Per Rønne skrev:
> I dagens /Sunday Telegraph/ kan man på:
>
> <
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/02/12/wiran12
> .xml&sSheet=/portal/2006/02/12/ixportaltop.html>
>
> set at Pentagon skulle planlægge et militært angreb på Irans
> atom-faciliteter:
>
> ==
> US prepares military blitz against Iran's nuclear sites
> By Philip Sherwell in Washington
> (Filed: 12/02/2006)
>
> Strategists at the Pentagon are drawing up plans for devastating bombing
> raids backed by submarine-launched ballistic missile attacks against
> Iran's nuclear sites as a "last resort" to block Teheran's efforts to
> develop an atomic bomb.
>
Der foreligger ikke nogen beviser på, at Iran er i færd med at
udvikle atomvåben, det er en formodning. Det er dog nok ikke
usandsynligt, at de er det - USA har i flere år presset dem op
et hjørne, så *enhver* iransk regering ville overveje det. De er
jo for øjeblikket nærmest omringet af amerikansk militær, i
Afghanistan og Irak.
> Central Command and Strategic Command planners are identifying targets,
> assessing weapon-loads and working on logistics for an operation, the
> Sunday Telegraph has learnt.
>
> They are reporting to the office of Donald Rumsfeld, the defence
> secretary, as America updates plans for action if the diplomatic
> offensive fails to thwart the Islamic republic's nuclear bomb ambitions.
> Teheran claims that it is developing only a civilian energy programme.
>
> "This is more than just the standard military contingency assessment,"
> said a senior Pentagon adviser. "This has taken on much greater urgency
> in recent months."
>
> The prospect of military action could put Washington at odds with
> Britain which fears that an attack would spark violence across the
> Middle East, reprisals in the West and may not cripple Teheran's nuclear
> programme. But the steady flow of disclosures about Iran's secret
> nuclear operations and the virulent anti-Israeli threats of President
> Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has prompted the fresh assessment of military
> options by Washington. The most likely strategy would involve aerial
> bombardment by long-distance B2 bombers, each armed with up to 40,000lb
> of precision weapons, including the latest bunker-busting devices. They
> would fly from bases in Missouri with mid-air refuelling.
>
> The Bush administration has recently announced plans to add conventional
> ballistic missiles to the armoury of its nuclear Trident submarines
> within the next two years. If ready in time, they would also form part
> of the plan of attack.
>
> Teheran has dispersed its nuclear plants, burying some deep underground,
> and has recently increased its air defences, but Pentagon planners
> believe that the raids could seriously set back Iran's nuclear
> programme.
>
> Iran was last weekend reported to the United Nations Security Council by
> the International Atomic Energy Agency for its banned nuclear
> activities. Teheran reacted by announcing that it would resume
> full-scale uranium enrichment - producing material that could arm
> nuclear devices.
>
> The White House says that it wants a diplomatic solution to the
> stand-off, but President George W Bush has refused to rule out military
> action and reaffirmed last weekend that Iran's nuclear ambitions "will
> not be tolerated".
>
> Sen John McCain, the Republican front-runner to succeed Mr Bush in 2008,
> has advocated military strikes as a last resort. He said recently:
> "There is only only one thing worse than the United States exercising a
> military option and that is a nuclear-armed Iran."
>
Forkert! Der er kun en ting, der er farligere end et Iran med
atomvåben, og det er et amerikansk militært angreb på Iran.
> Senator Joe Lieberman, a Democrat, has made the same case and Mr Bush is
> expected to be faced by the decision within two years.
>
> By then, Iran will be close to acquiring the knowledge to make an atomic
> bomb, although the construction will take longer. The President will not
> want to be seen as leaving the White House having allowed Iran's
> ayatollahs to go atomic.
>
> In Teheran yesterday, crowds celebrating the anniversary of the 1979
> Islamic revolution chanted "Nuclear technology is our inalienable right"
> and cheered Mr Ahmadinejad when he said that Iran may reconsider
> membership of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
>
> He was defiant over possible economic sanctions.
> ==
>
> Tjae, det virker meget sandsynligt, og sandsynligvis vil det også være
> bedre på den måde at stoppe galningene i Teheran, end at tillade dem at
> udvikle bomben.
>
> Forudsat, naturligvis, at man er i stand til at uskadeliggøre
> programmet. Sandsynligvis vil det samtidig betyde udslettelsen af det
> iranske flyvåben og den iranske flåde.
Glemmer du ikke den iranske *hær* som vist nok er ret stor?
Hvad nu hvis den f.eks. går ind over grænsen til Irak?
Vil irakiske shia-muslimer kæmpe imod den, eller vil de ikke
snarere *alliere* sig med den, for at få smidt besættelsesmagten
USA ud af Irak?
--
Mogens Michaelsen
http://mogmichs.blogspot.com/