Jump to content
Washington DC Message Boards

Iran the real threat


Recommended Posts

On a side note;




Report due on Iran nuclear program








Iran rebukes Saudi Arabia over ME conference


TEHRAN, Nov 26: President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad chided Saudi Arabia for taking part in a US-hosted Middle East peace meeting, after Arab participation in the event left Tehran isolated, media reported on Monday.Ahmadinejad bluntly told Saudi King Abdullah in a telephone conversation that he wished the kingdom was not attending the conference alongside Israeli and Palestinian leaders starting on Tuesday in Annapolis, Maryland.


“I wish the name of Saudi Arabia was not among those attending the Annapolis conference,” Ahmadinejad told the king late on Sunday, according to state news agency IRNA.


“Arab countries should be watchful in the face of the plots and deception of the Zionist enemy,” he added.


The Islamic republic — which has made non-recognition of Israel one of its main ideological themes — has been left isolated by the attendance at the meeting of Saudi Arabia and its chief regional ally Syria.


More than a dozen Arab countries are sending representatives. Iraq’s presence is not confirmed and the Islamist Hamas movement which controls Gaza in defiance of Palestinian president Mahmud Abbas is one of the few certain Arab absentees.


“The US government, which is an accomplice to Zionist crimes, cannot play the role of saviour by hosting the Annapolis conference,” Ahmadinejad told the Saudi king.


Saudi Arabia and other Arab states agreed on Friday to attend the conference, meaning the kingdom will sit at the same table with the Jewish state for the first time to discuss Middle East peacemaking.


In another landmark move, Israeli foe Syria agreed on Sunday at the last minute to send Deputy Foreign Minister Faisal Mekdad.


Damascus had made its presence conditional on the inclusion of the issue of the Golan Heights, which Israel has occupied since 1967, on the agenda of the conference.


Ahmadinejad on Sunday spoke by telephone to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, saying “only the true representatives of the Palestinian people can take decisions” on their future.


Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei also reaffirmed his condemnation of the conference, which he predicted was “doomed to failure”.


“They hope the conference will help the usurping Zionist regime and save the honour of the Black House,” he said in a speech to militia volunteers, in a sarcastic reference to the White House.


Tehran’s anger over the involvement of Riyadh in the conference is the latest hiccup in relations between Iran and Saudi Arabia that have not always been smooth. But the two regional heavyweights have worked to give an impression of unity in recent years, vowing to work together to end the political crisis in Lebanon and bring stability to Iraq.


Ahead of the annual hajj pilgrimage next month, Iran has also been urging Saudi Arabia to crack down on religious extremism following reports of anti-Shia sermons and pamphlets in the kingdom.


In July 1987, 402 people, mostly Iranians, were killed in clashes between Iranians and Saudi security forces during the hajj, an incident that cast a shadow over relations for years.—AFP

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 years later...

It WILL NOT HAPPEN. Have you heard of? National Sovereignty?


THAT IS WHAT COUNTRIES FOLLOW. They how ever DO NOT follow the policy of the United States which is; Sovereignty according to the political flavor of the day.


Threaten Iran all you want, but it still WILL NOT HAPPEN. You lunatics made the case, NOW YOU DEAL with the consequences of your own arguments for Iran having not just nuclear power, but nuclear weapons.


ALL Countries have Top Secret Programs child.


Iran CAN go through third parties and there really is NOTHING that you can do about it. NOTHING!!!!






Hillary on Iran; http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2010/0322/Washington-and-Tehran-rhetoric-heats-up-over-Iran-nuclear-program

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
Guest emporia

There are rumors decision by the Obama administration to boost US military strength in the Mediterranean and Persian Gulf regions in the short term with an extra air and naval strike forces and 6,000 Marine and sea combatants. Carrier Strike Group 10, headed by the USS Harry S. Truman aircraft carrier, sails out of the US Navy base at Norfolk, Virginia Friday, May 21. On arrival, it will raise the number of US carriers off Iranian shores to two. Up until now, President Barack Obama kept just one aircraft carrier stationed off the coast of Iran, the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower in the Arabian Sea, in pursuit of his policy of diplomatic engagement with Tehran.


For the first time, too, the US force opposite Iran will be joined by a German warship, the frigate FGS Hessen, operating under American command.


It is also the first time that Obama, since taking office 14 months ago, is sending military reinforcements to the Persian Gulf. Our military sources have learned that the USS Truman is just the first element of the new buildup of US resources around Iran. It will take place over the next three months, reaching peak level in late July and early August. By then, the Pentagon plans to have at least 4 or 5 US aircraft carriers visible from Iranian shores.

The USS Truman's accompanying Strike Group includes Carrier Air Wing Three (Battle Axe) - which has 7 squadrons - 4 of F/A-18 Super Hornet and F/A-18 Hornet bomber jets, as well as spy planes and early warning E-2 Hawkeyes that can operate in all weather conditions; the Electronic Attack Squadron 130 for disrupting enemy radar systems; and Squadron 7 of helicopters for anti-submarine combat (In its big naval exercise last week, Iran exhibited the Velayat 89 long-range missile for striking US aircraft carriers and Israel warships from Iranian submarines.)

Another four US warships will be making their way to the region to join the USS Truman and its Strike Group. They are the guided-missile cruiser USS Normandy and guided missile destroyers USS Winston S. Churchill, USS Oscar Austin and USS Ross.


debkafile's military sources disclose that the 6,000 Marines and sailors aboard the Truman Strike Group come from four months of extensive and thorough training to prepare them for anticipated missions in the Persian Gulf and the Mediterranean.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Robert Parry

In the latest example, the New York Times on Tuesday published a leaked account of an order signed by U.S. Central Command chief, Gen. David Petraeus, expanding “clandestine military activity in an effort to disrupt militant groups to counter threats in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Somalia and other countries in the region.”


In most of those countries, the secret U.S. military operations would be intended to help U.S. allies combat anti-government militants. However, in Iran, the goal would be to make contact with opposition forces, according to the Times article by Mark Mazzetti.


“Officials said the order also permits reconnaissance that could pave the way for possible military strikes in Iran if tensions over its nuclear ambitions escalate,” the article said.


The leaking of Petraeus’s order -- which was signed almost eight months ago on Sept. 30, 2009 -- follows a May 17 tripartite agreement among Iran, Brazil and Turkey that called for Iran exporting 2,640 pounds of low-enriched uranium (LEU) – about half its supply – to Turkey in exchange for higher-enriched uranium that could only be used for peaceful purposes.


Though the new accord paralleled a tentative agreement that the Obama administration brokered last fall with Iran, hawks inside the U.S. government and the American news media quickly went to work ripping the deal apart.


Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva were portrayed as ambitious neophytes striving for a spot in the international limelight, with their oversized egos making them easy marks for Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.


Even before the agreement was announced, the Washington Post’s neoconservative editors had framed the story as a case of two out-of-their-league regional leaders getting sucked into “yet another effort to ‘engage’ the extremist clique of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.”


After the deal’s announcement, the Post rushed out an analysis with the headline, “Iran creates illusion of progress in nuclear negotiations.” Its main points were that the 2,640 pounds now accounted for a smaller percentage of Iran’s low-enriched uranium than last fall; that Iran would retain enough LEU so it could theoretically be refined to a purity needed to build one bomb; and that Iran was not abandoning its proclaimed right to enrich uranium for what it says are peaceful purposes.


Quickly, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and other administration hawks began belittling and undermining the accord, too.


The following day, Clinton claimed that Russia and China had signed onto “a strong draft” for new sanctions against Iran. “This announcement is as convincing an answer to the efforts undertaken in Tehran over the last few days as any we could provide,” she declared.


Even a week later, the mockery of the two Brazilian and Turkish leaders continued. On Tuesday, the New York Times ran a headline, “Iran Deal Seen as Spot on Brazilian Leader’s Legacy,” giving Lula da Silva’s critics pretty much a free shot to hit him over his supposed stumble.


“The most charitable interpretation is that we were naïve,” said Amaury de Souza, a political analyst in Rio de Janeiro. But “in a game like this, being labeled naïve just shows you have a third-rate diplomacy.”


An Obama Letter?


Yet, while the U.S. news media engaged in Brazil-Turkey bashing, little or no attention was paid to a Reuters report from Brasilia that said President Barack Obama had sent a letter to President da Silva encouraging Brazil to move forward on the uranium swap.


"From our point of view, a decision by Iran to send 1,200 kilograms [2,640 pounds] of low-enriched uranium abroad, would generate confidence and reduce regional tensions by cutting Iran's stockpile," Obama said, according to excerpts from the letter translated into Portuguese and seen by Reuters.


Brazilian officials claimed that Obama’s letter was just of one of the signs that dovish officials in Washington and other Western countries had quietly encouraged Brazil to help revive last October’s fuel swap deal.


"We were encouraged directly or indirectly ... to implement the October proposal without any leeway and that's what we did," said Brazilian Foreign Minister Celso Amorim.


In other words, Obama may not be enthusiastic about forcing a showdown with Iran, but the policy now appears to be driven by the American hawks and the Israeli government. They behave as if they're spoiling for a fight with another Muslim country that is considered a threat to Israel, despite the fact that Israel has a huge nuclear arsenal of its own, with some 200 to 400 warheads and posssessing missiles and planes to deliver them.


Iran also has been the object of open discussions inside Israel and within neoconservative circles in the United States about the desirability of a preemptive military strike aimed at destroying Iran’s nuclear facilities and encouraging an uprising that would oust the current government.


Fueling Fears


The leaking of Petraeus’s order for special operations within Iran will surely fuel the fears of the Iranian Islamic government, which took power in 1979 after ousting the U.S.-backed Shah of Iran, who had been installed by a CIA-organized coup in 1953. Even earlier, Great Britain, Russia and other world powers had intervened in Iranian affairs.


So, one casualty from the Petraeus-order leak could be the Iran-Brazil-Turkey accord. However, Iran still pressed forward with the agreement on Monday, formally notifying the International Atomic Energy Agency.


Still, the New York Times ’ account on Tuesday could convince Iran that its only protection is the construction of an atomic bomb, which in turn could exacerbate tensions between Tehran and Washington.


Regarding the secret U.S. military actions, the Times reported that Petraeus's seven-page order “appears to authorize specific operations in Iran, most likely to gather intelligence about the country’s nuclear program or identify dissident groups that might be useful for a future military offensive.


“The Obama administration insists that for the moment, it is committed to penalizing Iran for its nuclear activities only with diplomatic and economic sanctions. Nevertheless, the Pentagon has to draw up detailed war plans to be prepared in advance, in the event that President Obama ever authorizes a strike.”


The Times quoted one Pentagon official with knowledge of Petraeus’s directive as saying: “The Defense Department can’t be caught flat-footed.”


Petraeus’s just-disclosed directive was issued on Sept. 30, 2009, a date that closely coincides with Iran’s original uranium-swap agreement, which had been under negotiation for weeks but was announced on Oct. 1.


Iranian President Ahmadinejad initially supported the swap accord and agreed to a follow-up meeting on Oct. 19 in Vienna.


However, the deal came under criticism from Iran’s opposition groups, including the “Green Movement” led by defeated presidential candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi, who has had ties to the American neocons and to Israel since the Iran-Contra days of the 1980s when he was the prime minister who collaborated on those secret arms deals.


Last October, Mousavi’s U.S.-favored political opposition deemed the swap agreement an affront to Iran’s sovereignty. But Ahmadinejad’s opponents also stood to lose politically if tensions between Iran and other nations declined.


Also, as former CIA analyst Ray McGovern has noted, the prospects of the follow-up session were damaged on Oct. 18 when a car bombing and an ambush in Iran left several Iranian Revolutionary Guards commanders dead along with other officers and civilians.


A terrorist group called Jundullah took credit for the attacks, which followed years of killing Revolutionary Guards and Iranian policemen and an attempted ambush of President Ahmadinejad’s motorcade in 2005.


Tehran has long maintained that Jundullah is supported by the United States, Great Britain and Israel. Now, the newly disclosed fact that this bloody attack followed Petraeus’s secret order by only 18 days is likely to heighten Iranian suspicions even more.


A Captured Leader


Iranian authorities captured Jundallah leader Abdolmalek Rigi in February and publicized his claims that the United States had promised his group military help in its insurgency against Iran’s Islamic Republic.


Rigi described contacts in March 2009, claiming that U.S. representatives “said they would cooperate with us and will give me military equipment, arms and machine guns. They also promised to give us a base along the border with Afghanistan next to Iran."


