scott ritter: The US war with Iran has already begun

zimv20

macrumors 601
Original poster
Jul 18, 2002
4,388
7
toronto
link

(intro skipped)

The reality is that the US war with Iran has already begun. As we speak, American over flights of Iranian soil are taking place, using pilotless drones and other, more sophisticated, capabilities.

The violation of a sovereign nation's airspace is an act of war in and of itself. But the war with Iran has gone far beyond the intelligence-gathering phase.

President Bush has taken advantage of the sweeping powers granted to him in the aftermath of 11 September 2001, to wage a global war against terror and to initiate several covert offensive operations inside Iran.

The most visible of these is the CIA-backed actions recently undertaken by the Mujahadeen el-Khalq, or MEK, an Iranian opposition group, once run by Saddam Hussein's dreaded intelligence services, but now working exclusively for the CIA's Directorate of Operations.

It is bitter irony that the CIA is using a group still labelled as a terrorist organisation, a group trained in the art of explosive assassination by the same intelligence units of the former regime of Saddam Hussein, who are slaughtering American soldiers in Iraq today, to carry out remote bombings in Iran of the sort that the Bush administration condemns on a daily basis inside Iraq.

Perhaps the adage of "one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist" has finally been embraced by the White House, exposing as utter hypocrisy the entire underlying notions governing the ongoing global war on terror.

But the CIA-backed campaign of MEK terror bombings in Iran are not the only action ongoing against Iran.

To the north, in neighbouring Azerbaijan, the US military is preparing a base of operations for a massive military presence that will foretell a major land-based campaign designed to capture Tehran.

Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld's interest in Azerbaijan may have escaped the blinkered Western media, but Russia and the Caucasus nations understand only too well that the die has been cast regarding Azerbaijan's role in the upcoming war with Iran.

The ethnic links between the Azeri of northern Iran and Azerbaijan were long exploited by the Soviet Union during the Cold War, and this vehicle for internal manipulation has been seized upon by CIA paramilitary operatives and US Special Operations units who are training with Azerbaijan forces to form special units capable of operating inside Iran for the purpose of intelligence gathering, direct action, and mobilising indigenous opposition to the Mullahs in Tehran.

But this is only one use the US has planned for Azerbaijan. American military aircraft, operating from forward bases in Azerbaijan, will have a much shorter distance to fly when striking targets in and around Tehran.

In fact, US air power should be able to maintain a nearly 24-hour a day presence over Tehran airspace once military hostilities commence.

No longer will the United States need to consider employment of Cold War-dated plans which called for moving on Tehran from the Arab Gulf cities of Chah Bahar and Bandar Abbas. US Marine Corps units will be able to secure these towns in order to protect the vital Straits of Hormuz, but the need to advance inland has been eliminated.

A much shorter route to Tehran now exists - the coastal highway running along the Caspian Sea from Azerbaijan to Tehran.

US military planners have already begun war games calling for the deployment of multi-divisional forces into Azerbaijan.

Logistical planning is well advanced concerning the basing of US air and ground power in Azerbaijan.

Given the fact that the bulk of the logistical support and command and control capability required to wage a war with Iran is already forward deployed in the region thanks to the massive US presence in Iraq, the build-up time for a war with Iran will be significantly reduced compared to even the accelerated time tables witnessed with Iraq in 2002-2003.

America and the Western nations continue to be fixated on the ongoing tragedy and debacle that is Iraq. Much needed debate on the reasoning behind the war with Iraq and the failed post-war occupation of Iraq is finally starting to spring up in the United States and elsewhere.

Normally, this would represent a good turn of events. But with everyone's heads rooted in the events of the past, many are missing out on the crime that is about to be repeated by the Bush administration in Iran - an illegal war of aggression, based on false premise, carried out with little regard to either the people of Iran or the United States.

Most Americans, together with the mainstream American media, are blind to the tell-tale signs of war, waiting, instead, for some formal declaration of hostility, a made-for-TV moment such as was witnessed on 19 March 2003.

We now know that the war had started much earlier. Likewise, history will show that the US-led war with Iran will not have begun once a similar formal statement is offered by the Bush administration, but, rather, had already been under way since June 2005, when the CIA began its programme of MEK-executed terror bombings in Iran.
 

Dont Hurt Me

macrumors 603
Dec 21, 2002
6,056
6
Yahooville S.C.
Well its no Secret they want the Bomb . The Russian Power Plant is designed for making fuel for their weapons while producing power. Sorry maybe when you guys grow up in a few hundred years but for now the answer is no. Shut it down or we will shut it down for you. Give up that stupid plant,nukes,and terrorism and i say lets open up the trade to everyone. Keep with the Nukes and you will be taught a lesson.............. Iam a Realist! :D Iran cant be allowed to have the Bomb. Period.
 

mactastic

macrumors 68040
Apr 24, 2003
3,647
661
Colly-fornia
You mean like how Iran sat around while the US developed a bomb, then had to figure out what to do about it?

Would you destroy your gun if your neighbor was holding a gun on you but promised never to use it?
 

Dont Hurt Me

macrumors 603
Dec 21, 2002
6,056
6
Yahooville S.C.
mactastic said:
You mean like how Iran sat around while the US developed a bomb, then had to figure out what to do about it?

Would you destroy your gun if your neighbor was holding a gun on you but promised never to use it?
Come on Mactastic, that cat is out of the bag. The U.S. by dropping this horrible weapon knows its something that shouldnt ever be used again. We are the world police like it or not. Its up to us to make sure that they ( Nukes) are on the decline, not upswing. As someone who was "around" these things let me tell you the world needs less of them not more. Its up to us to turn this thing around. It aint going to come from China nor Iran. Thats the Facts. Its up to us and our Allies to turn it around. China is a slacker with N.Korea but George is making it hard.
 

mactastic

macrumors 68040
Apr 24, 2003
3,647
661
Colly-fornia
Dont Hurt Me said:
Come on Mactastic, that cat is out of the bag. The U.S. by dropping this horrible weapon knows its something that shouldnt ever be used again.
I flatly don't trust Bush to know that. I think Bush would nuke NK if they crossed the line right now because we have no other game plan at this point.

And as for the cat, why would anyone anywhere give up a weapon that would put it on par with the US? Get real. No country is going to give up going after something that other people are allowed to have. The only way to look another nation's people in the eye and tell them to give up the bomb is if you are willing to do it yourself. Put yourself in any other leader's position. Would you give up on the one thing that would defend your people and your power?

We are the world police like it or not.
We AREN'T the world police. We can't afford to be, we have no right to be, and I don't think the American people want that role (although I'd surely admit that if you phrase the question differently they would gladly patrol the world beat... for a while anyway.) But regardless, you have to admit that America is going to put it's interests first in it's globo-cop role. And you can't expect a person to stand for someone else's interests being put over theirs. You wouldn't stand for it, and neither would I.

Its up to us to make sure that they ( Nukes) are on the decline, not upswing.
We could start by declining our own stock. But will we? No, we're building more WMDs.

As someone who was "around" these things let me tell you the world needs less of them not more. Its up to us to turn this thing around. It aint going to come from China nor Iran. Thats the Facts. Its up to us and our Allies to turn it around. China is a slacker with N.Korea but George is making it hard.
I believe you. We certainly do need less nukes, not more. But it's just realpolitik to realize that asking someone to give up pursuit of a nuke without pledging to eliminate our own stock. Until we are willing to do that, no real progress will be made.

Look at the Cold War. It was considered weak to unilaterally give up one's nukes, so it had to happen in a way that gave neither one an advantage - we'll destroy one if you do. That was the only acceptable way to go, and it was recognized as such. Yet somehow you expect other's to do what neither the Soviets nor the US were willing to do themselves. It's just not gonna happen.
 

Xtremehkr

macrumors 68000
Jul 4, 2004
1,897
0
Unless Iran was just Michael Jackson insane, they would not even consider using nuclear weapons against the US. Nuclear weapons are meant to deter nuclear war through the assurance of mutual destruction. Iran cannot possibly match the US in military power.

The US has been covertly acting against Iran for decades though and they are looking to protect themselves. If we had left them alone, I am sure that we would not have been in this situation.

However, the US insists upon continuing to consume energy (oil based) in excessive amounts without seeking alternatives. The Oil industry has had way too much influence in our energy policy for way too long and it really isn't necessary anymore, especially with the problems that are arising from having to secure new sources of oil.

$230 Billion dollars could have easily been enough to have made fuel cell technology a near future reality. And/or brought many other forms of alternative energy producing methods into fruition.

But that would not working in the interests of the Oil industry.
 

zimv20

macrumors 601
Original poster
Jul 18, 2002
4,388
7
toronto
Xtremehkr said:
Unless Iran was just Michael Jackson insane, they would not even consider using nuclear weapons against the US. Nuclear weapons are meant to deter nuclear war through the assurance of mutual destruction. Iran cannot possibly match the US in military power.
but what about israel?
 

Xtremehkr

macrumors 68000
Jul 4, 2004
1,897
0
zimv20 said:
but what about israel?
Israel has been where it is for a long time now, and has even expanded.

I think that the same rules apply, Israel is more than capable of leveling anyone who launches a nuclear attack against them. Plus they have the support of the US.

Though, they are not exactly innocent when it comes to agitating those around them.
 

zimv20

macrumors 601
Original poster
Jul 18, 2002
4,388
7
toronto
sorry, my post was ambiguous. i meant that i'd always thought that any plans iran has for nukes was meant as a deterrent against, or a threat to, israel.

i may be wrong about this, but i thought i'd read that iran has longrange missiles capable of carrying such a payload and reaching israel.
 

Dont Hurt Me

macrumors 603
Dec 21, 2002
6,056
6
Yahooville S.C.
mactastic said:
I flatly don't trust Bush to know that. I think Bush would nuke NK if they crossed the line right now because we have no other game plan at this point.

And as for the cat, why would anyone anywhere give up a weapon that would put it on par with the US? Get real. No country is going to give up going after something that other people are allowed to have. The only way to look another nation's people in the eye and tell them to give up the bomb is if you are willing to do it yourself. Put yourself in any other leader's position. Would you give up on the one thing that would defend your people and your power?



We AREN'T the world police. We can't afford to be, we have no right to be, and I don't think the American people want that role (although I'd surely admit that if you phrase the question differently they would gladly patrol the world beat... for a while anyway.) But regardless, you have to admit that America is going to put it's interests first in it's globo-cop role. And you can't expect a person to stand for someone else's interests being put over theirs. You wouldn't stand for it, and neither would I.



We could start by declining our own stock. But will we? No, we're building more WMDs.



I believe you. We certainly do need less nukes, not more. But it's just realpolitik to realize that asking someone to give up pursuit of a nuke without pledging to eliminate our own stock. Until we are willing to do that, no real progress will be made.

Look at the Cold War. It was considered weak to unilaterally give up one's nukes, so it had to happen in a way that gave neither one an advantage - we'll destroy one if you do. That was the only acceptable way to go, and it was recognized as such. Yet somehow you expect other's to do what neither the Soviets nor the US were willing to do themselves. It's just not gonna happen.
The last thing the American people wanted was to be world police. Remember WW1,WW2,Cold War,,,,,,Saddam,,,many others. The role fell in our laps because no one else could or would do it. Thats reality. We didnt want it but the politicians well that is another story. We still cannot let the proliferation of these horrible weapons period. Thats the Black and white. Iran has to be stopped and so does anyone else. Play time is over..............then ask yourself now or later? i say now and so would a lot of others. Unlike our European friends we learned from WW1,WW2.....appeasment is the same as doing nothing. We did nothing with Korea. And i dont want to hear about that one inspector in N.Korea watching the whole country while they were building the Bomb. Idiots, excuse me Politicians. Clinton and Bush get a F for Failure.
 

Xtremehkr

macrumors 68000
Jul 4, 2004
1,897
0
zimv20 said:
sorry, my post was ambiguous. i meant that i'd always thought that any plans iran has for nukes was meant as a deterrent against, or a threat to, israel.

i may be wrong about this, but i thought i'd read that iran has longrange missiles capable of carrying such a payload and reaching israel.
But it would be suicide, we would be in Tehran faster than they could yell Osama Bin Laden.
 

Peterkro

macrumors 68020
Aug 17, 2004
2,143
1,362
Communard de Londres,Tiocfaidh ár lá
The U.S is the problem with Nuclear proliferation,they refuse to even negotiate on reduction so Russia is loath to do it unilaterially.Iran is surrounded by nuclear cabable countries.India,China,Pakistan,Israel,Russia and can see only possesion of the weapons acts as a deterrent to U.S. lawlessness,see the situations and how they differ in North Korea and Iraq.If the U.S and Russia start to disarm then they may have some right to pressurise other countries to do so but not before.The U.S. has already used them(to prevent Russia gaining control of Japan) and by every logic the most likely to do so again.
 

amnesiac1984

macrumors 6502a
Jun 9, 2002
760
0
Europe
Dont Hurt Me said:
The last thing the American people wanted was to be world police. Remember WW1,WW2,Cold War,,,,,,Saddam,,,many others. The role fell in our laps because no one else could or would do it.
The real world police (UN) was doing a fine job with Saddam, they even made him destroy all his weapons, Iran are having elections, the people are opening up to the world they want to gain relations, they don't want to be attacked by Team America. Lets hope the downing street stuff will lead to an impeachment before bush really goes too far.
 

mactastic

macrumors 68040
Apr 24, 2003
3,647
661
Colly-fornia
Dont Hurt Me said:
The last thing the American people wanted was to be world police. Remember WW1,WW2,Cold War,,,,,,Saddam,,,many others. The role fell in our laps because no one else could or would do it. Thats reality.
No the reality is that the US has consistently undermined the one body that could legitimately claim to be the world's police. It is folly to think that the authority of the US will be considered valid by everyone else. As the Iraqis have proved, anytime there is a pile of weapons and a desire to harass the invaders, you can't control the country. The US couldn't possibly begin to patrol enough of the world to stop nuclear proliferation by force. It would require a draft and a wartime budget at the very least.

We didnt want it but the politicians well that is another story. We still cannot let the proliferation of these horrible weapons period. Thats the Black and white. Iran has to be stopped and so does anyone else. Play time is over..............then ask yourself now or later? i say now and so would a lot of others. Unlike our European friends we learned from WW1,WW2.....appeasment is the same as doing nothing. We did nothing with Korea. And i dont want to hear about that one inspector in N.Korea watching the whole country while they were building the Bomb. Idiots, excuse me Politicians. Clinton and Bush get a F for Failure.
I disagree. Under Clinton's administration NK was still pursuing nukes, but it was known about and it was uranium they were working with. The plutonium remained under seal until after Bush took office and escalated the situation to the point that the inspectors were thrown out and the plutonium storage seals (which the UN were monitoring) were broken. Now NK, while still years away from producing a uranium bomb, are in possesion of a couple to several plutonium bombs. See, plutonium is easily converted to bomb material, while uranium isn't. Because Bush doesn't understand that difference the way Clinton did, we are now faced with a nuclear armed NK.

Perhaps we can initiate a WMD buyback program. ;)
 

Dont Hurt Me

macrumors 603
Dec 21, 2002
6,056
6
Yahooville S.C.
Mactastic i love your Democratic spin, so partisan its amazing. N.K. was building the bomb right under the Clintons administrations & U.N noses. When Bush came in it made them beat their chest and admit they had broken all that paperwork :rolleyes: I know Bush is the root of all evil in the world for you but lets stop the spin. What was the U.N. doing while N.Korea was getting the bomb? oh yeah the one inspector :rolleyes: Please the U.S has no confidence in the U.N. Just look at the scandals. Meanwhile Iran is working on it. What do you do Mactastic? close your eyes? ignore it and it goes away? Pretend it doesnt exist ? Encourage everyone to have one?
 

mactastic

macrumors 68040
Apr 24, 2003
3,647
661
Colly-fornia
Dont Hurt Me said:
Mactastic i love your Democratic spin, so partisan its amazing. N.K. was building the bomb right under the Clintons administrations & U.N noses. When Bush came in it made them beat their chest and admit they had broken all that paperwork :rolleyes: I know Bush is the root of all evil in the world for you but lets stop the spin. What was the U.N. doing while N.Korea was getting the bomb? oh yeah the one inspector :rolleyes: Please the U.S has no confidence in the U.N. Just look at the scandals. Meanwhile Iran is working on it. What do you do Mactastic? close your eyes? ignore it and it goes away? Pretend it doesnt exist ? Encourage everyone to have one?
No I encourage no one to have one. And it is not partisan spin to say that Clinton did a better job at containing the NK threat than Bush. You should know me well enough to know I'm no Democratic advocate.

And where do you get this 'One inpector rolleyes' thing? There were cameras monitoring the entrance to each storage facility 24/7. There were seals on the door from the UN itself. I find references to a 'team' from the IAEA being kicked out. The material was known about and contained.

This will give you an idea of what I'm talking about. Yes it's slanted left and the guy obviously doesn't like Bush much, but the timeline is important and he lays it out well.

This seems important:
It is much easier to make low-enriched uranium (LEU)--the fuel needed to power light-water plutonium reactors--than it is to make weapons-grade highly enriched uranium (HEU), as Washington has accused Pyongyang of doing. A relatively small number of centrifuges is needed to make LEU, but the production of HEU in quantities sufficient for nuclear weapons requires the continuous operation of hundreds--or thousands--of centrifuges over a long period. Richard Garwin, a respected nuclear scientist, has estimated that 1,300 high-performance centrifuges would have to operate full time for three years to make the 60 kilograms of fissile material needed for a basic ("gun-type") nuclear weapon. Accomplishing that would require an enormous sustained input of electricity, without fluctuation or interruption. Moreover, the operation of a multi-centrifuge "cascade" requires a high-powered motor with a speed twice that of a MiG-21 jet engine. North Korea cannot produce engines even for its Russian-supplied MiGs, and it has only limited, highly unreliable electricity capabilities. It is therefore unlikely that the country is able at present to build or operate the equipment needed, over a long period, to produce weapons-grade uranium.
The NK threat was fairly well contained when Clinton left office. Perfect? No. Better than Bush? Most def. Yes they were pursuing it covertly still, but that's to be expected isn't it? I would imagine the US has a few 'black' labs where extra-legal weapons are investigated. The trick is to make the process so onerous that it is detected early on (like uranium enrichment would be) and the international community can step in to pressure the country's leaders. If that doesn't work more aggressive steps can be taken. But the process takes so long that everyone has time to deal with it. Plutonium enrichment blows all that out of the water.
 

Dont Hurt Me

macrumors 603
Dec 21, 2002
6,056
6
Yahooville S.C.
Thanks for the answer and i agree clinton was better but what about Iran. we do nothing or do we do something? The world must engage Iran and its desire for Nukes. Its not like little surrounded Israel is just going to attack these guys but thats the spin. I dont see anyone knocking on Irans door except us if they dont drop the program.
 

mactastic

macrumors 68040
Apr 24, 2003
3,647
661
Colly-fornia
Dont Hurt Me said:
Thanks for the answer and i agree clinton was better but what about Iran. we do nothing or do we do something? The world must engage Iran and its desire for Nukes. Its not like little surrounded Israel is just going to attack these guys but thats the spin. I dont see anyone knocking on Irans door except us if they dont drop the program.
There are no good answers. But until we're working to eliminate nukes, not just prevent those that don't have them from getting them, we won't get far IMO.

Plus, someday I forsee people being able to make nukes pretty easily. The technology is already spreading pretty fast. It's not going to be countries that will be the threat, it will be groups or individuals with no country to lose.
 

zimv20

macrumors 601
Original poster
Jul 18, 2002
4,388
7
toronto
mactastic said:
someday I forsee people being able to make nukes pretty easily. The technology is already spreading pretty fast. It's not going to be countries that will be the threat, it will be groups or individuals with no country to lose.
well, that's a cheery thought. how long until the NRA weighs in?
 

miloblithe

macrumors 68020
Nov 14, 2003
2,076
28
Washington, DC
The technology is one thing. The materials, resources, and machining is another. I think it'll be a while before anything other than a state could realistically put it all together.