Hot Air Mobile
Home The Vault Gear About
Hot Air -- get your fill


Long-range missile sites found in Iran

posted at 9:50 am on April 11, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly

Anyone wondering why President Bush has been so insistent on missile defense, and why NATO embraced it in its new defense doctrine, will have those questions answered in today’s Times of London. Long-range missile sites have been spotted through satellite imagery in Iran, and the construction shows potential capabilities for a 4,000-mile range. That easily puts eastern Europe within Tehran’s sights, and explains why Poland and the Czech Republic seem so enthusiastic about becoming an integral part of the defense umbrella:

The secret site where Iran is suspected of developing long-range ballistic missiles capable of reaching targets in Europe has been uncovered by new satellite photographs.

The imagery has pinpointed the facility from where the Iranians launched their Kavoshgar 1 “research rocket” on February 4, claiming that it was in connection with their space programme.

Analysis of the photographs taken by the Digital Globe QuickBird satellite four days after the launch has revealed a number of intriguing features that indicate to experts that it is the same site where Iran is focusing its efforts on developing a ballistic missile with a range of about 6,000km (4,000 miles).

A previously unknown missile location, the site, about 230km southeast of Tehran, and the link with Iran’s long-range programme, was revealed by Jane’s Intelligence Review after a study of the imagery by a former Iraq weapons inspector. A close examination of the photographs has indicated that the Iranians are following the same path as North Korea, pursuing a space programme that enables Tehran to acquire expertise in long-range missile technology.

The Iranians claim that the sites are used for commercial space projects, but Jane’s analysts say they are clearly military in nature. The sites have heavy military security and have continued to expand far past the needs of a commercial application for rocketry. They look very similar to North Korea’s existing military facilities for long-range missiles, not surprising since the Shahab-3 relies on North Korean designs for the Nodong and the Taepodong missile classes.

According to the analysis provided by the Times, the Iranians could have missiles ready in five years that could hold Europe hostage to the mullahcracy. This meets the timelines set by NATO and the US to have interceptor sites completed in Poland and the Czech Republic by 2013. It also explains why George Bush has remained steadfast on missile defense.

This isn’t an academic pursuit any longer, but a critical means to stop proliferation by making the barriers to entry so costly as to discourage it. In order to get past a missile defense like the one proposed, Iran would have to build hundreds of sites and thousands of missiles, which would be an economic impossibility. Other nations that would try to threaten the West through missiles would face the same economic hurdle with even fewer resources than Iran, and not bother to even start such a program.


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

I’m shocked, shocked I tell you

Think_b4_speaking on April 11, 2008 at 9:54 AM

Polar bears come first … ?

mymanpotsandpans on April 11, 2008 at 9:56 AM

Sounds like Israel needs to make another strike on some random target somewhere in the Middle East that in retrospect will not have happened.

MadisonConservative on April 11, 2008 at 9:58 AM

cue the McCain theme music:

“bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran….”

jp on April 11, 2008 at 10:00 AM

Our moral superiors on the left will continue insisting Iran’s intentions may very well be peaceful and we’re just chicken hawks looking to get into another war for oil.

amerpundit on April 11, 2008 at 10:01 AM

Bush = warmonger
.
Iran = good guys
.
.
and Pelosi’s biggest worry is the opening ceremony of a sporting event on the other side of the planet.
.
.
Oye.

subbottomfeeder on April 11, 2008 at 10:02 AM

I think we need to talk with them and see how they feel about this.

/obama off

Mr. Bingley on April 11, 2008 at 10:03 AM

I think we should talk with the Iranians and find a peaceful compromise.

The Israelis won’t really mind being forcibly relocated.

Bishop on April 11, 2008 at 10:04 AM

In order for Khan to chase James Kirk around the quadrant he has to launch from someplace.

Seriously….what is the story here? Iran has been after a long range rocket for decades. Isn’t it common sense that they would have to have an assembly and launch facility for that rocket? I’m sure this facility wasn’t exposed to the western intelligence agencies by Janes. Then again, WMD was a ’slam dunk’.

Limerick on April 11, 2008 at 10:05 AM

The Iranians claim that the sites are used for commercial space projects

I thought it was for generating electricity?

The mullahs should get their stories straight.

Niko on April 11, 2008 at 10:07 AM

Next stop for Carter, Iran.
L

letget on April 11, 2008 at 10:08 AM

There goes the warmonger Ed rattling the cage to war again by talking about Iranian military actions.

Amazing, isn’t it? Someone talks about how Iran is killing Americans in Iraq or building strategic weapons and that person is condemned by the likes of Matthews or Olbermann et al. for being militaristic.

