US military strike on Iran seen by April ’07; Sea-launched attack to hit oil, N-sites

[seemslikeadream]

http://www.arabtimesonline.com/arabtimes/kuwait/Viewdet.asp?ID=9548&cat=a

US military strike on Iran seen by April ’07; Sea-launched attack to hit oil, N-sites


KUWAIT CITY: Washington will launch a military strike on Iran before April 2007, say sources. The attack will be launched from the sea and Patriot missiles will guard all oil-producing countries in the region, they add. Recent statements emanating from the United States indicate the Bush administration’s new strategy for Iraq doesn’t include any proposal to make a compromise or negotiate with Syria or Iran. A reliable source said President Bush recently held a meeting with Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Secretary of State Dr Condoleezza Rice and other assistants in the White House where they discussed the plan to attack Iran in minute detail.

According to the source, Vice President Dick Cheney highlighted the threat posed by Iran to not only Saudi Arabia but the whole region. “Tehran is not playing politics. Iranian leaders are using their country’s religious influence to support the aggressive regime’s ambition to expand,” the source quoted Dick Cheney as saying. Indicating participants of the meeting agreed to impose restrictions on the ambitions of Iranian regime before April 2007 without exposing other countries in the region to any danger, the source said “they have chosen April as British Prime Minister Tony Blair has said it will be the last month in office for him. The United States has to take action against Iran and Syria before April 2007.”

Claiming the attack will be launched from the sea and not from any country in the region, he said “the US and its allies will target the oil installations and nuclear facilities of Iran ensuring there is no environmental catastrophe or after effects.” “Already the US has started sending its warships to the Gulf and the build-up will continue until Washington has the required number by the end of this month,” the source said. “US forces in Iraq and other countries in the region will be protected against any Iranian missile attack by an advanced Patriot missile system.”

He went on to say “although US Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Secretary of State Dr Condoleezza Rice suggested postponing the attack, President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney insisted on attacking Tehran without any negotiations based on the lesson they learnt in Iraq recently.” The Bush administration believes attacking Iran will create a new power balance in the region, calm down the situation in Iraq and pave the way for their democratic project, which had to be suspended due to the interference of Tehran and Damascus in Iraq, he continued. The attack on Iran will weaken the Syrian regime, which will eventually fade away, the source said.

[leftchick]

1. fantasyland

"the US and its allies will target the oil installations and nuclear facilities of Iran ensuring there is no environmental catastrophe or after effects.” ????????!!!!!!!

That is absolutely impossible. These people are bat shit crazy. They do not even think about the counter attack on Israel and our troops in Iraq by Iran. Then the involvement of Turkey and Pakistan??? Perhaps Syria and SA???

God help us all.

:scared:

[seemslikeadream]

26. bat shit crazy

Yes they are!

[Manifestor_of_Light]

27. Guano gung ho goofy!!!

[DoYouEverWonder]

2. Bush doesn't have until April

he may not even be in office by April, or at the least, he won't be a position to launch any more attacks on other countries.

[FedUpWithIt All]

3. Fucking idiots...

He went on to say “although US Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Secretary of State Dr Condoleezza Rice suggested postponing the attack, President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney insisted on attacking Tehran without any negotiations based on the lesson they learnt in Iraq recently.”

Eh, what exactly would that be? That people attacked will defend themselves? That IED's kill? That we don't even have enough troops left to guard Baghdad let alone take on a new country? That the American public is already fed up enough to consider stopping funding for bush's folly.


I don't believe it anyhow. bush doesn't learn, it goes against his programming.

The Bush administration believes attacking Iran will create a new power balance in the region, calm down the situation in Iraq and pave the way for their democratic project, which had to be suspended due to the interference of Tehran and Damascus in Iraq, he continued. The attack on Iran will weaken the Syrian regime, which will eventually fade away, the source said.

This is...well there really are no words. The assholes live in a complete fantasyland. And not a beautiful one at that.

[TahitiNut]

9. Not "troops" are needed. That's a red herring.

Troops would ONLY be required for an invasion. No invasion is needed to drop bombs and launch missiles. To deploy troops to the Iraqi border isn't really necessary either. After all, who the fuck really cares if they cross the Iraqi border? Dear Leader would just drop more bombs - the terrortory matters little.

[tblue37]

17. They are trying to emulate Israel's recent "success" in Lebanon. (eom)

[Junkdrawer]

22. And, it'll probably start about the same way n/t

[msongs]

4. what "sources" say this? your grandma? nt

[IDemo]

8. A. Reliable Source has been around since the invention of the printing press

Why would you question his credentials now? ;-)

[Zynx]

5. This article is BS. No one is dumb enough to bomb oil facilities.

Wrecking Iran's oil exports would mean a global oil shortage and $8 gas overnight. Which would cause a depression panic in the US and probably no small amount of riots.

[riderinthestorm]

7. Not oil facilities - Iran's nuke sites. nt

[Zynx]

10. The article specifically mentions oil installations:

>>Claiming the attack will be launched from the sea and not from any country in the region, he said “the US and its allies will target the oil installations and nuclear facilities of Iran...<<<

There's also absolutely no chance of us having any "allies" in this - we already sank all those governments with Iraq, Blair included.

[TahitiNut]

12. "allies" = Israel

:shrug: Simple.

