Pentagon 'three-day blitz' plan for attacking Iran

Pentagon 'three-day blitz' plan for Iran
Sarah Baxter, Washington

The Pentagon has drawn up plans for massive airstrikes against 1,200
targets in Iran, designed to annihilate the Iranians' military
capability in three days, according to a national security expert.

Alexis Debat, director of terrorism and national security at the Nixon
Center, said last week that US military planners were not preparing
for "pinprick strikes" against Iran's nuclear facilities. "They're
about taking out the entire Iranian military," he said.

Debat was speaking at a meeting organised by The National Interest, a
conservative foreign policy journal. He told The Sunday Times that the
US military had concluded: "Whether you go for pinprick strikes or all-
out military action, the reaction from the Iranians will be the same."
It was, he added, a "very legitimate strategic calculus".

President George Bush intensified the rhetoric against Iran last week,
accusing Tehran of putting the Middle East "under the shadow of a
nuclear holocaust". He warned that the US and its allies would
confront Iran "before it is too late".
Related Links

One Washington source said the "temperature was rising" inside the
administration. Bush was "sending a message to a number of audiences",
he said ? to the Iranians and to members of the United Nations
security council who are trying to weaken a tough third resolution on
sanctions against Iran for flouting a UN ban on uranium enrichment.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) last week reported
"significant" cooperation with Iran over its nuclear programme and
said that uranium enrichment had slowed. Tehran has promised to answer
most questions from the agency by November, but Washington fears it is
stalling to prevent further sanctions. Iran continues to maintain it
is merely developing civilian nuclear power.

Bush is committed for now to the diplomatic route but thinks Iran is
moving towards acquiring a nuclear weapon. According to one well
placed source, Washington believes it would be prudent to use rapid,
overwhelming force, should military action become necessary.

Israel, which has warned it will not allow Iran to acquire nuclear
weapons, has made its own preparations for airstrikes and is said to
be ready to attack if the Americans back down.

Alireza Jafarzadeh, a spokesman for the National Council of Resistance
of Iran, which uncovered the existence of Iran's uranium enrichment
plant at Natanz, said the IAEA was being strung along. "A number of
nuclear sites have not even been visited by the IAEA," he said.
"They're giving a clean bill of health to a regime that is known to
have practised deception."

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, irritated the Bush
administration last week by vowing to fill a "power vacuum" in Iraq.
But Washington believes Iran is already fighting a proxy war with the
Americans in Iraq.

The Institute for the Study of War last week released a report by
Kimberly Kagan that explicitly uses the term "proxy war" and claims
that with the Sunni insurgency and Al-Qaeda in Iraq "increasingly
under control", Iranian intervention is the "next major problem the
coalition must tackle".

Bush noted that the number of attacks on US bases and troops by
Iranian-supplied munitions had increased in recent months despite
pledges by Iran to help stabilise the security situation in Iraq".

It explains, in part, his lack of faith in diplomacy with the
Iranians. But Debat believes the Pentagon's plans for military action
involve the use of so much force that they are unlikely to be used and
would seriously stretch resources in Afghanistan and Iraq.


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle2369001.ece

On Sep 2, 1:13 pm, AirRaid wrote:
Pentagon 'three-day blitz' plan for Iran
Sarah Baxter, Washington




People never stop posting this - over and over for years now, we've
had stories Bush will attack Iran. When it never happens, reporters
and posters seems to just change the predicted dates and publish the
claims again with some fresh details. All this despite the utter
impossibility of it. The idea our stretched-beyond-exhaustion
military logistics system could support the deployment of hundreds of
combat planes to the area and the sustainment of a huge air campaign
is absurd. Is there a contingency plan if an attack on Iran was
deemed necessary? Well, it's the military's job to have a contingency
plan for all kinds of scenarios. But we have exhausted our planes,
our supplies of guided munitions, our people, and our logistics with
the Iraq/Afghan wars.
Unless Iran actually attacks in force, the chance this will happen is
absolutely zero.

ALL POSTS ARE SOLELY THE PERSONAL OPINION OF THE AUTHOR

On Sun, 02 Sep 2007 12:13:26 -0700, AirRaid wrote:

Pentagon 'three-day blitz' plan for Iran
Sarah Baxter, Washington

The Pentagon has drawn up plans for massive airstrikes against 1,200
targets in Iran, designed to annihilate the Iranians' military
capability in three days, according to a national security expert.

Alexis Debat, director of terrorism and national security at the Nixon
Center, said last week that US military planners were not preparing
for "pinprick strikes" against Iran's nuclear facilities. "They're
about taking out the entire Iranian military," he said.

Debat was speaking at a meeting organised by The National Interest, a
conservative foreign policy journal. He told The Sunday Times that the
US military had concluded: "Whether you go for pinprick strikes or all-
out military action, the reaction from the Iranians will be the same."
It was, he added, a "very legitimate strategic calculus".

President George Bush intensified the rhetoric against Iran last week,
accusing Tehran of putting the Middle East "under the shadow of a
nuclear holocaust". He warned that the US and its allies would
confront Iran "before it is too late".
Related Links

One Washington source said the "temperature was rising" inside the
administration. Bush was "sending a message to a number of audiences",
he said ? to the Iranians and to members of the United Nations
security council who are trying to weaken a tough third resolution on
sanctions against Iran for flouting a UN ban on uranium enrichment.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) last week reported
"significant" cooperation with Iran over its nuclear programme and
said that uranium enrichment had slowed. Tehran has promised to answer
most questions from the agency by November, but Washington fears it is
stalling to prevent further sanctions. Iran continues to maintain it
is merely developing civilian nuclear power.

Bush is committed for now to the diplomatic route but thinks Iran is
moving towards acquiring a nuclear weapon. According to one well
placed source, Washington believes it would be prudent to use rapid,
overwhelming force, should military action become necessary.

Israel, which has warned it will not allow Iran to acquire nuclear
weapons, has made its own preparations for airstrikes and is said to
be ready to attack if the Americans back down.

Alireza Jafarzadeh, a spokesman for the National Council of Resistance
of Iran, which uncovered the existence of Iran's uranium enrichment
plant at Natanz, said the IAEA was being strung along. "A number of
nuclear sites have not even been visited by the IAEA," he said.
"They're giving a clean bill of health to a regime that is known to
have practised deception."

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, irritated the Bush
administration last week by vowing to fill a "power vacuum" in Iraq.
But Washington believes Iran is already fighting a proxy war with the
Americans in Iraq.

The Institute for the Study of War last week released a report by
Kimberly Kagan that explicitly uses the term "proxy war" and claims
that with the Sunni insurgency and Al-Qaeda in Iraq "increasingly
under control", Iranian intervention is the "next major problem the
coalition must tackle".

Bush noted that the number of attacks on US bases and troops by
Iranian-supplied munitions had increased in recent months despite
pledges by Iran to help stabilise the security situation in Iraq".

It explains, in part, his lack of faith in diplomacy with the
Iranians. But Debat believes the Pentagon's plans for military action
involve the use of so much force that they are unlikely to be used and
would seriously stretch resources in Afghanistan and Iraq.


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle2369001.ece

The Pentagon probably has attack plans for just about every country on the
planet buried in a file cabinet somewhere. That's what planners do. Plan
stuff. Nothing new here.

Dave
--
You can talk about us, but you can't talk without us!
US Army Signal Corps!!
http://www.geocities.com/davidcasey98

On Sun, 02 Sep 2007 22:37:32 GMT, David Casey
wrote:

On Sun, 02 Sep 2007 12:13:26 -0700, AirRaid wrote:

Pentagon 'three-day blitz' plan for Iran
Sarah Baxter, Washington

The Pentagon has drawn up plans for massive airstrikes against 1,200
targets in Iran, designed to annihilate the Iranians' military
capability in three days, according to a national security expert.

Alexis Debat, director of terrorism and national security at the Nixon
Center, said last week that US military planners were not preparing
for "pinprick strikes" against Iran's nuclear facilities. "They're
about taking out the entire Iranian military," he said.

Debat was speaking at a meeting organised by The National Interest, a
conservative foreign policy journal. He told The Sunday Times that the
US military had concluded: "Whether you go for pinprick strikes or all-
out military action, the reaction from the Iranians will be the same."
It was, he added, a "very legitimate strategic calculus".

