'Iran can destroy Israel in 9 minutes'

[oberliner]

An Iranian blogger on Saturday urged Tehran not to delay an attack on Israel, claiming that the Islamic Republic could destroy the Jewish state in "less than nine minutes."

Alireza Forghani, a computer engineer, wrote in his essay that Tehran should exploit the West's dawdling over a strike on Iran to "wipe out Israel" by 2014 – that is, before President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's term runs out. The post was widely covered in the Iranian media on Saturday.

Forghani lays out the religious justifications for the attack and presents strategies for an offensive that would target key Israeli sites using land-to-land missiles.

The first step in the strategy, Forghani suggested, should be to launch ballistic Sijil missiles on Tel Aviv, Jerusalem and Haifa, as well as power stations and other energy sources, sewage facilities, airports, nuclear plants, media hubs and transportation infrastructure. In the second step, Shahab 3 and Ghader missiles should target the rest of the country's population centers. Total annihilation, he asserts, could be achieved within nine minutes.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4185497,00.html

[aquart]

1. No shit.

Everybody happy now?

[thelordofhell]

2. Iranian Freepers

Nice to know that useless fear and hate is worldwide

[sharp_stick]

3. When did Baghdad Bob

take a job with the Iranians?

[snagglepuss]

4. Hard to know where is this propaganda actually coming from. If it is

actually an Iranian hardliner, is he okay with the destruction of the the Dome of the Rock and other Islamic holy sites in Israel?

[oberliner]

7. Here's his blog

It's in Persian:

http://alireza-forghani.blogfa.com/

[da_decider]

10. Who the hell is Alireza Forghani?

And since when he speaks for Iran government? You do realize that Iran's attack on Israel, with either conventional weapons or WMD, will result in total destruction of Iran? Iran knows it, Israel knows and USA knows it.
Needless to say, the reason Iran is perusing Nukes is to deter US/Israel from attacking Iran, Nukes are for defense. That's a fact, no matter what the warmongers tell the right wing sheeple who know nothing about the politics.

[oberliner]

11. He is an Iranian blogger

Where does anyone claim he speaks for Iran's government?

Odd that you claim the reason Iran wants nukes is to deter an attack when it is specifically their pursuit of nukes that has led to such a threat.

Were they to abandon the program and the rhetoric there would be no fear of attack.

[da_decider]

12. Politics is complicated

An Iranian blogger? We have thousands of these lunatics here in US calling for mass murder of all sorts of people: Muslims, Jews, Arabs, Christians, Blacks....Pat Robertson once called for assassination of Chavez, and Robertson is much more powerful than just a blogger.

I am in no way justifying Iran government actions, it is a repressive theocracy. The reason Israel wants to attack is to stop Iran from brecoming invincible to attacks; in other words, they don't want to lose the option of attacking Iran. A nuclear Iran will be like North Korea, you have to leave them alone.

Again, I am not for/against any particular side in Middle east, I am just stating the facts: Israel has stockpiles of Nukes; two of Iran neighbors are invaded and occupied by the US, US has crap load of military forces in Persian Gulf and Israel keep threatening Iran. Iran sees nuke as the only protection.

[oberliner]

13. Not sure I get your point

There are lots of bloggers in lots of countries saying extreme things. I don't see what is wrong with being critical of them, be they in the US or Iran or whatever.

I disagree with your assessment of Iran with respect to comparing it to North Korea. Israel is not going to "leave them alone" once they have nuclear weapons. Israel would continue to leave them alone if they don't pursue nuclear weapons. That would be their surest road to protection.

Pursuing nuclear weapons is what has instigated all of this.

[da_decider]

16. Bloggers?

Nothing wrong with criticizing batshit "bloggers"; but you appeared to be making the point as if this idiot was speaking for Iran government.

If you want to understand the middle east politics, you have look past 24/7 news channels whose only objective is to create dramatic and simplistic explanations for complex political affairs.

Nukes are for defense, not offense. Iran attacking Israel, with/without WMD will result in total destruction of Iran, everyone knows that. There is something called "Balance of Power". Balance of power defines what country has the advantage. For example in middle east, Israel is currently the most powerful military force, second to none, with nothing stopping them from invading any country in the middle east. If Iran gets nuke, then the "balance of power" will shift towards Iran, and Iran will be untouchable, like any other country with nukes. Israel and US want to have the option of attacking Iran, anytime they want. They don't want the middle east power balance to be shifted.

[oberliner]

19. Where did I make any point about him speaking for the Iran government?

In fact, I specifically wrote that he was not doing so.

My argument is that if Iran didn't pursue nukes, Israel wouldn't attack them.

Whatever reason they have for pursuing nukes is not about Israel.

The best defense against an attack from Israel would be to not pursue nuclear weapons.

If they announced today that they were abandoning such plans, Israel would similarly abandon any talk of taking action.

[tularetom]

17. The reason we attacked Iraq is because we KNEW they had no nukes

Iran watched this happen and learned from it. Have nukes? The US will leave you alone. Don't have nukes? Kiss your ass goodbye. You'll notice we haven't moved against Pakistan or North Korea.

We will never let Israel attack a nuclear Iran and both sides know this. That is why Israel is in such a hurry to take them out now. It is also why Iran is in such a hurry to become a nuclear power.

[oberliner]

18. Alternatively, if Iran wasn't in such a hurry to become a nuclear power, Israel would do nothing

There would be no reason for Israel to attack Iran (and they wouldn't and haven't) if Iran did not seem to be on the road to nuclear weapons.

