Going to war with Iran

[Atlas]

What war with Iran would look like


The following is a summary of this week's Time magazine cover story.

SoCals Link: http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/....tm/index.html

(Time.com) -- The first message was routine enough: a "Prepare to Deploy Order" sent through Naval communications channels to a submarine, an Aegis-class cruiser, two minesweepers and two minehunters.

The orders didn't actually command the ships out of port; they just said be ready to move by October 1.

A deployment of minesweepers to the east coast of Iran would seem to suggest that a much discussed, but until now largely theoretical, prospect has become real: that the U.S. may be preparing for war with Iran.


The Bush team, led by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, has done more diplomatic spadework on Iran than on any other project in its 5 1/2 years in office.

For more than 18 months, Rice has kept the administration's hard-line faction at bay while leading a coalition, which includes four other members of the U.N. Security Council, that is trying to force Tehran to halt its nuclear ambitions.

But superpowers don't always get to choose their enemies or the timing of their confrontations. The fact that all sides would risk losing so much in armed conflict doesn't mean they won't stumble into one anyway.

So what would it look like? Interviews with dozens of experts and government officials in Washington, Tehran and elsewhere in the Middle East paint a sobering picture: Military action against Iran's nuclear facilities would have a decent chance of succeeding, but at a staggering cost.

And therein lies the excruciating calculus facing the U.S. and its allies: Is the cost of confronting Iran greater than the dangers of living with a nuclear Iran? And can anything short of war persuade Tehran's fundamentalist regime to give up its dangerous game?

No one is talking about a ground invasion of Iran. Too many U.S. troops are tied down elsewhere to make it possible, and besides, it isn't necessary. If the U.S. goal is simply to stunt Iran's nuclear program, it can be done better and more safely by air.

An attack limited to Iran's nuclear facilities would nonetheless require a massive campaign. Experts say that Iran has between 18 and 30 nuclear-related facilities. The sites are dispersed around the country -- some in the open, some cloaked in the guise of conventional factories, some buried deep underground.

A U.S. strike would have a lasting impression on Iran's rulers. U.S. officials believe that a campaign of several days could set back Iran's nuclear program by two to three years. Hit hard enough, some believe, Iranians might develop second thoughts about their government's designs as a regional nuclear power.

Some U.S. foes of Iran's regime believe that the crisis of legitimacy that the ruling clerics would face in the wake of a U.S. attack could trigger their downfall, though others are convinced it would unite the population with the government in anti-American rage.

Given the chaos that a war might unleash, what options does the world have to avoid it? One approach would be for the U.S. to accept Iran as a nuclear power and learn to live with an Iranian bomb, focusing its efforts on deterrence rather than pre-emption.

The risk is that a nuclear-armed Iran would use its regional primacy to become the dominant foreign power in Iraq, threaten Israel and make it harder for Washington to exert its will in the region. And it could provoke Sunni countries in the region, like Saudi Arabia and Egypt, to start nuclear programs of their own to contain rising Shiite power.

Those equally unappetizing prospects -- war or a new arms race in the Middle East -- explain why the White House is kicking up its efforts to resolve the Iran problem before it gets that far. Washington is doing everything it can to make Iran think twice about its ongoing game of stonewall. Everyone has been careful -- for now -- to stick to Rice's diplomatic emphasis.

"Nobody is considering a military option at this point," says an administration official. "We're trying to prevent a situation in which the president finds himself having to decide between a nuclear-armed Iran or going to war. The best hope of avoiding that dilemma is hard-nosed diplomacy, one that has serious consequences."

[Spider]

we could defeat Iran , but we couldnt rebuild Iran ....... like I raq , we went through Iraq faster then my wife through a checking account ...... but rebuilding is where we get bogged down ............
But I am not so sure kicking Irans áss is a good idea .....

[ORANGEJARHEAD]

Just as long as we don't commit ground troops, we should be o.k. Spiders right, we cannot rebuild Iran. It would completely drain us, Vietnam again on an even grander scale.

DOD just called up a bunch more Marine reservists, I'm gettin' nervous. I'd better start gettin' back in shape.

[Spider]

Originally Posted by ORANGEJARHEAD

Just as long as we don't commit ground troops, we should be o.k. Spiders right, we cannot rebuild Iran. It would completely drain us, Vietnam again on an even grander scale.

DOD just called up a bunch more Marine reservists, I'm gettin' nervous. I'd better start gettin' back in shape.

I sure hope you dont have to go ....... Iraq has me so pissed off , we lost alot of good Americans there ...... For a grudge ........

[SPfloppy]

Iran dosn't have to be our baby. If Israel had kept up with Lebenon minus UN interference, I think Iran and maybe Syria too may have gotten down with them. I am no fan of Israel but they might have taken care of Iran for us. I don't think it's put of the realm of possibility but I don't think it's going to happen any time soon.

[loborugger]

Defeating Iran would be a fair amount more difficult. The country is larger, the population larger, and the terrian offers the defender an advantage that the sweeping deserts of Iraq failed to provide Saddam's army.

I dont see how we could tackle Iran in our current condition. We would need a lot more troops which would mean a draft. Taxes would go up as we ramp up spending. I think this why Iran is emboldened. We are strapped to the barrel and Europe has no stomach for combat in a battle they dont believe in.

Screw rebuilding countries. Replace the current set of knuckleheads with someone of a standing in the country. Inform them that they can run their country according to their customs, laws, etc, however if there is a problem their head goes on a pike and we will pick their successor. No more of this spending sooo much blood, money and time to try and interject foreign concepts on people.

Nuclear weapons are pandoras box. They have been opened and the club is only going to get larger. I would guess in 20 years that half of the world will have them - and those that dont will be countries like Mali that can barely be called a nation. We would be better off (IMHO) trying to figure out how to deal with a world full of nuclear capable nations instead of trying to whack every nation that gets them.

[ant1999e]

So do we let them have nukes?

[Garcia Bronco]

Originally Posted by ant1999e

So do we let them have nukes?

Heck no.

[ant1999e]

Then let the cruise missiles loose.

[alkemical]

interrupting 20% or so of the worlds oil supply will have reprocussions upon us.

[mhgaffney]

Originally Posted by SPfloppy

Iran dosn't have to be our baby. If Israel had kept up with Lebenon minus UN interference, I think Iran and maybe Syria too may have gotten down with them. I am no fan of Israel but they might have taken care of Iran for us. I don't think it's put of the realm of possibility but I don't think it's going to happen any time soon.

There is no way the Israeli air force can reach targets in Iran without flying over Iraqi air space -- presently controlled by the US. The Iraqi government has made it known that it does not support such an attack.

If the US attacks anyway, or allows Israel to over fly Iraq en route to Iran, it will be obvious to the whole world that all of Bush's talk about fostering democracy in Iraq was pure bull****. We will be complicit even if Israel does it alone.

To get an idea of the grave consequences that would follow such an attack check out this analysis

http://informationclearinghouse.info/article13590.htm

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Originally Posted by loborugger

Defeating Iran would be a fair amount more difficult. The country is larger, the population larger, and the terrian offers the defender an advantage that the sweeping deserts of Iraq failed to provide Saddam's army.

I dont see how we could tackle Iran in our current condition. We would need a lot more troops which would mean a draft. Taxes would go up as we ramp up spending. I think this why Iran is emboldened. We are strapped to the barrel and Europe has no stomach for combat in a battle they dont believe in.

Screw rebuilding countries. Replace the current set of knuckleheads with someone of a standing in the country. Inform them that they can run their country according to their customs, laws, etc, however if there is a problem their head goes on a pike and we will pick their successor. No more of this spending sooo much blood, money and time to try and interject foreign concepts on people.

Nuclear weapons are pandoras box. They have been opened and the club is only going to get larger. I would guess in 20 years that half of the world will have them - and those that dont will be countries like Mali that can barely be called a nation. We would be better off (IMHO) trying to figure out how to deal with a world full of nuclear capable nations instead of trying to whack every nation that gets them.

Rep! Common sense and logic should show just about all of what you've written here to be true. Unfortunately for the Neocons and religious right it doesn't enter into their dreamworld thinking.

[mhgaffney]

Originally Posted by ant1999e

Then let the cruise missiles loose.

Have you ever heard of the Sunburn missile? I suggest you check it out.

http://informationclearinghouse.info/article7147.htm

[ant1999e]

That author seems really reliable. You can't tell his political beliefs.

[ant1999e]

Looks like we have some sunburns too.

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3905551929fb.htm

[SPfloppy]

Israel didn't seem to mind bothering or disregarding the sovereignty of Lebenon when they went after an enemy. Why would they two s#!+$ and a flak about Iraq whom they bombed a while back anyway? They know that unltimately the US will back them which I can't stand by the way. They could force our hands and then finally yes Bush would either have to support Israel's attacks openly and stand beside them or oppose them. At which point I will stop supporting Mr. Bush.

[loborugger]

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

Have you ever heard of the Sunburn missile? I suggest you check it out.

http://informationclearinghouse.info/article7147.htm

The Sunburn was around when I was in the Navy - over 15 years ago. I imagine they have figured a counter to it.

[ant1999e]

This garbage about the sunburn was written to scare us away from stomping a mudhole into irans a$$. Pure b.s.

[loborugger]

Originally Posted by ant1999e

Then let the cruise missiles loose.

Then we are going to have to cruise missile India, Pakistan, South Africa, and a host of other countries. Afterall they are additional members of the nuclear weapons club.

Of course, the counter will be, "but those countries arent hostile to us. Pakistan is our ally in the war on terror." I would answer, ya, they are our friends today. Alliances change, and esp in this region loyalties and leaders change overnight.

You have to understand that the technology of splitting the atom is now almost 70 years old. This secret cant be held down forever. People will figure it out. With the modern technology we have, research that has been done, and the peaceful applications of nuclear power out there, its not insanely hard to figure out how to make a nuke weapon.

God help us if someone pops a nuke. They are a fair amount more stout than the ones we dropped in 45.

It seems to me like America was a more liked country before we went around telling everyone how to run their country, what weapons they can/cant have, what gov'ts they should/shouldnt have. Seems to me like if we didnt go around telling folks what they can/cant do, they wouldnt immediately point their brand new weapons at us. But that is just me.

[loborugger]

Originally Posted by ant1999e

This garbage about the sunburn was written to scare us away from stomping a mudhole into irans a$$. Pure b.s.

Ya, that missile is a rip off of our technology. We used to call them "Harpoon-skys" as they were nothing more than 2nd rate, Russian made Harpoons.

Its not the front line technology that Iran has... cuz they dont have a ton of it. Its the simple problem of rolling across a vast and hostile territory for reasons that seem pretty simplistic when it comes down to conquering a nation.

[ant1999e]

Originally Posted by SPfloppy

Israel didn't seem to mind bothering or disregarding the sovereignty of Lebenon when they went after an enemy. Why would they two s#!+$ and a flak about Iraq whom they bombed a while back anyway? They know that unltimately the US will back them which I can't stand by the way. They could force our hands and then finally yes Bush would either have to support Israel's attacks openly and stand beside them or oppose them. At which point I will stop supporting Mr. Bush.

Do you really think if we turned our backs on Israel and let them be "wiped off the face of the earth" these wackos would leave us alone? They hate us also. We would be nexted. Their goal is an islamic world.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Originally Posted by ant1999e

This garbage about the sunburn was written to scare us away from stomping a mudhole into irans a$$. Pure b.s.

"Pure" ignorance! Educate and inform yourself about the SS-N-22s. There is no defense against them, they can be mobile or fixed and Russia sold China and Iran untold hundreds or thousands of them. The U.S. also bought some from Russia they were so impressed by them.

They can be equipped with conventional explosives or tactical nuclear warheads.

[ant1999e]

Originally Posted by Bronco_Beerslug

"Pure" ignorance! Educate and inform yourself about the SS-N-22s. There is no defense against them, they can be mobile or fixed and Russia sold China and Iran untold hundreds or thousands of them. The U.S. also bought some from Russia they were so impressed by them.

They can be equipped with conventional explosives or tactical nuclear warheads.

And if they have an ICBM what defense do we have for that? You are such a narrow minded a$$.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Originally Posted by loborugger

Ya, that missile is a rip off of our technology. We used to call them "Harpoon-skys" as they were nothing more than 2nd rate, Russian made Harpoons.

Its not the front line technology that Iran has... cuz they dont have a ton of it. Its the simple problem of rolling across a vast and hostile territory for reasons that seem pretty simplistic when it comes down to conquering a nation.

It's a HUGE worry for our Navy. The SS-N-22s are the fastest (mach 3), most stealthy and overall most dangerous anti-ship missiles in the world. To attack Iran we would have to do it without aircraft carriers in the Gulf or risk losing them.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Originally Posted by ant1999e

And if they have an ICBM what defense do we have for that? You are such a narrow minded a$$.

These are not ICBMs genius, that's why I said educate yourself so you wouldn't keep acting the fool.