Sabre-rattling over Iran

bengalraider

DFI Technocrat
Ambassador
Joined
Oct 10, 2009
Messages
3,778
Likes
2,644
Country flag
More of a warning than any real surprise attack plans, the Iranians know they will lose any future war with america the Americans know that but the Americans know what the potential cost in diplomatic and financial fallout such a war will bring which the Iranians also know;any war against iran has the potential to throw things in Afghanistan and Iraq so far out of Americans ballpark that they would not be able to pick up the broken pieces in a decade even. i for one do not believe that the transfer of bombs to Diego Garcia is anything more than a routine disbursement of hardware being sent as a warning to the Iranians, any real secret hardware being prepared for war would come via USAF C-17's not commercial tender.
 
Last edited:

Rage

DFI TEAM
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
5,419
Likes
997
If the US of A wanted to attack Iran, they certainly wouldn't project it. And they certainly wouldn't deliver the means for Russian news agencies, British think tanks, Iranian scholars et al to 'strengthen their suspicions'. The very fact that they contracted a private California company to ship the Blu-bombs- on the assumption that this news is true- by which fact the news of such a shipment leaking to the media via bills of lading, materials etc. was a foreseeable consequence, meant that they meant for the news to be circulated. If that's the case, then it could be for the following reasons:


- Pressure Iran with real punitive 'consequences,' not intended to be purveyed, in diplomatic negotiations to get them to relinquish their nuclear program.
- The intention to hit another country in the region, to which end the dispersal of confusion in the media and the deception of a potential strike on Iran would be a useful tool.


In any case, 327 bunker-buster bombs are by no means sufficient to initiate strikes against Iran. Where are the logistics? Where are the strike aircraft required to engaged the Iranian AF and to conduct dozens of sorties? What is the buildup in the Third and Seventh Fleets, the Naval Surface Forces, Pacific, the Naval Submarine Force, Pacific and other commands? There were reports in Sep. 2009 of a Tutor Perini Corp. winning a $19 million contract to provide Land Class ship facilities on Diego Garcia, because of the closure of the last ship homeport. So what of the servicing of ships there?


As with all of the news that emanates from the United States, there seems to be a more sinister motive. I certainly would've planned for a 'media disclosure', at any rate.
 
Joined
Feb 16, 2009
Messages
27,308
Likes
33,627
Country flag
The irony of all this is Iran is still an NPT signatory, Iran has more than one facility what would be done to contain any fallout ??Does it matter it would if you are a neighboring country like Pakistan.


 
Last edited:

nrj

Ambassador
Joined
Nov 16, 2009
Messages
9,657
Likes
3,911
Country flag
US military chief admits to Iran attack plan

WASHINGTON: The top US military officer says he has a plan to attack Iran if needed to prevent it from getting nuclear weapons, but is "extremely concerned" about the possible repercussions of such a strike.

Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said military action against Iran could have "unintended consequences that are difficult to predict in what is an incredibly unstable part of the world."

But, speaking on Sunday's "Meet the Press" program on NBC, Mullen said allowing Iran to develop a nuclear weapon was also unacceptable.

"Quite frankly, I am extremely concerned about both of those outcomes," he said.
Mullen held out hope that a combination of international diplomatic efforts and sanctions against Iran would lead Tehran to suspend a nuclear enrichment program that many believe is a clandestine bid to develop nuclear arms. "I am hopeful (it) works," he said.

At the same time, though, he said "the military options have been on the table, and remain on the table". "I hope we don't get to that, but it's an important option and it's one that's well understood," he added.

Asked if the military has a plan to strike Iran, Mullen replied, "We do".
He did not elaborate.



Source
 

arya

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
3,006
Likes
1,530
Country flag
what will be Pakistan reaction

can any Pakistan member tell us
 

VersusAllOdds

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
63
Likes
7
If they plan to attack the Iran, then that will be in the history of "Downfall of a Great Imperial Nation called as United States of America". They already burnt their a*se in A'stan. Now they want to risk their face with Iran
US got burnt in Afghanistan? What are you talking about? How many men did they lose, 2000 or something? You call that burnt? They lost like zero important aircraft, they lost almost no infrastructure... In return, they have earned a military powercenter in the middle of all their rivals: Russians, China, India, Iran... The heroin and opium production is skyrocketing, and there's no doubt CIA and that monkey Kharzai are getting the profits. They gained a pet nation to do the dirty work: they were the first to recognise Kosovo.
They didn't get burnt, they got all the merits they were after and at a very low price. All the people who believe they are in Afghanistan to fight "terrorists" are just criminally ignorant. All they lost is a bit reputation which will quickly be regenerated by the brainwashing media...

Haven't they been planning this for a long time? Wouldn't it be disastrous for the US to execute something of this sort? What if Iran has more secret bases than what has been discovered by US and it's allies?!
Disastrous to invade, probably. But remember the Gulf War 1 - how many tanks Saddam had? Those weren't some crappy WW2 tanks, those were T-72s. He had MiG-29s. And what happened - US barely got scratched. Yes, Iraq is 4 times smaller, but as long as the Russians are wimpy and not supplying Iran with real weapons, American supreme airforce, logistics, training, resources abundance would cripple the Iranians. If US goes to war it's a won war - they've never fought something that's not easily winnable in their history and they never will. In every war they've paid a very low price for what they've achieved.
They will be able to enter Iran from every possible direction, ground and sea. As long as the nukes are still on the assembly line, Iran can play their game, and we can be foolish to hope that US will be kept at bay...

Edit:
B2s can carry nuclear payload. Enough said to shatter any dreams of Iran's nuclear programme.
 
Last edited:

civfanatic

Retired
Ambassador
Joined
Sep 8, 2009
Messages
4,561
Likes
2,567
US got burnt in Afghanistan? What are you talking about? How many men did they lose, 2000 or something? You call that burnt? They lost like zero important aircraft, they lost almost no infrastructure... In return, they have earned a military powercenter in the middle of all their rivals: Russians, China, India, Iran... The heroin and opium production is skyrocketing, and there's no doubt CIA and that monkey Kharzai are getting the profits. They gained a pet nation to do the dirty work: they were the first to recognise Kosovo.
USA definitely did not get "burnt" in Astan, but at the same time they have little hope of pacifying it. The British and the Russians both tried before, and they both failed. Miserably.
I think they just plan on staying in Astan for geopolitical reasons. Unlike the Soviets in the 80s they don't have to worry about a hostile power providing the insurgency (the Taliban) with enormous funds and arms. They can just say "we will stay to kill terrorists" and the American public will probably swallow the lies like they always do.

If US goes to war it's a won war - they've never fought something that's not easily winnable in their history and they never will. In every war they've paid a very low price for what they've achieved.
Have you heard of the Vietnam War?

I agree that if America decides to invade Iran, Iran's military has little hope of defeating America conventionally. However, if America tries to pull another Operation Iraqi Freedom (or Slavery?), it better be prepared for guerilla warfare 10 times more intense than anything so far in Iraq.

A big difference between Iraq and Iran is that in both Gulf Wars, Saddam's government was very unpopular with the populace. Due to this, American troops were initially welcomed as liberators in 2003 (of course that has changed by now). You could say Ahmadinejad's government is also unpopular at the moment, but nowhere near the level of Iraq in both Gulf Wars. An American invasion of Iran will only serve to unite the Iranian people behind their government; I doubt many Iranian citizens would be welcoming of American "liberation".
 

VersusAllOdds

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
63
Likes
7
USA definitely did not get "burnt" in Astan, but at the same time they have little hope of pacifying it. The British and the Russians both tried before, and they both failed. Miserably.
I think they just plan on staying in Astan for geopolitical reasons. Unlike the Soviets in the 80s they don't have to worry about a hostile power providing the insurgency (the Taliban) with enormous funds and arms. They can just say "we will stay to kill terrorists" and the American public will probably swallow the lies like they always do.



