U.S. Conducting Secret Missions Inside Iran

[Bugfatty300]

It's not so much pro-US specifically, as wanting western-style freedoms, and not being ruled by fundamentalists. At least, that's what I've read in newspapers.

True, but America is the symbol of that lifestyle to them. Hence the US flags being waved instead of burned. Which puts the US in a good position to act.

 

[Scuffer]

That was at Billy Rubin, rather than you, but absolutely, yes.

However all the flag waving in the world isn't going to help if the uprising fails, and whatever happens, there will be a huge backlash across the Islamic world if the US acts to remove an specifically Islamic government with one it likes.

It therefore would need to be done very very very very carefully, so I suggest that Donald Rumsfeld is left out of it

 

[Bugfatty300]

That was at Billy Rubin, rather than you, but absolutely, yes.

However all the flag waving in the world isn't going to help if the uprising fails, and whatever happens, there will be a huge backlash across the Islamic world if the US acts to remove an specifically Islamic government with one it likes.

It therefore would need to be done very very very very carefully, so I suggest that Donald Rumsfeld is left out of it

I would wrather leave the whole administration out of the operations except for the basics of funding and such. The rest should go to the pentagon.

 

[Scuffer]

I can't think of a single area of politics that wouldn't run smoother if politicians would only keep their noses out of it. But that isn't why they became politicians.

Anyway, what I'm saying is that intervention Iran is hugely risky, and however it is done, if the secret leaks you will generate anti-US feeling so fast that the consequences could be wide-ranging, as they say.

 

[Billy Rubin]

Thanks for the info - I personally perceived waving of US flags by protesters more as a way to provoke the regime than an actual pro US attitude (regardless of their demand for western freedoms).

I still think interpreting a few US flag waving students as a pro American disposition in the majority of Irans population is wishfull thinking by the Bush administration - remember how US troops were cheered at in every city in Iraq? Iirc that's what the Bush administration expected to some extent.

 

[Bronx Warlord]

Remember a good portion of the youth of Iran get beaten up by there goverment sponsored thugs when they decide to protest... lord help you when the secret police come knowcking cause you ain't gonna be seen again. Europeans remember the Gestapo... same kind of gig really.

Who has given the Iranian goverment the collective finger for the last twenty years and spoken out against what they are doing to there own people?

The US, Eurpoe has no problem cutting deals with the and helping them build reactors. The Russians love to sell them second rate military hardware. Not that I blame Europe and Russia, it's in there best intrests to do so.

Just look at the elections in Iran... really look into them and you'll see why the youth are getting fed up.

As far as Iran invadeing Iraq in retaliation... I don't think the Iraqi's and even the insurgency are going to take that kindly. You may just see Iraqi's rally about how the Iranians are now trying to take advantage of there weak state. The Shia remember 92 when all Iran did during the upriseing was give moral support and that's it. If it did happen and I were adviseing the President I would advocate supporting the resistance in Iran with weapons and funding... see how the Iranians like that for a change.

 

[Civrules]

And here is what Iran says:

TEHRAN, Iran (Reuters) -- Iran has the military might to deter attacks against it, its defense minister said in remarks published on Tuesday, one day after U.S. President George W. Bush said he would not rule out military action against Iran.

Iranian Defense Minister Ali Shamkhani said the Islamic Republic, which has seen U.S. forces topple regimes in neighboring Afghanistan and Iraq in the last three years, did not fear attack.

"We are able to say that we have strength such that no country can attack us because they do not have precise information about our military capabilities due to our ability to implement flexible strategies," the semi-official Mehr news agency quoted Shamkhani as saying.

"We can claim that we have rapidly produced equipment that has resulted in the greatest deterrent," he said, without elaborating.

Bush said on Monday that Washington would not rule out military action against Iran if it was not more forthcoming about its suspected nuclear weapons programme.

His comments followed an article in the New Yorker magazine on Sunday which said U.S. commando units were conducting secret reconnaissance missions inside Iran to identify hidden nuclear and chemical sites for possible future strikes. Full story

Iran denies its nuclear facilities are to be used to make nuclear weapons and Pentagon officials have rubbished the New Yorker report. Full story

Iranian officials have given no public reaction to the New Yorker article which suggested Pentagon officials were eager to tackle Iran in the second term of the Bush administration.

Mehr news agency, which analysts say has close ties to the office of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, in an editorial entitled "Futile espionage" ridiculed U.S. attempts to destabilize Iran since the 1979 Islamic revolution.

"The United States is well aware that Iran has strongly withstood U.S. pressure for over 25 years ... Today, the Islamic Republic has acquired massive military might, the dimensions of which still remain unknown, and is prepared to attack any intruder with a fearsome rain of fire and death," it said.

"The U.S. and Israel know that they can never militarily challenge Iran, since attacking the Islamic Republic would be biting off more than they could chew and would only choke them if they attempted it," it added.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/01/18/iran.attack.reut/index.html

 

[Bronx Warlord]

God I love there press releases

 

[Bigfoot]

The only way the US can keep Iran from getting nukes is by putting boots on the ground, which is not a viable option without reinstating the draft. That would be about as popular as Barbara Bush jumping out of the cake at a bachelor party. Unless there is another 9/11 type event here, I don't foresee that happening.

 

[Bronx Warlord]

Well you could hit the reactor, or at this point reactors if needed.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Well you could hit the reactor, or at this point reactors if needed.

Yeah sure, spread radioactivity all over Iran by blowing up its reactors, that makes alot of sense

 

[Riesstiu IV]

I just can't see Neocons and the Bush administration invading anther country after the Iraq fiasco but then again I wouldn’t put it past them. El Presidente Bush would have to implement a draft and increase military production in order to actually be able to occupy and wage war against Iran. Support for the current war in Iraq is dismal and there is no way the public would agree to another one, especially if a draft was implemented. So many people are pissed off at the government and an invasion of Iran might very well push them to their limits. Bush’s presidency has been tenuous at best and his reelection only garnered support from 31% of the population. The other 69% percent either oppose him or ignore him and if he implemented a draft, Bush would disenfranchise much of that 69%. After 2008 Mr. Bush would half to spend the rest of his life in hiding.

I don’t doubt our countries capabilities to actually invade Iran (it’s how peaceable we occupy it that worries me) but the Pentagon is full of generals trained how to fight standing armies instead of guerrilla warfare, politicians who have no idea what they’re doing and rather then come up with solutions they throw money at the problem. Very few of our soldiers are trained to occupy and police large tracts of land.

And one final note is the money it would cost to invade Iran. Look how much money we are wasting in Iraq just trying to occupy a nation of 25 million and think how much money will be needed to train, supply, and recruit soldiers and equipment. A war with Iran could mean financial ruin.

One would have to be either insane or stupid to support a war with Iran at this point in time.

 

[CenturionV]

The US should just forget about it, its high time Israel did there part in this war on isla.....err....terror, they need to go on the offensive and put that huge army/airforce of theres to good use.

Iran would be a nice place for at least the air element of the israeli army to help out.

 

[Damnyankee]

Source: Yahoo News

Why am I getting the feeling that Bush is going to make an extrodinary clam that the Iranians are holding WMDs for another excuse to invade another contry.

I don't, were are we going to get the divisions to invade Iran? I mean sure you would say, Iraq, but they must realize that would be a "insurgents" fieldday. And the "extrodinary claim" is probably true, you don't need Nuclear power if you are siting on that stockpile of Oil. Unless congress decides to commit suicide and instate the draft again and calls back its armoured divisions which were sent back to there respective bases why would bush do this if he wanted to invade . I bet you 20 bucks that the guy that brings up this claim is most likly a democrat. In response to commandos in Iran, hell as long as i don't know, i don't mind if they cause instability and case nuclear targets for airstrikes

 

[JohnRM]

The US should just forget about it, its high time Israel did there part in this war on isla.....err....terror, they need to go on the offensive and put that huge army/airforce of theres to good use.

Iran would be a nice place for at least the air element of the israeli army to help out.

If any airstrike is attempted on Iran, it will be done so by American F-117s and B-2s, not the visible Israeli Air Force.

 

[Azadre]

Israel will be hit in retaliation. I guareente it. Full scale war. Martyrs.

It won't be pretty.

 

[JohnRM]

Israel will be hit in retaliation. I guareente it. Full scale war. Martyrs.

It won't be pretty.

I doubt it, for two reasons.

First, Iran would know for certain that our goal was to destroy the nuclear capabilities and no further attacks were likely.

Second, Iran is not going to go to war against two nuclear powers.

 

[Azadre]

I doubt it, for two reasons.

First, Iran would know for certain that our goal was to destroy the nuclear capabilities and no further attacks were likely.

Second, Iran is not going to go to war against two nuclear powers.

Yes they will. If they're going down, so is Israel. In so getting them a MUCH larger aresnal to use: the Arab race.

A non nuclear Iran has nothing to gain. But one that attacks Israel will gain more than anything else they could do.

 

[FriendlyFire]

I doubt it, for two reasons.

First, Iran would know for certain that our goal was to destroy the nuclear capabilities and no further attacks were likely.

LMAO.

Second, Iran is not going to go to war against two nuclear powers.

First: Imagine If Iranians decide its a good time to over throw there government ? I can forsee a brutal short civil war. Would the US stand by and do nothing ? Or assist the reveolutionaries ?

Second: Nothing is gonna stop the Iran launching a conventional war.
They simply have "Volunteers" cross into Iraq and make trouble.

 

[bigfatron]

I doubt it, for two reasons.

First, Iran would know for certain that our goal was to destroy the nuclear capabilities and no further attacks were likely.

Second, Iran is not going to go to war against two nuclear powers.

Why not? Nuclear power did no good in Vietnam because to use it against non-nuclear opponents would be to bring utter condemnation globally.

Don't kid yourself about the reaction if the US was to, say, nuke Iranian weapons facilities - speaking just for the UK it would almost certainly bring down the Blair government unless (and perhaps even if) there was strong punitive action taken - we would be talking freezing of US assets, sanctions, cessation of diplomatic relations, expelling all US military installations - it would be catastrophic for BOTH countries IMHO. Certainly the existing alliance would be inconceivable for the forseeable future.

You can laugh and say "So what?!", but the political pressure on European leaders to act against America would be totally unstoppable. The minimum result would be a massive trade war, severe damage to global institutions (world bank, IMF, UN, etc), and NATO would break up completely.

It would be inconceivable for Tokyo to side with the US post-use of nuclear weapons, China would have every opportunity to come out against the US, no muslim nation could countenance continued support for the US (including nuclear Pakistan where Musharraf surely could not survive) - basically it would be US and Israel against the world.

Even Bush is not stupid enough to bring this about and the Iranian leadership know it; therefore the threat of nuclear weapons is meaningless - to use them is to negate absolutely the very purpose of your action, making America safer.