Iran Readies For Attack By Bush Neocons And Israel

http://washingtontimes.com/world/20050218-111237-6122r.htm


Iran readies for feared attack by U.S.


By Borzou Daragahi
THE WASHINGTON TIMES


Iran has begun preparing for a possible U.S. attack, announcing efforts to bolster and mobilize recruits in citizens' militias and making plans to engage in the type of "asymmetrical" warfare used against American troops in neighboring Iraq.

"Iran would respond within 15 minutes to any attack by the United States or any other country," an Iranian official close to the hard-line camp, which runs the country's security and military apparatus, said on the condition of anonymity.

Tensions between Tehran and Washington have increased over Iran's pursuit of nuclear technology.

Tehran insists its desire for atomic energy is entirely peaceful while Washington accuses the Muslim state of using nuclear energy as a fig leaf to make weapons.

President Bush said in an interview with Belgian television yesterday that he strongly prefers a diplomatic effort over military action to deal with Iran.

"You never want a president to say never," Mr. Bush said, "but military action is ... never the president's first choice. Diplomacy is always the president's first choice, at least my first choice."

The president issued his strongest warning to Iran during last month's State of the Union speech, telling Tehran that it "must give up" its nuclear program and support for terrorism, and pledging U.S. support for Iranians who openly oppose Iran's unelected regime.

In recent days, Iranian newspapers have announced efforts to increase the number of the country's 7-million-strong "Basiji" militia forces, which were deployed in human wave attacks against Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s.

Iranian military authorities have paraded long-range North Korean-designed Shahab missiles before television cameras. Iranian generals have conducted massive war games near the Iraqi border.

One Western military expert based in Tehran said Iran was sharpening its abilities to wage a guerrilla war.

"Over the last year they've developed their tactics of asymmetrical war, which would aim not at resisting a penetration of foreign forces, but to then use them on the ground to all kinds of harmful effect," he said on the condition of anonymity.

It remains unclear how much of the recent military activity amounts to an actual mobilization and how much is a propaganda ploy.

Iranian officials and analysts have said they want to highlight the potential costs of an attack on Iran to raise the stakes for U.S. officials considering such a move and to frighten a war-weary American public.

"Right now it's a psychological war," said Nasser Hadian, a University of Tehran political science professor who recently returned from a three-year stint as a scholar at New York's Columbia University.

"If America decides to attack, the only ones who could stop it are Iranians," he said. "Pressure from other countries and inside America is important, but it won't prevent an attack. The only thing that will prevent an attack is that if America knows it will pay a heavy price."

Bush administration officials have said there are no immediate plans to attack Iran and the possibility is considered remote because deployments in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere limit U.S. capacity for a major new offensive.

Iran, in addition to developing plans for guerrilla warfare against an invading army, also is attempting to give the impression that it is bolstering its conventional forces.

In December, Iran announced its largest war games "ever," deploying 120,000 troops as well as tanks, helicopters and armored vehicles along its western border.

More recently, Iran's press reported that the Iranian air force had received orders to engage any plane that violates Iranian airspace. These reports followed the disclosure that unmanned American drone planes have been monitoring Iranian nuclear sites.

"It is obvious that with Iran surrounded by the United States forces and America pressing the nuclear issue, Iran wants to make a show of force," said a Western diplomat from Tehran, speaking on the condition of anonymity.

Iran's army includes 350,000 active-duty soldiers and 220,000 conscripts.

Its elite Revolutionary Guards number 120,000, many of them draftees. Its navy and air force total 70,000 men.

The armed forces have about 2,000 tanks, 300 combat aircraft, three submarines, hundreds of helicopters and at least a dozen Russian-made Scud missile launchers of the type Saddam Hussein used against Israel during the 1991 Persian Gulf War.

Iran also has an undetermined number of Shahab missiles based on North Korean designs that have ranges of up to 1,500 miles.

But both outside military experts and Iranians concede that the country's antiquated conventional hardware, worn down by years of U.S. and European sanctions, would be little match for the high-tech weaponry of the United States.

"Most of Iran's military equipment is aging or second-rate and much of it is worn," military expert Anthony Cordesman wrote in a December 2004 assessment of Iran's military. He said Iran lost between 50 percent and 60 percent of its military equipment in the Iran-Iraq war, "and it has never had large-scale access to the modern weapons and military technology necessary to replace them."

Iran's highly classified Quds forces, which have a global network of operatives and answer directly to Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, could create a myriad of woes outside Iran's borders.

In neighboring Iraq, where the United States says Tehran already has been interfering, many brush off the current low-level infiltration as minor compared with the damage Tehran is capable of unleashing.

"If Iran wanted, it could make Iraq a hell for the United States," Hamid al-Bayati, Iraq's deputy foreign minister, said in a recent interview.


• David R. Sands contributed to this article.

 

I wonder if Bushco are going to use Iran's draft as a reason for a draft of their own...

 

The White House has no right to attempt to prevent nuclear proliferation in Iran as long as it supports Israel's right to nuclear warheads. Iran is not a threat to the United States but rather a supposed threat to their puppet, Israel.

Regardless of whether or not U.S. intervention ever materializes, it is almost inevitable that Iran will eventually acquire the atomic bomb. Iran has always been very important in the region, and the Iranian people are proud of their history and themselves. That given, you can count on Iran becoming a nuclear power.

Although Iran does not pose a real threat to Israel, the Israelis will continue to harp on the danger to their country a nuclear Iran poses, and the Jewish State will dwell on the necessity of a U.S. attack. This would tie up the United States and divert American efforts to address Israel's occupation of Palestine.

Here is an interesting quote from Kenneth Pollack, research director of the Brookings Institution's Saban Center for Middle East Policy, regarding the "Israel factor":

 

Nothing funnier than anti-war hippies supporting nuclear proliferation.

 

Nothing funnier than a fat-headed prick who insults others while never actually refuting any claims made.

 

If US attacks Iran..it has a death wish....I, for one, am glad to hear other leaders talk back to the USA, and mirror the "chest pounding thing"...to show the Bush Regime just how damned stupid they look. I am sick of all that neurotic dysfunctional Neo- Con Propaganda.

 

Well, if the U.S. would not attack sovereign countries illegally, maybe they wouldn't feel the need to beef up their defenses.

 

The Iranian nuclear program started well before Gulf War II (show me a court that has found it illegal anyway). But that doesnt matter, the point is not whether a fundamentalist terrorism sponsoring Iran violates the Non-Proliferation Treaty and builds nuclear weapons - who cares about that - the point is whether we can blame the USA. That's the anti-war way.

 

What do you expect from the war criminal Bushy? His goal is to spread christianity across the world. The fuk face won't be happy until he gets us all killed

 

I agree.

A couple weeks ago in a similar thread, someone said that they hoped Iran got nuclear weapons and used them on US troops in Iraq, to "teach George Bush a lesson."

Some of these "peace" activists really give the rest of the anti-war crowd a bad name.

 

The Bush Regime should pay for their misdeeds, and the soldiers are rebelling more each day. I get sick of Bush shouting "Freedom !" He acts like he has it all in his pocket, and that only HE...Crusader Bush can "save" the world. No one hates freedom, George. They just want the US to stop occupying, maiming people...and stop that smirking when you are being called to the carpet for the boners you have pulled. Europe is still laughing at you Mr. Bush. Where is Mme What's her name La Farge ?with the knitting who used to sit and watch heads roll during the French revolution ? The US has no right to call anyone "uncivilized" when it does essentially the same thing. Decapitation by any method...is still...decapitation.....be it a sword, or a MOAB. If women ruled the world, good men would have nothing to fear.

 

Actually, I'm not supporting nuclear proliferation but rather not supporting Iranian nonproliferation without nonproliferation in Israel.

Once again, the the great Pointbreak-Kandahar duo strike with more insults while avoiding the claims. At least you're consistent...

 

Well that's a relief. Thanks for clarifying.

Claims? What claims? Your post was pure editorial. And full of errors, at that. You basically slagged off any concern about Iran getting nuclear weapons and then said "Iran has always been very important in the region, and the Iranian people are proud of their history and themselves." What the hell this fluff has to do with ignoring Iranian violation of the NPT treaty is a mystery to me. By the way can you think of any country that isn't proud of their history and themselves?

Number one, the US does not support Israel's right to nuclear weapons. Number two, calling Israel a "puppet" of the US is ridiculous. Number three, the non-proliferation treaty does not say no proliferation except when you can blame Israel. It says no proliferation. This is the anti war way - pro international law, pro multilateralist, so long as the fundamental principle - oppose the USA and Israel - is not violated. When these are in conflict, well, we can see what happens - the proliferation of nuclear weapons by terrorist sponsoring fundamentalist states gets nothing more than a shrug.

 

Scott Ritter Says US Attack on Iran Planned for June


By Mark Jensen
Saturday, 19 February 2005

United for Peace of Pierce County (WA)


Scott Ritter, appearing with journalist Dahr Jamail yesterday in
Washington State, dropped two shocking bombshells in a talk delivered to

a packed house in Olympia's Capitol Theater. The ex-Marine turned

UNSCOM weapons inspector said that George W. Bush has "signed off" on

plans to bomb Iran in June 2005, and claimed the U.S. manipulated the

results of the recent Jan. 30 elections in Iraq.

Olympians like to call the Capitol Theater "historic," but it's

doubtful whether the eighty-year-old edifice has ever been the scene of

more portentous revelations.

The principal theme of Scott Ritter's talk was Americans' duty to

protect the U.S. Constitution by taking action to bring an end to the

illegal war in Iraq. But in passing, the former UNSCOM weapons

inspector stunned his listeners with two pronouncements. Ritter said

plans for a June attack on Iran have been submitted to President George

W. Bush, and that the president has approved them. He also asserted

that knowledgeable sources say U.S. officials "cooked" the results of

the Jan. 30 elections in Iraq.

On Iran, Ritter said that President George W. Bush has received and

signed off on orders for an aerial attack on Iran planned for June 2005.

Its purported goal is the destruction of Iran's alleged program to

develop nuclear weapons, but Ritter said neoconservatives in the

administration also expected that the attack would set in motion a chain

of events leading to regime change in the oil-rich nation of 70 million

-- a possibility Ritter regards with the greatest skepticism.

The former Marine also said that the Jan. 30 elections, which George

W. Bush has called "a turning point in the history of Iraq, a milestone

in the advance of freedom," were not so free after all. Ritter said

that U.S. authorities in Iraq had manipulated the results in order to

reduce the percentage of the vote received by the United Iraqi Alliance

from 56% to 48%.

Asked by UFPPC's Ted Nation about this shocker, Ritter said an

official involved in the manipulation was the source, and that this

would soon be reported by a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist in a major

metropolitan magazine -- an obvious allusion to New Yorker reporter

Seymour M. Hersh.

On Jan. 17, the New Yorker posted an article by Hersh entitled The

Coming Wars (New Yorker, January 24-31, 2005). In it, the well-known

investigative journalist claimed that for the Bush administration, "The

next strategic target [is] Iran." Hersh also reported that "The

Administration has been conducting secret reconnaissance missions inside

Iran at least since last summer." According to Hersh, "Defense

Department civilians, under the leadership of Douglas Feith, have been

working with Israeli planners and consultants to develop and refine

potential nuclear, chemical-weapons, and missile targets inside Iran. .

. . Strategists at the headquarters of the U.S. Central Command, in

Tampa, Florida, have been asked to revise the military's war plan,

providing for a maximum ground and air invasion of Iran. . . . The

hawks in the Administration believe that it will soon become clear that

the Europeans' negotiated approach [to Iran] cannot succeed, and that at

that time the Administration will act."

Scott Ritter said that although the peace movement failed to stop the

war in Iraq, it had a chance to stop the expansion of the war to other

nations like Iran and Syria. He held up the specter of a day when the

Iraq war might be remembered as a relatively minor event that preceded

an even greater conflagration.

Scott Ritter's talk was the culmination of a long evening devoted to

discussion of Iraq and U.S. foreign policy. Before Ritter spoke, Dahr

Jamail narrated a slide show on Iraq focusing on Fallujah. He showed

more than a hundred vivid photographs taken in Iraq, mostly by himself.

Many of them showed the horrific slaughter of civilians.

Dahr Jamail argued that U.S. mainstream media sources are complicit

in the war and help sustain support for it by deliberately downplaying

the truth about the devastation and death it is causing.

Jamail was, until recently, one of the few unembedded journalists in

Iraq and one of the only independent ones. His reports have gained a

substantial following and are available online at dahrjamailiraq.com.

Friday evening's event in Olympia was sponsored by South Puget Sound

Community College's Student Activities Board, Veterans for Peace, 100

Thousand and Counting, Olympia Movement for Justice & Peace, and United

for Peace of Pierce County.

 

Good job taking that out of context and leaving the most important part out. That's the Pointbreak way.

Pressed_Rat posted an entire article yet your post never addressed it and instead focused on insulting people. You do that constantly... you can't tell me that you didn't already know that. As I said before, your posts contain no substance but rather insult other members of this forum.

The Iranians have the motivation to become a nuclear power. Is that clear enough for you?

If the U.S. doesn't support Israel's right to nuclear weapons, then they should be part of the "axis of evil," no?

Why don't you explain for us in a nice detailed response how that is ridiculous? We'd all like to hear your views, so why don't you give it to us?

And don't worry, we'll listen to you! I mean, you're Pointbreak! Who wouldn't listen to you? Forget that quote I posted from some guy who's the research director of the Brookings Institution's Saban Center for Middle East Policy. I'm sure his base of knowledge about Israel and the Middle East is far weaker than yours.

Picking and choosing which nations may harness nuclear power is no way to create peace, and if you think it is, you're a fool.

 

You said you don't support Iranian nonproliferation. Sorry if you don't like the sound of your own logic. The Nonproliferation Treaty has no fine print that allows people to blame Israel or build bombs if they have a proud history.

Wow! An entire article! Not even part of an article - the whole thing! What an amazing feat.

If I responded to every article Rat posted, I would have to quit my job and become a one man Rense response team. And what would be the point of that? Do you think I couldn't cut and paste my favorite articles all over the forum and then demand people respond to them? No, if Rat can't express himself in his own words I'm not going to feel obliged to respond to every unsubstantiated point in the dozens of articles he cuts from conspiracy websites and shovels into the forums. That's not debate.

What an utterly worthless point to make.

No, and neither should India or Pakistan.

I don't give a crap about credentials. That's obviously an idiotic approach to the forum - whoever has the most credentials (or whoever posts links to someone with the most credentials) wins? It may surprise you to find that there are people with credentials on both sides of most debates.

Which is all beside the point because your quote from Pollack doesn't say anything about Israel being a puppet of the US. It says Israel is trying to influence US policy to serve its own needs. Puppets don't influence their masters. You are getting it completely backwards to what Pollack (and most people in this forum) believe.

Then you are opposed to the Non Proliferation Treaty. So much for multilateralism and international law.

 

That is idiotic. I don't think Israel should have nuclear weapons either, but to excuse Iran's nuclear program by blaming Israel is naive. Like it or not, Israel has nuclear weapons. Why the HELL you want Iran to have them too is beyond me.

Maybe you're just hoping for a nuclear war between Israel and Iran so you have something else to blame on the Jews.

 

I should have been more clear. I don't WANT Iran to have nuclear weapons... and I also don't want Israel to have nuclear weapons. They must go hand-in-hand, in my opinion.

Issam Makhoul, a member of the Israeli Parliament has said, "Only those who struggle for total disarmament in the Middle East, including Israel, of all weapons of mass destruction -- nuclear, biological and chemical -- have the moral right to condemn Iran for its nuclear project. The countries that equip Israel with the means to launch nuclear warheads, that supply it with submarines and enable it to develop its missiles, do not have the moral right to condemn the Iranian nuclear project. Anyone who opposes the Iranian project must also oppose the Israeli nuclear arsenal."

I agree with Makhoul. You can't condemn Iran's nuclear aspirations if you support Israel's arsenal.

On a side note, I find it interesting that when Iran was secretly allied with Israel from 1972-1979, Muhammad Reza Shah Pavhlavi declared, without objection from the U.S. or Israel, that Iran would build ten nuclear power plants. Now, Iran must somehow prove its innocence or be faced with U.S.-sponsored sanctions and/or war. Just an interesting thought...

 

Iran isn't exactly a fine upstanding member of the international community, known for keeping its word on international agreements. How can you possibly believe that Iran will disarm if Israel does? They'd much rather be THE dominant power in the area than be one of the two dominant powers in the area.

Iran tries to blame Israel for its nuclear program to elicit sympathy from the international community, and given the mood by many people on this board, it seems to be working. The fact is that that is just an excuse, and Iran would be pursuing nuclear weapons even if Israel did not have them.

I agree that neither should have nuclear weapons, but that simply is not feasible right now. A nuclear Iran is much more destabilizing to the region than a non-nuclear Iran. Period.

 

And of course Israel and we ourselves are shining examples to the rest of the international community on observance of international agreements? lol.

Please Kandahar, youre sounding more and more blindly jingoistic every day.