May 09, 2007

Osirak Redux?

By Noah Pollak

If you want to forage deep into the weeds of the debate surrounding Iran’s nuclear ambitions, you should read the long, detailed analysis entitled “Osirak Redux?” in the new issue of the quarterly journal International Security. The piece, by Whitney Raas and Austin Long, attempts to answer a very important question: Is Israel capable of destroying Iran’s nuclear facilities?

Their answer is yes. And they arrive at that conclusion after considering the capabilities of Israel’s air force -- the ranges of its aircraft and the effectiveness of the armaments they carry -- the capabilities of Iran’s antiquated air force and air defense systems (“In contrast to the modern systems of the IAF, the Iranian military possesses an odd amalgamation of technologies,” the authors dryly note), the targeting requirements of the strike, Israel’s possible attack routes, refueling and airspace concerns, and aircraft attrition rates. One is left with a stark picture of the reality that for this type of mission, military technology is especially vital -- and Israel has it in spades, while Iran’s defenses are comprised almost entirely of dilapidated anachronisms that predate the Carter Administration. The members of the Revolutionary Guards may have a great deal of jihadist fire in their bellies, but they’re certainly not flying F-16’s.

Having established, with a good deal of credibility in my opinion, that Israel could eliminate or at least delay for years the Iranian nuclear project, another question comes into view. And that is the following: If military action becomes necessary, should Israel carry out the strike, or should America? I don't have the time at the moment to examine this question, but I would like to do so soon. It will likely not remain hypothetical.

Posted by Noah Pollak at May 9, 2007 02:11 PM
Comments

Excuse my seeming bloody-mindedness (I like to think it's out of character for me), but wouldn't it be simpler to kill as many of Iran's nuclear scientists and engineers as possible? Nothing would cripple their program like eliminating the brains.

Posted by: Roderick Reilly at May 9, 2007 02:26 PM

Roderick,
That's an excellent point, and one supposes that there is an effort underway to do exactly that, if possible. In the case of Osirak, the Mossad attempted to buy time for Israel by destroying reactor components that were destined for Iraq while they were being built in France. The Mossad had also allegedly recruited a nuclear scientist in France and recruited a French technician who was working on the site in Osirak (who, tragically, was killed in Operation Opera).

Posted by: Noah Pollak at May 9, 2007 02:49 PM

The F-16 is over 30 years old.

An honest assessment would conclude that Israel's chances of stopping Iran's nuclear program with an airstrike are quite low.

Not impossible, though.

Posted by: alphie at May 9, 2007 03:07 PM

And your credentials for an "honest assessment" are what Alphie? Most articles I have read on sites such as Blackfive, CQ, Military Blog, Winds of Change, ....., agree that Israel could postpone Iran getting the nuke. Now, what would the fallout (so to speak) be of an Israeli attack, that is certainly open for debate.

The F-16 of today is not the same F-16 of yesteryear; please see the B-52. Would the B-1, F-22 or more current planes be "better"- sure but the F-16, as noted by persons intimately familiar with the aircraft, can do the job.

Posted by: Ron Snyder at May 9, 2007 03:28 PM

Ron,

The success of an Israeli airstrike against Iran would hinge on one thing: whether the Iranians knew they were coming or not.

30 year old planes loaded up with fuel tanks and bombs light up radars like a Christmas tree.

The Saudis would probably shoot them all down before they got near Iran.

Posted by: alphie at May 9, 2007 03:39 PM

alphie: The Saudis would probably shoot them all down before they got near Iran.

I doubt that very much. The Saudis would be quietly thrilled if the Iranian nuclear reactors were destroyed. And they might not even be quiet. They publicly opposed Hezbollah's war against Israel last July, and only later said Israel should stop bombing Lebanon.

Posted by: Michael J. Totten at May 9, 2007 03:46 PM

True, Michael, but they also don't want to be seen as military allies of Israel.

Posted by: alphie at May 9, 2007 03:56 PM

Alphie,
You should read the piece I posted. Here's a quote from the piece about Israel's "30 year old planes" (in your characterization).

"Israeli deep strike capability remains centered on F-15s and F-16s. However, Israel now fields 25 of the F-15I Ra’am and approximately 25-50 of the F-16I Soufa, both of which are specially configured for the deep strike mission.

The F-15I is the Israeli version of the F-15E Strike Eagle, an extremely capable variant of the F-15 which has been modified to optimize its air-to-ground capability. The F-15I is equipped with conformal fuel tanks (CFTs), which combined with external drop tanks could likely give it an unrefueled combat radius of roughly 1700 kilometers while carrying four 2000-lb bombs.

These bombs, discussed in more detail below, can be targeted using either the LANTIRN or LITENING targeting pod. In addition, the F-15I has a built in electronic warfare and countermeasures system and can carry AIM-120 AMRAAM, AIM-9 Sidewinder, and Python 4 missiles for air-to-air combat. The F-16I is an F-16 Block 52/60 variant produced specifically for Israeli deep strike requirements. Like the F-15I, the F-16I has CFTs to extend its radius of action. The F-16Is exact combat radius is unknown, but is believed to be in the 1500-2100 km range with CFTs and external fuel tanks.

Given the Israeli decision to forgo additional F-15I procurement in favor of increased F-16I procurement, its range is presumably not significantly less than the F-15I. It is equipped with the same targeting systems as the F-15I and could deliver two 2000-lb bombs while carrying external fuel tanks.

In addition to these dedicated deep strike aircraft, Israel also has a large fleet of F-16s which could potentially be retrofitted with the F-16I’s CFTs. In particular, Israel has approximately 50 F-16D aircraft which have a "dorsal spine” modification. This dorsal spine is a fairing extending from the rear of the cockpit to the vertical stabilizer. It apparently houses a significant anti-radar Wild Weasel system, self-protection jamming, as well as other specialized electronics. These aircraft, if retrofitted with CFTs, could accompany the deep strike aircraft and provide significant suppression of enemy air defense (SEAD) capability."

Posted by: Noah Pollak at May 9, 2007 03:57 PM

Noah,

I'm not saying Israel doesn't have an impressive air force, it does.

If Israel is willing to sacrifice a large number of its planes and pilots, it could probably get a few planes over its best guess as to where Iran is enriching uranium. A few bombs may even penetrate deep enough to do some damage if Israel has guessed right.

Then what?

Iran tidies up the mess, extracts a huge settlement for the pilots it captured...and back to square one.

Posted by: alphie at May 9, 2007 04:19 PM

Seriously, just read the piece. The authors go into detail about Iran's air defenses and air force. They calculate probable attrition rates for Israel's aircraft and how those rates affect the strategy for the strike, what kinds of payloads the planes would have to carry, etc.

There's no point in debating this if you don't read the piece and at least become capable of speaking in an informed manner about the subject.

Posted by: Noah Pollak at May 9, 2007 04:27 PM

Wow, look at you guys. You're looking less and less like credible journalists and more and more like war-porn junkies.

FWIW, I'm more inclined to believe this critique of the analysis you reference:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/05/04/frustrated_mit_risk_loving_eggheads

Posted by: Russ at May 9, 2007 04:36 PM

Dear Michael,
Kind of going off topic here, but i wanted to bring up for debate whether this war should be fought by Israel or the US. Personally, i believe that America has enough on its plate, and that with all the aid we give israel each year, it should be solely responsible for taking out Iran. My logic behind this is that, even if Iran were to gain nucleur weapons, i dont believe they would be a direct threat to the US for a few years afterwards, a time at which we can then respond in kind. However, in terms of premptive war, i do not believe it would be in American interests to simultaneously fight to costly wars, or for that matter, to pull out of one and enter another. I think that Our troops have had enough war for this decade. Also, we should not completely ignore the possibility of an arab response to iran if it directly begins to seriously threaten the larger arab countries (egypt, saudi arabia, jordan, etc..), although i think that this outcome is unlikely at best. History has shown that its much more effective (and less expensive) to fight a war by proxy than directly.

Posted by: Rick at May 9, 2007 04:49 PM

Alphie clearly doesn't understand the relative military technology advantage here. But I remember people saying we were going to lose hundreds of aircraft in Gulf War I, too.

But I don't think Israel will attack Iran, nor will the United States. For all the rhetoric, we don't really care enough about stopping them to go to war. We'll just build better antimissile systems.

If you can believe Amir Taheri's piece today, it may not matter anyway. Ahmadinejad is a true beliver and his economic plan is a fairy tale of Islamofscist dogma that will have a very unhappy ending for the Iranian people. We can reasonably hope a revolution is coming with the inevitable economic collapse.

Posted by: TallDave at May 9, 2007 04:58 PM

War-porn! Is THAT what it is? I wondered why I was getting warm tinglies all over... Noah, you're a bad boy! Keep it up.

I suspect the Saudis would toss in the fuel as their little contribution to the cause.

Nevertheless, I am also somewhat skeptical -- not that Israel has adequate technology, or superb pilots, but that it really could be done quickly and effectively enough to smack down the Iranian nuclear program AND that Israel would accept the seriously risk of (delayed) Syrian/Iranian retaliation.

The second Israel launched such an operation, every major nation in the world is going to be glued to their satellite feeds, making book on the results, and deciding if/when/how to intervene. Heck, it'll probably be live simulcast on Fox, like the little plane trackers on the seatbacks on long international flights.

Posted by: Pam at May 9, 2007 05:01 PM

Noah,

I have read the report.

It has a lot of "ifs" in it.

If Israel really knows where Iran is developing its nukes.

If Turkey/Saudi Arabia/Iraq will allow 50 Israeli jets to overfly their country unmolested.

If Iran's fighters aren't operational.

If Iran hasn't upgraded its anti-aircraft missile systems.

If the targets haven't been hardened too much.

If the Israeli pilots can drop their bombs on the right point in the right sequence.

Then, maybe...an airstrike could delay Iran's nuclear program.

Posted by: alphie at May 9, 2007 05:02 PM

Russ,

War-porn junkies? Noah and I cover national security and Middle East politics for a living. It's our job. Get over it.

Posted by: Michael J. Totten at May 9, 2007 05:43 PM

To answer your question, NO, the US should not attack Iran. The Iraq mess shows that the US should fight only those countries that threaten it and not go to war on behalf of other counties (Israel). If Iran reaches the point of being able to threaten American soil, then attack and good-bye Iran.

Posted by: AltaInd at May 9, 2007 10:23 PM

AltaInd -

The suggestion that the U.S. went to war in Iraq because of Israel is one of the great canards of the Iraq War, if that is what you are implying.

It is a 100% certainty that Israel will attack Iran, if, as it appears, diplomacy fails. The greatest threat to Israel's survival is the appearance that it is no longer willing to take military risks to guarantee its survival. A failed attack wouldn't be pretty, but failing to attack would be infinitely worse. The same was true of the Second Lebanon War. With all the attention being paid to the unquestionable failures in this war, I do believe that it did largely restore Israel's deterrent effect vis-a-vis Hizbollah (Nasrallah himself said, with seeming sincerity, that he was not prepared for the vehemence of the Israeli response). More than that was probably never realistic.

Sure, Israel should be the one to attack. If they have the planes and the pilots, why shouldn't they? The U.S. will surely lend all possible support, short of actual participation, including overflights of Iraq, satellite data, etc.

Posted by: MarkC at May 9, 2007 11:11 PM

The idea that the Osiraq bombing set back an Iraqi nuclear weapons program is dubious.

*Osiraq was a light-water reactor, which requires significant reprocessing of the plutonium sludge to be a proliferation threat. As the paper you cite discusses, the Iranian Bushehr reactor is not considered a serious danger for this reason, and does not play a role in the Israeli strike scenario the authors draw out. The Iranian facility that most closely resembles Osiraq is not even in the target set they discuss. The irony of this goes without comment in the paper.

*The core mold of the reactor was sabotaged by the Israelis (the paper also mentions this), which probably had an effect on the products of the nuclear reaction in the direction of making it 'dirtier' and even less useful (since it couldn't 'burn' as efficiently).

*The Iraqis were pursuing a uranium bomb, not a plutonium bomb. Most of their efforts were towards enrichment not reprocessing. This suggests that Osiraq was mostly seen by the Iraqi scientists as a site to gain training and nuclear experience and not as a source for fissile material.

*According to Khadir Hamza (yeah, I know ... but he is probably right about this), the Iraqis excavated the Osiraq core and used the enriched uranium plug for their weapons program. Given the nature of their efforts (uranium vs. plutonium) and technological abilities, this was actually more useful to them, than if the reactor had gone online for a significant period of time.

*Several top Iraqi nuclear scientists, like Husayn Shahristani (the eventual leader of the bomb program), were actually in prison for political crimes at the time of the Osiraq attack, and were released and reformed as Saddam's 'nuclear mujahideen' afterwards. Their involvement was essential to Saddam's near acquisition of the bomb prior to the Kuwait war, and may not have occurred without the Israeli provocation.

The Osiraq strike was an impressive display by the Israeli air force, but I am not sure it slowed down any Iraqi program. In fact, it may have sped it up by causing Saddam to divert resources from the Iran-Iraq war towards the nuclear program (if only as an act of defiance against the Israelis).

Posted by: Yuri Guri at May 10, 2007 12:19 AM

AltaInd: the US should fight only those countries that threaten it and not go to war on behalf of other counties

Sort of defeats the purpose of having allies, doesn't it?

And it rules out our war against Nazi Germany, saving South Korea, the rescue of Bosnia and Kosovo, and the liberation of Kuwait.

I'll pass.

Posted by: Michael J. Totten at May 10, 2007 01:40 AM

The U.S. will surely lend all possible support, short of actual participation, including overflights of Iraq, satellite data, etc.

Oh, we can do more than that. I daresay the USAF can find some KC-135 crews who can keep their mouths shut.

Does IAF training include IFR?

The Iranians are going to claim the US was behind a strike in any case, and the notion that anything larger than a bird flies through Iraqi airspace without being tracked by a USAF AWACS is laughable, and it is very much in the US's interest to impede and disrupt the Iranian nuke program as much as possible.

What possible downside would there be to giving the IAF some discreet assistance? Some muslims will be unhappy with us? Um, in case you hadn't noticed....

As far as Israel's responsibility in the matter is concerned: no, destroying Iran's nuclear program is not Israel's job. Yes, it would be very convenient for us if they did, but as a practical matter the most the Israelis can do is delay it until the US can take action.

Destroying the Iranian nuclear program will require either persuading the Iranian government that being a nuclear power is not in it's best interest, or replacing the current Iranian government with a group that does not wish to be a nuclear power. Israel can not do either of these things.

Posted by: rosignol at May 10, 2007 02:46 AM

"As far as Israel's responsibility in the matter is concerned: no, destroying Iran's nuclear program is not Israel's job."

Ahmedinijad's threats were made expressly against Israel, how can you say it's not Israel's job? For what other purpose has Israel striven to be the strongest country in the region, and receive $2 billion a year in U.S. military support?

I also don't think it would good for the U.S./Israeli relationship. Already a lot of Americans are grumbling about U.S. support of Israel. Popular support of Israel in the U.S. could break over something like this. It would also be bad for Israel's image domestically and regionally. If Israel were incapable of launching a strike, that would be one thing, but according to the article in "International Security", they are capable of it.

I also don't see why destroying Iran's nuclear program requires simultaneous regime change. In the case of Iraq, destroying the reactor effectively put an end to Iraq's nuclear ambitions (Yuri Guri's rather confusing post notwithstanding), until regime change came twenty years later. Why do everything at once? It'll be enough of a blow to take out their nuclear plans for the foreseeable future. ley-at, ley-at (slowly, slowly) as we say in Israel.

Posted by: MarkC at May 10, 2007 04:58 AM

Didn't the iranians buy new, Russian made Tor air defence missiles, like, last year? this would be a major obstacle to any air raid.

Posted by: moriclanuser2000 at May 10, 2007 05:34 AM

Ahmedinijad's threats were made expressly against Israel, how can you say it's not Israel's job?

It's pretty simple: the most the Israelis can do is delay the program.

Go ahead and destroy the centrifuges. The Iranians will acquire replacements. Kill the scientists, even. The Iranians will train more.

Stopping the Iranian nuclear program permanently will require either

1) persuading the government of Iran that it is not in Iran's best interest to become a nuclear power,

or

2) replace the government of Iran with a group that does not believe it is in Iran's best interest to become a nuclear power.

Which of these do you think can Israel accomplish?

For what other purpose has Israel striven to be the strongest country in the region, and receive $2 billion a year in U.S. military support?

To ensure their own survival in a generally hostile region, of course.

I also don't think it would good for the U.S./Israeli relationship. Already a lot of Americans are grumbling about U.S. support of Israel. Popular support of Israel in the U.S. could break over something like this. It would also be bad for Israel's image domestically and regionally. If Israel were incapable of launching a strike, that would be one thing, but according to the article in "International Security", they are capable of it.

I'm not saying that they're incapable of launching a strike, I am saying that the Israelis are incapable of permanently ending Iran's attempt to become a nuclear power. There is a difference.

I also don't see why destroying Iran's nuclear program requires simultaneous regime change.

Iran's nuclear program is a government policy. I don't think Iran's current government is going to change that policy voluntarily. I could be wrong, but I don't think I am... as a nuclear power, they would be able to deter their archenemy, the USA (a conclusion based on North Korea's successful extortion racket), intimidate the other governments in the region, and assume regional primacy. That's a pretty big reward, and so far, the only opposition they've gotten has been rhetorical.

I don't see any good reasons for them to back off.

In the case of Iraq, destroying the reactor effectively put an end to Iraq's nuclear ambitions (Yuri Guri's rather confusing post notwithstanding), until regime change came twenty years later.

...at the cost of a decade of economic sactions that made the lives of tens of millions of people miserable.

I see little reason to make millions of people suffer when the group that is a problem numbers in the three digits at most.

Why do everything at once? It'll be enough of a blow to take out their nuclear plans for the foreseeable future. ley-at, ley-at (slowly, slowly) as we say in Israel.

Because when tomorrow rolls around, we'll have new problems to deal with. I dislike kicking cans down the road, it feels like passing the buck (which it is), and history is full of examples of how horrible events could have been averted if the right thing had been done early enough.

The trick is figuring out what the right thing is early enough for it to matter... history is also full of examples of well-intentioned actions that turned into fiascos.

Which choice is the bad one, and which is the worse one? I don't see a 'good' option here... :-(

Posted by: rosignol at May 10, 2007 05:38 AM

Didn't the iranians buy new, Russian made Tor air defence missiles, like, last year? this would be a major obstacle to any air raid.

Russian anti-aircraft systems are generally less impressive than the Russians make them sound. According to wikipedia, the SA-15 system is a command-guidance, which means the control vehicle has to emit radar for it to work. The US figured out the countermeasure for that kind of system a couple of decades ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-88_HARM

If the Israelis try a raid, I expect they'll have a few.

Posted by: rosignol at May 10, 2007 05:55 AM

Betting against the Israeli airforce and in favor of Arab air defenses is generally a bad idea. It seems likely that Israel could get some bombs and put them where they want to be put.

On the other hand, as the Hizballah war demonstrates, Israel is not infallible. I think everyone should understand, and the article understates, the degree of difficulty involved in Natanz, the only genuinely important site. Needing to land bombs sequentially in the craters of your first bomb is not a trick that I've seen operationally used very often. The sequence of events is more complicated than individual bombs and leaves room for things to go wrong. It seems particularly hard to imagine this working under fire, even bad fire.

What I get from the article is that a strike is possibly doable by Israel. However, it is very likely to be risky. Iran seems likely to me to get some hostages and shoot down a few planes - they shot down a lot of Iraqi planes in the air war twenty years ago, so some people there no how to do this.

What the article doesn't discuss is:

a) rosignol's point that no one strike reverses a nuclear program

b) the Iranian violent response - or, if foregone, the possible political collapse of nonviolent third-party cooperation in anti-proliferation efforts.

I think the strike is a bad idea.

Posted by: glasnost at May 10, 2007 08:56 AM

Actually, it's my sense non-Jewish Americans still (unrealistically) respect Israel's legendary military prowess more than anything else about the country, which shows our general ignorance of what a very cool place Israel is.

I suspect if Israel attacked Iran and succeeded pretty cleanly, her popularity in the US would skyrocket, even if we were seen as looming menacingly in the background to back off any thought of retaliation. If Israel flopped and dragged us into something messy, that would likely rupture the connection.

Posted by: Pam at May 10, 2007 09:05 AM

"a) rosignol's point that no one strike reverses a nuclear program "

One strike reversed Iraq's nuclear program.

"...at the cost of a decade of economic sactions that made the lives of tens of millions of people miserable "

What's the connection? The bombing of the Osirak reactor took place in 1981. Sanctions didn't come in until after the First Gulf War.

The virtue of the limited strike discussed in the article is that it can be reduced to an implementable battle plan with a beginning, middle, and end. It's doable. Your call for regime change or persuading the existing regime to abandon its program is not a plan and is not doable, unless based on a willingness for total war and military defeat of Iran in the traditional sense. This is not remotely on the horizon. In the meantime, I'll settle for a significant postponement of Iran's nuclear plans, along with the reasonable hope that one way or another the regime there will fall before they can get around to building another (as happened in Iraq).

Posted by: MarkC at May 10, 2007 09:37 AM

I think the US should be ready to invade Iran for regime change if/when the UN SC fails to stop Iran from enriching the Uranium.

I'm convinced that, if Iran gets a nuke, Tel Aviv with become a mushroom target for real. If the US is unwilling to go in, the Israelis will have to. (I argued that, had Kerry won in 2004, the Israelis would need to attack before he was inaugurated.)

The Israelis should be pushing for big help to the Kurds in Iraq, in Syria, and in Iran. The Kurds should be pushing for more autonomy in Syria, Iran, and Turkey (they've already got it for Iraq; Israel should NOT be helping Kurds in Turkey).

It's also possible that, as the Iraqi Army stands up to terrorists, it is also getting ready to stand up to the terrorist suppliers across the border. An Israeli-air force led / Iraq ground invasion anti-terrorism Liberation, without US people but with lots of US gear, could be very successful.

Why isn't the US training more Iraqi Kurds, and supplying them with better technology?

If Israel is unwilling to attack Iran to stop them getting a nuke, they should consider surrendering and evacuating Israel. Is it really better to allow Iran to get a nuke without evacuating, and allow them to murder another million Jews? Fight or Flee are the two main choices Israelis have.

Same as the Iraqi Sunnis who were unwilling to fight to stop Iraqi Sunni terrorists -- and are now not-fully innocent targets of Shia reprisal death squads.

Posted by: Tom Grey at May 10, 2007 10:30 AM

One strike reversed Iraq's nuclear program.

This is the opposite of truth. Saddamn was less than a year away from his nuke when Gulf War I rolled around.

Setting back Iran's program is feasible, but not worth it.
Forcible regime change is indeed infeasible. The answer is for neither.

Posted by: glasnost at May 10, 2007 04:41 PM

You could pose the question another way.

Is Abner Dinnerjacket capable of DELIVERING THE MISSILE BY AIR? Trust me, here. Parcel post doesn't work.

Did you know that Iran has only a small waterway outlet? It's not as if a bomb goes out of Iran, without the costs of retaliation escalating.

For some reason, too, someone in Israel accused Olmert of having a "very big mouth." Because he says Israel has submarines ... not visible to the naked eye. With retaliatory "kaboom-ski's" of their own. That could do a lot of harm in iran. To say nothing of how millions of people look when they begin running around, terrified of "IN-COMING."

The main reason for Osarik is that the Reagan White House okayed delivery of WMD's. Yes, you read that right. From America. To Saddam. Who had biological and chemical deliveries coming in. As well as stuff to create atomic bombs. (It makes the "looking for this stuff, now, all the more perplexing.) The Americans aren't supposed to know who sent the stuff in. And, that's why this stupid game has been going on. Had them. Gone now. Or buried in the sand.

Saddam did bury his entire air force. Even though when you bury your planes in the sand, you can't scoop them out, again, so that they will fly.

But it the Godfather tradition. Saddam's dead. He paid the price of falling out of favor with the Bush family. (Don't believe me? Well, like I said, you could learn more by reading HOUSE OF BUSH / HOUSE OF SAUD.)

Money is what makes all of this possible.

Money changes hands. And, not just when you go to the gasoline station to fill up your cars.

Will Israel attack iran? No. Iran's off in the distance. Believe me, there are closer enemies. And, in particular, right now? THE HOUSE OF SAUD.

But Bush bet it. Just as his dad did, too. Even when you bet high, you can still lose.

Sometimes, you've got to consider consequences, long removed from the words "you win."

Posted by: Carol Herman at May 10, 2007 04:47 PM

Setting back Iran's program is feasible, but not worth it.

Excuse me?

Do you have any idea what the ramifications of a nuclear arms race in the middle east are? Do you have any doubt that Iran becoming a nuclear power would start such an arms race?

What is your basis for thinking it's "not worth it"?

Posted by: rosignol at May 11, 2007 08:08 AM

Interesting article except it leaves out too many possibilities. Hezbollah follows this blog so it is hard for me too say anything, however; the fire won't come from the direction they think it will come, and everything depends on the tides. Hows that for disinformation Hizbollah? One more thing, we are watching your little R&R island off the coast of Venezuela Hizbollah, and your training camp in Brazil.

Posted by: James Just at May 15, 2007 04:32 AM

runescape money <a href="http://www.vgoldseller.com/runescape-

c-599.html">runescape gold runescape money <a

href="http://www.runescape2store.com">runescape gold wow power leveling <a

href="http://www.vgoldsupply.com">wow powerleveling Warcraft Power Leveling <a

href="http://www.vgoldsupply.com">Warcraft PowerLeveling buy

runescape gold buy runescape money <a

href="http://www.vgoldseller.com/runescape-c-599.html">runescape items <a href="http://www.runescapemoney-

runescapegold.cn">runescape gold runescape money <a

href="http://www.vgoldseller.com/runescape-runescape-accounts-c-599_988.html">runescape accounts <a

href="http://www.vgoldseller.com/runescape-c-599.html">runescape gp <a href="http://www.vgoldsupply.com/dofus-c-

1054.html">dofus kamas buy dofus kamas <a

href="http://www.vgoldseller.com/guild-wars-c-389.html">Guild Wars Gold <a href="http://www.vgoldseller.com/guild-wars-c

-389.html">buy Guild Wars Gold lotro gold <a

href="http://www.buylotrogold.org">buy lotro gold lotro gold <a

href="http://www.buy-lotro-gold.cn">buy lotro gold <a href="http://www.vgoldseller.com/lord-rings-onlineus-c-

975.html">lotro gold buy lotro gold <a

href="http://www.800millions.com">runescape money runescape power leveling <a

href="http://www.runescape2vip.cn">runescape money runescape gold <a

href="http://www.buydofuskamas.com">dofus kamas cheap runescape money <a

href="http://www.runescape4money.net">cheap runescape gold <a href="http://www.vgoldseller.com/hellgate-london-c-

1102.html">Hellgate Palladium Hellgate London

Palladium Hellgate money <a

href="http://www.vgoldseller.com/tabula-rasa-c-1107.html">Tabula Rasa gold <a href="http://www.vgoldseller.com/tabula-

rasa-c-1107.html">tabula rasa money lotro gold

buy lotro gold <a

href="http://www.vgoldseller.com/tabula-rasa-c-1107.html">Tabula Rasa Credit <a href="http://www.vgoldseller.com/tabula-

rasa-c-1107.html">Tabula Rasa Credits Hellgate gold

Hellgate London gold <a

href="http://www.vgoldseller.com/dofus-c-891.html">dofus kamas buy

dofus kamas 血管瘤 肝血管瘤 <a

href=http://www.nncbroadway.com>音乐剧 北京富码电视 富码

电视 富码电视台 7天酒店 <a

href=http://www.innhot.com/7daysinn>7天连锁酒店 7天连锁 <a

href=http://www.filt.cn>自清洗过滤器 过滤器 压力开关 <a

href=http://www.bf-rae.cn>压力传感器 流量开关 流量计 <a

href=http://www.bf-rae.cn>液位计 液位开关 温湿度记录仪

风速仪 可燃气体检测仪 <a href="http://www.wow-power-

leveling.net">wow power leveling wow powerleveling <a

href=http://"www.wow-power-leveling.net">Warcraft PowerLeveling Warcraft

Power Leveling World of Warcraft PowerLeveling <a href=http://"www.wow-

power-leveling.net">World of Warcraft Power Leveling runescape

power leveling runescape powerleveling
runescape money <a href="http://www.vgoldseller.com/runescape-

c-599.html">runescape gold wow power leveling 棕榈树


eve isk
eve online isk
eve isk
eve online isk

Posted by: runescape money at November 30, 2007 06:32 PM
Post a comment













Remember personal info?






Winner, The 2007 Weblog Awards, Best Middle East or Africa Blog

Pajamas Media BlogRoll Member



Testimonials

"I'm flattered such an excellent writer links to my stuff"
Johann Hari
Author of God Save the Queen?

"Terrific"
Andrew Sullivan
Author of Virtually Normal

"Brisk, bracing, sharp and thoughtful"
James Lileks
Author of The Gallery of Regrettable Food

"A hard-headed liberal who thinks and writes superbly"
Roger L. Simon
Author of Director's Cut

"Lively, vivid, and smart"
James Howard Kunstler
Author of The Geography of Nowhere


Contact Me

Send email to michaeltotten001 at gmail dot com


News Feeds




toysforiraq.gif



Link to Michael J. Totten with the logo button

totten_button.jpg


Tip Jar





Essays

Terror and Liberalism
Paul Berman, The American Prospect

The Men Who Would Be Orwell
Ron Rosenbaum, The New York Observer

Looking the World in the Eye
Robert D. Kaplan, The Atlantic Monthly

In the Eigth Circle of Thieves
E.L. Doctorow, The Nation

Against Rationalization
Christopher Hitchens, The Nation

The Wall
Yossi Klein Halevi, The New Republic

Jihad Versus McWorld
Benjamin Barber, The Atlantic Monthly

The Sunshine Warrior
Bill Keller, The New York Times Magazine

Power and Weakness
Robert Kagan, Policy Review

The Coming Anarchy
Robert D. Kaplan, The Atlantic Monthly

England Your England
George Orwell, The Lion and the Unicorn