Iran Is Building Nukes in Underground Locations

Sampson Option anyone?

Meanwhile, attention, money, men, materiel, planning must all be focused on the "war on terror" in Iraq, where "we cannot let the terrorists win" because "otherwise they will be emboldened everywhere" and "threaten free people" and -- oh god, fill it up with whatever verisimilar nonsense you want, yourself. If these are not always the exact words of the obstinately un-cunning policymakers who presume to fight a Jihad that they can't even talk about, much less comprehend, they are tellingly close enough.

Absurd. Intolerable. Insupportable.

I'm not surprised that Iran has built underground locations for storing it's nuclear arsenal. Honesty is not one of their strong points. Bush better speed up the completion on the defense missle shield!

Reports of North Korean cooperation with Iran on its nuclear and missile programs have surfaced previously.

The "axis of evil" prophecy is beginning to ring true.

Guess that explains why the GBU-28's sold to the IDF last year have not been used to eradicate the problem yet. The infestation is much worse than thought, and may require whole-house fumigation.

They're afraid of Israel destroying them.

Infidel33 writes
"Guess that explains why the GBU-28's sold to the IDF last year have not been used to eradicate the problem yet. The infestation is much worse than thought, and may require whole-house fumigation."

This is why we should have bugged our politicians to
support the development of nuclear tipped bunker buster bombs.

I don't care how impressive people think bunker busters, and fuel air explosives, and cluster bombs, and all of the other non nuclear technologies are.
They simply don't hold a candle to nuclear bombs, and never will. To take out some of these hardened
sites will need nukes, and even then it may not be enough.

I feel the USA should stop pussyfooting around with Iran and just oust that regime. My main criticism of the Iraq invasion was that it allowed the much greater threat of Iran to be put on the backburner.

In my opinion, Iran's nuke and missiles programs have always been far more advanced than Saddam's -- at least since the Gulf War. Likewise, Iran is a far more active sponsor of external guerrilla movements than Saddam ever was.

Also, Iran has a border with other nation of concern, Afghanistan, which would have allowed the US another alternative route other than Pakistan, which is itself a nation of concern due to its rampant nuclear proliferation and its own state spy agencies being hand-in-glove with many of the worst Islamic insurgents.

If the US had invaded Iran instead of Iraq, it would have still put Saddam on the ropes anyway, since Iraq's population is mostly Shiite anyway, allowing an easy route to foment insurgency against Saddam's regime. Were the US in charge of Iran, there would be an automatic abundance of recruits to harass Saddam and keep him on the back foot.

Didn't some exiled opposition group say that Saddam had hundreds of buried bioweapon laboratories manufacturing weapons that could be used against Britain within 45 minutes?

This is likely BS.

perhaps if both sides of ailse would be united in the fight in Iraq...a tougher stand from the US, (UN lost cause) would be heeded.. when the leftist media and terrorist stop sounding alike that would be a start. We need a Patton to march onto Iran! perhaps some brave Isralie jets over Iran will finally come to the rescue!!!

Hugh,

I basically agree with you about the folly of nation building in iraq.

However, i find it difficult to respond to people who argue along the lines of Sen. hillary clinton: a chaotic failed state would be a nest for violent islamists of various strains, who would then export terrorism worldwide. Somalia certainly comes to mind. That example supports Sen. clinton somewhat (and somewhat unfortunately).

How would you respond to that sort of argument?

Posted by: sanman at November 21, 2005 09:06 PM

As we can see you don't have the follow through you want the baby until, but then will abort the baby??

So why should we listen to someone like you we see you aint really in this fight!

Part of the American Tribe
Squirrel Hunter
Spider Killer
God Bless the USA and her Fighting Forces and ALL who Fight with her give them Strngth, Wisdom, Sight, and Courage to stay the course to Victory[FREEDOM] to Destroy all Islamic Terrorist and ALL who Support them Amen

Didn't some exiled opposition group say that Saddam had hundreds of buried bioweapon laboratories manufacturing weapons that could be used against Britain within 45 minutes?

The group of which you speak is the Iraqi National Congress. An opposition group which sought and indeed succeeded in convincing the United States to overthrow Saddam Hussein.

Ahmed Chalabi was a contributor to the US Intelligence decision to wage war because of suspicions that Iraq had WMD. Saddam did have WMD at one point...

Your skepticism is entirely valid. The National Council of the Resistance of Iran, an opposition group to mullah rule, has an agenda to be sure.

