Iran Defense Doctrine - Response To Attack?

[Jim Goose]

In light of recent events in the middle east concerning Iran's new president moving towards a more confrontational approach with Israel and Washington, and Washington and Israel doing the same, I've been wondering about the consequences of US military intervention in Iran.

I'll be discussing possible responses by Iran to large scale invasion and also a strategic aerial bombing / limited invasion.

Full Scale Land/Air Invasion

In terms of a possible direct attack on Iran, it's safe to assume that Iran will concentrate its response on a purely asymmetrical front.

This can be gathered from watching videos of field exercises and war games that Iran has been holding for the last couple of years in the deserts preparing for such an invasion. In these videos the emphasis seems to be on guerrilla warfare, teams of two on motorcycles with RPGs, hit in run from vehicles, mountain warfare etc...

Although Iran did use its conventional army in staging aerial bombings, tank formations, etc... it's doubtful how effective these would be in a direct attack from a much technologically superior invader.

Also, Iran is known for its support and training of all volunteer militias and reactionary forces in the form of the Pasardan and Basij, numbering in the hundreds of thousands. These groups, under the supervision of the Revolutionary Guard, can be assumed to have knowledge and training in guerrilla tactics, IED construction, small arms ambush, hit and run, suicide attacks.

Lets not forget that the most potent parts of the insurgency in Iraq right now is speculated to have potential links with Iran's Revolutionary Guard. The shaped charges we keep hearing about and infrared IED triggers that can't be jammed could very well have come from Iranian agents.

A full scale invasion seems to be a last resort for America, although there is no doubt it would succeed in destroying Iran's infrastructure and conventional military, it would do little to hurt the regime except perhaps popularize it even more.

Also, it is known that Iran maintains a global network of agents but their abilities are unknown to me. An invasion, on any level, could trigger a response from elements based abroad. These responses, if in the form of terrorism, would be disastrous.

Limited Aerial Incursion

This is the most likely of possible scenarios. Israel has already stated that it is prepared for an attack on Iran's nuclear reactor sites. But what is not clear is what response any aerial attack would result in, on the part of Iran.

It should be noted that the level of fervour and zeal currently present in Iran and its people could trigger a response much greater than anticipated, even if any attack is targeted only to military and nuclear targets.


Iran's responses could include targeting the strategic oil lanes of Harmuz and surrounding ports. However this would be higher than any level of activity in the tanker wars of the Iran-Iraq war, which brought about an upsurge in oil costs. A coordinated conventional attack on one of the world's primary sources of oil transport would then result in increased global influence. Possible support of Iran by China and Russia in such a scenerio can't be ruled out, although unlikely.

Additionally, It's been noted that Iran has been heavily mining its waters in that region since the war with Iraq. Silkworm anti-ship defences have also been installed on nearby islands as well as the possible presence of mini-subs, kilo class russian subs, and a variety of corvette and gunships.

The instability in Iraq could also spiral out of control if an attack was carried out now or in the near future. A limited aerial attack on iran could trigger a response from its all volunteer militia as mentioned earlier, the Basij and Pasardan. This would be devastating.

In a worse case scenario, the Mullahs in Iran may decide to directly target US forces based in near by Arab countries, officially signing their own death sentences.

Iran would no doubt carry the majority of deaths, but America too would suffer greatly if targeted following a limited scale invasion.

It is unlikely that Iran would not retaliate in light of such an attack, the extent to which this retaliation will take is unknown.

Hopefully none of these scenarios will play out and hopefully better judgement will be reached by both sides... but with both regimes at such extremes and with both thinking that their vision is the only vision, it's hard not to think about a conflict.

That being said, I'd like to read your views on what Iran's response would be.:xmas

-jim goose

[Patzek]

well, yes, what you said its 100% true, but i'll add some.

If we'll do an air attack on iran ( IL ) its obvious that the iranians will strike back, of course they will, we just destructed all they're nuclear plans.
they're couple of scenraios.
first, Israel attack them, Iran attacks israel, and from me knowing my country, we will see it as the green light for war, " because we had to do it and they strike back for no reason ( wich is of course untrue, but its got some point ) "
so israel launchs dozens and dozens of missiles on iran ( of course without the possibility that its go nuclear, if it does, israel will obvious will do it in only few Jerichos ).
and they're we got a war, but i suppose it will be a hard one, and fast one.

The other scenario, is, after israel attack Iran, Iran launchs Sunburns on US Ships, and because of the fact the Sunburns is almost unstopable, alot, alot, of US soldiers will die, and the end of Iran has come, Bush will take care of it.

[WebMaster]

because we had to do it and they strike back for no reason ( which is of course untrue, but its got some point ) "


:unknown Strike back after an attack for no reason? :smash

[Jim Goose]

I'm not familar with sunburns, are they anti-ship torpedos or missiles and of US or Russian design?

I do agree that the "war" will be quick, but the asymetrical response will be much more than that in Iraq and far more costly. I think it's for this reason that Israel and the US have put off an attack. America's first priority will be sustained stability in Iraq and Afghanistan, and I believe this will take atleast another 5 years to accomplish in Iraq. Then perhaps an attack will be more plausible, but by then Iran maybe have the bomb.

I personally don't believe Iran would use a nuclear weapon except in self-defense and in desperate measures, but with hot heads like Ahmadinejad, Iran is not helping its own case. He is getting way too cocky.

Oh, and some good news :)

Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said on Friday that Iran has no plans to attack any foreign country, BBC reported. “We will not commit aggression towards any nations; we will not breach any nation's rights anywhere in the world," said Khamenei in a sermon broadcast live on state media to mark Eid al-Fitr, which ends the holy month of Ramadan.

[Patzek]

Webmaster, I meant, that in israel, if we attack something, that from our point of view is threating on our country ecxistence, strike back will be seeing as they attacked us, and we will strike back, I know its kind of wired, but if they got nuclears that its obviously threat on us, and the possibility that other middle eastern country can destroy us... its an attack by it self.



Sunburns, are anti ship missiles, unstopable, ecxept for lasers anti missiles, like the THEL of RAFAEL, but i don't know how fast that can work, and if it will work above the water, and its compilcated.



Nuclear bomb = weapon for life, it doesn't matter if they'll use it in the next 5 years, or in the next 30, we're looking forward and not only at the present.

and about the news.
I'll say it if you don't know it already,
Israel wont wait till the iranians will have the bomb, we just wont, it doesn't matter what they're intentions, we just can't take the risk, 1 bomb will destroy us, in ALL terms, we wont be able to handle it, doesn't matter when, we just can't take that risk.
and you can belive me if I say, that if we attack something, be sure we will end it.

[WebMaster]

I don't understand. Israel having nuclear weapon is not a threat to any country in the region while any other country getting nukes is a threat to Israel? I don't know how one gets to that conclusion. The very reason Iran wants nuclear technology is the fact (or assumption) that Israel has nuclear weapons and it sees Iran as a threat. If both have nuclear weapons then it is possible that niether will attack each other. If one has and the other doesn't there is always assumption of threat that the other side might get them...

If today we know that Iran has nuclear weapon for sure and it tests some, no body in their right mind would be talking about attacking Iran.

[JSF]

i suppose what he means is that one nuke will wipe out Israel because of its tiny land mass while Iran is huge in comparison and can probably withstand more than one nuke attack?:|

[Jim Goose]

I don't know about that, as soon as the US warns Israel of an incoming nuke you can be sure that Israel will unload a large quantity of nukes on Iran ensuring nothing survives.

And I totally agree with you Webmaster, the fact that both sides had nuclear weapons during the cold war and the fact of total mutual destruction was EXACTLY why there was no direct major conflict between the two sides.

[Patzek]

yes i know what you mean, but don't try to post " smart " posts on situations that indeed in other countries and in other situation will be right, because the situation of the middle us is uniqe to the middle east.

I guess the world trust us more than he trust on Iran, and i KNOW that if we got nuclears for 40 years and we still got them, the world trusts us, that we wont use it, but as you can see, no one trust Iran.

Why they trust israel? maybe because we are under massives attack for 57 years?
Maybe because we take one of the majors part of the war in terror in the whole world, and done alot of things that we deserve to be trusted.

Shut down Iraq nuclears facillities in 1981
Rescued Antebe hostages wich was 3000km away
i can give you a big list of operations of actions israel took who was not for itself, but for other people, or to the world in general.

