Saudis Preparing For Nuclear Fallout From US Attack on Iran, 1 Day After Cheney Visit

[LoungeMachine]

Saudi Shura council to discuss plan for sudden radioactive hazards
(DPA)

22 March 2008



RIYADH - The Saudi Shura council will secretly discuss national plans to deal with any sudden nuclear and radioactive hazards that may affect the kingdom following experts’ warnings of possible attacks on Iran’s Bushehr nuclear reactors, media reports said Saturday.


The Saudi-based King Abdul-Aziz City for Science and Technology has prepared a proposal that encapsulates the probabilities of leaking nuclear and radiation hazards in case of any unexpected nuclear attacks in Iran, the Okaz Saudi newspaper said.

The Saudi Shura or consultative council plans to debate the proposal on Sunday.

The power plants in the south-western Iranian port of Bushehr were built with German assistance in 1974 and resumed with Russian aid in 1992, after it had been stopped by the Islamic revolution.



Subscribe | Write to Us | About Us | Advertise |
Copyright © 2008 Khaleej Times All Rights Reserved.

http://www.khaleejtimes.com/darticlen.asp?xfile=data/middleeast/2008/March/middleeast_March340.xml&section=middleeast&col=

[LoungeMachine]

Headlined on 3/29/08:
Saudi Newspaper: Prepare for radioactive fallout from US nuclear attack on Iran

by Richard Clark Page 1 of 2 page(s)

http://www.opednews.com

Bush sends nuclear sub and more warships to the Gulf


Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:57:23 PM PDT



According to Chris Floyd at the Empire Burlesque web site:


The Saudi government is now preparing plans to deal with "any sudden nuclear and radioactive hazards" that may arise from an attack on Iran's nuclear reactors. This was reported by a top Saudi newspaper, Okaz, and relayed by a leading German news service, DPA -- one day after Dick Cheney paid a visit to the kingdom. As we noted, no one knows exactly what was said at that confab of allied authoritarians -- but something sure lit a fire under the Saudis, and convinced them that urgent action is needed to brace for the lethal overspill from a strike on Iran.


Floyd points out that nothing in Saudi Arabia becomes the top news story without government approval. That such a story should be released the day after Cheney's visit, sends a message to everyone about what’s on Cheney's mind.


This, combined with the dismissal of Centcom chief, Admiral Fallon, Petreus' claim to have evidence (which he doesn't produce) that Iran was responsible for the recent shelling of the Green Zone,


. . and the Egyptian report that a nuclear sub has been ordered by Bush into the Gulf, the bleak picture in both Pakistan and Afghanistan (accelerating collapse of Musharraf's power and strategy, the coming spring offensive in the Taliban's announced drive for Kabu),


. . plus the oft-stated desire of Bush and Cheney to attack Iran, and, as noted by former mideast policy official William K. Polk at Juan Cole's site just a few days ago, the last time Cheney visited the nations he visited this time was right before the Iraq attack,


. . then only a moron would deny that Bush and Dick have nothing but contempt for the will of the people, congress and the courts, and that they crave war like a junkie craves his fix.

http://soldiervoices.net/svfor/showthread.php?p=4883

============


Cheney Visits them, and Saudis then Prepare for "Sudden Nuclear Hazards"


One Tick Closer to Midnight


Last Friday, Dick Cheney was in Saudi Arabia for high-level meetings with the Saudi king and his ministers. On Saturday, it was revealed that the Saudi Shura Council -- the elite group that implements the decisions of the autocratic inner circle -- is preparing "national plans to deal with any sudden nuclear and radioactive hazards that may affect the kingdom following experts' warnings of possible attacks on Iran's Bushehr nuclear reactors," one of the kingdom's leading newspapers, Okaz, reports. The German-based DPA news service relayed the paper's story.


Simple prudence -- or ominous timing? We noted here last week that an American attack on Iran was far more likely than most people suspect. We pointed to the mountain of evidence for this case gathered by scholar William R. Polk, one of the top aides to John Kennedy during the Cuban Missile Crisis, and to other indicators of impending war. The story by Okaz -- which would not have appeared in the tightly controlled dictatorship without approval from the top -- is yet another, very weighty piece of evidence laid on the scales, pointing toward a new, horrendous conflict.


We don't know what the Saudis told Cheney in private -- or even more to the point, what he told them. But the release of this story now, just after his departure, would seem to be a clear indication that the Saudis have good reason to fear a looming attack on Iran's nuclear facilities, and that they are actively preparing for it.

1 | 2 continued at

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_richard__080328_saudi_newspaper_3a__pr.htm

[knuckleboner]

damn, dude! i thought i already won. you trying to make me nervous?...

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by knuckleboner
damn, dude! i thought i already won. you trying to make me nervous?...

:D

I got nervous the minute they anounced Darth Cheney going to the Saudis.

And then THEY got nervous.

- Drinking YOUR beer

[kwame k]

I was convinced when I saw the CNN footage of the supposed “Iranian” speedboat confrontation that Bush had created his Gulf of Tonkin.
Quick link to The Gulf of Tonkin lie:

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2261

What surprised me the most about the Iranian incident was how swift their response was with video evidence that it was faked. I was surprised that CNN ran the counter story and I was surprised at how fast the story died.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/011108J.shtml

Cheney visiting Saudi Arabia and the leaking of the meeting and what was discussed is suspect. Saudi Arabia has a tightly control media and if the story was leaked there are a couple of possible scenarios.
One, it was statesmanship. Leak the information about a possible US nuclear attack to scare Iran into submission over their nuclear program. Two, the leak could be what Cheney was actually discussing. We know that Bush wants a war with Iran, The US has the invasion plan set in place and can be implemented at a moments notice, and Bush’s war on terror is not limited to any one country or group of people.

The problems with attacking Iran is the American people and the rest of the world, for that matter, are not going to accept anything this Administration says as far as a justification for the attacks. After being mislead about the Iraq invasion Bush is going to have a nearly impossible task of justifying the Attacks, especially if Iran does not provoke the US. It will be impossible for Bush to get away with an attack without provocation. I know he’s never needed “permission” for his past invasions but he doesn’t have the political muscle he once had. He’s too close to the end of his presidency and it would all but guarantee McCain will not be elected if he strikes against Iran. The republicans would risk 4 more years on the gravy train over an attack that could be accomplished during McCain’s presidency.

Bush has got himself a conundrum. He already has the plan to attack Iran and he’s all dresses up with no place to bomb. He has all the necessary components in place in Iraq to jump over and bomb the shit out of Iran.
The biggest problem Bush has is to effectively destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities he may need to use nuclear weapons, hence Cheney’s little trip to our “Sponsors/Councilors”, “Saudi Servitude Field Trip ’08“, sponsored by OPEC. I don’t know enough about our bombs to understand why Nukes would be necessary. I thought our bunker busters could destroy a nuclear facility or some of those big ass bombs that we used to destroy caves in Afghanistan.

What’s fucking scary about all of this is this was planned out several years ago. The rhetoric Bush is spewing about Iran sponsoring terrorist elements is a self -fulfilling prophecy. I am torn whether or not to believe The Iranian’s are sponsoring terrorist elements in Iraq. It fits with Iran’s ideology and there is compelling evidence but when you have Government Reports stating that this is one of the scenarios we need in order to justify attacking Iran and that is from the Reports from as early as 2003 .


“Senior American intelligence and defense officials believe that President George W Bush and his inner circle are taking steps to place America on the path to war with Iran, …Pentagon planners have developed a list of up to 2,000 bombing targets in Iran, …
Pentagon and CIA officers say they believe that the White House has begun a carefully calibrated programme of escalation that could lead to a military showdown with Iran.
In a chilling scenario of how war might come, a senior intelligence officer warned that public denunciation of Iranian meddling in Iraq - arming and training militants - would lead to cross border raids on Iranian training camps and bomb factories.
A prime target would be the Fajr base run by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Quds Force in southern Iran, where Western intelligence agencies say armour-piercing projectiles used against British and US troops are manufactured.
The intelligence officer said that the US military has “two major contingency plans” for air strikes on Iran.
“One is to bomb only the nuclear facilities. The second option is for a much bigger strike that would - over two or three days - hit all of the significant military sites as well. This plan involves more than 2,000 targets.” (quoted in The Sunday Telegraph, 16 September 2007)

"Theater Iran Near Term" (TIRANNT) was ordered in 2003 and basically you don’t need a Nostradamus Quatrain to see Bush is following the old playbook verbatim.


