Attack on Iran, Possible!! [Archive]

Feanor

July 9th, 2008, 06:54 PM

Aye, pretty much sabre rattling at the moment.

I would think if any sale of S300 actually turned up in Iran that would set the alarm bells ringing but that is currently not going to happen. Well I say not going to happen but the Russians are not to keen on the American defence shield in Czech and Poland. If they go ahead, then Russia may just give Iran it's own defence shield.

End of the day, attacking Iran while the states have the Afgan & Iraq problem still on going would be possibly a war to far.

Russian responses are symmetric, or have been so far. Construction of the missile shield will lead to the retargetting of missiles against said missiles shield. i doubt it would be used to justify a weapon deal with Iran, not to mention that the price tag on any meaningful number of S-300's is hefty.

Chrom

July 9th, 2008, 10:42 PM

Russian responses are symmetric, or have been so far. Construction of the missile shield will lead to the retargetting of missiles against said missiles shield. i doubt it would be used to justify a weapon deal with Iran, not to mention that the price tag on any meaningful number of S-300's is hefty. Russia may sell S-300 to Iran in response to whatever USA action, but it wouldnt change anything in Middle East military balance.

Israel still would do anything without USA backup, and against USA iranian S-300 will be useless.

stigmata

July 10th, 2008, 01:01 AM

I just got this email.
Resolution HR 362, sponsored by Rep. Gary Ackerman, a New York Democrat, calls for the president to enact more draconian economic sanctions against Iran.
..................To add insult to injury, HR 362 justifies its content with demonstrably false accusations about Iran’s nuclear program. The Resolution charges that Iran’s importing and manufacturing of centrifuges are “covert” and “illicit.” But under both the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, to which Iran is a signatory, and Iran’s agreements with the U.N.’s nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), these activities are entirely permitted. The IAEA has publicly stated its support of Iran’s uranium enrichment program, which it states is in full accord with all treaty requirements to which Iran is subject.
http://www.infowars.com/?p=3202
I've been a USA fan my entire life, but last two years i'm getting increasingly fed up with the warmongers there.
It begs the question, -is it a policy to start conflicts in order to sell more weapon, -is it plain busine$$ ?

riksavage

July 10th, 2008, 03:22 AM

The tipping point here is Israel's total unswerving commitment to stopping Iran manufacturing and developing a means of deploying a nuclear device, whether it be delivered by a long range missile or smuggled into or near Israeli territory. With or without the Americans, Israel will have to destroy that capability. Having spent time in Israel you realise just how small the country actually is when compared to Iran, the impact of a single warhead on Tel Aviv would seriously challenge the country's' future survival. Unlike Japan, which absorbed two strikes, the population is not disbursed amongst alternate sizable economic centre's. Iran on the other hand, due to its geographical size, could absorb a number of nuclear strikes without returning to the stone age. Remember they have had to become self sufficient in many areas and have a widely disbursed population. If some mad mullah believes it's worth the sacrifice of a million Iranians for wiping the heart of Judaism of the world map then who knows what may happen!

It's only a matter of time before we see a major strike against Iran's military infrastructure unless they cease developing nuclear weapons technology.

merocaine

July 10th, 2008, 08:06 AM

If some mad mullah believes it's worth the sacrifice of a million Iranians for wiping the heart of Judaism of the world map then who knows what may happen!

I'm interested to know who this mad Mullah is your alluding to?
If Iran ever got Nukes I'm sure they would very quickly become the most polite and courteous neighbors to the Isrealies, complete with hot lines, open channels ect.
Both countries would be at pains to avoid any misunderstanding that could lead to....eh lets not talk about that.

Iran's Nuclear program is to insure that they will never be under the threat of invasion again. It conversely makes any offensive action by them extremely risky if that said nation is a nuclear power of under the protection of a nuclear power.

SABRE

July 10th, 2008, 03:19 PM

If Iran ever got Nukes I'm sure they would very quickly become the most polite and courteous neighbors to the Isrealies, complete with hot lines, open channels ect.
Both countries would be at pains to avoid any misunderstanding that could lead to....eh lets not talk about that.

I would agree. People ought to read works of scholars/experts other than just Graham Allison, David Albright and Scott Sagan. I would say Kenneth Waltz is interesting to read how nuclear-politics and its logic works. & there is lots of interesting articles available on the possible attack on Iran and its outcome. Majority of them find that such attack would result in greater loss for US and Israel than Iran.

What I believe in is that Nuclear Iran will probably be lesser threat than non-nulcear Iran.

Without the weapon itself the only deterrent option Iran has realized is to have quantitative presence of Ballistic Missiles. This is having an adverse impact; i.e. triggering arms race in the region (not just Israel but Saudi Arabia and other smaller Gulf State). It is also intensifying the chances of an armed conflict.

This armed conflict will be more threatening than Iran going nuclear. Lets say US & Israel do decide attack Iran, than what happens:

1. Gulf is dominated by Arabs, however the majority population is Shiia in the Persian Gulf. Moreover, these Shiia dominate the Oil Rich regions of the gulf. Here Iran has an advantage of exploiting the shiias which will impact the flow of oil.

2. Iran exploits Iraqi shiias.

3. Iran blocs the straight of Hormuz and cuts off the oil supply.

4. Israeli aerial attack: Israel does not share border with Iran. It will have to fly over KSA or over Jordon-Iraq to Iran. This will trigger fear in Arab states than just Iran. If Arabs don't react their regime is in danger, if they do than Israel is back to war with Arabs.

5. In case of US-Israel attack Iran "will" use the Syria and Hezbollah card against the Israel (& US).

These outcomes are greater threat to US, Israel and the region than the nuclear Iran. The regional states would prefer to have status-quo than lose their regimes, hence they would not support Americans.

Iran's Nuclear program is to insure that they will never be under the threat of invasion again. It conversely makes any offensive action by them extremely risky if that said nation is a nuclear power of under the protection of a nuclear power.

In other words Iran would have a nuclear deterrent. Which also means lesser threat to Israel (since Israel has the weapon). We have to realize how states, which were looking to destroy each other in the past, ended up consolidating and excepting each others' presence as a reality and rationality once they went nuclear.

Did USSR & USA attacked each other with nukes? No
Did China & USA attack each other with nukes? No
Did China & India do so? No
Did Pakistan & India do so? No

US & USSR had cuban missile crisis while Pakistan and India has Kargil conflict and 2002 standoff under nuclear umbrella. They did appear threatening but deep study shows they turned out to be healthy realization for MAD and deterrence for these states. So they were not totaly negative , in fact these conflicts/crisis helped evert full scale wars.

Having said the above, I don't think Iran should go nuclear. Nuclear Iran would spur proliferation in the region. Nuclear Iran will force Israel to go overt. KSA and Egypt will attempt tp acquire nukes while Syria most probably will develop more of chemical and biological weapons.

To be or not to be? What ever the answer it going to be a huge mess!!!

Feanor

July 10th, 2008, 07:17 PM

3. Iran blocs the straight of Hormuz and cuts off the oil supply.

How? :)

eaf-f16

July 10th, 2008, 08:30 PM

How? :)

The Millennium Challenge '02 war games that were staged in the Persian Gulf a few months prior to the Iraqi Invasion might give you a pretty good idea on how Iran might do it.

The commander of the "Red Force", Gen. Paul van Riper quite in the middle out of frustration of the "scripted" nature of the games which he said were just made to show-off the USN's new hi-tech hardware and doctrine.

The "Blue Force" was simulating a US invasion of a Persian Gulf country, presumably Iraq.

Unlike the overwhelming majority of US military exercises and war games, the "Red Force" was given plenty of leeway in how to conduct its operations and beat the Blue Force.

The "Red Force" chose to use low-tech asymmetric warfare tactics similar in fashion to what the IRGC may use.

Using nothing more than small speedboats, civilian aircraft and relatively low-end ground based anti-ship missiles the Red Force managed to sink 16 ships from the US fleet

IIRC, they used the civilian boats and aircraft to buzz and detect the US warships with out being fired upon and then they unleashed a massive torrent of anti-ship missiles blowing about two-thirds of the US fleet out of the water.

If you thought the US Navy took the lessons learned from these war games seriously, there's a big chance that you're wrong because the commander of the "Blue Force" just called for a "time-out" and ordered the sunk ships "re-floated".

This is when the Gen. Paul van Riper quite the games, saying that it was made to ensure the USN ended up winning.

When he came out to talk to the press about it, the US' military establishment tried its best to shut him up.

The Iranians have probably developed more sophisticated tactics than the ones used by the Red Force in the games and probably have better anti-ship missiles.

Moreover, the Iranians have a complete disregard for human-life whether their own or their enemies' and are willing to use suicide tactics.

Take all of this into account and I would say the Iranians pose a pretty significant threat.

Also, Iran doesn't need to hit every ship passing through Hormuz to disrupt shipping and oil supply.

If they manage to hit just a few tankers rest assure no ones going to go through there.

And with the threats coming out of Iran and the fear people have of what they may do, as soon as a strike on Iran is reported oil prices will hit $200 easy.

kato

July 10th, 2008, 08:47 PM

Only three of the ships were sunk by AShM, the other 13 by suicide attacks. The AShM were fired at relatively close range.

Unlike Millenium Challenge, a pre-emptive Iranian attack on CTF158 (and MC02 was pre-emptive!) would lead to about 250 fighter jets starting bombing missions over Tehran immediately.

eaf-f16

July 10th, 2008, 09:09 PM

Only three of the ships were sunk by AShM, the other 13 by suicide attacks. The AShM were fired at relatively close range.

I didn't find that when I was looking it up, but thanks for the correction.

Unlike Millenium Challenge, a pre-emptive Iranian attack on CTF158 (and MC02 was pre-emptive!) would lead to about 250 fighter jets starting bombing missions over Tehran immediately.

The Iranians wouldn't do a preemptive attack.

The Iranian leadership has been going out of its way saying that any military action on its part would be in response to an attack by the US or Israel.

Like I said, the tactics that would be used by the IRGC won't be the same as the ones used by the Red Force in MC02. But would be of a similar fashion.

And if the US is the one who is attacking, there would already be 250 fighter-jets over Iran on bombing missions.

ROCK45

July 10th, 2008, 09:29 PM

Are there military targets in Iran close to Iraq's border? Would US Army MRLS batteries take part in any opening attack?

brian00

July 10th, 2008, 09:32 PM

i think there is a small chance that this will happen,

Isreal attacked the syrian and iraqi reactors in the past, but an attack now would have a really bad affect on the US ecomony,

Anybody know a rough time frame for Iran getting the bomb? korea managed it quite quickly, is there some kind of deadline looming?

eaf-f16

July 10th, 2008, 10:33 PM

Are there military targets in Iran close to Iraq's border? Would US Army MRLS batteries take part in any opening attack?

Staging attacks on Iran from Iraq is pretty good way to motivate Shi'a militias (who's supreme religious leader is also the supreme leader of Iran) to try and reverse all security gains the US made ever since the "surge" and in the case of an attack Iran would be more than willing to aid them in reversing these gains.

Not to mention severely harm Maliki's public image and remove all doubt from Iraqis minds that they are not a sovereign nation (which is an image Iraq and the US have been trying to build up over time). Which again would fuel violence that would help in reversing what ever gains the coalition have made so far in Iraq.

riksavage

July 11th, 2008, 04:30 AM

Continued rhetoric from both sides this week, Ehud Barak suggested his country was ready to launch a pre-emptive strike if necessary:

"Israel is the strongest country in the region and has proved in the past that it does not hesitate to act when its vital security interests are at stake."

Recent strikes against Syria back such claims-up.

Recent (real or faked?) firings of Iranian missiles also adds fuel to the fire. Tehran has said this week that Tel Aviv would be "set on fire" if Israel were to attack.

The UAE states, Qatar and Kuwait are particularly concerned because of the potential catastrophic fallout from a major strike, they are geographically closer to Iran's nuclear facilities than Tehran.

As I said before there is no way the Government / military leadership of Israel will tolerate Iran becoming a nuclear capable country, if they are prepared to strike Syrian suspected nuclear sights, then I'm sure they have no qualms about attacking Iran. A much harder target, but still doable with or without overt US military support.

Feanor

July 11th, 2008, 06:35 AM

The Millennium Challenge '02 war games that were staged in the Persian Gulf a few months prior to the Iraqi Invasion might give you a pretty good idea on how Iran might do it.

The commander of the "Red Force", Gen. Paul van Riper quite in the middle out of frustration of the "scripted" nature of the games which he said were just made to show-off the USN's new hi-tech hardware and doctrine.

The "Blue Force" was simulating a US invasion of a Persian Gulf country, presumably Iraq.

Unlike the overwhelming majority of US military exercises and war games, the "Red Force" was given plenty of leeway in how to conduct its operations and beat the Blue Force.

The "Red Force" chose to use low-tech asymmetric warfare tactics similar in fashion to what the IRGC may use.

Using nothing more than small speedboats, civilian aircraft and relatively low-end ground based anti-ship missiles the Red Force managed to sink 16 ships from the US fleet

IIRC, they used the civilian boats and aircraft to buzz and detect the US warships with out being fired upon and then they unleashed a massive torrent of anti-ship missiles blowing about two-thirds of the US fleet out of the water.

If you thought the US Navy took the lessons learned from these war games seriously, there's a big chance that you're wrong because the commander of the "Blue Force" just called for a "time-out" and ordered the sunk ships "re-floated".

This is when the Gen. Paul van Riper quite the games, saying that it was made to ensure the USN ended up winning.

When he came out to talk to the press about it, the US' military establishment tried its best to shut him up.

The Iranians have probably developed more sophisticated tactics than the ones used by the Red Force in the games and probably have better anti-ship missiles.

Moreover, the Iranians have a complete disregard for human-life whether their own or their enemies' and are willing to use suicide tactics.

Take all of this into account and I would say the Iranians pose a pretty significant threat.

Also, Iran doesn't need to hit every ship passing through Hormuz to disrupt shipping and oil supply.

If they manage to hit just a few tankers rest assure no ones going to go through there.

And with the threats coming out of Iran and the fear people have of what they may do, as soon as a strike on Iran is reported oil prices will hit $200 easy.

That's nice, but that doesn't let them block the Persian Gulf. It just lets them do massive damage to the USN. Also, to consider, the Red Team had the C3 assets, training, and situational understanding that Iran is far from having.

riksavage

July 11th, 2008, 07:01 AM

The Iranians are starting to remind me of Saddam at the peak of his sabre rattling days, I'm still waiting for the 'mother of all battles' comments to spew forth from the Revolutionary Guard Command.

The Iranian military infrastructure is extremely fragile when benchmarked against Israel or the US and I seriously doubt it's even comparable to Iraq's prior to GW1. Remember the Iranians couldn't do in eight years what the US and its Allies did in six-weeks!

I accept they can send wave after wave of suicide speedboats and fire salvos of Silkworms against tankers / naval assets, but this will not cause their adversaries to cease and run for cover, it will simply result in a disproportionate amount of destruction to Iranian military and economic targets in response. A conflict at this time would be very, very messy, but I would bet my life savings on who would win.

newt

July 11th, 2008, 08:18 AM

A single nuclear strike, even a relatively small one, against a single target in Iran, in or near a major city, Teheran or not, would comprehensively munt the ability of the Iranian regime to respond in any military fashion at all, as indeed would such a strike against virtually any nation.

Lots of asymetrically superior dumb weapons are not of much use if there is no cohesive communication left, or any ability to observe the theatre.

Besides which, the mirror backup of the entire world banking system is buried under Tel Aviv, and there is absolutely no way that anyone, the Chinese and the Russians included, is going to allow Iran or anyone else to take the place out, by any means.

It's all brinksmanship, but Iran is not yet ready for nuclear war, and Israel is, and if Israel feels sufficiently threatened, it will use nukes. America won't.

eaf-f16

July 11th, 2008, 08:37 AM

That's nice, but that doesn't let them block the Persian Gulf. It just lets them do massive damage to the USN. Also, to consider, the Red Team had the C3 assets, training, and situational understanding that Iran is far from having.

No.

If they start inflicting massive damage on the USN like you said they would be able to block the Persian Gulf. And Iran probably has better C3 assets, training and situational understanding seeing as how they spent whole lot more money and time than USMC trying to develop asymmetric tactics specifically made to exploit the weaknesses of the US.

The commander of the IRGC, Mohammad Ali Jaafari, is constantly being painted as this genius of asymetric warfare.

Like I said they don't need to hit every ship coming through Hormuz to disrupt shipping and make oil prices hit the roof (and slow down already slow Western economies).

The Iranians are starting to remind me of Saddam at the peak of his sabre rattling days,

And this is probably makes you incapable of making a coherent assessment of Iran's capabilities. You are under the impression that they are a carbon-copy of Saddam's Iraq.

I'm still waiting for the 'mother of all battles' comments to spew forth from the Revolutionary Guard Command.

Wait in vain. The Iranians don't even believe that the US is going to attack them.Their President told the world a few days ago that their will be no war against Iran.

Their pretty confident in their capability of inflicting pain on the US elsewhere.

Remember the Iranians couldn't do in eight years what the US and its Allies did in six-weeks

I have to laugh at this statement right here.

The very fact that won against an adversary that had no qualms about using WMD's, had massive military and political support from Western countries and had armed forces technologically superior to them while they were under heavy sanctions and political isolation should be a testament to Iran's ability to win wars while at a heavy disadvantage if anything.

I accept they can send wave after wave of suicide speedboats and fire salvos of Silkworms against tankers / naval assets, but this will not cause their adversaries to cease and run for cover, it will simply result in a disproportionate amount of destruction to Iranian military and economic targets in response. A conflict at this time would be very, very messy, but I would bet my life savings on who would win.

You seem to be forgetting that the US still has to take things like world opinion and political support from other nations in to consideration when waging a war against Iran. Especially after the Iraq war.

A military strike against Iran is highly disfavored by Western European nations. Eastern nations (not counting the GCC) think it shouldn't even be considered at all.

And this is not because they love Iran and hate the US, it's because the world is aware of Iran's capability of of reversing whatever security gains were made in Iraq (which is a very unpopular war to begin with) and the coming US administration may not be willing to stay in Iraq and stabilize it after a war with Iran.

Excluding the US and Israel, most countries in this world want to see a stable Middle East even if it means that some ME countries remain hostile towards the US.

If the US strikes governmental and economic targets this will not only be the US (unnecessarily) destabilizing Iran, but also Iraq and the region as a whole.

Moreover, Iran has just set a timetable for nuclear negotiations with EU. Striking Iran while negotiations are underway will make it look like a repeat of the Iraq war except without the invasion and probably result in political damage for the US.

riksavage

July 12th, 2008, 11:07 AM

Please, oh please qualify your comments reference Iran’s ‘C3' capabilities with facts not subjective opinion? Please also provide evidence of their ability at both the strategic and tactical level to inflict debilitating material losses on both manpower and hardware of either the US and Israel outside low-level terrorist activity.

Their war against Iraq was an unmitigated disaster; casualties sustained over the eight year WWI style conflict demonstrated a poor grasp of all arms warfare and a total disregard for human life. Unfortunately modern weapons will inflict unprecedented losses if they chose to throw their goose-stepping revolutionary guards against a modern well-equipped adversary in the same way as they did against Iraq. Other than adopting a Hamas style asymmetrical warfare approach they will end up being totally humiliated in the eyes of the Arab world.

You are living in a fantasy land mate!

Chrom

July 12th, 2008, 11:48 AM

Their war against Iraq was an unmitigated disaster; casualties sustained over the eight year WWI style conflict demonstrated a poor grasp of all arms warfare and a total disregard for human life.
High causalities, obviously, have nothing to do with "total disregard for human life." Just common western myth. High causalities always happened in heavy, not-one sided war.

As for "poor understanding"... Somewhat true, just remember - both Iran and Iraq are relative small, poor countries. They fight with the tools and means they have at they disposal.

Unfortunately modern weapons will inflict unprecedented losses if they chose to throw their goose-stepping revolutionary guards against a modern well-equipped adversary in the same way as they did against Iraq. Other than adopting a Hamas style asymmetrical warfare approach they will end up being totally humiliated in the eyes of the Arab world.

You are living in a fantasy land mate!

Again, high causalities have nothing to do with modern weapon. WW1 style weapon inflicted even more causalities - especially unwanted collateral.

And of course, Iran wouldnt be able to stand up against USA in direct fight. No, this will not hurt they image in the eyes of Arab world, may be rather contrary - as everyone understand the odds.

Iran losing against Israel alone, however, might hurt Iran image.

eaf-f16

July 12th, 2008, 12:01 PM

Please, oh please qualify your comments reference Iran’s ‘C3' capabilities with facts not subjective opinion?

Iran spent a whole lot more than just $250 million (the amount US military spent to stage the whole of MC02) on their military every year. Clearly they would be better prepared for a US attack than the Red Force.

The Red Force had to resort to motorbikes to send messages back forth because the US Navy took out their C3 capabilities.

Hezbollah had an Iranian-setup communications network that survived Israeli jamming and bombing.

Please also provide evidence of their ability at both the strategic and tactical level to inflict debilitating material losses on both manpower and hardware of either the US and Israel outside low-level terrorist activity.

Their war against Iraq was an unmitigated disaster; casualties sustained over the eight year WWI style conflict demonstrated a poor grasp of all arms warfare and a total disregard for human life. Unfortunately modern weapons will inflict unprecedented losses if they chose to throw their goose-stepping revolutionary guards against a modern well-equipped adversary in the same way as they did against Iraq. Other than adopting a Hamas style asymmetrical warfare approach they will end up being totally humiliated in the eyes of the Arab world.

You are living in a fantasy land mate!

There are more factors to this than just the US' capability to bomb Iran (and they can bomb Iran) which I pointed out in my post.

Also I like how you didn't respond to my post and just gave a half-assed response loaded with BS.

ROCK45

July 12th, 2008, 01:53 PM

Hi eaf-16

eaf-f16
Hezbollah had an Iranian-setup communications network that survived Israeli jamming and bombing.

I think you’re giving the Hezbollah more credit than they deserve if they weren’t hiding in and around innocent citizens the Israeli’s would bomb them into the Stone Age. The Hezbollah wouldn’t have been able to hold out as long as they did if innocent people weren’t around. Only a small percent of Israel’s military might was even brought to bear in that type of situation. Israel and/or the US going after reactors and other facilities, military commutation hubs, radar’s, wouldn’t have these restrictions in a sense. I have no doubt that Iran would get weapons out bound and some would hit because of the sheer numbers at first. It would also be a different situation overall with US weapons being shot inbound then I say against Iraq for example. I’m sure you could read between the lines a little and see it would be a little more intense or at least I can. Iran’s nuclear facilities aren’t rumored there very much real and so is the terrorist support coming from Iran so its different right from the get goes. After Iran’s command and controlled is craved up a little and becomes less effective and goes downhill quickly. After a few hours their capabilities to strike back goes down big time not completely don’t get me wrong not every weapon can be destroyed. Iran has no air force to speak of nor a modern SAM system so once weapons or other assets are spotted they become targets, its 2008 targets can be destroyed. Remember the US and/or Israel doesn’t have to take over the country it only has to destroy the nuclear facilities and take out Iran’s big guns sort to speak.
I can only assume the situation after such an attack or short shooting war would be very bad and could go in many directions. And I agree with you there are more factors to this than just the US' capability to bomb Iran.

No one wants Iran's extremist to even have a change on getting their hands on such weapons period. My personnel take on this is I wish nobody sold them the reactor in the first place but I guess that's another debate in itself.

eckherl

July 12th, 2008, 02:05 PM

Can the U.S or Israel rest assured that they can take out all of Irans medium and long range tactical missiles during the initial phase of the attack, more than likely no, this alone with the possibility of Iran having the capability to counter attack with these missiles against targets inside of Israel and Iraq causing massive casualties would make this type of operation way to risky, it is not going to happen. The U.S, along time ago came to grips with Iran having nuke capability, this was pointed out when we decided to place a defense shield inside of Europe.

ROCK45

July 12th, 2008, 02:32 PM

eckherl

July 12th, 2008, 10:19 PM

Hi eckherl
I would have thought the US would have been able to target more of their medium and long range tactical missiles during the initial phase of the attack. I hope more interesting things are being worked on behind the scenes. Couldn't bad weapons be attached to a tactical missiles? So you don't feel Israel going to try and take out the reactors either? PM

Sure we can more than likely target and destroy the majority of them, but I do not think that we can get all of them, these are not the Scuds that Iraq used during the GW 2, they are hell of alot more bigger in the bang department, match this up with the tightly packed cities in Israel and Iraq and let your imagination run wild. The U.S at this time has the priority of getting Iraq on its feet again, we will not jeapordize this. In the end this will be more of a issue that the Europeans along with Russia will have to deal with, it will more than likely start a major WMD program in Egypt and Saudi Arabia. All that is going on at the moment is typical show boating, the Iranians are not stupid, they pretty much have given the United Nations a big one finger salute knowing that they do not have the guts to do anything about this.

Israel will not attempt this without us giving them support, we more than likely have already told them that we are not going to help them.

stigmata

July 12th, 2008, 10:52 PM

Feanor

July 12th, 2008, 11:12 PM

No.

If they start inflicting massive damage on the USN like you said they would be able to block the Persian Gulf. And Iran probably has better C3 assets, training and situational understanding seeing as how they spent whole lot more money and time than USMC trying to develop asymmetric tactics specifically made to exploit the weaknesses of the US.

The commander of the IRGC, Mohammad Ali Jaafari, is constantly being painted as this genius of asymetric warfare.

Like I said they don't need to hit every ship coming through Hormuz to disrupt shipping and make oil prices hit the roof (and slow down already slow Western economies).

Again this assumes they have the capabilities. You have yet to demonstrate that. Suicide speedboats are about the equivalent of piloted anti-ship missiles, except slower and larger. Small coastal patrol vessels will be sitting ducks for USAF strikes.

And this is not because they love Iran and hate the US, it's because the world is aware of Iran's capability of of reversing whatever security gains were made in Iraq (which is a very unpopular war to begin with) and the coming US administration may not be willing to stay in Iraq and stabilize it after a war with Iran.

No my friend, with the east it means exactly that. They don't like U.S. influence and see Iran as a good proxy to use for regional counter-balance.

If the US strikes governmental and economic targets this will not only be the US (unnecessarily) destabilizing Iran, but also Iraq and the region as a whole.

Moreover, Iran has just set a timetable for nuclear negotiations with EU. Striking Iran while negotiations are underway will make it look like a repeat of the Iraq war except without the invasion and probably result in political damage for the US.

This needs further substantiation. The U.S. won't strike governmental and economic targets, it will strike military targets and nuclear facilities. I cut out large sections of your post because they contained little relevant parts.

eaf-f16

July 13th, 2008, 03:19 PM

Again this assumes they have the capabilities. You have yet to demonstrate that. Suicide speedboats are about the equivalent of piloted anti-ship missiles, except slower and larger. Small coastal patrol vessels will be sitting ducks for USAF strikes.

Why is it right to assume that they don't have the capability?

Please, elaborate. I seriously want to know why you think so.

Also, didn't they come within 200 meters of USN ships with speedboats before?

No my friend, with the east it means exactly that. They don't like U.S. influence and see Iran as a good proxy to use for regional counter-balance.

Every economic, energy, military or political deal/agreement you see being made between Russia and Iran is made because Russia wants to buy influence with Iran (even if temporary) because it allows it to play a major/larger role in resolving the nuclear issue. Not because it views Iran as regional counter-balance to US influence.

Russia may use this "larger role" to pressure the West into making some concessions to it in other issues more important to Russia.

I can't comment on China's relations with Iran. But I suspect the China has relatively close relations with Iran for other reasons more important to it than just as "a regional counter-balance" to US influence. Energy may be one of them.

This needs further substantiation. The U.S. won't strike governmental and economic targets, it will strike military targets and nuclear facilities.

:confused:

"riksavage" is the one who said that the US would strike economic targets. I was merely explaining to him why the US wouldn't (or rather shouldn't) strike economic targets.

I cut out large sections of your post because they contained little relevant parts.

You cut out large portions of my post because the majority of it was in response to riksavage's posts not to yours.

My post was relevant to the issue.

Chrom

July 13th, 2008, 03:59 PM

I will have to ask this: Why is Iran hostile to Israel ? I've heard rumors they dont want that state to exist to begin with, but only rumors.
Or is it a reaction to ISrael ? what is the truth here ?
some background please

For historical reasons all Middle East states are hostile to Israel. Past and current Israel (and USA) politic dont help to settle anger either.

On grand scale, Iran hostility to Israel is about as usual thing in international relations as it gets. It is perfectly normal. All countries in the world feeling hostility to one country or another.

Currently, there is no reason to believe Iran is ruled by maniacs obsessed with destroying Israel not matter what and at any cost.

ROCK45

July 13th, 2008, 06:35 PM

Chrom
On grand scale, Iran hostility to Israel is about as usual thing in international relations as it gets. It is perfectly normal. All countries in the world feeling hostility to one country or another.

Currently, there is no reason to believe Iran is ruled by maniacs obsessed with destroying Israel not matter what and at any cost.

Are you kidding!

Chrom I don't agree with you Iran's has threaten Israel repeatedly. I just did a simple Google search and came up with a few. It's pretty safe to say they hate Israel and one day were all hear some Iranian President say "Iran had nothing to do with the attack nor does it approve of such things", right.

