Russian leak, Iran sneak attack Apr 6th

Dead Money

Registered User
Forum Member
Sep 15, 2005
4,350
64
0
Upstairs watching sports on the big TV.
Reports Last Updated: Mar 26th, 2007 - 01:04:48

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Operation Bite: April 6 sneak attack by US forces against Iran planned, Russian military sources warn
By Webster G. Tarpley
Online Journal Contributing Writer


Mar 26, 2007, 01:02

Email this article
Printer friendly page


WASHINGTON DC, -- The long awaited US military attack on Iran is now on track for the first week of April, specifically for 4 am on April 6, the Good Friday opening of Easter weekend, writes the well-known Russian journalist Andrei Uglanov in the Moscow weekly ?Argumenty Nedeli.? Uglanov cites Russian military experts close to the Russian General Staff for his account.

The attack is slated to last for 12 hours, according to Uglanov, from 4 am until 4 pm local time. Friday is the sabbath in Iran. In the course of the attack, code named Operation Bite, about 20 targets are marked for bombing; the list includes uranium enrichment facilities, research centers, and laboratories.

The first reactor at the Bushehr nuclear plant, where Russian engineers are working, is supposed to be spared from destruction. The US attack plan reportedly calls for the Iranian air defense system to be degraded, for numerous Iranian warships to be sunk in the Persian Gulf, and for the most important headquarters of the Iranian armed forces to be wiped out.

The attacks will be mounted from a number of bases, including the island of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean. Diego Garcia is currently home to B-52 bombers equipped with standoff missiles. Also participating in the air strikes will be US naval aviation from aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf, as well as from those of the Sixth Fleet in the Mediterranean. Additional cruise missiles will be fired from submarines in the Indian Ocean and off the coast of the Arabian peninsula. The goal is allegedly to set back Iran?s nuclear program by several years, writes Uglanov, whose article was reissued by RIA-Novosti in various languages, but apparently not English, several days ago. The story is the top item on numerous Italian and German blogs, but so far appears to have been ignored by US websites.

Observers comment that this dispatch represents a high-level orchestrated leak from the Kremlin, in effect a war warning, which draws on the formidable resources of the Russian intelligence services, and which deserves to be taken with the utmost seriousness by pro-peace forces around the world.

Asked by RIA-Novosti to comment on the Uglanov report, retired Colonel General Leonid Ivashov confirmed its essential features in a March 21 interview: ?I have no doubt that there will be an operation, or more precisely a violent action against Iran.? Ivashov, who has reportedly served at various times as an informal advisor to Russian President Vladimir Putin, is currently the vice president of the Moscow Academy for Geopolitical Sciences.

Ivashov attributed decisive importance to the decision of the Democratic leadership of the US House of Representatives to remove language from the just-passed Iraq supplemental military appropriations bill that would have demanded that Bush come to Congress before launching an attack on Iran. Ivashov pointed out that the language was eliminated under pressure from AIPAC, the lobbing group representing the Israeli extreme right, and from Israeli Foreign Minister Tsipi Livni.

?We have drawn the unmistakable conclusion that this operation will take place,? said Ivashov. In his opinion, the US planning does not include a land operation: ? Most probably there will be no ground attack, but rather massive air attacks with the goal of annihilating Iran?s capacity for military resistance, the centers of administration, the key economic assets, and quite possibly the Iranian political leadership, or at least part of it,? he continued.

Ivashov noted that it was not to be excluded that the Pentagon would use smaller tactical nuclear weapons against targets of the Iranian nuclear industry. These attacks could paralyze everyday life, create panic in the population, and generally produce an atmosphere of chaos and uncertainty all over Iran, Ivashov told RIA-Novosti. ?This will unleash a struggle for power inside Iran, and then there will be a peace delegation sent in to install a pro-American government in Teheran,? Ivashov continued. One of the US goals was, in his estimation, to burnish the image of the current Republican administration, which would now be able to boast that they had wiped out the Iranian nuclear program.

Among the other outcomes, General Ivashov pointed to a partition of Iran along the same lines as Iraq, and a subsequent carving up of the Near and Middle East into smaller regions. ?This concept worked well for them in the Balkans and will now be applied to the greater Middle East,? he commented.