"In early 2003, even as U.S. forces were on the brink of war with Iraq, the Army had already begun conducting an analysis for a full-scale war with Iran. The analysis, called TIRANNT, for "theater Iran near term," was coupled with a mock scenario for a Marine Corps invasion and a simulation of the Iranian missile force. U.S. and British planners conducted a Caspian Sea war game around the same time. And Bush directed the U.S. Strategic Command to draw up a global strike war plan for an attack against Iranian weapons of mass destruction. All of this will ultimately feed into a new war plan for "major combat operations" against Iran that military sources confirm now exists in draft form. [This contingency plan entitled CONPLAN 8022 would be activated in the eventuality of a Second 9/11, on the presumption that Iran would be behind it]”

More on CONPLAN 8022-02 http://www.fas.org/ssp/docs/GlobalStrikeReport.pdf

“Consistent with CENTCOM's 1995 "sequencing" of theater operations, the plans to target Iran were activated under TIRANNT in the immediate wake of the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Confirmed by Arkin, the active component of the Iran military agenda was launched in May 2003 "when modelers and intelligence specialists pulled together the data needed for theater-level (meaning large-scale) scenario analysis for Iran." (Arkin, op cit). In October 2003, different theater scenarios for an Iran war were contemplated:
"The US army, navy, air force and marines have all prepared battle plans and spent four years building bases and training for "Operation Iranian Freedom". Admiral Fallon, the new head of US Central Command, has inherited computerized plans under the name TIRANNT (Theatre Iran Near Term)." (New Statesman, 19 Feb 2007)”

“The Pentagon's Second 9/11

What is now being contemplated by Washington is an overwhelming use of military force in retaliation to Iran's alleged non-compliance. This of course is the pretext, the justification for waging war. The Pentagon has also contemplated retaliating against Iran in the case of a second 9/11 attack:
"A third plan sets out how the military can both disrupt and respond to another major terrorist strike on the United States. It includes lengthy annexes that offer a menu of options for the military to retaliate quickly against specific terrorist groups, individuals or state sponsors depending on who is believed to be behind an attack. Another attack could create both a justification and an opportunity that is lacking today to retaliate against some known targets, according to current and former defense officials familiar with the plan.
This plan details "what terrorists or bad guys we would hit if the gloves came off. The gloves are not off," said one official, who asked not to be identified because of the sensitivity of the subject. (emphasis added, WP 23 April 2006)
The presumption of this military document, is that a Second 911 attack "which is lacking today" would usefully create both a "justification and an opportunity" to wage war on "some known targets [Iran and Syria]".

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=CHO20070221&articleId=4888

I would be surprised if Bush Inc., LLC would attack Iran. I can not believe they would now. As I stated before, an attack on Iran would cripple McCain’s chance at the White house and I don’t think the Republicans are stupid enough to risk losing the White House. McCain would have 4 years to instigate a favorable scenario to justify attacking Iran. If it looks like he will lose the election then I’m sure the Administration’s final coup de grace for the American way of life might be plausible.

[kwame k]

Originally posted by kwame k

I don’t know enough about our bombs to understand why Nukes would be necessary. I thought our bunker busters could destroy a nuclear facility or some of those big ass bombs that we used to destroy caves in Afghanistan.

Just to clarify, I read somewhere to destroy a nuclear facility Nukes would be more effective. Can’t find the article I was reading about that but it had to do with the construction of the structure.

I understand that by destroying the nuclear facility with non-nuclear weapons it would have an environmental impact from the resulting destruction and may cause other nasty shit that the Saudis may want to protect themselves from.

[Little Texan]

Originally posted by kwame k
I don’t know enough about our bombs to understand why Nukes would be necessary. I thought our bunker busters could destroy a nuclear facility or some of those big ass bombs that we used to destroy caves in Afghanistan.

Aren't bunker buster bombs produced using depleted uranium?

[kwame k]

Originally posted by Little Texan
Aren't bunker buster bombs produced using depleted uranium?

The US Air Force's BLU-113 "bunker buster" warhead was originally developed in a hurry during the 1991 Gulf War to attack fortified Iraqi command centres deep underground.
It is a 4,500 lb (2,041 kg) penetrating warhead, later used in Serbia and in Afghanistan, and now in the Iraqi capital, Baghdad.

It is carried in the form of the GBU-28 laser-guided bomb by the B-2 stealth bomber and F-15E fighter-bomber, or the GBU-37 satellite-guided bomb by the B-2 alone.

Satellite guidance means the bomb can be used even through cloud or smoke - because laser guidance, though highly accurate, is degraded by those.

The warhead includes more than 600 lb (272 kg) of high explosive - the rest is believed to be dense depleted uranium.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2895081.stm

[Nitro Express]

The Russians are saying their military intelligence shows a huge US buildup on the Iranian border. Something is up.

[Nitro Express]

March 29, 2008
Russian military intelligence services are reporting a flurry of activity by U.S. Armed Forces near Iran’s borders, a high-ranking security source said Tuesday.
“The latest military intelligence data point to heightened U.S. military preparations for both an air and ground operation against Iran,” the official said, adding that the Pentagon has probably not yet made a final decision as to when an attack will be launched.



He said the Pentagon is looking for a way to deliver a strike against Iran “that would enable the Americans to bring the country to its knees at minimal cost.”
He also said the U.S. Naval presence in the Persian Gulf has for the first time in the past four years reached the level that existed shortly before the invasion of Iraq in March 2003.
Col.-Gen. Leonid Ivashov, vice president of the Academy of Geopolitical Sciences, said last week that the Pentagon is planning to deliver a massive air strike on Iran’s military infrastructure in the near future.
A new U.S. carrier battle group has been dispatched to the Gulf.
The USS John C. Stennis, with a crew of 3,200 and around 80 fixed-wing aircraft, including F/A-18 Hornet and Superhornet fighter-bombers, eight support ships and four nuclear submarines are heading for the Gulf, where a similar group led by the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower has been deployed since December 2006.
The U.S. is also sending Patriot anti-missile systems to the region.

[Nitro Express]

. . then only a moron would deny that Bush and Dick have nothing but contempt for the will of the people, congress and the courts, and that they crave war like a junkie craves his fix.




<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/0BeFCOUqsWA&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/0BeFCOUqsWA&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

[Blackflag]

Idiot conspiracy theories aside... I knew this crazy motherfucker just couldn't resist starting this shit before he has to leave.

Only a few months left for this maniac to make an even bigger mess of things. Oh, fuck.

[knuckleboner]

we're not attacking iran.

bush may not be the brightest bulb in the bunch, but at this point, even he and his most hawkish advisors know that there really isn't enough funding to cover the iraq and afghanistan operations successfully. there's no chance we could engage iran in anything more than highly limited strikes on a few specific targets. but even that will be highly opposed by virtually the entire congress and my guess is most of the military who recognize the logistic nightmare of a 3-fronted middle east war.

[LoungeMachine]

Funding?

Are you high?

The billions for Iraq and Afghanistan are off-budget.

You really think money is the reason they wont bomb?

And you cannot say "we're not attacking" but then say we might engage in some "limited strikes"

Limited strikes = attacking Iran.

Get off the fence. :D

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by knuckleboner


but even that will be highly opposed by virtually the entire congress and my guess is most of the military who recognize the logistic nightmare of a 3-fronted middle east war.

Most of congress, the military brass, and hell the NATION recognize the 2-front nightmare.....

what's one more to Bush/Cheney???