Is the military preparing for a D-Day type landing in Iran?

[Dover]

I'm posting these articles here instead of LBN because I'm not familiar with these sources. The articles were posted in R.Moore's newsletter. I did read a reliably sourced article yesterday that said the U.S. is setting up some anti-missile sites in or near the Chech Republic which is being protested against by Russia, of course. The U.S. has replied that they are not directed at Russian missiles but would be directed at Iran. I would expect that if the U.S. attacks Iran, they'd have to cover alot of other potential responses from Iran's allied countries. Truly a nightmare scenario:

___________________________________________________________________________________________________


When articles come across my desk that particularly catch my interest, I post them to newslog. Some of these articles provide real information, others are examples of matrix propaganda, and some are in between. One must always consider the source when evaluating articles, but much can be learned by listening to those with whom we disagree or even whom we mistrust.
—rkm

Marines ready for D-Day landing in Iran

From: Richard Moore rkm-at-quaylargo.com

------------------------------------------

Iran - Ready to attack
By Dan Plesch - NewStatesman

Feb/20/2007

American military operations for a major conventional war with Iran could be implemented any day. They extend far beyond targeting suspect WMD facilities and will enable President Bush to destroy Iran's military, political and economic infrastructure overnight using conventional weapons.

British military sources told the New Statesman, on condition of anonymity, that "the US military switched its whole focus to Iran" as soon as Saddam Hussein was kicked out of Baghdad. It continued this strategy, even though it had American infantry bogged down in fighting the insurgency in Iraq.

The US army, navy, air force and marines have all prepared battle plans and spent four years building bases and training for "Operation Iranian Freedom". Admiral Fallon, the new head of US Central Command, has inherited computerised plans under the name TIRANNT (Theatre Iran Near Term).

The Bush administration has made much of sending a second aircraft carrier to the Gulf. But it is a tiny part of the preparations. Post 9/11, the US navy can put six carriers into battle at a month's notice. Two carriers in the region, the USS John C Stennis and the USS Dwight D Eisenhower, could quickly be joined by three more now at sea: USS Ronald Reagan, USS Harry S Truman and USS Theodore Roosevelt, as well as by USS Nimitz. Each carrier force includes hundreds of cruise missiles.

Then there are the marines, who are not tied down fighting in Iraq. Several marine forces are assembling, each with its own aircraft carrier. These carrier forces can each conduct a version of the D-Day landings. They come with landing craft, tanks, jump-jets, thousands of troops and, yes, hundreds more cruise missiles. Their task is to destroy Iranian forces able to attack oil tankers and to secure oilfields and installations. They have trained for this mission since the Iranian revolution of 1979.

Today, marines have the USS Boxer and USS Bataan carrier forces in the Gulf and probably also the USS Kearsarge and USS Bonhomme Richard. Three others, the USS Peleliu, USS Wasp and USS Iwo Jima, are ready to join them. Earlier this year, HQ staff to manage these forces were moved from Virginia to Bahrain....cont'd

http://www.sandersresearch.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1130

______________________________________________________________________________________



Featured articles from R. Moore's newsletter:

21 Feb - * William Engdahl: Putin and the Geopolitics of the New Cold War *
http://cyberjournal.org/show_archives/?id=2190&lists=newslog

21 Feb - All systems ready for false-flag incident in Iraq
http://cyberjournal.org/show_archives/?id=2175&lists=newslog

21 Feb - US to stage world's biggest anti-terror exercise
http://cyberjournal.org/show_archives/?id=2180&lists=newslog



cyberjournal.org/newslog/show_archives/21 Feb 2007

[Traveling_Home]

1. Nah - I heard it was gonna be New Orleans n/t

[jollyreaper2112]

2. I find it completely improbable

The question, of course, is "what are Bush's war plans and objectives?" Given what has happened with Iraq, I doubt they even know for sure themselves.

As far as our military goes, we have great air power. We can "fuck their shit up" from the air all day long. We can absolutely ruin a country by attacking critical infrastructure and push them back to pre-civilized times. But there's a difference between punishing from the air and actually going in on the ground.

1. With an air war, it is impossible to meet the US on equal terms. Our bombers go where they want when they want. Targets will be obliterated.

2. A ground war sees a lot more danger for our troops but the results are the same -- standing armies will be obliterated.

3. Conquest is easy. Occupation is a sumbitch.

We tried to take Iraq relatively intact, no use in leveling what you plan to conquer. We blew up a ton of infrastructure but the vague understanding was that our administration-friendly contractors would have all that stuff rebuilt quickly and with a handsome profit. No thought was given to an insurgency and the American approach was tailor-made to make the insurgency as powerful as possible. Well, not intentionally tailored, of course, but it may as well have been.

