BBC: U.S. plans for attack on Iran revealed (again)

posted at 5:58 pm on February 19, 2007 by Allahpundit

Quite the bombshell they’ve got this afternoon. Not only is it uselessly vague, but this is at least the sixth time the plans have been “revealed”: the Daily Telegraph promised last-resort missile strikes last February, then Sy Hersh tossed tactical nukes into the mix for the New Yorker, then Raw Story promised a punishing carrier/B-2 campaign, then last month Reuters warned of a comprehensive attack against the Iranian air force, subs, missile batteries, etc., and then last week the Guardian fretted that targets had been selected and military assets put in place. I probably missed another half-dozen major media “revelations” between summer and winter of ’06, but why bother digging them up? They all say the same thing: a sustained attack targeting not just the Iranian nuclear plants but the country’s major military targets and infrastructure. Which, logically, is the only kind of attack you could and should wage if you’re going to strike.

So here’s the Beeb blowing the lid off a story whose lid has been blown off again and again and again:

US contingency plans for air strikes on Iran extend beyond nuclear sites and include most of the country’s military infrastructure, the BBC has learned.

It is understood that any such attack – if ordered – would target Iranian air bases, naval bases, missile facilities and command-and-control centres.

The US insists it is not planning to attack, and is trying to persuade Tehran to stop uranium enrichment…

But diplomatic sources have told the BBC that as a fallback plan, senior officials at Central Command in Florida have already selected their target sets inside Iran.

BBC security correspondent Frank Gardner says the trigger for such an attack reportedly includes any confirmation that Iran was developing a nuclear weapon – which it denies.

Alternatively, our correspondent adds, a high-casualty attack on US forces in neighbouring Iraq could also trigger a bombing campaign if it were traced directly back to Tehran.

Exit question: When the nutroots seize on that last sentence, as they inevitably will and must, will they opt for the Gulf of Tonkin as their historical analogy of choice or the Reichstag fire?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

I’m so happy they have the full story this time.

JammieWearingFool on February 19, 2007 at 6:04 PM

I have secret plans to attack my neighbors if they play loud music at 2 am again :(

lorien1973 on February 19, 2007 at 6:06 PM

we’ve got alot of these fracking battle plans just laying around for people to take. Awfully….convenient for liberal media outlets

Defector01 on February 19, 2007 at 6:08 PM

Useful idiot press? Deliberate misinformation? Oh, what fun.

shaken on February 19, 2007 at 6:11 PM

I’d just start lobbing cruise missiles at their refineries to reduce their domestic gas production. Then Halliburton could sell them gas for a huge profit.

Alternate plan would be to let the Russians knock out the refineries for the right to sell them overpriced gas.

Either way the govt has to spend Hezbollah’s allowance subsidizing more of the country’s gas supply or deal with an irate populace.

rw on February 19, 2007 at 6:12 PM

the Daily Telegraph promised last-resort missile strikes last February, then Sy Hersh tossed tactical nukes into the mix for the New Yorker, then Raw Story promised a punishing carrier/B-52 campaign, then last month Reuters warned of a comprehensive attack against the Iranian air force, subs, missile batteries, etc., and then last week the Guardian fretted that targets had been selected and military assets put in place.

Maybe they’re all right!

see-dubya on February 19, 2007 at 6:12 PM

Well then, after all that we can assume every last Iranian is dead, and the threat of future attacks from them reduced to zero. But, with the MSM loath to report any Bush victory, we,ll never hear about it.

Now get back to work.

Scotsman on February 19, 2007 at 6:14 PM

Do they have Sylvia Browne working for them?

Candy Slice on February 19, 2007 at 6:14 PM

“…the BBC has learned made up…”

“…But diplomatic sources have told We made up this part totally, false but true…”

“But diplomatic sources have told the BBC that as a fallback plan, senior officials at Central Command in Florida have already selected their target sets inside Iran.” LIAR The war college is just a think tank that plans scenerios for EVERY contingency. They already had the plan for Iraq years before Bush ordered it. It’s their job to make a hypothetical but accurate plan for just this type of scenerio…

“Frank Gardner ” Never heard of him, is he a friend of Jamil’s? This is also a weak attempt to give legitamacy to a fake story.

“were traced directly back to Tehran.” You have just reworded Bush’s speaches.

Mazztek on February 19, 2007 at 6:19 PM

exit q; Gulf of Tonkin, the ‘Myth’ of Pearl Harbor, and the Maine all rolled up into one. Throw in too many bullets in too few seconds and ShaZam instant conspiracy proof. Robespiere will march on DC. The world will be a better place.

Limerick on February 19, 2007 at 6:35 PM

Whether or not the lying, leftist, treasonous media is “telegraphing” a US strike or not, should not be of concern.

The overwhelming supremacy of the United States (even excluding our nuclear arsenal) militarily, means that there is little that Iran could do to interfere with a successful strike against them. We outclass them that much. Add in an unstopable SLBM attack and Iran becomes a helpless kitten in the jaws of a pit bull.

I don’t understand the media motive in doing publishing these stories. Are they really trying to warn Iran? Or is this a carefully laid disinformation plot on our part.

How many wrong “reports” of an impending attack will it take before the “Peter and the Wolf” syndrome takes over in Iran?

How many times will they “stand to” expecting a US attack based upon these media reports, before Iran’s leadership becomes complacent at a lower readiness posture? And then what will they do when the traitors in the press finally guess right?

Additionally, how many times will it take before the Sy Hersh lie-pig cabal are totally discredited?

georgej on February 19, 2007 at 6:51 PM

Nobody knows anything but newspapers have to be sold.

aengus on February 19, 2007 at 6:52 PM

No, those are our plans to attack China! Silly reporters can’t steal the right fake plans.

Nethicus on February 19, 2007 at 6:53 PM

So, who thinks this sudden spate of “ready and willing” articles is part of our diplomacy? Seems to be a lot of “unnamed officials” wagging their tongues…..

HerrMorgenholz on February 19, 2007 at 6:53 PM

You know the beeeeep they play for the Emergency Broadcast System? This is the Arab-controlled media’s version where they periodically test their ability to disemminate completely bogus news.

If this had been an actual emergency, there would have been a series of news stories to damage the administration’s ability to govern, for example that Britney was Bush’s secret love child.

pedestrian on February 19, 2007 at 6:54 PM

Maybe they’re all right!

see-dubya on February 19, 2007 at 6:12 PM

I’m with see-dubya on this one, their all true. But first, feign a few aggressive movements, catalog the reactions, wear their forces down a little with the stress (i.e. keep them at a high state of readiness), then wait for the “trigger”.

Zorro on February 19, 2007 at 6:58 PM

I was talking about Iran with a more-liberal-leaning friend of mine, and he adamantly feels that Bush should not invade Iran, pretty much no matter what. Even if a high casualty attack happened in Iraq and we think Iran did it, that Mahmoud Ahmedjihad character would have to go on television and claim personal responsibility before any American progressive would even consider some kind of military action against Iran. Since the new standard on prewar intelligence is beyond-reasonable-doubt, we basically have no “Bomb Iran” option at this point – not enough of the public would support it short of irrefutable evidence that Iran had harmed Americans.

The overwhelming supremacy of the United States (even excluding our nuclear arsenal) militarily, means that there is little that Iran could do to interfere with a successful strike against them.

Really? Israel has overwhelming supremacy over Hezbollah…

Enrique on February 19, 2007 at 7:07 PM

But diplomatic sources have told the BBC

Yeah, cause those diplomats know ALL about our operational military plans…

Lets see… diplomatic source… hmmm… washroom attendent at an embassy? and hmmm… it does NOT even say American diplomatic source… could it be an Iranian diplomatic source?

Romeo13 on February 19, 2007 at 7:11 PM

Enrique, you made me smile today, more so than ever before. The public would not and should not be asked about such an attack. Never, ever, would Mr. or Mrs. Clinton even stand for such nonsense. It will just happen, if it does, and we’ll read about it here on HA.

These BBC & all revelations are all amusing, at best. What they are is fodder for the European, U.N. and leftie consumption, simply to have a chance to rant at Mr. Bush and to create faux significance for themselves.

Even Mr. Bush saying “I have no plans to attack Iran” is amusing. None such plans/actions w/b revealed to anyone remotely connected to the media (which is a constant hemmorhoid for them), and shouldn’t.

Entelechy on February 19, 2007 at 7:17 PM

I think it’s an attempt to befuddle the Iranains by throwing every possible attack plan ever conceived out for anyone to print. In the rush to prepare for everything … their military will just collapse from exhaustion.

darwin on February 19, 2007 at 7:39 PM

A bit of saber rattling may be a good thing when Iran is concerned. It may give them an idea of how much damaged the United States can inflict on them at the touch of a button.

It is unfortunate that we have the Left to inflict their values on the United States at this time. If not for our biggest weakness Iran would be cowering behind their borders begging for mercy. It would be amazing how cooperative Iran would become if they were threatened with punitive action by a superpower unencumbered by the Left.

Regan had it right. The only thing the Islamofacist responds to is overwhelming force and the will to use it.

I would hope that if there were aggressive action with Iran it would punitive in nature, with no effort to rebuild their country after reducing it to ashes and putting them in the stoneage. It would be interesting to see how much money the Russians could get from them to rebuild from a smoldering ruin.

Many posts have expressed wishful thinking, and satisfaction, of using the force of a Superpower on a belligerant enemy. Perhaps this scenerio may yet well play out in that direction. If it does mark my words: If Iran is confronted with a Superpower that has the will to fight, especially if it’s intent is punitive, they will be the most cooperative people you have ever met in the blink of an eye.

omegaram on February 19, 2007 at 7:45 PM

Let’s try this, with a little view of history…… (sarcasim slightly on), circa 1940’s before the D-day offensive….

US contingency plans for air strikes on Iran Germany extend beyond nuclear sites and include most of the country’s military infrastructure, the BBC has learned.

It is understood that any such attack – if ordered – would target Iranian German air bases, naval bases, missile facilities and command-and-control centres.

The US insists it is not planning to attack, and is trying to persuade Tehran Berlin to stop uranium enrichment…

But diplomatic sources have told the BBC that as a fallback plan, senior officials at Central Command in Florida have already selected their target sets inside Iran Germany.

BBC security correspondent Frank Gardner says the trigger for such an attack reportedly includes any confirmation that Iran Germany was developing a nuclear weapon – which it denies.

Alternatively, our correspondent adds, a high-casualty attack on US forces in neighbouring Iraq Great Britan, could also trigger a bombing campaign if it were traced directly back to Tehran Berlin.

There, that’s better………

PinkyBigglesworth on February 19, 2007 at 9:18 PM

We are not going to attack Iran militarily. Instead, we are just going to send endless waves of liberal pundits and congresspersons over to promise that we will never attack them. Within months, Iran will beg us to stop this assault and offer to do anything we ask if we will just keep Jimmy Carter here.

old_dawg on February 19, 2007 at 9:34 PM

So here’s the Beeb blowing the lid off a story whose lid has been blown off again and again and again:

What’s old is “new” again. Huzzah!

thedecider on February 19, 2007 at 9:35 PM

Makes me want to reveal by butt against the glass of their front door.

– The Cat

MirCat on February 19, 2007 at 10:39 PM

The BBC (on PBS) was just showing nifty animations of B-2’s zooming over various CGI Iranian targets and explaining just how the ayatollahs’ hardened defenses are meaningless against the superior technology of the U.S. air and naval forces’s weaponry.

And that there are two days left for Iran to accept the U.N. demand to cease nuclear arms research / production.

Psy-ops, ho!

What’s the Persian word for adult diapers?

Size Mahmoud.

profitsbeard on February 19, 2007 at 11:29 PM

Me: “The overwhelming supremacy of the United States (even excluding our nuclear arsenal) militarily, means that there is little that Iran could do to interfere with a successful strike against them.”

Enrique: “Really? Israel has overwhelming supremacy over Hezbollah…”

Yes. Really.

georgej on February 20, 2007 at 2:59 AM

What, does the media need another war to write about? Are they bored with Iraq? They’ve been whoring this storyline for about two years now. Anyone remember when Scott Ritter said the US would attack Iran in June 2005? Yeah… The nutroots believed him then, and they continue to believe the story being sold to them. That the attack never seems to get around to happening doesn’t quite bother them so much. Sort of like the resignation/indictment of Dick Cheney (or Karl Rove). It’s totally gonna happen! Just wait for it!

You know, along with Bush’s Nazi police state and all the other things they’ve been predicting. Oh, oh, and attacking Syria. Definitely going to happen. Just wait.

Seixon on February 20, 2007 at 3:50 AM

I hear the miltary also has plans to take over Canada using only sporks and harsh language.

Seriously though, the military would be remiss in its duty if it didn’t have at least a dozen different plans to deal with every “hot spot” in the world. It doesn’t mean the administration is even considering any of them. They’re “contingency plans”, just in case something unforseen happens. Like Al Gore is right and we need more land further north to avoid the heat. The president can just make a call and say, “Implement the spork plan!”

taznar on February 20, 2007 at 9:59 AM

it’s an OUTRAGE!!!

ahhh… I feel so … liberal.

One Angry Christian on February 20, 2007 at 12:04 PM

will they opt for the Gulf of Tonkin as their historical analogy of choice or the Reichstag fire?

or?

major john on February 20, 2007 at 2:04 PM