US Military Weaknesses: Top Pentagon Brass reluctant to wage war on Iran

US Military Weaknesses: Top Pentagon Brass reluctant to wage war on Iran

www.globalresearch.ca

While US attack plans against Iran are in an advanced state of readiness, there are growing divisions between the military and the White House regarding these attacks.

"U.S. defense officials have signaled that up-to-date attack plans are available if needed in the escalating crisis over Iran's nuclear aims, although no strike appears imminent.... Among the possible targets, in addition to nuclear installations like the centrifuge plant at Natanz: Iran's ballistic missile sites, Republican Guard bases, and naval warfare assets that Tehran could use in a retaliatory closure of the Straits of Hormuz, a vital artery for the flow of Gulf oil." (AP, November 8, 2007)

These ongoing war preparations are consistent with official statements and political threats directed against Iran by the US president and vice president. On October 12, President Bush dropped a bombshell by intimating that the confrontation with Iran could lead to a "World War III". In a recent TV interview Bush clarified that the reason he mentioned World War III was "because this is a country [Iran] that has defied the IAEA..." This statement is a barefaced lie by the US head of State. The IAEA confirmed in an August report the civilian nature of Iran's nuclear program.

(visit the link for the full news article)

Interesting article on the mindset rolling around the military brass. I thought it applied to a lot of the ABN stories that have been popping up. I think it fits, do you all?

Cuhail

www.globalresearch.ca
(visit the link for the full news article)

Refusing to embark on a fool's errand is NOT a weakness.

if this iran situation were solely about the nuclear weapons,then why are such advanced plans being made to strike so many military targets unconnected with the nuclear sphere???.

oh dear, what little adventure are they getting themselves into this time.

reply to post by mentalempire


very well said !

Hey, I post here in ABN as I should by using the title of the article as the title of my thread. I would of named it differently, but, a Mod would of changed it back.
I don't see it as a weakness to refrain from falling for the same ole BS agenda the current administration is working hard to further either.
As for the "weakness" they refer to is this, from the same article...

The new chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Michael Mullen, who took office in early October, while broadly supportive of the White House, has acknowledged US military weaknesses. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan "may have undermined the military's ability to fight wars against major adversaries - including Iran." ( quoted in Haaretz, October 22, 2007).

For a while now I couldn't help but to see that Iraq and Afghanistan provide two fronts to Iran. Add to that, Bush proclaimed Iran to be in the "Axis of Evil" right before(?) we started blasting Iraq. Strategic maneuvering, I thought, was apparent. So, even though we have Iran already surrounded, the brass is worried we couldn't pull it off.

GOOD! Let's not.

Cuhail

Originally posted by wierdalienshiznit
if this iran situation were solely about the nuclear weapons,then why are such advanced plans being made to strike so many military targets unconnected with the nuclear sphere???.

oh dear, what little adventure are they getting themselves into this time.

Because if the US attacks the nuclear places, then Iran is sure going to go off and start defending themselves. Thus if the military were to attack multiple locations, it assures (to a point) that they cannot move as quickly and must backbuild from other bases.

Also, attacking the naval assets assures that we can still get oil through. Attacking the bases also puts their military in a down state of emotion knowing they are getting attacked.

It's a thought out plan. The military has a plan for everything (contrary to popular belief). It may get modified as they need, but at least a basis for what to go for.

Just because there is a plan to attack Iran, doesn't mean it will get used. I wouldn't doubt if there was a plan to attack any country. I mean, wouldn't you as a country want to have a plan of attack if something happened? It's planning ahead, which is great. This is why things are classified, because the public sees "plan for attack" and goes nuts. Having a plan is not a bad thing. It's a good thing, as long (this plan about Iran) doesn't get used.

To invade Iran, they would need nukes or a draft. But to just bomb it to the stone age, they could do that pretty much with air power, assuming China and Russia don't add their two cents.

I really hope this does not happen.