Thread: Iran is set to deliver a "punch" that will stun world powers

Originally Posted by 59caddy

if Iran keeps mouthing off and making threats, i think Israel might just have a few surprises of their own.

And after all, they don't have to spend 3 years to be able to set one off, theirs are all ready and waiting (unofficially courtesy of the US). Couldn't really blame them for launching a pre-emptive strike either, the way Ahmadinejad has talked about Israel and what he'd like to do to it.

Khamenei's words are being quoted in different ways. I suspect there are some nuances lost in translation somewhere.

Globe article:

"The Iranian nation, with its unity and God's grace, will punch the arrogance (Western powers) on the 22nd of Bahman (February 11) in a way that will leave them stunned"

This second version, from a New York Times article, conveys a very different meaning:

"The Iranian nation will show on (February 11) how it will punch the faces of all the world's arrogants -- America, Britain and Zionists -- with its unity."

"It is clear today that those who stood against the people were not a part of the Iranian nation ... they were either anti-revolutionary figures or were acting like them."

I think he's indicating that a lack of protests on the anniversary date would signal unity, and that this unity itself would be a punch in the face to all us "arrogants".

I asked my neighbor what he thought about these statements. He gave me a wry mile and said, "When you are in a position of strength you act. You don't talk. It is only when you are in a position of weakness where you can't do anything do you talk." He and his wife are immigrants from Iran.

Originally Posted by treydampier

We'll see what happens. We need to leave those people of that region alone. If we give them the weapons to kill each other with, they will solve the problem for us. If the US would completely get out of the region, life would be better for them and us.

+1.

How is this different from Bush with his axis of evil talk where he denounced Iran and told people he'd take care of it before the end of his term?

Fwiw, Iran has its current leadership because the US toppled the previous, progressive goverment in their global chess game against Russia. Iraq as well. That should have taught the US by now that meddling rarely makes things better in the long run.

Originally Posted by xman

Maybe so. A decade ago I would have said that there certainly would have been better options. I have come to learn that some people cannot be reasoned with. Ideology, and sometimes dangerous ideology, stops their ears and silence may tragically be the only solution.

As long as Iran stays within its borders, I don't care what they say or do. The moment they open hostilities we should pounce with everything we have. Not 1 second before.

Originally Posted by mosley59

And after all, they don't have to spend 3 years to be able to set one off, theirs are all ready and waiting (unofficially courtesy of the US). Couldn't really blame them for launching a pre-emptive strike either, the way Ahmadinejad has talked about Israel and what he'd like to do to it.

This is where I disagree. You don't start wars over propaganda and blustering. You start wars over physical acts of aggression.

Otherwise you might as well start a war with North Korea, China and some others. The 'no first strike, mutual assured destruction' strategy has worked for 60 years. I see no reason to suddenly switch to preemptive strikes, especially considering that it didn't do any good so far.

Originally Posted by Bruno

As long as Iran stays within its borders, I don't care what they say or do. The moment they open hostilities we should pounce with everything we have. Not 1 second before.

And, given their current position, not one second after either.

Originally Posted by Bruno

I see no reason to suddenly switch to preemptive strikes, especially considering that it didn't do any good so far.

It has been wonderful for Bin Laden's recruiting for al qaeda.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad claimed Thursday that Iran has produced its first batch of uranium enriched to a higher level, saying his country will not be bullied by the West into curtailing its nuclear program a day after the U.S. imposed new sanctions.
Ahmadinejad reiterated to hundreds of thousands of cheering Iranians on the anniversary of the 1979 foundation of the Islamic republic that the country was now a "nuclear state," an announcement he's made before. He insisted that Iran had no intention of building nuclear weapons.
It was not clear how much enriched material had actually been produced just two days after the process was announced to have started.



I say, good for them and it's about time. The US and Israel have been talking a lot of crap. They are not enriching uranium to 90-98% for weapons. 20% is good for electric. We'll just have to wait and see how much SPIN this news gets.

Afaik, making and handling weapons grade uranium is much harder than the fuel use kind. Also, and many people seem to be unaware: Uranium is a shitty material to make nuclear weapons with. They would be Large, bulky, and superheavy.

As long as they are not producing plutonium, I am willing to believe them in their statements that they are not building nukes. In fact, given that nuclear energy is the best solution to fulfill mid term energy needs, it's the best solution they could have chosen. I wish we had built a couple in the previous decade. That way, we wouldn't have to import nuclear energy from France.

Originally Posted by Bruno

This is where I disagree. You don't start wars over propaganda and blustering. You start wars over physical acts of aggression.

Otherwise you might as well start a war with North Korea, China and some others. The 'no first strike, mutual assured destruction' strategy has worked for 60 years. I see no reason to suddenly switch to preemptive strikes, especially considering that it didn't do any good so far.

And you don't consider that Iran's testing of long-range missiles and enriching of uranium to be a threat to Israel? From enriched uranium can come nuclear weapons or plutonium, from which comes more nuclear weapons - I'd say there's a definite threat there, although the length of time it'll take to get viable amounts of uranium and plutonium will be fairly long, and then even longer to make a working weapon.

Regarding the no first strike strategy, in this case a pre-emptive strike would work, as Iran doesn't have the capacity yet to retaliate with nuclear weapons, thus no mutual assured destruction. Regardless, there's got to be other options and paths to go down, and nuclear conflict is a very unlikely option, as it would invite the superpowers into WW3 to protect their middle-east interests.