Have you heard of the Vietnam War?

I agree that if America decides to invade Iran, Iran's military has little hope of defeating America conventionally. However, if America tries to pull another Operation Iraqi Freedom (or Slavery?), it better be prepared for guerilla warfare 10 times more intense than anything so far in Iraq.

A big difference between Iraq and Iran is that in both Gulf Wars, Saddam's government was very unpopular with the populace. Due to this, American troops were initially welcomed as liberators in 2003 (of course that has changed by now). You could say Ahmadinejad's government is also unpopular at the moment, but nowhere near the level of Iraq in both Gulf Wars. An American invasion of Iran will only serve to unite the Iranian people behind their government; I doubt many Iranian citizens would be welcoming of American "liberation".
I have to agree with you there on most of the points. Afghanistan is being held for stricly geopolitical reasons, like having a massive contingent of manpower and firepower in the epicentre of all possible rivals (Iraq on the other hand is held for financial gain, oil and construction). That's why it's quite logical that withdrawal from Iraq comes sooner than withdrawal from Afghanistan - the point of Iraq invasion was to put a loyal government there which will serve as an extended hand in taking oil and money for rebuilding for what they essentially destroyed. The point of Afghan invasion is basically no other but to have troops there.
In my opinion they have succeeded in both missions 100%.

Yes, Iran would be much harder to subdue - if possible at all. Ahmadinejad has at least 50% of people on his side, which is enough for an eternity of massive insurgency should US invade. But, I think many years will pass before US depletes all non-military possibilities for Iran. Look at NKorea - they've been doing to them what they are now doing to Iran for almost 60 years, and no invasion yet. The comparison isn't too good, but it serves my point. US is just threatening now with no real intention to attack any time soon - I think they're just opening up a game that will bring total isolation of Iran, and convert it into what is now NK.

Vietnam war, yes. I have a very different perspective on the American involvement in that war than the vast majority. If you want me to share my opinion with you, I will, but not in this thread :)
 

Yatharth Singh

Knowledge is power.
Regular Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2010
Messages
743
Likes
170
Country flag
Most probably yes. US would be planning to attack Iran because if US wont do that then Israel would surely do that as warned by the Israelis But since Israel expect the initial support from US therefore US had to attack Iran otherwise Israels trust from US can lift simultaneously.
 

civfanatic

Retired
Ambassador
Joined
Sep 8, 2009
Messages
4,561
Likes
2,567
Vietnam war, yes. I have a very different perspective on the American involvement in that war than the vast majority. If you want me to share my opinion with you, I will, but not in this thread :)
Please send me a PM containing your views on the Vietnam War, I enjoy hearing different perspectives :)
 

VersusAllOdds

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
63
Likes
7
Gonna start a new thread on it in the history section, will PM you when I do. Gonna take me at least half an our to compose the post, which I simply don't have in the next few yours, so as soon as I find the time, I'll do that.
 

Neil

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2010
Messages
2,816
Likes
3,531
Country flag
USS Truman posted opposite Hormuz as Iranian threats spiral

To meet increasingly defiant Iranian threats to US regional military forces, Washington has detached the USS Truman carrier from support duty for Afghanistan in the Arabian Sea and reassigned it to Dubai opposite the Gulf of Oman and the Straits of Hormuz with thousands of marines aboard.
Reporting this, debkafile's military sources note that the Iranian submarine attack on a Japanese oil supertanker last month near Hormuz underlined the urgency of heightened security for keeping the vital straits open.
Tuesday, Aug. 10, Rear Admiral Ali Fadavi, commander of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Navy (which is Iran's only real naval force), remarked: "Aircraft Carrier USS Truman is currently at Jebel Ali" - 35 kilometers southwest of Dubai - "and will quickly leave the region."
Speaking to reporters at the Bandar Abbas naval base, the admiral announced the addition of twelve torpedo and missile cruisers to the IRGC Navy and the purchase of a British Bladerunner speedboat. "What worries the Americans is that we have equipped (the speedboat) with military gear," he said.
Our Iranian sources note that Tehran keeps track of - and responds instantly with fleet deployments of its own - to every US naval movement in a broad radius from its shores - from the Red Sea in the North, to the Gulfs of Aden and Oman in the East, the Horn of Africa in the west and the southern approaches to the Indian Ocean.

debkafile of April 22, 2010, first revealed that Iran was preparing a fleet of speedboats for striking American air carriers. (To read this article click here.)
By announcing that Iran had equipped the speedboats with military gear added, Fadavi unveiled Iran's counter-threat to US air carriers in general and the USS Truman in particular. Our military sources report that the souped-up Bladerunners have a speed of 61/5 MPH. They Russian-made Shkval torpedoes they carry had travel up to 360 knots per hour, the fastest of any comparable torpedo in service today, a speed which defies radar detection.

Two days earlier, on Aug. 8, Iran launched four Ghadir-type mini-submarines from the same base at Bandar Abbas.

The USS Truman Strike force carries 6,000 marines and sailors and Carrier Wing Three consisting of seven Battle Axe squadrons. It leads a flotilla of four more vessels: the guided missile cruiser USS Normandy, the guided missile destroyer USSWinston S. Churchill, the USS Oscar Austin destroyer and the guided missile destroyer USS Ross.

Another carrier, the USS Peleliu and its marine force are in the Arabian Sea waiting for permission to enter Karachi port and render aid to the millions of flood-stricken Pakistanis. The USS Nassau is cruising in the Gulf Aden.

In a bid to further dramatize Iran's readiness for war, IRGC Deputy Chief Gen. Hossein Kan'ani Moghadam announced Tuesday, Aug. 10: "The mass graves that were used for burying Saddam's soldiers [in the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s] have now been prepared for US soldiers - and this is the reason for digging a large number of graves."
The Iranian media ran this statement as a headline with large photos of the fresh graves.
debkafile's military sources report that Tehran is also flexing its muscles against the United States in Lebanon. After the Lebanese army's Aug. 3 clash with Israel, the Iranian ambassador called on the Lebanese chief of staff and offered Tehran's support for Beirut. He also proposed Iranian military assistance to take the place of the American hardware which US Congress proposes to cut off after the Lebanese army instigated the clash.
The Iranian diplomat proposed invoking the 2008 Iranian-Lebanese military accord which provides for Iranian arms, including heavy weapons, to be supplied to Lebanon together with Iranian military instructors.
This proposition was dismissed by US State Department spokesman Philip Crowley when he said Tuesday: "Iran's activities compromise Lebanese sovereignty."
Stepping up the pressure on Beirut to abandon its pro-Western orientation, Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has announced he will pay a visit Beirut after Ramadan (which began Tuesday night, Aug, 10 and runs for 30 days).

http://www.debka.com/article/8961/
 

Rebelkid

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2010
Messages
453
Likes
24
To meet increasingly defiant Iranian threats to US regional military forces, Washington has detached the USS Truman carrier from support duty for Afghanistan in the Arabian Sea and reassigned it to Dubai opposite the Gulf of Oman and the Straits of Hormuz with thousands of marines aboard.
Reporting this, debkafile's military sources note that the Iranian submarine attack on a Japanese oil supertanker last month near Hormuz underlined the urgency of heightened security for keeping the vital straits open.
Tuesday, Aug. 10, Rear Admiral Ali Fadavi, commander of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Navy (which is Iran's only real naval force), remarked: "Aircraft Carrier USS Truman is currently at Jebel Ali" - 35 kilometers southwest of Dubai - "and will quickly leave the region."
Speaking to reporters at the Bandar Abbas naval base, the admiral announced the addition of twelve torpedo and missile cruisers to the IRGC Navy and the purchase of a British Bladerunner speedboat. "What worries the Americans is that we have equipped (the speedboat) with military gear," he said.
Our Iranian sources note that Tehran keeps track of - and responds instantly with fleet deployments of its own - to every US naval movement in a broad radius from its shores - from the Red Sea in the North, to the Gulfs of Aden and Oman in the East, the Horn of Africa in the west and the southern approaches to the Indian Ocean.

