As I said before and I'll say it agaiin, Iran already has fully functional nuclear weapons. Iran would not be in a position to challenge the US if it didn't have them already. If Iran was nuclear weaponless, they would be like Libya and have made peace with the US to prevent a similar situation as Iraq. When you have nothing to defend yourself with, you don't challenge those who have the power to destroy you. When you have weapons that can rain destruction on your enemies you are in a better position to tell them to "bring it on".

These news stories only tell part of the story. It won't be until the US is lured into a battle that the number and strength of Iranian nuclear capability is clear.

What are your sources on this information?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200504/s1338089.htm



Iranian defense minister wraps up visit to Algeria



IRAN PLACES NATANZ UNDER AAM UMBRELLA

Putting nuclear talk aside for a bit: here’s a thought provoking editorial from Rageh Omaar, BBC war correspondent, in Iran



I think an American invasion could be the catalyst for uniting Iran with Iraq. Big trouble.

Could somebody please elaborate on Heinberg's contention that Iran's geographical importance is one of the prime reasons for a possible U.S. invasion? I know that Iran is connected to the Caspian Sea, but I'm not clear on Iran's geographical proximity in terms of oil transportation routes (or 'chokepoints'). How is Iran's geography of special importance?

If you want to know why Iran is geographical important look at a map. It not only borders the Caspian Sea (which has lots of oil), Iran itself has tremendous amounts of oil. Iran borders the Persian Gulf through which significant amounts of oil from the ME flows, Iran can thus geographically control the Persian Gulf anywhere along it or more particularly via the Straight of Hormuz which is only 3 miles across.

Sounds like a great place to put anti-ship missiles to aim at oil tankers. During the Iran Iraq war both nations were shooting at each other's oil tankers in the Persian Gulf. However the US was on Iraq's side and thus allowed their ships to fly under the US flag for protection. This kept Iran in check.

But if George Bush and co. tries to pull off another "regime change"...there won't be anything to hold Iran back. And btw 40% of the world's oil goes thru the strait of Hormuz.

I found another interesting article, on Asia Times.

(Stu, you've clearly fallen down on the job, letting me get there first!)

It's pointing up the impracticalities of an Israeli strike on Iran.



Asia times article

Nevertheless, even though many posters here have outlined all the problems of attacking Iran, and how bad the consequences could be, I'm afraid that in the "Dipshit-Reality Zone" (DRZ) - in the White House, they won't take any notice and try this one on, either themselves or with the Israelis.

What I wonder is, just what exactly did George and Ariel talk about down on the ranch that wasn't mentioned at the news briefing?

I still think an Israeli attack on Iran is on the cards. Whilst militarily the initial attack may be doomed to failure, Iran's likely reaction it would give the US the excuse it needs to invade. And Israel has no choice but to do what the US tells them because wthout long term US support, it would collapse.

Sad thing is that GW Bush really does seem to be the kind of guy to actually try something like this.

This newshound is taking a break from manic geopolitical posting for a while in order to finish his degree.

But don't worry normal service will be resumed next month (Hopefully)

*crosses fingers*

I have had the same thoughts.



I agree that the present US govt might actually do such a thing, though the consequences would be disastrous for the US.

Here is how the disaster would unfold.

Israel launches a missile attack against Iran's nuclear facilities.

Iran responds by attacking oil tankers in the Straits of Hormuz, the narrow passageway though which all shipping into and out of the Persian Gulf must pass. Now, I have seen reports that Iran has missile launching sites on islands in the Straits, and I have seen speculation that the US could take control of those islands. I have no doubt that the US could take control of those islands, but Iran would still control the rugged and high mountains that overlook the narrow Straits. It could use mobile and easy-to-hide missile launchers to maintain control over shipping through the Straits despite US air attacks. US ground forces are stretched far too thin to have any chance of gaining control of the rugged mountains overlooking the Straits, as Iran has a powerful and effective army of its own, and the US remains tied up in Iraq. So the US is powerless to keep Iran from shutting down shipping through the Straits of Hormuz.

