Tehran Fears U.S. Attack [USS Eisenhower, Enterprise]

ADKNI ^ | 10/11/06 | freedom44

[freedom44]

Tehran, 11 Oct. (AKI) - Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei has held an emergency meeting after reports that US nuclear powered aircraft carrier Eisenhower was moving towards the Persian Gulf. Khamenei met on Tuesday night with Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, former president Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani and, the head of the Iranian army and the revolutionary guards corps Pasdaran, Hassan Khomeini, grandson of the founder of the Islamic Republic, along with advisors to Khamenei.

During the talks, Iranian online daily Roozonline reports, participants discussed the possibility of a US military attack and the consequences of potential sanctions on Iran.

According to Roozonline, Khamenei stressed the need to present a united Iranian front to the international community.

The Eisenhower is expected to reach the Persian Gulf on 21 October while another US aircraft carrier, the Enterprise, will also be allegedly close to the Iranian coasts. The Enterprise was employed in 2001 by the United States to bomb Afghanistan after the September 11 terror attacks on the US.

According to Baztab, a website controlled by the Pasdaran, "the United States is gaining positions in the sea and countries close to Iran in case the Pentagon wants to launch an attack on the Islamic Republic."

According to Baztab, the US has already drafted a plan to attack Iranian nuclear plants and its military installations by sea and air.

US president has not ruled out the possibility of a military attack against Iran if it continues to pursue its nuclear programme which it fears is aimed at building nuclear weapons. Washington is currently pressing the Security Council to impose sanctions on Iran for its repeated refusal to halt sensitive nuclear work.

Baztab also said that "if the presence of US navy ships in the Persian Gulf turned into a real threat for the Islamic Republic then the region's oil pipeline would explode, as would mines in the Hormuz Strait (a key shipping route for oil) when oil tankers pass through so as to make the price of oil double or triple."

Iran is the world's fourth largest crude oil producer.

[BlackElk]

Ask yourself the question: "When was the last time YOU heard an actual conservative American (not a paleopantywaist) whining about killing Islamofascisti????

[bill1952]

Yeah, its kind of difficult to engage in aggressive diplomacy with a weapon that is designed to be covert.

Keep em guessing PD! 8^)

[Pukin Dog]

Many folks keep making the claim that a Carrier Battle Group has more firepower than all of WWII combined. I've never called anyone on it because I don't really understand it, could you elaborate please in what manner, and compared to what? I mean short of nukes, which I can neither confirm or deny the presence of any nuclear weapons on any Naval platform I just don't get it.

Think about it like this:

During WWII, thousands of bombs might be dropped on a target before it could be considered damaged or destroyed. Imagine you wanted to take out a bridge with dumb bombs on a B-25 how many you would have to drop to do the job?

The low explosive yield, combined with the bridge construction of the day means that you would need many aircraft making runs on the target and dropping their complete load in hopes that a percentage of the weapons would land on-or-close to the target in numbers large enough to destroy it.

Move forward to today:

You have a bridge that needs taking out? You strap a couple of JDAMs on an F-15E, with a backup in case of a systems failure, and the bridge is history with one or two hits.

That is the difference allowing the comparison you question.

[savedbygrace]

When it's their time, they won't know until the bombs start falling.

Unless the New York Times tells them first.

[Sen Jack S. Fogbound]

Well, the firepower is often compared to the number of bombs dropped by both sides during the entire WWII. With the nukes available in the Battle Group, the total tonnage of TNT far exceeded what was dropped in WWII.

Having said that, it is not neccessary to invade Iran. We can just bomb the hell out of them. More likely just all their military facilities, and leave it at that.

[bill1952]

Apparently, an apt pupil of his, although not one of history

[Frank Sheed]

Possible rationale is here:

http://www.nysun.com/article/41250


Makes sense to me....

[Pukin Dog]

if the last shell had come down 200 yards closer to the beach, guess what the lead on the four news networks would've been that night?

Well, it aint horseshoes, and close gets no points. The lead might have been "US blows the crap out of Hezbollah after suffering an attack on a Carrier". Who knows?

[Ole Okie]

We should announce tomorrow that we plan on drilling ANWR and screw the environmentalists. Say that the world cannot be held hostage by a crazy Iranian.

Or by nutsy environmentalists.

[Frank Sheed]

Ping to #88

[ItisaReligionofPeace]

First of all, I've heard Muslims freaking out about "friendlier" European countries such as Denmark. Has it occured to you that they don't like Iceland or Japan either, but we are their biggest enemy, so they focus on us the most?

[BeHoldAPaleHorse]

Well, it aint horseshoes, and close gets no points.

200 yards is too damn close when the target costs several billion dollars.

The lead might have been "US blows the crap out of Hezbollah after suffering an attack on a Carrier".

Try "Multi-billion Dollar Carrier Put Out of Action by One Shot from Goat-Herding Hezbullah Freedom Fighter."

[ItisaReligionofPeace]

Imagine what the middle eastern countries would be like if we didn't need their oil anymore! We really need to get off of our oil addiction.

[defenderSD]

It' called containment. If we let Iran build a couple of nuclear weapons, some crazed ayatollah might decide to sneak one into Washington and destroy most of our federal government. Worse still, Iran could use the first few nukes as a defensive shield and then build a full arsenal of nuclear weapons and ship-launched cruise missiles to attack the US. Given that many people in Iran believe strongly in the concept of martyrdom, it's quiet possible that a crazed supreme ayatollah would use a nuclear arsenal in a first strike against us and sacrifice Iran to destroy most of the US.

Nuclear weapons are the ultimate sneak attack weapons: compact, relatively easy to conceal and extremely powerful. We have to stop this kind of catastrophic scenario early before Iran has any nuclear weapons.

[Bottom_Gun]

Now its time to send a couple of Nuke Subs to sit off N. Korea

you never know, after spending my career in that part of the Navy, I think I can safely say they may already be there :)

[ItisaReligionofPeace]

Thank you for your opposing opinions. You are right, this isn't a game of Risk and war is never easy or fun.

[Bottom_Gun]

you got that right, standard depolyment is 2 SSNs to a battle group..now where they are in and around the group, you have to guess ;)

[BlackElk]

PW Neville:

Actually, it is harder to be a war hawk when you are advocating that the US military be politically forced to tuck its tail between its legs and flee because of homefront cowardice, with "conservatives" playing the role of McGovern and the Americong. Win, by whatever means necessary.

Let's do the math indeed. Each military life is precious BUT.... death IS an occupational hazard. In the 1960s, America's highways claimed 4,000 dead per MONTH (and no one was planting road bombs. In the Iraq War, we have lost fewer than 3,000 dead Americans (which, with our allies, is all that counts) in more than 3 1/2 years.

[defenderSD]

I don't know about just bombing them. That doesn't get rid of the problem permanently and it only strengthens their resolve to build nuclear weapons later in this century. I think if we take military action against Iran, it's going to be an air war for 1-3 months followed by a fast invasion from Iraq and Afghanistan, followed by a forced regime change. I would think that after pulverizing their army from the air for a few months, we could capture Tehran in less than a month.

We also have this new weapon, which could knock out the engines on all their vehicles and turn the Iranian army into an army of foot soldiers. Foot soldiers couldn't do much to stop our armored divisions. This could be Bushs's ace in the hole, along with all those other super-secret new weapons that are rumored but not yet seen.