Report: Pentagon working on Iran attack plan
- Thread starter buddy
- Start date
No.
Seems Iran has a definite goal in mind and they are relentless in seeing this accomplished. Their defiance of UN warnings is fierce.
Seems Iran has a definite goal in mind and they are relentless in seeing this accomplished. Their defiance of UN warnings is fierce.
US generals ?will quit? if Bush orders Iran attack
US generals ?will quit? if Bush orders Iran attack
US generals ?will quit? if Bush orders Iran attackMichael Smith and Sarah Baxter, Washington
SOME of America?s most senior military commanders are prepared to resign if the White House orders a military strike against Iran, according to highly placed defence and intelligence sources.
Tension in the Gulf region has raised fears that an attack on Iran is becoming increasingly likely before President George Bush leaves office. The Sunday Times has learnt that up to five generals and admirals are willing to resign rather than approve what they consider would be a reckless attack.
?There are four or five generals and admirals we know of who would resign if Bush ordered an attack on Iran,? a source with close ties to British intelligence said. ?There is simply no stomach for it in the Pentagon, and a lot of people question whether such an attack would be effective or even possible.?
A British defence source confirmed that there were deep misgivings inside the Pentagon about a military strike. ?All the generals are perfectly clear that they don?t have the military capacity to take Iran on in any meaningful fashion. Nobody wants to do it and it would be a matter of conscience for them.
?There are enough people who feel this would be an error of judgment too far for there to be resignations.?
A generals? revolt on such a scale would be unprecedented. ?American generals usually stay and fight until they get fired,? said a Pentagon source. Robert Gates, the defence secretary, has repeatedly warned against striking Iran and is believed to represent the view of his senior commanders.
The threat of a wave of resignations coincided with a warning by Vice-President Dick Cheney that all options, including military action, remained on the table. He was responding to a comment by Tony Blair that it would not ?be right to take military action against Iran?.
Iran ignored a United Nations deadline to suspend its uranium enrichment programme last week. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad insisted that his country ?will not withdraw from its nuclear stances even one single step?.
The International Atomic Energy Agency reported that Iran could soon produce enough enriched uranium for two nuclear bombs a year, although Tehran claims its programme is purely for civilian energy purposes.
Nicholas Burns, the top US negotiator, is to meet British, French, German, Chinese and Russian officials in London tomorrow to discuss additional penalties against Iran. But UN diplomats cautioned that further measures would take weeks to agree and would be mild at best.
A second US navy aircraft carrier strike group led by the USS John C Stennis arrived in the Gulf last week, doubling the US presence there. Vice Admiral Patrick Walsh, the commander of the US Fifth Fleet, warned: ?The US will take military action if ships are attacked or if countries in the region are targeted or US troops come under direct attack.?
But General Peter Pace, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, said recently there was ?zero chance? of a war with Iran. He played down claims by US intelligence that the Iranian government was responsible for supplying insurgents in Iraq, forcing Bush on the defensive.
Pace?s view was backed up by British intelligence officials who said the extent of the Iranian government?s involvement in activities inside Iraq by a small number of Revolutionary Guards was ?far from clear?.
Hillary Mann, the National Security Council?s main Iran expert until 2004, said Pace?s repudiation of the administration?s claims was a sign of grave discontent at the top.
?He is a very serious and a very loyal soldier,? she said. ?It is extraordinary for him to have made these comments publicly, and it suggests there are serious problems between the White House, the National Security Council and the Pentagon.?
Mann fears the administration is seeking to provoke Iran into a reaction that could be used as an excuse for an attack. A British official said the US navy was well aware of the risks of confrontation and was being ?seriously careful? in the Gulf.
The US air force is regarded as being more willing to attack Iran. General Michael Moseley, the head of the air force, cited Iran as the main likely target for American aircraft at a military conference earlier this month.
According to a report in The New Yorker magazine, the Pentagon has already set up a working group to plan airstrikes on Iran. The panel initially focused on destroying Iran?s nuclear facilities and on regime change but has more recently been instructed to identify targets in Iran that may be involved in supplying or aiding militants in Iraq.
However, army chiefs fear an attack on Iran would backfire on American troops in Iraq and lead to more terrorist attacks, a rise in oil prices and the threat of a regional war.
Britain is concerned that its own troops in Iraq might be drawn into any American conflict with Iran, regardless of whether the government takes part in the attack.
One retired general who participated in the ?generals? revolt? against Donald Rumsfeld?s handling of the Iraq war said he hoped his former colleagues would resign in the event of an order to attack. ?We don?t want to take another initiative unless we?ve really thought through the consequences of our strategy,? he warned.
US generals ?will quit? if Bush orders Iran attack
US generals ?will quit? if Bush orders Iran attackMichael Smith and Sarah Baxter, Washington
SOME of America?s most senior military commanders are prepared to resign if the White House orders a military strike against Iran, according to highly placed defence and intelligence sources.
Tension in the Gulf region has raised fears that an attack on Iran is becoming increasingly likely before President George Bush leaves office. The Sunday Times has learnt that up to five generals and admirals are willing to resign rather than approve what they consider would be a reckless attack.
?There are four or five generals and admirals we know of who would resign if Bush ordered an attack on Iran,? a source with close ties to British intelligence said. ?There is simply no stomach for it in the Pentagon, and a lot of people question whether such an attack would be effective or even possible.?
A British defence source confirmed that there were deep misgivings inside the Pentagon about a military strike. ?All the generals are perfectly clear that they don?t have the military capacity to take Iran on in any meaningful fashion. Nobody wants to do it and it would be a matter of conscience for them.
?There are enough people who feel this would be an error of judgment too far for there to be resignations.?
A generals? revolt on such a scale would be unprecedented. ?American generals usually stay and fight until they get fired,? said a Pentagon source. Robert Gates, the defence secretary, has repeatedly warned against striking Iran and is believed to represent the view of his senior commanders.
The threat of a wave of resignations coincided with a warning by Vice-President Dick Cheney that all options, including military action, remained on the table. He was responding to a comment by Tony Blair that it would not ?be right to take military action against Iran?.
Iran ignored a United Nations deadline to suspend its uranium enrichment programme last week. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad insisted that his country ?will not withdraw from its nuclear stances even one single step?.
The International Atomic Energy Agency reported that Iran could soon produce enough enriched uranium for two nuclear bombs a year, although Tehran claims its programme is purely for civilian energy purposes.
Nicholas Burns, the top US negotiator, is to meet British, French, German, Chinese and Russian officials in London tomorrow to discuss additional penalties against Iran. But UN diplomats cautioned that further measures would take weeks to agree and would be mild at best.
A second US navy aircraft carrier strike group led by the USS John C Stennis arrived in the Gulf last week, doubling the US presence there. Vice Admiral Patrick Walsh, the commander of the US Fifth Fleet, warned: ?The US will take military action if ships are attacked or if countries in the region are targeted or US troops come under direct attack.?
But General Peter Pace, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, said recently there was ?zero chance? of a war with Iran. He played down claims by US intelligence that the Iranian government was responsible for supplying insurgents in Iraq, forcing Bush on the defensive.
Pace?s view was backed up by British intelligence officials who said the extent of the Iranian government?s involvement in activities inside Iraq by a small number of Revolutionary Guards was ?far from clear?.
Hillary Mann, the National Security Council?s main Iran expert until 2004, said Pace?s repudiation of the administration?s claims was a sign of grave discontent at the top.
?He is a very serious and a very loyal soldier,? she said. ?It is extraordinary for him to have made these comments publicly, and it suggests there are serious problems between the White House, the National Security Council and the Pentagon.?
Mann fears the administration is seeking to provoke Iran into a reaction that could be used as an excuse for an attack. A British official said the US navy was well aware of the risks of confrontation and was being ?seriously careful? in the Gulf.
The US air force is regarded as being more willing to attack Iran. General Michael Moseley, the head of the air force, cited Iran as the main likely target for American aircraft at a military conference earlier this month.
According to a report in The New Yorker magazine, the Pentagon has already set up a working group to plan airstrikes on Iran. The panel initially focused on destroying Iran?s nuclear facilities and on regime change but has more recently been instructed to identify targets in Iran that may be involved in supplying or aiding militants in Iraq.
However, army chiefs fear an attack on Iran would backfire on American troops in Iraq and lead to more terrorist attacks, a rise in oil prices and the threat of a regional war.
Britain is concerned that its own troops in Iraq might be drawn into any American conflict with Iran, regardless of whether the government takes part in the attack.
One retired general who participated in the ?generals? revolt? against Donald Rumsfeld?s handling of the Iraq war said he hoped his former colleagues would resign in the event of an order to attack. ?We don?t want to take another initiative unless we?ve really thought through the consequences of our strategy,? he warned.
Who do you think is really calling the shots?
Rove, Cheney or a more secretive person or group?
I truly don't know.
Rove, Cheney or a more secretive person or group?
I truly don't know.
............................................................
It has long been known that a secretive group is really behind major policy in the US.
Bush is a member and attends meetings up to twice a year that are never reported. There is a name for the group but I cant remember.
It is made up of the richest of the rich and most influential people.
The original intention of the Bilderberg Group was to further the understanding between Western Europe and North America through informal meetings between powerful individuals. Each year, a "steering committee" devises a selected invitation list with a maximum of 100 names. Invitations are only extended to residents of Europe and North America. The location of their annual meeting is not secret, and the agenda and list of participants are openly available to the public, but the contents of the meetings are kept secret and attendees pledge not to divulge what was discussed.
The group's stated justification for secrecy is that it enables people to speak freely without the need to carefully consider how every word might be interpreted by the mass media. However, some consider the elite and secretive nature of the meeting antithetical to democratic principles.
Main article: List of Bilderberg attendees
Attendees of Bilderberg include central bankers, defense experts, mass media press barons, government ministers, prime ministers, royalty, international financiers and political leaders from Europe and North America.
Some of the Western world's leading financiers and foreign policy strategists attend Bilderberg. Donald Rumsfeld is an active Bilderberger, as is Peter Sutherland from Ireland, a former European Union commissioner and chairman of Goldman Sachs and of British Petroleum. Rumsfeld and Sutherland served together in 2000 on the board of the Swedish/Swiss energy company ABB. Former U.S. Deputy Defense Secretary and current World Bank head Paul Wolfowitz is also a member, as is Roger Boothe, Jr. The group's current chairman is Etienne Davignon, the Belgian businessman and politician.
...........................................................
This is not the one I was thinking of but you get the idea.
Even though its not supposedly secret, I would venture to say 80% of the American public does not even know this exists. Its not reported on of course.
hush hush honey, make the money
The group's stated justification for secrecy is that it enables people to speak freely without the need to carefully consider how every word might be interpreted by the mass media. However, some consider the elite and secretive nature of the meeting antithetical to democratic principles.
Main article: List of Bilderberg attendees
Attendees of Bilderberg include central bankers, defense experts, mass media press barons, government ministers, prime ministers, royalty, international financiers and political leaders from Europe and North America.
Some of the Western world's leading financiers and foreign policy strategists attend Bilderberg. Donald Rumsfeld is an active Bilderberger, as is Peter Sutherland from Ireland, a former European Union commissioner and chairman of Goldman Sachs and of British Petroleum. Rumsfeld and Sutherland served together in 2000 on the board of the Swedish/Swiss energy company ABB. Former U.S. Deputy Defense Secretary and current World Bank head Paul Wolfowitz is also a member, as is Roger Boothe, Jr. The group's current chairman is Etienne Davignon, the Belgian businessman and politician.
...........................................................
This is not the one I was thinking of but you get the idea.
Even though its not supposedly secret, I would venture to say 80% of the American public does not even know this exists. Its not reported on of course.
hush hush honey, make the money
Scott,
I think you're right.
I remember seeing a post in one of these threads about some type of political secret society. I don't think it was Bilderberg, though. But can't remember the name.
I think you're right.
I remember seeing a post in one of these threads about some type of political secret society. I don't think it was Bilderberg, though. But can't remember the name.
dan
close but no cigar.
this one is a pimple on the ass of the one I remember hearing about.
...................................................
KEVIN PHILLIPS: It's a Yale secret society. Yale has other secret societies. Another one was called ?Book and Snake.? So, they came up with these names. But these people took secrecy incredibly seriously. Books that have been written about Skull and Bones - they?ve got a vault at Yale. Nobody is supposed to be able to get in there. You can?t even tell your wife about Skull and Bones. Avril Harriman, his wife received a letter that was in hieroglyphics, and she didn't know what to make of this and Avril Harriman said, ?Well, that's Skull and Bones, and I have to tell you about that, and he said, no, I can't tell you about that.? If you want to know why they deal in secrecy, (a) you have Skull and Bones, and (b) so many of them were in the intelligence services and that whole side of Washington and New York.
..........................................................
what this does show is how truly clueless the american people are about how major policy decisions are made in this country and how we are kept in the dark about so many things.
its also why the american presidency can only be in a small circle of people that will toe the lines.
Man I love conspiracy stuff.
close but no cigar.
this one is a pimple on the ass of the one I remember hearing about.
...................................................
KEVIN PHILLIPS: It's a Yale secret society. Yale has other secret societies. Another one was called ?Book and Snake.? So, they came up with these names. But these people took secrecy incredibly seriously. Books that have been written about Skull and Bones - they?ve got a vault at Yale. Nobody is supposed to be able to get in there. You can?t even tell your wife about Skull and Bones. Avril Harriman, his wife received a letter that was in hieroglyphics, and she didn't know what to make of this and Avril Harriman said, ?Well, that's Skull and Bones, and I have to tell you about that, and he said, no, I can't tell you about that.? If you want to know why they deal in secrecy, (a) you have Skull and Bones, and (b) so many of them were in the intelligence services and that whole side of Washington and New York.
..........................................................
what this does show is how truly clueless the american people are about how major policy decisions are made in this country and how we are kept in the dark about so many things.
its also why the american presidency can only be in a small circle of people that will toe the lines.
Man I love conspiracy stuff.
I have to say, in looking over the past few years, that if the cabal is Hell-bent on expanding our presence in the Middle East by attacking Iran, that I hope they plan it better than their initial foray. Especially since they might be missing a few of the Generals when they attack. That could be weird.
