Posted on 01/01/2006 2:58:07 AM PST by The Raven
The United States government reportedly began coordinating with NATO its plans for a possible military attack against Iran.
The German newspaper Der Tagesspiegel collected various reports from the German media indicating that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization are examining the prospects of such a strike.
According to the report, CIA Director Porter Goss, in his last visit to Turkey on December 12, requested Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan to provide military bases to the United States in 2006 from where they would be able to launch an assault.
The German news agency DDP also noted that countries neighboring Iran, such as Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Oman, and Pakistan were also updated regarding the supposed plan. American sources sent to those countries apparently mentioned an aerial attack as a possibility, but did not provide a time frame for the operation.
Although Der Spiegel could not say that these plans were concrete, they did note that according to a January 2005 New Yorker report American forces had entered Iran in 2005 in order to mark possible targets for an aerial assault.
Someone needs to inform them that having a plan, does not equate to "planning to strike". I would be highly disappointed if we did not have some sort of contingency plan.
Why not just leave it to Israel?
>>Why not just leave it to Israel?
I read the nukes are far underground.....
Iran obviously shouldn't be trusted to have Nukes.
If Israel were to take action against any mid-east country the whole of the Arab Muslim world would take up arms against Israel.
Israel is our only true ally we have in the region and though they aren't the best of buddies they still are an elected govt.
If Iran has nukes they will use them to either hit or blackmail Europe and we all know Europe hasn't the balls to protect themselves.
Iran will also strike Israel with any nuke they can get their hands on.
We recently sold a whole passel of bunker buster bombs to Israel.
Depleated uranium that will go seriously deep.
Exactly.
And this is news?
You are correct. I heard once that we have contingency plans in the event that Canada ever launched a military attack.
who leaked? =o)
To me, something like this makes complete sense. Just look at a map of the region. With our presence already in Afghanistan and Iraq, we have Iran tactically in check. I think that's the most important reason we are in Iraq, but the administration sure as hell can't announce it to the world. Let's not forget, the American MSM does serve a useful purpose. They are excellent intelligence sources for terrorists.
Should the Israelis undertake air strikes such as those suggested, then they would have to either use American held air bases in Iraq and/or USAF tanker aircraft based from there to accomplish their missions, which would be politically troublesome. Consequently, I think it would be much easier (relatively speaking) for the U.S. to take down Iran's nuclear facilities than the Israelis.
And what do you think the political repercussions would be if the US did that?
Of course we're planning a military strike against Iran.
Regime change is the goal.
The US cannot allow a hostile nation like Iran to support terrorism against the innocent civilians of the US and the World.
The people of Iran are called upon to reject the crazed tyrants that rule the sacred land of Cyrus the Great, and with the help of friendly powers, expel the tyrants and return great Persia to the gentle and productive land once ruled by Cyrus the Peaceful Conqueror of Disfunctional Nations.
However, we're also planning a strike on the Fatherland, and anybody else that looks like trouble. So relax.
The question I have is: Will Iran prove to be as big a mess as Iraq?
I vote no.
Is this a "leak"? Now Iran knows too.
[Let's not forget, the American MSM does serve a useful purpose. They are excellent intelligence sources for terrorists.]
Yea. It is truth and conservatives must keep their weapons from the fascist left.
It's also unlikely that Jordan, Syria, Iraq or Saudi Arabia would allow Israeli overflights. Which means Israel would have to go via Turkey or down the Red Sea and around the Arabian peninsula. I doubt they would be able to put enough force onto the target given those constraints.
Remember Bush I's desperate effort to keep the Israelis from retaliating against Saddam during Gulf War I when he was lobbing SCUDs at them? Nothing has really changed on the so-called "Arab Street" since then (the Iranians not being Arabs of course but "brother" Muslims nevertheless), and nothing would inflame the mobs more than Israel taking out the Iran. Better that we do it for long-term political reasons than having the Israelis do it. Just MHO...
The point is that Israel would have an even harder time getting at Iran than Iraq because of both distance and geography.
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.