Beyond the Cusp

July 25, 2019

Proportionality in War a Losing Proposition


There is one particular word which the leftists, Arabists, terrorist leaders, BDS advocates and the rest of the destroy Israel groups love to pull from their bag and berate Israel for winning, Proportionality is its name. There is one area where Jews have more diverse and deep knowledge than most modern nations, and that is war. This is not because the Jews started all the wars throughout history. It is because the Jews, no matter what nation they resided within, would volunteer to fight in wars to protect their homeland even though that homeland was not Jewish but because it was where they resided and they appreciated being accepted. The one item which has been consistent in warfare until extremely recently was that there was nothing to be gained by proportionality and ensuring that your side and your enemies both suffer similar losses. Here is a little secret, that is not the formula for winning a war. The formula for winning a war is to force disproportional losses upon your enemy while minimizing your own losses. So, from where does this idea that the IDF soldiers must ensure proportionality in every engagement?


Unfortunately, the idea of proportionality is a direct result of the IDF view of conducting any conflict whereby the IDF is utilized in ways by which the numbers of civilian casualties are kept to a minimum. The various wars with Hamas and Islamic Jihad terror organizations are where these terror fighters tend to hide behind crowds of civilians, use children as chest protectors and fire rockets and mortars from atop schools, hospitals, mosques, and residential blocks of apartments. The one place where these attacks are never fired from are the neighborhoods where the terror leaders reside in nice homes near a modern mall and numerous restaurants. They make sure to preserve their lives while victimizing their own people and their safety. The terror forces of Hamas and Islamic Jihad see the deaths of Palestinian Arabs as a win-win situation as they can display these corpses as murdered by the IDF regardless of their being placed in harm’s way by their own government forces. Should a terrorist be killed, remove their rifle, their spare ammunition magazines, grenades and other weaponry or markers and instantly there is another civilian murdered. Further, if it can be shown that the IDF efforts killed more Gazans than Israelis killed by the terrorists, this is where Proportionality comes into play. Many of the countries from whence these demands for proportionality be practiced by Israel are themselves not obeying the concept of proportionality when their nation is in the field of battle. The United States and Britain are two of the nations for whom proportionality is great for thee but not for me. The CBS News report spells out plainly that the allied forces in Afghanistan efforts resulted in a greater number of civilian deaths and injuries than the Taliban during the same period. While the United States, predominantly, was singled out for the largest share of blame, there still was no call for proportionality. Often, whenever the term proportionality is pulled out, it is done to paint Israel into a corner and to threaten the young IDF soldiers with charges of war crimes in the hope that when that split second decision comes, the IDF soldier will think longer as to whether to shoot and thus the result is the Israelis will face far higher casualties. Of course, this is the aim of this insipid and morose game, to murder Israelis, or simply put, murder Jews.


General Patton was quoted in a movie about World War II stating, “No dumb bastard ever won a war by going out and dying for his country. He won it by making some other dumb bastard die for his country.” Under such advice, there could not be any belief that General George Patton would have ever supported proportionality, he supported victory, complete victory. Bringing this closer to home, allow us to quote Azzam Pasha immediately before the dawn assault upon Israel on May 15, 1948, the very morning Israel was brought into being. He stated that the next morning was to bring an assault with an intent best described so succinctly by Azzam Pasha, Secretary-General of the Arab League at that time, who stated, “It will be a war of annihilation. It will be a momentous massacre in history that will be talked about like the massacres of the Mongols or the Crusades.” This was what was intended by the six Arab armies from Saudi Arabia, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Iraq and Jordan which were perched on every border just awaiting the command. We fail to note any attempts at proportionality in the Arab intent the very morning Israel first breathed air in her own lands. But the Arabs forces are never required to consider proportionality when killing Israelis, or as they look at it, killing Jews. The Arab and Islamic forces which have intent of destroying Israel are permitted to use any amount of disproportional force to wipe Israel off the map while Israel must be mindful of proportionality. This will be spread to Europe and eventually the United States as the Islamic world continues to spread across the globe in another attempt to bring the world under Islam.


