Targetting Iran (Israel plan to hit Bushehr)

[tinnypriv]

Targetting Iran
Washington Times, August 29 2003

Israel has ready a plan to bomb Iran's Bushehr nuclear-power plant should the Persian Gulf coast facility, now under construction, begin producing weapons-grade material, an insider tells us.

This source says Israel has mapped out a route its jet fighters would take to destroy what is designed to be a two-reactor plant. A successful strike would ensure that the radical Tehran regime does not develop nuclear weapons. Iran has tested 600-mile-range ballistic missiles that can reach Israel and carry nuclear, biological or chemical warheads.

...

U.S. Central Command has contingency plans for war with Iran, but there is no active discussion of invading a country that President Bush has put in the "axis of evil." Still, some in the Pentagon talk unofficially of what would be needed to take out the Bushehr plant.

...

http://www.washtimes.com/national/inring.htm

...

Comment: Clever :eyes:

[Old and In the Way]

1. We having pissed the ME countries off enough, yet.

This will make everyone a lot safer...no chance of further retaliation after the reactor is taken out.

[tinnypriv]

2. Seems Iran had wind of this Aug 18

http://images.maariv.co.il/channels/1/ART/526/378.html

"Iran to Israel: attack and pay a heavy price"

"Iranian Foreign Minister: We hope the Zionists do not try this adventure"

Good to see those relations are thawing! :eyes:

[QuietStorm]

3. Iran's wind on this seems to go back to 2002 (if not farther)

there was a very similar article on the insraelinsider.com. The CSIS did a comprehensive study on Iran back in 1999. My guess is a pre-emptive strike on Iran has been at play for several years now. Threats and counter threats have already come up in the news very similar to those printed in the Feb 2002 insraelinsider.com article.

As aside it also seems prior to Russia signing the energy deal with Saudi Arabia, Saudia Arabia is in the process of solidify an energy arrangement with Iran as well. OPEC will not be broken without a fight is what this tells me. I have also pulled articles on Russia's potential collaboration with Iran's nuclear program.

We know going as far back as 2001 I believe that "the Paks" may have provided Iran with nuclear paraphenial via N.Korea, which was once again revisited yesterday in LBN. Pre-emptive on Iran potential by way of Israel? Not such a stretch of the imagination

1993
http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/0493/9304015.htm

Nov 2000
http://www.gamla.org.il/english/article/2000/nov/ber1.htm

Feb 2002
http://www.israelinsider.com/channels/security/articles/sec_0189.htm

Feb 2003
http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,12858,893041,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,643734,00.html

June 2003
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EF26Ak03.html
http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20030618-102749-4644r.htm

July
http://web.radicalparty.org/pressreview/print_right.php?func=detail&par=6429

Aug 13-15 2003
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A52278-2003Aug12¬Found=true
http://english.daralhayat.com/world_news/08-2003/Article-20030815-04d1fcce-c0a8-01ed-000c-a8ac055c6127/story.html
http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/329723.html

[QuietStorm]

7. 2002 US /Israel spy satellites (here is another one)

snip

Washington For the past seven years, U.S. and Israeli spy satellites have swept regularly over Iran`s Gulf coast, snapping pictures of Russian and Iranian construction crews working to complete a nuclear power plant at Bushehr.

This year, the satellites beamed back images of a round reactor dome, cooling pipes, pumping equipment and what some intelligence analysts believe to be anti-aircraft missile battery sites.

Bushehr has become the subject of debate in Washington and Tel Aviv over whether the plant should be allowed to come on line, as scheduled, in the next two or three years.

Part of the discussions involve pressuring Russia to voluntarily cease construction. But as the plant moves closer to completion, it also has emerged as a potential test case of the Bush administration`s new doctrine of preempting threats to U.S. national security.

more...
http://nuclearno.com/text.asp?3570

[Muddleoftheroad]

4. After all

It's not like Iran doesn't support terrorists that attack Israel. Why would Israel allow them to get nukes as well?

[Darranar]

5. Well...

if Israel destroys the plant, a retaliation will follow with WMD already owned by the Iranians. Let's see if this can be solved by speaking softly and not using the big stick.

[Muddleoftheroad]

8. Retaliation

Yeah, maybe Iran will support more terror attacks against Israel. Oops, they already do that.

[fujiyama]

25. While I don't disagree...

that Iran sponsers terrorism against Israel, I think I read somewhere that Iran actually posses a missile capable of hitting Israel. I forgot what the name was, but I think they were testing it a while back.

Granted I'm sure the Israelis would keep in mind any actual military retaliation (other than a possible increase in terror attacks) by Iran. My guess is Iran is in much better shape defensively, than Iraq was when Israel bombed Osiraq.

[Darranar]

26. They do...

But they haven't used it, and they likely won't-unless Israel strikes first.

[QuietStorm]

10. I am sorry to say

that I do not think diplomacy is on the dance card. I hope I am wrong. However, nothing thus far that I have seen in actions suggests any of the allies US/UK/Israel are much interested in negotiation. The overall plan does now seem to clearly be a breaking of OPEC and my military means. Demands not compromise. Again I hope I am wrong.

[Darranar]

11. Well, clearly...

Bush and Co can't negotiate, and never will be able to. I just hope the Iranians and North Koreans will wait for a Democratic president before cutting off all negotiations.

[QuietStorm]

27. unless

there is a premptive strike on Iran first. If one becomes "justifiable" based on "whatever" hell could break lose. More hell than we already got going. Unfortunately the strategy at play resides within preventive war. One can only hope all the strategists DO REALIZE they have dug themselves quite a hole already to make a trumped up pre-emptive unreasonable.

[Darranar]

28. Oh, no, please...

No preemptive strike on Iran! We're in a quagmire in two countries now. We can hardly handle that, we don't need THREE! And who knows what varying WMD they might unleash in they feel that their survival is in doubt?

[QuietStorm]

29. i don't believe someone is up now

you must be in the east coast.

Well if you read through the articles posted in post 3 and 7, it looks to me like there is a play for a calculated pre-emptive. I mean it could be argued. You see at this point it seems to me that Israel is working this war in close collusion with the US, primarily from an intelligence standpoint. That is perhaps why I read through those articles and I come up with they (meaning both the US w/ Israeli intelligence) are girding for a pre-emptive strike. It could be on Iran or Syria. I may be one of a minority here who reads it that way. we must hope they are all just not that arrogant. However if you thinking moves along the lines that this recent najef bombing and the UN bombing COULD have been an inside operation (meaning inside the US war effort US/OSP/Chalabi) it gets edgy.

Understand while I think along these lines I do realize that proof is non-existence but for a pattern that I and others that think along these lines might see. But that aside, it does seem according to those articles I placed, along with the PNAC's rebuilding America's Defenses in which pre-emptive strategy is outlined with Iran, syria, Iraq and N.Korea potential targets, that the war strategists and their intelligence legs ARE looking to justify another pre-emptive strike.

At least that is my thinking.

[Darranar]

30. If they are, they're being foolish...

American forces are already overextended, and with so many calling for more troops in Iraq, the administration might cave in.

I don't think the administration will manage to justify the war this time, though. The anti-war movement has been proven right in Iraq, and many Americans will side with them in any future Bush war.

[QuietStorm]

31. that is logical what you say

I am with you on it. I just detect a kind of no holds barred. The PNACers are way out on a limb here. It is clear to those most logical that they have moved in a very fool hardy way, and have significantly underestimated their friends THE ARABS...

If they decide to fight this more so from the clandestine perspective (meaning they stage operations wherein it looks like the resistance has bombed something when in fact they did not) they may feel it could give them that edge they need to proceed with that domino theory one read about regularly at the top of this escapade.

My point is that I am not sure we can count on the PNACers or their Israeli counterparts necessarily conducting themselves logically. There does seem to be a good deal of irrationality evident.

Do I hope you are correct? Yes I do. However, that would mean we should see a US troop pull out sometime soon. Do you see that in the cards. All news thus far from McCain to Bremer to the rhetoric of our illustrious leader seems to indicate an escalation. Where they are going to get allied troops clearly has become problematic. Might they call a draft?

I don't know. Time will tell.

[Darranar]

32. Yes, it is unfortunate...

that the PNACers often don't behave logically. Heck, even the realists were a little better then those fools.

[QuietStorm]

33. on second thought I must also say

in rebuttal to the comment I wrote which I place below.

