Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Iranian Religious Leader: We're Already Nuclear
Arutz Sheva ^ | 27/1/12 | Elad Benari

Posted on 01/28/2012 8:47:13 AM PST by Eleutheria5

Senior Iranian religious leader Ayatollah Ahmad Khatami said on Friday that Iran is already a nuclear state and that Americans have not realized that.

“The United States says it will not allow Iran to be nuclear, but it is so blind that it hasn’t noticed that Iran has already become a nuclear state,” Khatami was quoted by Channel 10 News as having said. He added that the U.S. has become isolated in the region, after its four “slaves” were removed from power. He was referring to former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, former Libyan strongman Muammar Qaddafi, former Tunisian President Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali and former Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh. .....

(Excerpt) Read more at israelnationalnews.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: iran; now; nuclear; oops
Obama: (private) Wooohooo! (public) D'oh!
1 posted on 01/28/2012 8:47:17 AM PST by Eleutheria5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Eleutheria5

Yep, Obama is happy. Ron Paul is like, “what’s the big deal. Iran is just a small country.” Romney and establishment friends are feverishly thinking of some way to blame Gingrich...and all is as it ever was.


2 posted on 01/28/2012 9:00:35 AM PST by Leep (It's gonna be a Newt day!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eleutheria5

Iranian Religious leader: Saddam invaded my body.....News at 5PM.


3 posted on 01/28/2012 9:02:01 AM PST by Earthdweller (Harvard won the election again...so what's the problem.......? Embrace a ruler today.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eleutheria5

I am going to take this with a big grain of salt.


4 posted on 01/28/2012 9:09:22 AM PST by PghBaldy (War Powers Res: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/warpower.asp)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PghBaldy

Everyone will keep on talking about it until there is a mushroom clowd , of course it will then be everyone elses fault for letting it happen


5 posted on 01/28/2012 9:14:44 AM PST by reefdiver ("Let His day's be few And another takes His office")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: PghBaldy
Sometimes...just sometimes....even a grain of salt is quite the irritation in an open wound.
6 posted on 01/28/2012 9:25:35 AM PST by EBH (God Humbles Nations, Leaders, and Peoples before He uses them for His Purpose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Eleutheria5

I don’t buy it or they would have set one off to prove it.


7 posted on 01/28/2012 9:28:35 AM PST by Blood of Tyrants (Never believe anything in politics until it has been officially denied.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eleutheria5

We’re already nuclear too. Let’s play thermonuclear war. Our move first.


8 posted on 01/28/2012 9:34:38 AM PST by FlyingEagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reefdiver

Perhaps, i just wonder what the cleric means when he says this, and why would he say this, if he had a bomb?


9 posted on 01/28/2012 9:34:38 AM PST by PghBaldy (RonPaul's “Campaign for Liberty”, selling Protocols of Elders of Zion for 3 years ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith; AnonymousConservative; Berosus; bigheadfred; Bockscar; ColdOne; Convert from ECUSA; ...

Time to bomb.

Thanks Eleutheria5.


10 posted on 01/28/2012 9:42:15 AM PST by SunkenCiv (FReep this FReepathon!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: PghBaldy
...why would he say this, if he had a bomb?

That's easy: to do with a nuclear weapon (or weapons) what Iran has always wanted to do -- intimidate its adversaries.

And, if Iran does NOT have a bomb (or bombs) at this time? Well, their race to create nuclear weapons is obvious to everyone for some time. To claim success before they have actually achieved success would be a useful strategy in order to extend the time they need to succeed.

If you're Israel or the US, do you want to gamble that Iran does NOT have nuclear weapons and so strike at it, thinking you're going to delay them from success? If Israel and/or the US strike at Iran "pre-emptively" and Iran retaliates against Israel and/or our fleet with nuclear devices, they've got the moral high ground. "We were attacked first!"

11 posted on 01/28/2012 9:46:57 AM PST by Brandybux (Oportet ministros manus lavare antequam latrinam relinquent.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Eleutheria5

Maybe, maybe not. It wouldn’t surprise me, though, since we pussy-footed around with Iran for so long. Here we could have the results of our inaction.


12 posted on 01/28/2012 9:54:43 AM PST by Future Snake Eater (Don't stop. Keep moving!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eleutheria5

I don’t buy products sold by fear.

I call BS.


13 posted on 01/28/2012 9:54:45 AM PST by AlmaKing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brandybux

What about the doctrine of proportionate response? You know, the one that kept being bandied about during Cast Lead? (not serious, of course)


14 posted on 01/28/2012 10:36:41 AM PST by Eleutheria5 (Diplomacy is war by other means.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Blood of Tyrants

I don’t buy it or they would have set one off to prove it.
_______________________________________________________

When was Israel’s last nuclear test?

Never. Yet everyone knows Israel is a nuclear state.

That being said, I too take this with a grain of salt.


15 posted on 01/28/2012 10:37:32 AM PST by AnAmericanAbroad (It's all bread and circuses for the future prey of the Morlocks.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: AnAmericanAbroad

Well, we’ll either see a mushroom cloud or we won’t. And if we do, you won’t need a grain of salt and we’ll (US, Israel, UK, whoever) respond in kind. And if we don’t, the claim alone will alter everything.


16 posted on 01/28/2012 10:50:03 AM PST by Eleutheria5 (Diplomacy is war by other means.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Brandybux
And, if Iran does NOT have a bomb (or bombs) at this time? Well, their race to create nuclear weapons is obvious to everyone for some time. To claim success before they have actually achieved success would be a useful strategy in order to extend the time they need to succeed.

Yep. Those sandworms are sneaky and all talk. They indeed are just buying more time from the gullible and the cowardly countries.
17 posted on 01/28/2012 11:13:34 AM PST by crosshairs (Liberalism is to truth, what east is to west.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Eleutheria5
They are nuclear in the sense they are able to produce concentrated uranium.

That's not even complete mastery of the fuel cycle.

Weaponization is a science and technology in itself.

Now is the time to put an end to this, not 5 years from now.

Iran will be an aggressive state that continues to ignore borders, support terrorism and oppress people. With nuclear weapons they would be the world's worst nightmare.

18 posted on 01/28/2012 11:57:21 AM PST by Mariner (War Criminal #18)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PghBaldy

First you have to assume that raghead preacher is a rational “thinker”-——If he was he’d remember what happened to Saddam when he shot his mouth off about how cool his weapons stash was. It doesn’t really matter which is true in terms of this guys future——blowhards always get what they got coming. Write his name on the wall and start counting.


19 posted on 01/28/2012 11:59:34 AM PST by cherokee1 (skip the names---just kick the buttz)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Mariner

So how to put an end? It’s easier said than planned, and easier planned than done, needless to say. Russia seems to be weighing in on Iran’s side. That means the former Republics are out. They won’t help with a big bear breathing down their necks, even if they now really are independent sovereign states. A one-time flyover raid is out. That’s like busting a chair over a gang member’s head and then walking out of the bar with the rest of the gang looking on. A naval/air-backed invasion is the only option, and for that several carriers will be needed, as well as crack troops and plenty of them. This is WW III.


20 posted on 01/28/2012 12:08:49 PM PST by Eleutheria5 (Diplomacy is war by other means.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Eleutheria5

Iran is doing its best to provoke a war with the US or Israel. There are two probable reasons why they would want to do this. The first reason is an excuse to wipe Israel off the map and second reason is to provide an excuse wipe Israel off the map. Irregardless of whether they have a nuke, or not, Iran wants to wipe Irael off the map.


21 posted on 01/28/2012 1:27:31 PM PST by Leep (It's gonna be a Newt day!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Eleutheria5
"This is WW III"

Well sorta and not quite.

A determined military blockade of all Iranian petroleum/oil trade and a law preventing any bank or financial institution from dealing with any country that does not support the blockade...to INCLUDE a prevention of the US Government doing any business or financial transaction with any private entity or nation that does not support the blockade, would end this quickly.

Iran would completely melt down in less than a year.

However the commercial interests of the world would not stand for that.

Hell, just a law preventing the USA from conducting any financial transaction with any entity...private or nation-state...that conducts business with Iran would likely put enough pressure on the world to really cut these guys off.

Of course, at the first sign of weaponization the USA must take whatever military action is necessary and available to ensure the threat does not materialize.

No rules, total war.

22 posted on 01/28/2012 1:39:27 PM PST by Mariner (War Criminal #18)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Leep

It’s been tried multiple times. Every time someone wants to wipe us off the map, we end up taking up more space on the map. Physically, the odds are always long. But historically, we always do it. G-d’s outstretched hand, perhaps?


23 posted on 01/28/2012 2:04:58 PM PST by Eleutheria5 (Diplomacy is war by other means.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Mariner

“Hell, just a law preventing the USA from conducting any financial transaction with any entity...private or nation-state...that conducts business with Iran would likely put enough pressure on the world to really cut these guys off.”

Works for Cuba./sarc And seriously, it won’t work for the same reason. Russia. A pipeline to Russia via Uzbekistan or one of the other Islamic former Republics contiguous to Iran would not only keep Iran in revenue, but would also cement their place in Russia’s orbit. From there, they can laugh at any further sanctions. The Cold War may be over, but Russia and China are still far from warm and cuddly little critters.


24 posted on 01/28/2012 2:11:25 PM PST by Eleutheria5 (Diplomacy is war by other means.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: AnAmericanAbroad

Since they only produced a nuclear fuel rod (20% U235) a few weeks ago, I would bet that they are a LONG way from producing enough 95% U235 to make a nuclear weapon.


25 posted on 01/28/2012 4:03:01 PM PST by Blood of Tyrants (Never believe anything in politics until it has been officially denied.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Eleutheria5
The US can interrupt any pipeline before it leaves Iranian territory and likely without any casualities.

If we announce we'll do it, then DO IT, nobody will interfere.

26 posted on 01/28/2012 4:13:54 PM PST by Mariner (War Criminal #18)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Blood of Tyrants

The clergy man is basically an ignorant clod. They told him what he wanted to hear and he had the bad sense to boast about a semi achievement

Obama did it at Soylandra and the battery manufacturer


27 posted on 01/28/2012 4:20:45 PM PST by bert (K.E. N.P. +12 ..... Crucifixion is coming)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Mariner

And if Russia chooses to place “official peacekeepers” along the Iranian leg of the pipeline? And announces that any assault on its “peacekeepers” or areas they are safeguarding would be construed as an act of war? Obama is testicularly challenged in the first place, so he wouldn’t do it. Newt would have to seriously consider the consequences of getting into a shooting war with Russia. And even if Russia would not do that, you are no longer talking about economic sanctions against Iran, but about penetrating Iranian air space and dropping bombs on its pipeline. This would still require a prolonged campaign involving carriers, multiple sorties, ground reconaisance, and ultimately troops on the ground.


28 posted on 01/29/2012 7:15:24 AM PST by Eleutheria5 (Diplomacy is war by other means.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson