Operation Iranian Freedom

phoenix80

Banned
Iran - Ready to Attack

February 19, 2007
New Stateman
Dan Plesch


American military operations for a major conventional war with Iran could be implemented any day. They extend far beyond targeting suspect WMD facilities and will enable President Bush to destroy Iran's military, political and economic infrastructure overnight using conventional weapons.

British military sources told the New Statesman, on condition of anonymity, that "the US military switched its whole focus to Iran" as soon as Saddam Hussein was kicked out of Baghdad. It continued this strategy, even though it had American infantry bogged down in fighting the insurgency in Iraq.

The US army, navy, air force and marines have all prepared battle plans and spent four years building bases and training for "Operation Iranian Freedom". Admiral Fallon, the new head of US Central Command, has inherited computerised plans under the name TIRANNT (Theatre Iran Near Term).

The Bush administration has made much of sending a second aircraft carrier to the Gulf. But it is a tiny part of the preparations. Post 9/11, the US navy can put six carriers into battle at a month's notice. Two carriers in the region, the USS John C Stennis and the USS Dwight D Eisenhower, could quickly be joined by three more now at sea: USS Ronald Reagan, USS Harry S Truman and USS Theodore Roosevelt, as well as by USS Nimitz. Each carrier force includes hundreds of cruise missiles.

Then there are the marines, who are not tied down fighting in Iraq. Several marine forces are assembling, each with its own aircraft carrier. These carrier forces can each conduct a version of the D-Day landings. They come with landing craft, tanks, jump-jets, thousands of troops and, yes, hundreds more cruise missiles. Their task is to destroy Iranian forces able to attack oil tankers and to secure oilfields and installations. They have trained for this mission since the Iranian revolution of 1979.

Today, marines have the USS Boxer and USS Bataan carrier forces in the Gulf and probably also the USS Kearsarge and USS Bonhomme Richard. Three others, the USS Peleliu, USS Wasp and USS Iwo Jima, are ready to join them. Earlier this year, HQ staff to manage these forces were moved from Virginia to Bahrain.

Vice-President Dick Cheney has had something of a love affair with the US marines, and this may reach its culmination in the fishing villages along Iran's Gulf coast. Marine generals hold the top jobs at Nato, in the Pentagon and are in charge of all nuclear weapons. No marine has held any of these posts before.

Traditionally, the top nuclear job went either to a commander of the navy's Trident submarines or of the air force's bombers and missiles. Today, all these forces follow the orders of a marine, General James Cartwright, and are integrated into a "Global Strike" plan which places strategic forces on permanent 12-hour readiness.

The only public discussion of this plan has been by the American analysts Bill Arkin and Hans Kristensen, who have focused on the possible use of atomic weapons. These concerns are justified, but ignore how forces can be used in conventional war.

Any US general planning to attack Iran can now assume that at least 10,000 targets can be hit in a single raid, with warplanes flying from the US or Diego Garcia. In the past year, unlimited funding for military technology has taken "smart bombs" to a new level.

New "bunker-busting" conventional bombs weigh only 250lb. According to Boeing, the GBU-39 small-diameter bomb "quadruples" the firepower of US warplanes, compared to those in use even as recently as 2003. A single stealth or B-52 bomber can now attack between 150 and 300 individual points to within a metre of accuracy using the global positioning system.

With little military effort, the US air force can hit the last-known position of Iranian military units, political leaders and supposed sites of weapons of mass destruction. One can be sure that, if war comes, George Bush will not want to stand accused of using too little force and allowing Iran to fight back.

"Global Strike" means that, without any obvious signal, what was done to Serbia and Lebanon can be done overnight to the whole of Iran. We, and probably the Iranians, would not know about it until after the bombs fell. Forces that hide will suffer the fate of Saddam's armies, once their positions are known.

The whole of Iran is now less than an hour's flying time from some American base or carrier. Sources in the region as well as trade journals confirm that the US has built three bases in Azerbaijan that could be transit points for troops and with facilities equal to its best in Europe.

