OP-ED Attorney Alan Dershowitz: Iran Is A Greater Threat Than ISIS

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/20...ershowitz-iran-is-a-greater-threat-than-isis/

Attorney Alan Dershowitz: Iran Is A Greater Threat Than ISIS

February 27, 2015 12:17 PM
Dom Giordano
Monday – Friday: 9 a.m. – 12 noon Which Philadelphia talk show ho... Read More

PHILADELPHIA (CBS) - Dom Giordano talked with Attorney Alan Dershowitz on Talk Radio 1210 WPHT about the upcoming speech before Congress from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his opposition to the White House negotiating a nuclear treaty with Iran.

Democrats were angry that Netanyahu did not inform the President before the announcement of his speech to Congress, but Dershowitz stated they still have a duty to listen to what he has to say.

“I will be appalled at any Democrat who refuses to show up. They are violating their constitutional oath of office. They have an obligation to listen to both sides of issues. They have an obligation under the separation of powers to check and balance the President. The President is about to make a horrible, horrible foreign policy decision. He is opposed, not only by Israel, he is opposed by Saudi Arabia. He is opposed by Egypt. He is opposed by many Democratic Senators and Congressmen.”

He thinks the controversy over the speech is overblown and pales in comparison with the nuclear agreement currently being negotiated.

“The idea that people in Congress should refuse to listen to a Prime Minister; they’re treating him like they treat Ahmedinejad. You walk out on a tyrant who denies the Holocaust, but you don’t walk out on an ally who is America’s strongest ally in the Middle East and who has a different view from the President, and is right? He’s right on this one, and the President is wrong.”

Dershowitz holds that Iran poses a greater threat to the world than even ISIS does at the moment.

“Iran’s leadership is a suicide nation. A suicide nation that was prepared to sent thousands of their young children to certain death at the end of the Iraq War, giving them tokens to go to paradise. ISIS is nothing compared. ISIS is terrorists on trucks with rifles and pistols and knives. Iran is gonna become the first terrorist nation with nuclear weapons if this deal goes through.”
 

Southside

Has No Life - Lives on TB
Douchowits and his merry band of liberals/progressives are a greater threat than either ISIS(Daesh) and Iran.

Yea, whatever.

Southside
 

Dphintias

Veteran Member
Douchowits and his merry band of liberals/progressives are a greater threat than either ISIS(Daesh) and Iran.

Yea, whatever.

Southside

But at least as a Democrat, he is speaking out against this Iran insanity. And he's right. We need to see more Democrats speaking out against the seemingly destructive policies of the current administration. It's hard to believe that the Democrats seem so unconcerned about the path the country is on and I'm thinking here also about the illegal immigrants and the seemingly incessant refugees that are apparently pouring in the country with the blessing of the government. Seems very strange.
 

Ragnarok

On and On, South of Heaven
There is a shred of reality in what he says.

The New Shiite Crescent

While the Obama administration’s agenda and policies with regard to fighting the Islamic State have been counter-productive, the administration is ignoring other larger threats in the region.

The profusion of Iran-trained Shiite militias in the region (particularly in Iraq, Syria, and Yemen) is unprecedented and represents the height of Iran’s support to militia groups. The incentives to recruit Shiite fighters can be either driven by financial means or religious/sectarian motives.

The emergence of this new Shiite Crescent has unintended consequences for regional and global powers. Currently, an estimate of 120,000 Shiite militants are fighting in Iraq and Syria including fighters from Abo Al-Fadl Al-Abbasbrigade, Al-Imam AlHossein brigade, Tho Al-Faqar brigade, Kafil Zainab brigade, Asaib Ahl Alhaq, Ammar Bin Yasser brigade, Hezbollah Al-Nujaba’ movement, to name a few.

The use of these Shiite militia groups are not only restricted within a boundary of one state. As transnational non-state actors, they are mainly intertwined across borders. For example, several of Iraqi Shiite militias have been utilized in Syria to fight alongside President Bashar al-Assad’s forces and vice versa.

In addition, the employment of militants are not limited to solely Arab Shiite groups. Most recently, Pakistani and Afghan Shiite fighters, which are part of the Iranian-backed “Operation Quneitra Martyrs named for Gen. Ali Allah Dadi,” have been brought to the Golan Heights in Syria, near the border of Israel.

While the international community, primarily the United States, has been putting all of its eggs in one basket in regards to the Islamic State’s fighters, the growth and increasing number of pro-Iran Shiite militias can pose a daunting, long-term task to tackle in the future.

In other words, the international community might succeed in defeating the Islamic State, but they will lose Iraq and other parts of the region to the Iranian-supported Shiite militias.

There are several reasons for the growth and success of Shiite fighters.

First of all, while dozens of countries are relying on aerial attacks to address the threat of the Islamic State, or other extremist groups that might pose instability to the security of the region, the Iranian-supported Shiite militias are among the few groups that are actually fighting on the ground.

The Shiite militias can be seen on the front lines of the battles in Syria and Iraq fighting other oppositional groups. As “boots on the ground,” these militias groups become much more appealing to the leaders of countries who like to consolidate their power and obtain military support. One cannot ignore the fact that these Shiite militia groups have often made significant advances in Iraq and Syria, outperforming the Iraqi and Syrian armies and security forces.

As a result, the Iraqi government is more likely to tilt towards the Islamic Republic than the United States (or other governments) due to the fact that Tehran can provide Baghdad with forces on the ground. In addition, solely airstrikes have shown to be ineffective and often counterproductive to increasing territorial gains.

Secondly, Iran’s proximity to Iraq and Syria, as well as the transnational nature of these Shiite militia groups, make it much easier for Tehran to support the emergence of Shiite fighters across the region. Third, Iran has been successful at building close ties with both Arab and non-Arab Shiite populations in various countries in the region.

Although the Iranian-trained Shiite militias have made advances in territories in Iraq and Syria, ignoring the profusion of these militants in the region could pose a long-term security dilemma to regional nations.

The common argument made by Iranian leaders and some of Shiite militia groups is that these militias are protecting the religious Shiite shrines, including Sayyida Zaynab, Sayyida Ruqayya, and shrines in Najaf.

Nevertheless, the operations of these groups in various countries reflect their effective role in tipping the balance of power in favor of the Syrian government, as well as taking over the security and military operations of both Iraqi and Syrian governments.

Secondly, as pawns for the Islamic Republic’s regional hegemonic ambitions, the continuing support of Iran to organize, coordinate and financially support the Shiite militants will create formidable Iranian-backed Shiite proxies in the region in the long-term. This might be called the “Hezbollazation” of the region. As time passes, defeating these organized proxies will be a much more strenuous task.

Finally, in the future, the growth of Iranian-trained Shiite militias will further instigate and sharpen the sectarian and the Sunni-Shia split. For instance, recently, Iraqi Sunni lawmakers have announced that they will boycott the Iraqi parliament until the government controls the growing influence of the Shiite militia groups.

If the international community succeeds in defeating the Islamic State, they will soon encounter a much more taxing challenge: The long-term security threat posed by the Shiite militias. Even if many countries are capable of driving the Islamic State out of Syria and Iraq, they will soon come to the realization that they have lost Iraq, Syria, and other territories in the region to the Iranian-trained Shiite militias.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/2015/majid-rafizadeh/the-new-shiite-crescent/
 

Ragnarok

On and On, South of Heaven
In Israel’s hour of need


It is hard to get your arms around the stubborn determination of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu today. For most of the nine years he has served as Israel’s leader, first from 1996 to 1999 and now since 2009, Netanyahu shied away from confrontations or buckled under pressure. He signed deals with the Palestinians he knew the Palestinians would never uphold in the hopes of winning the support of hostile US administrations and a fair shake from the pathologically hateful Israeli media.

In recent years he released terrorist murderers from prison. He abrogated Jewish property rights in Jerusalem, Judea, and Samaria. He agreed to support the establishment of a Palestinian state west of the Jordan River. He agreed to keep giving the Palestinians of Gaza free electricity while they waged war against Israel. He did all of these things in a bid to accommodate US President Barack Obama and win over the media, while keeping the leftist parties in his coalitions happy.

For his part, for the past six years Obama has undermined Israel’s national security. He has publicly humiliated Netanyahu repeatedly.

He has delegitimized Israel’s very existence, embracing the jihadist lie that Israel’s existence is the product of post-Holocaust European guilt rather than 4,000 years of Jewish history.

He and his representatives have given a backwind to the forces that seek to wage economic warfare against Israel, repeatedly indicating that the application of economic sanctions against Israel – illegal under the World Trade Organization treaties – are a natural response to Israel’s unwillingness to bow to every Palestinian demand. The same goes for the movement to deny the legitimacy of Israel’s very existence. Senior administration officials have threatened that Israel will become illegitimate if it refuses to surrender to Palestinian demands.

Last summer, Obama openly colluded with Hamas’s terrorist war against Israel. He tried to coerce Israel into accepting ceasefire terms that would have amounted to an unconditional surrender to Hamas’s demands for open borders and the free flow of funds to the terrorist group. He enacted a partial arms embargo on Israel in the midst of war. He cut off air traffic to Ben-Gurion International Airport under specious and grossly prejudicial terms in an open act of economic warfare against Israel.

And yet, despite Obama’s scandalous treatment of Israel, Netanyahu has continued to paper over differences in public and thank Obama for the little his has done on Israel’s behalf. He always makes a point of thanking Obama for agreeing to Congress’s demand to continue funding the Iron Dome missile defense system (although Obama has sought repeatedly to slash funding for the project).

Obama’s policies that are hostile to Israel are not limited to his unconditional support for the Palestinians in their campaign against Israel. Obama shocked the entire Israeli defense community when he supported the overthrow of Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak, despite Mubarak’s dependability as a US ally in the war on Islamist terrorism, and as the guardian of both Egypt’s peace treaty with Israel and the safety and freedom of maritime traffic in the Suez Canal.

Obama supported Mubarak’s overthrow despite the fact that the only political force in Egypt capable of replacing him was the Muslim Brotherhood, which seeks the destruction of Israel and is the ideological home and spawning ground of jihadist terrorist groups, including al-Qaida and Hamas. Obama then supported the Muslim Brotherhood’s regime even as then-president Mohamed Morsi took concrete steps to transform Egypt into an Islamist, jihadist state and end Egypt’s peace with Israel.

Israelis were united in our opposition to Obama’s behavior. But Netanyahu said nothing publicly in criticism of Obama’s destructive, dangerous policy.

He held his tongue in the hopes of winning Obama over through quiet diplomacy.

He held his tongue, because he believed that the damage Obama was causing Israel was not irreversible in most cases. And it was better to maintain the guise of good relations, in the hopes of actually achieving them, than to expose the fractures in US-Israel ties caused by Obama’s enormous hostility toward Israel and by his strategic myopia that endangered both Israel and the US’s other regional allies.

And yet, today Netanyahu, the serial accommodator, is putting everything on the line. He will not accommodate. He will not be bullied. He will not be threatened, even as all the powers that have grown used to bringing him to his knees – the Obama administration, the American Jewish Left, the Israeli media, and the Labor party grow ever more shrill and threatening in their attacks against him.

As he has made clear in daily statements, Netanyahu is convinced that we have reached a juncture in our relations with the Obama administration where accommodation is no longer possible.

Obama’s one policy that Netanyahu has never acquiesced to either publicly or privately is his policy of accommodating Iran.

Since Obama’s earliest days in office, Netanyahu has warned openly and behind closed doors that Obama’s plan to forge a nuclear deal with Iran is dangerous. And as the years have passed, and the lengths Obama is willing to go to appease Iran’s nuclear ambitions have been left their marks on the region, Netanyahu’s warnings have grown stronger and more urgent.

Netanyahu has been clear since his first tenure in office in the 1990s, that Iran’s nuclear program – as well as its ballistic missile program – constitutes a threat to Israel’s very existence. He has never wavered from his position that Israel cannot accept an Iran armed with nuclear weapons.

Until Obama entered office, and to an ever escalating degree until his reelection in 2012, preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons has been such an obvious imperative among both Israelis and Americans that Netanyahu’s forthright rejection of any nuclear deal in which Iran would be permitted to maintain the components of its nuclear program was uncontroversial. In some Israeli circles, his trenchant opposition to Iran’s acquisition of nuclear capabilities was the object of derision, with critics insisting that he was standing strong on something uncontroversial while buckling on issues like negotiations with the Palestinians, where he should have stood strong.

But now we are seeing that far from being an opportunist, Netanyahu is a leader of historical dimensions. For the past two years, in the interest of reaching a deal, Obama has enabled Iran to take over Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen. For the first time since 1974, due to Obama’s policies, the Golan Heights is an active front in the war against Israel, with Iranian military personnel commanding Syrian and Hezbollah forces along the border.

Iran’s single-minded dedication to its goal of becoming a regional hegemon and its commitment to its ultimate goal of destroying the US is being enabled by Obama’s policies of accommodation. An Iran in possession of a nuclear arsenal is an Iran that can not only destroy Israel with just one or two warheads. It can make it impossible for Israel to respond to conventional aggression carried out by terrorist forces and others operating under an Iranian nuclear umbrella.

Whereas Israel can survive Obama on the Palestinian front by stalling, waiting him out and placating him where possible, and can even survive his support for Hamas by making common cause with the Egyptian military and the government of President Abdel Fattah al-Sissi, the damage Obama’s intended deal with Iran will cause Israel will be irreversible. The moment that Obama grants Iran a path to a nuclear arsenal – and the terms of the agreement that Obama has offered Iran grant Iran an unimpeded path to nuclear power – a future US administration will be hard-pressed to put the genie back in the bottle.

For his efforts to prevent irreparable harm to Israel Netanyahu is being subjected to the most brutal and vicious attacks any Israeli leader has ever been subjected to by an American administration and its political allies. They are being assisted in their efforts by a shameless Israeli opposition that is willing to endanger the future of the country in order to seize political power.

Every day brings another serving of abuse. Wednesday National Security Adviser Susan Rice accused Netanyahu of destroying US relations with Israel. Secretary of State John Kerry effectively called him a serial alarmist, liar, and warmonger.

For its part, the Congressional Black Caucus reportedly intends to sabotage Netanyahu’s address before the joint houses of Congress by walking out in the middle, thus symbolically accusing of racism the leader of the Middle East’s only liberal democracy, and the leader of the most persecuted people in human history.

Radical leftist representatives who happen to be Jewish, like Jan Schakowsky of suburban Chicago and Steve Cohen of Memphis, are joining Netanyahu’s boycotters in order to give the patina of Jewish legitimacy to an administration whose central foreign policy threatens the viability of the Jewish state.

As for Netanyahu’s domestic opponents, their behavior is simply inexcusable. In Israel’s hour of peril, just weeks before Obama intends to conclude his nuclear deal with the mullahs that will endanger Israel’s existence, Labor leader Yitzhak Herzog insists that his primary duty is to defeat Netanyahu.

And as far as Iran is concerned, he acts as a free loader ad a spoiler. Either he believes that Netanyahu will succeed in his mission to derail the deal with or without his support, or he doesn’t care. But Herzog’s rejection of Netanyahu’s entreaties that he join him in Washington next week, and his persistent attacks on Netanyahu for refusing accommodate that which cannot be accommodated shows that he is both an opportunist and utterly unworthy of a leadership role in this country.

Netanyahu is not coming to Washington next Tuesday to warn Congress against Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran, because he seeks a fight with Obama. Netanyahu has devoted the last six years to avoiding a fight with Obama, often at great cost to Israel’s national security and to his own political position.

Netanyahu is coming to Washington next week because Obama has left him no choice. And all decent people of good will should support him, and those who do not, and those who are silent, should be called out for their treachery and cowardice.
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Column-One-In-Israels-hour-of-need-392348
 

Ragnarok

On and On, South of Heaven
Iran’s Expansive Role In The Middle East And Latin America, And The Nuclear Negotiations


As negotiations move forward on a nuclear arms agreement with the Islamic Republic of Iran, the United States along with the P5+1 appears to be oblivious to activities of Iran in the Western Hemisphere and other regions of the world.

In the Middle East, Iran has most recently supported insurgencies in both Bahrain and Yemen. The pro-Iranian Houthis just overthrew the American backed government in Yemen which we were working with on terrorism related issues.

In Syria, Iran and its proxy, Hezbollah, continue to support the Bashar Al Assad regime with Hezbollah fighting together with Assad’s forces. So far 200,000 people have been killed in Syria with millions dispersed in refugee camps in Jordan and Turkey. Hezbollah now has a perfect excuse to be involved in supporting Assad by invoking the need to defeat the bloody Islamic State. Hezbollah may think that this card could play well in the West which is trying to avoid direct intervention to defeat ISIS and would prefer that local forces to do the fighting.

In Iraq, hundreds of thousands of young Shiites are fighting as part of Iranian-backed militias, with a Shiite sectarian orientation likely to aggravate the sectarian strife prevailing in the country. These militias outnumber the Iraqi security forces, and in addition members of the Iranian revolutionary guards, the pro-Iranian Badr organization, and the pro-Iran Katain Hezbollah are heavily involved, mostly operating outside of Iraqi government control.

In Latin America ever since the election of the late Hugo Chavez to the presidency of Venezuela in 1998, Iran has become more embedded in the region in an effort to spread its influence. Several episodes and activities are illustrative of this point.

A few years ago the late Argentinean prosecutor, Alberto Nisman reported in a 500 page document the presence of Iranian and Hezbollah cells in twelve countries in South America.

For at least ten years if not longer, there have been direct airline flights from Caracas to Tehran. Though these are commercial airlines no passengers are allowed and no one seems to know the cargo they carry but it is believed that weapons and members of Hezbollah or the Iranian Revolutionary Guards might be on those flights. Hezbollah has reportedly trained Venezuelan and other guerillas and has strengthened relations with a number of revolutionary regimes in the region. Likewise, tunnels built across the Mexican-American border are akin to those built by Hezbollah along the Israeli/Lebanese border.

In 2011, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder accused the Iranian Quds Force of plotting to assassinate the Saudi Ambassador to the United States. Though Iran vehemently denied complicity, the American government pointed to high officials in the Iranian hierarchy with having approved the plan.

Another Iranian activity that goes largely unnoticed is Iran’s outreach to several small Caribbean nations. In return for financial assistance, these nations have issued passports to Iranian citizens who wish to enter the United States but could not do so using their Iranian passports. Venezuela and a number of other countries connected directly or indirectly to ALBA countries are providing passports to Iranians. One of those holding such a passport is Moshen Rabbani, the man believed to be behind the terrorist attacks against the Argentinean Jewish Community Center (AMIA) in 1994.

Iran has also been the recipient of uranium from Venezuela.

Most recently the government of Uruguay confirmed that an Iranian diplomat left the country after Uruguayan security suspected him of collecting intelligence about the Israeli embassy in Montevideo.

The diplomat was thought to have placed an explosive device near the Israeli embassy early in January. The device was not particularly powerful but investigations carried out by Uruguayan intelligence indicated the possibility of Iran’s involvement in this serious incident. It was not clear to the authorities whether the device was intended to do harm or was just testing their ability to respond.

But what is astonishing about this story is that two months earlier another incident occurred which was intentionally kept out of the public eye by the Uruguayan government. Indeed, on November 24, somebody placed a suitcase near the building that belonged to the old Israeli embassy in Montevideo. Although the suitcase was empty, cameras located a car belonging to the Iranian embassy nearby. Inside there was a man that the police could not identify immediately but it was assumed he was an Iranian diplomat. The police concluded that the empty suitcase was aimed at testing Uruguayan security forces’ ability to respond.

The Uruguayan government apparently decided to expel the diplomat, who himself, is an appointee of the former Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. That appointee was a vocal anti-Semite, a Holocaust denier and apparently served as a translator in the conversations between Ahmadinejad and the late Venezuelan president, Hugo Chavez. Furthermore, the man was reportedly working in Uruguay with Muslim converts that have been activists in a radical left wing party. These individuals could well have been potential candidates for terrorist recruitment; an activity Iran has been systematically performing.

Interestingly enough, Uruguay has been and is a friendly country towards Iran (without being a close ally like Venezuela and the other ALBA countries). Uruguay’s outgoing president, Jose Mujica, declared in the past that his country would pursue relations with Iran because it is good and convenient for the country. The Uruguayan foreign minister Luis Almagro was a commercial attaché in Teheran for about five years and under his watch commercial relations between the two countries flourished. Likewise, a Uruguayan parliamentary delegation visited Teheran to strengthen relations and Almagro himself defined Uruguay and Iran as “two countries that fight against injustice and oppression”. (Almagro is the most likely candidate to be the next Secretary General of the Organization of American States).

The incident in Uruguay is another instance where Iran once again displays its nature as a terrorist entity that does not hesitate in using its embassies and the good faith of the host countries to apply its lethal methods. This is what Iran did in Argentina previous to the two deadly terrorist attacks against the Israeli Embassy and the Jewish community center.

Why shouldn’t Iran be doing so if there is no demand for Iran to stop supporting and encouraging terrorism? After all, a year ago Argentina signed a memorandum with Iran where representatives from that country would be part of the investigation into a terrorist attack where Iran remains the main suspect. By the same token, the chief investigator of the terrorist attack, Mr. Nisman, is dead because he dared to investigate a suspected cover up by the Argentinean government-a government that allegedly wanted to exonerate Iran.

Furthermore, the Argentinean foreign minister Hector Timerman summoned the American and Israeli Ambassadors and asked that these two countries stop meddling in Argentinean internal affairs and stop bringing Middle East conflicts to Argentina. The irony of this statement is that Iran chose Argentina as the target of its’ own intense hatred and violence.

Iranians probably laugh at these events where they are being given a pass over and over again. So, the fact that Iranians may have considered an attack on the Israeli Embassy in a country that is friendly to them such as Uruguay shows the ruthless nature of the regime and how little relations or agreements mean to them.

The negotiations between Iran and the P 5 +1 are mainly focused on Iran’s nuclear program. Thus, Iran is treated as a partner in a negotiation over a specific issue but Iran’s terrorist and treacherous nature is not a factor being considered in this equation.

At this point the U.S. strategy could well be to try to reach an agreement with Iran where the latter would be allowed to enrich uranium at a low level. However, there could be a possibility that if Iran decides to develop nuclear weapons, it could take the Iranians a short time to develop them from the moment they make the decision to do so.

The examples of Iran’s activities show several negative signs. First, if Iran can betray friendly countries like Uruguay, why wouldn’t it betray the P5+1? Likewise, what makes us think that we can live with a terrorist subversive Iran that not only has good chances of having a dominant role in a post-ISIS Syria and Iraq but also expands its influence and activities beyond the Middle East including regions as far as Latin America (from where Iran can strike the U.S. via a terrorist attack or by placing missiles in friendly countries such as Venezuela or Nicaragua)?

Iran presents a very complex challenge. Iran’s non –nuclear, threat is not being discussed, nor considered. This possible nuclear arms agreement should not be treated, as if it were something comparable to a commercial transaction. After all, as a nation state, Iran for the last thirty five years has been the foremost exporter of terrorism.. As the United States along with the P5+1 continues with its negotiations with Iran, they might question whether as a non-nuclear power, Iran presents a threat to world peace and stability and if so how will that play out once they were to become a nuclear power.
http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy....d-latin-america-and-the-nuclear-negotiations/
 

Doomer Doug

TB Fanatic
Muslims are 85 percent Sunni and 15 percent Shia. Iran is the "only" nation with an absolute Shia majority. Iran is defined by that exclusively in my opinion. All political, economic, and military actions Iran takes are DEFINED BY IT BEING THE ONLY SHIA DOMINANT NATION IN THE WORLD. Iran is totally defined by being a permanent underdog. Iran is totally defined by a sense of being threatened in its basic right to exist by both Israel and the dominant Sunni Muslims. Obama never, ever understood this. The result is Iran has now had nearly a decade to execute its broad based strategy. Iran is moving into the final phase, not with the "nuke program." Iran has now sealed control of both the Suez Canal and the Strait of Hormuz giving it total control of the entire MIDDLE EASTERN OIL SUPPLY. The Iranian threat has nothing to do with nuking Tel Aviv; it is about sealing oil flow and crushing western economies.

Iran has had Russian tactical nuke warheads since the early to mid 1990s. Iran has had "dirty nukes" for nearly 20 years now. Iran has had the ability to shoot a Russian nuclear warhead that topped a 175 mm artillery shell, or was on a torpedo for the last two decades now. What they haven't had, until they SEIZED YEMEN LAST MONTH IS CONTROL OF THE OIL TRANSIT CORRIDORS FROM THE MIDDLE EAST TO JAPAN, EUROPE AND THE USA.
 