And iran?
Iran is the damn cause that people get blow up in here evrey time some damn terrorist blow up a bus or a resturant or whatever.
They give the money to the Hizbollah to fire missiles of israel
Iran is a country that here leader call for us to be " wiped of the map "
Iran is a country that support the Terrorist for dozens of years
Iran is filming movies of her army and airforce for " show up " exacly like the terrorist do in Gaza, to other countries to be fear of them.

Evreything here is just some examples. i can continues both list on and on.

and those are some of the reasones we are allowed to get nukes and they doesn't.
nukes is the sole reasone that israel is still a country.
and thats the way it is need to stay.



"""""""
i suppose what he means is that one nuke will wipe out Israel because of its tiny land mass while Iran is huge in comparison and can probably withstand more than one nuke attack?
"""""""

first of all, yes.
You can say it as much as you want, but iran is far far away from keeping her citizens like israel does.
If one nuke will land of some iranian air force base, what will happen?
ok, the base will blow up and alot of things arround it, and couple thouzands of people will die, but the country still active, nothing really happened to it.

Israel will be doomed.


"
I don't know about that, as soon as the US warns Israel of an incoming nuke you can be sure that Israel will unload a large quantity of nukes on Iran ensuring nothing survives.
"

thats half correct.
Israel doesn't act like iran will,.
first of all
all our forces will go red
all arrows batteris and anti ballistic missiles will be more active, and we will shot down those missiles, be sure about that.

be sure whole EU will join us and to the US and we will change iran for good, of course after we attacked them a bit, and hitted.

[WebMaster]

I believe that every country has the right to acquire nuclear technology for military use and civilian use and for its protection unless it threatens another country with nuclear weapons and Iran has not done that.

As far as supporting "terrorism," every coin has two sides and frankly I don't want to get into debate which would take us into politics than what is the purpose of this thread. And I can't really discuss boasted statements that are not backed up with proper references.

If you look at history of nuclear weapons and how other countries wanted the technology because they felt threatened by those that already had the bomb.

US and USSR
China and India
India and Pakistan
Israel and now Iran.

As far as I know, Iran doesn't care if the "world" trusts Israel or not. Iran has to worry about it's own security all by its self and that is why the sense of threat from Israel is there and which makes iran get the bomb for it's protection and rightly so. From Iran's perspective, the trust that world has in Israel is not going to help Iran when Israel decides to attack Iran like when it attacked Iraq in 1980s. Some would call that attack an act of terrorism and some would call that attack for protection. It matter of who you ask, really.

If Iran had nukes today, would Israel or anyone else be talking about attacking Iran? I don't think so. That is the purpose of the Nukes and those who have them understand that very much. Iran knows what will happen if it uses nuclear weapons... of course us Americans will be given yet another case for war and we would have to agree, very unfortunate with the half truths going around.

[Patzek]

i don't have time now so i'll just post it quick

You're talking about iran like it's like any other mature country that feel " threatend " by other country.
This is not the case!!!!!!!!!
Iran's president is acting like a freaking terrorist, who wants to destroy other country and shows up in a organization of anti zionist!!!!!!!!
i really don't know enough english to describe it exacly,
but Iran is laughing in the face of all of us, and they say they are afraid of israel as an exuce for they're actions.

[MikMyk]

Direct Land Assault on Iran:

Assymetrically and Direct. You've got essentially two military forces in Iran IIRC (Pasdaran and Regular Army). Pasdaran is generally better equipped and trained.

The greatest defense Iran has is its geography. Moving toward Tehran from any direction means lots of the rough, rocky terrain with plenty of ambush points. Lot of nightmare scenarios developed during the Cold War about such a thing. Harold Coyle did a nice novel that touched on alot of it (Sword Point rings a bell for some reason). Anyways this is probably the greatest deterrent from and sort of land invasion.

Naval War would be a US victory most likely. US CVBG's can stand off well away from Iranian naval forces. Only concern is the Iranians can close the Straits of Hormuz and play havoc on tanker traffic (see Tanker War). They have significant capabilities to do this and hold for an effective amount of time. Many smaller SSM armed combantants (China CATS, Hoku's, Combattante etc) as well as fixed and mobile SSM batteries (sorry no Russian Sunburns they were prototyped for land launch but never produced). For that reason the invasion might start in that region as to preven the Iranians from closing Hormuz.

Air War US/Israeli victory without a doubt. Overmatch in most categories. The Iranians would probably inflict several more losses due to some newer SAM systems being aquired (Russian SA-10 types etc).

Limited Air incursion:

Certainly doable but most likely wouldn't be able to stop the nuclear program. Too many aimpoints (known and unknown) and there is no bomb that makes people dumber (once they have the knowhow, they know how:) So would most likely deter for a short period of time and then start up somewhere else within Iran etc. Osirak worked because there was one reactor and work was generally occuring in the same place. Not so in Iran.

IMHO the only way to prevent is to be sure Israel has a credible deterrent. As much as I'd like to get rid of those horrible weapons deterrence is the only solution that has worked.

[MikMyk]

One of the bigger criticisms in terms of the Iranians is how poorly their forces talk and work with each other. So for instance if Bandar Abbas is the invasion target can the Pasdaran forces talk to the regular army, Air force or navy in the city. Can any of them effectively communicate with forces outside that city/region and coordinate their defense? Its a big achilles heal and by most accounts they don't work too well together.

[WebMaster]

Working on the assumption that Israel has nuclear weapons then why did Israel acquire nuclear technology? Didn't it feel "threatened" by the "terrorist" arab countries around it? Then why isn't that logic applied here in case of Iran? Why is nuclear technology good for Israel and not Iran or any other country in the middle east? I think that is very hypocritical. Nuclear weapons have served has detterants every since two countries in the world had them. When only US had them, even USSR felt threatened. If Japan had the weapons, US would have never used it.

If you look at the situation fairly and without any pride; Iran is a country and it has the right to acquire nuclear technology just like any other country does including Israel. The situation only changes when Iran threatens and uses the weapons preemptively.

My friend, you don't need english to understand the logic here. If Israel attacks Iran today, it would still mean war / act of war. If Israel attacks Iran after it has the nuclear weapons, it would still mean war / act of war. But, Israel is a smart country it would NEVER attack Iran once it knows that Iran has the bomb which means no war unless Iran uses the bomb on Israel first which is never going to happen as Iran has not made any indication of using nuclear weapons first let alone on Israel.

You are looking at things from Israeli perspective only and not from both sides. As a country Iran has the right to acquire nukes so does Japan and Malta... that is another thing that Malta can't and Japan won't. I keep saying this, if Japan had the bomb during WW II, US wouldn't have used the weapon them. Only thing keeping Pakistan and India locked in peace talks are the nuclear weapons and both are well aware that nuclear weapons used by either one will result in destruction of both of the countries. There is a greater possibility of war and attack on Iran when we know that it doesn't have any weapons but the threat of war and attack on Iran decreases when we would know that Iran does have the bomb. Israel attacked Iraq on the assumption that Iraq might use the weapon on Israel, maybe it should try the same with Iran and let's see where the world goes.

[Jim Goose]

i don't have time now so i'll just post it quick

You're talking about iran like it's like any other mature country that feel " threatend " by other country.
This is not the case!!!!!!!!!


Again, it's unfortunate the president said the things he did, but to say that Iran is not like any other country that feels threatned? That is not true and we need only look at the last few years to see this.

Iranians look to the east and they see American bases in Afghanistan, they look to the west in Iraq and see the same thing. They look into the persian gulf and see fleets of US battleships. There is a reason they're feeling threatned, Iran has been exploited by the US before and has also fought a bloody and pointless war with Iraq. The Iranian people do not want another war such as that with Iraq and Iran also does not want to be exploited again.

Who is really on the defensive here if we look at the situation objectively?

Had the US not have invaded Iraq, who's to say that another moderate would not have been elected in Iran as President like the former Khatami? And If 9/11 had not happened, perhaps George Bush would not have been re-elected in 2004? It's hard to say in both cases, but the analogy is fitting I believe.

I believe moreso than anything, the west does not want a nuclear capable middle east because it would prefer to continue projecting dominance in that region, and not because they fear crazy Mullahs will launch their first nuke at Israel but for other reasons.

