DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Christians4LessGvt on September 02, 2007, 06:57:12 PM
-
(http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/img/global/tol-logo.gif)
Pentagon "three-day blitz" plan for Iran
Sunday TimesSeptember 2, 2007
Sarah Baxter, Washington
THE Pentagon has drawn up plans for massive airstrikes against 1,200 targets in Iran, designed to annihilate the Iranians? military capability in three days, according to a national security expert.
Alexis Debat, director of terrorism and national security at the Nixon Center, said last week that US military planners were not preparing for pinprick strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities. They're about taking out the entire Iranian military, he said.
Debat was speaking at a meeting organised by The National Interest, a conservative foreign policy journal. He told The Sunday Times that the US military had concluded: Whether you go for pinprick strikes or all-out military action, the reaction from the Iranians will be the same. It was, he added, a very legitimate strategic calculus.
President George Bush intensified the rhetoric against Iran last week, accusing Tehran of putting the Middle East under the shadow of a nuclear holocaust. He warned that the US and its allies would confront Iran before it is too late.
One Washington source said the temperature was rising inside the administration. Bush was sending a message to a number of audiences, he said to the Iranians and to members of the United Nations security council who are trying to weaken a tough third resolution on sanctions against Iran for flouting a UN ban on uranium enrichment.
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) last week reported significant cooperation with Iran over its nuclear programme and said that uranium enrichment had slowed. Tehran has promised to answer most questions from the agency by November, but Washington fears it is stalling to prevent further sanctions. Iran continues to maintain it is merely developing civilian nuclear power.
Bush is committed for now to the diplomatic route but thinks Iran is moving towards acquiring a nuclear weapon. According to one well placed source, Washington believes it would be prudent to use rapid, overwhelming force, should military action become necessary.
Israel, which has warned it will not allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons,has made its own preparations for airstrikes and is said to be ready to attack if the Americans back down.
Alireza Jafarzadeh, a spokesman for the National Council of Resistance of Iran, which uncovered the existence of Iran's uranium enrichment plant at Natanz, said the IAEA was being strung along. A number of nuclear sites have not even been visited by the IAEA, he said. They're giving a clean bill of health to a regime that is known to have practised deception.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, irritated the Bush administration last week by vowing to fill a "power vacuum" in Iraq. But Washington believes Iran is already fighting a proxy war with the Americans in Iraq.
The Institute for the Study of War last week released a report by Kimberly Kagan that explicitly uses the term "proxy war" and claims that with the Sunni insurgency and Al-Qaeda in Iraq increasingly under control, Iranian intervention is the next major problem the coalition must tackle.
Bush noted that the number of attacks on US bases and troops by Iranian-supplied munitions had increased in recent months despite pledges by Iran to help stabilise the security situation in Iraq.
It explains, in part, his lack of faith in diplomacy with the Iranians. But Debat believes the Pentagon's plans for military action involve the use of so much force that they are unlikely to be used and would seriously stretch resources in Afghanistan and Iraq.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article2369001.ece (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article2369001.ece)
-
It explains, in part, his lack of faith in diplomacy with the Iranians. But Debat believes the Pentagon's plans for military action involve the use of so much force that they are unlikely to be used and would seriously stretch resources in Afghanistan and Iraq.
No , Strategic Air Command is not busy at all, and has the capability to deliver more ordinance power than was used in all of WWII in a twenty hour period.
-
??? ???What we really need is THREE unstable nation in the Middle East. Yeah, that's the ticket.
Not that Lebanon, Syria, or Jordan or even Egypt are all that stable these days.
-
We could put them back to the Stone Age, from the air. It is unclear whether presently we have the ordnance in inventory, however. It would take about ninety days, minimum, to build it up.
Should we is a different matter altogether.
Behind the scenes support for terrorists is one thing. If they were to openly support them, via proof, now THAT, ladies and gentleman, is another issue altogether.
-
re: "It would take about ninety days, minimum, to build it up"
it would take 90 days to build up supply?
thats not really all that much when you consider the upsides of destroying the Islamic Republic's military
-
Meanwhile, the would-be inheritors of the fire are attending bake sales in Iowa and New Hampshire.
-
Bombing Iran, which is considered to be a democracy by many Muslims, would lose all credibility with the people of all the Muslim countries and with the rulers of all but perhaps Saudi Arabia.
Think upon this: if Canada were invaded by a country who had previously meddled hugely in US politics, would not the US feel it had a right to affect the possible future government of Canada?
The US cannot hope to defeat and control the entire Muslim and Arab world. Not even the parts of it that have oil. We can't presentl;y control Iraq, with 22 million. How could they possibly cause Iran to have a friendly government if we destroyed their military?
Not that I am convinced they even have the power to do that.
-
We can't presentl;y control Iraq, with 22 million.
Since when was that the goal?
-
The goal has ALWAYS been to control Iraq. Saddam had to be removed because Saddam could NOT be controlled (by bribery, like the Saudi royals and Mubarak, or intimidation, like Syria and the Emitrates). Originally, the idea was to set up a puppet government that would cut a big break to US oil companies. After all, Saddam was not at all competent at pumping his oil and there was a lot of waste, and he didn't have ther newer technology that permits more oil to be extracted faster with less damage to the fields. Big Oil figured that they could do the job more efficiently and since Saddam & Co. got most of the money, they could even make the average Iraqi more prosperous. It didn't work, because Iraqis are not as materialistic as Big Oil guys, and repaying old debts is more important to many Iraqis to the exclusion of all else.
Now they idea is to have enough control over Iraq so as to turn it over to Iraqis who can be trusted to hate Al Qaeda and not to screw with Israel or Big Oil.
If the US were not interested in control in Iraq, they would just leave.
Anarchy, you say. Yes, but anarchy is what happens when no one is in control.
I bet you think that this was some great altruistic venture on behalf of St Juniorbush of Midland, patron saint of democracy.
-
re: "It would take about ninety days, minimum, to build it up"
it would take 90 days to build up supply?
thats not really all that much when you consider the upsides of destroying the Islamic Republic's military
Well, a question from one of the few sane contributors. Son, I salute you.
I guessed, based upon my own experience. Some ordnance is more dififcult to replace, in time, than others. Cruise miissiles are complex devices and so take a bit. Daisy cutters are rare and the manufacturing line basically inactive and so on.
It is of course easier if you can exert executive mandate as in commandeering FedeX 767s. Cannot do that with daisy cutters.
-
Okay, perhaps all the weapons used to wipe out Iran's military can be made in 90 days. But where does the money to pay for this come from? Do we borrow more from the Chinese?
Suppose Iran's military is wiped out. Now what?
There will be refugees. Where will they go? Iraq? Afghanistan? Will they be disposed to support the US in any way at all?
The US is already loathed by most people in the Middle East and many in Europe as well. Bombing Iran, a sovereign state that has an absolute right to build whatever sort of energy plants and weapons that it wishes, is not going to go over well anywhere. We might get some support from the Marianas and Israel, but that's it.
This is an unspeakably stupid idea economically, politically and militarily.
-
Bombing Iran, which is considered to be a democracy by many Muslims, would lose all credibility with the people of all the Muslim countries and with the rulers of all but perhaps Saudi Arabia.
Think upon this: if Canada were invaded by a country who had previously meddled hugely in US politics, would not the US feel it had a right to affect the possible future government of Canada?
The US cannot hope to defeat and control the entire Muslim and Arab world. Not even the parts of it that have oil. We can't presentl;y control Iraq, with 22 million. How could they possibly cause Iran to have a friendly government if we destroyed their military?
Not that I am convinced they even have the power to do that.
However, you make the typical liberal mistake of assuming WE GIVE A SHIT! F--k 'em! We do what is right! They don't like it, take it up with God. Oh, that's right, they don't have one. In that case, sit back and take your crap like good little boys and girls. When I grew up, all us boys knew who could whup our ass and whose we could whup. Perhaps they need to be taught a lesson in pack mentlaity. You wanna join, you work with the big boys or sit back and shut the f--k up.
Look, I'm for leaving 'em alone as long as they do likewise. Don't need the hassle. There are enough asses in the world to deal with anyway. The ones that play the game (the "game" being decided by whoever has the biggest ----), can reap the benefits. Those that don't, oh well..thier loss. Of course, the UN was created so the little dogs cna cooperate and disturb this balance of nature. Then again, it rarely works either.
-
It is clear that you don't give a shit. But you forget that you are some sort of Neanderthal troglodyte goon that pretty much any educated person tends to disparage and despise, and rightly so.
Iran has a greater stake in a stable Iraq than the US, in the same way that the US has a greater stake in a stable Mexico.
Within 10 years, the US will have left Iraq, and outr only reminders of this grossly stupid blunder will be all the legless, armless, blind and insane vets that Juniorbush has destroyed through his immense stupidity.
Iran, however, will continue to have a border with Iraq, and will be one of two majority Shiite nations on the planet.
-
Okay, perhaps all the weapons used to wipe out Iran's military can be made in 90 days. But where does the money to pay for this come from? Do we borrow more from the Chinese?
Suppose Iran's military is wiped out. Now what?
There will be refugees. Where will they go? Iraq? Afghanistan? Will they be disposed to support the US in any way at all?
The US is already loathed by most people in the Middle East and many in Europe as well. Bombing Iran, a sovereign state that has an absolute right to build whatever sort of energy plants and weapons that it wishes, is not going to go over well anywhere. We might get some support from the Marianas and Israel, but that's it.
This is an unspeakably stupid idea economically, politically and militarily.
Suppose Iran's military is wiped out. Now what?
Ok, Darwin at his best. Who cares? Next?
There will be refugees. Where will they go? Iraq? Afghanistan? Will they be disposed to support the US in any way at all?
Now, THIS is too bad. If we can help them, fine. Or, pay countires closer to them to assist them. I am all FOR assisting women and children.
The US is already loathed by most people in the Middle East and many in Europe as well. Bombing Iran, a sovereign state that has an absolute right to build whatever sort of energy plants and weapons that it wishes, is not going to go over well anywhere. We might get some support from the Marianas and Israel, but that's it.
Don't care about what others think. You shouldn't either. Do your job. They don't like it, tough for them. Life isn't fair! Typical liberal platitudes. Only wimps worry about such things. You talk and walk from a a position of strength, always. Or, you suck it up and shut up!
-
Zey are Veeklings! Zey vill be destroyed!
Zieg HEIL!
================================
I suggest you hold your breath while you await the bombardment of Iran.
I doubt that even Juniorbush is stupid enough to bomb Iran.
You could also get the Marine logo installed in your eye. I doubt that it will harm your perspective.
-
It is unclear to me whether this will actually transpire. And, if you were to do it, it certainly doesn't make sense to advertise it ahead of time. Plus, if the Administration wanted to do this, they should have done it years ago before the facilities were hardened and additional anti-aircraft batteries implaced.
-
<<Don't care about what others think. You shouldn't either. >>
I beg to differ. The fact is the U.S. is not tough enough or rich enough to do the job on its own. Tough talk like yours is cheap, childish and counter-productive.
Sept. 11 happened because 19 guys whose thoughts YOU don't care about were able to kill 3,000 American citizens on their home turf, motivated by nothing more than hatred of America and armed with nothing more than box-cutters. So far the cost of preparing against a second Sept. 11 has cost you in the hundreds of billions. And others like them can strike again anytime, anywhere.
<<Do your job. They don't like it, tough for them. >>
As Sept. 11 shows, tough for you as well.
<<Life isn't fair! >>
But Sept. 11 shows a billion Muslims that sometimes it CAN be.
<<Typical liberal platitudes. Only wimps worry about such things.>>
Well, you are clearly wrong. Anyone who can read a balance sheet should worry about such things. Because you are not alone in the world, you are coexistent with - - and competitive with - - some very powerful players, including China, the EU, India, Japan and others. Your dollar is slipping badly against the euro. It would be slipping badly against the Chinese renminbi as well, were the latter not artificially maintained by the Chinese for their own purposes. The dollar drain caused by the "war on terror" alone is a huge drain on your dollar reserves and on your national wealth generally. A second front opening will cause you to haemorrhage dollars like blood. You'll be lucky to survive the dollar drain of the current war alone. It seems to me you ought to be desperately concerned to bring the current campaign to an end and to avoid any new fronts opening up. In other words, you need to be desperately concerned about what others think about the U.S.A. You've pissed off just about all the people that you can afford to piss off.
<<You talk and walk from a a position of strength, always. >>
Precisely. And what kind of "postion of strength" does the U.S. occupy, when a two-bit country of 23 million people without air power and without all the leading-edge military technology, can stand you off for FOUR YEARS (longer than all of WWII) with no end in sight, after you've exhausted all tactics including torture of prisoners and massacres of civilian populations? Wake up - - you are NOT in a "position of strength." You are a bunch of pussies, afraid to die, fighting enemies who are eager for martyrdom. You are doomed to fail in this venture and to blow your brains out, financially speaking, in the attempt.
-
mr perceptive, i think we should do it tomorrow morning if possible
i think president bush will attack (aerial) the islamic theocrats before his term ends
the sooner the better
-
We could put them back to the Stone Age, from the air. It is unclear whether presently we have the ordnance in inventory, however. It would take about ninety days, minimum, to build it up.
Should we is a different matter altogether.
Behind the scenes support for terrorists is one thing. If they were to openly support them, via proof, now THAT, ladies and gentleman, is another issue altogether.
http://www.zianet.com/tmorris/thuletimes1nov2001.pdf
I don't know why you think it would take more than two days , we don't have even a third of the bomb carriers we had when we were ready to blast the USSR on a minutes notice , but the Iranians are much less than a third of the challenge to destroy.
If we used the bombers that are ready already and used the bombs that are already ready wouldn't that be enough?
The thing that takes all the prep time and large transport is the land force , the Airforce is already where it needs to be .
-
mr perceptive, i think we should do it tomorrow morning if possible
i think president bush will attack (aerial) the islamic theocrats before his term ends
the sooner the better
I like the way this guy thinks, but it still would have been easier years ago. Less ordnance needed, as an example.
Cruise missiles would be the obvious ordnance of choice. The downside being, of occurse, that a cruise can't carry much HEAT. Then again, a thousand of them make a nice popping sound. It really does sound like popping corn when they hit in quantity. Lovely sound.
Silo-destroyers (e.g. "bunker busters") and heavier ordnance must be dropped from C-130s or B-52s, so that is a hassle. Can't remember whether the B-1 was fitted for this task as well. Does anyone else know? Those, the bombers, you could house and run 'em out of Diego or cross-country them from the central US if necessary.
You could do some real damage at low altitudes via A-10s, but I doubt that would be in the picture as you would have to first take out all their SAM batteries. I'm sure that will be part of the overall Plan, but in order to deploy anything more than high-altitutde bombing or cruise missiles, you would need squadrons of anti-SAM taskers, fighter and total air support (think total air superiority with E-3, etc.) That's an awful lot of hardware in the sky.
-
Silo-destroyers (e.g. "bunker busters") and heavier ordnance must be dropped from C-130s or B-52s, so that is a hassle. Can't remember whether the B-1 was fitted for this task as well. Does anyone else know?
Both the B-1B and the B-2 are equipped for dropping "bunker busters." I know there are already a large number of B-1Bs and B-2s in the Middle East - the former are being used in Afghanistan and the latter in Iraq.
-
Well,that, thern, does indeed make things a mite easier, if the ordannce is available. I'm surprised the B2s are deployed that far forward, but...
-
Well,that, thern, does indeed make things a mite easier, if the ordannce is available. I'm surprised the B2s are deployed that far forward, but...
Well, they're actually staging from Diego... But with an operational range on those birds of over 6,000 mi, they're well within range.
-
Well,that, thern, does indeed make things a mite easier, if the ordannce is available. I'm surprised the B2s are deployed that far forward, but...
Well, they're actually staging from Diego... But with an operational range on those birds of over 6,000 mi, they're well within range.
Oh, okay. That makes more sense. Iraq is too HOT for birds like these. Thanks for the info.
-
mr perceptive, looks like this may actually happen
iran without a military would be such a nice reality
(http://www.americansagainsthate.org/Wash%20Times%20Logo.gif)
BERN, Switzerland.
Sept. 3, 2007
After a brief interruption of his New Hampshire vacation to meet President Bush in the family compound at Kenebunkport, Maine, French President Nicolas Sarkozy came away convinced his U.S. counterpart is serious about bombing Iran's secret nuclear facilities. That's the reading as it filtered back to Europe's foreign ministries:
Addressing the annual meeting of France's ambassadors to 188 countries, Mr. Sarkozy said either Iran lives up to its international obligations and relinquishes its nuclear ambitions ? or it will be bombed into compliance. Mr. Sarkozy also made it clear he did not agree with the Iranian-bomb-or-bombing-of-Iran position, which reflects the pledge of Mr. Bush to his loyalists, endorsed by Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain of Arizona and Sen. Joe Lieberman, Connecticut Independent. But Mr. Sarkozy recognized unless Iran's theocrats stop enriching uranium to weapons-grade levels under inspection by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), we will all be "faced with an alternative that I call catastrophic."
A ranking Swiss official privately said, "Anyone with a modicum of experience in the Middle East knows that any bombing of Iran would touch off at the very least regional instability and what could be an unmitigated disaster for Western interests."
Leaks about the administration's plan to brand Iran's 125,000-strong Revolutionary Guards a global terrorist organization is widely interpreted as a major step on the escalator to military action. Belatedly, Saudi Arabia, the world's largest oil producer, has signed a contract with Lockheed Martin for the training of 35,000 elite guards to be assigned to protect the kingdom's widely scattered oil installations. With 25 percent of the world's oil reserves, Riyadh has earmarked $5 billion to train and field as soon as possible a high-tech force. Eighteen months ago, the desert kingdom was jolted by an al Qaeda terrorist squad that managed to penetrate the first two layers of defenses at Abqaiq, the nerve center of the entire oil infrastructure.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has now stated publicly his country holds the key to the conditions of a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki of Iraq, much criticized by the United States for his lack of leadership, and who has been deserted by half his Cabinet, is much praised in Tehran, where he has gone twice in 11 months to confer with Iranian leaders. Mr. Ahmadinejad also says Iran is ready to fill the power vacuum in Iraq following a U.S. withdrawal. "The political power of the occupiers is collapsing rapidly," he said, "and soon we will see a huge power vacuum in the region."
The United States is not alone in trying to prove Mr. Ahmadinejad's geopolitical weather forecast wrong. Saudi Arabia and its five Gulf Cooperation Council allies in the Gulf, Egypt and Jordan, are terrified at the idea of Iraq falling under Iranian domination.
Hoping to head off a U.S.-Iran military confrontation, European countries are still pinning their hopes on major Iranian concessions at the International Atomic Energy Commission in Vienna. Iran is back to cooperating with IAEA ? but only one comma or semicolon at a time. The three European Union countries acting as U.S. surrogates on nuclear matters with Iran, and IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei, detect progress where the U.S. sees only stalling. Iran is still resisting short-notice inspections of sites that are not officially declared nuclear facilities, and where secret nuclear work is believed to be taking place.
Tehran's only objective at the IAEA and the U.N. Security Council is to head off further economic sanctions from its major EU trading partners. Thus the mantra that its only interest in nuclear matters is as an alternative source of energy in a country already awash in oil taxes credulity.
Both the Bush administration and Israel are painstakingly fashioning a casus belli with Iran. For Israel, the training and weapons support Iran furnishes Hezbollah in Lebanon (now with more rockets of all kinds than it had before the 2006 war when it fired 4,000 into Israel) and Hamas in Gaza (now equipped with Katyusha rockets and a range of 10.6 miles), coupled with Mr. Ahmadinejad's existential threats against the Jewish state, are sufficient evidence to justify air attacks against Iran's nuclear facilities. And for the White House, there is daily evidence of Iran's Revolutionary Guards meddling in Iraq, from improved explosive devices made in Iran to behind-the-scenes dominance in the affairs of the oil-rich south.
Arnaud de Borchgrave is editor at large of The Washington Times and of United Press
http://
-
I find this silly beyond belief.
Iran's military has done no harm to any of you clowns, and threatens you not at all.
This isn't going to happen.
-
>>Iran's military has done no harm to any of you clowns, and threatens you not at all.<<
Oh come on. You must be joking. It's no secret what Iran has been doing in Iraq.
-
It's no secret what the US has been doing in Iraq, either.
I suggest that Iran has a greater stake in a stable and friendly Iraq than the US. It's not like Iran is likely to move to another neighborhood.
The US, however, will eventually depart Iraq. It is inevitable.
But the fact remains that Iran is not capable nor desirous of harming YOU in any way whatever. So your warlike claptrap is illogical and makes no sense.
Face it: this isn't going to happen, because not even Juniorbush is so utterly stupid.
Why don't you plot to avenge Viet Nam for embarrassing the US?
-
But the fact remains that Iran is not capable....---... of harming YOU in any way whatever.
True , so what was your point?
"... nor desirous ..."
Tha is very debateable , they are very likely responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Americans over the years and dozens recently , this is not a serious warlike treat , but it may be worthwile to swat the annoyance.
-
If Iran did anything to harm any Americans, said Americans were not in the US, but invading Iraq. They knew the job was dangerous when they took it.
There is no reason for the US -or anyone- to pick fights with those who have done us no harm. Richypoo and that Perceptive goon like to strut about pretending to be macho, and that would be okay if they were into paintball games or World of Warcraft. Not in the real world, though.
-
<<A ranking Swiss official privately said, "Anyone with a modicum of experience in the Middle East knows that any bombing of Iran would touch off at the very least regional instability and what could be an unmitigated disaster for Western interests.">>
I would have liked to know what the Swiss official thought the "unmitigated disaster" could be, and how he came to those conclusions, but it looks like the Washington Times (a right-wing publication of the Moonies) wasn't gonna go anywhere near that with a ten-foot pole.
In my own view, the targets are too hard for a bombing campaign to damage sufficiently, and Iran would definitely retaliate against U.S. troops in Iraq. Probably by missile strikes on their camps. Retaliatory bombing of Iranian cities won't stop the attacks but will enrage all Muslims, leading to more problems for America's puppet governments, up to and including overthrow. Americans have neither the cojones nor the manpower to follow up their air strikes with a ground invasion, so the net effect of the whole exercise will be to inform the world that once again, America has been unable to enforce its will by military means.
America's failure and the "collateral damage" to Iranian civilians will fuel new recruiting drives for "terrorists" and Islamic Revolutionaries in the puppet states, embolden the Iranian hard-liners for new adventures and strengthen Shi'ite communities as they become known as the spearhead of the anti-American forces in the region. Increased pressure on America militarily (including so-called "terrorisn") leads to further asymmetrical expenditures of hundreds of billions, weakening the dollar further.
A combination of weakened dollar, perceived military weakness and rising anti-American anger leads to sell-offs of U.S. dollar-denominated securities and even real estate. Oil prices are pushed through the roof at the same time by the threats of all-out Middle East war. Economic consequences for America could be pretty bad.
Oh, well. No one can say that America doesn't have it coming. Let's see whether George Bush is as dumb as he looks and sounds.
-
It's no secret what Iran has been doing in Iraq.
and many other places
huge shipmements of arms to American/Israel enemies
in reality we are at war with Iran
why "hold back"?
i think the sooner the bombing starts the better