Iranian President Says Israel Will Disappear, Threatens Its Allies
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,222660,00.html

Iran issues 'ultimatum' to Israel's allies
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15343184/

Iran Leader: Israel Will Be Annihilated
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8GVSUC0H&show_article=1

stigmata - Google this topic there's tons of stuff on this.

Chrom

July 13th, 2008, 06:40 PM

Are you kidding!

Chrom I don't agree with you Iran's has threaten Israel repeatedly. I just did a simple Google search and came up with a few. It's pretty safe to say they hate Israel and one day were all hear some Iranian President say "Iran had nothing to do with the attack nor does it approve of such things", right.

this.
Search google for Bush phrases. You'll find like 100 more of them with threating various countries, including threating them with nuclear weapon. And i dont even mention various american politicians, who repeatedly whisper all kind of nonsense threats to all kind of countries.

As i said, Iran behave perfectly normal. It shows nothing exceptional.

The difference however, what Bush CAN fulfill his mad threats, and Iran cant. Guess who is bigger threat in the eyes of majority peoples on the Earth?

ROCK45

July 13th, 2008, 07:18 PM

Well Chrom stigmata didn't ask about the US or Bush threats, he asked about Iran threatening Israel. And you answered by saying On grand scale, Iran hostility to Israel is about as usual thing in international relations as it gets. It is perfectly normal. All countries in the world feeling hostility to one country or another.

Pointing him to the Google searches I posted might help him find an answer to his question. The guess who's a bigger threat to majority peoples on the Earth comment well what can I say the cold war is over.

Chrom

July 13th, 2008, 08:38 PM

Well Chrom stigmata didn't ask about the US or Bush threats, he asked about Iran threatening Israel. And you answered by saying

Pointing him to the Google searches I posted might help him find an answer to his question. The guess who's a bigger threat to majority peoples on the Earth comment well what can I say the cold war is over.

Again, i can quote very similar Israel speeches toward Iran, Syria, etc. As i said, that means Iran is just another country like any other - not terroristic more than any other country, not warlike more than any other country. Yes, it is hostile to Israel. So what? Not a big deal...

This might be important for Israel or US, but for neutral observer Iranian behavior is nothing to take attention.

What i try to imply - Iran is certainly a threat to Israel, just like Israel is a threat to Iran. But this kind of threat is perfectly in order in current international relations, Iranian government have all rights to behave so, and we shouldnt blame Iran (and its supporters) for that and picture them as something more "evil" than anyone else.

As for "most peoples on the Earth".. funny, but there were actually a statistical research (public opinion poll) recently on that matter . As i said, USA come on top... Even in West European countries most peoples places US as top threat to peace on the planet.

eaf-f16

July 13th, 2008, 09:57 PM

stigmata

July 14th, 2008, 12:40 AM

Thank you all.
I've been reading, and i get the impression that it is about holy Jerusalem.
Muslems feel insulted that 1000 years after Saladin re-took it, -it is once more in cristian hands.
For me as a non-believer in anything, it is messed up beyound recognition that cristians and muslems still going on with this.
One thing become clear tho: Iran would never ever nuke Jerusalem.
Am i right in my assumption ?

Chrom

July 14th, 2008, 01:27 AM

Thank you all.

One thing become clear tho: Iran would never ever nuke Jerusalem.
Am i right in my assumption ?
Probably yes, but this doesnt matter either. Israel is not Jerusalem alone, it is a bit larger. So there are plenty of targets to nuke for Iran in Israel...

ghanz

July 14th, 2008, 01:29 AM

You are right with this assumption, Iran doesn't want to nuke Jerusalem nor it is against Jews. Iran hates Israel polices and their treatment towards Palestine. Iran has a minority population of Jews and if it was against them,,they would be dead by now. In my view every country has the right to protect itself. If Israel can show their readiness by conducting large scale excersise,then Iran too has the right to fire missiles. This is the time for European union to step in, and take charge, cause clearly the American only care about Israel.

my opinion!

ambushb

July 14th, 2008, 01:55 AM

The Bush administration is said to have informed Jerusalem that it would back an Israeli plan to hit Iran's nuclear sites with long-range aerial weapons, if diplomatic talks over Tehran's nuclear programme broke down

London: President Bush has given Israel the go-ahead to begin preparations for an attack on Iran, in case talks over the country's nuclear programme fails to yield results, a media report said.

The Bush administration is said to have informed Jerusalem that it would back an Israeli plan to hit Iran's nuclear sites with long-range aerial weapons, if diplomatic talks over Tehran's nuclear programme broke down, the ‘Sunday Times’ said quoting a Pentagon official.

The American President has given Israel the "amber light" to start preparing for an offensive, the official told the ‘Sunday Times.’

"Amber means get on with your preparations, stand by for immediate attack and tell us when you're ready," the official as quoted as saying to The Times.

The US President's support comes despite his military officials' opposition to an attack on Iran, given the risks of an aerial strike.

However, the US would not deploy its forces for such a strike nor would Israel be able to depend on its military bases in Iraq for logistical support, the official said.

Washington would also not give a "green light" to the attack without unquestionable proof that the Islamic Republic is involved in military preparations of its own, the report said.

Iran last week test launched a series of medium-range ballistic missiles it claimed were capable of striking Israel.

The tests prompted a threatening message from Israel defence minister Ehud Barak, who said that the Jewish state will not hesitate from taking military action against Tehran.

Source: IANS http://news.in.msn.com/international/article.aspx?cp-documentid=1557557

It is interesting to note a few seemingly quirky points in the article above. Some questions to which answers ar sought are:-
1. Why is it that the US, which is perfectly capable of launching these attacks on its own, if they ever were to be launched rather asks Israel to undertake the same?
2. What is the realpolitik behind the denial of the use of US bases for logistics?
3. What can be the ramifications in the real sense of such a military adventure by Israel? (Apart from the seemingly gloomy picture of launching of Nuclear tipped missiles as a response by Iran)
4. The msl capability of Iran, if to be used as a response to any attack, would naturally be a potential initial target in the preparatory or initial bombing. Is there any perceived mobile based launch capability of the same, or any initial countermeasure that is perceived?

Well, being new to this forum, It would be interesting to read from keen followers of international affairs.

Feanor

July 14th, 2008, 02:14 AM

Why is it right to assume that they don't have the capability?

Please, elaborate. I seriously want to know why you think so.

Also, didn't they come within 200 meters of USN ships with speedboats before?

Can you demonstrate that they do? If not, then we're wasting time. I don't see anything Iran can use to take control of the straight of Hormuz. No way of stopping oil convoys, no way of dealing with the KSAF, or the USN/USAF assets in the region. All their ships will be left as sitting ducks. Even the speedboats that you love to talk about. No way of stopping a protracted air war. No way of retaliating against Saudi or USA in a meaningful fashion (beyond intensifying insurgencies).

Every economic, energy, military or political deal/agreement you see being made between Russia and Iran is made because Russia wants to buy influence with Iran (even if temporary) because it allows it to play a major/larger role in resolving the nuclear issue. Not because it views Iran as regional counter-balance to US influence.

Russia may use this "larger role" to pressure the West into making some concessions to it in other issues more important to Russia.

Russia joined on the sanctions against Iran. Seriously. I'm tired of everyone trying to find an Iran-Russia alliance that simply doesn't exist. Russia used Iran as a regional proxy to counter US influence, and that's it. It also sold Iran weapons. Tiny amounts of them. For hard cash. That's not politics, that just business.

I can't comment on China's relations with Iran. But I suspect the China has relatively close relations with Iran for other reasons more important to it than just as "a regional counter-balance" to US influence. Energy may be one of them.

If you can't comment then lets leave that part out of the discussion, shall we? :)

eaf-f16

July 14th, 2008, 10:31 AM

Can you demonstrate that they do? If not, then we're wasting time.

This is a thread discussing what Iran may do in retaliation to an attack on it's nuclear facilities.

If you feel that it's a waste of your time don't involve yourself in the discussion. Pretty simple.

Part of what they may do is close the Strait of Hormuz. They threatened to do it if attacked and even before they threatened to do it there were alot defense analysts who said that they have the capability to close it. The IRGC's threat just confirmed their fears.

I don't see anything Iran can use to take control of the straight of Hormuz. No way of stopping oil convoys, no way of dealing with the KSAF, or the USN/USAF assets in the region. All their ships will be left as sitting ducks. Even the speedboats that you love to talk about. No way of stopping a protracted air war.

Who said Saudi Arabia would be involved at all? And what's "KSAF"?

Did you mean the RSAF (Royal Saudi Air Force)? They don't have anti-shipping capability.

And USAF doesn't have anti-shipping capability either. Just the USN and USMC.

And I think for ships going through Strait of Hormuz that the biggest threat is from Iranian mines and anti-ship missiles.

No way of retaliating against Saudi or USA in a meaningful fashion (beyond intensifying insurgencies).

And this isn't significant to you? Please go read about what Iran does in Iraq and their involvement there.

Russia joined on the sanctions against Iran. Seriously. I'm tired of everyone trying to find an Iran-Russia alliance that simply doesn't exist. Russia used Iran as a regional proxy to counter US influence, and that's it. It also sold Iran weapons. Tiny amounts of them. For hard cash. That's not politics, that just business.

You're the one who said the East is allying with Iran because it "hates" the US after I said it isn't! Why are you going around in circles?

If you can't comment then lets leave that part out of the discussion, shall we? :)

Shall we not seeing as how the vast majority of Iran's anti-ship missiles are from China?:rolleyes:

Also, seeing as how China expects trade exchanges between them to hit $30 billion this year, I'd say that it would be wise to talk about their relations. Wouldn't you?

I said that I couldn't comment in hopes that some one with more knowledge about the issue would contribute to the discussion. Clearly, you are not that person.

ROCK45

July 14th, 2008, 12:21 PM

eaf-f16
And USAF doesn't have anti-shipping capability either. Just the USN and USMC.

That's not correct the USAF does have some anti-ship capabilities their B-52 can deploy anti-ship mines. Also starting in 1989, an on-going modification incorporates the global positioning system, heavy stores adaptor beams for carrying 2,000 pound munitions and additional smart weapons capability. All aircraft are being modified to carry the AGM-142 Raptor missile and AGM-84 Harpoon anti-ship missile.

Also some F-16 are AGM-119 Penguin capable as well or can be made to.

Link
http://www.fighter-planes.com/info/b52.htm

eaf-f16

July 14th, 2008, 02:00 PM

That's not correct the USAF does have some anti-ship capabilities their B-52 can deploy anti-ship mines. Also starting in 1989, an on-going modification incorporates the global positioning system, heavy stores adaptor beams for carrying 2,000 pound munitions and additional smart weapons capability. All aircraft are being modified to carry the AGM-142 Raptor missile and AGM-84 Harpoon anti-ship missile.

Also some F-16 are AGM-119 Penguin capable as well or can be made to.

Link
http://www.fighter-planes.com/info/b52.htm

Thanks for the info, ROCK45.

Do the teen-series fighters in USAF have anti-ship capability? Or are they being upgraded to have it?

Edit: The smiley at the top of the post is unintended. I'm typing and clicking with one hand (I have a cut on the other) so forgive any typos on my part.

stigmata

July 14th, 2008, 02:43 PM

SABRE

July 14th, 2008, 04:14 PM

Ahmedinjad isn't top dog (doesn't decide foreign policy) in Iran so don't point to him when you want to say Iran is run by loons (and it isn't).

Moreover, Bush says things like "Crusade" and "Jesus told me to bomb Iraq and Afghanistan". And unlike Ahmadinjad, he is top dog in the US. The US is capable of doing much more damage to the world (as we saw in Iraq) than Iran can ever hope to do.

Interesting you pointed this out. Lets say we have two people (Bush & Ahmedinijad; I would like to call them maniacs but lets be mature here) who have nukes at button at their disposal. Now lets see how their authority to use them works:

a) BUsh: He doesn't need congressional approval to push the button. He can use it, kill millions and give an emotional speech on TV saying no other option was left and he is sorry for the death toll - of course it all being a big lie.

Truman didn't loose a nights sleep when he approved the bombing of Heroshema & Nagasaki and nor did the pilot of Enola Gay who dropped the bomb - in fact the pilot stated he would do it again given the circumstances.

b) Ahmedinijad: Assuming Iran has the bomb and delivery system can he push the button? "NO" - he would need an approval from Vilayat-e-Faqih - approval of the religious council whose members may agree or disagree when it comes to '1st use' - unless a majority agreement is not reached amongst the religious scholars Ahmedinijad cannot approve the use of bomb.

Many (in fact majority) of religious scholars in Iran and in the Muslim world see WMDs as unethical and inhumane. Significant number of them don't allow acquisition of such a weapon while others say it can be acquired for defensive (deterrence) purpose but its use should only be limited to 2nd strike.

So we got 2 Manianc here and only one appears to be in a position to use the bomb without any rational reason. In addition Iran only posesses capability to target US interests in ME but not the US mainland itself. While we all know US' capability.

eckherl

July 14th, 2008, 04:17 PM

SABRE

July 14th, 2008, 04:19 PM

Perhaps i'm straying away from the war-thing this site is about, but, wat if Jerusalem was declared open city, under UN protectionate, could this defuse the whole thing, and would the involved believers feel content about it ?
i.e would Israel accept it in return of being accepted by muslem community, and muslem community accept Israel ?
Is it even possible to make a diplomatic solution to this menace..

Jerusalem is part of the conflict not the conflict itself. The main problem is Palestine and the question is the viability of Palestinian state. Search 'viability of Palestinian state' on google. You'll get good info on it.

Also read UN Resolution 184 (I think) on Israel-Palestine state. In 1947-8 Israel accepted and became a state while Arabs rejected it and attacked Israel. Today Israel has almost thrice the land allocated in the resolution while Arabs want Israel to go back to Res 184. Its an irony but reality. King Abdullah of KSA offered Israel acceptance by almost Arab and Muslim states if it returns to Res 184.

SABRE

July 14th, 2008, 04:38 PM

ROCK45

July 14th, 2008, 09:07 PM

SABRE
Interesting you pointed this out. Lets say we have two people (Bush & Ahmedinijad; I would like to call them maniacs but lets be mature here) who have nukes at button at their disposal. Now lets see how their authority to use them works:

a) BUsh: He doesn't need congressional approval to push the button. He can use it, kill millions and give an emotional speech on TV saying no other option was left and he is sorry for the death toll - of course it all being a big lie.
* He only has a few more months overall and please no US President is going to use nukes unless it’s really called for.

Truman didn't loose a nights sleep when he approved the bombing of Heroshema & Nagasaki and nor did the pilot of Enola Gay who dropped the bomb - in fact the pilot stated he would do it again given the circumstances.
*That’s how many years ago was that. Russia and the United States learn never to use them during the peak of the cold war sorry I don’t feel that way about Iran.

b) Ahmedinijad: Assuming Iran has the bomb and delivery system can he push the button? "NO" - he would need an approval from Vilayat-e-Faqih - approval of the religious council whose members may agree or disagree when it comes to '1st use' - unless a majority agreement is not reached amongst the religious scholars Ahmedinijad cannot approve the use of bomb.
* The same religious council who approves terrorist support and killings and I’m suppose thing there to be trusted to do the right thing? You make this council sound so peace loving and filled with happy people that pass out flowers or something. The same council that hates my country I don’t think so, that’s your opinion and of course you’re entitled to it. I’m sure everybody blames my country for all the worlds problems it’s very easy to do that. There are more senseless killings in the Middle East then in any part of the world and that’s not entirely Americans fault? Countries that have religious scholars or council’s running them usually seem internal problems that spill into others. People blowing up women and children following so called “religious scholars” orders happens in the Middle East. Muslim’s blowing up Muslim’s and that’s America’s fault too? Were thousand times safer controlling nuclear weapons then Iran or Pakistan will ever be and that’s my opinion.

Many (in fact majority) of religious scholars in Iran and in the Muslim world see WMDs as unethical and inhumane. Significant number of them don't allow acquisition of such a weapon while others say it can be acquired for defensive (deterrence) purpose but its use should only be limited to 2nd strike.
* Religious scholars shouldn’t have a thing to do with WMD’s or nuclear weapons period they should be dealing with religion issues. Leave these types of issues to the governments and military. Do we want some religious scholars in Iran to say if it alright to use a dirty bomb or not? What the hell does that have to do with religion? It is so ass backwards having religion leaders controlling anything like this, its crazy. Look how well it’s working out in the Middle East for countries that let religion run them. No place on earth has so many senseless killings where life has such little meaning, but those religious leaders must be right.

So we got 2 Manianc here and only one appears to be in a position to use the bomb without any rational reason. In addition Iran only posesses capability to target US interests in ME but not the US mainland itself. While we all know US' capability.
*No we have one maniac run government trying to get weapons that even the countries around Iran don’t want them to have.

eckherl

July 14th, 2008, 10:15 PM

Interesting you pointed this out. Lets say we have two people (Bush & Ahmedinijad; I would like to call them maniacs but lets be mature here) who have nukes at button at their disposal. Now lets see how their authority to use them works:

a) BUsh: He doesn't need congressional approval to push the button. He can use it, kill millions and give an emotional speech on TV saying no other option was left and he is sorry for the death toll - of course it all being a big lie.

Truman didn't loose a nights sleep when he approved the bombing of Heroshema & Nagasaki and nor did the pilot of Enola Gay who dropped the bomb - in fact the pilot stated he would do it again given the circumstances.

b) Ahmedinijad: Assuming Iran has the bomb and delivery system can he push the button? "NO" - he would need an approval from Vilayat-e-Faqih - approval of the religious council whose members may agree or disagree when it comes to '1st use' - unless a majority agreement is not reached amongst the religious scholars Ahmedinijad cannot approve the use of bomb.

Many (in fact majority) of religious scholars in Iran and in the Muslim world see WMDs as unethical and inhumane. Significant number of them don't allow acquisition of such a weapon while others say it can be acquired for defensive (deterrence) purpose but its use should only be limited to 2nd strike.

So we got 2 Manianc here and only one appears to be in a position to use the bomb without any rational reason. In addition Iran only posesses capability to target US interests in ME but not the US mainland itself. While we all know US' capability.

Come on Sabre,

No U.S president has the right to start launching nukes without a darn good reason, like for example purposes, all out war, Iran is not a good reason to kill millions of innocent people world wide, I am quite surprised to see a post like this coming from you. You already know that the U.S nor Israel is *not* going to cross that thresh hold by attacking a country that has the capability to pretty much destabilize the entire world economy without approval from other major countries, what is the justification for such a foolish thing to do.

Yes - we dropped Nukes on Japan to end a terrible war quickly, thus saving the lives of possibly a few hundred thousand U.S service personnel, do I need to remind everyone that we were at all out war with a country that attacked us.

I am quite sure that Iran will get the message that if they even attempt to launch any type of WMD attack against Israel in the short or long term future that they will be permanently erased as a nation, and rightfully so.

Fellas, all this anti U.S and Bush BS is getting real old.

Chrom

July 14th, 2008, 10:21 PM

a
*
* The same religious council who approves terrorist support and killings and I’m suppose thing there to be trusted to do the right thing? You make this council sound so peace loving and filled with happy people that pass out flowers or something. The same council that hates my country I don’t think so, that’s your opinion and of course you’re entitled to it. . Be very careful, not fall to usual propaganda about "terrorists". In Iran eyes they are honor fighters for they motherland / religy / ideals. In US eyes they are terrorists. Things much, much too subjective here. Either way, West generally and US government specifically give far, far more money and support for terrorist like-organizations than anyone else (not because they are evil - just because they have more money and power than rest). Even inside Iran US support own anti-Iranian government terrorists - or, as they call it - "democratic freedom fighters".

I should however note, i dont blame US or West too much for it. Every other country do the same in they interests. I just hate when smart and seemingly knowledgeable peoples behave like supporting such groups is something exclusive to "evil" states. That is just self-blinding double-standards, which in long run will not lead to any good results on the Earth.

eckherl

July 14th, 2008, 10:29 PM

Be very careful, not fall to usual propaganda about "terrorists". In Iran eyes they are honor fighters for they motherland / religy / ideals. In US eyes they are terrorists. Things much, much too subjective here. Either way, West generally and US government specifically give far, far more money and support for terrorist like-organizations than anyone else (not because they are evil - just because they have more money and power than rest). Even inside Iran US support own anti-Iranian government terrorists - or, as they call it - "democratic freedom fighters".

I should however note, i dont blame US or West too much for it. Every other country do the same in they interests. I just hate then smart and seemingly knowledgeable peoples behave like supporting such groups is something exclusive to "evil" states. That is just self-blinding double-standards, which in long run will not lead to any good results on the Earth.

Thats a good point Chrom, eventually when the U.S is done with their big adventure in the Middle East and we come home, Russia will again more than likely will start feeling the effects of terrorist attacks inside of Russia, alot of that funding for those attacks will come from major players in the Middle East, you do know that Iran hates Russia as a nation also.

Eeshaan

July 14th, 2008, 11:03 PM

Militarily, it is more than possible for a USA & Israel joint operation to defeat Iran's miliatary. They will take heavy losses, no doubt about that. Iran is much better prepared than Iraq was to withstand an invasion from USA. But they will win the war. Thats certain. The Iranian military cannot defeat a combined USA-Israel assaulton it's territory.

Unfortunately, as we've seen in Iraq, a military victory against Iran's armed forces is just the START of the real fight. That would be the easy part. the hard part, where the casualties REALLY start to pile up, is the insurgency & terrorist attacks that USA & Israel would have to withstand after the invasion. That would take a huge toll on both nations.

Also, one can't imagine how high the price of oil would go during that time:shudder So it's not exactly a favorable situation for both sides lol.

ROCK45

July 14th, 2008, 11:40 PM

Hi Eeshaan
No one said anything about an invasion that wouldn't serve any useful purpose nor do I think the US has any intentions on doing that. Iran's only thump card are it's missiles and rockets they have. These rockets and missiles could hurt surrounding countries but will have little effect on the 200 to 300 aircraft attacking it. Don't judge the fighting in Iraq as a way the US would fight/attack to take out the reactor and other important targets. If Iranian missiles/rockets are pick up outbound and you know how many radar's are pointed at Iran the response back would be massive. The US does "big" very well Iran would be hit hard from basically all sides. I wish the reactor was never sold to them.

Eeshaan

July 15th, 2008, 12:15 AM

Hi Rock
You're right. I was just saying, incase of a full ground campaign involving US & Israeli troops, in order to remove the current Iranian government, just like they did in Iraq would be very costly.

But even an attack with missles & long range weaponry, the result would be extremely high oil prices & the entire region might erupt into a warzone. Any major attack on any middle eastern nation would turn the entire region into a fireball.

ATM neither Israel, nor USA have any intention of attacking Iran. It's just the last resort for them. Because, frankly, no one knows what Iran will do once it has the ability to make a nuclear weapon, except for the Iranian government of course.

And given the fact that the president has openly said that Israel should be wiped off the map, Israel's fears are not without good readon.

All-in-all, the situation in the middle east is very tense atm. The best, no loss way for both parties is for Iran to give up its uranium enrichment program and let the Israeli-palestinian peace process continue peacefully ( pardon the pun ). This way, its a win-win situation, and both israeli & palestinian people can finally be at peace with each other, thereby ending a decades-old dispute.

ROCK45

July 15th, 2008, 12:52 AM

Hi Eeshaan
I'm sorry I knew I left out something yes I agree oil prices and I'm sure natural gas prices as would go up big time, Iran produces a lot of natural gas too. It's complex so many economies are involved on so many levels.

Don't take it wrong but I get tired of every Middle East problem, conflict, etc always tied to the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. Not much was said much when Egypt, Syria, Jordan kick out Palestinian's and dump a lot of this on Israel's door step, always easier to pass on a problem. Israel didn't take any land from Iran did they? There just another outside party like Syria that don't belong there and make things worse. All the surrounding countries around Israel have tons of their own problems and have a hard enough keeping Palestinian's and their own people in line. So it's easy to get them pointing to the other guy as your problem. The Palestinian's keep listening to outsiders and the kids I watch on the news many years ago throwing rocks, now their kids are doing the same thing. Has it got them anywhere in 30+ years? All the money giving to so called "great cause" could paved the roads with gold ten times over instead used in twisted hate. Keep following these religious leaders it's working so well maybe the kids will have more kids and find some of the same rocks they use throw. How could somebody listen to somebody tell them to blow themselves up? How messed up and twisted do you have to be to think it's the right thing to do to have somebody's 12 old son or daughter do that? How people in this one region accept that and do nothing and you wonder why there's no peace.

Eeshaan

July 15th, 2008, 01:15 AM

So I gess the general consensus is : peace, not war.

Yes, the middle east peace process has been just as violent as any other war lol ( sorry if this offends anyone but its true ).

Good thing is, recent developments show that the peace process is finally coming to an end. Hopefully this will defuse tempers in the middle east. Then there will be no reason for any middle eastern country to attack Israel, or vice-versa. That may also take the starch out of the extremists who want to destroy Israel & USA ( Because then they dont have any reason to fight. This is THE reason why they became USA's enemy in the first place ).

If the peace process comes to an end, finally, then the whole argument on wether Iran should be attacked or will Iran stike Israel is over. If Iran & Israel want to have peace with each other, then there's no need to plan an attack on Iran's military. All the rhetoric & propaganda goes out the window. This also allows the individual nations to sort out their own internal problems ( like Turkey's kurdish situation ) once & for all.

Like I stated before, peace is a win-win situation, war is a lose-lose situation. It just takes away the terrorists main EXCUSE to blow people up.

eaf-f16

July 15th, 2008, 01:16 AM

* He only has a few more months overall and please no US President is going to use nukes unless it’s really called for.

Really?

Didn't a US official once hint that after 9/11 happened that if the US knew which country or was harboring the people who masterminded the attacks that the US would have nuked that country? I really can't remember so if anyone here has more information on that, please contribute.

Also, there was a BBC documentary a while back about the USS Liberty that said that after the USS Liberty was sunk by the Israeli Air Force, it was assumed that Egypt had carried out the attack. In response the USN sent up one A-4 Skyhawk armed with a nuclear bomb and an F-4 escort fighter and told the DoD that they had two "ready" planes ready to go to Cairo.

...sorry I don’t feel that way about Iran...

Everyone (including US intelligence agencies) knows that Iran isn't going to make a bomb as soon as their nuclear facilities are completed.

At very worst, Iran just wants the capability to be able to build one and mount it on a reliable delivery system very quickly in the case that it's attacked.

The same religious council who approves terrorist support and killings and I’m suppose thing there to be trusted to do the right thing?

Nope. The suicide bombings in Iraq are done by Al-Qaida (very small segment of Sunni insurgency) and the revenge killings in response to those suicide bombings are done by rogue elements (i.e. Death squads) of Shi'a militias (again very small segment). Iran has never supported the killings of civilians in Iraq at all. Clandestinely or otherwise. It has, however, supported fighting between different militias.

There are more senseless killings in the Middle East then in any part of the world and that’s not entirely Americans fault

Actually, previous to the 80's (when America threw its support behind Saddam who was committing genocide against the Kurds and waging an unjust and brutal war against Iran) the Middle East didn't have so much "senseless killings".

Instead, it just had alot of conventional wars. This had mostly ended when Egypt and Israel signed the cease-fire in 1973 and the peace treaty in 1979.

People blowing up women and children following so called “religious scholars” orders happens in the Middle East.

Not just any "religious scholars". Wahhabi "religious scholars" from Saudi Arabia whose ideology first gained popularity in the 80's.

IIRC, when the USSR invaded Afghanistan your country was actively supporting Wahhabism and it ideological derivatives. All of sudden now you're against it?

Or does your country only support "senseless killings" when it serves its interests?:rolleyes:

Muslim’s blowing up Muslim’s and that’s America’s fault too?

Nobody on here said it was. But this is not something alot of Muslims tolerate either.

Religious scholars shouldn’t have a thing to do with WMD’s or nuclear weapons period they should be dealing with religion issues. Leave these types of issues to the governments and military

The Vatican regularly involves itself in politics as well. This isn't something ME is unique in.

No place on earth has so many senseless killings where life has such little meaning, but those religious leaders must be right.

Again. The only religious leaders in the ME who encourage this type of behavior are Wahhabis. Everyone else (including all other scholars) hate them.

The world is not so black and white. The US is not the "good guy" in this. Israel is no more humane than most other ME nations and I bet you there are Muslim countries that have a better Human rights records than Israel.

PM me if you want to continue the discussion.

This thread is WAY off-topic. Can a mod please close it? There are others just like it except with more coherent and better informed discussions.

Feanor

July 15th, 2008, 02:51 AM

Part of what they may do is close the Strait of Hormuz. They threatened to do it if attacked and even before they threatened to do it there were alot defense analysts who said that they have the capability to close it. The IRGC's threat just confirmed their fears.

Again you've given no hard evidence of this capability. Closing the straights requires at least the ability to control the sea in the sea in the straights.

Who said Saudi Arabia would be involved at all? And what's "KSAF"?

Did you mean the RSAF (Royal Saudi Air Force)? They don't have anti-shipping capability.

Well whose oil tankers are they sinking? :)

And USAF doesn't have anti-shipping capability either. Just the USN and USMC.

USAF doesn't have strike capabilities against ships? What you mean the B-52's, and B-1's can't carry anti-ship missiles?

And I think for ships going through Strait of Hormuz that the biggest threat is from Iranian mines and anti-ship missiles.

So it's a matter of getting a decent size naval force to clean up the potential early war minefields.