Dredge

Veteran Member
And we should listen to a guy that has sex with under age sex slaves at sex parties with Clinton, Epstein, and members of the British royal family on Epstein's island then lies about it
 

Doomer Doug

TB Fanatic
If Iranian control of Yemen leads to a shutdown of both the Suez Canal and the Strait of Hormuz, Raganork "nuking" Tel Aviv becomes meaningless. Besides, I said Iran has had the ability to launch dirty nukes for the last 20 years in my opinion. It is unfortunate people consider the only "real nuclear threat' to be an ICBM exploding at 800 feet in the air circa Hiroshima. Iran has had the ability to launch on Tel Aviv and render, via dirty nuke, most of its downtown a radioactive wasteland for the next few centuries.

I do not think there will ever be a nuke exchange between Israel and any Muslim nation, Raganork. The reason is EVERYBODY KNOWS ISRAEL HAS 400 NUKES, PLUS THE LETHAL TRIAD LAUNCH ABILITY. ISRAEL CAN LAUNCH BY PLANE/BOMB/SUB/MISSILE AND GROUND BASED/SILO OR MOBILE AT ANY TIME.

Assuming you were dealing with a suicide launch from Iran or whoever, well Raganork they would LAUNCH ONCE! <G>

The Muslim threat is less military than economic, cultural, birth rate type of thing. Muslims are going to take over Europe by out breeding them, amigo.
 

poppy

Veteran Member
Ignore any difference between Shia and Sunni. Yes, they fight each other for control of certain areas, but no more than Sunni clans fight other Sunni clans and Shia clans fight other Shia clans for control of local areas. They are united in their hatred of Israel and the West and their goal of a caliphate. Iran has already agreed that the coming caliphate be based in Turkey. At some point all Islamic factions will unite under one leader.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
If Iranian control of Yemen leads to a shutdown of both the Suez Canal and the Strait of Hormuz, Raganork "nuking" Tel Aviv becomes meaningless. Besides, I said Iran has had the ability to launch dirty nukes for the last 20 years in my opinion. It is unfortunate people consider the only "real nuclear threat' to be an ICBM exploding at 800 feet in the air circa Hiroshima. Iran has had the ability to launch on Tel Aviv and render, via dirty nuke, most of its downtown a radioactive wasteland for the next few centuries.

I do not think there will ever be a nuke exchange between Israel and any Muslim nation, Raganork. The reason is EVERYBODY KNOWS ISRAEL HAS 400 NUKES, PLUS THE LETHAL TRIAD LAUNCH ABILITY. ISRAEL CAN LAUNCH BY PLANE/BOMB/SUB/MISSILE AND GROUND BASED/SILO OR MOBILE AT ANY TIME.

Assuming you were dealing with a suicide launch from Iran or whoever, well Raganork they would LAUNCH ONCE! <G>

The Muslim threat is less military than economic, cultural, birth rate type of thing. Muslims are going to take over Europe by out breeding them, amigo.

Shutting down the aforementioned straits does not require more high technology other than First World War naval mines and "go fast" boats mounting "calliopes" of "light" artillery rockets.
 

Ragnarok

On and On, South of Heaven
If Iranian control of Yemen leads to a shutdown of both the Suez Canal and the Strait of Hormuz, Raganork "nuking" Tel Aviv becomes meaningless. Besides, I said Iran has had the ability to launch dirty nukes for the last 20 years in my opinion. It is unfortunate people consider the only "real nuclear threat' to be an ICBM exploding at 800 feet in the air circa Hiroshima. Iran has had the ability to launch on Tel Aviv and render, via dirty nuke, most of its downtown a radioactive wasteland for the next few centuries.

I do not think there will ever be a nuke exchange between Israel and any Muslim nation, Raganork. The reason is EVERYBODY KNOWS ISRAEL HAS 400 NUKES, PLUS THE LETHAL TRIAD LAUNCH ABILITY. ISRAEL CAN LAUNCH BY PLANE/BOMB/SUB/MISSILE AND GROUND BASED/SILO OR MOBILE AT ANY TIME.

Assuming you were dealing with a suicide launch from Iran or whoever, well Raganork they would LAUNCH ONCE! <G>

The Muslim threat is less military than economic, cultural, birth rate type of thing. Muslims are going to take over Europe by out breeding them, amigo.

OK...

I gotcha now.

I understand what you are saying but to think that the Iranian regime will not attempt to nuke Israel because Israel will retaliate is not a safe assumption. The Islamic prophecies demand Armageddon and an attack on Israel before the Mahdi returns. Iran would see themselves bringing about those prophecies.

The rest I can agree with, wholeheartedly.
 
Top