Krauthammer: Let’s deter Iran by threatening to nuke them if they nuke Israel
posted at 10:40 am on April 11, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
I don’t get it. I get the part about Bush’s Iran policy having failed utterly and why we now need to shift to a deterrence posture, and I get the risk posed to Israel by an Iranian first strike given the proximity of the two. Even so:
How to create deterrence? The way John Kennedy did during the Cuban missile crisis. President Bush’s greatest contribution to nuclear peace would be to issue the following declaration, adopting Kennedy’s language while changing the names of the miscreants:
“It shall be the policy of this nation to regard any nuclear attack upon Israel by Iran, or originating in Iran, as an attack by Iran on the United States, requiring a full retaliatory response upon Iran.”
This should be followed with a simple explanation: “As a beacon of tolerance and as leader of the free world, the United States will not permit a second Holocaust to be perpetrated upon the Jewish people.”
Why limit that policy to Israel, though? Are we prepared to permit a first Holocaust to be perpetrated upon, say, the Italian or Polish people? Neither one has nukes, so the only thing standing between them and the ICBMs Iran’s developing is European missile defense. A nice deterrent, to be sure, but weak in the same way that a shield without a sword is weak. Beyond that, why do we need to provide an extra layer of deterrence for one of the most industrious and technologically brilliant countries on earth? They’ve been on the bleeding edge of defense engineering for years, and necessarily so. They’ve got the Arrow system for a shield and a stockpile of bombs big enough for Anthony Cordesman to warn last year that there would indeed be a clear winner in a nuclear exchange between the two countries — and it wouldn’t be Iran. Quote:
Given certain conditions, Israel could potentially survive such a nuclear scenario, the study found. Iran, on the other hand, would be completely and utterly obliterated. “Iranian recovery is not possible in the normal sense of term, though Israeli recovery is theoretically possible in population and economic terms,” wrote Cordesman, who compiled this study entitled “Iran, Israel, and Nuclear War”…
Back to the stone age, in other words. Iran’s bombs will get bigger over time so the Israeli advantage will dissipate, but it’ll take years to catch up, giving Israel some breathing room to upgrade the Arrow system and/or outfit the few submarines they have with nuclear cruise missiles — assuming they haven’t done so already, which they probably have. What they really need is a bigger fleet of subs so that they can launch a comprehensive retaliation if need be. Is a country that had its own nuclear reactor within 15 years of its founding equal to the task? I’m guessing yes.
Update: Commenters remind me that Italy and Poland are already protected by NATO. Fair enough; change my example to Sweden and Finland then. Yes, it’s absurd to think of them becoming a target of Iran, but the basic point remains: If we’re all about deterring Holocausts, the policy should be to retaliate against Iran for a nuclear strike on any ally of the United States, NATO or non-NATO.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
When It’s all said and done the Isrealis will take care of this themselves.
THE CHOSEN ONE on April 11, 2008 at 10:45 AM
It’s about time! Now here’s a question for the candidates? Do you or do you not support the The Holocaust Declaration?
Dread Pirate Roberts VI on April 11, 2008 at 10:47 AM
Hmmm…I like the concept – although instead of Mutually Assured Destruction, this one takes the Iranian Assured Destruction approach…
They pop one off at ANYBODY, and it’s fair game to implement a one time good deal missile/warhead reduction program, using the self-dismantling feature inherent in the physics package, at, on or over the newly opened Iranian disposal facility…
Wind Rider on April 11, 2008 at 10:48 AM
The Israelis are tough, and they don’t fight with one arm tied behind their back like the U.S. does. They go all out and kick azz. I wish Americans had the same resolve that Israelis do.
txsurveyor on April 11, 2008 at 10:50 AM
If Iran attacked Israel, Iran would become Israeli territory. Radioactive, but Israeli.
Cicero43 on April 11, 2008 at 10:50 AM
Unless I haven’t studied well, it appears to me that Israel is the ONLY true target that has been chosen for immediate destruction. Mr Krauthammer is correct and I concur. Seems clear and simple to me.
MNDavenotPC on April 11, 2008 at 10:51 AM
Aren’t Poland and Italy part of NATO? So, wouldn’t they already be covered?
The question should be whether or not we are willing to cover nations that aren’t part of an existing strategic alliance. Perhaps the requirement should be that any nuclear launch from Iran will be responded to with utter devastation.
JeffC_95 on April 11, 2008 at 10:51 AM
Great. Then we’ll adopt Krauthammer’s language as our policy only for the next 10years or so, giving Israel the time it needs to ensure it can handle Iran safely without us.
Next problem…
JiangxiDad on April 11, 2008 at 10:52 AM
Uh, isn’t a nuclear holocaust what the Iranian’s want? How is telling the mad mullah’s that we will give them what they want (retaliation) if they nuke Israel supposed to be a deterrent?
I think the Iranian’s would just see it as a dare.
E L Frederick (Sniper One) on April 11, 2008 at 10:53 AM
Que?
Viva el Holocaust Declaration.
JiangxiDad on April 11, 2008 at 10:53 AM
Uh, Italy and Poland are both part of NATO… whose members DO have Nukes…
Not sure if theres any specific things in the treaty about nukes, but the basic treaty is that any attack on a member is treated like an attack on all signatory coutnrys.
Its one of the reasons that when the US entered NATO it had to be ratified by the Senate… it was not just a standard status of forces agreement.
Romeo13 on April 11, 2008 at 10:53 AM
The point is this… We don’t know if Iran can be deterred.
As nuclear weapon novices, perhaps Iran believes they can “wipe Israel off the map” without danger of retaliation. On the other hand, maybe they don’t care. Again we don’t know.
A pact with the US would end that debate, finally getting to the answer tot he question – “do they invite annihilation?”.
Is it realistic for the US to hit em? What about the radiation danger to Europe and Russia? It could prove to be a hollow US threat.
Does Iran expect cover from Russia? Do they anticipate (overestimate) a growing relationship, toward a defense pact? They are clearly deluded, but with the Russians (and Europe) you never know.
Agrippa2k on April 11, 2008 at 10:53 AM
What is the problem with adding an additional layer of deterrence? Iran gets put on notice that not only will Israel glass them over in the event of an attack but that the U.S. will bounce any remaining rubble soon after.
We just might nuke Iran were they to attack Europe but that particular scenario hasn’t exactly been front-page as the threats against Israel have been recently.
Bishop on April 11, 2008 at 10:54 AM
Make Iran a parking lot.
D2Boston on April 11, 2008 at 10:56 AM
Are we folding? Are we really ready to accept a nuclear Iran? The ultimate suicide bomber? I can’t believe it. INSANE!
ronsfi on April 11, 2008 at 10:57 AM
Oh,gee. That’s all well and good, but the plain fact is that Iran won’t have a bomb while President Bush is in office,so why bother? If Obama is in, no one will believe hin on this (rightly),and if it’s McCain,the Iranians will believ he’ll retaliate without his having to say so.
It is the character of the current President that counts,not “decarations” by a predecessor. Obama is too weak and too pro-Muslim to make this even matter.
steve007 on April 11, 2008 at 10:58 AM
If Iran is allowed to build a nuclear arsenal the world will pay a huge price. Having terror groups act under a nuclear umbrella will make them even more bold and reckless.
We are an unserious people for a deadly serious time
slaphappy on April 11, 2008 at 10:58 AM
Dude, Israel could have already taken out most of the Middle East. . . but they haven’t because we asked them NOT TO. Every time there is an incursion it is the USA that says ’show restraint’. We don’t say ‘do what you have to do’. We tell them specifically not to fight so that they don’t inflame the Arabs.
Our policy pretty much is if you mess with one of our allies, we’ll nuke you back to the stone age. Israel is in the immediate threat category for the first nuclear test of Iran. That’s the problem. Iran has said it wants to wipe Israel off the map. That’s the problem. If they had said they will blow up the Vatican fist, well I bet the Vatican would be a little more forgiving on the US stance on war.
Bottom line is that Israel can and will defend itself. But they have put up with a lot of crap that we wouldn’t put up with because WE told them to ‘take it like a man’ when they continue to get threatened on a daily basis.
We wouldn’t put up with Mexico launching rockets at our school houses. We’d absolutely go in and crush them. But we make Israel do that because America doesn’t want to have to go in and pick up the diplomatic pieces.
This isn’t a change in policy. It’s always been the case. If we let Israel fight, there wouldn’t be a threat. They took out Iraq’s nuclear reactor in the 80’s, they took out Syria’s, and they’ll take out Iran’s too. But they do as little as possible because they are our friends and we ask them to. The least we could do is help them if they aren’t able to find ALL the nuclear crap before it is launched. Israel is small and it wouldn’t take much to wipe them out. The Arabs know that. They would take out the entire Palestinians, but they would be hailed as martyrs for the ‘Final Solution’.
ThackerAgency on April 11, 2008 at 10:58 AM
I have to agree with everyone else who is saying that we cannot allow Iran to become nuclear. The point is not what to do AFTER they get the bomb, but what to do to prevent them getting it in the first place.
E L Frederick (Sniper One) on April 11, 2008 at 11:00 AM
Would Krauthammer’s declaration make Iran more or less likely to nuke one of our cities? That is the most relevant question.
dedalus on April 11, 2008 at 11:00 AM
AP,
The Iranians aren’t interested in annihilating the Italians or Polish people. They are interested in killing as many Jews as possible and as a consolation prize the Iranians will kill a lot of Palestinians too. But as leader of the free world we must stand up against this tyranny at any cost. The actions of letting something so horrible happen against could have consequences we cannot imagine.
Lance Murdock on April 11, 2008 at 11:01 AM
This quote from Krauthammer is a little odd, isn’t it. For years we have been told that the radical Islamic world view won’t be deterred with Cold War style tactics like MAD. But Charles seems to state that very proposition quite flippantly, as if it goes without saying that they would be deterred. Did I miss a memo?
Weight of Glory on April 11, 2008 at 11:01 AM
I’ve always assumed this to be our policy anyway, that it was something that didn’t need to be said. Israel is an ally. If it is attacked, we’re attacked, just the same as any other ally.
Esthier on April 11, 2008 at 11:03 AM
No, he says that many leaders and mullahs won’t care if they all die. But if we took that stance, there could be some to question the stance and rhetoric of the Iranian regime to coerce them into backing off for the sake of Iran.
ThackerAgency on April 11, 2008 at 11:04 AM
israel can definitely handle the sitch without an overt declaration like this from us. if we need to declare something, back channels are more than enough.
all jihadis and lefties assume that israel and the US are inseparable anyhow and use that to justify all kinds of idiocy. why add fuel to the fire?
as for iran, they certainly are already aware of “the sampson option”, and something tells me that they don’t really care.
i don’t know where that leaves us, but that’s how it looks to me…
homesickamerican on April 11, 2008 at 11:05 AM
Dude! Do you see anything or anyone willing to stop them?
Dread Pirate Roberts VI on April 11, 2008 at 11:05 AM
Thanks.
Weight of Glory on April 11, 2008 at 11:08 AM
With apologies to the Beach Boys:
BOMB! BOMB! BOMB!
BOMB! BOMB IRAN!
pilamaye on April 11, 2008 at 11:09 AM
Krauthammer makes a crucial miscalculation that undermines the entire premise of his theory by assuming that the mullahs running the Iranian government and nuclear weapons programs want to live. I was leaked a document over a year ago on the eschatology of their government, and it strongly suggests that triggering a full-scale nuclear retaliation is Iran’s goal.
They feel that the Madhi will come when their world is lit by nuclear fire. Giving them precisely what they want with a Holocaust Declaration simply encourages them down their path.
So how to stop them?
In the short-term, locate as much as possible of their nuclear weapons program braintrust, equipment, and facilities for targeting.
In the mid-term, their nuclear weapons capability needs to be negated by any means necessary, including preemptive first-strikes. In the longer-term, the sect that currently leads this theocracy must be undermined and deposed.
We’ll have to go to war against Iran. It is simply a fact. The only question is whether we do it before a nuclear war and save millions of lives, or do it during a nuclear war, taking millions of lives.
Bob Owens on April 11, 2008 at 11:10 AM
agreed.
homesickamerican on April 11, 2008 at 11:12 AM
Amadinnerjacket has made it quite clear he wants Armageddon. Against that backdrop I am not really sure a ‘deterrent’ is really worth much.
Ares on April 11, 2008 at 11:14 AM
Krauthammer at his worst is better than you at your best.
mymanpotsandpans on April 11, 2008 at 11:20 AM
How come the Iranians could unite and rise up and drive off the Shah back in the 1970’s, but not one of them so much as dares to lift a finger against the loons running the country now?
pilamaye on April 11, 2008 at 11:23 AM
M.A.D. Take 2?
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on April 11, 2008 at 11:24 AM
I have a silly question…are there any other countries who would strike Iran if they attacked Israel, or would the US be the only one?
scalleywag on April 11, 2008 at 11:25 AM
Cuz, it would be nice if a WHOLE BUNCH of countries made a Holocaust Declaration, not just us.
scalleywag on April 11, 2008 at 11:28 AM
Other folks above have already said this, but the answer is that what the muslims want more than anything is the complete destruction of the Jews. They won’t nuke Italy or Poland because those countries are in Europe and Europe would survive and Europe has nukes (NATO, the French, the Brits) and anyways, with NATO, those countries ALREADY have this promise from the United States. The US has not given the same promise to the Jews because, well, oil and oil money, and maybe a few other even less savory components.
And then, the fact is that with the destruction of most of the Jews of Europe in the Holocaust, and with the worlds supposed moral outrage at this, there is the factor of once again talking a good game but not following through. There are fewer than 15MM Jews in the world, about 5MM of them in Israel. Extermination is quite possible and that is not the case for Europe.
georgealbert on April 11, 2008 at 11:28 AM
txsurveyor,
“The Israelis are tough, and they don’t fight with one arm tied behind their back like the U.S. does. They go all out and kick azz.”
Tough, yes. Going all out, not so much. In Lebanon vs Hezbollah, as one example. Every day, against the Palestinian terrorists, as examples that are so commonplace that almost everyone ignores them. The 1967, 1973, and 1983 wars, when they stopped short of destroying their enemies.
exhelodrvr on April 11, 2008 at 11:29 AM
The Vice-President said yesterday on hannity’s show that the MAD theory worked well during the Cold War ith the USSR because neither side wanted to die. With the mullahs of Iran Cheney said, “MAD is an incentive.”
sdd on April 11, 2008 at 11:32 AM
Thank you. That put a smile on my face on a dreary morning. Thank God for the US. Thank you God for the US protecting and saving Jews and so many others. What a wonderful country we live in. I’m going to try and not forget that for a minute, even when I’m down :)
JiangxiDad on April 11, 2008 at 11:32 AM
Er… What happens if the nukes are delivered by vehicle, rather than missile?
q2600 on April 11, 2008 at 11:37 AM
As some others have mentioned, Italy and Poland are in NATO and covered by Article V. Japan and Taiwan, for that matter, are also under the US nuclear umbrella.
That leaves only India and Israel as US allies that Iran might try to decapitate strike on the gamble that a US President will roll with it rather than starting WWIII…
omriceren on April 11, 2008 at 11:37 AM
Sigh – poor editing in that last comment – “try to decapitate” or “try to first strike” but not both…
omriceren on April 11, 2008 at 11:38 AM
Perhaps the mere threat will jumpstart the Iranian people into telling the mullahs enough is enough. It is they who need to rise up against their leaders, as we did when we became fed up with King George.
As best I can determine from background reading and first hand accounts from American-Iranians who fled the country years ago but still have relatives on Iranian soil, the ordinary citizens of Iran are civilized, well educated and eager for regime change.
Their options are, taking care of business themselves or watching mushroom clouds vaporize their universities, malls and coffee houses. The threat alone may push them over the brink.
Kudos for the Krauthammer Nudge Doctrine.
fogw on April 11, 2008 at 11:39 AM
That only works if the person with their finger on the trigger isn’t crazy.
Iranian leadership’s sanity is questionable.
TheUnrepentantGeek on April 11, 2008 at 11:45 AM
Here’s the thing: Israel is one tiny little country. A properly detonated nuclear weapon has the potential to take out pretty much the entire country. Of course, it would decimate the Arab population living within it too, but I’m pretty sure Iran doesn’t care as long as they can kill them some Jooos.
I do think however that the Israelis take the threat from Iran to their security very seriously. Iran knows that the IAF and other wings of the Israeli military and intelligence communities have plans.
Do I think rattling swords like this solves much? Not really. But if there’s one thing leaders in the Middle East understand, it’s incredibly tough rhetoric.
mjk on April 11, 2008 at 11:48 AM
As has been mentioned, those two nations already fall beneath the aegis of NATO. Israel stands alone.
Also, the Iranian president has never verbally threatened Italy or Poland. That distinction has been reserved for Israel.
Blacklake on April 11, 2008 at 11:48 AM
If we want to stop the Iranians: Send Krauthammer to do the talking in person. The guy has that dirty harry edge.
THE CHOSEN ONE on April 11, 2008 at 11:49 AM
Then why isn’t he recommending that Israel join NATO? The basic point stands: Effective deterrence requires both a sword and shield. Israel already has both.
Allahpundit on April 11, 2008 at 11:51 AM
Krauthammer jumps the shark.
indythinker on April 11, 2008 at 12:00 PM
Then why isn’t he recommending that Israel join NATO?
Why would they? They have their sword and shield.
JiangxiDad on April 11, 2008 at 12:00 PM
I just hope that the shield doesn’t get overwhelmed; the ancient military practice of having a shield-mate to help protect you makes sense in this case. As was said earlier, anti-missile missiles aren’t that effective if the bomb rolls up to the Syria/Israel border in a truck.
Iran gets pulverized by the Israelis and then even the remaining dust gets nuked by us. Let them understand very clearly the implications.
Bishop on April 11, 2008 at 12:23 PM
Exactly. CK did mention that most of Israel’s nukes are land-based (meaning in fixed sites) and could be theoretically be taken out before they could be effective.
However, after a bit of reading about the mullahs, I think that Bob Owens is correct. Therefore we all might be forced to do something preemptive.
They have to be building the right type of weapon and be able to get that weapon close enough first via the appropriate delivery system.
baldilocks on April 11, 2008 at 12:25 PM
I’ll be honest, I never read it as being just Israel, I’d agree that should Iran nuke any of our allies, we obliterate them. I think Israel was specifically mentioned since they’re Iran’s most likely target, and not currently covered by NATO.
BranBresil on April 11, 2008 at 12:27 PM
Dude, you dropped 40 comments from the headlines discussion?
TheBigOldDog on April 11, 2008 at 12:30 PM
Huh? How do you mean?
Allahpundit on April 11, 2008 at 12:32 PM
You didn’t carry them over. Don’t you usually carry them over when you promote a story out of the headlines?
TheBigOldDog on April 11, 2008 at 12:34 PM
lol
JiangxiDad on April 11, 2008 at 12:36 PM
Is it too late to dump McCain and draft Krauthammer as the Repub presidential candidate?
As a compromise, McCain could be his VP.
Cicero43 on April 11, 2008 at 12:41 PM
I’m strange – I’m actually more concerned about the United States of American than any foreign country.
Will there ever be a Presidential candidate who thinks this way?.
corona on April 11, 2008 at 12:50 PM
I agree with 2600’s question. If all you want to do is achieve the objective, and don’t care about blame or credit, why not do it through a proxy? No need for a missile launch, and no need to wait for the missile or fuse technology to be developed.
If someone lights up any major urban center from here on out, anywhere in the world, my guess is there’s not going to be a vapor trail marked “return to sender.”
DrSteve on April 11, 2008 at 12:55 PM
Pay attention people, the immediate threat posed by the Islamic extremists masquerading as a government in Iran is not a thermo nuclear attack, it is the “dirty bomb” scenario. Think about it!
dmann on April 11, 2008 at 12:56 PM
That’s the only reason that Mutual Assured Destruction worked: there were only two countries involved. The US and the Soviet Union kept a clamp on every other nuclear power.
It’s unlikely that countries like Iran, North Korea and Pakistan will keep such a tight leash on each other. And as for Russia and China, they now seem more inclined to egg the nutcases on – and why not; unless the “The Holocaust Declaration” were extended to worldwide retaliation, they’d have nothing to lose.
logis on April 11, 2008 at 1:05 PM
They already have everything they need….sobering n’est-ce pas?
dmann on April 11, 2008 at 1:06 PM
Because a bilateral arrangement makes so much more sense in Israel’s case…it’s a lone nation in a turbulent region, not part of a bloc of nations with like interests. Not to even mention that the other NATO nations would never go for it.
James on April 11, 2008 at 1:06 PM
That’s impossible! In order to do that they would have to get into the U.S.A., which is very very difficult. Now if you will excuse me I have to go feed my unicorn.
Weight of Glory on April 11, 2008 at 1:07 PM
Yup. If everytime Israel was attacked we had a launch a new Crusade we’d have World War III in no time.
aengus on April 11, 2008 at 1:16 PM
Wouldn’t the destruction of Israel be the worst thing possible for countries like Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc. because they will lose their scapegoat?
Also Krauthammer is merely reciting what our policy currently is. That was our Iraqi policy before the drumbeat. If this policy isn’t clear to the Iranians it should be made clear. The only way Israel would get nuked is from a lone wolf, not a government.
LevStrauss on April 11, 2008 at 2:21 PM
What’s this AFTER stuff?
- The Cat
MirCat on April 11, 2008 at 2:25 PM
Krauthammer is so out of line with this silly article. The Iranians have no intention of making the noble sanctuary glow in the dark.
“Amadinnerjacket has made it quite clear he wants Armageddon. Against that backdrop I am not really sure a ‘deterrent’ is really worth much.”
Ares on April 11, 2008 at 11:14 AM
Ahmadinnidiot has no voice in foreign policy decisions or nuclear policy for Iran. Did you know that?
Israel is perfectly capable of delivering its own nuclear response to a nuclear attack from any country in the region.
lexhamfox on April 11, 2008 at 2:32 PM
True, Israel has, and has had, the capability to respond in kind to a nuclear attack for some years now. I can recall the flight deck crew of the aircraft I was aboard during Desert Storm affixing the nuclear blast curtains when the news of Scuds into Israel first broke. We were fully expecting, that if any of the Scuds were loaded with bio/chem payloads, that there’d be Jerichos topped with physics packages heading back towards Baghdad in short order.
Still, the Iranians might believe that Israel would not launch a massive, country-blanketing retaliation, and losing a city or two to ‘the cause’ probably doesn’t tug the heartstrings of the bunch that had no qualms about sending waves of teenage boys to act as minesweepers and cannon fodder during the Iran Iraq conflict.