The effect of a shutdown in oil shipments from the Persian Gulf would the rapid collapse of the global economy, as oil prices would rise above $100 a barrel toward $200. The collapse would happen in a matter of weeks. This would entail the shutdown of the flow of dollars to the United States. The US now needs about $2 billion from foreign lenders EVERY BUSINESS DAY to keep its massive debt afloat. A collapse of the global economy would bring the collapse of the US banking system, as millions of Americans default on mortgage and credit card payments. This would bring a depression that would make it very difficult for the US to continue to wage war, since its warfare has been funded largely by borrowing from foreign central banks, and those central banks would soon have nothing left to lend.

The US govt is perfectly capable of allowing Israel to take such a step because the cabinet presently has no one with any real competence in economics and finance. Also, the prez has made it clear that he is not interested in facts that conflict with his wishful thinking. The govt is now run by people who think that the US is all-powerful and invincible. They will learn the hard way that they are wrong. And the people of the US and the rest of the world will pay a terrible price.

It seems like the drums for regime change are beating again and it is unlikely that the US will be satisfied with anything but total surrender. Iraq was actually quite willing to surrender it's WMD program before the war unfortunately it didn't have anything to surrender. The irony is sickening.

Similarly with Iran, if they DON'T have a nuclear weapons program to demostratably give up I'm not sure they can do anything to stop the sanctions. Right now they are being pressured to give up their legal enrichment activities, but if they did agree to that would it really stop the pressure? After all, they might still have a secret weapons program. Just as in Iraq the real goal of the US is regime change, sanctions are just their weapons of choice, and the enrichment activities is the current battleground.

Sanctions aren't in any way the US's "weapons of choice". It's just a bone being thrown to people who think the US isn't making any effort at "diplomacy" (not that BushCo has any idea what diplomacy is anyway).

Nobody in the UN is blind to the fact that Russia and China will veto any attempt to impose UN sanctions on Iran. Both countries have energy deals with Iran already in place, and Russia is supplying arms. There will be no UN sanctions, and everyone knows this, including the US. So the sanction threat is just a bone so that the US can say "well, we tried" and then move on to military options.

Never mind the fact that this administration is too damn stupid and/or arrogant to recognize that attacking Iran would kickstart the next World War.

I don't think the Bush administration is that stupid so I have trouble believing their prefered option is bombing. I agree that sanctions might be a hard sell in the UN because of the potential for vetos but it's not in my opinion impossible. I don't see how bombing is going to solve anything. Afterall it isn't the known nuclear enrichment for the nuclear power plant that is worrying them, its the potential for a secret facility enriching uranium for a bomb that scares them. So bombing the known enrichment facilities doesn't achieve anything except make Iran the martyr.

Before you would slam the Bush administration asininely, you might wanted to take a look at this:

Iran regards human rights as weapon against Islam

The Ayatollah is more afraid of human rights for being "diabolical attempts"?

EDIT: (just in case if the article has been removed to avoid incriminating proof of such statements)

Tehran, 27 April (AKI) - The Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei has said that "human rights, are a weapon in the hands of our enemies to fight Islam." Speaking at the Conference for the Unity of Islam which opened in Tehran yesterday, Khamenei said: "The awakening of Muslims, had weakened the plot by America, by international Zionism and by other hidden forces on the planet implicated in a universal strategy which has the objective of fighting Islamic nations, which are a force of one and a half billion believers and with the large natural reserves."

To a mixed audience of Iranians, Arabs and other foreigners at the conference, Ayatollah Khamenei said that it was "only through the unity of all Muslims, can they confront these diabolical attempts."

Khamenei also explained how Iran is viewed globally in the role that it plays within the context of Islam. As the supreme leader of the Islamic republic, he said, that the "country has contributed to the awakening of Muslims and our enemies are trying to compensate for their poverty of thought, and so they have raised the banner of terrorism and are armed with human rights in order to defeat Islam and Muslims."