Demosthenes

I have a feeling that once Iraq is finally stabilized, a sizable US military presence will remain in the region not for peace-keeping reasons, but as a staging base in case hostilities breaks out with Iran. It is possible that the USAF will use Iraq the same way they used Turkey in the Cold War, as a staging base for counterattacking aggression by another state (USSR then, Iran now). We may be seeing ballistic missiles being deployed in USAF Bases in Iraq in the foreseeable future...

The Iranian Government probably shouldn't have much to fear at the moment with US forces occupied with Iraq and UK forces busy in Afghanistan. If Iran is really planning on igniting conflicts against the west, the USA will be have little choice but to allow them to have the first strike for if the US does strike first, it will ultimately be blamed for starting the conflict. The only choice the US really has is Black-Ops Operations, Political Pressure, and it is absolutely imperative to maintain the image of Iran as the rogue aggressor.

Perhaps the US can gain an advantage by straining the relations between Iran and China...

Bluesman

Oh, we'll start it, alright: we'll HAVE to.

Sarkozy is right: the World better get used to the absolutely stark choice that has been laid before it, that either Iran gets bombed, of Iran gets the Bomb. There are no other choices, and that's been crystal clear for years now. We've extemporized, and delayed, and pretended negotiations and incentives and pressure and other silly notions will do the trick. But they won't.

It is so easy to see, but, as usual, the bed-wetters will do anything they can to fool themselves and enough others into thinking we've got some other choice, that we can somehow offer Iran something that's as powerful an incentive as being a nuclear Power. But we can't, and threats won't work, either. And our own hopeful-but-clueless, peace-at-any-price types are going to ensure that we delay so long that when action is no longer deferrable...it will be too late, and then we won't DARE back the Iranians into a corner.

We have a crisis here that is every bit preventable by swift, decisive action, and it's also foreseeable, even moreso than Munich '38. But nothing will be done, unless Gearge W. Bush, the most-hated President of the United States, says, 'Let the historians condemn me; I'm going to do the Right Thing, and at least those historians will get the chance to have an opinion about ANYthing.'

It is my fervent hope that on his last month in the office, he orders a massive strike on Iranian nuke facilities and other military targets. I hope he uses a month-long window to absolutely crush Iranian power, and it is so decisive, Iran won't recover for years. I hope that, starting tomorrow, we set about trying to change the Tehran regime from the inside, and we go at it as hard as we possibly can, like it were the national priority it SHOULD be.

I hope those things, but I don't expect them. What I expect is that Iran will become a nuclear state, and that we'll be MUCH sorrier that we let it happen when it could've been prevented.

__________________
"The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it, and if one finds the prospect of a long war intolerable, it is natural to disbelieve in the possibility of victory."
- George Orwell

astralis

bluesman,

theoretical question at this point, because it hasn't happened, and in any case i am honestly not sure about the answer.

what happens if in the pursuit of the first, the second is set back?

or vice-versa?

__________________
Never let the future disturb you. You will meet it, if you have to, with the same weapons of reason which today arm you against the present.

-Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

Bluesman

An EXCELLENT question, and it has been an unknown how the vast majority of Iranians would react to an outright attack on the regime.

Personally, I think that the mass of ethnic Persions WOULD rally to the only nationalist answer available: the mullahs. BUT...

Our hope would be for the fracture of Iran as a monolithic whole into the huge ethnic problems they've managed to keep the lid on by repression. I think that it is very likely that Iran, riven as it is by identity politics, would not be capable of a truly united effort to hold itself together.

But this is simply a secondary question, because what we know, past any sort of a doubt, is that an unmolested Iran WILL proceed in a linear fashion straight to nuclear weaponry.

And whatever difficulties there may be to the only viable solution to that problem there is can only be cosidered of secondary importance.

S-2

"Finally, and most pertinently right now, when Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., asked if he favored attacking Iran (a question that most appointees would have ducked on the grounds that it was "hypothetical"), Gates forthrightly said that he did not, adding, "We have seen in Iraq that, once war is unleashed, it becomes unpredictable."

This will be the true test of Gates' legacy—not whether he can go up against the Army to institute reforms (there's no time for that fight), but whether he can stave off Dick Cheney's campaign to mount an attack on Iran."

Astralis, I hope that you don't mind my lifting this most "pertinent" comment from Kaplan's article for inclusion on this thread. In fact, I found it not so. Kaplan, instead, inserted this "out of the blue" stab at Cheney OVER Iran- not at all relating to re-structuring the Army's ground forces. Where'd that come from and what's that about?

Who favors war with Iran? Raise your hand. Anybody? Anybody at all?

Might it become necessary, Astralis, is the real question? Do you foresee that ever being the case? What might forestall that possibility? How likely can such a possibility of war be forestalled?

__________________
"This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski

astralis

S-2,

well, kaplan is not, shall we put it lightly, a fan of the bush administration, and he's been highly skeptical of the surge since day 1. thus explaining his random jab at cheney.

in any case, as for who favors war with iran, i can tell you one: the arch neo-conservative Norman Podhoretz, whom says he hopes and prays that Bush bombs iran.

as for me, oh sure, i can see the possibility of a war with iran. i would even see it as necessary if three conditions are fulfilled: iran being on the verge of acquiring nuclear capability, the collapse of iraq as a nation-state, and if iran as a result becomes far more aggressive.

i'm not so much concerned with the possibility that iran will sneak a nuclear weapon to a terrorist group in an attempt to bring about the coming of the hidden imam; everything i've seen of iran (even under a-jad) indicates that the mullahs like their secular power just fine, and generally stick to the known rules of power politics.

what i am concerned about is that iranian policymakers will take the news of an incipient bomb and the collapse of iraq as a sign that they can push far more vigorously than ever for iranian hegemony, a la cuban missile crisis. that would be a miscalculation of the highest order.

the US mission here should be to delay, as much as possible, the creation of an iranian nuclear regime. we should be pushing for BOTH regime change and regime evolution, by trying our best to bring american goods and ideas within the country.

the best end-state here is a stabilized iraq (limiting iranian influence), and an iran caught within the tangles of international commerce, with the mullahs afraid to play too vigorous of a power game lest they piss the people off. in that case, the hope is to persuade them that nuclear weaponry is not worth the candle (a la libya). however, under such a scenario, even a nuclear-armed iran would be of reduced threat, as they go towards the path of china or (far less optimistically) north korea, with its recent negotiations with SK.

war, while not the worst end-state, would be close. it would PROBABLY mean the creation of a state that would be fairly unified under the mullahs, more conservative than ever and thus far less vulnerable to evolution or revolution. that would rob the US of one of its greatest weapons to use against iran. it would probably mean a far higher level of interference in iraq, as well.

S-2

Astralis,

You state the fulfillment of three requirements to necessitate war with Iran. A viable and sovereign Iraq coupled with a nuclear-armed Iran would not, however, necessitate war under your criteria. It appears that you are prepared to acquiesce to an Iranian nuclear weapon under less than immediately catastrophic consequences to Iraq. WTF?

I'm not worried about the Iranian gov't hastening the imminent return of the "hidden Iman". I do worry about nuclear-induced regional leverage within "...the known rules of power politics."

astralis

S-2,

a viable and sovereign iraq would counter the conventional threat posed by iran. iran, too, will be hesitant to attack what will necessarily be a shi'a-dominated nation. if iran tries to play with nukes, we can offer the sunni states (and iraq) protection under our nuclear umbrella, a la western europe or south korea/japan. the mullahs to date have shown more signs of rationality than kim jong-il, and if we can negotiate with that bastard...

as you can see, under my scenario, i'm putting a lot of emphasis on change or revolution from within. that is because i see such an event as a high possibility (and my scenario here is dependent on this remaining a high possibility, or else i'd throw it into the intellectual trash-pile), and as a long-term solution to our problems there. if there is any way to convert iran to our side, we will effectively have changed a large portion of CENTCOM into at the very least nominal US allies.

Shipwreck

Sadaam Hussein believed the same thing when he decided to invade Iran in 1980, hoping for instance that Arabs from Khuzestan would join forces with Iraq.

This proved a gross miscalculation...

__________________
"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called children of God" (Matthew 5:9)

InfiniteDreams

Very good thread. I’m enjoying the read and learning a lot. There are some thoughts and questions I’d like to throw out there. Hopefully S-2, Bluesman, OoE, or Jdad might share some of your thoughts.

My reservations lies in the success an aerial campaign to do what it is intended to do (to completely knockout their ability to create nuclear weapons.)

What I don’t want to see happen is a bombing campaign that only slows down their ability to proliferate and at the same time really pisses them off meanwhile leaving the powers that be in charge of Iran similar to Saddam in the first gulf war. Then as time progresses they’ve increase their missile range and are then hell bent on revenge.

There are some intelligence analyst and experts think that even with a massive bombing campaign it will be impossible to completely reverse their nuclear weapons program. That if we bomb they will dig deeper & deeper & deeper until we can’t reach that far and they finally achieve their goal.

There’s also the argument that perhaps we can slow down or stop part of their program but in fact if the regime is determined (which does appear to be the case) there is no way of stopping them short of regime change and getting a new government that wants to adhere to the NPT.

There remains a high degree of probability that the whereabouts of some of the Iranian nuclear facilities are unknown. Not only are such sites likely to be deep underground but also in highly dense populated cities. What are we to do here?

What if hypothetically MEK reveals the whereabouts of a hidden nuclear facility in a highly dense populated area how do you go about attacking that target? Do you go ahead and bomb the hell out it creating heavy collateral damage whereby really pissing off the Iranian people who may be completely disgruntled with the current regime?

What if as Yossef Bodansky alludes to there is a secret Trans-Asian Axis (Iran, Pakistan & China) to counter balance US power in the region and that if one is attacked their all attacked. Bodansky also claims there is evidence to support the idea that Iran may already have purchased nuclear weapons as early as the 1990’s and that Iran has had a great deal of assistance from DPRK with it’s nuclear program. What if they are much farther along than we think they are?

Iran is currently being considered for membership for the SCO so I can’t see how either Russia or China can being considered as honest brokers in preventing Iranian nuclear proliferation.

These are a lot of ‘what ifs’ but we need not be short sighted on this and I just hope the pentagon has done their homework regarding the contingency plans that are on the table.

__________________
The purpose of all war is ultimately peace. - Saint Augustine
For it tis' the doom of men that they forget. - Merlin the Magician
The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing. - Albert Einstein

Officer of Engineers

Cascades need electricity, enough electricity to power a small city. Destroy the entire grid (and that is damned easy to do but literally sending the entire urban population back into the stone age) and keep knocking them off as you see electromagnetic waves of sufficent size and Iran is effectively off the nuclear weapons program.

__________________
Chimo

S-2

These targets will be attacked directly and indirectly. Indirectly is more critical. Known targets will obviously be attacked. Ancillary targets which facilitate the primary missions will also be attacked- i.e. AAA sites, radar, microwave comms sites, Iranian Air Force facilities. An air-corridor over Iran will be established to facilitate what may be a fairly lengthy campaign, IMHO two weeks-two months.

Indirect targets will accomplish three objectives- highlight those most guilty, apply punative leverage to the Iranian public, and attack those power and communications nodes most critical to the viable existance of their programs. These targets would include known IRGC/al Quds facilities of all types, to include naval and terror training facilities. Air and naval facilities adjacent to the gulf would be targeted. Power and communication would be SELECTIVELY attacked.

Other than Rangers performing BDA on critical targets requiring eyeballs and SEALS/Marines occupying Hormuz islands, ground forces will logically be absent, though quite on-guard in Afghanistan and Iraq/GCC states.

Infinite Dreams, I can't imagine this happening without it being the considered opinion of a number of nat'l intelligence agencies that Iran is near the complete fuel-cycle at a proven industrial scale. I don't know how completely their program can be eradicated, however I also don't know why we can't periodically prune the branches as need be.

Invoke the wrath of an enraged Iranian populace? Perhaps, but how will that manifest itself? We already attempt their economic isolation with some success to us and cost to them. Iranians will be welcome to properly direct their rage, even if for personal privation, at their gov't.

I don't necessarily subscribe to "innocent civilians" in any case. At some point, a government becomes the reflection of the people's will. If so, then perhaps it's good for Iranians to embrace head-on the consequences of the governance which they are willing to tolerate. Or change it post haste.