Lets remember that the president of Iran is not the first world leader to have said something stupid or confrontational. It seems to me he was more interested in garnering and solidifying his support then actually presenting a case for war against Israel to the Iranian people.

As I pointed out earlier, the Ayatollah Khamenei who is the true ruler of Iran, has gone as far as retracting the statements of the president. Perhaps the president himself will do the same.

And as Webmaster has pointed out, the best deterrent against nuclear war is assured mutual destruction. No one wants that, not even crazy Mullahs. They enjoy their wealth as much as the fat cats in the west enjoy theirs.

One of the bigger criticisms in terms of the Iranians is how poorly their forces talk and work with each other. So for instance if Bandar Abbas is the invasion target can the Pasdaran forces talk to the regular army, Air force or navy in the city. Can any of them effectively communicate with forces outside that city/region and coordinate their defense? Its a big achilles heal and by most accounts they don't work too well together.

I think this was the case during the Iran-Iraq war, since most of Iran's best military leaders were purged, as well as most of the officers in the air force. Very unorganized attacks and little effective co-operation took place on the part of Iran, aside from human waves. But I think a very hard lesson was learned then, so whatever the current level of command & control is now, it will probably be much more effective than that of the Iran-Iraq war.

How effective this would be against a US invasion is doubtful, but do you think Iran would really favour a direct engagement with invading forces? Or are you referring to a sort of asymetrical engagement at Bandar Abbas, if that was the point of invasion.

[MikMyk]

I think this was the case during the Iran-Iraq war, since most of Iran's best military leaders were purged, as well as most of the officers in the air force. Very unorganized attacks and little effective co-operation took place on the part of Iran, aside from human waves. But I think a very hard lesson was learned then, so whatever the current level of command & control is now, it will probably be much more effective than that of the Iran-Iraq war.

How effective this would be against a US invasion is doubtful, but do you think Iran would really favour a direct engagement with invading forces? Or are you referring to a sort of asymetrical engagement at Bandar Abbas, if that was the point of invasion.

No was a statement about the current command and control situation. However I'll agree its probably better than the Iran-Iraq war. Any current data on their systems you can share as you pointed out its improvement?

I think it would most likely be a mix of the two different types of warfare. You will have regular engagements and many smaller insurgent engagements. I do think the Iranians would engage US forces directly and yes it would be their best strategy. As long as everyone knows where to go and what to do. I also think guerillas would be employed as they've been successful elsewhere. Not sure why you would ask one or the other when both could be employed and there is a history of both in the nation you're talking about :confused:

Bandar-e-Abbas was picked as its importance would make it a likely place to postulate any type of engagement as it is a likely war objective in most US-Iran invasion type scenario.

[Jim Goose]

Not sure why you would ask one or the other when both could be employed and there is a history of both in the nation you're talking about :confused:

Heh, I guess you're right. I was thinking of a scenerio where 2 armies would engage in a massive conventional battle like in hollywood or something. Iran does have quite a variety of options in the conventional sense, the important thing would be how many of these would survive an initial pre-invasion aerial or off coast bombardment. Their airfields, helipads, missile sites, tanks etc...

I'm sure there are many in the conventional army who would more than gladly take part in something similar to kamikaze. Iran still has quite a number of operational F4/F5s to use in a scenerio such as this, instead of having them all in hangars just to be destroyed. And maybe Iran's interest in the Shafaqh single seater jet (with some supposed stealth feature) is a move towards having something fairly capable but also expendible in the air? This is just an assumption based on Iran's move towards becoming entirely self-sufficient in arms production. It seems they are on the right track in the sense that they are constructing their local military complex to avoid parts and weapons shortages similar to the last war.

Also, you mentioned Iran has access to SA-10s, are these known to be effective against anything on the US side that may be used against Iran? I would imagine Iran's radar has also undergone major upgrades since their last war, but from what I know this is still something that is lacking.

And my thoughts about command and control come from reading the usual articles you would find at places like globalsecurity.com and other sites. Also something to point out is that since Iran's last conflict, the role of religious and non-military persons influencing the command of the conventional and non-conventional elements in Iran's army have been drastically curtailed, for obvious reasons.

Also, I don't know if you have seen the videos of the "large" war game exercises Iran has been holding out in the desert the last couple years, but from the looks of what I saw there seemed to be a lot of coordination between all arms of the military, army, air force, and even some navy / special force exercises. I will try to find the site where I saw these, they were very interesting. And I do have a few of those videos saved on my computer if you'd like them, you can add me to MSN;

effexor@rogers.com

Glad to find informative discussions at this site :)

[MikMyk]

Heh, I guess you're right. I was thinking of a scenerio where 2 armies would engage in a massive conventional battle like in hollywood or something. Iran does have quite a variety of options in the conventional sense, the important thing would be how many of these would survive an initial pre-invasion aerial or off coast bombardment. Their airfields, helipads, missile sites, tanks etc...

Farther from the coast the more likely it is to survive. Outside Desert Storm and to a degree Iraqi freedom where the Iraqi army decided to dig and die the Iranians will probaby mobilize pretty quickly and be a bit more mobile. US airpower is a bit less effective against more mobile armies and equipment (see Kosovo). None the less the Iranians would suffer heaviliy in the initial blitz.

Iran still has quite a number of operational F4/F5s to use in a scenerio such as this, instead of having them all in hangars just to be destroyed. And maybe Iran's interest in the Shafaqh single seater jet (with some supposed stealth feature) is a move towards having something fairly capable but also expendible in the air? This is just an assumption based on Iran's move towards becoming entirely self-sufficient in arms production. It seems they are on the right track in the sense that they are constructing their local military complex to avoid parts and weapons shortages similar to the last war.

Iran has F-4E's, Mig-29's, SU-24's, F-5's, Few Mirage F-1EQ's, J-7's and some F-14's left over from the Shah, the great Iraqi AF retreat a a few purchases they've made in the last decade.

They have two home grown fighter programs (one a near F-5 copy and one a double engined aircraft). Have yet to see a real picture of operational aircraft. Seen tons of mockups and aviation art though:)

As far as equipment outside aviation they've built alot of military vehicles. These include Zulifiquar and Tofan tanks, Boraq IFV's, and lots of artillery pieces. Their short and medium missiles aren't too shabby either. Lots of other munitions etc. as well.

There is information all over the net about this just be fairly skeptical what you find. Operational pictures (like your videos etc) seem to be best.

Also, you mentioned Iran has access to SA-10s, are these known to be effective against anything on the US side that may be used against Iran? I would imagine Iran's radar has also undergone major upgrades since their last war, but from what I know this is still something that is lacking.

Iranian Air Defense is improving. Off the top of my head Great Wall Radars have just been installed, lots of all radars (TPS-40-50 era etc) still around. SA-10 is said to be employed but nobody really knows where. SA-5 and copies are installed and deployed regionally (can even see one via google earth at Bandar e Bushear). Lots of I-Hawks, SA-2/3/HQ-2/3 around. Nothing like the Shah had planned but not too bad. Again though don't know how well regions talk to each other etc.

And my thoughts about command and control come from reading the usual articles you would find at places like globalsecurity.com and other sites. Also something to point out is that since Iran's last conflict, the role of religious and non-military persons influencing the command of the conventional and non-conventional elements in Iran's army have been drastically curtailed, for obvious reasons.

Yeah you are correct. Although Pasdaran answers to whom and regular army answers to another whom. Big problemo ;)

Glad to find informative discussions at this site :)

Yes thank you its been great.

[aaaditya]

i believe iran also has 20-30 su27's which defected from iraq during the gulf far,they can be made operational with russia help,also i believe they have some tu22's which can be used for nuclear strike roles.
f4e phantom,f-14,su24,j7 and mirage f1 will not be able to hold up against the coalition or israeli airforce(even if they are thoroughly upgraded),also i dont think that iran has modern awacs or inflight refuellers.

[MikMyk]

No SU-27 Flankers. Iraq never had those and Iran never bought from Russia/Ukraine. TU-22 Blinders never left Iraq. Can still see whats left of them on many pictures around the net.The Blinders were very early models and took a beating during the War of the Cities phase of the Iran/Iraq War and Desert Storm.

Most modern fighters Iran has are the Iraqi Mig-29's and and squardron of Russian bought Mig-29's.

Scramble on the net keeps some reasonable orders of battle. I've never seen them overstate data so a pretty good source.

http://www.scramble.nl/ir.htm

[driftder]

Full Scale Land/Air Invasion

In terms of a possible direct attack on Iran, it's safe to assume that Iran will concentrate its response on a purely asymmetrical front.

