Will Iran be Attacked?

[Thunder]

if you read various right wing papers...an american or israeli attack on iran seems likely within the next year or so. yet more moderate papers suggest that there is no military way to stop iran from developing nukes (if that is their true agenda)...other then nuking the entire nation.

so which is it...are we attacking or not?

[WildCat]

No. Israel doesn't have the ability, and the US won't risk it.

At any rate, the deeply buried nuclear facilities would be immune from a conventional air strike. It would take a lot of special forces troops to properly destroy them, and that's too risky for the US right now.

[gumboot]

I say no.

The US doesn't have the ability either.

-Gumboot

[Polaris]

No. Israel doesn't have the ability, and the US won't risk it.

At any rate, the deeply buried nuclear facilities would be immune from a conventional air strike. It would take a lot of special forces troops to properly destroy them, and that's too risky for the US right now.

Agreed. Iraq was 1/10 what Iran is. It wouldn't be easy. It would take more than the US is willing to dish out (or take itself) short of a massive attack - like a nuclear attack in lower Manhattan.

I suspect if any real action is going to be taken by the US it would be by proxy - for instance, Turkish aspirations in the region don't dovetail with Iranian aspirations, and a war breaks out between the two nations, which are pretty evenly matched. The US would happily give Ankara a hand or five billion in that case.

[Luke T.]

Even if we could attack Iran, we wouldn't. No. Go back to bed.

[Oliver]

At least the new secretary of defence says "Nope".
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/12/05/gates-iraq-not-winning/
http://www.google.de/search?hl=de&q=%22robert+gates%22+iran+iraq+lose+%22no%2C+sir%2 2&btnG=Suche&meta=

[Solus]

Even Dubya isn't that stupid.

[Darth Rotor]

if you read various right wing papers...an american or israeli attack on iran seems likely within the next year or so. yet more moderate papers suggest that there is no military way to stop iran from developing nukes (if that is their true agenda)...other then nuking the entire nation.

so which is it...are we attacking or not?
To cause trouble in Iran, to get their "Eye of Sauron" pointed within rather than into Iraq, Lebanon, or elsewhere, begin by slowly building up the capability and armament of the Azeri nationalist movements. Then, slowly add support to the Kurds. Turn up the heat.

Help it rot from within. An overt move is not politically saleable internally, nor wise when one considers Russian interests. The Bear isn't hibernating any more, and Washington has missed 10 years of opportunity to bring Russia into NATO.

It's back to the not so cold war, or perhaps Cold War, Part II.

You don't like that? The alternative is more damned fool moves like invading Iraq.

DR

[Bill Thompson]

if you read various right wing papers...an american or israeli attack on iran seems likely within the next year or so. yet more moderate papers suggest that there is no military way to stop iran from developing nukes (if that is their true agenda)...other then nuking the entire nation.

so which is it...are we attacking or not?


It is not necessary.

http://clearinghouse.infovlad.net/showthread.php?t=5235&highlight=iran

Students Cry Out for Freedom in Large Demonstration at Tehran University
Thursday, December 07, 2006

Up to 2,000 students attend protest at Tehran University.
TEHRAN, Iran — "What do we want? Freedom!"


http://img249.imageshack.us/img249/8447/161120706iranstudentsfi6.jpg

That was one of the banners a large crowd waved on Wednesday at a demonstration at Tehran University.

As many as 2,000 students turned out to demand personal freedom in the Islamic state, which has cracked down on political activity on campus this year in what some have called the Second Cultural Revolution.

The theme of Wednesday's protest was Student Life is Alive.

The police apparently made no effort to stop the demonstration, which ended peacefully.

One banner, in Persian, read: "If I rise up and you rise up, everyone will rise up."

Another read: "Our struggle is twofold: Fighting against internal oppression and external foreign threats."

[TragicMonkey]

Even Dubya isn't that stupid.

Homer Simpson: Anything’s possible with Commander Cuckoo-Bananas in charge!

[richardm]

So are we resigned to Iran getting its nuclear weapons, then?

[zenith-nadir]

After Iraq no country on earth would even think of attacking Iran right now. Iran is safe. Eventhough, IMHO, Iran's leaders are more dangerous than any other.

Imagine David Koresh with nuclear weapons. That's Iran right now. President Mahmoud wipe-Israel-off-the-map Ahmadinejad really thinks he's going to lead the muslim world against the "infidel" West (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/04/16/do1609.xml). He also believes that he has a divine mission to bring about the apocolypse (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/01/14/wiran14.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/01/14/ixworld.html).

