The accuracy of this detailed story is anybodies guess-grains of salt required.

Why the story was put out could be for a number of reasons--fill in your own.

A few of many possible reasons:

If real:
1)attempts by Russia to thwart the US "surprise" attack (an attack which the US would would after try to justify as a response to a sudden crises).

If fake:
1)Market manipulation
2)The exact time may be contrived, but only to highlight the actual intention of US military to make an attack sometime soon.
3)a US black operation to intimidate Iran into compliance.

" Operation Bite: April 6 sneak attack by US Forces against Iran planned, Russian Military sources war
Click Name for Bio of Daan de Wit
Monday, 26 March 2007
By Webster G. Tarpley

The long awaited US military attack on Iran is now on track for the first week of April, specifically for 4 AM on April 6, the Good Friday opening of Easter weekend, writes the well-known Russian journalist Andrei Uglanov in the Moscow weekly “Argumenty Nedeli.” Uglanov cites Russian military experts close to the Russian General Staff for his account.

The attack is slated to last for twelve hours, according to Uglanov, lasting from 4 AM until 4 PM local time. Friday is a holiday 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.

The first reactor at the Bushehr nuclear plant, where Russian engineers are working, is supposed to be spared from destruction. The US attack plan reportedly calls for the Iranian air defense system to be degraded, for numerous Iranian warships to be sunk in the Persian Gulf, and the for the most important headquarters of the Iranian armed forces to be wiped out.

The attacks will be mounted from a number of bases, including the island of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean. Diego Garcia is currently home to B-52 bombers equipped with standoff missiles. Also participating in the air strikes will be US naval aviation from aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf, as well as from those of the Sixth Fleet in the Mediterranean. Additional cruise missiles will be fired from submarines in the Indian Ocean and off the coast of the Arabian peninsula. The goal is allegedly to set back Iran 's nuclear program by several years, writes Uglanov, whose article was re-issued (1, 2) by RIA-Novosti in various languages, but apparently not English, several days ago. The story is the top item on numerous Italian and German blogs, but so far appears to have been ignored by US websites.

Observers comment that this dispatch represents a high-level orchestrated leak from the Kremlin, in effect a war warning, which draws on the formidable resources of the Russian intelligence services, and which deserves to be taken with the utmost seriousness by pro-peace forces around the world.. .."

atlanticfreepress

commondreams

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
If true, that would be a very unfortunate turn of events.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papal Bull:
Why would Russia stop the US?

---

To protect their (Iranian) oil supplies?

i do believe the reports that Russia has pulled 2000 (or is it 5000) engineers out of the Bushehr facility, after the resolution of recent payment negotiations.

in other words, for safety/ security reasons.

i don't know how Russia bills Iran for their engineers' time, but if it's anything like American defense companies, they are foregoing 2000x$400 a day, that's $800,000 a day, and is a very conservative estimates. American defense companies typically bill the government or the customer $1200 a day (or more) for each engineer; i am using the baseline that Russia is charging Iran 1/3 of what an American defense contractor charges for engineering time. so anyway Russia is foregoing some serious contract revenues, while their engineers are out of the facility.

we won't know the exact date until after the fact.

i think this is part of the Bush-Cheney 8 year plan; they will bequeath a war with Iran to the next American pResident of the Oval Office.

it will start out as kind of a drive-by shooting - 12 hours of bombing.

reports are that the US will be using the F-22 to deliver some of the bombs. this will make the War Toy Boyz happy, the first product demonstration for their new toy.

- - -

quote:

---

Originally posted by Abdul_Maria:
wasn't the United Nations started so that there would be an organization with the power to stop the Hitler's & the Bush-Cheney's of the world, when they go attacking other countries ?

---

Yes, but the architects of the UN didn't count on the death by a thousands cuts provided by client countries of the security council and of the top 5 themselves.

quote:

---

originally posted by Webgear:
The Russians are most likely interested in viewing how their military hardware performs against the western forces equipment.

---

Does the US really think that Iran won't find a way to hit back? I mean, once you've opened fire on a country's home territory, doesn't that give them license to do the same to you?

Though I suppose an attack on US soil would just empower the warmongers. Would 10? 20?

The fact that Iran is now surrounded had been a fact that the Iranians have been cognizant of as growing strategic reality, ever since the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, and an evolution of the long term strategic posture of the US along an axis which can be shown to be in existance, long before the attack of 9/11 2001.

Furthermore, Canadians should consider this point, in terms of its participation in operations in Afghanistan, and for instance, note that the deployment of our Leopard tanks in Afghanistan was completely inexplicapble in the context of a counter-insurgency, where main battle tanks have been proven time and time again to be more or less completely useless,. So, unless one assumes that war planners in the DND are barmy, the only possible reason for the deployment was in regards to contingency use against regular army units, of which the Iranian Army is the most likely prospective enemy.

Therefore, it seems very difficult not to conclude that the Canadian military posture is latently, if not explicitly, designed for participation in armed operations against Iran, and that this was not incidental. The potential involvement of Canadian troops in some kind of operations against Iran, even, say, as static border defence of Afghanistan against potential Iranian counter attack, -- giving regular US forces more offensive operational mobility -- is very large indeed.

Once deployed in such a fashion of course the potential for serious mission creep is also large, almost to the point of indicating that Canadian direct engagements with Iranian forces is nigh on inevitable should hostility begin, with or without the consent of parliament.

This is particularly sailent in that Harper can finesse the political situation, because Canadian forces already have an operational mandate in Afghanistan, not to mention the fact that they are under overall US command.

[ 04 April 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

By IANS
Wednesday April 4, 02:30 PM
Kuwait City, April 4 (Xinhua) The US is planning to attack Iran's nuclear reactors and other nuclear facilities by the end of this month, the Kuwait-based Arab Times newspaper reported Wednesday.

Citing anonymous sources in Washington, it said that various White House departments had started preparing the political speech to be delivered by the US president later this month, announcing the military attack on Iran.

The speech will provide the 'evidence' and the 'justification' for the US to resort to the military option after failing to persuade Tehran to give up its nuclear ambitions, said the report.

---

US to attack Iran by end of April: report

[ 04 April 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Mind you, I'm still doubtful that the U.S. will actually attack Iran. This may simply be a government scare tactic to see if force can pressure Iran. It would make sense given the over-extension of U.S. forces. They may surround Iran, but that does not mean that a new front (even in an air war) is possible. Additionally, I sincerly doubt that the Army officials in the U.S. could get behind additional deployments in the area, even the Navy and Marines are probably a tad bit flustered by the disregard the administration has shown towards their service-people's security and well-being. The Air Force may be a tad more gung-ho, but even then I have major doubts about the political resolve within the armed forces' establishments to do this.

I think events could escalate rapidly.

I looked up and down the thread and didn't see anyone suggesting that the Russian would be interested in being directly involved. "Thwarting the US" is meant in terms of making an attack diplomatically, and possibley operationally unfeasible by releasing the information, it seemed to me.

[ 05 April 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papal Bull:
And diplomacy from Russia will thwart the U.S. how?

---

Since "thwart" (i.e. "hinder or prevent (the efforts, plans, or desires") of was the word I used in a possible list of unsubstantiated speculations, I'll try to explain:

1)Of course Russia can't militarily prevent any determined action by the US without probably killing us all. The most it can reasonably do is make the intended action politically less desirable.
2)If you expose an intended "surprise" plan in detail sometime before it is executed, the advantage of "surprise" no longer exists.
3)an after the fact media "justification" by the aggressor that some immediate crises has necessitated a unannounced sneak attack would be shown to be a lie by the existing media record.

[ 05 April 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

I was saying that the US might have planted the story with the Russian intelligence, in order to intimidate Iran, without actually intending to follow through on the operation.

[ 05 April 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
Well the Russian story is that they obtained the information through their spies.

I was saying that the US might have planted the story with the Russian intelligence, in order to intimidate Iran, without actually intending to follow through on the operation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
Haven't they already?

...for instance, note that the deployment of our Leopard tanks in Afghanistan was completely inexplicapble in the context of a counter-insurgency, where main battle tanks have been proven time and time again to be more or less completely useless,.

---

I also thought the leopard deployment made little sense, although for different reasons than the ones you cite.

The Taliban themselves are fairly mechanized, and from that perspective, it makes sense to have tanks on hand, primarily for the defence of fixed bases. The choice of the geriatric leopards is that part I find questionable.

Which then allows them to pose in front of the troops saying "we won't spare any expense to get you tanks that work". Of course no one in the media asks the need to have tanks in a mountainous country and so in "support of the troops" the military-industrial complex gets even more billions.

Speaking of deception and chickenhawks although there are some reports of crap flying in April, it's probably safe to assume the people haven't been brainwashed enough. To this end here was Blair's story about how 4 of their soldiers died today:

Blair attacks Iran as Basra deaths overshadow the hostages' return

quote:

---

It was meant to be a day to celebrate the homecoming of the hostages from Iran. "Rejoice" said Tony Blair. But then came the dark shadow of Iraq, four British soldiers - two of them women - killed and another severely wounded in a roadside ambush in Basra.

The attack, in which a Kuwaiti interpreter was also killed, shattered whatever hopes had emerged of better relations with Iran following the release of the British prisoners.

The Prime Minister directly linked the Tehran regime to killings of British soldiers in Iraq, accusing it of "backing, financing, arming terrorism".

---

Maybe Tony the poodle should talk to King George before he accuses someone of "backing, financing, arming terrorism":

U.S. supports "terrorists", Iranian speaker says

quote:

---

The United States is putting pressure on Iran by supporting anti-Iranian militants operating from the Pakistani border region, the speaker of Iran's parliament, Gholamali Haddadadel, said on Thursday.

"The best indication of United States' support to a particular terrorist group is that one of the leaders of this terrorist group was given the opportunity to speak on VoA after committing the crime," he said, referring to a Voice of America radio broadcast after an unspecified attack.

The U.S. channel ABC News reported on Tuesday the United States had been secretly advising and encouraging a Pakistani militant group that had carried out a series of guerrilla raids inside Iran.

ABC, citing U.S. and Pakistani intelligence sources, said the raids had resulted in the deaths or capture of Iranian soldiers and officials.

---

Of course everything in the Middle East has to do with oil and the building of this pipeline would surely trigger an American/lackey response:

quote:

---

He also said he hoped work on a gas pipeline, from Iran, through Pakistan to energy-hungry India, would begin in July. The United States opposes the pipeline.

"The pipeline has political messages that there is security in the region and the three countries - Iran, Pakistan and India - decide on their own without foreign, external influence."

---

Definitely heating up and our media will be right in the middle of it cheering on the shock and awe.

[ 05 April 2007: Message edited by: a lonely worker ]

What If Iran Had Invaded Mexico?

quote:

---

Even if the White House clique is not planning war, naval deployments, support for secessionist movements and acts of terror within Iran, and other provocations could easily lead to an accidental war. Congressional resolutions would not provide much of a barrier. They invariably permit "national security" exemptions, opening holes wide enough for the several aircraft-carrier battle groups soon to be in the Persian Gulf to pass through – as long as an unscrupulous leadership issues proclamations of doom (as Condoleezza Rice did with those "mushroom clouds" over American cities back in 2002). And the concocting of the sorts of incidents that "justify" such attacks is a familiar practice. Even the worst monsters feel the need for such justification and adopt the device: Hitler's defense of innocent Germany from the "wild terror" of the Poles in 1939, after they had rejected his wise and generous proposals for peace, is but one example.

---

[ 05 April 2007: Message edited by: a lonely worker ]

quote:

---

[/QB]

Which then allows them to pose in front of the troops saying "we won't spare any expense to get you tanks that work". Of course no one in the media asks the need to have tanks in a mountainous country and so in "support of the troops" the military-industrial complex gets even more billions.

[/QB]

---

There large regions in Afghanistan that tanks work well in, and if the tanks stay in these regions they should be fine.

Areas such as Helmand, Nimroz, Zabol provinces and as Southern Kandahar province are very flat and are excellent areas for tanks to operate in.

Even in the mountains and if used properly, tanks can be an excellent weapon system.

[ 06 April 2007: Message edited by: Webgear ]

quote:

---

Areas such as Helmand, Nimroz, Zabol provinces and as Southern Kandahar province are very flat and are excellent areas for tanks to operate in.

---

[ 06 April 2007: Message edited by: Bobolink ]

i can't think of another time when America amassed such a huge collection of forces (100+ Very Large Boats) and not done something with them (besides intimidate other countries).

maybe there were similar exercises during the so-called Cold War (it wasn't very cold for the Vietnamese, Laotians, and Cambodians, among others) where the US flashed its teeth/ weapons without using them.

quote:

---

April 4 (Xinhua) The US is planning to attack Iran's nuclear reactors and other nuclear facilities by the end of this month, the Kuwait-based Arab Times newspaper reported Wednesday.
Citing anonymous sources in Washington, it said that various White House departments had started preparing the political speech to be delivered by the US president later this month, announcing the military attack on Iran.

---

quote:

---

There are Russian news agencies that, citing intelligence sources, have reported that the war on Iran has been prepared in all its details for more than three years, from the day that the United States decided to totally occupy Iraq, thus unleashing an interminable and odious civil war.

---

Castro's entire speech is good reading actually, as usual. It'a an expose of the latest atrocities of imperialism - this time mostly in relation to the despicable U.S. plan to use fuel from food to feed the enormous, endless and wastefully gluttonous North American appetite for fossil fuel :

The Internationalization of Genocide.

Anyway, the Russian news link in regard to Iran is over here:

Novosti [Francais]

Novosti [English] Possible US strike on Iran

[ 06 April 2007: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bobolink:
I don't know how fast we could obtain them but it would appear that the Israeli Merkava tank would be a better fit for our forces in Afghanistan. The Merkava is designed from the ground up to operate in a high-temperature environment with emphasis on crew survivability. The Kraus-Maffei Leopards are still a European tank.

---

NB, thanks for posting the links. The article from Fidel is quite good and the questions posed are definitely worth asking:

quote:

---

Nobody at Camp David responded to the main question. Where and who is going to supply the more than 500 million tons of corn and other cereals that the United States, Europe and the rich countries need to produce the volume of gallons of ethanol that the big U.S. companies and those of other countries are demanding as compensation for their sizeable investments? Where and who is going to produce the soy beans, the sunflower and colza seeds, whose essential oils are going to be converted by those same rich countries into fuel?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by siren:

Well, I'm sure Simple Steve and Hairy Ass Hillier would jump at your idea. But I hope cooler heads prevail before we deploy Israeli built tanks in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan.

---

Whether new or old, tanks just not for this war

quote:

---

The rush to lease nearly two dozen Leopard 2 A6M tanks is the most compelling evidence yet that neither the Afghan mission nor the master plan for the new military is unfolding as predicted.

No matter how sophisticated, tanks are inconsistent with this country's objectives of rescuing a failed state and creating a light, fast and flexible armed forces capable of responding to a new century's chaotic threats.

Designed for set-piece, Cold War confrontations, the 55-tonne behemoths are hardly the weapons of choice in the close and often urban encounters of today's hearts-and-minds wars. Too often they cause the collateral damage that turns locals against foreigners and isolates soldiers from the civilians they were sent to help.

Worse still, even the world's best battle tanks – and the new Leopards are among them – are vulnerable to fast-evolving insurgent tactics and improvised weapons. During last summer's failed Israeli incursion into Lebanon, a minimum of 18 of its tanks, all various generations of the highly regarded Merkava series, were seriously damaged and at least two destroyed.

That raises interesting questions. Did the military not know that its aging Leopards would be unusable in Afghanistan's summer heat? Or was it an exercise in planned failure, one that would put irresistible political pressure on the government to acquire the tanks that, in more cost-conscious times, Chief of Defence Staff Gen. Rick Hillier deleted from his already-long shopping list?

Whatever the answers, this week's abrupt and typically secretive change of course demands far closer scrutiny. Canadians need to know if a mission already heavily skewed toward war and away from reconstruction is morphing into the kind of protracted, all-out conflict alien armies don't win in Afghanistan.

It's hard to fathom how a weapon too heavy for roads, too large for village streets and primarily designed to fight other tanks can effectively advance Canada's goals of defeating an insurgency indistinguishable from the local population while reconstructing a shattered society.

In the best-case scenario, modern tanks will keep troops cooler and safer. In the worst, Canada will lease expensive weapons it decided it didn't need and lose a war that must be fought and won among the people.

---

[ 07 April 2007: Message edited by: a lonely worker ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bobolink:
Would you prefer that we purchased the indigenous Zulfiqar main battle tank from Iran? It is also a weapons system designed for high temperature environments.

---

While in some ways an improvement ....

The bigger and better question is, "why tanks at all?"

quote:

---

Originally posted by a lonely worker:

Yeah the Soviets had nothing but success with them.

---

Use of Soviet Tanks in Afghanistan

Lonely Worker this document will provide some insight Soviet tactics used in Afghanistan.

As you can see, Soviet and Afghan tanks were used quite effective in several operations in Southern Afghanistan