| Submit your comments on this article |
| Syria-Lebanon-Iran |
| Iran sez they got a killing field waiting for the US |
| 2006-03-07 |
| Iran vowed on Monday to be a "killing field" for any attackers, responding to a US warning of "painful consequences" if it failed to curb its atomic plans. US Ambassador to the UN John Bolton said on Sunday his country had been "beefing up defensive measures" to thwart IranÂ’s nuclear programme, which the West suspects is a quest for atomic bombs, not just nuclear-generated electricity. Gholamali Rashid, deputy head of the armed forces, said the US did not understand how to operate in the Gulf region. "IranÂ’s armed forces, through their experience of war ...will turn this land into a killing field for any aggressor," the official IRNA news agency quoted him as saying. |
| Posted by:Dan Darling |
| #61 Well, you got into it pretty heavy at the end there, Joe. But I do agree that the Chicoms could use this coming battle with Iran to their advantage. It could also backfire in their faces. They have a long tenuous sealink with Iranian oil that they require to keep their economic engine alive. Stop Iran and 30% of their supply dries up. |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2006-03-07 22:39 |
| #60 The Rogues want People's War, among other things, becuz it draws America's volunteer/peacetime armed forces into regions away from the other "silent" battlefield, the NORTHERN PACIFIC and ALCAN/CANUSA, and TAIWAN. Wid Chinese moving into Russia's Far East, Japan is finding herself steadily surrounded, and despite Kimmie beating the NorKor-specific war drums its the Chicom PLAAF thats been busy buzzin Japanese airspace. China espec is heavily modernizing her Airborne forces [wid Russian help], as is Russia herself, WITH BOTH NATIONS ADHERING TO THE "LOCAL/WAR/ BATTLE ZONE" ANTI-US STRATEGEM, more popularly known as "SEIZE-AND-HOLD/RESTRAIN" ags the US ENEMY where local CONUS-NORAM areas are immed NUCLEARIZED and Russo-Sino milfors, vv fast air- and sealift suppor, engage in PC [nuclearized]active defense or [nuclearized]passive LOCAL defense. POLITICAL VICTORY/DIPLOMACY, i.e. the Clintons and Anti-American Americanists, have priority over per se battlefield/military victory. Waht more iff you have personages like MOTHER CINDY calling for the liberation, by local violence andor foreign intervention, of "occupied" NOLA and other American areas from Clintonian "Fascists are merely misguided defective imperfect Limited Communists/Socialists" Fascist Dubya and Male Brute/Monster = Male Dolt/Moron, Limited Commie GOP-Conservatives!? Arrogant =Incompetent Male Brute GOP Fascists whom don't want to be saved by Motherly Commies will be assimilated, or be exterminated. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2006-03-07 22:30 |
| #59 Iran will have to be stopped from acquiring nuclear weapons. They have threatened the US and they have threatened Israel. They have threatened the closure of the Straits of Hormuz, a strategic waterway supplying a huge amount of the world's oil needs. This would affect the economies of the Chicoms, Japan, Europe, a whole load of countries. Iran is also meddling in Iraq, trying to destroy some semblance of government. Iran is funding client states and orgs like Syria, Hamas, Hizb'allah and others. But the big issue is nuclear. Uranium, well, they can eventually make a gun-type U235 bomb. The biggest bottleneck is concentration. That is not insurmountable. They will not get Plutonium 239 without Bushehr on line, so they will have to get it from the Norks. A plutonium bomb will be the light enough device that is needed to fit on a Shahab-3 vehicle, which will be aimed at Israel. Or maybe they could sneak one with a proxy in Israel's neighborhood. Condi is publicly talking the State line--UNSC, IAEA, blah blah blah. That is her job. The President, VP Chaney, Rumsfeld, and a few others have said little about things, except that the M²s will not get nuclear weapons. I will take them at their word. There does not seem to be much in the line of troop movements. Prepositioning stocks can be quietly done. That could be already wrapped up. Diego Garcia is still there with the same BUFFs, B-2s are at DG or Whiteman AFB, like they usually are. The Reagan is mucking about in the WestPac, but maybe wandering toward the Persian Gulf. I'm sure that we have air assets already in Iraq who can deal with Iranian and Syrian mischief across the border. This show will happen and it's going to be an airpower and special ops show. I hope that the M² leadership and their assets are taken out in a overwhelming and massive attack. The ferocity of the attack will send a message to others that the M² behaviors will not be tolerated. The Donks better be behind this one, because if we are attacked, especially with WMD, there is going to be cry to have them treated like the traitors that they are, and we are not talking the nicities of a courtroom with time for lunch. Diplomacy will now be a cover for the real operaton. Diplomacy will accomplish nothing with the M²s. They truly believe that they are in the catbird seat. In the matter of nation building, it is our hope that some groups in Iran could take the lead in getting the country away from its destructive, extremist bent. I am not real optimistic about that. The country has too many factions. It will require an authoritarian govt to do this. The first step will be to take the power away from the clerics, and they are not going to go down without a fight. That seems to me one of the reasons why the Shah fell. Civil law trumped Sharia. M²s don't like civil law. It cramps their style. So it all comes down to decapitating the M² leadership. All else follows from that. |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2006-03-07 22:19 |
| #58 Whatever happens, when it happens, if Qom is not removed along with the MMs .... It will repeat forever. That's why I mention non-traditional methods in other posts. orgies in the streets would go a long way toward removing any respect in Qom |
| Posted by: 3dc 2006-03-07 22:00 |
| #57 I'm afraid the only thing to galvanize the folks in the old USA will be a nuclear detonation in the old USA. And I live 15 miles from the White House. Not enough people take the threat seriously. Some don't care, if they can make a few points for their personal point of view. BUT - it'll all work out in the end. Or not. |
| Posted by: Bobby 2006-03-07 21:50 |
| #56 |
| Posted by: .com 2006-03-07 21:17 |
| #55 your Joe six-pack, that mythical American, is already to go from 1979. W and forces are building the public case and diplo case for action. I do not think our CIA's estimates are reliable enough, but what else do you go on. I firmly believe W has no intention of passing this problem on to his succesor - timeline accordingly |
| Posted by: Frank G 2006-03-07 20:37 |
| #54 Thanks for #42, Zen. No thanks needed, .com. Some issues simply transcend all partisan and ideological boundaries. Iran's possession of nuclear weapons is one of them and so is the global war on terrorism. While some might debate the criticality of Iraq's invasion, it is a done deal and must be given proper follow-through. If anything, Iraq has been a stalking horse to out Islam's real intentions and methods. These are now clear and only fools can pretend that Islam is a religion of peace. The democratic party's irrational opposition to all things Bush has blinded it to the critical issue of our national security. That their naked greed for power allows them to disregard what should be a unanimous position by all and sundry with respect to fighting terrorism has appropriately marginalized them and their rudderless platform. Both sides of the aisle continue to sip at the Kool-Aid of moral relativism. Witness how Democratic liberals and Republican fundamentalists alike have moronically thrown over our freedom of speech regarding the cartoon issue. Everyone and their mother should instantly have seen how corrosive to global liberty is Islam's insistence upon preferential censorship solely for their religion. It is the camel's nose in the tent and once the whole critter is inside all that remains is for it to evacuate its bowels upon us. This is what awaits and only fools and drooling idiots can possibly ignore it. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2006-03-07 20:29 |
| #53 "Iran regards nuclear weapons as merely a bigger and better sort of bomb vest. [...] The mullahs and Ahmadinejad are apocalyptic madmen who have told themselves the big lie so many times that it is now truth to them. The sooner they are all dead, the safer this world is." Dang. If nothing else makes this thread a Keeper™, that paragraph does. Sums it all up, nice and compact-like... |
| Posted by: Thoth Theash6328 2006-03-07 20:10 |
| #52 We'll need a few hunter / killer teams, Zen. Some will be in Switzerland (or similar) when the balloon goes up. :-) Then we can bring them home. There is much work to be done here. |
| Posted by: .com 2006-03-07 20:04 |
| #51 Certainly the US has opted for the high ground in almost all cases - we waited to be attacked before acting. Those days ended with nukes and biowarfare. Yup, .com. We're in a whole 'nuther ballgame. Now it's for keeps and gets real, real messy if even one ball goes foul. America must shift to a pre-emptive strategy and pursue its opponents on foreign soil wherever possible. I also think that Bush is rightfully empowered to determine that Iran is a direct threat to national security and order action taken without congressional approval. Iran has already done enough things to constitute a declaration of war on their own part. We would merely be returning the favor. Ahmadenijad doesn't even care if Iran is attacked, so long as he can destroy Israel first -- like bin Laden, he believes this violence will bring Allah (or perhaps the 12th Mullah) to fight at the side of his legions. Iran regards nuclear weapons as merely a bigger and better sort of bomb vest. From all indications, they intend to annihilate Israel even if it comes at the cost of Iran's immolation. It is my firm belief that by attacking Iran we are quite easily saving it from a much more dreadful consequence of its insane leadership. The mullahs and Ahmadinejad are apocalyptic madmen who have told themselves the big lie so many times that it is now truth to them. The sooner they are all dead, the safer this world is. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2006-03-07 20:01 |
| #50 Ahmadenijad doesn't even care if Iran is attacked, so long as he can destroy Israel first -- like bin Laden, he believes this violence will bring Allah (or perhaps the 12th Mullah) to fight at the side of his legions. The above tells the entire story. I don't know why anyone believes that anything can be "negotiated" at this stage when its quite apparent that Iran has played a "stall-for-time-to-complete" game from the outset. |
| Posted by: Crusader 2006-03-07 19:34 |
| #49 Word, TT. |
| Posted by: .com 2006-03-07 19:19 |
| #48 "I don't pretend to know what's in his head, but things may be worse than we think - he may already be hog-tied into near-catatonic lameduck status because he's been informed, unambiguously, that he hasn't the legislative support to do much of anything." Consider: given the political grief Bush has taken for his democratization campaign in Iraq, what is the probability that either he or any future President is going to repeat that strategy anywhere else? My guess is the probability is zip-point-shit. Thanks to the Dummycrats, the response to the next terrorist attack on U.S. soil (pray there is none) will be all or nothing: either Euro-style, craven self-abasement, or we'll nuke the sonsabitches. "Dunno who gets the credit for Frist and the slew of RINO assholes. Maybe they were bought off one at a time. Maybe they were always assholes with no guts, no vision, and cowering cowards." Someone here, in the last day or two, commented that the Republicans are damn lucky they don't have a real political party opposing them. Whoever it was, I think he/she was right. "Payback to the Dhimmidonks will come. Hard. It will be ugly, methinks." The current trajectory, if it continues indefinitely, will sooner or later lead to civil war. God help us if it does. |
| Posted by: Thoth Theash6328 2006-03-07 19:15 |
| #47 I hate to say it, liberalhawk, but Iran will never be on the receiving end of sanctions with teeth, no more than Saddam Hussein was. Less even, because the world went through that once before, and the cheaters noticed that they gained more from subverting the sanctions than they lost by being caught in the Oil for Food revelations. And Iran has recently signed lucrative contracts/bribes with China, Russia and France, and is trying for Germany. Ahmadenijad doesn't even care if Iran is attacked, so long as he can destroy Israel first -- like bin Laden, he believes this violence will bring Allah (or perhaps the 12th Mullah) to fight at the side of his legions. Finally, I don't think we can live with a post-Mullacracy Iran having nuclear weapons. There are plenty of crazies there outside of the Mullahs who would be happy to use what they see as a bigger hand grenade in their internecine quarrels, not to mention thoe who want to play their own Great Game against Afghanistan, Pakistan, Israel, Iraq, and other places I'm not imaginative enough to think of, let alone against the Evil West. Not all those marching against the Danish cartoons were "tools or fools". There are still plenty who believe the Caliphate is coming, with or without the Mad Mullahs, and they want to be the ones wearing that golden turban. I was glad of the details in lotp's link yesterday about the lockdown of Pakistan's nukes. I'm not as sanguine, in my greater ignorance, because it appears to me that the precautions listed only ensure that the nukes cannot be used without the agreement of the Pakistani head of State, not that their use is prevented altogether. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2006-03-07 19:05 |
| #46 "A mess easily avoided." Via the Bully Pulpit? Yep - and the process has begun. Bush. Cheney. Rice. Bolton. All have made statements in the last 3 days. Today, Bush pushed it up a notch to say, after meeting with the asshole Lavrov playing the Russian triangulation card, that Iran should not be allowed to enrich Uranium - EVER. The education of the US Public is underway. |
| Posted by: .com 2006-03-07 19:03 |
| #45 .com, I'm not definitive about the President's power to order it, but it should be considered that the bombing campaign would take many days. If W did not have the critters on record, the Schumer, Kennedy, Boxers would head right for the microphones to denounce his unilateral action and to introduce legislation to condemn the bombing. The Snowes, Collins, Chaffees and Specters would demand a lot not to vote with the donks. Perhaps more than a lame duck can afford to pay. It would be a two front war with out an Iranian attack or a prior approval. A lot of Generals would get messages about how thier pet projects would fare in a Donk congress if they went along with "illegal" orders. A mess easily avoided. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-03-07 18:59 |
| #44 Thanks for #42, Zen. He's going to need every friend he can get - because I disagree with NS: he can order the military to act. I haven't a bunch of historical links to offer, but you know this has been done, before. Congress has attempted, over the last few decades, to limit Presidential powers. Their attempts haven't been challenged in court, so no one can say whether they've over-stepped or not. But the is ample precedent for Presidents unilaterally acting where National Security is at stake. After the fact is where the second-guessers and partisans get their moment in infamy recorded. Certainly the US has opted for the high ground in almost all cases - we waited to be attacked before acting. Those days ended with nukes and biowarfare. Just my quick take. |
| Posted by: .com 2006-03-07 18:51 |
| #43 It's a sad situation, TT. Our public institutions, particularly the Press, Education, and two party system, are nearly totally dysfunctional. I agree with you regards Bush, I think. Much has been made about him not jumping on every issue and pounding away from the Bully Pulpit. I've heard and read much, both in the news, blogs, and here on the 'Burg. I don't pretend to know what's in his head, but things may be worse than we think - he may already be hog-tied into near-catatonic lameduck status because he's been informed, unambiguously, that he hasn't the legislative support to do much of anything. That the Dhimmidonks have succeeded in their campaign to derail the US Govt until they can regain power probably has worked, in the derail part, anyway. Knocking off DeLay was pretty big - no doubt that Earle down in Austin is now a "made man". Dunno who gets the credit for Frist and the slew of RINO assholes. Maybe they were bought off one at a time. Maybe they were always assholes with no guts, no vision, and cowering cowards. Bush has only fought hard for WoT issues and the SCOTUS nominees, recently. I thank him for those. I think he will stop the MMs - and thank him for his efforts toward that end. I wonder at the rest. Payback to the Dhimmidonks will come. Hard. It will be ugly, methinks. |
| Posted by: .com 2006-03-07 18:45 |
| #42 The MMs have been a major thorn in our side, and a steadily growing menace, for more than a quarter-century. Whoever gets rid of them, will be long remembered for having done A Very Good Thing. Absolutely. My dislike for Bush is well known hereabouts, but this I vow. I will oppose any impeachment attempt based upon Bush attacking Iran, with or without congressional approval. I will demonstrate in the street and employ whatever speaking skills I have to persuade everyone I know with respect to this vital issue. America at large continues to be relatively blind regarding the threat we are confronted with. If Bush can summon the wisdom to unilaterally dismantle Iran's clandestine nuclear weapons program, he will have my full support and defense from any repercussions in any way I can. As I have said many times before, Iran obtaining nuclear weapons would go down in history as one of the most catastrophic events of this new century. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2006-03-07 18:41 |
| #41 It's also becoming clearer that Bush means to do what he has to do, with or without the US Congress's specific approval. That would place the Chm JCS and CentCom commander in a very delicate position. Bush might get SOCOM to quietly provoke an Iranian action that would demand an un-approved response, but that's mostly for novels. I doubt Bush moves without Congress. My great concern is that Bush is doing so little to prep the American people for this. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-03-07 18:35 |
| #40 I cannot say whether, pushed to the wall, by sanctions that bit, the MMS would cut a deal. You'll feel a whole lot better once you rid yourself of the pesky notion that Iran's mullahs are either rational or ethical. There is no negotiating with Iran. There is stalling, deception, prestidigitation and every other sort of diplomatic deceit imaginable, but you have to be deluding yourself if you think that any sort of substantive progress can be made through negotiations with Iran. The mullahs have one object in mind, and that is to further entrench themselves in power with respect to Iran and the Middle East. Only one thing will do that, namely, nuclear weapons. There is no other diplomatic or political alternative which will achieve those ends. Therefore, Iran will do whatever it takes to keep up the ruse of cooperating with the outside world while it unabatedly pursues development of nuclear weapons. To think that anything else is going on requires smoking immense amounts of rope. Iran's people can suffer now to a much more limited extent, or they can possibly all die at once when Iran is glassed over in retaliation for them passing out atom bombs like party favors. I'll go with the less catastrophic alternative, and especially the one that disallows for America getting one of its major metropolitan areas flattened. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2006-03-07 18:33 |
| #39 "It's also becoming clearer that Bush means to do what he has to do, with or without the US Congress's specific approval." My hunch: Bush will take out the Mad Mullahs and wreck their nuclear toys, even if it means almost certain impeachment AND conviction. What with all the bullshit that's been slung by the Dhimmicrats (and by a number of squishyish Republicans) during the course of this war, I suspect Bush has largely let go of the need for contemporary approval and resigned himself to letting history be his ultimate judge. The MMs have been a major thorn in our side, and a steadily growing menace, for more than a quarter-century. Whoever gets rid of them, will be long remembered for having done A Very Good Thing. |
| Posted by: Thoth Theash6328 2006-03-07 18:30 |
| #38 And you, too, TT. Agree 100% with your take. |
| Posted by: .com 2006-03-07 18:17 |
| #37 Overlapped with you, NS... |
| Posted by: .com 2006-03-07 18:09 |
| #36 lh - You raise "issues" which are at least as much "tissues" (read: Kleenex) as substantive. I see very little actual substance in your response. Timeline - we will go when we think they are ready to go. Every minute more is to our advantage - both in planning and in building up relationships with those who are not part of or sympathetic to the MMs. Somebody will take over, maybe the whole, maybe in part, what is now called Iran after the regime is toppled. We will want the best possible relationship with them that is possible. The oil must resume flowing as soon as possible to minimize the economic effects. "Whats so special about Iran, once the loons are gone?" Think about this one much before you posted? Consider the effects this would have regards the GCC. "Waiter, there's a fly in my soup! Shhh - everyone will want one!" In the primary oil-producing region of the world... Um, this is an incredibly naive view. This is, also, Persia and Arabia we're talking about. This is Shi'aLand and SunniLand. This is an incredibly bad idea. Think about it. "turning off the electric and water has consequences" So does a demonstrably insane bunch getting a nuke. Life is hard. It's a LOT harder if you're stupid and dangerous. The consequences are trivial compared to the threat - and every avenue must be used to advantage in removing it. Period. "Some very serious people say this is not so easy to do from the air." Some "very serious people" say other things, too, which are based upon personal finances, self-promotion, partisan political considerations, and other less than honest, less than rational motives. You have presented no argument here, just restated the doubts to make your view seem reasonable. "In this case diplomacy and soft power means herding the cats at the UN to get sanctions, so that we "attack" the regime on multiple fronts - at the same time we're subverting them, the sanctions are hitting their economy." Sanctions. Sheesh. Right. The MMs are pissing themselves -- with laughter. Pure tissue paper. They have massive oil income to steal, disburse and subvert, and buy off. Do you really think they can't keep their population in check, save the occasional "Hit Me!" guys, with it? C'mon, you're not being realistic. "Id be very cautious about claiming what it would do." Okay. Be cautious. Cool. Do you really doubt that pulling the money source for Hezbollah, just for example, wouldn't have a major effect in Israel, Leb, and Syria? Just that one thing? Cheney, today, reiterated the crystal-clear message: The Iranians will not have nukes. This indicates, to me, anyway, that the heavy-lifting is already well underway and there is a fair level of confidence. Is it misplaced? Should they be taking their cues from you or others who counsel far more caution? There is absolutely nothing to indicate they aren't being careful. You can bet the military people are being very very careful regards what they are promising. No matter what happens, they, and the ones they made promises to, will still be around after it's over... so they aren't putting their careers on the line in some macho display. It's also becoming clearer that Bush means to do what he has to do, with or without the US Congress's specific approval. The latitude a President has, regards National Security, is vary much an open question. He could easily be impeached for acting without specific approval. But that is no more than being indicted in a political court. Conviction in said impeachment hearings is where the rubber meets the road. That won't happen. Most of what impedes the US is partisan political pandering and whoring. Impeach away. It will speed the day that the traitors will be dealt with. |
| Posted by: .com 2006-03-07 18:09 |
| #35 LH, were you finished? You're remarks end with .com's. The timing for an operation, if we initiate it, is the next 15 months. My reasons for this are driven by the political calendar. If we initiate attack absent Iranian attack, Bush needs Congressional approval. His only chance for that is to squeeze the critters by making them vote prior to the November '06 elections. Bush will do this, if he can, because he doesn't want to leave Iran for the next guy or, especially, gal. But if he gets approval but hasn't done it by June of '07, he's now into the NH primary campaign season and policy become a political football for every wacko running, including Mother Sheehan, JFK and the Deaniac, not to mention McCain's opportunity to get even for past slights. Absent an attack, Bush will not be able to strike with any hope of an appearance of national unity under such circumstances. So, I think he has to get permission by October and act by May. Otherwise, the Iranians will be the big tester of the next President's cojones. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-03-07 18:04 |
| #34 "Dropping the hammer on Iran will actually remove a serious impediment to Iraq's development. Let's get it fucking done." Bingo. That, right there, is (to me, anyway) the second biggest reason to whack Ahmamadnutjob and his cronies-- a very close second, right behind breaking all his expensive and dangerous toys. To the extent that turning Iraq into some semblance of a peaceful, productive state has been a difficult task, much of that difficulty has been due to Iran's interference. Faster, please... |
| Posted by: Thoth Theash6328 2006-03-07 18:00 |
| #33 "Time won't allow for a thorough and comprehensive coordination with the people living in Iran who want the Mullahs gone. That sucks, but averaging out all the timelines bandied about" I dont know what the timeline to an Iranian bomb is. I hope the admin knows better than I do. Trent Telenko said a month ago that the Iranians would test one by spring. Im waiting. "2) It seems that a fair-sized chunk of those who do want the MMs gone, still want the nukes. That's a non-starter. DOA." well im not sure about that - we can live with an Indian bomb, and a Paki bomb. Whats so special about Iran, once the loons are gone? Second, assuming a general improvement in US-Iran relations, and the whole ME with the MMs gone, i think the motivation for nukes goes down alot. "4) Killing off / neutralizing the regime and the elements that maintain it in power is not as tough as some seem to be thinking - for reasons others have pointed out (eg isolating them, No C&C, No Air, disabling important goodies, such as electricity and water) and can be done via air." Like I said, turning off the electric and water has consequences. Big consequences. We need to think through them. "5) Stopping the nuke program dead in its tracks, first, is accomplished the same way. Remove required resources (water, elec) and seal up every rathole we can find. Then, once the chain is broken, then reduce at will. What's to stop us bombing the same deeply buried facility 10x? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Stop the processes, and pound them into tombs or rubble." Some very serious people say this is not so easy to do from the air. Im not inclined to wave this off. I hope there smart people in the Pentagon thinking about how to do this. If they say it can be done, this is something the President can consider. If they say it cant be done, I would hope the President doesnt decide to do it anyway. ") Diplomacy and soft power. LOL. A negotiation requires two participants. There never was, nor will there ever be, two sincere parties at the diplodinkywinky table. The EU3 may have been serious (who the fuck knows with all the disingenuous duplicity afoot in that venue?), but the MMs never were. Wotta total fucking idea suggestion - and this has been clear as day for YEARS. Sheesh. Talk about a stuck on stupid notion..." My suggestion about soft power was more general, in reply to Zensters comment about the many places troops are needed. I cannot say whether, pushed to the wall, by sanctions that bit, the MMS would cut a deal. For the sake of argument, lets assume they wont. In this case diplomacy and soft power means herding the cats at the UN to get sanctions, so that we "attack" the regime on multiple fronts - at the same time we're subverting them, the sanctions are hitting their economy. Everyone poopoohing the chance of revolution is basing it on the political situation NOW - Iran needs loads of new jobs every month to keep the unemployment rate from soaring. What does the political situation look like when the urban poor, Ahmadinajeds base, is facing high and rising unemployment? Due to sanctions that (as our new Farsi TV will tell them every day) could easily have been avoided? Fun times in Teheran. "Taking down Iran will cause oil supply grief for awhile, but it will do soooo much that's positive in the WoT, from Israel to Lebanon to Syria to Iraq - the payoff is huge. And it will sure as shit put the Saudis on notice that ending terror support is something we're damned serious about..." Id be very cautious about claiming what it would do. It could do lots of good things we cant predict. It could do lots of bad things we cant predict. IMHO taking them down by subversion, rather than air attack, would do more of the good things, and less of the bad things. The only reason I can think of for doing the air attack is IF we are convinced they are about to get a working nuke. And like I said, even then the military aspects require review. In addition to correcting mistakes in my take, there's lots more that people who are more current on mil options and planning can speak to. This will happen. Period. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2006-03-07 17:30 |
| #32 Geez. Sorry for all the typos. |
| Posted by: .com 2006-03-07 17:12 |
| #31 Heh. Something's totally wrong with this discussion... We'll put boots on the ground in very FEW places. There, that's better. We don't wanna own it, we wanna break it*. * = The Nuke Program and the MM regime. A few points: 1) Time won't allow for a thorough and comprehensive coordination with the people living in Iran who want the Mullahs gone. That sucks, but averaging out all the timelines bandied about and the unknowns of the quality and tenacity of resistance make it extremely unlikely. 2) It seems that a fair-sized chunk of those who do want the MMs gone, still want the nukes. That's a non-starter. DOA. 3) What boots we employ will be most likely used to keep certain infrastructure bits, the tough to replace bits, intact. That would include Kharg Island, key refineries, key distribution junctions, etc. 4) Killing off / neutralizing the regime and the elements that maintain it in power is not as tough as some seem to be thinking - for reasons others have pointed out (eg isolating them, No C&C, No Air, disabling important goodies, such as electricity and water) and can be done via air. 5) Stopping the nuke program dead in its tracks, first, is accomplished the same way. Remove required resources (water, elec) and seal up every rathole we can find. Then, once the chain is broken, then reduce at will. What's to stop us bombing the same deeply buried facility 10x? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Stop the processes, and pound them into tombs or rubble. 6) The naval exploits they seem to be planning, closing off Hormuz, attacking US naval assets, etc. most likely come down to who is prepared first and who shoots first. If we know what they have, where it is, have a solid warplan with a high % of success, and we pull the trigger first, then they've been wanking for nothing. If they pull the trigger first, then the question is: Are our naval assets that vulnerable? Can a WW-II era military with just a few bits of semi-current tech reduce the US Navy to smoking hulks? If so, then there should be a LOT of Admirals dangling from DC lampposts. And it won't stop us from doing everything else on the US warplan that wasn't dependent upon the Navy. Which easily ends the regime and the nuke program. 7) What about attacks on Iraq? Whatever warplan is profferred will have targets identified - missile launch positions, near-border troop concentrations, and a laundry list of other similar Iranian mil assets. I won't pretend to know the minutia, but I certainly trust we have those who do right in the middle of the planning. WIll they create some grief? Yeah. They've been doing it since Day One, in fact. Dropping the hammer on Iran will actually remove a serious impediment to Iraq's development. Let's get it fucking done. 8) Diplomacy and soft power. LOL. A negotiation requires two participants. There never was, nor will there ever be, two sincere parties at the diplodinkywinky table. The EU3 may have been serious (who the fuck knows with all the disingenuous duplicity afoot in that venue?), but the MMs never were. Wotta total fucking idea suggestion - and this has been clear as day for YEARS. Sheesh. Talk about a stuck on stupid notion... Taking down Iran will cause oil supply grief for awhile, but it will do soooo much that's positive in the WoT, from Israel to Lebanon to Syria to Iraq - the payoff is huge. And it will sure as shit put the Saudis on notice that ending terror support is something we're damned serious about... In addition to correcting mistakes in my take, there's lots more that people who are more current on mil options and planning can speak to. This will happen. Period.  My take. |
| Posted by: .com 2006-03-07 17:08 |
| #30 I figured the link may have been played before, but some things deserve repeat if only for vetting purposes. Here's the link from last week. Obviously, Hamid Reza Zakeri, deserves a shake or two as a source. I recall him being discussed here after his testimony was used in the german 9/11 trial. Captain's Quarters has some good treatment of the subject here and here. Long and short, CIA calls him a serial fabricator, and Timmerman a dupe. Timmerman is unable to get answers why. |
