Iranian response to a limited airstrike against nuclear facilities and infrastructure

[STURM]

There are a lot of "ifs" in that statement, a highly hypothetical question to say the least. Some of them are extremely unlikely to happen in the foreseeable future. I'll address the one I think is most unlikely though, Iran. (and more on topic)

No doubts those were a lot of 'ifs' but nonetheless are the main reasons why the U.S. has had problems with the Arab world and are areas where policy makers in the Sate Department have to seriously look at if any attempts to improve the standing of the U.S. with the Arab world are to be seriously made. Hypothetical they may be but very valid none the less. Would you rather the U.S. continue with its current course of action without examining the core reasons as to why things have gone horribly wrong and why AQ and groups like it continue to attract recruits?

Iran has virtually no allies, the only countries you can reasonably call an ally are Syria, Lebanon (maybe), venezuela and north korea. That's not exactly a sterling list to be picking from. Lebanon is little more than a client state. Syria, ruled by a dictator. North Korea, do I need to say anything here? Venezuela, ruled by a near dictator. Not even russia and china can be called allies of Iran. Russia definitely doesn't trust Iran at all and China offers a little support mainly for economic reasons.

Apart from Israel and the Lebanon [and more recently Tunisia and Egypt] which other country in the region is not a dictatorship, has had leaders that were actually elected? Ooops, I forgot, the occupied territories are ruled by Hamas, which was elected in place of the weak, ineffective and corrupt Fatah, which the West and Israel apparently preferred to have the Palestinians elect and Isreal first courted and as an alternative to Fatah. The fact that Iran may or not be a true democracy and whether the Iranians have truly 'mismanaged' their economy should not drive American policy, is irrelevent and should not be a factor in determining how the current impasse will be resolved. After all, America and the West has a long history of dealing with dictators and doing away with them when they are no longer useful or are overthrown.

With regards to 'undemocratic' and 'evil' Syria and North Korea being allies of Iran, what choice does Iran have? Since the overthrow of the Shah, the U.S. with Arab allies in tow have launched a campaign to isolate Iran. Yes Iran shares a huge part of the blame but the reason it is in the position it currently is in also the result of events set in motion by other players. I could ask, if rapproachment was reached with Iran, what reason would there be for the U.S. to continue maintaining a military presence in the region and what reasons would the Gulf states have to spend billions on 'Made In The U.S.A'. gear?

IUnder your scenario, if Iran somehow made peace with the US, they would just find another demon. That's not to say that the US hasn't made huge mistakes with Iran in the past.

Under my ''scenario'', the threat of war would be averted, hopefully the region won't be plunged into another devasating war and both the U.S. and Iran would gain as both have many common interests....... What other 'demon' would Iran need and why on earth would it need a demon - unless of course we believe the neo-con line that Iran is only intent on causing problems and is highly ''irrational'. Also its not a question of Iran 'making peace' but also a question of the U.S. engaging in realpolitik and common sense rather than just beating the war drums and continuing with its decades long policy of demonising and isolating Iran for not toeing the line and seeing the error of its ways.

 

[Twain]

This has gotten way off topic and I hate it when people do that to my threads so if the mods want to split this off and maybe move it to geo-strategic defence? I would be happy to continue the discussion. It this is venturing too far into foreign policy rather than defence, I'll just let it die here.

Sorry for totally hijacking this thread

 

[2007yellow430]

No doubts those were a lot of 'ifs' but nonetheless are the main reasons why the U.S. has had problems with the Arab world and are areas where policy makers in the Sate Department have to seriously look at if any attempts to improve the standing of the U.S. with the Arab world are to be seriously made. Hypothetical they may be but very valid none the less. Would you rather the U.S. continue with its current course of action without examining the core reasons as to why things have gone horribly wrong and why AQ and groups like it continue to attract recruits?



Apart from Israel and the Lebanon [and more recently Tunisia and Egypt] which other country in the region is not a dictatorship, has had leaders that were actually elected? Ooops, I forgot, the occupied territories are ruled by Hamas, which was elected in place of the weak, ineffective and corrupt Fatah, which the West and Israel apparently preferred to have the Palestinians elect and Isreal first courted and as an alternative to Fatah. The fact that Iran may or not be a true democracy and whether the Iranians have truly 'mismanaged' their economy should not drive American policy, is irrelevent and should not be a factor in determining how the current impasse will be resolved. After all, America and the West has a long history of dealing with dictators and doing away with them when they are no longer useful or are overthrown.

