Pentagon ‘three-day blitz’ plan for Iran

[jerryhopper 285]

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.

i wonder which country is next after iran. i mean: they gotto run out of countries to attack soon.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article2369001.ece

quote : "I don’t think it’s limited at all. We are shipping in and assigning every damn Tomahawk we have in inventory. I think this is going to be massive and sudden, like thousands of targets. I believe that no American will know when it happens until after it happens. And whatever the consequences, whatever the consequences, they will have to be lived with. "

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/9/1/183018/1527

damn! Where do you find these people?

[Guest Ti0n3r]

Here we go again

[echo1 0]

Maybe they should fix up the mess in Iraq before they attack a country that has an Army... And cant Tomahawks be shot down?

[Colossus 2]

Christ.. this is going to be a blod bath. Iran isn't the same as Iraq or Afghanistan.

I mean, they play OFP (link) for christ sake!

No, seriously. This could get bad.

[Baff1 0]

It's another third world country.

America has more aircraft on any one of it's thirteen carriers than Iran has in total.

I don't think they can find and destroy every Silkworm missile in 3 days, anymore than they could the Scuds in Iraq.

Only in Iran, it's Scuds AND Silkworms.

I do think they can reduce Irans offensive capabilities decisively from the air, but three days sounds like another moronic pipe dream from the neo cons.

Presumably Iranians everywhere will rise up and overthrow their government on the 4th day and then welcome American soldiers into their country with open arms on the 5th day and build a western modelled democracy on the 6th day.

The 7th day being a day of rest.

[Mr_Tea 0]

That plan may work very well on paper, but the reality is different.

Even if it work out as planned, it will not end any violence in the region.

And maybe that is all nothing more than hot air? But i`m afraid i doubt that already as i wrote it down.

[baddo 0]

Well it would be amazing if Pentagon would not have had this kind of plans a long time ago already. Knowing how well Iran and USA have gotten along with each other.

I have to say I am not surprised if a war against Iran is started. But I think nothing good will come out of it, the least for the Americans.

How much do the people of the USA support these kinds of wars is a good question and would need to be answered by themselfs, soon. I hope they pay attention, its their people, tax money and reputation after all. The Bush Administration most likely hopes the people of the U.S. won't be paying attention.

[Baff1 0]

I'm so confident of it, I have bought shares in oil.

They will bomb, and when they do, I will make lots more money!

Unlike the occupation of Iraq, an aerial bombardment of Iran is a battle America can decisively win.

I think Bush would love to go out on a high note. To be remembered as a winner not a loser.

He needs a victory. The American people need a victory.

No one really cares whether wars are right or wrong as long as they are winning.

[Balschoiw 0]

Just in case the whole thing explodes in the face of the US once more, G.W. can still claim that he had no intention to attack Iran, but a typo was guilty. Iran, Iraq, they all sound the same

If they conducted an operation like that, they will get their asses seriously fried in Iraq instantly

[martinovic 0]

Ahmedinejad: Hello? Pentagon? Yes, i would like to request a ridiculously stupid statement from you to boost my popularity. Thank you, have a nice day.

[stevevcb 3]

Those fucking idiots! Jesus shitting Christ, do they have shares in Al-Qaeda or something?

I think that's about as articulate as I'm going to get about this, I think.

[swtx 42]

It's not about "who is next" or how much America "supports the war" or "making mistakes". It's about security, long term stability in the region and the fact that those bastards running Iran are killing and maming American fighting men every day.

The fact that they are in the process of building nukes and want to use them against Israel is enough reason for me to want to wipe them off the face of the Earth in three days time.

Now, if we (the U.S.) attack Iran then Syria will join the fight on Iran's side. It would be a very heavy burden on the shoulders of the United States to take on both of these governments at the same time especially with most of the our fighting forces tied up in Iraq. So, the likely hood of an all out air war in Iran is pretty remote unless it was a "super emergency".

I'm not trying to open up a flame baiting contest here. I just want to put an American perspective on things and hope we can all remain friends and at the outermost just agree to disagree on this matter.

[JdB 151]

I'm pretty sure these kinds of plans are made for "what-if" scenarios, where they pick out countries that could potentially harm the US interests, determine areas of interest, military, governamental and transportation, so that if required they already have a plan to use. Kind of like the Cold War, when the targets for specific nukes were already predetermined, beats throwing darts at random at a map of the USSR to select targets just before you get hit by a first strike.

At least that's what a sane goverment would do. With George W. sanity of planning is not questionable, there is none other than perhaps the economical interests of the people that keep him in power such as arms manufacturers, oil companies etc.

In 2003 they had the UK to back them up, now they are left standing all alone. The price you pay for being the world's police force (at least that's what you get people to believe to cover up the real reason, greed).

"Three-day blitz", I recall Hitler saying something very comparable when he launched operation Barbarossa

More like a "Three-decade insurgency".

[shark-attack 2]

Its about time the US engaged a real threat to world security

and stopped pissing around chasing hidden agendas in Iraq and Afghanistan.

HOO HAA

[churnedfortaste 0]

It's another third world country.

You don't know what you're talking about.

To the guy who said about having shares in Al-Qaeda, read this:

http://www.financialnews-us.com/?page=ushome&contentid=2448565379

It would need a major terrorist attack or war to happen in early weeks of this september for that big a crash in the market to happen.

[ran 0]

I'm pretty sure these kinds of plans are made for "what-if" scenarios, where they pick out countries that could potentially harm the US interests, determine areas of interest, military, governamental and transportation, so that if required they already have a plan to use. Kind of like the Cold War, when the targets for specific nukes were already predetermined, beats throwing darts at random at a map of the USSR to select targets just before you get hit by a first strike.

gency".

Or in pre-ww2 europe? France still had plans for a potential invasion of Great Britain until he late 20's-early 30's

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]France still had plans for a potential invasion of Great Britain until he late 20's-early 30's

Damn, they have given up the plan ?

Sacre Bleu !

Ontopic:

I found this transcript of an interview of Amy Goodman with Gen. Wesley Clark when looking for some background info on the plan.

Here are some interesting excerpts:

Quote[/b] ]So I came back to see him a few weeks later, and by that time we were bombing in Afghanistan. I said, “Are we still going to war with Iraq?†And he said, “Oh, it’s worse than that.†He reached over on his desk. He picked up a piece of paper. And he said, “I just got this down from upstairs†-- meaning the Secretary of Defense’s office -- “today.†And he said, “This is a memo that describes how we’re going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran.†I said, “Is it classified?†He said, “Yes, sir.†I said, “Well, don’t show it to me.†And I saw him a year or so ago, and I said, “You remember that?†He said, “Sir, I didn’t show you that memo! I didn’t show it to you!â€

AMY GOODMAN: I’m sorry. What did you say his name was?

GEN. WESLEY CLARK: I’m not going to give you his name.

AMY GOODMAN: So, go through the countries again.

GEN. WESLEY CLARK: Well, starting with Iraq, then Syria and Lebanon, then Libya, then Somalia and Sudan, and back to Iran. So when you look at Iran, you say, “Is it a replay?†It’s not exactly a replay. But here’s the truth: that Iran, from the beginning, has seen that the presence of the United States in Iraq was a threat -- a blessing, because we took out Saddam Hussein and the Baathists. They couldn’t handle them. We took care of it for them. But also a threat, because they knew that they were next on the hit list. And so, of course, they got engaged. They lost a million people during the war with Iraq, and they’ve got a long and unprotectable, unsecurable border. So it was in their vital interest to be deeply involved inside Iraq. They tolerated our attacks on the Baathists. They were happy we captured Saddam Hussein.

But they're building up their own network of influence, and to cement it, they occasionally give some military assistance and training and advice, either directly or indirectly, to both the insurgents and to the militias. And in that sense, it's not exactly parallel, because there has been, I believe, continuous Iranian engagement, some of it legitimate, some of it illegitimate. I mean, you can hardly fault Iran because they're offering to do eye operations for Iraqis who need medical attention. That's not an offense that you can go to war over, perhaps. But it is an effort to gain influence.

And the administration has stubbornly refused to talk with Iran about their perception, in part because they don't want to pay the price with their domestic -- our US domestic political base, the rightwing base, but also because they don't want to legitimate a government that they've been trying to overthrow. If you were Iran, you'd probably believe that you were mostly already at war with the United States anyway, since we've asserted that their government needs regime change, and we've asked congress to appropriate $75 million to do it, and we are supporting terrorist groups, apparently, who are infiltrating and blowing up things inside Iraq -- Iran. And if we're not doing it, let's put it this way: we're probably cognizant of it and encouraging it. So it's not surprising that we're moving to a point of confrontation and crisis with Iran.

My point on this is not that the Iranians are good guys -- they're not -- but that you shouldn't use force, except as a last, last, last resort. There is a military option, but it's a bad one.

Those who are interested in the complete transscript ( very interesting, not only related to US <-> Iran )

read Gen. Wesley Clark Weighs Presidential Bid: "I Think About It Everyday"

This man has a good attitude imo.

[Commando84 0]

omg oh well, now there will come even more refuges to europe from middle east, like we dont got enough people to try to take care of

[Baff1 0]

It's another third world country.

You don't know what you're talking about.

Actually, yes I do.

Iran is a third world country. It is a member of the third world.

Which part of that am I getting wrong?

As are all it's neighbours, including Saudi Arabia.

So are Taiwan and South Korea and a whole host of others.

Militarily Iran is a minnow compared to the U.S.

It has nothing in it's arsenal capable of countering a U.S. aerial assault or even a British one.

It would be a complete rout comparable with Cortez and the Inca's or the British Army and the Masai.

Just like their militarily superior neighbour, Saddam Hussein, was.

Edit. P.S. LMAO at Wesley Clark, that bloke is such a crank. He's the one who wanted to attack the Russians at Kosovo airport. (And then suddenly found himself in retirement).

[Sennacherib 0]

this is a shame.

that would mean: deaths, archaeological objects (destroyed or stolen even by the US soldiers like in Irak).

please, yankees stay home

[Hoot1988 0]

this is hypothetical. The US doesn't have enough troops to control Iraq and Afghanistan yet alone a country thats bigger than both of them combined. The US used the Isreal Lebannon war of last year to see if you could win a war with airpower alone. They couldnt, This will not happen. GWB isnt THAT Stupid

[Dwarden 1124]

ihmo it's just revised plan on Iran attack ...

i remember reading same news 2 and 5 year ago

point is that attacking IRAN may trigger even worse events than attack on IRAQ (aka another rise of radical islam groups)

on other hand IRAN is definitely threat and destabilizing part for rest of region with it's milita infiltrating all surrounding countries ...

problem is that even 30 days air campaign returning IRAN to stoneage on military level

would fails to remove threat caused by iran militia and iran elite guards trained to fight with anything needed in gerilla warfare

all of sudden You will see huge increase of terrorist strikes against all non islamic targets (especially USA, US allies and NATO members) and most likely even against islam countries atm in friendly status with these ...

my personal opinion about radicals in islam is ... remove heads, remove these who spreads these ideas and You won ...  normal people want to live

IRAN was starving for theirs 'islamic' version of democracy multiple times and always won 'bad' guys thanks to 'lack' of interest from west

USA and even RUSSIA and CHINA should push on IRAN to 'change' ... quite sure everyone want just another trading partner than 'seed' of tens thousands suicide bombers ...

btw. baff1 i think You missed the part where IRAN got some newest RUSSIA AA complets ... such 'hole' in plan may turn whole campaign into bloodbath

i think that event was one of main reasons why ISRAEL decided to not wipe out IRAN reactor by airstrike but instead used MOSAD to cripple them from inside ...

[Sennacherib 0]

Quote[/b] ]my personal opinion about radicals in islam is ... remove heads, remove these who spreads these ideas and You won ... normal people want to live

i agree. the iranian youth want to live in peace like us with all the modern stuff (internet, mobile phone etc etc). even some of them drink alcohol, whereas it is prohibited by Islam. A war in Iran will transform a peaceful people in a war machine and a fanatic people.

[Baff1 0]

Saddam had the latest Russian AA too, so did the Serbs.

It's a very real threat, but not a very big threat.

The U.S. has more planes than Iran has AA missiles and it gets to take the first shot.

AA isn't enough, you need an airforce.

Israel doesn;t attack the Iranian reactor for a couple of reasons...

No. 1, it doesn't have the equipment. Iran is a long way away over foreign airspace. Israel has no longe range bombers and very limited mid air refueling capabilites.

Also it's airforce is very small.

Israels total population is only 7 million, it's not a comparable force to the U.S.

By way of defense, Iran ahs split the nuclear facilites up. Unlike with Iraqi reactor, it isn't just one reactor. Yoo cant just fly in drop one bomb and fly out. It would take either a sustained set of air raids or one very large air armada.

Israel doesn't have the hardware for the job.

The second reason is that Iran has a lot of ballistic missiles in range of Israel.

They aren't very accurate missiles, you couldn't guarentee hitting a ship or an airport with them, but they will hit population centres well enough.

If Israel attacks Iran, many Israeli civilians will die.

Unlike with the Iraqi reactor, there is a human price to be paid for attacking Iran.

America doesn't have that problem, it's out of range.

[scary 0]

It's another third world country.

You don't know what you're talking about.

Actually, yes I do.

Actually, no you don't.

Quote[/b] ]Iran is a third world country. It is a member of the third world.

Which part of that am I getting wrong?

As are all it's neighbours, including Saudi Arabia.

So are Taiwan and South Korea and a whole host of others.

Depending on which definition is used, a Third World country is undeveloped or has a low standard of living. Neither definition applies to Iran. As the HDI map below shows, Iran has a medium standard of living and it is not undeveloped - it is a Second World country. The same applies to Saudi Arabia, whilst Taiwan and South Korea are both First World Nations.

Quote[/b] ]Militarily Iran is a minnow compared to the U.S.

It has nothing in it's arsenal capable of countering a U.S. aerial assault or even a British one.

It would be a complete rout comparable with Cortez and the Inca's or the British Army and the Masai.

Just like their militarily superior neighbour, Saddam Hussein, was.

Iraq had nothing in comparison to Iran's military: Iran has probably the best maritime defences in the world; Iran is mountainous so there would be no big, sweeping tank battles a la Gulf War I; Iran has a very well defended border utilising those mountains; there is no easy route into Iran to provide logistical support; Iran's strategic targets are mostly underground, out of reach of PGMs/TLAM; there is very limited intelligence regarding the location of mobile Iranian missile defences; Iran is also a damn sight bigger than Iraq.

Any attack on Iran would result in massive losses to the US of both personnel and capital equipment that the US population and Government would have no stomach for unless they were experiencing a direct threat, which they aren't.

These plans are nothing new, every country with an expeditionary military has contingency plans for attacks on most countries/groups of countries. They will have various plans for attacking Russia, China, South Africa, France... the more likely the war, the more often the plans are updated, it doesn't mean there will be another war next week.

Besides, all this persistant sabre rattling is mutually beneficial to both the Bush adminstration and ArmadillosJacket, a war wouldn't be.