This can be gathered from watching videos of field exercises and war games that Iran has been holding for the last couple of years in the deserts preparing for such an invasion. In these videos the emphasis seems to be on guerrilla warfare, teams of two on motorcycles with RPGs, hit in run from vehicles, mountain warfare etc...

Although Iran did use its conventional army in staging aerial bombings, tank formations, etc... it's doubtful how effective these would be in a direct attack from a much technologically superior invader.

Also, Iran is known for its support and training of all volunteer militias and reactionary forces in the form of the Pasardan and Basij, numbering in the hundreds of thousands. These groups, under the supervision of the Revolutionary Guard, can be assumed to have knowledge and training in guerrilla tactics, IED construction, small arms ambush, hit and run, suicide attacks.

Lets not forget that the most potent parts of the insurgency in Iraq right now is speculated to have potential links with Iran's Revolutionary Guard. The shaped charges we keep hearing about and infrared IED triggers that can't be jammed could very well have come from Iranian agents.

A full scale invasion seems to be a last resort for America, although there is no doubt it would succeed in destroying Iran's infrastructure and conventional military, it would do little to hurt the regime except perhaps popularize it even more.

Also, it is known that Iran maintains a global network of agents but their abilities are unknown to me. An invasion, on any level, could trigger a response from elements based abroad. These responses, if in the form of terrorism, would be disastrous.

as you have mentioned, a full-scale invasion would really be the last course of action for US. if the factors are not in sync, its dubious that there will be a invasion. most important is what is the reason for US to go to war with Iran - WMD? that's been tried and ended as a great embarassment. so until the US gather an excuse for war, an invasion is not likely. don't forget, the US CinC is accountable to the Senate, Congress and public.

what we should also look at is what benefit does Iran get from a US attack? From my angle it looks like Iran wants US to attack. Perhaps it want US to be overdrawn and stretch?

anyway good luck to Iran - it will have a long way to wait for the US to attack them. so before the US want to deal with Iran, all the factors will have to be in sync, primarily:
1) the US public want to go to war with Iran - bad news and even badder day for Iran if that happens,
2) there is valid reason for war i.e. Iran is planning a maritime version of 9/11, nefarious acts of inhumanity etc
3) world opinion in US favor if war breaks out - personally, I don't see it as there is still distrust over the WMD excuse and the Islamic world would not want to see another fellow Islamic country go the way of Afghanistan and Iraq. So war with Iran will deepen the distrust of the Islamic nations.
4) the US economy can take another war - don't forget world economy is very tied in with US economy and oil prices just settled down.
5) how overstretch is the US military and can it take on another war? yes yes I know - the almighty US war machine is suppose to fight on multiple fronts but key word is "suppose" and there is a home front now.


Limited Aerial Incursion

This is the most likely of possible scenarios. Israel has already stated that it is prepared for an attack on Iran's nuclear reactor sites. But what is not clear is what response any aerial attack would result in, on the part of Iran.

It should be noted that the level of fervour and zeal currently present in Iran and its people could trigger a response much greater than anticipated, even if any attack is targeted only to military and nuclear targets.

Iran's responses could include targeting the strategic oil lanes of Harmuz and surrounding ports. However this would be higher than any level of activity in the tanker wars of the Iran-Iraq war, which brought about an upsurge in oil costs. A coordinated conventional attack on one of the world's primary sources of oil transport would then result in increased global influence. Possible support of Iran by China and Russia in such a scenerio can't be ruled out, although unlikely.

Additionally, It's been noted that Iran has been heavily mining its waters in that region since the war with Iraq. Silkworm anti-ship defences have also been installed on nearby islands as well as the possible presence of mini-subs, kilo class russian subs, and a variety of corvette and gunships.

The instability in Iraq could also spiral out of control if an attack was carried out now or in the near future. A limited aerial attack on iran could trigger a response from its all volunteer militia as mentioned earlier, the Basij and Pasardan. This would be devastating.

In a worse case scenario, the Mullahs in Iran may decide to directly target US forces based in near by Arab countries, officially signing their own death sentences.

Iran would no doubt carry the majority of deaths, but America too would suffer greatly if targeted following a limited scale invasion.

It is unlikely that Iran would not retaliate in light of such an attack, the extent to which this retaliation will take is unknown.

Hopefully none of these scenarios will play out and hopefully better judgement will be reached by both sides... but with both regimes at such extremes and with both thinking that their vision is the only vision, it's hard not to think about a conflict.

That being said, I'd like to read your views on what Iran's response would be.:xmas

-jim goose

a much more plausible scenario compared to the invasion but chances of it happening is again quite low - unless Iran crosses an invisible line drawn by Israel. I believe most will agree that there is only one response if an air raid takes place - Iran will declare total unrestricted war, the type advocated by colonels Qiao Liang and Wang Xiangsui. terrorist strikes, computer attacks, war by proxy etc. and it won't just be Israel or the US in the cross-hairs but every and any country that support the US. if Al-Queda is bad, imagine Iran doing tenfold what Al-Queda is doing. of course, that will then give the US what it does not want - an excuse to attack.:coffee

[turin]

Iran will declare total unrestricted war, the type advocated by colonels Qiao Liang and Wang Xiangsui. terrorist strikes, computer attacks, war by proxy etc. and it won't just be Israel or the US in the cross-hairs but every and any country that support the US. if Al-Queda is bad, imagine Iran doing tenfold what Al-Queda is doing. of course, that will then give the US what it does not want - an excuse to attack.

I disagree. Actually that may be the answer mostly desired by Israel, since it would bring everybodys opinion in line with their own, surely that of the Europeans and Russia. But why should Iran respond in such a way, when at the same time that is certainly not in their desire and there are other means to retaliate. For example Iran could make use of long-range missile attacks against Israel using Shahab-3 and other systems. There are quite some attractive targets, military and logistical ones as well as major industrial facilities. Israel depends on a very limited (=fragile) base of existence. In the past it has been to its advantage, that possible enemies did not have such long range strike capabilities, at least no such things, that could get behind israeli air defense.

[driftder]

I disagree. Actually that may be the answer mostly desired by Israel, since it would bring everybodys opinion in line with their own, surely that of the Europeans and Russia. But why should Iran respond in such a way, when at the same time that is certainly not in their desire and there are other means to retaliate. For example Iran could make use of long-range missile attacks against Israel using Shahab-3 and other systems. There are quite some attractive targets, military and logistical ones as well as major industrial facilities. Israel depends on a very limited (=fragile) base of existence. In the past it has been to its advantage, that possible enemies did not have such long range strike capabilities, at least no such things, that could get behind israeli air defense.

ahh you appeared - thought the Abwher had gangpress you. as for your counter well, not really - it might still happen. What I am trying to point is what is Iran going to respond to, what basis does it have for doing it and if cool heads prevail, removing that basis will shut down Iran's game plan before it can even start.

It is true that Iran will strike at Israel if things are in their favor ie no retaliations on Iran for attacking Israel, which is not likely. As its been pointed out, both countries are nuclear capable though both did not release a bomb test. Both countries have missiles though Israel is supposed to be more accurate and have a better missile shield while Iran's is still at the infant stage and without a ABM capability.

Let's take this to another level :D - what is Iran's nuclear knowhow and technology transfer from whatever source is shutdown? Now would that constitute an attack on Iran? Another - how about using the same tactics that brought down the USSR? You know, better economic power, introduction of Western culture, outcast the pariah tactics - those work and without a shot being fired right? It brought down the Berlin wall IIRC;)

[turin]

ahh you appeared - thought the Abwher had gangpress you.

Huh? Not sure I am getting this... :D

Let's take this to another level - what is Iran's nuclear knowhow and technology transfer from whatever source is shutdown? Now would that constitute an attack on Iran? Another - how about using the same tactics that brought down the USSR? You know, better economic power, introduction of Western culture, outcast the pariah tactics - those work and without a shot being fired right? It brought down the Berlin wall IIRC

Lets see:
What constitutes an attack?
Everything, that would include military action against targets inside Iran.

So I am excluding things like an embargo, even one concering nuclear equipment/proliferation. I dont think that Iran would respond to such a thing in ways of military action, but more in the line of increasing internal development. It would be tough for them, no doubt. But one cant ignore the global situation: how likely is it, that Russia would really stop its support. Well, it might be possible. What, if China comes in as supporter? Interesting question: the two countries have increasing commercial relations, also Iran is an attractive partner in terms of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, that might include increased military relations in the long-term.

The interesting question of course is: What kind of answer would follow what kind of military attack?
My previous post concerned an israeli non-nuclear military aggression against Iran as first step. The response IMO would be a limited missile strike against targets within Israel. Of course it would get hairy here, since Israel might interprete that as an attack with WMD, so this response very much depends on the scale of an israeli attack and its success in the first place.

As for the USSR-comparison: well, thats why I was recently criticizing the Bush-Administration, since this path has been abandoned partly thanks to them, with the last elections in Iran. The current political situation in Iran is very much in favor of a mildly fundamentalist government with full backing by the population.

[Pursuit Curve]

In light of recent events in the middle east concerning Iran's new president moving towards a more confrontational approach with Israel and Washington, and Washington and Israel doing the same, I've been wondering about the consequences of US military intervention in Iran.

I'll be discussing possible responses by Iran to large scale invasion and also a strategic aerial bombing / limited invasion.

Full Scale Land/Air Invasion

In terms of a possible direct attack on Iran, it's safe to assume that Iran will concentrate its response on a purely asymmetrical front.

This can be gathered from watching videos of field exercises and war games that Iran has been holding for the last couple of years in the deserts preparing for such an invasion. In these videos the emphasis seems to be on guerrilla warfare, teams of two on motorcycles with RPGs, hit in run from vehicles, mountain warfare etc...

Although Iran did use its conventional army in staging aerial bombings, tank formations, etc... it's doubtful how effective these would be in a direct attack from a much technologically superior invader.

Also, Iran is known for its support and training of all volunteer militias and reactionary forces in the form of the Pasardan and Basij, numbering in the hundreds of thousands. These groups, under the supervision of the Revolutionary Guard, can be assumed to have knowledge and training in guerrilla tactics, IED construction, small arms ambush, hit and run, suicide attacks.

Lets not forget that the most potent parts of the insurgency in Iraq right now is speculated to have potential links with Iran's Revolutionary Guard. The shaped charges we keep hearing about and infrared IED triggers that can't be jammed could very well have come from Iranian agents.

A full scale invasion seems to be a last resort for America, although there is no doubt it would succeed in destroying Iran's infrastructure and conventional military, it would do little to hurt the regime except perhaps popularize it even more.

Also, it is known that Iran maintains a global network of agents but their abilities are unknown to me. An invasion, on any level, could trigger a response from elements based abroad. These responses, if in the form of terrorism, would be disastrous.

Limited Aerial Incursion

This is the most likely of possible scenarios. Israel has already stated that it is prepared for an attack on Iran's nuclear reactor sites. But what is not clear is what response any aerial attack would result in, on the part of Iran.

It should be noted that the level of fervour and zeal currently present in Iran and its people could trigger a response much greater than anticipated, even if any attack is targeted only to military and nuclear targets.


Iran's responses could include targeting the strategic oil lanes of Harmuz and surrounding ports. However this would be higher than any level of activity in the tanker wars of the Iran-Iraq war, which brought about an upsurge in oil costs. A coordinated conventional attack on one of the world's primary sources of oil transport would then result in increased global influence. Possible support of Iran by China and Russia in such a scenerio can't be ruled out, although unlikely.

Additionally, It's been noted that Iran has been heavily mining its waters in that region since the war with Iraq. Silkworm anti-ship defences have also been installed on nearby islands as well as the possible presence of mini-subs, kilo class russian subs, and a variety of corvette and gunships.

The instability in Iraq could also spiral out of control if an attack was carried out now or in the near future. A limited aerial attack on iran could trigger a response from its all volunteer militia as mentioned earlier, the Basij and Pasardan. This would be devastating.

In a worse case scenario, the Mullahs in Iran may decide to directly target US forces based in near by Arab countries, officially signing their own death sentences.

Iran would no doubt carry the majority of deaths, but America too would suffer greatly if targeted following a limited scale invasion.

It is unlikely that Iran would not retaliate in light of such an attack, the extent to which this retaliation will take is unknown.

Hopefully none of these scenarios will play out and hopefully better judgement will be reached by both sides... but with both regimes at such extremes and with both thinking that their vision is the only vision, it's hard not to think about a conflict.

That being said, I'd like to read your views on what Iran's response would be.:xmas

-jim goose

Jim, I suppose your scenario is granting that Iraq has become pacified and the US does not have to worry about unsecure rear areas. As far as how such a war would develop though I think it is safe to assume that the USN will not be launching Carrier Strikes from the gulf until the threat of Sun Burn Anti Ship missiles are taken out. Any ground actions will take a solid coalition as per Gulf War part one, this would probably follow the script as per that action, prolonged Military build up with prolonged but very precise Strikes by B-2, and Stealth platforms, and of course tomahawk SLAM.

As this is a scenario that I cannot see happening ( Precisely because of the instability of Iraq and the amount of US troops involved just to patrol) I would see it as maybe a pre emptive strike aimed at the so called Nuclear capability and to take out any threats to Tanker and Naval traffic in the Gulf.

As for Israeli involvement it must be taken into account that the same situation in 1990 is still relevant, any direct Israeli action will in essence make for a very sticky situation that would undermine any American attempts at building regional Allies.

So in short, I see maybe a precision strike, maybe 3 weeks in duration, then its to the conference table.

As we have seen, the Iranians reason, and possibly correctly, that they will not be hassled by the USA if they have the ability, basic as it is, to strike back with nukes against anyone in range that threatens them.

As far as Nukes in the region, the same rules should be for everyone, Israeli or Arab, that any nukes will not be tolerated.

[driftder]

Huh? Not sure I am getting this... :D

really? what's with the cheeky grin then? come come where you been - traipsing with th Jaegerskommando? :p:


Lets see:
What constitutes an attack?
Everything, that would include military action against targets inside Iran.

So I am excluding things like an embargo, even one concering nuclear equipment/proliferation. I dont think that Iran would respond to such a thing in ways of military action, but more in the line of increasing internal development. It would be tough for them, no doubt. But one cant ignore the global situation: how likely is it, that Russia would really stop its support. Well, it might be possible. What, if China comes in as supporter? Interesting question: the two countries have increasing commercial relations, also Iran is an attractive partner in terms of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, that might include increased military relations in the long-term.

The interesting question of course is: What kind of answer would follow what kind of military attack?
My previous post concerned an israeli non-nuclear military aggression against Iran as first step. The response IMO would be a limited missile strike against targets within Israel. Of course it would get hairy here, since Israel might interprete that as an attack with WMD, so this response very much depends on the scale of an israeli attack and its success in the first place.

I concur with your points - Iran is really milking Russia and China for all its worth and vice versa. Iran provides the cash and oil while Russia and China provides the know how. Not forgetting also that these 3 make a very nice heavy weight anti-US alliance. Not forgetting also that Russia and China also have very sizeable Islamic populations within and having a Islamic conduit to inside information about the Islamic terror gangs can be helpful (don't bother to pooh pooh the idea - its happening). Re the Israeli bogeyman, not likely with US slapping them if they even look cross-eye at Iran. The Israeli response will be as the Gulf War when Iraq was lobbing missiles at them - take cover and shoot them down. Of course they might do an Osirak in reply.

As for the USSR-comparison: well, thats why I was recently criticizing the Bush-Administration, since this path has been abandoned partly thanks to them, with the last elections in Iran. The current political situation in Iran is very much in favor of a mildly fundamentalist government with full backing by the population.

sacrilege.....you dare to bash the "Great Satan"? :lol3
I agree - Reagan got it better then Bush vis foreign policy. He really applied the "subduing the enemy without a thousand battles" a la Suntzu. If only Bush had applied it to Iraq who knows what might turn out? as it is, 9/11 tip his hand. oh well...

[turin]

come come where you been - traipsing with th Jaegerskommando
Well, in my army time I have only been with artillery forces...ok, not "only"...I mean we had the big 'uns and that was fun...that and all the others begging for help over the radio during exercises. ;)
No, I just happen to drop in occasionally, or better said I comment that way, while reading or uploading images forms the most part of my interest around here. And I do grin most times reading german words on an english-speaking forum, in a positive sense.