"If they decide to fight this more so from the clandestine perspective (meaning they stage operations wherein it looks like the resistance has bombed something when in fact they did not) they may feel it could give them that edge they need to proceed with that domino theory one read about regularly at the top of this escapade."

If in fact that is what they were: the UN bombing and this mosque bombing (US covert ops with the help from their intelligence teams on the ground there I mean), one might also consider that Iraqi resistance would see through that quite easily and respond appropriately or in kind to the frame up that it could be which would only further enervate any attempt at LIBERATING iraq and bringing that semblance of order any LIBERATION would require. Us covert ops along the lines I have speculated would only do more harm than good. One might think that the US strategists would realize this if thinking logically and rationally.

What we do not know is what their risk benefit guidelines are, nor how far they have decided it is wise to push the envelop here. They may feel low grade nuclear involvement is reasonable toward their ends. Also I do not know what types of bio chems or sophisticated weapons they have at their disposal shy of the bomb (which would be counterproductive to their endgame). Once again... speculation is just that speculation. I naturally try and second guess based on various articles I have come across and the lines of thought I already have going. THE FORCES ARE QUITE MEGLOMANICAL.

All this effort has served to do thus far is set up a staging in the region which in essence might have just strengthened a unity among the Iraqi resistance (now bolstered with fighters from saudia arabia and potentially pakistan). Of course this plays into the anti-terrorist rheteoric. From a propaganda standpoint the natives getting restless just enables the WAR PROPAGANDISTS to further justify any action they might choose. Remember Americans were told this move in Iraq followed 9/11 and therefore it was necessary to protect american soil from any further terrorist strikes on Amerian soil. One thing is for certain US troops are dying now 5-7 a day and the resistance to the occupation has visibly strengthened.

[The Magistrate]

34. Honestly, Sir

No one fights a war against themselves: never are all operations on both sides of a war conducted by a single hand. It is simply too much effort.

Both the attack on the U.N. and the recent outrage in Najaf were carried out by elements opposed to the U.S. occupation of Iraq. The first was designed to warn off any consideration the U.N. might give to assistinmg the United States in its current endeavor of occupation, as well as to demonstrate spectacularly its impotence in gauranteeing security in Iraq; the second was aimed to cripple Shia cooperation with the U.S. occupation, by eliminating a key leader endorsing same, and again demonstrating spectacularly the U.S. cannot protect those who cooperate with it.

[QuietStorm]

35. that is sound as well

I don't scoff at what you say. It is most logical afterall. I just feel we can not discount a covert aspect in regard to this aim I believe that also exists of justifying another pre-emptive strike. I make no pretense of arguing or dissecting in conclusive terms. I don't believe I have anyway. I just do not discount the potential for "dirty pool". Whether "dirty pool" was at play here, Mr. Magistrate, most certainly is not conclusive in anyway. By the very nature of the word, it is not something that embedded media would offer speculation on. Again, that is not to argue that indeed internal covert ops were at play with the two incidence, I am just one of those that doesn't discount the possibility, however irrational it might look on the surface of things.

Certainly your analysis is sound.

[jos]

6. Why should Israel be the only country in the middle east

allowed to have nuclear weapons? I don't like nuclear proliferation in general, but why should Israel be exempt from such a ban?

[Muddleoftheroad]

9. Quite simply

They already have them. Nations that do have a pesky way of not giving them up.

[jos]

12. Nice job

sidestepping the question.:eyes:

[QuietStorm]

14. it seems to me

that some do not take into consideration that with the ungoing blood feud between the arabs and Israel, fumigating since mandate and all the military history till now, that it isn't logic to argue that with Israel so armed and backed by european financing (outsider exploiters to the Arab world) that neighboring arab countries would not also feel threatened by Israel and those countries that support her, to the degree that they would request and develop an arsenal in an attempt to defend themselves on the chance that either Israel or any of the outside powers who support Israel would attack.

Just go back to nassar in Egypt before the czech's arms deal and his ongoing negotiation through dulles with the US in an effort to encourage the US to follow through on their promise to provide Egypt with arms. What was Nassar's reasoning at the time? He considered Israel just as hostile as Israel considered Egypt. It takes two. Not one-two.

What was Israel's sinai campaign all about? They wanted to strike Egypt before Eygpt struck them. Even in Benny morris' book and based on sharret's dairy, the threat was exaggerated with disinformation and misinformation campaigns set in place in an attempt to falsify and or prompt aggression toward justifying a pre-emptive strike on Egypt.

While I can not say history fits exactly here, it gets one to wondering, considering all that has come out regarding uraniumgate, the uncovering of the shadow intelligence of OSP, etc.

This is a mighty dangerous game the allies in Iraq are playing here. Iraqi resistance has escalated like a monster waiting for a cue. A pre-emptive strike now could be disasterous. I hope these allies which surely look to be US/UK/Israel each with their specific roles are really not as arrogant as they look to be.

[sushi]

15. Good question!

Who decides who can and who can't have WMD?

[Muddleoftheroad]

17. Traditionally

It's like a club. Once you are are in, you get to decide on new members.

[jos]

18. Begs the question

Again.

If that were so, the U.S. would today be the only country with the bomb.

[The Magistrate]

19. The U.S. Bent Considerable Effort To Be So, Sir

Once the Soviets had demonstrated they had the thing, nothing could be done about it, of course. The U.S. did not have a sufficient stock-pile to have reliably wrecked Soviet power, and no clear-cut certainty of prevailing in a conventional war against it at the time. Once the Chinese developed theirs, they were under Soviet protection. To my knowledge, at least, the U.S. lent no support to the efforts of England and France to develope nuclear weapons, and could hardly have struck at such self-evident allies against the Soviets.

In our time, considerable economic and diplomatic pressure was brought by the U.S. on Pakistan and India, but was disregarded, and neither of these posed a sufficient direct threat to the U.S. to justify military action. The Israeli program owed nothing to the U.S., and a great deal to France: that assistance, in fact, was reciprocal, with Israeli scientists assisting the French development. The U.S. considered, and still does, that the deterrent effect of Israeli nuclear weapons against a massive attack on Israel by the Arab states is a valuable feature of the situation in the Near East, and that is my view as well.

For better or worse, Israel has seemingly possessed nuclear weapons for some decades, and made no use of them save deterence of attack against irself. It is, at best, unclear whether Iraq under Hussein would have behaved similarly, just as it is at best unclear whether Iran, in possession of nuclear weapons, would do so. If one does them the courtesy of taking their rhetoric towards Israel at face value, the possibility of their making aggressive use of such weapons could hardly be ruled out. Israel would be foolish not to at least settle plans for some pre-emptive action in this matter, and might indeed be well advised in fact to carry them out.

[jos]

20. Agree in part

Nuclear weapons can have a deterrent effect. But the deterrent effect is best when it is mutual. If one adversary has the bomb, while the other does not, it will inevitably cause the adversary without the bomb to either seek to develop one, or to compensate by increasing its military. Since Iran knows that Israel would retaliate, it is unlikely to launch a nuclear attack. Moreover, given the close proximity of Israelis and Palestinians, an attack on Israel would inevitably cause casualties to both Jews and non-Jews. I don't think that's something that Iran would want to be responsible for.

[The Magistrate]

23. Should They Acquire The Thing, Mr. Jos

Let us hope your analysis is correct. There is a good deal to it. The difficulty is that, when both sides possess these things, should it seem likely a first usage could prevent the enemy retaliating at all, a certain temptation to the deed grows. Israel lacks the capacity for dispersal which immunized U.S. and Soviet nuclear forces against that possibility.

Still, it is certainly possible possession of such power might sober the Iranian government up somewhat. Often, great bluster originates in powerlessness, after all. Still, it would be a comfort to many to see the rhetoric turned down a great deal. It remains my custom to take the threats people utter as serious declarations of intent.

[Darranar]

21. I could be wrong here...

but I believe that the US did aid England in building nuclear weapons. France's effort to build a stockpile, however, was staunchly opposed.

[The Magistrate]

22. That Might Be So, Sir

Inner workings of the matter are beyond my areas of detailed study.

[Darranar]

13. n/t

nevermind

[newyorican]

16. Iran has motivation to get the bomb...

in the form of the 82nd Airborne, which is likely to show up on your doorstep one fine morning unless there is a deterrent. It would also cease all daydreams of airstrikes on nuke plants.

[jos]

24. IAEA to discuss Israel's nukes

The International Atomic Energy Agency to address Israel's nuclear program and the nonproliferation agreement.

http://216.26.163.62/2003/me_israel_08_28.html