 Sept 2004:
Outline of US/Israel Airstrikes on Iran
Military
planners could tailor their target list to
reflect the preferences of the Administration by having limited air
strikes that would target only the most crucial facilities in an effort
to delay or obstruct the Iranian program or the United States could opt
for a far more comprehensive set of strikes against a comprehensive
range of WMD related targets, as well as conventional and
unconventional forces that might be used to counterattack against US
forces in Iraq.
...It would
be difficult for Israel to strike at
Iran
without American knowledge, since the mission would have to be flown
through American [formerly Iraqi] air space. Even if the United States
did not actively participate with operations inside Iranian air space,
the US would be a passive participant by virtue of allowing Israeli
aircraft unhindered passage. In the eyes of the world, it would
generally appear to be a joint US-Israeli enterprise, any denials
notwithstanding. Indeed, it is quite probable that Iran would not be
able to readily determine the ultimate origins of the strike, given
Iran's relatively modest air defense capabilities. Thus, even if the
strike were entirely of American origin, Israel would be implicated...
|
Sept 2004:
Four Day War: Scenario of How War on Iran Would
Go
What follows is the unfolding of a worst-case scenario,
an imaginary
yet all-too-possible depiction of how events might develop if Israel
were to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities.
Day
One:
Wednesday -- In a pre-dawn raid, undisclosed numbers of
Israeli warplanes, taking
off from military airbases in the Negev, destroy Iran’s main nuclear
facility at Bushehr. ..During the one-hour raid, Iran claims to have
shot down “several”
Israeli fighters. Television images show pilots being lynched by
furious mobs before Iranian authorities could reach them. The
after-effects of the raid shake the Arab and Islamic world. Millions
take to the streets demanding immediate action against
Israel...American intelligence convinced
Israel that as long as Musharraf remains in power, Pakistan does not
represent an imminent threat. The decision was made not to hit Pakistan.
Day Two:
Thursday -
Iran retaliates. Thousands of Revolutionary Guards are dispatched
across the border into Iraq with orders to inflict as many casualties
on American troops as possible. Iranian sleeper
agents, who have infiltrated Iraq since the downfall of Saddam, urge
Iraqi Shi’ites into action. Tehran orders the Lebanese Shi’ite
movement, Hezbollah, into action
against northern Israel. Hezbollah launches scores of rockets and
mortars against kibbutzim, towns, and settlements. Israel retaliates.
Crowds of gigantic proportions take to the streets, ransacking Israeli
embassies in Cairo, Amman, and Ankara. American embassies in a number
of other cities are burned.
Day
Three: Friday - Following Friday prayers
across the Islamic world, crowds incited by
fiery sermons in mosques from Casablanca to Karachi take to the streets
in the worst protests yet. In Saudi Arabia, Islamist militants engage
in open gun battles with
security forces in several cities. In Indonesia, Malaysia, Egypt, and a
dozen other
countries, crowds continue to run amok, demanding war on Israel.
Day Four:
Saturday - A longstanding plan to
overthrow Musharraf is carried out by senior
Pakistani army officers loyal to the Islamic fundamentalists and with
close ties to bin Laden. Within hours, and before news
of the coup leaks out, Pakistan, now run by pro-bin Laden
fundamentalists, loads two nuclear weapons aboard executive Lear jets
[that] dive into the outskirts of the two [Israeli] cities, detonating
their
nuclear devices in the process.
The rest of this scenario can unfold in a number of
ways. Take your
pick; none are encouraging.
Israel retaliates against Pakistan, killing
millions
in the process.
Arab governments fall. Following days of violence, Syria, Jordan, and
Egypt succumb to Islamist rebels who vow open warfare with Israel. The
Middle East regresses into war, with the fighting claiming hundreds of
thousands of lives. A much-weakened Israel, now struggling for its very
survival, deploys more nuclear weapons, targeting multiple Arab
capitals. The Middle East is in complete mayhem, as the United States
desperately tries to arrange a cease-fire.
|
From:
IS
NUCLEAR WAR
INEVITABLE? - Israeli
Nuclear Threats and Blackmail
....
Seymour Hersh warns, "Should war break out in the Middle East
again,... or should any Arab nation fire missiles against Israel,
as the Iraqis did, a nuclear escalation,
once
unthinkable except as a last resort, would now be a strong
probability."
Ezar Weissman, Israel's current President said "The nuclear issue is
gaining
momentum (and the) next war will not be conventional." Russia and
before
it the Soviet Union has long been a major (if not the major) target of
Israeli
nukes. It is widely reported that the principal purpose of
Jonathan
Pollard's spying for Israel was to furnish satellite images of Soviet
targets
and other super sensitive data relating to U.S. nuclear targeting
strategy....
|
 From:
IS
NUCLEAR WAR
INEVITABLE? - Alternate Scenarios # 3
(Color-coded
with map.) Israel attacks Iran's nuclear
facilities and/or Syria
and Lebanon. These
countries respond with massive rocket attacks using conventional bombs
and
even some chemical, biological or radiological weapons. Israel responds with nuclear strikes against
these nations and Pakistan. Outraged Pakistan retaliates
against Israel and pre-emptively attacks
Israel's ally/Pakistan's enemy India,
which retaliates. Israel initiates "Samson
option" and
attacks Arab
and Muslim capitols,
as well as "antisemitic" Europe and Russia. Russian
regional commanders retaliate against Israel, its ally the U.S., and
U.S. European allies and China, to
destroy its nuclear capability.
The U.S. retaliates against Russia and
hits
China's nuclear capability. China
uses any remaining nuclear
weapons against Russia, the U.S. and India. India retaliates against
China. |
See Photos of Progression of Nuclear War
from War Buildup to Massive Devastation
|
Oct 2004:
Israel's Delusional Plans to Attack Iran -
Military
Details
Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has already sent Israel’s three
Dolphin-class nuclear submarines to the Gulf of Oman – within striking
distance of Iran.
Under its military aid treaty with Israel, the Pentagon is sending Tel
Aviv 500 “bunker buster” warheads in November. The delivery date is set
for the day after the US election.
The bunker busters have BLU-109 warheads capable of
penetrating the
Natanz underground facilities.
An assault against Iranian targets will also involve
Israel’s Airforce
three squadrons of F-15 fighter-bombers.
To reach the gulf of Oman, the Dolphin submarines
will have completed
an 8,000-mile journey from their pens in Haifa. Each submarine carries
20 Cruise missiles. They also have 200kg warheads, each containing 5kg
plutonium.
Israel has also developed an ultra sophisticated
range of electronic
weapons. These are capable of: totally disabling communications between
Iran’s regional military
commanders. Closing down the countries banking system. Wrecking its
internal transport system.
|
Iran's Russian Sunburn
and
Yakhonts missiles
Many years ago, Soviet planners
gave up trying to match the US Navy
ship for ship, gun for gun, and dollar for dollar. They shrewdly
adopted an
alternative approach based on strategic defense - developing several
supersonic
anti-ship missiles, one of which, the SS-N-22 Sunburn, has been called
"the most lethal missile in the world today." Today, Russian missiles
are a growth industry
generating much-needed cash for Russia, with many billions in combined
sales to India, China, Viet Nam, Cuba, and also Iran. In the near
future this dissemination of advanced technology is likely to present
serious challenges to the US. Some have even warned that the US Navy's
largest ships, the massive carriers, have now become floating death
traps, and should for this reason be mothballed.
The
Sunburn missile has never seen use in
combat, to my knowledge,
which probably explains why its fearsome capabilities are not more
widely recognized. Other cruise missiles have been used, of course, on
several occasions, and with devastating results.
 During the
Falklands
War, French-made Exocet missiles, fired from Argentine fighters, sunk
the HMS Sheffield and another ship. And, in 1987, during the Iran-Iraq
war, the USS Stark was nearly cut in half by a pair of Exocets while on
patrol in the Persian Gulf. Not only is the Sunburn much larger and
faster, it has far
greater range and a superior guidance system.
The Sunburn can deliver a 200-kiloton nuclear payload, or: a 750-pound
conventional warhead, within a range of 100 miles, more than twice the
range of the Exocet. The Sunburn combines a Mach 2.1 speed (two times
the speed of sound) with a flight pattern that hugs the deck and
includes "violent end maneuvers" to elude enemy defenses. The missile
was specifically designed to defeat the US Aegis radar defense
system. A single one of these missiles can sink a large warship,
yet costs considerably less than a fighter jet.
The US
Navy has never faced anything in combat
as formidable as the
Sunburn missile. Try and imagine it if you can: barrage after
barrage of Exocet-class
missiles, which the Iranians are known to possess in the hundreds, as
well as the unstoppable Sunburn and Yakhonts missiles. The questions
that our purblind government leaders should be asking themselves,
today, if they value what historians will one day write about them, are
two: how many of the Russian anti-ship missiles has Putin already
supplied to Iran? And: How many more are currently in the pipeline?
The US Navy
will come under fire even if the US does
not participate in
the first so-called surgical raids on Iran's nuclear sites, that is,
even if Israel goes it alone. Armed with their Russian-supplied
cruise
missiles, the Iranians will close the lake's only outlet, the strategic
Strait of Hormuz, cutting off the trapped and dying Americans from help
and rescue. The US fleet massing in the Indian Ocean will stand by
helplessly, unable to enter the Gulf to assist the survivors or bring
logistical support to the other US forces on duty in Iraq.
With enough anti-ship missiles, the
Iranians can halt tanker traffic
through Hormuz for weeks, even months. With the flow of oil from the
Gulf curtailed, the price of a barrel of crude will skyrocket on the
world market. Within days the global economy will begin to grind to a
halt.
  During the
Falklands
War, French-made Exocet missiles, fired from Argentine fighters, sunk
the HMS Sheffield and another ship - leading to the NEWSWEEK front page
story. US ships may try to stay well out of range of such
missiles, in the Mediterranean or Red Sea.
|
Dec 2004:
Changing The Iran Regime US Plan with No Israel
Involvement
Dec
2004: To Destroy Iran's Nuclear Bomb Program, 350
Targets Must Be Hit
(Two similar reports)
According to the London-based Arab-language
newspaper A-Shark al-Ausat, a group of the US experts [are creating an
attack plan]. The plan concludes three major activities:
** Twenty four hours on bombing
and destroying main Iran airbases
and
concentrated forces of the Islam Revolution Guards
** Missiles and bombs while
then assault nuclear objects and non-
conventional arms plants - 350 plus sites
** Occupation of Iran by the US
ground forces located in the
neighboring Gulf States, Azerbaijan, Georgia and Iraq.
|
Feb 2005:
More On What Iran Might Do If Attacked
 The Pentagon recently revealed that, as a
matter of
routine
preparedness, it had upgraded its Iranian war plans, and the Washington
Post has reported that unmanned U.S. drones (see photo) have been flying over suspected
nuclear sites in Iran.
Iranian authorities, too, say they have been getting ready for a
possible attack. Newspapers have announced efforts to increase the
number of the country's 7 million-strong "Basiji" volunteer militia, which was deployed in
human-wave attacks during the Iran-Iraq war in
the
1980s. Iranian military authorities have paraded long-range North
Korean-designed Shahab missiles before television cameras.
It remains unclear how much of the recent military activity amounts to
a
mobilization and how much is propaganda. Iranian officials and analysts
have said they want to highlight the potential costs of an attack on
Iran to raise the stakes for U.S. officials considering an assault and
to frighten a war- weary American public.
"If
America decides to attack, the only ones
who could stop it are
Iranians," he said. "Pressure from other countries and inside America
is
important, but it won't prevent an attack. The only thing that will prevent an attack is that if
America knows it will pay a heavy price."
Iran's army includes 350,000 active-duty soldiers and 220,000
conscripts. Its elite Revolutionary Guards number 120,000, many of them
draftees. Its navy and air force total 70,000 men. The armed forces
have
about 2,000 tanks, 300 combat aircraft, three submarines, hundreds of
helicopters and at least a dozen Russian-made Scud missile launchers of
the type Saddam Hussein used against Israel during the 1991 Gulf War.
Iran also has an undetermined number of Shahab missiles that have a range of more than 1,500 miles.
Yet both outside military experts and Iranians concede that the
country's antiquated conventional hardware, worn down by years of U.S.
and European sanctions, would be little match for the high-tech
wizardry
of the United States.
Despite the state of its equipment, Iran could create myriad troubles
for the United States and the world.
Its security forces include a number of intelligence agencies with
extensive overseas experience and assets, experts say. Iran's highly
classified Quds forces, which answer directly to Iran's spiritual leader, Grand Ayatollah Ali
Khamenei, are believed to have operations
in
Lebanon, the Palestinian territories, Jordan, Afghanistan, Pakistan,
India, Turkey, the Persian Gulf region, Central Asia, North Africa,
Europe and North America, according to a December 2004 report prepared
by CSIS.
Within minutes of any attack,
Iran's air (see photo) and
sea forces could threaten
oil shipments in the Persian Gulf as well as the Gulf of Oman. Iran
controls the northern coast of the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow
waterway
through which oil tankers must navigate, and could sink ships, mine sea
routes or bomb oil platforms, according to the CSIS report.
Iran could activate Hezbollah militants in Lebanon, whom it supports,
to
launch attacks on Israel. It could have operatives attack U.S.
interests
in Azerbaijan, Central Asia or Turkey.
"Iran can escalate the war," said Hadian. "It's not going to be all
that
hard to target U.S. forces in these countries."
But most analysts agree that Iran's biggest trump card would be to
unleash havoc in neighboring Iraq, where Shiites who spent years in
Iran
as exiles are assuming control of the government.
"If Iran wanted, it could make Iraq a hell for the United States,"
Hamid
al-Bayati, Iraq's deputy foreign minister, said recently.
|
 How Iran
will
fight back
A week-long
combined air and ground maneuver has
just concluded in five of the southern and western provinces of Iran,
mesmerizing foreign observers, who have described as "spectacular"
the massive display of high-tech, mobile operations, including
rapid-deployment forces relying on squadrons of helicopters, air lifts,
missiles, as well as hundreds of tanks and tens of thousands of
well-coordinated personnel using live munition. Simultaneously, some
25,000 volunteers have so far signed up at newly established draft
centers for "suicide attacks" against any potential intruders in what
is commonly termed "asymmetrical warfare".
According to a much-publicized article
on the "Iran war game" in the US-based Atlantic Monthly, the estimated
cost of an assault on Iran is a paltry few tens of millions of dollars.
This figure is based on a one-time "surgical strike" combining missile
attacks, air-to-surface bombardments, and covert operations, without
bothering to factor in Iran's strategy, which aims precisely to "extend
the theater of operations" in
order to exact
heavier and heavier costs on the invading
Enemy, including by targeting America's military command structure in
the Persian Gulf.
Iraq's missiles played an important role
in extending the warfare to Israel, on the US forces in Saudi Arabia. Today, in the
evolution of Iran's military doctrine, the
country relies on increasingly precise long-range missiles, eg,
Shahab-3 and Fateh-110, that can "hit targets in Tel Aviv", to echo
Iranian Foreign Minister Kemal Kharrazi.
There are several advantages to a ballistic arsenal as far as Iran is
concerned: first, it is relatively cheap and manufactured domestically
without much external dependency and the related pressure of "missile
export control" exerted by the US. Second, the missiles are mobile and
can be concealed from the enemy, and third, there are advantages to
fighter jets requiring fixed air bases. Fourth, missiles are presumed
effective weapons that can be launched without much advance notice by
the recipient targets, particularly the "solid fuel" Fatah-110 missiles
that require only a few short minutes for installation prior to being
fired. Fifth, missiles are weapons of confusion and a unique strike
capability that can torpedo the best military plans...
Another key element of Iran's strategy is to
"increase the arch of crisis" in places such as Afghanistan and Iraq,
where it has considerable influence, to undermine the United States'
foothold in the region, hoping to create a counter-domino effect
wherein instead of gaining inside Iran, the US would actually lose
territory partly as a result of thinning its forces and military
"overstretch".
Iran's counter-psychological warfare, on the other hand, seeks to take
advantage of the "death-fearing" American soldiers who typically lack a
strong motivation to fight wars not necessarily in defense of the
homeland. A war with Iran would definitely require establishing the
draft in the US, without which it could not possibly protect its flanks
in Afghanistan and Iraq; imposing the draft would mean enlisting many
dissatisfied young soldiers amenable to be influenced by Iran's own
psychological warfare focusing on the lack of motivation and "cognitive
dissonance" of soldiers ill-doctrinated to President George W Bush's
"doctrine of preemption", not to mention a proxy war for the sake of Israel.
....
Thus
there is an emerging "proto-nuclear
deterrence" according to which Iran's mastery of the nuclear fuel cycle
would make it "nuclear weapon capable" in a relatively short time, as a
sort of pre-weapon "threshold capability" that must be taken into
account by Iran's enemies contemplating attacks on its nuclear
installations. |
 Nov
2004:
World Nuclear War
Comments at Woodrow Wilson Center Iran Conference
Audience question on nuclear exchange between
Israel and Iran...
Response from Henry Sokolski, Executive Director, Nonproliferation
Policy Education Center: We have to
think
about something besides nuclear response: closing the straights, make
sure they don't get oil money. So we must a) prevent and b) not
respond in worse way. Biggest fear should be a nuclear 1914 where
nuclear use begets nuclear use and we see major cities snuffed
out. If
you ever go to Great Britain visit Bath and the Roman Baths, the only
thing missing is automobiles. It was an incredibly advanced
civilization. But it went away. That is possible. |
Nov 2004:
Bush Approved Israel Nuking Iraq B4 US Invasion
Sharon's blunt admission that a
retaliatory strike would be ordered in the event of an attack on Israel
with non-conventional weapons came after discussions with US President
George W Bush. Israeli officials later interpreted the president's
stance as giving the green-light to Sharon to attack Baghdad only if
Iraq launched a pre-emptive strike against the Jewish State before an
American military campaign had got underway.
|
Nov 2004:
U.S. had plan to nuke N. Korea
Newly declassified documents
revealed the United States planned as recently as 1998 to drop nuclear
bombs on North Korea if the country attacked South Korea.The
declassified documents also said the U.S. had kept nuclear weaponry in
South Korea until at least 1998, despite officially claiming it had
withdrawn all nuclear warheads in 1991.
|
 Feb 2005:
Strike
Iran and
Risk Huge
Backlash, Blix Warns
US
Former UN
chief weapons inspector Hans Blix - "I think the restraining element in
this must be that the United
States
must know if they launch an attack, there could be [a nuclear]
retaliation," said Blix "There is uncertainty. They [the U.S.] may not
know that the Iranians
might be hiding some [nuclear weapons] prototype somewhere. They [the
Iranians] have the designs and they have the technology..."
Hiroshima victim
|
Apr 2005:
On To Iran? (How to Make a New Pearl Harbor)
Neocons would love for Iran to
commit a dastardly surprise attack.
It has been suggested that Iran's response to a major bombing attack
would be immediate retaliation by firing missiles at US bases and ships
in the Persian Gulf. It would be easy for the USA to shut
off
telecommunications to Iran to prevent word of secret bombings to leak
out until Iranian missiles responded. The problem is how to keep
this
secret. One option is to allow the Israelis to launch secret
nighttime
bombing strikes. Only a few US Generals would need to know and issue
orders to ground US aircraft overnight for a "safety stand-down" and
shut down radars for "repair." Another option is to strike with a
dozen
stealthy B-2s bombers from their base in Missouri. A more complex
plan
would penetrate Iran's military command and control system
electronically, and send false messages that American bombers had hit
targets so Iranian missiles should be launched.
American GIs in the region would be surprised by a
sudden Iranian
missile attack and will attest that it was unprovoked. There
would be
many GI casualties and perhaps a Navy ship sunk, but Roosevelt
sacrificed 2000 GIs at Pearl Harbor for his cause.
|
Sept
2004: US Sells Israel Bunker/Smart Bombs to Attack
Iran
Mar 2005:
Converging U.S. Navy
aircraft carrier groups in ME send message to Iran The U.S. Navy aircraft carrier
USS Theodore Roosevelt is on the move in Atlantic Ocean and is possibly
headed towards the Mediterranean Sea. The convergence of three carrier
groups in the corridor of the Middle East will send very strong message
to the Syrians and Iranians. There are indications that soon US is
moving two more aircraft carrier battle groups to the Eastern
Mediterranean Sea and the Persian Gulf. (Pro-Iran
war author John Corsi
makes same
report a week later.) (See maps of
US military bases.)
Mar 2005:
Israel,
U.S. war game
eyes
Iranian missiles
