Iran Super Thread- Merged

[tomahawk6]

One has to wonder why the top missile guy was at a munitions depot in the first place ?

 

[GAP]

Maybe 1 (Iran ammunition depot) + 1 (top missile guy) actually does = 2 (booms)

 

[chanman]

One has to wonder why the top missile guy was at a munitions depot in the first place ?

Maybe following up on their equivalent of an OSHA complaint  ;D

 

[jollyjacktar]

And I was right the tin foil hat brigade has indeed marched out of the barracks.  :facepalm:

Was Israeli intelligence service behind blast at Iranian military base that killed top missile expert?
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2061341/Was-Israeli-intelligence-service-blast-Iranian-military-base-killed-missile-expert.html#ixzz1djBwWAZH 

 

[Retired AF Guy]

Amateur video of blast aftermath:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_JXMnFfIacA

Looks like a pretty big bang if you ask me.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Ammo dumps going up are not that uncommon and for the big guy being taken out, it is normal that a operation in these countries requires a much higher ranker to get anything done than here. He might have had a "personal" interest in some of the stores being moved (taken)

 

[a_majoor]

The view the Iranians are responsible:

http://pjmedia.com/michaelledeen/2011/11/16/the-war-against-the-mullahs/?print=1

The War Against the Mullahs

Posted By Michael Ledeen On November 16, 2011 @ 8:03 pm In Uncategorized | No Comments

This past weekend’s monster explosion at a Revolutionary Guards base outside Tehran has attracted the usual assortment of speculation and “informed information,” most of it sucked from the thumbs of pundits who feel they must write quickly.  There is still a scarcity of hard information, but I’m reasonably confident that:

–There were two explosions at the RG base at Bidganeh, one smaller, the other very large.

–At almost the same time, there was an explosion at another military base in the west, in Luristan.  The explosions seem to have been coordinated.

–The area around Bigdaneh is a military zone, with various facilities including two air fields, thus questions like “was it a munitions depot or a missile base?” are best answered “yes. Both.”

These attacks on the Guards — the symbol of the regime’s intensifying repression and slaughter [1] of the Iranian people — are part of a pattern that includes explosions at refineries and pipelines [2]. At the same time, strikes have been spreading (and no wonder;  up to 30,000 retired teachers have been waiting for their pensions for many months).  In short, people have lost patience, and the smaller of the two explosions at the RG base was aimed at Major General Hasan Tehrani Moghaddam, one of the most brutal of the country’s military leaders.

Contrary to the inevitable suspicions of the thumb-suckers (the Americans did it!  no, the Israelis did it!  no, it was an accident!), the operation was planned and carried out by Iranians from the opposition-that-does-not-exist.  They intended to demonstrate that no leader is safe from the people’s wrath (if that base can be penetrated, any place can, and if that man can be assassinated, anyone can), and that the opposition knows its gravediggers.

The second, larger, explosion was not planned, nor was the extremely high number of casualties (I am told that hundreds of people, including some “very important foreign dignitaries,” were blown up).  That second blast was apparently from a quantity of liquid fuel designed to extend the speed and accuracy of Iran’s Shahab-3 missile, the one the mullahs hope will some day carry a nuclear warhead.  My sources claim that the fuel caused the big white plume [3] seen in the photographs.  The cloud may well have caused respiratory problems for the survivors.

There is another, fascinating report, that right after the explosions, the two main Green Movement leaders, Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi, were taken from house arrest, leaving their wives behind.  This bespeaks a high level of anxiety within the regime, suggesting that they feared an all-out assault was under way, and under those circumstances they would take vengeance on the two Green leaders.  Whether or not the rumor is true, its existence suggests that Khamenei et. al. take a more serious view of the opposition than some of our own expert analysts.

What this all means is clear enough.  As I forecast some time ago, it was only a matter of time until the opposition abandoned its commitment to non-violence.  We are now in a new phase.  A French analyst, Jean-Jacques Guillet, understands the situation very well, and has called for a Western policy [4] to intensify the pressure on the Iranian regime in order to bring it down.  “If we press the regime strongly,” he said, “there could be an implosion. The real objective these days should be the regime’s implosion, not more talk.”

Instead, we have leaders who still believe in the talking cure, and who seem not even to know what the Iranian opposition wants, even when it’s delivered to them in black and white.  As it was, at the height of the turmoil in 2009.

That story is still untold, but it’s coming out.  Soon, I think…stay tuned.

Article printed from Faster, Please!: http://pjmedia.com/michaelledeen

URL to article: http://pjmedia.com/michaelledeen/2011/11/16/the-war-against-the-mullahs/

URLs in this post:

[1] the regime’s intensifying repression and slaughter: http://artistsspeakout.visibli.com/share/KafNfS

[2] explosions at refineries and pipelines: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/28/us-iran-blasts-idUSTRE79R54520111028?feedType=RSS&feedName=Iran&virtualBrandChannel=10209&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter&dlvrit=59365

[3] white plume: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/tehranbureau/2011/11/news-report-israeli-source-claims-depot-blast-mossadmko-act.html

[4] has called for a Western policy: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/15/world/europe/15iht-politicus15.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all

 

[The Bread Guy]

While the official take on a meeting between Canada's and Israel's DefMins goes something like this ....

.... Minister MacKay and Minister Barak discussed a number of key issues, including the significance of benefits from the exchange of best practices between their respective Defence ministries, as well as changing regional dynamics in the Middle East, including Iran. A strong ally of Israel, Canada is concerned about the very alarmist and threatening words that have been directed toward Israel by Iran.

Canada’s defence relations with Israel have grown significantly in recent years. In January 2011, as part of a five-day trip to the Middle East, Minister MacKay had a successful visit in Israel where he signed a Principal Memorandum of Understanding on defence relations with his Israeli counterpart.

Canada and Israel are working on two Memoranda of Understanding in order to further entrench our relationship with regards to material and military research and development ....

.... Postmedia News looks at it this way:

.... Defence Minister Peter MacKay refused Wednesday to rule out a mutual-defence agreement that would oblige Canada to come to Israel's defence should the latter be attacked.

Appearing together at a media conference in Ottawa on Wednesday, Mr. MacKay and his Israeli counterpart Ehud Barak said they anticipate negotiations will be completed by the end of the year.

"Israel needs strong, reliable partners, which Canada is certainly one," Mr. MacKay said. "I would argue they could not find a more supportive country on the planet."

The ministers said the agreements will cover a range of areas, including intelligence sharing, joint research and development, and military exchange programs.

"The steps that we're taking today are in fact bringing our countries closer together," Mr. MacKay said, "and they are also allowing us to further build on a strong foundation of co-operation that will build tangible results, not just to our two militaries, but to Canada and Israel more broadly."

Mr. MacKay said the agreements did not relate to basing Canadian soldiers in Israel.

"The defence co-operation details will be disclosed when we sign," he said ....

 

[rampage800]

Funny enough the US just started receiving their newest weapon, the 30 000lb JDAM, designed for deep underground facilities.

 

[Rifleman62]

The predecessor discussed here.http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/69265/post-654329.html#msg654329

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2062662/Is-15-ton-bunker-buster-bomb-destroy-Irans-nuclear-arsenal.html?ITO=1490

Is this 15-ton bunker buster the bomb U.S. will use to destroy Iran's nukes?

Lee Moran - 17th November 2011

U.S. Air Force takes delivery of eight Big Blu bombs. 6m long weapons contain 2.5 tons of explosives

Could a 15 ton bunker buster that blows apart 200ft of concrete be the bomb that stops America's adversaries from developing nuclear weapons?

The U.S. Air Force has unveiled the Massive Ordnance Penetrator - dubbed the Big Blu - and speculation is already mounting that it may be used in airstrikes on Iran or North Korea.

B-2 Stealth Bombers will use the six metre long GPS guided rocket, fitted with 2.5 tons of explosives, to smash open underground bunkers and tunnels suspected of containing weapons of mass destruction.

USAF Lieutenant Colonel Jack Miller said the service started taking delivery of the giant bomb, a staggering ten times more powerful than its predecessor the BLU-109, in September.

He added that the $32 million contract with aerospace firm Boeing would see eight of the devices delivered to 'fulfil the Air Force's operational needs'.

Lots of references, video via Google.

 

[a_majoor]

The "Dambusters" would know waht to do with this; it is the evolution of the "Tallboy" and the "Grand Slam" bombs of the WWII era. These bombs allowed the RAF to attack submarine pens, deep bunkers and other structures which were difficult to damage with ordinary bombs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Slam_%28bomb%29
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-Mm-zFW_nA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zeUQKl81aN4

 

[Rifleman62]

The Dam Busters, a great movie. A remake with modern movie making technology would be outstanding. Or, a contemporary movie "Target Iran".

 

[Journeyman]

....has attracted the usual assortment of speculation and “informed information,” most of it sucked from the thumbs of pundits who feel they must write quickly.

  :rofl:

 

[jollyjacktar]

The Dam Busters, a great movie. A remake with modern movie making technology would be outstanding. Or, a contemporary movie "Target Iran".

Peter Jackson of LOTR and King Kong fame is doing a remake.  It's a shame they won't have access to actual Lancasters for this version.  There is quite a bit of controversy as they have decided to rename Guy Gibson's dog "N" as it might offend African Americans to hear his name said as it historically was.  The "N" word is also Latin for the colour black, which the dog was.  Some feel that Gibson was not being raciest with his choice of names for his dog.  I can't say, but I'm not comfortable with trying to rewrite history to make it PC.

 

[Retired AF Guy]

The Dam Busters, a great movie. A remake with modern movie making technology would be outstanding. Or, a contemporary movie "Target Iran". [/quote

I watched something the other day about the Dambusters. Not sure whether it was "Ice Pilots:NWT" or a similar show, but the did an re-enactment of the Dambuster raids. Unfortunately, I fell asleep about ten minutes into the show. Not sure whether it was the History Channel or Discovery Channel.

 

[The Bread Guy]

.... Effective immediately, in response to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)’s November 9 assessment of Iran’s nuclear program, Canada is imposing new sanctions under the Special Economic Measures Act (SEMA). The new regulations will do the following:

    prohibit financial transactions with Iran, subject to certain exceptions;
    expand the list of prohibited goods to include all goods used in the petrochemical, oil and gas industry in Iran;
    amend the list of prohibited goods to include additional items that could be used in Iran’s nuclear program;
    add new individuals and entities to the list of designated persons found in Schedule 1 of the Iran Regulations; and
    remove certain entities that have been recommended for removal by the Minister of Foreign Affairs that no longer present a proliferation concern for Canada.

It should be noted that the new prohibitions on financial transactions and goods used in the petrochemical, oil and gas industry in Iran do not apply to contracts entered into prior to November 22, 2011.

On October 18, Canada imposed sanctions on five Iranian individuals. Four of them are members of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Qods Force. These individuals brought the total of those targeted by Canada’s sanctions to 279 entities and 47 individuals.

Canadians with relatives living in Iran will still be able to send funds to family members, provided those relatives are not listed individuals ....

DFAIT Info-Machine, 21 Nov 11

 

[Edward Campbell]

I don't like Paul Heinbecker and I almost always disagree with his ideas. But, in this comment, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail he asks most of the right questions. Not surprisingly, even though he asks his questions with a pronounced anti-Conservative bias, he manages to get the wrong answers:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/think-twice-canada-before-attacking-tehran/article2243988/

Think twice, Canada, before attacking Tehran

PAUL HEINBECKER
From Tuesday's Globe and Mail

Published Tuesday, Nov. 22, 2011

Do Canadians support participation in a pre-emptive attack on Iran? Do we believe that the issues raised by Iran’s nuclear program warrant using the Canadian Forces in another Persian Gulf war? What about protecting Syrian civilians against their own government? Can we do either, or both? Should we? These questions seem ever less hypothetical and ever more urgent.

The International Atomic Energy Agency has issued a report providing considerable circumstantial evidence that Iran is developing nuclear weapons capability. But in reacting to it, some are inserting exclamation points where question marks would be more appropriate – as took place in the build-up to the U.S.-led attack on Iraq in 2003.

It is not clear whether Tehran intends to cross the nuclear weapons threshold, or merely position themselves to do so relatively quickly at a later time. Either way, the Iranian effort raises potentially grave (albeit differentiated) issues for the international community, including Canada, which joined the United States and Britain on Monday in applying new sanctions against Tehran.

Israeli newspapers have been reporting efforts by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defence Minister Ehud Barak to muster senior ministers’ support for an attack on Iranian nuclear facilities. These reports have coincided with tests of an Israeli long-range ballistic missile capable of reaching Iran, air-to-air refuelling exercises with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and civilian readiness drills in Tel Aviv.

Mr. Barak, who met with Canadian National Defence Minister Peter MacKay last week, told CNN on Sunday that if it isn’t stopped within months, redundant facilities in the Iranian program will render an attack ineffectual. He asserted that a nuclear-armed Iran would use its nuclear umbrella to intimidate Persian Gulf countries and sponsor terror with impunity. He also warned of a Middle Eastern nuclear arms race involving Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Egypt.

The Israeli positioning may be designed to get inside the heads of Iranian and Western leaders. Perhaps it is deadly serious. Either way, U.S. Secretary of Defence Leon Panetta warned publicly against unilateral action during a recent visit to Israel, during which he also reportedly asked – in vain – for a guarantee that Israel would not carry out a unilateral military strike without Washington’s clearance. In Halifax over the weekend, Mr. Panetta warned that a military strike could have severe global economic consequences.

In Israel, cabinet officials and others remain divided. Meir Dagan, the recently retired head of the spy agency Mossad, called an attack against Iran “the stupidest idea I’ve ever heard.”

Indeed, such a war would be no piece of cake, as the invasion of Iraq was misleadingly portrayed. The world is unlikely to just move on after a strike and an Iranian response. Unless an attack is authorized by the United Nations Security Council, a distant prospect at best, it would almost certainly plunge the Middle East deeper into turmoil, roil Western relations with the Muslim world, refuel Islamist extremism, disrupt the Arab awakening, damage the international oil market and weaken the precarious international economy.

Assuming the likely near-term inadequacy of sanctions, the essential question boils down to this: Which is worse, the bomb or the bombing? Relying on post-facto deterrence, as we do with U.S., Russian, British, French, Chinese, Indian, Pakistani, North Korean and (presumed) Israeli weapons? Or attacking Iran to destroy its capability, or at least delay a nuclear breakthrough?

Separately, there is another casus belli developing in Syria, where Bashar al-Assad’s regime has evidently decided to destroy the country’s opposition, killing as many as it takes in the process, using military force against the civilian population. Will the world stand by and let it happen? Should it?

Where does all this leave Canada, with its comparatively small but not inconsequential and quite capable military? On CTV’s Question Period this weekend, Mr. Mackay recalled the centrality of the Security Council to any intervention in Syria. And regarding Iran, he described the military option as “the least preferable.” Last week, Foreign Minister John Baird said Canada “will continue to work with its like-minded allies to take the necessary action for Iran to abandon its nuclear program. … It is not a question of if, but to what extent, we will act in response to this report.” Prime Minister Stephen Harper has repeatedly portrayed Israel as an ally. What is this government, the most pro-Israeli in Canadian history, planning to do?

Major Canadian interests are potentially at risk, including the integrity of the international nuclear non-proliferation regime, respect for international law, the safety of friends and kin in the region, the health of the global economy and the preservation of the public peace at home. Canadians need to engage and come to as common a view as possible on how to protect our interests and project our values in the Middle East before we find ourselves drifting into war. This issue is too important to be left to politicians and politics as usual.

Paul Heinbecker is a former Canadian ambassador to the UN. He is author of Getting Back in the Game, director of the Laurier Centre for Global Relations and distinguished fellow at the Centre for International Governance Innovation in Waterloo, Ont. This article does not necessarily reflect the views of these institutions.

Mr. Heinbecker starts off on the wrong foot. He asks a silly question, two of them actually: "Do Canadians support participation in a pre-emptive attack on Iran?  Do we believe that the issues raised by Iran’s nuclear program warrant using the Canadian Forces in another Persian Gulf war?" Rest assured that Canadians do not "support" another war, anywhere. But, who cares? Heinbecker gets the right question, albeit phrased as a statement, at the very of his commentary: " Canadians need to ... come to as common a view as possible on how to protect our interests and project our values in the Middle East." Now, Heinbecker insinuates that Prime Minister Harper's "values" and Prime Minister Harper's assessment of Canada's interest in the Middle East are substantially different from "Canadians'" views of those things; my guess is that, comme d'habitude, Paul Heinbecker is full of big L Liberal sh!t.

Let's be clear: we (Canadians) have neither a duty nor an interest in attacking Iran ... not, at least, until the UN Security Council asks us to to that - as it asked us to go and fight in Korea, in the Balkans and in Afghanistan and as it asked us, most recently, to go and fight in Libya.

What Israel does in pursuit of its own definition of its own vital interests is Israels' own business. On a personal note I think an all out (nuclear) attack on Iran is, probably, a good thing. I suspect Jordan and Saudi Arabia (and several other Arab states) agree.

 

[Sythen]

On a personal note I think an all out (nuclear) attack on Iran is, probably, a good thing.

I agreed with you until this point. If we can cripple their ability to create WMD's without the need for nuclear weapons (and I admittedly know very little about bombing capabilities and bunker buster type weapons) then nuclear weapons should never be used. You can't uninvent something, but nuclear weapons have no place in this world. One of the many reasons I support an air attack on Iran's facilities and government buildings.

 

[a_majoor]

People living downwind of the radioactive fallout plumes are not likely to be very happy, no matter what they may have thought of the previous Persian regime. I suspect that conventional attack is off the table unless in response to a real or perceived act of war by the Iranians, it is simply too difficult (the range alone is at the extreme end of the combat range of Israeli jets, even before factoring in crossing potentially hostile airspace) and too uncertain in results.

OTOH we are probably seeing (or going to see) a very ramped up campaign of sabotage and assassination, probably directed more at the regime and enablers, as well as the Iranian economy rather than directly at the nuclear program. Computer sabotage of oil production, banking and electrical grids will hurt the economy and place more stress on the regime, without being directly traceable to any particular nation. Manipulating exchange rates and contracts to cripple the logistical pipeline to Iran will also have similar effects. Psywar played over the Internet in the form of clever "viral" videos and other social media attacks will also play a role.

How it ends will be out of everyone's hands, if the regime implodes or collapses there is no grantee who or what will emerge as the new leadership of Iran, or how they will see the West.

 

[Old Sweat]

Speaking as an old cold warrior who picked up a qualification of nuclear target analyst back in 1961 and updated it a couple of times, I cannot say one way or the other whether the selective use of some nuclear devices of whatever yield is warranted. It would take access to detailed intelligence of the various presumed targets and the Iranian air defence system, as well as detailed knowledge of the various weapons systems available for the presumed attack, and nobody is apt to send me an email with that data attached. My feeling is that nuclear weapons may not be needed, and maybe the solution, after all the other options have been exhausted, is to take out something like the electric power grid and the air defence system for the country as well as the naval bases on the Persian Gulf. Maybe a decapitation of the political and government structure is the solution. Again, I may be talking through my hat. I don't know for sure, but if things like the "bunker busters" will work, then they should be used.

And re being downwind, fallout is a function of the height of burst and the amount of debris sucked up into the atmosphere.