Report: US plans strike against Iran

[sabra]

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&cid=1167467856230

Report: US plans strike against Iran

The US was drawing up plans to attack sites where Iran is believed to be enriching uranium before President George W. Bush's candidacy comes to an end, the UK-based Times reported on Wednesday.

According to the Times, the Bush government has been inviting defense consultants and Middle East experts to the White House and Pentagon for tactical advice.

The Pentagon was reported to be considering ways for the US to destroy nuclear facilities such as Iran's main centrifuge plant at Natanz, despite the fact that Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney hoped that diplomatic efforts to restrain Iran would succeed.

...

According to the Times report, despite speculations and divided opinions, the favored US scenario is to attack the Iranian nuclear plant with a small number of ground attack aircraft flying out of the British dependency of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean.

The British would however have to approve the use of the American base there for an attack and would be asked to play a supporting role by providing air-to-air re-fuelling or sending out surveillance aircraft, ships and submarines.

[habitual]

1. with lines like this:

"despite the fact that Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney hoped that diplomatic efforts to restrain Iran would succeed."

it is clear that the author of this story has a huuuuuge bias towards the Administration.

Can anyone believe an article that spews such nonsense.??

[0007]

6. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney hoped that diplomatic efforts to restrain Iran would succeed. "

This is total bullshit!

[hadrons]

9. good catch on the "diplomatic efforts" ... I didn't notice that

[Zhade]

17. It's a rightwing rag. Richard Perle is/was on its board of directors.

However, we do know this is what the rightwingers in the Israeli government want, despite however the Israeli people might feel (I have not seen a recent poll on their feelings about an illegal preventative strike).

[Verde]

21. They love to rattle sabres there.

(At the JP) IMHO, they are far right enough that they should be allowed free use of the Faux logo.

[aquart]

24. And what has that to do with us, dear?

But thanks for the gratuitous anti-semitic plant of the day.

[reprobate]

26. What did you find anti-semitic about that post?

I'm not challenging you, just asking, since I saw it as a simple statement of fact (as the poster sees it)

[daleo]

34. Yeah, you should explain the statement

I just don't see it either.

[frylock]

36. oh brother..

give it a rest already. To deny the J Post leans to the right is to deny reality.

[cui bono]

38. Yeah, what was anti-semitic about that???

[Marie26]

27. What diplomatic efforts?

How can there be diplomatic efforts w/a country we won't even talk to? :crazy:

[Miss Chybil]

31. Funny how it's written like the diplomatic efforts are in the past already. nt

[jayfish]

2. "Despite The Fact That Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney Hoped...

that diplomatic efforts to restrain Iran would succeed." :rofl: That's just classic. What "diplomatic efforts" are we talking about here?

Jay

[Hieronymus]

16. What a friggin joke ..

There's been no attempt at negotiation, although Iran has asked for it.:eyes:

[no_hypocrisy]

3. OK, I have a question.

Because of all the saber-rattling and the "media leaks" about the prospective attack on Iran, what is to stop Iran from reasonably assuming all this is fact and not speculation, and accordingly makes a pre-emptive strike on Saudi and Kuwaiti oil fields, an invasion over the border into Iraq, or something equally destructive based on the vague strategy of "Get them before they get you"?

[rawstory]

5. Can someone post the Times Link?

I can't find it...

[sabra]

7. I am also having trouble finding the report online. Could this report only be in print version?

[cosmicdot]

30. a link to an article in Rupert Murdoch's Times yesterday

perhaps there isn't 'a report', but a news 'report', i.e. article ... seems the JPost refers to 'an article' as 'a report' ... at the bottom of the JPost article, it says "Haviv Rettig contributed to this report."

at any rate:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,251-2575797,00.html


The Times January 31, 2007

US accuses allies of dragging their feet over Iran

Tom Baldwin in Washington and Richard Beeston

Divisions are emerging in the West’s united front towards Iran with fears being voiced over the aggressive military posture adopted by America, while European allies are accused by the US of dragging their feet.

A diplomatic source in Wash-ington told The Times: “It is difficult to imagine Bush and Cheney leaving office without resolving the Iranian issue, if necessary, by force.”

~snip~

"A diplomatic source in Washington..." ???? is this 'the report'???

[jayfish]

8. Hopefully, Some Semblance Of Sanity.

But according to the "doctrine of Preemption", why not?

Jay

[Zodiak]

11. I think that is what they are hoping for n/t

[Zhade]

18. Ironically, that could very well be a legal preemptive attack...

...unlike the illegal preventative attack these criminals are considering.

How's THAT for blowing your mind!

(And no, freepers, I don't condone either attack. DUH.)

