Freya's  Instablog

Freya
Send Message
I have my name back, Still looking for a Purrfect picture. I have friends. Time to restart. SA isn't perfect but then I'm not either. But Life is far too short, and as the Roman Gladiators used to say: Eat, drink and make merry because tommorow, you may die. Why hasten your demise, don't worry,... More
  • 2010 and Iran 35 comments
    Dec 29, 2009 5:20 AM

    I was going to do this over the weekend but decided that this part of it should be done ASAP:

    Sanctions on Iran will not be viable without Russia and China. I really don't know if anything will stop Iran at this point.

    Israel has weaned its way away from oil as much as it can. I believe an Israeli strike will occur within the next 30-45 days at the Outside.

    I saw an interview with an Islamic Journalist on Bloomberg a few weeks ago. The gist of what he said is as follows:

    The West sees the turmoil in Iran as being between 2 Political entities. This is just a smokescreen being pushed by the current Leadership. In reality, the Revolutionary Guard is about to takeover, Everything. They plan to rule Iran without interference from anyone including the Religious leaders.
    One Party, One Rule, President Akmadinni's roots are Revolutionary Guard. They want a Nuke.

    Expect Martial Law to be declared first. (my opinion)

    Given the circumstances, Israel will not have a choice.

    My opinion, on the aftermath, is that Oil Spikes but Nat Gas may spike even more ( Iran may not have much in the way of "good" Oil but it is one of the Top 3 Nat Gas producers in the World )

    Instead of a 2nd half recessionary drop, it occurs in the first half with major Inflationary implications throughout our economy more so than other Developed Nations. Releasing Oil from the SPR requires refiners who not only have shut down but have fired employees as well, Demand Destruction's bedfellows.

    What happens in the Region? Do Old Vendetta's finally achieve resolution? Got me but in the interim the immediate winners should be:

    Gold, Energy (all Kinds), USD, Telecom, Oil Transportation, servicing and refining...you get the gist...

    Stagflation on the Hyperside. If you prepare for the worst, things can only get better. But you have to prepare.

    As far as I'd concerned, current Stockmarket predictions have Caveats on them related to my prediction. However, those Caveats are Limited to:

    "All predictions are OFF" if my scenario occurs. None of them include what to do if it were a Fait Accompli.

    History has a way of repeating itself.

Back To Freya's Instablog HomePage »

Instablogs are blogs which are instantly set up and networked within the Seeking Alpha community. Instablog posts are not selected, edited or screened by Seeking Alpha editors, in contrast to contributors' articles.

Comments (35)
Track new comments
  • optionsgirl
    , contributor
    Comments (5202) | Send Message
     
    That's horrible. The people are dying in the streets for what? A new oppressor.
    29 Dec 2009, 08:57 AM Reply Like
  • tripleblack
    , contributor
    Comments (13581) | Send Message
     
    I agree, I still view the S300 installation (to complete Iran's TOR M1 air defense system, already installed and operating) as the final straw for Israel.

     

    It was promised delivery back in late November for January.

     

    Its a fully self-contained system, mobile, and would be functional within hours of being plugged into the existing structures in Iran.

     

    It is the sort of weapons system that is considered "destabilizing" in the context of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) strategies. This means that it gives the advantage to one side, degrading the "Assured" component of the national suicide pact.

     

    I would not be invested in any Israeli companies about now...

     

    Needless to say, I fully support the idea of entering a defensive investment posture - I did this a month ago.

     

    Iran's internal political fragility just points to another reason for them to do something insane (pick a war with Israel) so the current regime can retain and expand power.

     

    Freya: What odds do you see that this will come to pass over the next few months? I realize this is just a guess...
    29 Dec 2009, 09:09 AM Reply Like
  • Freya
    , contributor
    Comments (3362) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » Odds? No Odds available.

     

    Certainty? 100%. IMHO

     

    I saw the headline on the Nuclear Triggers and it promptly disappeared. Hell, I thought it would be picked up by the Media Worldwide.

     

    That's the reason for the early post without stock picks. I felt that preparations had to be made with as much leeway as possible.
    29 Dec 2009, 10:54 AM Reply Like
  • Dialectical Materialist
    , contributor
    Comments (5080) | Send Message
     
    I doubt the turmoil in Iran is an intentional smokescreen. There is definitely tension between the Guard and the Religious Leadership, but it would be folly to assume that Martial Law without the backing of the ayatollahs would be effective.

     

    An attack by Israel would embolden the revolutionaries and protestors (because most folks in most nations really don't want to be dragged into costly wars by the actions of a government they don't support). But it could also just as easily quiet the voice of dissent as Iranians feel "now is not the time to air our internal grievances, we must join against the common enemy." This seems likely, but not so likely that I think Ahmadinejad could count on support in a fight against Israel. In other words, an attack would be a double edged sword. It would steel Iran's resolve, but it would remind a not small portion of the population that they have a reckless leadership in place.

     

    I'm not sure that they are "picking a fight" with Israel by pursuing their weapons plans. They may GET one, but that is not necessarily what they want. I think they want to actually get the weapon, not a fight from Israel (yet). But when we are on the topic of nuclear aspirations, we should never forget that Israel stole nuclear secrets and covertly designed their own nukes while hiding their weapons from international inspectors (including having one bogus nuclear power plant that sat over top of a concealed weapons facility in true James Bond fashion, complete with descending floor and hidden tunnels. Very state of the art.) So lying about what you are up to while stealing and buying the technology you need to make a bomb is just the way this game is played.

     

    I'm going to go out on a limb and say that Israel does not attack Iran this year. I think it is not crazy to suggest they may, and they certainly have their reasons. But I just think the stars are aligned for slower movement on this. One of those "stars" is this emerging revolution in Iran. There are some valuable advantages in seeing how this plays out. Conversely, there are some big political disadvantages to acting too soon.
    29 Dec 2009, 11:08 AM Reply Like
  • Freya
    , contributor
    Comments (3362) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » Dialectical, the "smokescreen" is that the turmoil in Iran is due to the Political outlooks of 2 parties.

     

    The reality is that The Military is about to stage a coup. And the Military wants a Nuke.

     

    I always figured that the Iran/Israel conflict would take place. The Bit about the Revolutionary Guard was based on an interview.

     

    "There are some valuable advantages in seeing how this plays out. Conversely, there are some big political disadvantages to acting too soon."

     

    There are no advantages for Israel. The only Disadvantage for Israel is that Iran gets a Nuke, that Disadvantage could prove to be Fatal.

     

    They know it.
    29 Dec 2009, 11:44 AM Reply Like
  • robert.b.ferguson
    , contributor
    Comments (10491) | Send Message
     
    Freya: Greetings. Your analysis seems spot on IRT political turmoil. However the ruling class in Iran including the RG have unleashed the very forces that they employed in over throwing the Shah. We are seeing the same forty day protest cycle and the same harsh government responses that drove the revolution in the seventies. This time those forces are arrayed against them and they are having the same problems dealing with them. As more protesters are killed more martyrs are created leading to larger protests and the cycle continues. Some thing will definitely come about that changes the regime in Iran but what will emerge to replace it is any ones guess. In any case disruptions to oil and natural gas will ensue so the end result short term from our perspective is the same. Defensive measures are definitely in order when rebalancing portfolios next month. If you don't actively trade bonds as part of your strategy I suggest you allocate some of your funds to a good bond fund. The afore mentioned Pimco has a decent stable and provides a decent return for a low risk venture.
    29 Dec 2009, 11:57 AM Reply Like
  • optionsgirl
    , contributor
    Comments (5202) | Send Message
     
    Dialetical- Iran wants to get the weapon, then use the weapon. Their intentions couldn't be clearer, after all the jawing they've done about it, I just take them at their word on this one.
    29 Dec 2009, 12:23 PM Reply Like
  • Mayascribe
    , contributor
    Comments (11198) | Send Message
     
    Kind of a sidebar to this column...

     

    Since I bought some Citi, I wondered how many branches were in Iran, and possibly how Citi would be affected if a clash between Iseal and Iran develops. Apparently, already some two billion has been frozen by a US Court last year. This is an old story, where us families of marines that were killed in a 1983 bombing have claims in.

     

    uk.reuters.com/article...
    29 Dec 2009, 12:25 PM Reply Like
  • tripleblack
    , contributor
    Comments (13581) | Send Message
     
    This is a difficult event for which to pre-pick stock winners, outside some oil patch plays, and there is potential risk for many of them if their operations are disrupted by the fracas.

     

    I have a long list that I am watching, but until this event is handled (one way or another), this turtle is sitting in the mud for the most part.

