Iran Super Thread- Merged

[Shockwave]

If/when Iran is bombed, the retaliation will be severe and on a scale the general population may find staggering.   Estimates to when Iran could manufacture a bomb point to 2009 right?  ...Action will need to be taken in the next several months, I agree people should be talking about how bad this could get, in my opinion things will get very bad very soon. 

 

[TacticalW]

I personally think that overall the western forces are pretty close to reaching their limit with Iraq and Afghanistan and another war with Iran would certainly cause a lot more trouble depending on how things turn out. The bottom line is though that they "did" make threats to our ally Israel and they are a key ally that we have to protect. Letting Iran get their hands on WMD's could be "much" more disastrous than taking military action against them, we'd be letting our allies get in a "very" bad situation. We don't have too much of a choice unless they drop their nuclear program.

Let's hope negotiations are enough but if they aren't we'll have to make sure they don't get them by other means.

 

[Kirkhill]

But TacW:

Would Iran be another war?  Or are the Afghanistan and Iraqi conflicts merely shaping operations on the left and right flank?  If the troops are in place and conditioned, if there is a strategic reserve of troops available and if the primary bombardment forces of the US (Navy and Air Force) are not currently heavily engaged, is it not possible to envisage further "local" action in Central Command's theater of operations?

The only question in my mind would be the strategic reserve of troops....however I would argue that those troops that have rotated out recently are available as a reserve  eg, even Canada, which is struggling to maintain a garrison of 2500 on continuous service in Afghanistan, could likely find another 2500 or so for a single deployment (2 months or 2 years - they could only manage one rotation).  But having said that -if threat removal is the issue then invasion is not required to degrade capabilities.  Better just to bombard and quarantine.

 

[Old Sweat]

Part of the challenge posed by Iran is that US cupboard is getting bare. There probably is more than enough strike power from air and naval forces to deal a very harsh blow to the country, but there is not enough to reduce a large, dispersed country's military to impotence and there certainly is not enough ground combat power to move in and enforce the will of the US (or the UN) until a friendly regime can be installed. Whoops, check that, a force could probably be cobbled together, but that leaves the first world without a meaningful reserve

 

[Trauma22]

Part of the challenge posed by Iran is that US cupboard is getting bare. There probably is more than enough strike power from air and naval forces to deal a very harsh blow to the country, but there is not enough to reduce a large, dispersed country's military to impotence and there certainly is not enough ground combat power to move in and enforce the will of the US (or the UN) until a friendly regime can be installed. Whoops, check that, a force could probably be cobbled together, but that leaves the first world without a meaningful reserve

An invasion scenario like Iraq is out of the question with Iran right now.  This time, the US should stick to an easily achievable goal...to cripple Irans nuclear program...and put all other forces on the defensive for the inevitable upsurge in violence everywhere...

 

[Flip]

I6 said:

As well keep in mind Iranians are masters of rhetoric, they teach it in schools.  They are also shrewd and calculating -- and will give illusions of some popular democratic movement - they know that they can play a shell gave that will fool the majority of the western public.

Here's the real problem.  The west is war weary, even if they haven't melted down their pots and pans.  The common leftward mis-perception is that Barack Hussein Obama will scare all the monsters out from under the bed once he's elected.  The US would need a pretext, and no matter how good, it would be suspect.  Israel's goals would have to be limited. Take out the reactor and Ahmedinejad during the ribbon cutting.

The real long term danger ( in my civilian opinion ) is that Iran will BS their way through this and be an example to all who would try similar crap.
Every time someone demonstrates a weakness in the West's resolve, someone else moves to exploit it. I'm thinking of Somalia

One more observation - Liberals seem to hate history, all that talk of "appeasment" really pickles their onions. ;D

 

[TacticalW]

But TacW:

Would Iran be another war?  Or are the Afghanistan and Iraqi conflicts merely shaping operations on the left and right flank?  If the troops are in place and conditioned, if there is a strategic reserve of troops available and if the primary bombardment forces of the US (Navy and Air Force) are not currently heavily engaged, is it not possible to envisage further "local" action in Central Command's theater of operations?

The only question in my mind would be the strategic reserve of troops....however I would argue that those troops that have rotated out recently are available as a reserve  eg, even Canada, which is struggling to maintain a garrison of 2500 on continuous service in Afghanistan, could likely find another 2500 or so for a single deployment (2 months or 2 years - they could only manage one rotation).  But having said that -if threat removal is the issue then invasion is not required to degrade capabilities.  Better just to bombard and quarantine.

