Debka via UBS’ s Andy Lees (in London) by way of Art Cashin in NY:

Geopolitics – Debka file reports that the announcement that Russia is set to activate Iran’s first nuclear power station by loading the fuel on August 21st has caused a major flap in Israel as it is reported that Russia has stationed S-300 anti missile batteries in Abkhazia on the Black Sea to protect the power station, which means that Israel’s air route to Iran is hereby closed and Moscow will do its utmost to thwart an Israeli air strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities. John Bolton, former US ambassador to the UN defined Moscow’s date for loading the fuel rods into the reactor as the point of no return, describing August 21st as a deadline “by which Israel would have to launch an attack on Iran’s Bushehr reactor before it effectively becomes immune to assault”. Once they are loaded, then an attack would risk spreading radiation.

Discuss . . .

Category: War/Defense

Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor implied. If you could repeat previously discredited memes or steer the conversation into irrelevant, off topic discussions, it would be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous.

40 Responses to “Israel Window to Bomb Iraq Reactor Closed ?”

  1. schmoo says:

    Debka publishes a lot of stuff that doesn’t seem to pan out (or they happen in the world of “eyes only” and are not reported on, except by Sy Hersh…) but this Iran reactor stuff has me worried.

    You have three actors who do not appear in any way like they are going to back down:

    Israel – will not allow Iran to get nukes
    Iran – will not stop in its effort to obtain nukes
    Russia – will not say no to a pay day on providing uranium

    something has to give…

  2. itsgoold says:

    They’ve had over a year to take out Iran’s reactor. I’m pretty sure Israel has found a different route to contain Iran and its nuclear program since then. In the past, they have been much more assertive when it came to deliberate military force [ex. Syria and Iraq]. If no force has been taken, it’s safe to assume something has changed in their policy towards Iran. Either that or Russia thinks that Iran would act as a better deterrent or buffer against US / Israel with an operational nuclear reactor then without one.

    In the end, I’m glad that no military action took place. It would have been disastrous for pretty much anyone that needed oil to run their country’s economy. On the other hand, this may mark the start of a major arms race in the middle east.

  3. DL says:

    This issue, together with the pullout of U.S. troops from Iraq, could be bullish for gold, and possibly oil as well.

  4. lawyerguy says:

    A nuclear armed Iran is a game changer in the middle east. An operational nuclear facility is a major step in that direction. The ramifications of the removal of Iraq as a secular check on Iranian influence will accelerate to the surface once the last US combat troops leave. Iraq has a power vaccuum and may easily be co-opted by Iran in the years to come. Saudia Arabia, Egypt, and Jordan know this position is untenable and will see Israeli inaction as a sign of a shift in US policy of acceptance of Iranian nuclear power. Yes, an arms race will begin in earnest soon.

  5. Drewbie says:

    Bolton and his PNAC buddies would LOVE THAT.

    Clusterfuck’s are their speciality.

  6. gms777 says:

    I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit.

    It’s the only way to be sure.

  7. nyet says:

    Your title says Iraq reactor – should be Iran reactor.

  8. TakBak04 says:

    There have been hints that “something was up” with quotes from Bolton on other web sites.

    Probably “behind the scenes” something is going on that we aren’t privy to at this point. We will find out later. A move by the Neocons has been anticipated for awhile. Jeffrey Goldberg’s article “Will they or Won’t they?” about Israel’s plans for caused quite a stir this past week on both sides with push back from Eric Alterman/Juan Cole/Steve Clemmons (New America Foundation)..and some others. That Israel would attack Iran’s reactor(s) (even if a one time strategic show of force) would be a disaster in many ways is probably not considered a stabilizing thing at this point. Bad timing…

    Midnight oil might be burning in the WH and Pentagon….avoiding a crisis.

  9. msnthrop says:

    Lol at “immune to assault”… haven’t we sold the Israel’s some bad ass missile that makes this S-300 anti missile battery look like a spitball straw, or is that something Gates had cut. Where there is a will there is a way and the Israels have an abundance of will…

  10. yuvalw says:

    BR, as an Israeli Im quite familiar with Debka, and believe me it is not worth mentioning in your honorable blog. We always make fun of debka, especially during intense times their imagination is beyond limits…

    To the Iranian issue, I think Israel will not act without the US approval, but still don’t know if it is good or not… One thing is I know though, NO ONE wants Iran to have nuke, and the Arab countries in the middle east affraid more than Israel do.

  11. Mr. Practical says:

    This is a total non-starter.

    1. The Israeli’s do not have the conventional capacity to destroy this facility. This is supposedly a hardened facility with majority of its operations deep underground. This would require a “MOP”, Massive Ordinance Penetrator, or Bunker Buster only recently developed by the US. It weighs 30,000 lbs. and requires a B-52, B1 or B2 bomber to deliver the payload. The Israeli’s do not have any of the above. Further, considering the distance, it would require them to have air refueling over friendly territory ( either an air route over Saudi Arabia or Iraq ).

    2. If the facility was hit, geopolitcally speaking, the Iranians would have the right to defend themselves.

    A. Currently, the Iranians have prox 300 Intermediate missiles, either with a 2,000 lb payload of some with MIRV capacity ( upto 5 warheads each with 600lb payloads) capable of delivering conventional, biological or chemical weaponss. All within easy reach of Tel-Aviv — in fact, most of Israel. Hezbollah, which is Iran’s proxy in Lebanon, would certainly join in and has recently been rearmed certainly with lower grade, conventional missiles — courtesy of Syria and Iran.

    B. Please keep in mind that the Iranians have just undert 1,000,000 men under arms. If the Iranians choose to view this as a joint military adventure including the US, it would not be difficult to imagine:
    – Invading Iraq to engage US forces — certainly appealing to Mehdi army and other Iraq insurgents
    – Possibly attempting to engage US forces in Afghanistan
    – Obviously closing Hormuz.
    – Attempting attacks on the USS GW carrier group since they now have supposedly have improved versions of
    high speed torpedos courtesy of Putin & Co.

    3. The US military is spread very thin and is currently focusing on a.) possible regime change in NoKo, b.)bugging out of Iraq c.) trying to figure out if we have a strategy in Afghanistan other than trying to win hearts and minds.

    4. The US public has no further taste for additional military adventures, and with an election upcoming, what US politician other than the far right wing or from NYC will support further efforts. I doubt AIPAC will have any sway, or for that matter, American Jewry will even bother other than make some noises and go about their daily business. Perhaps shortsided, but comforting to know it’s “Trading as usual.”

    5. The Russians have brilliantly won a MidEast coup since they will appear to have supplanted US military dominance and have caused a potential realignment with already shaky MidEast allies.

    6. The Israelis will have to console themselves that the Iranians do not currently have the capacity to convert the waste to U239 — Just a question of time.

    7. The Israelis are getting boxed in and they know it. They will have to depend on Mutually Assured Destruction with their Arab/Persian neighbors and hope that Washington doesn’t ultimately throw them under the bus — like the Shah.

    8. God Bless dumbed down, uncaring Americans (Katrina Proven), cheap oil, now safe to eat Gulf seafood, American Idol, and Ipads.

    Focus on SPX, AUD/JPY crosses — this way, we will never see it coming. Much, much easier like that –

    And Above all else, keep saying to your children and to yourself that this is 2010 and there are no longer things that go bump in the night — after all, is Civiliztion really only a thin veneer ?

  12. iblitzkrieg says:

    Sometimes, I do wonder who is right or what is wrong. If Israel could have nuclear military pieces, why can’t others could not? Are we told that Israel is right and that Iran is the villian. Then, what about China or India, the rising regional powers of Asia. Are they the villians or they the good eyes? or in whose eyes?

    If Israel is to bomb its neighbors because they have the nuclear reactor then whyshould Israel have the nuclear bombs themselves? Iran is not Iraq and any confrontation with them could lead to not only ripples in the Middle East but it could be a really horrific repercussions in the Middle East that could derail the balance of power there just like the dismantling of Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. Besides, I do not think that Russia would allow any confrontation inits doorstep and if Iran is attacked, the resurgent Russia would not do nothing to counter the attack on the nuclear reactor that has been built by them for Iran and I do not think the U.S. would be foolish enough to allow Israel to bomb the Iranian nuclear reactor. Otherwise, the planned withdrawal from Iraq would be in serious danger and war and violence would erupt again in Iraq, a country that has no government currently and Lebanon would become the next war zone at the border with Israel and I am sure the U.S. would really have second thought as to stop any military adventure by Israel with its small airforce and army against a mountainuous and high altitude country like Iran.