Rigi asserted that the U.S. representatives said a direct U.S. attack on Iran would be too costly and that the CIA instead favored supporting militant groups that could destabilize Iran.


"The Americans said Iran was going its own way and they said our problem at the present is Iran… not al-Qaeda and not the Taliban, but the main problem is Iran,” Rigi said, according to Iran’s Press TV.


"One of the CIA officers said that it was too difficult for us [the United States] to attack Iran militarily, but we plan to give aid and support to all anti-Iran groups that have the capability to wage war and create difficulty for the Iranian (Islamic) system,” Rigi said.


Rigi added that the Americans said they were willing to provide support “at an extensive level.” However, in the Press TV’s account, Rigi did not describe any specific past U.S. support for his organization.


In a July 7, 2008, article for The New Yorker, investigative journalist Seymour Hersh quoted Robert Baer, a former CIA clandestine officer who worked in South Asia and the Middle East for nearly two decades, as saying that Jundallah was one of the militant groups in Iran benefiting from U.S. support.


Hersh also reported that President George W. Bush signed an intelligence finding in late 2007 that allocated up to $400 million for covert operations intended to destabilize Iran’s government, in part, by supporting militant organizations.


Hersh identified another militant group with “long-standing ties” to the CIA and the U.S. Special Operations communities as the Mujahedin-e-Khalq, or MEK, which has been put on the State Department’s list of terrorist groups.


But Jundallah has been spared that designation, a possible indication that the U.S. government views it as a valuable asset in the face-off against Iran, or in the parlance of the “war on terror,” as one of the “good guys.”


Gen. Mizra Aslam, Pakistan’s former Army chief, also has charged that the U.S. has been supporting Jundallah with training and other assistance. But the U.S. government denies that it has aided Rigi or his group.


Whatever the truth about the alleged U.S. backing for Jundallah, its Oct. 18, 2009, attack on the Revolutionary Guards does appear to have disrupted Iran’s readiness to move forward on the uranium swap deal. Iran sent a lower-level Iranian technical delegation to Vienna for the Oct. 19 meeting while Iran’s leading nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili stayed away.


Ahmadinejad’s government also began expressing doubts about American and Western trustworthiness. The Iranians proposed some alternative ideas regarding where the uranium might be swapped, but Obama – stung by harsh criticism over his diplomatic outreach to Iran – began retreating from his peace plans, talking tougher against Iran and suggesting no further concessions.


Yet, according to the letter released in Brazil, it appears Obama continued to harbor hopes that the swap could be salvaged.


Despite that, the hawks have been insistent on the need to escalate the confrontation with Iran by imposing ever harsher sanctions and closing off options for peace talks. The neocons are raising their decibel level for “regime change,” much as they did before the invasion of Iraq.


The new leak regarding covert U.S. military operations inside Iran has sprayed even more cold water on hopes for a diplomatic solution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 11 months later...
  • 7 months later...

Just got this from CNN


Report: American Amir Mirzaei Hekmati, on trial in Iran for espionage, has been sentenced to death.

Iran's semi-official Fars news agency reported that a court convicted Hekmati of "working for an enemy country ... for membership in the CIA and also for his efforts to accuse Iran of involvement in terrorism."


Hekmati, a former U.S. Marine, was arrested in August while visiting his grandmother and other relatives, his family in Michigan said last month.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Guest Greenzen

This was also stated by President Carter




Ex-US President Jimmy Carter has said Israel has at least 150 atomic weapons in its arsenal.


The Israelis have never confirmed they have nuclear weapons, but this has been widely assumed since a scientist leaked details in the 1980s.


Mr Carter made his comments on Israel's weapons at a press conference at the annual literary Hay Festival in Wales.


He also described Israeli treatment of Palestinians as "one of the greatest human rights crimes on earth".


Mr Carter gave the figure for the Israeli nuclear arsenal in response to a question on US policy on a possible nuclear-armed Iran, arguing that any country newly armed with atomic weapons faced overwhelming odds.


"The US has more than 12,000 nuclear weapons; the Soviet Union (sic) has about the same; Great Britain and France have several hundred, and Israel has 150 or more," he said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Guest George S. Hishmeh

It is unbelievable, actually bewildering, that an American newspaperman should suggest that one of three options facing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in the conflict with Iran is to assassinate the US president. Although he did not mention Barack Obama by name, all those who read the column felt he was the target.


