Iran locked and loaded

Sponge Bob

B1 bombers in Qatar and Oman

USS Stennis battlegroup due off Hormuz this week

and now

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6376639.stm

BBC security correspondent Frank Gardner says the trigger for such an attack reportedly includes any confirmation that Iran was developing a nuclear weapon - which it denies

and a NEW one

Alternatively, our correspondent adds, a high-casualty attack on US forces in neighbouring Iraq could also trigger a bombing campaign if it were traced directly back to Tehran.

finally, the witching hour

The UN Security Council has called on Iran to suspend its enrichment of uranium by 21 February.

all very metal .

ballooba

God help us all.

Judt

BBC security correspondent Frank Gardner says the trigger for such an attack reportedly includes any confirmation that Iran was developing a nuclear weapon

And if they are then one would be justified in attacking...

a high-casualty attack on US forces in neighbouring Iraq could also trigger a bombing campaign if it were traced directly back to Tehran.

If Iran is directly linked to an attack which kills a number of US soldiers then that's a casus belli, under international law. Wouldn't you agree, or do you think that US soldiers are fair game?

The UN Security Council has called on Iran to suspend its enrichment of uranium by 21 February.

The same UN that everyone cried for when it was ignored going into Iraq. Now that it agrees with US policy it's evil too?

The_Minister

I honestly don't know wheather or not to be worried.

marco murphy

Scary shi-t altogether, the third anti-christ has come indeed!

Alternatively, our correspondent adds, a high-casualty attack on US forces in neighbouring Iraq could also trigger a bombing campaign if it were traced directly back to Tehran.

Now... All that one needs is for Bush to conjure up his ''The Iranians are supplying such and such... which threatens our nations troops'' and use that as an excuse.

Sponge Bob

fraid so

B1 and B2 bombers in Masirah and Tamarith airbases in Oman and in Diego Garcia . B52s deployed there too, for later. They were deployed there partially to reduce flying times to Afghanistan for Taliban intediction as well, a handy each way bet you could call it.

The new carrier battlegroup will be in place within a week in the gulf.

The North Koreans did Iran no favours last week, the US were not prepared to engage both NK and Iran , just the one .

Note

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/02/12/nkorea.talks/index.html

Dirk Gently

Who decides when Iran has breached the conditions,

Good old reliable U.S. intelligence?

wes

Wow, they can't be serious. The US has lost the plot and an attack on Iran will increase terrorism world wide 10 fold. Making things far far worse.

Judt

wes wrote:

Wow, they can't be serious. The US has lost the plot and an attack on Iran will increase terrorism world wide 10 fold. Make things far far worse.

Or drop it, given that Iran appears to be supplying plenty of the munitions our Islamic Crusading friends seem to be bandying about.

Sponge Bob

its a fair old hairtrigger since the second condition was added. So what happens if a humvee is punctured by an Iranian Made Nail , overturns , rolls down embankment splatters 5 GIs inside.?

Dirk Gently

Judt wrote:

Or drop it

Strange how there are people who still think destroying a country reduces terrorism.

wes

Judt wrote:

Or drop it, given that Iran appears to be supplying plenty of the munitions our Islamic Crusading friends seem to be bandying about.

Sure they are...... Honestly if you believe that I don't see much point in discussing this further.

marco murphy

Or drop it, given that Iran appears to be supplying plenty of the munitions our Islamic Crusading friends seem to be bandying about.

Such as?

Sponge Bob

Interestingly the BBC article has been updated and the explicit target list includes the only (just finished) Iranian nuclear reactor in Bushehr. This has not been fuelled yet. It was due to be fuelled next month but the Russians who will fuel it pulled out today.

Were it alone rendered inoperable the 'justification 'for the Iranian 'enrichment program' would in itself be questionable as for a few years as they would have nowhere to use this enriched uranium.

The Russians would rebuild it , later , for cash of course.

marco murphy

Has Russia and Iran indeed fallen out now? (pun:rolleyes:)

jank

Or drop it,

How can you destroy an idea??

Jesus ****ing christ, Havent you been following whats been going on the last 5 years in Iraq and the rest of the world...

InFront

Is it just me or was there nothing very surprising in that article?
I'm as much against a US attack as the next guy, but the US Army have already been sending aircraft carriers and the like to the gulf in the past few weeks specifically in relation to the Iran situation.

I'm not an expert on the nature of special intelligence, but I imagine it would be expected that they would already have their targets chosen long before now, so confirmation of that is nothing very surprising is it?

Also, the deadline mentioned in the opening post is the UN deadline before further economic sanctions are imposed, it is not a military deadline.

Having said all that, I do agree that there is a certain inevitability to a US attack, but I'm not sure this information gives us any reason to believe it is to come any sooner than previously expected.

marco murphy

so confirmation of that is nothing very surprising is it?

Thats what gets me. I think we all anticipated it, it's just the confirmation that sends it home.

Just I don't know how effective the US plans would be.
Have a look at the much talked about Iranian Missile Defence

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPelLduhWC0

Manic Moran

Where? Unless the Iranians bought out the Russian Almaz-Antey concern, and also bought things like the one working Kuznetsov class aircraft carrier (which I don't think the Russians are about to sell), that wasn't an Iranian video.

NTM

Hobbes

Judt wrote:

Or drop it

I don't think you fully understand how terrorism works yet.

As I understand the latest going on is that Russia is claiming Iran owes them lots of money and won't continue to help on the nuclear plants until they pay up (think its around 1Billion).

Add to that Bush is getting shot down in government to get more troops into Iraq. If he was to instigate any attack on Iran it probably isn't going to go down too well either.

The only real wild card is Israel in all this.

According to News 24 last night, this was a convenient leak of a battle plan by washington so Tehran would see it.
Of course Tehran knows it's a posture and they know the U.S public don't want war with Iran.
Washington must think Tehran are thick-they are not.
I wouldn't waste time worrying about it, it ain't going to happen.
This will go down the deal with NK route eventually.
Sen McCain can almost smell office when his main opponent could be Hillary or a muslim so he's going to be influentially urging caution.

Nothing to see here really.

Akrasia

Tristrame wrote:

According to News 24 last night, this was a convenient leak of a battle plan by washington so Tehran would see it.
Of course Tehran knows it's a posture and they know the U.S public don't want war with Iran.
Washington must think Tehran are thick-they are not.
I wouldn't waste time worrying about it, it ain't going to happen.
This will go down the deal with NK route eventually.
Sen McCain can almost smell office when his main opponent could be Hillary or a muslim so he's going to be influentially urging caution.

Nothing to see here really.

Why would the us need to 'conveniently leak' battleplans? the iranians have binoculars, they can see the massive military build-up with their own eyes.

I think there's gonna be a staged 'gulf of tonkin' incident which will give a minimum justification for 'retaliatory' strikes and it's all down hill from there.

The restraint shown by the Iranians so far would not even be contemplated if the situation was reversed and Iran was building up a strike force near the coast of America

marco murphy

Akrasia wrote:

Why would the us need to 'conveniently leak' battleplans? the iranians have binoculars, they can see the massive military build-up with their own eyes.

I think there's gonna be a staged 'gulf of tonkin' incident which will give a minimum justification for 'retaliatory' strikes and it's all down hill from there.

The restraint shown by the Iranians so far would not even be contemplated if the situation was reversed and Iran was building up a strike force near the coast of America

It could be that the US leaked the plans to scare Tehran, and with that, send out a couple of carriers and B52s.

Oh and look,

Iran test fires missiles

[PHP]liveleak.com/view?i=9c8eb_4907[/PHP]

Akrasia

Poblachtach wrote:

It could be that the US leaked the plans to scare Tehran, and with that, send out a couple of carriers and B52s.

Oh and look,

Iran test fires missiles

[PHP]liveleak.com/view?i=9c8eb_4907[/PHP]

the Americans are trying to provoke Iran into attacking them to provide justification for a retaliation. They're fabricating evidence against them, they're arresting Iranian diplomats, they've given orders for U.S. troops to kill any Iranian 'suspected militants' they find inside Iraq, and they've even supporting/orchestrating bomb attacks inside Iran in recent days

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/14/wbomb114.xml

Dontico

where is the love gone?

i propose i get the us leaders, russian and iranian and sit them down for a chat. put on some chilled music and go to a good old fashioned japanese tea room.
anyone know about the Way of the Tea?

Moriarty

Akrasia wrote:

the Americans are trying to provoke Iran into attacking them to provide justification for a retaliation. They're fabricating evidence against them, they're arresting Iranian diplomats, they've given orders for U.S. troops to kill any Iranian 'suspected militants' they find inside Iraq, and they've even supporting/orchestrating bomb attacks inside Iran in recent days

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/14/wbomb114.xml

The Iranians are trying to provoke America into attacking them to provide justification for their continued development of nuclear weapons. They're lying to the international community, refusing to let the IAEA carry out their functions, supporting insurgent activity in Iraq and Lebanon with knowledge, intelligence and weapons and they've had high-level contacts with members of the largest party in the Iraqi parliament with a view to subverting US control and the will of the Iraqi people with a view to establishing a pan-middle-eastern theocracy bent on power. They even signed a secret deal with north korea to create a diversion half way around the world!!!!

http://www.fakelink.com/theorys/this-link-is-really-completely-irrelevant-to-my-point/

http://www.but-i-have.to/put-a-link-in-somewhere/to-pretend-to/back-up-my-points/when-i-know-people-wont-bother-clicking/on-them


</hysterical mirror-image overreaction>

bk

Tristrame wrote:

Of course Tehran knows it's a posture and they know the U.S public don't want war with Iran.

It depends, a full scale war, you are right, US public does not want another Iraq, on the other hand they might not be against an air war.

The US could use their Air Force and Navy (Stealth Bombers, Tomahawk Cruise Missiles and UCAV's) to knock out the Iranian Nuclear Reactor and other Nuclear facilities, Air Fields, Naval Bases, Fighters (in particular any F15's they have left), Air Defence systems, Command and Control, etc.

This would take about a week, wouldn't cost many American lives and would have the effect of pretty much completely wiping out the Iranian military infrastructure, thus greatly weakening them.

Now I'm not saying that they should do this, just that it wouldn't be difficult and probably would get support in the US.

Zambia

Something is coming to mind...

There was a time I believe one country with a impressive Military started annexing countrys it wanted. Everyone placated and accepted the excuses it gave to do this until it actually went and invaded somewhere people cared about...

Sponge Bob

bk wrote:

The US could use their Air Force and Navy (Stealth Bombers, Tomahawk Cruise Missiles and UCAV's) to knock out the Iranian Nuclear Reactor and other Nuclear facilities, Air Fields, Naval Bases, Fighters (in particular any F15's they have left), Air Defence systems, Command and Control, etc.

This would take about a week, wouldn't cost many American lives and would have the effect of pretty much completely wiping out the Iranian military infrastructure, thus greatly weakening them.

Thats exactly what I think they will do .No troops on the ground bar an incursion of some sort around the nuclear facilities maybe .

They essentially must attack Bushehr BEFORE it is fuelled, its near a large town.

lostexpectation

anybody got text of what either of the aherns said about Iran when Mohammed ElBaradei of the IAEA visited this week, did they say anything sensible of intelligent or just parrot the washington line?

Akrasia

double post, sorry

Akrasia

Moriarty wrote:

The Iranians are trying to provoke America into attacking them to provide justification for their continued development of nuclear weapons. They're lying to the international community, refusing to let the IAEA carry out their functions, supporting insurgent activity in Iraq and Lebanon with knowledge, intelligence and weapons and they've had high-level contacts with members of the largest party in the Iraqi parliament with a view to subverting US control and the will of the Iraqi people with a view to establishing a pan-middle-eastern theocracy bent on power. They even signed a secret deal with north korea to create a diversion half way around the world!!!!

http://www.fakelink.com/theorys/this-link-is-really-completely-irrelevant-to-my-point/

http://www.but-i-have.to/put-a-link-in-somewhere/to-pretend-to/back-up-my-points/when-i-know-people-wont-bother-clicking/on-them


</hysterical mirror-image overreaction>

you're so clever aren't you. The one problem with your childish rebuttal is that little if any of what you said is true, while everything I said I can back up with evidence (that's what the links are for, they're not just there for decoration)

Akrasia

Sponge Bob wrote:

Thats exactly what I think they will do .No troops on the ground bar an incursion of some sort around the nuclear facilities maybe .

They essentially must attack Bushehr BEFORE it is fuelled, its near a large town.

that's all a lovely little plan. but it assumes that the Iranians will just let them have their little air war.

The world doesn't work that way.

Bush won't start off intending to invade but very soon they will be dragged into a full scale war. The only thing that would possibly prevent that would be if the Iranian government and people demonstrated unbelievable restraint, the kind of restraint that America would never ever show.

marco murphy

With Irans missiles pointed at Saudi oil fields and Israel I don't think any kind of warfare, air or otherwise is doable.

Hobbes

Moriarty wrote:

</hysterical mirror-image overreaction>

Not sure where the over-reaction is coming from? You read the link? Iran is claiming the US is supporting terrorists who are responsible for the deaths of Iranians.

Based on recent events its quite obvious that the US are intentionally provoking Iran trying to get a response out of them.

I'd prefer that a link was posted so I could read where a person was coming from and then given a chance to research and verify/dismiss the link then making fun of them.

marco murphy

Moriarty wrote:

The Iranians are trying to provoke America into attacking them to provide justification for their continued development of nuclear weapons. They're lying to the international community, refusing to let the IAEA carry out their functions, supporting insurgent activity in Iraq and Lebanon with knowledge, intelligence and weapons and they've had high-level contacts with members of the largest party in the Iraqi parliament with a view to subverting US control and the will of the Iraqi people with a view to establishing a pan-middle-eastern theocracy bent on power. They even signed a secret deal with north korea to create a diversion half way around the world!!!!

http://www.fakelink.com/theorys/this-link-is-really-completely-irrelevant-to-my-point/

http://www.but-i-have.to/put-a-link-in-somewhere/to-pretend-to/back-up-my-points/when-i-know-people-wont-bother-clicking/on-them


</hysterical mirror-image overreaction>

Have you been seduced by Bush's accusations?

As someone pointed out earlier, the US are probably trying to conjure a tonkin incident. There has been plenty of lies by the US, when it comes to making excuses to attack someone. What makes the recent accusations truthful?

Judt

You chaps seem to have misunderstood me. Who knows, maybe intentionally. If Iran is supplying and backing terrorists, such as Hezbollah and potentially those in Iraq as well, they'd have good fun firing rockets into the Green Zone and Israel if they weren't been shipped any replacements.

People like to cite the story of "The Boy Who Called Wolf" concerning America and Iraq. I would, however, point out that another moral in that story is that when the wolf did eventually come along, it made off with the village sheep.

Sponge Bob

Judt wrote:

People like to cite the story of "The Boy Who Called Wolf" concerning America and Iraq. I would, however, point out that another moral in that story is that when the wolf did eventually come along, it made off with the village sheep.

Pity it left the Rats , eh!

Sand

As Trist has already noted the blatant leaking of the battle plan is a deliberate ploy to remind the Iranians of potential consequences if diplomacy doesnt work. The "or else" part of negotiation.

Hes right that its blatant, but at the same time it seems to have convinced half the posters here.

The US cannot realistically attack Iran, but it must successfully convince the Iranians that they are crazy enough to attack Iran if Iran breaks either of the red lines they helpfully leaked with the battleplan A) Dont get involved in attacks on US troops in Iraq, Do not develop or try to develop nuclear weapons.

IIRC the plan of ultimate evil, the PNAC was explicit in its determination that the world must be always convinced that the US is ready, willing and able to use its military anywhere in the world. No point having the best army in the world if no one thinks youll use it.

InFront

Sand wrote:

The US cannot realistically attack Iran, but it must successfully convince the Iranians that they are crazy enough to attack Iran if Iran breaks either of the red lines they helpfully leaked with the battleplan A) Dont get involved in attacks on US troops in Iraq, Do not develop or try to develop nuclear weapons.

Then surely you must be of the opinion that the US worry is genuine, and that they have basis for concern, despite what the other reported intelligence suggests?

I agree with you that they don't want to at this moment, but I would like to hold you to that "US cannot realistically attack" statement. We're not talking about an invasion, but an attack.

Manic Moran

InFront wrote:

I agree with you that they don't want to at this moment, but I would like to hold you to that "US cannot realistically attack" statement. We're not talking about an invasion, but an attack.

It's effectively a Mexican Standoff. Iran is relying on the fact that it believes that the US is too pre-occupied or lacks the political will to attack it, whilst I doubt that the US really can't do it, but it is worried that a simple air attack or raid will open up a massive can of worms to include ground operations in Iraq. Someone's bluff is going to get called.

NTM

InFront

I'm not sure that either side are bluffing at all, though both may think that about the other. I'm sceptical that either the American's or Iranians will back down.

Nuclear energy is the national passion in Iran, young people talk about it in the streets, I don't think they're taking 'no' for an answer. They have that right. Do you think America will take no for an answer?

A US attack on Iran is not written in stone, I'm just saying that the suggestion the US cannot realistically attack is flawed. Can you see a peaceful climbdown happening -
The US Army hopping back aboard the aircraft carriers, waving goodbye and going home?
Or Ahmadinejad telling his people he's going to deny them nuclear energy because he's afraid of America?

marco murphy

Some more Blah dee Blah

U.S. Navy buildup came after Iran moves



By JIM KRANE, Associated Press Writer 46 minutes ago

MANAMA, Bahrain -
Iran has brought its war games maneuvers over the past year into busy shipping lanes in the Straits of Hormuz, the narrow mouth of the Persian Gulf through which two-fifths of the world's oil supplies pass, the top
U.S. Navy commander in the Mideast said.


The moves have alarmed U.S. officials about possible accidental confrontations that could boil over into war, and led to a recent build-up of Navy forces in the Gulf, Vice Adm. Patrick Walsh said in an interview with The Associated Press and other reporters.

During maneuvers, Iranian sailors have loaded mines onto small minelaying boats and test-fired a Shahab-3 ballistic missile into international waters, he said.

"The Shahab-3 most recently went into waters very close to the traffic separation scheme in the straits themselves. This gives us concern because innocent passage of vessels now is threatened," Walsh said in the interview Monday on the base of the Navy's Fifth Fleet in the Gulf island kingdom of Bahrain.

Iran tested the Shahab during November maneuvers, which it said were in response to U.S. maneuvers in the Gulf it called "adventurist." Iran also showed off an array of new torpedoes in war games in April.

The carrier USS John C. Stennis — backed by a strike group with more than 6,500 sailors and Marines and with additional minesweeping ships — arrived in the region Monday. It joined the carrier USS Dwight D. Eisenhower after
President Bush ordered the build-up as a show of strength to Iran.

The additional U.S. firepower has ratcheted up tensions with Iran. But Walsh said the increase aims to reassure Arab allies in the Gulf and prevent misunderstandings that could escalate into outright conflict.

"That's certainly what we're trying to avoid, a mistake that then boils over into a war," said Walsh, who departs his command of the Fifth Fleet this month to become vice chief of naval operations at the
Pentagon, the Navy's No. 2 post.

Walsh said the Navy was responding to "more instability than we've seen in years" in the Fifth Fleet's region — with conflicts in
Iraq,
Afghanistan and Somalia, tensions in Lebanon and the standoff with Iran.

The Navy has grown increasingly alarmed at what Walsh called Iran's "provocations." Once cordial Navy ship-to-ship relations with Iran in the Gulf have disintegrated over the past 18 months as Iranian vessels made "probing" incursions into Iraqi waters, he said.

"They threaten to use oil as a weapon. They threaten to close the Straits of Hormuz," Walsh said. "And so it is the combination of the rhetoric, the tone, and the aggressive exercises in very constrained waters that gives us concern."

Since the Stennis was ordered to the region, Iranian leaders have increasingly warned that they would respond to any attack by closing off oil shipping lanes or attacking U.S. interests.

The Straits of Hormuz are 34 miles across, but its shipping lanes are only about six miles wide.

Walsh said it was doubtful that Iran could physically block the entire six-mile lanes with mines — but hitting only a few vessels with missiles and mines would "terrorize" shipping and have the same effect.

"It's more the threat of mines than the threat of closing the straits. That would have dramatic effects on markets around the world," he said.

Walsh said his biggest worry was that Iran would underestimate U.S. resolve to protect its interests in the world's richest oil region. He said the tone of Iranian leaders could make their commanders on the ground more reckless. "It's a mix and a formulation where you can have misunderstanding," he said.

Asked whether the U.S. Navy would launch an attack on Iran if Iranian involvement were confirmed in a deadly incident in Iraq, Walsh said he was unable to discuss the Navy's rules of engagement. But he added, "There are events on land that can spill over onto the sea."

At the same time, Walsh said he understood that U.S.-allied Gulf nations feared that any U.S.-Iranian military conflict could bring attacks on their soil.

Walsh said he was aware that a University of Maryland/Zogby International poll of Arab public opinion this month showed residents of the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia and other allies believe Iran is far less a threat than the U.S. and
Israel.

"I'm trying to talk to those in the region, to give them assurances that the reason we're here is to stand by them," he said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070220/ap_on_re_mi_ea/gulf_us_iran

philologos

Judt wrote:

And if they are then one would be justified in attacking...

No they wouldn't the USA should have no say considering they have a considerable stocks of nuclear weapons themselves. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is incredibly biased also. 6 countries allowed to have nuclear weapons, it's not fair pure and simple. Israel, Pakistan and India have also violated it and yet nobody is willing to do anything about it. To think this crap was proposed by Ireland, is worrying indeed.

All this fuss over Iran wanting to make nuclear power is rediculous imo.

Victor

bk wrote:

It depends, a full scale war, you are right, US public does not want another Iraq, on the other hand they might not be against an air war. The US could use their Air Force and Navy (Stealth Bombers, Tomahawk Cruise Missiles and UCAV's) to knock out the Iranian Nuclear Reactor and other Nuclear facilities, Air Fields, Naval Bases, Fighters (in particular any F15's they have left), Air Defence systems, Command and Control, etc. This would take about a week, wouldn't cost many American lives and would have the effect of pretty much completely wiping out the Iranian military infrastructure, thus greatly weakening them.

I would lol at this if it wasn't so serious. If Yugoslavia and Iraq were able to put up a fight after years of sanctions, why do you think Iran would just roll over afer years of preparations?

Yes, the Americans could use "thousand bomber raids", but it still wouldn't be over for a long time and they would have immediately lost public opinion.

The Navy has grown increasingly alarmed at what Walsh called Iran's "provocations." Once cordial Navy ship-to-ship relations with Iran in the Gulf have disintegrated over the past 18 months as Iranian vessels made "probing" incursions into Iraqi waters, he said.

Of course the Royal Navy say relations are perfectly normal with the Iranian Navy.

"They threaten to use oil as a weapon. They threaten to close the Straits of Hormuz," Walsh said. "And so it is the combination of the rhetoric, the tone, and the aggressive exercises in very constrained waters that gives us concern."

And the Americans threaten to use bombs as weapons.

And all because of the Embassy kidnappings.

Akrasia

above article wrote:

Iran has brought its war games maneuvers over the past year into busy shipping lanes in the Straits of Hormuz, the narrow mouth of the Persian Gulf through which two-fifths of the world's oil supplies pass, the top
U.S. Navy commander in the Mideast said.


The moves have alarmed U.S. officials about possible accidental confrontations that could boil over into war, and led to a recent build-up of Navy forces in the Gulf, Vice Adm. Patrick Walsh said in an interview with The Associated Press and other reporters.

what the feck? they were worried about an accidental encounter with the iranians that escalate into war, so they move in two carrier fleets into the gulf just to make it more likely?

"They threaten to use oil as a weapon. They threaten to close the Straits of Hormuz," Walsh said. "And so it is the combination of the rhetoric, the tone, and the aggressive exercises in very constrained waters that gives us concern."

For gods sake, these are not aggressive threats, they are purely defensive in nature. Shipping is perfectly safe unless the U.S. attacks and then they're going to cut off supplies to the enemey, a defensive act which they are perfectly entitled to do.

This kind of shoddy propaganda really makes my blood boil, they could at least make an effort

bk

Victor wrote:

I would lol at this if it wasn't so serious. If Yugoslavia and Iraq were able to put up a fight after years of sanctions, why do you think Iran would just roll over afer years of preparations?

The US quickly and easily destroyed both the Yugoslavian and Iraqi military forces. The best example is Iraq which had a military force roughly equivalent to Iran.

Do you not remember the first Gulf war when the US pretty much wiped out the entire Iraqi Air Force and Air Defence facalities and command and control in less then a week?

And then spent the next few weeks destroying every Iraqi tank and truck that moved on the ground?

Why would Iran be any different?

Do you even now the make up of the Iranian defence forces. Most of their Airforce is made up of Vietnam era 1970's jets such as the F4 Phantom, Su-24's and Mig-27's, there most modern jets are the F14's (now discontinued by every other Air Force in the world) and some Su-27's and Mig-31's.

Just one US carrier puts more modern fighters in the area (brand new modern 4.5 Generation F18 Super Hornets) then the entire Iranian Air Force. Never mind all the rest of the US forces already in the region.

Look, I know many people are completely against the US going to war, that is completely understandable. But don't doubt for a minute that if they did, that it would be anything but a very quick total victory *.

* Of course I'm talking about an air war here. The US would easily destroy all Iranian Air Force, Navy ships, Radar, SAM sites and command and control.

The US would also relatively easily win a ground war if they had to (just look at both Gulf wars and the "Thunder Runs"), but they certainly wouldn't want to get bogged down in a long occupation and all the resultant insurgency fighting.

Manic Moran

The US quickly and easily destroyed both the Yugoslavian and Iraqi military forces.

After the Kosovo campaign was over, the Serbians took home pretty much all the ground forces they put into the country. Infrastructure took a serious hammering, bridges and whatnot, but in terms of things that could hide, or have fake decoys made, NATO Air was pretty pathetic.

most modern jets are the F14's (now discontinued by every other Air Force in the world)

Picky mode: No other Air Force in the world ever used them in the first place.

The US would easily destroy all Iranian Air Force, Navy ships, Radar, SAM sites and command and control.

You will note that during the Kosovo operation, NATO never claimed air superiority at levels below 10,000 feet. It was just too dangerous to fly. Part of the reason why the Serbian ground forces had such a great survival rate. To that end, Serbian air defense actually worked.

I'm not saying that Iran would win a protracted conflict, just that the end result wouldn't be as cut and dried, mainly because I don't think it would be confined to the air war, regardless of US intent.

NTM

marco murphy

Do you even now the make up of the Iranian defence forces. Most of their Airforce is made up of Vietnam era 1970's jets such as the F4 Phantom, Su-24's and Mig-27's, there most modern jets are the F14's (now discontinued by every other Air Force in the world) and some Su-27's and Mig-31's.

The Iranians are using reverse technology on a lot of US stuff, building their own variants. Not to be underestimate, plus the fact that no one REALLY knows what they have, air wise.

bk

Manic Moran wrote:

You will note that during the Kosovo operation, NATO never claimed air superiority at levels below 10,000 feet. It was just too dangerous to fly. Part of the reason why the Serbian ground forces had such a great survival rate. To that end, Serbian air defense actually worked.

I'm not saying that Iran would win a protracted conflict, just that the end result wouldn't be as cut and dried, mainly because I don't think it would be confined to the air war, regardless of US intent.

Yes, that is a very good point, SAMs will always pose a great danger to any Air Force, that is why the US is putting so much effort into stealth and UCAV's.

The US has been losing lots of helicopters in Iraq recently to AA traps with multiple heavy machine guns and shoulder launched SAM's. But operating over 10,000 feet should be fine just to knock the Iranian high value targets out.

It is also interesting to note, that AA defences on their own have never won any war for the defenders. Think of any war where AA was heavily used, Gulf War 1 and 2, Kosovo, Israel versus Egypt, Israel versus Syria. The AA defences usually knock a few jets out and slow down the war slightly, but they have never decisively turned a war, usually the military with air superiority still wins.

Victor

bk wrote:

The US quickly and easily destroyed both the Yugoslavian and Iraqi military forces.

In 1998 in Kosovo, they only impaired the Yugoslav forces (and having been under embargo since 1992-3?), they did not destroy them. Four years after the 2003 invasion (and having been under embargo since 1990), the Iraqis are still resisting the Americans.

The best example is Iraq which had a military force roughly equivalent to Iran.

No. Iraq had sod all spares and maintenance in 1990-2003. Iran had all it wanted, although it had to get the likes of F-4 parts from Germany, not the USA. Iran makes its own helicopters - Iraq doesn't.

Do you not remember the first Gulf war when the US pretty much wiped out the entire Iraqi Air Force and Air Defence facalities and command and control in less then a week?

No, which game was that? If they were wiped out, how come the Iraqis were still firing SAMs at them in 2003. How did more than 100 aircraft escape to Iran in 1991?

And then spent the next few weeks destroying every Iraqi tank and truck that moved on the ground?

The trick was to not move. Iraq still had plenty of tanks and trucks.

Why would Iran be any different?

Because Iran is largely mountainous, can see the Americans coming and are prepared, aren't demoralised or split like the Iraqis.

Do you even now the make up of the Iranian defence forces. Most of their Airforce is made up of Vietnam era 1970's jets such as the F4 Phantom, Su-24's and Mig-27's, there most modern jets are the F14's (now discontinued by every other Air Force in the world) and some Su-27's and Mig-31's.

Yes I have a fair idea. Not that many people have the exact figures. But also look at the coastal artillery. Can you afford oil at $200/barrel?

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/airforce.htm
http://www.softwar.net/rfed.html
http://www.rense.com/general59/theSunburniransawesome.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Anti-ship_missiles_of_Iran

Look, I know many people are completely against the US going to war, that is completely understandable. But don't doubt for a minute that if they did, that it would be anything but a very quick total victory *.* Of course I'm talking about an air war here. The US would easily destroy all Iranian Air Force, Navy ships, Radar, SAM sites and command and control.

For what losses?

The US would also relatively easily win a ground war if they had to (just look at both Gulf wars and the "Thunder Runs"), but they certainly wouldn't want to get bogged down in a long occupation and all the resultant insurgency fighting.

Try a thunder run through the mountains. :rolleyes:

I'm not going to say who will or won't win, but both sides can lose.