Speculation mounting of an attack on Iran

[seycyrus]

misinterpreted [2,3,4] and that Iran has absolutely no intentions of wiping Israel of any map.

...

[2] http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2005/12/16/iran_holocaust051216.html
[3] http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/2006/02/20/iran_denies_wanting_to_wipe_israel_off_the_map/
[4] http://english.people.com.cn/200705/19/eng20070519_375995.html

There is a far cry from a public policy statement directly countermanding the president of Iran's public statement and the semantical backsliding shown in those three links.

Why do we all of a sudden discount the meaning behind Ahmanj's words, and insist on the strictest interpretatation, and smile when this interpretation is so obviously twisted?

***
i.e.
How can we remove Israel from the map? Who's map? What if we don't find all the maps?
***

Israel is a region in addition to a state, there is word in Farsi for this area. They cannot remove a *region* from the map.

This is doubletalk.

Who/what comprises the zionist regime? Take a guess.

 

[mjolnir80]

most people underestimate iran
first off its military is allot more advanced than most people think it is
second i doubt Russia and China would be very happy if america or israel suddenly decided to attack iran

 

[Gokul43201]

There is a far cry from a public policy statement directly countermanding the president of Iran's public statement and the semantical backsliding shown in those three links.

There's no semantic backsliding or doubletalk here:

Mohammad Larijani, Iran's national security chief said Friday that his country was not intending to wipe Israel "off the map."

That's the official government position, presented at the World Economic Forum, and it countermands any translation of A'jad's words that involves "wiping Israel off the map."

 

[Ivan Seeking]

most people underestimate iran
first off its military is allot more advanced than most people think it is
second i doubt Russia and China would be very happy if america or israel suddenly decided to attack iran

Just for the record: Iraq had the 4th most powerful military in the world, and it tooks all of 100 hours to eliminate it.

 

[seycyrus]

There's no semantic backsliding or doubletalk here:That's the official government position, presented at the World Economic Forum, and it countermands any translation of A'jad's words that involves "wiping Israel off the map."

Do you think that the western media deliberately distorted Ahmanj's words?

Perhaps this new "peaceful" Iran should discuss it's position with Hamas and Hizbollah?

 

[Art]

Just for the record: Iraq had the 4th most powerful military in the world, and it tooks all of 100 hours to eliminate it.

Iran probably wouldn't be as obliging in waiting for the US to build up their forces before kicking off.

Iran's main strength is probably it's missile forces which it is believed includes the Russian sunburst missile which could pose a genuine threat to US carriers. Maybe the layered defence the USN employs would be successful in countering such an attack but as no-one is quite sure what the full capabilities of the sunburst are other than it has a long range, is very fast and self-manouverable to avoid anti-ASMs it could be dangerous finding out especially if a swarm attack was used with numerous, cheaper more plentiful missiles timed to arrive at the same time as them.

Their older silkworm ASCMs would also be extremely dangerous to any commercial shipping in the gulf whilst they have many missiles more than capable of hitting US assets in Iraq plus targets in Israel including their nuclear reactor.

Obviously Iran's missile assets would be something the US and Israel would target first but one would think the Iranians have contingency plans for that.

Ultimately Iran would be beaten but I wouldn't expect the cake-walk the US and it's allies found in Iraq.

 

[seycyrus]

Here's an interesting article about some of these issues just recently raised.

http://globalpolitician.com/24904-syria-iran

 

[mheslep]

There's no semantic backsliding or doubletalk here:That's the official government position,

Official according to who? He's a bureaucrat, even if highly placed. He's not Supreme Leader Khamenei, he's not President Ahmadinejad.

 

[mheslep]

...There is something which is illogical in the whole thing. If you think that the Iranians are ready to sacrifice 3/4 of their cities and people just to be able to level Israel (which I don't think they are REALLY ready for, even though they might say so: I call them bluff), what might make you think that some sanctions and some minor bombing will make them change their minds ? And if that can make them change their minds, that means that BY FAR they are not going to risk (despite their saying) a nuclear conflict with Israel.

I don't expect a conventional bombing would change their minds, I expect it would seriously set back their ability to make a bomb as the Israeli's did with S. Hussein's Osirak nuclear facility.

And, again, if they really want to make a nuke, they will sooner or later have one. It might take 5 years, or it might take 20 years, or 50, but they will make one if that's what they want. The laws of nature are the same for everybody.

Twenty, fifty years would likely be a far different story internally in Iran. I think that amount of time will give the democratic movements there time enough to eject the nutty Mullahs.

 

[mjolnir80]

Just for the record: Iraq had the 4th most powerful military in the world, and it tooks all of 100 hours to eliminate it.

it might have had a strong military but it was not a united country. no Iraqi liked their current regime

 

[mheslep]

...It was a poker game. What was a possibility was that the US would have attacked the Cuban bases. The real danger at that point was that the Soviet military *in Cuba* had the possibility of launching an attack themselves, even without Russian consent. What was also a danger was that that crazy general Power was just itching to launch an all-out strike on the Soviet Union. But if the Americans would have attacked Cuba, and there wouldn't have been any local initiatives at launching the missiles by the local military under attack, then I'm 100% certain that the Soviets wouldn't have gone for a war.

"Khrushchev authorized his Soviet field commanders in Cuba to launch their tactical nuclear weapons if invaded by U.S. forces." -http://www.hpol.org/jfk/cuban/
I've seen an interview with a Soviet commander on the ground at the time that said he would have used his tactical nukes had the US invaded in those 14 days. Then add Castro and pal Che Guevara who urged the use of Soviet nuclear weapons

If the nuclear missiles had remained, we would have used them against the very heart of America, including New York City, ... We will march the path of victory even if it costs millions of atomic victims. ... We must keep our hatred alive and fan it to paroxysm.

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/10/4/175241.shtml

Now, you cite the Cuban missile crisis. It was part of the risk to pay. But I cited you the fact that nuclear weapons stopped the Soviet invasion of Western Europe.

The only fact is that the Soviets did not invade W.E. The 'why' is an opinion, but granted a reasonably based one.

 

[quadraphonics]

Official according to who? He's a bureaucrat, even if highly placed. He's not Supreme Leader Khamenei, he's not President Ahmadinejad.

Yeah, this is a big issue when it comes to diplomacy/relations with Iran. The Islamic Republic is fairly schizophrenic, with some elements acting like a normal, rational nation-state, while others seem to still be wedded to a messianic idea of Iran as the vanguard of a global Islamic revolution. As far as anyone outside can tell, these different strains have yet to be reconciled, which leads to erratic, sudden shifts in Iran's approach to the world, and a lack of coherence between the rhetoric emerging from different factions. This poses a major problem for any outsider considering diplomacy with Iran, as it's hard to gauge exactly how much authority the delegate you're negotiating with has to make any deal stick. It also makes it extremely difficult for more pragmatic elements with Iran to engage in effective diplomacy with the outside world, as they risk being undermined by the hardline elements (either being portrayed as 'collaborators,' or simply discredited by having their deals undone after the fact).

One should bear in mind that America's diplomatic impasse with Iran predates the current Administration by decades; there are structural impediments to effective diplomacy that any President, no matter how committed, will be faced with. The big problem here is that while everyone is more-or-less happy to wait around for Iran to sort its identity out, as long as they don't pose a dire threat. But the risk of nuclear proliferation changes that calculus, which, considering the disfunctions of Iran as a polity, creates serious risks.

So, while there are presumbly factions in Iran bent on weaponization (and even nuclear attacks), and others that are opposed to weaponization, my best guess is that Iran will end up developing a robust fuel cycle that would position them to credibly be able to develop a bomb on a short time frame (the fuel cycle is, by far, the most difficult part of creating weapons. Building a rudimentary, but still devestating, weapon is easy work once you already have the fuel). This gives them much of the benefits of actually possessing a weapon (i.e., neighbors will be afraid of antagonizing them into weaponizing), while leaving the door open for a non-violent resolution to the current stand-off, where Iran would pledge not to build a weapon and abide by the NPT, etc. This is the same basic posture maintained by many countries such as Japan and Brazil. You might call it a "nuclear threshold state," if you like.

However, such a state of affairs is still unacceptable to the US, as well as every other country in the Middle East. While the threshold posture is probably sufficient to avoid actual military action, it is pretty much guaranteed to lead to further fuel-cycle proliferation in the region, which in turn could lead to an actual weapons race. Any of which, given the polities in question, greatly increases the odds of nuclear materials or even weapons ending up in the hands of terrorists. A nuclear Iran is simply not good for regional or global peace and stability. And it's troubling that people have gotten so used to complaining about Iraq that they don't seem to consider the possibility that attacking Iran to prevent such an outcome might be the lesser of two evils. MAD only barely worked at preventing nuclear war between two stable, rational powers, and even then it required quite a bit of luck and restraint. A Middle East where Iran, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Syria and Egypt all have nuclear arms is a recipe for Armageddon.

 

[Gokul43201]

Official according to who? He's a bureaucrat, even if highly placed. He's not Supreme Leader Khamenei, he's not President Ahmadinejad.

But he represents them in the WEF.

 

[russ_watters]

Just for the record: Iraq had the 4th most powerful military in the world, and it tooks all of 100 hours to eliminate it.

Though I love the vote of confidence in our military, Iraq had the 4th largest military in the world in 1990, but in 2002, it was only a shadow of its former self.

 

[OmCheeto]

Know thine enemy; Sun Tsu? ;)

These factoids merely provide speculation as to motive. Nothing more.

So, what's your vote?

There was no third choice. So I didn't vote. Attacking another nation out of pure ignorance, of who and what they are is, well, purely ignorant, as in, beyond stupid.

I've not mastered the any of the debate styles. The first being subjectivism, the second being objectivism, and of course the newest, and most peculiar in my mind, projectionism, ie. let me tell you how or what you think.

Knowing nothing about a country that you think you hate can lead to some very odd opinions.

I would say that everyone should go back and read pages 2 through 5 at that other forum I hang out in. I did at least 20 hours of research trying to figure out why we would bomb another country.

If you're not into reading, then google:
1. Mohammed Mosaddeq

Mosaddeq was removed from power on August 19, 1953, in a coup d'état, supported and funded by the British and U.S. governments

Imagine if the US were in Iran's position right now.
How would we react to some upstart nation on the planet?

 

[Gokul43201]

I am not sure his views relative to the population/Parliament are that relevant. I think his nuttiness relative to the Assembly of 'Experts', the 'Guardian Council', or the Supreme Leader is what counts, and in that company its by no means clear that he has extreme views. Almadinejad's populartity can go to near zero, but nobody can oppose him without prior approval of the Guardian Council.

I agree, for the most part, but the Assembly of Experts is chaired by Rafsanjani, who is orders of magnitude more progressive than Ahmadinejad. Nevertheless, even an oppressive regime needs some support of the people. A hugely unpopular government is ripe breeding ground for revolution. And stomping out revolution makes for lousy press.

How do you go about discounting Ahmadinajad as the official voice of the government and selecting some other? What other?

1. The intent of the speaker is at least clouded by the quality of translation. But more likely than not, it was just impolitic ranting by the President that had to be corrected in a hurry.

2. When making an unambiguous statement about official policy representatives of the Iranian government (the Foreign Minister, Minister of the Interior and National Security Chief) stated that no such policy exists, to wipe Israel off the map. Even Khamenei stated that Iran will never threaten another country. (Of course, Khamenei probably doesn't consider Israel a legitimate country!)

3. Not only may Ahmadinejad have actually meant the sentence in the context that it was most commonly reported, but Khamenei has also made similar remarks in the past (in much less ambiguous language), though in non-official circumstances. What they may wish for is far from what they can officially endorse or enact.

 

[Gokul43201]

Just for the record: Iraq had the 4th most powerful military in the world...

In which century?

 

[Gokul43201]

Just for the record: Iraq had the 4th most powerful military in the world, and it tooks all of 100 hours to eliminate it.

This is a joke, right? Iraq never had the "4th most powerful military"...not in the last 4 centuries, at least!

 

[vociferous]

Though I love the vote of confidence in our military, Iraq had the 4th largest military in the world in 1990, but in 2002, it was only a shadow of its former self.

It was still one of the most powerful military forces on the planet.

With the exception of Russia, the United States, using conventional military weapons, could easily destroy the military forces of any other possible adversary. The United States' annual military budget is larger than all other potential enemies' military budgets combined.

The issue is not whether the United States is capable of utterly and quickly destroying Iranian military forces (it is, quite easily and that goes for other powers like China, though it may take longer and be more difficult). The issue is, defeating an enemy and capturing its capital may be a resounding military victory, but a tactical victory is not the same as achieving the political goals that were the impetus for the military action.

The United States won the war in Iraq in a matter of days. As we have seen, winning a war is very easy. Achieving political goals can be very difficult if not impossible.

 

[vociferous]

I don't expect a conventional bombing would change their minds, I expect it would seriously set back their ability to make a bomb as the Israeli's did with S. Hussein's Osirak nuclear facility.

I highly doubt it. If Israel had the ability to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities with a single air strike, they probably would have taken it already.

Iraq was using a breeder reactor to produce weapons grade plutonium. A single strike eliminated the reactor and the threat.

Iran is pursuing the path of refining weapons-grade Uranium. Their have huge nuclear facilities, decentralized and hardened against air strikes. Israel simply does not have the military power to destroy them.

The US/NATO may be able to destroy most of Iran's nuclear facilities with aerial bombardment, but without sending in an invasion force to sweep the country and secure nuclear facilities, it would be uncertain exactly how big of a setback it would be.

Also, a massive air strike aimed against Iranian nuclear facilities would probably trigger an attempt by Iran to further destabilize Iraq, which is not in the best interests of the US or the EU.

 

[TR345]

What I have gathered from watching the news is that if Israel does bomb Iran, the U.S. will be helping with the equipment. If we have the air strike capability, then so does Israel because we will gladly give them whatever they need.

 

[vociferous]

What I have gathered from watching the news is that if Israel does bomb Iran, the U.S. will be helping with the equipment. If we have the air strike capability, then so does Israel because we will gladly give them whatever they need.