The Iranians aren’t criticized for their actions, mind you. No, the person mentioning the Iranian aggression is criticized.

Wow.

SteveMG on April 11, 2008 at 10:09 AM

Just to be sure, let’s bomb it.

If the mullahs complain, arrange for them to meet Allah.

I don’t know why it is were fooling around with these sheep violators. Obliterate them.

NoDonkey on April 11, 2008 at 10:10 AM

see no missiles, hear no missiles, speak of no missiles.

2klbofun on April 11, 2008 at 10:11 AM

Oh no, we can’t talk to them. It takes a special, messiah type to be successful in talking with them. War mongers and Republicans only piss them off. We need Obama now more than ever!

bopbottle on April 11, 2008 at 10:13 AM

The missle efense system is well and good, but doesn’t really address the core problem. Once Iran attains nuclear warfare capability, they don’t need missles to threaten the world. They will have terrorist customers knocking at the door to buy their product, and then is when our open borders come back to haunt. The Cold War economic application, as we used with the Soviets, won’t work in today’s world.

a capella on April 11, 2008 at 10:14 AM

Not to worry Ed. Those missiles will only be used as a delivery system to provide low cost energy to the citizens of Iran.

This message has been brought to you by a willing suspension of disbelief.

fogw on April 11, 2008 at 10:15 AM

What I would like to know is what will it really turn out to be, an aspirin factory, a warehouse, short range missiles? This is getting real childish and predictable. Funny how all the news builds up in a regimented fashion. Iran is no saint but they are no saints that will not attack us. They are not planning to attack us. The AD from MAD is in play. Some of the bums on this thread better be signing up because I think that the troops should be able to come home before they start to collect social security since some of you are so gung ho on the idea. Aggressive wars are for imperial fascists, at least thats the example from WWII.

LevStrauss on April 11, 2008 at 10:16 AM

I thought it was for generating electricity?

The mullahs should get their stories straight.

Niko on April 11, 2008 at 10:07 AM

No no no — pay attention, warmonger!

ICBM base = Cape Khomeni space launch center
Weaponized uranium facility = TVA
IED factories = roadside fireworks stands

Cuffy Meigs on April 11, 2008 at 10:17 AM

The implications are obvious, but most people could care less! This is just too depressing. I almost feel like going and ranting on a street corner like an ancient prophet, but I know my warnings would fall on even deafer ears than Jeremiah encountered. Perhaps what we need is for Britney Spears to sing about this issue.

thuja on April 11, 2008 at 10:24 AM

yeah, we need to go to “War for Oil” in the Middle East…even though they just discovered 4 Billion barrells in North Dakota. /moonbat logic

jp on April 11, 2008 at 10:25 AM

LevStrauss on April 11, 2008 at 10:16 AM

Do you have the first clue of the Professed Islamic Theology Iran beleives in?

Or the terrorist groups they are arming and funding around the world(Hamas, Hezzbo and even Al-Qaeda)?

Islamic Caliphate history…

OR, we can just hope they are B.S.’ing us for the fun of it.

jp on April 11, 2008 at 10:28 AM

LevStrauss on April 11, 2008 at 10:16 AM

Big difference between two empires picking on each other for worldly gain, quite another when one has the a divine mandate to take you over. So who exactly is the empire builder here? Are you saying we win by handicapping God’s budget? How is that working out for us?

Limerick on April 11, 2008 at 10:32 AM

Iran is no saint but they are no saints that will not attack us. They are not planning to attack us.

So a better idea is to just ignore Iran because they will never get a bomb, destabilize the entire strategic region, threaten their neighbors with annihilation or progress in their military technology.

Ain’t that right, Kim Jong Il?

Bishop on April 11, 2008 at 10:39 AM

jp on April 11, 2008 at 10:28 AM

The caliphate is impossible. Iran’s sphere of influence has be extended due to our Iraq intervention, not by their actions. Also after 9/11 they offered to give us assistance us with Afghanistan, but the admistration has made it clear that they do no want to ease relations. Ultimatums is not diplomacy, it is just a drumbeat to war.

Of course we are told they are both suicidal and so hungry for power that they want to establish a global empire, which has and will continue to be as successful as it has been. A global empire requires survival not suicide.

Of course I also know the ideology of those influenced by Leo Strauss so I them as a very real threat, a domestic and global threat. Of course I understand your argument because you are the product of the ideology, not that you believe what they think, just that you are the product of what they do.

Terrorism is a tactic. Every regional scuffle in the Middle East is not our concern. If we choose to make it our concern then we will destroy our country financially, militarily, and what’s left of our rights at home.

LevStrauss on April 11, 2008 at 10:40 AM

LevStrauss,
“They are not planning to attack us”

So apparently you don’t think it’s a problem as long as they don’t attack us. OK with you if they attack Israel (who would, of course, retaliate), or Europe? Or just use their weaponry to threaten the rest of the MidEast?

‘Cuz that wouldn’t impact the U.S. at all, would it?

exhelodrvr on April 11, 2008 at 10:41 AM

Don’t worry, Obama will talk Iran into converting the site into a peace camp with kumbaya songs.

Hummer53 on April 11, 2008 at 10:45 AM

LevStrauss on April 11, 2008 at 10:16 AM

Dunce of the Day.

It’s funny that you used WWII as an example, because we could have stopped that one before it really got rolling. It was people like you in the West, who through their own stupidity and cowardice for making tough decisions, sat by while Hitler kicked off the war.

They are not planning to attack us.

Who is us? I guess in the view of the true cowards, the US should just sit by and watch others be wiped out, much like the isolationists of the late 30’s and early 40s who sat by and watched Czechoslovakia, Poland, France, Belgium, Denmark, Holland etc… fall to the Nazis.

How’d that work out? Oh only 72 million people died.

If you don’t think that can’t happen again, you are mistaken. Thankfully there are plenty of people in this country who have the will and the courage to make sure that never happens again.

The AD from MAD is in play

No it is certainly not.

reaganaut on April 11, 2008 at 10:46 AM

LevStrauss on April 11, 2008 at 10:16 AM

They are not planning to attack us.

And you know this how? And they are not furnishing IED for Iraq?

Johan Klaus on April 11, 2008 at 10:47 AM

exhelodrvr on April 11, 2008 at 10:41 AM

Well then why don’t those countries give us all their troops and money if they think it is such a threat. We are paying the price. We shouldn’t be the world’s policeman. I wished you guys remembered your rhetoric from the 90s.

China has little interest in Iran attacking anyone and more influence on them since they have oil interests there, along with Russia. They need oil production to stay the same if not increase, growth of their economy depends on it. There is a difference between a legitimate threat and paranoia and many of you have crossed that line.

LevStrauss on April 11, 2008 at 10:48 AM

Long-range missile sites found in Iran

Why aren’t we making them No-range missiles.

joeswampy on April 11, 2008 at 10:49 AM

I wonder how the media coverage of this will compare to the leaked NIE? I’m thinking it will be a little bit less.

drunyan8315 on April 11, 2008 at 10:50 AM

Johan Klaus on April 11, 2008 at 10:47 AM

You know if you attack any nation, you will most definitely have some intervention from neighboring entities. Does that warrant another costly drawn out occupation, which will lead to another invasion of another country because the same stuff will happen when we invade Iran. Russians were involved in Vietnam. Did we invade Russia?

LevStrauss on April 11, 2008 at 10:50 AM

I’m not one for quotes, but I have always liked this one, because it is eerily relevant in today’s world.

History does indeed repeat itself.

It’s from Sir Henry Pownall, the chief of staff for Lord Gort, the BEF commander during the fall of France in 1940:

As nations we have got[ten] fat and lazy. We possessed great Empires, earned for us by the sweat and blood of our ancestors, that we would not take sufficient care to defend…. People have thought only of what they can get from the State, not what they can give…. Add, too, the Pacifist movements of recent years, the influx of undesirable aliens of all kinds, the self satisfied outlook on affairs, the failure of religion, the absence of leadership — all these things have contributed to our disaster. Our lack of proper preparation for war, over the vacillations of the politicians, over the attitude of the Treasury, over the treatment of the Army for the past twenty years and the refusal of the Ministers to accept the advice of their responsible Service advisers…

reaganaut on April 11, 2008 at 10:51 AM

jp on April 11, 2008 at 10:25 AM

We also have got oil in Anwar and we are not drilling there why?

Johan Klaus on April 11, 2008 at 10:54 AM

Obviously those pictures have been doctored by BushCheneyCo.

PappaMac on April 11, 2008 at 10:58 AM

LevStrauss on April 11, 2008 at 10:50 AM

And neighboring countries stopped Iraq from invading Kuwait?

Johan Klaus on April 11, 2008 at 10:59 AM

LevStrauss on April 11, 2008 at 10:16

If you went to Vietnam as I did straight out of high school then come talk to me otherwise STFU because I KNOW what our boys and girls are going through and will continue to go through simply because I’VE BEEN THERE in order for you to sit on your high horse and pontificate!