But what if they are correct? That is the problem.

When a person listens to the words of Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, he should heed them.

Because that is exactly Mr.Ahmadinejad's intention. His goal is to browbeat and threaten, and that is something that the world cannot tolerate.

Shall we risk that it is all BS?

Catherine, I'm not sure what your babble was, but clearly this baby is dead in the womb and there'll be no live birth. Regarding Iraq, there is no nation there to build. Their army is worse than ARVN, and their squabbling feuding incompetent politicians clearly don't have the basic sense of unity or nationalism to come together against the enemy. Better to leave those dolts to their fate. I unfortunately agree with Hillbillary's assessment that a failed Iraq will be a cesspool for insurgent scum to grow, just like Afghanistan was for Taliban and AlQaeda. But a failed Iraq is inevitable, as long as the misguided goal of democracy is pursued. That squabbling family was only brought together due to a shotgun wedding, and without the Baathist shotgun or the American shotgun, those people will disintegrate in a heartbeat. It's no good for Uncle Sam to be cursed like Atlas in holding up the sky in Iraq. Iraqi politicians are idiots elected by idiots.

Posted by: Eschwapp at November 21, 2005 11:11 PM

The big problem is that the MSM and the Democrats have been shouting for the last 2&1/2 years intell wrong Bush lied??

Now they were going at the military saying it is our fault you know the AL controls the UN so what to do??

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/367wlqji.asp
The strangest episode came from an appearance by Senator Jay Rockefeller on Fox News Sunday:
WALLACE: OK. Senator Rockefeller, the president says that Democratic critics, like you, looked at pre-war intelligence and came to the same conclusion that he did. In fact, looking back at the speech that you gave in October of 2002 in which you authorized the use of force, you went further than the president ever did. Let's watch:
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ROCKEFELLER: I do believe that Iraq poses an imminent threat, but I also believe that after September 11th that question is increasingly outdated.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WALLACE: Now, the president never said that Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat. As you saw, you did say that. If anyone hyped the intelligence, isn't it Jay Rockefeller?
ROCKEFELLER: No. I mean, this question is asked a thousand times and I'll be happy to answer it a thousand times. I took a trip by myself in January of 2002 to Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria, and I told each of the heads of state that it was my view that George Bush had already made up his mind to go to war against Iraq, that that was a predetermined set course which had taken shape shortly after 9/11. [emphasis added]
What was the second-ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee doing in Syria, a country which perennially finds itself among the top listings of terrorist-sponsoring nations, discussing President Bush's decision-making on the war on terror with Bashar Assad, one of the worst sponsors of terror in the months after 9/11?

A GOOD READ AND WHEN ARE THEY GOING TO PUT HIM IN JAIL???

WHO AGAIN WHO SAYS DEMOCRATS ARE NOT A DANGER TO THE SAFTY OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND WHEN IS THE SENATE GOING TO FIND OUT AND EXPOSE THE LEAKER OF CLASSIFIED INFO ABOUT PRISONS?

Now maybe if this is found out maybe you could find some of the stock piles and this would work because Rockerfella Just admited he warned the enemy gave them time to get rid or burry the stuff??

NO with the Democrats shouting lies something is going to have to turn up for the intel to be believed??

Me
I believe what the president of Iran is saying I take people for what they say and do.

OH the Press even after the Vote on Friday the headlines read OH how the republican tricked us??

Yes this aid and comforts the enemies!

OF course the head lines should have read the Congress Votes to help the Iraqi people gain their Freedom?

But no Saturday the Democrats were saying OH we were tricked we really didn't feel thet way?

Hard to fight a real war when the usiful idiots aid and comfort the enemy?

OH Remember how the democrats went crazy about the words axis of evil??

Well now that axis has been parchaly broken but 2/3 is still there and FOLLOW THROUGH is important!!!

Part of the American Tribe
Squirrel Hunter
Spider Killer
God Bless the USA and her Fighting Forces and ALL who Fight with her give them Strength, Wisdom, Sight, and Courage to stay the course to Victory to Destroy ALL Islamic terrorist and ALL who Support them Amen

Catherine, I really wasn't trying to make a partisan Bush-lied-so-vote-Dem comment. I really don't care what the Whitehouse said, it's what they thought that counts. Meaning that I don't care that they publicly gave the WMD argument as the reason for attacking Iraq, since everyone has to hype intelligence in order to wage war -- what I care about is that they actually bought their own hype on Iraq, and meanwhile couldn't see Iran on the radar screen. What's really dumb is that Iraq was seen as a cakewalk when it shouldn't have been. Even Nixon back in the 1980s famously compared Iraq to Afghanistan and Yugoslavia, as places where it's easy to get in but impossible to get out.

No amount of American blood or treasure will make Iraq a functioning democracy. I'm not saying that to cackle at Bush, I'm saying that so that people will spare themselves further losses in this futile exercise. Had Iraq actually been pacifiable, then the war would be over by now, and any debate on WMD intelligence would purely be academic -- water under the bridge. But Iraq isn't pacifiable -- not through democracy, anyway.

The USA needs to get the hell out of Iraq, and wipe out the rising danger of the Tehran Ayatollahs, before they get some nuke-tipped missiles and start some wider Shiite revolution in the Gulf. Iraq is small potatoes compared to Iran.

"I find it difficult to respond to people who argue along the lines of Sen. hillary clinton: a chaotic failed state would be a nest for violent islamists of various strains, who would then export terrorism worldwide. Somalia certainly comes to mind."
-- from a posting above

This phrase "failed state" that has become so fashionable in the last few years, and that is dropped into so many sentences, as if its meaning were self-evident -- well, what does it mean? Are Saudi Arabia and Iran, the two most powerful supporters of Jihad, and in different ways, of terrorism against Infidels (though not of course against fellow Muslims, for that would be wrong) "failed states"? No. If by "failed state" onoe means a country where the government no longer functions, and warlordism prevails, that would apply to Somalia. Is Somalia a major exporter of "terrorism worldwide"? It is not. If some Somalis have been implicated in terrorist acts, far more Saudis and Egyptians and Syrians have been so implicated. In any case, "failed states" would lack the ability to undertake the kind of nuclear program that, for example, Iran is now engaged in. had Pakistan really been a "failed state" with no ISI and generals to support A. Q. Khan with money and support, Pakistan would never have acquired nuclear weapons. The weaker, omre chaotic, less organized the various Muslim states, the less likely that they will be real threats The phrase "failed states" has not been thought through.

In Iraq, after an American withdrawal, there is not going to be simply chaos. There will be hostility, attacks, revenge attacks, a constant jockeying for power and position. In those circumstances, energies and resources that might have gone to terrorism against Infidels will be directed entirely at fellow Muslims. It is sentimental and silly to deplore such an outcome. It should be welcomed.

....Shahab family of missiles, Hemmat is overseeing work on a new long-range missile, Ghadar....

Hee heh. Ghadar.

Hugh, I hear what you're saying, and signs are that a post-withdrawal Shia-Sunni civil war will suck in all the AlQaeda nuts and all the Shiite nuts, so that they go at each other hammer and tong. But the problem is that the oil-producing Sheikhdoms nearby, including Saudi, are going to recieve immediate spillover effects.

Let's say that Iraq suffers an Afghan-style civil war -- then it's only going to bring in jihadists from all the neighboring lands, as the Afghan civil brought zealots from far and wide. Just as these "Afghan Arabs" returned to their homelands to cause trouble, so too will the "Iraqi Arab" veterans spread trouble back into the Sheikhdoms. This would only lead to a domino effect, in my opinion.

If it weren't for the global oil supply, I'd say let all of em stew in their own juices. Let them wallow in the culture of hateful zealotry they've cultivated. But we're hostage to their oil.

The sooner we can overcome our dependency on their oil, the sooner we can leave those people to fall to their own ugly natures.

Thank you, Hugh.

My understanding of your elucidation is that there might be some presence of non-state terrorist groups (perhaps Ansar al-sunnah, I guess, or al-qaida)in a post-American "iraq" but the truly greater threat in the worldwide jihad is sharia-state (not failed-state)acquisition of complex wmds with high end delivery systems. Plus, whatever non-state jihadis do try to nest would be subject to whatever conflict that would be ongoing. And, significant resources would be spent by the ummah, including the rich large states, rather than by US in whatever conflict occurs.

BTW, I would expect a reply by someone arguing along sen. clinton's line: non-state actors are real threats (see 9/11, etc.)and have the potential to acquire crude wmds outside of regular and regulated-so-to-speak international trade anyway.

(I apologize for the cliche/jargon "non-state actors". It is sometimes difficult not to think in others' cliches and jargons. And it has that ring of authoritative importance)

Nevertheless, It should be clear to anyone remotely rational that the Iranian islamic republic, with its mullahs and mouthpieces, is a more significant threat to everyone on this planet (including themselves) than the non-state terrorists (many of whom the iranian regime fund and direct or assist, as well).

Rhetorical: Why do so few people seem concerned about the iranian mullahs when they speak so clearly their intents and goals? Possible answer: Amazingly few people are even aware of the always ongoing worldwide jihad by the ummah against the infidels. That is part of the horror of President Bush's repeated use of "the religion of peace". It implicitly asserts that there is no jihad, except inner improvement.

Sanman,

You wrote: "The sooner we can overcome our dependency on their oil, the sooner we can leave those people to fall to their own ugly natures."

Absolutely right.

If any politician/consultant/pollster/staffer is reading...

Whatever US politician comes through with a reasonable and sincere plan to remove the world's dependence on muslim controlled oil supplies has MY support in upcoming US elections.

Its not all about oil (its all about jihad), but the oil issue tangles up potential approaches/strategies toward the jihad. So oil and energy policy do matter more than many realize.

del, then you'll probably want to vote for eco-friendly politicians wh support development of alternative energy (oil economy = global warming), and you'll want to vote for politicians focused on rural-development (wind turbines, solar energy, etc disproportionately favor remote communities where it's harder to ship out the oil, or connect to transmission lines)

at the same time, nuclear energy has advanced technologically over the decades to become less dangerous than before. I think nuclear energy holds the best prospects.

you may even wish to consider things like shale oil, which lost profitability in the mid-1980s after the oil crisis wound down. Now that prices are back up, shale oil is competitive again, and the US has enough of it to last for centuries. But it does involve a lot of ugly strip-mining

Hugh, since you mention Saudi and Pakistan, I'd like to once again point out to everyone that it is impossible for Uncle Sam to be a doctor fighting the jihadist plague while its 2 assistant nurses Saudi and Pakistan are a couple of Typhoid Marys. In other words, the "allies in the war on terror" are the chief sources of terror. The Taliban were not home-grown in Afghanistan, they were installed there by Pakistan. Likewise, the Zarqawis in Iraq aren't homegrown from Baathist Iraq, but have gotten all their fundamentalist wahabbism from Saudi.

The "allies" are Trojan horses of the worst variety. And they're still laughing all the way to the bank. Saudi is minting money from the oil prices, and Pakistan is getting oodles of military aid, while only having to trot out a couple of fresh detainees every few months, like a fake Vietnam bodycount.

The manner in which the war on terror has been conducted has been a great boon to the terrorists.

sanman,

Large-scale alternative power production would have to be nuclear. But I prefer the idea of distributed generation, especially using solar photovoltaic roof panels. If every newly finished roof had say, 500 watts of power production...that adds up to megawatts pretty quickly.

Formerly there were tax incentives for solar energy (used to mostly be hot water systems). I think they expired but some were renewed (but I'm not up on the details). That would be a fine use of domestic taxation to encourage a greater good: the drying up of oil-based funding of the jihad.

Dejavu... Now Iran also has nuclear weapons (WMD)? Sure.

The USA can bully Iran to get rid of its weapons (if they do have nukes); or the USA can be a good example to Iran and the rest of the world by disarming its own nuclear weapons.

del, I agree with you on the distributed generation -- basically I said the same thing using rural development as the frame.

Here's some more for you to read:

http://www.techreview.com/NanoTech-Devices/wtr_15913,303,p1.html

http://www.dewalt.com/us/articles/article.asp?Site=cordless&ID=1409

http://www.techreview.com/NanoTech-Materials/wtr_15920,318,p1.html

Now that's some stuff that'll give the Saudis some sleepless nights -- which is just fine by me. It's no small surprise that people like R James Woolsey are loud spokesmen for hybrid cars in America. And he owns one too, so at least he walks the walk.

Know anything about chromium chemistry?

Del asked: "Rhetorical: Why do so few people seem concerned about the iranian mullahs when they speak so clearly their intents and goals? Possible answer: Amazingly few people are even aware of the always ongoing worldwide jihad by the ummah against the infidels. That is part of the horror of President Bush's repeated use of "the religion of peace". It implicitly asserts that there is no jihad, except inner improvement."

I am convinced that, in the UK at least, part of the answer is hatred of Israel. This is the key sentiment which guides media view of everything in the Middle East. At the worst, even if only subconsciously, many people would be quite happy with an Iranian nuclear attack on Israel, even if the consequences for Iran and everyone would be atrocious. At the best, they do not want to criticise/pressure Iran as this would be seen as benefiting Israel.

As readers of this column know, Iranian figures have been threatening Israel with nuclear destruction for years. Yet none of the relatively recent stories on EU/Iran nuclear negotiations saw fit to mention it. I wrote to every paper in the land pointing this out, but got nowhere. I guess Mr. Ahmadinejad, as President, saying the same thing was just too much to be ignored.

PS: See http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article328585.ece
for an article on a proposed "solution" to the Iran nuclear problem which, again, fails to mention the threat to Israel and Iran's seeming commitment to a first-use policy.

Hello all,

Now I can see a dangereous "beat Iran & damn the consequences" club foaming (pun intended). But you need to look deeper at some things. Lets look at the facts from their perspective.

1) Iran faces danger from Iraq (8years of war previously), Israel and America.

2) It faces danger from all Sunni dominated countries.

3) So, it needs to protect itself, now while America is like a safety guarantor for Israel, Iran has no such "friend". Indeed that very nation (America) keeps threatening to destroy it.

4) Looking at the slightly longer term, Iran's oil will be running out. So what are they do for energy then? How is their nation gonna survive.

5) Nobody can provide nucleur fuel supply guarantees for the future so what are they to do but to build their own. The UK is facing a similar situation now....they are planning to build necular plants soon ...where is the condemenation (my what silence....).

Nobody will care if Iran goes to the wall....only they can look after themselves. Now rather than bring them into the fold , offering safe technologies and technology transfers, all I hear from you guys is ....bomb....destroy...kill...finish them off.

It is incidentaly the SAME language that the Iranians are using, smell a rat here?

So lets look to bomb them & finish them off...what will happen then.

Well a few million will die ...but not all, NOT ALL...and there in lies the rub. Please then get ready for the perpetual war...the daily bombs on the street of the US or UK.....why go there.

Live & let live.....I'm sure that Iran wants that too despite the rhetroic.

Well a few million will die ...but not all, NOT ALL...and there in lies the rub. Please then get ready for the perpetual war...the daily bombs on the street of the US or UK.....why go there.

I'll take that chance.

Lets be honest, if they COULD pull off daily bombing they would be doing it now. They don't need an "excuse". They already have all the "justification" they need.

Naseem,

you wrote: "Live & let live.....I'm sure that Iran wants that too despite the rhetroic"

What is the basis of your conviction that Iran wants to Live and let live?

Naseem, your "factual" perspective of the situation is completely false and typifys the muslim mindset. But rest assured Naseem, we no longer are willing to live and let live as the ummah has proven itself to be a backstabbing, murderous neighbor. We will not stop until your death cult is laid to rest forever.

The mad mullahs of Iran are not the people's choice and they have obtained power illegitamitely
and their Islamic goals are very clear.

Oil has nothing to do with their Islamic objectives.

Israel is too far from Iran to deal with them, but we are real close with bases in Iraq and Afghanistan.

We need to support the dissidents who want a free Iran.

Everyone ignored Hitler and then tried to appease him.

Rest assured that evil can and will arise again.

It is the nature of life.

Good vs evil.
( It is not the rich vs the poor according to the leftists )

Naseem writes:

Aren't you the genius who wanted us to give to
mohammadan "charities"? Nice!

"So lets look to bomb them & finish them off...what will happen then.

Well a few million will die ...but not all, NOT ALL...and there in lies the rub. Please then get ready for the perpetual war...the daily bombs on the street of the US or UK.....why go there."

I don't think so. At the first sign of daily bombings Americans would just start killing
mohammadans. Oh, some may say we wouldn't, but
I'm pretty sure a few big bombings and the
US would outlaw the cult, just like Germany did with
Scientology.

Hugh is correct I believe. Pulling out of Iraq is a win-win for us.

1) We stop wasting resources on the unappreciative, anti-American populace of Iraq.

2) The insurgents within Iraq will then fight amongst each other in a civil war, which will occupy a good portion of the time and resources they currently spend on blowing up our soldiers.

3) A war-torn country that is anarchistic will not have any real capability of producing WMD.

How many ICBM's does Somalia or Afghanistan have pointed at us right now? How many will they have ten years from now? Try none. Production of nukes requires a fairly consolidated power structure presiding over the country. You can't pull it off in a completely chaotic, anarchistic state.

Our best move for Iran would be to topple the regime and try to create complete anarchy in their society as well. In other words, I think we should topple ANY Muslim government that even attempts to produce WMD.

I'm not interested in the consequences for their populace. This is a get-in, collapse the govt, and get-out solution. No "nation building" or handing out Twix bars to mini-terrorists. We could do exactly what we did with this last Iraq war....roll into the cities with lightning speed...blow up key infrastructure, and just generally lay waste to the people and places that support the government. The key step will be to GET OUT rather than hang around trying to build some rinky dink, unmaintainable government.

The people can fend for themselves. I think the best way of handling these rogue states is simply to quit playing Mr. Nice Guy and acknowledge that certain regimes will have to be toppled...regardless of what it means to their population. It may indeed be necessary to burn down the entire barn just to kill a couple of rats.

I was once on board w/ the creation of a Democratic state in Iraq, but now I realize that it is akin to telling a fat person to lose weight or a heroin junkie to quit shooting up. The motivation must come from within. It must come from the people of Iraq. Where are the democratic revolutionaries in that country? I'm not talking about diplomats. I'm talking about people with huevos that are willing to stand up and FIGHT for a democracy as our forefathers did in this country.

It takes all of one week for us to topple a regime and create complete chaos in a country. Let's use this capability to our advantage and knock out the Mullahs of Iran. We need to turn that place into another Somalia. I can handle a few suicide bombers in this country if it means I can greatly reduce the real threat to our existence, which is a nuclear weapon in the hands of the Iranians.

Clearly, we'll have to play it cool with the countries that already have nukes, but the life raft is now full. We can't afford to let anyone else join the nuclear club or we'll certainly see a nuclear war within the next 100 years.

Thats just my opinion. I could be wrong.

I can't help but notice that in the leadup to both the Afghanistan war and the Iraq war, wildly exaggerated stories began to spread about the burrowings and diggings going on in enemy lands... Stories, which subsequently turned out to be totally false, or wildly exaggerated, were told about underground palaces, ammo dumps, nuclear laboratories, warehouses....

I find this extremely interesting... Perhaps it's simply a cultural memory of Nazis in WW2 who did embark on a huge subterranean building projects... But I'm inclined to think it reveals a deep revulsion and loathing in our human psyche -- (Think George Orwell -- Jules Verne )

We fear the burrowing troglodyte... We hate the unseen foe, and it seems like few things rouse our terror and our hatred better than stories about enemies digging and living underground...

Don't get me wrong -- I don't need stories about burrowing deep into the earth to justify pasting Iran with heavy ordnance... I do question the timing of these "revelations."

Nevertheless -- Iran should take note, if their rancid hatred ever allows them to thing clearly and soberly -- It would seem that recent history shows that when America begins to talk about your digging projects, we're getting pretty serious about placing some well aimed craters on your terrain....

thing = think

Naseem writes

"I'm sure that Iran..."

How can you be sure of something, DESPITE evidence? That is irrationality. All evidence suggests that Iran is going to go on a killing spree. All historical precendents suggests that Iran is going to go on a killing spree.
Historical precedence + evidence + threats = Killing Spree.

Here, in the world of rational human beings, we act on evidence, history, and personal admissions. In fact, when all three coincide, we are SURE that Iran is dangerous. You are sure of nothing. Stop making shit up.

If you would like to cite history, go ahead.
If you would like to cite evidence, go ahead.
If you would like to cite statements acknowledging the right of Israel to exist, rather then be wiped off the map, go ahead.

History, Evidence, Admissions. Everything else is lies.

History: Iran is a sponsor of terrorism (especially in Lebanon). Iran oppresses religious freedoms on minorities. Bloody revolutions.
Evidence: Seeking nuclear weapons. Works with North Korea. Is currently sponsoring terrorism.
Admissions: Wants to destroy Israel. Hates Israel. Condemns peace with Israel.

Logical conclusion: Killing spree in near future.
Want to argue? Cite history, evidence, or admissions to the contrary.

Alireza Jafarzadeh FNC Clips

Iranian Nuclear Activity Video

Iranian Nuclear Activity Video

Iran: Nuclear Scare Video