Considering the great success of our Intelligence community about September Eleven, I would say that it is safe to assume that iran will get the bomb in about...YESTERDAY.

All the rest is a futile exercise in Washington politics.

Are you going to defend us, Mr. president ?

As someone said: "THAT is the question".

Posted by: POITIERS-LEPANTO at August 31, 2006 12:08 PM

The Enemy: islam, the muslims that spread it, and the US State Department.

Posted by: mtriviso at August 31, 2006 12:10 PM

Have the powers that be considered Iran's recent zeal in testing long range missiles, their cozy relationships with North Korea, China, Syria and Russia just to name a few? Who says they need to develop their own warheads when their allies are probably more than willing to sell them a nuke.

It seems the US has gotten squeamish at the worst possible time in history. Iran has suddenly gotten to be a real danger to civilization, and the only real action that will be taken will need to involve Israel and/or the US. Hopefully we aren't going to wait 5-8 years. That's a death wish for the west.

Posted by: Muzzl'em at August 31, 2006 12:26 PM

POITIERS-LEPANTO

Exactly my thinking. The Intelligence community has had years to gather more than enough information to know what going to happen. What ever happened to Able Danger? They had enough information to act on it and they did nothing. Then they frantically covered it up. Heads should roll big time!!

Posted by: THSIMJ at August 31, 2006 12:32 PM

Let's drop a Nut-ron bomb on them code named Jimmy Carter.

Posted by: JanuaryMan at August 31, 2006 12:45 PM

While I certainly hope we have five years, I would not bet the farm on it. Five years can pass very quickly - It seems like 9/11 occurred only yesterday, but it has been .... 5 years. It is also interesting to note that the 5 year guestimate puts the need to take action well into the watch of the next POTUS, letting "W" off the hook. Sort of like Billy-Bob Clinton not being on duty for 9/11. OT - Robert did very well as a guest on Baltimore's Tom Marr radio show 680AM this morning

Posted by: MP at August 31, 2006 12:46 PM

I know the US military is strained by Iraq and Afghanistan, but would it really be that much of a problem to destroy Iran's nuclear capability with missiles and airstrikes? Just tell Iran that if they don't cease all nuclear development, anything that could conceivably be related to their nuclear program will be flattened.

Posted by: Jesus Christ Supercop at August 31, 2006 12:49 PM

Who says they have to have a nuclear bomb like what we know and have? They could load a missle with plutonium and when the bomb explodes it just throws plutonium everywhere. It wouldn't have the explosive and detonating power of a normal nuke, but once the plutonium spreads, it makes the area unliveable. Kinda like throwing a water balloon.

Posted by: freewoman at August 31, 2006 12:52 PM

Sorry but I think thier timeline is complete horsesh*t, and as other posters have stated why trust or have confidence in our intelligence sources...the Iranians are probably laughing thier bu*ts with thsi assesement

Posted by: bondservant at August 31, 2006 12:57 PM

This 5 year estimate, like the previous 10 year estimate, was devised to allow GW to continue to do nothing regarding Tehran.

It's whole purpose is cover, and it was probably created by Armitage, Powell type of "military" people, who are in the midst of a jihad against this administration, and share the attitudes and prejudices of Scowcroft and his ilk.

This is designed to allow GW to leave office with the fig leaf that the Iranian problem didn't become ripe on his watch. It's a dodge, it's a disgrace, it's pusillanimous and degenerate, and the only thing that will result is the incineration of tens and tens and tens of millions of people.

Posted by: Dan at August 31, 2006 12:59 PM

5 years, that is such BS.

They already have them.

Bomb them now on our terms!

Posted by: km at August 31, 2006 1:02 PM

And REMEMBER when I said that the CONSENSUS OPINION AMONGST OUR ELITES WAS FORMULATING AND EXECUTING OUR FOREIGN POLICY REGARDING IRAN, remember that, McInerney just said as much, when he said that the State Department is in the lead, and that the White House has subscribed to their view. Rather, the White House hasn't subscribed so much, as they lack the nerve, the fortitude, the morality to continue a robust war effort. Bush has been battered, bruised, subjected to withering scorn, and thus we have a time-server, instead of a Commander in Chief.

And I knew it.

It's like Scowcroft, Baker, Powell and Armitage had won the policy disputes, all because Bush hasn't got it left in him to do anything more than give feel good recovery speeches about Katrina.

We need a Gingrich, we need a man with the ability and clarity to destroy our enemies, take on the establishment, unleash this economy, and explain persuasively his agenda to the American people.

NEVER AGAIN should be our cry, whenever we ponder putting some verbal cripple in the White House. His verbal debilitation is but a reflection of a larger moral and strategic erraticness.

Posted by: Dan at August 31, 2006 1:07 PM

The Times claims there's "a general lack of urgency within the Bush administration" despite the fact that his administration has been addressing this very issue in a highly visible manner for months now. Privately, he's been doing it for years. As "proof" of its unfounded claims, the Times quotes Retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney--emphasis on the RETIRED. He says "Mr. Bush is now following the State Department's diplomatic path, without a clear policy." Actually, Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice is following President Bush's diplomatic path, as anyone with a television or internet access can plainly see.

The truth is, Gen. McInerney doesn't have the slightest idea what the President is thinking, or what he's planning to do.

This is just another attempt by the Times to smear Bush, and sabotage the mission in Iraq. "Oh, look, look! Bush is wasting time in Iraq when the real threat is Iran!" We all know that when the time comes to take out Iran, the Times will be at the forefront of efforts to prevent military action. It did the same thing with Iraq--remember? The subterfuge of pointing fingers at the Iranian and North Korean problems to drum up opposition to the mission in Iraq has been going on for years.

U.S. ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton is giving a live press conference on Iran's nuclear weapons program right this very second. Now, who do you suppose put him up to that? The man "without a clear policy," of course. Bolton is emphasising the vital nature of confronting Iran.

Iran will be dealt with in due course. Anyone who thinks otherwise, hasn't been paying attention to the President's words and actions since 911.

I predict Iran will take it in the neck in 1997.

Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at August 31, 2006 1:10 PM

I thought one of the shame-on-you styled arguments by this administration was cleaning up the inaction or mess left by the previous administrations. What about the concern for our children and the legacy left?

As far as how far Iran has progressed, it depends on who you listen to. For my money, the clerics are not going to wait to be hit first. All it would take to ruin Israel is one bomb, even if just and EMF strike. If they do that Iran will basically cease to exist since Israel now has a second nuclear arm via their subs.

As far as fighting them "over there" instead of over here, we better get on the ball. One Scud launched from a ship could do massive damage to any major city in the US, containing EMF or WMD destruction.

How many lines in the sand are we to continue to redraw back towards our own feet? Let's go after the major source of terrorism the world over instead of diverting our men in a no-win situation.

Posted by: amana39 at August 31, 2006 1:21 PM

What about the benefits of removing a tyrant and leader of genocide? Where did that argument go?
Now they are talking to these people:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/29/AR2006082901275.html

Posted by: amana39 at August 31, 2006 1:24 PM

Given the track record of the clowns at Langley I wouldn't believe any estimate out of their shop and I certainly wouldn't bet the farm on it. Weren't these the same people who were famously wrong in the length of time they predicted it would take the DPRK to develop a long range missle? I believe they arrived at this way too long figure by just making the beginning assumption that the DPRK would not be able to buy a functioning missile but would have to go through the laborious, time-consuming and very easily observable R & D process to produce such a missile.

Pakistan's Dr. Khan was passing around nuclear knowhow and equipment for many years, so was the DPRK. Russia has a surplus of nuclear scientists who used to be among the priveleged, well-paid elite and who now just want to fend off starvation; reportedly some wanted to sell their expertise to the highest bidder. Couple this with the Soviet's very loose accounting and control procedures when it came to things nuclear and it is not too farfetched to believe that the Iranians, with unlimited cash at their disposal, have been able to buy the technology, processed nuclear materials and expertise for a crash program to build a bomb or perhaps even to have purchased a ready to go nuclear weapon. I would also not get fixated on the very public progress of the Iranian's nuclear work, when it is quite possible that the real work, work that may be markedly in advance of what is shown to the world, is being done quietly out of the limelight.

Given the almost daily ravings of Ahmadinejad, very comparable to Hitler's speeches, preemption is looking better every day.

Posted by: GaryK at August 31, 2006 1:44 PM

Didn't our Commander-in-Chief once say something about states that sponsor terrorism? I think it was around five years ago...

And isn't it patently clear that Iran sponsors terrorism? Hizblah, etc.

WTF George?? TAKE 'EM OUT. The nuke issue is just added incentive. CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER. Hello?

Posted by: Know Your Enemy at August 31, 2006 1:56 PM

Iran is surrounded on all sides by American troops and armament. The mission in Iraq is winding down, and troop levels are projected to be drastically reduced by next year, freeing them up for other campaigns. The congressional elections will also be over by next year. The military is ready now in case of emergency, but 1997 is the most strategic time to launch an attack. Bush will be President until 2009.

