Law School Discussion

.

Julie Fern

  • *****
  • 25797
  • hillary clinton say "boo!"
    • View Profile
Re: Iran/ What's to Come?
« Reply #30 on: April 25, 2005, 05:49:40 PM »
phanny, you been watching too many action movies.

dividebyzero

  • ****
  • 1546
  • Motherf*ckin' Snakes On A Plane!
    • MSN Messenger - daedelus_rex@msn.com
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Iran/ What's to Come?
« Reply #31 on: April 25, 2005, 05:55:09 PM »
Why did you have to go and ruin a competely rational analysis on your part with this dribble?  You brought up some very good points, but blaming Bush because he actually had the cojones to recognize what was going on in Iran and tell the world about it?  C'mon.

What? Blame Bush and Co. for completely ignoring the *one* moderate influence in Iranian politics? The only thing that Bush managed to recognize was that "they don't like us." He completely ignored the Shahab II programs, completely ignored their STAGGERING acquisitions of surface-to-air and anti-ship missiles...I can't honestly imagine what they thought was going to happen after they Iranians got some sense of security in conventional arms.

Like I said, if they'd at least paid them some lip service, Khatami might've given the moderates something to hope for...if it could've been made to appear that Khatami helped "warm" relations between the U.S. and Iran, then he and his ilk wouldn't have been so throughly trounced in the elections (granted, the Iranian judiciary didn't exactly make it a fair vote...but some pressure applied to the right parts of the U.N. on our behalf could've helped at least a bit...besides, turned out that the judiciary's interference didn't even matter in the end.)

Khatami and the moderates would've at least been another option. Now we only have two, wait and pray for diplomacy to work and expect some very unpleasant concessions on our part, or 2) a very, very ugly military option.

dividebyzero

  • ****
  • 1546
  • Motherf*ckin' Snakes On A Plane!
    • MSN Messenger - daedelus_rex@msn.com
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Iran/ What's to Come?
« Reply #32 on: April 25, 2005, 05:56:53 PM »
Divide is saying we should have buddied up with the mooooollaaaaahs.  That would have prevented this.  I just can't believe that people still believe allying yourself with these psychopaths prevents disaster.  Republicans have made this mistake often too, but after Saddam and Bin Laden, isn't it time we realize appeasement just doesn't work in the long run.


The "Mullahs" and the Iranian hardliners are SEVERAL ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE different from Khatami and the moderates. Supporting one hardly equals support for the other, it's the principle that's been the entire basis of "regime changing" since the Spanish-American war.

dividebyzero

  • ****
  • 1546
  • Motherf*ckin' Snakes On A Plane!
    • MSN Messenger - daedelus_rex@msn.com
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Iran/ What's to Come?
« Reply #33 on: April 25, 2005, 06:19:19 PM »
That's true. The Supreme Revolutionary Council (or whatever the hell their pseudo-socialist appellation is) would've eventually used the military to eat him alive, but the country's moderates would've been galvanized. It might've had the same effect as with Ang San Suu Kyi (although I'm hardly comparing the two.)

It just seemed strange to me at the time that we'd have completely ignored this potential option to diffuse an increasingly troublesome situation, in a manner that would've hardly cost us much in they way of saving face or over-compromising. I wasn't suggesting that we should've courted Khatami and totally lifted the sanctions against them, as that would've been stupid. I'm just saying we could've thrown them a bone, like a desalinization plant...something "detente-like".

Then again, our track record with intel on WMD programs has been gawd-awful! Not only were we quite obviously wrong about Iraq, but let's not forget totally missing India and Pakistan's readiness for test detonations. "Test explosions underground?! Who woulda' thunk it?" ;D The only non-Iranians who could probably say for certain would be the Russian's cooperating, but that's about as likely as me getting into Columbia this year  :D

dividebyzero

  • ****
  • 1546
  • Motherf*ckin' Snakes On A Plane!
    • MSN Messenger - daedelus_rex@msn.com
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Iran/ What's to Come?
« Reply #34 on: April 25, 2005, 06:28:31 PM »
Just remembered that we *do* have a base in the Indian Ocean that we could use (and have used against Iraq). But you're talking strategic bombers (B-52's, B-1B's) nothing capable of precision strikes.

