Pentagon ‘three-day blitz’ plan for Iran

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by DesktopCommando, Sep 6, 2007.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Iran is going to have to be dealt with at some point, so drawing up plans makes sense.
  2. cpunk

    cpunk LE Moderator

    It's great that they're keeping this a secret, the Iranians will get a real surprise!
  3. Why exactly do they "have to be dealt with"?

    Do you really think that they would actually use any nukes they manage to produce , if they ever actually manage to produce some. Or do you think that they will suddenly swarm out of Iran and invade the US/UK?

    What actual reason is there for doing over Iran as opposed to say N.Korea or Israel or any one of lots of other places?
  4. Yes, I think they will.
  5. there are two reasons for this. As has been stated, iran cannot be allowed to get nukes, so it makes sense to plan to stop them. Also, by making these plans public, there may be some incentive for iran may be more inclined to make a peaceful deal on the issue. If they know we (the wesst) will do noting about them getting 'the bomb' why would they consider stopping.

    no they 'officially' will not use them, but the nukes will find themselves in london, washington, berlin......... MAD doesn't work on those who want to die.

  6. well let me see the US administration spend 3 days blitzing Iran and nil days on nation buliding ( are we seeing a pattern here) then magicaly the whole middle east become a huge version of democracy and peace.

    I hope and tend to think that the shaved chimp is just playing lets pretend rather than deal with anything real while his days count down to being the EX POTUS.

    Personally im sick of the lot of em and everywhere from the west bank to the east of Badakhshan can fight themself to extinction our dependance on arab oil has to stop.
  7. What like the North Koreans, or Israel or Pakistan?
  8. from the Times:
    He may very well say that. But that is no reason for us to believe him let alone support this individual in starting another war.
    As I've posted on a thread I have started there is good evidence that G. Bush and company knew that Saddam didn't not possess WMD before the Iraq war.
    Therefore we must not support a liar in starting another aggressive war against a country that is not threatening Britain. Full stop.
  9. Why? Do you think that the Guardian council are a bunch of nutters? You think that they have no idea what would happen to them and their power if they did let off a nuke?

    If you still reckon they will do it then who would be the target?
  10. It's ironic that the country that seems to be the most afraid of othe rnations getting/using nuclear weapons is the only country that has ever used them in anger against another nation.

    Maybe Iran will go nuclear, they might even comtemplate using them, but by saying "If we even think you've get'em, we'll bomb you to death", the leaders are going to feel threatened. Backing a snake in to a corner doesn't make you any safer, just because you can see it.
  11. Excellent. And the plan for Day Four is.............
  12. The way to 'deal' with Iran, is to encourage the nascent liberal population to grow and overturn the hardline conservatives who have been governing since the Revolution (the birth of modern Islamic fundamentalism) whilst maintaining a sufficiently active military posture to contain Iran and limit its activities outside its own borders.

    To actually strike militarily against the country would alienate the majority of the population and drive them into the arms of the Iranian neo-cons, as well as further alienating wider Muslim opinion (particularly Shia). On the plus side I guess it would satisfy the blood lust of some Washington has-beens and Tel Aviv loonies.
  13. First paragraph from The Times,
    I notice several posters have already commented on the 'and what happens on Day 4' question. Very good. Also like to add my own thought. Didn't the US, with great aplomb, achieve pretty much the same thing in both Iraq and Afghanistan? Did that solve the problem?

    So let's waste another state's military aparatus and see another million willing volunteers in global jihaad. Brilliant. :x
  14. My bold.