Israel vs. Iran ... A real nuke issue

[alwaysfresh]

Nukes are the issue and Israel/Iran are the nations in focus. First to note that a survey of 3,850 respondents in Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates found 80 percent "consider Israel and the United States the two biggest external threats to their security. Only six percent cited Iran." US media has been non-stop Iran's Nuke threat just like before with Iraq's Nukes. American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) is perhaps the most powerful lobby in the U.S., so the pressure for military option is highly likely coming from Israel. Israel is thought to have between 200-400 nukes(if 400 that is more than China or France). Before you attack, try to take out some important military personal. There were some recent attempts to take out Iranian military personal (yesterday).

I figure if the US does not directly attack Iran. Israel will attack Iran with US military support. The US military will just provide the weapons like in Lebanon. Israel's Strategic Affairs Minister Avigdor Lieberman said (this month):

"We will have to face the Iranians alone, because Israel cannot remain with its arms folded, waiting patiently for Iran to develop non-conventional weapons".

1) My questions are how would Israel and how could Israel attack Iran?
2) Would the US militarily support Israel?
3) How does Israel navy compare with Iran's navy?
4) How does Israel's airforce compare to Iran's airforce?
5) Iran is a hugh country compared to west bank and Lebanon, could Israel logistically destroy the infrastructure of Iran and its nuclear fascilities ensuring that Iran's Economy Sinks and Nuke program does also.
6) Would they use nukes? I mean if they did today, what would happen? I think nothing. They would call it a mistake. They would blame a few scapegoats and it would be over. Israel currently denies having nukes and if they did used them they would really scare all the countries around them.

http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/47913/
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/02/14/1646210
http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_view.asp?no=343878&rel_no=3
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/121557
http://www.gulf-daily-news.com/Story.asp?Article=170089&Sn=WORL&IssueID=29331
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/02/13/154241

[The_Zergling]

I figure if the US does not directly attack Iran. Israel will attack Iran with US military support. The US military will just provide the weapons like in Lebanon. Israel's Strategic Affairs Minister Avigdor Lieberman said (this month):

"We will have to face the Iranians alone, because Israel cannot remain with its arms folded, waiting patiently for Iran to develop non-conventional weapons".

1) My questions are how would Israel and how could Israel attack Iran?
2) Would the US militarily support Israel?
3) How does Israel navy compare with Iran's navy?
4) How does Israel's airforce compare to Iran's airforce?
5) Iran is a hugh country compared to west bank and Lebanon, could Israel logistically destroy the infrastructure of Iran and its nuclear fascilities ensuring that Iran's Economy Sinks and Nuke program does also.
6) Would they use nukes? I mean if they did today, what would happen? I think nothing. They would call it a mistake. They would blame a few scapegoats and it would be over. Israel currently denies having nukes and if they did used them they would really scare all the countries around them.


That Israel would actually attack Iran is quite an assumption, but as a hypothetical it's worth discussing. A factor that you outlined in your scenario that has actually changed by now is Israel's denial of nukes. US Defense Secretary Robert Gates came under Israeli criticism for basically stating outright that they had nukes. Of course this was just confirming what everyone else had believed in the first place, but now Israel does not have plausible deniability when pressed on this issue.

1) As to how Israel would attack Iran, it seems the only militarily viable plan would be to launch a full-scale airstrike. Some American right-wing idiot recently advocated "quietly" assassinating Iranian scientists working on the project. It was stupid to believe Americans could pull it off, and probably equally stupid to believe the Israelis could. How many Farsi-speaking Ninja do they have lying around?

2) The US would probably continue to basically give Israel heavily subsidized weapons like it always does, enabling it to fight without much strain to the economy.

3) Navy comparison: I'm uninformed.

4) Air Force comparison: Hands down Israel has an advantage, but as the Iranians would be playing defense they have home turf advantage which they can utilize quite effectively.

5) Could Israel destroy all nuclear energy or weapons related programs? I highly doubt it. The odds are stacked against them considering this is an incomplete scenario situation. The indiscriminate bombing against Lebanon showed that you can certainly kill a bunch of civilians easily, but miss all your true targets.

Whether or not hardliners get their way remains to be seen, but strategically preemptively attacking Iran would be a serious blunder on Israel's part, hence my skepticism at actually seeing it happen, unless the US does it first.

[bd popeye]

3) Navy comparison: I'm uninformed.

Those navies would not oppose ecah other because the Iranian navy is bottled necked in the Presian Gulf. The Isreali navy maybe better equipped but the Iranians may have more ships and other sea craft.

[lcortez]

Any Israeli attack on Iran would have to be an airstrike as it would be the only option available to Israel.However it would be limited in scale as Israeli airforce only has limited air to air refuelling capacity,perhaps by f15 &16's using the 'buddy refuelling' systems,perhaps aimed at key installations.
Israeli airforce appears to be qaulitively superior using f15 &16's,also has greater combat experience,vs mig29 &27's,& f14 tomcats.
Israel could do it,but on a limited scale,and very likely,if it where to happen,with US support logisticaly,perhaps offering Diego Garcia as a pit stop on the return journey,and also air to air refuelling.
Seem to recall reading in either Time or Newsweek,that a large no of Iranian nuclear facilities are buried v deep,beyond the reach of conventional bunker buster bombs,and would require nuclear attack,perhaps someone with greater knowledge could clear that up?
Also does anyone have any knowledge of the Iranian aircraft the 'SHAFAQ',is it a true stealth plane etc?

[bd popeye]

Israel could do it,but on a limited scale,and very likely,if it where to happen,with US support logisticaly,perhaps offering Diego Garcia as a pit stop on the return journey,and also air to air refuelling.

It makes no sense for the possible strike aircraft to go all the way to Diego Garcia to refuel. Because they would have to refuel just to get to Diego Garcia. Check your map.

More realistically USAF KC-10 & KC-135 could offer in flight refueling if need be on the return journey to Isreal.

I hope there is no nuclear strike on Iran by Isreal or the US.

[lcortez]

Diego Garcia out of question then:o What about Israeli aircraft refuelling on US carriers?However on reflection,if the Us is so obviously involved they may as well be in on the strike side of things as well as Iran will retaliate against the US as well!
In terms of retaliatory capability what does Iran have available,besides aircraft?Can the Ghadr 10 ICBM target the USA?

[The_Zergling]

Diego Garcia out of question then:o What about Israeli aircraft refuelling on US carriers?However on reflection,if the Us is so obviously involved they may as well be in on the strike side of things as well as Iran will retaliate against the US as well!
In terms of retaliatory capability what does Iran have available,besides aircraft?Can the Ghadr 10 ICBM target the USA?

As far as I know Israel does not have carrier-capable aircraft. Regarding your second assertion, a strike on Iran by Israel may very well (and justifiably) be seen as an attack by the US as well. Currently Iran does not have any capability to directly hit US soil, which is why arguments for war are logically weak.

[maglomanic]

Those navies would not oppose ecah other because the Iranian navy is bottled necked in the Presian Gulf. The Isreali navy maybe better equipped but the Iranians may have more ships and other sea craft.

I think it quite possible that Israeli Dolphin Subs will launch Cruise Missiles against Iranian targets. That makes sense as Iranian don't have suffiecient assets to effectively pursue subs away from it's coast and it makes Israeli incursion a two pronged attack which could prove to be more effective than just an aerial attack.
My 2 pennies.

[Vlad Plasmius]

1) My questions are how would Israel and how could Israel attack Iran?

A long-range air strike would be the best option.

2) Would the US militarily support Israel?

Doubtful. The U.S. may prevent action being taken against Israel, but I don't think they'll support the operation.

3) How does Israel navy compare with Iran's navy?

Neither is really a factor. Iran's navy is probably superior in several areas, but neither will actually come into conflict currently.

4) How does Israel's airforce compare to Iran's airforce?

Well, the best capability Iran has to counter the Israelis would be the Phoenix missile on the F-14 Tomcats. Right now that would probably damn any Israeli attack, unless it included AWACS. I'm not to certain about how Iran's AWACS project is going, though. Perhaps AWACS will not even help Israel.

A squadron of F-14s is based around Bushehr, along with two other squadrons of other aircraft and it undoubtedly has Tor-M1s stationed around it. Taking out that facility would be crucial to stopping Iran's program.

5) Iran is a hugh country compared to west bank and Lebanon, could Israel logistically destroy the infrastructure of Iran and its nuclear fascilities ensuring that Iran's Economy Sinks and Nuke program does also.

Nope. The paths Israel can take are severely limited and they'll likely be unable to take them more than once. Israel might be able to get two or three groups of aircraft to strike over Iran, but it will probably be a one-time deal, which is not even close to enough to do anything but surface damage to Iran's nuclear program.

Only by using nukes could that achievement be made.

6) Would they use nukes? I mean if they did today, what would happen? I think nothing. They would call it a mistake. They would blame a few scapegoats and it would be over. Israel currently denies having nukes and if they did used them they would really scare all the countries around them.

They'd give Iran perfect justification for a nuclear weapons program and subsequently, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Jordan. It would also justify Turkey and Syria. Israel would be stupid for launching any strike on Iran, conventional or nuclear.

[Finn McCool]

I think the only effective military option for Israel is a nuclear strike on Iranian nuclear facilities. Attacking the Osirak reactor in 1981 was pushing the limits of IAF deep strike capability. There is no way they could be effective against multiple, underground, heavily fortified sites associated with the Iranian program at an even farther range, even if they used subs armed with cruise missles as well as aircraft. No way. Thus the only effective option is a BM attack. Obviously, that is not viable for political reasons. So really Israel's only options are an ineffective conventional strike or leaving the problem to the Americans, which is probably a better choice.

[BLUEJACKET]

Israel could send fighters via Jordan (with which it has peace treaty and is anti-Iran) to Iraqi Kurdistan and mount air raids from there, or via Turkey if the latter agrees; but IMO the bulk of sorties would be done by USAF/Navy aircraft and CMs of all types. I don't see Israelis attacking Iran alone-if that
1st strike happen at all- they have their hands full with Hezbollah, the West Bank/Gaza and Syria. Israel will surely be retaliated against with BMs, plus rocket attacks (http://www.strategycenter.net/research/pubID.117/pub_detail.asp)from Palestinian and Lebanese controlled areas.
I won't exclude the possibility of 2 Iranian Kilos armed with SLCM/ASMs (already or in the near future) going up the Red Sea & Gulf of Aqaba, and/or around Africa (forget the Suez Canal!) and showing up just off Eilat, and/or Haifa and Tel Aviv, while the 3rd takes station in the Gulf of Oman/Arabian Sea-together with F-14s & Su-24s they could help to retaliate on USN/AF bases in the Gulf!
http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/middle_east_and_asia/n_africa_mid_east_pol_95.jpg

http://www.keyway.ca/gif/wildjour.gif

During 1990 Russia delivered 12 Su-24MK (http://www.milavia.net/aircraft/su-24/su-24.htm)Fencers to the the Islamic Republic of Iran Air Force (IRIAF). The IRIAF has modified these aircraft to use Western weapons, such as the
C-802 Noor anti-ship cruise missile (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-08-17-missiles-iran_x.htm). After Operation Desert Storm began, Saddam sent 24 Iraqi Su-24MKs to Iran. These have since been integrated in the IRIAF Su-24 fleet. In 2002 all Iranian Su-24s were modified with inflight refuelling probes to receive fuel from the IRIAF KC-707 tankers. .."The Exocet missile definitely proved the vulnerability of the slow-moving big ship." The key to the U.K.'s Falklands victory, Arquilla continues, was that the British calculated how to put their two aircraft carriers beyond the range of Argentinean air attacks while still enabling British aircraft to hit Argentinean forces. That lesson has applications for the challenge that the U.S. Navy may soon face in the Persian Gulf. Yes, the Gulf's north shore belongs to Iran and is potentially a platform for their cruise missiles. True, any ship within the Gulf, including ships docked at the U.S. Fifth Fleet's base in Bahrain, could theoretically be targeted from across the Gulf or from speedboats and helicopters that the Iranians have purportedly adapted as mobile platforms for their missiles. In practice, however, America has and will maintain complete air dominance.
That means that if America stands off its naval assets over the horizon, the Iranians have three options: they can aim their missiles at targets in visible range, employ radar-guided missiles to acquire over-the-horizon targets, or else use sea-based platforms to launch missiles. In all those cases, they will immediately become vulnerable to U.S. retaliation from the air. The Iranians would likely only get one chance at launching their cruise missiles before their platforms were destroyed.
Yet what if the Iranians could launch swarms of hundreds of missiles simultaneously? All bets might be off. In such a scenario, the Iranians could conceivably devastate an American naval force. ..Like mounted cavalry faced by the machine gun in 1914 or the battleship confronted by aerial attack in 1941, the U.S. aircraft carrier battle group seems likely to become increasingly a giant, slow-moving target when an enemy can fire swarms of self-guiding cruise missiles from hundreds of miles away. "Sixty-odd years ago, the German admiral Durnitz had in his office a picture of the ocean with a few gulls and a sunlit sea," John Arquilla says. "Durnitz would point to this picture when his U-boat skippers visited him and say, ‘That is the future of naval warfare--there will be no great vessels, only submarines and aircraft.' http://www.japanfocus.org/products/details/2206

From Iraq to Iran (http://www.counterpunch.org/cohn02132007.html)

Ex-aide says Rice misled U.S. Congress on Iran (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070214/pl_nm/iran_usa_dc)

Russia expects U.S. flexibility on Iran as on N.Korea (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070214/pl_nm/russia_iran_usa_dc_1)

[Vlad Plasmius]

The weekly said the Islamic republic had been conducting night-time refueling exercises and has increased training of pilots for long-range missions, which it implies could involve a target in the Mediterranean.

