1 My sentiments exactly, Ali!

2 I have a Persian friend from law school, when the invasion happened we (and a few others) were watching on the cable news channels and someone made some comment about it - figuring she would be on their side (I assume she's left of center) and she looks at them and says, "I hope after they're done in Iraq that they keep going to Iran." I almost fell off the couch laughing.

3 Iran has taken itself back to the dark ages or the stone age

4 Thank God for capitalism and blessings to them on a bountiful profit!

5 This is sad to hear after all Iran is home of the shiraz grape!

6 Agent Brown says that we must spike the liquor with fluoride to corrupt Jihadidad's bodily fluids.

7 It's always the alchol isn't it!?

8 That's what they get for electing a terrorist for thier leader.

9 Here is a geopolitical/economic-historical factoid: The most successful economies and empires throughout history, from the Sumerians to the United States of America and all in between, including the Egyptians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, the Chinese and Japanese, the Catholic Church, and the British Empire, have all been heavy users of alcohol, and often coffee or tea as well as they have become available. These wonderful beverages allow us to tolerate the conditions in which we live, and give us something to look forward to; a little hope each day, a little happiness in an indifferent world. It is no accident that salafist islam rejects the use of these things; they hate everyone and don't want anyone to be happy.

1 Major military manoevers, weapons being tested, nuclear facilities buried deep underground, threats to destroy other countries. Yup, the IAEA's Nobel Peace prize certainly was well deserved.

2 Wasn't it a chinese made 'silkwom' missile that was used by Iraq to attack the Saudi Arabia Mall, in 2003?

3 scratch that, it was a Silkworm missile but was a Mall in Kuwait city.

4 Damn just how did they get their hands on the Estes catalog anyway?

5 I'm sure their massive military buildup is for peaceful civilian application only.

6 While an arms "Buidup" anywhere might be construed as "serious" . . Remember, these are the clowns that lost their war with Iraq. And we've had a harder time with the "Insurgents" than the Iraqi army . . even if the a**holes had a nuke, they'd probably shoot themselves in the foot with the first one!

7 Iran plans on blocking the shipping lanes ... ??? Because these toys sure aren't a threat to Raptors.

8 And we've had a harder time with the "Insurgents" than the Iraqi army It's almost troublesome people are amazed at that. Guerilla warfare is brutal, and can tie up conventional forces and bring them to their knees. It's happened in every insurgency, the constant killing 1-5 soldiers a day affects not only moral but also the ability to move troops and supplies. Just because Iran lost a war with Iraq does not mean they will not be a force to be reckoned with, they have been buying some very damaging weapon systems, from anti-aircraft missiles and new launcher systems to the possible construction of EMP weapons. I wouldn't count them out at all, and the longer they're left the more they get to defend their installations with new weapon systems.

9 Of course , this appears to be the response to the reports of the recent Israeli escalation in advance of its presumed attacks on secret Iraqi nuclear sites. Wasn't that a level G4? Can the Iraqi's move their subs to within missile striking distance of Israel? If so, what would the counter to this be?

10 There are some pretty advanced Submarine detection systems (during the cold war the Navy had a grid of Microphones across the seabed listening for the propulsion systems of enemy Submarines) Now there is technology such as LFA (low frequency active) Sonar which can scan hundreds of miles to detect a submarines presence. There are pretty low-tech deterrent systems that go back to even World War II for keeping submarines away, those include magnetic mines, giant wire nets and underwater debris like wire/metal fences. For actual attack there are depth charges, torpedoes (that can be launched from aircraft) and anti-submarine rockets. I doubt Iran would be looking for a sea confrontation.

11 The real threat will be one stray nuclear weapon in the hands of someone with a suicide bomber mentality. Iran is not alone when it comes to being capable of doing this.

12 Jester, We should be prepared here in the West for just that scenario you mention. I have little doubt that a weapon will sooner or later fall into the hands of the terrorists, whether it be from Iran, No. Korea or perhaps Pakistan. It will be used, of that I have no doubt, and we need to have completed our advance planning on how we will respond. I hope that we have at least 2 nuclear powered ballistic missle subs near Iran at all times. An immediate responce will be neccessary against the nuclear facilties of these rogue states. They should be informed of our intentions, and perhaps, just perhaps, they will see it is in their interest for weapons not to fall into the hands of terrorists.

13 Thanks, Dave. I was thinking that the US may allow Israel to fly over Iraq to strike Iran (to prevent any more criticism of the US MidEast involvement if the US did it). If so, would the US strike Iranian subs pre-emptively if the US believes the subs would retaliate to an Israeli attack? Or wait and go after Iran after Israel is struck? Perhaps I am too speculative at this point in time. Let's hope it stays speculative.

14 Strategy Page and other Defense blogs all refer to the as mini-subs, smaller than the ones NK uses off South Korea. If that is accurate, they are coastal to Iran only. Maybe a couple of torpedoes, but probably mine laying(and not many per sortie). No gas to get to the Med around Africa(or even to Suez Canal, which would be stoopid...). Also, too small for surface to surface missiles. BTW, Israel does own some late model German subs that are long range. Wouldn`t be surprised if some were in the Persian Gulf...

15 It would probably be a bad idea to grant Israel to use Iraq air space to attack Iran, for numerous reasons. One of which is that even once America has left, Iraq has said it will not normalize ties with Israel, it could unstabilize an already fragile Government to be seen to be assisting Israel. The other would be attacks against United States forces in retaliation by Iran, on our bases, in all the countries in the region. Once we're out of the way, I think the gloves might be off.

16 "It would probably be a bad idea to grant Israel to use Iraq air space to attack Iran, for numerous reasons." Whose airspace did they use (invade) to get to the Osirak reactor in eastern Iraq? (Besides Iraq's, of course.)

17 Gee! 68 miles. Does that mean we will have to use missles that go 69 miles?

18 Agent Jones says all your Persian Gulf belong to us.

19 To my understanding, Jordan. The senior King Hussein even warned Saddam that Israeli's fighters were heading to Iraq when he saw them use Jordan airspace. King Hussein's Jordan was one of the very few countries that had officially recognized the state of Israel, and he was considered to be one of the last great peacemakers.

20 There are some pretty advanced Submarine detection systems Dave, My dad was a sonarman in the US Navy in the early 60's. When he was alive, he told me that even back then, as soon as a Soviet ship left their bases in Kamchatka, we knew which ship, what heading, and what speed it was doing.

21 More worrisome to me then a few coastal Iranian subs is the fact that Iran will be in defacto control of the southern provinces of Iraq. Will democracy in Iraq result in an extension to the largest member of the axis of evil ?

22 Don't worry John, if there's a submarine threat anywhere in the world, there's at least one Los Angeles or Seawolf class attack sub stuck to them like a shadow, ready to open doors, flood tubes, and launch a deadly fish within seconds, then disappear into the depths.

23 Back to a response to Iran, should they do something "Stupid" . . . while their rhetoric is a little outa whack, they "Know better" than to F*** with the USA. With just conventional weapons the US could literally eradicate the major cities of Iran in less than Four Hours, and there would be nothing Iran could do to defend itself. They know that, and based on that they would never risk it. Talk's cheap, and Iran is quite like the insulting chatterbox at a baseball game, but they know that the only thing keeping the US from kicking the door in right now is the EU. and with the current crap coming out of Tehran, even the frogs are tiring . . .

24 No offense Large, but America isn't in any position to kick the crap out of Iran. Granted, we could be the Iranian military in the open field America would be in one hell of a war. Shipping through the Hormuz straits, through which I belive 14?(Someone correct me if I'm wrong, #'s off the top of my head)million barrels move through each day. COuld you even try to imagine what oil prices would be like with G-d knows how many tankers burning or on the sea floor and the straits blackened with milions of barrels of oil. Not to mention the threat poised to the U.S. 5th(?) fleet based in Bahrain. If that isn't enough maybe the fact that southern Iraq would erupt, people think Iraq is a hotbed now with just the Sunni's mainly causing problems for America, the MINORITY Sunnis. Wait till the MAJORITY Shiites rise up in revolt and extend the Sunni Triangle all the way down to Basra. Everything we've accomplished in Iraq would be destroyed and Iraq would be further back then it was when we took it over. If oil prices weren't high enough with the Iranians shooting up the shipping in the Hormuz, wait till the pipelines heading out of Iraq aren't exactly pumping at full capacity. Still on the oil subject lets not forget the oil in Iran that won't be reaching world markets for the duration of the war, and all that oil flowing out of the Caspian sea...which happens to be on Irans northern border. On to a new topic, terrorism. We attack Iran, you can sure as hell expect terroist strikes on American interests across the Middle East, especially in Lebanon, Azerbijian, Turkey, all the Stan's. Hezbollah, which happens to be Iranian backed, would be given full reign to open up on northern Israel and wreck what steps toward democracy there've been in Lebanon, and knowing Israel I wouldn't be surprised if there response triggered something with Syria but thats a different subject. Furthermore Israel can expect Shahab missiles to be raining down on it, unless Iran finds a different target for its long range missiles arsenal(don't know what?). Now, about actually invading Iran, ya, you do realize Iran is MUCH bigger than Iraq, not only bigger and with something like 2* the population of Iraq, Iran is extremely mountanous and if you know anything about military operations, operating in rugged terrain like that costs big, big bucks. Regardless of the costs, where is America going to find the troops it needs? Hell, America is already having problems with its current deployments, now were going to add invading Iran, and a war with Iran would require invasion, if that wasn't the original plan the Iranian response to the initial attacks would make it part of the plan, we can't have those straits closed if you want the world economy ticking. So where are these troops to come from? Are we going to strip troops from Iraq, but the problem in Iraq is....because were at war with Iran the Shiites are in rebbelion so we'd need even more men in Iraq, or at least the same number. Perhaps we'll call up more reserves(In doing so further damaging an already damaged economy) and strip the Korean DMZ, that might get us say 60,000 men plus whatever else we can scrap up, with some Allied assistance we might get a force together. So we invade. I'm not gonna try to estimate how long the invasion will take but I think I can safely say it will be much harder than Iraq, especially with supply routes theough the Hormuz straits cut off. So say we take over Iran, great, now we have two Iraq, actually something like 2.5 or 3 Iraq's cause iran is so much bigger, bigger Pop exc and so would require more men. We need 100+ thousand men just t hold down Iraq so say we do win a war and take over Iran, how we going to hold Iran down at the same time as Iraq? No, war with Iran is not an option UNLESS we get a REAL coalition to do it, not the "coalition" in Iraq but a real coaltition including nations that could put some serious manpower and money into taking Iran down, not the Dominican Republic and Micronesia.