Are we about to attack Iran?

[BobcatJH]

First, there was this from July 2005:

The Pentagon, acting under instructions from Vice President Dick Cheney's office, has tasked the United States Strategic Command (STRATCOM) with drawing up a contingency plan to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States. The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons. Within Iran there are more than 450 major strategic targets, including numerous suspected nuclear-weapons-program development sites. Many of the targets are hardened or are deep underground and could not be taken out by conventional weapons, hence the nuclear option. As in the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States. Several senior Air Force officers involved in the planning are reportedly appalled at the implications of what they are doing – that Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack – but no one is prepared to damage his career by posing any objections.

Interesting. And today, we learn this:

President George W. Bush is likely to name Admiral William Fallon, the chief of U.S. forces in Asia and the Pacific, as the next commander in the Middle East, part of a personnel shuffle accompanying a review of Iraq war policy, a U.S. official familiar with the deliberations said.

The 62-year-old Fallon, known as "Fox," his call sign when he was a Navy fighter pilot, made an unannounced trip to Washington to meet yesterday with Defense Department officials at the Pentagon. While Fallon was under serious consideration to head Central Command, Bush hasn't made a final decision, the official said. The new commander will be announced as early as Jan. 8.

Curious, don't you think, that the president would place a Navy man in charge of two ground wars? Curious, that is, until you see this from Wednesday:

The Pentagon will send a second aircraft carrier and its escort ships to the Gulf, defense officials said on Wednesday, as a warning to Syria and Iran and to give commanders more flexibility in the region.

The officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Bremerton, Wash.-based USS John C. Stennis strike group would deploy this month. It will put 5,000 more U.S. sailors in the region, bringing the total to 16,000.

The USS Dwight D. Eisenhower aircraft carrier group entered the Gulf in December.

Could our posturing soon become something else entirely?

[achtung_circus]

1. No, nt.

[Rick Myers]

2. Your point is well-taken!!!

A Navy guy would be needed to effectively run a carrier-based action!!! With 3 carrier groups and a Marine Amphib group in the Gulf, you seem to be on the right track!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :grr:

[alfredo]

5. It could be back up and air support for the "surge."

Or the surge could actually be a hasty retreat south to Kuwait and the gulf.


We won't be able to leave without sustaining casualties. Extra troops and air support to guard our escape may be needed.

[achtung_circus]

11. 3 carrier groups ??

The Eisenhower is in the Gulf and the Stennis is about to deploy. Who is the third??

[FogerRox]

31. You can track carrier groups here

http://www.ne.jp/asahi/gonavy/atsugi/gonavy604.html

Ike is in the Arabian Sea, Stennis can be deployed soon, Stennis would make 2 groups, I am not sure where you got the 3rd.

[CrazyOrangeCat]

3. the asshat is a total out-of-control sociopath.

so, yes. i fear we are.

some grown-ups are going to have to act FAST, or he's going to kill a whole lot more people.

nightmares.

[Warpy]

4. I doubt it, but something is certainly going on.

Fighters and transport planes have been landing at the base here in central NM all afternoon. Either they're starting to move equipment east a day at a time, or something else may be going on. I saw the same pattern in February, 2003: lots of activity at the base, fly ins in the PM, fly outs in the AM.

Then again, those transports may be Guard planes dropping hay and supplies where they're still snowed in (although they've only shown and admitted to using Blackhawks), but I seriously doubt it.

Stupid's flexing his muscles, I'm afraid, thinking he'll just bully this Congress like he did the last three.

[MrRobotsHolyOrders]

6. No.

For whatever its worth, preparing for a ground war against a country with an army that would make Iraq seem like a picnic is something that's pretty hard to do quietly. When/if he steps up for it, people will know.

[FrenchieCat]

13. Who's talking ground troops.

They are thinking "hitting" targets from high altitudes. That's why the AirForce General just replaced the Army General in the ME region as calling the shots.

[MrRobotsHolyOrders]

15. Well

They can bomb targets all they like, but they're probably going to have to plan that Iran will then cross the border into Iraq. The military may not always show spine when Bush says jump, but they're not going to let our troops get routed fighting an Iranian assualt on one side and a partisan war in our basecamps.

[FogerRox]

32. This is a very good insght

"but they're probably going to have to plan that Iran will then cross the border into Iraq."

