It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

US prepares for Iran war with split Nato

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 01:49 AM
link   
Following crucial debates in the US Congress in July, America may finalise attack plans against Iran, and it has got major Nato countries barring Germany to collaborate in the upcoming hostilities.

Top diplomats said that soon after France and Holland rejected the EU constitution in separate referendums, US defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld put in motion plans for a Britain-led Nato, excluding anti-American states like Germany, which is part of the group fronted by France, and other countries like Spain, Poland, Romania, Portugal, and the Czech Republic were brought on board.

“The idea was to keep out the Franco-German alliance, and work with other European states, who will generally accede to US plans against Iran,” said a top diplomat, and such a break in Nato will lead to further division of Europe and put the European Union in greater crisis

Diplomats said that while the primary aim of a Britain-led Nato was to gather up the requisite forces for an attack on Iran, a side aim was to deliver a body blow to the European Union, which was posing a challenge to the US’s hyperpower status.

But before the rejection of the EU constitution set the US firmly on course against a united Europe, America was greatly upset at the election of Pope Benedict XVI, because it had not been consulted, itself preferring a Portuguese cardinal, and diplomats say Joseph Ratzinger’s case was pushed by France.

link

Iran has nukes and some potent missiles(with Chinese and Russian help). Israel better be prepared.





posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 02:24 AM
link   
It would most likely be America alone, maybe with some help from Israel and thats all. And it wouldn't be a ground war, just air strikes over the period of a week.



posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 02:42 AM
link   
The credibility of that article is suspect.
The part about the side aspect being a body blow to the EU was a little iffy and then they talked about the US being upset over not being consulted on the new Pope and it really lost it's credibility at that point.



posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 04:09 AM
link   
Go check out the article properly, the article does not say assertively commit itself to anything about the pope issue, but just claims that some diplomats say such and such a thing.

[edit on 13-6-2005 by Stealth Spy]



posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 04:37 AM
link   
Its true that Americans wanted American pope, dont recall his name but saw talked about it and not to forget in US Christians pose huge influence over president and congress, its been stated many times that Christian partys have had effect on US aid to Israel for example.



posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 06:58 AM
link   
Not forgetting the fact of course that Iran does not actually have any "nukes".



posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 08:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kriz_4
Not forgetting the fact of course that Iran does not actually have any "nukes".


Thats isn`t strictly true.



posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 08:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Harlequin

Originally posted by Kriz_4
Not forgetting the fact of course that Iran does not actually have any "nukes".


Thats isn`t strictly true.

Nethiers the fact that iran actually have nuclear weapons.



posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 09:18 AM
link   
If the US would attack Iran it would overstrech theire capabilities. Im sure the pentagon knows that so they most likely wont.



posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 11:07 AM
link   
Our Navy and Air Force is not doing much at the moment, they are the main branches that would be used for a massive air strike against Iran, and perhaps some SF units.



posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 11:16 AM
link   
I seriously doubt the US plans to attack Iran anytime soon. Now that doesn't mean we dont' want to, it is just not a popular move at the moment and most of America would like to get their men and women back out of Iraq before taking on another battle. I also think that a battle with Iran would be done alone by us unless Iran was to do something to wig out the rest of the world like launch a nuke somewhere.

Iran is a thorn in our side but looking back at history, we did help to create that thorn and eventually we will deal with it. I do not think Bush is prepared to do much more of anything in his remaing term other than rattle the cages here in the states with domestic issues. Anymore international moves would probably occur with the next President and I suspect it won't matter whether that President is republican or democrat. If the US finds itself the subject of another large terrorist attack like 911, the party our President belongs too will be irrelevant.



posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Our Navy and Air Force is not doing much at the moment, they are the main branches that would be used for a massive air strike against Iran, and perhaps some SF units.

You still need boots on the ground, you should know that.



posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 02:36 PM
link   
I think we will prepare for a war, but right know we have to deal with Iraq. Also alot of planning goes into into wars, and we definelty will have to work with some Iranian's inside Iran, because we want to make sure will be hailed as heros not invaders.



posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 02:46 PM
link   
i might aswell save some money up
since the US currency which is alreday s**t will drop some more
thanks to Oil prices going up ( get a few bargins off ebay )


serious note i dout this since Iran isnt like Iraq some third world country which has endured more then a decade of miliatry decay

Iran has the capibility to cause serious damage to US forces and US bases


the only option would be to invade as just bombing a few places wont mean that their offences have been iliminated

and Israel would be stupid to join in as most of it can be flaternd with Irans missiles ( even with the arrow protecting them )



because we want to make sure will be hailed as heros not invaders.


prob by a few but prob attacked by the rest like in Iraq but on a larger scale with better armed insurgents



[edit on 13-6-2005 by bodrul]



posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 05:12 PM
link   
Maybe your not watching the news but for two weeks in a row the dollar was gaining on the Euro rather than “going down some more” and her in the U.S. the price of oil has been going down since beginning of April .
DW like I said SF we don't need 200,000 Soldiers for a massive Air strike(s).

The purpose of the air strike or strikes would be to stop or set beak Iran's development of nuclear weapons also to eliminate some of its offensive capabilities. If Iran was stupid enough to retaliate buy attacking our force in Iraq then the U.S. would have no choice but to destroy Iran.



posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 05:36 PM
link   
If the US did attack Iran, do you think there would be any reaction from the Shi'a muslims in Iraq?

I know they were at war for a long time but I can't see the Shi'a population in Iraq being too happy about there Iranian brethren being attacked.


If Iran was stupid enough to retaliate buy attacking our force in Iraq then the U.S. would have no choice but to destroy Iran


You could also say that if the US attacked Iran, they would have no choice but to attack US forces in the region. The way you word it makes it sound as if the US would be being backed into a corner while the reality would be that it is a situation of their own making.



posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 05:43 PM
link   
On-Topic:

I can't see any harm in excluding France and Germany from this. They wouldn't go along with it anyway so including them would just be a massive waste of time and an open invitation for more diplomatic grandstanding. The only thing that troubles me about this plan is that it may push France and Germany into trying to accelerate plans for a full-fledged EU army.



posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
DW like I said SF we don't need 200,000 Soldiers for a massive Air strike(s).

SF wont win a war, they'll only do the jobs they can.


The purpose of the air strike or strikes would be to stop or set beak Iran's development of nuclear weapons also to eliminate some of its offensive capabilities. If Iran was stupid enough to retaliate buy attacking our force in Iraq then the U.S. would have no choice but to destroy Iran.

But the fact is they arent....we have no proof only "indications" and "in best opinions".
They happened in iraq and look what happened there...


Originally posted by Chris McGee
I can't see any harm in excluding France and Germany from this. They wouldn't go along with it anyway so including them would just be a massive waste of time and an open invitation for more diplomatic grandstanding. The only thing that troubles me about this plan is that it may push France and Germany into trying to accelerate plans for a full-fledged EU army.

The EU "army" as such would need UK consent, I do not support this we have no solid evidence that they have nuclear weapons...

[edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]



posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kriz_4
Not forgetting the fact of course that Iran does not actually have any "nukes".


That didn't stop us with Iraq, did it?

I'm perhaps a little too imaginative for my own good, but I can firmly see the ground work being laid out for another large war. This in itself isn't necessarily enough, but it seems to me that the US administration is trying to segregate Europe into those that are with us and those that aren't. Everytime I've seen this happen outside of political concerns it goes south.

So now France and Germany stand to be effectively alienated from the EU (if I understand the original post correctly.) North Korea is run by a dictator who might push the button if he doesn't take his meds. China is thrown around incessantly about getting into the fray if NK and the US get into it. Aside from the current conflict in Iraq--I agree with you blue cell, we should finish that before anything else is taken on--we are now looking at extending our reach into Iran. There's already a decent amount of anti-American sentiment in a lot of the world, and I doubt it will be long before we step on the wrong toes a little too hard.



posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Maybe your not watching the news but for two weeks in a row the dollar was gaining on the Euro rather than “going down some more” and her in the U.S. the price of oil has been going down since beginning of April .
DW like I said SF we don't need 200,000 Soldiers for a massive Air strike(s).


US will really accomplish something by sending bombers in



Originally posted by WestPoint23
The purpose of the air strike or strikes would be to stop or set beak Iran's development of nuclear weapons also to eliminate some of its offensive capabilities. If Iran was stupid enough to retaliate buy attacking our force in Iraq then the U.S. would have no choice but to destroy Iran.


destroy Iran ( bravo what a joke ) you can attack a country and invade it
but destroying the US arnt that barberic yet or am i wronge?


Originally posted by WestPoint23
The purpose of the air strike or strikes would be to stop or set beak Iran's development of nuclear weapons also to eliminate some of its offensive capabilities. If Iran was stupid enough to retaliate buy attacking our force


stupid enough to retaliate
what kind of reply is that?
if any country attacks another soverign country they have all the right to retaliate
against the people that attack them with all they have.


Originally posted by WestPoint23
The purpose of the air strike or strikes would be to stop or set beak Iran's development of nuclear weapons


what nuclear weapons?







 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join