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.

 

'Three-day blitz' plan for Iran

page: 1
24
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 1 2007 @ 10:21 PM
link   

'Three-day blitz' plan for Iran


rawstory.com

A national security expert revealed to The London Times that 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 the paper, one Washington source said the "temperature was rising" to launch an Iranian attack inside the Bush administration.

Israel has said if the United States back downs, it is "ready to attack."

(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Sep, 1 2007 @ 10:21 PM
link   
Is this just propaganda or will Iran be hit sooner or later?


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.



rawstory.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Timesonline News Link





[edit on 1-9-2007 by The_Coo]



posted on Sep, 1 2007 @ 10:24 PM
link   
I would say that a 3 day air campaign would greatly reduce the military strenght of Iran, without question. But then what?



posted on Sep, 1 2007 @ 10:29 PM
link   
I'd say baring some major concession by Iran, this quite likely to happen.

For all we know, the countdown has already began, or Israel has made a deadline, outside of which they will launch unilateral strikes on Iran, possibly hoping the U.S. will back them up despite the political implications.

Either way, a nuclear Iran is not something the western world should want left alone.



posted on Sep, 1 2007 @ 10:36 PM
link   
Didnt Bush say he would not tolerate a nuclear North Korea?

The same words he uses for Iran now.



posted on Sep, 1 2007 @ 10:45 PM
link   
I had thought it would have happened years ago and Israel would have delivered the bombs to Iran to dislodge Iran's plans to build anything offensive of the nuclear variety.

The planning of a strategic attack on Iranian nuclear sites has been discussed here and in the news for years, eg:

"CNN: U.S. planning for possible attack on Iran
White House says report is 'riddled with inaccuracies'
Monday, January 17, 2005..."
www.cnn.com...
*ATS: www.abovetopsecret.com...

The subject comes and goes depending on how dry the media becomes for juicy stories to attack viewers/readers it seems?
Though I feel the defensive-attack will happen, perhaps their (USA/Isreal) are still deciding or playing a waiting game as to which military will deliver the blow?

Dallas

Edit: added ATS * Link

[edit on 1-9-2007 by Dallas]



posted on Sep, 1 2007 @ 11:13 PM
link   
Came across this article while searching for news articles indicating an Iranian shiver of what may be coming,

UN Nuclear Watchdog Says Iran Cooperation Agreement May Be "Last Chance", 02 September 2007

www.voanews.com...

"The head of the United Nations nuclear watchdog agency says a cooperation agreement reached with Iran last month may be that nation's last chance to clear the air about its nuclear ambitions..."
____________

"Last Chance", hah.. time will tell.

Dallas



posted on Sep, 1 2007 @ 11:24 PM
link   
I doubt it will be only 3 days. Plans never survives the enemy. The neo-cons will obliterate Iran, bomb government infrastructure, bomb army, nuclear sites, civilian infrastructure like electricity, sewages, ect... all to create chaos (from chaos to order aka neo-con doctrine). They will reduce Iran to a third world nation, a failed state... something like Iraq now, but worse.

For the last 6 months, I talked to an iranian on an english-speaking forum, there was a lot of people bashing him... that's why he left the forum... but anyway, he was himself loving the occidental culture, and all his friends too. The iranian youth loves the occidental culture, they are sick of their government and the old generation being too religious, just like we are freaking sick of those in power right now. He affirmed that the bombing of Iran would turn the iranians against the occidentals for generations. When everything goes bad, people support their country against the aggressor.
You want to piss off the next 4 generations in Iran and create a real ``war of civilisation``? Bomb them.

And if they DARE to strike back, they will probably be nuked. At the very least, they will be called terrorists for defending themselves from someone who already overthrown their democracy in 53.

And that is just Iran. This will create turmoil in Pakistan, where the dictator could be overthrown, some turmoil in Saudi Arabia, even if they are sunni. More attacks in Iraq and afghanistan against our troops, if they even can get out of there. Syria will renounce to peace with Israël. Palestine will be awful. There could be an overthrown of the ``leaders`` of Egypt...

