Truemors
is reporting from
Member
NP Rank:
NP Rank:
The U.S. To Bomb Iran
Share:
by phrolen | September 2, 2007 at 04:57 pm
1756 views | 41 Recommendations | 35 comments
Photos
NowPublic contributor phrolen is a veteran of Operation Iraqi
Freedom and Joint Taskforce Katrina. His commentary is based on actual
experience.
UPDATE: AP reporting Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says he has "Mathematical proof" that the US will not attack Iran.
UPDATE: Israeli intelligence website debka.com is reporting that there has been a major shakeup in the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps and it appears that Iran's Theocratic government is preparing for an "Attack from a foreign enemy."
UPDATE: Iran press service now also reporting IRGC Shakeup.
UPDATE:Iranian President Ahmadinejad claims historic breakthrough on Irans nuclear program; 3000 operational centrifuges
The recent rhetorical surge from both the United States and Iran is anything but business as usual. With American policy experts now using terms like proxy war in Iraq war, Iranian activity reports, and with the usual suspects in Russia and China stonewalling the European led Iranian diplomatic process, critical mass now seems to be only just over of the horizon. In recent weeks the U.S. government has conducted massive war games depicting a colossal aerial bombardment of Iran. Indications are that the Washington based think tank, Heritage Foundation, delivered its war-game findings to the Bush Administration this week.
Sources say the report contains a list of policy proposals that will, in effect, offset the economic ramifications of such a strike. Among the policies entailed in the report are said to be the lifting of tariffs on ethanol imports, the opening of strategic U.S. fuel reserves to keep hyperinflation of oil prices at a minimum, and the subsidization of fuel costs for millions of low income Americans. The feeling is in Washington, that some sort of unseen boundary has been breached and the U.S. government now seems to be shifting away from what they perceive as failed diplomatic endeavors and toward more forceful alternatives.
The UK based Times Online is also now reporting that pentagon planners have delivered an aerial bombardment plan to President Bush. The plan, which original thought dictated would focus mainly on Iran's nuclear capabilities, is now said to contain a much larger air assault. They are not just preparing for "Pinprick strikes" said Alex Debat, director of terrorism and national security at the Nixon Center. "They're about taking out the entire Iranian military." Intelligence sources have already indicated that the U.S. has reached out with funding and support to anti-Iranian dissident groups based in Iraq's Kurdish north. Recently Iran began cross border artillery shelling of what it deemed as terrorist bases in Kurdish Iraq; indicating that there may indeed be a flurry of activity taking place there. The U.S. has also drastically stepped up intelligence gathering incursions into Iran with Special Forces troops said to be operating on a daily basis within Iranian territory. With tensions increasing and both sides ratcheting up the rhetoric everyone is waiting to see who will blink first. If no one blinks, well, the outlook seems bleak indeed.
Will President Bush bomb Iran?
By Tim Shipman in Washington
Last Updated: 12:17am BST 02/09/2007
Page 1 of 3
In a nondescript room, two blocks from the American Capitol building, a group of Bush administration staffers is gathered to consider the gravest threat their government has faced this century: the testing of a nuclear weapon by Iran.
George Bush and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: Will president Bush bomb Iran?
President Bush dramatically stepped up his war of words with the Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
The United States, no longer prepared to tolerate the risk that Iranian nuclear weapons will be used against Israel, or passed to terrorists, has already launched a bombing campaign to destroy known Iranian nuclear sites, air bases and air defence sites. Iran has retaliated by cutting off oil to America and its allies, blockading the Straits of Hormuz, the Persian Gulf bottleneck, and sanctioned an uprising by Shia militias in southern Iraq that has shut down 60 per cent of Iraq's oil exports.
The job of the officials from the Pentagon, the State Department, and the Departments of Homeland Security and Energy, who have gathered in an office just off Massachusetts Avenue, behind the rail terminus, Union Station, is to prevent a spike in oil prices that will pitch the world's economy into a catastrophic spin.
The good news is that this was a war game; for those who fear war with Iran, the less happy news is that the officials were real. The simulation, which took four months, was run by the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank with close links to the White House. Its conclusions, drawn up last month and seen by The Sunday Telegraph, have been passed on to military and civilian planners charged with drawing up plans for confronting Iran.
News that elements of the American government are working in earnest on how to deal with the fallout of an attack on Iran come at a tense moment.
advertisement
Click to learn more...
On Tuesday, President Bush dramatically stepped up his war of words with the Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, whom the US government accuses of overseeing a covert programme to develop nuclear weapons. In a speech to war veterans, Mr Bush said: "Iran's active pursuit of technology that could lead to nuclear weapons threatens to put a region already known for instability and violence under the shadow of a nuclear holocaust."
He went on to condemn Iranian meddling in Iraq, where America increasingly blames the deaths of its soldiers on Iranian bombs and missiles. Mr Bush made clear that he had authorised military commanders to confront "Iran's murderous activities".
This was widely taken to mean that he is set on a confrontation with Iran that
What is NowPublic?
NowPublic lets people work together to cover news events around the world.
Crowd Power
phrolen
Billings, Montana, United States
Barbra J. Bearden
Washington, District Of Columbia, United States
Most RecentMost Recommended Comments (35)
at 17:15 on September 2nd, 2007
phrolen, I like this story. It's good stuff.
at 17:17 on September 2nd, 2007
phrolen, I like this story. It's good stuff.
at 19:16 on September 2nd, 2007
phrolen, as always, good stuff. And thanks for the link.
Unfortunately, all this isn't as clear cut as the Cuban missile crisis. Instead of a major confrontation in public over a precise issue, we have instead multiple issues with shadowy actions on all sides.
at 19:28 on September 2nd, 2007
phrolen, I like this story. It's good stuff.
I would like to ask you about the US Air Force here phrolen. I find the idea that the carriers in the Gulf are untochable very disturbing. The geographical advantage enjoyed by Iran here is enormous. I noticed that there is a carrier 500k's off the coast of Iran. This is ofcourse out of range. Israel is also out of range so no hope of help from there. With the massive screens of SA type bateries in Armenia, also have this geographical advantage, How do you see the American Air Force maintaining this type of assault.
Within a short time their arsenal of weapons will be depleted so their is little room for error. The prospect of airial refueling for fighter support is grim to say the least. Any tankers flying near Armenia will be easy prey, and that does not leave much room to manuvre. Uzbekistan is highly vunerable so it looks like a lot of air time for bombers with refueling done way of the coast of Iran. That means 1000 k's of unsuported flying.
Another problem that the US Air has found is that Scottish Unions have in the past, banned the reloading of US supplies, particularly of Bombs.
How do you propose the US will overcome these severe strategic limitations imposed upon it. ?
Nice article well sourced. The paragraphs are a bit long. Its easier to read if they are broken up a bit.
at 19:46 on September 2nd, 2007
Many of the sorties will be sea borne sorties, taking our much of the Iranian air defense infrastructure, along with stealth fighters/bombers, As far as areial refuling goes, we have airspace to the north south east and west of Iran with pretty much unlimited mobility. No scottish unions in Afghanistan, Iraq Qatar or Oman... but on that I truely can not comment, I have no knowledge. You are right in your presumptions though, very daunting, very challenging and very costly endeavor. Let us all hope it does not happen. Thanks man
P.S. three carrier battle groups are in the gulf now, one off the coast of Lebanon as well, and an entire marine amphibous assult group is on the way. Larger naval buildup than Iraqi Freedom. My sources in the Navy, as lowly as they may be, say there is no way that many assets are in the region just to sit there. I have a contact on the John C Stennis... in the gulf. The Iranians may well have missiles that can target our ships, but we have numerous countermeasures as well as complete air superiority. Dont get me wrong, this situation is disturbing, it flat out sucks, I hope it never comes to fruition.
at 04:08 on September 3rd, 2007
The John.C.Stennis was just in Australia. I also have some low ranking friends aboard her. She is everything a lady should be at 40, Strong Powerful and still commanding attention :)
To hear she is off the coast of Lebanon is really great information Thanks for that phrolen. That changes a lot of presumptions that might get kicked around.
This ofcourse means that the US is truely expecting to "Put their Money where their Mouth is" so I think we can forget that this is just a lot of hot air.
She will be able to provide air cover in case anything goes horribly wrong. That is good to see. A least they are thinking.
It is worth Mentioning though that the Air cover in the North, I presume you mean Turkey will still be risky. Dont forget if even a wing tip strays into Armenian air space there will be big trouble.
As for Afghanistan I dont think they will risk it. That will be to much of a week link.
Thanks again for answering this question
at 20:01 on September 2nd, 2007
Thanks Patty, its a very cloudy issue that we all should pay close attention to.
at 04:12 on September 3rd, 2007
Yes Thanks PEP, you have made the best comment I have seen anywhere on this issue. Honest and accurate
This fight started in 1622 and it has not stopped since then. There are so many wheels within wheels. Proxies within proxies. States within atates, who knows what the hell is going on.
Anyone who claims to should be treated with sceptisism.
at 21:09 on September 2nd, 2007
this could get very ugly.
at 21:43 on September 2nd, 2007
I was going to question how you could be so definitive in your title, but I see now where you get your thinking.
Please, please, please no.
at 22:09 on September 2nd, 2007
Tasteless computer games are one thing, but fantasy masquerading as journalism is far worse
Debka, which is based in Jerusalem, hints at having exclusive access to Israeli intelligence sources and makes a habit of mis-spelling Arabic names. A banner at the top of each page says: "We start where the media stop" - a claim that few could disagree with, since Debka blends fact, fantasy and propaganda in ways that make it difficult to separate one from the other.
Intelligence sources are always a useful standby in the absence of any firm evidence: the nature of their work not only suggests they have special knowledge, but also provides an obvious reason why they cannot be identified.
People who are not identified cannot be held reponsible for what they are reported to have said. One of the problems with Debka is that its stories usually have just enough of a factual basis to sound plausible - indeed, some of them may even be true. They are also sufficiently well told and interesting to trickle out into popular gossip and occasionally into the mainstream media.
at 00:06 on September 3rd, 2007
well, I can say that my trust for them comes somewhat first hand. Back when the Iraq invasion began, debka was reporting movement a full4 hours earlier than the msm did. I have verified since then and found their reporting accurate on the subject. I wont call their information golden, however, one has to be a bit subjective when taking in any information these days woundnt you say. Are you implying that my work is fantasy masquerading as journalism, or debkas. If it is mine, I am sorry that you don't like it but do thank you for posting with Now Public
at 04:00 on September 3rd, 2007
I agree with you both here. Deka will make public things when there intel value is no longer needed. Like 4 hrs befroe, But they are more than suspect and you are correct in being sceptical about this update.
@ geo Deka definatly has a vested interest in this one and I am skeptical. of this update. I think that Iran is more likely to keep using diplomacy here and if needed bump the price of Oil up to 150$ barrel. I think this issue is related to the recent fuel rationing in Iran, if they have cut off the Black market supply to Iraq, it would explain this seemingly desperate move by the USA
@ phrolen I know you dont like to discuss oil but an army runs on its gas tank, no gas no planes, no tanks etc etc
'
In breaking news GW Bush has just landed in IRAQ
at 23:33 on September 2nd, 2007
i'm confused about this part of the daily telegraph story: "A Pentagon source said: "We have a targeting list and there
are plans, but then there are also plans for repelling an invasion
from Canada." [page-2, para-8]
huh? invasion from canada?! could some1 explain this please?
at 00:09 on September 3rd, 2007
asterix, excellent question. What he is implying is that yes they have plans drawn up for action on Iran, But he does not want everyone getting spun up about it, because they have action drawn up for every possible contingency, even the unlikely scenario of canadian invasion. He is purposefully being deescalatory. That is his job.
at 16:03 on September 3rd, 2007
I hope this have been updated since 1812 :)
at 05:19 on September 4th, 2007
I doubt it :) the Plans to take Khuzestan are probably the same as the one's from 1622 when the British / East India Company defeated Portugal
at 01:16 on September 3rd, 2007
Well, after the disaster in Iraq, at least no one on this page is saying it's a good idea to bomb Iran. This is a good development. Lets hope we will all see reason and the US does not have to invoke any so-called contingency plans.
at 04:00 on September 3rd, 2007
It's a good idea to bomb Iran. sorry Tom someone has to have the Ba**s to say it. If Isreal and the US. truly think Iran's nuclear program is a threat to Isreal yes.
do you think American fleets are prepared to move on Iran because they think it is a bad idea?. Of course there are risks those have to be taken into account. But if I lived in Isreal and everyday Iran says they are going to wipe us off the face of the earth while they are busy building the bombs to do just that I would say it would be a good idea to take those facilities out. No one looks foward to that situation but reality is that thraets are being thrown around and people take those threats seriously.
Sadam didn't thinkwe were serious I guess Iran doesn't either.
at 04:20 on September 3rd, 2007
I see the USS John C Stennis is off the coast of Tripoli not Haifa. So the Israel card could still be played in the Great Game, it would unite the Sunni's and bring them onto the side of the USA. There is plenty of prison space in the US if it comes to that.
at 15:49 on September 3rd, 2007
gmony714, You are concerned about the people of Israel. Israel has been waging war in the Middle East with full support from your successive governments against other peoples and nations for a long time now. I am sure you will counter with: "they are the good guys fighting the bad guys." The human mind is marvellous, it believes whatever it wants to believe. Yes, my mind is guilty of this too.
at 04:18 on September 3rd, 2007
phrolen,Trouble, Trouble, Trouble. from Iran in all directions.
at 08:05 on September 3rd, 2007
For the record Tom, I am always in favor of a peaceful solution over war. If a peaceful solution can be found by all means it is our responsibility as humans to find it and utilize it. Blessed are the peacemakers. If my government decides that there is no other alternetive on this one though, however sad I will be for humanities sake, I will support them and do my part to contribute to our struggle.
at 12:26 on September 3rd, 2007
phrolen, I do not believe that there is one person on NP that actively supports war on other nations without first doing all that is possible to resolve issues. You are a person that has already proven that you rather help people than fight them.
My problem with your statement is about your apparent blind faith in your government. Can we really trust the Bush regime to make the right decisions for the people of America and the people of the world?. What is their track record in the Middle East so far?. Has the Bush regime got a mandate from the American people
for making these big decisions?. Big decisions should be left to the U.N. in my view, not to the Bush regime.
at 06:30 on September 4th, 2007
I agree Tom van the UN are no longer calling the shots.
at 09:08 on September 4th, 2007
Tom, everyone always says that about Americans. Which part of my writings made you feel that I was so low in intellect to have blind faith in anything? If I do lose my faith in a president or a party I exercise those feelings on election day. Our constitution was written so that without a mandate from the prople or not the chief executive can exercise military power as he sees fit. Whether or not I support admin policies is inconsequential to the fact that if our elected leader makes the decision to take our country into war I have a duty to support our country. I can have payback for unsupported policies come election day. As for the U.N., many Americans view the U.N. far differently than the rest of the world. Most see it is a mostly ineffectual deliberative body that is frought with corruption, ran with no standards, and too riddled with beurocratic wrangling to be very efficient at anything. Most would point to the U.N. track record to support their views. Million and Millions have fallen into genocide while the UN stood by helplessly is what they would say. Collectively, here on the ground, I can tell you that the U.S. populice could give two hoots about almost anything the UN does. I am not saying I am with them on this point of view, I am just pointing out the way it is. Thanks for the posts man, it has been interesting.
at 12:34 on September 4th, 2007
phrolen, This part:
"If my government decides that there is no other alternetive on this one though, however sad I will be for humanities sake, I will support them and do my part to contribute to our struggle."
This is you prerogative of course. You are right about the U.N. no doubt about it. It is just that I and many other view your present government in the same light. Pleas note that "intellect" and "blind faith" are not connected - ask any devout religious person. Some of my best friends are Christians you know. This is not leading anywhere. Your stories do attract a lot of interest - this is great!. Cheers, Tom.
at 08:22 on September 3rd, 2007
well said phrolen
at 12:36 on September 4th, 2007
well said gmony714
at 13:04 on September 4th, 2007
Well said Tom van B
(Sorry! Couldn't resist!)