Thread: Possible attack on Iran

Originally Posted by S2

"...Otherwise, may I ask why not?"

JAD_333 has it right. There is zero mood in this nation for another war. He suggests, possibly, a surgical strike.

I suggest that's not adequate to assure removal of Iran's nuclear weapon production capability. To do so WOULD require war-minimally in the form of a sustained air-sea campaign that both prevents Iranian tanker retaliation in the gulf, protects local allies and neuters a dispersed, redundant, hardened and defended network of research and production facilities. It's a large list that would also require an extensive preliminary campaign to suppress/destroy Iran's IADS, air force and maritime forces.

In my estimation it'd take no less than eight weeks using non-nuclear weapons to accomplish such. Addressing the target list, however, is no guarantee of success. Further, the permutations of that action might create a series of unanticipated consequences throughout the region that may not be in our interest.

Too many "unknowns" accompany such a venture in the absence of any broad nat'l consensus supporting the evidence amassed against Iran. This requires compelling and easily-understood evidence. The evidence must convey a clear and present danger to the American public sufficient to arouse their attention and anger adequate to demand action by their elected representatives and, finally, the determination of the executive branch that all those "unknowns" and attendant risks are outweighed by a nat'l consensus.

There will be no guarantee of success short of a ground occupation sufficiently extensive to permit a close unfettered inspection of attacked facilities and complete acquiescence by an Iranian government prepared to surrender scientists and managers of interest. I'd expect none of that because I'd expect no war plans to include a ground occupation. Without such, verification of complete success would seem impossible. Who survives? What survives with them? Did we get it all? Did we get enough?

Better to let Iranian weapons development continue and, with it, the threat of danger. Better to buy time and allow another, more distant administration face this issue. Now doesn't strike me as a situation, regardless of the pending IAEA release, where a political president with a anti-war base constituency has much to gain while having more to lose.

Thank you for the kind response.

I was aware of the mood not to go to yet another war and was thinking of more surgical missile attacks without constant boots on the ground, but only SOF to capture scientists and material and to verify everything went as planned.

I am a civilian so pardon my reasoning if that sounds stupid.

As for the political implications in the region, I guess the neighbors don't want nuclear Iran, too, especially Iraq and KSA.

Another thought bugs me. It is against Dems to start this and to loose the base, but what if Israel starts it? For US politicians it might be calculations, but for Israel it is a matter of survival. Not sure if they have the needed inventory to finish it, but wouldn't be surprised if they start the attacks. What would be the US response? Especially with so many targets for Iran to start retaliating.

Originally Posted by Dante

I'm very curios about this..why wouldn't the russians "allow" this atack? Sure, Iran is proftiable for them, but it's just about $ and some poilitical prospects...do you think the russians want a strong, nuclear Iran?

Iran is and has always bee a strong geopolitical ally, partner and market of Russia, economically and militarily. If Russia cannot protect its investor nations, then Russia cannot hold and sustain investor nations. And that today is a bigger threat to an economically ailing Russia than the US nuclear threat of the Cold War era. Ergo Russia will back Iran to the hilt, push come to shove time.

And short of the US, neither a strong nuclear Iran or a strong nuclear anybody can hope to ruffle Russian feathers militarily, so that really is not going to be bothering the Russian leadership enough to even warrant a single extra shot of vodka needlessly.

Second, the russians (and by extension the americans) can not simply "allow" eachother to do things..they can make it harder, more dangerous, but not completly stop eachother without threatning (nuclear) war.

True, and it is that implied escalatory threat that has always worked in the past.

In the meantime, the Iranians are safe, America dosen't have the will for another war and I don't think Israel has the means to stop Iran from going nuclear.

I agree. Iran will go nuclear. And a lot of regional power equations and balances will be the better for it.

Originally Posted by vsdoc

Iran is and has always bee a strong geopolitical ally, partner and market of Russia, economically and militarily. If Russia cannot protect its investor nations, then Russia cannot hold and sustain investor nations. And that today is a bigger threat to an economically ailing Russia than the US nuclear threat of the Cold War era. Ergo Russia will back Iran to the hilt, push come to shove time. .

military no, they solded them some AT misiles and manpads in the last ten years but no fancy stuff.

Originally Posted by vsdoc

I agree. Iran will go nuclear. And a lot of regional power equations and balances will be the better for it.

How can a state that threads to obliterate another state going nuclear is good?

Originally Posted by 1979

military no, they solded them some AT misiles and manpads in the last ten years but no fancy stuff.

Russia is a key supplier of arms to Iran, including a $700 million air-defence system (a sale, agreed upon in late 2005, of Tor-1 short-range air defense systems) , MiG29 combat aircraft and T72 tanks. In fact outside of India and China, Iran is Russia's biggest customer of military hardware.

The start of substantive military sales to Iran predates Russian independence. From 1989 to 1991, the Soviet Union signed a series of deals supplying Iran with MIG-29 and SU-24 fighter aircraft, aircraft missiles, S-200 air defense complexes, three diesel submarines, and hundreds of tanks and armored vehicles, as well as various munitions. The arrangement included licensed manufacturing of tanks and armored vehicles and a 10-year period for parts supplies. The contracts were thus to stay in effect until 1999-2001. With the exception of tank and armored vehicle exports that fell short of expected quotas, the bulk of the weapons were shipped to Iran in 1992-1996.

In the spring of 1995, the Russian government, seeking U.S. support in the upcoming elections, agreed to enter into a non-public agreement that committed Moscow to phase out its military cooperation with Tehran by signing no new contracts and completing the remaining exports by the end of 1999. In return, the United States offered to temporarily exempt Russian companies from legislation penalizing businesses for dealing with Iran. In Russia, the agreement was seen as a net loss, including revenues lost on uncompleted exports, the loss of new orders from Tehran, and diminished credibility as a partner. In November 2000, after Vladimir Putin was elected president, Moscow annulled the agreement.

Military contacts between Russia and Iran were revived in 2001, a year marked by exchanges of delegations and a state visit to Russia by then Iranian president Mohammad Khatami. A bilateral agreement on military and technical cooperation was signed, leading to widespread anticipation of future multi-billion dollar contracts.During a spate of intensive contacts in 2001, Iranian delegations visited a shipbuilding company in St. Petersburg, precision weapons producers in Tula and Kolomna, and an air defense systems manufacturer in Izhevsk. Iran is seeking to obtain S-300 advanced air defense systems for the purpose of protecting Bushehr and other nuclear installations. The S-300 systems would complement the shorter-range Tors, manufactured under a 2005 contract by a Russian defense company whose management is directly appointed by the Kremlin.

Source: http://www.gwu.edu/~ieresgwu/assets/...rs/pm_0427.pdf

Originally Posted by Doktor

How can a state that threads to obliterate another state going nuclear is good?

Where you come from, do your guys automatically believe everything your politicians utter ..... especially from an oratory pulpit?

Iran: MiG-29 status