Monday, Sep 17, 2007
Senior American intelligence and defence officials believe that President George W Bush and his inner circle are taking steps to place America on the path to war with Iran, The Sunday Telegraph has learnt.
Telegraph: Bush setting America up for war with Iran
Pentagon planners have developed a list of up to 2,000 bombing targets in Iran, amid growing fears among serving officers that diplomatic efforts to slow Iran's nuclear weapons programme are doomed to fail
Posted by chris @ 05:03 AM (778 views) Add Comment
28 Comments
- If you do not have an admin password leave the password field blank.
- If you would like to request a password allowing you to add comments and blog news articles without needing each one approved manually, send an e-mail to the webmaster.
- Your email address is required so we can verify that the comment is genuine. It will not be posted anywhere on the site, will be stored confidentially by us and never given out to any third party.
- Please note that any viewpoints published here as comments are user's views and not the views of HousePriceCrash.co.uk.
- Please adhere to the Guidelines
1. dohousescrashinthewoods said...
He makes a lot of money out of invading countries, so Iran is the next logical choice.
2. inbreda said...
Yup. Everyone's a winner.
Except for the innocent Iranians about to get slaughtered.
And the yanks that are dumb enough to go to war for Bushs gain.
Oh and Smith - cos it will really buga up his chances of seeing his prediction for oil prices happen.
3. Mark said...
wouldnt bombing russia be of more use to us? eg then we can have gas......
4. uncle chris said...
This is all meaningless rhetoric backed up by empty threats. Bush doesn't have the nerve, political support or ability to confront Iran anymore. Not after the Iraq debacle. You may hear lots of posturing and thinly disguised threats, but there is nothing they can now do about Iran getting nuclear weapons.
5. tyrellcorporation said...
I disagree UC, I think the US and Israel will wage a 3 day aerial bombardment of nuclear, military and infrastructure targets in the next 3 months. The intention will be to put the Iranian nuclear program back by a decade or more and also give the mullahs a bloody nose. This 3 day event will obviously turn into something much larger though as the Iranians won't roll over as easily as the Iraq army.
6. mrmickey said...
There is no way Israel will allow Iran to have nukes, therefore if the US don't do something about Iran Israel will, and they might decide to go for the nuke option.
7. Nosignofdavid90210 said...
Theres about as much evidence of Iran seeking Nuclear Weapons as there was of Saddam Hussein and his WMD.
Iran would be a lot tougher in terms of casualties, they have anti-shipping cruise missiles, better air defences and troops that have the stomach for a fight.
8. Timbuk3 said...
Did you not read the Times on Sunday, apparantly the Iraeli's have bombed Syria's nuclear bunkers in the last 2 weeks, sources say that this is a prelude to bombing Iran, and quite frankly I believe them. the US no longer have the 'Cahooties' to do it themselves so will let Israel do it for them.
9. tyrellcorporation said...
Mr Mickey. I can't see Israel using nukes, the political fallout (excuse the pun) would be too great. There are rimours though that nuclear tipped bunker-busting missiles could be used on nuclear targets as they can penetrate deeply underground and also there would likely be some nuclear contamination at the site anyway after such an attack.
Watch oil this week...
10. uncle chris said...
If Israel's military cannot defeat a small organisation like Hezbullah, they would be in seroius trouble if they attacked the far more mighty Iran, even with US help. I think both countries seriously underestimate the backlash that would ensue if they did carry out bombing raids - and not just from Iran. With regards to the 'nuclear' option you mention 'Mickey', don't forget that Iran has many friends in high places within Russia, and we aren't exactly in their good books. I'm certainly confident that the UK would not get involved in such a venture, primarily because we don't have enough troops left after years of cuts. For us HPC types thought, this would certainly put oil up well over the $100 a barrel (or whatever currency oil is bought in these days).
11. Global Citizen said...
I think Bush will attack Iran. Partly to divert attention from credit crisis at home, partly to kick start economy, partly to control Iran's mullah and nukes.., partly to instill patriotric fervour and rally around the president when Bush's ratings are so low... so bush sitting comfy in his white house, will order blood to be shed... easy for him to do that or easy for him to fall for that!
12. dbnazz1 said...
I am not so sure that Bush would get the support for a war with Iran. However i think Israel will do the job and America will back Israel with money and supplies including weapons.
The Israeli's have an effective military. More than likely tactical nukes will be used that are effective at destroying concealed installations but with very limited fall out. It was reported in the press last week that empty fuel tanks from military aircraft have been found in an arab country that borders Iran. It is widely believed that these are from Israely
aircraft that have been investigating aerial bombing routes into Iran.
I don't think that Iran will be a pushover and I fear that there will be a big retaliation from Iran, with the support of other Arab nations (and there are a few arab nations that would join a war with the Israelis at the drop of a hat). This could then result in israel being overwhelmed and thus using the full scale nuclear option to try and stave off being over-run. there is a danger of being over run because lets not forget that although Israel is well armed, they are very out-numbered. This might sound like doom mongering, but if you think about each logical stage of what I have suggested it no longer seems such a far fetched scenario.
War with iran could well lead us to something far more terrible than a house price crash.
13. stillthinking said...
Lyndon LaRouche, who is admitted regarded as a nutter by some, predicts this as a necessary step to prop up the inherent bankruptcy of the post Bretton-Wood financial system.
Things might be a lot more serious than we are told.
14. mrmickey said...
I agree dbnazzi I think a limited nuclear war in the middle east is a real possibility if Isreal are pushed to the edge of extinction. Lets not forget the US have used nuclear weapons before they gambled that the Nazis didn't have a similar capabilty that would wipe out London. There are just to many religious nut jobs in the middle east to expect everybody to act rationally.
15. Alan said...
The French FM's comments aimed at potential French exporters to Iran is shown on:
http://www.debka.com/
Iran is referred to as a country "about to go to war".
16. tyrellcorporation said...
dbnazz1.
Bush won't try and sell this as 'a war' - more a surgical strike. I can't see the US committing ground troops to a campaign in Iran as the Iraq situation has taught them what everyone else knew - that Arab states are, at heart, mostly either tribal, split along religious lines or dictatorships. Setting up a Western style democracy in these countries is virtually impossible as it's not really the way Arab societies work.
17. dbnazz1 said...
There are many people in iran that don't support there leadership and are in fact quite leaning towards the west. . Such people though certainly donlt like the Israelis, so i wonder if it is the Israelis who attack iran (which i think it will be), will this have the effect of uniting the Iranian people????
18. dbnazz1 said...
Tyrellcorporation.
Yours comments about the arab states being at heart tribal, etc are spot on. I couldn't agree more. It is this fact that I think that has been completely overlooked in the Middle East situation, and this is why i shudder at the fault of what will happen in Iraq when the troops are out. It is bad enough now, but it is nothing compared to what it will become (a full
bloodbath). The Iraqi people will never all be 'as one' left to there own devices. I think as events unfold people in the future will look back and think that the only thing that would keep
the iraqi people as one would be a dictator ruling the country with an iron fist. such a person has recently been removed from teh country.
19. Moley20 said...
The IAEA - confirms the peaceful nature of Irans nuclear development. The Bush Regime distorts and lies about terrorist. In Iraq a 1 million civillians have been killed. Their is more a chance that an american will died because his tyre pressure is incorrect than being blow up by a terriost bomb. Create FEAR and you can do anything?
20. harold said...
"...that diplomatic efforts to slow Iran's nuclear weapons programme"
Err, so the Telegraph knows something that International Atomic Energy Agency doesn't?
http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/News/2007/bog121007.html
These sorts of explicit statements that IRAN IS DEVELOPING THE BOMB (AND WE"RE ALL GOING TO DIE) are the same lies that were sold to us prior to the Iraq invasion which - surprise, surprise - found no WMD. Basically, Iran doesn't want to stock-pile useless dollars any more and doesn't allow the International Corporatocracy to run its country, so 'we' want to impose a regime on the Iranians that does. Today we have even had the French Foreign minister, Bernard Kouchner, saying that we should prepare "for the worst". Who the f**k does this jerk think he is speaking for? Expect riots in Paris. I don't suppose France's change of heart towards Iran has anything to do with Nicolas Sarkozy's background by any chance?
21. Moley20 said...
Bush is a Dictator - the american public do not realize that
22. dbnazz1 said...
Harold.
french foreign Minister saying prepare for the worst. I haven't heard anything on this. was the Minister refering specifically to a possible attack on Iran????
23. Winnie said...
There will be a massive 3 day surgical strike, probably joint with Israel, which will be to a large extent a "victory". This will cover the "failure" of Iraq and restore some of Bush's popularity amongst the heartlanders. The Brits will not be involved. GB has already shown that he wants to differ from Blair, and he has authorised Darling to blame the US openly for our economic woes (rich eh?!)
24. harold said...
dbnazz1,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6997935.stm
When did the philosophy of pre-emptive war become acceptable? This was Hitler's tactic.
25. dohousescrashinthewoods said...
21. harold - exactly, no?
26. tyrellcorporation said...
Harold, Hitler's tactic was to rely on disgraceful appeasement politics and the limp-wristed approach by other European nations to give him the opportunity to invade Poland and build a World beating army from scratch. As they say, the next 6 years was history. To rule out pre-emptive action on so called moral grounds is rank stupidity.
27. Lem said...
Just back from the states. Talking to a drunk American who works for homeland security. He claims the US will use a tactical nuke on the Iranian Nuclear facility, and its already been signed off by the white house. After the Israelis had such a hard time entering Gaza using pretty much state of the art American hardware, and there is no way there will be public support for a land war, there going to use a tactical nuke to reassert itself militarily. I hope he was full of it!
28. Yoss said...
Funny how Iran has just agreed to sell oil to Japan in Yen, strange to that Iraq where looking to do something very similar just before they got invaded.