General Abizaid on Iran pursuing Nuclear weapons
Today, General Abizaid is quoted saying, "the world could live with a nuclear-armed regime in Tehran." He goes on to say, "Iran is not a suicide nation," then adds, "I mean, they may have some people in charge that don't appear to be rational, but I doubt that the Iranians intend to attack us with a nuclear weapon."
The Iranians are aware, he said, that the United States has a far superior military capability.
"I believe that we have the power to deter Iran, should it become nuclear," he said, referring to the theory that Iran would not risk a catastrophic retaliatory strike by using a nuclear weapon against the United States.
"There are ways to live with a nuclear Iran," Abizaid said in remarks at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a think tank. "Let's face it, we lived with a nuclear Soviet Union, we've lived with a nuclear China, and we're living with (other) nuclear powers as well."
(For the rest of the article click here.
Back in August 26, 2006 I wrote the following post titled, "Iran's Nuclear ambitions: What's all the fuss?" and I took a little heat for it. Here's a reprint of my post then and an anonymous comment from a reader:
"So Iran wants to have Nuclear technology, maybe even a few Nuclear bombs. What's all the fuss about? We have thousands of Nuclear bombs and stood successfully against a powerful Soviet Union in the Cold war. If you can remember back that far, it was the strategy of "Mutual Assured Destruction" that kept the weapons in check. Seems to me the same strategy would work here. So let's stop all the huffing and puffing and falling into the neocons mind trap that has been baited lately to get all of us scared and willing to consider a first strike option on their facilities. Don't be fooled by the scare tactics. It didn't work in the Cold war and it won't work here either. Preemptive strikes are now going to be a thing of the past. As Iran and others get the bomb, we are going to have to use diplomacy to work with the world and that means that Israel will have to change its approaches too. It will take a different mindset than the arrogant one we have displayed during the Bush/Cheney years, which by the way should be considered the worst Presidency in the history of our great nation. Looking back, the "Silent Majority" fell asleep during these past 6 years and are just awakening in time for the mid term November Congressional elections. Can't wait to hear their first yawn! Goodbye neocons. :)
Comments:
Anonymous said...
Iran has been -rather openly- supplying Hezbollah for years, and you think it's no big deal that Iran gets a few nukes?
You really think that the same kind of deterrence that worked with the Soviets will work with terrorists and their suppliers in an asymmetrical environment? If a nuke from Iran goes off in Central Park, who do we retaliate against? Tehran? Should we nuke that city and kill a million innocent people? Or burn off southern Lebanon, and kill thousands of other innocents to get the Hez we want?
8:26 PM
Charles Amico said...
My friend, the type of Bombs Iran is pursuing would be delievered by Missile. That is why they are also developing Long Range Missiles capable of reaching the U.S. You may be confusing "suitcase bombs" with the ones Iraq is wanting to develop. And suitcase bombs can be made now with any nuclear material available in our own country, if terrorists stole the material. That is why it is so important to focus our attention on securing our own borders and all chemical, biological and nuclear materials that could be used to cause great damage within our borders.
I rest my earlier case and site General Abizaid's comments in defense of my earlier post.
The Iranians are aware, he said, that the United States has a far superior military capability.
"I believe that we have the power to deter Iran, should it become nuclear," he said, referring to the theory that Iran would not risk a catastrophic retaliatory strike by using a nuclear weapon against the United States.
"There are ways to live with a nuclear Iran," Abizaid said in remarks at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a think tank. "Let's face it, we lived with a nuclear Soviet Union, we've lived with a nuclear China, and we're living with (other) nuclear powers as well."
(For the rest of the article click here.
Back in August 26, 2006 I wrote the following post titled, "Iran's Nuclear ambitions: What's all the fuss?" and I took a little heat for it. Here's a reprint of my post then and an anonymous comment from a reader:
"So Iran wants to have Nuclear technology, maybe even a few Nuclear bombs. What's all the fuss about? We have thousands of Nuclear bombs and stood successfully against a powerful Soviet Union in the Cold war. If you can remember back that far, it was the strategy of "Mutual Assured Destruction" that kept the weapons in check. Seems to me the same strategy would work here. So let's stop all the huffing and puffing and falling into the neocons mind trap that has been baited lately to get all of us scared and willing to consider a first strike option on their facilities. Don't be fooled by the scare tactics. It didn't work in the Cold war and it won't work here either. Preemptive strikes are now going to be a thing of the past. As Iran and others get the bomb, we are going to have to use diplomacy to work with the world and that means that Israel will have to change its approaches too. It will take a different mindset than the arrogant one we have displayed during the Bush/Cheney years, which by the way should be considered the worst Presidency in the history of our great nation. Looking back, the "Silent Majority" fell asleep during these past 6 years and are just awakening in time for the mid term November Congressional elections. Can't wait to hear their first yawn! Goodbye neocons. :)
Comments:
Anonymous said...
Iran has been -rather openly- supplying Hezbollah for years, and you think it's no big deal that Iran gets a few nukes?
You really think that the same kind of deterrence that worked with the Soviets will work with terrorists and their suppliers in an asymmetrical environment? If a nuke from Iran goes off in Central Park, who do we retaliate against? Tehran? Should we nuke that city and kill a million innocent people? Or burn off southern Lebanon, and kill thousands of other innocents to get the Hez we want?
8:26 PM
Charles Amico said...
My friend, the type of Bombs Iran is pursuing would be delievered by Missile. That is why they are also developing Long Range Missiles capable of reaching the U.S. You may be confusing "suitcase bombs" with the ones Iraq is wanting to develop. And suitcase bombs can be made now with any nuclear material available in our own country, if terrorists stole the material. That is why it is so important to focus our attention on securing our own borders and all chemical, biological and nuclear materials that could be used to cause great damage within our borders.
I rest my earlier case and site General Abizaid's comments in defense of my earlier post.
Labels: Gen. Abizaid, Iran, Nuclear Weapons
posted by Charles Amico at 7:19 PM
2 Comments:
Charles: I think the General is naive to think that extremists can be deterred. The Iranians will provide terrorists with small enough nuclear weapons that can be carried in a ship container, boat, small airplane...you name it, even by UPS, and they can be delivered anywhere in the world. Where did you get that the only delivery system is by missile? That is also naive my friend. And then, how will you know that the Iranians did it? Who would you retaliate against?
Thanks for the comment Enrique. I always appreciate them.
Maybe I am naive and will admit it here for all to see. Do you think Abizaid, from a military viewpoint doesn't know how his comments will be taken and knows very well what he is saying. He is saying that we will link a nuclear attack to Iran and retaliate against it and infer by that, it is in their best interests Not to pursue them.
Anyway, that's how I read it.
Thanks again my friend.
Post a Comment
<< Home