Israel seen rehearsing Iran attack

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

Good ol' American media. I wonder if the Iranians could read this?

Yeah when I see "President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have rejected findings from U.S. intelligence agencies that Iran has halted a clandestine effort to build a nuclear bomb" I blame the media because them reporting this will obviously get people killed and the current administration rejecting intelligence reports won't ever get people killed. Ever. I mean, authority figures can never do anything wrong otherwise they wouldn't be authority figures they'd be criminals mirite rev mah boi? And on top of that, who do we the people think we are what with all this demanding to "know" things about what the government (allegedly) does I mean seriously, what the hell guys?

[Totenkopf]

Well, seeing as how seymour hersh figured so prominently in that story, I see it as somewhat suspect. I've no doubt that US war planners have been looking at Iran, though. Given a lack of hard intelligence assets on the ground there, I'd be surprised if we had a really good picture of their true intent. Also, have to wonder how those in the intelligence community have come to this conclusion, given the aforementioned lack of humint and Iran's spreading out of it's nuke related infrastructure.

[mur'phon]

J7: I hear the same from my "local" Iranians.

 

You'll have to forgive me when I say that I believe that your attitude towards a subject as grave as nuclear proliferation is more than a tad bit flippant.

 

Believe what you like, though it would be nice if you could provide some reasons for your belief. Besides, how do you intend to prevent proliferation?

 

That strike couldn't have been more successful.

 

Poor choice of words on my part, yes it was a succes if the goal was to delay a weapon program in Iraq, of course, gulf war made the delay permanent. It also showed that Israel is willing to strike anything it considers a threat/"dosen't like". Now, this would be fine if Israel had the power of a larger country, and was able to project an image of invulnerability. However it isn't and it dosen't, thus Iran figures it can withstand an Israeli assault. When a close by country shows it's willingness to use force, you naturally want to protect yourself, thus the strike help to convince Iran (and others) that it needs nuclear weapons.

It won the battle, but it might have helped cause a war.

 

Hmmm :|

 

Feel free to prove me wrong.

 

Tot: Agreed

[Totenkopf]

So.....the $64000 question is..........will we be at war with Iran before year's end? If so, will the middle class recognize it's chance to shed itself of the clerics and usher in a newer govt reflecting their own purported beliefs? Afterall, we keep hearing from emigre`s and other sources that the youth of Iran more or less hate their rulers. If opportunity knocks, will they recognize it and open the door? I wonder......

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

Well, seeing as how seymour hersh figured so prominently in that story, I see it as somewhat suspect.

He may have a bias, however Hersh has distinguished himself as a journalist, and I think his career more than makes up for it.

[Totenkopf]

I'm sure he'd be flattered to hear that. Still not enough to convince me that his bias doesn't overshadow his work.

[mur'phon]

Tot: No, won't happen. While the rulers have their power base among the (very numerous) poor, nothing will unite persians more than an army knocking at their door. Of course, if enough important people of Qom throws their wight behind the invaders, it could work, but that is higly unlikely.

[Totenkopf]

I pretty much figure that as well. Will be interesting to see where (if at all) the intersection between opportunism and nationalism occurs. Also one of the reasons I'd tend to disregard as overly relevant claims of pro-western sentiment among the younger masses. If they aren't willing to shed the yoke of an oppressive regime, does it really matter where they stand (assuming the goal is to defeat their leaders, not "rebuild" their country)? Regardless, I think it would be a mistake to just waltz in expecting an "easy" campaign w/o first checking to see if you couldn't provide enough support for a revolution to topple the regime from within, while smashing it's military might from w/o.

[mur'phon]

Agreed, though if you want to stop it from geting nukes, you'd either need a regieme change, or a full scale occupation. One is unlikely, the other is likely to cause more death and destruction to U.S forces than Nam.

[Q]

Believe what you like' date=' though it would be nice if you could provide some reasons for your belief. Besides, how do you intend to prevent proliferation?[/quote']Okay. How about this?

A lot of Israels regional power comes from being the sole nuclear power in the region' date=' with Iran armed, Israel can no longer strike wherever and whenever it wants.[/quote']If Iran succeeds in obtaining nukes then Israel, master of the preemptive strike, will probably do whatever is necessary to render them unable to use them, up to and possibly including nuking them, IMO, and they will not bother to ask for the rest of the world's permission before doing so. It would spark the very conflict that you claim to want to prevent.

 

Why would they do so? Well because, just like me, they believe that the Iranian government just might be crazy enough to either try to nuke them, or, far more likely IMO, to distribute nuclear weapons to terrorists. Allowing Iran to possess nukes is an unacceptable scenario, period. It is the definition of insanity.

Agreed' date=' though if you want to stop it from geting nukes, you'd either need a regieme change, or a full scale occupation. One is unlikely, the other is likely to cause more death and destruction to U.S forces than Nam.[/quote']I'm sorry, but please do not insult the Vietnamese by comparing Iran's military capabilities to theirs. Iran could not beat Iraq after eight long years of war, and our military beat down Iraq in, like, eight days. Twice. Not that I want our forces to invade, mind you. Our military is spread thin enough as it is. I'd be perfectly willing to sit back and let the Israelis do it, though. I guess that's just my Machiavelian side rearing its ugly head.

[Da_Man_2423]

I'm sorry, but please do not insult the Vietnamese by comparing Iran's military capabilities to theirs. Iran could not beat Iraq after eight long years of war, and our military beat down Iraq in, like, eight days. Twice. Not that I want our forces to invade, mind you. Our military is spread thin enough as it is. I'd be perfectly willing to sit back and let the Israelis do it, though. I guess that's just my Machiavelian side rearing its ugly head.

 

Hehe, Iraqis were surrendering BEFORE the war officially started.

 

You gotta have a damn good military to do that.

[jonathan7]

Hehe, Iraqis were surrendering BEFORE the war officially started.

 

You gotta have a damn good military to do that.

 

Would you want to fight for a guy who was oppressing and brutalising you, to keep him in power?

[Da_Man_2423]

Would you want to fight for a guy who was oppressing and brutalising you, to keep him in power?

 

Some of them didn't seem to have a problem with what he was doing. Including foreign nations.

 

That's for a different thread though.

[mur'phon]

Why would they do so? Well because, just like me, they believe that the Iranian government just might be crazy enough to either try to nuke them,

 

Please show me something sugesting Iran is an irational country willing to to cause its own destruction.

 

or, far more likely IMO, to distribute nuclear weapons to terrorists. Allowing Iran to possess nukes is an unacceptable scenario, period. It is the definition of insanity.

 

Iran is shi'ite and have no interest in leaking nukes to terrorist for fear of them being used against itself. This is one area where it and the U.S could cooperate, preventing terrorism on their own teritory is high on boths list of priorities. Still, if you are afraid of nuclear leaks, why not bugger Pakistan, they even got an up and running nuclear smugling ring.

 

I'd be perfectly willing to sit back and let the Israelis do it, though. I guess that's just my Machiavelian side rearing its ugly head.

 

Well, at least we have an ugly side in common:D

Since you don't want the U.S to invade, I'll just deal with the Israel version.

First, geography is very much against the Israelis, either they'll have to buldoze through neighbours, or do an amphibious assault under a hail of misiles. To make things worse, both Hizbullah and Hamas will raise hell, baiting Israel with missiles, making Israels small size painfull (misiles can hit any city), raids or if they move enough men to Iran, hit and run assaults.

Then comes the problem of Irans size, occupying it is not really a feat Israel can pull off. Then add the large army, even larger milita, and hordes of people willing to fight for their country, and you see why Dubaya haven't already invaded. I can provide more reasons for why Israel can't pull it off if you wish.

 

Some of them didn't seem to have a problem with what he was doing. Including foreign nations.

 

The whole opression thingy? The U.S didn't have a problem with that, otherwise you'd be involved in a lot more wars, and would have stopped supporting allied opressors.

[Totenkopf]

Iran is shi'ite and have no interest in leaking nukes to terrorist for fear of them being used against itself. This is one area where it and the U.S could cooperate, preventing terrorism on their own teritory is high on boths list of priorities. Still, if you are afraid of nuclear leaks, why not bugger Pakistan, they even got an up and running nuclear smugling ring.

 

Would be more correct to state that they'd have no interest in nukes falling into sunni hands. Still, the arabs (and possibly even the Persians) might be willing to settle for the ole "the enemy of my enemy" routine. Nukes appear to be the ultimate trump card, directly or via 3rd parties. I doubt Iran would really be all that willing (in its current regime) to cooperate with America to stem further proliferation, especially in light of Israel's "suspected" nuke status.

 

As I alluded to in a previous post, when we talk about Iran, we're likely not talking about the emigre` community or the average Iranian (or at least the westernized/educated one). The question in most people's minds is about the degree to which the mullahs will try to use jihadis to press whatever their agenda is on a global front. It's probably not a good idea to project western "rationalism" onto people from another culture. Since they don't necessarily share our values, the strain of logic they employ will likely differ from our own.

 

As to your points on Israel, I think that Osirak is not repeatable for reasons aforementioned. It wouldn't be necessary for Israel to attempt an invasion of Iran (they have less ability there than we do), however, commando raids and airstrikes might be sufficient to cripple (not remove, however) Iran's nuke program. It's also likely to be something of a pyrhhic victory if they try, all the more so if nukes are involved.

 

Given that the great majority (75% +) of the world's nations are despotic, it's only natural that ANY country looking out for its interests is likely to make what would strike others as amoral/immoral alliances or relationships. Ce le vie, I s'ppose.

[mur'phon]

Would be more correct to state that they'd have no interest in nukes falling into sunni hands.

 

Tot: Iran have had weapons sold to sji'ite muslims, only to see them end up used against sji'ites in for instance Iraq. While conventional weapons can be sold/given despite that since the "colateral damage" is acceptable, a nuke simply isn't. And once Iran get (yes, I think it's inevitable) a nuke, it'll have plenty of reasons to prevent others from aquiring it.

 

Still, the arabs (and possibly even the Persians) might be willing to settle for the ole "the enemy of my enemy" routine.

 

Which is presisely why Iran want Israel weakened, but not destroyed.

 

or the average Iranian

 

The average iranian is poor and pious, which is why the system is considered acceptable to them.

 

however, commando raids and airstrikes might be sufficient to cripple (not remove, however) Iran's nuke program.

 

Several problems with that aproach, first airstrikes will be a pain after Iran bought some nasty russian anti-air misiles. Commando raids are hard for obvious reasons. Getting in with the "tools of the trade", remaining undetected, getting close, overwhelming defences, do it fast enough that they won't get the airforce up their behinds, in short it's extremely risky.

Then we have the problem of not knowing how many sites, and which type of sites Iran has, at least one was only found after an insider revealed it. So it might delay it alot, a little, or not at all, then consider that Iran will strike back, and Israel is in a rather nasty position.

[Totenkopf]

...Iran have had weapons sold to sji'ite muslims, only to see them end up used against sji'ites in for instance Iraq. While conventional weapons can be sold/given despite that since the "colateral damage" is acceptable, a nuke simply isn't. And once Iran get (yes, I think it's inevitable) a nuke, it'll have plenty of reasons to prevent others from aquiring it.

...Which is presisely why Iran want Israel weakened, but not destroyed.

...Several problems with that aproach, first airstrikes will be a pain after Iran bought some nasty russian anti-air misiles. Commando raids are hard for obvious reasons. Getting in with the "tools of the trade", remaining undetected, getting close, overwhelming defences, do it fast enough that they won't get the airforce up their behinds, in short it's extremely risky.

Then we have the problem of not knowing how many sites, and which type of sites Iran has, at least one was only found after an insider revealed it. So it might delay it alot, a little, or not at all, then consider that Iran will strike back, and Israel is in a rather nasty position.

 

Iran also fought Iraqi shiites and sunnis for 8 +/- years, so I'm not convinced they were too worried about these shiites using them to create chaos by killing each other as well as westerners. Iran gains most by keeping Iraq destabilized. If the regime in Iran is sane (maybe or not), they would likely know that a terrorist nuke going off in Israel would automatically be assumed curtesy of Iran and would risk retaliation. But.....if the leadership of Iran believe that this will bring forth their cherished 12th Imam (and consequently their own salvation)...can you really be sure they wouldn't risk it? I knew a guy from Jamaica that thought if I shot him with a gun, that God wouldn't let it hurt him, even at point blank range. Beliefs can cause people to do odd things.

 

To the rest of your points, I'm pretty much in agreement. Iran's greatest advantages are its mountainous terrain and the spreading out of its nuke facilities. While I don't doubt that special forces types could penetrate Iran (probably have), it is correct that their task would be herculean in nature. As to the Russian equipment, seeing is believing. Their stuff has a spotty track record when exported.

 

The whole question of "what will they do if they get the bomb" reminds of the movie Wrong Is Right. Once the terrorist in the film gains control of his country, he loses interest in nuke terrorism b/c now he has too much to lose. Let's hope the mullahs see it that way too.

[mur'phon]

Iran also fought Iraqi shiites and sunnis for 8 +/- years, so I'm not convinced they were too worried about these shiites using them to create chaos by killing each other as well as westerners.

 

Should have written itself rather than sji'ites. Iran isn't terribly worried about terrorists/freedom fighters using their guns, guns are relatively harmless. It is also likely that most of those guns will be used to further Irans goals, those that aren't are insignificant. Besides, since terrorists/freedom fighters will always get their hands on guns, why shouldn't Iran profitt from it?

 

Iran gains most by keeping Iraq destabilized.

 

Only for as long as said chaos is seen as a U.S failure. In the longer run, Iraq is likely to be one of Irans few allies, but for now, we agree.

 

If the regime in Iran is sane (maybe or not), they would likely know that a terrorist nuke going off in Israel would automatically be assumed curtesy of Iran and would risk retaliation.

 

Which is the same reason I don't believe Israel will use nukes to try to halt Irans nuke programme.

 

As to the Russian equipment, seeing is believing. Their stuff has a spotty track record when exported.

 

Yes, but say that to the guy in who get the blame for every plane shot down, even a few down will be seen as a failure, and put him on his way to an early retirement. Besides, the Russians like to strutt their stuff at the border, seeing is believing so if it works, I feel sorry for israels pilots.

 

But.....if the leadership of Iran believe that this will bring forth their cherished 12th Imam (and consequently their own salvation)...can you really be sure they wouldn't risk it? I knew a guy from Jamaica that thought if I shot him with a gun, that God wouldn't let it hurt him, even at point blank range. Beliefs can cause people to do odd things.

 

When have Iran acted like an irrationall theocrazy? As you said, seeing is believing:D

 

The whole question of "what will they do if they get the bomb" reminds of the movie Wrong Is Right. Once the terrorist in the film gains control of his country, he loses interest in nuke terrorism b/c now he has too much to lose.

 

Gah, seems like I'll have to watch another movie this year, they ruin me (both of them)

[Totenkopf]

We are in agreement that Iran seeks to destabilize Iraq long enough to make it untenable for America to remain and long enough to consolidate its influence over that country's lawmakers (or at least enough of them).

 

I'd agree that it's unlikely (extremely) that Israel would resort to a preemptive nuke strike to take out Iran's growing nuke infrastructure (even if it could succeed, the fallout would likely make them more hated than they are now).

 

As regards the Russian equipment......seeing is believing. Not saying they can't produce decent stuff, just that it has often faired poorly vs its American/European counterparts. Perhaps the problem has mostly been poor training and grasp of tactics (+stripped down Soviet equipment) by their client states. Remember, SH was believed to possess an awesome state of the art anti-aircraft system. Time will tell......or perhaps hopefully not have to.

 

Crazy, it would seem, is probably in the eye of the beholder. Right now, I think it's the classic case in Iran of the mullahs likely using the "great satan" as a means of distracting the populace from their (the govt's) own enormous failures. Now, if the mullahs really believe in this 12th Imam stuff.......how sane would you view them as being.

[mur'phon]

Now, if the mullahs really believe in this 12th Imam stuff.......how sane would you view them as being.

 

About as sane as those that think they can force christs return:D

[Totenkopf]

Yeah, I was almost going to mention the whole argument that people see Bush as trying to force the Second Coming, as though mere humans could force the hands of God...