Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Military Orders Suggest Iran Attack (Original Article Is In Time Magazine)
NewsMax ^ | 9/18/06

Posted on 09/18/2006 10:08:31 AM PDT by areafiftyone

Two recent orders by the American military have led some observers to conclude that the U.S. is preparing for an attack on Iran.

One order was a "Prepare to Deploy" command sent to a submarine, an Aegis-class cruiser, two minesweepers and two mine hunters, telling the ships’ commanders to be ready to move by Oct. 1.

The other was a request from the Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) for a fresh look at long-standing U.S. plans to blockade two Iranian oil ports on the Persian Gulf.

The orders created a buzz within the military because there are few places in the world where minesweepers could be significant – chief among them, the Strait of Hormuz in the Persian Gulf, where about 40 percent of the world’s oil passes each day.

"Coupled with the CNO’s request for a blockade review, a deployment of minesweepers to the west coast of Iran would seem to suggest that a much discussed – but until now largely theoretical – prospect has become real: that the U.S. may be preparing for war with Iran,” according to a special report in Time magazine.

The U.S. military routinely makes plans for many different scenarios, and the vast majority of them will never be carried out.

"And yet from the State Department to the White House to the highest reaches of the military command, there is a growing sense that a showdown with Iran – over its suspected quest for nuclear weapons, its threats against Israel and its bid for dominance of the world's richest oil region – may be impossible to avoid,” Time reports.

The magazine’s reporters interviewed dozens of experts and government officials to find out what an attack on Iran would consist of – and what its repercussions might be.

First of all, most observers believe the attack would not involve ground forces and would instead be a massive air campaign against Iran’s 18 to 30 nuclear-related facilities.

But many of the targets are hardened, and would have to be struck repeatedly to ensure that they were destroyed or severely damaged. Some sites are in populated areas, and civilian casualties would be a certainty, according to Time. And there would be no guarantee that the strikes would destroy all nuclear-related sites, because some sites could be undiscovered.

What’s more, the attacks would spark retaliation from Iran that could include ordering a Hezbollah attack on Israel and stepping up the funneling of money and weapons to the Taliban in Afghanistan and insurgents in Iraq.

The likelihood that Iran would also seek to close the Strait of Hormuz is high, and a disruption of the oil supplies flowing through the strait could send oil prices skyrocketing.

That in turn could spur a stepped-up military effort by the U.S. that could even include the "worst case” use of ground forces in an effort to topple the Iranian regime, retired Marine General Anthony Zinni told Time.

For that reason, Zinni believes an attack on Iran is a "dumb idea.”

And that is why the U.S. has sought to emphasize a possible diplomatic solution, Time concludes. One Bush administration official told the magazine:

"Nobody is considering a military option at this point. We're trying to prevent a situation in which the President finds himself having to decide between a nuclear-armed Iran or going to war. The best hope of avoiding that dilemma is hard-nosed diplomacy, one that has serious consequences."


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:

1 posted on 09/18/2006 10:08:33 AM PDT by areafiftyone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: areafiftyone

Where do they come up with this stuff?


2 posted on 09/18/2006 10:10:19 AM PDT by misterrob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: areafiftyone

Read title as: Original Leak In Time Magazine

The enemy of liberty takes another swipe at the good guys.


3 posted on 09/18/2006 10:10:41 AM PDT by snowrip (Liberal? YOU HAVE NO RATIONAL ARGUMENT. Actually, you lack even a legitimate excuse.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: misterrob

Time Magazine is as bad as the "Enquirer"


4 posted on 09/18/2006 10:10:54 AM PDT by areafiftyone (Politicians Are Like Diapers - Both Need To Be Changed Often And For The Same Reason)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: areafiftyone

Newsmax announcement to Tehran via New York.
Get the message Ahm-a-nutjob?


5 posted on 09/18/2006 10:10:57 AM PDT by romanesq
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: areafiftyone

And by all means, let's reveal the intention - and as many details as we can piece together - in the mainstream media!


6 posted on 09/18/2006 10:11:51 AM PDT by Jack Hammer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jack Hammer

I don't believe Time Magazine.


7 posted on 09/18/2006 10:12:24 AM PDT by areafiftyone (Politicians Are Like Diapers - Both Need To Be Changed Often And For The Same Reason)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: areafiftyone
Another article in Time claims we'll get the crap kicked out of us "if" we attack Iran. Nice to know that Time is covering all spectrum's before anything happens.
8 posted on 09/18/2006 10:12:58 AM PDT by tobyhill (The War on Terrorism is not for the weak.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: areafiftyone
OR one could interpret these orders as this -- The U.S. is preparing for the imposition of U.N. sanctions on Iran for failing to comply with UN resolutions regarding Iran's Nuclear Program.

Part of enforcing any sanctions would be a blockade of Iran's oil ports.

9 posted on 09/18/2006 10:15:24 AM PDT by commish (Freedom tastes sweetest to those who have fought to protect it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: commish

If the U.S. farts in the direction of Iran - the Leftist papers have a hissy fit and say we are going to attack!


10 posted on 09/18/2006 10:17:13 AM PDT by areafiftyone (Politicians Are Like Diapers - Both Need To Be Changed Often And For The Same Reason)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: areafiftyone
Bizarre.

They're preparing for a BLOCKADE of Iranian oil, not for strikes on Iran.

I believe the only force that will be used at this stage is only that sufficient to enforce a blockade of Iran and to keep the strait open.

Economic sanctions with TEETH.

This is something I have advocated for weeks...of course, I have to believe the administration thought of it before I advocated here:)

11 posted on 09/18/2006 10:17:35 AM PDT by Mariner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: areafiftyone
It appeared as if the writer had been able to see through the fog...

"The U.S. military routinely makes plans for many different scenarios, and the vast majority of them will never be carried out."

But then the writer cannot fight back the dramaqueen inside of himself...

"And yet from the State Department to the White House to the highest reaches of the military command, there is a growing sense that a showdown with Iran"

12 posted on 09/18/2006 10:19:52 AM PDT by VaBthang4 ("He Who Watches Over Israel Will Neither Slumber Nor Sleep")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mariner

I find it reeeeeealy hard to believe TIME Magazine. They have been spewing the same crap that Scott Ritter has been spewing for a long time. This is a bogus story.


13 posted on 09/18/2006 10:20:21 AM PDT by areafiftyone (Politicians Are Like Diapers - Both Need To Be Changed Often And For The Same Reason)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Mariner

Historically, a blockade is considered an act of war.


14 posted on 09/18/2006 10:20:27 AM PDT by CaptRon (Pedecaris alive or Raisuli dead)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: areafiftyone

Neither do I; however, I find the INTENTION remarkable.


15 posted on 09/18/2006 10:21:54 AM PDT by Jack Hammer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: areafiftyone

TIME's time passed a long time ago.


16 posted on 09/18/2006 10:24:28 AM PDT by Semper Vigilantis (Any aid to the Arab world should be delivered from 40,000 feet - 1000 lbs at a time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: areafiftyone

This was Time magazine? I thought it was the Weekly World News.


17 posted on 09/18/2006 10:27:51 AM PDT by fredhead (Women want me....Fish fear me....I can dream can't I?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: areafiftyone
Two recent orders by the American military have led some observers to conclude that the U.S. is preparing for an attack on Iran.

If true it is about time. US and NATO (under Clinton) attacked Yugoslavia for much lesser reason (Yugoslavia trying to defend itself againts Islamofacist invasion)

18 posted on 09/18/2006 10:28:31 AM PDT by Anticommie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CaptRon; Mariner
I think Mariner has it right, though preparation is the key word. It's on the table, right in the center of the table, let's say.

CaptRon is correct that blockades are considered acts of war. A blockade will bring some screaming from the usual suspects, but not nearly the type of castigation that bombing would bring.

If Iran doesn't back off, blockade, probably including seizure of some of Iran's offshore platforms, is likely, IMO. I don't see Bush leaving this issue for the next President.
19 posted on 09/18/2006 10:31:25 AM PDT by SaxxonWoods (Free Iran! WARNING! Forbidden Cartoon: .. . *-O(( :-{>. . . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: areafiftyone
Time Magazine is as bad as the "Enquirer"

Time Magazine motto: "All the Gossip, All the Time"

20 posted on 09/18/2006 10:33:36 AM PDT by vox humana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: commish

A blockade is a technical act of war.


21 posted on 09/18/2006 10:35:28 AM PDT by Citizen Tom Paine (An old sailor sends)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: areafiftyone
The best hope of avoiding that dilemma is hard-nosed diplomacy, one that has serious consequences."

Someone please explain this apparent contradiction to me please....

22 posted on 09/18/2006 10:39:21 AM PDT by TheBattman (I've got TWO QUESTIONS for you....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: areafiftyone

I would hope the US is continually preparing for war with Iran.


23 posted on 09/18/2006 10:53:33 AM PDT by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: areafiftyone
Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting
24 posted on 09/18/2006 11:07:41 AM PDT by Tzimisce (How Would Mohammed Vote? Hillary for President! www.dndorks.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mariner
They're preparing for a BLOCKADE of Iranian oil, not for strikes on Iran.

Blockades work both ways. The Iranians have lots of oil, but little refining capacity. Their achilles heel is gasoline -- which they have to re-import. No gas and their economy & military grinds to a halt.

25 posted on 09/18/2006 11:10:54 AM PDT by Tallguy (The problem with this war is the name... You don't wage war against a tactic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: areafiftyone

"If the U.S. farts in the direction of Iran...."

Think we could start a new tradition? Fart 5 times a day twards Mecca? These are the same weeners that get excited to find out that the DOD has plans for alien invation.

This is most likly just a possible shift in deployment, wink wink.


26 posted on 09/18/2006 11:11:06 AM PDT by Dawggie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: areafiftyone
Some sites are in populated areas, and civilian casualties would be a certainty if large enough bombs are used.
27 posted on 09/18/2006 11:11:54 AM PDT by ASA Vet (3.03)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: areafiftyone

I think a military blockade of Iran is more likely than a military strike. THe U.S. occupies Iraq and Afghanistan, and is more than capable of covering the Persion Gulf and the Indian Ocean. I would only like to know what the U.S. has going on in the former USSR republics north of Iran.


28 posted on 09/18/2006 11:18:54 AM PDT by doc30 (Democrats are to morals what and Etch-A-Sketch is to Art.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: misterrob

Zinni appears to be the sole source for this article, and that means mischief. He's a Bush opponent, and, I think, a Clinton general.


29 posted on 09/18/2006 11:26:00 AM PDT by MoralSense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: areafiftyone
I would hope we are updating plans in this area. Can't imagine the President and Congress deciding it's time to get rid of Iran's nuclear program and the Pentagon saying: "We need some of that planning stuff. Get back to you in a couple of months."
30 posted on 09/18/2006 11:27:30 AM PDT by Dilbert56
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MoralSense

What no one considered is these orders may be in preparation for breaking a blockade of the Hormuz strait by Iran should they make that move in reaction to a UN resolution. That is their ultimate ace in the hole.


31 posted on 09/18/2006 11:29:14 AM PDT by tigtog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: MoralSense

He is trying to revive the "American is going to Attack Iran and we don't have enough troops" stuff that the Democrats spewed a while ago to scare the voters.


32 posted on 09/18/2006 11:30:22 AM PDT by areafiftyone (Politicians Are Like Diapers - Both Need To Be Changed Often And For The Same Reason)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: areafiftyone
LOL


33 posted on 09/18/2006 11:32:57 AM PDT by Viking2002 (Islam is to Western Civilization what ticks are to a dog.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: doc30
Please view the attached link on a blockade... This could be enforced as follows:

1. Only ships destined for ports in Iran would be stopped. This avoids the implicit environmental risk.

2. All pipelines leaving Iran could be severed on Iranian soil in unpopulated and environmentally "safe" locations. Same with inbound pipelines carrying gas, oil and it's distillates.

3. No country has the naval resources to even ATTEMPT to run the blockade and only empty ships would have to be attacked on their way into Iranian ports.

4. Iran's only recourse would be to attack the US fleet, close the strait, attack shipping entering/leaving other gulf ports and/or those countries ports. That would be the trigger for all-out war against the Iranian military...at least.

It's a LOW RISK but very effective mechanism by which to bring Iran to it's knees.

Russia has no incentive to intervene...the price of their oil exports will go up, as will demand. Of course, China would be hurt but there's nothing they could do to break the blockade as they can't project serious power that far.

The downside is the effect it will have on Japan and other Asian allies...they get alot of oil from Iran (Japan buys 29pct of Iranian exports). We'd need the other gulf nations to increase pumping/capacity to offset this loss.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1690413/posts

34 posted on 09/18/2006 11:34:04 AM PDT by Mariner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Viking2002

ROFLMAO! I love it!


35 posted on 09/18/2006 11:36:21 AM PDT by areafiftyone (Politicians Are Like Diapers - Both Need To Be Changed Often And For The Same Reason)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: areafiftyone
LOL This ought to be the official Freeper logo for the Iran ping list.....


36 posted on 09/18/2006 11:38:49 AM PDT by Viking2002 (Islam is to Western Civilization what ticks are to a dog.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: areafiftyone

TANKS for the thread,,,"Where are the Carriers ? "
Is announcing deployment,,Shake the "Left" in their face,,
While the "Right" is already "Cocked" ?


37 posted on 09/18/2006 11:39:24 AM PDT by 1COUNTER-MORTER-68 (THROWING ANOTHER BULLET-RIDDLED TV IN THE PILE OUT BACK~~~~~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mariner
"(Japan buys 29pct of Iranian exports)."

If we seize the platforms, we can ship to Japan and escrow the payments, which gives us another card to play.
38 posted on 09/18/2006 1:58:23 PM PDT by SaxxonWoods (Free Iran! WARNING! Forbidden Cartoon: .. . *-O(( :-{>. . . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: 1COUNTER-MORTER-68

Hey 1C-M,

Wandering about loose from your usual abode, I see. ;)

I've been wondering about Carrier placement myself, though Iran has a bead on them I'm sure. Not that it will do them any good.


39 posted on 09/18/2006 2:01:19 PM PDT by SaxxonWoods (Free Iran! WARNING! Forbidden Cartoon: .. . *-O(( :-{>. . . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: SaxxonWoods
We have NO REASON to risk the deployment of carriers into the Gulf.

We have sufficient airfileds throughout the theatre to provide the necessary air support. Though it would be prudent to have a carrier at the mouth of the gulf and another in the far-west pacific or Indian ocean for political contingencies.

All we need in the gulf is 4-5 frigates, 4-5 minesweepers, 2-3 subs and an Aegis destroyer or two.

However, it wouldn't hurt to let our allies (if we have any REALL allies in this fight) show their flag as well.

The US could blockade Iranian oil with routine deployments of naval power...and back that up with the threat of air power should the Iranians feel frisky.

Of course, should the Chinese decide to see if THEIR fleet will sail that far we should match their deployments 2-1.

40 posted on 09/18/2006 2:32:45 PM PDT by Mariner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Mariner

I'll defer to your point, though I simply wrote that I was curious as to current carrier placement. I always leave the details to the admirals, they wouldn't listen to me anyway, and shouldn't!

I like the blockade idea, that's the core of my comments.


41 posted on 09/18/2006 2:54:05 PM PDT by SaxxonWoods (Free Iran! WARNING! Forbidden Cartoon: .. . *-O(( :-{>. . . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Citizen Tom Paine
A blockade is a technical act of war.

So was seizing our embassy in 1979.

We are already technically at war with them.

42 posted on 09/18/2006 3:05:55 PM PDT by Warhammer (Appeasing terrorists is like throwing steaks at a tiger hoping he becomes a vegetarian.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Warhammer

We shouldn't worry whether or not it's an act of war...we should worry only about what Iran and their allies can do about it.


43 posted on 09/18/2006 3:07:26 PM PDT by Mariner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: areafiftyone
Time Magazine: Scare-Mongers?

Time magazine this week looks like they're going back into the "write about stuff to try to scare people" mode. "What War With Iran Would Look Like"

excerpts:

The first message was routine enough: a "Prepare to Deploy Order" sent through Naval communications channels to a submarine, an Aegis-class cruiser, two minesweepers and two minehunters. The orders didn't actually command the ships out of port; they just said be ready to move by October 1. A deployment of minesweepers to the east coast of Iran would seem to suggest that a much discussed, but until now largely theoretical, prospect has become real: that the U.S. may be preparing for war with Iran.

_____________________

OK, so we already have four minehunters there -- it still sounds scary to be doubling our force, you might say. It might be, if it wasn't for the fact that the two Osprey-class ships currently in Bahrain are being decommissioned in Dec. '06 . So, it looks like rather than doubling the force, we're just replacing the ones that are already there but leaving. Since all the Osprey-class ships are to be decommissioned by the end of 2008 .I wouldn't be surprised if the two "minesweepers" that got prepare to deploy orders were the Cardinal and Raven, who are going to "deploy" to their new owners in Egypt -- which means we'd still just have four minesweepers in the Gulf.

And what about the cruiser and the submarine that were mentioned? Well, it turns out that Navy ships, especially since 9/11, do "surge deployments" all the time. Bottom line: This just isn't a big deal, no matter how much Time wants us to believe it is. http://bubbleheads.blogspot.com/2006/09/time-magazine-scare-mongers.html

44 posted on 09/20/2006 3:23:25 AM PDT by anglian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: areafiftyone

I won't believe until Scott Ritter and Seymour Hersh confirm it.


45 posted on 09/20/2006 3:25:57 AM PDT by Reform4Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson