JPost: US preparing military for possible Iran conflict

[CrackSmokeRepublican]

Why are "top US Military Leaders" listening to a Jew-Zio-Shill Propagandist Shill organization like the Washington Institute for Near East Policy?  :x

-------
Jan 8, 2010 2:21 | Updated Jan 9, 2010 0:17
US preparing military for possible Iran conflict
By HILARY LEILA KRIEGER, JPOST CORRESPONDENT IN WASHINGON


The US does not want to see confrontation with Iran but is still preparing its military for that possibility, America's top uniformed officer said Thursday.


Mullen says challenges, questions remain on Iran

"We've looked to do all we can to ensure that conflict doesn't break out there, while at the same time preparing forces, as we do for many contingencies that we understand might occur," Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said during an appearance at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

Mullen had been asked whether the US military was stretched too thin to take further action in trouble spots beyond Iraq and Afghanistan.

"We're very hard-pressed right now" because of the two wars, he noted, but added that it is primarily ground troops that have been deployed, and "the likelihood that our ground forces would have to go somewhere in these kinds of numbers in some other part of the world, or even in the same region, I think is pretty low."

Many experts assess that any American military engagement with Iran would most likely rely on air and naval power.

Mullen was even more definitive when asked to assess whether Teheran was seeking to acquire nuclear weapons.


"I believe that they're on a path that has a strategic intent to develop nuclear weapons and have been for some time," he said.

Mullen's words were echoed by a report in The New York Times this week that US President Barack Obama's top advisers say "they no longer believe the much disputed National Intelligence Estimate" from 2007, which assessed that Iranian scientists ended all work on designing a nuclear warhead in 2003.

Israel had long objected to that finding, and questioned the intelligence evaluation behind it. Mullen's comments and those of other US officials bring the two countries more in line.

"I think the Obama administration now fully acknowledges that Iran intends to conduct a nuclear weapons capability program," Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren told The Jerusalem Post Wednesday. "We agree with the administration on the intent of the Iranian regime to acquire nuclear military capability."

The Times also reported that technical challenges and potential Western sabotage have significantly hurt Iran's production of low enriched uranium, a necessary component for a nuclear bomb. That has set back the American estimated timeline for production of a weapon, according to the Times.

Oren indicated that Israel remains focused on the low enriched uranium still being produced.

"In spite of some reported breakdown in centrifuges, Iran still has something in the vicinity of 4,000 centrifuges that are operating and they are churning out significant quantities of LEU," he said.

Mullen called any attainment of a nuclear weapon by Iran "incredibly destabilizing," particularly because it could set off an arms race in the region and because of Teheran's support for terrorism.

"On the other hand," he added, "striking Iran, that also has a very, very destabilizing outcome. What I worry about in most of the cases are the unintended consequences."

He said that to prevent such scenarios, the US needed "to continue to aggressively address the nuclear weapons issue," to stress international discussions of additional sanctions and to continue "where possible to engage and have a dialogue."

Jim Hoagland, who has written extensively about foreign policy for The Washington Post and participated in Thursday's event, described Mullen's remarks on Iran as vague.

"That does reflect a lack of a clear policy within the administration about what to do on Iran," he said.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite? ... 2FShowFull


----------

Past Policy
David Pollock & The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
SEE VIDEO: Pollock and the Israel Lobby

Washington Institute for Near East Policy: An AIPAC "Image Problem"

"Martin Indyk, an Australian and naturalized US citizen, is the former deputy director of research at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. Indyk helped establish the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP) in 1984 with the support of AIPAC board member and activist Barbi Weinberg."
Why AIPAC took over Brookings

http://neoconzionistthreat.blogspot.com ... e-for.html

[Anonymous]

It is always good to know what angle the Jews are approaching from and the post is telling

[Anonymous]

Why are "top US Military Leaders" listening to a Jew-Zio-Shill Propagandist Shill organization like the Washington Institute for Near East Policy?  
Because the Jew knows full well that if he exposed the administration for going along with the Jew in the first place they would all be swinging from a tree limb before the sun set.

[high_treason]

I think what they might do is a falseflag attack by israel on a western nation or maybe even on israel itself with a so called "dirty bomb" and blaming Iran for it and saying they couldn't hit with a full nuclear weapon but they are about to...then the US would strike at Iran, the UN would impose sanctions similar to Iraq pre-2003 and after weakening and isolating Iran they will start funding MK, Sunnis and Bluchistan same as they did with the Barzani and the Iraqi shia'a. Then after pulling out of Iraq they would attack Iran with ground troops. (This is the scenario I think the Jews are working on) But I doubt they will be able to accomplish it, America has no credibility left and dissent is growing against any military attack especially for the sake of that sh£$% little country.

There is a map of what the jews want the Middle East to look like in the next decade or so

http://eldib.files.wordpress.com/2008/1 ... t-map1.jpg

This was drawn by the Pentagon when Feith (filth) and Rumsfeld were there and since Obama is basically Bush 3 it seems he is still on course