"The Pentagon, acting under instructions from Vice President Dick Cheney's office, has tasked the United States Strategic Command (STRATCOM) with drawing up a contingency plan to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States. The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons. Within Iran there are more than 450 major strategic targets, including numerous suspected nuclear-weapons-program development sites. Many of the targets are hardened or are deep underground and could not be taken out by conventional weapons, hence the nuclear option. As in the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States. Several senior Air Force officers involved in the planning are reportedly appalled at the implications of what they are doing – that Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack – but no one is prepared to damage his career by posing any objections."

-from Teh American Conservative


Cheney's Plan: Nuke Iran

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=6734

Lets see here.

Terrorists attack = bomb Iran

Well that shouldn't be to hard. After all the only difference is one letter from their last plan. (terrorist attack = bomb Iraq)

The pentagon make all kinds of plans. That doesn't mean any of them are going to be used.

Originally posted by DrewM
The pentagon make all kinds of plans. That doesn't mean any of them are going to be used.

Very true. They have assault plans an just about every country, with contingencys and different scenarios.

What do you think those generals are doing when they aren't fighting a war?

Right but why do they need a plan calling for the invasion of Iran even if Iran had no part in such attacks. Why would that ever even be considered an option? Why waste manpower on thinking about such things?

Why not? They have plans for invading every country on earth. It's better to have a plan in the bank than create one under pressure.

There certainly are scenario's where the US attacks Iran, although the likelyhood of that ever happening is very remote.

Why not? They have plans for invading every country on earth. It's better to have a plan in the bank than create one under pressure. Yeah they did such a great job with the 3 years they had to plan invading Iraq... :D

Originally posted by 500lbguerilla
Yeah they did such a great job with the 3 years they had to plan invading Iraq... :D

Well, they did actually. It was the post-invasion that they royally fucked up.

Originally posted by 500lbguerilla
Yeah they did such a great job with the 3 years they had to plan invading Iraq... :D

The invasion of Iraq was the most successful invasion in the history of warfare. The army moved foward at the fastest pace every recorded, with a very minimal loss of life. I think it was only about 150 troops lost at that point & half of that was accidents. None of the oil wells were sabotaged and all the aims were met very quickly.

So - its fair to say their plans were absolutely brilliant.

Once occupation was complete - the politicians plans took over. That plan was probably one of the worst plans ever recorded.

Originally posted by 500lbguerilla
Right but why do they need a plan calling for the invasion of Iran even if Iran had no part in such attacks. Why would that ever even be considered an option? Why waste manpower on thinking about such things?

I heard Sean Hannity talk about it, the logic was that if terrorists attack, Iran HAS to have something to do with it so we should bomb all of their major cities to the ground. Although the argument falls short in pointing out how exactly the attack was Irans fault.

Just like Iarq and 9-11...

As long as theyre crying they don't care who else you make cry, just as long as its someone else....