[Garrette]

To cause trouble in Iran, to get their "Eye of Sauron" pointed within rather than into Iraq, Lebanon, or elsewhere, begin by slowly building up the capability and armament of the Azeri nationalist movements. Then, slowly add support to the Kurds. Turn up the heat.

Help it rot from within. An overt move is not politically saleable internally, nor wise when one considers Russian interests. The Bear isn't hibernating any more, and Washington has missed 10 years of opportunity to bring Russia into NATO.

It's back to the not so cold war, or perhaps Cold War, Part II.

You don't like that? The alternative is more damned fool moves like invading Iraq.

DRI wish I articulated my thoughts as well. This has been my overt position since 2001 and my less-publicized position since the Soviet collapse.

[Darth Rotor]

I wish I articulated my thoughts as well. This has been my overt position since 2001 and my less-publicized position since the Soviet collapse.
You rhumble servant.

I note that my letters and cards to Washington are not generally responded to, absent form letters from Senators. Sen Hutchinson (among others) did not get my vote this time around, thanks to the mealy mouthed crap her staff sent me in replies.

USNI also found my offerings unpalatable. :p

DR

[davefoc]

Even Dubya isn't that stupid.

Maybe, I missed something along the way, but I am pretty sure he is.

What has changed is that the neocon dreams of reshaping the middle east with a series of military actions kind of like island hopping WWII has been put to rest. Not because of some ideological change in neocon land but because Bush doesn't have the political capital or the military capital to initiate such a plan.

So, the net effect of all the administration's, saber rattling with regards to Iran has been to strengthen the fundamentalist regime and to strengthen their desire to get nuclear weapons to fend off future adventures by nut job American presidents even if another nut job American president similar to this one never happens.

[Bill Thompson]

Maybe, I missed something along the way, but I am pretty sure he is.

What has changed is that the neocon dreams of reshaping the middle east with a series of military actions kind of like island hopping WWII has been put to rest. Not because of some ideological change in neocon land but because Bush doesn't have the political capital or the military capital to initiate such a plan.

So, the net effect of all the administration's, saber rattling with regards to Iran has been to strengthen the fundamentalist regime and to strengthen their desire to get nuclear weapons to fend off future adventures by nut job American presidents even if another nut job American president similar to this one never happens.

What does being a neocon have to do with a plan to reshape the Middle East?

[Darth Rotor]

What does being a neocon have to do with a plan to reshape the Middle East?

There's nothing so powerful as an idea. The neoconservatives, "liberals mugged by reality" seem to have a pretty good track record, in written and spoken rhetoric, of endorsing the spread of pluralism via the bayonet, justified somewhat along the lines of "because we can, we should" and "democracies tend not to make war on one another."

DR

[Upchurch]

What does being a neocon have to do with a plan to reshape the Middle East?
Quite a bit, apparently: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neocon

[Darth Rotor]

Quite a bit, apparently: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neocon
From the page: The neutrality of this article is disputed.

Gee, who woulda thunk? ;)

DR

[Upchurch]

From the page: The neutrality of this article is disputed.

Gee, who woulda thunk? ;)
Well, yes. That is always a risk with Wikipedia.

However, I ran through the discussion about the article and most of the controversy seems to revolve around the origins of the neoconservatism and not what we are discussing here. The only vaguely relevent item I saw was someone contesting the labeling of Rumsfield and Rice as neocons.

[Kiwiwriter]

After the election in America and the vortex Iraq has become, there is little chance the US is going to be able to muster the popular support or power for a pre-emptive attack on Iran. The international support will be lacking, too.

I think we'll find we're at war with Iran when they try to bring the apocalypse with their nuclear weapons. :(

[Bikewer]

Listening to all the NPR pundits over the last year, it's apparent that there is a faction within the administration that thinks a pre-emptive attack against Iran is "the right thing to do".
Virtually all the analysts think that it would be a spectacularly bad idea; not only would an attack against Iran's nuclear facilities not stop their program, but the retaliatory capability of Iran would cause no end of trouble.
Not to mention plumetting our international credibility in the Muslim world even lower, if that's possible.

[Darth Rotor]

Not to mention plumetting our international credibility in the Muslim world even lower, if that's possible.
It's possible. Here are some ways to devastate US cred among Muslims:

1. Scorched earth style raid on Sadr City, to balance the fight between Sunni and Shia in central Iraq. Figure a body count around 500,000.

