JohnFlint1985

I would love to share your optimism. But it is not 1971 anymore and the one we deal here is way more sophisticated. Also it is 2 distinctly separate systems: one is a long range and other is short range. Israelis lost a 100 planes to a similar system in 1973 in Egypt. And this is a third generation of air defenses. It is immune to electronic jamming - so 1982 Israel's maneuver to jam the earlier version in Syria is not going to work. And finally it is also very good to take cruise missiles, so just simply take it out with them might not work either. Honestly is it a big nut to crack - without seemingly no any preparations whatsoever for such an eventuality I am not so sure and confident as you are. This is some serious stuff here. We sold the secret electronics component to everybody in the world in the name of free trade and they are using it against us - wonderful scenario.
And thank you for your welcome

__________________
"We Shall Never Surrender" Winston Churchill

S-2

"But it is not 1971 anymore"

Never said it was. Read more closely. I said 1991. Still, point taken. Things change. I guess if the time comes we'll see what transpires.

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

HistoricalDavid

Tsssk I've still been too corrupted by M-21's analysis of the futility of all SAMs. :p

__________________
HD Ready?

edojan

Wouldn't it just much cheaper to finance scientific research in neighboring countries exUSSR? Invest in Armenia and Russia. Thats where all the nuclear,bio/chemical scientists come from. Ex: in Armenia phd in nuclear physics gets $80 month but Iran hires them for $80,000 Ever considered why Iran's nuclear program got a big boost after collapse of USSR?
Once the scientists are withdrawn all this war crap will end, nice and simple, and we (US) will just keep them as a 3'd world country till they rot.

Kansas Bear

Foreign Suppliers

Foreign assistance has been vital to Iran’s chemical weapon effort. China, Russia and India have been Iran’s primary suppliers of chemical equipment and precursor chemicals.

China
According to the CIA, Chinese entities have been among the most active suppliers of CW-related equipment and technology. Iran has obtained precursor chemicals, glass-lined vessels and special air filtration equipment—all of which can be used in the production of chemical agents—from Chinese firms. Iran has also purchased Chinese technology that would enable it to manufacture such chemical weapon production equipment on its own.

In many cases, these Chinese firms have been repeatedly singled out for punishment by the U.S. State Department. In May 1997, the State Department sanctioned one Hong Kong company, two Chinese companies and five Chinese individuals for “knowingly and materially contributing to Iran’s chemical weapons program.” These entities and persons were “involved in the export of dual-use chemical precursors and/or chemical production equipment and technology.” One of the Chinese companies, Jiangsu Yongli Chemicals and Technology Import and Export Corporation, reportedly helped Iran build a plant for manufacturing dual-use chemical weapon equipment. Jiangsu Yongli was sanctioned again in June 2001, reportedly for enabling the Iranians to get the facility “up and running.” One of the Chinese individuals sanctioned in May 1997 was Q.C. Chen. In a March 2005 address, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Arms Control Stephen Rademaker expressed concern that “the Chinese authorities have been unable to halt the proliferation activities of Q.C. Chen…who has repeatedly provided material support to the Iranian chemical weapons program.” Zibo Chemical Equipment Plant, one of the only firms in China capable of manufacturing large-size glass-lined chemical equipment, has been sanctioned three times since May 2002 for proliferation activities with Iran.

Russia
According to the CIA, Russian entities have also been active suppliers to Iran of CW-related equipment and technology. In October 2000, a senior CIA official reported that “numerous Russian entities have been providing Iran with dual-use industrial chemicals, equipment, and chemical production technology that could be diverted to Tehran’s offensive CW program.” The official specifically mentioned that in 1999 “Russian entities provided production technology, training, and expertise that Iran could use to create a more advanced and self-sufficient CW infrastructure.”

India
Indian firms have also helped Iran build its chemical weapon infrastructure. In March 1989, the State Trading Corporation, an Indian government trading company, reportedly sold Iran 60 tons of thionyl chloride, a precursor chemical that can be used to produce mustard gas. The State Trading Company may have purchased the chemicals from Transpek, a private Indian chemical company. According to a classified German intelligence report cited by the Washington Times in 1995, at least three Indian companies aided Iran in the construction of a secret poison-gas complex. The report projected that Iran was only months away from completing the plant, which the Indian companies claimed was a pesticide factory. The CIA last identified India as one of Iran’s primary suppliers of CW-related material during the second half of 1996; India has not been singled out as a country of concern for chemical proliferation to Iran since that time.