debkafile of April 22, 2010, first revealed that Iran was preparing a fleet of speedboats for striking American air carriers. (To read this article click here.)
By announcing that Iran had equipped the speedboats with military gear added, Fadavi unveiled Iran's counter-threat to US air carriers in general and the USS Truman in particular. Our military sources report that the souped-up Bladerunners have a speed of 61/5 MPH. They Russian-made Shkval torpedoes they carry had travel up to 360 knots per hour, the fastest of any comparable torpedo in service today, a speed which defies radar detection.

Two days earlier, on Aug. 8, Iran launched four Ghadir-type mini-submarines from the same base at Bandar Abbas.

The USS Truman Strike force carries 6,000 marines and sailors and Carrier Wing Three consisting of seven Battle Axe squadrons. It leads a flotilla of four more vessels: the guided missile cruiser USS Normandy, the guided missile destroyer USSWinston S. Churchill, the USS Oscar Austin destroyer and the guided missile destroyer USS Ross.

Another carrier, the USS Peleliu and its marine force are in the Arabian Sea waiting for permission to enter Karachi port and render aid to the millions of flood-stricken Pakistanis. The USS Nassau is cruising in the Gulf Aden.

In a bid to further dramatize Iran's readiness for war, IRGC Deputy Chief Gen. Hossein Kan'ani Moghadam announced Tuesday, Aug. 10: "The mass graves that were used for burying Saddam's soldiers [in the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s] have now been prepared for US soldiers - and this is the reason for digging a large number of graves."
The Iranian media ran this statement as a headline with large photos of the fresh graves.
debkafile's military sources report that Tehran is also flexing its muscles against the United States in Lebanon. After the Lebanese army's Aug. 3 clash with Israel, the Iranian ambassador called on the Lebanese chief of staff and offered Tehran's support for Beirut. He also proposed Iranian military assistance to take the place of the American hardware which US Congress proposes to cut off after the Lebanese army instigated the clash.
The Iranian diplomat proposed invoking the 2008 Iranian-Lebanese military accord which provides for Iranian arms, including heavy weapons, to be supplied to Lebanon together with Iranian military instructors.
This proposition was dismissed by US State Department spokesman Philip Crowley when he said Tuesday: "Iran's activities compromise Lebanese sovereignty."
Stepping up the pressure on Beirut to abandon its pro-Western orientation, Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has announced he will pay a visit Beirut after Ramadan (which began Tuesday night, Aug, 10 and runs for 30 days).

http://www.debka.com/article/8961/
i Love how the US navy has got fancy names "battle axe squadron" lol... on a serious note considering how much provocation is going on despite the sanctions. The stage is pretty much set for atleast an Arial attack on Iran's nuclear faculities.. This would prolly esculate war in the whole region Isreal, Lebanon etc... even pushing the oil prices up..
 

civfanatic

Retired
Ambassador
Joined
Sep 8, 2009
Messages
4,561
Likes
2,567
If America does conduct an aerial strike on Iranian nuclear facilities, how will Iran respond?
 

Rebelkid

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2010
Messages
453
Likes
24
If America does conduct an aerial strike on Iranian nuclear facilities, how will Iran respond?
Iran would carry out missile attacks on ISreal and Soudi arabia's oil fields from what i hear , Its said they got considerably large amount of missiles which would explain US shifting its missile defence from poland to Israel.. Any attack on Iran by US/Isreal would bring Hebullah and Lebanon into the mix...
 

civfanatic

Retired
Ambassador
Joined
Sep 8, 2009
Messages
4,561
Likes
2,567
Iran would carry out missile attacks on ISreal and Soudi arabia's oil fields from what i hear , Its said they got considerably large amount of missiles which would explain US shifting its missile defence from poland to Israel.. Any attack on Iran by US/Isreal would bring Hebullah and Lebanon into the mix...
Do you think they will intervene in Iraq and/or Afghanistan?
 

sandeepdg

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2009
Messages
2,333
Likes
226
'Israel set to hit Iran's N-sites within a year'

JERUSALEM: Israel may launch a unilateral attack on Iranian nuclear facilities within a year if the Obama administration fails to assure Tel Aviv that it is serious about foiling Tehran's atomic ambitions, a media report said.

Israel will carry out the military attack without asking for Washington's famous "green light" or even give couple of false pre-attack alerts, according to Atlantic magazine's yet-to-be published story, obtained by Ha'aretz daily. "...one day next spring, Israeli national security adviser, Uzi Arad, and Israeli defence minister, Ehud Barak, will simultaneously telephone their counterparts at the White House and the Pentagon, to inform them their PM, Benjamin Netanyahu, has just ordered roughly one hundred F-15Es, F-16Is, F-16Cs, and other aircraft of the Israeli air force to fly east toward Iran," the article says.

The article's authorJeffery Goldberg bases his arguments on dozens of interviews he conducted in recent months with Israeli, American and Arab officials and is of the opinion that the possibility of an Israeli strike has crossed the 50% mark. The results of such an attack will be dire and the unilateral operation might throw relations between Jerusalem and Washington into an unprecedented crisis, and could even unleash a full-scale regional war with possible economic repercussions for the whole world.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...N-sites-within-a-year/articleshow/6295985.cms
 

sandeepdg

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2009
Messages
2,333
Likes
226
Do you think they will intervene in Iraq and/or Afghanistan?
Nope, that seems very unlikely ! The prime targets for an Iranian attack will Israel and US assets spread in the GULF, though this may bring countries like Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Qatar into the conflict since substantial American assets are based in these places. Irag getting entangled is another possibility, though I think they might just spare an attack on Iraq since there is an Shia majority government in power and Iran too being a Shia majority nation, might just see some understanding with the Iraqis ! More so, I believe an American attack, if it actually takes place will come from neither Iraq nor Afghanistan but from a far off strategic base like Diego Garcia !
 

Rebelkid

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2010
Messages
453
Likes
24
Do you think they will intervene in Iraq and/or Afghanistan?
I have been hearing that Iranian special forces have been operating in Iraq against US forces.. . Iran would not be interested in too much conventional warfare and will save resources for a Guerrilla warfare all over Iraq and afganistan. It wuld be benefitial for them to target Iraq and Afghanistan as it would spread the US forces thin in completely hostile terrain, also as someone told and US attack on Iran would be met with intense hostility instead of welcoming like in case of Iraq..
 
Last edited:

Rebelkid

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2010
Messages
453
Likes
24
http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/news/world/04-iran-nuclear-aug21-qs-10

MOSCOW: Iran's first nuclear power plant, being built by Russia in the southern city of Bushehr, will formally launch next week, a spokesman for the Russian atomic agency told AFP on Friday.

"The fuel will be charged in the reactor on August 21. From this moment, Bushehr will be considered a nuclear installation," Rosatom spokesman Sergei Novikov said.

"This can be considered as the physical launch," he added.

Officials said the launch would be marked at a ceremony in Bushehr including the head of Rosatom, Sergei Kiriyenko.

Russia has been helping Iran build the plant since the mid-90s but its involvement has been marred by a series of delays and the issue is hugely delicate amid the standoff over Iran's nuclear programme.

Relations between Moscow and Tehran have cooled over the last months as Russia toughened its line on the Iranian nuclear drive but Prime Minister Vladimir Putin confirmed the plant would start up this summer.

----------

well... here we go again...closer to war
 

Global Defence

Articles

Top