Massive attack on Iran any day now

      Home » World Terrorism » Massive attack on Iran any day now

Massive attack on Iran any day now

According to an article on the DailyKos, America is on the brink of war with Iran an event that can begin any day.

This also follows previous predictions, posted here, about date of the upcoming attack. Either that or its a massive bluff to force Iran to give up nuclear weapons, if its only a bluff, its obviously not working..

The BBC led off last night with this:
... Quote:
US contingency plans for air strikes on Iran extend beyond nuclear sites and include most of the country's military infrastructure, the BBC has learned.

It is understood that any such attack - if ordered - would target Iranian air bases, naval bases, missile facilities and command-and-control centres.

And just published, a far more ominous report from the New Statesman:
... Quote:
American military operations for a major conventional war with Iran could be implemented any day.

They extend far beyond targeting suspect WMD facilities and will enable President Bush to destroy Iran's military, political and economic infrastructure overnight using conventional weapons.

From Daily Kos
By netchicken: posted on 22-2-2007

I seriously doubt this is going to happen.

I am pretty sure that the White House knows that Hezbollah has a strong presence in the U.S. will cells in numerous major cities, D.C. and several transportational hubs. Hezbollah is the creation of Iran, and if we strike the main source of terror support (other than Saudi Arabia) the fifth column will strike back within our country.

Besides, I don't think our government has the will to actually do what is necessary anymore.
By Thomas_Crowne: posted on 22-2-2007

... Quote:
Originally posted by Thomas_Crowne
Besides, I don't think our government has the will to actually do what is necessary anymore.

I think you make a good rational analysis of this, unfortunately, even this die hard Republican fears we have a madman at the helm, which gives me little comfort. :(
By MELtdown: posted on 22-2-2007

I probably should add the Merchant Marines I am aware of currently making transports around the ports in the mid-east suspect it is in preparation for the hit on Iran, and this was prior to anyone speculating about it.
By MELtdown: posted on 22-2-2007

And the "stage" is being set now :(

... Quote:
Iran Refuses to Budge on UN Demands

sorry - can't get the link to work. :ba
By MELtdown: posted on 22-2-2007

Never fear, for TC is here! It is fixed. :dbguy
By Thomas_Crowne: posted on 23-2-2007

It gets more interesting.

Is there are relationshiop between the british pulling out of Iraq and the presumed attack on Iran?

Is Blair looking to minimise any casualties if the region goes up in flames?

Blair himself has said it is a bad idea....

... Quote:
Tony Blair has declared himself at odds with hawks in the US Administration by saying publicly for the first time that it would be wrong to take military action against Iran.

The Prime Minister’s comments reflect what British officials have been saying privately for some time, but also show a growing streak of independence from Mr Bush.

The White House was unhappy with the timing of Mr Blair’s announcement this week on withdrawing 1,600 British troops, concerned that it undercut Mr Bush’s efforts to shore up support for his troop surge on Capitol Hill while sending out “mixed messages” to the Iranians.

There is also talk that Bush could be impeached if it does go ahead...
... Quote:
One senior adviser to Mr Gates has even stated privately that military action could lead to Congress impeaching Mr Bush.

By netchicken: posted on 23-2-2007

It would be difficult for Congress to impeach president Bush for acting as Commander In Chief while he has martial law powers. While the citizenry may not understand that this has been the case since the Civil War (War of Northern Aggression for my Southern friends), those in Congress know that all they could do in this case is create a political three ring circus for brownie points from their liberal constituents.

Iran is VERY active in the region right now; they are already arming Syria and Hezbollah to the best of their abilities, their desire for Death to the West is no secret and neither is their desire to erase Israel off the face of the earth.

The main destabilizing force in that region today is Iran. The single greatest hindrance to Iraqi stability is Iran. Destroying their ability to continue their Jihadist push would snuff the fires that are already about to bring the region to huge flames.

Somehow, there needs to be a Come To Jesus meeting with Russia, too, for supply hi-tec armament to Iran as well.
By Thomas_Crowne: posted on 23-2-2007

... Quote:
The Syrian armed forces are being strengthened in an unprecedented way in recent memory with the help of generous funding from Iran. The Syrians are bolstering their forces in all areas except the air force, which has been believed to be weak for some time. The main emphasis of the efforts has been missiles and long-range rockets to compensate for the weak air force.

In addition to the overall strengthening of the armed forces in Syria, there has been a redeployment of forces along the front lines. It appears that the Syrians have moved forces closer to the border with Israel on the Golan Heights.

Syria's rebuilding of its military strength has also included test launches of ballistic missiles. Lately, the Syrians test-fired a Scud-D surface-to-surface missile, the latest version of a Soviet-era missile. The Scud-D has a 400-kilometer range and covers most of the territory of Israel.

In addition to the larger Scud-type missiles, Syria is in possession of two smaller rockets, and both have been supplied to Hezbollah. One rocket is a 220mm rocket armed with a cluster-bomb warhead, and the other is a 305mm caliber rocket. The range of these rockets is estimated to be several dozen kilometers.

The newest and most surprising aspect of the Syrian effort is taking place in its naval forces. In recent years the Syrian navy had been neglected, starting with the decommissioning of its submarines. Later, most of its missile boats came into disrepair or were not upgraded. The Syrian navy made do with the task of coastal defense, using Russian-made surface-to-sea missiles, some with long-range capability, in the area of the port of Tartus.

I'm sorry, what was that about the region going up in flames?

A relatively small fire can be used to prevent a major fire, and if nothing is done that is what we are going to see.
By Thomas_Crowne: posted on 23-2-2007

Everyone seems to be building arms as fast as possible, its going to go up like a huge bomb....

For an event that the Pentagon denies will happen, there is a heck of a lot of debate around about it...

SOME of America’s most senior military commanders are prepared to resign if the White House orders a military strike against Iran, according to highly placed defence and intelligence sources.

Tension in the Gulf region has raised fears that an attack on Iran is becoming increasingly likely before President George Bush leaves office. The Sunday Times has learnt that up to five generals and admirals are willing to resign rather than approve what they consider would be a reckless attack.

“There are four or five generals and admirals we know of who would resign if Bush ordered an attack on Iran,” a source with close ties to British intelligence said. “There is simply no stomach for it in the Pentagon, and a lot of people question whether such an attack would be effective or even possible.”

A British defence source confirmed that there were deep misgivings inside the Pentagon about a military strike. “All the generals are perfectly clear that they don’t have the military capacity to take Iran on in any meaningful fashion. Nobody wants to do it and it would be a matter of conscience for them.
By netchicken: posted on 26-2-2007

Matter of conscience?

What's their conscience tell them about what IRAN is doing and saying?
Who do they expect should do something to stop the threat that is growing, the threat that now combines athiestic amorality with psycho-religious fanaticism?

What do they think about Iran now saying their nuclear program "has no brakes"?

They should be offering to install "brakes" for them, rather than threatening to resign.

Come to think about it, let the Clinton-era promoted bed-wetters resign. Resign, not retire.
By Thomas_Crowne: posted on 26-2-2007

The fear in the Pentagon is by USA threatening to attack Iran and other open hostility on our part any nuclear weapons program may just get the boost it needs and may accelerate from a stage it would have been had we left them to themselves.

Either way we should exercise caution on how we deal with them.
By IAF: posted on 26-2-2007

I'm sorry, but call me stupid if you wish but I don't see how destroying their nuclear capability as boosting squat.
As a matter of fact, I would think that destroying the nuclear capability of an openly aggressive nation is exercising caution, and dealing with them in a manner they just might understand.

I don't claim to know exactly what it is that certain admirals and generals spawn from the Clinton era are thinking or what their fears are, but I do know from history what happens when indecision and appeasement rules the day.
By Thomas_Crowne: posted on 26-2-2007

Massive attack on Iran any day now | [Login ]
Powered by XMB
Privacy Policy