What will Obama do?

If Iran does close the straights of Hormuz what will Obama do?

Hey, we've been threatening to blockade them so they can't sell their oil, now they are doing the same thing. Just another example of that "blowback" Ron Paul talks about, if we weren't over there screwing with them, they wouldn't be making threats.

Doesn't matter what Iran does or doesn't do, real quick here all those just returned Iraq vets will be turning around and heading back to fight another pointless illegal war... this time in Iran. Obama has to start a new war quick to appease the war industry, plus sitting war Presidents don't lose elections. All he has to do is concoct a bogus reason.... like these non existent nukes, and he'll be hoping for a big surge in popularity and reelection over the bodies of our dead brothers and sons.

And unlike Iraq, Iran actual has a decent military with troops willing to fight. Yeah we can beat them, but we'll probably have ten times the loses we had in Iraq. Not to mention ever single Muslim will be out to get us after we start that war. Be prepared for all kinds of terrorist attacks. And it all leads right into Obamas plans of keeping the presidency one way or the other.

eber322 wrote:

Hey, we've been threatening to blockade them so they can't sell their oil, now they are doing the same thing. Just another example of that "blowback" Ron Paul talks about, if we weren't over there screwing with them, they wouldn't be making threats.

Doesn't matter what Iran does or doesn't do, real quick here all those just returned Iraq vets will be turning around and heading back to fight another pointless illegal war... this time in Iran. Obama has to start a new war quick to appease the war industry, plus sitting war Presidents don't lose elections. All he has to do is concoct a bogus reason.... like these non existent nukes, and he'll be hoping for a big surge in popularity and reelection over the bodies of our dead brothers and sons.

And unlike Iraq, Iran actual has a decent military with troops willing to fight. Yeah we can beat them, but we'll probably have ten times the loses we had in Iraq. Not to mention ever single Muslim will be out to get us after we start that war. Be prepared for all kinds of terrorist attacks. And it all leads right into Obamas plans of keeping the presidency one way or the other.

I am not so sure. Iraq had a better military then Iran did in the first gulf war was not even a contest. However really do we have to go to war? Only thing we would have to do is sink there navy get air superiority and it is over. Now as far as the blowback goes maybe so however it was done so what would Paul do? He would just let them close it and oil prices would sky rocket making him a one term president. Reality is this the left is going to use any ammunition against the republicans they have. I do not know if you have seen this or not but 850,000 members of the democratic party has left. 300,000 of the republican party has left.

Ron Paul would let every two bit nation run rough shot over us.

Iraq didn't have a better military. Iran has many more troops than Iraq ever did, with better training and experience. They won't cut and run like the Iraq's did.

And no we don't have to go to war, we (our government) wants to go to war. We are causing this situation right now. We are the bully pushing the little kid into the corner of the school bathroom and threatening to give him a swirly. Now that little kid is threatening to fight back because we have him in the corner. If we'd just turn around and walk out, that kid wouldn't need to fight back.

Ron Paul wouldn't let anybody run roughshod over us, what he would do is stop letting us be the worlds biggest bully running roughshod over ever other nation.

There navy is a joke and even obama wont let this happen. It would take us minutes to sink everything they have trying to block oil shipments. But none of this would be a issue if we were developing our own resources of fuel right here.

ssvs04 wrote:

There navy is a joke...

Of course it is. But there wouldn't even be a need to do anything if we weren't causing the problem to begin with. We want war with them, we're goading them into doing something stupid, like this blockade, just so we can invade.

ssvs04 wrote:

But none of this would be a issue if we were developing our own resources of fuel right here.

That's true too. We actually have more oil right here in the US then they do in the middle east, but we refuse to pump it.

eber322 wrote:

Iraq didn't have a better military. Iran has many more troops than Iraq ever did, with better training and experience. They won't cut and run like the Iraq's did.

And no we don't have to go to war, we (our government) wants to go to war. We are causing this situation right now. We are the bully pushing the little kid into the corner of the school bathroom and threatening to give him a swirly. Now that little kid is threatening to fight back because we have him in the corner. If we'd just turn around and walk out, that kid wouldn't need to fight back.

Ron Paul wouldn't let anybody run roughshod over us, what he would do is stop letting us be the worlds biggest bully running roughshod over ever other nation.

I am talking back during the first gulf war. Everyone said the same thing about Iraq it would not be a walkover and it was. You have to remember our troops have been battle tested and they are know how to make war. Iran would not stand a chance. With no Navy to speak of it would be a walk over.

However I think this is just chest pounding nothing will ever come of it. Unless Obama wants a war. But then he has to contend with his radical left. He has painted himself in a corner.

ssvs04 wrote:

There navy is a joke and even obama wont let this happen. It would take us minutes to sink everything they have trying to block oil shipments. But none of this would be a issue if we were developing our own resources of fuel right here.

One big thing would be the Canadian pipeline. But yes if we could get off of mid east oil that would be a big help. We would have no need to be there.

Eber. As far as goading them ya I have a hard with that one. Iran every so often pounds there chest. Now if Carter would have intervened then we would not be in this position. I will say this the left is trying to blame the republicans for this however last time I checked Obama is commander and chief.

Pissedoffvulcan wrote:

I am talking back during the first gulf war.

I know, and you're wrong. Irans military today is much better than Iraqs was back then.

Pissedoffvulcan wrote:

Everyone said the same thing about Iraq it would not be a walkover and it was.

Difference being Iraq never fought back. They gave up as soon as we arrived. Iran won't do that. It's a difference in training and ideology, they won't cut and run or give up without ever firing a shot. BTW a lot of people said Vietnam would be a walkover before that war started too.

Pissedoffvulcan wrote:

Unless Obama wants a war.

Bingo! He does want a war. And so do almost the Republicans and Democrats. Just watch that last Republican debate, every candidate, except for Paul, was foaming at the mouth to attack Iran. All a bunch of warmongering bullies causing most of the problems we have. Just as our government causes most of our problems at home, they cause most of our problems over seas as well.

Pissedoffvulcan wrote:

Eber. As far as goading them ya I have a hard with that one. Iran every so often pounds there chest. Now if Carter would have intervened then we would not be in this position.

You're right Carter didn't handle that right. But then again all the problems with Iran began back in the fifties when we, via the CIA, overthrew a democratically elected leader of a free country (Iran), and got the leadership replaced with dictators. That said, Reagan did handle the situation right, all he had to do was threaten war and they backed down and released the hostages. Not the same situation today. Today we are purposely backing them into a corner and giving them no option but to fight.

How? How are we backing them into a corner? I am not understanding this point of view. If they do not block the straights no big deal. As I said before this is nothing more then fist pumping. If they close them then they decide not us.

Pissedoffvulcan wrote:

How? How are we backing them into a corner? I am not understanding this point of view. If they do not block the straights no big deal. As I said before this is nothing more then fist pumping. If they close them then they decide not us.

The big deal is that we're destroying their country and their threats are in retaliation to that...

Quote :

Iran Threatens Oil Blockade Over Sanctions

As the U.S., and possibly the European Union as well, seek to tighten sanctions on Iran to discourage the country from pursuing nuclear weapons, Tehran has responded by threatening to cut off all oil from passing through the Strait of Hormuz—where the country has just begun 10 days of naval operations. Markets, however, paid little attention and Brent crude actually snapped a six-day increase as the country's threats were largely dismissed as rhetoric.

In a New York Times report, Iran’s first vice president, Mohammad-Reza Rahimi, said the country would strike back against any tighter sanctions by blocking all oil shipments through the strait, through which approximately a fifth of the world’s oil supply passes on its way to customers around the world. His threats are seen as fear that expanded sanctions contained in legislation about to be signed by President Barack Obama will have a severe effect on the country.

Apparently the threat of sanctions is a matter of concern to the Iranian leadership, since the Iranian currency is falling against the dollar and there are rumors of bank runs. Even though Iran is the third largest exporter of energy, it already is facing tough economic times.

Through Iran’s official news agency, Rahimi said, “If they impose sanctions on Iran’s oil exports, then even one drop of oil cannot flow from the Strait of Hormuz.” Whether that threat can be carried out remains to be seen, since the U.S. has plans in place to prevent a cutoff of oil transport.

Its threats were dismissed by Washington as "an element of bluster" and by markets that, after six days of increases in the price of Brent, moved to profit taking instead. Reuters reported that Thorbjoern Bak Jensen, oil analyst with Global Risk Management, said, "The threat by Iran to close the Strait of Hormuz supported the oil market yesterday, but the effect is fading today as it will probably be empty threats as they cannot stop the flow for a longer period due to the amount of U.S. hardware in the area."

Abbas Milani, director of Iranian studies at Stanford University, “Iran’s economic problems seem to be mounting and the whole economy is in a state of suspended expectation. The regime keeps repeating that they’re not going to be impacted by the sanctions. That they have more money than they know what to do with. The lady doth protest too much.”

The Obama administration aims to cut Iran’s oil revenue through cutting its sales volume, and forcing it to give its customers a discount on the price of crude. Some economists debate the feasibility of such a strategy, with investment bank analysts cautioning that the price of gasoline may rise in 2012 under the new U.S. sanctions and possible complementary ones from the EU.

Should the measures fail to achieve the desired result but instead cause the price of oil to rise and threaten the economy and/or national security, the president has the option to waive them.

eber322 wrote:

Pissedoffvulcan wrote:

How? How are we backing them into a corner? I am not understanding this point of view. If they do not block the straights no big deal. As I said before this is nothing more then fist pumping. If they close them then they decide not us.

The big deal is that we're destroying their country and their threats are in retaliation to that...

Quote :

Iran Threatens Oil Blockade Over Sanctions

As the U.S., and possibly the European Union as well, seek to tighten sanctions on Iran to discourage the country from pursuing nuclear weapons, Tehran has responded by threatening to cut off all oil from passing through the Strait of Hormuz—where the country has just begun 10 days of naval operations. Markets, however, paid little attention and Brent crude actually snapped a six-day increase as the country's threats were largely dismissed as rhetoric.

In a New York Times report, Iran’s first vice president, Mohammad-Reza Rahimi, said the country would strike back against any tighter sanctions by blocking all oil shipments through the strait, through which approximately a fifth of the world’s oil supply passes on its way to customers around the world. His threats are seen as fear that expanded sanctions contained in legislation about to be signed by President Barack Obama will have a severe effect on the country.

Apparently the threat of sanctions is a matter of concern to the Iranian leadership, since the Iranian currency is falling against the dollar and there are rumors of bank runs. Even though Iran is the third largest exporter of energy, it already is facing tough economic times.

Through Iran’s official news agency, Rahimi said, “If they impose sanctions on Iran’s oil exports, then even one drop of oil cannot flow from the Strait of Hormuz.” Whether that threat can be carried out remains to be seen, since the U.S. has plans in place to prevent a cutoff of oil transport.

Its threats were dismissed by Washington as "an element of bluster" and by markets that, after six days of increases in the price of Brent, moved to profit taking instead. Reuters reported that Thorbjoern Bak Jensen, oil analyst with Global Risk Management, said, "The threat by Iran to close the Strait of Hormuz supported the oil market yesterday, but the effect is fading today as it will probably be empty threats as they cannot stop the flow for a longer period due to the amount of U.S. hardware in the area."

Abbas Milani, director of Iranian studies at Stanford University, “Iran’s economic problems seem to be mounting and the whole economy is in a state of suspended expectation. The regime keeps repeating that they’re not going to be impacted by the sanctions. That they have more money than they know what to do with. The lady doth protest too much.”

The Obama administration aims to cut Iran’s oil revenue through cutting its sales volume, and forcing it to give its customers a discount on the price of crude. Some economists debate the feasibility of such a strategy, with investment bank analysts cautioning that the price of gasoline may rise in 2012 under the new U.S. sanctions and possible complementary ones from the EU.

Should the measures fail to achieve the desired result but instead cause the price of oil to rise and threaten the economy and/or national security, the president has the option to waive them.

