EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
US Military 'Ready to Engage in a Conflict with Iran'
America's most senior military official has indicated that the country is ready to engage in a conflict with Iran, if President Barack Obama were to give the signal.
Tensions have been growing in the region following international condemnation over Tehran's growing nuclear ambitions.
Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and President Barack Obama. (Photo: Reuters/EPA)
Last month, Britain's ambassador to Iran was expelled from the country following attacks on the British Embassy. The US is also involved in a standoff over a downed spy drone, which President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has refused to return despite America's requests.
General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the US joint chiefs of staff, said that the US military had reached a point where they were ready to execute force against Iran if necessary.
In an interview with US media in Afghanistan he said: "We are examining a range of options. I'm satisfied that the options that we are developing are evolving to a point that they would be executable if necessary."
His comments come just days after Leon Panetta, US Secretary of Defense, said "no options were off the table" in stopping Iran develop a nuclear weapon. Dempsey said he had been quietly leading behind the scenes preparations for an attack against Tehran but said a war with the nation would be a "tragedy".
"My biggest worry is that it may miscalculate our resolve. Any miscalculation could mean that we are drawn into conflict and that would be a tragedy for the region and the world," he said.
Asked whether the US military is collecting information on the Middle Eastern nation via spy drones, Gen Dempsey said it would be "imprudent" for them not to attempt to find out what they were doing but stopped short of saying they had used unmanned aircraft.
"If you are asking are we gathering intelligence against Iran in a variety of means, the answer is of course," he said. "It would be imprudent of us not to understand what a nation which has declared itself an adversary of the United States is doing."
Gen Dempsey said the US is collaborating with Israel in its intelligence gathering but reiterated that there are no guarantees the Israelis would inform the US before launching an attack.
"We are trying to establish some confidence on the part of the Israelis that we recognize their concerns and are collaborating with them on addressing them," he said.
Leon Panetta, the Secretary of Defense, said this week that the US was prepared to step in to prevent Tehran realizing its nuclear ambitions. He estimated that the country was only a year away from reaching its goal.
"The United States does not want Iran to develop a nuclear weapon," he said. "That is a red line for us and that is a red line for the Israelis. If we have to do it we will do it. If they proceed and we get intelligence that they are proceeding in developing a nuclear weapon then we will take whatever steps necessary to stop them. There are no options that are off the table."
If Iran were to gain a nuclear weapon, it could trigger a nuclear arms race in the Middle East with officials in Saudi Arabia already saying they will look towards developing nuclear capabilities if the Iranians arm themselves.
Further evidence of US reconnaissance missions in the region include the indictment of several alleged CIA spies.
In May this year, Iran's intelligence ministry announced the arrest of 30 CIA "spies" it claimed were conducting sabotage missions.
Another 15 alleged US-Israeli spies were indicted earlier this month and this week Iranian state television showed clips of ex-US Marine Amir Hekmati allegedly confessing to espionage.
Earlier this month, the EU agreed to impose new sanctions against 180 officials in Tehran in an attempt to curtail the nation's nuclear program. EU foreign ministers also said they were looking at additional measures to impose on Tehran's energy sector.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
63 Comments so far
Show AllSo the US first violates international law – and our own law under the Constitution – by illegally invading the airspace of a sovereign nation with our little spy drone. Then when that sovereign nation shoots down said illegal spy drone and keeps it (which is EXACTLY what the U.S. would do if, say, China flew a spy plane into our air space), we then declare we are going to violate the UN Charter, the Nuremburg Charter, and our own Constitution as signatory to those treaties, thus making them US law, by threatening to attack Iran. And in all likelihood within at most two years, we will follow through and violate even more laws by actually attacking that country, which has never even lifted a finger towards the U.S.
Got it. Just wanted to make sure I understood that the U.S. is – once more as always – breaking every law in sight and threatening to invade yet another Arab nation. Got it.
Small correction - Iran is not an Arab nation.
Actually, I hope the U.S. DOES invade Iran. I know it will be bad for the Iranian people, and for that I feel horrible, but it will unite all the rest of the world against the U.S. , push the Arab Spring into turbo-overdrive, increase worldwide hatred and terrorism against the U.S. 10-fold, and most likely be the final nail in the U.S.’s imperial, hegemonic coffin. It won’t be a little picnic like Iraq was. Iran actually has a strong military, an air force, and serious hardware, and its citizens will unite against the US in their hatred for us – and deservedly so. As horrible as it will be, the U.S. needs to get its ass kicked, both militarily and in the free-fall of its worldwide reputation, already in tatters as it is. This will erase all doubt among the rest of the world what a horrible, terrorist, fascist, law-breaking rogue nation the US truly is, and it will accelerate the US’s slide toward oblivion.
For that, I think it will be worth it. Although – again – I wish all the poor Iranian people that will die could leave the country first….
Demonstorm - I almost hate to interrupt this debate you have started with yourself. I think one needs to be careful about predicting that a U.S. attack would unite nations against the US and supercharge the Arab spring. So many countries and leaders have been bought off, the United States continues to wield awesome economic power, and so many Arab leaders have an ingrained habit of ultimately bowing to the US. Such an attack would help bring about the US's demise, but it would not happen at anywhere near the pace that you envision.
slowwalkhome
Good point. Demonstorm offhandedly concedes that "I know it will be bad for the Iranian people..." without acknowledging that if the U.S. were to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities that would mean that Iran's water supply would be contaminated resulting in the deaths of about 500,000 Iranians.
The last thing that an alleged progressive should do is to urge that the United States engage in yet another unjustified military conflict in the Middle East or anywhere else for that matter.
The US doesn't wield lots of economic power. Our economy is now not based in production, it is based on finance and that cannot go on forever. Corporations CHARTERED in our country are doing well, but the domestic economy isn't and things are going to get much worse before they get better. Iraq would be a cakewalk compared to a war with Iran, to say nothing of the horribly immoral & illogical decision that would be. The economic repercussions would be massive and would probably kill off the domestic economy, at least in the long run. Besides, the Arab Spring, OWS and other movements are showing that "leaders" are threatened the world over. Governmental policy across the neoliberal wasteland is increasingly at odds with popular opinion. That can't go on forever either. Either that changes of the we will see one revolution after another in the coming years. The elites haven't given enough people a stake in the system, they will only have force left.
the anglo-american monster's "awesome economic power" is in serious danger, and that is why it wants to attack iran. iran, russia, CHINA, venezuela (world's largest proven oil reserve), and other nations are in the process of creating a financial system which will free them from the monster's dollar-based mess. if that happens, the monster is done.
that is the core of the situation. the rest is smoke and mirrors.
tom arnall
arcata
Demonstorm, I am sorry to disappoint you but forget about US military getting a ass whupping. If Iran want to fight like a big boy, We'll well then just discard what we called the rules of Engagement and deal with them Big boy to Big boy unlike we did in Iraq. I don't think anybody stand a chance with US military if rules of Engagements are removed. Mark my words!
Congratulations, you have just joined the likes of Henry Kissinger, engaging in your own form of realpolitik.
Straight from the DNC troll booth.Proving once again that there is no difference between the Dem and Republican parties.
"it will unite all the rest of the world against the U.S. , push the Arab Spring into turbo-overdrive, increase worldwide hatred and terrorism against the U.S. 10-fold, and most likely be the final nail in the U.S.’s imperial, hegemonic coffin."
That is sort of funny if you really believe that. An attack on Iran would be soundly criticized while more people visit the US every year, buy more from the US every year, cooperate with the US more every year. International opprobrium has not ever translated to lost money for the US and isn't likely to now. Sorry.
"it will unite all the rest of the world against the U.S. , push the Arab Spring into turbo-overdrive, increase worldwide hatred and terrorism against the U.S. 10-fold, and most likely be the final nail in the U.S.’s imperial, hegemonic coffin."
That is sort of funny if you really believe that. An attack on Iran would be soundly criticized while more people visit the US every year, buy more from the US every year, cooperate with the US more every year. International opprobrium has not ever translated to lost money for the US and isn't likely to now. Sorry.
If you say so, Demonstorm. But I don't share your confidence that this prospective bloodbath would have the "silver lining" of uniting a plurality of the world's nations in opposition to the Amerikan Imperium.And I'm not as comfortable as you seem to be with this breezy Bizarro-world General "Buck" Turgidson perspective: "Mr. President, I'm not saying the Iranians wouldn't get their hair mussed..."
Thank you for volunteering 500,000 dead Iranian bodies to pave the road to peace. I am sure that as they tuck their children into bed tonight, the iranian people will look forward to being of service in that way. In the words of Madeiline Albright, and yours, "it would be worth it."
No: Time for the people in the USA to rise up and stop this madness not for Iranians to be yet another sacrificial lamb for American manifest destiny.
I've been saying the same thing on this site for the last four years. How else can you explain the plundering of social security, and every other social program? The money is being diverted into the endless war agenda of the plutocracy via the Obama/Bush Administrations. I guess we are in for a 20-30 year conflict since Iran has a much more robust military machine than did Iraq, including the resolve of its people.
The Pentagon is always engaged in designing wars against every other country in the world, including allies. The statement by this General has been approved by the White House. It is a cog in the "everything is on the table" economic, financial and psychological warfare against Iran. In that context it is merely another shot across A's bow.
"It may miscalculate our resolve". Does that mean we let Iran determine if we go to war? Wouldn't a nuclear arms race be good for the economy? We lived with the Russians for years with thousands of atomic bombs. Remember MAD? Our government is poised to declare a national emergency and remove the last of whatever civil liberties still exist and put all our young people in the military, so they can be the boots on the ground in Iran to protect our oil and gas that just happens to be under Iran. We would be providing jobs so that our youth will be able to pay off their education loans. We should be giving Dempsey and Obama lots of medals for all this.
These sorts of plans on the part of the United States' military merely up its generalized suicidal desperation, which has been on display since its invasion of Afghanistan.
It's only the most conspicuous symptom among many others of the country's inevitable decline and the one percent's flight into a form of hysterical denial, the military being the armed wing of said one percent. When an Empire declines, it tends to intensify its lethal behaviors in a last ditch attempt to reestablish its supremacy.
But "les jeux sont faits," or "alea jacta est": the game is now over, and the only unknown is, to what degree will the Evil Empire take the world down in its own descent into chaos and depravity?
"If Iran were to gain a nuclear weapon, it could trigger a nuclear arms race in the Middle East with officials in Saudi Arabia already saying they will look towards developing nuclear capabilities if the Iranians arm themselves."
Ummm... the nuclear arms race was triggered long ago, and not by Iran.
Developing nuclear bombs is bad, no matter who does it. i'm against it, for what my puny opposition is worth. So i am opposed to the greatest nuclear criminal, the USA, which has done more to "trigger" nuclear proliferation than Iran ever could.
And of course, even taking the US possession and ongoing development of nuclear bombs as a given; even taking the US use of "nuclear diplomacy" (i.e. the use of threats of nuclear attack to achieve political ends, well-documented historically and tantamount to nuclear terrorism) as a given; ummm, isn't there a "Middle East" country that already possesses nuclear bombs, and threatens to use them? Yes, the country that has "triggered" the Middle East nuclear arms race is Israel, that fact is well-known so why would this "news" outlet the Telegraph publish this "analysis" without even noting this basic fact? Because this "news" outlet, like most "news" media, is abjectly complicit in upholding the dominant political mythology, ignoring the multiple "elephants in the room" that have trampled and crapped all over the place but simply cannot be named!
Nothing like a good war to galvanize support during an election year. It could backfire,however, when gas is $15 a gallon. The smart money is investing in depleted uranium. Alas. Of course video games will spring up. Bunker Busters: The End Game, on sale at Amazon.
Yes, another amazing game that parents will buy their kids, put out by the MICC, so that kids can be desensitized to killing.
And when that kid joins the army, mommy will lay awake at night worrying, then cry when kid comes home either mutilated or in a casket.
Then we will see in the obit that kid was doing what he loved to do. Killing people that did nothing to them.
I walk at a cemetery and there are so many flags there. I let my dogs tear them up, or place them upside down as a sign of this country in distress.
Saw a logo with the stars being replaced with corporation's logos on it instead.
Tensions have been growing in the region following international condemnation over Tehran's growing nuclear ambitions.
tensions fueled by propaganda, innuendo and suggestive language meant to ignite unreasoning fear are but "excuses" to continue the war-for-profit machine. seems the phrase "international community" usually refers to a very select few two. one nation's "growing nuclear ambitions" feed another's paranoia. they best way for any of us to abolish terrorism is to stare down our own internal fears of the unknown.
"ridiculos!!!!!!"
I wish to believe our President has more sense than to start another war. I hope the "American people" that all the politicians claim to know and speak for, will not permit our government to declare another war. We should really apologize for violating Iran's space with a drone and exchange spies, as we did with the Soviet Union with our U-2. A friend of mine left Boston and went to Belize until we settle down to enjoy the American Dream we keeping promising ourselves.
The US-sponsored military Junta of 1976 to 1983 _NOT_ Juan Peron, did all the disappearing of people in Argentina. The two could not be more different!
Peron (and fashionable Evita) was a very popular leftist, and freely elected president who fought poverty, defended organized labor, and distanced Argentina from US influence. But, he did become enamored with European fascism later on. See also Huey Long (of Louisiana) for comparable, but bit less leftist US example.
You are wrong. the US *refused* to apologize for the U2 Incident leading to a collapse of a planned summit. I don't see why if we did not apologize then we should now. I mean from the perspective of the elites.
- The US is also involved in a standoff over a downed spy drone, -
Of course, by int'l law:
The USA is a country in a state of war.
Iran is a neutral country in this war.
Armaments entering neutral countries must be interned for the duration of the war.
Obama is demanding that Iran violate int'l law.
So what else in new?
"The USA is a country in a state of war. "
No. It is not. Under international law, acts of war do not start wars, they enable a government to declare war. Until war is declared, there is no legal state of war. Sorry.
Iran is virtually surrounded by US military bases. International sanctions continue to expand. Stuxnet. Aerial surveillance. Targeted assassinations on Iranian soil. The war has already begun. All that's left are bumper stickers:Support Our Drones.
It's hard to ignore the confluence of 911 and the wars on Iraq and Afghanistan, establishing vise-like east-west pincers around Iran, with Israel's interests. Very strange synchronicity there.
Hey kiddies, why has no one mentioned on this thread that the USA and israel are assassinating Iranian scientists, blowinging up huge munition depots including most of Irans long range missiles and funding Baluchi sunni terrorists blowing up Mosques and Iranian soldiers? This article is the lowest form of propaganda. The USA is warring on Iran and Pakistan. Anyone who would wish war on any nation needs to search for their heart. Imperial Fascistic thought has captured a majority of USAans including many "progressives" My local paper had to front page articles and pictures slobberring over returning stormtroopers Zeig Heil and Merry Christmas USA Murderers!
Any young person seeking to join the US military should be told to become a hitman for the mob, for at least as a mob hitman you're more likely to kill someone who deserves to die and not innocent human beings whose sole crime is standing in the way of America's murderous rampages.
Have fun killing innocent men, women and children, patriots!!!
Have fun destroying the homes and cities of innocent people, proud soldier!!
Hooah!
"America's most senior military official has indicated that the country is ready to engage in a conflict with Iran"
WTF ------Who ever said this does NOT speak for me
How convenient that this peace-prize-pisspot ended Bush's war just to gear up for the next one. Stay tuned.
gangsters for capitalism
The vaunted US military hasn't attacked even a third-rate power in over 30 years.
One can only imagine how far from reality their war game assumptions have drifted in that time.
Iran is in fact a really really big third rate power. The attack, if it comes is going to be devastating for Iran and will leave them totally defenseless unless we actually put boots on the ground and try to occupy the country in which case they are going to win over time as most guerrilla groups do.
Remember that Iran has antique aircraft and air defenses and that means the West can dictate where and when to fight. That is overwhelming on the modern battlefield.
Iran's arms are actually quite modern and not at all rusted out and antiquated like Iraq's - they may not have long distance missile capabilities yet, nor do they have nuclear warheads (nor the enriched uranium to build one) but, they do have an appreciable ability to fight back.
It is well-documented if you should wish to search for the data.
You are wrong.
Iraq's armed forces, while smaller were better armed till the mid 90s. Iran has no modern armor, all their tanks are based on 1960's designs and their own home grown tank is in slow production and again based on the M60 which was obsolete in 1980. They have 69 modern Anti Aircraft missiles, not launchers, but missiles themselves. The rest of their AA arsenal is of 1970's vintage. Their air force is smaller than Israel's and the latest planes, about 50, are captures from Iraq from 1991. BTW, Iraq, whose airforce disappeared in 36 hours in 1991, Soundly defeated the Iranian airforce in their war, although at high losses.
Point being, heroism aside, Iran is ill prepared for a war with a modern military. Speedboats with RPGs and human waves are not going to cut it. Especially if there are not US soldiers on the ground to target.
John Shade are you saying Iran's threat to launch 11,000 missiles within the first ten minuets of an attack are untrue? Even if they could launch half of that wouldn't it be enough to put the regional oil and gas industry out of business?
Of course Iran isn't prepared for war with a "modern military" (no one creates more deadly weapons than satan right?) but haven't they had decades of strategic preparation? Of course they've known for quite some time that the "Great Satan" was coming for them, don't you think they at least have a clever stratagem to strip some gears, throw some holy water or blow a whole somewhere within the imperial machinery?
I suspect they will be abandoned by Russia and China while Syria has already been neutralized. But at the same time I also suspect that they are prepared to set the entire "middle east" on fire by targeting each and every collaborator in the region. Is it all a big bluff or are they capable of creating an inferno upon being attacked?
On the other hand maybe a dysfunctional "middle east" and damaged global economy is just what Dr. Satan has ordered as part of the implementation of his Imperial Global Super State. Maybe Iran has been deceived and is playing right into the hands of the evil genius.
Who is able to make war with the beast?
