Iran and Syria - war of the future?

[Wizard of OZ]

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!  \


Yea but what model a i beileve and really how many can still fly 3 maybe 5 of them.  It has been a long time since they were friendly with the West.

But true a two front war not a good option for any army in any conditions ask Germany what it was like.

 

[Slim]

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!   \


Yea but what model a i bbelieveand really how many can still fly 3 maybe 5 of them.   It has been a long time since they were friendly with the West.

Too true...However the French (wonderful bunch) have been supplying them for some time now with arms. Now I have no current info on the subject so this is all a guess on my part but, they could have bought planes from them as well as air defense and other goodies.

The US has lots of modern stuff, I agree, but as you (and I ) mentioned, a two-front war is not a good idea so if any action were to take place it would have to be "shortdrop-sudden stop" types and not a prolonged effort.

Slim's .02 bits

 

[Kirkhill]

Actually there is one player that we may not be valuing sufficiently.  India.

If India can be convinced to come off the sidelines and supply man-power, as it used to do for the Brits in the east, as it did in Iraq, Ethiopia, Egypt you name it, then that could change the picture somewhat.

US striking power and delivery, Indian ground forces to supplement security, ABCA and New Europe to supply legitimacy along with the rest of the current version of the Coalition of the Willing in Iraq.

Indian and Pakistani forces on their own would supply great moral authority to any venture.

 

[Slim]

I had heard that there was a thawing of sorts in relations between the two countries (India and Pakistan) Does anyone know anything about this and if it were possible for them to deploy as a force to the middle east in any capacity?

Slim

 

[a_majoor]

Indian manpower would be quite a wild card in this "what-if" scenario, and certainly solve the "follow-up" problem of any expanded American actions in the Middle East. What sort of incentives India would need to come aboard is an interesting question.

Two points I must reiterate:

1. The United States may not be able to mount a conventional invasion against Syria or Iran, but could still do an effective "head-shot" and put those nations out of commission if it is deemed nessesary. The risk is the chaotic conditions following such a move would throw almost any sort of military, political or economic strategy out the window.

2. Because of the intelligence fiasco involving pre war Iraq, the administration will not take action unless it can be proven "beyond a reasonable doubt". Either captured Syrian or Iranian officers leading anti-American fighters (or something equally clear-cut), or a provocation by one of these nations, most probably Iran, and most certainly if it involved the use or threat of nuclear weapons against American forces or the US Homeland.

Unless those conditions can be met, only the intelligence preparation of the battlefield and possibly "deep black" operations will be the limit to American activity.

 

[Kirkhill]

Agree with you Art.

That is why I suggested a border war with conventional arms.  If the Americans could get Iran or Syria to assault into Iraq, or even mobilize on the borders to threaten Iraq then they would have the moral authority to "write-down" either army and definitely have that capability in reserve.  They might even as you suggest be able to take out the leadership by conventional and covert means.

What they couldn't do, is occupy and stabilize either country afterwards, at least not on their on.

Cheers, Chris.

 

[Wizard of OZ]

Good note kirkhill

i total forgot about India, and Pakistan.

Getting them on board would greatly increase the US's chances of winning even if they were just Cannon fodder.  They could field a huge army.  Not sure on all their equipment though, i am sure some of the front line stuff must be descent.

But the real diddy would be getting the American public on side this time. Even with CONCRETE prove there would still be the sceptics. But if they were able to have Iran or Syria attack first be through the US or even Israel. ( A player yet to be named )  And then what about having Turkey come donw on Iran or Syria the turks have no love for either of those two nations.  This would eliminate a two front war for the Americans and cause it on either of the other two.  Even if they united, and we were able to through Pakistan and India into the mix that would still spell disaster for the axis as we shall call them.

Another player yet to be named is North Korea. Could they move there forces no but they could attack the south at the same time as Syria and Iran attacking Iraq. 

man this sounds like a TC novel jeez call in Jack Ryan to save the day.

MOO

 

[a_majoor]

The key question(s) to ask are why would these nations jump into the fray?

Turkey was a non player in OIF for reasons of internal politics, and they also have issues with the northern "Kurdish" portions of Iraq. India and Pakistan have few reasons to offer up troops, especially as "cannon fodder", and I would also add Pakistan greatly aided the Taliban getting set up in the first place (or at least Pakistan's Intelligence agencies), which would make their help somewhat suspect at best.

There is always the thought that North Korea or China might use the situation in SW Asia as distraction to launch initiatives of their own, but there are lots of local players in SE Asia who would get involved one way or the other. This would be an excellent time for people everywhere to "get off the pot" as the bigger players attempt to make their moves, and we will see who the real "allies" are.

 

[Wizard of OZ]

What motivates most people to do any thing MONEY   either through direct payment debt relieve or future venture.

I did not meant that they would be used for Cannon Fodder but if they do the ground assault that is likely what they would become.   Voluntary or Not.  

Turkey had a problem if the Kurds got to have there own state.   That would have to be a bargining chip the Americans would use to get them on their side if it came down to it.

 

[Kirkhill]

IF, and it is a mighty big IF, If India decided to participate, either out of altruism, pride, bribery, response to a sense of regional insecurity or whatever, I don't honestly think they would be needed as "Cannon Fodder".  Nor would the probably wish to participate on those grounds.  They have some platforms that could contribute to the early stages, apparently some of their Mig29 jockeys gave some American F15 types a run for their money recently. However I was thinking more along the lines of them supplying the a good portion of the stabilization forces after the initial assault is over.

I believe the Americans are quite capable of destroying a conventional Army on their own.  What they need help with is security and policing.  Establishing presence in areas that "run outside the writ of law".

 

[tomahawk6]

http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=964

Syria being a US target shouldnt be a surprise considering its lack of effort in curbing the flow of jihadists into Iraq. In fact their intelligence support of the Sunni's is an open secret. There never will be security in Iraq as long as this continues. I suspect any strikes will be graduated. An initial series of strikes [by air] then a pause to see if the Syrian's crack down. If they dont then another level of strikes.

 

[Kirkhill]

At very least it would make it difficult for Jihadists to get their paperwork stamped at the border if the local constabulary is swapping shots with an Abrams.

 

[Wizard of OZ]

i don't think the Syrians could afford to swap to many shots with an Abrams.  Besides an Apache can really ruin your day  ;D. 

hill

I see your point and agree, Cannon Fodder was the wrong term. 

they would definetly work well in that role. 

But i don't think it would ever get through the UN damm French and the arms trade.

 

[hammond]

http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/news_service/middle_east_full_story.asp?service_id=6734

Hard liners in the Bush Administration are considering launching strikes against Syria's borders with Iraq in an effort to beef up security ahead of Iraq's January elections, U.S. administration officials said.

The sources also said that Iraq's Prime Minister Iyad Allawi is demanding some form of military actions against Syria.

They added that the U.S. army will not begin attacks with a large-scale, organized military operation, but rather by sending small U.S. and Iraqi forces to Syria to strike buses carrying fighters to the border. If these operations are ineffective, the army will upscale the action.

â Å“General plan of intimidationâ ?

Recently, U.S. and Iraqi officials accused Syria of sheltering former Iraqi Baath Party officials and aiding the Iraqi resistance.

Damascus strongly rejected the accusations, saying that they are â Å“groundlessâ ?.

However, the accusations led to new discussions within the U.S. administration about possible military actions against Syria. Vince Cannistraro, the former head of the CIA counterterrorism, said that "There are all sorts of discussions going on, the White House, the Pentagon, the Joint Chiefs."

Cannistraro believes that the talks of such attacks are â Å“part of a general plan of intimidation."

Last month, Syrian President Bashar Al Assad told the U.S. deputy secretary of state Richard Armitage during his visit to Damascus that he is doing all what he can to stop the infiltration of fighters into Iraq.

Armitage also asked Assad to make sure that none of the Kornet AT-14 anti-tank missiles enter Iraq. In case any Korner AT-14 are found, General Casey, commander of U.S. forces in Iraq already received orders from the commander-in-chief in the White House to launch military attacks inside Syria as he sees fit and without delay.

Subbed or ignored

One former top CIA officer, who usually criticized the U.S. administration, said that "We should send a cruise missile into south-side Damascus and blow the Mukharbarat 'intelligence' headquarters off the map. We should first make clear to them that they are the target."

But former CIA Syria expert, Martha Kessler disagrees. "I don't think the administration can afford to destabilize another country in the region," she said.

Kessler said that Syria tries hardly to cooperate with the United States, only to be either snubbed or ignored.

She noted that the main reason for not attacking Syria is that any strikes would "destabilize Lebanon," where she said the Lebanese Hezbollah resistance movement awaits orders from Iran before launching retaliations against Israel.

"Damascus is not the heartbeat of this Iraqi insurgent movement," she insisted.

The key event

Some analysts believe that the key event that will take place in the Middle East the coming weeks will be the U.S. strikes against Syria.

They say that the Palestinian elections, Bush's open invitation to Mahmood Abbas to go to the White House, the formation of the new unity government in Israel and the talks of the of imminent Israel-Palestinian peace negotiations will be no more than sideshows of the main event.

 

[jmackenzie_15]

Damascus and Tehran need to be put out of business.I bet the Bush Administration is looking to put together an ironclad case against them that the public cannot ignore.

 

[dutchie]

I bet the Bush Administration is looking to put together an ironclad case against them that the public cannot ignore.

Let's hope the standard is raised a snitch this time around....

They (IMHO) have done themselves a huge disservice. They will need to do way more to exhaust the diplomatic avenues available to them this time around to prevent dissent domestically and abroad. Had they done this with Iraq, the amount of work & patience required with Syria/Iran would have been less.

A lot of people are a hyper-sensitive to 'premature US military action', both domestically and internationally.

 

[joaquim]

Again, in muslim jihad theory, national borders are irrelevant because they have been created by men (in the middle east, by French and Brits in the 1940's). The purpose of jihad is victory of Dar al-Islam (the muslim world) over Dar al-Harb (the whole of the unbelievers). Therefore, there are only two "dar" (houses) in the world, and they will always be at war.

Back to Syria, more details from the (strangely well informed) DEBKAfile site (http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=964):

DEBKAfile's Military and US sources reveal: Bush has ordered US Iraq commander Gen. Casey to prepare February attack on Syria. Assad sends Syria's chief of staff Gen. Habib to establish command post on Iraqi border. Israel braces for Hizballah backlash. Read more in DEBKAfile Special Military Report Updating DEBKA-Net-Weekly 188 â “ below

 

[Ty]

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

Care to expand on that?  I'm unsure if I interpreted you correctly (and hope that I haven't), but are you suggesting that Arab and Persian Canadians receive special "economic" treatment because of their political views?

 

[dutchie]

Again, in muslim jihad theory, national borders are irrelevant because they have been created by men

They may be irrelavant to them, but they are not irrelavant to the rest of the world, just as human rights are irrelavant to Jihadis (my new term - thanks majoor), and they are not irrelavant to us.

Thus, we must respect true soveriegn nations, as well as human rights. I have always maintained, however, that in this new style of conflict, we have to look at 'threats' rather than 'nations'. For instance, you can't engage militarily a state, when it is not the state that is the real problem. By invading Syria, or Iran for that matter, because of support (whether by mere political ways or militarily), you only confirm their belief that the 'Western Infidel' is bent on 'irradicating Islam' and any other opposition to the US policy/plan for the Middle East. IF, howver, one was to elliminate specific targets within those nations that are clearly supplying arms to combatants in Iraq, and left all else alone, then that is completely different. Better still, hit the supplies once they enter Iraq.

 

[Wizard of OZ]

Care to expand on that?   I'm unsure if I interpreted you correctly (and hope that I haven't), but are you suggesting that Arab and Persian Canadians receive special "economic" treatment because of their political views?

I think the majoor menat that they get the support of the Canadian people because we buy thier goods and use thier services.  I think that is the boycot that is meant there. 

Borders have never been an issue for those fighting a religious war.  I think the US should be very careful in any endever to take on Syria or Iran, but i also agree you have to stop the source or the problem will continue.  If the evidece can prove ( i mean really prove) as opposed to show that they are involved or responsible then the selling points on the case went up.

Again though having it go through the UN will  never fly FRENCH arms sales are to much to lose for stability in that region.

MOO