Here are a couple more articles relevant to this discussion:
Devoted and Defiant: MSN
Will Israel Strike Iran: MSN
[quote]brushga wrote:
vroom wrote:
Zap,
Perhaps you’d like to point to “quite a few places”?
I’m sure there is lots of speculation, especially in “some places”, but that isn’t enough to make it reality.
Let’s see some sources.
Here’s an article, but I think it’s archived.
http://www.time.com/time/archive/preview/0,10987,1093747,00.html
another
another
http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=302
another
another
another
http://www.thisisrumorcontrol.org/node/287
another
another
another
http://www.ncr-iran.org/content/view/782/1/
another
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/oct2005/nf2005104_6172_db056.htm
another
another
http://www.cfr.org/publication/8117/iraq.html%20)#1
another
http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=3807
another
http://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news/jid/jid050526_1_n.shtml
another
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4311072.stm
another
another
http://www.iranvajahan.net/cgi-bin/news.pl?l=en&y=2004&m=04&d=15&a=13
Hundreds more out there, just a matter of tracking them down. No one is really arguing that Iran is not supporting the insurgency, except Iranians.[/quote]
Damn, those are some sources all right. Good work brushga.
I for one believe that they are only interested in nuclear energy… . and I dont think you can use the copout “they have tons of oil” because they obviously know more about how much oil they have than you or the US and are thinking towards the future. …
if pakistan and india are allowed nuclear weapons then why the shit isnt Iran allowed nuclear fucking power?
[quote]vroom wrote:
Zap,
Perhaps you’d like to point to “quite a few places”?
I’m sure there is lots of speculation, especially in “some places”, but that isn’t enough to make it reality.
Let’s see some sources.[/quote]
Local newspaper, quite a few blogs. I think one of the new books I read on Afghanistan touched on the subject.
If I have time I will do a little searching on line to see if I can find anything.
Looks like I don’t need to show how involved the Iranians are.
[quote]Gl;itch.e wrote:
I for one believe that they are only interested in nuclear energy… [/quote]
You are not paying attention.
There are two basic types of nuclear reactors.
The reactors that are used solely to produce power do not refine the uranium enough for nuclear weapons.
Iran has the type of reactor that produces the refined uranium necessary for nuclear weapons. This is only necessary to produce nuclear weapons.
As if this obvious evidence wasn’t enough the UN inspectors recently found a highly classified paper that details how to build the weapon.
There is no doubt they intend to build weapons.
The President of Iran has also been quite clear and vocal about his intentions and ambitions.
[quote]Gl;itch.e wrote:
I for one believe that they are only interested in nuclear energy… . and I dont think you can use the copout “they have tons of oil” because they obviously know more about how much oil they have than you or the US and are thinking towards the future. …
if pakistan and india are allowed nuclear weapons then why the shit isnt Iran allowed nuclear fucking power? [/quote]
You’re right and you’re wrong. Iran presently has large oil reserves, but by most accounts those are due to run out in 20-30 years. Not too far away. And due to using oil exports to prop up its economy, Iran is actually a net importer of oil. But if you think they just want a peaceful nuclear power program, you’re really really naive.
Iran thinks the time is right.
With the US forces already spread thin in Iraq and Afghanistan (did anybody say “kudos to the kid emperor”?), and with Israel in a difficult political situation (upcoming elections, and Sharon down), they think they can pull it off.
And look on the situation from their side. They know they’re on Bush’s short list. They think they’re gonna get dirty with the US. So why not fight on their own terms, when the US is severely weakened and isolated (again, thanks to Georgy boy).
OR, they are just bargaining to get something in return.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Even the French have their panties in a wad over this situation. [/quote]
RJ,
Yeah. It is curious.
I’d like to think that the French are finally through playing the contrarian. But I suspect that they’re just afraid that we will fuck up their oil supply and maybe jepoardize repayment for all of the questionable stuff that France has been selling to Iran.
When the shit hits the fan, you count on France being first in line to start criticizing us and kissing Iran’s ass.
Vroom,
If this is a hijack, just say so & I’ll drop it. But this is the question that always comes to my mind whenever I contemplate the Iranian situation:
What right do we have to tell any sovereign nation that it’s OK for us to have nuclear weapons but not them?
Any justification I’ve ever heard essentailly boils down to some version of: We’re the good guys and they’re not.
As a rationale, that’s pretty weak. Does anyone really think that we wouldn’t be pissed as hell if the roles were reversed?
In reality, I think that the explanation is simply that it’s not in our national interest to let anyone else have nukes and we are going to exercise our power to protect those interests. Given the stakes, I am OK with being a bully. But I think we need to admit that’s what we’re doing.
We have to do everything possible to keep the Isrelis out of engagement. This will cause the biggest holy war we’ve seen…ever.
[quote]Wreckless wrote:
Iran thinks the time is right.
With the US forces already spread thin in Iraq and Afghanistan (did anybody say “kudos to the kid emperor”?), and with Israel in a difficult political situation (upcoming elections, and Sharon down), they think they can pull it off.
And look on the situation from their side. They know they’re on Bush’s short list. They think they’re gonna get dirty with the US. So why not fight on their own terms, when the US is severely weakened and isolated (again, thanks to Georgy boy).
OR, they are just bargaining to get something in return.[/quote]
Wreckless,
Iran more than likely does think that the time is right. However I think they are grossly underestimating the capabilities of the U.S. to take out everything nuclear whithin their borders and never have a boot hit the ground.
I think it was hedo that pointed out that our air power could not only take out their nuclear sites, but a shit ton of their troops as well if they decided to invade. This is in addition to the fact that their armor is not even close to being on par with ours if I’m not mistaken. I guess my point is that The US certainly doesn’t have to invade to accomplish our goals w/r/t Iran.
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
Iran thinks the time is right.
With the US forces already spread thin in Iraq and Afghanistan (did anybody say “kudos to the kid emperor”?), and with Israel in a difficult political situation (upcoming elections, and Sharon down), they think they can pull it off.
And look on the situation from their side. They know they’re on Bush’s short list. They think they’re gonna get dirty with the US. So why not fight on their own terms, when the US is severely weakened and isolated (again, thanks to Georgy boy).
OR, they are just bargaining to get something in return.
Wreckless,
Iran more than likely does think that the time is right. However I think they are grossly underestimating the capabilities of the U.S. to take out everything nuclear whithin their borders and never have a boot hit the ground.
I think it was hedo that pointed out that our air power could not only take out their nuclear sites, but a shit ton of their troops as well if they decided to invade. This is in addition to the fact that their armor is not even close to being on par with ours if I’m not mistaken. I guess my point is that The US certainly doesn’t have to invade to accomplish our goals w/r/t Iran.
[/quote]
I think you’re grossly overestimating the potential of airpower. Take a look at the story in Kosovo sometime, the NATO air campaign there did far, far less than was originally reported, and that was a long, sustained bombing campaign. The effect of airpower on an Iraqi army broken by sanctions and a previous war was much more effective than bombing Iran would be today, and even then, ground troops had to invade Iraq.
There’s been an American infatuation with airpower almost since the First World War, and it’s done serious harm to our national defense in my opinion. Sorry if that’s kind of a hijack.
[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
bigflamer wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
Iran thinks the time is right.
With the US forces already spread thin in Iraq and Afghanistan (did anybody say “kudos to the kid emperor”?), and with Israel in a difficult political situation (upcoming elections, and Sharon down), they think they can pull it off.
And look on the situation from their side. They know they’re on Bush’s short list. They think they’re gonna get dirty with the US. So why not fight on their own terms, when the US is severely weakened and isolated (again, thanks to Georgy boy).
OR, they are just bargaining to get something in return.
Wreckless,
Iran more than likely does think that the time is right. However I think they are grossly underestimating the capabilities of the U.S. to take out everything nuclear whithin their borders and never have a boot hit the ground.
I think it was hedo that pointed out that our air power could not only take out their nuclear sites, but a shit ton of their troops as well if they decided to invade. This is in addition to the fact that their armor is not even close to being on par with ours if I’m not mistaken. I guess my point is that The US certainly doesn’t have to invade to accomplish our goals w/r/t Iran.
I think you’re grossly overestimating the potential of airpower. Take a look at the story in Kosovo sometime, the NATO air campaign there did far, far less than was originally reported, and that was a long, sustained bombing campaign. The effect of airpower on an Iraqi army broken by sanctions and a previous war was much more effective than bombing Iran would be today, and even then, ground troops had to invade Iraq.
There’s been an American infatuation with airpower almost since the First World War, and it’s done serious harm to our national defense in my opinion. Sorry if that’s kind of a hijack.[/quote]
GD
Airpower can’t take ground but the recent effectiveness in Afganistan and Iraq cannot be overlooked. I’ll agree we are infatuated with airpower, but in the last few years the true potential has been realized with stealth technology, precision munitions and GPS targeting and guidance linked to high bandwith communication. The developments since 2000 have been revolutionary.
If it moves we can hit it, with one bomb. It’s a world of difference since the Balkans. That means all command and control, depots and massed forces have a very short lifespan. Same for naval forces and fixed military assets. Iranian air defense is good for the middle east. It’s rudimentry against the US or a European air force.
What this means is we can cripple their offensive capability, quickly. We can then choose to destroy any isolated forces. With a change in the rules of engagement we can also drive deeply into Iran. Yes we would have to mobilize ground forces to occupy the country but we don’t want to. We just don’t want them to have nuclear weapons because of their stated objectives.
It would be suicidal for the Iranians to take on the US. They know that. Whether they choose to so is really up to them.
[quote]hedo wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
bigflamer wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
Iran thinks the time is right.
With the US forces already spread thin in Iraq and Afghanistan (did anybody say “kudos to the kid emperor”?), and with Israel in a difficult political situation (upcoming elections, and Sharon down), they think they can pull it off.
And look on the situation from their side. They know they’re on Bush’s short list. They think they’re gonna get dirty with the US. So why not fight on their own terms, when the US is severely weakened and isolated (again, thanks to Georgy boy).
OR, they are just bargaining to get something in return.
Wreckless,
Iran more than likely does think that the time is right. However I think they are grossly underestimating the capabilities of the U.S. to take out everything nuclear whithin their borders and never have a boot hit the ground.
I think it was hedo that pointed out that our air power could not only take out their nuclear sites, but a shit ton of their troops as well if they decided to invade. This is in addition to the fact that their armor is not even close to being on par with ours if I’m not mistaken. I guess my point is that The US certainly doesn’t have to invade to accomplish our goals w/r/t Iran.
I think you’re grossly overestimating the potential of airpower. Take a look at the story in Kosovo sometime, the NATO air campaign there did far, far less than was originally reported, and that was a long, sustained bombing campaign. The effect of airpower on an Iraqi army broken by sanctions and a previous war was much more effective than bombing Iran would be today, and even then, ground troops had to invade Iraq.
There’s been an American infatuation with airpower almost since the First World War, and it’s done serious harm to our national defense in my opinion. Sorry if that’s kind of a hijack.
GD
Airpower can’t take ground but the recent effectiveness in Afganistan and Iraq cannot be overlooked. I’ll agree we are infatuated with airpower, but in the last few years the true potential has been realized with stealth technology, precision munitions and GPS targeting and guidance linked to high bandwith communication. The developments since 2000 have been revolutionary.
If it moves we can hit it, with one bomb. It’s a world of difference since the Balkans. That means all command and control, depots and massed forces have a very short lifespan. Same for naval forces and fixed military assets. Iranian air defense is good for the middle east. It’s rudimentry against the US or a European air force.
What this means is we can cripple their offensive capability, quickly. We can then choose to destroy any isolated forces. With a change in the rules of engagement we can also drive deeply into Iran. Yes we would have to mobilize ground forces to occupy the country but we don’t want to. We just don’t want them to have nuclear weapons because of their stated objectives.
It would be suicidal for the Iranians to take on the US. They know that. Whether they choose to so is really up to them.
[/quote]
hedo,
I think you’re still being way too sanguine here. I’m very skeptical about the “revolution in military affairs,” and still more so about this idea of Special Forces and airpower being the new way of war.
I realize the technology, especially in communications, has improved a great deal in the last five years, but I think the idea of airpower crippling a real country is still farfetched. Shock and awe did nothing of the sort. And even if airpower were to have a big effect on Iran, or cripple their nuclear program (which is HIGHLY unlikely), that’s not really the point.
Iranian retaliation wouldn’t be about conventional force, it would be about setting Shiite Iraq aflame (then we’re really screwed) and mining the Straits of Hormuz, which means zero oil leaving from Kuwait and the Gulf States. That’s a pretty bad scenario, and that’s just the tip of the iceberg.
You’re ex-armor or cavalry right? Don’t take this the wrong way, but I think a lot of people at that end of the Army sometimes have trouble seeing the forest for the trees, based on what I hear and read in the branch journal.
America is overwhelmingly powerful in applying conventional military force; if we have the manpower (more questionable these days thanks to the worst Secretary of Defense since McNamara) we can beat anyone anywhere. The insurgents in Iraq have never won a single direct fight of platoon size or above.
Our potential enemies, from Al Qaeda right down to the Chinese, understand this. Winning these wars, or outmaneuvering these countries, isn’t really about who we can kill and what we can destroy most of the time.
Thanks for the links. I did go into the first four or five. Though they are a bit speculative and they do a lot to ask questions about the scope of potential involvement.
That said, I’m not trying to say that they aren’t in some way involved. I’d be surprised if there wasn’t private involvement at the very least… given the nature of the situation over there.
Gd
Yes I was a platoon commander(armor).Good poimts about the irregular war. I will tell you I wasn’t a believer until after GWI and that was 15 years ago. They have only got better at it.
Shock and awe was a useful term during GW2. I think the Iraqi’s were quite shocked and awed at the speed they were overwhelmed. I also think we’ll pick the time and place of battle and we’ll prepare the field rather then the Iranians, if it ever comes to that.
As to a full scale war with the Iranians like I said we don’t have to occupy the country but we can cease all military activity and international commerce for them until it does cripple them. Will that be enough who knows? As for the straits again that’s a big if. I don’t think the Iranian Navy will last long enough to mine it.
Maybe it will do some damage but I don’t think they can project enough force to shut it down. They are weaker now then in the 80’s.
I hope the discussions are limited to arm chair strategists like ourselves. Sometimes diplomacy is most effective when the armies are at the brink.
You guys are all making great points. What worries me is that the Iranians are in bed with both the Russians and the Chinese, we all no you cant turn your back on the Russians, and for the Chinese, who knows, but that being said its still a U.S. and the Brits against the world scenario.
If anything ever happens, the French will run for the hills, and the Germans will stand pat, so hopefully we can get Israel to put a charge into them, so that we don`t have to do ALL the dirty work.
I think you are right though, that Iran is betting that since we are so stretched in Iraq right now, that 2 crisis situations simultaneously would be rough for our country to deal with from a political standpoint.
Solution:
Give them 24 hours to give it up or we hit 'em with cruise missles and the like…