Friday, August 20, 2010

Iran's Weaponization and The Worst Case Scenarios


Iran broadcasts missile launch on state television 

Iran has test fired a surface-to-surface missile, according to the country’s defence minister.

Ahmad Vahidi’s announcement comes a day before Iran is scheduled to launch its Russian-built first nuclear power plant in the southern port city of Bushehr.
Television images showed the sand coloured Qiam (Rising) blasting into the air from a desert terrain, amid chants of “Allahu Akbar” (God is greatest).
This missile isn't the only thing Iran has been working on.  Read about the rest of their weapons capabilities and their nuclear plant here.
The Obama Administration tells Israel that Iran will need at least a year to develop a nuclear weapon:
According to Fox News:

Report: Iran Needs Year to Develop Nuclear Weapon

WASHINGTON -- U.S. officials have convinced Israel that Iran needs at least a year to develop a nuclear weapon, dimming prospects of an Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear facilities, The New York Times reports.
Israeli officials thought Iran could develop nuclear weapons within months. But Gary Samore, President Barack Obama's top adviser on nuclear issues, told the Times he thinks it would take Tehran "roughly a year" to turn low-enriched uranium into weapons-grade material.
"A year is a very long period of time," Samore was quoted by the newspaper in a report posted on its website late Thursday.
The assessment is based on U.S. intelligence and international inspectors' reports.
So what now?  Fox News reports the worst case scenarios:

(AP Photo)

Worst-Case Scenarios: Possible Strike Plans for Iran Involve Risky Options

By Judson Berger

At some point, military leaders in the United States and in Israel will have to decide: Which is more dangerous -- an Iran capable of launching a nuclear weapon? Or an Iran that just got hit with tons of artillery and is out for revenge?
Both scenarios are frightening, particularly to the Israelis. U.S. officials have described the prospects of a nuclear-armed Iran and a military confrontation as equally terrible, particularly at a time when the Obama administration is trying to end nearly a decade of war in Iraq and Afghanistan.
But the thought of military action is not far-fetched. The United States acknowledges it possesses an attack plan for Iran, and the Israelis reportedly have drawn up specific scenarios for a strike.
What such an attack would look like, who would lead it and what the consequences would be are open questions -- and ones that several top analysts and former officials have tried to answer. Based on those reports and conversations with analysts, the following are some of the most common predictions on what Iranian airspace would look like if the U.S. or Israel were to decide, in answer to the first question, that a nuclear-armed Iran is worse than an angry one.
  • Warning Shot
  • Strategic Takeout
  • Shock and Awe  
Read about the scenarios here.

My comments:
Quote:  "...But Gary Samore, President Barack Obama's top adviser on nuclear issues, told the Times he thinks it would take Tehran "roughly a year" to turn low-enriched uranium into weapons-grade material.
"A year is a very long period of time," Samore was quoted by the newspaper in a report posted on its website late Thursday...."

Is this guy crazy?  A year is a very long time???  What then?

To me, a comment like that proves that the Obama Regime has put idiots in charge of our national security.   God help us. 


  1. This is the Carter Admin on steroids. The news from the middle east gets worse and worse every day.

  2. Opie:
    One difference. We don't have Ronald Reagan to come to the rescue this time.

  3. TCL,

    With all due respect for you and President Reagan , I believe he would be dismayed at that comment.

    Reagan believed in The People not one person or that of government.

    I completely understand what you are saying, but Reagan understood the American spirit to it's core and it is high time if any of us that respect his memory to not only believe it, but to act on it.

    Reagan would be the first to say that what he achieved was not his alone for it is THE PEOPLE who put him there.

    Is there another Ronald Reagan? Who is to say? Different times, different people, different everything.

    But I ask, as I belive Reagan would, do we need another him or do we need ourselves?

    I believe the latter.

  4. Hi Christopher:
    When I made the President Reagan comment I had one thing in mind...the 444 day Iranian hostage crisis that we faced when Carter was President and how it ended the day President Reagan took office. I should have been more clear in my statement.
    I agree with you that President Reagan believed in the People and would not credit himself with anything.
    I also believe that because of President Reagan's leadership, our country benefited. So, yes, it's up to us to put good people into leadership positions. Your point is well taken.
    Thank you.

  5. 63 million of you out there voted for exactly this. By putting Caliph Obama I in power with idiot suck up enablers in Congress, this is the end result. I blame all of you in addition to the "I Won"
    And the Lone Ranger was a serial at the movies.

  6. Petty Officer:
    Many of the 63 million have buyers remorse. It is frustrating to think that so many people voted for a guy that they really knew nothing about or didn't care to find out about. The information was available, we saw it, but many closed their eyes.
    And apathy has rewarded us with the Congress we now politicians with a lot of power and others who are too cowardly to stand up for what is right. Throw in the slow creep of progressivism, and here we are in a big heap of trouble.

  7. Opus is correct. This is the Carter administration. Not only more inept, but with greater intentional appeasement. Some one, some where, will get nuked over this, and it will rest at the feet of the inept quisling in the White House.

  8. Matt:
    I pray you are wrong, but with that wacko in Iran, anything is possible.

  9. Bush promised us he would accept a nuclear Iran. I don't believe it will take Iranians a year. The White House has been right about nothing when it comes to predicting what Iran will do.

    Now they have the drone carrying missiles. We will be so deeply regretful that we have allowed this.

  10. TCL, sorry. I meant to say Bush promised us he would NOT accept a nuclear Iran.

  11. Hi Maggie:
    I didn't think you did. We all have those "typo" moments.


Respectful comments are always welcomed and appreciated. Trolls will not be tolerated.