The quickest way for the United States to increase Iranian support for Ahmedinejad would be to attack Iran.
Imagine the flipside scenario. I have wide-ranging and deep disagreements with President Bush. But if some other country were to militarily attack the US, I’d fight long and hard to preserve our system of government, even if it meant that George Bush remained as President.
I’ve read news reports that the US or Israel has been considering a nuclear attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities. This would be the most inane idea of all. If Iran has nuclear weapons, we would be inviting nuclear retaliation which would be widely seen as legitimate. If Iran doesn’t have nuclear weapons, we’d be nuking a sovereign country for really no reason, which is also bad.
…should not be surprised if they come back as boulders! I keep thinking of nasser in 1967-making bellicose speeches, about "driving the Zionist dogs into the sea’…then one morning, he woke up and found his airforce reduced to smoking rubble! :smack:
Remember were talking about “worst case”… so, yes, Iran could end up being as easy to overcome as Iraq or Nasser’s Eygpt. But you can say for sure, they aren’t dumb they’ve seen what happened to Iraq. They’ve had getting of for 15+ years (and a butt load of cash) to make sure they are not as helpless in the face of a modern air assault.
Remember that Iraq’s missile campaign was actually fairly successful in getting through the patriot missile system and it was pitifully out of date (based on 50’s soviet missiles).
Also remember that reason Iraq was such a push-over the first time round is that the US expected the worse (they expected Iwo-Jima type casualties in the first wave onto Iraqi soil).
I recall hearing the same. I also remember it being pointed out at the time that Patriots weren’t meant for that sort of job anyway. As I understand it, they are small warheaded missles, designed to knock a missle off course from a relatively small target, like a military installation. They were not designed to destroy roughly aimed terror weapons like Scuds, aimed at a huge target like a city. The Patriots were used for political purposes, not because they would do any good.
Yes, that figures and ties up with my understanding of how the Patriots work.
I do know that in late 1991 or early 1992 that the US tooled up Israel with a very large quantity of more modern missiles - they shipped over US staff to run the inventory program. I met one of them in a hotel bar in Tel Aviv, she was quite a dish.
Suppose the Iranians start a crash program to build nuclear bombs. They start up their centrifuges, and a UF6 leak causes an explosion and fire-hundreds are killed, and a large area contaminated . Would Ahmeddinejad immediately blame a US/Israeli attack? I think we have more to fear from this scenario. As far as Israel attacking Iran: they would have to be really desperate-as this would involve using nuclear bombs. Highly unlikely.
Probably - but he’s on his way out unless the West does something stupid to regain him support. (unless? , who am I kidding.). People have to remember he isn’t a President like Bush, he’s not the most powerful political figure in Iran. He’s their on the sufferance of the religious leadership. He’s screwed the economy, let down his supporters and frightened the middle-classes. His candidates have been humiliated in the recent local elections and he’s under attack from all quarters. People should not give this blowhard so much attention. The only thing that can haul his ass out the fire is to attack him.
And honestly - I’d assume an attack or sabotage until I had independent proof otherwise. My default is to assume the USA, the UK and Israel are lying to me until proven otherwise. And after Iraq that should be everyone’s default.
Ahmadinejad was elected in August 2005 for a four-year term. So he’s not “on his way out” until 2009 at the soonest. Whoever succeeds W will still have to deal with him.