BBC - US 'Iran Attack Plans' Revealed

[paparush]

US contingency plans for air strikes on Iran extend beyond nuclear sites and include most of the country's military infrastructure, the BBC has learned.

It is understood that any such attack - if ordered - would target Iranian air bases, naval bases, missile facilities and command-and-control centres.

The US insists it is not planning to attack, and is trying to persuade Tehran to stop uranium enrichment.

The UN has urged Iran to stop the programme or face economic sanctions.

But diplomatic sources have told the BBC that as a fallback plan, senior officials at Central Command in Florida have already selected their target sets inside Iran.

BBC security correspondent Frank Gardner says the trigger for such an attack reportedly includes any confirmation that Iran was developing a nuclear weapon - which it denies.

Alternatively, our correspondent adds, a high-casualty attack on US forces in neighbouring Iraq could also trigger a bombing campaign if it were traced directly back to Tehran. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6376639.stm

[Rosa Luxemburg]

1. 'no smoke without fire' as the saying goes

the 'Beeb' is usually in the know.

[leveymg]

56. Of course there's a plan. There's a plan to invade Canada, too.

This one is every bit as much in the U.S. national interest.

Unless there's a Congressional war resolution specifically authorizing an attack against Iran, the Joint Chiefs won't do it. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/2/18/10343/6778

[TexasLawyer]

2. The trigger-happy Bush crowd

I'm sure with their EXCELLENT intelligence and neo-con connections, our glorious leaders will find out what they need to know.

"the trigger for such an attack reportedly includes any confirmation that Iran was developing a nuclear weapon - which it denies."

[magellan]

3. Everything we knew and suspected, confirmed by the Beeb

I wish it were comforting, but I'm more worried that we won't get to a UNSC vote on further sanctions before Bush** pushes the button. He's not known for his patience.

[Broadslidin]

5. And Surely, Never A Word From The 'Profit Driven' US empire media.

[magellan]

7. Indeed, informing the masses of something critical like this

...would be uncharacteristically professional of them. Although, if they did, we'd then be treated to a parade of RW neo-numskulls trying to convince us that this sort of contingency planning is natural and doesn't mean there are war plans on Bush**'s desk. That is what they told us about Iraq, after all.

Howdy do, Broadslidin! :hi:

[AllexxisF1]

4. Wow, just wow.

If I were the Iranians I would seriously consider a pre-emptive action of my own. If it looked inevitable that I was being attacked, I would take out as many oil production sites in Saudi Arabia as a pre-emptive strike. That alone would cripple the west big time. Saber rattling in situations like this is just plain dangerous.

[jpak]

9. My thoughts too - why wouldn't the Iranians consider a preemptive strike against US forces

Our Great Decider preemptively attacked I-raq cuz he "saw a threat" posed by Saddam's WMD.

Here, the US has deployed 2(+) carrier and 1 expeditionary strike groups (plus a bunch of submarines and mine warfare vessels) on Iran's doorstep as a show of "strength".

Unlike Saddam's made-up WMD, these forces pose a real threat to Iran...

So why wouldn't they go for the preemption option???

What's good for the Goose, etc....

:sarcasm:

[ktlyon]

57. not sure you need the sarcasm thingy

you asked a legitimate question that the world needs to be asking

[Big Pappa]

73. This

is exactly what Bush wants.

[kimmerspixelated]

11. Makes you wonder if some of the Iranians have

already tried to leave because they know it's coming soon...wasn't there a deadline?

[reprobate]

24. Iran could cripple the west with much simpler actions.

Just sink a couple of ships in the shipping lanes of the straight of Hormuz. There are points in those lanes (which are really narrow) where the depth is fifty meters or less. That could be blocked easily. Matter of fact, that was one of the big dangers in the gulf war, remember?

Do that and there is no oil leaving the gulf states. Good move George. You're and IDIOT!

[FarCenter]

25. Absorbing the attack will be a propaganda victory for Iran

I think that Iran would not attack pre-emptively.

First, absorbing the United States air attack is more in keeping with the Shiite outlook to welcome martyrdom and victimhood.

Second, in world opinion, Iran has much more to gain by demonstrating that the United States is the agressor state. Iran will gain sympathy. Other countries will become either outright hostile towards the United States or they will adopt a passive-agressive strategy of phony or non-cooperation.

The result of a pre-emptive attack on Iran is that the United States becomes a pariah state.

[ClayZ]

47. Become? We already are, with these idiots in charge!

[davekriss]

41. It wouldn't be pre-emptive

It would be a legal response to imminent threat. The US is massing 2, and potentially 3, carrier fleets off the coast of Iran and has engaged in much threatening saber rattling. This is a classic example of imminent threat. By UN Charter Article 51, Iran has a legal right to attack. It would be self-defense.

But that is if we lived in a fair world where symmetric rules applied.

(It would be sheer lunacy for either side to attack.)

[sanskritwarrior]

48. Probably because the Iranians

aren't suicidal......

A premeptive attack on Western oil would enrage the entire world and focus anger away from the US and onto the Iranians. The President of Iran might be a Holocaust denying loony, but he seems to want to keep drawing breath......

[RL3AO]

6. This really isn't news to me...

Its obvious that if/when the U.S. attacks Iran that they will go after the military bases. Bush won't drop a nuke on Tehran...or will he?

[uppityperson]

13. I thought you didn't care what Iranians thought.

edited to correct, change the Q to a N.

[RL3AO]

14. I said Iran, not Iraq.

Never mind...you edited it.

[uppityperson]

16. True, typed wrong letter. So, I thought you said you didn't care what Iranians thought.

Guess you don't care if they don't want to be bombed.

[RL3AO]

17. I didnt mean it that way

I meant that Iran isn't just an innocent government, which we all know.

[uppityperson]

19. Aha. Might be good to go back and explain there too as you come across that way.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=247101&mesg_id=247162
Good to explain a bit more than less. There are few innocent governments, but the people are the ones that suffer. Welcome to DU, by the way.

[davekriss]

43. So true

People rarely win wars, governments rarely lose them. People get killed. Governments molt and regroup, hydra-headed. They first use flags to shrink-wrap peoples' minds and suffocate real thought, and then as ceremonial shrouds to cloak the mangled corpses of the willing dead.
-- Arundhati Roy

[peacetalksforall]

21. Did you like them better when they partnered with the Reagan-Bush

and their Iran Contra operatives?

[caledesi]

46. Iran helped us fight in Afghanistan....were they innocent then? nt

[AllexxisF1]

8. ...

Or better yet, while your at it why not destroy every single oil installation as well. That way the Saudi Royal family can make a bundle raising the price of oil and pick up Iranian old customers like China and India.


Oh wait, that was the plan after all.

[HereSince1628]

10. The issue of course is a put-up report of a high US casualty attack

that results in the itchy fingers pulling the trigger.

I fear we will wake up one morning and find out it is too late to prevent it.

Months or years later we will find out it was simply a battalion with communications failure.

[kimmerspixelated]

12. I hope a military type will refuse to launch the first missile.

A real hero.

[Porcupine]

45. Remember the Maine!!

A ship blows up and a retaliation strike is ordered. CNN and Fox beat the drums of war like a Taiko convention on speed. Oil prices hit the roof; Exxon CEO gets a billion dollar bonus.

Rinse wash repeat in Venezuala October '08.

[USA_1]

15. APPEASEMENT SUCKS!!!

It did not work with Hitler and will not work to stop Bush.

WHEN WILL THE WORLD LEARN???

[Pavulon]

18. Contingency plan

we have a contingency plan to invade canada and mexico too. When armored divisions are redeployed to the borders and units in Europe start moving assets wake me up.

We have been "about to attack" iran for two years. Run a search on the topic..

[Show_Me _The_Truth]

54. 2 years, try 20yrs

Remember the pleasantries in the late 80's in the Straits of Hormuz.

[IndianaGreen]

20. Once again the British press reveals the evil plans of our Pentagon warmongers

just as they debunked every WMD claim made by Bush and Blair in the run up to the Iraq War.

The world needs to know what Bush is up to.

[acmavm]

22. These people are really going to get the surprise of their lives if they

attack Iran. This is not a country that was under sanctions for 20 years.

[leveymg]

55. No surprises this time. The Pentagon brass won't do it.

Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Pace is already on the record against it.

This is more psyops, intended to influence UN Security Council members, more than anyone else, to impose stricter sanctions -- the argument being, Iran will cave-in, and that will avoid a war. Hopefully, no one except Right-wing American and Israeli leaders are stupid enough to really believe that.

[alfredo]

23. Why not Saudi Arabia? Saudis have killed much more Americans

than Iran. They are funding the Sunni insurgents in Iraq.

[redqueen]

60. Cause the Bushes and the House of Saud are BFF.

[alfredo]

64. Saudi Arabia is also financing our debt.

[redqueen]

65. More than China?

Equal to?

Only curious...

[alfredo]

72. Not sure, but I think China is the biggest. Bush kisses their asses too.

We are borrowing money from Mexico.

[leftchick]

26. "a high-casualty attack on US forces in Iraq" is guarenteed if the US strikes

but obviously bush does not care. :(

[moodforaday]

67. I think he does care

He HOPES for it. Anything that lets him beat the war drum harder, requires expanded military action in Iraq, implicates Iran *and* legitimizes Bush's grip on power is GOOD FOR BUSH. He practically FEEDS on terror attacks and casualties.

[goofticket]

27. Brits release Bush's Iran attack plans

In April of 2002, we got this lie.
...President George W Bush's administration has denied it has agreed on the military strategy needed to topple Saddam Hussein in Iraq.
White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said Mr Bush had "no plan on his desk" for the removal of the Iraqi leader.

Go to the BBC and read the new 'contingency plan.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6376639.stm

[uppityperson]

28. jfc. eom

dupe http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2737402

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

29. K & R, excellent goofticket. Wow. Please reformat the headline, so it can stay in LBN.

MKJ

:kick:

[Rebellious Republican]

30. goofticket, you need to use the original headline in LBN

The mods are easily excited, :evilgrin:

US 'Iran attack plans' revealed

[oldtimecanuk]

31. Do these people, after all the lies think that most of us just fell...

off the turnip wagon? There has not been a truthful word out of this WH in so long, hell I can't remember if there has ever been a truthful word from them... Yeah, right we are not planning to attack Iran, we just have several Carrier groups in the gulf for the possibility that defense is needed. I have some nice ocean property in Nevada that I would like to sell ya as well.

ww

[rocktivity]

32. Well, maybe the plans are on SOMEONE ELSE'S desk...

You can't accuse Bush of lying THIS time!

P.S. Look at the banner on the bottom the page: "The most read story in the UK is: US 'Iran attack plans' revealed"

:eyes:
rocknation

[ktlyon]

58. that is right, there is nothing on George's desk

he doesn't know what work is

[SKKY]

33. Not really news...

...The Pentagon does this kind of stuff all the time. The Pentagon spends a good deal of its time developing these very kind of scenarios. Hell, I'm sure we have a plan somewhere in the event Canada gets out of control and tries to import another Bryan Adams.

[druidity33]

49. well...

it doesn't really seem like he had a plan though does it?

maybe he had a plan to attack, but beyond that i don't see it.

[Matilda]

34. One of the dumbest things is that the US propped up Saddam

for decades as a counter to Iran's ambitions, and it worked.

Then they took away Saddam, and Iran got big ideas ....

[Fire Walk With Me]

50. The CIA have been arming both sides for decades.

If they had managed to knock each other down, all the easier to march in and provide support and guidance, to all that oil, just as China have been providing support and guidance to Tibet for the last odd fifty years.

[Forkboy]

35. Leaked on purpose I suspect

A "look how serious we are" type leak meant for Iranian eyes.It amounts to a free show of force.

[leveymg]

53. Ding. Ding! Give that boy a nice ceegar!

[happyslug]

36. Poppycock.

American Air Attack Doctrine since WWII has been as follows (And in this order):

1. Radar and Air Defenses Systems, these are destroyed to protect future air attacking planes. This includes Radars and Planes and to a limited expect Naval forces with air defense capabilities. It also includes the Command and control systems, more the communication lines but also the headquarters.