With regards to 'undemocratic' and 'evil' Syria and North Korea being allies of Iran, what choice does Iran have? Since the overthrow of the Shah, the U.S. with Arab allies in tow have launched a campaign to isolate Iran. Yes Iran shares a huge part of the blame but the reason it is in the position it currently is in also the result of events set in motion by other players. I could ask, if rapproachment was reached with Iran, what reason would there be for the U.S. to continue maintaining a military presence in the region and what reasons would the Gulf states have to spend billions on 'Made In The U.S.A'. gear?



Under my ''scenario'', the threat of war would be averted, hopefully the region won't be plunged into another devasating war and both the U.S. and Iran would gain as both have many common interests....... What other 'demon' would Iran need and why on earth would it need a demon - unless of course we believe the neo-con line that Iran is only intent on causing problems and is highly ''irrational'. Also its not a question of Iran 'making peace' but also a question of the U.S. engaging in realpolitik and common sense rather than just beating the war drums and continuing with its decades long policy of demonising and isolating Iran for not toeing the line and seeing the error of its ways.

Actually, any attack on Iran is going to have major repercussions on the US. While the analysis that Iran has few Allies is correct, the majority of citizens in those countries are probably very strongly supportive of Iran's actions, given the hostility towards Israel, and Israel's behavior towards the Arabs over the last 40 years or so.

I'd suggest the following reading: Steve Coll's Ghost Wars, Quicksand by Geoffrey Wawro, and The Age of Deception by Mohamed ElBaradei. All of those books are pretty much down on the policies of the USA regarding our behavior in the middle and are very well documented with supporting material.

In short, we've made a mess, and getting it fixed is going to be a long and difficult task, but one solution: war isn't the best option, but we might decide to use that option anyway, but if we do, there is going be some hard times for the US, and the outcome isn't necessarily going to be for the best of the USA.

If I'm the Iranians, I just sit back and watch. If attacked, I retaliate, using 3rd parties against the USA, and missile against Israel, screaming to the UN at the same time.

Art

 

[spikehades]

Actually, any attack on Iran is going to have major repercussions on the US. While the analysis that Iran has few Allies is correct, the majority of citizens in those countries are probably very strongly supportive of Iran's actions, given the hostility towards Israel, and Israel's behavior towards the Arabs over the last 40 years or so.

I'd suggest the following reading: Steve Coll's Ghost Wars, Quicksand by Geoffrey Wawro, and The Age of Deception by Mohamed ElBaradei. All of those books are pretty much down on the policies of the USA regarding our behavior in the middle and are very well documented with supporting material.

In short, we've made a mess, and getting it fixed is going to be a long and difficult task, but one solution: war isn't the best option, but we might decide to use that option anyway, but if we do, there is going be some hard times for the US, and the outcome isn't necessarily going to be for the best of the USA.

If I'm the Iranians, I just sit back and watch. If attacked, I retaliate, using 3rd parties against the USA, and missile against Israel, screaming to the UN at the same time.

Art

I agree with this assessment. At this stage I'm tempted to say that Iran should just suck up their pride and agree to no enrichment in return for dropping sanctions. After which, they should concentrate on shoring up Assad in Syria, strengthen Hezbollah, and build up their own military industrial complex. They should upgrade their anti air capability, air force and access denial weaponry and tactics. Wait it out for maybe 5 years and then start enriching again - this time form a much stronger position.

 

[STURM]

This has gotten way off topic and I hate it when people do that to my threads so if the mods want to split this off and maybe move it to geo-strategic defence?

Indeed it has gone off topic but then this happened several pages ago....
And the reason it went off-topic was because there were discussions on subjects that are relevant to the issue but concern other countries and the need to respond to statements or opinions made by others.

 

[Beatmaster]

Personally i think that both US, Israel and Iran cannot change their politics and that sooner or later some sort of military event will happen.
Would this be the case due Iran's own fault? I personally do not think so.
Yes they have a huge part of the pie in making errors but so far they are being setup pretty much.
If Israel and the US wanted this to go away then they could.
I believe that this whole issue started way before the Iraq/Iran war where the US did influence the outcome greatly which at that time gave them (Or should have given them) the benefits they where after.
The US has been known for replacing and installing leaders on the fly to suit their cause but now after getting rid of several key figures and sparking some proxy wars its save to say that the current leaders are more persistent and a lot harder to get rid of.
And honestly it does not matter what the middle east wants...as uncle sam will probably come barging in sooner or later, history tent to repeat it self for the 5th time in less then 20 years...however i do also believe that this time might be not so favorable for the US.

 

[STURM]

I believe that this whole issue started way before the Iraq/Iran war where the US did influence the outcome greatly which at that time gave them (Or should have given them) the benefits they where after.

Uncle Sam had no problems with Iran when the Shah was in power. Iran was important as together with Israel, it was Uncle Sams main ally in the region and played an important role in curbing Soviet influence. The biggest fear was the Soviets coming south from Azerbaijan, crossing the Zagros mountains and heading to the oilfields in the Gulf. The other fear was extremist gaining power but then it was felt the Shah was strong enough to contain them. Then came the Revolution, which took the West by surprise as did the Arab Spring decades later.

The truth of the matter is despite all their rhetoric the Iranians know there is little they can do to prevent an Israeli or U.S. stike on its facilities. And they realise that if the U.S. were to wage a protracted air campaign, the Iranian AD infrastructure would take a very heavy beating and would be unable to influence the outcome. The biggest danger to Israeli or U.S. aircraft would would be at low level up to 10,000 feet - from MANPADs and triple A - but of course they won't be flying low.

 

[2007yellow430]

Uncle Sam had no problems with Iran when the Shah was in power. Iran was important as together with Israel, it was Uncle Sams main ally in the region and played an important role in curbing Soviet influence. The biggest fear was the Soviets coming south from Azerbaijan, crossing the Zagros mountains and heading to the oilfields in the Gulf. The other fear was extremist gaining power but then it was felt the Shah was strong enough to contain them. Then came the Revolution, which took the West by surprise as did the Arab Spring decades later.

The truth of the matter is despite all their rhetoric the Iranians know there is little they can do to prevent an Israeli or U.S. stike on its facilities. And they realise that if the U.S. were to wage a protracted air campaign, the Iranian AD infrastructure would take a very heavy beating and would be unable to influence the outcome. The biggest danger to Israeli or U.S. aircraft would would be at low level up to 10,000 feet - from MANPADs and triple A - but of course they won't be flying low.

I think that Israel doesn't have the equipment to seriously harm Iran by itself. If Iran is smart they don't directly attack the USA, and if they don't the USA might be limited in any engagement.

With their assets underground, any Israeli attack won't be sufficient to destroy their assets in total. Indeed, the prior head of Israeli intelligence said the same thing last year.

Art

 

[STURM]

I think that Israel doesn't have the equipment to seriously harm Iran by itself.

Off course it doesn't and there's only so many strikes the Israeli's can launch due to the distances involved. What the Iranians fear most is a sustained campaign waged by the USN and USAF. Also, the Israeli's have long factored in the fact that a strike by themselves on Iran, will lead to retaliation which in turn will bring the U.S. in.

 

[2007yellow430]

Off course it doesn't and there's only so many strikes the Israeli's can launch due to the distances involved. What the Iranians fear most is a sustained campaign waged by the USN and USAF. Also, the Israeli's have long factored in the fact that a strike by themselves on Iran, will lead to retaliation which in turn will bring the U.S. in.

There are a lot of questions regarding the equipment that the Iranians have. If indeed they've got the equivalent of the S300, then the Israelis can expect to lose a few planes, perhaps more than a few. If Iran is smart, they don't attack the USA and the USA has no grounds to engage in the war. The big question is are they smart enough to figure that out, or will they let their emotions get in the way of logic.

Art

 

[Beatmaster]

There are a lot of questions regarding the equipment that the Iranians have. If indeed they've got the equivalent of the S300, then the Israelis can expect to lose a few planes, perhaps more than a few. If Iran is smart, they don't attack the USA and the USA has no grounds to engage in the war. The big question is are they smart enough to figure that out, or will they let their emotions get in the way of logic.

Art

Wrong!!!
If Israel attacks Iran and Iran would hit back then Israel will call Uncle Sam for help.
As has been mentioned before Israel has some sort of hostage grip in the US in that matter.
Sure the US could deny help but doing that is extremely unlikely.
Fact is that the US has practically no options other then helping Israel.
But lets assume that the US would sack a request for aid by Israel after Israel has finished its attack then the tables are turned, as Iran without the danger of US involvement can and will defend itself beyond any capability that Israel conventionally has.
So to speak Israels Army, Navy and Airforce is far more superior to Iran its forces but with the backing of various rebel groups and its massive size compared to Israel its pretty save to say that Israel will be in great danger.
Next to that there are some factions in the middle east who love to see the Iran regime go away but not by war, and not by the reasons that motivates Israel.
Infact 80% of the middle east will turn against Israel specially if it lets thing escalate by provoking Iran.
For example a strike on Iran's installations will trigger a sizable retaliation of some sort either by missiles or either by whatever means Iran sees fit given the situation.
But thats one thing....However that would be the hypothetical line in the sand where both sides can still put a end to this before it leads to a full blown regional war.
Any actions beyond that point in terms of aggression will hurt Israel very much and in fact this would be one of those wars where conventionally Israel cannot win.
Keep in mind Syria and Iraq where a joke compared to todays Iran.
Its a whole different ballgame and in a 1 vs 1 duel Iran just has way more to put in to the fight then Israel specially in the long run.

The one and only reason Israel can sort of rule the middle east is because Uncle Sam its support and weapons deals.
Because if Uncle Sam would have " forgotten" about Israel some years ago then Israel would have stopped to exist since the 6 day war in 1967.

True the EU is putting serious pressure on Iran but they are NOT willing to wage war over it, and in-case of a Israeli attack upon those installations NATO has no authority to avoid a Iranian counterstrike, sure it might try to put the fire out, but if this works is entirely up to Israel and Iran.

And let me say this again, it really does not matter anymore if Israels or Iran's claims and cause are justified and legit.

There are 2 fact:

1: If the US plays along Iran will face doom (but it will be extremely costly for both Israel and the US not to mention what it would do to Iran and the region.
2: If the US sacks Israel, then its still going to be a very costly war for all sides involved, but the option of victory is not an Israeli one..., if Israel manages to get trough this unharmed or relative unharmed then its only because Iran allowed them and because Iran would fear NATO.
However if NATO would "leave" Israel to their plans and not backing them up military, then i fear that if Iran would make a push for it that they can put really serious pressure on Iraq to allow them access (Which is a real thing as Iran has strong presents and influence in Iraq) and thats a KEY benefit that Iran has over Israel.

So without help Israel should seriously back off or they might be looking at a serious defeat, because despite all the toys Israel has over Iran, it does not have the stamina and size/production to stop Iran if Iran commits itself to the war.
And the us of nuclear weapons by Israel to stop Iran would probably be the only way to end this war before its gets the better part of Israel, and even then there is no guarantee that after launching the first nuke that the region will stay out of this conflict...even the Saudis hate Iran in many way (well not hate lets say fear) but if Israel resorts to nukes....then i believe that Iran suddenly can count on more support...which will be a disaster for Israel.
Bye bye Israel case closed.

I might be wrong but i think that i am not far of the truth on this one..

Ohh ps did i mention that its NOT Iran who attacks the US and did i mention that its Israel that is planning to attack Iran?
So i am not sure where your logic statement comes from.....

 

[2007yellow430]

Wrong!!!
If Israel attacks Iran and Iran would hit back then Israel will call Uncle Sam for help.
As has been mentioned before Israel has some sort of hostage grip in the US in that matter.
Sure the US could deny help but doing that is extremely unlikely.
Fact is that the US has practically no options other then helping Israel.
But lets assume that the US would sack a request for aid by Israel after Israel has finished its attack then the tables are turned, as Iran without the danger of US involvement can and will defend itself beyond any capability that Israel conventionally has.
So to speak Israels Army, Navy and Airforce is far more superior to Iran its forces but with the backing of various rebel groups and its massive size compared to Israel its pretty save to say that Israel will be in great danger.
Next to that there are some factions in the middle east who love to see the Iran regime go away but not by war, and not by the reasons that motivates Israel.
Infact 80% of the middle east will turn against Israel specially if it lets thing escalate by provoking Iran.
For example a strike on Iran's installations will trigger a sizable retaliation of some sort either by missiles or either by whatever means Iran sees fit given the situation.
But thats one thing....However that would be the hypothetical line in the sand where both sides can still put a end to this before it leads to a full blown regional war.
Any actions beyond that point in terms of aggression will hurt Israel very much and in fact this would be one of those wars where conventionally Israel cannot win.
Keep in mind Syria and Iraq where a joke compared to todays Iran.
Its a whole different ballgame and in a 1 vs 1 duel Iran just has way more to put in to the fight then Israel specially in the long run.

The one and only reason Israel can sort of rule the middle east is because Uncle Sam its support and weapons deals.
Because if Uncle Sam would have " forgotten" about Israel some years ago then Israel would have stopped to exist since the 6 day war in 1967.

True the EU is putting serious pressure on Iran but they are NOT willing to wage war over it, and in-case of a Israeli attack upon those installations NATO has no authority to avoid a Iranian counterstrike, sure it might try to put the fire out, but if this works is entirely up to Israel and Iran.

And let me say this again, it really does not matter anymore if Israels or Iran's claims and cause are justified and legit.

There are 2 fact:

1: If the US plays along Iran will face doom (but it will be extremely costly for both Israel and the US not to mention what it would do to Iran and the region.
2: If the US sacks Israel, then its still going to be a very costly war for all sides involved, but the option of victory is not an Israeli one..., if Israel manages to get trough this unharmed or relative unharmed then its only because Iran allowed them and because Iran would fear NATO.
However if NATO would "leave" Israel to their plans and not backing them up military, then i fear that if Iran would make a push for it that they can put really serious pressure on Iraq to allow them access (Which is a real thing as Iran has strong presents and influence in Iraq) and thats a KEY benefit that Iran has over Israel.

So without help Israel should seriously back off or they might be looking at a serious defeat, because despite all the toys Israel has over Iran, it does not have the stamina and size/production to stop Iran if Iran commits itself to the war.
And the us of nuclear weapons by Israel to stop Iran would probably be the only way to end this war before its gets the better part of Israel, and even then there is no guarantee that after launching the first nuke that the region will stay out of this conflict...even the Saudis hate Iran in many way (well not hate lets say fear) but if Israel resorts to nukes....then i believe that Iran suddenly can count on more support...which will be a disaster for Israel.
Bye bye Israel case closed.

I might be wrong but i think that i am not far of the truth on this one..

Ohh ps did i mention that its NOT Iran who attacks the US and did i mention that its Israel that is planning to attack Iran?
So i am not sure where your logic statement comes from.....

The US may arm Israel, but I don't see us actively attacking Iran after israel attacks them. 1973 is a good example: we just provided them with superior technology to offset what the Russians gave the Egyptians. The US is way too war weary to get into another war, especially when we aren't being attacked.

Art

 

[STURM]

The big question is are they smart enough to figure that out, or will they let their emotions get in the way of logic.

Art

If their 'dealings' in Lebanon - where since the 1980's they have been dueling with Israel and Uncle Sam - is any indication, the Iranians rarely 'let their emotions get in the way of logic'.

The US may arm Israel, but I don't see us actively attacking Iran after israel attacks them. 1973 is a good example: we just provided them with superior technology to offset what the Russians gave the Egyptians. The US is way too war weary to get into another war, especially when we aren't being attacked.

Art

But the nature of the relationship between both countries has changed since 1973 and in 1973 the U.S. could not get directly involved as the Soviets would also have followed suite by deploying units to Syria. American policy towards the Middle East is driven not only to ensure that Israel has military superiority over the Arabs but also to guarantee the security of Israel. As such, it would be political suicide for Obama not to respond if Israel was attacked and the Americans have publicly said that they will respond if Israel is attacked. Not responding would also send a wrong message to the Gulf States, all of whom rely on Uncle Sam for protection. America may not be directly attacked but not responding would send the wrong signal to its allies in the region, as well as to Iran and strikes on Iran would be a perfect opportunity for the neo-cons or hawks within the Obama administration - who still harbour hopes of reshaping the region - to weaken Iran. Obama may indeed be very reluctant to get involved in yet another war with yet another Muslim country, but he may have no choice.