[holdencaufield]

22. North Korea doesn't need nukes

As far back as 1980, North Korea was capable of putting down a conventional artillery barrage on South Korea with 112mm guns and FROG launchers. Estimates of as many as 8,000 artillery tubes from North Korea (even with conventional warhead) would kill millions and would turn Seoul (the capitol of South Korea) into a post-apocalyptic playground in less time than it would take for America (or China) to respond with a nuclear weapon.

North Korean nukes are a side-show.

[shaayecanaan]

20. Of course not...

Saddam Hussein was fretting about nothing. All he needed to do was keep complying with the escalating demands of United States:-

1. Let us inspect your former nuclear sites
2. and then, let us inspect your military installations
3. and then, let us inspect pretty much anywhere
4. and then, let us inspect your personal residences
5. and finally, leave Iraq within 48 hours.

And given the principled and benevolent nature of US foreign policy towards Iran to date (the toppling of a democratically elected government in 1953, the support of Iraq during the Iran-Iraq wars including providing chemical weapons for Iraq to use against Iranian citizens) surely Iran must be certain that the US is a honest broker, only interested in peace and the wellbeing of us all...

[Donald Ian Rankin]

23. I think that's slightly disingenuous.

There are a bunch of other reasons any number of countries would love to attack Iran - it sponsors all sorts of groups in the region, many of them terrorists or militants, whom other states would love to see weakened.

Also, if the Arab Spring reaches Iran, the outside world might well decide to support the opposition and try to get the theocracy overthrown.


Certainly, if I a) were dictator of Iran, and b) wanted to be able to meddle in my neighbours affairs in peace and security without fear of reprisal, I'd want nukes.

[oberliner]

24. So this is an argument in favor of nuclear proliferation?

Good stuff.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

25. No, of course it isn't, don't be silly.

Arguing that Iran possessing nuclear weapons would be in the interests of the Iranian government is not the same thing as arguing that Iran possessing nuclear weapons would be a good thing, or even that it would be a good thing for Iran.

Iran having nukes will make the Iranian regime more secure.

I would like to see the Iranian regime replaced.

Therefore I don't want to see them get nukes, but if I were them I would want to do so.

[oberliner]

27. It is exactly that

And you continue to make the argument in your response.

I argue that it makes no sense for any regime to pursue nuclear weapons and see what is going on with Iran as a good illustration of why not.

That you think it would be in their interests to acquire such weapons does not seem supportable in light of what is happening.

They are at much greater risk of military attack as a result of such a pursuit.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

28. You're confusing "explanation for" with "argument in favour of".

An argument in favour of nuclear proliferation would be if I were arguing that it was a good thing, rather than that it was in the interests of certain groups.

I don't think it's ethical for the Iranian government to pursue nukes, I just think it's rational given their other goals (I don't think it's rational, but that's because I don't think their other goals are).

I agree that the risk of Iran being attack is increased (although not greatly) in the short term, but the moment it had nukes that risk would go right down.

[shira]

29. Iran is under no risk of being attacked. There are too many reasons why...

...it won't happen.

The problem with Iranian nukes isn't that they'll use them. It's that when they use conventional weapons, or arm their lackies with conventional weapons (Hamas/Hezbollah) they won't have as much to worry about WRT being attacked. They'll feel they can then sponsor terror worldwide without paying for it.

That's a gamechanger. Not that they'll actually use nukes.

[oberliner]

30. You wrote "If I was ruler if Iran, I'd want nukes"

That construct is what makes it "argument in favour of" rather than "an explanation for".

You put yourself into the hypothetical scenario of being the ruler of Iran and are arguing that were you in that position, you would want to acquire nukes for the reasons you listed.

Let me ask you to do this thought experiment.

Imagine if you, or someone else, had posted:

"If I was ruler of Israel, I'd want to bomb Iran"

Would you see that post as simply "an explanation for" a potential Israeli policy?

I daresay you would have a very different reaction.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

31. Please reread my post and admit that I actually said something completely different.

I'll do you the credit of assuming that was incredible sloppiness and not a deliberate lie.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

32. Once again: please retract this post and admit it is not true. N.T.

[oberliner]

33. A greater degree of self-awareness could go a long way

I would encourage you to try my thought experiment and reflect a bit on the implications of your post. Respectfully, you seem to be lacking in an ability to step outside of your perspective and looking through a new lens. Being so rigidly locked in to one particular point of view does not allow for what I would consider to be real growth and genuine learning. I am assuming you are somewhat young, and, I would not be surprised if, in time, your approach to thinking about the world may evolve. This is not a personal attack, just an observation and hypothesis. Your post about Iran speaks for itself, as does mine. Anyone who cares is welcome to make their own evaluation of the two. I retract nothing. All the best.

[Laf.La.Dem.]

5. "religious justifications"

Lots of killing in the name of religion!!!

[Johnny Rico]

6. Iran likes to bluster about its military capabilities.

Israel, on the other hand, actually could turn the entirety of Iran into a glass parking lot, so take this with a grain of salt.

[Turbineguy]

8. Hitler would be jealous.

[moobu2]

9. Here we go where it stops nobody knows..n/t

[flexnor]

14. i heard iraq had WMD, too

they wouldnt lie about stuff like this, better go to war against Iran ASAP

[oberliner]

15. Iran is not known to currently possess weapons of mass destruction

I think it would be good for the region if it remained that way.

[Muskypundit]

21. They dont openly have chemical or biological weapons?

[ellisonz]

26. Baloney. n/t