Finnish Ex-Military Chief: U.S. Likely Halted Iran’s Nuclear Weapons Program

Former Commander of the Finnish Defence Forces Jarmo Lindberg has commented on last night’s U.S. strikes on Iran. According to him, Trump likely achieved his objective: halting Iran’s nuclear weapons program.

Lindberg stated that Iran does have a nuclear weapons program, even though some have doubted its existence. This is because, “nuclear enrichment facilities are not needed for normal nuclear power plant operations. The type of nuclear material used in energy-producing power plants, like those in Finland, cannot be used to make bombs. Separate enrichment plants are required to produce material suitable for nuclear warheads.”

Regarding the U.S. Air Force strike itself, Lindberg said that “a very limited strike was carried out against three specific targets—bunkers located deep inside Iran. In addition, only a small number of precision weapons were used, such as B-2 stealth bombers, MOP bombs, and cruise missiles.”

Lindberg also noted that Iran had no real chance to defend itself from the strike because Israel had crippled its air defenses by destroying radar systems and surface-to-air missile batteries. Thus, “Iran essentially had no eyes to see it coming. And even if it had seen it, it wouldn’t have had the means to intercept it.”

As for Iran’s ability to respond to the U.S. strike, Lindberg sees it as limited. Furthermore, the U.S. has prepared for possible retaliation by moving its ships away from ports near Iran, meaning “there are currently few viable targets for the ayatollahs’ military or missiles.”

Iran could also “declare the closure of the Strait of Hormuz and threaten to attack maritime traffic passing through it. Since a significant portion of the world's oil supply flows through that strait, such a move would immediately spike oil prices, which the markets would then react to.”

However, it is also certain that closing the Strait of Hormuz would lead to retaliatory actions by the United States and likely also by the United Kingdom and France—actions against which Iran has virtually no effective weapon other than fanatical religious fervor. While that could result in some kind of suicide attacks, possibly against civilian populations, “from a military standpoint, their significance is negligible.”

For this reason, Lindberg believes the greatest focus now shifts to the future of Iran’s clerical regime. In other words, “what will their reactions and fate be in a situation where the United States has entered the war.”

For my part, I hope their reaction would be a flight to Moscow and leaving power to the Iranian opposition. Or alternatively, a revolution by the opposition, followed by proper punishment of the ayatollahs for the sins of past decades.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Iran Exposes the Finnish Green-Left as Intellectually Dishonest or Lacking Values
Will Power Change Hands in Iran?
A Quick Israeli Success in Iran Would Be Crucial for Ukraine

What Does the Failure of Hezbollah's Attack Tell Us?

The terrorist organization Hezbollah planned to send 6,000 long-range rockets and drones to Israel. Israeli intelligence apparently uncovered the organization's intentions, resulting in the Israeli Air Force conducting a preemptive strike.

As a result, Hezbollah was able to launch only 320 rockets and drones, most of which were destroyed by Israel's air defense. The outcome was therefore entirely expected.

Expected because there are no intelligent people in Hezbollah's ranks. Instead, there are hordes of fanatical Muslims who, at best, are only capable of making themselves a laughingstock. And that’s exactly what the outcome of the operation showed!

At the same time, they demonstrated that Iran also has no real capability to harm Israel in any significant way. And despite recent bluster, Iran is not going to carry out a major attack against the Jewish state.

Or if they do, it will only prove that they are some kind of monkeys, with no understanding of their own capabilities. But could anyone expect anything different from the leadership of a country whose ideology is fundamentalist Islam?

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
A Muslim Woman's Lack of Solidarity with Iranian Women
The End of the Holy Soldier of the Arabs
Religious authority and the Iran strike on Israel

Religious authority and the Iran strike on Israel

Ancient Persia was a powerful empire of its time, stretching from Macedonia and Libya all the way to the borders of India. In contrast, modern-day Iran is a backward theocracy led by religious fanatics, where the people - especially women - are subjected to the yoke of medieval religion.

In recent years, the country has witnessed an incomprehensible drama by Western standards, where women have refused to comply with the demands of the morality police, despite being raped, tortured, and killed in large numbers.

Undoubtedly, all of this has affected every Iranian in one way or another, polarizing society. For example, many Iranian opposition figures in exile have stated that the recent airstrikes by the ayatollahs on Israel do not have the support of the entire nation, even though they were in response to an Israeli operation in Syria that resulted in the deaths of three Iranian generals.

The Iranian strike itself had little military impact, as Israel's air defense successfully intercepted the hundreds of drones and ballistic missiles sent by Iranian and Yemeni Houthi forces. Reports do not mention any casualties from the strike, but they do note that some people were wounded - including one child victim.

It remains to be seen how Israel will respond to Iran's attack. At this stage, the only certainty is that the consequences are significantly more serious for the Persians than what was seen in Israel last night.

All of this could have been predicted well before Iran's attack. And so, it begs the question: why was the attack launched last night, even though the outcome was known to be dismal for the aggressor?

One possible explanation could be that, as a result of the violence faced by women, an increasingly large portion of Iran's population is fed up with the clerical regime. Consequently, the country's religious authorities have decided to exploit Israel's strike in Syria to foster national unity and sweep the discontent raised by human rights issues under the rug.

Using military action to overcome political difficulties is an old and tested method. The most famous example is, of course, Margaret Thatcher's initiation of the Falklands War, which boosted her political approval rating from 25 percent at the start of the war to 59 percent within a couple of months.

And let's not forget the unity of the Finns who had just fought a civil war only two decades earlier when the Winter War began with the Soviet Union's attack. Nor the Ukrainians coming together to resist the Russians after they violated the young state's independence.

If indeed the strengthening of leaders´ domestic political position is behind Iran's attack, it is a bold gamble. Even though the people will undoubtedly rally behind their leaders after Israel retaliates, the mullahs will find themselves in a precarious position after a losing war when searching for those responsible for the defeat.

And that - in the best-case scenario - may even lead to a revolution, resulting in Iran's transition from a theocratic regime to secular power. And Iranian female students may look quite different from what they do now.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
The demands of the vandals
Ayatollahs in Iran demonstrated their ridiculousness
Independence day of Finland now and 83 years ago

The demands of the vandals

I noticed a small piece of news today stating that activists supporting Palestinians vandalized a historical painting in England, at the University of Cambridge. The painting, dating back to 1914, depicted former British Prime Minister Lord Arthur Balfour, best remembered for the 1917 Balfour Declaration, in which Britain announced support for the establishment of a "national home" for Jews in Palestine.

Of course, Lord Balfour is no longer alive, and therefore, he holds no significance in today's politics. Thus, the vandalism by activists has no bearing on the ongoing conflict between Israel and the Palestinians.

However, the destruction of the painting resulted in the loss of an irreplaceable piece of artwork and was therefore a culturally hostile act. Additionally, it demonstrated that the perpetrators were fanatical individuals whose behavior is guided by primitive instincts, similar to that of a toddler throwing a tantrum if they don't get their way.

The analogy is apt in the sense that a rational person does not heed the demands of their child throwing a tantrum on the ground. Similarly, a rational person does not cater to the potential political desires of these fanatical activists but rather dismisses them as childish whims.

The same thought in Finnish: 
Vandaalien vaatimukset

Previous thoughts on the same topic: 
A white family does not represent real Londoners
Finnish journalist called for British Prime Minister´s head to be placed on London bridge to dry
The activists sought excitement and a boost to their self-esteem in the Stockholm Diamond League