What would, however, tug at the old Mullah’s strings could be the realization that the rest of the Iranian population’s consideration of absolute, utter, complete, and total nuclear incineration, and having them decide that they aren’t really happy with a bunch of old coots putting them in the position that it was possible. That, and a serious effort by the Iranian populace, fully aware that their loonbag leaders were dragging them straight to nuclear hell, to remove/overthrow/just get rid of said loonbag leaders.
So, while it might seem likely that it would simply give the muhlarkeys what they want (super-deluxe sleigh ride straight to hell on a greased track), it could also give them something they don’t – namely a swift kick in the arse from the Iranian people.
Let the arse kicking commence…
Wind Rider on April 11, 2008 at 2:58 PM
The Bush Doctrine will work if it is implemented.
Waiting for Iran to blow up Israel, the Middle East, the USA, Russia, and/or themselves is insane. The reason for the Bush Doctrine in the first place was that MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction) is obsolete: it cannot work because it is triggered only after it is too late!!!
The proper response to Iran is to artificially induce an earthquake right on top of those 12,000 centrifuges!!! (possibly accompanied by a large cloud with a familiar shape and a nearly-invisible bat-wing plane flying overhead)
Today is not too soon!!
landlines on April 11, 2008 at 2:59 PM
What a wonderful world! Comments from the linked article:
so what if they develop long rangevweapons. We also develop these types of weapons we currently use our weapons and we actually have nuclear weapons this hypocricy must end
sam barrat, manchester, England
America Gov. is like Bully in the School. Rest of the world sees it that way too. becouse they dont watch the spoon fed news, they watch real news like BBC plus ALJAZEERA ENGLISH.
US Gov. Vetoed more then 1000 UN resolution on ISREAL. the votes where allways 2NAYS rest world YEE.
Americans dont know it but Rest of the world knows it.
Adam, Virginia, USA
The religious fanatics you are talking about, James, the war mongering ones who want to drive the world back to the dark ages, do you mean in the ones in the US or the ones in Iran?
The religious fanatics leading both countries were democratically elected.
I think it is worth adding, historically the “dark ages” were a Christian, where The Church suppressed scientific theories, freedom of speech, and freedom of religion.
If the “dark ages” come to the middle east, this will be the first time.
Keith S, Winnipeg, Canada
Can we think logically for a few minutes, what benefit is there to be gained by Iran firing nuclear weapons at anyone. Having them and using them are two completely seperate issues.
Has it ever occured to anyone that maybe they want to defend themselves from an evil regime that has assasinated their democratically elected President and put a hopeless fool on a throne. The US created Iran’s hate towards them as a result of their foreign policy in the 50’s.
Just becsue the Gulf states keep their people oppressed by the protection of America it does not mean Iran is wrong for wanting to rule and protect themselves.
I have no issues with Iran having nuclear weapons , infact it might restore some balance in the middle east where the pendulum has swung to far in favour of Israel.
Let us not forget only one regime has ever used a weapn of mass distruction!
Simon, Hong Kong,
I agree with you who think that the Bush Administration would claim to have seen fairies if it would help them with their agenda to invade another oil producing country in the middle east. This has gone far enough. I mean it, if I was rich, I would use my finances to stage a coup in the United States, and put the people in charge, not the money.
Hardy B., Bergen, Norway
after all that China bashing,it shows how important it is,that Iran gets its own Atom Bomb.
The West is not ready to live peacefully!xxx
Unless it’s shown were it’s borders are!xxx
mao tao, shanghai, china
This latest ‘information’ wouldn’t have anything to do with a plan of action likely to be taken against Iran, in response to their newly formed oil-bourse which allows petrochemicals to be bought with Euros instead of dollars, would it? The same type of action that was taken against Iraq after it accepted payment for oil in Euros? Ultimately, if the world’s oil producers began accepting alternative currencies for oil then the dollar would collapse, precipitating a complete collapse of the entire US economy, and the end of US global hegemony. It seems that war with Iran is high on the agenda. The US, as an empire, is on it’s last legs and is becoming desperate.
Jacques Blanc, Birmingham, UK
I think it is wrong for US to allow Isreal have nuclear capability and deny other countries of having the same right. The best thing to do is for the World to allow the UN rid the world of nuclear weapons, either in USA, France, China and the rest. The world would be a safer place.
That Iran is not entitle to nukes amount to double talk on the part of USA.
Anu Attai, Lagos, Nigeria
It’s not Iran we should fear, but the continued Imperial American expansion. USA, the world’s biggest rogue state.
Alfie Karamba, Willenhall, West Midlands
I wonder whether this is a Bush excuse to bring ballistic missiles in Poland, Chech and Ukrania.
bob, Brighton, uk
of course! you think iran is gonna stand there with sticks and chewing gum! , while you have sick ,greedy, war hungry aurthorities like the bush administartion ! invaded parts of the middle east for one thing ! money/power …. stop the war !
emile , London, United Kingdom
I remember seeing similar pictures from Iraq showing ‘evidence’ of WDMs! The sooner we see the back of Bush’s war mongering the better
Adam, Lisburn,
GET BUSH OUT, SINCE HE HAS COME IN TO POWER THE WORLD IS A WORSE PLACE!!!
Yaz, London, United States of Britain
If these images are from an american source then I do not believe them, just in the same way we shouldn’t have believed those maniacs, Bush and Blair, over Iraq. This is also war mongering in the most basic form.
Those to be feared for our safety are the american government not the Iranian populous
Bob, Warrington, Cheshire
FAO: Drew , Glasgow
mass murders in Iraq ? What are we doing? tickling people with Shock & Awe tactics?
Also, isn’t shock and awe also know as Blitzkrieg?