2. Attack Infrastructure, namely the following:
A. Attack Transportation systems, Railroads, Docks, Roads etc., if the enemy can NOT move its ability to fight is vastly weaken.
B. Attack Electrical Generation Systems, no electricity, this cuts into the defense system feed by the Electrical Generation System, hurts the transportation system AND forces the country attacked to shift resources from defense to providing electrical service (Which cuts into oil held in storage for ALL purposes including using one's own Planes, tanks etc).
C. Attack Water and Sewerage Systems, forces the country to allocate resources to get their own people clean water to keep diseases in check.

3. Once the above has been done then and only then do you attacked the ground forces of the enemy.

Thus this is a simplification of the Plan US Attack, to make it sound like it is hitting military targets only, not Railroads, Bridges, Roads, Electrical Generation Plants, Water and Sewerage Plants, Docks etc.

[HuffleClaw]

37. the trigger for such an attack...

...reportedly includes any confirmation that Iran was developing a nuclear weapon - which it denies. Alternatively, our correspondent adds, a high-casualty attack on US forces in neighbouring Iraq could also trigger a bombing campaign if it were traced directly back to Tehran."

- how very fucking convenient, two things that could never possibly be actually verified in any way. its crap like this that explains why the dems need to act to stop them NOW.

[Nihil]

38. Yeah right ... good luck in finding any Dem who is prepared to act.

The "name players" are all arse-licking the "Bush=Patriot" or the "Must protect Israel" bums
at the moment.

As you say, how very fucking convenient.

[HuffleClaw]

61. i'm sadly certain they've no genuine interest in stopping him

or they'd have acted before now. i think they are playing politics, hoping bush will commit another stupendous blunder and guarantee a democratic win in the next election, no matter who runs.

[TheWatcher]

69. Give them credit.

At least they are telling you what they are going to do before they carry it out and conveniently blame it on Iran.

It isn't convenient. It's how they operate.

False Flag.

[EVDebs]

39. Iran, via Ptech, will probably already have access to the plans

Dollars of terror, by Rachel Ehrenfeld, tells us that

""Ptech is used primarily to develop enterprise blueprints at the highest level of US government and corporate infrastructure. These blueprints hold every important functional, operational, and technical detail of the enterprise. A secondary use of this powerful tool is to build other smart tools in a short period of time. Ptech’s clients in 2001 included the Department of Justice, the Department of Energy, Customs, Air Force, the White House, the FAA, IBM, Sysco, Aetna, and Motorola, to name just a few. ""

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=17730

If this Saudi company were infiltrated or simply being set up for a Saudi 'false flag' operation, getting the US to do Saudi 'dirty work', then you can bet that the Saudis have already made sure that Iranian intelligence knows those plans and how to conteract.

If wargames during 9-11 were known about so that 19 Saudi hijackers could do their dirty work, this is entirely a plausible scenario.

[lakercub]

40. Whenever Seymour Hersh speaks

we should all listen intently. Every time he exposes something the administration is going to do, they deny it, bitch about it, and then do it 6 months to a year later. He nailed Iraq and he is nailing Iran.

[leveymg]

52. Hersh claimed we'd attack before the elections. He was wrong then.

and he's wrong about it this time, too.

He's being spun by his sources as part of a colossal psy-war program to pressure Iran to make concessions on the terms of U.S. Iraq withdrawal and its nuclear program.

We can bomb, but will end up losing that war, too. The Joint Chiefs of Staff understand that way better than some members of Congress and the Administration, and have already said, "No".

[sweetheart]

42. wow, that story must have taken years to write

I bet they wrote it in 2003

[Up2Late]

44. Shouldn't the headline be the OLD "Iran Attack Plans" Revealed, because...

...unless the Bush Cabal is 100% Stupid, they most likely are going to have to come up with a NEW plan now. :hurts:

Let's just hope the don't retaliate against any BBC Journalist in Iraq or in one of their newsrooms around the world.:hide:

[moodforaday]

66. Actually., no. This is a psy-op

There are several possibilities here. The plans may have been leaked with an intent to prevent an attack on Iran. But it is equally probable that it is a "controlled leak", i.e. either as a bluff or a threat that will be followed through. But it doesn't matter much, because the "plans" are just what you or I could figure out for ourselves: of course they're going to strike nuclear and other military installations. (They're also going to hit a couple if cities for a good measure, but THAT was not in the leaked portion of the plan - which indicates to me it's not an anti-war leak, but a semi-offiicial communique to Iran, dressed up as a leak.) It's not like the plan contains dates, hours and GPS coordinates.

Secondly, recall that the same kind of information was public in 2003 before the strike on Iraq. Everybody knew with some accuracy which parts of Iraq were going to be hit. The only unknown was the date. It's not like a country can hide its cities and installations where you won't find them. There's nothing secret about the plan except the fact that it has been drawn. And the fact, I believe, that leaking the plan is a psy-op.

Ed: typos

[leveymg]

51. This is scare mongering to push the UN into approving stricter sanctions

The argument that sanctions and a naval blockade will avert a war is facetious, but has been stated this way:

'Iran center of US-Israeli talks'

MK Steinitz says Islamic Republic at center of talks between Israeli officials and visiting US Congressional delegation; 'pretty clear' military option is on table should sanctions fail, he says, adding that 'Hizbullah threat higher than ever'

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3367124,00.html

<snip>

"Iran was at the center of talks held between members of the Joint Parliamentary Committee for the US and Israel, Knesset Member Yuval Steinitz told Ynetnews on Monday evening.

Steinitz is hosting a delegation of three American Congress members (Jane Harman, Gabrielle Giffords, Steve Pearce) and a senator (John Kyl) who arrived on a military flight to Israel on Sunday night to meet with fellow Israeli committee members. On Monday evening, the delegation met with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert in Jerusalem.

"The Iranian subject was the first topic in all of the discussions," Steinitz said, adding: "It was the central issue."

"Everyone expressed an unequivocal stance that Iran must not be allowed to be a nuclear country, and to have nuclear weapons," Steinitz said. "There is some hope that if Europe works with the US to achieve economic sanctions, and a blockade on Tehran, then Iran may agree to halts its program, like North Korea," he said. "If not, it's pretty clear that the military solution is on table," he added."

Of course, this is entirely ass-backwards. There can be no pretext for use of force unless there is a blockade.

"There is some hope that if Europe works with the US to achieve economic sanctions, and a blockade on Tehran, then Iran may agree to halts its program, like North Korea," he said. "If not, it's pretty clear that the military solution is on table," he added."

I can think of no swifter route to a real war than imposing sharp sanctions and attempting a naval blockade on Iran.

There is no "military solution." I hate that term, "solution", and Steinitz should know better.

[KitSileya]

59. This was reported in our local newspaper this morning.

The rest of the world knows that Bush is spoiling for a fight, and will use despicable means to get it. I listened as they discussed this at work (usually I am pretty vocal in these discussions, but this time i just listened) and one of our vocational teachers, a 60-year old former blue collar worker, not only was convinced that Bush would attack, but he also quickly drew comparisons to Germany's attack on Poland Sept. 1, 1939. Everyone nodded and agreed. My colleagues are teachers, yes, but most of them are former blue collar workers, not interested in academics at all, who have a very practial view on the world and how it works.

Therefore, I can firmly say that Norwegians are not fooled by Bush, and we will not forgive if he sends the world into such a conflagration. He will join the list of Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot et al. I just hope that Americans will acquit themselves in that instance, and not join the list of "good Germans".

[LeftHander]

62. CHoosing targets and planning air strikes...sound like attack planning..nt

[Marie26]

63. What's new here?

We've had plans to strike Iran for years now.

[TheWatcher]

68. God, don't these idiot reporters proof-read their work any more?

Let me get out the red pen and make a glaring correction.

The last sentence from the OP SHOULD read:

"Alternatively, our correspondent adds, a False Flag operation, which would consist of a high-casualty attack on US forces in neighboring Iraq, could also trigger a bombing campaign if it were conveniently blamed on Tehran."

[demo dutch]

70. Wow

[sofa king]

71. That can't be the real plan, though.

Because the real plan certainly involves parking about four divisions of soldiers and Marines in the Iranian provinces along the Persian Gulf coast--where all the oil is.

I think that the key to averting this totally unnecessary war will be to correct everyone, in the media and around the dinner table, about the actual reason for wanting to fight the war.

The actual reason is because the Bush Administration wants to steal and de-nationalize Iranian oil. Period.

Anything beyond that is WMD-talk.