Comments on: Preventing the next Holocaust

By: Michael Lonie

Michael Lonie — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 03:29:06 +0000

There is a certain amount of truth in that letter. Iran does want nukes to further its imperial ambitions and to terrorize Europe. But the Pharaohs of Teheran also want it for the genocide of the Jews. Rafsanjani was quite clear about this back in 2001, saying that while “Islam” might be damaged by a nuke exchange it would survive but Israel would be completely destroyed.

There is another considertion. If Iran used nukes on Israel everybody would realize how serious they were about using nukes. There would be no doubts that any Iranian nuclear threats would be carried out after that.

Another thing is that after Israel we are the targets. An Iranian official was quoted a few years ago as saying they had a plan for destroying 29 targets in the USA and Britain which would bring both countries down. It sounded like such planned destruction was so complete that it had to be nuclear, probably delivered by terrorist attack. Any American who is complacent about Iranian nukes is deluding himself. The Islamic Republic is at war with the USA and will be until one or the other is destroyed. The best thing would be for the Iranians to overthrow the Islamic Republic, which now stinks in the nostrils of so many Iranians. But there is no sign that such an event will happen in the near future. Either we must do something now or we must resign ourselves to seeing the Islamic Republic get nukes, and probably use them soon thereafter.

We can only pray that anti-missile defenses work or that the Mullahs are not really as crazy as they sound.

By: Jeff

Jeff — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 23:18:22 +0000

I wonder if you could comment on this letter to Andrew Sullivan about Iranian nukes where he states that Iran wants nukes more for the ability to push around Europe and the Arabs and make them more than a regional power.

They understand that the Israelis would have no hesitation in leveling Tehran, Qum, Shiraz, the Natanz Enrichment Facility, the Arak facility, and the other military installations in an atomic attack that would make what Paul Tibbets did to Hiroshima look like a walk in the park. For example, Tehran sits in a valley, and is probably the best atomic target since Hiroshima itself. The Iranians aren’t stupid. They know these things. Yet they want an atomic arsenal. Why? Their target isn’t the Israelis; it’s the Europeans and the Arabs. They have judged that Europe is weak and craven and can be browbeaten into appeasing the demands of a nuclear Iran. Further, they believe that they can dominate the entire Middle East from the Mediterranean to the Hindu Kush as long as they have the atomic bomb.

It makes sense, except for the fact that Iran's leaders are crazy.

By: Soccerdad

Soccerdad — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 15:47:03 +0000

OK, I was looking for something else, but I found this explanation as to how Israel could strike at Iran's nuclear facilities - successfully.

By: John M.

John M. — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 15:45:06 +0000

Actually Wikipedia lists the combat radius of the F-15 as 1900 KM, so it’s right on the edge. That seems high though.

By: John M.

John M. — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 15:40:14 +0000

Not only are the Iranian facilities farther away than Osirak, they are more spread out and hardened. Even minimally degrading them would be a large operation.

Are we sure that Israel can deliver nukes at that range? It’s beyond the unrefuelled range of an F-15, and I don’t believe Israel has any tankers, do they? Do we know if they have a missile system with that kind of range?

By: Eric J

Eric J — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 13:50:36 +0000

I’ve been thinking for a while that some Jewish group should organize, partly as agitprop and partly out of actual perceived necessity, preparations for the relief effort that will be needed after an Iranian nuclear attack.

Perhaps they could coordinate with Arab and Persian relief groups to help pre-plan for the retaliatory strikes or the Sampson Option.