The Israeli response will be as the Gulf War when Iraq was lobbing missiles at them - take cover and shoot them down. Of course they might do an Osirak in reply.

Not sure about the Israelis at all. I mean back in '91 I understand the US had to do quite a thing to convince them staying cool.
Unfortunately the Osirak scenario is no option since the nuclear program of Iran is located in several distributed areas. They sure learned from Iraqs fate in that respect and with every day passing by I believe this distribution and the protection of the respective places will increase.

I agree - Reagan got it better then Bush vis foreign policy. He really applied the "subduing the enemy without a thousand battles" a la Suntzu. If only Bush had applied it to Iraq who knows what might turn out?

Of course we are talking different scenarios. I mean Reagan really couldnt do that much except pushing military investments. He couldnt go to war with the USSR just like that. In Iraq I admit the situation was much more tempting, since it apparently (and in some point really) was a weakened isolated regime. But lets not go there...as for Iran I seriosly cant think of any realistic military engagement that would change things for the better.

[Pursuit Curve]

Well, in my army time I have only been with artillery forces...ok, not "only"...I mean we had the big 'uns and that was fun...that and all the others begging for help over the radio during exercises. ;)
No, I just happen to drop in occasionally, or better said I comment that way, while reading or uploading images forms the most part of my interest around here. And I do grin most times reading german words on an english-speaking forum, in a positive sense.



Not sure about the Israelis at all. I mean back in '91 I understand the US had to do quite a thing to convince them staying cool.
Unfortunately the Osirak scenario is no option since the nuclear program of Iran is located in several distributed areas. They sure learned from Iraqs fate in that respect and with every day passing by I believe this distribution and the protection of the respective places will increase.



Of course we are talking different scenarios. I mean Reagan really couldnt do that much except pushing military investments. He couldnt go to war with the USSR just like that. In Iraq I admit the situation was much more tempting, since it apparently (and in some point really) was a weakened isolated regime. But lets not go there...as for Iran I seriosly cant think of any realistic military engagement that would change things for the better.


Lets also not forget that the Coalition in Gul War part 1 would have fallen apart if the US had provided the IFF codes for Israeli Aircraft to overfly Jordan to go and bomb Iraq, thats why the Israeli's got such a sweet pay off because of lost tourism etc etc.

The real danger right now is that there is a second term president that does not worry about re election and also a right wing Neo Con war council that would love nothing better than leave a mess for a Democrat!

Anyone comtemplating any kind of action ( Military) against Iran is really asking for trouble, imagine americans having to not only watch the Iraqi insurgants, but also have to watch out for Iranians at the same time.

The main American ally, Tony Blair, does not have nearly the "Political capital" to sell action against the Iranians, he is currently fighting a losing war with his own back benchers!

I realise tha tthis is a scenario that is being discussed, but in all honesty I would think that such a confrontation will be limited to attempts to locate any worthwhile targets in Iran, then maybe, just maybe a restricted campaign of precision bombing and criuse strikes to disable or destroy any weapon ( Nuke) capability.

[driftder]

Well, in my army time I have only been with artillery forces...ok, not "only"...I mean we had the big 'uns and that was fun...that and all the others begging for help over the radio during exercises. ;)
No, I just happen to drop in occasionally, or better said I comment that way, while reading or uploading images forms the most part of my interest around here. And I do grin most times reading german words on an english-speaking forum, in a positive sense.

huh german words? blame it on the tech advisors. sometimes they get agitated and just go native on u. extremely graphic at times :D. ahh speaking as a ex-foot, there are times when the arty scream for help too - as in when the oppo force gets too close and they need some1 to buy them time to get out. guess who do the buying then:p:.

Not sure about the Israelis at all. I mean back in '91 I understand the US had to do quite a thing to convince them staying cool.
Unfortunately the Osirak scenario is no option since the nuclear program of Iran is located in several distributed areas. They sure learned from Iraqs fate in that respect and with every day passing by I believe this distribution and the protection of the respective places will increase.

I won't put it past the Israelis. Quite resourceful bunch - check out when they had no air force or tanks to fight with. in the end, they got it and today had one of the most powerful air and mech force in the ME region. as for finding out the targets to hit, well - we are talking abt THE Mossad here. if it ever got to tit-for-tat stage, Iran might find that sword cuts both ways and it don't have to be via airstrike. as for missile strikes on Israel, they got this ABM call Arrow right? heard its better then Patriot. btw check out this link:http://www.jcpa.org/jl/jl430.htm. Interesting times ahead ;)

Of course we are talking different scenarios. I mean Reagan really couldnt do that much except pushing military investments. He couldnt go to war with the USSR just like that. In Iraq I admit the situation was much more tempting, since it apparently (and in some point really) was a weakened isolated regime. But lets not go there...as for Iran I seriosly cant think of any realistic military engagement that would change things for the better.

well yeah different situation but still will work. Works with NK - check out the pics they smuggle out. NK feeds their military machine at the expense of nation welfare and will soon go the way of SU soon. Ahh Iraq - now that was still being discuss here btw the hardlines and moderates. on one hand yeah, its defeated militarily and Saddam was remove - good riddance. on the other US lost a lot of goodwill and rapport but then it started with 9/11 and slide down from there. Iran ah Iran - yups concur too, US won't get rattled too easily this time unless Iran makes to draw its gun. then it's High Noon and we will see what results after the gunsmoke clears. even then, I suspect that the US won't step into Iran - most likely a sharp short conflict, much like a rap across the knuckles, knee to the groin effort. of course getting a few flights of B52 arclights and another dozen off cruise missiles is more then a groin strike. think castration more apt :D

[Focus]

There is no easy answer to guerilla war, as seen in Russians in Afganistan, US in Iraq and other small wars. US/Israel/UK will never never never send the boys to Iranian soil. What they will do is bomb and rebomb 500+ targets in 2-3 days that qualify for being related to nuclear. Iran does not have any substaintial defense against Stealth bombers coming and going at will.

Iranian response will be hightened terrorism in Israel and US interests and soil. Rightnow Al-Queda is not supported by Iranians but after attack they will become 'out in open' backers of AQ. In the end, another waves of bombing and another wave of terrorism.......pretty much as we saw Iraq under sanctions after 1991. War of attrition all the way. US will not win in this war as seen in Iraq under Saddam. The main question is what effect will any 9/11 type attack on the US soil will have on US economy? That is Iran's best response.

Bottomline, let Iran have the nukes. They are fearsome but also calculative.
US should not listen to Israeli paranoia. Why can Israel live with Pakistan (Islamic nation) having nukes but not Iran? Attack on Iran would slide world to deeper and more fanatic types of terrorism.

[ANZAC ACE]

Bottomline, let Iran have the nukes. They are fearsome but also calculative.
US should not listen to Israeli paranoia. Why can Israel live with Pakistan (Islamic nation) having nukes but not Iran? Attack on Iran would slide world to deeper and more fanatic types of terrorism.

While outsiders like us can say let Iran have nukes and let the concept of mutually assured destruction take over, I don’t think such an argument really takes into account the realities of the world we live in today, at least not from the point of view of Israelis or the Americans for the matter. While many people may argue that nuclear energy is the right of any nation and this is true, there are issues that must also be taken into account.

Israel feels it needs to take action because of Iran’s links to terrorism and to maintain the strategic edge that it enjoys. What do I mean? Well like it has been said Iran and its terrorist allies have been fighting a proxy war for a long time in Lebanon and Palestine. What if nuclear capabilities were past to these terrorist organisations? Also Iran in the conventional military sense does not have the capability to match Israel but with nuclear weapons Israel’s military superiority is made irrelevant instantly. Key to the survival of the state of Israel is its military superiority. There wouldn’t be any point having the best trained and well equipped force in the Middle East when a single missile could destroy your entire nation with single attack.

A nuclear free Middle East would be one solution in this scenario but this would mean some sort of peace treaty with the normalisation of relations between all Arab, Islamic nations and Israel before they would give up their nuclear arsenal.

Israel and more so the US will lose, whatever they choose to do with regard to Iran. The military option will fuel terrorism and a nuclear armed Iran will be bolder and will dare the world to stop it. Gulf Arab states will have to choose between a greater US presence in the region or to appease a more assertive Iran.

