British Preparing For Possible U.S. ATTACK On IRAN

[Segami]

:smoke:



" Britain's armed forces are stepping up their contingency planning for potential military action against Iran amid mounting concern about Tehran's nuclear enrichment programme, the Guardian has learned. The Ministry of Defence believes the US may decide to fast-forward plans for targeted missile strikes at some key Iranian facilities. British officials say that if Washington presses ahead it will seek, and receive, UK military help for any mission, despite some deep reservations within the coalition government.



In anticipation of a potential attack, British military planners are examining where best to deploy Royal Navy ships and submarines equipped with Tomahawk cruise missiles over the coming months as part of what would be an air and sea campaign. They also believe the US would ask permission to launch attacks from Diego Garcia, the British Indian ocean territory, which the Americans have used previously for conflicts in the Middle East. The Guardian has spoken to a number of Whitehall and defence officials over recent weeks who said Iran was once again becoming the focus of diplomatic concern after the revolution in Libya.



They made clear that Barack Obama, has no wish to embark on a new and provocative military venture before next November's presidential election. But they warned the calculations could change because of mounting anxiety over intelligence gathered by western agencies, and the more belligerent posture that Iran appears to have been taking. Hawks in the US are likely to seize on next week's report from the International Atomic Energy Agency, which is expected to provide fresh evidence of a possible nuclear weapons programme in Iran.



The Guardian has been told that the IAEA's bulletin could be "a game changer" which will provide unprecedented details of the research and experiments being undertaken by the regime. One senior Whitehall official said Iran had proved "surprisingly resilient" in the face of sanctions, and sophisticated attempts by the west to cripple its nuclear enrichment programme had been less successful than first thought. He said Iran appeared to be "newly aggressive, and we are not quite sure why", citing three recent assassination plots on foreign soil that the intelligence agencies say were coordinated by elements in Tehran.:tinfoilhat:



cont'


http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/02/uk-military-iran-attack-nuclear


.

[RoccoR5955]

1. If the US attacks Iran

there will also be a war at home for them to worry about.

[Ralph Spoilsport]

9. you mean you wouldn't

support your president's decision to go to war?

I'm not so sure I would either, given the reasons recent presidents have given for going to war...

Of course a nuclear capable Iran is a pretty scary thought too.

*sigh*

Where's my time machine when I need it? The 19th century looks pretty good about now.

[sabrina 1]

19. No, and I believe that would end his chances of winning

which may be why certain elements on the right will put pressure on him to do it. It's a win/win situation for them, he gets to do the dirty work, while they get what they want.

If he caves in to those tactics, he doesn't belong in the WH. A war with Iran would destroy this country. What has not been destroyed already. OBL's dream come true, get the US engaged in War and drain their finances, weaken their military and end their role as the sole Superpower.

I believe whoever is pushing for this is a traitor to the US.

[Ralph Spoilsport]

25. there are hawks in both parties...

but i share your disgust with the constant bloodletting and the theft of our prosperity in order to grow our "empire". I'd much rather see a fleet of our helicopters and an invasion force violate the borders of some third world nation, set up a protective perimeter, build a water treatment plant, a school and a hospital and leave. wouldn't
THAT be worth a few billion?

[Fantastic Anarchist]

21. No, I wouldn't support the president's decision to go to war.

And Iran having civilian (or military nuclear capability) is their concern. Not ours. If they can't have them, then we need to get rid of ours (and so does the UK and Israel). Otherwise, we need to shut the fuck up.

[Ralph Spoilsport]

28. I have neighnors ...

some of them are sane, rational people. The family three houses down, however, are lunatics and have been known to vandalize property, leave broken bourbon bottles in the street and their kids are bullies...if I could prevent these idiots from owning firearms and drivers permits, I'd do it.

this isn;t really an apples to apples comparison. But then, I'd much rather live in Iran than N/ Korea, so there is obviously an agenda other than just keeping nuclear weapons out of the hands of the oddballs

[RoccoR5955]

37. How about keeping them out of the hands of the likes of

George W. Bush, who had them for 8 long years?
Anyone who uses a nuke, knows that s/he will have one coming down oh his/her head shortly thereafter.
Why do you think none have been used since the first ones have?

[Fantastic Anarchist]

44. As far as I know, in your comparison, it is we, the U.S. ...

It is we, the U.S. that are like the vandals in your metaphor.

[UTUSN]

2. Oh, I thought it was Israel doing it n/t

[Kaleko]

32. Israel has been clamoring for war with Iran but so does Saudi Arabia

according to this latest article:

http://www.truth-out.org/new-and-frightening-stuxnet/1320167469

US and Israeli Tech Teams Develop "Malworm" to Take Down Iran's Computer Software

Several senior US intelligence officials confirmed large contingency planning drills for an intervention if Israel attacked Iran. Planning for such an intervention was seen as "pretty far advanced," a US official said in July.

