Tuesday, May 02, 2006

The latest Iranian threats and news

The persistent Persian threats may actually help the White House on this one.

The A.P.
TEHRAN, Iran -- A top Revolutionary Guards commander said Tuesday that Israel would be Iran's first retaliatory target if attacked by the United States.

Gen. Mohammad Ebrahim Dehghani also said Israel was not prepared to go war against Iran. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has repeatedly spoken out against Israel and threatened to wipe it "off the map."
Al Jazeera:
Moshe Katsav, the Israeli president, has told Aljazeera that Iran poses a threat to Arabs and his country.

"Iran constitutes a danger not just to Israel, but also to Arab states... and to countries in Europe," Katsav said.
The A.P.: "Oil climbs above $74 mark amid Iran worries"


Anonymous Anonymous said...

As for the Iranian threats, it's almost as if Iran is trying to egg on the Bush administration into a fight. In my opinion, if our government ends up striking Iran over these threats, it will lead to worldwide protest.

What is your take on all of this? Is it Bush's fault if we strike Iran pre-emptively, or should we wait until they strike either Israel or the US, or do we flagrantly just go in there and blast them all to kingdom come?

It may surprise you, but with me being a Conservative, I am definitely not at all in favor of the first strike option because it will be disastrous for our government to do so. A first-nuke strike can lead to severe political implications and it might also lead China and Russia to strike at us. In effect, were are in a serious stalemate position, but the ball is in our court for now.

What would YOU do? If I were the president, I'd wait until there was proof-positive verification that a very real threat exists from Iran, and I would also wait to be backed up from both sides of government before I struck at Iran's nuclear targets, but, then again, the left voted to strike Iraq with the right, and look what happened!

But the spectre of the other side of our government voting for a strike and then turning their back on us is a troublesome concern. Let's face it, if there was a Liberal prez in the WH, and the cons voted for a strike and then turned pointing fingers after there were no WMD's in Iran - would that not concern you?

If the strike does come, I am betting it comes from our submarine forces. What do YOU think?

11:35 AM  
Blogger copy editor said...

Submarine launched cruise missles have a number of advantages that our air power cannot mimic. Israel does not have enough jets for this sort of operation, at least from what I have read.

There are still a number of years before this issue must be resolved. Diplomacy is the only track for now.

1:15 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You're absolutely correct about Israel not having enough jets - but it's their nukes that concern me.

Also, the subs would be better off using SLBM assets instead of cruise missiles. They are far more difficult for Iran to detect, but let's hope it never comes down to that.

Diplomacy failed before the Iraq war, and it appears to be doing the same with Iran.

1:18 PM  
Blogger copy editor said...

I think you were right to say that Iran seems to seek out this conflict.

Sounds like you know more about sub attacks than I, so I defer.

1:21 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

No offense meant, EC; no need to defer on who knows what over who. I just feel that our SLBM capabilities are overlooked often. Those nukes can easily be replaced with conventional weapons should the need arise, and whatever mission.

Thanks for your thoughts though. I agree with diplomacy. It should be tried out via all means available.

Has it worked with North Korea, though? I haven't heard a peep from them in a while; the sabres are not rattling at the moment (at least I'm not hearing it from the media end).

3:03 PM  
Blogger copy editor said...

North Korea seems to be a little lost in all the recent news. Maybe Darfur as well.

4:58 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home