Iran attack to turn region into fireball

[eurekaa]

Iran attack to turn region into fireball: ElBaradei


http://www.onlines.ws/wp-content/img/baradi.jpg

Tehran threatens to fight back

DUBAI (Agencies)
The chief of the United Nations nuclear watchdog said in remarks aired on Friday that he would resign if there was a military strike on Iran, warning that any such attack would turn the region into a “fireball”.

“I don’t believe that what I see in Iran today is a current, grave and urgent danger. If a military strike is carried out against Iran at this time … it would make me unable to continue my work,” International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director General Mohamad ElBaradei told AlArabiya television in an interview.


“A military strike, in my opinion, would be worse than anything possible. It would turn the region into a fireball,” he said, emphasizing that any attack would only make the Islamic Republic more determined to obtain nuclear power.


“If you do a military strike, it will mean that Iran, if it is not already making nuclear weapons, will launch a crash course to build nuclear weapons with the blessing of all Iranians, even those in the West.”

ElBaradei’s comments came after the New York Times reported that U.S. officials said Israel carried out a large military exercise early June that appeared to be a rehearsal for a potential bombing attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities. The newspaper said Israeli officials would not discuss the exercise.

Meanwhile, the U.S. ambassador to the U.N. said Friday said Washington favored diplomacy in the Iranian nuclear crisis for now.
“We’re in the phase of diplomacy, we want a diplomatic settlement of this issue,” Zalmay Khalilzad told reporters when asked to react to the NY Times report.

“I saw the article in paper today,” Khalilzad said. “You know our view with regard to Iran, which is that it would be unacceptable for Iran to acquire nuclear weapons.”

“Right now we are in the phase of diplomacy, that’s what we are pushing for, we want a diplomatic solution to this problem. The ball is frankly in Iran’s court,” he added.

Iran, however, warned its arch-enemy Israel Friday of a “strong blow” if it resorts to force.

“If enemies especially Israelis and their supporters in the United States would want to use a language of force, they should rest assured that they will receive a strong blow in the mouth,” senior cleric Ayatollah Ahmad Khatami said in his Friday prayers sermon.



- Also Read The Following Related NEWS below :




Israel seems to rehearse Iran attack
(http://www.onlines.ws/?p=666)
(http://www.onlines.ws/?p=666) More than 100 F-16, F-15 fighters involved

A major U.S. daily on Friday quoted U.S. officials as saying Israel carried out a large military exercise this month that appeared to be a rehearsal for a potential bombing attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities.

Click here for the full details/ article if interested (http://www.onlines.ws/?p=666)




(http://www.onlines.ws/?p=666)

[Snoshi]

Baradei should do hes work instead of commenting news articles.

[Moledet]

Having this idiot resign is just another good reason to attack. Even if the region turns into a fireball we loose a lot less from it than Iran.

P.S. I wonder how's Iran going to start a crash course about building nuclear weapons with most of their nuclear scientists and technicians dead.

[Pars]

He's right though. I agree with him.

[Calanen]

“I don’t believe that what I see in Iran today is a current, grave and urgent danger. If a military strike is carried out against Iran at this time … it would make me unable to continue my work,” International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director General Mohamad ElBaradei told AlArabiya television in an interview.


And he's achieved oh so very much by doing his work....

[Arvin]

Tehran threatens to fight back

It is not a threat but a promise imo.

[4X4Driver]

Baradei should do hes work instead of commenting news articles.

It doesn't mean what he said isn't a fact.

[seraosha]

It's an opinion, whether or not it's likely is immaterial to the fact that he's not doing his job, and needs to. And his threatening to resign is just another positive in regards to an attack on Iran.

[shocker1]

Iranian nation to change US status in region if miscalculation occurs - Larijani


Iran's Parliament Speaker said here Wednesday if Americans would make another calculation mistake, the brave Iranian nation would change their status in region.
Ali Larijani who was speaking at a gathering of the Islamic Coalition Party, 'Mo'talefeh', at the Parliament Palace added, "The Americans had assumed that the occupation of Iraq would be an easy job and that the Iraqi nation would back them up."
According to IRNA parliamentary reporter he added, "The US had assumed it could raise ten democracy towers in Iraq, whose shade would overshadow both Iran and Syria, but the Islamic Republic of Iran's proper strategy in the region made the Americans wonder what they had better do in Iraq."
Larijani said, "They intend to take advantage of the opportunity that is created due to their previous conduct, but they had better know that another miscalculation would lead them to fall in another beys in which the more they would struggle for release the harder they would get entrapped."
He reiterated, "If the Americans would make another mistake in the region they would be faced with champions that would urge them to wrap up their stuff from the region and flee."
Larijani considered "wisdom-based resistance" for safeguarding the revolution as the "topmost principal observed by the Iranians", arguing, "Not only the fundamentalists, but also the entire groups are aligned for safeguarding the national interests."
He pointed out that the Jihadi forces of the Lebanese Hezbollah and the Palestinian Hamas are the pioneers of change in today's world, adding, "Interpreting the moves made within the Islamic World as terrorism under such conditions that the Islamic society enjoys the pride of having Jihadi combatants is a grave mistake, since those groups are the soldiers of Almighty Allah."
Larijani reiterated, "During the course of the 33-Day War the global arrogance invaded against an oppressed nation with all its might having assumed that they could in confrontation with the Jihadi combatants fighting for Allah's sake crash them fatally."
He reiterated, "The US Secretary of State had at that time directed the March 14th group to disturb the internal situation, assuring them that the Zionists, backed by the US, too, would wrap up the work of Hezbollah, and that was their strategic mistake." The IRI Parliament Speaker said, "The Lebanese nation, in the framework of Hezbollah, resisted against the United States and Israel so that even their friends confessed to their defeat."
Larijani said, "The sagacious stands adopted by Seyyed Hassan Nasrallah regarding the recent developments in Lebanon reveled the plots hatched by the arrogance and they begged assistance from the small country Qatar, where they yielded to the presence of Hezbollah in Lebanon."
He considered all such Jihadi victories as fruits of the martyrs' pure blood, arguing, "The martyrs were those who changed the conditions and were involved in deciding the fates of nations."
http://www2.irna.ir/en/news/view/line-20/0806196558011355.htm

