To Bomb Iran or Not to Bomb Iran: That is the Question

Pages: 1 2

In a recent column for Canada’s major newspaper, the National Post, entitled “The case against bombing Iran,” editor Jonathan Kay reports on the FDD (Foundation for Defense of Democracies) conference held in Washington D.C., which addressed the vexed question of Iran’s nuclear ambition and what should be done about it. Should Iran’s nuclear sites be bombed or not? Kay cites at length the so-called “Iran expert” Kenneth Pollack, author of The Persian Puzzle, who argues against a military strike, which he considers would be both rash and ultimately useless.

Pollack begins by referring to the Israeli air strike against Saddam Hussein’s Osirak reactor in 1981 which, he contends, only motivated Saddam “to redouble his efforts…going from a single track to six different tracks across the country.” According to this expert, what put a stop to Saddam’s nuclear intentions was not the vaporizing of Osirak but Desert Storm ten years later. “This,” says Kay, “was a sobering insight.” In Pollack’s estimation, it would appear that the Israeli demolition of Osirak was a strategic blunder of monumental proportions.

Oddly enough, the great Osirak failure did not prevent Israel from launching Operation Orchard, attacking Syria’s nuclear al-Kibar facility in 2007 and dealing a crippling blow to its North Korean-enabled nuclear program. It seems the Israelis are incapable of learning from experience or of profiting from the vast store of Pollack’s undeniable wisdom, but insist on pursuing a reckless and counter-productive policy of armed pre-emption.

And yet there is ample room for skepticism. Pollack, as we have seen, claims that a targeted country can always begin to rebuild its nuclear capacity, thus merely delaying the inevitable. But there are certain obvious considerations he makes no allowance for: once a site has been destroyed, the reconstruction lag gives time to reformulate policy, if necessary; circumstances may change for the better; and, if worse comes to worse, the operation can be repeated. Moreover, if Saddam had been allowed to have his nuclear way in 1981 and to spend the next decade advancing his nuclear option, it is moot whether Desert Storm would even have been possible in 1991. For by that time Saddam might conceivably have developed a ballistic deterrent that would have effectively disarmed the multi-nation coalition from moving against him.

Nor does Pollack consider the basic and indefeasible nature of the Iranian regime, its patently unhinged mullocracy, its frequent threats to wipe Israel off the map and its Twelver Shi’ite theology which awaits the arrival of the messiah or Mahdi, the Hidden Imam who comes to cleanse mankind with fire and the sword, and whose parousia can be hastened by unleashing violence on the world. Pollack should perhaps have consulted Kenneth Timmerman, Executive Director of the Foundation for Democracy in Iran, who cites Iranian president Ahmadinejad’s announcement that his government’s main mission was to “pave the path for the glorious reappearance of Imam Mahdi.” Indeed, according to Reza Khalili, author of A Time To Betray and a former CIA agent who penetrated Iran’s Revolutionary Guard, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Sayyid Ali Khamenei “has private prayers with the Mahdi. It’s all crazy talk but they take it seriously.”

Is this, one may ask with all due diffidence, the sort of regime that should be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons and to perfect solid-state delivery systems, like the Sajill-2, that bring all of Europe within their range? Is this what our “experts” in their ineffable sagacity are prepared to accept? The bottom line is that if they are wrong, then many of us are dead—an outcome, I would suggest, that is scarcely worth the risk. For as Frank Gaffney, former U.S. assistant secretary of defense for International Security Policy, has stated: “If we think we can deter mullahs who are committed to an apocalyptic, messianic program, we’re kidding ourselves.” The Wikileaks data dump has shown that much of the Arab world would concur with this assessment, or why else would they have pleaded with the United States to attack Iran’s nuclear sites?

Pollack, who prides himself on being “a student of military history” and loftily declares that “I teach courses on it. I’ve spent my whole life on it,” also believes that a pre-emptive strike would alienate ordinary Iranians. “When people are bombed, they tend to rally around the flag,” he asserts. One may beg to differ, since it is precisely these ordinary people and Green Movement dissidents who are constantly in danger of being thrown into prison, tortured and murdered for opposing the designs of their brutal overlords. And after all, it is not Tehran or other civilian centers that would be bombed but army, air force and missile installations, prior to taking out the nuclear plants and laboratories. Under current conditions in Iran, it seems plausible to assume that such an intervention is just as likely to be welcomed as resented.