[Duer 157099]

4. Here's my favorite line:

"...before President George W. Bush's candidacy comes to an end..."

It's nice to see someone recognize that Bush is still just a candidate, since he actually never really *won* anything.

[gasperc]

10. planting alot of stories

it's full court double down gambit hail Mary pass

Here's the thing, with Sunni's causing 90% of the violence in Iraq why target Iran.

It seems that Bush does want to get out of Iraq but not leave it in a state where Iran can walk all over it, so bomb and cripple Iran then Iran won't be able to walk into Iraq and control it's government, people and oil remotely.
A simple plan, but the stupidest ever. War is unpredictable, and an attack on Iran will set off 10000 different tangents of insanity far worse than the mess in Iraq. Bush and company seems to think Iraq got screwed because of A, B and C, we've learned from our mistakes and Iraq II, better known as Iran, will go alot better and in fact they solve tow problems, the mess in Iraq and cripple Iran.
well they couldn't be more wrong. I'm putting together a letter to the editor to speak out, get more citizens aware of how wrong headed all this is.

We need to come up with strategies to try and bring the economy to it's knees, business leaders will fume over the contraction in the economy and this may be the only thing that pulls Bush from this stupid, stupid idea.

[roamer65]

15. You're right. Nixon bombed Cambodia and look what they got...

Pol Pot and the killing fields.

[SayWhatYo]

37. "We need to come up with strategies to try and bring the economy to it's knees"

How about, umm, no? Please say that you're kidding.

[The Count]

12. yeay! Edwards did it again! Two for two!

Edwards: 'Iran must know world won't back down'

Ron Brynaert
Published: Tuesday January 23, 2007
Print This Email This
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Edwards_Iran_must_know_world_wont_0123.html

[roamer65]

14. He's losing my support very quickly.

[HeeBGBz]

32. He pissed off a few people in New Orleans too

By making a comment that was taken by locals to mean that the reason they weren't back in their homes was because they weren't working. I don't know what his actual quote was, but there was some lady bitching about it on the local news.

[roamer65]

13. Yes, it will be like August 1914 again, as the article states...

except this time around the major players all have nuclear weapons. It will be World War III.

[no_hypocrisy]

19. Interesting analogy.

World War I could have been avoided. Serbia was prepared to apologize and make restitution. But Austrio-Hungary (and Germany) wanted to start a war. In order to have "justification" for starting a war, A-H gave Serbia a set of 14 conditions. Serbia agreed to 13, but refused the last one because it was so unreasonable (something like allowing A-H to make Serbia its governmental decisions and ceding its independence). A-H wouldn't negotiate this point, and hence: war!

[coalition_unwilling]

35. And behind A-H was Wilhelmine Germany which gave A-H a

"blank check" to make war on Serbia, even though Russia was guaranteed to enter on side of Serbia in event A-H invaded\attacked Serbia.

I dare say A-H would never have been so bellicose toward Serbia without the Imperial German "blank check"

[roamer65]

20. I'll add, expect the attack before the fueling of the Bushehr nuke plant.

They will not want to risk the worldwide scorn of bombing a fueled and operational nuke plant.

[ellie]

22. No means no

means no means no. What is going to take to stop these people?

[TexasLawyer]

23. From the "TalkBack" section, an Israeli's response

This guy's pretty fast and loose with America's blood. So GLAD he'll have a more pleasant lunch! :sarcasm:

Is this who'll we'll be bombing Iran to protect?

2. Bush won't leave office without resolving Iran !
redmike - Israel
01/31/2007 13:57

this has been clear for a long time and I have never doubted for one moment that Bush would end his presidency with this issue hanging the air. Good that people like Bush and Blair have the courage to bring this to its needed conclusion. Obviously Iran can start rebuilding but we must hope that the Ayatollah's regime is overthrown before the strike or afterward. Good news and I shall better enjoy my lunch :-)

[mzmolly]

25. Gosh, could that explain the 48 thousand additional troops to Iraq?

sigh, sigh, sigh...

[confludemocrat]

28. But but but, Bush said yesterday he wasn't thinking of doing that!

Oh that's right lies in the name of "freedom" are alright.

(or, he got a call from the Israel Lobby after that gaff, setting him straight about what his job is: to ensure nuclear supremacy for his #1 client)

[HuffleClaw]

29. MEEP, for a second there i read that as 'US PLANES strike...'

which didn't do my blood pressure any favours.

[mvd]

33. His rhetoric is the same as before the Iraq war, but I can't see..

him getting away with it. This Congress votes no to authorizing force, and if he goes ahead, impeachment proceedings speed up. The war would also not be popular. There's only so much this wanna-be dictator can do, despite him calling himself The Decider.