     

    The last such event I fully commited to (the invasion of Iraq), I foresaw a rapid military victory, and invested close to the bottom of the panic, then rode it out of the trough before falling away after Bush handed Iraq over to the tender mercies of the State Dept. I do NOT see such a sanguine outcome this time. I believe there is a very good chance that Israel will NOT succeed in a surgical strike, and that the uproar from the attack may embolden the hardliners (who apparently need little encouragement) to crack down on their domestic opponents. They would also simultaneously react militarily against Israel. They possess several families of long range ballistic missiles, much more formidable than those aging soviet SCUD missiles Hussein deployed against Israel. It may be a dire mistake to assume that the Iranians do NOT currently possess nuclear weapons. Observers persist in comparing their progress against the industrial processes needed to create modern full scale nuclear fusion warheads - whereas simple FISSION bombs such as we used on Japan in 1945 are much easier to construct. Israel is a tiny, densely populated nation. A Hiroshima-type atom bomb or three will do plenty of damage...
    29 Dec 2009, 12:42 PM Reply Like
  • robert.b.ferguson
    , contributor
    Comments (10491) | Send Message
     
    Achminutjob will use a nuclear weapon against Israel at the earliest opportunity in order to facilitate the return of the hidden Imam. He truly is a world class religious fanatic. We should be asking if Israel has the defensive capacity to with stand such an attack and what the scale of the strike might be. Even the best missile shield can be saturated if enough ordinance is launched simultaneously. I'm with TB on this one: Unload your stock in Israeli companies and hunker down. I hear the mud is nice this time of year.
    29 Dec 2009, 01:02 PM Reply Like
  • Dialectical Materialist
    , contributor
    Comments (5080) | Send Message
     
    This is a complicated issue that I am not doing justice to by glossing over items, but I want to respond to a couple comments by Freya and OG, because I don't want to come off as naive. I agree that Iran with a nuke is a bad thing and they are among the most likely folks to use one (though I think the most likely to use one would be terrorists if they ever got hold of a loose nuke). I'm just saying, let's imagine for a moment that Iran gets a nuke and Israel knows it. Would Iran use the first nuke it made, or would it try to make more? (Open question.) How many nukes would Iran get before it moved? (I know the first one is the hardest, but each missile takes time to prepare.) Now, if a nuclear site with unarmed or armed warheads is bombed, there is a non-trivial risk of premature detonation. So if Israel were to wait until they had a working missile and then pre-emptively attacked, they may cause a nuclear explosion in Iran. This is something many of them would think is a "not bad" thing, especially if they could prove they used conventional weapons and it was Iran's own nuke that exploded. Given modern intelligence, it would be a no brainer to prove all they used were conventional bombs, and hence would simultaneously prove Iran had nukes, destroy those nukes, and deal a world of hurt to Iran and its government (and the cause of all who would seek to wipe out Israel) in one fell swoop.

     

    No, I think the idea of waiting a little longer in this game of chicken may be exactly what they want to do.

     

    It is hard to predict what crazy people will do. Crazy people and power hungry people from other cultures speaking other languages only complicates the matter further. So I am not saying Israel should just chill and there is nothing to worry about. But what if Israel acted tomorrow? They would be mildly condemned by Europe and the US and strongly condemmed by Russia and China. And they may very well start a war with Iran. They could win this war, but they would open up rioting in Lebanon and Gaza and the West bank, they would have a lot of fronts and at least initially not a lot of allies. The US would fall in once Israel suffered any losses, as the move could then be seen as coming to their defense, but we really don't want to complicate our already complicated relationships in the region. Do you think Turkey is going to sit back and watch Israel consolidate power? Iraq? Wow, what a mess. If Israel is thinking they can just one and done it like Iraq in the early 80's (83?) then that is one thing, but who's to say this doesn't blow the whole thing open? I think Triple's comments along these lines are right on the money.
    29 Dec 2009, 01:09 PM Reply Like
  • Freya
    , contributor
    Comments (3362) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » Dialec: I'm not in total disagreement. A MAD Iran/Israel situation may yet develop. I just don't believe that anyone in the Region has the slightest chance of Peace with a Nuke in the Possession Iran.

     

    Imagine them dictating what the Price of Oil will be. Period.
    30 Dec 2009, 02:38 AM Reply Like
  • Dialectical Materialist
    , contributor
    Comments (5080) | Send Message
     
    Freya: I have a hard time seeing any chances of long term peace as long as so many countries either don't believe in Israel's right to exist, want it wiped off the map, or both. Israel is about the size of my home state of VT, and as such it is easy for me to extrapolate what it would be like to live so close to so many people who wanted you dead. We'd be getting rockets from Plattsburgh NY, incursions from the puppet government seated in Montreal, and No further than Maine and New Jersey would live millions of people who denied the holocaust and refused to acknowledge our right to exist. It is one ugly situation, and while I don't support everything Israel does as a country, I really can't imagine what it would be like to live in their neighborhood.

     

    My concern about the nuclear issue is that it seems inevitable that baddies will get more and more nukes over time. All it takes is for one bad regime (North Korea) to develop and sell them or a regime on the fence (Pakistan) to fall and put the weapons into the hands of the likes of the Taliban. It seems probable that over the next 50 years, some very unsavory characters will have control over nuclear weapons, even if just briefly. As a war gamer, I would be plotting my strategies based on how to handle these outcomes as much as I would to prevent them. In other words, I would put rapid response capability (with the goal being to take out the sites) at the top of my list of goals. I'm thinking space cannon is the only real way to maintain an edge 40-60 years from now.

     

    So no argument from me about the evils of Iran's nuclear aspirations. I just have a different hunch about the timing of what goes down.
    30 Dec 2009, 11:09 AM Reply Like
  • Freya
    , contributor
    Comments (3362) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » Point given, Its just a matter of opinion then.

     

    I believe they can't wait, you believe they should wait.

     

    You know what would be nice to get? An opinion from SeekingAlpha's staff. There are a couple or more who live in Israel. I'll have to back up and revisit this mornings Eli article and ask.
    30 Dec 2009, 11:21 AM Reply Like
  • tripleblack
    , contributor
    Comments (13581) | Send Message
     
    I have been monitoring what Israel thinks of this situation for a very long time...

     

    They are scared.
    30 Dec 2009, 01:07 PM Reply Like
  • Freya
    , contributor
    Comments (3362) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » Invited Eli and SA Staffers to post their Own opinions here.

     

    I mean, they might not be allowed to comment on Articles but this isn't an Article per se.

     

    I don't know if anyone has tried to get them "involved" before but Sea Drakes aren't averse to Sinking traditions.

     

    A new Decade is about to begin, hopefully a Much Better One.
    30 Dec 2009, 01:08 PM Reply Like
  • tripleblack
    , contributor
    Comments (13581) | Send Message
     
    Also on the Israel/Iran topic, we frequently review HOW Israel might stage a raid into Iran.

     

    The path via Georgia is gone now, Russia uncovered that idea, and is squatting on top of the route (and a chunk of Georgia, of course).

     

    A direct path via areas controlled by the United States are closed, the regime in Washington will protect Iran. Even a "whink-whink" passage through our military radar coverage will not occur.

     

    But there IS one area which may be overlooked...

     

    Kurdish Iraq.

     

    Keep an eye on northern Iraq. The Kurds have ambitions against the portion of Iran which they consider part of a "Greater Kurdistan", and centuries of bad blood between them and the rulers of Tehran.

     

    Its an alternative that Israel might use to stage an air strike.
    30 Dec 2009, 01:27 PM Reply Like
  • Mayascribe
    , contributor
    Comments (11198) | Send Message
     
    Freya: My sense is that SA staffers are already beginning to get more involved in commenting, an idea that I embrace. An SA staffer emailed me this morning asking if she could quote a comment I made in one of your Instas; not sure which quote (have an idea). I gave her the okay.

     

    Iran vs. Iraq: Things are escalating. As Triple has pointed out, because I believe geopolitics play large influence toward his investment thesis--as they should--the eroding situation in the Middle East has been eroding ever since post WWII. But now things are different. It's not rocks, tear gas, tanks and grenade launchers. It's potential and very worrisome nukes and sophisticated missile defense systems.

     

    One of the wild cards that the Mid Term Outlook I recieved from Wells Fargo months ago, was the potential for conflict between Israel and Iran. I expect an even more carefully worded warning when I recieve the 2010 Outlook. When I recieve the pamphlet, I will give their forecasts in the form of an Instablog.

     

    30 Dec 2009, 01:35 PM Reply Like
  • Swashbuckler
    , contributor
    Comments (715) | Send Message
     
    The New Decade doesn't begin for another year. Just like the last night of the 20TH century was not December 31ST 1999, despite popular opinion. It was December 31ST 2000.
    30 Dec 2009, 02:37 PM Reply Like
  • Freya
    , contributor
    Comments (3362) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » With everyone looking to the skies, my thinking was more in line with a Ground assault. The current violence would be a good cover and aid from inside against the present Regime more forthcoming.

     

    If Air were to become involved, I would think it would be from the standpoint of the extraction process.

     

    The Kurdish angle would play into a ground incursion as well. There is no doubt whatsoever in my mind tnat a coordinated Ground assault would be the least likely to inflict Colleteral Damage.
    30 Dec 2009, 02:47 PM Reply Like
  • tripleblack
    , contributor
    Comments (13581) | Send Message
     
    The current unrest (which was not present at any earlier time) DOES yield some possibilities. I agree.

     

    It may even give operators (other than America, we appear to be hapless observers and enablers in all this) from countries like Israel a chance to work via native insurgents like the Perka or some other Kurdist group. I doubt the larger Shia dissident groups would be open to this, nor most of the Sunni groups, though some of the more secular Arab populations might be prime candidates.

     

    The ability of the Massoud to penetrate Iran's nuclear factories is unknown.

     

    We are fairly certain that Israel DID lay serious plans to stage raids via Georgia into Iran. Those were splashed around very publicly by the Russians, with supporting proof from the Georgians, and no loud denials came from Israel.

     

    Much the better situation would be an outright and successful revolution in Iran, resulting in regime change. Most of the alternative governments are at least as amenable to reason as, say, the last democratically elected government (which was removed by the Ayatollahs at the first sign that they might actually seek to govern the nation vs act as rubber stamps for them).
    30 Dec 2009, 03:05 PM Reply Like
  • optionsgirl
    , contributor
    Comments (5202) | Send Message
     
    Sabers rattling today:

     

    Iran warns West it will make its own nuclear fuel
    AP

     

    By ALI AKBAR DAREINI, Associated Press Writer Ali Akbar Dareini, Associated Press Writer – 2 hrs 58 mins ago

     

    TEHRAN, Iran – Iran set a one-month deadline Saturday for the West to accept its counterproposal to a U.N.-drafted nuclear plan and warned that otherwise it will produce reactor fuel at a higher level of enrichment on its own.

     

    The warning was a show of defiance and a hardening of Iran's stance over its nuclear program, which the West fears masks an effort to develop a nuclear weapons capability. Tehran insists its program is only for peaceful purposes, such as electricity production, and says it has no intention of making a bomb.

     

    "We have given them an ultimatum. There is one month left and that is by the end of January," Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said, speaking on state television.

     

    Even if Tehran started working on the fuel production immediately, it would likely take years before it could master the technology to turn uranium enriched to the level of 20 percent into the fuel rods it needs for a medical research reactor.

     

    Still, any threat to enrich uranium to a higher level is likely to rattle the world powers that have been trying to persuade Iran to forgo enrichment altogether.

     

    Enrichment is at the center of the West's concerns because at high levels it can be used in making nuclear weapons. At lower levels, enriched uranium is used in the production of fuel for nuclear power plants.

     

    Iran dismissed an end-of-2009 deadline imposed by the Obama administration and its international partners to accept a U.N.-drafted deal to swap most of its enriched uranium for nuclear fuel. The deal would reduce Iran's stockpile of low-enriched uranium, limiting — at least for the moment — its capability to make nuclear weapons.

     

    The U.S. and its allies have demanded Iran accept the terms of the U.N.-brokered plan without changes.

     

    Instead, Tehran came up with a counterproposal: to have the West either sell nuclear fuel to Iran, or swap its nuclear fuel for Iran's enriched uranium in smaller batches instead of at once as the U.N. plan requires.

     

    This is unacceptable to the West because it would leave Tehran with enough enriched material to make nuclear arms.

     

    The International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog, refused to comment Saturday on Iran's announcement of a one-month deadline. The U.S. State Department also had no immediate comment.

     

    The U.N. deal has been the centerpiece of the West's latest diplomatic push to get Iran to scrap a key part of its nuclear work.

     

    Under the plan, drafted in November, Iran would export most of its stockpile of low-enriched uranium for further enrichment in Russia and France, where it would be converted into fuel rods. The rods, which Iran needs for the research reactor in Tehran, would be returned to the country about a year later.

     

    Exporting the uranium would temporarily leave Iran without enough of a stockpile to further enrich the uranium into material for a nuclear warhead, and the rods that are returned cannot be processed further for use in making weapons.

     

    "They (the West) must decide on supplying fuel for the Tehran reactor on one of the two offers — purchase or swap," Mottaki said. "Otherwise, the Islamic Republic of Iran will produce the 20 percent enriched fuel with its own capable experts."

     

    Iran currently has one operating enrichment facility that churns out enriched uranium at a level of 3.5 percent. The country needs fuel enriched to 20 percent to power the Tehran medical research reactor. For nuclear weapons, uranium needs to be enriched to 90 percent or more.

     

    The U.N. has demanded Iran suspend all enrichment, a demand Tehran refuses to meet, saying it has a right to develop the technology under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

     

    Iran has also defiantly announced it intends to build 10 new uranium enrichment sites, drawing a forceful rebuke from the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency and warnings of the possibility of new U.N. sanctions.
    2 Jan 2010, 03:23 PM Reply Like
  • Freya
    , contributor
    Comments (3362) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » More delay Tactics, wonder which committee the latest Iranian proposal will go to.

     

    Baby Its Cold outside. I betcha its gonna be a bit chillie even where you are.

     

    NYC is trying to prevent an LNG tanker fromYemen from delivering its load, Wonder why?
    3 Jan 2010, 04:53 AM Reply Like
  • tripleblack
    , contributor
    Comments (13581) | Send Message
     
    There was a bad novel written a few years back in which terrorists rigged an LNG tanker as a bomb. It would be the equivilant of a small nuke, of course.

     

    The UK and the US just closed our embassies in Yemen...
    3 Jan 2010, 11:19 AM Reply Like
  • Freya
    , contributor
    Comments (3362) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » KISS has always been welcomed, SA's additions have to be sorted out. In my case, it will be trial and error.

     

    Weatherwise, December was snow, wonder how much GDP was lost?

     

    January is gong to be Cold, Sub-Zero Artic air will rule the Midwest sending frigid air down to Savannah.

     

    Lets all breath out more quickly next spring and summer, (if there is any). This is whats in store for us as CO2 sequestering turns the Midwest into an Ice bowl.

     

    First qtr GDP will suck as well, all weather related of course. Look for Ag to climb higher and higher, as crops are damaged, if you are lucky to have any.

     

    What do you expect when a Major heating element is removed from the atmosphere?
    3 Jan 2010, 02:51 PM Reply Like
  • ciscokid
    , contributor
    Comments (14) | Send Message
     
    Its been proven in Lebanon,Isreal does not any more have the capacity to win a quick war with Iran.Isreal cannot sustain heavy loses from missles that will be fired from Iran and their allies from Lebanon or even Syria.So its quite a dificult situation and I belive that is what is briging the delay from the air strikes everyone is expecting from Isreal agaisnt Iran.With the world economy still in intensive care it will be quite horrific to see oil go above 150$ and gas to 25$.First thing the Iranians will do is block the flow of oil and gas.

     

    While we have China who will definatly not like to see her flow of oil disrupted.The Iranians know this and thats why they keep dragging their feet.

     

    One way out is for the protest to escalate and I belive lts of efforts are already being put into that, as I bet special forces are already operating there.

     

    Just my humble thoughts.
    3 Jan 2010, 03:48 PM Reply Like
  • Freya
    , contributor
    Comments (3362) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » cisco, Lebanon proved to Israel that they can't win if their hands are tied.

     

    When your attackers use Human Shields and you are trying to avoid collateral damage, You Will Lose.

     

    When "Shock and Awe" was deployed, we cared about collateral damage but Carried it out nonetheless.

     

    The next time around, their lesson learned, will be a different story. If you allow yourself to be used as a Human Shield, you are an enemy combatant.
    3 Jan 2010, 03:57 PM Reply Like
  • ciscokid
    , contributor
    Comments (14) | Send Message
     
    Come on man, they bombed the hell out of the guys for 34 days with all sorts of weapons and cluster boombs and still could not win.
    9 Jan 2010, 11:25 AM Reply Like
  • Freya
    , contributor
    Comments (3362) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » A. There were no cluster bombs.
    B. The Isreali Army led by their tanks didn't go very far across the border. Artillery fire was the primary weapon.
    C. They had a namby pamby Prime Minister who wasn't from the Military preventing the Generals from going in.
    D. The Current PM is a War Hawk.

     

    It don't matter though, this time around if Israel finds it necessary, they can just Nuke them. They do not need Opec's oil.
    9 Jan 2010, 01:51 PM Reply Like
  • ciscokid
    , contributor
    Comments (14) | Send Message
     
    I realy pity your reasoning.So nuking people now is just as easy as that?

     

    That will not happen and if it happens well it will plunge the world into anothere world war.There should be other ways to bring peace to the whole region if and a big IF.If its peace they all realy want.

     

    I generally do not like War mongerers.
    10 Jan 2010, 08:21 AM Reply Like
  • Freya
    , contributor
    Comments (3362) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » Cisco, then why are you taking sides?

     

    You clearly believe that the Israeli people would lose a normal war and you also think its okay for Iran to get a Nuke.

     

    The Iranians want to "Wipe Israel" off the Maps. Whatever Israel does with enemies on all sides, it will have to be with Force.

     

    I thought the Cisco Kid stood on the side of the persecuted, wrong ciscokid?
    10 Jan 2010, 09:27 AM Reply Like
  • ciscokid
    , contributor
    Comments (14) | Send Message
     
    i did not say Iran has a right to get a nuke on the contrary I belive no one should have a right to own such weapons.And frankly no one knows for sure if Iran is realy developing any nukes.

     

    What I am sure of is that no one will dare use any nukes, lets not forget Pakistan has nukes and its more unstable than any Middle Eastern country.
    11 Jan 2010, 09:24 AM Reply Like
  • tripleblack
    , contributor
    Comments (13581) | Send Message
     
    I am wrapping up a long session researching the situation visavie Israel/Iran, and I am changing my earlier threat assessment, decreasing the odds that a direct military assault will be made upon the Iranian nuclear facilities (chiefly the 3 primary strategic targets, the Esfahan conversion facility, the Natanz enrichment facility, and the heavy water plant / plutonium production reactors at Arak).

     

    I am dropping the odds over the coming 6 weeks from 1 in 5 to 1 in 10.

     

    I anticipate announcements to proceed from TelAviv, ie, initial policy re-statements erecting a regional MAD (mutually assured destruction) condition with their nuclear opponents (which might or might not list Iran or any other specific country, but PROBABLY would NOT).

     

    In the event that these policies are either overtly stated (which would require a massive change in current policies, which involve denial of possession of such weapons) or tacitly constructed, I would drop my threat assessment further at that time, possibly to 1 in 20 or more.

     

    This would place the ball back in the American court, where I would expect Rahm Emanuell to scurry forth like a manic squirrel, snatch it up, and disappear it into a black hole in the State Department somewhere.

     

    I am also basing this reappraisal upon the ongoing civil upheaval in Iran, which works overall to the advantage of the Iranian regime's opponents like the U.S. and Israel. Military operations would hugely undercut the effectiveness of these efforts by the native Iranian opopsition groups, and this is a key component in the current situation which cannot be ignored.
    10 Jan 2010, 10:13 AM Reply Like
  • Freya
    , contributor
    Comments (3362) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » Makes no dif to me, Israel is being cornered, I would not be the one to say what a "cornered" Israel would do but they aren't going to sit there and wait indefinitely.

     

    end of Feb, tops.
    10 Jan 2010, 01:39 PM Reply Like
  • Freya
    , contributor
    Comments (3362) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » Cisco, thanks for clearing the air. I do not want a conflict but Iran seems bent on starting something.

     

    They could have their Nuclear program very easily if they allowed the UN clear and free access.

     

    Yet every other word seems to negate that possibility and they keep firing missles and going with War Games.
    11 Jan 2010, 09:33 AM Reply Like
Full index of posts »
Latest Followers

StockTalks

  • MWA, Infrastructure in the USA.
    Oct 24, 2011
  • Posco expects steel demand to grow by 10% this year. http://tinyurl.com/y96mctn This links to their statement.
    Jan 12, 2010
  • Alcoa will report much better earnings than anticipated and its off to the races for all Infrastructure Stks. Especially Steel.
    Jan 11, 2010
More »

Latest Comments


Most Commented
  1. The Compass #2 ( Comments)
  2. The Compass #3 ( Comments)
  3. The Compass ( Comments)
  4. QC #96 ( Comments)
  5. The Compass #3 continued ( Comments)
Instablogs are Seeking Alpha's free blogging platform customized for finance, with instant set up and exposure to millions of readers interested in the financial markets. Publish your own instablog in minutes.