Again that is the world doing that. Iran refuses to stop there nuclear program. A program we can ill afford to let come about. Would you like for Iran to have a nuke? We do know they are working on it. That is a fact. This regime is a radical regime. The people of Iran do not like them they know just how radical they are. They are going to hang a lady for adultery. That is how radical it has become. This is a group of people who slaughtered a bunch of protestors a few months ago.

You would have us not have sanctions? I do not subscribe to that. Iran is a very dangerous country they have been waging war for five thousand years. It seems the Persians pick on who ever the biggest power is. Greece when they were a superpower. Alexander did take them down and ruined them for a few thousand years. But I digress.

Bottom line Iran is going ahead with the nuke building anyone that does not think so is foolish to do so. If Iran would let the international community in to see those nuclear plants then the sanctions would be lifted.

It's us doing it, not the world. As far as the dictators running the country, we put them in power. There is no evidence they have nukes, none. Iraq let the inspectors in, we invaded anyway claiming they did have WMD's even though the inspectors found none. We know how that turned out. Why shouldn't Iran have nukes? The Israels have them, Pakistan has them, Turkey has them, etc. Who are we that we should be able to tell them no? They should have as much right to demand we get rid of all our nukes and let their inspectors into all our weapons programs to prove it. What next? Are we going to forbid them to have planes, tanks, ships, guns? We have no right to do that. They are surrounded by enemies that have nukes pointed at them, why wouldn't they want the same to keep those enemies from using them? We don't have any right to tell another sovereign country what to do on their own soil, period.

And yeah I know you'll argue that they can't be trusted with them etc. But the same can be said of Pakistan, India, North Korea, etc yet we didn't try to stop them. If anybody over there is likely to use a nuke without cause it's Israel. They already attacked us and tried to trick us into nuking Egypt for them, now they have their own nukes. Besides I'm sure Iran already have nukes bought off the black market from the former Soviet Union satellite countries.

Pissedoffvulcan wrote:

eber322 wrote:

Iraq didn't have a better military. Iran has many more troops than Iraq ever did, with better training and experience. They won't cut and run like the Iraq's did.

And no we don't have to go to war, we (our government) wants to go to war. We are causing this situation right now. We are the bully pushing the little kid into the corner of the school bathroom and threatening to give him a swirly. Now that little kid is threatening to fight back because we have him in the corner. If we'd just turn around and walk out, that kid wouldn't need to fight back.

Ron Paul wouldn't let anybody run roughshod over us, what he would do is stop letting us be the worlds biggest bully running roughshod over ever other nation.

I am talking back during the first gulf war. Everyone said the same thing about Iraq it would not be a walkover and it was. You have to remember our troops have been battle tested and they are know how to make war. Iran would not stand a chance. With no Navy to speak of it would be a walk over.

However I think this is just chest pounding nothing will ever come of it. Unless Obama wants a war. But then he has to contend with his radical left. He has painted himself in a corner.

Irans military is also a joke. They have tech, planes and tanks from the 80s. I dont care how well trained you are when thousands of cluster bombs are wiping out troops by the thousands in your bunker your giving up.

Any person who says he wouldnt have defended the world against Hitler is going to get thousands of Americans killed because he thinks if we just stop picking on those poor most dangerous countries in the world will stop all intelligence and let Isreal get wiped out they are just going to leave us alone. Its never worked in the history of countries and its never worked with the school yard bully.

Evidence is overwhelming they are working on and close to finishing a nuke. Just like Iraq had no problem using there biological weapons so will Iran once its completed.

eber322 wrote:

It's us doing it, not the world. As far as the dictators running the country, we put them in power. There is no evidence they have nukes, none. Iraq let the inspectors in, we invaded anyway claiming they did have WMD's even though the inspectors found none. We know how that turned out. Why shouldn't Iran have nukes? The Israels have them, Pakistan has them, Turkey has them, etc. Who are we that we should be able to tell them no? They should have as much right to demand we get rid of all our nukes and let their inspectors into all our weapons programs to prove it. What next? Are we going to forbid them to have planes, tanks, ships, guns? We have no right to do that. They are surrounded by enemies that have nukes pointed at them, why wouldn't they want the same to keep those enemies from using them? We don't have any right to tell another sovereign country what to do on their own soil, period.

And yeah I know you'll argue that they can't be trusted with them etc. But the same can be said of Pakistan, India, North Korea, etc yet we didn't try to stop them. If anybody over there is likely to use a nuke without cause it's Israel. They already attacked us and tried to trick us into nuking Egypt for them, now they have their own nukes. Besides I'm sure Iran already have nukes bought off the black market from the former Soviet Union satellite countries.

Now lets talk about Iraq I know I have posted many times about this and studied it. We have removed 500 tons of yellowcake uranium that not reported by the main stream media. I wonder why? Also we have found enough saran gas to kill a half million people. Not to mention all the delivery systems that were found. Missiles Artillery and such. Not to mention even Saddam did use Chem weapons on the Kurds. So to say there were non is misleading.

Now we are not telling a sovereign country what to do on there own soil. We are saying you are violating international laws if you close international waters. They have no more right to close it then anyone else. However we have the right to keep it open.

Are you suggesting that we do nothing to the Somalia pirates who are taking ships hostage? After all it is the same thing.

Now as far as letting them during the cold war we did. Not only that Eber do you really want radical religious group who cares not about life to have those nukes? I know it is a popular belief that if everyone had them no one would use them. I do not hold to that. Some crazy will. Now about us having nukes. Soon nukes are going to be obsolete. There is a far cheaper and more deadly weapon on the horizon. Just seen the article a few days ago.

Kinetic energy missiles. No radiation but can do just as much damage. In 20 years nukes will be obsolete.

ssvs04 wrote:

Pissedoffvulcan wrote:

eber322 wrote:

Iraq didn't have a better military. Iran has many more troops than Iraq ever did, with better training and experience. They won't cut and run like the Iraq's did.

And no we don't have to go to war, we (our government) wants to go to war. We are causing this situation right now. We are the bully pushing the little kid into the corner of the school bathroom and threatening to give him a swirly. Now that little kid is threatening to fight back because we have him in the corner. If we'd just turn around and walk out, that kid wouldn't need to fight back.

Ron Paul wouldn't let anybody run roughshod over us, what he would do is stop letting us be the worlds biggest bully running roughshod over ever other nation.

I am talking back during the first gulf war. Everyone said the same thing about Iraq it would not be a walkover and it was. You have to remember our troops have been battle tested and they are know how to make war. Iran would not stand a chance. With no Navy to speak of it would be a walk over.

However I think this is just chest pounding nothing will ever come of it. Unless Obama wants a war. But then he has to contend with his radical left. He has painted himself in a corner.

Irans military is also a joke. They have tech, planes and tanks from the 80s. I dont care how well trained you are when thousands of cluster bombs are wiping out troops by the thousands in your bunker your giving up.

Any person who says he wouldnt have defended the world against Hitler is going to get thousands of Americans killed because he thinks if we just stop picking on those poor most dangerous countries in the world will stop all intelligence and let Isreal get wiped out they are just going to leave us alone. Its never worked in the history of countries and its never worked with the school yard bully.

Evidence is overwhelming they are working on and close to finishing a nuke. Just like Iraq had no problem using there biological weapons so will Iran once its completed.

I have to agree. Iran is backing themselves in a corner. It is a radical government bent on the destruction of Israel then the United States first. Iran wants to do what Hitler did he wants the Jews wiped off the face of the Earth.

The only thing that is going to solve this is when we become energy independent. Then we can say to all the people overseas hey sorry but we need nothing from you no more so we are closing all bases overseas you are on your own.

Pissedoffvulcan wrote:

Now we are not telling a sovereign country what to do on there own soil.

Yeah we are. We're telling them they aren't allowed to build their own nukes on their on land. We have no right to do that. And because they said "Go screw yourself" to our demands, we started sanctions that are destroying their economy. Their threats of a blockade are a direct result of our actions. Our telling them what they can do on their own soil is as bad as them threatening to close international waters... and we started it.

eber322 wrote:

Pissedoffvulcan wrote:

Now we are not telling a sovereign country what to do on there own soil.

Yeah we are. We're telling them they aren't allowed to build their own nukes on their on land. We have no right to do that. And because they said "Go screw yourself" to our demands, we started sanctions that are destroying their economy. Their threats of a blockade are a direct result of our actions. Our telling them what they can do on their own soil is as bad as them threatening to close international waters... and we started it.

Regardless if they block international waters then the world has a right to act. If they block it then as far as I am concerned they get what they deserve. However like I have stated before this is nothing more then sabre rattling.

I do not want a country like Iran who is willing to export terror to have a nuke. Now maybe you and Ron Paul does however I think I speak for the majority of Americans who say a nuclear Iran is unacceptable.

ssvs04 wrote:

Irans military is also a joke. They have tech, planes and tanks from the 80s. I dont care how well trained you are when thousands of cluster bombs are wiping out troops by the thousands in your bunker your giving up.

That's not actually accurate. They do have some older stuff, but they also have state of the art missiles bought from the Russians and the Chinese. They also build their own tanks, planes, submarines, etc based off of current Chinese designs. There are even reports that they have their own drone planes.

Now does any of that mean they could win a war with us? Of course not. But it does mean we'll lose a lot of lives fighting them. It it won't be simple as us dropping bombs on them because they will shield their military assets with civilians. Which means we'll have to send in ground troops and fight guerrilla wars in the streets.

And again that doesn't mean they'll win, just that our loses will be much higher than in Iraq.

ssvs04 wrote:

Any person who says he wouldnt have defended the world against Hitler is going to get thousands of Americans killed...

I assume you're talking about Ron Paul, once again there's no proof he's ever said that, just claims by one disgruntled former employee. And besides that doesn't matter in this situation because this war will most likely happen any day now, not after the election.

ssvs04 wrote:

...stop all intelligence...

You've said this more than once, and it is completely untrue. Ron Paul has NEVER said he wants to stop intelligence gathering, NEVER. He wants to get rid of the CIA which spends most of it's time using intelligence to carry out illegal activities around the world. That don't gather most of that intelligence, other groups do. Ron Paul wants to get rid of them and use the intelligence being gathered to actual protect the country instead of carrying out illegal actions in foreign countries. The little bit of actual intelligence gathering the CIA does can be shifted to other intelligence agencies, like military intelligence.

ssvs04 wrote:

Evidence is overwhelming they are working on and close to finishing a nuke.

Overwhelming? No it's not. There is nothing but paranoia going on. There is no proof at all that they are building nukes. For every report from some alleged expert group saying they are, there's another report from some other group saying that they aren't.

Quote :

June 02, 2011 "Information Clearing House" --- The former Director-General of the International Atomic Energy Agency(IAEA) said in a new published report that he had not seen “a shred of evidence” that Iran was “building nuclear-weapons facilities and using enriched materials.”

Mohamed ElBaradei, the Nobel Peace Prize recipient who spent 12 years at the IAEA, told investigative journalist Seymour Hersh, “I don’t believe Iran is a clear and present danger. All I see is the hype about the threat posed by Iran.”

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article28231.htm

ssvs04 wrote:

Just like Iraq had no problem using there biological weapons so will Iran once its completed.

Bull. Iran has no plans to nuke anybody because they know they would be nuked out of existence in return. They want nukes for one reason, to make others less likely to nuke them. If Canada and Mexico hated our guts and had nukes aimed at us, wouldn't you want nukes to deter them from using them? There's a lot of talk about Iran hating Israel, which is true, but it just as true that the Israeli government hates them just as much. And they already have nukes.

Pissedoffvulcan wrote:

Regardless if they block international waters then the world has a right to act.

You're absolutely right. So the world should get together and demand that the US stop causing the problem that is leading to Irans threats out of self defense.

Iran is a crazy nation. They could care less if they get nuked back. Not only that once they get a nuke they wont do the nuking anyway. It will be a third party that they gave the nuke to.

Iran wants the big impact. Iran would give a nuke away in a second to some terrorist group.

However back to my point. If Iran closes the straight then the United States has the right to open that straight up.

I will say this though Ron Paul supporters are dedicated.

I am not even sure if he sees a threat from the Mexican drug lords.

eber322 wrote:

Pissedoffvulcan wrote:

Regardless if they block international waters then the world has a right to act.

You're absolutely right. So the world should get together and demand that the US stop causing the problem that is leading to Irans threats out of self defense.

Last time I looked it was also the world participating in those sanctions.

Ron Paul scares the hell out me with his foreign policy. I am not even sure he would defend America if were invaded.

Pissedoffvulcan wrote:

Iran is a crazy nation. They could care less if they get nuked back.

That's a bunch of ridiculous war propaganda cr@p cooked up to scare people into supporting the idea of invading them. Besides, neither Iran or any other Muslim country would want to nuke Israel. They consider that land theirs and they have religious temples and sites all over the place there that they would never want to see damaged.

Pissedoffvulcan wrote:

Last time I looked it was also the world participating in those sanctions.

There are other countries involved, we started it and got some of our allies to go along with it. We orchestrated the whole thing, including getting them to go along with it. Just like we orchestrated the war in Iraq and got others to join us.

Pissedoffvulcan wrote:

Iran wants the big impact. Iran would give a nuke away in a second to some terrorist group.

Well then it's to late anyway. Iran already has nukes that they bought from the former soviet satellite nations years ago. No doubt about it. We know they bought soviet subs, tanks, planes, etc. In fact they bought more of that stuff from them then any other country did. And we know there were dozens, if not hundreds of nukes that went missing from the soviet stockpiles at that same time. Do you really think that their biggest buyer, Iran, with all the money they needed to buy them, didn't buy any? So, if they were going to "give them away", they already did twenty some years ago. Only new thing today is that they might be trying to build their own nukes, even though there's no proof of that. But don't doubt they already have soviet nukes.

Again there military is a complete joke. With the years of our Air Force and ground troops being in combat this would be another Iraq sweep. They have old equipment with very little new of anything they make. And the main part of there military is used to keep there unhappy population in check who do not support the government.

ARMY: - The army comprises about 350,000 men, including 220,000 conscripts. The Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, viewed as the most loyal guardian of the ruling system, has another 125,000 men. In 2004 the army was organised in four corps, with four armored divisions and six infantry divisions.- There are 1,600 tanks including some 100 Zulfiqar locally produced main battle tanks. A large number of Iran's tanks are elderly British-made Chieftains and U.S.-made M-60s. - Soviet-made T-54 and T-55s, T-59s, T-62s, and T-72s were also part of the inventory, all captured from the Iraqis or acquired from North Korea and China. - A report from the International Institute for Strategic Studies says that some of the tanks' serviceability may be in doubt. - There are around 640 armored personnel carriers. There are 8,196 artillery pieces of which 2,010 are towed, and over 310 are self-propelled.

NAVY: - There are 18,000 naval personnel. The navy has its headquarters at Bandar-e Abbas. Iran's navy has three Russian Kilo class submarines, three frigates and two corvettes.- As of 2001 the regular Iranian navy was in a state of overall obsolescence, and in poor shape because they had not been equipped with modern ships and weapons. The readiness of the three frigates is doubtful, and the two nearly 40-year-old corvettes do not have sophisticated weapons. - In late 2007 Iran launched a new locally made submarine and a navy frigate named as Jamaran. Jane's Defence Weekly has reported that Iran was also building missile-launching frigates copied from 275-tonne Kaman fast attack missile craft originally purchased from France in the late 1970s.

AIR FORCE:- The air force has some 30,000 personnel and 319 combat aircraft. However, serviceability may be as low as around 60 percent for U.S. aircraft types and 80 percent for Russian aircraft. There are F-14 and MiG 29 aircraft. There are also some aircraft impounded from Iraq -- Russian-built Sukhoi Su-24s and 25s. Iran also has transport aircraft and helicopters. - In September 2007, Iran said it had tested two new domestically-produced jet fighters. State television said the Saegheh was a new generation of the Azarakhsh (Lightning) fighter. Iran said it was being built on an industrial scale