Monday April 9, 2007
The release of the 15 British sailors and marines captured by Iran has robbed the U.S. of a pretext to attack Iran, but the U.S. has not given up plans to attack Iran militarily, president of the Academy for Geopolitical Problems Colonel General Leonid Ivashov was quoted as saying by the Interfax news agency.
“Preparations to strike Iran’s strategic facilities continue. Three major groups of U.S. forces are still in the Arabian Sea and the Persian Gulf. Altogether, they have up to 450 cruise missiles on alert,” the general said.
“Military operations against Tehran will begin with the launch of at least two unexpected strikes using Tomahawk cruise missiles and air power in order to disable Iran’s air defense capabilities,” he said.
“According to our data, up to 150 aircraft are to be involved in each strike on Iran. Land-based air defense systems will be disabled in the first place, then mobile short-range systems, which Tehran has (including some 30 new systems),” he said.
Primary targets will include command centers, air defense installations, the navy, airfields, ports and docking facilities, the general said.
“Nuclear facilities may be secondary targets. According to expert assessments, at least 20 such facilities need to be destroyed in order to stop Iran’s nuclear program,” Ivashov said.
Ivashov did not rule out that nuclear weapons may be used against Iran.
“Combat nuclear weapons may be used for bombing. This will result in radioactive contamination of the Iranian territory, which could possibly spread to neighboring countries,” he said.
“If Iran strikes back at Israel with missiles, Tel-Aviv is likely to use nuclear weapons on Iran,” Ivashov said, adding that such a “development of the situation would undermine stability not only in the Middle East, but also in the entire world.”
If that idiot Bush had his way, the Middle East would have blown sky-high by now. He offered to buzz Iran's military bases with fighter aircraft during the captivity of the 15 Brits. This would have been interpreted as a military attack, war would have ensued, the Brits would not have been freed, and nuclear weapons would have been used against Iran by the U.S. and possibly Israel. This is part of the plan that has been in place since before Bush took office. Most of the sick Neocons are still sulking over the release of the Brits.
In the first few days after the captives were seized and British diplomats were getting no news from Tehran on their whereabouts, Pentagon officials asked their British counterparts: what do you want us to do? They offered a series of military options, a list which remains top secret given the mounting risk of war between the US and Iran. But one of the options was for US combat aircraft to mount aggressive patrols over Iranian Revolutionary Guard bases in Iran, to underline the seriousness of the situation.
Buzzing military bases in Iran would certainly and rightfully have been interpreted as an act of war. Some Iranian air defense would have hit some U.S. fighter - the U.S. would have responded with an all-out bombing campaign. A simple local conflict over an undefined border would have escalated into a region wide slaughter. The British sailors and marines would certainly not be free by now.
The British declined the offer and said the US could calm the situation by staying out of it. London also asked the US to tone down military exercises that were already under way in the Gulf.
The British government also asked the US administration from Mr Bush down to be cautious in its use of rhetoric, which was relatively restrained throughout.
Is the report true? I am not sure, but given the actors it is quite plausible.
So whoever took the decision in the UK to turn down the US offer - thanks.
Whoever ordered that offer to be made in the first place, should be court-martialled for intending to start a war of aggression.
Could the U.S. Congress now please find some spine and restrict such offers and pointless aggressive actions?