Neo-cons still preparing for Iran attack

Neo-cons still preparing for Iran attack

atimes.com

As the report put the matter, "It must be clear that any US-Iranian talks will not be open-ended, but will be limited to a pre-determined time period so that Tehran does not try to 'run out the clock'."

....This would be followed almost immediately by a blockade of Iranian gasoline imports and oil exports, meant to paralyze Iran's economy, followed by what they call, vaguely, "kinetic action".

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.bipartisanpolicy.org
www.bipartisanpolicy.org

That "kinetic action" - a US assault on Iran - should, in fact, be massive, suggested the Coats-Robb report. Besides hitting dozens of sites alleged to be part of Iran's nuclear research program, the attacks would target Iranian air defense and missile sites, communications systems, Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps facilities, key parts of Iran's military-industrial complex, munitions storage facilities, airfields, aircraft facilities, and all of Iran's naval facilities. Eventually, they say, the US would also have to attack Iran's ground forces, electric power plants and electrical grids, bridges, and "manufacturing plants, including steel, autos, buses, etc".

This is, of course, a hair-raising scenario...

As the article shows, just because Obama is aboard (assuming the BC issue is resolved), that doesn't mean it's going to be easy sailing for Iran in times to come. Not by a long shot.

Obama's decision to keep Gates and add Hillary as SoS, are curious choices indeed. Iran might find it was easier to deal with Rice.

The notion that it doesn't matter anyway who's President because they are just puppets of the NWO comes to mind. If that holds any water, the prime directive for Iran is not likely to change much, and on the contrary is likely to proceed at a more furious pace than ever, as Iran's capabilities develop. Iran is marked, and Ron Paul as President might not have even helped.

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

[edit on 3-12-2008 by TrueAmerican]

Originally posted by TrueAmerican

the attacks would target Iranian air defense and missile sites, communications systems, Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps facilities, key parts of Iran's military-industrial complex, munitions storage facilities, airfields, aircraft facilities, and all of Iran's naval facilities. Eventually, they say, the US would also have to attack Iran's ground forces, electric power plants and electrical grids, bridges, and "manufacturing plants, including steel, autos, buses, etc".

This is, of course, a hair-raising scenario...

Change Iran to Iraq in the above quote and that is exactly what we did in Iraq, and of course it worked out so wonderfully, we can safely assume that following such a scenario that Iran would end up much like Iraq is now?

Mistakes from the past do not teach, they inspire even bigger ones apparently.

Iran will acquire nukes, if they don't have them already..

No simple bombing run can stop that now...

All we can do is sit back and watch the inevitable

It is very difficult to say at the moment what will be the next move for the US regarding Iran. A war on Iran is certainly not going to benefit the US with the current economic situation.

Experts from three well known think tanks recently issued a report for Obama dubbed "Restoring The Balance - A Middle East Strategy For The Next President" clearly shows that Iran is getting very close to have enough Uranium to produce a raw nuclear bomb as early as the first quarter of 2009.

Experts: 2009 Iran's Year of Nuclear Reckoning

The New York City-based Council on Foreign Relations; the Washington, D.C.-based Saban Center, which is part of the Brookings Institution; and the Institute for Science and International Security report that Tehran is likely to achieve key nuclear milestones in the coming months. Iran is preparing to activate the first of two Russian-built nuclear power reactors at its new complex in the Persian Gulf port of Bushehr. When Bushehr-1 comes on-line (expected in the first quarter of 2009), Iran will have activated the first-half in what will eventually become one of the world's largest nuclear power plants.

However the report also says that a military strike on Iran may not be viable.

Short of a concerted military attack to destroy key atomic-related installations, ISIS says increased economic sanctions and US-led negotiations with Iran may be the only alternatives. ISIS estimates have in the past proven to be accurate, especially regarding North Korea and its nuclear program.

Both however conclude that at this stage, a military option for either Washington or Jerusalem is not viable.

The only options for both the US and Israel at the moment remains Economic Sanctions and negotiation. It is most likely that the world will have to soothe itself with a nuclear powered Iran.

Originally posted by RolandBrichter
Iran will acquire nukes, if they don't have them already..

If they are unable to arm themselves with a nuclear deterrent it is likely that Russia will arm Iran, perhaps they already have. Maybe this will be the "test" that Joe Biden warned that Obama would face when elected and in office?

The last thing the USA (and the world) needs right now is another damned war, however the Israelis will likely force the USA to take action.

Who pays for this war if it happens?

What will the costs be?

How long will we need to occupy Iran?

Do we have an exit strategy?

Sound familiar?

Originally posted by rattan1
It is most likely that the world will have to soothe itself with a nuclear powered Iran.

TPTB left the barn doors open for too long, just like North Korea and there WILL be consequences......maybe it was by design...

Originally posted by Walkswithfish
... we can safely assume that following such a scenario that Iran would end up much like Iraq is now?