Pages: 1 2

  • davarino

    It seems we have a chip in the game and should use it to our advantage with respect to the middle eastern countries who are begging us to take out the Iranian nuke sites.

  • Andres de Alamaya

    An ideal scenario would be to let Iran build their bomb and then have them turn Saudi Arabia back into a field of molten sand after which we do likewise to Iran.

    • rayan

      i m iranian
      I can assure you we are a peaceful people we want to live in country and in harmony with everyone and American Arabs and even the Israeli
      my government want a nuclear option and of course iran will get bomb and yes I support, but how that prevents us from being friends?

      • CanadConserv

        You're loyal to the government. That makes you a traitor to the iranian people.

        • rayan

          ni i support juste the right of iranian people to have a nuclear option as deterrence , all peoples of the world have right to live in safety
          we the iranians we are not your enemies why so many racism towards us ?

          we want peace and if the regime must change, then it will change by expressed by our people only no body can't claim to impose a change of regime, this has already been done in 1953 and for America that resulted in left the country at that time the Iranian population was 30 000 000 000 only, today we are 77 million you must be realistic and understand that the military option does not exist

          ps please exuses me for my bad english, i speak just a bit

          • CanadConserv

            Iranians are not our enemy. They and ourselves have the same enemy: the mullahs and the small minority of iranians who support them. You, it seems, support the mullahs. That makes you the enemy of your fellow Iranians. And our enemy too.

          • HOUMAN MOHAREB

            It's funny how the MULLAH SUPPORTERS always bring up 1953 and try to make it sound like the SHAH King of Iran was brought to Iran by force or something, what they forget to mention is HOW The Russian Communist Baggage Handler and Extremist Marxist MOSSADEGHol Saltaneh was a spy and He was kicked out by His own cabinet members in 2 days his government fell…. So where did american involvement come on ????? Once a Terrorist always a terrorist

            Javid Shah Reza Pahlavi ONLY CHOICE FOR FREEDOM FOR IRAN



          • CanadConserv

            It's generally understood that the British, more than the Americans but with American help, brought Mossadegh down. As you say, that was motivated by his suspected Communist leanings and association with the Soviets. Regardless, today's situation has nothing in common with that one. We have a truly evil, would be Nazi government, motivated by religion to recreate a Caliphate – this one to rule the world, which entails destroying democracy – and to finish the genocide the Germans started.Anyone who suggests we just look the other way – as does this poster we're responding to – can only be seen as an Islamist supporter of the mullahs.

          • rayan

            some found the argument, rather we are in cold war with Iran since 1979!
            but in these cases you are at war with North Korea since 1950
            and yet you did not intervene to prevent the nuclearization,
            this war with korea has cost 37,000 dead Americans!
            you have such a confrontation with Iran? do not be stupid please

          • CanadConserv

            1) North Korea was more successfully secretive about its nuclear weapon development than are the mullahs2) North Korea was protected by China3) North Korea will never attack the US or any country, South Korea aside4) North Korea has no desire to form a Caliphate5) North Korea has no intent to take over the Islamic world and then all others, as per “Allah's will”6) North Korea is not undermining democratic governments in Lebanon, Afghanistan and Iraq, and using proxies to relentlessly attack Israel6) The Arab world did not desparately wants us to North Korea from going nuclear8) We probably should have prevented North Korea from getting nuclear weapons despite all the above9) We'd have to be as crazy as the mullahs (and North Korean junta) to allow them to get nuclear weapons

      • Spirit_Of_1683

        I'll tell you something. We should destroy Iran's nuclear programme, destroy the Revolutionary Guards and Basiji thugs, and put trash like Ahmadinejad, Rafsanjani, Khamenei and the rest of the savages who rule your country in front of a firing squad and blow them away with pork fat tipped bullets, and kick antisemitic trash like yourself out of our country. Problem solved.

  • Gamaliel Isaac

    We need regime change in Iran. Little strikes may postpone the inevitable but that's all they do. Israel struck at Lebanon and Gaza and each time it does they become stronger than before because Israel doesn't change their regimes.

    • alan g

      The only reason they get stronger is because of undeserved international condemnation, which inhibits finishing the job.

    • Spirit_Of_1683

      Regime change in Iran should have been brought about in the wake of the US Embassy and Barracks bombings in Beirut back in 1983. But Reagan of all people showed cold feet and abdicated his responsibilities. You can bet that if Theodore Roosevelt had been around in the White House 80 or so years later, it would have happened, and future events would probably have turned out very different.

      • sam000

        I remember that one of the high ranked ayatollahs very close to Khomeini said that " with a few kiloos of explosive we have generated another language of treating with the great SATAN"

        And Knomeini charged this thug (Ayatollah Mohtashami) to create the HEZBOLLAH.

        The reason why this Criminal regime stays on power is the weakness of the OTHERS.

        Against their bombing of the US embassy, USA should BOMB the Khomeini's residance, but Reagan sent the Cake and Colt and CORAN (by Colonel Oliver North) to Khomeini, and a lot of very sophisticated weapons.

        I think that you remember the IRAN-GATE or IRAN-CONTRA history.

        • Spirit_Of_1683

          Remeber Irangate? I could hardly forget it.

  • Wesley69

    There are no good options here, just the least worst. Remember, if the Mullahs of Iran are taken out, they become Martyrs and will be rewarded with 72 virgins by Allah.

    1- Do nothing/Negotiate – Iran gets the bomb – uses it against Saudi Arabia, maybe Israel – oil prices go through the roof.- Economic Depression – Iran starts WWIII hoping to bring back the 12th Imam.

    2- Let Sanctions Take Effect/Negotiate – Countries don't abide by them – Iran strings the West along with fruitless negotiations – Iran gets the bomb – WWIII

    3- Hope for Regime Change/Negotiate – The Mullahs crush the opposition – Refuses to speak with us – It will take too long – Iran gets the bomb – WWIII

    4- US blockades Iranian ports to enforce sanctions – Iran says its an act of war – Iran attacks US ship – US retaliates & takes out Iranian nuclear facilities – Russia & China demand that the US stand down, threatening war – Iranians hit Saudi Oil Fiedls – Price of Oil goes through the roof – Economic Depression

    4- Israel launches an attack – Iran blocks the Straits of Hormuz – Takes out Saudi Oil Fields – Price of Oil goes through the roof – Economic Depression – Israel attacked by Hezbollah and Hamas – Russian & China threaten intervention – Israel may fail to get all the installations – reprisal against Israel & Western Europe – WWIII

    5- US & Israel launch an attack – Iran blocks the Straits of Hormuz – Takes out Saudi Oil Fields – Price of Oil goes through the roof – Economic Depression – Israel is attacked by Hezbollah and Hamas – Russia & China decide if the US can act against Iran, Russia will finish off Georgia and China will take down Taiwan – Iranian people support the Mullahs – WWIII

    Every decision has its consequences. One can predict how the other side will repond, but of that, one can no be sure. The US & USSR, while coming close to nuclear war, were rational enough to realize nothing would be gained by the "winning" side. Iranian leaders want to start a world war to bring about the return of the 12th Imam. We view them as irrational. To them, it is their religion, which they are willing to die for. Instead of a terrorist willing to blow himself up, you have a country willing to blow itself up.

    • Oliver North rules

      Well thought out Wesley. Waiting for the young opposition to take control is foolish right now even though there has been reports of some military sympathizing with them.

      • Spirit_Of_1683

        We've been waiting 32 years for that. It isn't going to happen anytime soon, unless it is forced to happen. We certainly don't have another 32 years – heck, we don't even have another 32 months. The Iranian regime is as strong and impervious as ever to being toppled. The opposition to it has been crushed, is in hiding, fearful of their lives, and is as far away as ever from toppling the mullahs.

    • Paul D.