Then the economy... China... Russia...

THIS IS INSANE.

Then everyone here now knows that the Iraqis WMDs were BS, but they are falling for the same BS again... people are dumb.

Most of the Bush administration should go to nuremberg war crime trial. Seriously.

And it doesn't end there, if Bush doesn't do it, which I seriously doubt, most of the candidates will attack Iran, unless Ron Paul is elected.

It's not finish yet... do you know what riots are? Well, with 75% of americans for pullout of Iraq, you'll soon know and I hope people will protest against this other WAR CRIME.

If you don't oppose or even protest this, the world won't be able to just blame your government, but you also. The world will despise the american people for his weakness... but if you overturn the situation and you become the great leader of the world you once was, the world will forgive you for your bad actions. Don't do it for the world, do it for you, as a nation... if you're proud of your country, you should fight so it can have a great name which everyone respect and loves no?

Sorry for this long rant.


Update: Iran moves one step closer to war by changing the guy responsable of the country's missile forces

[edit on 1-9-2007 by Vitchilo]



posted on Sep, 1 2007 @ 11:54 PM
link   
One thousand two hundred targets, that seems a little excessive, especially for a quick three day plan, a plan lasting several weeks with more targets is likely. The coordination, logistics and assets required to pull something on this scale off are phenomenal. Even by my own personal list which includes economical, civilian, military, industrial and other critical infrastructure is not so large... I'm not saying we could not do it, just that it would take an incredible effort and amount of resources. This would require a build up similar to the one prior to Gulf War I. Such a build up would be noticeable and sizable. I would be pleasantly surprised if we can pull it off by using OCONUS units in combination with mobile assets and already in theater forces...

The POTUS has two months (plus some wiggle room) to use military force without congressional approval. I guess the aim is to use so much overwhelming force that Iran will not be able to respond, due to the time and scale of the destruction. In any case this would be almost an unprecedented show of modern US military force, one that might give too much away to more advanced enemies...

For intellectual enthusiasts however it will be a display of 'rapid dominance' like never seen before...

[edit on 2-9-2007 by WestPoint23]



posted on Sep, 2 2007 @ 12:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23

For intellectual enthusiasts however it will be a display of 'rapid dominance' like never seen before...

[edit on 2-9-2007 by WestPoint23]


Just like the 'Shock & Awe' in Iraq - but wait! - what then follows?

The US surely cannot 'afford' to do this, and I mean that in a cashfold kind of way. Resources are stretched to near full capacity at the moment.
Maybe the 'Sabre rattling' will do the trick, but somehow I don't think so.
The Iranian government and their religious leaders, will not back down from a 'verbal' battle.

Hearts and minds of the populace is probably the best way to effect change.






posted on Sep, 2 2007 @ 12:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by The_Coo
Didnt Bush say he would not tolerate a nuclear North Korea?

I believe the exact word was 'nukular'!


Anyway, enough of the words, if they're gonna do it, why not get it over with already! Dragging it out has the effect of spreading fear and discontent among the world's population. If they do it, and Americans themselves can see their leaders in their true colours, then the resulting uproar would almost certainly lead to revolution - which I think would be positive for everybody. Everyone would be hung out to dry, it would be brilliant. Going into Iran would be like cutting their own throats.



posted on Sep, 2 2007 @ 04:01 AM
link   
The "3 days" will turn into 3 years, then to an uncertain date for troop pull out of Iran. I don't know what Bush is thinking, but we can barely find new recruits to send into Iraq, so what makes him think there are enough soldiers to serve in Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan all at the same time, while protecting US borders as well?

[edit on 2-9-2007 by DJMessiah]



posted on Sep, 2 2007 @ 04:39 AM
link   
reply to post by DJMessiah
 


Well it talks about airstrikes, not an invasion. So I take it the plans don't include putting any troops into Iran in the first place, so there won't be any troop pullout date needed.

USA will just bomb the crap out of Iran then sit back and laugh as another helpless country crumbles.



posted on Sep, 2 2007 @ 04:48 AM
link   


USA will just bomb the crap out of Iran then sit back and laugh as another helpless country crumbles.


And meanwhile the Iranians will just sit back and suck it up?
You cannot win a war from the air alone, no matter how big a "shock and awe" bombing campaign is launched and shown to the folks back home 24x7 on the tv.
The troops on the ground will then have to face the likelihood of a ground engagement from Iran whilst having the Iraqis shooting at them from behind.
Needless to say it'll get very messy. Then there's the likelihood of land based units targeting shipping in the straits of Hormuz and surrounding area. Of course, I'd expect every patriotic flag waving idiot to immediately sign up and go fight the Ayrabs as soon as they hit back


Somehow I don't think the laughter would last very long.



posted on Sep, 2 2007 @ 05:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by UM_Gazz
I'd say baring some major concession by Iran, this quite likely to happen.

Either way, a nuclear Iran is not something the western world should want left alone.


I think your analysis is astute.

I have been assuming that the NWO folks have decided to schedule the next global conflagration after the 2008 Olympics in Beijing. I can't imagine that Beijing would like to scuttle all that effort. Though for pride alone they'd be willing to given some contingencies.

And when is the war in space with ET scheduled a la von Braun?

Some insist that the NWO folks are building a great new headquarters in ancient Babylon in Iraq for various reasons . . . some of them very evil, demonic related to that geography. And, that that's the reason for our super big embassy in the region.

If so, I can't imagine that Iran would be tolerated to keep doing what it's been doing . . . but who knows in such complexities. The NWO folks are on all sides of most issues--especially geopolitical ones. They likely set I'maNutJob up to his rantings and warmongering . . . only to take him out when it suits them.

In any case, a loose cannon on the world deck like that rabid character . . . the world could do without.

But I'd prefer facilitating an internal overthrow, personally.

War is really not a lot of fun except for the Patton's amongst us. But if it's necessary, then don't back down. And I'mANutJob sure has been working hard to make it necessary, it seems, to me.

It's all wrapped up in that Mahdi thing and his brand of Jihadi ridden Islam.



posted on Sep, 2 2007 @ 05:04 AM
link   
I have to say, if this is true, I fear it.

Yeah, this will weaken Iran, but Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and other Arab nations will explode. This has the potential to lead to a war between Israel and Syria, which could suck the US into another ground war.

The Middle East will become a bloodbath.



posted on Sep, 2 2007 @ 05:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJMessiah, while protecting US borders as well?

[edit on 2-9-2007 by DJMessiah]


What gave you the idea there was the least bit of interest in protecting the borders of AMERICA???

The North American Union seems to be a far higher priority of all the NWO greedy power mongerers.

Besides, gotta "earn" all that illegal drug money for all the dark projects . . .

I'm not a fan of Iran . . . but I'd sure prefer to avoid a global war as long as possible. Seems to me facilitating overthrow of I'mANutJob from within would be much wiser . . . messier? I don't know. Lots of collateral damage with massive bombings.



posted on Sep, 2 2007 @ 05:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by infinite




The Middle East will become a bloodbath.


BECOME a bloodbath? Well maybe the bloodbath will exceed its capacity and start overflowing if it hasn't already.



posted on Sep, 2 2007 @ 06:55 AM
link   
A plan on striking for three days, has to make you think, will the United States use a nuclear strike if its to "annihilate the Iranian military".

It will have to, if the plan is to cripple them from striking back. American cannot leave Iran in a state in which it could invade Iraq or strike Israel.



posted on Sep, 2 2007 @ 07:12 AM
link   
How many failed quagmires do we need to have worldwide simultaneously going on?

And how much more can the US financially afford?


I really hope this is just propaganda because the US governments ongoing campaign is a complete and utter failure.



new topics

top topics



 
24
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join