Transterrestrial Musings

Defend Free Speech!

Amazon Honor System Click Here to Pay

Site designed by

Powered by
Movable Type 4.0
Biting Commentary about Infinity, and Beyond!

« Caveman Economics | Main | Innovation »

Did Somali Pirates Save Israel?

Here's a new theory on that hijacked Iranian vessel:

At this writing, the MV Iran Deyanat is at anchor, watched closely by American, French and Russian naval units.

[Russian sources claim she] was an enormous floating dirty bomb, intended to detonate after exiting the Suez Canal at the eastern end of the Mediterranean and in proximity to the coastal cities of Israel. The entire cargo of radioactive sand, obtained by Iran from China (the latter buys desperately needed oil from the former) and sealed in containers which, when the charges on the ship are set off after the crew took to the boats, will be blasted high into the air where prevailing winds will push the highly dangerous and radioactive cloud ashore.

Is this what Ahmadinejad has been ranting about?

Maybe Barack can ask him when he sits down to talk to him with no preconditions.

Oh, wait. I guess there will be preconditions:

Vice President for Media Affairs Mehdi Kalhor said on Saturday that Iran has set two preconditions for holding talks with the United States of America.

In an exclusive interview with IRNA, he said as long as U.S. forces have not left the Middle East region and continues its support for the Zionist regime, talks between Iran and U.S. is off the agenda.

Well, if they get their preferred candidate, he'll probably hop right to it.


0 TrackBacks

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Did Somali Pirates Save Israel?.

TrackBack URL for this entry:


Jardinero1 wrote:

This is getting a little thin.

The Iranians own missiles capable of reaching Israel. They own plenty of radioactive material. Wouldn't it be easier to use the missiles to drop material on Israel. Why take the risk of dumping radioactive sand on the Gaza strip and Egypt? Or worse still, drifting onto the Wahabbist Saudis who consider the Shia Iranians apostates.

Leland wrote:

I'm inclined not to believe the story. But if it is verified, I'd be interested if Obama supporters would recognize this as an act of war.

Karl Hallowell wrote:

I don't buy it. Thin and you'd think the crew on board would protect it better.

MarkD wrote:

We could take this rumor one step further, if these pirates foiled an Iranian attack on Israel, maybe the pirates aren't really pirates but Mossad Agents in disguise.

As to why the Iranians wouldn't just use their missles because it's easier? This way it's easier to hide the fact that they're responsible. Plus they don't really care about "accidentally" radiating a couple arab states. The dirty little secret is that if the Muslims got their wish and wiped out all the Jews and the Christians, the Persian Muslims and the Arab Muslims would instantly declare war on each other, because, as has been pointed out, each considers the other apostates.

Steve wrote:

You would also have to assume that Iran actually has reliable missles left that are capable of accurately reaching an Israeli target. After the altered images from the last launch, that isn't certain.

jim2 wrote:

I agree it seems an unlikely story, but a detonated ship-dirty-bomb would be deniable by Iran while their missiles would not be - - - and Israel has consistently acted in retribution.

Evert wrote:

I will need a few more sources (preferably non-russian) on this before I start believing it.

re: jardinero1, don't forget that the iranian missiles will have to fly over Iraq before reaching Israel and that there is a lot of big bad US hardware on the ground there.

Re: Karl Hallowel, only 3 or 4 guys hellbend on getting 72 raisins on board needed to know about what was to transpire near the Irsaeli coast, so the rest of the crew could have easily been "collateral damage".

III wrote:

I'm inclined not to believe the story. But if it is verified, I'd be interested if Obama supporters would recognize this as an act of war.

I support Barack Hussein Obama for President.

If this story is true, it is clearly an act of war, and I hope Israel does us the favor of sending the Iranian leadership off to meet their 72 virgins.

There, that answers your question. Feel free to continue to post idiotic nonsense.

memomachine wrote:


It's about scale.

A shipload of radioactive material is simply more massive than the relatively small amount that will fit in a missile warhead.

Plus take a look at a map of Israel. Most of the larger and more important cities are along the coast. Haifa, Tel Aviv.

If this isn't a real situation, and the reports are all overblown, this type and style of attack certainly remains logical.

Anonymous wrote:

Evert: "only 3 or 4 guys hellbend on getting 72 raisins on board needed to know about what was to transpire near the Irsaeli coast"

Did they know? If they were only told to deliver the boat and detonate the extra powerful TNT next to the Israel shore, would they do it? They did not need to know the bomb was dirty, they escaped on their own boat and went home with bleeding gums and falling teeth thanking Allah they had killed a lot of dirty Jews.

John Steele wrote:

Lets see now:

1. Iranian registered ship suddenly blows up off the coast of Israel.
2. Within hours Israel discovers large quantities of radioactive dust blowing in from the Med and falling from the sky.
3. Israel nukes Iran back to the stone age.

Works for me.

Jack Lifton wrote:

"Radioactive sand?" This sounds like a load of monazite of which China has plenty. Monazite 'sand' is a source of rare earth metals, and was probably being shipped to Iran for processing there into F.C.C., fluid cracking catalyst, which is necessary for converting heavy crudes to fluid oil. The load may even have been one of rare earth oxide (REO) concentrates produced from monazite sands. In either case the sand or the concentrates made from it could and most likely would contain radioactive thorium, which is always found associated with the rare earths in monazite. Interestingly enough thorium is now being researched in China, India, Russia, and Norway for use as a nonproliferative nuclear fuel. Perhaps the Iranians were going to extract it also for such research?

The Russians have vivid imaginations and love to make mischief where they are impotent to project real power. This story could be a good reason for the (Imperial) Russian Navy to beef up its presence in the area-to protect the region, of course.

Curt Thomson wrote:

"3. Israel nukes Iran back to the stone age.
In much of the country that would be forward to the stone age.

Karl Hallowell wrote:

Ok, I can see this scenario even though the evidence just isn't there (we don't even know what's on board and why it's dangerous). Buy (or more likely get paid for) a bunch of highly toxic waste and move it offshore of Israel (or some European power you don't like) on the cheapest ship(s) you can find, then blow it up and see what happens. That's the sort of thing that a group like Al Qaeda can finance.

I don't see Iran doing this for a very simple reason. It gives Israel a pretext to nuke them with real nuclear weapons. As I see it, anything shy of nuclear weapons detonated on the spot with no warning simply won't take out Israel fast enough to avoid retaliation. Iran would then be counting on the weak hope that Israel couldn't trace the attack back to them.

While Iran may be crazy, they aren't stupid. Why attack Israel at all when they have effective proxies like Hamas and Hezbollah doing the dirty work for them? A more likely suspect is Al Qaeda (the part run by Osama bin Laden) who really needs a big win right now. A prominent or scary attack on Israel might also throw the US elections in favor of McCain (no offense, but McCain is more likely to be good for Al Qaeda recruiting than Obama is in the short term).

Bill White wrote:

How much explosive would be needed to blast tons of sand high into the air?

High enough to drift for miles and miles since a freighter is unlikely to get within 10 or even 20 miles of the Israeli coastline without serious challenge?

El Presidente wrote:


Interesting thought, but a ship traveling from China to Iran wouldn't get within 1200 miles of the Somali coast. Remember the entrance to the Persian Gulf is on the far side of the Arabian Peninsula.

Also naturally occurring monazite contains such low levels of thorium and uranium that you would not expect any immediate symptoms from a brief exposure. Another also is that if it is from China it is probably the chemically similar bastnasite, rather than Monazite.

Eric Gisin wrote:

Radioactive Sand is more paranoia from the loony left. Monazite contains thorium, which is barely radioactive and does NOT produce the type of Radon that is harmful (from Uranium).

Bill White wrote:

Looks like Israel may be "un-saved" as it has now been asserted that Iran (and others) arranged for the release of the vessel and as of October 10th it was headed back into international waters.

According to IRNA Economic Desk, the Public Relations of IRISL announced here Friday morning the Emergency Reaction Committee of the IRISL has reported that thanks to efforts made by that committee and the management of the IRISL, Dianat Ship was freed after seven weeks of efforts and negotiations with the Somali pirates on Friday morning, October 10th.

tim maguire wrote:

This scenario is plausible--particularly if it's a set-up. Some rogue group trying to destabilize the Iranian government from within (or without). Maybe they couldn't get their hands on missiles but could get radioactive sand and a ship. Let Israel take out the Mullahs for them and they step into control in Teheran.

The boat's not going anywhere and when this is over, we can be certain it will be carefully examined. The truth will out eventually.

Bill White wrote:

The ship has already been released, according to this Indian news report

tim maguire wrote:

Or maybe not, given the comment above mine. But Iran wouldn't be able to save the ship to carry on with its mission if there was any truth to our musings. Either we are wrong or other arrangements have been made to make sure the ship does not blow up off the Israeli coast.

spectre wrote:

Using someone else's nuclear material for an attack can be a good ruse. Since nuclear material can have signature like trace elements.

So, using a "forged" signature, might mislead investigations for a time, or create other international issues desirable to the perpetrators.

jtb-in-texas wrote:

Wow. That is really James Bond stuff there...

OTOH, it's just the kind of thing a dirty little back-stabbing nutjob would do to avoid having US, Iraqi, and NATO forces turn Teheran into Iraq's 20th Province...

Jay Manifold wrote:

Count me among those who doubt the effectiveness of a radiochemical attack with "radioactive sand." The heavy-metal content would cause more public health problems than the radioactivity (if such problems were noticeable at all). Of course this may have been, as Saddam's WMD programs mostly were, the result of someone promising the bad guys something that was never remotely technically feasible.

Alex Bensky wrote:

It may not be true but certainly is worth checking into. Perhaps the reporting skills American media have forgotten during the campaign can be directed this way.

As to why the Iranians would do it, if they have, I'd think it's hard to deny a missile from from your soil but this would offer deniability. Not plausible deniability, but when it comes to Israel mere "deniability" is all almost anyone asks for.

Evert wrote:

El Presidente:

Nice argument!! (checked on google earth)

George wrote:

El Presidente,

It wasn't on it's way to Iran, according to it was on its way to the Netherlands

desertdweller wrote:

Check out Uncle Jimbo's ideas at Blackfive:

Karl Hallowell wrote:

I don't buy the "Russian sources". It all seems to trace back to one or more blogs, no legit news sources. I think someone is making this up for web hits.

Robin L Hood wrote:

As far as the crew protecting itself better, I am not familiar with laws governing this crew in paticular, but on a US flagged vessel, the crew, by law, is not allowed to bring weapons with them on board, for defensive purposes or any other.As an ex merchant marine officer, I would not sail through any of these pirate-prone areas of the world nowdays for any amount of money.

Fletcher Christian wrote:

Mr. Steele; I see your point, but it doesn't quite work for me. I'd prefer a somewhat longer backward step in time for Iran. Maybe the Archean.

Karl Hallowell wrote:

Robin, you wrote:

As far as the crew protecting itself better, I am not familiar with laws governing this crew in paticular, but on a US flagged vessel, the crew, by law, is not allowed to bring weapons with them on board, for defensive purposes or any other.

Call it a hunch, but I bet that you aren't allowed to sail a ship filled with toxic chemicals up to a port and blow it up. My take is that it'd be awful tempting to protect that weapon.

Fletcher, you wrote:

Mr. Steele; I see your point, but it doesn't quite work for me. I'd prefer a somewhat longer backward step in time for Iran. Maybe the Archean.

While I guess most of us know of your opinion, I still don't respect it. Killing millions of innocents for hypothetical "existential" danger remains reprehensible. Casting the hypothetical danger as inevitable, especially since it isn't, doesn't change this.

Our society, Western society is based on giving people opportunity no matter what their beliefs or economical situation. In our legal system, we don't prejudge someone before a crime has occured and the facts have been laid out.

You are proposing that we turn away from the core of what makes our civilization great for flimsy reasons. If it should come to the point of kill or be killed, then that's different. Nobody has made a legitimate case for that.

Fletcher Christian wrote:

Mr. Hallowell, you protest at killing millions of innocents. And I agree. Where we disagree is also fairly simple. I disagree with the concept of an innocent Moslem. If you are an exemplary Moslem, then you agree with everything that the founder of your religion said. I am not going to bore everyone here with quotations from the writings of that particular paedophile warlord. The perfect Moslem is one who copies the founder of his cult as far as possible; which means that every good Moslem (good Moslem by their own standards) believes in perpetual war until ultimate victory, and utter subjugation of non-Moslems in Moslem territory.

Disagreeing with that is a simple matter of self-preservation for anyone who prefers not to be a slave. And further to that, converting the essential centre of their cult into a glass-lined crater a quarter-mile deep that glows in the dark is part of the route to self-defense.

Sure, the legal system of most Western countries doesn't allow prejudgement. In the Dar-al-Islam, they don't have that luxury. And never will. How many kuffir women does it take to be an acceptable set of witnesses for rape? Just as an example.

Bill Haynes wrote:

Karl Hallowell :
Your humanist philosophy works, if waiting for the other guy to drop the first bomb will not wipe you out, as a concerted attack on Israel would.
Israel is,as long as Iran or anyone threatens it with a nuclear attack, facing extinction by the first wave.
If Israeli intelligence reveals an imminent Iranian attack, they will have no choice, the WILL have to attack pre-emptively... or all die in a noble and futile effort to send a humanist message.

moshe kerr wrote:

I suspect that the GOP neocons manufactured this report to cause Jews to panic their political vote to McCain. If this proves true, it's more than just a desparate gambit, it proves criminal the NeoCon gangsterism. If true the Republican Party should dispand as a responsible political organization of western democracy.

Rand Simberg wrote:

I suspect that the GOP neocons...

I suspect that anyone who mindlessly blathers about "neocons" is a moron. There's much better basis for my suspicion than yours.

Leave a comment

Note: The comment system is functional, but timing out when returning a response page. If you have submitted a comment, DON'T RESUBMIT IT IF/WHEN IT HANGS UP AND GIVES YOU A "500" PAGE. Simply click your browser "Back" button to the post page, and then refresh to see your comment.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Rand Simberg published on October 15, 2008 8:56 AM.

Caveman Economics was the previous entry in this blog.

Innovation is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Powered by Movable Type 4.1