[riderinthestorm]

15. I believe the oil installations will be struck just enough to disable them as a warning

and to perhaps disrupt some cash flow for Iran. I don't believe any serious long term damage will occur to Iran's oil (although BFEE could and probably does have a plan for that - I'll have to think about it). Be that as it may however, we don't rely upon Iran's oil - our buddies in Saudi Arabia will ramp up their production sufficiently to cover any shortage to keep any price escalation as low as they can to defuse outcry would be my guess.

And I believe "allies" is code for Israel.

[TahitiNut]

11. The US has imported -ZERO- barrels of oil from Iran, 1992-present.

Likewise, the US imported -ZERO- barrels of oil from Libya between 1986-2003. Libyan oil imports are now growing, with 50,000 barrels/day in 2005 ... and more today.

[Zynx]

21. Oil market doesn't care where we get our oil from.

We still have to pay market price for oil. This price is set, as commodities are, in internatoinal markets.

Whenever a shock drives a demand over a supply, you have a price spike. There's not enough to go around, therefore people essentially bid (that's what you do anyway with futures contracts, but in this case the bidding keeps on going long beyond the point people would normally say "I'll buy some other oil"). This can lead to some truly outlandish prices for goods that poeple cannot go without. Oil would be one, as we've proven again and again demand does not drop significantly no matter how expensive it gets.

Oil is currently slumping down to the $50 range. If you attacked Iran in any way, it would spike over $80, easily, on the realistic danger fighting a war in a major oil exporter poses. If you actually intentionally bombed and destroyed Iranian oil production capacity, who knows. $150+, possibly $200+. Iran would also respond by hitting Kuwait and/or Saudi oil fields and terminals and refineries, because they KNOW what that would do to the West. But bombing the Iranian facilities alone would be bad enough.

A spike that size will be felt immediately at street level, and it will be severe. You'd finish off the US economy (due for a 2007 recession as it is) and you'd have a good chance of a steet-level panic from the gas prices. Gas lines, riots, theft, etc.

So yeah, the fact the article talks about deliberately whacking the Iranian oil facilities indicates that this "source" doesn't have a clue as to what he is talking about.

[riderinthestorm]

6. I read elsewhere that Iran's Bushehr plant will begin fueling by March

which means we (Israel?) could ostensibly hit the plant before any nuclear fuel gets there, and cause catastrophic physical damage without nuclear holocaust.

Also the Exxon, BP et al oil contracts for control of Iraq's oil fields will be signed by then - watch for those companies to guard their new possessions with mercs already in country as well as the Patriots conveniently moved into place.

It's just insanity - to think that attacking Iran will "calm" anything is just grotesque.

[seemslikeadream]

13. The most dangerous George Bush is one who feels weak,

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/

The reason Bush violated the law when eavesdropping is the same reason Lithwick cites to explain his other lawless and extremist measures -- because he wanted purposely not to comply with the law in order to establish the general "principle" that he was not bound by the law, to show that he has the power to break the law, that he is more powerful than the law. This is a President and an administration that are obsessed first and foremost with their own power and with constant demonstrations of their own strength. Conversely, what they fear and hate the most is their own weakness and submission to limitations.

For that reason, the weaker and more besieged the administration feels, the more compelled they will feel to make a showing of their power. Lashing out in response to feelings of weakness is a temptation most human beings have, but it is more than a mere temptation for George Bush. It is one of the predominant dynamics that drives his behavior.

His party suffered historic losses in the 2006 midterm elections as a result of profound dissatisfaction with his presidency and with his war, and his reaction was to escalate the war, despite (really, because of) the extreme unpopularity of that option. And as Iraq rapidly unraveled, he issued orders that pose a high risk of the conflict engulfing Iran. When he feels weak and restrained, that is when he acts most extremely.

Bush officials and their followers talk incessantly about things like power, weakness, domination, humiliation. Their objectives -- both foreign and domestic -- are always to show their enemies that they are stronger and more powerful and the enemies are weaker and thus must submit ("shock and awe"). It is a twisted world view but it dominates their thinking (and that is how our country has been governed for the last six years, which is what accounts for our current predicament). As John Dean demonstrated, a perception of one's weakness and the resulting fears it inspires are almost always what drive people to seek out empowering authoritarian movements and the group-based comforts of moral certitude.

The most dangerous George Bush is one who feels weak, powerless and under attack. Those perceptions are intolerable for him and I doubt there are many limits, if there are any, on what he would be willing to do in order to restore a feeling of power and to rid himself of the sensations of his own weakness and defeat.

[bananas]

14. globalsecurity.org has an Iran Countdown clock set for Feb 1.

http://www.globalsecurity.org

[Pathwalker]

23. I keep thinking early March. No real reason why-

I just think they'll do it then.

[lyonn]

18. Who's to stop this madness? Democrats? United Nations?

How about our European allies? It feels like we are swimming uphill and nothing Will stop bush doing what ever??? he plans to do.

[mod mom]

19. "He wanted purposely not to comply w the law..."

"he wanted purposely not to comply with the law in order to establish the general "principle" that he was not bound by the law, to show that he has the power to break the law, that he is more powerful than the law."

-from Glen Greenwald

just about says it all. enough is enough-he is a criminal and we are a nation of laws!

[Morgana LaFey]

20. probably all too true nt

[Junkdrawer]

16. K&R

[lovuian]

24. No Oil means high Oil stock prices

Cheney promised the Oil Conglomerates money

[lovuian]

25. kick

:kick: for a fello Duer who can't find this LOL