# Light Up the Sky



## tomahawk6 (7 Aug 2006)

Article by Army LTC Cucullu suggesting that we shouldnt wait for Iran to strike. Through its proxies in Lebanon and Iraq Iran has waged war against the US and Israel on two fronts. Our response in Iraq should be to utterly destroy the Sadr militia and arrest Sadr himself or kill him. As to Iran I am not ready to advocate launching an air campaig against it, yet. Their support of Hizbollah is very dangerous and at the very least we need to interdict the resupply of missiles through Syria. 

http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=23578


----------



## GaelicSoldier (7 Aug 2006)

This is a very unique situation,  Iran I believe has been experimenting with uranium enrichment for use in power plants.  Now I'm not too sure what happened with that little bit excitement but we all know that enriched uranium will do as weapons grade.  The people over there have to concider that Iran knows that: if they "[illuminate the] the night sky over Jerusalem to rival the one that greeted the Prophet of Islam on his journey," then it is difficult to imagine anything other than a full-scale Iranian nuclear attack." they are risking tactical nuclear strikes on their home soil.  We'll just have to hold our breath, along with billions of other people that the "Illumination of the night sky" is nothing more than a really elaborate fireworks display.

Here's hoping no one does anything stupid.

I totally agree with you on the fact that Hezbollah's supply of missiles needs to be cut off.

Cheers :cheers:


----------



## FredDaHead (7 Aug 2006)

GaelicSoldier said:
			
		

> The people over there have to concider that Iran knows that: if they "[illuminate the] the night sky over Jerusalem to rival the one that greeted the Prophet of Islam on his journey," then it is difficult to imagine anything other than a full-scale Iranian nuclear attack." they are risking *tactical* nuclear strikes on their home soil.



Maybe it's just a misunderstanding, but I doubt the response to any Iranian nuclear attack would be anything short of a full-scale strategic retaliation, the kind of which was expected during the Cold War should the Russkies attack the West. Nothing tactical about it.

I do think the situation in Lebanon will spiral out of control shortly unless an agreement is reached--which won't likely happen, thanks to Iran and Syria. I find it rather funny that the same community that claims we need to "stop this whole thing immediately," suddenly refuses when an agreement seems to be on it's way. I guess it just goes to show what they really want.


----------



## tomahawk6 (7 Aug 2006)

The leaders of Iran evidently think that a nuclear war will not only destroy Israel but also in the 12th Imam.If thats the case then the problems in the ME will not be resolved through diplomacy. Our EU friends have tried this tack in negotiating over their nuclear program for 3 years. The Iranians are definitely stalling. The current crisis in Lebanon is of their making. What is Iran's purpose do you suppose ? Distract the west ? Open a new front ? Rally the arab world ? Set the stage for the 12th Imam ?


----------



## FredDaHead (7 Aug 2006)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> What is Iran's purpose do you suppose ? Distract the west ? Open a new front ? Rally the arab world ? Set the stage for the 12th Imam ?



All of the above?

Let's study each point on it's own:

*Distracting the West.*

The West has been pushing Iran harder and harder so they would give up their nuclear plans. By engineering a conflict elsewhere in the region, it forces the West, particularly the US, to focus on something else, allowing Iran a little more leeway. The increased time and decreased diplomatic pressure could work both ways: with more "space," Iran might get less aggressive and be more open to negociations down the road—on the other hand, Iran might see the decreased pressure and international attention as an invitation to ramping up it's campaign. It also might let Russia, which wants to "pay back" the percieved encroachment of NATO on what it sees as it's rightful sphere of influence, negociate with Iran to provide materials, equipment and expertise in exchange for cooperation against NATO and, specifically, the US. I hate to quote movies in serious contexts, but as Captain Ramsey says in _Crimson Tide_, "we can count on the Russians to act in their own best interests." By forcing the West to focus on Lebanon and Iran, Russia assumes it can prevent NATO from expanding further towards it's borders.

I'm not saying the crisis in Lebanon was engineered by Russia, but Iran's behaviour is playing into the Russians' hands.

*Opening a new front*

As we know, Iran is already interfering with US-led operations in Iraq. We also know that US troop capabilities are fast approaching their limit. Putting two and two together, we can easily see that by opening a new front, Iran reduces the threat to it’s own territory—the US can’t invade if it does not have the troops—and also helps the insurgency in Iraq—the US has to keep troops ready in case the situation around Israel degenerates and it has to intervene.

Iran wants to survive, like any country in the world. They know the US will not accept their behaviour for much longer, and they also know the US could easily move troops currently fighting in Iraq into Iran if Iraq became pacified—which is the reason for keeping that front open—however, they know limited operations would be possible if the US did not have to keep troops available for other fronts, real or perceived.

What all that means is that by having a prolonged war in Lebanon, Iran is buying itself time.

*Rallying the Arab world*

This is another rather easy question to answer, if we don’t look into the particulars. It is also tied to distracting the West and opening a new front.

Iran is undoubtedly helping Hezbollah in dispersing propaganda against Israel and the West. By showing “atrocities,” Iran makes Israel look bad and can convince moderate Muslims that Jews—and by extension, the West—hate Muslims.

This can cause grassroots terrorism in Western countries, increasingly violent demonstrations, (we haven’t seen much violence yet, I’ll admit) and various diplomatic nightmares the West will have to deal with. All this has the same aim as the two previous objectives: buying Iran time to prepare to fight against the US.

*Setting the stage for the 12th Imam*

I’ll avoid touching this one for now, because I don’t know nearly as much as I’d like to about the idea of the 12th Imam, but I’d say it’s likely a reason for Iran to get involved and to try and stir things up as much as possible.


In retrospect, Iran just wants to preserve it's own interests—it does not care about Lebanon or Syria or the Palestinians. The more time Iran can buy, the less likely a US invasion becomes, and an invasion is exactly what Iran wants to avoid, quite obviously.


----------



## a_majoor (7 Aug 2006)

The US does not need to invade Iran, a "headshot" to decapitate the leadership and Revolutionary Guard will suffice. The long term results of this sort of action are not predictable, but it will prrovide the West with some breathing space, since the Hezbollah and the various other "insurgencies" will be deprived of leadership, money and logistical support for the short term. (Of course the Ba'athists or Wahhabi's could attempt to pick up the pieces as well).

BTW, a headshot can be achieved without our "lighting up the sky".


----------



## FredDaHead (7 Aug 2006)

While I agree the US doesn't necessarily _need_ to invade Iran, I'm going to disagree over the "headshot" idea you proposed.

There is a whole structure in Iran, based on the various religious leaders, of which Ahmadinejad is only a figurehead. Besides, like with Syria, the US probably will be better off with "the devil they know" vice "the devil they don't know." Ahmadinejad is crazy, but at least we know just how crazy he is. If we take him out, who knows what personality the next leader will have.

Yes, killing off Iran's leadership would be productive in the short term, but in the long term it could make things a lot more difficult. Also, you have to think of the consequences outside of Iran. How do you think the Arab world would react to the US decapitating a country? It wouldn't be pretty, and would probably be worse than leaving Iran as it is. I'm also not quite certain how easy this would be--it would undoubtedly require less troops than a full invasion and could possibly even be done mostly through bombing, but the operational planning would be insanely complicated. (Mind you, I don't know that for certain, but it seems logical.)

I definately hope we don't end up having to light up the sky.


----------



## GAP (7 Aug 2006)

Any "decapitation" or such thing that is going to change the major motivators of the Arab world, is going to have to come from within. I don't know how, but I think changes will come.


----------



## GaelicSoldier (8 Aug 2006)

GAP said:
			
		

> Any "decapitation" or such thing that is going to change the major motivators of the Arab world, is going to have to come from within. I don't know how, but I think changes will come.



On a lighter note, they do practice public execution by beheading in some countries in the ME.  Maybe we'll get some help that way.

The above is post is for humor only.

Cheers :cheers:


----------



## xenobard (8 Aug 2006)

The following article provides some insight into President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's - and the "Twelver" sect's - possible religious motivations in this conflict:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/01/14/wiran14.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/01/14/ixworld.html



> Divine mission' driving Iran's new leader
> By Anton La Guardia
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## joaquim (8 Aug 2006)

I am glad to see religion brought in the ME debate. Indeed, religion is the root cause for war in Palestine.

Now, about lighting up the sky, the Shia know it is coming, but in the wrong country. From the Wikipedia page on the Mahdi:

_The 6th Shi'a Imam, Jafar al-Sadiq, is reported to have said: 
"Before the appearance of the one who will rise, peace be upon him, the people will be reprimanded for their acts of disobedience by a fire that will appear in the sky and a redness that will cover the sky. It will swallow up Baghdad, and will swallow up Kufa. Their blood will be shed and houses destroyed. Death will occur amid their people and a fear will come over the people of Iraq from which they shall have no rest." _ 

A note for Christians: depending on the Muslim source, the Immam Mahdi will appear soon before the second coming of Jesus, will fight alongside him against the antichrist, or is Jesus himself. This is incompatible with prophecies in the Hebrew Bible and the Gospel stating that Jesus (the Messiah) will come back to save the nation of Israel from destruction (by who else but Muslims?).


----------



## paracowboy (8 Aug 2006)

joaquim said:
			
		

> I am glad to see religion brought in the ME debate. Indeed, religion is the root cause for war in Palestine.
> 
> Now, about lighting up the sky, the Shia know it is coming, but in the wrong country. From the Wikipedia page on the Mahdi:
> 
> ...


I don't even know where to start with this... :


----------



## George Wallace (8 Aug 2006)

AH!......Yet another wikipedia quote.  Should we file that away in Radio Chatter with the other Wiki posts?


----------



## muskrat89 (8 Aug 2006)

From the Wall Street Journal....



> WSJ: Scholar Warns Iran's Ahmadinejad May Have 'Cataclysmic Events' In Mind For August 22
> Tue Aug 08 2006 10:22:35 ET
> 
> In a WALL STREET JOURNAL op-ed Tuesday, Princeton's Bernard Lewis writes: "There is a radical difference between the Islamic Republic of Iran and other governments with nuclear weapons. This difference is expressed in what can only be described as the apocalyptic worldview of Iran's present rulers."
> ...


----------



## Infanteer (8 Aug 2006)

Since we're discussing religion and its implications on foreign policy in the Middle East, let's not forget that it comes from both sides, as the article I posted here highlights:

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/47607.285.html



> The Christian right is also solidly behind Israel. White evangelicals are significantly more pro-Israeli than Americans in general; more than half of them say they strongly sympathise with Israel. (A third of the Americans who claim sympathy with Israel say that this stems from their religious beliefs.) *Two in five Americans believe that Israel was given to the Jewish people by God, and one in three say that the creation of the state of Israel was a step towards the Second Coming.*


----------



## tomahawk6 (8 Aug 2006)

Hehe both sides are only doing what they think God wants. :


----------



## paracowboy (8 Aug 2006)

Killing for a God that tells you to love everybody.  :  Religion is the only subject on which I whole-heartedly agree with Messrs Marx undt Engels.


----------



## tomahawk6 (8 Aug 2006)

Alot of wars have been fought through the centuries in the name of one god or another.


----------



## paracowboy (8 Aug 2006)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Alot of wars have been fought through the centuries in the name of one god or another.


there've been a lot of idiots throughout history


----------



## George Wallace (8 Aug 2006)

Well, August the 22nd should prove to be an interesting day.  Does Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad go wacko and nuke the place or does he have some other plan up his sleeve?


----------



## paracowboy (8 Aug 2006)

I have this odd visual of him in the place of Sterling Hayden as Brig. Gen. Jack D. Ripper, and Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in the place of Peter Sellers as Group Captain Mandrake.


----------



## joaquim (23 Aug 2006)

August 22nd passed and they are still selling falafels in Jerusalem.

But many infidels paid attention, a few were scared, so Ahmadinejad is very happy. And so are all muslims:

Qur'an [3.151] : _We will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve, because they set up with Allah that for which He has sent down no authority, and their abode is the fire, and evil is the abode of the unjust._


----------



## Cloud Cover (23 Aug 2006)

Dude- you're creeping me out with that stuff. What the Iranian president was talking about was Dilana was going to rock her little butt off in Rockstar Super Nova Tuesday night. And she did.


----------



## Gunnar (23 Aug 2006)

Although nothing particularly wrong or evil has been discussed in this thread...we might wanna close it on general principles.  Just a thought.


----------



## Infanteer (23 Aug 2006)

Do I get to laugh at the people who took this seriously now?


----------



## paracowboy (23 Aug 2006)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Do I get to laugh at the people who took this seriously now?


you waited?


----------



## a_majoor (27 Aug 2006)

Taking another step forward (and hammering in another nail in the UN coffin at the same time...)

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyid=2006-08-26T074613Z_01_N26199831_RTRUKOC_0_US-NUCLEAR-IRAN-USA.xml&src=rss&rpc=22



> *U.S. may bypass U.N. on Iran: LA Times*
> Sat Aug 26, 2006 3:46 AM ET
> 
> WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Bush administration has indicated it is prepared to form an independent coalition to freeze Iranian assets and restrict trade if the U.N. Security Council fails to penalize Tehran for its nuclear enrichment program, The Los Angeles Times reported on Saturday.
> ...



And the opposing position as detailed from "Day by Day" (large file, too big to attach):
http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/2006/08/27/


----------



## George Wallace (28 Aug 2006)

.......But a lot of sheeple believe strongly in the "Please Stop." approach.


----------



## a_majoor (22 Sep 2006)

City Journal has a long but very telling article by Mark Styen on Iran. The analysis of why we should treat Iran differently than normal States is worth the read:

http://www.city-journal.org/html/16_2_iran.html



> City Journal
> *Facing Down Iran*Our lives depend on it.
> Mark Steyn
> Spring 2006
> ...



Follow the link and read the rest.


----------

