Iran and Related Geopolitical Defense Issues

[surpreme]

But the point isn't to get everything. The point is to do as much damage as possible to their military in a short time.

I see your point if US dont complete the task it will haunt them later. The Iranian will increase nuclear weapon program if it has one there is no evidence that they have weapon program if it does the virus has set it back. If you attack you got hit it hard not a limited air campaign. The Iranian are producing some of it own equipment that makes a difference. What Im saiding you can't half step with Iran.

 

[Feanor]

That would not stop Iran from making a bomb (if they are making one)
So would that not call for a full invasion to flush out any secret lab?
Afterall going in and only slow down Iran will not be enough specially if you want to stop them from making the bomb.

Once you make the bomb you still need viable delivery systems. You can't drop an A-bomb if you aircraft can't take off without getting engaged by USN and USAF.

 

[1805]

Once you make the bomb you still need viable delivery systems. You can't drop an A-bomb if you aircraft can't take off without getting engaged by USN and USAF.

Don't they have locally produced versions of the Scud they show off in exercies? OK not going to threatern the US. I am inclined to agree with former President Chirac on Iran....let them have them, if they ever use them we will "nuke em"

The current leadership in Iran is like spoilt childern, they crave attention, we could all do with ignoring them. For the West to initiate any action against them would be a PR disaster and probably a military on after Iran/Afghanistan. Israel can moan as much as they like about a nuclear Iran, but they should have throught about that before developing their own bomb.

 

[swerve]

You don't need to effectively control the area, just seize all or most of the military facilities, coupled with a massive air campaign. The point is to destroy the Iranian military, nothing else..

I understand that, but even so, it'd be the largest land campaign (in terms of troop numbers) the USA has carried out since 1991 - at the least. Remember Iraq, 2003? That was enough troops to smash up Saddam's army, not enough to effectively control the area. You'd need at least that many, & I reckon a lot more. Larger area, & a lot more hostiles. You'd need very large numbers just to control LOCs, so that supplies could get through to the troops deep in the interior.

The USA is not going to fight such a war. It has no appetite for the expense or the casualties. If it does go to war with Iran, it'll be fought from the air & sea. There will be no armoured columns hacking through the Revolutionary Guard, no supply convoys through the mountain passes to be ambushed or mined - no land war.

This is not Georgia.

 

[StobieWan]

I see your point if US dont complete the task it will haunt them later. The Iranian will increase nuclear weapon program if it has one there is no evidence that they have weapon program if it does the virus has set it back. If you attack you got hit it hard not a limited air campaign. The Iranian are producing some of it own equipment that makes a difference. What Im saiding you can't half step with Iran.

Nuclear weapons development it not a cottage industry (biological weapons can be!) - you need a hefty infrastructure which takes up real estate.

Delivery is problematic for any Iranian nuclear warhead, and worse, the only unfriendly country to Iran in the area is Israel, which has a working ABM capability.

It's likely neighbouring arab countries (who would most easily be in range of any Iranian missile) will co-operate with military intervention in order to minimise that threat.

In summary, Iran launching a nuclear tipped missile at a neighbour is unlikely. They may choose to stick a warhead into a container and send it via UPS.

 

[PCShogun]

The USA is not going to fight such a war. It has no appetite for the expense or the casualties. If it does go to war with Iran, it'll be fought from the air & sea. There will be no armoured columns hacking through the Revolutionary Guard, no supply convoys through the mountain passes to be ambushed or mined - no land war.

This is not Georgia.

Agreed, without massive participation from a coalition of nations, there will be no invasion other than perhaps quick raids to destroy installations on the ground.

If Iran blocks the strait, which they could do for a short time, that would give the U.N. the spark it needs to authorize a limited attack against Iran. You would see strikes against their naval, air, missile bases and mobile military assets; attacks against suspect nuclear enrichment sites, communication headquarters, bridges, weapons manufacturing sites, and possibly, even nuclear reactors,. Tomahawk missiles would likely be used in the initial strikes, followed up with more pin point weaponry (aka: bombers and strike aircraft). Special forces units may eventually enter the country to destroy high value sites or to gain intelligence on nuclear projects that have been suspected but not proven (aka, the weapon of mass destruction).

Iran's most potent weapon in the Arabian (Persian) gulf will be her submarines as the gulf is narrow and ASW doesn't work as well in noisy, shallow waters of the littoral, and the Kilo is a quiet boat. However, her subs will have to return to port to refuel and rearm, and once they are in port, they are dead ducks if they weren't already hit at sea.

Still, all this takes time to prepare once the word is given. The current air wing on board the John C. Stennis ("Johnny Reb") is about 75 aircraft capable of Strike missions. While formidable, it is not a "Shock and Awe" campaign on its own. The Battle group currently on site could do considerable damage, but is not going to be able to do enough to stop Iran from closing the strait and do considerable damage to Saudi, Kuwaiti, and Iraqi oil facilities, and potentially, intervene against Afghanistan. More units will need to be deployed into the area and I don't see that happening yet which tells me that we are not yet close to any "expected" conflict with Iran. You may see some "incidents" in the near future but no all out attacks, at least by the United States. Iran still has the first move to make.

 

[gazzzwp]

Thats the dilemma the west faces

To be completely sure that Iran does not get the N-bomb they need a ground invasion. Such an invasion would be very very costly, no doubt the US would prevail but it would not be easy. Remember that most of the casulaties in Iraq came from the Sunni minority, approx 35 percent of the population, or approx 10 million people. Now Iran has 75 million, the great majority of whom do not the see the US as a friend. Iran is more rugged in geography which would aid insurgent tactics compared to Iraq. Iran has a lot more arms than Iraqi insurgents had, they would likely be using TOW missiles from day one, more dangerous that an IED.

An air campaign by itself would not stop the Iranian nuclear program. They have thousands of trained technicians, scientists, machinists, they know how to make uranium gas centrifuges.

So if the US limits its actions to a solely air campaign, then you can bet then that Iran would take all the gloves off and go straight out for as many a-bombs as they can get.

So what happens a couple of years after the bombing started, and now Iran has a few a-bombs. Iran could claim it was attacked in an unprovoked act of war (their thinking), and could see themselves using an a-bomb in self defence. Maybe they would stop at testing one undergound. Maybe they would launch one at a US air force base, maybe they might smuggle one to Mexico and then threaten to take it across the border.

I am sure the smart people in the US have thought about all this, and for this reason they stepped back from the bombing campaign that was being speculated about around 2007.

Thus the US is in a bind.

If they do nothing Iran trains more technicans, scientists. They build more centrifuges and enrich more uranium, At present they have enough at 30 percent to make 4 bombs, what is to stop them from having enough to make forty? What do you do then?

Seems they are resorted to actions that are neither all out war nor doing nothing, Stuxnet, blowing up missiles and killing missile scientists, trying to assaniate nuclear scientists etc etc. Sabotage of equipment, sanctions, supporting dissident groups etc

This can slow down Irans advance to the a-bomb, but it cant stop it.

The Iranians have been smart, enriching uranium to 30 percent but not going further. From 30 percent it takes relatively little time to get it up to the 95 perent or so grade needed to make an a-bomb. So they play the waiting game, keep on building more and more centrifuges, keep on enriching more and more uranium. If they get to have enough uranium to make say twenty bombs, I think then there is a real chance that they will go all the way and may make a bomb.

My guess is that they will be smart and not test it.

Iran also has another ace. It has heaps of oil, and oil prices are very high. This gives them money to buy this and that.

Seems to me at the moment Iran has the upper hand. Just a reminder I am not a fan of the Iranian regime, there was an election and it was stolen by the authoritarian and hardline Armidehanjad (sorry about the spelling)

Its a similar dilemma to North Korea. They have nutters and crooks in charge, but they have a-bombs, so what can you do about them. Push North Korea too hard and they are likely to drop an a-bomb on you. All they can do is contain North Korea and hope that maybe one day a more moderate group of people will get in charge, or alternatively the populace will revolt as in Tunisia or Libya

Rather than a military problem, it becomes a geo-politico problem. Not easy. Thankfully it is not my job to try and sort that mess out.

I agree with your reasoning; the west is in a bind, and there is no easy answer. Such is the dilemma when dealing with rogue nations and despots such as Mr A (Can't even be bothered to look up spelling because I cannot stand the guy) who perpetually goes around with a grin on his face having thwarted and frustrated the super powers for around 10 years.

There is however a heavy price to be paid by Mr A, his government and the people who support the regime; as long as they continue on this track Iran will never be a strong economic and respected power. The sanctions are painful and are costing them all heavily; unfortunately the innocent too.

It has to be a military approach on the scale of the Iraq campaign; nothing else will guarantee security for the region and the west in the long term. If Iran develops WMD's then without the neutralising effect from an equally armed adjacent nation (as in the case of Pakistan and India) the region and the world will be in deep trouble.

 

[PCShogun]

Just be aware that enrichment of uranium to 95% is NOT required for a nuclear bomb. the Hiroshima bomb used uranium enriched to about 80%, but you can achieve critical mass with even lower enrichment levels of around 20% - 30%, its all a matter of how efficient the reaction will be and what size the core needs to be. While obsolete and inefficient in design, even an atomic bomb is a potentially devastating device.

 

[gazzzwp]

Just be aware that enrichment of uranium to 95% is NOT required for a nuclear bomb. the Hiroshima bomb used uranium enriched to about 80%, but you can achieve critical mass with even lower enrichment levels of around 20% - 30%, its all a matter of how efficient the reaction will be and what size the core needs to be. While obsolete and inefficient in design, even an atomic bomb is a potentially devastating device.

Presumably though to achieve a reaction with a modest level of enrichment requires other aspects of the design to be ingenious and achievable only through careful and expensive development? Such as the implosion mechanism. I'm only guessing though.

Iran claim to have achieved 30%; does this type of material actually have any non-military uses? Is the argument for sanctions really as simple as that?

 

[swerve]

The current air wing on board the John C. Stennis ("Johnny Reb") is about 75 aircraft capable of Strike missions. While formidable, it is not a "Shock and Awe" campaign on its own. The Battle group currently on site could do considerable damage, but is not going to be able to do enough to stop Iran from closing the strait and do considerable damage to Saudi, Kuwaiti, and Iraqi oil facilities, and potentially, intervene against Afghanistan.

Iran sees Iraq as a potential ally, now the Shia majority is in power, & I think it would be unlikely to attack Iraq. Attacking oil facilities in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, or other Sunni Gulf states would put them into a state of war with Iran, & while perhaps their forces are not well led, they're formidably well armed, & if firepower alone were enough to win wars, capable of defeating Iran without US assistance. In practice, they probably can't, but with US aid & co-ordination, they could do a great deal. They have very well-equipped air forces indeed.

 

[PCShogun]

Presumably though to achieve a reaction with a modest level of enrichment requires other aspects of the design to be ingenious and achievable only through careful and expensive development? Such as the implosion mechanism. I'm only guessing though.

Iran claim to have achieved 30%; does this type of material actually have any non-military uses? Is the argument for sanctions really as simple as that?

Well, that IS the issue here. Civilian reactors typically use Uranium enriched to 3% - 5%, not 30%. Military reactors use highly enriched uranium but I don't know the concentration there. The three principal uses of HEU (uranium with the proportion of the U-235 isotope over 20%) that I am aware of in the civilian nuclear sector is for use in research reactors; for medical isotope production; and as fuel in icebreaker propulsion reactors.

The only need for 30% enrichment, that I can think of, is a ready supply of "Ready for further enrichment" uranium.