To all others, My humblest apologies, because I’m first in line to say don’t curse on the open boards, but I don’t appreciate someone else telling me that I don’t understand what the military is going through! I salute the kids I see in the airport AND the folks with vietnam riboons on their cars because I APPRECIATE what they went through, because I did it too and truly was spat at when I got back!

Vntnrse on April 11, 2008 at 11:00 AM

Vntnrse on April 11, 2008 at 11:00 AM

Semper Fi!

Johan Klaus on April 11, 2008 at 11:03 AM

reaganaut on April 11, 2008 at 10:46 AM

Who is your enemy? Who attacked us on 9/11? Terrorism is a tactic. Formal armies invading is a tactic. If an armed force attacked us should we attack all armed forces? No you go after the guys who attacked you.

As far as Iran is concerned:

In 1953 we overthrew their democracy and installed a despot.

They overthrew that despot.

We armed his neighbor to the teeth, including CBRNs, and encouraged him to attack.

We turned down their offer of assistance with Afghanistan and called them the “axis of evil.” We have cut off diplomatic channels for the most part.

The aggression we have showed towards Iran greatly outweighs the aggression they have showed towards us. I don’t trust them but I don’t overestimate them with the same paranoia that got us snookered into Iraq. The rhetoric put forth by the administration is means to an end. They don’t even believe their BS, it is just a marketing campaign. During Reagan these guys were called the “crazies” and Reagan didn’t listen to them, now they are in charge. This is bad policy from the same people who wanted Clinton to escalate all his police actions into full fledged war. Their answer to everything is escalation, destablization, and occupation.

LevStrauss on April 11, 2008 at 11:03 AM

There is a difference between a legitimate threat and paranoia and many of you have crossed that line.

History has proven that a legitimate threat usually becomes legitimate after its too late to do anything more than use military force against it.

This is the nuclear age, not Venice and Genoa getting nervous about the growing fleets of the other.

Bishop on April 11, 2008 at 11:07 AM

Vntnrse on April 11, 2008 at 11:00 AM

Being in the military does not make your view on geopolitics or global threats untouchable. Frankly if you have not read Leo Strauss you need to stop pontificating and crack a book. They think your are dumber than I do, except I try to cure your sickness, while they depend on it. I operate on many similar premises as the Neoconservatives, except I don’t exploit peoples’ limitations like they do. I believe that would be immoral.

LevStrauss on April 11, 2008 at 11:07 AM

Bishop on April 11, 2008 at 11:07 AM

The AD in MAD, Mutually Assured Destruction, is in play. They have nothing to gain. Yes it is the nuclear age and Iran better not forget it. We can turn their country into glass in an instant. What do they have to gain?

LevStrauss on April 11, 2008 at 11:09 AM

LevStrauss on April 11, 2008 at 11:03 AM

Yep, and if you browse through a few history books you will find embarrassing photos of FDR, Churchill and Stalin getting chummy at Yalta while American ships were ferrying military equipment to Vladivostok.

I will cry about Iran later, after I get done realizing that foreign policy has a way of changing to conform with real-world situations.

Bishop on April 11, 2008 at 11:11 AM

And neighboring countries stopped Iraq from invading Kuwait?

Johan Klaus on April 11, 2008 at 10:59 AM

We didn’t stop them either. April Glaspie told them we don’t get involved in Arab border disputes.

LevStrauss on April 11, 2008 at 11:11 AM

LevStrauss on April 11, 2008 at 11:03 AM
Who attacked us on 9/11?

Terrorist! And any country that supports terrorism is our enemy.

Johan Klaus on April 11, 2008 at 11:14 AM

Bishop on April 11, 2008 at 11:11 AM

Except your examples have nothing to do with the current real world situation. I am discussing the country of discussion.

LevStrauss on April 11, 2008 at 11:15 AM

LevStrauss on April 11, 2008 at 11:11 AM

That is why we had to get them out.

Johan Klaus on April 11, 2008 at 11:15 AM

The AD in MAD, Mutually Assured Destruction, is in play. They have nothing to gain. Yes it is the nuclear age and Iran better not forget it. We can turn their country into glass in an instant. What do they have to gain?

You are ascribing sanity and rational motive to a country which trains suicide bombers, forms teenage martyr organizations and elects leaders who believe they can make time stand still through words alone.

What do they have to gain? Some of them long for the return of the 12th Imam, a guy who can only appear after the kaffir have been wiped out, and someone in Iran might just try to hasten such an event.

Bishop on April 11, 2008 at 11:15 AM

You are ascribing sanity and rational motive to a country which trains suicide bombers, forms teenage martyr organizations and elects leaders who believe they can make time stand still through words alone.
—————————————

I do like your use of words like “trains” and “make.” I don’t believe that the leaders really believe any of that garbage either. Leaders are not suicidal and they are the ones that make make decisions. Those idiotic enough to die for leaders that exploit their religion luckily don’t make decisions.

LevStrauss on April 11, 2008 at 11:20 AM

Except your examples have nothing to do with the current real world situation. I am discussing the country of discussion.

It has everything to do with it.

Unless you have been asleep the last sixty years you would know that the U.S. and Europe weren’t exactly on friendly terms with the USSR, even though we had been allies during WWII.

We were also friends with Iran once. Times change; carping about the dastardly things the U.S. has done in regards to past foreign policy doesn’t help us today.

Bishop on April 11, 2008 at 11:20 AM

LevStrauss on April 11, 2008 at 10:40 AM

dude, drink the kool-aide much?

So the Iranian Mullah’s profess to beleive in the Hidden Iman Islamic theology(i.e. Blow up the world and they get their messiah), are trying to get Nukes and avow to destroy us as well! Are funding terrorist groups left and right, etc. etc. And want to setup a 1300 year ongoing project to establish a global caliphate…. and you want to play the Neville Chamberline role here, ignore what they say and do, even though they are irrational as they can be. Given the immediate red flag in history, right smack in front of us, its worse to promote this now both morally and intellectually, than it wsa for Chamberline and those who ignored Churchill. They didn’t have a glaring, red flag historical case right smack in front of them to learn from.

jp on April 11, 2008 at 11:22 AM

LevStrauss on April 11, 2008 at 11:15 AM

Examples of what inaction does.

Johan Klaus on April 11, 2008 at 11:26 AM

Leaders are not suicidal and they are the ones that make make decisions. Those idiotic enough to die for leaders that exploit their religion luckily don’t make decisions.

Again, you are trying to insert rationality into the minds of people who have a religious bias which trumps all. Hitler was a leader who made decisions, suicidal ones at that, and he dragged the world down with him.

Religion is a powerful thing and it obviously doesn’t take much of it to get these guys going.

Bishop on April 11, 2008 at 11:26 AM

Terrorist! And any country that supports terrorism is our enemy.

Johan Klaus on April 11, 2008 at 11:14 AM

more specifically, Islamic terrorism. We don’t care so much about the domestic related forms around the world. Just the Islamic version which has Global Domination goals and want to destroy every thing we stand for.

Secondly, this whol “We aren’t the ‘Police of the World’” crap. If you beleive in Capitalism and thus Globalism by locigal Extension, then someone is going to have to “police” the international realm where the goods pass. That is just a fact of life, just like the way they are policed domestically.

Its the exact same thing Thomas Jefferson saw with the Barbary Pirates and their City State Sponsors, with the Trade routes they were hijacking in the Mediterranian. Jefferson argued for this war for 15 years before taking us into it and creating our Navy as a result.

as a sidenote, the USS COnstition, which is on display in Mass., was on lockdown for months after 9/11. It was the ship we kicked their butts with, and is viewed as a symbolic target of our islamic enemies.

jp on April 11, 2008 at 11:27 AM

Another place to turn into moonscape. Along with every Qod base we can identify and the nuclear centrifuge farms. Then drop leaflets over their one gasoline refinery and major power plants to tell them they’re next if they don’t stick to friendlier types of technical development and foreign support.

michaelo on April 11, 2008 at 11:28 AM

on that note, Europe needs to be forced to man up and help in the “policing”….Strait of Hormuz comes to mind.

Of course, if you beleive the nuts in iran are rational then you think they’d never shut down shipping out of the Persian Gulf via Force and thus criple the worlds economy as part of a massive economic warfare.

jp on April 11, 2008 at 11:31 AM

The AD in MAD, Mutually Assured Destruction, is in play. They have nothing to gain. Yes it is the nuclear age and Iran better not forget it. We can turn their country into glass in an instant. What do they have to gain?LevStrauss on April 11, 2008 at 11:09 AM

The power to threaten, just like North Korea. The threat doesn’t have to involve them using the weapons, although the religious aspect makes it credible. It is also effective as a threat of being a terrorist supplier. Credible threats bring concessions. In this case, they will also create increased nuclear warfare development by every country in Iran’s immediate area. A nuclear Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Syria, or Egypt probably won’t decrease world tension. You are being deliberately obtuse regarding Iran’s intentions.

a capella on April 11, 2008 at 11:31 AM

“Unless you have been asleep the last sixty years you would know that the U.S. and Europe weren’t exactly on friendly terms with the USSR, even though we had been allies during WWII.”

Yes and an empire like the USSR and all its nukes, which wanted to establish a global empire found out just how impossible a global empire is. But we are supposed to crap our pants over a third world country that has very few entities that could be even considered client states or organizations, Iran. Sorry but the ROI for another long drawn out invasion doesn’t add up. The decision makers that want this war want to destablize the whole middle east.

LevStrauss on April 11, 2008 at 11:34 AM

LevStrauss,
“They think your are dumber than I do, ”

No comment.

exhelodrvr on April 11, 2008 at 11:35 AM

on that note, Europe needs to be forced to man up and help in the “policing”….Strait of Hormuz comes to mind.

jp on April 11, 2008 at 11:31 AM

I agree that Europe and Asia need to “man up” but why should they? We are spending our money and using our troops. Sun Tzu said the best way to achieve victory is without ever having a battle. I’d say Asia and to some extent Europe is the real winners.

LevStrauss on April 11, 2008 at 11:36 AM

exhelodrvr on April 11, 2008 at 11:35 AM

Sorry responding to everyone quickly sometimes causes typos and apparently excuses to refrain from credible response.

LevStrauss on April 11, 2008 at 11:38 AM

LevStrauss,
“We shouldn’t be the world’s policeman.”

Poor wording. We shouldn’t HAVE TO BE the world’s policeman. But since virtually no one else is willing to do the job, we need to. Valid from either the self-interest perspective or the humanitarian perspective, whichever is more important to you.

exhelodrvr on April 11, 2008 at 11:39 AM

we need to significantly withdrawal from Germany…problem is Rumsfeld tried to and they went nuts over there about it, didn’t want us to leave. so created a geo-political problem.

but they are rich and need to quit spending money on craddle to grave welfare and arm themselves. Until then, the US will have the dominant military in the world and responsibility will be on us.

that said, the other side of this is do we really want a country like Germany with their history and trending Islamic now, to become a military power again?

jp on April 11, 2008 at 11:40 AM

Excess military spending causes economic meltdown?

What a novel concept.

Military expenditures as a percentage of GDP(CIA estimates):

1. Oman 11.40%
2. Qatar 10.00%
3. Saudi Arabia 10.00%
4. Iraq 8.60%
5. Jordan 8.60%
6. Israel 7.30%

67. Iran – 2.50%

Iran’s really acting like an aggresive threat, ain’t they?

alphie on April 11, 2008 at 11:41 AM

exhelodrvr on April 11, 2008 at 11:39 AM

We don’t have the funds to be the world’s policeman, neither did the Soviets.

LevStrauss on April 11, 2008 at 11:41 AM

Leaders are not suicidal? Maybe not, but leaders definitely miscalculate, which can amount to the same thing. Saddam, Tojo, Mussolini, Hitler, Chamberlain, Stalin, Napoleon, as just a few examples of leaders who made significant miscalculations that led, or nearly led, to their nation’s downfall and brought significant destruction and suffering to their people.

exhelodrvr on April 11, 2008 at 11:46 AM

LevStrauss,
“We shouldn’t be the world’s policeman.”

Yes we should. Someone is going to do it. We are the best suited right now, for a multitude of reasons. It is also our obligation, as we are capable of doing it. Europe is potentially capable, but won’t. That is why they are not respected, and no longer have self-respect. It is also why they always whine at their parents.

We don’t have the funds to be the world’s policeman, neither did the Soviets.

LevStrauss on April 11, 2008 at 11:41 AM

We do, and have. The Soviets didn’t. It’s a question of priorities, unless you wish to adopt the Dem line that our own country and people are mired in poverty and despair. But fat poor people with free food, healthcare, education, housing, etc. make it hard to accept that propaganda.

JiangxiDad on April 11, 2008 at 11:49 AM

the Soviets weren’t trying to police it, they were conquering it. big distinction…

Iraq is costing less than 1% of GDP, we can afford what we are doing.

jp on April 11, 2008 at 11:50 AM

Then again, WMD was a ’slam dunk’.

Limerick on April 11, 2008 at 10:05 AM

You’re kind of a Long-Timer around here, and usually talk sense, so with all due respect, what is it that has led you to believe that WMD’s are not a slam dunk?

I have heard convincing testimony that Saddam sent the WMD’s to Syria, and never heard any convincing rebuttal. I’ve begun to notice a kind of acceptance among those on the right that there were not any WMD’s in Iraq, and don’t understand it.

samuelrylander on April 11, 2008 at 11:52 AM

But we are supposed to crap our pants over a third world country that has very few entities that could be even considered client states or organizations

We ignore them at our own peril, North Korea comes to mind along with Pakistan and its nukes.

