Tech Support Guy banner

Is Iran Next After Iraq!

175224 Views 5049 Replies 122 Participants Last post by  bassetman
I guess some troops will be pulled out of Iraq if this comes to fruition! :eek: I can't help but see how Bush is further alienating us from the world...making America the country to hate! :( Following right along the book of Revelations....I hope and pray along the same lines that Bush realizes sometime before it's too late..that China and Russia are not our "friends"!

Journalist: U.S. planning for possible attack on Iran
White House says report is 'riddled with inaccuracies
Sunday, January 16, 2005 Posted: 9:23 PM EST (0223 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Bush administration has been carrying out secret reconnaissance missions to learn about nuclear, chemical and missile sites in Iran in preparation for possible airstrikes there, journalist Seymour Hersh said Sunday.

The effort has been under way at least since last summer, Hersh said on CNN's "Late Edition."

In an interview on the same program, White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett said the story was "riddled with inaccuracies."

"I don't believe that some of the conclusions he's drawing are based on fact," Bartlett said.

Iran has refused to dismantle its nuclear program, which it insists is legal and is intended solely for civilian purposes.

Hersh said U.S. officials were involved in "extensive planning" for a possible attack -- "much more than we know."

"The goal is to identify and isolate three dozen, and perhaps more, such targets that could be destroyed by precision strikes and short-term commando raids
," he wrote in "The New Yorker" magazine, which published his article in editions that will be on newsstands Monday.

Hersh is a veteran journalist who was the first to write about many details of the abuses of prisoners Abu Ghraib in Baghdad.

He said his information on Iran came from "inside" sources who divulged it in the hope that publicity would force the administration to reconsider

"I think that's one of the reasons some of the people on the inside talk to me," he said.

Hersh said the government did not answer his request for a response before the story's publication, and that his sources include people in government whose information has been reliable in the past.

Hersh said Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld view Bush's re-election as "a mandate to continue the war on terrorism," despite problems with the U.S.-led war in Iraq.

Last week, the effort to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq -- the Bush administration's stated primary rationale for the war -- was halted after having come up empty.

The secret missions in Iran, Hersh said, have been authorized in order to prevent similar embarrassment in the event of military action there.

"The planning for Iran is going ahead even though Iraq is a mess," Hersh said. "I think they really think there's a chance to do something in Iran, perhaps by summer, to get the intelligence on the sites

He added, "The guys on the inside really want to do this."

Hersh identified those inside people as the "neoconservative" civilian leadership in the Pentagon. That includes Rumsfeld, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and Undersecretary of Defense Doug Feith -- "the sort of war hawks that we talk about in connection with the war in Iraq."

And he said the preparation goes beyond contingency planning and includes detailed plans for air attacks:

"The next step is Iran. It's definitely there. They're definitely planning ... But they need the intelligence first."

Emphasizing 'diplomatic initiatives'

Bartlett said the United States is working with its European allies to help persuade Iran not to pursue nuclear weapons.

Asked if military action is an option should diplomacy fail, Bartlett said, "No president at any juncture in history has ever taken military options off the table."

But Bush "has shown that he believes we can emphasize the diplomatic initiatives that are under way right now," he said.

Hersh said U.S. officials believe that a U.S. attack on Iran might provoke an uprising by Iranians against the hard-line religious leaders who run the government. Similar arguments were made ahead of the invasion of Iraq, when administration officials predicted U.S. troops would be welcomed as liberators.

And Hersh said administration officials have chosen not to include conflicting points of view in their deliberations -- such as predictions that any U.S. attack would provoke a wave of nationalism that would unite Iranians against the United States.

"As people say to me, when it comes to meetings about this issue, if you don't drink the Kool-Aid, you can't go to meetings," he said. "That isn't a message anybody wants to hear."

The plans are not limited to Iran, he said.

"The president assigned a series of findings and executive orders authorizing secret commando groups and other special forces units to conduct covert operations against suspected terrorist targets in as many as 10 nations in the Middle East and South Asia," he wrote.

Under the secret plans, the war on terrorism would be led by the Pentagon, and the power of the CIA would be reduced, Hersh wrote in his article.

"It's sort of a great victory for Donald Rumsfeld, a bureaucratic victory
," Hersh told CNN.

He said: "Since the summer of 2002, he's been advocating, 'Let me run this war, not the CIA. We can do it better. We'll send our boys in. We don't have to tell their local military commanders. We don't have to tell the ambassadors. We don't have to tell the CIA station chiefs in various countries. Let's go in and work with the bad guys and see what we can find out.'"

Hersh added that the administration has chipped away at the CIA's power and that newly appointed CIA Director Porter Goss has overseen a purge of the old order.

"He's been committing sort-of ordered executions'" Hersh said. "He's been -- you know, people have been fired, they've been resigning."

The target of the housecleaning at the CIA, he said, has been intelligence analysts, some of whom are seen as "apostates -- as opposed to being true believers."
See less See more
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 5050 Posts
I wouldn't be surprised if Iran was attacked. If it was, don't doubt for a second it wouldn't be completely by air. It could keep going on by air against specific targets and not full blown regime-change. At least thats how I see it. I don't think the administration is about to embark on Iraq v2-II.

About the war planning, we would be sorry buggers if our military didn't constantly plan these things. All militaries of the world plan, it doesn't necessarily mean war is inevitable.

I hope all of ya had an excellent weekend :)
The end of world war 2:

Scenario 1: Succeed where the Mongols failed, invade Japanese mainland (estimates for US casualties into the hundreds of thousands)

Scenario 2: Tell the Japanese you have a secret bomb (which most of the US leadership fails to realize how deadly) that you will drop on a target once every three days until they surrender.

So basically, you, sitting as the President of the United States, must decide:

A: A lot of American and Japanese blood on your hands and a long, long offensive, possibly years. (And you thought Iraq was bad!)

B: A lot of Japanese blood on your hands. NO American casualties except the possibility of those planes getting shot down.

What would you decide? There is no alternative. Remember the goal here is the surrender of the Japanese Empire. They will not stop fighting unless you make one of these two decisions. Without you knowing, Japanese military leadership are plotting against the Emperor who seeks peace. What do you decide?

Simplest, surest way to justify the thing. No one said being the President was easy.

EDIT: There was a British liberal who made a famous remark after WW2 that the surest way to maintain world peace was through a US monopoly of nuclear arms.
See less See more
And I agree with LAN!

As always, your logic defies the masses :)
Another part of Bush's inauguration included the words "we cannot force freedom onto those that are unwilling" or something to that affect.

The basic truth of the matter is that the US is a huge, powerful country. It is the sole superpower. It has huge resources and a huge economic tree. When a state reaches the height of power that ours has, they must spend increasingly larger amounts of money on defense.

Look at the Romans. They failed because they could not field a defensive force that could adequately protect their empire (among many other reasons). They were the military-industrial state of the world and they didn't have enough of a military in the end.

As for percentage of income spent on Defense, the US doesn't even spend the most. Thats the number that would be the most telling of a countries "warmonger"ness. I believe that honor goes to Rwanda, although I can't find a list at the moment.

When your this powerful, your going to piss off half of the world no matter what you do.
See less See more
Not going to happen because the Saudi government is an ally. They're pretty actively fighting terrorist activities in their country (because it benefits them as well, as it does all governments).
...Says one of the forefathers of our revolution :D

Obviously, that was a bad peace.
What many people don't realize is the US has been the target of unconventional and indirect attacks for decades now. Finally the US is reacting and that it must do to protect the interests of the government and its people. We couldn't just go on 'living with' 'acceptable levels' of terrorist attacks, as dear Mr. Kerry put it.

You're very right in that Bush has sent a clear signal that "enough is enough" and to either come out and fight or cooperate as a functioning member of the international community, because free trade, free government and exchange of ideas is the way we're going to defeat terrorism. Countries that continue to supress their people are hotbeds for terrorist organizations as are failed states where government is lacking or non existent, like in Somalia.