[umutferhat]

Yes if most probably turn the reigon a fireball.Things are already bad for the reigon.Pls do not even to think such an aciton...:roll:

[Sanat-e-naft]

How Iran would retaliate if it comes to war
By Scott Peterson Fri Jun 20, 2008.

Istanbul, Turkey - Pressure is building on Iran. This week Europe agreed to new sanctions and President Bush again suggested something more serious – possible military strikes – if the Islamic Republic doesn't bend to the will of the international community on its nuclear program.

But increasingly military analysts are warning of severe consequences if the US begins a shooting war with Iran. While Iranian forces are no match for American technology on a conventional battlefield, Iran has shown that it can bite back in unconventional ways.

Iranian networks in Iraq and Afghanistan could imperil US interests there; American forces throughout the Gulf region could be targeted by asymmetric methods and lethal rocket barrages; and Iranian partners across the region – such as Hezbollah in Lebanon – could be mobilized to engage in an anti-US fight.

Iran's response could also be global, analysts say, but the scale would depend on the scale of the US attack. "One very important issue from a US intelligence perspective, [the Iranian reaction] is probably more unpredictable than the Al Qaeda threat," says Magnus Ranstorp at the Center for Asymmetric Threat Studies at the Swedish National Defense College in Stockholm.

"I doubt very much our ability to manage some of the consequences," says Mr. Ranstorp, noting that Iranian revenge attacks in the past have been marked by "plausible deniability" and have had global reach.

"If you attack Iran you are unleashing a firestorm of reaction internally that will only strengthen revolutionary forces, and externally in the region," says Ranstorp. "It's a nightmare scenario for any contingency planner, and I think you really enter the twilight zone if you strike Iran."

Though the US military has since early 2007 accused Iran's Qods Force – an elite element of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) – of providing anti-US militias in Iraq with lethal roadside bombs, and of training and backing "special groups" in actions that the US government alleges have cost "thousands" of lives, US commanders have played down Iran's military capabilities.

Even Admiral William Fallon, who publicly opposed a US strike on Iran before he resigned in April, dismissed Iran as a military threat. "Get serious," Adm. Fallon told Esquire in March. "These guys are ants. When the time comes, you crush them."

But that has not kept Iran from rhetorical chest-beating, with an active military manpower of 540,000 – the largest in the Middle East – dependent on some of the lowest per capita defense spending in the region. Iran "can deal fatal blows to aggressor America by unpredictable and creative tactical moves," the senior commander Brig. Gen. Gholam Ali Rashid said in late May. "It is meaningless to back down before an enemy who has targeted the roots of our existence.


Iran's supreme religious leader Ayatollah Sayyed Ali Khamenei also warned of far-reaching revenge in 2006. "The Americans should know that if they assault Iran, their interests will be harmed anywhere in the world that is possible," he said. "The Iranian nation will respond to any blow with double the intensity."

Analysts say Iran has a number of tools to make good on those threats and take pride in taking on a more powerful enemy. "This is not something they are shying away from," says Alex Vatanka, a Middle East security analyst at Jane's Information Group in Washington.

"They say: 'Conventional warfare is not something we can win against the US, but we have other assets in the toolbox,' " says Mr. Vatanka, noting that the IRGC commander appointed last fall has been "marketed as this genius behind asymmetric warfare doctrine."

"What they are really worried about is the idea of massive aerial attacks on literally thousands of targets inside Iran," says Vatanka, also an adjunct scholar at the Middle East Institute. "Their reading of America's intentions in that scenario would be twofold: One is to obviously dismantle as much as possible the nuclear program; and [the other], indirectly try to weaken the [Islamic] regime."

Any US-Iran conflict would push up oil prices, and though Iran could disrupt shipping lanes in the Persian Gulf, its weak economy depends on oil revenues.

But nearby US forces in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Gulf provide a host of targets. Iran claimed last October that it could rain down 11,000 rockets upon "the enemy" within one minute of an attack and that rate "would continue."

Further afield, Israel is within range of Iran's Shahab-3 ballistic missiles, and Hezbollah claims its rockets – enhanced and resupplied by Iran since the 2006 war to an estimated 30,000 – can now hit anywhere in the Jewish state, including its nuclear plant at Dimona.

Closer to home, Iran has honed a swarming tactic, in which small and lightly armed speedboats come at far larger warships from different directions. A classified Pentagon war game in 2002 simulated just such an attack and in it the Navy lost 16 major warships, according to a report in The New York Times last January.

"The sheer numbers involved overloaded their ability, both mentally and electronically, to handle the attack," Lt. Gen. K. Van Riper, a retired Marine Corps officer who commanded the swarming force, told the Times. "The whole thing was over in five, maybe 10 minutes."

During the 1990s, Iranian agents were believed to be behind the assassinations of scores of regime opponents in Europe, and German prosecutors issued an arrest warrant for Iran's intelligence minister.