I can't wait to see on CNN, Fox and MSNBC the jumping off of the American First Expeditionary Force and it's assault on Tehran, Iran. This force will be made up of the 535 sitting members of Congress and led by Force Commander President "Slick Oily" and his lieutenants Madam Hillary and Leon "The Mug" Panetta! Shove all of their lousy asses onto a C-117 and kick their asses out 5,000 feet above the city of Tehran, with or without parachutes. We'll then see how much stomach these corporate rats really have for war!
with a warwar here
and a warwar there
here a war
there a war
everywhere a warwar
The USA is not in control of events. Imagine that... the mighty USA led by the nose, and tasked with the removal of Israel's actual and potential strategic rivals.
NO! Just say no. No more wars for Israel. They need to learn how to get over their existential angst. No more wars period.
Why haven't you posters said no? It is not inevitable that we go to war with Iran.
It would be a much bigger fight than you could imagine. They have a fourth the population as the US. Compare that with the one twelfth of the Iraq population to the US. And you know how well that war went.
Just say no!
Takes a lot more than people to win a war. You need modern weapons and Iran is sadly lacking in that area. They could do some significant damage, but not what they think they will and after the first 24 hours, there won't be any Iranian missiles, AA missiles or airforce to stop a western power from attacking what they want when they want to.
You might want to refresh your history there. The Vietnamese lost all their battles and they only won their war when the US had withdrawn. While it was a heroic struggle, the implied tossing out of the Yankee Devils is simply incorrect. From 1969-1972 Vietnam became progressively more stable (as long as we propped it up!)
US Losses by year in vietnam:
Country
Year of Death
Number Killed
USA[35]
1956–1964
401
1965
1,863
1966
6,143
1967
11,153
1968
16,592
1969
11,616
1970
6,081
1971
2,357
1972
641
1973
168
So you see that the military situation had swung in favor of the US pretty significantly with up to 75% of Vietcong cadres specifically being killed in 1968 and 1969.
My analysis of the current situation in Iran is correct. As long as there are no boots on the ground in an occupation force, there will be high Iranian casualties and low Western Casualties. Hopefully it is all conjecture.
I agree with your Iran assessment, you are CD's armanent master. But your Vietnam motality figures do not prove your point for mortalty would be reduced simply by not venturing away from fortified bases as may have been the case.
Who here in the US knows for sure the Vietnam casualties aka deaths, either the numbers or whether they were "cadres" or civilians? Westmoreland lied a lot. I object strongly to any analysis that predicts success or defines strategy based on more of them than us getting killed. It is just plain effing wrong to go out and deliberately and pre-emptively kill many thousands of people (or even one person), and to subject our own kids to being killed for some cynical, shady purpose.
But kudos on getting a chart to print correctly, whether the figures are reliable or not.
One of the things we were taught in International Relations classes is that democracies do not start wars. My prof and I had a debate about that considering that both Britain and the US had invaded Iraq illegally and had been occupying it illegally at that time. She contended that no matter, democracies do not start wars. So I responded: then logically, if it is true that democracies do not start wars, neither the US nor Britain must be democracies, right?
So, after the passing of NDAA, after having to suffer the Patriot Act, is the US a democratic country? Are your views actually being represented by anyone in your legislative bodies?
Don't you Americans get tired of killing, death, loss of civil liberties, of wasting your tax dollars on weapons and gizmos that you cannot live in and cannot eat?
After having read the article by Amy Willis and some of the posts,
some thoughts came to me, and I briefly searched for sources
regarding opinions and beliefs current within Iran. I am hesitant to
rush to make comments myself, without further study. I only post
the following: U.S. invaded Iraq apparently devoid of understanding
of the pre-existing "animosity" (for lack of a better term) between the
Shia and Sunni denominations (sects?) in Islam. From that lack of
understanding came the U.S.'s "intermeddling" in sectarian strife,
which was an involvement of which we (the citizenry) were not first
informed, and which (I reckon) our ultimately incompetent "leaders"
did not foresee. What a travesty of what we had been led to believe
was our "representative democracy" ! We got one "put over on us".
I'm afraid we're about to get that done to us "one more time". Who
among the deciders in the U.S. corporate structure of state REALLY
has an adequate understanding of the apparent fanaticism of the
"twelvers" within Shia Islam in Iran? It may not be the case that the
U.S. is preparing for (seeking?) war with Iran ; it may RATHER be the
case that a faction in Iran is WORKING TOWARD "GOADING" THE
U.S. INTO THE WAR. Much destruction and bloodshed would follow,
with the U.S.'s being to blame for it, thereby hastening the return of
the 12-th Imam [in some Iranian's minds]. I dare not say more now,
lest I appear to allege or forecast more than I actually know.