If you thought Iraq was a "cakewalk", try attacking Iran

[M.Dancer]

The only area were Iran has improved rtheir capaiulities is the ability to project terror. Medium to long range missiles and suicide bombers.

[blackascoal]

Any attack on Iran would unleash genies out of the bottle that America has no plans to deal with .. no different that what has happened in Iraq. The focus solely on military power is misguided, and in the face of what is before us today, quite non-sensical. Focusing solely on military power is the exact same snake oil that led the US to believe that Iraq would be a "cakewalk" .. and why I titled this thread as I did.

Even the US military is not convinced that it would make any sense .. nor the politicians .. nor the American people.

LAST STAND: The military’s problem with the President’s Iran policy.

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060710fa_fact

The U.S. Strategic Command, supported by the Air Force, has been drawing up plans, at the President’s direction, for a major bombing campaign in Iran.

Inside the Pentagon, senior commanders have increasingly challenged the President’s plans, according to active-duty and retired officers and officials. The generals and admirals have told the Administration that the bombing campaign will probably not succeed in destroying Iran’s nuclear program. They have also warned that an attack could lead to serious economic, political, and military consequences for the United States.

A crucial issue in the military’s dissent, the officers said, is the fact that American and European intelligence agencies have not found specific evidence of clandestine activities or hidden facilities; the war planners are not sure what to hit. “The target array in Iran is huge, but it’s amorphous,” a high-ranking general told me. “The question we face is, When does innocent infrastructure evolve into something nefarious?” The high-ranking general added that the military’s experience in Iraq, where intelligence on weapons of mass destruction was deeply flawed, has affected its approach to Iran. “We built this big monster with Iraq, and there was nothing there. This is son of Iraq,” he said.

[M.Dancer]

I was wondering what Iran's military upgrades are......

genies.....

[blackascoal]

I was wondering what Iran's military upgrades are......

genies.....

No doubt that you were wondering the same thing about Iraq, Afghanistan, and Vietnam.

While you're "wondering" .. the American people have decided.

[blackascoal]

A political bombshell from Zbigniew Brzezinski

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/feb2007/brze-f02_prn.shtml

Testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Thursday, Zbigniew Brzezinski, the national security adviser in the Carter administration, delivered a scathing critique of the war in Iraq and warned that the Bush administration’s policy was leading inevitably to a war with Iran, with incalculable consequences for US imperialism in the Middle East and internationally.

Brzezinski, who opposed the March 2003 invasion and has publicly denounced the war as a colossal foreign policy blunder, began his remarks on what he called the “war of choice” in Iraq by characterizing it as “a historic, strategic and moral calamity.”

“Undertaken under false assumptions,” he continued, “it is undermining America’s global legitimacy. Its collateral civilian casualties as well as some abuses are tarnishing America’s moral credentials. Driven by Manichean principles and imperial hubris, it is intensifying regional instability.”

Brzezinski derided Bush’s talk of a “decisive ideological struggle” against radical Islam as “simplistic and demagogic,” and called it a “mythical historical narrative” employed to justify a “protracted and potentially expanding war.”

“To argue that America is already at war in the region with a wider Islamic threat, of which Iran is the epicenter, is to promote a self-fulfilling prophecy,” he said.

Most stunning and disturbing was his description of a “plausible scenario for a military collision with Iran.” It would, he suggested, involve “Iraqi failure to meet the benchmarks, followed by accusations of Iranian responsibility for the failure, then by some provocation in Iraq or a terrorist act in the US blamed on Iran, culminating in a ‘defensive’ US military action against Iran that plunges a lonely America into a spreading and deepening quagmire eventually ranging across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan.” [Emphasis added].

This was an unmistakable warning to the US Congress, replete with quotation marks to discount the “defensive” nature of such military action, that the Bush administration is seeking a pretext for an attack on Iran. Although he did not explicitly say so, Brzezinski came close to suggesting that the White House was capable of manufacturing a provocation—including a possible terrorist attack within the US—to provide the casus belli for war.

That a man such as Brzezinski, with decades of experience in the top echelons of the US foreign policy establishment, a man who has the closest links to the military and to intelligence agencies, should issue such a warning at an open hearing of the US Senate has immense and grave significance.

9/11 anyone?

[Catchme]

Weaponeer,

They have hundreds of cruise missle armed warships...

Obviously, you don't understand the limits of military power.

Additionally, where is the funding for strikes on Iran to come from? Where is the manpower to come from?

The US Treasury and military is stretched to the limit and the American people are fed up with gung-ho armchair warriors who've watched too many war movies and are not themselves in the line of fire.

Attacking Iran has nothing to do with being too hard and everything to do with it being just too stupid.

The funding is going to come:

1. because they are manufacturing a situation where they say Iran is influencing the state of affairs in Iraq. And something "will" have to be done.

2. Israel, will undoubtably do the initial attacking which will prompt Iran into retaliating, once there is retaliation USA intervention will be a go.

3. The USA in its manufacturing of this, is already prepared and it will be a go within 2 weeks to a month.

The Washington Note, had the Nelson Report of Jan 16 which said this:

what's the strategic implication of the recent US Navy carrier deployment announcements to all this? Obviously, as we have been reporting, the professionals have been warning the White House and associated neo-cons that any actual military action against Iran itself runs a huge risk of effective Iranian retaliation against US interests, allied shipping, and oil.

We asked a friend out on the West Coast for his assessment of the new deployments, which confirms the actions ARE aimed at Iran, but in a balanced way, all things considered. For something really "up", he warns, watch to see a change in deploying the Nimitz

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/2007_01.php

Well, The Nimitz Strike Group, is not set to deploy until March 2007, unless it was deployed earlier.

Nimitz would depart some time in March 2007, replacing the Eisenhower, which deployed 01 October 2006 with plans to remain on station into March 2007.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/age...8-westpac07.htm

It does not seem so as it is now Feb. But there has been another deployment. The Nelson Report linked above says:

Stennis strike group had been scheduled to cover routinely for USS Kitty Hawk..underwent repairs. The Pentagon announced 20 Dec 2006 that Stennis strike group would sail early, deploying instead to the Gulf. The Pentagon announced 11 Jan 07 USS Ronald Reagan would skip normal work-up phases and deploy within several weeks to provide the routine coverage in western Pacific during Kitty Hawk's repairs.)Last week the Pentagon also announced deployment to the Persian Gulf region of a Patriot battalion of the 11th Air Defense Artillery Brigade, which is primarily suited for defense against short-range ballistic missile attack. The primary ballistic missile threat in theater is Iran. UK will contribute two minesweepers and a frigate

Jump ahead just 8 days, after the announcement Ronald Regan Strike Group was to cover the routine Pacific for the Kitty Hawk, to see what is up with them instead:

Ronald Reagan Strike Group to Surge Deploy

SAN DIEGO - USS Ronald Reagan (CVN 76) Carrier Strike Group (CSG), with more than 5,000 sailors, will surge deploy Jan. 27...

http://www.c3f.navy.mil/press_releases/02%...n%20Deploys.doc

Now, we have The Ronald Regan, under the title of the Command Strike Group, joining; The Stennis Group and the Dwight Eisenhower Group and they are also "surging" to the Persian Gulf/West Pacific. The Ronald Regan was only supposed to be covering for the Kitty Hawk on routine Pacific patrols. See the link above to see what else is "surging" with them.

It would seem that a time table is being worked on that is closer in time than the Nimitz's March deployment. Also, according to Chris Nelson's military contact on what to what for regarding an attack on Iran:

OK. . .what to watch for if the US really thinks bad things are about to happen?

On the other hand, increasing to three carrier strike groups would be noticeably more 'robust', belligerent and suggestive of intending or anticipating attack. The difference between two and three strike groups is huge. Two ='s strong and capable, but existing offensive intent is less probable; three ='s 'we don't care about provocation, we're preparing to fight in this new dimension'.

So, it has been increased to 3 Strike Groups, within 8 days of saying the Ronald Regan would perform routine pacific patrols, their mission and designation were changed, and nary a word is being said by the MSM. And they decided NOT to wait for the Nimitz to deploy, why?

Here is why:

Offensive military action against Iran would be illegal under the United Nations Charter, which requires that members settle international disputes by peaceful means. The UN Charter is a treaty ratified by the US and thus part of American law under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. Under the Charter, a country can attack another only in self-defense or with the blessing of the Security Council. Moreover, the use of nuclear weapons would violate our obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Congress should immediately pass a binding resolution reaffirming the United States' legal obligations and informing the Bush administration that it will not concur in any invasion or military action against Iran, would refuse to approve any funding for it, and would consider actions taken in contravention of the resolution as impeachable offenses.

http://www.counterpunch.org/cohn02012007.html

They have to do this before Congress enacts any laws preventing it. Remember they are using the US military as a private militia for Oil and that is their only focus.

And as of Tuesday, another, 4th Strike groups has set sail for the Persian Gulf, there can be NO doubt.

USS Bataan steamed through the Suez Canal on Tuesday on its way to join the buildup of American forces in the Middle East.

http://www.libertyforum.org/showflat.php?C...umber=295232956

[M.Dancer]

2. Israel, will undoubtably do the initial attacking which will prompt Iran into retaliating, once there is retaliation USA intervention will be a go.

I doubt Israel wil do a thing. Like in the Gulf war when they had to beg Israel not to retaliate, there is no pressing need for Israel to do anything other than to defend herself.

If the US were to attack, it would most likely not be a long drawn out affair. Stealth Bombers at dusk, cruis missiles at dawn. If everything went well, the iranian nuclear programme and their atomic brain trust would be history before you saw it on CNN.

If it went badly, they would have to do it twice or thrice.

[M.Dancer]

Again: duh. Iran's military expenditures as percentage of GDP put in the same class as Belgium, though, as you point out, they lack much in the way of modern equipment. Which is why it's kinda ridiculous to piant Iran as a big threat, much as it was ridiculous to paint Saddam's flip-flop clad military as a threat back in 2003

That doesn't necessarily follow. Nuclear weapons are a lot cheaper in the long run than having a modern army. On top of that, you don't need a lot of technology to deliver them. A howitzer will do. A scud even better. In a pinch, a freighter works fine.

Besides, when your one tactical maneuver is the human wave, you really don't need modern technology to devastate the enemy line.

Keep in mind that Iran being one half of the duo that sent over a million men to their deaths in a stalemate war, that they shouldn't be treated lightly. If they say they want to destroy your ally, believe them. If they thumb their noses at the IAEC, then there is a reason why they are willing to risk retaliation. I think the likely hood of them thwarting the IAEC and having peaceful intentions remote.

[Catchme]

Iran's military expenditures as percentage of GDP put in the same class as Belgium, though, as you point out, they lack much in the way of modern equipment. Which is why it's kinda ridiculous to piant Iran as a big threat, much as it was ridiculous to paint Saddam's flip-flop clad military as a threat back in 2003

That doesn't necessarily follow. Nuclear weapons are a lot cheaper in the long run than having a modern army. On top of that, you don't need a lot of technology to deliver them. A howitzer will do. A scud even better. In a pinch, a freighter works fine.

Besides, when your one tactical maneuver is the human wave, you really don't need modern technology to devastate the enemy line.

Keep in mind that Iran being one half of the duo that sent over a million men to their deaths in a stalemate war, that they shouldn't be treated lightly. If they say they want to destroy your ally, believe them. If they thumb their noses at the IAEC, then there is a reason why they are willing to risk retaliation. I think the likely hood of them thwarting the IAEC and having peaceful intentions remote.

My how easily you brush off nuclear exchange as nothing, and saying it would be cheaper is disengenuous at best.

Anytype of nuclear exchange is going to imapct the whole world, and there is NO doubt about it.

It may be cheaper monitarily wise, but not human wise. Thinking nuclear exchange is okay is a fine example of...

Moreover, the Iranians who fought and died are NOT the Iranians of today, because of the lose of 2 generations, Iranian demographics are a young population, who are gathering more control and the mullahs control is lessening. These Iranian youth do not want war, and they want a democracy. And NOTHING Iran has done provides a basis for invasion.

[Fortunata]

These Iranian youth do not want war, and they want a democracy.

This is true, however, if there was a threat to Iran they would rally with the rest of their country. They want to fight for a democracy themselves their way not have someone's idea of a democracy literally forced upon them.

[Guthrie]

These Iranian youth do not want war, and they want a democracy.

This is true, however, if there was a threat to Iran they would rally with the rest of their country. They want to fight for a democracy themselves their way not have someone's idea of a democracy literally forced upon them.

let me interject here, the ones in Iran, Afganistan and even in Tianneman Square, who seek democracy, were all young people who posessed one thing in common --- education --- they go hand in hand, education and democracy - if you want to spread Democracy, start by spreading knowledge -- it's the only thing that works and the only thing the reactionary right dismisses out of hand - fools

[GostHacked]

Iran's Air Force, to me used to be quite large and respected. When the Shah was in power, Iran bought 75 to 80 F-14 Tomcats from the US. By the late 80s reports show that Iran has canabalized a good deal of the fleet in order to keep some planes flying. The US recently (like a couple months ago) stopped all sales of parts for the F-14 to Iran. The US also retired the entire f-14 fleet as of 2006.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-0...14-tomcat_x.htm - Kind of odd to have it replaced with the F/A-18 which is weaker in all aspects compared to the F-14. Cost of operations had the final say though. But actually it paves way for the F-35 and F-22 advanced jet fighters.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Repub..._Iran_Air_Force

http://www.defensetech.org/archives/002554.html

I am sure they had managed to get some planes from elsewhere. The Soviets, or China would have made some money from the sale of weapons to Iran. No idea on the current navy/army set up they got going.

Also, remember the Shah at all? That pro-US, backed by the US dude? The Iranians have a beef with the US. I think with good damn reason.

[M.Dancer]

My how easily you brush off nuclear exchange as nothing, and saying it would be cheaper is disengenuous at best.

Anytype of nuclear exchange is going to imapct the whole world, and there is NO doubt about it.

It may be cheaper monitarily wise, but not human wise. Thinking nuclear exchange is okay is a fine example of...

Moreover, the Iranians who fought and died are NOT the Iranians of today, because of the lose of 2 generations, Iranian demographics are a young population, who are gathering more control and the mullahs control is lessening. These Iranian youth do not want war, and they want a democracy. And NOTHING Iran has done provides a basis for invasion.

Who has brushed off a nuclear exchange? I'm for forestalling a nuclear iran.....If in 4 or 5 years, or even 10, Iran gets a hold of nuclear weapons, then I would guess an exchange will be inevitable.

I say it is cheaper for iran...read that again...it is cheaper for iran to invest in nuclear weapons than conventional. And that's why they are doing it, as well as the prestige it gives and the blackmail effect. Nothing like being a little nuclear armed terrorist nation to get your demands heard....

[Guthrie]

teach Iranians, or any other terrorist country's population, about nuclear winter and I guarantee, the nuclear threat will immediately be reduced

[M.Dancer]

teach Iranians, or any other terrorist country's population, about nuclear winter and I guarantee, the nuclear threat will immediately be reduced

They are an educated people. Learning about Ypres, the Somme and Vimy didn't stop them launching frontal attacks against entrenched, fortified positions.

And besides, they are on a mission from God, they probably think Nuclear winter is the salvation from global warming

[blackascoal]

Few people within the US are dumb enough to believe that ANY attack on Iran would be in our best interest. Even the warhawks like McCain and Hillary Clinton are now backing down as they recognize there is no support for it.

The ONLY nation on earth pushing for an attack is Israel and if they want to attack Iran, then THEY and ONLY THEY should try it. Israel has its own military and only they should do the dying and pay the consequences for such a foolish misadventure.

[M.Dancer]

Yeah..blame the jews...no suprises there.....They are the only people on earth afraid of an atomic iran...silly jews.....I mean, when the Irranians say they are going to wipe Israel off the map, we know they're only kidding.....

[GostHacked]

Yeah..blame the jews...no suprises there.....They are the only people on earth afraid of an atomic iran...silly jews.....I mean, when the Irranians say they are going to wipe Israel off the map, we know they're only kidding.....

Israel is not worries about an attack, for they have an open secret about their nuclear weapons. So as it would stand would be M.A.D. for both if Iran gets a nuke. I for one would love to redraw Israel's borders, and draw a new line where that 'security barrier' would go.

[Black Dog]

That doesn't necessarily follow. Nuclear weapons are a lot cheaper in the long run than having a modern army. On top of that, you don't need a lot of technology to deliver them. A howitzer will do. A scud even better. In a pinch, a freighter works fine.

Nuclear weapons are also of very limited tactical or strategic use. They are strategic deterrent, little else. Attacking Iran's nuclear program (which will, no doubt, incorporate a considerable amount of redundancy) will only make the possibility of anuclear armesd Iran more likely.

Besides, when your one tactical maneuver is the human wave, you really don't need modern technology to devastate the enemy line. Keep in mind that Iran being one half of the duo that sent over a million men to their deaths in a stalemate war, that they shouldn't be treated lightly. If they say they want to destroy your ally, believe them.

Speaking of not following the premises: how does Iran's battlefield tactics during the defensive war with Iraq indicate a wilingness to use nuclear weapons in an offensive manner? Also, it's worth noting that Iran in 1981 was a different Iran than today's: I fully expect their tactical abilities are better now than they were in the days following the chaos of the revolution.

If they thumb their noses at the IAEC, then there is a reason why they are willing to risk retaliation. I think the likely hood of them thwarting the IAEC and having peaceful intentions remote.

Of course they want a bomb, but again it doesn't follow that thety want one for offensive purposes, given how little they have to gain from committing national suicide.

I say it is cheaper for iran...read that again...it is cheaper for iran to invest in nuclear weapons than conventional. And that's why they are doing it, as well as the prestige it gives and the blackmail effect. Nothing like being a little nuclear armed terrorist nation to get your demands heard....

Yeah because nukes are such a useful diplomatic tool. Look at how the U.S. was able to use it's nukes to get the Soviets to lift their blockade of Berlin and to stop them from invading Czecheslovakia and Hungary. Or how nukes were insturmental in keeping China out of the Korean war....

I said above and I'll reiterate: nukes are god for deterrence and for prestige. But not much else.

[Catchme]

teach Iranians, or any other terrorist country's population, about nuclear winter and I guarantee, the nuclear threat will immediately be reduced

They are an educated people. Learning about Ypres, the Somme and Vimy didn't stop them launching frontal attacks against entrenched, fortified positions.

And besides, they are on a mission from God, they probably think Nuclear winter is the salvation from global warming

Well, you're over looking the fact that GW et all think they are a mission from God too. And it would be GW et al who would be using actual, real nukes, as opposed to hypothetical ones 10 years in the future. So, by your rational, it would be GW et al who believe that nuclear winter would be a solution for global warming, as they are the ones actually going to use them.

[Canadian Blue]

Well, you're over looking the fact that GW et all think they are a mission from God too. And it would be GW et al who would be using actual, real nukes, as opposed to hypothetical ones 10 years in the future. So, by your rational, it would be GW et al who believe that nuclear winter would be a solution for global warming, as they are the ones actually going to use them.

My prediction, we'll never see an attack on Iran in the next decade, or even the next 50 years.

[blackascoal]

Yeah..blame the jews...no suprises there.....They are the only people on earth afraid of an atomic iran...silly jews.....I mean, when the Irranians say they are going to wipe Israel off the map, we know they're only kidding.....

Perhaps you can list all the other nations in the world that are saying that Iran should be attacked .. or you can continue to hide behind the "blame it on the jews" escape clause.

The world, including all Arab/Islamic, nations don't want it to happen .. the American people don't want it to happen .. democrat AND republican politicians don't want it to happen .. military planners in and out of the Pentagon don't want it to happen .. YOU claim you don't want it to happen .. tell me just who is it, outside of Isreal, that is calling for an attack on Iran?

Of course, your escape clause or calling me a name would be much easier than answering the question.

[Canadian Blue]

If congress and the senate don't want it to happen, it won't happen. In Iraq the president had the support of congress and the senate, he wouldn't have the same support to attack Iran.

[blackascoal]

If congress and the senate don't want it to happen, it won't happen. In Iraq the president had the support of congress and the senate, he wouldn't have the same support to attack Iran.

The president has the power to respond to provocation and attack, which is the case they are trying to build with "seized Iranian weapons" and "seized Iranian agents". He can respond to a created "provocation" which is what Zbigniew Brzezinski is warning the US Congress of right now. He almost came right out and said that we did 9/11 and are capable of doing it again.

Then the Bush Administration can claim "defense" as their rationale.

However, nobody is buying it this time and Brzezinski's warning may have complicated their plans even further.

[sharkman]

If congress and the senate don't want it to happen, it won't happen. In Iraq the president had the support of congress and the senate, he wouldn't have the same support to attack Iran.

The president has the power to respond to provocation and attack, which is the case they are trying to build with "seized Iranian weapons" and "seized Iranian agents". He can respond to a created "provocation" which is what Zbigniew Brzezinski is warning the US Congress of right now. He almost came right out and said that we did 9/11 and are capable of doing it again.

Then the Bush Administration can claim "defense" as their rationale.

However, nobody is buying it this time and Brzezinski's warning may have complicated their plans even further.

What, do you think Bush is an idiot or something?