  13. Robert M says:

    Something doesn’t add up. Abkhazia is way north of Iran. Even if many of Iran’s facilities are close to it I find it hard to believe the Israelis are going to commit ground troops as it is a suicide mission against heavily defended targets. I doubt Romania or Turkey are going to let Israel conduct continuous operations from their territory which would be necessary for a full fledged commando assault. Worse Bushehr, Iran is on the Persian Gulf so Israel flies south from Romania across Turkish airspace. it be easier to use the Turkish bases near Iraq.
    Someone wants to beat the drums to war. Nothing more.

  14. schmoo says:

    Does anyone remember Al Kibar?

  15. Jojo says:

    The WSJ ran this article 10 days ago where it seems that a number of Arab countries are hoping, praying and trying to egg Israel on to take out Iraq’s developing nuclear capability. Interested reading. But I think Israel would have acted by now if they were going to. Looks like they and the USA are resigned to Iraq joining the other nuclear powers.
    The Wall Street Journal
    AUGUST 6, 2010

    The Enemy of My Enemy
    Facing the threat of a nuclear Iran, the hostile Arab-Israeli relationship is giving way to a more complex picture


    Being an Arab leader has its rewards: the suite at the Waldorf-Astoria during the United Nations General Assembly, travel in your own plane, plenty of cash, even job security–whether kings, sheiks or presidents, with or without elections, most serve for life.

    But the advantages must seem dwarfed by the problems that face the Arab world this summer. The Shia in Iran seem to be building a bomb, Iran’s ally Syria is taking over Lebanon (again), Yemen is collapsing (again), Egypt’s President Mubarak is said to be dying and the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is back on the front pages.

    What’s more, no one is sure who’s in charge these days. The American hegemony, in place at least since the British left Aden in 1967 and secured through repeated, massive military operations of its own and victories by its ally Israel, seems to be fraying. Who will stop the Iranian nuclear weapons program, the Arabs wonder; they place no faith in endless negotiations between earnest Western diplomats and the clever Persians.

    Israel is the enemy of their enemy, Iran. Now, the usual description of Arab-Israeli relations as “hostile” or “belligerent” is giving way to a more complex picture. Following the joint Arab military efforts to prevent the formation of the Jewish State in 1948, and the wars that followed in 1956, 1967 and 1973, this is a bizarre turn of events. Israel is as unpopular in the Arab street as it has been in past decades (which is to say, widely hated), but for Arab rulers focused on the Iranian threat all those the Israeli Air Force jets must now appear alluring. The Israeli toughness the Arabs have complained about for over a half century is now their own most likely shield against Iran.

    The Arab view that someone should bomb Iran and stop it from developing nuclear weapons is familiar to anyone who meets privately with Arab leaders, especially in the Gulf. Now, the curtain is being pulled back: Just last month, the United Arab Emirates’ ambassador to the United States, Yousef Al Otaiba, spoke publicly of a “cost-benefit analysis” and concluded that despite the upset to trade that would result and the inevitable “people protesting and rioting and very unhappy that there is an outside force attacking a Muslim country,” the balance was clear. The ambassador told an Aspen audience, “If you are asking me, ‘Am I willing to live with that versus living with a nuclear Iran?’ my answer is still the same: ‘We cannot live with a nuclear Iran.’ I am willing to absorb what takes place.” By speaking of “an outside force,” Ambassador Al Otaiba did not specifically demand U.S. action; he left the door open for volunteers.

  16. nosoupforyou says:

    Why would Israel want to attack a nuclear reactor? The enrichment facilities are in other cities. More scaremongering from neocons?

    “Low-enriched uranium’ (LEU) has a lower than 20% concentration of 235U. For use in commercial light water reactors (LWR), the most prevalent power reactors in the world, uranium is enriched to 3 to 5% 235U”

    “The fissile uranium in nuclear weapons usually contains 85% or more of 235U known as weapon(s)-grade, though for a crude, inefficient weapon 20% is sufficient (called weapon(s)-usable); some argue that even less is sufficient, but then the critical mass for unmoderated fast neutrons rapidly increases, reaching infinity at 6%235U”

  17. TakBak04 says:

    Jeffrey Goldberg Probes Israel’s Iran Strike Option: Is Netanyahu a “Bomber Boy”?

    Steve Clemmons–The Washington Note

    It seems to me that before Israel would even countenance the heavy costs that could be visited upon it after bombing Iran – which arguably would just delay and probably harden Iran’s commitment to nuclear weapons acquisition – that it would want to shore up its security on other fronts, particularly with Arab regimes that share some of its concerns.

    I was in the audience at the 2010 Aspen Ideas Festival when Jeffrey Goldberg conducted the astonishing interview he recounts in his article with UAE Ambassador Yousef Otaiba who essentially said that if Iran continued on its current course, the UAE would support a military strike against Iran. What Goldberg failed to mention is that Otaiba also strongly emphasized that the most important radicalizer in the region was the unresolved Palestine-Israel dispute and that the smart strategy to deal with the Iran challenge was to unwind the Israeli occupation. He and other senior Arab leaders have told me that in their view, this would neutralize much of Iran’s growing power in the region.

    In one of my own interviews with a very senior UAE diplomat, I was told that the best way for the US and allies to confront Iran was to deliver on Palestine and then to work with the Saudis, UAE, and other oil-producing Arab states in making the price of oil crash to very low levels. He said that this would generate “humbling conditions” for Iran and “knee-cap Iran’s ambitions.” And then he said, Iran would work with us “and these games would end.”

    What is disappointing is that it seems from Goldberg’s article – which I think captures correctly the prevailing mood and opinion in Jerusalem — Israeli government officials for the most part are not even thinking about this course while at the same time considering and possibly accepting other high cost collision scenarios with Iran.

    Does Israel not see that its security relationship with the United States is somewhat like a New Orleans levy — working today but not exactly getting better with time? Israel needs to participate in a recasting of its security circumstances in the region, and it seems to be seriously counterproductive to be launching a war with one threatening nation while not doing more to ameliorate tensions with many other states in its neighborhood — particularly when it could.

    Goldberg’s piece makes it clear that Israel’s national leadership – while not in complete consensus on a strike – is nonetheless dominated by those who believe that the Israeli narrative as a nation, as a “safe haven” and refuge of first resort for Jews from around the world, will be undermined if Iran’s nuclear program is not confronted and rolled back. There is widespread consensus in Israel that Iran having a nuclear weapon comes as close to repeating the conditions of a shoah, or Holocaust, as Nazi Germany.

    But Israel is less and less, if at all, a refuge of first resort today — even without a war with Iran. Russian Jews are increasingly trying to go to Germany instead of Israel, and the ongoing tensions over the unresolved situation with Palestine and the fear of rockets or terrorism keep the nation on edge.

    When I first learned a couple of months ago that Jeffrey Goldberg was going to be writing this piece on “whither an Israeli strike,” I thought it would lay out a more compelling logic to bombing than he does in this article. Goldberg has not done advocacy journalism in this essay — rather, he has given us a snapshot of attitudes, postures, and his gut sense of probabilities while at the same time not pulling punches on what the dire costs could be.

    Reading his essay a second, and then a third time, I sense that Israel’s and America’s leadership won’t be “bombing boys” but rather will act like them until a “third option” to bombing or appeasement appears. That third option could be provided by Iran’s Supreme Leader himself, or could be normalization between Israel and the Arab Middle East, or something else.

    But it seems to me just as likely, if not more so, that real leadership in this showdown will be exhibited by those who demonstrate strategic restraint and generate possibilities not seen at the moment.

    When Eisenhower reined in John Foster Dulles and Curtis LeMay and forged a containment strategy of the USSR, he used their flamboyant desire to engage in war as part of his tool kit.

    Both Obama and Netanyahu would be wise to do the same and to think through ways to halt the dysfunctional, paranoiac escalation between Iran and Israel.

    What Jeffrey Goldberg has put out for us is an early treatment of what may be Barack Obama’s “Cuban Missile Crisis” moment — in which tensions are high, in which many in the room on all sides are engaged in extreme brinkmanship, and in which disaster looms for all parties.

    We don’t know what the outcome will be — but my gut instinct pulls a different direction than Goldberg’s.

    I think based on the interviews he has shared with all parties that more rational heads will prevail in finding a way to contain or redirect Iran’s course.

    Otherwise, as in a simple game theory exercise, both Israel and the US may end up in the box of very worst outcomes with none of their basic strategic objectives achieved.

    – Steve Clemons

  18. TakBak04 says:

    Sorry for long post…..couldn’t edit after posting.

  19. mservat says:

    You are not the only one who doesn’t know the difference between Iran or Iraq. They sound the same. Don’t they?

  20. Frwip says:

    First post here.

    For the missiles, I don’t know, but regarding the VVER reactors in Bushehr, Bolton is making s**t up, as usual, just trying to spin a tall tale of impending doom.

    By themselves, the Bushehr reactors have no military value whatsoever. Those reactors only have an economic value. They are technically worthless to a nuclear weapon program. It’s fuel enrichment and fuel reprocessing that matter for nuclear weapons, , the upstream and the downstream of the nuclear fuel cycle. And it’s happening elsewhere in Iran, not in Bushehr. At least the upstream is happening in Natanz, Qom, Isfahan, etc. and opens to Iran the highly enriched uranium route for Hiroshima-style nukes. It’s unclear whether or not Iran has any interest in the downstream, the plutonium route used by North Korea (the type used at Nagasaki).

    Mentioning the Bushehr reactors as a possible military target is an outright red flag, or rather a red nose which clearly identifies a complete bozo who either knows jack to nuclear technology and nuclear weapons or wants to openly lie about it.

    This is pure, unadulterated BS.

  21. Ilya says:

    Game theory. How quaint. Think tanks and NGO’s actually get paid for publishing this tripe? In our ‘LOOK AT ME’ society, one must be outrageous to appear worthy of attention. Nevermind that refined discourse is panned for the sake of a ‘ratings’ tool. The new cachet is to over-reach the bounds of common sense and be topical for a day. I know that it’s only a reflection of a point in a cycle yet it galls me that hyperbole can be considered ‘normal.’ I’m sure there is someone that will out Prechter-Prechter and call for DOW 100. But then there was Elmer Gantry.

    Again. Nukes are passe. They are the old generals last resort weapons for wars that never happened. Any podunk country that would launch a nuke must know that his country would soon be like a frog in a blender.

    The next wars will be cybertronic, chemical and biological although I still have a nostalgic streak for neutrons. Neutron bursts are yet another reason to stay ‘hard wired, he said tongue in cheek.’

    Iran is like the third grader that doesn’t play well with others. Their tantrums are only for show. Eventually the Caliph gives way to the Sultan or rather A Sultan emerges and marginalizes the Caliph and then the sun comes up in the east.

  22. andrewp111 says:

    Maybe Israel will hit it after the fuel has been burning for a couple of months. If the area is hot, it will be harder to fix anything, won’t it?

  23. shahroodi says:

    please repeat after me:


    and remind this please:

    Iran is NOT iraq…..Iran is NOT iraq



  24. philipat says:

    There’s no more money for the Top 1% and their representatives, the political classes, to steal, and the whole system is about to collapse. So the last game to strip whatever is left is probably a major war. It also diverts attention and gets all the sheeple behind the Govmin and all wrapped up in the flag and watching Faux. God bless America. OOps, can;t say that anymore.

  25. emrah says:

    I don’t think Russia can protect the facility with the missile batteries located close to the Black Sea. Israel would probably attact (if they do) by low level flying aircraft and try to take out the facilites with high precision munitions. S-300s can not react that fast to low level flying aircraft and the distance the missiles have to cover (assuming that aircraft are detected) is way too much.

    From economical point of view I agree with bullish XAU and oil comments. Treasury yields would also rally, but after hitting 2.60 on 10 notes, comparatively speaking XAU and Oil has more room to go, I think. I just hope no blood is shed.

  26. Greg0658 says:

    having nuclear materials in country takes first strike with pre-emptive conventional war ie: peace off the table .. hense why I think having The bomb is peace … until it is used unabated

    “WOPR: Greetings, Professor Falken.
    Stephen Falken: Hello, Joshua.
    Joshua: A strange game. The only winning move is not to play. How about a nice game of chess?”

