No need to summarize, JMA. Most everyone else understood it.Originally Posted by JMA
Israel
The Palestinians
Two States
Neither, some other State or people rule.
Neither, mutual destruction.
One State, two peoples
One State, one people (intermarriage)
Not so fast
If Iran started getting frisky around the Straits of Hormuz, would venture we might invade there to secure the coastal areas most at risk for attack origination. Really don't believe we will try to cross the Zagros Mountains...but never thought anyone would try to land a C-130 in a soccer stadium either.
The real issue is what will Israel do. They bombed a potential nuke site in Syria...and the Syrians are less radical than Iranian leaders, both secular and religious. You've probably seen Charles Krauthammer's prediction at the Air Force Association today. He's usually pretty rationale but might be outside his area of expertise here. Still, the Israelis are not known to adhere to U.S. or world opinion, so polls and diplomacy are largely irrelevant if the Saudis give them a route.
Finally, would Israel use a nuke designed to explode deep underground to make a point and take out a hardened location? Obviously, Iran gives Hezbollah all the rockets/missiles it can handle. Why wouldn't they give them or some other terrorist organization a nuke?
No need to summarize, JMA. Most everyone else understood it.
They mostly come at night. Mostly.
- university webpage: McGill University
- conflict simulations webpage: PaxSims
Iran's relations with Hizbullah are of a qualitatively different sort than those with other groups.
Moreover, Iran already possesses non-conventional weapons capabilities (chemical, radiological, possibly biological) which it has chosen NOT to pass on to Hizbullah. Tehran understands very well Israel's deterrent capabilities, and the likely consequences of any such transfer.
They mostly come at night. Mostly.
- university webpage: McGill University
- conflict simulations webpage: PaxSims
Good point but why doesn't that apply to missiles aimed at Europe?
Supposedly we require missile defenses in Europe because of Iranian threats of missile attack. That would be suicidal for Iran, too. The point is that religious extremists who may believe in the coming of a leader who will save them if they take some first step, may do something not rational to most of us.
Plus, skimmed through four CSIS reports just now. While none said Iran was giving CBRN to Hezbollah, they are readily giving them the type of missiles and rockets that can launch such weapons if they get the CBRN somewhere else or through their own production (see slides 42 and 43 of 3rd report).
http://csis.org/files/publication/10...rief-Asymm.pdf
Difference is that Israel hands out gas masks to its civilians. Persistent chemicals are largely point weapons and can be decontaminated or evaporate in heat. Nukes...not so much.
Skiimming/searching the CSIS reports also revealed that Israeli Jericho missiles could be part of their attack as well. Add to that sub missile attacks and the air-breathing range issue may not be as critical to ensure engagement of multiple targets. If it buys time for Saudi Arabia to buy $70 billion in new weapons from us and for Israel to get F-35 and better missile defenses, it may be worth it to them both?
Cole,
A raid on some Islands or coastal areas for tactical reasons is not the same thing as a strategic decision to invade Iran and replace the government.
Supporting "time-limited, scope limited military actions" for 20 years.
Cole,
It's quite a stretch to go from rockets to nukes. For all the talk of religious extremists in Iran, when you look at how they actually operate around the world, they are very astute and calculating. The allegations of unhinged religious extremism simply do not fit with Iran's visible actions.
Supporting "time-limited, scope limited military actions" for 20 years.
Did we replace the government in Desert Storm?
I hear you, but nobody is saying you must replace the government to occupy terrain or make something a long term no fly/no occupation zone. Of course we saw how the "no fly" thing worked the first time but really doubt we would try to cross the Zagros or airdrop/air assault/MV-22 into Tehran.
N is just one of the letters in CBRN...and a big E hurts too
There is a chemical, biological, and radiological component to CBRN as well. Plus wasn't there news speculation about North Koreans near the bombed Syrian site?
How much control does the "rational" Ahmadinejad and Ayatollah have over the Revolutionary Guards and Hezbollah? Where are these chemicals coming from that are poisoning girl's schools in Afghanistan. Seem to recall some chlorine gas use in Iraq, too.
Would feel a whole lot better with you Reaper guys flying over the Straits of Hormuz and its adjacent lands for as long as it takes to arm Iran's Arab neighbors.
The fact that it appears for some that everything is negotiable needs to be exposed.No need to summarize, JMA. Most everyone else understood it.
Iran appears to have as inept politicians as do so many western countries.
Playing into the hands of those who want to skip the diplomacy and move right onto military action Iran threatens to close the Strait of Hormuz.
As an Iran analyst puts it here:
This plays right into the hands of those who would like the US to put on a "shock and awe" demonstration for the Iranian leadership. Say Take out all naval facilities (down to the last naval vessel) and all military airfields (down to the last military aircraft). ... don't put any boots on the ground and then when the dust settles take it from there.... the Strait of Hormuz is the "hanging rope" of the American economy.
No invasion necessary ... unless other Gulf States want to band together to take the regime down.
Then after all this if the Iranian regime is still in power and wanting to push ahead with their nuclear weapons programme then let Phase Two of "shock and awe" begin...
The bottom line is not to allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons under any circumstances.
Enough to be sure they don't do anything that would provoke significant retaliation. Iran will not, for example, use a nuclear weapon on Israel. The retaliation would be devastating... and really, what would Iran gain? Enormous risk, no reward, hardly a likely scenario.
Did you understand what he said?
Israel's deterrent is only good as long as Iran does not have a nuke.
Who said these two were "rational"? LOL
Cole,
Obviously one can come up with any number of scenarios where the US might do this or that tactical action in a hypothetical war with Iran. My point was simply to demonstrate the "all options are on the table" rhetoric is needlessly counterproductive because all options are not on the table. We're not going to send Cavguy to lead an armored column to Tehran. We're not going to nuke the place. There are, in other words, a lot of options that are "off the table."
JMA,
So that statement would indicate you are willing to pay any price to prevent that from happening? You should seriously consider the implications of such an absolutist viewpoint.The bottom line is not to allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons under any circumstances.
On the question of means, your understanding of what is possible and what isn't appears quite flawed:
"Taking the regime down" requires invading Iran. If you think that is something the Gulf States would be interested in "taking on" then all I can say is that you have a lot to learn about the Gulf States.No invasion necessary ... unless other Gulf States want to band together to take the regime down.
The same goes for your belief that "no invasion is necessary." You'll have to explain how destroying the Iranian Navy and Air Force or even the Iranian economy (all of which is certainly possible) is going to prevent Iran from building a nuclear weapon - if anything it's going to do the opposite. Additionally, the idea that the Iranian leadership will acquiesce in response to the destruction of their Navy, Air Force and economy is a completely unsupported assertion. I do acknowledge that it might work, but hope that it will is not a viable strategy IMO. The history of bombing campaigns as a tool to compel enemy leaders is generally not a favorable one - and I say this as an Air Force guy myself.
And what if "phase 2" doesn't work either? The problem here is that you don't seem to have a plan that would result in your desired end-state. What you do have is a formula for endless escalation based on the dubious assumption that repeated applications of "shock and awe" will be enough.Then after all this if the Iranian regime is still in power and wanting to push ahead with their nuclear weapons programme then let Phase Two of "shock and awe" begin...
So, if you want to convince me, you need to explain how, specifically, the military means will achieve the desired ends.
You also might consider that perhaps your desired end-state isn't achievable militarily except through extreme measures (ie. invasion, nukes) and that fact is the reason some of us may appear accepting of an Iranian nuclear capability under some circumstances. In other words, it's not because we are soft on Iran, as your comments seem to allege, but because we have an appreciation of the limits of what American military power can do. And what I don't want to see is American blood and treasure wasted on a half-assed fool's campaign with dubious prospects for success where we FAIL to achieve the objective but still suffer all the negative consequences of military action. A "shock and awe" campaign is just such a half-assed measure in my view.
So, it's time for you to share your plan for decisively prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.
Supporting "time-limited, scope limited military actions" for 20 years.
Maybe....then again maybe not
No. Israel’s status as strongest tribe in the region is only good as long as Iran does not have a nuke – which is what I believe this is really about.
Someday we are going to wake up one morning and Iran is going to have a government friendly to the US, and there will be a rush to re-establish the strong ties we previously held with them.
What is Israel going to do then when they are no longer the strongest tribe in the region, and are no longer the US’s principle ally in the Middle East? These are key tenets of Israel’s national security and foreign policy.
The US only started to give aid to Israel in significant amounts annually after Iran’s 1979 revolution.
I think we might have a viable plan if Cavguy is backed up by Ken White and his endless capacity for ass-kicking.Maybe....then again maybe not
Supporting "time-limited, scope limited military actions" for 20 years.
Why should that be the case? The point of deterrence is not to make it impossible for anyone to attack you, the point is to raise the cost of an attack far beyond any possible benefit. Since there would be no benefit at all to Iran from attacking Israel and the cost would (given Israel's presumed capacity for nuclear retaliation) be extremely high, the prospect of an Iranian nuclear attack on Israel seems pretty low.
Iran's leaders seem perfectly willing to promote suicide among others, but there's no evidence to suggest that they are willing to embrace it themselves.
I've noticed more than once that when people want something accomplished by any means and at any cost, they generally propose to employ someone else's means and they generally expect someone else to cover the cost.
Yes.
Who said the US was King-of-the-Castle? We don't like kings, remember?
I'm sure there are some Americans who would like the US to be a sole superpower, or king of some castle. There are lots of Americans who would like to drive a Ferrari... until they look at the price tag. Americans who aspire to sole superpower status generally have yet to look at the price tag.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks