Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Wed 08/10/2005 View Tue 08/09/2005 View Mon 08/08/2005 View Sun 08/07/2005 View Sat 08/06/2005 View Fri 08/05/2005 View Thu 08/04/2005
1
2005-08-10 Syria-Lebanon-Iran
‘Iran would rather be hit by sanctions than back down ...'
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by Steve White 2005-08-10 00:07|| || Front Page|| [11129 views since 2007-05-07]  Top

#1 The Ha'aretz version of the story also contains this blurb:

"Our nuclear capabilities are not annihilable," Vahid said. "We have mastered nuclear science by ourselves. In case of any damage, we could construct it somewhere else."


He's probably right but it still sounds like a challenge worth taking.
Posted by AzCat 2005-08-10 00:52||   2005-08-10 00:52|| Front Page Top

#2 Once Iranian nukes are mated with the 4000km range Shahab-5 (Taep'o-dong-2) expect all of Europe, including the UK, to assume the dhimmi position.
Posted by ed 2005-08-10 02:31||   2005-08-10 02:31|| Front Page Top

#3 And we'll be able to differentiate that from the current European position precisely how?
Posted by AzCat 2005-08-10 02:41||   2005-08-10 02:41|| Front Page Top

#4 Allies will become non-allies. Neutrals or covert opponents will move to active opposition. Why would the Brits, Italians, or Poles help us when they could get London, Rome, or Warsaw destroyed? Germany and France will move to active opposition to the US in order to stave off terrorist attacks on their populace. Iran will have a free hand to subvert the Sunni mideast and launch terrorist raids (like Mo) to terrorize, weaken, and take over the infidels.
Posted by ed 2005-08-10 02:51||   2005-08-10 02:51|| Front Page Top

#5 France have plenty of nukes but I don't know if they have the stomach to play playing nuclear chicken with Iran, they will get blackmailed.
Posted by Omoluger Groger3629 2005-08-10 03:44||   2005-08-10 03:44|| Front Page Top

#6 It's going to take one of these garbage dumps like Iran or NKor to pop a nuke before someone acts. When they do, I hope the response ensures that neither place has any hope of supporting life again for at least 300 years.
Posted by mac 2005-08-10 05:31||   2005-08-10 05:31|| Front Page Top

#7 The Europeans are so not in the heads of their middle eastern friends. Note to Europeans: the Muslims aren't dhimmis. They have no intention of being your dhimmis, victims or patrons. They would rather die than to bow to you in exchange for your beads and trinkets. In fact, they'd rather you die than to be humiliated by your pandering. Every time you offer them something as a token, you insult them. Not that they won't take whatever you offer them - you see, they aren't stupid - you are.
Posted by 2b 2005-08-10 05:45||   2005-08-10 05:45|| Front Page Top

#8 in fact, each time you give them a welfare check, you insult them. They'll take it, but they are insulted. With all that insulting going on, no wonder they are so ticked off. Better to kill you than to be so humiliated.
Posted by 2b 2005-08-10 05:58||   2005-08-10 05:58|| Front Page Top

#9 "Iran would rather submit to UN economic sanctions than back down..."
Ooooh, sanctions -- the horror! Just look at how sanctions have improved Cuba, Libya, Iraq...
Kojo must be drooling already.
Posted by Darrell 2005-08-10 08:29||   2005-08-10 08:29|| Front Page Top

#10 â€˜Iran would rather be hit by nuclear weapons sanctions than back down ...'
Posted by Ward C the Moron 2005-08-10 08:39|| www.calderonswirbelwind.blogspot.com]">[www.calderonswirbelwind.blogspot.com]  2005-08-10 08:39|| Front Page Top

#11 in fact, each time you give them a welfare check, you insult them.

Just the opposite, from what I can see. The check is viewed as jizya, and considered only what's due their status as the rightful rulers of the universe.
Posted by Robert Crawford">Robert Crawford  2005-08-10 08:42|| http://www.kloognome.com/]">[http://www.kloognome.com/]  2005-08-10 08:42|| Front Page Top

#12 Fox had video of the Iranians breaking the IAEA seals on nuke equipment this AM. Faster, please
Posted by Frank G">Frank G  2005-08-10 08:54||   2005-08-10 08:54|| Front Page Top

#13 Sanctions? That's a great idea! What do you think, Kojo?
Posted by Kofi 2005-08-10 09:31||   2005-08-10 09:31|| Front Page Top