Buu

Initially, I am inclined to ask just what specific violations Iran has wrongfully committed, with reference to the actual international laws as sanctioned by the UN. Second, we shall compare such potential wrongdoings with their neighbours', primarily concerning Israel. Additionally, the US has absolutely no right to prosecute a war "it" sees fit, considering international law has never been a factor on its mind. The entire ordeal in Iraq is illegal, yet they have the nerve to demonize a nation exploring nuclear energy (a technology practiced by itself and a large handful of other nations).

I will not argue the quality of their military, because you know the point I was attempting to spread was the sheer quantity of their forces. As for capability within, I cannot envision awry conclusions to foreseeable war, considering the US has tarnished severely its once mighty image. They are susceptible now more than ever.

Such "thugs" in Iraq then, we can say, have cost the Americans thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars. Perhaps their goal is economical?

Well, I see you are poorly informed, which makes my job here even more tedious and aggravating. Specific laws in Iraq were recently passed, so that Western companies could operate and have full access to Iraqi oil (currently under American control). What does this mean? Simple, really. They reap the profits (by the trillions), and heavy investors are paid handsomely. No invasion of neighbours? Oh, you must be referring to the Iran-Iraq war; the same war America aided Saddam in, and gave information on how to create mustard gas. You know, the mustard gas that killed tens of thousands of Iranians.

This is merely incommodious reinstatement of the same poor arguments. You cannot justify a fullscale invasion based on the reports of an Americangeneral alone. There must be some form of a neutral force stationed in Iraq to observe whether or not there are foreign militants, and if so, where they belong to. If you ask the Iranian generals, they'll say they are void of involvement or support of any insurgent factions. Who is to give more credit to the Americans than the Iranians in their reporting?

Exploring and enhancing nuclear technology is considered an act of war nowadays? Perhaps I missed something that you could make clear to me. If nuclear technology is supposedly illegal and deserves global attention for a war, then I feel for the safety of the billions of people worldwide living under governments who openly explore nuclear technology/develop nuclear weapons that aren't entitled "Iran". Maybe America would do well to wage a war on itself to rid their nation of the weapons they fear Iran may create in the future.

Iran does not have to accept individual proposals targetted to them. Besides, your descriptions fit the unfortunate bill of Israel's terror organization. Of course, who dares point the accusing finger at a non-Muslim nation? At least, Iran admits its nuclear program to raise awareness and generate acceptance. Israel keeps their program secretive through denial and disregards UN inspections, which are infinitely more important that individual proposals.

I wholeheartedly agree to this account of the story. See how similar we are? Change a name or two, and our ideas are virtually identical.

It's certainly an eye-opener to hear the other side of the story for once, is it not?

Officer of Engineers

BULL! We have AQ Khan who provided a nuclear warhead blueprint to Iran and the cascades to manufacture that warhead and the operations of those cascades away from IAEA accounting - ALL VIOLATIONS OF THE NPT to which Iran has signed and has refused to withdraw from. LEARN THE FACTS!

Cite the International Law, Treaty, or Agreement to which this illegal. I CHALLENGE YOU NOW. FIND IT. PROVIDE IT. And don't you dare bring up Anan, he NEVER had the authority to decide.

Iran signed the NPT. Read it 1st if you don't mind.

And that is EXACTLY THE BULLCRAP I EXPECT! The US has far more tanks, far more artillery, far more guns, far more bombs than Iran will ever have AND THAT MAKES ALL OF IRAN'S numbers AND your claim ABSOLUTELY WORTHLESS!

On the contrary, it is as strong as ever, just as it was strong after the Vietnam War, just as strong as the Soviets were after the Soviet-Afghan War. You are an ABSOLUTE amateur in this. In order for the US to lose the Vietnam War and the USSR to lose the Soviet-Afghan War, both Vietnam and Afghanistan had to lose their wars up front (ie, suffer an invasion). You will note that neither Moscow cross the Fulda Gap after the Vietnam War nor did the Chinese marched north after the Soviet-Afghan War and the Iranians are too damned scared to cross the Iraqi border right now.

HORSE PUCKEY! Check your history. Guerrilla warfare only wins when they outbleed the enemy and they can never outbleed the enemy in their own home. Hell, they never even got to the enemy home.

You are disappointing me more and more.

Also, be advised! You are OUR GUEST! We have extended you the coutesy of explaining your views. DO NOT INSULT US BY INSULTING OUR VIEWS IN OUR HOME.

Act the guest and explain your reasoning countering our views.

In short, you are on thin ground right now.

JAD_333

Chimo and S-2 have already responded with some worthwhile thoughts. I'll try to add a couple.

Your question is, what if we try to attack Iran's nuclear proccessing facilities and fail. It's a good question, mind you. But a more relevant question is, should we try in the first place?

The answer to that depends on our perception of Iran's intentions. If we determine that a nuke-armed Iran would be a serious threat to our security and vital interests, then one can conclude with confidence that the US will act to alleviate the threat by some means.

If it comes down to military action, all the risks you mention, while real, will
be accepted and dealt with as best as possible. But, we can't see to our interests effectively if we allow the decision to act to become captive of hand wringing over risks.

The decision whether to act militarily still comes with caveats, each of which must be weighed before proceeding: The threat must be very serious and world altering. We must have the military capability to carry off an effective attack. We must have the defensive capability to defeat any counterattack and protect against retaliatory actions, such as attempting to close off the Straits of Hormuz or launching an attack on our allies in the region. We must be able to deal with sharp reactions from other Islamic countries in the region. And, finally, we must be ready to deal with the likely economic unheaval that would result.

All of the experts I read agree that the US can meet all of these caveats, albeit with different degrees of effectiveness. So, where are we now in terms of a military attack? It's probably a foregone conclusion that the US in consultation with the UK, France and probably other countries has developed a plan for an attack and is continually refining it.

All that remains now is for the diplomatic and sanctions effort to run its course. Iran will either strike a deal to give up its nuclear processing activity, or its nuclear and military facilities will be attacked. The timing will depend on where Iran stands in terms of successfully producing fissionable materials. Most likely that call will be made by scientists based on known information and existing knowledge of how long it would take a country like Iran to develop a successful production facility.

Will diplomacy work? If you believe, as many do, that Iran's leaders have nothing to gain and everything to lose by refusing to submit to western demands, it must seem odd that Iran is pressing on with its nuclear program.

But it may seem less odd if you consider that Iran is in an ideal position to gain significant political and economic concessions from the west. The US and its allies offered Iran's leaders a deal a few years ago and they said they would consider it. Although, they finally rejected it, that shows they are willing to deal. I think the longer Iran waits to deal, the more it stands to gain. Its leaders believe--and they're probably right--that the US and its allies will attack but don't want to, and, therefore, would pay a heavy price for a peaceful settlement.

The trick for Iran is knowing when to make a deal. The Iranian rug merchant mentality, usually successful, is to turn down offer after offer and then, just as the would-be buyer is about to walk, reluctantly accept the last offer. My guess is, that's the way it will happen, unless Iran overplays its hand by, for example, not appreciating the possibility that an attack could come very suddenly.


What good would the program be to them if their military is crippled and the country's economy is shattered? How could they protect the facilities from invading forces?

They are fully aware that they are facing attack if they persist. It's more realistic to expect the current regime to cut a deal with the west than it is to expect an attack to bring about a regime change. Anyway, a country under attack doesn't noramlly throw out its leaders? One of the reasons unpopular leaders pick fights with other countries is to bolster their standing at home.


That's a question for a war planner, but it seems to me better to avoid civilian centers and skip super deep facilities to start with. Hit what nuclear facilities you can, but concentrate more on hard military targets, such as airfields, naval assets and heavy equipment depots. Crippling Iran's ability to resist further attack or retaliate would force her to make an accommodation with the west which, of course, would include inspection and dismantling of undamaged nuclear facilities.


Not likely. Countries that have nukes do not want the club enlarged.

What country would have been stupid enough to have sold them nukes? N.Korea maybe, but they didn't have any to sell in the 1990s. As for assistance, they most likely got help from rogue nuclear scientists and subterannean equipment suppliers. But they still have to build it.

.

They'll let the US carry their water for now. But when it comes time to force Iran's hand, they aren't going to fall on their sword for Iran's right to have nukes or process its own nuclear materials. Why would they? To weaken US influence in the ME? It's the US that protects