Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

U.S. officials begin crafting Iran Bomb plan
Fox News ^ | Sept 11, 2007 | James Rosen

Posted on 09/11/2007 2:03:15 PM PDT by jbwbubba

U.S. Officials Begin Crafting Iran Bombing Plan Tuesday , September 11, 2007

By James Rosen WASHINGTON —

A recent decision by German officials to withhold support for any new sanctions against Iran has pushed a broad spectrum of officials in Washington to develop potential scenarios for a military attack on the Islamic regime, FOX News confirmed Tuesday.

Germany — a pivotal player among three European nations to rein in Iran's nuclear program over the last two-and-a-half years through a mixture of diplomacy and sanctions supported by the United States — notified its allies last week that the government of Chancellor Angela Merkel refuses to support the imposition of any further sanctions against Iran that could be imposed by the U.N. Security Council.

The announcement was made at a meeting in Berlin that brought German officials together with Iran desk officers from the five member states of the Security Council. It stunned the room, according to one of several Bush administration and foreign government sources who spoke to FOX News, and left most Bush administration principals concluding that sanctions are dead.

The Germans voiced concern about the damaging effects any further sanctions on Iran would have on the German economy — and also, according to diplomats from other countries, gave the distinct impression that they would privately welcome, while publicly protesting, an American bombing campaign against Iran's nuclear facilities.

Germany's withdrawal from the allied diplomatic offensive is the latest consensus across relevant U.S. agencies and offices, including the State Department, the National Security Council and the offices of the president and vice president. Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns, the most ardent proponent of a diplomatic resolution to the problem of Iran's nuclear ambitions, has had his chance on the Iranian account and come up empty.

(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; Foreign Affairs; Germany; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: bush; iran; iraq; israel
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-115 next last
To: M203M4
"The Russians are going to have to explain why their weapons systems are complete garbage"AGAIN

(Remember GW1?)

81 posted on 09/11/2007 4:26:23 PM PDT by 2111USMC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: jbwbubba

Here’s what I’ve been pushing for:

We should withdraw from Iraq — through Tehran. Here’s how I think we should “pull out of Iraq.” Add one more front to the scenario below, which would be a classic amphibious beach landing from the south in Iran, and it becomes a “strategic withdrawal” from Iraq. And I think the guy who would pull it off is Duncan Hunter.

How to Stand Up to Iran

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1808220/posts?page=36#36
Posted by Kevmo to TomasUSMC
On News/Activism 03/28/2007 7:11:08 PM PDT · 36 of 36

Split Iraq up and get out
***The bold military move would be to mobilize FROM Iraq into Iran through Kurdistan and then sweep downward, meeting up with the forces that we pull FROM Afghanistan in a 2-pronged offensive. We would be destroying nuke facilities and building concrete fences along geo-political lines, separating warring tribes physically. At the end, we take our boys into Kurdistan, set up a couple of big military bases and stay awhile. We could invite the French, Swiss, Italians, Mozambiqans, Argentinians, Koreans, whoever is willing to be the police forces for the regions that we move through, and if the area gets too hot for these peacekeeper weenies we send in military units. Basically, it would be learning the lesson of Iraq and applying it.

15 rules for understanding the Middle East
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1774248/posts

Rule 8: Civil wars in the Arab world are rarely about ideas — like liberalism vs. communism. They are about which tribe gets to rule. So, yes, Iraq is having a civil war as we once did. But there is no Abe Lincoln in this war. It’s the South vs. the South.

Rule 10: Mideast civil wars end in one of three ways: a) like the U.S. civil war, with one side vanquishing the other; b) like the Cyprus civil war, with a hard partition and a wall dividing the parties; or c) like the Lebanon civil war, with a soft partition under an iron fist (Syria) that keeps everyone in line. Saddam used to be the iron fist in Iraq. Now it is us. If we don’t want to play that role, Iraq’s civil war will end with A or B.

Let’s say my scenario above is what happens. Would that military mobilization qualify as a “withdrawal” from Iraq as well as Afghanistan? Then, when we’re all done and we set up bases in Kurdistan, it wouldn’t really be Iraq, would it? It would be Kurdistan.

.
.

I have posted in the past that I think the key to the strategy in the middle east is to start with an independent Kurdistan. If we engaged Iran in such a manner we might earn back the support of these windvane politicians and wussie voters who don’t mind seeing a quick & victorious fight but hate seeing endless police action battles that don’t secure a country.

I thought it would be cool for us to set up security for the Kurds on their southern border with Iraq, rewarding them for their bravery in defying Saddam Hussein. We put in some military bases there for, say, 20 years as part of the occupation of Iraq in their transition to democracy. We guarantee the autonomy of Iraqi Kurdistan as long as they don’t engage with Turkey. But that doesn’t say anything about engaging with Iranian Kurdistan. Within those 20 years the Kurds could have a secure and independent nation with expanding borders into Iran. After we close down the US bases, Kurdistan is on her own. But at least Kurdistan would be an independent nation with about half its territory carved out of Persia. If Turkey doesn’t relinquish her claim on Turkish Kurdistan after that, it isn’t our problem, it’s 2 of our allies fighting each other, one for independence and the other for regional primacy. I support democratic independence over a bullying arrogant minority.

The kurds are the closest thing we have to friends in that area. They fought against Saddam (got nerve-gassed), they’re fighting against Iran, they squabble with our so-called ally Turkey (who didn’t allow Americans to operate in the north of Iraq this time around).

It’s time for them to have their own country. They deserve it. They carve Kurdistan out of northern Iraq, northern Iran, and try to achieve some kind of autonomy in eastern Turkey. If Turkey gets angry, we let them know that there are consequences to turning your back on your “friend” when they need you. If the Turks want trouble, they can invade the Iraqi or Persian state of Kurdistan and kill americans to make their point. It wouldn’t be a wise move for them, they’d get their backsides handed to them and have eastern Turkey carved out of their country as a result.

If such an act of betrayal to an ally means they get a thorn in their side, I would be happy with it. It’s time for people who call themselves our allies to put up or shut up. The Kurds have been putting up and deserve to be rewarded with an autonomous and sovereign Kurdistan, borne out of the blood of their own patriots.

Should Turkey decide to make trouble with their Kurdish population, we would stay out of it, other than to guarantee sovereignty in the formerly Iranian and Iraqi portions of Kurdistan. When one of our allies wants to fight another of our allies, it’s a messy situation. If Turkey goes “into the war on Iran’s side” then they ain’t really our allies and that’s the end of that.

I agree that it’s hard on troops and their families. We won the war 4 years ago. This aftermath is the nation builders and peacekeeper weenies realizing that they need to understand things like the “15 rules for understanding the Middle East”

This was the strategic error that GWB committed. It was another brilliant military campaign but the followup should have been 4X as big. All those countries that don’t agree with sending troups to fight a war should have been willing to send in policemen and nurses to set up infrastructure and repair the country.

What do you think we should do with Iraq?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1752311/posts

Posted by Kevmo to Blue Scourge
On News/Activism 12/12/2006 9:17:33 AM PST · 23 of 105

My original contention was that we should have approached the reluctant “allies” like the French to send in Police forces for the occupation after battle, since they were so unwilling to engage in the fighting. It was easy to see that we’d need as many folks in police and nurse’s uniforms as we would in US Army unitorms in order to establish a democracy in the middle east. But, since we didn’t follow that line of approach, we now have a civil war on our hands. If we were to set our sights again on the police/nurse approach, we might still be able to pull this one off. I think we won the war in Iraq; we just haven’t won the peace.

I also think we should simply divide the country. The Kurds deserve their own country, they’ve proven to be good allies. We could work with them to carve out a section of Iraq, set their sights on carving some territory out of Iran, and then when they’re done with that, we can help “negotiate” with our other “allies”, the Turks, to secure Kurdish autonomy in what presently eastern Turkey.

That leaves the Sunnis and Shiites to divide up what’s left. We would occupy the areas between the two warring factions. Also, the UN/US should occupy the oil-producing regions and parcel out the revenue according to whatever plan they come up with. That gives all the sides something to argue about rather than shooting at us.

That leaves Damascus for round II. The whole deal could be circumvented by Syria if they simply allow real inspections of the WOMD sites. And when I say “real”, I mean real — the inspectors would have a small armor division that they could call on whenever they get held up by some local yocal who didn’t get this month’s bribe. Hussein was an idiot to dismantle all of his WOMDs and then not let the inspectors in. If he had done so, he’d still be in power, pulling Bush’s chain.


82 posted on 09/11/2007 4:35:58 PM PDT by Kevmo (We should withdraw from Iraq — via Tehran. And Duncan Hunter is just the man to get that job done.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jbwbubba
The Germans voiced concern about the damaging effects any further sanctions on Iran would have on the German economy — and also, according to diplomats from other countries, gave the distinct impression that they would privately welcome, while publicly protesting, an American bombing campaign against Iran's nuclear facilities.

Americans, doing the job for freedom others won't do.
83 posted on 09/11/2007 4:58:47 PM PDT by Man50D (Fair Tax, you earn it, you keep it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: seekthetruth
The sooner the better as far as I am concerned! After listening to General Patraus and Amb Crocker talk about the problems Iran has caused and continues to cause in Iraq it is about time we take them out!

Good idea, lets bomb another country and them spend billions and billions of dollars to make them a 'democracy'.

We have our hands full now with Iraq and Afghanistan... we need to bomb Iran like we need a hole in the head.
84 posted on 09/11/2007 5:10:29 PM PDT by BigTom85 (Proud Gun Owner and Member of NRA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: 668 - Neighbor of the Beast
What do you think are the chances Iraq will declare war on Iran? Or that we would, without them?

The exact opposite will happen. Iran will invade Iraq. The country is going to be a disaster when we leave- well it's a disaster when we are there too.

Theres little to no chance of stability ever reaching that region- at least not in our lifetime.
85 posted on 09/11/2007 5:15:05 PM PDT by BigTom85 (Proud Gun Owner and Member of NRA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: pissant

I will not believe this until I see the 2000 pounders dropped on the Iranian thug’s head and that the 1000 supposedly military and nuke sites are in ash. If Bush does this, he will be impeached but to me, he will be one of the greatest presidents ever.


86 posted on 09/11/2007 5:41:51 PM PDT by phillyfanatic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: jbwbubba
Sounds like the plot line of this new novel... www.AnonymousSedition.com
87 posted on 09/11/2007 6:42:56 PM PDT by Shqipo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BigTom85

>> Iran will invade Iraq.

But Iran’s there already. If Iraq were able to declare war on Iran, they’d have plenty of reason right now. Iran has no use for a declaration, it just invites organized opposition.

It seems to be the new way of doing business, doesn’t it? Don’t declare war, the one who does is automatically the aggressor and gets the prissy disapproval of other nations.

They remind me of vampire bats. Latch onto the victim’s ankle and gently drain it and enfeeble it, but never fly in its face.

Moreover, China is probably underwriting a lot of the Iranian effort. Make trouble, weaken and impoverish your enemy and get paid to do it. Who needs a declaration?


88 posted on 09/11/2007 7:12:18 PM PDT by 668 - Neighbor of the Beast (All my comments are my opinions.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: jbwbubba
A recent decision by German officials to withhold support for any new sanctions against Iran has pushed a broad spectrum of officials in Washington to develop potential scenarios for a military attack on the Islamic regime, FOX News confirmed Tuesday.

We've had an "Iran plan" for about two years now. What is news is that the apparently newfound pro-American German leadership has run for the tall grass, as it were.

Germany — a pivotal player among three European nations to rein in Iran's nuclear program over the last two-and-a-half years through a mixture of diplomacy and sanctions supported by the United States — notified its allies last week that the government of Chancellor Angela Merkel refuses to support the imposition of any further sanctions against Iran that could be imposed by the U.N. Security Council.

OK, so let's backtrack to Iraq and the Oil-for-Food scam: What does Germany have to gain from this economically?

The Germans voiced concern about the damaging effects any further sanctions on Iran would have on the German economy — and also, according to diplomats from other countries, gave the distinct impression that they would privately welcome, while publicly protesting, an American bombing campaign against Iran's nuclear facilities.

Whoomp, there it is! I didn't even have to read further.
89 posted on 09/11/2007 7:40:13 PM PDT by governmentstillsucks (Still a "Tancredoac," after all these smears.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jbwbubba
U.S. officials begin crafting Iran Bomb plan

Yeah, about 5 years ago.

90 posted on 09/11/2007 8:23:20 PM PDT by Right Wing Assault ("..this administration is planning a 'Right Wing Assault' on values and ideals.." - John Kerry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Assault

91 posted on 09/11/2007 8:32:32 PM PDT by airborne (Proud to be a conservative! Proud to support Duncan Hunter for President!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: jbwbubba

I just hope the amount of “US is planning XYZ against Iran” articles are more than just planted stories. This is serious enough to warrant more than propaganda. It’s my personal opinion that the amount of news articles of impending action against Iran are vastly overblown or down right fabricated - just don’t know if it’s the news agencies own call. Statesmanship through news manipulation is played out hundreds of times over. Folks pounce all over the news unless it’s something they want to project, then it’s all good.


92 posted on 09/11/2007 8:51:11 PM PDT by Sax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: airborne

By all means, take off every zig!


93 posted on 09/11/2007 8:57:23 PM PDT by Right Wing Assault ("..this administration is planning a 'Right Wing Assault' on values and ideals.." - John Kerry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: jbwbubba
Well, it looks like the GURLYMEN are taking over Merkel's government.

She is a short timer now. Watch for an election in the GDR within the nect 8 months, she's history.

94 posted on 09/11/2007 9:48:08 PM PDT by Candor7 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Baghdad_(1258))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jbwbubba

Everyone of Burns’ babies is stillborn. He is Powell’s legacy.


95 posted on 09/11/2007 9:52:25 PM PDT by RobbyS ( CHIRHO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: umgud

Nothing I have read abour Iraq explains why we did nopt immediately carry the fight to Syria while holding off Iran with our other hand. Maybe the fear that an even more noxious regime would replace the existing one in Damascus.


96 posted on 09/11/2007 9:55:45 PM PDT by RobbyS ( CHIRHO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: icwhatudo
Time to bring back French Fries

a silly aside, but my father, who was in WWI, told me that before that war, what we now called "French Fried Potatoes" were originally called "German Fried Potatoes" ... or is it potatos? ;} - maybe we should just go with "Martian Fried Potatoes" and hope we don't get attacked/disrespected by martians for a long time to come

97 posted on 09/11/2007 10:06:41 PM PDT by dougd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: SampleMan

Let’s see now.
In WWII, did Germany oppose radical Islam?
No wait! Germany allied itself with radical Islam.

Once again.


98 posted on 09/12/2007 12:36:54 AM PDT by OldArmy52 (Bush's Legacy: 100 million new Dem voters in next 20 yrs via the 2007 Amnesty Act.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: WoofDog123

oh thank goodness—at least somebody on this thread has a brain...


99 posted on 09/12/2007 1:21:58 AM PDT by TINS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: jbwbubba

Most world governments and leaders (including Muslims)would privately welcome, while publicly protesting, an American bombing campaign against Iran’s nuclear facilities. That’s no secret to anyone that has ever been involved in diplomacy, intelligence or international relations.


100 posted on 09/12/2007 2:15:11 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet (Fred Thompson is our next president! http://www.Fred08.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-115 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson