Iran has vowed to be a "killing field" for any attackers targeting its nuclear programme. America is talking openly of the possibility of military strikes to destroy the mullahs' nuclear ambitions.

But Tehran hit back with its own chilling warning. Gholamali Rashid, deputy head of the armed forces, said: "Iran's amed forces, through their experience of war, will turn this land into a killing field for enemy aggressors."

US Ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, said recently that his country had been "beefing up defensive measures" to  thwart Iran's nuclear plans. The West suspects Iran wants to build atomic weapons, not just produce nuclear-generated electricity for civilian use as Tehran claims.

Iran's denials, and their recent public calls for Israel's destruction, have stoked Western suspicions. Mr. Bolton said: "You only have to take out one part of their nuclear operation to take the whole thing down. We must be prepared to use all the tools at our disposal to stop the threat that the Iranian regime poses."

[Source: The Daily Mail, London, England]

 ~ Viper ~

My,my, once again we see Israel fear for its existence based on the impotent rantings of a political neophyte that's desperate to prove to his voters that he has plenty of old-school, macho street-cred with with which to confront one of the world's most frequently tolerated human rights violaters with. Westerners are just as credelous and naive as President Ahmendijad's electrol audience, if they are seriously convinced that Iran is going to put its own security in certain peril by launching an unconventional weapons strike at Israel, a country that has no moral reservations about blithely devastating other nations in the name of ''self-defence''. (Case in point, Lebanon). A plan like that is tantamount to sucide. You don't punch a tiger in the gut, and expect to gain anything beneficial or enriching from it.

Wake-up,people. Iran has had yet to mount an unprovoked invasion against any one of its neighbours, very much in contrast with Israel that simply adores using excuses of the most dubious nature as a ploy to seize large tracts of soveriegn terrotiary deemed suffeciently tempting by its trigger-happy generals. Brutal conquests and security ''needs'' cheerfully complement one another, where the Israelie mentality is concerned.

If you want my opinion, Israel has simply begun to develop a ravenous apetite for Iran's ample oil reserves. And of course, their little scheme wouldn't be complete with their butt-boys in Washington to give them a hand. C'mon, Dubya. We're not dumb enough to fall for the same trick twice.

[Extracts from "Planned US-Israeli Attack on Iran"
by Michel Chossudovsky
1 May 2005]
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO505A.html

Israel will not act unilaterally, without a green light from Washington. In other words, Israel will not implement an attack without the participation of the US.

Tehran has confirmed that it will retaliate if attacked, in the form of ballistic missile strikes directed against Israel (CNN, 8 Feb 2005). These attacks could also target US military facilities in the Persian Gulf, which would immediately lead into a scenario of military escalation and all out war.

In other words, the air strikes against Iran could contribute to unleashing a war in the broader Middle East Central Asian region.

Moreover, the planned attack on Iran should also be understood in relation to the timely withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon, which has opened up a new space, for the deployment of Israeli forces. The participation of Turkey in the US-Israeli military operation is also a factor, following an agreement reached between Ankara and Tel Aviv.

A massive buildup in military hardware has occurred in preparation for a possible attack on Iran.

Israel has recently taken delivery from the US of some 5,000  "smart air launched weapons" including some 500 BLU 109 'bunker-buster bombs.     The (uranium coated) munitions are said to be more than "adequate to address the full range of Iranian targets, with the possible exception of the buried facility at Natanz, which may require the [more powerful] BLU-113 bunker buster.

The Israeli Air Force would attack Iran's nuclear facility at Bushehr using US as well as Israeli produced bunker buster bombs. The attack would be carried out in three separate waves "with the radar and communications jamming protection being provided by U.S. Air Force AWACS and other U.S. aircraft in the area".

Bear in mind that the bunker buster bombs can also be used to deliver tactical nuclear bombs. The B61-11 is the "nuclear version" of the "conventional" BLU 113. It can be delivered in much same way as the conventional bunker buster bomb.

According to the Pentagon, tactical nuclear weapons are "safe for civilians". Their use has been authorized by the US Senate.

Moreover, reported in late 2003, Israeli Dolphin-class submarines equipped with US Harpoon missiles armed with nuclear warheads are now aimed at Iran.

Even if tactical nuclear weapons are not used by Israel, an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities not only raises the specter of a broader war, but also of nuclear radiation over a wide area:

"To attack Iran's nuclear facilities will not only provoke war, but it could also unleash clouds of radiation far beyond the targets and the borders of Iran." (Statement of Prof Elias Tuma, Arab Internet Network, Federal News Service, 1 March 2005)

Moreover, while most reports have centered on the issue of punitive air strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities, the strikes would most probably extend to other targets.

While a ground war is contemplated as a possible "scenario" at the level of military planning, the US military would not be able to wage a an effective ground war, given the situation in Iraq. In the words of former National Security Adviser Lawrence Eagelberger:

"We are not going to get in a ground war in Iran, I hope. If we get into that, we are in serious trouble. I don't think anyone in Washington is seriously considering that." ( quoted in the National Journal, 4 December 2004).

Despite its overall weaknesses in relation to Israel and the US, Iran has an advanced air defense system, deployed to protect its nuclear sites; "they are dispersed and underground making potential air strikes difficult and without any guarantees of success." (Jerusalem Post, 20 April 2005). It has upgraded its Shahab-3 missile, which can reach targets in Israel. Iran's armed forces have recently conducted high-profile military exercises in anticipation of a US led attack. Iran also possesses some 12 X-55 strategic cruise missiles, produced by the Ukraine.  Iran's air defense systems is said to feature Russian SA-2, SA-5, SA-6 as well as shoulder-launched SA-7 missiles (Jaffa Center for Strategic Studies).


~ Viper ~

[omnipotentoculus]

I don't know so much about a "killing field" as a "plateau of fused glass." When the US and Russia pointed their nukes at each other, they were on the opposite side of the world and both are countries the size of which would require nearly a hundred bombs to adequately annihilate. Iran and Israel, on the other hand, are quite tiny. If Iran were to blast Israel, they would also damage Jerusalem and Palestine. They also know that the retaliation would be total. Hitting Iran with just 3 H-bombs would be enough to effectively kill everone in the country, either by immediate vaporization or by severe radiation poisoning. MAD (mutually assured distruction) is about 100 times worse with these tiny countries than it ever was in the Cold War.