 

[rip]

You have to brush up on your politics if you think that the elections have nothing to do with it. Just look at the GOP candidates positions about Iran and what they are saying during the debates, if Iran were to do something overtly hostile, you think GOP candidates wouldn't say anything if Obama didn't do anything about it? You think they would just stay neutral about the situation? Don't think the media would let them anyways, they would have to take (as some have) a position, you couldn't run for office and just say: "We respect what the President decides". It is a momentous decision where voters/media will want to know the opinion of the candidates and what they would do different from Obama. And if Obama doesn't do anything or negotiates if Iran goes hostile, he's toast....He's a politician, they always want to be re-elected. I doubt he wants to be seen as the next Carter. I am pretty sure the Iranians will follow US elections.

I don't follow all that much Israeli politics but I am sure that Iran topic will come up in upcoming elections...

There has been a lot of speculation on this tread on how the upcoming US election will affect its possible response in the gulf. The answer is not very much. Even though our current president would wish with all of his peace loving heart that it would all just go away and that he in general has very little interest in international relations anyway, the affairs of great nations, regardless of their political systems, are driven by their long standing core interests.

The possibility that the current US president will be reelected under any circumstance is at this time, not very good. Hi core support base, which is not in the majority, would not favor any military action at all regardless of the provocations, while the majority of the people would favor a far stronger response than any he is likely to indorse. Politically he is dammed if he does and he is dammed if he doesn’t. There is some temptation to believe that since he will lose the next election anyway that he would go with his natural instincts. But that would be a repeat of history. Jimmy Carter, our most pacifist president of the 20th century, did nothing about the hostage situation that really started all of this mess and as a result we have the situations we have now and his political party suffered greatly for many years because he was followed by Ronald Ragan who had a far different approach to the use of American power as you all can recall. It is unlikely that that any external event of this nature will affect the election anyway. I think any further speculation along this line is just a waste of time.

The only thing worse than war, is a war that doesn’t solve anything. I am not the war monger you guys think I am. I believe that the use of force is awful, as awful as it is, if it must be used, if it is used at all, it must be done decisively. Unfortunately if this situation does blow up I doubt that anything will in the end be finally resolved once again.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Iran is a bigger/tougher nut to crack.

If the US wants to directly take on Iran, they are going to need a series of partners. At least a few local boarding countries, and some major global powers. UK, France, China and a dozen regional powers.

US can't afford to go it all alone again. Sure it has the carriers and the air power, but not the troops to take and hold and secure the whole of Iran. It certainly doesn't have the moral, money and ethical grounds to take it all on and be confident in replacing it with a better system. If Iran invaded another nation that would be entirely different.

Iran will probably get (or has) some nuclear capability just like Pakistan, India and North Korea have. With some fairly weak delivery system.

The one to be most worried is Israel.

 

[peterAustralia]

The thirty percent figure of enrichment was from my memory and was mistaken. It looks as though they have only gone to 3.5 percent. At present they have enough uranium at this level to make four bombs. The trouble is that they are continually building more centrifuges and continually enriching uranium. They have also recently started making a newer version of the centrifuge which is more efficient and can enrich uranium faster. I think this one is based on carbon fiber, whereas there main street models were made from steel or aluminium (I cant recall which)

The main point is that if you want Uranium at 90 percent for a bomb, getting it to 3.5 percent is the hard part. At this level they can turn around and say all they are doing is making uranium for their light water reactor at Bushear, used to generate electricity,

Stopping at the 3.5 percenet level, gives them a degree of deniability, They can claim it is only for civilian purposes.

As enriching above percent would have a lot of adverse consequences, (more sanctions), they are being smart. Building more centrifuges etc. My guess is that they will keep their powder dry, going only to 3.5 percent, but getting more and more uranium stockpiled.

Should they then make the decision to break out, then they could do this relatively quickly, they stop the inspections for a few months, and then fill the centrifuges with the 3.5 percent uranium

I dont think four is enough for them, my guess is that they would want 20 or so before taking the flack of going all the way. Note that the countries that have gone all the way, Pakistan, India, North Korea, Israel, got some flack for a limited time, but eventually it faded away.

Note that Iran also has some smaller subs, The Kilos would be used outside of the gulf, and the smaller ones within the gulf. It makes no sense to use a large sub like the Kilo within the gulf. The small range of the small sub is less of an issue if all you have to do is travel 100 miles to the center of the gulf and sit at the bottom waiting for other ships to arrive.

here is a link about the iranian enrichment
Iran Uranium | Iran increases uranium stockpile, U.N. agency says - Los Angeles Times

note that this was about 12 months ago, Then they had enough for 3 bombs, now they have enough for four,

 

[peterAustralia]

Sorry to contradict myslef so quickly

it appears, yes they are enriching to 30 perent (for medical purposes apparently)

here are a couple of links
looks as though they now have enough for five bombs. The trouble is that with more and more centrifuges, and better ones too, the time needed to break out and go all the way gets less and less

Israel Matzav: Iran increases 20% enriched uranium stockpile
Iran Watch: Iran's nuclear timetable

 

[Sampanviking]

Sorry to contradict myslef so quickly

it appears, yes they are enriching to 30 perent (for medical purposes apparently)

here are a couple of links
looks as though they now have enough for five bombs. The trouble is that with more and more centrifuges, and better ones too, the time needed to break out and go all the way gets less and less

Israel Matzav: Iran increases 20% enriched uranium stockpile
Iran Watch: Iran's nuclear timetable

Are these not the same people that brought us incontrovertible proof of Saddam's WMD?

It is said that repeating a series of actions in the hope of eventually achieving a different and desired result is a definition of madness.

Admin, Mate the last sentence was deleted. Its not the kind of comment that we want to encourage and is against the spirit of the forum rules. Feel free to PM me if you want to discuss, but further dialogue on the open forum re the decision shouldn't happen.

 

[NICO]

Majlis Considering Bill to Prohibit Foreign Warships from Entering Persian Gulf - ScrollPost.com

I just found this, it's about the Iranian parliament proposing a law that would require Iran's permission for ships to enter the Gulf. I don't know how serious this is or how crazy their Parliament is. Politicians in all countries create laws that make little sense or are unenforceable (sadly this happens a lot here in Arizona) but this is a bit out there even for Iran.

As I mentioned before, we are starting to see some strange movements and statements from different factions inside Iran, is Iran govt still in control of events there?

 

[My2Cents]

Just be aware that enrichment of uranium to 95% is NOT required for a nuclear bomb. the Hiroshima bomb used uranium enriched to about 80%, but you can achieve critical mass with even lower enrichment levels of around 20% - 30%, its all a matter of how efficient the reaction will be and what size the core needs to be. While obsolete and inefficient in design, even an atomic bomb is a potentially devastating device.

At 20% enrichment the critical mass is around 400kg. Even with reflectors and other tricks the conversion efficiency would be so low, 1 or 2 tons yields at best, that the uranium may not be totally vaporized if used as a weapon. It is more likely to just sit there, get hot, and eventually slump into a non-critical configuration.

It takes more than critical mass to make it a bomb.

 

[unarmedchild]

I don't know how serious this is or how crazy their Parliament is. Politicians in all countries create laws that make little sense or are unenforceable (sadly this happens a lot here in Arizona) but this is a bit out there even for Iran.

Unfortunately the Iranian Parliament with all those extremists in power inside is capable to do such things...

However, what I'm going to say is not about the upcoming events before the US and its allies invasion on Iran. every simple saying and movement from both sides at this point is just leading us to the skirmish and tbh it's not that hard to defeat a even well-trained military with the equipments that designed to handle the wars of half of a century ago and upgraded under heavy sanctions.

The real disaster will happen after the invasion and then the possible regime-change in Iran. just saying, we Iranians have a common idiotic nationalistic sense that will lead every mullah,mullah lover,martial personnel,opposition and political prisoner to side with each other and work together to get ride of invaders and it's the least of the problems that US and its allies troops will have here.

Hamas, Palestinian jihadi groups and movements, Iraqi shi'ite groups like Al-Mahdi force and in the head of them, the Quds force will be left alone without the supreme leader telling them how to work, how to walk, how to sit, how to breath.. and its just like releasing a rabid dog in the middle of children garden. there will be a massive bombing and attacks on the US and its allies interests all around the world for years. the Quds forces are the most selective special forces in Iran and by my knowledge they will try to make a mess until there is one of them left alive.

 

[Beatmaster]

Personally i believe that all the saber rattling about Iran and its N-Program has gone far enough.
The violating of a few UN Agreements is by far not enough to justify military actions and certainly does not proof that Iran is seriously building a bomb.
Obviously there are loads of rumors and indirect guesses as none has the final idea from what is really going on.
Fact remains that neither the US, UN and Israel can afford to wait and see the end result:

A: A Iran with a perfectly legal program which IS used for medical/civilian reasons.
B: A Iran that suddenly has 1 or more bombs.
C: A Iran which has both.

Now i probably should not say this, but Israel has the most to fear and has so far put in the most effort in terms of monitoring and preparing for a possible confrontation and even they do not know if Iran is really that bad as everyone thinks it is.
I do understand that Israel do not wish to sit back and find out, however i believe that a large scale conflict will give Iran reason to IF do do not have a bomb to actually start building a couple.
Some of you said that US will hit Iran hard if it comes down to it, but i do not agree to that, regardless how strong the US is Iran is just to big for the US and its allies to effectively stop the program.
I think we can be clear on that stopping the program means that you will have to remove the regime and put one of your own, Like Iraq and Afghanistan which means that air raids alone will not work.
Conflict means go all the way period and doing that has a prize tag and like it or not that prize tag is going to be 3 times bigger then Iraq and Afghanistan combined.
As others said this is not a matter of military superiority because we all know who is going to win and who is going to lose if it really comes down to it.
And unless there is final proof that Iran has a bomb or is making one none can afford to go in on a "hunch"
Its just not that simple.....
Regardless if Iran does have a bomb or not regardless if they making one, if you want to stop Iran you will have to go in.
And for that the nation is just to HUGE, any idea what a commitment it would be for the US and its allies to control Iran?
Fact is neither the US and NATO can afford this (Perhaps if WOIII starts but other then that they will NEVER go that far as its just a insane task and expensive task sure in case of a full blown war like east vs west sure they go all the way but this? No both the US and EU just do not have the resources to do that)
Not to mention the HUGE planning needed for this it will take weeks before US and NATO have gathered enough troops to comfortable walk into Iran.
Sanctions alone are just not going to cut it, neither small military actions.
It only sets them back a few months at most.

Now i might see this wrong but Iran could hostage some nations if they have a bomb but other than that there is nothing serious that Iran can do.
If they drop the bomb (Which is horrible and which is exactly what we all try to avoid) Israel alone can wipe them clean, not to mention the fact that the US will probably support Israel and drop some of their own to make the bbq complete and i am sure that NATO might join the party.
There is no way that Iran is going to get away with dropping a bomb.
That would be end of story.

So as i said either the US do something about Iran or they will have to deal with a Iran that does have the bomb however in the last case it would be status quo again.

Bottom line is if Iran wants the bomb the there is none to stop them unless you fiscally go there and remove it.
That is IF you got the proof for it and so far none has produced any proof that justifies any action in terms of military idea's.
And if the US/NATO or Israel goes and they get it wrong then the prize tag will not be 3 times as high but probably 20 times.
And thats the reality we all have to face, after all closing your eyes does not make things go away.

Personally i would not trust Iran with a firecracker but unless proof has been shown we have to face 3 options and each one of them is evil enough.