Iran and Hezbollah are alleged to have collaborated in the May 1992 bombing of the Israeli Embassy in Buenos Aires in revenge for Israel's killing of a Hezbollah leader months before. Argentine prosecutors charge that they jointly struck again in 1994, bombing a Jewish community center in the Argentine capital that killed 85, one month after Israel attacked a Hezbollah base in Lebanon.

With some 30,000 on the payroll by one count, Iranian intelligence "is a superpower in intelligence terms in the region; they have global reach because of their reconnaissance ability and quite sophisticated ways of inflicting pain," says Ranstorp. "They have been expanding their influence.… Who would have predicted that Argentina would be the area that Hezbollah and the Iranians collectively would respond?"

Past examples show that "Tehran recognizes that at times its interest are best served by restraint," says a report on consequences of a strike on Iran published this week by Patrick Clawson and Michael Eisenstadt of The Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

But Iran could target the US, too, depending on the magnitude of any US strike. "Iran's capacity for terror and subversion remains one of its most potent levers in the event of a confrontation with the United States," says the report, adding that "success" in delaying Iran's nuclear programs could backfire.

If "US and world opinion were so angered by the strikes that they refused to support further pressure against Iran's nuclear ambitions, then prevention could paradoxically [eventually ensure] Iran's open pursuit of nuclear weapons," concludes the report.

And the long list of unconventional tactics should not be taken for granted in Tehran, says Vatanka, noting that the Islamic system's top priority is survival.

"So the Iranians have to be careful," says Vatanka. "Just because the US doesn't have the will right now, or the ability to produce the kind of stick that they would fear, doesn't mean the way of confrontation is going to pay off for them in the long run."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20080620/wl_csm/oresponse;_ylt=AhF4NdFa5IPdAW6CifmyiOKs0NUE

[Moledet]

Yes if most probably turn the reigon a fireball.Things are already bad for the reigon.Pls do not even to think such an aciton...:roll:
We just wasted lots of money on training, if Israel isn't going for it than it's going to be a real shame. I live in this region and I want an attack on Iran unless it disbands its nuclear program. All these threats are nothing but the usual barking, the rulers know what's best for them and it's not to attack the US-a country can try and hurt the US but the US will annihilate it, so unless the Iranian ayatollahs wish to live in caves for the rest of their lives they will refrain from it.

[Hollis]

But Iran could target the US, too, depending on the magnitude of any US strike. "Iran's capacity for terror and subversion remains one of its most potent levers in the event of a confrontation with the United States," says the report, adding that "success" in delaying Iran's nuclear programs could backfire.

If "US and world opinion were so angered by the strikes that they refused to support further pressure against Iran's nuclear ambitions, then prevention could paradoxically [eventually ensure] Iran's open pursuit of nuclear weapons," concludes the report.

And the long list of unconventional tactics should not be taken for granted in Tehran, says Vatanka, noting that the Islamic system's top priority is survival.

"So the Iranians have to be careful," says Vatanka. "Just because the US doesn't have the will right now, or the ability to produce the kind of stick that they would fear, doesn't mean the way of confrontation is going to pay off for them in the long run."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20080620/wl_csm/oresponse;_ylt=AhF4NdFa5IPdAW6CifmyiOKs0NUE


Thanks for the post, I feel the bottom part has a lot to say. Iran has a lot of power right now in the negotiation phase. Obvious they want to make any military action seem to expensive but that can backfire too. It could mean that if military action is decided it must hit very hard at first rather than a limited measured response.

I hope a political solution is found, but let me restate, that Iran has a lot of power to shape the outcome right now.

[wagon]

Just what we need - another war. Let's hope diplomacy is successfull.

[Mr.Flint]

El-Baradei should just rollover and die... though he should tell us first how much did he take....


Syria, NKorea helped Iran develop nuclear programme: German report

6 hours ago
BERLIN (AFP) — Damascus and Pyongyang helped Iran to develop its nuclear programme through the construction of a suspected nuclear site in Syria that Israel destroyed last September, Der Spiegel reported.
But the Syrian president Bashar al-Assad is considering withdrawing his support for the Iranian programme, added the German newsweekly in its next edition out Monday, quoting German secret service reports.
According to those intelligence reports, it said, a joint plan by Syria, North Korea and Iran for a nuclear reactor for military use was to have been developed at the Al-Kibar site in the east of Syria.
The site -- to be inspected next week by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) -- was destroyed by Israeli warplanes with Washington's support. Syria denied it has military purposes.
The reports cited by Der Speigel claimed that North Korea was to help Iranian scientists to advance their nuclear programme, and that Al-Kibar was to have been used as a temporary site for Iran to develop a nuclear bomb until it was able to do so on its own territory.
The plan was discussed during a visit by Iranian President Mamhoud Ahmadinejad to Syria in 2006, according to the magazine.
The three countries also cooperated in the production of chemical weapons, said Der Speigel, quoting the same source. At the time of an explosion at a chemical site in July 2007, 15 Syrian soldiers, 12 Iranian engineers and three North Koreans were among the victims.
Ten months after the destruction of the Al-Kibar site, on the basis of allegations that a nuclear reactor was being built there with the aid of North Korea, the IAEA said it was sending experts to Syria to investigate.
Documents and detailed photographs supplied in April by Washington to the IAEA backed up the suspicions, but Syria rejected the allegations describing them as "ridiculous."
Iran and Syria, both parties to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, signed a memorandum of cooperation at the end of May on the two countries' "independence and territorial integrity."
The alliance between the two regional neighbours, which goes back to the 1979 Iranian revolution, was strengthened in 2006 with the signing of an agreement on military cooperation.


http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5ipsxE7H6uvyTCWAUaQXRaz6Uw7EQ

[eurekaa]

El-Baradei should just rollover and die... though he should tell us first how much did he take....

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5ipsxE7H6uvyTCWAUaQXRaz6Uw7EQ


This the picture given by the white house about the so-called Syrian Nuclear site

http://www.rmc-mo.com/rmactuar/afp/journal/international/SGE.NJR04.250408115930.photo00.quicklook.default-245x245.jpg

http://www.moonofalabama.org/images/noko/show8.jpg

Let me refer you to the following article if you'r interested

http://www.moonofalabama.org/cia-syria-show.html

No more comments

[Mr.Flint]

This the picture given by the white house about the so-called Syrian Nuclear site

http://www.rmc-mo.com/rmactuar/afp/journal/international/SGE.NJR04.250408115930.photo00.quicklook.default-245x245.jpg

No more comments
Is there a problem with that picture?

[Danik]

Is there a problem with that picture?

of course because eureeka is an expert in nuclear power plant construction and will now tell you why that picture is just a shopping center which was going to even host a chipotle, but those israelis wont let anyone have their burritos and eat them too.

[Calanen]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/23/AR2008042302906.html

A video taken inside a secret Syrian facility last summer convinced the Israeli government and the Bush administration that North Korea (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/countries/korea.html?nav=el) was helping to construct a reactor similar to one that produces plutonium for North Korea's nuclear arsenal, according to senior U.S. officials who said it would be shared with lawmakers today.

The officials said the video of the remote site, code-named Al Kibar by the Syrians, shows North Koreans inside. It played a pivotal role in Israel's (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/countries/israel.html?nav=el) decision to bomb the facility late at night last Sept. 6, a move that was publicly denounced by Damascus but not by Washington.
Sources familiar with the video say it also shows that the Syrian reactor core's design is the same as that of the North Korean reactor at Yongbyon (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Yongbyon?tid=informline), including a virtually identical configuration and number of holes for fuel rods. It shows "remarkable resemblances inside and out to Yongbyon," a U.S. intelligence official said. A nuclear weapons specialist called the video "very, very damning."
Nuclear weapons analysts and U.S. officials predicted that CIA Director Michael V. Hayden (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Michael+Hayden?tid=informline)'s planned disclosures to Capitol Hill (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Capitol+Hill?tid=informline) could complicate U.S. efforts to improve relations with North Korea as a way to stop its nuclear weapons program. They come as factions inside the administration and in Congress have been battling over the merits of a nuclear-related deal with North Korea.


http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/hp/img/ad_label_leftjust.gif

Syrian Ambassador Imad Moustapha yesterday angrily denounced the U.S. and Israeli assertions. "If they show a video, remember that the U.S. went to the U.N. Security Council (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/United+Nations+Security+Council?tid=informline) and displayed evidence and images about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/countries/iraq.html?nav=el). I hope the American people will not be as gullible this time around," he said.

U.S. officials said that Israel shared the video with the United States before the Sept. 6 bombing, after Bush administration officials expressed skepticism last spring that the facility, visible by satellite since 2001, was a nuclear reactor built with North Korea's assistance. Israel has a nuclear weapons arsenal that it has never declared.

But beginning today, intelligence officials will tell members of the House and Senate intelligence, armed services and foreign relations committees that the Syrian facility was not yet fully operational and that there was no uranium for the reactor and no indication of fuel capability, according to U.S. officials and intelligence sources.

David Albright (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/David+Albright?tid=informline), president of Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) and a former U.N. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/United+Nations?tid=informline) weapons inspector, said the absence of such evidence warrants skepticism that the reactor was part of an active weapons program.

"The United States and Israel have not identified any Syrian plutonium separation facilities or nuclear weaponization facilities," he said. "The lack of any such facilities gives little confidence that the reactor is part of an active nuclear weapons program. The apparent lack of fuel, either imported or indigenously produced, also is curious and lowers confidence that Syria has a nuclear weapons program."

U.S. intelligence officials will also tell the lawmakers that Syria is not rebuilding a reactor at the Al Kibar site. "The successful engagement of North Korea in the six-party talks means that it was unlikely to have supplied Syria with such facilities or nuclear materials after the reactor site was destroyed," Albright said. "Indeed, there is little, if any, evidence that cooperation between Syria and North Korea extended beyond the date of the destruction of the reactor."

The timing of the congressional briefing is nonetheless awkward for the Bush administration's diplomatic initiative to persuade North Korea to abandon its nuclear program and permanently disable the reactor at Yongbyon. The CIA (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Central+Intelligence+Agency?tid=informline)'s hand was forced, officials said, because influential lawmakers had threatened to cut off funding for the U.S. diplomatic effort unless they received a full account of what the administration knew.

Also, the terms of a tentative U.S.-North Korean deal require that North Korean officials acknowledge U.S. evidence about its help with the Syrian program, and so the disclosures to Congress are meant to preempt what North Korea may eventually say.
Following talks with the South Korean president last weekend, President Bush (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/George+W.+Bush?tid=informline) said that it was premature to make a judgment about whether North Korea was willing to follow through with a commitment to publicly declare its nuclear-related programs, materials and facilities.
Washington and Pyongyang still differ over what should be included in that declaration, a State Department (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/U.S.+Department+of+State?tid=informline) official said. Sung Kim, the State Department director of the Office of Korean Affairs, is in Pyongyang for discussions about the contents.
Syria's top envoy to Washington said the CIA briefings were meant to undermine diplomatic efforts with North Korea, not to confront Syria. Why, Moustapha said, are "they repeating the same lies and fabrications when they were planning to attack Iraq? The reason is simple: It's about North Korea, not Syria. The neoconservative elements are having the upper hand."

He added, "We do not want to plan to acquire nuclear technology as we understand the reality of this world and have seen what the U.S. did to Iraq even when it did not have a nuclear program. So we are not going to give them a pretext to attack Syria."
Before the site was bombed, the facility included a tall, boxy structure like those used to house gas-graphite reactors and was located seven miles north of the desert village of At Tibnah in the Dayr az Zawr region, 90 miles from the Iraqi border, according to photographs released by the ISIS, a nonprofit research group.

The White House (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/The+White+House?tid=informline) and the CIA declined to comment on the briefings.

[eurekaa]

of course because eureeka is an expert in nuclear power plant construction and will now tell you why that picture is just a shopping center which was going to even host a chipotle, but those israelis wont let anyone have their burritos and eat them too.

you do not see a discrepancy between the pictures !!

have you read the article I referred to .. !!

Thanks Calanen for sharing us the informative article you post ..

[Mr.Flint]

you do not see a discrepancy between the pictures !!

have you read the article I referred to .. !!

Thanks Calanen for sharing us the informative article you post ..
If you had bothered to look closely into both pictures and put them together you would have seen that there is no discrepancy whatsoever.
You are a clever guy (at least i hope you are:) ) so ill let you figure that one out on your own...

[Snoshi]

you do not see a discrepancy between the pictures !!

have you read the article I referred to .. !!

Thanks Calanen for sharing us the informative article you post ..

Look closly... The pics you posted show the same side of the building..

[Excalibur]

amazing how some people are unable to realize that lying takes some preparation homework to be done, not to mention skills.

[Zombie Squad]

Attack = War = Fireball = ElBaradei = Resign

??

[perdurabo]

Attack = War = Fireball = ElBaradei = Resign

??
win-win situation? p-)

[eurekaa]

Look closly... The pics you posted show the same side of the building..

Well , soon we'll know the truth ..

UN nuclear team inspects bombed Syrian site (http://www.onlines.ws/?p=673)

[Paya]

I get the feeling that the American and international press is making too much fuss about nothing.

The Iranian Army may not be much to look at, but they would surely be motivated to fight for their country if attacked. They would certainly not just desintegrate like the former Iraqi Army, whose soldiers, as well as the citizenry, decided that Coalition forces were ultimately a lesser of two evils, but fight it out to the end. Plus, Iran is mountainous, lush in certain areas, and huge. It's people, as I understand it, are highly patriotic. It is silly to think that the Americans and NATO don't know this, and would, their forces already overstreched in Iraq and Afganistan, attempt an invasion.

And if the hypothetical scenario is Israel bombing the supposed nuclear facilities, well then, it hardly constitutes a full-blown war, and the Iranians are unlikely to stir sh!t in the region, as they would gain nothing from it.

[Mr.K]

We just wasted lots of money on training, if Israel isn't going for it than it's going to be a real shame. I live in this region and I want an attack on Iran unless it disbands its nuclear program. All these threats are nothing but the usual barking, the rulers know what's best for them and it's not to attack the US-a country can try and hurt the US but the US will annihilate it, so unless the Iranian ayatollahs wish to live in caves for the rest of their lives they will refrain from it.
Don't expect a "thank you" from the world for the ridiculous oil prices we will see thanks to Israel testosterone rush.

[Hollis]

Don't expect a "thank you" from the world for the ridiculous oil prices we will see thanks to Israel testosterone rush.


You got to be kidding my, that the oil prices are Israel fault...........

[Mr.K]

You got to be kidding my, that the oil prices are Israel fault...........
It will be if conflict errupts. Speculators trade with the news.

[Hollis]

It will be if conflict errupts. Speculators trade with the news.


That is assuming Israel takes military action. There are still a lot of options on the plate. I hope it does not go that way, I am glad I don't have to make that decission. If it has to be done, then.......

[Mr.K]

That is assuming Israel takes military action. There are still a lot of options on the plate. I hope it does not go that way, I am glad I don't have to make that decission. If it has to be done, then.......

Then load up on BP and RoyalDutchShell shares and fire away....

[Kilgor]

Don't expect a "thank you" from the world for the ridiculous oil prices we will see thanks to Israel testosterone rush.

They did get a belated thanks behind closed doors for doing it to Saddam, and yes any Israeli strike would push oil prices to a deadly spike. Something the US would be well aware of.

The Israeli's do not take these actions lightly as you would claim. They are very aware preemption works for the survival of their state, and have painful memories of what happens when threats are allowed to grow to lethality and no one could stop it.

[Berk]

Look closly... The pics you posted show the same side of the building..

Is israel cooperating with AIEA ? or are these photos the only "evidences" israel has ?

[Mr.Flint]

Then load up on BP and RoyalDutchShell shares and fire away....
I thought we should have done that when Gazprom declared that 200$ per barrel is the fair price?

[Excalibur]

It will be if conflict errupts. Speculators trade with the news.
no, that will be not only israel's fault, but also fault of everyone, who perceives iranian nukes as solely israel's problem rather global problem, not to mention those who hinder efficient pressure on iran via sanctions or other means and this way push others to worst-case scenario corner leaving them with no other choice but to act on his own. And if things go this way, i'm not sure high oil prices should be everyone's primary concern.

[Snoshi]

Is israel cooperating with AIEA ? or are these photos the only "evidences" israel has ?

