• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Iran Super Thread- Merged

We should be prepared for an Iranian miscalculation of biblical proportions. They actually believe they are setting the stage for the end of the world as we know it by ushering in the 12th Imam.If they can accomplish that with the nuclear destruction of Israel then they will certainly attempt it.
 
I think we need to make a distinction amongst Ahmadinejad and his 12th Imam acolytes, the Ayatollahs and the people of Iran.

I think Ahmadinejad and his buddies are raving loonies.  Bright raving loonies ,but raving nonetheless.  But I don't know how much authority he actually has.

Sometimes I think the Ayatollahs think of him as a slavering Pit Bull on a tight leash.  Every now and then the let him yelp and occasionally nip but always bring him back to heel.  While Ahmadinejad may be ready for Paradise I think the Ayatollahs have settled for the Paradise that they have in hand rather than risking going searching the bushes for another one.  It could cause no end of embarassment if they found themselves face-to-face with Shiva.

The people, on the other hand, I don't think are any different than the average westerner, Iraqi or Afghan.  They are just looking for a quiet, undisturbed life.

The big question, in my mind, is do the Ayatollah's have a good a grip as they think?

Sometimes the dog bites its handler.  And that really would not be good for the rest of us.
 
There were decent people in WW2 Germany too,but that didnt stop the maniacs from starting a world war.
 
tomahawk6 said:
There were decent people in WW2 Germany too,but that didnt stop the maniacs from starting a world war.

Agreed.

And I agree with your assessement of  what's possible.  It's the probability of which I am less sure. That, of course, implies that we should be ready for your scenario as well.  Si vis pacem etc.
 
If we're going to trot out history, I think it's fair to mention the Falklands war.
After the Argies were " evicted" the Galtieri regime collapsed like a house of cards.

I think ( again, look at the civie ) WE ( the west ) needs to calculate with some precision what butt kicking will cause the Iranian people to consider the "revolution" over.

Considering Iraq's Stalinist dictator(Sadaam) this was never an option there but Iran (I think) is different.

Some large an inconvienient leak of radiation should put an end to any nuclear ambitions.

Ergo, if something messy should happen to the reactor we might get just the desired reaction on the Iranian street.  The devil's in the details.

Any thoughts?.... Or am I drinking wayyy too much wine?

 
I've been hearing things about a "strategic strike"... what exactly is a "strategic strike"? I assume it would entail bombing the 80 or so nuclear sites from air since an all out foot invasion is pretty much out of the question, perhaps even with Israeli support....  so how would FOX suggest we deal with the defensive TOR-M1 missiles sold to Iran by Russia? It is my contention, in terms of capability, their arsenal of TOR-M1s pretty much rules out the "strategic stirke", unless we want massive casualties of pilots and bombers
 
oligarch said:
I've been hearing things about a "strategic strike"... what exactly is a "strategic strike"? I assume it would entail bombing the 80 or so nuclear sites from air since an all out foot invasion is pretty much out of the question, perhaps even with Israeli support....  so how would FOX suggest we deal with the defensive TOR-M1 missiles sold to Iran by Russia? It is my contention, in terms of capability, their arsenal of TOR-M1s pretty much rules out the "strategic stirke", unless we want massive casualties of pilots and bombers

Umm- didn't cruise missiles like Tomahawks launched from submarines and surface warships even cross your mind? Then, there you have no casualties unless the Iranians somehow are able to strike the warships as well.
 
oligarch said:
I've been hearing things about a "strategic strike"... what exactly is a "strategic strike"? I assume it would entail bombing the 80 or so nuclear sites from air since an all out foot invasion is pretty much out of the question, perhaps even with Israeli support....  so how would FOX suggest we deal with the defensive TOR-M1 missiles sold to Iran by Russia? It is my contention, in terms of capability, their arsenal of TOR-M1s pretty much rules out the "strategic stirke", unless we want massive casualties of pilots and bombers

I don't think whoever is going to do the deed - and I believe that someone will do it sooner rather than later - needs to bomb all 80 or so sites. I'm guessing that the strategic aim of slowing Iran's nuclear weapon programme while other, political, courses of action are pursued, can be accomplished by damaging or desroying some percentage of them - maybe only a very few of those that will be heavily defended or maybe 40 or so of those that, given how many missile systems Russia is reported to delivered to Iran, will be lightly or undefended.

In any event, good as the TOR-M1 might be, there are always countermeasures and tactics with which almost any smart attacker can overwhelm almost any defences.
 
Regardless of the cost, this is an issue that will have to be addressed.

When shell fragment are found to be from Iranian weapons, you get the understanding of the fact that they are pressing a war against us, for the amount of Iranian weapons in both Iraq and Afghanistan is to great to pass off as black market smuggling.  Adding in the nuclear threat and a Iranian government that does not seem to care about the threat of nuclear war, in fact could be explained as relishing it, then one has to consider the fact we are going to have to pay the bill now to stop them, for the bill we would pay later is simply unacceptable.

Iran is an enemy, and a nuclear ambitious one at that.  Unless they immediately cease to be supplying training and supporting with special cadres the enemy we fight in theatre, and cease their nuclear goals the only answer to this problem is a strike at both their heads of goverment, and their nuclear sites.

It may be bloody and costly, but think how much damage a few nuclear weapons could do to our port cities and airhubs...
 
Infidel-6 said:
Regardless of the cost, this is an issue that will have to be addressed.

When shell fragment are found to be from Iranian weapons, you get the understanding of the fact that they are pressing a war against us, for the amount of Iranian weapons in both Iraq and Afghanistan is to great to pass off as black market smuggling.  Adding in the nuclear threat and a Iranian government that does not seem to care about the threat of nuclear war, in fact could be explained as relishing it, then one has to consider the fact we are going to have to pay the bill now to stop them, for the bill we would pay later is simply unacceptable.

Iran is an enemy, and a nuclear ambitious one at that.  Unless they immediately cease to be supplying training and supporting with special cadres the enemy we fight in theatre, and cease their nuclear goals the only answer to this problem is a strike at both their heads of goverment, and their nuclear sites.

It may be bloody and costly, but think how much damage a few nuclear weapons could do to our port cities and airhubs...

If Iran was going to use a nuclear device, I dont think there is any doubt it would be against Israel.  I dont know the specifics, but even 1 medium yield nuke would be more than enough to cripple Israel.    Before any "strategic strike" it would make sense to me at least, to perhaps impose a naval blockade, or take some similar action just to show the world how serious this is getting.  At least that would decrease some of the shock value people will experience when they wakeup one morning and see the news that we are now at war with Iran...
 
Israel has a fairly effective BMD shield. If it works, and Israel can be convinced not to launch a nuclear strike themselves maybe a blockade is feasible. Otherise, a blockade would be the least of Iran's worries.
 
The issue is not just one target for Iran -- but the rest of all of us targets out there for them...

If they are quite willing to send special units into Iraq and Afghanitan to both train and use their weapons they supply against us, why think they will be rational with a nuclear arsenal?
 
Doing all kinds of irrational provocational things before getting nuclear weapons and then radically calming down afterwards is a pretty established pattern with China, India and Pakistan. Possibly France too depending how you look at it.

When you get down to it, the only country that's actually used nuclear weapons is the US, and that was a somewhat exceptional situation.

Once the Iranians start targeteering their devices and realise what they've let themselves in for, they're not going to be too happy. They're going to be VERY careful about getting themselves into direct conflict with another nuclear state. It's one thing to abstractly talk about taking millions of casualties, another to whip out the piecutters and see what Iran would look like after an attack.

 
Your mistaking that fact being due to those leaders where not praying for the appocalypse
 
No, that's pretty much what they were saying too. In the Chinese case they wrecked their economy trying to organise the country into self-sufficient communes that could continue when the inevitable counterstrike arrived. It was part of the "Great Leap Forward". Once Xiaoping et al figured out what Mao had set them up for, he was kicked upstairs to a figurehead position without policy influence and they calmed down.




 
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/06/20/america/20iran.php

U.S. says exercise by Israel seemed directed at Iran

WASHINGTON: Israel carried out a major military exercise earlier this month that American officials say appeared to be a rehearsal for a potential bombing attack on Iran's nuclear facilities.

Several American officials said the Israeli exercise appeared to be an effort to develop the military's capacity to carry out long-range strikes and to demonstrate the seriousness with which Israel views Iran's nuclear program.

More than 100 Israeli F-16 and F-15 fighters participated in the maneuvers, which were carried out over the eastern Mediterranean and over Greece during the first week of June, American officials said.

The exercise also included Israeli helicopters that could be used to rescue downed pilots. The helicopters and refueling tankers flew more than 900 miles, which is about the same distance between Israel and Iran's uranium enrichment plant at Natanz, American officials said.

Israeli officials declined to discuss the details of the exercise. A spokesman for the Israeli military would say only that the country's air force "regularly trains for various missions in order to confront and meet the challenges posed by the threats facing Israel."
But the scope of the Israeli exercise virtually guaranteed that it would be noticed by American and other foreign intelligence agencies. A senior Pentagon official who has been briefed on the exercise, and who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the political delicacy of the matter, said the exercise appeared to serve multiple purposes.

One Israeli goal, the Pentagon official said, was to practice flight tactics, aerial refueling and all other details of a possible strike against Iran's nuclear installations and its long-range conventional missiles.

A second, the official said, was to send a clear message to the United States and other countries that Israel was prepared to act militarily if diplomatic efforts to stop Iran from producing bomb-grade uranium continued to falter.

"They wanted us to know, they wanted the Europeans to know, and they wanted the Iranians to know," the Pentagon official said. "There's a lot of signaling going on at different levels."

Several American officials said they did not believe that the Israeli government had concluded that it must attack Iran and did not think that such a strike was imminent.

Shaul Mofaz, a former Israeli defense minister who is now a deputy prime minister, warned in a recent interview with the Israeli newspaper Yediot Aharonot that Israel might have no choice but to attack. "If Iran continues with its program for developing nuclear weapons, we will attack," Mofaz said in the interview published on June 6, the day after the unpublicized exercise ended. "Attacking Iran, in order to stop its nuclear plans, will be unavoidable."

But Mofaz was criticized by other Israeli politicians as seeking to enhance his own standing as questions mount about whether the embattled Israeli prime minister, Ehud Olmert, can hang on to power.

Israeli officials have told their American counterparts that Mofaz's statement does not represent official policy. But American officials were also told that Israel had prepared plans for striking nuclear targets in Iran and could carry them out if needed.

Iran has shown signs that it is taking the Israeli warnings seriously, by beefing up its air defenses in recent weeks, including increasing air patrols. In one instance, Iran scrambled F-4 jets to double-check an Iraqi civilian flight from Baghdad to Tehran.

"They are clearly nervous about this and have their air defense on guard," a Bush administration official said of the Iranians.

Any Israeli attack against Iran's nuclear facilities would confront a number of challenges. Many American experts say they believe that such an attack could delay but not eliminate Iran's nuclear program. Much of the program's infrastructure is buried under earth and concrete and installed in long tunnels or hallways, making precise targeting difficult. There is also concern that not all of the facilities have been detected. To inflict maximum damage, multiple attacks might be necessary, which many analysts say is beyond Israel's ability at this time.

But waiting also entails risks for the Israelis. Israeli officials have repeatedly expressed fears that Iran will soon master the technology it needs to produce substantial quantities of highly enriched uranium for nuclear weapons.

Iran is also taking steps to better defend its nuclear facilities. Two sets of advance Russian-made radar systems were recently delivered to Iran. The radar will enhance Iran's ability to detect planes flying at low altitude.

Mike McConnell, the director of national intelligence, said in February that Iran was close to acquiring Russian-produced SA-20 surface-to-air missiles. American military officials said that the deployment of such systems would hamper Israel's attack planning, putting pressure on Israel to act before the missiles are fielded.
For both the United States and Israel, Iran's nuclear program has been a persistent worry. A National Intelligence Estimate that was issued in December by American intelligence agencies asserted that Iran had suspended work on weapons design in late 2003. The report stated that it was unclear if that work had resumed. It also noted that Iran's work on uranium enrichment and on missiles, two steps that Iran would need to take to field a nuclear weapon, had continued.

In late May, the International Atomic Energy Agency reported that Iran's suspected work on nuclear matters was a "matter of serious concern" and that the Iranians owed the agency "substantial explanations."

Over the past three decades, Israel has carried out two unilateral attacks against suspected nuclear sites in the Middle East. In 1981, Israeli jets conducted a raid against Iraq's nuclear plant at Osirak after concluding that it was part of Saddam Hussein's program to develop nuclear weapons. In September, Israeli aircraft bombed a structure in Syria that American officials said housed a nuclear reactor built with the aid of North Korea.

The United States protested the Israeli strike against Iraq in 1981, but its comments in recent months have amounted to an implicit endorsement of the Israeli strike in Syria.

Pentagon officials said that Israel's air forces usually conducted a major early summer training exercise, often flying over the Mediterranean or training ranges in Turkey where they practice bombing runs and aerial refueling. But the exercise this month involved a larger number of aircraft than had been previously observed, and included a lengthy combat rescue mission.

Much of the planning appears to reflect a commitment by Israel's military leaders to ensure that its armed forces are adequately equipped and trained, an imperative driven home by the difficulties the Israeli military encountered in its Lebanon operation against Hezbollah.

"They rehearse it, rehearse it and rehearse it, so if they actually have to do it, they're ready," the Pentagon official said. "They're not taking any options off the table."

Ethan Bronner contributed reporting from Jerusalem.



 
The problem is far wider and deeper than we seem to realize:

http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/994834.html

Report: North Korea developed nukes for Iran at bombed Syrian facility
By DPA

Experts believe North Korea provided assistance to Iran at the Syrian facility believed bombed by Israel Air Force in September 2007, German news magazine Der Spiegel reported Saturday.

The weekly said the Syrian site at al-Kibar was used to produce nuclear material the Iranian regime needed to make a bomb.

North Korean scientists worked alongside Syrians and Iranians at the site, where a reactor was being built to produce weapons-grade plutonium, Der Spiegel quoted the intelligence reports as saying.

The report said Iranian scientists had made progress in enriching uranium but had no experience with plutonium and sought the help of the North Koreans.

Inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency, the United Nations nuclear watchdog, are due to travel to Syria on Sunday to investigate whether the country was building an undeclared reactor.

Syria maintains the site, which satellite images show has since been razed, was a military installation and not a nuclear facility.

Iran says its nuclear programme is not geared towards making weapons but to generating electricity for its growing population. Tehran's decision to begin enriching uranium in 2006 triggered Western sanctions.

Der Spiegel, which did not elaborate on Assad's reported change of heart, also said Iran, Syria and North Korea had apparently been cooperating in the production of chemical weapons.

It cited an explosion near the Syrian city of Aleppo in July 2007, during which many were reported to have died when quantities of mustard gas and the nerve agent Sarin escaped.

In addition to 15 Syrian military officials, dozens of Iranian "rocket scientists" and three North Koreans were among those killed, the magazine said.

Related articles:

Obama: Israel right to provide for its security amid Iran threat

Report: Israel held military drill as prep for attack on Iran

Iran says ready to negotiate on incentives to halt nuclear program

Ahmadinejad: West failing to halt our nuclear victory

 
drunknsubmrnr said:
No, that's pretty much what they were saying too. In the Chinese case they wrecked their economy trying to organise the country into self-sufficient communes that could continue when the inevitable counterstrike arrived. It was part of the "Great Leap Forward". Once Xiaoping et al figured out what Mao had set them up for, he was kicked upstairs to a figurehead position without policy influence and they calmed down.

Drunkensubmariner,

BTW, when you are describing him remember that Xiao Ping is his first name and Deng is his last name, so it would make it easier if you referred to him as Deng since many East Asian names- Chinese and Japanese- do begin with their surname first.

You are right though about what you said about the "Great Leap Forward" of the late 1950s, IIRc,  which wrecked their economy because all these peasants were out busy attending political rallies when they should have been cultivating rice, thus leading to the massive starvation which characterized the disaster that became the "Great Leap" backward. Those self-sufficient industries or communes you described are better known as "Third-Line Industries" which was also part of Mao's plan to create a back-up line of steel-producing factories to create an alternate source of steel should China's actual steel mills and other industries be wiped out in the event of a nuclear war or a more conventional attack by a Western power such as the US against the PRC. Read Barry Naughton's book, "Growing out of the Plan", which details China's economic rise, in order to confirm what I said.

As for your saying that Mao became a figurehead, he didn't stay there as a "figurehead" for long when then CCP General Secretary Deng Xiaoping and President Liu Shao Qi pushed Mao to that position in the early 1960s, IIRC. Anyways, we all know what happened in the Cultural Revolution that followed with Mao starting it mainly to try to get back into the political scene in spite of his age; even when it was all over and Mao had died by 1976, Deng still had to wrestle with the Gang of 4 including Mao's widow Jiang Qing as well as outmanuever Mao's chosen successor-Hua Gaofeng- before he was able to ascend to lead all of the CCP and China later on.  It is fortunate for the West/the US/Canada that a pragmatist like Deng eventually won that last power struggle, or else we would have seen a PRC become more like North Korea later on under Jiang Qing and her cronies.

Sorry mods for the hijack, but I just wanted to elaborate something to him. Anyways, since it appears that no one took the Iranian "Peeykap" fast missile patrol boat post from earlier in the thread seriously, I'll just assume that it would probably more of a nuisance to Coalition warships than an actual threat.

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/25516.750.html
 
I would imagine that in the traditional sense, a small, fast missile attack boat like the Peykaap class could be quite the threat.  I think Afghanistan is a perfect example of how a cheap, simple device such as an IED or RPG can disable a multi-million dollar vehicle.  Translating that example to a naval sense...a torpedo is a torpedo, and it'll do some serious damage.  The launch platform is rather insignificant if the torpedo is able to be launched within a reasonable range, and accurately.

**Not trying to stray out of any lanes, not a naval guy here though.
 
I wonder if iran has a bunch of sea mines that are untraceable that they could litter the Strait with, just the threat of mines alone will curtail naval movements, comercial shipping and drive up the cost of insurance. It wouldn't take many to create a perceived threat greater that the actual risk.
 
Back
Top