Iran Defense Doctrine - Response To Attack?

[Rich]

I dont think this "terrorist lashing out" arguement holds water anymore. Ive been hearing the same thing for almost 30 years when all weve discovered is that stepping daintily around terrorism just strengthens and encourages them. Theres only one thing they understand and thats force.

Nobody understands that better then the Israelis who themselves survived a Liberal Govt. that made concession after concession to Arafat Terror inc. et al, only to have it all blow up in their face. The only peace the Israelis have ever had with terror has come with firm commitment back up by military force.

Im all for not "stirring up the hornets nest" regarding terrorism. Why "stir it up" when instead you can burn it down and kill every hornet?

 

[Berserk Fury]

Sure you can kill the nest... but there will always be a place for terrorists in the world so you can't kill all of them meaning that there still will be violence.
Plus, how can you tell terrorists apart from regular civilians if they aren't doing anything suspicious?
They could just slip in and out and you wouldn't know.

 

[Rich]

The Israelis have been living and flourishing with them on their doorsteps for decades. True their citizens have been often murdered by them but when you have no alternative to fighting theres no point doing anything but "fighting".

Besides since the alliance of the willing has been taking it to the terr's weve been knocking the snot out of them while suffering very few civilian casualties from the war at home. And make no mistake........9/11? The London bombings? The Madrid bombings? They were ,by far, caused more by our own stupidity then by any prowess on the parts of the terrorists.

Its all been going on for a long time anyways. I had friends killed by them when I was stationed in the MidEast, circa-1978.

Civilized people always prefer political sttlements to war. But there isnt going to be any political settlement with these refugees from the 12'th century, so there can only be "war". And we are beating them in the war. I bet we can make far more bullets and bombs then they can make terrorists,and, eventually, we will attack the sponsors of terror, taking their support right out from under them.

We can win this war, we will win this war, we ARE winning this war!

 

[Berserk Fury]

It's not a question of whether or not we are winning the war.
It's more of a how long is it gonna take?
Let's see...we decided to let the CIA take over hunting bin Laden.
If the US deployed SF to take care of him, we'd probably would have captured him. Instead, we sent CIA people carrying millions of dollars to broker a deal with those warlords and in the end, we didn't even catch him. At least we nailed the Taliban, but after that, we sidestepped in to Iraq, being too late to find any weapons due to the months it took with the UN ( if he had weapons at all) AND we fell right into bin Laden propaganda about how he predicted we'd invade an Islamic state.
Now years after our war began, terrorists bomb London.
Now we're trying to kill Iran (that's not that bad, I suppose) but look at how bad our economy is today?
In my opinion, we should focus more on seeking friendship with other leading powers, rather than acting on our own making half the world hate us. More countries cracking down on terror will make the war go faster and more easier.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Gents, can we gently steer this back specifically towards the thread title?​

 

[csite]

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.

That is nonsense and propaganda, iran has bilogical and chemical weapons too, i don't see Hezbollah using any! Nuclear Iran is just as Reliable as nuclear Pakistan or israel.

 

[coolieno99]

That is nonsense and propaganda, iran has bilogical and chemical weapons too, i don't see Hezbollah using any! Nuclear Iran is just as Reliable as nuclear Pakistan or israel.

That's a good point. Syria has a large stockpile of weaponized Nerve Gas. And so far Syria has not given any of the gas to Hezbollah.

 

[KGB]

That's a good point. Syria has a large stockpile of weaponized Nerve Gas. And so far Syria has not given any of the gas to Hezbollah.

The leadership of Iran supports the Hezbollah but since it doesn't exert full control over it, it limits its support lest it get out of control. I mean, look what happened in Afghanistan, the US supplied the mujahedeen with lots of Stinger missiles, some of which are supposedly still unaccounted for. I'm sure some terrorists would love to get a MANPAD near an airport and take out some El Al jet.

The Iranians are betting that the west will blink in the end, since NK seems to have gotten away with making the bomb. But perhaps after letting NK go, the US might percieve that letting iran have the bomb too will open flood gates.

 

[stephen weist]

you mention M>A>D during the cold war period and that is like comparing apples and oranges. The only reason this worked between east/west is both sides comprised sane leaders. Middle eastern thinking regarding giving ones life for the cause will ensure M.A.D does not work there. Letting extremist regimes arm themselves with NUKES is is down right crazy.

 

[wittmanace]

the thread is about iran's response to attack, and i realise this, but in terms of iran using nukes via hizbullah.....its not the case it seems. consider the syrian case for example, as cited above..

as someone who has lived in southern africa a long time following the sa nuclear issue....should i perhaps point out that the sa nuke program was assisted by israel....i dont see this type of pressure on israel concerning its nukes and proven proliferation.

iran simply could not react with nuclear force even if she had nukes, as the result would be clear....iran, if invaded, would most likely attempt to hide the nuclear capability, or to move it to a friendly country if possible. iran's nuclear use would be as a threat, though actually using it would be an absolute guarantee of her destruction, and though her leaders may be extremist (if thats the current term) this does not preclude them from being intelligent enough tosee the obvious.
any reaction irn has to attack would consider the ramifications and would have to be an act in order to achieve self preservation, rather thn an act of suicide. using a nuke would be much greater than a massive suicide bombing...it would spell the end for iran, and that is obvious to her leadership, whatever one thinks of them.

the most likely course of reaction would be full hearted conventional defence along with heavy emphasis on asymmetrical retaliation against the foreign invader's citizens and forces anywhere in the world.........this is more likely to bring about the defeat of her opponent, following a cross betwen a vietnam and iraq style of war........remember that the key aim for iran, as any country, would be self preservation.....a suicidal nuclear srike would go against that in every way...

having said that, do remeber that israel loaded nukes onto her aircraft in 1973(if some dispute this claim, i will provide sources and more info.....i wish to be very clear that my remarks about israel are not anti israeli, they are objective and fact based, and not based on any judgement of israel.....last time i mentioned this israeli action i was called an anti semite absurdly enough) when it seemed that her army would be overrun, and she chose to prepare to use nukes in the event of defeat.....ie a vengeful rather than protective/defensive strike.....

wittman ace

 

[Rich]

Keep the politics out of the discussion. Please just discuss the military aspect of Iran's response to an attack.