"Iran is pursuing a longer-range strike capability for its air assets to support the delivery of more powerful strategic weapons systems," the weekly said.

Tehran "is investing considerable resources in generating enhanced operational aerial refuelling capabilities to support strike assets capable of delivering such systems," notably involving the Sukhoi Su-24MK strike aircraft, it added.

Refuelling exercises have been conducted over Syria, under a November 2005 agreement granting Iran access to Syrian air space.

"A clause in the agreement provides for Syria to serve as a 'rear base for Iran' where 'Damascus will allow (Iranian) aircraft, returning from a mission (the implication being a target in the Mediterranean) to land at a Syrian air force base in case of emergency,'" it said.

Source: Defence Talk.com (http://www.defencetalk.com/news/publish/airforce/Iran_Seeking_Longer-Range_Strike_Force100010281.php)

While the Mediterranean is a possibility. Iran could be preparing for a long-rang strike similar to what Israel might plan. With fighters in Syria, however, they would be able to take it even further than that.

I don't think the U.S. will be able to significantly damage Iran with air strikes, I certainly doubt Israel could.

[bd popeye]

I don't think the U.S. will be able to significantly damage Iran with air strikes, I certainly doubt Israel could.

Vlad, are you refering to the Iranian nuclear sites or the Iranian military in General?

If you are refering to the Iranian nuke sites>>> Why, in your opinion, couldn't the US signifantly damage them?

Thanks!:)

[Scratch]

Bluejacket, I have my doubt's if iranien subs could make it to the Meditaranien, and even more so if they then could make it back. I'M not really sure the crew is trained and the ship really suited (maintanance wise) for such a journy.
If the USN places one or two subs in the strait of Hormuz, or generally close to the iranien cost, could a Kilo even make it through the strait undetected?

As to the nuke program. US and Israeli aircraft could probably do some considerable damage to the sites, wich then will only be temporary, I think. But if they start it, they'll have to go all the way, since I don't think Iran would just sit still thereafter.
Israeli AF alone can't do much harm. Capabilites (range, overall payload) are just too limited.

[Vlad Plasmius]

If you are refering to the Iranian nuke sites>>> Why, in your opinion, couldn't the US signifantly damage them?

Many are underground, deep underground, and there are possibly many unknown and undisclosed sites. Not to mention the Tor-M1s stationed around some of them.

[BLUEJACKET]

Bluejacket, I have my doubt's if iranien subs could make it to the Meditaranien, and even more so if they then could make it back. I'M not really sure the crew is trained and the ship really suited (maintanance wise) for such a journy.
If the USN places one or two subs in the strait of Hormuz, or generally close to the iranien cost, could a Kilo even make it through the strait undetected?

Look at the map of Iran- their coast extends past the Gulf, so they can keep the Kilos outside of it. I agree it wouldn't be easy for a Kilo to transit to the E.Med from Iran & back, but it could be done if they decide it's worth the risk, having only 3 Kilos. By the same token, German U-boats operated in the Indian Ocean (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/customer-reviews/1557508631/ref=cm_cr_dp_pt/102-4013049-5131367?ie=UTF8&n=283155&s=books), one went to Japan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unterseeboot_511), and off NZ from bases in Malaya/Indonesia (http://stonebooks.com/archives/990502.shtml), and the IJN subs made it to the Atlantic and one came back (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_submarine_I-8#Mission_to_Germany) to Japan in WWII; 2 Soviet Pac fleet subs went to fight the Germans (http://www.fegi.ru/prim/flot/flot1_12.htm)via Pac/Indian Oceans, and at least one Soviet SSK (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_submarine_B-427)made it from Leningrad to Vladivostok via Atlantic, W.Coast of Africa & Indian Ocean- and it was less capable than modern Kilo! Even without going that far, Iranian Kilos could target all of Israel from the Gulf of Aqaba.
Iran can also attack oil infrastracture in the Gulf and on Saudi Red Sea coast, and remeber that the Red Sea was full of mines during the '80s.
the Israeli public's anxiety has not been lessened by reports of the efficacy of anti-missile systems that Israel has installed at great expense. The Iranians have mastered all of the technical bases of missile technology, according to Israeli experts, and although the quality and precision of Iran's missiles may leave something to be desired, they can inflict immense damage. Israeli specialists also argue that the missile-defense shield Israel possesses – in common with those of all other nations – is not sufficient to protect it. Syria has missiles also – not so effective as the Iranian ones, but much closer and capable of inflicting much damage if used. ..
A war with Iran would be far more dangerous. Worse yet, efforts to demonize Iran have failed. Only 36 percent of the Jewish population of Israel polled last month thought an Iranian nuclear attack the "biggest threat" to Israel. ..
Serious Israeli strategists overwhelmingly believe, to cite Reuven Pedatzur in Ha'aretz last November, that "mutual assured deterrence can be forged, with a high degree of success, between Israel and Iran." Israeli strategic thinking is highly realistic. Early this February a study released at a conference by the Institute for National Security Studies at Tel Aviv University predicted that Iran would behave rationally with nuclear weapons and "that the elimination of Israel is not considered to be an essential national interest" for it. Iran "will act logically, evaluating the price and risks involved." A preemptive attack on Iran nuclear research sites would "be a strategic mistake," Pedatzur warned the conference, and the use of tactical nuclear weapons against them sheer folly. "Our best option is open nuclear deterrence." http://www.antiwar.com/orig/kolko.php?articleid=10505

[celtic-dragon]

Source: Defence Talk.com (http://www.defencetalk.com/news/publish/airforce/Iran_Seeking_Longer-Range_Strike_Force100010281.php)

While the Mediterranean is a possibility. Iran could be preparing for a long-rang strike similar to what Israel might plan. With fighters in Syria, however, they would be able to take it even further than that.

I don't think the U.S. will be able to significantly damage Iran with air strikes, I certainly doubt Israel could.
Uh, Vlad? I have to agree with Popeye. Why do you think the US couldn't substantially damage Iran? We would not be able to destroy some portions of the nuclear program to be sure, but we could devestate Irans military and civilian infrastucture. I just don't think any such action is warrented at this time. The Israelis may think otherwise, since former Iranian President Rafsemjani (sp?) made a stir by claiming just a handful of nuclear strikes would destroy Israel, while Islam as a whole could easily absorb any retaliation. It is uncertain how many people in the Iranian government share his views, but Israel will not allow itself to be threatened with a second Holocoust. Internal EU documents revealed this week are pessimistic that sanctions alone will deter Iranian bomb development, and note that the only real obstacles have been technical in nature, rather then diplomatic. I will leave it there, as this is not a political thread.
Do keep in mind that while impressive as a regional power, Iran simply does not have the capacity to fend off successive waves of cruise missile strikes, stealth bombers with JDAMS munitions, drones fitted for wild weasel missions and literally hundreds of tactical fighters and heavy bombers Those are just the things we know about. No doubt, the Air Force would be interested in trying out that new EMP weapon if it is ready. I also agree with Popeye in that I hope it doesn't come to that.

[lcortez]

Have to agree with that,as it would appear that Irans most modern plane is the f14 tomcat,aside from some experimental aircraft.I believe that at present Iran has a 'point defence' air defence system,but is negotiating with Russia for an intergrated system,is this the case,does anyone have a better understanding of the situation?

[Vlad Plasmius]

Uh, Vlad? I have to agree with Popeye. Why do you think the US couldn't substantially damage Iran? We would not be able to destroy some portions of the nuclear program to be sure, but we could devestate Irans military and civilian infrastucture.

We could, but I don't think we will be able to the way we are setting things up. I don't think that a strike now, with the assets we have in theater would ever be effective. The problem is, if we start setting up for what we'd need, Iran would know for sure it was coming and be able to prepare.

Do keep in mind that while impressive as a regional power, Iran simply does not have the capacity to fend off successive waves of cruise missile strikes, stealth bombers with JDAMS munitions, drones fitted for wild weasel missions and literally hundreds of tactical fighters and heavy bombers Those are just the things we know about. No doubt, the Air Force would be interested in trying out that new EMP weapon if it is ready. I also agree with Popeye in that I hope it doesn't come to that.

Sometimes people are too proud of our technology and forget easily how a few using simple tactics can overcome that gap. One moment of carelessness can also swing a battle in the wrong direction.

[Scratch]

... I believe that at present Iran has a 'point defence' air defence system,but is negotiating with Russia for an intergrated system,is this the case,does anyone have a better understanding of the situation?

If I'm correct perhaps a year ago Janes reported that Iran bought a battery(?) of (then latest) S-300 version SAMs from Belarussia wich had aquired them only shortly before that from Russia.

[celtic-dragon]

We could, but I don't think we will be able to the way we are setting things up. I don't think that a strike now, with the assets we have in theater would ever be effective. The problem is, if we start setting up for what we'd need, Iran would know for sure it was coming and be able to prepare.



Sometimes people are too proud of our technology and forget easily how a few using simple tactics can overcome that gap. One moment of carelessness can also swing a battle in the wrong direction.
Prepare? How does one prepare to get kicked in the gut while chained to a wall, other then aknowledging it's going to hurt?? Iran's options would be limited. You can bet that the first things to go would be anything that looks like a SAM launcher. Iran can try to hide the SAMS, and create dummies and so on. They would be well advised to bury as much of their production as possible, which they have already done. While you claim that the force package in place is insufficient to the task, then you would need to define what the task is that you deny can be accomplished. Two carrier wings, their complementary surface combatants (with an awful lot of Tomahawks and SLAM/Harpoon missiles), the B-1 bombers that are forward deployed at Diego Garcia, the B-2 bombers that fly anywhere directly from their home base, the copius US air force tactical air assets already in theatre in Iraq and Afghanistan, however many submarines that are there...

You get the picture. The goal will not be to totally destroy the nuke program, if it comes to blows. The goal will be to DEGRADE the program significantly, and the force package is in place NOW to do that.

I was also curious about your parable-like admonotion regarding technology. certainly, our potential foes are aware of out superiortity in that realm, and would wish to fight against our weaknesses rather then our strength. If we kept any conflict limited to mainly an air campaign, then we also limit the Iranians from being able to engage in assymetric warfare directly against us. Now, they can try to use proxies in Iraq and Lebanon, but they are doing that already. That card has been played, and we have largly taken it's measure.

[Finn McCool]

Well this idea sort of just came to me but if the United States really wanted to totally destroy the Iranian nuke program another option would be to target the Iranian Air Defence network, (meaning fighters, radars and SAMs) which would take what, days? as well as striking the nuclear complexes from the air. With air defence removed or driven underground it should be possible to send in Army Rangers or some other elite force by helicopter to land at the sites and physically go into underground areas and destroy them.

Of course the holes in that plan are that critical components could easily be moved, there is no garuntee of how long degrading Iranian air defence would take, MANPADs around the nuke sites would be a major problem, and not all nuke sites would be within range of a helicopter strike force.

Oh well, its just a thought.

[Jeff Head]

The goal will not be to totally destroy the nuke program, if it comes to blows. The goal will be to DEGRADE the program significantly, and the force package is in place NOW to do that.

I was also curious about your parable-like admonotion regarding technology. certainly, our potential foes are aware of out superiortity in that realm, and would wish to fight against our weaknesses rather then our strength. If we kept any conflict limited to mainly an air campaign, then we also limit the Iranians from being able to engage in assymetric warfare directly against us. Now, they can try to use proxies in Iraq and Lebanon, but they are doing that already. That card has been played, and we have largly taken it's measure.The are also considering forward deploying a few B-2s, in fact, bases have already been selected: Royal Air Force Fairford in the United Kingdom; Andersen AFB, Guam; and Diego Garcia. Besides these, the Air Force is looking at one other forward operating location somewhere in the Middle East, a location that the Air Force will not identify publicly but which Gen. Michael Ryan, the Air Force chief of staff, said "we're looking at."

Anyhow, I agree with your analysis. I believe we have placed many assetts in the region from the getgo against this possibility and it should be no surprise. Bush, like him or not, named Iran early on, and as an exporter of terror, it should not be too surprising. The WMD issue and the mounting evidence of involvement in Iraq are just all adding to that.

Now with two carrier groups in the region, enough fire power is available to seriously degrade both the nuclear research and Iranian military naval and air power as well.

I pray it can be avoided...but if it comes to blows, it will be hard for the Iranians to hurt the US militarily. I think that their avenue of attack will be to use what military assetts they can to hurt us economically and I believe, in the short term, that they will be able to shut down the straits and accomplish some of that goal...as well as continue to use their proxies in Iran particularly to pick at us.

[celtic-dragon]

The are also considering forward deploying a few B-2s, in fact, bases have already been selected: Royal Air Force Fairford in the United Kingdom; Andersen AFB, Guam; and Diego Garcia. Besides these, the Air Force is looking at one other forward operating location somewhere in the Middle East, a location that the Air Force will not identify publicly but which Gen. Michael Ryan, the Air Force chief of staff, said "we're looking at."

Anyhow, I agree with your analysis. I believe we have placed many assetts in the region from the getgo against this possibility and it should be no surprise. Bush, like him or not, named Iran early on, and as an exporter of terror, it should not be too surprising. The WMD issue and the mounting evidence of involvement in Iraq are just all adding to that.

Now with two carrier groups in the region, enough fire power is available to seriously degrade both the nuclear research and Iranian military naval and air power as well.

I pray it can be avoided...but if it comes to blows, it will be hard for the Iranians to hurt the US militarily. I think that their avenue of attack will be to use what military assetts they can to hurt us economically and I believe, in the short term, that they will be able to shut down the straits and accomplish some of that goal...as well as continue to use their proxies in Iran particularly to pick at us.
I think you are right as well, and I also hope to God that this can be avoided. We need another war like we need an Ebola epidemic.

[Aliph Ahmed]

I think you guys are under estimating Iran's capabilities greatly. Though no one will deny that if push comes to shove, the strikes will be successfull. On the other hand, you can not deny that all sites will not be destroyed.

What is the purpose to attack ? To stop them from going nuclear. They will simply walk out of NPT and instead of a few known locations will start their program with more determination at countless locations through out Iran. and Unlike most of Middle East, Iran is quite mountaneous. They know how to manufacture their own centrifuges. They have also mastered the art of enrichment.

Unless and unless, the objective is change of regime, nothing will stop Iran from going Nuclear. and for that USA must launch several landings if not a full scale ground invasion.

Plus the shias have been relatively quiet in Iraq. and there is no guarantee that weopons through Iran are not continiously being channelled into Iraq through secret tunnels or routes for the day which we all hope to avoid.

Iran's leaders already said it that they will strike at all US interestes throughout the world.

Unless and Unless the ruling regime is decimitated in the initial phase before they get the chance to strike back, USA will find herself in a very very uncomfortable position.

It is pretty much obvious that most of the planning by the USA is pretty much completed only waiting to recieve the sigal to execute. There are no certainties what Iran has been doing. Since we should all agree that they are also preparing ?

Unlike Iraq where USA went in without a proper exit strategy in place, Iran will simply become USA's Afghanistan they do repeat the same mistake again.

[celtic-dragon]

*Plus the shias have been relatively quiet in Iraq. and there is no guarantee that weopons through Iran are not continiously being channelled into Iraq through secret tunnels or routes for the day which we all hope to avoid.*


Uh, they have??!! Maybe I've been watching the wrong news channels and reading the wrong news mags :rolleyes:

*Iran's leaders already said it that they will strike at all US interestes throughout the world. *

Well, it isn't like we were friends anyway.


*Unless and Unless the ruling regime is decimitated in the initial phase before they get the chance to strike back, USA will find herself in a very very uncomfortable position.*

Like what? I actually know the answer to that. I merely want to see if you do, so please elaborate.

*Unlike Iraq where USA went in without a proper exit strategy in place, Iran will simply become USA's Afghanistan they do repeat the same mistake again.*

There is no sign anywhere that the US is planning to invade anyone else right now. If the draft were revived, then maybe. The previous SecDef was incredibly hostile to the notion (and insulted a lot of WW II, Korea and 'Nam vets in his statements about the draft) and wanted to actually cut manpower in the army and marines even further. The US has no capacity to actually enter into another ground campaign, so you can leave that idea alone. It isn't gonna happen.

[Vlad Plasmius]

Taking out Iran's nuclear facilities is a hopeless cause.

Right now the tor-M1s might not be a significant threat as they are not in large numbers. Iran only purchased 29, I believe. They can fire 2 missiles at one time and I think only have about 8 stored on them. That makes for a totally possible 290 intercepts before needing a reload. The Tor-M1 has fire on the move capability and can drive around for hours. Iran has radars positioned all along the coast and Iraqi border. If we want to take them by surprise, possibly giving us the ability to strike their Tor-M1s when they'd be incapable of moving away or intercepting, we'd have to launch over Pakistan and move over Afghanistan, finally moving out to Iran or launch from Central Asian bases. However, there is also a possibility that if we used F-22s we could fly right over radar sites and take out the Tor-M1s.

Taking those out is crucial, IMO, to defeating Iran. Those weapons are perfect for Iran to exercise a non-conventional guerilla-style air defense. Iranians have proven their ability to multi-task by using F-14s as AWACS, air superiority, and air defense fighters. They've also used them on strike missions. No doubt they'll realize the Tor-M1s provide them both an exceptional mobile air defense system, but also an exceptional mobile air defense radar. Their detection range is around 25 kilometers and positioned maybe two or three around a city would provide reliable and constant early warning for bombing missions. It gives at least a minute of warning they might otherwise not have. Also these would be fully mobile and capable of moving around and impossible to track minute-by-minute.

The Iranians may also makes use of those drones they're talking about and have F-14s equipped with Iranian-made Phoenix missiles flying CAP over major cities and other important military or civillian installations. They have F-14s based near Bushehr, for instance. Taking out that would be equally crucial as with it still in tact Iran would have little to no difficulty building up a weapons program. The attack may even embolden the Russians to seriously offer Iran five more reactors.

This is not even discounting the other possible dangers. One possibility is Iranian Su-24s or F-4s, operating from Syrian bases and being refueled mid-flight, attacking U.S. military bases in Europe. Two bases, one in Bulgaria and another in Romania, are likely to be involved in the Iranian strike. These would be substantial targets for Iran and quite accessible from Syrian bases.

Also Iranian Kilos could move within range of an American carrier group and launch a strike with Klub missiles, possibly simultaneously with an anti-ship mission by F-4s or Su-24s with F-14 escorts.

Iraq nor Serbia had access to the kind of technology Iran does. Their technology is perfect for hit-and-run attacks in every branch of the military.

[Aliph Ahmed]

Uh, they have??!! Maybe I've been watching the wrong news channels and reading the wrong news mags :rolleyes:

Do you know that most of the fighting so far is being done by the handfull of Sunnis that makeup less then 20% of Iraq's total population. Now compare the Shias with Sunnis and repeat your statement. You will get your answer.

