Iran Invasion soon ?

[STURM]

An interesting article co-written by Martin van Creveld, an Israeli military writer, that gives a lot of food for thought.

Solve Syria, leave Iran alone - Opinion - Al Jazeera English

A Martin van Creveld video on Iran strikes

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lF5xZKPlwIs"]Exclusive - Top Israeli Military Expert Says Israel Can Live - YouTube[/nomedia]


An article on Azerbaijan as a possible base for strikes

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...base-deal-in-plan-to-attack-iran-7601132.html

 

[Black Legion]

An article on Azerbaijan as a possible base for strikes

Israel 'does Azerbaijan airbase deal' in plan to attack Iran - Middle East - World - The Independent

If this was true it would significantly change mission ops and possibilities for Israel, as well as options for Iranian retaliation in case of an attack.

 

[My2Cents]

An article on Azerbaijan as a possible base for strikes

Israel 'does Azerbaijan airbase deal' in plan to attack Iran - Middle East - World - The Independent

The article in the Independent was based on this article in Foreign Policy (FP) magazine --
Israel's Secret Staging Ground - By Mark Perry | Foreign Policy

There are a number of significant differences between what the FP article say and what the Independent implies in theirs. The FP article, for example, does not believe that Azerbaijan would allow the Israeli’s to stage the raid from their country, but that they may permit the Israeli’s to operate SAR units from there and possibly land on the return flight from Iran (like the Dolittle raid on Japan that flew to China). That would help Israel a bit, but they still would need a way to fly to Iran.

 

[STURM]

Whilst I understand that Azerbaijan would want to have good ties with Israel and reap the benefits, for obvious reasons I have doubts as to whether they would actually allow Israel to use its territory for strikes on Iran. I think a greater possibility is that rather than permit its territory for strikes, Azerbaijan has linked some kind of agreement that would allow damaged Israeli planes to divert there and to be used as a staging point for SAR flights, as My2 Cents indicated.

 

[Sampanviking]

I seriously have to question just how realistic the prospects are of a small (but energy rich) country allowing a distant nation to use its territory to poke its large nation with a pointed stick. There have to be easier ways of asking for anschluss.

I also recall a lot of talk about Georgia being prepared to offer similar facility a few years ago and we all know how the situation in that country turned out.

I also reflect on how Turkey is particularly unkeen to see major upset in its back yard for obvious reasons.

 

[rip]

I seriously have to question just how realistic the prospects are of a small (but energy rich) country allowing a distant nation to use its territory to poke its large nation with a pointed stick. There have to be easier ways of asking for anschluss.

I also recall a lot of talk about Georgia being prepared to offer similar facility a few years ago and we all know how the situation in that country turned out.

I also reflect on how Turkey is particularly unkeen to see major upset in its back yard for obvious reasons.

If the larger nation has the stated goal of replacing the leadership of the smaller nation, then to the leadership of the small nation it might be risk worth taking. It all depends on the calculation of risk doesn’t it? And it is not my perception or risk nor your perception of risk that is the determining factor but their perception of risk. A factor which we can all agree is far harder to guess because we do not understand ether of them very well do we. Our track record in anticipating the Middle Eastern leader’s actions has not been very good has it?

 

[STURM]

The leaders of the Gulf States, whilst wary of another war in the region that would lead to more instability and chaos, are very wary of Iran, for a number of reasons, and see the U.S. military presence in the region as very reassuring. But how does the average man in the street in various Gulf Sates feel about the Iranians, it would be interesting to know. Despite what their leaders think, and how the U.S. would like their leaders to act in event of a war with Iran, do the majority of Arabs support a war or increased tensions with Iran?

Agence Global - Article

The Saudi perspective.

Agence Global - Article

The Syrian-Iran connection

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sqSrgFp2Lbs"]Robert Fisk speaks to Al Jazeera - YouTube[/nomedia]


[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lj4GKPPUbe4&feature=relmfu"]Journalist Robert Fisk: Arab League using war in Syria to attack Iran - YouTube[/nomedia]


The consequences of the 1953 coup that linger till today.

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJRcOF7rEfQ"]The Folly of Attacking Iran: Lessons from History - YouTube[/nomedia]

 

[surpreme]

And the Iranians haven't forgotten that the U.S., and a whole list of other countries, supported Saddam during the Iran/Iraq war - they remained silent when he invaded and they later provided Saddam with political, financial and military support .



What makes you think that covert actions have not been in place these past few years.
Cover actions could be in the form of aiding Iranian exiles, disinformation, the killing of people involved in the Iranian nuclear programme, etc.





There are many ways in which the Iranians can cause trouble for the U.S. and its allies away from Iranian soil. Iranian retaliation can come in the form of nuisance attacks on Israel by Hezbollah, increased support for Syria [which was the only Arab country to back Iran during the 8 year war], asymmetric attacks on shipping in the Gulf and maybe even stirring up trouble in Afghanistan, where it has some influence. The question is how many air attacks is Israel or the U.S. willing to launch on Iran, if these air attacks will produce the desired results and what the overall consequences will be? What will the U.S. and Israel do next if even after a number of devastating air attacks, intel comes in that the Iranians are still active in trying to develop nukes?

Certain quarters have argued that instead of using military means to deal with an alleged Iranian nuke weapons programme, which may or may not exist, perhaps certain countries should use it in places where it is needed, like Syria.

You are right about the Iranians being upset about U.S. not saiding anything about the Iraqi invasion. Both countries have reasons to dislike each other. Both nations have some kind of surprise. Like I said before there isn't enough intell on the Iranians to know what they really have. About covert operation the world already know that going on now after hearing about the nuclear scientist being kill. I'm talkin about SF operation to hit Iranian military forces.

 

[STURM]

You are right about the Iranians being upset about U.S. not saiding anything about the Iraqi invasion.

The U.S., like the rest of the Western and Sunni Arab world, encouraged and gave Iraq carte blanche to invade Iran because there were genuine fears that the Iranians were hell bent on exporting the 'revolution' westwards, towards the Arab states, which would in turn have effected Western interests. There were also hopes that the Iraq invasion would lead to the toppling of the mullahs in Tehran and the formation of a 'western friendly, anti-Soviet regime. If the Shah who was the U.S. policeman in the region was still in power, Iraq would not have dared to invade Iran. Funny enough, if Mossaddegh had not been toppled in a U.S. and British backed coup, the Shah would never have returned to power and the revolution in 1979 might never have taken place. As the old saying goes, 'you reap what you sow'.

Like I said before there isn't enough intell on the Iranians to know what they really have.

As I have mentioned before, many are of the opinion that the Iranians are merely ensuring they have the capability to assemble nukes if a decision was made at a later date and they do not currently have the capability to do so and have not made a decision to acquire nukes. Ironicly, a strike on Iran will probably convince the Iranians about the need for a bomb, rather than deter them.

 

[STURM]

Dont Want War ,but Sometim es itsthe Best Choice !

Really? Strangely enough, those on the receiving end of war might not agree with you. And as these say, it's easy to ignite a war, but getting out and meeting all the objectives that were set, is a different matter.

 

[Anti AQ]

Nah it's ain't gonna happen. I mead who's gonna pay for a another war?
And if someone pay this war (somehow) it'l take at least 10 years...
SO I think US or other nations would invade Iran...

 

[Quiller]

Really? Strangely enough, those on the receiving end of war might not agree with you. And as these say, it's easy to ignite a war, but getting out and meeting all the objectives that were set, is a different matter.

