nickshepAK

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States has been conducting secret reconnaissance missions inside Iran to help identify potential nuclear, chemical and missile targets, The New Yorker magazine reported Sunday.

The article, by award-winning reporter Seymour Hersh, said the secret missions have been going on at least since last summer with the goal of identifying target information for three dozen or more suspected sites.

Hersh quotes one government consultant with close ties to the Pentagon (news - web sites) as saying, "The civilians in the Pentagon want to go into Iran and destroy as much of the military infrastructure as possible."

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...a_newyorker_dc


Which is more likely to happen? Air strikes against Iranian nuclear development sites and thats it or air strikes followed by an invasion or none of the above?

Confed999

Good. There will be no invasion though, no troops to do it.

__________________
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

nickshepAK

What about airstrikes on their nuclear facilities? I know its always an option but, do you see it actually happening?

Confed999

It depends on how much of a threat the Iranians make themselves out to be. I don't discount airstrikes happening in alot of places around the world.

Bluesman

A nuclear-armed Iran is absolutely unacceptable. Before we see them produce a bomb, any responsible PotUS will use whatever is the least drastic method of making sure that doesn't happen. In the range of possibilities, 'airstrike' is fairly high on the 'Drastic' scale. But most other options below it are also fairly low on the 'Likely to Work' scale.

So we'll see.

__________________
"The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it, and if one finds the prospect of a long war intolerable, it is natural to disbelieve in the possibility of victory."
- George Orwell

Parihaka

If the US conducted air strikes against Iran, how would Iran retaliate?

__________________
In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz

Bluesman

Good question. They're already doing their damnedest to our forces in Iraq. They support any anti-US terrorist group that shows the slightest capability to actually operate. And they are arming as fast as they can, which tends to work against US interests in the Gulf.

So, it seems they're already committed to a low-level war against us, and any level of intensity higher than the status quo would be VERY risky for the regime. So...where do they go from here? What would their answer be if we blew up something they value VERY highly?

IF, on the other hand, they succeed in getting one or more nuclear weapons, we dare not back 'em into a corner ever again.

lulldapull

This article is a joke! Unkal Sam doesnot have the testicles to screw around with the Mullahs in Tehran. On the other hand, the Mullahs have Unkal Sams testicles. Any wrong move, and the Shia robots in Iraq will be activated.

Then Bush and his thugs would find their position untenable. As it already pretty much sucks, the Mullas would make sure that Unkal Sam pays via Iraqi proxies doin the dirty.

I dare the Neocon thugs to try it. Mullah's have already warned that any blunder by Bush, and they will take U.S. forces hostage in Iraq, like they did in 1979.

There are zero U.S forces available in the theatre to cry out anything...short of airstrikes, which if carried out will bring Iran directly into Iraq. I'd like to see the battered U.S. forces in Iraq take on half a million men, deep buried and scattered nuclear sites and a 5000+ SSM inventory. Also here is an article from Global security on why it wont happen, despite serious but cheap wetdream scenarios by juvenile delinquints over here.

Attacking Iran`s nuclear facilities `dangerous,` says UK magazine


London, Oct 14, IRNA -- Any attempt by the US or Israel to attack
Iran`s nuclear facilities would not only be more difficult but much
more highly perilous than the 1981 bombing of Iraq`s unfinished
plant by Israel, according to Britain`s New Statesman magazine.
"Destroying Iran`s nuclear facilities would be a totally
different affair from destroying Osirak: it would be both harder and
much more dangerous," it warns in next week`s issue.
"For a start, Iran has many installations scattered over its huge
territory, and they are protected. The main military site, at Natanz
in central Iran, is buried deep underground," the British weekly
said in its main cover story.
It suggested that even if bombing Bushehr, one plant on the verge
of completion, were feasible (with Russian technicians working there
moved out of the way), "it would bring about huge retaliation while
chalking up only limited military gains."
"And Iran, unlike Iraq, has many means of retaliation, directly
against Israel and indirectly against US interests in Iraq and
elsewhere," the New Statesman further warned.
It also believed that America`s onslaught against with Iraq and
Afghanistan have put Iran at the "heart of the world`s most sensitive
region, giving it ample opportunity for good or for mischief."
The News Statesman was considering whether the US and Iran were
playing a game of bluff or double bluff in a dangerous game that was
keeping the rest of the world guessing.
With regard to the question on whether Iran would develop its
nuclear industry for military means, it said that there was "one
very good reason why it should, exemplified by North Korea."
"By acquiring the bomb, North Korea had put itself on a higher
level. Equally, there would be no better way for the Iranian regime
to protect itself from overthrow from outside than by having the
bomb," the magazine said,
It also referred to Iran being surrounded, and in some cases
threatened, by nuclear countries and forces, including the US in
Iraq as well as Israel and suggested having its own bomb would would
"provide a safety net for Tehran`s leaders."
On the other hand, the weekly believed as long as Iran did not go
nuclear, there was the possibility of a trade-off for some grand
international deal.
With the notion of the US and Iran developing a new relationship
remaining a "forlorn, if not surreal, hope," it believed that the
most likely outcome was that Washington would in the end getting the
case referred to the UN Security Council.
The New Statesman said that the US would then press the UN to
punish Iran with some form of sanctions, but which was unlikely to
go as far as oil "for no other reason than the precipitous effect
this would have on oil prices."
There was also questions on whether other Security Council
members, like Russia and China, would allow any resolution on sanction
be passed.
The result, it concluded, was likely to be another stalemate. "It
looks as if the perilous brinkmanship will continue - until one side
or the other steps over the edge," it said.
HC/2324/1432

lulldapull

Despite 2 cent rhetoric of "This and That" in the confrontation with Iran, among other mental masturbation scenarios to boost sapping morale in the U.S. military by Neocon thugs and their humbled lackeys, no one in the U.S. govt. is actually that stupid to attack Iran. I have posted this article before from CNS, and would be a good reality check for Christian fundos and their Apocalyptic/ armageddonist buddies.

http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/week/040812.htm

Leader

I bet Saddam was thinking a very similar thing right before the bomb hit his compound at the beginning of the war.

__________________

lulldapull

if that happens in Irans case then A bomb will hit both Allawi's compound quickly followed by most of U.S. military compounds and garrisons where demoralised U.S. troops now sit huddled for cover

then it will make the current (largely Sunni) insurgency look like a panty clad gay snowball fight, compared to what will happen next.

God I wish Bush just does it! I will LMAO and bust out laughing a whole lot more on this forum!

Leader

You have no strategic sense at all. If the mullahs nuked our troops, they and 95% and their countryman would be dead within an hour. Am I to assume that the after the sentence about Iran killing thousands of our troops is meant as approval. If so, you're a very demented individual.

lulldapull

no man Bush is a demented individual, for involving us in a war we can't win! And if he takes on iran, then he will really get it in the booty.

nuclear weapons cannot be used anymore. Not by Iran, nor by the U.S.....or anyone for that matter. geting them however is another story and gaurantees that your enemy doesnot cross the threshold! precisely what the mullah's are after....if not already have it.

great Job by Neocon thugs and Christian Fundo bible bigots! By threatening and intimidating other countries, they have actully accelerated WMD programs in all them nations. Did you bother to read the CNS article? or are you still slapping the mental maturbatory scenario.......of a "clean" and "effective" execution and zero consequence resolution of the Iranian WMD program???

Julie

You sure have an over-powering fettish about "booty." Either your sex life sucks, or, er...you just need to get some booty Lull or your going to self-destruct or something.

Leader

I give up. Go tell someone who cares.