Attack on Iran, Possible!!
- Thread starter ghanz
- Start date
- Status
Grand Danois
Entertainer
Yes, they will risk it if they deem it is necessary. Now, that is a rubbery statement.
Often rethoric and display of force will intensify from both sides as talks conclude.
Often rethoric and display of force will intensify from both sides as talks conclude.
Aye, pretty much sabre rattling at the moment.Yes, they will risk it if they deem it is necessary. Now, that is a rubbery statement.
Often rethoric and display of force will intensify from both sides as talks conclude.
I would think if any sale of S300 actually turned up in Iran that would set the alarm bells ringing but that is currently not going to happen. Well I say not going to happen but the Russians are not to keen on the American defence shield in Czech and Poland. If they go ahead, then Russia may just give Iran it's own defence shield.
End of the day, attacking Iran while the states have the Afgan & Iraq problem still on going would be possibly a war to far.
Russian responses are symmetric, or have been so far. Construction of the missile shield will lead to the retargetting of missiles against said missiles shield. i doubt it would be used to justify a weapon deal with Iran, not to mention that the price tag on any meaningful number of S-300's is hefty.
Russia may sell S-300 to Iran in response to whatever USA action, but it wouldnt change anything in Middle East military balance.
Israel still would do anything without USA backup, and against USA iranian S-300 will be useless.
I just got this email.
I've been a USA fan my entire life, but last two years i'm getting increasingly fed up with the warmongers there.
It begs the question, -is it a policy to start conflicts in order to sell more weapon, -is it plain busine$$ ?
http://www.infowars.com/?p=3202
I've been a USA fan my entire life, but last two years i'm getting increasingly fed up with the warmongers there.
It begs the question, -is it a policy to start conflicts in order to sell more weapon, -is it plain busine$$ ?
Last edited:
The tipping point here is Israel's total unswerving commitment to stopping Iran manufacturing and developing a means of deploying a nuclear device, whether it be delivered by a long range missile or smuggled into or near Israeli territory. With or without the Americans, Israel will have to destroy that capability. Having spent time in Israel you realise just how small the country actually is when compared to Iran, the impact of a single warhead on Tel Aviv would seriously challenge the country's' future survival. Unlike Japan, which absorbed two strikes, the population is not disbursed amongst alternate sizable economic centre's. Iran on the other hand, due to its geographical size, could absorb a number of nuclear strikes without returning to the stone age. Remember they have had to become self sufficient in many areas and have a widely disbursed population. If some mad mullah believes it's worth the sacrifice of a million Iranians for wiping the heart of Judaism of the world map then who knows what may happen!
It's only a matter of time before we see a major strike against Iran's military infrastructure unless they cease developing nuclear weapons technology.
It's only a matter of time before we see a major strike against Iran's military infrastructure unless they cease developing nuclear weapons technology.
I'm interested to know who this mad Mullah is your alluding to?
If Iran ever got Nukes I'm sure they would very quickly become the most polite and courteous neighbors to the Isrealies, complete with hot lines, open channels ect.
Both countries would be at pains to avoid any misunderstanding that could lead to....eh lets not talk about that.
Iran's Nuclear program is to insure that they will never be under the threat of invasion again. It conversely makes any offensive action by them extremely risky if that said nation is a nuclear power of under the protection of a nuclear power.
I would agree. People ought to read works of scholars/experts other than just Graham Allison, David Albright and Scott Sagan. I would say Kenneth Waltz is interesting to read how nuclear-politics and its logic works. & there is lots of interesting articles available on the possible attack on Iran and its outcome. Majority of them find that such attack would result in greater loss for US and Israel than Iran.
What I believe in is that Nuclear Iran will probably be lesser threat than non-nulcear Iran.
Without the weapon itself the only deterrent option Iran has realized is to have quantitative presence of Ballistic Missiles. This is having an adverse impact; i.e. triggering arms race in the region (not just Israel but Saudi Arabia and other smaller Gulf State). It is also intensifying the chances of an armed conflict.
This armed conflict will be more threatening than Iran going nuclear. Lets say US & Israel do decide attack Iran, than what happens:
1. Gulf is dominated by Arabs, however the majority population is Shiia in the Persian Gulf. Moreover, these Shiia dominate the Oil Rich regions of the gulf. Here Iran has an advantage of exploiting the shiias which will impact the flow of oil.
2. Iran exploits Iraqi shiias.
3. Iran blocs the straight of Hormuz and cuts off the oil supply.
4. Israeli aerial attack: Israel does not share border with Iran. It will have to fly over KSA or over Jordon-Iraq to Iran. This will trigger fear in Arab states than just Iran. If Arabs don't react their regime is in danger, if they do than Israel is back to war with Arabs.
