Was Iran, perhaps, BLUFFING(!!) all the while?

2008-10-22T10:21:08Z

So much for Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinjad [sic] suggesting all the while that Iran had clear designs on "wip[ing] Israel off the map" with nuclear weapons launched from Iran--and John McCain's wanting to open a new front in the Iraqi Theater of the ur-RAHOWA Against Terrorism.

The Israeli daily gazetta Ha'aretz (Hebrew; "The Land") has an interesting analysis suggesting that Iran may have been exaggerating its capabilities all along in the interest of stoking fear and paranoia:

Even though the senior Iranian official was speaking to a closed forum, it would not be at all surprising if his words were actually intended for an Israeli audience. Alongside the public diplomatic struggle - and Israel's secret military preparations - against the Iranian nuclear projects, there is also a war of threats and oratory going on between the two nations.

The announcements of Ayatollah Seyed G. Safavi look to be another stage in the Iranian attempt to create a balance of fear and deterrence with Israel.

The past two years, whether because of Iranian progress toward acquiring nuclear capability, or because of the absence of Ariel Sharon from the political helm, have seen a gradual escalation in Israeli pronouncements about Iran. The end of the primary season in Kadima may have reined in slightly the enthusiasm for public declarations, but even responsible Israeli statesmen such as Defense Minister Ehud Barak, speaking most recently on the matter last Sunday, take care to emphasize that the military option, as a last resort, is still on the table.

Last week MK Isaac Ben-Israel (Kadima), a former major general and someone very close to prime minister-designate Tzipi Livni, said Israel will not allow Iran to have nuclear weapons, but that there was still time to prevent that eventuality. "It's not like we're going to bomb them in another three months," said Ben-Israel.

When Iranian experts dissect the Israeli declarations, the question is what do they emphasize, the threat ("We will not permit"), or the reservation ("Not now"). The reasonable assumption is that Safawi, similar to the Israeli and international media, does not really know what Israel is planning in the short term. But Teheran is interested in warning Jerusalem that as far as it is concerned, all options are open.

This was not the first such report: Two days ago the press in Teheran reported on a huge exercise of Iran's air force, including claims of a practice air attack on Israel. About 100 warplanes, it was claimed, flew 1,200 kilometers and demonstrated their capabilities - something that can be seen as a counter to the reports in June that the Israel Air Force had conducted a similar exercise, which included the simulated bombing of Iran.

The problem with Safawi's statements on a preemptive attack on Israel, and even more so with the reports of the Iranian air force exercise, is that they are not based on any proven capability.

A cautious estimate would be that the damage Iran could cause to Israel today is very limited. The Iranians would have to rely on their local representatives in the region, Hezbollah and Hamas, or to wait until they obtain nuclear weapons - two or three years down the road, even according to the most pessimistic estimates in the West.

Most Iranian warplanes are remnants from the days of the Shah, obsolete American planes. Prof. Anthony Cordesman, a senior U.S. strategic analyst, said in a lecture here last July that only a few of the 300 warplanes the Iranians have are capable of flying at all, and that they lack advanced aeronautical systems. It is highly unlikely that a significant number of such planes could penetrate Israeli defenses.

The second possibility for an Iranian attack is with long-range ground to ground missiles. But Cordesman, like other military experts, claims the Iranian missile program is less advanced than it may appear to be. He estimates the Iranians have a few dozen - and no more than a hundred - missiles with a range capable of reaching Israel. The launch capabilities of Iran's missiles have been tested only a few times and it is very hard to estimate their accuracy.

For now, without the ability to mount nuclear warheads on these missiles, an attack would consist of only conventional weapons. In other words, the damage they could cause would be similar to the destruction left by the Iraqi Scud missiles during the 1991 Gulf War.

It's hard to imagine what good such an attack would do for Iran in the near future. After all, this would be the best way to guarantee an Israeli counter-attack, as well as firm international intervention to halt the Iranian nuclear program, a program that constitutes such an important goal of the Iranian government.

In other words, it looks as if His Fraudulency and his droogs have the last laugh, John McCain (of "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" notoriety) included, if the preceding analysis has any credibility whatsoever.

============================

Calm whisper of the praying which heighth of the celebration noise you inform: The Exaggerator (...and forget thou not The Exaggerator Collection)

VINCENT BUGLIOSI PUTS LIE TO IRAQ WMD SIGNIFICANCE

2008-12-02T18:55:38Z

WMD is irrelevant since NIE said Saddam was NOT a threat to U.S. even with WMD. Testimony to House Judiciary.

Watch the video

Is Iran a "threat to peace and security"?

2008-10-28T15:31:05Z

More at therealnews.com
Sahimi: No evidence that Iran's nuclear program poses a threat (Part 4 of 6)

Watch the video

Encore! Fermez la Bouche! Part Deux: Iran

2008-01-12T20:20:38Z

As if we didn't hear enough drums beating:

BBC: French foreign minister Bernard Kouchner says the world should prepare for war over Iran's nuclear program.

Well, that's just great. Nothing like dropping the W word (no, not thatW...W as in war) smack in the middle of our current wartime follies.

"We have to prepare for the worst, and the worst is war," Mr Kouchner said in an interview on French TV and radio.
Mr Kouchner said negotiations with Iran should continue "right to the end", but an Iranian nuclear weapon would pose "a real danger for the whole world".

"Right to the end" of what? The world as we know it? Enough already!

He said France wanted the European Union to prepare sanctions against Iran.
"We have decided that while negotiations are continuing to prepare eventual sanctions outside the ambit of UN sanctions. Our good friends, the Germans, suggested that," he said.

I'd like to be your good friend, too. Votre bonne amie. Bien? Bien. And as your bonne amie, I suggest that you stop sabre-rattling with George W(ar) Bush. Stop the incessant drum-drum-drumbeat that got us into the first unnecessary, bloody, horrific fiasco.

Fermez votre damn bouche/Bush and look at the facts calmly. The last thing the world needs is more needless provocation, whether by words or actions.

Je suis fatigue.

Au revoir.

John Bolton wants a US attack on Iran within Six Months

2008-10-25T09:30:01Z

Watch the video

CAP's Joe Cirincione on North Korea on NBC Nightly News

2008-10-15T21:30:02Z

Joe Cirincione discusses the North Korean nuclear test with NBC's Andrea Mitchell for her NBC Nightly News Report. www.americanprogress.org

Watch the video

CAP's PJ Crowley on Terrorists Obtaining a Nuclear Bomb

2008-10-15T21:30:04Z

CAP's PJ Crowley discusses the potential for a nightmare scenario: terror cells in the US obtain nuclear materials and build a bomb -- with Fox News 11/1/06
www.americanprogress.org

Watch the video

nuclear threat at Brave New Films

Was Iran, perhaps, BLUFFING(!!) all the while?

VINCENT BUGLIOSI PUTS LIE TO IRAQ WMD SIGNIFICANCE

Is Iran a "threat to peace and security"?

Encore! Fermez la Bouche! Part Deux: Iran

John Bolton wants a US attack on Iran within Six Months

CAP's Joe Cirincione on North Korea on NBC Nightly News

CAP's PJ Crowley on Terrorists Obtaining a Nuclear Bomb