President Bush has been stressing the option of taking preemptive military action against our enemies since 2002. He has stated unequivocally that he will not allow Iran--which he named as a member of "the axis of evil"--to develop nuclear weapons, and that he will not rely on diplomacy.

The U.N. deadline for the mullahs to end their uranium enrichment program passed today.

Where have you people been for the last 4 years? Do you honestly believe the Mullahs will make it past 1997?

Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at August 31, 2006 1:57 PM

Iran has a specified number of centrifuges of a particular design. It takes a tremendous amount of refinement to get UraniumHexaflouride from "useless" to "90% Enrichment" ['Highly Enriched'-HEI]. Given the capacity of the current design, and the number of centrifuges, Iran *could* concievably have enough bomb grade Uranium for weaponization in about 10 years. This assumes for 10 years that funding, will, and technical ability remain constant.

If they do not move toward making "highly enriched Uranium", then they have sufficient industrial capacity to supply the so-called 'peaceful use' criteria, because civillian usage of Uranium requires only 30% to 50% enrichment. In otherwords, the existing centrifuges would fill all their need for civillian electrical power from nuclear sources. And, that would probably be acceptable to the US & allies.

So, the point becomes arguable: 'are they complying with the NPN Act by staying under the 90% limits?' The useless-UN has already confirmed that HEI has been detected on several occasions in Iran's program.

Three months ago, Iran announced the expansion of their centrifuge program to 10k centrifuges. It announced it would take 3 years or so to get all 10k centrifuges built, installed and operational. When fully operational, the time required to process uranium to 'HEI-bomb quality' drops from "many years" to a couple months.

There lies the real threat. What if Iran decides to stockpile enormous amounts of civillian grade Uranium such that if the day comes to switch from "civillian" to "millitary" use, they need only refine the U4 to HEI. By then, the infrastructure for massive and quick processing will be in place, with most of the processing work already done.

The definition of "civillian use" becomes the arguable word here.

Posted by: MikeMontana at August 31, 2006 2:00 PM

Going by Amadinejad incendiary rhetoric Iran has a bomb now that they bought and/or will have one within a year.

Posted by: dennisw at August 31, 2006 2:04 PM

Oops! I meant to write: "2007 is the most strategic time to launch an attack"

By the way, President Bush appeared on television today and reiterated the statement: Iran will not be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon." Ambassador Bolton appeared and said that sanctions against Iran will be enforced. Those sanctions that people scoff at include the option of MILITARY FORCE.

I mean really. The Washington Times is on top of the situation and the President of the United States isn't? The hand-wringing hysteria around here is misplaced. You'll all remember what I wrote come 2007, when the mullahs are being exterminated.

Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at August 31, 2006 2:08 PM

Jeff - I wish that I could share your faith in President Bush. We have been "at war" for almost five years, and he has yet to gain control of our own national borders.

Posted by: MP at August 31, 2006 2:13 PM

Prediction(s): W will launch an attack before his term is out. It will be sudden, sweeping, without warning. I don't think he cares about Polls. This is one thing that's in his favor. He might not enunciate every word(or many words)clearly, but he seems to consistently get his points on Iran, each time with vigor. This Bolton game will play itself out; this too is Bush's cover: "Look, we tried with resolultion after resolution in the UN, we tried to sweeten the pot--offering cash, technology, but they rejected all overtures." Iran sees W as damaged goods--so they probably will not bite. W is damaged goods, but he's still the President. He willl act coldly without warning and bomb Iran back to Allah, Inshahala! Nobody will stop him. Even the Saudis will be glad to see the Iranian menace spaded and neutered. As for the price of crude. It will initially jump up, but then possibly dive when it's determined Iran is neutered.

Posted by: biorabbi at August 31, 2006 2:23 PM

americaningermany:

You're pettifogging. You know full well that the intent of the President's statement was that Iran will not be allowed to posses nuclear weapons--something he has said in the past.

And no, now is not a good time to launch an attack on Iran's nuclear program. I've already explained why.

Would you rather see Iran's nuclear program set back by an American bombing and missile campaign, or would you rather wait until 2007 and have the mullahs taken out along with their weapons program?

I know which outcome I want to see.

The mullahs are dead men walking. I'm not worried about Iran's nukes in the slightest, nor should I be, but time will tell.

Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at August 31, 2006 2:29 PM

A time line of the pioneering effort to develop a nuclear bomb:
Manhattan Project initiated: June 1942
Fermi brings CP-1 Critical at the University of Chicago: Dec 1942
Enrichment plant construction beings at Oak Ridge: 1943
U-235 rolls off the line: 1945
Trinity explosion: July 1945 (Three Years and One Month after project begins
Hiroshima: August 1945

It’s a lot harder to develop and troubleshoot new techniques than it is to buy them from Russia.

The Manhattan Project

Posted by: limes at August 31, 2006 2:38 PM

I like the way you think, Biorabbi. It's obvious that Bush has had this planned for years. The staging grounds in Iraq, Turkmenistan, and Afghanistan are already set. The Persian Gulf is ours.

I agree with your attack assessment. Bush will start with a surprise aerial campaign to take out key installations--including a council of the mullahs. Massing extra troops on the borders would tip the mullahs off. I expect him to add troops to key locations gradually until then, to avoid notice. There are already enough in place to start things off.

The Iranian people will help us. The first ones they'll go after are those "religious police" thugs, many of whom had to be imported from other muslim countries.

The mullahs and their pet monkey Amahdinejad are living on time.

Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at August 31, 2006 2:40 PM

I do wish Tom McInerney's advocacy gets followed by the Pentagon, and in addition to all the targets he mentions, all the Russian built reactors get taken out. Only thing I'd add to his list of targets

• President's palace in Teheran;
  
• Majlis building in Teheran - wipe out their leadership while in session in a first strike without warning
  
• Qum
  
• Ayatollah Roohoolah Khomenei's tomb in Teheran
  
• Wipe out Iran's military while at it, destroy their air force and navy, etc.
  

I doubt that US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan would be of any use* - this will have to be an air campaign with the goals of achieving all listed above. Please no US projects of installing democracy - let the Iranians do that on their own. Let there be a civil war between Islamists and Apostate-wannabes. Let there be a civil war between Farsis vs Azeris, Kurds, Khuzestani Arabs and Baluchis.

*Reason US troops already in Afghanistan and Iraq are of no use is that Iran already has allies in both countries - Moqtada al Sadr, Maliki and most Shia in Iraq who would launch attacks on them (in fact, the need to attack Iran is a good reason Iraq should be evacuated), while in Afghanistan, both Tajiks (particularly Ismail Khan) and Hazaras (Karim Khalili) are allies of Iran (which is why US troops should leave Afghanistan as well.) Do that, and topple the regime in Iran. Support for the Syrians and Hizbullah would dry up automatically, with a civil war following in Syria.

As far as nuking goes, when (not if) it comes to that, I'd prefer huge population centers like Karachi, Lahore, Dhaka, Aceh, Djakarta to be the targets, rather than Mecca, which could be levelled with conventional weapons. You'd see the number of Muslims fall below that magical 1 billion mark that they are so proud of gloating about.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at August 31, 2006 3:08 PM

I think that you are being way too optimistic about the bravado of GWB. he failed miserably with the Iraq war. yes, it was a legal war and a moral war and one that should have been done years earlier but GWB's complete trust in Rumsfeld led to complete failure. they failed to crush the enemy. in today's political and global environment, the West is not allowed to prosecute a war correctly and to the fullest extent needed to quickly and totally destroy the enemy. look what happened in Lebenon. there is no way that GWB is going to start another war without Iran starting it.

also, the proposed plans of simply bombing the mullahs and the nuclear sites and possibly their military is not going to win over the Iranian public. look what happened in Iraq. we executed a small scale invasion with precision air strikes...their military did not fight us, they blended in with the civilians and we are still fighting them. it was thought that Iraq's civilians would help us, they didn't. they fought us and Iran has been helping them fight us. Iran has been helping hezbollah to fight the Israelis. we have been in an in-direct conflict with Iran since 2004. even without the nuclear crisis, we have the legal and moral right to attack Iran, but we haven't.

we could set back their nuclear programs, but it's optimistic to think that their will be a successful revolution in Iran.

Posted by: viahj at August 31, 2006 3:23 PM

Jeff Bargholz,

I have to second that point about the Iranian people aiding us once it begins. The majority of these people have no love-loss for these "religious" stormtroopers who impose their sharia madness on a daily basis. Hopefully, we could stimulate an effective resistance movement in conjunction with the air campaign. I, for one, would like to DELAY any ground offensive untill the situation is somewhat softened. Time will tell.

The four pillars of islam remain:
Projection,Deception,Victimization,Infiltration

Posted by: We need G.C. Scott at August 31, 2006 3:55 PM

has anyone heard of "disinformation"? perhaps the US military is doing this to make the Iranian nutjobs think they have more time on their hands. two can play this game, and l dont doubt that the US military and intelligence community have and are using "disinformation", let the NYT say all they want, the iranians seems to read and trust the NYT, its to the advantage sometimes for the US government.

Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at August 31, 2006 4:06 PM

"Oh, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that we've actually given Iran nuclear weapons.
Hell, we give the islamic tyrants everything else.

Posted by: americaningermany"

That statement may be too rash. However, there is a sense that the genie was let out of the bottle, when security services neglected the dangers of the Islamic bomb.

As reported in earlier posts on this Site, security services in the Netherlands in 1975 were aware that Khan was stealing the designs for making an atomic bomb. When the Dutch alerted the CIA, they were told to let Dr. Khan carry on.

Dutch TV’s Nova program from September 9th 2005 shows an interview with the startled judge Anita Leeser who until this day does not understand why her judgement in the case of theft of state secrets several years later, in the absence of Khan, was incredulously suspended by the Ministry for Legal affairs on grounds of "technicality".

The program also shows an interview with Judge FG Bauduin who shared the bench with Mrs. Leeser on this case. Bauduin recounts that Dr. Khan’s file subsequently mysteriously vanished irrecoverably from the Amsterdam court archives, something absolutely unheard of.

Importantly, the program also includes bits from the Lubbers interview from August 2005 in which the ex-Prime Minister reveals that the case was driven by the CIA from Washington. " These things are always decided in Washington, it was Washington, not The Hague...We were told to let him (i.e. Abdul Qadeer Khan) go, that they were watching him, drawing information on him. But as a result now we have the Pakistani bomb… " Lubbers said.

Link to the Nova Program:

http://www.novatv.nl/index.cfm?ln=nl&fuseaction=videoaudio.details&reportage_id=3709

Head of the CIA station in The Hague in 1975, (when the Dutch discovered the nuclear espionage of master spy Kahn), was Howard T. Bane who retired to Fairfax Virginia a few years ago. Bane had weekly meetings with the Dutch Security Service (BVD) during the years Khan purloined the nuclear plans for Pakistan. Bane would have been the man to pass on the instructions from the CIA to Holland not to interfere with Khan.

Posted by: Hugo Schmidt-Fischer at August 31, 2006 4:10 PM

Gen. McInerney advocates using B-2 stealth bombers, cruise missiles and jet fighters to conduct a one- or two-day bombing campaign to take out Iran's air defenses, military facilities and about 40 nuclear targets, which includes a Russian-built reactor and an enrichment plant.

That's beyond idiotic. Same mentality as of the planners of the Iraqi 'cakewalk'. It would take a lot more than a '2-day bombing campaign' to neutralize the Iran threat. It's just common sense that only a full scale war would do the job.

We would need NATO's full cooperation on this. No NATO country would agree to go to war as long as the Neocons run the White House.

Posted by: george_rem at August 31, 2006 4:13 PM

Jeff Bargholz: The Iranian people will help us.

LMAO!! Just like the Iraqis welcomed us with flowers and kisses, right? Frankly, you have to be either delusional or simply stupid to expect that the Iranians (or any Muslim peoples) will ever "help us".

The only way to neutralize the Iranian threat is a full scale war, followed by an iron fist occupation.

Posted by: george_rem at August 31, 2006 4:27 PM

Heaven help the poor pilot who is given the flight roster instructing him to risk his life and a multi-billion dollar aircraft to bomb a tomb, lol.

While I agree in spirit Ayatollah Khomenei's tomb would make a symbolically significant target, I think that is the kind of thing better left for tearing down after a regime has been deposed.

I don't think the GWB administration paid attention to nor even considered the compostion of Iraq. The only thing that could keep Shia and Shiite from each others throats on this Earth was a Stalinist type leader like Saddam. People should see that by now. Oh, unless you are a neocon democracy spreader who should be buying bridges in Brooklyn or just a blind W cheerleader.

There is strong support from the Shah's family. But introducing ex-pat groups who have lived in the US for 25 years as rulers in Iran would be akin to a Bay of Pigs type invasion.

The good things to remember are 1) we control the airspace between the Mediterranian / Isreal and Iran and 2) we have substantial ground forces to protect a troop deployment to the region --probably THE only valid reason for the US to remain in Iraq now.

Posted by: GreatShaitan at August 31, 2006 4:27 PM

Hello,

This is a great blog. I'm going to be sure to link yours to mine. Would you mind doing the same for me?

Thank you very much.

My site:
www.americanlegends.blogspot.com

Take care,
Mark

Posted by: J. Mark English at August 31, 2006 4:29 PM

"No NATO country would agree to go to war as long as the Neocons run the White House." I have difficulty imagining there will be widespread support no matter who is running the White Hose

Posted by: MP at August 31, 2006 4:32 PM

errrr House, that's White House

Posted by: MP at August 31, 2006 4:34 PM

I kinda think "White hose" is more fitting. Like a rumming stream you cant shut off of "Islam is peace" and "OK Iran, one more chance".

Posted by: weekendhammerman at August 31, 2006 4:52 PM

Off topic sorry, but More4 is going to screen a drama about President Bush being assasinated for the leftist's pleasure. It will be thought provoking and probably full of shit.

Check it out at: www.thisislondon.co.uk/news

Posted by: Mert at August 31, 2006 4:53 PM

george and others . . . we need NATO support. Why? Whomever bombs Iran will be condemmed. That's a given. They'll be hated, villified, made fun of, lampooned with another V for Vendetta, the leftists will blame America. Who cares? Churchill was unloved If I recall. How will NATO help? Troops, aircover, maybe political cover. The international community will dither endlessly. Why do we need to send in any troops. To delay the bomb for 4-5 years would be a success. Who says we can't bomb 'em again if needed. Should the regime fall, great. Should it not fall, great. Why is that our problem. If the people rise up and replace the Mullahs, we can aid them.

If one thing has been learned in Iraq, it's this: we may have targets for our own purposes, but just because we 'broke' something, doesn't mean we have to 'fix' it. Islam cannot be 'fixed,' surely not from without, but, as Hugh and other point out, it can be constrained.

Posted by: biorabbi at August 31, 2006 4:57 PM

Thought I'd cut & paste this article by Scott Sagan at Foreign Affairs, which I agree with.

--quote--
PREVENTING THE UNTHINKABLE
The ongoing crisis with Tehran is not the first time Washington has had to face a hostile government attempting to develop nuclear weapons. Nor is it likely to be the last. Yet the reasoning of U.S. officials now struggling to deal with Iran's nuclear ambitions is clouded by a kind of historical amnesia, which leads to both creeping fatalism about the United States' ability to keep Iran from getting the bomb and excessive optimism about the United States' ability to contain Iran if it does become a nuclear power. Proliferation fatalism and deterrence optimism reinforce each other in a disturbing way. As nuclear proliferation comes to be seen as inevitable, wishful thinking can make its consequences seem less severe, and if faith in deterrence grows, incentives to combat proliferation diminish.

A U.S. official in the executive branch anonymously told The New York Times in March 2006, "The reality is that most of us think the Iranians are probably going to get a weapon, or the technology to make one, sooner or later." Such proliferation fatalists argue that over the long term, it may be impossible to stop Iran -- or other states for that matter -- from getting the bomb. Given the spread of nuclear technology and know-how, and the right of parties to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) to enrich uranium and separate plutonium, the argument goes, any foreign government determined to acquire nuclear weapons will eventually do so. Moreover, the 1981 Israeli attack on the Osirak nuclear reactor in Iraq may have delayed Iraq's progress, but similar air strikes are unlikely to disable Iran's capacities, since its uranium-enrichment facilities can be hidden underground or widely dispersed. Imposing economic sanctions through the UN Security Council is clearly a preferable option. But as Washington learned with India and Pakistan in the 1980s and 1990s, sanctions only increase the costs of going nuclear; they do not reduce the ability of a determined government to get the bomb.

Faced with only unattractive options to stem proliferation, some Bush administration officials are reluctantly preparing to live with a nuclear Iran. Military planners and intelligence officers have reportedly been tasked with developing strategies to deter Tehran if negotiations fail. Washington officials cry that the sky is falling whenever they face the prospect of a hostile state's getting the bomb, yet they seem to find solace in the recollection that deterrence and containment did work to maintain the peace during the Cold War. So why worry that the latest crop of rogue regimes might prove less deterrable than the Soviet Union and China? The Bush administration already appears to have adopted this logic with respect to North Korea. According to The New York Times, administration officials privately predict that deterrence will work against Pyongyang: "The North Koreans know that a missile attack on the United States would result in the vaporization of Pyongyang," the paper quoted an official as saying. And if deterrence can work with Kim Jong Il, why not with Ayatollah Ali Khamenei? ..--end quote--

Posted by: A. Major at August 31, 2006 5:09 PM

re: V for Vendetta

Just getting around to watching that now. I actually find myself perfectly in agreememnt with the governemments stance in that film. "Things had to be done." Oh well, I guess I am an ultra conservative.

Biggest Dhimmi moment in the film was when the guy has a 14th Century Koran and he says he likes to "read it for the poety, it is peaceful"

Um, wrong book dude.

Posted by: GreatShaitan at August 31, 2006 5:15 PM

'And if deterrence can work with Kim Jong Il, why not with Ayatollah Ali Khamenei?'

I'd argue that its because Kim Jong Il, although a whack-job, seeks rational things like money and power (and the world's largest porno collection and a job as a movie director) and can use his weapons to enhance his negotiating position.

Islam seeks the aims of the Qu'ran, which are non-negotiable.

Posted by: limes at August 31, 2006 5:20 PM

george_rem said

The only way to neutralize the Iranian threat is a full scale war, followed by an iron fist occupation.

Ix-nay on the occupation-nay. After Afghanistan, Iraq, then the Aceh tsunami, and now the rebuilding/rearming of Lebanon, I think we've done more than our fair share of Islamic nation building.

Destroy, then leave. Repeat as necessary.

Posted by: special_guest at August 31, 2006 5:38 PM

This monstrosity of the proliferating Islamic Bomb should be stopped cold.

Just last week, on August 25th, 2006, five executives of a precision instruments maker in Japan were arrested on suspicion of illegally exporting equipment to Malaysia that could be used in making nuclear weapons.

The Tokyo Metropolitan Police arrested the president and four other executives of Mitutoyo for allegedly exporting advanced measuring devices without government permission to an unspecified recipient in Malaysia, a police spokesman said.

While the police provided few details, reports in the Japanese news media said the devices were sold to Scomi Precision Engineering, a company that was part of the network used by Abdul Qadeer Khan, the Pakistani nuclear scientist. Scomi Precision's parent, the Scomi Group, was principally owned by Kaspadu, a holding company linked to a Sri Lankan businessman, B.S.A. Tahir, now in custody in Malaysia. Tahir has been accused of helping Khan to distribute controlled nuclear technology to Iran.

The sophisticated machines produced by Mitutoyo, normally used in the precision manufacture of parts for commercial products like automobiles, can also be used in making the centrifuges that enrich uranium for weapons production.

Posted by: Hugo Schmidt-Fischer at August 31, 2006 5:47 PM

Yes, special guest, yes. No more occupation. My daughter's boyfriend is leaving for Iraq shortly and I keep wondering, what the hell for?

Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at August 31, 2006 5:57 PM

Israel as plainly showed the Middle East that it is prepared to use massive force in retaliation against Hezbollah. Even Nasrallah himself is reported to have said he was shocked by the ferocity of Israel’s response. The only reason Israel was stopped from completing its mission was the pressure from the peace at all cost brigade working in unison with Iran’s proxy war fighters in Lebanon.

As for the Iranian bomb there is no proof that Iran does not already have one or more. But evidence shows that the assurance of mutual destruction is a powerful deterrent to any nation with global aspirations. The USSR never got to the stage of actually invading Europe because the response would have been so devastating that it would have left the Soviet army two weeks from Paris with no homeland to go back to.

I think the real men in power in Iran want the bomb because then they will be sat at the top of the table in the Middle East and they can rattle sabres with Israel on every level.

I fail to see too many mistakes that Iran have made dealing with their enemies, and I fail to see why they would throw all their cunning away when they get their bombs by using them to kill Israel in some all or nothing Allah will save me assault that will take away their ability to live in their own country for a very long time.

At the end of the day Dinnerjacket might be the paid lunatic scary monster made to keep the jihad rolling forward while the real men in power play chess with us.

I wonder if George Bush is good at chess?

Posted by: Mert at August 31, 2006 6:13 PM

viahj:

The Taliban and Saddam Hussein said the same thing you did about GWB's "bravado."

You claim that President Bush failed miserably in the Iraq "war," but you cant support this claim. Indeed, you don't even try. All you say is that he failed to crush the terrorists.

Oh really?

The terrorists in Iraq have failed utterly to achieve a single one of their self-declared goals. They tried to prevent the formation of a Governing Council and failed. They failed to stop municipal elections. They failed to stop the first General Election. They failed to stop the writing of the new democratic Constitution. They failed to keep the Sunnis out of the political process. They failed to provoke a "civil" war between the Sunnis and Shiites. They failed to shut down essential government services such as schools, hospitals and police forces. They failed to stop the production of oil. They failed to stop small businesses and farms from flourishing. They failed to destroy water electricity service. Most of all, they have failed to drive America out of Iraq.

The terrorists have been unable to prevent the democratization of Iraq despite murdering and terorizing: Council members, political candidates, voters, Constitutional drafters, teachers, students, doctors, patients, business owners, farmers, police officers and applicants, Sunnis, Shiites, reporters, aid workers, oil field roustabouts, et al.

Where is Zarqawi? Where is a figurehead terrorist leader? Where is a large, strong, centralized terrorist organization? Coalition forces are popping them off like cans on a fence. How many were killed in the battle of Falujah alone? 1 sniper had more than 100 confirmed kills! In the last 3 months, 100,00 to 130,000 terrorists and "insurgents" have been greased by coalition troops. The IED attacks are way down, the Iraqi security forces are conducting their own successful hunt and kill missions, and it's hard for the terrorists to find morons willing to become human bombs nowadays.

The Coalition HAS been accomplishing ITS goals, despite hysterical claims to the contrary by the establishment media. The agricultural sector is flourishing. Iraq now exports food to neighboring countries, instead of relying on the U.N.'s Oil For Food Program. (Oil For Weapons, Torture Chambers and Palaces.) There are no more refugees fleeing Iraq. People are flooding BACK. The Iraqi Dinar is far stronger than it was under Hussein's reign. There is a private sector boom of small and medium sized businesses. The Iraqi economy is doing better than any other in the region. The GDP has doubled since Hussein's overthrow, with a growth rate of 52.3%. Exports have increased by more than $3 billion (American $,) while inflation fell to 25.4%, down from 70% in 2002. The unemployment rate dropped from 60% to 30%. Privately owned television stations and newspapers have emerged.

Also worthy of note, is that the security forces cant handle the volume of applicants showing up. Former "insurgents" recognize a winner and are switching sides. The terorists are desperate, as their captured documents and communications show.

All of this was accomplished with ridiculously low casualty figures on our side. In WWII, which is usually cited as the model of a successful war, things didn't go nearly as well. America lost battle after battle for years. Casualty rates were horrific throughout the war. There were 2500 deserters roaming around Europe. Rape was so common that Gen. Eisenhower considered public hangings of soldiers as a deterrent. Intelligence failures were constant and costly. In 1944, when the war was thought to be nearly over, the Germans made a successful counterthrust that took the allies completely by surprise. Japan was ready to fight on to the last man until the second atomic bomb was dropped. Not even the first one was able to deter them! The reconstruction effort for Germany and Japan took more than a decade, and the German and Japanese are competent, well organized people--the Iraqis are anything but.

Are things going perfectly? No. Are they going better than the public thinks they are? Yes. Astronomically better. If the President would tell the public what I just shared with you, opposition to the mission in Iraq (it's not a war,) among mainstream America would virtually end. Only the America-last moonbats would continue to oppose it.

Tell me honestly. Did you have previous knowledge of the information I just shared with you? Based on your understandable desire to crush our enemies, I don't believe you did.

The Iranian public hates the mullahs. Expatriot Iranians and "dissidents" in Iran have been BEGGING America to overthrow the mullahs, or at least give them the means to do so. Most Iranians love America. Why? Because the mullahs hate it, and they assume anything the mullahs hate is good. They have satellite television, so they know how Westerners live compared to them. The older generation remembers what it was like to live without the mullahs.

The Iranian people will gladly welcome the liberation of their country. They won'r want an occupation, but Iran is not Iraq, and Iranians are not Arabs. They wont need such a heavy hand, and Iran is not needed as a staging ground.

My predictions are based on observation, research, and intuition, not insider knowledge, but one thing is certain: time will tell.

Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at August 31, 2006 6:20 PM

George_Rem:

Common sense dictates that a full scale war is not necessary to take out the mullahs. Their hold on power isn't strong enough to withstand an American nudge and the wrath of the Iranian public.

NATO is a relic and a joke. America uses it as a proxy, and that's all it's good for.

Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at August 31, 2006 6:35 PM

George_Rem:

You won't advance your wild theories with ad hominems. I've explained in detail why your distortions about the mission in Iraq are bogus, and how the mullahs can be taken out.

What do you have as a rebuttal, other than ineffectual insults?

Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at August 31, 2006 6:39 PM

Jeff your post is terrific, l know there are lots of malcontents, but if we can get Iraq on track, and they can pass the UN human rights equality acts, maybe sharia law will be null anf void. negativity is prolific on the drive by media, old media, good news is hard to find. hopefully kofi can be replaced and get someone on board that is pro west, and anti
the forces of evil ie, islam. look at dafur, cannot the liberals of the west see who is killing who? will they not want those poor black Africans freed from their arab oppressors? l am perhaps off topic, but it is all related issues, which has the common feature of islam.

Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at August 31, 2006 6:42 PM

GreatShaitan:

The pilot of a stealth bomber would be in no danger from Iranian atrillery. Do some research.

I've provided a mountain of information that refutes your GWB cheerleader remark. Do you have anything concrete to support your obvious Bush Derangement Syndrome?

The Shites and Sunis are not engaged in a "civil war" in Iraq, despite the best efforts of the terrorists and Iran.

Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at August 31, 2006 6:48 PM

Jakarta is not a muslim city. Destroying it would be monstrous.

I don't believe there are a billion muslims.

I totally agree about your other bombing targets.
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz

As for the statistics, here's a breakdown (numbers in millions. Apologies for the formatting, but the html tags allowed here are totally retarded).

Country Total Percentage Net
Indonesia 217.558 87% 189.275
Pakistan 152.061 98% 149.020
India 1079.721 13% 137.125
Bangladesh 140.494 83% 116.610
Nigeria 139.823 50% 69.912
Turkey 71.727 95% 68.141
Iran 66.928 98% 65.589
Egypt 68.738 94% 64.614
Algeria 32.373 100% 32.373
Morocco 30.586 100% 30.586
Afghanistan 30 99% 29.700
China 1296.500 2% 25.930
Iraq 25.261 100% 25.261
Saudi Arabia 23.215 100% 23.215
Uzbekistan 25.930 88% 22.818
Europe 0.000 100% 20.000
Yemen 19.763 100% 19.763
Sudan 34.356 50% 17.178
Syria 17.783 90% 16.005
Malaysia 25.209 51% 12.857
Mali 11.937 90% 10.743
Somalia 9.938 100% 9.938
Tunisia 10.012 98% 9.812
Niger 12.095 80% 9.676
Senegal 10.455 92% 9.619
Azerbaijan 8.280 94% 7.783
Russia 142.814 5% 7.141
Kazakhstan 14.958 47% 7.030
Guinea 8.073 85% 6.862
Ivory coast 17.142 40% 6.857
Burkina-Faso 12.387 50% 6.194
Palestine 6.000 100% 6.000
Libya 5.674 97% 5.504
Tajikistan 6.430 85% 5.466
Jordan 5.440 94% 5.114
Chad 8.823 55% 4.853
Eritrea 4.477 100% 4.477
Turkmenistan 4.931 89% 4.389
United Arab Emirates 4.284 96% 4.113
Kyrghyzstan 5.099 75% 3.824
Cameroon 16.400 20% 3.280
Sierra Leone 5.436 60% 3.262
Uganda 25.920 12% 3.110
United States 293.000 1% 2.930
Mauritania 2.906 100% 2.906
Lebanon 4.554 60% 2.732
Albania 3.188 70% 2.232
Oman 2.659 75% 1.994
Mozambique 19.129 10% 1.913
Kuwait 2.460 75% 1.845
Benin 6.890 20% 1.378
Gambia 1.449 90% 1.304
Togo 4.966 15% 0.745
Bahrain 0.725 100% 0.725
Guinea-Bissau 1.533 45% 0.690
Djibouti 0.716 94% 0.673
Qatar 0.637 95% 0.605
Comoros 0.614 98% 0.602
Maldives 0.300 100% 0.300
Brunei-Dar us Salam 0.361 67% 0.242
Guyana 0.772 15% 0.116
Suriname 0.443 20% 0.089
Gabon 1.374 1% 0.014
Equitorial Guinea 0.506 0% 0.000
Total 1305.049

Of the above total, undoubtedly a number are athiests, but that's something very difficult to verify in these countries. If you do have better (i.e. more reliable) stats, I'll be happy to see them. The populations were taken from a world bank report, and the percentages from Wikipedia accounts of each country, so I'm open to correction on the latter. Note that to break you 1 billion number, you'll need to prove major descrepancies in the top 8 countries (upto Egypt): demonstrating mistakes in the others isn't going to dent your conclusions much.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at August 31, 2006 6:55 PM

A Major:

Scott Sagan relies on anonymous sources (ie:fake,)and the New York times to support his ludicrous fable about the White House being willing to live in a world of nuclear proliferation.

Iran will not get the bomb. Just today, Bush reiterated that if diplomacy fails, other means will be used to prevent them from getting one. Other means is a euphemism for any means necessary.

Sagan is not in possession of the facts. The Iranian nuclear program can be taken out with modern weaponry.

Pyongyang cannot "vaporize Seoul if attacked. They will immediately bombard it if attacked, but they won't be able to hit it with their alleged nukes or large missiles. Not only are they unreliable, as their test launches have proved, they will be the targets in the initial strike.

Sagan is the type of writer who tailors the facts to fit his opinions. His article is unreliable.

Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at August 31, 2006 7:03 PM

naseem, we're not all fox reporters here, I for one will never submit to your garbage cult. Allah is a lie. Don't tread on Americans.

Posted by: AMartinez at August 31, 2006 7:07 PM

Jeff,

a little background on me. first of all i'm a vet. every male in my family is a vet. i lost my brother in Iraq in 2003. i've follwed the developments in Iraq as close as anyone.

so yes, i was aware of most of your stats about Iraq. you misquoted me and then went on your to try and prove that Iraq is a success.

i specifically said we didn't crush the enemy. terrorists (imported or homegrown) are just one faction of the enemy. the baathists, the shi'ah militias (backed by Iran), the Kurdish PKK, and the Syrians. the failure was that we didn't crush all of them at the outset. GWB/Rumsfeld allowed these groups to fester and grow in support and arms and we've been cleaning up that mess for three years now and still ahve a ways to go. yes, i believe it can be successful but only if Iran stops interferring.

my point was the way in which this war was prosecuted gave us the ongoing terrorist and militia violence. to fight a PC war leads to insurgency. even if there is a strong democratic underground movement in Iran, the ones with all the weapons have shown just how brutal they can put down uprisings. if we bomb, the people in charge are not just going to give up power peacefully.

Posted by: viahj at August 31, 2006 7:09 PM

Aside from the nuke issue , Iran continues to destabilize Iraq, we must deal with Iran for any dreamed of "success" in Iraq

Posted by: bondservant at August 31, 2006 7:23 PM

Jeff's optimism is uncalled for.

The recent debacle in Lebanon has eroded whatever confidence I might have had in this administration's ability to pursue an arduous foreign policy goal, in the face of withering international criticism.

AND WHAT IS MORE, has obliterated whatever slim hope I might have had that the Israelis had the nerve to annihilate Tehran's Manhattan Project.

The Israelis are waffling badly.

GW's policy now encompasses Iraq, and little else.

And as for the endless trips to the UN demonstrating seriousness and resolve about Iran, I should remind one and all, that Clinton was wandering up to the UN all the time as well.

THE FACT that he wastes any effort at all in the UN tells me that he's desperately searching for an out, some diplomatic fig leaf to hide behind. Right now, the Washington foreign policy establishment has fully CONCEDED the bomb to Tehran, and all they're looking for, is some shred of diplomatic cover, some threadbare garment to veil that somber, sobering and solid fact from the American people. AND THE IRANIANS AREN'T EVEN ALLOWING THEM THAT.

Tehran is so contemptuous of us right now, that they're taunting us publicly, and to our face.

I don't know who they scorn more, those they deem less than apes and pigs, or this administration. It's a real toss up.

Posted by: Dan at August 31, 2006 7:32 PM

I listened to GWB speech live today in my living room at home in Scotland. Whilst some of you are pro W or con W the bottom line is his speech was compelling and I for one felt better after it! By all means he used the rhetoric to say, "we are gonna sort this out one way or another, your choice!"

Now if those of you are frustrated like me, honestly I understand, however I have a good feeling about NATO and the US-UK allies. We just dont put up with nonsense when it really comes down to it! In the UK I have been speaking to people who traditionally are not interested in politics (its just not interesting for us Brits)but everyone is saying if you dont like our country then f**k off. Apologies here for the language. Isnt that what GWB is really saying ie "come and have a go if you think you are hard enough, you jihad dhimmi son of a b!"

Nah honestly my friends the Iranians days are numbered but the intelligent less frustrated (like me) will ensure that the timings and number of attacks do enough to defeat our enemas (oops lol) without creating world war 3 or 4 depending on how you perceive the war on terror rhetoric. The Iranian mullahs will get their comeuponce soon. Lets just all be patient and give them a few days to work out what to do next sensibly. But if it were up to me Id blow up the whole of the middle east consistantly and so giving them democracy because when it boils down to it they wouldnt appreciate it even if we lost millions of american and British lives to give them it.

Posted by: M at August 31, 2006 7:37 PM

And BONDSERVANT is dead right, whatever hope we have of finally stabilizing Iraq, is predicated upon us removing the regime in Tehran. When all of IRAN is involved in some vast power struggle, or is establishing a new government, a real democratic one, then the support for the terrorists from Lebanon to Afghanistan, from Europe to the Philippines will vanish.

So much of this about Tehran. Damascus would never have found the nerve to trifle with us, especially after we took out Saddam, without the knowledge that Tehran is close to the bomb. Syria stands to be the prime Lieutenant to Tehran. But if Tehran should fall, Syria will immediately become passive, or implode. Doesn't matter really which.

The administration has badly conceived this thing. What they are trying to do in Iraq is important, it's surely part of a long range solution, because the prospect of keeping the muslims at one another's throats indefinitely is a pipe dream, but part of the solution ALSO ENTAILS SERIOUS military take downs of various dirtball regimes. Syria and Tehran leading the list.

This war should have begun on Iran, even before we got around to handling Afghanistan.

It should have been Iran First, just like we had a policy of Germany First in the Second World War.

Posted by: Dan at August 31, 2006 7:40 PM

Enough wordiness from all corners of the media and political establishment. It's so trite at this point and only serves to drive ratings and talking head egos.

We all know war with Iran is inevitable. This is an intractable conflict that cannot be solved diplomatically. We all know the primary targets will be nuclear sites with secondary strikes at the Persian political and military apparatus. We all know it will proceed with a Desert Storm-style naval and land-based air campaign. And we all have a fairly clear picture of the short term effects on global oil dynamics, financial markets, and the geopolitical landscape.

But what of the strategic accomplishments of the operation? We may take down or delay Iran's fission dreams but will we have the gusto to go as far as taking Ahmadinewallace and his brownshirts down? Or will we stop the assault like we did along the 1991 highway of death in Iraq? Will we let the generals or the bureaucrats fight the war? Will we declare war or declare that Islam is a religion of peace? Will we permit Iran a phony surrender to re-arm a la Nasrallah or will we drive the operation through to absolute and total victory? Will our leaders allow the attorneys, pundits, and cocktail party elitists to influence the course of battle?

And the list of questions could go on and on ad infinitum. Why? Because the US has forgotten how to fight total war. It is still living the Vietnam War on repeat. It has relegated victory to the stories, movies, and memorials of World War II. Sadly, contemporary victory is defined by accommodating the enemy and sacrificing all reason in exchange for positive media exposure, a futile exercise in stupidity.

There is hope though. US mid-term elections are about 60 days out. After that date has passed, President Bush is politically unencumbered. Just as we were concerned with 8/22, so the Persian leadership should be concerned with 11/8. It is not a far stretch for the President, whose campaigns have already toppled two dictatorships, to use his executive powers to bring down a third. The earliest indication we will have of this action will be the low hum of the B-2's departing Whiteman AFB under the dark of night, heading east. Far, far east.

Posted by: MadrassasippiBurnin at August 31, 2006 7:42 PM

Jeff,

You make some valid points r.e Iraq.

But I believe your good faith in the people of Iran maybe being a little too optimistic.

Iran may have its more enlightened sectors of society. But the roots of Mohamedism go deep, even in them.

Conclusion: Until Islam reforms all declared Muslims must be considered duplicitous and actively working to convert or subjugate you. The Iranian peoples leap to modernity is hardly guaranteed by removing the Mullocracy.

Posted by: km at August 31, 2006 7:43 PM

As much as I'd love to hear my President, Mr.G W Bush say! I just ordered our military to take out iran and it nuke projects. It will take a little time to set up this process. And today my president said, I don't care about the poll numbers. It ain't over yet, iran will not win.

Posted by: AMartinez at August 31, 2006 7:45 PM

lets face it it is all a game and GWB is not going to give his game plan away! Better he says it aint over yet, iran will not win, than, khoffi youre in charge!

Nah they are gonna be dealt with effectively, just not as quick as the frustrated (like me) or should I say enlightened.

Posted by: M at August 31, 2006 7:50 PM

Tehran is so contemptuous of us right now, that they're taunting us publicly, and to our face.

Posted by: Dan at August 31, 2006 07:32 PM

That is about the most accurate statement I have seen all week.

Posted by: km at August 31, 2006 7:51 PM

yes true

Posted by: M at August 31, 2006 7:51 PM

Infidel Pride:

Java and Sumatra are not totally islamic by any stretch of the imagination. The Indonesian government (which is incapable of conducting a census,) does not make that claim, and not even the muslims of Indonesia make that claim.

The 87% figure for Indonesian muslims roughly conforms to most other predictions, but it's flat out wrong. Ethnic Chinese make up more than 13% of the population (their numbers are also grossly understated in every study I've seen,) and none of them are muslim. The Indonesian government claims 15-20% of Indonesians are ethnic Chinese, and that 87-90% of Indonesians are muslim, so you can see how incompetent that government is. There are huge Christian areas in java, Sumatra, Borneo, and Sulawesi. Most of the Eastern Islands, particularly the Moluccas, are predominantly Christian, as is West Papua. Bali is primarily Hindu. The government claims 15% of Indos are Christian, despite its contrary claim that 90% of them are muslim. You can see the problem with their arithmetic.

You're right about the transmigrasi program. It's an attempt to alleviate the overpopulation of Java, but it's also used to spread islam. A good example of this islamic cancer is Sulawesi. It's also overcrowded, so muslims are transmigrated to Christian areas on other islands, particularly the Moluccas, which causes much of the religious strife you've read about. BUT--muslims are also transmigrated from Java to Sulawesi to supplement the muslims in the Central Highlands and the Poso area who are trying to supplant the Christian Torajans and other ethnic groups. Poso is where those schoolgirls were decapitated last year.

The thing is, there are far more Christians in Indonesia than any study claims. I don't know how many, but they're in every population center and even the majority of villages. So are the ethnic Chinese. I lived there for years, and I cant accurately guess the percentage of either, but I know from experience that a figure of 70% muslim is believable, but anything greater is horse-crap.

Another reason not to bomb Jakarta is that most Indonesians don't ascribe to jihad the way the wogs do, and are heretics by muslim standards. Very few of them practice anything near the real islam, and only a tiny fraction know what the koran really says. The Western lifestyle is emulated with verve. By and large, they have no desire to live in a medieval Arabian style society. The trouble with the fanatics seems like a bigger problem than it is because the Indonesian population is enormous.

Unfortunately, things are getting worse there, and America isn't paying any attention.

As far as the 1 billion number goes, I could be wrong, which is why I wrote that I don't believe it. I haven't researched it but i know muslims inflate their figures at all times, and with the pandemic corruption of the muslim world, population counts are heavily padded with non-existent people who are used to defraud the governments of money in work projects. Indonesian work crews on the government dime are usually staffed with up to 50% ghosts, and some are completely fraudulent. Prior to 911, most figures for muslims hovered around 180 million. After 911, those figures miraculously rose to 1 billion. (Ollie akbar!) Soon after, it was 1.2 or 1.3 billion.

I have no idea what it really is, but the most reliable source I've seen had it at less than a billion, but admitted the impossibility of knowing for sure. I'll try to dig it up. It was compiled by a group here in America, a Christian college or religious studies college, I think.

Anyway, i think we're on the same page regarding the islamopaths. Cheers.

Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at August 31, 2006 7:53 PM

Are you going to defend us, Mr. president ?

As someone said: "THAT is the question".

Posted by: POITIERS-LEPANTO at August 31, 2006 12:08 PM

Dubya is no more interested in American security than he is in American borders. But, you ask a very important question. Remember this when administration says things like:

- Iran far ahead in nuclear program, than previously anticipated.

- It is safe to say that it was a collective 'failure of intelligence'.

- Any action against Iran would have ment loosing our friends in the Arab world.

- We need to support the internal dissent to rise up against the oppressive Iranian rehime.

- What have we learnt from Iraq? That change of regime does not serve American inrterests, specially in the Middle East.

- State Department was on tyhe verge of a significant breakthrough when "this"* happened.

- Let us not "jump to conclusions"/"over-react".

"this" - mushroom cloud on ______(Tel Aviv / NY).

Posted by: Alert at August 31, 2006 8:04 PM

viahj:

I agree about the stupidity of fighting a P.C. war. Bush and Co. gave in to the pressure of the America-last left and went in with kid gloves. Unfortunately, in today's nauseating P.C. climate, crushing the enemy outright was probably never an option. The public has been conditioned by the Marxist left to quail at the mention of civilian casualties. The type of mass bombing that was so effective in WWII wouldn't be accepted nowadays. Not yet.

I definitely agree that the campaign should have been waged as ruthlessly as possible in today's political climate. By going in too soft, a standard was set that is going to be hard to change now. If it had been tougher and more effective from the beginning, the American public would have accepted that as much as it accepts the weaker version.

Allowing Fallujah to fester was one of the biggest mistakes of the war.

I agree with your assessment. It was your hyperbole about complete failure that I didn't agree with. Here's hoping the next American campaign is waged as mercilessly as possible. Cheers.

Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at August 31, 2006 8:10 PM

Mr Bargholz, speaking of p c crap. Look at how Israel is being treated by the press and the u n over supposed cluster bombs. You just cain't kill a lot of people indescriminately, unless your a jihadist, than you have the u ns blessing.