2. Rock the Ka'ba with an air raid that demolishes it, and a whole crowd of Hajis who are walking around it whenver the bombs hit.

3. A PGM attack on the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem.

4. US adopt a policy that pork or bacon be served in all humanitarian meals provided by the UN. (A kow tow to the farm lobby)

5. US conduct a series of raids, jointly with the Indian special forces, into Kashmir in support of Hindu guerillas.

And these five are just off the top of my head. :)

DR

[Dr Adequate]

There's nothing so powerful as an idea. The neoconservatives, "liberals mugged by reality" ... Ah. That would be why they all appear to be suffering from mild concussion ... and have a grudge against reality.

[Trantor]

3. A PGM attack on the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem.
DR

I kinda always favored this one. I remember some years back, Israel stopped an effort by a group of ultra-conservative Jews from blowing up the Dome of the Rock. Give it time...

[Darth Rotor]

I kinda always favored this one. I remember some years back, Israel stopped an effort by a group of ultra-conservative Jews from blowing up the Dome of the Rock. Give it time...
The same scenario was covered in the novel, Damascus Gate. I wonder if it preceded, or followed, the actual case.

DR

[Merko]

Even Dubya isn't that stupid.

I think he is. But it seems his military commanders are not, and several of them even threatened to resign over such lunatic plans. I think the advantage of having a democracy is not that your leaders will necessarily be more clever or well informed, but that there will be people around the leaders that can stop them when they go too far. And without fear of being put to the firing squadron, too.

[DRBUZZ0]

I would say the following: I really hope that an attack on Iran can be avoided.

An attack on Iran would be one more thing we DONT need. Actually, it would be a lot easier if we were not in Iraq to attack Iran. We have a bad situation in Iraq and Iran sits between Iraq and Afghanistan.

HOWEVER, Iran MUST not have nuclear weapons. If an attack is the only means of stopping them from getting nuclear weapon capabilities, then it needs to be done.

Regardless of the consequences of a strike to disable Iran's nuclear weapons capabilities, it is almost impossible to imagine a MORE dangerous situation than a nuclear armed Iran. Iran is a fundamentalist Islamic country run by Islamic leaders.

The fact that Pakistan has nuclear weapons and North Korea has semi-working or at least prototypical nuclear weapons is scary enough.

However, living in a world with a nuclear armed Iran is like being in a cage with a mentally-unstable amphetimine-intoxicated group of babboons, each of whom are armed with a sawed off shot gun (with some sort of triggering mechanism that works without an opposable thumb).


Therefore, do EVERYTHING to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons. And lets face it...nobody buys that their program is 100% peaceful.

If all else fails and they do obtain nuclear weapons then there is only one choice.... the US must give them more nuclear weapons... only air delivered (if ya know what I mean)

[DRBUZZ0]

It's possible. Here are some ways to devastate US cred among Muslims:

1. Scorched earth style raid on Sadr City, to balance the fight between Sunni and Shia in central Iraq. Figure a body count around 500,000.

2. Rock the Ka'ba with an air raid that demolishes it, and a whole crowd of Hajis who are walking around it whenver the bombs hit.

3. A PGM attack on the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem.

4. US adopt a policy that pork or bacon be served in all humanitarian meals provided by the UN. (A kow tow to the farm lobby)

5. US conduct a series of raids, jointly with the Indian special forces, into Kashmir in support of Hindu guerillas.

And these five are just off the top of my head. :)

DR


US credit is already damaged to Muslims. As is European...and a good part of Asia. And well...any non-Muslims. Islam is a philosophy which spreads like a cancer. No different than Nazism or Soviet Communism. Does that mean kill all Muslims? No.

What it does mean is to stop being so damn politically correct "Oh, we were bad to them, and so many other religions did bad things too." It's coming to a head more than ever before.

