Last week, in my predictions for 2007, I said that "Iran will find herself facing Osirak II. The "international community" will condemn Israel whilst secretly being happy she had the balls." If this morning's Sunday Times is right, then the chances of it happening look all the morning the likely.
According to the report, Israel has plans to use "mini-nukes" to target Iran's nuclear project in Natanz, and effectively put an end to the entire project in one single surgical strike. I've no doubt the anti-jewish lobby will be up in arms about such news. There is nothing as yet on MPAC's site about it but give them time.
Of course no one with realist brain on their head should be surprised with any of this news. Iran poses probably the most significant threat to the region's stability in the current climate. As fashionable as it is to say that the US and Britain are the real threat, the problems in Iraq remain contained very much so in Iraq. A nuclear Iran on the other hand implies a significant, and quite dramatic shift in the balance of power.
Given this, in addition to the reality the Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's, stated aim is that “Israel must be wiped off the map”, it's rather obvious that Israel would prepare to act. She cannot rely on the rest of the West to do the job for her. After all, we are in stasis on the matter of Iran, still arguing over what we should do about it with the international pluralists that fail to understand human nature.
This precisely why I said the "international community" will secretly be pleased if Israel solve the Iranian problem.
5 comments:
mini nukes is very misleading.
All our armed forces and those of the US use depleted uranium tipped weaponary as part of our regular munitions. To call them nukes is just journalistic hyperbole.
yes exposed uranium can increase cancer risks (though not all stuieds agree); however there is no process of fusion or fission that is the requirement of a nuclear weapon.
nonetheless, your prediciton for Osirak II is accurate.
1. Mr Ahmadinejad is not running Iran, or even close, recent elections showed he has little leverage if any, he is a populist puppet;
2. Iran still cannot manage to create even the Uranium isotope for power generation.
3. They are many many years away from creating weapons grade Uranium.
4. Israel should not attack a third world country's development plans. Cheerleading for it is absurd.
Does the aptly named Dizzy actually understand the physics of the precision centrifuge?
How far it is from Ur (power) to Ur (weapons)?
1: "Populist puppet" of who?
2: That is not what they've said, or what the IAEA have said.
3: So what?
4: Why shouldn't it?
5: What is the relevance of my understanding of physics compared to a realistic understanding of power?
6: The distance between Ur (power) and Ur (weapons) is irrelevant in strategic terms.
Put another way, would Chris P have been delighted with a nuclear Iraq, and does he share the delight of the extreme left at the nuclear capacity of the 'People's Democratic Republic' of Korea?
Dizzy, I boradly agree with you on points 2 to 6 above. In answer to your question 1, the president of Iran is a less powerful figure than we are used to seeing in other presidents, but is the external face of Iran. The most powerful person is the senior cleric- the Supreme Leader (Khamenei) the successor to Khomenei. The president is the head of the executive, but his powers are essentially overruled by the Supreme Leader and his clerics when they see fit. The previous president (Khatamei) achieved very little because he was too reformist for the clerics' liking.
The president is elected for a maximum of two 4 year terms, but the Supreme Leader is for life by the "Assembly of Experts", which is itself voted for by the public, but the candidates are vetted by the Guardian Council, which is in turn appointed by the Supreme Leader.
Complicated but its all on the BBC website.
Post a Comment