The issue is really size. Israel's military is designed for self-defense. It is smaller (although more potent) than the air forces and armies of most of its Arab neighbors. Israel has a very capable air force for self defense, but Israel does not have an Air Force capable of conducting a massive and prolonged aerial assault against Iran.

It is pretty difficult to imagine Israel being capable of striking a crippling blow against Iran's nuclear weapons program.

 

[TR345]

But is it really hard to imagine Israel obtaining the needed equipment from the U.S./EU. After all, we gave islamic extremists high tech weapons to fight the russians. If Israel is going to fight a war that helps us, don't you think we would give them whatever they need to do it?

 

[vociferous]

But is it really hard to imagine Israel obtaining the needed equipment from the U.S./EU. After all, we gave islamic extremists high tech weapons to fight the russians. If Israel is going to fight a war that helps us, don't you think we would give them whatever they need to do it?

What they would need would be a much larger Air Force and maybe a huge Army to make sure that the Air Force did its job. It simply is not going to happen. There are very few true global military powers left in the world, and Israel is not, nor will it ever be one.

Now, it is still possible that Israel could launch an air strike against Iranian nuclear facilities, but I doubt that they would end up being more than a modest setback.

Iran's nuclear program needs to be dealt with, but it is not in the United State's best interest to deal with it by using military force at the moment. The actual threat of Iran's nuclear program is probably unrealistic. From everything I have seen and read, Iran is pretty backwards technologically, scientifically, and militarily.

They are probably a lot farther from a working fission weapon than a lot of hawks claim, and even if they detonate a primitive weapon (like North Korea did), they have a decrepit air force and primitive ballistic missile technology. I doubt that they could create an effective nuclear weapon and delivery system within the next twenty years, much less the next few (as some claim).

The biggest threat coming from Iran right now is not its potential future nuclear weapons, but its threat to the stability of the region, which could eventually involve covert or open war between Iran, its proxies, and the Sunni Arab states, not to mention a new arms race as countries like Saudi Arabia may decide that they have no alternative but to develop their own nuclear weapons program.

Nuclear proliferation is very bad. Russia developed nuclear weapons because the United States had them. China developed nuclear weapons because the Russians had them. India developed nuclear weapons because the Chinese had them. Pakistan developed nuclear weapons because the Indians had them. Preventing the proliferation of nuclear arms is very important. If Iran is allowed to develop nuclear weapons, then it may be impossible to stop its neighbors from doing the same. Pretty soon, every two bit country that seems to have a revolution or civil war every couple of decades is going to have some of the most awesome and devastating weapons on Earth.

The IAEA has once again found Iran non compliant. The US and EU continue to pursue sanctions through the UN, which have been moderately successful. If attempts to press sanctions fail, NATO forces could always develop their own sanction programs and possibly even a blockade of Iranian land, air, and sea trade. Military force, especially on a massive scale, should be a last resort.

 

[TR345]

I think that rather than just bombing the nuclear facilities and hoping that they cause a set back, they would probably bomb more than just the facilities, and would threaten to keep bombing until they agree to end the program. If they start back up again, they get bombed again.

 

[wildman]

The biggest problem the US faces in attacking Iran is our present lack of reserve forces. An attack on Iran would use up all that we have and then what if something else happens like North Korea attacking the south? The first rule in military is to keep forces in reserve. If we get too overextended, bad guys will be tempted to take advantage of the situation. That is why Bush is not going to attack Iran.

 

[wildman]

I think that rather than just bombing the nuclear facilities and hoping that they cause a set back, they would probably bomb more than just the facilities, and would threaten to keep bombing until they agree to end the program. If they start back up again, they get bombed again.

Do you have any idea how much those bombs cost?

 

[TR345]

Do you have any idea how much those bombs cost?

Do you know how much money the military industrial complex makes off of us using them? War cost a lot, but for some people like CEO's of Haliburton, war is very profitable.

Also, I'm not giving my opinion on what should happen, just what I think might happen.

 

[TR345]

The biggest problem the US faces in attacking Iran is our present lack of reserve forces. An attack on Iran would use up all that we have and then what if something else happens like North Korea attacking the south? The first rule in military is to keep forces in reserve. If we get too overextended, bad guys will be tempted to take advantage of the situation. That is why Bush is not going to attack Iran.

Yes, but that does not rule out bombing them. Attacking does not equate to invading.

 

[Jordan Joab]

Can the U.S. realistically mount an attack on Iran today? No. We can barely fight two wars at the same time. Also, President Bush does not command the same kind of political power he had back in the early 2000s. It would spell disaster for Republicans in November and Congress would not approve of it anyways.

Can Israel mount an attack on Iran today? I'm sure they can sustain a short-term conflict. Would they be willing to risk all-out regional war to get their point across? I don't want to know the answer.



Jordan Joab.