There are many more photos, you can find them on other topics on this forum

Btw read this first
http://www.isis-online.org/publications/syria/SyriaReactorReport_12May2008.pdf

[Berk]

There are many more photos, you can find them on other topics on this forum

Btw read this first
http://www.isis-online.org/publications/syria/SyriaReactorReport_12May2008.pdf


Ok lot of photos but most people here are not able to tell if it looks like
a nuclear reactor or a farm, and all those "fake walls" are not helping.

With AIEA on it right now we should know soon what worth those photos.

I was more interested to know the level of cooperation between israeli intelligence services and AIEA, do you know anything about that ?

[Snoshi]

I was more interested to know the level of cooperation between israeli intelligence services and AIEA, do you know anything about that ?

All the photos and intelligence were provided by USA.

[Berk]

All the photos and intelligence were provided by USA.

Ok then we can only hope the same level of cooperation between US and AIEA...

[eugenlitwin]

"Iran attack to turn region into fireball"

is someone here who disagree? i´m just wonder what´d happen with oil prices

[Excalibur]

i´m just wonder what´d happen with oil prices
and i wonder if indeed that will be everyone's primary concern.

[wotsnext]

"Iran attack to turn region into fireball"

is someone here who disagree? i´m just wonder what´d happen with oil prices
Fvck the oil prices, What about the millions of innocent children!

[Moledet]

"Iran attack to turn region into fireball"

is someone here who disagree? i´m just wonder what´d happen with oil prices
I disagree.

As for the IAEA finding the truth, should I remind you the report about Israel's Dimona reactor in the 60s? It concluded it is a research reactor. Yet, now you claim we have hundreds of nuclear weapons. Scientists can be easily misled.

[IanSolo]

Fvck the oil prices, What about the inocent children!

x2

...and their innocent families, relatives....

why it's so difficult to coexist respecting each other...

[ronaldo413]

I disagree.

As for the IAEA finding the truth, should I remind you the report about Israel's Dimona reactor in the 60s? It concluded it is a research reactor. Yet, now you claim we have hundreds of nuclear weapons. Scientists can be easily misled.


what about isreal nuclear weapons, dirty little secret

[Moledet]

what about isreal nuclear weapons, dirty little secret
If we do have them I think we proved to be very responsible with them. We didn't use them against Egypt or Syria when it looked like we are about to be destroyed and didn't use them against Saddam when he fired 30 ballistic missiles at Israel that each one of them could have potentially been armed with a chemical or biological warhead. Neither do we threat Iran with nukes although they seem to threat to destroy Israel every week.

[ronaldo413]

you think iranians stupid enough to launch nuclear war against isreal,without thinking big retaliation, the problems is ,why isreal proced nuclear weapons ( illegaly pls) urge other nations not to, we need a free middle east nuclear zone,i believe is everybody best interests

[Sanat-e-naft]

All of this talk about bombing Iran is posturing. Israel cannot go it alone, and the US doesnt have the political will.

If Israel does a half-a$$ job - and I am not saying they arent capable they just dont have the sheer numbers to make a raid like this work to the extent needed- then it is worse than if they did nothing at all.

Iran will never attack Israel with nukes. To do so would be the end of Iran, and they know it. People have been talking about Iran and its nukes since what... 2002. Come on, nobody is going to do anything about it.

[Snoshi]

you think iranians stupid enough to launch nuclear war against isreal,without thinking big retaliation, the problems is ,why isreal proced nuclear weapons ( illegaly pls) urge other nations not to, we need a free middle east nuclear zone,i believe is everybody best interests

Nope.. Israeli nuclear weapons are their to protect the state of Israel.. Nothing else.

[Snoshi]

If Israel does a half-a$$ job - and I am not saying they arent capable they just dont have the sheer numbers to make a raid like this work to the extent needed- then it is worse than if they did nothing at all.


And you base your assumption on what?

[the dutch egg]

Nope.. Israeli nuclear weapons are their to protect the state of Israel.. Nothing else.

Okea and that agument cant be used by Iran because... they don't have the right to defend themselfs? I agree when you say that Iran may us a bomb to protect them when the openlly support and harbor terrorists groups. Which offcourse would be a big problem.

But just saying "we have nukes to protect ourselfs" automaticlly gives the Iranians the same right...

[Sanat-e-naft]

The fact that Israel is flying F-16's and F-15's on this type of raid. Both of which are good planes, but if they are up against S-300's and Tor's there would likely be significant losses during the even the first wave. Since there are so many sites there would need to be multiple waves to make sure it is done right. And threin lies th problem. Can Israel sustain attacks over Iran for 1-2-3 days of bombardment if need be? I tend to think no. Can the USA... def.

I am not saying that Israel couldn't strike Iran. However, in order to get most of the sites needed it will take more than 100 F-16's and 15's and more than one stike (like Osirak). Assume 25 go down in the first wave and you havent hit more than 40%? Attacking Iranian airpace is not Syria... they are better trained and armed. Keep in mind, most Iranian Anti-air and Airforce were trained by the US and its allies until 1979. The new generation of soldiers learned from officers trained in Texas and such.

Then what... you made the Iranian revolution stronger, and still didnt get all you needed. Would that make Israel safer or more at risk? Hezbollah opens up on the North, Hamas starts recieving real rockets in the south (not modified bottle rockets). It is a can of worms to open up if you arent SURE you can do it right. I for one put my money on the Americans being able to do it right.

But lets all hope that the world can work this one out without force of arms.

[Moledet]

All of this talk about bombing Iran is posturing. Israel cannot go it alone, and the US doesnt have the political will.

If Israel does a half-a$$ job - and I am not saying they arent capable they just dont have the sheer numbers to make a raid like this work to the extent needed- then it is worse than if they did nothing at all.

So I guess the IAF has been training for nothing.
There are about 75 F15s (F15I and upgraded F15s) and 322 F16s (102 F16Is).

[Sanat-e-naft]

The IAF is training in the hope that if they are forced to attack they can do a good job.

I found an article talking about this topic. It is from a Pakistani News Paper. Before you get all "Paki's are biased ..blah blah " Read it. Again, I am not saying Israel cannot hit Iran, but if the goal is to destroy the capacity for Iran to build nukes then the US would be the best bet, in my opinion.



Israel says while 100 warplanes are enough to bomb on Iran they cannot deal conclusively with the Islamic Republic's capabilities.
Following reports of an early June long-range Mediterranean exercise by Israeli military that appeared to be a practice for real sorties over Iran, unnamed Israeli officials made comments on different scenarios of a possible war on Iran.

"We are talking about regular 'large-package' maneuvers involving scores of aircraft, which are clearly aimed at Iran, given the scale and distances involved," said one Israeli official.

The unnamed officials said the Israeli air force would be unlikely to deliver more than a one-time blow to an Iranian nuclear site, which international experts believe may require as many as 1,000 strikes to be destroyed.

"A hundred warplanes are enough for a raid but they do not make for an air campaign, and that is what is needed to deal conclusively with Iran's capabilities," an official said.

Speculation is high that Israel has drawn up plans to launch a military strike on Iran with the help of US President George W. Bush before the end of his term in office.

"Israel wants to do it alone against Iran as a last resort only," the official added.

Israel and its number one ally, the US, have ramped up their rhetoric against the Islamic Republic, portraying Iran as a threat to regional security. Tehran, however, has repeatedly asserted that it would benefit from regional stability and security, insisting that the country is not after nuclear weaponry.
http://www.daily.pk/world/worldnews/84-worldnews/4784-100-american-gifted-free-israeli-airforce-warplanes-enough-to-bomb-iran-.html

[Snoshi]

You are dreaming


The fact that Israel is flying F-16's and F-15's on this type of raid. Both of which are good planes, but if they are up against S-300's and Tor's there would likely be significant losses during the even the first wave.
There is no evedence of S-300 in Iran..
While TOR is a good system its short ranged(12km) and cannot reach above 6km which makes it pretty venrebule to Israeli bombs and missiles.

Since there are so many sites there would need to be multiple waves to make sure it is done right.

Only Natanz will be attacked.. Other sites are not that important.

I am not saying that Israel couldn't strike Iran. However, in order to get most of the sites needed it will take more than 100 F-16's and 15's and more than one stike (like Osirak). Assume 25 go down in the first wave and you havent hit more than 40%?
Israel wont attack all the sites because its useless. For an attack on Natanz around 60 jets will be needed. 25 wont go down.. Who will shot them down? Not even Allied operation to bomb Ploiesti had that attrition rate.

Attacking Iranian airpace is not Syria... they are better trained and armed. Keep in mind, most Iranian Anti-air and Airforce were trained by the US and its allies until 1979. The new generation of soldiers learned from officers trained in Texas and such.
Its not? What do you base your assumption on? Iranian air force and Air Defence are in bad shape.. And HAWK's that they were trained with are not viewed as good systems today.
[/QUOTE]

[Moledet]

Sanat-e-naft, if Iran does respond as it threats to than we won't need more than a raid because after it (according to Iranian leaders) Iran will attack the US interests and you know they will respond.

It's clear that an IAF strike alone will not destroy the nuclear plans of Iran, it will only set it back a few years but this will change the face of negotiations. Iran will not look so threatening and a military action against it will seem a lot more reasonable thus moving the pressure from the western world to Iran unlike the current negotiations when everyone seem to handle Iran with silk gloves in order to not 'make it desperate'.
You can notice the fear of a war with Iran on this forum, after an IAF strike Iran will either fulfill this fear and self destruct or will be looked at as a paper tiger.

[dava]

You can notice the fear of a war with Iran on this forum, after an IAF strike Iran will either fulfill this fear and self destruct

Whats the basis for this?
Who is gonna deliver the man power needed to contain the iranian threat. American forces are already overstretched and will be even more when Iran decides to increase their energy towards asymmetric warfare in Iraq AFTER IAF strikes.
I wonder if a unilateral strike by IAF will get much backing by the rest of the world. If Iran decides to strike back with conventional means, i doubt many nations will want to get involved. Europe is already not too fond of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Let alone they would like to participate in actions against Iran.
Only the traditional coalition of the willing would back it, but they lack further resources.

And Iran's influence in the region will in my opinion not be countered by air superiority. You will effectively need troops on the ground for that.

[Snoshi]

[QUOTE=dava;3338185]Whats the basis for this?
Who is gonna deliver the man power needed to contain the iranian threat. American forces are already overstretched and will be even more when Iran decides to increase their energy towards asymmetric warfare in Iraq AFTER IAF strikes.
I wonder if a unilateral strike by IAF will get much backing by the rest of the world. If Iran decides to strike back with conventional means, i doubt many nations will want to get involved. Europe is already not too fond of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Let alone they would like to participate in actions against Iran.
Only the traditional coalition of the willing would back it, but they lack further resources.
/QUOTE]
USA will get involved if Iranians fire back at Israel.. Iranians have also said that they will target US bases if any strike against it will start. So US entering the conflict is very likely.

[dava]

And where will they get the troops?
I doubt they are going to reintroduce the draft.

[Snoshi]

And where will they get the troops?
I doubt they are going to reintroduce the draft.

Again when will people stop thinking that there will be a ground war??

There will be no invasion of Iran, there will be a naval-air war.

[MajorTom]

there will be a naval-air war.

Only in your dreams.
Even air strikes would escalate to ugly asymmetric ground war very fast.

[Sanat-e-naft]

Snoshi, I am not dreaming, in fact I would argue that I am pragmatic. And if you think a stike against Natanz is all it will take you better wake up yourself (no offense).

Moledet, I agree with you. However, it seems to me a nuclear Iran is a small price to pay in return for avoiding a world war of some sort. Ahmadinejad says all kids of crazy things, but the real people in charge dont want to lose power, and attacking Israel is the #1 way to do that.

I am sure that many in Israel realy do think Iran will use its nukes, but I think it is going to be a bargaining tool to make other countries take notice of Iran.

[dava]

So what makes you think naval-air operations will be able to contain the iranian threat?

[sosed]

I think you forget, that in this war Iran will not be alone. Iran is the main source of oil and gas for China and India and other Asian states. I really doubt they will watch peacefully attack on Iran and their source of energy. I think China will go in war with US.

[Moledet]

Whats the basis for this?
Who is gonna deliver the man power needed to contain the iranian threat. American forces are already overstretched and will be even more when Iran decides to increase their energy towards asymmetric warfare in Iraq AFTER IAF strikes.
I wonder if a unilateral strike by IAF will get much backing by the rest of the world. If Iran decides to strike back with conventional means, i doubt many nations will want to get involved. Europe is already not too fond of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Let alone they would like to participate in actions against Iran.
Only the traditional coalition of the willing would back it, but they lack further resources.

And Iran's influence in the region will in my opinion not be countered by air superiority. You will effectively need troops on the ground for that.
First of all, there will be no ground war in Iran. Is it possible that there will be a rise in insurgency in Iraq? Yes, but insurgency is small cash compared to losses and damages in a real war. Will Iran go to war with the US? I always find that laughable.

[marianomarino]

if the iranian nut president talks,and nobody in the iranian goverment,,or the clerics,says anithing againts him,its because they support what he is telling

[Mr.Flint]

So our good friend El-Baradei in typical ME fashion says one thing in english and a completely different thing in Arabic...

Remember this part from the OP article?

I don’t believe that what I see in Iran today is a current, grave and urgent danger.

So he doesnt see urgency? here is the full transcript with the parts that MSM chose to ignore, underscored.

Following are excerpts from an interview with IAEA Director-General Dr. Muhammad Al-Baradei, which aired on Al-Arabiya TV on June 20, 2008.
Muhammad Al-Baradei: If Iran wants to turn to the production of nuclear weapons, it must leave the NPT, expel the IAEA inspectors, and then it would need at least... Considering the number of centrifuges and the quantity of uranium Iran has...
Interviewer: How much time would it need?
Muhammad Al-Baradei: It would need at least six months to one year. Therefore, Iran will not be able to reach the point where we would wake up one morning to an Iran with a nuclear weapon.
Interviewer: Excuse me, I would like to clarify this for our viewers. If Iran decides today to expel the IAEA from the country, it will need six months...
Muhammad Al-Baradei: Or one year, at least...
Interviewer:... to produce [nuclear] weapons?
Muhammad Al-Baradei: It would need this period to produce a weapon, and to obtain highly-enriched uranium in sufficient quantities for a single nuclear weapon.
[...]
In my view, a military strike would be the worst thing possible. It would turn the Middle East into a ball of fire.
Interviewer: It would be worse than sanctions?
Muhammad Al-Baradei: Much worse, because a military strike would mean, first and foremost, that even if Iran does not produce nuclear weapons today, it would implement a so-called "crash course," or an accelerated plan to produce a nuclear weapon, with the agreement and blessing of all the Iranians – even the Iranians living in the West.
[...]
Interviewer: Dr. Al-Baradei, what do the Iranian officials tell you when you confront them about the need for more transparency?
Muhammad Al-Baradei: They say there will be more transparency, but at the end of the day, I'd rather wait to see this transparency.
[...]
I always think of resigning in the event of a military strike.
Interviewer: You will resign in the event that...
Muhammad Al-Baradei: If military force is used, I would conclude that there is no mechanism left for me to defend.
Interviewer: This is a threat directed at the Americans – if you strike, I will resign.
Muhammad Al-Baradei: I am not doing this for material profit. If I was working in the private sector, I would... I am doing this out of the conviction that I am defending shared values. If we deviate from these shared values...
Interviewer: So there is no justification for an attack...
Muhammad Al-Baradei: The day I believe that the international system has begun to collapse is the day I will resign.
[...]
Interviewer: If the world reaches a consensus that there is no solution but to attack Iran, would you still resign? What if Europe, America, and the entire West agree that the only resolution is a military one?
Muhammad Al-Baradei: I don't think that what we are seeing today in Iran poses a clear, imminent, and immediate danger.
Interviewer: But in a year or two, it could become...
Muhammad Al-Baradei: If this happens, it will be a different story, but if a military strike is launched against Iran now, in my opinion, I will have no choice but to...
Interviewer: So there is no justification for a strike against Iran today.
Muhammad Al-Baradei: None whatsoever. There will be no point for me to continue doing my work if military force is used at present.

http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/1797.htm


You know,I want to see an investigation into his spending habits and income sources, because he is so obviously bought .

[4X4Driver]

"Iran attack to turn region into fireball"

is someone here who disagree?

Pretty much everyone agrees...but there are some who just don't give a **** if that happens.

[eugenlitwin]

Fvck the oil prices,
What about the millions of innocent children!

yes, what´s about millions of innocent children