President George Bush intensified the rhetoric against Iran last week,
accusing Tehran of putting the Middle East "under the shadow of a
nuclear holocaust". He warned that the US and its allies would
confront Iran "before it is too late".
Related Links

One Washington source said the "temperature was rising" inside the
administration. Bush was "sending a message to a number of audiences",
he said ? to the Iranians and to members of the United Nations
security council who are trying to weaken a tough third resolution on
sanctions against Iran for flouting a UN ban on uranium enrichment.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) last week reported
"significant" cooperation with Iran over its nuclear programme and
said that uranium enrichment had slowed. Tehran has promised to answer
most questions from the agency by November, but Washington fears it is
stalling to prevent further sanctions. Iran continues to maintain it
is merely developing civilian nuclear power.

Bush is committed for now to the diplomatic route but thinks Iran is
moving towards acquiring a nuclear weapon. According to one well
placed source, Washington believes it would be prudent to use rapid,
overwhelming force, should military action become necessary.

Israel, which has warned it will not allow Iran to acquire nuclear
weapons, has made its own preparations for airstrikes and is said to
be ready to attack if the Americans back down.

Alireza Jafarzadeh, a spokesman for the National Council of Resistance
of Iran, which uncovered the existence of Iran's uranium enrichment
plant at Natanz, said the IAEA was being strung along. "A number of
nuclear sites have not even been visited by the IAEA," he said.
"They're giving a clean bill of health to a regime that is known to
have practised deception."

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, irritated the Bush
administration last week by vowing to fill a "power vacuum" in Iraq.
But Washington believes Iran is already fighting a proxy war with the
Americans in Iraq.

The Institute for the Study of War last week released a report by
Kimberly Kagan that explicitly uses the term "proxy war" and claims
that with the Sunni insurgency and Al-Qaeda in Iraq "increasingly
under control", Iranian intervention is the "next major problem the
coalition must tackle".

Bush noted that the number of attacks on US bases and troops by
Iranian-supplied munitions had increased in recent months despite
pledges by Iran to help stabilise the security situation in Iraq".

It explains, in part, his lack of faith in diplomacy with the
Iranians. But Debat believes the Pentagon's plans for military action
involve the use of so much force that they are unlikely to be used and
would seriously stretch resources in Afghanistan and Iraq.


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle2369001.ece

The Pentagon probably has attack plans for just about every country on the
planet buried in a file cabinet somewhere. That's what planners do. Plan
stuff. Nothing new here.

So far these folks are 0 out of 27 for their predictions of an attack
on Iran.

The amazing thing is that they keep finding people gullible enough to
believe them.



--
There can be no triumph without loss.
No victory without suffering.
No freedom without sacrifice.

David Casey wrote:
On Sun, 02 Sep 2007 12:13:26 -0700, AirRaid wrote:

Pentagon 'three-day blitz' plan for Iran
Sarah Baxter, Washington

The Pentagon has drawn up plans for massive airstrikes against 1,200
targets in Iran, designed to annihilate the Iranians' military
capability in three days, according to a national security expert.

Alexis Debat, director of terrorism and national security at the Nixon
Center, said last week that US military planners were not preparing
for "pinprick strikes" against Iran's nuclear facilities. "They're
about taking out the entire Iranian military," he said.

Debat was speaking at a meeting organised by The National Interest, a
conservative foreign policy journal. He told The Sunday Times that the
US military had concluded: "Whether you go for pinprick strikes or all-
out military action, the reaction from the Iranians will be the same."
It was, he added, a "very legitimate strategic calculus".

President George Bush intensified the rhetoric against Iran last week,
accusing Tehran of putting the Middle East "under the shadow of a
nuclear holocaust". He warned that the US and its allies would
confront Iran "before it is too late".
Related Links

One Washington source said the "temperature was rising" inside the
administration. Bush was "sending a message to a number of audiences",
he said ? to the Iranians and to members of the United Nations
security council who are trying to weaken a tough third resolution on
sanctions against Iran for flouting a UN ban on uranium enrichment.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) last week reported
"significant" cooperation with Iran over its nuclear programme and
said that uranium enrichment had slowed. Tehran has promised to answer
most questions from the agency by November, but Washington fears it is
stalling to prevent further sanctions. Iran continues to maintain it
is merely developing civilian nuclear power.

Bush is committed for now to the diplomatic route but thinks Iran is
moving towards acquiring a nuclear weapon. According to one well
placed source, Washington believes it would be prudent to use rapid,
overwhelming force, should military action become necessary.

Israel, which has warned it will not allow Iran to acquire nuclear
weapons, has made its own preparations for airstrikes and is said to
be ready to attack if the Americans back down.