The Iranian chemical weapons production program dates to early in the Iran-Iraq war. Iran used chemical agents to respond to Iraqi chemical attacks on several occasions during that war. Since the early 1990s, it has put a high priority on its chemical weapons program because of its inability to respond in kind to Iraq’s chemical attacks and the discovery of substantial Iraqi efforts with advanced agents, such as the highly persistent nerve agent VX.

Iran manufactures weapons for blister, blood, and choking agents; it is also believed to be conducting research on nerve agents. Iran's stockpile of chemical weapons is believed to include nerve and blister agents. Iran is estimated to have an inventory of several thousand tons of various agents, including sulfur mustard, phosgene, and cyanide agents. Its production capacity is estimated at as much as 1000 tons a year, with major production facilities located at Damghan, 300 kms east of Tehran. Iran is working on developing a self-sufficient CW production capacity that includes more effective nerve agents. Along with shell and bomb delivery systems, Iran may also be producing CW warheads for its Scud missile systems.

With extensive foreign assistance, Tehran is obtaining technology, chemical agent precursors, production equipment, and entire production plants. Although Iran is making a concerted effort to attain an independent production capability for all aspects of its chemical weapons program, it remains dependent on foreign sources for chemical warfare-related technologies. China is an important supplier of technologies and equipment for Iran’s chemical warfare program. Therefore, Chinese supply policies will be key to whether Tehran attains its long-term goal of independent production for these weapons.

In the future, as Iran becomes more self-sufficient at producing chemical agents, there is a potential that it will become a supplier to other states trying to develop CW capabilities. Iran supplied Libya with chemical agents in 1987.

Maggot

That comes under the rule of 'fool my once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.'

Israel would be there in a heartbeat, but the US wouldn't want them involved for the same reason they kept the Israelis out of the first Gulf War. You know, provided the brain trust doesn't fail them. Bringing Israel into a Middle East war would unite the Arab states against the US. I know, you're saying to yourself 'what they could hate us worse?' and the answer is yes.

During the First Gulf War the only way the US could keep the Israelis from launching retaliatory strikes was to make it very clear that they wouldn't be given the flight codes. That meant if they flew across the border the Coalition would shoot them down. That was the only reason the Israelis didn't launch attacks against Iraq.

The difference between Iran and Iraq, is that Iran has a lot of weapons to fight back with. They have a navy, they have submarines, they have very good SAM batteries, they have lots of missiles, and they have tanks and jets. Sure their jets and tanks are backward engineered versions of what NATO and Russia use, but they build them. Their supercavitating torpedo they were showing off was a prototype version of what Russia has and can't turn. If it gets pointed in the right direction though, there's nothing in the US navy that can stop it. Torpedoes traveling at mach speed underwater don't have a lot of countermeasures.

Yes, the US can pulverize Iran anytime it wants to, but they will fight back, with weapons of their own, plus anything their oil will buy from China and Russia. Iran aren't going to welcome US as liberators either. The UK and US are both reviled in Iran for overthrowing of their last democratically elected government, under President Mossedegh, in the 50’s. Since then they’ve known the Shah and the Revolution. They don’t like British Petroleum and the UK very much there, because BP begged the CIA to overthrow the Iranian government for them and they did. These guys had a secular democracy till the oil companies had them knocked them off and installed the Shah. The rebellion against the Shah was organized in the mosques and now we're dealing with a crazy religious dictatorship. Screwing around in foreign countries like that for money always comes back to bite you in the ass.

__________________
Work is the curse of the drinking class.

JohnFlint1985

Nobody says it is an easy task. But what is the other solution if they will not back down? The theory which ruled the world between USA and USSR about
mutual extermination in case of nuclear war - doesn't work with Fanatics like
Ahmadinejad. Don't forget - he is a Twelver Shia Muslim. The same sect that had famous Assassins during the crusades. These people want to end their life in a battle, Twice as good if they take infidels with them. So the old doctrines will not work. My idea is this: let 2007 be a year of diplomacy, and if it doesn't work then 2008 should be military solution.

Maggot

The other problem is that the leadership of Iran are a bunch of attention whores. I mean if nobody is threatening Iran, it's pretty tough for the Revolutionary Guard to be the defenders of Iran. The more threats are made against Iran, the happier the current leaders are, because feeding nationalist hatred is keeping him in power. If you bomb the place and destroy their infrastructure, the people who suffer the most aren't going to be the ones calling the shots. They'll just point at their oppressors and hit the nationalist button for all it's worth, to increase their hold on power. Bombing a population has a bad habit of bringing them together to hate the one bombing them.

Bombing Iran will only be an inconvenience to them, as long as their oil money keeps them in business with China and Russia. For nations based on ultranationalism the biggest problem they can face is peace. They find it a difficult environment to work the people over, without directly attacking them.

Parihaka

If it were a role-play world I'd almost wish it on simply to see the outcome against the various predictions.

__________________
In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz

JAD_333

I don't think that is what we have in mind. Maybe you don't either.

The question of war with Iran revolves around only one proposition. Should the US and its NATO allies allow Iran to possess nuclear weapons?

Then why do we get wrapped around the axle on matters that have no real bearing on the question? Discussing topics like Iran's military capability, how her people will react to an attack, resentments from the past and economic fallout, and so forth is irrelevant, unless they contain arguments against attacking Iran.

The debate should focus on the long run. It should aim to determine as best as possible what the world will be like in the future with a nuclear armed Iran?

Some consequences are easy to see, such the probability that more countries will want to follow Iran's example and launch their own nuclear weapons programs. Another is that Iran may find itself in a position to influence our friends in the ME to take a harder stand against us. And the sticky question: Israel could act unilaterally and find herself in another war which could force us to come to her rescue.

But beyond these possibilities--10-20-50 years out--there are others that are much more difficult to see. They may provide the answer whether to act or not. I see some pretty bright posters here. It would be good to know what y'all see way down the road with Iran pulverized or Iran with nukes.

__________________
To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education. (Plato)

Maggot

If the US and its allies really want to remain in some way in control of the Middle East oil supply, they need to think before they leap, that’s all. I don’t think people realize how close Iraq actually came to being a success, despite all the mistakes that were made. If the powers that be hadn’t been in love with Shiites, who were Iran’s friends not ours, they might have thought things through. If that piece of toejam, Paul Bremer, hadn’t fired the entire civil service and army in Iraq overnight and put them out on the streets into a broken economy, the US would have gotten away with it and there wouldn’t be the mess there is now. You can make a lot of dumb top down decisions and still get by, but that one was the tipping point that’s nearly impossible to come back from.

You can’t win wars with planes and missiles, short of dropping nukes. All you do is rally the people being bombed behind whatever despot there is. You also make people more sympathetic to striking out against whoever is bombing them. The Israelis found that out against the Hezbollah, making them stronger and the elected Lebanese government weaker. I don’t know what the hell they were thinking, beyond I like to blow **** up, but it didn’t get make their situation better.

So with Iran, you’ve got a really crappy situation of our own making, when we knocked over a democracy back in the 50’s. We really need to stem the tide of Shia terrorism in the Middle East, because it’s putting pressure on the Sunni dictatorships we rely on for oil. The Sunni kingdoms have lost patience with us and have been funding their own Sunni terror groups right back (shades of Afghanistan). We’ve already turned Iraq into an externally created version of former Yuguslavia and the Iran backed Shias win ground. Israel bombs the hell out of Lebanon and Iran backed Shia terrorists win. Hell if you were going to have bombed anyone it should have been Iran in the first place, but I’m not sure if just a bombing campaign will have the effect the brass want. You know, other than making bomb and jet makers happy.

I think the only effective way to deal with Iran would be to create a well armed partisan group of secular fighters to weed whack the fundies with. The real problem is finding people in Iran that hate their leaders more than the US and aren’t so corrupt or gutless that they’re completely useless. That and getting people with brains behind the operation, instead of some party line idiot who will drive the whole thing into the ground before it gets started. You'll be getting into a pissing match over Iran, with China and Russia, so it would be very messy and not a lot of fun, but if the US can create the Contra out of thin air they should be able to put something together. If you can keep Iran focused on their own yard, they might have trouble playing in the sandboxes of the other kids. It’s a big order to fill, and considering how much bad blood there is between the US and Iran, so they probably need a third party country to handle it for them or it wouldn’t work. Just stuff some bills into another country’s pocket and let them handle it.

Maggot

Iran Kurds a possibility to use as partisans, trouble being aspirations of a Kurdish state would destabilize the region when they spread their activities.

Probably the group most easily moved into partisan activity would be the Iranian Kurds. During the justification for the First Gulf War, the biggest case of chemical attack against Kurds, was actually found to have been more likely done by the Iranians, because the chemicals used were found in their arsenal and not Iraq’s.

