Comments on: Iran war plan?

By: Deep Blade Journal » Blog Archive » Plan to nuke Iran and hide the fact?

Thu, 15 Feb 2007 06:41:47 +0000

[...] also here and [...]

By: Deep Blade

Deep Blade — Sun, 31 Jul 2005 11:28:42 +0000

Wow, Scotty McClellan says “we have made it very clear that Iran has a history of hiding their nuclear activity…” Does this mean BOOM? See video at Crooks and Liars here.

By: Deep Blade

Deep Blade — Thu, 28 Jul 2005 21:40:53 +0000

An extensive thread on this topic may be found here at Daily Kos.

Juan Cole put up an interesting post today. Cole writes, “Rabid dreams are dreamt along the Potomac by persons who routinely foam at the mouth. Some, like gadfly warmonger Michael Ledeen, or wild-eyed Ghobanifar dupes like Congressman Congressman (?!) Curt Weldon (what is wrong with Pennsylvania?), are dying to get other Americans’ boys killed in the sands of Iran. For the rest of us, these reveries are nightmares. This nuclear scenario is a fleeting and insubstantial such bad dream, which can no more be implemented as policy than a Hollywood horror film could be.”

By: Hangin' on by a Thread

Hangin' on by a Thread — Tue, 26 Jul 2005 11:34:18 +0000

i was both aghast & stunned when I read that snippet you posted. And overwhelmingly frightened. It seemed out of context. Then I found this article, which gives us more depth on the debate. It’s by the New Republic’s foreign editor, though it’s not published there - & is definitely worth reading. Iran: The Next War Is Closer Than You Think

I fear we’re in a race - Impeachment or Invade Iran. But that’s such a huge undertaking they’ll have to mobilize most of the West. Am I alone in expecting that recent bombings signal the beginning of that mobilization?

By: Deep Blade

Deep Blade — Mon, 25 Jul 2005 11:33:26 +0000

I agree, the article cited in this post could very well be some sort of bluff. And yes, this is something that could be slipped out there for strategic “psyops” purposes. And yes, the US is very unlikely to get into a fight with somebody who could actually fight back. Personally I do not know much about “unstoppable” Russian conventional weapons. So I would not readily conclude these weapons end the “ace-in-the-hole” role of nukes. Is it true that any of these missile or torpedo platforms could carry a nuke? Seems to me use of such would be a whole different ballgame than pure conventional bombs. Perhaps the salient fact is that in this day, the US has no guarantee of nuclear monopoly — maybe that’s enough to keep the Americans out of someone else’s country.

By: HP

HP — Sun, 24 Jul 2005 05:48:53 +0000

And pay the price? Cowards, as they truly are, bluff a lot. The days of the nuke as the ace the hole are over. The Russians are tired of us and Israel. Hence several countries now possess their unstoppable weapons. The supersonic cruise missiles, 200 mph torpedos, S-300 and S-400 systems. Their Topol-M has already rendered any ballistic missile defence moot. Either the real one (which is a farce) or any on the drawing boards. Meanwhile their anti missile system does work. And if needed the S-500 will be produced, money or no money.

By: Deep Blade

Deep Blade — Sat, 23 Jul 2005 10:37:21 +0000

Well, you do have to figure the US has more nukes than Iran. Does it stand to reason that if the “crazies” decide to break the country, that’s what they’d have to use to do it? As you suggest, Iran isn’t exactly the weak, battered, defenseless state as were Afghanistan and Iraq. Failure is not a deterrent to them. They still have a deep well of domestic jingoism and fear to draw upon. I do not claim to know what they will do, but the extreme would not surprise me. That’s the way they like it — you can’t rule out that they won’t go extreme.

By: HP

HP — Sat, 23 Jul 2005 09:50:59 +0000

The attention and verification these neocon misfits get from so many supposedly thoughtful and informed people amazes me. These are the same amateurs who achieved the stunning glories in Kosovo. (the prelude to their wildly insane plans for the mideast)Twenty thousand sorties and 13 tanks destroyed and the usual lies of minimal losses. Two aircraft, yea sure. Their awesome planning and execution in Iraq. Now Iran, which it seems everyone assumes the US/Israel will simply bomb at will. Well, why have they not already bombed the nuclear facilities in Iran? Fear of international law or world opinion? Not hardly. Is it perhaps possible they cannot? At least not without devastating losses. Like all the ships in the Persian Gulf, all the troops in Iraq, Israel itself maybe? Not to mention blocking the flow of oil from the gulf and the economic impact upon many nations, very quickly. I guess no one has ever hear of Iran’s supersonic cruise missiles (we have absolutely no defense against these weapons) and their S-300 systems, which actually are deadly effective against aircraft, cruise missiles, etc. Holy cow, Putin sends Syria some Iglas and all of a sudden Israeli flyovers of Syria’s palace cease immediately. Who do they think they’re kidding. Not Putin and not Iran either.