RSS
The Iranians have proven beyond dispute that they are capable of delivering large-warhead hypersonic strikes with high accuracy. And while it remains to be seen how many of these top-shelf missiles they truly possess and what their rate of production is, the bottom line is that Iran has achieved a major strategic victory which carries a strong deterrence effect in its wake. With each passing month, the Iranians will grow stronger – and the Israelis will become more desperate to try to do something about it. I doubt making peace will be on their agenda. Will Schryver, military analyst, Substack
If Iran had a nuclear weapon, Israel would never have launched its attack on June 13. That is the one irrefutable fact that should guide Iranian decision-making in the future. Nukes equal security. It’s that simple.
Iranian leaders still oppose the development of nukes for religious reasons. They think that any weapon that unavoidably kills millions of innocent people cannot be morally justified. But this is not the right way to look at the issue. The reason Iran needs nukes is to save lives not to end them. Iran is not looking to expand its borders or invade other countries, but to ensure the safety of its people and the continuation of its civilization. With that in mind, it needs an arsenal that will deter foreign aggressors who use their access to nuclear weapons to advance their own foreign policy objectives.
Israel can only be deterred by superior firepower, that should be clear by now. Had Israel known that Iran had a stockpile of nukes at its disposal, they never would have launched their decapitation operation that assassinated numerous scientists, military leaders and politicians. By failing to develop nuclear weapons, Iran invited Israel’s aggression. Iran’s leaders must accept responsibility for that failure. Had they acted differently and developed the weaponry required for the country’s defense, there would have been no 12-day war. Iran’s perceived vulnerability prompted Israeli adventurism. This is from an article by Reuters on Wednesday:
Netanyahu wants to use more force, a source familiar with the Israeli leader’s thinking said, compelling Tehran—to the point of government collapse if necessary…. Netanyahu wants nothing less than the Libya model for Iran, the source said. That means Iran fully dismantling its nuclear and missile facilities under strict oversight, and renouncing uranium enrichment on its soil even for civilian needs.
Israel is seeking not diplomacy but regime change, Western and regional officials have said. And Netanyahu knows he needs at least a green light from the White House—if not direct backing—to carry out further operations if Tehran refuses to relinquish its nuclear ambitions, they said…..
For Israel, the fallback option is clear, the person familiar with Netanyahu’s thinking said: a policy of sustained containment through periodic strikes to prevent any nuclear resurgence. In the wake of its air war against Iran, Israel has reasserted itself as the region’s unrivaled military power, more willing than ever to use force and more capable of doing so with precision and relative impunity….
Netanyahu sees a fleeting strategic opportunity, one that demands acceleration, not hesitation, the source close to him said. In his calculus, the time to strike harder is now, before Iran regains its footing, the source said. US, Israel diverge on how to pursue Iran endgame after strikes, diplomats say, Reuters
Iran represents the last obstacle blocking the Zionist dream of a Greater Israel expanding across the Middle East with Jerusalem as its Capitol. Netanyahu will not be deterred from his lifelong ambition of defeating Iran and bringing the resource-rich country under his control.
The current ceasefire is a temporary pause in the hostilities that Israel is using to rebuild his defenses and prepare for the next phase of the war. As you can see from the excerpt above, Netanyahu and his war cabinet are still focused on disarming Iran, toppling its government and obliterating the country the same way they did in Iraq, Syria and Libya. This, in fact, is why Bibi traveled to Washington DC this week, to tell Trump about the changes to his strategy and to request “a green light from the White House to carry out further operations if Tehran refuses to relinquish its nuclear ambitions.” Israel wants to be able to bomb Iran whenever it chooses (as it does in Lebanon and Syria) and wants to make sure that Trump “has its back”. Bibi believes that if he provokes Tehran with more air strikes, Iran will shower Israel with ballistic missiles forcing Uncle Sam to ride to the rescue. This is Israel’s operational strategy, to get the US to fight Israel’s war.
