US plans for Iran strike ready

[Janbaz]

* ‘Pentagon able to strike in the spring’

Daily Times Monitor

LAHORE: US preparations for an air strike against Iran are at an advanced stage, in spite of repeated public denials by the Bush administration, informed sources in Washington told the Guardian newspaper.

Ewen MacAskill writes in the Guardian: “The present military build-up in the Gulf would allow the US to mount an attack by the spring. But the sources said that if there was an attack, it was more likely next year, just before Mr Bush leaves office.”

Neo-conservatives, particularly at the Washington-based American Enterprise Institute (AEI), are urging Mr Bush to open a new front against Iran. So too is Vice President Dick Cheney. The State Department and the Pentagon are opposed, as are Democratic congressmen and most Republicans. The sources said Mr Bush had not yet made a decision. The Bush administration insists the military build-up is not offensive but aimed at containing Iran and forcing it to make diplomatic concessions. The aim is to persuade Tehran to curb its suspect nuclear weapons programme and abandon ambitions for regional expansion.

Robert Gates, the US defence secretary, said on Friday: “I don’t know how many times the president, secretary [of state Condoleezza] Rice and I have had to repeat that we have no intention of attacking Iran.” But Vincent Cannistraro, a Washington-based intelligence analyst, shared the sources’ assessment that Pentagon planning was well under way. “Planning is going on, in spite of public disavowals by Gates. Targets have been selected. For a bombing campaign against nuclear sites, it is quite advanced. The military assets to carry this out are being put in place.”

He added: “We are planning for war. It is incredibly dangerous.” Mr Cannistraro, who worked for the CIA and the National Security Council, stressed that no decision had been made. Last month Mr Bush ordered a second battle group led by the aircraft carrier USS John Stennis to the Gulf in support of the USS Eisenhower. The USS Stennis is due to arrive within 10 days. Extra US Patriot missiles have been sent to the region, as well as more minesweepers, in anticipation of Iranian retaliatory action.

In another sign that preparations are under way, Mr Bush has ordered oil reserves to be stockpiled.

The danger is that the build-up could spark an accidental war. Iranian officials said on Thursday that they had tested missiles capable of hitting warships in the Gulf.

Colonel Sam Gardiner, a former air force officer who has carried out war games with Iran as the target, supported the view that planning for an air strike was under way: “Gates said there is no planning for war. We know this is not true. He possibly meant there is no plan for an immediate strike. It was sloppy wording.

“All the moves being made over the last few weeks are consistent with what you would do if you were going to do an air strike. We have to throw away the notion the US could not do it because it is too tied up in Iraq. It is an air operation.”

One of the main driving forces behind war, apart from the vice-president’s office, is the AEI, headquarters of the neo-conservatives. A member of the AEI coined the slogan “axis of evil” that originally lumped Iran in with Iraq and North Korea. Its influence on the White House appeared to be in decline last year amid endless bad news from Iraq, for which it had been a cheerleader. But in the face of opposition from Congress, the Pentagon and State Department, Mr Bush opted last month for an AEI plan to send more troops to Iraq. Will he support calls from within the AEI for a strike on Iran?

Josh Muravchik, a Middle East specialist at the AEI, is among its most vocal supporters of such a strike.

“I do not think anyone in the US is talking about invasion. We have been chastened by the experience of Iraq, even a hawk like myself.” But an air strike was another matter. The danger of Iran having a nuclear weapon “is not just that it might use it out of the blue but as a shield to do all sorts of mischief. I do not believe there will be any way to stop this happening other than physical force.”

Daily Times.
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2007\02\11\story_11-2-2007_pg1_1

 

[A.Rahman]

Some updates:

* CVN-74 John C. Stennis is on her way to persian gulf without stopping at Hawai or in Pacific which is a normal practice.
* CVN-69 Eisenhower is back in the gulf from Somalia.
CVN-68 Nimitz is fully ready and on standby
* 50 naval warships are stationed in and around gulf.
* 100s of aircrafts are deployed in and around gulf.
* CENTCOM is under the command of navy.
* Anti Iran media propaganda is at its maxumim.


http://www.ne.jp/asahi/gonavy/atsugi/gonavy604.html

Conflict is simply inevitable.

 

[Neo]

Iran after Iraq and Afghanistan would be the third front but most definately the toughest one.

US will try to destroy nuclear infrastructure but no way she can replace the regime without taking Tehran.

What do the US taxpayers have to say about this new front?

 

[Janbaz]

You kow, Iran might be the dagger US will get behind them. Iraq is a mess, Afghanistan a disaster and Iran will kill off quite a lot of American military presence in the Gulf before it is taken down. Trust me, they ain't Saddam with his Scud's, they are much more lethal.

 

[zraver]

The gola of the US Military won't be the nukes (initally) or regime change. rathe rthe attacks if the occur will center around Bandar Abbas and other areas where Iran's anti-shipping missiels are located.

If Iran's ability to block the straits of Hormuz can be rmeoved then Iran will deal on the nuclear issue beucase she will have lost her trump card (oil supply blackmail)

The problem is how to take out the missiles. Iran has dozens of prepared launching sites and thousands of missiles. The easiest way is pinpoint strikes vs Irans C4SRI and I hate to say it but tactical nuclear strikes vs the missile storage sites. Both to make sure the missiels are removed and to send a very clea rmessage that a state who actively and openly supports intenrational terrorist groups will not be allowed to posses nuclear arms.

Once Iran's ability to directly threaten the gulf and the worlds energy markets is removed it doesn't matter what she does. The US will ahve already crossed the ultimate line and mad eit very clear that she is playing for keeps.

 

[GOD OF WAR]

lets have a poll as well gents.

AMERICA WILL ATTACK IRAN -------

YES
NO


SECONDLY...

what do you guys feel that if Iran will be attacked, what will happen? My humble analysis is that Tel-Aviv's gonna havta deal with some serious ****. thats how it will begin from Iran's side... Chip in gents

MAY ALLAH HELP IRAN --- ALLAH HUAKBAR YA ALI MADAD

over and out:army:

 

[sigatoka]

1. If Iran's ability to block the straits of Hormuz can be rmeoved then Iran will deal on the nuclear issue beucase she will have lost her trump card (oil supply blackmail)

2. The problem is how to take out the missiles. Iran has dozens of prepared launching sites and thousands of missiles. The easiest way is pinpoint strikes vs Irans C4SRI and I hate to say it but tactical nuclear strikes vs the missile storage sites.

3. Both to make sure the missiels are removed and to send a very clea rmessage that a state who actively and openly supports intenrational terrorist groups will not be allowed to posses nuclear arms.

4. Once Iran's ability to directly threaten the gulf and the worlds energy markets is removed it doesn't matter what she does.

1. Iran can cause the U.S. far more grief than just a temporary blocking of the Homruz strait, maybe you are forgetting more than a hundred thousand soldiers are deployed between Iraq and Afghanistan, two states that Iran has long porous borders with and within which the U.S. is already struggling in.

2. Israel struggled to destroy Hezbollah's rockets, remember in Southern Iran U.S. and coalition forces are in very close proximity with Iranian troops. Unless U.S. makes a limited advance of around 50-80 km into Iranian territory it will face a daily hail of rocket fire. Also Iranian anti-ship missiles can be independently fired, attacking command centres with nuclear weapons isnt going to suddenly render them ineffective.

3. It would be the height of irony for the U.S. to attack a state with nuclear weapons when the aim of the attack is to prevent the further acquisition and use of nuclear missiles. Iran's stated objective has always been to develop energy from nuclear technology, the U.S. has never provided concrete evidence to refute this. Invasion of Iran will simply result in another Iraqi WMD scandal.

4. Iran doenst have to block the Homruz strait to send prices skyrocketing, already the market is tight. The removal of Iranian supply will automatically push prices up. Secondly the middle East and wider muslim world will far more deeply interconnected than your simplistic analysis would suggest. Iraq and Afghanistan would become unbearable for U.S. and they would be forced to withdraw, energy markets would be destabilized and support for radical armed Islamic groups would increase across Africa, Middle East, Asia and East Asia.

Also an attack on Iran would lead Syria which already allows insurgents free passage and basing to involve itself actively in the arming of insurgents within Iraq.

 

[Adux]

1. Iran can cause the U.S. far more grief than just a temporary blocking of the Homruz strait, maybe you are forgetting more than a hundred thousand soldiers are deployed between Iraq and Afghanistan, two states that Iran has long porous borders with and within which the U.S. is already struggling in.

2. Israel struggled to destroy Hezbollah's rockets, remember in Southern Iran U.S. and coalition forces are in very close proximity with Iranian troops. Unless U.S. makes a limited advance of around 50-80 km into Iranian territory it will face a daily hail of rocket fire. Also Iranian anti-ship missiles can be independently fired, attacking command centres with nuclear weapons isnt going to suddenly render them ineffective.