And this isn't significant to you? Please go read about what Iran does in Iraq and their involvement there.

I know what they do. And it has yet to yield results. Iraqi casualties are decreasing, the Iraqi government is stabilizing.

You're the one who said the East is allying with Iran because it "hates" the US after I said it isn't! Why are you going around in circles?

Use as proxy =/= ally. It's pretty easy to distinguish between the two. Someone may be your ally, your proxy, both or neither.

Shall we not seeing as how the vast majority of Iran's anti-ship missiles are from China?:rolleyes:

Also, seeing as how China expects trade exchanges between them to hit $30 billion this year, I'd say that it would be wise to talk about their relations. Wouldn't you?

I said that I couldn't comment in hopes that some one with more knowledge about the issue would contribute to the discussion. Clearly, you are not that person.

I'll admit that much. I am not. Though the relationship is more financial then political in my humble opinion. I was offering to leave that part out of the discussion because I know little about it and can't debate with you. So I'll agree with your claim. :) Now I would be interested in a solid reply to my abovementioned points.

Chrom

July 15th, 2008, 04:38 AM

Thats a good point Chrom, eventually when the U.S is done with their big adventure in the Middle East and we come home, Russia will again more than likely will start feeling the effects of terrorist attacks inside of Russia, alot of that funding for those attacks will come from major players in the Middle East, you do know that Iran hates Russia as a nation also.

I repeat, be very careful with it. Initially, a large part of support for ex. Chechen terrorists came from West directly. Even now, although direct financial and training support is abandoned by West, some indirect support is present in the from of giving "political refugee" status for many known terrorists, and allowing them to coordinate and guide terrorists attack from safety. This is also true for Arab terrorists fleeing from Israel and finding a new friendly home in ex. GB or Dutch.

Either way, while i'm agree what personally for ME (and for West in general) anti-west Islamic terrorists pose a threat, i'm still perfectly aware what my government also support bad guys in some other countries - like mentioned "freedom fighters" in Iran or Kosovo. So to achieve a stable peace, all sides should restrain from supporting such groups.

SABRE

July 15th, 2008, 04:58 AM

Just a simple warning!

If anyone tries to turn this thread into a "Religion Bashing" the thread will be locked and the person probably banned. Keep the discussions limited to Iran only.

Majority in Muslim world believes terrorists have no religion and who gave them the right over religion anyways? Hence forth no use of the term Islamic-terrorists or for that matter Christian, Jewish or Hindu terrorists - which I feel are right in the corner for future discussions.

I have received couple of complaints on this already.

& no reply to this message!

eaf-f16

July 15th, 2008, 08:36 AM

Again you've given no hard evidence of this capability. Closing the straights requires at least the ability to control the sea in the sea in the straights.

They can't close the Strait (I didn't word my response right the first time). But they can greatly disrupt shipping for an extended period of time. Like I said before if just a few tankers were hit and people knew that for sure the Strait was mined, not alot of people are going to be willing to go through there.

Well whose oil tankers are they sinking? :)

Although this may seem unusual, the Saudi public has alot for support for Iran. They are held in high esteem for standing up to the US and Israel.

If the Saudi government chooses to involve itself in any type of "tanker war" in the Strait it is unnecessarily risking further unpopularity with its own people.

USAF doesn't have strike capabilities against ships? What you mean the B-52's, and B-1's can't carry anti-ship missiles?

Do you think that USAF is actually going to send B-1's and B-52's when the USN and USMC are perfectly capable of doing that with less important planes?

The only USAF asset that would be of real value to an attack over Iran is the F-15E (and not for anti-shipping).

So it's a matter of getting a decent size naval force to clean up the potential early war minefields.

This where it gets tricky.

"Closing Time: Assessing the Iranian Threat to the Strait of Hormuz" (http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/IS3301_pp082-117_Talmadge.pdf)

Download and read the PDF in the web page above. It describes the significant challenges the USN might face during anti-mine operations.

It says that an optimistic estimate about how long that may last is around a month. So, at the very best the world is going to have to survive 28 days with a significant portion of Persian gulf oil (nearly 1/4 of world production) off of the market. And oil prices won't be likely to stabilize until a very long time the after the war.

I know what they do. And it has yet to yield results. Iraqi casualties are decreasing, the Iraqi government is stabilizing.

It has yet to yield results?

The very fact that you said that shows that you don't know what they do and are capable of in Iraq. The decrease in violence you're seeing couldn't have happened if Iran didn't want it to (remember all the US and Iraqi talks about the "security of Iraq?). Attack Iran and you are putting all of these gains at significant risk.

Also consider that a major portion of the Iraq Army is from the Badr Organization which is highly loyal to Iran.

Use as proxy =/= ally. It's pretty easy to distinguish between the two. Someone may be your ally, your proxy, both or neither.

Russia isn't using Iran as a proxy. Iran doesn't even like Russia nor does it trust Russia and the feeling is mutual. I explained the relationship between them before.

It has very little to do with countering US-influence and more to do with shoring up Russia's.

I'll admit that much. I am not. Though the relationship is more financial then political in my humble opinion. I was offering to leave that part out of the discussion because I know little about it and can't debate with you. So I'll agree with your claim. :) Now I would be interested in a solid reply to my abovementioned points.

You misunderstood my words. I didn't claim anything. I used the word "suspect" for a reason.

If you meant my "claim" about trade relations then here is the link straight from Iran's state media: Iran-China trade exchanges to hit $30b (http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=63661&sectionid=3510213)

SABRE

July 15th, 2008, 06:02 PM

They can't close the Strait (I didn't word my response right the first time). But they can greatly disrupt shipping for an extended period of time. Like I said before if just a few tankers were hit and people knew that for sure the Strait was mined, not alot of people are going to be willing to go through there.

I, however, believe the straight can be closed if Iran can utilize its mines, subs and midgets effectively. Don't think any Navy in the Gulf is capable of countering Iran when it comes to combat commitment and popular passion/popular support. Plus they lack submarines.

All Iran will require is to block the the line from Musandam Peninsula (North Oman) and its' (Iran's) Kuhestak region or Sirik. This will block the shipping lane of the Straight. Iranian Navy and air power will than establish its front lines at Jazira-e-Qeshm while Strategic Missile Fleet is already placed at the Greater & Lower Tunb Islands. Tunbs can also serve Naval refinforcement stations when the US (& allied troops) try to break the blockade. However, having said that I don't think its going to be easy for Iran. The blocade would be a temporary one. The interesting turn of events will take place if Gulf states pitch their navies against Iran while US tries to break in from the other side.

However, the attempt to break the blocade itself will bring about results favorable to Iran. No oil and trade ships will venture into the straight and oil prices will go sky high.

Considering the demographic setup and status-quo policies of Gulf states I don't think they will be willing to get their hands dirty. Majority of the population of the Guld states in the oil area and the sea of Gulf is Shiia which is inspired and influenced by Iran.

Although this may seem unusual, the Saudi public has alot for support for Iran. They are held in high esteem for standing up to the US and Israel.

If the Saudi government chooses to involve itself in any type of "tanker war" in the Strait it is unnecessarily risking further unpopularity with its own people.

Saudi oil rich provinces are also on the Gulf side and majority is Shiia. You knw what happens if anything goes wrong. There was an uprising in 1979-1980 as well. It was only suppressed because Iran was unable to utilize them.

Do you think that USAF is actually going to send B-1's and B-52's when the USN and USMC are perfectly capable of doing that with less important planes?

Again the question from where they fly in? Would Gulf states provide them the air basis or would they fly in from Diago Garcia? In either case such flights will create fears amongst Arab states and not just Iran.

Eeshaan

July 15th, 2008, 07:16 PM

eaf-f16

July 15th, 2008, 08:05 PM

I have afeeling that Turkey & Jordan may easily grant access to its air bases for a strike on Iran. But Iran's cooperation with other Arab states & it's suppot among the people may cause even more problems in those 2 countrues.

From Afghanistan maybe ? IMO its a given that USA will be allowed to strike from there.

Thats as easy as it gets for USA IMO.

Turkey and Afghanistan won't let them do it. And they don't need it. Unlike Israel, the US has aircraft carriers.

About naval cpabilities, I think the US navy will be in for a good fight. Iran has the ability to put a dent in their armor, if not completely defeat them.

I doubt IRGC commanders are as confident (or as irrational and as illogical) as you are.

To make this clear, Iran will unequivocally lose in the conventional sense. This is fact. It's the effect that the conflict will have on oil prices and what Iran might do elsewhere that's going to hurt the US.

The Airforce will have the easiest time though, Iran dosent seem to have anything to stop them bombing their targets.

It's not going to be the US air force, it's probably going to be just the USN.

On a side note, this thread would greatly benefit if people didn't ask repetitive questions and questions that they could easily find answers to with a little research.

Eeshaan

July 15th, 2008, 08:29 PM

I'm not trying to start a flame war or an anti-Iran or US debate here. I am not biased towards these countries. Talking from a neutral point of view here. I was just saying that although Iran wont be able to defeat USA, It does have the ability to strike at the USN, thereby being a threat to the US Navy ships & carriers that are in the vicinity.

This is a discussion on Iran being attacked. Lets not make this personal please.

Grand Danois

July 15th, 2008, 08:31 PM

It's not going to be the US air force, it's probably going to be just the USN.

B-52s with Tomahawks out of UK; B-1Bs and B-2s out of Diego Garcia (and CONUS and Guam). The B-2 brings the earth penetrating ordnance.

Iran is totally overmatched in the conventional realm. They can harass shipping in the Hormuz enough for it to stay away due to difficulty for the shipping to get insurance. Ultimately I would say that convoying should be possible, but unlikely for the prev given reason.

Iran can cause trouble in Afghanistan and Iraq. How much? Well, the primary victims will be the Iraqis and Afghanis. US failure to protect them could count as an Iranian victory...

I don't think Hezbollah are going to react if Iran is attacked, they really can't do anything that matters and have to much to lose. Well, maybe they'll do some small action just to show themselves.

Edit: The idea about blocking the strait by sinking tankers in it... The Yanks know this can happen. ;)

Iran really doesn't have that many options in case of war.

That being said, I think an attack is very, very unlikely.

Feanor

July 16th, 2008, 04:38 AM

SABRE

July 16th, 2008, 09:10 AM

eaf does your whole point of Iranian retaliation come to "they will spike the oil prices"? If so I agree. Any war in the Gulf will spike oil prices. Other then that, I see no solid evidence of Iranian superiority, which is what you claimed initially. Can they disrupt shipping? Sure. Simply by being there and making the voyage more risky. Even if they don't bloacked the straights. Can they stop it? No. What does it come down to? A war on Iran would leave Iran devastated, the region destabilized, and oil prices higher then ever.

The point of closing the straight and the point of disrupting the shipping lane mean the same thing and the result is single: Price Hike. And that is what EAF probably means.

Iran is not militarily superior but the Gulf "is" its backyard and regardless of US superiority you cannot say they will go unharmed. They can and probably will win but the losses might turnout to be far greater than the desired goal. & never sideline Clausewitz' concept of Friction when it comes to the Gulf. Remember the operation by US to rescue US diplomats from Iran (Operation Desert Claw?).

eaf-f16

July 16th, 2008, 09:32 AM

eaf does your whole point of Iranian retaliation come to "they will spike the oil prices"? If so I agree. Any war in the Gulf will spike oil prices. Other then that, I see no solid evidence of Iranian superiority, which is what you claimed initially. Can they disrupt shipping? Sure. Simply by being there and making the voyage more risky. Even if they don't bloacked the straights. Can they stop it? No. What does it come down to? A war on Iran would leave Iran devastated, the region destabilized, and oil prices higher then ever.

Honest to God, I claimed that Iran has superiority over the US military?

Please, can you show me where I said this?

I like how you said that bottom bit right there as if this wouldn't have any effect on the US. It shows me that you don't really know what you are talking about.

eaf-f16

July 16th, 2008, 09:52 AM

B-52s with Tomahawks out of UK; B-1Bs and B-2s out of Diego Garcia (and CONUS and Guam). The B-2 brings the earth penetrating ordnance.

Why would they need B-52 with Tomahawks when USN missile cruisers can fire off Tomahawks from a very safe distance?

Iran is totally overmatched in the conventional realm. They can harass shipping in the Hormuz enough for it to stay away due to difficulty for the shipping to get insurance. Ultimately I would say that convoying should be possible, but unlikely for the prev given reason.

Pretty much everyone agrees with these points.

I said that Iran will lose with out doubt in the conventional sense, but apparently Feanor didn't see that.

Iran can cause trouble in Afghanistan and Iraq. How much? Well, the primary victims will be the Iraqis and Afghanis. US failure to protect them could count as an Iranian victory...

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

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

Read this article (http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2007/08/sadr_calls_for_mahdi.php). It explains the different "elements" in the Mahdi Army very well.

I don't think Hezbollah are going to react if Iran is attacked, they really can't do anything that matters and have to much to lose. Well, maybe they'll do some small action just to show themselves.

Hezbollah would committing political suicide if they retaliate for Iran.

Edit: The idea about blocking the strait by sinking tankers in it... The Yanks know this can happen. ;)

Iran really doesn't have that many options in case of war.

That being said, I think an attack is very, very unlikely.

I think so, too. But I think the attack is unlikely because of the reasons mentioned above about the strait and Iraq.

Feanor

July 16th, 2008, 10:43 PM

Honest to God, I claimed that Iran has superiority over the US military?

Please, can you show me where I said this?

When you said they can close the straights. :) You then backed out on that claim which why I said it's what you claimed initially.

I like how you said that bottom bit right there as if this wouldn't have any effect on the US. It shows me that you don't really know what you are talking about.

Just because I didn't mention the effect on the U.S. doesn't mean there wouldn't be any. Please read what I write and only what I write. My english is not as good as I would like it to be, and I make sure to try to be as precise as possible when saying something. When you assume something I didn't say, well you're probably misreading me. :)

eaf-f16

July 16th, 2008, 11:05 PM

When you said they can close the straights. :) You then backed out on that claim which why I said it's what you claimed initially

"Backed out of that claim", huh?

I said I didn't word my response right. I literally messed up on a single word and you go crazy with this as if you've proven something.

If a conflict starts the strait will be effectively closed for at the at least 2 weeks with only de-mining assets being able (daring) to go through.

I admit when I am wrong but you seem to have trouble acknowledging when you are uninformed about something.

Just because I didn't mention the effect on the U.S. doesn't mean there wouldn't be any. Please read what I write and only what I write. My english is not as good as I would like it to be, and I make sure to try to be as precise as possible when saying something. When you assume something I didn't say, well you're probably misreading me. :)

Sorry, then. My mistake.

Also, if you would like to respond to me about something that isn't related to the topic then PM me. This thread is already riddled with off-topic clutter.

ROCK45

July 16th, 2008, 11:27 PM

If the the Straights were closed for a while would Iran's oil get to market?

Could Iran replaced destroyed anti-ship launcher and the radar's needed to find targets with?

Does Iran produce a decent anti-ship mine? Do they have them built in great numbers? How would Iran deploy them in a effective manor if large number of ships not counting small attack craft were sunk or damage, or afraid to leave port? The USN alone might have 20 or 30 ships firing anti-ships missiles at every major ship Iran has, would it be a safe bet that 20 or 30 anti-ship/cruise missile per ship launched? How many ships could Iran's navy possibly have? This isn't even counting air assets which number in the hundreds as in more then 200, all throwing metal at targets. Add in a few other countries ships into the mixed as well.

Remember the operation by US to rescue US diplomats from Iran (Operation Desert Claw?).
This is a very old mission and very dated really compared to modern times the US is 50 times better at everything compared to this.

Some Iranian anti-ship missile would get through I think some are shot under 15 miles away and even at sub-sonic speeds missiles just cover the distance too fast. Shoot 20 at one ship from that range and some are bound to hit, I can't see all 20 missiles being shot down. On the flip side one can assume there are a lot of weapons pointing at the Iranians in the tighter parts of the Gulf as well it isn't just one sided.

Feanor

July 18th, 2008, 06:51 AM

"Backed out of that claim", huh?

I said I didn't word my response right. I literally messed up on a single word and you go crazy with this as if you've proven something.

If a conflict starts the strait will be effectively closed for at the at least 2 weeks with only de-mining assets being able (daring) to go through.

And you think that's enough for Iran to consider itself safe? I don't think so. If I was Iran, I'd be scrambling to develop more IRBM's that can strike ships in the Gulf, and possibly even the oil fields themselves.

I admit when I am wrong but you seem to have trouble acknowledging when you are uninformed about something.

I have no trouble admitting ignorance to something I know nothing of. Example Sino-Iranian relations.

swerve

July 18th, 2008, 07:45 AM

If the the Straights were closed for a while would Iran's oil get to market?

No. Iran has no alternative export routes.

eaf-f16

July 18th, 2008, 11:23 AM

And you think that's enough for Iran to consider itself safe? I don't think so. If I was Iran, I'd be scrambling to develop more IRBM's that can strike ships in the Gulf, and possibly even the oil fields themselves

Or they can just acquire a bunch of anti-ship missiles and launch them at short range to make them harder to intercept. Which is what they did and what they'll do if attacked.

Also, I've never heard of ballistics missiles accurately landing on moving ships before.

If the the Straights were closed for a while would Iran's oil get to market?

Could Iran replaced destroyed anti-ship launcher and the radar's needed to find targets with?

Iran doesn't really care. If it is going to deter its enemies then, for Iran, it's worth it.

Like Grand Danois previously mentioned Iran doesn't have many options so this is sure as hell going to be one of them.

And about the anti-ship launchers and their radars, they don't need to be able to replace most of them, those are going to be relatively hard to destroy once they're detected lunching anti-ship missiles.

Feanor

July 18th, 2008, 09:54 PM

Or they can just acquire a bunch of anti-ship missiles and launch them at short range to make them harder to intercept. Which is what they did and what they'll do if attacked.

Also, I've never heard of ballistics missiles accurately landing on moving ships before.

Oil fields. Oil fields. Oil fields.

eaf-f16

July 19th, 2008, 01:26 PM

Oil fields. Oil fields. Oil fields.

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

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

Khairul Alam

July 19th, 2008, 02:31 PM

Oil fields. Oil fields. Oil fields.

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

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

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

Aliph Ahmed

July 19th, 2008, 02:44 PM

No. Iran has no alternative export routes.

Gawadar port, Pakistan ?

ROCK45

July 19th, 2008, 04:17 PM

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

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

eaf-f16

July 19th, 2008, 07:40 PM

I don't think if a shooting war started that the US would allow Iranian oil get to market through a country their in.

Since when does the US have basing rights in Pakistan?

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

stigmata

July 19th, 2008, 08:02 PM

I thought this might be relevant on this topic
YouTube - WE'RE GONNA BOMB IRAN, & THERES NOTHING YOU CAN DO

swerve

July 19th, 2008, 08:44 PM

Gawadar port, Pakistan ?

How does it get there? No pipeline or railway, AFAIK. Convoys of lorries? And what oil loading facilities are there at Gwadar?

kato

July 19th, 2008, 10:09 PM

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

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

chefster

July 19th, 2008, 10:39 PM

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

swerve

July 20th, 2008, 10:35 AM

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

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

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

So - a long-term option only.

Grand Danois

July 21st, 2008, 07:02 PM

Why would they need B-52 with Tomahawks when USN missile cruisers can fire off Tomahawks from a very safe distance?

Because when a DDG/CG has fired its Tomahawk, the VLS cell stays empty. A B-52 fires a volley and goes back to base for a reload. A seabased Tomahawk stays in theatre and can respond to emerging situations.

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

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

Read this article (http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2007/08/sadr_calls_for_mahdi.php). It explains the different "elements" in the Mahdi Army very well.

Yes, th