99% chance of attack on Iran

[whosinpower]

http://www.news24.com/News24/World/News/0,,2-10-1462_1580701,00.html

snip - "A pre-emptive strike is coming 99% either in September or October before the US presidential elections early in November," said Fahd Fanek in an article in the daily Al-Rai.

"If the United States decides to carry out the strike, the timing will be before the elections so as Bush guarantees his re-election. If Israel launches the attack, it will do that for the avowed aim of ensuring Bush will be the next president," added Fanek, an economics expert and respected newspaper columnist.



How relevant this website is - I have no idea.......thoughts anyone?

[brainshrub]

1. There is no way we are going to attack Iran before the election.

There is a 0% chance of that happening right now.

Now after the election is another story.

[whosinpower]

4. I have another viewpoint that indicates otherwise.....

http://www.libertyforum.org/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=news_international&Number=292902019

Again - not sure of the integrity of this forum (libertyforum)

snip - Washington DC – August 30 -- News of the investigation of Larry Franklin, a middle-level functionary working for the Wolfowitz-Feith-Luti-Shulsky clique in the Pentagon, indicates that we are now approaching a critical choice-point on the road to war with Iran, and towards a synthetic terrorism attack inside the US which would be used as an additional pretext to start such a war.

The probe of an Israeli mole in the Pentagon was made public by CBS news last Friday evening. The Saturday edition of the Washington Post named Larry Franklin as being identified by sources as the person under investigation. In Sunday’s Washington Post, it was confirmed that Lawrence A. Franklin was the person at the center of investigation...

As seen in the excerpt below, this same Larry Franklin was named in my June 6 news release, “Rogue Bush Backers Prepare Super 9-11 False Flag Terror Attacks.” Franklin was indicated as one of the vulnerable links in the neocon network which finds itself in a hysterical flight forward to try to salvage the debacle of their Iraq war by expanding that war to neighboring countries, notably Iran. The threat of a new round of “own goal” synthetic terrorism, quite possibly in the ABC dimension, was linked to the preparation of that wider war. The logic at work was that of an “October surprise,” this time on the scale adequate to shock the post 9-11 world.


snip -
On August 19, Martin Sieff of UPI warned: “Forget an October Surprise, a much worse one could come in September: Full-scale war between the United States and Iran may be far closer than the American public might imagine.”

Sieff quoted remarks made by Iranian Defense Minister Ali Shamkhani on August 18 which bluntly warned that if Iranian military commanders believed the United States were serious about attacking Iran to destroy its nuclear power facility at Bushehr, or to topple its Islamic theocratic form of government, the Iranian military would not sit back passively and wait for the U.S. armed forces to strike the first blow, as President Saddam Hussein in neighboring Iraq did in March 2003. They would strike first.

"We will not sit to wait for what others will do to us," Shamkhani told al-Jazeera. "Some military commanders in Iran are convinced that preventive operations which the Americans talk about are not their monopoly," he added. With this, the Iran-Iraq border became a new line of hair-trigger confrontation in the restless war agitation of the neocons.

[sffreeways]

6. Disagree

"Stay the course" means no matter what he does it's best to keep him in to finish the job. That's basically all he has to go on. I think it's entirely possible he would start another conflict then claim Kerry would not follow through better let him have another term to smoke em out. Stay tuned for some evidence, BS of course, that Iran has teamed up with Bin Laden to strike Israel or some crap.

:puke:

[K-W]

7. I dont see how you can be so sure.

The powers behind US middle eastern expansion are very powerful in this administration and not terribly patient.

Also, some may see it as a way to garuntee Bush staying in office.

And if they feel that Kerry may win, they might want to get into Iran before he gets in office, once we attack, they will strike back and Kerry will be stuck in the war.

[Vladimir]

10. You gotta assume they are not stupid enough

the troops are badly stretched as it is. A ground war with Iran, which actually has a well equipped army, would be horrifically draining, and with a hostile Iraq at the backs of the American troops. I don't even know if that would be winnable, whatever winnable would mean in that scenario.

I simply cannot belive they would be that dumb. If I am wrong, then... well I'll start digging me a bunker.

[brainshrub]

11. I agree.

Sure, * is an intellectual light-weight... but his handlers have at least enough sense to know that we are stretched to thin to go into another front right now.

Iran won't be like Iraq. Their army & infrastructure is still intact.

[K-W]

20. You two are making a faulty assumption.

That we would just send in ground troops. Believe me, before we invaded we would make sure there was no infrastructure and thier army was scattered. We would win the air war first and then bomb them to smithereens. It would be like the first gulf war, which was also faught against a nation that had a sizeable military.

And yes it would leave us stretched even more thin, but since when has that been a concern for them? This is war they want to fight and they will fight it strectched thin and to the ruin of our economy.

Im not saying I think it would work, but that isnt the issue. We are talking about people who thought Iraq would be a cake walk, and were wrong. These people are horrible at understanding the repercussions of thier actions. You are giving them far too much credit. There is absolutely no doubt the neocons want to go into Iran.

[brainshrub]

40. It took years of bombing to demolish Iraq to the point we could waltz in.

And it had to start with a serious engagement first.

[K-W]

43. Right, and starting the bombing would be an attack, would it not?

Thats the point of this thread, attacking Iran before the election. Starting bombing and missle attacks would be just as much starting attacks as sending grond troups. So you just mean you dont think we will send ground troops in before the election?

It didnt have to start with a serious engagement first, it just did. Iraq war 2 didnt.

[NickB79]

73. We exhausted most of our smart-bomb supplies in Iraq

I recall reading news articles about how our stockpiles of laser-guided bombs and cruise missiles were reaching all-time lows by the end of the spring bombing campaign in Iraq because of their widespread use. This is after we'd already softened up Iraq for over a decade with bombing runs.

We have probably restocked much of our smart bomb supplies in the past year, but given the vast size of Iran compared to Iraq, we would run out of smart bombs before we ran out of targets. That would mean we would have to resort to conventional dumb-bomb runs, the same ones that would cause hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties.

[PVnRT]

72. Let's analyze the scenario

1) Assume we attack Iran.

This starts WWIII in the Middle East. No, I'm not joking. Lots of people, more every day, are pissed at Bush's foreign policy in Iraq. Invading Iran is just going to convince them doubly that he needs to go.

Of course, it won't matter much at that point. Any nukes that Iran might have (if they have any) will be on their way to Israel, Israel will probably have tried to nuke someone at that point, et cetera, et cetera.

In other words, Bush invading Iran before the election is sure to make sure he isn't elected.

[radwriter0555]

28. I'll bet you $100 that bush invades Iran before the end of October.

That's why all the troops throughout europe are being repositioned.

[brainshrub]

41. I'll take that bet. (Assuming we set some we set some rules first.)

Let's make it a gentleman's bet: Whoever wins names the charity, and the other person must donate the money in the winners name.

While I can certainly afford $100, I suggest a smaller amount to keep it friendly... say $50.

Go ahead and name some terms/rules. We should also nominate a neutral judge to declare a winner.

Define: "Invades" for example.

[RobinA]

55. They Can't Possibly

reposition the troops in Europe for an Iran invasion by October. And that's only a tiny part of what is wrong with this scenario.

[minkyboodle]

66. no invasion

but I think an air strike is beginning to look more and more likely

[sattahipdeep]

2. Long live ketchup

http://www.antiwar.com/cole/?articleid=3467

pro-Likud intellectuals concluded that
9/11 would give them carte blanche to use the
Pentagon as Israel's Gurkha regiment, fighting
elective wars on behalf of Tel Aviv
to increase Israel's ability to annex
land and act aggressively, especially if
someone else's boys did the dying).

[AntiCoup2K4]

3. How would a South African news site get the "scoop" on an Iranian invasion

It's certainly possible that Iran could be the chosen scapegoat for the next "terra" attack. It's a win-win situation for Junior. Even if he doesn't manage to steal or cancel the election, he can take a page from Poppy in Somalia and leave Kerry with a huge fucking mess.

And messes won't come any bigger than Iran. That's a guarantee.

[Disturbed]

8. Iran counter attack.

Unless all of Iran's missle bases were destroyed along with their Air Force and Navy couldn't Iran do great damage to Israel? Even if it is US planes that attack Iran wouldn't they strike Israel? I don't feel that it would be advantageous for the US to commnit this attack. Seems to me that Israel may do so. This seems insane to me but Sharon and Dumbass are not exactly stable people.

[allemand]

5. How about droppin' some bombs on "nucular" sites, let's say in... October?

Surprise surprise !

;-)

[Placebo]

9. I seeeeeriously doubt ANY attack on Iran is coming...

before the election.

It would appear purely political AND, the dems could criticize bush for being out on the campaign trail and trying to wage a war at the same time, when he SHOULD only wage war when he can focus 100% like a laser beam to make sure it's going according to plan.

[Dude_CalmDown]

18. And then the neotards would scream bloody murder for criticizing

El Chimpo during a time of war. Then our whore media will work to get better padded kneepads to ensure they can stay on them for the full 24 hours a day.

"AND, the Dems could criticize bush for being out on the campaign trail and trying to wage a war at the same time"

[TrustingDog]

19. I seriously doubted that Bush could do some of the dumbass things he has..

at one time.

Nothing is impossible with this crew of liars and cheats.

And let us not forget that mysterious huge naval deployment back a couple months ago.

[K-W]

22. Your argument doesnt fit with this administration.

They have a radical activist agenda, it doesnt matter if it hurts them politically. They want to go ahead with thier agenda. They will stand for some delay for political expediency, but if Bush doesnt keep the neocons happy, they will hold him to task. Bush may not have a choice.

Also, if Kerry might win, the Iran war may be more important to the neocons than Bush winning. If we attack before the election it makes it likely that Kerry will face a war with Iran. If they just put all thier eggs in the Bush campaign basket they may come out of this with nothing.

[LisaL]

12. I beleive Bush easily could attack Iran before the election..

Before the election could be the key.
Bush can always say Iran was going to attack us and he bravely prevented it by attacking Iran first.
And approval of the president during the war goes up.

[sffreeways]

13. Agree

and he doesn't really need the military when he can launch a nukular strike and mess things up so bad he can postpone the election...indefinately

[progressivebydesign]

14. Connect the dots.. this could happen!

1) We've been treated to almost daily news stories about the repressive regime in Iran. I have ZERO doubt that money has been funneled into an effort to demonize Iran. There is a PR office making money on this right now. Remember the Iraqi soldiers who ripped babies from incubators? That was one of the tales that got American's behind Bush I in going after Saddam? Unfortunately, it was a lie. Dreamed up by the PR firm the US and Kuwait paid for.

2) It's part of the PNAC agenda. I knew that Syria or Iran was next.

3) Bush.. wait, scratch that.. Rove knows that many Americans are misled enough to believe that we should not switch horses in the middle of an Apocolypse.

4) The info coming out about the spy for Israel. That has connections to Iran/Contra II.

5) We are flying missions over Iran, in areas we should NOT be flying. We are trying to provoke, or trying to say that we've gathered evidence of WMD.

Did I miss anything? Oh wait..

6) Troop realignment. Bush wants to move troops home to the US so they can be rapidly deployed, as needed. Saves a bunch of money for Bush if he can send the troops away with out their families, when we attack the list of countries prescribed by the PNAC. (aka the scariest mofos in American politics).

[hang a left]

60. I believe that attacking Iran is on their radar and BEFORE the election.

But, I do think that the American public will be very pissed off about it. They will WANT to change their horse. This of course is a precursor to the draft. This needs to be shouted out from the rooftops.

[progressivebydesign]

15. annoying double post.. please ignore this one. n/t

[in_cog_ni_to]

16. We can't attack Iran.

We don't have any soldiers to send there. We have no body armor to send. We have no machinery to send there and Congress is NOT going to give the chimp a free ride on Iran. AIN'T goinna happen. He'd be a damn fool....or a bigger fool than we already know he is.

[progressivebydesign]

17. I don't see this as a ground war..

.. just as Iraq was supposed to be some surgical affair with planes and smart bombs. Iran would be the same. We're already invading their airspace.

[LisaL]

21. Yep

He could send it some planes to bomb the hell out of it.

[Jackpine Radical]

45. Say what, Lizzy?

[LisaL]

23. Yep

He could send it some planes to bomb the hell out of it.

[Jackpine Radical]

46. Oh, yup. Thanks.

Seems like we've had "tactical" (i.e. small) nookyoolar devices around for a long time. Even one for the 8" field howitzer, IIRC. This might be a good time to clear a few of those babies off the back shelves.

[K-W]

24. Exactly, we would bomb them to the stone age

and contrary to DU belief we do have the soldiers to do it. It isnt smart, but we can do it.

[wuushew]

29. A definite possibility but my question is where they would base the planes

Any such air attack would require basing for tactical fighter planes somewhere in Central Asia. Despite numerous ethnic tensions such an action would not sit well with Turkey, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States or former Soviet Islamic countries.

That leaves long range bombers from Diego Garcia and naval airstrikes. If such a strike is coming watch where the carriers are.

[progressivebydesign]

39. Iraq. Why do you think we're there?

It's another stepping stone in world domination. We are actually there to build US bases.

[jokerman93]

44. preparation?

Well, I don't know where the billions for Iraq's civilian infrastructure went, but I would expect building on those fourteen new US bases (we haven't heard much about) has been progressing at a good pace.

[wuushew]

48. The US wants four permanent bases

US military officials predicted maintaining up to four bases in Iraq - at Baghdad International Airport; at Tallil, near Nasiriya, in the south; in the western desert; and at the Bashur airfield in the north.

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/world/2003/0421/2889026400FR21OCLERY.html


My only question is if sufficient build up time exists to move all the aircraft spares and ammunition before the end of this year in order to attack Iran. I don't imagine all these facilities are fully repaired with an armed insurrection going on.

[jokerman93]

51. Ha!

Was it four bases total? I must have done a mind-scramble when I read that in another thread.

:hippie:

[K-W]

52. Notice airfields.

The possible answer to the how will we bomb iran question.

[hang a left]

61. Where are the carriers?

I heard they were in SE Asia.

[AngryWhiteLiberal]

25. Bank on it. The U.S. was testing Iranian air defenses just last week...

I'll bet my DU rep (unknown or meager as it may be) that there's plans in the works to bomb or sabotage the Iranian nuke plant prior to the election.

THIS IS THE OCTOBER SURPRISE.

JB

[radwriter0555]

30. YES and WHY THE TROOPS are all being REPOSITIONED.

See how that works...

[Only Me]

31. I totally agree with you two. I have been thinking this same thing. n/t

[RobinA]

56. They Aren't Being Repositioned

by OCTOBER!!! Sheesh.

[Morning Dew]

62. the repositioning won't be finished until 2010, I think.

gradual repositioning - I don't think they even start moving troops until 2006.

[nancyharris]

26. Like with Iraq

Bush would need to get permission from Congress - WILL NOT HAPPEN!

[K-W]

32. heh, no he doesnt, and maybe he could

First off, they can cook up a situation where congress would give them war. For example: We supposedly discover nuclear missles in Iran. Isreal bombs Iran. Iran attacks Isreal. The US enters the war to defend Isreal. OR We fly plains over Iran, one gets shot down, or even not, we say they attacked us first, the media hypes the people into a frenzy, there is an overwhelming call for war.

You underestimate the eaze by which war fever can be drummed up.

And even if congress wouldnt go for it under any circumstance, Bush can go to war without congress.

The war powers act gives him a period of time where he can wage war without congress.

And even past that, the president controls the military. He can do whatever he wants, it would be up to congress to hold him responsible for violating the constitution. Would this congress hold him responsible?

[merh]

42. Won't happen - that is why the spy info was leaked, to instill distrust

in Israel (they were spying on our country from the Pentagon). Iran has also been doing everything possible to diffuse any type of action by our government. They have been publicly taking action within the international community to advise that they are not a threat to the US.

We are not alone in this world and other nations would not sit still and let us attack and invade another nation.

[jokerman93]

50. interesting

And even if Bush went down in flames for launching another illegitimate attack, the neocons would still have what they want and be rid of W at the end of the day -- for the same price.