      Interesting scenarios but I think that if "we" attack Iran, they will have no ability to realistically attack Saudi oil installations nor have anything better than a rowboat to block the Hormuz. The military ability of the US should be able to eliminate every threat out there beyond an AK. If they don't get the bomb they can be crippled every day from any ex-country military effectiveness.

      • Wesley69

        Regime change will come only when the vast majority of the people are pushed to the wall and feel they have got nothing to lose. If the army refuses to fire on the people, it will be the end for the mullahs. The clock will run out on Iran getting the bomb first unfortunately.

        As for the Saudi oil installations and the Straits of Hormuz, conventional missiles could do plenty of damage. If the US or/and Israel decide to attack, there will be causalities, particularly if Russia sells Iran an air missile defense system or if China gives Iran the Dong Feng 21D which the Chinese are banking on to be a game changer in the Pacific. Those are big “ifs.” But it war does break out, the odds for this “ifs” improve.

        • ObamaYoMoma

          That’s assuming we wouldn’t take out all means of possible Iranian retaliation preemptively. I mean it would be ludicrous not to do so. Indeed, initial attacks would blind Iran at the same time that all means of Iranian retaliation would be obliterated.

          Now if Israel attacks Iran, all bets are off, which is why in my opinion the US should lead the attacks.

          Moreover, it doesn’t make sense to attack Iran and not take out the ruling Mullahs and the IRGC. However, the last thing we should do is occupy Iran for the purposes of endless fantasy based nation-building missions in the hopes we can win the hearts and minds of Muhammadans who are obligated to hate our guts per Islam. I want to eliminate the threat, not lift them up out of poverty, despair, and hopelessness, which is ludicrous in any event, but nevertheless the basis of our occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq.

    • Fed_Republic

      That all sounds fine and good but the realities are much more stark than anyone realizes. The only reason Israel has NOT struck Iran is because the US has been buying them off in one form or another.
      But the patience of Israel is thinning quickly and the Israelis will eventually strike Iran on it's own if the Americans keep dragging their feet whilst the mullocary gets closer to the WWIII scenario described above!
      Israel is NOT going let Iran get military nuclear capability and strike first, YOU CAN TAKE THAT TO THE BANK!

      • Wesley69

        How can the realities be more stark than what they are. You have a suicidal theocracy WANTING to start WWIII so the 12th Imam can come and defeat all opposed to Islam. Israel is a target, but so is Sunni Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Sheikdoms. Shiite Iran does not care, at least the Mullahs, if they are destroyed. Paradise is theirs. More likely hell.

        I agree if the US continues to pursue weak as water sanctions, Iran will get the bomb in the meantime. I believe that Obama is willing to live with a nuclear Iran, thinking he can DETER Iran like the USSR was detered during the Cold War.

        Problem is, Obama is not dealing with a rational enemy. Rather than allowing this scenerio, Israel will act unilaterally. Its very existence is at stake. Israel had better expect attacks on the border with Lebanon due to Hezbollah and in Gaza due to Hamas. While the Arab world will condemn Israel, they will secretly applaud. I don't know if Syria will jump in. If they do, Israel needs to drive right on into Damascus and make it a war zone.

    • Spirit_Of_1683

      There are no good options here, just the least worst. Remember, if the Mullahs of Iran are taken out, they become Martyrs and will be rewarded with 72 virgins by Allah.

      Who cares if they're seen as martyrs. They're only martyrs in the eyes of the evil. Doing nothing back in 1936 allowed Hitler to complete his rearmament, overwhelm a dozen countries and come within a whisker of defeating both the UK and Soviet Union before his eventual defeat at amassive price.

      You know what Churchill said in 1946 about our policy of appeasement towards Hitler and its bitter fruits:

      • Spirit_Of_1683

        “Last time I saw it all coming and cried aloud to my own fellow-countrymen and to the world, but no one paid any attention. Up till the year 1933 or even 1935, Germany might have been saved from the awful fate which has overtaken her and we might all have been spared the miseries Hitler let loose upon mankind. There never was a war in all history easier to prevent by timely action than the one, which has just desolated such great areas of the globe. It could have been prevented in my belief without the firing of a single shot, and Germany might be powerful, prosperous and honoured to-day; but no one would listen and one by one we were all sucked into the awful whirlpool. We surely must not let that happen again.” – Sir Winston Churchill – Sinews of Peace (Iron Curtain) Speech, March 5, 1946 – Westminster College, Fulton, Missouri

        • Spirit_Of_1683

          And we have spent the last 32 or so years letting it happen again. What a 'winning' policy justifying the doing of nothing when faced with evil is. So much trouble over that time and for the foreseeable future. There's no harm in trying to put the genie back into the bottle before it is too late. Every day we do nothing, our enemies gain strength and become more and more convinced that we are weak-willed and vacuous wimps.

    • ObamaYoMoma

      First of all, there are no good options, but the options of doing nothing are far worse than the options of stopping Iran.

      Here’s the one I like. The US uses an EMP attack to destroy Iran’s electrical grid, which renders Iran incapable of self-defense and incapable of retaliating. The US then targets and eradicates the ruling Mullah regime and the IRGC at the time it destroys the nuclear installations. Then once the aforementioned has been accomplished, the international community assists Iran in food and water distribution while the Iranian people rebuild their electrical grid.

      I also disagree that the USA and Russia will come close to a nuclear confrontation. Russia is already culpable with assisting Iran in the first place and should be punished, not appeased, and the reason for their perfidy is because they derive all their revenues from the sale of oil and a nuclear-armed Iran will cause oil prices to permanently skyrocket astronomically. However, unlike the Iranian Mullahs, the Russians don’t love death more than they love life.

  • Philippe

    Another option is to threaten to wipe of the map, if US or Israel are attacked, Mecca and Medina. To nuke them.

    It will be war with the muslim world.

    But, with the first strike, the West has won.

  • Oliver North rules

    Ken Pollack is not an idiot, but times are much different now than Iraq had after 81. Iran is facing some financial hardships and the opposition is definately there, just hesitant to act. And rightly so.
    Put yourselves in the opposition's shoes over there. Capture means death or worse – ongoing torture.
    The only option is to strike before they can weaponize their nukes and if they were smart, they would dump their nuclear ambitions and focus on a bio program. Much cheaper and quite effective if done right.
    Then we can bomb them again.

    • rayan

      what do you want attack my country people of iran friend of america not of china or russia, yes iran will have nucleaire power et break the israel monopoly and for this you want make us war ? we your friends no more war and respect please
      we can have a peace between iran and us
      but iran has right to nuclear and you have to accept it
      why wikk you start that tiy cannot absoluty win ???

      • Wesley69

        It is not the people of Iran that are the enemy. It is the theocracy, headed by President Ahmadinejad & Supreme Leader Khāmene’i, that has called the US the Great Satan and has pledged to wipe Israel off the map.

        Iran is already at war with the US since 1979. Iran has seized US hostages, supported terrorist organizations that have killed Americans, has stirred up trouble in Lebanon, Iraq and Afghanistan. The regime needs to fall, but the people of Iran need to do it soon.

        Your country's leaders WANT to bring back the 12th Imam. They WANT to start WWIII. They WANT nuclear weapons to make this happen. They WANT to die as martyrs so that Allah will reward them, so they don't care if Iran goes up in mushroom clouds. Nuclear energy is okay, but your leaders are not rational. The US and Israel would rather have the Iranian people take care of the problem. They are barbaric rulers, stoning women, hanging homosexuals, punish violations of Sharia Law with public floggings. Haven't you people had enough?

        If the attack ever comes, the US and Israel will not target civilan populations. It will be the nuclear installations, missile complexes, military bases, naval ships, possibly government complexes. The US and Israel will have the utmost respect for your religious shrines and mosques. The US or Israel have no interest in occupying your country and would extend the hand of friendship if the Mullahs were a finished chapter in history.

        • sam000


          This throl is a Regime's guy, No-one in Iran wants the nuclear (nor military neither civil), just the Regime of the Mullahs want the Nuclear power to stablish the Islamic Kalifat, they want to transforme the world on subjects ( They believe that Khameneii represents the GOD's will and all the people are the SUBJECTS of the Suprem Leader.

          and to achieve that Islamic Empire, they are allowed by GOD to use all kind of weapons.

          We want to eradicate our country from this shame of ISLAMIC POWER.

          • Wesley69

            I don't see Obama supporting the Iranian resistance movement. I believe he is willing to accept a nuclear Iran. Israel on the other hand … Obama has a problem supporting democracies. He seems to be more comfortable around dictators.

          • sam000

            You are right about OBAMA;

            I can decode the arguments of this throl, He repeats the Mutual understanding of the Obama administration and the Regime.


            THIS IS THE NEW POLICY of Ahmadinejad and Khameneii and it seems that Hillary and Houssein find their comfort on that.

        • rayan

          Unfortunately for people who want war, all simulations of the Pentagon since 1996 gives the same result in case of conflict iran always wins
          and your army simply can not occupy a country the size of Alaska and populated by 77 millions peoples I am sorry to disappoint your project but it is the reality

          Robert Gates, Mike Mullen, etc etc know this simply realities!

          and this is good news for peace in the world

          • SAM000

            We the Iranians hope that USA and EU will never intervene militarily in IRAN, because we the IRANIANS, we don't want any interference when we will cut you and your likes en slices.

            WE, the IRANIANS, we will bury the MULLAHS and ISLAM ISM for ever.

            YOU and your Alike of Ayatollahs are the shame of the IRANIANS, and we will clean this SHAME of ISLAM-ism by your extermination.


  • ObamaYoMoma

    All the arguments that I’ve seen against stopping Iran is that Iran will attack Middle East oil installations causing oil prices to skyrocket to $400 a barrel and that it will rally the Iranians to the side of the Mullahs. As for as I’m concerned, both arguments are ludicrous and in my opinion not to attack Iran would be reckless to the extreme, since if Iran gets nukes oil prices will also skyrocket in any event, only they will skyrocket permanently, and a nuclear-armed Iran would dash hopes of the Iranian people of ever achieving their freedom.

    On top of that the Sunni Islamic states will rush to get nukes to counter a Shi’a Iran, as Pakistan will quickly morph into the nuclear supermarket for the Sunni world, which is why they are currently building way more nukes than they need for self-defense and to destroy India. Thus, the Islamic world, which has an imperative to wage jihad against unbelievers to spread Islam, will become armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons, and a once very manageable situation will quickly mushroom into one that is completely out of hand, leading to an inevitable nuclear WWIII, which will make WWII seem like a waltz in the park.

    If it were up to me, I’d hit Iran with an EMP attack to render it incapable of retaliation let alone self-defense. Then while the ruling Mullahs and the IRGC are practically defenseless, we should target and eradicate both of them at the same time we also destroy the nuclear installations. Finally, when both objectives have been achieved, the international community should assist Iran in food and water redistribution while they rebuild their electrical grid.

    Finally, let’s get something else straight, sanctions will never stop Iran, only force will stop Iran.

    • rayan

      war on iran is unwinnable, and strike no efficien ( so litle)
      and the consequance disastrous more thn more more the the mere existence of our futur soon bomb
      then we have to be friends


      • ObamaYoMoma

        The consequences of inaction are far worse than the consequences of doing it. As for as it being un-winnable, come on Iran is an economic and technological basket case.

        • rayan

          dear friend the economic consequences of an attack on iran to usa
          are much greater than a nuclear Iran
          Iran will be nuclear is a decision of the Iranian people, a nuclear Iran will be a guarantee of stability,
          can you tell me why the Arab street is so strongly pro Iranian?

          • SAM000

            Burying the MULLAHS and the Pasdars and Bassijis is the decision of the IRANIAN PEOPLE.

            Death to Republic Islamic of the Mullahs

      • Fed_Republic

        The mouth piece of the Mullocracy regurgitates swine feces once again!
        You sir are an idiot of the first order if you think the US or Israel could not wipe out Iran's whole military infrastructure in one day!
        BTW, learn proper English before you start blathering your pitifully ignorant propaganda!

      • Spirit_Of_1683

        If we put our minds to it, we could crush Iran in weeks and put its leaders in front of a firing squad, and you know it.

  • Rev. Roy

    Hmmmmmm !!!! I would wager that most, if not all of the above scenarios are on the verge of being realized, BUT, there is one factor that is completely missing in every one. That is the GOD factor. Israel is the number one target for Iran and all her puppet regimes and after 5 disastrouwars by the Arab world to destroy her, the score remains Israel 5, Arabs 0. You see, they make the same error and do not factor in the GOD of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. With the unbelievable advantages they have had, it would have been a piece of cake to take out such a tiny, mal-equipped and unprepared Israel with all their sneak attacks and Russian-supplied weaponry. And it appears that they still have not learned and are about to suffer the consequences of angering Yaweh God. You can read all about the punishments that GOD has in store for those people and Nations who mess with His people and His land and His city, Jerusalem in Ezekial, Daniel, Issaiah, Revelation, etc. They can't say that God isn't fair. Forewarned is forearmed and a word to the wise "should" be sufficient. God has layed out all His warnings for, loud and clear, all to see so that they are "without excuse".
    Is everyone ready for what is coming down the "Scriptural" pike?

    Rev. Roy….<><

    • Fed_Republic

      Hey Rev, get your facts straight!

      Iranians are Persians, NOT ARABS!

      See my comment above on that issue!

    • Spirit_Of_1683

      It might be Israel 5 Arabs 0 in terms of victories, but there's a problem. Israel has to win every time, whilst Israel's enemies only have to win once. And the Israelis, plus those who seek Israel's elimination, knows it.

  • sam000

    Change your own regime, Iran will be freed.

    USA and EU help and support the Mullahs.

    USA and EU arrest and render the Iranian resistants to the Mullahs.

    We are listed terrorist in your FTO list.

    and you the American people, you are discussing about BOMBING IRAN??!!

    Your GWB was pretending that IRAN is the AXIS of evil, and he negotiated with them 38 times.

    Your Houssein Obama says hello to the MULLAHS and your Hillary says that, "I said hello to Motaki ( Mullahs FM) but he turned his face from me", and you are arguing about BOMBING IRAN?! You are kidding, like always.

    • Fed_Republic

      More lying propaganda from the Iranian Ministry of Disinformation!
      May a pig fall on you!

  • Fred Dawes

    Rev.Roy is right. Don't play with God if you do just look at Hitler and all others who had a really bad idea. any way if this nation hits Iran it would start world war third, understand the little Iran monkey has a really big ape on his side its called Russia and the Nuts inside that government make our nuts look Rational and sensible have great fear and dread of a nightmare of hell.

    • Guest

      Wish in one hand and sh#t in the other, see which one comes first. Eliminate the threat and send them back to the 12th Century where they belong. Then the People of Iran will be on a Level Playing Field to Take on one of the Most Brutal Regimes known to Mankind.

      • Fred Dawes

        it would be the 1st century BC, that is what my long dead grandfather always said wish in one hand piss in the other and see which hand gets full.

  • 080

    If there is any doubt as to what to expect one should consult the late Grand Ayatollah Khomeini: "We do not worship Iran, we worship Allah. For patriotism is another name for paganism. I say let this land (Iran) burn. I say let this land go up in smoke, provided Islam emerges Triumphant in the rest of world." Not very encouraging for future prospects I should think.

    • Wesley69

      Iran's theocratic government has not forgotten Khomeini's ideas. If anything, the oppression has increased as has the threat it poses to the well-being of this planet.

  • CanadConserv

    There is no rational choice except one, more accurately, a set of actions:

    1) Take out Iran's vany, so it can't enforced a blockade
    2) Take out the rest oif its military
    3) Blockade its oil exports until the regime falls

    Yes, there will be great repercussions. But none as bad, not nearly as bad, as letting the mullahs get their nuclear play things.

    And, btw, Saudi Arabia has already agreed to increase its oil supply in the even of such a scenario or equivalent.

    • Fed_Republic

      Do not be a fool and sucker!
      Saudi Arabia is just another local Islamic tyranny looking to put the other Islamic tyrannies out of business so they will be Mufti of the Middle East.
      They will stab us in the back once they reach that goal!

      • CanadConserv


        • Wesley69

          We do that with Energy independence. That's how you stick it to Saudi Arabia. Iran is changing the geopolitical map with its pursuit of the bomb, that is way it must not get them.

          • CanadConserv

            Again, I`m talking about right now, not the future. So, sure, pursue energy independence (and most American oil imports come from Canada anyhow and not Arabia). But at this moment Iran is on the brink of nuclear weapons, a disastrous geopolitical game changer. If they`re be taken out, then Saudi oil is neeed now, as at the moment neither the US nor most of its allies enjoy energy independence. Moreover, in order not to exacerbate geopolitical tensions with such a strike, China needs to be assured its oil supply will be maintained.

          • Wesley69

            I agree that Iran needs to be taken down. But with the current administration, I doubt it will happen. Obama is willing to accept a nuclear Iran. This, I know, is insane. The only country that truly realizes the dangers is Israel & the Sunni Arab states. I worry about China and Russia's reaction to it because Obama will not run interference for Israel.

          • CanadConserv

            I`m afraid you`re right about Obama being …what? too naive? too weak? too much a pacifist ideologue?

  • Gamaliel Isaac

    When nuclear bombs go off all over America for a short time people are going to wonder how Americans were so mad as to allow a nuclear Iran.

  • Leon P.

    The Muslim nations, especially today's leaders of the former Persian and Ottoman Empires, will never accept a Jewish nation in their midst simply because it makes them look morally pathetic. Their only purpose in life is power to the Supreme Leaders and slavery (i.e. no democratic freedoms) to everyone else. In the U.S., at the time it was established, even John Adams explained this clearly in his letters:

    "I will insist that the Hebrews have done more to civilize men than any other nation. If I were an atheist, and believed in blind eternal fate, I should still believe that fate had ordained the Jews to be the most essential instrument for civilizing the nations. If I were an atheist of the other sect, who believe or pretend to believe that all is ordered by chance, I should believe that chance had ordered the Jews to preserve and propagate to all mankind the doctrine of a supreme, intelligent, wise, almighty sovereign of the universe, which I believe to be the great essential principle of all morality, and consequently of all civilization." (from book, "The Works of John Adams")

    The Muslims surrounding Israel already know all this from their Koran. Theirs is a world of Koranic bible worshipers and many read the Old Testament to know their enemy. The very existence of a Hebrew nation makes Muslims look like losers with nothing to offer civilization except oil. Their Jihad is against the foundation of Western Civilization itself, the final barrier.

    • sam000

      You have forgotten that KOUROSH was persian.

      We are paying a huge human price to free our country from the Islamism, while USA and all the Governments continue to appease the Mullahs.

      Do you know that the Iranian Anti-Regime Resistance organizations are BRANDED TERRORIST by USA??!!

      Read the FPM article of today about (Blacklisting the Iranian Opposition)
      here is the link

  • Reuven Hakohen

    I say, bomb them back to the stone age. The sooner the better.





  • BUTSeriously

    The real issue is yet not in the radar. Islam's hate of Israel is an exposure of deep rooted guilt factor – Israel exposes Islam's falsehoods of its beliefs and its dis-historical ntoions of history itself. This syndrome will also be confronted by Christianity eventually. Islam cannot survive with any credibility while Israel exists. The Brits and Europe erred by creating these ficticious Regimes and supporting them against Israel – for 30 barrels of oil and their own guilt factor with Israel. Its an enigmatic triangle facing humanity's future to big to confrontL two king kong religions cannot peacably tolerate Judaism – that's it!

  • hopeful

    get rid of the Iranian leader would solve the problem, oh wait a minute, if the usa does that then it would leave the way open for anyone to have a go at. Presidents, Prime ministers, Kings, Queens etc, and we cannot have that, so back to square one, spend millions/billions on a war to get rid of him, or send in so called special forces, hired assassin would be a damn site cheaper and would solve the problem, but again the big boys dont want open warfare on the elite………………