Alireza Jafarzadeh, a spokesman for the National Council of Resistance
of Iran, which uncovered the existence of Iran's uranium enrichment
plant at Natanz, said the IAEA was being strung along. "A number of
nuclear sites have not even been visited by the IAEA," he said.
"They're giving a clean bill of health to a regime that is known to
have practised deception."

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, irritated the Bush
administration last week by vowing to fill a "power vacuum" in Iraq.
But Washington believes Iran is already fighting a proxy war with the
Americans in Iraq.

The Institute for the Study of War last week released a report by
Kimberly Kagan that explicitly uses the term "proxy war" and claims
that with the Sunni insurgency and Al-Qaeda in Iraq "increasingly
under control", Iranian intervention is the "next major problem the
coalition must tackle".

Bush noted that the number of attacks on US bases and troops by
Iranian-supplied munitions had increased in recent months despite
pledges by Iran to help stabilise the security situation in Iraq".

It explains, in part, his lack of faith in diplomacy with the
Iranians. But Debat believes the Pentagon's plans for military action
involve the use of so much force that they are unlikely to be used and
would seriously stretch resources in Afghanistan and Iraq.


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle2369001.ece

The Pentagon probably has attack plans for just about every country on the
planet buried in a file cabinet somewhere. That's what planners do. Plan
stuff. Nothing new here.

Dave

Yep! Glad they're on the job!
:-)

--
Heaven is where the police are British, the chefs Italian, the mechanics
German, the lovers French and it is all organized by the Swiss.

Hell is where the police are German, the chefs British, the mechanics
French, the lovers Swiss and it is all organized by Italians.

http://new.photos.yahoo.com/paul1cart/albums/

On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 13:53:42 -0700, Paul Elliot
wrote:


The Pentagon probably has attack plans for just about every country on the
planet buried in a file cabinet somewhere. That's what planners do. Plan
stuff. Nothing new here.

Dave

Yep! Glad they're on the job!

They better be.

Can you imagine how many generals would be out of a job if a crisis
occurred somewhere and the president asked to be briefed on his
military options - and the generals gave him a 'deer in the
headlights' look?


--
There can be no triumph without loss.
No victory without suffering.
No freedom without sacrifice.

"Colin Campbell" (remove underscore) wrote in
message ...
On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 13:53:42 -0700, Paul Elliot
wrote:


The Pentagon probably has attack plans for just about every country on
the
planet buried in a file cabinet somewhere. That's what planners do.
Plan
stuff. Nothing new here.

Dave

Yep! Glad they're on the job!

They better be.

Can you imagine how many generals would be out of a job if a crisis
occurred somewhere and the president asked to be briefed on his
military options - and the generals gave him a 'deer in the
headlights' look?

Like they'd be listened to, anyways.

Glenn D.

In message , Colin Campbell
writes
Can you imagine how many generals would be out of a job if a crisis
occurred somewhere and the president asked to be briefed on his
military options - and the generals gave him a 'deer in the
headlights' look?

Isn't that what happened when Clinton wanted options for hitting
bin-Laden in Afghanistan?

--
The nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its
warriors, will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done
by fools.
-Thucydides


Paul J. Adam - mainbox{at}jrwlynch[dot]demon(dot)codotuk

In article ,
mumbled
In message , Colin Campbell
writes
Can you imagine how many generals would be out of a job if a crisis
occurred somewhere and the president asked to be briefed on his
military options - and the generals gave him a 'deer in the
headlights' look?

Isn't that what happened when Clinton wanted options for hitting
bin-Laden in Afghanistan?

I understand they had a plan to put Rangers/SOF on the ground and snatch
him.

But since people might get hurt.....


--

Usenetsaurus n. an early pedantic internet mammal, who survived on a
diet of static text and
cascading "threads."

On Wed, 5 Sep 2007 23:14:38 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
wrote:

In message , Colin Campbell
writes
Can you imagine how many generals would be out of a job if a crisis
occurred somewhere and the president asked to be briefed on his
military options - and the generals gave him a 'deer in the
headlights' look?

Isn't that what happened when Clinton wanted options for hitting
bin-Laden in Afghanistan?

No.

The problem was that by the time the basketball game ended their
chance to get him had passed.

They had options, but when they had the chance - they could not pry
Clinton away from the TV set.




--
There can be no triumph without loss.
No victory without suffering.
No freedom without sacrifice.