If you support the Iraq war, here comes another one....

[Osborn F Enready]

August 1, 2005 Issue
The American Conservative

Deep Background

In Washington it is hardly a secret that the same people in and around the administration who brought you Iraq are preparing to do the same for Iran. The Pentagon, acting under instructions from Vice President Dick Cheney’s office, has tasked the United States Strategic Command (STRATCOM) with drawing up a contingency plan to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States. The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons. Within Iran there are more than 450 major strategic targets, including numerous suspected nuclear-weapons-program development sites. Many of the targets are hardened or are deep underground and could not be taken out by conventional weapons, hence the nuclear option. As in the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States. Several senior Air Force officers involved in the planning are reportedly appalled at the implications of what they are doing—that Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack—but no one is prepared to damage his career by posing any objections.

A CIA internal review of the agency’s performance prior to 9/11 is harshly critical of former CIA Director George Tenet, former Director of Operations James Pavitt, and the former chief of the Counterterrorist Center, Cofer Black, for not doing everything possible to confront terrorism. Pavitt, who was reluctant to take on risky missions against bin Laden encouraged by the National Security Council during the second term of President Bill Clinton, is particularly criticized. The report, completed by CIA Inspector General John Helgerson, is especially acerbic regarding the failure of the agency to stop two of the 9/11 hijackers, Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhar, as they entered the United States. Black did not share information on the two men with the FBI agents assigned to the Counterterrorist Center at the CIA and also turned down a request for a formal memorandum to be sent to FBI Headquarters. The report will be finalized and given to Congress after those criticized in it add their own comments. Pavitt, as head of the Operations Directorate, has publicly accepted full responsibility for the agency’s failure, but Black has not acknowledged any deficiencies in his performance. Tenet has not yet responded.

There is increasing evidence that the Iraqi police forces, now under Shi’ite control, are carrying out systematic revenge killings against Sunnis in Baghdad. The bodies now showing up at the morgue have obvious signs of handcuffing and blindfolding and evidence of being tortured before death. U.S. sources indicate that the suspicious killings have reached the rate of almost 700 per month. The police are supervised by the Shi’ite-run Ministry of Interior, which claims that the killings are being carried out by insurgents wearing stolen police uniforms. But American intelligence sources disagree, noting that many of the killers appear to be actual policemen carrying the expensive standard-issue Glock automatics and driving official Toyota Land Cruisers.

Philip Giraldi, a former CIA Officer, is a partner in Cannistraro Associates.

http://amconmag.com/2005_08_01/article3.html

(Thanks for looking out for our best intrests Bush administration.)

[belverron]

Let's just hope Europe didn't learn their lesson from WWII. Appeasement was a good strategy, guys; you don't need to give the U.S. its due....

[monty of ll]

Hmmmm, one would think that plans to nuke Iran regardless of whether or not they are guilty of a future terrorist attack, would make the mainstream media! Such is the desperation of the Bush/Cheney admin. knowing now that they have joined Iraq and Iran at the hip. I for one would have to wonder what the purpose of such a move would be when they should know now that destroying Teheran would only make matters worse in the long term. Of course it 'would' throw back Iran's aspirations of becoming a member of the nuclear club a few years.

[SteveA]

I believe our current plan to "win the war on terror" is:

Underlying assumptions:

Terrorists want to attack the U.S. because they are jealous of economic prosperity, freedom and (inter)national security.

War on terror strategy:

Spend enough man hours and resources creating international instability and limiting individual liberties that there will be nothing left for terrorists to be jealous of or destroy.

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: SteveA there will be nothing left

Steve, that's just pure cynicism!

Pursuit of terrorists is an endeavor worthy of some police effort, but shooting with nukes is uncalled for.

[SteveA]

Quote by: PatrickHenry Steve, that's just pure cynicism! Pursuit of terrorists is an endeavor worthy of some police effort, but shooting with nukes is uncalled for.

I agree with you, Patrick and the keyword is police effort. (I was trying to add some some humor to a sober subject)

[rmnunez]

If Iran gets intervened in it won't be like they didn't exhaust alternatives before going in. What would be suggested in this case, more economic sanctions? How about another diplomatic initiative?

[Jack]

SteveA, you are just so behind the times. Don't you know the action formerly known as the "War on Terror" is now the “struggle against global extremism?" Come on, try to keep up, would you?

[Rainbow]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready In Washington it is hardly a secret that the same people in and around the administration who brought you Iraq are preparing to do the same for Iran. The Pentagon, acting under instructions from Vice President Dick Cheney’s office, has tasked the United States Strategic Command (STRATCOM) with drawing up a contingency plan to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States. The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons. Within Iran there are more than 450 major strategic targets, including numerous suspected nuclear-weapons-program development sites. Many of the targets are hardened or are deep underground and could not be taken out by conventional weapons, hence the nuclear option. As in the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States. Several senior Air Force officers involved in the planning are reportedly appalled at the implications of what they are doing—that Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack—but no one is prepared to damage his career by posing any objections.

Assuming that the information is correct, then :
- leveling Iran down does not bring much, but a political embarrassment (at least)
What is the purpose to "nuke" Iran ? Eliminate some terrorists ?
U.S. can not afford to get involved into yet another political and military conflict, as of now. Political, social, economical. ect. changes in Iraq will do its job, and influence all the Arabic states around. That is much greater power than any nuclear weapon.

That is why I take this news as a dis-information and/or a speculation, while every state draws its own plans, in case events around the globe may appear to become a reality.

[SteveA]

Quote by: Isherwood SteveA, you are just so behind the times. Don't you know the action formerly known as the "War on Terror" is now the “struggle against global extremism?" Come on, try to keep up, would you?

It's gone global now and you don't even have to be a terrorist, just extreme?

Wow, yeah, I'm way behind

Thanks for the update.

[monty of ll]

Well one thing that could be accomplished by leveling Teheran and getting a 'real' war going in the M.E. would be to sort of fulfill a prophesy. Let's not forget that it is seen as a foregone conclusion by some people that it will happen in the next....................

Naw, couldn't be.

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: monty of ll it will happen in the next.................... Naw, couldn't be.

I wouldn't have believed 9/11 on 9/10/2001, either...

[Sonart]

I think perhaps you're all making too much of this. The military wargames out all kinds of stuff, for every imaginable contingency. I don't believe anyone is actually planning the imminent invasion of Iran. They simply have a lot of "what if" plans for every imaginable worst case scenerio, and a nuclear armed Iran attacking a neighbor is certainly one of them.

.

[monty of ll]

In fairness Sonart, some are talking about the Cheney plan to nuke Iran in the event of another 911 type attack, while others are talking about an Israeli or U.S. attack on Iran's nuclear facilities. But in effect, IMO, the result would be about the same. Teheran has actually said that they would react strongly against the U.S. or Israel if either attempted such action against them. That would be the 160,000 U.S. military force in Iraq and that would undoubtedly be IMO, the beginning of the U.S.' use of nukes on Iran's major cities.

I don't think that anyone is making too much out of this considering the Israeli's promise that Iran will not be able to proceed to the point where they are unstoppable. That point is not possession of a bomb, it is the possession of the fuel to produce such bomb.

[northtexan]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready August 1, 2005 Issue The American Conservative Deep Background In Washington it is hardly a secret that the same people in and around the administration who brought you Iraq are preparing to do the same for Iran. The Pentagon, acting under instructions from Vice President Dick Cheney’s office, has tasked the United States Strategic Command (STRATCOM) with drawing up a contingency plan to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States. The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons. Within Iran there are more than 450 major strategic targets, including numerous suspected nuclear-weapons-program development sites. Many of the targets are hardened or are deep underground and could not be taken out by conventional weapons, hence the nuclear option. As in the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States. Several senior Air Force officers involved in the planning are reportedly appalled at the implications of what they are doing—that Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack—but no one is prepared to damage his career by posing any objections. A CIA internal review of the agency’s performance prior to 9/11 is harshly critical of former CIA Director George Tenet, former Director of Operations James Pavitt, and the former chief of the Counterterrorist Center, Cofer Black, for not doing everything possible to confront terrorism. Pavitt, who was reluctant to take on risky missions against bin Laden encouraged by the National Security Council during the second term of President Bill Clinton, is particularly criticized. The report, completed by CIA Inspector General John Helgerson, is especially acerbic regarding the failure of the agency to stop two of the 9/11 hijackers, Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhar, as they entered the United States. Black did not share information on the two men with the FBI agents assigned to the Counterterrorist Center at the CIA and also turned down a request for a formal memorandum to be sent to FBI Headquarters. The report will be finalized and given to Congress after those criticized in it add their own comments. Pavitt, as head of the Operations Directorate, has publicly accepted full responsibility for the agency’s failure, but Black has not acknowledged any deficiencies in his performance. Tenet has not yet responded. There is increasing evidence that the Iraqi police forces, now under Shi’ite control, are carrying out systematic revenge killings against Sunnis in Baghdad. The bodies now showing up at the morgue have obvious signs of handcuffing and blindfolding and evidence of being tortured before death. U.S. sources indicate that the suspicious killings have reached the rate of almost 700 per month. The police are supervised by the Shi’ite-run Ministry of Interior, which claims that the killings are being carried out by insurgents wearing stolen police uniforms. But American intelligence sources disagree, noting that many of the killers appear to be actual policemen carrying the expensive standard-issue Glock automatics and driving official Toyota Land Cruisers. Philip Giraldi, a former CIA Officer, is a partner in Cannistraro Associates. http://amconmag.com/2005_08_01/article3.html (Thanks for looking out for our best intrests Bush administration.)

