Skip to comments.Iranian Religious Leader: We're Already Nuclear
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 hasnt 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 ...
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.
Iranian Religious leader: Saddam invaded my body.....News at 5PM.
I am going to take this with a big grain of salt.
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
I don’t buy it or they would have set one off to prove it.
We’re already nuclear too. Let’s play thermonuclear war. Our move first.
Perhaps, i just wonder what the cleric means when he says this, and why would he say this, if he had a bomb?
Time to 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!"
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.
I don’t buy products sold by fear.
I call BS.
What about the doctrine of proportionate response? You know, the one that kept being bandied about during Cast Lead? (not serious, of course)
I dont 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
“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.
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.
If we announce we'll do it, then DO IT, nobody will interfere.
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
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.
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.