Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
US and UK plan to attack Iran
#1
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov...ck-nuclear
Quote:Britain's armed forces are stepping up their contingency planning for potential military action against Iran amid mounting concern about Tehran's nuclear enrichment programme, the Guardian has learned.

The Ministry of Defence believes the US may decide to fast-forward plans for targeted missile strikes at some key Iranian facilities. British officials say that if Washington presses ahead it will seek, and receive, UK military help for any mission, despite some deep reservations within the coalition government.

In anticipation of a potential attack, British military planners are examining where best to deploy Royal Navy ships and submarines equipped with Tomahawk cruise missiles over the coming months as part of what would be an air and sea campaign.

They also believe the US would ask permission to launch attacks from Diego Garcia, the British Indian ocean territory, which the Americans have used previously for conflicts in the Middle East.

The Guardian has spoken to a number of Whitehall and defence officials over recent weeks who said Iran was once again becoming the focus of diplomatic concern after the revolution in Libya.

They made clear that Barack Obama, has no wish to embark on a new and provocative military venture before next November's presidential election.

But they warned the calculations could change because of mounting anxiety over intelligence gathered by western agencies, and the more belligerent posture that Iran appears to have been taking.

Hawks in the US are likely to seize on next week's report from the International Atomic Energy Agency, which is expected to provide fresh evidence of a possible nuclear weapons programme in Iran.

The Guardian has been told that the IAEA's bulletin could be "a game changer" which will provide unprecedented details of the research and experiments being undertaken by the regime.

One senior Whitehall official said Iran had proved "surprisingly resilient" in the face of sanctions, and sophisticated attempts by the west to cripple its nuclear enrichment programme had been less successful than first thought.

He said Iran appeared to be "newly aggressive, and we are not quite sure why", citing three recent assassination plots on foreign soil that the intelligence agencies say were coordinated by elements in Tehran.

In addition to that, officials now believe Iran has restored all the capability it lost in a sophisticated cyber-attack last year.The Stuxnet computer worm, thought to have been engineered by the Americans and Israelis, sabotaged many of the centrifuges the Iranians were using to enrich uranium.

Up to half of Iran's centrifuges were disabled by Stuxnet or were thought too unreliable to work, but diplomats believe this capability has now been recovered, and the IAEA believes it may even be increasing.

Ministers have also been told that the Iranians have been moving some more efficient centrifuges into the heavily-fortified military base dug beneath a mountain near the city of Qom.

The concern is that the centrifuges, which can be used to enrich uranium for use in weapons, are now so well protected within the site that missile strikes may not be able to reach them. The senior Whitehall source said the Iranians appeared to be shielding "material and capability" inside the base.

Another Whitehall official, with knowledge of Britain's military planning, said that within the next 12 months Iran may have hidden all the material it needs to continue a covert weapons programme inside fortified bunkers. He said this had necessitated the UK's planning being taken to a new level.

"Beyond [12 months], we couldn't be sure our missiles could reach them," the source said. "So the window is closing, and the UK needs to do some sensible forward planning. The US could do this on their own but they won't.

"So we need to anticipate being asked to contribute. We had thought this would wait until after the US election next year, but now we are not so sure.

"President Obama has a big decision to make in the coming months because he won't want to do anything just before an election."

Another source added there was "no acceleration towards military action by the US, but that could change". Next spring could be a key decision-making period, the source said. The MoD has a specific team considering the military options against Iran.

The Guardian has been told that planners expect any campaign to be predominantly waged from the air, with some naval involvement, using missiles such as the Tomahawks, which have a range of 800 miles (1,287 km). There are no plans for a ground invasion, but "a small number of special forces" may be needed on the ground, too.

The RAF could also provide air-to-air refuelling and some surveillance capability, should they be required. British officials say any assistance would be cosmetic: the US could act on its own but would prefer not to.

An MoD spokesman said: "The British government believes that a dual track strategy of pressure and engagement is the best approach to address the threat from Iran's nuclear programme and avoid regional conflict. We want a negotiated solution – but all options should be kept on the table."

The MoD says there are no hard and fast blueprints for conflict but insiders concede that preparations there and at the Foreign Office have been under way for some time.

One official said: "I think that it is fair to say that the MoD is constantly making plans for all manner of international situations. Some areas are of more concern than others. "It is not beyond the realms of possibility that people at the MoD are thinking about what we might do should something happen on Iran. It is quite likely that there will be people in the building who have thought about what we would do if commanders came to us and asked us if we could support the US. The context for that is straightforward contingency planning."

Washington has been warned by Israel against leaving any military action until it is too late.

Western intelligence agencies say Israel will demand that the US act if it believes its own military cannot launch successful attacks to stall Iran's nuclear programme. A source said the "Israelis want to believe that they can take this stuff out", and will continue to agitate for military action if Iran continues to play hide and seek.

It is estimated that Iran, which has consistently said it is interested only in developing a civilian nuclear energy programme, already has enough enriched uranium for between two and four nuclear weapons.

Experts believe it could be another two years before Tehran has a ballistic missile delivery system.

British officials admit to being perplexed by what they regard as Iran's new aggressiveness, saying that they have been shown convincing evidence that Iran was behind the murder of a Saudi diplomat in Karachi in May, as well as the audacious plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador in Washington, which was uncovered last month.

"There is a clear dotted line from Tehran to the plot in Washington," said one.

Earlier this year, the IAEA reported that it had evidence Tehran had conducted work on a highly sophisticated nuclear triggering technology that could only be used for setting off a nuclear device.

It also said it was "increasingly concerned about the possible existence in Iran of past or current undisclosed nuclear-related activities involving military-related organisations, including activities related to the development of a nuclear payload for a missile."

Last year, the UN security council imposed a fourth round of sanctions on Iran to try to deter Tehran from pursuing any nuclear ambitions.

At the weekend, the New York Times reported that the US was looking to build up its military presence in the region, with one eye on Iran.

According to the paper, the US is considering sending more naval warships to the area, and is seeking to expand military ties with the six countries in the Gulf Co-operation Council: Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Oman.

Ohh look... The belligerent trio (UK, US, Israel) wants to start WWIII. I though US was out of cash? Ohh yahh, Iran has oil!

Not defending Iran by any means, but this crap will hurt not only innocent civialians in Iran, but also in Israel and the american soldiers in the middle-east. There's also a chance for an attack against UK/US.

Here's what I predict to happen:

1. UK, Israel and US attack Iran. Around the same time there will be a military coup in Greece.
2. Islamic countries are mad at US, UK and Israel
3. Russia allies with the muslims.
4. Russia and US bomb the shyt out of eachother. NATO allies join US and China+Middle East ally with Russia.
5. Iran nukes down Israel
6. US nukes Iran
7. China nukes US
8. Russia nukes US.
9. Meanwhile Greece attacks Italy
10. EU countries declare a war on Greece
11. US helps europe with Greece, and then Russia, China and Middle East start supporting Greece
12. US sends 984379348 nukes on Russia, China, Iran
13. Russia/China/Mid-East send double the amount of Nukes on Europe and US.

etc etc. and eventually the whole earth is destroyed by radioactive pollution!

GG happy end
Reply
#2
Ya know the whole "OIL IS EVERYTHING" reason is so overstated that it's pathetic. Do you know how much oil reserves we have, not even including the gross amount we get from canada/mexico? 50% of our oil is from either us/canada/mexico. 10% from venuzuala and they are more at our mercy much like China. If anything we want to dig into that mountain of gem's, which won't start until like 2016 or something.

None the less, the only reason this war has prolonged is because of our liberal attitude. If you're at war, casualties should be expected. The only reason we won against the japanese was because we bombed them. Hit hard, hit fast. Otherwise you probably cause more problems prolonging and ironically, hurt more people in the long run. Iraq/Iran/Afghanistan/Pakistan are a bunch of 5 year olds that need a spank from a wiffle paddle, time out isn't working anymore.
Reply
#3
KhainiWest Wrote:Ya know the whole "OIL IS EVERYTHING" reason is so overstated that it's pathetic. Do you know how much oil reserves we have, not even including the gross amount we get from canada/mexico? 50% of our oil is from either us/canada/mexico. 10% from venuzuala and they are more at our mercy much like China. If anything we want to dig into that mountain of gem's, which won't start until like 2016 or something.

None the less, the only reason this war has prolonged is because of our liberal attitude. If you're at war, casualties should be expected. The only reason we won against the japanese was because we bombed them. Hit hard, hit fast. Otherwise you probably cause more problems prolonging and ironically, hurt more people in the long run. Iraq/Iran/Afghanistan/Pakistan are a bunch of 5 year olds that need a spank from a wiffle paddle, time out isn't working anymore.
And the same attitude is also the reason why US will soon be in bankruptcy.
Reply
#4
Satellite Wrote:And the same attitude is also the reason why US will soon be in bankruptcy.

The stock market pludged because Greece won't admit they are. The only reason the USA hasn't kicked up yet is because our housing market sucks. If you haven't also heard were pulling back a lot of troops home, I want to say all but I'm not positive. I forgot the actual document/treaty but essentially the middle east countries are threatening to take our soldiers through their court system if they do something they don't like. Essentially "You can stay here, but if you fu`ck up we're the one punishing them".
Reply
#5
Ugh... not sure how I feel about this. I really don't want to enter another war, but those lunatics in Iran do need a some type of action against them because this is getting ridiculous. I'm pro-Israel so putting Iran in their place would be nice, but at the same time I don't want more terrorist attacks in the US/UK and would prefer to enter more peaceful times considering we are pretty broke.

Btw Satellite, I don't feel like this example is a good excuse to "find oil." We are currently messing with Lybia, Iraq, and Afghanistan and there is no need to pineapple with Iran so close to an election just to get some more oil. Also good try on the WWIII chain-of-events but I can't see it happening like that. Anyone nukes anyone and the world goes to pomegranate. I'd like to think they/we aren't that stupid.
Reply
#6
You do realize that only a very small percent of our overall oil reserve comes from the Middle East, I hope? A VERY, VERY small percent. :l

We don't need to be starting another war right now. We need to either nuke them off the face of the planet in one day, or leave them be for now. We can't help anyone if we are in 3rd world poverty from all these damned wars.
Reply
#7
Flonne Wrote:You do realize that only a very small percent of our overall oil reserve comes from the Middle East, I hope? A VERY, VERY small percent. :l

We don't need to be starting another war right now. We need to either nuke them off the face of the planet in one day, or leave them be for now. We can't help anyone if we are in 3rd world poverty from all these damned wars.

Nuking is not an option. Nuking Iran would severely effect a lot of other countries around the Middle East/Africa/Asia and would make us look like huge douchebags. Idk what the best option is, but we need to start picking our battles more wisely.
Reply
#8
KhainiWest Wrote:10% from venuzuala
Where's that?
Also is 40% from US, ~20% Canada and ~10% (each) Mexico/Arabs/Venezuela/Africa, but the thing is that if they make the price go up US oil companies won't think it twice before raising it as high.
Reply
#9
Luxeraph Wrote:Where's that?

south AMERICA
Reply
#10
Raul Wrote:south AMERICA
Just looked at the map several times and didn't find it.
Reply
#11
Luxeraph Wrote:Just looked at the map several times and didn't find it.

East of Colombia, north of Brazil, and west of Guyana.
South of Louisiana/Mississippi.
Reply
#12
Raul Wrote:East of Colombia, north of Brazil, and west of Guyana.
South of Louisiana/Mississippi.

He is trolling you, he is from venezuela lol.

On toppic: To be honest i really don't care, Venezuela isn't a country interested in war but if US and UK attack Iran the oil price would rise a lot and that means more money for my country so... Yeah i know it is bad but thats what we did on WWI and II sell! sell! sell! so WWIII could be the same. Unless our crazy president go to war because he loves Ahmadineyad but I don't believe he'll do it, he left Ghadafi die.
Reply
#13
Raul Wrote:East of Colombia, north of Brazil, and west of Guyana.
South of Louisiana/Mississippi.
But where you point at is where venezuela is, I want to know where venuzuala is.
Reply
#14
Luxeraph Wrote:Where's that?
Also is 40% from US, ~20% Canada and ~10% (each) Mexico/Arabs/Venezuela/Africa, but the thing is that if they make the price go up US oil companies won't think it twice before raising it as high.

Sorry I didn't catch that lol. I meant that 50% total, not 50% from one of those countries, but thanks for elaborating. I couldn't get the details at the time.
Reply
#15
Chicocl Wrote:He is trolling you, he is from venezuela lol.

...
FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU-
Reply
#16
So Satellite if we don't attack them...

1. Iran nukes the rest of the Earth.
2. We nuke them before dieing.
3. ???
4. Profit!






















I'm obviously using sarcasm here, if you didn't catch it, but it's as outrageous as a scenario as Satellite's proposal.
Reply
#17
Corn Wrote:I'm obviously using sarcasm here, if you didn't catch it, but it's as outrageous as a scenario as Satellite's proposal.
Satellite's propasal is indeed overexaggerated (no matter what a nuke war would only happen in fiction or in a very distant future) but a whole chunck of death would happen before an uneasy peace, or we could get the usual US pwning anyone that looks their way while everyone else pout.
Reply
#18
Corn Wrote:So Satellite if we don't attack them...

1. Iran nukes the rest of the Earth.
2. We nuke them before dieing.
3. ???
4. Profit!






















I'm obviously using sarcasm here, if you didn't catch it, but it's as outrageous as a scenario as Satellite's proposal.

I can't even consider Satellite's proposal here as outrageous. All of his ideas are batshi't insane. My favorite part was when he said "Russia allies with the muslims." Like everyone in the middle east is a Muslim and wants America to burn. Also "China nukes US" does China even have a nuclear weapon program?
Reply
#19
Ladon Wrote:I can't even consider Satellite's proposal here as outrageous. All of his ideas are batshi't insane. My favorite part was when he said "Russia allies with the muslims." Like everyone in the middle east is a Muslim and wants America to burn. Also "China nukes US" does China even have a nuclear weapon program?

Whether they do or not they'd be pulling the carpet under themselves. Their economy is going way to fast, and they are investing in US bonds, so if the US crashes so does china lol
Reply
#20
Ladon Wrote:Also "China nukes US" does China even have a nuclear weapon program?

I know they have nuclear weapons... so.....
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)