Mediterráneo Oriental más Irán, Irak chií y Turquía

[pagano]

Más información al respecto.
http://www.libertaddigital.com/noticias ... 03529.html

P.D.: Digamos mejor que el placer es mutuo.

[kilo009]

Nueva crisis institucional en irak, promulgada por Muqtada al-Sadr:

-6 ministros de su bloque, anunciarion que abandonaban el Gobierno de Nuri al-Maliki, dando como razón, la negativa de Maliki a negociar un caldendario de la retirada de las tropas extranjeras de Irak y el fracaso del Gobierno a la hora de combatir la inseguridad en el país.

-Esto tiene mucha relación con la manifestación del 9 de abril en Nayaf, con más de un millón de personas y con los golpes que está recibiendo el Ejército Al-Mahdi por parte de las fuerzas de seguridad iraquíes.

[kilo009]

El comandante de la Fuerza Naval iraní, general Sayyad Kucheki:

-Defenderá sus aguas jurisdiccionales y responderá con firmeza ante cualquier amenaza, con el fin de defender sus aguas e islas en el Golfo Pérsico.

-Parece que los iraníes siguen instalando misiles antibuque y antiaéreos en sus costas.

-Parece que el portaaviones Stennis está asignado a misiones en Afganistán, y en la zona queda el Eisenhower, a la espera de ser relevado por el Nimitz, que viene de San Diego, donde zarpó el 2 de abril.

El general Reza Jorram Tusi, jefe en funciones del Estado Mayor del Ejército de Irán: http://www2.irna.com/es/news/view/menu- ... 105853.htm

Sayyad Kucheki, almirante de la Armada de Irán: http://www2.irna.com/es/news/view/menu- ... 150350.htm

[kilo009]

Hamas y Las Brigadas de mártires de Al-aqsa, llamaron este lunes a secuestrar israelíes para forzar su canje por prisioneros palestinos en cárceles israelíes. Hablan tanto de civiles como militares.

[KS]

El texto que cuelgo es largo, a pesar de que he escogido los pasajes exclusivamente referidos a la operación militar.

What Would War Look Like?
By MICHAEL DUFFY

25 de septiembre de 2006

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/artic ... 17,00.html


So what would it look like? Interviews with dozens of experts and government officials in Washington, Tehran and elsewhere in the Middle East paint a sobering picture: military action against Iran's nuclear facilities would have a decent chance of succeeding, but at a staggering cost.



WOULD AN ATTACK WORK?

The answer is yes and no.

No one is talking about a ground invasion of Iran. Too many U.S. troops are tied down elsewhere to make it possible, and besides, it isn't necessary. If the U.S. goal is simply to stunt Iran's nuclear program, it can be done better and more safely by air. An attack limited to Iran's nuclear facilities would nonetheless require a massive campaign. Experts say that Iran has between 18 and 30 nuclear-related facilities. The sites are dispersed around the country — some in the open, some cloaked in the guise of conventional factories, some buried deep underground.

A Pentagon official says that among the known sites there are 1,500 different "aim points," which means the campaign could well require the involvement of almost every type of aircraft in the U.S. arsenal: Stealth bombers and fighters, B-1s and B-2s, as well as F-15s and F-16s operating from land and F-18s from aircraft carriers.

GPS-guided munitions and laser-targeted bombs--sighted by satellite, spotter aircraft and unmanned vehicles — would do most of the bunker busting. But because many of the targets are hardened under several feet of reinforced concrete, most would have to be hit over and over to ensure that they were destroyed or sufficiently damaged. The U.S. would have to mount the usual aerial ballet, refueling tankers as well as search-and-rescue helicopters in case pilots were shot down by Iran's aging but possibly still effective air defenses. U.S. submarines and ships could launch cruise missiles as well, but their warheads are generally too small to do much damage to reinforced concrete — and might be used for secondary targets. An operation of that size would hardly be surgical. Many sites are in highly populated areas, so civilian casualties would be a certainty.

Whatever the order of battle, a U.S. strike would have a lasting impression on Iran's rulers. U.S. officials believe that a campaign of several days, involving hundreds or even thousands of sorties, could set back Iran's nuclear program by two to three years. Hit hard enough, some believe, Iranians might develop second thoughts about their government's designs as a regional nuclear power. Some U.S. foes of Iran's regime believe that the crisis of legitimacy that the ruling clerics would face in the wake of a U.S. attack could trigger their downfall, although others are convinced it would unite the population with the government in anti-American rage.

But it is also likely that the U.S. could carry out a massive attack and still leave Iran with some part of its nuclear program intact. It's possible that U.S. warplanes could destroy every known nuclear site — while Tehran's nuclear wizards, operating at other, undiscovered sites even deeper underground, continued their work. "We don't know where it all is," said a White House official, "so we can't get it all."






WHAT WOULD COME NEXT?

Retired Air Force Colonel Sam Gardiner, who taught strategy at the National War College, has been conducting a mock U.S.-Iran war game for American policymakers for the past five years. Virtually every time he runs the game, Gardiner says, a similar nightmare scenario unfolds: the U.S. attack, no matter how successful, spawns a variety of asymmetrical retaliations by Tehran. First comes terrorism: Iran's initial reaction to air strikes might be to authorize a Hizballah attack on Israel, in order to draw Israel into the war and rally public support at home.

Next, Iran might try to foment as much mayhem as possible inside the two nations on its flanks, Afghanistan and Iraq, where more than 160,000 U.S. troops hold a tenuous grip on local populations. Iran has already dabbled in partnership with warlords in western Afghanistan, where U.S. military authority has never been strong; it would be a small step to lend aid to Taliban forces gaining strength in the south. Meanwhile, Tehran has links to the main factions in Iraq, which would welcome a boost in money and weapons, if just to strengthen their hand against rivals. Analysts generally believe that Iran could in a short time orchestrate a dramatic increase in the number and severity of attacks on U.S. troops in Iraq. As Syed Ayad, a secular Shi'ite cleric and Iraqi Member of Parliament says, "America owns the sky of Iraq with their Apaches, but Iran owns the ground."

Next, there is oil. The Persian Gulf, a traffic jam on good days, would become a parking lot. Iran could plant mines and launch dozens of armed boats into the bottleneck, choking off the shipping lanes in the Strait of Hormuz and causing a massive disruption of oil-tanker traffic. A low-key Iranian mining operation in 1987 forced the U.S. to reflag Kuwaiti oil tankers and escort them, in slow-moving files of one and two, up and down the Persian Gulf. A more intense operation would probably send oil prices soaring above $100 per bbl. — which may explain why the Navy wants to be sure its small fleet of minesweepers is ready to go into action at a moment's notice. It is unlikely that Iran would turn off its own oil spigot or halt its exports through pipelines overland, but it could direct its proxies in Iraq and Saudi Arabia to attack pipelines, wells and shipment points inside those countries, further choking supply and driving up prices.

Un saludo,
KS

[kilo009]

Atentados químicos:

Unos seiscientos contenedores con más de 11.400 litros de ácido nítrico han sido descubiertos por soldados estadounidenses que realizaban una operación de rastreo de terroristas en un almacén ubicado al este de Bagdad

[Loopster]

Se dice, se cuenta, que durante el asalto a Fallujah en 2004, equipos de OEs encontraron, además de las salas de tortura y los estudios donde grababan a los rehenes durante las decapitaciones, varios almacenes subterraneos donde probaban con animales los efectos de armamento químico casero.

En algunos casos la cosa no pasaba de añadir bidones de disolvente a los coches bomba, pero ahora mismo la cosa se está yendo de madre, y lo que se teme especialmente es que se empleen agentes persistentes tras un atentado contra objetivos civiles. Se buscaría así el provocar bajas entre el personal de rescate y los soldados de la coalición que fueran enviados como QRF.

[kilo009]

Con motivo de la visita del Secretario de Defensa estadounidense a Israel, Olmert ha dicho lo siguiente:

-"Debemos ser cautelosos sobre errores de cálculo que puedan llevar a Siria e Israel a un conflicto en el que no están interesadas ninguna de las dos partes"

¿Por qué ha dicho eso? Según Israel, se está violando la resolución 1701 de la ONU a raíz de la militarización de Hezbolá con la entrada de armas procedentes de Siria

[KS]

CONPLAN 8022

Artículo del Washington Post sobre el CONPLAN 8022, el plan para un ataque preventivo contra Irán, incluyendo incluso armamento nuclear

Solo pongo los fragmentos más interesantes:

Not Just A Last Resort?
A Global Strike Plan, With a Nuclear Option
By William Arkin
Sunday, May 15, 2005

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 00071.html

Lt. Gen. Bruce Carlson, commander of the 8th Air Force, told a reporter that his fleet of B-2 and B-52 bombers had changed its way of operating so that it could be ready to carry out such missions. "We're now at the point where we are essentially on alert," Carlson said in an interview with the Shreveport (La.) Times. "We have the capacity to plan and execute global strikes."

Surprisingly, however, global strike also includes a nuclear option, which runs counter to traditional U.S. notions about the defensive role of nuclear weapons.

CONPLAN 8022 is different from other war plans in that it posits a small-scale operation and no "boots on the ground."

Assume, for argument's sake, that Iran announces it is mounting a crash program to build a nuclear weapon. A multidimensional bombing (kinetic) and cyberwarfare (non-kinetic) attack might seek to destroy Iran's program, and special forces would be deployed to disable or isolate underground facilities.

a nuclear weapons option in CONPLAN 8022 -- a specially configured earth-penetrating bomb to destroy deeply buried facilities, if any exist

CONPLAN 8022-02 was completed in November 2003, putting in place for the first time a preemptive and offensive strike capability against Iran and North Korea

Un saludo,
KS

[kilo009]

El grupo terrorista de Hamas, ha anunciado la suspensión del pacto de "alto el fuego" en vigor desde noviembre pasado. En un comunicado, el portavoz terrorista, Abú Obviada, auncia que los ataques contra Israel se reanudarán desde varios puntos de la franja de Gaza.

Hoy, han lanzado 20 misiles Al-Kasam y 75 morteros.