Iran Super Thread- Merged

[JasonH]

Iran: We can repel U.S. attack

Tuesday, January 18, 2005 Posted: 0952 GMT (1752 HKT)

TEHRAN, Iran (Reuters) -- Iran has the military might to deter attacks against it, its defense minister said in remarks published on Tuesday, one day after U.S. President George W. Bush said he would not rule out military action against Iran.

Iranian Defense Minister Ali Shamkhani said the Islamic Republic, which has seen U.S. forces topple regimes in neighboring Afghanistan and Iraq in the last three years, did not fear attack.

"We are able to say that we have strength such that no country can attack us because they do not have precise information about our military capabilities due to our ability to implement flexible strategies," the semi-official Mehr news agency quoted Shamkhani as saying.

"We can claim that we have rapidly produced equipment that has resulted in the greatest deterrent," he said, without elaborating.

Bush said on Monday that Washington would not rule out military action against Iran if it was not more forthcoming about its suspected nuclear weapons programme.

His comments followed an article in the New Yorker magazine on Sunday which said U.S. commando units were conducting secret reconnaissance missions inside Iran to identify hidden nuclear and chemical sites for possible future strikes. Full story

Iran denies its nuclear facilities are to be used to make nuclear weapons and Pentagon officials have rubbished the New Yorker report. Full story

Iranian officials have given no public reaction to the New Yorker article which suggested Pentagon officials were eager to tackle Iran in the second term of the Bush administration.

Mehr news agency, which analysts say has close ties to the office of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, in an editorial entitled "Futile espionage" ridiculed U.S. attempts to destabilize Iran since the 1979 Islamic revolution.

"The United States is well aware that Iran has strongly withstood U.S. pressure for over 25 years ... Today, the Islamic Republic has acquired massive military might, the dimensions of which still remain unknown, and is prepared to attack any intruder with a fearsome rain of fire and death," it said.

"The U.S. and Israel know that they can never militarily challenge Iran, since attacking the Islamic Republic would be biting off more than they could chew and would only choke them if they attempted it," it added.

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/01/18/iran.attack.reut/index.html

Anyone with half a brain can tell they are talken about Missiles with possible Nuclear warheads.

 

[jmackenzie_15]

If Iran has nuclear weapons, I doubt that they are accurate or have enough range to hit any targets in the united states.However, I could definately see a nuclear attack on israel in retaliation for US attacks.

I guess i should have more accurately named my War of the Future thread to, War of a few months from now.  :-\

 

[JasonH]

Reminds me of Bahgdad Bob

"There are NO US soldiers in Baghdad!"

Exactly what I was thinken when I first herd it lol.

What ever happend to that guy?  He just kinda disappeared.

 

[48Highlander]

I think he got hired by Al-Jazeera?   Or some other arab news agency?   Not too sure.

UPDATE:

ah here we go...

January 12 - Furloughed Iraqi Information Minister Muhammed Saeed al-Sahaf (M.S.S.) has a brand new "gig" (that's entertainment industry lingo)- TV talking head for Abu Dhabi TV! His latest commentary on the capture of Saddam included this, uh, curious statement: "The expected trial needs evidence to be submitted. Everybody talks about war crimes and the like. But the court considers facts and evidence only." Because we all know how much M.S.S. believes in the sanctity of facts and evidence. We forget, are their troops in Baghdad yet?

 

[chaos75]

I guess it is time for Condi to step up to the plate and present some new 'solid evidence' that will give the US an excuse to complete its hat trick in the middle east/asia.  Maybe it will be some more aluminum tubes, or some more mobile chemical warfare units, or that Iran might make nukes, sometime, maybe, if let them, cause we only give them to our buddies.  Wonder who will be in the coalition this time, Israel of course, and ten or so countries that no one has ever heard of, oh and the UK, cant forget bush's lapdog Tony Blair. 

Seriously though, with their forces stretched so thin, and little international support, with US forces creeping ever so closer to Russia, China and India, I dont think they can pull it off, some airstrikes maybe (preemptive precision strikes).  Any thoughts?

 

[CBH99]

The US can't possibly hope to engage in a war with Iran, for several reasons.

1.  Militarily - the US is stretched so thin right now with their occupation of Iraq, and the need to keep forces free incase such deployments to Korea or Sudan take place.  You think the Muslim world in enraged now, with the US occupation of Iraq and rather arrogant approach to foreign policy?  Wait until they have engaged in a war with Iran - then lets see how passionate the Muslim community is about defending their world.

2.  International Support - How many countries do you think are going to support the United States after the mess they created in Iraq?  Another "Coalition of the Willing", which minus Australia, Britain and Spain, consisted largely of a pool of countries some of us hadn't even heard of before.  The point here - not a lot of countries are going to support a war with Iran.  The mess in Iraq is right next door, and everybody knows the US is going to be in Iraq for quite some time before things get to the point where they can withdraw.  Not a lot of countries are going to want to get involved in yet another Middle East guerilla campaign in Iran.

Do you guys think the UK will support the US if this "crisis" ever actually comes to fruitation?  I only ask this, because in the past month or so, Britain and the rest of the EU has distanced itself from the US militarily.  The EU has lifted its weapons ban on China (Or is about to?) - and Britain supports the move in the interests of growing closer to Beijing politically.  Also, its no secret that after the US invaded Iraq preemptively and large unilaterally, many of its allies in the EU were shunned for not supporting them.  So - any thoughts on whether the EU would support the US on yet another bold crusade into Iran?  And, any thoughts on the feasibility of some sort of campaign against Iran, even if it is just special forces/airstrikes?

 

[48Highlander]

International support isn't an issue.  The US doesn't need the EU.  The UK and Australia would continue to support them if the case for an invasion of Iran was strong enough.

The possibility of an invasion is a non-issue anyway.  It can't happen while Bush is in office beause the military is occupied in Iraq and even assuming they can pull out within a year, they'll need a period to rest and reorganize before they can launch another major campaign.  That means that if the president who follows Bush has the balls to do it, the earliest invasion of Iran would still be probably at least 3-4 years in the future.  More than likely though, a war won't be neccesary.  With Iraq there was no longer any room for a diplomatic solution, with Iran there's still a lot of other options to try before war is considered.

 

[Love793]

I think he got hired by Al-Jazeera?   Or some other arab news agency?   Not too sure.

UPDATE:

ah here we go...

January 12 - Furloughed Iraqi Information Minister Muhammed Saeed al-Sahaf (M.S.S.) has a brand new "gig" (that's entertainment industry lingo)- TV talking head for Abu Dhabi TV! His latest commentary on the capture of Saddam included this, uh, curious statement: "The expected trial needs evidence to be submitted. Everybody talks about war crimes and the like. But the court considers facts and evidence only." Because we all know how much M.S.S. believes in the sanctity of facts and evidence. We forget, are their troops in Baghdad yet?

One of the many rumours around Ft Hood regarding him was, He tried to turn himself in (key word Tried).  For some reason or another US/Brit Int told him to pound salt.  How embarasing can that be?  The guy doesn't even make it on the deck of cards and not even Int doesn't wants to talk to him.

 

[CBH99]

Thats a good point 48th - even after US forces get pulled from Iraq, it'll take them a while to reorganize themselves and rest up before any other major campaign.  However at the same time,  precision air strikes and special forces is always an option - a very effective option at that.

I would hate for a campaign to be launched against Iran, to be perfectly honest.  I travelled to Tehran a little more than 2yrs ago with my wife, and its an absolutely beautiful city.  Much different than what we see on TV here, and the entire political atmosphere in Iran is much more laid back and comfortable, despite the media reports we get here in the west.  Although women still had to cover their faces, the atmosphere when travelling throughout the country (I stayed mostly in Tehran) was quite comfortable, and the people there were very, very friendly.

48th Highlander - you brought up an interesting point, perhaps without even meaning to.  With the current state of geopolitical affairs - anybody else see the world just caving in on itself anytime soon?  j/k -- but in all seriousness...we have to do something about Sudan (Getting them to sign a piece of paper doesn't count) - we have to monitor the North Korea/South Korea situation,  we have to monitor the China/Taiwan situation, Iraq is a mess (The US won't be able to pull out within a year, despite optimistic outlooks), plus any other sudden shitstorm that could whip up;  anybody else got any feedback on the idea that the world is becoming a more dangerous place, and that the geopolitical structure of today will be MUCH, MUCH different than it will be in even 10yrs from now?

 

[48Highlander]

It's a safe bet that the world will be massively different in 10 or 20 years.   Declining oil reserves alone will produce massive changes, with the "alternate fuel" market booming.   Whichever nation(s) most effectively capitalizes on that will see massive growth in a very short period.   Such a shift in the balance of power around the world will almost deffinitely lead to some sort of conflict.   Also, according to the CIA, the EU will start falling apart in about 15 years:

http://story.europesun.com/p.x/ct/9/cid/ab2402315313d795/id/17ae829b56c41987/

I'm not sure how accurate such a prediction is, but whatever the case, the prosperity or lack thereof of the EU is going to be pretty important in the next 10-15 years.

And ofcourse, the middle east is going to change a lot as well.   Hopefuly the elections in Iraq will go well, and the country will serve as an example and a beacon to the rest of the pople in the middle east.   Or it could very well fall apart, starting another series of bloody conflicts which will doubtless drag numerous first world nations in with them.


It's deffinitely going to be an interesting decade.

 

[Long in the tooth]

The Atlantic Magazine recently did an article about a think tanks simulation of Iran/US conflict.  They came up with the same conclusions - Iran may have it's nuclear program damaged, but it will not be defeated.  With six times the population of Iraq and probably a more motivated military it could become the American's Stalingrad.  So the US is left with using honey (a la North Korea), vinegar (Iraq sanctions) or taking an iffy leap into the unknown.

On another and longer term note the Economist magazine believes that the U$ will lose its status as reserve currency.  It now borrows and transacts in its own currency and has issued trillions of dollars of cheques that have never been cashed.  This change will be the result of excessive government spending.  By comparison, our government have been tightwads and our CPP the gold standard.  If you think going from a 60 cent to 80 cent dollar was something, wait'l our dollar goes to $1.10 US in 18 months.  A positive balance of trade is vital to maintaining dominance, and once lost technical and military superiority has historically quickly been lost.

 

[FredDaHead]

1.   Militarily - the US is stretched so thin right now with their occupation of Iraq, and the need to keep forces free incase such deployments to Korea or Sudan take place.   You think the Muslim world in enraged now, with the US occupation of Iraq and rather arrogant approach to foreign policy?   Wait until they have engaged in a war with Iran - then lets see how passionate the Muslim community is about defending their world.

I agree the US is stretched too thin to invade Iran. HOWEVER, I think the likeliness of the US acting in Sudan is about as high as Michael Moore getting hit by lightning while kissing the Olsen twins during the production a pro-Bush documentary. The US act in their (self-percieved) political interest and, as was shown with the UN not acting and barely speaking against the situation in Sudan, it isn't in the US' interest to send in troops, as nobody (apparently) cares about Sudan.

Even if the US were to act, if they didn't get the UN approval (which they won't, as the UN doesn't give a fly about Sudan either) they'd still get attacked by every crackpot leftist conspiracy theorist Moore-wannabe, and someone would invent something about Sudanese ressources making the US act. Dubya (and his friends) know this, so they're not about to act "unilaterally" in an "illegal" "invasion" of a sovereign, "peace-loving" nation, no matter how much good it would do to stability in the region, human rights, and, of course, preventing the genocide from getting finished.

 

[CBH99]

Its a sad state of affairs really, when political interest takes priority over doing whats morally and ethically right.  Who cares if Rwanda repeats itself, and another 800,000 people are killed, raped and slaughtered in Africa?  We didn't want anybody to think we went in for the wrong reasons, so I suppose its justified.  Lets send confusing signals to the rest of the world about our committment to the China/Taiwan conflict - after all, its not like we're supposed to lead by example, are we?  My point is - we have a moral obligation to act to prevent mass atrocities from occurring; we shouldn't let political convenience get in the way of doing whats right.

"With great power, comes great responsibility" - Uncle Ben

 

[Glorified Ape]

I agree the US is stretched too thin to invade Iran.

I was discussing this with a strategic studies prof the other day and he mentioned that if the US staffed the Iraq occupation with National Guard and reserve elements, they could field somewhere in the area of 8 reg force divisions against Iran. The "quality" of occupation in Iraq would suffer but 8-9 divisions would be enough (he claimed) to take Iran. Occupying it is another story, of course.

That's to say nothing of the fact that Bush has no legitimate excuse to invade Iran - not even the flimsy, half-assed attempt at an excuse he made up for Iraq.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Quote,
That's to say nothing of the fact that Bush has no legitimate excuse to invade Iran - not even the flimsy, half-assed attempt at an excuse he made up for Iraq.

You just have to drop this line in even though you have been debated on it in other threads?
Let it go and move on, lad......its gotten old and I won't let this thread get sidetracked  off the original discussion.

 

[Glorified Ape]

Quote,
That's to say nothing of the fact that Bush has no legitimate excuse to invade Iran - not even the flimsy, half-assed attempt at an excuse he made up for Iraq.

You just have to drop this line in even though you have been debated on it in other threads?
Let it go and move on, lad......its gotten old and I won't let this thread get sidetracked   off the original discussion.

You're probably right, though I honestly wasn't trying to sidetrack - it was more of an attempt to illustrate the practical political difficulties of such an invasion. That being said, I likely didn't go about it in the best way possible.

 

[Wizard of OZ]

Exactly what I was thinken when I first herd it lol.

What ever happend to that guy?   He just kinda disappeared.

Is that they guy saying it at the press confrence as an M1 was crossing a bridge behind him?

He prob got a job for the PM and his spin team

The subs are working fine
The new MGS is an excellent piece of kit
The new helicopters are exactly what we need
and on and on and on

 

[Wizard of OZ]

On the real issue though

.  Militarily - the US is stretched so thin right now with their occupation of Iraq, and the need to keep forces free incase such deployments to Korea or Sudan take place.  You think the Muslim world in enraged now, with the US occupation of Iraq and rather arrogant approach to foreign policy?  Wait until they have engaged in a war with Iran - then lets see how passionate the Muslim community is about defending their world.

Do you not think they would use the government (puppet) of Iraq to send in troops to the cause. 

Isreal would never make the list as it would incite to many negative forces to the side of Iran.

Russia and France would block any UN option. 

India and Pakastian may be willing to move if they get room to grow. 

China won't care to much as long as they leave NK alone for now.

Yes the forces of the US are streched fairly thin but if they were able to turn Iraq over to UN forces in 6-7 months you can bet GW gets his second war before his term is done.

If Iran keeps ratiling thier saber you might hear not see some B-2's or F117's in around some "key" areas of Iran.

My two cents.

 

[FredDaHead]

I was discussing this with a strategic studies prof the other day and he mentioned that if the US staffed the Iraq occupation with National Guard and reserve elements, they could field somewhere in the area of 8 reg force divisions against Iran. The "quality" of occupation in Iraq would suffer but 8-9 divisions would be enough (he claimed) to take Iran. Occupying it is another story, of course.

The biggest problem I'd see with gathering up that much "new blood" for Iraq is the home reaction. If you think people are hating the war in Iraq now, try and send in a crapload of "part-time soldiers" who mostly just want to look cool in uniform and get school money.

More cowardness (desertion) and protests are forecasted...

 

[Bert]

The politics of the region are complex.  Heres a Stratfor special and it sheds
an interesting perspective on the current US, Iran, and Iraq dynamics.

After the Election
www.stratfor.com

By George Friedman

It is now a week from the Iraqi elections. Apart from knowing the precise levels of violence the insurgency will be able to reach before the election, most of the rest of it is clear. The election will be held. In much of the Sunni region, the turnout will be extremely low -- low enough that the election might be suspended there. The Shia will win. The United States could choose to suspend the elections -- and there should be no mistake about who is making the decisions on this -- but the point for that has passed. If the elections were going to be postponed, one would think that Washington would have made that decision weeks ago.

The next decision that will have to be made is whether to certify the election. There is not much choice there either. Washington knows the vote in the Sunni region will be disrupted. To hold the election and then fail to certify it because of the guerrilla war makes no sense. The guerrilla war has been there for a long time now. If you are going to hold the election anyway, not certifying it would be an exercise in futility.

If the vote is certified, a government will be formed. The Shia will dominate that government. They would have dominated any government for simple demographic reasons. With the Sunni vote suppressed, they will dominate the government overwhelmingly. The United States has proposed in the past some artificial formula to guarantee Sunni representation in the government, a substitute for an election, but the Shia have rejected it. Moreover, if the United States allowed the Sunnis to take a full seat at the table in spite of their inability to suppress the insurrection, there would be zero incentive in the future for Sunni elders to take a chance. Undoubtedly, some sort of contrived Sunni presence will be inserted, but this will be a Shiite government.

Thus, at some point in February, a Shiite prime minister, governing through a predominantly Shiite Cabinet, will become the government of Iraq. The Shia have been waiting for this moment for decades. Although divided, the formation of a government that reflects -- or over-reflects -- Shiite power will be a moment of enormous triumph. The evolution of this government is unclear. It could evolve into an Iranian-style theocracy, although the Iraqi religious leaders seem to take a different view of this than the Iranians. It might be ruled by Islamic principles without the overtly theocratic elements. It could even be, for a time, formally pluralist or secular. Whatever it will be, it will be Shia, and it will be under the heavy control of the religious leaders.

The first problem the new government will face will be the Sunni uprising. Sunni guerrillas recently killed two of Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani's aides. They have been conducting a fairly one-sided assault against the Shia for months. The reasoning behind the attacks appears to have been to intimidate the Shiite leadership prior to its taking power. What they have done instead is infuriate the Shia. The Shia have suffered from suppression by the Sunni-dominated regime of Saddam Hussein -- Sunni by birth if not by religious principle. They have been the dispossessed. It is now their time.

The Shia understand they cannot simply remain in a defensive mode. They have been passive in the run-up to the election, but after the election their credibility as the government of Iraq will depend on how they deal with the guerrillas. They must either suppress the guerrillas or negotiate a deal with them. Since a deal is hard to imagine at this time, they will have to act to suppress them. If they don't, the government will either be destroyed by the insurgents or Iraq will split into two or three countries, an evolution unacceptable to the Shia or to Iran.

Therefore, the Shia will fight. The Shiite leadership has made it clear it wants the United States to remain in Iraq for the time being. This does not mean it wants a long-term American presence. It means it wants U.S. forces to carry the main battle against the Sunnis on its behalf. In the same way that al-Sistani wanted the Americans to deal with Shiite leader Muqtada al-Sadr during the An Najaf affair, he wants the Americans to carry the main burden now.

The United States is prepared to carry a burden, but it is not prepared to single-handedly deal with the Sunnis any longer. The Shia have substantial armed militias. It is these forces -- not the failed Iraqi army the United States has tried to invent -- that will be the mainstay of the regime. The Shia don't want this force ground up because it is the guarantor of their security. The United States is not going to protect the regime without these forces engaged.

At this point, something interesting happens. The Shia have a greater vested interest in the viability of this government than even the Americans. The Americans can leave. The Shia aren't going anywhere. For the first time, the United States has a potential ally with capabilities and motivation. Most important, it is an ally that is not blind on the ground. Its intelligence capability is not perfect among the Sunnis, but it is better than what the Americans have.

It is an opportunity for the Americans. It is hard to get excited any longer about opportunities. We have seen so many open up and either prove chimerical or be fumbled by the United States that we temper our enthusiasm in all things. Nevertheless, the Shia will be the government for the first time; they have been waiting for this; they owe the Sunnis a beating and they might, with the United States, have the means to deliver it.

In all of this, the role of Iran is the most complex. The Iranians supported the Shiite community throughout the post-Desert Storm period. During the first phase of the American occupation, the two Shiite communities were close. Since the events of April 2004, the long-term wariness between the two communities has returned. Iran might not be as enthusiastic as it once was to see a Shiite government in Iraq. Alternatively, Iran could use its ongoing influence to manipulate and control that government.

It is no accident, in our view, that Washington is beating the war drums against Iran in the weeks before the Iraqi election. It is not only about nuclear weapons or not even about them. It is warning the Iranians not to intrude into Iraqi affairs. The Iranians might listen, but it's unlikely. Iraq is a fundamental national interest of Iran, and the Iranians will be playing.

Thus, the election brings a new government with new interests and new crises. If the government is seated, and we can't see why it wouldn't be, the next thing to watch is what steps it takes with its militias against the insurgents. Certainly, the guerrillas will be hitting them hard, so passivity is not an option. The Iranians will be manipulating the government and the Americans will be squeezing it. But it is at this point that something might finally, if temporarily, break in favor of the United States. Certainly that is the bet Washington is making.