Admiral Mullen: US Has Iran Strike Plan Ready, Just in Case

Here we go...

Mullen says US has Iran strike plan, just in case
(Anne Gearan, 8/1/2010 AP via Yahoo News)

WASHINGTON – The U.S. military has a plan to attack Iran, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said Sunday, although he thinks a military strike is probably a bad idea.

Not long after Adm. Mike Mullen's aired on a Sunday talk show, the deputy chief of Iran's Revolutionary Guard was quoted as saying there would be a strong Iranian response should the U.S. take military action against his country.

Mullen, the highest ranking U.S. military officer, often has warned that a strike on Iran would have serious and unpredictable ripple effects around the Middle East. At the same time, Mullen said the risk of Iran's developing a nuclear weapon is unacceptable, although he would not say which risk he thinks is worse.

"I think the military options have been on the table and remain on the table," Mullen said on "Meet the Press" on NBC. "It's one of the options that the president has. Again, I hope we don't get to that, but it's an important option and it's one that's well understood."" [Emphasis is mine. The article continues.]

"It's the one that's well understood" - I take it to mean that it is the most "ready" option.

Mullen thinks "a strike on Iran would have serious and unpredictable ripple effects". Duh. He should know by now, after 7 years in Iraq.

The US military and the government had thought that Iraqi people would rise up against Saddam once the US invaded their country, and the US troops would be greeted by the grateful citizenry who would throw flowers as the US soldiers march.

Remember Paul "War will pay for itself" Wolfowitz?

Kenneth "Cakewalk" Adelman?

Dick "We will be greeted as liberators" Cheney?

Or Condoleezza "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud" Rice?

Or all these people, including Prez Bush, who claimed "Iraq has weapons of mass destruction"?

Isn't it scary to think what kind of assumptions that the military and the administration are making right now for Iran? (My guess: more of the same. And they think we will fall for those, again.)

Mullen says above that "the risk of Iran's developing a nuclear weapon is unacceptable".

Unacceptable to whom? (Maybe here and here, even though the former has nuclear weapons already?)

The mere "risk" is unacceptable? Iran doesn't have a nuclear weapon, and by the CIA's own estimate will not even have a capability for another 2 years. It is like arresting people because they may develop a dangerous thought of committing a crime in the future. (Oh, they are going in that direction, aren't they?)

Tweet