Always remember, war, or the real threat of war, is another tool of diplomacy in the modern age. Few wars have ever been strictly military; most are run poltically on many fronts. WW2 had lots of politics connected with it, such as the rivalry between the Brits and the Americans slogging across the European continent. Patton wasn't just sidelined because he slapped a soldier. That was the convenient excuse and opportunity. Patton was sidelined because he didn't understand or accept the need to subordinate strategic accomplishments to political goals, which made him insubordinate. The same with MacArthur in Korea. That is not to say it would have been useful or productive for MacArthur to cross that Yalu River, but it was a political decision, not really a military decision. Yes, had China entered the war (well Chinese soldiers were fighting with North Koreans....just not by the millions) it would have turned ugly, because the US probably would have dropped a nuke or two at that point. But it was as much a political decision, as a military decision. And Vietnam was the sine qua non of political wars. And allowing Saddam to remain in the first Gulf War was a political decision to maintain stability. But it was not the right military decision.

Speaking of the utility of war.... some of you older ladies and gents may remember an interesting episode in the television series Star Trek that aired in America and perhaps overseas. I cannot recall the episode's name... but essentially to planets were at war. However they figured out a "civilized" way to expedite the war. Rather than actually send missiles or bombs or energy rays to kill populations or destroy buildings....governments of both planets agreed to abide by some sort of computer wargame deal, so that when a battle resulted in casualties on either planet, citizens were called up --- like draftees -- to be executed by their own countrymen to account the the casualties. It presented an interesting, if sci fi conundrum on managing wars in sophisticated societies.

 

[STURM]

Always remember, war, or the real threat of war, is another tool of diplomacy in the modern age. Few wars have ever been strictly military; most are run poltically on many fronts.

I totally agree and it has been that way for centuries. I would argue that because of several key fundamental mistakes that the U.S. made in the early years of its occupation of Afghanistan, the political and objectives that were intended to have been achieved, still proves very elusive and at the rate things are going, will never be achieved in the near future. The situation we currently face over Iran, is more political than it is militarily, as it has to do with a whole host of strategic geo-political factors involving the U.S. and key allies such as Israel and the Sunni gulf states, rather the actual military threat Iran can pose.

And allowing Saddam to remain in the first Gulf War was a political decision to maintain stability. But it was not the right military decision.

And the decision to invade Iraq and topple the Bathist regime in 2003 - based on flawed intelligence, a lack of understanding on Iraq and the mistaken and misguided hope that there would be no need for nation building - was also driven by political factors as opposed to a purely military reason. Whether or not it was a wrong military decision not to have rolled in Baghdad in 1991 really depends on what was intended to be achieved before the war started. Retaking Kuwait and weakening Iraq were the main objectives and these were achieved.

Similarly, Saddam's decision, after taking Kuwait, of not going further south to take the Saudi oilfields has been described by many quarters as flawed but this totally ignores the fact that he only wanted Kuwait, there was hope on his part that Saudi and the rest of the Arab world would not take the measures they did and he had no intention of fighting anyone else. From the onset, he had no intention of involving the Saudis in the conflict and greatly misjudged their reaction and the amount of fear and mistrust they had in him. Based on his exaggerated sense of self-importance and the level of support he received from the U.S. and the rest of the world during his war with Iran, Saddam actually thought that he could get way with what he did and worst, he would be allowed to keep parts of Kuwait or that the Gulf Sates would just buy him off again, with written of debts and more low interest, long term loans.

 

[Quiller]

I totally agree and it has been that way for centuries. I would argue that because of several key fundamental mistakes that the U.S. made in the early years of its occupation of Afghanistan, the political and objectives that were intended to have been achieved, still proves very elusive and at the rate things are going, will never be achieved in the near future. The situation we currently face over Iran, is more political than it is militarily, as it has to do with a whole host of strategic geo-political factors involving the U.S. and key allies such as Israel and the Sunni gulf states, rather the actual military threat Iran can pose.



And the decision to invade Iraq and topple the Bathist regime in 2003 - based on flawed intelligence, a lack of understanding on Iraq and the mistaken and misguided hope that there would be no need for nation building - was also driven by political factors as opposed to a purely military reason. Whether or not it was a wrong military decision not to have rolled in Baghdad in 1991 really depends on what was intended to be achieved before the war started. Retaking Kuwait and weakening Iraq were the main objectives and these were achieved.

Similarly, Saddam's decision, after taking Kuwait, of not going further south to take the Saudi oilfields has been described by many quarters as flawed but this totally ignores the fact that he only wanted Kuwait, there was hope on his part that Saudi and the rest of the Arab world would not take the measures they did and he had no intention of fighting anyone else. From the onset, he had no intention of involving the Saudis in the conflict and greatly misjudged their reaction and the amount of fear and mistrust they had in him. Based on his exaggerated sense of self-importance and the level of support he received from the U.S. and the rest of the world during his war with Iran, Saddam actually thought that he could get way with what he did and worst, he would be allowed to keep parts of Kuwait or that the Gulf Sates would just buy him off again, with written of debts and more low interest, long term loans.

Not sure about the last bit. Saudi Arabia had a pretty fearsome air force, at least on paper or in the perception of Iraqi generals. They probably would not have been able to control the air over Saudi Arabia, and recognized that. Their invasion force would then, could then, have been easily decimated. Kuwait had no such air force. I agree Saddam misjudged the west's reaction... but I think his failure to move south on the Saudis may have been a carefullly calculated move... not that it helped him in the long run... but the Saudi's probably would have cleaned his clock in the air over the desert.

 

[Beatmaster]

Not sure about the last bit. Saudi Arabia had a pretty fearsome air force, at least on paper or in the perception of Iraqi generals. They probably would not have been able to control the air over Saudi Arabia, and recognized that. Their invasion force would then, could then, have been easily decimated. Kuwait had no such air force. I agree Saddam misjudged the west's reaction... but I think his failure to move south on the Saudis may have been a carefullly calculated move... not that it helped him in the long run... but the Saudi's probably would have cleaned his clock in the air over the desert.

Iran's army lacks the offensive capabilities that it would need to effective engage the saudies however they can and will put the saudies to the test as the saudi army looks good on paper but practically speaking they are for the most part spoiled boys with nice toys. Not saying that the saudies are weak or such but what i am saying is that they do not have the standards that would justify their high tech equipment.

On the other hand what Iran lacks on offensive capabilities they shine in a defensive role, partly because of their geographical advantage but to a even bigger part due to their culture.

These forces total about 545,000 active personnel (not including the Police Force and the Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution).[5] All branches of armed forces fall under the command of General Headquarters of Armed Forces (ستاد کل نیروهای مسلح). The Ministry of Defense and Armed Forces Logistics is responsible for planning logistics and funding of the armed forces and is not involved with in-the-field military operational command.
The Iranian Military consists of the Islamic Republic of Iran Army, Islamic Republic of Iran Navy,[6] Islamic Republic of Iran Air Force, and the Islamic Republic of Iran Air Defense Force. The regular armed forces have an estimated 545,000 personnel: the Islamic Republic of Iran Army, 465,000 personnel; the Islamic Republic of Iran Navy, 28,000 personnel, and the Islamic Republic of Iran Air Force, 52,000 airmen.[5] Islamic Republic of Iran Air Defense Force is a branch split off from the IRIAF.[7]
The Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution, or Revolutionary Guards, has an estimated 120,000 personnel in five branches: Its own Navy,[6] Aerospace Force, and Ground Forces; and the Quds Force (Special Forces).[5]
The Basij is a paramilitary volunteer force controlled by the Islamic Revolutionary Guards. Its membership is a matter of controversy. Iranian sources claim a membership of 12.6 million, including women, of which perhaps 3 million are combat capable. There are a claimed 2,500 battalions of which some are full-time personnel.[8] Globalsecurity.org quotes a 2005 study by the Center for Strategic and International Studies estimating 90,000 active-duty full-time uniformed members, 300,000 reservists, and a total of 11 million men that can be mobilized if need be.[9]

Iran's military was called the Middle East's most powerful by General John Abizaid chief of United States Central Command (U.S. forces' commander in the region). However General Abizaid said he did not include the Israel Defense Forces as they did not fall into his area of operations
Just a fast quote from wiki

As others said before Iran's army might look not so good on paper, but if Iran is being attacked then the whole nation will rise up and you will have a war that makes Iraq and Afghanistan look like a joke and this joke took 10 years ....

My point here is we can all discus about tech this bigger army that and bla bla.
But in the end of the day those soldiers on the ground do not care if they are being killed by a 2 cents bullet or by a laser guided 500 dollar bullet, and as i said anyone claiming to just "overrun" and defeat Iran would be mistaken very deeply, as Iran is next to Afghanistan the only nation or empire in history that has never been conquered.
As a example the US did invade Afghanistan under the aim to win this war, they believed that they could do what the Russians could not do well that has been proven to be a massive and very costly mistake, they might have won the war on a technical level but fact is today US soldiers are still being hunted down and aggression is on the rise again.
Both Iraq and Afg proved to be practically impossible to overcome....then what makes one think that Iran would be easy defeated?

Iran does know perfectly well what it can and cannot do, and they would never be that dumb to play "our" way of warfare...if they are going to fight a war they will know they will lose but they are going to make us pay and make us pay hard.

Think about that.

 

[STURM]

I agree Saddam misjudged the west's reaction... but I think his failure to move south on the Saudis may have been a carefullly calculated move... not that it helped him in the long run... but the Saudi's probably would have cleaned his clock in the air over the desert.

For more than a decade, the West and the Sunni Arabs had appeased Saddam. Never mind the lack of human rights and the fact that he started the war with Iran, never mind the use of gas on his citizens, he was useful in that he was keeping the 'evil' Iranians in check and he was good for business. Saddam's main goal was to invade Kuwait for is oil, he had no wish to invade Saudi because he knew that by doing so would involve the U.S., would effect his standing in the Arab world and because he needed Saudi money to prop up his regime.

On paper, the RSAF was an impressive air arm, even in 1990, but whether it could have performed well against the Iraqis is open to debate as all the strikes conducted by the RSAF on Iraqi bases were planned by the USAF, security of Saudi airspace was the responsibilty of the u.S. and the only instance when an RSAF plane fired in anger at Iraqi fighters [2 Mirages shot down], was due to a USAF E-3 that detected the Iraqis and controlled the intercept for the RSAF F-15. In 1984, RSAF F-15s shot don an intruding Iranian F-4 that had been detected by a USAF E-3.Judging from actual combat experience and ability, the regional air arm that has the most impressive combat record is the Iranian air force.

 

[Quiller]

For more than a decade, the West and the Sunni Arabs had appeased Saddam. Never mind the lack of human rights and the fact that he started the war with Iran, never mind the use of gas on his citizens, he was useful in that he was keeping the 'evil' Iranians in check and he was good for business. Saddam's main goal was to invade Kuwait for is oil, he had no wish to invade Saudi because he knew that by doing so would involve the U.S., would effect his standing in the Arab world and because he needed Saudi money to prop up his regime.

On paper, the RSAF was an impressive air arm, even in 1990, but whether it could have performed well against the Iraqis is open to debate as all the strikes conducted by the RSAF on Iraqi bases were planned by the USAF, security of Saudi airspace was the responsibilty of the u.S. and the only instance when an RSAF plane fired in anger at Iraqi fighters [2 Mirages shot down], was due to a USAF E-3 that detected the Iraqis and controlled the intercept for the RSAF F-15. In 1984, RSAF F-15s shot don an intruding Iranian F-4 that had been detected by a USAF E-3.Judging from actual combat experience and ability, the regional air arm that has the most impressive combat record is the Iranian air force.

The point I was trying to make had nothing to do with the actual or probable capability of the RSAF versus the Iraqi airforce during the First Gulf War. A large component of military force... and political will for that matter -- relies on perceptions. Perceptions of allies about a country's capabilities and intentions, and of course perception of potential adversaries, competitors and outright enemies about a country's capabilities and intentions.

My assertion was that Saddam's failure to press on into Saudi Arabia following the invasion of Kuwait had much to do with his command staff's perceptions of RSAF's ability and resolve. The fact that the USAF orchestrated what successes the RSAF achieved is not relevant. Saddam believed, rightly so, that pushing into Kuwait would be a cake walk. I think he had significant concerns about moving into Saudi Arabia because he feared their capabilities in the air at that time.

 

[STURM]

My assertion was that Saddam's failure to press on into Saudi Arabia following the invasion of Kuwait had much to do with his command staff's perceptions of RSAF's ability and resolve.

And the point I'm trying to makes is the reason Saddam's divisions didn't move further south after taking Kuwait was because taking Saudi Arabia was NOT his objective and would have been self defeating - it had absolutely nothing to do with perceptions on the capability of the RSAF or due to knowledge that the Iraq military was not up to the job. Saddam was convinced that the Gulf State Arabs were 'paper tigers' who were hiding behind their wealth under the protective umbrella of Uncle Sam, he had a very low regard for their military abilities. Bear in mind that if the U.S. hadn't been willing to evict Saddam from Kuwait and guarantee the security of Saudi Arabia, it is doubtful if the Arabs would have chose a military option to free Kuwait.

Saddam's reason for taking Kuwait was due to oil and cash and he championed himself as the defender of Arabs [with Western blessing in the past] who had been done wrong by the 'corrupt' and 'greedy' Kuwaitis, who had done nothing but sign cheques, whilst Iraqis were dying defending the Arab world and the West against the 'evil' and 'heretic' Iranians. Going into Saudi would have badly damaged his standing not only in the Arab world but also in the Muslim world and his PR machine would have been hard pressed to justify such a move. He also needed the Saudis as Saudi Arabia was one of his main financial backers and in the first few days after the invasion of Kuwait, there have been reports that the Saudis tried to appease Saddam with the promises of additional loans to prop up the Iraqi economy if he withdrew from Kuwait. The Saudis only hardened their attitude when the Americans jumped in offering full military and diplomatic support and when it was clear that unlike in the past, Saddam was not so willing to be bought off.......

 

[swerve]

Kuwait was also one of Saddam's chief financial backers, & one of his motives for invading is thought to be that the Kuwaitis had refused to annul his debts to them.

I'm pretty sure that he meant to use the threat of invasion to bring the Saudis (& the smaller Arab Gulf states, but they were secondary) to heel, having demonstrated his ruthlessness by conquering Kuwait, but I agree that he didn't mean to invade Saudi Arabia unless it made hostile moves. He couldn't claim, as he did with Kuwait*, that Ottoman administrative boundaries gave him a claim to Saudi Arabia, since no part of Saudi Arabia had been part of one of the Ottoman provinces otherwise included in Iraq.

Invading the state including Mecca & Medina also had obvious political risks.

*Obviously spurious grounds for a claim to territory, but one that Saddam could truthfully say wasn't his own invention: it had first been made by the government of Iraq as soon as it gained formal independence, in 1932.

 

[STURM]

From what I've read, the grand plan was to only invade Kuwait, reap the economic benefits and later withdraw after the Arab states or the Arab League, offered Saddam economic 'concessions' and appeased his ego, as they had done a number of times in the past. Saddam's major miscalculations was the level of distrust his fellow Arab leaders had for him, their feeling at being betrayed by an ungrateful Saddam after the billions they had pumped into Iraq during its war with Iran and the willingness of the Saudis to invite the Americans in.

In Saddam's mind, his military was more than a match for any Arab state and when the Americans arrived, as a face saving gesture, he had no choice but to stay put in Kuwait and face the consequences. Despite his rhetoric, I doubt if Saddam was under any illusions that his military could face the coaltion and actually win. It was all about face and creating the illusion that Iraq was powerful, was not a country to be trifled with and was the same reason why, even after he had later discarded his nuke programme, gave the impression that he still had one in place.