Thread: U.S. Strike on Iran Nearing

Newsmax.com - Source: U.S. Strike on Iran Nearing

Contrary to some claims that the Bush administration will allow diplomacy to handle Iran’s nuclear weapons program, a leading member of America’s Jewish community tells Newsmax that a military strike is not only on the table – but likely.

“Israel is preparing for heavy casualties,” the source said, suggesting that although Israel will not take part in the strike, it is expecting to be the target of Iranian retribution.

“Look at Dick Cheney’s recent trip through the Middle East as preparation for the U.S. attack,” the source said.

Cheney’s hastily arranged 9-day visit to the region, which began on March 16, included stops in Israel, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Oman, Turkey, and the Palestinian territories.

Tensions in the region have been rising.

While Israel was conducting the largest homefront military exercises in its history last week, Israel’s National Infrastructure Minister Binyamin Ben-Eliezer warned Tehran about expected attacks on the Jewish state.

“An Iranian attack will prompt a severe reaction from Israel, which will destroy the Iranian nation,” he said.

He predicted that in a future war, “hundreds of missiles will rain on Israel,” but added that Iran “is definitely aware of our strength.”

In addition to long-range missiles Iran has been developing to strike Israel, Israel’s military strategists see the Iranians using terror groups they back like Hamas operating from Palestine and Hezbollah from Lebanon to launch attacks.

Iran has supplied Hezbollah with an arsenal that now contains “tens of thousands of missiles,” according to the Washington Post.

Israel’s recent war exercises, including preparations for chemical and biological weapons attacks, drew a sharp response from Syria which held its own military drills. The Syrian government accused Israel of preparing for a war which Damascus predicted would be begin anytime between May 1 and the end of June.

Former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu recently told foreign journalists that Israel needs to confront the threat posed by Iran. Privately he has been telling associates his number one priority is have the Israeli military strike Iran if the U.S. is unwilling.

The Israeli newspaper Haaretz disclosed that Israel is concerned that North Korea has transferred technology and nuclear materials to Iran to aid Tehran’s secret nuclear weapons program.

Iran remains intransigent to international pressure that it offer full transparency relating to its nuclear program. On Sunday the head of Iran’s nuclear program “abruptly canceled a meeting with the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, dealing a blow to the U.N. monitor's efforts to investigate allegations that Iran tried to make nuclear arms, an agency official said,” according to an AP report.

“But a senior diplomat had told the AP that IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency] head Mohamed ElBaradei likely planned to use the meeting with Gholam Reza Aghazadeh, the head of Iran's nuclear program, to renew a request for more information on allegations Tehran had tried to make atomic arms.”

A number of signs indicate that, contrary to the belief President Bush is a lame duck who will not act before he leaves office, the U.S. is poised to strike before Iran can acquire nuclear weapons and carry out the threat of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to “wipe Israel off the map”:

# According to intelligence sources, the administration now rejects the National Intelligence Estimate report issued in December that asserted Iran had halted its nuclear weapons program in late 2003.

The French daily Le Monde reported in March that newly surfaced documents show that Iran has continued developing nuclear weapons. In late 2006, U.S. intelligence reportedly intercepted a phone conversation in Iran’s Defense Ministry in which the nuclear weapons program was discussed.

# The commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East, Admiral William Fallon, resigned in March amid media reports that he broke with President Bush’s strategy on Iran and did not want to be in the chain of command when the order comes down from the President to launch a strike on the Islamic Republic.

Democrats suggested he had been forced out because of his candor in opposing Bush’s Iran plans, and Esquire magazine contended that Fallon’s departure signaled that the U.S. is preparing to attack Iran.

# According to a Tehran-based Iranian news network, Press TV, Saudi Arabia is taking emergency steps in preparing to counter any “radioactive hazards” that may result from an American attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities.

The Saudi newspaper Okaz disclosed that the Saudi government has approved nuclear fallout preparations, and the Iranian network reported that the approval came a day after Cheney met with the kingdom’s high-ranking officials, further stating that the U.S. “is now informing its Arab allies of a potential war.”

# The American commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, has stepped up criticism of Iran, telling Congress last week that Iranian support for Shiite militias posed the most serious threat to Iraq’s stability. He told senators : “Iran has fueled the violence in a particularly damaging way.” Last week, the U.S. said Iran was providing insurgents with missiles that were killing Americans and hitting targets within the U.S. occupied Green Zone in Baghdad.

MSNBC Commentator Pat Buchanan said Petraeus’ remarks to Congress lay the groundwork for a U.S. attack on Iran.

# President Bush said in a speech at the White House on April 10 that Iran, along with al-Qaida, are “two of the greatest threats to America.”

He said Iran “can live in peace with its neighbors,” or “continue to arm and train and fund illegal militant groups which are terrorizing the Iraqi people … If Iran makes the wrong choice, America will act to protect our interests and our troops and our Iraqi partners.”

He later told ABC News that if Iran continues to help militants in Iraq, “then we’ll deal with them.”

Members of Congress are said to have been briefed by the administration about the rising Iran threat.

Iran did little to cool tensions when it announced that it had begun installing 6,000 new centrifuges at its uranium enrichment plant in Natanz.

Centrifuges can enrich uranium to a low level to produce nuclear fuel or a high level for use in weapons.

The announcement of the new centrifuges by President Ahmadinejad came on April 8, Iran’s National Day of Nuclear Technology, which marked the second anniversary of Iran’s first enrichment of uranium.

Iran already has about 3,000 centrifuges operating in Natanz, and the new announcement was widely seen as a show of defiance to international demands to halt a nuclear program that the U.S. and its allies insist is aimed at building nuclear weapons.

Bush simply will not leave office without starting yet another destructive war. How thick-skulled do people have to be not to realize that Bush, Cheney, Betrayus, Israel, et al. are playing a sick game that will inevitably lead to war with Iran?

Well, what'cha gonna do about it? Oh I know, congress won't allocate the $$$.
Problem solved.

I think Israel can deal with the problems that they may encounter. They did devastate six armies that invaded their country.

Congress won't have to appropriate any new money.

Planning has been underway for three years for a 36 hour long bombing campaign against Iran with about 1,000 targets being serviced during that period.

Even if it takes three times as long, that means a bombing campaign of less than 5 days.

Something the U.S. Navy and Air Force is more than capable of.

Originally Posted by Defensor

Bush simply will not leave office without starting yet another destructive war. How thick-skulled do people have to be not to realize that Bush, Cheney, Betrayus, Israel, et al. are playing a sick game that will inevitably lead to war with Iran?

The only speculation, and mind you, speculation about an invasion by the US was Petraeus reporting FACTS about Iran's involvement in Iraq and what, Cheney making a visit to the ME? Hardly sounds like a plan for an invasion. Especially when the WH is denying such speculation.

Besides, Bush isn't a fool. He knows that we must finish the job in Iraq first before we even think about doing anything else. Bush listens to what his commanders tell him, and if an invasion is not plausible or even necessary in the view of the commanders, he won't carry it out. People, and especially libs, like to pretend that Bush purposely makes mistakes for a greater conspiracy of world domination or some wacky idea like that. He listens to his advisors, and executes an action based upon that advice. Nothing more. Sometimes he's right, sometimes he's wrong. In other words, he is HUMAN.

Oh, I think that it is very despicable that you use "betrayus". Seriously, what kind of person are you to disrespect our men and women that are serving in Iraq?

I don't care what you say about politicians, but please do not be rude to those that are serving over there. Especially to a man that has turned the situation completely around to one that is close to victory.

Originally Posted by C-101

The only speculation, and mind you, speculation about an invasion by the US was Petraeus reporting FACTS about Iran's involvement in Iraq and what, Cheney making a visit to the ME? Hardly sounds like a plan for an invasion. Especially when the WH is denying such speculation.

Speculation? Hello, put 2 and 2 together. The Bush regime has been setting us up for Iran for months now.

Besides, Bush isn't a fool.

:laughing:Good one.

He knows that we must finish the job in Iraq first before we even think about doing anything else.

Finish what job? The whole rush to war with Iraq was so ridiculous why would this regime show any more caution in dealing with Iran?

Bush listens to what his commanders tell him, and if an invasion is not plausible or even necessary in the view of the commanders, he won't carry it out.

Then he'll remove the offending, unpatriotic commander. :whistling:

People, and especially libs, like to pretend that Bush purposely makes mistakes for a greater conspiracy of world domination or some wacky idea like that. He listens to his advisors, and executes an action based upon that advice. Nothing more. Sometimes he's right, sometimes he's wrong. In other words, he is HUMAN.

You're right; they're not mistakes. Bush's idiocies are quite deliberate as his neocon handlers make sure of that.

Oh, I think that it is very despicable that you use "betrayus". Seriously, what kind of person are you to disrespect our men and women that are serving in Iraq?

Last I checked, the only thing Mr. Betrayus has been serving lately is his own career.

I don't care what you say about politicians, but please do not be rude to those that are serving over there. Especially to a man that has turned the situation completely around to one that is close to victory.

Close to victory? Gimme a break. You mean close to being almost as stable as before we went in there?

Originally Posted by Defensor

Newsmax.com - Source: U.S. Strike on Iran Nearing

Bush simply will not leave office without starting yet another destructive war. How thick-skulled do people have to be not to realize that Bush, Cheney, Betrayus, Israel, et al. are playing a sick game that will inevitably lead to war with Iran?

LOL !! I thought you libs didn't consider News Max to be a credible source because it had Conservative leanings ? And now you post a link ? I guess as long as it suites your purpose it's cool right ?

Originally Posted by Defensor

Finish what job? The whole rush to war with Iraq was so ridiculous why would this regime show any more caution in dealing with Iran?

Rush to war? Saddam Hussein, was put on the "clock" in 1991. opcorn:

Originally Posted by Defensor

Speculation? Hello, put 2 and 2 together. The Bush regime has been setting us up for Iran for months now.

The problem is that there isn't two and two to put together. Your precious article, which I'm amused that you cite newsmax, mentioned Cheney visiting the ME and Petraeus answering a question about Iranian interference in Iraq. All the while that Bush and the WH are dismissing speculation that a war with Iran is on the books. Again, let me highlight the word speculation.

Finish what job? The whole rush to war with Iraq was so ridiculous why would this regime show any more caution in dealing with Iran?

The job that I thought was obvious to everyone. Establish security, economic, and political stability. Democrats whined about the lack of political progress during the first Petraeus hearings last September, but now that there is progress across the board on the political and security fronts, they've resorted to living in a state of denial while going back 5 years to complain about invading in the first place.

Why quit a job when it's almost finished and looking in good shape? Bush is wrapping up his presidency, and his "regime" is playing the peace card in the ME more than anything. Bush even was going far enough to talk about a Islamic state for the non-existent group that is the Palestinians. Liberal carrot throwing foreign policy if you ask me.

Then he'll remove the offending, unpatriotic commander. :whistling:

More like the opposite. Some commanders can't stand obeying orders that go against their political viewpoints, so they resign.

You're right; they're not mistakes. Bush's idiocies are quite deliberate as his neocon handlers make sure of that.

That is completely the opposite of what I said. I said that "people, and especially libs, like to pretend that Bush purposely makes mistakes for a greater conspiracy of world domination or some wacky idea like that."

Your mentality that Bush is on a mission to conquer the world and be a dictator requires the belief that Bush is perfectly deliberate, and always gets the result he wants. When something goes wrong, you liberals like to scare casual bystanders into thinking Bush is out to get everyone, and pretend that Bush couldn't possibly make an innocent mistake. Rather, everything Bush does seems to be some sort of conspiracy with your method of thinking.

Last I checked, the only thing Mr. Betrayus has been serving lately is his own career.

If that was true, he wouldn't care about success in Iraq as much as he does. He would have never accepted the hardest job in Iraq; turn the war around and achieve victory, had he served his career rather than his country.

The only cause he is "betraying" is the liberal agenda of running away from tough fights and the whole boatload of BDS nutcases out there.

Close to victory? Gimme a break. You mean close to being almost as stable as before we went in there?

The idea with Iraq is to establish a stable country with freedom rather than a "stable" country with tyranny, oppresion, torture, and genocide. If you see my point, stability can be achieved under the worst regimes possible, but that doesn't mean everything is going just fine.

Besides, Saddam's regime was hardly stable with having Kurdish rebels in the north and two pointless wars under his belt. This "stability" pre-war was one forged in fear, so you can imagine what happens when the fear is eliminated.

Originally Posted by C-101

The problem is that there isn't two and two to put together. Your precious article, which I'm amused that you cite newsmax, mentioned Cheney visiting the ME and Petraeus answering a question about Iranian interference in Iraq. All the while that Bush and the WH are dismissing speculation that a war with Iran is on the books. Again, let me highlight the word speculation.

And let me again point out that your word speculation is a misnomer. All the evidence makes it quite clear that the Bush regime is pushing hard for an Iran invasion any way that it can.

The job that I thought was obvious to everyone. Establish security, economic, and political stability. Democrats whined about the lack of political progress during the first Petraeus hearings last September, but now that there is progress across the board on the political and security fronts, they've resorted to living in a state of denial while going back 5 years to complain about invading in the first place.

You mean get oil and secure Israel?

The only progress made in Iraq is the peace resulting where "coalition" forces have withdrawn, allowing locals to regain control. The peaceful Iranian republic has also been a major stabilizing force in getting insurgents to stand down in Iraq.

Why quit a job when it's almost finished and looking in good shape? Bush is wrapping up his presidency, and his "regime" is playing the peace card in the ME more than anything. Bush even was going far enough to talk about a Islamic state for the non-existent group that is the Palestinians. Liberal carrot throwing foreign policy if you ask me.

Saddam Hussein's tyranny was better than anything the sick mind of George W. Bush can cook up.

Bush's policies on Palestine in favor of the Zionist occupiers are an utter disgrace. He has been surrounded by Zionists from day one.

That is completely the opposite of what I said. I said that "people, and especially libs, like to pretend that Bush purposely makes mistakes for a greater conspiracy of world domination or some wacky idea like that."

If he's doing it on purpose, its not a mistake. :whistling:

Your mentality that Bush is on a mission to conquer the world and be a dictator requires the belief that Bush is perfectly deliberate, and always gets the result he wants. When something goes wrong, you liberals like to scare casual bystanders into thinking Bush is out to get everyone, and pretend that Bush couldn't possibly make an innocent mistake. Rather, everything Bush does seems to be some sort of conspiracy with your method of thinking.

Bush is nothing but an idiot figurehead obeying his neocon puppeteers. We've been over this already.

If that was true, he wouldn't care about success in Iraq as much as he does. He would have never accepted the hardest job in Iraq; turn the war around and achieve victory, had he served his career rather than his country.

What's so hard about doing the dirty work of the president, sitting in front of Congress and lying in hopes of a future presidential run?

The only cause he is "betraying" is the liberal agenda of running away from tough fights and the whole boatload of BDS nutcases out there.

Running away from what?

The idea with Iraq is to establish a stable country with freedom rather than a "stable" country with tyranny, oppresion, torture, and genocide. If you see my point, stability can be achieved under the worst regimes possible, but that doesn't mean everything is going just fine.

Freedom? Bush doesn't know the meaning of the word. He's done everything in his power to destroy freedom here in America.

What happens when the Iraqi people democratically elect Islamic fundamentalist separatists?

Right now there is more oppression, torture, and genocide going on in Iraq than ever before in history.

Besides, Saddam's regime was hardly stable with having Kurdish rebels in the north and two pointless wars under his belt. This "stability" pre-war was one forged in fear, so you can imagine what happens when the fear is eliminated.

Fear is all that held the country together. If the Iraqi people wanted a change of government, they were free to bring that about. Unfortunately for Mr. Bush, an U.S. puppet regime would probably not be what they had in mind...