Let's dance, woman. The sooner the better.
Iran vows missile exports to its neighbors to drive U.S. from the region
Iran will provide missile systems to regional allies, an Iranian military commander said last week on Al-Alam television.The Nov. 9 report on Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps military exercises quoted IRGC Commander Brig-Gen Yahya Rahim-Safavi as saying Iran was now producing both ballistic and cruise missiles, including 2,000 kilometer Shihab-3 missiles and 300 kilometer, shore-based and sea-based anti-ship cruise missiles.
“We had Scud-B and Scud-C missiles during the war and we acquired them from some foreign countries, like North Korea, but 17 years after that war, we were able to manufacture all of these spare parts and all these supplies, including fuel, especially Shahab-3 with a range of 2,000 km, and Shahab-2,” he said.
6 comments:
I hate to say this, but they're 100% correct. I've been in that ditch before. At one time we had three carrier battle groups in the gulf and you could see a lot of ships. The tactical disadvantage comes from the shape of the gulf. Imagine a scenario that involves, let's just say for example two carrier battle groups. At a minimum you have ten ships per group, so that's twenty US ships bottlenecked in a narrow gulf. If the Iranians block the straits, not only international oil is cut off, but those ships are sitting ducks from silkworm missiles. We saw what happened to the USS Stark and I feel that was by no means an accident.
I too think the first strike will come from the Israelis, especially if Netanyahu becomes PM again. As he says, it is 1938, Iran is Germany, and they are developing nukes. But even putting a stop to that won't solve the problem, only delay the inevitable if the rest of us don't get our heads out of the sand. And I'm afraid to think what the counterstrike against Israel will be.
Obviously, the Islamists have convinced themselves that the response from an attack on the US fleet wouldn't be the same as it was following Pearl. Granted they could come to this conclusion just from observation of current behavior, but a simultaneous massive (or just strategically decapitating) terrorist strike -- conventional or nuclear -- here could provide them with insurance. That's Phares' nightmare scenario for 2008 and the one keeping me awake at night. But would they wait for the 2008 elections? Why should they? Bush is crippled, the Dzhimmicrats are in power, the MSM is beating the Islamist drums, and most of the populace is in la-la-land.
Revere Rides Again,
Am I reading you right? You think Bush wouldn't respond if the Iranians hit our ships with missiles?
Why do you think he sent all those ships to the area? Don't you think he is trying to provoke something?
The election was not a castration, you know.
No question Bush would respond to such an attack. Of course, he would have to as Commander-in-Chief. In fact I assume he would have to declare war. As for provoking, I agree that sooner is likely to be much easier to clean up from afterwards than later.
I suppose I'm a bit scenario-punchy by this time from trying to figure out what is the most efficient way for these maniacs to set us up, and I'm way out of my depth here. Are we likely to be looking at an Israeli first-strike against an Iran gone nuclear followed by an attempt by Iran to destroy the fleet with consequent US retaliation? What might be happening in Europe and here at the same time?
I too agree that something may happen soon. I was almost convinced earlier this year that there would be a strike on Iran during the second half of this year. I still think the strike will happen but at a later time, possibly next year.
Its not time yet...
Post a Comment