ConCen

Full Version: American Preparations For Invading Iran Are Complete
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Published 19 February 2007 Dan Plesch

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.

Vice-President Dick Cheney has had something of a love affair with the US marines, and this may reach its culmination in the fishing villages along Iran's Gulf coast. Marine generals hold the top jobs at Nato, in the Pentagon and are in charge of all nuclear weapons. No marine has held any of these posts before.

Traditionally, the top nuclear job went either to a commander of the navy's Trident submarines or of the air force's bombers and missiles. Today, all these forces follow the orders of a marine, General James Cartwright, and are integrated into a "Global Strike" plan which places strategic forces on permanent 12-hour readiness.

The only public discussion of this plan has been by the American analysts Bill Arkin and Hans Kristensen, who have focused on the possible use of atomic weapons. These concerns are justified, but ignore how forces can be used in conventional war.

Any US general planning to attack Iran can now assume that at least 10,000 targets can be hit in a single raid, with warplanes flying from the US or Diego Garcia. In the past year, unlimited funding for military technology has taken "smart bombs" to a new level.

New "bunker-busting" conventional bombs weigh only 250lb. According to Boeing, the GBU-39 small-diameter bomb "quadruples" the firepower of US warplanes, compared to those in use even as recently as 2003. A single stealth or B-52 bomber can now attack between 150 and 300 individual points to within a metre of accuracy using the global positioning system.

With little military effort, the US air force can hit the last-known position of Iranian military units, political leaders and supposed sites of weapons of mass destruction. One can be sure that, if war comes, George Bush will not want to stand accused of using too little force and allowing Iran to fight back.

"Global Strike" means that, without any obvious signal, what was done to Serbia and Lebanon can be done overnight to the whole of Iran. We, and probably the Iranians, would not know about it until after the bombs fell. Forces that hide will suffer the fate of Saddam's armies, once their positions are known.

The whole of Iran is now less than an hour's flying time from some American base or carrier. Sources in the region as well as trade journals confirm that the US has built three bases in Azerbaijan that could be transit points for troops and with facilities equal to its best in Europe.

Most of the Iranian army is positioned along the border with Iraq, facing US army missiles that can reach 150km over the border. But it is in the flat, sandy oilfields east and south of Basra where the temptation will be to launch a tank attack and hope that a disaffected population will be grateful.

The regime in Tehran has already complained of US- and UK-inspired terror attacks in several Iranian regions where the population opposes the ayatollahs' fanatical policies. Such reports corroborate the American journalist Seymour Hersh's claim that the US military is already engaged in a low-level war with Iran. The fighting is most intense in the Kurdish north where Iran has been firing artillery into Iraq. The US and Iran are already engaged in a low-level proxy war across the Iran-Iraq border.

And, once again, the neo-cons at the American Enterprise Institute have a plan for a peaceful settlement: this time it is for a federal Iran. Officially, Michael Ledeen, the AEI plan's sponsor, has been ostracised by the White House. However, two years ago, the Congress of Iranian Nationalities for a Federal Iran had its inaugural meeting in London.

We should not underestimate the Bush administration's ability to convince itself that an "Iran of the regions" will emerge from a post-rubble Iran.

Dan Plesch is a research associate at the School of Oriental and African Studies.

http://www.newstatesman.com/200702190014
_____________________________________________________________________________

If this happens im going to go nutz, dont know about you but im standing up to this bullshit!
and many many many many others will too!
Good find, MaD.

All of us here knew that, but will the public know before the attack is initiated?
This is terrible.

I'm gonna go nuts to. They're not even gonna debate the issue then. They'll just start bombing and then answer questions after.

I knew when Bush came into power things were gonna get bad, this is well bad. If this happens the media are gonna brainwash the sheeple and right now I have no faith in the fuckin walkin dead wakin up at all. As long as their happy warm and fat they'll not do fuck all.

Welcome to the 21st century boys.
Putin Orders Russian Military Forces To Attack US Forces During Iran Invasion

http://www.whatdoesitmean.com/index983.htm
Israel seeks all clear for Iran air strike
Israel has been waiting for this opportunity since it was created after the Holocaust.

We all KNOW that the United States will give them permission to fly over Iraq. What will probably happen is that they will let Israel take the first shots and then follow them in. Britain will then lend its support with ground troops. I bet this will all probably happen before Bush/Blair are thrown out of power.

In addition, I believe another huge 'attack' will occur in Britain, wiping out MILLIONS of lives. This 'attack' will be on a biblical scale, and will be the grounds for the government to O.K. the 'Son of Star Wars' missile defense system for the United States in Britain.


