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.

 

Timeline of The Plan To Attack Iran

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 04:33 PM
link   
In october 2007, a white house source leaked the news that plans were being made to use Israeli missile stirkes against Iran as a precursor to a US attack.


In the scenario concocted by Cheney's strategists, Washington's first step would be to convince Israel to fire missiles at Iran's uranium enrichment plant in Natanz. Tehran would retaliate with its own strike, providing the US with an excuse to attack military targets and nuclear facilities in Iran.

This information was leaked by an official close to the vice president. Cheney himself hasn't denied engaging in such war games. For years, in fact, he's been open about his opinion that an attack on Iran, a member of US President George W. Bush's "Axis of Evil," is inevitable.

Given these not-too-secret designs, Democrats and Republicans alike have wondered what to make of the still mysterious Israeli bombing run in Syria on Sept. 6. Was it part of an existing war plan? A test run, perhaps? For days after the attack, one question dominated conversation at Washington receptions: How great is the risk of war, really?

In the September strike, Israeli bombers were likely targeting a nuclear reactor under construction, parts of which are alleged to have come from North Korea. It is possible that key secretaries in the Bush cabinet even tried to stop Israel. To this day, the administration has neither confirmed nor commented on the attack.

source

This was followed by the rather embarressing news that a new NIE had been produced, that said Irans nuclear programme was peaceful in intent.

Russia signed a deal with Iran in 2005 to supply nuclear material for Irans new nuclear reactor in Bushehr, on condition that the spent fuel rods were returned to Russia, thus negating any ambition that Iran might have for building nuclear weapons.
News Report
This may have been the basis for the concerns raised in the 2005 NIE.


The 2007 NIE seemed to have calmed these fears as Iran continued to protest that its plans were strictly peaceful.

Things seemed to have calmed down somewhat until the alleged threats made by Iranian boats to US warships in the straits of hormuz.

At the same time, Bush was on a tour of the middle east where the rhetoric started to become stronger;

Bush said he and Olmert also discussed Iran's nuclear weapons ambitions and an incident Sunday when Iranian boats harassed and provoked three American Navy ships in the strategic Strait of Hormuz. U.S. officials said Iran threatened to explode the vessels, but the incident ended peacefully.

Bush said Iran continues to be a "threat to world peace."

The president said "all options are on the table to secure our assets." He said serious consequences would follow another Iranian provocation. "My advice to them is don't do it," he said.

source

In the meantime, israel and Palestine continued to swap casualties as they fired at each other, with both sides blaming the other.

As this was happening, Bush continued his mideast tour, continually repeating the phrase; "Iran continues to be a threat to world peace."

The earlier today, in an astonishingly arrogant statement, Bush declared some views of his own during a meeting with Saudi King Abdullah.


The US president said he told his host he still viewed Iran as "a threat" despite last month's US National Intelligence Estimate, which concluded that Tehran had shelved its nuclear weapons program in 2003.

The NIE, the consensus finding of all 16 US spy agencies, undermined the Bush administration's claim that the Islamic republic was actively seeking to get an atomic arsenal -- though it also noted that Tehran has refused to suspend uranium enrichment, which can be a key step in that direction.

"I defended our intelligence services, but made it clear that they're an independent agency; that they come to conclusions separate from what I may or may not want," said the president.


On the same day, it was reported that Israel had test fired a missile which may be capable of crrying a nuclear warhead;


Israel tested a missile on Thursday, prompting Iran to vow retaliation if the Jewish state carried out recent veiled threats to launch strikes, possibly atomic, against Tehran's nuclear facilities.

Israel is widely assumed to have nuclear warheads and missiles able to hit Iran. It gave no details of the trial. A defense official said it was "not just flexing its muscles", three days after Prime Minister Ehud Olmert pledged to consider "all options" to prevent Iran building nuclear weapons.

As oil prices rose almost 1 percent on the new Middle East tension, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who says his country wants only atomic energy, said Israel would hold off: "The Zionist regime ... would not dare attack Iran," he said.

"The Iranian response would make them regret it. They know this," he told Al Jazeera in remarks translated into Arabic.

