Coming Soon - War with Iran?

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Coming Soon - War with Iran?

Postby elfismiles » Wed Nov 02, 2011 4:50 pm

How many years now has that drum beat been thump thumped?

It seems like an insane proposition ... yet:


Israel Considers Pre-Emptive Attack On Iran

Image
Israel's Prime Minister Netanyahu (L) is understood to be calling for military action against Iran
1:15pm UK, Wednesday November 02, 2011

Emma Hurd, Middle East correspondent

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is trying to rally support in his cabinet for an attack on Iran, according to government sources.
The country's defence minister Ehud Barak and the foreign minister Avigdor Lieberman are said to be among those backing a pre-emptive strike to neutralise Iran's nuclear ambitions.

But a narrow majority of ministers currently oppose the move, which could trigger a wave of regional retaliation.

The debate over possible Israeli military action has reached fever pitch in recent days with newspaper leader columns discussing the benefits and dangers of hitting Iran.

Mr Lieberman responded to the reports of a push to gain cabinet approval by saying that "Iran poses the most dangerous threat to world order."

But he said Israel's military options should not be a matter for public discussion.

[The reactor at the Russian-built Bushehr nuclear power plant where Iran has began to unload fuel for the nuclear power plant]

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is due to report on the state of Iran’s nuclear capabilities on November 8, and that assessment is likely to influence Israel’s decision.

Western intelligence officials estimate that Iran is still at least two to three years away from obtaining a nuclear bomb.

Israel has long made it clear that it will not allow Iran to obtain a nuclear capability that could threaten the Jewish State.

Publicly it is pushing for a diplomatic offensive against Iran - including the imposition of sanctions - rather than a military strike.

But prime minister Netanyahu has repeatedly warned that all options are on the table.

Israel's former defence minister Benjamin Ben-Eliezer told Haraatez newspaper that he feared a "horror scenario" if Israel attacked Iran.

Washington is also strongly opposed to Israel taking unilateral action.

Any strike on Iran could trigger retaliation from Iran and across the region.

Syria, a close ally of Tehran, could also launch attacks, along with the Iranian-backed Hizbollah militia in Lebanon.

http://news.sky.com/home/world-news/article/16101552

User avatar
elfismiles
 
Posts: 8466
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:46 pm
Blog: View Blog (4)

Re: Coming Soon - War with Iran?

Postby seemslikeadream » Wed Nov 02, 2011 4:58 pm

be patient...we had to get all our occupying ducks in a ME row...just about there
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Coming Soon - War with Iran?

Postby tazmic » Wed Nov 02, 2011 5:02 pm

Report: Israel seeking to upgrade its nuclear weapons capabilities
Israel is extending the range of its Jericho 3 missiles and upgrading its sea-based cruise missiles, according to an independent U.K. commission report published in the Guardian.

Israel is working on improving its nuclear weapons capabilities, according to a report by the independent Trident commission in the United Kingdom that was published in the Guardian newspaper on Monday.

According to the report in the Guardian, Israel is extending the range of its Jericho 3 land-to-land missiles so they will have the capabilities of transcontinental missiles.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/report-israel-seeking-to-upgrade-its-nuclear-weapons-capabilities-1.392957
"It ever was, and is, and shall be, ever-living fire, in measures being kindled and in measures going out." - Heraclitus

"There aren't enough small numbers to meet the many demands made of them." - Strong Law of Small Numbers
User avatar
tazmic
 
Posts: 1097
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2007 5:58 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Coming Soon - War with Iran?

Postby AlicetheKurious » Wed Nov 02, 2011 5:39 pm

Is this a "real" article or an intelligence plant? To me, it is clearly the latter, but still:

UK military steps up plans for Iran attack amid fresh nuclear fears

British officials consider contingency options to back up a possible US action as fears mount over Tehran's capability...
"If you're not careful the newspapers will have you hating the oppressed and loving the people doing the oppressing." - Malcolm X
User avatar
AlicetheKurious
 
Posts: 5348
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 11:20 am
Location: Egypt
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Coming Soon - War with Iran?

Postby Simulist » Wed Nov 02, 2011 6:23 pm

AlicetheKurious wrote:Is this a "real" article or an intelligence plant?

If it's from a mainstream source I usually consider that, even if the article is itself accurate, this is only "management" trying to garner reader trust for the even bigger lies these stenographers to power seem chartered to tell.

And yes, I think this particular article is propaganda — and therefore one of those "even bigger lies."
"The most strongly enforced of all known taboos is the taboo against knowing who or what you really are behind the mask of your apparently separate, independent, and isolated ego."
    — Alan Watts
User avatar
Simulist
 
Posts: 4713
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:13 pm
Location: Here, and now.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Coming Soon - War with Iran?

Postby DrVolin » Wed Nov 02, 2011 6:45 pm

This is one badly written article. How far we've fallen since the days when Orwell was writing mainline British government propaganda.
all these dreams are swept aside
By bloody hands of the hypnotized
Who carry the cross of homicide
And history bears the scars of our civil wars

--Guns and Roses
DrVolin
 
Posts: 1544
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 7:19 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Coming Soon - War with Iran?

Postby lupercal » Wed Nov 02, 2011 7:16 pm

elfismiles wrote:How many years now has that drum beat been thump thumped?

It seems like an insane proposition ... yet:



Insane, yes, but no more than attacking Libya, Iraq, or Afghanistan. In each case I thought the threats couldn't possibly be for real, twice in the case of Iraq, and we know how those turned out. I have no doubt that Iran is racing to arm itself with nukes, which will give them some protection from the inevitable, but I'm also certain that our friends in the region aren't going to wait for us to give permission. My prediction is next spring if not sooner. Count on it. And look for a surprise around Thanksgiving.

:(
User avatar
lupercal
 
Posts: 1439
Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 8:06 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Coming Soon - War with Iran?

Postby whipstitch » Thu Nov 03, 2011 4:42 am

I think Obama will want to wait until a month or two before the election to start that war. Wouldn't want to change horses in mid-stream with a full blown war going on, would we? Too many ways for things to get messy if it starts too early. Retaliation for a 9/11/12 'event' sounds about right...
User avatar
whipstitch
 
Posts: 415
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2005 12:28 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Coming Soon - War with Iran?

Postby Hammer of Los » Thu Nov 03, 2011 8:03 am

Please God there will be no more hot wars.

Who wants another war?

Let me see, 1% of the planet's population, do they want more hot wars to distract the restless population(s) of many so-called nation states?

Not at all. The enormously vast majority of that so-called 1% (which by my reckoning is 70,000,000, or 70 million) abhors war and would oppose any new ones.

Who wants more wars?

Who controls the standing armies, paramilitary, intelligence and police services of the Western World?

Who really controls them?

You can find out. It's gotta be less than 500 closely interlinked families and individuals, those with real intergenerational wealth and power and networks and the will to use them. I think quite a few families have been at this game for a long time.

I think I know quite a few of them, don't you? Some of them are very funny people.

But if push comes to shove, I hope the armed services of the West will come to their senses, and refuse to obey the orders of their mad overlords. I saw the look on those policemen's faces, when they were ordered to walk into a quiet camp full of lovely peaceful loving people, dressed in black, toting enormous machine guns. They knew they were intimidating the wrong people. You could see it right there, in their faces.

May God bless the common humanity of all the armies, paramilitary forces and police services of the world! May they stand with the people in the final hour.

#occupy


I hate to say this, but I am in super prophetic mode. I can see a lot at the moment, but all is very fluid.
Hammer of Los
 
Posts: 3309
Joined: Sat Dec 23, 2006 4:48 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Coming Soon - War with Iran?

Postby Searcher08 » Thu Nov 03, 2011 8:21 am

I wonder what a peaceful Middle East might look like?
User avatar
Searcher08
 
Posts: 5887
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 10:21 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Coming Soon - War with Iran?

Postby seemslikeadream » Thu Nov 03, 2011 8:45 am

Britain Prepares to Attack Iran
Defense Ministry Expects US to 'Fast-Forward' Plans for Attack
by Jason Ditz, November 02, 2011

With Defense Ministry officials saying that they believe the US may soon “fast-forward” plans to attack Iran, Britain’s military is stepping up its own preparations for such an attack under the assumption that they will join in on the war.

The planning is based on expectations that next week’s report from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) will be a “game changer” and will convince President Obama to launch another massive war.

It also comes just a day after reports in the Israeli press that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is hoping to convince the rest of his cabinet to launch a unilateral attack on Iran before winter on the argument that an autumn war would be much more convenient.

Though Netanyahu seems to be gaining some ground, there are a number of Israeli cabinet members who say it is their preference to convince the US to start the war instead. Though threats of an impending war against Iran have been coming off and on for over a decade, it seems the Obama Administration’s preference not to see Israel launch a disastrous unilateral war could convince them that the US should start its own disastrous unilateral war instead.
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Coming Soon - War with Iran?

Postby Searcher08 » Thu Nov 03, 2011 8:58 am

I think that an Anglo-American war with Iran would be...

1 Massively unpopular in the UK and US "You cant afford my public-sector pension but you can afford a pre-emptive war???"

2 Based on a faulty logic that Iranians could be divided along ethnic lines - the Iran / Iraq war showed quite the reverse

3 Based on a faulty logic that Iranians would regard it as a war for their freedom.

4 That the war would be confined to Iran .

5 That the Iranians would not retaliate in kind - I think quite the opposite - that they would respond exactly in kind.
User avatar
Searcher08
 
Posts: 5887
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 10:21 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Coming Soon - War with Iran?

Postby seemslikeadream » Thu Nov 03, 2011 9:11 am

Searcher08 wrote:I think that an Anglo-American war with Iran would be...

1 Massively unpopular in the UK and US "You cant afford my public-sector pension but you can afford a pre-emptive war???"

2 Based on a faulty logic that Iranians could be divided along ethnic lines - the Iran / Iraq war showed quite the reverse

3 Based on a faulty logic that Iranians would regard it as a war for their freedom.

4 That the war would be confined to Iran .

5 That the Iranians would not retaliate in kind - I think quite the opposite - that they would respond exactly in kind.


Coming World Financial Crisis - Ain't no easy way out



It's easy to fall in love
When you fall in love you know you're done
You got easy eyes to hunt
And the world above needs your blood
In the cold veins of the richest man
He'll pay your way to steal her hand

There ain't no easy way
No there ain't no easy way out
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Coming Soon - War with Iran?

Postby gnosticheresy_2 » Thu Nov 03, 2011 9:40 am

Searcher08 wrote:I think that an Anglo-American war with Iran would be...

1 Massively unpopular in the UK and US "You cant afford my public-sector pension but you can afford a pre-emptive war???"

2 Based on a faulty logic that Iranians could be divided along ethnic lines - the Iran / Iraq war showed quite the reverse

3 Based on a faulty logic that Iranians would regard it as a war for their freedom.

4 That the war would be confined to Iran .

5 That the Iranians would not retaliate in kind - I think quite the opposite - that they would respond exactly in kind.


All Roads Lead to Iran

Plame:

Luke: Over that period was when Plame was outed, that summer of 2003.

LA: That July - right. Exactly

Luke: Can you talk about why she was outed? Can I throw that open question to you?

LA: Oh boy, somehow I knew you would ask me this. Why? I don’t think anyone can say with absolute certainty that she was outed for a specific reason, and there are certainly many possibilities. But I play chess and things seem to be combinational in this regard, in that, there not need be one single reason for something.

