What's new

Nuclear War Against Iran ?

Fighter488

FULL MEMBER
Joined
Dec 5, 2009
Messages
1,050
Reaction score
0
Castro: Nuclear sage or siren?

By Kaveh L Afrasiabi

"If there's an attack on Iran by Israel and the US, there's no way to prevent it from becoming a nuclear war." - Former Cuban president Fidel Castro

Castro uttered these ominous words last month, and this week, undeterred by an army of Western skeptics, repeated his warning of a "nuclear holocaust" by making a rare appearance in parliament.

The frail 84-year-old may have stepped down from the presidency, but not from the realm of international politics, especially when he is confident that the United States has finally a leader that may be receptive to his powers of persuasion.

"Obama will not give the order if we persuade him, we're making a contribution to this positive effort," Castro said in his brief yet meaningful speech, peppered with familiar vocabulary on American imperialism.

Is this baseless paranoia or a tissue of political realism? An examination of the potential "worst-case scenario" in a future US-Iran and or US+Israel versus Iran conflict favors Castro's dire warning, for the following reasons.

First, the US now has a new nuclear posture that leaves the door open for a nuclear offensive, save with the countries that are in good standing with their nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) obligations. The "Obama doctrine" is, in fact, a step back toward a more nuclear trigger-happy approach, despite the appearance to the contrary and Obama's pledge of reducing the US's strategic reliance on nukes.

Second, in being open to possibly using nuclear weapons against a perceived "rogue state" such as Iran, the US government is likely to tap into its arsenal of tactical or "smart" nukes that are carried on US warships, submarines and bombers. The "bunker-buster" nuclear missiles can be unleashed under the excuse of a lack of an alternative to get to Iran's underground inventory of weapons of mass destruction.

More material was given to support the US government's view of Iran as a "rogue state" this week as the International Atomic Energy Agency, the United Nations' nuclear watchdog, on Monday said that Iran has violated UN resolutions by activating new equipment to enrich uranium more efficiently at a facility in Natanz.

The effort was in line with the announcement by Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad on February 11 that Iran was on schedule to enrich uranium to 20% in order to power a Tehran nuclear research reactor, an Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman was quoted by the Tehran Times as saying on Tuesday. He added that it was regarded as a peaceful nuclear activity and considered a legitimate right of all countries committed to the IAEA. The move to enrich uranium to 20% purity means Iran could advance to making weapons-grade material.

A third reason why Castro may be correct in his prediction that any conflict with Iran will degenerate into a nuclear one is that the US is overstretched in two wars and has numerous other commitments around the world and, as a result, is incapable of sustaining a protracted war with Iran, perhaps short of reinstating a mandatory draft. In case a war breaks out and Iran through its armed forces gains some ground, the US may resort to nuclear bombs to inflict heavy damage on its Iranian enemy.

The fourth reason why a flare-up between Iran and US may turn nuclear is that a war with Iran may actually go badly for the US and/or Israel initially, eg, the Iranians may put up fierce resistance and close down the Strait of Hormuz, thus imperiling the West's access to Middle East oil, so leading to a retaliatory nuclear reaction by the US in the name of a speedy resolution of the conflict.

Fifth, Israel, which has several hundred nuclear warheads, may unpack some of its hitherto clandestine nuclear power against Iran to defeat Iran militarily and thus acquire unchallenged hegemony in the region.

Sixth, Castro's premonition about the nuclear potential of any military conflict between the US and Israel against Iran must be drawn from Castro's long military career and his keen knowledge of the spiraling dynamic of an unpredictable asymmetrical warfare that could be brought to stable conclusion by resorting to nuclear weapons. Such a strategy may assure that the defeated Iranians would not dare continue with a clandestine nuclear program after being delivered a total defeat, whereas a conventional war may fall short of such finality.