Anyway, those irrelevant client organizations of Iran have a pesky habit of blowing anyone and everyone who they deem unworthy to bits, and they do so on a regular basis and in great quantities.

Bishop on April 11, 2008 at 11:55 AM

I say we take off and nuke the site from orbit. It’s the only way to be sure.

/Ripley

Kafir on April 11, 2008 at 12:02 PM

Polls repeatedly show that Europeans think the US is the biggest threat to world peace, the world’s “biggest terrorist”, etc. I say we strike a deal with Iran and let them turn Germany and France into gigantic barbecue pits. Let the eurotrash handle this on their own.

Django on April 11, 2008 at 12:03 PM

LevStrauss…Through your words, u show a surprising lack of common sense and the ability to understand some of the more basic warning signs of the impending evil we have growing in that part of the world. My hope is that you and people like you will never come close to being in a position of deciding any of these issues before our country. Please seek better council.

Brian on April 11, 2008 at 12:12 PM

Let the eurotrash handle this on their own.

Django on April 11, 2008 at 12:03 PM

They have been trying. Haven’t you noticed the positive results of their 5 year negotiations with Iran? Diplomacy is always the answer. Peace in our time.

a capella on April 11, 2008 at 12:13 PM

Faulty intelligence. Bush lied last time, why should we believe this? /sarcasm

Eric12470210 on April 11, 2008 at 12:23 PM

I see this as job security for us DoD civilians that work in this field.

RMCS_USN on April 11, 2008 at 12:30 PM

In 1953 we overthrew their democracy and installed a despot.

They overthrew that despot.

We armed his neighbor to the teeth, including CBRNs, and encouraged him to attack.

We turned down their offer of assistance with Afghanistan and called them the “axis of evil.” We have cut off diplomatic channels for the most part.

Yes, the Iranians are just sitting around minding their own beeswax, getting governments imposed on them, invaded, and ungratefully spurned. You forgot the kite flying children. The children.

Cuffy Meigs on April 11, 2008 at 12:42 PM

For those naive people who wish to give the Iranian Islamic Theocracy the benefit of doubt, ask yourself – why would they have any interest in a space program? For commerce? For science? For exploration?

I don’t buy it!

OldEnglish on April 11, 2008 at 12:43 PM

LevStrauss on April 11, 2008 at 11:07 AM

My dear sir, first of all I did not attempt to impugn your intelligence by suggesting you “crack a book” because I suspect everyone here is at least intelligent enough to have done so more then just a few times. My reading however does not include communist humanist drivel from someone who preferred Plato and Nietzsche because quite simply I do not agree with them. I much prefer Tolstoy!

Vntnrse on April 11, 2008 at 12:48 PM

Apparently, y’all are unaware of the Iranian flag that was found by Neil Armstrong, on the moon.

They were there first. Their missile program is for a Mars landing. I can’t believe that y’all didn’t know this.

Public schools, these days.

:O|

OhEssYouCowboys on April 11, 2008 at 1:10 PM

Folks, the ruling group in Iran is the scum on the tomato soup. They want that country diplomatically isolated, because engagement will inexorably corrode their influence over time. I’m not saying we need to meet with the loathsome Mr. Ahmadinezhad, but we should be maintaining lower-level contacts.

Iran needs to stand by its international convention obligations, and the less we look like we’re seeking an excuse to invade a country of 70 million people (most of whom like our culture and view us unfavorably only when we seem to threaten them) the more likely we are to maintain broad international pressure to hold them to those.

The mullahs and Mr. Ahmadinezhad are anaerobes. Let’s keep the oxygen supply open.

DrSteve on April 11, 2008 at 1:23 PM

Brian on April 11, 2008 at 12:12 PM

Evil? If you possess the faculty of sight maybe you can see that good and evil are nothing but labels to describe us and them. Are the Saudis good? To see everything in booleans and absolutes is not to truly see it at all. “Good and evil” are crumbs for the animals because they are easy to digest. Line up the actions from both sides in chronological order, but if you want to attribute the terms “good” and “evil” you may see conflicting information. Does “good” overthrow democracy with coups to establish despots? Your ghost stories don’t scare me. Even Krauthammer appears to be signing on to my MAD scenario. To try to stop every country at this point in time from acquiring nukes, enhances the desire for them through escalation and closes your eyes to trends in technology. We are just helping to determine where the nukes of the future will be pointed…at us.

LevStrauss on April 11, 2008 at 2:07 PM

Cuffy Meigs on April 11, 2008 at 12:42 PM

They are “minding their own business” much better than we are.

LevStrauss on April 11, 2008 at 2:10 PM

“research rocket” on February 4, claiming that it was in connection with their space programme.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA…YEAH THAT’S LIKE SAYING SLICK WILLY OR SPITZER GO TO BROTHELS STRICKTLY FOR “RESEARCH!”

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

So, when do we flatten these mad mullahs, before it’s too late or only after they hit us? Our gubment (especially the left) need to wake up as it’s only a matter of time before they hit us!

Liberty or Death on April 11, 2008 at 2:46 PM

although the religious aspect makes it credible. You are being deliberately obtuse regarding Iran’s intentions.

a capella on April 11, 2008 at 11:31 AM

I agree it is precisely their religious fanaticism that makes them a more then credible threat. MAD worked against the soviets because they weren’t religious fanatic’s hell bent on bringing about Armageddon to usher in the final Imam.

The MAD doctrine won’t work with the Mad Mullah’s and this is why we need to take this seriously and do something about it sooner rather than later.

Liberty or Death on April 11, 2008 at 3:00 PM

Of course we’ve got to go to war for oil in the Middle East, even if there are 4 billion barrels of oil under North Dakota. We wouldn’t want to poison the bison calving grounds, would we?

Steve Z on April 11, 2008 at 3:04 PM

In order to get past a missile defense like the one proposed, Iran would have to build hundreds of sites and thousands of missiles, which would be an economic impossibility.

That’s silly. We’re decades from missile defense being 99.9% effective. Let’s be optimistic and say that, under real-world conditions, it’s 80% effective against a single missile launched from Iran by the time Iran gets nuclear weapons. Do you really think that Europe is going to gamble one of their cities and hundreds of thousands of its people when the odds are 1 in 5 of imminent destruction? Do you think even America would? If the alternative is, say, some economic deal with Iran (which, of course, is all Europe could offer)? Missile defense isn’t going to help much when it comes to blackmail. Yes, it changes the risk-reward for various activities, but I don’t think it would make as much of a difference with Iran as we’d like to think. It’s a defense tool, not a means of stripping nuclear weapons of their political effectiveness.

In 1953 we overthrew their democracy and installed a despot. They overthrew that despot. The aggression we have showed towards Iran greatly outweighs the aggression they have showed towards us.

Um, no. Nice try though. You get the 1953 memorial Iranian propagandist gold star for effort. And, by the way, the Shah was the leader prior to 1953. The Americans just helped the British help the pro-Shah forces edge out political rivals, which eventually scored the Khumaynī major anti-American points which, like so many anti-Americans, he used as an excuse to treat his own people worse than the Shah did and to spread chaos throughout the region (and, through terrorism, the world). America long ago stopped dwelling on 1979, yet Iran still uses 1953 as a rallying point to illustrate that America is the Great Satan.

calbear on April 11, 2008 at 3:25 PM

Damn, Charka! He never connected the dots originally and…?
Yep… if we would have gotten attacked again… President Bush wouldn’t have connected the dots…again….maybe?
Chakra Hammer on April 11, 2008 at 2:25 PM

Again, again…

What the hell is that…”Monday morning QB’ing”!

Do you realize the “village idiot from Crawford ,Texas” is a graduate from bothe , Harvard and Yale?

What the hell does that say for the “Ivy League”?
Jesus, I graduated from high school!

Alumni, Yale, Harvard… [non legacy students, of course] chime in here if you scored high on your SAT!

Just kiddin’…! Holy Jesus…I’m just “kiddin”…!

You folks populate are whole “ damn gohernmhent”!

Olde soldier sends…!
Really… I’m “just kiddin…!

Honest!

J_Gocht on April 11, 2008 at 4:01 PM

Those missles won’t be used until the 12th Double Secret Probation Imam returns.

Akzed on April 11, 2008 at 4:05 PM

You folks populate are whole “ damn gohernmhent”!
J_Gocht on April 11, 2008 at 4:01 PM

That’s not a typo, that’s stupidity.

Akzed on April 11, 2008 at 4:07 PM

whew! What a relief to discover that this is just a space related facility.
~el Presidente Obama

moxie_neanderthal on April 11, 2008 at 4:11 PM

Akzed on April 11, 2008 at 4:07 PM

I respect your education. I don’t respect your analysis.

J_Gocht on April 11, 2008 at 4:16 PM

What a wonderful world! Comments from the linked article:

(I accidently posted this on another thread, but these comments belong to article linked to above. My apolgies)

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 4:21 PM

Comment pages: 1 2


You must be logged in to post a comment.