That's true, but the chances of Iran and Venezuela retaliating are still there. Who knows, maybe it would be seen as another hit to Islam and it would further increase the conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan exponentially. It would definitely tense situations with Russia and China further for obvious reasons. Well, if things go as smoothly as they did in Syria then it should be fine, but this has a "lot" more media coverage and political baggage.

Decided to brush up on my geography and I can see your first point, if you're saying what I think you're saying. I guess the old days are really back.

 

[tomahawk6]

The reactors would have to be targeted but more difficult will be the underground facilities where they run their uranium enrichment.I would bet the Iranians arent too far off from having nuclear weapons.But having a tested weapon as the NK's found out is a big hurdle.The window for derailing the Iranian nuclear program is narrow and immediate.The consequences of an attack will be felt in Iraq and might lead to war between the US and Iran.

 

[Kirkhill]

I agree we are in no shape (the west) to organize an Occupation of Iran.  However I do think we could organize a limited invasion followed by the establishment of a cordon on the borders of Iran.  Likewise I think the US could organize a more broadly based bombardment that would allow it to establish a "No Fly Zone" over Iran patrolled by the west. 

Then it is a matter of waiting... and trying to keep the population focused on thinking of their Ayatollahs as the problem and not those western aircraft flying overhead.

 

[oligarch]

I don't think going to war with Iran is a good idea, regardless of whether they have nukes or not, which I am sure they don't have and won't have for at least 50 years. I mean if we want to set the entire middle east on fire, we could, but then they would set the persian gulf on fire and oil will go to 700 bucks a barrel.... we'll have to power our tanks with solar power!! Here is my rationale. There is plenty of talk on an anti-missile shield to protect Europe. Israel has nukes, so Iran would have to be insane to use their only rocket. Do we honestly think that Iran is going to fire their one, two, or three nukes at Israel and then sit there and wait to see what happened? Plus, such actions would serve only to destabilize balance of power, and increase the chance of terrorism. Saying that Iran will sit idily by while we conduct a "tactical strike" against all 80 or so of their future power plants by way of raining large amounts of explosives on people's heads, and not respond in some way seems to me to be a bit insane. Further, I am doubtful that Canada can even afford to go to this war, and we surely don't have the resources. Given that the US and Britan, and NATO are already in Afghanistan and Iraq (as well as all those 'unofficial' demployments like Somalia), I doubt we can afford to go to war against a fairly strong country and succesfully occupy it. But then again, if there is a war in Iran I see such a scenario involving Israel, which has its hands full in Lebanon and Gaza. If a war happens, I think it would be at least 5+ years from now. The public is simply not ready yet.

Are nukes the only reason we are considering going to war with them? Because there are plenty of unstable countries that have them... like Pakistan... Anyway please don't attack me like some did in the Russian thread, my intention is not to start an argument. I really think war is not something that people should take lightly, seeing as in wars people die, and we can't afford going to war on flimsy intelligence once again. The UN inspectors didn't find anything in Iran, but there is this mystical "intelligence" that says that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, which reminds me a lot about the kind of intelligence that told us there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Hey, maybe those guys up there confused the 'q' with the 'n' the last time.

 

[Flip]

If the west were to adopt a "total war" outlook like the attitude that existed in both world wars there would little problem mustering the resources required for total victory.

To bring us to that point would require more than a contemporary " Pearl Harbour"
It's already been done.  her's our problem, Pre-emptive war is now out of fashion.

All of this is unlikely.  the victor is the one who masters the subtleties of the situation.
Sadly, the west and particularly our friends in the south don't do subtle.

In our system of liberal social standards, there is no win. We just hope to lose less.

 

[Trauma22]

Our friends to the south may not want this war, but our friends in the Middle East can not avoid it, if the very existance of their country is at stake.  All it would take is for Iran to smuggle one suitcase sized nuke to Hamas, and Israel would basically cease to exist.  Iran could deny any invovlment, and really without hard proof you cant justify retaliation against them.  Regime change in Iran is the best way to avoid war, but their elections are set to take in mid 2009, AFTER the earliest possible date at which they could potentially have a bomb. 

I saw a peice recently on 60 minutes, where former members of the Israeli Airforce ( including the pilot who led the Osirik raid) commented on the Iran issue, and they were confident that Israel could, by themselves, hit all of Irans nuclear facilities.  Even if they only hit say 60-70% of it, the Iranian program would be setback many years, and they would think long and hard before trying to restart it.   

 

[Kirkhill]

I actually agree with oligarch, for a change.  War with Iran would be undesirable and, likewise, with both him and Flip I don't think the west could be easily convinced to go to war.  Unfortunately I don't think that even another event like Saddam's invasion of Kuwait, regardless of the country invaded, would be enough to bring a majority of the OECD to support a counter invasion.

Having said that, that speaks to intent and not capability. My earlier posts addressed capability and not intent.  There are options available, but I don't think they are likely.

If Iraq and Afghanistan continue on the same course that they are on then I can foresee an extended period of instability on Iran's borders and more and more civil disruption inside Iran. Perhaps a No Fly Zone might be in the offing.

 

[a_majoor]

A few things that have not been factored into these discussions:

1. The logic of MAD does not really apply here. The President of Iran and who knows how many of the senior clergy are operating under an apocalyptic religious belief system (the emergence of the 12th or "hidden" Iman) which actually predicts the "End of Days". Nuclear Holocaust is a means to that end.

2. The Arab nations are quite wary of Iran's intentions. They see this not only in geopolitical terms (do they want to fall under an Iranian Hegemony?), but also in religious (Shiia vs Sunni and Wahhabi) and ethnic (Arab vs Persian) terms. They might not be able and willing to openly oppose Iran, but I doubt they would actively oppose such steps, and are probably making their own plans on how to exploit any such actions.

3. The internal state of Iran is open to question. Although it seems there is low level opposition to the Theocracy it seems to be in the form of "social" protest; wearing Western clothes or listening to Western music. The population does not seem to be clamouring for a wide scale adoption of Western political ideals like equal rights or political freedoms. Their economy sucks, but this only affects the urban areas. Peasant farmers are still peasant farmers.

4. While the western body politic seems hesitant to take action, what are the true intents of the Arab and Iranian bodies politic? Will they undertake long term and long range actions with uncertain prospects for success? They might not be as ready to launch as their leadership.

Questions that should be answered......

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

1. The logic of MAD does not really apply here. The President of Iran and who knows how many of the senior clergy are operating under an apocalyptic religious belief system (the emergence of the 12th or "hidden" Iman) which actually predicts the "End of Days". Nuclear Holocaust is a means to that end.

You could have said something similar in the 1960's about China. Once they realised the policy implications of what they were doing, they quieted down significantly. Same thing with Pakistan and India. If Iran gets nuclear wepaons and the delivery means, they'll probably talk a lot and then shut up once they realise what can be done to them.

 

[TCBF]

You could have said something similar in the 1960's about China. Once they realised the policy implications of what they were doing, they quieted down significantly. Same thing with Pakistan and India. If Iran gets nuclear wepaons and the delivery means, they'll probably talk a lot and then shut up once they realise what can be done to them.

- Interesting theory: How the possession of nuclear weapons promotes diplomatic sanity.

 

[tomahawk6]

Unlike the Russians or Chinese the Iranians seem to be hell bent on armageddon.They have surrounded Israel with thousands of rockets and their rhetoric is rather brazen.Their use of proxies isnt anything new but with their repeated references to wiping Israel off the map together with Iran's proxies in the region make for a dangerous mix.

 

[faceman]

Well, we know one thing for sure.  The first to strike Iran should they feel immanently threatened is Israel, and Olmert has said as much.  However Iran would be infinitely more messy than the aftermath of Iraq, also drawing Russia into the play which is perhaps the greatest risk.  Personally, any military actions taken on Iran must be after all other options have failed, including relationship building, ie, economic reform.  If the leadership of Iran is profiting from favourable tradel and taxation then they'll have no reason to burn those bridges.  The anti-American beliefs of Iranians are extremely volatile, they haven't forgotten the fact that the usa via the cia overthrew their government in the 50's because they demanded a 50/50 split for oil profits,and installed the ultra religious Shah, just to keep Iran from controlling their own oil.

 

[KevinB]

Iran is waging a very clear war against us currently in Iraq and Afghanistan both by arming and equipping anti-governmental forces in those areas and also by sending it forces into those areas to help destabilize our allies and kill our soldiers.

Like it or not -- we do have to accept this issue as fact, and proceed even with a bare cupboard against their regime.

 

[faceman]

If secondary support, for wars is a reason to invade a host country then we should attack russia and china, who supply the weaponry to much of the anti-west middle east, including Iran.  Not many people would say that's a good idea though.  The waters just  get murkier and murkier....