 

[the concerned]

Wouldn't the best option be is for the US and NATO to convince the GCC that any type of war between Israel and Iran is not in their best interests and try and convince them to build a significant ABM capability in countries like Kuwait and Jordan to counter both countries capabilities.

 

[the concerned]

If the US or Nato where to attack Iran it would have to be anything but limited

 

[2007yellow430]

If their 'dealings' in Lebanon - where since the 1980's they have been dueling with Israel and Uncle Sam - is any indication, the Iranians rarely 'let their emotions get in the way of logic'.



But the nature of the relationship between both countries has changed since 1973 and in 1973 the U.S. could not get directly involved as the Soviets would also have followed suite by deploying units to Syria. American policy towards the Middle East is driven not only to ensure that Israel has military superiority over the Arabs but also to guarantee the security of Israel. As such, it would be political suicide for Obama not to respond if Israel was attacked and the Americans have publicly said that they will respond if Israel is attacked. Not responding would also send a wrong message to the Gulf States, all of whom rely on Uncle Sam for protection. America may not be directly attacked but not responding would send the wrong signal to its allies in the region, as well as to Iran and strikes on Iran would be a perfect opportunity for the neo-cons or hawks within the Obama administration - who still harbour hopes of reshaping the region - to weaken Iran. Obama may indeed be very reluctant to get involved in yet another war with yet another Muslim country, but he may have no choice.

If Israel attacks Iran, and Iran does not attack Israel, the US most probably isn't going to get directly involved, other than to supply Israel with higher technological equipment. If, it appears that Israel is losing, but that will be sometime after the initial attack, maybe we will get involved. However, there is a very strong feeling in the US that we don't want to have another war. It will be very hard to talk our populace into that especially when Israel was the aggressor.

On another note, if you want to see Iran as a nuclear power, the shortest way there is for such an attack. Everyone is saying that Iraq/North Korea example showed that if you have nukes, the US isn't going to attack you. This discussion is probably a confirmation of that idea. Attacking Iran is poor decision making from many perspectives, but this is probably the most important, as it will start an arms race for any nation that doesn't want to listen to US policy.

Art

 

[STURM]

If Israel attacks Iran, and Iran does not attack Israel, the US most probably isn't going to get directly involved, other than to supply Israel with higher technological equipment.

And chances of that happening is as remote as cats and dogs starting to fly one day. Which country would not retaliate if attacked?

 

[2007yellow430]

And chances of that happening is as remote as cats and dogs starting to fly one day. Which country would not retaliate if attacked?

That's what happens when you post and don't proof read. Should be USA. my bad.

Art

 

[spikehades]

If Iran can develop MIRV capability that would certainly give them a stronger hand to play with. The definitive ability to counteract and overwhelm Israel's ABM defences would cause consternation within the Israeli leadership as they would no longer be able to guarantee their citizens (relative) safety from retaliatory missile strikes.

 

[GR!FF!N]

If Iran can develop MIRV capability that would certainly give them a stronger hand to play with. The definitive ability to counteract and overwhelm Israel's ABM defences would cause consternation within the Israeli leadership as they would no longer be able to guarantee their citizens (relative) safety from retaliatory missile strikes.

If missiles of Iran can't deter Israel to mount a full scale attack,then nothing(except nukes may be) will.

@topic

I think best bet of Iran to confront attack of USA/Israel will be Air-Sea denial.if USA attacks Iran,it'll be full scale missile attack on known military/strategic positions
before they use their air power and invasion.If Iran can stall/defeat air attack using SAMs like S-300s(which I don't think will be possible.at best they can destroy few jets,nothing else),then it'll be a big blow to USA.plus they should use their ASCM/ASBM(ballistic missiles which they claim can destroy ships).if they will be able to destroy/disable few ships,they might minimize the chance of a full scale invasio or minimize the proximity of it.a direct confrontation of military might on ground will be futile.