Posted by: AMartinez at August 31, 2006 8:23 PM

Jeff - I wish that I could share your faith in President Bush. We have been "at war" for almost five years, and he has yet to gain control of our own national borders.

Posted by: MP at August 31, 2006 02:13 PM

.... that pretty much sums up Dubya's "war on terror". This after holding hands with wahabi killers, helping his murder/ex-business family Bin Ladens to safety and backtracking on "Islamo-fascist" term after "the call" from Riyadh.

But the above sums up Dubya's "Protect America" plan, quite well.

Posted by: Alert at August 31, 2006 8:27 PM

Dan:

Your hatred for the Bush administration is clouding your judgement. If you read my comments, you know they were not based even in part on optimism.

Blaming Bush for Olmert's folly in Lebanon is a mistake, as is blaming the Israelis. Olmert is probably going to be voted out of office in a no confidence vote over his aborted, cosmetic mission to neutralize Hizb' Allah. He had the support of the Israeli people during the fighting, but he doesnt have it during the peace. whoever takes his place will not be so dovish. One look at Olmert's repulsive family is all it takes to figure him out. His wife and daughter are Pseudostinian activists, and his other daughter and son could be considered as such too.

Bush wasted time petitioning the U.N. before he invaded Afghanistan and Iraq as well. When the U.N. and Kofi Annan realized he really was going to invade Iraq, they did their utmost to stop him. Bush ignored them and went on in. His antics with the U.N. over Iran are a sop to diplomacy, the international community of America-haters and the American left. He knows as well as we do that the mullahs will continue to ignore the U.N's resolutions and bleats. When "diplomacy" (appeasement,) fails, the military option will be used. Surely you see that.

The mullahs have literally been getting away with murder for 26 years. They live in their own fantasy world, and don't understand that the old status quo is dead. On the other hand, they're deathly afraid that America will attack, which is why they're trying to develop nukes as fast as possible. They're so $hit for brains stupid, they think whatever puny nuclear capability they may achieve will deter an attack.

Ain't gonna happen.

Right now, Bush IS the Washington foreign policy establishment. The traitors in the State department are reduced mainly to leaking classified information nowadays. There's still a lot of cleaning up for Rice to do, but the President is calling the shots, not the Foggy Bottom scum.

Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at August 31, 2006 8:30 PM

km:

I never claimed the Iranians were ready to join civilization. I claimed they were more than ready to get rid of the mullahs--which they are. The mullahs are just too extreme for them.

Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at August 31, 2006 8:37 PM

Naseem you need to get with it and have a pulled pork sandwich. You are missing so much praying to a false god and child molesting prophut...MOMO

Posted by: Siciliano at August 31, 2006 8:41 PM

Dan:

It would have been impossible to invade Iran first. The American public wouldn't have allowed it. Afghanistan was first because the Taliban tried to harbor Bin loser. Iraq was second because of precedent. Saddam was violating the terms of the surrender he signed after the Gulf War as well as a slew of U.N. resolutions. You remember the outcry from the usual quarters when Bush decided to invade. Could you imagine the outcry if he had invaded Iran instead? Now there is a precedent to invade Iran.

The tactical reasons for invading Afghanistank and Iraq before Iran are also clear. As I wrote, we now have Iran surrounded.

As imperfect as the "war on terror" is, I cant see it progressing from Iran to Iraq.

Personally, if it were up to me, I would have destroyed most of the Middle East, impeachment be damned.

Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at August 31, 2006 8:44 PM

Would you rather see Iran's nuclear program set back by an American bombing and missile campaign, or would you rather wait until 2007 and have the mullahs taken out along with their weapons program?

I know which outcome I want to see.

Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at August 31, 2006 02:29 PM

What have you learnt frtom 9/11, Jeff? On 9/15, Dubya declared "we'll get Bin Laden Dead of alive" only to trakc back.... "He is hiding somewhere in a hole"... "I don't worry about him so much".. Not only that, Dubya stalled the same 9/11 commission, blackned pages from 9/11 report, took Saudi Arabia (where 9/11 killers came from), Pakistan (where 9/11 was hatched) as 'allies'. Hardly a record to get Bin Laden "dead or alive". Dubya is a phony 'war president' at best and a 'traitor' from there on.

You can dream on about the "outcome I want to see". I am under no such illusion.

Posted by: Alert at August 31, 2006 8:45 PM

km & M:

The Taliban and Saddam Hussein taunted us as well.

Where are they now?

Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at August 31, 2006 8:46 PM

Alert, its also up to Americans to protect America. Why oh why do we allow anyone to come across our borders with any repercussions of any sort is beyond me.

Posted by: AMartinez at August 31, 2006 8:54 PM

A Martinez:

Too true. The repulsive bouncing betty style rockets Hizb' Allah launched against Israeli civilians got a free pass. This is to be expected of the Ummah Nations, which revealed minute by minute updates of IDF positions while allowing the terrorists to shelter in and fire from UNIFIL posts.

Disgusting.

Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at August 31, 2006 8:54 PM

Alert:

You aren't going to draw me out. Your comments are ridiculous.

Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at August 31, 2006 8:57 PM

My advice ..."praise Allah instead"

Posted by: Naseem at August 31, 2006 05:44 PM

.. yea, praise allah who said 'earth is flat', which is ok for islamic barbarians dying for 72 virgins (sic) noone has seen.

Posted by: Alert at August 31, 2006 8:58 PM

LOL was wondering if Alert is the old man patriot,1,2,3,4,5, etc.

Posted by: AMartinez at August 31, 2006 8:59 PM

LOL was wondering if Alert is the old man patriot,1,2,3,4,5, etc.

Posted by: AMartinez at August 31, 2006 9:00 PM

Wow, looks like Jeff Bargholz got a job in the basement at the White House, surely popping up the morale, that fellow...(purely informative,of course)

Posted by: cosmicAvenger at August 31, 2006 9:05 PM

Jeff you make some very good points in your posts but I think that your reasoning in regards to the people of Iran moving towards a more moderate form of Islam is naive at best.

Even a cursory understanding of Islamic doctrine leads to the inescapiable conclusion that moderate Islam is nothing more than a charade.

The issue here is not Iran specifically but the Umma. Taking out Hussein and ousting the Taliban have done little to stop the world wide spread of the Da'wa and Jihad.

Posted by: km at August 31, 2006 9:08 PM

Alert, its also up to Americans to protect America. Why oh why do we allow anyone to come across our borders with any repercussions of any sort is beyond me.

Posted by: AMartinez at August 31, 2006 08:54 PM

AMartinez, I thought on the same lines as you do, but, I soon realized that Americans would do that, White House undermines Americnas (remember Dubya calling patriotic Americans 'vigilanties'?) In other words, Dubya uses his office to let enemies in un-checked, let his ex-business partners, American murderer wahabis get away with murder, undermining American interests. Needless to add, his entire administration works againt America. As they say, 'fish rots in the head' and Dubya sure stinks..

Posted by: Alert at August 31, 2006 9:14 PM

Jeff,

you and i (and most here) are on the same page when it comes to the battle against islamic fascism and all of it's appeasers (EU, UN, the social left).

in a war against fascism and totaliarism, if you don't have complete victory, then you have complete failure. in a PC war, it's whatever sound bite you can get regurgitated on every news channel that defines victory.

regardless of his prior performance in Iraq, GWB passed the litmus test when he was re-elected and i thank the stars that he was because the alternative would have been a bigger disaster for the West. however, i among many others are no longer satisfied with the status quo. democratization of the ME is not the answer. it may be a useful tool and a noble effort but the reality is that it is a complete destruction of your enemy that brings peace. you punish your enemy until they sue for peace. you make it unbearable for them to continue to wage war both on the battlefield and in ideas. more and more are realizing what the true battle is and we are demanding total victory.

Posted by: viahj at August 31, 2006 9:24 PM

LOL Alert I'm beginning to think any politician that is in office more than 2 terms stinks.

Posted by: AMartinez at August 31, 2006 9:26 PM

The issue here is not Iran specifically but the Umma. Taking out Hussein and ousting the Taliban have done little to stop the world wide spread of the Da'wa and Jihad.

Posted by: km at August 31, 2006 09:08 PM

It is incumbent upon the umma to not stop Da'wa and Jihad untill all of Dar-al-Hard, turns to Dar-al-Islam. So, how can one expect Da'wa and Jihad to stop? Which brings us to your original point. it is not about Iran or Palesting or Kashmir. It is about Islamic political ideology, masquarading as a 'religion'.

Posted by: Alert at August 31, 2006 10:06 PM

Grief, the Bargholz rides again! All assertions and beliefs but no facts. No links, either, to anywhere that we could check his assertions/beliefs/facts. Wishful thinking doesn't make it so, more's the pity. Thank the good Lord that Infidel Pride tried to introduce some facts into this debate - just to have them dismissed as lies, as usual, by the Bargholz because he prefers to believe differently.

However, if we could just persuade our politicians to act, and much as I hate, really, really hate to say this, the Bargholz is probably correct in his interpretation of President Bush's statements, in as much as they are unequivocal with regards to the Iranian nuclear threat. Maybe, just maybe, we stand a chance that the allies - Israel, the UK and the USA, primarily - will have the guts to take out Iranian nuclear capabilities before they become a threat - as long as Mr. President Bush stands firm on the opinions that he has just stated.

I'm not sure that the Bargholz's 2007 timetable is correct - no checkable evidence was provided by him - but I think that his overall point is correct (much as I hate to say it, given that, in my opinion, he is an aggresive, domineering, self-opinionated little s**t who deliberately misinterprets other people's postings) in as much as that action can be expected soon. Given the logistics I think that Bargholz's twelve month scenario may be too optimistic; therefore I think that twenty-four to thirty-six months may be more realistic, regretably.

Dominic.

Posted by: necessitasnonhabetlegem at August 31, 2006 11:47 PM

i among many others are no longer satisfied with the status quo. democratization of the ME is not the answer. it may be a useful tool and a noble effort but the reality is that it is a complete destruction of your enemy that brings peace. you punish your enemy until they sue for peace. you make it unbearable for them to continue to wage war both on the battlefield and in ideas. more and more are realizing what the true battle is and we are demanding total victory.

Posted by: viahj at August 31, 2006 09:24 PM

Amen to that brother!

Posted by: km at August 31, 2006 11:58 PM

km:

Don't take my word for it. Read the words of the Iranian people. That's where I got my information. I didn't fabricate it.

There is no such thing as moderate islam, and that's a fact. Any muslim who practices islam moderately is a heretic.

There is a such thing as muslim heretics. Indonesia is full of them.

The Iranians love sluttish luxury as much as the next guy. They know that the mullahs indulge in whatever vices they choose, while forcing the public to adhere to strictures that the elite don't have to follow. Most muslim Iranians want islam to be world ascendant, but they don't want to live medieval Arabian lifestyles.

Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at September 1, 2006 12:59 AM

viahj:

The day real Americans override the objections of the indifferent, complacent, the naive, the stupid, and the anti-American is the day we will achieve victory.

That day cant come soon enough for me.

Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at September 1, 2006 1:07 AM

From some poster above:

"Don't take my word for it. Read the words of the Iranian people. That's where I got my information. I didn't fabricate it."

I'd love to read them. Can you give us a link?

Oh gosh, it's the Bargholz again doing his usual thing. I feel that you are probably correct but evidence man, evidence! Post some links or quote some checkable sources otherwise everything you write is just an unsubstantiated opinion.

Dominic.

Posted by: necessitasnonhabetlegem at September 1, 2006 1:14 AM

Jeff, you're dead wrong in your estimation of what the American people would put up with after 9/11.

After that attack, the American people were spoiling fight, and spoiling fight with the PRIME, MAIN, proponent of islamic terror. Unlike the Dems now, the American people want to put an end to this satanic nonsense once and for all.

And it was THAT underestimation of the American people, that has been GW's main error since 9/11, in fact, every error has flowed from that original mistake.

Afghanistan we could've easily taken out on the short hop after Iran. But the very first words out of GW's mouth on the evening of 9/11, should have been: "Well, we've had the Devil's own day, and I'm going to need men....." And on the very next day, there would have been MILLIONS of men eager for battle. And not just with Afghanistan.

THE NARROWING OF THE WAR EFFORT to Afghanistan was one of the signal mistakes of Powell, and Powell was one of those, a significant member of that earlier misguided faction, which limited the first gulf war to ejecting the Iraqi army out of Kuwait, instead of destroying that army, and eradicating saddam, way back in the early 90's.

Your comments have betrayed a lack of imagination, particularly in your confession that you don't worry about Tehran getting nukes, or using nukes.

That was problematic, but your statements that the American people would somehow have rejected GW demanding war against Iran is truly telling.

The nation was ready, but our establishment was not, particularly at State. They've let us down, badly. It's not irretrievable, nothing like that. But it has hindered our war effort.

GW should have requested, noticed I didn't say demanded, simply requested a declaration of war by Congress against all muslim states on the State Department list of state sponsors of terrorism. And he'd gotten it, and it would have been well nigh unanimous.

The Democrats of course, later, would have crawfished. It's their nature. When it comes to shooting wars, they are apt to side with America's enemies, ever since 1968. But the AMERICAN PEOPLE, MADE OF STERNER STUFF, were more than ready.

And much of 'em still are. They simply want for ARTICULATE, PERSUASIVE, POWERFUL AND CONVINCING LEADERSHIP.

Posted by: Dan at September 1, 2006 1:19 AM

But Jeff, about GW, whether he still has the stuff that needs to be done, whether he takes his words seriously, whether he is looking to dodge, or looking for an excuse to begin air strikes, we shall surely see.

And I hope to God, in fact I PRAY TO GOD that Tehran's Manhattan Project be stopped before it's too late.

I just hope that the name of our Manhattan Project, during the Second World War, doesn't turn out to be one of history's amazing ironies. For I'm beginning to think it will surely prove to be. For if Tehran is serious about wiping out world Jewry, then that means they HAVE to pay a visit to Manhattan and the New York area. More Jews live in the area of New York, than can be found in Israel.

People simply don't take the ruling council in Tehran seriously, it's just like the fricken Thirties again, when nobody took the little tramp, with the Charlie Chaplin mustache seriously either.

But after we liberated the camps, after the death of twenty million people in the war, and the untold cost of the war, we took him deadly seriously then.

Posted by: Dan at September 1, 2006 1:26 AM

Dominic! My insecure English brother! How are you?

Still aggrieved, I see. Here's hoping the rest of England use their nearly Irish hot tempers and strangle the muslim menace in their midst.

My facts about Iraq and Iran were voluminous. (How's that for pretension? Americans did contribute to English literature, despite what you learned in school.) My predictions were based on facts and logic, but by nature they had to be assertions. "Assertions" is not a dirty word.

Links are only as good as the sites they link to, and facts don't rely on them in any case. Normally I would tell you to do your own research, but I'm willing to provide a few sources of my info, as long as you don't go overboard in your requests.

I didn't accuse infidel pride of lying. I did refute his specious claims in the spirit of honest debate.

Admit it. You're defending him because he's British.

I'm glad to hear you're rational when it comes to Bush's intentions for a nuke hungry Iran, even if you really, really, hate to admit it. There's hope for you yet.

I provided quite a bit of checkable evidence for my 2007 regime change prediction. Surely you have access to an atlas and television. I know you have internet access. Bush's words are a matter of public record, and the strategic encirclement of Iran is undeniable. All my other evidence is readily available on the web.

I didn't give a 12 month timetable, I predicted Bush would initiate action in 1997. He may wait longer, but like I wrote, I think his projection is for 1997.

By the way, I'm an aggressive, domineering, self-opinionated muscular s**t. I'm a lot of things, but little isn't one of them.

Take it easy.

Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at September 1, 2006 1:33 AM

Dom:

Q: Link=fact-true or false?

A: Complete bullshit. Link=anything the web has recorded.

Stay away from Wikipedia. It's adversely affecting your ability to reason.

Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at September 1, 2006 1:39 AM

Jeff; You defend the Administration’s position well. As a guy who has sent checks and has a signed picture of the President and First Lady at my office, I hold no animus towards him.

But I think he is way off base on his policy towards the threat of Islam to our way of life. I met a guy from Tennessee in a foreign country recently, and he mentioned the fact that I was a ‘Yankee’ no less than a half a dozen times in two evenings. To assume that the Sunni and Shia can co-exist, given that they are forbidden from intermarriage, have fundamental differences in religious beliefs, and have been killing each other by the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, in recent years, is in my opinion a bad assumption.

I also worry that seventy generations of oppression under the Qu’ran has taken their toll on the Washingtons, Jeffersons, and Madisons in the Middle East. I watch election after popular election being won by those who favor a strict interpretation of the religious texts. Didn’t 60% of the Iranian people vote for Ahmedinejad? I’d have to believe that they knew what they were getting. The President states that there are ‘those who question if certain peoples are able to live with the Freedoms people take for granted in the West’. Count me among those who question.

My input is that democracy in the Middle East is unrealistic for the foreseeable future. Attempts at it have put us on the moral high ground but have failed. Your points that Iraq is an excellent staging area for offensive (and I’d add defensive) actions against Iran are good. But this can be accomplished via isolated bases; boots on the Iraqi streets don’t help. Reagan did nothing to stop Sunni-on-Shia violence, and although a religious (vice civil) war in the region would be an embarrassing setback, I think it serves the interests of the American people.

I worry that the Islamic parts of the world are, in the end, incompatible with Western values and peoples. Isolation and destabilization are the only strategies that make sense to me.

Posted by: limes at September 1, 2006 1:44 AM

Dan:

I agree with yo