What the article doesn’t mention, is that Israel will not engage Iran in another slugfest unless it is sure that Iran’s ability to retaliate is curtailed. Netanyahu has repeatedly said that he is not going to “get into a war of attrition with Iran”. Iran is too well-armed for that. Thus, we must assume that Bibi plans to up-the-ante by either goading Trump into entering the war or by using low-yield, nuclear bunker buster bombs with the intention of scaring Iran into submission. Either way, Round 2 of the conflict is going to be much more destructive and lethal than Round 1. This is from Iran’s Deputy Assistant Coordinator of the Revolutionary Guard Ali Fazli:
For many years we have been waiting for the enemy’s attack and we were prepared to defend. The “Sejil” missile was unexpected for the enemy. We only used 25% of our missile capability in the recent war. We are today in our best condition in 45 years. We are prepared for long-term defense. We possess knowledge related to nuclear weapons, but our ideological principles do not permit us to use them. Armed forces decisions are not made momentarily, we are working on designing our files and plans. The Zionist entity focused its attacks on security centers in the last day of the war. We have not yet opened the door to any of the missile cities.@ME_Observer_
Bottom line: Iran has not yet used its best and most powerful ballistic missiles. It is patiently awaiting Israel’s next attack when it will unload the full force of its state-of-the-art hypersonic missile capability. We should not expect this confrontation to be a gradual tit-for-tat face-off in which both participants exchange blows like prize fighters in a boxing match. We are likely to see swarms of ballistic missiles screeching across the night-sky destroying all manner of military and civilian infrastructure including desalination plants, oil depots, hydroelectric plants, ammonia storage tanks, deep-water ports, international airports and perhaps even Dimona.
The damage could be so widespread and severe, that Israel will no longer survive as a “functioning, modern state”. Israel’s existence depends entirely on US support.
We’re surprised that the media has focused so little attention on Iran’s cutting-edge ballistic missiles. After all, it was these projectiles that compelled Israel to seek a ceasefire, so, you’d think, they would attract a little more interest than they have. As we have said before, Iran is a ballistic missile superpower that would undoubtedly prevail in any one-on-one conventional war with Israel. In order to appreciate the technological advances they have made in the last few years, I’ve posted a few links of You Tube presentations that provide a window into Tehran’s impressive capability. (There are many more of these videos)
Iran Uses Its Most Powerful Weapon Sejjil – Iran’s Unstoppable Missile, You Tube
How Iran Penetrated Israel’s Air Defence; Fattah Hypersonic Missile #iran #israel, You Tube
How Iran is Breaching Israel’s Iron Dome | Iran Israel War | Firstpost Unpacked | N18G, You Tube
It’s worth noting that new technology has often played a decisive role in winning wars in the past. From the invention of gunpowder to the development of machine guns and tanks (World War I); to radar and modern aircraft (World War II), to the development of the first nuclear weapons; technological innovation has played a big role in deciding the outcomes of wars. That same rule will certainly apply here as well. Iran has a decisive edge in ballistic missile and drone technology and will use it to tip the regional balance of power in its favor. The downside of this is that it increases the likelihood that Israel will ‘go nuclear’ if it looks like it is facing defeat. Of course, Netanyahu may have already considered this possibility and presented his thoughts on the matter (secretly) to the president, suggesting that Trump ‘take the lead’ and preemptively nuke Iran on Israel’s behalf. Check out this excerpt from Philip Giraldi’s latest article:
I have my own theory about why Netanyahu will be in Washington…. You see, Bibi wants to establish Israeli hegemony “from the rivers to the sea,” which means from the Euphrates, Litani and Nile rivers and all along the seafront with the Mediterranean. That will require regime change in Iran eliminating that nation as an adversary but the recent short war against the Iranians has made it clear that Israel cannot do it alone unless it goes nuclear, which would do possibly fatal damage to Tel Aviv’s ability to deal with the rest of the world and could easily mean the de facto end of the Jewish state. So he has to convince a gullible Donald Trump to do it for him and is prepared to lie effusively about the threat posed by Iran to make that happen. Benjamin Netanyahu Is Coming to Town Again, The Unz Review
We agree with Giraldi, in fact, we think that this is why Bibi is in Washington today; to drag the United States into a war with Iran.
So, can war be avoided? Can peace be restored to the Middle East? Can Israel be compelled to restrain itself and stay within its borders?
Yes, yes and yes. But we need to challenge some of the outdated notions about nonproliferation that prevent us from exploring remedies that have a better chance of success. Foremost among these misguided notions is the idea that “Iran must not have a nuclear weapon”. The idea is predicated on the belief that once Iran builds a bomb it will go on a tear and obliterate Israel. But—as we’ll show—nothing could be further from the truth. Let’s take a minute and consider the analysis of the geopolitical analyst that John Mearsheimer called, “The most important international relations theorist of the past 50 years.” That’s high praise but well deserved by the author of the thought-provoking 2012 commentary Why Iran Should Get The Bomb in Foreign Affairs. Waltz argues that a nuclear-armed Iran could stabilize the Middle East by countering Israel’s regional nuclear monopoly. Here’s Waltz:
Most U.S., European, and Israeli commentators and policymakers warn that a nuclear-armed Iran would be the worst possible outcome of the current standoff. In fact, it would probably be the best possible result: the one most likely to restore stability in the Middle East…..
“History shows that when countries acquire the bomb, they feel increasingly vulnerable and become acutely aware that their nuclear weapons make them a potential target in the eyes of major powers. This awareness discourages nuclear states from bold and aggressive action….
In no other region of the world does a lone, unchecked nuclear state exist. It is Israel’s nuclear arsenal, not Iran’s desire for one, that has contributed most to the current crisis. Power, after all, begs to be balanced…Why Iran Should Get The Bomb, Kenneth N. Waltz, Foreign Affairs (Quotes from Grok)
Waltz goes on to say that Israel’s nuclear monopoly has increased instability by allowing Israel to attack its regional rivals with impunity forcing its enemies to develop the means by which they can defend themselves. Accordingly, “the current tensions are best viewed not as the early stages of a relatively recent Iranian nuclear crisis but rather as the final stages of a decades-long Middle East nuclear crisis that will only end when a balance of military power is restored.”
Waltz also says that a nuclear-armed Iran would reinforce deterrents and, thus, prevent a confrontation with Israel. He persuasively asserts that “there has never been a full-scale war between two nuclear-armed states. In short, a nuclear Iran would lead to a more stable and peaceful Middle East ending this ghastly period of Zionist expansion and carnage.
Here’s a short clip of John Mearsheimer stating that “I think there’s no question that a nuclear-armed Iran would bring stability to the region, because nuclear weapons are weapons of peace, weapons of deterrents…. And if Iran had a nuclear deterrent, there’s no way that the United States or Israel would be threatening to attack Iran, in the same way that if Saddam had had nuclear weapons in 2003, the US would not have invaded Iraq. And if Libya had nuclear weapons in 2011, the US would not have gone to war against Libya. If you had a Middle East where other countries had nuclear weapons besides Israel, you have a more peaceful Middle East. PBS News Hour, You Tube, starts at :48 seconds
Finally—as the Reuters article suggests—Israel is already planning the next phase of its bloody onslaught on Iran. There’s no indication that the threat of Iran’s ballistic missile stockpile has dampened Israel’s resolve at all. Netanyahu and his cronies are as eager as ever to resume hostilities and inflict as much death and destruction on Iran as possible. There is only one thing that will derail Bibi’s plan to attack Iran: A nuclear weapon.
Iran should act fast while it still can.
Note—Scott Ritter says Iran is just days away from a nuclear weapon. Intel Roundtable, Scott Ritter, You Tube; 14:30 min
Also, Ritter says Iran weeks away from a bomb, Consortium News
English
Arabic
Chinese (Simplified)
Dutch
English
French
German
Hebrew
Hindi
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Persian
Polish
Portuguese
Russian
Spanish
Swedish
Turkish
Vietnamese
翻訳
Nothing new.
Next…….
mike you’re missing the bigger picture, the important statement that xi himself had made, that china is standing with iran. china’s pissed off and warning the big mouth buffoon, he shouldn’t write checks his ass can’t cash. notice how the meeting between trump and bibi went from defcon 1, to the nobel prize and peace with the palestinians and syrians. notice also how hay’at tahrir al-sham went from a foreign terrorist organization, to a foreign tourist organization, with the flip of a switch.
if the u.s. and their israeli masters are dumb enough to beat on the iranian hornet nest again, china will back iran and they will find themselves fighting directly, in a proxy war of attrition, that will finish bleeding them dry. the u.s. used up 25% of their 4 million dollar thaad interceptors in less than two weeks. this is why israel begged for a ceasefire.
the israelis then decided just to beat up on hamas and found out they’re not dead yet. hamas killed at least 5 idf terrorists and wounded another 14, as the houthis are now sinking israel bound ships in the red sea, 2 or 3 in the last week. even if syria pulls an egypt in recognizing israel, it will be in exchange for an end to the war in gaza.
now bibi is nominating trump for a nobel peace prize, wow, a genocidal maniac telling stockholm, who to give a peace prize to, talk about stockholm syndrome. they have awaken a sleeping giant in china and it probably doesn’t help that trump’s pre election bullshit, about telling xi he would bomb beijing, has now been released.
so calm down mike, iran doesn’t need a nuke because if they really wanted one pakistan would lend them a warhead for their unstoppable missiles, because they’re also pissed that israel attacked their nuclear facilities, when india launched their attack. all iran really needs is an integrated air defense system (that russia had already offered but was turned down) and modern fighters which they appear to be receiving from both russia and china. when war mongers turn to peace, they know they have been beat.
“By failing to develop nuclear weapons, Iran invited Israel’s aggression. Iran’s leaders must accept responsibility for that failure. Had they acted differently and developed the weaponry required for the country’s defense, there would have been no 12-day war.”
I’m tired of the multiple and biased conclusions that blame someone who is hit by a car for walking across the street. The issue is simple. Israel and the US attacked Iran because they knew perfectly well that it lacked real and direct support from allies. And comparing North Korea to Iran again is equally tiresome. Korea, apart from weapons, is stuck to China; it’s like a scab that one can only scratch or pull off, without allowing anyone else to take it. Iran and the other “partners,” or rather, those in the global south, experienced Russia’s eternal red lines and China’s millennia-long patience. But Iran smells more disloyalty (or double-dealing) in Russia than in China. Meanwhile, we have to continue to endure not the genocide of the Palestinians, but the grandiloquent announcements of outrage from Russia and China. The actions of the West (NATO, the US, and Israel) are not surprising; just as the shrieks of old women in Russian and Chinese are. Who is more guilty: the one who pushes someone into the water, or the one who knows how to swim, fails to help them and just sits back?
Agreed. Iran doesn’t need nuclear weapons, but it does need true allies. Like Ukraine and Israel, for example (doing the dirty work, as Merz pointed out, but in Israel’s case, they seem more like slaves or hypnotized).
True dat…Although I’m not sure that the threat of nukes will always stop mad dogs like Bibi….
We still don’t have a good report on the Russian Oreshnik missile strike.
With a few hints from Russia, Iran might develop its own Oreshnik
It could even trade one of the F-35s it allegedly shot down.
One to China.
One to Russia.
Keep one for itself.
Video Link
Israel defeat is not New for you, bastard Mossad Troll. Next time you will be in your fucking grave. Have you dug a hole for yourself yet? Do it now gullible.
The Night Israel Looked Like Gaza: Iran’s Strike Changed Everything in One Hour
Video Link
“If Iran had a nuclear weapon, Israel would never have launched its attack on June 13. That is the one irrefutable fact that should guide Iranian decision-making in the future.”:
Maybe Iran should indeed get a few nuclear bombs, but there’s nothing “irrefutable” about the “fact” that “If Iran had a nuclear weapon, Israel would never have launched its attack on June 13.”
By that reasoning, Iran would not have dared to thrash Israel during the recent war, because Israel does have nuclear weapons. But it did.
What Iran and Russia SHOULD do is, first of all, do something about Azerbaijan. Maybe drone any Mossad or IDF bases they could find in that country. Azerbaijan and Turkey would squeal, but so what? I don’t know if the UN Charter has anything to say about that, but certainly no country has the right to put its territory at the disposal of another country to attack one of its neighbours. Iran and Russia should quit sitting on their butts and always leave the strategic initiative to the USA and Israel, because these two may finally find a way to destroy the Iranian state. They’re certainly dreaming up some new way to attack Iran right now.
I also remember how the same experts wanted to tell me that Hezbollah had 100k-150k rockets and would destroy Israel from its northern flank. And the decapitation strike with pagers didn’t matter. Well, where was Hezbollah when the Jews attacked Iran and were vulnerable because Iran’s response emptied their interceptors? It would have been the perfect time for Hezbollah to join the war. Where were they?
This is exactly why I don’t believe feel-good articles like this one. Yes, the author is right that it would be a very good idea for Iran to build a nuke. But the claims that Israel is desperate and Iran might destroy them is another fable from Lala Land.
PS: If I needed a guarantee that Iran still hasn’t learned its lesson and still isn’t building a nuke, it’s Scott Ritter saying Iran is only 14 days away from a nuke. No one’s prophecy record in the dissident media is worse than Scott Ritter’s. Andrew Anglin wrote a good piece about this a few weeks ago. SR is a clown.
The only reason Israel/USA hasn’t already nuked Iran is because China and Russia have told them there will be consequences. Russia in particular has threatened to nuke all the NATO bases currently being used to stage attacks on Russia. Not sure what China threatened them with.
Nuclear Weapons are a fiction.
There was no nuclear fallout in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. People started rebuilding the week after.
Nuclear bombs =/same as Fake moon landing
Both lies.
http://biblicisminstitute.wordpress.com/2014/07/17/puzzled-scientists/
Iran should have never agreed to the cessation of hostilities. When Israhell attacks again, it should keep pounding until there’s nothing left of the evil entity.
http://biblicisminstitute.wordpress.com/2014/08/12/the-downfall-of-apartheid-israel/
i agree with the essence but i think we’re in a post-nuke and post-“israel” stage of history.
russia’s use of the oreshnik missile(s) has shown you can have a non-nuclear warhead (or maybe even 6 at a time) and still get the comfort of MAD. russia could end the whole controversy with a few of those “gifted” to iran (say it’s “thanks” for the drones or something) but won’t because putin is a ziotard through and through (although i’d bet a few guys in his military would like to cut off sara netanyahu’s head off and beat bibi to death with it given the “cuck” optics and the russians killed protecting syria). medvedev called the justice handed out to soccer jewligans in amsterdam a “progrom” so i doubt he’d be an improvement moving forward.
in any case, the necro rape cult of “israel” would welcome an iranian nuke as a “hannibal directive” writ large and sacrifice half its citizens to the golden calf of their shitty colony. they used a fake nuclear weapon program to justify their asshole behavior for about 30 years now so i doubt a real one would change their tune or their apocalyptic impulses.
The Likud is ordinary Israeli‘s own worst enemy.
“Waltz also says that a nuclear-armed Iran would reinforce deterrents and, thus, prevent a confrontation with Israel.”
Mr. Whitney, you probably see nothing wrong with the above sentence. Please read it over carefully just once more.
Get it now? This is the product of semi-literates who, insecure in their facility with the language, rely upon Spel-Chek® or similar AI programs to help them through the crisis of having to write an English-language essay.
Please read the recent articles by Sir Paul Craig Roberts on the dangers of AI.
Take off the training wheels and learn to write Standard American English by yourself, without HAL looking over your shoulder.
