Article

2004-12-23 Syria-Lebanon-Iran

Iranian Gen.: We're ready to defend nuke sites

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 tipper 2004-12-23 9:36:54 AM|| || Front Page|| [11127 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 I sure as hell HOPE they defend them! Otherwise when we take them out we won't also be taking out as much of their military! So go ahead boyos, defend them using all your "power"!

Posted by Justrand 2004-12-23 10:47:33 AM|| 2004-12-23 10:47:33 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 USAF -- Difficult jobs done immediately; the impossible takes a little longer.

I just hope not too much longer.

Posted by jackal 2004-12-23 10:55:52 AM|| [http://home.earthlink.net/~sleepyjackal/index.html] 2004-12-23 10:55:52 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 How competent are these guys? Would they pose a formidable obstacle, or would it be a Middle Eastern version of the Marianas Turkey Shoot?

Posted by Bomb-a-rama 2004-12-23 11:15:05 AM|| 2004-12-23 11:15:05 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 Well considering any air attack will be pre-empted by a cruise missle attack targeting their anti-aircraft batteries, they will probably pose a serious threat even if our aircraft show up just after the cruise missles.

But I doubt it will be a one raid type thing like the Iraqi reactor was. It would be cruise, strike fighters, B1's, then followed last by the the big boys carrying the moabs. And probably at several sites. I mean we are talking probably 4 or 5 individual locations.

Not an easy task, considering refueling etc. Gonna need some heavy Navy support as well as Air force. Then you got to exempt Israel from taking part, due to political stupidity. And B-2's flying all the way from Missouri, and it does seem like a difficult thing to pull off and actually do enough to take our their program. With them spreading it out to places you have no idea where.

My guess is that if they felt confident in taking out a big part of Irans nuclear program in one day, they would have done it already.

Posted by Jimbo19 2004-12-23 12:36:10 PM|| 2004-12-23 12:36:10 PM|| Front Page Top

#5 BaR-
I trained with guys from the old Imperial Iranian AF in the late 70s, and they weren't overly sharp, but they were competent enough to do the job without killing themselves.
Having said that, any US first strike will be a wipeout. The IRAF will most likely be unable to leave its runways. If it can, there will be no one to tell it what to do, because the controllers will be dead in the rubble of their bunkers. Those few that get into the air will be outnumbered, outgunned, and outclassed (they don't get much actual training time - what little they get consists of taking off, flying around, and landing.)by even a single wing of F-15s. The biggest threat will remain SAMs and AAA, because it is damned hard to shut them off completely no matter what the book says. And to Jimbo - the B2s can by the book do it all. The catch won't be so much the timing as the little things that go wrong during those last few seconds of the bomb run. More than likely, the usual sequence will be reversed: F-117 and B-2 strikes THEN the cruise missiles to take out anything still standing.

Mike

Posted by Mike Kozlowski 2004-12-23 12:46:32 PM|| 2004-12-23 12:46:32 PM|| Front Page Top

#6 One question. How does one propose to keep the Persian Gulf, and especially the Straits of Hormuz, open after the airstrikes?

Posted by ed 2004-12-23 12:49:13 PM|| 2004-12-23 12:49:13 PM|| Front Page Top

#7 It has been discussed during and after every flare-up in the Gulf over the past twenty years, ed. No doubt that has been discussed this time as well.

As for traffic in and out of the Gulf, there are ways to minimize exposure to attack. Likely also take out known Silkworm sites and observation posts.

Posted by Pappy 2004-12-23 1:19:58 PM|| 2004-12-23 1:19:58 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 How do you know there aren't mines already planted with several thousand pounds of explosives buried in the mud of the straits. Encase them in concrete and the sonar returns will look like that from rocks. All thats required to target a tanker is a team with surveyors tools to track it and break it's back. Sink a supertanker in 60m of water and you've closed the entire Persian Gulf for years. What about suicide boats and planes. What about artillery or Grads? Any of these will do quite a job on a loaded tanker. Do you think any military can find them all? I believe that to attack Iran will require a real war and we should be building the forces for it, not hoping that the mullahs will give up on the first hint of bombs.

Posted by ed 2004-12-23 1:41:13 PM|| 2004-12-23 1:41:13 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 There won't be a strike. Learn to live with it but keep in mind they can reach Paris a lot sooner than they can reach New York.

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2004-12-23 1:47:46 PM|| 2004-12-23 1:47:46 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 Mrs. D, that is exactly what I think will happen. And because we won't do what is necessary now, it will set the stage for a future nuclear war.

Posted by ed 2004-12-23 1:54:23 PM|| 2004-12-23 1:54:23 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 whatever, general.

