A PLAN TO ATTACK IRAN SWIFTLY AND FROM ABOVE

A plan to attack Iran swiftly and from above

A bombing campaign has been in the works for months -- a

blistering air war that would last anywhere from one day to

two weeks

By Paul Koring

The Globe and Mail

Thursday, November 22, 2007

Washington - Massive, devastating air strikes, a full dose

of "shock and awe" with hundreds of bunker-busting bombs

slicing through concrete at more than a dozen nuclear sites

across Iran is no longer just the idle musing of military

planners and uber-hawks.

Although air strikes don't seem imminent as the U.S.-

Iranian drama unfolds, planning for a bombing campaign and

preparing for the geopolitical blowback has preoccupied

military and political councils for months.

No one is predicting a full-blown ground war with Iran. The

likeliest scenario, a blistering air war that could last as

little as one night or as long as two weeks, would be

designed to avoid the quagmire of invasion and regime

change that now characterizes Iraq. But skepticism remains

about whether any amount of bombing can substantially delay

Iran's entry into the nuclear-weapons club.

Attacking Iran has gone far beyond the twilight musings of

a lame-duck president. Almost all of those jockeying to

succeed U.S. President George W. Bush are similarly

bellicose. Both front-runners, Democrat Senator Hillary

Clinton and Republican Rudy Giuliani, have said that Iran's

ruling mullahs can't be allowed to go nuclear. "Iran would

be very sure if I were president of the United States that

I would not allow them to become nuclear," said Mr.

Giuliani. Ms. Clinton is equally hard-line.

Nor does the threat come just from the United States. As

hopes fade that sanctions and common sense might avert a

military confrontation with Tehran -- as they appear to

have done with North Korea -- other Western leaders are

openly warning that bombing may be needed.

Unless Tehran scraps its clandestine and suspicious nuclear

program and its quest for weapons-grade uranium (it already

has the missiles capable of delivering an atomic warhead),

the world will be "faced with an alternative that I call

catastrophic: an Iranian bomb or the bombing of Iran,"

French President Nicolas Sarkozy has warned.

Bombing Iran would be relatively easy. Its antiquated air

force and Russian air-defence missiles would be easy

pickings for the U.S. warplanes.

But effectively destroying Iran's widely scattered and

deeply buried nuclear facilities would be far harder,

although achievable, according to air-power experts. But

the fallout, especially the anger sown across much of the

Muslim world by another U.S.-led attack in the Middle East,

would be impossible to calculate.

Israel has twice launched pre-emptive air strikes

ostensibly to cripple nuclear programs. In both instances,

against Iraq in 1981 and Syria two months ago, the targeted

regimes howled but did nothing.

The single-strike Israeli attacks would seem like

pinpricks, compared with the rain of destruction U.S.

warplanes would need to kneecap Iran's far larger nuclear

network.

"American air strikes on Iran would vastly exceed the scope

of the 1981 Israeli attack on the Osirak nuclear centre in

Iraq, and would more resemble the opening days of the 2003

air campaign against Iraq," said John Pike, director at

Globalsecurity.org, a leading defence and security group.

"Using the full force of operational B-2 stealth bombers,

staging from Diego Garcia or flying direct from the United

States," along with warplanes from land bases in the region

and carriers at sea, at least two-dozen suspected nuclear

sites would be targeted, he said.

Although U.S. ground forces are stretched thin with nearly

200,000 fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, the firepower of

the U.S. air force and the warplanes aboard aircraft

carriers could easily overwhelm Iran's defences, leaving

U.S. warplanes in complete command of the skies and free to

pound targets at will.

With air bases close by in neighbouring Iraq and

Afghanistan, including Kandahar, and naval-carrier battle

groups in the Persian Gulf and Indian Ocean, hundreds of

U.S. warplanes serviced by scores of airborne refuellers

could deliver a near constant hail of high explosives.

Fighter-bombers and radar-jammers would spearhead any

attack. B-2 bombers, each capable of delivering 20 four-

tonne bunker-busting bombs, along with smaller stealth

bombers and streams of F-18s from the carriers could

maintain an open-ended bombing campaign.

"They could keep it up until the end of time, which might

be hastened by the bombing," Mr. Pike said. "They could

make the rubble jump; there's plenty of stuff to bomb," he

added, a reference to the now famous line from former

defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld that Afghanistan was a

"target-poor" country.

Mr. Pike believes it could all be over in a single night.

Others predict days, or even weeks, of sustained bombing.

Unidentified Pentagon planners have been cited talking of

"1,500 aim points." What is clear is that a score or more

known nuclear sites would be destroyed. Some, in remote

deserts, would present little risk of "collateral damage,"

military jargon for unintended civilian causalities.

Others, like laboratories at the University of Tehran, in

the heart of a teeming capital city, would be hard to

destroy without killing innocent Iranians.

What would likely unfold would be weeks of escalating

tension, following a breakdown of diplomatic efforts.

The next crisis point may come later this month if the UN

Security Council becomes deadlocked over further sanctions.

"China and Russia are more concerned about the prospect of

the U.S. bombing Iran than of Iran getting a nuclear bomb,"

says Karim Sadjadpour, an Iran expert at the Council on

Foreign Relations.

Tehran remains defiant. Our enemies "must know that Iran

will not give the slightest concession ... to any power,"

Iran's fiery President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said yesterday.

For his part, Mr. Bush has pointedly refused to rule out

resorting to war. Last month, another U.S. naval battle

group -- including the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier USS

Harry S Truman with 100 warplanes on board and the Canadian

frigate HMCS Charlottetown as one of its screen of smaller

warships -- left for the Persian Gulf. At least one, and

often two, carrier battle groups are always in the region.

Whether even weeks of bombing would cripple Iran's nuclear

program cannot be known. Mr. Pike believes it would set

back, by a decade or more, the time Tehran needs to develop

a nuclear warhead. But Iran's clandestine program --

international inspectors were completely clueless as to the

existence of several major sites until exiles ratted out

the mullahs -- may be so extensive that even the longest

target list will miss some.

"It's not a question of whether we can do a strike or not

and whether the strike could be effective," retired Marine

general Anthony Zinni told Time magazine. "It certainly

would be, to some degree. But are you prepared for all that

follows?"

Attacked and humiliated, Iran might be tempted, as Mr.

Ahmadinejad has suggested, to strike back, although Iran

has limited military options.

At least some Sunni governments in the region, not least

Saudi Arabia, would be secretly delighted to see the Shia

mullahs in Tehran bloodied. But the grave risk of any

military action spiralling into a regional war, especially

if Mr. Ahmadinejad tried to make good on his threat to

attack Israel, remains.

"Arab leaders would like to see Iran taken down a notch,"

said Steven Cook, an analyst specializing in the Arab world

at the Council on Foreign Relations, "but their citizens

will see this as what they perceive to be America's ongoing

war on Islam."

o o o

Building tension

The confrontation with Iran over its nuclear program has

been simmering for more than five years. These are some of

the key flashpoints.

August, 2002: Iranian exiles say that Tehran has built a

vast uranium enrichment plant at Natanz and a heavy water

plant at Arak without informing the United Nations.

December, 2002: The existence of the sites is confirmed by

satellite photographs shown on U.S. television. The United

States accuses Tehran of "across-the-board pursuit of

weapons of mass destruction." Iran agrees to inspections by

the International Atomic Energy Agency.

June, 2003: IAEA director Mohamed ElBaradei accuses Iran of

not revealing the extent of its nuclear work and urges

leaders to sign up for more intrusive inspections.

October, 2003: After meeting French, German and British

foreign ministers, Tehran agrees to stop producing enriched

uranium and formally decides to sign the Additional

Protocol, a measure that extends the IAEA's ability to

detect undeclared nuclear activities. No evidence is

produced to confirm the end of enrichment.

November, 2003: Mr. ElBaradei says there is "no evidence"

that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons. The United States

disagrees.

February, 2004: An IAEA report says Iran experimented with

polonium-210, which can be used to trigger the chain

reaction in a nuclear bomb. Iran did not explain the

experiments. Iran again agrees to suspend enrichment, but

again does not do so.

March, 2004: Iran is urged to reveal its entire nuclear

program to the IAEA by June 1, 2004.

September, 2004: The IAEA orders Iran to stop preparations

for large-scale uranium enrichment. U.S. Secretary of State

Colin Powell labels Iran a growing danger and calls for the

UN Security Council to impose sanctions.

August, 2005: Hard-liner Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is installed

as Iranian President as Tehran pledges an "irreversible"

resumption of enrichment.

Jan. 10, 2006: Iran removes UN seals at the Natanz

enrichment plant and resumes nuclear fuel research.

February, 2006: The IAEA votes to report Iran to the UN

Security Council. Iran ends snap UN nuclear inspections the

next day.

July 31, 2006: The UN Security Council demands that Iran

suspend its nuclear activities by Aug. 31.

Aug. 31, 2006: The UN Security Council deadline for Iran to

halt its work on nuclear fuel passes. IAEA says Tehran has

failed to suspend the program.

Dec. 23, 2006: The 15-member UN Security Council

unanimously adopts a binding resolution that imposes some

sanctions and calls on Iran to suspend its uranium-

enrichment activities and to comply with its IAEA

obligations.

March 24, 2007: The Security Council unanimously approves a

resolution broadening UN sanctions against Iran for its

continuing failure to halt uranium enrichment. Iranian

officials call the new measures "unnecessary and

unjustified."

April 10, 2007: Iran's Minister of Foreign Affairs says

Iran will not accept any suspension of its uranium-

enrichment activities and urges world powers to accept the

"new reality" of the Islamic republic's nuclear program.

May 23, 2007: The IAEA says in a new report, issued to

coincide with the expiration of a Security Council deadline

for Tehran, that Iran continues to defy UN Security Council

demands to halt uranium enrichment and has expanded such

work. The report adds that the UN nuclear agency's ability

to monitor nuclear activities in Iran has declined due to

lack of access to sites.

Oct. 24, 2007: The United States imposes new sanctions on

Iran and accuses the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps of

spreading weapons of mass destruction.

Sources: BBC, Reuters, Financial Times, Radio Free Europe

o o o

Target: Iran

Despite continuing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the United

States has ample air and naval power to strike Iran. In

addition to nuclear installations, other likely targets

include ballistic missile sites, Revolutionary Guard bases,

and naval assets.

o o o

Syria: Earlier this year, Israel bombed a site in Syria's

Deir ez-Zor region that it suspected was part of a nascent

nuclear program.

Osirak: Israel in 1981 had its aircraft bomb Iraq's nuclear

reactor before it became operational.

Natanz: Believed to be Iran's primary uranium-enrichment

site and a key target of any attack.

o o o

B1: A supersonic, intercontinental bomber, capable of

penetrating deep into defended airspace and dropping more

than 50-tonnes of conventional bombs on a single mission.

B2: America's biggest stealthy long-range bomber, capable

of flying half-way around the globe to deliver up to 23

tonnes of bombs on multiple targets.

F-117: The original stealth fighter, almost invisible on

radar, was used to drop the first bombs in both Iraq

invasions.

F-18: Carrier-borne fighter-bomber capable of many roles

from air combat to bombing missions.

EGBU-28: The newest of the U.S. "bunker busters," it uses a

GPS guidance system and can penetrate six metres of

concrete to deliver four tonnes of high explosives.

SOURCES: FEDERATION OF AMERICAN SCIENTISTS, GLOBAL

SECURITY.ORG, ASSOCIATED PRESS

More at:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20071122.wiran22/BNStory/International/home

Jai Maharaj

http://tinyurl.com/24fq83

http://www.mantra.com/jai

http://www.mantra.com/jyotish

Om Shanti

Hindu Holocaust Museum

http://www.mantra.com/holocaust

Hindu life, principles, spirituality and philosophy

http://www.hindu.org

http://www.hindunet.org

The truth about Islam and Muslims

http://www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate

o Not for commercial use. Solely to be fairly used for the educational

purposes of research and open discussion. The contents of this post may not

have been authored by, and do not necessarily represent the opinion of the

poster. The contents are protected by copyright law and the exemption for

fair use of copyrighted works.

o If you send private e-mail to me, it will likely not be read,

considered or answered if it does not contain your full legal name, current

e-mail and postal addresses, and live-voice telephone number.

o Posted for information and discussion. Views expressed by others are

not necessarily those of the poster who may or may not have read the article.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This article may contain copyrighted material the use of

which may or may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright

owner. This material is being made available in efforts to advance the

understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic,

democratic, scientific, social, and cultural, etc., issues. It is believed

that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as

provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title

17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without

profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included

information for research, comment, discussion and educational purposes by

subscribing to USENET newsgroups or visiting web sites. For more information

go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

If you wish to use copyrighted material from this article for purposes of

your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the

copyright owner.

On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 02:28:54 GMT, usenet@mantra.com and/or

http://www.mantra.com/jai (Dr. Jai Maharaj) wrote:

<shit>

shut up, troll

In article <20071122S9R1e2ZDr0DJ7l75xaiF0UN@RH136>,

usenet@mantra.com and/or http://www.mantra.com/jai (Dr. Jai Maharaj) wrote:

> A plan to attack Iran swiftly and from above

Is not convincing.

But the idea is to convince Ali Khamene'i. And Ali Khamene'i has learned

to not underestimate George W. Bush.

Which is the whole point.

There will be no "air attack" on Iran. But the "bombing campaign" of

leaks to the press will continue--as they have since 2004.

Who needs Kermit Roosevelt?

--

NeoLibertarian

"I don't believe in a government that protects us from ourselves."

---Ronald Reagan

"Neolibertarian" <cognac756@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:cognac756-A805F3.06371223112007@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net...

> In article <20071122S9R1e2ZDr0DJ7l75xaiF0UN@RH136>,

> usenet@mantra.com and/or http://www.mantra.com/jai (Dr. Jai Maharaj) wrote:

>

>> A plan to attack Iran swiftly and from above

> Is not convincing.

>

> But the idea is to convince Ali Khamene'i. And Ali Khamene'i has learned

> to not underestimate George W. Bush.

> Which is the whole point.

> There will be no "air attack" on Iran. But the "bombing campaign" of

> leaks to the press will continue--as they have since 2004.

>

> Who needs Kermit Roosevelt?

>

>

Miss Piggy Hoover?