Here's the October Suprise - Israel & US Attack Iran Nuclear Places

[FloridaPat]

http://www.tbrnews.org/Archives/a1130.htm

The U.S. has no troops available for an Iranian adventure and the Israelis would rather not lose any warm bodies so…it has been firmly decided that both Israel and the U.S. will launch a surprise attack against 1., Iranian missile sites, 2. Iranian nuclear facilities and 3. the leadership of Iran located in and around Tehran. How will this be done? By aircraft attack using U.S. developed “smart bombs” and the so-called “bunker-buster” bombs designed to destroy underground reinforced concrete facilities .We just sent these to Israel. Because of the political ramifications, the Israelis will conduct the main strikes, supported by U.S. aircraft as needed.

This attack has the full support of the President who wants it launched before the elections. He can then make a speech to the American people stating that the evil Iranian nuclear weaponry has been destroyed by the Israelis with the full cooperation of his government as part of his heroic war against terrorists. Believe me, that speech has already been written and I have seen a copy of it. The brass here feels that this will have a tremendous impact on the American people, just before the elections. No U.S. ground troops will be used; Bush will stress that this is a joint U.S.-Israeli anti-terrorist project.

[seemslikeadream]

1. Dyer: Will an attack on Iran be the real October Surprise?

American intelligence sources are busily leaking hair-raising tales of Iran's alleged nuclear weapons program. Norman Podhoretz, editor of Commentary and godfather of the neo-conservatives, tells an interviewer: "I am not advocating the invasion of Iran at this moment, although I wouldn't be heartbroken if it happened." Israel has recently taken delivery of 500 "bunker-buster" bombs from the United States - just the thing for destroying deeply buried nuclear facilities. Is the long-predicted "October Surprise" that clinches the U.S. election for President George W. Bush going to be an attack on Iran?
Some senior Iranian military people seem concerned about it, and last month Yadollah Javani, head of the Revolutionary Guards political bureau, reassured Iranians that neither the U.S. nor Israel would dare to attack their country. "The entire Zionist territory, including its nuclear facilities and atomic arsenal, are currently within range of Iran's advanced missiles," he said. "Therefore, neither the Zionist regime nor America will carry out its threats."
Some of this is obvious nonsense. Norman Podhoretz's grasp of military realities is inferior to that of the average beauty queen. The United States is far too over-stretched militarily in Afghanistan and Iraq to contemplate invading Iran, which is much bigger and stronger than both of them put together, and Israel cannot invade Iran, having no common border with it.
There will not be an invasion. Yadollah Javani is also talking through his hat. Iran's Shahab-3 missiles can reach Israel and strike at American forces all over the Middle East, but as Iran certainly has no nuclear weapons at the moment, that only means that it can drop a few high-explosive warheads on them, without much in the way of accuracy, if it doesn't lose its missiles on the ground first. There is no effective Iranian deterrent to American or Israeli air strikes aimed at destroying the country's nuclear facilities, which is far more likely than an actual invasion. What is conspicuously lacking (as in the case of Iraq) is any reason for arguing that an attack is urgent.

...

An attack now would be driven by political calculations. Israel's Prime Minister Ariel Sharon would be seriously tempted to launch a "pre-emptive" strike against Iranian nuclear facilities if he could get a green light from the U.S., as it would eliminate a potential threat to Israel's nuclear weapons monopoly in the region and also boost his popularity in a difficult period at home. From

...

When all the relevant decision-makers on both sides of the argument have something to gain politically from a certain action, it becomes a possibility. No more than that, for the moment, and the final decision would have to be made in Washington even if it were Israelis who did the actual bombing.
But if George W. Bush's poll numbers are looking shaky in mid-October, the possibility of that sort of an attack on Iran probably rises considerably.---
more

http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/ci_2421473

Defense Chief Pays Visit to USS John F. Kennedy
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x900431

[comradebillyboy]

2. i bet pootie-poot has sold the top of the line russian

anti-aircraft systems to his neighbors in iran. the supposed air strike on iran, like the invasion of iraq, will not be the cake-walk its purported to be. the iranians will definitly shoot back and the shit will hit the fan in shiite iraq as well.

its such a fucking stupid idea, i am surprised bush hasn't done it already.

[Eloriel]

3. Oh, wonderful, And Kerry is on record saying, ENERGETICALLY,

that he "fully supports Israel's right to defend herself," which, of course, is Orwellian doublespeak for "Israel can do whatever it damn well pleases in the name of its national security."

Just super. That's what you get when you support the rightwing's damn lies: you undercut your own position. All he can do now, if it happens, is smile and say, "Oh, good. Congratulations. Well done."

DAMN.

[RainDog]

15. at that point, it won't matter what Kerry thinks

this is what gets me about this, as well.

if Bush knows he's losing, if he does this, he commits the United States to its consequences....

when AT LEAST half of the U.S. electorate ALREADY thinks he should be fired, along with all his dangerous advisors, for the decisions made to go into Iraq (made long, long before 9-11, don't let them fool you otherwise.)

in fact, I think they may be floating this entire idea in order to provoke an attack BY IRAN so that they can claim they are only acting in self-defense.

sort of like telling Saddam the U.S. had no position on whether or not he invaded Kuwait over the issue of whether or not that nation was slant drilling into Iraqi oil, then invading Iraq.

but worse.

imo, this is why Mark Dayton is closing his offices. My guess is that Frist's information has to do with the increased risk of attacks on D.C. if this attack on Iran goes forward.

[FloridaPat]

4. This could end up putting us at war with Russia. These people are

nuts - and I don't mean the ones in Iran. It would not take much to wipe out most of our military with them sitting in Iraq baby-sitting Halliburton. How do people like that get in the White House? After 4 years I am still stunned this could happen in this country.

[Huckebein the Raven]

6. That's what I'm afraid of too

especially with the neocons supporting the Chechen separatists

[T Bone]

12. wipe out most of our military with them sitting in Iraq , yes FloridaPat

this is exactly what I have worried about ever since George's excellent Iraq invasion began. If Iran is attacked and they have one nuke on a missle left, fully expect it to end up smack dab in the middle of the highest concentration of out troops in Iraq. Radiation for almost a 100% of our troops not killed.

[TNOE]

5. Going to Kick

We cannot underestimate this group.

[jpak]

7. And when Iran declares war on the US - then what ????

The Iranian military is no match for the US or Israel (insignificant numbers of old out-dated aircraft, armor, artillery, air defense systems and naval vessels) but it could send thousands of mujahadeen pouring into Iraq and launch relentless small-vessel suicide attacks against US naval forces in the Persian Gulf.

Given that US forces are stretched thin in Iraq, this would be a major disaster for the US.

Would US forces be able to cope? Yes - but at a high cost in casualties, numerous policy setbacks and economic consequences (i.e., cancellation of Iraqi elections in January 2005, further erosion of international support for US Iraq policy, halt in reconstruction efforts and soaring world oil prices, just to name a few).

But would these dire consequences deter a desperate ChimpCo administration?

Nope....

[Lerkfish]

8. actually, Iran has valid reasons to "preemptively invade" the US

1. we definitely have weapons of mass destruction
2. we have a history of invading other countries
3. we have clearly and convincingly targeted their country for military attacks.

The ironic thing is, even though we claimed these justifications FALSELY against Iraq, Iran would be using them honestely against us.

its bizarro world.

[Me.]

9. This Is Important

Keep it kicked.

[bpilgrim]

20. kick

peace

[RivetJoint]

24. What will they invade with?

[Lerkfish]

26. box cutters and shoes.......doesn't matter, my point was the justification

for war, used by bush was dishonestly framed, whereas Iran could honestly use those same justifications against us.

[Bucky]

11. Then a military draft becomes necessary

War with Iran, which has a real army, would be a real war, not a ten-day walkover. It would be real bad. A real draft would follow.

[bpilgrim]

18. human waves

Iranian leaders, with a population of 55 million at their disposal, had no compunctions about launching low-tech "human wave" attacks against the Iraqis. Hussein's blitzkrieg devolved into a trench war of attrition, but one he couldn't afford with a population of only about 20 million.

The war was clearly going against Iraq by 1983, when Hussein ordered the use of chemical weapons against Iran. The first of 10 documented chemical attacks in the war was in August 1983 and caused hundreds of casualties, according to CIA sources. The largest documented attack was a February 1986 strike against al-Faw, where mustard gas and tabun may have affected up to 10,000 Iranians.

source...
http://www.jtfcs.northcom.mil/pages/news20030124.html

...

The attack was confused, however, because Pasdaran attacked without waiting for
either a regular army artillery barrage or support. The end result was a human wave
attack that closed on the Iraqi force and led to hand to hand fighting that lasted for over a
day. The result was a victory in the sense that Iranian forces took Bustan, and Iraq lost
up to 1,000 soldiers killed and 500 prisoners of war. Iran took even heavier casualties
than Iraq, however, and Iraqi forces were able to retreat up the road in relatively good
order and create a new defense position east of Susangerd.

Even so, Saddam Hussein reacted by removing and demoting some of the commanders
involved, and Iraq charged that Iran had committed atrocities and had killed several
hundred Iraqi POWs. The battle did not really change the tactical situation, but it may
have helped convince some Pasdaran commanders and Mullahs that the Pasdaran could
win through direct assault and ideological fervor, and did not need complex battle plans
and regular army support

source...
http://www.csis.org/burke/reports/9005lessonsiraniraqII-chap05.pdf

peace

[spanone]

10. I think they call it World War Three.

[Doctor_J]

13. I think * will go thermo

either before or after 11/2. That's really the only way he has left to energize his mouth-breathing base.

[Lerkfish]

14. that is my loathesome fear and dread...I think you're right.

eom

[bpilgrim]

19. shock-N-awe v2.0

peace

[RainDog]

16. Florida Pat, do you know anything about this website?

I'm just curious.

it's a strange site, in a way. the report about how the secret service felt/feels about different prezzes, their spouses...funny that Cheney wasn't mentioned.

[FloridaPat]

17. The "Insider" has been on there for several months. It's scary. So

far several things he's said has been proved. Nothing has not been proved, but it's very inside stuff. He says * is being medicated. They have prayer meedtings in the White House. Everyone is scared of the creep. He is a very angry person who thinks God put him in the White House and everyone who is against him is a traitor - Democrats included. The site makes for some real intersting reading. Gets new information every Tuesday.

[Selatius]

21. Russia selling Iran nuke fuel

I always wondered why Russia would do such a thing. They know that the US would oppose such a thing, especially Israel, yet they went into negotiations with Iran anyway. What is the deal here?

Is Russia seriously looking to provoke some sort of confrontation between US-Israel and Iran? If so, what is it that it hopes to gain from this?

The only thing I see that could come out of this is that such a confrontation would muddy up the waters in the Middle East so much that the US would be bogged down and be forced to divert more resources to the region, resources which could have been used to expand further into Central Asia and gain more influence over the oil resources in that region.

[eridani]

22. Can we push others to investigate this? n/t

[anakie]

23. during Ramadan!!!!

idiots.

[mike_c]

25. kick

This is scary!

[Me.]

27. So What Has Happened To The TBR Website?

It's now listed as not found. I hope someone copied and pasted the full article!

[FloridaPat]

28. Whatreallyhappened.com has a link to another web site. I also

have a copy of the article.

This week Bushco tried to get the UN to give Iran an ultamatum to do something about the nuclear plant. They had until Oct 31. The UN refused to go along. So the drop dead date is between Nov -2. And we just sold Israel all those bombs.

Isn't Iran in the wrong direction for Saudi Arabia???

[jerryman814]

29. Mike Malloy made you famous FloridaPat :P

mentioned on Mike Malloy Show on 10/15 @ 11:13

[FloridaPat]

30. EEK!! What did he say!!!

[jerryman814]

31. He said:

On a post about the October Surprise on DU.com started by Floridian... and then mentioned Iran invasion

[FloridaPat]

32. I guess the word is out! Thanks for the information. I wonder what

Bush's next move is then.

[vetwife]

33. We'll all be dead..History doesn't matter remember?