Tech Support Guy banner
Status
Not open for further replies.

Is Iran Next After Iraq!

176K views 5K replies 122 participants last post by  bassetman 
#1 ·
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
#2 ·
Hi Angelize

I can't speak for the US administration, so can only guess their intentions with regard to Iran. I do know that Bush et al are in the process of neutralising anyone that dares to stand up to their Israeli masters. The problem will arise when the action starts on the ground. I have spent time in Iran and tell you now that if Bush thinks he will seal a victory easily he is going to be in for a shock.
 
#3 ·
I have seen this 'writing on the wall' for some time now....and after the WMD's not present in Iraq -- with most politicians agreeing that they were there, are now looking for places they might have gone ie: Iran.

They are waiting for more intelligence :eek: is this the same intelligence we had when going into Iraq? Enough is enough. If Iran is building the most powerful explosive ever, and making it small enough to fit in a briefcase…it does not matter. We have more than enough means to fight back if such a terrible set of events come to fruition. What is this country trying to become? The minority report :mad:
 
#4 ·
hermes said:
I have spent time in Iran and tell you now that if Bush thinks he will seal a victory easily he is going to be in for a shock.
Hi hermes! I won't be shocked....if Bush does decide to attack Iran...like CB said....I hope better intelligence is used beforehand than was with Iraq! Let's just continue alienating the entire Middle East against us....eventually they will seek revenge....which can only lead to WW3!
 
#5 ·
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 :)
 
#6 ·
hermes said:
Hi Angelize

I can't speak for the US administration, so can only guess their intentions with regard to Iran. I do know that Bush et al are in the process of neutralising anyone that dares to stand up to their Israeli masters. The problem will arise when the action starts on the ground. I have spent time in Iran and tell you now that if Bush thinks he will seal a victory easily he is going to be in for a shock.
LOL--Iran--now thats a wonderful country---maybe we should send Hermes there so that he can be chased around by the religious police.
 
#7 ·
I've read reports for nearly a year now about Iran. It appears theres a wrangle going on between the USA and Israel as to who will attack Iran.

Israel has threatened to attack Iran due to it's nuclear reactor coming online, and America and Europe have been accusing Iran of having a secret programme to enrich uranuim to make nukes.

Israel, I have read, have received US F16s and 50 bunker busting bombs to take out Iran's nuclear facilities? seemingly, America wants Israel to start it, and American will join in. Israel however wants America to attack Iran. Netanyahu and Sharon, both stated that after Iraq is defeated, America should attack Iran.

However, it's also being reported that Iran has taken delivery of Russia's Sunburn nuclear bomb, estimated to be the most devastating nuke around!

http://www.iran-press-service.com/articles_2002/Nov_2002/attack_iran_after_iraq_51102.htm

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-469972,00.html

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=529

http://www.vialls.com/myahudi/sunburn.html

khaz
 
#9 ·
Either we do this now or play safe,be politically correct and wait.Either or,you know this is a holy war of sorts and won't go away.
Those with miopic views will say - "They're not bothering us,why bother them?" "Let's all live in peace" "Can't we just all get along"

Yeah - maybe UBL will change his mind and say "Let's all join hands and sing 'Kumbaya,Lord, kumbaya..'

Read your history books for the answer.

What Bush did was pre emption - that obviously doesn't sit well with a lot of Americans.
Maybe they just want to wait and let their grandchildren deal with it.....

It's going to affect you one way or the other...tTHAT's the BIG picture


Peace, man :cool:

skttk
 
#11 ·
angelize56 said:
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"!

Hello Angel. Its good to see others thinking along the same lines as I do.
I am not religious, but I do agree 100 percent with your idea , your worry.
As the months go on, many who subscribed to the Bush 'Doctrine' will be , or should be feeling an increasing uneasiness with what we are doing. Conservatives have the power to stop this if they wish.
The neo-con planners have the ability to drag all of us, conservative and liberal Americans into a massive blunder, making the Iraqi occupation look a small mistake.
Sometimes events spin out of control and then---hell on earth.
I very much share your fear of China, Russia, they are no friends.
If China and India become close, and join ranks with Russia {which is looking more possible all the time} they will be a first rate threat , both economicly, and Militarily. What do we say then? "bring it on"?.
I share your feelings and am glad to hear them voiced :)
I might add, I hope your prayers work!!! :up:
 
#12 ·
I do not thinkk the Bush Administration has any intention of invading another country for the rest of his term.
This is not to say the US won't bomb their nuke facility(s). Same with NK.
But any Administration should have a plan of action if it turns out to be necessary.
 
#14 ·
LANMaster said:
I do not thinkk the Bush Administration has any intention of invading another country for the rest of his term.
This is not to say the US won't bomb their nuke facility(s). Same with NK.
But any Administration should have a plan of action if it turns out to be necessary.
I hope you are right LAN, but I just have a nagging feeling that these folks are capable of anything, rationalizing the wildest things, based on "intel". Am I paranoid? ;)
I hope that the Admin would proceed with any operations {inc the use of airpower} with international support, not just Israeli 'influence' and crack-pot intel, as in WMD/Iraq.
We can paint ourselves into corner, it is not impossible even for a rich powerful nation like the U.S.
I think the plans of Wolfowitz--Rove and all of those far right nuts should be viewed with caution, they are capable of almost anything {in my opinion}.
I have read many of your post Lan, and I know you are conservative, but neo-con? I think not! :) So I think you have doubts also ?:) >f
 
#17 ·
Hello Fidelista

Fidelista said:
I hope you are right LAN, but I just have a nagging feeling that these folks are capable of anything, rationalizing the wildest things, based on "intel". Am I paranoid? ;)
Perhaps. But I think this admin. realizes they bit off more than they anticipated, and there simply sould be too many people opposed to an iran invasion without VERY CLEAR provocation.
I hope that the Admin would proceed with any operations {inc the use of airpower} with international support, not just Israeli 'influence' and crack-pot intel, as in WMD/Iraq.
We can paint ourselves into corner, it is not impossible even for a rich powerful nation like the U.S.
Agreed.
I think the plans of Wolfowitz--Rove and all of those far right nuts should be viewed with caution, they are capable of almost anything {in my opinion}.
I view all plans with caution. Right and left alike. :up:
I have read many of your post Lan, and I know you are conservative, but neo-con? I think not! :) So I think you have doubts also ?:) >f
Of course. But I don't thinkn this story has any real merit. I might support dropping bombs on Iran's nuke facility(s). But even I am of the opinion that we have unfinished business elsewhere to complete first.

What's strange is this has actually worked out in Iran and NK's favor.
Both of them know a third front would be very unpopular in the US. So they are getting away with murder in the meantime. :(
 
#18 ·
somefellow said:
Canada likes you ..........most days . ;)
;)

it makes me weary just reading this thread....doesn't anybody feel the least bit of OUTRAGE?
Yes!
 
#19 ·
LANMaster said:
Hello Fidelista

What's strange is this has actually worked out in Iran and NK's favor.
Both of them know a third front would be very unpopular in the US. So they are getting away with murder in the meantime. :(
Yes , I agree. Our enemies will make the most of our mistakes.
I think its time to reforge our friendships with western Europa.
Regain trust, and move ahead. This "Old Europe" is indespenable to the U.S..
The UN is a player and cannot be ignored--belittled.
These games should played by competent players who have vision and common sense, not cowboys and Israelis.
It does scare me when I find agreement with you :eek: ---just kidding.
We just approach things from different angle, most times want to get to same place. >f
 
#20 ·
Fidelista said:
Yes , I agree. Our enemies will make the most of our mistakes.
I think its time to reforge our friendships with western Europa.
Regain trust, and move ahead. This "Old Europe" is indespenable to the U.S..
The UN is a player and cannot be ignored--belittled.
These games should played by competent players who have vision and common sense, not cowboys and Israelis.
It does scare me when I find agreement with you :eek: ---just kidding.
We just approach things from different angle, most times want to get to same place. >f
:eek: Hehe! ;)
 
#21 ·
LOL We agree on the destination. The route is the only thing uopn we differ.

That is why I try to take politics a bit less seriously than I used to.
I found that even those with whom I disagree are most often seeking the same goal, but seeking to obtain that goal differently than I would.
 
#22 ·
bassetman said:
Do I detect some sarcasm here? :D
Seriously, leftists , Euros, the UN, and the world in general are worried about atomic weapons in the middle east---its a world problem.
Nations like Iran , Israel, N.Korea, Pakistan , are unstable , and in the case of N.Korea and Israel, dangerous. They should be disarmed---by hook or crook.
I think conservatives are just as worried about outcome as "commies" like me.
Their approach to problem solving leaves a lot to be desired , and turn a blind eye to Israel, :rolleyes: , but we all want peace and security.
There are worse than Lan!!!! :D
 
#23 ·
Fidelista said:
Do I detect some sarcasm here? :D
Seriously, leftists , Euros, the UN, and the world in general are worried about atomic weapons in the middle east---its a world problem.
Nations like Iran , Israel, N.Korea, Pakistan , are unstable , and in the case of N.Korea and Israel, dangerous. They should be disarmed---by hook or crook.
I think conservatives are just as worried about outcome as "commies" like me.
Their approach to problem solving leaves a lot to be desired , and turn a blind eye to Israel, :rolleyes: , but we all want peace and security.
There are worse than Lan!!!! :D
I just don't see bombing Iranian people as a solution to any weapons they may have! :eek: ;)
 
#24 ·
bassetman said:
I just don't see bombing Iranian people as a solution to any weapons they may have! :eek: ;)
Neither do I. Bou bombing a nuclear weapons facility is not the same as bombing the Iranian people.

And of course, I think we must present the UNSC the "chance" to join the US and allied nations before confronting the evil in Iran.
 
#25 ·
bassetman said:
I just don't see bombing Iranian people as a solution to any weapons they may have! :eek: ;)
Neither do I, at this point. This is what I have been saying all along.
Nobody wants the region to be so armed.
But who would trust the current administration to conclude that bombing was the answer. Based on past performance ---no sane person. They simply cannot be trusted---nutcases.
The thought I was trying to get across is that we all want to get to the same place {I think?} but some think dropping bombs is a solution to all problem--as if making war will make a peaceful world.
Do you ever wonder if there will be a time when military action {unilateral} could be the correct course, but because of Bush and his stupidity, we fail to act?. Just a thought.
When we use force , I want to hear from and have support from the western democracies---I simply do not trust us :eek: >f
 
#26 ·
Revolution comes from within---many experts in the field believe that the nascent (seems like its been nascent for years) movement towards liberalization in Iran would be set back years if we were to attack. It would unite the Iranian people and make development impossible. The neoconservatives just don't get it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top