I certainly have never bought into the 'to discredit her husband' argument. I may be entirely wrong of course and given the incompetence of these guys I wouldn’t put it past them to be even this incompetent. As I have said, however, the “reason” need not be a single one and the time frame does not support the argument of her outing as “nothing more than a political hit” on her husband, although it may have served that purpose as well. But again, that is just my opinion and others have the same opinion but others also believe that it was to discredit her husband and nothing more.

I just find it astonishing how all roads, no matter the angle you start at, lead to Iran, and you know what she was working on right? Since you seem to follow my work closely.


Luke: Yes, specifically she was tracking the WMD proliferation - both to and from Iran - that’s correct?

LA: In the most broadest terms, yes

Luke: exclusively nuclear? Or were there other things going on?

LA: I cannot get into it. I had to write the article and pass each verb and noun by a bevy of people so that it would not compromise national security further and it would not inadvertently be an issue in any future operations. So in the broadest of terms, yes in and out of Iran, beyond what is in the article I cannot say.

Luke: but one of the things that was interesting in your article was that Plame was tracking arms both to and FROM Iran - that element didn’t seem to get much attention - is Iran selling a lot of this stuff as well?

LA: again - you have to remember that I had to write this article very broadly - so its fair to speculate whatever you care to glean out of that - but I just can’t comment - I cant comment beyond what I wrote in that article.

Luke: ok - I’ll move on... another curious thing about Iran is Joe Wilson’s trip to Niger - when he reported back that not only was Iraq not buying uranium, but that it was actually Iran that had tried to buy some uranium there

LA: That is interesting, isn’t it? Amazing how Iran keeps popping up.


Luke: (laughs) that story seems to have been forgotten

LA: Yep, and Steve Clemons brought that into daylight after the Senate Intel committee distorted it. Wilson sent a letter to the committee indicating they were factually wrong and Washington Post corrected their original reporting because it was based on the Senate report. Yet the Senate report and the talking points make things really messy. Ya know - I do think that is fascinating - and that should take you to the next logical question - what are the Niger forgeries really then?

Luke: oh! Are you suggesting that they were to cover up that earlier transaction with Iran?

LA: No, not at all. I am not suggesting anything other than people really need to ask themselves that question, and not really read into what I am saying on this too much as I am speculating myself at this point. But I would not say the speculation is unfounded. In any case, focus on that question - because everyone is busy chasing the chain of custody of the documents - how they were put together, how they were disseminated - generally what I would call intelligence trafficking and they don’t really ask the most obvious question - which is 'what the hell are they really?' are they really about this? Are they really about that? Are they really even relevant?

Everything is pointing - you can’t deny that – to Iran - and even the meetings with Ghorbanifar, Ledeen, Franklin & Rhode - as well as a few SISMI representatives (not Pollari or any of the Martinos) and a few Egyptian intelligence folks, dissidents (I'm assuming MEK - but I'm not sure) in Rome, late 2001 - before there was an Iraq war even, were about Iran. Even the later meetings in Paris with Rhode and Weldon and Ghorbanifar - again you’re talking about Iran.

Luke: wow - there's a change - Ledeen is actually telling the truth when he says that those meetings didn’t have anything to do with Iraq

Larisa: I don’t think anyone said that he was meeting about Iraq, at least no one I have read or talked to. He told me the basic overview of the meeting, namely, that was about allegations of Iranians supporting Afghani rebels. There is speculation that he was behind the Niger forgeries, but those statements were made regarding certain people in his circle, not him per se. No one thinks he forged the documents, no one I know, have read, or have talked to. I don’t think he forged the documents and he is telling the truth on that, although I think he may know or suspect who did and is not saying, but he may not actually know. But I did confirm from various intel folks that he was meeting in Rome about Iran, not Iraq. Now after he left and Rhode and Franklin stayed behind is where Iraq may have been discussed, but the Niger forgeries discredit the Iraq claim, rather, they support the Iran claim. So not the forgeries, not the meeting in Rome (in which Ledeen was a part at least), not the Paris Weldon/Gorba meeting, none of these things had to do with Iraq at all. Not even Plame’s work. They all lead in one direction.