Not a recommended assumption. Russian scientist loss of life will be a contention, but the Iran-Syria mutual defense pact may open a war on more fronts than expected. And Israel could be on the immediate receiving end of thousands of rockets. The Persian Gulf fleet had better be well out of range of Sunburns if this happens.

Mistakes from the past do not teach, they inspire even bigger ones apparently.

Well you say "mistakes." Mistakes to you maybe, but simple policy to the imperialists. The Iraq war was no mistake. It was intentional.

Originally posted by Walkswithfish
If they are unable to arm themselves with a nuclear deterrent it is likely that Russia will arm Iran, perhaps they already have. Maybe this will be the "test" that Joe Biden warned that Obama would face when elected and in office?

I'm not sure if it's in Russia's long term interest to arm Iran with nukes...the Russians have had thier eyes on that area for a long time... I think they are playing Iran

reply to post by RolandBrichter


I agree with you. Its not in the Russian long term interest to give nukes to Iran. However, lets not forget that The US armed and funded the Taliban to fight the Russian in Afghanistan and now its payback time.....

reply to post by RolandBrichter


What would be in Russia's best interest?

A strongly armed and well defended Iran would mean a very costly enemy for the USA.

US war with Iran.

Advantage Russia.

Do not underestimate the alliance between Russia and Iran/Syria.

reply to post by rattan1


Yup, those new hand held anti-tank missles Russia is exporting would do a number on an Abrahms or Merkava......can you say "Stinger"?

Originally posted by Walkswithfish
reply to post by RolandBrichter

 

What would be in Russia's best interest?

A strongly armed and well defended Iran would mean a very costly enemy for the USA.

US war with Iran.

Advantage Russia.

Do not underestimate the alliance between Russia and Iran/Syria.

I'm with you on that point, but Russia is playing both sides here....they are covering their interests in the region before Iran's......There is even evidence that Russia has a no nuke [weapon] deal with Iran...I'll see if I can find the link...

Ah Neo con sheeple reacting again.


You know I LOVE been simple. Hey neo con's how are ya? If you want a Iran war take a plane from Washington and go fight it

Don't ask us we the people, us humanity to fight each other again


Leave Iran alone, got it?

Well, kinetic attack would be appropriate term because I have a feeling that the US has had brilliant pebbles in space for sometime and that they put the rods from god up in the last two years. Obama will be a little late in not weaponizing space.

cant help but wonder if we strike iran during the obama admin. how the US population will react. i mean they elected him basically for "change" and to end the war, etc. that could be the breaking point for americans.
loss of jobs, recession, 3 war fronts, alllll the bailouts, thats not gonna sit too well. they better have a killer false flag planned to rally the support they are gonna need.

Originally posted by turbokid
cant help but wonder if we strike iran during the obama admin. how the US population will react. i mean they elected him basically for "change" and to end the war, etc. that could be the breaking point for americans.

Change= from Iraq to Iran/Pakistan? That IS some real change. Well hot DOG.

Better be happy there are not many South Ossetians in Iran. That could tend to upset a few people, as Georgia and NATO found out the hard way. The possible killing of several hundred Russian nuclear scientists in Iran could arguably invoke a stronger military response from Russia.

And part of the problem there is how do you remove the Russians without tipping off Iran that the attack is coming? You don't.

Originally posted by TrueAmerican

Originally posted by turbokid
cant help but wonder if we strike iran during the obama admin. how the US population will react. i mean they elected him basically for "change" and to end the war, etc. that could be the breaking point for americans.

Change= from Iraq to Iran/Pakistan?

That IS some real change. Well hot DOG.

haha maybe they didnt mean change from iraq to iran/pakistan, maybe they meant to "include" iran/pakistan

Originally posted by turbokid
cant help but wonder if we strike iran during the obama admin. how the US population will react. i mean they elected him basically for "change" and to end the war, etc. that could be the breaking point for americans.
loss of jobs, recession, 3 war fronts, alllll the bailouts, thats not gonna sit too well. they better have a killer false flag planned to rally the support they are gonna need.

There will be no change with Obama.

The Gates appointment: Obama slaps antiwar voters in the face

As to the reaction of the US population, there will be fabricated Evidence by the Intelligence to justify the war. Since the public have a very short memory, they will forget the whole episode of WMD in Iraq and fall in the trap again.

Originally posted by rattan1It is most likely that the world will have to soothe itself with a nuclear powered Iran.

Nice post rattan.

As to the above quoted, wouldn't that question best be directed at Israel? Can they live daily under the threat of a button being pushed by people sworn to destroy them? They have said they will NOT. No matter what. They do have that one tiny little problem of being a very small country that could not survive several nuclear blasts. A look from that perspective can help anyone understand Israel's position on the matter.

But overall the NIE's say that Iran has likely dropped their nuclear arms program. Little stuff surfaces here and there, but it's not like they've spotted the weapons ready to fire or something. They have very little evidence that Iran is continuing its development. So maybe the new US administration could start paying some more attention to intelligence, and less to agenda.