This is a lie. You should present facts and not wishful thinking to promote zionist Putin, a corrupt Oligarch like Trump. Both support Israel as a proxy of the West because both CREATED this scum of humanity. Putin did not transfer S-300 to Iran on time when Iran paid in full, due to US/Israel pressure. Then, Iran had to go to the Int. Org. to get them back after 5 years delay, by the time they had reached Iran, they were OBSOLETE. But Putin offered and SOLD Turkey, a NATO member where Putin claims is fighting against, and India a zionist racist who is spying for Israel against Iran, S-400 and Su-35, NOT her partner Iran. Aren’t you ashamed of spreading LIES at this site about FAKE offer russia made to Iran? I am telling you now that Russia did not even sell RADARS that Iran wanted to buy and Russia agreed. Iranian had to build it from the scratch themselves. To buy Radars, Russia demanded to find a third country, where Iranians did, spending MILLIONS of dollars, then Putin denied Iran Radars to obtain concessions. What Putin did in Syria to gain concessions in Ukraine. General Hajizadeh who was murdered by genocidal Netanyahu and gullible Trump in June 13, said that Russia treated Iran badly when Russia caused Iranians to lose millions of dollars, in order to implement Putin’s demands to find a third country to transfer radars where later Russia denied Iran although Iranian spent millions of dollars to buy Radars, instead, Russia was thinking to use Iran as a bargaining chip to obtain concessions from the west, like what Russia did in Libya and Syria.
Iran receives Chinese surface-to-air missile batteries after Israel ceasefire deal
https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/iran-receives-chinese-surface-air-missile-batteries-after-israel-ceasefire-say-sources
Good start.
China Has Set Up Iran’s Next War in the Middle East
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/21488/china-iran-middle-east-war
Being a two-bit Nostradamus I predict that China will supply Iran with operational nukes as well. Directly or – if they learned from the CIA The Art & Science of Plausible Deniability – via North Korea or via Pakistan.
Also I predict that Miriam Adelson will demand $100M back from Donnie. Yemen remains unconquered or rather abandoned to its own devices (sinking ships), IDF is exhausted, Hamas fails to realize that they are already defeated many times over, Auntie Shemitism flourishes all over the world… Oy vavoy…
If Iran had entered a formal military alliance with Russia and China back when PCR advocated it, Iran would have already had effectual nuclear deterrence.
The problem is getting the West to take seriously such a vow from Putin. It’s hard to believe a Chinese president has become more fearsome than one from Russia.
If unused dust-gathering nukes are such an effective deterrent, why was Israel recently brought to within days of total obliteration?
‘It is Israel’s nuclear arsenal, not Iran’s desire for one, that has contributed most to the current crisis. Power, after all, begs to be balanced … ‘Why Iran Should Get The Bomb,’ Kenneth N. Waltz, quoted by Mike Whitney
A question rarely explored is why Israel decided to become a nuclear state in the 1960s. Was it to pursue its grandiose dream of Eretz Israel? Or was it standard Jewish paranoia, coupled with the objectively risky geographical position that the unhinged ideology of zionism placed it in?
Israel’s bold land grab in 1967 points toward the former objective, even way back then.
Whatever Israel’s reasons were, Kenneth Waltz’s assertion that ‘It is Israel’s nuclear arsenal, not Iran’s desire for one, that has contributed most to the current crisis’ applies. Israel’s status as the sole regional nuclear power has led to decades of routine, belligerent cross-border attacks on its neighbors that are absolutely abnormal, anywhere else on earth — as is Israel’s decades-long occupation of the West Bank and Gaza.
America’s refusal to restrain mad-dog Israel’s provocations — indeed, its open support for Israel’s regional destabilization — is a colossal long-term failure of US diplomacy which has been on display since Johnson succeeded Kennedy in 1963, probably with Mossad’s assistance. Little Marco Rubio looks set to be the final exponent of Pax Americana’s abject policy bankruptcy and liquidation.
Israel is our misfortune.
Not necessarily. India and Pakistan are both nuclear powers and still fighting each other. Since Israel has nuclear weapons, Iran should get them, and then they should still continue their war using conventional weapons.
The implications of an Iranian nuclear weapon are far more expansive and global than simply rivaling a city-sized Western client state—Israel—to determine who truly controls West Asia. Once Iran tests even a small nuclear device, the world will promptly enter a new BRICS-led world order. Are China, Russia, Brazil, India, and other major players in the Global Majority ready for such a seismic shift? It appears they are not yet prepared to take over, due to numerous unresolved issues—chief among them being the implementation of an alternative to the current dollar-based global financial system.
Yet, it seems increasingly likely that the Global Majority will soon have no choice but to support an Iranian nuclear capability, as this may be the only path toward a future of global peace—one that prevents direct military confrontations and an actual nuclear exchange among major powers. Only an Iranian nuclear deterrent could forestall a future Armageddon.
The dollar empire cannot stop itself from expanding. For its architects and beneficiaries, maintaining an iron grip on the world’s natural resources, energy, and labor (manufacturing) is an existential imperative—one they must pursue relentlessly, or their system will collapse. In this context, China, Russia, and Iran represent the last remaining obstacles to Zionist-led full-spectrum dominance over global manufacturing, natural resources, and energy, respectively.
The theory that Islam is another Jewish psy-op receives more confirmation.
Contrary to “Traditionalist” fanboys like Evola, Islam is not a “more masculine” version of Christianity, but simply more Noahide compliant (subtract trinity and incarnation, both instances of “polytheism”), add circumcision and laws regulating food etc., and voila! A more perfect Judaism for Gentiles.
But under the hood, it’s the same “resist not evil” poison. The Bomb is “un-Islamic” (Islam of course being noted for its pacifism, ha ha) so even if the Jews kill every Iranian, they “really” win by being more “moral”.
The USA was allowed — indeed, forced — to develop the Bomb in the first place only because they Jews wanted to use it on Hitler. A “special dispensation” as the Catholics would say.
“Iran is not looking to expand its borders or invade other countries, but to ensure the safety of its people and the continuation of its civilization”
This is the true, Aryan morality of National Socialism; see Savitri Devi and others.
If you can figure out how the following 2 videos tie into this, you get it.
Mark Dice https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-b6MdgqeHB0
Video Link
Laurent Guyénot https://odysee.com/@KnowMoreNews:1/zio-world:1
The successful, peaceful end of the Cold War proved that nukes are indeed weapons of peace. MAD or whatever you want to call it worked. War was limited to minor (compared to WWIII) proxy wars in the 3rd world, while the USSR was “contained” as Keenan proposed until it imploded from sheer unworkability (like the Seattle CHAZ and other socialist utopias).
The “no nukes” crowd, from the 50s (Bertrand Russell) to the 80s (Jackson Browne, what a cultural decline!) were simply useful idiots, manipulated by the Soviets who wanted unilateral disarmament “for moral reasons,” — Christian “morality” teaches that being killed when “not resisting evil” makes you the real winner; as today, with the “the Bomb is un-Islamic” crowd.
The “Iran must never have the Bomb because they’d wipe out Israel” crowd is pure projection, as usual. The real reason is the reverse: if Iran has the Bomb, Israel won’t be able to wipe them out.
I disagree, the only thing that would cut Netanyahu off at the knees is to release all those files that compromise high individuals by the Epstein files.
The Mossad and Netanyahu will have no power over the U.S congress and other highly placed individuals if the the laundry is aired, blackmail material is only of use if its kept out of the public, once public exposure then secrets totally lose their value.
If people in congress are being blackmailed then its Americans who are paying the price …and the victims of the decisions of the blackmailed.
This Epstein files must be put to bed, if they show a compromised executive…then it also shows American institutions are bankrupt protecting themselves and the “elite,” not the American people, and are covering up, so they should be broken up as traitors.
Any sources you can point to?
If Iran gets the bomb, then the Saudis will have to get a big gun too.
Video Link
There is only one reason North Korea has been left in peace.
I’m sure that point is quite clear to the Iranians. If not before, then certainly now.
Allow me to remind everyone:
The Iranian Nuclear Threat for Dummies
“Nuclear bombs =/same as Fake moon landing
Both lies.”
Are they as fake as “Noah’s ark”?
