Today's lucky target? Timothy J. Geraghty, come on down!
Iran Expands Its Target List
The nagging question of the nuclear age has been what if a madman gets hold of an atomic bomb?
Is this a rhetorical question? There are a number of ways to write this sentence properly; this, unfortunately, is not one of them. But hey- you can't screw up every sentence if you don't screw up the first one, right?
At any rate, that question has already been answered, and answered more than once:
At any rate, that question has already been answered, and answered more than once:
That question is about to be answered as Iran's defiance puts it on a collision course with the West.
By defiance, I assume you mean Iran's unwillingness to submit to the orders of the West. Another way of looking at this would be that the West is defying Iran by not requiring its sworn enemy, Israel, a rogue nuclear state, to sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
On Nov. 4, 2009, Israeli commandos intercepted an Antiguan-flagged ship 100 miles off the Israeli coast. It was carrying hundreds of tons of weapons from Iran and bound for Hezbollah in Lebanon. Since the 2006 Israeli-Hezbollah war, Iran has rearmed Hezbollah with 40,000 rockets and missiles that will likely rain on Israeli cities—and even European cities and U.S. military bases in the Middle East—if Iran is attacked. Our 200,000 troops in 33 bases are vulnerable. Shortly before this weapons seizure, Hamas test-fired a missile capable of striking Israel's largest city, Tel Aviv.
Since 1979, Israel has been illegally arming itself with nuclear weapons, and has been armed to the teeth by the United States. All of Iran's 74 million citizens are vulnerable to a nuclear attack by Israel.
Iran is capable of disrupting Persian Gulf shipping lanes, which could cause the price of oil to surge above $300 a barrel. Iran could also create mayhem in oil markets by attacking Saudi oil refineries. Moreover, Iran possesses Soviet made SS-N-22 "Sunburn" supersonic antiship missiles that it could use to contest a naval blockade.
And the United States is capable of causing a worldwide nuclear holocaust. Needless to say, it is also capable of disrupting Persian Gulf shipping lanes. What are you saying? That Iran is not entitled to own weapons? This would be an odd position, since your current Secretary of Defense was complicit in selling them arms at one point.
Iran could unleash suicide bombers in Iraq and Afghanistan or, more ominously, activate Hezbollah sleeper cells in the U.S. to carry out coordinated attacks nationwide. FBI, CIA and other U.S. officials have acknowledged in congressional testimony that Hezbollah has a working partnership with Mexican drug cartels and has been using cartel smuggling routes to get personnel and contraband into the U.S.
I hope you're not suggesting that Iran might encourage violence in either one of those two wonderfully tranquil places. And it's hard to get too upset at the fact that terrorist organizations might use this Mexican terror network. After all, it's our drug policy that created it.
While Iranian centrifuges continue to produce low-enriched uranium, the mullahs and their henchmen...
By defiance, I assume you mean Iran's unwillingness to submit to the orders of the West. Another way of looking at this would be that the West is defying Iran by not requiring its sworn enemy, Israel, a rogue nuclear state, to sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
On Nov. 4, 2009, Israeli commandos intercepted an Antiguan-flagged ship 100 miles off the Israeli coast. It was carrying hundreds of tons of weapons from Iran and bound for Hezbollah in Lebanon. Since the 2006 Israeli-Hezbollah war, Iran has rearmed Hezbollah with 40,000 rockets and missiles that will likely rain on Israeli cities—and even European cities and U.S. military bases in the Middle East—if Iran is attacked. Our 200,000 troops in 33 bases are vulnerable. Shortly before this weapons seizure, Hamas test-fired a missile capable of striking Israel's largest city, Tel Aviv.
Since 1979, Israel has been illegally arming itself with nuclear weapons, and has been armed to the teeth by the United States. All of Iran's 74 million citizens are vulnerable to a nuclear attack by Israel.
Iran is capable of disrupting Persian Gulf shipping lanes, which could cause the price of oil to surge above $300 a barrel. Iran could also create mayhem in oil markets by attacking Saudi oil refineries. Moreover, Iran possesses Soviet made SS-N-22 "Sunburn" supersonic antiship missiles that it could use to contest a naval blockade.
And the United States is capable of causing a worldwide nuclear holocaust. Needless to say, it is also capable of disrupting Persian Gulf shipping lanes. What are you saying? That Iran is not entitled to own weapons? This would be an odd position, since your current Secretary of Defense was complicit in selling them arms at one point.
Iran could unleash suicide bombers in Iraq and Afghanistan or, more ominously, activate Hezbollah sleeper cells in the U.S. to carry out coordinated attacks nationwide. FBI, CIA and other U.S. officials have acknowledged in congressional testimony that Hezbollah has a working partnership with Mexican drug cartels and has been using cartel smuggling routes to get personnel and contraband into the U.S.
I hope you're not suggesting that Iran might encourage violence in either one of those two wonderfully tranquil places. And it's hard to get too upset at the fact that terrorist organizations might use this Mexican terror network. After all, it's our drug policy that created it.
While Iranian centrifuges continue to produce low-enriched uranium, the mullahs and their henchmen...
"Henchmen"? Seriously? What have you been been watching- Scooby Doo?
...have been carrying out a campaign of deception. In October 2009, Iran rejected a plan to ship its low-enriched uranium out of country, primarily to Russia and France, to be highly enriched and then sent back to Iran for "peaceful medical purposes."
In fairness, one could also note that their government is effectively paralyzed by a popular revolution in the making; a revolution which the writer no doubt supports. The government is, understandably, a little schizophrenic at the moment.
On Nov. 28, 2009, reacting to increased pressure from the International Atomic Energy Agency, Iran warned it may pull out of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. This would seriously undermine international attempts to stop Iran's nuclear weapons program. Two days later, Iran announced plans to build 10 new nuclear plants within six years.
Iran, a country which has not invaded or attacked any other country in the last 200 years, is a member of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. It has no nuclear weapons.
Israel, a country which has been in a constant state of war almost since its founding 60 years or so ago, has ignored international law, acquired nuclear weapons, and refused to sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Does this not concern you, sir?
In another sphere, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez are openly cooperating to "oppose world hegemony," as Mr. Ahmadinejan has said, while weekly flights between Iran and Venezuela are not monitored for personnel and cargo. Meanwhile, Russia is building an arms plant in Venezuela to produce AK-103 automatic rifles and finalizing contracts to send 53 military helicopters to the country.
Weekly flights between the US and Israel, or the US and pretty much anywhere else in the world we sling arms, aren't monitored for personnel and cargo either. And since the US produces over 40% of the worlds weapons (10 times that of Russia), I'm not sure I see your point. Unless your point is that we should rule the world. I'm starting to think so. Incidentally, when people voice concern over "world hegemony", they are really concerned about the United States ruling the world.
I have seen this play before. In 1983, I was the Marine commander of the U.S. Multinational Peacekeeping Force in Beirut, Lebanon. Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps' (IRGC) Lebanon contingent trained and equipped Hezbollah to execute attacks that killed 241 of my men and 58 French Peacekeepers on Oct. 23, 1983.
It is noteworthy that the United States provided direct naval gunfire support—which I strongly opposed for a week—to the Lebanese Army at a mountain village called Suq-al-Garb on 19 September and that the French conducted an air strike on 23 September in the Bekaa Valley. American support removed any lingering doubts of our neutrality, and I stated to my staff at the time that we were going to pay in blood for this decision.It is precisely this lack of neutrality which has led us to being a nation hated by millions. It's also why we should expect more bombings in the future. I hope Israel is worth it. And the oil. Oh, and that wonderful democratic utopia we call Iraq.
Today, Hezbollah directly threatens Israel, destabilizes Lebanon, and undercuts the Israeli-Palestinian peace accords. Something similar is underway in Venezuela. Remember Hezbollah used the Beirut truck-bomb model for the attack on the Israeli Embassy in Buenos Aires on March 17, 1992 and the July 18, 1994 attack on the Argentine Israeli Mutual Association that killed 85 and wounded 200.
All of this is true. And, while we're at it, let's consider these facts:
- The United Stated has destabilized Iran, beginning with a CIA coup of its democratically elected government, because that government refused to hand over its oil to the West.
- The United States has invaded Iraq without provocation, am invasion which has resulted in the deaths of some 500,000-1,000,000 Iraqis.
- The United States has given unconditional support to Israel, as it occupies and terrorizes the captive Palestinian people.
I'm not so sure you should be casting stones, Colonel.
No comments:
Post a Comment