Anon

US prepares military blitz against Iran's nuclear sites
By Philip Sherwell in Washington
(Filed: 12/02/2006)

Strategists at the Pentagon are drawing up plans for devastating bombing raids backed by submarine-launched ballistic missile attacks against Iran's nuclear sites as a "last resort" to block Teheran's efforts to develop an atomic bomb.

Central Command and Strategic Command planners are identifying targets, assessing weapon-loads and working on logistics for an operation, the Sunday Telegraph has learnt.


They are reporting to the office of Donald Rumsfeld, the defence secretary, as America updates plans for action if the diplomatic offensive fails to thwart the Islamic republic's nuclear bomb ambitions. Teheran claims that it is developing only a civilian energy programme.

"This is more than just the standard military contingency assessment," said a senior Pentagon adviser. "This has taken on much greater urgency in recent months."

The prospect of military action could put Washington at odds with Britain which fears that an attack would spark violence across the Middle East, reprisals in the West and may not cripple Teheran's nuclear programme. But the steady flow of disclosures about Iran's secret nuclear operations and the virulent anti-Israeli threats of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has prompted the fresh assessment of military options by Washington. The most likely strategy would involve aerial bombardment by long-distance B2 bombers, each armed with up to 40,000lb of precision weapons, including the latest bunker-busting devices. They would fly from bases in Missouri with mid-air refuelling.

The Bush administration has recently announced plans to add conventional ballistic missiles to the armoury of its nuclear Trident submarines within the next two years. If ready in time, they would also form part of the plan of attack.

Teheran has dispersed its nuclear plants, burying some deep underground, and has recently increased its air defences, but Pentagon planners believe that the raids could seriously set back Iran's nuclear programme.



Iran was last weekend reported to the United Nations Security Council by the International Atomic Energy Agency for its banned nuclear activities. Teheran reacted by announcing that it would resume full-scale uranium enrichment - producing material that could arm nuclear devices.

The White House says that it wants a diplomatic solution to the stand-off, but President George W Bush has refused to rule out military action and reaffirmed last weekend that Iran's nuclear ambitions "will not be tolerated".

Sen John McCain, the Republican front-runner to succeed Mr Bush in 2008, has advocated military strikes as a last resort. He said recently: "There is only only one thing worse than the United States exercising a military option and that is a nuclear-armed Iran."

Senator Joe Lieberman, a Democrat, has made the same case and Mr Bush is expected to be faced by the decision within two years.

By then, Iran will be close to acquiring the knowledge to make an atomic bomb, although the construction will take longer. The President will not want to be seen as leaving the White House having allowed Iran's ayatollahs to go atomic.

In Teheran yesterday, crowds celebrating the anniversary of the 1979 Islamic revolution chanted "Nuclear technology is our inalienable right" and cheered Mr Ahmadinejad when he said that Iran may reconsider membership of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

He was defiant over possible economic sanctions.
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/...l/2006/...

lwarmonger

We'll wait until after we're largely out of Iraq. The insurgency is bad enough as it is, without Iranian Pasdaran Guard units slipping across the border.

Anon

They already have been.

We've caught entire Iranian and Syrian commando units intact in Iraq.

gunnut

Why don't we let the Euros deal with this crap? Give something for the mighty German and French military to do. The world deserves nothing better.

Anon

Cause they'll do nothing, then in the end, WE will be stuck dealing with a belligerent nuclear armed Iran.

Nope, Europe lost all cred dealing with Hitler and Saddam. No more chances for them. This is far too important an issue.

Confed999

Or worse, going by the Saddam fiasco, they will do something, then in the end, WE will be stuck dealing with a belligerent nuclear armed Iran...

__________________
No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry

Sameer

Just out of curiosity, what are these recent Iranian air defence upgrades all about?

I cant seem to find much on any decent millitary aquisition from that country even though oil money has been flowing nicely over the last few years.

Are they simply waiting to be bombed?

Horrido

Nobody trusts them enough to sell them anything decent.

__________________
The black flag is raised: Ban them all... Let the Admin sort them out.

I know I'm going to have the last word... I have powers of deletion and lock.

Garry

US administration did mistake invading Iraq.... while it must have deat with Afghanistan, North Korea and Iran. While also pushing India and Pakistan for nuclear disarmanent.

Now mistaken invasion into Iraq makes trouble to a real threat - nuclear weapons in Iran.

Iran does not have good air defense cause it was having quite independent policy in 1970-80es.... Iran made himself an adversary of two superpowers - USA/NATO and USSR/Warsaw Pact. Both were favoring Iraq in its attack against Iran.

In 1990-es Russia has delivered some land weapons (BMP-2 and some tanks) to Iran.... but it was ceased after Eltsin agreed with Clinton that no more deliveries after 1995..... in 2002 Russia has withdrew from this agreement after US withdrew from several cold war agreements and start active flirting with Georgia over NATO accession. Since then Iran received some more BMP-2s and tanks.... but not a crutial amount. In addition to that Iran has bought some Mig-29 from Kazakhstan, Moldavia and Ukraine. But these were models produced in early 1980-es and have almost 80% of their engine resource used out.... meaning that Iranian pilots can not use them activelly for training or patroling.

The air defense was something which Iranies were begging for years since 2002 withdrawal..... However Russia wanted Iran to be flexible on some other issues in Central Asia and did not sell its air defense systems for until 2005 when Iran feeling urgency made some good concessions on its oil politics in Caspian Region.... (agreed to make all possible problems to Caspian underwater pipeline from Kazakhstan to Baku + prolong uncertainty over the status of the sea + do not consider building pipeline from Caspian coast to Persian Gulf). Iran signed on delivery of Tor-M1 short range tactical SAMs and repair and upgrade of its MiG-29 fighters. In addition to that they were negotiating for old S-200 and S-300 acquisition from storage of Russian army (which is now transfering to S-400).

In January Russia has slowed down delivery of Tor-M1 and upgradess to MiG-29.... after Iran resumed enrichment. So far not even one launcher is delivered.... Russia don't want Iran to be nuclear state....

Still bombing NATANZ will not help much.... Iranians do not yet have a BIG ENRICHMENT site worth bombing. And they will probably go for many smaller sites => hard to bomb them or even locate them.

Sameer

A few TOR M1 batteries and maybe a couple of older version s-200 systems around the capital and they talk tough?

They must really have a plan to annoy the Americans in Iraq through insurgency, they better do because they cant fight millitary, they have already lost.

-{SpoonmaN}-

They know that nothing will happen that poses a threat to the survival of their regime, since there's no chance the US administration would be stupid enough to actually invade Iran (too much money, too much death for people to stomach). If the US Military has to bomb Iran, it will leave the government there in a stronger position internally because they'll be able to use it as proof that all that stuff about American/Israeli consipiracies they keep raving about is true.

Anon

We could get the regime one despot at a time with JDAM or Predator strikes during the course of a say....90 day air campaign.

Without sending boot one onto iraqi soil we could destroy every standing structure in the entire country. Just a matter of how serious we are.

They need to be made to understand that there is no upside for them.

HistoricalDavid

Could the USAAF and USN destroy Iran's nuclear 'capability' and their military infrastructure in a 'one-punch knockout' (To curtail the possibility of retalitation)?

Confed999

Afghanistan already had an occupation force. Nobody is going to invade NK without them unleashing chemical weapons, and/or destroying much of northern SK. NK was lost long ago in an attempt at containment, a lesson many fail to learn. All you have on Iran is intel of nuclear weapons, the same as Iraq, if one was a mistake, then the other must be a mistake. Honestly I don't believe you would support any of those as military actions if you believe Iraq was a mistake. It is never a mistake to remove a tyrant from power, never.

I also really really like how in one thread you think Iran is no threat, yet in this one it is. You're just arguing to argue huh?

Confed999

Too many targets. Nukes would be the only option to one-punch 'em.