Carrier launches from the Gulf? Possible. Expect a lot of losses due to heavy SAM's and limited SEAD (Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses) capability from the Navy, but doable nonetheless.

Sorry, I'm off on a tangent here...I love playing armchair general! ;D

BraveheartDC

  • ****
  • 404
  • Go Tribe!
    • View Profile
Re: Iran/ What's to Come?
« Reply #35 on: April 25, 2005, 06:44:16 PM »
Divide made some good points, but totally blew the basing access point.  We could launch airstrikes, CIA covert OPS, or ground forces from damn near anywhere we wanted over there.  Look at a map guys.  We currently control, and will as long as Iran is a problem, Iraq, which borders Iran to the west and Afghanistan, which borders Iran to the east.  There's also access from the south (carries from the water and diego garcia for B-52s and possibly forwarded B-2s--they'd fly from whiteman if not).

And if we interdicted Iranian ships and they shot and killed some of our guys, we'd suddenly have the high ground.  It would provide political cover for us with many of the caucus states and Europe (and pro-US regimes in the Arab world, from the GCC nations to Egypt, Jordan, etc).

BraveheartDC

  • ****
  • 404
  • Go Tribe!
    • View Profile
Re: Iran/ What's to Come?
« Reply #36 on: April 25, 2005, 06:50:39 PM »
It's important to add that Iran's only friend in the region is Syria--historically and currently.  If Iran, in any way, provokes us or kills our folks (even if we're blockading, which is technically an act of war, but has NOT been understood as one for decades--really since the advent of aircraft) the entire region will turn against Iran.  We'll be the good guys, at least in the faces of governments.  It would be interesting to see how the "Arab" street would respond if the US got involved in low-grade or high-grade military operations with their Persian, etc brothers from Iran (being Muslim--albeit Shia, but not Arab).

BraveheartDC

  • ****
  • 404
  • Go Tribe!
    • View Profile
Re: Iran/ What's to Come?
« Reply #37 on: April 25, 2005, 06:57:10 PM »
Phanatic,

It would be RELATIVELY easy to provoke Iran at this point, but this is why the US had gone to great pains to stay away from those flashpoints.  Many of the large border crossings between Iraq and Iran are protected (if by anyone) by Kurds in the north, Shia/British in the south), and by Iraqi forces in the central part of the country.  You see the same thing in Afghanistan, where the bulk of US operations occur in far eastern Afghan territory--away from Herat and possible flashpoints with Iran).  A couple months ago (not sure if those holds true still) there were reports that we were so scared of getting into a shooting match with Iranians that we weren't operating within 10 miles of the Iranian border--and that some of the Iranian border guards had actually set up their checkpoints as much as 10 miles inside the territory of Iraq).

LaneSwerver

Re: Iran/ What's to Come?
« Reply #38 on: April 25, 2005, 07:04:09 PM »
do we have truly reliable proof than iran is making nuclear weapons?  (of course, we must consider extent to which dubya and his minions telling analysts what to conclude, as was case with iraq.) 

Julie, now that everyone else is off on another tangent, let me ask you about this comment. I'm curious as to whether you've had an opportunity to read the Robb-Silberman report yet? Most people don't read 600+ pages of government report willingly, but having just finished my thesis on intel reform I did.

! B L U E WAR R I O R..!

  • *****
  • 7267
  • "make a friend who was once a stranger" br.war.
    • View Profile
Re: Iran/ What's to Come?
« Reply #39 on: April 25, 2005, 09:29:48 PM »
What Are U.S. Military Options in Iran?
Sunday, April 24, 2005
 
   
 
WASHINGTON — U.S. officials are still trying to find a diplomatic resolution over Iran's interest in creating nuclear facilities. But if diplomacy fails, the Bush administration is also looking at its military options.

