Iran Defense Doctrine - Response To Attack?

[driftder]

Full Scale Land/Air Invasion

In terms of a possible direct attack on Iran, it's safe to assume that Iran will concentrate its response on a purely asymmetrical front.

This can be gathered from watching videos of field exercises and war games that Iran has been holding for the last couple of years in the deserts preparing for such an invasion. In these videos the emphasis seems to be on guerrilla warfare, teams of two on motorcycles with RPGs, hit in run from vehicles, mountain warfare etc...

Although Iran did use its conventional army in staging aerial bombings, tank formations, etc... it's doubtful how effective these would be in a direct attack from a much technologically superior invader.

Also, Iran is known for its support and training of all volunteer militias and reactionary forces in the form of the Pasardan and Basij, numbering in the hundreds of thousands. These groups, under the supervision of the Revolutionary Guard, can be assumed to have knowledge and training in guerrilla tactics, IED construction, small arms ambush, hit and run, suicide attacks.

Lets not forget that the most potent parts of the insurgency in Iraq right now is speculated to have potential links with Iran's Revolutionary Guard. The shaped charges we keep hearing about and infrared IED triggers that can't be jammed could very well have come from Iranian agents.

A full scale invasion seems to be a last resort for America, although there is no doubt it would succeed in destroying Iran's infrastructure and conventional military, it would do little to hurt the regime except perhaps popularize it even more.

Also, it is known that Iran maintains a global network of agents but their abilities are unknown to me. An invasion, on any level, could trigger a response from elements based abroad. These responses, if in the form of terrorism, would be disastrous.

as you have mentioned, a full-scale invasion would really be the last course of action for US. if the factors are not in sync, its dubious that there will be a invasion. most important is what is the reason for US to go to war with Iran - WMD? that's been tried and ended as a great embarassment. so until the US gather an excuse for war, an invasion is not likely. don't forget, the US CinC is accountable to the Senate, Congress and public.

what we should also look at is what benefit does Iran get from a US attack? From my angle it looks like Iran wants US to attack. Perhaps it want US to be overdrawn and stretch?

anyway good luck to Iran - it will have a long way to wait for the US to attack them. so before the US want to deal with Iran, all the factors will have to be in sync, primarily:
1) the US public want to go to war with Iran - bad news and even badder day for Iran if that happens,
2) there is valid reason for war i.e. Iran is planning a maritime version of 9/11, nefarious acts of inhumanity etc
3) world opinion in US favor if war breaks out - personally, I don't see it as there is still distrust over the WMD excuse and the Islamic world would not want to see another fellow Islamic country go the way of Afghanistan and Iraq. So war with Iran will deepen the distrust of the Islamic nations.
4) the US economy can take another war - don't forget world economy is very tied in with US economy and oil prices just settled down.
5) how overstretch is the US military and can it take on another war? yes yes I know - the almighty US war machine is suppose to fight on multiple fronts but key word is "suppose" and there is a home front now.

Limited Aerial Incursion

This is the most likely of possible scenarios. Israel has already stated that it is prepared for an attack on Iran's nuclear reactor sites. But what is not clear is what response any aerial attack would result in, on the part of Iran.

It should be noted that the level of fervour and zeal currently present in Iran and its people could trigger a response much greater than anticipated, even if any attack is targeted only to military and nuclear targets.

Iran's responses could include targeting the strategic oil lanes of Harmuz and surrounding ports. However this would be higher than any level of activity in the tanker wars of the Iran-Iraq war, which brought about an upsurge in oil costs. A coordinated conventional attack on one of the world's primary sources of oil transport would then result in increased global influence. Possible support of Iran by China and Russia in such a scenerio can't be ruled out, although unlikely.

Additionally, It's been noted that Iran has been heavily mining its waters in that region since the war with Iraq. Silkworm anti-ship defences have also been installed on nearby islands as well as the possible presence of mini-subs, kilo class russian subs, and a variety of corvette and gunships.

The instability in Iraq could also spiral out of control if an attack was carried out now or in the near future. A limited aerial attack on iran could trigger a response from its all volunteer militia as mentioned earlier, the Basij and Pasardan. This would be devastating.

In a worse case scenario, the Mullahs in Iran may decide to directly target US forces based in near by Arab countries, officially signing their own death sentences.

Iran would no doubt carry the majority of deaths, but America too would suffer greatly if targeted following a limited scale invasion.

It is unlikely that Iran would not retaliate in light of such an attack, the extent to which this retaliation will take is unknown.

Hopefully none of these scenarios will play out and hopefully better judgement will be reached by both sides... but with both regimes at such extremes and with both thinking that their vision is the only vision, it's hard not to think about a conflict.

That being said, I'd like to read your views on what Iran's response would be.:xmas

-jim goose

a much more plausible scenario compared to the invasion but chances of it happening is again quite low - unless Iran crosses an invisible line drawn by Israel. I believe most will agree that there is only one response if an air raid takes place - Iran will declare total unrestricted war, the type advocated by colonels Qiao Liang and Wang Xiangsui. terrorist strikes, computer attacks, war by proxy etc. and it won't just be Israel or the US in the cross-hairs but every and any country that support the US. if Al-Queda is bad, imagine Iran doing tenfold what Al-Queda is doing. of course, that will then give the US what it does not want - an excuse to attack.:coffee

 

[turin]

Iran will declare total unrestricted war, the type advocated by colonels Qiao Liang and Wang Xiangsui. terrorist strikes, computer attacks, war by proxy etc. and it won't just be Israel or the US in the cross-hairs but every and any country that support the US. if Al-Queda is bad, imagine Iran doing tenfold what Al-Queda is doing. of course, that will then give the US what it does not want - an excuse to attack.

I disagree. Actually that may be the answer mostly desired by Israel, since it would bring everybodys opinion in line with their own, surely that of the Europeans and Russia. But why should Iran respond in such a way, when at the same time that is certainly not in their desire and there are other means to retaliate. For example Iran could make use of long-range missile attacks against Israel using Shahab-3 and other systems. There are quite some attractive targets, military and logistical ones as well as major industrial facilities. Israel depends on a very limited (=fragile) base of existence. In the past it has been to its advantage, that possible enemies did not have such long range strike capabilities, at least no such things, that could get behind israeli air defense.

 

[driftder]

I disagree. Actually that may be the answer mostly desired by Israel, since it would bring everybodys opinion in line with their own, surely that of the Europeans and Russia. But why should Iran respond in such a way, when at the same time that is certainly not in their desire and there are other means to retaliate. For example Iran could make use of long-range missile attacks against Israel using Shahab-3 and other systems. There are quite some attractive targets, military and logistical ones as well as major industrial facilities. Israel depends on a very limited (=fragile) base of existence. In the past it has been to its advantage, that possible enemies did not have such long range strike capabilities, at least no such things, that could get behind israeli air defense.

ahh you appeared - thought the Abwher had gangpress you. as for your counter well, not really - it might still happen. What I am trying to point is what is Iran going to respond to, what basis does it have for doing it and if cool heads prevail, removing that basis will shut down Iran's game plan before it can even start.

It is true that Iran will strike at Israel if things are in their favor ie no retaliations on Iran for attacking Israel, which is not likely. As its been pointed out, both countries are nuclear capable though both did not release a bomb test. Both countries have missiles though Israel is supposed to be more accurate and have a better missile shield while Iran's is still at the infant stage and without a ABM capability.

Let's take this to another level - what is Iran's nuclear knowhow and technology transfer from whatever source is shutdown? Now would that constitute an attack on Iran? Another - how about using the same tactics that brought down the USSR? You know, better economic power, introduction of Western culture, outcast the pariah tactics - those work and without a shot being fired right? It brought down the Berlin wall IIRC

 

[turin]

ahh you appeared - thought the Abwher had gangpress you.

Huh? Not sure I am getting this...

Let's take this to another level - what is Iran's nuclear knowhow and technology transfer from whatever source is shutdown? Now would that constitute an attack on Iran? Another - how about using the same tactics that brought down the USSR? You know, better economic power, introduction of Western culture, outcast the pariah tactics - those work and without a shot being fired right? It brought down the Berlin wall IIRC

Lets see:
What constitutes an attack?
Everything, that would include military action against targets inside Iran.

So I am excluding things like an embargo, even one concering nuclear equipment/proliferation. I dont think that Iran would respond to such a thing in ways of military action, but more in the line of increasing internal development. It would be tough for them, no doubt. But one cant ignore the global situation: how likely is it, that Russia would really stop its support. Well, it might be possible. What, if China comes in as supporter? Interesting question: the two countries have increasing commercial relations, also Iran is an attractive partner in terms of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, that might include increased military relations in the long-term.

The interesting question of course is: What kind of answer would follow what kind of military attack?
My previous post concerned an israeli non-nuclear military aggression against Iran as first step. The response IMO would be a limited missile strike against targets within Israel. Of course it would get hairy here, since Israel might interprete that as an attack with WMD, so this response very much depends on the scale of an israeli attack and its success in the first place.

As for the USSR-comparison: well, thats why I was recently criticizing the Bush-Administration, since this path has been abandoned partly thanks to them, with the last elections in Iran. The current political situation in Iran is very much in favor of a mildly fundamentalist government with full backing by the population.

 

[Pursuit Curve]

In light of recent events in the middle east concerning Iran's new president moving towards a more confrontational approach with Israel and Washington, and Washington and Israel doing the same, I've been wondering about the consequences of US military intervention in Iran.

I'll be discussing possible responses by Iran to large scale invasion and also a strategic aerial bombing / limited invasion.

Full Scale Land/Air Invasion

In terms of a possible direct attack on Iran, it's safe to assume that Iran will concentrate its response on a purely asymmetrical front.

This can be gathered from watching videos of field exercises and war games that Iran has been holding for the last couple of years in the deserts preparing for such an invasion. In these videos the emphasis seems to be on guerrilla warfare, teams of two on motorcycles with RPGs, hit in run from vehicles, mountain warfare etc...

Although Iran did use its conventional army in staging aerial bombings, tank formations, etc... it's doubtful how effective these would be in a direct attack from a much technologically superior invader.

Also, Iran is known for its support and training of all volunteer militias and reactionary forces in the form of the Pasardan and Basij, numbering in the hundreds of thousands. These groups, under the supervision of the Revolutionary Guard, can be assumed to have knowledge and training in guerrilla tactics, IED construction, small arms ambush, hit and run, suicide attacks.

Lets not forget that the most potent parts of the insurgency in Iraq right now is speculated to have potential links with Iran's Revolutionary Guard. The shaped charges we keep hearing about and infrared IED triggers that can't be jammed could very well have come from Iranian agents.

A full scale invasion seems to be a last resort for America, although there is no doubt it would succeed in destroying Iran's infrastructure and conventional military, it would do little to hurt the regime except perhaps popularize it even more.

Also, it is known that Iran maintains a global network of agents but their abilities are unknown to me. An invasion, on any level, could trigger a response from elements based abroad. These responses, if in the form of terrorism, would be disastrous.

Limited Aerial Incursion

This is the most likely of possible scenarios. Israel has already stated that it is prepared for an attack on Iran's nuclear reactor sites. But what is not clear is what response any aerial attack would result in, on the part of Iran.

It should be noted that the level of fervour and zeal currently present in Iran and its people could trigger a response much greater than anticipated, even if any attack is targeted only to military and nuclear targets.


Iran's responses could include targeting the strategic oil lanes of Harmuz and surrounding ports. However this would be higher than any level of activity in the tanker wars of the Iran-Iraq war, which brought about an upsurge in oil costs. A coordinated conventional attack on one of the world's primary sources of oil transport would then result in increased global influence. Possible support of Iran by China and Russia in such a scenerio can't be ruled out, although unlikely.

Additionally, It's been noted that Iran has been heavily mining its waters in that region since the war with Iraq. Silkworm anti-ship defences have also been installed on nearby islands as well as the possible presence of mini-subs, kilo class russian subs, and a variety of corvette and gunships.

The instability in Iraq could also spiral out of control if an attack was carried out now or in the near future. A limited aerial attack on iran could trigger a response from its all volunteer militia as mentioned earlier, the Basij and Pasardan. This would be devastating.

In a worse case scenario, the Mullahs in Iran may decide to directly target US forces based in near by Arab countries, officially signing their own death sentences.

Iran would no doubt carry the majority of deaths, but America too would suffer greatly if targeted following a limited scale invasion.

It is unlikely that Iran would not retaliate in light of such an attack, the extent to which this retaliation will take is unknown.

Hopefully none of these scenarios will play out and hopefully better judgement will be reached by both sides... but with both regimes at such extremes and with both thinking that their vision is the only vision, it's hard not to think about a conflict.

That being said, I'd like to read your views on what Iran's response would be.:xmas

-jim goose

Jim, I suppose your scenario is granting that Iraq has become pacified and the US does not have to worry about unsecure rear areas. As far as how such a war would develop though I think it is safe to assume that the USN will not be launching Carrier Strikes from the gulf until the threat of Sun Burn Anti Ship missiles are taken out. Any ground actions will take a solid coalition as per Gulf War part one, this would probably follow the script as per that action, prolonged Military build up with prolonged but very precise Strikes by B-2, and Stealth platforms, and of course tomahawk SLAM.

