IRAN Nuclear Crisis News and Discussions

[mysterious]

Yeah, in today's world, if you've locked horns with the media, only God maybe able to save ur image! Smart move by Iran.

 

[Berserk Fury]

http://www.jang.com.pk/thenews


Iran lets CNN back in after apology
(Updated at 1200 PST)
TEHRAN: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has allowed CNN to resume operating in the country after the American cable news network apologized for mistakenly quoting him saying Tehran was seeking nuclear weapons, state radio reported on Tuesday.

During CNN's lives translation of a press conference by Ahmadinejad on Saturday, the president was quoted as saying that "we believe all nations are allowed to have nuclear weapons" and that the West should not "deprive us to have nuclear weapons".

The president was, however, using a Farsi word that meant "technology" and not "weapons".

===================
A political move by Iran to avoid and pacify the international media guns, which otherwise would have caused more harm to her.

A classic example of Carrot and Stick policy!!!

Speaking of the carror and stick policy... we should've used the same strategy against Iran in the first place.
Threaten military force while closing all trade whatsoever meanwhile offering to lift embargos if Iran agrees to dismantle its crap.
Either way, if we don't take action the Israeli military will.

First, given the complexity of such an undertaking -- given that, according to Iranian dissident sources, there are anywhere between 200 and 300 possible sites -- the scope of the military operation would have to be formidable. It would require top-notch intelligence to identify and strike only at relevant sites. Assuming that 200 sites are targeted, such a military operation would require at least 600 airplanes, again assuming that only three planes were assigned to hit each facility.

The attack planes would have to include bombers, escort fighters, refueling planes and command-and-control aircrafts.

If the United States were to participate in the raid, it certainly has all the hardware needed, such as the Stealth B1 bomber, carrier-based attack aircrafts in the Mediterranean and the nearby Gulf, as well as Cruise missiles. However, if Israel were to go at alone, it would have to commit almost its entire air force.

Israel, says its Chief of General Staff Lt.-Gen. Dan Halutz, can destroy Iran's nuclear program, though he stressed, "It is not only Israel's problem."

Israel certainly has the hardware, too. Among its main strike force, Israel possesses at least 33 F-15A/B, 17 15C/D, 25 F-15I Fighter-Bombers, 94 F-16As/B Fighter-Bombers, 75 F-16C/D Fighter-Bombers, 102 F-16I Fighter-Bombers and 5-A-4N Skyhawk attack planes, as well as two C-130H Hercules ELINT (electronic intelligence gathering), four KC-130H Hercules tankers and three Boeing 707-320 tankers.

http://www.wpherald.com/storyview.php?StoryID=20060113-042350-9356r
either way, action will be taken, hopefully not before something bad happens like Tel Aviv being nuked. Read the article, it's very interesting.

 

[mysterious]

Iran is certainly not Iraq. It has clearly stated, military action would mean the end of Israel as it exists today. I'm sure Israel clearly understands its very survival is at stake here that is why we haven't seen any unilateral strikes by its forces like the ones conducted against Iraq.

US help wouldn't be all that advantageous to Israel's position against because Iran's ballistic missiles are a threat other than anything else it possesses; and the probability of taking them ALL out before they're launched against Israel would be 'wishful thinking'.

 

[Rich]

"Maybe" Israel can significantly delay the Iranian nuclear program. And thats a big "maybe". The only aircraft they have that could possibly be used are the long range F-15s and F-16s and they would be attacking targets from long distance, that are not only heavily defended, but also spread out. The fact is its extremely doubtful Israel can significantly delay this nuclear program.

Theres only one military that can. And it would not only be a significant attack package, but probably prolonged as well. As in "days".

 

[turin]

US help wouldn't be all that advantageous to Israel's position against because Iran's ballistic missiles are a threat other than anything else it possesses; and the probability of taking them ALL out before they're launched against Israel would be 'wishful thinking'.

Add to that the issue, that Iran already controls considerable C- and most likely B-weapons storages! Today everyone talks only about Iran probably nuking Israel, bend on the issue of the nuclear R&D-project. But I'd think that if Iran considers the use of WMD, such a step would consist of a biological and/or chemical weapons strike since these systems are already available, at least chemical weapons in large numbers. Not that I am saying, a counter attack would necessarily include WMD in the first place.

 

[Rich]

If Iran responded with WMDs there is absolutly no doubt in mind they will shortly be missing a few cities and all their important military bases. Theres no doubt in my mind the Jews would nuke em, with their idea being "better to do so now then later".

 

[Berserk Fury]

If Iran responded with WMDs there is absolutly no doubt in mind they will shortly be missing a few cities and all their important military bases. Theres no doubt in my mind the Jews would nuke em, with their idea being "better to do so now then later".

Which would inevitably cause more chaos in the Middle East though at least Israel lives a day longer. US action would mold us further into Bin Laden's propaganda especially since Iran is an oil-rich country but if we don't take action we'll probably be too late anyways. Another dilema....

 

[Cootamundra]

Not to mention the economic damage another middle east war will do to ALL countries. I think that a conflict here has to be avoided if at all possible, Iran actually holds the better hand. Certainly the US could win any Iran/US war but the damage done to the US economy and therefore ALL economies would be tremendous. As much as it pains me to say it the best way forward here is through international consensus, a UN resolution and economic sanctions, whilst in the background funding Iranian dissidents and hoping that a popular uprising may occur in the medium term.
Coota

 

[Kiwi Echo]

let me get my head round this

iran hasnt exactly got the nuke capability yet because the r&d for civil electrical needs in setting up a plant hasnt gone ahead yet, so y not just get the buggers b4 they do hav any potential

& howcome da irannies gt a thing for israel & christian countries:unknown


MAKE LOVE NOT WAR

 

[Izzy1]

Given the amount of shuttle diplomacy going on over here at the moment, I would not be surprised if a strike came sooner rather than later. The problem for the US is how to accomplish the task at hand. I have no doubt that diplomacy/sanctions will fail in this instance - Iran will now loose face if it backs down. The current leadership in Tehran also seems intent on at least being more beligerant. It knows that given the West's problems in Iraq, it is in a very strong position to dictate terms.

Thus, a US strike will lead to major problems in Iraq, with the inevitable backlash from the pro-Iranian Shia population there.

An Isreali attack will play in Tehran's hands also - and could even be used as the pretext for the use of nun-nuclear WMD against Israel. And given the political problems in Tel Aviv at the moment, I do wonder if an attack decision could be forthcoming.

An EU/WEU based-military option is possible, the UK and France certainly have the equipment to mount an effective strike but whether the Union has the political drive to mount such an operation is another story. Also from Tehran's point of view - there is probably little difference between EU or Israel - they are both in Iranian eyes; servants of Washington.

Thus is there another, more regional option?

One little discussed possibility is a military option by the GCC countries. As I have said here before, there is no love lost between Iran and likes of Saudi and Kuwait. The GCC countries actually have a lot more to loose if Tehran gains nuclear weapons than most. Potential targets such as Bushehr are litterally minutes away from major GCC airfields such as Dhahran and Ahmed Al Jabar in Kuwait. Potential strike platforms include Saudi Tornado and F-15S; Kuwaiti F-18s (limited AG role) and Mirage F-1CK/BKs; the UAE's strike potential includes Mirage 2000 with SCALP EG/Black Shahen Cruise Missiles and F-16 E/Fs. Whether the GCC has the political will to take such an action is my only question and any operation would still have to greatly rely on US input. But from the west's point of view, it would be a seriously tempting option and in my opinion the reason for the frantic Western diplomacy in the region at the moment.

 

[Rich]

Theres no way the Gulf Arabs would participate in the air strikes, just like theres no way we'd let them. At most they would allow the US to stage from their bases, but we arent about to let them practice 21'st century war with a strike of this importance.

Besides the attack package would begin with hundreds of cruise missiles and strikes against the Iranian radar net and fighter squadrons. Then in would go the heavy bombers,"B-2s to start", to take out the nuclear sites. By this time Tehran is without power and communications and centers of power have been eliminated. Since we went this far it only makes sense to take out their navy, WMD factilities, and leadership targets.

Its a big country tho and it would probably take 3 to 7 days to get meaningful results. Make no mistake however. The only military capable of this, using conventional weapons, is America.

 

[Patzek]

I'll correct the numbers someone gave here.

IAF Airforce:

Total amount of F16 - 386
about 110 A\B
170 + - C\D ( more D's than C's )
and 102 F16I's.

30 F15 A\B
70 +- F15C WELL Upgraded to Bazz 2000 with Air to Ground bombs possibility.

25 F15I.

C-130, about 30, i don't know in which varients and those stuff.

Boieng 707, i think there is 7,
4 Was Transformed and the Phalcon AESA Radar was installed on them.
And 3 for air refuel and transport.


and the 4 new Galaphstream 5 Nahsun with the PESA Radar.

 

[mysterious]

If none of the GCC countries sent their armed forces to Iraq to help out the coalition, what makes you think they will mount an 'offensive' against Iran? It is true that Iran having a nuclear weapons capability wouldn't go down well with either Saudi Arabia or Pakistan but domestic public opinion is also considered in these countries (no matter how much the West claims them to be undemocratic).

No one has so far taken in to account the role played by Russia and China in detail. Both have been strongly opposed to 'any' military action against Iran to protect their energy stakes in that country. How long do you think Russia will keep quiet as this unilateral show by the US goes on? Russia lost 'quite a lot' in Iraq after the coalition forces moved in and I'd say they wouldn't want the same situation arising out of the current Iran crisis.

China has also reiterated that dialogue is the key and it clearly does not support military action. Both Russia and China have a veto at the UN and they could end up using that right if all of their concerns are not properly addressed in any resolution that is to be put forth.

PS: There seems to be a lot of excitement and anxiousness over when the strike will take place and what assets would be used in such an operation (the possibility of a peaceful solution to this crisis has been erased by some members from their minds it seems). There's nothing glorious about wars (one-sided wars specially for that matter) and machoism isn't the best way to deal with other countries in a world of ever increasingly complex geo-political realities.

 

[Rich]

Israel doesnt have 120 F-16Is currently. They have placed a large order for them but for the present they could, at best, field 50 to 60 long range fighter bombers with the reach to hit Iran. In reality it would probably be less. The US could launch a strike package of 300 to 500 cruise missiles, 300+ fighter bombers, and 50+ strategic bombers. Best case scenerio would be with local hosting and our NATO allies involved.

But I doubt it. I doubt that the United Nations would authorize military force. Boy...this is what its come down to? Relying on the UN nfloorl:

 

[coolieno99]

Syria probably will jump into the fray. Syria has about 70 DF-15 ballistic missiles, and about 200 Scud-C,D ballistic missiles. It will be hard to defend against these missiles, because the terminal velocity of the missiles is about 4,000 - 6,000 mph. 70% of Israel's population is concentrated around Tel Aviv, making it an ideal missile target.

 

[Rich]

I always had a problem believing Leaders of a nation would "drink the koolaid" unless absolutly necessary. When I say "drink the koolaid" I mean commit national suicide, as in Syria launching missiles at Israel as payback for a limited strike against Iran. Leaders tend to like their countries in one piece and all the amenaties available for them and their familys. Speedboats, mistresses, fine dining, hunting trips....ect Anything beats 30 Israeli jets coming at you with nuclear weapons. Even Damascus is within range of the Israeli guns on the Golan. Syria is plain outmatched.

Assad and company see Saddam sitting in that booth prior to the 6' drop, his wretched sons worm food. He knows a combined Israeli/Yank armored juggernaught would cut thru Syria like crap thru a goose. So why would he be so stupid to get involved in something with the Iranians?

He wouldnt!

 

[Crusader2000]

Re: Nuclear War against Iran

There likely dozens of plans to attack Iran with both nuclear, and conventional forces. Wargames against any and all potential threats, including domestic threats are constantly being played out using the most up to date intelligence data available. From these, US military war planners develop operational plans. That is one of things the Pentagon does.

If the President is told one morning that country-X just attacked American-allied country-Y with WMD... that President will want to know what his military options are. You'd better believe that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs is going to have several, or possibly dozens of such plans available for the President to consider.

Now consider that Iran has publically been called one of the "Axis of Evil" nations by the current US President, and it's not very hard to believe that there are more than a few plans to attack Iran sitting in the White House war room. This one is definately a no-brainer.

That said- I'm not going out on a limb to suggest that the United States will attack Iran this spring. President Bush has publically stated that, "Iran will not be allowed to accquire a nuclear weapon."
Until such time that Iran claims to possess, or it can be reasonbly suspected to possess a nuclear weapon- I don't think there is the slightest justification behind a US-led attack. I do think Iran is playing a dangerous game, but at the moment, I wouldn't be scrambling to evacuate Tehran.

Of course, Isreal doesn't have to play by those rules, either.

This could be the reason why the US wants to remove a small number of Nuclear Warheads from its SLBM (i.e. Trident D-5). These inturn would be replace with regular high exposives. This would give the US a very fast response to any threat..................much faster than Aircraft and/or cruise missiles

 

[Berserk Fury]

Re: Nuclear War against Iran

That's not a bad idea....

@Patzek
Those stats are from World Peace Herald, not from me.

Anyhow, the UN is still "discussing" how to handle this matter while Iran is doing what? most likely preparing for war as we US people haven't handled this well either.

 

[Crusader2000]

Iran is just taking a gamble that the US has to many fires going and the EU just doesn't have the balls! Which, is more than likely true..............

 

[Berserk Fury]

You could say the UN doesn't have balls either...
They just talk all day while the issue keeps on developing.
I seriously doubt Iran is just taking a gamble; since when has the US crumbled under stress and refrained from taking action in major global issues?
The chances of a peaceful alternative to combat are growing slimmer by the day.