Despite all this, it is hard to imagine how a one-sided and limited nuclear offensive against non-nuclear Iran would be grave to the level of a "nuclear holocaust?" Iran has no strategic nuclear ally that would rush to defend it against a unilateral strike that is likely to be Iran-focused and on select targets with limited civilian populations.

The feasibility of a nuclear strike on Iran rests on its limited and targeted nature and the reasonable assurance that there would be no nuclear backlash, at least for the foreseeable future.

For Iran, however, the price could be exorbitantly high in human and physical terms, thus deserving all the alarm bells sounded by Castro, who has openly speculated that the US's declared possession of a blueprint for a possible attack on Iran has a nuclear dimension.

His intervention must therefore be interpreted as both timely and even effective, given the absence of an explicit dismissal by the White House. Washington's meaningful silence in response to Castro's warnings is less a sign of inattention to the Cuban revolutionary who is grappling with health problems and more evidence of the US's unwillingness to forego the nuclear option with regard to Iran.

Kaveh L Afrasiabi, PhD, is the author of After Khomeini: New Directions in Iran's Foreign Policy (Westview Press). For his Wikipedia entry, click here. He is author of Reading In Iran Foreign Policy After September 11 (BookSurge Publishing , October 23, 2008) and his latest book, Looking for rights at Harvard, is now available.

(Copyright 2010 Asia Times Online (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact us about sales, syndication and republishing.)

Asia Times Online :: Middle East News, Iraq, Iran current affairs
 
This proves one more time that the US is not a responsible nuclear state. Its nuclear stockpile is not for defence, for defence you don't need thousands of nukes; it's for the continuation of the nuclear blackmail against non-nuclear states without a nuclear umbrella or nuclear deterrent. This is the worst kind of terrorism and this is the greatest threat against the world peace.
 
This proves one more time that the US is not a responsible nuclear state. Its nuclear stockpile is not for defence, for defence you don't need thousands of nukes; it's for the continuation of the nuclear blackmail against non-nuclear states without a nuclear umbrella or nuclear deterrent. This is the worst kind of terrorism and this is the greatest threat against the world peace.

A speech by Castro proves something about the USA, I dont think so. We have 1000s of nukes because Russia has thousands of nukes. The threat against world peace is nutty religious countries right now.
 
A speech by Castro proves something about the USA, I dont think so. We have 1000s of nukes because Russia has thousands of nukes. The threat against world peace is nutty religious countries right now.

Your threat perception is seriously tainted by your prejudice against your so-called 'religious states' and partly it is the outcome of bushy doctrine. Your logic to possess thousands of nukes is nothing but a lame excuse for Russia is now officially a US ally. A country that threatens to use nukes against any non-nuclear state is the biggest threat against world peace, take my word for it !
 
If Iran gets nukes there will be a Nuclear war 100% guranteed. Iran have said that when they get nukes, they will be bombing countries such as Israel.

This is why the whole world opposes them having nukes.
 
If Iran gets nukes there will be a Nuclear war 100% guranteed. Iran have said that when they get nukes, they will be bombing countries such as Israel.

This is why the whole world opposes them having nukes.

That Iran will nuke Israel is like the report of Saddam hiding nukes in his toilets. They are published from Mossad headquarters and distributed by Washington.
 
That Iran will nuke Israel is like the report of Saddam hiding nukes in his toilets. They are published from Mossad headquarters and distributed by Washington.

Why do people on this forum say crap that they have no idea about.

The leader of iran has said on numerous occasions that he is going to wipe Israel off the face of the earth and other countries.

It's not some silly conspiracy that you imply it to be.
 
Iran have said that when they get nukes, they will be bombing countries such as Israel.

This is why the whole world opposes them having nukes.

Please provide the government statement, newsclip, press release or etc in which Iran has said that it intends to to conduct nuclear bombing on Israel.

Thanks.
 
The leader of iran has said on numerous occasions that he is going to wipe Israel off the face of the earth and other countries.

It's not some silly conspiracy that you imply it to be.

