Would the US get any support from other contries if a war would take place?
Considering a war with Iran:
A discussion paper on WMD in the Middle East
http://www.rawstory.com/images/other...udy082807a.pdf
The paper, "Considering a war with Iran: A discussion paper on WMD in the Middle East" – written by well-respected British scholar and arms expert Dr. Dan Plesch, Director of the Centre for International Studies and Diplomacy of the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) at the University of London, and Martin Butcher, a former Director of the British American Security Information Council (BASIC) and former adviser to the Foreign Affairs Committee of the European Parliament – was exclusively provided to RAW STORY late Friday under embargo.
Worth study by those interested on Iran.
Posted without comment.Executive Summary & Introduction
There is considerable international discussion that the confrontation between Iran and the international community over its nuclear programme may change in character into a major war between Iran and either US or Israel or both in conjunction with allies such as the United Kingdom. This study uses open source analysis to outline what the military option might involve if it were picked up off the table and put into action. The study demonstrates that an attack can be massive and launched with surprise rather than merely a contingency
plan needing months if not years of preparation.
The study considers the potential for US and allied war on Iran and the attitude of key states. The study concludes that the US has made military preparations to
destroy Iran’s WMD, nuclear energy, regime, armed forces, state apparatus and
economic infrastructure within days if not hours of President George W. Bush
giving the order. The US is not publicising the scale of these preparations to
deter Iran, tending to make confrontation more likely. The US retains the option
of avoiding war, but using its forces as part of an overall strategy of shaping
Iran’s actions.
• Any attack is likely to be on a massive multi-front scale but avoiding a ground
invasion. Attacks focused on WMD facilities would leave Iran too many
retaliatory options, leave President Bush open to the charge of using too little
force and leave the regime intact.
• US bombers and long range missiles are ready today to destroy 10,000 targets
in Iran in a few hours.
• US ground, air and marine forces already in the Gulf, Iraq, and Afghanistan
can devastate Iranian forces, the regime and the state at short notice.
• Some form of low level US and possibly UK military action as well as armed
popular resistance appear underway inside the Iranian provinces or ethnic
areas of the Azeri, Balujistan, Kurdistan and Khuzestan. Iran was unable to
prevent sabotage of its offshore-to-shore crude oil pipelines in 2005.
• Nuclear weapons are ready, but most unlikely, to be used by the US, the UK
and Israel. The human, political and environmental effects would be
devastating, while their military value is limited.
• Israel is determined to prevent Iran acquiring nuclear weapons yet has the
conventional military capability only to wound Iran’s WMD programmes.
• The attitude of the UK is uncertain, with the Brown government and public
opinion opposed psychologically to more war, yet, were Brown to support an
attack he would probably carry a vote in Parliament. The UK is adamant that
Iran must not acquire the bomb.
• Short and long term human, political and economic consequences of any war
require innovative approaches to prevent the crisis becoming war.
This study does not address Iran’s nuclear energy programmes or Iran’s relations with other states. It focuses on the shape that a ‘military option’ might take if it is put into action.
Last edited by Ray; 31 Aug 07, at 07:27.
"Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."
I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.
HAKUNA MATATA
Would the US get any support from other contries if a war would take place?
What after Iraq? Not likely. Maybe a few longtime allies, but major international support . . . . . no way.
The US would get no international aid. I have read similar reports. A ground assault is not a popular option. We would not go into Iran to set up a democracy. We would bomb the hell out of the Iranian military and WMD facilities, and then leave. We would not need the help of anyone without an elite airforce or long range missile capabilties.
The history of the world is but the biography of great men.
-Thomas Carlyle
When it happens, and it WILL happen, they will call it the "100 Hours War".
John
ray
A very powerful analysis. Has this subject been discussed in the WAB to any extent prior to April, which is when I came on board? I don't want to plow old ground, although this paper is only days old.
There is much to comment, especially the paper's main thesis that an attack on Iran is very close barring their agreement to suspend nuclear weapon activities. Very convincing analysis and evidence.
As I was reading and thinking about the certainty that Iran is also reading this and similar papers, it occured to me that perhaps Iran is planning to go as far as they can, timewise, with nuclear enrichment before finally calling it quits. They might also be hoping against hope that they may even buy enough time to complete work on a deliverable nuke.
I think Iran is watching US moves very carefully looking for that moment when it appears their time is nearly up. That moment will come when the US states in plain terms no further negotiations with Iran will take place. The Israelis make an excellent point, as quoted in the paper, that negotiations merely give Iran breathing space.
Clearly, at the moment, we are headed down the path of use of force. The slow-motion diplomacy of the West simply does not match the rapid development of Iran's nuclear capacity and the closing window when Iran's upgraded air defenses will be in place.
… We are headed on a pathway now that will lead to the use of force. We don't want it to be that way. It doesn't have to be that way. There are alternatives, but the clock is ticking.68
To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato
Apparently, the Iranian establishment has realised that time has come to follow reason rather than being confrontationist.Rafsanjani to Head Iranian Clerical Body
By ALI AKBAR DAREINI – 2 days ago
TEHRAN, Iran (AP) — Hashemi Rafsanjani, a former president and longtime Machiavellian figure in Iranian politics, was picked Tuesday to head a powerful clerical body — another defeat for the current president's hard-line faction.
The Associated Press: Rafsanjani to Head Iranian Clerical Body
"Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."
I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.
HAKUNA MATATA
Or maybe that they need to buy more time to get that reactor running.
I'm no military expert, nor do I claim to be....but I guess if the U.S. ever did attack Iran, the U.S. would use a large strike force of B-2's and F-117's to knock out all air fields, air defences, and radar to gain air supremicy.
Then would attack all facilities that are aparantly making WMD's.
Following, the U.S. would bomb Iran into, "The Sone Age".
I don't mean to offend anyone.....I'm just guessing after the Iraq war.
By "follow reason", you of course mean capitulate in the face of US aggression. There would be no basis under international law for any action against Iran. Of course, the US doesn't do international law, but I do have to have at least some respect for any government that doesn't instantly capitulate in the face of threats from the US.
Tim, welcome to the board. People, PLAY NICE.
Socialism is simply the Collective denial of responsibility.
They (Iranian) are trying to get as much as mileage they can from it ... nothing related to the reactor being running for a few months longer. Probably they are just playing nice along and buying for time for other reasons (perhapes trying to outrun Bush in the office) ratherthen waiting to have their nuke ready for one singular final blow against Israel as soon as the nuke is made ...
If Iran is one single step away from the nuclear bomb or if the danger is imminant, you can bet 100% that CENTCOM will bomb the hell out of the Iranian installations with or without Democrats onboard. In other word, the elimination of the imminant nuclear threat becomes the primerly control loop in the system that takes precedence over the diplomatic control loop that is in control now today. In other word, bomb now, ask questions later.
It is beyound obvious that should it (nuke) come close to be complete, the die will be cast. Anything else before that is just a nice show to add as fillers.
Last edited by xerxes; 13 Sep 07, at 23:57.
If we contrast the rapid progress of this mischievous discovery of gunpowder with the slow and laborious advances of reason, science, and the arts of peace, a philosopher, according to his temper, will laugh or weep at the folly of mankind. - Edward Gibbon
the Israeli nuking part was a sarcasim added by me to the phrase ...![]()
but the lack of evidence means nothing ... United States as great world power certainly and logically sees it in its intrest to makesure that Iran does not acquire such weapons or the ability to make them. The evidence or the lack of it, certainly doesnt matter in the grand scheme of things.
A bridge that is burned and destroyed, is burned and destroyed ... you certainly do not have to worry about it.
Last edited by xerxes; 13 Sep 07, at 23:58.
If we contrast the rapid progress of this mischievous discovery of gunpowder with the slow and laborious advances of reason, science, and the arts of peace, a philosopher, according to his temper, will laugh or weep at the folly of mankind. - Edward Gibbon
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Share this thread with friends: