Attack on Iran, Possible!!

Status
Not open for further replies.

eaf-f16

New Member
Oil fields. Oil fields. Oil fields.
Sinking tankers from the GCC countries is one thing but violating their sovereignty and attacking them on their own soil is another thing completely. Politically they can't do it and militarily their capabilities don't allow them to do anything major to the oil fields.

I don't think this is something that Iran would consider to do in case of an attack.
 

Khairul Alam

New Member
Oil fields. Oil fields. Oil fields.
okay, lets get one thing clear with. in the event of any hostilities between Iran and the US, the gulf countries will surely try as hard as possible to remain neutral. they surely wouldnt want to risk Iranian ballistic missiles landing on their metropolises. moreover, these gulf countries are currently undergoing tremendous economic growth and would not welcome any instabilities that might get in the way of their economic boom.

now, such fears are not one-sided, or atleast they shouldnt be logically. Iran knows quite well that any military action directed towards its gulf neighbours bears the risk of inciting them (the gulf states) to take sides with the US, providing bases to US forces and maybe actively participating in the war. hence, Iran has to tread a fine line while negatively conditioning the gulf countries with veiled threats while at the same time ensuring that it doenst make a big thorn out of itself on the arabs' side.

again in Grand Danois' words, Iran has few options.
 

ROCK45

New Member
negatively

Khairul Alam you may have hit the nail on the head perfectly thank you for your post.

Aliph Ahmed
Gawadar port, Pakistan ?
I don't think if a shooting war started that the US would allow Iranian oil get to market through a country their in.
 

eaf-f16

New Member
I don't think if a shooting war started that the US would allow Iranian oil get to market through a country their in.
Since when does the US have basing rights in Pakistan?

I don't think US military incursions into Pakistan are officially sanctioned by the Pakistani government.
 

stigmata

New Member
I thought this might be relevant on this topic
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIPART47bIs&feature=email"]YouTube - WE'RE GONNA BOMB IRAN, & THERES NOTHING YOU CAN DO[/ame]
 

kato

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Well, in theory, Iran could complete a number of pipeline proposals from Totalfinaelf (namely the Kharg-Turkmenistan-Kazakhstan link, and the Tabriz-Baku link) and support a number of others - and then export internationally via Azerbaijan in Turkey (Ceyhan), Georgia (Supsa) and Russia (Novorossiisk), capacity for something like a quarter million bbl/day likely.
Same goes for a hypothetical Eastern link to China, would essentially only take Iranian backup (and guarantees) to the Kazakhstan-Xinjiang link, and some rerouting inside Kazakhstan.

Would take a couple years to build of course. And a few billion dollar. And lots of favours from Russia.
 

chefster

New Member
no ,won't happen...unless isreal pulls the trigger and we follow it in...it would be a cluster f---..........it wil not be us and the middle east it will be China and the middle east....we will have to still go in and rebuild and clean things up...cause thaat s what we do
 

swerve

Super Moderator
It's possible for Iran to develop alternative export routes, but there's no sign at present of them being pursued seriously.

Most of the current active projects are built to flow the other way, like the "Iran oil swap" line under construction from Neka on the Caspian to Tehran. Iran currently pumps gas from Central Asia into its internal network, uses it, & pays for it by exporting gas via the Gulf. The oil swap line does the same with oil. They're schemes to provide alternative export routes for Central Asia via Iran, not the other way round.

To enable major Iranian exports through Ceyhan, etc, would take more than a few billions. You'd have to both build new links, & increase capacity of existing ones to take the extra flow. I don't see Azerbaijan, for example, forgoing sales of its own oil to pump Iranian. Via Kazakhstan to China would be very expensive & take several years.

So - a long-term option only.
 

Grand Danois

Entertainer
Why would they need B-52 with Tomahawks when USN missile cruisers can fire off Tomahawks from a very safe distance?
Because when a DDG/CG has fired its Tomahawk, the VLS cell stays empty. A B-52 fires a volley and goes back to base for a reload. A seabased Tomahawk stays in theatre and can respond to emerging situations.

If Sepah Al-Quds was sent back into Iraq (apparently they left in 06-07) they can support and even conduct insurgent operations there that can be very discriminant.

Iran never supported the criminal gangs and death squads that went around killing civilians. They support a militia as whole and expect that their leader makes sure everybody plays by the rules. Of course, you can see the flaws in this.

Read this article. It explains the different "elements" in the Mahdi Army very well.
Yes, they can be discriminant. But can they make it hurt enough? I have my doubts. I think I am fairly versed on the topic of Iraqi insurgents/militias, but don't have the time to take up your offer to discuss this. So I'll decline.

Hezbollah would committing political suicide if they retaliate for Iran.
Interesting. Would you care to elaborate?

I think so, too. But I think the attack is unlikely because of the reasons mentioned above about the strait and Iraq.
Straits & price of oil, coupled with the condition of the US economy.
 

eaf-f16

New Member
Interesting. Would you care to elaborate
Even though Iran and Hezbollah enjoy broad support from the populations of Arab countries the label of "Iranian puppet" is still very damning in the Arab world (even in Arab Shi'ite communities).

It is already a very wide spread view in Northern Lebanon that Hezbollah is just an extension of the Revolutionary Guards in their country.

If Hezbollah were to draw Lebanon into another war with Israel (which will be very destructive for Lebanon) just because Iran's nuclear facilities were hit, then they are putting all of the public support they have in the Arab world at very great risk. Especially after the incident where Hezbollah took over West Beirut.
 

DarthAmerica

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
Even though Iran and Hezbollah enjoy broad support from the populations of Arab countries the label of "Iranian puppet" is still very damning in the Arab world (even in Arab Shi'ite communities).

It is already a very wide spread view in Northern Lebanon that Hezbollah is just an extension of the Revolutionary Guards in their country.

If Hezbollah were to draw Lebanon into another war with Israel (which will be very destructive for Lebanon) just because Iran's nuclear facilities were hit, then they are putting all of the public support they have in the Arab world at very great risk. Especially after the incident where Hezbollah took over West Beirut.
Also, Hezbollah is being increasingly isolated and cut off as Syria and Israel move closer to peace. Recent senior leader assassinations, COMSEC compromises and Hezbollah taking new positions in the mountains overlooking the Bekka Valley suggest Syrian cooperation with the Israelis to some extent. Not only that, Israel is very eager to reengage Hezbollah after the last conflict in 2006. All they need is a halfway decent excuse.
Hezbollah is still a menace to be taken seriously. However, these days, they are in a very perilous position compared to 2006.

I do find it curious though the so many people think an attack on Iran is imminent when in fact the opposite seems true.

-DA
 

eckherl

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Also, Hezbollah is being increasingly isolated and cut off as Syria and Israel move closer to peace. Recent senior leader assassinations, COMSEC compromises and Hezbollah taking new positions in the mountains overlooking the Bekka Valley suggest Syrian cooperation with the Israelis to some extent. Not only that, Israel is very eager to reengage Hezbollah after the last conflict in 2006. All they need is a halfway decent excuse.
Hezbollah is still a menace to be taken seriously. However, these days, they are in a very perilous position compared to 2006.

I do find it curious though the so many people think an attack on Iran is imminent when in fact the opposite seems true.

-DA
Where have you been, I was hoping that you were going to contribute/weigh in on this topic. How much of a concern should Irans tactical missiles be in the event of a shooting war which I to find doubtful.
 

DarthAmerica

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
Where have you been, I was hoping that you were going to contribute/weigh in on this topic. How much of a concern should Irans tactical missiles be in the event of a shooting war which I to find doubtful.
I have been a round, just choosing to be more of a lurker lately. However current events peaked my interest in this topic enough to compel a response.

I think Iranian missiles of all kinds should be of paramount importance. Even though missile defense has improved significantly. The Iranian missile force has the mass to saturate the defense such that there will be leakers. A leaker with a 1000 pound warhead could cause horrific casualties. Moreover accuracy has been improved. Lots of the regional oil infrastructure could be vulnerable. Intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance is improved significantly since the SCUD hunt during the early 90s however Iran has significantly more strategic depth. It's a tough fight and lots of people could die. Might overall assessment of this Iranian capability is that it is a credible threat not easily countered.

-DA
 

eaf-f16

New Member
Also, Hezbollah is being increasingly isolated and cut off as Syria and Israel move closer to peace. Recent senior leader assassinations, COMSEC compromises and Hezbollah taking new positions in the mountains overlooking the Bekka Valley suggest Syrian cooperation with the Israelis to some extent. Not only that, Israel is very eager to reengage Hezbollah after the last conflict in 2006. All they need is a halfway decent excuse.
Hezbollah is still a menace to be taken seriously. However, these days, they are in a very perilous position compared to 2006.

I do find it curious though the so many people think an attack on Iran is imminent when in fact the opposite seems true.

-DA
Hezbollah's communications network was never in any real threat. At the end of the day when things got serious Hezbollah just decided it would take over West Beirut and came out of that incident with veto power in the central government. The only negative side-effect was in respect to its public image. This is serious, of course, but it would have been alot worse if it were to lose its communications network.

I also suspect that the prisoner release made Hezbollah partially recover in terms of PR. But I haven't read any good analysis on the prisoner release and the effects of it so far so I'm merely speculating. It's highly probable though that this made them look like stars in Southern Lebanon.

I disagree with you that Imad Mughniyeh's assassination necessarily means Syrian involvement or Israeli-Syrian cooperation. But I definitely think it initiated Hezbollah's (and by extension Iran's) recent distrust in Syria, which was only exacerbated by Syria's recent peace talk with Israel via Turkish mediation.

I partially agree you that Hezbollah is in not in as good as a position as in 2006-2007 but only in terms of PR. But you have to understand that the massive support for Hezbollah in '06 was right after a military victory against Israel. This was inevitably going to raise moral and support for Hezbollah into record highs. But it was also inevitably going to die down after a while. So, I don't think the comparison between 2006 and now is such a good one.

If you were to compare their position just prior to the 2006 war and now, they are in a much better position in terms of everything. Politically, they now have veto power, giving them the capability of making virtually any action taken against them by the central government illegal. In terms of public support they now have the Lebanese Shi'ite community solidly in their corner and enjoy broad support in the Arab world. And in terms of their military readiness and proficiency they are one of the best light-infantry combat units (if you were to consider them as such) in the region and also has one of the best special forces components in the region.

If you were to compare Hezbollah to just right after the Lebanon war then they are still better off now than they were before in terms of power in the central government and military capability.

I also disagree with your statement about Israel waiting for any excuse to engage in another war with Hezbollah. Nassrallah's current political position and the public support his organization has in Lebanon is still an order of a magnitude better than his Israeli counter-part's (Ehud Olmert) political power and support in Israel. If Ehud Olmert goes into Lebanon again and comes out with unsatisfactory results, which is highly likely, he would be pretty much securing his own resignation. Any move by Ehud Olmert against Hezbollah has to incredibly calculated and has to have a high-chance of success.

Also, Hezbollah has not been, by any means, militarily weakened since 2006. And still poses the same threat, if not an increased one, to an invading IDF as it did in 2006. Hezbollah also has an ability of learning from their experiences incredibly well (as shown in the 90's). Not to say that the IDF doesn't learn from its experiences well, also.

But Israel can't just go into Southern Lebanon with a half-way decent excuse, like you put it. That's what they did in 2006 and look what happened.

If the IDF goes in with obscure or unachievable objectives then it would just be producing a defeat for itself.

This coupled with Israelis leaderships current political position make it unlikely that Israel would go into Southern Lebanon again without provocation or good reason. And Hezbollah will certainly not start another war.

I don't think another war is likely in the foreseeable future unless something extraordinary happens. But then again, the 2006 Lebanon war was itself a product of gross miscalculation and such miscalculations may happen again. This is why they call the Middle East a volatile region.

P.S. To the mods: Sorry, for going so off-topic. I thought the issue was wroth addressing in a more detailed manner in order to give a clearer picture of the current and future situation of Iran's most effective proxy in the Middle East.
 
Last edited:

ROCK45

New Member
Groups

eaf-f16 you seem to very well informed about the Hezbollah's and there ways. You almost talk of them in a good light and their a terrorist group imposing themselves on the people of Lebanon.

I may be wrong but I think Iran's missiles and rockets might be overrated. Nothing else they have built is impressive as far as aircraft or other weapons so why must we believe that they can produce something on this level? Has any country or government ever tracked one of there missile shots flying a 1,000 plus miles and hitting at what they aimed at? Sorry for the basic question but how does the public or rest of the world really know they can hit a target from that far away? Are these the same missiles China test fires at Taiwan is this how we know they have these capabilities? Again sorry for asking a basic question but I need to have a starting point. Can they do it or can't they?
 
Last edited:

eaf-f16

New Member
eaf-f16 you seem to very well informed about the Hezbollah's and there ways. You almost talk of them in a good light and their a terrorist group imposing themselves on the people of Lebanon.
I called them an Iranian proxy. How am I talking of them in a good light?

Also, the "imposing themselves on the people of Lebanon" statement is very false one. They have strong solid support from the largest sect in Lebanon. They may protect their arms from the central government but this isn't tantamount to tyranny. It genuinely feels that without them Israel won't think twice about invading Lebanon. And having broad political support from your constituency (which also happens to be the largest sect in Lebanon) and the region isn't either.
 

ROCK45

New Member
You see that way?

Do you really see it like that? Israel wouldn't have to do half the stuff it does if they weren't there to begin with. They brough in people to win the vote and they terrorize those to don't see things there way. There total outsiders who are only intent on killing people of Israel or others who stand in their way. They have killed plenty of people from Lebanon and totally force there way in.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top