But what is equally appalling is the failure of the American media, by and large, to cover this shocking development that surfaced two weeks ago on a website. It hardly attracted national attention except within the influential American Jewish community and the American Jewish media, since the author of the column was the Jewish publisher and editor of the Atlanta Jewish Times.


An Arab-American who runs a think-tank in Washington, but refused to be identified, wondered, in an email sent to me, what the consequences would have been had the author been an Arab-American. Certainly, the uproar would have been sky-high. Meanwhile, the New York Times, much to its credit, exclusively reported that a shady feature film titled The Third Jihad was shown to nearly 1,500 police officers as part of training in the New York Police Department.


What the film showed, the Times found out, was “Muslim terrorists shoot Christians in the head, car bombs explode, executed children lie covered by sheets and a doctored photograph shows an Islamic flag flying by the White House”.


The newspaper continued: “News that police trainers showed this film so extensively comes as the department wrestles with its relationship with the city’s large Muslim community.” It added that the police department offers no apology for “aggressively” spying on Muslim groups although civil rights advocates say the department, “in its zeal, has trampled on civil rights, blurred lines between foreign and domestic spying and sown fear among Muslims”.


As for the Jewish editor of the Atlanta paper, Andrew B. Adler, he outlined in his column three options that Israel, unlike the Obama administration, will be facing in the alleged threat posed by Iran: Strike Hezbollah and Hamas, strike Iran, or “order a hit” on Obama.


Adler’s option three reads:

“Give the go-ahead for US-based [israeli] Mossad agents to take out a president deemed unfriendly to Israel in order for the current vice-president [Joe Biden] to take his place, and forcefully dictate that the US policy includes its helping the Jewish state obliterate its enemies.


“Yes, you read ‘three’ correctly. Order a hit on a president in order to preserve Israel’s existence. Think about it. If I have of this Tom Clancy-type scenario, don’t you think that this almost unfathomable idea has been discussed in Israel’s most inner circles? You have got to believe, like I do, that all options are on the table.”

Adler’s shocking suggestion sparked an outcry within the influential Jewish community, but got minimal attention from two television networks and was met with virtual silence by the country’s major newspapers.


An influential member of one liberal Jewish organisation, who asked not to be identified, pointed his finger at the Republic Jewish Coalition, a political lobbying group which fervently supports Israel and the remaining Republican presidential candidates for the subdued silence elsewhere.


Although the White House has yet to comment on Adler’s loud opinion, probably so as not to agonise the Jewish community, the Secret Service, however, is said to be aware of the column, titled ‘What would you do?’ and “are taking appropriate investigative steps."


What all this means is that Obama has to watch his step, nationally and internationally, in the next few months, a position that may not satisfy either side especially with regards to the various issues now being debated or articulated in the Middle East.


Abraham H. Foxman, the national director of the extremist Anti-Defamation League, dismissed an apology from Adler because in his opinion, it “cannot possibly repair the damage”. He acknowledged that “the ideas expressed in Mr Adler’s column reflect some of the extremist rhetoric that unfortunately exists — even in some segments of our [Jewish] community — that maliciously labels president Obama as an enemy of the Jewish people”.


Adler did apologise for what was described as “incendiary rhetoric” and has this week stepped away from his paper, established in 1925, and which he bought less than three years ago.


On the other hand, Israel’s targeted assassinations of yesteryears are well known in the Arab world going back to the so-called 1954 Lavon Affair, a failed Israeli covert operation that involved planting bombs inside Egyptian, American and British-owned targets in Egypt, and, more recently, its alleged role in the assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists.


Tangentially, the American media have to examine itself more seriously. It should not remain silent when an American president is threatened.


George S. Hishmeh is a Washington-based columnist. He is a former editor in chief of The Daily Star.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Guest Blue Dog

You are right on target. The pressure is building.


WASHINGTON, Feb 1, 2012 (IPS) - Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey told Israeli leaders Jan. 20 that the United States would not participate in a war against Iran begun by Israel without prior agreement from Washington, according to accounts from well-placed senior military officers.


