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.

 

Former CIA officer: US to attack Iran within 6 months?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 21 2007 @ 11:08 PM
link   


Fox News asked former CIA field officer Bob Baer on Tuesday whether the US is "gearing up for a military strike on Iran." Baer has written a column for Time indicating that Washington officials expect an attack within the next six months.

Full Article


Also:


Reports that the Bush Administration will put Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps on the terrorism list can be read in one of two ways: it's either more bluster or, ominously, a wind-up for a strike on Iran. Officials I talk to in Washington vote for a hit on the IRGC, maybe within the next six months. And they think that as long as we have bombers and missiles in the air, we will hit Iran's nuclear facilities. An awe and shock campaign, lite, if you will. But frankly they're guessing; after Iraq the White House trusts no one, especially the bureaucracy.


Full Article

This is not 100%, but it is still enough to look into. Whether or not USA
goes into war with Iran we should still prepare for a war.




posted on Aug, 21 2007 @ 11:25 PM
link   
OK, I'll play along.

When was the last time anyone from the CIA was right about anything? I no more believe this than I do the "freaking" weather forecast for the rest of the week.

The basic framework may exist for staging such an event, but the transport and staging of supplies, material and logistic support is not on-line. Such a large in project will take some serious gearing up. I don't believe that anything here in San Diego indicates them gearing up. They, being the Pentagon planners, might be sizing this project up, but the transport, supply and staging isn't rolling yet. At least not in this town. Believe me, you can tell when the boys are gearing up around here, because the ground movement and civilian transport businesses start gearing up. I haven't even got a twitch yet from anyone close to these businesses.

I wonder if they mean that the US intelligence services expects a strike against America in the next six months.

I agree that we should be prepared for the coming confrontations with the next wave of new Islamic Fascism.

[edit on 21-8-2007 by sharkman]

[edit on 21-8-2007 by sharkman]



posted on Aug, 21 2007 @ 11:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by sharkman


The basic framework may exist for staging such an event, but the transport and staging of supplies, material and logistic support is not on-line. Such a large in project will take some serious gearing up. I don't believe that anything here in San Diego indicates them gearing up. They, being the Pentagon planners, might be sizing this project up, but the transport, supply and staging isn't rolling yet. At least not in this town. Believe me, you can tell when the boys are gearing up around here, because the ground movement and civilian transport businesses start gearing up. I haven't even got a twitch yet from anyone close to these businesses.


Wouldn't the fact that much of our military equipment sitting in Iraq hide much of the evidence you are referring to here, I mean it isn't like we have to move much more over there, I live next to Fort Campbell Ky. and much of the equipment that left when Iraq was invaded has not returned yet, some has, but alot has not. many of the soildiers here say they will be gone this fall.



posted on Aug, 21 2007 @ 11:53 PM
link   
I believe that there would be a lot more civilian transport and support activity than I have noticed. Usually during a run up, like the first Gulf War and the recent Iraq invasion, and even the Viet Nam conflict, there were painfully obvious indicators showing a large logistics build up, mass amounts of civilian transport and support contractors falling over each other to fill the bills. The US doesn't have nearly the amount of carrying capacity as it needs to supply a large overseas expedition. Those disappeared after the end of WW2.

I believe that this whole scenario is a continuation of the "Proxy Cold War" from days gone by. The Iranians are tools for the East against our perceived "Hegemony" in the region. This is not a fight for "Hearts and Minds", it is a fight for global dominance and resources. It has always been that way and so it continues.



posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 12:28 AM
link   
Well he stated that it "is not a war", but a primitive attack on the guards, and
on the nuclear facilities. They do not need soldiers because they will be using
whatever technology is on hand.
I am not stating that there will be a war 100%, but this could get ugly if the
US does go in for a quick attack.



posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 11:37 PM
link   
It becomes a war when Iran retaliates , which is the point.



posted on Aug, 23 2007 @ 01:09 AM
link   
Bolton said he absolutely hopes the rumor is true, I wonder how they will get you fools into this war. I'm sure PNAC and the Neo-Cons are already praying for a new new pearl harbor, "God" answered their first prayer. I don't care what they do, ignorant Americans have only themselves to blame. It was Al Qaeda!!!!



posted on Aug, 23 2007 @ 07:22 AM
link   
Its simple. Iran wouldnt have to retaliate to start a war if they would just allow transparency in to their nucleear program. They have been warned and are being warned so they have their chances to come clean. If not, let the bombing commence. If they choose to fight back, so be it but rest assured their nuclear program will either be destroyed or greatly set back.

Cant have rogue regimes who threaten to wipe other countries off the map develop nukes. If they were just a little less belicose in their words and actions, they may very well have gotten thier nukes and the world would have turned a blind eye to them as they have other nations but their leadership has big mouths so they shot themselevs in the foot.



posted on Aug, 23 2007 @ 10:14 AM
link   
Wasn't there just a "troop surge" in Iraq? Aren't there 5 carrier groups in or around the gulf right now?