Iran has the best cards in this situation. Destabilise not only Iraq but also possibly Afghanistan, play the oil card, increase support for terrorists groups. The consequences of all of these will be rather significant and will lead to a global environment that will be interesting to say the least. Or alternatively be the shining light in the Islamic world that stood up to the Zionists.

All of this however I don’t think will deter Israel or even the US which has the most to lose. I would agree with thoughts in this tread that suggest an air campaign will be what eventuates. If the US would take the military route it would have to be an intense air war, one that would have to not only take out Iran’s nuclear capability but also Iran’s ability to retaliate in the conventional military sense. Especially with such a target rich environment for the Iranians in the gulf. I think the US would have to accept the fact that terrorist strikes on US interests would be inevitable as a result.

Well gents it seems that this whole situation seems to be at a very interesting crossroad. It will be interesting to see how this pans out.:confused:

[driftder]

interesting insight by Anzac Ace. based on what you have pointed out, the day that Israel will attack Iran's nuclear weapons plants is not too far - perhaps next year? when that happens, I wonder what will be USA's response. support is definitely a must but how much? to what extent? Or will the Israelis wait for USA to lead the way with a sharp short air war?

say there is war, what will Iran's allies and supporters do? China and Russia definitely will jump in, perhaps even provide military aid<?> its possible though far fetch. France and Germany will definitely howl at the lost business with Iran cos of war. the terrs will lash out - count on Al-Queda, Hizbollah, MNLF, the JIS, etc will commit more murders and killings.

mind-boggling to say the least but - I think if someone think it through, the actions and consequences before the war, during the war and after the war especially after as that's where the most fallout comes. then the war when it comes will be manageable. I only hope Iran will blink first...

[Focus]

China and Russia won't do blip to help out anyone, including each other......Commies are commies always. Regarding Iran nuking Israel, I read at one place that US has indirectly sent this message to AQ that if any nuke/wmd is used against US/Western world by terrorist, then US/NATO will nuke 100 cities in the Muslim world......does not matter if 100+ Million are killed. It is said that is what is stopping Al-Queda from using WMD's. Regarding Iran, the response will be the same, Iran will be reduced to nothing but burned soil and in addition other Islamic nations supporting terrorism like Saudi, Syria etc. will also be nuked. On the other hand, Israel, the land of the Jews has only 4 million of them in Israel, of the 16 Million......12 million live outside Israel so, in the event of nuclear attack, Israel in middle east will be out of function but then new Israel can be made in Europe or US. All the parties Iran, AQ, Saudi etc. know the answer to using nuke/wmd against Israel/West etc.

US has learned a big lesson from Gulf War II campaign. That is why they are not attacking Syria and would not attack Iran. Any air campaign does have its reactions also in the form of terrorism. So US should think more about how to get the boys out of Iraq rather than if Israel is losing sleep over Iran's nukes.

[arkhan]

if israel intend to attack iran, they will do so while bush is in white house. let the next president deal with the consequences :D ( if any from americans or allies and certainly from muslim fighters/extremist around the world ). remember almost all iranian citizens is shiite muslim and they have huge support from shiite from iraq. right now shiite in iraq is quite tolerant towards coalition forces, when the attack on iran happen, coalition forces have to battle both sunni and shiite.
regarding china and russia i believe they will help iran discreetly by giving them military movement information. they will use their security council position in U.N to press both israel and u.s from attacking iran. right now china is doing everything they could to make sure their supply of raw materials from overseas is secured through economic, diplomatic and military means. they wont lie still while other powers do harms to their suppliers.
if israel do attack iran, they will do so with the knowledge that for iranian to attck israel, they have to cross iraq which is under coalition power.
finally, let them have their nukes, 'mutually assured destruction', i like that concept.
israel wont do a preemptive strike againts iran and vice versa becvause they know the consequences.

[Focus]

9-11 cost the US economy 500B i.e. half trillion and some costs are here to stay. US should be wise enough not to invite anymore attacks of such types. Russia is already being encircled slowly and if they do not take precautions, in 5-10 years it will be a part of NATO as a whole country or a broken up entity. Then full focus will be on China, Islamic World, India and others which pose or have the potential to pose any threat to the West.

Remember, last front that stopped Hitler was Russia, 20 miles west of Moscow. I think Napolean actually ruled parts of Moscow for a little bit. This time attempts are made to either break Russia from within or let it walk itself into submission. This more so, with Russia having nukes that can blow up the whole earth several times over. Correctly said above, US will face the SuperShite wrath of both Iran and Iraq in the event of invasion of Iran and then it will be only Vietnam scenes of GIs running to their helicopters for the quick exit. George Bush bankrupted 3 successful companies before he joined politics, and now he is bent on bankrupting the US and throw the whole world into a chaos of all sorts.

Mods, apologies for drifting off the topic but this is what it is leading to and Iranian crisis is only one step in the ladder.

[Focus]

No New views for whole 2 days? Did I get others dumbfounded already?

The bottomline is, DO NOT ATTACK IRAN..............in such a scenario US, UK, Israel will lose all the respect and sympathy from others and world will become a very very dangerous place as mentioned above. Iranians are not 'oil spoiled' Arabs like Saudis and Iraqis......hope that says alot!

Peace to alll!!

[Berserk Fury]

Bottomline, let Iran have the nukes. They are fearsome but also calculative.
US should not listen to Israeli paranoia. Why can Israel live with Pakistan (Islamic nation) having nukes but not Iran? Attack on Iran would slide world to deeper and more fanatic types of terrorism.

Pakistan, to some degree, has a government where religion doesn't influence it as much. Iran on the other hand is a theocracy, run by religion. If religion dictates kill the Israelis then Iran will kill the Israelis... eventually...

btw, the concept of MAD is a bit out of date for the Middle East.
For example, if Iran gets nukes and develops MRBM's, what prevents them from "accidentally" losing one to the terrorists (e.g. Hezbollah)?
The terrorists would commit the atrocities while Iran just sits there.
Certainly countries harboring Iran would be blamed but not so as much to nuke them. If Iran then conforms to the US demands, it's most likely the US won't nuke anyone (depending on the causualties). If the Washington is nuked, then the terrorists and Iran would have even more time to hide and prepare for the onslaught that awaits them.

[driftder]

Printed article from Singapore newspaper, The Straits Times, Thursday Jan 19 2006, Page 31 under Review Section.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Read Iran the riot act

Iran's decision to break the seals at its main uranium enrichment facility, and to resume research on processing nuclear fuel, is unacceptable. The world's major powers must act in concert to bring Teheran to heel. The European Union and the United States have both urged for some time that Iran be referred to the United Nations Security Council for possible sanctions, and the time to take that decisive step has arrived. Given their commercial and other interests in Iran, Russia and China are reluctant to take this step, though Russia's patience seems to be wearing thin. They must put aside their short-term interests and join the EU and the US in enforcing the international community's will in Iran. Both, together with most of Europe, have long complained about US unilaterism. Well, Washington is not acting unilaterally in this instance. It is time the other major powers cooperated with it and showed the world multilateralism is not a mere rhetorical stick one brandishes occasionally to bash the world's sole remaining superpower. Iran cannot be trusted with the bomb, period. Its word that it will not use enriched uranioum for military purposes is worthless, period. If the international community fails to act in concert on this matter, it would have shown up multilateralism to be an empty concept.
Teheran will undoubtedly huff and puff, threatening retaliation, if it is referred to the UN. But what can it do? Withhold oil from global markets, thus raising "oil prices beyond levels the West expects", as its Economy Minister threatened? Yes, it can do that. But what are the clerics who rule Iran going to do with their oil? Re-bury it in the ground? Similarly, China has little, if anything, to fear in rebuking Iran. Its US$100 billion, 25-year natural gas deal with Iran will not be operational until the terminals to transpost the gas are ready - and that will not occur until 2010, at the earliest. Iran is not exactly a paper tiger, but it is not so ferocious a tiger either that the world need cower in fear at its slightest threat.
It will become more than ferocious , and the world will indeed cower, if it ever gets the bomb. Thus the urgency. It is possible, of course, Teheran may agree to a Russian offer to enrich uranium on its behalf, and this crisis will pass. But if its past behaviour is any guide, Iran will not behave unless the major powers unite in reading it the riot act, with no ifs and buts.
---------------------------------------------------------------

Couple this strategy with getting support from key movers in the Islamic nations like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Turkey, Pakistan etc and Iran will soon know how to spell pariah.

