Israel to Nuke Iran's Nukes?

Iran: Threaten Us and We'll Nuke You  Bring it on. Seems to be the order of the day.

Drudge is reporting  that Israel has drawn up secret plans to destroy Iran's uranium enrichment facilities with tactical nuclear weapons, the SUNDAY TIMES of London here is planning to report, British media sources tell DRUDGE... MORE... PAPER: ISRAEL PLANS NUCLEAR STRIKE ON IRAN

If it's true, what Jewish leftard leaked it.? Deserves a life sentence for treason along with this bastard.

Larwyn sent me  OakLeaf's post yesterday, Bush Shuffles the Deck, on how Bush had thrown off all the tradition by appointing an Admiral  to Centcom.  Admirals belonged in Pacific command.  Iraq land war.

Larwyn adds,

What about Iran? Did everyone miss all the war ships already in Gulf or streaming to there - sure they were going to coordinate with Israel in the Med etc under command of Army general, angry he doesn't have any Crusaders (LOL) in Iraq.

Is it a joint exercise  perhaps? With Israel taking the media hit because the leftwing American press is soooo out of control?

UPDATE: From Freedman at the It Shines for Blog;

Up Secret Plans to Destroy Iran's Nuclear Plants

Drudge is reporting that tomorrow's Sunday Times (London) will report that "Israel has drawn up secret plans to destroy Iran's uranium enrichment facilities with tactical nuclear weapons."

This follows Tel Aviv University's National Security Studies annual Middle East Strategic Balance report (known as the 'bible' to military analysts) that concluded that Israel "should have attacked the nuclear facilities in Iran yesterday, or tomorrow at the latest."

In November, Israel's newly installed Deputy Minister of Defense, Ephraim Sneh, said that Israel must stop Iran's drive for nuclear weapons "at all costs" and warned that "I consider it a last resort. But even the last resort is sometimes the only resort." Prime Minister Olmert has signalled his support for an attack in the past (see here).

That Israel plans to attack Iran isn't new. The Sunday Times itself reported on March 13, 2005, that:

ISRAEL has drawn up secret plans for a combined air and ground attack on targets in Iran if diplomacy fails to halt the Iranian nuclear programme. The inner cabinet of Ariel Sharon, the Israeli prime minister, gave "initial authorisation" for an attack at a private meeting last month on his ranch in the Negev desert.

Israeli forces have used a mock-up of Iran's Natanz uranium enrichment plant in the desert to practise destroying it. Their tactics include raids by Israel's elite Shaldag (Kingfisher) commando unit and airstrikes by F-15 jets from 69 Squadron, using bunker-busting bombs to penetrate underground facilities.

The plans have been discussed with American officials who are said to have indicated provisionally that they would not stand in Israel's way if all international efforts to halt Iranian nuclear projects failed.

Will President Bush join Israel's strike? The Pentagon also has drawn up plans to strike at Iran. And recently NATO has signalled it is preparing to take on Iran.

Michael Oren thinks President Bush won't sanction an Israeli attack on Iran. Meantime other reports quote President Bush saying that he would "understand" an Israeli strike. David Frum and others think an attack on Iran won't happen. We outline here why we think it will.

Russia, meantime, is helping to defend Iran from attack.

UPDATE: Kim over at Wizbang has the best blog roundup here

UPDATE: Never forget this. And another thing, Iran was referred to the Security Council a year ago. A year ago, and we finally have toothless, weak sanctions. The diplomacy channels are exhausted.

UPDATE: More on the Iran's Secret Plan For Mayhem from Pastorius here.

We cannot 'solve' the Iraqi problem without regime change in Iran.

Those of you who have borne with me for the last few years will not be surprised to hear this; what's new is the apparently irrefutable evidence that has now providentially fallen into our hands. The policy makers will not like this evidence, because it drives them in a direction they do not wish to go. I am told that, at first, there was a concerted effort, primarily but by no means exclusively from the intel crowd, to sit on the evidence, to prevent it from reaching the highest levels. But the information was too explosive, and it is now circulating throughout the bureaucracy.

I have little sympathy for those who have avoided the obvious necessity of confronting Iran, however I do understand the concerns of military leaders, such as General Abizaid, who are doing everything in their considerable power to avoid a two-front war. But I do not think we need massive military power to bring down the mullahs, and in any event we now have a three-front war: within Iraq, and with both Iran and Syria. So General Abizaid's objection is beside the point. We are in a big war, and we cannot fight it by playing defense in Iraq. That is a sucker's game. And I hope the president realizes this at last, and that he finds himself some generals who also realize it, and finally demands a strategy for victory.

And now, just days later, General Abizaid has been dismissed by Bush, and a Navy man has been installed to head Central Command. A Navy man to head the ground war in Iraq?

UPDATE: Deb sent me more on the buildup;

And the White House is making sure that Adm. Fallon has plenty of resources to deploy, a veritable buildup, the second in four months, in the Persian Gulf and other waters opposite Iran. The USS John C. Stennis strike group is heading for the Persian Gulf with a mighty air arm of 9-10 fighter-bomber squadrons. Saturday, some sources reported that another task force, the USS Ronald Reagan Strike Group, had been ordered out of Sand Diego on Jan. 4 and was heading in the same direction.

Military observers in the US and Middle East noted that the group's commander, Rear Adm. Michael H. Miller, reiterated: "When we deploy for real-world operations, Carrier Strike Group 7 will be an example of how the Navy is able to carry out our mission any time, anywhere in the world."

The original announcement that the Stennis strike group will this month join the USS Dwight Eisenhower aircraft carrier group and USS Boxer strike force in the Persian Gulf described the deployment "as a warning to Syria and Iran" in face of acts seen as provocative, and to give commanders more flexibility in the region.

Deployment of the Stennis group puts a total of 16,000 US sailors in the region as well as another nuclear carrier and 7 escort warships, 10 air squadrons, 2 submarines and helicopters to support amphibious landings on enemy soil.

This massed naval, air and marine forces assembled should provide credible evidence of the lengths the United States is prepared to go to keep Iran, Syria or Hizballah from interfering with the all-out American attempt to stabilize Iraq. More at Debka here.

UPDATE: Deny deny deny.

Comments

[clyde]

I'm not surprised at this, only that it's taken so long for Israel to decide to do something about the idiot in Iran. Since no one else in the world is going to, least of all the U.N., I say give it a shot. Damn well puts the Arabs on notice that if you keep on screwing with Israel, there's a heavy price to pay.

[Joseph]

This is like music to my ears. And it's about time! Iran must be made to understand, and clearly, that there will indeed be a hellish nightmare to pay if they do not cease and disist.

Tyrants understand nothing less than this. They respect only this.

[biorabbi]

It is a lead, but who leaked it? Why?

Perhaps Israel leaked this plan herself to put pressure on the Iranians, telegraphing them, all facets of the Iranian government, military, that there is a price to be paid.

Somehow I believe that if Israel attacks, it won't be according to the script 'supplied' to the tabloids.

Perhaps the attack will come by stealth, by some surprise 'delta' force overland through Kurdistan. Who knows, but, IMHO, this is a smart move by Israel(for a change): pitting Iranian against Iranian . . . for all are not on the same page as their anti-semite in chief. Just food for thought.

Another piece of food for thought: Israel's humanit vis-a-vis Iran is top notch. There are many ethnic minorities who might like to reak some revenge within Iran itself.

Also, what can they do if struck? The regime will be revealed to have no clothes on, bringing destruction on herself, possibly even toppled. There is a secular-mullah divide within Iran that such a story will exploit.

[Pamela Geller]

Yes bio, but even Bolton admits in his remarks here yesterday) said all the mullahs (even those at odds) are on the same page when it comes to nuclear weaponry.

[Joseph]

Have to disagree with Bolton on that. I'll see if I can find something to post here for you. But I'm telling you there are certain people, of high rank, who are scared of what the future portends for Iran because of Ahmadinejad. They want him dead. It would be nice if that happened and soon.

[biorabbi]

True. Pam, it is true; Iranian society is united over becoming a nuclear power . . . even during the Shah's reign, but Iranian society is not united; there is still a strong secular component, ethnic divisions that can be exploited. Note the huge heroin problem in the Mullah's paradise. Why? Because of the corruption and decay in the Mullah's state. When you 'freak' things up, what better bogeyman than Israel . . . to unite the masses.

But if the only uniting element in your society is hatred of Israel, what happens when Israel clocks your nuclear capacity back decades? What do you do then except wait for the 12'th Iman.

I'd also like to negate the "oil" threat of action against Iran, or even in an all out civil war. Didn't a million Shia and Sunni die in the last great Iranian-Iraqi civil war? Oil prices were fairly stable. The 'great' irony of the oil weapon is it is a two-edged sword. 'They' need us as much as 'we' need them.

Another point to consider . . . will our Sunni 'friends' in the region really lose any sleep over the bitch slap against Iran? Seems to me the Israelis and the Saudis and the gulf states are on the same page here in their heart of hearts.

There are all sorts of myths concerning Israel. The myth of Israeli supremecy after '67. The shattered myth in the latest Lebanese war where Israel is now viewed by some as a paper tiger. Both are bs. Israel is strong and can take care of herself. It is hard to win an 'insurgent' war(Algeria, Viet Nam, Iraq, Lebanon). But pin point strikes against defined Iranian positions is another matter.

One final point that many here fail to remember: Israel or whomever does not have to 'destroy' the Iranian nuclear program. By definition, this is not possible. It is possible and probable to set the Mullah's back a few decades. And when this happens, who will the Iranians blame? Might their society split, with some blaming the regime for mucking things up? Mr. Hussein never was able to reconstitute his nuclear program in a 'meaningful' way after those brave pilots gutted his reactor.

[Joseph]

The single most critical element In the Iranian program is the centrifuge facility at Natanz (also known as the Esfahan enrichment facility). This would be the primary target of importance.

Also, there will be no ground troops used. There are two primary options that have been considered.

1) Flying over Saudi Arabia:

F-15Is depart southern Israel, enter Saudi airspace from the Gulf of ‘Aqabah, fly 800 miles of Saudi airspace to the Persian Gulf and then 300 miles into Iran.

2) Flying over Iraq:

The aircraft depart southern Israel, cross 300 to 400 miles of Saudi airspace or a combination of Jordanian and Saudi airspace, and enter Iraqi airspace as soon as possible, continue across 500 miles of Iraq to the Persian Gulf and then on to Natanz.

Neither option is without risk but those are the two most likely. Also, A nuclear-armed Iran is indeed seen by the Saudis as a potential threat to them as well. They would probably allow their airspace to be violated if it came to that.

Still disagree about a united concensus within Iran over the nuclear program. Who would dare speak out?

[Cubed]

This contingency plan is indeed sweet music.

It's no "leak," however; it is well and widely known that every country has multiple contingency plans. One of ours, as well as one of Israel's, includes the anihilation of Iran, up to and including the use of nukes, if necessary.

That being said, it's still sweet music!

[Joseph]

Here is a quick link that shows some indication that all is not well between the mullahs:

http://regimechangeiniran.com/2006/01/the-mullah-wars/

There is more conflict going on than I think is being reported. I'll look around some more.

[clyde]

The only reasons Israel and the United States are viewed as "paper tigers" is Political Correctness. If both countries' armies were allowed to do what they are in existence for (i.e. kill the shit out of people) then this misconception wouldn't exist.

[tazzerman2000]

Gen. William Techumsa Sherman was asked why he decimated the South in his famous "March to the Sea" at the end of the Civil War. His answer was revealing and I paraphrase: "Because those I killed were the most zealous ideologues of the Confederacy who would never have accepted the Union under any circumstances and would have chafed and fought guerilla warfare until we killed them anyway."

Prophetic huh?

The question is this, do we have the guts to do what is needed to be done or will the leftards and the media hamstring us and Israel?

Iran is the enemy and always has been. We all know it. Even without the nukes, Iran has been fighting an overt war with us ever since they took our embassy in Tehran. They might be doing things behind the scenes but really now, how many times do we have to hear them say, "death to America" before we actually believe it?

Shermans view is 100% valid here. The most zealous ideologues of Iran will NEVER accept Israel or the notion of non-sharia law based Arab nations... NEVER!

How much longer will it take for us to realize this?

[eavesdropper]

Our Navy has ships, sailors, Marines, and pilots in the Persian Gulf, Red Sea, and the Med.

Every skipper wants to grab a bullhorn and say, "The is the USA, we have you surrounded, throw down your nukes and come out with your hands up."

[majdvmphd]

Can you say Entebbe? How about Baghdad, 1981? Those rag heads will never learn.