- typhoid
When this attack happens, we could be looking at a WWIII scenario.

Michel's report mentions the US performing new cold war scenarios, involving Russia and China even.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con...;articleId=4888
This is propaganda, or misinformation/disinformation if you want.

Plesch isn't very knowledgeable and lacks credibility.

<span style="color:#33CCFF">
Published 19 February 2007 Dan Plesch

to destroy Iran's military, political and economic infrastructure overnight using conventional weapons.

4 to 6 weeks, or even longer, maybe 3 months, not "overnight."
<span style="color:#33CCFF">
Admiral Fallon, the new head of US Central Command, has inherited computerised plans under the name TIRANNT (Theatre Iran Near Term).

All competent militaries war-game. Germany has a TUANNT (Theater UK Near Term). China, Russia, Japan, Australia, they all have computerized simulations of various scenarios. They would be daft if they didn't.
<span style="color:#33CCFF">
Each carrier force includes hundreds of cruise missiles.

The Serbs shot down many of the cruise missiles overflying Kosovo and Serbia. They operand here is "cruise" missile. They're sub-sonic, meaning the fly slower than the speed of sound. They typically plod along at 350 knots or so, which makes them easy targets for 12.7 mm machine guns.

<span style="color:#33CCFF">New "bunker-busting" conventional bombs weigh only 250lb.

The GBU-39 is not a "bunker-buster." Plesch needs to do more research to keep from making embarrassing gaffs like that.
<span style="color:#33CCFF">
A single stealth or B-52 bomber can now attack between 150 and 300 individual points to within a metre of accuracy using the global positioning system.

That assumes the Iranians don't jam the GPS satellites signals. The Serbs shot down two stealth bombers using the SA-6, an early 1970s system. The Iranians have that, plus an upgraded SA-6 system plus newer ADA systems.
<span style="color:#33CCFF">
Most of the Iranian army is positioned along the border with Iraq, facing US army missiles that can reach 150km over the border. But it is in the flat, sandy oilfields east and south of Basra where the temptation will be to launch a tank attack and hope that a disaffected population will be grateful.

Another embarrassing gaff. The US army has no missiles. The only missile with a range of 150km was the Lance, which was retired in 1994.

The US can launch a "tank attack" but it will have to seize at least one of the only two bridges across the Karun River before it is destroyed, otherwise they'll be bogged down with bridging operations and get hammered with artillery.

<span style="color:#33CCFF"> Such reports corroborate the American journalist Seymour Hersh's claim that the US military is already engaged in a low-level war with Iran. The fighting is most intense in the Kurdish north where Iran has been firing artillery into Iraq. The US and Iran are already engaged in a low-level proxy war across the Iran-Iraq border.

Hersh is a liar, not to mention a Zionist Jew. The US "special operations troops" he claims are in Iran are actually MEK mercenaries. His claims of Iranian artillery fire in the Kurdish north have been debunked and destroyed by everyone, inlcuding the Kurds.

<span style="color:#33CCFF">
We should not underestimate the Bush administration's ability to convince itself that an "Iran of the regions" will emerge from a post-rubble Iran.

He's definitely a lunatic.

<span style="color:#33CCFF">Dan Plesch is a research associate at the School of Oriental and African Studies.

Mr. Plesch needs to do more research before writing inflammatory crap like this.
Quote:Good find, MaD.

All of us here knew that, but will the public know before the attack is initiated?

No, why would they?

There's no legal or constitutional requirement to inform the people of military action.
Quote:There's no legal or constitutional requirement to inform the people of military action.
Doh! You're a pretty lousy government infowars/disinformation agent Moroni, otherwise you'd know that according to the Constitution, only Congress can legally declare war. The Bush Executive branch however, has initiated imperialist wars of aggression against two different sovereign countries that almost certainly had nothing to do with 9/11 whatsoever. At least FDR had the grace to ask for a declaration of war before ordering the troops into action. I guess that went out of style with Korea and Vietnam.
Quote:
Quote:There's no legal or constitutional requirement to inform the people of military action.
Doh! You're a pretty lousy government infowars/disinformation agent Moroni, otherwise you'd know that according to the Constitution, only Congress can legally declare war. The Bush Executive branch however, has initiated imperialist wars of aggression against two different sovereign countries that almost certainly had nothing to do with 9/11 whatsoever. At least FDR had the grace to ask for a declaration of war before ordering the troops into action. I guess that went out of style with Korea and Vietnam.

Ah, another who reads but doesn't understand the words.


Yes, I'm a "pretty lousy government infowars/disinformation agent" since I'm on record for making the following statements:

1) The US violated Article 2.4 and Article 51 of the UN Charter with respect to the invasion of Afghanistan

2) The US invaded Afghanistan in order to secure the area for the building of the CentGas pipeline for UNOCAL and to prevent the Chinese from exerting influence in Afghanistan

3) The US violated Common Article 3 of the 3rd and 4th Geneva Protocols with respect to its treatment of the detainees at Guantanamo

4) The US violated Article 5 of the 3rd Geneva Protocol with respect to its treatment of Taliban forces.

5) The US violated the Convention Against Torture, specfically Articles 9 and 14, regarding all detainees

6) The US violated the International Convention on Politcal Rights regarding all detainees

7) The Military Commissions Act of 2006 cannot be enforced unless the Supreme Court applies the "Last-in-Time" rule which effectively abrogates 6 international treaties, meaning the US has withdrawn from the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Geneva Protocols, CAT and the ICCPR. Since only the president can withdraw from a treaty, most of the MCA will be stricken or it will be thrown out in its entirety.

8) As I pointed out, the only part of the MCA that is enforceable is the immunity clause dating back to 1997. I also pointed out that the immunity clause dates back to 1997, because the US was engaged in special operations military actions in Afghanistan at that time (and continuing until the air strikes) to force the Taliban to accept the UNOCAL pipeline contract.

9) I also pointed out that Bush & Co have only functional immunity for war crimes (ie violates of the Geneva Protocols, CAT and the ICCPR) and that since all 6 treaties fall under the jus cogens doctrine, that there is universal jurisdiction for prosecution of war crimes. In other words, once Bush & Co leave office, they can be prosecuted in any country on the planet and that some proceedings have already been initiated.

10) I also pointed out that the immunity clause in the MCA only protects Bush & Co from being prosecuted for war crimes in the US, not the rest of the world.

11) I have also mentioned that while Rumsfeld has resigned, he is still employed at the Pentagon in order to maintain functional immunity and protect him from the unsightly and inevitable extradition proceedings which would embarass Bush & Co in the media not only in the US, but around the world.

12) I have also suggested that Bush & Co might initiate a false flag operation resulting in the declaration of a national emergency and martial law resulting in the suspension of elections in order to allow Bush & Co to remain in power indefinitely and avoid prosecution for war crimes. I also suggested in the alternative that Bush and a few others might flee to Paraguay, since they recently purchased large plots of land there, and since Paraguay never extradites anyone for any reason, allowing Bush to escape prosecution.

Onto USraq, or the country formerly known as Iraq.

1) I'm on record as stating that there were no WMDs and that none would be found. I based that entirely on my extensive and intimate knowledge of the transportation, security, storage, maintenance and employment of nuclear and chemical weapons. I am one of about 3 dozen people walking the planet who has physically touched "back-pack nukes," 155mm/6" nuclear RAP rounds, 203mm/8" double gun RAP rounds, 203mm/8" linear implosion devices, Nike-Hercules 20 kt warheads, Lance 10 kt warheads, Lance 20 kt warheads, Lance variable yield warheads, Lance ERW warheads, Pershing Ia multi-stage warheads, Pershing II variable yield warheads, and BGM-109G variable yield warheads. Only we three dozen or so can make such a claim, and no others.

2) The US violated Article 2.4 and Article 51 of the UN Charter by invading Iraq.

3) I'm on record as stating that the US invaded Iraq for the following reasons:

a) to secure Iraq's oil reserves, including those reserves currently tapped, those reserves that are known but have not been tapped, and the 9 geologic tracts in the "Sunni Triangle" which have not yet been explored. The US-forced "Iraqi constitution" prevents all untapped reserves and future reserves from being nationalized, meaning they must be owned and controlled by private enterprises.

B)to convert Iraq from the Euro burse back to the petro-dollar burse, which is one of the first things the US did and is embodied in the US-forced "Iraqi constitution."

c) to create a "new Germany." The US-forced "Iraqi constitution" provides for 6 permanent US military bases in Iraq. These bases go in conjunction with the massive embassy compound currently under construction. The US intends to use Iraq as it did Germany, primarily to force US hegemony in MENA and Central Asia, to protect its mostly oil interests in the region and to function as a staging area to launch future military campaigns, of which there will no doubt be many.

Now, to address your ignorance of the US Constitution and relevant case law and statutes.

You claim that "you'd know that according to the Constitution, only Congress can legally declare war."

You appear to be totally incapable of discerning the difference between "war" and "military action."

Nothing in the Constitution prevents the president from taking military action without an express declaration of war. Had you read the relevant Supreme Court case law, you'd know that.

Furthermore, the War Powers Act of 1973 expressly permits the president to intiate military action without an express declaration of war from Congress.

Returning to your total ignorance of the US Constitution, you seem to be totally unaware of Article I Section 7 which states:

Quote:All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills.

The president cannot wage war without funding. Funding can only be approved by Congress. The bottom line is that Congress has readily and willingly approved all funding to prosecute the military actions in USraq and USghanistan.

You are beating the shit out of your dog because your neighbor opened your barn door and let the horse escape.

How is it your dog's fault that the horse escaped? It isn't.

Please cite all public laws or statutes (not resolutions) passed by Congress ordering the cessation of military actions in either USraq or USghanistan, or which limit military actions in either USraq or USghanistan, or which reduce funding for such actions.

You can't, because Congress did no such thing.

Youngstown Sheet & Tube v. Sawyer, S.Ct., 343 U.S. 937; 72 S. Ct. 775; 96 L. Ed. 1344; 1952 U.S. LEXIS 2730; 21 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P66,924; 30 L.R.R.M. 2070 is instructive.


Quote:1. When the President acts pursuant to an express or implied authorization of Congress, his authority is at its maximum, for it includes all that he possesses in his own right plus all that Congress can delegate. In these circumstances, and in these only, may he be said (for what it may be worth) to personify the federal sovereignty.

The operand here is "implied authorization of Congress."

While Congress has not expressly declared war, it has tacitly done so and given its approval by providing the necessary funding to wage war.

Bush can continue to wage war in USraq and USghanistan until such time as Congress passes a law (not a resolution) ordering the president to cease hostilities, or until such time as Congress passes a law (not a resolution) restricting or limiting funding, resulting in a reduction or cessation of hostilities.


Quote:2. When the President acts in absence of either a congressional grant or denial of authority, he can only rely upon his own independent powers, but there is a zone of twilight in which he and Congress may have concurrent authority, or in which its distribution is uncertain. Therefore, congressional inertia, indifference or quiescence may sometimes, at least as a practical matter, enable, if not invite, measures on independent presidential responsibility. In this area, any actual test of power is likely to depend on the imperatives of events and contemporary imponderables rather than on abstract theories of law.

Even if you argue that Congress has not given its tacit or implied consent to wage war, this is where the current situation is. Bush can do whatever he wants until such time as Congress passes a law (not a resolution) ordering the president to cease hostilities, or until such time as Congress passes a law (not a resolution) restricting or limiting funding, resulting in a reduction or cessation of hostilities.

To date, Congress has done nothing.

Quote:3. When the President takes measures incompatible with the expressed or implied will of Congress, his power is at its lowest ebb, for then he can rely only upon his own constitutional powers minus any constitutional powers of Congress over the matter. Courts can sustain exclusive presidential control in such a case only by disabling the Congress from acting upon the subject. Presidential claim to a power at once so conclusive and preclusive must be scrutinized with caution, for what is at stake is the equilibrium established by our constitutional system.

This cannot be, because Congress has passed no law ordering cessation of military action or restricting the scope or funding of military action.


If you want to lay blame, then lay the blame correctly, right on your weakling Congresss who has done nothing to prevent Bush from engaging in military action.

Even if you argue that Congress was misled by the false intelligence info, it doesn't change the fact that Congress did absolutely nothing to stop or limit the military actions once they discovered they were misled.

Better yet, lay the blame on the 90% of weakling Americans who would willingly crawl 1,000 miles across broken glass and razor blades to drive their SUVs and to stuff every last dime from their paychecks into the pockets of some silk suit CEO and then run up their credit cards spending money they don't have just so they can instantly satisfy some self-gratifying urge. Congress had not taken action, and will not take any action, in large part due to the fact that the US is a representative democracy, and that in a representative democracy, the majority rules, and the majority of Americans say "fight."

Until such time as a majority of Americans stop watching "reality shows" long enough to start paying attention to the real reality and say "stop the war" or "bring the boys home" Congress will do nothing.
If the American people are so stupid as to let Bush attack Iran even after another false flag attack then they deserve what they get and it’s my understanding the Russians are ten years ahead of the Americans when it comes to missile systems.

Is mad dog Bush so desperate that he’s prepared to take on China too who will back Russia/Iran and the Muslim world when push comes to shove.

Just think Americans will get to see new live HD3D TV as they look to the sky but I don’t think they will like it.
Reference URL's