>>What is your take? Sanctioned from the highest level or renegade?
>>
>>http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/04/18/us.iran/index.html?hpt=T1
>>
>>This is probably an ink blot test here in partisan land. I am hoping for honest reactions.
>
>I'm a little confused. Are you questioning whether contingency planning is sanctioned by the President? Of course it is. What is renegade about the idea of giving the President a lot of options? Do you honestly believe he has completely taken this off the table?
>
>If this stuff was leaked to the Times it is either to send a message to Iran or to undercut the more aggressive policy. Or both (by different leakers). We probably have contingency plans to invade Goa. (do they still call it Goa?).
>
>We've got a stockpile of bunker busters someplace and it is necessary somebody is telling the President what they can and cannot do.
>
>I got kind of a kick out of Ahmadinijhad's bombast - reminiscent of "mother of all battles". If Israel or the US decides to end the Iranian nuclear program he literally will not know what hit him. I hope someone finds a way to derail the program more ... subtly.

Strong rethoric is only feasible warfare applicable in this case. So both Iran and US/Israel are doing it accordingly.
Every statement is sort of political long range missile {g}

K-Boom - We will obliterate Iran nuclear program!! (as if it is tall building standing in the middle of the desert),
K-Boom - No no, we will obliterate any attacker on Iran (as if US/Israel will invade with ground troops)
K-Boom ...

Iran (Ahmadinejad) is imho doing big mistake in engaging in it (rhetoric missile war), because it helps quet a bit
design/creation of hype/hysteria in the west, which has been used more then once to justify foreign wars.
I certainly hope that both sides are well aware of the consequences of unilateral US/Israel attack on Iran,
(which is total Loss/Loss) and will refrain from anything but fiery rhetorics.
Situation is dangerous, but I do not think it is out of control.