War between Israel -v- Iran & Co (merged threads)

[huskerguy7]

have you done a cost benefit analysis?

I've seen enough simulations on an Israel strike. What I think people need to see now are simulations of Iran's retaliation. As discussed in this thread, Iran has many different options. Whether it's unleashing it's fury on the Strait of Hormuz, Israel, Coalition troops in Iraq or Afghanistan, or something on home soil, Iran has different options available. Don't get me wrong, it's very important to measure Israel's strike capabilities. However, I think we understand the idea and need to examine the retaliation part more closely. I think a cost benefit analysis should be included (in-depth).

[JMA]

I've seen enough simulations on an Israel strike. What I think people need to see now are simulations of Iran's retaliation. As discussed in this thread, Iran has many different options. Whether it's unleashing it's fury on the Strait of Hormuz, Israel, Coalition troops in Iraq or Afghanistan, or something on home soil, Iran has different options available. Don't get me wrong, it's very important to measure Israel's strike capabilities. However, I think we understand the idea and need to examine the retaliation part more closely. I think a cost benefit analysis should be included (in-depth).

OK, may a suggest we view this something like this.

If pre-emptive strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities take place what are the possible Iranian retaliatory actions?

What are these options and what would be the most likely to damage the US or Israel?

Its got to be a double whammy. Take these threat assets out at the same time as the nuke sites.

Can the US, can Israel, can the world afford to have an itchy Iranian finger on a nuclear trigger?

[huskerguy7]

Its got to be a double whammy. Take these threat assets out at the same time as the nuke sites.

The chance of success for completing this is slim, if not impossible. Knocking out Iran's reaction force is impossible because it's quite concealed. How do we know that there aren't Quds Force operatives in Mexico ready to infiltrate the US and cause damage? Are we even sure that we can prevent an Iranian blockade in the Strait of Hormuz (anyone remember General Paul van Riper's wargames)? You're overestimating US capabilities.

It sounds good in theory, but it is not in the least bit practical.

[JMA]

The chance of success for completing this is slim, if not impossible. Knocking out Iran's reaction force is impossible because it's quite concealed. How do we know that there aren't Quds Force operatives in Mexico ready to infiltrate the US and cause damage? Are we even sure that we can prevent an Iranian blockade in the Strait of Hormuz (anyone remember General Paul van Riper's wargames)? You're overestimating US capabilities.

It sounds good in theory, but it is not in the least bit practical.

Well you are assuming that the strike needs to be against their nuclear facilities. I would suggest that what is needed is a demonstration of intent that Iran will not be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon.

Start with a little "shock and awe" demonstration to make sure the regime knows you are serious (and make sure you don't kill civilians not involved in the nuclear programme nor upset the lives of the population at all).

For example a precision strike on a full sitting of the Islamic Consultative Assembly might just send the right message (after giving them a fair opportunity to come clean on what they have been up to start to dismantle the programme).

[davidbfpo]

I profess no expertise on the debate over bombing Iranian nuclear facilities, that aside if there ever was a time and opportunity to coerce Iran that way it is past. If an alternative target was considered, as JMA suggests:

For example a precision strike on a full sitting of the Islamic Consultative Assembly might just send the right message..

there would be significantly less legitimacy and IMHO with international law - no legitimacy.

Elsewhere IIRC analysts have provided explanations as to why Iran has gone down the nuclear weapons route and that I suspect is largely built around hostile neighbours with US military facilities. We know that the current Iranian regime has its internal critics and its own problems of legitimacy. By addressing those factors offers a way ahead.

Bombing is simply not a policy option for a host of reasons, as illustrated by the debate here and the links to the analysis provided by experts.

I am also mindful that Israel is a nuclear weapon state, albeit un-declared IIRC and that her national interests - which are not the same as others - are well served by a focus on Iran, so avoiding a closer examination of Israel's position. (A veritable "minefield" in its own right asking SWC to consider this).

[Entropy]

Elsewhere IIRC analysts have provided explanations as to why Iran has gone down the nuclear weapons route and that I suspect is largely built around hostile neighbours with US military facilities.

Originally it was a response to the threat of Iraq and an Iraqi nuclear program. Obviously, Iraq is no longer a threat, so, assuming the program still exists, what is its purpose today? Perhaps the US and Israel have replaced Iraq as justification. Isolation is probably a big factor - Iran does not have have a great-power protector willing to extend a nuclear umbrella to protect it. Iran may aspire to become a great power itself. Alternatively, Iran's program my continue on the basis of inertia - in other words, it became institutionalized. The reasons are probably all of the above in some form or another.

[JMA]

I profess no expertise on the debate over bombing Iranian nuclear facilities, that aside if there ever was a time and opportunity to coerce Iran that way it is past. If an alternative target was considered, as JMA suggests: there would be significantly less legitimacy and IMHO with international law - no legitimacy.

Elsewhere IIRC analysts have provided explanations as to why Iran has gone down the nuclear weapons route and that I suspect is largely built around hostile neighbours with US military facilities. We know that the current Iranian regime has its internal critics and its own problems of legitimacy. By addressing those factors offers a way ahead.

Bombing is simply not a policy option for a host of reasons, as illustrated by the debate here and the links to the analysis provided by experts.

I am also mindful that Israel is a nuclear weapon state, albeit un-declared IIRC and that her national interests - which are not the same as others - are well served by a focus on Iran, so avoiding a closer examination of Israel's position. (A veritable "minefield" in its own right asking SWC to consider this).

I appreciate that simple solutions to these problems will have people approaching an apoplectic state of anxiety.

The simple problem is that there is no doubt that if asked (big IF) the Islamic Consultative Assembly of Iran would rubber stamp the use of nuclear weapons against the "Great Satan" (just like the US Congress did for the invasion of Iraq).

So today the thought of even a preemptive strike against the nuclear facilities with a low civilian death toll is considered unacceptable by countries who see themselves outside the target selection options (of a madman or regime with a nuke) and a bunch of self styled analysts.

But what of the countries who will be targets or affected by a renegade regime with a nuclear weapon? Do they have the courage to act or in the post Iraq invasion era has the reserve of courage been fully used up. Personally I don't believe that there is enough courage among the political elites of the West to deal with this matter either through diplomatic action and sanctions let alone through a preemptive strike. As the Brits would say "their bottle has gone".

[huskerguy7]

Start with a little "shock and awe" demonstration to make sure the regime knows you are serious (and make sure you don't kill civilians not involved in the nuclear programme nor upset the lives of the population at all).

For example a precision strike on a full sitting of the Islamic Consultative Assembly might just send the right message (after giving them a fair opportunity to come clean on what they have been up to start to dismantle the programme).

There are several flaws with this. First, I doubt that we will be able to deliver such a powerful strike without killing innocent civilians. A strike on the ICA without killing civilians...seriously???

"For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction."

A strike on Iran's homeland, no matter the target, would give Iran every reason to mobilize any North American or South American Quds Force assets it has. Even if Iran's government refuses to retaliate, how do we know that different Iranian assets won't go rogue hungry for revenge?

The results from a strike will be overwhelming.