Bush has created an imbalance in the ME. Everone in the Mid EAst knows it. Iranian troops flooding into eastern Iraq is not something anyone wants, as it represents a probable all out regional war. Something the US Military would not be able to control. Isreal is not the country with nukes, Saudi Arabia & Pakistan for starters, then India....

I doubt at this time there will be any attack on Iran. Afterall Saudi Arabia is conducting back door talks with Isreal, they do have, at this time, some common interests.


Saudi Arabia & its modernized ICBM program
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/1/4/13653/75021

Some background
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=2301544

Iranian missile systems & the US Navy in the Persian Gulf
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/1/5/162546/5327

[Trajan]

38. Bingo ....

My argument for months ....

Attacked Iran without accounting for a conventional response in Iraq would be extremely foolish ...

And loosing the Nuclear Tiger in the ME would devastate the entire region: Israel included ....

Foolhardly, indeed ....

One thing that worries me, though ... THESE fools are already known to commit horrific strategic blunders and barely bat an eyelash ....

THAT concerns me ...

One thing that comforts me: Another declaration of war would be required ...

... Unless the US Constitution is suspended .....

[blm]

7. my husband's cousin is a Naval jet fighter who is being deployed soon.

No EXACT word where, but we're pretty sure it's this Iran mission.

[kimmerspixelated]

8. You may be right

An article in www.JuanCole.com
suggested just that in an eery way. My thinking is, that surely, surely we have someone truly brave in the higher ups, that will NOT push the red button- I mean, the command to attack- since numnutz won't be doing it, has to be carried out by someone.. I'm hoping that that someone knows how catastrophic it will be and just simply decide to boycott/refuse whatever even if it means the end of his career. That person would be a hero!

[achtung_circus]

10. if the article you mean is this one:

http://www.juancole.com/2006/12/alexandrovna-guest-op-ed-saddams.html

it is not from Juan Cole, but from Larisa Alexandrovna as guest editorial. Not quite Cole's imprimatur.

[MichiganVote]

9. Not yet. We have to erroneously claim they have WMD first.

[drb]

12. Yes. Just a matter of when. Why? Because the Iranians....

....will start accepting only Euros for their oil, as of March 21. http://www.rigzone.com/news/article.asp?a_id=39327

[teryang]

14. This is ominous, for two reasons

Placing an admiral in charge of CENTCOM suggests that the CinC is considering moves that will place the lines of communication in the Persian Gulf region in greater jeopardy. Anti-cruise missile defense and other naval surface warfare considerations rather than a ground warfare focus are suggested by such a decision.

Also, CNN reported a white house statement that the "decision" regarding a new direction in Iraq would be strategic in dimension, rather than limited to just consideration of the so called "surge" inside Iraq.

An admiral with aviation warfare experience is more than capable of supervising the so called air assault against Iran, and more capable than either an Air Force or ground forces general officer of supervising the defense against the anticipated response from Iran to such an attack, which will necessarily invole surface warfare, mine warfare, air and missile defense over the gulf and defense of port facilities of international economic significance.

As the talking head retired general with the AEI background said, Admiral Fallon, is the right man for the job, a regional strategic solution, to a local intractable problem.

[FrenchieCat]

16. Boy that information certainly doesn't reassure us.....

guess we can kiss goodbye to sitting at a table to negotiate regional peace then...

If this is the plan.......this is calamity waiting to happen. and knowing this administration, if something bad can happen it will multiplied by a factor of 200!

[CK_John]

18. Iran has a few subs(3 or so). I hope they know their location. n/t

[FogerRox]

33. All good points, I would like to add 2 things

The US Army is fed up with Bush, many generals have been cycled thru, fired, Hell even Tommy Franks got out. The war/occupation of Iraq has run the Army down. You can't say these same things for the NAvy or the AirForce.

In essence, if you are in need of fresh blood, as indeed the Bush cabal is, then look someplace NEW, look anywhere but the Army.


Plus, CentCom is run out of the Air base in Qatar, its huge. possible the largest & most modern Airbase in the Mid East. Why wouldn't you run it with an "admiral with aviation warfare experience".

Vigilance.

[donkeyotay]

17. This scares the crap out of me as I so did not want to spend the rest of my

life devoted to the loooong war. What bothers me is that the commander in chief long ago told us he would compensate his total lack of qualifications for the job by relying on the advice of others in foreign policy. Let's hope its not Ledeen. But imagine the bush we know licking his wounds and trying to salvage the Iraqi disaster. I can't imagine him doing it. I can, unfortunately, imagine the disaster monkey wanting the grandeur of being the Popular Wartime President restored to him. Because he is an incompetent nincompoop and a sociopath, I doubt that he cares what price the world pays to massage his ego. Will the military stop him? Not likely. Congress? Ha. Congress and the press will line up behind the commander in chief no matter how insane his war plans. We will be left to read em and weep.

[mrgorth]

19. I don't know

All I know is the knuckle draggers on a debate site I frequent constantly call for a war on all of America's enemies. They essentially are willing to draft anyone fit to kill all the muslims we need to put the mideast under our thumb.

[ellisonz]

20. No.

Fear mongering on our side is just as bad as it is on the other. Focus on Iraq.

[Infinite Hope]

21. No, but the third section of your post is interesting. n/t

[fuzzyball]

22. If there is another 911 style attack during Bush43, Iran will be attacked by air

just as Afghanistan was attacked after 911. Within 10 days
after another terror attack. It will all be Air Force which
is well rested after 3 years. I have a feeling it is all
re-equipped and refurbished and ready to be used. The bomb
makers need more business to replace the existing inventory.

But if no such terror attack happens, then Iran will not be
attacked.

[Boxerfan]

23. It's a set up-Our men will be slaughtered by Sunburst Missiles

The fucking sociopath of the century won't be satisfied till he starts WW3.

[lpbk2713]

24. What woriies me ....

... is that the BushCo brain trust (:rofl:) might get it in their collective little heads that they need to pull off some big military stunt in order to boost their pathetic boss's popularity ratings. I fear invading Iran would be biting off way more than they could chew. And of course it would be the next administration (surely it will be a Dem one) that will have to deal with it.

[Jcrowley]

25. Who's "we"?

As for the US/European elites the answer is "Always Yes" as at present extraordinary financial/economic pressures are being levied against Iran and if that fails look for the jackals to move in.

Son of Shah is waiting in the curtains.

[unc70]

26. Israeli press has reported the decision to bomb already made.

There have been several reports over the last month or so indicating that Bibi and friends think\\\\\believe that Bush has already agreed to act against Iran with air strikes. Recently mirrored in reports on the net the last couple of days.

The carrier group buildup and the command reassignments are starting to alarm me and apparently many others. Need to do some quick checking this weekend.

Maybe with enough light and enough outrage we could do enough to stop this from happening.

[liberal renegade]

28. Iran will unleash a few sunburn missiles

against our naval ships and the persian gulf will look like Pearl Harbor. Iran will then be vaporized and the oil will be Exxon/Mobil's

[fuzzyball]

37. and if Bush does not go along, Bibi is also working on democrats

if there is a change in 2008.

[snot]

27. Another possible clue:

I've been struck by the series of delays in unveiling Bush's "new" plan for Iraq. It's not like he or his advisors are genuinely, open-mindedly seeking new options, or are actually working on digesting loads of previously-unknown information. Just recently it dawned on me, they seem to be stalling. For what, I wondered? I'm terrified at what the answer might be.

[HuffleClaw]

30. you've got it

all they need now is an excuse. unless israel is gonna be their proxy. bush MIGHT decide to play some ultimatum game but i doubt it. this is gonna be happening before we ever hear about it. call it an 'insta-crisis', otherwise the democratic congress could act to prevent it.

[Telly Savalas]

29. If you read DU regularly,

then you'd know that the invasion of Iran has been imminent for over 2 years.

I suspect it will continue to be imminent for a couple more.

[FogerRox]

34. Hey Kojack, you are sooooooo right.

We're in a recession, there is no reason to shut down the straights of Hormuz right now.

I am sure Russia loves selling Iran some more Tor M-1 SAM batteries, Russia exports more arms than the US, by a mere 1 billion, 31 to 30 billion.

[mirandapriestly]

35. I just hope "someone" doesn't "attack" us

if you know what I mean....

[TheWraith]

36. No, no, and no.

We've been hearing this same refrain constantly pretty much since 2002-2003. If it were going to happen, I think it would have happened by now. They're not powerful enough to do something like that anymore.

[ktlyon]

39. or they could be planning a quick pull out

need the navy to support it
or not