| Topic: |
Science > Prophecies-Of-Nostradamus |
| User: |
"Xa ta Zac Xa Ta Amac -The Last 1800 Days - HOOROO !" |
| Date: |
28 Oct 2007 10:20:44 PM |
| Object: |
Will Dumbo *really* bomb Iran, peoplez ?!?! HOOROO ! |
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2753953.ece
From The Sunday TimesOctober 28, 2007
Will Bush really bomb Iran?
The rhetoric is getting stronger, the sanctions tougher and military
planning more detailed. Iran is now the focus of attention in
WashingtonSarah Baxter
In the white desert sands of New Mexico, close to where the first atom
bomb was detonated, America's biggest conventional weapon was tested
last spring. A 30,000lb massive ordnance penetrator, known as the Big
Blu or the Mother of All Bombs, was placed inside a tunnel to test its
explosive power against hard, deeply buried bunkers and tunnels
designed to conceal weapons of mass destruction.
The monster bunker-buster was so heavy, it could not fly. But the
blast was a huge success, rippling through the tunnels and destroying
everything in its wake.
Today the Big Blu might as well have "Tehran" written on its side in
the same way that the Iranians love to parade missiles marked "Tel
Aviv". Tucked away in an emergency defence spending request, the US
air force has just asked Congress for $88m to equip B2 stealth
bombers, the black warriors of the skies, with racks strong enough
carry the huge bomb.
This was no casual request, but an "urgent operational need from
theatre commanders", according to the air force. Even a Republican
congressman fretted: "This whole thing . . . reminds me of the movie
Dr Strangelove."
Related Links
Iranians study nuclear physics in Britain
Bush turns the screw on Iran
Sanction-hit banks to face City boycott
In the 1964 film starring Peter Sellers, a demented general launches a
unilateral strike on the Soviet Union, convinced it is already
stealthily undermining America. Global nuclear destruction ensues. THE
end result might not be so grave, but are America's B2s being readied
for an attack on Iran? It would fit in neatly with President George W
Bush's recent warning about the dangers of a third world war, should
Iran be allowed to obtain the "knowledge to make a nuclear weapon".
Iran-watchers noted with interest the use of the word knowledge. Bush,
it appeared, was determined to act well before the mullahs got
anywhere close to an actual bomb.
***** Cheney, the vice-president, piled on the pressure last week,
calling Iran a "growing obstacle to peace in the Middle East" and
vowing "serious consequences" if it persisted with its nuclear
programme.
A senior Pentagon source, who remembers the growing drumbeat of war
before the invasion of Iraq, believes Bush is preparing for military
action before he leaves office in January 2009. "This is for real now.
I think he is signalling he is going to do it," he said.
But nobody is sure whether the president really will add a risky third
front to the Afghan and Iraq wars that are already overstretching US
forces.
"If you'd asked me a year ago, I'd have said yes," said John Bolton,
the hawkish former US ambassador to the United Nations. "Today I'd
say, I don't know."
It is clear the military machinery for an attack is being put into
place. More than 1,000 targets have been identified for a potential
air blitz against Iran's nuclear facilities, air defences and
Revolutionary Guard bases, despite claims last week by Robert Gates,
the defence secretary, that the planning was merely "routine".
As for the urgent request for the Big Blu, it has "bombing Iran
written all over it", said John Pike, a defence expert at the think
tank Globalsecurity.org.
Iran's uranium enrichment halls at Natanz, about 150 miles south of
Tehran, are buried 75ft deep, while there are believed to be nuclear
sites buried under granite mountains in tunnels that are like the long
roots of a tree. It is not enough to drop a smart bomb down a shaft -
it has to have the capacity to blast sideways with massive force.
The question of timing is becoming ever more urgent, now that Bush has
fewer than 15 months left in the White House. Confidants say he is
determined not to bequeath the problem of a nuclear Iran to his
successor and regards it as an important part of his legacy.
Although intelligence estimates vary as to when Iran will achieve the
know-how for a bomb, the French government recently received a memo
from the International Atomic Energy Agency stating that Iran will be
ready to run almost 3,000 cen-trifuges in 18 cascades by the end of
this month, in defiance of a UN ban on uranium enrichment. It is
enough, say scientists, to produce one bomb within a year. If that is
the case, the hour for action may soon be upon us.
Against this backdrop, the US public is growing acclimatised to the
threat of war. As the saying in Washington goes, "Iran is the new
Iraq". While controversy over the Iraq war is fading in intensity -
even for the 2008 presidential candidates - the problem of a nuclear
Iran is rapidly moving up the political agenda.
David Miliband, the foreign secretary, was in Washington last week for
talks with Condoleezza Rice, the US secretary of state. Shortly before
heading back to Britain, he declared that, for the first time, Iraq
was not "the top item" for discussion, a sign of the growing stability
and success of the American troop surge.
According to a spokesman for US armed forces chiefs, there was not a
single military casualty last week - Iraqi or American - in Anbar,
formerly a hotbed of trouble.
In so far as Iraq is presented as a threat to international security,
it is increasingly in connection to growing friction with Iran.
General David Petraeus, the US commander in Iraq, stated baldly last
month that America was already fighting a proxy war with Iran, which
is arming the sectarian militias and smuggling in weapons and
sophisticated roadside bombs designed to kill American soldiers.
The US is building a forward base in Iraq called Combat Outpost
Shocker just five miles from the Iranian border as a sign of its new
aggressiveness against interference from President Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad's regime.
Bush's decision to approve tough unilateral sanctions against Iran
last week and to designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist
organisation and proliferator of weapons of mass destruction marks a
further escalation of the war of words and deeds with Tehran.
After Miliband was briefed on the move during his visit to Washington,
Gordon Brown batted for America in the House of Commons by promising
Britain would lead the effort to secure a tough sanctions resolution
against Iran at the United Nations security council.
All the evidence appears to point in the direction of increasing
diplomatic and military hostilities. As Robert Byrd, a Democrat member
of the Senate armed services committee, put it, the action by the Bush
administration "not only echoes the chest-pounding rhetoric" which
preceded the invasion of Iraq in 2003, "but also raises the spectre of
an intensified effort to make the case for an invasion of Iran".
Yet a Downing street source said: "They are not at that stage."
Could it all be an elaborate game of "chicken", using the growing
threat of an attack to force Ahmadinejad to back down on his nuclear
ambitions?
Nick Burns, the State Department's leading negotiator on Iran, said
last week the imposition of new sanctions merely "supports the
diplomacy and in no way, shape or form does it anticipate the use of
force".
Even the urgent request to fund the Big Blu may not be all that it
seems. "We could be trying to turn up the volume to get the ayatollahs
to pay attention," said Pike. "It could be part of the diplomatic
pressure to see if the Iranians will move voluntarily."
If Ahmadinejad is to be believed, nothing will deter Iran from
pursuing its nuclear programme, which he claims is for peaceful energy
purposes while at the same time boasting that Israel will one day be
wiped off the map.
In a surprise announcement, Iran's top nuclear negotiator, Ali
Larijani, was replaced by Saeed Jalili, a hardliner close to the
president. Confusingly, however, Larijani still appeared to lead last
week's talks in Rome with Javier Solana, the European Union's foreign
policy chief.
"I found the same Larijani and he had the role of chief negotiator,"
said Solana. It suggests a power struggle over the extent to which
Iran can continue to thwart the West.
Until recently, most Iranians discounted the threat of an attack on
the grounds that America had its hands full with Iraq, but their mood
is altering. At gatherings in Tehran, the talk has turned to possible
American bombing raids.
Ali Nazeri, 35, a shopkeeper in the Iranian capital, said: "The
government says the Americans cannot do a damn thing, but they are
also changing the leadership of the Revolutionary Guard and saying
they will fire thousands of missiles at US targets within the first
few minutes of a confrontation. I think it is a matter of putting two
and two together and coming to the conclusion that war is very
likely."
In the wider Middle East, the conviction is growing that America is
determined to launch an attack. Some well-placed Israeli and
Palestinian sources suggest that next month's Middle East peace
conference in Annapolis, near Washington, could be the catapult for an
ambitious plan to establish a Palestinian state and disarm Iran.
"The idea is to tie Palestine to Iran," said an Israeli Middle East
expert. "Israel will be obliged to accept the establishment of a
Palestinian state within a short and firm timetable and the US
administration will guarantee that the Iranian nuclear issue will be
solved before Bush leaves office."
If Israel is prepared to move towards the creation of a Palestinian
state, the hope is that Sunni Arab regimes such as Saudi Arabia and
Egypt will not protest too loudly about a US attack on Iran, given
their own private fears about the impact of a nuclear Iran on the
balance of power in the region.
As with the Israeli bombing of a suspected Syrian nuclear site last
month, they could simply stay mum. In theory, Bush could thus broker a
settlement in the Middle East, while denuclearising Iran - a tempting
legacy.
But such a "grand bargain" is far too delicate and complicated to be
attempted, according to Washington sources, even if it provides a
subtext for some of the negotiations. "We're not smart enough for
that," Bolton said bluntly.
The most convincing explanation for the sabre-rattling is that Bush
has embarked on a course of action that may lead to war, but there are
many stages to pass, including the imposition of tougher sanctions,
before he concludes a military strike on Iran is worth the risk. As
his generals have warned, it could unleash a new round of terrorism,
destabilise Iraq and send oil prices way above the $100-a-barrel
mark.
If muscular diplomacy can stop the mullahs, so much the better. If it
cannot, Bush may decide to launch an attack as one of the final acts
of his presidency. The preparations are under way, but only he knows
if he will make that fateful decision.
Additional reporting: Uzi Mahnaimi, Tel Aviv
The pros and cons of launching an attack on Iran
The arguments for
- Protects Israel from a potential nuclear holocaust. President
Ahmadinejad has stated that Israel will be wiped off the map
- Reduces the risk to the West of a "dirty" bomb in big cities. Iran
is a sponsor of terrorist groups such as Hezbollah
- Forestalls the development of Iranian long-range nuclear missiles
aimed at Europe and America
- Prevents Iran from intimidating or attacking its Sunni Arab
neighbours
- Creates the space for potential regime change and installation of a
pro-western government in Tehran
The arguments against
- Sets back Iran's nuclear ambitions by only a few years. US
intelligence has not mapped out all the potential Iranian nuclear
sites
- Unleashes a wave of attacks on Israel and the West by Hezbollah and
other terrorist proxy groups Closes the Strait of Hormuz, sending oil
prices soaring above $100 a barrel and possibly creating a global
economic crisis
- Destabilises Iraq, plunging the country into a new round of terror,
creating further regional instability
- Creates a global public relations disaster. Intensifies
antiAmericanism which critics argue that President Bush has made
worse. Fosters a new generation of fundamentalist militants and
terrorists
---
Have your say
"Do Not Attack IRAN"
How many blood should be poured on earth further because of oil and
powerthirsty government of Iran and US both?, why innocent people
should pay for this? how many children should be still killed injured
and orphaned ? PLZ Open your heart and eyes,Forget your
prejudice ,Iran does not consist only of mullahs and stupid
ahmadinejad? in Iran most of people are normal people like you who
love american culture and european people hear western music, the most
of Iranian people are not relegious at all make their own wine in
basement( it is forbidden) the young people dress very modern with
latest fashion from europe and the most important things they are
embrassed to have ahmadinejad as president they did not vote for him
believe or he has cheated!A war is all what the Iranian goverment
wants let us fight for our freedom by ourselves
I am against Iranian government and Nuclearpower at all but there
should be other solutions rather then war if we are civilized !
An Iranian Woman , London, UK
The President of the United States will get his war with Iran if all
the cards are played right. High oil prices wont matter. I wont be
suprised if George Bush is stock pilling the oil somewhere from Iraq
so that wont bother him. Responding some questions about "protecting
US troops after air strike" I doubt very much protecting American
lives will be a priority as everyone is made to believe. Christ, they
don't even protect their own citizens let alone their soldiers.
Attacking Iran will be a large mistake. Russia & China wont stand by.
Iran will be attacked for the Oil, nothing more. And if not, thats how
Russia and China will view it. America are no different than the Roman
Empire. The American people will suffer for what their leaders do.
Joseph, Stevenston, Ayrshire
In the "arguments against" can we not include the picture on the front
page, of those lovely women who might easily be blown to bloody
fragments if George W. Bush gets to unleash his Gang that Couldn't
Shoot Straight on Iran. Human tragedy visited on a population of nice
people who just want to live their lives, is that not an "argument
against?"
Jim Houghton, Encino, CA, USA
=======================
.
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
