US can't attack Iran, and Israel probably can't handle the response: Slate

[karan.1970]

In 2005, one of Iran's top military generals said that the Iranian armed forces have concluded that no country could attack Iran and that the only threat facing Iran will be internal.

If they were foolish enough to try such a thing, the US fifth fleet based in Bahrain will be obliterated as would their bases in Iraq, Afghanistan, Kuwait and Qatar. American soldiers will once again face the Mahdi army in Iraq and their vulnerable bases will taste shahab and zelzal missiles. A single barrel of oil will not be exported from the Persian Gulf and the world economy will grind to a halt. US fighter planes that will try to carry out such attacks won't have an airstrip to return to.

Israel will also be severely punished by Iranian Missiles based in Iran, Syria and Lebonan.

Should any Arab Dictator in the Persian Gulf decide to join in on any such attack, their oil and gas fields will be put out of operation for many years to come.

America can say goodbye to its aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf, it will be forced to remove them or let them sink to the bottom of the Persian Gulf. To give you an insight into military planners in Iran; they have said in the past "as long as the US navy is in the Persian Gulf, we're not worried, as soon as they leave, we might start worrying" meaning we have the ability to sink their ships and they know it.

I went to a lecture given by an Iranian general and i got the impression that they are almost itching for a confrontation with the US for two reasons, one it will give us a reason to build nuclear weapons and two America would be forced to leave from the Middle east.

The other extreme of the spectrum from the post of Super_star. Probably even less likely

 

[Abi]

The other extreme of the spectrum from the post of Super_star. Probably even less likely

How do you propose America removes the mines? Hire 1 million Indians? Or maybe get the IAF to fly over the Persian Gulf. The number of mig 21s falling from the skies might take them out.

 

[dbc]

Will America attack and destroy Iranian nuclear installations? I think not, not because we fear retaliation or lack the means or the resolve - it is pointless to do so. An attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities will only postpone the inevitable and jeopardize gains in Afghanistan. There is another aspect of Iran’s relations with the US that many overlook, snarling at the US is what every respectable Iranian leader is expected to do and most of it is for local consumption. But behind the scenes I suspect we actively engage the Iranians - we have no choice they are crucial to our interests in Central Asia, Afghanistan and the Middle East.

 

[S-2]

"I am theorizing, since none of us ultimately *know*, but I reckon the US will live with a nuclear Iran. If the only alternative available is war, the US will swallow the bitter pill and hope that a nuclear Iran will be an Iran with more to lose and hence an Iran that has a greater desire for stability."

Indeed you are theorizing-actually guessing without providing supporting arguments to your outcome. You've presumed that we don't see an Iranian nuclear capability as an existential threat to the region. You've presumed that we don't see proliferation as a possibility or, if so, equally a threat. Finally, you've presumed that the American government would be unable or unwilling to make a case for attacking Iran in the manner I hypothesized.

"If you are implying that the UAE and Saudi Arabia will go nuclear... perhaps. Ultimately Israel will have 5 nuclear capable potential adversaries to contend with."

Perhaps. Possibly six if you're including KSA, Iran, UAE, Pakistan, Egypt, and Turkey. As to "adversaries" I'm less assumptive than you to such a possibility. Turkey and Egypt may well be on the sidelines for differing reasons.

"Their conventional superiority will essentially be negated. Demographics will come into play as a means to "settle" the Arab-Israeli conflict. And this is what the Israelis fear."

The demographics of neither UAE nor KSA make a difference. Neither are profound and their armies don't reflect that either. So long as Israel retains the ability to retaliate against all collectively and DESTROY them as they'd be destroyed, any war will be conventionally fought under that umbrella. See NATO/Warsaw Pact.

MAD becomes a strategic checkmate for ALL. So long as the conventional force balance is adequate for Israel, their defense will be assured.

"I suppose there can be several perspectives on the above. Ultimately, the fact remains that Bush did not attack Iran. If he didn't, it is doubtful Obama will."

You appear to offer a false analogy that fails to account for the changed conditions that premised Bush's decision to defer attack and now. It doesn't change whether or not America sees Iranian acquisition of nuclear weapons as an existential threat by Bush choosing to follow alternative pathways to preventing such. If those prove a failure as attempted by both Bush and Obama, it remains to be seen whether we will choose an attack as a final recourse.

"This is just my estimation. I might be wrong. But I don't think I am."

You could be correct but the basis for such will be reached independantly based upon existing conditions-not as they were.

"How, then, would you characterize the Clinton sponsored action against 1) OBL's camps in Afghanistan and 2) Against the milk plant/Chemical factory in Sudan?"

You are correct that I shouldn't have offered such an absolute response. It is conditional based upon the perceived threat and the estimated requirement to adequately address the threat. We won't conduct a one-off raid should we attack Iran.

"A lot of "ifs" in the above. You are basically talking about a multi-thousand target war if you are really making the case for neutralizing all that you would need to neutralize."

I am.

"The cost of such a retaliation is unnecessary for the US to bear."

That cost is undefined by you so it is impossible to both assess in absolute terms of effect or relative terms of bearability. Iran may not be able to deliver whatever "massive" means to you and we may be able to repel or absorb that better than you suggest.

"At this point I believe a nuclear Iran is a reality the US will just have to deal with. And while we might find this strange and surprising, US strategists during the Kennedy era predicted a faster pace of nuclearization than what actually occurred. And as part of their hypothesis of such a future, they concluded that the US would simply have to deal with a large number of nuclear powers. Their estimate was off by several decades, but hey, what's 50 years here or there."

You've made your belief clear. You haven't supported the reason for such adequately IMV. Alluding to thoughts by analysts in the Kennedy era regarding the distant future in the most general terms doesn't strike me as reasonably transferable to the here and now with which we must collectively contend.

"The basic point remains valid."

It's not even fully articulated much less proved valid.

"This is not just about military capability. It is also about selling it to the American public..."

If considered necessary there will be an attack. It may require selling beforehand or after-the-fact. When and to what effect that is done doesn't address the manner in which it shall be done.

"...and dealing with the response that such aggression will beget. There are many theoretical possibilities. This one is incredibly remote."

War may be remote but that doesn't mean it isn't in the range of options nor the progression of events. We'll see if it arises. If so, I provided my view of how it will be attempted.

"You have sketched a very "neat and clean" scenario which will not unfold as planned."

I've sketched a premise to a military campaign. You reject the liklihood of such altogether. That's a separate matter. As to how it unfolds, I've indicated my understanding of assymetry and account for its inherent unpredictability.

"It never does. Hezbollah, Shia parties in Iraq, Iranian influence with the NA, Hamas, Dirty Bombs, C-802s, Quds force's international capabilities, Oil prices, Qassams, Iranian ballistic missiles, attacks on US forces in Europe, ME and Afghanistan etc. etc. are all factors to be considered. This is just a very concise short-list."

This is true. You won't be the only to think of those and its not reasonable, I believe, to have considered that I haven't either. Because you've thought of them, however, doesn't necessarily mean they achieve their desired effect or even be attempted.

"The full list of variables would be far more complex and lengthy, requiring an analysis of first-order, second-order, third-order etc. cause/effect chains."

I am aware of that. So is our CJCS, Adm Mullen-

"Let me be clear: We owe [Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates] and [President Obama] a range of options for this threat. We owe the American people our readiness...But, as I have said many times, I worry a lot about the unintended consequences of any sort of military action. For now, the diplomatic and the economic levers of international power are, and ought to be, the levers first pulled."

So, too, shall be the planning and battle staffs as well as the combatant commanders and their troops.

Mullen Wary Of Attacks On Iran's Nukes-Washington Times Feb. 23, 2010

"Completely agree. America or nobody. And I don't think it's going to be America. Qed, it will be nobody."

You may be correct but a soldier's responsibility is to prepare for the worst. Our armed forces will devise the best plan we might achieve that accounts for every possible reaction by our possible enemy. We have had some demonstrated past success at that. No plan survives first contact has applicability but not totally so. Good plans retain more of their essential elements than poorly conceived.

We've proven far more able at winning wars than winning the subsequent peace.

That's an issue for our diplomats to manage if they fail to achieve our objectives and the President refuses to accede to a fait accompli. The President's decision may be premised upon his acceptance of the military's plan and the manner we've accounted for risks. Neither you nor I will be privy to those discussions.

Thanks.

 

[harun786]

Hey Abi,

Iran may be very strong, but remember one thing, there are other enemies of Iran not just US. The only reason that Iran is surviving is its oil production and may have our support and indirectly china support, but remember that Israel is a country which controls finance, and technology. US, UK, and Europian Union will all chip in.

India on the other hand may have **** Air force, but it is the 2nd biggest economy in the world so don't be over confident about ur country.

Where do u think Iran will get its sophisticated weapons?? if the war goes on longer???. Iran is still make a n bomb , but has not tested it? it might also fall like Indian Mig 21s in ur own country

H

 

[Abi]

Will America attack and destroy Iranian nuclear installations? I think not, not because we fear retaliation or lack the means or the resolve - it is pointless to do so. An attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities will only postpone the inevitable and jeopardize gains in Afghanistan. There is another aspect of Iran’s relations with the US that many overlook, snarling at the US is what every respectable Iranian leader is expected to do and most of it is for local consumption. But behind the scenes I suspect we actively engage the Iranians - we have no choice they are crucial to our interests in Central Asia, Afghanistan and the Middle East.

I disagree with your first post, a lot of Americans including ex CIA agents and generals have ruled it out purely on a military point of view.

I sort of agree with your second post. Iran and America cooperated early in the Bush admin. untill he started acting like a cowboy. Then along came Obama, Iran had high hopes all of which were dashed, he signed for another year of sanctions, spewed the same old rhetoric and then America got the idea that regime change could occur. Then came the 22nd Bahman celebrations which proved that the regime is here to stay and the 20% enrichment capability, and now America knows it has to engage Iran, not "the people of Iran" but the Islamic Republic of Iran.

I read on Jundullahs official website that it was America that handed Rigi to Iran, which has a very good chance of being true as Jundullah was a recipient of US money and wouldn't blame America for no reason. If this is the case then it shows that America has finally accepted the fact that it has to talk to Iran.

 

[Spitfighter]

Israel can survive with a nuclear Iran, but it can't carry on with its actions when Iran is nuclear. It will be in a weaker position and will be forced to negotiate with other countries. This will be good for the region, especially for the Israelis themselves. At the moment, they are making very stupid decisions because they can and no one had the power to stop them until Iran started Hezbollah.

Israel needs to be defeated and put in a weak position for it to finally sit down and seriously consider a peace solution.

And you've highlighted precisely why Israel will not tolerate a nuclear Iran.

Do you know what the strait of Hormuz is? How wide it is?

Do you know how many Indians live in Dubai?

Iran has thousands of very advanced mines and very advanced ASMs with very long ranges that can reach any part of the Persian Gulf from deep within Iran. We have tens of FACs, 10 small and slow submarines that can hardly be detected, perfect for the PG, filled with mines. We also have about three thousand fast speed boats armed to take out oil tankers.

What you don't have is nuclear weapons, so regardless of how strong Iran is today, it'll only get stronger with nuclear weapons and that will seriously undermine Israel's and America's standing in the Middle East, once again you've highlighted why Iran is a threat to American and Israeli domination. Also remember that you won't be the one to initiate hostilities, America won't wait for Iran to mine the strait of Hormuz, they'll preempt you.

There isn't a single navy on earth that can challenge the USN at the moment, they can and will establish a corridor for the oil to flow through and at the same time launch debilitating air attacks on all your naval installations, simultaneously.

For all your FAC's they have destroyers, carriers, the most advanced nuclear submarines on the planet, AEGIS defense systems, PAC-III's, tactical nukes, thermonuclear weapons, etc, etc.

Conventionally, no country on earth will last long against the US, certainly not long enough to cripple their economy, worst comes to worst they can wipe Iran off the map. The US also has gas of its own and a considerable amount of 'strategic reserves' (oil & gas).

If worse comes to worst, we'll just bomb oil fields and stop the oil flow that way.

Whose oil fields? the Saudis? the Emiratis? The only reason Iran is developing nuclear weapons (allegedly) is to enhance its own standing in the region. Iran is ambitious, isolation isn't in your interest.

Why don't you have a look at a map of the M.E, see how many countries are in between Israel and Iran, see the range, see how scattered Iranian nuclear facilities are, how well protected they are and have a look at Iran's retaliation capabilities and threats. Iran has said that it will take both the US and Israel responsible if one attacks. America wouldn't allow Israel to try something that stupid as it knows it will be dragged into the conflict.

I agree, I still don't fully understand how the Israelis will manage to pull off such a stunt, but then again they flew all the way to Uganda to rescue Israeli hostages. Furthermore, I've talked to American military professionals and it seems that Israel does indeed have the legs for the mission.

Furthermore, Israel is willing to lose men over this, they don't have to hit all your facilities, just enough to provoke a response from your side, its all downhill from thereon, once the Americans get involved its game over.

To demonstrate how easily we can block it, lets say Iran has no anti-ship missiles, no frigates, no FAC, no submarines, no planes, no missiles, just mines. We have so many mines that it would take at least a few weeks to clear them, lets also say that Iran doesn't disrupt the mine sweeping operations. Those three weeks will cripple the world economy.

Ok but what if there's an American CBG in your way? To put things in perspective, just one of those is stronger than the ENTIRE Chinese navy. There's one sitting not too far from Iran as it is.

Now add to that thousands of advanced ASMs, thousands of 500kg payload zelzal rockets that will aim for ports, over 300 warplanes, loads of submarines, thousands of small boats armed with rockets capable of disabling oil tankers.

I'm not saying Iran is incapable of retaliating, of course both sides will take hits, but don't you think they'll try and wipe out as much of your airforce and missiles as possible?

AFAIK the patriot missile defense system performed quite well against Iraqi scuds, I'm not sure if that'll be the case with Iranian Zelzal's, perhaps one of the better informed members could elaborate.

There is a reason why the US hasn't attacked Iran. If it could attack Iran, it would have done so at least 5 years ago when we weren't as capable and they weren't as weak as they are now.

Try looking at it from their perspective, a nuclear Iran, as you yourself have highlighted will completely shift the balance of power in the region.

This thread should have been had 5 years ago, today isn't the time for it.

Iran wasn't as capable in the nuclear arena 5 years ago as it is today.

 

[Abi]

India on the other hand may have **** Air force, but it is the 2nd biggest economy in the world so don't be over confident about ur country.

It's population is the 2nd largest in the world, it's economy is the 12th largest. Just above Mexico, and below Canada, a country with a population of 34m. It has a GDP of 1.2 trillion with 1.15 billion people, and our Turkish Brothers, with a population of 77 million have a GDP of $800bn.

]Where do u think Iran will get its sophisticated weapons??

It builds most of them itself.

 

[Spitfighter]

How do you propose America removes the mines? Hire 1 million Indians? Or maybe get the IAF to fly over the Persian Gulf. The number of mig 21s falling from the skies might take them out.

Don't drag India into this, most Indians don't support military action against Iran FYI.

 

[Abi]

Saddam Hussein wanted longer range missiles so he got scuds and thought by elongating the casing and adding more fuel, it would travel further. It increased the range but it made it very unstable and they all tumbled on re-entry, that is why one was intercepted.

 

[Bang Galore]

How do you propose America removes the mines? Hire 1 million Indians? Or maybe get the IAF to fly over the Persian Gulf. The number of mig 21s falling from the skies might take them out.

That's an interesting thought. Never would have come up with that kind of innovative idea myself. Glad to know that we can be of some help. We at least now know what to do with our mig 21's whenever we actually phase them out.

What's with you pal? got too many friends? Pissing of a nation of 1.2 billion isn't the smartest thing you can do especially when there is no reason to do so.

 

[ek_indian]

@Abi and harun786:

India and Iran are friends. No matter how much ho-ha you do on internet, things are not going to be changed. Both govts know it and working for it. Even we are accused of adopting "neighbour's neighbour is a friend" policy.

Also India is not related to topic. Come out of your anti-india syndrome.

Lastly, you guys are seriously undermining India. Anyways back to topic please.

 

[harun786]

It's population is the 2nd largest in the world, it's economy is the 12th largest. Just above Mexico, and below Canada, a country with a population of 34m. It has a GDP of 1.2 trillion with 1.15 billion people, and our Turkish Brothers, with a population of 77 million have a GDP of $800bn.




It builds most of them itself.

Hey Abi,

I apologie for an error , i meant to say it is the 2nd fastest growing economy in the world. the way they are buying weapons is just amazing.

Remember one thing making ur own weapons when there is peace and when there is a war is 2 different scenarios.

I would show some caution on the iran side as it will have heaps to loose.

H

 

[xebex]

super_star..this is Iran not Iraq...

and thatz what Iraq said........"this is Iraq not Afghanistan".

On Topic: I believe something can be done diplomatically. But dont even think that US is not ready for a conventionalwar, its just a presidential request away.

No offense to Iranian members, am just sayin.

 

[gambit]

Is Israel the only importer of oil? No they're not. So why do you assume the oil would be sold to Israel?

Why do you assume that Iran can compel any buyer not to resell to Israel? This is what I mean by 'indirectly'.

Iran mustn't export anything to survive, definitely not in the short tern, we have one of the worlds largest forex. reserves in the world and if you haven't noticed, we're self sufficienct in most things. Besides, the blockade of the strait of hormuz won't be long term anyway, only until factories, cars and power plants all over the world come to a halt and the world pressures America to cease fire.

You must be joking...!!! This is what 'they' said before Desert Storm and remember that we actually invaded Iraq. With Iran, we do not need to have troops in-country. We can deliver airstrikes that can seriously cripple Iranian nuclear processing capabilities. We can do this from outside the gulf. Any halt of oil flow will not be serious enough to stop the world from its commerce.

I am sure Israel will force America or guilt trip Germany into providing it with oil but the problem is the refineries and ports will have been blown up by the time the oil gets to Israel.

Whose refineries? Iran's? What make you think other countries do not have their own refineries to process crude?

I have seen a lot of Americans talking about Iran importing refined petroleum, as if this is an indication of our military capabilities.

Indirectly it is an indication. With no refined petroleum products, the Iranian military would not last long in a shooting war.