Looks like economic sanctions is going to hit Iran again - full force.

[Rich]

The whole problem with this scenerio is that once Iran can arm enough sophisticated IRBMs, in a strictly military sense, destroying most of Israels military capability is within reach. For geographical and security reasons Israel can only position two legs of it's nuclear triad at only a few bases, and 80% of its population and industry is located in Tel Aviv.

Its "probable" after an Iranian nuclear first strike the only retalitory card the Israelis have left is a submarine or two with cruise missiles,"this assuming Israels command and control survives". The mullahs just might decide whatever return strike the Israelis have left is worth it, as the bulk of their country and population will survive.

Were talking about people that made children walk barefoot thru minefields to clear paths for soldiers here.

And then of course with all these regional countries having all this capacity, and being so close to each other, and being so new to it, Its a scenerio where accidental war becomes even more possible. The only reason the US and the Soviets survived an accidental war is we had 20 mins to verify, even then we still came close to it more then once. I was on hand once when one of our missiles blew up in a silo and remember being told of a time, years later, when we had to park a security truck on a minuteman silo in case the thing launched by accident.

Its a real bad idea to allow a country like this to develop nuclear weapons. I sure hope the world can unify on this and find a peaceful solution.

[Berserk Fury]

MY guess is that Israel will at least start taking out targets with planes within Iran. At worst, Israel nukes every major facility in Iran.
Though Iran has a lot of AA missiles bought from the Russians which would make a big problem w/ bombing and then the terrorist will start lashing out increasing violence in this world.

[Rich]

I dont think this "terrorist lashing out" arguement holds water anymore. Ive been hearing the same thing for almost 30 years when all weve discovered is that stepping daintily around terrorism just strengthens and encourages them. Theres only one thing they understand and thats force.

Nobody understands that better then the Israelis who themselves survived a Liberal Govt. that made concession after concession to Arafat Terror inc. et al, only to have it all blow up in their face. The only peace the Israelis have ever had with terror has come with firm commitment back up by military force.

Im all for not "stirring up the hornets nest" regarding terrorism. Why "stir it up" when instead you can burn it down and kill every hornet?

[Berserk Fury]

Sure you can kill the nest... but there will always be a place for terrorists in the world so you can't kill all of them meaning that there still will be violence.
Plus, how can you tell terrorists apart from regular civilians if they aren't doing anything suspicious?
They could just slip in and out and you wouldn't know.

[Rich]

The Israelis have been living and flourishing with them on their doorsteps for decades. True their citizens have been often murdered by them but when you have no alternative to fighting theres no point doing anything but "fighting".

Besides since the alliance of the willing has been taking it to the terr's weve been knocking the snot out of them while suffering very few civilian casualties from the war at home. And make no mistake........9/11? The London bombings? The Madrid bombings? They were ,by far, caused more by our own stupidity then by any prowess on the parts of the terrorists.

Its all been going on for a long time anyways. I had friends killed by them when I was stationed in the MidEast, circa-1978.

Civilized people always prefer political sttlements to war. But there isnt going to be any political settlement with these refugees from the 12'th century, so there can only be "war". And we are beating them in the war. I bet we can make far more bullets and bombs then they can make terrorists,and, eventually, we will attack the sponsors of terror, taking their support right out from under them.

We can win this war, we will win this war, we ARE winning this war!

[Berserk Fury]

It's not a question of whether or not we are winning the war.
It's more of a how long is it gonna take?
Let's see...we decided to let the CIA take over hunting bin Laden.
If the US deployed SF to take care of him, we'd probably would have captured him. Instead, we sent CIA people carrying millions of dollars to broker a deal with those warlords and in the end, we didn't even catch him. At least we nailed the Taliban, but after that, we sidestepped in to Iraq, being too late to find any weapons due to the months it took with the UN ( if he had weapons at all) AND we fell right into bin Laden propaganda about how he predicted we'd invade an Islamic state.
Now years after our war began, terrorists bomb London.
Now we're trying to kill Iran (that's not that bad, I suppose) but look at how bad our economy is today?
In my opinion, we should focus more on seeking friendship with other leading powers, rather than acting on our own making half the world hate us. More countries cracking down on terror will make the war go faster and more easier.

[gf0012-aust]

Gents, can we gently steer this back specifically towards the thread title?

[csite]

Pakistan, to some degree, has a government where religion doesn't influence it as much. Iran on the other hand is a theocracy, run by religion. If religion dictates kill the Israelis then Iran will kill the Israelis... eventually...

btw, the concept of MAD is a bit out of date for the Middle East.
For example, if Iran gets nukes and develops MRBM's, what prevents them from "accidentally" losing one to the terrorists (e.g. Hezbollah)?
The terrorists would commit the atrocities while Iran just sits there.
Certainly countries harboring Iran would be blamed but not so as much to nuke them. If Iran then conforms to the US demands, it's most likely the US won't nuke anyone (depending on the causualties). If the Washington is nuked, then the terrorists and Iran would have even more time to hide and prepare for the onslaught that awaits them.

That is nonsense and propaganda, iran has bilogical and chemical weapons too, i don't see Hezbollah using any! Nuclear Iran is just as Reliable as nuclear Pakistan or israel.

[coolieno99]

That is nonsense and propaganda, iran has bilogical and chemical weapons too, i don't see Hezbollah using any! Nuclear Iran is just as Reliable as nuclear Pakistan or israel.

That's a good point. Syria has a large stockpile of weaponized Nerve Gas. And so far Syria has not given any of the gas to Hezbollah.

[KGB]

That's a good point. Syria has a large stockpile of weaponized Nerve Gas. And so far Syria has not given any of the gas to Hezbollah.

The leadership of Iran supports the Hezbollah but since it doesn't exert full control over it, it limits its support lest it get out of control. I mean, look what happened in Afghanistan, the US supplied the mujahedeen with lots of Stinger missiles, some of which are supposedly still unaccounted for. I'm sure some terrorists would love to get a MANPAD near an airport and take out some El Al jet.

The Iranians are betting that the west will blink in the end, since NK seems to have gotten away with making the bomb. But perhaps after letting NK go, the US might percieve that letting iran have the bomb too will open flood gates.

[stephen weist]

you mention M>A>D during the cold war period and that is like comparing apples and oranges. The only reason this worked between east/west is both sides comprised sane leaders. Middle eastern thinking regarding giving ones life for the cause will ensure M.A.D does not work there. Letting extremist regimes arm themselves with NUKES is is down right crazy.

[wittmanace]

the thread is about iran's response to attack, and i realise this, but in terms of iran using nukes via hizbullah.....its not the case it seems. consider the syrian case for example, as cited above..

as someone who has lived in southern africa a long time following the sa nuclear issue....should i perhaps point out that the sa nuke program was assisted by israel....i dont see this type of pressure on israel concerning its nukes and proven proliferation.

iran simply could not react with nuclear force even if she had nukes, as the result would be clear....iran, if invaded, would most likely attempt to hide the nuclear capability, or to move it to a friendly country if possible. iran's nuclear use would be as a threat, though actually using it would be an absolute guarantee of her destruction, and though her leaders may be extremist (if thats the current term) this does not preclude them from being intelligent enough tosee the obvious.
any reaction irn has to attack would consider the ramifications and would have to be an act in order to achieve self preservation, rather thn an act of suicide. using a nuke would be much greater than a massive suicide bombing...it would spell the end for iran, and that is obvious to her leadership, whatever one thinks of them.

the most likely course of reaction would be full hearted conventional defence along with heavy emphasis on asymmetrical retaliation against the foreign invader's citizens and forces anywhere in the world.........this is more likely to bring about the defeat of her opponent, following a cross betwen a vietnam and iraq style of war........remember that the key aim for iran, as any country, would be self preservation.....a suicidal nuclear srike would go against that in every way...

having said that, do remeber that israel loaded nukes onto her aircraft in 1973(if some dispute this claim, i will provide sources and more info.....i wish to be very clear that my remarks about israel are not anti israeli, they are objective and fact based, and not based on any judgement of israel.....last time i mentioned this israeli action i was called an anti semite absurdly enough) when it seemed that her army would be overrun, and she chose to prepare to use nukes in the event of defeat.....ie a vengeful rather than protective/defensive strike.....

wittman ace

[Rich]

Keep the politics out of the discussion. Please just discuss the military aspect of Iran's response to an attack.