commandos in Iran

welsh

Junkmaster
A bit of old news but it sounds like US special ops troops have been picking targets in Iran.

What do you think? Next war is Iran? Or is this just pressure to get them to give up their nukes?

The White House and the DOD say that there are inaccuracies but they have not denied these reports.
US special forces 'inside Iran'
US commandos are operating inside Iran selecting sites for future air strikes, says the American investigative reporter Seymour Hersh.
In the New Yorker magazine, Hersh says intelligence officials have revealed that Iran is the Bush administration's "next strategic target".

Hersh says that American special forces have conducted reconnaissance missions inside Iran for six months.

But the White House has described his article as "riddled with inaccuracies".

The authorities in Islamabad have also denied Hersh's charge that the special forces were working with a group of Pakistani scientists who had contact with Iranian colleagues.

"There is no such collaboration," Foreign Ministry spokesman Masood Khan said, adding that the report was "far-fetched" and that Pakistan knew little about the Iranian nuclear programme.

An intelligence official, quoted by Hersh, said Washington had given Islamabad an assurance in exchange for information that it would not have to hand over AQ Khan, the father of the Pakistani nuclear programme who last year admitted to illegally transferring nuclear secrets.

Sniffers

Potential targets include nuclear sites and missile installations, he says.

The New Yorker journalist adds that President Bush has authorised the operations, defining them as military to avoid legal restrictions on CIA covert intelligence activities overseas.

They constitute a revival of a form of covert US military activity used in the 1980s, notably in support of the Nicaraguan Contras.

The task force has been penetrating eastern Iran from Afghanistan and leaving remote detection devices known as sniffers capable of testing for radioactive emissions in the atmosphere, Hersh says.

He reports as well that American special forces units have been authorised to conduct covert operations in as many as 10 nations in the Middle East and South Asia.

Hersh bases his claims on anonymous sources, including former intelligence officials and consultants with links to the Pentagon.

One such consultant is quoted as saying that the civilians in the Pentagon wanted to go into Iran and destroy as much of the military infrastructure as possible.

'Riddled with inaccuracies'

There have also been calls from Pentagon hawks to use a limited attack on Iran to topple the country's religious leadership, one of Hersh's sources said.

The article has already drawn fire from the White House: the communications director, Dan Bartlett, called it "riddled with inaccuracies".

"I don't believe that some of the conclusions he's drawing are based on fact," Mr Bartlett added.

He said the diplomatic approach was still the priority.

"No president, at any juncture in history has ever taken military options off the table," he said. "But what President Bush has shown is that he believes we can emphasize the diplomatic initiatives that are under way right now."

The BBC's Justin Webb in Washington says that while Hersh could be wrong he has a series of scoops to his name, including the details of the Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal last year.

His track record suggests that he should be taken seriously, our correspondent says.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/americas/4180087.stm

also

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4181325.stm

and the original article-
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?050124fa_fact
 
If they attack Iran I think (/hope) that the target will only be the reactors.
A full-scale attack to create a change in the regime, most likely will set the area on fire, if not the world.
And even Bush would not risk this, especially after the problems in Iraq.
Hell, to many troops are already bound in Iraq, what should he do?
Hope that people someday will stop fighting, just saying: well, America is not that bad, lets just be friends?
If he attacks Iran, the USA most likely will be permanently at a war-like state, with victims in both Iran and Iraq.
 
Excuse me while I bang my head against the world while singing the Canadian national anthem.
 
Damned, let them have their nukes. The possession of nuclear weapons seems to be the only thing that defers the American government from invading countries with anti-western governments, so I can understand why Iran would want nukes in the first place, really.
 
The problem with a nation controlling nuclear weapons is that you can't always trust them to be reliable; especially if they don't have much at risk say compared to the United States in a full-out war. Obviously an ICBM launched from North Dakota that strikes a place somewhere in Bavaria is a greeting from the United States of America. A nuke that suddenly goes off in Denver, Colorado is a lot harder to track down since it is essentially destroyed and there is no radar track.

Note I don't necessarily support invading Iran or not. Glass parking lot. - Colt
 
Damned, let them have their nukes. The possession of nuclear weapons seems to be the only thing that defers the American government from invading countries with anti-western governments, so I can understand why Iran would want nukes in the first place, really.

Iran having Nukes+ Israel having Nukes= not funny at all
 
Turnip said:
Damned, let them have their nukes. The possession of nuclear weapons seems to be the only thing that defers the American government from invading countries with anti-western governments, so I can understand why Iran would want nukes in the first place, really.

Iran having Nukes+ Israel having Nukes= not funny at all

Meh.
Pakistan and India both have nukes, and even with the enormous historical hatred between the two they still haven't used it. If anything, the fact that they both have nuclear weapons has prevented wars between them, recently.

Also, to my recollection Israël and Iran have no history of conflict.
 
Jebus said:
Meh.
Pakistan and India both have nukes, and even with the enormous historical hatred between the two they still haven't used it. If anything, the fact that they both have nuclear weapons has prevented wars between them, recently.

Also, to my recollection Israël and Iran have no history of conflict.

Israel is technically at war with Iraq, which never signed an armistice ending the war of 1948-1949. However, this could be disputed since the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, and the subsequent creation and transfer of power to the new government in 2003-2004. It is also technically in a state of war with Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Lebanon. A cease fire agreement was signed with Syria in 1973. There is no such agreement with Lebanon. (Note: These are states of war in the technical sense only.)

Also, doesn't Israel have a working anti-nuclear strike system? I bet they'd be up for a rumble.

In any case, the whole "get enough weapons so nobody dares attack" system is flawed for very obvious reasons. Heck, just watch Dr. Strangelove
 
Jebus said:
Damned, let them have their nukes. The possession of nuclear weapons seems to be the only thing that defers the American government from invading countries with anti-western governments, so I can understand why Iran would want nukes in the first place, really.

You realize that you live in the West as well, correct?
 
I am wondering who didn't see Iran would be USA's next target. The country practically has all prerequisites:

1. It controls large oil fields.

2. It is ruled by a radical islamist regime.

3. It is easy for CIA to fabricate some imaginary links of the Teheran regime with Al'Qaeda.

4. It has very poor relations with Washington.

5. It may have at some point considered the possibility of developing nuclear weapons.

It is only a matter time before US decide to invade. I am certain, though, Bush will not be truly happy until his intelligence services can somehow link governments of Venezuela and Nigeria to an islamese terrorist group... or any terrorist group for that matter. Even Greenpeace will do.
 
Kharn said:
Israel is technically at war with Iraq, which never signed an armistice ending the war of 1948-1949. However, this could be disputed since the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, and the subsequent creation and transfer of power to the new government in 2003-2004. It is also technically in a state of war with Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Lebanon. A cease fire agreement was signed with Syria in 1973. There is no such agreement with Lebanon. (Note: These are states of war in the technical sense only.)

What is your source? Because that statement is wrong.

Iran never was at war with Israël. The war of 1948-1949, for instance, was a war between Israël and the Arab League; and Iran has never been a member of the Arab league. Iran is Sji'ite and Persian, so the Arabs don't like them very much.
 
Ratty said:
I am certain, though, Bush will not be truly happy until his intelligence services can somehow link governments of Venezuela and Nigeria to an islamese terrorist group...

If that ever happens they should target the University of Nigeria and destroy the spam factory for good. :twisted:
 
Jebus said:
What is your source? Because that statement is wrong.

Iran never was at war with Israël. The war of 1948-1949, for instance, was a war between Israël and the Arab League; and Iran has never been a member of the Arab league. Iran is Sji'ite and Persian, so the Arabs don't like them very much.

Heh, you are, of course, right. I wasn't paying much attention there, sorry 'bout that. Iran was definitely not in the '48-'49 war, but that source doesn't state that, it states Iraq stayed on from that war, not Iran. However I do believe Israel is not at war with Iran indeed, unless it would be post-Gulf War I, which is unlikely. Lemme double-check...nope, indeed, nothing. Ah well, teaches me to doublecheck more.
 
Kharn said:
Also, doesn't Israel have a working anti-nuclear strike system? I bet they'd be up for a rumble.

In any case, the whole "get enough weapons so nobody dares attack" system is flawed for very obvious reasons. Heck, just watch Dr. Strangelove


I don't think you would call it a "system" exactly... It was basically F-16s flying a few feet off of the deck into their territory while being covered by F-15s from on-high. Droppe their ordnance and got out at full speed. - Colt
 
Kharn said:
In any case, the whole "get enough weapons so nobody dares attack" system is flawed for very obvious reasons. Heck, just watch Dr. Strangelove

Well, it worked so far. And I think the 'invade countries preemptively' system is way more flawed, for even more obvious reasons.
 
Member of Khans said:
Ashmo said:
Excuse me while I bang my head against the world while singing the Canadian national anthem.
:rofl: New sig.

US special forces 'inside Iran
Let's hope they only send Special Forces and nothing different (a tomahawk missile for example).

Actually it was a typo. I wanted to say "against the wall".
 
Jebus said:
Kharn said:
In any case, the whole "get enough weapons so nobody dares attack" system is flawed for very obvious reasons. Heck, just watch Dr. Strangelove

Well, it worked so far. And I think the 'invade countries preemptively' system is way more flawed, for even more obvious reasons.

So what is the flaw in pre-emptive strikes? I'd really like to know why more nations should be allowed to acquire atomic devices.
 
Bradylama said:
So what is the flaw in pre-emptive strikes? I'd really like to know why more nations should be allowed to acquire atomic devices.
If Iranian atomic devices are as substantial as Iraqi ones, then I'm sure even you can see the core of the problem with Bush's "pre-emptive" strikes.
 
here is Bushs source (maybe altered a little bit for the use of public), funny is that already on that time Iran actually was much more suspect than Iraq.
But however, i think there is a reason for believing that they plan building a Nuke, does a country like Iran really need a nuclear reactor for civil use?
 
Back
Top