600 Iranian missiles said to be pointed at targets in Israel

[sabra]

Source: Jerusalem Post

Six hundred Iranian Shihab-3 missiles are pointed at targets throughout Israel, and will be launched if either Iran or Syria are attacked, an Iranian website affiliated with the regime reported on Monday.

"Iran will shoot at Israel 600 missiles if it is attacked," the Iranian news website, Assar Iran, reported. "600 missiles will only be the first reaction."

According to the report, dozens of locations throughout Iraq, which are being used by the US Army, have also been targeted.

...

On Sunday, French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner said that the nuclear Iranian crisis forces the world "to prepare for the worst," and said that in this case it "is war."

Kouchner emphasized, however, that negotiations should still be the preferred course of action.

Read more: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1189411419433&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

---

:crazy:

[bdamomma]

1. they are beating those drums loudly.

let us not go down this road again. please.

[The Magistrate]

2. You Mean The Iranians, Ma'am?

This is a statement from an official Iranian source, that they certainly intended to have wide circulation....

[Wednesdays]

3. Obviously, SOMEONE wants a big war

Just leave me out of it...don't matter who's to blame.

[The Magistrate]

5. Indeed, Sir

"War is, at first, the hope that one will be better off; next, the expectation that the other fellow will be worse off; then, the satisfaction that he isn't any better off; and, finally, the surprise at everyone's being worse off."

[reprobate]

45. War is a racket-Smedley Butler

[bahrbearian]

6. You mean the Israels, your Honor?

It was printed in the Jerusalem Times.. I'd like to know what is pointed at Iran.

[The Magistrate]

8. It Is The Statement Of An Iranian Source Affiliated With The Iranian Government, Ma'am

Bragging on their military capability to threaten a foe. If they did not desire wide circulation of the item, they never would have issued it at all.

Doubtless all sorts of things point in both directions: when nations have long-standing hostile relations, that is generally the case....

[Tempest]

13. An Iranian website affiliated with the regime, not an Iranian source

Fox News could be said to be affiliated with the Bush regime.

So we should start taking everything Fox says as coming from the administration?

[The Magistrate]

17. Good Luck With That, Sir

There is pretty tight media control in Iran, and accordingly, 'affiliated' means 'official mouthpiece'....

Anyone with any sense does consider Fox News to be retailing the official line of the administration here, though the relationship is a bit more loosely structured than in Iran.

[Tempest]

22. Objection, your honor

accordingly, 'affiliated' means 'official mouthpiece'

Opinion, not fact.

[The Magistrate]

25. If You Say So, Sir

But it is hard to see the point, or what good you think would come of sustaining it. Iran has a sizeable force of medium range ballistic missiles, they are certainly for the most part targetted on Israel and have been for some while, and there is little reason to doubt they would be used in the event open hostilities break out between those two countries, or in the event of a U.S. attack on Israel, since the government of Iran sees no real difference between the United States and Israel when it comes to fighting in the region.

[hang a left]

82. Not for nothing....Sir, but

If I remember just last week Israeli Jets were dumping something over Syria.

[bahrbearian]

24. How do you decide what gender to use when you address posters?

[0007]

75. What different does it make if transparency is ....

lacking definite shape, form, or character?


[hang a left]

83. You are making me dizzy. Stop it!! nt

[0007]

85. I can't, junior has the controls and he's trying to drive the Russians nuts!

[SOS]

89. Important distinction

re: "Bragging on their military capability to threaten a foe."

They are announcing retaliation if attacked.
They are not threatening a pre-emptive strike.

[dave420]

63. Anti-semite!

How DARE you ask what Israel is doing?? Don't you know they're on the brink of existence?

Just kidding, of course. Israel has nuclear weapons pointed at Iran. Many, many nuclear weapons, and a massive insecurity pervasive throughout their military and society that makes them ultimately dangerous. This much can be figured out just by reading the media from the region, and looking at Israel's past actions in dealing not only with its neighbours, but with anyone who isn't Israeli-'proper'. Israel is like a massive tiger in a field of sheep, only this tiger thinks sheep eat tigers, not the other way round.

[Ian David]

64. And YOU are on my ingore list now. n/t

[Megahurtz]

80. ...

:wtf:

You make no fucking sense. :shrug:

[bahrbearian]

70. I know

Some people have long ignore lists

[bdamomma]

9. no sorry those thugs in WH are beating the drums.

[The Magistrate]

11. And Apparently, Ma'am

With such a wide scope that you seem prepared to attribute bellicose statements by the Iranian government to the 'secret masters' in the White House....

[gate of the sun]

46. so you want a war with Iran?

that's the impression I'm getting from you buddy.

[leftynyc]

59. You argue like a republican

Just because he is pointing out this came from Iranian sources (and not Israel), that means he wants a war? Does that jump actually make sense in your brain? (Sorry for jumping in here magistrate - I know you to be a fair minded person).

[The Stranger]

69. That is a fascinating inference you make from the "Ma'am's" post.

You have inserted into a post about the White House Neoconservatives' constant demand for illegal war against Iran the claim that there are "secret masters in the White House." If anything, the Iranians seem to be trying to use deterrence in light of the Neoconservative traitors in the U.S. constantly and vocally seeking to fuck the U.S. into yet another illegal war.

[armodem08]

78. The Jerusalem Post is assisting Iranian propaganda then.

They must have some reason to do this. Plus, does this not also assist the hardliners in the Israeli and American governments in their ultimate aims to attack Iran? In that way it is flagrant propaganda... for all side- Iran, Israel, and America. They all want war, and must convince their populations to support them.

[Tempest]

12. No, the French

Sarkozy is the one who said the world needs to prepare for war.

[The Magistrate]

18. That Fellow Is A Real Prize, Eh, Sir?

The French electorate made a bad mistake there....

[Tempest]

20. Happens every time the French vote conservative

They always get buyers remorse.

[The Magistrate]

23. Not Just The French, Sir

Any populace that votes in a rightist deserves a quick kick in the pants, and is sure to get it from the reptiles they put in office themselves....

"Democracy is a system of government based on belief the people know what they want and ought to get it, good and hard."

[LeftishBrit]

88. Not sure of that...

The French have voted for Conservative presidents in most of their elections, though not always for Conservative parliaments. Mitterand was the only socialist out of 6 post-war presidents (De Gaulle, Pompidou, Giscard, Mitterand, Chirac, Sarkozy). So I wouldn't say they got 'buyer's remorse' with all their Conservative presidents.

The Conservative group in France is, to use an American phrase, a big tent, and most would probably be like Democrats rather than Republicans in America. Sarkozy does seem to be a bit to the right of many of them, however.

[The Stranger]

68. Maybe you haven't been keeping up with current events, but the Neocons have demanded attacking Iran.

And those Neocons aren't Iranians.

[Up2Late]

4. I don't doubt this one bit, it only logical for them to do this.

If the current Israeli Government were smart (and most here know they are not) they would work very hard to stop the "bomb Iran" talk that is going on in the WH.

[gate of the sun]

47. I agree

this is exactly what I was thinking with all the war talk not to mention us bringing our war ships in line, it sounds like a logical defense.

[0rganism]

7. I don't know if threatening Israel is much of a deterrent these days

That's 20th century thinking, all the MAD stuff, so pre-dubya. Now that our government is dominated by lunatics who wax ecstatic over the notion of a world-ending war that begins in the Middle East with the destruction of Israel, it's downright counterproductive.

[pampango]

10. Only in the Middle East can is it even semi-believable that a country

would threaten to attack one country if a totally different country attacks them. During the Cold War, I guess the Soviet Union could have threatened to attack Jamaica if we attacked them.

Note to Iran: It might be a good idea to save a few missiles for the country (and its military forces) that actually attacks you. I am not sure about the current status, but French foreign policy has historically leaned in favor of Arab countries not Israel. Threatening Israel might not be the best way to slow down a French attack. I know that Israel is closer and easier to attack with your weapons, but we didn't attack Mexico after Pearl Harbor, even though that would have been easier.

Besides, if this story is to be believed, it makes it more difficult for Iran's defenders to argue that it is not focused on destroying Israel, if they plan to attack Israel even if it does not attack Iran.

[Tempest]

15. Israel has already said they will attack Iran

To stop their nuclear program.

And he didn't say France would attack Iran, he said the world should be prepared for war. He didn't say who would initiate the attack. It could very well be Israel.

[pampango]

30. If Israel does attack Iran, then an Iranian counterattack against Israel would hardly

be surprising. My guess is that if Iran attacks Israel first, Israel will launch a counterattack, too. Does Israel need to publically state this for us all to understand this?

