Experts: Iran May Retaliate With Terror If Nuclear Sites Attacked

Washington Post ^ | April 1, 2006 | Dana Priest

[Radix]

Gosh, Iranian leaders would consider using terror tactics?

Shocking!

[Velveeta]

U.S. officials would not discuss what evidence they have indicating Iran would undertake terrorist action, but the matter "is consuming a lot of time" throughout the U.S. intelligence apparatus, one senior official said. "It's a huge issue," another said.

[starfish923]

If the Iranians might blow up a Starbucks if we don't let them have a nuclear bomb, by all means don't take any chances. Let them make one. Heck, give them several. I'm sure they'll behave after that. I'm not being too trusting, am I?

The USSR, Russia, China, North Korea, Pakistan, India, Israel, USA and most of Europe have had nukes for a few decades now. No one ever used one.

I personally don't thing that even the Iranians would use one either. Imho, if the Iranians REALLY only wanted nuclear bombs, they would have already BOUGHT them from any one of the 2nd or 3rd world countries listed above. They have enough petroleum money to buy all the nuclear weapons they would want.

Sadaam Hussein might have used a nuke, but probably against his own people. He is a genuine nut case.

[technomage]

I'll bet you are even in "contempt of CONgress!"

No worries, my lobbyist will take care of things!

[Dark Skies]

Iran is pushing and shoving its way to the front of the islamic line. Nuclear jihad will spread like a virus.

Our war is not with Iran...or Saudi or Afghanistan...this war is against true islam.

Our tolerance blinds us toward their motive. Islamics are only doing what they are programmed to do. Infidels must be subjugated, converted or killed. Just following the rules, Ma'am.

Our President and Condi are now following the rest of us. If they get it, they ain't telling.

IMO, that isn't leadership. That is management of loss.

We need leadership. We need the truth.

Are all muslims bad? Of course not. Is true islam trying to rearrange the world in its image? Sure looks like it.

Our leadership isn't cutting to the bone. It is wrapped up in PC.

Time to lead! Time for WAR!

[starfish923]

Well that air strike had better be with OVERWHELMING FORCE!!!

I think that we are too stretched out for a third battle front.
Schwartzkopf always said that troops on the ground were needed....after the air strikes.

[pcottraux]

You're right about Israel. The chances of them being involved are now highly unlikely. Nevertheless, the plans of a U.S.-led strike are alright in place and the buildup has begun.

The danger of the Iranians getting the bomb is not just a dangerous arms race across the Middle East that ends all stability. The likelihood of the Iranians actually using the bomb is too great to let happen. The chance of them hitting Iraq with it is too real a possibility.

[SierraWasp]

How the heck can you afford such an extravagant and risky luxury??? You must be made of money!!! Howard Huge is that YOU???

[LibLieSlayer]

"Iran would mount attacks against U.S. targets inside Iraq, where Iranian intelligence agents are already plentiful, predicted these experts. There is also a growing consensus that Iran's agents would target civilians in the United States, Europe and elsewhere, they said."

These animals try it, and it will be Craters and glass baby , you can bet your arse!!!!

LLS

[pcottraux]

I think that we are too stretched out for a third battle front.

A ground-force invasion of Iran would be almost impossible and unwinnable. Their geurilla/terrorist ground defenses would be almost unbeatable.

The advantage of an air strike is that Iran has surprisingly weak air defenses. The bombing would be akin to the air strikes on Iraq during the first Persian Gulf.

[AFreeBird]

So middle easterners are going to engage in terrorism against the US?

How original.

[quesney]

Great. If they attacked within U.S. borders, we'd be free to act without restraint -- it'd be total war, the Powell Doctrine and the obliteration of Tehran. No more hands tied behind our backs.

[RHINO369]

"Your idea number five should end in 'killed'. Murder is the unlawful taking of a life. Killing terrorists and their leaders does not meet the definition of murder."

Good point

[Kakaze]

" Don't see any good options. Asymetrical warfare will be Iran's modus operandi along with everything they can muster. And each day the enrichment for fueling bombs continues apace. Perhaps the bombs are already assembled. It's all bad."

The only option is to cauterise this infection, which is islam, before it spreads too far .

[pcottraux]

The USSR, Russia, China, North Korea, Pakistan, India, Israel, USA and most of Europe have had nukes for a few decades now. No one ever used one.

We're talking about a different enemy this time, though. If the Iranians get nukes, there's a much greater certainty that they will use them, far moreso than those other countries (even Pakistan).

Iran actually came THIS close to launching an invasion of the entire Middle East once. And as ridiculous as it sounds, they had a VERY good chance of winning and establishing a Middle Eastern caliphate. These people are FAR more reckless and dangerous than those other countries. And they have a militant suicide army that is more than large enough to take over all the neighboring countries.

[mkjessup]

1) Post military on the border on 9/12/01.
2) Ask congress for a declaration of war against Muslim fundamentalists 9/12/01.
3) Ask congress to ban all immigration from Muslim countries.
4) Ban any Muslim from entering the nation for more than 2 weeks at a time.
5) Any nation that supports terrorism will have its leadership murdered.

And might I suggest

6.) Any broadcast facility, anywhere on the planet, which transmits al Qaeda news, statements, threats, claims, etc., will be considered an extension of al Qaeda and that broadcast facility will be destroyed without question and without regard for where the facility is located.

One of the basic rules of warfare is to make it more difficult for the enemy to communicate with their various forces.

Al Jazeera should have been snuffed on 9/12/01.

[RHINO369]

"I think that we are too stretched out for a third battle front.
Schwartzkopf always said that troops on the ground were needed....after the air strikes."

1) The fighting in Afganistan uses an extremely low number of troops.
2) Iran is right in the middle of the other two fronts, which to me makes it one large front.
3) Troops driving around in Iraq waiting for a backback with bombs in it to blow them up on a highway probably could be easily inserted in Iran to take nuclear sites, and government sites.

[pcottraux]

Troops driving around in Iraq waiting for a backback with bombs in it to blow them up on a highway probably could be easily inserted in Iran to take nuclear sites, and government sites.

And as soon as they entered the country, they'd be met with a gigantic Islamic suicide death squad that makes the Iraq insurgency look like a bunch of toy army men.

[RHINO369]

Good idea mkjessup, I think I have number 7.

7) Promise that any attack on US soil will be repaid 10 fold on Mecca. A car bomb in New York? Blow up a bus station in Mecca. Airplane blown up in LA, Cruise missile an entire airport in Mecca. A dirty bomb goes off in Chicago? A thermonuke goes off over Mecca.

[wireman]

If we attack their nuke sites they will definitely react in terror.

Maybe even shock and awe.