Everything You Ever Wanted To Know About An Israeli Attack On Iran (But Were Afraid To Ask)

Marla Singer's picture

At least back in 2009 the most promising targets for damaging the Iranian nuclear program, specifically the weapons related development, were Plutonium production facilities (characterized primarily by the Plutonium Production Heavy Water Nuclear Reactor in Arak) and facilities critical to the "Nuclear Fuel Cycle" (most obviously the Uranium Enrichment Facility in Natanz and the Uranium Conversion Facility in Esfahan).  The Center for Strategic and International Studies' Abdullah Toucan released a detailed report comparing the mission requirements of strikes on these (and other) facilities with Israel's capabilities and concluded the mission was within Israel's grasp operationally.1  Normally we would call this report a "must read," but instead we've read it so you don't have to, as well as added some of our own research and secondary sources.  The report also examined the ballistic missile strike option and delved into some of the political and instability costs that an attack would extract (which we ignore for the purposes of this discussion).  Those sections are well worth reading, even if the political reality on the ground has changed since early 2009.

The Esfahan facility converts U3O8 to UF6 (Uranium Hexafloride), an interval product on the way to producing highly enriched (read: weapons grade) material.

The enrichment facility at Natanz is a gas centrifuge plant used (in theory) to process UF6 into 3-5% concentrations of U-235 for use in light water reactors (which has the unfortunate side effect of producing some 90% U-235, read: weapons grade uranium).  This is the famous underground centrifuge facility.  It isn't clear exactly how many centrifuges Iran is operating here (or elsewhere), but 1,000 is enough to produce around 20 kg of highly enriched uranium per year.  Iran admitted to the IAEA that it had 3,800 operational centrifuges here in late 2008.  About 7,000 are thought to be operating today.  Iran publicly aspires to installing 50,000 centrifuges in the Natanz facility in "the next few years."  The exact number is something of a mystery.

In addition, once operational, the Arak heavy water reactor has the potential to spit out about 8kg of weapons grade plutonium per year.  It is expected to become operational this year or in 2011, and after some warm up, would be at near full capacity to generate electricity (and plutonium) in 2013-2014.

How Much?  How Long?

The amount of fissile material required to create a nuclear weapon varies by the method of initiation.  In the case of the simple "uranium gun" (using high explosive to propel one sub-critical uranium projectile into another sub-critical uranium mass such that the total mass is super-critical) 20-25 kg of highly enriched uranium is required.  As a practical matter, more is likely to be used in a working weapon.  While the simplest design, the gun method is highly inefficient and not thought to be practical for plutonium weapons as plutonium's higher neutron emission rate means that plutonium criticality begins long before the masses meet.  Uranium has similar issues that must be overcome with sufficient uranium projectile speed.

The amount of material required for a weapon can be reduced by shifting to an implosion type weapon.  In this case, rather than using two sub-critical masses, a single sub-critical mass is squeezed together until it becomes super-critical.  High explosive is typically used, and the weaponization process is therefore complicated by the design and precision milling of high explosive around a fissile core with sufficiently symmetric detonation to squeeze the core evenly into a small mass.  Timing of multiple detonators in the high explosive around a fissile core is the key engineering challenge for these weapons, but as little as 15 kg of high enriched uranium or 6 kg of plutonium is theoretically sufficient to enable a crude implosion weapon.  Again, practical weapons will be likely to require more.

Efficiency of the reaction is a major factor in yield, and inversely proportional to weaponization development time.  Crude weapons are not likely to be efficient, and at the low end one might assume 10 kiloton yields for smaller weapons.

Bear in mind, however, that one does not have to create an actual fission weapon to cause quite a bit of trouble.  Even conventional explosives, when used to spread highly enriched material, have the potential to render wide swaths of land uninhabitable for long periods.  In this context, adding the "weaponization development" time required to design and test a working fission bomb might be a bit of wishful thinking.

Picking Targets.

The centrifuges required to produce weapons grade uranium are a particularly vulnerable part of the nuclear fuel cycle, particularly while operating, as it takes very little in the way of physical trauma to destroy one.  In addition, given their precision manufacture and the difficulty in replacing them, they are at least partially vulnerable to bottleneck and control via sanctions or embargo.  Additionally, it is highly complex to spread individual centrifuges out, meaning they are usually operated in banks of over 1,000 and "cascaded" into one another to produce more and more enriched product.  This presents a tempting, concentrated target.

Clearly, the Iranians recognize the alluring nature of the Natanz facility, given the lengths they have gone to in order to protect it.  The enrichment facilities were initially built 25 feet underground with 75 feet of dirt above concrete ceilings and walls in 2003.  Reportedly the facility was further hardened in 2006.  AAA sites now ring the area making "spot the Iranian air defenses" good sport with Google Earth.2


So we'll take 600,000 some square feet of concrete building...
and it's gone.  (Iran's Natanz facility 2003-2004)  Golf course planned in 2012!


There Goes The Neighborhood!
Air Defense Sites (probably a combination of Skyguard radar controlled
35mm and 23mm Anti-Aircraft Artillery) sprout up SE of Natanz between 2006 and 2009.


Valuable Iranian Real Estate Near Natanz
The Evolution of an Anti Air Site (probably radar controlled 35mm) 2005-2009


35mm AAA Near Natanz3

Both Arak and Esfahan are above ground, and therefore vulnerable facilities.  But even in the case of the Natanz facility, the 5,000 GBU-28 penetrating munition is likely enough to deal with even the thick earth/concrete defenses.  The issue is one of size.  At over 646,000 square feet of underground facility more than 20 would be required.  Of course, any significant losses among the strike aircraft would limit the damage.

The Limits of Iranian Air Defense?

Amusingly, Iran is rumored to have acquired 10 Pantsyr S-1E systems from Syria in 2007.  These mobile, tracked units are generally thought to be effective for critical facility protection and can be deployed in linked networks.  This is comic given what appears to be the total ineffectiveness these systems demonstrated against the Israeli attack on Syrian facilities in September of 2007.  Presently, the rumor is that the Israeli's used sophisticated jamming and/or cyber attacks on the advanced Russian weapons to blind them completely during the raid.4  It is not clear that Pantsyr systems were the only anti-air to be defending the Syrian site either.  The Pantsyr is the next generation of the SA-19 system and many anti-air systems use radar and fire control units similar to the Pantsyr's 1RS2-1E and 2RL80E units.  Potentially vulnerable also are the Russian Tor-M1 systems, of which Iran has liberally partaken.

Traditionally, the "Southern Route" for an Israeli attack (across the southern end of Jordan, into Saudi Arabia and then Iraq or Kuwait through to Iran) was discounted given the political ramifications of overflying Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Iraq.  Despite this, if the Israelis are determined to conduct the attack unilaterally, and rumors of Saudi permission for an overflight5 6 prove true (the Saudis denied this in 2009 and 2010)7 8 the only operational constraints would be the possibility of American fighter aircraft (which are the only armed aircraft flying over Iraq at present) and air defense units firing on Israeli strike groups, or Jordan picking off the plans during their short transit.  It is difficult to imagine American units firing on Israeli planes (especially since any Saudi agreement was almost certainly mediated by the U.S. State Department), making this route a potential "beg forgiveness instead of ask permission" approach.

Assuming the use of Israeli F-15E aircraft for GBU-28 delivery an attack on Natanz, Esfahan and Arak would require about 30 ground attack aircraft (a mix of F-15Es and F-16Is) and 40 anti-air defense and anti-air fighters (probably F-16Cs).  This works out to basically all of Israel's F-15E craft and a good slice of the F-16s on hand, but it is far from impossible.

Obviously, assistance from the United States would reduce the mission load, and increase the margin for error.  But will it be forthcoming?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
BumpSkool's picture

"beg forgiveness instead of ask permission" 

Israel does not ask 'permission' from anyone... ever

It does what it wants, when it wants, and calculates ITS interests alone

... the rest of the world can go to hell

(...and probably will)

Marla Singer's picture

What country calculates anyone else's interests with any priority?

BumpSkool's picture

... not every country is a colonial settler state hell-bent on expansion under a losing demographic, Ms. Mossad.

VK's picture

War is a racket, is a must read speech by the most decorated officer in US history-Smedley Butler. The only people who are going to profit if there is a war are the elite and a few corporations. When the rich argue, the poor die.

downwiththebanks's picture

That's not Butler's point.  Butler's point is that he was a "gangster for capitalism".  He wasn't sent places to murder and conquer because it benefitted the government.  He went because the government's job is to benefit capitalists like Brown Brothers Harriman and United Fruit.

quintago's picture

translation of your comment: "you got it all wrong, but i'm going to continue and make the same point" .... so I can demonstrate I've read it too. 

Marla Singer's picture

Sorry, which country are you referring to here? I can think of a dozen that fit the definition. (The UK, for example).

BumpSkool's picture

... the colonial phase of history has largely ended (Southern Africa/India/ parts of Asia) and I have no apologia for the UK whatsoever. But your implication is everyone else is doing it - so that justifies whatever I want to do. It doesn't. That line of reasoning is a cover - and is itself highly symptomatic of apologia. It is similar to your rationale that every country looks after its own interest with the same degree of selfishness at all times. It is a static view, that is not born out by history... and again - is a cover for Israel to do whatever it wants. 

Marla Singer's picture

Ok. Take a step back. WHAT the hell are you talking about?

dark pools of soros's picture

he is pointing out the vast amount of countries that are not war machines/control freaks


my beef with American support of Isreal is the fact that America believes in seperation of church and state... so WHY does America get sucked into Isreal's holy wars??  If the Isrealies want to move to Idaho then I would support them.. but American taxpayers shouldn't give a fuck about 2000 year old 'holy' sand dunes

fight for that 'precious' dirt with your own money, souls and time...

aldousd's picture

It's not just a holy war.  There is a lot more to it than that.

Picture this, you're born in some town, and you live next door to your grand parents and when you get to be a reasonable age you go outside to play with the neighbor kids. Then, you grow up, go to school, and when you get out on your own you get married and figure, hey, let's buy a house and start a family.  But wait! This town is an israeli settlement in the west bank, wtf do you think you're doing buying a house in the town where you grew up? That's illegal expansion of terrorist settlement, mizzle time!


Anyway, I don't really know what to say about how the israeli's got back into their territory to begin with, it doesn't seem like a really smart idea to drop a bunch of people off and say 'you've got a state now,' however, the people living there now didn't do that. They're just hanging out trying not to die.  It's the same shit you'd do, no doubt.  I also have the same kind of natural empathy for the palestinians. Not really their fault either. Shit's just foo, and that's how it is.  

My point is, it's not just a holy war. There is way more to it than that.  


chumbawamba's picture

The first part of the solution is to get Western nations out of the equation.  That primarily means the US and its warmongering Christian Zionists goaded on by Jewish Zionists and neocons, who've highjacked this country and its military to carry out the colonial policies of their brethren in Palestine.  The collective Israeli psychosis that "everyone is out to get us" is encouraged by these same dark forces.

The Israelis are a sick people, on the verge of self-annihilation.  The last thing they need is more encouragement to continue along on their path of destruction.  Far be it from me to get in their way, because I think it's obvious how I feel by now, but the scenario that you paint is valid, though I'm not sure how people fully informed about the place where they grew up that is stolen land in the middle of a squatter colony would necessarily want to go back, if they have a soul at least.

That being said, the only solution is one state.  Zionism needs to be eradicated and buried in the graveyard of other failed colonial enterprises (there's a plot right next to South Africa's Apartheid with a nice view overlooking the valley).  Jewish Israelis need to assimilate and learn to live like Arabs if they want to remain.  This is pretty much mandatory, because when in Rome...

So this is not really that hard of a problem to resolve.  It's just that a lot of evil people don't want it to get resolved, because it'll mean an end to the gravy train, or it means the Holy Lands revert, once again, back to the savage A-rab, something white Christians can't countenance, but fuck'em, they'll get over it.  And if they don't, we'll just have to have another Crusade in another couple centuries or so, because the White Man just never seems to learn.

I am Chumbawamba.

DocLogo's picture

" Jewish Israelis need to assimilate and learn to live like Arabs if they want to remain."

like this?


chumbawamba's picture

Certainly not like this:


The difference being the video you offer is propaganda, while the above video is reality.

I am Chumbawamba.

DocLogo's picture

No doubt that that little boy's behavior is reprehensible, but he and his mother do not represent an entire group of people. There are bad people all over the world, in every country. But there is an institutionalized hatred towards Jews in the Arab world, that, unless you are there to see for yourself, you just wouldn't believe. There is a difference between name calling and teaching one's children to blow themselves up to create as much civilian damage as possible, and that human destruction has after-worldly rewards. You can glorify that all you want, but unless you have been there, understand the mentality, you will fail to grasp the situation. You cannot apply logic to chaos. If rockets were flying into your home on a daily basis, I doubt you would be so rational. Then again, you are Chumbawambu, middle east scholar, arm chair cowboy.

laosuwan's picture

Why Islam Will Never Accept the State of Israel

By Steven Simpson

It is a common belief that the "Arab-Israeli conflict" is a conflict of two peoples fighting over the same piece of land and is therefore one of nationalism. Rarely, if ever, do we hear or read of the religious component to this conflict.



However, if anything, the conflict is more of a "Muslim-Jewish" one than an "Arab-Israeli" one. In other words, the conflict is based on religion -- Islam vs. Judaism -- cloaked in Arab nationalism vs. Zionism. The fact of the matter is that in every Arab-Israeli war, from 1948 to the present, cries of "jihad," "Allahu Akbar," and the bloodcurdling scream of "Idbah al- Yahud" (slaughter the Jews) have resonated amongst even the most secular of Arab leaders, be it Nasser in the 1950s and 1960s or the supposedly "secular" PLO of the 1960s to the present. Indeed, the question must be asked: If this is really a conflict of different nationalisms and not Islamic supremacism, then why is it that virtually no non-Arab Muslim states have full (if any) relations with Israel?



There is a common Arabic slogan that is chanted in the Middle East: "Khaybar, Khaybar! Oh Jews, remember. The armies of Muhammad are returning!" It would be most interesting to know how many people have ever heard what -- or more precisely, where -- Khaybar is, and what the Arabs mean by such a slogan. A short history of the Jews of Arabia is needed in order to explain this, and why Islam remains so inflexible in its hostile attitude towards Jews and Israel.



Until the founder of Islam, Muhammad ibn Abdallah, proclaimed himself "Messenger of Allah" in the 7th century, Jews and Arabs lived together peacefully in the Arabian Peninsula. Indeed, the Jews -- and Judaism -- were respected to such an extent that an Arab king converted to Judaism in the 5th century. His name was Dhu Nuwas, and he ruled over the Himyar (present day Yemen) area of the Arabian Peninsula. In fact, it is most likely that the city of Medina (the second-holiest city in Islam) -- then called Yathrib -- was originally founded by Jews. In any event, at the time of Muhammad's "calling," three important Jewish tribes existed in Arabia: Banu Qurayza, Banu Nadir, and Banu Qaynuqa. 



Muhammad was very keen on having the Jews accept him as a prophet to the extent that he charged his followers not to eat pig and to pray in the direction of Jerusalem. However, the Jews apparently were not very keen on Muhammad, his proclamation of himself as a prophet, or his poor knowledge of the Torah (Hebrew Bible). Numerous verbal altercations are recorded in the Qur'an and various Hadiths about these conflicts between the Jewish tribes and Muhammad.



Eventually, the verbal conflicts turned into physical conflicts, and when the Jews outwardly rejected Muhammad as the "final seal of the prophets," he turned on them with a vengeance. The atrocities that were committed against these tribes are too numerous to cite in a single article, but two tribes, the Qaynuqa and Nadir, were expelled from their villages by Muhammad. It appears that the Qaynuqa left Arabia around 624 A.D. The refugees of the Nadir settled in the village of Khaybar.



In 628 A.D., Muhammad turned on the last Jewish tribe, the Qurayza, claiming that they were in league with Muhammad's Arab pagan enemies and had "betrayed" him. Muhammad and his army besieged the Qurayza, and after a siege of over three weeks, the Qurayza surrendered. While many Arabs pleaded with Muhammad to let the Qurayza leave unmolested, Muhammad had other plans. Unlike expelling the Qaynuqa and Nadir, Muhammad exterminated the Qurayza, with an estimated 600 to 900 Jewish men being beheaded in one day. The women and children were sold into slavery, and Muhammad took one of the widows, Rayhana, as a "concubine."



In 629 A.D., Muhammad led a campaign against the surviving Jews of Nadir, now living in Khaybar. The battle was again bloody and barbaric, and the survivors of the massacre were either expelled or allowed to remain as "second-class citizens." Eventually, upon the ascension of Omar as caliph, most Jews were expelled from Arabia around the year 640 A.D.



This brings us, then, to the question of why modern-day Muslims still boast of the slaughter of the Jewish tribes and the Battle of Khaybar. The answer lies in what the Qur'an -- and later on, the various Hadiths -- says about the Jews. The Qur'an is replete with verses that can be described only as virulently anti-Semitic. The amount of Surahs is too numerous to cite, but a few will suffice: Surah 2:75 (Jews distorted the Torah); 2:91 (Jews are prophet-killers), 4:47 (Jews have distorted the Bible and have incurred condemnation from Allah for breaking the Sabbath), 5:60 (Jews are cursed, and turned into monkeys and pigs), and 5:82 (Jews and pagans are the strongest in enmity to the Muslims and Allah). And of course, there is the genocidal Hadith from Sahih Bukhari, 4:52:177, which would make Adolph Hitler proud. "The Day of Judgment will not have come until you fight with the Jews, and the stones and the trees behind which a Jew will be hiding will say: 'O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, come and kill him!"' Thus, the Arab Muslims had their own "final solution" in store for the Jews already in the 7th century.



The fact that Muslims still point to these (and many other) hateful verses in the Qur'an and Hadith should give Jews -- not just Israelis -- pause to consider if there can ever be true peace between Muslims and Jews, let alone between Muslims and Israel. When the armies of Islam occupied the area of Byzantine "Palestine" in the 7th century, the land became part of "Dar al-Islam" (House of Islam). Until that area is returned to Islam, (i.e., Israel's extermination), she remains part of "Dar al harb" (House of War). It now becomes clear that this is a conflict of religious ideology and not a conflict over a piece of "real estate."



Finally, one must ask the question: Aside from non-Arab Turkey, whose relations with Israel are presently teetering on the verge of collapse, why is it that no other non-Arab Muslim country in the Middle East has ever had full relations (if any at all) with Israel, such as faraway countries like Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan? Indeed, why would Persian Iran -- conquered by the Arabs -- have such a deep hatred for Jews and Israel, whereas a non-Muslim country such as India does not feel such enmity? The answer is painfully clear: The contempt in which the Qur'an and other Islamic writings hold Jews does not exist in the scriptures of the Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, and other Eastern religions. Therefore, people that come from non-Muslim states do not have this inherent hatred towards Jews, and by extension, towards Israel. But when a people -- or peoples -- is raised with a scripture that regards another people and religion as immoral and less than human, then it is axiomatic why such hatred and disdain exists on the part of Muslims for Jews and Israel.



Islam -- as currently interpreted and practiced -- cannot accept a Jewish state of any size in its midst. Unless Muslims come to terms with their holy writings vis-à-vis Jews, Judaism, and Israel and go through some sort of "reformation," it will be unlikely that true peace will ever come to the Middle East. In the meantime, unless Islam reforms, Israel should accept the fact that the Muslims will never accept Israel as a permanent fact in the Middle East.

dark pools of soros's picture

thanks for the civil response.. it made zero sense to put displaced people into a land to displace another people..


If we support all this squawking from Israel, then how do we not grant American Indians their choice of land?

people get slaughtered all over the damn place yet the map should never change for the Jews???

Cathartes Aura's picture

it made zero sense to put displaced people into a land to displace another people.

trojan horse.

still kicking's picture

Isreal is the ONLY functioning democracy in the middle east, that is part of the reason for US support, the other part being that is is a democracy and an ally it allows us to maintain a foothold in the largest supplying region of oil on the planet.  You may hate it and I may hate it, but I guarantee you would hate living without oil and gas even more, so quit bitching about it.  And trust me the militant dictactorships in most of the middle east manipulate this issue every chance they get to make themselves look like victims.

dark pools of soros's picture

you're an idiot.  The Saudis do not do business with us because of a nearby Jewish State...and remember how much oil we really get from the middle east anyway


and why in the world would your point be a reason for American interests??  if that was the case - then we should just invade those oil countries without any need for Israel..  like we already did with Iraq..  so WHY do we need Israel again??



chumbawamba's picture

Definitely an idiot.  Not only is Israel not the "only" "functioning" democracy in the Middle East, it isn't even a democracy, but rather a religious theocracy based on apartheid.

Calling a country a "democracy" in which a minority parliamentarian is almost lynched by the majority is a comical take on politics.

Israel puts the "mock" in democracy.

I am Chumbawamba.

laosuwan's picture

you mean, like Saudi Arabia?

still kicking's picture

I love your inability to forward think, of course we do not invade and take yet, we are "friends" with the Saudi's but when the oil starts to slow or the competition with Russia and China gets to high, we take what we need.  I do not agree with it, but it has been discussed and planned for decades.  We protect Israel and they allow us access.  As for repressing a minority, do you mean like we Americans did to women, or the native indians or the african americans?  I believe we were still referred to as a democracy in those days.  I did not say it was proper or right or even righteous, but by definition it is a democracy. 

Don't let your hatred destroy your ability to reason.

Cathartes Aura's picture

We protect Israel and they allow us access.  As for repressing a minority, do you mean like we Americans did to women, or the native indians or the african americans?  I believe we were still referred to as a democracy in those days.  I did not say it was proper or right or even righteous, but by definition it is a democracy.

"women" are a majority, "minority" only in being lumped into the all encompassing category of "not white het male."

not sure how you define "democracy" - but the US doesn't have one.

"We protect Israel and they allow us access" = Trojan Horse. 



nmewn's picture

"that America believes in seperation of church and state"

That is a common misconception.

America believes in the separation of the church >>>FROM<<< the state. A very large difference.


Canucklehead's picture

The decision was made by the countries of the world to give the Israelis their homeland back.  Some countries disagreed and as a result committed acts of war against Israel over a couple of generations.  Those wars resulted in appropriate expansions of Israeli borders to ensure safety of their citizens.  Israel fought back and now is a regional power to ensure Israel continues to exist.

Garbage countries continue to stoke the gutteral hatred of their populations to exploit the fact that Israel exists.  Look at what is happening in Turkey at the present moment.  Their turd president has been put in his place by world opinion.  Iran has seen the diplomatic reaction and realizes they are alone in calling for this upcoming fight.  It is appropriate and reasonable to take whatever measures are necessary to facilitate regime change in Iran.  Iran needs to heal and change the trajectory of their country's fatal delusions.

You can express all the hatred you want but that only assists Israel et al in formulating the plans needed to break Iran.

BumpSkool, it looks like you and Chumbawamba are shrills for the Mossad intent on deflecting popular opinion away from the Palestinians.  Your vitrol and expressed hatred does not play in households of the world.  What you want is not what the vast majority of people want.  As a result, everyone steers away from the course of action you are directing.  The end result is that events fall neatly into place for Israel.

mtomato2's picture

Canuck,  I'll be junked to hell and back for this, but thank you, thank you, thank you.  You are well spoken and eloquent, and you have said what I wish I had the skill to express. 

You may want to strenuously separate yourself from me by the time I'm finished here.

I'll get junked for this, as well:  I was raised by reasonable, thinking, rational Christian parents.  No, you idiots, that is not an oxymoron.  I was taught to study history, and history has described a fairly ugly scene for those who oppose Israel.  Nobody beats Israel.  They may lose battles, but they win wars.  Long before the US was an influence in the area, The Sons of Jacob were kicking asses and taking names.  This goes back a FUCK of a lot farther than you can even visualize, Chubbie-wumba.  You are camel spittle compared to the enormity of this epic and historic scene.  Just because you refuse to acknowledge a spiritual component of that which is going on in the all-important middle east doesn't mean it doesn't exist.  Maybe it doesn't;  but your hope and assumption  doesn't automatically make it not so.  History PROVES that it's generally a good idea to hang with those who have historically been referred to as "God's Chosen People..." 

OOOOOhhhh, but you're red in the face, NOW, I bet.  "God's Chosen People" is a term thousands and thousands of years old.  I didn't make it up, "Fundamentalist Christians" didn't make it up, and US foreign policy didn't make it up.  The Jewish nation didn't even make it up. 

I'm just sick and tired of the small-mindedness in this forum regarding the Jewish Nation and its place in history.  It's WAY bigger than any of us can contemplate.  As for Marla, I don't think she comes from a historic/spiritual perspective on this issue, because I think she has professed to be agnostic or atheist.  Forgive me, Marla, if I am wrong on that.  Regardless, at least she is capable of seeing through her secular eyes the vastness and import of this issue.  And the potential ramifications of choosing the wrong path, for whatever reason.


Now:  I expect at LEAST 30 junks.  Any fewer, and I'll be sorely disappointed.  Let the hate begin!


Heil Chumba.


chumbawamba's picture

I'm sorry to break it to you, but the Bible is not considered a history text, or at least not one that is relevant beyond the first century AD.

Your problem is that you ignore the subsequent 2000 years of history where "God's chosen people" end up pissing off just about every community they come in contact with and are either repressed or ostracized.  Have you ever considered that the Jews were presecuted throughout history because they're basically a-holes?  I'm not saying this is the case, but one really must wonder why their entire history is filled with regret and disappointment.  The perpetual victim is this way for a reason, usually because of self-imposed conditions.

In our modern day, Jews of the Zionist or neocon persuasion have made a complete mockery of the Jewish religion and its history, using it instead as a vehicle for endless wars of subjugation.  And being a good Christian yourself, you know what the end game is already, because it's been foretold.  Are you going to be killing Jews that don't convert when the Rapture comes?  I'll bet you're looking forward to that, aren't you?

I'm sorry that you're totally ineloquent and cannot express yourself without resorting to childish vitriol that buries whatever meaning you might be trying to express under a shroud of self-imposed mental retardation.  Perhaps one day when everything you've ever believed in lays in broken pieces before you, you'll wake up.  Until then, stay out of my way because I will fucking steamroll over you everytime.

I am Chumbawamba.

RichardP's picture

"... using it instead as a vehicle for endless wars of subjugation."

Chumba - could you give the dates for five or six of these wars of subjugation?  And names for the wars, if they have names.  I've seen you make a comment like this on other occassions and I'm wondering to what you are referring.  I assume you mean that Israel attacked other countries.  I would like to educate myself about these wars.  Can I find them in Wikipedia?  There is not much writing room left at this spot so respond at the end of the thread if you want to.


dkny's picture

 Have you ever considered that the Jews were presecuted throughout history because they're basically a-holes?

Lets see what happens when you take one teaspoon of history and mix it up with 5lbs of opinion:

  • Have you ever considered that dark skinned people were enslaved throughout history because they're basically a-holes?
  • Have you ever considered that women suffrage did not exist throughout history because they're basically a-holes?

Of course this can be extended to plenty other examples of effectively "blame it on the victim", such as: "she must have done something wrong, otherwise her husband wouldn't beat her up all the time".

Unscarred's picture

This was absolutely brilliant!  'dk' your logic is razor sharp and reasoning crystal clear.

dark pools of soros's picture

if this state is so great, then kindly tell all the long island jews again since they couldn't give a flying fuck about that sand palace either.


That jewish state is just a pawn for their motives.. all Jews know they rather live in and control other countries

Marla And Me's picture

You won't get 30; it'll just vanish into hyperspace at 20.  Just saying...

Cathartes Aura's picture

I'm just sick and tired of the small-mindedness in this forum regarding the Jewish Nation and its place in history.  It's WAY bigger than any of us can contemplate. 

there's another thread here you might like mtomato2, has a PhD economist defending his superior knowledge against the bloggist-commoners, because y'know, the eCONoME is "WAY bigger than any of us can contemplate."

Learn to think outside the religiousity dude - your whole post, with the "they will junk me - stand back everyone" reads like a fucking martyr's rant.

I'll not junk you, since it appears to be a form of flagellation for you - and by the way, it only takes 20 to get disappeared.

dark pools of soros's picture

why do you think that anyone not supporting Israel lunacy is automatically supporting the Mossad??  What if the majority of Americans couldn't give a fuck if both were incinerated? This Jewish state is a lap dog picking fights - forever

Ahmeexnal's picture

Wrong, wrong, wrong.
There was a struggle for independence already going on in Israel.
And guess who was winning?
Immigration mostly from the russian empire had been taking place for a long time before WWI.

The british empire reneged on it's multiple agreements to allow the establishment of a homeland since 1917 (Balfour declaration).
To make things worse, they placed strict immigration restrictions right during and after WWII. These immigration restrictions did not apply to arabs. That's right, the british empire was actually denying escape from extermination for millions of innocent civilians in Germany's death camps.

With or without the UN vote, Israel would have rightfully gained independence. The empire knew this, so they staged this event in order to save face.

The enlightened european democracies (with kings, queens and serfs) are the real enemy.
Striking Iran will only mean more business for the french/british/spaniard/belgian death merchants and for the grand master of them all sitting in Peter's throne.

doggings's picture

... not every country is a colonial settler state hell-bent on expansion under a losing demographic, Ms. Mossad.

the US is? can you not see that?

somebodys been making a fortune selling blinkers.

BumpSkool's picture

Review the history of western africa. Ghana and the Gold Coast revolution. You will find an example there. There are others.

Mercury's picture

What country calculates anyone else's interests with any priority?

The United States alone unfortunately.  Who else practices such self-defeating ground troop level rules of engagement (and Escalation of Force procedures) with any regularity?

How many lawyers per battalion do you suppose the Russian and Chinese military have?

dantes1807's picture

Certainly not the Iranians. Now Iran is ordering breasts removed from mannqueins. The good thing for Israel is that they waste so much time on such nonsense.

RockyRacoon's picture

I have a friend who preaches incessantly about the "problems" of the Middle East, etc., being caused by their sexual repression.  It must have an outlet.  I'm beginning to see his point.

Mercury's picture

Oh, it has an outlet. Let's see - males and females are separated until marriage yet Muslim males are males just the same and they are among other males.  Since some of those other males are too young to be considered "men"  a technicality is thus provided to avoid running afoul of certain other religiously prohibited behaviors.

Solve the above equation.

Edmon Plume's picture

They have an outlet already - it's rape, with a guaranteed result of the raped person getting a death sentence for their "crime".

rsi1's picture

CTRL+C & CTRL+V = US Foreign Policy. Who chose it first?

DosZap's picture

And, WE don't?, Like Marla said.

If I were Israel, the safety of my people, and nation is priority ONE..............Whatever it takes.

And they are definitely in the sights of Iran, and every other asshole country on the planet.Whatever they do, they are always the problem.

If just left alone, they would not be the aggressors people claim them to be.........but, with so many Anti Semites here....I am speaking to the wall.

pan-the-ist's picture

If your safety relied on your ability to "wag the dog" where the dog is the most powerful country in the world, you'd think twice about wagging too hard and waking up the fleas.  (Perhaps I took that analagy a bit too far.)

The fleas, already unemployed, won't like it when gasoline is unaffordable, which is the indisputable fact that should allow you to see clearly through all of this posturing.

Cathartes Aura's picture

If just left alone, they would not be the aggressors people claim them to be

ahhh, the Israel-as-Garbo meme, yet again. . .

if being "left alone" meant no more cheap / free weaponry, and zero US taxpayer monies in support, then sure, I'm all for leaving Israel "alone". . .

and, for the hard-of-memory, I'll repeat: anti-zionist =/= anti-jew, and you may want to rethink your usage of "semite":

"The term Semite means a member of any of various ancient and modern Semitic-speaking peoples originating in southwestern Asia, including Akkadians, Canaanites, Phoenicians, Hebrews, Arabs, and Ethiopian Semites."  (wiki'd)

Shylockracy's picture

When I read texts like this, with its impersonal and pseudo-scientific tone and its craftily hidden point-of-view, I wonder if I myself am not a crypto-zionist. Let me explain. If the Jews* got their way and managed to start WWWIII, there is a good chance Israel would drag into the abysm the US Empire, NATO, the Dollar and so much of what is wrong in the world today.

Marla, your intention with this post is unclear to me. Would you care to elaborate?


* before the faux-moralistes start screaming, it is the state of Israel that makes the conflation between Judaism and Zionism. It is, after all, a self-styled "Jewish State", or - "Judenstaat" as Teddy Herzl used to call it-. The conflation is embedded in the fabric of the state and its epitome is the "Law of Return" that applies to Jews only, wherever they come from. If you are Jewish, and do not like being held responsible for the crimes committed by Israel in your name, you are welcome to join the fight to put a stop to these crimes. For inspiring examples, look up Gilad Atzmon, Ilan Pape, Israel Shahak, Israel Shamir, Jeff Blankfort...just for starters...

teaddy bearish's picture

this article is preaty acurate yet the piece missing is what does the iranians will do if they counter attack ...

it seems some time ago pentagon official feared iran might send few thousand spec ops into irak to "heat the situation" if they were invaded

downwiththebanks's picture

In addition to closing off the Strait of Hormuz, Hizbullah and the Sadrists in Iraq could open new fronts.