| Submit your comments on this article |
| Syria-Lebanon-Iran |
| Sleepwalking Towards War Gives Iran's Economy the Jitters |
| 2005-09-24 |
| Posted by:BrerRabbit |
| #6 Anonymoose - Impressive scenario. I have wondered how we'd handle Iran, especially given there are real mountains we'd have to cross on the way to Tehran (from Iraq, anyway), someting we didn't face in Iraq. Like Mrs Davis, I'd choose the nuclear route (say, 2-300 warheads, being sure to hit the Chinese embassy in Tehran at least once... by accident). Sign it off at the UN as a contribution towards nuclear winter, to stave off global warming. ;) |
| Posted by: Laurence of the Rats 2005-09-24 22:33 |
| #5 Nice scenariao, Moose. I prefer a glass parking lot. pour l'encouragement d'autres |
| Posted by: Mrs. Davis 2005-09-24 21:30 |
| #4 Frank G: The Arab News had an interesting take on this the other day, and if they are correct, which they very may well be, the Iranians are working under the really awful assumption that we would attack them like we attacked Iraq in Gulf War I. Keeping this in mind, that they think they know exactly what we will do before we do it, they have undoubtedly come up with plans and contingencies to counter that strategy. And now, overconfident, they are acting belligerent in the hope of forcing us to act when they are ready, when presumably we are not. Unlike the Iraqis who set up a formidable defense at the border, the Iranians are most likely planning a defense in depth, figuring on bogging down a land advance from Iraq. They also intend to have their nuclear and missile resources very deeply underground, with advanced radar and SAM protection. Perhaps also they intend to leave their cities undefended, counting on American unwillingness to attack civilians. Possibly defended by irregulars, if for nothing else than to keep the citizenry in line. Then, as the Americans advance towards Tehran, like they did towards Bagdad in GWI, the Iranian government and military leaders will be bunkered deep underground far away. (This has already been suggested.) At that point, they would begin launching Shahab missiles from all over the country. They would hope that the Americans would freak out, not knowing if one or more were nuclear tipped, and would disperse its air forces trying to attack Shahab launchers, like it did attacking SCUD missile sites in GWI. And unlike the SCUDs, the Shahabs are far more accurate and have a much greater range. Their missile targetting would probably be indiscriminate, hoping that other countries would put pressure on the US. With the air cover diverted, then the Iranian army could concentrate and attack the US advance on the flanks. In complete concert with this, they have undoubtedly pre-positioned sabotage, assassination, and attack teams in locations around the world, hoping to ratchet up the chaos. This would be a reasonably effective, if not guaranteed defense, if the US did exactly what it did before. It will not. First of all, not knowing nuclear capabilities, it is critical that the entire nation be surrounded with anti-missile assets, in multi-layered defense. It would be vital to the US that not a single Iranian missile even make it to a lateral trajectory. If that mission alone is accomplished, then the US strategic goal is at least partially met. Next, like in GWI, the US would reduce the Iranian C&C, but not in the same way. The most effective way would be to seal the exits to their leadership bunker. Let the bunker become a tomb. Then I would suggest an airborne landing to secure Tehran with minimal violence. Any and every political leader still there would then be directed to order the surrender of the Iranian army and Revolutionary Guard. Jamming as needed would prevent countermanding orders from the buried bunker. The Iranian Army and RG will be distraught, not able to communicate and not knowing if they are the sole resistance to US ground forces. Any break in their defense in depth means encirclement and destruction to the remainder. US air forces continue to attack unabated... I'm sure that something like this would be among the dozens of possible scenarios being wargamed right now, based on real-time satellite and Humint. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2005-09-24 21:12 |
| #3 wonder if they think a stalemate-war will occur like last time? Forgetting Iraq has an Uncle very close by who also doesn't like smart-assed no-hat dickheads threatening them. Cruise-missile night attacks on leadership homes and owned properties might take some smack off their faces, eh? Find out what each and every Mad Mullah/Ex-student hostage-taker owns or controls in business and destroy it. Time for good targetting, CIA, prove yourself |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-09-24 15:13 |
| #2 "...Tehranâs new cocky attitude is seen by many as a sign that the Islamic Republic leadership is seeking a limited military confrontation with the United States and is confident that it can win it. Ibrahim Asgharzadeh, a leader of the âstudentsâ who seized the US embassy in Tehran in 1979, and a reserve officer of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRCG), claims that the new administration under Ahamdinejad is âactively seeking warâ. Similar warnings came from Rafsanjani and former President Muhammad Khatami in separate private meetings with foreign dignitaries in the region earlier this month. The dramatic militarization of the administration, partly by appointing IRCG officers to civilian posts throughout the country, adds weight to those warnings. There is also the fact that what looks like massive preparation for war is taking place in several provinces, especially on the border with Iraq." |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2005-09-24 13:44 |
| #1 I still think there'll be an internal conflict. |
| Posted by: Pappy 2005-09-24 12:06 |