Full Story


We can now see the plan, from its conception, to the point of execution - the only question which remains is will they carry it out and possibly take the world to the brink of annihalation.




posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 04:55 AM
link   
Iran today took delivery of the last shipment of nuclear fuel from russia needed to get the Bushehr power plant online.

I expect an attack within the next 6 months - barring foreign intervention.

It's possible that even russia would not attack Israel, if only because of western opinion, but if the US joins in the attack, then russia may become involved.



posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 05:04 AM
link   
reply to post by budski
 



I wouldn't be surprised if Russia does get involved, I mean they aren't exactly the wealthiest nation on earth and are just starting to rise up form the ruin the cold war left them in, and here we are the good old USA essentially attacking every major buyer of Russian military export...

they got a big stake in this outside of just being allies with these nations.



posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 05:11 AM
link   
And let's not forget Putin - he's not as vocal as other leaders because he generally does what he says he will, and he's a real old fashioned hard-liner.

I can't see them taking any attack which threatens their business and therefore their economy, lying down.



posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 06:24 AM
link   
reply to post by C0le
 


Honestly at the moment Russia is doing better than USA, oil money is flowing in faster than they can spend. A US attack to Iran would most likely generate Billions of more income than any military or energy deals with Iran. There is no way that Russia will back Iran with anything more that weapons testing in mind... they give some new toys to see how they match up...



posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 10:34 AM
link   
i'm not sure if this is prudent but the global credit crisis has put a cap on the amount of debt the bankers have been able to give out lately.

A war sure would increase gov't spending (GDP) and borrowing, and payments on intrest, probably leading to political decisions to hyperinflate currency's.

I sure as hell hope cooler heads prevail.

Not sure what this would do for Chinese and India standards of living which are on their way up, at least for the short term , as traditional western methods of banking and lending and finance make their way to town, and big to drown them in debt, but first blowing a few asset bubbles on their way (stocks, Houses 2?)



posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 09:36 PM
link   
They are doing better than the3 USA how? I suggest you brush up on your economics and take a look at the numbers.



Originally posted by northwolf
reply to post by C0le
 


Honestly at the moment Russia is doing better than USA, oil money is flowing in faster than they can spend. A US attack to Iran would most likely generate Billions of more income than any military or energy deals with Iran. There is no way that Russia will back Iran with anything more that weapons testing in mind... they give some new toys to see how they match up...



posted on Jan, 19 2008 @ 04:46 AM
link   
As far as i see money is rapidly flowing out from the USA and USA is heading to recession. On the other hand Russia is mainly debt free and has more money than in can spend... one is moving up, other is crashing and it's not hard to see who is who



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 03:39 PM
link   
New Developments


The former US ambassador to the UN says Israel may have to take military action 'to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weaponry'.

John Bolton said as the recent US intelligence report has dramatically reduced the likelihood of the use of force by the US in the coming year, pressure will be high on Israel to take action.

"If it [Tel Aviv] feels Iran is on the verge of acquiring that capability it brings the decision point home to use force," Bolton added.

The former diplomat said the balance of power in the region would dramatically change once Iran acquires nuclear capability, signaling a preemptive use of force before what he called developing an A-bomb by Iran.

Bolton said the pressure to act is intensive and the window of time available is narrow, claiming that if Iran builds the weapon Israel would be in danger.

source



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by budski
And let's not forget Putin - he's not as vocal as other leaders because he generally does what he says he will, and he's a real old fashioned hard-liner.

I can't see them taking any attack which threatens their business and therefore their economy, lying down.


Russia has changed from the cold war model to a more lords of wars capitalistic model. They see the value in just selling arms and not actually using arms themselves.

First thing is there will not be any occupation in Iran. We can’t maintain it and Israel just can’t do it. So this means it is an all air with some water war only. If it goes to a full blown war between Israel and Iran only then will we see large scale action from the US. That action will only be total ownership of the skies.

In the end it will be a stalemate no matter if nukes are used or not by both parties for once again occupation is extremely harder to do.
So my best guess is that once Bush is out of office we will see a thawing of Iran’s political posture towards the US and dialogue will start.



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 04:05 PM
link   
France is about to issue a new ultimatum to Iran.

Sarkozy is a Jew, and he is going to support he zionist state.



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 04:06 PM
link   
Russia may have changed her economic stance, but as far as threats and posturing go, Putin is a throwback IMO - and this means that there is always the chance he'll want to back up his words with actions.

What's possibly more worrying, is that Russia could take a leaf out of the capitalist handbook and use military force to back up or achieve it's capitalist ambitions and protect it's position in countries where it has a vested interest.

The use of force to protect or gain economic assets is one that the west has used with far more frequency than any other region - if russia decides to play us at our own game, there could be real trouble.

On the other points, I agree - there will be no invasion/occupation of Iran.
Air strikes maybe, ground troops, no.

[edit on 21/1/2008 by budski]



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 08:21 PM
link   
Here's a reasonable, if superficial, look at russia.

With their oil and gas reserves they don't look much like the sick man of europe to me.

And Putin is a bit of a nutter - but he knows where to draw the line so far.

The question is; does everyone else know where to draw the line as well?


[edit on 21/1/2008 by budski]



posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 04:58 AM
link   
Russia is just waching on the end of the day,they have their own problems with the rebels!and will loose millions if they attacked,

and mother Russia knows that their economy is get better and better,oil is flowing in,while America is loosing a slight grip.

What will Russia do like they did like always, make money out of arms deals,sit back and sell weopons.



posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 11:37 AM
link   
A fair point, but I must again state my opinion that russia is flexing her muscles with a view to taking her place again as a world power.

As a superpower, they may be finished, but I wouldn't bet against them coming back in a big way.



posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 01:56 PM
link   
And now the web "disruption"?


It appears that shrub wants to do this before leaving office.



posted on Feb, 8 2008 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by budski
A fair point, but I must again state my opinion that russia is flexing her muscles with a view to taking her place again as a world power.

As a superpower, they may be finished, but I wouldn't bet against them coming back in a big way.


I agree, except that if there is one superpower on its way down, wouldn't the next teir of powers actually be 'rising' to super power status because of the fall?

Russia and China grow in Power everytime the US loses some, don't you think?

We may not be as 'super' as we were a while ago, but unless the U.S. has the bottom fall out, I think the 'playing field' is just leveling out.

I just hope the fanatics on all sides don't turn their boxers into thongs trying to figure out the best ways to scorch the planet.
DocMoreau



posted on Feb, 8 2008 @ 04:42 PM
link   
I'm fearful of this as well. If Bush gets this started it will be all but certain that McCain will get elected. The Sheeple are going to turn to someone perceived as militarily strong. This would keep the Republicans in power and allow the international game of Risk to continue.

I want the names and addresses of everyone that voted this lunatic into office.



posted on Feb, 8 2008 @ 04:45 PM
link   
reply to post by DocMoreau
 


I agree - IMO, the US and UK need to get their priorities right and look after the people who pay their wages.
Oh, sorry - they already do.

That said, we are in a true global economy for perhaps the first time - and that means the wealth gets spread around as countries compete.

As countries get richer, they look to consolidate and continue expanding at a slower rate or they look to conquest.

For too long, US leaders have sought to use conquest to cover up faults in other area's - so people die because some oaf with too much ambition wants to be elected or re-elected.

Some politicians have yet to realise that war is an anachronism, and should be a last option rather than the second option it appears to be at the moment.



[edit on 8/2/2008 by budski]



posted on Feb, 9 2008 @ 11:06 PM
link   
yes I agree war is an anachronism, but in the US/UK it seems not to be 2nd choice but the first choice. This is because the corporations have outsourced most of the meaningfull jobs to cut costs and maximise profits for the few. The politicians are also to blame for following the edicts of a few rich people who finance their campaigns and buy them houses, yachts etc. The corporations are also to blame as they both have given us this toxic playing field to play on and are intent on supressing any new revolutionary thought or invention to maintain the status quo. All of the above want war, because war is profit and maintains the status quo.

[edit on 9-2-2008 by djaybeetoo]



new topics




 
1

log in

join