Dempsey's warning, conveyed to both Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Israeli Defence Minister Ehud Barak, represents the strongest move yet by President Barack Obama to deter an Israeli attack and ensure that the United States is not caught up in a regional conflagration with Iran.


But the Israeli government remains defiant about maintaining its freedom of action to make war on Iran, and it is counting on the influence of right-wing extremist views in U.S. politics to bring pressure to bear on Obama to fall into line with a possible Israeli attack during the election campaign this fall.


Obama still appears reluctant to break publicly and explicitly with Israel over its threat of military aggression against Iran, even in the absence of evidence Iran has decided to build a nuclear weapon.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Occupy DC

Alex Jones is stating that Obama is being giving a choice by neocons to either go to war with Iran and we will give you the presidency or do not go to war and we will try to assasinate you. Further the media is beginning to frame the extreme left as the ones that are the threat. Which is furthest from the truth.


Establishment media talking points from every direction strongly indicate that a false flag attempt on President Obama’s life is being considered, to be blamed on patsies from either the “extreme” right or left, in order to silence dissent in America and blackmail Obama into launching a military assault on Iran.




Alex breaks down what he thinks is the next real false flag attack on america, and it's going to be none other then obama himself.Alex breaks down the key points from those who have been talking about this, and where they are leading their viewers.very important topic today, so please share with everyone you know, because time is very short right now.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isreal does not need the United States to attack Iran




Bracing for a possible confrontation with Iran, the IAF is set to receive a major boost to its long-range capabilities later this month with the expected arrival of a Boeing 707 that will be converted into a midair refueling tanker.




In the last days of May and first week of June, 2008, Israel staged an impressive and well-reported exercise over Crete with the participation of the Greek air force. More than 100 Israeli F-16 and F-15 fighter jets, as well as Israeli rescue helicopters and mid-air refueling planes flew a massive number of mock strikes. Israeli planes reportedly never landed but were continuously refueled from airborne platforms. Israel demonstrated that a 1400 km distance could be negotiated with Israeli aircraft remaining aloft and effective. Iran’s Natanz nuclear enrichment facility is 1400 km from Israel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 7 months later...

Netanyahu's Speech to the United Nations General Assembly in New York


September 27. 2012


Nothing could imperil our common future more than the arming of Iran with nuclear weapons.

To understand what the world would be like with a nuclear-armed Iran, just imagine the world with a nuclear-armed Al-Qaeda.


It makes no difference whether these lethal weapons are in the hands of the world's most dangerous terrorist regime or the world's most dangerous terrorist organization. They're both fired by the same hatred; they're both driven by the same lust for violence.


Just look at what the Iranian regime has done up till now, without nuclear weapons.

In 2009, they brutally put down mass protests for democracy in their own country. Today, their henchmen are participating in the slaughter of tens of thousands of Syrian civilians, including thousands of children, directly participating in this murder.


They abetted the killing of American soldiers in Iraq and continue to do so in Afghanistan. Before that, Iranian proxies killed hundreds of American troops in Beirut and in Saudi Arabia. They've turned Lebanon and Gaza into terror strongholds, embedding nearly 100,000 missiles and rockets in civilian areas. Thousands of these rockets and missiles have already been fired at Israeli communities by their terrorist proxies.


In the last year, they've spread their international terror networks to two dozen countries across five continents – from India and Thailand to Kenya and Bulgaria. They've even plotted to blow up a restaurant a few blocks from the White House in order to kill a diplomat.


And of course, Iran's rulers repeatedly deny the Holocaust and call for Israel's destruction almost on a daily basis, as they did again this week from the United Nations.


So I ask you, given this record of Iranian aggression without nuclear weapons, just imagine Iranian aggression with nuclear weapons. Imagine their long range missiles tipped with nuclear warheads, their terror networks armed with atomic bombs.


Who among you would feel safe in the Middle East? Who would be safe in Europe? Who would be safe in America? Who would be safe anywhere?


There are those who believe that a nuclear-armed Iran can be deterred like the Soviet Union.

That's a very dangerous assumption.


Militant Jihadists behave very differently from secular Marxists. There were no Soviet suicide bombers. Yet Iran produces hordes of them.


Deterrence worked with the Soviets, because every time the Soviets faced a choice between their ideology and their survival, they chose their survival. But deterrence may not work with the Iranians once they get nuclear weapons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Create New...