These officials reported they were resisting such notions with all the force they could. But one cautioned, "This is no drill."

But matters became more complicated when the FBI uncovered an Iranian terrorist operation targeted in Washington, DC, that could have supported long-time American hard liners as well as Israeli supporters of some type of military attack on Iran.

A compounding factor is the Saudi position - telling President Obama the Saudis strongly support a military campaign against Iran. Saudi officials are now signaling the Israelis that Saudi King Abd'allah is in favor of a strike on Iran.

[Poll_Blind]

3. Oh! I found out we could do it for under a billion! Then we could afford to buy OURSELVES flowers!

:puke:

Oh, and by the way: I don't want to be dragged into any preemptive wars for Israel. Let them get off their own asses and start WW III, themselves.

PB

[Segami]

4. Its amazing how fast they seem to find billions of dollars just laying around for endless wars.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

23. Was wondering the same thing.

Universal health care? No, it's not in the budget.

A war that could potentially end mankind? Yes, we have plenty of money for that.

[Poll_Blind]

38. Funny, isn't it? And if the same requests was, say, for dental exams it's all...

..sad faces and turned-out pockets from Unka Sam.

PB

[Leopolds Ghost]

49. This war could cost BILLIONS like high speed rail. So clearly it won't happen.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

24. The oil revenues will pay for Afghanistan, Iraq as well as Iran. Another WTF moment in

American history.

[SomethingFishy]

5. "mounting anxiety over intelligence gathered by western agencies"

Lemme guess.. the same "intelligence" agencies that warned us that Iraq had WMD's and the smoking gun would be a mushroom cloud.

[Segami]

11. Ya right! Actually, Iraq's WMD will finally be found hiding somewhere in Iran, so they might claim..

[sabrina 1]

43. And the same ones who just discovered Syria's

'nuclear program'. The world is laughing at the latest garbage excuses they are coming up with to try to justify their criminal wars on the countries listed by the PNAC. As if the world doesn't know. Someone, some rational sane country needs to stop this. Libya was on that list also, and it looks like they want to speed things up.

[sixmile]

6. Turn the propaganda machines back on!

Our soldiers need somewhere to go when they leave Iraq. Why not head over to the neighbors for a even bloodier war based on ginned up intelligence?

The 'Dodgy Dossier' came out of Britain, so I have zero confidence in what they call the truth.

[RKP5637]

10. Fox will be cranking up the war dumbs, getting their zombies all stoked up. n/t

[RKP5637]

7. This will not go easy, austerity for America. All we need, another war, more

violence, more destruction, more deaths.

[sixmile]

12. Iran is better prepared than Iraq for a war, too

Make no mistake. No matter how much the Iranian people want out from under the theocracy, they will defend their country against invaders.

No one is asking for company.

[global1]

26. What Do We Know About Iran's Army/Navy/Air Force?......

Just how prepared are they and will the Iranian government get the support of the Iranian people?

[laylah]

8. God/dess forgive me...

until Coup 2000, "hate" was NOT a part of my vocabulary. It saddens me it has now become a regular part of it...I HATE these people!

[Ralph Spoilsport]

13. I would like to see some REAL proof

before we go off on another killing spree

[sixmile]

15. You will be baffled with bullshit

and distracted by shiny objects.

[Ralph Spoilsport]

17. Bullshit is not baffling in the least...

Now shiny objects, on the other hand, do tend to distract me.

[TheMadMonk]

35. You mean the tetrahedral carbon alotrope kind? /nt

[MedleyMisty]

14. Let them try

We will shut down the whole motherfucking country if they start another war while telling us that there isn't enough money for us to live decent lives.

[yodermon]

16. imagine #OWS's response to a FUCKING WAR WITH IRAN.

news flash: "Iran" would have to s******-bomb OWS in all cities simultaneously ... otherwise ows would shut down the fucking world.
hope everyone gets my meaning here.

[Ralph Spoilsport]

18. you over-estimate the power of ows...

critical mass hasn't been achieved yet. too many of our citizens don't yet understand what the protests here really mean...i do fear that our government will try to provide a distraction...yet another distraction...from our domestic discontent. it's a shame that these distractions involve explosives and bloodshed.

[KamaAina]

47. The F'ING WAR WITH IRAN would be a desperation response to #OWS.

No time for protesting! Gotta rally 'round the flag, everyone, even you dirty hippies! Don't you know we're at war? :sarcasm: :scared:

[guyton]

20. mounting anxiety!

I think the mounting anxiety is from our "military industrial complex" worried that their steady steam of megabucks from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan might just be winding down ...

Btw, I don't recall "fear" as being a valid reason for an invasion. Just look what "fear of WMD's" got us in Iraq.

Not sure? Consider Condi Rice's assertion that we should have invaded the USSR back at the start of the Cold War. Think that really would have been a good idea?

[Ralph Spoilsport]

31. would've been a really bad idea...

on the ground, given what we had versus what they could field we qould've had our asses handed to us and unless we resorted to nukes...they'd have owned western europe

[femrap]

22. Shit, everyone has

nukes. What is one more? I certainly don't want to go to war over this. Is this some kind of new JOBS PROGRAM?

[Ralph Spoilsport]

34. what is one more? Golly...

ONE nuke and Hiroshima...ask them what one nuke means.

[femrap]

45. Another newbie...

you wanna go to war over Iran 'possibly' having a nuke program. The world's nations already have enough nukes to blow the planet off its axis.

Maybe you can enlist and go fight Iranians who want to have nukes just like India, China, Israel, Pakistan and others.

Maybe you think you can end the MIC all by yourself.

Go yak at someone else.

[ellisonz]

27. We are not attacking Iran...

...no one is starting a war in the Persian Gulf. It would be disaster for all involved.

[RagAss]

29. Agreed.

[whatchamacallit]

36. Unless there's another "new pearl harbor"

Watch for the false flag.

[Segami]

41. " Israel tests 'Iran missile' amid WAR Talk "

" TEL AVIV, Israel, Nov. 2 (UPI) -- Israel has test-fired a ballistic missile believed to be a nuclear-capable Jericho-3 and the type of weapon that could be used in any assault on Iran's nuclear program.


The launch gave an added urgency to a swirling national debate that Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu is pushing his Cabinet to support a pre-emptive strike against Iran despite stern opposition from many in Israel's defense establishment and from the United States.


The liberal daily Haaretz reported that opponents of military action hold "a small advantage" in the Cabinet.


But it cautioned that Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak recently won over Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, who, despite being a fiery ultra-right-winger, had objected to attacking Iran. Against this backdrop, the missile test Wednesday at the Palmachim air base south of Tel Aviv, confirmed by the Defense Ministry, took on added significance.


- Many Western military analysts argue that with winter closing in an air force assault on Iran would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, because thick clouds would obscure the targets. In those conditions, Jericho missiles, armed with high-explosive warheads and accurate to within a few yards, would seem to be a preferable option to more vulnerable aircraft that require at least two in-flight refuelings for such an operation.



- U.S. analysts estimated in a 2009 study it would take 42 Jerichos to knock out Iran's main, heavily defended nuclear facilities. These include the uranium enrichment centers and Natanz and Fordo, near the holy city of Qom south of Tehran, the heavy water reactor at Arak to the southwest and the uranium conversion plant at Isfahan further south.


- The debate over pre-emptive strikes against Iran has been simmering for some time but mostly within the corridors of power.



- Dagan claimed that he and others, including Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi, prevented Netanyahu and Barak, a former chief of staff, from unleashing pre-emptive strikes. But the debate took another dramatic turn Saturday when veteran commentator Nahum Barnea wrote in the Yediot Ahronot daily suggesting that Netanyahu and Barak may have decided, without seeking the approval of other Cabinet ministers, to hit Iran's nuclear infrastructure.



Strategic Affairs Minister Moshe Yaalon, a former chief of Mossad, said he preferred a U.S. attack on Iran to a unilateral Israeli one as a last resort.





cont'

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/Special/2011/11/02/Israel-tests-Iran-missile-amid-war-talk/UPI-56621320256848/


.

[ellisonz]

48. Cooler heads will prevail.

Simply building the weapons does not mean they will be used. For example, there have been no nuclear weapons used since 1945 but they are still in many nations arsenals.

[lovuian]

30. They want us in WWIII and control of all the rebel states

The real reason the troops are pulled from Iraq is because of the radioactive fallout which will hit all of the Mideast as well as India and China

[Ralph Spoilsport]

33. um...no

we aren't talking about all that much fallout if we wanted to destroy Iran. And besides, when has the DOD cared all that much about exposing their employees to radioactivity, chemical agents and horror?

[A-Schwarzenegger]

42. "...we aren't talking about all that much fallout if we wanted to destroy Iran."

Whew, that's a relief.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

39. Curveball!

Horseshit!

[Fire Walk With Me]

40. Very Very Bad.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

46. I'm more worried, frankly, about Israel attacking Iran

than about the US attacking Iran under President Obama. Short of Iran actually attacking the US and/or Israel, I don't see President Obama ordering a military operation against Iran. Even Netenyahu has to realize that strikes on Iran are not going to go unanswered and I'm sure President Obama definitely understands this and will strive to keep this from happening. If a Republican (other than Ron Paul) gets back into the WH in 2013, all bets are off, of course. If Cain became POTUS, I'd be worrying more about him attacking China for having nukes (since the 1960's).