This upsets countries that aren't in line with those ideas, like the infamous "Axis of Evil" countries. But, you know, these countries were not aligned with us either way. So this state of affairs isn't our making so much as it is the collective making of several countries spanning several decades.

Does it suck? Yeah it does. To me, every day that passes without an attack on US soil is a victory.

But look on the bright side: Bush is aggressive. We are engaging our enemies like never before and thats why its in our national consciousness a lot more. The Clinton administration just didn't want to deal with the hard facts and make hard decisions which in fact emboldened our enemies and led to the attacks on 9/11. Now, while we are perceived as warmongerers, we are feared as well. So far *knock on wood* we have prevented more attacks on our soil, and theres no doubt that the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq helped in acting as a deterent...There are fewer countries willing or able to support the logistical and financial requirements of Al Qaeda in planning those sorts of attacks. We're hunting them now. It is much harder for these organizations to operate than it was in 1999 or 2000.

Take a look at countries like Libya, potential enemies that are turning a new leaf. Or, the spread of a more progressive Islam. These sorts of things routinely take a backseat to the big headline stuff.

The determination that our military shows combined with the inevitable gains that will come to a democratically run country formerly run by tyrannical regimes will begin to change the attitudes that lead to terrorists. The common logic that violence breeds more violence is only true to a degree...Were it entirely true, the world would still be swimmin' in Nazi's. Ideologies can be beaten - and the terrorist ideology will be beaten by winning the fights and then winning the peace. It just won't happen over night...Although we are already seeing profound results (aforementioned lack of attacks on American soil, Afghanistan's new government and relative peace, and now Iraq's forthcoming government and the dwindling insurgency...all within a handful of years since 9/11)
See less See more
Utter nonsense? The only thing nonsensical about it is the complete lack of reprisals the Clinton administration deemed necessary.

Come on, one single missile fired at one single Al Qaeda training camp thought to house Bin Laden after the first world trade center bombing? There should never have been a second bombing. It didn't kill anyone - that camp was probably back up and running later the same day. That would only add to their belief that we wouldn't retaliate as Bush did.

What about all those fits of aerial attacks Clinton ordered on Baghdad? Would that not simply stir the pot, fan the flames more? This is not putting down an enemy this is encouraging him.

After the attacks on embassies in Nairobi and Tanzania, plus the first WTC bombing, the writing was on the wall. Clinton's half-baked retaliations did nothing to deter terrorist organizations from attacking us, it only emboldened them.
If only we were dealing with video game enemies, lighthouse.

An attack on Iran would have many ramifications, but let us think about them.

The backlashes you predict, while possible, would probably have already happened after the first two invasions of Middle Eastern countries. If/when we invade Iran, it won't be sparking any more fires that haven't already been sparked...

Besides, the majority of Iranians actually do not support their government, especially the younger generations. So while some insurgent activity is to be expected (it is any time you're invading a country, its the natural reaction of most anyone who would resent any foreign influence on their homeland), it probably wouldn't be on the scale you imagine or result in the terrorist activity you mention.

The administration doesn't lie about Iran being a sponsor of terror. It is old news. They allow fighters to cross into Iraq, and they sell arms and support to these fighters. The only way Iran is not already involved is via its own military.

Now, if we look at that option...An invasion of Iran, -if we planned it right-, should come off pretty successful, although I'd imagine the casualties would be higher than the intial invasion of Iraq. This is because the Iranian military is larger and better organized than the Iraqi military ended up being.

An attack on Iran would only be feasible once we begin cutting numbers in Iraq. Our military isn't big enough right now to sustain big numbers in both countries. Build up would begin in Afghanistan again.

Look at a map, Iran is sandwiched between Iraq and Afghanistan. You bet that a land invasion would come from both sides, putting Iran in a disadvantage straight off.

