Israel to U.S.: stop Iran's nukes -- or we will

This is interesting. No signs of dhimmitude on the part of the Israelis, I see! They know how to deal with the Muslim world. They know that caving in to Muslims just will not work. They learnt long ago that the more you give in to them, the more they'll demand. In other words, Muslims understand one thing: Strength! This is a lesson that our dhimmi politicians have yet to learn.

When I was a boy, in 1979, I remember sitting in the gas lines with my mother. We would shift our weight to move the car forward in line, rather than run the engine. That crisis was caused by Iran's production coming off the market.

Get ready for another oil crisis. Only this one will be permanent. The price will spike like never before. Think of all the extra money the Saudis will have. I wonder what they will spend it on. Maybe a new bikes for the kids, that operation grandma needs, a nice vacation...or more Jihad?

Quijybo

Look for China to become involved if this happens, oh well, might as well now as later.

We best be getting to it, or the jihadis will interpret this as Bush 43 becoming weak like Carter (well, not THAT weak).

I'm afraid that the mad mullah's have already considered that Israel might try to pull an Osiriq 2 and have spread out their nuclear facilities accordingly. We also have to consider that the long distance involved would make a succesful airstrike unlikly.

A couple of years ago the reputable British aviation monthly "Air Forces Monthly" had a lengthy article on precisely this topic and the authors concluded that even the highly vaunted IAF would fail to knock out the Islamic Republic's nuclear facilities.

Quijybo: "The price will spike like never before. Think of all the extra money the Saudis will have. I wonder what they will spend it on." Quijybo is correct.

It is sickening that our money goes to the Saudis so called Defenders (i.e. really hooligan expanders) of the faith. We should forcibly take Saudi oil as reparations for their aggressive Jihad and in part for the trillions of dollars they took from us when their fellow countrymen started an ongoing process of taking us over by force. Alternatively, their oil should be destroyed so they cannot raise one more drachma in war against the west. Know your enemy. Build nuclear plants. Islam is more radioactive than nuclear energy.

No more money for oil to this scum. No more money so they can plot and scheme to take us over. ibn Saud has been doing this since 1723 when he re-took control over Arabia and reestablished himself and his family as "defenders of the faith." (actually, expanders of the faith). Do not let the Saudis fool you. Do not let them feign shock and surprise when their subsidized conspirators and followers and the 19 of the 20 of impeccable Saudi background did trillions of dollars of damage to the U.S. economy or when their fellow Saudi ben Laden plans your death from a colony of Saudi Islam. Call for new laws and acts of the U.S. Congress or U.K. Parliament or any other sane or rational Western democratic country that abolishes sovereign immunity for theocratic states. No immunity when mosque and state are combined. Let's use our courts for reparations. Cashier any judges who want to give comity to the laws of cut throats and worse. Protest evil laws enacted by Islamic Imperialists. Denounce the evil schemes promoted by the Islamists. Either the destruction of Islam or the or the destruction of civilization. We are not in a clash of civilizations. We are in a clash of good and evil.

Like a small child playing with fire, no good can come from Iranian nukes. A country that is neck deep in oil doesn't need an alternative source of energy. The Isreali's know the real purpose of thier plan, and are smart enough not to wait around for thier own destruction. Besides, it'll be fun watching Iran geting thier butts kicked by the hated Jews. I can hardly wait to hear all the "Zionist Plot" complaints..LOL

"Iran will not be deterred "by anything short of a threat of force," said Arieh Eldad, a member of Israel's right-wing National Union Party, part of a delegation of Knesset members visiting Washington this week."

The truth of a statement does not depend on who says it; a true statement is just simply true.

This statement, the Post is careful to note, comes from a member of a 'right wing' party, as if that puts the statement in danger of being false.

But, it should not matter who says this. It is true. And the sooner the EU, the US administration, and all of us realize its truth, the better.

Unfortunately, for many years, the West has seen fit to either stand by idly or to actively assist those who are sworn and committed to Israel's annihilation in arming themselves with near state-of-the art weaponry. I would much prefer to see the likes of egypt, iran, and saudi arabia using those weapons on one other.

"Let's leave it up to the Israelis to deal with Iran" is probably indicative of U.S Arabist State's willingness to throw the Israelis to the hyenas and jackals. This will not be as easy as the Osiriq adventure. The mad mullah's are willing to turn their country into one massive "suicide bomber", and have said as much. Other's might join.

Spencerd,

Yours is the voice of reason here. Israel may degrade the Iranian program with airstrikes, but will not be able to end it. The diplomatc (and ultimately geo-political) fallout from an unprovoked attack will be pronounced.

My assumption is that the Israelis are using the threat of attack to induce the Americans and Europeans to maintain their backbone in the diplomatic face-off with Iran. This is more calibrated bluster than anything else.

The world could weather a cut-off of Iranian oil (albeit painfully). Prices would certainly sky-rocket, but only the Saudis have the production capacity to literally bring the West to its knees. On the other hand, by pulling their oil off the market, Iran would be impoverishing itself in no small way; oil accounts for the vast majority of its national income.

So even here, there is a degree of bluster, the only difference being the Iranians are just emotional enough to shoot themselves in the foot and go through with it.

If sanctions are applied (and they sure as hell should be)...and Iran follows through on its threat, you can bet the bank they will reverse themselves in a matter of weeks as government coffers run dry.

Meanwhile, in Iraq, the American officers and men train Shi'a officers and men, part of that "Iraqi" army we hear so much about, and what's more, may even be planning on turning over weapons to them. This, of course, can in the tortured-logic of Washington make sense -- for if we do not turn over those weapons, why then when we leave, they may turn to Iran. And we can't have that, can we?

But what is not understood is that the Shi'a politicians now ruling Iraq, or the Shi'a parts of it, have -- many of them -- lived uncomplainingly for years in the Islamic Republic of Iran, and while they do not want a duplication of what they saw there, and wish to decide their own destiny, if it comes to a Sunni-Shi'a conflict, they will no doubt call on, or have volunteers from, the most loyal, fanatical, and therefore dangerous and unpleasant of Iranians.

Fine. Good. Let the Iranians be occupied, or preoccupied with Iraq. Let the worst kind of Sunnis fight the worst kind of Shi'a. What, really, could Infidels ask for more, a kind of proxy war between Saudi Arabia and Iran, each wearing the same black trunks and black balaklava, but the Iranian showing scars from the Ashura flagellation.

And while the best (i.e. the worst) of the Iranians are engaged in that conflict, and have less ability -- because they will be engaged in Iraq, in suppressing the anti-regime forces within Iran, then that might be just the time to destroy, or at least to do great damage to (it may take a series of attacks, some of them even possibly those famous ICBMs that America has lying around, not one fell swoop from a flock of F-16s) that Iranian science project which, come to think of it, certain Sunni Arab countries, though they may howl in public anguish, will be secretly pleased about.

But of course, the very idea of leaving Iraq in order to accomplish what they should wish to accomplish -- to divide, demoralize, force expenditures by, Islam -- is something our policy-makers just won't allow themselves even to consider.

What is wrong with them? There are a thousand ways to extricate our forces -- just announce, after October 15, that after the December elections, American forces will be steadily drawn down, for a nation of 27 million, if it is a nation (of course it isn't, but they can't bring themselves to say that, they must pretend otherwise), should be able to defend itself even from 10,000 hardened terrorists.

It's not our problem. And it will not, despite the constant warning about this by the party-lline generals just doing what they are told, =lead to Al Qaeda "taking over" in Iraq.

How could it? How could a group that has declared war on all Shi'a, that has called them "Rafidite dogs" and thus Infidels of a type deserving of a punishment even greater than that meted out to ordinary Infidels, conceivably "take over" an Iraq in which 60% of the population consists of those "Shi'ite Rafidite dogs," and another 20% of the largely secular and definitely anti-Arab Kurds? And with Shi'a Iran right next door, right across the Treaty-of-Erzrum boundary established in 1847? HOw likely is it that the Iranians would do nothing if the Sunnis in Iraq, with our without outside aid, began to suppress and mass-murder the Shi'a?

