So I was bored and flipping back and forth between local news, CNN, and Fox News and I am hearing alot about we are very close to being force to go to war against IRAN.

I know with this fight we will get alot more support from other nations troop wise but jesus can we stretch our military that thin..?

Is the Draft Ineviteable? (sp)

So I was bored and flipping back and forth between local news, CNN, and Fox News and I am hearing alot about we are very close to being force to go to war against IRAN.

I know with this fight we will get alot more support from other nations troop wise but jesus can we stretch our military that thin..?

Is the Draft Ineviteable? (sp)


OMG you are so disrespectful to the military for even asking that question. Its questions like that which strengthen our ever growing list of enemies. How could we possibly expect to win a war against Iran when we have people in this country asking questions like "can we stretch our military that thin..?"

Haven't you heard the slogan "An Army of One"? We only need 1 guy to go over there (much like Rambo did in Afghanistan). If it works in a movie it can most certainly be sold to the masses in this country.

People like you need to realize it is not a strong and well equipped military that win wars. It is things like domestic spying, really good slogans, swift boat ads and no bid contracts to Haliburton that win wars.

I'm sure one day you'll come to realize this and join the ever growing chorus of voices in saying "Bushy...you're doing a helluva job!"

It is a valid question, our military wasnt made to police the world. The Logistics are concerning.

We are a very dominant military until we have to get boots on the ground. Then we are vulnerable to the only thing that can hurt us; guerilla warfare. I think if we went to Iran, it would be mostly an air assault staged from the bases in Iraq. I'm not even sure there would be a need to put any boots on Iranian soil.

Yeah there it wouldn't be an occupation type mission. Likely we'd bomb the bejebus out of them. However, if we did haveto move in, likely in a police/peace keeping function it would likely end up being very similar to Iraq in that we'd be fighting guerillas.

Anyone know of any good stocks in the bomb/armaments area?

Halliburton.
http://finance.yahoo.com/lookup?s=halliburton&t=S&m=US

:D

Just a sarcastic guess though.

Stocks probably aren't your best bet in the worldwide depression that would follow the oil shock.

Well lets wait till we can extract more Oil out of Alberta then work on this Iran thing!

We are a very dominant military until we have to get boots on the ground. Then we are vulnerable to the only thing that can hurt us; guerilla warfare. I think if we went to Iran, it would be mostly an air assault staged from the bases in Iraq. I'm not even sure there would be a need to put any boots on Iranian soil.

Not so much a question of your intent Phel just the wording per se. All military's are vulnerable to guerilla warfare. Difference is we , perhaps, take more pain due to our extreme efforts to avoid civilian casulties.

Fandros

How has "wackjob country disobeys the U.N." come to mean "the U.S. will go to war with said wackjob country?"

A better question is, "how did we get to the point were wankers ask such questions with all seriousness?"

A couple viewpoints on a nuclear Iran, one slightly more optimistic (http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/945/iran-focus-part-1-how-close-is-iran-to-the-bomb) than the other (http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/007986.php).

From the (technically informed) first:
Overall, Iran is probably a little less than a decade away from developing a nuclear weapon. The key question here is how long it will take Iran to enrich a few tens of kilograms of uranium to more than 90 percent U-235.
Dafna Linzer reported that the US Intelligence Community does not believe (http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/index.php?id=712) that Iran could do so before “early to mid next decade”—a revision of previous assessments that Iran would “have the ability to produce nuclear weapons early in the next decade.”

Why so long? The answer is that Iran still has to build, install and operate its centrifuges to enrich uranium.

From the second:
My preferred option for a strike would be to end Iran's oil and gas distribution capabilities, destroy its power infrastructure (critical for nuclear efforts (http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/2006/01/hitting-target.html)), keep those things down, and hit what targets one can among the weapons programs. Let their economy collapse, let the Europeans and Chinese feel the price of their inaction and encouragement as oil spikes, and promise the Iranians massive reconstruction aid and help if they'll only overthrow the mullahs and renounce their pursuit of nuclear weapons. I'd do this shortly after the 2006 mid-terms, of course - I've read my Machiavelli.

The idea of cutting off their oil exports is great. It'd certainly make China mad. Of course, it's like cutting a leg off at the knee.......

Why so long? The answer is that Iran still has to build, install and operate its centrifuges to enrich uranium.

The IAEA has said Iran has had centrifuges for several years.

This information is a few years old now but shows the effort being put forth by Iran.

http://www.isis-online.org/publications/iran/natanz03_02.html

The more I see of current affairs, the more I am inclined to believe that China will posture with an "attack Iran and you attack me" attitude, as they are becoming more and more oil dependent, and do not want to risk revolution within their own borders.

There are many parallels to "the spice must flow" creed of the races populating Dune; oil has become the "spice" for industrialized nations, and to disrupt a nations supply could make more of an enemy of that country than of the country supplying it.

Still, I maintain my position of bombing the shit out of the military bases, infrastructure, and potential nuclear sites. Keep it an all-out air assault, with no ground troops. The cost will be cheaper in the long run than the possible nuclear exchange(s) if Iran is allowed to continue to pursue their program.

I'd agree that China will be against any Iran sanctions. China needs oil pretty badly now and for the foreseeable future, and they have a nice agreement on that with Iran.

I am fairly certain China needs our commerce pretty bad ass well...don't sell off our relationship with China so fast. Hell China could take over Iran and the world would be happy ever after.

Israel is going to hit Iran, most likely before 2007.

But here is the kicker. Iran has hidden and scattered its nuclear facilities to such a point that they are impossible to get to from conventional bombing. Iran also knows that no country has the will or the means to conduct an invasion of Iran at this time. Not with China backing Iran due to oil considerations.
US military leaders know that any attempt to go into Iran at this time will probably lose us Iraq and Iran as far as long term goals of stabilization. Iran knows this and is playing it to the hilt. They are engaging in some really amazing brinksmanship. Basically they are taking North Koreas playbook or acting insanely belligerant in order to expose the lack of will on the other side.
"Do it, go ahead, I dare you"
And its working great for them. Their program chugs along.

Israel is smart though. And imo what their move will be is completely non linear and out of the box. Iran can hide its labs and facilities. What they cannot hide is their oil fields. In my quess Israel will obliterate Irans oil production capabilities. Bomb the fields, bomb the plants, bomb the refineries, bomb the pipelines, bomb the docks.
The effect of this move would be two fold.
1. No more funding for their weapons program
2. No more reason for China to support the Iranians should they persist on continuing their weapons program.

I think this is Israels only logical move. I expect it to happen before the summer. Stock up on gas now.

I think Israel is pretty smart. Which, in my mind, means they wouldn't do something as stupid as that. And putting a smackdown on the world economy, especially the economy of your most ardent supporter, would be exceedingly stupid.

CHina doesn't support Iran. THey just don't see any reason to make a move. After all, Iran isn't threatening *them.*

Israel did it before (bombed Iran) and they will do it again, make no mistake about it.

Good post L2, that's how I'd sum up Israel's potential actions.

Fandros

Israel did it before (bombed Iran)

1. Don't you mean Iraq?

2. There's a big difference between destroying a nuclear facility and destroying their ability to export oil.

I'm not sure Israel has the range to hit all of Iran either with an effective number of aircraft. It was quite risky for them to hit Ossirak and the Iranian facilities are even further east.

They may try the sabotage route with small raiding parties on the ground, but that will only be an option for coastal areas.

IMO Israel does not have the ability to destroy either the entire Iranian oil infrastructure or their nuclear facilities without using their own theoretical nukes. I think Israel is up shit creek without US participation.

I think Israel is up shit creek without US participation.
Perhaps in the form of surreptitious mid-air refueling? An Israeli air strike would almost have to pass through US controlled air space on the way to Iran (which would tie the US into any such attack anyway, at least in some minds).

My mistake Mirdorr it was Iraq.

(which would tie the US into any such attack anyway, at least in some minds)

ANd that's the kicker. So the attack would most likely be done with US-made planes and, in the minds of the Muslim world, with US complicity (though airspace we control). Which just invites massive terrorism. So another reason I don't think they'd do anything about Iran's oil capabilities.

Well, considering nearly all of Israel's Air Force is comprised of US made aircraft I think you'll find they could care less if they use them or not.

Fandros

Put yourself in Israels shoes..
Do they care more about their potential absolute destruction, or making gas for Americans cars go up in price?

Once they act, its done, China has no reason to get involved and in the end, the US will back Israel. It is the perfect move. China only backs Iran for oil. Once thats off the table, China has to make friends in other places to satisfy its immediate oil needs. Our commitment to Israel is much deeper. And they can quote the Bush doctrine of pre-emption as justification for attacks.

Do you understand that the Iranian president has called for Israel to be wiped off the map? Do you expect the Israelis to not take these threats seriously? To sit around and hope he doesnt mean it? No fucking way, their parents and grandparents died because they waited for the world to come to their aid after a madman made threats to destroy them, help never came in 1938... and if the world wont act in 2006, they will.

Oh, I believe they will act. I just don't think they will be effective and will provide an excuse for Iran to openly develop nuclear weapons for "defense".

Why do you think they will not be very effective? I think they will be very effective because they will not only bomb oil/nuclear plants..they most likely will attack citzens as well which in turn will pressure the government. Israeli's are the last one on the block to really care what anyone thinks....

Israeli AF is also recognized as one of the most effective in the world.

If they attempt it, odds are they'll make it happen.

Fandros

I agree that China won't seriously respond to an Israeli attack, other than to protest through diplomatic channels. But I could see Iran inviting Chinese assistance pre- or post- attack to "consult" at their oil fields, if just to up the ante on such a strike. It wouldn't deter Israel, but all these considerations have an effect on how Washington guides Israel (insofar as they can).

I think they will not be effective simply because of the distance they must travel to attack. Let's assume they get a pass to overfly Jordan and Iraq without interference. Longer distance means lighter payloads. It means fewer sorties since travel time is so long. It also requires in- flight refueling and Israel's in-flight refueling resources are much more limited than the US capability in terms of numbers. Israel's air force was designed primarily to defend Israel in the area surrounding Israel and it has a limited number of aircraft with long range. It was not designed to "project power" over long distances in a sustained campaign, it was designed to defeat surrounding arab airforces.

Look how long it took the US Airforce to degrade Iraq with the most powerful airforce in the world and bases next door. Iran is a larger country with a correspondingly larger infrastructure. Even if all their gulf facilities are hit, they can still ship oil out of Indian Ocean ports. Some of their nuclear facilities are constructed in the eastern part of Iran which means an attacker would have to cross Iranian airspace in addition to reaching the country in the first place. That means losses to SAMs and possibly the Iranian airforce.

Can they do damage to the Iranian facilities? Absolutely. Can they destroy their ability to ship oil? I don't see how. Iraq was unable to do so during their many year war with Iran and they are right next door.

http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0605,vest,71928,2.html

and to show the response.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/R/RUMSFELD?SITE=IADES&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

I tend to believe the first guy just because of the fact I cant believe that the army isnt hurting for numbers really bad.

/yawn

They were claiming the military was in a quagmire two days after we went into Afghanistan, and pretty much calling the army "stretched too thin" shortly after that.

They who? Where?

'My mistake Mirdorr it was Iraq.'

- I thought Israel had blown up a few Iranian targets before? Or am I non-comuting?

So did I but I was wrong it was in Iraq.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/june/7/newsid_3014000/3014623.stm

Not that hard to google Thor...

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=afghanistan+quagmire
We start with R.W. Apple, a Washington-based correspondent for the New York Times, grand pooh-bah of what William Powers of National Journal calls "the Quagmire Club." Readers may remember Apple's reporting when President George W. Bush sent in the military to destroy al-Qaeda and its Taliban protectors in Afghanistan following the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Apple pecked out a story headlined, "A Military Quagmire Remembered: Afghanistan as Vietnam" on day 24 of the war in Afghanistan.
"Like an unwelcome specter from an unhappy past, the ominous word `quagmire' has begun to haunt conversations among government officials and students of foreign policy, both here and abroad. Could Afghanistan become another Vietnam?" Apple wrote. "Echoes of Vietnam are unavoidable." Kabul fell five weeks later.

Actually, akipt, I was looking for something more akin to the report Moglor was referring to, which was written by a retired army officer on Pentagon contract. Apple's cautionary musings on an Afghanistan invasion, however misplaced, aren't quite up to that level (and also have nothing to do with the real issue of how long the military can sustain this level of operations).

BTW, the full quote (http://www.wellesley.edu/Polisci/wj/Vietnam/apple-afghan.html) (and accompanying article) shows that the above excerpt takes liberties with context:
Like an unwelcome specter from an unhappy past, the ominous word "quagmire" has begun to haunt conversations among government officials and students of foreign policy, both here and abroad.

Could Afghanistan become another Vietnam? Is the United States facing another stalemate on the other side of the world? Premature the questions may be, three weeks after the fighting began. Unreasonable they are not, given the scars scoured into the national psyche by defeat in Southeast Asia. For all the differences between the two conflicts, and there are many, echoes of Vietnam are unavoidable.
That an extended occupation, wear and tear on equipment, recruiting shortfalls, increased difficulty in recruiting specialists and other issues might be real problems that impact our military readiness is hardly something to yawn about. Googling an unrelated article to bolster a sagging strawman of a point doesn't change that.

Actually Thormir, the yawn was in response of Mog's quote:

I tend to believe the first guy just because of the fact I cant believe that the army isnt hurting for numbers really bad.

And you fall into that same mind set as well...

That an extended occupation, wear and tear on equipment, recruiting shortfalls, increased difficulty in recruiting specialists and other issues might be real problems that impact our military readiness

Technically true, but who here realizes the Army actually increased its ranks last year? Yes, they wanted to increase it by a larger number, but its an increase nonetheless, while at the same time drawing down in Iraq and other places.

And the continued hand wringing of our military's preparedness does nothing to discourage complete psychopaths in Iran from taking advantage of those public misconceptions.

I'd rather we contend with reality whatever our global opponents may think rather than hide behind illusions, especially if we're going to engage in hand-wringing and bedwetting over the latest WMD scare. If it turns out that Iran underestimates our true ability to react, then so much the worse for them. But Iraq has tought them far more lessons than what you allege to be misconceptions.

Out of curiousity, how are percentages changing with regard to specialist and Category IV (IIRC, your low-qualification GED types) recruiting? How about use of stop loss programs and retention via small print?

And the continued hand wringing of our military's preparedness does nothing to discourage complete psychopaths in Iran from taking advantage of those public misconceptions.


If it is in fact a misconception that our military is stretched thin, that our armed forces can't hit their recruiting goals, that our troops are not properly equipped with body armor and arored transport. Then from a strategic point of view I don't see the problem if all of the above is true and the "enemy" is buying it.

You see Akipt this would be one of the most basic rules of strategy: Deception.

If our military is in fact in great shape, not stretched thin and has all of the people it needs in reserve, is properly equipped, then the "enemy" has been deceived and will most likely be lulled into a false sense of security thinking it has this whole thing wrapped up. Perhaps they will come out in a more conventional way and try to have a final battle, which we could use our not stretched properly armored forces to crush them.

But then one would be forced to give people like Murtha, Kerry and other so called liberals the credit for the big win.

Nah Rover, you'd have to show me that was their intention all along.

Actually, outside of Murtha, I give lil credit to forward progress from any of the mouths on the left. Most of their work is obstruction based...

Fandros

Yay for Democracy changing the mideast! (http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/01/26/palestinian.election/index.html)

Another Neo-Con/Bush/Cheney assumption laid to waste. Unilateralism and the use of democracy as a force of Middle Eastern transformation is exposed further and further with each passing day as a foundationally flawed ideology.

Can you say perpetual occupation boys and girls? Sure ya can. So why not Iran? Why the fuck not. Crank up the draft. "Imperialism Part Deux: This Time its Personal". We can absolutely defeat Iran, a nation 3x the size with 4x the population of Iraq.. A nation not hamstrung by 10 years of extreme sanctions. A nation ruled by religious zealotry that in all likelyhood wont capitulate like the beaten down Iraqis, who cowed for decades under Saddam and learned passivity as a means of survival.
I have no doubt that we would defeat Iran, not as fast as we did Iran, but victory would come. After we mow down all their Human Wave attacks and dealt with whatever speedbumps the Mullahs laid down, Tehran would be ours in a month or two.

But then what? We would have Zero chance of occupying the vast expanse of the area. Not with any even remotely effective means.

Im praying the Israelis do take out their oil. Motherfucking bunkerbuster bombs on their fields, collapsing their wells, followed by tons of Napalm to set that shit on fire. Follow that up by obliterating every inch of their pipelines and all their storage facilities. Saturate bomb their railroads and every bridge you can find in that flat waterless hellhole. Take out their dockyards and their tanker fleets, and blow up their oil storage facilities. And then for good measure, find where they park all their heavy construction vehicles and blow that shit up too. Goodbye income for the next 15 years.
Turn them into the backward, third world, 6th century income thier leaders deserve to have. Fuck imperialism or boots on the ground. Lets just cut their balls off and be done with it.

The only downside I see to Israel taking such action is it would almost guarantee the end of Israel, as I believe China and possibly Russia would take the side of those that have been doing business with them, and that military capability added to the muslim fanatics would surely be more than even the elite military services of Israel could handle.

Not so sure, Bylimet. If Israel did take such action, what would China and Russia have to gain by war? They'd be better off forming an alliance with Iran and supplying rebuilding assistance in return for oil guarantees. If they put their own boots on the ground, then any further military action from Israel (or the US for that matter) could be construed as an act of war if it affects their personnel. Meanwhile, their diplomatic corps could turn more of the world against Israel (consider the aspersions that the environmental fallout of such attacks might generate), and terrorism would no doubt increase. If they can further erode what international support remains for the US, so much the better (for them, anyway). Direct military action doesn't seem worth the cost.

As a post script, this just in from The Onion: Sharon's Neurotransmitters Reach Cease-Fire Agreement

Lets just cut their balls off and be done with it.

It's all great rhetoric, but what price are you willing to pay for it? How bad would hte worldwide recession be? How high would inflation be? What are you willing to pay to commute to work? Are you willing to lose your job? What about your friends - are you cool with them losing their jobs?

War is good business, you would find the economy redirected as it has in times of past.

But, most squeaky wheels want fixes that won't inconvience them huh...

Fandros

War is good business, you would find the economy redirected as it has in times of past.

But, most squeaky wheels want fixes that won't inconvience them huh...

Fandros

Yes I agree, war is good business. Unfortunately the portion of our economy that would feel the biggest economic benefit is currently in China.

I think any interference with the world oil supply would limit whatever economic benefits might obtain from entering into war with Iran, especially if it's a fairly limited war based on air power.

'War is good business'


- It's hell for the dead, though.

War is good business, you would find the economy redirected as it has in times of past.

Iran puts out 4 to 4.5 million barrels of oil per day. Currently there is a slack of maybe 1 million barrels of oil per day in the market - most if not all of that from Saudi Arabia.

So. Iran stops shipping oil. Now you're down 4 million barrels per day. Saudi Arabia pushes themselves to the limit. OK, now hopefuly you're only short 3 million barrels of oil per day.

That's a heckuva lot more oil than was missing during the Katrina aftermath. And it wouldn't come back online for months and months, perhaps years - whereas 80% of Katrina's damage to the oil industry was fixed in weeks.

I don't think you really understand how the economy works. You can't "redirect" if the fuel to run your economy is simply not available.

How bad would hte worldwide recession be?

lets do a cost benefit analysis between that and a nuclear weapon exploding in Tel Aviv.
Ill take recession plz.

Ha, war is good for business? Thanks for quoting it, or I would have never seen that bon mot. I'm just going to quote the unimpeachable President Eisenhower here,


Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.

War is good for SOME businessmen because it is wholesale theft of funds from the public sector. War as a means of economic motivation is never and can never be more efficient than normal markets except in the shortest of terms, and it is not war itself that provides the infusion of wealth-creation but state intervention in the economy, commonly referred to as socialism... The deficit spending of WWII could not have been sustained much longer than it was, in fact the "Mighty Seventh" bond drive prior to the war's end only met its goals by means of marketing luck -- the highly resonant image of Marines raising the flag at Iwo Jima being their primary pull.

Additionally anyone who thinks that the oil market, which is already strained by the reduced capacity of Iraq and prohibitions on arctic drilling, is going to magically become elastic because of a war with Iran could best contribute to a "redirection" in the impending market shock by drowning themselves in some SAE 60 weight and saving more gas for the rest of us.

There's plenty of examples of war being good for the economy throughout history, but neither continuously or repeatedly. And yes, usually for a limited amount of time. Whether they were English colonial merchants, Nazi arms factories, or American investments, War has its ups-and-downs on the economy.

Eventually.. the bill always comes.

Aye, the bill always comes. My question is, do you want to pay the bill while watching your grandchildren glow green? Or perhaps not...


Fandros

Why, had you guys finally nuked yerselves?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4621182.stm


- Will be interesting to see which way China swings.

Perhaps a surprise, but so far China -- and Russia -- are doing the right thing (http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/01/31/iran.nuclear.ap/index.html).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4665086.stm

'Iran has warned it will resume suspended nuclear activities and halt surprise UN inspections if it is referred to the UN Security Council. '

- I just hope the Chinese and Russian delegates headed for Iran are good at what they do, 'cause the Persians are spoiling for a fight.
We just sent 3, 000 troops to Afghanistan, not sure we have the manpower for another war with our African and Balkan commitments.

