Govt in secret talks about strike against Iran
 

Thats the UK govt according to the Sunday Telegraph...

Seems authoritive story...gives the names of the military men involved though the MOD has subsequently denied any talks..

Article goes onto to say "British involvement limited...extending to the use of the RAF's highly secret airborne early warning aircraft"

I hardly think there is much, if any political or military appetite or logistical capability for British involvement in an attack on Iran. Of course there are plans - the US will have formed them years ago after the hadline Islamic govt came to power and dusted them down and updated them as events unfold and the situations changed.

Given the current state of play regarding the Iranian nuclear situation and their alleged role in Iraq, I would be surprised and not slightly worried if the Chiefs of Staff weren't looking forward to the implications of any attack on Iran. After all, MND(SE) is right next door to its western border and Helmand province in Afghanistan isn't a million miles away from Iran's eastern borders. Additionally, looking at the better of 2 evils, if there was to be an assault on Iran, who would you rather do it ...... US or Israel??? Neither particularly attractive options, but I know which gets my vote

The Telegraph may have the basics of a story, but I can't see it being anywhere near as sensational as they portray. But the one thing that I do agree with, a lot of the language coming out of London and Washington is very reminiscent of that used in 2001/02 before we went into Iraq :\

I would be very surprised if the Govt was not in secret talks about this - even if it was just one of many options that were discussed. The are not exactly going to make it public knowledge that they are conducting a study of the military options are they - otherwise those options would be blown wide open and our pink bodies would be in more danger

grow up! secret talks - course they are secret!

The discussions the article mentioned were solely within the UK government and military and concerned the likely affects on UK interests of a US/Israeli attack on Iran. They do not (as far as the article goes) concern UK participation in any such strikes. Participation by UK forces would be tokenistic at best, although it's likely US bombers would use Diego Garcia as a base.

I am sure that, if there was any UK involvement (the US does have certain capability gaps) then it would be downplayed to avoid UK public uproar.

Thing is Joe Public is a bit thick. They're constantly amazed when the Government say we're invading X/rescuing Y/sending peacekeepers to Z and the very next day 500+ troops get on planes at Brize with all their kit.

I've also seen the frustration of trying to organise an op while we technically can't do anything until an MP stands up in the House. We know we're doing it - we just can't do it.

If we haven't thought of 15+ plans for Iran yet somebody isn't doing their job. Much as it is nice not to appear threatening by drawing up those plans, the real world doesn't work like that.

VageRot
you wrote..."They are not going to make it public knowledge that they are conducting a study of mil actions"

A very nice 'leak' from the Gov it's called brinkmanship. Puts thoughts into the Iranian representatives heads at the next UN meeting.

Telegraph Article is here http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...portaltop.html

Sorry - don't know how to hyperlink a single word like you can in Outlook!

Pedant watch: CDI is NOT Lt Gen Andrew Ridgeway, it is AM Stu Peach

This article is well worth a read:
War Plans
An American slant, but well ballanced and leaves little doubt about the future of Iranian Nuclear Sites.

Oh Great! I am just 200 nm downwind of the place at the moment - I'll be logging back on from 6547 miles west of my present position shortly.

If I'm getting smaller it means I'm leaving!

Best of luck to GWB and Associates with OP "Frequent Manhood 3" and the follow up OP "Quagmire 2":E

All of the above meant in the best of humour.
Just let me get my hat and coat!

I find all this very worrying.

Is it possible to take out said facillities without causing a massive leak of radioactivity?- I am not looking for an answer to be posted on this.

Bearing in mind the distance the radioactivity from chernobyl travelled, how will the friendly/allied/neutral countries in the middle east/eastern europe/indian subcontinent feel or react when their people/crops/animals are contaminated?

If said event did happen, how many countries would still offer the USA (and us if we're daft enough to get involved) bases/facillities.- Not many I think.

Were we being conned for 40 years in Germany that deterrence worked? I know the Warsaw Pact/ NATO confrontation was different but we sat for 40 years opposite the biggest collection of nuke/chem in the world and never seemed to feel the need for a pre-emptive strike.

A bit simplistic maybe, but I can't see an easy way out.

Threat = Capability + Intention

It appears the US Administration has a massive budget for "War Plans"
I wonder how big the budget is for Peace Plans?

Don't you mean they were democratically elected but the result was wrong.

Iran cannot have nukes because it is a terrorist state led by a fanatic who wishes to bring on an apocolyptic nightmare to facilitate the return of the 12th imam. What is so difficult to comprehend?

Do you think anyone but the US, UK and Australia have the will and wherewithall to prevent Iran from wreaking havoc on the world?

Forget the politics and look at reality. You undermine the will to prevent a terrible outcome by wrongfully posing concern over this as warmongering.

BenThere

I agree! Now, where did I put my red and black armband.