There are a few differences, though. The Bushistas have so degraded the U.S. military through their Iraq fiasco that they cannot seriously consider a land invasion of Iran, so they're talking about massive air campaigns, including the use of nukes. But note that those Shia politicians in Iraq, the ones who are fostering death squads against Sunnis, are cozying up to Iran. This is true especially of Chalabi, the guy the U.S. military thought would rule Iraq, who has allied with Bani Sadr, the Shia who fought against the U.S. military; and they are talking to the Iranian leaders. So the "democratic Iraq" that Dubya ballyhoos might end up as an ally of the country that the U.S. would attack. True, Iran MAY NOT have nukes at this point, but they have had ties with India, which does -- and is the bitter enemy of our "ally" Pakistan. Who knows what a U.S. nuclear war against Iran might set off, including possibly renewed war between India and Pakistan. On top of that, a U.S. attack on Iran would involve the other great division of Islam, the Shia, encouraging their jihad against the U.S., just as Iraq did the Sunni jihad. Now, if the U.S. actually does use nukes against Iran, think of the new pariah status that will establish for the U.S. with the rest of the world, even if the conflict (including nuke conflict) doesn't spread. The damage this could do to the U.S. is unimaginable, not that the Bushistas care about that.

[oranged]

This time it's about the simple laws of physics, 450 tactical nuclear weapons is enough to annilalate the earths atmosphere completely. Not to mention if the bombs are hitting nuclear weapons development sites, they'd probably be hitting nuclear weapons, this really could be enough to vaporize the entirety of the planet. Luckily, I think the government is giving empty threats.

[PatrickHenry]

Iran has Sunburn missiles. Supersonic anti-ship, with evasive programming.
http://www.rense.com/general59/theSu...ansawesome.htm

Might not be too good to attack them, if any surface Navy ships are in the area. Range 100 miles.

[monty of ll]

Thanks for posting that rense link Patrick. It seems quite plausible all except for the ending where the U.S. starts losing some ships to the Iranians. When the first ship is lost the U.S. under Bush/Cheney will go nuclear.

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: monty of ll When the first ship is lost the U.S. under Bush/Cheney will go nuclear.

Likely the ship shots would only come as retaliation for unprovoked attacks by the US and/or Israel. It would be tough to make a case for using nukes after the US throws the first punch.

That would be like being in a bar fight and sucker punching someone, then when he gets off the floor and kicks your kneecap, you pull out your Glock and kill his wife. Hard to explain to the court of international public opinion. Doesn't mean that savages like Bush/Cheney wouldn't do it and try to justify it. No doubt they would have America eating out of the palm of their hand.

[SteveA]

Quote by: Sonart I think perhaps you're all making too much of this. The military wargames out all kinds of stuff, for every imaginable contingency. I don't believe anyone is actually planning the imminent invasion of Iran. They simply have a lot of "what if" plans for every imaginable worst case scenerio, and a nuclear armed Iran attacking a neighbor is certainly one of them. .

I wouldn't feel overconfident in our intellegence departments, especially regarding this war. "every imaginable contingency" is unrealistic - I'd say we have many possible contingencies analyzed but since we're talking about nukes - consider the effect their development had on previous contingency plans at the time - they were likely tossed out the window.

It's impossible to know what new technological developments are likely to occur, even with federally subsidized research, so I think, like most things, it's best to aim toward creating an environment where people are less likely to desire creating them in the first place.