US plans for Iran strike ready

[Bull]

lions one day life is better then wolfs 100 years.

oh i would prefer to be the wolf, they are cunning and smart.

 

[Adux]

India cant do anything against US, MAybe attack Diego garcia..thats all.
Nothing else, Unless and until they get on the ground we cant do much, But definitly we are in better position Airforce and Navy wise than pakistan. So we can still put up fight, but in the end we will be beaten to pulp.

 

[Cheetah786]

We used our brains and not our dicks when we formulated our strategy.
Our leaders didnt go sabre rattling even before we got our hands on to the nukes. We stayed low, kept low profile and when everything was ready tested the weapon and declared we are a nuclear state. And even after we got one we gave our responsible messages such as no first use, which was reassuring to the west.

Give me a freaking break you got all cause India is a Hindu state not a Muslim state.don't insult every body's intelligence here.having a different religion don't make you smart.
only Reason American can do this to Muslims.Is we have sold out Arabs.

 

[Cheetah786]

oh i would prefer to be the wolf, they are cunning and smart.

you have that right.
same as Iranians have the right not to be.

 

[Cheetah786]

India cant do anything against US, MAybe attack Diego garcia..thats all.
Nothing else, Unless and until they get on the ground we cant do much, But definitly we are in better position Airforce and Navy wise than pakistan. So we can still put up fight, but in the end we will be beaten to pulp.

Adux you didn't answer my question.
i didn't ask if you are better then Pakistan.question was about the nukes.and if Americans ask you as they are to Iranians.
would you give up.or actually stand up for your right.
i seen bulls answer he prefers to roll over.

 

[niaz]

oh i would prefer to be the wolf, they are cunning and smart.

I think my friend Cheetah misquoted an old Urdu proverb. If I remember correctly, it says "Living for one day as a lion is better than living for 100 years as a jackal"

You are right about wolf though, in Germany quite a few men are called " Wolfgang" , you wouldnt find any called a Jackal except for the famous book "Day of the jackal'.

 

[Adux]

Cheetah,

I dont know, though i dont prefer to roll over, Geo-politics is not about dick-showing, If it is better for the country, it is better that way. At the same time India's economy is largely domestic in 99, therefore we could handle their sanctions without it making even a dent. I would do whats the best for my country, Whats the use of living and being a Lion, if u r bombed to the stone age. You are proverb is good, if you use that in a singular form, but when you talk about millions of lives that is just plain criminal

 

[Bull]

Give me a freaking break you got all cause India is a Hindu state not a Muslim state.don't insult every body's intelligence here.having a different religion don't make you smart.
only Reason American can do this to Muslims.Is we have sold out Arabs.

Oh pls dont play the victim card " oh we are muslims and we are being targeted". Its the same US that send the CBG to Bay of Bengal to threaten India on behalf of Pakistan.

Stop blinding yourself with relegion. Relegion has nothing to do with it. Its all politics and smart diplomacy.

Iran and Iraq was utter failures on both counts.

 

[Bull]

I think my friend Cheetah misquoted an old Urdu proverb. If I remember correctly, it says "Living for one day as a lion is better than living for 100 years as a jackal"

You are right about wolf though, in Germany quite a few men are called " Wolfgang" , you wouldnt find any called a Jackal except for the famous book "Day of the jackal'.

But i seriously prefer to be a wolf. Lions are ugly and huge. Wolves are nasty and tactical.

 

[Bull]

Adux you didn't answer my question.
i didn't ask if you are better then Pakistan.question was about the nukes.and if Americans ask you as they are to Iranians.
would you give up.or actually stand up for your right.
i seen bulls answer he prefers to roll over.

I dont aknow what you meant by that.

US wont ask India to disband the same way as Iran.

 

[HAIDER]

Its very easy to say, US should go for surgical strike in Iranian nukes. But whole region is already has chaotic situation.
Moving american fleet in gulf is not just warning for Iran, its also warning for new invisible enemies of American interest in that region, like Russia and china. Who are looking for lion share in the mutlibillion dollar oil and mineral resources of middle east. Its industrial age, every nation wants to be richer then the others.
As far as India, its time for Indian to decide that should go with American block or still live in Russian block. Eventhough India already voted against Iran and support american vote of sanction against Iran, lost its neutrality right their.
Take close look at Putin recent visit in middleastern nation and his comments. You guys will find that with help of China, Russia is trying to re emerge as superpower in the region. Now for this nation who used to call themself a neutral player, is over.
So, if American attack Iran, that would clear so many pictures. But for sure whole region will be chaotic, including Pakistan and India will feel ripple affacts of this middle eastern war..
I hope things resolve through dialogue, thats only and best way.

(Cheetah if India would in place of Iran, India would rollback, for getting better deal.)

 

[Adux]

I hope you do know that even Russia voted against Iran. India can easily stay at both the blocks, There aint a Russian block or even a chinese block ,only one, that is American, Welcome to the unipolar world. India and Pakistan did not roll back when America put the sanctions, But pakistan did roll back when they got threatened to be bombed back to the stone age, Qoute from In the Line of fire....

 

[Janbaz]

Now this is shocking:

US 'Iran attack plans' revealed

US contingency plans for air strikes on Iran extend beyond nuclear sites and include most of the country's military infrastructure, the BBC has learned.
It is understood that any such attack - if ordered - would target Iranian air bases, naval bases, missile facilities and command-and-control centres.

The US insists it is not planning to attack, and is trying to persuade Tehran to stop uranium enrichment.

The UN has urged Iran to stop the programme or face economic sanctions.

But diplomatic sources have told the BBC that as a fallback plan, senior officials at Central Command in Florida have already selected their target sets inside Iran.

That list includes Iran's uranium enrichment plant at Natanz. Facilities at Isfahan, Arak and Bushehr are also on the target list, the sources say.

Two triggers

BBC security correspondent Frank Gardner says the trigger for such an attack reportedly includes any confirmation that Iran was developing a nuclear weapon - which it denies. Alternatively, our correspondent adds, a high-casualty attack on US forces in neighbouring Iraq could also trigger a bombing campaign if it were traced directly back to Tehran.

Long range B2 stealth bombers would drop so-called "bunker-busting" bombs in an effort to penetrate the Natanz site, which is buried some 25m (27 yards) underground.

The BBC's Tehran correspondent France Harrison says the news that there are now two possible triggers for an attack is a concern to Iranians.

Authorities insist there is no cause for alarm but ordinary people are now becoming a little worried, she says.

Deadline

Earlier this month US officials said they had evidence Iran was providing weapons to Iraqi Shia militias. At the time, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said the accusations were "excuses to prolong the stay" of US forces in Iraq.

Middle East analysts have recently voiced their fears of catastrophic consequences for any such US attack on Iran.

Britain's previous ambassador to Tehran, Sir Richard Dalton, told the BBC it would backfire badly by probably encouraging the Iranian government to develop a nuclear weapon in the long term.

Last year Iran resumed uranium enrichment - a process that can make fuel for power stations or, if greatly enriched, material for a nuclear bomb.

Tehran insists its programme is for civil use only, but Western countries suspect Iran is trying to build nuclear weapons.

The UN Security Council has called on Iran to suspend its enrichment of uranium by 21 February.

If it does not, and if the International Atomic Energy Agency confirms this, the resolution says that further economic sanctions will be considered.

BBC News.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6376639.stm

 

[Neo]

Tuesday, February 20, 2007

Targeting Tehran
By Michael T Klare

Has Bush, in fact, set a specific time limit on his patience? Although it is impossible to know, there are a number of indications that such a limit has been set, possibly for later this year

At this critical moment when most Americans seek to extricate US forces from the fighting in Iraq as swiftly as possible, George W Bush appears determined to construct a new rationale for intervention whose logical conclusion is not withdrawal but a wider war, possibly involving attacks on Iran later this year. Like an inveterate gambler who has lost every previous round and now faces insolvency, Bush seems poised to wager everything on one last throw of the dice. Before more lives are put at risk in this reckless bid, the flimsy props of Bush’s new rationale must be exposed to rigorous scrutiny and strict limits placed on his war-making capacity.

The president’s new approach was unveiled in his January 10 speech on Iraq. After giving a lifeless, almost robotic rendition of his plan for an increase in US troop strength, Bush suddenly caught fire, turning his attention to the threat purportedly posed by Iran and Syria. Both, he claimed, are allowing insurgents to use their territory as launching pads for attacks on Iraq, but it is Iran that poses the greatest danger, by “providing material support” to Shiite gunmen in Baghdad. At a February 14 press conference he said “when we find devices in [Iran] that are hurting our troops, we’re going to do something about it, pure and simple.”

Since then, the Administration has stepped up its campaign against Iran, claiming that Iranian forces are providing equipment and know-how for the manufacture of advanced explosive devices to Shiite militias in Iraq. Though the evidence for such aid remains inconclusive, the White House appears determined to lay the blame for increased American casualties at Tehran’s door, thus providing a fresh pretext for escalation.

The Administration has also sought to entwine this new pretext in a larger strategic framework, claiming that the United States faces a coordinated threat from radical Shiite forces throughout the region. Al Qaeda no longer poses the only significant threat to US interests in the Middle East, Bush declared in his State of the Union address. “It has also become clear that we face an escalating danger from Shia extremists who are just as hostile to America.” Many of these extremists, he averred, “are known to take direction from the regime in Iran.”

And so a new “axis of evil” is being constructed in Washington: In place of the old axis of Saddam Hussein-cum-Al Qaeda, against which we went to war in the first place, we now confront a new alliance between rogue states and terrorist organisations, linking Tehran to Hezbollah and Shiite militias in Baghdad.

And, once again, the possibility that this evil network will acquire and share weapons of mass destruction may be used as the justification for ‘preventive’ strikes against a hostile power. Indeed, Bush has made it very clear in his comments on Iran that while he prefers to resolve the WMD issue through diplomacy, the deadline for a negotiated outcome will happen “sooner rather than later” and that “all options are on the table.” Has Bush, in fact, set a specific time limit on his patience? Although it is impossible to know, there are a number of indications that such a limit has been set, possibly for later this year. These include:

(1) The deployment of a second aircraft carrier to the Persian Gulf region, along with an accompanying array of cruisers, destroyers and submarines. Several additional US and British naval minesweepers are also being sent to the Gulf — a clear indication that senior commanders anticipate Iranian efforts to block vital oil routes in response to any US airstrikes.

(2) The decision to replace the outgoing head of the US Central Command — which oversees US forces in Iraq, Afghanistan and the surrounding region — with a Navy officer, Adm William Fallon. It makes no sense to put Fallon, a former carrier group commander, in charge unless the next phase of combat in the region will emphasise air and naval operations against Iran.

(3) The recent announcement of plans to double the size of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, providing a growing buffer to any Iranian effort to punish the United States by blocking oil exports from the Gulf.

It is possible, of course, that these moves are intended largely as bargaining ploys, to bludgeon the Iranians into abandoning their plans for enriching uranium. But since these moves are coupled with elaborate efforts to establish a rationale for escalation, they should be viewed as signs that Bush has indeed set a deadline — perhaps known only to himself and a few associates — for Iranian compliance. This being so, opponents of the war have a dual responsibility: to contest the strategic context for a wider war and to bar specific acts of escalation by the president.

As for the strategic context, many of the allegations raised by Bush are dubious at best and easily refuted. There simply is no evidence of a grand Shiite conspiracy against the United States, only of a centuries-long struggle by the oft-maligned Shiite population to be accorded greater respect within the Islamic world. Other issues, however, require closer scrutiny, and the best way to accomplish this is through a series of comprehensive hearings by the relevant committees of Congress, featuring testimony by well-informed witnesses from both within and outside the Administration. The witnesses should be required to address such questions as:

Iran’s nuclear capabilities

* What is the evidence that Iran seeks a nuclear weapons capability, as distinct from nuclear enrichment for civilian purposes?

* How far in their nuclear endeavours have the Iranians come?

* What are the options for a diplomatic resolution of the crisis?

Iran’s role in Iraq

* What is the evidence for Iranian military support of militant Shiite factions in Baghdad?

* Can Tehran play a constructive role in Iraq as part of an overall settlement of outstanding issues (as proposed by the Iraq Study Group)?

The larger strategic equation in the Middle East

* How does the resurgence of Shiite Islam truly affect US interests?

* Should the United States help forge an anti-Shiite alliance in the region, or does peace between Israelis and Palestinians take precedence?

These are only some of the questions that must be answered fully and convincingly before Congress, or the American people, assent to any plan to widen the war in the Middle East. And until we receive such answers, Congress should adopt legislation banning the use of federal funds for any attacks on Iran or Syria without its prior authorisation. This would separate the question of funding a wider war from the emotional issue of funding for the forces now in Iraq (which a majority of Senate Republicans seem to consider sacrosanct). Surely, if there is one thing most Democrats and Republicans can agree on, it’s the need to stop a reckless president from doubling his bet in the war and using the lives of US soldiers as playing chips. —Agence Global

Michael T Klare is the defence correspondent of The Nation magazine and a professor of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College. His latest book is Blood and Oil: The Dangers and Consequences of America’s Growing Dependence on Imported Petroleum.

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2007\02\20\story_20-2-2007_pg3_6

 

[Janbaz]

Nothing can stop the Americans from attacking Iran. This time the nuclear issue is a way to stir support lke for Iraq there were WMD's. Then Syria will be engulfed through accusitions of exproting terrror. This indeed is hopeless.