#14 60-40 my way this time, Dad.
Posted by Kojo 2005-08-10 10:49||   2005-08-10 10:49|| Front Page Top

#15 The US strategy on this is plain. We have given full permission for the EU, Russia and China to do all they can to peacefully get the Iranians to cooperate. Both knowing that they won't, and that they intend to make nuclear weapons, and that they might use them, the US has already reached the following agreement with the EU, Russia and China.
We will not attack Iran first, believing this to be problematic. Instead, we will put our resources into building a missile defense shield *around* Iran, so that if Iran launches a nuclear missile, we can shoot it down. *But*, if they do so, *then* the US will have free reign to do to Iran *anything* it needs to do to de-nuclearize it as a nation, without argument, disagreement, interference, or complaint from the EU, Russia and China.
From that point on is speculation, but I suggest that after such a launch and shoot-down the US would make an ultimatum to Iran as a nation, not to the Iranian government. "Either the *people* of Iran immediately dissolve their government, to become a UN protectorate until such time as a fully democratic government can be elected under UN auspices, or the nation of Iran will be permanently dismantled and will cease to exist as a nation."
Posted by Anonymoose 2005-08-10 11:59||   2005-08-10 11:59|| Front Page Top

#16 Moose - Interesting speculation. I do not believe we are quite that confident (100% successful shoot-downs and with the debris landing where?), given the horrific mother-loving stakes involved. If I were an Israeli, I would certainly harbor serious doubts.

The after speculation is equally interesting - and I would not follow that scenario as my first choice - a UN protectorate? But a couple of very interesting speculation exercises, indeed... But I can't buy in.

This indicates, does it not, you do not believe the US or Israel, either one, will attempt any pre-emptive action? I find that hard to believe. In Israel's case, very hard. For them, this goes so far beyond speculative exercises that, well, the chances it will play out this way approach nil.
Posted by .com 2005-08-10 12:16||   2005-08-10 12:16|| Front Page Top

#17 In essense, the Iranians are correct, they *can* make a nuclear weapon, and missiles to carry it, and there is very little, short of the (unacceptable) nuclear annihilation of their country, with horrific loss of life, that we can do to stop it. 350 hardened targets is just too many. As much as some of you more "macho" types might want to anyway, the US won't do that. However, that being said, under *any* circumstance, the US would then need to build a multi-layered missile defense shield around Iran. Granted, no such shield can be 100%, but even if the missile gets through, none of Iran's potential targets are harmless, and could annihilate Iran anyway. So you work on the assumption that everything works. That their nuclear missile flies and that we can shoot it down. So now you must plan what to do afterwards. Since they could otherwise continue to make and shoot nuclear missiles, we must at that point stop them cold. And no other country would stand against us. This means that we could slowly and methodically destroy as much of Iran as necessary, using conventional weapons as in Gulf War I. And faced with this prospect, at some time we should issue an ultimatum to the Iranian people, ordering them to decapitate their government and turn their country over to the UN for temporary management. I say the UN, because the other nuclear powers would insist on it. I might also add that the first use of a nuclear missile might invoke several obscure UNSC Cold War era resolutions that are unbelieveably harsh and punitive.
Posted by Anonymoose 2005-08-10 13:03||   2005-08-10 13:03|| Front Page Top

#18 Gee, "350 hardened targets" Really? Cite your source or state you're guessing - its' not in the story and I would guess it's at least 5x reality.

Or nothing? That's just silly, not to mention proof of limited or non-existent military knowledge.

Are you familiar with the word "strategic"? See any application here?

I was rather nice on the first pass, but your response is pure wanking speculation and hand-wringing. We shall see, won't we? HAND, Moosey.
Posted by .com 2005-08-10 13:49||   2005-08-10 13:49|| Front Page Top

#19 350 hardened targets is just too many.

I have no doubt that as many "hardened" targets were destroyed in the opening of OIF.
Posted by Robert Crawford">Robert Crawford  2005-08-10 14:11|| http://www.kloognome.com/]">[http://www.kloognome.com/]  2005-08-10 14:11|| Front Page Top

#20 Gee, .com, why so upset? I did mis-speak when I said 350 hardened targets. Only a dozen or two are perhaps hardened.

The 350 number:

http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=940

And, horrors!, the data comes from Debka, which you will now says proves that it is unreliable.

So, continue on by detonating a tactical nuclear device over a university in a populated area, just because they make some critical widget for the program. They can still play a shell game with their hardened bunkers and their nukes. How many of our divisions will it take to invade and conquer their country to insure they have no nuclear program? 15? 20? Killing how many million Iranians?

No, the US is not going to do that. It just won't, unless they manage to attack one of our carrier groups in the Persian Gulf, Med, or Arabian Sea. So, then, what are the alternatives?

I refuse to accept the notion that this early in the game, a major nuclear war is the only option.

Do you disagree?
Posted by Anonymoose 2005-08-10 14:57||   2005-08-10 14:57|| Front Page Top

#21 Geez, Moose - your ass must be getting sore from pulling out all of this silly drivel. I thought your original post was interesting - and said so - though I didn't agree with the scenario. I guess I offended your sense of self-importance, lol. Ideas get shot down with reality everyday. Deal with it. Now you're just being a tedious child.

First, I'm not "so upset", lol. You haven't said anything worthy of such a response. Except maybe the pejorative context you used for "macho". It takes "macho" people to do the hard work, to protect you so you can publicly wank off about being "macho". The Michael Yon piece today is a good example of "macho" people doing "macho" things without half of your pretentious self-aggrandizing attitude - want to expand your comment to include them? - or are you trying to suggest something else? Maybe you think you can cow me, suggesting I'm a chickenhawk, perhaps? I served in the US Army and was sorta "macho" - I admit it - wanna take me on? Lol. But no, sorry to burst your bubble, you aren't upsetting - you're just irrelevant and irritating. This is par for the course for pretentious voyeurs like you.

I didn't say or even suggest nuking Iran - point out my comment or support for it, lol. If you had been around a bit longer, you would know better. The RB archives are there if you wish to discover what I've suggested are possible courses of action regards Iran. Nuking them was never one of them. You're just playing strawman games - to cover your wounded pride, I guess. Who cares? Just state your ideas and take what comes, sonny.

The argument that Debka is less than reliable is denied me? Lol. Wotta wanker. I can say what I believe and your silly attempt to pre-empt me is causing a severe straw shortage. Get a grip. BTW, did you check out "strategic"? Seems not.

Your #20 is a silly blurb of strawman BS and posturing. None of it applies to the story, my comments, or anything else that I can see. Please do continue, however - after you hit the tip jar.

HAND.
Posted by .com 2005-08-10 15:31||   2005-08-10 15:31|| Front Page Top

#22 .com and Moose: whether 12 or 350 or any number in-between, there are too many targets in Iran for us to hit in a pre-emptive strike. Much as we'd all prefer an Osirak scenario, it ain't gonna happen. The Mullahs are Mad but not stupid: all the sites we'd like to clobber are well-dispersed, hidden and defended.

.com is right, and I don't need to hit the archives (I actually have a memory for some of this stuff).

Essentially, the two of you are in violent agreement.

As much as we kvetch about it, there wasn't and isn't any other alternative to sitting back and watching the MMs' join the nuclear club. Hell, we didn't stop the NKors, and when we (correctly) stopped Saddam most of the rest of the world peed on us in response. So we devise a plan to contain the rat bastards, whether it's Moose's plan or someone else's [1], and wait for the day the Iranian people get upset enough to remove the MMs.


[1] Not John Frickin' Kerry's, if you don't mind.
Posted by Steve White">Steve White  2005-08-10 15:43||   2005-08-10 15:43|| Front Page Top

#23 Lol, Dr Steve. You old softy, you.

I do believe the US or Israel will take pre-emptive action. You are now officially added to the list of Mikey, Moosey, and Stevey say it ain't gonna happen.

We'll see. There are 2 points I offer that suggest otherwise, assuming the Persian people don't take care of it for us:

1) Bush said they would not be allowed to obtain deliverable nuke weapons. He's been pretty good at keeping his promises.

2) The US sold a buttload of bunker-busters to Israel. Wotta ya think they might be for?

Lol. Fun speculating, but I'll wait and see.

Posted by .com 2005-08-10 15:54||   2005-08-10 15:54|| Front Page Top

#24 Well I said I'd prefer an Osirak. I think we'd get a nice two-fer if the bunker-busters could be used: the loss of face for the MMs would inspire a new revolution.

But to possess bunker-busters is one thing, the will to use them is another. I don't think Sharon has it. He's old, he's tired, and this whole Gaza thing is taking a lot out of him. See of the photos of the man lately? He's whupped.

I agree that Bush keeps his promises. But I think he also knows that there are too many sites to whack all at once. I keep wondering if he's doing the hard, dirty work of getting the intel net in Iran re-established with an eye towards revolution in, oh, 2007. Just wondering.
Posted by Steve White">Steve White  2005-08-10 16:09||   2005-08-10 16:09|| Front Page Top

#25 ABM systems aren't cheap. Appropriations, contracts and plans for that much gear would be hard to do quietly in the current DC. We may have some Aegis in the neighborhod from time to time, but hardly a secure ring.

The problem with a land based ABM ring around Iran is which countries will we still be in in 4 years? Which countries will still be there in 4 years? I can see Iraq trifurcating soon after we leave. Very thin reeds all, including our close ally Turkey.

Finally, the least problematic means of delivery of nukes is ICBMs launched from Iran. If they do that, glass 'em over, short debate. The real problem is when they get it to the point where one can be put in a container with a half dozen suiciders in Istanbul and shipped to NYC or LA on a containership. Wasn't us mullahs. Musta been Kimmie.
Posted by Mrs. Davis 2005-08-10 16:25||   2005-08-10 16:25|| Front Page Top

#26 I don't think that Iran will be allowed to become a nuclear state for exactly the reasons .com has pointed out.

If there's a screw-up though, and they do end up with some weapons, things could start to get nasty very quickly.

Two articles come to mind.
1) The classic The Three Conjectures from about 2 years ago, where Wretchard starts from the premise of Islamic terrorists getting hold of a continuous supply of mass produced nukes. The conclusion is that if one of these weapons is detonated, because there is no central authority to negotiate with (or destroy) and it is assumed that more and more of these weapons can be used with impunity, the logical outcome is to annihilate the entire Muslim world on the detonation of the first of these weapons.
2) What would you do?, from almost a year ago, where the author speculates that Israel will have little choice but to annihilate as many of their enemies as they can;

I would most likely hit at all of the Arab/Muslim world's military facilities and large units, industrial base, critical infrastructure (including any large cities), and so forth. Some of these attacks would be conventional, but most would be nuclear. And as part of that, I would have to strike Pakistan and eliminate their military and nuclear capability as well, because they are the only Muslim state with a declared nuclear capability, and even if they didn't want to strike directly, there's no guarantee that the ISI wouldn't give weapons to terrorists for revenge attacks.


So let's all hope that Iran does get de-fanged eh?
Posted by Tony (UK) 2005-08-10 16:39||   2005-08-10 16:39|| Front Page Top

#27 Quite.
Posted by Howard UK 2005-08-10 16:45||   2005-08-10 16:45|| Front Page Top

#28 .com doesn't take disagreement well, does he?

There's a lot to Moose's scenario. Israel is in a very tough position. I'm not sure the Osirak option is a realistic one at this time, unless they have agents physically on the ground at all the major sites. And even then I'm not sure it's realistic.

More to the point, there are wider objectives here than *merely* preventing nukes in Mullah hands (huge an objective as that is). The Iranian people have an increasing pride in their country. It would be a lot better for the region and the world if they themselves were to finally overthrow the Mullahs because THEY decided they're hurting Iran's future.

Now ... we can provide both pressure and options to help that along. Might could be the pressure is already being applied in some quiet ways via spec ops / peshmerga aiding and abetting some of those increasingly violent clashes with the security forces in a variety of cities at once. More overt pressure will backfire unless the Iranian people in general perceive it to be warranted due to Mullah actions.

So IMO there's some solid analysis in Moose's scenario. Will it work that way? Who knows? But .com's nasty little attack on it is both unwarranted and unhelpful.
Posted by leader of the pack 2005-08-10 16:48||   2005-08-10 16:48|| Front Page Top

#29 Amen, Tony (UK).

Howard, um, given your classic comment, lol, how's Rummy's Honorary British Citizenship coming along? He seems to have the right touch, to me...
Posted by .com 2005-08-10 16:50||   2005-08-10 16:50|| Front Page Top

#30 "I keep wondering if he's doing the hard, dirty work of getting the intel net in Iran re-established with an eye towards revolution in, oh, 2007. Just wondering."

One hopes that some friendly Iraqi Shia are doing regular talent spotting among the Iranian pilgrims to the Shia holy sites.


Sharons tiredness is irrelevant, I think. Israel wont act till the last possible moment - when that is depends on whose intell you believe. And when they do, it is of course a very iffy thing, as above posts layout. OTOH, if youre the mullahs you have to worry about a substantially complete hit, and what that does to you domestically. Gets to be a bit of chess game. Or Poker.

ABMS - i thought current tech was designed to kill a warhead as its in descent. So you protect the target country, not surround the would be attacker. But i know to little about this tech to say.

Note violence the last few days in Iranian Kurdistan - even made it into the Guardian. 12 Kurds killed. Reports from Iranian kurdish groups based in IRAQ.
Posted by liberalhawk 2005-08-10 16:56||   2005-08-10 16:56|| Front Page Top

#31 .com - quite agree with Tony's point. Back from pub and rendered incapable therefore cannot offer much. Sorry man.
Posted by Howard UK 2005-08-10 17:10||   2005-08-10 17:10|| Front Page Top

#32 I'm betting we'll see a pre-emptive de-fangment of the Mad Mullahs before Bush's term is over, and before the MMs have a chance to acquire a functioning weapon. Bush has said we "will not allow the world's worst regimes to possess the world's most dangerous weapons," and I take him at his word.

I've no idea how that de-fangment is going to be achieved, or when; but I'm certain that it must be done, and therefore will be done.

God help us if it isn't.
Posted by Dave D.">Dave D.  2005-08-10 17:12||   2005-08-10 17:12|| Front Page Top

#33 lotp - Lol! Who got excited about being disagreed with? Geez, you really need to pay closer attention. As for agreeing with Moosey, knock yourself out. I presented a different view of his assertions and Moosey got defensive, then popped a vein. It has yet to actually respond coherently.

I said the original post was interesting BS, lol! What more do you want? You though it was deep analysis? Okay...

Regards intel, the point is that we don't know how close or far away they are, do we? None of us here, anyway. Those who do know aren't likely to share that info. As I mentioned above, I've been here awhile - and posted quite a bit on this particular topic on several occasions. The favored option is the Persians, themselves, taking back their country, of course. Time is the key. And we just don't know if there's enough of it. Clinton / Tenet / et al wasted so much time and did so much damage to both our military and intel that they are on the hook for what happens in both NorKieLand and Iran.

My attack was not nasty, but you seem to want to make this more personal. Do you wanna play, lotp? I can play. I've been nice because The Sheriff wants nice. But don't presume you know dick about me, son, since it's self-apparent you do not, lol.

I agree with Lh - Sharon will do what he has to do if that moment comes. I hope it doesn't come to that, but I have doubt about the Israelis having the will to survive. I'd also wager that in-country intel is much better that many believe - though not because of the CIA, damnit.

BTW, the Word of the Day is still Strategic. Every process has choke-points and it takes a lot of pieces, each the result of processes, to create a deliverable nuke.
Posted by .com 2005-08-10 17:15||   2005-08-10 17:15|| Front Page Top

#34 "but I have doubt"

Edit: "but I have NO doubt"
Posted by .com 2005-08-10 17:18||   2005-08-10 17:18|| Front Page Top

#35 Well, for those who don't get agitated about speculation, I'll follow up on several trains of thought. First being, while we might like there to be a popular revolution in Iran, it is hardly something we can base policy on, especially where nuclear weapons are involved. Personally, I just don't see it happening. Second, our theater missile defenses, what can be said about them, do add up to something. In Israel and Iraq we have Patriot batteries, possibly in other locations like Arabia and the Gulf States. There are the aforementioned Aegis systems (note that we are also setting up area defenses to protect Japan and the US from Nork in this concept, so we are definitely thinking about it). Then there are heavy 747-based lasers, 4 of them, deployment unknown, and a larger number of high performance aircraft with anti-electronics microwave weapons capable of scrambling a missile. Strategically, if we unilaterally attack Iran, or do so with the help of Israel, which I do think is a strong probability, we will do it in one of two ways: preemptively, with strong opposition from the rest of the world, and with a probability that we would be declared an "aggressor" nation, which could invoke sanctions against us that could last for years. Or we could make arrangements before such a conflict, giving the opportunity for mostly the EU and Russia to try and stop Iran from making nukes, but only *on the condition*, that if they failed and Iran did one or more of the following: made a nuclear weapon and declared they were now a nuclear power; tested a nuclear weapon; or (most likely), launched a nuclear weapon in an act of aggressive war--then the US could attack them without any international resistance, and perhaps the other UNSC members would be pre-obligated to support us, at least nominally, the aggression involving nuclear weapons. In either case, while I don't envision the conquest of Iran to be a cake-walk, it would optimally be done much like the 1-month air war of Gulf War I--which would also make having a theater anti-missile defense a very good idea. Then, "What do you do with Iran once you have it?" becomes the big question. The Kurdish northwest would be very strongly drawn to secede and join Iraqi Kurdistan. Other areas, such as the Arab southwest (with many of their oilfields) and Balochistan might also be drawn to secession or violent civil war against the Persians. In addition, there is a worldwide dilemma. That being, would Russia, the EU and China demand UN control of Iran, both to establish IAEA control over their nuclear production; but also because by dominating both Iraq and Iran, the US would have strategic control over most of the world's oil? And would the US agree to this demand, not for their reasons, but for our own: namely that with our armed forced already stretched thin between two countries, instead of risking overtaxing ourselves, the UN could pick up the slack on the relatively (compared to Iraq) easier job of returning real democracy to Iran, once we just assured that there was no "great leader" or guardian council around to bias things anymore. The bottom line is that I doubt Israel thinks it can go it alone, and our leaders won't be willing to launch based solely on intelligence estimates--the Iranians will have to *do* something first, before we can kick their butts.
Posted by Anonymoose 2005-08-10 18:10||   2005-08-10 18:10|| Front Page Top

#36 The "return" key, also know as the "enter" key, can do wonders. It can even give the appearance of organization, if applied judiciously.

That said, there are a lot of points in that mass of Joycian schtuff - some of which might be plausible, but I'm not interested in building and populating an outline to verify. Most do not echo the blunt speculative assertions in the original post with which I took issue.

Speculation's fine. So is rebuttal and / or alternative views. If you care to have an honest discussion, then post in a fashion that doesn't preclude it.
Posted by .com 2005-08-10 18:30||   2005-08-10 18:30|| Front Page Top

#37 We can discuss strategy til the cows come home and there is nothing wrong with that. The word of the day maybe Strategic, but eventually the other "s" word in order. The word "Survival." As I have posted before, it's going to get to a point where its no longer about making deals, concessions, or sanctions but about "Survival."

There are two words that we should NEVER forget that the Jews stated after the Holocaust, "Never Again." So, the world can make all the deals they want over lobster, steak, or fine wine. Or make 10,000 page list of ramifications, if Israel does a preemptive strike. But, the Jews say "Never Again". Bottomline, the Jews will do what they have to do. If that means 5 millions Muslims die, so be it. Of course the Israeli's will wait til the last bit negotiations run out but eventually, the Jews could care less about deal making.

.com is right. The word of the day is "Strategic." Pretty soon the word of the day is "Survival." But, since the mid 1940's, the words have always, and forever will be, "Never Again."

Posted by Poison Reverse 2005-08-10 18:34||   2005-08-10 18:34|| Front Page Top

#38 A few operational parameters re ABMD based on open source data:

There are a couple phases to ballistic missile defense. First, the satellites need to detect the missile launch during the boost phase. The constellation is in geosynchronous orbit, so there's a pretty constant lookout for that. Detection time is pretty quick once the missile breaks through cloud cover - on the order of a small number of seconds.

The next phase is the time-critical one, depending on which system is deployed. It is possible that in the newer system the satellite alerts the radars directly, passing look angles and estimated trajectory info automatically. In that case the radars would attempt to acquire the missile automatically while the humans in the loop are just getting the alert. For those older systems in which that is not automated, the lag time depends critically on whether or not the crew is already on alert and expecting a potential attack.

Once the incoming is acquired, the response must be launched.

It's roughly 8-10 min. from early boost stage in northern Iran to Israel, 10-15 min from more southern potential launch sites. Very little time for humans in the loop to turn the radars on and set look angle, but doable if the system has the direct commo link for initial radar control by the satellite.

Just some parameters that can give a little shape to speculation. A lot of both strategy and tactics ultimately hinge on technical capabilities ... a truism but one that's easy to forget.
Posted by leader of the pack 2005-08-10 19:20||   2005-08-10 19:20|| Front Page Top

#39 A direct missile attack is not the way Iran operates. They will go the usual islamic route of a sucker punch, an attack through a third party with a smuggled device/devices really is the Iranian way. The missiles are a misdirection. Their intent is to attack "The Great Satan" and kill it.

Screw the diplospeak. We need to be very direct with the EU Russia and China. None of who will risk a disruption in the flow of oil to do jack shit about this issue. Of course Iran hasn't been threating them with destruction since it's inception. So it really is our problem.

Our news media doesn't show us 1/10 of 1% of the anti US propaganda and rhetoric the government of Iran puts out. It does a huge disservice.
Posted by Sock Puppet 0’ Doom 2005-08-10 19:33||   2005-08-10 19:33|| Front Page Top

#40 I mostly agree with you, SPOD, with one exception. I think the mullahs are quite willing to threaten missile use in a credible way. I wouldn't be surprised to see a launch that just barely skims the Iraq/Iran border out into the waters of the Gulf, for instance, if they can time it to avoid any of their own oil shipments out at sea.

And I'm not sure they are sufficiently sane to be totally safe WRT Israel. If Hizbollah gets their heads handed to them in a definitive way by Israel, I think there are some in Iran who would shoot first and think later.
Posted by leader of the pack 2005-08-10 19:44||   2005-08-10 19:44|| Front Page Top

#41 Vahid's probably correct that we can't really stop Iran's nuclear program dead in its tracks but we can deal it serious setbacks. If we're serious about slowing the Iranian's nuclear ambitions we'll know in the next few months because the uranium enrichment plant at Isfahan, the reactor at Bushear, and the mass scale heavy water plant at Arak, almost certainly among other complete or near complete sites to be used for the mass production of fissile material, will be flattened. It's the massive industrial infrastructure necessary to produce the nuclear material in the first place that's the vulerable point. After that infrastructure has a year or two to operate full-bore it'll be too late.

Problem is we, or whomever takes on the task, will have to flatten similar facilities every year or two as they're rebuilt until we or the MMs get tired of the game. At some point they'll just import a sufficient quantity of material from Pakistan, North Korea, China or elsewhere, light off a test in the desert somewhere and thereby bring the game to a screeching halt. Doesn't mean we shouldn't play though.

I find the idea that the MMs might be insane enough to fire a nuclear-tipped Shahab-3 at western Europe (or any nuclear power or nation under the western nuclear umbrella) questionable. They have to know that the response would very likely be overwhelming and, despite the fact that we question their sanity daily, I've got to think that they probably do care at least a little about keeping their nation somewhat intact. Those toys IMHO are destined to land in Israel alone, that's the only target that might allow their hatred to get the better of their limited judgment.

And ed, that's pretty much what I was getting at: nothing in your scenario is a dramatic shift away from the stance of western Europe towards the US right now. What you describe wouldn't be anything new it would just be a continuation of the current trends. That said I think you underestimate Europe. One day they'll awaken to Islamo-fascist homicide bombers in their subways and a news report featuring an MM threat to nuke their cities and enough will finally be enough.
Posted by AzCat 2005-08-10 19:52||   2005-08-10 19:52|| Front Page Top

#42 Azcat - "questionable"?

December 14, 2001

September 23, 2003

May 27, 2005

And this was Rafsanjani, the "moderate" defeated in the "Presidential elections"...
Posted by .com 2005-08-10 20:10||   2005-08-10 20:10|| Front Page Top

#43 A "true muslim" doesn't fear death as they automagicly are transported to paradise and 72 virgins if they die as a martyr. These MM's truly believe that and would put their nation at risk. They already evidence no fear of the EU 3, as the EU3 can't project power more than a few blocks with out heavy lifting from the USA. Attack the US in a surprise attack using smuggled nukes and use missiles on Israel. If they get sent to allen because of retaliation no big deal. They get 72 virgins. It's a win, win deal.

It's a much graver situation than it appears to be. 20 something years of death to America as a focus of this regime isn't something that can be put aside as just talk. These SOBs have acted on everything they desired up to this point. We can't allow them to achieve there goal of possession of nuclear weapons.
Posted by Sock Puppet 0’ Doom 2005-08-10 20:28||   2005-08-10 20:28|| Front Page Top

#44 Don't have to nuke Iran. Just issue an ultimatum saying that all tankers leaving Iran will be escorted to a US holding center and emptied of their cargo. Of course this will upset a whole bunch of people in Europe and elsewhere but I bet a compromise would soon be reached after loss of such a significant source of income.
Posted by Elmaitle Shineling6893 2005-08-10 20:46||   2005-08-10 20:46|| Front Page Top

#45 Attack the US in a surprise attack using smuggled nukes and use missiles on Israel.

Agreed and that's not contra to anything I said above. The MMs may or may not be insane enough to launch in Israel after they acquire their nuclear weapons and they're certainly insane enough to hand one or more over to terrorist organizations if they believe they can get away with doing so, but my point was that they gain absolutley nothing by threatening or attacking their partners and allies in Europe. The only thing that would accomplish is shifing European public opinion away from their side. I don't think they're that dumb.

I'm well aware of the 72 raisins / virgins promise but there are many stories circulating that the MMs live somewhat less than pure Islamic lives. I'd be willing to be that some / most of them have been corrupted by power and wealth to the point where religion has become primarily a tool to control the masses and preserve their own status. Most of 'em are probably about as religious as our televangelists. After all, we don't see many of them going to fight in the jihad in Iraq now do we and one of the strongest demands on Muslims with respect to jihad is that they *must* go to neighboring nations and fight infidels when their Muslim neighbors are under seige. If they were truly rabid sword of Islam types they'd be hoofing it across the border so they could collect their 72 raisins post-haste.
Posted by AzCat 2005-08-10 20:49||   2005-08-10 20:49|| Front Page Top

#46 I'm not convinced we can't take out the majority of facilities via reconstituted cruise missile stocks and JDAM packages. Conventional, not nukes.
Posted by Frank G">Frank G  2005-08-10 20:53||   2005-08-10 20:53|| Front Page Top

#47 Moose, lotp, and AzCat,

You guys to a great job of explaining military options. But, its the cart before the horse. We must study the psychological strategy of MM's first, before military. If have to hear that the MM's are going to attack "Great Satan" using nuclear weapons first, again, I am going to go crazy. They are not going to attack the U.S. first. The attack on the U.S. will come later.

Please listen, the motis operendi of the MM's is the same as the motis operendi used by Hitler. Create a divide between Christians first, then attack the Jews. The Christians are already divided when it comes to Israel. So the first part is taken care of. All that remains is to destroy Israel. The MM's know, just like Hitler, that it is a bad psychological and military strategy to attack a Christian's before the Jews. Yes, Hitler attacked Poland first. There is a reason for that, he wanted to exterminate the Polish Jews first. In 1939, Poland had huge Jewish population. The stratedy was to fool the Christians into thinking that Hitler was only after the Jews.

Hitler created such a successful propaganda inside Germany, that the Christians never saw what hit them. What the world seem to have forgotten is that 6 million Christians were also killed by Hitler. Again, 1. create a divide among Christians 2. then kill the Jews 3. then kill the Christians. Inside Germany, the Christians were told that Jews were evil Christ-killers among many other things. Please read this article carefully and you tell me if you see a difference between Hitler's propaganda and the current MM's. Personally, I think the strategy is similar.

Do I think the MM's will attack the "Great Satan?" Sure I do. But, not first. It wouldn't be strategic.

Posted by Poison Reverse 2005-08-10 21:18||   2005-08-10 21:18|| Front Page Top

#48 PR - we rarely agree, but I'm with you on this one. The Israelis will face an annihilation option, and whether Sharon appears tired (sorry SW) or not - he'll make the call to tak them out first. I think that option will become too damaging to world-wide "stability" and we will do the job first, and with good reason...I'll put $ on that
Posted by Frank G">Frank G  2005-08-10 21:25||   2005-08-10 21:25|| Front Page Top

#49 Frank,

What do you mean, we rarely agree? I agree with you 99% of the time. Are you forgetting the old battles with Aris?
Posted by Poison Reverse 2005-08-10 21:44||   2005-08-10 21:44|| Front Page Top

#50 heh heh - I misspoke....damn beer
Posted by Frank G">Frank G  2005-08-10 21:58||   2005-08-10 21:58|| Front Page Top

#51 D 'oh!
Posted by Frank G">Frank G  2005-08-10 21:59||   2005-08-10 21:59|| Front Page Top

23:51 mac
23:45 Barbara Skolaut
23:44 mac
23:44 Frank G
23:43 Poison Reverse
23:41 mac
23:39 Scott B
23:34 Anonymoose
23:29 Jan
23:21 Poison Reverse
23:20 Barbara Skolaut
22:41 Frank G
22:39 Steven
22:39 trailing wife
22:37 CrazyFool
22:36 trailing wife
22:23 Frank G
22:23 Phuck Ulonter5085
22:16 Jackal
22:14 Jackal
22:10 Frank G
22:06 Jackal
22:03 RWV
21:59 Frank G









Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com