Luke: Iran.


All Roads Lead to Iran, Again

Plus, while the official story has more holes than cheese, one must remember that sometimes if there is a cover up, that cover up could be for a whole set of other reasons that literally have nothing to do with the crime itself. If certain business dealings were unveiled because of 911, not that they were responsible for or related to it, but simply unveiled, then that damage would be more significant to a democratic government than a single attack could ever have been. Osama can not bring down America from the outside and with one attack, even, although it was a tragedy, but the subverting of the democratic process and corrupting the representative government can bring America to its knees.

Luke: That's very interesting. And given her language specialties (Turkish, Farsi and Azeri) she was looking primarily at Turkey and the other Central Asian countries where she notes that the Americans are building military bases

LA: Correct - and if you look - where are all these storylines going?

Luke: Straight to Iran

LA: Right - and that would answer some of your questions - without me having to say much more.


Good Leaks and Bad Leaks

Luke Ryland: Let's get back to Iran - why is Iran the Big Prize?

Larisa Alexandrovna: Iran has always been the big prize. I think the Golden Crescent of Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, in general has been the Big Prize for various reasons - business interests, geopolitical reasons, etc. There are all sorts of reasons why it's been the crown jewel. There is not one single group, for example the Neoconservatives, who are guiding this ship if you will. There are factions who may have different agendas and ideologies, but they may work together because they have the same goals.

There are, for example, business interests - both legal and illegal. The energy market, for example, wants the oil (legal) and the drug market, for example, wants the routes and supply of the Golden Crescent region (illegal). These two separate interested parties don’t necessarily have the same ideology or the same interests, but their goal is the same because of the larger business market, both legal and illegal.

There are also geopolitical reasons - there are advantages to having a presence there in a very significant region - controlling that region would be like controlling the center of a chess board. An example of this would be to directly address China and Russia, both of whom have vested interests in the region. In any case, there are many reasons why Iran is the big prize and the different factions have come together to act in this direction, either knowingly working together or working independently of one another to capture control of the Golden Crescent region.

Lukery: Quagmire notwithstanding? (note this interview was done prior to the MEK article Larisa just wrote, so she alludes to the MEK relationship with the West, but does not go into details of what she then reports after the interview has taken place.)

LA: Well - we can't invade Iran because the military is bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan - but remember, they don't have to invade because the ultimate goal is control of the region. Hence all the talk of 'regime change' - the key is to overthrow the government and replace it with a government of the Western nations' choosing. A 'grass roots' operation would incite insurgencies in various parts of the region - and create issues and rifts where there were none previously. For example, I'm sure that you're familiar with MEK – so the West can use foreign agents, for example, as mechanisms in that regard to create a grass roots opposition movement. We've seen this sort of thing work all over the place, obviously, South America being the prime example. So this would be one way the West could approach the issue of Iran without the quagmire of Iraq, by using proxies. It is also a good way to avoid Congressional oversight. If that doesn't work they've got this back-up plan of this new strategy of using pre-emptive nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. This new policy is outrageous, frankly, but they're clearly rolling that out for a reason - so one can assume, although I don't know this for sure, that that is probably Plan B, in case the plan of creating a home-grown insurgency fails.
User avatar
gnosticheresy_2
 
Posts: 532
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2007 7:07 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Coming Soon - War with Iran?

Postby Nordic » Thu Nov 03, 2011 9:45 am

Israel is the greatest threat to the world.

And why do you think they're suddenly in such a hurry to get troops out of neighboring Iraq?

Evil people accuse others of everything they themselves are guilty of.

Israel has nukes and wants to attack its neighbors. So they accuse Iran of the same.
"He who wounds the ecosphere literally wounds God" -- Philip K. Dick
Nordic
 
Posts: 14206
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2006 3:36 am
Location: California USA
Blog: View Blog (6)

Next

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests