Article

2007-09-13 Syria-Lebanon-Iran

US may attack, but will Iran fight back (for more than an hour)?

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 Zenster 2007-09-13 05:35|| || Front Page|| [7 views ] Top
File under: Govt of Iran

#1 it may well find itself equally isolated

Yes, yes. China will stop exporting to USA, Europe will expel US military, and Mexicans will leave US soil in disgust!

Posted by gromgoru 2007-09-13 06:48|| 2007-09-13 06:48|| Front Page Top

#2 Unless Iran agrees to give up all hope of a nuclear-weapons program, as Libya and North Korea have done

Haha!

A short, victorious war with Iran, leaving its nuclear facilities in ruins, will, it is hoped, assure the Republican candidate of victory in that election.

I'm sure Dems will be hoping for a short war with all their hearts. And I doubt W would bomb Iran and kill a bunch of people just for the sake of politics. This is probably the only thing the writer understands, so he is projecting it on W.

the sort of "shock and awe" attacks that were promised in Iraq in 2003 but had less impact than expected

Got a better term for it, bu++wipe? If someone bombed 1200 targets in an area the size of Iran, anyone with a functioning brain cell would see the validity of the term, even if they refused to admit it. And an author with a functioning brain cell would understand that.

[the US] may well find itself equally isolated

??? I expect hollow criticism, but not much more.

but Israel's most likely role would be to attack Hezbollah in Lebanon, and perhaps the Syrians, should they decide to support the Iranians

You mean like the Iranians were hoping that Iraq had us pinned down?

ayatollahs will crawl out of the ruins and give in to all of Bush's demands. But what if they do not?

The population would be complicit then if the IRG was destroyed. I say bomb them again. Rinse and repeat until simple western reason makes sense to them.

the Iranian government would have to fall back on the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) to organize further resistance and retaliation

Like we'd leave them in one piece? I had no idea our military leaders were so stoopid.

Mining and suicide attacks by boats and planes might well disrupt tanker traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, leading to a rapid increase in world oil

And what be the price of Iran having nukes?

In Iraq, the conventional armed forces were easily broken, but the unconventional war with local insurgents and militias is still raging more than four years later.

How 'bout a sentence or two on how that Iraqi insurgency is fueled by Iran? When you're done trying to avoid that question, I'd like to know what state is supposedly going to fuel an insurgency in Iran? Russia/China? Dangerous business. I don't think they'd want to get too involved, it would be too big an effort and too easily exposed. China depends on us and neither have an excuse they can air in public that has a leg to stand on, not that any of their real reasons have a leg.

And I don't think the IRGC is good for anything except internal show, and their equipment sux. They have a couple diesel subs, but they have to come to the surface every few hours and start their engines. All we have to do is wait them out and then they might last 15 minutes in a fight.

I would think the banks of the waterways would be a bad place for would-be missile teams to hang out at night given IR vision, so run the tankers then. Mines can be cleared. Oil reserves can last quite a while. The US has domestic production, too. All the US needs to do if it really needs more oil is to take care of one guy dressed like a clown in Venezuela.

I say it's time to make an omelette.

Posted by gorb 2007-09-13 06:49|| 2007-09-13 06:49|| Front Page Top

#3 In the US scenario, when the dust settles after the aerial onslaught, the chastened ayatollahs will crawl out of the ruins and give in to all of Bush's demands. But what if they do not?

If the US intent is to dismantle or destroy Iran's nuclear capability, then it matters not what the big turbans say. In fact, being fanatics by definition, what else would one expect but fanatical response?

Posted by Erk 2007-09-13 06:59|| 2007-09-13 06:59|| Front Page Top

#4 In case the British fail you Sarkozy has told that a nuclear Iran was unacceptable and has also hinted about use of force.

Posted by JFM">JFM 2007-09-13 07:59|| 2007-09-13 07:59|| Front Page Top

#5 Believe me, no one will want to see French "force." The downwind drift will be quite severe.

Posted by Besoeker 2007-09-13 08:48|| 2007-09-13 08:48|| Front Page Top

#6 Of course not. You don't want to be downwind of a nuclear explosion.

Posted by JFM">JFM 2007-09-13 08:52|| 2007-09-13 08:52|| Front Page Top

#7 My 2c worth is bomb Iranian weapons factories, storage facilities and distribution infrastructure. It will put back any Iranian conventional ambitions by several years and could be justified based on their shipping arms to Iraq (and Syria Lebanon).

And of course their oil refineries, which would cause real economic pain and likely massive social unrest.

Posted by phil_b 2007-09-13 09:20|| 2007-09-13 09:20|| Front Page Top

#8 It has been suggested that this would be accomplished by the destruction of 1,200 Iranian targets in three days of massive aerial assaults, the sort of "shock and awe" attacks that were promised in Iraq in 2003 but had less impact than expected.

That impact being the utter destruction of the 4th largest military in the world. One which the left simultaneously claimed was no threat and was too dangerous to confront. Sound familiar?

Posted by Excalibur 2007-09-13 09:39|| 2007-09-13 09:39|| Front Page Top

#9 Just level Kharg Island - the Iranian economy would disappear without the oil shipments. Plus, hit the 3 major refineries making gasoline in the country and watch the fun start when Iran runs out of gasoline -- most gasoline is imported into Iran.

Posted by Shieldwolf 2007-09-13 09:44|| 2007-09-13 09:44|| Front Page Top

#10 My two cents: sabotage Iranian gasoline refineries and let the people do the rest.

Posted by Steve White">Steve White 2007-09-13 09:48|| 2007-09-13 09:48|| Front Page Top

#11 Level the ports and refineries. Carpet bomb the surface-to-surface missile sites that threaten the strait. Let nature (the population) do the rest while arming them.

Posted by DarthVader">DarthVader 2007-09-13 10:20|| 2007-09-13 10:20|| Front Page Top

#12 Again let me point out the obvious: Iran may already *have* nuclear weapons, and we *know* that they already have effective missiles.

Just because Iran is making a big show of enriching uranium does not mean that they already do not have uranium and plutonium from North Korea.

This means that if we just attack their uranium enrichment facilities we may accomplish NOTHING.

Their nuclear weapons assembly sites would be nowhere near their uranium enrichment sites.

So after we bombed them, then WHAT DO WE DO?

The American public and the Democrat party would wash their hands of Iran, and the push to take US forces out of Iraq would increase. This would leave Iran able to assemble a LARGE number of NUCLEAR MISSILES in peace.

So that Iran would get what it wanted. Sure, its uranium enrichment facilities would be gone, but so what? Some holes in the desert? They would have maybe ten or twenty nuclear missiles, maybe more.

And in a few years, some of those missiles would be three stage Shahab-5+ ICBMs, capable of reaching the United States.

And wouldn't President Clinton and the Democrat congress be surprised when nuclear missiles start landing on US soil, even though they showed how NICE the US is, by canceling our missile defense programs?

Posted by Anonymoose 2007-09-13 10:46|| 2007-09-13 10:46|| Front Page Top

#13 Moose makes a good point.

Yes, we'd all like to hammer Iranian nuke facilities. And we'd particularly like to drop a daisy-cutter on Short Round and the Mad Mullahs.

But that's not necessarily the smart way to go. People have a tendency to rally around their country and their leaders, odious as they may be, when bombs start falling. Check out the North Vietnamese people. Check out the Iraqis during the Iraq-Iran war. Bombing just makes people mad at the bombers.

And we don't want to turn the Iranian people against us. Many of them are pre-disposed to like us right now since they like American-style culture, freedom and materialism. We don't want to lose that.

Use the silent hand. Use the quiet forces. Do the things that can't be traced back to us. Make the Mad Mullahs sweat. Make them angry and make them lash out at their own people. Cause them to lose their nerve, because then they'll lose their grip on power.

We don't have to go into Iran with guns blazing. We don't have to send Slim Pickins and the BUFFs.

Our target isn't a facility. Our target isn't a weapon. Our target isn't a system.

Our target is a cabal of evil men. We need to get them. Let's not forget that.

Posted by Steve White">Steve White 2007-09-13 11:07|| 2007-09-13 11:07|| Front Page Top

#14 I'm going to side with the hawks on this one.

Special Ops take time. We haven't got much of that.

Bombing will piss off the locals, no doubt. But not that much. We have gotten really good at hitting just military targets while leaving everything else intact.

And the point isn't to bomb Iran into a western style democracy. The point is to set them back as far as possible. Several years if not a decade. That, and kill their economy. A poor nation can't export arms and cash to Hezballah, Syria and Iraq, and it will have its hands more than full dealing with its unhappy citizens.

Posted by Iblis">Iblis 2007-09-13 12:31|| 2007-09-13 12:31|| Front Page Top

#15 the USA may well find itself equally isolated

Yes, yes. China will stop exporting to USA, Europe will expel US military, and Mexicans will leave US soil in disgust!

ROLF! G*rom

Oh! that hi-brow crowd of wanking asshats who whine and complain about "our standing" in the World of Our Allies ie, 'Cut-Throats'!!

Like Germany, pulling out on the sanction regime against Iran. *spit*

Posted by Red Dawg">Red Dawg 2007-09-13 13:24|| 2007-09-13 13:24|| Front Page Top

#16 Take a mothballed F-14 or two and paint it with Iranian markings, rig it to run by remote control, and plow it into one of the Nuclear sites. Even better do so with a dozen planes painted as a squadron.

Then make sure there is some footage of said attacks that show the Iranian markings.

Then announce through different ways (faked video tapes would be nice) that the squadron wanted to avoid Iranian destruction that the Mullahs were trying to bring about.

Then let the Iranian people take the next step.

Posted by rjschwarz 2007-09-13 14:08|| 2007-09-13 14:08|| Front Page Top

#17 Their mobile missiles will pose a problem. Gulf War 1 was prolonged as we sought them out. Something has to be done to cause the Ayatollahs to sue for peace, immediately. Escalation is certain should we attack and missiles fly at Carrier groups.

Posted by McZoid 2007-09-13 14:22|| 2007-09-13 14:22|| Front Page Top

#18 So after we bombed them, then WHAT DO WE DO?

Helluva fine question, 'moose. I would truly enjoy hearing your own analysis of how to cope with a potential clandestine weapons assembly drive already underway in Iran.

From the get-go, I have maintained that in order to genuinely pacify Iran, its leadership must be removed. Decapitating strikes that eliminate the mullacracy and Ahmadinejad are required to squelch all sources of aggressive rhetoric that continues to polarize the Iranian people. Fewif anyother measures will substantially decrease the public will to continue pursuit of nuclear weapons. Denuding Iran of its offensive military capability is a good start but neutralizing the ideological drivers is of equal importance.

As to actual ongoing and physical progress towards construction of a nuclear bomb, does anyone have some deeper insight into the Parchin military complex? Many years ago it became clear to me that this is one of the most vital weapons development facilities in Iran. Current images do not provide the detail of one site referred to in an old article that I cannot locate. In the older piece, aerial close-ups showed a distinct test pit with a dozen radiating trenches designed to carry sensing and detection data streams away from the central blast site. This radial pattern is a dead giveaway for locations designed to test the high-explosive lenses needed for initiation of a nuclear device. If anyone has more information about this or another similar site, please post it here.

The point being that if Iran were making some serious progress towards functional assembly of a nuclear device, there should have been dozens of explosive tests at Parchin or an equivalent site. Such massive detonations are easily picked up by our global seismic monitoring systems and should have allowed us a real-world estimate of just how much progress Iran has been making towards nuclear capability. A sequence of tests that showed continuously improving yieldalong with increasing time-concentration in the triggering of multiple subassemblieswould provide an easily detected and unmistakable acoustic signature.

As for how to physically interfere with progress towards building an atomic bomb, one sure way is to destroy hydroelectric and fossil fuel power generation sites. A weapons research lab is an energy intensive affair and cutting its power shutters the facility.

I am disinclined to advocate total destruction of such vital resources within Iran. Total havoc does not play to our best interests. As an example, rather than bomb the Kharg Island pumping complex outright, merely sever all of the main conduits flowing into it so that repairs can be effected but interdicted as needed. Kharg Island is sixteen miles offshore and highly vulnerable to having it's feeder pipelines being cut. Similarly, instead of demolishing dams and generation facilities, first hit the high-tension transmission lines or substations. Both of these less severe measures would obtain similar yet more easily reversed end results.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2007-09-13 15:05|| 2007-09-13 15:05|| Front Page Top

#19 Zen: The point being that if Iran were making some serious progress towards functional assembly of a nuclear device, there should have been dozens of explosive tests at Parchin or an equivalent site. Such massive detonations are easily picked up by our global seismic monitoring systems and should have allowed us a real-world estimate of just how much progress Iran has been making towards nuclear capability. A sequence of tests that showed continuously improving yieldalong with increasing time-concentration in the triggering of multiple subassemblieswould provide an easily detected and unmistakable acoustic signature.

I don't recall hearing about this kind of stuff before NorK announced they had a "deterrent". Perhaps the plans they purchased from Khan did away with this need, or perhaps word didn't reach the ears of one of our Poolitzer Prize-hungry MSM folks so it didn't get out. Any ideas here? Could Iran head down the same path? If NorK managed to sneak by somehow, then I assume Iran could.

Posted by gorb 2007-09-13 15:18|| 2007-09-13 15:18|| Front Page Top

#20 Iranians (Persians) are nationalistic as hell. If we bomb, we WILL piss them off, and play right into the mullahs hands.

Posted by Free Radical">Free Radical 2007-09-13 15:24|| 2007-09-13 15:24|| Front Page Top

#21 I don't recall hearing about this kind of stuff before NorK announced they had a "deterrent".

First off: Such monitoring data is very sensitive for national security purposes.

Second: North Korea's nuclear fizzle is direct proof of what I'm saying about the importance of lensing tests and such.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2007-09-13 15:32|| 2007-09-13 15:32|| Front Page Top

#22 Iranians (Persians) are nationalistic as hell.

Free Radical, I think you may be overestimating the Iranian people's regard for their Shiite interlopers. Persia had quite an illustrious history before Islamic domination stagnated it. Many Iranians are acutely aware of this. Also, do not neglect the fact that an entire generation of Iranian people enjoyed a measure of real freedom and prosperity under Shah Reza Pahlavi. Memories of those good times die pretty hard, especially under the grinding boot heel of Iran's Shiite mullacracy.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2007-09-13 15:37|| 2007-09-13 15:37|| Front Page Top

#23 Adding to Zenter's comment, even if the Iranians DO turn out to be "Nationalistic" in response, they will have merely demonstrated that they are part of the problem. Anyone who casts their lot with the Mad Mullahs is deserving of whatever comes their way.

Posted by Crusader 2007-09-13 15:57|| 2007-09-13 15:57|| Front Page Top

#24 We're playing the what if game a little too much today. The only what if we should be asking asking is, What if we wait too long and they get a nuke? not what if they already have one. If they had it, they'd tell us, you can bank on that.

Bomb the damn nuke sites already. And all the power lines running to it. Then bomb them both some more. After taking out their air defense, of course.

It matters not if the Iranian people will get mad about us bombing their nuke facilities. The nuke program has to go before it's too late. It's about saving us, not about keeping them from getting mad.

Yes, I understand it would be preferable to stop the nukes another way, but we need to be realistic. The Mullahs and Short Round would spend their very last dollar on getting a nuke. I don't see how we can completely and thoroughly cripple their economy with only a few countries by our side. Which is what it would take.

Posted by Mike N. 2007-09-13 16:03|| 2007-09-13 16:03|| Front Page Top

#25 Actually there is a historical precedent for thr overthrow of the mullahs. Apparently there was an event in Persian history, 2500 years or so ago that has a name very similar to "The Day They Killed All the Priests".

Posted by Jaimble Smith5037 2007-09-13 17:15|| 2007-09-13 17:15|| Front Page Top

#26 If I was Iran I would have bought a few nukes before I started my own program, then blow one off and claim it was a test to really freak out those that say you're 10 years out. Would buy time and provide a deterent at the same time BEFORE the pressure raised..

Posted by rjschwarz 2007-09-13 18:25|| 2007-09-13 18:25|| Front Page Top

#27 With Iran's regular armed forces largely destroyed, the Iranian government would have to fall back on the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) to organize further resistance and retaliation.

This is where Mr. Alan G Jamieson is a tad off-base, by assuming that the IRGC would be left alone. Zenster's right when he says the author has a rather optimistic view of the IRGC's abilities. The Iranian military has largely remained apolitical. Draw from that what you will.

Adding to Zenter's comment, even if the Iranians DO turn out to be "Nationalistic" in response, they will have merely demonstrated that they are part of the problem.

Substitute 'Israelis' for 'Iranians' and you have the Paleo excuse for bombing pizza parlors.

Posted by Pappy 2007-09-13 21:36|| 2007-09-13 21:36|| Front Page Top

#28 Iranians (Persians) are nationalistic as hell.

Persians are almost certainly a minority in Iran (aka the Persian Empire) and a minority in most of the teritory of Iran. They may well find the Kurds, Azeris, Arabs, Baluchis, Turkomen, etc are more nationalistic than them.

Posted by phil_b 2007-09-13 22:29|| 2007-09-13 22:29|| Front Page Top

#29 the author has a rather optimistic view of the IRGC's abilities

Thank you, Pappy.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2007-09-13 23:05|| 2007-09-13 23:05|| Front Page Top

23:49 Old Patriot
23:48 Swamp Blondie
23:47 Gomez Criter3762
23:39 Mike
23:30 JosephMendiola
23:25 Barbara Skolaut
23:24 Red Dawg
23:23 Barbara Skolaut
23:07 Barbara Skolaut
23:05 Zenster
22:57 Zenster
22:45 Procopius2k
22:43 trailing wife
22:40 JosephMendiola
22:40 Zenster
22:35 N Guard
22:33 trailing wife
22:29 phil_b
22:29 JosephMendiola
22:24 JosephMendiola
22:15 JosephMendiola
22:13 JosephMendiola
22:04 Zenster
21:56 Gary and the Samoyeds