Before land war would even be a possibility, though, a significant and prolonged aerial campaign would happen first. I'd imagine it would be on a scale unimagined so far. They would take out AA/AAA sites, bomb airbases and tank concentrations, government buildings, and military bases.

The Iranian military would be on its knees before US grunts even have to point a rifle at 'em.

The temporary occupation that would follow would have a lot of the lessons learned from Iraq, a lot of the blunders made in Iraq would not be repeated.

Finally, just as the invasion of Iraq saw the fighting in Afghanistan die down, an invasion of Iran will see the fighting in Iraq die down. It would effectively change the entire "war on terror", and these terrorists would begin going to Iran to fight. Tying the terrorists up in a place with lots of Americans with guns, instead of Americans in ties, is a good thing.

I'd agree with you that it is insane. People shouldn't be having these differences in the 21st century. There are too many brainwashed muslims out there. At least now we are meeting these people instead of simply dealing with the aftershocks of their undefended attacks. We will eliminate this ideology of hate and vengeance, but the biggest requirement is time.
See less See more
Relax, lighthouse.

They haven't even POed any of us enough to get serious and send some people like me over there(again) ;)

I'd argue they aren't "our" wars. These countries have been aligned against us for years and years and years (plus a few more but I don't feel like repeating it)...You brits have been spared of a lot of that terrorism stuff. We've been dealing with it for a few decades now. It's all history.

But hey, its not like we're fighting eachother! Now that would suck, would it not? Western countries can co-exist peacefully and one day so will "those guys" in Iran, Syria, North Korea, etc etc. The world is a shady place. You can be executed in China for robbery, for example, and those guys are an upcoming super power...and we argue over politicians and scandals, heh! That can get you killed or jailed in more countries than I can probably list on my fingers.
Mr. Wallis, who wrote that article, is blind to the fact that we as a nation have enemies, and they won't go away by hugging them and telling them its all going to be alright.

It's as if a lot of people fail to realize that as a global power, we will have interests that need to be defended. It might be a shock to a lot of people, but there are a whole lot of countries out there who don't do right, so the "why not *insert this country*" argument doesn't work. What are we going to do, force our hand on all of 'em? :rolleyes:

If you've ever wondered why Jim Wallis doesn't run a country or even a real company, now you know why lol.

These people run on this false idea that every violent action in the world occurs through the US government, its as if they don't understand that there are other countries and organizations at work here that are actively working against the US government and have been since before Bush came into office.

Bush didn't invent terrorism. He didn't invent Iran or Syria or North Korea or China or Egypt or Saudi Arabia or Egypt or the Sudan or Somalia or Togo. Get it?! He mentions God a lot but he can't act like one!

The man came into office at a harsh time, with the economy falling, our enemies gathering, and then the worst terrorist attack in history. He made hard decisions that needed to be made and for that every questionable act in American history is his burden.


How many more Americans have to die at the hands of our enemies before people realize we're fighting a global war, and that the invasion of Iraq was merely a new theatre, somewhere for it to go? Just because there isn't a uniformed military invading our streets doesn't mean we're not being targetted every single day and would be regardless of who was sitting at that desk in the Oval Office.

9/11 woke us up as a country for all of 3.4 seconds before we fell back into a self-absorbed political tango, too busy being good liberals or conservatives to concentrate on something other than Bush's funny accent or perceived "holy wars"... :rolleyes:

We need a turban-wearing Arab terrorist to blow up a large building once a week to remind ourselves we're fighting a war against hard enemies and not simply plundering the earth for all this invisible oil we keep supposedly gaining from this mess, that magical Iraqi Crude from the Magic Sack, pssssh.

"No war for oil", indeed. A war for our damn way of life, a war so we can go to work without worrying about whether or not Habib is going to blow up half the city, is more like it. You don't want it to happen? Then stop using oil, stop driving your car, stop buying foreign-made goods, stop using the internet...Stop being a member of the world community, then when the entire US population ceases being a member of the world community, then maybe, just maybe, we'd stop having business interests in the rest of the world...Then our enemies would go away! We'd no longer have our freedoms and our possessions and our equality, all of the things that sets the terrorists against us.

Until then, welcome to Real Life. Where you need to sustain yourself, and where everyone who doesn't have what you have wants to take it from you. In this world, Bush isn't the possessor of the world's evil.

/end biglong "naive Mr. Wallis"-inspired rant.
See less See more
The real threat is the US?

We've had nuclear arms since the 40's. Some big tyrannical country we've been:

What planes do you fly on? American ones. Most of the software you use? American software. The operating system? Probably American. The computer your using? Made from circuit boards invented in America, and many of the components are made here as well. The ones that aren't? Put in the countries they are in, in part by American businesses. The car you drive? Probably built in an asian country(lol) - with technologies and industries put there with American business. You name it, chances are there is more than one American behind it somewhere. DNA? Discovered in America (at the University of Wisconsin I might add!). The Human Genome Project? To map the entire human DNA? Americans did it! The cure for polio? smallpox? American!

World War One? What about President Wilson, the Fourteen Points? He was the last "American cowboy". Instead? The Treaty of Versailles, the greatest fuel for the national socialists to take over in Germany. World War Two? It wasn't Iranians liberating France.

What about afterwards? One tyrant was gone, another replaced him - Stalin. The airlifts into Germany? Our planes didn't drop bombs then, they dropped food. The Cold War? How long do you think it would have stayed 'cold' without America on one side? Do you think the Germans and the Russians would keep it 'cold'?! :D

We should all be getting down on our knees and thanking whatever Gods we choose to pray too that the United States of America is the number one power on this planet at this current time. We are all lucky SOB's to be living in this day.

My ancestors have fought and died for people they've never met, so they could live better lives. That is what fuels the American soldier, on the ground fighting, regardless of the politics. Fighting in Cuba, Puerto Rico, fighting in Mexico, fighting in France, Germany, Russia, Afghanistan, China, North Africa, and elsewhere. Last I checked, there weren't American colonies in any of them. They weren't American settlements and none of these countries were having their resources sent back to the "Motherland".

France? It can only be bothered to fight in the Ivory Coast, one of its former colonies. Vietnam, it was the French military being actively kicked out of Vietnam that brought American soldiers there in the first place.

Once again, it is American lives on the line to put down violent, medieval-thinking people and their fanatical, racially-inspired doctrine of global friggin' domination. You can't tell me for one bleeding second that America is the 'real threat' when there are extremists cutting other people's heads off for setting foot in the wrong place, for having been born to something different, for having another opinion.

People have very clouded ideas about what our country stands for and what kind of actions it has taken in the relatively few years its been on this planet. Our country is an extremely progressive, extremely open and extremely lenient country for being in the position it has been in for the last 50 years. You need but look at history and the great powers of years past to figure this out. We aren't perfect, no country is because its run by humans...And if one thing is for certain, it's that we can show very poor judgement at times (an understatement) :D

Oh, and I don't dislike France, either. Good luck getting most Americans to say otherwise, but France has been a pretty good ally. France also happens to be one of the bastions of western civilization lol

It's just downright false to say the USA is an 'evil' or 'world threatening' country.
See less See more
The French intervention during the Revolution and the gift of the Statue of Liberty where the two main things that were swimming in my head when I made that statement about France being good allies.

I have a pretty extensive knowledge of history for my age, and none of it is BS. My knowledge of history is what guides my ideas about politics today. I think anyone that is a good student of military history from the days of Rome onto now would view the world much as I do. History is very layered and is full of patterns, full of predictability. One of those patterns happens to be the religious conflicts in the middle east. I believe democracy transcends this, and I believe our actions there are whats bringing democracy to the middle east.

As far as the nuclear bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki: Well lets just say we have differing opinions, I do not think the Japanese were willing to surrender (there was an active coop by high-ranking officers against the Emperor Hirohito because of his peace-seeking, right up until both bombs dropped, that is), I also think those bombs saved lives in the form of American soldiers and Japanese civilians/troops which would have died in the invasion of mainland Japan. Those two bombs ended the second world war.

I'd agree about the school system, though!! ;)

I'm not someone that is easily led to an opinion, I think about these things and come to my own conclusions. Now that might mean I'm just dim, but a lemming it does naught!! :D

Hope ya'll have a nice night.
See less See more
Frankly, I don't get the ruckus over the missile defense system. Some people will argue about anything!! In the age of WMD's, if theres one thing we should be able to agree on, its that we need a defense against missiles. It is common sense that says the best way to defend against a missile is to shoot it down (thats how navy ships defend themselves against missiles; anti-missile chainguns) This system does this on a larger scale, and even with all the failures has had a 5/10 success rate. 50% is better than 0%, which is what kind of protection we would have without it. This system is in place and operational in the event of an attack.

I'd also like to point out that the last two test failures were software errors. Lines of code. These things can be fixed.

Testimonials from 1985 don't tell the whole story! At lot has happened since then. We're lightyears ahead of 1985-era tech. (heck, I wasn't even born then!!)

My idea? In order to be in line with liberal dogma one must be anti-missile shield, even when it goes against common sense. Too much ideology!

If both sides could agree on this issue, and concentrate on development, a nearly perfect missile defense system would be in place right now, I'd bet. Instead, it's been decades of arguing, and we have something at 50%....

Meanwhile, the North Koreans, on the brink of economic and social friggin' collapse, go from neighborhood crazies to a nuclear-capable power!
See less See more
angelize56 said:
That doesn't help had it been the real thing! :eek:
:) Yeah, thats true...I hope they would use more than one!
Star Wars: laser weapon grid that was satellite-based. It was supposed to shoot incoming missiles with lasers sufficient to blow them up. In 1985, this is literally Star Wars stuff. Computers were 1/100th the speed of todays desktops and laser weapons are still a long way off.

This system is missile-based. It uses a glorified cruise missile to intercept the path of an incoming "target" missile and tries to blow 'em both up. This is rocket techonology, GPS, and other guidance systems, stuff we've been doing.

Geeeez, you know the gettin's tough for the liberals when they gotta hunker down in the "Iran" thread and talk about how dangerous and coersive they are against "The Man".

CF is completely right, if the stance was really hardline against Iran, and Bush was sitting there saying "Shut down the nuclear sites or I'll begin bombing" (which he could do very effectively with little or no additional ground troops in Iraq), then everyone here would be talking about the next big debacle.

Bush promised to strengthen alliances, and playing the European line here accomplishes that. Many things can still happen, and theres no guarentee the appeasement line will work. Appeasing dictatorships is asking for more trouble.
The "Sunburn" missiles sound intimidating, but they have never been tested in combat. They are large and slow compared to most other cruise missiles, they're main intimidation is a low, deck-level flight path and evasive moves before hitting the target. The Aegis system might need a better tracking system to hit them, but all it takes is one bullet in the warhead to put a multi-million dollar cruise missile to shame...Most of our Navy ships have anti-missile chainguns these days.

oddling hit it on the head, "thank god for air power". It is our big trump card to all of the soviet-era middle eastern militaries...Even if they do have some of the newer stuff!!

If I was Iran, I would be buying interceptors, not missiles.
Hey! I've never heard of the SeaRAM. I've got some missile reading to catch up on! (been reading up on the Sunburn as well, thanks oddling/CF)
Oddling has a very realistic analysis of China, IMO. They are a country that will inevitably begin to spread (look at their population, look at the size of their military, look at their political actions). Since the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, China has sped up their program of modernizing their military. Eventually, maybe a year, maybe five years, things will come to a head. Thats a scary prospect with NK in the mix.

I believe some form of conscription is inevitable. This country is on a war path and domestically we haven't yet accepted it...
1 - 20 of 5050 Posts
Not open for further replies.