While it sounds like an opening, more than likely you’ll have to consider the hopes and dreams of the people you are arming, funding, and training; in this case the desire of a Kurdish state. Like all foreign backed partisans, a certain amount of the weapons and ammo you supply them with will be stashed so they can have something for the next time they feel rowdy. There would likely be PKK involvement and more than likely some of these weapons would end up being used against Turkey, at some point, leading to a region wide war opening up, as Turkey tries to annex all of the Kurdish Middle East for its oil and gas fields.

We’re already starting to see larger problems arising from a dividing Iraq. It was predicted before the invasion of Iraq that an autonomous or semi-autonomous Kurdish population in northern Iraq would result in fighting with Turkey, with oil money used to fund the PKK. Turkey have already had their troops cross the border and will now be doing so with much more authority. Especially after the PKK just ambushed a bunch of Turkish troops.

JohnFlint1985

Another possible and very scary scenario can be that Iran in it's drive to check Western domination can give some sort of low yield Nuke to some terrorist organization. In that way - it would be extremely hard to blame them for anything. Of course you are going to know that it their bomb, but you will never have 100% proof. Like we know that is was Osama ben Laden behind 9.11 - but do we have proof - no we don't. So as of today we stand between very hard choices: to allow Iran to have the bomb and rely on principle that we will be able to contain them by scaring them with the complete destruction if they ever will use it. Or we bomb their facilities adn face a big fall out of this action in Iraq, Lebanon, International terrorism everywhere, support for every Anti American group an etc.
My choice - is the second one. The ultimate weapon that this planet possesses should not be in the hands of a madman regime either for real use of it of for merely a black mailing the rest of the world. (also please consider that in 5-7 years they will have a delivery method - which will be able to go as far as North America) Everything else, in my mind, is secondary to that.

JAD_333

That is certainly one long term threat to add to the others.

Yes, we do. We have his videotaped testimony and we have reams of proof and testimony that the hijackers were under his orders.

Mind you, we are talking about a pre-emptive strike to destroy their means of producing fissionable material. We would act without certain knowledge that Iran truly intends to produce nuclear weapons. So, the principle in play is really quite elemental. Any hostile nation that even dreams of acquiring the means of making nukes, whether they intend to make them or not, can count on destruction of its facilities and possibly more. Iran doesn't seem to understand this principle.

It was interesting to hear Putin say after he met with A-Jad that he doesn't have any direct evidence that Iran is planning to make nukes. The wily old dog! He knows full well that we're not pressing sanctions and threatening military action because we have evidence, but because we know they will be able to make nukes if they continue on as they are. It's enough for us that they have admitted they intend to make fissionable materials.

Ironduke

IIRC, a few of the 9/11 hijackers filmed their "martyrdom" videos in Afghanistan, which were later superimposed with images from the 9/11 attacks, and that most of the hijackers had traveled to Afghanistan for training via Pakistan.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, former #3 or 4 man in Al-Qaeda, also confessed his role in recruiting/training/funding the hijackers. There are likely communications, financial records, etc. from the hijackers that can be traced back to him.
My opinion, Ahmadinejad is a nut, but he's not as powerful as some may think he is. The President of Iran doesn't control defense or foreign policy -- that is the reserve of the Supreme Leader (currently Khameini). The Iranian President is no longer just a figurehead, the office has grown in power over the past decade or two, but most of this power is over domestic policy.

Furthermore he is roundly criticized in Iranian political circles on a fairly regular basis. With his horrible domestic performance, it's unlikely that he will secure re-election in the 2008 Iranian presidential election. Housing costs have risen dramatically, as have the costs of most consumer goods. Remember the gasoline riots? Ahmadinejad is running out of steam -- all he has to show is anti-American vitriol, which sure won't assure his re-election. The Iranian nuclear program certainly isn't all talk, but Ahmadinejad is.

I think there's still hope for Iran -- they should abandon their nuclear program, abandon any proxy BS they're up to in Iraq, and get the reformers back in power. Not every political figure in Iran is irrational or viciously anti-American, there a good many that are respectable and are the type of people we could do business with, even among the black-turbaned ayatollahs and guardians.
I don't really see this -- the Shi'ite theocracy in Iran and Wahhabist terrorist organizations are diametrically opposed. They are blood enemies and nothing will change that. They'd just as soon blow off a nuke in Iran or Shi'a Iraq as the West. Hezbollah is the only major Shi'ite terrorist organization, and we haven't really had issues with them since the 80s. Furthermore Hezbollah is a domestic organization, not an international one. They pursue goals in Lebanon and against Israel.

__________________
The Buck Stops Here