Iran military option, consider some facts

page: 1
4

log in

join

posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 08:56 PM
link   
A lot of people on this forum dismiss the idea of the US planning to use a military option in Iran as their next phase of policy.

I want to use this thread to provide factual evidence to show this belief is wrong and that the military option isn’t just being considered, it is planned to take place. I’m going to be looking at actual foreign policy documents and American legislation in this thread, I am not speculating, I am simply connecting the dots.

The facts, taken together, paint a pretty clear picture where US policy is heading with the Iran question.

1- The internal revolution will not happen

People claim that the Iranian people are ready to rise up and take down the regime themselves. This is wrong because actual foreign policy analysts have considered this option, they did so back in 2009-

www.brookings.edu...

The people behind this document are high up in the NSC, the CIA, RAND etc, and this is what they have to say for the idea of some kind of coup as applied in Libya or as is being applied in Syria-



The true objective of this policy option is to overthrow the clerical regime in Tehran and see it replaced, hopefully, by one whose views would be more compatible with U.S. interests in the region.

The United States could play multiple roles in facilitating a revolution. By funding and helping organize domestic rivals of the regime, the United States could create an alternative leadership to seize power.


So they consider the idea, what is discussed above is basically the policy in Syria right now. Yet they conclude this will not work in Iran-




The biggest challenge to regime change would be its feasibility. For all its many shortcomings, the Iranian government is well entrenched.

Iran also has multiple centres of power, which would make a coup far harder to pull off than in 1953. Consequently, any plan to aid a coup would first require a major effort to build up American intelligence on Iran, which would itself be time consuming and difficult given the inherent nature of Iranian society and the paranoia of the regime.



What worked in 1953 will not work in 21st century Iran because the regime is ‘well entrenched’ and ‘multiple centres of power’.

Don’t just dismiss this as theory, these are the ‘experts’ on the matter, people behind this document are in the CIA, NSC, people even working in government making foreign policy. Basically, you have to take their word for it that regime change such as seen in Libya or in Iran during the 1950’s will not work. As quoted however, the aim of policy is to remove the regime to replace it with one more in tune with US interests in the region.

So with point 1, we already see what the aim is. We also learn an internal revolution leading to regime change is not possible.

2- New legislation regarding Iran policy-

Prior policy towards Iran has been one of diplomacy and sanctions.

To quote the NDAA of 2009-



A discussion and assessment of the commitment of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran to engage in good-faith discussions with the United States to resolve
matters of concern through negotiation.



It couldn’t be any clearer in the wording- ‘good faith discussions with the US to resolve matters of concern through negotiation’. Clearly, the policy legislation for 2009 was one of diplomacy.

So many people on this forum will argue that America has always viewed Iran as a threat when 2009 policy shows ‘good faith discussions’ and diplomacy was what they wanted. I think the foreign policy analysts paper from point 1 is interesting, because when we see planned 2013 NDAA policy, one begins to realise the influence these think tanks have in forming government legislation. A lot of work has gone on over the last 5 years in the media and through think tanks etc to convince government that Iran is a national security that and a military option is required.

So here is the link to the NDAA 2013-

Iran policy starts at page 560-

docs.house.gov...

Remembering the policy of ‘good faith discussions’ of 2009, we now get a much tougher stance-



Preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon is among the most urgent national security challenges facing the United States.




In order to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, the United States, in cooperation with its allies, must utilize all elements of national power including diplomacy, robust economic sanctions, and credible, visible preparations for a military option.


So from good faith disussions, we now have ‘credible, visible preparations for a military option’.



Nevertheless, to date, diplomatic overtures, sanctions, and other non-kinetic actions toward Iran have not caused the Government of Iran to abandon its nuclear weapons program


Not only is the US preparing for a military option, they also point out previous policy of diplomacy has failed.



DECLARATION OF POLICY.—It shall be the policy of the United States to take all necessary measures, including military action if required, to prevent Iran from threatening the United States, its allies, or Iran’s neighbors with a nuclear weapon-

maintaining sufficient naval assets in the region necessary to signal United States resolve and to bolster United States capabilities to launch a sustained sea and air campaign against a range of Iranian nuclear and military targets,



As with all preparations for war, the propaganda effort starts many years before, as it did with Iraq and now too Iran. But this is actual policy, and we have moved from the good natured diplomacy of 2009 to ensuring a naval presence in the region strong enough to ‘launch a sustained sea and air campaign against a range of Iranian nuclear and military targets’.

None of this can be dismissed, it is exactly what it is-

1- An internal revolution will not work as policy.

2- Legislation policy admits diplomacy has failed and that the US will prepare as of 2013 to have forces in the region capable of launching sustained attacks against Iranian targets, the first time NDAA policy has considered the military option.

3- American policy is heavily influenced by the Israeli Lobby

This video alone should tell everyone that the Obama administration is controlled by the Israeli lobby-



Above are highlights of Obama addressing the AIPAC 2012. He is swearing American allegiance to Israel.

((continued...))

edit on 9-8-2012 by Wonderer2012 because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 08:57 PM
link   
Do I need to continue in arguing what Israel wants to do to Iran?

weekly.ahram.org.eg...

Former head of Mossad-



In an interview with Radio Israel on 29 July, Halevy said: "If I were an Iranian I would take Israel's threats seriously. Israel's government now believes that it should carry out a pre-emptive strike against Iran's nuclear project, as soon as possible." He added: "All signs indicate that we are very close to the moment when Israeli jets are in the air on their way to deliver a painful strike against Iran's nuclear programme."


What the Israeli’s want is obvious, I know people will come in arguing this has been feared for years and never come to being, yet the propaganda effort and foreign policy plans take years to chip away at the decision makers in government.

It works in stages. The Israeli lobby, which is influential in American government and has a large hand in the media, has applied the idea of an Iranian nuclear weapon for years. The propaganda hasn’t changed, but the actual stance of US government has shifted greatly over the last 5 years as this thread shows.

We go through policy stages with diplomacy as late as 2009. In 2012 we have had very strict economic sanctions, as set as policy by the NDAA for this year. As we head towards the policy set for 2013, under the influence of the Israeli lobby who have endlessly pushed the Iran threat, diplomacy is seen as failed policy, with the military option now very close.

As the year progresses, we only have speculation, but I think the above facts speak for themselves.

Whether Israel attacks Iran before the end of the year? That seems possible. We could also see a false flag to be blamed on Iran, the ’Path to Persia’ document from point 1 (if you check the thread I linked) refers multiple times to an Iranian act of aggression to justify a military response, they even go on to say the deadlier the better-



For that reason, it would be far more preferable if the United States could cite an Iranian provocation as justification for the airstrikes before launching them. Clearly, the more outrageous, the more deadly, and the more unprovoked the Iranian action, the better off the United States would be


There are many things that could happen in the next 6 months or so, but if you still don’t believe America is preparing for the military option against Iran, then personally I would argue nothing would persuade you



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 08:58 PM
link   
This is enough evidence for me.

Why would a four star general put his neck out there for lies?




posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 09:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Wonderer2012
 


falaggg for the subject....
everyone....lose the worldly view, get the Scriptural view.....it says Israel is the center of History, and then to add on top of that, the results are already written down and going to a "T", for timing and accuracy

Did you know one can with the flow or against.
edit on 9-8-2012 by GBP/JPY because: capital h for His story, for that's what this reality is.....His story



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 09:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Wonderer2012
 


Regardless what "they" say all of the people I know think we need to stay out of Iran, and stop nannying israel.
War is no longer popular.



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 09:26 PM
link   
Why would Wesley Clark lie? Oh.. Perhaps because he's a politician with a military record. He ran for President in 2004 as a total disaster. Tried inserting himself to get picked for a Veep slot in 08 and got ignored...but did get rebuked for attacking McCain's war record. (Now THAT takes some doing.. even most Dems respected McCain on THAT little point)

This guy's a has been and wasn't much when he 'was'. His greatest claim to fame was leading NATO Forces in the war over Kosovo. I'd have quietly retired with as much disgrace as anything to remember fondly if I'd been him after that career topper...but not 'ol Wesley.


The funny thing is, I agree with about half of what the OP says too....which means I tend to agree with some of what Clark says as well. That tells me he's on target at least a little of the time, but not enough.
lol.... The mastermind of Kosovo is going to lecture anyone on Military realities... What happened to Old General's fading away?? He's taking too long to fade, IMO.



posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 12:04 AM
link   
Israel are the ones who will bring the collapse of the USA simply by bombing Iran and then running like cowards while the USA get caught up in another war. Israel should return to page 10 or so of the bible and stay their in the mythical world.



posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 12:31 AM
link   
What EXACTLY has got your nickers twisteed about ole Wes?
He seemed like a pretty stable guy......poor soldier?
or poor command structure?
First rate troops ? perhaps not hey?
A general is only as good as the troops he commands.....and by the way...does any generaql get the chance to command ?
its usually the bass asses that pull the generals strings these days....



posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 05:42 AM
link   
Just for once, I would appreciate some comments on my OP rather than unrelated comments related to the very first reply.

This forum has become a waste of time and effort.



posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 06:08 AM
link   
Iran is not the problem!



posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 02:43 AM
link   
if you want ww3 invade Iran



posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 02:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by g146541
reply to post by Wonderer2012
 


Regardless what "they" say all of the people I know think we need to stay out of Iran, and stop nannying israel.
War is no longer popular.


Sounds like a false flag to get the masses crying for blood.is on the agenda. Other than that,

I agree with you wholeheartedly, I will lose any semblance of faith in anyone in Washington if we actually join Israel in any military action. Our military could solve that problem by arresting the domestic threat in the oath they took when enlisting.

I don't know why they haven't done so already.





new topics
top topics
 
4

log in

join