Article

2005-09-17 Syria-Lebanon-Iran

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 Groluns Snoluter6338 2005-09-17 11:03|| || Front Page|| [8 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Bring it on...

Posted by DanNY 2005-09-17 12:17|| 2005-09-17 12:17|| Front Page Top

#2 Incredible though it may sound there are signs that Tehran may be preparing for a military confrontation with the United States, and has convinced itself that it could win.

I'm afraid they're right. Not win militarily, but politically. Even W isn't going to attack Iran any time soon, if at all. Short of a massive attack by Iran, he'd never get Congressional authorization to do so. And fuggeddaboutit if a Dem is elected in '08.

Posted by xbalanke 2005-09-17 12:23|| 2005-09-17 12:23|| Front Page Top

#3 Your sacred tax money at work.

Posted by Shipman 2005-09-17 12:35|| 2005-09-17 12:35|| Front Page Top

#4 They are using a little too much of that heroin (just siezed) in the upper echlons.

Posted by 3dc 2005-09-17 12:42|| 2005-09-17 12:42|| Front Page Top

#5 The problem is that thugs like this always go one step too far. In '09 the MM will test the new President. If a donk wins, it is likely they will overplay their hand, leaving the country so outraged that the Donk will have no alternative but to respond vigorously. Especially if Hildebeast is having hot flashes.

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2005-09-17 12:57|| 2005-09-17 12:57|| Front Page Top

#6 Also sounds like preparations for in-country unrest.

Posted by Pappy 2005-09-17 13:02|| 2005-09-17 13:02|| Front Page Top

#7 I see air attacks to destroy nuclear facilities. But an actual occupation is another matter altogether. What the heck do we get from holding Iranian ground?

And the idea that the Security Council can compel Uncle Sam to do anything is a joke. Countries that wouldn't participate in the invasion of Iraq or Afghanistan are going to go toe-to-toe with the US? Gimme a break.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2005-09-17 13:21|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2005-09-17 13:21|| Front Page Top

#8 The other thing I can't figure out is how they're going to resuscitate their nuclear program when their scientists are buried under tons of rubble, 90% of their facilities are destroyed and billions of dollars of investment goes up in smoke. You can't just press a button and have a nuclear program automatically regenerate, just like that.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2005-09-17 13:28|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2005-09-17 13:28|| Front Page Top

#9 To me the most interesting part is the purges of the command staff. By itself it could mean almost anything, but in conjunction with the other preperations it sounds more like coup-proofing than war preperations.

If the MM's were realy panicking about american invasion, they would not be getting rid of their most experinced/competent military types. I think they realize that any regime change wont start untill after 2009.

OTOH, we are not hearing much about porter goss over at CIA. (insert Hopeless optimistic speculation about covert ops here.)...

Posted by N guard 2005-09-17 13:48|| 2005-09-17 13:48|| Front Page Top

#10

All Set!

Posted by Shains Angaper7471 2005-09-17 14:36|| 2005-09-17 14:36|| Front Page Top

#11 Regime change within 24 months. No choice, US doesn't want Israel to take action, and Israelis security is endangered.

Bush prefers to have Europe reach the same conclusions that he has, which to some extent that have, but the Euros aren't likely to support conclusions resulting in actions.

The goal is regime change, rather than lobbing missles at nuke sites, is essential. A fundamental mind change is necessary. Otherwise, Iran has all that is necessary to expeditously rebuild under the same management.

Posted by Captain America 2005-09-17 14:58|| 2005-09-17 14:58|| Front Page Top

#12 If Iran expects war with the US, then they will first try to close the Straits of Hormuz to US re-supply. Assuming they can, US forces in Iraq would have to be re-supplied via Turkey or Saudi Arabia. Can the Iranians get Turkey to deny supply? I don't know, you'll have to ask these two guys.

Posted by Zpaz 2005-09-17 15:06|| 2005-09-17 15:06|| Front Page Top

#13 They couldn't even beat Iraq in 8 years of war, and somehow they think they can defeat the Great Satan?

Yep, definitely dippin' too much into their heroin stashes. When you deal, do not become your own best customer...

Posted by Raj 2005-09-17 15:28|| 2005-09-17 15:28|| Front Page Top

#14 CA: The goal is regime change, rather than lobbing missles at nuke sites, is essential. A fundamental mind change is necessary. Otherwise, Iran has all that is necessary to expeditously rebuild under the same management.

No support for this in Congress. Iran has a population of 60m. Budget at least 6,000 American dead in the first 2 years. Even Iraq was a hard sell, and that was 18 months after 9/11.

A nuclear weapons program can't be rebuilt "expeditiously". Israel's attack on Iraq's Osirak reactor was such that Iraq hadn't recovered by the time of Desert Storm - a full decade later or by the time of Operation Iraqi Freedom, two decades later.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2005-09-17 15:41|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2005-09-17 15:41|| Front Page Top

#15 Zpaz: If Iran expects war with the US, then they will first try to close the Straits of Hormuz to US re-supply. Assuming they can, US forces in Iraq would have to be re-supplied via Turkey or Saudi Arabia.

They weren't able to do it during the 80's (during the Iran-Iraq War), when they had pretty up-to-date equipment inherited from the Shah. Reagan sank a good chunk of their navy back then. These days, the Iranians are using crappy equipment from Russia and China. There is no chance of them being able close the region's waterways today. Uncle Sam has air supremacy in the region, which means that Iran's Navy is as good as sunk - they just don't know it yet.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2005-09-17 15:48|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2005-09-17 15:48|| Front Page Top

#16 My scenario.
Iran Attacks.
The nation of Iran ceases to exist.
The new nation of East Israel is formed (As soon as the radiation dies down)
The collective world's nations say "Iran?" What's that.

Posted by Redneck Jim 2005-09-17 16:04|| 2005-09-17 16:04|| Front Page Top

#17 Honestly, I think this could be a push to take Iraq. They might think we've become so disillusioned that we wouldn't fight back, and instead retreat. It would be interesting to see where in the next couple of months most of the military on the border is going. Where it is on the border might give an indication of what the intent is.

Posted by Charles 2005-09-17 16:26|| 2005-09-17 16:26|| Front Page Top

#18 Charles: Honestly, I think this could be a push to take Iraq. They might think we've become so disillusioned that we wouldn't fight back, and instead retreat.

I doubt it. They know our capabilities. The one thing that would prompt Congress to write a blank check for regime change in Iran would be an Iranian invasion of Iraq. But the mullahs know that with air supremacy on our side, we'll cut their infantry formations to pieces. I don't think they're that bone-headed. They're not going to invade even if we smash their nuclear facilities to bits for the same reason - any Iranian attack on Iraq is all the casus belli we need to go all the way from Iraq to the Afghan border.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2005-09-17 16:35|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2005-09-17 16:35|| Front Page Top

#19 An Iranian invasion is a bad idea for Iran for yet another reason - it will unite all the jihadis and Iraqis of all denominations and ethnicities against Iran. Zarqawi did not show up in Iraq just to hand it over to a bunch of stinking Shiites. For Uncle Sam, an Iranian invasion is the best of all possible worlds. This is why the Iranians won't attack Iraq.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2005-09-17 16:38|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2005-09-17 16:38|| Front Page Top

#20 This scenario might have been correct...THIRTY YEARS AGO...However, Jimmy Carter is no longer POTUS.

First of all, I believe the US assumption is that the US will not have to unilaterally invade Iran, as such. That is, we will not conduct an Iran campaign like Gulf War I.

Instead, we have reached agreement with Europe, Russia and China to wait until Iran actually launches one or more nuclear missiles. We also take into account that this may be done in concert with North Korea doing the same. And we fully intend to shoot down any and all missiles launched.

As far as NK goes, we would have an understanding with China that it would be obligated to immediately invade NK and neutralize its nuclear and war-making capability.

Though, by launching nuclear missiles, the entire nation of Iran would be forfeit by Cold War-era protocols, the US would probably blanket broadcast across all electronic media that the people of Iran had only 24 hours to arrest their government, for the Iranian army and Revolutionary Guard, along with other any armed forces to stand down and return to their barracks, and for Iranian cities to indicate compliance and surrender by turning on all lights at night, or lighting large bonfires if they do not have electricity.

If they did not satisfactorally comply, then first of all, the US would detonate a low-level neutron weapon over the city of Qom. This would both cause significant material destruction, and would also demonstrate the horrific nature of death by radiation. It would also destroy the center of the regime's support.

Immediately afterwards, a massive air and ground campaign would commence simultaneously. The intent would be to isolate any non-compliant military units away from population centers and annihilate them.

Special Operations Command would be tasked with locating and neutralizing all nuclear sites in the country, with emphasis on securing any remaining nuclear weapons.

Posted by Anonymoose 2005-09-17 17:24|| 2005-09-17 17:24|| Front Page Top

#21 Regardless of everyone's opinions about the Iraq war, people are tired and wary of a war without complete support like we did in the Persian Gulf war. This has to be a larger multi-national coalition, with larger players including France (yes yuck). We need clear conditions for victory and a quick as possible exit plan. Learn the lessons from the Iraq invasion, we don't need to babysit another country, but our firepower is definality needed. Destory the nuke plants and replace the regime then get out and let arab democracy form. The main variable I see is the media.

Posted by Hupanter Fliling8744 2005-09-17 18:04|| 2005-09-17 18:04|| Front Page Top

#22 The hell with multinational crap. Keep out the reporters - including taking out muslim/arab sats then clean house as needed with what ever weapons are appropriate.

Posted by 3dc 2005-09-17 18:15|| 2005-09-17 18:15|| Front Page Top

#23 N Guard said

If the MM's were realy panicking about american invasion, they would not be getting rid of their most experinced/competent military types. I think they realize that any regime change wont start untill after 2009.

Ahem! Stalin, WW2, even post-invasion by Nazi Germany was still purging his officer corps. Many of the best Russian field commanders were executed despite the fact that Stalin (and his generals) knew that war with the Nazis was right around the corner (or actually ongoing). Zhukov himself barely escaped being purged.

Ascribing intelligent thought and war planning to the Iranian leaders and Revolutionary Guard is asking to be shown an alternative solution.

Posted by LC FOTSGreg">LC FOTSGreg 2005-09-17 18:43|| 2005-09-17 18:43|| Front Page Top

#24 The future of Iran looks like Yugoslavia and its twin Kosovos will be the Kurdish areas and Khuzestan. As Kurds and Shiia Arabs prosper in the new Iraq, their ethnic cousins across the border will become increasingly restless. Atrocities will follow and Iraq will not stand by and watch Kurds and Arabs being massacred in Iran. The USA will not let Iraq go to war with iran and risk losing, so it will intervene, and the campaign will look remarkably like the Kosovo campaign. However, the Persians have more to lose than the Serbs so it will last longer and result in more destruction. Iran is a big place with difficult terrain and many infrastructure chokepoints. To win all you need to do is destroy their capacity to move around and resupply. The nuclear facilities are irrelevant as the rump Iran (sans Khuzestan, Kurdish areas, the Gulf islands and possibly the Azeri northwest) will have destroyed infrastructure and no oil money to repair it.

Posted by phil_b 2005-09-17 19:12|| 2005-09-17 19:12|| Front Page Top

#25 I still think that this is telling us that the Iranians will detonate a uranium-based nuke in the next six months. They wouldn't be afraid of a US attack unless there was a major shift in the status quo to provoke such an attack. Conventional defense is key in the period between a prototype detonation and the possession of a credible deterent. And such a deterent would not have to directly target the US or its forces either. The threat against the Straits or the Gulf oil fields would be pretty credible.

Posted by 11A5S 2005-09-17 19:23|| 2005-09-17 19:23|| Front Page Top

#26 France, China and Russia will never explicitely agree to military action against Iran. If Iran explodes and experimental nuclear device to demonstrate that it can, or it shoots off missiles (nuke-tipped or not), those three will advocate discussion until long after the cows come home. They cannot effectively go to war against Iran, therefore they will do their best to keep on Iran's good side (such as it is) by preventing anyone else from taking any real action. President Bush is letting them demonstrate the futility of their approach... and I do hope he has a plan for when we (not they) have had enough of such futile posturing.

Posted by trailing wife 2005-09-17 19:31|| 2005-09-17 19:31|| Front Page Top

#27 We need to encourage regime change by supporting those elements that can make significant contributions, not those big mouths that just suck down resources and produce nothing.

We need to also plan for a major decapitation of the military and political leadership. Lop off the head and the body just jerks around, so to speak.

As far as the underground uranium concentrators go, they could become tombs. They also need power. Lots of power to run the processes. Power plants require combustion air and cooling. Go after them. Bushehr reactor needs to be taken out before it is loaded with nuclear fuel rods. Otherwise you have a highly contaminated Persian Gulf. Iranian propaganda and comm needs to be incapacitated. Shut off their satellite feeds, fiber optics, target sat phones. This is what we need to be willing to do and we should have plans set for this now.

We need to be putting all the pieces of the puzzle in place. The stakes of not doing so, a la the EUniks, are too high to ignore.

Posted by Alaska Paul">Alaska Paul 2005-09-17 19:33|| 2005-09-17 19:33|| Front Page Top

#28 Bushehr reactor will probably be loaded with fuel rods in 2006.

Posted by Darrell 2005-09-17 19:58|| 2005-09-17 19:58|| Front Page Top

#29 ZF: This isn't the Clinton administration (thank God), and this isn't a remote threat. All is a matter of timing.

As Iran moves to come its four-cycle enrichment process, as the EU-3 finally resolves in its own mind that discussions result in nothing, Congress will increasingly become more alarmed. All of these conclusions will be reached within the next 6-9 months. In fact, if history is any indication, you will probably hear from the donks in Congress about how the "real threat" is (was Iran ((and NoKo)).

Coincidentially, the timeline for Iraq's military build up and the formation of its political processes will be much further along 6-9 months hence.

In essence, the clock is ticking in an unfavorable direction for Iran's regime. To do anything less than regime change is meaningless.

Posted by Captain America 2005-09-17 20:37|| 2005-09-17 20:37|| Front Page Top

#30 Closing the Straits of Hormuz is the one thing short of a missile launch guaranteed to bring down an attack. The US has never accepted that any nation would shut off an area to its shipping. Even in the Watergate/VietNam era of US weakness, Ford sank the Cambodian Navy for seizing a ship. When Libya declared the "Line of Death," the 6th fleet immediately went across it, and destroyed any Libyan aircraft/boats attempting to enforce it. Heck, in the middle of the Civil War, we were prepared to go to war with the British Empire over their assisting the Confederates in destroying our shipping.

We don't have any neutron bombs, at least in the "white" world, and I would be surprised if we had them secretly, giving our agreements with Russia. I don't see our using any nukes at all on Iran unless they actually successfully used one on someone else. Even if they launched one at Israel, and it was intercepted, or fizzled, I think we would limit our actions to conventional (albeit massive) attacks.

But, if they actually succeeded in destroying Tel Aviv or Rome or Washington, then we wouldn't mess around. Our policy has always been massive retaliation, unlimited by any sense of "proportionality." It has to be, for otherwise, someone will think a trade is worth it. There would be millions of dead in Iran, many of them women and children. There would be all kinds of resolutions and demonstrations aimed at the US. We'd probably do best to pull all of our troops out of Europe so they don't get arrested for "War Crimes" (and we have to threaten those countries with bombing to get them back). Several countries would break relations. China and Russia might even make threatening noises (big pucker factor there). And many, many people in the US, not all of them leftist idiotarians or fifth-column moslems, would be horrified at our government and its leaders.

That's why this whole establishing democracy thing has to work. Because if it doesn't, we go to Plan B. If the Wilsonians don't end this war, the Jacksonians will.

Posted by Jackal">Jackal 2005-09-17 20:40|| home.earthlink.net/~sleepyjackal/index.html]">[home.earthlink.net/~sleepyjackal/index.html] 2005-09-17 20:40|| Front Page Top

#31 CA: In essence, the clock is ticking in an unfavorable direction for Iran's regime. To do anything less than regime change is meaningless.

I think this is politically impossible in the current political environment. We're looking at 6,000 American dead, minimum, not to mention perhaps $500B in incremental war and reconstruction expenditures. GWB can't go to war without Congressional approval. He can do air strikes, but regime change, with the consequent commitment of ground troops, is out of the question. We have seen in Iraq that the coercive powers of the reigning government are such that it has taken two years before we were somewhat confident that the government we installed could take care of itself. Two years in Iran means 6,000 American dead (since Iran has 3x the population of Iraq). This is assuming that the Shiite government in Iraq doesn't decide to fight Uncle Sam for attacking their Iranian brethren.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2005-09-17 21:42|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2005-09-17 21:42|| Front Page Top

#32 This is assuming that the Shiite government in Iraq doesn't decide to fight Uncle Sam for attacking their Iranian brethren. Ethnicity trumps religion in the middle east. The Shiite government in Iraq will decide to fight Iran for attacking their Arab and Kurd brethren.

Posted by phil_b 2005-09-17 22:47|| 2005-09-17 22:47|| Front Page Top

23:33 Redneck Jim
22:57 Mike
22:53 mojo
22:51 JackAssFestival
22:47 phil_b
22:40 Jackal
22:38 Jackal
22:35 Redneck Jim
22:30 Sock Puppet OÂ´ Doom
22:16 DMFD
22:02 Redneck Jim
22:02 john
21:50 Redneck Jim
21:47 Phil Fraering
21:45 Robert Crawford
21:42 Zhang Fei
21:23 11A5S
21:19 phil_b
21:02 Darrell
21:01 john
20:50 Jackal
20:43 john
20:43 Jackal
20:40 Jackal