Iran’s First Nuclear Warhead
Where Will it be Targeted?

No, they don’t have it yet. But all informed observers, from the UN’s IAEA, to the Pentagon, to Israeli intelligence experts agree that they will have it, probably not later than early 2009. Even that estimate is somewhat delayed from some of the projections from two years ago. But Iran has with great fanfare acquired a few thousand additional centrifuges that are faster and superior in their ability to enrich uranium than those that were in use at the time earlier estimates were made.

Israel is an obvious target, given the Muslim world’s abject hatred of its presence. Ahmadinejad, Iran’s threat-spewing president, has prophesied Israel’s imminent destruction more times than anyone cares to remember. And he’s shaken his fist in the face of the United States loudly and often, predicting our demise.

Prominent officials in Israel take the threat very seriously, and in recent weeks have instigated center stage discussion of a preemptive strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities. Israel is no stranger to threats of demolition. They’ve endured the most extreme wild-eyed rants since their inception, and more than a few ill-fated attempts to make good on them.

This time it’s different. Iran has the missiles to deliver nuclear warheads. The best informed estimates are that they’ll have the ability to deploy a nuclear warhead inside of one year from now, maybe half that. Israelis are understandably nervous. The problem is exacerbated by the fact that Prime Minister Olmert has been in the middle of a political and personal crisis that has escalated to the point that he has just announced that he’ll step aside from his post when party elections take place next month. Who will lead Israel? Will it be his female deputy, Tsipi Livni? Or might the hawkish Benjamin Netanyahu regain that position? As convoluted as Israeli politics are, it’s difficult, maybe impossible to predict.

But would Israel turn out to be Iran’s first target?

Or mightn’t the United States, Israel’s dependable benefactor, military supplier and financial backer, attract Iran’s crosshairs first. Previous clashes have seen the U.S. hurry to Israel’s aid, a fact that infuriated the whole Arab world and led to the oil crisis of the 70s. Today’s political dynamics are much the same. In the event of an outbreak of military hostilities between Israel and Iran, the United States will be implicated and involved regardless of any posturing to the contrary and all parties know it.

That brings us to the recent resurrection of the EMP discussion. There is no doubt anywhere of the results that will accompany the detonation of a nuclear weapon thirty to three hundred miles overhead. The micro-burst of such a detonation would fry our civilian circuitry, knocking out all communications and rendering nearly every artifact of our lifestyle inoperable. We’d all be on foot, without phones, radios, TVs; you can think your way through it. It would bring our lives to a halt and our nation to its knees, at least figuratively speaking.

In all likelihood, we’d be cut off from information about what was going on elsewhere in the country, never mind the Middle East. Americans would be on a primitive quest for mere survival, and one shudders to imagine such a scenario, particularly in the big cities.

This EMP scenario is not mere theory. It has been demonstrated, and no one is denying its potential. The military has reportedly worked to “harden” at least critical aspects of its electronic infrastructure, but no such measures have been taken in the civilian realm.

Certainly, the ability of the U.S. to rush to Israel’s aid in the wake of an EMP attack would be severely distracted and hampered.

Former U.S. Ambassador to the UN John Bolton said this week on national television that he thinks President Bush has “given up” on the idea of a military strike on Iran’s nuclear operations. For one thing, some would see it as an attempt to change current dynamics on the eve of our presidential election. If action were undertaken after the election but before the inauguration, it might be seen as undercutting the next president. There’s no question about it. This situation has been an object of lengthy procrastination, and time may have run out, at least in the eyes of some.

A raft of Israeli officials, current and former, have predicted that the U.S. “will be there for Israel in her hour of need,” while conceding that Israel may ultimately have to deal with the Iranian threat solo.

But the U.S. is under a major threat as well, and by all appearances, most Americans are blissfully unaware of the probabilities.

Mark Armstrong

Breaking News Stories
Go here for the latest news stories on this subject. –news story added 10 January 2017
Further reading:
Our Commentary
Coming Moment of Truth with Iran  –by Mark Armstrong
World Opinion Trumps National Security   –by Mark Armstrong
"Is Iran an Immediate Threat?" by Mark Armstrong 
Is Iran Next? –by Mark Armstrong 
War Fever Grips the Middle East   –by Mark Armstrong
Grave Escalation –by Mark Armstrong
Alone in a World of Enemies   –by Mark Armstrong
The Iran Connection –by Mark Armstrong
Iranian Oil Exchange…Declaration of War?  –by Chris Cumming
21st Century Watch
Iran host Islamic Terrorists...Muslim Nations call for Holy War Against Israel
Quote by Garner Ted Armstrong:
"...those who are watching world happenings as Christ commanded (Luke 21:36) should be aware and alert to the threat of major WAR in the Middle East!"  [stated and published by Mr. Armstrong in 1998]    Source
International Atomic Energy Agency [IAEA]
Chronology of world oil market events (1970-2005)
Effects of a Nuclear Blast
Electromagnetic Pulse [EMP]
History of Nuclear Weapons
Nuclear Warfare

Left: Flag of Iran
Center: Nuclear Blast
Right: Flag of Israel