Russell didn’t want ‘unilateral disarmament’-the campaign was for universal de-nuclearisation. And the nukes covered US aggression in Korea, Indochina, Latin America, Africa etc with tens of millions dead and billions of lives blighted. So much for ‘minor’.
Wrong again Whitney! Nice click-bait title but as usual with much of your writings, pure nonsense.
The idea that possessing a nuke bomb or three offers some sort of protection against other aggressor countries is a stale idea based on the premise that two nuclear powers would face mutual destruction if one attacked the other.
BUT, this is only true when we are talking about superpowers or near superpowers.
Third rate countries like North Korea or Iran are relative gnats on the wall. The nukes that these countries might possess are not much of a deterrent.
Possessing 2, 5, 10 or even 50 nukes would not do a third rate country like NK or Iran any good if the US, Russia or China, for example, decided on a preemptive nuclear strike against the country. The country would be evaporated before it could get any nukes off and it might not even know who was sending them.
Then there is the question as to if NK or Iran could reliably deliver a nuke weapon. With luck, assuming their missile actually took off successfully and flew correctly, NK could maybe hit Seoul or Tokyo but I doubt they would be successful in delivering one to Hawaii, which is about as close to the US that they would ever get.
Iran would have to cross Iraq or Jordan to get to Israel. What if their nuke missile was shot down and exploded over either of those countries, instead of Israel?. That would be a serious miscalculation.
Then there is the fallout cloud. As the world wind blows west to east, a successful nuke missile from Iran that hit Israel would then blow fallout back onto Iran and other further Westward countries like China.
And what do you think Israel would do with its supposed 200+ nukes, a few that I would wager are always fueled and armed, if Iran somehow managed to nuke some place in Israel? Go plead for the UN to smack Iran’s hand? [rotflol]
No, Israel (and perhaps the US also) would hit Iran with multiple nukes and make most of the country radioactive for the next few centuries.
Then there is the question as to what would the leaders who pushed the button in Iran or NK do afterwards, assuming they survived in a deep mountain fallout bunker?
They would not find shelter elsewhere in the world. In fact, they would most likely be hunted down for a huge reward and then dismembered in a public square if they came out or could be forced out of their bunkers.
I could write many more paragraphs on this subject, perhaps talk about EMP’s or dirty bombs or suitcase bombs.
Sure Iran or NK could make a statement if they decided to attack a neighbor with a nuke weapon but to what avail? There would be nothing left of their countries after they did so.
Small nuke countries like Pakistan, NK or potentially Iran simply do not have the capability to do much damage with their few nuke missiles, even if they could successfully deliver them. Sure they might kill some tens of thousands (perhaps hundreds of thousands) of innocent people but in a world of 8 billion people, such small numbers are ultimately meaningless.
It’s time to acknowledge that possessing nukes are not a real protection against superpower countries with thousands of nukes read to launch within minutes and pinpoint, reliable delivery.
These countries would do better to use the money they waste on their nuke weapons programs and puffing up their chests instead on their destitute populations.
Capitalism, being cancer, MUST expand until it kills its host. As the cancer grows, the centre often become dead and necrotic, like the West, the Anglosphere in particular, today.
Israel wanted nukes for their safety; now they are safe. Of course, why should Iran not also feel safe? They too should get nukes and in the process they will make the Middle East peaceful and safe. But if you think about it, why stop there: everyone should have a nuke. Not only every country, but every person. Say a high-yield, multi-stage fusion device for a country, a mid-yield conventional fission device for a business, and a micro-sub-critical enhanced neutron device for people. I am not sure about toddlers, maybe there will need to be a minimum age for having a nuke? In any case, this way, everyone will feel safe and the world will be a much safer and nicer place.
Scott seems to have been bought and paid for the ZION-$
He used to speak intelligent and NON-ZION-BIASED ideas while now the SHADOW of BIBI is all over him.
No point in even having him debate anything to do with ISRAHELL
Seems you love to lap up ZION-PROPAGANDA based on lies and outdated political reality
I don’t remember where I read that about Russia.