Report: U.S. stepping up war plans for Iran

[xpgeek]

I found this story very VERY interesting. I enlarged a section that must not be missed.

[hr:fd0894efa6]

White House reportedly mulling military options for forcing regime change

WASHINGTON - The U.S. administration is stepping up plans for a possible air strike on Iran, despite publicly pushing for a diplomatic solution to a dispute over its nuclear ambitions, according to a report by influential investigative journalist Seymour Hersh.

Hersh’s story in the April 17 issue of the New Yorker magazine, mostly citing unidentified current and former officials, says President George W. Bush views Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as a “potential Adolf Hitler,” and sees “regime change” in Tehran as the ultimate goal.

“This White House believes that the only way to solve the problem is to change the power structure in Iran, and that means war,” Hersh quotes an unidentified senior Pentagon adviser on the war on terror as saying.

The White House, without denying the report, reiterated that it was pursuing a diplomatic solution.

“We are not going to discuss military planning,” said spokesman Blair Jones.

“The IAEA (The International Atomic Energy Agency) and the UN Security Council have spoken clearly: Iran must return to full and sustained suspension of its enrichment and reprocessing activities.”

Iran insists it only wants nuclear technology for power generation. Washington believes Iran is trying to build an atomic bomb and refuses to rule out an attack to deal with what it says is one of the biggest threats to regional stability.

Its attempts to take action against Iran have been frustrated by the reluctance of fellow United Nations Security Council veto-holders Russia and China to consider sanctions.

Nuclear option?
Hersh’s report says the administration has stepped up clandestine activities in Iran and has initiated a series of talks on its plans with “a few key senators and members of Congress.”

A former senior defense official is cited as saying the planning was based on the belief that a bombing campaign against Iran would humiliate the leadership and lead the Iranian public to overthrow it, adding that he was shocked to hear the strategy.

The report also said the administration is seriously considering using “bunker buster” tactical nuclear weapons against Iran to ensure the destruction of Iran’s main centrifuge plant at Natanz.

The Pentagon adviser is quoted as saying some senior officers and officials were considering quitting over the plans to use nuclear weapons.

Hersh won a Pulitzer prize in 1970 for uncovering the infamous My Lai massacre by U.S. troops in Vietnam and his reporting on abuses by American troops at Iraq’s Abu Ghraib prison helped expose one of the worst scandals to hit the Bush administration.

Some critics have said he is too eager to report assertions against the government that are hard to confirm.

Source (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12225188)

[xpgeek]

First of all, regime change? Not only are we going to attack them and destroy the nuclear facilitys we're going to go all the way and completely take down their government?

We can't even accomplish that in Iraq. The 'insurgency', the resistance, we would create if we tried this inside Iran would make Iraq look like Nothing !

And second, the use of nuclear weapons against Iran? Almost speechless, ARE THEY COMPLETELY INSANE ?

First realize the US is the ONLY nation to EVER use a nuclear weapon against anyone, EVER. (Japan in WW2). A nuclear weapon has NEVER been used again since by anyone against another, not once.

Not only will one be used against Iran, we'll do it pre-emptively? I don't care how bad Iran is or how big a threat they are, I don't care how small the nuclear yield will be, I don't care if it doesn't kill a single human being and just takes out the factory or whatever, this can not be allowed to happen. Half the world thinks we're aggressive conquerors now, and we're going to strike first with nuclear weapons ? !!!! ?

Just, the statement that would make to the rest of the world, this is complete and utter insanity !

[xpgeek]

For the record I'm not anti-war, when its necessary and sometimes it just is, but no I don't agree with the war in Iraq.

The thing about this that scares me the most is the idea of using nuclear weapons. Like I said, I don't care if its one single bomb with a very small yield, its still a nuclear weapon, a WMD. If Iran does get or could get nuclear weapons of their own, I honestly think they'd have a minute of pause and think do we really wanna use this thing, but, if we already used them first against them, then no doubt about it they'd use it.

[L-knot]

I saw this post several weeks ago at another board and I have to say I agree with most of it. However, I do agree that the US should not go nuclear.

It's damn obvious that there exists an entire faction of hollow-headed people who see anything Bush or America related and feel obliged to press Submit on another "He's the terrorist!" mantra post. It's all knee-jerk, with little or no basis in knowledge of the situation, and frankly only props up opposing arguments. So go re-watch F 9/11 and send M. Moore another box of donuts. I'm sure he'll appreciate it.

Iran isn't Iraq, and it isn't Afghanistan. It's an entirely different beast, a true terrorist state, with hate and vitriol as standard policy woven throughout the ranks all the way up to the rotten head of Ahmadinejad himself. The people of Iran, save the extremists, are a youthful and future-looking society, unfortunately held down by the fundamentalist whips and false "elections" that brought the current regime to power. And now, thanks to aid and instruction from our good friend Putin and the Russians, they are on the cusp of nuclear weaponry.

Like it or not, Israel is an ally of the majority of the West. They are an isolated, miniscule region, a small corner of the Middle East surrounded on all sides by those who would sooner enact mass genocide of the Jews than sit across from one at a peace negotiations table. Israel is constantly under threat from every neighbor, and relies on superior technology (yes, much of it US-provided) to defend itself. Now, one of those threatening nations is working quickly and has nearly developed a nuclear weapon. Considering the situation, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that the first target of such a device will be Israel, likely Tel Aviv. And a nuke, even a small nuke, would be capable of crippling Tel Aviv and bringing the Israeli economy to it's knees.

Knowing this, Israel has two options . . . 1, hope for UN and/or US intervention and a subsequent prevention of Iran's development of nukes, or 2, realize that talk is cheap when you're dealing with murderous extremists and initiate a first strike scenario. If it is confirmed that Iran has a nuke-tipped Shahab-3 missile (quite capable of hitting Israel), don't be surprised to see F-15I jets making surgical strikes against Iranian targets as Israel suddenly becomes proactive in it's own protection. Kill or be killed.

And it is this latter scenario that would eventually likely involve US military action. With the American presence in Iraq already, an eruption of Israeli-Iranian violence would place Iraqi-stationed US troops quite literally in the middle of it all. Sadly, this would also futher weaken US defenses at home, possibly opening up a tantalizing target of opportunity for North Korea, China, or even Russia. A third World War could be around the corner.

It's got little to do with oil, Bush's "God", Jewish conspiracy theory, Spongebob Squarepants, or all those hard-working Canadian janitors. It's about keeping Israel from being vaporized and taking another step towards putting out this fire of Islamic insanity. And for the sake of both the Israeli and Iranian populations, we should all hope that either the UN has some effect on the situation or Ahmadinejad soon catches a bullet between the eyebrows.