I have heard him say that the Israeli regime should be wiped of or rather "vanish from the pages of time". More accurately, Ahmadinejad was quoting Ruhollah Khomeini and said (word to word from Persian), "the Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time." Now to say that is is Israel, means it is accepted that Israel is occupying Jerusalem, firstly. Secondly, if Israel, Israelis and their government is inseparable and inalienable from one another, the same case then follows for Iran, which I personally know isn't true.
 
A speech by Castro proves something about the USA, I dont think so. We have 1000s of nukes because Russia has thousands of nukes. The threat against world peace is nutty religious countries right now.

Saudi Arabia?

Also, assuming Iran was non-existent, would the world be at peace with itself? Also, would the same be true if religion were non-existent as well? I take it, the only hurdle to global bliss is the Iranian government... or so it seems.
 
Please provide the government statement, newsclip, press release or etc in which Iran has said that it intends to to conduct nuclear bombing on Israel.

Thanks.

No, the statement that was made was that the leader of iran said he would wipe Israel off the face of the earth.

Google it.
 
No, the statement that was made was that the leader of iran said he would wipe Israel off the face of the earth.

Google it.

I googled what you wrote below, which I couldn't find and hence asked you.

Iran have said that when they get nukes, they will be bombing countries such as Israel.

I'll take the benefit of the doubt that this is a matter of your opinion and not an actual Iranian government extract. Reason being is, I don't know of any quote where Iran has openly threatened military action or war against Israel. Iran speaks vehemently against Israel and her policies, it is such a routine occurrence that it need not be mentioned. On a side note, I don't think you should post opinions and say that the Iranian government has explicitly said such and such unless it can be proven. It's not just for Iran, it would be the same for any government. At the least, it makes one appear more balanced and rational.

As for the "wipe of the map" bit, I explained it in my earlier post on this thread.

I have heard him say that the Israeli regime should be wiped of or rather "vanish from the pages of time". More accurately, Ahmadinejad was quoting Ruhollah Khomeini and said (word to word from Persian), "the Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time." Now to say that is is Israel, means it is accepted that Israel is occupying Jerusalem, firstly. Secondly, if Israel, Israelis and their government is inseparable and inalienable from one another, the same case then follows for Iran, which I personally know isn't true.
 
Last edited:
Anysort of Nuclear misadventure newhr ll create a mess around n lead the whole world towards a step closer to HELL.Infact this world seems to be now just a sittin Duck on the head of a python ready to b swallowed in netime.
 
I googled what you wrote below, which I couldn't find and hence asked you.



I'll take the benefit of the doubt that this is a matter of your opinion and not an actual Iranian government extract. Reason being is, I don't know of any quote where Iran has openly threatened military action or war against Israel. Iran speaks vehemently against Israel and her policies, it is such a routine occurrence that it need not be mentioned. On a side note, I don't think you should post opinions and say that the Iranian government has explicitly said such and such unless it can be proven. It's not just for Iran, it would be the same for any government. At the least, it makes one appear more balanced and rational.

As for the "wipe of the map" bit, I explained it in my earlier post on this thread.

Blair 'revolted' by 'destroy Israel' call of Iranian president - Times Online

I got that as soon as i typed in what i said.
 
I have heard him say that the Israeli regime should be wiped of or rather "vanish from the pages of time". More accurately, Ahmadinejad was quoting Ruhollah Khomeini and said (word to word from Persian), "the Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time." Now to say that is is Israel, means it is accepted that Israel is occupying Jerusalem, firstly. Secondly, if Israel, Israelis and their government is inseparable and inalienable from one another, the same case then follows for Iran, which I personally know isn't true.

exactly
what i am desesperatly explaining to French here
but when people want to lie they repeat the same lie so it becomes true

anyway i understand Israel scared
like any country should be sure that nothing will happen to its security
that should be a matter in the future that we didn't threat any country
we should let AIEA do its work properly and hide nothing
 
Back
Top Bottom