Former CIA Officer Says: US Ready To Strike Iran Within 6 Months

Former CIA Officer Says: US Ready To Strike Iran Within 6 Months

www.spacewar.com

The United States could deliver a military strike against Iran within the next six months, a former CIA officer told Fox News. In an interview Tuesday the U.S. TV channel asked Robert Baer, a former CIA field officer assigned to the Middle East, whether the U.S. was preparing for military action against Iran, citing Baer's column for Time Magazine on August 18, where he suggested that Washington officials expect an attack within the next six months.

(visit the link for the full news article)

The date on the page says today, but I thought that this had been reported before, in any event Robert baer is stating that Washington officials expect an attack within the next six months. With Irans nuclear announcment today the timeline may indeed be stepped up.

www.spacewar.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

www.globalresearch.ca...

Edit to include second source

[edit on 28-8-2007 by the_sentinal]

My My can there be some other ways to solve this other than blowing up things.I know negotiation is going on but attacking should be the very very very last resort try any other thing first I

reply to post by Rammathion


what do you suggest we try? Iran is not going to back off of their nuke program no matter what we say or do, this war is slated to begin very soon, it's already written down on a top secret file folder somewhere and we are just catching bits and pieces of information pointing in that direction, I would like to stop it , but mad men are running aloof, and the wheels seem to be set in motion already.

If you Google the heading phrase of this post you will see some interesting links pop up, not the least of which is Condelezza Rice's transcrips in her address to congress seen here:

www.foxnews.com...

Also there seems to be a complete contradiction being show on the secondary source I posted from Global resource that states......

89% of U.S. experts said there would be no preemptive military strike on Iran and its nuclear facilities, and 65% said they were certain that George W. Bush would authorize an attack on Tehran during his remaining time in the office.

so which is it?? is this double talk on purpose to confuse the issue so that when the attack happens they can say that "we told you so"??

Sound familiar??



YEP IT DOES!!!

Have a Nice day..

Its lies all lies.. No need for war with Iraq... I mean Iran..... I mean Al Qaeda.... I mean.... Bin Laden.... I mean.... The terrorist..... Oh wait the terrorists is our government...

No need to wake up you government is completely screwing you... I mean helping you at every turn.

Yep, That pretty much does it for me, I would say that a strike in the near future is a shoe-in. thanks for the post Thickheaded that was very interesting to say the least. it may have been a little out of context at times but eye-opening for sure, I still believe that Iran is a threat to Iraq though, and will dominate the middleast if we leave without a fight.

Just because the gentleman has "CIA Field Officer" in front of his name does not mean his opinion is written in stone. Do you have any idea how many CIA Field Officers there is? and some of these guys I've ran into aren't the sharpest tool in the shed either. They're entitled to their opinion, this dosn't mean we have to believe it. If you want to know when (yes when not if) we will invade Iran, look towads their declaration to sell oil in other than greenbacks...this will be the last straw and we will not have any other choice but to strike.

www.energybulletin.net...

edited to add link

[edit on 28-8-2007 by infiltr8u]

Originally posted by infiltr8u
They're entitled to their opinion, this dosn't mean we have to believe it.

You are right, but.....when 65% of US experts said they were certain that George W. Bush would authorize an attack on Tehran during his remaining time in the office. that coupled with the fact that Iran is daily interfering in Iraq and generally being antagonistic to the efforts in Iraq, something has got to give. Did you watch the video posted by Thickheaded all the earmarks of the pre-Iraq invasion are showing now with Iran, I dont base my opinion on one person but when all of the little pieces of the puzzle are put into place a menacing picture emerges.

Originally posted by the_sentinal
Yep, That pretty much does it for me, I would say that a strike in the near future is a shoe-in. thanks for the post Thickheaded that was very interesting to say the least. it may have been a little out of context at times but eye-opening for sure, I still believe that Iran is a threat to Iraq though, and will dominate the middleast if we leave without a fight.

You know what the best deterrent to Iranian, Al Queda, and muslim extremist interference in Iraq is/was? Saddam Hussien!! Ooops... I guess we can forget that option now. Ironic though, don't you think? Maybe Bush should've just refrained from ramming that stick in the old hornets nest to begin with... This would've all probably just have blown over after a few years. But - there's a hell of a lot of oil under them thar dunes... and a nice shiny new pipeline waiting to span that Afghanistan place too...

J.

[edit on 28-8-2007 by jimbo999]

[edit on 28-8-2007 by jimbo999]

reply to post by jimbo999


I hear ya Jimbo, hindsight is always 20/20 but you cant go back, and we now are faced with dealing with Iran in the face of a nuclear deadline, I dont know maybe we should just get the heck out of there and start riding bicycles everywhere, sounds like a plan.