U.S. Navy Prepares Missile Strike on Iran

I try to post one time for every stupid comment made by idiotic conspiracy theorists. I'm way behind schedule.

I actually post more often then that, Zippo ... but I have a software program that blocks most of my posts from being viewed by you and certain other posters here at A2K. Sometimes I forget to activate it before I post.



No, most were made well-after he stole the election.

What were the reasons for these terrorist acts. Did they just one day decide to wake up and say 'Geez i feel bored today, think i'll go and blow up a plane'...?

You sure its not blocking your brain ?

Microsoft have developed a patch to cure a kissbushass4ever virus. Download it and update your PC.

Does it matter what their motivation was, they were killing innocent people who were trying to travel on a plane. Why did they feel the need to do what they did? I don't excuse terrorists but I can see that you do.

That was almost -- but not quite -- bordering on witty, Zippo. Where did you cut & paste it from?

Iran has Yakhont missiles. Do the Americans know?

Nothing at all new here. We have had submarines in the Persian Gulf and the Northern Arabian Sea for years. Most are armed with cruise missiles which come with a variety of warheads, conventional and nuclear. Others have ballistic missiles with much longer range - they could hit Iran from almost anywhere in the Indian Ocean.

Gates: Iran Is Target Of Military Build Up
Huge Military deployment in Gulf is ominous, neocon propaganda is mounting

Steve Watson
Infowars.net
Monday, January 15, 2007

The Defense Secretary Robert Gates today announced that the massive increase in military power in the Persian Gulf is directly aimed at Iran. Gates' comments follow a weekend of intense and heavy loaded rhetoric on the part of many neocon figureheads, signaling that the faintest spark could ignite a huge escalation of conflict in the middle east.

Speaking in Brussels after meeting Nato officials, Mr Gates said: "We are simply reaffirming that statement of the importance of the Gulf region to the United States and our determination to be an ongoing strong presence in that area for a long time into the future."
http://infowars.net/articles/january2007/150107Iran_attack.htm

It's All About Iran
Washington wants war…
by Justin Raimondo
As American troops storm what is, or was, an Iranian consulate - at least that's what the Iraqi government calls it, in spite of American denials - and the president accuses Tehran of arming and aiding Iraqi insurgents, the answer to the question "Why are we in Iraq?" should begin to dawn on even the dullest. The answer: Iran. We're in Iraq so we can go after the mullahs in Tehran, and, perhaps, those other Ba'athists in Syria.

All indications point to a strike at the Iranians before Bush leaves office. The appointment of a Navy guy, Adm. William J. "Fox" Fallon, at present head of the U.S. Pacific Command, to oversee U.S. operations in the Middle East, is widely seen as a sign that war with Iran is on the table, if not yet a sure thing. A U.S. attack on Iran would be a naval and air operation, and Fallon, a former deputy director for operations with Joint Task Force Southwest Asia in Riyadh, is surely qualified for the job. As Pat Buchanan put it, "What Fallon does not know about securing streets, he does know about taking out targets from the air and keeping sea lanes open in a time of war."

Seymour Hersh reported on the gathering storm over Iran last year, and now we may have more concrete evidence that something big is afoot. Laura Rozen, writing in The American Prospect, says that a presidential "finding," or perhaps a secret White House directive may have been issued:

"There is evidence that, while Bush probably has not signed such a finding regarding Iran, he has recently done so regarding Iranian-supported Hezbollah in Lebanon; further, there is evidence that he may have signed an executive order or national security presidential directive regarding a new, more aggressive policy on Iran. Such directives are not required to be reported to Congress - they are more in the realm of the president communicating to authorized people inside the administration his expectations for a policy."

And the noise level coming from the pro-war peanut gallery is getting louder: Israel's lobby in the U.S. has long pushed for aggressive American action against the supposedly nuke-seeking mullahs, and an Israeli general, Oded Tira, recently came out explicitly with the thrust of the Israeli campaign:

"President Bush lacks the political power to attack Iran. As an American strike in Iran is essential for our existence, we must help him pave the way by lobbying the Democratic Party (which is conducting itself foolishly) and U.S. newspaper editors. We need to do this in order to turn the Iranian issue to a bipartisan one and unrelated to the Iraq failure.

"We must turn to Hillary Clinton and other potential presidential candidates in the Democratic Party so that they publicly support immediate action by Bush against Iran. We should also approach European countries so that they support American actions in Iran, so that Bush will not be isolated in the international arena again."

The Lobby won't have to lean too hard on the Democratic Party, as Chairman Howard Dean made all too clear on Hardball the other night:

"Chris Matthews: Will your party stand up against a war with Iran? It looks like the president is sort of edging towards military action against Iran?


"Howard Dean: You know the great shame, among many shames, of going into Iraq, was we picked the wrong enemy. Iran is a danger. We've got our troops pinned down in the wrong place. Saddam Hussein was a terrible person, but not a danger to the United States. Iran is a danger. Obviously, I don't think there's much stomach among the American people for a war with Iran given what's gone on for the last three and a half years in Iraq, but we are clearly going to have to stand up to Iran.

"CM: Does that mean attack them? Are we going to commit an act of war against Iran?

"HD: I think there's absolutely no stomach for that whatsoever either in the Congress or among the American people after what's been going on the last three and a half years in Iraq."

So the official Democratic Party spokesman's line on the crisis in the Middle East goes something like this: Gee, it's too bad we're stuck in a quagmire in Iraq, when the real imperative is to attack Iran. We're in the wrong war - and, thanks to George W. Bush, the American people have "no stomach" for attacking what amounts to a genuine threat.

You'll notice, if you follow the link and read the whole quote, how Dean wimped out in the end, only agreeing with the Bushies' rush to war as far as imposing sanctions. However, you can bet Dean and his fellow Democrats, especially presidential wannabes and the congressional leadership, are not about to stand up to the War Party when the bombs begin to fall on Tehran.

For months, Antiwar.com has been reporting growing indications of a U.S. strike on Iran, and certainly such a move, contra Dean, is politically doable. After all, Dean and his fellow Democrats won't say boo about it, except, perhaps, to chide them for not doing it soon enough - and certainly Gen. Tira won't have to push Hillary all that much, since her present position is more hawkish than the Bush administration's. (Speaker Nancy Pelosi is no piker when it comes to Iran, either).

In the end, events on the ground in Iraq and environs won't determine if and when we go to war with Tehran: domestic politics is the determining factor, and, as Chairman Dean has shown, the conditions couldn't be better as far as the War Party is concerned.

In this context, at least, the "surge" begins to make some sense - especially if, as can be expected, it is a "long surge" carried out by an administration that likes to push the envelope (and meets little resistance in doing so). An attack on Iran will be centered around the Persian Gulf, but is bound to have reverberations on the ground in Iraq. A "surge" - 20,000 U.S. troops, and possibly more - would buttress American redoubts for the inevitable backlash and reinforce our defenses against a flanking counterattack.

The "antiwar" Democrats are way behind the times: they are still screaming about Iraq, when Iran is the real issue - and it's one they are just as bad on, if not worse, than the Republicans. Which means that the long-suffering American people are not about to find relief from this endless war anytime soon - unless, of course, it is in the form of some as yet undiscovered political maverick who will rise out of the miasma of American politics and save us from both wings of the War Party.

global warming
I think I'll go back to being paranoid about global warming destroying my retirement. I'll let you guys sort out this particular mess.

Russia's Sizzler missile is much more deadly. The Yakhont approaches its target by skimming along just above sea level at Mach 2. The Sizzler approaches its target by skimming along just above sea level at Mach 3.

Of course, the missiles are based differently. The Yakhont is primarily land based, while the Sizzler is designed to be fired from naval vessels. So they aren't really in direct competition with each other

True. We could bomb Iran without sailing our surface ships within the range of their missiles. In addition to the subs, we have long range bombers that could fly out of Diego Garcia.

However, for whatever reason, Bush seems to want to do it with aircraft carriers, which means it could get ugly.

I think Iran sinking a US ship is unlikely. Far more likely we would just see a US aircraft carrier being towed home with a huge hole blown in its side and the bodies of hundreds of dead sailors trapped in the wreckage. Sort of like the Cole but on a larger scale.


The Sunburns and Yakhonts fly Mach 3 when they are far above sea level. When they approach the target and enter "sea-skimming" mode, they slow down to about Mach 2.

It is the Sizzlers that approach their target at Mach 3.


I am not sure how much of a threat the Sunburns are. Fired from sea or land, they don't have much range, as most of their fuel tank is eliminated in favor of a rocket that boosts their speed to where the ramjet can kick in. Fired from the air they have a larger fuel tank and a respectable range since there is no need for a rocket to boost their speed. However, I expect that in a war with the US, the Iranian Air Force may be annihilated in the opening minutes of the war.

Any silo-based Yakhonts are probably also toast. The threat, as I see it, is primarily from Yakhonts that are fired from the backs of mobile launchers, and Sizzlers that are fired from diesel submarines. If we prove able to detect the diesel submarines, that'll eliminate the Sizzlers and leave only the mobile Yakhonts.

Re: U.S. Navy Prepares Missile Strike on Iran


That is hardly likely.





That's absurd. The only downside is the bunker outside Isfahan. Eliminating that site will take a nuke with particularly nasty fallout.

Hopefully Bush has decided to just pass over that particular bunker and bomb all the rest.

No such abuses.





Self-defense isn't a crime.





The proof is the way they hide their program.





Israel and the US have no nuclear ambitions beyond international law.





America hasn't committed a crime against humanity for the last hundred years.

I see Russia now sells a land-based version of the Sizzler too. However, I doubt Iran has any of that version, as they are a pretty recent development.

photo op. nothing stirs up the sheep like a graphic picture of one of our ships and the personnel in them being blown into the next life. A little patriotic music, superimpose the image over an American flag with the caption "Never Forget" on a t-shirt, a song by Toby Keith, and suddenly bushs' approval ratings are back up, no one has the balls to mention it was bush who made it happen in the first place, Haliburton has a practically uncountable number of no bid contracts.... and all bush had to do was put a battleship and a couple thousand of our boys and girls in mortal peril.

Can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs.

I am reading mondays NYT right now,and I dont see that "article" anywhere in the paper.

Exactly what page is that story on?

So they say. Which funnily enough is exactly what the Iranians say too. So there is no need for any nastiness is there boys?