Jackson Jambalaya

While the jello-writers in the media celebrate the conclusion of the National Intelligence Estimate that Iran is not pursuing nuclear weapons, the Center for International and Strategic Studies, which sponsored the Iraq Study Group the same media feted, published a study on November 19 stating that Israel would "win" a nuclear exchange with Iran (Now why would they be studying this issue if Iran was not pursuing nukes?). The report is available on their website at http://www.csis.org/media/csis/pubs/071119_iran.is&nuclearwar.pdf and is more comprehensive than the NIE.

The report makes the following assessments about an Israel-Iran nuclear exchange (p.31):

"Iranian-Israeli Exchange
•Assume mature, dispersed force on both sides. Preemption not an option
•Assume counterpopulation; counterforce and countervalue not an option.
•MAD-like environment; first strike of marginal or no benefit.
•Iranian side:
–Lower fission yields, less accurate forceinto cluster targeting on Israel’s two largest urban complexes.
–Volley strike with all assets. Must seek to saturate or bypass Arrow and Israeli defenses.
–Target to maximize casualties, clear attention to fall out, lasting effects.
–Strike at Haifa and Ashdod-Tel Aviv-Yafoaxis.
–Inflict 200,000 to 800,000 prompt to 21-day dead; long term death rate cannot be calculated.
–Iranian recovery not possible in normal sense of term.

•Israeli side:
–Higher yields, more accurate force allow to strike all major Iranian cities.
–Launch on confirmed warning from Israeli and US satellites.
–Reserve strike capability to ensure no other power can capitalize on Iranian strike; target key Arab neighbors.
–Launch at Syria if struck with CBRN weapons
–Target to maximize casualties, clear attention to fall out, lasting effects.
–Consider "Persian"ethnic strike option; send clear message cannot strike at Israel and survive.
–Inflict 16,000,000 to 28,000,000 prompt to 21-day dead; long term death rate cannot be calculated.
–Israeli recovery theoreticallypossible in population and economic terms."

The synopsis of the report states:
"The analysis indicates that Israeli might have the near to mid-term advantage in such a struggle, at least in terms of the ability to inflict more damage on the Persian ethnic population and economy of Iran. Iran is much larger than Israel, but its population is heavily urbanized and extremely vulnerable to boosted and thermonuclear weapons.
This advantage seems likely to continue until Iran obtained boosted or thermonuclear weapons. The outcome would be so costly to both sides, however, any such advantage would little or no practical value. It is unclear that either nation could reconstitute itself on anything like a prewar basis, if at all." http://www.csis.org/component/option,com_csis_pubs/task,view/id,4172/type,1/

Some may ask, "what about the NIE?" What about the NIE? The NIE two years ago stated that Iran WAS pursueing nuclear weapons. So which is correct as they are completely in opposition to each other, the 2007 or the 2005 NIE? Keep in mind it was the 2002 NIE that was used to justify the invasion of Iraq. That same NIE is trashed by Iraqi War critics who claim it completely false and unreliable. The same critics now praise the NIE as it supports their goals (in an unintended display of the intellectual honesty). This particular think tank is as establishment as one can be as it has former government leaders such as Sam Nunn, Henry Kissinger, Zbignew Brezinkski, William Cohen, and others on its board of trustees.

For additional stories on the report, see:
http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/WTARC/2007/me_nuclear_12_20.asp
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3486011,00.html
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1196847416688&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

The reason why there are no links to mainstream American media sources is because they deemed this news to insignificant to publish. 16 million dead seems not to be worth their time. Now back to who _____ Jamie Spears.

http://memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=IA38207

In late June 2007, the Iranian government launched a comprehensive gasoline rationing policy, necessitated, in part, by the growing demand for gasoline in Iran's domestic market that could not be met by its oil production infrastructure.
Although Iran is among the world's major exporters of crude oil, it has limited processing and refining facilities, and thus must import most of its refined oil for domestic use. There has been no significant investment in developing its oil refining facilities since the Shah's era, and Iran depends entirely on imported gasoline. .......

Iran has recently extended the duration of the rationing. Originally, a monthly ration of 100 liters per private vehicle was imposed, for a period of four months. However, in July 2007, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's advisor Ali Akbar Mehrabian, the newly appointed minister of industries and mines who is in charge of implementing the rationing, announced that the new policy would remain in effect until March 2008. [4] In late August, 2007, Mehrabian announced that the monthly gasoline ration would be increased to 200 liters until the end of summer.[5] ......

The decision to ration gasoline sparked riots in Tehran, resulting in the arrest of 80 individuals. According to reports, over 40 gasoline pumps were torched, public facilities were severely damaged, and shops were looted. The conservative new agency Fars posted a video showing a mob looting a supermarket following the authorities' announcement of the rationing program (http://switch3.castup.net/cunet/gm.asp?ClipMediaID=1140593&ak=null ). [9] There were also unconfirmed reports that a number of people had been killed during the riots. [10]

By order of the authorities, the Iranian media is not permitted to cover the negative effects of the gasoline rationing, or to publish analyses or criticism on this issue. In a July 5, 2007 article in the reformist daily Rooz, dissident journalist Ahmad Zeidabadi condemned the government censorship, saying that "the restrictions have increased to such an extent that it is no longer possible to write or to publish [articles] on any issue that affects [life] in Iran. These days... in addition to the prohibition against [publishing] reports or op-eds on the nuclear crisis [or] on the possibility of an American [military] attack... there is a prohibition against writing [anything] serious about the gasoline rationing, about Ahmadinejad's visits [to the provinces], about the inflation - or, in short, about any important issue that affects the fate of our society..."