Quoting President Trump as reported by CNBC, the President has made a concession which could come back down the road to hamstring American military forces. President Trump claimed foolishly that he called off the attack on Iran after their downing a multi-million-dollar United States surveillance drone Tweeting, “We were cocked & loaded to retaliate last night on 3 different sights when I asked, how many will die,” Trump wrote. “150 people, sir, was the answer from a General. 10 minutes before the strike I stopped it, not […] proportionate to shooting down an unmanned drone. I am in no hurry, our Military is rebuilt, new, and ready to go, by far the best in the world.” This sets a very dangerous and impossible standard for the United States military to meet and with President Trump bringing proportionality into the discussion, it will only hurt American and allied forces. There do exist ideals which one hopes their military can live up to and standards which they are required to live up to and these must be kept separate. The ideals you teach the troops as guidelines for ethical behavior and the troops are to bear these in mind when engaging an enemy. These ideals are not to be advertised to the world as they place troops in less favorable positions when engaging on the field of battle. Then there are standards which every soldier is expected to obey and use as guides for all actions on the field of battle. Standards can be shared as these should be the rules by which every military practice in warfare. Unfortunately, when your enemies hold to a different set of moral codes, then there will be no reciprocity and these restrictions then only serve to restrict one side. This will be the same once again as the War in the Pacific where prisoners of war held by the Japanese were often mistreated, malnourished denied religious observance and even marched to death by the Japanese as well as torture used as a means of forcing compliance. Japanese prisoners were fed the same as the allied troops, had their own areas with a bed (cot) and small chest where they could keep any belongings and they were permitted to pray as they saw fit. Any coming war with Islamic forces will have consequences and disproportionate rules of engagement where all attempts will be made to force proportionality upon the Western forces as theirs are moral based armies who rely on superior firepower and technology for their upper hand while the Islamic forces will be living as best they are able to the description of what was given above by Azzam Pasha.


The problem is that most of the Western World will now actually attempt to fight a proportionate war simply because they desire to meet the highest possible standards in their troops and methods of engagement. While we saw much of the Islamic concept of warfare where all is fair in war, we are not sure about love as none will be forthcoming to the United States or Israel in the coming fight for control of Europe, Middle East, Northern Africa and the Americas, all of which are fronts which Iran expects to dominate. Thus far, Iran has walked casually across Iraq, Yemen, Syria and Lebanon without a single complaint by the United Nations and the world. Israel, on the other hand, has received several rebuts for attacking Iranian forces, be they IRGC, Hezballah or Iranian military forces when they launched upon Israeli forces and civilian towns. The math makes everything become so painfully obvious as to how the United Nations reacts to legitimate efforts by Israel, the United States and others when their efforts bring them into conflict with Islamic forces. In the United Nations there are over twenty Arab States and an additional thirty-five Islamic nations and finally the NAM group (Non-Aligned Movement) which itself has one-hundred-twenty member states in and of itself allowing for these allied groups to rule virtually every United Nations Agency, the General Assembly and should the United States decide to no longer protect Israel in the Security Council, these allied forces will be able to bring the weight of the world down on Israel simply because it is hated and the United States because, well, they are too powerful and require being brought down low so the rest of the world can overtake her.


The apparent coming war which will begin in the Middle East will be fought on Iranian terms as the United States, specifically due to President Trump not desiring to initiate any conflict, thus leaving the initial launching of hostilities to be at the behest of Iran. The questions surrounding what Iran decides will be their initial offensive moves. There is one item which is all but guaranteed is that Hezballah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the IRGC forces in Syria will launch literally thousands of rockets and missiles against Israel. Whether this will be the entirety of the initial Iranian assault will also be determined by Iran. The question is will any nations support Israel or will she be left to fight completely on her own. Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezballah, an Iranian armed and supported terrorist army which controls all of southern Lebanon and used by Iran in Syria and Yemen, has promised that his armaments are capable of striking all of Israel which he states will be the destruction of the Jewish State. Nasrallah has stated that should the United States and Iran enter into a conflict; this would be the sign which would allow his army to launch rockets on Israel for as long as they are capable. With Hezballah having over one-hundred-fifty-thousand rockets and missiles of varying sizes, ranges and warheads, their intent will be to launch as many of these armaments as rapidly as they are capable upon the major cities and other vital targets. Nasrallah bragged that Hezballah used to be capable of striking barely south of Haifa can now strike targets even beyond Eilat, the southernmost Israeli city. There was one item in his speech which was almost comforting as he stated that they were not intending to begin such a conflict immediately. Still, such is not all that comforting as should Iran order their terrorists to strike and attempt to destroy Israel, they will obey their orders leading to Israel facing a war on at least two fronts, Hezballah from southern Lebanon, Hamas and Islamic Jihad attacking from Gaza and combined forces engaging Israel from southwestern Syria. These forces have already launched rockets and drones into Israel bringing Israeli responses to bring these attacks to a close, but these are nothing compared to what the Iranian allies are capable of using.


Then there is the final threat to Israel and the United States. This also brings us to the point where history has taught that the human race has always utilized the weapons which brought the previous war to a close as the opening act in the next major conflagration. This brings us to the question which has been avoided, does Iran have nuclear weapons, if so, how many, what yields and how many missiles and rockets capable of delivering such weapons. With several Iranian military commanders and politicians claiming that Israel is merely a one or two bomb nation strongly implied the use of nuclear weapons. The claim that Iran does not currently possess nuclear weapons we find to be an obvious refusal by the Western World to accept what should be an obvious truth. Iran has been seeking nuclear weapons since at the least the mid 1990’s. This has provided Iran with more than sufficient time to develop nuclear fission weapons and leads to a high probability that they also possess thermo-nuclear weapons and have had the time to miniaturize these weapons such that they will easily sit atop Iranian ballistic missiles. Add to this that Iran has perfected the means of launching ballistic missiles from freighter cargo ships which means they could easily attack the United States using this method. Iran places their lack of belief that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were destroyed by nuclear weapons just as they claim the Holocaust never happened. The rejection of the Holocaust is used to claim that the Jews use this to pressure the world into doing what Israel desires and the atomic bombs ending World War II were used to prevent other nations from attaining these weapons leaving the United States as the most powerful nation. When one adds that Iran has Uranium mines within their borders, a heavy water reactor which can produce plutonium and many advanced centrifuges with which to produce a uranium based weapon all without having to import much of anything before having all required to make any variety of nuclear weapons their scientists are capable of building. Below is a map showing the distance from Iran to Israel and the Iranian nuclear facilities. It appears to be preposterous to believe that Iran has not already acquired a nuclear arsenal which they could launch at Israel, Saudi Arabia, the United States fleets and anyone else they decide to strike setting off the next war.


Distance Between Israel and Iran Plus Nuclear Sites and Size Comparison

Distance Between Israel and Iran Plus Nuclear Sites and Size Comparison


This leads to questions as to whether Israel should preemptively strike the weapons stores which have been built up by Hezballah and other Iranian proxies or should the United States find a means of destroying any nuclear weapons Iran may be preparing to use. This next war could start whenever Iran decides that such is to their advantage. Human history does not make one comfortable with the threats growing from Iran and her allied terrorist forces. Iran can block almost all oil shipments from the Middle East by blocking the Straits of Hurmuz and isolate Europe from Asia, the Middle East and Pacific Ocean by closing the Bab-el-Mandeb Strait closing off the Red Sea making the Suez Canal completely useless. The cards would initially appear to be stacked in Iranian favor which is likely one of the reasons that they have yet to pull the trigger, so to speak. Eventually, Iran will finish their countdown and the attacks will be launched. We have little idea how much of the countdown is left and where the initial war will be launched. The two things we can rely upon are that the United States and Israel will be amongst the initial targets. The rest we will simply have to wait and see. Such a situation is far from ideal but that has been the problem with the Western World, always reacting to what has been thrust upon it and always playing catch-up as they always allow their enemies to decide and direct the initiating salvos.


Beyond the Cusp



June 19, 2019

The Threat for a Nuclear War

Filed under: Israel — qwertster @ 1:58 AM
Tags: , , , , , ,


You mention that there is the possibility that the next large conflict could include nuclear weapons and most people just give a half-hearted chuckle and walk away leaving you standing wondering if it was what you said. Well, it was what you said and nobody wants to even consider such a terrible set of events. Those who do engage in such a conversation point out that the efforts for nonproliferation will prevent any such unwanted eventualities. They refuse the argument that every weapon mankind has ever invented were used in the next big war or in the war currently raging. Gunpowder, catapults, trebuchets, ballistae, crossbows, long bows, mines, rockets, nerve gas, other chemical agents, tear gas, aircraft and virtually every other form of weapon has been used. Currently in Israel, Hamas has taken to using such innocent items as kites and helium balloons to carry incendiary devices which are burning fields, forests, wilderness preserves, towns and anything else they land near. They have also attached exploding toys and brightly packaged candies laced with poison. Mentioning that such is simply another example of weaponizing everything and when it comes to nuclear bombs, well, they are already weaponized. The nonproliferation argument also runs into difficulty as if were not for proliferation of nuclear weapons, only the United States and Russia with perhaps china would have nuclear weapons. But many other nations have developed and stockpiled nuclear weapons and others are on the verge and thus far only South Africa has gone from being a nuclear power to destroying their arsenal and becoming a nonnuclear nation with no nuclear weapons program that is known.


So, why our concern over nuclear weapons and their use? Well, the nations involved directly in the fighting in World War II were all given a small introduction to the horrors which nuclear weapons cause with the bombings of Hiroshima (image below) and Nagasaki. The devastation was probably no worse than the firebombing of Dresden, Tokyo and other cities. The human toll was not completely understood until much later as the side effects from high doses of radiation became evident over time. The world even agreed at the United Nations to work to prevent such weapons from ever being used again. The record of the United Nations in often causing the exact actions which they were initially attempting to prevent. UNIFIL monitoring Lebanon presumably to prevent Hezballah from rearming the border with Israel is a perfect example. Currently, Hezballah is estimated to have over one-hundred-thousand rockets and guided missiles ready to be used against Israel. Most of these are located south of the Litany River, the region that UNIFIL was to keep weapon free, and we have not even gone into the tunnel and bunker systems Hezballah has built crisscrossing the entire region. So, we would not put much faith in the United Nations preventing proliferation and, even after that, preventing a nuclear exchange leading into a cascade of unpleasant consequences. This brings us back to the fact that every weapon and weapon system ever devised by man became one of the crucial weapons in a later conflict, and usually in a conflict which snowballed into a far larger conflagration than the start ever envisioned.


Hiroshima Before and After Atomic Bomb

Hiroshima Before and After Atomic Bomb


We have pointed out that Iran more than likely already has a stock of nuclear weapons and the ballistic missiles (chart below) with which to deliver them virtually anywhere on earth. Add on North Korea and there are two nations who could be prime candidates for initiating such a conflict. This has been further evidenced in the frightening commentary made by Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani as part of his Quds Day Speech of Friday, December 14, 2001.

If one day, the Islamic world is also equipped with weapons like those that Israel possesses now, then the imperialists’ strategy will reach a standstill because the use of even one nuclear bomb inside Israel will destroy everything. However, it will only harm the Islamic world. It is not irrational to contemplate such an eventuality. Of course, you can see that the Americans have kept their eyes peeled and they are carefully looking for even the slightest hint that technological advances are being made by an independent Islamic country. If an independent Islamic country is thinking about acquiring other kinds of weaponry, then they will do their utmost to prevent it from acquiring them. Well, that is something that almost the entire world is discussing right now.


This is one of the overlooked items when Rafsanjani is touted as a moderate Iranian leader who is a man of peaceful intentions. Sooner or later, we hope sooner, the media and political climate of the developed Western World will start to understand the meaning of Taqiya and realize that, all too often, some of these leaders are simply not telling them the truth. This also likely applies to the Iranian claim not to possess any nuclear weapons.



Iranian Rocket Types and Varieties of Ranges

Iranian Rocket Types and Varieties of Ranges


There are already two nuclear powers which face one another across the thin armistice line separating them in the Kashmir region. These are India and Pakistan and these two have had a very violent history starting from the outset when Pakistan was separated from India and tens of millions of people desired or found it necessary to relocate in order to be in a place where they were assured of survival. During the dual exodus, numerous instances of violence were exchanged by the two groups over the weeks it took for the exchange to be completed. India and Pakistan have had several conflicts and almost had a war break out within the past few years. Both nations are known to have nuclear weapons and one can only wonder how these will be kept from being utilized in some future conflict between these two adversaries. Add in the probable existence of nuclear warheads in Iranian hands and their enmity towards Israel as well as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the United States and any other nation not ruled by Shia Islam. These are all instances where such weapons could be used and should Iran simply fire missiles towards Israel, the Israelis would have very little time to decide, first, if they could with total assuredness intercept all the missiles (possible but unlikely depending on the numbers), secondly, whether the missiles were topped with WMDs (whether nuclear, chemical or biological is irrelevant) and finally, would Israel respond in kind and use nuclear weapons in their response to such an attack. The next question would be whether or not Israel has the ability to destroy her own ballistic missiles should the Iranian attack not contain any WMD materials. The United States would also face a difficult decision should Iran utilize WMD’s, specifically nuclear weapons, against Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States or anybody else who the United States is obligated to defend by treaty or other arrangement. In all honesty, in Israel we not only prefer not to have the United States use any of her military in the defense of Israel, as we wish to depend as totally on our own abilities and not risk other nation’s people including service members.


The next argument often heard in such conversations is that the human race has moved beyond using weapons which cause such horrific results and cause such damage. How people can still hold on to such a concept after Saddam Hussein using chemical weapons on his own Kurdish citizens, Bashir al-Assad using chemical weapons and barrel bombs on areas known to have a large concentration of civilians and finally the horror show that was the Islamic State should have convinced people that barbarism is still with us. We could add in Rwanda, Ethiopia under Idi Amin, South Africa and numerous other instances and even prolonged inhumanity which were permitted in this presumably modern world. The truth is that the human race has not moved past the tribal society outlook where anyone outside the ruling tribe is considered a non-entity, a non-person, something totally without worth or concern. Yes, Europe has finally started to figure things out and have become so passive that their societies are crumbling due to low population figures which are far below replacement rates. The United States and Canada would also be in this state if it was not for some subsectors of their populations still reproducing at far larger rates making up for the lower rates amongst much of the population. Israel is comfortably above the replacement rate for which we are very happy. The one item which has been seen to correlate with the lack of sufficient reproductive rates is the secular and anti-religion populations which have adopted the far left and ecologic view that the ‘earth is being murdered by people’ religion. These are the same people who also believe that the United Nations is doing a swell job of keeping the peace and firmly believe that large wars and the use of WMDs is in our past never to arise again. These are the people who suffer from a Pollyannaish outlook that no matter what distressing news they read or are told respond with something totally irresponsible such as, but it is such a nice day, isn’t it? They will do anything to change such a conversation as they refuse to admit that things could even become horrific.


Does anyone honestly believe that nowhere in the world there exists a potential leader who would use nuclear weapons? If so, why? We have witnessed chemical weapons, nerve gas, barrel bombs, suicide bombers, passenger aircraft filled with people used as building torpedoes, vehicles driven into crowds, terrorism of various varieties and attacks made on places of worship during services to maximize the carnage. How none of these register with so many people is amazing and frightening. These are often the people voting for governments who might actually have to face such difficulties, and the rest are hoping they choose well. With what we have witnessed and some of the bluster coming from often unelected rulers, it would appear that believing that there is little if any chance of a nuclear exchange or a one-sided use of nuclear weapons would appear foolish. There is no real difference between using a nuclear weapon and the use of other WMDs, especially biological agents which do not respect borders. For those shaking their heads at the use of biologic agents, do we have to remind the world of the anthrax attacks, many being faked but there were quite a number which proved to be real. What if instead of anthrax they had access to use a mutant form of plague combined with the flu such that it had a two week or months long incubation of certain viruses and no known treatment while being completely resistant to antibiotics as viruses often are. Such a biologic agent would spread far and wide before the initial victims ever showed symptoms which would be the initial stage of any sort of warning. There are numerous nations who still have very active biological warfare research facilities making what would probably be our worst nightmare were they to ever be unleashed upon the world. With some actually having and potentially intending to use such weapons, why would anybody believe such people would bat an eye at the use of nuclear weapons being used if they were in control of such weaponry. The probability that there will be a nuclear exchange somewhere on earth within the next decade is, in our estimation, probably between one in ten to almost even odds.


The real question will be whether or not the nation initially attacked or any of their allies have such weapons and will use them in a response. Were one nation to utilize nuclear weapons against an enemy, it is possible that the victim would decide to take the strike and hope for the best responding with normal ordinance and not resort to using nuclear weapons in their actions. The odds of such is rather low as there are bound to be some anger issues involved in the decision-making process and the ability to resist going nuclear would be a very difficult idea to swallow. This is where the problem comes into play. Let us say that there is some overly aggressive nation’s leader who drank way too many espresso coffees and decided to launch three or four nuclear tipped missiles at an enemy nations fifteen-hundred miles distant. The struck nation returns the favor using ten to twelve of their nuclear weapons. The initiating country, in the fog of events and war, claims that the nation they initiated the attack upon had done something which caused the attack such as attempted an assassination and they make this plea to their allies who now join in a larger nuclear attack of the initial victim. The newly attacked nation knows nothing of any attempted assassination and only knows that they have been struck by missiles and several WMDs from now four or five nations, so they call on their allies, that is how these things work, right? By the time everything is straightened out, half the world is missing a large number of its citizens and their infrastructure is mostly destroyed. This is not an absurd scenario any more than some terrorist in the Balkans shooting some relatively unimportant but favored Archduke and his wife could launch the main powers of the day to wage a war to end all wars. As has been stated often enough, wars have been initiated by lesser acts. The world will have a war where one of the main weapons used fairly early in the conflict will be nuclear weapons, and most likely thermonuclear devices which can destroy even most modern metropolises. It is entirely possible that Iran might test Hashemi-Rafsanjani’s that, “the use of even one nuclear bomb inside Israel will destroy everything.” Israel may only be the size of New Jersey or half the size of Estonia, but that is still beyond the area of devastation which nuclear weapons are theoretically capable of causing immediate destruction. Granted, were such a weapon dropped centrally on the Tel Aviv metropolitan region, that would potentially murder close to half the Israeli population, but the nation would likely still be viable with most of the regular military remaining intact. How Israel would respond would be completely dependent upon who would be the Prime Minister and the members of the Knesset. The bravado that such an attack upon Israel would immediately result in the decimation of Iran is likely just that, bravado for the consumption and responses of the media and people.


The other item is that Israel would not have any real desire to cause such upon the people of Iran who actually have little say in who rules their nation and choosing those entrusted with such decisions. Yes, we realize that Iran holds elections for their legislature and President. We also know that only candidates approved by the Guardian Council are permitted to be on the ballot and they do not have anything such as a write-in candidate. Whomever the Guardian Council decides is eligible to run for the parliament and for President are permitted to be on the ballot and all the rest, well, not so much. There are many who believe, including a sizable amount of the citizenry of Iran, that the nation utilizes the Joseph Stalin philosophy for vote tabulating in that it is not so much who votes that counts as who counts the votes that matters. This was evidenced in 2009 with the people contesting the reelection of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the Green uprising. We also were made aware and realized exactly how brutal the ruling elite in Iran could be with how they handled the protests and the levels of violence dealt to the demonstrators. This was a peek inside the Iranian leadership and their concept that they are the law and operate above the law. They also provided proving evidence of their general lack of concern for human life. This is a combination which could prove to be the exact dangerous groups with power to initiate a war with nuclear tipped ballistic missiles, with the remaining question merely being against whom.


Beyond the Cusp


July 24, 2018

War of Words Escalating Between Iran and America


We wish to first cover the story of the IDF rescue of the eight-hundred White Helmets (Syrian civil organization of emergency responders) and their families from southern Syria war zone. Coverage by Arutz Sheva with a short video can be viewed here. This operation was carried out by Israel in response to pleas from President Trump, Canada and other European countries. One can only wonder how long before the same Europeans claim that Israel is not a nice nation as is their usual.


United States President Trump and Iranian President Rouhani have been exchanging verbal threats with President Trump adding in a social media Tweet just for good measure (see image below). President Trump even went so far as to use “caps lock” just for emphasis. President Rouhani promised in his retort to something President Trump stated which he found upsetting, that, “Peace with Iran would be the mother of all peace and war with Iran would be the mother of all wars.” We seem to remember a neighboring country’s ruler promising an American President the “Mother of all Wars” once before and that did not end all too well for Saddam Hussein. The reality is that Iran very well could be speaking from a position of relative strength unlike Saddam Hussein. We thought we would play with some thoughts, fears, and potential realities which should be taken into consideration and all intelligence gone through with a fine tooth-comb before stepping into the void.


President Trump Warning Tweet to Iranian President Rouhani

President Trump Warning Tweet to Iranian President Rouhani


Iranian President Rouhani could have the ability to back up much of his threat with very real actions. Iran has been researching nuclear weaponry in various forms since the late 1980’s or, at best, the early 1990’s including specific research into EMP devices and miniaturized warheads. For argument’s sake, we will pretend that Iran had no real urgency about their research, something of which we actually believe they likely had a great deal, and their research proceeded at a leisurely pace. The Manhattan Project started in 1942 and developed the atomic bomb within three years and the United States tested their first hydrogen bomb, a thermonuclear bomb, within ten years of the start of the Manhattan Project. The United States had to start from scratch while the Iranians had knowledge on the architecture for both atomic and thermonuclear devices almost from the start. Their main difficulty was the processing or manufacturing of sufficient Uranium-235 or Plutonium-239 for the core of their devices. One item which is well known to those who have been paying attention to Iran is that they have been developing more and more advanced centrifuges capable of separating out enriched Uranium-235 at a fairly well advanced pace. Further, it can be assumed that their cooperation with North Korea has permitted them to test at least one or two devices over the years if not numerous more. They also would probably have exchanged information back and forth both on nuclear weaponry and guided missile technology which explains both nations’ fairly rapid advancement in both areas. Lastly, as the Chinese very likely had stolen or otherwise received the complete schematics and machining and design specifications for the United States W-88 warhead, it can be assumed that both North Korea and Iran have had access to that same information, though one could hope such is not the case. We are attempting to avoid using hope as our main argument in this instance.


So, it is painfully obvious that by the year 2000 Iran would easily have built sufficient processing facilities to produce the fissile and fusion elements for the production of thermonuclear warheads and the sole question is how many devices might they have produced. This is where estimates have been all over the board. According to sources reported and quoted by the Times of Israel, “Tehran has crossed all points of no return and already has its first nuclear weapon, and maybe more.” The same article also reports that the IAEA has assured the world that Iran in no way could have conceivably developed and built a nuclear bomb. We recall that the IAEA are the same people who claimed Saddam Hussein was not working on nuclear weapons, that Syria had no nuclear weapon dreams, that Libya had no nuclear program and that North Korea was years from being able to produce a nuclear weapon days before their first nuclear test. The IAEA has not been the most reliable source on nuclear proliferation as they are presumed to be preventing it and have decided that if they see no evil and hear no evil then they are able to speak no evil. Below we have included an artist’s rendition of two IAEA inspectors and one spokesperson. The evidence is that should Iran have desired to construct nuclear weapons, then the only question remaining is exactly how many of them have they produced, what are their projected yields and how distant can their missiles deliver them. These are serious questions which deserve answers which should be made known to the world through the United Nations or by the nation who knows the reality making the knowledge more generally known. This means if the CIA has solid evidence proving that Iran has nuclear tipped missiles, they should be producing such evidence for the world to see and reveal the perfidy of the Iranian claims of innocence and having no desire to become a nuclear-armed nation.


Three monkeys of “See no evil, Hear no evil, Speak no evil”

Three monkeys of “See no evil, Hear no evil, Speak no evil”


As things currently stand, it would be more prudent to assume that Iran has nuclear tipped missiles in the ready and that these missiles are capable of striking anywhere on the planet. It should also be assumed that they would have such shorter-range missiles stored within what appear to be normative cargo vessels as they have developed such vessels to use to strike at cities along the shores of the United States and Europe should hostilities become to their advantage. These missiles would be extremely difficult to intercept, as their targets would be struck within minutes of the missile launching, as the ship would be only one-hundred miles offshore or closer. Iran has tested these systems finding them to be accurate and an efficient and difficult to deter system for delivering a warhead. The cargo ships they would utilize would more than likely be registered with a country other than Iran making them all but invisible unless the warhead could be detected. Iran is also rumored to have developed a non-nuclear EMP device which is capable of destroying the electrical grid for a city and surrounding region depending on the level of hardening the electrical grid has had installed. One can pretty much expect that at least the streetlights and traffic signals would be affected and stop functioning for a period of time. The real problem is if transformers are destroyed and the larger the transformer, the more serious the outage. The largest transformers can take up to two years to produce in sufficient numbers should an entire grid region be destroyed.


The truth is that both President Trump and President Rouhani are playing with fire and their bellicose threats can escalate potentially leading to one or the other taking the decision that the insults have reached a level beyond that which they are willing to accept and in order to save face they must act. This could lead to problems and further escalations which could end further than desired from the starting point. The Iranians including Iran Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) Commander Mohammad Ali Jafari has promised that should the United States prevent Iranian oil sales, they will prevent all oil from traversing the Straights of Hormuz. According to Xinhua, Jafari stressed, enemies can understand the meaning of Hormuz Strait “either for all, or for none.” The United States has promised that they will protect the use of the Straights of Hormuz for the oil shipments of both Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, so should President Trump prevent Iranian oil shipments and Iran act on their threat, there would necessarily be a confrontation. Iran today is not the same Iran which fought Saddam Hussein during the 1980’s. They have more potential and are well practiced at their swarming tactics which create a great deal of difficulty against which to defend. Any naval confrontation within the Arabian Gulf and especially the Straights of Hormuz would also include Iranian shore batteries which would take time, short as it may be, to render inoperative which would also be seen as a further escalation. One can readily see how any confrontation over the free movement of oil in and out of the Straights of Hormuz could very quickly spin out of control. One can only guess as to how the United States would react should one of their nuclear aircraft carriers be attacked and actually sunk. Such would lead to reprisals which would provoke reprisals in return and back and forth until something inevitable and regrettable resulted. Wars have started over far less; take World War I for example. How many people died over a single terrorist act murdering Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife Sophie the Duchess of Hohenberg. So, now we are at the point of which leaders lower their level of vitriol, and let us pray one of them sees the wisdom in doing exactly that.


Beyond the Cusp


Next Page »

Create a free website or blog at