Christian Action Network

Daily Terrorism News; WebPage @ www.ChristianAction.Org

U.S. Officials Begin Crafting Iran Bombing Plan; WASHINGTON—A recent decision by German officials to withhold support for any new sanctions against Iran has pushed a broad spectrum of officials in Washington to develop potential scenarios for a military attack on the Islamic regime, FOX News confirmed Tuesday.

(Fox News) Germany — a pivotal player among three European nations to rein in Iran’s nuclear program over the last two-and-a-half years through a mixture of diplomacy and sanctions supported by the United States — notified its allies last week that the government of Chancellor Angela Merkel refuses to support the imposition of any further sanctions against Iran that could be imposed by the U.N. Security Council.

The announcement was made at a meeting in Berlin that brought German officials together with Iran desk officers from the five member states of the Security Council. It stunned the room, according to one of several Bush administration and foreign government sources who spoke to FOX News, and left most Bush administration principals concluding that sanctions are dead.

The Germans voiced concern about the damaging effects any further sanctions on Iran would have on the German economy — and also, according to diplomats from other countries, gave the distinct impression that they would privately welcome, while publicly protesting, an American bombing campaign against Iran’s nuclear facilities.

Germany’s withdrawal from the allied diplomatic offensive is the latest consensus across relevant U.S. agencies and offices, including the State Department, the National Security Council and the offices of the president and vice president. Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns, the most ardent proponent of a diplomatic resolution to the problem of Iran’s nuclear ambitions, has had his chance on the Iranian account and come up empty.

Political and military officers, as well as weapons of mass destruction specialists at the State Department, are now advising Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that the diplomatic approach favored by Burns has failed and the administration must actively prepare for military intervention of some kind. Among those advising Rice along these lines are John Rood, the assistant secretary for the Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation; and a number of Mideast experts, including Ambassador James Jeffrey, deputy White House national security adviser under Stephen Hadley and formerly the principal deputy assistant secretary for Near Eastern affairs.

Consequently, according to a well-placed Bush administration source, “everyone in town” is now participating in a broad discussion about the costs and benefits of military action against Iran, with the likely timeframe for any such course of action being over the next eight to 10 months, after the presidential primaries have probably been decided, but well before the November 2008 elections.

The discussions are now focused on two basic options: less invasive scenarios under which the U.S. might blockade Iranian imports of gasoline or exports of oil, actions generally thought to exact too high a cost on the Iranian people but not enough on the regime in Tehran; and full-scale aerial bombardment.

On the latter course, active consideration is being given as to how long it would take to degrade Iranian air defenses before American air superiority could be established and U.S. fighter jets could then begin a systematic attack on Iran’s known nuclear targets.

Most relevant parties have concluded such a comprehensive attack plan would require at least a week of sustained bombing runs, and would at best set the Iranian nuclear program back a number of years — but not destroy it forever. Other considerations include the likelihood of Iranian reprisals against Tel Aviv and other Israeli population centers; and the effects on American troops in Iraq. There, officials have concluded that the Iranians are unlikely to do much more damage than they already have been able to inflict through their supply of explosives and training of insurgents in Iraq.

The Bush administration “has just about had it with Iran,” said one foreign diplomat. “They tried the diplomatic process. China is now obstructing them at the U.N. Security Council and the Russians are tucking themselves behind them.

“The Germans are wobbling …There are a number of people in the administration who do not want their legacy to be leaving behind an Iran that is nuclear armed, so they are looking at what are the alternatives? They are looking at other options,” the diplomat said.

Vice President Cheney and his aides are said to be enjoying a bit of “schadenfreude” at the expense of Burns. A source described Cheney’s office as effectively gloating to Burns and Rice, “We told you so. (The Iranians) are not containable diplomatically.”

The next shoe to drop will be when Rice and President Bush make a final decision about whether to designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and/or its lethal subset, the Quds Force, as a terrorist entity or entities. FOX News reported in June that such a move is under consideration.

Sources say news leaks about the prospective designation greatly worried European governments and private sector firms, which could theoretically face prosecution in American courts if such measures became law and these entities continued to do business with IRGC and its multiple financial subsidiaries.

If the Bush administration moves forward with such a designation, sources said, it would be an indication that Rice agrees that Burns’ approach has failed. Designation of such a large Iranian military institution as a terrorist entity would also be seen, sources said, as laying the groundwork for a public justification of American military action.


September 12, 2007 - Posted by | Blogroll, Homeland security, news, personal, politics, random, religion, Terrorism, Terrorism In The U.S., Terrorism News, Uncategorized, War-On-Terror


  1. Morons.

    When will they learn!

    Attacking Iran is stupid. It will only turn all Iranians against the US. Apparently Bush learned nothing from Iraq.

    Most Iranians have nothing against the US. But attacking them will unite them against us. It’s a stupid move.

    Traitors like Clinton and Rumsfeld have shrunk the military to the point where we can barely fight on *one* front, now they want us involved in *3* wars?

    As to this “proxy war” nonsense people seem to forget that Korea, Vietnam and the Soviet war in Afghanistan were all proxy wars. In Korea our pilots engaged in air-air combat with Soviet pilots. In Afghanistan we practically created Bin Laden’s organization just because he was against the Soviets.

    Some history on Afghanistan.

    To those who supported fighting the Soviets there at any cost it should be noted that one of the biggest reasons the Soviets invaded was to try to crush what became the Taliban. The invasion was sparked in part because a Soviet school was attacked and personnel beheaded for teaching women to read (watch History Channel and Military Channel and *learn*).

    If we had not fought a proxy war against the Soviets then the whole war on terror might have not been necessary. I’m no fan of the Soviets and I deplored their methods.

    But people who act all shocked about proxy wars need to get their history straight.

    The Soviets saw Islamic Fundamentalism for the treat that it is (Christian Fundamentalism is a threat to peace too – i.e those who think it’s OK to bomb abortion clinics in the name of “God” – they’re just terrorists that should be shot without trial like vermin).

    I am *not* one of those that says terrorism against the US is our fault.

    But consider that the CIA financed Bin Laden. The CIA financed Saddam, even giving him classified satellite intel.

    Clinton refused to take action against Bin Laden on multiple occasions. Even when given the option of having him handed to us on a silver platter. We could have had him shot or arranged for an accidental plane crash over the ocean but Clinton was a coward and failed to act.

    What’s happening in Iran today *is* the fault of the CIA.

    The CIA overthrew a democratically elected government and installed and supported a repressive dictator. Of course there was a revolution. Duh.

    The CIA in typical fashion encouraged a popular uprising with lies of support, then refused support. The Qashqai tribes of Iran were brutally abandoned by the US and are still repressed today.

    Iran had a democratic constitutions based government before the Magna Carta was even thought of.

    There are strong signs in Iran the their current president is falling into disfavor.

    Embargoes don’t work. Sanctions only hurt the innocent.

    I am a “hawk”. I am in favor of sending more troops to Iraq to crush the “insugency” by whatever means necessary (I believe we need to use WWII tactics instead of the polically correct BS rules of engagement that prevent our guys from klilling the enemy).

    *BUT* is one situation where diplomatic pressure is necessary.

    We need to establish diplomatic relations with Iran and pressure them diplomatically and avoid a war we can’t win.

    Anyone in favor of the US attacking Iran is an idiot.

    Let the Israelis do it. Plausible deniability. ;->

    Comment by Freedom Is Not Free | September 13, 2007 | Reply

  2. O.K. then You suppose maybe we should allow Iran to create nuclear weapons? Why because “diplomacy” is working so well with these guys? Give me a break seriously. Unfortunately there will be innocent people who will die as in any war. But if we allow this nutcase that has already predicted that Israel and the U.S. will be wiped off the map among other serious threats to create nuclear weapons, then I would have to say your not very bright. Iran is setting like a bunch of voulchers just waiting for us to pull our troops out so they can take over all Iraq has to offer, all the while sending, funding and arming insuregents to kill our troops and slow our success ther. Allowing them to create just a single nuclear weapon would give them the abillity to start an all out Nuclear war, the end of life as we and them know it. For anyone who thinks we should even give this stubborn nutcase the chance to create such a scenario, I would have to say is just plain out stupid…. So I guess that would mean you to. After reading your comment Im not sure you know the meaning behind the words “Freedom is not free”

    Comment by Derrick | September 15, 2007 | Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: