IRAN Nuclear Crisis News and Discussions

Status
Not open for further replies.

fieldmarshal

New Member
Day One - The War With Iran

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

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 [email protected].
 

webmaster

Troll Hunter
Staff member
Re: Iran: Here come the US Bombers

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

New Member
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

Banned Member
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

New Member
Izzy1 said:
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

New Member
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

New Member
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

New Member
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

New Member
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

New Member
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

New Member
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

New Member
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

New Member
fieldmarshal said:
....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

New Member
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

New Member
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

New Member
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

New Member
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

New Member
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

New Member
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

New Member
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!!!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top