So at this point we're the occupying power and we're being bled white one scratch at a time. The neocons say that our death tolls are nothing like WWII or Vietnam but that's not really the point. The bodycount is just one factor to consider. Wars cost in terms of blood, treasure, and national prestige. Of the three, I think prestige is the most important (as in, a cost that will be telling on a national level for generations to come. We're not looking at losing an entire generation of young men as with WWI.) Before the war we were looking at the US as the lone super-power. Because of this war, we are seeing other nations forming coalitions against us. We're the rogue elephant, the unpredictable beast. They are seeing the need to protect themselves from our own mad behavior. America is no longer respected and this will cost us greatly. I'm not even factoring in the problems with dwindling oil stocks, the offshoring of our entire manufacturing base, and the peso-ization of the dollar. We'd need to rely on our prestige to help mitigate those problems and come up with solutions. It ain't gonna happen.

So, back to our war plans with Iran. A ground invasion would be one of the dumber ideas Bush could possibly come up with. I have no idea where we could find the troops for that. An air war would be possible with the resources we have. I suppose Bush might think that giving Iran a pounding would make us look better and distract them from whatever activities they're engaging in in Iraq. He could certainly order that. But trying to order a ground invasion would be like Hitler in the final days of the war, giving orders to divisions that no longer exist.

[Dover]

5. I don't buy that the U.S. has any interest in doing more than keeping Iraq chaotic and disabled

if their ultimate goal is Iran. They aren't interested (at least for now) in rebuilding Iraq.
They just needed to set up their bases there for the assault on Iran/Syria.
The U.S.'s aresenal is VERY sophisticated and broad. There are many WMD beyond nukes that have been developed. The U.S. military strength is MUCH greater than the mess in Iraq would have anyone know. Which is probably why China is firing down satellites (a 'test' of course), to communicate that they are capable of that response to attacks from 'above'.

I would not use Iraq as some measure of the U.S.'s intentions OR capablilies.

[jollyreaper2112]

10. I dunno

I'm not proclaiming myself an expert and this whole situation is so insane that nobody could have put it in a techno-thriller, they'd have been laughed off the bookshelves.

The only question I have is "Where will they get the troops for invading Iran?" That's the sticking point. I don't doubt Bush's ability to do stupid things, he just can't do stupid things with resources he doesn't have.

[The Stranger]

6. Judging from current events, that is exactly the wrong question.

Nothing is out of the question with this person in power. Absolutely nothing.

[Crabby Appleton]

3. No ground forces, air campaign only. nt

[bumblebee1]

4. A D-Day type invasion of Iran?

These dunces would f*ck this one up to. I don't see an Eisenhower in the bunch. Hell, I see ignorant versions of Patton in this bunch. This cabal of dunces can screw up a wet dream without trying to hard.

[oldtimecanuk]

7. I think if the US tried to do a ground assault, they would get the living...

shit kicked out of them. Not sure why the military thinks this will be a cake walk? What the fuck don't they understand about Iran... If China were to get involved and start shooting US Satellites out of space, this could be the end of the beginning for the US and it's chief Alli Israel... IMO..

ww

[Fire Walk With Me]

8. A conventional war against Iran would be the height of idiocy.

Unless they'd do so in order to be able to claim the need for nukes, to clear the board so they can control all of that lovely oil, and charge billions of dollars a week to keep it stolen and in the control of the rich.

[Dover]

9. Those ships are armed with all kinds of toys, both defensive and offensive

as well as a large number of soldiers if needed. The new ships (like the U.S.S. Ronald Reagan currently somewhere in the Pacific) are made to be quick and versatile responders and aggressors. And I'm guessing the current administration is arguing for attacking now before Iran, China, Russia and their partner nations get any stronger.

I feel pretty certain that IF a ground invasion was called for, it would only be a small piece of the plan. WWIII would be anything BUT conventional. But having conventional capabilities is also of value.

Also notice how people from the Intelligence fields have slid behind the steering wheel...in Russia, U.S. Israel, etc. They are shifting into greater positions because, I believe, the complexities and level of the chess game right now requires it.

I pray that no one thinks they can actually WIN such a war as WWIII would be!!!

[oldtimecanuk]

11. I think you had what is going to happen in your last sentence...

"WWIII" cause that is what I feel we are headed for here. Does anyone here think that China and Russia would stay on the sidelines if the US and Israel decide to go after Iran? It's possible that they would for a short period, just to see what would happen but then I think they would come into the war. Perhaps China going after Taiwan, North Korea hitting South Korea and who knows who Russia might hit.

ww

[Dover]

12. I think what goes down with Turkey will be one of the keys.

They are one of the threshold nations barring the door from both sides, and sitting on PRIME real estate for transportation of resources and a crossroad of the whole pipeline infrastructure, etc.