Former CIA Officer Speculates on Folly of Attacking Iran

[reprehensor]

Robert David Steele runs OSS.net, a commercial, open-source intelligence resource. A former CIA officer, he certainly has the background to offer a unique perspective on possible consequences of a military strike on Iran.

On Saturday, he posted his projection of what might happen;

Here is the scenario:

1. Israel attacks Iran using the most powerful munitions every (sic) developed by America, at the very least the bunker busters, at worst tactical nuclear weapons. Bush approved this when their leader visited the White House recently.*

2. Iran defends itself by counter-attacking in both symmetric and asymmetric ways. We have absolutely no doubt that Iran has several major sites within Tel Aviv that will shock and awe when they are set off. A tactical nuclear suitcase is highly probable since 66 are missing from the Soviet stocks, and both North Korea and Pakistan have been happy to help refurbish them.**

3. Simultaneously, Hezbollah launches the other 20,000 missiles into Israel, and in all probabillity also has at least 100 commando suicide squads ready to to not only in Tel Aviv but in every Israeli city.

4. Iran may decide to include the US carriers, all very stupidly placed in confined waters where they get no warning, as legitimate targets once the Israelis attack. We certainly would. We anticipate the sinking of one US carrier as well as the sinking of one US amphibious ship with 1000 Marines on board all drowning...

Continued, scroll down to 2007-01-06.

Does Iran have the firepower to take out one or two US carriers with modified Sunburn missiles?

Steele also posts this graphic on his site;



Steele preceded his Saturday posting with a statement agreeing with Howard Bloom's warning of a nuclear ambush;

...I also believe, as Howard Bloom documented on 4 November (http://tinyurl.com/ybr337) that our carriers and amphibious troop transports are being lured into an Iranian nuclear ambush utilizing Sunburn missiles and Pakistani-provided nuclear warheads.

Whether Steele is onto something or not, the logic of placing so much Naval (and air) power where it conceivably could be attacked easily, with major damage, is utterly mad.

Is somebody trying to "Bring it on" again? That worked real good last time, didn't it?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*, ** Steele posits some things as fact in the linked speculative report that are open to debate. So take grains of salt as necessary with the report. Specifically when he says, "A tactical nuclear suitcase is highly probable since 66 are missing from the Soviet stocks". There is no way to verify this piece of information. Or when he says that Israel got its go-ahead to use tactical nukes and bunker busters from Washington, "Bush approved this when their leader visited the White House recently." Got link?

[Norquist Nemesis]

1. It's doubtful that the new commander being from the Navy

is mere coincidence. At least my first thought was 'hmmm...the new guy is from the Navy. Another carrier moved into the mix a few weeks ago. Oh, shit! He's going to do it'

The most frustrating thing is absolutely NO ONE is talking about the "AGREEMENT" that Talabani spoke of between Iraq and Iran. It was barely a blip in the news a day or two before Maliki was meeting with Bush in Jordan. Talabani said Iraq/Iran had agreed on several things, one of them being the security situation. Then, Cheney sucked all of the air out of the news with his command appearance to the Saudis.

[wakeme2008]

2. I would question if Iran has nucs to go with the Sunburns

but they have Sunburns and even without nucs they IMHO will take out one Aircraft Carrier.

[peacetalksforall]

3. Thanks for your last paragraph. We know certain things for

sure - Israel and the U.S. are in this together - the ships are there or still on their way - our notorious leaders are constantly threatening this.

And we know that someone wants this very badly.

And we've heard - Khan has sold Iran supplies and Cheney is involved?

AND OUR NSC SAID IRAN IS 10 YEARS AWAY FROM HAVING NUCLEAR BOMB CAPABILITY - and they said it in the summer of 2005.

Summer 2005 - out 10 years - 2015 minus 1 1/2 years means beginning 2013. Some have also said that they could chop off a few years if they were able to purchase certain supplies. How de we know what a 'few years' means?

What can the rest of the world do to stop this?

[reprehensor]

5. It's like sticking your jaw out...

...and beggin' for a haymaker. People have speculating about a surprise attack like the scenario envisioned above openly, online, for 2 years now, at least.

How could the Navy not be fully cognisant of this scenario?

To me, it reeks of set-up, practically a staged "incident" to draw the US into further disaster and to distract the Democratic congress from taking out Bush.

[seemslikeadream]

6. and it's working

Steny Hoyer: Use of Force Against IRAN On the Table

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=3066433&mesg_id=3066433

[seemslikeadream]

4. You might ask what it takes to remember

When you know that you've seen it before



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFowNFvmUxw

I've been waiting for something to happen
For a week or a month or a year
With the blood in the ink of the headlines
And the sound of the crowd in my ear
You might ask what it takes to remember
When you know that you've seen it before
Where a government lies to a people
And a country is drifting to war

And there's a shadow on the faces
Of the men who send the guns
To the wars that are fought in places
Where their business interest runs

On the radio talk shows and the t.v.
You hear one thing again and again
How the u.s.a. stands for freedom
And we come to the aid of a friend
But who are the ones that we call our friends--
These governments killing their own?
Or the people who finally can't take any more
And they pick up a gun or a brick or a stone
There are lives in the balance
There are people under fire
There are children at the cannons
And there is blood on the wire

Theres a shadow on the faces
Of the men who fan the flames
Of the wars that are fought in places
Where we cant even say the names

They sell us the president the same way
They sell us our clothes and our cars
They sell us every thing from youth to religion
The same time they sell us our wars
I want to know who the men in the shadows are
I want to hear somebody asking them why
They can be counted on to tell us who our enemies are
But they're never the ones to fight or to die
And there are lives in the balance
There are people under fire
There are children at the cannons
And there is blood on the wire

[radfringe]

7. Attack - Folly in the same sentence?

sounds like a bush plan to me

[Peace Patriot]

8. I admit that all of this is reasonable speculation, and damned scary.

Violence is the Bush-Cheney trump card. And of course they would have no qualms whatever about instigating it, and lying about it--if there is even time for lies. And I would put a much stronger word on it than "folly." This truly is madness, for, if Carl Sagan was right, in his book "The Cold and the Dark," even a limited nuclear exchange will so impact the atmosphere as to kill our planet very quickly, in a year or two--as soon as the food runs out. We already have crazy weather patterns from global warming (due to burning of fossil fuels), gravely disrupting wildlife and protein sources (like fish--impacts on the oceans), and causing serious extremes of drought and flooding, as well as an increase in destructive events like hurricanes. Add in a cloud cover of dust over the planet, from a nuke exchange--which will last for many months, killing all vegetation--and you have the end of the human race and planet earth.

That's a fine ending for the long reign of the three major male-worshiping religions, ain't it? Christianity, Judaism and Islam taking us all down with their insane worship of aggression and power.

But one part of this scenario has me hesitating--or a couple of parts. First, Israel. They will be the first to go--whether it's nukes or not. End of the state of Israel. If they attack Iran, they could well be obliterated in the first couple of minutes by Pakistan, and certainly in the following couple of weeks, by invasion of surrounding Arab/Muslim states (officially or unofficially--that is, in some cases, Arab/Muslim warrior groups taking their own initiative, if governments don't act). And I tend to doubt that even Israel's rightwing, warmongering, war profiteering leadership would take that risk--an all out Muslim attack, ending Israel. Is the US going to attack the entire Middle East in defense of Israel? (Take a look at a map!) Are we looking at a holocaust? What will Russia and China do, if they do? And, for that matter, what will France do, and the rest of Europe? Which brings me to my second hesitation: Europe. They are a lot closer to any impending battle, and to nuclear fallout, than we are. Their ships might be able to stop some missiles hitting Europe, but they cannot stop nuclear fallout, or the impacts of any large conflagration in the Middle East. Italy, Greece, Turkey--think of the proximity!

All of this leads me to believe that the plan may be more limited--or may just be a threat (re: Iran developing nukes, or Iran gaining power in Iraq). It could even possibly be a withdrawal plan--pull US troops out, under cover of the US fleet, and keep the fleet there to protect Israel from Iran/Iraq. But it is a tinderbox--and then some. One mistake and it's all over, for all of us.