IRAN Nuclear Crisis News and Discussions

[Focus]

My Views: I have deleted half of the article as it was very long, visit the link to read in full.

Before Gulf War II in Feburary 2003, German Intelligence had warned that there was nothing to the report that Iraq was making Biological WMDs in the truck mounted labs...........and in the end their intelligence was proven right. So we have to respect German sources of information. [ Admin Edited ] They are giggling right now but will cry only when they themselves are targeted for comprehensive bombing. Why does not the world understand simple logic???????????????


http://www.upi.com/SecurityTerrorism...0-112208-8968r (http://www.upi.com/SecurityTerrorism/view.php?StoryID=20051230-112208-8968r)

German media: U.S. prepares Iran strike

By MARTIN WALKER
UPI Editor

WASHINGTON, Dec. 30 (UPI) -- The Bush administration is preparing its NATO allies for a possible military strike against suspected nuclear sites in Iran in the New Year, according to German media reports, reinforcing similar earlier suggestions in the Turkish media.

The Berlin daily Der Tagesspiegel this week quoted "NATO intelligence sources" who claimed that the NATO allies had been informed that the United States is currently investigating all possibilities of bringing the mullah-led regime into line, including military options. This "all options are open" line has been President George W Bush's publicly stated policy throughout the past 18 months.
But the respected German weekly Der Spiegel notes "What is new here is that Washington appears to be dispatching high-level officials to prepare its allies for a possible attack rather than merely implying the possibility as it has repeatedly done during the past year."

The German news agency DDP cited "Western security sources" to claim that CIA Director Porter Goss asked Turkey's premier Recep Tayyip Erdogan to provide political and logistic support for air strikes against Iranian nuclear and military targets. Goss, who visited Ankara and met Erdogan on Dec. 12, was also reported to have to have asked for special cooperation from Turkish intelligence to help prepare and monitor the operation.

The DDP report added that Goss had delivered to the Turkish prime minister and his security aides a series of dossiers, one on the latest status of Iran's nuclear development and another containing intelligence on new links between Iran and al-Qaida.

DDP cited German security sources who added that the Turks had been assured of a warning in advance if and when the military strikes took place, and had also been given "a green light" to mount their own attacks on the bases in Iran of the PKK, (Kurdish Workers party), which Turkey sees as a separatist group responsible for terrorist attacks inside Turkey.

[Dr Phobus]

I would not be surprised, however this action if taken will have I feel more EU backing, after all its the EU not USA that will be directly under missile threat from a belligerent and nuclear Iran. Personally, I do not want to see such a scenario. So, yes, there is a truth in this article, the US war college already conducted a study and realized that the IAF would be unable to really conduct such a long range strike. Also, only the USAF be the earth penetrating weapons needed to "reach" the buried Iranian nuclear program.

Happy new year

[Focus]

Why do forget that Gulf War I in 1991 was a trap laid by US on the pressure from Israel to remove Saddam who was gaining lots of power and Gulf War II of 2003 was again same thing, pressure from NeoCon Jewish interests in Washington, this time to remove Saddam and establish a prostitute minded nation (like Jordan) in middle east and ofcourse capture the oil reserves of Iraq. Except for Saddam's removal the other two have not come to be real....atleast as per what average among us know from media. Now these conspirators are busy again targeting a new country Iran. EU has little liking for the Israel/Jews except for the UK which tows the US line for any reason....so please do not drag EU into the mess that idiots are planning. If EU tows the line of America's crimes then EU will be targeted by hostile actions.

It is extremely baffling to consider the aftershocks of attack on Iran on the global peace and economy and especially the struggling humanity in the poor nations.............don't forget the price of oil.

While Germany did crimes in WWII, I have a lot of respect of German culture which is full of honor and self pride. I have nothing against the Jews either, but if they repeatedly conspire and act to destroy nations and populations, then their actions need to be rectified and contained. Also, Islamic nations have to understand what is more valueable, hate for Israel or care for their own people in the Arab world....wars are seldom a solution to issues among nations....Iran-Iraq war is a good example.

[wildcat1]

The real question I have is, why does the western world pick on little countries (rogue countries) when they're trying to build a nuclear arsenal? Who made the US and western allies the global cops in limiting other country's right to bear arms?

If the US/allies is so intent in allowing dangerous countries from building nukes, why haven't they done anything about the far more dangerous Chinese armed forces that is currently growing to the extent that it will equal or better US/allied forces in the next two years.

Facts supporting China is the future great threat to the western world:
China has been linked in downing (accidental they call it) one of intelligence gathering naval aircraft with full crew intact (returning the aircraft in pieces) to the US afterwards. They're also the only country threatening a peaceful free country such as Taiwan. They have no respect for human rights. Furthermore, they have been linked in theft of US nuclear technology in the past.

The fact that the western world is still dealing, selling military goods and doing business with China seem hypocritical.

If the western allies wants to have global peace or less threat of imminent wars, they should focus themselves and have a plan for China instead of focusing excessive energy, resources, and money dealing with smaller and weaker governments.

[WAR]

I have gone through the entire story via link. Well, a lot can be said, but I would confine myself to the following:

(1) There is a question mark on the authenticity of the facts mentioned in the story.

(2) There is a propaganda warfare going on, especially in the western media to build and construct a certain specific point of view.

(3) Earlier, in old days, the job of the media was to report the "FACTS", and the news was regarded as the reflection of the society, region etc.

(4) Now, the media tells you as to -- What to think now? Meaning they control your mind, judgement, thought and even your inner self.

(5) The point is that, one should not allow oneself to be taken as granted. The objective analysis of the information fed to us from time to time, must be crossed check.

Finally, if US attack Iran in near future, it would open a pandora box of activities which the society regards as "terrorists acts". It would be like adding fuel to the fire. There is already a lot of resentment in Iraq and Afghanistan against US and allied forces, which they regard as "occupation forces". I ask "Would the world be a safer place after eliminating Iran?"

[Focus]

"The objective analysis of the information fed to us from time to time, must be crossed check."

The objective analysis is the Israelis cannot sleep in peace when Iranian President is barking venom and threatening their genocide by his nukes. Similar venom talk and threats were being made by Saddam in 1990 before he fell into the trap. Any threats and childish talk will only strenghten the case for US to attack Iran and leave it crippling under sanctions after that. Iran has every right to own nukes and every weapon that anyother nation in the world has, including US. They should however show added maturity upon gaining added strenght of nukes. Islamic nations should forget about Israel and concentrate on their own people and lives. Other than Saudi, Kuwait, UAE, most of the Arab world is outright third world bracket in terms of basic human needs.

[Aussie Digger]

"The objective analysis of the information fed to us from time to time, must be crossed check."

The objective analysis is the Israelis cannot sleep in peace when Iranian President is barking venom and threatening their genocide by his nukes. Similar venom talk and threats were being made by Saddam in 1990 before he fell into the trap. Any threats and childish talk will only strenghten the case for US to attack Iran and leave it crippling under sanctions after that. Iran has every right to own nukes and every weapon that anyother nation in the world has, including US. They should however show added maturity upon gaining added strenght of nukes. Islamic nations should forget about Israel and concentrate on their own people and lives. Other than Saudi, Kuwait, UAE, most of the Arab world is outright third world bracket in terms of basic human needs.

I see. So the US tricked Iraq into invading Kuwait in 1990, eh? Marvelous deduction. Those NeoCons must be shaking in their (jack) boots, right now. The TRUTH has been revealed AND (of course) by none other than that most respectable of publications, Der Spiegel.

Focus, if you think Der Spiegel is respectable, than you must equate the factuality of the writings in the USA's "National Inquirer" as a similar standard to the level of proof required in Criminal Courts...

Der Spiegel is an utter rag. Quoting it, makes you lose just about every ounce of credibility you might have had. It's Nothing personal from me, it's just that you could get more aacurate info from conspiracy sites on the web, than from THAT magazine...

[Focus]

"I see. So the US tricked Iraq into invading Kuwait in 1990, eh? Marvelous deduction. Those NeoCons must be shaking in their (jack) boots, right now."

Come up with real facts Anglo Saxon Boy! rather than coming down to the personal level and passing judgements about news agencies. Flood gates of chaos, mayheim and terror will let open if US/UK/Israel/NATO attack Iran. I would not doubt if Iran has not already bought 'ready to go' nukes from North Korea or Pakistan. It already has long range missiles. All this talk and threats might just be an act to have the world become mentally adjusted to the fact that Iran can have nukes also. Hope peace prevails before total madness comes out in open. Will the Israeli paranoia result in American bankruptcy or do they really want to get bankrupt because most of their debt is owned by Chinese and Japanese anyways?

[Aussie Digger]

"I see. So the US tricked Iraq into invading Kuwait in 1990, eh? Marvelous deduction. Those NeoCons must be shaking in their (jack) boots, right now."

Come up with real facts Anglo Saxon Boy! rather than coming down to the personal level and passing judgements about news agencies. Flood gates of chaos, mayheim and terror will let open if US/UK/Israel/NATO attack Iran. I would not doubt if Iran has not already bought 'ready to go' nukes from North Korea or Pakistan. It already has long range missiles. All this talk and threats might just be an act to have the world become mentally adjusted to the fact that Iran can have nukes also. Hope peace prevails before total madness comes out in open. Will the Israeli paranoia result in American bankruptcy or do they really want to get bankrupt because most of their debt is owned by Chinese and Japanese anyways?

Where are the Mods around here? We have an insane person (or troll perhaps) loose on the boards...

You might not have a great command of English focus, but your posts do not make the slightest bit of sense. Are you perhaps drunk? IF US/UK/ISRAEL/NATO attack Iran, Iran's military capability would be destroyed in days. If Iran were to resort to the use of Nuclear weapons (should they even have them), there will be no "flood gates of chaos, mayheim and terror" unleashed. What will be unleashed is the combined nuclear capability of the US, UK and possibly Israel.

My Allah protect the people of Iran from their own leaders should that occur, because it is they who will cause all of Iran to turn into a giant sheet of Trinitite...

[knightrider4]

I dont often post anymore but I must say this thread got my attention. I reckon we should drop cases of good Australian beer all over Iran that would sort em out. All that heat and dust and no beer no wonder it's a little lulu down that way.:onfloorl:

[WebMaster]

Focus has been banned for using his household language on the boards.

Folks, lets express our opinion and "good" thoughts with some respect and responsiblity. Every jackass on this planet can come up with smart ass comments like focus did and there is nothing great about degrading other countries where you can write your thoughts with better words in english vocabulary and still make sense and look professional on the forums where you are interacting with different people from around the world. All we ask is give the other person proper respect that you think YOU deserve from others and often times DEMAND from others.

[Crusader2000]

The threat of attack from the US could just as well as be another way of applying pressure on Iran! (with the EU's approval) Personally, I don't see the US starting another conflict. Its has way to much on its plate already. On the otherhand I don't EU growing ba@#s anytime soon either?:p: So, guess why Iran is being so defiant! Because it can and it knows we can't do anything about it...........or at very least won't.:(

[gf0012-aust]

the far more dangerous Chinese armed forces that is currently growing to the extent that it will equal or better US/allied forces in the next two years.

I'm not going to bother responding to the "Der Spiegel" claim as it doesn't warrant attention. Der Speigel is about as factual as Pravda is. They focus on roswell and bigfoot type articles. ;)

As for China being able to demonstrate parity with the US/allied forces within 2 years. Where abouts do you think that China can demonstrate close equivalency?

In all of the areas I work in, in all of the dealings I have with various technologies, I can't see China getting remotely close to US parity within 15 years - and that assumes that the US goes into lockdown for the same period.

China is a green water navy
China has a landlocked airforce
China cannot engage in expeditionary warfare at 90km - let alone at an intercontinental level, If she us unable to challenge Taiwan 90km away until probably 2008 - then what demonstrable strides are there to indicate parity with US forces within 2 years?
China has no spaced based ISR inegtrated into the "force proper"
China has no capacity to project, persist or apply safe presence at beyond landbased air
She has no long range airborne ASW
She lacks persistent AWACS/AEW&C's
She lacks 2nd strike capability at a fleet level
She has one nuke - which has not been blue watered for the last 5 years
She has no structured AirWarfare capability for both her main fleets
Her submarines are no match for Sth Koreas - or Japans, let alone the US
She is landlocked on one side - that means that SBISR has a maximum advantage in racetracking satellites across all of her water based access points - China is an open room as such.
She does not have as many nukes as Israel - the US has literally - and I mean literally, over 5000 times the number of nukes as well as yield as China has. In real terms, 2 USN boomers have more destructive power on hand than China has in total - and China has no capacity to track and hold those submarines. How many boomers does the USN have? It should make the PLAN pause quite a bit.
She has no fast transports required for expeditionary warfare.

Comments about Chinese parity are highly optimistic. China is a regional superpower with greenwater limitations, minimal capacity to protect her shores from a concentrated submerged attack, and definitely is unable to move troops in a supportable fashion in any long range and contested area.

Nukes don't define absolute power as they are a last resort weapon - and in her case she has too few to effect a stoppage on the US. She'd be turned into the largest glass plate in history - and one suspects that Chinese mil planners know that as well.

[Hussain]

I agree with Gf0012 that at present China's military machine is no way as capable as the US. However in a localised war in and around China I think the Chinese military will be able to give the US a run for its money. However at present there doesn't seem to be any reason for China to start a conflict (except over Taiwan) and the US is certainly not in a position to start on China due to its war on terrorism and the growing dispute with Iran.

What must be of concern to the US will be defence acquisition by Iran of both Russian and Chinese military hardware. If both China and Russia are willing to provide Iran with their latest military hardware the reason, apart from money, would be to show their displeasure at US dominance in the world.

[PhillTaj]

Is the threat to the USN all that severe from China? The Chinese may have all kibds of long range russian cruise missiles, but they lack any sort of capability to guide them to their US Navy targets.

[gf0012-aust]

However in a localised war in and around China I think the Chinese military will be able to give the US a run for its money.

It would be absolute madness for any country to go into a local ground war with China. At a local level their logistics problems for warfighting are considerably less - I don't think the US has any qualms in admitting that waging a continental war would be idiotic. The only country in the past capable of fielding a stronger land army was the Russians - and they'd ve hard pressed to do it now. They can't even stop chinese traders from leaking into Siberia.

However at present there doesn't seem to be any reason for China to start a conflict (except over Taiwan) and the US is certainly not in a position to start on China due to its war on terrorism and the growing dispute with Iran.

In real terms, I can't see the US or China coming to blows. Taiwan is the wild card. A failure by China to manage North Korea (and it is an unwelcome but necessary burden that does fall on China) might be another - but I still see it as manageable.

What must be of concern to the US will be defence acquisition by Iran of both Russian and Chinese military hardware. If both China and Russia are willing to provide Iran with their latest military hardware the reason, apart from money, would be to show their displeasure at US dominance in the world.

Iran only becomes a problem if she decides that she wants to play war with Israel. Then the dynamics change. At a raw level, Iran buying Russian or Chinese kit does not alter any balance as Iran has been seen as a lost cause since the demise of the Shah. Although the new Iranian President is a worry as he seems far more intent at having a controversial public profile. The prev was less vocal, and the intelligentsia in Iran were actually far more pro western in the moderate interaction sense.

The best thing is for Iran to be ignored. She will create a headache for everyone if not.

[gf0012-aust]

Is the threat to the USN all that severe from China? The Chinese may have all kibds of long range russian cruise missiles, but they lack any sort of capability to guide them to their US Navy targets.

China is incapable of fighting meaningfully at a blue water level. She does not have the fleet mix, she does not have asset mix, she does not have persistence or the logistics to make it work.

She does not have the satellite constellations needed to be able to use modern precision weapons systems. At best she has regional satellite clusters - but nothing at the 24hr saturation and overwatch level needed to fight at an intercontinental level.

Gallileo will not provide the footprint either - and Gallileo is years away from proper global saturation.

[aaaditya]

I'm not going to bother responding to the "Der Spiegel" claim as it doesn't warrant attention. Der Speigel is about as factual as Pravda is. They focus on roswell and bigfoot type articles. ;)

As for China being able to demonstrate parity with the US/allied forces within 2 years. Where abouts do you think that China can demonstrate close equivalency?

In all of the areas I work in, in all of the dealings I have with various technologies, I can't see China getting remotely close to US parity within 15 years - and that assumes that the US goes into lockdown for the same period.

China is a green water navy
China has a landlocked airforce
China cannot engage in expeditionary warfare at 90km - let alone at an intercontinental level, If she us unable to challenge Taiwan 90km away until probably 2008 - then what demonstrable strides are there to indicate parity with US forces within 2 years?
China has no spaced based ISR inegtrated into the "force proper"
China has no capacity to project, persist or apply safe presence at beyond landbased air
She has no long range airborne ASW
She lacks persistent AWACS/AEW&C's
She lacks 2nd strike capability at a fleet level
She has one nuke - which has not been blue watered for the last 5 years
She has no structured AirWarfare capability for both her main fleets
Her submarines are no match for Sth Koreas - or Japans, let alone the US
She is landlocked on one side - that means that SBISR has a maximum advantage in racetracking satellites across all of her water based access points - China is an open room as such.
She does not have as many nukes as Israel - the US has literally - and I mean literally, over 5000 times the number of nukes as well as yield as China has. In real terms, 2 USN boomers have more destructive power on hand than China has in total - and China has no capacity to track and hold those submarines. How many boomers does the USN have? It should make the PLAN pause quite a bit.
She has no fast transports required for expeditionary warfare.

Comments about Chinese parity are highly optimistic. China is a regional superpower with greenwater limitations, minimal capacity to protect her shores from a concentrated submerged attack, and definitely is unable to move troops in a supportable fashion in any long range and contested area.

Nukes don't define absolute power as they are a last resort weapon - and in her case she has too few to effect a stoppage on the US. She'd be turned into the largest glass plate in history - and one suspects that Chinese mil planners know that as well.

by the way gf on what basis is a navy classified as the blue,green or brown or any other cloured water navy?

also what coloured navies are the japanese,south korean,north korean and taiwanese .

[gf0012-aust]

by the way gf on what basis is a navy classified as the blue,green or brown or any other cloured water navy?

also what coloured navies are the japanese,south korean,north korean and taiwanese .

brown = riverine or internal small craft for local water ways
green = coastal or littorals
blue = 2 standards

cold war standard was any country that was fielding a full autonomous battlefleet concurrently in all of the worlds 5 major oceans. It also indicated a country that was able to deploy a full autonomous and combat capable fleet to protect any distant (and that refers to transoceanic) dependancies or territorial obligations.

nowadays it refers to a country that is able to deploy and sustain a full autonomous battlefleet at the intercontinental level on a regular basis. that usually denotes permanency in those waters as well. eg in Real terms the USN has 20 (12-13 x CSF's and 8 x ESF's/ARG's) full battle ready fleets where they have a permanent presence in each of the worlds major waterways. Russia used to have 4, but now has 3. (Black Sea, Northern and eastern)

A blue-water navy is also able autonomously project a countries capacity to defend its shipping lanes and spheres of interest without compromising the capoacity of the nation to defend her immediate national geography. (ie continental protection as well as intercontinental projection and protection)
Transcontinental protection doesn't normally qualify as blue-water - but it does denote latency.

The Japanese and Sth Koreans are thus regarded as latent bluewater as they are regularly deploying full fleet assets for complex independant and interdependant fleet exercises and engagements such as RIMPAC.

Taiwan is in real terms a greenwater navy only due to geographical strategic issues. She has no need to deploy at a bluewater level as her threat matrix more or less is transnational (even though there is 90km between her and her most immediate contestable threat)

[fieldmarshal]

I dont think any 1 has been able to grasp the real probem here and obviously have not been able to state a solution.
The reason why us is a hyperpower is due to its economic power or infact hamagony, it takes any sort threat or precived threat to its eco power very seriously n works to nutralise it or worst to ilimanate it.
Now y is the us blowing hot n cold all of a sudden on iran? the reason is simple n that has to do with the launch of the iranian oil bourse, which if successful will not just dent the us eco but will be the catalist which will lead to its downfall.
the us takes this iranian measure very seriously, iraq too was wanting to establish an iraqi oil bourse and that was the only reason y the us went to war with iraq.
the iranian bourse comes into force in march and the us will do any and every thing so that it does not come into force n if it does than it should fail.

At the same time due to a cia blunder the iranians have got hold of a list of all cia operatives inside iran so any sort of covert action by the us can be ruled out. The way left now is only overt action and bush is even working on a national draft, for whcih he tested the national sentiment a few months a go.

So yes the american bombers are on theri way.

[coolieno99]

Other than the last letter, Iran is not Iraq. Militarily, Iran is much stronger than Iraq. Iran's population is 2.5 times larger than Iraq. Its land area is 3 times larger than Iraq. Much of its terrain is mountainous, not flat like Iraq. It has a relatively small standing army of 540,000 men, but its militia(reserve) stands at 9,000,000 men. Its armament is much more modern than Iraq's. Geographically it can control the Strait of Hormuz(mouth of the Persian Gulf where 40% of the world's oil flow) by setting up shore launched AshM missile batteries(Exocet type, made in Iran) facing across the Strait. In short, that's why the U.S. is not going to attack Iran.

[KGB]

Other than the last letter, Iran is not Iraq. Militarily, Iran is much stronger than Iraq. Iran's population is 2.5 times larger than Iraq. Its land area is 3 times larger than Iraq. Much of its terrain is mountainous, not flat like Iraq. It has a relatively small standing army of 540,000 men, but its militia(reserve) stands at 9,000,000 men. Its armament is much more modern than Iraq's. Geographically it can control the Strait of Hormuz(mouth of the Persian Gulf where 40% of the world's oil flow) by setting up shore launched AshM missile batteries(Exocet type, made in Iran) facing across the Strait. In short, that's why the U.S. is not going to attack Iran.

This might be a bit off topic but if what is above is correct, why did the Iran-Iraq war end in stalemate?

[gf0012-aust]

This might be a bit off topic but if what is above is correct, why did the Iran-Iraq war end in stalemate?

At the time of the conflict they more or less had parity. They also had beaten each other into a standstill because they were still fighting at a WW2 type model of force majeur upon force majeur.

the Iranians did have air and naval superiority. the Iraqis had a far more comprehensive heavy armour/artillery model in place. - although the Iranians had better tanks and were better trained.

either way they lost a million men for minimal achievment.

you also need to look at where they had their military engagements in relation to their capabilities.

ie they bludgeoned each other. nothing like warfare as demonstrated in 1991 (which was an RMA for everyone sitting and watching)

[coolieno99]

This might be a bit off topic but if what is above is correct, why did the Iran-Iraq war end in stalemate?

That was then(1980-1988), Iran and Iraq did fought to a stalemate. Both were well armed and at roughly equal parity. But since Iraq lost Gulf War I(1991), its military infrastructure took a nosedive due to actual losses in the war itself and economic sanctions and military embargoes. While in the meantime, Iran had build up its military infrastructure with help from Russia, China, and North Korea, and its own homegrown military industrial complex over a 15 year period. Some of the bigger acquisitions included at least 2 Kilo class subs from Russia. China help them build Exocet type anti-shipping missiles. North Korea help them built tactical ballistic missiles(Shahab series). They do make a lot of the weapons themselves. ... and so on ... The most interesting acquisition is the Steyr .50 cal sniper rifles. Iran bought 800 of them from Austria. Usually .50 cal rifles have effective range about 1500 yds. Probably can penetrate "bullet proof" armoured vests like the kind worn by U.S. soldiers.

[knightrider4]

Does anyone have any info or tell me where I can find any regarding Irans air defence system?

[fieldmarshal]

Remember the soothsayer's warning to Julius Caesar, "Beware the Ides of March". Some of the claims made in the article maybe farfetched but with IOB set to go into opp in march so Iran needs to be aware of the "Ides of March".

Nuclear War against Iran

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=%20CH20060103&articleId=1714

The launching of an outright war using nuclear warheads against Iran is now in the final planning stages.
Coalition partners, which include the US, Israel and Turkey are in "an advanced stage of readiness".
Various military exercises have been conducted, starting in early 2005. In turn, the Iranian Armed Forces have also conducted large scale military maneuvers in the Persian Gulf in December in anticipation of a US sponsored attack.
Since early 2005, there has been intense shuttle diplomacy between Washington, Tel Aviv, Ankara and NATO headquarters in Brussels.
In recent developments, CIA Director Porter Goss on a mission to Ankara, requested Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan "to provide political and logistic support for air strikes against Iranian nuclear and military targets." Goss reportedly asked " for special cooperation from Turkish intelligence to help prepare and monitor the operation." (DDP, 30 December 2005).



In turn, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has given the green light to the Israeli Armed Forces to launch the attacks by the end of March:All top Israeli officials have pronounced the end of March, 2006, as the deadline for launching a military assault on Iran.... The end of March date also coincides with the IAEA report to the UN on Iran's nuclear energy program. Israeli policymakers believe that their threats may influence the report, or at least force the kind of ambiguities, which can be exploited by its overseas supporters to promote Security Council sanctions or justify Israeli military action.


The US sponsored military plan has been endorsed by NATO, although it is unclear, at this stage, as to the nature of NATO's involvement in the planned aerial attacks.
"Shock and Awe"
The various components of the military operation are firmly under US Command, coordinated by the Pentagon and US Strategic Command Headquarters (USSTRATCOM) at the Offutt Air Force base in Nebraska (http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/facility/offutt.htm).
The actions announced by Israel would be carried out in close coordination with the Pentagon. The command structure of the operation is centralized and ultimately Washington will decide when to launch the military operation.



US military sources have confirmed that an aerial attack on Iran would involve a large scale deployment comparable to the US "shock and awe" bombing raids on Iraq in March 2003:
American air strikes on Iran would vastly exceed the scope of the 1981 Israeli attack on the Osiraq nuclear center in Iraq, and would more resemble the opening days of the 2003 air campaign against Iraq. Using the full force of operational B-2 stealth bombers, staging from Diego Garcia or flying direct from the United States, possibly supplemented by F-117 stealth fighters staging from al Udeid in Qatar or some other location in theater, the two-dozen suspect nuclear sites would be targeted. Military planners could tailor their target list to reflect the preferences of the Administration by having limited air strikes that would target only the most crucial facilities ... or the United States could opt for a far more comprehensive set of strikes against a comprehensive range of WMD related targets, as well as conventional and unconventional forces that might be used to counterattack against US forces in Iraq

(See Globalsecurity.org at http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iran-strikes.htm (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iran-strikes.htm)



In November, US Strategic Command conducted a major exercise of a "global strike plan" entitled "Global Lightening". The latter involved a simulated attack using both conventional and nuclear weapons against a "fictitious enemy".
Following the "Global Lightening" exercise, US Strategic Command declared an advanced state of readiness (See our analysis below)
While Asian press reports stated that the "fictitious enemy" in the Global Lightening exercise was North Korea, the timing of the exercises, suggests that they were conducted in anticipation of a planned attack on Iran.
Consensus for Nuclear War
No dissenting political voices have emerged from within the European Union.
There are ongoing consultations between Washington, Paris and Berlin. Contrary to the invasion of Iraq, which was opposed at the diplomatic level by France and Germany, Washington has been building "a consensus" both within the Atlantic Alliance and the UN Security Council.
Moreover, a number of frontline Arab states are now tacit partners in the US/ Israeli military project. A year ago in November 2004, Israel's top military brass met at NATO headqaurters in Brtussels with their counterparts from six members of the Mediterranean basin nations, including Egypt, Jordan, Tunisia, Morocco, Algeria and Mauritania. A NATO-Israel protocol was signed. Following these meetings, joint military exercises were held off the coast of Syria (http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/archive/index.php?t-37245.html)involving the US, Israel and Turkey. and in February 2005, Israel participated in military exercises and "anti-terror maneuvers" together with several Arab countries.
The media in chorus has unequivocally pointed to Iran as a "threat to World Peace".
The antiwar movement has swallowed the media lies. The fact that the US and Israel are planning a Middle East nuclear holocaust is not part of the antiwar/ anti- globalization agenda.
The "surgical strikes" are presented to world public opinion as a means to preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons.
.
Mini-nukes: "Safe for Civilians"
The press reports, while revealing certain features of the military agenda, largely serve to distort the broader nature of the military operation, which contemplates the preemptive use of tactical nuclear weapons.
The war agenda is based on the Bush administration's doctrine of "preemptive" nuclear war under the 2002 Nuclear Posture Review.
Media disinformation has been used extensively to conceal the devastating consequences of military action involving nuclear warheads against Iran. According to a 2003 Senate decision, the new generation of tactical nuclear weapons or "low yield" "mini-nukes", with an explosive capacity of up to 6 times a Hiroshima bomb, are now considered "safe for civilians" because the explosion is underground.



Through a propaganda campaign which has enlisted the support of "authoritative" nuclear scientists, the mini-nukes are being presented as an instrument of peace rather than war. The low-yield nukes have now been cleared for "battlefield use", they are slated to be used in the next stage of America's "war on Terrorism" alongside conventional weapons:Administration officials argue that low-yield nuclear weapons are needed as a credible deterrent against rogue states.[Iran, North Korea] Their logic is that existing nuclear weapons are too destructive to be used except in a full-scale nuclear war. Potential enemies realize this, thus they do not consider the threat of nuclear retaliation to be credible



In an utterly twisted logic, nuclear weapons are presented as a means to building peace and preventing "collateral damage". The Pentagon has intimated, in this regard, that the ‘mini-nukes’ (with a yield of less than 5000 tons) are harmless to civilians because the explosions ‘take place under ground’..

The earth-penetrating capability of the [nuclear] B61-11 is fairly limited, however. Tests show it penetrates only 20 feet or so into dry earth when dropped from an altitude of 40,000 feet. Even so, by burying itself into the ground before detonation, a much higher proportion of the explosion energy is transferred to ground shock compared to a surface bursts. Any attempt to use it in an urban environment, however, would result in massive civilian casualties.
The military manuals state that this new generation of nuclear weapons are "safe" for use in the battlefield. They are no longer a weapon of last resort. There are no impediments or political obstacles to their use. "Making the World safer" is the justification for launching a military operation which could potentially result in a nuclear holocaust.


But nuclear holocausts are not front page news! In the words of Mordechai Vanunu,The Israeli government is preparing to use nuclear weapons in its next war with the Islamic world. Here where I live, people often talk of the Holocaust. But each and every nuclear bomb is a Holocaust in itself. It can kill, devastate cities, destroy entire peoples. (See interview with Mordechai Vanunu, (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20060102&articleId=1703) December 2005).



Space and Earth Attack Command Unit
A preemptive nuclear attack using tactical nuclear weapons would be coordinated out of US Strategic Command Headquarters at the Offutt Air Force base in Nebraska, in liaison with US and coalition command units in the Persian Gulf, the Diego Garcia military base, Israel and Turkey.
Under its new mandate, USSTRATCOM has a responsibility for "overseeing a global strike plan" consisting of both conventional and nuclear weapons. In military jargon, it is slated to play the role of "a global integrator charged with the missions of Space Operations; Information Operations; Integrated Missile Defense; Global Command & Control; Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance; Global Strike; and Strategic Deterrence.... "
In January 2005, at the outset of the military build-up directed against Iran, USSTRATCOM was identified as "the lead Combatant Command for integration and synchronization of DoD-wide efforts in combating weapons of mass destruction."

To implement this mandate, a brand new command unit entitled Joint Functional Component Command Space and Global Strike (http://www.stratcom.mil/fact_sheets/fact_sgs.html), or JFCCSGS was created.
JFCCSGS has the mandate to oversee the launching of a nuclear attack in accordance with the 2002 Nuclear Posture Review, approved by the US Congress in 2002. The NPR underscores the pre-emptive use of nuclear warheads not only against "rogue states" but also against China and Russia.

Since November, JFCCSGS is said to be in "an advance state of readiness" following the conduct of relevant military exercises. The announcement was made in early December by U.S. Strategic Command to the effect that the command unit had achieved "an operational capability for rapidly striking targets around the globe using nuclear or conventional weapons."

'After assuming several new missions in 2002,
'The command's performance during Global Lightning demonstrated its preparedness to execute its mission of proving integrated space and global strike capabilities to deter and dissuade aggressors and when directed, defeat adversaries through decisive joint global effects in support of STRATCOM,' he added without elaborating about 'new missions' of the new command unit that has around 250 personnel.


CONCEPT PLAN (CONPLAN) 8022
JFCCSGS is in an advanced state of readiness to trigger nuclear attacks directed against Iran or North Korea.



The operational implementation of the Global Strike is called CONCEPT PLAN (CONPLAN) 8022. The latter is described as "an actual plan that the Navy and the Air Force translate into strike package for their submarines and bombers,' (Ibid).CONPLAN 8022 is 'the overall umbrella plan for sort of the pre-planned strategic scenarios involving nuclear weapons.'
'It's specifically focused on these new types of threats -- Iran, North Korea -- proliferators and potentially terrorists too,' he said. 'There's nothing that says that they can't use CONPLAN 8022 in limited scenarios against Russian and Chinese targets.'(According to Hans Kristensen, of the Nuclear Information Project (http://www.nukestrat.com/us/jcs/jp3-12_05.htm), quoted in Japanese economic News Wire, op cit)



The mission of JFCCSGS is to implement CONPLAN 8022, in other words to trigger a nuclear war with Iran.
The Commander in Chief, namely George W. Bush would instruct the Secretary of Defense, who would then instruct the Joint Chiefs of staff to activate CONPLAN 8022.



CONPLAN is distinct from other military operations. it does not contemplate the deployment of ground troops.CONPLAN 8022 is different from other war plans in that it posits a small-scale operation and no "boots on the ground." The typical war plan encompasses an amalgam of forces -- air, ground, sea -- and takes into account the logistics and political dimensions needed to sustain those forces in protracted operations....

The Role of Israel

Since late 2004, Israel has been stockpiling US made conventional and nuclear weapons systems in anticipation of an attack on Iran. This stockpiling which is financed by US military aid was largely completed in June 2005. Israel has taken delivery from the US of several thousand "smart air launched weapons" including some 500 'bunker-buster bombs, which can also be used to deliver tactical nuclear bombs.
The B61-11 is the "nuclear version" of the "conventional" BLU 113, can be delivered in much same way as the conventional bunker buster bomb.
Moreover, reported in late 2003, Israeli Dolphin-class submarines equipped with US Harpoon missiles armed with nuclear warheads are now aimed at Iran. (See Gordon Thomas, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/THO311A.html (http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/THO311A.html)
Late April 2005. Sale of deadly military hardware to Israel. GBU-28 Buster Bunker Bombs:

Coinciding with Putin's visit to Israel, the US Defence Security Cooperation Agency (http://www.dsca.osd.mil/) (Department of Defense) announced the sale of an additional 100 bunker-buster bombs produced by Lockheed Martin to Israel. This decision was viewed by the US media as "a warning to Iran about its nuclear ambitions."
The sale pertains to the larger and more sophisticated "Guided Bomb Unit-28 (GBU-28) BLU-113 Penetrator" (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/gbu-28.htm) (including the WGU-36A/B guidance control unit and support equipment). The GBU-28 is described as "a special weapon for penetrating hardened command centers located deep underground.

Extension of the War
Tehran has confirmed that it will retaliate if attacked, in the form of ballistic missile strikes directed against Israel (CNN, 8 Feb 2005). These attacks, could also target US military facilities in Iraq and Persian Gulf, which would immediately lead us into a scenario of military escalation and all out war.
At present there are three distinct war theaters: Afghanistan, Iraq and Palestine. The air strikes against Iran could contribute to unleashing a war in the broader Middle East Central Asian region.
Moreover, the planned attack on Iran should also be understood in relation to the timely withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon, which has opened up a new space, for the deployment of Israeli forces. The participation of Turkey in the US-Israeli military operation is also a factor, following last year's agreement reached between Ankara and Tel Aviv.



More recently, Tehran has beefed up its air defenses through the acquisition of Russian 29 Tor M-1 anti-missile systems. In October, with Moscow`s collaboration, "a Russian rocket lifted an Iranian spy satellite, the Sinah-1, into orbit." (see Chris Floyd (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20051220&articleId=1566))The Sinah-1 is just the first of several Iranian satellites set for Russian launches in the coming months.
Thus the Iranians will soon have a satellite network in place to give them early warning of an Israeli attack, although it will still be a pale echo of the far more powerful Israeli and American space spies that can track the slightest movement of a Tehran mullah’s beard. What’s more, late last month Russia signed a $1 billion contract to sell Iran an advanced defense system that can destroy guided missiles and laser-guided bombs, the Sunday Times reports. This too will be ready in the next few months. (op.cit.)



Ground War
While a ground war is not envisaged under CONPLAN, the aerial bombings could lead through the process of escalation into a ground war.
Iranian troops could cross the Iran-Iraq border and confront coalition forces inside Iraq. Israeli troops and/or Special Forces could enter into Lebanon and Syria.



In recent developments, Israel plans to conduct military exercises as well as deploy Special Forces in the mountainous areas of Turkey bordering Iran and Syria with the collaboration of the Ankara government:Ankara and Tel Aviv have come to an agreement on allowing the Israeli army to carry out military exercises in the mountainous areas [in Turkey] that border Iran.
[According to] ... a UAE newspaper ..., according to the agreement reached by the Joint Chief of Staff of the Israeli army, Dan Halutz, and Turkish officials, Israel is to carry out various military manoeuvres in the areas that border Iran and Syria. [Punctuation as published here and throughout.] [Dan Halutz] had gone to Turkey a few days earlier.
Citing certain sources without naming them, the UAE daily goes on to stress: The Israeli side made the request to carry out the manoeuvres because of the difficulty of passage in the mountain terrains close to Iran's borders in winter.
The two Hakari [phonetic; not traced] and Bulo [phonetic; not traced] units are to take part in the manoeuvres that have not been scheduled yet. The units are the most important of Israel's special military units and are charged with fighting terrorism and carrying out guerrilla warfare.
Earlier Turkey had agreed to Israeli pilots being trained in the area bordering Iran. The news [of the agreement] is released at a time when Turkish officials are trying to evade the accusation of cooperating with America in espionage operations against its neighbouring countries Syria and Iran. Since last week the Arab press has been publishing various reports about Ankara's readiness or, at least, agreement in principle to carry out negotiations about its soil and air space being used for action against Iran.
(E'temad website, Tehran, in Persian 28 Dec 05, BBC Monitoring Services Translation)

[coolieno99]

Sounds like a Tom Clancy novel. There's not even a plan for a conventional war on Iran, let alone a nuclear one.:coffee

[Wild Weasel]

There likely dozens of plans to attack Iran with both nuclear, and conventional forces. Wargames against any and all potential threats, including domestic threats are constantly being played out using the most up to date intelligence data available. From these, US military war planners develop operational plans. That is one of things the Pentagon does.

If the President is told one morning that country-X just attacked American-allied country-Y with WMD... that President will want to know what his military options are. You'd better believe that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs is going to have several, or possibly dozens of such plans available for the President to consider.

Now consider that Iran has publically been called one of the "Axis of Evil" nations by the current US President, and it's not very hard to believe that there are more than a few plans to attack Iran sitting in the White House war room. This one is definately a no-brainer.

That said- I'm not going out on a limb to suggest that the United States will attack Iran this spring. President Bush has publically stated that, "Iran will not be allowed to accquire a nuclear weapon."
Until such time that Iran claims to possess, or it can be reasonbly suspected to possess a nuclear weapon- I don't think there is the slightest justification behind a US-led attack. I do think Iran is playing a dangerous game, but at the moment, I wouldn't be scrambling to evacuate Tehran.

Of course, Isreal doesn't have to play by those rules, either.

[coolieno99]

I should make a distinction between contingent military plans and state dept. intention. I don't disagreed that there are contingent military plans. What I meant that there is no political will or intent to attack Iran. The question is not just a military one. Economics plays a role as well. An attack on Iran would probably end up with the stoppage of oil flowing out of the Persian Gulf, since Iran controls one side of the Strait of Hormuz(mouth of the Persian Gulf). Gas price might easily jump up to $6 /gal or higher at the pump.

[fieldmarshal]

I should make a distinction between contingent military plans and state dept. intention. I don't disagreed that there are contingent military plans. What I meant that there is no political will or intent to attack Iran. The question is not just a military one. Economics plays a role as well. An attack on Iran would probably end up with the stoppage of oil flowing out of the Persian Gulf, since Iran controls one side of the Strait of Hormuz(mouth of the Persian Gulf). Gas price might easily jump up to $6 /gal or higher at the pump.

I dont agree with u assesment.
Yes iran poses a threat n america will take care of that threat. the launch of the iranain oil bourse poses a grave threat to the us eco. This measure in a very short span of time threatens to take away the stability of the us currency (for starters). N america has gone to war to protect its economic interests before (iraq) n will go to war again to protect its eco.
The iranian threat to oil interests in the gulf is very real but at the same time it can be overwelmed and nutralized in a very short span of time.

[Rich]

Iran is probably in-capable of fighting a modern war. If we have staging rights in the theatre the outcome is academic. The longer we wait, the harder it will get. On the positive the Arabs hate and fear a powerful Iran even more then they hate and fear each other, whom they hate and fear even more so then Israel.

Of course the real fear is should Iran get nukes, and advanced IRBMs, that they will use them. Israel is a small country, 80% of their economy and population is in Tel Aviv, and for geographical and security reasons she can only base her nuclear forces in only a few places. One or two submarines with cruise missiles might be the only survivable retalitory assets she has left after a Iranian first strike. And Irans mullahs might figure whatever retaliation Israel has left over is worth it for getting rid of Israel.

[coolieno99]

Iran has 3 Kilo class subs. They are currently refitted to carried the Club-S sub launched anti-shipping missiles. The missiles are a direct threat to U.S. aircraft carriers stationed in the Persian Gulf/Arabian Sea.

[coolieno99]

The iranian threat to oil interests in the gulf is very real but at the same time it can be overwelmed and nutralized in a very short span of time.

It would be very difficult to neutralized Iran's army in a very short time. The terrain of western Iran is not like the flat featureless desert of Iraq. many part of it is mountainous, negating the advantages of fast moving armour column. Even if its regular army of 540,000 men is defeated, then its 9,000,000 men militia would probably launched a protracted guerilla warfare against any invasion force.

[Berserk Fury]

It would be very difficult to neutralized Iran's army in a very short time. The terrain of western Iran is not like the flat featureless desert of Iraq. many part of it is mountainous, negating the advantages of fast moving armour column. Even if its regular army of 540,000 men is defeated, then its 9,000,000 men militia would probably launched a protracted guerilla warfare against any invasion force.

Well, that's why we're supplying Israel with some top notch military tech including, I think, Patriots ABM's which should be able to knock down primitive nukes.
Though arming a anti-ship missile with a nuclear warhead and firing them at a carrier would be a possibility albeit maybe not a good one.
If the US ever decides to invade, they obviously wouldn't be able to handle such a force though I doubt the US will do that. The mostly likely possibility would be to bomb strategic assets and to supply its neighboring countries which is a bad method obviously seen throughout history (e.g. Afghanistan and Iraq) either way it's a dilema.

[coolieno99]

I doubt the Russians would hand nuclear weapons to the Iranians(at least we hope not). Those Club-S are most likely armed with conventional warheads... but if the U.S. starts to use nuclear bunker-busting bombs ... then it's time to write another Tom Clancy novel ... :unknown

[LancerMc]

From my point of view the U.S. has been letting the E.U. lead the effort in dealing with Iran. The U.S. has been vocal about it's concerns with Iran enrichment program but the E.U. has been in control of the talks. It would not suprise me if the U.S. has a plan to attack these facilities, but any attack would have to have the assistance of the E.U. The E.U. is the most at risk for reprisal attacks with WMD's.

I remember the Prime Minister of France a few months ago talking about how Iran was threatening to pull of the U.N. agreement. He threatened on CNN to have the French military take out these nuclear facilities so Iran could not produce a nuclear weapon if the started their program again. It was the first time I have seen any E.U. member threaten military action so directly.

So personally any military action taken against Iran will be done most likely by the E.U. members with the assistance of the U.S.

[Izzy1]

The EU will never have a concensus among it to launch such a strike.

[KGB]

In the interest of nonproliferation, the existing nuclear powers could make a treaty to attack any other country that tries to develop nuclear weapons of their own. Politics aside, there are too many fingers and too many red buttons as it is.

[turin]

Such a treaty would not be realistic because of different political agendas. Would the US agree on a strike against Israel? Certainly not. Would China agree on a strike against Iran or North Korea, without imminent threat scenario? Nope. The official nuclear powers have certain interests which are connected to such countries and right now we are entering a new era where esp. the US, Russia and China are very keen on keeping each other at bay concering certain spheres of influence.
An alliance among western countries for such purposes may be more realistic, however such a alliance lacks international credibility and may even contribute to deterioration of world politics.

The EU will never have a concensus among it to launch such a strike.

Well, military operations are not necessarily decided upon on EU level. So theoretically France and/or the UK _could_ do that. A strike on part of some european player may be an elegant move if military action is not avoidable, since both the US and esp. Israel may face very drastic responses by Iran or parts of the islamic community in general. But in a way I am in doubt about the political will power and capabilities of european countries to go that way. Iran is not Kosovo. Therefore IMO any such move would see the US in charge.

[Berserk Fury]

A treaty such as that would be potentially dangerous causing instability especially with countries such as N. Korea with nuclear weapons. Plus, this treaty could set an example for other countries making things even worse.

[fieldmarshal]

Here is an interesting article written by a USAF veteran

Day One - The War With Iran

By Douglas Herman
A Rense.com Exclusive
1-9-5


http://www.rense.com/general69/dayone.htm (http://www.rense.com/general69/dayone.htm)

The war began as planned. The Israeli pilots took off well before dawn and streaked across Lebanon and northern Iraq, high above Kirkuk. Flying US-made F-15 and F-16s, the Israelis separated over the mountains of western Iran, the pilots gesturing a last minute show of confidence in their mission, maintaining radio silence.

Just before the sun rose over Tehran, moments before the Muslim call to prayer, the missiles struck their targets. While US Air Force AWACS planes circled overhead--listening, watching, recording--heavy US bombers followed minutes later. Bunker-busters and mini-nukes fell on dozens of targets while Iranian anti-aircraft missiles sped skyward.

The ironically named Bushehr nuclear power plant crumbled to dust. Russian technicians and foreign nationals scurried for safety. Most did not make it.

Targets in Saghand and Yazd, all of them carefully chosen many months before by Pentagon planners, were destroyed. The uranium enrichment facility in Natanz; a heavy water plant and radioisotope facility in Arak; the Ardekan Nuclear Fuel Unit; the Uranium Conversion Facility and Nuclear Technology Center in Isfahan; were struck simultaneously by USAF and Israeli bomber groups.

The Tehran Nuclear Research Center, the Tehran Molybdenum, Iodine and Xenon Radioisotope Production Facility, the Tehran Jabr Ibn Hayan Multipurpose Laboratories, the Kalaye Electric Company in the Tehran suburbs were destroyed.

Iranian fighter jets rose in scattered groups. At least those Iranian fighter planes that had not been destroyed on the ground by swift and systematic air strikes from US and Israeli missiles. A few Iranian fighters even launched missiles, downing the occasional attacker, but American top guns quickly prevailed in the ensuing dogfights.

The Iranian air force, like the Iranian navy, never really knew what hit them. Like the slumbering US sailors at Pearl Harbor, the pre-dawn, pre-emptive attack wiped out fully half the Iranian defense forces in a matter of hours.

By mid-morning, the second and third wave of US/Israeli raiders screamed over the secondary targets. The only problem now, the surprising effectiveness of the Iranian missile defenses. The element of surprise lost, US and Israeli warplanes began to fall from the skies in considerable numbers to anti-aircraft fire.

At 7:35 AM, Tehran time, the first Iranian anti-ship missile destroyed a Panamanian oil tanker, departing from Kuwait and bound for Houston. Launched from an Iranian fighter plane, the Exocet split the ship in half and set the ship ablaze in the Strait of Hormuz. A second and third tanker followed, black smoke billowing from the broken ships before they blew up and sank. By 8:15 AM, all ship traffic on the Persian Gulf had ceased.

US Navy ships, ordered earlier into the relative safety of the Indian Ocean, south of their base in Bahrain, launched counter strikes. Waves of US fighter planes circled the burning wrecks in the bottleneck of Hormuz but the Iranian fighters had fled.

At 9 AM, Eastern Standard Time, many hours into the war, CNN reported a squadron of suicide Iranian fighter jets attacking the US Navy fleet south of Bahrain. Embedded reporters aboard the ships--sending live feeds directly to a rapt audience of Americans just awakening--reported all of the Iranian jets destroyed, but not before the enemy planes launched dozens of Exocet and Sunburn anti-ship missiles. A US aircraft carrier, cruiser and two destroyers suffered direct hits. The cruiser blew up and sank, killing 600 men. The aircraft carrier sank an hour later.

By mid-morning, every military base in Iran was partially or wholly destroyed. Sirens blared and fires blazed from hundreds of fires. Explosions rocked Tehran and the electrical power failed. The Al Jazeerah news station in Tehran took a direct hit from a satellite bomb, leveling the entire block.

At 9:15 AM, Baghdad time, the first Iranian missile struck the Green Zone. For the next thirty minutes a torrent of missiles landed on GPS coordinates carefully selected by Shiite militiamen with cell phones positioned outside the Green Zone and other permanent US bases. Although US and Israeli bomber pilots had destroyed 90% of the Iranian missiles, enough Shahabs remained to fully destroy the Green Zone, the Baghdad airport, and a US Marine base. Thousands of unsuspecting US soldiers died in the early morning barrage. Not surprisingly, CNN and Fox withheld the great number of casualties from American viewers.

By 9:30 AM, gas stations on the US east coast began to raise their prices. Slowly at first and then altogether in a panic, the prices rose. $4 a gallon, and then $5 and then $6, the prices skyrocketed. Worried motorists, rushing from work, roared into the nearest gas station, radios blaring the latest reports of the pre-emptive attack on Iran. While fistfights broke out in gas stations everywhere, the third Middle Eastern war had begun.

In Washington DC, the spin began minutes after the first missile struck its intended target. The punitive strike--not really a war said the harried White House spokesman--would further democracy and peace in the Middle East. Media pundits mostly followed the party line. By ridding Iran of weapons of mass destruction, Donald Rumsfeld declared confidently on CNN, Iran might follow in the footsteps of Iraq, and enjoy the hard won fruits of freedom.

The president scheduled a speech at 2 PM. Gas prices rose another two dollars before then. China and Japan threatened to dump US dollars. Gold rose $120 an ounce. The dollar plummeted against the Euro.

CNN reported violent, anti-American protests in Paris, London, Rome, Berlin and Dublin. Fast food franchises throughout Europe, carrying American corporate logos, were firebombed.

A violent coup toppled the pro-American Pakistan president. On the New York Stock Exchange, prices fell in a frenzy of trading--except for the major petroleum producers. A single, Iranian Shahab missile struck Tel Aviv, destroying an entire city block. Israel vowed revenge, and threatened a nuclear strike on Tehran, before a hastily called UN General Assembly in New York City eased tensions.

An orange alert in New York City suddenly reddened to a full-scale terror alarm when a package detonated on a Manhattan subway. Mayor Bloomberg declared martial law. Governor Pataki ordered the New York National Guard fully mobilized, mobilizing what few national guardsmen remained in the state.

President Bush looked shaken at 2 PM. The scroll below the TV screen reported Persian Gulf nations halting production of oil until the conflict could be resolved peacefully. Venezuelan president, Hugo Chavez, announced a freeze in oil deliveries to the US would begin immediately. Tony Blair offered to mediate peace negotiations, between the US and Israel and Iran, but was resoundingly rejected.

By 6 PM, Eastern Standard Time, gas prices had stabilized at just below $10 a gallon. A Citgo station in Texas, near Fort Sam Houston Army base, was firebombed. No one claimed responsibility. Terrorism was not ruled out.

At sunset, the call to prayer--in Tehran, Baghdad, Islamabad, Ankara, Jerusalem, Jakarta, Riyadh--sounded uncannily like the buzzing of enraged bees.

----------------------------------------------------

USAF veteran, Douglas Herman correctly predicted the aftermath of the attack on Iraq in his column: Shock & Awe Followed by Block-To-Block. A Rense contributer, he is the author of The Guns of Dallas, available at Amazon.com. Contact him at douglasherman7@yahoo.com (douglasherman7@yahoo.com).

[WebMaster]

Threads merged.

FIELDMARSHAL, stop creating threads on Iran. This is main thread on Iran where you will post all news and issues related to IRAN nuclear issues, etc.

[driftder]

rushing this post so everything is in point form.

1. Mostly unlikely for the US to get in a war with Iran over nuclear technology, that might be developed into nuclear weapons. The fiasco with Iraq's WMD is still too fresh.
2. Any sanction or response to Iran will be tempered by consultation with their NATO ally's. The US won't risk putting to the fire their friendship and alliance with NATO unless another trade war looms.
3. An attack on another Islamic nation within 5 years is risking all the goodwill left with the Arab and Islamic community. Unlike GW1 where the US help to evict Iraq out of Kuwait and the moral righteouness is with the US, attacking Iran to prevent it from developing nuclear technology and energy that might repeat might be used to develop nuclear weapons will not go down well with the Islamic nations.
4. The recent losses in Afghanistan and Iraq plus the amount of $$ spent have drained the US psychologically, physically and financially. Unless somethng drastic happen ie terrorists use a nuclear weapon with the help of Iran and the smoking gun and evidence points to Iran. Then the US will be forced to wage a formal war against Iran.
5. The ME is now stabilised to a better extent then when Iraq was invaded. Until Iraq is more firmly stabilised and Al Zawahari is booted out or killed, the US will be reluctant to attack Iran.
6. No solid evidence of nuclear weapons in Iran's hands, only nuclear technology and energy plus means to theoretically build nuclear weapons. Until then the US will deal carefully with Iran and not repeat the Iraq WMD fiasco.

apologies for the hurried post.

[Izzy1]

In all honesty, speaking from a Saudi perspective, any attack on Iran's nuclear capability would be most welcome.

The predominantly-Sunni Saudi has no love for Iran and vice-versa - the last thing Riyadh (and the GCC as a whole) wants is a nuclear armed Tehran causing even more trouble in the region.

Just like the Osirak action by Isreal against Iraq's nuclear weapons desires - the Saudi Government would be very quietly overjoyed if Isreal or the US decided to take some form of military action against Iran's nuclear facilities.

The only problem for Saudi (and the west as a whole) is Iran's response to such an attack - which would most likely take the form initially of further attempts to upset the balance of power in Iraq - especially in the Shia dominated Southern Iraqi provinces. Such an attack could prove a catalyst for serious a serious Shia "backlash" in Iraq. The composure of current leadership in Iran also suggests that a very aggressive counter-response to an attack would be more than likely.

The nightmare question for the west is do nothing, attempt diplomatic negotiation and run the risk of allowing Iran to gain nuclear weapons technology or they must strike - in full knowledge that such an act could very rapidly escalate into open warfare in the Gulf (Iranian anti-ship strikes against western oil assets etc). It would undoubtedly lead also to even greater Iranian support for a whole myriad of terrorist organisations (Hamas, Al Qaeda, PKK in Turkey to name but a few).

uch a strike may also prove in some fashion counter-productive, as one possible result of such an action could be a regional arms race between Iran and the GCC partners. Even worse, it may motivate Iranian attempts to build more advanced Chemical/Biological weapons as an alternative to nuclear systems, as well as new delivery systems.

Without doubt, Iran would be tempted to take advantage of anger generated by such a strike within the region's ethnic Shia population and not only those in Iraq. Tehran has been blaimed for inciting Shia uprisings in other Arab countries, like the very sizable Shia presence in Saudi Arabia (such attempts occured in the early 1980s) and notable Shia populations are also present in Bahrain, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates. It may even see serious attempts by Iran to destabilise Pakistan's already delicate Government.

Thus, the question is does the west trade long-term nuclear security in the Middle East in exchange for at least another several years of serious and even expanded problems in Iran and the Middle East as a whole?

[KGB]

In all honesty, speaking from a Saudi perspective, any attack on Iran's nuclear capability would be most welcome.

Just like the Osirak action by Isreal against Iraq's nuclear weapons desires - the Saudi Government would be very quietly overjoyed if Isreal or the US decided to take some form of military action against Iran's nuclear facilities.

I'm sure a lot of other governments would be quietly pleased. Perhaps Israel would have less to lose diplomatically, since many governments have already made up their minds about it.

[fieldmarshal]

US DEPLOYS F-16s FOR POSSIBLE ATTACK AGAINST IRAN


Source: www.washtimes.com

Fighters Deploy

Coinciding with increased tensions with Iran over the resumption of illicit uranium enrichment, the U.S. Air Force has dispatched additional warplanes to the region in a not-so-subtle sign, military sources say.

An entire wing of F-16s, the Air National Guard's 122nd Fighter Wing based in Fort Wayne, Ind., left for a base in southwest Asia on Tuesday. A wing is usually about 72 aircraft and several hundred support personnel.

F-16s and support personnel from the 4th Fighter Squadron of the 388th Fighter Wing based at Hill Air Force Base, Utah, also deployed recently to Iraq. The squadron has 12 F-16s.

Both units' F-16s could be used in any military operation to take out Iranian nuclear facilities.

A spokesman for the U.S. Central Command Air Forces, which runs air operations in the region, said the F-16 deployment of about 80 jets is part of a rotation and is not related to Iran's uranium reprocessing.

[Kiwi Echo]

theres one thing i dont understand about this whole fiasco

i will put this in simplist terms


u know how iran is into the whole "DEATH TO AMERICA" thing
and they're pretty pissed at the mo,

da eu & usa want to get rid of this nuclear threat

why piss the irannies off even more by booting them off the un security council

and then have the (usa & eu ) spread with rumors throughout the media sayin that the r open to all kinds of options to solve the problem

iran is most definetly on full alert for any action that may be bestowed upon them by yankee or euro and then this supposed wing of f16s being made so blantently obviously have been flown into the area

dats just goin to piss them off too

usa & euros have always realised dat this would happen and did nothin to fix this in the past but r only just beginin to do something now, i say if your goin to take this threat out it needs to be done swiftly and by suprise not all this what ifs and polictical ramble goin on and on by both sides

MAKE LOVE NOT WAR

WORLD PEACE IS WHAT WE NEED

PEACE OUT:nutkick

[KGB]

The Iranians seem to have noticed the military posturings, they've made a statement calling for a 'diplomatic solution'. Militarily, it does make sense that they want nuclear weapons (though they don't admit it). They do have powerfull nuclear armed enemies. It does however, need to be pointed out that the US, by supporting the unpopular Shah of Iran, is also to blame for the mess. Theres a lot of people in iran who aren't happy with the anti-west theocracy in power now, a military strike would only alienate them.

We know that they can mount an airstrike, we know that the US isn't in any mood for another invasion, so a military option is used it will probably take the form of a limited, conventional strike by US, Israel, the UN, or a combination. Maybe they'd send in ground forces to quickly gather evidence post strike. The question is

1. Do they know where all the sites are?

2. Will they do it?

And I agree qustion number 2 is ultimately a political question.

[Cootamundra]

Iran may be seeking apocalypse now


By Anton La Guardia in London
January 16, 2006
AdvertisementAdvertisement

AS IRAN rushes towards confrontation with the world over its nuclear program, the question uppermost in the mind of Western leaders is: "What is moving its President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to such recklessness?"

Political analysts point to the fact that Iran feels strong because of high oil prices, while the United States has been weakened by the insurgency in Iraq. But listen carefully to the utterances of Mr Ahmadinejad and there is another dimension, a religious messianism that, some suspect, is giving the Iranian leader a dangerous sense of divine mission.

When an aircraft crashed in Tehran last month, killing 108 people, Mr Ahmadinejad thanked the dead, saying: "What is important is that they have shown the way to martyrdom which we must follow."

The most remarkable aspect of his piety is his devotion to the Hidden Imam, the Messiah-like figure of Shiite Islam, and the President's belief that his Government must prepare the country for his return.

One of the first acts of his Government was to donate about $A23 million to the Jamkaran mosque, a popular pilgrimage site where the pious come to drop messages to the Hidden Imam.

All streams of Islam believe in a divine saviour, known as the Mahdi, who will appear at the end of days, similar to the Christian vision of the apocalypse. Mr Ahmadinejad appears to believe that these events are close at hand and that ordinary mortals can influence the divine timetable.

The prospect of such a man obtaining nuclear weapons is worrying. The unspoken question is this: is Mr Ahmadinejad now tempting a clash with the West because he feels safe in the belief of the imminent return of the Hidden Imam? Worse, might he be trying to provoke chaos in the hope of hastening his reappearance?

The 49-year-old president, a former member of the Revolutionary Guards and mayor of Tehran, overturned Iranian politics after unexpectedly winning presidential elections last June.

The main rift is no longer between reformists and hardliners, but between the clerical establishment and Mr Ahmadinejad's brand of revolutionary populism and superstition. Its most remarkable manifestation came with his international debut at the United Nations.

World leaders had expected a conciliatory proposal to defuse the nuclear crisis after Tehran had restarted another part of its nuclear program in August. Instead, they heard Mr Ahmadinejad speak in apocalyptic terms of Iran struggling against an evil West that sought to promote "state terrorism", impose "the logic of the dark ages" and divide the world into "light and dark countries".

The speech ended with the messianic appeal to God to "hasten the emergence of your last repository, the Promised One, that perfect and pure human being, the one that will fill this world with justice and peace".

In a video distributed by an Iranian website in November Mr Ahmadinejad described how one of his colleagues had claimed to have seen a glow of light around him as he began his speech.

"I felt it myself too," Mr Ahmadinejad recounts. "I felt that all of a sudden the atmosphere changed there. And for 27-28 minutes all the leaders did not blink … It's not an exaggeration, because I was looking."

Western officials said the real reason for any open-eyed stares from delegates was that "they couldn't believe what they were hearing from Ahmadinejad".

Their sneaking suspicion is that he relishes a clash with the West in the conviction that it would rekindle the spirit of the Islamic revolution and speed up the arrival of the Hidden Imam.

Telegraph, London

==================

Thoughts? IMO this kind of thinking is all we need (to further enflame things), a complete nut case with nukes and a hankering for some kind of second coming!

Coota

[fieldmarshal]

you know wt the more you think about it the more it looks like the crusades, this whole thing has an uncanny ressembalance to the crusades.
The christian ie the crusaders this time led by the anglo-saxon decendents(US) have invaded the muslim lands on false pretext just like the last time.(the above bit we have seen n are seeing but the for the bit below we got to wait a while)

Now like the last time the muslims wait for the man who will unite em under 1 banner to take on the crusaders and throw em out frm the muslim lands.

[KGB]

Look, for the sake of informed discussion let's please not get into the Crusades rhetoric. To put it into perspective the crusades were an invasion of lands held by Muslims. To characterize them as some unprovoked act is inaccurate however. Prior to the rise of Islam all of North Africa, Anatolia (now turkey), and Palestine were under christian control, as these were under the Roman empire. Islam's rise saw a swift conquering of these territories, the conquest eventually reached into France via Spain, and once Constantinople fell, the Ottomans eventually were within inches of taking vienna. The Crusades flawed as they might be, were part of an effort to halt or reverse the tide. Territory wise, the muslims did win, ending up with around half of the former roman empire, including the capital constantinople.

[fieldmarshal]

Another very imp aspect of the whole situation is that on 1 hand we have george bush who is a right wing deeply religious n conservative christian, who believes that God is on his side and has been directing him and helping him throughout and this is from where he derives his conviction.

While in iran we have Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who too is a right wing deeply religious and conservative Muslim, who belives that God is on his side and he is being directed and helped by GOD.

Now this is a dangerous mix, where they both have strong convictions and believe in devine intervention on their behalf hence wt ever they do they cant loose / cant go wrong. They both believe specially bush that they are destened by God to rid the world of evil n in bushs case iran is the evil.

So i believe war is eminant.

[driftder]

....where they both have strong convictions and believe in devine intervention on their behalf hence wt ever they do they cant loose / cant go wrong. They both believe specially bush that they are destened by God to rid the world of evil n in bushs case iran is the evil.

So i believe war is eminant.

u are lucky not to be in Singapore, yr post will get yr ass haul up by the authorities cos it's inflammatory. best is you provide proof of both the Iranian president and the US president having the delusion that they have divine right and support to, in your words, "rid the world of evil".

as KGB have said, let's leave the Crusade thingy in the Medieval history section and out of current affairs.

[WAR]

So the media warfare is in full swing. I have read a few days earlier that a fresh grant of millions of dollar is released by the US government to pave the way for a possible attack. The job is to safeguard the US interests while reporting, and to create certain opinion in the world community which corresponds to the need and necessity for the attack.

This is infact a part of the co-ercive diplomacy. But the question is: Would history repeat in case of Iran, with reference to the fate of Iraq and Afghanistan?

[WAR]

http://www.jang.com.pk/thenews


CNN operation banned in Iran
(Updated at 2005 PST)
TEHRAN: The US-based news channel CNN has been banned from working in Iran for having quoted President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as saying his country is seeking nuclear weapons, a government official told media Monday.

During CNN's live translation of a press conference by Ahmadinejad Saturday, the president was quoted as saying that "we believe all nations are allowed to have nuclear weapons" and that the West should not "deprive us to have nuclear weapons".

"Taking into account CNN's actions contrary to professional ethics in the past years and their distortion of the president's comments during his press conference on Saturday, the activities of the CNN journalist in Tehran will end and no journalists from CNN will be authorised to come to Iran," a statement from the Iranian culture ministry said.

==============
So the reaction from Iran on US media has started!!!!!

[mysterious]

Of course, when as a responsible media agency you make such a big blunder, specially in such a volatile situation; you have got to face up to the music. I wonder what kind of people CNN employs to translate Farsi in to English. The word used by the Iranian president in his speech means 'technology' and not 'weapons' as put forth by the CNN. Anywayz, CNN has issued a correction but I'm afraid some sort of damage may have already been done to the vulnerable general public's mind.

Read for further insight:

"...CNN had violated "professional ethics", the Irna news agency quoted the ministry as saying.

CNN issued a correction after it translated the president as saying Iran had a right to use nuclear "weapons" rather than nuclear "technology".

CNN does not have a bureau in Tehran but gets permits to cover assignments.

Its chief international correspondent, Christiane Amanpour, is currently in the country." Contd...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4617754.stm

[KGB]

Given the heightened tensions, the mistranslation on CNN's part is rather irresponsible. It also may have been a Freudian slip on the part of the interpreter, suggesting to the Iranians that CNN was biased.

[Cootamundra]

Pity Fieldmarshall got banned I was about to say re; his comments about the Crusades - GET REAL! There is far more in play than simple old religion buddy.
Coota

[turin]

Looking back through the course of history, almost all conflicts where religion has been described as reason or deciding factor by contemporary observers, in the aftermath it became apparent that religious beliefs and commentaries were just about everytime a rhetoric tool in order to cover the real political agenda of related actors.
There might be different examples, such as real religious fanatics (eg the Taliban or Al Quaida), however I have the distinct impression that the Iranian is led by rather mundane ambitions and ideas. The same obviously holds true for the reasoning of the Bush administration in general and Bushs personal views (as much as I can say) in particular.

I agree on the comments about CNN and I am not quite sure wether that translation was accidentally or deliberate. Seriously with all the media attention and the US government (realistically) bend on the iranian research being for the purpose of nukes, I tend to think the interpreter has been very trifle with that issue.

[WAR]

http://www.jang.com.pk/thenews


Iran lets CNN back in after apology
(Updated at 1200 PST)
TEHRAN: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has allowed CNN to resume operating in the country after the American cable news network apologized for mistakenly quoting him saying Tehran was seeking nuclear weapons, state radio reported on Tuesday.

During CNN's lives translation of a press conference by Ahmadinejad on Saturday, the president was quoted as saying that "we believe all nations are allowed to have nuclear weapons" and that the West should not "deprive us to have nuclear weapons".

The president was, however, using a Farsi word that meant "technology" and not "weapons".

===================
A political move by Iran to avoid and pacify the international media guns, which otherwise would have caused more harm to her.

A classic example of Carrot and Stick policy!!!

[mysterious]

Yeah, in today's world, if you've locked horns with the media, only God maybe able to save ur image! Smart move by Iran.

[Berserk Fury]

http://www.jang.com.pk/thenews


Iran lets CNN back in after apology
(Updated at 1200 PST)
TEHRAN: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has allowed CNN to resume operating in the country after the American cable news network apologized for mistakenly quoting him saying Tehran was seeking nuclear weapons, state radio reported on Tuesday.

During CNN's lives translation of a press conference by Ahmadinejad on Saturday, the president was quoted as saying that "we believe all nations are allowed to have nuclear weapons" and that the West should not "deprive us to have nuclear weapons".

The president was, however, using a Farsi word that meant "technology" and not "weapons".

===================
A political move by Iran to avoid and pacify the international media guns, which otherwise would have caused more harm to her.

A classic example of Carrot and Stick policy!!!


Speaking of the carror and stick policy... we should've used the same strategy against Iran in the first place.
Threaten military force while closing all trade whatsoever meanwhile offering to lift embargos if Iran agrees to dismantle its crap.
Either way, if we don't take action the Israeli military will.

First, given the complexity of such an undertaking -- given that, according to Iranian dissident sources, there are anywhere between 200 and 300 possible sites -- the scope of the military operation would have to be formidable. It would require top-notch intelligence to identify and strike only at relevant sites. Assuming that 200 sites are targeted, such a military operation would require at least 600 airplanes, again assuming that only three planes were assigned to hit each facility.

The attack planes would have to include bombers, escort fighters, refueling planes and command-and-control aircrafts.

If the United States were to participate in the raid, it certainly has all the hardware needed, such as the Stealth B1 bomber, carrier-based attack aircrafts in the Mediterranean and the nearby Gulf, as well as Cruise missiles. However, if Israel were to go at alone, it would have to commit almost its entire air force.

Israel, says its Chief of General Staff Lt.-Gen. Dan Halutz, can destroy Iran's nuclear program, though he stressed, "It is not only Israel's problem."

Israel certainly has the hardware, too. Among its main strike force, Israel possesses at least 33 F-15A/B, 17 15C/D, 25 F-15I Fighter-Bombers, 94 F-16As/B Fighter-Bombers, 75 F-16C/D Fighter-Bombers, 102 F-16I Fighter-Bombers and 5-A-4N Skyhawk attack planes, as well as two C-130H Hercules ELINT (electronic intelligence gathering), four KC-130H Hercules tankers and three Boeing 707-320 tankers.

http://www.wpherald.com/storyview.php?StoryID=20060113-042350-9356r
either way, action will be taken, hopefully not before something bad happens like Tel Aviv being nuked. Read the article, it's very interesting.

[mysterious]

Iran is certainly not Iraq. It has clearly stated, military action would mean the end of Israel as it exists today. I'm sure Israel clearly understands its very survival is at stake here that is why we haven't seen any unilateral strikes by its forces like the ones conducted against Iraq.

US help wouldn't be all that advantageous to Israel's position against because Iran's ballistic missiles are a threat other than anything else it possesses; and the probability of taking them ALL out before they're launched against Israel would be 'wishful thinking'.

[Rich]

"Maybe" Israel can significantly delay the Iranian nuclear program. And thats a big "maybe". The only aircraft they have that could possibly be used are the long range F-15s and F-16s and they would be attacking targets from long distance, that are not only heavily defended, but also spread out. The fact is its extremely doubtful Israel can significantly delay this nuclear program.

Theres only one military that can. And it would not only be a significant attack package, but probably prolonged as well. As in "days".

[turin]

US help wouldn't be all that advantageous to Israel's position against because Iran's ballistic missiles are a threat other than anything else it possesses; and the probability of taking them ALL out before they're launched against Israel would be 'wishful thinking'.

Add to that the issue, that Iran already controls considerable C- and most likely B-weapons storages! Today everyone talks only about Iran probably nuking Israel, bend on the issue of the nuclear R&D-project. But I'd think that if Iran considers the use of WMD, such a step would consist of a biological and/or chemical weapons strike since these systems are already available, at least chemical weapons in large numbers. Not that I am saying, a counter attack would necessarily include WMD in the first place.

[Rich]

If Iran responded with WMDs there is absolutly no doubt in mind they will shortly be missing a few cities and all their important military bases. Theres no doubt in my mind the Jews would nuke em, with their idea being "better to do so now then later".

[Berserk Fury]

If Iran responded with WMDs there is absolutly no doubt in mind they will shortly be missing a few cities and all their important military bases. Theres no doubt in my mind the Jews would nuke em, with their idea being "better to do so now then later".

Which would inevitably cause more chaos in the Middle East though at least Israel lives a day longer. US action would mold us further into Bin Laden's propaganda especially since Iran is an oil-rich country but if we don't take action we'll probably be too late anyways. Another dilema....

[Cootamundra]

Not to mention the economic damage another middle east war will do to ALL countries. I think that a conflict here has to be avoided if at all possible, Iran actually holds the better hand. Certainly the US could win any Iran/US war but the damage done to the US economy and therefore ALL economies would be tremendous. As much as it pains me to say it the best way forward here is through international consensus, a UN resolution and economic sanctions, whilst in the background funding Iranian dissidents and hoping that a popular uprising may occur in the medium term.
Coota

[Kiwi Echo]

let me get my head round this

iran hasnt exactly got the nuke capability yet because the r&d for civil electrical needs in setting up a plant hasnt gone ahead yet, so y not just get the buggers b4 they do hav any potential

& howcome da irannies gt a thing for israel & christian countries:unknown


MAKE LOVE NOT WAR

[Izzy1]

Given the amount of shuttle diplomacy going on over here at the moment, I would not be surprised if a strike came sooner rather than later. The problem for the US is how to accomplish the task at hand. I have no doubt that diplomacy/sanctions will fail in this instance - Iran will now loose face if it backs down. The current leadership in Tehran also seems intent on at least being more beligerant. It knows that given the West's problems in Iraq, it is in a very strong position to dictate terms.

Thus, a US strike will lead to major problems in Iraq, with the inevitable backlash from the pro-Iranian Shia population there.

An Isreali attack will play in Tehran's hands also - and could even be used as the pretext for the use of nun-nuclear WMD against Israel. And given the political problems in Tel Aviv at the moment, I do wonder if an attack decision could be forthcoming.

An EU/WEU based-military option is possible, the UK and France certainly have the equipment to mount an effective strike but whether the Union has the political drive to mount such an operation is another story. Also from Tehran's point of view - there is probably little difference between EU or Israel - they are both in Iranian eyes; servants of Washington.

Thus is there another, more regional option?

One little discussed possibility is a military option by the GCC countries. As I have said here before, there is no love lost between Iran and likes of Saudi and Kuwait. The GCC countries actually have a lot more to loose if Tehran gains nuclear weapons than most. Potential targets such as Bushehr are litterally minutes away from major GCC airfields such as Dhahran and Ahmed Al Jabar in Kuwait. Potential strike platforms include Saudi Tornado and F-15S; Kuwaiti F-18s (limited AG role) and Mirage F-1CK/BKs; the UAE's strike potential includes Mirage 2000 with SCALP EG/Black Shahen Cruise Missiles and F-16 E/Fs. Whether the GCC has the political will to take such an action is my only question and any operation would still have to greatly rely on US input. But from the west's point of view, it would be a seriously tempting option and in my opinion the reason for the frantic Western diplomacy in the region at the moment.

[Rich]

Theres no way the Gulf Arabs would participate in the air strikes, just like theres no way we'd let them. At most they would allow the US to stage from their bases, but we arent about to let them practice 21'st century war with a strike of this importance.

Besides the attack package would begin with hundreds of cruise missiles and strikes against the Iranian radar net and fighter squadrons. Then in would go the heavy bombers,"B-2s to start", to take out the nuclear sites. By this time Tehran is without power and communications and centers of power have been eliminated. Since we went this far it only makes sense to take out their navy, WMD factilities, and leadership targets.

Its a big country tho and it would probably take 3 to 7 days to get meaningful results. Make no mistake however. The only military capable of this, using conventional weapons, is America.

[Patzek]

I'll correct the numbers someone gave here.

IAF Airforce:

Total amount of F16 - 386
about 110 A\B
170 + - C\D ( more D's than C's )
and 102 F16I's.

30 F15 A\B
70 +- F15C WELL Upgraded to Bazz 2000 with Air to Ground bombs possibility.

25 F15I.

C-130, about 30, i don't know in which varients and those stuff.

Boieng 707, i think there is 7,
4 Was Transformed and the Phalcon AESA Radar was installed on them.
And 3 for air refuel and transport.


and the 4 new Galaphstream 5 Nahsun with the PESA Radar.

[mysterious]

If none of the GCC countries sent their armed forces to Iraq to help out the coalition, what makes you think they will mount an 'offensive' against Iran? It is true that Iran having a nuclear weapons capability wouldn't go down well with either Saudi Arabia or Pakistan but domestic public opinion is also considered in these countries (no matter how much the West claims them to be undemocratic).

No one has so far taken in to account the role played by Russia and China in detail. Both have been strongly opposed to 'any' military action against Iran to protect their energy stakes in that country. How long do you think Russia will keep quiet as this unilateral show by the US goes on? Russia lost 'quite a lot' in Iraq after the coalition forces moved in and I'd say they wouldn't want the same situation arising out of the current Iran crisis.

China has also reiterated that dialogue is the key and it clearly does not support military action. Both Russia and China have a veto at the UN and they could end up using that right if all of their concerns are not properly addressed in any resolution that is to be put forth.

PS: There seems to be a lot of excitement and anxiousness over when the strike will take place and what assets would be used in such an operation (the possibility of a peaceful solution to this crisis has been erased by some members from their minds it seems). There's nothing glorious about wars (one-sided wars specially for that matter) and machoism isn't the best way to deal with other countries in a world of ever increasingly complex geo-political realities.

[Rich]

Israel doesnt have 120 F-16Is currently. They have placed a large order for them but for the present they could, at best, field 50 to 60 long range fighter bombers with the reach to hit Iran. In reality it would probably be less. The US could launch a strike package of 300 to 500 cruise missiles, 300+ fighter bombers, and 50+ strategic bombers. Best case scenerio would be with local hosting and our NATO allies involved.

But I doubt it. I doubt that the United Nations would authorize military force. Boy...this is what its come down to? Relying on the UN :onfloorl:

[coolieno99]

Syria probably will jump into the fray. Syria has about 70 DF-15 ballistic missiles, and about 200 Scud-C,D ballistic missiles. It will be hard to defend against these missiles, because the terminal velocity of the missiles is about 4,000 - 6,000 mph. 70% of Israel's population is concentrated around Tel Aviv, making it an ideal missile target.

[Rich]

I always had a problem believing Leaders of a nation would "drink the koolaid" unless absolutly necessary. When I say "drink the koolaid" I mean commit national suicide, as in Syria launching missiles at Israel as payback for a limited strike against Iran. Leaders tend to like their countries in one piece and all the amenaties available for them and their familys. Speedboats, mistresses, fine dining, hunting trips....ect Anything beats 30 Israeli jets coming at you with nuclear weapons. Even Damascus is within range of the Israeli guns on the Golan. Syria is plain outmatched.

Assad and company see Saddam sitting in that booth prior to the 6' drop, his wretched sons worm food. He knows a combined Israeli/Yank armored juggernaught would cut thru Syria like crap thru a goose. So why would he be so stupid to get involved in something with the Iranians?

He wouldnt!

[Crusader2000]

There likely dozens of plans to attack Iran with both nuclear, and conventional forces. Wargames against any and all potential threats, including domestic threats are constantly being played out using the most up to date intelligence data available. From these, US military war planners develop operational plans. That is one of things the Pentagon does.

If the President is told one morning that country-X just attacked American-allied country-Y with WMD... that President will want to know what his military options are. You'd better believe that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs is going to have several, or possibly dozens of such plans available for the President to consider.

Now consider that Iran has publically been called one of the "Axis of Evil" nations by the current US President, and it's not very hard to believe that there are more than a few plans to attack Iran sitting in the White House war room. This one is definately a no-brainer.

That said- I'm not going out on a limb to suggest that the United States will attack Iran this spring. President Bush has publically stated that, "Iran will not be allowed to accquire a nuclear weapon."
Until such time that Iran claims to possess, or it can be reasonbly suspected to possess a nuclear weapon- I don't think there is the slightest justification behind a US-led attack. I do think Iran is playing a dangerous game, but at the moment, I wouldn't be scrambling to evacuate Tehran.

Of course, Isreal doesn't have to play by those rules, either.


This could be the reason why the US wants to remove a small number of Nuclear Warheads from its SLBM (i.e. Trident D-5). These inturn would be replace with regular high exposives. This would give the US a very fast response to any threat..................much faster than Aircraft and/or cruise missiles:rolleyes:

[Berserk Fury]

That's not a bad idea....

@Patzek
Those stats are from World Peace Herald, not from me.

Anyhow, the UN is still "discussing" how to handle this matter while Iran is doing what? most likely preparing for war as we US people haven't handled this well either.

[Crusader2000]

Iran is just taking a gamble that the US has to many fires going and the EU just doesn't have the balls! Which, is more than likely true..............:(

[Berserk Fury]

You could say the UN doesn't have balls either...
They just talk all day while the issue keeps on developing.
I seriously doubt Iran is just taking a gamble; since when has the US crumbled under stress and refrained from taking action in major global issues?
The chances of a peaceful alternative to combat are growing slimmer by the day.

[Wild Weasel]

It is true that the US military is probably a little overextended at the moment, making an Iraq-style invasion unlikely. That said, the forces, equipment, and logistic stockpile that is already in place in the the theater, and the region would allow the US to mount a full-blown Shock and Awe air-campaign, without having to do much in the way of prepositioning.

The maxim that air power alone cannot win a war, still holds true- but being attacked by aircraft of the US military certainly blurs the distinction.
They can achieve air superioty, without incurring significant losses, they can saturate and destroy Iran's air defenses with vitual impunity, and they can mount sortie after sortie at all times, in any weather.

What's more, the US can brutalize Iran unilaterally, without requiring the assistance, or permission of any nation.

[Crusader2000]

US DEPLOYS F-16s FOR POSSIBLE ATTACK AGAINST IRAN


Source: www.washtimes.com

Fighters Deploy

Coinciding with increased tensions with Iran over the resumption of illicit uranium enrichment, the U.S. Air Force has dispatched additional warplanes to the region in a not-so-subtle sign, military sources say.

An entire wing of F-16s, the Air National Guard's 122nd Fighter Wing based in Fort Wayne, Ind., left for a base in southwest Asia on Tuesday. A wing is usually about 72 aircraft and several hundred support personnel.

F-16s and support personnel from the 4th Fighter Squadron of the 388th Fighter Wing based at Hill Air Force Base, Utah, also deployed recently to Iraq. The squadron has 12 F-16s.

Both units' F-16s could be used in any military operation to take out Iranian nuclear facilities.

A spokesman for the U.S. Central Command Air Forces, which runs air operations in the region, said the F-16 deployment of about 80 jets is part of a rotation and is not related to Iran's uranium reprocessing.

Surely, if the US was going to attack. Which, I doubt very much. It would be with B-1, B-2, or Tomahawk Cruise Missiles.................or at very least F-15E's. I don't see F-16's as being the weapon of choice. Maybe for Israel..............not for the US:rolleyes:

[tphuang]

Crusader2000, calm down a little bit. I've received a lot of complaint about you. There are some Muslims on this forum, they do not want to hear about Iran getting invaded.

[coolieno99]

Assad and company see Saddam sitting in that booth prior to the 6' drop, his wretched sons worm food. He knows a combined Israeli/Yank armored juggernaught would cut thru Syria like crap thru a goose. So why would he be so stupid to get involved in something with the Iranians?

Syria has a formal defensive pact with Iran. An attack on one, is seen as an attack on the other. Syria, unlike Iraq, does have WMDs in the form of weaponized nerve gas. Most likely many of DF-15s, Scud-C,Ds warheads are probably mounted with the nerve gas warheads. Not counting reserve units or militias, Syria's 319,000 men army combined with Iran's 540,000 men army would give a total force of 859,000 men. Iran's militia numbers 9,000,000 men. Syria's militia ? unknown. Besides Syria can deployed 4,700 main battle tanks.

[gf0012-aust]

This is a military forum - it's not a diplomatic forum - as such people will naturally focus on military solutions.

Sending complaints to the Mods about posting behaviour does not mean that a post will automatically be suspended just because someone has an opposite perspective to some posters

So sending more than one complaint will not actually compel the mods any faster to suspend a post due to personal grievances.

We all see the complaints - and if there is no reaction, then obviously the Mods as a collective don't see that the complaint is as severe as the complainant does.

This post is closed for a few days so that people can read this message and absorb its meaning.