahmadinejad have chosen to rule according to "Mein Kampf", complete with the trappings of a "democratic election", setting up a Gestapo (Revolutionary Guard), the Hitler Jugend (Basij militia), spending vast sums of money on arms rather than on their people and of course getting stuck into the "Zionists to be wiped off the earth". Those theocratic rulers don't seem to care anymore than Hitler did, who gets killed in their boundless ambitions to expand their hegemony not only at home but over ever vaster territories and nations like Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and beyond.They want a Shia hegemony apparently.
A policy of intimidation with all resistance to be quashed is part of it, but perhaps the Iranian people who are slightly more sophisticated and independent of thought than the Germans were, have recognised their leaders for what they are and are prepared to cast off this kind of rule.They probably realize that they will only lead them to the same self-destruction as did the Nazis.
Let us hope that at least some good will arise from the current Iranian people's sacrifices and not finish up to have been in vain, or all our free nations may end up suffering a WW2/3 fate,- in spite of Obama's Chamberlaine-like advances!
But with the US and its allies deserting the Iraqis, who will help the Iranian people now?
JUST AS THE AMERICAN ARMY IS PREPARING TO LEAVE IRAQ TO THE IRAQI ARMY, THE VIOLENCE HAS ERUPTED WORSE THAN EVER AGAIN, WITH DOZENS KILLED AND HUNDREDS MAIMED.
Perhaps Israel could save the Iranian people?! Wouldn't that be ironic!So much for their Islamic revolutions and Islamic Theocracies. Hopefully Hamas, Hetzbollah, Taliban etal. are taking note.
mm
Monday, June 22, 2009
IRAN AND ITS WOMEN: a new film.
A Revolution Named Zahra:
by Kathleen Parker .
In some parts of the world, a woman can be destroyed at a man's whim without consequence.
There's a "new" old name suddenly in circulation that is both filled with ancient history and ripe with a revolutionary spirit for today's game-changing events.
Zahra.
Well known to Muslims, Fatima az-Zahra was one of four daughters of the prophet Muhammad. Today, Zahra is also the name of two important, outspoken women of Iran.
One is Zahra Rahnavard, the courageous and charismatic wife of the allegedly defeated Iranian presidential candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi. The other is Zahra Khanum, the equally courageous and charismatic woman portrayed in a new movie, "The Stoning of Soraya M.," about the death of an Iranian woman on trumped-up charges of adultery.
Begging forgiveness for this confederacy of cliches, but we seem to have a perfect storm of tipping points.
Beneath the surface of news blasts covering Iran's tainted elections, riots, protester deaths and government crackdowns, a subtext of women's rights is emerging. It is a subtext only to the extent that women's oppression isn't often acknowledged directly -- not even by the leader of the free world. But human rights are at the core of what is occurring now.
A government that oppresses its people can only sustain itself with violence, as the world is witnessing yet again as thousands take to Iran's streets. And, in Iran as elsewhere in the Muslim world, violence against women -- as well as against homosexuals and others considered inferior according to the mullahs' masculinist standards -- isn't only permitted but justified with religious doctrine.
Mousavi challenged these notions -- and the government, apparently, saw fit that he lose. Even in the midst of so much heat, Mousavi's wife, Zahra, on Monday urged students at a Tehran University protest to hold fast in their resistance. Climb to the rooftops, she said, and shout, "God is great!"
Zahra R., who holds a PhD in political science and was an adviser to former president Mohammad Khatami, also has been vocal in urging reforms that would eliminate "morality police" as well as end discrimination against women.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, that monument to self-confident masculinity, reportedly was so undone by Zahra's power on the campaign trail that he questioned whether her doctorate was legitimate.
Americans will begin getting a glimpse of the other Zahra as soon as "The Stoning" opens in select cities. Based on a true story, the movie is adapted from French Iranian journalist Freidoune Sahebjam's 1994 novel of the same name.
In the film, produced by Stephen McEveety ("Braveheart" and "The Passion of the Christ"), the journalist-author is stranded in a small village when his car breaks down. Zahra (Shohreh Aghdashloo) dodges the threatening stares of her fellow villagers and persuades the reporter to come to her house and record her story. Evil has visited her village, she tells him, and she wants the world to know.
Briefly, Zahra's niece Soraya, mother of four, had been accused of adultery by her abusive, unfaithful husband. The truth was that he wanted a divorce so he could marry another. When Soraya refused, he and the village mullah conspired to accuse her of adultery.
As the title suggests, Soraya was convicted and condemned to death by stoning.
I saw a rough cut of this film several months ago. Since that time, I've been unable to shake the story or images that I suspect will haunt me forever. Be forewarned: It is brutal. McEveety and director Cyrus Nowrasteh felt that the stoning scene needed to be accurately portrayed or the film would be an insult to Soraya's suffering.
It will be hard for many to get through to the end, but staying with the movie brings a reward. Despite the brutality, the film is also beautiful and true. It reminds us that a woman in some parts of the world can be destroyed at a man's whim without consequence. The beauty is that truth will out.
"The Stoning," which will be in most theaters June 26, was intentionally timed for release after Iran's elections. Dennis Rice, charged with promoting the movie, figured the election would help create interest, but he didn't anticipate the serendipitous intersection of the two Zahras. "Irony?" he asks. "I think not."
In Arabic, Zahra means "The Shining One."
In English, we'd call that a beacon.
-------------------------------------------------------------
This article originally appeared in the Washington Post.
See this article online:
http://www.aish.com/societyWork/arts/A_Revolution_Named_Zahra.asp
by Kathleen Parker .
In some parts of the world, a woman can be destroyed at a man's whim without consequence.
There's a "new" old name suddenly in circulation that is both filled with ancient history and ripe with a revolutionary spirit for today's game-changing events.
Zahra.
Well known to Muslims, Fatima az-Zahra was one of four daughters of the prophet Muhammad. Today, Zahra is also the name of two important, outspoken women of Iran.
One is Zahra Rahnavard, the courageous and charismatic wife of the allegedly defeated Iranian presidential candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi. The other is Zahra Khanum, the equally courageous and charismatic woman portrayed in a new movie, "The Stoning of Soraya M.," about the death of an Iranian woman on trumped-up charges of adultery.
Begging forgiveness for this confederacy of cliches, but we seem to have a perfect storm of tipping points.
Beneath the surface of news blasts covering Iran's tainted elections, riots, protester deaths and government crackdowns, a subtext of women's rights is emerging. It is a subtext only to the extent that women's oppression isn't often acknowledged directly -- not even by the leader of the free world. But human rights are at the core of what is occurring now.
A government that oppresses its people can only sustain itself with violence, as the world is witnessing yet again as thousands take to Iran's streets. And, in Iran as elsewhere in the Muslim world, violence against women -- as well as against homosexuals and others considered inferior according to the mullahs' masculinist standards -- isn't only permitted but justified with religious doctrine.
Mousavi challenged these notions -- and the government, apparently, saw fit that he lose. Even in the midst of so much heat, Mousavi's wife, Zahra, on Monday urged students at a Tehran University protest to hold fast in their resistance. Climb to the rooftops, she said, and shout, "God is great!"
Zahra R., who holds a PhD in political science and was an adviser to former president Mohammad Khatami, also has been vocal in urging reforms that would eliminate "morality police" as well as end discrimination against women.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, that monument to self-confident masculinity, reportedly was so undone by Zahra's power on the campaign trail that he questioned whether her doctorate was legitimate.
Americans will begin getting a glimpse of the other Zahra as soon as "The Stoning" opens in select cities. Based on a true story, the movie is adapted from French Iranian journalist Freidoune Sahebjam's 1994 novel of the same name.
In the film, produced by Stephen McEveety ("Braveheart" and "The Passion of the Christ"), the journalist-author is stranded in a small village when his car breaks down. Zahra (Shohreh Aghdashloo) dodges the threatening stares of her fellow villagers and persuades the reporter to come to her house and record her story. Evil has visited her village, she tells him, and she wants the world to know.
Briefly, Zahra's niece Soraya, mother of four, had been accused of adultery by her abusive, unfaithful husband. The truth was that he wanted a divorce so he could marry another. When Soraya refused, he and the village mullah conspired to accuse her of adultery.
As the title suggests, Soraya was convicted and condemned to death by stoning.
I saw a rough cut of this film several months ago. Since that time, I've been unable to shake the story or images that I suspect will haunt me forever. Be forewarned: It is brutal. McEveety and director Cyrus Nowrasteh felt that the stoning scene needed to be accurately portrayed or the film would be an insult to Soraya's suffering.
It will be hard for many to get through to the end, but staying with the movie brings a reward. Despite the brutality, the film is also beautiful and true. It reminds us that a woman in some parts of the world can be destroyed at a man's whim without consequence. The beauty is that truth will out.
"The Stoning," which will be in most theaters June 26, was intentionally timed for release after Iran's elections. Dennis Rice, charged with promoting the movie, figured the election would help create interest, but he didn't anticipate the serendipitous intersection of the two Zahras. "Irony?" he asks. "I think not."
In Arabic, Zahra means "The Shining One."
In English, we'd call that a beacon.
-------------------------------------------------------------
This article originally appeared in the Washington Post.
See this article online:
http://www.aish.com/societyWork/arts/A_Revolution_Named_Zahra.asp
Thursday, October 04, 2007
ME Politics. The effect of IAF's incursion over Syria.
YOU DON'T SEE THIS IN THE PAPERS OR ON TV. Not yet anyway. This is a personal analysis and possibly a valid one re the Israeli incursion into Syria and its relevance to the ME situation vs. Iran as well as,Syria, and Nth. Korea and Russia!
MM
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Written by Dr. Jack Wheeler
Wednesday, 19 September 2007
To The Point News - http://www.tothepointnews.com/content/view/1117/90/
One of India's top ranking generals assigned to liaise with the Iranian
military recently returned to New Delhi from several days in Tehran - in
a state of complete amazement.
"Everyone in the government and military can only talk of one thing," he
reports. "No matter who I talked to, all they could do was ask me, over
and over again, 'Do you think the Americans will attack us?' 'When will
the Americans attack us?' 'Will the Americans attack us in a joint
operation with the Israelis?' How massive will the attack be?' on and
on, endlessly. The Iranians are in a state of total panic."
And that was before September 6. Since then, it's panic-squared in
Tehran. The mullahs are freaking out in fear. Why? Because of the
silence in Syria.
On September 6, Israeli Air Force F-15 and F-16s conducted a devastating
attack on targets deep inside Syria near the city of Dayr az-Zawr.
Israel's military censors have muzzled the Israeli media, enforcing an
extraordinary silence about the identity of the targets. Massive
speculation in the world press has followed, such as Brett Stephens'
Osirak II? in yesterday's (9/18) Wall St. Journal.
Stephens and most everyone else have missed the real story. It is not
Israel's silence that "speaks volumes" as he claims, but Syria's. Why
would the Syrian government be so tight-lipped about an act of war
perpetrated on their soil?
The first half of the answer lies in this story that appeared in the
Israeli media last month (8/13): Syria's Antiaircraft System Most
Advanced In World. Syria has gone on a profligate buying spree, spending
vast sums on Russian systems, "considered the cutting edge in aircraft
interception technology."
Syria now "possesses the most crowded antiaircraft system in the world,"
with "more than 200 antiaircraft batteries of different types," some of
which are so new that they have been installed in Syria "before being
introduced into Russian operation service."
While you're digesting that, take a look at the map of Syria:
Notice how far away Dayr az-Zawr is from Israel. An F15/16 attack there
is not a tiptoe across the border, but a deep, deep penetration of
Syrian airspace. And guess what happened with the Russian
super-hyper-sophisticated cutting edge antiaircraft missile batteries
when that penetration took place on September 6th.
Nothing.
El blanko. Silence. The systems didn't even light up, gave no indication
whatever of any detection of enemy aircraft invading Syrian airspace,
zip, zero, nada. The Israelis (with a little techie assistance from us)
blinded the Russkie antiaircraft systems so completely the Syrians
didn't even know they were blinded.
Now you see why the Syrians have been scared speechless. They thought
they were protected - at enormous expense - only to discover they are
defenseless. As in naked.
Thus the Great Iranian Freak-Out - for this means Iran is just as
nakedly defenseless as Syria. I can tell you that there are a lot of
folks in the Kirya (IDF headquarters in Tel Aviv) and the Pentagon right
now who are really enjoying the mullahs' predicament. Let's face it:
scaring the terror masters in Tehran out of their wits is fun.
It's so much fun, in fact, that an attack destroying Iran's nuclear
facilities and the Revolutionary Guard command/control centers has been
delayed, so that France (under new management) can get in on the fun too.
On Sunday (9/16), Sarkozy's foreign minister Bernard Kouchner announced
that "France should prepare for the possibility of war over Iran's
nuclear program."
All of this has caused Tehran to respond with maniacal threats. On
Monday (9/17), a government website proclaimed that "600 Shihab-3
missiles" will be fired at targets in Israel in response to an attack
upon Iran by the US/Israel. This was followed by Iranian deputy air
force chief Gen. Mohammad Alavi announcing today (9/19) that "we will
attack their (Israeli) territory with our fighter bombers as a response
to any attack."
A sure sign of panic is to make a threat that everyone knows is a bluff.
So our and Tel Aviv's response to Iranian bluster is a
thank-you-for-sharing yawn and a laugh. Few things rattle the mullahs'
cages more than a yawn and a laugh.
Yet no matter how much fun this sport with the mullahs is, it is also
deadly serious. The pressure build-up on Iran is getting enormous.
Something is going to blow and soon. The hope is that the blow-up will
be internal, that the regime will implode from within.
But make no mistake: an all-out full regime take-out air assault upon
Iran is coming if that hope doesn't materialize within the next 60 to 90
days. The Sept. 6 attack on Syria was the shot across Iran's bow.
So - what was attacked near Dayr az-Zawr? It's possible it was North
Korean "nuclear material" recently shipped to Syria, i.e., stuff to make
radioactively "dirty" warheads, but nothing to make a real nuke with as
the Norks don't have real nukes (see Why North Korea's Nuke Test Is Such
Good News, October 2006).
Another possibility is it was to take out a stockpile of long-range
Zilzal surface-to-surface missiles recently shipped from Iran for an
attack on Israel.
A third is it was a hit on the stockpile of Saddam's chemical/bio
weapons snuck out of Iraq and into Syria for safekeeping before the US
invasion of April 2003.
But the identity of the target is not the story - for the primary point
of the attack was not to destroy that target. It was to shut down
Syria's Russian air defense system during the attack. Doing so made the
attack an incredible success.
Syria is shamed and silent. Iran is freaking out in panic. Defenseless
enemies are fun.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MM
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Written by Dr. Jack Wheeler
Wednesday, 19 September 2007
To The Point News - http://www.tothepointnews.com/content/view/1117/90/
One of India's top ranking generals assigned to liaise with the Iranian
military recently returned to New Delhi from several days in Tehran - in
a state of complete amazement.
"Everyone in the government and military can only talk of one thing," he
reports. "No matter who I talked to, all they could do was ask me, over
and over again, 'Do you think the Americans will attack us?' 'When will
the Americans attack us?' 'Will the Americans attack us in a joint
operation with the Israelis?' How massive will the attack be?' on and
on, endlessly. The Iranians are in a state of total panic."
And that was before September 6. Since then, it's panic-squared in
Tehran. The mullahs are freaking out in fear. Why? Because of the
silence in Syria.
On September 6, Israeli Air Force F-15 and F-16s conducted a devastating
attack on targets deep inside Syria near the city of Dayr az-Zawr.
Israel's military censors have muzzled the Israeli media, enforcing an
extraordinary silence about the identity of the targets. Massive
speculation in the world press has followed, such as Brett Stephens'
Osirak II? in yesterday's (9/18) Wall St. Journal.
Stephens and most everyone else have missed the real story. It is not
Israel's silence that "speaks volumes" as he claims, but Syria's. Why
would the Syrian government be so tight-lipped about an act of war
perpetrated on their soil?
The first half of the answer lies in this story that appeared in the
Israeli media last month (8/13): Syria's Antiaircraft System Most
Advanced In World. Syria has gone on a profligate buying spree, spending
vast sums on Russian systems, "considered the cutting edge in aircraft
interception technology."
Syria now "possesses the most crowded antiaircraft system in the world,"
with "more than 200 antiaircraft batteries of different types," some of
which are so new that they have been installed in Syria "before being
introduced into Russian operation service."
While you're digesting that, take a look at the map of Syria:
Notice how far away Dayr az-Zawr is from Israel. An F15/16 attack there
is not a tiptoe across the border, but a deep, deep penetration of
Syrian airspace. And guess what happened with the Russian
super-hyper-sophisticated cutting edge antiaircraft missile batteries
when that penetration took place on September 6th.
Nothing.
El blanko. Silence. The systems didn't even light up, gave no indication
whatever of any detection of enemy aircraft invading Syrian airspace,
zip, zero, nada. The Israelis (with a little techie assistance from us)
blinded the Russkie antiaircraft systems so completely the Syrians
didn't even know they were blinded.
Now you see why the Syrians have been scared speechless. They thought
they were protected - at enormous expense - only to discover they are
defenseless. As in naked.
Thus the Great Iranian Freak-Out - for this means Iran is just as
nakedly defenseless as Syria. I can tell you that there are a lot of
folks in the Kirya (IDF headquarters in Tel Aviv) and the Pentagon right
now who are really enjoying the mullahs' predicament. Let's face it:
scaring the terror masters in Tehran out of their wits is fun.
It's so much fun, in fact, that an attack destroying Iran's nuclear
facilities and the Revolutionary Guard command/control centers has been
delayed, so that France (under new management) can get in on the fun too.
On Sunday (9/16), Sarkozy's foreign minister Bernard Kouchner announced
that "France should prepare for the possibility of war over Iran's
nuclear program."
All of this has caused Tehran to respond with maniacal threats. On
Monday (9/17), a government website proclaimed that "600 Shihab-3
missiles" will be fired at targets in Israel in response to an attack
upon Iran by the US/Israel. This was followed by Iranian deputy air
force chief Gen. Mohammad Alavi announcing today (9/19) that "we will
attack their (Israeli) territory with our fighter bombers as a response
to any attack."
A sure sign of panic is to make a threat that everyone knows is a bluff.
So our and Tel Aviv's response to Iranian bluster is a
thank-you-for-sharing yawn and a laugh. Few things rattle the mullahs'
cages more than a yawn and a laugh.
Yet no matter how much fun this sport with the mullahs is, it is also
deadly serious. The pressure build-up on Iran is getting enormous.
Something is going to blow and soon. The hope is that the blow-up will
be internal, that the regime will implode from within.
But make no mistake: an all-out full regime take-out air assault upon
Iran is coming if that hope doesn't materialize within the next 60 to 90
days. The Sept. 6 attack on Syria was the shot across Iran's bow.
So - what was attacked near Dayr az-Zawr? It's possible it was North
Korean "nuclear material" recently shipped to Syria, i.e., stuff to make
radioactively "dirty" warheads, but nothing to make a real nuke with as
the Norks don't have real nukes (see Why North Korea's Nuke Test Is Such
Good News, October 2006).
Another possibility is it was to take out a stockpile of long-range
Zilzal surface-to-surface missiles recently shipped from Iran for an
attack on Israel.
A third is it was a hit on the stockpile of Saddam's chemical/bio
weapons snuck out of Iraq and into Syria for safekeeping before the US
invasion of April 2003.
But the identity of the target is not the story - for the primary point
of the attack was not to destroy that target. It was to shut down
Syria's Russian air defense system during the attack. Doing so made the
attack an incredible success.
Syria is shamed and silent. Iran is freaking out in panic. Defenseless
enemies are fun.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)