2 weeks to war with Iran

Originally posted by Uk_United
well to those who rule out an early strike I say this, Why on earth would the allies or coalition make a full statement of their intentions, it would scare Iran to use whatever weapons they have and scare them into a pre-emptive strike on Israel. IF a strike will happen I beleive it will be unexpected from the public.

Your basing your ideas on what?

Saddam Hussein and his sons must leave Iraq within 48 hours. ~GW Bush

Bush ultimatum to Saddam: Text -BBC
Saddam was believed to have WMD's and he didn't use whatever weapons.

•Preparations for 2003 invasion of Iraq -Wiki
•Is Iran Next? - resource links

•The Unreported Vietnam-Iraq Parallel -CommonDreams
•Parallels Between Iran and Pre-War Iraq -Payvand
•Heed the Iran-Iraq parallels -CSMonitor
•Powell Singing Pre-War Tune on Iran? -Lewrockwell
•Pentagon discusses Israeli preemptive strike against Iran -JPost
•US Seeks Deadline in Dispute With Iran -Washingtonpost

Pre-announcing an invasion/attack aids insurgents within a county that is prone to revolt.

[edit on 14-3-2006 by Regenmacher]

Originally posted by Dark Magician
Well, apparently we may have to wait a little longer to see how things pan out. But the bottom line is that there is a crisis and it eventually will come to a boil, regardless of the underlying factors, unless something is done to stop it.


www.theglobeandmail.com...

Launch of Iranian oil trading hits wall
Oil exchange unlikely to begin till at least midyear

Can someone verify this... Is Theglobeandmail.com a reliable source?

What kind of impact does this have on the possibility of the US striking Iran soon???

First, no one is invading Iran; it’s too big and far too populated. No one in America has any desire to occupy a 15th century sewer. But for trying to keep those dopes in Iraq from killing each other, we’d be long gone from there.

However, Iran will be prevented form acquiring a nuclear arsenal. The whens, wheres and how-fors remain to be seen. Islam is a culture that has produced nothing but violence in last thousand years or so. They cannot be trusted with nuclear weapons



[edit on 14-3-2006 by ElTiante]

I have wondered if the US would want to go into Iran ever since they started invading Iraq. There is now a problem though, can the US afford to split it's forces? I mean that is going to stretch them surely. They can do an enormous amount of damage with range weapons but in the end troops have to go in and hold the ground.

I keep thinking they will go in but this seems to be a large problem for them, and of course invading Iran i don't think would do a lot of good for the opinion polls, unless you have another attack on American soil.

Well just my thoughts on it.

As the British Army T-shirt said pre-GW2:

Weather Forecast - 25,000 degrees and sunny

Does anyone know / remember when Iran opens the oil bourse in Euros? Was it 26/03/06 IIRC? I know it was on ATS somewhere.

It'll be interesting if action starts around the same date

Originally posted by Strangerous
As the British Army T-shirt said pre-GW2:

Weather Forecast - 25,000 degrees and sunny

Does anyone know / remember when Iran opens the oil bourse in Euros? Was it 26/03/06 IIRC? I know it was on ATS somewhere.

It'll be interesting if action starts around the same date

20-03-2006... But now I read on a link provided in this thread that its going to be stalled off till a later time... I can however find no reference to this news on any other news site out there except the one originaly given a few replies before this one... And I don't know if that one is reliable or not as I've never heard of the site before... Hence my question if anyone knew if that site was reliable...

[edit on 14-3-2006 by Angelwithsoul]

When the US does attack Iran to stop its procurement of nuclear weapons, it will also finally answer back for the attack iran made on the US. Iran invaded soverign American land and took hostages of US citizens. In 1979 they commited these heinous crimes and never quite got the response they deserved. I also don't see us actually invading iran but perhaps we can help to destabilize their corrupt and backwards government. There are many signs that the youth of Iran would behave quite differently than the medieval thugs in charge now.

I do hope that whatever action taken will limit the pain and suffering on the innocent civilians of iran. Just like in Afghanistan
and Iraq where every effort was made to limit civilian caualities I am sure we will.