The linked article was dealing with the Iranian reaction to France's saber rattling about Iran and its potential nuclear capability. The Iranian position was that its missiles are targeted at Israel and "will launched if either Iran or Syria are attacked" (by anyone?). The only logic (I know - logic : Middle East?) behind the story is if Iran was warning a potential third country attacker about their intention to target Israel under those circumstances.)

[bananas]

44. Maybe they can time it so both attacks are at the same time.

Then nobody is at fault.

[eridani]

62. That would certainly be fair

Both Iran and Israel have the right to retaliate against an attack, IMO.

[aquart]

35. Of course. A nation with 7 million people and no oil money

Which depends on oranges, tomatoes, and tourists, will invite war with an oil rich nation with ten times the population.

Because there would be no consequences and there's just no reason not to.

Well, thank God for the Jewish doctors because they'll need every one of them, won't they?

Does logic completely disappear when the word "Israel" is used?

[Danmel]

42. Yes

It does. I once heard a commentator on WBAI blast the Israelis for planting trees. Planting trees in the desert. Wow. What a crime against humanity.

[SayWhatYo]

77. What was their argument?

That sounds really weird.

[Danmel]

79. I think they just generally objected to Israel's existence

They were NOT talking about any territories or settlements or anything in dispute for anyone who accepts Israel's right to exist- They were planting trees in the Negev.

[Tempest]

67. I guess you don't remember Osirak

Israel is the only Middle Eastern country with nuclear weapons.

Not to mention Israel has one of the largest and most modern militaries in the Middle East.

[bleedingheart]

71. and those 7 million are surrounded on all sides by approximately 202,000,000

folks who aren't too fond of them.

If Israel strikes Iran...do we really think Iran won't do anything?

Will Egypt remain stable? The fundamentalist movement is growing stronger each day... a strike on Iran or any other large Arab neighbor may break any peace treaties signed...

I feel bad for all the innocent folks caught in the middle...the Jews, the Muslims...and the Christians who would just like to make a living and live in peace...without all the sabre rattling of the leaders above them...because those are the folks who will suffer if bombs are dropped.

[frankf]

76. This news isn't for Israel

It is for the US - another beat of the war drums to get the citizens to skip along to their agenda.

[LeftishBrit]

87. All good points

'Does logic completely disappear when the word "Israel" is used?'

Frequently. There are some other words that will do it too!

[rustydad]

36. Perhaps but

If I were Iran and the US attacked me I would punish those countries that side with the US and Europe and that are is striking distance. How to punish the British, the French, the Germans, and the US. Simple drop some missiles on key oil export facilities in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq, and a few others. It would take about 1/3 of the oil of the world markets for a year or more. The world economy would tank and the blame would be on the US and Israel. At least thats what I would do. Shooting missiles at Israel would only provoke a counter attack with hydrogen bombs on Iranian cities and the loss of millions of lives. When one assesses Iranian thinking, think of chess which they invented long ago. Bush on the other hand I hear likes Texas poker. Bob

[yava]

48. They will aim at US soldiers and they has already declared it

not by some website but by the head of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard:
They said (sorry I dont have the link but you can google it):
If they are attacked, they have identified all the US bases in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Gulf and they will hit those bases.
With distance from the Iran border to some US bases and the Bagdad Green zone less than 150 miles, they don't need intercontinentals, they can shower those bases with hundreds of home-made short-range missiles and there are not enough anti-missile Patriots to block them. They will also have them showered by the Shia militia. So there could be 10,000 to 50,000 US losses of life in a few hours and then whet? A US or Israel nuclear detonation in a major center in Iran?
I hate to think we could come to this.
Tell the politicians to stop this shit.

[daleo]

41. In World War I

Austria threatened Serbia, so Britain and France threatened Germany. That made Germany threaten Russia, since France threated Germany (more or less). In short order, they all ended up at war.

It's the result of complicated alliance systems, of course.

[Frank Cannon]

58. That was my first thought as well

The same kind of "third-party retaliatory threat" is what gave us World War I. Everyone was doing it back then.

[eridani]

61. They don't have any way to attack the US

What they are doing may well discourage an attack by the US on them.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

14. "I'll get you and your little dog, too!"

No disrespect to L. Frank Baum, the US or Israel intended. It is just along the same theme and my mind made the connection.

And this part, "an Iranian website affiliated with the regime reported on Monday."

Does Assar Iran website have the authority to make such claims? Does anyone here know?

It's not that I doubt that if attacked Iran would strike out at Israel and US forces in Iraq. I'm afraid they would also.

It's just that this story, like the one stating that Israel destroyed some Syrian nuke cache, are being passed around in the media without an official government person of title actually having to attach themselves to the stories. Yet they spread and not everyone will even notice if they are not really sanctioned or official.

The effect is achieved without anyone having to be responsible.

[The Magistrate]

21. Indeed, Ma'am

There is a great deal of fog and smoke in the air just now on the whole subject. This generally means something completely different from what is being bruited about is actually going on....

[bemildred]

27. It occurred to me this morning, Sir ...

That all of the parties involved might be in favor of a round or two of yelling and making threats, sort of like the World Wrestling Federation. Takes everyone's mind off of their more mundane troubles ...

[The Magistrate]

28. Exactly, My Friend

The points we covered earlier elsewhere concerning the air raid still seem most sound to me.

All this has the air of a stage magician's flourishes to pull your eye off the palmed quarter....

[Lone_Star_Dem]

31. There's fog, smoke and even a few mirrors involved if you ask me

Whatever the end end effect is, let us hope that cooler heads prevail.

[acmavm]

16. Wonder if maybe we can attribute any of this horrible news to the

fact that Israel is already flying over Syrian and Iranian territory?

I suppose in that case maybe this is just a fair warning that 'hey, you ain't gonna come out so good yourself if you start something'.

[The Magistrate]

19. That Is A Pretty Good Read Of It, Ma'am

Though to my knowledge there have been no reports of Israeli aircraft flying over Iranian territory. Any correction of my ignorance would be appreciated.

[acmavm]

29. I thought I saw something about Israeli's flying over Iranian

territory around the same time the Iranian military or whatever it was guard was declared a terrorist entity. And I thought I read it here.

Maybe I'm hallucinating.

[nealmhughes]

32. They jettisoned fuel canisters way far north and east in Syria, right on the Turkish border.

Unless they flew over the Golan Heights, they had to have flown over Lebanon and/or Turkey to have gotten to Syria.

Eastern Syria was probably a bit too close to Iran for their taste. . .

[ohio2007]

37. IAF flew from the sea to get at what may have been a load of "cement" from a North Korean

ship that was off loaded three days earlier.

[robinlynne]

49. Turkey. at least that is what I read.

[Bigmack]

26. Iranian missiles no real problem!

Israel has nukes pointed at Iran... and elsewhere. Like two scorpions in a bottle, neither can strike without getting stung back.

Anybody remember "massive retaliation" and "mutual assured destruction"? We spent years with the USSR and the US minutes away from the end of civilization. In the end neither of the scorpions stung the other.

If those Cold War theories had any validity, they apply to the middle east.

Inherent in those theories, of course, is that both sides are sane....

Hmmmmm....Actually, there may be a problem after all.....

[msmcghee]

38. One big difference.

The Soviets were atheists who had no delusions about a future life in paradise as a reward for killing millions of Jews.

i.e. the Soviets were not interested in destroying the West if all that would be left of the USSR was smoking rubble. I have no doubt that there are mullahs in Iran who see an Iran in smoking ruins - in a ME finally cleansed of Jews - as a pretty good outcome. Sort of like Iran's contribution to what they would see as a properly Koranic world order.

This is especially true if the mullahs think they can destroy enough of Israel's retaliatory capability that some parts of Iran might escape destruction - like the deeply buried caverns where they will be with their families before the attack is launched.

It's probably not very likely they'd have much left but a mutual deterrence strategy requires some amount of rationality on each side.

[Andromeda]

86. Thanks, msmcghee for pointing out

that "some" societies operate from a religiously insane point of view where death and destruction are rewarded by the promise of paradise.

Life on earth is merely a temporary stop on the way to the afterlife which is the ultimate goal of the faithful.

Hatred of Jews is the ingredient that fuels this fanaticism and it's hard to fight an ideology.

[sarcasmo]

33. Israel will bomb them and the United States Government will justify the bombing.

[Megahurtz]

34. Well Sure.

If I had two Countries constantly bullying me as a Country for no good reason (i.e. the accusers have their own Nuclear Programs) then I would certainly be prepared too. It's like saying mind your own damn business and leave us alone or you'll suffer the consequences. What the Hell do they have pointed at Iran, I could just imagine.

Maybe the U.S. and Israel should dump their own Nukes before they demand it of anyone else duuuuhhh yeah gee ya think :crazy::dunce: Dumbasses???
Obviously it's not gonna happen so they should just STFU and tend to their own Countries.:think:

Gee, what a Novel Idea!:sarcasm:

[lovuian]

39. Oh I bet those are targeted at other allies to Israel too

Iran is armed and has a army

Bush is crazy

[sofa king]

40. 600 missiles is nothing.

Seriously, some of you will be angry that I said it, but it's true. Iran's best and newest missile probably carries a 700 kg warhead, or about the equivalent of three standard American World War II 500 lb bombs, with a (doubtful) CEP of 1000 meters--also about the same as a World War II B-17 if they're lucky.

A B-17 could carry nine bombs. So what we have here is the Iranians threatening to launch a single, nonrenewable 200-plane World War II equivalent bomb raid. Modern cities, like Tel Aviv, can't burn as easily as old ones. Many of those missiles will fail and are just as likely to fall on Israel's neighbors--especially on the West Bank. Religion dictates that the most populous and easiest to hit city, Jerusalem, will be avoided. Germany launched 1300 V2s (from which the Iranian Shahab-3 directly descends) at London and didn't even interrupt the train schedule.

But what those missiles will do is encourage Israel to dip into its trough of some 200 nuclear IRBMs, any one of which can release as much explosive energy as the entire U.S. Army Air Force could drop in a month. If it happens, I fucking guarantee that you will see George W. Bush justify such a nuclear strike against Iran and the subsequent deaths of tens of thousands on the basis of this worthless weapon and a few hundred Israeli casualties.

It's a stupid, stupid idea and I suspect that the Iranians are smart enough to use such a threat in the only way it can pay off for them--as an empty threat.

[tabasco]

43. And this is news, why?

Last time I checked, the USA has quite a few thousand much larger missiles pointed at us.

If we attacked the people that owned them. I would expect them to fire them.

[robinlynne]

50. The world should prepare for the worst, which is war? Umm, I think we have one going on already,

and Iran had nothing to do with it. nor did Iraq for that matter.

[JCMach1]

51. And how many Israeli missiles are targeted in the opposite direction?

:hurts:

[kaygore]

52. How many Israeli missiles are pointed at Iran???

I used to be a big supporter of Israel but now I am sick and tired of them. They are terrorists and we support their terror. I don't condone suicide bomber but such are the acts of desperate people without hope. I sure as hell don't want to go to war to save Israel.

[Lurking Dem]

73. The point here is

that Iran has stated they have these missiles pointed at Israel and they will use them if they are attacked......by anybody.

If Israel attacked Iran, no one would be surprised at a response by Iran. It would be a foregone conclusion.

But what was said is the equivalent of saying, "If a bunch of Saudis attack us we are going to bomb Iraq." Which, if I recall correctly, everyone here has condemned.

[Megahurtz]

81. Same With Me Too.

I feel exactly as you do.

[Theduckno2]

53. The number of cruise missile strikes in Iraq during "Shock and Awe" ?

I realize that warhead size may be significantly different, but I believe that we used well over 600 of those munitions. If I am wrong in my belief then I eagerly await enlightenment.

I must admit though that the Iranians seem to take the most inopportune moments to do their saber-rattling.

[IndianaGreen]

54. Iran is not a pushover like Lebanon and Syria, it will retaliate if attacked!

Israel got away with impunity with its barbaric bombing of Lebanon, and last week's bombing of Syria. Iran won't take no shit from Israel, or from the US!

I suggest that Israel tell their megaphones in America to cool their jets and stop agitating for a US attack on Iran. Such an attack will have serious repercussions, even here in the US!

I don't want to see Iranian missiles raining on Israel's cities, but sometimes countries will do stupid things in the belief that "Gott Mit Uns." We have seen what a disaster Iraq has been for the US. An attack on Iran will make Iraq seem like peacekeeping.

[Chulanowa]

55. A statement that they will shoot back - Oh, the horror

So many seem to expect Iranians to just roll over and die when the US or Israel finally decides to shoot first.

[libodem]

56. Ever notice how quiet Israel is these days?

[ProudDad]

57. I think this is aimed at the real problem,

the bush crime family...

If the bushies drop any ordinance on the Iranians then...

the Iranians fire off 600 missiles at the Israelis then...

The Israelis fire off their nukes at Iran then...

WW III -- in the Middle East...


"So bushies, you'd better keep your damn missiles all nice and tightly stored and don't drop them on us Iranians"


At least that's how I'd read it...

[eridani]

60. Which is exactly what they ought to be doing. Good for them.

I hope it discourages Cheney and Israel from going through with their plans for bombing Iran.

[mogster]

65. It's all a big game for Israeli expansionism

The Greater Israel, from the ocean to the rivers of babylon and euphrates. And beyond. A Ledeen/PNAC/HJS dream come true, against the will of the population in every country, including Israel and Iran.

Here's the clue of this article:
Iran will shoot at Israel 600 missiles if it is attacked.

These are on the right side:
- ordinary people, the rest, the silent majority

These are on the wrong side:
- politicians
- media
- army, police, secret intelligence, other authoritarian entities within every society

An old adage often heard said by Democrat senators before the Iraqi invasion: 'We're standing on the brink, staring down into the Abyss'.
Does that mean we're actually in the Abyss today, and are staring into the lower pits of the Abyss?

[Strelnikov_]

66. I seriously doubt that Iran will use its valuable missiles to terror bomb Jews

to no real strategic effect when these missiles can be concentrated on the 6 to 8 Persian Gulf energy facilities through which NEARLY HALF OF THE WORLDS OIL EXPORT MARKET flows (60% of KSA's exports flow through one facility alone).

The destruction of these facilities would cripple the economies of the western powers, particularly the United States, and more than likely begin the progressive collapse of the economic system (the Great Depression x10).

This, I believe, is the Iranian leaderships strategy, mutually assured destruction. "If you attack us and destroy our economy, we will destroy yours." They have frequently alluded to this strategy recently.

Basically hearkens back to the lessons learned in WW II with the bombing of Germany. All the terror bombing of the cities had no real effect on their ability to wage war. However, targeting critical points of their industry (ball bearings) nearly brought them to their knees in a short amount of time (the Allies stopped a few raids short of complete success because they had no intelligence on how much production capacity had been destroyed).


Then again, the Iranian leadership may be as incompetent as ours.


On edit: Ever wonder why all those Patriot Batteries moved into the Gulf Region as part of the surge to protect energy infrastructure were needed? To protect against the Iraqi insurgents air force?

[nashville_brook]

72. and Israel's *nuclear* warheads are pointed ... where?

and our nuclear warheads are pointed, where?
and Pakistan's nuclear warheads are pointed, where?
and India's nuclear warheads are pointed, where?
and China's nuclear warheads are pointed, where?
and Frances' nuclear warheads are pointed, where?
and Russia's nuclear warheads are pointed, where?
and Britain's nuclear warheads are pointed, where?


the take-away from this article is that someone in Iran (we don't know who), wants us to know that their strategy, if attacked, is to attack the closest hostile state. that's not "news." who do we expect them to attack if not those who are hostile?

it would be news if Israel or anyone else in the Mideast were to say "enough, it's time to negotiate a lasting peace," instead of beating the drums of war (ever) louder.

[ronnie624]

74. it is interesting how easily logic can be suspended,

even by intelligent and highly educated people, at moments like this.

It is the United States that has Iran ringed by bases throughout Central and Middle East Asia. It is the United States that has a massive armada off the coast of Iran, engaging in threatening 'exercises'. Members of the ruling class of the United States and Israel, who now occupy the most influential seats of power within their respective governments, are the ones who have openly expressed a desire to violate Iran's sovereignty. In fact they have been expressing such desires for years, even before the current administration. According to very reliable sources, the United States has, for quite some time now, been sponsoring terrorist attacks within Iran's borders. It is the United States which has, in the last several years, changed its policies with regard to the deployment and use of nuclear weapons, even granting itself the 'right' to use them as an instrument of foreign policy, and It is the United States and Israel that possess a military force that Iran could not hope to match in the next one hundred years. And does any informed individual truly not understand the motives for the current activities by the US government in the Middle East, or the belligerent propaganda that pervades Western media? And let us not forget about the invasion and rapine of Iran's neighbor by the above mentioned 'super power' from half way around the world.

But somehow, when Iran's government makes the slightest peep out of fear and anger, they are the cause of the "crisis in the Middle East".

Cognitive dissonance can be an ugly and perplexing phenomenon.

[Megahurtz]

84. Great Post. n/t

[L. Coyote]

90. Like every free nation, they have the right to defend themselves if attacked.

The right to self-defense is recognized by all nations.

The right to attack other nations does not exist.