| Posted by: chthus 2006-03-07 17:03 |
| #29 they use Paleos and other Arabs as the Basij - the forces that keep down the University protests and street riots. The goons are less liable to turn on their masters, and more likely to be ruthless with the sheeple |
| Posted by: Frank G 2006-03-07 16:36 |
| #28 Zenster said: "Chthus, the article you link to was already posted here days ago." So what, Zenster. Don't be such a snob. I didn't get a chance to see it. So-- thanks chthus, for an informative link, which I've copied to my files. From the article: "The defector, Hamid Reza Zakeri, warned the CIA in July 2001 that Iran was preparing a massive attack on America using Arab terrorists flying airplanes, which he said was planned for Sept. 11, 2001. The CIA dismissed his claims and called him a fabricator." I've never heard of the IRANIAN link -- i.e., Iranians USING Arabs to do the big stuff. Anyone else? |
| Posted by: ex-lib 2006-03-07 15:58 |
| #27 Diplomatic channels are for long duration political processes. What is happening in Iran is no such thing. Islamism represents such an overarching threat, especially in terms of sneaking through a single nuclear terrorist attack upon American soil, that much shorter term solutions must be found. Crippling and otherwise incapacitating the various centers of Islamist terrorism is critical to our agenda of self-defense. Our open borders and low security ports cannot be sufficiently tightened in a short enough amount of time to intercept such a dire, yet difficult to detect, threat. We must go out to where the threat is being grown and cripple it in situ. Iran is merely the most prominent and vocal of these hazards. Many more exist than we have the military to spare for. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2006-03-07 15:31 |
| #26 LH - A worthy hope, but soft power is no power at all in the face of their determined effort to obtain nuclear weapons. Better to break things now, put boots on the ground ONLY to ensure that the right things are well and truely broken, and then get out and let the Iranians sort it out. If we wait, we will end up killing hugh numbers of people throughout the ME in retaliation. Just my thoughts. |
| Posted by: SR-71 2006-03-07 15:15 |
| #25 "Collapse the state" is a good term and Iran is uniquely vulnerable in that respect, because almost the entire country is mountainous and is therefore critically dependent on infrastructure at key points to hold it together. The US won't invade Iran. What it may well do is punitive strikes against infrastructure. The Slovene lesson is that the Slovenes attacked and took control of dozens of Yugoslav Army facilities and the Yugoslavs found helicopter and armoured forces sent to relieve them were stopped by lightly armed forces. The Yugoslavs then (as DB points out) decided to use their forces to defend Serb populated areas. Will Iran do the same over Kurdistan? I find the parallels are strong and the differences heavily stacked against Iran; longer distances, hostile states on its borders with populations sympathetic to Iran's minorities, lack of a capable airforce. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2006-03-07 15:10 |
| #24 Shoot the pig, then make pork chops. |
| Posted by: mojo 2006-03-07 14:57 |
| #23 "liberalhawk, in how many places will we have to put boots on the ground? The list is endless. " which is why i advocate 1. doing more with soft power, diplomacy, economics, and NOT overrelying on military force 2. Using subversion/revolution rather than relying on conventional war 3. Being smart politically and diplomatically (and yeah, chilling on the antimuslim stuff) so we can use more locals and not need so many boots when we nation build 4. Being "multilateralist" so we can include more foreigners, to stretch our available forces 5. expand our ground forces. All that said, I agree there will be times and places when going in to break things on a large scale will be the best strategy. I just dont see that being the case in Iran, at least not yet. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2006-03-07 14:52 |
| #22 liberalhawk, in how many places will we have to put boots on the ground? The list is endless. At some point we will have to resort to aerial attack and simply "break things" without fixing them afterwards. I advocate a phased attack that pre-empts their nuclear program without snuffing the entire oil production network. If continued resistance is offered, then we go in and choke off Kharg Island and cripple Iran's economy. I'd prefer this to be accompanied by eliminating as much of the leadership as possible. Whether they cluster up for us or not, we need to locate and terminate them wherever possible. I really don't see a lot of other options. Iran is just one of numerous targets. It is only their nuclear program that gives them any special status or priority. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2006-03-07 14:20 |
| #21 Wow - they've figured out how to manufacture a "killing field" at 20,000 feet? Or even 1,000 feet? This I gotta see.... |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2006-03-07 14:09 |
| #20 "Points in no particular order: --Iran will not reform itself. The dictatorship of the Mullas has too firm a grip, and too much local support." I dont know how firm their grip really is. I think its clear at least some of the ethnic minorities are deeply alienated. Im virtually certain that the middle and upper classes of Teheran are alienated. I dont know how solid the support is beyond that, esp if the economy goes down the tubes. "What Iranian resistance to the Mullocracy there is, is nowhere near vicious enough." I know im in the minority here, but im not convinced vicious always translates into effective, whether in opposition or in power. " They remind me of Claus Schenk Graf von Stauffenberg, who was too high-minded to blow himself up with Hitler, and who paid for his high standards by missing his target and being tortured to death besides." Iran is not Nazi Germany. Heck, its not Saddamite Iraq. While its a dictatorship, there seems to be more space for opposition to exist than in a totalitarian regime. "-- Iran is not a house of cards. The death throes of the terror regime there will be painful for many, and there is no way to escape that, whether the rest of us do anything or not. " I dont know if Phil B meant to imply that an Iranian implosion would be bloodless. I certainly dont think it would be. "-- Take out anything resembling Iranian nuclear facilities, turn off the Iranian electrical grids, make as much of Iran a no-fly zone as possible. The object would not be to kill Iranians, but to break things and interfere to the largest degree possible with the ability of the Iranian terror masters to cause trouble outside their country, especially with nukes. " I think we know by know that turning off the electric grid means lots of civilians will die, whether we intend it or not. If we're gonna do that we need to be prepared to live with the consequences, from the reaction of those Iranians who used to support us, to world opinion. "-- Will this be a "huge, long-term" gain"? I doubt it. The perfect is the enemy of the practical. Huge long-term gains will only come from huge long-term efforts, such as the Cold War (aka WW III) was with respect to the Evil Empire. Doing nothing will give Islamic terrorists a new nuclear deterrent, which would threaten to put Persian Gulf oil facilities off-line for decades, checkmating Iraqi civilization-building efforts, and providing al Qaeda a refuge the West won't be able to touch, not to mention providing yet another opportunity for Islamic fascists to inflict a massive suicide attack on the west." Until the Iranians are on the point of actually having at least one working nuke, this is a net loss scenario, im quite sure. Definitely inferior to the diplomacy/sanction/subversion/revolution approach. When they ARE on the point of nukes, the two approaches need to be compared again. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2006-03-07 13:53 |
| #19 if you do the rinse and repeat option without boots on the ground, you increase the chances that some of the nuke program is left over, for the next govt (likely very hostile) to build on. I doubt all our enemies are in the majlis - I suspect most are out in the Rev Guards leadership, etc. Certainly once youve done this once they wont all be in one place again - you cant repeat at least that aspect. Basically you get something like Taliban run Afghanistan, except larger. I suspect you'll get terror attacks, etc galore from them. (I would suggest that the rinsing and repeating will harm our relations with friendly govs around the world - who may not like Iran, but are gonna have difficulties with this policy) The alternative is, as Phil B implies, to work hard on bringing down the house of cards. Dot com seems skeptical it will fall without a conventional attack, at least any time soon. Im certainly in no position to deny that, but I still think that that course(together with pursuing whatever sanctions we can get) is the best of some bad options - and that a conventional attack should not be implemented until things are more "imminent". (which doesnt mean we shouldnt rattle the sabres from time to time - the fear of the consequences of a US attack is a big part of the motivation for everyone else to go along at the UNSC) |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2006-03-07 13:44 |
| #18 Points in no particular order: --Iran will not reform itself. The dictatorship of the Mullas has too firm a grip, and too much local support. What Iranian resistance to the Mullocracy there is, is nowhere near vicious enough. They remind me of Claus Schenk Graf von Stauffenberg, who was too high-minded to blow himself up with Hitler, and who paid for his high standards by missing his target and being tortured to death besides. -- Iran is not a house of cards. The death throes of the terror regime there will be painful for many, and there is no way to escape that, whether the rest of us do anything or not. -- Foreign boots on Iranian ground is definitely not an option. So much territory. So few boots. -- Take out anything resembling Iranian nuclear facilities, turn off the Iranian electrical grids, make as much of Iran a no-fly zone as possible. The object would not be to kill Iranians, but to break things and interfere to the largest degree possible with the ability of the Iranian terror masters to cause trouble outside their country, especially with nukes. -- If local non-Iranian oil facilities are subject to Iranian attack, take out all Iranian oil import and export facilities. At some point the West will have to endure the pains of oil withdrawal syndrome. -- Will this be a "huge, long-term" gain"? I doubt it. The perfect is the enemy of the practical. Huge long-term gains will only come from huge long-term efforts, such as the Cold War (aka WW III) was with respect to the Evil Empire. Doing nothing will give Islamic terrorists a new nuclear deterrent, which would threaten to put Persian Gulf oil facilities off-line for decades, checkmating Iraqi civilization-building efforts, and providing al Qaeda a refuge the West won't be able to touch, not to mention providing yet another opportunity for Islamic fascists to inflict a massive suicide attack on the west. -- "Oil production feeds people." This statement needs to be repeated over and over again. Even Amish agriculture needs petroleum products. Oil production also keeps various parts of the US from freezing to death in the winter or dying of heat stroke in the summer. |
| Posted by: Snuns Thromp1484 2006-03-07 13:43 |
| #17 Chthus, the article you link to was already posted here days ago. The problem though is what to do next? LH, I don't see where we have many options. Boots on the ground simply is not one of them. I think the best we can hope for is to decapitate the Iranian majlis, mullahs and all, wipe out their nuclear facilities, then sit back and wait for the dust to settle. We should make it clear that Iran must construct itself along the same democratic lines as Iraq or be prepared for an endless cycle of "rinse and repeat." That's about all I can see our thinly-spread forces being able to do as of now. As to nation building, however nice it sounds in theory, I think that Iran should be made an example of in terms of crippling them and letting them do all the rebuilding themselves. Yes, it risks them installing another anti-American government. All that represents is another decapitation raid until they get it straight. Iran has been so hostile and counterproductive that a little suffering would do them a world of good. I think it would serve Iran perfectly to watch from amid the ruins as Iraq gains regional ascendancy while they are forced to dig themselves out. It isn't merely a matter of revenge, so much as demonstrating to the world what awaits those countries who refuse to reform themselves. The global war on terrorism has just begun. We cannot reconstruct every single nation participating in terrorism. At some point we must simply disassemble those that are recalcitrant and continue to move forward against those that remain. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2006-03-07 12:04 |
| #16 An interesting article on potential Iranian strategy at newsMax via ThreatsWatch. |
| Posted by: chthus 2006-03-07 11:14 |
| #15 Irans conventional military is undoubtedly stronger than Iraqs was in March 2003. And the terrain is harder. OTOH a conventional war should be winnable by US forces. We'll need more than 4 divisions and three weeks, but thats not insuperable obstacle. So it take 6 divisions and 8 weeks, we still win. The problem though is what to do next? Leave Iran to its own devices, while the mad mullah supporters, the left, the pro democrats, and the ethnic minorities, fight it out? I wouldnt count on the prodemocrats coming out on top. I wouldnt count on the Iraqi military to act for us. And i sure as hell wouldnt count on the Euros to do anything effective in a situation like this. So we've destroyed their nuclear program - theyre still a country of tens of millions, with lots of educated people. And after a US invasion most everyone there will be supporting a new nuke program, and most will be hostile to the US - at least all the Farsi speakers and most of those speaking closely related languages. Im not sure net - net, youve really made a huge long term gain. So if you dont have the stomach for "nation building" in Iran, I think you need to take a long hard look at what a "go in and get out" war actually accomplishes. No I dont know when the regime will fall to internal dissidents. Waiting, even helping, is not a perfect option. But going in and getting out isnt either, and going in to nation build isnt. So its a choice among bad options. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2006-03-07 10:50 |
| #14 If the lunatics insist... Isaiah 14: Those who see you stare at you, they ponder your fate: “Is this the man who shook the earth and made kingdoms tremble, the man who made the world a desert, who overthrew its cities and would not let his captives go home?” All the kings of the nations lie in state, each in his own tomb.But you are cast out of your tomb like a rejected branch; you are covered with the slain,with those pierced by the sword, those who descend to the stones of the pit. Like a corpse trampled underfoot, you will not join them in burial,for you have destroyed your land and killed your people. The offspring of the wicked will never be mentioned again. |
| Posted by: Danielle 2006-03-07 10:25 |
| #13 # 6, phil_b, its called divide and conquer. It's always been the best strategy. The Brits built an empire on it, before they started going multicultural, and lost the lot. |
| Posted by: tipper 2006-03-07 10:06 |
| #12 phil_b, er....respectfully have to disagree with you a bit on the Slovenian analogy. The Slovenians had other things besides topography in their favor. Keep in mind that all of the former Yugoslavia is mountainous....all the nationalities there know how to deal with that terrain. The Slovenians managed to keep their territorial defense force (men and materiel) from YNA control. The Yugoslav government thought that their repeal of Tito's policy (each republic had their own small force) had been carried out and were surprised to find out that it had not been there. Slobo and his generals also decided that he would rather hold on to Croatia because it had a sizable Serb population, as opposed to Slovenia, which did not. The reinforcements that were supposed to be sent from Belgrade never arrived (official reason was mechanical breakdown, but they somehow managed to make it to the Croat region of Slavonia....and just in time to help the YNA offensive. Maybe the Serbs just got a bit confused about the similar names.) |
| Posted by: Desert Blondie 2006-03-07 10:04 |
| #11 I suspect that the Iranians are quietly building a "defense in depth" approach to a land invasion from Iraq. It works great unless your enemy operates in the 3rd dimension. Just look at the status of forces right now. Iran has a heavy corps the length of its border. The US has airborne and air assault forces that could jump such DID, and also just happens to have a heavy armor brigade in Kuwait in case the Iranians try a snatch grab of southern Iraq. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2006-03-07 09:46 |
| #10 Generals always fight the last war. Nothing different in this case. |
| Posted by: wxjames 2006-03-07 09:37 |
| #9 If it's anything like the last killing field they arranged, Iran's going to be missing another generation. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2006-03-07 07:23 |
| #8 And remember how the Slovenes stopped the Yugoslav armoured columns in narrow valleys. Now go check a topographic map of Iran. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2006-03-07 07:22 |
| #7 The Mad Mullahs and Chavez are on the same page: scare the folks into the bunker mentality, and "give me more power so I can protect you from the Great Satan/Imperialist." With Chavez we can watch the death spiral, but the Mullahs are on a different schedule. |
| Posted by: Bobby 2006-03-07 07:19 |
| #6 The unstated presumption/assumption in almost all the debate about Iran is that it is a cohesive entity. Its not, ethnic Persians are a minority in Iran. Although which fracture lines will give under what pressure is obviously speculation. The clear ones are in the Kurdish north west and the Arab south west, although there are 5 or 6 others I could identify. History says multi-ethnic states hold themselves together by a combination of an ideology that over-rides ethnicity and repression. Once either breaks down the state will fracture. All thats needed is the right event to trigger the fracture. The Kurds and Arabs in Iran will be looking across the border and seeing their fellows in Iraq in charge. Once Iraq overcomes the Sunni insurgency, which it will, attention will shift across the border to the depradations on their fellow Arabs and Kurds which will increase as the Teheran government tries to keep these populations under control. My prediction is that in less than two years Iraq will 'liberate' Kurdish and Arab areas of Iran and there is bugger all the Iranians can do to stop the modern trained Iraqi army (bar a nuclear weapon of course). |
| Posted by: phil_b 2006-03-07 05:49 |
| #5 I'm more worried about the world coercing the US into 'nation building' after all the s*** hits the fan, due to quick butt kicking they will receive. Remember the sorrow after the 'BullDozed Trenches' manuever or 'Highway Of Death' action after the first Gulf War!! |
| Posted by: smn 2006-03-07 04:43 |
| #4 Iran has never rolled anyone up ever. They think that "asymmetric warfare" will work. Here is news for the M². I will not work when Europe and China need your oil output. You will not last that long. Oil production feeds people. They will not go hungry to satisfy your weird fixations. The M² are believing their own press clippings. That is always dangerous. |
| Posted by: SPoD 2006-03-07 04:03 |
| #3 Care to speculate on the timing of the tumble? Pre - or post? Heh. |
| Posted by: .com 2006-03-07 03:18 |
| #2 I have this feeling Iran is a house of cards that will come tumbling down. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2006-03-07 03:16 |
| #1 Road trip to Cambodia? Oh, I see, nevermind. Iranian experience. Right. 8 year stalemate with Saddam. Est. 450,000-950,000 casualties. Resorted to human wave attacks and using fanatics to clear minefields by exploration. Ended 18 yrs ago. We rolled him up in 3 weeks. Counting dust storm stops. What am I missing here? ROFL. Fuckwits. Persian and Arab penchant for insane hyperbole and endless babble match perfectly. Must be something in the M.E. water. |
| Posted by: .com 2006-03-07 03:04 |