First let me say I completely 100% disagree with ANY idea of attacking Iran. Its just a bad idea. But.. this is how I see it playing out.

-Rumors that Iran is providing IED's to "terrorists" in Iraq.

-Bush declares the IRG "Terrorists"

-Something happens, either here in the US, or in Iraq that causes us to direct our full attention towards our new "terrorists" the IRG.

-Air campaign commences attacking IRG training camps, etc. Either by Air attacks or cruise missiles.

-Iran retaliates against troops in Iraq.

-The "next" war in the Middle East begins.


Sounds about right to me...



posted on Aug, 23 2007 @ 07:19 PM
link   
No there arent 5 carrier groups in the gulf. Most recently there were 3 but they all left for Guam for an exercise so there are currently NO carrier groups in the gulf.



posted on Aug, 23 2007 @ 07:35 PM
link   
I've recently seen the video where he indicated this would happen, I don't for a second doubt it, something is going to happen soon, it's almost inevitable. Look at Bush when you see him in the media, he always has that smirk on his face.
The reason we went to war so quickly to begin with is because the internet was rapidly growing and with the advent of cellphones with cameras and blogging and online video posting sites, the western world was just about to begin learning the reality of the middle east and we would have never agreed to go to war but now that the majority of people have learned a little bit more than they knew before 9/11 we're all stuck debating it over the internet and not motivated enough to even come close to the demonstrations we'd seen during the Viet Nam war.
Television has become the largest manipulation device known to man, and has the potential to be the direct cause of the fall of the west.

The worst thing is, we've almost been at this 10 years now [the war(s)]
and the world is now a more dangerous place. It isn't so much a matter of 6 months, but a matter of how much insanity can people take? many times while I've watched videos coming in from iraq it's gotten to the point where you can see the only thing keeping them there is their dedication to eachother and not their missions, nor the war.

When it comes right down to it, it's all about money.
Money = Power.period.
I have a video posted on my site that is a good start to learning about the Federal Reserve and Central Banking.
www.mindmankind.com...
We are living in scary times, a lot of things are coming to light and the world is either going to flop or emerge from the darkness.



posted on Aug, 23 2007 @ 08:27 PM
link   
OK, I'm going to go out on a limb and risk being called all kinds of names...here we go,

Is it inconcievable that Iran is actually just playing their roll in all this?...I won't go as far as to say our ally...but the argument could be made depending on your perspective.

If you beleive the whole NWO thing, then it makes sense to keep up the rhetoric between the two nations (Iran and U.S.) as it gives the U.S. a reason to be in the middle east in LARGE numbers via Iraq, and it keeps Iran in a strong posture (david vs goliath) among the Muslim nations that hate the U.S.

They both get what they want in the end...the U.S. wants access to oil reserves that she might lose control over should real democracy break out all over the mideast (read big business)...

Iran, on the other hand gets to enjoy the free protection of the U.S....think about it,..Iran is easily the regional powerhouse, but lacks the ability to exert that power much beyond it's borders...with the U.S. military in the region, Iran really does not need to project force...the U.S. will take care of any misbehavers...


ok, back to your regulary scheduled programming...just my 2 cents...

[edit on 24-8-2007 by deadbang]



posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 09:29 AM
link   


No there arent 5 carrier groups in the gulf. Most recently there were 3 but they all left for Guam for an exercise so there are currently NO carrier groups in the gulf.


My mistake. I was reading an older article about the exercise in the Hormuz.

However if I am not mistaken now, the Enterprise is still in the gulf. At least as of August 19th it was, along with the rest of the 5th fleet.

That is according to the US Naval Forces Central Command website.



posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 09:40 AM
link   
One thing is for sure, the recent attacks on the northern borders of civilians will make possible for the US to move troops or equipment in the name of securing civilians in the area.

So probably as we speak already US may have a built up in the northern and border areas with Syria and Iran.



posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 10:28 AM
link   
Unfortunately I don't think this is out of the question.. Maybe in the next six months, maybe in a year.

They've now been labeled terrorists.. we trying to impose new sanctions and demands on them as we did Iraq. Giving ultimatums like "you have to dispose of all WMDs" despite the absence of them, and now doing the same to Iran. Telling them to stop nuclear production meanwhile it's a very compromising situation to ask them to stop while we have nuclear capabilities.. as does Isreal.. Meanwhile the Iranian government wants to have public debates, has written letters publicly and we just deny it. (Granted I don't know if their government is honorable, it seems not that way, but that image is created by the same media which doesn't publicize the efforts of them reaching out)

It seems to be on the agenda. You turn on the tv and they're warning about Iran. You watch Guilliani and other future political leaders and Iran is the focal point. They'll talk about the "terrorist" threat, mention a few countries, and then explicitly mention Iran. The sad part is we all know who lets the news out to our country..



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join