Yes, the words are carefully crafted by General David Petraeus so everyone get your in between the lines glasses on...but what Petraeus said about taking out Iran's nukes was this, according to the report from DEBKA:
This all comes after the U.S. has moved the U.S.S. Dwight D. Eisenhower group into the Middle East.
Now, the article states that the main reason for the movement of the Eisenhower into the area is due to what is going on in Yemen, which I'm sure is partly true, but at the same time, it's a convenient positioning of the strike group if one was to consider an Iranian target.
Now, at the same time, with us seeing Petraeus saying it "can" be bombed also speaks volumes to whether or not President Obama would make such a call. Considering the fact that this President of ours took over a week to decide to save a ship captain from Somali pirates and six months to decide on more troops for Afghanistan, I'd say it would take him about 10 years to decided whether to strike Iran or not and of course, within probably another year or two the Iranians should have finished their project and any attack on them probably seals the death warrant for a number of Israelis and/or U.S. troops in Iraq/Afghanistan.
I still, to this day, argue for what the downside of taking out the Iranian nukes. I can't think of a single ally of America that would denounce the strike and although China and Russia have recently stood up against Iranian sanctions, they have both wavered on Iran, visibly tired of the Iranian games. If we "can" do it, then I say we do it. And damn soon.
"Well, they certainly can be bombed," he said to CNN. "The level of effect would vary with who it is that carries it out, what ordnance they have and what capability they can bring to bear."
"It would be almost literally irresponsible if Centcom were not to have been thinking about 'what ifs' and making plans for a whole variety of different contingencies."
This all comes after the U.S. has moved the U.S.S. Dwight D. Eisenhower group into the Middle East.
Now, the article states that the main reason for the movement of the Eisenhower into the area is due to what is going on in Yemen, which I'm sure is partly true, but at the same time, it's a convenient positioning of the strike group if one was to consider an Iranian target.
Now, at the same time, with us seeing Petraeus saying it "can" be bombed also speaks volumes to whether or not President Obama would make such a call. Considering the fact that this President of ours took over a week to decide to save a ship captain from Somali pirates and six months to decide on more troops for Afghanistan, I'd say it would take him about 10 years to decided whether to strike Iran or not and of course, within probably another year or two the Iranians should have finished their project and any attack on them probably seals the death warrant for a number of Israelis and/or U.S. troops in Iraq/Afghanistan.
I still, to this day, argue for what the downside of taking out the Iranian nukes. I can't think of a single ally of America that would denounce the strike and although China and Russia have recently stood up against Iranian sanctions, they have both wavered on Iran, visibly tired of the Iranian games. If we "can" do it, then I say we do it. And damn soon.
Petraeus: Iran's nuclear infrastructure can be bombed
The deployment in the Middle East of the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower carrier strike group in the first week of January adds muscle to the words of Gen. David Petraeus, CENTCOM commander, on Jan 10 that Iranian nuclear infrastructure, albeit strengthened against attack with enhanced underground tunnels, wasn't fully protected.
"Well, they certainly can be bombed," he said to CNN. "The level of effect would vary with who it is that carries it out, what ordnance they have and what capability they can bring to bear."
This judgment contradicts recent US media estimates that Iran's nuclear facilities buried deep in fortified tunnels are now protected against air or missile strikes.
Declining to comment on the likelihood of an Israeli strike, Gen. Petraeus said there was still time for diplomacy, but pointed out: "It would be almost literally irresponsible if Centcom were not to have been thinking about 'what ifs' and making plans for a whole variety of different contingencies."
DEBKAfile's military sources add: CENTCOM was substantially beefed up by the USS Eisenhower carrier which President Barack Obama deployed in the New Year to the Persian Gulf and Mediterranean in support of the US Fifth and Sixth Fleets. He ordered this six-month deployment, the first since he took office a year ago, in view of the rising tensions around Yemen and Iran.
The Eisenhower carries eight air squadrons on its decks.
Air Wing Seven is made up of four fighter-bomber squadrons, a squadron each of early-warning surveillance, electronic warfare and tactical support aircraft and another of anti-submarine helicopters. Its strike force consists of the USS Hue City guided missile cruiser, and two guided missile destroyers, the USS McFaul, USS Farragut and USS Carney.
Obama said in a recent interview that he had not intention of sending US combat troops to the terrorist havens of Somalia and Yemen because "working with international partners is most effective at this point."
This statement ties in with pumping up America's naval and air strength in the two volatile regions to avoid sending in more boots on the ground which the US cannot afford at this time.
No comments:
Post a Comment