I wonder at our ability to commit as well Halo. I think if we do go it'll be airpower only.

Fandros

Have to agree, and given the dispersed nature of the Iranian nuclear program, there could be a lot of BOOM. Or they just strike the oil facilities. Hopefully the Russians and Chinese broker a peaceful solution.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4665086.stm

'Iran has warned it will resume suspended nuclear activities and halt surprise UN inspections if it is referred to the UN Security Council. '

- I just hope the Chinese and Russian delegates headed for Iran are good at what they do, 'cause the Persians are spoiling for a fight.
We just sent 3, 000 troops to Afghanistan, not sure we have the manpower for another war with our African and Balkan commitments.

They sure are! (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/iran_nuclear;_ylt=AiqS6J9_8X4PL6cM4H0yxUCs0NUE;_yl u=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--)

Iran pissing off the west probably gives Putin a woody, but I doubt he's going to let this slide...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/30/AR2006013001491.html
BILISI, Georgia -- Iran started exports of natural gas to Georgia on Monday as Georgia's president vowed to reduce his nation's energy dependence on Russia.

Mysterious explosions Jan. 22 cut off gas supplies to the former Soviet republic, leaving millions of Georgians shivering in their homes in bitterly cold temperatures.

Mysterious indeed.

Hmmm...what ties does Iran have with Chechnya?

I wonder at our ability to commit as well Halo. I think if we do go it'll be airpower only.

Personally I think we should roll over and give them what they want....

I think about 6 nukes would do them just fine. j/k

Hmmm...what ties does Iran have with Chechnya?

Support of the Muslim rebels fighting for separation from Russia, perhaps.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/11182457/site/newsweek/'

Interesting article I think and maybe a glimpse into the man that leads Iran.

Fandros

"THis nuclear reactor is expensive. We're not gonna make a nuclear weapon. We need the cash we can raise by selling this stuff to other people."

More to worry about...

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43956

This article was from last April.

If true, sounds like Iran was working towards an EMP weapon. Better get those anti-missile systems working pronto!

I wouldn't get too worked up yet. The World Net Daily is on the Reader's Digest side of National Inquirer "journalism." It makes Washington Times look like Fox, and Fox look like the Village Voice. The article cites Jerome Corsi, who is fairly insane (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerome_Corsi), and otherwise adheres to the principle of fear-mongering for war and profit we've seen much of the past few years from the duct tape and cellophane crowd.

The story needs serious substantiation and at this point may as well read "Bigfoot and Yeti Do Battle in Tokyo."

It would bother me less if I had not heard similar things from other sources...

The May edition of Jane’s Missiles and Rockets reports that recent missile tests by Iran may have been part of the development of an Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) warhead. Jane’s cites testimony from the Senate Committee on the Judiciary’s Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology, and Homeland Security from March 8, 2005, by Peter Pry and Lowell Wood. Wood is a member of the Congressional EMP Commission, which released its important report on the EMP threat in July 2004.

Some of Iran’s tests of its Shahab-3 had been terminated before the completion of their ballistic trajectories, that is, exploding in mid-flight by what appeared to be a self-destruct mechanism. Iran has nevertheless described the tests as fully “successful.” Pry noted that the apparent contradiction would make sense “if Iran were practicing the execution of an EMP attack.” Lowell Wood is quoted as having testified to the subcommittee that such an attack upon the United States could keep off most electrical functions for a time period of a few hours or decades, depending on how it was executed. Wood also warned the subcommittee that such an EMP warhead could be delivered against the United States by “a Scud missile launched from a freighter off the Atlantic coast.”

Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ), who chairs the Senate Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology, and Homeland Security, wrote about the EMP threat in the April 15 edition of the Washington Post.

Iran seems to know the US can't stretch itself atm and handle them...appropriately.

http://en.rian.ru/world/20060306/43951694.html

Top it off, they seem to be aware that those not involved in Iraq lack the desire to throw down in a nasty fight.

Ugly ugly ugly situation....

Fandros

Okay that link is fubared...

http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/World/2006/03/06/1474929-sun.html

Fandros

http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2006-03-08T122451Z_01_RON537891_RTRUKOC_0_UK-NUCLEAR-IRAN.xml

ugh...

Fandros

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/013357.php

Not my favorite informational source, but an interesting analysis.

The War Drums are starting to beat my friends.