. . . a source with close ties to British intelligence said.
I'm not impressed.
Posted by Don Bacon at February 24, 2007 11:15 PMIt kind of looks like things have already started with Iran. Over the last couple of weeks or so there have been a series of bombings and what might have been at least one atempt on Iran's own personal religious nut job(five body gaurds were hurt). A Iranian helicoptor was also shot down with some leaders of the Revolutionary Guard on board. I think there was 17 killed. Point being that with all of the naval hardware in the Persian Gulf things could blow up really, really fast.
Posted by southdakotaboy at February 24, 2007 11:15 PM My personal read on this is the our special forces and CIA have been in touch with alot of angry minorities in Iran. The goal might be to either cause Iran to pull resorces out of Iraq or to set up a Gulf of Tonkin like incident.
In support of the first idea look how well it meshes with the troop surge. I mean here for the last several weeks we have been hearing about alot of our choppers being shot down. Now all of a sudden things start happening in Iran.
On the other hand for months we have been hearing about how the administration would use the Navy and/or Airforce to take out Iran's nuke program. What could be more perfect than provoking Iran into an attack that we could plausibly deny was provoked.
And on top of it all Israel is starting to ask permission to overfly Iraq.
southdakotaboy, what Sam Gardiner has written on our site makes me believe that the US is deliberately provoking Iran so they can have an excuse for war. We live in very worrying times when the military leadership has to seriously consider quitting to be true to their oath to protect and defend the United States. I think the surge is definitely part of the front they are using to hide their plans.
Posted by Mary at February 25, 2007 12:17 AM
Let me put it like this: bin Laden is winning.
h
Posted by h at February 25, 2007 01:27 AMHow?
Our idiot right wing fellow citizens voted them into office {kind of}. The discouraging thing is that a great many of them still think he is doing the right thing and would vote for him again. Nothing in the world {or Congress} is going to stop him, and if you think "three or four generals" would be willing to resign over this I have some WMDs I' like to sell you--cheap.
Posted by rrjohnson at February 25, 2007 01:52 AMSorry, I guess that's "four or five" generals. All the more ludicrous. Would that it were so.
Posted by rrjohnson at February 25, 2007 01:56 AMImpeach the Mofo from Midland. He's utterly insane.
Posted by Christopher at February 25, 2007 04:04 AMOnce again, the military should be supported in their supposed hesitancy in violating the Constitution by quickly passing a resolution that ANY attack on Iran must be authorized by the Congress, and that any order to attack Iran without such authorization is an illegal order.
Let's see what General FlyBoy and the Christianist Airforce thinks of that situation.
Posted by euzoius at February 25, 2007 05:47 AMToo bad the military can't remove Little Boots from the White House in chains and send him to a Federal prison.
Posted by Christopher at February 25, 2007 06:03 AMThe reality is that Bush & Dick will probably walk away from this in 2009 pretty much with no penalty.
The Democrats seem unwilling to do anything about it.
Posted by Alex at February 25, 2007 06:19 AMI simply don't believe there are enough senior U.S. military officers with sufficient honor to actually resign instead of carrying out Cheney's orders. They are much more likely to salute and do what they're ordered to and then loudly announce about how opposed they were after they retire.
Posted by RAM at February 25, 2007 06:26 AMAs Speaker Pelosi said, "Impeachment is off the table." Much better to spend the next 22 months on hearings and investigations.
Posted by Christopher at February 25, 2007 06:30 AMdo you think these military folks are talking to the speaker and head of the senate about this matter? should we expect the mass resignation of more of our career military folks?
our government has all ready done enough to be taken out for their crimes. they have certainly done enough to be detained so that they can no longer order the deaths of any more people. they have certainly warranted charges for crimes and misdemeanors
and yet....... nothing. so as long as we have nothing but talk, we will just talk.
the military have 2 choices. further complicity, or an end to the madness. what are they going to do? wonder what they are thinking?
Posted by oldtree at February 25, 2007 06:33 AMThe military has a sworn duty to protect this country. There's no greater threat to the USA than George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.
Posted by Christopher at February 25, 2007 06:39 AMDon't you imagine though that all administrations have had such plans for countries that they deemed imminent threats? Having said that, I don't doubt for a minute that this delusional, serial liar with his messianic visions has intended since before being handed our country by the supreme court to attack Iran.
Posted by Via at February 25, 2007 07:10 AMThe US air force is regarded as being more willing to attack Iran.
Maybe they're trying to lure Bush into giving the orders, forcing the Gens. to resign, leading to Bush's impeachment and Cheney's final heart attack, putting Nancy in the Presidency and allowing us to back off, pull out of Iraq, and rebuild our military.
A guy can dream, can't he?
Posted by Flamethrower at February 25, 2007 07:25 AMIf you really want to make your head spin, take these two things into account: first, the BBC is reporting Iran may have successfully put a missile into space and the Brits are all concerned that "they have mastered" missile technology enough to destabilize the Middle-East. That's pretty straight-forward "be very afraid" reporting. Then go read Sy Hersh's new piece at The New Yorker (online) webpage where he describes his latest findings on the shifting sands of the entire region.
I have a headache.
Posted by gtash at February 25, 2007 07:59 AMYou have "Seymour Hersh is reporting things are in place for an attack on Iraq" -- you mean IRAN.
Posted by mudduck at February 25, 2007 08:44 AMthanks for the correction, mudduck.
Posted by Mary at February 25, 2007 09:04 AMgtash, Iran is stating that it's a sub-orbital rocket, not something that's been launched into orbit.
I'm apt to believe that more than Iran has figured out how to launch an ICBM (which is what all rockets capable of launching something into orbit are, really). It follows the patterns of most states: "We have great new technology! We're space-faring!" Then, the fine print comes out: "Well, not quite space-faring, but we can put it up in the air real high!"
There is a world of difference between throwing something into space that can fall straight back down and being able to send something into orbit.
There's an even larger difference beween putting something into orbit and controlling that orbit, which is the point at which a space program has the ability to build ICBMs.
Shit, if Iran had figured out how to launch an ICBM, I might switch sides of the aisle and start calling for bombing Tehran, immediately. But I don't think they did, and all reports seem to indicate they did not, and I'm still for talking with Tehran, not bombing them in any way.
What Iran really just did was to throw gas on a smoldering fire. BushCo isn't the only nutjob pushing for conflict. He seems to have willing partners on the other side. Madmen. The whole lot of them, bloodthirsty idiots. Is it too much to ask for some sane leaders in the U.S. and abroad?
Posted by Brian Bell at February 25, 2007 09:36 AMIt's not surprising our air force leaders believe air power can achieve in SW Asia the strategic victory no air attack in history has achieved anywhere. Most, but not all, wing wipers are a delusionally arrogant lot ignorant of their limited military utility. A lot like the national security elite fouling our national interest and the trolls our political discoure.
Speaking of attacking Iran, here's a Pat Lang gem from July '06:
"At the strategic level, the IDF under Halutz is following classic "Air Power" theory which holds that crushing the "Will of the People" is the correct objective in compelling the acceptance of one's own "will" by an adversary or neutral."
Now I "get it." by Pat Lang, Sic Semper Tyrannis, 23 July, 2006
http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2006/07/post.html
Since Israel's second Lebanon disaster last summer is our template to attack Iran and that worked out so well for them, what's LG Dan Halutz doing now?
Posted by Pvt. Keepout at February 25, 2007 09:37 AM Ok does anyone really want the millitary to start getting directly involved in who sits in the White House? We as a country have been very lucky that our highly professional and honorable soldiers have basically just followed orders.
An attack, real our purported, on US forces in the Persian Gulf would preclude any supposed resistance to war by the generals or by Congress. They would all click their heels and do what the CinC orders with full support from the media. It's been done before--Cuba, Pearl Harbor, Gulf of Tonkin--and it works. Guaranteed or your money back.
Any discussion of war with Iran should not only consider the damage the US might do to Iran and its people, but also the potential that Iran has for destroying US planes and ships and US military personnel. Iran's air defense is significant and its Sunburn, Silkworm and other cruise missiles, as well as torpedoes and mines, have the capability to overcome defensive measures and sink US warships. A four-acre aircraft carrier is an inviting target for an advanced technology cruise missile. What a shame that would be! Plus out troops and their supply lines in Iraq are vulnerable.
Posted by Don Bacon at February 25, 2007 01:09 PMw w w . h a a r e t z . c o m
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last update - 11:02 25/02/2007
Report: 3 Gulf states agree to IAF overflights en route to Iran
By Yoav Stern and Yossi Melman, Haaretz Correspondents
Three Arab states in the Persian Gulf would be willing to allow the Israel Air force to enter their airspace in order to reach Iran in case of an attack on its nuclear facilities, the Kuwaiti newspaper Al-Siyasa reported on Sunday.
According to the report, a diplomat from one of the gulf states visiting Washington on Saturday said the three states, Qatar, Oman and the United Arab Emirates, have told the United States that they would not object to Israel using their airspace, despite their fear of an Iranian response.
Al-Siyasa further reported that NATO leaders are urging Turkey to open its airspace for an Attack on Iran as well and to also open its airports and borders in case of a ground attack.
According to a British diplomat who spoke to an Al-Siyasa correspondent, Turkey will not repeat the mistake it made in 2003, when it refused to open its airspace to U.S. Air Force overflights en route to attacking Iraq.
British newspaper The Daily Telegraph reported Saturday that Israel is negotiating with the U.S. over permission for an "air corridor" over Iraq, should an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities become necessary.
Deputy Defense Minister Ephraim Sneh on Saturday denied the reports and said Israel has no such plans.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/objects/pages/PrintArticleEn.jhtml?itemNo=830309
The Sunni Gulf states are siding with Saudi Arabia in a new coalition against Shia Iran engineered by the US. This "redirection" has been uncovered by Sy Hersh. Despite the beating the US is taking from Sunnis in Iraq it is aligning with Sunnis against the supposed greater evil, Iran.
This has nothing to do with nuclear energy and everything to do with keeping Iran from being a regional power in the Middle East. The US has to be the big dog there, nobody else. Call it the Carter Doctrine.
Posted by Don Bacon at February 25, 2007 08:26 PMWhat will happen if the US Nukes Iran? The US will become the new "Axis of Evil".
Bush desperately wants to start a war with Iran as a last gasp effort to salvage something beyond ignominious defeat for his "Legacy". All of the scenarios spelled out in the War Games the Joint Chiefs did in the last five years have said that starting a war with Iran will inevitably lead to a nuclear first strike against Iran's Natanz facility.
The War Games Scenario for the Iran War goes like this:
1) The US or Israel [with US cooperation] prepares to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities at Natanz and Esfahan. A few Generals and Admirals resign but the attack happens anyway. The attack causes major surface damage but does not penetrate through the layers of reinforced concrete and steel to the level of the Centrifuges and Uranium processing facilities. The attack is a failure but it starts a US/Israeli war with Iran.
2) Iran announces it is withdrawing from the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Iran attacks the US Aircraft Carriers and their escorts in the gulf using swarming speedboats, torpedoes and silkworm cruise missiles and sinks at least 1 carrier and several other ships causing 2000-3000 US casualties.
3) The US Air-force starts large scale bombing of Iran's infrastructure.
4) Iran's Revolutionary Guard invades southern Iraq with 300,000-400,000 ground troops and cuts off all supplies to US forces in southern and western Iraq.
5) The US bombs areas of southern Iraq where Iranian soldiers are blocking US supplies and the US bombing causes mass civilian casualties.
6) The Iraqi Shiite and Sunni Mullahs issue a Fatwa directing all Insurgents and Militias to attack US soldiers and not each other.
7) US forces are besieged by 300,000 Iranians and 200,000 Iraqi Insurgents and Militia soldiers. After 60 days of intense fighting and 10,000-20,000 US casualties, the US bases in Iraq run out of fuel, ammunition and food.
8) The US troops in southern Iraq, western Iraq and Bagdad are forced to retreat under fire to the Kurdish north leaving behind all of their heavy equipment.
9) The Iranians seize the abandoned US weapons and bring in fuel and supplies and turn the weapons on the US.
10) The US uses tactical nuclear bombs to attack the Iranian Revolutionary Guard and Militia forces in southern Iraq and nuclear bunker buster bombs to destroy Natanz and Esfahan in Iran. There are 300,000 immediate civilian casualties caused by the blast and 750,000 cases of radiation poisoning in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Northern India.
11) All Oil production in Iraq and Iran stops for 6-9 months [25% of world oil production]. All middle-eastern countries together impose a total Oil Embargo on supplies to the US and Israel. Venezuela, Bolivia and Argentina join in the Oil Embargo. Gasoline and Heating Fuel-oil prices rise to $10.00 per gallon, Natural Gas prices rise to $5.00 per CCF and gasoline rationing is imposed. Energy intensive industries shut down. Frequent major blackouts occur crippling the server farms that power the Internet. The US economy suffers a meltdown.
12) Iran abrogates the Non-Proliferation Treaty and reprocesses Plutonium from their research reactors to produce 1-2 nuclear bombs which are used to destroy Tel Aviv. Israel responds with their own nuclear bombs destroying Tehran.
13) A general war of all Islam vs. the US and Israel ensues. All US bases in the middle-east are attacked causing 50,000-75,000 US casualties before the US forces can escape. Israel is invaded from all sides by Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Iran, Lebanon and the Palestinian Territories. The US and Israel are branded by the world as the "Axis of Evil".
Imagine a world where the US is reviled by every other nation for the unforgivable damage we have done to innocent civilians. Where the US is under a Permanent Oil Embargo by all OPEC member states. Where Canada, Mexico and South America join Europe and Asia to ban all trade with the US and evict all US Military bases from their soil. Where all US citizens with any connection to the Bush Administration are under indictment by The Hague and are put on a No-Fly List banning them from from travel outside the US. Where all US multi-national corporations are boycotted or banned by the rest of the world or are forced to split and change their names to avoid anti-US sentiment.
All this and more can happen if Bush decides to Nuke Iran.
Bush is the Decider. He makes the Decisions and the rest of us have to live with the consequences. Bush's Decisions about the Middle-East have been uniformly bad. Some of them have been worse than bad; they have crossed the line into the zone of Criminal Negligence and Suicidal Stupidity.
The worst Decision Bush has made in his two terms as President has been to insist that the use of Nuclear Bunker Buster bombs remain in the Pentagon's planning for dealing with Iran.
Iran may be telling the truth or Iran may be lying when they say that they are only trying to enrich Uranium for nuclear power. If Iran is telling the truth and their goal is just nuclear power, then using a Nuke against Iran will guarantee that Iran will go for The Bomb in self defense. If Iran is lying then using a Nuke against Iran will only delay Iran getting The Bomb by one or two years and will guarantee that they will attempt to use it against the US or Israel.
The US B61-11 Nuclear Bunker Buster bomb is only able to penetrate hard rock to a depth of 10-20 feet before it detonates. At 20ft penetration and maximum yield, the B61-11 can only destroy a facility that is buried less than 600ft below ground. Blast forces can be blocked by simple inexpensive materials like a 100ft thick layer of gravel or bags of sand or granulated salt. The limitations of the B61-11 have been known for years and any Iranian weapons facility will have been built with those limits in mind.
If Iran is actually trying to build a Nuclear Bomb, they will probably have done what Iraq and Pakistan did by building a secret second facility buried deep under ground under the publicly visible facilities at Natanz and Esfahan.
The Natanz facility in Iran is known to have a double roof of thick reinforced concrete with 50-75ft of gravel between the concrete layers. The roof is sufficient to protect against any non-nuclear bunker buster (even the US air forces MOAB bomb). Natanz could probably also survive a low yield Nuclear Bunker Buster bomb.
If the US actually used the B61-11 bomb in Iran against the Natanz or Esfahan facilities more than 500,000 civilian deaths could be expected in iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan and India.