?Moscow must exert Russia?s influence by demanding an emergency session of the United Nations Security Council to deal with the current preparations for an illegal use of force against Iran and the destruction of the basis of the United Nations Charter,? said General Ivashov. ?In this context Russia could cooperate with China, France and the non-permanent members of the Security Council. We need this kind of preventive action to ward off the use of force,? he concluded.
 

gardenweasel

el guapo
Forum Member
Jan 10, 2002
40,575
226
63
"the bunker"
if those british soldiers aren`t released by the 6th,that would be an excellent excuse to set the iranian nuclear program back 5 or 10 years.....

unfortunately,this is webster g. tarpley.....

""Webster Griffin Tarpley is an author, lecturer, and critic of US foreign and domestic policy. "He maintains that the events of 9/11 were engineered by the Bush administration."He envisions a model of false flag terror operated by a rogue network of independent operatives in the privatized military intelligence sector and corporate media.""

i believe that this is the guy that wrote that the bush family funded hitler.....
 

TonyTT

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 16, 2002
353
1
0
71
Ohio
i

i believe that this is the guy that wrote that the bush family funded hitler.....



That "Bush family funding HItler" stuff is quite a stretch and I believe stems from Bush's grandfather's association with the Harriman family and their partnership in BROWN BROTHERS HARRIMAN.
Doccuments released by the US Govt indicates that PRESCOTT BUSH was one of 7 Directors of the UNION BANKING CORP ( a private investment bank in New York) , controlled by the THYSSEN family. Fritz Thyssen was an early financial supporter of Hitler. The Union Bank was actually seized by the US govt under the TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT. No charges were ever brought against any of the American directors of the Union Bank. Prescotts' postition with the Union Bank was never a political eye sore with him...as he was elected to the Senate from Connecticut in 1952.

As far as the US attacking Iran on April 6th....I'll believe that when I see it!
TT
 

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
I'm curious. I think it would be interesting to have everyone's opinion on record now regarding military strikes on Iran. For those that care to, give your position - as it stands right now - whether the U.S. should attack Iran, if so why, or not attack.

I am very much against an attack or strikes on Iran, personally. I do not see it to be in this country's best interests to do that at this time. Wayne? Weasel? Smurph? Kosar? All y'all?
 

kosar

Centrist
Forum Member
Nov 27, 1999
11,112
55
0
ft myers, fl
I'm curious. I think it would be interesting to have everyone's opinion on record now regarding military strikes on Iran. For those that care to, give your position - as it stands right now - whether the U.S. should attack Iran, if so why, or not attack.

I am very much against an attack or strikes on Iran, personally. I do not see it to be in this country's best interests to do that at this time. Wayne? Weasel? Smurph? Kosar? All y'all?

The biggest leverage that Iran has on us right now is their ability to foment even more, much more, chaos in Baghdad and in Iraq in general.

Standing alone, a strike might be an interesting proposition at this point(particularly if the kidnapped British sailor problem isn't resolved soon), but this Iraq 'war', I believe, has really tied our hands in many, many ways. And this is one of them. It has left us extremely vulnerable.

That's not to say that were aren't stupid enough to do it, but the consequences in Iraq would be severe.
 

AR182

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 9, 2000
18,654
87
0
Scottsdale,AZ
I'm curious. I think it would be interesting to have everyone's opinion on record now regarding military strikes on Iran. For those that care to, give your position - as it stands right now - whether the U.S. should attack Iran, if so why, or not attack.

I am very much against an attack or strikes on Iran, personally. I do not see it to be in this country's best interests to do that at this time. Wayne? Weasel? Smurph? Kosar? All y'all?

what would you propose doing to curtail their nuclear ambitions ?

i do think that when the time comes israel will take their nuclear plants out if nothings resolved....
 
Last edited:

StevieD

Registered User
Forum Member
Jun 18, 2002
9,509
44
48
72
Boston
I am on the fence about this one. I think that if they harm those British Soldiers in any way we sink their Navy. No soldiers on the ground. Just send them a message.
Problem is I don't trust us because of Iraq.
It all hinges on how they treat those prisoners and even then just send them a message.
 

AR182

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 9, 2000
18,654
87
0
Scottsdale,AZ
Standing alone, a strike might be an interesting proposition at this point(particularly if the kidnapped British sailor problem isn't resolved soon), but this Iraq 'war', I believe, has really tied our hands in many, many ways. And this is one of them. It has left us extremely vulnerable.


i agree...once it was decided to go into iraq, the u.s. should have used over-whelming force. that would have shown iran how strong the military is & i believe they would have fallen more into step.
 

kosar

Centrist
Forum Member
Nov 27, 1999
11,112
55
0
ft myers, fl
I am on the fence about this one. I think that if they harm those British Soldiers in any way we sink their Navy. No soldiers on the ground. Just send them a message.
Problem is I don't trust us because of Iraq.
It all hinges on how they treat those prisoners and even then just send them a message.

That's an interesting take and I don't totally disagree.

I think it's extremely unlikely that we'll get any sort of confirmation that these sailors were killed or tortured any time soon.

Britain is talking tough and I hope they follow through and that they don't pull a 'Carter.'

I can see Iran just stretching this out(or trying to), but I think that unless they release these guys (and 1 gal, I guess) pretty damn soon, Britain will do something, with or without us.

This is where my problem(among many others) comes in with the Iraq occupation.

We have 140,000 or so troops right next door that are extremely vulnerable and we, or Britain could blow a bunch of shit up over there in Iran, but they can also cause (more) hell in Iraq for our troops.

Because of this adventure, we, once again, have the most to lose.

It didn't have to be like that.
 

kosar

Centrist
Forum Member
Nov 27, 1999
11,112
55
0
ft myers, fl
i agree...once it was decided to go into iraq, the u.s. should have used over-whelming force. that would have shown iran how strong the military is & i believe they would have fallen more into step.

I think maybe you misunderstood one of my posts or something.

They saw, and they know, how strong our military is. As Wayne points out daily, we conquered 2 countries in less time than it took Reno to take Waco.

Our military firepower is not the question. We tore shit up big time, deposed and hung Saddam, killed his kids...etc.

There is no solution to preventing the budding civil war and certainly not the ensuing full-blown civil war after we leave. There is no accounting for waging this type of a war with religious fanatics that hate us, but hate each other much more.
 

AR182

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 9, 2000
18,654
87
0
Scottsdale,AZ
That's an interesting take and I don't totally disagree.

I think it's extremely unlikely that we'll get any sort of confirmation that these sailors were killed or tortured any time soon.

Britain is talking tough and I hope they follow through and that they don't pull a 'Carter.'

I can see Iran just stretching this out(or trying to), but I think that unless they release these guys (and 1 gal, I guess) pretty damn soon, Britain will do something, with or without us.

This is where my problem(among many others) comes in with the Iraq occupation.

We have 140,000 or so troops right next door that are extremely vulnerable and we, or Britain could blow a bunch of shit up over there in Iran, but they can also cause (more) hell in Iraq for our troops.

Because of this adventure, we, once again, have the most to lose.

It didn't have to be like that.

iran would have to out of their mind if they do any harm to these sailors. they may rough them up a bit, but i doubt that they torture or kill them.
 

AR182

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 9, 2000
18,654
87
0
Scottsdale,AZ
I think maybe you misunderstood one of my posts or something.

They saw, and they know, how strong our military is. As Wayne points out daily, we conquered 2 countries in less time than it took Reno to take Waco.

Our military firepower is not the question. We tore shit up big time, deposed and hung Saddam, killed his kids...etc.

There is no solution to preventing the budding civil war and certainly not the ensuing full-blown civil war after we leave. There is no accounting for waging this type of a war with religious fanatics that hate us, but hate each other much more.

i think if 1/2 million was sent into iraq & some of those soldiers were sent immediately to the iranian & syrian borders (to seal them off)...i believe that we wouldn't be in this quagmire.
 

kosar

Centrist
Forum Member
Nov 27, 1999
11,112
55
0
ft myers, fl
iran would have to out of their mind if they do any harm to these sailors. they may rough them up a bit, but i doubt that they torture or kill them.

I agree. I made it kind of ambiguous, unintentionally, in my post, but that's what I was saying also.
 

kosar

Centrist
Forum Member
Nov 27, 1999
11,112
55
0
ft myers, fl
i think if 1/2 million was sent into iraq & some of those soldiers were sent immediately to the iranian & syrian borders (to seal them off)...i believe that we wouldn't be in this quagmire.

If we even had anywhere near 1/2 million available for this, I agree with that thought.

However, sealing borders does nothing to stem religious/tribal rivalries that go back a millenium.
 

Padre

Registered User
Forum Member
Mar 11, 2000
1,183
26
0
San Diego CA
Iran would have to out of their mind if they do any harm to these sailors. they may rough them up a bit, but i doubt that they torture or kill them.

Lets not forget something here.

Those sailors were in Iran's water, (trying to avoid US and British boats) Why?

Because they were smuggling cars out of Iraq.

1. they were not focused on the job at hand and were greedy.

2. They were stealing.

3. And i am positive that they were not under any orders. They were on their own.

Now i believe that no torture should be involved , but i do believe that Iran has all the rights to put them on trial or what ever their laws demand for smuggling cars into their country.(Just as we do when Mexicans smuggle drugs into the US)

Yea i know they were just cars, but the fact remains they were dodging the US and British ships, and knew that they could get by in Iranian waters.

Personally they should face the crime and do the time in Iran.

Who are we or the British to bail them out? When in Rome right?
 

AR182

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 9, 2000
18,654
87
0
Scottsdale,AZ
If we even had anywhere near 1/2 million available for this, I agree with that thought.

However, sealing borders does nothing to stem religious/tribal rivalries that go back a millenium.

i read that there is 1.3 million people in the military.
i think we had over 300,000 for the first gulf war....if we are going to fight a war, our leaders should make sure that we have enough military people for the conflict.

i think alot of this tribal stuff is being sponsored by iran (al-sadir)..so while it wouldn't have prevented the tribal unrest completely, it may have made it more manageable.....
 

Padre

Registered User
Forum Member
Mar 11, 2000
1,183
26
0
San Diego CA
I am loking for info on what i just stated and can not find any. I can swaer i heard it on the news that they were getting cars out of iraq.
 

StevieD

Registered User
Forum Member
Jun 18, 2002
9,509
44
48
72
Boston
iran would have to out of their mind if they do any harm to these sailors. they may rough them up a bit, but i doubt that they torture or kill them.
Well, don't you think that the terrorists and Iran ARE both out of their minds? We never should have gone into Iraq. I also agree that once in we should have gone in full force and try to win the war. It is a mystery why we did not. The longer we stay the weaker we get. The terrorists and Iran know this.

Bush had control of congress and could have done anything he wanted. You know how I feel about him.
 

AR182

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 9, 2000
18,654
87
0
Scottsdale,AZ
Lets not forget something here.

Those sailors were in Iran's water, (trying to avoid US and British boats) Why?

Because they were smuggling cars out of Iraq.

1. they were not focused on the job at hand and were greedy.

2. They were stealing.

3. And i am positive that they were not under any orders. They were on their own.


how do you know all of this ?

because iran says so ?....
 
Last edited:

kosar

Centrist
Forum Member
Nov 27, 1999
11,112
55
0
ft myers, fl
Lets not forget something here.

Those sailors were in Iran's water, (trying to avoid US and British boats) Why?

Because they were smuggling cars out of Iraq.

1. they were not focused on the job at hand and were greedy.

2. They were stealing.

3. And i am positive that they were not under any orders. They were on their own.

Now i believe that no torture should be involved , but i do believe that Iran has all the rights to put them on trial or what ever their laws demand for smuggling cars into their country.(Just as we do when Mexicans smuggle drugs into the US)

Yea i know they were just cars, but the fact remains they were dodging the US and British ships, and knew that they could get by in Iranian waters.

Personally they should face the crime and do the time in Iran.

Who are we or the British to bail them out? When in Rome right?

Padre,

You do know that the sailors we're talking about are British sailors? In their military? Trying to apprehend the car smugglers? 15 of them? (British sailors)

Those 15 have been charged with espionage, which carries the death penalty in Iran.
 
Last edited:
Bet on MyBookie
Top