Jump to content

Coming Conflict With Iran


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Logistically, a ground invasion of Iran would be a bitch. There won't be any mass buildup of troops for a blitzkrieg across the border, you're looking at a major forcible entry onto the coast to seize port facilities, and then bring follow on forces in by sea and air. The terrain is nasty and hilly in places, good for ambushes and dogged defenders.

The oilfields of the SW are in flat country, like the adjoining part of Iraq, but as soon as you head inland from there it gets mountainous, & the mountains extend for a long way inland. Most of the coast south & east of Bushehr is mountainous, or at least hilly.

 

It's very different from Iraq. As well as being far hillier, it's much bigger, & has three times the population, the majority of them the same religion & ethnicity as the leadership.

Edited by swerve
Link to post
Share on other sites
Frankly this is coming down the pike at us, and we are going to have to fish or cut bait. Israel doesn't have the option of cutting bait, the survival of Judaism is on the line. Does the US join the conflict with Israel?

 

Standard US practice throughout most of modern history is that when an allys security is threatened the US makes an alliance with them and sends American forces to their territory to defend them if they are attacked. In this case, a US nuclear deterrent on Israeli soil would obviously be part of the OOB.

 

Israel doesn't have the option of cutting bait, the survival of Judaism is on the line

 

I think the US might have a policy option somewhere between the annihilation of Israel and the annihilation of Iran.

 

Well we will not have use of airfields in the Gulf States or Iraq most likely, if the conflict is painted as one to save Israel.

 

If the conflict is to save Israel, then how could anyone but Iran be in control of the Iraqi bases necessary for Iran to launch an invasion of Israel? But if Iran has these bases, then what happened to the USAF, which otherwise would have long laid waste to Iranian convoys running in the vast open wastes of western Iraq?

Edited by glenn239
Link to post
Share on other sites

Standard US practice throughout most of modern history is that when an ally’s security is threatened the US makes an alliance with them and sends American forces to their territory to defend them if they are attacked. In this case, a US nuclear deterrent on Israeli soil would obviously be part of the OOB.

 

 

 

I think the US might have a policy option somewhere between the annihilation of Israel and the annihilation of Iran.

 

 

 

If the conflict is to save Israel, then how could anyone but Iran be in control of the Iraqi bases necessary for Iran to launch an invasion of Israel? But if Iran has these bases, then what happened to the USAF, which otherwise would have long laid waste to Iranian convoys running in the vast open wastes of western Iraq?

 

 

Uhhhhhh...the threat faced by Israel is not a ground invasion by Iran, but Iranian nukes aimed at Tel Aviv. Have you been reading the news the last few years? Israel is highly likely to launch a strike against Iran to destroy their nuclear weapons program, and the US has been making the same noises. The potential conflict under discussion is one engendered by US/Israeli action against Iran to prevent Iran from aquiring nuclear weapons. In which case, there is no Iranian occupation of Iraq, it's preemptive action against Iran.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Uhhhhhh...the threat faced by Israel is not a ground invasion by Iran, but Iranian nukes aimed at Tel Aviv.

 

Standard US response to this type of thing is a nuclear deterrent on site plus ABM batteries with all the latest gadgets. Iran fires and interceptors shoot it down. The wreckage is confirmed as a nuclear bomb and then the USAF launches a decapitating strike into Iran.

So why would Israel be any different for what’s worked everywhere else for 50 years? I mean, the hard on North Korea has for South Korea is way worse than anything the Iranians and Israelis have thrown about.

 

Sure this all isn’t just to be a big distraction to get around all this recent nonsense about a Palestinian homeland? To get around why what has worked for 50 years won’t work here, one has to argue that the Iranians are somehow different, but I mean, if you’re not of a mind to make the leap that the unalterable patterns of human history stop at Tehran three years from now, then you’ll assume more along the lines that anyone making such a wild claim is a little, shall we say, excitable, right?

 

Have you been reading the news the last few years? Israel is highly likely to launch a strike against Iran to destroy their nuclear weapons program,

 

Yes, I’ve read Israel may indeed make an attack, but to say that will ‘destroy’ the Iranian nuclear weapons program is a little like saying the latest Zeppelin model of 1917 was going to ‘destroy’ London. Even the USAF doesn’t really seem to give the impression that it can finish off the program.

 

The potential conflict under discussion is one engendered by US/Israeli action against Iran to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

 

Dunno. The leap of faith is that bombing Iran is going to make Iran not build a nuclear bomb. The opposite seems more likely – that not only will they, but much of the rest of the non-English world will sympathize with them in doing so, since it will look like an unprovoked attack. The Iranians will say, oh, we weren’t building one before, but now we are. Then what are we going to do, bomb them?

Edited by glenn239
Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is that the leadership of Iran are a bunch of religious nutjobs, and Imanutjob is a hardcore Twelver, who wants to bring about the End of Days so that the Twelfth Imam will return.

 

Don't expect rational self-preservation to enter into their thinking as it did with the Politburo.

 

Hell, Pakistani leadership has said the bomb is a gift from Allah, and should be used.

 

Imbeciles.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The problem is that the leadership of Iran are a bunch of religious nutjobs, and Imanutjob is a hardcore Twelver, who wants to bring about the End of Days so that the Twelfth Imam will return. Don't expect rational self-preservation to enter into their thinking as it did with the Politburo.

 

Let’s just for a moment assume this is a load of crap and set it aside. What other reasons might there be for war with Iran now instead of the same containment policy that is currently 100% successful?

 

I think the US should be stepping back more and forcing the Arabs and Israelis to work together to contain the Iranian threat. Bombing Iran back to the Stone Age and bailing them out is a mistake – make them step up and contain the threat.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest JamesG123

I think the US should be stepping back more and forcing the Arabs and Israelis to work together to contain the Iranian threat. Bombing Iran back to the Stone Age and bailing them out is a mistake – make them step up and contain the threat.

 

Problem is that the Israeli's apparent preferred method of containment is striking at the Iranian's atomic and aerospace capacity.

 

The Arabs seem content to sit back and watch The Jews and Persians duke it out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Problem is that the Israeli's apparent preferred method of containment is striking at the Iranian's atomic and aerospace capacity.

 

The Arabs seem content to sit back and watch The Jews and Persians duke it out.

 

Until they go nuclear. Kind of hard to aim for a Jew without hitting a Palestinian with a nuke considering they occasionally live in adjacent neighborhoods.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I need an explanation or better yet, an exposition.

 

What are the main reasons some entities, in Iran's case a nation-state, should not legitimately have nuclear weapons, while it's perfectly acceptable for certain other such entities to possess them?

 

Specifically, why do we choose to live with say Chinese, Russian, Indian and Pakistani nukes, but are bothered by the prospect of North Korean and Iranian nukes?

 

I mean, none of these nations are developed democratic states (though India is a democracy). But we're okay with say Chinese or Russian ICBMs, but not North Korean or Iranian medium range missiles?

 

What's the core difference between say the leaders in Beijing or Moscow, and those in Tehran and Pyongyang?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Until they go nuclear. Kind of hard to aim for a Jew without hitting a Palestinian with a nuke considering they occasionally live in adjacent neighborhoods.

As I was indicating with my earlier remarks about the Palestinians, they are only 'useful' as long as Israel is there to bludgeon. Following up on one of James' remarks, the Iranians might also use a war with Israel to get in a few licks on pesky Arabs, to show them their place.

In'shallah can be very convenient, yes?

Edited by shep854
Link to post
Share on other sites
The Arabs seem content to sit back and watch The Jews and Persians duke it out.

 

The Arabs and the Israelis have a common threat. If the US takes out that threat, then the Arabs and Israelis dont have to give an inch to each other on their disputes. Therefore, the US has no interest in diminishing the Iranian threat because that is precisely what the Arabs and Israelis want them to do, to avoid having to talk to each other.

 

In terms of an Israeli attack on Iran, that looks to be all flash and no pan. So Israel goes and bombs Iran. Then tomorrow comes along. What are they going to do, bomb Iran again? And again? Seems pretty infeasible the first strike the Israelis have the advantage. But by the 10th, theyre really overdue for their tanker support being shot down over Iraq, right?

 

Seems to me the US best move is to call the Israeli bluff - sure Nettycakes, go bomb Iran. Once this option is shown to be ineffective, the Israelis have lost their trump card.

Edited by glenn239
Link to post
Share on other sites

I need an explanation or better yet, an exposition.

 

What are the main reasons some entities, in Iran's case a nation-state, should not legitimately have nuclear weapons, while it's perfectly acceptable for certain other such entities to possess them?

 

Have you noticed how Iran...

 

1. wages proxy war ad infinitum against a country that never did a thing to them to begin with...?

2. doesn't respect diplomatic boundaries...?

3. seeks to expand the scope of conflict with other nations no matter what..?

4. constantly talks about their nuclear program as being for peace and then brags about how they'll have icbms for the nuclear bombs they are "not" developing...

5. supports terrorism in many forms...?

6. brutalizes their own population extensively...?

7. is a religious totalitarian oligarchy who's religious dogma includes a end of times war that'll foment the return of the 12th iman...?

Link to post
Share on other sites

- Chinese: There were some wargames in the US back in the 60s regarding the possibility of bombing the Chinese nukes (and Mao's rethoric was as inflamatory as the current crop from Tehran), including the possibility of a joint attack with the Russians. It was too hard and fraught with risk, it was easier to outbuild them. China has a declared no first strike policy.

 

- Russia: When Joe-1 went off, the US lacked targetting data on the USSR to stop the program and there was uncertainty as to how many did they have.

 

- India: nobody that could do something about ut cared about India until they tested, then nobody cared until they tested again.

 

- Pakistan: there were attempts at stopping the Pak nuclear programs, namely arms embargos which hurt them, but the technology for enrichment was already out of the bag and it was a question of time.

 

 

 

There was also a half-baked attempt to stop the Israeli nukes that was easily foiled by the Israelis with French help. So far, the only program successfully stopped due to outside pressure has been the Iraqui one, but only because the French got worried about what they were doing and never replaced the destroyed Tammuz reactor, while no one else was willing to supply one. Now, there's North Korea as an alternative provider.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest JamesG123

The Arabs and the Israelis have a common threat.

 

"The Arabs" are not a monolithic bloc.

 

Seems to me the US best move is to call the Israeli bluff - sure Nettycakes, go bomb Iran. Once this option is shown to be ineffective, the Israelis have lost their trump card.

 

Seems to be more like a "bad cop, slightly less bad cop" strategy. I would not assume the Israelis are bluffing.

 

Mind you, just to overcomplicate things, all that was entirely true of the Soviets, and we didnt bomb THEM when they got the bomb. Admittedly it was rather more of a surprise when they did, and also even more difficult to do anything about it than Iran. But if all those arguments held true in 1947, and we didnt do anything, it rather invalidates it as an arguement Iran should'nt have it.

 

To which some will counter with, "But... they're Muslims and... and eeeevul Iranians."

 

Dont get me wrong, I dont WANT them to have the bomb for all sorts of reasons, not least because unlike the Soviets, I dont perceive it as a stable regime.

 

For the region, they are quite stable.

 

But when you get down to it, neither is Pakistan or North Korea. We tolerate them because we perceive we cant do anything about it, whereas with Iran there is the perception we can. Which may well be faulty.

 

That is the unpricable question isn't it.

 

Or perhaps the main perception is that Asia is unlikely to get into an arm race with the US present, and Pakistan is already balanced by India. The only people in the Middle East who would balance out Iran as a nuclear power is Israel, at which point things get terribly awkward. For that reason I dont want to see Iran get the bomb, but one cant help but reflect it would have been a very good idea to keep atomic weapons out the middle east entirely. Bit late for that I suppose.

 

Quite late, even without the internet and the free(er) flow if information, once something is seen as possible, its only a matter of time and resources before it spreads.

 

From the Iranian perspective the counter to Iran as a nuclear power, and what they are developing it for, is the United States, which has demonstrated hostile intent towards the current government of Iran since before they came to power. With perhaps a dash of "keeping up with the Jones'" with Pakistan, and trying to one-up the Sunni Saudis et al.

 

So from their perspective, the pursuit of nuclear weapons serves a dual purpose of deterring the US and other powers from dominating them, and also gives them "bigger cojones" and thus greater stature because that is an important consideration in that part of the world. At the cost of sanctions which the US/West has had on them for decades (and which they probably assume will remain for as long as the government remains recognizable as the one they have now), and the threat of attacks (which they had taken countermeasures for).

 

The conflict with Israel is really an aberration caused by the "influence vacuum" caused by the collapse of the USSR, Saddam's Iraq, and other Arab states reducing their involvement with supporting the Palestinian Cause. The Iranians have stepped forward to support them because its a means of gaining influence and control over other Shia factions as well as Muslims worldwide. This does not mean that they will "launch when ready" as soon as they put a nuke together, despite the bombastic rhetoric of Imagonnaneedajob. To do so would be counter-productive to the interests of the Islamic Republic of Iran (such as survival, both personal and as an institution).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to add, I think Israelis have nuke cruise missiles in their subs, to have sort of deterrent similar to SSBNs. So even if they get completely wiped out with first strike, things would get really interesting for many...

Edited by Sardaukar
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to add, I think Israelis have nuke cruise missiles in their subs, to have sort of deterrent similar to SSBNs. So even if they get completely wiped out with first strike, things would get really interesting for many...

 

And, as I've made the point before, there's a damn reason they named their nuclear program after Samson. I am pretty sure that if Israel is annihilated, most of the urban centers in the Middle East are going to go with them, and there are going to be some targets in the European countries that armed and enabled their enemies, as well. If the Israelis ever really get their backs up against a wall, I'm pretty sure that those detailed target lists are going to get "leaked", just to let the various parties know what the hell they're screwing with. Citizens of European states who've stood by while their left-leaning governments and parties have vilified the Israelis might want to think about that, and consider how they're going to get along without many of their urban areas.

 

The Jews went along quietly to the camps, last time someone tried killing them off, relying on the humanity of their captors. That's not happening the next time someone tries it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And, as I've made the point before, there's a damn reason they named their nuclear program after Samson. I am pretty sure that if Israel is annihilated, most of the urban centers in the Middle East are going to go with them, and there are going to be some targets in the European countries that armed and enabled their enemies, as well. If the Israelis ever really get their backs up against a wall, I'm pretty sure that those detailed target lists are going to get "leaked", just to let the various parties know what the hell they're screwing with. Citizens of European states who've stood by while their left-leaning governments and parties have vilified the Israelis might want to think about that, and consider how they're going to get along without many of their urban areas.

 

The Jews went along quietly to the camps, last time someone tried killing them off, relying on the humanity of their captors. That's not happening the next time someone tries it.

 

Doubt that they'd go vs. Europeans...but I have suspicion oil price might be 10x after that...

 

"Never again".

Link to post
Share on other sites

Doubt that they'd go vs. Europeans...but I have suspicion oil price might be 10x after that...

 

"Never again".

 

Why would they care? Israel is dead, at that point. What have they got to lose? It's not like they're likely to be able to take refuge, and I doubt that anyone is going to be sending relief or aid to the Israelis in that situation, so why do you think they'd forego retaliation at the enablers of their enemies?

 

I had a long discussion on just this topic with a former professional Israeli officer I met. He was here in the US visiting some of his kids, and I've got to tell you, I left that discussion with an utter certainty that something like I theorize is going to happen should the Holocaust come again.

 

Two comments this guy made stick with me, even 15 years later. One was that "We know who sold them their little toys, down to the last nut and bolt..." and "Don't think we're going to let the (epithet in Hebrew) bastards who built the ovens get away with it, this time...".

 

I don't think anyone really knows what's going to happen if Israel is seriously damaged or destroyed--Which ought to give serious pause to anyone thinking about selling to their enemies or who are thinking about trying it themselves.

 

I feel pretty certain in my guess that at least one thing that's going to happen if Israel gets pushed into the ocean: Egypt is going to get "flushed" to the same location. Aswan is just too much of a tempting and easy target. One properly-placed nuclear device, and Egypt is not going to have a population problem anymore...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would they care? Israel is dead, at that point. What have they got to lose? It's not like they're likely to be able to take refuge, and I doubt that anyone is going to be sending relief or aid to the Israelis in that situation, so why do you think they'd forego retaliation at the enablers of their enemies?

 

I had a long discussion on just this topic with a former professional Israeli officer I met. He was here in the US visiting some of his kids, and I've got to tell you, I left that discussion with an utter certainty that something like I theorize is going to happen should the Holocaust come again.

 

Two comments this guy made stick with me, even 15 years later. One was that "We know who sold them their little toys, down to the last nut and bolt..." and "Don't think we're going to let the (epithet in Hebrew) bastards who built the ovens get away with it, this time...".

 

I don't think anyone really knows what's going to happen if Israel is seriously damaged or destroyed--Which ought to give serious pause to anyone thinking about selling to their enemies or who are thinking about trying it themselves.

 

I feel pretty certain in my guess that at least one thing that's going to happen if Israel gets pushed into the ocean: Egypt is going to get "flushed" to the same location. Aswan is just too much of a tempting and easy target. One properly-placed nuclear device, and Egypt is not going to have a population problem anymore...

 

You do have a point there...

Link to post
Share on other sites

And, as I've made the point before, there's a damn reason they named their nuclear program after Samson. I am pretty sure that if Israel is annihilated, most of the urban centers in the Middle East are going to go with them, and there are going to be some targets in the European countries that armed and enabled their enemies, as well. If the Israelis ever really get their backs up against a wall, I'm pretty sure that those detailed target lists are going to get "leaked", just to let the various parties know what the hell they're screwing with. Citizens of European states who've stood by while their left-leaning governments and parties have vilified the Israelis might want to think about that, and consider how they're going to get along without many of their urban areas.

 

The Jews went along quietly to the camps, last time someone tried killing them off, relying on the humanity of their captors. That's not happening the next time someone tries it.

 

...................

I had a long discussion on just this topic with a former professional Israeli officer I met. He was here in the US visiting some of his kids, and I've got to tell you, I left that discussion with an utter certainty that something like I theorize is going to happen should the Holocaust come again.

 

Two comments this guy made stick with me, even 15 years later. One was that "We know who sold them their little toys, down to the last nut and bolt..." and "Don't think we're going to let the (epithet in Hebrew) bastards who built the ovens get away with it, this time...".

It would be something if the NATO BMD program meant to defend against Iranian missiles ended up shooting at Israeli missiles one day.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...