Great evidence too in those photos too. Looks like Iraq in 2002…
I agree they shouldn’t have nukes, but if the US was threatening the UK the way the have Iran, and had just invaded Ireland or France, I would sell my house and give the government the money to build more bombs to keep us safe.
Think about the real situation rather than blindly accepting Bush’s views.
Jay Tee, Oxford, UK
Don’t get fooled again. More mobile weapons labs, WMD’s, Sarin gas, mushroom clouds. We have heard this before please America make the MORAL decision not to be coerced into violence with cheap propaganda….AGAIN!
Ted, Lombard, Illinois
How can you reach all those conclusion based on a satellite image! The answer is you cannot. These is all propaganda to push the agenda of radicals in the UK adminstration and obviously UK is as usual acting as thier pawn.
Cyrus, London,
Remember 2003? WMD and “mobile chemical weapons factories” in Iraq? To say nothing of potential “mushroom clouds”? Don’t fall for the same trick again. This is Bush trying to start his third war in these parts of the world by hook or by crook, before his time is up. The Bushies get off on Armageddon, and can’t wait to unleash it – on other people, and for personal profit. The military will say, and do, what their boss tells them to. And, as with Iraq, “follow the money” and the oil, for their real motivation, as distinct from their “regime change” pretensions. It’s just another self-glorifying “narcissistic bubble” of “We are entitled to get our way, and sod the consequences to other people”. Not that Ahmadinejad is any better, they are mirror images of each other. This is all about puffing up their own self-importance and demonising The Other (insert anyone but the Saudis), not about us, the people, and what we need or want.
Julia Iskandar, London, England
Oh yes…RIIIIGGGHHHHTTTT….don’t you meant the WMD’s that are being built, OH and WE SHOULD SUPPORT AN INVASION….RIIIIGGGGHHHTTTT….sounds very plausible….YES, OK…
Pull the other one you BOZO’s….
And for the times to give credibility to heresay is what exactly?
The question asked should be: “who sanctioned this rubbish heresay article that STiNKS of WMD’s ALL Over again”?
Don’t believe the HYPE.
John Skooman, Pretoria , South Africa
I agree with Adam, Virginia, USA.
The US is the bully in the local park, turning a total blind eye to those who it wants to, like Israel, and kicking others until they cough up (oil)
The BBC usually has in the past had some semblance of fair play, but in the Blair era has turned to the Right, and pro-Israel, and has thus lost some of its reputation abroad.
K Urban, London, UK
SO DAMN WHAT?
How can Iran take the world into the dark ages? How? The US, Russia, UK, France have enough nukes to destro the world many times over. Only the gullible would treat the US government propaganda and media as “gospel”.
Americans are the only people on earth ever to use WMDs: Japan. Only the USA – Champions of Democracy!!
S K Lin, Hong Kong,
I can imagine the conversations in the Oval Office right now; “Look George, those Iranians have got Weapons of Mass Destruction, quick lets attack them too.” I am a strong believer in the phrase that “Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it, time and time again.” and with Curious George at the helm the US may launch into yet another “Police Action” like in Korea, Vietnam, Somali, Iraq-1 and Iraq-2.
It is just a shame that so many innocent lives could be lost in yet another “let’s prevent a middle east war by creating our own first” conflict.
Con, Newcastle, UK
–authored by a “former Iraq weapon inspector”. Well, that immediately lacks a certain credibility. We all know that Iraq did not actually have any weapons of mass destruction, so, would that be one of the gentlemen who cooked up the tall stories for Bush & Blair to go to war on ?
As far as Iran does, they are free to indulge in any space programme they wish. Why do we assume that every rocket is a weapon ?
Stuart Andrews, Auckland, New Zealand
I think it fair to say we are seeing another attempt by neo cons in the USA do their best to take us to another false war. I am certain that if push came to shove and Iran and Israel faced each other in a show down, both would disarm. If its ok for Israel to have nukes is it not ok for Iran to have nukes. If as Iran says their nuke program is for peaceful purposes., then we have nothing to worry about. If not then Israel has some things to worry about, but they already have the weapons pointed armed itching at the bit to let them fly to wards Tehran. However I can no longer believe a word from any US Official on these issues. least of all Bush and Co. Lets hope that the time left of the Neo Cons passes by quickly and without to many more wars or false flag operations. The world is sick and tied of their lies and spin on the truth. They have no moral or credibility left anymore with me.
Pablo Montea, Los Santos, Panama
Shouldn’t the world invade and occupy the ONE nation in the ME that does have nukes?
This nation also has ICBM’s, long range bombers and nuclear subs that can deliver those weapons ANYWHERE in the world.
This same nation has a robust chemical and biological weapons program.
This nation has repeatedly invaded its neighboring countries and is threatening to invade one or more again.
This same nation is engaged in an ethnic cleansing campaign against its indigenous people.
And this same nation is a theocracy, not a democracy.
The nation that should be invaded for all of these sins?
Israel.
“Mr. Bush, when are you going to send the B-2 bombers and cruise missiles to take out that rogue regime in Tel Aviv?
Greg Bacon, Douglas, USA
“Have they found them? No, because they don’t exist.
Why are they still Iraq then?”
Try Sira.
You’d know these things if you actualy looked around and explored subjects like this. Nearly 7 years later, and it seems people are perfectly fine with what is creepining up on us rapidly in some countries.
You conspiracy types are old, dried up, and grossly misinformed.
No child left behind indeed.
chris, edmonton, ab
It’s not about ‘having no problem with’ Iran. It’s simple numbers. Iran would be turned to paved glass if it tried to strike anyone, including its nearest neighbours the Gulf States. Face it: Oil and Israel are the causes of the Unholy Lands problems, most particularly the US addiction to one and its shameless one-sided support of the other. Sadly, both look increasingly to be their ruin. And as for ‘the Dark Ages’, I see no evidence to suggest they ever ended.
Chris, Toronto,
So bearing in mind that the US and friends had plenty of satellite intel before deciding that Iraq was stockpiling chemical weapons and should be invaded immediately, why are we now supposed to believe interpretation of a bunch of happy-snaps taken from the skies above Iran? Am I missing something here, or hasn’t the veracity of this kind of story been fatally undermined in the eyes of the thinking public?
Gareth W, London,
I believe that satellite photos also show many many missile sites in the USA and Israel.
Based on the repeated wars that both countries have engaged in, their huge arsenals, whom should the world fear most?
John Claro, Cleggan, Eire
In this day and age of satellites which can photograph down to the square inch?
nobody believes these false stories anymore.
Iran makes no secret of its missiles. They actually have annual parades to show them off.
Maybe the times should send a photo-reporter to the event.
How about the US show us pictures of its missiles which are pointed at Iran from the strait of Ormuz.
Chic Choc, Quebec, Canada
There we go again. Same old story as weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
Have they found them? No, because they don’t exist.
Why are they still Iraq then?
emily, essex, uk
We’ve been here before. The Americans presented satellite photographs of Iraqi factories some six years ago and basically said, “these are facilities for building WMD. We are experts, you are laymen, so you must believe us.” The fact is that you can take a photograph of any factory from the air and then have arrows pointing at the individual buildings saying things like “biological pathogen research block” or “rocket assembly building”.
The Americans acted in bad faith back then and intentionally hoodwinked their own population before the Iraq war. Why should we trust them now. This time they’ve been a bit smarter though, and are feeding their disinformation through magazines rather than presenting it directly.
Fred, Prague,
I’m just curious when people talk about how evil iran is and all the support for terrorism, destabilizing Iraq etc. Have none of you been paying attention? The US destabilized Iraq. Its 100% their fault. They are just trying to pass the blame. They are also ignoring the fact that the majority of the support for the insurgency is coming from Saudi Arabia, not Iran.
On Iran wiping israel off the map, thats one of these false things which has been passed off as truth. There are arguments on the direct translation but the comments were not about blowing the country up, it was about getting rid of the state and having one country. Not having a segregationist one that occupies and oppresses people based on religion and race. Which israel does.
Iran doesnt have an aggressive history, but it has a history of our western countries interfering with them.
With the current middle east policies, why wouldn’t they want to ensure they are left alone?
The threat from them is pretty much lies.
Carl, Australia,
pseudonominus on April 11, 2008 at 3:16 PM
Nuke them and we will nuke you right back.. >:}
Chakra Hammer on April 11, 2008 at 3:17 PM
Iran would make a great, fused glass, art project. We could fund it through the National Endowment For The Arts, as long as we were able to include some human urine or feces, smeared on the Virgin Mary somewhere in it.
2Tru2Tru on April 11, 2008 at 3:23 PM
Wow. You’re even more out there than Krauthammer. He just wanted us to help Israel which is specifically threatened nearly every day by Iran. Also, didn’t he say 2nd Holocaust? Maybe every country gets one freebie.
JiangxiDad on April 11, 2008 at 3:28 PM
Scary stuff. Now it looks like we’ll probably have to take over the whole world after all.
JiangxiDad on April 11, 2008 at 3:33 PM
Does KH not also think that Rhiyadh is a target? Israel is of more use to Iran as a thorn rather than as a glowing parking lot. He argues that as undependable as it may be, there is no choice but MAD. I believe the umbrella should cover the Kingdom as well. A few missiles and Iran (a) has the Arabian oil fields to sell to China, sans Sunnis (b) hobbles the US (c) wins Mecca and Medina – a virtual Trifector. A few missiles into Israel, and some Jews are gone, and the US remains fanged and angry. Which would you target first if you were a megalomaniacal Mullah?
shaken on April 11, 2008 at 3:46 PM
Caroline Glick in the J-Post about how Ahmadinejad is winning while the West and US dithers.
JiangxiDad on April 11, 2008 at 3:54 PM
Very interesting points. Could shake-up a few things if the US declares an Israeli-Saudi umbrella. As for whether we need to establish our intentions explicitly, a la KH, I’d say that to do otherwise puts the US in the uncomfortable position of having to respond after Israel decides on it’s own and in it’s own timeframe to act. It’s pretty unimaginable to consider Israel and Iran unleashing nuclear missiles in the ME and the US stays out of it. So why leave any ambiguity in Iranian/Syrian minds, or give another nation the power to determine when we act.
JiangxiDad on April 11, 2008 at 4:13 PM
We are not going to take preemptive action against Iran. Mr. Bush will leave office in January 2009 with Iran still enriching uranium and still killing our troops in Iraq.
In the event of a nuclear attack on Israel, the United States will not kill hundreds of thousands of innocent Iranians in retaliation. Israel would do it, but we wouldn’t. This isn’t 1945, and Barack Obama isn’t FDR.
Except for the support we give Israel, the United States is irrelevant to any potential nuclear exchange between Iran and Israel. Accordingly, we should not make threats that we are unprepared to carry out, lest our credibility suffer.
paul006 on April 11, 2008 at 4:13 PM
I love Dr. K’s writing, and I know he’s listened too in the WH, but on this one I’m missing the point.
We’ve threatend Iran for years to no avail. Now he wants the President to threaten them again.
They don’t care what threats we make, or assurances of mutual destruction we offer. In fact, they like our threats. Makes them seem real tough on the Arab street.
The end game is simple and inevitable. When Iran gets all the parts together on a workbench and starts assembling their device, we will attack them from the air and set their program back years.
DrW on April 11, 2008 at 4:16 PM
While I don’t think your scenario is likely, what makes Iranian civilians who don’t oppose a belligerent government that wages nuclear war innocent?
JiangxiDad on April 11, 2008 at 4:24 PM
It’s a philosophical point, I suppose. But I submit that average people are not morally culpable for the actions of their government; at the very least, their moral culpability is highly attenuated. This is especially true in totalitarian societies like Iran, where opposition to the government will get you and your family killed.
You could say, “Well, people should be brave and risk their lives and the lives of children.” But I think that asks too much.
paul006 on April 11, 2008 at 5:04 PM
Although I regret to say I know what you mean, I don’t think servicemen and women and their families would agree. You know the old hackneyed saying, “Freedom isn’t free.” I’ve never had to fight for it, so I’m just an armchair general. But in these perilous times we live in, with so many lethal enemies both within and without, I have found my patriotism and love of country and amazement at our Constitution and system of government, and understanding that people have died for my freedom, and so on and so forth. I would be very proud to have my own two kids serve in the military.
JiangxiDad on April 11, 2008 at 5:16 PM
Fighting for your own country is not analogous to opposing your own government in service to another country’s interests.
The question here isn’t whether freedom is free. The question is whether the United States should kill Iranian civilians en masse to avenge Israel. To believe that, you must believe that Iranian civilians should risk their lives in opposition to their government’s nuclear ambitions, even as our government — a part of it, anyway — declares with “moderate confidence” that Iran’s government has no nuclear ambitions! Morally, this makes no sense.
If Iran ever launches a nuclear strike against Israel, Israel will avenge herself. The United States is not going to launch a retaliatory strike against the Iranian populace. Ours is a nation that anguishes over the morality of waterboarding terrorists. We’re not going to kill hundreds of thousands of civilians to get back at their leaders.
paul006 on April 11, 2008 at 6:29 PM
You probably don’t actually need nukes to destroy Iran. A hundred or so thermobaric bombs on the cities and military installations and a like number of deep penetrators for underground military installations would probably do it. Follow up with a few hundred well-aimed conventional glide bombs to be sure that the electrical generation machinery is destroyed and the sewage plants shattered. If you want to be just plain mean, follow up with a few thousand incendiaries on the remains of the cities, though I suspect that there’s less to burn there than there would be in an American city.
You do have to take out the Iranian navy, though; your attack should probably begin with an attack on their sub force and then their surface force.
It might be a bad precedent, but perhaps the best response.
njcommuter on April 11, 2008 at 6:44 PM
Fighting for your own country can mean fighting an internal or external enemy, or both.
JiangxiDad on April 11, 2008 at 6:46 PM
Excuse me, Allah. I haven’t heard the extremist leader of a nation rushing to develop nuclear weapons proclaiming his intention to wipe Italy or Poland off the map. Your liberal nuance is showing.
peacenprosperity on April 11, 2008 at 7:06 PM
I doubt we would get the chance. Israel would knock down Iran’s missile and nuke them first. Don’t mess with the Israelites.
Maxx on April 11, 2008 at 7:09 PM
Yea, I can see france, belgium and turkey agreeing to Israel joining NATO. You’re cracking me up.
peacenprosperity on April 11, 2008 at 7:18 PM
Yes, fighting for your country certainly could mean that. But what does that have to do with the United States killing Iranian civilians en masse?
It’s a moot point anyway. We’re not going to do it.
paul006 on April 11, 2008 at 7:21 PM
paul006 on April 11, 2008 at 7:21 PM
An option. Do you think that if the Soviets attacked us during the cold war, there would not have been mass casualties in the Soviet union?
Johan Klaus on April 11, 2008 at 7:55 PM
I was talking about the obligation and duty Iranians have to fight for their own country. That was your original point, that the Iranian people are “innocents” and therefore shouldn’t be involved. I say they’re not. But I’ve said this to you before, so we are going in circle.
JiangxiDad on April 11, 2008 at 8:11 PM
There were a lot of innocent Germans, Japanese and Italians, not to mention the innocent Allied civilians that were killed in WW2.
Johan Klaus on April 11, 2008 at 8:42 PM
Cities are legitimate military targets.
They produce munitions, new soldiers, and income to buy both.
Iran has already attacked us, as their proxies in Iraq have shelled and shot at American troops … so we should destroy their nuclear capability sometime like … yesterday.
Kristopher on April 11, 2008 at 9:52 PM
Given the nearly unanimous worldwide consensus to attack Iraq after Saddam invaded Kuwait, it would seem that defending the underdog is not only US policy but UN as well. The only difference here is the “upped ante” of nuclear exchanges.
jgapinoy on April 11, 2008 at 10:13 PM
Update: Commenters remind me that Italy and Poland are already protected by NATO. Fair enough; change my example to Sweden and Finland then. Yes, it’s absurd to think of them becoming a target of Iran, but the basic point remains: If we’re all about deterring Holocausts, the policy should be to retaliate against Iran for a nuclear strike on any ally of the United States, NATO or non-NATO.
——————————————————-
AP, you are basically saying that there is no special significance to the Holocaust of the Jews in Europe. I disagree. In the 20th Century in the middle of the supposedly most modern and progressive society that ever existed, modern man used all its technology to execute a war of extermination specifically against the Jews as a race. Coming out of WWII we supposedly learned the lesson that we should not allow modern states to engage in genocide. And while we have allowed geocides, in Rwanda and in Cambodia, we have not allowed anything with the overt, open and clear pure race genocide in the middle of 1st world nations. And to allow it to happen again, and to the Jews of all people who just went through it, basically says that human civilization is doomed because we still do not have the courage to stand up to mass murderers and after over 1000 years of accepting racist anti-Semitism, we still have made no progress. Yes, it is more significant if we allow it again for the Jews. Not because the Jews are better than other folks, but but because Jew hatred is one reliable indicator of the health or illness of a civilzation. The Jews are very tiny minority and there is no logical rationale for Jew hatred…it is purely hatred for hatred’s sake. It tells us something about us.
georgealbert on April 11, 2008 at 10:43 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »