Posted on 11/03/2011 7:49:13 AM PDT by Evil Slayer
The UK and U.S. are drawing up plans to attack Iran amid growing tensions in the Middle East, it was claimed last night.
Barack Obama and David Cameron are preparing for war after reports that Iran now has enough enriched uranium for four nuclear weapons.
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s hardline regime in Tehran has been linked to three assassination plots on foreign soil, according to senior officials in Whitehall.
Iran has come sharply back into focus following the end of the Libya conflict. And the unrest has been inflamed by sabre-rattling from top politicians in Israel.
President Obama said Iran's nuclear programme continues to pose a threat and that he and French president Nicolas Sarkozy want the international community to maintain pressure on the country to admit its intentions. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is preparing to reveal intelligence on Iran's alleged nuclear arms experiments.
Iran has consistently denied that it is trying to build nuclear weapons and insists the programme is for peaceful purposes.
The U.S., Britain and France want the IAEA to share its intelligence, but Russia and China are pressing for the report to be delayed or scrapped entirely. Yesterday it was revealed that Tel Aviv had successfully test-fired a rocket capable of carrying a nuclear warhead which could strike Iran.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defence Minister Ehud Barak are reportedly agitating for a pre-emptive attack against the Islamic state. The UK would be likely to agree to any U.S. decision to invade, even though the Ministry of Defence are stretched to breaking point by swingeing budget cuts and wars in Afghanistan and Libya.
An MoD spokesman said: ‘The British government believes that a dual track strategy of pressure and engagement is the best approach to address the threat from Iran’s nuclear programme and avoid
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
The House of Saud has had enough and they are yanking Barry’s shorthairs. Michael Moore & Co. will be most displeased.
If this happens, this is the start to the third world war, and according to Fatima, 1/3 of the people die in the 3rd world war...
Dear Lord, PLEASE not with Obama as CIC. Ugh!
You are probably correct. Does this mean the Saudi’s will be involved in the strike? Will they allow the IAF basing rights or overfly rights?
The eradication of the Shiite mullah leaders of Iran could have been accomplished far more intelligently than the gross application of all out war. Moron Obama failed to support the legitimate uprising of the Iranian people in ‘09. God curse this foul evil subterranean creature.
I believe this is the 10th or 12th similar story I have read in a year. Seems like a monthly release.
I don’t think anything is going to happen. This administration and some of the last has already let this country go nuc while telling us it never would.
I think the Saudis have very quietly and behind the scenes been negotiating the details of an attack with the Israelis for years, while at the same time feeding “slaughter the Zionist pigs” propaganda to their own people.
If the enemy within the WH knows the plans, he’ll leak them to his cohorts in Iran.
Well H why don’t they just announced the date!!!!/S
They’re not trying to keep this secret from Iran - it’s part of the diplomatic game of “good cop / bad cop.”
So, once again, the U.K. and the U.S. are the mere hired guns of the Saudis; and for what?
Strip away the bought-and-paid-for hype, in the west, about “moderation” with regard to the Saudis and anyone can see that their form of Islam is no less tyrannical, no less radical, no less of an extreme fundamentalist bent than the Theocrats in Iran. In addition, the largest sources of outside private funding for both Al Queda and the Taliban, as well for radical Islamic religious schools comes from wealthy Arabs in Saudi Arabia and Saudi-alligned states, not Iran. As societies go, they are not our friends.
We have been the Saudis great friends, they have never been ours.
The west has no dog in the race for king of the hill in Islam, between the Shia radicals in Iran and the Wahabi radicals in Saudi Arabia. If they want to go after each other, let them.
We can gain absolutely zero, in the long run, by helping either side. If and when either the Theocrats in Iran or the Wahabis in Saudi Arabia were able to claim the Caliphate over Islam, it would not be any kind of good thing, much less a victory for the west. We have no very-long-term gain from trying to “save” the Saudis.
We can contain Iran, as we have done since the beginning of the nuclear age with regard to other nuclear-armed states. We have no need, military or otherwise, for an unprovoked first strike on Iran.
Israel on the other hand is in an entirely different situation, and with regard to that situation, the U.S. should neither publicly encourage Israel to take-out Iran’s nuclear facilities, nor should we privately discourage it, nor should we privately deny our assistance to them if asked.
Well that might work with a CIVILIZED country with a half sane leader. but Iran is a whole other kettle of fish. IMO.
BUT, they better have the nukes they claim. because the Saudi’s are pissed. Especially if Zero gets sent packing and the new admin, starts drill baby drilling. MONEY in the end is always the real game changer.
If you’d like to be on or off, please FR mail me.
..................
You reference a lot of what ifs, maybes, might be, could be, and could possible be speculations, ignoring five things.
(1) we faced “possible” immanent annihilation from the Soviets, who vowed to bury us, and who had capabilities many times over what the Iranians have, or even could have; yet we contained the threat through a combination of all the different and various means we had available;
(2)we should not be concerned about the Wahabi and the Theocrats in Iran “blowing each other up” - it’s not our problem and we have no stake in backing either one; neither one are our true friends;
(3)if other states in the Middle East, like Egypt and Turkey behave as if they too must acquire nuclear weapons capabilities, it will be not because we have become their next threat - and therefor their arms will not be aimed at us - it will be because they want to behave as if Iran or the Saudis so armed are a threat to them - oh, gee, that is not likely in any sense, so “proliferation” will not advance by that means;
(4)we have become experts at tracking the nuclear programs of other countries, like Iran and North Korea, and there is not much they do that escapes us; suggesting we do have the means to identify and interdict weapons technology transfers and we have the ability to vastly increase those abilities as well, should we need to; and lastly
(5)just what are we developing and building anti-missile defenses for in the first place - just for show, or because we believe they can work - yes, we believe they can work.
We never made a first strike on either the Soviets or North Korea, during a whole host of moments when either one was a much more serious threat than Iran is or will be - to us; though we had the ability to do so and “get away with it” many times. Why? The strategic threat was real but the moment that is needed - immanent threat - never arrived. We never had to “pull the trigger” and WE do not need to with Iran AT THIS MOMENT. That is not to say that Iran won’t continue to move the clock from “potential” to “immanent” - such as directly attacking Israel - and THAT would change our need to change our response as well.
And, as I said, Israel and its security context is a whole other matter. The Theocrats in Iran have vowed to wipe Israel off the map and their arms programs are directed at that intent as well as to become of the king of the hill in Islam.
If anyone is directly and immanently threatened by the Iranian nuclear program, it is Israel, and not the U.S. That might give Israel some legitimacy for a “preventive” measure against Iran (I believe it does), but not the U.S. - at this point. In that regard I am for a U.S. position that is NOT intent on preventing such action by Israel, should Israel determine it must take it FOR ITS OWN SELF DEFENSE. That context, could soon be “immanent” for Israel, and help justify such a measure, by Israel.
We are far from that being the case as it concerns independent U.S. action - at this time.
We came close to war with the Soviets on numerous occasions, the most famous of which was the Cuban Missile Crisis. Already, Iran is staging missiles in Venezuela. But the Soviets were rational actors. Can the same be said for the radical Twelvers who want the Muslim world to be purified with fire and who chant "Death to America"? But even largely rational states make mistakes. If Iran gets nuclear weapons, the per-existing nuclear programs of Egypt and Saudi Arabia will hasten. When a nuke is used by a terrorist group using a container ship or modified jetliner, who is to be held accountable. And even if we would trace the nuke, might it still not be rational for an Iranian leader to doubt the resolve of an American president in killing Iranian civilians in the millions to respond to an attack by Lebanese Hizbullah? Under those circumstances, would an attack by Iran by proxy be less rational than say the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor?
(2)we should not be concerned about the Wahabi and the Theocrats in Iran “blowing each other up” - it’s not our problem and we have no stake in backing either one; neither one are our true friends;
OIL. Notice what flows out of the Persian Gulf. And see above.
(3)if other states in the Middle East, like Egypt and Turkey behave as if they too must acquire nuclear weapons capabilities, it will be not because we have become their next threat - and therefor their arms will not be aimed at us - it will be because they want to behave as if Iran or the Saudis so armed are a threat to them - oh, gee, that is not likely in any sense, so “proliferation” will not advance by that means;
And when an Al Qaeda like group takes over Saudi Arabia from the corrupt fundamentalists, using the same excuse that the Saudi clan did to overthrow the Hashemites? When instability allows a faction of a government to hand nukes over to one of 2 dozen terrorist groups, what then?
(4)we have become experts at tracking the nuclear programs of other countries, like Iran and North Korea, and there is not much they do that escapes us; suggesting we do have the means to identify and interdict weapons technology transfers and we have the ability to vastly increase those abilities as well, should we need to; and lastly
I'm not talking technology. I'm talking about giving a proxy a nuclear device or radioactive material for a dirty bomb.
(5)just what are we developing and building anti-missile defenses for in the first place - just for show, or because we believe they can work - yes, we believe they can work.
We should have these. But what would stop a cargo ship with a hidden nuke, or even a third party cargo ship with a container hiding a nuke? What about a modified old passenger jet carrying a nuke, that has a hacked ID code?
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.