Pentagon backtracks: Iran attack not 'off the table'

Pentagon backtracks: Iran attack not 'off the table'

rawstory.com

WASHINGTON -- US military action against Iran has not been ruled out, a Pentagon spokesman said Wednesday, after a top official said such an option was off the table in the "near term."

The Defense Department faced questions about US policy on Iran after Michele Flournoy, undersecretary of defense for policy, reportedly said during a visit to Singapore that a strike against Iran would be a "last resort."

"It is not on the table in the near term," Flournoy was quoted as saying.

Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell said US strategy over Iran's nuclear program remained unchanged

(visit the link for the full news article)

I think I can see what direction this is all headed. It looks as if Israel is not going to back down and now the U.S. is going to follow them in their actions againt Syria, Lebanon, and ultimately Iran. I hope this is not the way world war 3 is going to start, but it feels like it. I can't see any result but war in this situation; a huge war.

rawstory.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

reply to post by devildogUSMC


I bet the DOD got a call from the White House today.

"SHHHH, were trying to make it look like it wasn't our decision."

Very lame that the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing in your country anymore.

~Keeper

I'll put myself on record right here, right now. There will be no conventional military attack from the big old U.S of A on Iran. I wish they would all just pipe down about it.

reply to post by Peruvianmonk


I disagree. I don't think there will be an attack on Iran by the U.S. for at least a year or so but when Israel does, which they will, they are going to ask for our assistance and at some point, in some way or form, we will oblige. IMO.

Its all about keeping people guessing, fear, uncertainty and doubt.

Makes things unpredictable and allows for the element of surprise.

reply to post by MikeboydUS


Do you think this might be a message to Iran to avoid conflict with Israel at any cost or the U.S will get involved?

reply to post by devildogUSMC



Perhaps, but it seems more posturing and public political alliance(s) (made known) than anything else.

mOar saber-rattling for the masses, if you will. the 6 o'clock SnewZe "compatriots".

Not to say that things don't seem to be "escalating" ... just that this would appear none other than an attempt to ratchet the same.

[edit: to include ti "reply to:"]

[edit on 21-4-2010 by 12m8keall2c]

On Again Off Again .... Decisions ... Decisions.

Go ahead Obama follow in Bushes foot steps and preemptively attack another Country and put our troops in harms way.

The US Government ( factions of it ) is a terrorist group.

9/11 was and Inside job!

and soon the Liberty tree shall be watered, unless we change our nations course.

Originally posted by devildogUSMC
reply to post by MikeboydUS

 

Do you think this might be a message to Iran to avoid conflict with Israel at any cost or the U.S will get involved?

It could be. Thats the thing, we have to keep Iran guessing and thinking "What will those crazy Americans do next?".

Iran would have to be stupid to think that we won't take advantage of any Israeli-Iranian conflict. We are not going to waste a good crisis.

I don't think Iran is stupid though. They know we will do something, but what exactly we do they don't know. They know we are making all kinds of chess moves around them and it scares the mess out of them.

CVN-69 Dwight D. Eisenhower is in the North Arabian sea. All of the other carriers are are outside of CENTCOM's AOR. On the other hand there are around 100,000 US troops sitting in Iraq waiting to redeploy home in September. So anything could happen.

Attacking Iran wasn't off the table during the campaign for POTUS in 2008. I'm not surprised at all that it still isn't off the table. Hillary Clinton said during her campaign when asked ff using nukes in Iran was off the table, she said something about "nothing is off the table". She was just asked about using nukes. Not about, gee, would you consider attacking Iran. I believe that was just a given. An attack on Iran was not off the table for McCain nor for Clinton. I recall one interview concerning attacking Iran with Obama led to some sort of deflection about sitting down with the Ahmadinejad "face to face" without any prior stipulations. Something like that. I don't recall the exact word Obama used, but I wrote the jist of it. Has that happened yet? Don't think so and I don't expect that to happen either. The attack on Iran is in the plan. Does anyone who has been paying attention have any serious doubts about this?

reply to post by kyred


With all the media attention on Iran's nuclear facilities and capabilities in the MSM recently, I think something is definitely about to happen; most likely a "pre-emptive" strike by Israel.

something will happen, because Israel will drag us into it. The sad thing is that war with IRan will make things here in America Hellish...gas will easily go above 5 dollars a gallon within a few days, any traffic to and from the Persian Gulf will cease, and I personally, although I cannot completely prove it, believe that Iran has control over the Straight of Hormus and thus access to the gulf, and by having that, gives them strategic control over any materiel that passes through, and Iran has been arming themselves with advanced weaponry for fighting a naval confrontation. If only there was someway that America could see Israel for what it really is: An illigitamate, hypocritical apartheid regime looking for trouble in an already trouble region (even though Israel is a good portion of the trouble).

America will not be led into war by Obama, it will never happen, there are other ways to stimulate the US economy apart from war.

12 months after illegally getting into power, the Bush administration had pulled off the false flag 9/11 attacks, so they could lead the world into 2 horrific wars.

I think we are safe until the Republicans get back in.