Petraeus: U.S. has plan to deal with Iran's nuclear program

[Arrowhead2k1]

Source: CNN

Tampa, Florida (CNN) -- In addition to diplomacy and sanctions, the United States has developed contingency plans in dealing with Iran's nuclear facilities, a top U.S. military commander told CNN's Christiane Amanpour.

Gen. David Petraeus, head of U.S. Central Command, did not elaborate on the plans in the interview, to be aired Sunday. But he said the military has considered the impacts of any action taken there.

"It would be almost literally irresponsible if CENTCOM were not to have been thinking about the various 'what ifs' and to make plans for a whole variety of different contingencies," Petraeus told Amanpour at the command's headquarters in Tampa.



Read more: http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/01/09/petraeus.iran/index.html

---

Do you guys hear that noise? Those are the beatings of the war drums, and they are getting louder and louder...

[ShortnFiery]

1. Yes, the MIC wants the entire ME to be one big Battlefield Disneyland.

[EFerrari]

2. Obama's defense team and national security guys are not a bunch of reformers.

:shrug:

[dipsydoodle]

3. Just gotta keep

Blackwater/Xe busy. :sarcasm:

[carla]

4. These bozo's

act as if the Iranian Armed Forces are nothing. If the Iranians get pissed off, you can kiss your comfy lifestyle goodbye. Iran DOES NOT F**K AROUND. But the babies in charge think it's going to be a cakewalk.../America, The Replaceable Nation?

[pundaint]

5. What the fuck is a general doing talking about contingencies on CNN?

Or does the guy in charge bend over for generals as well as CEOs and republicans?

If we can't have Change we can Believe, how about a little Leadership we can Believe.

[avaistheone1]

7. Is there any one on duty supervising what these generals are saying or doing?

WTF?

[saigon68]

14. Nope the "Present Occupant" loves tough talk

[goforit]

35. And you wonder how 8 CIA agents got blown out. No thank you Patreaus

[dixiegrrrrl]

8. He is either carrying water or working at cross purposes.

Notice Gates did the same thing, publicly contradicting Obama's statements on Afghanistan.
Definite drum beating, tho.

[leveymg]

34. Another day, another psyop. Threats are SOP.

[bemildred]

6. Who is this moron and why is he spouting this bureaucratic babble?

Why is he worried that people will think our Iran policy is in disarray? Is it normal for the government to stumble around with no plan so that it is news when they are not doing that?
:puke:

[and-justice-for-all]

9. The US does not have the right to take action against Iran on this..

Sorry, but when the US has nukes along with several countries in the middle east, the US can not(or should not) do shit to Iran for their pursuing nuclear arms. I am really over the US hypocrisy, the only country to bomb another....TWICE, should not be running their mouth.

I would like to see nuclear weapons abolished, but that is not going to happen anytime soon.

[polly7]

10. I'm with you.

Iran has also allowed inspecitions by the IAEA, had cameras installed for years now at their nuclear facilities and has the same right to nuclear energy as any other country in the world. They lack the refineries to keep up with domestic consumption, exactly as we in Canada do. This is nothing but the same old BS used against Iraq with its WMD. And yes, the hypocrisy is stunning. So many deals made with nations in the ME and Asia re nukes, Israel's secret nuclear weapons and yet their military is supported monetarily ....... it's almost enough to make you cry. Deja-vu.

Reportedly, they are years away from the capability for nuclear weapons, they've signed the NPT (unlike Israel) and have called for a nuclear weapon free ME. Although, after seeing what's happened to their neighbour and the PNAC plans for the ME, who could blame them if they really had them? Get rid of them ALL.

[Kolesar]

11. thank you for putting some substantive remarks on this thread

:yay:

[ConcernedCanuk]

12. I do not believe Iran has designs on attacking anyone - with or without nukes

.
.
.

Iran, as well as the rest of the World has watched the USA attack/invade/occupy whomever they want, whenever they want.

No-one can convince me that the USA involvement in the Middle East is not about oil.

The USA is, and has been the most aggressive nation militarily for the last 5 decades, if not more.

The USA has more military stock/weapons/personnel in the Middle East than it does in their own COUNTRY!

sumthing to ponder . .

:freak:

[Prometheus Bound]

13. Let's not forget that Iran is not a nuclear threat.

Israeli general Brigadier-General Uzi Eilam denies Iran is nuclear threat
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x297730

Moved from News to Israel-Palestine forum for some reason.

[Meeker Morgan]

15. Iran's nuclear facilities 'can be bombed': US commander

Source: Agence France-Presse

WASHINGTON DC, United States - A top US military commander responsible for the Middle East and the Gulf region said the United States has developed contingency plans to deal with Iran's nuclear facilities, insisting that they "can be bombed."

"Well, they certainly can be bombed," General David Petraeus, head of US Central Command, told CNN television as he commented on suggestions that Iranian nuclear facilities were heavily fortified.

"The level of effect would vary with who it is that carries it out, what ordnance they have, and what capability they can bring to bear," he added.

Read more: http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/world/01/10/10/irans-nuclear-facilities-can-be-bombed-us-commander

---

Just a contingency, right?

[niyad]

16. well, all the doomsday scenarios I ever read started with nukes in the middle east.

[Warpy]

17. OK, that loose cannon needs to be reassigned

The last thing we need is for warmongers to shoot their moronic mouths off like that. Iran is on the edge of overthrowing the present regime in favor of modernization. Being threatened by some sack of shit general is just what they don't need, it will cause people to rally around the bad government they have.

Likely they'd have modernized years ago without Cheney's constant saber rattling at them.

What ever happened to the military keeping their big, fat mouths shut about their plans, contingency or not? This guy needs to go. Now.

[RZM]

24. I don't know about that . . .

I think you may be putting too much stock in this statement. For one, Iranians have been fed a steady diet of anti-Western stuff for 30 years now. I imagine many are desensitized to it and a lone statement like this probably doesn't actually help the regime much - everybody has heard it all before. Now, an actual air strike on Iran would be a different matter . . . that really would cause some moderates to rally around the regime. But the zillionth threat? I doubt it changes much. And I also disagree that Iran is 'on the edge of the overthrowing the present regime'. That would be nice, but not likely. The opposition is large, but neither as large nor diverse as the anti-Shah movement was in the late 1970s. I'm pulling for them, but not holding my breath.

As far as the military keeping their mouths shut, I actually think this kind of statement could be construed as evidence that the US is NOT going to bomb Iran. Ramp up the rhetoric, leak plans a key moments, threaten here and there . . . it's all a lot easier and safer than actual military operations and requires no international help. It probably won't work, but if it does have some effect, all the better, at least in the minds of top officials. I'm just speculating, but that's how i see it.

If any bombing happens in Iran it's going to be done by Israel. Their threshold for acting against Iran is far lower than that of the US. Obama (like Bush, IMO) has weighed the options on Iran and most likely has discounted the prospect of military intervention in all but the most extreme of circumstances (with the steady march toward nuclear weapons not one of those circumstances). All he's got in terms of confrontational policy choices are threats and sanctions, with the latter dependent on international cooperation. We'll see the threats from time to time and perhaps hard sanctions eventually, though who knows.

[The abyss]

29. Well written!

+1 your comments

[RZM]

33. Thanks!

:)

[bemildred]

31. The military ought not meddle in politics. This is well established.

This moron is clearly meddling in politics, and he should be fired for that alone.

[madrchsod]

18. obama uses davey to explain his policies to the public....

why does`t obama just come on and say it himself?

[ShortnFiery]

19. This will be the righteous END GAME of American Crusade 2001+

The peoples in the entire Middle East are gonna LOVE THIS! :sarcasm:

[saigon68]

27. Gen Betrayus = "Hoof in Mouth Disease"

the war criminal hits one out of the park

[earth mom]

20. Oh shit! The warmongers will love hearing that!

:thumbsdown:

:nuke:

[Gregorian]

21. In other words- Let's create more terrorists.

See, the military is a nice self=perpetuating job cycle. Create terrorists, bomb terrorists, get more money from taxpayers to grow bigger...


By the way, if they can be bombed, then so can our facilities. Any other logic is flawed.

[Alamuti Lotus]

22. that sounds like a terrorist threat in and of itself

This man should be arrested and tortured. Everybody with a name that sounds like his should be put on a watch list.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

23. That is probably the most heavily defended airspace in the world,

and something the US has never actually encountered before, a modern and intact air defense system.

[Odin2005]

25. He needs to be fired, pronto!

[ConcernedCanuk]

26. Will the USA ever consider effecting "peace" without bombs?

.
.
.

Bombing only INCREASES world strife.

Maybe just start dropping 10% of the bombing cost in food and other staples

Use the other 90% to improve life for Americans at home . . .

I know, I know . .

Silly idea

[Massacure]

28. "Who it is that carries it out"

Israel comes to mind...

[daleo]

30. Sure they can be bombed

The South Pole could be bombed. It doesn't mean it's a good idea.

[AverageJoe5]

32. Iran is immune to threats

When will these people learn that Iran is immune to threats? neither military threats nor sanctions will ever induce Iran to give up its inalienable right to develop and use nuclear technology. A military attack on Iran would incur a heavy cost for the attacker, so that will never happen. And sanctions are doomed to fail, like they have in the past.

[Socal31]

36. Oh.

You again. Why does eveything you say Re: Iran sound like a government sanctioned press release?

[Joanne98]

37. Oh great!