Most of the Iranian army is positioned along the border with Iraq, facing US army missiles that can reach 150km over the border. But it is in the flat, sandy oilfields east and south of Basra where the temptation will be to launch a tank attack and hope that a disaffected population will be grateful.

The regime in Tehran has already complained of US- and UK-inspired terror attacks in several Iranian regions where the population opposes the ayatollahs' fanatical policies. Such reports corroborate the American journalist Seymour Hersh's claim that the US military is already engaged in a low-level war with Iran. The fighting is most intense in the Kurdish north where Iran has been firing artillery into Iraq. The US and Iran are already engaged in a low-level proxy war across the Iran-Iraq border.

And, once again, the neo-cons at the American Enterprise Institute have a plan for a peaceful settlement: this time it is for a federal Iran. Officially, Michael Ledeen, the AEI plan's sponsor, has been ostracised by the White House. However, two years ago, the Congress of Iranian Nationalities for a Federal Iran had its inaugural meeting in London.

We should not underestimate the Bush administration's ability to convince itself that an "Iran of the regions" will emerge from a post-rubble Iran.

Dan Plesch is a research associate at the School of Oriental and African Studies
link to original article
 
Sounds a little fishy if you ask me. The part about US capabilities seems to be at least somewhat exagerated. I dont really trust unrevealed sources, and many (if not all) of his sources are just that. If you read some of the comments from below the article, it is also somewhat amusing.

So, in total, my comment is "I'll believe it when I see it."
 
One reason why we're not all doing the Nazi salute, bowing to the Japanese Emperor, speaking Napoleon's French, or under ancient Roman rule, is because they all in turn over-stretched their military on multiple fronts.

Iran ain't gonna happen. :crybaby:
 
One reason why we're not all doing the Nazi salute, bowing to the Japanese Emperor, speaking Napoleon's French, or under ancient Roman rule, is because they all in turn over-stretched their military on multiple fronts.

Iran ain't gonna happen. :crybaby:

I have always said that the best thing is to help change the regime there. You dont need to attack Iran to get rid of its nukes. Just do what you did to Soviet Union
 
Just do what you did to Soviet Union
IMHO, that might not work. The USSR was competing with us in an arms race. Since we've won the race already, Iran cannot get in on it after we've crossed the finish line, had a few brews to celebrate, passed out in the lap of an unusually confident ugly chick, then waking up the next morning not knowing how we ended up inverted on the sofa with a sock on our head : (. Not sure where I was going with that, but you get the picture.
 
Last edited:
The U.S. Military is not overstreched, most us forces are back home banging their Gf's the Military can activate a mass of troops in weeks...

The problem is that a all out war with iran will be to costly.

Just like the war in iraq and afganistan, a war in iran wold have to be a
Special Ops war...
 
I think the public has proven that we can only fight wars if we deploy only robots who can only cause slight discomfort to the enemy. Of course, no discomfort too great to cause any long term emotional trauma.
Forget about Iran. It looks like we're going to lose in Iraq only because we're going to hand it over to the enemy, the rest of the world will laugh at us and we can forget about anyone ever believing us whenever we say "we will protect you."
I believe we're about to enter some pretty sad times.
 
The U.S. Military is not overstreched, most us forces are back home banging their Gf's the Military can activate a mass of troops in weeks...

The problem is that a all out war with iran will be to costly.

Just like the war in iraq and afganistan, a war in iran wold have to be a
Special Ops war...

Ditto!!!
 
I think the public has proven that we can only fight wars if we deploy only robots who can only cause slight discomfort to the enemy. Of course, no discomfort too great to cause any long term emotional trauma.
Forget about Iran. It looks like we're going to lose in Iraq only because we're going to hand it over to the enemy, the rest of the world will laugh at us and we can forget about anyone ever believing us whenever we say "we will protect you."
I believe we're about to enter some pretty sad times.
I feel ya but I hope you're wrong on the last count.

As for the Soviet Union they imploded from a bankrupt economy propping up a morally bankrupt political system. Very different ballgame with a small oil rich country run by religious fanatics. The level of dedication of those who do support the current regime will not be shaken by blue jeans and rock n roll. They're in this game for heaven and 70 virgins and we've got nothing on offer to top it. Religion gone bad is dangerous in that the ties that bind one to a belief defy logic.
 
:salute2: Boris Yeltsin was not phsyco enough to launch his missels you know the whole Mutualy Assured Destruction....and our leaders knew that...

With iran the Ayatollah's followers are just that crazy...so all we can do is put a Quran on a string and drag it through Tehran..... Thanks for comming out, (alittle boondock saints reference for ya)

So a war anywhere in the world now MUST be a special ops war....the days of the phalanx and great naval battles are over....there is no way in hell the U.S. can stand up to the power of North Korea.....so jsut like in Iran....it will be fought in the shadows
 
With iran the Ayatollah's followers are just that crazy...so all we can do is put a Quran on a string and drag it through Tehran..... Thanks for comming out, (alittle boondock saints reference for ya)

Hehe that reference has left a mental image that cracks me up everytime I think about it.


So a war anywhere in the world now MUST be a special ops war....the days of the phalanx and great naval battles are over....there is no way in hell the U.S. can stand up to the power of North Korea.....so jsut like in Iran....it will be fought in the shadows


I am not so sure about this for one conventional wars will still be fought and I really dont think North Korea is the threat its made out to be although I have little doubt a nuclear armed North Korea is a very worrying prospect I am almost convinced half the country would surrender for a loaf of bread.
 
Iran with nuclear is not avoidable judging from their will to N-pow plants.
But,is it thinkable n-armed iran?
I don't think n-armed is so easy for them even they were supported by north korea and pakistan.
N-armed Iran is still wobbly truth and USA must not handle expensive war risk with iran.
 
Well, a conventional war with North Korea would be an error in judgement considering the 950,000 troops they have compaired to our 477,800, we many have out technologie, but Kim jung-il has the men to throw in front of our machine guns, The Ayatollah in Iran, has zero regard for his people, he could give a :cens: less.

Hell Sistani, is to busy running his web site www.sistani.org , anouncing that its ok to do you wife in the butt with her permission, but you cant shake her hand....:( and CHess...... Unlawfull.....Thats Crazy....But still the Shia of Iran, will do what there told :pray: :pray: :pray: :pray: by blowing up Americans.

Afganistan is a good example of a war fought in the shadows, look at the number of special forces Troops in country before the invasion.
 
The assult went fine, Bush made the mistake of pulling all the troopes out, the problem wiht everything now us we did our convetional take downa nd now the U.S is trying to do a little occupation. Same with Iraq, his tactics are flawed.:tank:
 
Its called war and it takes two parties to tango. People, innocent people, die and to lay the blame on only one party to a conflict is myopic.
 
THe lozer gets blamed for starting it and the winner (USA) gets blaimed for the countless deaths.....Its the status quo
 
Fine for us, not so hot for the thousands of Afghani civilians who got bombed into oblivion.

Not so hot for the thousands of civilians that was persecuted by the Taleban either, or the women in country that could neither get an education and/or walk beside their husbands rather then behind, and/or the several hundreds who stepped on a landmine/year before ISAF forces started to clear them....Or how about the people that had a diffrent opinion on leadership,religion and/or education then the Taleban....

Fact 1. In war people die.
Fact 2. The alliance and/or ISAF have gone to great length to avoid civilian losses/collateral damage even when own troops have been in a bit of a jam.
Fact 3. The ISAF forces in country now have very clear rules of engagement set by the UN mandate of the operation.
It is a chapter 7 mandate.
Fact 4. You throwing out such a statement like the one I qouted above sits rather bad with atleast myself, and I am guessing with alot of people that have been deployed to Afghanistan.
People actually risk their life to make life alittle better for the afghani people.
Think about it for a second.

My OPINION is this.
To qoute some smart man I read something from once.
"Better to keep quiet and look like an idiot then to open your mouth and eliminate all doubt."

Have a very SF day.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top