pong
This is nothing "covert" or "secret".
They obviously don't trumpet their work and planning into the world, but the persons involved are known.
Feith, Ledeen, Abrams, Shulsky are all well known "neocons".
To think we wouldn't prepare for Iran is foolish.
I'm sure the moonbats are quick to spin this into a new jewish conspiracy... but whatever.
bump
Why?
I have heard this line of reasoning time and time again--chiefly (though not entirely) from devotees of the "realist" school of foreign policy--and it has never yet made even a scintilla of sense to me.
The logic (such as it is) seems to go something like this: If only the US Army were not otherwise engaged right now, it would be available for combat in Iran. But that begs the obvious question: Why would we wish to use this branch of the armed forces against Iran?
Many of us believe that we would benefit by engaging Iran militarily now, rather than later; and, moreover, that any thought of a third, more antiseptic alternative--say, regime change--has all the realism of a Hans Christian Andersen fairy tale. But even all-out war with Iran need involve no more than the US Navy and Air Force.
Why would we want to occupy that country with ground troops?
"The request is expected to include more advanced missile-defence systems and early-warning radar to prevent or detect Iranian missile strikes. " This is NOT comforting. It implies they are ready to accept a nuclear Iran. Reminds me of the Dems' constant screeching over funds for "First Responders," who basically just respond to the carnage after an attack.