Thread: US 'Iran attack plans' revealed

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6376639.stm

US 'Iran attack plans' revealed
2/20/07

USS John C Stennis is being deployed to the Persian Gulf
US contingency plans for air strikes on Iran extend beyond nuclear sites and include most of the country's military infrastructure, the BBC has learned.

It is understood that any such attack - if ordered - would target Iranian air bases, naval bases, missile facilities and command-and-control centres.

The US insists it is not planning to attack, and is trying to persuade Tehran to stop uranium enrichment.

The UN has urged Iran to stop the programme or face economic sanctions.

But diplomatic sources have told the BBC that as a fallback plan, senior officials at Central Command in Florida have already selected their target sets inside Iran.

That list includes Iran's uranium enrichment plant at Natanz. Facilities at Isfahan, Arak and Bushehr are also on the target list, the sources say.

Two triggers

BBC security correspondent Frank Gardner says the trigger for such an attack reportedly includes any confirmation that Iran was developing a nuclear weapon - which it denies.

The Natanz plant is buried under concrete, metal and earth
Alternatively, our correspondent adds, a high-casualty attack on US forces in neighbouring Iraq could also trigger a bombing campaign if it were traced directly back to Tehran.

Long range B2 stealth bombers would drop so-called "bunker-busting" bombs in an effort to penetrate the Natanz site, which is buried some 25m (27 yards) underground.

The BBC's Tehran correspondent Frances Harrison says the news that there are now two possible triggers for an attack is a concern to Iranians.

Authorities insist there is no cause for alarm but ordinary people are now becoming a little worried, she says.

Deadline

Earlier this month US officers in Iraq said they had evidence Iran was providing weapons to Iraqi Shia militias. However the most senior US military officer later cast doubt on this, saying that they only had proof that weapons "made in Iran" were being used in Iraq.

Gen Peter Pace, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, said he did not know that the Iranian government "clearly knows or is complicit" in this.

At the time, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said the accusations were "excuses to prolong the stay" of US forces in Iraq.

Middle East analysts have recently voiced their fears of catastrophic consequences for any such US attack on Iran.

Britain's previous ambassador to Tehran, Sir Richard Dalton, told the BBC it would backfire badly by probably encouraging the Iranian government to develop a nuclear weapon in the long term.

Last year Iran resumed uranium enrichment - a process that can make fuel for power stations or, if greatly enriched, material for a nuclear bomb.

Tehran insists its programme is for civil use only, but Western countries suspect Iran is trying to build nuclear weapons.

The UN Security Council has called on Iran to suspend its enrichment of uranium by 21 February.

If it does not, and if the International Atomic Energy Agency confirms this, the resolution says that further economic sanctions will be considered.

Why would one of the most energy-rich nations in the world need nuclear power plants? This notion that the nuclear program is for anything BUT weapons is insulting to one's intelligence.

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost[quote

]Why would one of the most energy-rich nations in the world need nuclear power plants? This notion that the nuclear program is for anything BUT weapons is insulting to one's intelligence.

[/quote]

How do you know for sure that Iran is one of the "most energy-rich nations"?
With the threat from Israel against Iran, don't you think Iran has the right to a nudlear program to protect it's self from other nation who have nuclear power and is a threat to them?
Our excuse to go after Iran is that they are a threat to us. We invade and destroy any country we remotely think is a threat to us. Are we making Iran a threat?

The first thing - of what we do know, and it's amazing how many Americans seem to skate over this - the first nuclear reactor given to Iran was given by the United States in 1967 - a five-megawatt trigger reactor, research reactor, under the Eisenhower Atoms for Peace Program. Still operated ... The other thing that Americans forget is that in 1974, the shah announced a policy of 23,000 megawatts of nuclear energy in Iraq. The US reaction? [Former US national security adviser and secretary of state] Henry Kissinger beat down the door to be sure that two US constructors, General Electric and Westinghouse, had a preferred position in selling those reactors. We did not say, "it's a stupid idea, why would you want to do that when you are flaring gas and you have immense oil reserves?" We said, "That is very interesting; it's an example of how the Iranian economy is moving and becoming modern." Imagine in Iranian ears how it sounds now when we denigrate that capacity. They remember. We were sellers of nuclear reactors and wanted to be sellers of nuclear reactors to the shah.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GH24Ak02.html


Iran's need for nuclear engagement
By Kewmars Bozorgmehr

Speaking Freely is an Asia Times Online feature that allows guest writers to have their say. Please click here if you are interested in contributing.

Two issues in their relations with Iran, both perceived by many to be inextricably linked, sound alarm bells in Europe and the United States: nuclear energy and the bomb.

The pursuit of nuclear power in the presence of ample hydrocarbon reserves is considered foolish at best, so when Iranians speak of reactors for peaceful uses most Western experts dismiss the notion as an example of putting prestige before practicality. More ominously, the US and others regard any interest in the nuclear field to be a precursor to a sinister weapons program. After all, here is the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries' second-biggest exporter with enough oil and gas to last a century or more digging in its heels to gain access to the forbidden technology. "Why"? officials in Washington and US representatives at the International Atomic Energy Agency enjoy asking. "Why nuclear energy when the country is swimming in oil?"
Yet that line of reasoning is not always compelling, at least from Tehran's perspective. Access to reliable sources of oil and gas, Iranians say, has not dissuaded others from developing nuclear technology for power generation. The US, among the top three global oil producers, operates over 100 nuclear power stations; Russia, which sits on the world's largest gas reserves and is the second-biggest oil exporter, has 30. At last count there were 440 commercial reactors in 31 countries and a further 284 research reactors in operation in 56 countries.
Thirty years ago, Iran had already embarked on an ambitious nuclear power generation program comprising some 20 reactors. By the time of the Islamic revolution in 1979, when construction was halted, eight plants had been approved and work on the first reactor in Bushehr was well underway. In those days, far from s******ing at "taking coals to Newcastle", Western governments and firms were beating down the doors to gain a slice of lucrative contracts.
Iranians claim the arguments in favor of the nuclear option, even for a major oil producer, are straightforward. Except for brief periods of political uncertainty, they say, crude oil as a fuel remains relatively cheap, though non-replaceable commodity. Production of oil and gas derivatives, on the other hand, leads to substantial added value. It also helps to establish a range of downstream industries that will create much-needed employment for a young and growing work force. The exploitation of nuclear energy simply makes it possible to divert crude oil into areas that are more profitable. They would also argue that, as a matter of principle, Iran is entitled to establish a peaceful nuclear industry if it so chooses and, if need be, to call on the cooperation of others in doing so, as provided for under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
Much of the available data tend to support Tehran's case. Iran's own requirements for oil have doubled in recent years, forcing the industry to siphon off nearly 1.5 million barrels per day from vital exports to meet domestic needs. Within 10 years, local demand will absorb nearly all of the production, leaving little or nothing for export. Gas supplies, though expanding rapidly, still account for only about half of energy consumption. Meanwhile, electricity production of 34,000 megawatts per year already outstrips the world average by a wide margin and demand is growing at between 7-8% annually, a rate that stretches new investment facilities to the limit.

Roughly 13% of the national capacity is from hydroelectric power, which has been steadily developed since the late 1950s by harnessing the country's river waters. Over 100 new dam projects, many having power generation potential, are under construction or on the drawing board. A more modest amount of electricity is expected to be generated from minor rivers for local and community consumption. In addition, plans are at an advanced stage to produce 250 megawatts of wind power, while solar and thermal power plants are also being considered. Aside from limited reserves of coal, which is used mainly by the steel industry, nuclear power remains the only untapped and viable alternative.

However, the real issue in the ongoing tussle is Western suspicions that Iran is developing the bomb, despite repeated and vigorous Iranian denials. The NPT, the main instrument the West has relied on to prevent an Iranian "breakout", aims to restrict the spread of nuclear weapons to those countries that had acquired them prior to 1968. Its success, though less than complete, has been effective enough to avoid the dire predictions of the 1960s, when 30-50 states were seen joining the nuclear club within a decade or two.

When Iran signed the NPT in 1968, only the Soviet Union, a superpower, possessed nuclear weapons in the region. At that time even the Chinese had managed to build a mere nuclear "device", as the Central Intelligence Agency liked to describe Beijing's crude early efforts.

Today, however, the region is rife with such weaponry, with China, India, Israel and Pakistan as well as Russia maintaining arsenals of varying destructive power. Several former Soviet republics also have access to weapons technology, if not the actual hardware and means of delivery. It is this incongruity and the West's open disregard of Iran's security fears that rankle Tehran.

Why, they ask, is their country being singled out for undue attention when non-proliferation has clearly failed (or, as some would darkly suggest, has been allowed to fail) in the case of India, Israel and Pakistan? It should come as no surprise that Tehran accuses the West of using the NPT simply as an anti-Iranian mechanism. In describing the mindset of the West, indeed of all nuclear-capable countries, one recent column in the English-language daily Iran News commented: "We have nuclear weapons but you can't have any. If you try to acquire them we will nuke you. But if you don't, you're at our mercy anyway. Some catch, that NPT."

Furthermore, Tehran points to the string of military bases the US has established in recent years that virtually surround Iran from the Caucasus, across the Caspian Sea to Central Asia, Afghanistan, the Persian Gulf and Iraq, linking up with existing North Atlantic Treaty Organization facilities in Turkey to complete the encirclement. Given the current level of US animosity, any government in Tehran entrusted with providing adequate security against possible foreign incursions could be open to accusations of negligence or worse.
In the wake of the disastrous invasion of Iraq, even Washington hawks may be less inclined to mount another military campaign in the Middle East in the near term. The only sensible policy, it seems, would be one of engaging Iran in serious dialogue to allay its legitimate security concerns, but also to gain its cooperation where Western interests are at stake. The European Union is committed to pursue such a course, and the US should reconsider its 25 years of hostility and join the process.

It is said that America has not so much a policy as an attitude towards Iran. Perhaps a change of direction would be less painful than at first it might appear.

Originally Posted by dyehard39

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost[quote

]Why would one of the most energy-rich nations in the world need nuclear power plants? This notion that the nuclear program is for anything BUT weapons is insulting to one's intelligence.

How do you know for sure that Iran is one of the "most energy-rich nations"?
With the threat from Israel against Iran, don't you think Iran has the right to a nudlear program to protect it's self from other nation who have nuclear power and is a threat to them?
Our excuse to go after Iran is that they are a threat to us. We invade and destroy any country we remotely think is a threat to us. Are we making Iran a threat?

[/quote]

I'm sorry but this question is just too funny.

Welllllllll, that's how much OIL that they possess
Ummmm, scientifically speaking, according to all that is holy in allah land and beyond..........THEY HAVE A TON OF OIL- perhaps more than saudi arabia, lol.

I apologize beforehand but really, DYE......that was just plain comical.

Originally Posted by 2ndamendsis

Originally Posted by dyehard39

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost[quote

]Why would one of the most energy-rich nations in the world need nuclear power plants? This notion that the nuclear program is for anything BUT weapons is insulting to one's intelligence.

How do you know for sure that Iran is one of the "most energy-rich nations"?
With the threat from Israel against Iran, don't you think Iran has the right to a nudlear program to protect it's self from other nation who have nuclear power and is a threat to them?
Our excuse to go after Iran is that they are a threat to us. We invade and destroy any country we remotely think is a threat to us. Are we making Iran a threat?

Originally Posted by 2ndamendsis

I'm sorry but this question is just too funny.

Welllllllll, that's how much OIL that they possess
Ummmm, scientifically speaking, according to all that is holy in allah land and beyond..........THEY HAVE A TON OF OIL- perhaps more than saudi arabia, lol.

I apologize beforehand but really, DYE......that was just plain comical.

Yeah, you beat me to it. Dyehard was not content to press the limits of absurdity. He finally just opened his little parasol and dove off the cliff into the bottomless chasm of the farcical.

And, CROCKET
forgot to add that all one has to do is poke a little hole in the ground with a little finger and POW! Up comes that OIL

And with China & Russia having deep ties with Iran, above & under the table, the die is cast.

Throw in those islamic nutjobs pulling the strings - PROPHECY you know- and this is a time bomb waiting to go off.

ahmedajedadooodooo has so many loose screws {from all those bombs he exploded way back when Carter, the other flaming idiot, paved the way} that Iran is teetering on the abyss. Those mullahs had better rein the little screwball in quickly.

Originally Posted by 2ndamendsis

And, CROCKET
forgot to add that all one has to do is poke a little hole in the ground with a little finger and POW! Up comes that OIL

And with China & Russia having deep ties with Iran, above & under the table, the die is cast.

Throw in those islamic nutjobs pulling the strings - PROPHECY you know- and this is a time bomb waiting to go off.

ahmedajedadooodooo has so many loose screws {from all those bombs he exploded way back when Carter, the other flaming idiot, paved the way} that Iran is teetering on the abyss. Those mullahs had better rein the little screwball in quickly.

Yep. Did you see this:

Fifth Fleet commander warns of 'unprecedented tension' in Gulf



SPECIAL TO WORLD TRIBUNE.COM
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
ABU DHABI — Iran may pose a greater security threat to the strategic Persian Gulf than does Al Qaida, warned the U.S. Fifth Fleet commander at a news conference in Bahrain.



"We consider this moment in time unprecedented in terms of the amount of insecurity and instability that is in the region," U.S. Fifth Fleet commander Vice Adm. Patrick Walsh said.
"Although our presence in the Arabian Gulf is for defensive and not offensive purposes, the U.S. will take military action if ships are attacked or if countries in the region are targeted or U.S. troops come under direct attack," Walsh added.

At a news conference on Feb. 19 in Manama, Walsh said Iran could pose a greater threat to Gulf security than Al Qaida, Middle East Newsline reported. The naval commander said Iran's frequent military exercises were meant to provoke tension in the region and threaten the closure of the Straits of Hormuz, which contains about 40 percent of global oil shipping.

"When you look at the recent Iranian exercises, in the last nine months, you see the open display and the implication of the use of mines," Walsh said. "You also see and hear concerns and threats about the closure of the Strait of Hormuz."

"What is different today to a year ago has been the number of exercises and the proximity of those exercises to the Strait of Hormuz," Walsh said.

Walsh's assertion represented the clearest signal of U.S. alarm concerning Iran's threat to the region. Only two weeks earlier, leading U.S. naval commanders said the Iran Navy was acting with caution and seeking to avoid a conflict with the United States.

Officials said the United States has begun to highlight the Iranian threat as Teheran continues to test and deploy a range of medium- and intermediate-range missiles. They said the U.S. military was countering this by sending two carrier strike groups to the Gulf, ready to assure shipping through the Straits of Hormuz.



"An increasingly belligerent Iran thinks it can control, threaten and intimidate," U.S. Deputy Assistant Defense Secretary for the Middle East Mark Kimmitt said.
Officials said the Defense Department has been quietly preparing for confrontation with Iran that would focus on control of the Gulf. They said naval commanders, including Walsh, were being promoted to senior positions in Central Command and the Pentagon.

"There is a historic tension between Iran and the region and we recognize that," Walsh said. "Iran is the concern that we all have at the moment."

"There is a build-up of troops and that is in response to a renewed commitment on the part of both national and international leadership to try and bring security and stability to Iraq," Walsh said.

Walsh has been scheduled to leave his post at the end of February. He has been appointed vice chief of naval operations and would be replaced by Vice Adm. Kevin Cosgriff.

"It is not as if we are out looking for a fight, we are not patrolling Iranian waters," Walsh said. "We have assumed a defensive posture here to reassure our friends and provide stability in the region. We have not experienced the targeting of U.S. troops.

Walsh acknowledged GCC fear of a U.S. military build-up in the region. He said Gulf Arab allies were concerned that the United States would attack Iran and then withdraw its military presence from the Gulf.

"Having lived in the region since 2005, I can understand the concerns and the skepticism of those who live here," Walsh said. "I think what they want is long-term assurances. What they don't want is offensive action meant to inflict some sort of damage to Iran and then a retreat because they will live with the consequences of any actions that we take."

With the threat from Israel against Iran, don't you think Iran has the right to a nudlear program to protect it's self from other nation who have nuclear power and is a threat to them?

Israel has never made a public proclamation that "Iran should be wiped off the map" like Aba-do-da has. Israel doesn't believe it intentionally needs to start WW 111 and usher in the "end of the world" in order for the 12th imam to return and rule all of us. If the leaders of Iran weren't criminally insane, 7th century rejects then possibly they wouldn't feel a need to "defend themselves" against self-created "threats". After all, when you threaten the lives of entire countries, you might have something to fear, especially if you are letting you mouth overload you a$$.

Pakistan has nuclear weapons, is muslim and it's all fine with us and Israel. Clinton just imposed some soft sanctions. Iran may want to acquire nuclear weapons, is muslim and we and Israel are concerned.

I don't understand all this.
Why the difference ???

This is the same as the so called massive amount of WMD in Iraq. A Bush lie, this is the only logical answer to my question.