Is Iran Next?

[gnjsdad]

Former CIA Officer Philip Giraldi, in his Deep Background column in The American Conservative…

The Pentagon, acting under instructions from Vice President Dick Cheney’s office, has tasked STRATCOM with drawing up a contingency plan to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States.

The plan includes a large scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons. Within Iran there are more than 450 major strategic targets, including numerous suspected nuclear-weapons-program development sites. Many of the targets are hardened or are deep underground and could not be taken out by conventional weapons, hence the nuclear option.

As in the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States (emphasis mine).

Several senior Air Force officers involved in the planning are reportedly appalled at the implications of what they are doing - that Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack - but no one is prepared to damage his career by posing any objections.

 

[Stu]

gnjsdad:

Former CIA Officer Philip Giraldi, in his Deep Background column in The American Conservative…

The Pentagon, acting under instructions from Vice President Dick Cheney’s office, has tasked STRATCOM with drawing up a contingency plan to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States.

The plan includes a large scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons. Within Iran there are more than 450 major strategic targets, including numerous suspected nuclear-weapons-program development sites. Many of the targets are hardened or are deep underground and could not be taken out by conventional weapons, hence the nuclear option.

As in the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States (emphasis mine).

Several senior Air Force officers involved in the planning are reportedly appalled at the implications of what they are doing - that Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack - but no one is prepared to damage his career by posing any objections.

There are numerous warplans covering myriad contingencies against varying countries. It’s part being prepared and having many options for whatever scenario presents itself.

 

[vern_humphrey]

And everyone would be talking about plans for nuclear war (not!)

The idea that somehow there is a leak about a nuclear operation is fantastic – do you have any idea of the secrecy and precautions that surround nuclear planning?

 

[gnjsdad]

Stu:

There are numerous warplans covering myriad contingencies against varying countries. It’s part being prepared and having many options for whatever scenario presents itself.

That’s true and I am all for being prepared, but we’re talking about an unprovoked attack on a country that wouldn’t have attacked us, an attack, btw, using tactical nuclear weapons.

Apart from the dubious morality, is it any wonder why, when plans such as these come out, that America is feared and hated througout the world to the degree it is?

 

[stumbler]

Stu:

There are numerous warplans covering myriad contingencies against varying countries. It’s part being prepared and having many options for whatever scenario presents itself.

Don’t forget that leftists get to complain bitterly about (a) U.S. war-mongering if the military engages in planning and (b) U.S. incompetence if the military doesn’t plan for eventualities. It’s a win-win tactic for Lefties.

 

[gilliam]

Stu:

There are numerous warplans covering myriad contingencies against varying countries. It’s part being prepared and having many options for whatever scenario presents itself.

It is the Pentagon’s job to develope war plans. If we ever needed one and they didn’t have it, it could delay action an additional 6 months before any mobilization for deployment could occur.

 

[vern_humphrey]

gnjsdad:

That’s true and I am all for being prepared, but we’re talking about an unprovoked attack on a country that wouldn’t have attacked us, an attack, btw, using tactical nuclear weapons.

Apart from the dubious morality, is it any wonder why, when plans such as these come out, that America is feared and hated througout the world to the degree it is?

Just when did this unprovoked attack take place? How many nuclear weapons were used?

 

[gnjsdad]

gilliam:

It is the Pentagon’s job to develope war plans. If we ever needed one and they didn’t have it, it could delay action an additional 6 months before any mobilization for deployment could occur.

Of course, but what about the morality of this one?

 

[stumbler]

gnjsdad:

we’re talking about an unprovoked attack on a country that wouldn’t have attacked us, an attack, btw, using tactical nuclear weapons.

The “unprovoked” assertion is just that, an assertion. To base an argument on an unsupported assertion seems less than rigorous.

 

[vern_humphrey]

stumbler:

Don’t forget that leftists get to complain bitterly about (a) U.S. war-mongering if the military engages in planning and (b) U.S. incompetence if the military doesn’t plan for eventualities. It’s a win-win tactic for Lefties.

I like the part about an "unprovoked attack."http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

Unless network news has been caught napping, there hasn’t been an attack of ANY kind on Iran.

Ah, well, any old shred that can be spun to put the United States in a bad light. Like Dan Rather said about the Bush forgeries, even if it’s false, it’s true.

 

[gnjsdad]

stumbler:

The “unprovoked” assertion is just that, an assertion. To base an argument on an unsupported assertion seems less than rigorous.

The “unprovoked” is part of the plan, as in …the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States.

 

[Stu]

gnjsdad:

That’s true and I am all for being prepared, but we’re talking about an unprovoked attack on a country that wouldn’t have attacked us, an attack, btw, using tactical nuclear weapons.

Apart from the dubious morality, is it any wonder why, when plans such as these come out, that America is feared and hated througout the world to the degree it is?

I’d rather be prepared for all possible situations rather than running for “Miss Congeniality” of the world.

Isn’t it even remotely possible that a situation could present itself where we may want to go nuclear? Shouldn’t we be prepared for such an option to include already thinking of the pros and cons of such an act and even “wargaming” it on the risk associated.

As already mentioned, this is one of the Pentagon’s major activities (your’s truly did some of this when I worked there). Contrary to popular belief of the left there are many individuals both in and out of uniform thinking out such scenarios in order that we may be better prepared.

 

[vern_humphrey]

gnjsdad:

The “unprovoked” is part of the plan, as in …the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States.

And you’ve actually read this top secret plan, have you? Seen it with your own eyes?

 

[Stu]

gnjsdad:

The “unprovoked” is part of the plan, as in …the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States.

If we had evidence before 9/11 of Taliban Afghanistan’s involvement would you have supported and “unprovoked attack”? If we had evidence of Iran planning or supporting a nuclear attack on us or our allies would you support and “unprovoked attack”?

I’d rather be the Skipper of USS VINCENNES rather than USS COLE if you catch my drift.

 

[gilliam]

Stu:

If we had evidence before 9/11 of Taliban Afghanistan’s involvement would you have supported and “unprovoked attack”? If we had evidence of Iran planning a nuclear attack on us or our allies would you support and “unprovoked attack”?

I’d rather be the Skipper of USS VINCENNES rather than USS COLE if you catch my drift.

When 9/11 happened we didn’t have a plan that would be quick for Afghanistan. The Penatgon fumbled around for weeks. In the mean-time the CIA came up with what was eventually used.

I don’t think Rumsfeld wants that to happen again.

 

[stumbler]

gnjsdad:

The “unprovoked” is part of the plan, as in …the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States.

The problem is that the statement has no basis for validity. There’s no smoking gun. It is just an assertion. And the comparison to Iraq makes the assertion laughable. The whole thing smacks of troublemaking by anti-Bush types. Does the military have lefty-liberals in it? After 8 years of promotions by Clinton, I have no doubt.

 

[Stu]

gilliam:

When 9/11 happened we didn’t have a plan that would be quick for Afghanistan. The Penatgon fumbled around for weeks. In the mean-time the CIA came up with what was eventually used.

I don’t think Rumsfeld wants that to happen again.

True. I think we were still using the Iraq/NK/Iran template and didn’t look much further. That is what I like about Secretary Rumsfeld, he has expanded the horizons of DOD. I think it was much needed and while I don’t like some of the changes it has brought to the Navy overall it has been postive. We still have our dinosaurs though.

Interested in your thoughts on the changes in the Army?

 

[gnjsdad]

Stu:

Isn’t it even remotely possible that a situation could present itself where we may want to go nuclear?

In the past, yes (I’m thinking of the former USSR).

Now, I don’t think so. Suppose our greatest fear comes true. Al Qaeda gets a suitcase nuke into this country and detonates it. The big problem is, who do you retaliate against when any kind of nuclear response will kill thousands of innocent people?

Stu:

As already mentioned, this is one of the Pentagon’s major activities (your’s truly did some of this when I worked there). Contrary to popular belief of the left there are many individuals both in and out of uniform thinking out such scenarios in order that we may be better prepared.

But again, contingency plans need some kind of moral dimension, especially in America, which prides itself on its enlightened virtues. That is what I would like to address. I concede that military preparedness demands contingency planning.

 

[gilliam]

Stu:

Interested in your thoughts on the changes in the Army?

I have some problems with some of the details, but I think expanding the concept of BCTs is the way to go.

 

[stumbler]

vern humphrey:

And you’ve actually read this top secret plan, have you? Seen it with your own eyes?

Anything that puts the President or the military in a poor light must be true, no matter how weak the evidence. And anything that puts the President or the military in a postive light must be a lie . . . or so I have been told.