  27. dougc says:

    I am an old man and my memory is bad but I can’t remember Iran invading anyone in my lifetime, could someone tell me why I should believe that they are warmongers? Isreal tried to invade Lebanon 3 years ago.

  28. Willy2 says:

    DEBKA is run by the israeli secret service MOSSAD. With this website they’re trying to demonize Iran. They’ll do and say whatever fits the israeli government’s official foreign policy.

  29. gloppie says:

    Rich a$$holes in Country A runs out of ponzi schemes and turns his peons towards Country B in an effort to avoid a downfall.
    I don’t even want to take sides or have an opinion about all this sh.t anymore. Yes, Iran has not invaded anybody of late, Yes the Jews suffered a lot this last century, Yes cheap oil is there and not anywhere else (BP knows for sure it’s not in the gulf now), Yes the region is a powderkeg, Yes, the Brits botched up when their Empire crapped out, and Yes the Russians are acting in their economical interest only. I could go on until my head spins.
    I don’t give a f|_|ck. Dow 3600, Wars and rumours of wars, bring on the locusts and all that…..

  30. gms777 says:


    Here is an excerpt from a U.S. State Department report on the sponsorship of terrorism by the government of Iran:


    Iran remained the most active state sponsor of terrorism. Its Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS) were directly involved in the planning and support of terrorist acts and continued to exhort a variety of groups, especially Palestinian groups with leadership cadres in Syria and Lebanese Hizballah, to use terrorism in pursuit of their goals. In addition, the IRGC was increasingly involved in supplying lethal assistance to Iraqi militant groups, which destabilizes Iraq.
    Iran continues to be unwilling to bring to justice senior al-Qaida members it detained in 2003. Iran has refused to identify publicly these senior members in its custody on “security grounds.” Iran has also resisted numerous calls to transfer custody of its al-Qaida detainees to their countries of origin or to third countries for interrogation and/or trial.
    Iran maintained a high-profile role in encouraging anti-Israeli terrorist activity — rhetorically, operationally, and financially. Supreme Leader Khamenei and President Ahmadi-Nejad praised Palestinian terrorist operations, and Iran provided Lebanese Hizballah and Palestinian terrorist groups — notably HAMAS, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command — with extensive funding, training, and weapons.
    Iran pursued a variety of policies in Iraq, some of which appeared to be inconsistent with its stated objectives regarding stability in Iraq and with the objectives of the Iraqi Transitional Government and the Multi-national Forces in Iraq. Senior Iraqi officials have publicly expressed concern over Iranian interference in Iraq, and there were reports that Iran provided funding, safe passage, and arms to insurgent elements.

    State sponsors of terrorism pose a grave WMD terrorism threat. A WMD program in a state sponsor of terrorism could enable a terrorist organization to acquire a sophisticated WMD. State sponsors of terrorism and nations that fail to live up to their international obligations deserve special attention as potential facilitators of WMD terrorism. Iran presents a particular concern, given its active sponsorship of terrorism and its continued development of a nuclear program. Iran is also capable of producing biological and chemical agents or weapons. Like other state sponsors of terrorism with WMD programs, Iran could support terrorist organizations seeking to acquire WMD.

  31. RC says:

    Our anti-Iran policy is so stupid.
    The only country in the entire Islamic world that is in anyway similar to ours is Iran, yet they are our enemy. The country that is a polar opposite of ours is our best ally, Saudi Arabia.
    It makes no sense.
    The anti-Iran hysteria of foreign policy establishment is just beaurocratic inertia. Beaurocrats and politicians are still stuck in the hostage crisis days. True leadership will be required to break free from this old thinking.

  32. jhunt says:

    I’m surprised no one’s referenced it, but I think Stratfor has great analysis on this subject (and geopolitics in general). Friedman, the guy that runs the shop, agrees with some of the previous comments that if Israel were to act, it would’ve already done so (though he put their deadline with Bush’s presidency). Either way, here are links to some of his articles. (a main page, with links to many of their Iran-U.S. articles) (a quite scary, but altogether possible solution; black swan to those not in the know?)

  33. dougc says:


    Sounds like the same crap we were told about Iraq to justify our invasion.

  34. ashpelham2 says:

    I thought this article was scare-mongoring and an attempt to be outrageous, to gain attention. Nuclear weapon use in the current middle east would be amateur hour for sure. No one outside of the big world powers has the ability to launch and hit targets from a distance with any level of effectiveness or accuracy. And china ain’t using the bomb, and USA ain’t using the bomb, and Russia ain’t using the bomb.

    Besides, there was plenty of devastation left behind following this global financial crisis, and that brings me to my point: If you want your enemies to go away and never to be heard of again, you simply shut them down economically, starving their people. The internal revolt will do more than a few nukes could ever do.

  35. chipfield says:

    This is the same reactor that uses light, rather than heavy, water, yes?
    This is the same reactor that was hailed by President George Bush in 2007 because it wasn’t a security concern, yes?

    I’d be very grateful if somebody could explain to me how this reactor was considered a benign development in ’07 but is now an earth-shattering, peace-threatening development today.

    I’m also a bit curious about why anybody with half a brain wouldn’t consider Mr. Bolton a war-mongering maniac.

  36. TakBak04 says:

    @ashpelham2 Says:

    Well…yes it does sound like that:

    “I thought this article was scare-mongoring and an attempt to be outrageous, to gain attention. Nuclear weapon use in the current middle east would be amateur hour for sure. No one outside of the big world powers has the ability to launch and hit targets from a distance with any level of effectiveness or accuracy. And china ain’t using the bomb, and USA ain’t using the bomb, and Russia ain’t using the bomb. ”



    However MadMen and those seeking Power, Influence and other Perks are known to do what some might call: EVIL THINGS…in seeking to keep POWER.

    Sadly, it might seem to be the situation here. “Distraction of WAR” is always a good way to keep “Populist America” under control. Just do WAR and FOOTBALL…and ..well…you get the drift.

  37. gman says:

    I think barry is being sarcastic with his Iran/Iraq mistake. It is the same exact sales pitch being made by the same exact people as the Iraq war! 2 big differences no 911, and we are broke!

    Oh I can still remember all the breathless reporting about the links to 911(false), the anthrax attacks(domestic), the wmd(nonexistant) and remote control balsawood drones that could deliver scary botulinum toxin(botox)…the aluminum tubes etc…the list goes on….

    Barry made a great error…just insert “Iran”…same oil contracts, same weapon suppliers and same cynical notion of “helping Isreal”…Ill pass thanks. Just normalize relations w/ Iran..poof problem solved….oh yeah I forgot they …”hate us for our freedom”!

  38. clipb says:

    stratfor has had good, sensible takes on this for a while. the latest atlantic has an interesting, rather in depth piece on this (cover article). with the russian announcement a few days ago i looked for some volatility in wti and related derivatives, but didn’t see much. it also seems pretty clear that the shias are waiting for us to leave iraq and then hook up with iran to some degree. that would give the shiites 7-8 mn barrels a day in oil production or just behind russia and the sunni saudis. my guess is that it is going to get “interesting” over there in the next year or two, one way or another.

  39. VennData says:

    Debtka / Bolton rubbish designed to make the draw down to 50K per Obama’s plan (recall how Cheney would announce another terrorist plot every time Kerry bounced in the polls.)

    Russia looks like a good guy when Iran gets hit. “Hey, we tried to help…”

    This “Israel would have attacked by now” is nonsense. Any attack will occur once they’ve learned as much as possible and Iran has invested as much as possible.

    The idea that Israel doesn’t have capable munitions is ludicrous.

    The Saudi’s got their F-15 order in as their buy in.

    Oh and Iranian agents won’t be able to use their Blackberrys to chit chat and /or detonate.

    Iran’s “1M-man army” is no more powerful than Iraq’s ten years ago. Iran is surrounded by US proxies, who can/will pin down any conventional nonsense. Iran will look weak once their flailing response to an Israeli attack winds down. They’ll only get rhetorical support from the oil states. Then they lesson will be learned, Ahmadinejad’s clique will be pushed aside and the internal opposition will be strengthened.

    Bomb’s away …after the US elections.

  40. catman says:

    I am willing to absorb what takes place? Quote from the end of the Eliot Abrams article. Who is this guy and what planet is he living on? The whole UAE would be a shadow on a wall, but I’m sure Eliot would be there to eulogize that freedom loving hero. Jeez…