Iran and Syria - war of the future?

[jmackenzie_15]

Iran being already named by President Bush as part of the 'axis of evil' and Syria suspected of supporting the insurgency, along with their general defiance of the United States (Just friday I think they refused to join in on discussions about iraqs future or something like that) Does anyone think war with these countries is a possibility?

If it is proven Iran is using its 'nuclear programme' for weapons instead of energy,
If it is proven (although I think probobly impossible and will always be heresay) that Syria is supporting/organizing/funding the Iraqi insurgency
plus the fact that before the war they seemed to like vocally denouncing the US, and now after the war has become a burden and the US military stretched a little thin, they must feel free to say as they wish.

I havnt done alot of research on the topic, but it seems almost every day somewhere in the news theres something about syria or iran connected to iraq or they are calling out the US  calling them 'responsible for the spread of global terrorism' --- Iran's national security chief, Hassan Rohani.

If the situation were to arise that armed conflict became inevitable, What do you think the chances that Canada would participate? Any other allied nations?
I think it would be important that we contribute in some way,as it would be the second time we would leave our best ally out to dry .. (before anyone critcizes me for being a hypocrite, Id like to state that it is the Bush administration I strongly disapprove of, not the United States.)

Regardless of how safe we think we are here in Canada, terrorists will identify us as easily as Americans, to them there is little difference between us.Our societys are much the same, our culture much the same and we actively participated in Afghanistan and remain committed for a while yet, and with our PM publicly making best friends with Bush all over the news lately, and with russian President Vladmir Putin (where he also vowed canada would fight terrorism more actively, over the subject of the school massacre) Im somewhat surprised we havnt been attacked already =/

What any of that has to do with Syria and Iran is that our allies are actively involved in this part of the world, and it is in our best interests to help out our friends when we can.... after all, the US pays the bills =p

So, alot of rambling later, what do you think could happen between these counties? because I cant see them just quietly deciding to mind their own business and stop rocking the boat anytime soon so to speak.

 

[a_majoor]

This is not the war of the future, this is the war right now. Syria and Iran are formenting unrest and supporting the insurgents in Iraq in an attempt to prevent the establishment of a democratic state in the region.

Given the ability of the former Ba'athist regime in Iraq to spirit the WMD out of the country prior to the invasion, the United States will either need a "slam dunk" intelligence coup, or something like a nuclear provocation by Iran to begin active hostilities against either country. I wouldn't count out the idea that there may already be small scale activities such as stratigic recce and gently establishing a network of agents as part of the preparation of the battlefield, but we may never see this activity.

I brought this topic up in the WW IV (Global War On Terror) forum, you might like to look there as well: http://army.ca/forums/threads/22129.0.html

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

There are a number of reports that in excess of 1,000,000 Iranians have moved into Iraq prior to the election (Jan 30th).

"War of right now" is unfortunately bang-on....




Matthew. 

 

[Baloo]

This would definitely be a more difficult war to participate in than Iraq. Politically and physically. Aside from the political problems associated, the Iranians would have the possibility of putting up stiff resistance in many ways that the Iraqis could or would not. They have not been totally reduced in arms, meaning that their forces are formidable, at least on land. Obviously, their air force is lacking, and would most likely be swept from the skies, but there are reports of recent MiG fighters having been sent to that nation. The Pasradan are an official military unit that while is more of a radical group of thugs in many cases, could be much more effective than any insurgency should conflict break out. If the Iranian army would stand and fight in the cities, Coalition forces would have a difficult time of it. The mountains in Iran could be well utilized in a defense, preventing a wholesale advance into the Iranian countryside. On an irregular force perspective, the Ayatollah carries substantial weight with many Muslims in the region, if not the world. He has thus far abstained from calling it, but a jihad on his part could well motivate many more into action.

Who knows. There could be an uprisiing to aid American forces by reform minded Iranians, but as far as I can tell, Iran would certainly not be a cakewalk, all propaganda aside. Winnable? Definitely. But many more casualties would be taken at the same time.

 

[Cloud Cover]

What about the millions of Iranians over here who might not be too impressed with their home country being reduced to the status of present day Iraq? Might their at least be the possibility of a transoceanic insurgency?

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

What about the millions of Iranians over here who might not be too impressed with their home country being reduced to the status of present day Iraq? Might their at least be the possibility of a transoceanic insurgency?

I agree with the fear.  I think the USA should have its "Marketing Plan" prep'd and in the bag right now just in case.



Matthew.  :-\

 

[jmackenzie_15]

So far is sounds like the war with iraqi insurgents could quickly become with war with half of the middle east.... considering the popularity of western nations over there, particularly the states, i wouldnt exactly be shocked to see something like that someday soon on the news. 

 

[a_majoor]

Sadly, I think while the US has many good reasons to prosecute a larger war, they know they do not have the resources to do so right now. Even worse, I suspect many elements in the Middle East are ready and willing to attempt provocations in order to expand the war.

Should that happen, I think these nations will be in for a horrible surprise. Once the gloves come off, the United States may well decide to do some stunning "economy of force" measures, including operations specificly designed to knock off or decapitate the leadership abilities of these nations, and depending of the sort of provocation, everything from SF to nuclear weapons may be involved.

Arab and Iranian people living in Canada and the US are an interesting case; they have come here to be free of religious persecution, oppressive state censorship etc. and gain political and economic freedom, yet fail to openly support the society which provides all these advantages. My own though is they should be boycotted by the outside community; why should you and I put bread on their tables if they are not willing to support us? The French have taken a very hard hit in their tourist and wine industries due to their anti-American attitudes, and I think a spontanious reaction of that sort will happen to these Arab and Iranian communities as well. If they clearly understand what has happened and why, their so called leadership will almost certainly get the boot, and support for terrorist organizations and cells may be reduced. (The opposite will happen if they are openly persecuted).

 

[jmackenzie_15]

http://www.aljazeera.com/me.asp?service_ID=6492


U.S. warplanes, flying out of bases in Afghanistan and Iraq, flew over Iranian air space, apparently to spy on nuke sites, according to Iranian press reports.

Aftab newspaper reported that the latest U.S. violation to Iran's air space was on Saturday, when a U.S. warplane flew at low altitude over Khorosan province which borders Afghanistan.

Other press reports cited intrusion by F-16 and F-18 fighters over the southwestern province of Khuzestan which borders Iraq.

Several press reports suggested that those planes were spying on Iran's nuclear sites.

However, the U.S. military didn't comment on the reports. But one official, who asked not to be named said he would not be surprised if those reports were authentic.

"The circular maneuvering of the two American fighters indicated them as carrying out spying sorties and controlling the borders," said an Iranian official.

No further details were immediately available.

Last month Iranian army chief, General Mohammad Salimi, said that Iran's army, led by the air force, has been ordered to stand ready to defend the country against any military strike targeting it nuclear sites.

"The air force has been ordered to protect the nuclear sites, using all its power," General Salimi was quoted as saying.

Also Iranian air force chief, Brig. Karim Qavami, ordered his forces last week to shoot down any aircraft violating the country's airspace.

"Given that the intrusion of enemy aircraft over Iran's airspace is possible, all fighter jets of the country have been ordered by the army chief to shoot them down in the event of sighting them," he said.

Washington claims that Iran is covertly trying to develop nuclear weapons, leading to speculation over the possibility of military strikes.

But Iran has repeatedly denied those claims, asserting that its nuclear program was solely aimed as peaceful purposes like power generation.

In August, five U.S. jets were reported to have entered the Iranian airspace from the southwestern Shalamcheh border and over flew Khorramshahr.

Some military specialists say that those intrusions are aimed at assessing Iran's anti-aircraft defenses capabilities.



^^ To somebody who said that the US should be making plans for Iran just in case anyway, it seems/sounds like theyve been doing that all along =p

 

[a_majoor]

The expanding battlespace is being defined....

http://www.nationalreview.com/ledeen/ledeen200501100715.asp

Circle Squared
Iran, Iraq, Syria.

Last week, Alhurra â ” an Arabic-language television station that is funded by our government â ” broadcast a taped interview with a terrorist named Moayad Ahmed Yasseen, the leader of Jaish Muhammad (Muhammad's Army). He was captured nearly two months ago in Fallujah during the liberation of the city.

Yasseen had been a colonel in Saddam's Army, so he was a fighter of some importance. He told Alhurra that two other former Iraqi military officers belonging to his group were sent "to Iran in April or May, where they met a number of Iranian intelligence officials." He said they also met with Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and were provided with money, weapons, "and, as far as I know, even car bombs" for Jaish Muhammad.

Yasseen also said he was told by Saddam himself, after the liberation of Iraq in the spring of 2003, to cross into Syria and meet with a Syrian intelligence officer to ask for money and weapons.

So here we have a high-ranking member of the "insurgency," a textbook case of the sort of Saddam loyalist said to compose the bulk of those fighting against the Coalition. And what does he tell us? He tells us that he has been working closely with Iran and Syria, and that this close working relationship was directed by Saddam. Moreover, his organization, Jaish Muhammad, is an ally of Abu Musab al Zarqawi, himself a longtime resident of Tehran.

In other words, while there are certainly plenty of Saddam loyalists among the terrorists fighting against us, they are receiving support from Damascus and Tehran. Yasseen's testimony is one of the first bits of intelligence from the Fallujah campaign to reach the public. If we had truly investigative journalists out there, they would be all over this story, which is only one of many that came out of Fallujah. About a month ago, a letter from an Army officer who had fought in Fallujah circulated on the net, and, like Yasseen's tape, it helps dispel some of the myths clouding our strategic vision.

"In Fallujah," we learn, "the enemy had a military-type planning system...Some of the fighters were wearing body armor and Kevlar, just like we do. Soldiers took fire from heavy machine guns (.50 cal) and came across the dead bodies of fighters from Chechnya, Syria, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Afghanistan, and so on. No, this was not just a city of pi**ed off Iraqis, mad at the Coalition for forcing Saddam out of power. It was a city full of people from all over the Middle East whose sole mission in life was to kill Americans. Problem for them is that they were in the wrong city in November 2004."

We killed more than a thousand terrorists in Fallujah, and nearly an equal number surrendered, many of whom provided our military with useful information. Presumably Yasseen's information has been exploited before letting the Syrians and Iranians know that he has told us all about them.

Perhaps these revelations will help outgoing Secretary of State Colin Powell get on the right side of history before he rejoins civil society. Last September, in an interview with the Washington Times, he said "I don't think there's any doubt that the Iranians are involved and are providing support (for the terrorists in Iraq). How much and how influential their support is, I can't be sure and it's hard to get a good read on it."

Perhaps now he's got a better read. But of course, he chose not to know many things about Iran. He insisted that the Bush administration shut down a channel to a source of information about Iran, even though he knew that the source was reliable, and that information from that source â ” information concerning Iranian support for anti-American terrorists â ” had saved American lives in Afghanistan. Had the flow of information continued, we might have had a better picture of our enemies' intentions and capacities. And such a picture might have convinced Powell that Iran was not, as his deputy Richard Armitage put it, "a democracy," but a bloodthirsty tyranny that delights in killing Americans, Iraqis, and its own citizens.

Yet, in his final weeks in office, Secretary Powell has unfortunately continued to chant his mantra, "we are not working for regime change in Iran," as if he were proud of it. He, and his colleagues at State, the National Security Council, the Pentagon, and the CIA, should be ashamed. The mullahs are active supporters of terrorism all over the world, including Iraq, and we cannot expect to win this war so long as they remain in power.

Let's hope that Dr. Rice is paying close attention to the Yasseen confession, and the many others that will help her realize that there is no escape from the regional war in which we are engaged.

Faster, please.

â ” Michael Ledeen, an NRO contributing editor, is most recently the author of The War Against the Terror Masters. He is resident scholar in the Freedom Chair at the American Enterprise Institute.

 

[jmackenzie_15]

And where does this leave us? I find it unlikely that with the current strain on the US forces you hear about in the news all over, that they could support the war on two more fronts, taking action against Iran and Syria, Iran having a formidable military force.
If the US decided they needed more allies, I think its quite likely that our current PM would be willing to oblige.Maybe even the russians would help out after that school attack?
What about the English?

 

[Kirkhill]

I think it depends on the war the Americans were required or desired to fight.  I think that if it was a conventional border war with the Iranians moving Armoured Divisions in the open, or for that matter N. Koreans, I think the Americans are still well placed to destroy those forces.  They couldn't take on another occupation though.

As to the Brits, while they could probably come up with a mini corps for a short period they can only sustain their current Iraqi obligation and maybe another like it.

The Russians, I frankly don't think they have much to offer these days.

 

[a_majoor]

England and Australia are already committed to the extent they are able. Russian participation would be iffy at best, since a lot of their motivation to be active in that area of the world is tied to their historical drive for warm water ports and the near term desire to cement their hold on the "near abroad" rather than crushing terrorists and their supporting regimes.

Frankly, what you see with the coallition of the willing is probably the available forces for long term operations. Each nation has more troops, but to commit them is to start commiting the strategic reserve, something of a last resort. Since it will take five or more years to get the "5000" Canadian troops promised in the last election, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for the call-up.

Some predictions: a series of offensives to quell the fighting in the Tikrit triangle region in the short term, followed by a realignment of coallition forces to better operate in the LIC environment. The US in particular will draw back the heavy forces from the populated regions of Iraq, and prepare plans to take out Syria or Iran if required, using economy of force and lightning war tactics. The biggest headache for American planners will be reconstituting the post war societies of Iran and Syria, which will call for investments of resources and manpower on at least the same scale as Iraq for each nation for a period of decades....This is probably the show stopper right now.

 

[jmackenzie_15]

Do you really think the Americans would crush the Iranians AND the Syrians as easily as they did the Iraqi armies? Theres no question to me that the States would eventually beat them, but it would probobly take considerably longer than a few months.Also, its been this difficult in attempting to control Iraq, how difficult would it be with two more countries on top of that =/.... on the other hand, hitting the insurgency where it actually comes from might make it alot easier to pacify them all  ???

 

[a_majoor]

I am going to suggest the United States can militarialy defeat Syria and Iran, either simultaniously or sequentially, IF SUFFICIENT REASON EXISTS. The spiriting away of Iraq'a WMD program in the weeks leading up to the war means the US Intelligence organs will have to have an iron clad case against Syria and/or Iran in order for the administration to be able to go forward, or a very clear provocation will have to be made.

Military action will be at a speed and scale which will be shocking to us (who have the most knowledge and experience of American operations) for the purpose of rapidly decapitating the Syrian and Iranian command and control networks, isolating the military formations through severing of road,rail and air links, and generally crushing any dual purpose infrastructure. Remaining military formations will be isolated and can be destroyed as bite sized pieces should that be considered nessesary.

The big problem is what to do with these countries after they have taken these "head shots". The proper thing to do would be to move in, stabilize the country, "De Nazify" the political establishment and begin the process of transforming the political culture, but this is where the Americans do not have the troop strength. Leaving the countries alone after the "head-shot" isn't a good option either, since something even worse could grow out of the chaos.

other hand, hitting the insurgency where it actually comes from might make it alot easier to pacify them all

.

This is a very calculated risk, and I am not sure if the starting conditions are right for this.....yet.

 

[goodform]

I'll admit I just skimmed over the posts, but I had one thing in mind, China. What is their stance on US policy in the middle East? They've been buying up US Bonds and if the US does something that China doesn't like, it's quite possible they could up and sell them...? Not good for the US, they need money before they can even think of all the tactical and strategic nightmares.

 

[Torlyn]

Do you really think the Americans would crush the Iranians AND the Syrians as easily as they did the Iraqi armies?

I think we might be forgetting something...  At the moment, Syria and Iran are benefiting economically from unrest in Iraq.  Oil prices being what they are, war-time consumption being what it is, Iran is doing a hell of a job making up the lost BBL/day that a stable Iraq would otherwise be producing.  I realize that there are more issues than this, but I don't think we should ignore the economics of the region.

My 1.5 cents. 

T

 

[dutchie]

My 2 cents:

1- The US will never again use nuclear weapons first. Full stop.
2- The US are too overextended to defeat either Syria or Iran with their current troop, finaincial and logistical commitment to Iraq. That could change in a year or two, but I think an invasion is off the table right now.
3- Even when(if) the US is capable of defeating either Syria or Iran, it would be extremely unpopular domestically. Yes, Americans rally behind the President during wartime, and there is support for victory in Iraq, but to start a whole new war (or front, if you want) would garner support from only the most hardline right-wingers and the most hawkish Yanks....just a guess, I'd say 20-25% of the population.

 

[Wizard of OZ]

Reading through the posts and i saw a continued theme..caution and common sense two things that DUBYA tends to lack. 

I think it is quite possible he could be provoked into making the first move and Caesar you are right they would not use the nuc first but they may use small tactical ones if WMD are used on them.

I can't remember who mentioned China but good point, not a real player on the world stage as of yet with force projection but they could really muss up the American economy if they wanted to.  But that would be Tit for Tat as the USA holds alot of Asian trading and could screw with that just as easily.

Real backers for this would have to come from NATO such as Germany and France i know i said the F word.

I doubt it would happen though. 

France makes so much money from its ams sales to that region that it loves the instability it causes and would not want the USA to sort it out costing it billions of dollars.

Russia not much in the way of troop strength or political will to back them.

Syria and Iran have capable paper armies remember Gulf war Part 1 Iraq was the third largest army in the world had lots of front line equipment and training and experience and moral and they were utterly crushed gutted whatever you wish to use.

The American military is a very lethal weapon and their home based propaganda machine can turn those two nations into the evil ones in no time flat.

Not to say i want this to happen. But it does look extremely possible..... scary isn't it.

 

[Slim]

Yes, I agree with the above post in that a "Two-Front War" would be disastrous...Even more so that the areas of operation are somewhat unhospitible to us westerners (remember Hitler and Russsia?)

another problem with the middle east is that western intelligence agencies traditionally do not have much of a presence there...Why this is i don't know but even going back to the Delta fiasco at Desert One ther was almost no western presence on the ground in Iran to speak of. These days with the move by most western int agencies to rely on other types of int. (Im Int, sig int ect ect) and away from human assets (humint) the situation could be al-together worse!

Last point-We also often forget that the Middle East now has very modern military hardware. Case in point-Iran has the F14 Tomcat in its airforce inventoy!

Cheers

Slim