What is keeping the government officials, and the generals, from comprehending this? What is keeping them from it is the desire not to understand that Islam must be divided and demoralized, because that would imply that Islam itself is a permanent threat, and of course, since many people cannot face that, they would prefer to believe that it simply cannot be, and if Islam is not a threat, if it is only those "perverters of Islam" who "believe in a murderous ideology," then of course it makes no sense to try to divide and demoralize Muslims -- does it?

So that's it -- they work backwards from what they think simply has to be, because lacking in imagination and historical sense, they do not undrstand what is going on. Condoleeza Rice was warned, very forcefully, by Richard Clarke. So-called "conservatives" pooh-poohed that because Clarke was a Democrat, Clarke was on Kerry's side, and that is all that mattered; no one could say a bad word about Our Condoleeza. Really, that kind of attitude must go. And her aide Stephen Hadley, whose New Duranty Times Op/Ed a month or two ago sang the praises, bien sur, of wonderful Islam, has now admitted to having attended a meeting in Curt Weldon's office in which certain information from a special intelligence program was revealed -- before 9/11 -- and Mohammad Atta specifically named.

They can keep trying to hold onto the mad-dog loyalists, but many people at Jihadwatch, who voted not once but twice for Bush, the second time because they assumed he would come to his senses and "must really know what's going on," now see that they were wrong. And we will not continue to ignore, much less endorse, the continuing failures and squandering of resources, based on ignorance of Islam, fear of offending, inability to figure out how to phrase things cleverly, and a hubris about what American forces can accomplish in a non-existent nation-state called "Iraq."

What is it down to? One-third of the country still thinks the Iraq policy makes sense? And what percentage, one wonders, of those who have actually served in Iraq, especially those who served a second or third tour and can see for themselves the reality, and if they are not mere parrotters, SIR (salute, heel-clicking) of what they are supposed to believe, are at least as skeptical as the rest of us. Not the generals -- they have no choice, they are watching their careers. And the cheap squeak of phony idealism in the Light-Unto-the-Muslim-Nations Project still manages to keep some on the hook. But others know, others who have retired or left the service, and can see what the Iraq business is doing to morale, to the quality and numbers of new recruits, especially to the Reserves and the National Guard.

This cannot go on. This must not go on. But as yet not a single politician has become a statesman, and explained clearly that we should leave, but for reasons completely different -- the opposite of -- those put forth by the assorted Cindy Sheehans at MoveOn.org. Just think of the anxiety those people would feel if in fact the Adminstration came to its senses and did start to leave, not in order to roll over and play dead either for Bin Laden or for Al-Qaradawi or for CAIR, but in quite a different spirit, and with a different goal.

And how much easier then to deal with Iran's sciene project, if Iranian forces are preoccupied with Iraq, and the American forces well away from where they can be retaliated against. After all, no doubt one thing that is inhibiting either American or Isreali action are the American forces essentially held hostage, by their proximity to Iran, in Iraq. Doesn't the Amdinistration see this?

And doesn't it see that when you lose support like this, support that is needed not for a few years, but for many decades to come, all wasted on a doubtful policy, you are doing terrible damage to the counter-Jihad and its long-run prospects.

That too must be taken into account. But they talk -- with this nonsense about staying another nine years -- as if there is no political context. Let's get it straight -- no one is going to be elected President in 2008 who endorses the idea of American troops remaining in Iraq. No Republican can win if troops are still in Iraq after next year. Surely this too has to be calcualted into the new Cold War, that is so new, the rulers of the Western world do not yet recognize the need for it, do not even recognize all the instruments of Jihad.

But they will. Some sooner. Some later. I'd prefer that those in Washington be among the group of some sooner.

Wouldn't you?

Right on Hugh. Have you e-mailed any of your thoughts to George Bush? Not that he reads his e-mail every day . . . I guess the only way our politicians are going to consider anything but the conventional wisdom on Iraq is if we create one large grass-roots voice on this.

Israel doesn't have to target all of Iran's nuclear projects, just their primary ones. There are certain links in the nuclear chain that, if broken, will leave it offline for years, if not decades. The world needs to come together under the banner of the UN and stop Iran, but I don't think that wil happen, or if it does, it won't be effective for long, like the UN's sanctions against Saddam's regeime. I believe that the violence in Iraq and the problems in Saudi Arabia will cause Iraq and Iran (and possibly part of Saudi) to rebuild the Babylonian empire and create a new Islamic Superstate/Caliphate after American troops leave Iraq. The bible has prophesied Babylon will be rebuilt. It's only a matter of time.

Taking Iran out will not be easy. Intelligence estimates there are over 150 sites that would need to be destroyed. Many are underground. Some may be unknown. Many are far enough from Israel that the airplanes will not be able to make it to the target and back. The depth of Iranian sites are such that perhaps only tactical nukes can take out suspected sites. We like to think Israel can take Iran out, but the Iranian program can probably only be destroyed if done by both Israel and the U.S. There is also the possibility that Iran currently has several nuclear bombs purchased/stolen/secreted from Pakistan or elsewhere. It is also likely that Iran will retaliate with dirty bombs against the U.S. and/or Israel where it can if any effort is made to destablize them.

My guess is the Sunnites and other Wahabi arabs including Al Queda will secretly gloat if the U.S. and/or Israel comes to blows with Iran. Ironically, the Sunnites would be afraid if the Iranians had a nuclear bomb first. Have no illusion however, the Iranians currently possess WMDs. The problem Iran's opponents have be it Sunnite, Israeli, European or Yank is whether someone acts sooner rather than later. The price of action later will be high. The concern is that with any further delay the cost will be catastrophic. The fear is the mullahs will lob weapon here and there as they deny responsibility.
My suggestion is that we act immediately with Schwartzkoff firepower strategy.

Its going to be a long war, the difference is the death toll at the end, Islam with nukes and the toll will be billions, not mere millions.

Hugh, as someone who has voted twice for President Bush, I can say right now that your analysis and observations are so compelling and true that, you have convinced me utterly.

It was great we destroyed Saddam, perhaps an advantage in that we have unleashed dictatorial strictures that has kept Sunnis and Shia from direct conflict, but we are wasting our time trying to create a democratic state in the heart of the Muslim world.

It is tragic and sad that, many innocent Iraqi lives will be consumed in the resulting clash of the different religious tectonic plates in Islam, but the West has no choice when it's survival is at stake and Jihad must be stopped.

We should leave as soon as possible and in such away that will not permit the Sunni insurgents from declaring victory.

Our focus should be stopping the open and covert Jihad and the financing of Jihad by Saudi oil money.

Someday, the West will be in the position to help spread freedom and democracy into the Muslim world, but as you have ably made clear in your many excellent posts here on Jihad Watch,it can only happen when Islam is so completely transformed that it is reborn into something new. History has shown us that this kind of transformation does not come without a crushing defeat and atomization of the offending ideology.

We are in for a long struggle to defeat Jihad, but not rising to the occasion would mean the destruction of our very civilization and the good it has brought to the world.

Gee, if we have to attack Iran.

Won't we have bases and logistics in Iraq?

Do you now see the "big picture"?

RE: it can only happen when Islam is so completely transformed that it is reborn into something new.

You are asking for a miracle and it is not something that we can do alot about. The source of Islam is satanic.

Something of a conundrum.

Whatever happens, the mad mullahs would seem to be in a better position than that good ol' boy the Butcher of Bagdad ever was. The stupid bastard is probably kicking himself right now.

Remember Saddam, missiles FIRST, then nukes, missiles FIRST, then nukes........

If the USA doesn't attack Iran Israel will.
Isn't that exactly what the USA wants?
Israel has for many years been the testing ground for American weapons. America risks nothing and gains everything.
It has supplied Israel with Bunker Buster bombs.
It knows from past endeavors that Israel can and will do the job and do it properly and the USA will not have to risk a single plane or American life.
It, along with the rest of the western and eastern world will condemn Israel and sectretly heave a huge sigh of relief as with Osiraq.

How, then, does Israel plan to "stop" Iran's nuke program? According to the retired IDF pilot who was in charge of the mission that took out the Iraqi facility in 1983, Iraq was enough of a stretch to require "improvising" in a way that he didn't elaborate, but Iran is just too far beyond range for such a merciful resolution.