| Submit your comments on this article |
| Israel-Palestine-Jordan |
| Debka out take: Gen. Qassem Soleimani to spearhead counter-action against the US and Israel |
| 2008-06-09 |
| Part of a bigger debka article that needs lots of salt. This part is interesting DEBKAfile’s military sources in the Gulf report that Iran, in contrast, is deep in preparations to sustain an attack and hit back. The all Qods commander Gen. Qassem Soleimani, they say, has been appointed to spearhead counter-action against the US and Israel, and Tehran has poured huge military and financial resources into the Brigades’ resources for retaliating against a strike against its nuclear installations. These sources describe the general as a quiet talker but well capable of managing all al Qods’ various assets across the Middle East for reprisals against their sponsor’s enemies. Gen. Soleimani has been given sole command of this operation. Detached from the regular Revolutionary Guards Corps hierarchy, he defers directly to supreme ruler Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. So secretive are his activities that funding comes in cash from Khamenei’s bureau. Therefore, Gulf sources say, Soleimani’s tactics and targeting will take the enemy completely by surprise. |
| Posted by:3dc |
| #14 OTOH, "Take the [Israeli] enemy] completely by surprise" > NET Posters = Wel-l-l, there's always WAR OF THE LAWYERS e.g. Copyright, UN World Court, etc. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2008-06-09 18:56 |
| #13 FREEREPUBLIC > A TRAP MAY AWAIT OBAMA. IMO, the "real trap" lies in the likely NUCLEARIZATION includ STRATEGIC WEAPONIZATION of IRAN + RADICAL ISLAMISM 2008-2012, versus Barack's "DIVERSITY", etc agendums. IN THE "GREAT GAME" OF GEOPOLITICS, BOTH EAST AND WEST ARE EXPECTED TO USE THE ISLAMIST THREAT AS A HEDGE AGZ THE OTHER - AT THIS TIME, HOWEVER, DESIRE TO SAVE THEIR JIHAD + POTEN NUCLEARIZATIN > THE ISLAMISTS ARE POINTING SQUARELY/MOSTLY AT THE WEAKER EAST = RUSSIA, CHINA, CENASIA + PERIPHERALS, NOTSOMUCH THE US-WEST AS PER THE STRUGGLING INSURGENCY IN IRAQ-AFGHANISTAN. Worse to worse, IMO the Mullahs in Tehran will consider the Paleos = Muslim brothers "expendable" vv precluding or destroying Israel = IDF via "WAR OF THE SCUDS/MISSLES" [nuclearized]before Israel can destroy Iran. Unlike for geographically larger + more populous IRAN, even a LIMITED NUCLEAR WAR agz IRAN may prove nationally catastrophic for powerful but tiny Israel. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2008-06-09 18:52 |
| #12 Iran's asymetric response will be in the Gulf and Straits of Hormuz, reducing the flow of oil. BTW, I think part of the US intention in trying to solve the Paleo issue is to get a land corridor across Israel and Jordan to Iraq. Syria would be better after regime change of course. This would reduce shipping times in both directions and remove the Strait of Hormuz risk. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2008-06-09 17:57 |
| #11 okay, you heard the mutt; now let's escalate |
| Posted by: Grins Dingle9430 2008-06-09 16:20 |
| #10 But, if you take out the dictators and tyrants.............. Like we did with Saddam? It's a nice idea but the execution is a bit more difficult, especially when your paranoid enemy expects you to try. Not saying we shouldn't try, but we shouldn't depend on it working. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2008-06-09 16:04 |
| #9 Look at the map and tell me how you supply American forces in Irak. You know ammo and such tnings. From ports in Israel, Lebanon, and Syria, JFM, shortly after Iran tries to close the Straits of Hormuz. That is, if someone with at least average intelligence and common sense was in charge. There are at least eight ports that could be used: Haifa, Tyre, Sidon, Beirut, Tarablus, Tartus, Latakia, and Baniyas. It would take about three weeks to destroy the Syrians and Lebanese, and another month or two to construct roads and rail lines connecting the Med with Baghdad and points south. The problem is the lack of adequate troops and leadership to actually DO something instead of wringing hands. It might also take resorting to weapons of mass destruction, such as nuking Damascus (not really necessary to the supply of US military forces in Iraq), Bandar Abbas (the focal point of Iran's Persian Gulf strategy), and Qom (the "spiritual leadership" of Iran). We may need to slap Turkey a time or two, and hold a BIG stick over Russia's head (they practically own the port of Latakia). Still, it's doable, and would solve several problems at one time. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2008-06-09 15:37 |
| #8 Iblis Look at the map and tell me how you supply American forces in Irak. You know ammo and such tnings. |
| Posted by: JFM 2008-06-09 13:58 |
| #7 The fundamental problem remains that the typical Iranian on the street wants nuclear weapons. Therefore, it would be a very good idea for the US to prepare asymmetrical warfare as well. Specifically to show them that nuclear weapons are not going to grant their wishes like a genie. Optimally, the typical Iranian should become deeply afraid of nuclear anything. How this comes about is best left to the experts. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2008-06-09 13:51 |
| #6 AlanC - I keep thinking the same thing but I am non-mil too. |
| Posted by: 3dc 2008-06-09 13:48 |
| #5 Non-military guy here so if this is really stupid just say so. Question: It seems to me from all that I've been reading and seeing about the ME and asymetrical warfare, that an effective response would be to "chop the head off the snake". If Gen. Salami and his Mullah Mentors ceased to be would the mostly untouched remainder of the force be willing and able to continue? Same question vis a vis Hesbis and Paleos (and Norks and Hugoistas) We don't do mass causalty attacks like WWII anymore and it seems dumb to try patty cake measures against the dumb grunts and civvies. What's that gonna get you? But, if you take out the dictators and tyrants.............. So, how stupid am I? |
| Posted by: AlanC 2008-06-09 13:43 |
| #4 I don't think it's ever a good idea to underestimate your enemy. Especially when it won't play ball. I'm not a military analyst, not even a military buff, but it wouldn't surprize me if iran had military capacity in the range of a western european country in the mid 80's (though I could severely overestimate them, but they do seem to have an arm race of their own, all ridicule apart from their blustering). Also, I don't think they're deluded about their capacities, and they would try to use their strenghts against perceived weaknesses from the Us side. I doubt they'd try to go toe-to-toe, they've probably been busily preparing themselves to respond "asymetrically". I don't know how efficient this would be, but yes, it would be foolish to wallow in hubris and think the US armed forces are invicible (even an iranian defeat on the ground where they can inflict casualties by lobbing missilesat Us troops, or shipping naval assets through ruskie/chicom tech, or reviving the "quagmire" meme in iraq and torpedo McCain, would be a victory), and that iranians haven't other means of responding (attacks on Us soil, Us interests). I'm not saying they're undefeatable, not at all, but the Us military certainly take their capacities seriously enough to think about how countering/neutralizing them, bloogers should do the same IMHO. They've got money, they've got brains, they've got ressources. |
| Posted by: anonymous5089 2008-06-09 13:35 |
| #3 So, General Salami is in the loop of the missing $35B, noted earlier.... |
| Posted by: Muggsy Gling 2008-06-09 13:21 |
| #2 Iblis I don't think it's ever a good idea to underestimate your enemy. |
| Posted by: PlanetDan 2008-06-09 13:02 |
| #1 Don't care how much money they have or how many new toys. We have nothing to fear from a Persian or Middle Eastern army. |
| Posted by: Iblis 2008-06-09 12:33 |