1st strike on Iran 'gaining traction' (take with grain of salt)

[Ian David]

1st strike on Iran 'gaining traction'

Report urges U.S., Israel to consider
pre-emptive attack against Tehran

FROM WND'S JERUSALEM BUREAU
1st strike on Iran
'gaining traction'
Report urges U.S., Israel to consider
pre-emptive attack against Tehran
Posted: May 4, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Aaron Klein
© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com

JERUSALEM – With Tehran announcing it will shortly resume some nuclear activities in spite of ongoing negotiations with European countries, a private report that was issued to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon urging an American or Israeli pre-emptive strike against Iran has been gaining some steam here.

"Iran is determined to pursue all legal areas of nuclear technology, including (uranium) enrichment, exclusively for peaceful purposes," Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi told a United Nations conference yesterday. He was the fourth Iranian official to make such remarks the past few days.

An EU negotiation team represented by Germany, France and the UK, which has been seeking guarantees Iran will not use its nuclear program to develop weapons, said if Tehran follows through with the threat to enrich uranium it could refer the country to the U.N. Security Council for punitive action.

Reports continue to stream in that Iran – with the assistance of Russia – has been moving ahead with its nuclear program. Several reactors with advanced production capabilities have been built, and Russia has been contemplating providing Tehran with rods that are able to enrich uranium, a deal that was first reported last September.

More:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44107


See related threads:

DU War Pool: When will we fire the first shot at Iran?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=1725396

Has Bush already decided to attack Iran?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=116&topic_id=9911

[whistle]

1. I still believe there will be an assault by Israel and/or the U.S.

...on Iran in late June or early July with a full scale invasion as Iran attempts to mobilize forces that will give the administration an excuse to launch a full scale invasion.

Once conquered, Iran will add another 16% to the west's control of Mid-east oil resources.

[KeepItReal]

11. Full-scale of invasion? With who's troops?

FYI, the U.S. military is already overextended.

Also, the Iraqi army that Bush & Co. rolled over last time was a shadow of its former self. They were decimated in the 1st gulf war and were not even a threat to anyone in the region by the time Bush II decided to go in.

[bennywhale]

14. Draft

With enough media complicity as to the dangers there was during the Iraq war, most of the world, never mind America, will be convinced that Iran is poised to blow the planet to nirvana. Result= mass of volunteers in US and Isreal, redeployment across the border from Iraq, and if everyone is scared enough . The draft, probably subtle at first.

[whistle]

19. It's a ruse, there are secret troops being mobilized and Israel...

...will join in with their crack infantry and armor.

[NickB79]

38. That is a very unlikely scenario

Unless the US and Israel have a secret clone army being grown on the planet Kamino, we simply have no troops to spare; they are all currently accounted for in other parts of the globe. At best, we could have what, 10,000-20,000 troops hidden away as special forces? Israel's IDF can field almost 3 million troops, but only for short periods of time. Remember, the IDF is composed of all Israeli men and women aged 18-49, not just a subset of the Israeli population. Imagine what would happen to our economy if every man and woman age 18-49 were sent off to another country to fight in a war? We would very quickly enter a depression as our economy crumbled for lack of workers. Their crack infantry and armor are only suited for fast, decisive victories, unlike what we currently see in Iraq and what we would most likely see in Iran.

We could reinstate the draft to bolster troop numbers, but it would be at least a year before those troops would be fully trained and prepared to be combat-worthy. And we also have to find a way of supplying them with the armor, ammo and guns they need; the current soldiers in Iraq can barely get that as it is. Reinstating the draft also takes the very real risk that the American people will say enough, refuse to fight and impeach Bush.

One last note. Iran has a population almost 3X that of Iraq (roughly 60 million). We are currently barely holding on in Iraq with 130,000 troops against a population of 25 million Iraqis, based mainly in cities. At the least, we would require 390,000 troops to maintain the same level of control (ie, almost none) in Iran if we invaded. You also have to take into consideration that Iran is much more mountainous than Iraq with much more land to cover, offering many more hiding spots for resistance forces to mobilize and stage attacks from.

IMO, we would need a minimum of 500,000 troops per year, for at least 5 yrs (if not more) to even come close to controlling Iran. Since each soldier has to be rotated out to recover every 12-18 months before being sent back, we would need more like 1,000,000 troops over the course of 5 yrs! The logistics an all-out land invasion are simply impossible right now. The best we could do are limited aerial bombardments of their reactors and military bases, with troops massed along the Iraq-Iran border to stop any relaliatory invasion into Iraq.

[megatherium]

44. no invasion; no occupation.

Just an air war. The goal will be to destroy their nuclear capability and degrade their military. It would be nice to occupy Iran and turn it into a western-style democracy, but Bush and his people know that's impossible. They would hope that an attack on Iran will bring down the mullahs and provide the Iranian people with an opportunity to liberalize Iran. If this is what they hope for, I believe they would be mistaken; but I suspect the Bush administration will settle for a failed state, one no longer capable of threatening Israel and the West.

[SnowGoose]

13. Once conquered?

Like Iraq was conquered?

I know these people don't learn from history (like Vietnam ~ hey who can blame them, they didn't have to go!) but geeze, you'd think they would learn from the history of an invasion *two years ago* that was just across the dang border!

I can't say you're wrong about an assault on Iran, but how on god's green earth could they mount a full scale invasion of a place as big and populous as Iran? I sure hope you're wrong (as I'm sure you are, too).

[atreides1]

28. It'll be a blood bath.

There are just a few things about your scenario

1. Why is it that most people are under the impression that Iran will be such a push over. The talk of invading and/or bombing certain sites has been going on for years. To think that the Iranians
don't already suspect an attack is coming,is in my mind stupid.

2. With the US military already stretched thin, as was admitted to by General Myers just yesterday, what troops does the US have to launch an invasion with?

3. I predict that the very minute the US launches an attack on Iran, every remaining member of the coalition will be pulling their troops out.

The Iranians may have some old equipment, but they have been updating things like AAA, thanks to our Russian friends. They have a very powwerful SSM force that at this moment has already targeted every single US installation located in Iraq and Afghanistan. I would think that they also have target coordinates for CENTCOM in Qatar and 5th Fleet HQ in Bahrain. And let's not forget that they have been purchasing modern anti-ship missile systems from the Chinese. Misslies that travel at 700mph and are capable of flying over waves and under ships radar.

This will not be a cakewalk, and if Israel joins in they will seal their own fate with the rest of the world. This will be bloody, and will cost the US in lives, and the casualties suffered will make those that we have suffered in Iraq and Afghanistan, look like the results of a school yard fight, when the school bully gives you a bloody nose.

And just for your information, the US hasn't conquered either Afghanistan or Iraq, so I don't see them conquering Iran.

[CAG]

40. How could it be so different from cakewalking the Iraq military?

I mean, geez, the only difference is an "n" and a "q"???

[bennywhale]

2. Self fulfilling prophecy

This is a self fulfilling prophecy. The more, that countries who are deemed to be a threat, are attacked, the more other countries will seek to build up arsenals as a deterent to being attacked, and therefore more countries will be attacked.

It would be funny if it wasn't real

[xultar]

5. That's why I don't understand why they DON'T GET IT! n/t

[caligirl]

3. And how excactly will the worn out us army and marine corps do this?

[Bridget Burke]

6. Let the Air Force do it.

They're fit, rested & ready.

[Karenina]

20. Onward X-tian Top Guns!!!

:eyes:

[caligirl]

22. Almost impossible to do this without boots on the ground. AF alone won't d

[MGKrebs]

23. That might be about all we could do.

We could bomb their nuclear facilities (like Israel did before), but I can't imagine us trying to do anything with ground troops.

[caligirl]

37. Bush is so screwed. Fun part, he screwed himself.

[Larkspur]

10. Maybe the Neo-cons plan to use the Israeli army to occupy Iran?

What a way to ignite World War III or IV or V or whatever number is next?

[tridim]

25. Like this.. The "easy" way.

[Sanity Claws]

4. This scares me

Looks like Bush is trying to find a way to go to war, regardless of how the American people feel.

[KeepItReal]

12. We're already at war, remember? Bush hates that we keep forgetting that

I know it gets hard to remember we are at war when there are Runaway Brides and Michael Jackson still free on the news 24/7.

[Ian David]

33. Bush doesn't want to win. He wants to destroy the world.

Bush honestly believes he is The Antichrist.

[Guckert]

7. I still have June 24th. I feeling better about my prediction. But sick

about our dullard in chief starting WWIII just to pad his legacy.

[leveymg]

35. Why the 24th?

New moon? Religious holiday? Anniversary of some historic event? Your birthday?

:bounce:

[daleo]

8. Consider the source

But, even given that, I wouldn't discount the possibility.

[The Magistrate]

9. This, Sir, Is Mere Wishful Thinking

By some apocalyptic fundamentalists....

[Barrett808]

15. If you think Iraq is a headache now... n/t

[staticstopper]

24. Remember, Iraq is going just the way

they want it to go...they want war and the region broken up into tiny pieces. They do in fact learn from their mistakes, this is why they are so eager.

[Barrett808]

39. True enough, but the neo-cons still want the oil

Iran could make that enterprise ever so much more difficult.

[newyawker99]

47. Hi staticstopper!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[MGKrebs]

16. Are we going to do the UN two-step this time?

How about the Franco-German tango?

Maybe the PNAC doesn't even want Bolton approved. Without a UN ambassador perhaps the Chimpster thinks we can just ignore the UN completely.

And how about Pooty Poot? He's been making friendly little cooing noises towards Iran. Will he stand idly by?

It was bad enough when we at least made the appearance of trying to get some allies, but if we completely ignore everybody- don't even ask- it seems like that would really harden some positions. Leaves no room for diplomatic niceties.

[DrDebug]

26. The UN will not be informed anymore

The last time they refused to give authorisation for the Iraq war, so they'll be passed over this time. What's even scarier is that they are trying to find a way for pre-emptive strikes without congressional approval as well.

What if the wind blows in the wrong direction. Israel is close enough for radioactive fall out :banghead:

Pooty will go where Dubya goes. They are soulmates. And he wants some new gimmicks as well. What better place to get rid off his old Tridents.

[Tempest]

36. Putin would not support an Iran attack

It would not be in Russia's economic best interests.

Why do you think Russia is selling Iran weapons, including Russia's latest technology, and assisting Iran's nuclear ambitions?

[halobeam]

30. great points... and unfortunately

sounds very much like this admin. these days. What a freakin' mess.

on edit: adding; Turkish troops lining the border, Kurds in the mountains all ready... something is going down and everyone is fearful.... * must be a happy camper right now... :grr:

[tridim]

17. It's a good thing * doesn't pay attention to the polls

and focus groups like the entire American citizenry.

[Purveyor]

18. If they continue to rattle their sabers...

Iran would be totally justified in launching a "pre-emptive strike" against Israel to defend and protect its people and country.

"Pre-emptive" strikes are ok, remember...Jorge told us so!

[megatherium]

45. they would do nothing of the kind.

Israel is a thermonuclear power with ballistic missile submarines. No one would use strategic weapons against them and live to tell the tale.

On the other hand -- Iran could shut down the oil shipping in the Strait of Hormuz. That would a lot of fun.

[grumpy old fart]

21. The chimp has already spent all his "mandate" capital...

ain't nobody backing another ill fated "adventure"....IMHO

[democracyindanger]

27. World Nut Daily?

Using this as a source detracts from serious discussion of the matter.

[Zorra]

29. The WorldNutDaily Jerusalem Bureau? *snarf*....snicker....

:rofl:

That is one of the looniest Right Wing netrags out there.

This story may come directly from email room located in the trailer of the toothless bearded freeper hag.

[Ian David]

31. I just had the same thought. I'm searching for corroboration right now

I realize that WND isn't exactly the most reliable source, and I should have posted the article the the appropriate caveats...


<snip>

The authors of the plan, first reported by Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin, a premium online intelligence newsletter, told WorldNetDaily this week their report has been gaining traction in certain high-level military circles.
http://g2.wnd.com/

"Decision-makers at the very highest levels of government in Jerusalem and Washington as well as NATO have been briefed on Project Daniel. Sharon last month carried our urgent message directly to President Bush," said Dr. Louis Rene Beres, Project Daniel chair and a professor of international law at Purdue University whose books and articles are routinely considered by military officials.

<snip>

Co-author Yoash Tsiddon-Chatto, a former Knesset member and the former chief of planning for the Israeli Air Force, told WND military action should include "striking all known Iran nuclear facilities, including hidden facilities, underground tunnels, covert operations, such as the killing of scientists ... whatever is necessary."

<snip>

Raanan Gissin, chief spokesperson for Sharon, told WND yesterday, "Israel will not be the pit bull of the world. The nuclearization of Iran is a threat to world security, not just Israel. We support a coalition of democratic, free countries, led by the U.S. to bring Iran to the Security Council if it fails to comply with the international community."

More:
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44107


Blair insists UK has "no intention" of attacking Iran
Tehran Times, Iran - 27 minutes ago
... the UK would not take part in any attack on Iran ... decision to join the US-led war against Iraq ... guarantee that Britain would not launch any pre-emptive strikes on ..
http://www.tehrantimes.com/Description.asp?Da=5/5/2005&Cat=2&Num=004



PROJECT DANIEL
http://www.acpr.org.il/ENGLISH-NATIV/03-issue/the_group-3.htm


Iranian Nuclearization And Israel`s `Arrow` Implications For A Preemption Option: Part 2
Posted 10/11/2004
By LOUIS RENE BERES

Nowhere is it written that Israel must sit back passively and simply respond after a nuclear and/or biological attack has been inflicted upon its civilian populations. On the contrary, Israel has the same right accorded to all states in world politics to act preemptively when facing certain forms of existential assault. Known formally in long-established customary international law as the norm of "anticipatory self-defense," this right is strongly affirmed in The National Security Strategy Of The United States Of America — a document issued by President George W. Bush on September 20, 2002.

<snip>

n its published report (May 2004) titled Israel`s Strategic Future, however, the Project Daniel Group rejected any preemptive Israeli resort to nuclear weapons, even though — as indicated in the Advisory Opinion of the ICJ — such an expression of anticipatory self-defense could be construed as permissible. Instead, we rejected the argument that nuclear weapons would be desirable for preemption of enemy nuclear capability, and concluded that conventional means would generally be much more effective than nuclear devices for this purpose: "Even if nuclear weapons are fully available for preemption, and even if their use would be consistent with authoritative international law, conventional weapons would be preferable wherever possible against emergent enemy nuclear capabilities."

More:
http://www.jewishpress.com/news_article.asp?article=4223



ISRAEL'S STRATEGIC FUTURE: THE FINAL REPORT OF PROJECT DANIEL
http://www.think-israel.org/apr04bloged.html

Posted by Fishbein Associates, April 30, 2004.
Dear Friends and Colleagues: We would like to bring to your attention a newly published study entitled: Israel's Strategic Future: The Final Report of Project Daniel now available in the April on-line edition of NATIV, the journal of the Ariel Center for Policy Research (ACPR). The report can be viewed at the following URL: http://www.acpr.org.il/ENGLISH-NATIV/. A print version of Israel's Strategic Future will soon be published by the Ariel Center as ACPR policy Paper No. 155.

Authors of the Report:
Louis Rene Beres, Ph.D., Professor; Project Daniel Chairman, U.S.A.
Naaman Belkind, Fmr. Assistant to the Deputy Minister of Defense for Special Means, Israel.
Isaac Ben-Israel, Maj. Gen. (Res.), Israel Air Force; Professor, Israel.
Rand H. Fishbein, Ph.D., Fmr. Professional Staff Member, U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee, U.S.A.
Adir Pridor, Ph.D., Lt. COL. (Ret.) Israel Air Force; Fmr. Head of Military Analyses, RAFAEL, Israel.
Yoash Tsiddon-Chatto, Fmr. MK/COL (Res.) Israel Air Force, Israel.

Please direct all enquiries concerning Project Daniel to: Project Daniel Chairman, Professor Louis Rene Beres, Telephone: [phone], Facsimile [phone], E-mail: [e-mail].

This is the Executive Summary. The full report is available at Nativ Online (http://www.acpr.org.il/ENGLISH-NATIV/).

[MGKrebs]

41. While I also question the source, there can be no questioning of the facts

We cannot let the source obscure what might be the truth.

"Washington contends Iran's nuclear program, which Tehran says is meant to produce electricity, is a cover for plans to build weapons."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-4983448,00.html

"WASHINGTON: US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has urged Iran not to develop nuclear weapons under the pretext of carrying out a peaceful nuclear programme."
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1097790.cms

"TONY EASTLEY: There are fears Israel may be preparing to bomb Iran's nuclear sites. Israel's Defence Minister has already speculated about a strike on Iran's underground atomic facilities, saying Israel would try to minimise civilian casualties.

Now the United States Congress is about to approve the sale of 100 guided bunker-buster bombs to the Israeli military. The bombs can destroy targets 30 metres underground."
http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2005/s1359348.htm

"In Washington, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Tuesday at a news conference, "There needs to be a very clear commitment from the Iranians to live up to their international obligations not to seek a nuclear weapon under the cover of civilian nuclear power."
http://www.cato.org/dispatch/05-04-05d.html

"In recent months, commanders of Iran's Revolutionary Guards and armed forces have announced their complete preparedness for a possible military attack on Iran's nuclear installations and other sensitive sites. Iranian spokesmen have declared that Iran's response would be formidable."
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/article.php3?id=5076

"The Bush administration sells to Israel for $30 million 100 bunker-busting bombs clearly designed as a signal to Iran it may be next on the hit list unless it ceases and desists its quest for nuclear power. "
"The Pentagon, according to calculated leaks, is polishing a contingency plan for 240 air strikes over three days, including Tomahawk cruise missiles, to set Iran's nuclear plans back 10 years. "
http://washingtontimes.com/commentary/20050504-085832-4519r.htm

[ckramer]

32. Shit!

World War III is coming!

[Tempest]

34. Iran's anti-aircraft missile capabilities

http://www.nti.org/e_research/e1_iran_mch_1999.html


It'll be a turkey shoot. Israel and the U.S. would lose too many fighter jets to ever justify the attack.

[megatherium]

43. that's what cruise missiles are for.

take out air defenses then begin the serious bombing.

[ngGale]

42. All the articles combined about this makes me believe...

Scott Ritter was right once again. Middle of June, if everything goes according to plan. This administration is going to get us blown off the face of the earth.:nuke: :scared:

[Mika]

46. Don't forget - Iran has Sunburn missiles. n/t

:nuke: