skip to main |
skip to sidebar
"... but it rejected accusations from the United States that the launch had violated a United Nations Security Council resolution...."
The remarks came a day after President Hassan Rouhani disparaged President Trump for his immigration order barring refugees, as well as citizens of seven predominantly-Muslim countries including Iran.
“Banning visas for other nations is the act of newcomers to the political scene,” Mr. Rouhani said.
UPDATE:
National security adviser Michael Flynn said:
"President Trump has severely criticized the various agreements reached between Iran and the Obama Administration, as well as the United Nations, as being weak and ineffective. Instead of being thankful to the United States for these agreements, Iran is now feeling emboldened. As of today, we are officially putting Iran on notice.... The Obama Administration failed to respond adequately to Tehran’s malign actions—including weapons transfers, support for terrorism, and other violations of international norms."
Posts
44 comments:
President Obama - the gift that keeps on giving!!
Great deal negotiated by Obama.
The Iran deal is the biggest challenge for Tillerson and Trump.
Rouhani knows all about "newcomers."
"I told you so" would be the story out in the media, had the partisan roles in the US been reversed.
But throwing gays off high building and stoning adulterers is the action of experienced old hands. Is that what you are telling me Mr. Mullah?
Is a half a billion in cash enough to run a missile test?
Good thing Iran is not building a bomb or I'd be worried.
Obama,
POS before,
POS during,
POS after,
This can only be a plot by Obama to rid the world of Arab Muslims.
1. Give Iran all of the cash and political cover they need to run a successful nuclear program.
2. The Mullahs perform a nuclear test on Tel Aviv.
3. Israel deals with the worlds problem.
It is the only thing that makes any sense. Why else would Obama help such an obvious enemy of decency and peace get nuclear weapons and try to deceive the American people while doing it?
I realize the obvious answer is that Obama is an enemy of freedom himself.
I am one of the few on the Right who thought the Iran deal wasn't a mistake per se, though I also think the deal was a fraud as sold by the Obama Administration. If Iran wants nuclear weapons, they will get nuclear weapons outside anything short of an invasion and overthrow of their present government.
I think the Iranians are going to get those weapons in the next decade or two, and I think the missile tests clearly indicate that desire- there isn't much reason to develop such missiles otherwise.
Obama's mistake in my opinion was in not being honest about what the goal actually was- to moderate the Iranian government rather than to stop their acquisition of WMDs. I don't know whether or not that goal can be accomplished, but it is at least a reasonable one.
"I think the Iranians are going to get those weapons in the next decade or two, and I think the missile tests clearly indicate that desire- there isn't much reason to develop such missiles otherwise."
I look forward to Robert Cook's explanation as to why the Iranians are building missles. He's been adamant they are not building a bomb.
Yancey Ward said...
Obama's mistake in my opinion was in not being honest about what the goal actually was- to moderate the Iranian government rather than to stop their acquisition of WMDs. I don't know whether or not that goal can be accomplished, but it is at least a reasonable one.
This is stupid. That is why you are probably in a very small group. Nuclear weapons make removing a regime nearly impossible no matter how disgusting they are. Ex: North Korea. No matter what you do if the regime falls they will launch so you now have to help them stay in power.
Getting Nuclear Weapons will give the Mullahs the leverage to say and do what they really want. Looking at what they say and do now while they are somewhat constrained would lead any reasonably intelligent person to conclude they will not moderate.
Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, Iran
Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, Iran
Bomb Iran
That is our plan
We'll have it rockin' and a rollin'
Rockin' and a rollin'
Bomb Iran
Well, Achilles, if you want to stop them, you need Operation Iranian Freedom. Is that even an option these days?
Rockin' and a reelin' *Second line from the bottom*
I'm sure the missiles are just for shooting off the nuclear wastes into the sun from their peaceful reactors.
Yancey Ward said...
Well, Achilles, if you want to stop them, you need Operation Iranian Freedom. Is that even an option these days?
Depends on if the american people are serious or not. The Iranian regime could be wiped out almost summarily if we went all out. "Innocents" would have to die in fairly large numbers. But the alternative is a glass parking lot shaped like all of the countries from Egypt to Afghanistan and a lot more "innocent" deaths.
Choosing the path you advocate has consequences, you people just will not accept them.
It's a shame that GWBush handed off this horrific Iran deal directly to Trump.
If only America had been fortunate enough to have a visionary democrat in office in between.
Yancey, I think you are correct about Obama's plan but he is an ahistorical fool.
An Iran-Israel nuclear exchange was discussed at Center for Strategic and International Studies back about 2007.
I did a blog post at the time about it.
The study is no longer on their site but the summary I posted.
“Walker concludes that Cordesman’s analysis spells out “the end of Persian civilization, quite probably the end of Egyptian civilization, and the end of the Oil Age. This would also mean the end of globalization and the extraordinary accretions in world trade and growth and prosperity that are hauling hundreds of millions of Chinese and Indians and others out of poverty.”
They concluded that Israel would lose 600,000 deaths but Iran would cease to be a nation state. 16 to 28 million deaths was the estimate.
They also concluded that Israel would also attack Egypt and Pakistan to avoid being killed off in a secondary attack.\
That may not be a valid assumption anymore with Egypt but probably is with Pakistan.
The "Oil Age" referred to is less important because of US discoveries and fracking.
I still think the analysis is still largely valid if the Iranian mullahs are willing to commit suicide. They have little popular support in Iran outside the Revolutionary Guard. Maybe, like Hitler, they will decide to take their ungrateful people with them in a gotterdamerung.
I don't think there was ever any way we were stopping Iran from building a bomb, but did we have to send them a boatload of cash to help the cause?
There is a "civil government" faction in Iran, but the actual govenment is dominated by the Ayatollahs (hardline Shia religionists a la the Ayatollah Ruholla Khamenei) and the military (largely descended from the Shah's military and the Savak), and the "civilians" are mostly put out on the stage for show, I think. Obama thought they were for real and that he could set the stage for a "civilian" ascendance to power by bringing them gifts.
But the Ayatollahs and the generals have made it clear throughout that they are in power and do not in any way feel obliged to comply with promises made by the "civilians."
It's a close call which are the worst of Obama's failures. This week I will go with the ACA and the Iranian deal. Next week might reveal something even more harmful, so I reserve the right to revamp my list!
Speaking of Obama failures I am anxiously looking forward to the coming wipe-out of Obama regulations by the House and Senate. A little hardball anyone?
Like the coming implosion of Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid, the question of "How to stop Iran from getting the bomb and nuking the ME?" is a tough one, and successive Presidents have delayed addressing it, while the problem gets harder.
Beyond the utter and incredible incompetence of the deal Obama/Kerry made with the Mullahs, I am outraged at their gloating over the lies they told us to sell it.
khesanh0802,
Don't forget the increasing racial divide.
Willie Dynamite: You're On Notice!
Achilles, in a manic phase?
Obama wanted the Iran deal to be his legacy. I think he's going to get his wish, but not in the way he had hoped for...
Obama's mistake in my opinion was in not being honest about what the goal actually was- to moderate the Iranian government rather than to stop their acquisition of WMDs. I don't know whether or not that goal can be accomplished, but it is at least a reasonable one.
How do you moderate an alcoholic?
You don't give him the keys to the liquor cabinet.
Iran has made no secret of its hatred of America.
Iran has made no secret of it's willingness to destroy Israel.
Iran has made no secret of it's desire to aquire WMDs.
But here.
Here's a butt load of cash.
Only use it for good.
Queen wili #11 has Multiple Names Disorder.
Anyone know whether an Aegis cruiser could pick off the Iranian missiles as they're being tested? Might be a good live test of our technology.
So Iran and Nancy Pelosi are on the same side. Trump makes interesting enemies.
Somebody in the Iranian leadership needs to wake up with a horse's head in his bed........
I look forward to Robert Cook's explanation as to why the Iranians are building missles. He's been adamant they are not building a bomb.
I'm sure Squealor would say that those aren't missiles, those are civilian rockets being designed to set up a mosque on the Moon.
Blogger Gahrie said...
I'm sure Squealor would say that those aren't missiles, those are civilian rockets being designed to set up a mosque on the Moon.
The Iranians are developing MIRV tech. Mirv tech makes no sense unless your warheads are WMD.
The idea that Iran is building IRBM's for a million dollars a pop so that it can deliver a thousand Kg payload of conventional explosives is a joke.
Hey..you don't have to convince me....I thought we should have sent in a couple of MEUs back in 1979.
Shorter Cook: they're not doing anything wrong and besides we deserve it.
Big Mike,
"Anyone know whether an Aegis cruiser could pick off the Iranian missiles as they're being tested? Might be a good live test of our technology."
You mean during boost phase? Great question! Alas, I think the answer is Not really. (Google query: the totally simple-minded "Aegis boost phase".) Note the critical prefix "post-" in the standard online encyclopedia entry: "Aegis BMD (also known as Sea-Based Midcourse) is designed to intercept ballistic missiles post-boost phase and prior to reentry."
As it notes in one of my preceding links, the problem with boost-phase interception is the very narrow time window, meaning the interceptor vehicle needs to be quite close to the launch site to be able to hit the missile during boost. Could this be satisfied by Aegis-equipped vessels in the Persian Gulf? Answer is NO. (1) They would only be "close" to launch sites near the coast; Iran covers a large land area and the NE border near Turkmenistan is hundreds of miles from the coast; (2) any competent adversary would launch Sea Sparrows or their equivalents against those vessels first in a carefully-timed sequence before the launch of the IRBMs.
Kirk,
Where is the ABL at these days? The Airborne Laser was meant for boost phase.
Or we could just bomb them.
Airborne Laser has to be even closer (in surface miles) than anything space-based; plus all the usual issues of loiter-time, etc. The only advantage thing a laser has in this scenario is time-to-target (hello, Speed Of Light!)
Had thought ABL was good out to 400 nmi with a clear sky, which one assumes is when they would fly the rocket. For a defined event it would seem viable.
However, bombing them is easier, granted.
"You violated the Security Council resolution."
"No, we didn't."
"Yes, you did."
"No, we didn't."
"Yes, you did."
"No, we didn't."
"Yes -"
"I'm sorry, your five minutes are up."
Bad Lt,
Why would a ballistic missile need clear skies?
Post a Comment