FOX News spoke with two retired generals and a military expert, who outlined some of the options on the table for the Pentagon.

Covert Action: The Bush administration might send CIA agents or commandos to sabotage Iran’s nuclear facilities.

“There were no smoking guns, no fingerprints,” said Walter Russell Mead (search), with the Council on Foreign Relations. “We wouldn’t be faced with that ugly, ugly choice of, we have a war or they get a weapon.”

Naval Blockade: U.S. warships would be sent into the Strait of Hormuz (search) to stop the export of Iranian oil. This would pressure the mullahs to give up enriching uranium and allow intrusive inspections.

One downside is that Iran is OPEC (search)’s second largest oil producer, so a blockade could also put a stranglehold on the economies of many U.S. allies. Other potential problems are that it may not work fast enough and it would leave Iran’s existing nuclear facilities intact.


“So the question is not whether we could do it. We could. The question is, at what cost?” Mead said.

Surgical Strikes: U.S. forces could zero in on Iranian nuclear targets, hitting the country’s highest-risk sites — such as Bushier, Natanz, Arak, Isfahan and a dozen or more others — using cruise missiles launched from land or sea.

“We are moving some aircraft carrier groups into the Persian Gulf as we speak," said retired Army Major Gen. Paul Vallely (search). "They will be positioned to launch any aircraft from the Mediterranean Sea, the Arabian Sea and the Persian Gulf.”

Next, F-117 stealth fighter jets could take out a radar system by firing missiles and anti-aircraft guns at Isfahan or surface-to-air missiles around the Bushier reactor (search). B-2 bombers carrying eight 5,000-pound laser-guided bunker busters would hit buried targets like the Natanz (search) enrichment site or the deep tunnels in Isfahan (search).

Surgical strikes would also aim to hurt Iran's ability to counterattack while limiting civilian casualties, according to Vallely.

“We're not after the population,” he said. “We're not after blowing down bridges anymore. We're trying to disrupt command and control, their ability to use their forces on the ground, their forces in the air, as well as their naval forces. ... Bring them to their knees early. That's the key.”

All-Out Assault: A huge American military effort, involving hundreds of thousands of troops, would be needed to get “boots on the ground.” But the experts FOX News spoke with consider that to be the least likely scenario.

The U.S. military is already stretched thin with its commitments in Afghanistan and Iraq (Iran is four times the size of Iraq, with almost three times as many people). A ground war could kill thousands, maybe tens of thousands, and the cost could run well into the billions. And assembling a broad coalition would be even more difficult than it was for the Iraq war.

“For one thing, the British don’t sound very willing. And let’s face it, without the British, we don’t have a coalition,” Mead said.

Vallely said that while the United States has the ability to launch a major ground invasion, it wouldn’t have to.

“We can take a country down with just our air assets,” he said. “We don't have put boots on the ground all the time if we're after specific targets.”

Iranian Response: Iran has threatened bloody retaliation if attacked, so the Pentagon’s military planners are conducting war games to be prepared for any number of Iranian responses — from attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq to missile strikes on Israel.

“I do not believe that Iran will take on the United States in a major confrontation,” said retired Air Force Gen. Tom McInerney (search).

Without a direct military response from Iran, the possibility exists for an “asymmetrical response” — terror attacks on Americans throughout the world and in the United States.

“Could they use part of the Al Qaeda network to launch a terrorist attack on the United States?" McInerney speculated. "I believe they could. That's probably going to happen to us anyhow. The real question is, will it be a nightmare scenario? … Will it be nuclear?"

The fear of a nuclear response is exactly why the experts FOX News spoke with say the United States must do what it takes to stop Iran.

FOX News' Bret Baier contributed to this report.
 



pleased to follow that syria is still moving out of lebanon...syria is responsible for allowing mercenaries into iraq...

they opened up a can of worms by getting rid of the former prime minister...

syria ain't got no real reserve reasources like iraq has but demascus has strength...the world is watching and they are withdrawing and that is a step in the right direction...

aye think we can thank bush for call