5. In case of US-Israel attack Iran "will" use the Syria and Hezbollah card against the Israel (& US).
These outcomes are greater threat to US, Israel and the region than the nuclear Iran. The regional states would prefer to have status-quo than lose their regimes, hence they would not support Americans.
In other words Iran would have a nuclear deterrent. Which also means lesser threat to Israel (since Israel has the weapon). We have to realize how states, which were looking to destroy each other in the past, ended up consolidating and excepting each others' presence as a reality and rationality once they went nuclear.
Did USSR & USA attacked each other with nukes? No
Did China & USA attack each other with nukes? No
Did China & India do so? No
Did Pakistan & India do so? No
US & USSR had cuban missile crisis while Pakistan and India has Kargil conflict and 2002 standoff under nuclear umbrella. They did appear threatening but deep study shows they turned out to be healthy realization for MAD and deterrence for these states. So they were not totaly negative , in fact these conflicts/crisis helped evert full scale wars.
Having said the above, I don't think Iran should go nuclear. Nuclear Iran would spur proliferation in the region. Nuclear Iran will force Israel to go overt. KSA and Egypt will attempt tp acquire nukes while Syria most probably will develop more of chemical and biological weapons.
To be or not to be? What ever the answer it going to be a huge mess!!!
How?
The Millennium Challenge '02 war games that were staged in the Persian Gulf a few months prior to the Iraqi Invasion might give you a pretty good idea on how Iran might do it.How?
The commander of the "Red Force", Gen. Paul van Riper quite in the middle out of frustration of the "scripted" nature of the games which he said were just made to show-off the USN's new hi-tech hardware and doctrine.
The "Blue Force" was simulating a US invasion of a Persian Gulf country, presumably Iraq.
Unlike the overwhelming majority of US military exercises and war games, the "Red Force" was given plenty of leeway in how to conduct its operations and beat the Blue Force.
The "Red Force" chose to use low-tech asymmetric warfare tactics similar in fashion to what the IRGC may use.
Using nothing more than small speedboats, civilian aircraft and relatively low-end ground based anti-ship missiles the Red Force managed to sink 16 ships from the US fleet
IIRC, they used the civilian boats and aircraft to buzz and detect the US warships with out being fired upon and then they unleashed a massive torrent of anti-ship missiles blowing about two-thirds of the US fleet out of the water.
If you thought the US Navy took the lessons learned from these war games seriously, there's a big chance that you're wrong because the commander of the "Blue Force" just called for a "time-out" and ordered the sunk ships "re-floated".
This is when the Gen. Paul van Riper quite the games, saying that it was made to ensure the USN ended up winning.
When he came out to talk to the press about it, the US' military establishment tried its best to shut him up.
The Iranians have probably developed more sophisticated tactics than the ones used by the Red Force in the games and probably have better anti-ship missiles.
Moreover, the Iranians have a complete disregard for human-life whether their own or their enemies' and are willing to use suicide tactics.
Take all of this into account and I would say the Iranians pose a pretty significant threat.
Also, Iran doesn't need to hit every ship passing through Hormuz to disrupt shipping and oil supply.
If they manage to hit just a few tankers rest assure no ones going to go through there.
And with the threats coming out of Iran and the fear people have of what they may do, as soon as a strike on Iran is reported oil prices will hit $200 easy.
Last edited:
Only three of the ships were sunk by AShM, the other 13 by suicide attacks. The AShM were fired at relatively close range.
Unlike Millenium Challenge, a pre-emptive Iranian attack on CTF158 (and MC02 was pre-emptive!) would lead to about 250 fighter jets starting bombing missions over Tehran immediately.
Unlike Millenium Challenge, a pre-emptive Iranian attack on CTF158 (and MC02 was pre-emptive!) would lead to about 250 fighter jets starting bombing missions over Tehran immediately.
I didn't find that when I was looking it up, but thanks for the correction.
The Iranians wouldn't do a preemptive attack.
The Iranian leadership has been going out of its way saying that any military action on its part would be in response to an attack by the US or Israel.
Like I said, the tactics that would be used by the IRGC won't be the same as the ones used by the Red Force in MC02. But would be of a similar fashion.
And if the US is the one who is attacking, there would already be 250 fighter-jets over Iran on bombing missions.
i think there is a small chance that this will happen,
Isreal attacked the syrian and iraqi reactors in the past, but an attack now would have a really bad affect on the US ecomony,
Anybody know a rough time frame for Iran getting the bomb? korea managed it quite quickly, is there some kind of deadline looming?
Isreal attacked the syrian and iraqi reactors in the past, but an attack now would have a really bad affect on the US ecomony,
Anybody know a rough time frame for Iran getting the bomb? korea managed it quite quickly, is there some kind of deadline looming?
Staging attacks on Iran from Iraq is pretty good way to motivate Shi'a militias (who's supreme religious leader is also the supreme leader of Iran) to try and reverse all security gains the US made ever since the "surge" and in the case of an attack Iran would be more than willing to aid them in reversing these gains.
Not to mention severely harm Maliki's public image and remove all doubt from Iraqis minds that they are not a sovereign nation (which is an image Iraq and the US have been trying to build up over time). Which again would fuel violence that would help in reversing what ever gains the coalition have made so far in Iraq.
Continued rhetoric from both sides this week, Ehud Barak suggested his country was ready to launch a pre-emptive strike if necessary:
"Israel is the strongest country in the region and has proved in the past that it does not hesitate to act when its vital security interests are at stake."
Recent strikes against Syria back such claims-up.
Recent (real or faked?) firings of Iranian missiles also adds fuel to the fire. Tehran has said this week that Tel Aviv would be "set on fire" if Israel were to attack.
The UAE states, Qatar and Kuwait are particularly concerned because of the potential catastrophic fallout from a major strike, they are geographically closer to Iran's nuclear facilities than Tehran.
As I said before there is no way the Government / military leadership of Israel will tolerate Iran becoming a nuclear capable country, if they are prepared to strike Syrian suspected nuclear sights, then I'm sure they have no qualms about attacking Iran. A much harder target, but still doable with or without overt US military support.
"Israel is the strongest country in the region and has proved in the past that it does not hesitate to act when its vital security interests are at stake."
Recent strikes against Syria back such claims-up.
Recent (real or faked?) firings of Iranian missiles also adds fuel to the fire. Tehran has said this week that Tel Aviv would be "set on fire" if Israel were to attack.
The UAE states, Qatar and Kuwait are particularly concerned because of the potential catastrophic fallout from a major strike, they are geographically closer to Iran's nuclear facilities than Tehran.
As I said before there is no way the Government / military leadership of Israel will tolerate Iran becoming a nuclear capable country, if they are prepared to strike Syrian suspected nuclear sights, then I'm sure they have no qualms about attacking Iran. A much harder target, but still doable with or without overt US military support.
That's nice, but that doesn't let them block the Persian Gulf. It just lets them do massive damage to the USN. Also, to consider, the Red Team had the C3 assets, training, and situational understanding that Iran is far from having.
The Iranians are starting to remind me of Saddam at the peak of his sabre rattling days, I'm still waiting for the 'mother of all battles' comments to spew forth from the Revolutionary Guard Command.
The Iranian military infrastructure is extremely fragile when benchmarked against Israel or the US and I seriously doubt it's even comparable to Iraq's prior to GW1. Remember the Iranians couldn't do in eight years what the US and its Allies did in six-weeks!
I accept they can send wave after wave of suicide speedboats and fire salvos of Silkworms against tankers / naval assets, but this will not cause their adversaries to cease and run for cover, it will simply result in a disproportionate amount of destruction to Iranian military and economic targets in response. A conflict at this time would be very, very messy, but I would bet my life savings on who would win.
The Iranian military infrastructure is extremely fragile when benchmarked against Israel or the US and I seriously doubt it's even comparable to Iraq's prior to GW1. Remember the Iranians couldn't do in eight years what the US and its Allies did in six-weeks!
I accept they can send wave after wave of suicide speedboats and fire salvos of Silkworms against tankers / naval assets, but this will not cause their adversaries to cease and run for cover, it will simply result in a disproportionate amount of destruction to Iranian military and economic targets in response. A conflict at this time would be very, very messy, but I would bet my life savings on who would win.
A single nuclear strike, even a relatively small one, against a single target in Iran, in or near a major city, Teheran or not, would comprehensively munt the ability of the Iranian regime to respond in any military fashion at all, as indeed would such a strike against virtually any nation.
Lots of asymetrically superior dumb weapons are not of much use if there is no cohesive communication left, or any ability to observe the theatre.
Besides which, the mirror backup of the entire world banking system is buried under Tel Aviv, and there is absolutely no way that anyone, the Chinese and the Russians included, is going to allow Iran or anyone else to take the place out, by any means.
It's all brinksmanship, but Iran is not yet ready for nuclear war, and Israel is, and if Israel feels sufficiently threatened, it will use nukes. America won't.
Lots of asymetrically superior dumb weapons are not of much use if there is no cohesive communication left, or any ability to observe the theatre.
Besides which, the mirror backup of the entire world banking system is buried under Tel Aviv, and there is absolutely no way that anyone, the Chinese and the Russians included, is going to allow Iran or anyone else to take the place out, by any means.
It's all brinksmanship, but Iran is not yet ready for nuclear war, and Israel is, and if Israel feels sufficiently threatened, it will use nukes. America won't.
- Status