[Ignignokt]

If one looked at the United States invasions into Iraq and Afghanistan and how it has strategically placed us, you can deduce that it may have been our intentions to invade Iran from the get go. Invading Iran would require a massive ground assault due to their standing Army and an overwhelming suicide force known as the Basjji (May have spelled that wrong) the Basjii turned back the tide in Iran's favor in the Iran Iraq war in the 1980's. They are sent as human waves with only a Quran. Much like the human waves thrown at us in Korea, only unarmed. A side note of the Iraq Iran war is that we funded Hussein with weapons in this war (He used to be our main man so to speak). Since The Ayatollah took power in the 1970's they have been a number one target in the Middle East for us. Back to our strategic position, we are on the east and west borders which allows a double envelopment strategy for the ground invasion. It is the only way to divide the effectiveness of Iran’s army and the Basjji force. As we all should know fighting a double fronted war is lost before it starts, Germany in World War 1 and 2 are the prime example. So in my opinion it has been our goal since the Shaw lost power Iran to invade and return our own puppet gov to power or a democracy. You could say the position we are in with occupation of Iraq and Afagnistan was intentional to set up for the assault. I have no doubt Bush would green light an invasion or preemptive strike. The only thing that will stop it is the U.S. citizens and the world community. Yet do not consider it impossible, that's my opinion. We must have Iran contained if we ever wish or have to intervene in Israel.

[Ignignokt]

Damn I didn't want that to be Italicized, only the word opinion.

[Ignignokt]

I do agree we don't have the numbers right now, but a draft no matter how unpopular is never out of the question with Bush in power. He's already upopular he has nothing to lose now.

[Ignignokt]

To cause trouble in Iran, to get their "Eye of Sauron" pointed within rather than into Iraq,
DR

That was outstanding, I'm going to steal that Analogy

[Darth Rotor]

I do agree we don't have the numbers right now, but a draft no matter how unpopular is never out of the question with Bush in power. He's already upopular he has nothing to lose now.
I can't disagree with you more. The all volunteer force, for all that it is more expensive per capita than a conscripted force, has a better core of professional NCO's and officers than a conscript army.

You want to see more Haditha style events? Start a draft, and return to "90 day wonder" OCS grads as junior officers.

No thanks, sir, that does not serve America's interests at any level.

If one looked at the United States invasions into Iraq and Afghanistan and how it has strategically placed us, you can deduce that it may have been our intentions to invade Iran from the get go.
Perhaps, an interesting strategic concept.
Invading Iran would require a massive ground assault due to their standing Army and an overwhelming suicide force known as the Basjji (May have spelled that wrong) the Basjii turned back the tide in Iran's favor in the Iran Iraq war in the 1980's.
I'll suggest that is a simplistic analysis of the opening round of the Iran / Iraq war.
They are sent as human waves with only a Quran. Much like the human waves thrown at us in Korea, only unarmed.
A criminal waste of good men. The officers who ordered that, and the ayatollah's who were party to that concept of ops, ought to be strung up by their testicles in the noon day sun of death valley, at the peak of summer.
A side note of the Iraq Iran war is that we funded Hussein with weapons in this war
Yep. Ayatollah Ruallah Khomeni made a powerful enemy in the US, and his assholiness was not forgotten.
As we all should know fighting a double fronted war is lost before it starts, Germany in World War 1 and 2 are the prime example.
Horse crap. The US fought a two front war in WW II, and won. A two front war, in and of itself, is not a guarantee of defeat. Napoleon fought and won a series of two front campaigns and wars on interior lines. Kaiser Wilhelm's generals weakened the right hook (partly due to logistics) and finely calculated a synchrnized pattern of action that did not come about. Their rail time tables almost worked. Almost. The two front war could have worked had enough risk been taken with the Eastern front. No one had the balls, and given the numbers, I am not sure I blame the Prussian general staff for that. The estimations of Russian speed of mobilization were inexact, and of course "worst case" prone.
So in my opinion it has been our goal since the Shaw lost power Iran to invade and return our own puppet gov to power or a democracy.
That would be Shah, Shaw is an Irish surname.
I have no doubt Bush would green light an invasion or preemptive strike.
Preemptive strike on nukes, perhaps, invasion no.
The only thing that will stop it is the U.S. citizens and the world community.
Stuff and nonsense. Logistics and political support come first. Neither is, at the moment, sufficient to undertake an invasion.
We must have Iran contained if we ever wish or have to intervene in Israel.
Huh? Israel handles its fights rather well, why would US need to intervene in Israel?

DR

[Ignignokt]

@ DR.

I tip my hat to you for taking my opinion apart in such a well spoken matter. As for my simplistic views and misspelling of the Shah I only say this, “I’m just a simple Marine” (Don’t call me a solider) the question of the OP was WILL we invade Iran, not will we invade Iran NOW. I will stick to my guns as far as Iran being one of our original objectives for how the pieces are set in the Middle East right now. Yet I may be giving Bush and his Staff too much credit. As for our intervention in Israel, yes they do fight their own wars well. Yet we do not know what preexisting agreements our government has with theirs that may have obligated us to step in on their part. (Oh god I sound like a CT) And there are some in power that believe that achieving stability in the Middle East is possible (Quacks) and that would involve taking control of Iran and any other Islamic fundamentalist groups that support the Palestinians. A ground force would be needed in Iran maybe not in the initial stages of the war, but you can’t believe tactical strikes alone would secure a victory. The Iranians are much bolder and willing to resist in large force in addition to their guerilla operations than Iraq was. As for there not being political support for an invasion, that is due to the popular opinion of the voting population. If boy scouts were selling war bonds to invade Iran in front of movie theaters and Rosie the riveter went back to the war effort the politicians would go for it. So we do have the power and responsibility to prevent things happening (If keep it form happening at least restoring sanity), the generation of the sixties made ground in this. Can Bush invade Iran, you’re right probably not, but nothing is ever out of the question. All he needs is another Gulf of Tonkin type resolution to send forces over. Yes I do agree it would be a huge mistake, but in my opinion this whole damn thing was. However I do agree paramilitary actions will be our most likely move. Will we invade in the next ten to twenty years, I fear we may. It seems inevitable if we continue to operate in the Middle East as we do now. Of course I would not presume to know what changes will happen come 2008 and with whatever political changes to come. As for a double fronted war, there is much more detail that can be debated in that regards. Perhaps it would be a good thread sometime.

[Polaris]

A side note of the Iraq Iran war is that we funded Hussein with weapons in this war (He used to be our main man so to speak.

This is not true. Satellite photos were all that were given to Saddam (as you should know, his military was equipped with Soviet and Chinese weapons). The sarin and VX gas was all made in Iraq. Gumboot will back me up on this.

[Ignignokt]

No need to have anyone back you up, I'll concede to that.

[Darth Rotor]

“I’m just a simple Marine” (Don’t call me a solider) the question of the OP was WILL we invade Iran, not will we invade Iran NOW.
Hah! :D I've been sandbagged a few times by guys assuring me that they were "just a simple infantryman" or "just a country boy" about half a minute before they ate my lunch! "Just a Marine?" Semper Fi in any case. (Flying Squid here)

I will stick to my guns as far as Iran being one of our original objectives for how the pieces are set in the Middle East right now. Yet I may be giving Bush and his Staff too much credit.
If you mean "long term strategy" as envisioned by the egg heads, I get your point. Credit for thinking big, BushCo should get, credit for knowing the art of the possible, and for listening to competent military advice, not so much.
As for our intervention in Israel, yes they do fight their own wars well. Yet we do not know what preexisting agreements our government has with theirs that may have obligated us to step in on their part.
The Mediterranean Dialogue is an overt regional stability initiative by US and NATO with, among others, Israel.
(Oh god I sound like a CT) And there are some in power that believe that achieving stability in the Middle East is possible (Quacks) and that would involve taking control of Iran and any other Islamic fundamentalist groups that support the Palestinians.
"Taking control" sounds good in a video game, but as you have seen, gets innate resistance at the personal level.
A ground force would be needed in Iran maybe not in the initial stages of the war, but you can’t believe tactical strikes alone would secure a victory.
No indeed, I am not a SIlver Bullet maven. The point of tactical strikes is to blunt the Iranian capability to project force into the Persian Gulf, not to "take over" the country.
The Iranians are much bolder and willing to resist in large force in addition to their guerilla operations than Iraq was. As for there not being political support for an invasion, that is due to the popular opinion of the voting population.
Yes, if you can't make the case to the people, you dont' get their support for war. FDR had that problem in his attempts to get US support for the UK before Pearl Harbor.
Can Bush invade Iran, you’re right probably not, but nothing is ever out of the question. All he needs is another Gulf of Tonkin type resolution to send forces over. Yes I do agree it would be a huge mistake, but in my opinion this whole damn thing was.
Nod.
However I do agree paramilitary actions will be our most likely move. Will we invade in the next ten to twenty years, I fear we may. It seems inevitable if we continue to operate in the Middle East as we do now. Of course I would not presume to know what changes will happen come 2008 and with whatever political changes to come.
As for a double fronted war, there is much more detail that can be debated in that regards. Perhaps it would be a good thread sometime.
Yes, another time perhaps.

DR