US 'Iran attack plans' revealed
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.
The UN has urged Iran to stop the programme or face economic sanctions.
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.
That list includes Iran's uranium enrichment plant at Natanz. Facilities at Isfahan, Arak and Bushehr are also on the target list, the sources say.
Two triggers
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.
Long range B2 stealth bombers would drop so-called "bunker-busting" bombs in an effort to penetrate the Natanz site, which is buried some 25m (27 yards) underground.
The BBC's Tehran correspondent France Harrison says the news that there are now two possible triggers for an attack is a concern to Iranians.
Authorities insist there is no cause for alarm but ordinary people are now becoming a little worried, she says.
Deadline
Earlier this month US officials said they had evidence Iran was providing weapons to Iraqi Shia militias. At the time, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said the accusations were "excuses to prolong the stay" of US forces in Iraq.
Middle East analysts have recently voiced their fears of catastrophic consequences for any such US attack on Iran.
Britain's previous ambassador to Tehran, Sir Richard Dalton, told the BBC it would backfire badly by probably encouraging the Iranian government to develop a nuclear weapon in the long term.
Last year Iran resumed uranium enrichment - a process that can make fuel for power stations or, if greatly enriched, material for a nuclear bomb.
Tehran insists its programme is for civil use only, but Western countries suspect Iran is trying to build nuclear weapons.
The UN Security Council has called on Iran to suspend its enrichment of uranium by 21 February.
If it does not, and if the International Atomic Energy Agency confirms this, the resolution says that further economic sanctions will be considered.
Full Version: US 'Iran attack plans' revealed
Common Ground Common Sense > Issues that Affect Our Lives > Foreign Policy and National Defense > Iran
QUOTE(Noonan @ Feb 19 2007, 04:01 PM) 
Authorities insist there is no cause for alarm but ordinary people are now becoming a little worried, she says.
Hey, all you ordinary people? DO NOT LISTEN TO AUTHORITY!
QUOTE(winston smith @ Feb 19 2007, 06:08 PM)
Hey, all you ordinary people? DO NOT LISTEN TO AUTHORITY!
Been listening to Pink Floyd again?
Hey, TEACHER!
QUOTE(Noonan @ Feb 19 2007, 04:15 PM)
Been listening to Pink Floyd again?
How can you finish your pudding
If you won't eat your meat!
QUOTE(winston smith @ Feb 19 2007, 06:17 PM)
How can you finish your pudding
If you won't eat your meat!
If you won't eat your meat!
How can you have a discussion if you don't post something in the Cafe - G4A is a few minutes behind, but he has this in the Cafe now too.
here ya go... the wall
QUOTE(wundermaus @ Feb 19 2007, 06:21 PM)
here ya go... the wall
Wait, I need to find my copy of Oz first!
New tensions over Iran's nuclear plans
Analysis
By Paul Reynolds
World affairs correspondent, BBC News website
The tension over Iran's nuclear programme is increasing, with the expiry on Wednesday of a Security Council deadline for Iran to suspend uranium enrichment.
At the same time, the BBC has reported that the United States has drawn up plans for an attack on Iran to cover two contingencies - the confirmed development of nuclear weapons by Iran, or backing by Iran for a major attack on US troops in Iraq.
The first contingency is full of uncertainties. Iran says it is simply exercising its right to provide fuel to make nuclear energy and that it has no intention of building a bomb.
The problem is that the same technology used to make fuel for nuclear power can then be developed to make fuel for a nuclear explosion.
So how can Iran's intentions be judged?
The signs are that Iran will not comply with the Security Council demands
The UN Security Council has demanded that Iran halt its activities in order to allow for negotiations. Iran has been offered civilian nuclear technology for power if it gives up enrichment of fuel itself. The council has imposed sanctions designed to limit Iran's access to nuclear technology.
Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says that there can be no pre-conditions for talks. Indeed, he has proposed that Western governments suspend enrichment themselves before any talks.
The signs are that Iran will not comply with the Security Council demands and that therefore further sanctions will be considered. The US will press for them. Russia and China will question them.
Mutual freeze?
The UN's nuclear agency, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), is to report this week on Iranian compliance with the Security Council demand.
The IAEA head Mohamed ElBaradei warned against 'hype' over Iran's nuclear abilities
The head of the IAEA, Mohamed ElBaradei, is calling for a mutual freeze - by Iran on its nuclear development and by the Security Council on sanctions. No freeze is likely.
Mr ElBaradei told the Financial Times this week that Iran might be five or 10 years away from developing a nuclear bomb. He warned against "hype" over Iran's nuclear activities.
Meanwhile, the US continues to apply pressure on Iran and is expected to move a second aircraft carrier battle group into the Gulf region soon.
US Vice-President Dick Cheney said in Newsweek magazine that American allies in the region "want us to have a major presence there" and that the carriers would send " a strong signal" that the US would "work with friends and allies to oppose the Iranian threat".
Iraq linkage
A new element emerging over the last couple of weeks is the linkage the US is making between Iran and events inside Iraq. It has publicised its contention that Iran is behind sophisticated technology that is being used by some Shia groups against US and British forces in Iraq.
The timing of this claim, rejected by Iran, is significant, because it ties in with the expiry of the Security Council demand on 21 February. It adds a new component to the equation.
The US can now claim a casus belli if there is a major attack on US forces in Iraq that can be linked to Iran. Such linkage of course is not easy to prove, and even the evidence that the US has produced so far has been challenged.
But the legality of any attack against Iran will be hard to establish, to say the least, without clear evidence, especially as the evidence against Iraq proved unreliable.
Danger
All this makes for an extremely delicate and dangerous period ahead.
It does not mean that a US attack on Iran is imminent. The BBC information is that the US has chosen targets in Iran and has considered two scenarios for an attack.
The targets include not only Iranian nuclear sites but Iranian missile sites and other major military infrastructure.
This would be in line with US doctrine that, in a conflict, an attack has to cover a range of military targets. This happened in the two Gulf wars and Israel adopted similar tactics in its attacks on Hezbollah last year.
But it is not an either-or situation.
Diplomacy
There is a diplomatic effort at play here as well.
Washington hopes that its pressure will trigger not necessarily a war but a debate inside Iran that will either lead to a change of policy (maybe through a change in government) or a much slower and more cautious Iranian approach.
It is also not clear that within the Bush administration these days there is total support for any attack on Iran. The influence of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice seems to be growing at the expense of Vice-President Cheney.
We have seen the US entering negotiations over North Korea, leading to an interim agreement under which the North's claimed nuclear weapon is being left to one side.
Paul.Reynolds-INTERNET@bbc.co.uk
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/midd...ast/6379611.stm
Published: 2007/02/20 17:35:17 GMT
© BBC MMVII
Analysis
By Paul Reynolds
World affairs correspondent, BBC News website
The tension over Iran's nuclear programme is increasing, with the expiry on Wednesday of a Security Council deadline for Iran to suspend uranium enrichment.
At the same time, the BBC has reported that the United States has drawn up plans for an attack on Iran to cover two contingencies - the confirmed development of nuclear weapons by Iran, or backing by Iran for a major attack on US troops in Iraq.
The first contingency is full of uncertainties. Iran says it is simply exercising its right to provide fuel to make nuclear energy and that it has no intention of building a bomb.
The problem is that the same technology used to make fuel for nuclear power can then be developed to make fuel for a nuclear explosion.
So how can Iran's intentions be judged?
The signs are that Iran will not comply with the Security Council demands
The UN Security Council has demanded that Iran halt its activities in order to allow for negotiations. Iran has been offered civilian nuclear technology for power if it gives up enrichment of fuel itself. The council has imposed sanctions designed to limit Iran's access to nuclear technology.
Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says that there can be no pre-conditions for talks. Indeed, he has proposed that Western governments suspend enrichment themselves before any talks.
The signs are that Iran will not comply with the Security Council demands and that therefore further sanctions will be considered. The US will press for them. Russia and China will question them.
Mutual freeze?
The UN's nuclear agency, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), is to report this week on Iranian compliance with the Security Council demand.
The IAEA head Mohamed ElBaradei warned against 'hype' over Iran's nuclear abilities
The head of the IAEA, Mohamed ElBaradei, is calling for a mutual freeze - by Iran on its nuclear development and by the Security Council on sanctions. No freeze is likely.
Mr ElBaradei told the Financial Times this week that Iran might be five or 10 years away from developing a nuclear bomb. He warned against "hype" over Iran's nuclear activities.
Meanwhile, the US continues to apply pressure on Iran and is expected to move a second aircraft carrier battle group into the Gulf region soon.
US Vice-President Dick Cheney said in Newsweek magazine that American allies in the region "want us to have a major presence there" and that the carriers would send " a strong signal" that the US would "work with friends and allies to oppose the Iranian threat".
Iraq linkage
A new element emerging over the last couple of weeks is the linkage the US is making between Iran and events inside Iraq. It has publicised its contention that Iran is behind sophisticated technology that is being used by some Shia groups against US and British forces in Iraq.
The timing of this claim, rejected by Iran, is significant, because it ties in with the expiry of the Security Council demand on 21 February. It adds a new component to the equation.
The US can now claim a casus belli if there is a major attack on US forces in Iraq that can be linked to Iran. Such linkage of course is not easy to prove, and even the evidence that the US has produced so far has been challenged.
But the legality of any attack against Iran will be hard to establish, to say the least, without clear evidence, especially as the evidence against Iraq proved unreliable.
Danger
All this makes for an extremely delicate and dangerous period ahead.
It does not mean that a US attack on Iran is imminent. The BBC information is that the US has chosen targets in Iran and has considered two scenarios for an attack.
The targets include not only Iranian nuclear sites but Iranian missile sites and other major military infrastructure.
This would be in line with US doctrine that, in a conflict, an attack has to cover a range of military targets. This happened in the two Gulf wars and Israel adopted similar tactics in its attacks on Hezbollah last year.
But it is not an either-or situation.
Diplomacy
There is a diplomatic effort at play here as well.
Washington hopes that its pressure will trigger not necessarily a war but a debate inside Iran that will either lead to a change of policy (maybe through a change in government) or a much slower and more cautious Iranian approach.
It is also not clear that within the Bush administration these days there is total support for any attack on Iran. The influence of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice seems to be growing at the expense of Vice-President Cheney.
We have seen the US entering negotiations over North Korea, leading to an interim agreement under which the North's claimed nuclear weapon is being left to one side.
Paul.Reynolds-INTERNET@bbc.co.uk
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/midd...ast/6379611.stm
Published: 2007/02/20 17:35:17 GMT
© BBC MMVII
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.