Claim of US Preparation to Attack Iran

zaman ^ | 09.19.2006 Tuesday | By Foreign News Desk

[Flavius]

Time magazine reported that the U.S. is hypothetically preparing for an armed conflict with Iran. The magazine asserted that the U.S. Army is preparing an air strike plan of 1,500 targets.

Based on information received from U.S. military authorities, Time magazine reported the Pentagon’s war plan prepared specifically for attacks to be waged against Iran. While continuing its diplomatic efforts to ensure the imposition of sanctions against Iran, the U.S. is also making preparations for a probable military intervention.

Time also wrote that the Army had been asked to be fully prepared by October 1, while the Pentagon continues works on military strategies for a probable operation against Iran.

It has been reported that Bush’s cabinet, including Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, strongly favored a diplomatic resolution regarding the issue of Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

Experts and diplomats from the U.S., Iran, and the Middle East hold different views on the probability of U.S. military intervention in Iran. While some argue that a military intervention would serve American interests, others warn that its cost to the U.S. economy would be enormous.

In the debate, the question as to whether military intervention in Iran is more dangerous than cohabitating with a nuclear Iran stands out. Stating that they preferred the continuation of negotiations, an official from the U.S. administration however implied that the administration has not ruled out a military option. The official further said: “Nobody is considering a military operation right now. We are simply trying to create the best environment and conditions for a future military intervention, in case President Bush chooses between a nuclear Iran and waging war.” The official’s statement suggests that the U.S. has not excluded a military campaign against Iran and that it wants to be ready if the decision to take action is taken.

According to Time, the main objective of such an intervention would be to delay Iran’s development of nuclear weapons. The magazine also stressed the operation would be limited to air strikes, and would not include any ground invasion.

Any such operation is predicted to last a couple of days and target over 1,500 pre-determined sites. The magazine reported that the U.S. would mainly target nuclear facilities, most of which were still undetermined. The operation will presumably delay Iran’s plans to develop nuclear weapons for two or three years.

[Centurion2000]

Why would the US want to attack us?

Actually you guys were War Plan Scarlet. Those plans were back when ya'll were a lot tighter with GB and there was that little thing called the Anglo-Japanese alliance.

[Kuehn12]

I don't know how far along the Iranians are toward a nuclear bomb or whether they are in fact pursuing a bomb. I am not privy to the intelligence that Israel or the US government has, but I will say this, the leaders of the Soviet Union in the beginning of the Cold War where every bit as fanatical, the Maoist during the Cultural Revolution definitely where fanatical. However, we never saw a nuclear war with them. I say that, to say this, we better have iron clad proof of nuclear weapons program in Iran before we move because if we don't our credibility in the region will be shot for perhaps the next generation or two. This proof better include a deployable nuclear weapon within the next two to five years, if not within a short time span of perhaps 12 to 18 months being an ideal threat level for military action. The world wants nations to defend against immediate threats, not would be could be threats. DON'T GET ME WRONG THE WORLD WOULDN'T MISS THE PASSING OF THE IRANIAN AND SYRIAN GOVERNMENTS. MY POINT IS THAT ARM CHAIR GENERALS WOULDN'T BE THE ONES RESPONSIBLE FOR CREATING STABLE GOVERNMENTS IN THESE REPECTIVE COUNTRIES, AND THE COST WOULD BE THROUGH THE ROOF. THE COMMITTIMENT WOULD BE LONG TERM, MORE THAN A DECADE. THERE WOULD DEFINITELY BE UNFORSEEN CONSQUENCES FOR WHICH PERHAPS AMERICAN CIVILIANS FEELING THE BRUNT. ARE WE AS AMERICANS READY FOR THAT? WE ARE AS DIVIDE ON THE ISSUE OF THE TERROR WAR AS WE ARE ON MANY ISSUES. (I use caps only for emphasis of vital points not to scream at anyone.)