First I have to say that I really dislike the presumptious tone of this thread's title, whose only argument, as far as I could gather, is the belief that the

opening of the Teheran Oil Bourse would be the casus belli, the trigger pushing Washington down the road to potential thermonuclear annihilation of Iran, seems to rest on the claim that by openly trading oil to other nations or buyers in Euros, Teheran would set into motion a chain of events in which nation after nation, buyer after buyer, would line up to buy oil no longer in US dollars but in Euros. That in turn, so goes the argument, would lead to a panic selling of dollars on world foreign exchange markets and a collapse of the role of the dollar as reserve currency, one of the ‘pillars of Empire.’ Basta! There goes the American Century down the tubes with the onset of the Teheran Oil Bourse…

Some people here will believe just about anything, as long it's not mainstream. Nonconformism? Paranoia? Ignorance? You do the picking.

I'm yet to be convinced from tons of materials I've read that this bourse presents any significant threat to the US dollar global hegemony. Even if Venezuela were to join up with them, we're still talking a most optimistic maximum of 100 billion dollars lost annually. That's hardly a major upset.
These things have been happening before - just remember the 70' oil crisis, and the only result was the further strengthening of US global monetary dominance.

A full challenge to the domination of the dollar as world central bank reserve currency entails a de facto declaration of war on the ‘full spectrum dominance’ of the United States today. The mighty members of the European Central Bank Council well know this. The heads of state of every EU country know that. The Chinese leadership as well as Japanese and Indian know that. So does Vladimir Putin.

And since the shocks of September 11, 2001 and the ensuing declaration of a US global War on Terror, including a unilateral decision to ignore the United Nations and the community of nations and go to war against a defenceless Iraq, few countries have even dared to challenge the dollar hegemony.The combined defense spending of all nations of the EU today pales by comparison to the total of current US budgeted and unbudgeted defense spending. US defense outlays will reach an official, staggering level of $663 billion in the current Fiscal 2007 year. The combined EU spending amounts to a mere $75 billion, with tendency declining, in part owing to ECB Maastricht deficit pressures on its governments.


So today, at least for the present, there are no signs of Japanese, EU or other dollar holders engaging in dollar asset liquidation. Even China, unhappy as she is with Washington bully politics, seems reluctant to rouse the American dragon to fury.

...Norway plans to stop depending on the London oil bourse, and start selling it's oil in Euros by setting up it's own oil Bourse. Will now NATO member Norway become the next target for the wrath of the Pentagon?

*NOTE*
Edited upon Regenmacher's astute observation. Sorry guys, I was just too lazy to rewrite my very similar point of view - which wasn't at all that significantly influenced with this one person. Thanks for providing the other links Regenmacher. I first heard of this guy and read his article just last evening, and only took out the stuff I found concording with my own view of the subject. The true nature of this man's writting was apparent from the second paragraph of that article, so I didn't kind of want to quote someone whose general agenda reeks of BS.

Link to the article: www.financialsense.com...


[edit on 14-3-2006 by Max Demian]

Originally posted by Max Demian
First I have to say that I really dislike the presumptious tone of this thread's title, whose only argument...

And since the shocks of September 11, 2001 and the ensuing declaration of a US global War on Terror, including a unilateral decision to ignore the United Nations and the community of nations and go to war against a defenceless Iraq, few countries have even dared to challenge the dollar hegemony. Actually, when you look at it, the combined defense spending of all nations of the EU today pales by comparison to the total of current US budgeted and unbudgeted defense spending. US defense outlays will reach an official, staggering level of $663 billion in the current Fiscal 2007 year. The combined EU spending amounts to a mere $75 billion, with tendency declining, in part owing to ECB Maastricht deficit pressures on its governments.

Maybe you should think and work on your own ideas instead of plagiarizing Engdahl and making a crappy attempt at paraphrasing him


If you would of researched in more detail, before parroting Engdahl,
you might of discovered his article was discussed here:
ATS - Petrodollar Warfare: Dollars, Euros and the Upcoming Iranian Oil Bourse

Then find out he said the exact opposite in regards to Iraq indicating he's a economic buffon:
A New American Century? Iraq and the hidden euro-dollar wars by F. William Engdahl

Something to learn:

Due Diligence -Wiki
In lay terms, due diligence is the responsibility you have to investigate and identify issues, and due care is doing something about the findings from due diligence.

ATS - Posting work written by others. **ALL MEMBERS READ**

As I had mentioned earlier, the strategic aim against Iran will be to not only neutralise Iran nuke cabability, but to destroy it.
Occupation of 'ground' isn't necessary for this and thus a huge build-up and staging forward of 'Allied Forces' is not required.
Just to recap, a broad plan could be as reproduced from my earlier post and detailed below.
However this is only a broad outline. The nitty gritties cannot be gone into as it will run into several pages!

Someone also mentioned about EMP that may be used by Iran against Israel etc. Iran doesn't have this capability now, as it requires a nuclear explosion over a specified area at a specific height.

Originally posted by mikesingh

My personal belief is that there are going to be broadly three phases to this operation:

Phase 1.. Pre-emptive air strike on Iran's air fields and SAM missile sites to render their air force/missiles inoperable and gain complete air supremacy.
This in conjunction with destruction of surface-to-surface missiles sites and their command and control centres to prevent reposte against Israel.

Phase 2.. Destroy Iranian nuclear capability from the air, aided by limited covert special ops.

Phase 3..(Over a period of time). To contain Islamist backlash, politically, diplomatically and militarily.

The first two phases will probably end within D+10 hours.
Phase 3, well, not any time soon!

So guys, sit back and watch the biggest fireworks display coming shortly to the battle theatre near you!

OK, seriously, I'd say D-Day would come before the weather gets too hot and dusty. Sandstorms are an impediment. But thats cutting it a bit fine. The warewithal is probably not in place yet. Oct to Feb would be a good time. So you can draw your own conclusions!



[edit on 13-3-2006 by mikesingh]

I'm also pretty certain that NO nuclear weapons are going to be used by anyone during this strike.




[edit on 14-3-2006 by mikesingh]

www.abovetopsecret.com...


TG was right.....there are time travelers....ahhhh the end of the world is upon us

Originally posted by Mehran
go ahead attack Iran, all the shiites will be against your troops and the sunnis will get a good chance at it. even Afghanistan will be harder to handle. The task over there will be impossible to accomplish. Let me tell you guys something, for 8 years we Iranians were in a war with the whole world against us, we had nothing left it was just us and we were still able to keep everybody back from invading us or break our pride. If we can handle against USA,Germany,Britian,France,Russia,Iraq,Saudia-Arabia,UAE, and the rest of the world and we sure can handle ISrael and US.

[edit on 11-3-2006 by Mehran]

[edit on 11-3-2006 by Mehran]

[edit on 11-3-2006 by Mehran]

Well you are aware that prior to and during the first few years of the war the US and Israel both supplied weapons to Iran right.

Someone also mentioned about EMP that may be used by Iran against Israel etc. Iran doesn't have this capability now, as it requires a nuclear explosion over a specified area at a specific height.

Well that is just wrong, a high atmosphere nuclear detontion is not the only way to produce that pulse. FCG's (Flux Compression Generators) are a very promising bit of tech. I mean we as the public have basic ideas for these devices, whose to say the government hasn't figured out something a whole lot better? I mean the whole point of emp is to wipe out electronics. Even using a high altitude nuke isn't a great idea in war these days. Some other tech like a FCG would be far better and as i said i am sure the government must have a much improved version of one.

Here's a wiki article on these devices, it's pretty basic but it gives the general idea.

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by loam
Let's not get confused about what the real reason might be:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Eliminate our dependency on foreign oil, and we eliminate the relevancy of the entire middle east...plain and simple.

interesting...there is no need for oil...but alternatives arent released to the market..
(for what reasons, only they know & God knows)

hmm well I think it is somehow convenient that afghanistan and Iraq happen to share opposite borders with Iran. It makes me think the whole time to do with afghanistan and Iraq was to gain strategic importance against Iran, among other things. I mean it's too much of a coincidence, bith countries share opposite borders, the east and west.

By the way if the USA does indeed go to war with Iran it will be the finishing blow to it's economy they can't run the middle-east even though they are the world's greatest power. They are not very good occupiers and this conflict will be the final stretch too far, hehe what on earth are the USA going to do if North Korea invades South Korea or CHina invades Taiwan, they won't do anything because their forces will all be in the Middle East, they would have to abandon one or the other. USA has become too greedy and arrogant I feel it's the end.

hmm well I think it is somehow convenient that afghanistan and Iraq happen to share opposite borders with Iran. It makes me think the whole time to do with afghanistan and Iraq was to gain strategic importance against Iran, among other things. I mean it's too much of a coincidence, bith countries share opposite borders, the east and west.

By the way if the USA does indeed go to war with Iran it will be the finishing blow to it's economy they can't run the middle-east even though they are the world's greatest power. They are not very good occupiers and this conflict will be the final stretch too far, hehe what on earth are the USA going to do if North Korea invades South Korea or CHina invades Taiwan, they won't do anything because their forces will all be in the Middle East, they would have to abandon one or the other. USA has become too greedy and arrogant I feel it's the end.

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984

[ii]Originally posted by mikesingh[/ii]
Someone also mentioned about EMP that may be used by Iran against Israel etc. Iran doesn't have this capability now, as it requires a nuclear explosion over a specified area at a specific height.

Well that is just wrong, a high atmosphere nuclear detontion is not the only way to produce that pulse. FCG's (Flux Compression Generators) are a very promising bit of tech. I mean we as the public have basic ideas for these devices, whose to say the government hasn't figured out something a whole lot better? I mean the whole point of emp is to wipe out electronics. Even using a high altitude nuke isn't a great idea in war these days. Some other tech like a FCG would be far better and as i said i am sure the government must have a much improved version of one.

Here's a wiki article on these devices, it's pretty basic but it gives the general idea.

en.wikipedia.org...

You're absolutely right. A high atmospheric nuclear detontion is not the only way to produce that pulse. FCG's (Flux Compression Generators) are a very promising bit of tech too.

But remember that this technology hasn't even been operationalized as yet. It's still in the testing stages. So you think Iran is ahead in this technology with FCGs ready to be operationally deployed? Wow! That's news to me.

For strategic/tactical deployment of the FCGs you gatta have very accurate delivery systems incl aircraft and missiles with CEPs of less than 50m, as the footprint of EMPs of an FCG is very small (Point targets/restricted areas only) compared to that of an airburst from a nuclear bomb. Which is about 2500km for a 500m high airburst of nominal yield.





[edit on 15-3-2006 by mikesingh]

Uk_United, you are absolutely correct with the points you have raised. However the nature of US dealings is what raises questions, hence all the tension in the world. If it was for peace and to get rid of weapons of mass destruction, great to have US taking the lead, however there are hidden agends. The motives of Iran to use nuclear technology is for non war purpose. I cant find any problems with that, considering that Irans president is telling the truth.

Adding to the argument, would you not want to have a nuclear weapon in your arsenal? I would like the reader to consider that most of the developed or developing countries already have them. US/Russia/China/Pakistan/India.....

If US can consider dealing with India/Pakistan on Nuclear issue, with constructive negotiation considering the broader human community, i am sure US can settle the difference. All difference can be settled if individuals decide to sit down and discuss rather than imposing ideas or thoughts in an alien country....These are just thoughts.....

I doubt US can take a stance against China or N Korea if it had commited itself to the war in Iran.

Funny how the USA isn't going to attack China anytime soon even though its expenditure on nuclear arms and modernisation of it's army has been predicted to be 90 billion by Rumsfield, and this expenditure is set to rival the US's in 5 years as China grows rich off the US trade deficit. Maybe the USA is scared?

Originally posted by knowledge23

If US can consider dealing with India/Pakistan on Nuclear issue, with constructive negotiation considering the broader human community, i am sure US can settle the difference. All difference can be settled if individuals decide to sit down and discuss rather than imposing ideas or thoughts in an alien country....These are just thoughts.....

I doubt US can take a stance against China or N Korea if it had commited itself to the war in Iran.

Lol, you've got the big-power equations wrong.
Why does America not want a nuclear Iran?

1. It's a muslim Shia majority country which America suspects is aiding militarism/terrorism in the Middle East.
2. America's grand plan of spreading 'western Style' democracy in the Middle East will be a non starter as long as there is a viable threat from Iran.
3. With the present regime, this isn't possible.
4. A nuclear powered Iran can threaten Western economic interests in the Middle East.
5. End of Israeli dominance and leverage in the Middle East resulting in a paradigm shift in the geo-political scenario.

And, needless to say, it all boils down to OIL!!

[edit on 15-3-2006 by mikesingh]