US strike on Iran 'not being prepared'

US strike on Iran 'not being prepared'

www.msnbc.msn.com

The Pentagon is not preparing a pre-emptive attack on Iran in spite of an increase in bellicose rhetoric from Washington, according to senior officers.

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
thinkprogress.org

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
US Plans to Strike Four Suspected Nuclear Sites in Iran

Have to wonder if that Chinese sub had anything to do with this announcement? On a serious note folks, I'm getting whiplash over-here. Hopefully a few more reports like this one will cool the war rhetoric for awhile..and I can put this neck-brace back in the garage.

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

I Think is all a game of cat and mouse and see who prove to be the most intelligent.

I believe that our happy trigger politicians will be very concern about hurting the feelings of our wealthy banker the Chinese this days.

After all they have well pay American lobbyist working in congress just like any other nation with money to get their views taken seriously.

Funny but a war with Iran will affect China the most.

Somewhat mixed, I still find Admiral Fallon's remarks reassuring for the short-term. He's one of big-guys. Lets see if the price-of-oil discounts the 'war premium' beyond a day or two.

[edit on 11-11-2007 by OBE1]

See that's what's funny about "The News". I think where we get it is just as important as what is reported. I'll point to my own BAN thread.

US Military Weaknesses: Top Pentagon Brass reluctant to wage war on Iran
Centered on this news story:

Global Research Centre

In an interview with the New York Times, Mullen stated:

“We have to be incredibly thoughtful about ... getting into a conflict with a third country [Iran] in that part of the world.”

Mullen's hesitations to wage war on Iran are not based on a divergent political stance but on a realistic assessment of US military capabilities. Admiral Mullen recognizes that the US military is overstretched and that in relation to Iraq, the US military is facing serious problems in military recruitment.

Moreover, tacitly acknowledged by the Pentagon, US and coalition forces are facing fierce resistance in both Afghanistan and Iraq.

Adm. William Fallon, Commander of US Central Command (USCENTCOM) and a staunch supporter of Bush-Cheney war plans, has also played down the possibility of a war with Iran. “We are not going to do Iran on my watch.” Fallon is acutely aware of Iran's ability to retaliate militarily and inflict significant losses to US and coalition forces.

It too says no to war, but, you can't say it hasn't been planned. I think, in fact, it's been thoroughly researched and multiple scenarios have been pored over.

I still think it'll happen, no matter what the top brass want. Cheney's working hard behind the scenes to make it happen.

Cuhail

This are very surprising news, I would have liked to see senior military officials being so open to talk about what they think the consequences of military actions would be when the Iraq conflict was being drawn.

I too agree that war scenarios are already in place, there is people in the Pentagon that their job is just that, but still the fact that military officials are speaking openly about what the consequences of attacking Iran would be is refreshing.

This is basically military officials talking directly to the American people, hopefully the people is listening and put the pressure on the politicians.

reply to post by Cuhail

Thanks Cuhail. I didn't mean to imply that there are no well-thought-out plans on the table for Iran, I simply snatched the first 'related thread discussion' I came across...there are many...could have chosen better I guess (yours for example), my apologies.

No doubt an attack has been examined from every possible angle...parsed-planned-reparsed-replanned...in detail. While Admiral Mullen alluded to an over-extended US military force in your piece...Admiral Fallon, head of Central Command, was pretty darn clear about his desire to dispel rumors of an imminent attack. I also take some heart from his apparent bias towards diplomacy-over-bombs

Why do Military leaders have to announce this? What would they have to repeat this all for, over and over again though? Our news reports are filled with all sorts of action on Irans part to supposedly goad us into war. Why, if there is no plan to attack? I said above that Cheney is pushing hard, just like he did in Iraq....

How Cheney cooked the Intellegence on Iran

As I reported for Inter Press Service this week, Dick Cheney has been trying to pressure intelligence analysts who have not drunk the neocon kool-aid on Iran to go along with his line on the issues at stake in a National Intelligence Estimate on Iran that the White House has been holding up for more than a year. Think Progress immediately noted the parallel between the Cheney's effort to get an Iran NIE that is more to his liking and the way he pushed intelligence analysts to accept the fabrications the neocons were pushing in on Iraq in 2002.

How Cheney cooked the Intellegence on Iran

Read THAT one. You'll notice what our news reports is what Cheney wants it to report.

I still think they'll do it.
Cuhail

reply to post by Cuhail


I seriously think that the window to launch an preemptive attack in Iran is closing for this administration and the outside factors that they were counting to be in place in order to have this happen have not materialize.

1. They were counting on Iraq to be sucessfull.

2. They were counting on Russia and China to give the ok and that's not happening if anything its the opposite

3. They were counting on the sanction to have happen faster than the time that its actually taking.

4. I don't think they were counting on North Korea to give up diplomatically, which shows that this can be resolved that way.

5. The public suppport has not materialize even with the tactics of fear on high gear.

6. Now the military is not buying the idea and saying so publicly.

7. No support whatsoever from Congress and in an election year it will be hard to get it.

Unless this administration goes completely mad, I don't see how they will be able to start military action against Iran in the short time that they still have on office.

Well then, this means we are preparing for a strike.

Don’t you know they say the opposite of what they are actually doing?

So yeah, this is indeed scary to me.

Originally posted by Bunch


Unless this administration goes completely mad, I don't see how they will be able to start military action against Iran in the short time that they still have on office.

Seriously, you don't think this administration could be considered completely mad?

I don't believe a word of this report. No way they aren't prepared for a strike on Iran. I think that they are just trying to deny it now, maybe to try and boost morale, or to hide the CRAZY COINCIDENCE that they will have to happen (false flag type of operation, leaving us with no other option than to bomb them). That way, once the incident occurs, they will be able to say "look, we went on record saying that we were not planning on doing this, but these evil doers left us with no other choice."

What is sad is that when I read the headline, my first thought was that the Iraqi minister of information must have delivered that to the press.

reply to post by Karlhungis


All I'm saying is that the window is closing, I believe that anything can happen because this administration had said so already, but time is not on their side, there is a lot to do on the diplomatic side for them to haste an attack on Iran. But as they have said, all options are on the table that means diplomacy too. Have you notice that everytime this administration amp up the rethoric against Iran, some official either here or abroad tell them to back off? They dont have the support and wont have it in the time they have left unless something major happens.

reply to post by Bunch


For the most part, I think you are correct. I just worry about that "something major" happening. I don't think that they will initiate any type of military action without some sort of provocation. The legitimacy of that provocation is what I worry about. Right now, I would give it about a 50/50 chance of us taking military action against them before this administration leaves office.

reply to post by Karlhungis


And that "something major" could come in the form of Israel attacking Iran, which depending on Iran response to that could easily drag us to the conflict. IMO that's only that I can see this administration dragging us to conflict with Iran.

reply to post by Bunch


Realistically, that is the "something major" that I fear as well. Israel already showed that they are willing to bomb a neighbor when they attacked Syria.

For the moment, I'm taking these comments from military leadership at face value. It appears that the Pentagon may be creating some distance between itself and the Whitehouse.

Is the Admin attempting to close the gap?

Rice offers to reverse US policy if Iran renounces nuclear drive

It's all in the wording: pre-emptive.

They may not be planning for a pre-emptive strike, but they may be planning a strike to assist Israel if/when they attack...

It's interesting to read old news: www.guardian.co.uk...

Neo-conservatives, particularly at the Washington-based American Enterprise Institute, are urging Mr Bush to open a new front against Iran. So too is the vice-president, Dick Cheney. The state department and the Pentagon are opposed...

So it's very possible this is the pentagon trying to put some distance between them and the white house.

Israel have already stated that they are going to launch a pre-emptive strike on Iran if the US backs down.

It's kinda inevitable from that point of view.

Right AD, here we are again...a throw-back to last spring. Many convinced of an impending attack...which never happened. The Bush-Doctrine may have broadened the definition of 'Preemption'...but by any rule, participating in an preemptive attack with Israel...is still participating in an premptive attack.

Statements from senior military officials like....

".....the Pentagon believes striking Iran at this point would be a strategic mistake, as even a limited air strike could spark a broader conflict."

"Retired Gen John Abizaid.....added that the US should do everything to prevent Iran getting a nuclear weapon, but said Washington could live with that outcome if it happened."

....if true, clearly speak of opposition & reason. In-fact, I get the impression from Secretary Rice' current offer of diplomacy, that the Admin may be feeling a bit isolated again. So it appears we're back to square-one in some regards. Offers of concession & diplomacy...on our terms, which ultimately, Iran is sure to thwart.

While I don't rule-out a 'Osirak-style' preemptive strike by Israel...I doubt the US military will tag-along in any meaningful way. No support at any level that I can see.

Anthony Zinni, another former Centcom chief, says even a limited American attack could push Tehran to retaliate in a number of ways, such as firing missiles at Israel, Saudi oilfields and US bases in Iraq, mining the Straits of Hormuz and activating sleeper terrorist cells around the world. “It is not a matter of a one-strike option,” he says, voicing his worries that Iranian retaliation could pull America into a protracted conflict on the ground. “It is the classic question of ‘And then what?’”

Gen Zinni issued similar warnings before the war in Iraq and was paid little heed. But this time things are different. In particular, a number of the military’s most experienced officers echo his misgivings.

“We’re in a conflict in two countries out there right now,” Admiral Mike Mullen, the new chairman of the joint chiefs, told the New York Times last month. “We have to be incredibly thoughtful about the potential of in fact getting into a conflict with a third country in that part of the world.” Gen Hoar casts doubt on the effectiveness of any attack, arguing that the US military may not have the “proper” weapons to destroy deeply buried sites and that Washington lacks good intelligence on Iran’s nuclear sites, including the existence of any clandestine facilities.

Indeed, in a report released last week, David Albright, a former UN weapons inspector, and his colleague Jacqueline Shire conclude that “a military attack is not an option”, even for the US. They say that even if Iran’s known nuclear sites were bombed, nuclear knowhow, components and fuel could be preserved or replicated – and Tehran would be all the more set on developing the bomb. “In such a case, the United States would likely be forced to launch and sustain a long, costly war against Iran,” they write.

The White House knows only too well that military resources are already stretched. The administration has also shifted course, trying to rely less on pure American power and more on working with its partners.




www.wakeupfromyourslumber.com...

edits because I do not know how to do quotes and it keeps going wrong .


[edit on 12-11-2007 by Gun Totin Gerbil]

[edit on 12-11-2007 by Gun Totin Gerbil]