Iran Will Obtain Nuclear Weapons
Tags: Middle East, nuclear weapons.
Click here to get Caucus of Corruption: The Truth About The New Democratic Majority by Matt Margolis and Mark Noonan.
I think we’ve all pretty much written off Obama’s asinine efforts to prevent Iranian nukes:
The West is “disappointed” over Iran’s failure to respond positively to a UN-brokered nuclear deal, diplomats said in a statement Friday following a meeting of the UN Security Council’s five permanent members plus Germany. However, no new sanctions were discussed during the meeting, according to an EU source.
“We urge Iran to reconsider the opportunity offered by this agreement … and to engage seriously with us in dialogue and negotiations,” the statement said, noting that Teheran had not responded positively to the proposal of the International Atomic Energy Agency.
Why should Iran re-consider? They are getting everything they want and there isn’t the slightest threat of action should Iran build and deploy nuclear weapons. Only Israel shows any willingness to fight Iran – and Israel is under intense US pressure to back down and back off.
So, Iran will get its nukes and become largely invulnerable to US pressure – and thus free to sponsor a new and stronger wave of terrorists attacks against Israel, the US and our other allies. With, of course, the continuing possibility that the lunatics in Tehran will launch a nuclear attack on Israel in a fit of messianic Islam-fascism.
Glad we got a cool, internationalist liberal in charge – imagine how much worse it would be if that cowboy Bush were still in office…
Thank you for visiting Blogs For Victory. If you enjoy our content, please consider making a donation to help us cover the costs of our servers.Mark Noonan is co-author (with Matt Margolis) of Caucus of Corruption: The Truth About The New Democratic Majority. He also blogs at Nevada News and Views. Follow Mark on Twitter.
7 Responses to “Iran Will Obtain Nuclear Weapons”
Caucus of Corruption
And what do you suggest he does, hmm? With Iraq and Afghanistan, there are estimates that there are only 55,000 US troops available that aren’t actually deployed or recovering from deployment. You’d like to see 40,000 of them sent to a new “surge” in Afghanistan, and if they’re not you’re going to be complaining about the situation there, but if they ARE, how is Obama supposed to conquer and passify Iran with 15,000 troops?
MAYBE if the last president HAD actually completed the mission that he stood on a carrier deck with a huge “MISSION COMPLETE” banner behind him, then Obama might have enough manpower to consider some kind of action against Iran, given that the UN won’t do anything since Russia – with the power of veto – are apparently on Iran’s side. But the fact is, Obama inherited two ongoing wars which don’t leave any resources left to commit to Iran. And that’s hardly his fault.
Arctic Fox,
I believe that what he wants is for us to nuke Iran to prevent them from nuking anyone in the future.
Casper and AF,
Both of you get more obtuse by the day.
I’ve said many times before how we should do this – blockade of gasoline imports with escalation being the destruction of Iran’s sole oil refinery. Iran is quite an easy nut to crack – all it takes is the will to do so.
You mean other than nuclear war?
By the way, there is now a bit of a growing consensus that what Iran is actually going to end up doing is becoming not nuclear-armed, but nuclear-capable, like Japan. We all know that if Japan wanted to, it could have a fully functioning megaton-range MIRV ICBM in about fifteen minutes. Iran wants the same sort of reputation. In addition to the above-mentioned growing consensus in the intelligence community, there’s also this interesting bit of analysis (which, according to the CIA, is actually more accurate than the CIA’s own methods).
Uh, Mark? You do remember this, right?
The problem is that your method of cracking would subject another generation of Iranians to oppression and tyranny.
No matter what good one may try to do, there is always a possible equally powerful evil that may be done as well.
We may be able to blockade imports, as Mark suggests, thus pressuring the leadership to submit. But then, as Sergei has said, there is also the possibility that this will only end up hurting the average Iranian citizens.
We may send the military, but then the other areas where they may be needed may be left unguarded.
We may ignore this and hope Iran doesn’t do the worst thing of creating nuclear weapons with their technology, but there is also a possibility that Iran, with its unstable leadership and volatile political situation, will not do what self-professed intellectuals predict, and create and use those weapons, killing millions and scarring the land for decades.
Ultimately, how confident can mortals be in their predictions, estimates, and assumptions? How much are you allowing to be risked should your estimates prove incorrect? It’s simple to say that one should follow the path of least damage and best outcome, but it’s hard to think of that if the potential negative outcome of each option is death and suffering on an equally grand scale?
As active participants in the world, it would be better if you do something at some point instead of perpetually doing what amounts to nothing. You may be waiting for a strategic opportunity that will only come after people have lost what they loved.
20
will not do what self-professed intellectuals predict, and create and use those weapons, killing millions and scarring the land for decades.
WHAAAATTT???
the PRESIDENT of iran has stated they will wipe Isreal off the map with nukes you moron.
90-97%. I realize it’s banal, but that’s the accuracy of de Mesquita’s technique.
For starters, he said “wiped off the map”, not “wiped off the map with nukes”. Even if he did say that, though, what little power the President of Iran has is domestic. Him saying something about nukes is a bit like Joe Biden announcing a major shift in the foreign policy of Spain.