NYT: Pentagon presented plan to deploy 120,000 troops in case of Iran escalation

[babylonsister]

https://www.axios.com/iran-military-troops-john-bolton-1d4a714c-ea52-483f-b392-2ac2af01f423.html?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=organic&fbclid=IwAR0OSX_hqp5qJyg06Y9DB3t-pUf547XcSwqQTgsGyKfKd-JkWs2Eyhcx9JM


Zachary Basu48 mins ago
NYT: Pentagon presented plan to deploy 120,000 troops in case of Iran escalation


At the direction of national security adviser John Bolton, acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan last week presented top White House national security officials with a plan to send up to 120,000 troops to the Middle East in the event that Iran "attack American forces or accelerate work on nuclear weapons," the New York Times reports.

Details: The plan was reportedly presented during a meeting about the Trump administration's broader Iran policy, attended — among others — by Bolton, CIA director Gina Haspel, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Joseph Dunford and Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats. It's unclear if President Trump has been briefed on the details of the plan, which did not call for a land invasion of Iran, but requested a similar number of troops involved the U.S.' 2003 invasion of Iraq, per the Times.

The big picture: Bolton and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo have been warning of an unspecified "escalating threat" from Iran in recent weeks, after receiving intelligence from Israel about a possible Iranian plot to attack U.S. interests in the region. Trump told reporters today that he’d been “hearing little stories about Iran,” adding: “If they do anything, they will suffer greatly.”

Saudi Arabia on Monday announced that two Saudi tankers were damaged by an "act of sabotage" over the weekend in the Gulf, without identifying any suspects. Iran’s foreign ministry distanced itself, calling the incident “worrisome” and “regretful."

Later on Monday, AP and other media outlets cited an anonymous U.S. official as saying an "initial assessment is that Iranian or Iranian-backed proxies" were responsible.

[no_hypocrisy]

1. And has Trump chosen the new "Shah" yet?

[pangaia]

2. It is a done deal, mark my words.

Gulf of Tonkin.
WMDs !

[spanone]

3. toxic cocktail....don trump / john bolton

[NightWatcher]

4. It would be nothing like Iraq. Iran would be a bloody mess for our side.

[scarletwoman]

5. Gawd. Just bullshit piled on bullshit.

Bolton wants to get his war on. With plenty of help from the Saudis and the Israelis.

[Hoyt]

6. trump wants to be a military LOSER too. Would be a mistake on many levels.

[BootinUp]

10. its a war we would not win. Nt

[Haggis for Breakfast]

7. What if trump declared a war and nobody showed up ?

[BootinUp]

8. Oh fuck. Nt

[RHMerriman]

9. In 1941, when the British and Soviets invaded Iran, the country had about 12 million people;

In 1941, when the British and Soviets invaded Iran, the country had about 12 million people, armed forces of about 130,000, and very little industry. The British and Soviet forces committed to the invasion and subsequent occupation numbered roughly 150,000, with both air supremacy and command of the sea (both the Persian Gulf/Arabia Sea in he south and the Caspian to the north.)

Today, Iran has 82 million people and standing armed forces of more than 500,000, with the equivalent in reservists of various levels of readiness, and a respectable military industrial base.

Do the math.

Invading Iran today would be military insanity.

[nitpicker]

11. More from Military Times

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2019/05/14/military-plans-to-counter-iran-include-possible-120000-troop-deployment-cyber-attack-nitro-zeus/

(snip)
The updated military plans do not call for an Iraq War-style land invasion but instead focus on air strikes and a potential cyber-attack, which in previous plans had been called “Nitro Zeus” and would have attempted to disable major Iranian cities, military facilities and the power grid. That plan dates to at least 2010 or earlier, experts have said.

The cyber attack plan was previously considered as a way to hit Iran in the first hours of a conflict, reducing the need for much of the conventional attacks such as bombings and missile strikes, according to the Times.

But, experts have noted that Iran’s cyber capabilities have increased, pointing to attacks on financial markets in 2012, military targets and a Las Vegas casino. Experts testified to Congress this year that Iranian hackers are advanced enough now to hit U.S. targets.
(snip)