h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

So. How well to trust Russian intelligence?

'Russian intelligence has information that the U.S. Armed Forces have nearly completed preparations for a possible military operation against Iran, and will be ready to strike April 6, a security official said. The attack may be explained by the capture of 15 British sailors. . .

A senior Russian security official cited military intelligence earlier as saying U.S. Armed Forces had recently intensified training for air and ground operations against Iran.

"The Pentagon has drafted a highly effective plan that will allow the Americans to bring Iran to its knees at minimal cost," the official said.

The attack is slated to last for 12 hours, from 4 am until 4 pm local time. Friday is the sabbath in Iran. In the course of the attack, code named Operation Bite, about 20 targets are marked for bombing; the list includes uranium enrichment facilities, research centers, and laboratories.
'

http://www.panarmenian.net/news/eng/?nid=21697

http://news.google.ca/news?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=anU&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&tab=wn&ncl=1114813328

"So. How well to trust Russian intelligence?"

Not at all.


""The Pentagon has drafted a highly effective plan that will allow the Americans to bring Iran to its knees at minimal cost," the official said."

That's not news. The Pentagon has plans drafted for invasions of *every* country and area on the face of the earth.

Shouldn't that be: "The attack may be rationalized by the capture of 15 British sailors"



The shrub cabal is either sabre rattling, (business as usual), or preparing to do what they really want to do anyway...

Bear in mind that in the days of Reagan they so totally misread US intentions that they shot down a Korean airliner.

Ah, but they spot that Iran has WMDs ready to deploy in 45 minutes?

Sounds like Kite Flying to me . at least initially..... another code for disinformation.

Novo

Having covered "Operation Able Archer" on my Cold War course, I'm confident in saying that Russian Intelligence isn't as all-seeing as it claims...

'n the days of Reagan they so totally misread US intentions that they shot down a Korean airliner.'

And five years later the US mistook an Iranian Airbus A300 for an F-14 and killed 300.

*Operation Bite*? As in *Bark is worse than*?

A few things to note:

1. The US and her allies cannot currently spare the capabilities to overwhelm Iran. They are completely tied-up in Iraq and Afghanistan.

2. President Bush's popularity has fallen as US enthusiasm for the war in Iraq wanes. The war is also extremely costly. How likely is it that Bush would launch a further war against a country much stronger than Afghanistan and Iraq?

3. Iran is capable of massively-undermining coalition activities in the Persian Gulf and even Iraq itself. If it were to go to war with the West it would undoubtably carry-out actions against coalition operations in the Gulf.

4. Iran has played a clever political game with the British hostages. It has not mistreated them (as far as we can tell) and a friend of mine pointed out that their broadcasts of the hostages have been made in Arabic rather than Farsi (the Iranian language). They are making a point to the Arab world and daring the West to take military action against them and improve Iranian standing in the arab world. Bush isn't the smartest world leader but he won't fall into an obvious trap.

""The Pentagon has drafted a highly effective plan that will allow the Americans to bring Iran to its knees at minimal cost," the official said."

Yes, just like the Iraqi insurgency which has been thoroughly shocked-and-awed to obliteration and isn't getting worse by the day at all.

I agree, Zagreb. An U.S. attack on Iran seems highly irrational. Strangely, however, it somehow doesn't seem aa unlikely as it is irrational.


I guess we'll know for sure on Friday morning.h

Firstly why would the US attack Iran over British soldiers?

Secondly - as Zagreb said - Iran is playing an interesting game. For those people to be released, Britain has to admit they were travelling in Iranian waters, which they are denying. However, the hostages (for want of a better word I guess...) are claiming that they were in Iranian waters. So if Britain continue saying they didn't - those men (and woman) will not be released and a lot of people will ask why Britain is acting difficult when their own people are admitting they were (even if they were lying). If they agree that those soldiers were in Iranian waters, it is incredibly embarassing and won't reflect well on Britain.

But to go to war over this? That would be stupidity. They weren't killed. They are not being tortured. They're being shown on TV regularly.

why "doesn't [it] seem unlikely" anhaga?

Quick questions - why are you discounting the known fact that the pentagon has plans for the invasion of every area of the planet? why are you putting value of the Russian intelligence?

It's interesting to me that in this incident, in which the US is largely uninvolved, you're quick to manufacture some involvement.

I didn't manufacture involvement. Don't say I did

I didn't discount the fact that the pentagon has all those plans (a fact I'm well aware of). Don't say I did.

And, I didn't place *any* value on Russian intelligence. Don't say I did.

I did solicite the opinions of others about this story that has been making the rounds.

The Russians have stated that their intelligence shows US involvement. Don't blame me for the manufacture, blame the Russians. I did find it interesting that there was such precise detail in the story, right down to the time the attack is to begin. As I mentioned, we'll find out soon enough.

As for why it doesn't seem unlikely to me: I thought it was irrational to imagine that Iraq would be invaded and look how wrong I was. To quote a famous man 'Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice -- won't get fooled again'. I don't see a lot of rational coming out of the Bush Whitehouse is all. I hope like everything the report is bunk.



Just as a footnote concerning 'this incident, in which the US is largely uninvolved':

'Since 2003 the Coalition has continued to evolve and is currently steered by VICE ADMIRAL PATRICK M. WALSH United States Navy as Combined Forces Maritime Component Commander (CFMCC). . .'

http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/server/show/nav.6006


Yes, largely univolved. But the British sailors and marines were, ultimately, under US command.

Classic. This
"Yes, largely univolved. But the British sailors and marines were, ultimately, under US command."

perfectly contradicts

"I didn't manufacture involvement. Don't say I did"

So I will say you're manufacturing involvement.


"I didn't discount the fact that the pentagon has all those plans (a fact I'm well aware of). Don't say I did.

If this were true, why not change your evaluation from "not unlikely"?

So I will say you're discounting them.


"And, I didn't place *any* value on Russian intelligence. Don't say I did."

If this is true, why use that as the starting point for your argument?

So I will say you place *high* value on Russian intelligence.


The best part was when you contradicted yourself within your own post. You make it too easy.

a)

I agreed with you: 'Yes, largely uninvolved'

b)

I explained why I sadly found it not unlikely

c)

I explained that I was asking what others thought, not starting an argument. Don't look for a quarrel where there isn't one.

The only real disagreement here is about the likelihood of US mililtary action against Iraq. You seem to have dismissed it whereas I have a more jaded opinion of Mr. Bush's potential.

My sincere hope is that Mr. Blair and his negotiators can pull the fifteen out of a diplomatic hat: I, for one, am tired of the killing. My sincere hope is that Russian intelligence is proved wrong on Friday (and that Seymour Hersh and Scott Ritter continue to be proven wrong in their predictions of an immanent attack on Iran).


Should be bother going back to a discussion of the question? Or should we just wait until Friday when we can all come back and happily celebrate this particular failure of Russian Intelligence?

Goodnight, Arnie.

Morning Anhaga

Isn't Russian Intelligence a bit of an oxymoron?

Novo

Ignoring the actual detail about the supposed plan to invade with dates(mainly as I haven't read the article) some general comments about invading Iran(as this has been mooted as the next country for Bush to take in his real-life game of 'Risk'):

1) Could the US invade without UK military support? Possibly, but the US has managed to get Blair to go in with him previously...the Brits are better at various military things than the US.

2) Would Blair go in with Bush? He is on his way out so does he care? Possibly not but it may be the last straw for the British public.

3) Would Bush care that his popularity is on the wane? Probably not, he is merely a puppet and will not be up for re-election. The people who will benefit from going into Iran are the oil companies...who pull Bush's strings.

4) Isn't Russian Intelligence a bit of an oxymoron? cf American Intelligence.

5) Would Iran have taken the 'hostages' if they though the US/UK would invade. I doubt it. It does seem to be a case of: 'We have your people...so, wot ya gonna do about it, eh?' Iran are playing a game, when a 'country' gives co-ords of the shipd position as Iranian waters then changes the co-ords when shown the original ones were in Iraqi waters you know full well they are taking the p*ss.

They know they can pump out any rubbish to their people and they will lap it up and believe it.

I certainly wouldn't bet the farm on anything made public by Russian Intelligence or the intelligence agencies of any contry.