Decision Already Made to Attack Iran- Scott Ritter

[Clara T]

Ex-U.N. Inspector: Decision Already Made To Attack Iran

Ex-U.N. inspector: Iran's next: Ritter warns that another U.S. invasion in Mideast is imminent

By Brandon Garcia

02/06/06 (Santa Fe New Mexican, The (KRT) Via Thomson Dialog NewsEdge) The former U.N. weapons inspector who said Iraq disarmed long before the U.S. invasion in 2003 is warning Americans to prepare for a war with Iran.

"We just don't know when, but it's going to happen," Scott Ritter said to a crowd of about 150 at the James A. Little Theater on Sunday night. Ritter described how the U.S. government might justify war with Iran in a scenario similar to the buildup to the Iraq invasion. He also argued that Iran wants a nuclear energy program, and not nuclear weapons. But the Bush administration, he said, refuses to believe Iran is telling the truth.

He predicted the matter will wind up before the U.N. Security Council, which will determine there is no evidence of a weapons program. Then, he said, John Bolton, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, "will deliver a speech that has already been written. It says America cannot allow Iran to threaten the United States and we must unilaterally defend ourselves. How do I know this? I've talked to Bolton's speechwriter," Ritter said.

Ritter also predicted the military strategy for war with Iran. First, American forces will bomb Iran. If Iranians don't overthrow the current government, as Bush hopes they will, Iran will probably attack Israel. Then, Ritter said, the United States will drop a nuclear bomb on Iran.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11812.htm

[Terran1212]

1. "Nuclear bomb on Iran"?

OK, Bush is not that crazy.

[Rocknrule]

4. Yes, he is

[EFerrari]

8. Tell that to Fallujah.

Hell, tell it to my phone company :(

[A Simple Game]

19. Seems to me that it would be political suicide for the

Republicans if they do start another war.

I know it isn't about Iran gaining nuclear weapons. For the life of me I can't figure out the motive, unless it is to stop Iran from switching to the Euro.

Did Poppy leave some unfinished business from Iran Contra days? Where's Ollie when you need him?

[IndyOp]

23. The GOP is not in danger of political suicide over *anything* so long as

they control the voting machines! They can use their new *more usable mini-nukes* on 6 different countries and the Amurkans will keep 're-electing' them.

:kick:

[John Q. Citizen]

28. The voting machines and the Corporate Media. One without the other

isn't enough.

[Tigress DEM]

29. Hey! Time OUT! We have been here and defeated that.

The timetable was last June. It was going to be an Iraq/Iran double-header. The administration had the press tied up and gagging on Gannon Spew. Then ONE actual credible report got out about how FAR away from being able to create a nuclear weapon Iran is (at that point 10 years) and people cooled their heels.

We dodged that bullit, but the real problem is Haliburton. They have gone to Iran to help them get their weapons program up to speed. They have been there awhile.

Our solution at this point is to find out what happened to the 17 separate criminal investigations that Haliburton was under awhile back. We have to make the public aware that our own VP's company that has made money in Iraq and on Katrina - without providing any real service is NOW aiding a potential enemy TO GIVE US AN EXCUSE TO GO TO WAR.

We are talking MIHOP - Made It Happen On Purpose.

IF IRAN HAS WEAPONS CAPABILITIES NOW, IT IS BECAUSE HALIBURTON HAS MADE IT POSSIBLE.

Spells TREASON to me friends. Spells SEIZE Haliburton's assets and investigate them ruthlessly.


www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=LEO20050805&articleId=806

<snip>

Halliburton Secretly Doing Business with Key Member of Iran’s Nuclear Team


by Jason Leopold

August 5, 2005
GlobalResearch.ca


Scandal-plagued Halliburton, the oil services company once headed by Vice President Dick was secretly working with one of Iran’s top nuclear scientists on natural gas related projects and, allegedly, selling the scientists’ oil company key components for a nuclear reactor, according to Halliburton sources with intimate knowledge of both companies’ business dealings.


Just last week a National Security Council report said Iran was a decade away from acquiring a nuclear bomb. That time frame could arguably have been significantly longer if Halliburton, which just reported a 284 percent increase in its fourth quarter profits due to its Iraq reconstruction contracts, was not actively providing the Iranian government with the financial means to build a nuclear weapon.


Now comes word that Halliburton, which has a long history of flouting U.S. law by conducting business with countries the Bush administration said has ties to terrorism, was working with Cyrus Nasseri, the vice chairman of Oriental Oil Kish, one of Iran’s largest private oil companies, on oil development projects in Tehran. Nasseri is also a key member of Iran’s nuclear development team.

[lumberjack_jeff]

30. Political suicide?

You'd think that allowing the biggest attack on our soil in modern history would be political suicide. Guess not.

You'd think that spying on americans would be political suicide.

You'd think that revealing the identity of spies for political retribution would be political suicide.

Ordering torture?
Stealing elections?
Taking bribes?

My advice: Buy gold and bottled water.

The Republicans are going to stick with what works. They are going to fuck up spectacularly. Then they will say that they meant to fuck up because it was the courageous thing to do and anyone who disagrees with them is a traitorous, unamerican bastard. The press will ask Howard Dean to the criticism that "some people say that the Democrats don't have the courage to fuck up". The DLC will say that fucking up is sometimes necessary, but they would have fucked up to a smaller degree.

One doesn't need to be the amazing Kreskin to figure this stuff out.

Forget about political suicide, americans apparently love riding with a drunk driver.

[yorkiemommie1]

2. he also said this here in SoCal

a couple of weeks ago.

sad.

[Howland Owl]

3. Ritter has no credibility

He promised all this a year ago.

[Terran1212]

6. And so did Seymour Hersh

Both predicted that US is already moving against Iran; but they have no way of knowing the exact timetable.

[EFerrari]

9. Welcome to DU

:hi:

[doublethink]

10. Bolton had to be installed in the U.N. ........

on a recess appointment, that was one delay. He's only there for 1 year, what else is he there for? You tell me? Ritter has much more credibility than a 3 post DU'er with such a stonewall comment. Wanna keep discussing it? Peace. :)

[Clara T]

14. Ritter's track record

is unfortunately quite good though his predictions on timetables to be sure aren't as good.

I think it a foregone conclusion that there will be aerial bombings on some Irani facilities. The rhetoric from the US corporate media will be "nuclear facilities" and some of that will occur but there will also be an assault upon the facilities that affect Iran's basic infrastructure- Water, Electricity etc..- so as to create conditions to destabilize the country and prmote internal uprisings.

This will be the initial maneuver.

When referring to nuclear weapons it is important to realize that now there are a range of weapons that fall under that rubric.

These could just be Big Threats to convince Iran to toe the line and reconsider the way they market and sell their energy supplies.

If Iran does not make a sea change in "Attitude" there will definitely be hot aggression of some form against the people of Iran.

When you begin to hear "We have nothing against the people of Iran" beware.

[ItsTheMediaStupid]

20. He was right on regarding Iraq

He's got a lot more credibility than BushCo or a newbie questioning his credibility.

[immoderate]

22. Hi and welcome. But where did you go?

What else did Ritter get wrong? Why was he swiftboated?

Does Saddam have weapons hidden in his beard?

--IMM

[newyawker99]

37. Hi Howland Owl!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[RazzleDazzle]

39. And you do?

I see.

[Windy]

5. Conplan 8022 - Nuclear option is being considered.

Read the Washington post article.

washingtonpost.com
Not Just A Last Resort?
A Global Strike Plan, With a Nuclear Option

By William Arkin
Post
Sunday, May 15, 2005; B01



Early last summer, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld approved a top secret "Interim Global Strike Alert Order" directing the military to assume and maintain readiness to attack hostile countries that are developing weapons of mass destruction, specifically Iran and North Korea.

Two months later, Lt. Gen. Bruce Carlson, commander of the 8th Air Force, told a reporter that his fleet of B-2 and B-52 bombers had changed its way of operating so that it could be ready to carry out such missions. "We're now at the point where we are essentially on alert," Carlson said in an interview with the Shreveport (La.) Times. "We have the capacity to plan and execute global strikes." Carlson said his forces were the U.S. Strategic Command's "focal point for global strike" and could execute an attack "in half a day or less."

In the secret world of military planning, global strike has become the term of art to describe a specific preemptive attack. When military officials refer to global strike, they stress its conventional elements. Surprisingly, however, global strike also includes a nuclear option, which runs counter to traditional U.S. notions about the defensive role of nuclear weapons.

The official U.S. position on the use of nuclear weapons has not changed. Since the end of the Cold War, the United States has taken steps to de-emphasize the importance of its nuclear arsenal. The Bush administration has said it remains committed to reducing our nuclear stockpile while keeping a credible deterrent against other nuclear powers. Administration and military officials have stressed this continuity in testimony over the past several years before various congressional committees.

But a confluence of events, beginning with the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks and the president's forthright commitment to the idea of preemptive action to prevent future attacks, has set in motion a process that has led to a fundamental change in how the U.S. military might respond to certain possible threats. Understanding how we got to this point, and what it might mean for U.S. policy, is particularly important now -- with the renewed focus last week on Iran's nuclear intentions and on speculation that North Korea is ready to conduct its first test of a nuclear weapon.

Global strike has become one of the core missions for the Omaha-based Strategic Command, or Stratcom. Once, Stratcom oversaw only the nation's nuclear forces; now it has responsibility for overseeing a global strike plan with both conventional and nuclear options. President Bush spelled out the definition of "full-spectrum" global strike in a January 2003 classified directive, describing it as "a capability to deliver rapid, extended range, precision kinetic (nuclear and conventional) and non-kinetic (elements of space and information operations) effects in support of theater and national objectives."

This blurring of the nuclear/conventional line, wittingly or unwittingly, could heighten the risk that the nuclear option will be used. Exhibit A may be the Stratcom contingency plan for dealing with "imminent" threats from countries such as North Korea or Iran, formally known as CONPLAN 8022-02.

CONPLAN 8022 is different from other war plans in that it posits a small-scale operation and no "boots on the ground." The typical war plan encompasses an amalgam of forces -- air, ground, sea -- and takes into account the logistics and political dimensions needed to sustain those forces in protracted operations. All these elements generally require significant lead time to be effective. (Existing Pentagon war plans, developed for specific regions or "theaters," are essentially defensive responses to invasions or attacks. The global strike plan is offensive, triggered by the perception of an imminent threat and carried out by presidential order.)

More at:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/14/AR2005051400071.html

[Terran1212]

7. I've seen stuff like that before but..

It's tough to tell where these people really stand. They are a deceptive group of people.

[SammyBlue]

11. 4 more wars!!!! 4 more wars!!!! 4 more wars!!!!

[Disturbed]

15. Consequences of an attack upon Iran?

As with Iraq, the consequences are mostly hidden from the public.

[Journeyman]

12. "Then, Ritter said, the United States will drop a nuclear bomb on Iran" .

A hallmark of enduring genius is to realize that we will still live amongst the same people 50 . . . 100 . . . 200 years from now, and to act today in the knowledge that present conduct will influence attitudes and behaviors countless years in the future. The truly prescient recognize how imperfectly they perceive reality and always act circumspectly.

[SammyBlue]

27. My heart just skipped a beat.

Oh my G-d!!!

[Ksec]

13. Nothing stops the WarMachine

Nothing.

Weve made the military industrial complex , the Man.

The Man cant be stopped. Hes hungry for more billions.

[Bluerthanblue]

16. PLEASE- read "Beware the Iran of March" if this idea

disturbs you ===

Hope you don't mind if I link you to it here-


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x353238

[Disturbed]

17. Possible consequences of an attack upon Iran.

http://iran-persia.blogspot.com/2006/01/wayne-madsen-reports-on-consequences.html

[Clara T]

24. Thanks for that

I guess. Such fun stuff huh? This is all quite par for the course as far as US involvement in the region. A short history of Mossadeghs Iranian Gov't overthrow in 1953 by the CIA gives a clear glimpse of how deeply the National Security State goes and also why this region is imperative to US interests and what lengths (depths?) they'll go to prevent anyone in that region from controlling their own resources.

This part in the excerpted article seems to be quite clear and important:
"The Iranians can achieve this in many ways, even if its nuke facilities are blasted to smithereens. Think of a few submerged oil tankers blocking oil traffic to the rest of the world? There will be no room for environmental cries here; they will drowned out by the shrills of the global economy, choked right at the straits.

Tehran may call this a "military blunder," which, incidentally is the title of a History Channel program on the controversial shooting down of an Iran Air Airbus A300 on July 3, 1988, by the USS Vincennes, exactly at the same spot. Close to 300 people died. If controversy still dogs that incident today, another mission creep in the middle east would flame justifications for any sort of reprisal.

Iran's military retaliation would only need to disrupt oil supply, not winning battles per se. It has other arsenals at its disposal to achieve this target. In this game of brinkmanship, tit for tat verbal provocations between Washington (and Tel Aviv) and Tehran is enough to rattle stock market nerves, and major industries are undoubtedly lobbying the White House right now to go easy with the rhetoric. Only in this era of Peak Oil can verbal threats be used so effectively as a weapon."

http://www.evworld.com/view.cfm?section=article&storyid=972

[Dunvegan]

18. Seems to me the infamous cartoon riots would be the perfect reason...

...if we were in all-out invasion mode...that the Administration would give for putting Moslem-Americans in Halliburton-KBR internment camps.

This is (I hope) a totally hysterical muttering.

[bleever]

31. The link in your sig line isn't active.

I wanted to check it out.

?

[The Backlash Cometh]

21. Which explains why Bolton is getting nominated for a Nobel for

claiming there are nukes in Iran. Puhlease. This isn't even challenging any more.

[SnoopDog]

25. Drop a Nuke...that would be the end of the world as we know it.

[gordianot]

26. We know who may have authorized war in Iraq. Question?????

Who pray tell has authorized war in Iran?

[sofa king]

32. The plan is definitely in the books.

See, e.g., OPLAN 1002-04:

OPLAN 1002-04 has probably been revised to reflect the American occupation of Iraq, and the power projection opportunities this provides against Iran. The Zagros Mountains form a natural pallisade defending Iran from incursions from Iraq. The Iranian province of Khuzestan is the one large piece of flat Iranian terrain to the west of the Zagros Mountains. American heavy forces could swiftly occupy Khuzestan, and in doing so seize control of most of Iran's oil resources, and non-trivial portions of the country's water supply and electrical generating capacity.

We also have a pretty decent idea of where American forces must be staged in order to invade Khuzestan provice, because that's exactly where Iraq aimed when they invaded Iran in the 1980s. One of the axes from which they launched their invasion was the Shatt-al-Arab. This area is currently under British occupation.

Want a timetable for the invasion of Iran? It seems pretty simple to me. Watch for the British to turn Basra over to the Americans. We'll be ready to roll into Iran within a month or so after that. The fall and winter months are the best months to invade, particularly after November, for obvious reasons.

Jack Straw hinted last week that the Brits would be leaving Basra "within the next twelve months."

There's your timetable.

[Clara T]

34. OPLAN 1002-04 - The Khuzestan Gambit?

OPLAN 1002 Defense of the Arabian Peninsula

OPLAN 1002-04 - The Khuzestan Gambit?

Forward presence of US forces in Iraq cements US credibility, strengthens deterrence, and facilitates transition from peace to war. Although ground forces provide the bulk of the long-term forward presence in Iraq, access to ports and airfields is essential to project other forces into the area. The continued presence of US forces in Iraq sends a strong visible message of the US commitment to defend this region. Presence is enhanced through on-going military-to-military interaction, cooperative defense measures, and prepositioning of equipment and supplies critical to US responsiveness and warfighting flexibility.

<snip>

OPLAN 1002-04 has probably been revised to reflect the American occupation of Iraq, and the power projection opportunities this provides against Iran. The Zagros Mountains form a natural pallisade defending Iran from incursions from Iraq. The Iranian province of Khuzestan is the one large piece of flat Iranian terrain to the west of the Zagros Mountains. American heavy forces could swiftly occupy Khuzestan, and in doing so seize control of most of Iran's oil resources, and non-trivial portions of the country's water supply and electrical generating capacity.



Khuzestan is the most important pivot of Iran's economy. The existence of such huge resources as oil, gas and water in Khuzestan have changed the economic appearance of Iran. Oil first erupted from a well in the Massjed e Soleyman area, located in the southern Khuzestan province.



The vast majority of Iran's crude oil reserves are located in giant onshore fields in the southwestern Khuzestan region near the Iraqi border and the Persian Gulf. Iran has 32 producing oil fields, of which 25 are onshore and 7 offshore. Major onshore fields include the following: Ahwaz-Asmari (700,000 bbl/d); Bangestan (around 245,000 bbl/d current production, with plans to increase to 550,000 bbl/d), Marun (520,000 bbl/d), Gachsaran (560,000 bbl/d), Agha Jari (200,000 bbl/d), Karanj-Parsi (200,000 bbl/d); Rag-e-Safid (180,000 bbl/d); Bibi Hakimeh (130,000 bbl/d), and Pazanan (70,000 bbl/d). Major offshore fields include: Dorood (130,000 bbl/d); Salman (130,000 bbl/d); Abuzar (125,000 bbl/d); Sirri A&E (95,000 bbl/d); and Soroush/Nowruz (60,000 bbl/d).
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/oplan-1002.htm

[doublethink]

36. Best post in this thread, thanks Clara T.

"The Iranian province of Khuzestan is the one large piece of flat Iranian terrain" -snip-

90% of Iranian oil reserves on land are located in Khuzestan. Khuzestan is about 1/4 the size of 'Iraq' ...... and on the southwest border of Iraq, and on the Persian Gulf. All I believe the Bush Regime wants to control in Iran is this region. That would take an assault much like the initial invasion of Iraq, over flat Land to secure these oil fields. When the Iranian Oil Bourse is about to go online March 20th ... the fervor for war will be 24/7 news coverage. Peace.

[Clara T]

38. That March 20th date is interesting

It is the beginning of the Iranian New Year, the day Iran is scheduled to begin selling oil in Euros and the vernal equinox.

I'm not one to fix importance to these coincidental dates but it is worth noting.

[Nothing Without Hope]

33. ***earlier thread on this important article:

(It's one of those threads with unfortunate titles - you don't know what it is until you open the thread)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x351690
thread title (2-7-06 GD): Anyone see the latest from Scott Ritter ?- OMG
(My summary: War with Iran is already planned, Bolton’s speechwriter already has been working on a declaration of unilateral attack for “defense.” If Iran then attacks Israel, US will nuclear-bomb Iran, Ritter says.)

[Swamp Rat]

35. kick and recommended

:rofl: