Ahmadinejad: Iran is out of Israel's reach

[sabra]

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1150886000464&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Ahmadinejad: Iran is out of Israel's reach

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Friday that Israel could not harm Iran, even as it expanded its offensive into Lebanon to target the Iranian-backed Hizbullah, the official Islamic Republic News Agency reported.

"Despite the barbaric and criminal nature of the occupiers of Jerusalem, the regime and its Western supporters do not even have the power to give Iran a nasty look," the agency quoted Ahmadinejad as saying in Osku, in northwestern Iran.

[no_hypocrisy]

1. That sounds like "I dare you . . . " to me. n/t

[Oreo]

30. Or "Bring Em On"

[saltpoint]

2. I'd expect this kind of bullshit out of pre-pubescent playground bullies.

But I would always hope for a higher standard for world leaders.

Obviously I stand to be frequently disappointed.

[demosincebirth]

9. Not in the middle east.. There is no standard for leaders

[saltpoint]

12. Yep. And evidently not in the modern-day GOP either. As childish and

petulant as Ahmadinejad appears to be, Dubya is as bad or worse with all those taunting "bring it on" and "smoke 'em out" phrases he has used.

Yuck.

Let's hold the 06 and 08 U.S. elections tomorrow, ok?

[demosincebirth]

16. I was thinking that if Gore were President this shit wouldn't be happening

in the Middle East, today, because Israel and the Palestinians would have had a peace agreement in place

[saltpoint]

17. Yes. Carter's and Clinton's presidencies were dedicated in part to

peace in that region.

Not so this president.

I would feel far better if Al Gore or John Kerry had not been cheated by the current incumbent.

[demosincebirth]

25. Yup, I forgot about our Crawford Coward.

[saltpoint]

27. Yep. Ol' Dubya's a brush-clearin' fool, ain't he?

[CuteNFuzzy]

34. Not just the middle east

Anywhere (OK, well except maybe those leftist South American leaders popping up these days!)

[northernsoul]

10. Why is the history of the 21st Century being written by 12 year olds?

Remember the 90's, when the adults pretty much were in charge?

[saltpoint]

11. Agree -- I'd like for the kids to just play outside and be kids and

I'd prefer grown-ups to draft legislation and articulate social needs and concerns.

Call me old-fashioned!

[Psephos]

15. History's always been written by the 12-year-olds

As for the 90s, I remember:

Rwanda

Somalia

Bosnia

Sri Lanka

Sierra Leone

Chechnya

Ethiopia/Eritrea

Liberia

Burundi

Meanwhile, in Russia the president was drunk every day and was caught peeing on the wheels of his jet, while in the White House the president was squirting on an intern's dress. So much for the adults.

Peace.

[megatherium]

21. Point well taken.

I remember in the immediate wake of 9/11 people were saying 'thank goodness the adults are in charge now,' but of course we found out what a fraud that was.

[Psephos]

38. Ain't that the truth.... n/t

[maxsolomon]

23. Point of Clenis:

12 year olds don't have mistresses.

having a mistress, or affairs, or dalliances, is, in fact, a historical tradition for political leaders & powerful men - much like war. only in puritan america are we prudish enough to make an issue of it. the french were incredulous & embarassed for us. it really was unseemly.

[northernsoul]

28. I'm not saying the 90's were trouble free or perfect

I just remember having so much more hope back then. The problems were real and serious, but I had hope that we would make progress on them. The history of the 21st century so far is one of going from bade to worse.

[Psephos]

37. I remember feeling the same way, too

but I wonder if part of it is because the U.S. seemed more insulated/isolated from all the other problems of the world during the 90s. Ignorance is bliss, as the proverb says.

When the Iron Curtain dissolved, I thought a new era of peace had dawned; when the internet revolution began, I thought a new era of economic vibrance and creativity had begun.

Both proved to be truer in the short run than in the long run. Alas.

We must select the illusion which appeals to our
temperament and embrace it with passion,
if we want to be happy.
- Cyril Connolly

Peace.

[OrangeCountyDemocrat]

3. Iranian President...."Bring 'Em On" nt

[Tempest]

4. In one aspect, Ahmadinejad is correct

Israel's jets cannot make the trip to Iran and back without re-fueling.

Since Israel doesn't have any friendly place to land to refuel, it will have to be done in the air. And Israel doesn't have any air refuel aircraft.


However, the U.S. could allow them to land in Iraq or could allow Israel to use U.S. refuel aircraft, but either action would draw the U.S. directly into the crisis and endanger the entire U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Not to mention endanger the 150,000 U.S. troops in Iraq.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

5. And it sure as fuck wouldn't help stopping terrorists.

[Tempest]

7. It would create thousands more

All with the will to blow themselves up for Allah.

[bemildred]

13. There are two possibilities that I know of:

The Jericho MRBM, and sub-launched cruise missiles. I'm not sure if the Jericho has the range, and the subs would have to be in the Gulf. There was also an imaginative plan bruited about a year of two back to fly around the Arabian Peninsula, with refueling, to get there. Some of their jets could theoretically get to Iran, but not back without a refuel, and in any case they would have to get permission from the US, which controls the airspace.

[Tempest]

18. The Jericho doesn't have the range

The Jericho II is a road-mobile, two-stage, solid-propellant missile with an approximate range of 1,500 kilometers and a reported payload of 1,000 kilograms.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/israel/jericho-2.htm

Israel also doesn't have any air refueling aircraft. It would take U.S. refuelers to assist them.

[bemildred]

20. Thanks, seemed marginal, but I wasn't sure. nt

[muriel_volestrangler]

35. That puts the western third of Iran within range

from a point in the Golan Heights:

Distance between 33:00:00N 35:45:00E and Tehran, Iran, as the crow flies:
919 miles (1479 km) (798 nautical miles)

http://www.indo.com/cgi-bin/dist?place1=33%3A00%3A00N+35%3A45%3A00E&place2=tehran

[Tempest]

36. That's without a warhead

The 1500 KM range is without a warhead according to another cite I looked at when I posted it. I didn't save it.

The range gets cut depending on the size of the warhead.

[Poll_Blind]

6. 2 words: Mid-air refuelling. They didn't do it in Osirak but they could..

...with U.S. support for an attack on Iran.

PB

[Tempest]

8. The Pentagon would never approve of it

If the U.S. allowed Israel to use its air refueling aircraft, it would mean a direct involvement in any attack.

If you think terrorist attacks are bad now, just wait until that happened.


As it is, the Pentagon is against any direct attack or involvement in an attack on Iran. They're being very vocal about it.

[megatherium]

22. It is not the responsibility of the Pentagon to decide if we are

to go to war against any potential adversary. That is the responsibility of the civilian leadership; if Bush and his people determine that we need to attack Iran, the Pentagon will do so. But of course, the Pentagon people are warning the civilian leadership that an attack on Iran would be extremely dangerous and have a low probability of accomplishing its objectives. Bush would do very poorly to disregard this message.

[Tempest]

26. The Pentagon can undermine the ability for the president to go to war

There's several options available to the Pentagon to make the decision to go to war extremely difficult, if not impossible.

Such as leaking to the media war game scenerios that show just how badly things will go or the U.S. death count from going to war.

[ctex]

14. Israel may have about 5 KC-707's for mid-air refueling

I don't know how many F-15s or F-16s they could serve. Tehran is about 1600 km or 1000 miles from Israel, so one refueling on the way in and one on the way back would do the trick.

I imagine the bigger problem would be where the refueling would take place -- over either Syrian or Iraqi airspace I would guess.

Of course this is all hypothetical -- I hope Israel would not be crazy enough to bomb Tehran.

[Tempest]

19. Iran - Israel's Air Strike Options

Air refueling. This raises the question of air refueling? This is a limitation for the Israelis. While Israel has a large air force, its focus has been on the Arab countries that surround it. In recent years, it has sought the capability to project power against a target over 1000 miles away. To do this, Israel has acquired five B707 tanker aircraft. However, the tankers would have to refuel the fighters in hostile airspace. The B707 is a large unarmed aircraft and would be very vulnerable to air defenses.

Looking at the two scenarios, air refueling over Saudi Arabia (red route) would be very risky. It would have to be done at low altitude to evade detection and will probably be at night. Using Iraqi airspace (blue route) will be somewhat less difficult as altitude will not be an issue.

Of course, the tankers would have to get to Iraqi airspace and back. The use of Turkish airspace for the tanker aircraft to enter Iraq is probably not an option for the same reasons that it is not an option for the fighters – political sensitivities on the part of the Turks and operational security considerations on the part of the Israelis. Another possibility is American cooperation – allow the Israelis to stage their tankers from an American air base in Iraq. These tankers could fly to Iraq though international airspace around the Arabian Peninsula and over the Persian Gulf. It would be too far for them to return to Israel without landing to refuel, otherwise the Israelis could refuel the fighters over the Gulf.

http://francona.blogspot.com/2006/03/iran-israels-air-strike-options.html

[maxsolomon]

24. israel has missiles, don't they?

with nuclear warheads?

dude, shut up!

[MGD]

29. Ahmadinejad is a fool if he believes that he is invulnerable

What's more, the Iraqi buffer zone can easily make Israel invulnerable to Iranian attacks too. It works both ways. Israel can decimate Iran's allies and Iran is mostly powerless to help. Iran, on the other hand, can not attack Israel's allies; furthermore, Israel has the ability to sink Iranian naval vessels in the gulf of Oman as Israel has an advanced submarine fleet with anti-shipping capabilities. As a side note, if this happens, I'm predicting a "Persian Gulf incident".

[americanstranger]

31. Beg to differ on one point...

Iran, on the other hand, can not attack Israel's allies

You're forgetting the 100+ thousand American soldiers, right next door in Iraq.

I'd say they're extremely vulnerable to missile attacks, if it came to that.

- as

[MGD]

32. I'm not forgetting anything

Allah himself couldn't save Iran if they were stupid enough to openly attack American soldiers in Iraq. It would be the "mother-of-all mistakes".

[dufrenne]

33. Exactly

the US can't occupy and save a country and bring peace and stablity, but it sure as hell can still blow stuff up real good. Iran becomes easy to deal with (assuming no nuclear problem) when you only care about destroying its military capability, as opposed to regime change per se ;). I.e. Iran wouldn't be stupid enough to think it could withstand such an attack. You'd see US troops withdrawing out of Iraq alright...right into Iran!! - assuming the air force didn't finish things first.

[High Plains]

39. You mean it might end up like Iraq?

[Pavulon]

40. Exactly like Iraq after gw1

proper fucked by a half million men with no intent to occupy, just to kill, destroy, and leave.

The target of the largest conventional bombing in the history of human conflict.

They start an open war they are done.

[greccogirl]

41. Is there any doubt

that this man's cheese has slid off his cracker? Yeah, keep thinking that................

[Generator]

42. Why can't this dude shut his freaking trap?

I mean really, if he would just shut the hell up maybe the US won't have to bomb him and have a forty year war. On a side note, I find it strange that this guy sounds like such a nutcase, is a hatemonger, but looks so attractive. How can that be??? Mel Gibson alert.