Well, it isn't like we were friends anyway.

The are not at war either. My friend, only people who want war are the ones who have not been in a war.


Like what? I actually know the answer to that. I merely want to see if you do, so please elaborate.


There is no sign anywhere that the US is planning to invade anyone else right now. If the draft were revived, then maybe. The previous SecDef was incredibly hostile to the notion (and insulted a lot of WW II, Korea and 'Nam vets in his statements about the draft) and wanted to actually cut manpower in the army and marines even further. The US has no capacity to actually enter into another ground campaign, so you can leave that idea alone. It isn't gonna happen.

Your analysis are flawed that there will not be a ground invasion. Control of skies is not enough. Maybe you need to read more on Hezbullah/Israel war. If the war do pick up pace, USA will find itself in a gulf of enemy. You know why USA was reluctant to engage North Korea? Becasue of their so called 40,000 troops in South Korea. USA have 140,000 troops in Iraq.

[celtic-dragon]

Do you know that most of the fighting so far is being done by the handfull of Sunnis that makeup less then 20% of Iraq's total population. Now compare the Shias with Sunnis and repeat your statement. You will get your answer.



The are not at war either. My friend, only people who want war are the ones who have not been in a war.


Your analysis are flawed that there will not be a ground invasion. Control of skies is not enough. Maybe you need to read more on Hezbullah/Israel war. If the war do pick up pace, USA will find itself in a gulf of enemy. You know why USA was reluctant to engage North Korea? Becasue of their so called 40,000 troops in South Korea. USA have 140,000 troops in Iraq.
Aliph:

Honestly, speculating about people coming home in body bags is not whay I had in mind, and is actually rather offensive and outside the spirit of this forum as I understand it. I do not wish to see ANYONE harmed, nor do I care to speculate about gruesome and unnessary subjects such as how many Iranians would be killed. I would never wish such tragedy to be visited on anyone's family, and I will not entertain this topic here.

Best wishes.

[Aliph Ahmed]

Aliph:

Honestly, speculating about people coming home in body bags is not whay I had in mind, and is actually rather offensive and outside the spirit of this forum as I understand it. I do not wish to see ANYONE harmed, nor do I care to speculate about gruesome and unnessary subjects such as how many Iranians would be killed. I would never wish such trdgedy to be visited on anyone's family, and I will not entertain this topic here.

Best wishes.

That is exactly what I am trying to tell you. Dont think that USA will simply launch air strikes and get away without any loss. Besides, you asked me about it and what I said was realistic. and No neither do I hope that it ever come to this.

[Vlad Plasmius]

Well, to eliminate the underground nuclear sites air strikes will be horribly insufficient. Which means the best chance is to have some amount of American troop involvement on the ground. Remember the area where they're planning to install 3,000 centrifuges that would eventually be able to create two bombs a year is at an underground facility. If that and Bushehr are able to survive an air strike the rest of the attacks will be almost completely meaningless.

[The_Zergling]

Well, to eliminate the underground nuclear sites air strikes will be horribly insufficient. Which means the best chance is to have some amount of American troop involvement on the ground. Remember the area where they're planning to install 3,000 centrifuges that would eventually be able to create two bombs a year is at an underground facility. If that and Bushehr are able to survive an air strike the rest of the attacks will be almost completely meaningless.

Well if Iran is actually pursuing nuclear weaponry in addition to pure power, it would take at least 54000 centrifuges, according to the IAEA. Even the largest commercially available centrifuge tubes can hold only a few grams of uranium at any given time - spinning any more at high speed is extremely dangerous - the number of centrifuges running simultaneously that would be required to produce usable quantities of weapons-grade uranium is considerably greater.

As it is a signatory to the NPT, according to international law it is open to inspection - if they are indeed enriching weapons for use it should be conspicuous enough to tell the difference.

[Vlad Plasmius]

Well if Iran is actually pursuing nuclear weaponry in addition to pure power, it would take at least 54000 centrifuges, according to the IAEA. Even the largest commercially available centrifuge tubes can hold only a few grams of uranium at any given time - spinning any more at high speed is extremely dangerous - the number of centrifuges running simultaneously that would be required to produce usable quantities of weapons-grade uranium is considerably greater.

As it is a signatory to the NPT, according to international law it is open to inspection - if they are indeed enriching weapons for use it should be conspicuous enough to tell the difference.

Actually, I believe they have said 3,000 operating at their max could produce enough for two weapons a year. 54,000 is, I believe, the number of centrifuges Iran intends to install eventually. From what I understand, 54,000 is enough to make a nuke every two weeks.

[Aliph Ahmed]

Actually, I believe they have said 3,000 operating at their max could produce enough for two weapons a year. 54,000 is, I believe, the number of centrifuges Iran intends to install eventually. From what I understand, 54,000 is enough to make a nuke every two weeks.

I think it take a lot more time then 2 weeks to enrich uranium to 90+%. They are by law under NPT allowed to enrich Uranium upto 5%. Smething that they are following strictly and promising to do the same in future. Thus, NOT breaking any law.

How long does it take to enrich from 5% to 95% ?

[BLUEJACKET]

Taking out Iran's nuclear facilities is a hopeless cause.

Right now the tor-M1s might not be a significant threat as they are not in large numbers. Iran only purchased 29, I believe. They can fire 2 missiles at one time and I think only have about 8 stored on them. That makes for a totally possible 290 intercepts before needing a reload. The Tor-M1 has fire on the move capability and can drive around for hours. Iran has radars positioned all along the coast and Iraqi border. If we want to take them by surprise, possibly giving us the ability to strike their Tor-M1s when they'd be incapable of moving away or intercepting, we'd have to launch over Pakistan and move over Afghanistan, finally moving out to Iran or launch from Central Asian bases. However, there is also a possibility that if we used F-22s we could fly right over radar sites and take out the Tor-M1s.. Iranians have proven their ability to multi-task by using F-14s as AWACS, air superiority, and air defense fighters. ..the Tor-M1s provide them both an exceptional mobile air defense system, but also an exceptional mobile air defense radar. Their detection range is around 25 kilometers and positioned maybe two or three around a city would provide reliable and constant early warning for bombing missions.

During the 1991 Gulf War, two A-50s (http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/a50/)were kept on station over the Black Sea to observe Coalition air activities over Turkey and northern Iraq. http://www.vectorsite.net/avil76.html


I also have no doubt that Russia will deploy its own AWACS over the Caspian Sea (possibly with Iranian liason personnel onboard) to detect any stray CMs, and to pass on to the Iranians the air picture to help them defend Russian- built nuclear installations.

http://www.testpilot.ru/russia/beriev/a/50/img/a50_9.jpg

China continues to deprive USA of its military predominance
http://english.pravda.ru/world/asia/...ina_missiles-0

.. China currently sells spare parts, equipment for technical servicing, missile fuel technologies and provides technical support. China’s clients in this industry can be divided into three groups: members of the ‘axis of evil’ (Iran and North Korea for instance), USA’s allies that can bring unpleasant surprises for the superpower in the future (Saudi Arabia, Pakistan) and Latin American countries (Argentine and Brazil).

They talk a lot of the danger of Iran becoming a nuclear weapon state. Persia/Iran never fought Hebrews/Jews in the past- in fact the Cyrus the Great liberated them from the Babylonian captivity-but fought Arabs, Turks and Russians instead. Egypt and other Arabs did fight Israel. If Egypt and Saudi Arabia add nukes to their missile arsenals , how would Israelis feel then?

Iran - Ready to attack (http://www.newstatesman.com/200702190014)

[alwaysfresh]

It seems like military conflict will not occur, based on the current news, so I have some political military questions with possible answers and reasoning.

------------
Assuming:
Iran wants to not be attacked and Israel wants Iran to not have nuclear weapons.
------------

Question:
What does Iran have to do to prevent being attacked?

Possible answers:
1) Stop developing nuclear material
REASONING - Israel will then see that Iran is not a threat to them, because they do not want or have the most powerful weapon in the world that could possibly be used again Israel directly by Iran or through another nation

2) Develop nuclear material and nuclear weapons
REASONING - Israel will never attack a nation with nukes, because then Israel could be seriously damaged in a potential conflict

3) Somewhere in between
REASONING - Not having the missiles satisfies Israel, but having enough know-how satisfies Iran's energy ministry

Opposite Question:
What does Israel have to do to stop Iran's nuclear development?

1) Nothing
REASONING - Iran does not intend to development nuclear missiles, but just nuclear power to satisfy their energy needs.

2) Attack
REASONING - Iran is a threat to Israel's population and existance, because Iran has the intention to nuke Israel or Iran has the intension to give the technology to a nation that will nuke Israel.

3) Negotiate
REASONING - Power in the region would shift to Iran with a nuclear arsenal, and Israels frends could quickly become enemies of Israel. Israel should try to then find common ground with Iran and develop a peaceful treaty and understanding in the nuclear issues and region stability.

I would like to know more alternative answers to the questions or more questions to the issue.

[Vlad Plasmius]

I think it take a lot more time then 2 weeks to enrich uranium to 90+%. They are by law under NPT allowed to enrich Uranium upto 5%. Smething that they are following strictly and promising to do the same in future. Thus, NOT breaking any law.

How long does it take to enrich from 5% to 95% ?

I don't think the time-line is wrong, but it will take them a long time to get those centrifuges working to the point where they can do it that quickly.

[Schumacher]

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_world/view/260424/1/.html

Title : Israel denies seeking US go-ahead for Iran strike
By :
Date : 24 February 2007 1808 hrs (SST)
URL : http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_world/view/260424/1/.html

JERUSALEM : Israel on Saturday denied a report in a British daily that it is seeking permission from the United States to fly its bombers over Iraq to attack Iran's nuclear facilities.

"There has never been such a request, it is obvious," Deputy Defence Minister Ephraim Sneh told public radio.

The Daily Telegraph quoted an unnamed senior Israeli defence official as saying that negotiations were taking place with the US-led coalition in Iraq to provide an "air corridor" over Iraq if the Jewish state decided on unilateral action.

"We are planning for every eventuality, and sorting out issues such as these are crucial," the official told the conservative British broadsheet in a dispatch from Tel Aviv.

"If we don't sort these issues out we could have a situation where American and Israeli war planes start shooting at each other."

Sneh put the report down to "international sources who wish to dodge dealing directly with Iran and invent reports that we allegedly want to attack Iran in order to relieve themselves from the responsibility."

Iran's hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has in the past called for Israel to be wiped off the map.

But Israel has consistently said that the Iranian nuclear question should be solved by the international community and not the Jewish state alone, even though it refuses to rule out a preemptive strike against Iran.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) issued a report Thursday saying that Iran had not halted, and in fact had expanded, its uranium enrichment programme, defying a United Nations Security Council demand to stop by this week.

The United States, France and Britain have called for tougher Security Council sanctions on Tehran, while Germany, China and Russia have taken softer stances. Iran denies US charges that it seeks nuclear weapons.

An Israeli officer involved in the military planning told The Daily Telegraph: "One of the last issues we have to sort out is how we actually get to the targets in Iran. The only way to do this is to fly through US-controlled airspace in Iraq."

A senior Israeli security official who works on the strategic committee set up to deal with the Iran threat, chaired by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, said: "The amount of effort we are putting into this single issue is unprecedented in the history of the State of Israel," the newspaper reported.

Israel is itself considered to be the sole nuclear weapons power in the Middle East. It does not officially acknowledge that it has an arsenal although Olmert appeared to do so in an apparent lapse last year.

Israeli warplanes in 1981 destroyed the Osirak nuclear reactor near Baghdad after suspecting Iraq of aiming to build nuclear weapons. - AFP/ch
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

I used to think Israel rather than US is more likely to carry out any strike since it's more politically convenient this way.
But given Israel's relative lack of stealth capability, cruise missile strike force and the fact that Iran's facilities are many & widely dispersed, I'm starting to doubt they can pull it off.

[FuManChu]

China continues to deprive USA of its military predominance

Don't quote Pravda as a source of information. Although it may have some relatively accurate reporting, generally it spins out so much rubbish it's better to avoid it completely - a bit like the Epoch Times.

[BLUEJACKET]

I agree that Pravda's articles have spin, but sometimes they point out things that other media omit/overlook, also the naivette/sensationalism is funny to read!

Any U.S. strike might not destroy Iran nuclear sites (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070223/ts_nm/iran_usa_military_dc_2&printer=1;_ylt=ArnENxhEPxZr.F6eHjdPGppg.3QA)

Foreign devils in the Iranian mountains (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IB24Ak01.html)

Tehran falling into a US psy-ops trap (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IB23Ak01.html)


Pakistan Successfully Tests Long-Range Nuclear-Capable Missile (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,253918,00.html)

[The_Zergling]

I'm not sure about the reliability of this news source, but it seems believable.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/24/wiran124.xml

Israel is negotiating with the United States for permission to fly over Iraq as part of a plan to attack Iran's nuclear facilities, The Daily Telegraph can reveal.

To conduct surgical air strikes against Iran's nuclear programme, Israeli war planes would need to fly across Iraq. But to do so the Israeli military authorities in Tel Aviv need permission from the Pentagon.

It's interesting, depressing, and totally predictable that Israel would consult the US and not the supposedly empowered Iraqi government regarding the use of IRAQI air space.

Back in Desert Storm when Israel was getting hit by Scuds they refrained from retaliating at the US's request because if they had the whole region arguably would have gone up in war. (Starting with "neutral" Jordan) If they do indeed bomb Iran now then what has been going on for some time will look like Disney World.

On a side note, the Scuds fired in the Gulf War are a good example of the resurrection hypothesis in political science, something that is eerily paralleled by the portrayal of Iran nowadays. Saddam Hussein was regarded as another Hitler by George H.W. Bush, casting him in the eyes of the American public as a major menace to world peace. Right or wrong, demonizing Saddam may have actually made him more dangerous and ensured his temporary political survival. If Hussein believed that the US was committed to marching to Baghdad and overthrowing, then he was unintentionally encouraged to take great risks to resurrect himself politically. A particular Scud fired at Israel illustrates his strategy.

First off, the missile was remarkable in several aspects. First off unlike the other missiles launched by Iraq at Israel, this wasn't aimed at a population center. This is remarkable because only by aiming at a population center could the Iraqis have hoped to gain the terror advantage the Scuds provided. Additionally, the missile carried no payload. While there were no explosives onboard later examinations stated that it was not a dud. Finally, the missile (unlike the other Scuds used in the Gulf War) had a concrete casing warhead, which was designed for chemical or biological weapons, though none were used.

The plausible inference was that the missile was a signal from Hussein. Basically he was warning the US and allies that if they marched to Baghdad to overthrow him he was prepared to up the antes by using WMD against Israel. Since it was widely speculated that the Israelis would retaliate with nukes... this obviously had uncomfortable implications. A day later H.W. Bush called for a ceasefire and negotiated a settlement of the war on terms relatively favorable to the Iraqis considering they had been utterly defeated on the battlefield.

In a sense, the US demonizing Hussein may have inadvertently helped him, at least domestically. Given his past record of dangerous behavior, he had the credibility in his threat to engage in unconventional warfare. Having been left no way out of the war (at least not one ensuring political or even physical survival, given that the agreement posed by the US for him to go into exile was unlikely to go through given that he was portrayed as a demon), he dangerously but effectively raised the stakes by sending the signal that he was prepared to escalate and possibly provoke nuclear war.

Pushing leaders to the point where they need to resurrect themselves is a risky strategy. While demonizing an adversary helps mobilize political support for the use of force, it also motivates the foe to try harder to win. It also makes negotiations unlikely.

We see these things acted out over and over again...

[BLUEJACKET]

U.S. developing contingency plan to bomb Iran: report
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070225/pl_nm/usa_iran_dc&printer=1;_ylt=Aut4BF4Z9wT2l3nwc6eVWTYb.3QA

Report: 3 Gulf states agree to IAF overflights en route to Iran
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/830309.html
Stand-off in Gulf with Iran 'a bit like Cold War'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/26/wiran26.xml

Three US reasons to attack Iran (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IB27Ak01.html)

Olmert: Prepare for war with Syria
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1171894516383&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull

Missile Defense Redux-Saving Us From the Bad Guys Again ZNet
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=72&ItemID=12203

Missile Fantasies
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/24/AR2007022401239.html

[Shahid]

I'm not sure about the reliability of this news source, but it seems believable.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/24/wiran124.xml



It's interesting, depressing, and totally predictable that Israel would consult the US and not the supposedly empowered Iraqi government regarding the use of IRAQI air space.

Back in Desert Storm when Israel was getting hit by Scuds they refrained from retaliating at the US's request because if they had the whole region arguably would have gone up in war. (Starting with "neutral" Jordan) If they do indeed bomb Iran now then what has been going on for some time will look like Disney World.



There is no way a targeted air strike against Iran could put an end to it's nuclear research programm, at best it would be suspended for a few years. The scientific and technical know-how and the industrial capacity will remain the same.
A full scale invasion is obviously out of question.
The most immediate and obvious consequences of a large scale military operation (meant to destroy Iran's military and industrial capacities) conducted by the US and/or Israel in order to force the Irani government to abandon the nuclear program would be:

-Immediate retaliation against Israeli/US interests in the region by affiliated islamist groups : Hamas and Islamic djihad in Gaza strip, Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hazara shiite minority in Afghanistan, al-Mahdi Army and other shiite militias in Iraq : mortar and rocket attacks, suicide and car bombing, urban uprising... Probably thousands of casualties.

-Iran's military retaliations : Rockets and missiles fired at US base in the Gulf and probably Israel agglomerations. Conventional (less probable) or kamikaze attacks against US navy ships (conducted by waves of explosives filled speed boats of the Pasdaran's navy).

- Economic retaliation : Iran will most probably plant mines in the Hormuz detroit, thus crippling the crude oil shipping in the Persian Gulf. This would be a huge blow to US economy and to any industrialised country. Worldwide diplomatic pressure on the US to stop the war.

- Diplomatic issue : Irani government hardliners will gain the support of the population, and probably decrete a state of emergency to neutralize all political opposition. Any normalisation of political ties with Iran would be impossible for almost fifteen years. The eventuality of a government change is nihil.

In my opinion, the probability of such a military operation to be launched by the US and/or Israel is close to zero, specially if you keep in mind the fact that Iran is technically incapable of developing a nuclear warhead befor at least seven years. Acquiring one from North Korea or Pakistan is a more plausible alternative if this is really the goal.
Anyway, the world is against the eventuality of a new war in the Middle East, and the one to strike first would collect international desapprobation.

[BLUEJACKET]

Since when the US has been rational in that part of the world? With the Admiral in charge of the CENTCOM, you can draw a different conclusion from the one in prev. post!
Pentagon Whistle-Blower on the Coming War With Iran
http://www.truthdig.com/interview/item/20070227_pentagon_whistleblower_on_the_coming_war_ with_iran/

UPDATE-

Former Iranian Defense Official Talks to Western Intelligence (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/07/AR2007030702241_pf.html)

What Would You Do if You Were Iran? (http://www.truthdig.com/report/print/20070305_what_would_you_do_if_you_were_iran/)

An interesting perspective from Pakistan-Musharraf: From favorite to fall guy (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/IC08Df01.html)

See post #294 (http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/showpost.php?p=58415&postcount=294) for more!