3. It would be the height of irony for the U.S. to attack a state with nuclear weapons when the aim of the attack is to prevent the further acquisition and use of nuclear missiles. Iran's stated objective has always been to develop energy from nuclear technology, the U.S. has never provided concrete evidence to refute this. Invasion of Iran will simply result in another Iraqi WMD scandal.

4. Iran doenst have to block the Homruz strait to send prices skyrocketing, already the market is tight. The removal of Iranian supply will automatically push prices up. Secondly the middle East and wider muslim world will far more deeply interconnected than your simplistic analysis would suggest. Iraq and Afghanistan would become unbearable for U.S. and they would be forced to withdraw, energy markets would be destabilized and support for radical armed Islamic groups would increase across Africa, Middle East, Asia and East Asia.

Also an attack on Iran would lead Syria which already allows insurgents free passage and basing to involve itself actively in the arming of insurgents within Iraq.

Though I agree with you compleltly, You are underestimating the Americans, They wont make the same mistakes as Iraq, They can strike Iran by being out of the range of C-802's. Prices as you said will skyrocket. Arab will support US not Iran, A strong Iran is not in their best interest

 

[zraver]

1. Iran can cause the U.S. far more grief than just a temporary blocking of the Homruz strait, maybe you are forgetting more than a hundred thousand soldiers are deployed between Iraq and Afghanistan, two states that Iran has long porous borders with and within which the U.S. is already struggling in.

and #4 There is a flaw in your thinking, beucase the US is stecthed thin on the groundand becuase Iran is not weak the only real option is a form of total war. It will be the only way to keep pressure off the froces in Iraq and Afghanistan. Iran is probsably the msot vulnerable countr yin the world to strategic attacks. She knows this so all out war is not in her interests. just a few attacks on iran's principle oil prodicing areas and her very limited gasoline refinign capacity will do damage to her you cannot imagine. Also oil prices skyrocketing won't really affec tthe world within another 1-2 years as new non Opec sources come on line in America and Cananda. One side effect of the war in iraq has been to push the price of oil above 50 a barrel. This means oil sands and oil bearing rock are now viable.

2. Israel struggled to destroy Hezbollah's rockets, remember in Southern Iran U.S. and coalition forces are in very close proximity with Iranian troops. Unless U.S. makes a limited advance of around 50-80 km into Iranian territory it will face a daily hail of rocket fire. Also Iranian anti-ship missiles can be independently fired, attacking command centres with nuclear weapons isnt going to suddenly render them ineffective.

Rockets are not missiles. Missiels have to be kept in special storag euntis and given routine maintence. These sites are fixed and known. Once they are taken out iran goes from several thousand missiles to a few score missiles.

3. It would be the height of irony for the U.S. to attack a state with nuclear weapons when the aim of the attack is to prevent the further acquisition and use of nuclear missiles. Iran's stated objective has always been to develop energy from nuclear technology, the U.S. has never provided concrete evidence to refute this. Invasion of Iran will simply result in another Iraqi WMD scandal.

the use of such weapons would send a very clear message that the US was not playing and was finally willing to exerise its power as a super power.

 

[PakSniper]

Both of you guyies are right in your own ways,. but also don't forget even if US just uses air-power, it willn't change the govt., they can supply groups in Iraq and Afghan to create more problem then their is.

Afghan, situation NATO will be surrounded, were Milita getting supplies from Pakistan terrotory then you have Iran on another side.

Iraq, you have Syria who can supply some, what ever they got (lol). And Iran, with some shoulder fired MANPADs and other EEPs (whatever the correct word is) mines to destroy armour according to recent intel releases.

Their can be a lot of scanerios', but either way it will get down and dirty for both sides. But with recent reports, now Canada wants to pull out and other nations, this coaltion of the willing isn't want it was in the beginning, nations just don't want to get involved, the only real partnor US has is UK, while the rest are side stepping and not supplying troops (Afghan, etc).

 

[niaz]

There is no doubt that US has the ability of to perform a clean strike taking out Iran's nuclear plants and missiles. However its effect on the muslim world in general and the region in particular will be devastating. IMO Mushy's recent tour of the Gulf/Arab countries had something to do with it. As it puts Pakistan in a very difficult situation ( US ally as well as friendly to Iran)

Saudi Arabia and Abu Dhabi have been pumping more oil in February mainly to bring crude prices down; in a way to dampen the bullish effect on oil prices of a possible attack on Iran by US. The perceived threat caused due to ordering another Carrier group into the Arab Gulf may be merely to pressurize Iran to accept nuclear safegaurds.

It is any one's guess as to what would really happen, oil companies are, however, going long on oil loading outside AG just as a precautionery measure.

 

[Bull]

1. Iran can cause the U.S. far more grief than just a temporary blocking of the Homruz strait, maybe you are forgetting more than a hundred thousand soldiers are deployed between Iraq and Afghanistan, two states that Iran has long porous borders with and within which the U.S. is already struggling in.

Infact i was also wondering what happens if there is overflow of insurgents into Iraq from Iran, US might have major headache in Baghdad.

2. Israel struggled to destroy Hezbollah's rockets, remember in Southern Iran U.S. and coalition forces are in very close proximity with Iranian troops. Unless U.S. makes a limited advance of around 50-80 km into Iranian territory it will face a daily hail of rocket fire. Also Iranian anti-ship missiles can be independently fired, attacking command centres with nuclear weapons isnt going to suddenly render them ineffective.

Its true Israel failed to stop those rockets, but more than any casuality it had caused a lot of emotional stress among the civilians who had to be displaced.

In a US-Iran scenario, would Iran risk attacking US troops in Iraq which isnt possible without causing collateral damage.

Wouldnt such an action make a lot of Iraqis to stand up against Iran? And wouldnt that send shock waves to Bahrain, Qatar and Saudi who all have US bases.

3. It would be the height of irony for the U.S. to attack a state with nuclear weapons when the aim of the attack is to prevent the further acquisition and use of nuclear missiles. Iran's stated objective has always been to develop energy from nuclear technology, the U.S. has never provided concrete evidence to refute this. Invasion of Iran will simply result in another Iraqi WMD scandal.

The issue is not who is right or wrong. US got it wrong in Iraq, who paid the price? Can anything be the same again in Iraq for atleast for a few decades?

4. Iran doenst have to block the Homruz strait to send prices skyrocketing, already the market is tight. The removal of Iranian supply will automatically push prices up. Secondly the middle East and wider muslim world will far more deeply interconnected than your simplistic analysis would suggest. Iraq and Afghanistan would become unbearable for U.S. and they would be forced to withdraw, energy markets would be destabilized and support for radical armed Islamic groups would increase across Africa, Middle East, Asia and East Asia.

Sig, the you have remember that Iran is a net importer of energy ( IIRC gas), so they also will have a price to pay.

 

[Bull]

I still believe Ahmedinjad a idiotic leader, who else would wants to give Bush excuses for attacking.

He is playing this game of portraying a foreign evil to divert the attention of the public from the critics at home and his economic failures.

 

[zraver]

I still believe Ahmedinjad a idiotic leader, who else would wants to give Bush excuses for attacking.

He is playing this game of portraying a foreign evil to divert the attention of the public from the critics at home and his economic failures.

you got it right on target. The problem is Bush is also an idiot. Normally averting war takes at least one wise man at the helm of one of the countries. With 2 blind men driving two head strong nations towards the lin ein the sand what happens next is anyones guess.

Infact i was also wondering what happens if there is overflow of insurgents into Iraq from Iran, US might have major headache in Baghdad.

War makes for strange bedfellows. if iran starts operating openly in Iraq look for limited raproachment betwen the Sunni's and Americans. They know full well if Iran jumps in there won't be a Sunni left alive in 6 months if the US pulls out.

The issue is not who is right or wrong. US got it wrong in Iraq, who paid the price? Can anything be the same again in Iraq for atleast for a few decades?

America doesn't know how to not ruin a country when fighting a war. Germany, Vietnam, Japan, Iraq, the American south etc America scorches the earth and salts the ground. Sure we often go in and try and rebuild those former enemies (if they will let us) but based on Iraq's reaction I doubt Iran will want US rebuilding post war any more than they wanted the stealth bombers and cruise missiles knocking them back by 200 years in the first place.

Dragonking786,

They are clled EFP's exsploviely formed penetrators. They work on the exact same principle as a HEAT round. An inverted copper top is melted and converted in to a penetrators when the explosive behind it is detonated. It can't really punch an Abrams armor, the problem for tanks is they are hitting low below the area normally equipped with armor and are only facign the steel hull. Light vehicles don't even have a chance agaisnt these things.

There are counte rmeasures and this weapon is just a new type of anti-tank land mine.

 

[Cheetah786]

Any body can start a war when they like.they can never finish it when they want.
70% of iraqies are shias.sunni trusting usa lol yeah that will happen.
green zone in iraq will be red zone.3000 Americans dead so far will look like memory.iam 100% sure iranians have missiles ready to strike most and all arabian bases used by the americans.and probably the oil refineries of arabian peninsula.
plus dont forget 4 million/brl of oil taken out of the world supply.I have been looking at this claim of new oil supply comming on line i dont see no eveidence of it may be some one can put up a link about that.
some one here claimed that the iranians wouldnt wanna open up all out war.and why wouldnt they wanna do that.you mean to say they will roll over and play dead.wasnt this the assumption when the ameircans enterd iraq.oh i must also not forget Afghanistan.northern alliance so called american allies.yeah that will end right away
http://imageshack.us


The emerging confrontation between the United States and Iran is "the Cuban missile crisis in slow motion," argues Graham Allison, the Harvard University professor who wrote the classic study of President John F. Kennedy's 1962 showdown with the Soviet Union that narrowly averted nuclear war. If anything, that analogy understates the potential risks here.

President Bush tried to calm the war fever Monday, describing stories about military contingency plans for bombing Iran that appeared last weekend in The Post and the New Yorker as "wild speculation." But those stories did no more than flesh out the strategic options that might be necessary to back up the administration's public pledge, in its National Security Strategy, "to block the threats posed" by Iran and its nuclear program.

The administration insists that it wants diplomacy to do the preemption, even as its military planners are studying how to take out Iran's nuclear facilities if diplomacy should fail. Iran, meanwhile, is pursuing its own version of preemption, announcing yesterday that it has begun enriching uranium -- a crucial first step toward making a bomb. Neither side wants war -- who in his right mind would? -- but both frame choices in ways that make war increasingly likely.

The impasse was summarized by Seymour Hersh in the New Yorker, in a quote attributed to a Pentagon adviser: "The bottom line is that Iran cannot become a nuclear-weapons state. The problem is that the Iranians realize that only by becoming a nuclear state can they defend themselves against the U.S."

Allison argues that Bush's dilemma is similar to the one that confronted Kennedy in 1962. His advisers are telling him that he may face a stark choice -- either to acquiesce in the acquisition of nuclear weapons by a dangerous adversary, or risk war to stop that nuclear fait accompli . Hard-liners warned JFK that alternative courses of action would only delay the inevitable day of reckoning, and Bush is probably hearing similar advice now.

Kennedy's genius was to reject the Cuba options proposed by his advisers, hawk and dove alike, and choose his own peculiar outside-the-box strategy. He issued a deadline but privately delayed it; he answered a first, flexible message from Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev but not a second unyielding one; he said he would never take U.S. missiles out of Turkey, as the Soviets were demanding, and then secretly did precisely that. Disaster was avoided because Khrushchev believed Kennedy was willing to risk war -- but wanted to avoid it.

The Bush administration needs to be engaged in a similar exercise in creative thinking. The military planners will keep looking for targets (as they must, in a confrontation this serious). But Bush's advisers -- and most of all, the president himself -- must keep searching for ways to escape the inexorable logic that is propelling America and Iran toward war. I take heart from the fact that the counselor to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Philip Zelikow, is an expert on the Cuban missile crisis who co-authored the second edition of Allison's "Essence of Decision."

What worries me is that the relevant historical analogy may not be the 1962 war that didn't happen, but World War I, which did. The march toward war in 1914 resulted from the tight interlocking of alliances, obligations, perceived threats and strategic miscalculations. The British historian Niall Ferguson argued in his book "The Pity of War" that Britain's decision to enter World War I was a gross error of judgment that cost that nation its empire.

Zbigniew Brzezinski, a former national security adviser to President Jimmy Carter, makes a similar argument about Iran. "I think of war with Iran as the ending of America's present role in the world," he told me this week. "Iraq may have been a preview of that, but it's still redeemable if we get out fast. In a war with Iran, we'll get dragged down for 20 or 30 years. The world will condemn us. We will lose our position in the world."

Brzezinski urges President Bush to slow down and think carefully about his options -- rather than rushing to stop Iran's nuclear program, which by most estimates is five to 10 years away from building a bomb, even after yesterday's announcement. "Time is on our side," says Brzezinski. "The mullahs aren't the future of Iran, they're the past." As the United States carefully weighs its options, there is every likelihood that the strategic picture will improve.

The Bush administration has demonstrated, in too many ways, that it's better at starting fights than finishing them. It shouldn't make that same mistake again. Threats of war will be more convincing if they come slowly
and reluctantly, when it has become clear that truly there is no other choice.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/11/AR2006041101078.html