| Submit your comments on this article |
| Syria-Lebanon-Iran |
| US prepares military blitz against Iran's N-sites |
| 2008-08-30 |
| Strategists at the Pentagon are drawing up plans for devastating bombing raids backed by submarine-launched ballistic missile attacks against Iran's nuclear sites as a "last resort" to block Tehran's efforts to develop an atomic bomb, the Sunday Telegraph reported on Friday. The British newspaper reported that US Central Command and Strategic Command planners had been identifying targets, assessing weapon-loads and working on logistics for an operation. "This is more than just the standard military contingency assessment," the newspapers quoted a senior Pentagon adviser as saying. "This has taken on much greater urgency in recent months." Possible conflict: The report said the prospect of military action could put Washington at odds with Britain, which feared that an attack would spark violence across the Middle East, reprisals in the West and may not cripple Tehran's nuclear programme. It said the steady flow of disclosures about Iran's secret nuclear operations and the anti-Israeli threats by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had prompted the fresh assessment of military options by Washington. The most likely strategy would involve aerial bombardment by long-distance B2 bombers, each armed with up to 40,000lb of precision weapons, including the latest bunker-busting devices, the newspaper reported. Attack, a good defence: Reportedly, Tehran has dispersed its nuclear plants, burying some deep underground, and has recently increased its air defences, but Pentagon planners believe that the raids could seriously set back Iran's nuclear programme. Iran was last weekend reported to the United Nations Security Council by the International Atomic Energy Agency for its banned nuclear activities. Tehran reacted by announcing that it would resume full-scale uranium enrichment -- producing material that could arm nuclear devices. President George W Bush has refused to rule out military action and reaffirmed last weekend that Iran's nuclear ambitions "will not be tolerated". |
| Posted by:Fred |
| #33 "would spark violence across the Middle East" Steal that line from ScrappleFace, did they? I look at the Middle East and I see whole countries full of people in need of hobbies. Maybe we should send in Mattel instead of the Marines. Assuming the sales reps don't mind working around smoking rubble. |
| Posted by: SteveS 2008-08-30 21:26 |
| #32 Why Barb, it would be Anti-Western violence with an anti-American on top. |
| Posted by: .5MT 2008-08-30 20:56 |
| #31 "would spark violence across the Middle East" And that would be different from now how, exactly? |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2008-08-30 17:55 |
| #30 So, Pappy, ya think we're gonna go? We've been hearing the rumor for a couple of years, now... At this point, I don't know. |
| Posted by: Pappy 2008-08-30 17:53 |
| #29 Iran has an elected government; we should not violate their sovereignty. And we should remember that that QUDs, Revolutionary Guard, etc. don't answer to the government - just the Ultimate Imam du jour - not saying that the elected gov't is anything other than elected terrorists - just saying that there are other actors more powerful than the gov't and they ain't nice. |
| Posted by: Elmock Darling of the Faith4396 2008-08-30 17:17 |
| #28 Iran has an elected government; we should not violate their sovereignty And they should not be making nukes to violate everyone else's. |
| Posted by: gorb 2008-08-30 16:58 |
| #27 Iran doesn't have a 'elected' government. The Supreme Council decides who gets to run - hardly a choice. Kind of like if the Democratic (or Republician) congressional 'leaders' (spit!) being the ones who decide who appears on the November ticket. (Note that the Democrats, with their 'super delegates' are close to this) |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2008-08-30 15:19 |
| #26 What doesn't spark violence in the Middle east? The Zionist AF striking fron nowhereville. The Jooooooo AF is like Lucas McCain. Everything gets damn peacefull, damn quickly when it walks into the proceedings, even with Mr. H-Bomb playing with a marked deck with Wali. |
| Posted by: .5MT 2008-08-30 15:11 |
| #25 So, Pappy, ya think we're gonna go? We've been hearing the rumor for a couple of years, now... |
| Posted by: Bobby 2008-08-30 14:48 |
| #24 Say it isn't so. We are already over-extended. Not really. The mass of the Navy and Air Forces aren't actually involved with Iraq or Afghanistan. Iran has an elected government; we should not violate their sovereignty. Iran has both sponsored terrorist groups and used its Al Quds Force throughout the Middle East. It has repeatedly threatened Israel. It has attacked the US through proxies. Its rhetoric is somewhat, shall we say, bellicose. A nuclear-armed Iran, elected government or not, would be a destabliser. Sovereignty is a secondary. We do not have the resources for nation building. Nobody mentioned nation-building, AP. That wad was shot. |
| Posted by: Pappy 2008-08-30 14:37 |
| #23 We do not have the resources for nation building. Hell, we are running the current wars on borrowed money from our enemies. We are also financing most of the freedom of the seas resources to keep the shipping lanes open to critical resources, like the middle east oil areas. |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2008-08-30 12:35 |
| #22 Why are there people trying their damnest to convince us we cannot beat Iran? It's called "Propaganda". |
| Posted by: Redneck Jim 2008-08-30 11:59 |
| #21 GPA?! I'm fried, how about GDP? Yeah, that's the ticket. |
| Posted by: Ominemp Henbane2659 2008-08-30 11:53 |
| #20 So if they retaliate we hit em again, and again, and again, ad infinitum, until they do see it our way. They can only take so many hits, since they only have so much infrastructure. And since they have decided to spend so much of their pathetic little GPA on very expensive things like nuclear facilities, there are a limited number of sites as well. Why are there people trying their damnest to convince us we cannot beat Iran? |
| Posted by: Ominemp Henbane2659 2008-08-30 11:52 |
| #19 No nation building. That's all I ask. Let the survivors figure out what to do with the rubble. Let the Russians and the Chinese help them. Let the world see the consequences when out of control dictators threaten their neighbors with nukes. If we have to send troops to verify the nuke sites are disabled then get them out of there as soon as that job is finished. |
| Posted by: Abu Uluque6305 2008-08-30 10:43 |
| #18 Strategists at the Pentagon are drawing up plans for devastating bombing raids backed by submarine-launched ballistic missile attacks against Iran's nuclear sites as a "last resort" to block Tehran's efforts to develop an atomic bomb, the Sunday Telegraph reported on Friday. We also updated the old War Plan Red - an invasion of Canada - until the early 50's. Planners PLAN, that's their job. Mike |
| Posted by: Mike Kozlowski 2008-08-30 09:14 |
| #17 ...would spark violence across the Middle East What doesn't spark violence in the Middle east? |
| Posted by: Raj 2008-08-30 08:41 |
| #16 As conservative blogs began to grow they became a poplular target of the whining left. Two things that communism and the left cannot abide, free speech and an armed citizenry. Guns and newspapers are always the first targets of anarchists. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2008-08-30 08:29 |
| #15 Yeah, you guys need a raise. I'll kick in some extra beer money. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2008-08-30 08:25 |
| #14 The mods have indeed noticed, Darth. |
| Posted by: lotp 2008-08-30 08:24 |
| #13 You notice since the dhimocrats are falling in the polls we have gotten more trolls here? |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2008-08-30 08:23 |
| #12 The report said the prospect of military action could put Washington at odds with Britain, This clearly proves the Pentagon planning is necessary and the correct approach. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2008-08-30 08:19 |
| #11 I use Occam's floss myself. |
| Posted by: .5MT 2008-08-30 07:41 |
| #10 Mike N, you seem to be a member of that philosophical school that adheres to an inverted occam razor: the most complex scenario is the most likely one. |
| Posted by: Spike Uniter 2008-08-30 04:15 |
| #9 On second thought, I think we sold them the wheat to throw everyone off the trail. Wouldn't want to arouse any suspicion. |
| Posted by: Mike N. 2008-08-30 01:46 |
| #8 The United States has a long history of separating humanitarian needs from military goals and differences. Even during the US civil war food was sent from the Union to the Confederate states. We supply food and fuel to North Korea. We have no argument with the North Korean people. It's their government that needs to modify its stance. We have no argument with the Iranian people. It's their government that needs to modify its stance against us. If people need food, the US sends them food - often for free or with no expectation of receiving anything for it in kind. That's what kind of people we are. |
| Posted by: FOTSGreg 2008-08-30 01:41 |
| #7 I personally don't think selling a little wheat under the Bush administration means anything to the McCain administration. Or to the Bush administration, for that matter. |
| Posted by: Mike N. 2008-08-30 01:32 |
| #6 What's not said will be more interesting, Mike. |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2008-08-30 01:26 |
| #5 I'm excited to hear what's said about Iran at the trunk convention. |
| Posted by: Mike N. 2008-08-30 01:21 |
| #4 Right. We are going to attack them the same time we are selling them wheat. |
| Posted by: Penguin 2008-08-30 01:20 |
| #3 So, Kojo, are you a new troll, or one of the old trolls in |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2008-08-30 01:04 |
| #2 Say it isn't so. We are already over-extended. Iran has an elected government; we should not violate their sovereignty. |
| Posted by: Kojo Fluque3451 2008-08-30 00:59 |
| #1 As per ISRAELNN on Israel's new decision to NOt allow Iran to go nukular, Artic UN-NAMED SECURITY SOURCE > allegedly claimed to Author that THE USA HAS BASICALLY ACCEPTED THAT IRAN WILL [eventually]BE A NUCLEAR POWER". IMO I don't think this unnamed personage means ENERGY - US-APPROVED NUCLEAR-ARMED IRAN??? |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2008-08-30 00:20 |