It would be a bonanza for the real players who must dread four more years of junior by now almost as much as we do.

Then Kerry wins and eveyone's happy.

Strange world...

[LisaL]

33. I am not so optimistic

How do you know congress won't approve like last time?
And how do you know Bush won't find a way around it if congress doesn't approve?

[Eloriel]

69. No, I'm pretty sure the Iraq War Resolution already covers it

Seems to me the language wasn't Iraq-specific, but rather "terrorism" specific. Maybe someone has the link handy.

[radwriter0555]

27. It isn't to win bush the election, it's in CASE HE LOSES so that US forces

will already BE THERE AND DOING THE DAMAGE FOR HALLIBURTON.

[bloom]

35. that's what I was thinking

If they want to go into Iran so badly, they might see if Kerry wins, and attack in Nov. after the election.

Unless they do polls and find they can win even if they attack before the election.

But either way - they probably have a plan for one way or another.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

34. Not a ground war. Rather air strikes by Israel or USA/Israel.

Pure win by BushCorp. Few, if any, American casualties. Lots of really cool pictures of things blowing up on TV. Really somber looking smirk talking about taking action against "newkular" threat. Lots of military stooges in dungarees talking about aircraft, "heroic" pilots, and smart bombs. More talk about "high level" intelligence and leaks from "sources" in the CIA etc.

It all comes out much the same if Israel does the job. No American casualties. "Axis of Evil" enemy punished with American support.

If both Israel and 'murika do the bombing, both Bush and Sharon shown as decisive leaders defending their countries against "terrorist" threat.

Then the congress will roll over obediently and talk about bi-partisanship. Democrats will whimper about not being consulted but talk about the need to "support our troops".

I hope that I'm wrong but I see the possibility of such a scenario as likely to very likely.

[Strelnikov_]

68. A Short Lived 'Pure Win', Just Like Iraq, More Likely

What happens if we find that our highly touted ASM systems, that have never been tested in combat, are less than effective? What happens is the Strait of Hormuz is closed, along with 1/8 +/- of the worlds daily petroleum supply. I am sure after a couple of months the Strait could be reopened to shipping, if we don't run out of 'smart bombs' first.

I am afraid that with the advances in modern missiles, surface ships are going to prove even greater deathtraps than they were in WW II when the ascendance of the airplane dealt mortal blows to ships previously thought unassailable. My concern with the modern missile is that they are relatively simple compared to the countermeasure systems needed to protect against them.

And this is just one scenario how things can become a 'catastrophic success'.

What happens if Iran already has a nuke in the bullpen?

[merh]

36. Call me stupid, but wouldn't an attack on Iran require approval from

congress? I don't know if all of the repukes would back him on it and I don't think any dems would. :shrug:

on edit: I don't count, no count dem at the RNC as a dem.

[K-W]

37. see post 26

They wouldnt let him now, they might if the situation(propaganda) changed. Even so, he can go to war without them.

[Disturbed]

38. MOAB

Maybe the Neo Fascists along with the MIC want to try out MOAB. They probably have a few. Drop one and Iran would be warned that a few more will be dropped if they retaliate in any way.

[jukes]

47. i think

it's a probability:

1. it advances their agenda, which is their primary concern.
2. it wd likely get bush elected; it's going to scare the hell out of everybody.
3. it ensures a draft, which they want desperately.
4. the profits wd be enormous, the losses acceptable (to them).
5. if they lose in november, it leaves Kerry w/ an unsalvageable mess, which will put them back in office in 2008.

[AmerDem]

49. many are already fed up with what shrub

That last thing he will do is invade another country!

[K-W]

53. once again, since when has this stopped him?

Stop using old models to predict the behavior of these guys. They dont follow the rules.

[camero]

54. Or to stick Kerry with both Iraq and Iran

and force a draft. They'll say he's "soft on defense" if he pulls out of either place. Which is what he should do but I'm sure it's in the PNAC plan.

[jackieforthedems]

57. Nothing Would Surprise Me Anymore

Have you heard about this yet? http://educate-yourself.org/cn/americabombing27may04.shtml I think Bush would do anything to stay in. There's too much dirty work that hasn't been accomplished yet.

[jackieforthedems]

71. I Wanted To Add This, Too

http://www.savethemales.ca/000546.html Once to the page, about 1/2 way down, click on Bush, Bin Laden Serve The Same Master. Then, after reading that, you can go to Grandfather Prescott Bush Helped Arrange Financing For Nazism. Alot of food for thought.

[AlFrankenFan]

58. wow i almost fainted there

if it is at all true i really honestly think doom is upon us.

[nefarious]

59. Attack on Iran will not be pre-emptive

To enlist support, they will pull the trigger on 9/11 part II.

After "investigating" and pointing the finger of blame, supreme allied commander Bush* will turn the military loose on Iran and institute a draft for replacement bodies.

It needs to be repeated:

Iran has the second highest crude oil output of any country - and is still fully intact.

China's oil demand has gone into overdrive, driving the price up and the percentage of the supply headed for America down. OPEC nations, seeing America's policy towards Iraq and Venezuela, also want to hedge their bets while they're still making money.

The PNACer's probably have concluded that if they do not act now to take over Iran, there will never be another chance... Unfriendlies with nuclear weapons are uninvadeable - see North Korea & Pakistan.

WAR is their energy policy, TERRORISM is their re-election guarantee.

[Norquist Nemesis]

63. My 2 cents...Israel does it

Then, we have to "help defend Isreal's right to defend itself". Silly as it sounds, we would have to get involved. We're positioned and ready. Swift and decisive with our ally--Israel.

Wonder who Powell's talking to with the 'pressing business'? Check in with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan (just don't get excited gentlemen. we're there for 'ya but this has to happen for us to keep things going like we've talked about).

Shore up the votes in the US without a doubt, watch the fundies storm the White House with bowed heads while waiting for the Rapture, and VOILA! November 3rd we are officially ready for our Supreme Dictator that Americans voted in. :cry:

[Lone_Wolf]

64. Interesting...

The neocons are so out of touch with reality that they would attempt to invade Iran. Of course they will need to to manufacture a pretext for war. I would give this prediction more credibility when the mass media starts mentioning Iraq's WMDs are in Iran, the nuclear threat posed by Iran, or Shia "extremists" from Iran are attacking our soldiers in Iraq. If Judith Miller or Fox News starts "reporting" about any of the above you can be sure that the invade Iran propaganda campaign has started.

[Citizen Daryl]

65. Start Saying It Now: "WAG THE VOTE"

[vetwife]

67. War president remember..He stays in !

[Swamp Rat]

70. I'm afraid this is the plan and has been for a while.

We must hope for the best but expect the worst.

[Christof]

74. God damn.

This wouldn't suprise me one bit.

We need to get this warmonger out of the White House NOW!!! :grr:

[Z-E-R-0]

75. No Way Bush Will Attack Iran Before Elections

Israel on the other hand...I'm not so sure. Israel attacking Iran would serve the same political purpose of Bush doing it, without the mess.

And is anyone else worried about that period between November and January? Once Bush and the neocons know they are out, who knows what they will do.

[Aidoneus]

76. recent threats to Iran: a whole lot of pompous, empty bullshitting

The site is relevant--South African news outlet, most times quite good from what I've noticed--, but the claim is dubious.

The sentiments behind these statements are designed to disguise the actually effective-impotence in imposing the wills upon others, the "catastrophic success" not the least of an example held up for the world to see.

At any rate, I can give a perfect reason why this will not occur: the Islamic Republic can actually defend itself, and more. That eliminates it from the shortlist; that's the reason why Dear Leader can threaten to unleash an ocean of fire with nothing made of it, because he actually can. Grenada, Panama, Iraq after 2 wars and a decade of bombing and starvation under St. Clinton:--these are preferred targets, the wars that are over before the propaganda agents even get their scripts worked into the routine. Whoops, Iraq didn't go as planned, but back to Iran. A healthy, motivated and well-armed military, millions of potential reserves ... far too much to take on merely for election day. A single bomb dropped on the Islamic Republic will bring more trouble than it is worth in every corner of the empire, particularly in the most recently occupied province and the zionist regime.