Skip to comments.Military Orders Suggest Iran Attack (Original Article Is In Time Magazine)
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 worlds oil passes each day.
"Coupled with the CNOs 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 magazines 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 Irans 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.
Whats 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."
Where do they come up with this stuff?
Read title as: Original Leak In Time Magazine
The enemy of liberty takes another swipe at the good guys.
Time Magazine is as bad as the "Enquirer"
Newsmax announcement to Tehran via New York.
Get the message Ahm-a-nutjob?
And by all means, let's reveal the intention - and as many details as we can piece together - in the mainstream media!
I don't believe Time Magazine.
Part of enforcing any sanctions would be a blockade of Iran's oil ports.
If the U.S. farts in the direction of Iran - the Leftist papers have a hissy fit and say we are going to attack!
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:)
"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"
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.
Historically, a blockade is considered an act of war.
Neither do I; however, I find the INTENTION remarkable.
TIME's time passed a long time ago.
This was Time magazine? I thought it was the Weekly World News.
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)
Time Magazine motto: "All the Gossip, All the Time"