July 15th, 2015

A few more of my post-Iran-deal predictions

For a person who tends not to make too many predictions, I’ve certainly been making some lately.

So here are a few more, for what they’re worth:

I don’t think the Israelis will bomb Iran’s facilities unless they get some direct intelligence that Iran is contemplating attacking them with a nuclear weapon and it is imminent. I think they will go a different route, because bombing is too risky or perhaps even precluded by Russia’s selling Iran defensive weapons.

I don’t think Iran will choose to actually use nuclear weapons on Israel. Too provocative, too obvious. They will be far more likely to give a smaller type of nuclear weapon (suitcase bomb?? I don’t know all the technical possibilities) to terrorists. They will most definitely use the threat inherent in their mere possession (or imminent possession) of nuclear weapons to increase their dominance in their entire mideast region and the world.

The Iranians will also use the money they get from the lifting of sanctions to finance terrorist operations around the world, to spread the message of fundamentalist Shiite Islam, and to solidify their power at home.

The mullahs will stay in power in Iran, and they will continue to use moderate puppets in high government positions as a front to soften their image on the world stage. They will continue to stomp on human rights at home, and the US and the west will do nothing about that.

Obama and his supporters will continue to spin all these results as the greatest thing since sliced bread. A great many listeners will think that the fact that Iran hasn’t used nuclear weapons proves that the Republicans were just fearmongers creating a tempest in a teapot in order to undermine Obama. The real results of the deal (such as the above list) will be more subtle than a bombing, and less easily connected to it as being results of the deal.

And what of Israel? It will continue to exist but be increasingly isolated by the rest of the world, and increasingly under terrorist attack. I believe Israel will continue to fight against Iran’s nuclear development—not by bombing Iran, but through cyberattacks on those systems and through other covert means.

Will the next US president continue the anti-Israel stance of Obama? If a Republican, certainly not. If a Democrat (we’ll assume Hillary Clinton), I’m actually still not sure. Although I believe she would be more anti-Israel than a Republican president would be, she might be a bit less anti-Israel than Obama has been. But as I said, I just don’t know about that one.

Lastly, will Iran’s government ever become more liberal (in the sense of increased human rights and less support for terrorism)? I don’t see it happening except perhaps on a very long time scale, something like forty or fifty years or more, and perhaps not even then.

[NOTE: This piece by Mark Steyn on the Iran deal is recommended.]

30 Responses to “A few more of my post-Iran-deal predictions”

  1. Artfldgr Says:

    CBS News’s Major Garrett asked President Obama at a press conference Wednesday if he was “content” with four Americans held in Iranian jails while his administration celebrated the nuclear deal. “Can you tell the country, sir, why you are content with all the fanfare around this deal to leave the conscious of this nation, the strength of this nation unaccounted for in relation to these four Americans?” Garret asked. “That’s nonsense and you should know better,” Obama bit back.

  2. BigFire Says:

    Saudi will get their own bomb. Obama administration have demonstrated to them that American protection can be undone by a single idiotic president. Better to protect themselves than relying on a fickle ally.

  3. Cornhead Says:

    MSNBC news reader and insufferable dolt was asked about VP Dick Cheney’s view on this deal. His response? “When has Dick Cheney been right in this century?”

    I won’t discuss Cheney’s track record but the thing is that the mere possession of a nuke by Iraq changes everything in the Mideast.

    For Israel, Iraq has threatened their existence from Day One. I know I would have a different view of life if Iowa was launching missiles into Nebraska constantly.

    That’s why I think Israel joins with some Arab states to launch a massive and extended air attack on the nuke sites. Iraq can’t respond in – kind or with a ground campaign. It would slow Iraq down for 5 years and expose Obama for the knave he is.

  4. Cornhead Says:

    Typo. Iran. Not Iraq.

  5. Artfldgr Says:

    Neo Says: I don’t think Iran will choose to actually use nuclear weapons on Israel. Too provocative, too obvious. They will be far more likely to give a smaller type of nuclear weapon (suitcase bomb?? I don’t know all the technical possibilities) to terrorists

    that is not the point… first of all, you can forget about a suitcase nuke, and you can forget about a dirty bomb. the first one is VERY hard to make and its requirements are tougher than i can describe here, the second is already possible easily. lets just say that it requires even compression of a smaller amount of material, unlike larger devices of which there are several configurations that can work, from bullet versions to hollow spheres (and dont ask about hydrogen bombs which need an atom bomb as a detonator).

    however, a lot of this has already been worked out and one has to know what tiny details matter.

    i would suggest reading about isotopic fingerprinting of nuclear material for nuclear forensics and attribution

    the point is that we have built libraries of various isotopes found in nuclear source material for the purpose of tracing the sources to which country may set something off. but dont worry, the soviets, once they heard this, started buying materials from all over the world so they could create a device with the signature of another country.

    Los Alamos began developing nuclear forensics in 1945, when Manhattan Project pioneers analyzed debris from the first nuclear explosion (the Trinity Test near Alamogordo, New Mexico).


    and THIS is the point and why they are sooooo helpful. think of a man holding a gun on another man, and that other man gets shot by a sniper over the shoulder of the man holding the gun.

    who would be blamed?

    in the case of a nuclear device, would the world wait for nuclear forensics to figure out that Iran did not set it off, but someone else did? would we be that patient? would Israel be that patient?

    who would be blamed?

    Anyone the left wants to blame just as the confederate flag, the emblem of southern democrats, is being purged, but not the party that created it, supported it, etc.

    russia was never helping Iran from the goodness of its heart, it doesnt have one. its always about its own self interest and what it can get away with that someone else would be blamed for.

    False flag operations are covert operations conducted by governments, corporations, or other organizations, which are designed to deceive the public in such a way that the operations appear as if they are being carried out by other entities.

    you can find LOTs of stuff on the idea of false flag related to iran and russia, and usually when that is the case, there are lots of people generating facts, and unfacts, and mish mosh so that one cant get a clear picture of it, which implies that that is part of the actuality of it.

  6. Ann Says:

    Strange as it may seem, I think perhaps I do trust Hillary more than Obama on this, and that’s because I don’t believe she shares Obama’s basic anti-America/anti-West stance. That was bred into him by his mother and father; she had a very different early life — and she was once actually a Young Republican and “Goldwater Girl”.

    I know, I know — using “trust” and “Hillary” in the same sentence should set off all the laugh-track machines.

  7. neo-neocon Says:

    Ann :

    I agree, at least somewhat. I think she is a leftist, a narcissist, a liar, many other bad things that would be very bad for America. But I don’t think she shares Obama’s desire to harm America on the world scene and reduce its power. However, she was his functionary in doing just that as SOS, so she would do whatever she saw as being in her own interest.

  8. miklos000rosza Says:

    Artfldger’s post functions as somewhat of a thread-killer insofar as: What commentary is remotely adequate, or possible?

    No level of lamentation on the misdeeds of Obama or the MSM seems germane.

    Imagining or dwelling on the consequences of the latest development strikes me as not something I’m adequate (nor have the energy) to perform.

  9. Artfldgr Says:

    you can comment that a toxin that kills you in a day is less toxic than one that kills you in a minute. or forget that with hillary or obama, the lesser of two evils is still evil.

    of course hillary wants to destroy the US…
    thats the ideology she follows
    the fact she is less overt means NOTHING

    even less that her husband was a fulbright scholar to the soviet union and went to school there, and that her thesis paper at weseley is that marx is right, and so on.

    ie. saying himmler isnt hitler and was nicer means nothing in terms of goals…

    menshivicks and bolshiviks had and have the same goal, the first were social democrats, and the second were revolutionaries..

  10. neo-neocon Says:


    Oh, I certainly agree that she is toxic, and that she wants to destroy the US as we know it. I merely meant that she would not go about it in the same way in the international sphere as Obama has, although if she saw it in her interests she would, since she cooperated with him as SOS.

  11. Artfldgr Says:

    The United States and other world powers will help to teach Iran how to thwart and detect threats to its nuclear program, according to the parameters of a deal reached Tuesday [supposedly] to rein in Iran’s contested nuclear program.

    “The United States and its partners have just become the international protectors of the Iranian nuclear program. Instead of rolling back the Iranian nuclear program, we’re now legally obligated to help the Iranians build it up and protect it,” said one Western source present in Vienna and who is apprised of the details of the deal.

  12. Dave Schuler Says:

    I want to second Artfldgr above. Forget about suitcase nukes. They’re beyond Iran’s ability to develop for the foreseeable future. And if they’d wanted to use a dirty bomb they’d already have done so.

    Also, Artfldgr’s remark about isotopic fingerprinting is right on the money. If Iran builds a nuclear weapon and it’s detonated somewhere, we’ll know it came from them.

  13. Steve57 Says:

    Here’s the actual language from the agreement that our anti-American, pro-Iranian President is lying about about being somehow good for anyone other than Iran.

    It’s in Annex III Civil Nuclear Cooperation, D. Nuclear Safety, Safeguards and Security:

    “10. Nuclear Security

    E3/EU+3 parties, and possibly other states, as appropriate, are prepared to cooperate with Iran on the implementation of nuclear security guidelines and best practices. Cooperation in the following areas can be envisaged:

    10. Co-operation in the form of training courses and workshops to strengthen Iran’s ability to prevent, protect and respond to nuclear security threats to nuclear facilities and systems as well as to enable effective and sustainable nuclear security and physical
    protection systems;

    10. Co-operation through training and workshops to strengthen Iran’s ability to protect against, and respond to nuclear security threats, including sabotage, as well as to enable effective and sustainable nuclear security and physical protection systems.”

    First, this anti-American President exposed STUXNET. Then as part of this disgraceful agreement he inserts a guarantee that no country can repeat that feat.

  14. parker Says:

    Rather weird comment thread….. to imagine that the iranian fanatics are incapable of making much mischief with nukes is myopic at best. I agree that the ayatollahs will first try to use 3rd parties, but with icbms an emp will become the option of choice. Radioisotopic forensics are meaningless when the entire USA grid and all other electronics are useless.

    Park a large commercial vessel 12.1 miles off shore, fire off the icbm to trigger a nuke at high altitude, and there would be only seconds to recognize and thwart the attack. That is the real threat. Although, a few dirty bombs in the right locations can easily send important cities into a panic induced melt down.

  15. parker Says:

    The enemy does not adhere to your time line. Use of a dirty bomb is not off the table. Suicide attacks at Mall of America is not off the table. Closing down I-80 by a few snipers is not off the table. And, the possible, easily carried out attack scenarios are numerous. All we know for certain is that they are not yet desperate to hit us with small scale attacks. And why should they be? The great satan has morphed into a real paper tiger.

  16. neo-neocon Says:


    Whose time line are you talking about? Who said any of those things are off the table? I indicated I think those things are on the table, not off.

  17. charles Says:

    Neo, I can’t help but agree with your predictions.

    The one though – using new found money (i.e. from lifting of sanctions) to finance terror around the world – is one that I would not bet against.

    In comparison, what they have been doing now to finance terror has been child’s play.

    With a lot of new money – really, just how much of it does Obama think will help the Iranian people? – they will finance every terrorist organization that currently exists, along with a lot of new groups.

    With new found money, they will be aiming for overthrowing every current regime on the Middle East to create new like-minded “Islamic” states with the same goals as themselves – domination of as much of the world as possible.

  18. parker Says:


    My comments were not directed at you. Rather a certain art and ds. Imo, sooner or later the towel wrapped too tight boys will realize they can nickle and dime us a few hundred deaths at a time into paralysis.

  19. Richard Aubrey Says:

    Isotope analysis isn’t going to help. If Iran’s isotopes get loose–one way or another–some other bunch of nutcases will use the weapon. Then we nuke…..
    Thing is, once the mad wears off, so will the idea that we need to nuke somebody or other to make the case to a bunch of nutcases whose location we do not know that we’re really, really cross with them.

  20. Paul in Boston Says:

    Ann & Neo,

    Hillary’s number two, Huma Abedin, is her direct connection to the Muslim Brotherhood. How much more harmful can someone be to US interests? A dishonest liar like Hillary will sell out the US in a heartbeat if it suits her selfish interests.

  21. SCOTTtheBADGER Says:

    There is a certain amount of irony in this being announced, just in time for the 70th Anniversary of the Trinity Test.

  22. Frog Says:

    There is an evil game afoot with Baraq the main player. As Mark Steyn says, Baraq Hussein is negotiating with Iran FOR Iran. The Iranian nuclear weapon is rather a sideshow. It does not need to be competed. The radioactive bits have very long shelf lives–thousands of years! The deal allows development of ICBM delivery systems, development of better uranium centrifuges for concentration of the “good stuff’, and Iran will get help from our-OUR! cyberwizards to prevent another Stuknet.
    What do we get? We the people get NOTHING, NOT EVEN FOUR INCARCERATED ALLEGED “SPIES”.
    That’s just for openers. Jordan and the Gulf States, The Emirates must be nervous. Brunei must be nervous.
    Baraq the ideologue, the closet Muzzie, isnt doing this for Allah. He is doing this the way Hillary and Bill amassed their fortunes, though Baraq Hussein is more expensively placed.

    $100 Billion to nothing.You have trouble figuring out who won? Who’s the bearded dude dancing on the balcony in Vienna?

  23. Frog Says:

    Baraq needs to be seized and waterboarded. It the only way for truth.

  24. Ymarsakar Says:

    Frog, why do you think the Left hated waterboarding so much?

    They don’t want their allies to be made to talk. Besides, waterboarding isn’t even the most effective given humanity’s psychological torture techniques inherited from the entirety of human history. It was the lightest version that was adopted, and thus the least effective.

  25. parker Says:

    Anyone who poses a threat to me or mine, especially my grandchildren, is subject, if I get my hands on them, to actions that would make them long for water boarding. There is no limit when your kin are on the line.

  26. Paul A'Barge Says:

    Can we go back to building oodles of settlements now?

  27. David Foster Says:

    What happens when most European cities are within range of Iranian ballistic missiles?…even without nuclear weapons, a ton of high explosive with a proximity fuse to set it off at the optimal altitude can do a lot of damage.

    Many of these governments are already shutting down freedom of speech for fear of revenge attacks by the local Islamists. What happens when the fear of missile attack against “blasphemers” is added to the mix?

  28. Artfldgr Says:

    Dave Schuler Says: Also, Artfldgr’s remark about isotopic fingerprinting is right on the money. If Iran builds a nuclear weapon and it’s detonated somewhere, we’ll know it came from them.


    the one problem with that, is that the russians have been buying up supplies from everywhere, so they can create a bomb that would match the finger print of another nations…

    its this and many more things that i have in my kit bag, and there is absolutely no way to make a complicated point of it, because the tiny parts are way too large to print here… and if thats so, you can forget the parts that are whale sized..

  29. Artfldgr Says:

    parker as to your comments on the point of what they can do. i have discussed this before, and i agree, no one will wait for the isotopic fingerprints before they act..which was my point. its an effort with no point to it, and even less given russia has taken material from every country selling it and so can mix up a batch matching others.

    however, an icbm is not needed at all.
    there are two ways you can use the item to cause trouble as your pointing out. for an emp, you dont need more than a large balloon… it can even be hydrogen and not be helium…

    given the way the water is along the eastern sea board… (ie. not far from shore it drops to huge scary depths… a sea cliff)… you only need to lower the thing to a very deep level and let the tsunami that suddenly appears inundate the shoreline.

    yes. emp would be harder, but more damaging
    but there is LOTS of things that can be done, and with the help of anotehr party that would not be blamed, even more can be done.

  30. Ymarsakar Says:

    What happens when the fear of missile attack against “blasphemers” is added to the mix?

    They’ll sell off most of their women and children to the Islamo harems. If that isn’t enough, I’m sure there’s a market for sex slave boys somewhere as well.

    Did people really think collaborating and compromising with evil was going to lead to something good? American prosperity, righteousness, and law? What was that again.

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

About Me

Previously a lifelong Democrat, born in New York and living in New England, surrounded by liberals on all sides, I've found myself slowly but surely leaving the fold and becoming that dread thing: a neocon.

Monthly Archives


Ace (bold)
AmericanDigest (writer’s digest)
AmericanThinker (thought full)
Anchoress (first things first)
AnnAlthouse (more than law)
AtlasShrugs (fearless)
AugeanStables (historian’s task)
Baldilocks (outspoken)
Barcepundit (theBrainInSpain)
Beldar (Texas lawman)
BelmontClub (deep thoughts)
Betsy’sPage (teach)
Bookworm (writingReader)
Breitbart (big)
ChicagoBoyz (boyz will be)
Contentions (CommentaryBlog)
DanielInVenezuela (against tyranny)
DeanEsmay (conservative liberal)
Donklephant (political chimera)
Dr.Helen (rights of man)
Dr.Sanity (thinking shrink)
DreamsToLightening (Asher)
EdDriscoll (market liberal)
Fausta’sBlog (opinionated)
GayPatriot (self-explanatory)
HadEnoughTherapy? (yep)
HotAir (a roomful)
InFromTheCold (once a spook)
InstaPundit (the hub)
JawaReport (the doctor is Rusty)
LegalInsurrection (law prof)
RedState (conservative)
Maggie’sFarm (centrist commune)
MelaniePhillips (formidable)
MerylYourish (centrist)
MichaelTotten (globetrotter)
MichaelYon (War Zones)
Michelle Malkin (clarion pen)
Michelle Obama's Mirror (reflections)
MudvilleGazette (milblog central)
NoPasaran! (behind French facade)
NormanGeras (principled leftist)
OneCosmos (Gagdad Bob’s blog)
PJMedia (comprehensive)
PointOfNoReturn (Jewish refugees)
Powerline (foursight)
ProteinWisdom (wiseguy)
QandO (neolibertarian)
RachelLucas (in Italy)
RogerL.Simon (PJ guy)
SecondDraft (be the judge)
SeekerBlog (inquiring minds)
SisterToldjah (she said)
Sisu (commentary plus cats)
Spengler (Goldman)
TheDoctorIsIn (indeed)
Tigerhawk (eclectic talk)
VictorDavisHanson (prof)
Vodkapundit (drinker-thinker)
Volokh (lawblog)
Zombie (alive)

Regent Badge