As this is a scenario that I cannot see happening ( Precisely because of the instability of Iraq and the amount of US troops involved just to patrol) I would see it as maybe a pre emptive strike aimed at the so called Nuclear capability and to take out any threats to Tanker and Naval traffic in the Gulf.

As for Israeli involvement it must be taken into account that the same situation in 1990 is still relevant, any direct Israeli action will in essence make for a very sticky situation that would undermine any American attempts at building regional Allies.

So in short, I see maybe a precision strike, maybe 3 weeks in duration, then its to the conference table.

As we have seen, the Iranians reason, and possibly correctly, that they will not be hassled by the USA if they have the ability, basic as it is, to strike back with nukes against anyone in range that threatens them.

As far as Nukes in the region, the same rules should be for everyone, Israeli or Arab, that any nukes will not be tolerated.

 

[driftder]

Huh? Not sure I am getting this...

really? what's with the cheeky grin then? come come where you been - traipsing with th Jaegerskommando? :

Lets see:
What constitutes an attack?
Everything, that would include military action against targets inside Iran.

So I am excluding things like an embargo, even one concering nuclear equipment/proliferation. I dont think that Iran would respond to such a thing in ways of military action, but more in the line of increasing internal development. It would be tough for them, no doubt. But one cant ignore the global situation: how likely is it, that Russia would really stop its support. Well, it might be possible. What, if China comes in as supporter? Interesting question: the two countries have increasing commercial relations, also Iran is an attractive partner in terms of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, that might include increased military relations in the long-term.

The interesting question of course is: What kind of answer would follow what kind of military attack?
My previous post concerned an israeli non-nuclear military aggression against Iran as first step. The response IMO would be a limited missile strike against targets within Israel. Of course it would get hairy here, since Israel might interprete that as an attack with WMD, so this response very much depends on the scale of an israeli attack and its success in the first place.

I concur with your points - Iran is really milking Russia and China for all its worth and vice versa. Iran provides the cash and oil while Russia and China provides the know how. Not forgetting also that these 3 make a very nice heavy weight anti-US alliance. Not forgetting also that Russia and China also have very sizeable Islamic populations within and having a Islamic conduit to inside information about the Islamic terror gangs can be helpful (don't bother to pooh pooh the idea - its happening). Re the Israeli bogeyman, not likely with US slapping them if they even look cross-eye at Iran. The Israeli response will be as the Gulf War when Iraq was lobbing missiles at them - take cover and shoot them down. Of course they might do an Osirak in reply.

As for the USSR-comparison: well, thats why I was recently criticizing the Bush-Administration, since this path has been abandoned partly thanks to them, with the last elections in Iran. The current political situation in Iran is very much in favor of a mildly fundamentalist government with full backing by the population.

sacrilege.....you dare to bash the "Great Satan"? :lol3
I agree - Reagan got it better then Bush vis foreign policy. He really applied the "subduing the enemy without a thousand battles" a la Suntzu. If only Bush had applied it to Iraq who knows what might turn out? as it is, 9/11 tip his hand. oh well...

 

[turin]

come come where you been - traipsing with th Jaegerskommando

Well, in my army time I have only been with artillery forces...ok, not "only"...I mean we had the big 'uns and that was fun...that and all the others begging for help over the radio during exercises.
No, I just happen to drop in occasionally, or better said I comment that way, while reading or uploading images forms the most part of my interest around here. And I do grin most times reading german words on an english-speaking forum, in a positive sense.

The Israeli response will be as the Gulf War when Iraq was lobbing missiles at them - take cover and shoot them down. Of course they might do an Osirak in reply.

Not sure about the Israelis at all. I mean back in '91 I understand the US had to do quite a thing to convince them staying cool.
Unfortunately the Osirak scenario is no option since the nuclear program of Iran is located in several distributed areas. They sure learned from Iraqs fate in that respect and with every day passing by I believe this distribution and the protection of the respective places will increase.

I agree - Reagan got it better then Bush vis foreign policy. He really applied the "subduing the enemy without a thousand battles" a la Suntzu. If only Bush had applied it to Iraq who knows what might turn out?

Of course we are talking different scenarios. I mean Reagan really couldnt do that much except pushing military investments. He couldnt go to war with the USSR just like that. In Iraq I admit the situation was much more tempting, since it apparently (and in some point really) was a weakened isolated regime. But lets not go there...as for Iran I seriosly cant think of any realistic military engagement that would change things for the better.

 

[Pursuit Curve]

Well, in my army time I have only been with artillery forces...ok, not "only"...I mean we had the big 'uns and that was fun...that and all the others begging for help over the radio during exercises.
No, I just happen to drop in occasionally, or better said I comment that way, while reading or uploading images forms the most part of my interest around here. And I do grin most times reading german words on an english-speaking forum, in a positive sense.



Not sure about the Israelis at all. I mean back in '91 I understand the US had to do quite a thing to convince them staying cool.
Unfortunately the Osirak scenario is no option since the nuclear program of Iran is located in several distributed areas. They sure learned from Iraqs fate in that respect and with every day passing by I believe this distribution and the protection of the respective places will increase.



Of course we are talking different scenarios. I mean Reagan really couldnt do that much except pushing military investments. He couldnt go to war with the USSR just like that. In Iraq I admit the situation was much more tempting, since it apparently (and in some point really) was a weakened isolated regime. But lets not go there...as for Iran I seriosly cant think of any realistic military engagement that would change things for the better.

Lets also not forget that the Coalition in Gul War part 1 would have fallen apart if the US had provided the IFF codes for Israeli Aircraft to overfly Jordan to go and bomb Iraq, thats why the Israeli's got such a sweet pay off because of lost tourism etc etc.

The real danger right now is that there is a second term president that does not worry about re election and also a right wing Neo Con war council that would love nothing better than leave a mess for a Democrat!

Anyone comtemplating any kind of action ( Military) against Iran is really asking for trouble, imagine americans having to not only watch the Iraqi insurgants, but also have to watch out for Iranians at the same time.

The main American ally, Tony Blair, does not have nearly the "Political capital" to sell action against the Iranians, he is currently fighting a losing war with his own back benchers!

I realise tha tthis is a scenario that is being discussed, but in all honesty I would think that such a confrontation will be limited to attempts to locate any worthwhile targets in Iran, then maybe, just maybe a restricted campaign of precision bombing and criuse strikes to disable or destroy any weapon ( Nuke) capability.

 

[driftder]

Well, in my army time I have only been with artillery forces...ok, not "only"...I mean we had the big 'uns and that was fun...that and all the others begging for help over the radio during exercises.
No, I just happen to drop in occasionally, or better said I comment that way, while reading or uploading images forms the most part of my interest around here. And I do grin most times reading german words on an english-speaking forum, in a positive sense.

huh german words? blame it on the tech advisors. sometimes they get agitated and just go native on u. extremely graphic at times . ahh speaking as a ex-foot, there are times when the arty scream for help too - as in when the oppo force gets too close and they need some1 to buy them time to get out. guess who do the buying then:.

Not sure about the Israelis at all. I mean back in '91 I understand the US had to do quite a thing to convince them staying cool.
Unfortunately the Osirak scenario is no option since the nuclear program of Iran is located in several distributed areas. They sure learned from Iraqs fate in that respect and with every day passing by I believe this distribution and the protection of the respective places will increase.

I won't put it past the Israelis. Quite resourceful bunch - check out when they had no air force or tanks to fight with. in the end, they got it and today had one of the most powerful air and mech force in the ME region. as for finding out the targets to hit, well - we are talking abt THE Mossad here. if it ever got to tit-for-tat stage, Iran might find that sword cuts both ways and it don't have to be via airstrike. as for missile strikes on Israel, they got this ABM call Arrow right? heard its better then Patriot. btw check out this link:http://www.jcpa.org/jl/jl430.htm. Interesting times ahead

Of course we are talking different scenarios. I mean Reagan really couldnt do that much except pushing military investments. He couldnt go to war with the USSR just like that. In Iraq I admit the situation was much more tempting, since it apparently (and in some point really) was a weakened isolated regime. But lets not go there...as for Iran I seriosly cant think of any realistic military engagement that would change things for the better.

well yeah different situation but still will work. Works with NK - check out the pics they smuggle out. NK feeds their military machine at the expense of nation welfare and will soon go the way of SU soon. Ahh Iraq - now that was still being discuss here btw the hardlines and moderates. on one hand yeah, its defeated militarily and Saddam was remove - good riddance. on the other US lost a lot of goodwill and rapport but then it started with 9/11 and slide down from there. Iran ah Iran - yups concur too, US won't get rattled too easily this time unless Iran makes to draw its gun. then it's High Noon and we will see what results after the gunsmoke clears. even then, I suspect that the US won't step into Iran - most likely a sharp short conflict, much like a rap across the knuckles, knee to the groin effort. of course getting a few flights of B52 arclights and another dozen off cruise missiles is more then a groin strike. think castration more apt

 

[Focus]

There is no easy answer to guerilla war, as seen in Russians in Afganistan, US in Iraq and other small wars. US/Israel/UK will never never never send the boys to Iranian soil. What they will do is bomb and rebomb 500+ targets in 2-3 days that qualify for being related to nuclear. Iran does not have any substaintial defense against Stealth bombers coming and going at will.

Iranian response will be hightened terrorism in Israel and US interests and soil. Rightnow Al-Queda is not supported by Iranians but after attack they will become 'out in open' backers of AQ. In the end, another waves of bombing and another wave of terrorism.......pretty much as we saw Iraq under sanctions after 1991. War of attrition all the way. US will not win in this war as seen in Iraq under Saddam. The main question is what effect will any 9/11 type attack on the US soil will have on US economy? That is Iran's best response.

Bottomline, let Iran have the nukes. They are fearsome but also calculative.
US should not listen to Israeli paranoia. Why can Israel live with Pakistan (Islamic nation) having nukes but not Iran? Attack on Iran would slide world to deeper and more fanatic types of terrorism.

 

[ANZAC ACE]

Bottomline, let Iran have the nukes. They are fearsome but also calculative.
US should not listen to Israeli paranoia. Why can Israel live with Pakistan (Islamic nation) having nukes but not Iran? Attack on Iran would slide world to deeper and more fanatic types of terrorism.

While outsiders like us can say let Iran have nukes and let the concept of mutually assured destruction take over, I don’t think such an argument really takes into account the realities of the world we live in today, at least not from the point of view of Israelis or the Americans for the matter. While many people may argue that nuclear energy is the right of any nation and this is true, there are issues that must also be taken into account.

Israel feels it needs to take action because of Iran’s links to terrorism and to maintain the strategic edge that it enjoys. What do I mean? Well like it has been said Iran and its terrorist allies have been fighting a proxy war for a long time in Lebanon and Palestine. What if nuclear capabilities were past to these terrorist organisations? Also Iran in the conventional military sense does not have the capability to match Israel but with nuclear weapons Israel’s military superiority is made irrelevant instantly. Key to the survival of the state of Israel is its military superiority. There wouldn’t be any point having the best trained and well equipped force in the Middle East when a single missile could destroy your entire nation with single attack.

A nuclear free Middle East would be one solution in this scenario but this would mean some sort of peace treaty with the normalisation of relations between all Arab, Islamic nations and Israel before they would give up their nuclear arsenal.

Israel and more so the US will lose, whatever they choose to do with regard to Iran. The military option will fuel terrorism and a nuclear armed Iran will be bolder and will dare the world to stop it. Gulf Arab states will have to choose between a greater US presence in the region or to appease a more assertive Iran.

Iran has the best cards in this situation. Destabilise not only Iraq but also possibly Afghanistan, play the oil card, increase support for terrorists groups. The consequences of all of these will be rather significant and will lead to a global environment that will be interesting to say the least. Or alternatively be the shining light in the Islamic world that stood up to the Zionists.

All of this however I don’t think will deter Israel or even the US which has the most to lose. I would agree with thoughts in this tread that suggest an air campaign will be what eventuates. If the US would take the military route it would have to be an intense air war, one that would have to not only take out Iran’s nuclear capability but also Iran’s ability to retaliate in the conventional military sense. Especially with such a target rich environment for the Iranians in the gulf. I think the US would have to accept the fact that terrorist strikes on US interests would be inevitable as a result.

Well gents it seems that this whole situation seems to be at a very interesting crossroad. It will be interesting to see how this pans out.

 

[driftder]

interesting insight by Anzac Ace. based on what you have pointed out, the day that Israel will attack Iran's nuclear weapons plants is not too far - perhaps next year? when that happens, I wonder what will be USA's response. support is definitely a must but how much? to what extent? Or will the Israelis wait for USA to lead the way with a sharp short air war?

say there is war, what will Iran's allies and supporters do? China and Russia definitely will jump in, perhaps even provide military aid<?> its possible though far fetch. France and Germany will definitely howl at the lost business with Iran cos of war. the terrs will lash out - count on Al-Queda, Hizbollah, MNLF, the JIS, etc will commit more murders and killings.

mind-boggling to say the least but - I think if someone think it through, the actions and consequences before the war, during the war and after the war especially after as that's where the most fallout comes. then the war when it comes will be manageable. I only hope Iran will blink first...

 

[Focus]

China and Russia won't do blip to help out anyone, including each other......Commies are commies always. Regarding Iran nuking Israel, I read at one place that US has indirectly sent this message to AQ that if any nuke/wmd is used against US/Western world by terrorist, then US/NATO will nuke 100 cities in the Muslim world......does not matter if 100+ Million are killed. It is said that is what is stopping Al-Queda from using WMD's. Regarding Iran, the response will be the same, Iran will be reduced to nothing but burned soil and in addition other Islamic nations supporting terrorism like Saudi, Syria etc. will also be nuked. On the other hand, Israel, the land of the Jews has only 4 million of them in Israel, of the 16 Million......12 million live outside Israel so, in the event of nuclear attack, Israel in middle east will be out of function but then new Israel can be made in Europe or US. All the parties Iran, AQ, Saudi etc. know the answer to using nuke/wmd against Israel/West etc.

US has learned a big lesson from Gulf War II campaign. That is why they are not attacking Syria and would not attack Iran. Any air campaign does have its reactions also in the form of terrorism. So US should think more about how to get the boys out of Iraq rather than if Israel is losing sleep over Iran's nukes.

 

[arkhan]

if israel intend to attack iran, they will do so while bush is in white house. let the next president deal with the consequences ( if any from americans or allies and certainly from muslim fighters/extremist around the world ). remember almost all iranian citizens is shiite muslim and they have huge support from shiite from iraq. right now shiite in iraq is quite tolerant towards coalition forces, when the attack on iran happen, coalition forces have to battle both sunni and shiite.
regarding china and russia i believe they will help iran discreetly by giving them military movement information. they will use their security council position in U.N to press both israel and u.s from attacking iran. right now china is doing everything they could to make sure their supply of raw materials from overseas is secured through economic, diplomatic and military means. they wont lie still while other powers do harms to their suppliers.
if israel do attack iran, they will do so with the knowledge that for iranian to attck israel, they have to cross iraq which is under coalition power.
finally, let them have their nukes, 'mutually assured destruction', i like that concept.
israel wont do a preemptive strike againts iran and vice versa becvause they know the consequences.

 

[Focus]

9-11 cost the US economy 500B i.e. half trillion and some costs are here to stay. US should be wise enough not to invite anymore attacks of such types. Russia is already being encircled slowly and if they do not take precautions, in 5-10 years it will be a part of NATO as a whole country or a broken up entity. Then full focus will be on China, Islamic World, India and others which pose or have the potential to pose any threat to the West.

Remember, last front that stopped Hitler was Russia, 20 miles west of Moscow. I think Napolean actually ruled parts of Moscow for a little bit. This time attempts are made to either break Russia from within or let it walk itself into submission. This more so, with Russia having nukes that can blow up the whole earth several times over. Correctly said above, US will face the SuperShite wrath of both Iran and Iraq in the event of invasion of Iran and then it will be only Vietnam scenes of GIs running to their helicopters for the quick exit. George Bush bankrupted 3 successful companies before he joined politics, and now he is bent on bankrupting the US and throw the whole world into a chaos of all sorts.

Mods, apologies for drifting off the topic but this is what it is leading to and Iranian crisis is only one step in the ladder.

 

[Focus]

No New views for whole 2 days? Did I get others dumbfounded already?

The bottomline is, DO NOT ATTACK IRAN..............in such a scenario US, UK, Israel will lose all the respect and sympathy from others and world will become a very very dangerous place as mentioned above. Iranians are not 'oil spoiled' Arabs like Saudis and Iraqis......hope that says alot!

Peace to alll!!

 

[Berserk Fury]

Bottomline, let Iran have the nukes. They are fearsome but also calculative.
US should not listen to Israeli paranoia. Why can Israel live with Pakistan (Islamic nation) having nukes but not Iran? Attack on Iran would slide world to deeper and more fanatic types of terrorism.

Pakistan, to some degree, has a government where religion doesn't influence it as much. Iran on the other hand is a theocracy, run by religion. If religion dictates kill the Israelis then Iran will kill the Israelis... eventually...

btw, the concept of MAD is a bit out of date for the Middle East.
For example, if Iran gets nukes and develops MRBM's, what prevents them from "accidentally" losing one to the terrorists (e.g. Hezbollah)?
The terrorists would commit the atrocities while Iran just sits there.
Certainly countries harboring Iran would be blamed but not so as much to nuke them. If Iran then conforms to the US demands, it's most likely the US won't nuke anyone (depending on the causualties). If the Washington is nuked, then the terrorists and Iran would have even more time to hide and prepare for the onslaught that awaits them.

 

[driftder]

Printed article from Singapore newspaper, The Straits Times, Thursday Jan 19 2006, Page 31 under Review Section.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Read Iran the riot act

Iran's decision to break the seals at its main uranium enrichment facility, and to resume research on processing nuclear fuel, is unacceptable. The world's major powers must act in concert to bring Teheran to heel. The European Union and the United States have both urged for some time that Iran be referred to the United Nations Security Council for possible sanctions, and the time to take that decisive step has arrived. Given their commercial and other interests in Iran, Russia and China are reluctant to take this step, though Russia's patience seems to be wearing thin. They must put aside their short-term interests and join the EU and the US in enforcing the international community's will in Iran. Both, together with most of Europe, have long complained about US unilaterism. Well, Washington is not acting unilaterally in this instance. It is time the other major powers cooperated with it and showed the world multilateralism is not a mere rhetorical stick one brandishes occasionally to bash the world's sole remaining superpower. Iran cannot be trusted with the bomb, period. Its word that it will not use enriched uranioum for military purposes is worthless, period. If the international community fails to act in concert on this matter, it would have shown up multilateralism to be an empty concept.
Teheran will undoubtedly huff and puff, threatening retaliation, if it is referred to the UN. But what can it do? Withhold oil from global markets, thus raising "oil prices beyond levels the West expects", as its Economy Minister threatened? Yes, it can do that. But what are the clerics who rule Iran going to do with their oil? Re-bury it in the ground? Similarly, China has little, if anything, to fear in rebuking Iran. Its US$100 billion, 25-year natural gas deal with Iran will not be operational until the terminals to transpost the gas are ready - and that will not occur until 2010, at the earliest. Iran is not exactly a paper tiger, but it is not so ferocious a tiger either that the world need cower in fear at its slightest threat.
It will become more than ferocious , and the world will indeed cower, if it ever gets the bomb. Thus the urgency. It is possible, of course, Teheran may agree to a Russian offer to enrich uranium on its behalf, and this crisis will pass. But if its past behaviour is any guide, Iran will not behave unless the major powers unite in reading it the riot act, with no ifs and buts.
---------------------------------------------------------------

Couple this strategy with getting support from key movers in the Islamic nations like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Turkey, Pakistan etc and Iran will soon know how to spell pariah.

Looks like economic sanctions is going to hit Iran again - full force.

 

[Rich]

The whole problem with this scenerio is that once Iran can arm enough sophisticated IRBMs, in a strictly military sense, destroying most of Israels military capability is within reach. For geographical and security reasons Israel can only position two legs of it's nuclear triad at only a few bases, and 80% of its population and industry is located in Tel Aviv.

Its "probable" after an Iranian nuclear first strike the only retalitory card the Israelis have left is a submarine or two with cruise missiles,"this assuming Israels command and control survives". The mullahs just might decide whatever return strike the Israelis have left is worth it, as the bulk of their country and population will survive.

Were talking about people that made children walk barefoot thru minefields to clear paths for soldiers here.

And then of course with all these regional countries having all this capacity, and being so close to each other, and being so new to it, Its a scenerio where accidental war becomes even more possible. The only reason the US and the Soviets survived an accidental war is we had 20 mins to verify, even then we still came close to it more then once. I was on hand once when one of our missiles blew up in a silo and remember being told of a time, years later, when we had to park a security truck on a minuteman silo in case the thing launched by accident.

Its a real bad idea to allow a country like this to develop nuclear weapons. I sure hope the world can unify on this and find a peaceful solution.

 

[Berserk Fury]

MY guess is that Israel will at least start taking out targets with planes within Iran. At worst, Israel nukes every major facility in Iran.
Though Iran has a lot of AA missiles bought from the Russians which would make a big problem w/ bombing and then the terrorist will start lashing out increasing violence in this world.