Article

2005-01-27 Syria-Lebanon-Iran

US Tops List for Threatening World Peace, Says Khatami

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Fred 2005-01-27 9:38:44 PM|| || Front Page|| [12 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Tehran would respond vigorously to any military attack by the United States or Israel

as in: panicked scattering in all directions for cover

Posted by Frank G 2005-01-26 9:44:14 PM|| 2005-01-26 9:44:14 PM|| Front Page Top

#2 Right on Frank...The US need not have to invade per se in order to accomplish it's primary objectives of neutralizing the nuclear threat. I would recommend to the President: No boots on the ground (other than CIA, special forces, and or mercenaries)! Hit the 300+ targets, both known and suspected in a first stage wave; wait for reaction and prepare for the second demoralizing hit. Take them back atleast 22 years!

Posted by smn 2005-01-27 12:56:26 AM|| 2005-01-27 12:56:26 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 No boots on the ground
See that's the problem, smn. There are "boots" on the ground-our GI's and coalition forces in Iraq. This has been discussed quite a bit on other threads. The problem is that Iranians would rush the Iraqi border and call their Shiite cousins to arms. One of the top contenders in the Iraq election is a Shiite cleric called Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, leader of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution. He's a pal of head honcho Shiite cleric, Sistani. Hakim lived in exile for many years in Tehran like other Iraqi clerics did when Saddam the Terrible was in power.

Hakim made some odd comments recently about looking to Iran for suggestions about security issues in Iran, so it may not be so far fetched for Iran to think they have some sympathies in the Iraqi political community:
In comments certain to raise eyebrows in the United States, al-Hakim spoke of a role for Iran and Syria â both regarded in Washington as enemies in the war on terror â along with Iraqâs other neighbours, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Kuwait, in the security of the country.

âThese countries have past experiences and good security forces and with good relations we can solve this problem together,â he said.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1452397,00.html

This situation is very tricky. The US needs to tread carefully.

Posted by 2xstandard 2005-01-27 1:22:26 AM|| 2005-01-27 1:22:26 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 Now wait a minute, let's be cognizant of the circumstances underway:

1. There IS IRG (Iranian Republic Guards) in Iraq. So, when (not if) the US takes action against Iran, there would be an uprising in Iraq. That is why we must accelerate the military training of Iraqis, who are best equipped to identify friend from foe.

2. SF is the tool of choice in Iran (and Syria for that matter), only SF can ID the numerous targets, paint them for targeted missle attacks.

3. Attacking Iran will unleash a much wider theatre of attack, perhaps beyond the ME region. It will also make overt the insidious relationship between al Qaeda and Iranian groups like Hezzbolah and Hamas.

4. Like with Iraq, Iran has had years to prepare for the inevitable. They are deploying a worldwide counter US strategy, while stroking the EU-3 for all its worth.

There is a red line, folks, a point at which action is required. Moves and counter-moves are well underway, they are just not obvious.

Posted by Captain America 2005-01-27 9:04:29 AM|| 2005-01-27 9:04:29 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 "Right on Frank...The US need not have to invade per se in order to accomplish it's primary objectives of neutralizing the nuclear threat. I would recommend to the President: No boots on the ground (other than CIA, special forces, and or mercenaries)! Hit the 300+ targets, both known and suspected in a first stage wave; wait for reaction and prepare for the second demoralizing hit. Take them back atleast 22 years!"

An added benefit, it'll remaind the Iraquis who is who, and what is what.

Posted by gromgorru 2005-01-27 9:50:27 AM|| 2005-01-27 9:50:27 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 What I mean by no boots on the ground 2xstandard #3, is that without the nation building option on the table as a hindrance, the US could concentrate on unfiltereddestruction of the enemy! A filtered war (using surgical precision) will only inflame the Iranian street (such as what has happened in Iraq) as nationalism take root! Take Japan for instance; the Emperor never would have surrendered if the targeted sights of "Fatman" and "Littleboy" were isolated but totally military encampments. The horror of war is what prevents or stops it!

Posted by smn 2005-01-27 10:37:55 AM|| 2005-01-27 10:37:55 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 IMHO the "Iranians rush the border scenario" is absurd. A decapitating or disabling strike would cause havoc among the IRG and mullarchy. They barely control the populace now. Rushing our troops and arms would be like condensing the Iranians'8 yr Iranian-Iraq war casualties into a week-long carnage. They have no chance to counterattack, and we don't want to invade. Destabilize and arm the opposition/population for regime change. Why would the war spread beyong Hezbollah firing (briefly) into Israel? Think Israel wouldn't annihilate them? Syria gonna attack? who?

Posted by Frank G 2005-01-27 10:44:26 AM|| 2005-01-27 10:44:26 AM|| Front Page Top

#8 For Khatami, "world peace" == current status quo, where Iran and its agents spread their poison around unopposed.

It seems the mullahs' current comfy position is being threatened, and they don't like it. Well that's just too damn bad.

Posted by Bomb-a-rama 2005-01-27 11:13:16 AM|| 2005-01-27 11:13:16 AM|| Front Page Top

#9 Frank, frank, frank, how many times do I have to tell ya....

Hezbollah and Hamas have a global reach far beyond an attack on Israel. Shit, they are even in Latin America. Iran's counter punch is asymetric warfare, using H & H and AQ. They've been planning counter measures for years.

There are by some estimates over 2,500 IRG in Iraq, including some senior folks. They are primarly in southern regions and Sadr is a huge backer.

Baby Asshat does not control his daddy's country, they do have WMD, and pose problems. It is no surprise that a mutual defence (and more) alliance has been struck with Iran.

US action on Iran is imminent. You can bet that plans have been developed to counter the above-mentioned potentialities.

Posted by Kofi Annan 2005-01-27 3:02:01 PM|| 2005-01-27 3:02:01 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 ok "Kofi" lol. I also hope US action is imminent, harsh, and successful. I'm still not over the '79 embassy hostages. I think Iran's minions will have their hands full enough to worry about the MM's demise

Posted by Frank G 2005-01-27 3:12:05 PM|| 2005-01-27 3:12:05 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 We're #1!

We're #1!

Posted by anonymous2u 2005-01-27 6:11:05 PM|| 2005-01-27 6:11:05 PM|| Front Page Top

14:45 True German Ally
14:45 True German Ally
00:56 Unagum Ulomoper7151
00:56 Unagum Ulomoper7151
00:54 Gravise Spolutle2771
00:54 Gravise Spolutle2771
00:02 Denver Reader 303
23:58 Barbara Skolaut
23:52 AJackson
23:52 Seafarious
23:47 wadikitty
23:44 2xstandard
23:43 phil_b
23:39 RWV
23:25 RWV
23:22 Mike Sylwester
23:04 crazyhorse
22:58 Mike Kozlowski
22:58 Dishman
22:55 Alaska Paul
22:54 Dishman
22:53 Frank G
22:47 Jonathan
22:38 Jarhead