U.S. bipartisan group urges upping military threat against Iran

An American group of former politicians, generals, ans other officials (the Bipartisan Policy Center) have compiled a report on how to best deal with Iran's nuclear weapons program (if it exists as some say).

That would be show them that the U.S. is willing to use force for one.

Stepping up the rhetoric (propaganda) is another.

Using covert action is one more.

Actually, all of the above has been "in progress" for a few months already !!

Israel and other Western allies has been advocating the same thing too.

The report goes into much details.

This I believe, is the first solid evidence that war may be imminent !!!

I hope I'm wrong, as the report points out many negatives !!!


Published 09:17 01.02.12
Latest update 09:17 01.02.12
Haaretz

The United States should deploy ships, step up covert activities and sharpen its rhetoric to make more credible the threat of a U.S. military strike to stop Iran's nuclear program, a bipartisan group said on Wednesday.

Former U.S. politicians, generals and officials said in a report that the best chance of stopping Iran's suspected pursuit of nuclear weapons was to make clear American willingness to use force, although it stopped short of advocating military action.

The report makes it clear that the U.S. OR Israel may attack !!!

The BPC report's central thesis is that to persuade Iran to address questions about its nuclear program via negotiations, economic sanctions must be accompanied by a credible threat of military attack against Iran's nuclear facilities.

"The United States needs to make clear that Iran faces a choice: it can either abandon its nuclear program through a negotiated arrangement or have its program destroyed militarily by the United States or Israel," said the report, entitled "Meeting the Challenge: Stopping the Clock."

Sounds almost like an "ultimatum" !!

As a last resort, the group asserts that the U.S. military has the ability to launch "an effective surgical strike against Iran's nuclear program."

Some other recent reports from other groups and individuals have said that the U.S. and Israel don't have conventional weapons that could penetrate Iran's suspected nuke sites !!
It would seem that a nuclear strike may be the only direct military option other than a full scale invasion !!


Report by Bipartisan Policy Center (BPC) task force of Democrats, Republicans and independents says U.S. should deploy ships, step up covert activities and sharpen rhetoric.


Does This Mark the Beginning of the End ??

Originally posted by xuenchen


Does This Mark the Beginning of the End ??

No. At least I don't think so. My reasoning?

Obamas' foreign policy is weak. We attacked Libya only because we were hiding behind the skirts of Britain and France. Have we done thing one in Syria? Iran (IMHO) is just too scary for Obama. Too much of a political risk especially in an election year.
Sure you'll hear tough talk, harsh words, strong rhetoric.

But actual action?

Nah.

It's sickening how eager some people are to send other people to their deaths in another senseless war. If we fight the war they want then they should placed on the front line.

Let's hope the best thing out of this is,for Obama to be elected one more term!....then we can all stay calm for at least another four years!...

HAHAH

Seriously the US government is a full on Nazi bully and needs to stop picking on countries, especially Iran.

What these bipartisan people are doing is really, asking for World War 3, because an attack on Iran is the same as an attack on Moscow.

Originally posted by xuenchen

Sounds almost like an "ultimatum" !!

reply to post by xuenchen


Nuclear weapons won't be used to take out strategic targets. They weren't, aren't nor be meant for that.

What lacks in the US arsenal (which btw will soon end, since the US military is actually developing a heavier bomb to deal with specific targets in Iran) is a bomb that can penetrate the reenforced structures, and apparently Israel doesn't have them either.

The nuclear weapons will only be used as a war-stopping measure, like they were used in Japan. In reality, both bombs used in Japan didn't really have any destructive power as in terms of strategy. They simply wiped out whole cities(AKA civilian, unprotected targets), and the feeling of destruction is so immense to the target, that they saw no other choice but to surrender, just for the sake of their own survival.

Besides, from what I know, nuclear weapons aren't detonated upon impact. They detonate within a certain distance of the ground, so the blast radius is greater and stronger. In this case (Iran) we would be talking about penetrating bombs, capable to go past structural defenses of modern bunkers.

reply to post by beezzer


I'm not saying I disagree with you 100%, since your opinion does seemed based on reason and logic, rather than propaganda.

But I don't agree on your view about what happened in Libya.

I think it's no coincidence that Libya got taken down so suddenly. Libya has massive resources and their foreign policy was aimed towards Africa and was starting to set them-selfs as an alternative to western markets, both in oil supply and economic aid/banking system.

Also, the responsible countries for the whole Libya mess are the same countries who would be most affected by the Iran oil sanctions.

To me, it's no coincidence that several reports have stated that Libyan oil would be back to pre-conflict levels by mid JUNE, which means Libya (since they are now more "friendly" towards countries like Italy and France) will be able to sell more for less to southern european countries.

Put that into perspective, and you see that most news relating to Iran, and the possibility of a conflict, all start to point to a breakdown around mid July, which means it would fit perfectly when all countries got their oil supply assured.

Adding to that the fact that Saudi Arabia said they would take responsibility in taking over the % of Iran oil that was cut down, and you got yourself a very important scenario unfolding.

It seems they are replacing oil suppliers, in order to take down Iran.

If the sanctions would be meant to be used to stop Iran nuclear program and that alone, the moment Iran would prove they hadn't any nukes, the sanctions would be lifted. And that's exactly why it makes no sense everyone around the world is backing away from them and making sure that even if they step down, they won't have any oil clients. Well, apart from Russia, China and India.

You don't replace suppliers unless you think your current one is going to have "problems".

I might be wrong, but I think there are too many convenient "coincidences" happening lately.


Forgot to mention: I don't think the US was behind skirts when dealing with Libya. I think the US was trying to avoid getting "face-planted" on the floor due to starting ANOTHER war. They just handed it over to the countries who would benefit the most with the regime change, avoiding being under the spotlight.

Regards!

Originally posted by Tifozi
reply to post by xuenchen

 

Nuclear weapons won't be used to take out strategic targets. They weren't, aren't nor be meant for that.

What lacks in the US arsenal (which btw will soon end, since the US military is actually developing a heavier bomb to deal with specific targets in Iran) is a bomb that can penetrate the reenforced structures, and apparently Israel doesn't have them either.

The nuclear weapons will only be used as a war-stopping measure, like they were used in Japan. In reality, both bombs used in Japan didn't really have any destructive power as in terms of strategy. They simply wiped out whole cities(AKA civilian, unprotected targets), and the feeling of destruction is so immense to the target, that they saw no other choice but to surrender, just for the sake of their own survival.

Besides, from what I know, nuclear weapons aren't detonated upon impact. They detonate within a certain distance of the ground, so the blast radius is greater and stronger. In this case (Iran) we would be talking about penetrating bombs, capable to go past structural defenses of modern bunkers.

I agree for the most part.

As nukes won't be effective directly, they wound be effective as a "deterent by threat", or in a way like the nukes used in Japan in 1945.

If nukes were used to destroy specific "secondary" areas, that could stop any further development.

But at the same time, the BPC report itself may actually be an example of its' own "recomendations" by stepping up the rhetoric !