Posted by anymouse 2004-12-23 1:54:31 PM|| 2004-12-23 1:54:31 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 Thank you for enlightening us with that penultimate argument. I now realize I have no chance to compete with such a shining intellect. You win any and all future debating points. I humbly concede and beg your pardon.

Posted by ed 2004-12-23 2:01:40 PM|| 2004-12-23 2:01:40 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 appreciate all the war-gaming ... very interesting and thought provoking

Posted by legolas 2004-12-23 2:16:47 PM|| 2004-12-23 2:16:47 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 I believe that to attack Iran will require a real war and we should be building the forces for it, not hoping that the mullahs will give up on the first hint of bombs.

For an all-out invasion, yes, but I suspect that at this time due to the current situation, any strike will be to cripple Iranian capability to do certain things. A limited strike using aircraft and guided missiles against stationary complexes of strategic value should accomplish that. (as opposed to Clintonian use of cruise missiles against terrorist training camps, where not much would be present in the way of expensive hardware that would be difficult and expensive to replace)

Posted by Bomb-a-rama 2004-12-23 2:29:16 PM|| 2004-12-23 2:29:16 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 We can bomb sites, all of which may have back-ups we are unaware of, can be replaced in 6 months and earn the undying enmity of the Iranian people, or we can work to overthrow the mullahs and get a more reasonable government that can be talked into doing a Khadaffi. Which seems the superior (not more satisfying) long term strategy?

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2004-12-23 2:42:15 PM|| 2004-12-23 2:42:15 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 Remember the Moon in your equations of a Persian invasion. An enemy force on the lunar surface could easily use the "gravity well" to drop reinforced concrete boulders on the Straits of Humas. Ha! Where would the concrete come from you ask? It would come from SLAVE MARTIAN MINERS who cling to the OWG goal of the CLINTONIAN-lizoid mindset.

Posted by Shipman 2004-12-23 2:43:45 PM|| 2004-12-23 2:43:45 PM|| Front Page Top

#17 Or conversely we could just blockade their asses.

Posted by Shipman 2004-12-23 2:44:37 PM|| 2004-12-23 2:44:37 PM|| Front Page Top

#18 Perhaps Mr. Sharon will give them their first chance to protect their nuclear sites.

Posted by Carlos 2004-12-23 2:45:16 PM|| 2004-12-23 2:45:16 PM|| Front Page Top

#19 We can bomb sites, all of which may have back-ups we are unaware of, can be replaced in 6 months and earn the undying enmity of the Iranian people, or we can work to overthrow the mullahs and get a more reasonable government that can be talked into doing a Khadaffi. Which seems the superior (not more satisfying) long term strategy?

The question is, how "long" is long term, and does Iranian progress on their Bomb allow for it? As for earning "enmity" from the Persians, well, that has to be seen. A whole slew of doom-and-gloom predictions of this sort have been made already with regard to that part of the world and not many of them have turned out to be right on the money.

All the above having been said, the fomenting unrest approach is a very good one, and should have been put into motion a long time ago, if not being done now.

Posted by Bomb-a-rama 2004-12-23 3:08:32 PM|| 2004-12-23 3:08:32 PM|| Front Page Top

#20 whatever, general.
anymouse,
Comming so soon after my pessimistic comment, I assumed you meant that comment for me. I reread the article and I see where your comment may been directed at the Iranian general. If so, then I humbly apologize for my snarkiness toward you.

Posted by ed 2004-12-23 3:29:13 PM|| 2004-12-23 3:29:13 PM|| Front Page Top

#21 Your not gonna overthrow the Mullahs without military softening. Especially the rev guards or whatever they are called, and the militia thugs the mullahs use on the students.

Nor can you wait around. I think they will hit them next year, but they are hoping that the closer the Iranians get to a weapon the easier it will be to locate their true facilities.

I think if we blow up the reactors they have under construction, and Ukraine goes to the US side, as in joining NATO etc; the Russians will just hand them nuke material free of charge.

Then you have a situation where a nuclear power is arming a terrorist state, but all want us to deal with them at the UN like equals.

Posted by Jimbo19 2004-12-23 4:54:36 PM|| 2004-12-23 4:54:36 PM|| Front Page Top

#22 As long as the US doesn't go into a bleeding heart sympathetic nation building initiative, we can destroy Iran "below zero" (ala Dresden), allowing the enemy only enough time to stabilize into anarchy! We only need, to keep them from escaping!

Posted by smn 2004-12-23 5:39:39 PM|| 2004-12-23 5:39:39 PM|| Front Page Top

#23 I believe the Iranians have a deal to procure S-300 anti aircraft missiles from Russia. I have not been able to determine whether Russia quietly slow-rolled this deal as they have other agreements with Iran (possibly on our behalf). Anybody know? If the Iranians now have S-300s, then the equation changes significantly for the worse, though we have new systems too such as JASSM.

Regardless, they have the benefit of dispersal and concealment as well as an indigenous source of uranium ore so I tend to agree with those who doubt we'll strike the nuke sites. It's not that we lack the courage, but that a strike is a final resort given the odds and chance that other approaches still could work.

To me our best hope is to encourage the development a credible, unified exile force with a real leader as an alternative to the mullahs. He should agitate --- using the web and mass communications -- for a referendum on the continued veto power of the 'guardian council.' This should be done in conjunction with an effort gain sympathizers in Iran, particluarly the regular military and any independent minded RG officers there might be as well as intellectuals and the odd cleric. The Shah's son would likely play some role here.

This approach takes advantage of the fact that Iran has already loaded the 'software' for democracy but the Mullahs don't let them use it. Providing a concrete alternative way of governing using existing institutions (Parliament, etc.) would help inspire and focus the younger Iranians who supposedly respect America and are intrigued by the Shia democracy that's about to start in Iraq. Otherwise these kids are useless and easily contained by the thugs.

This would not be a 'velvet revolution' in that it's inconceivable that the mullahs can be shamed into relinquishing power but it's possible enough of the guys with guns will switch sides or sit it out for the good guys to prevail -- especially if the emphasis is placed on preserving existing governmental institutions. If things start happening, I would expect the US would help with air interdiction of military formations moving to put down the revolt.

A key question is whether we can wait beyond the date that Iran has nuke capability to allow this strategy to work. An argument can be made that we can accept a nuclear Persia as long as it's not run by mullahs. We have a nuclear Pakland after all. I am sensitive to the argument that the Persian nationalist pride would make it tough to get even a reasonable Iranian government to give up a functional nuclear force once obtained.

However, it is not clear to me that Iranians would rally around the government if it tested the nuke. It would depend on the incentive structure we emphasize through announced doctrine. I believe that a significant number of Iranians would be more inclined towards regime change once they realized that we would hold them accountable for any nukes that go off. They do not want the mullahs to get them killed. The timing and and details of announcing such a doctrine will be critical.

Also, we must consider the affects a Persian nuke would have in making the various Gulf players more or less open to a US presence. From what I read the big fear is a Saudi bomb in response, but it could be that we find it easier to stay in a stabilized Iraq and in the Gulf states as an American troop presence is a proven means of deterring regional nuclear powers.

Just thinking aloud. This is a tough nut to crack.

Before flaming, note that I'm not being naive. If we are sure the mullahs would go down in flames (or proliferate as a first option before even creating a real nuclear force), we'll have no option but to stop scheming and start bombing. My biggest fear is 'loose nukes' during any regime change. One big weakness with this concept is supposedly the CIA has little going for it in Iran, and the 'allies' who do are not up to a confrontational approach (no surprise). A wildcard is how the Euros will play it. They obviously want to appease, but we can potentially use them to slow down the program if we are crafty. A second wildcard is how things go in Iraq this coming year. Success there would free up our resources while emboldening any Iranian democratic movement. Of course, a surprise preemptive move by the mullahs is possible, but then these questions become academic and we show them what a real nuclear arsenal can do.

Posted by JAB 2004-12-23 8:23:23 PM|| 2004-12-23 8:23:23 PM|| Front Page Top

#24 JAB, good post. What about stiffening the spine of the pro-democratic Iranians with SF? The Iraqi border is a two-way street.

Posted by Matt 2004-12-23 8:33:49 PM|| 2004-12-23 8:33:49 PM|| Front Page Top

#25 Ok general. Gather all your armies around those nuke sites.....

Just be careful one (or three or five...) doesn't accidentily go off and wipe out your entire military.......

Posted by CrazyFool 2004-12-23 8:49:50 PM|| 2004-12-23 8:49:50 PM|| Front Page Top

04:01 Faisal of Arabia
04:08 Faisal of Arabia
03:58 Faisal of Arabia
06:51 Shipman
06:51 Shipman
00:42 Zenster
23:57 Atomic Conspiracy
23:43 Atomic Conspiracy
23:42 Atomic Conspiracy
23:34 lex
23:31 Zhang Fei
23:20 lex
23:18 James
23:12 lex
23:08 Poison Reverse
22:59 lex
22:56 smn
22:53 Mr. Tin Foil
22:51 lex
22:42 lex
22:41 CrazyFool
22:40 lex
22:39 James
22:25 lex