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

[Fabius Maximus]

Most analysts consider only the small question about such an attack:

Example: Rick Francona, former DIA analyst, describes 2 scenarios by which Israel can attack Iran's nuke facilities (hat tip to John Robb):
http://francona.blogspot.com/2006/03...e-options.html

The big question: what will Iran do in response to an attack by Israel or America -- perhaps helped passively or actively by Turkey or Saudi Arabia? Such an attack is, after all, an act of war against Iran. International Law allows Iran to reply against everyone who assisted.

As so often the case with war, the opening salvo is the most predictable. What comes afterwards is more interesting (survival is always interesting).

Vote, and post a note explaining your view!

[Fabius Maximus]

Anybody who believes that Iran will not STRONGLY respond if attacked should adjust the dosage of his meds. They have many good options, and will certainly use some or all of them.

The only nations with sovereignty on this planet are those with nukes (bombs, not power plants). A superpower – autonomy and freedom of action – has both nukes and oil.

Iran has one and wants the other – that’s just good sense.

If Pakistan and North Korea can build nukes, Iran certainly can.

Get used to it.

This should be obvious to almost everyone. In ten years the nice suburban boys who write American military and geo-political journals will explain how obvious and predictable this was.

[Jedburgh]

Rick Francona, former DIA analyst, describes 2 scenarios by which Israel can attack Iran's nuke facilities:
http://francona.blogspot.com/2006/03...e-options.html

A much better look at that scenario is in the SSI pub Getting Ready for a Nuclear-Ready Iran. The pub is actually a big collection of essays - the pdf volume is 322 pages total. The essay I'm referring to, Is the Begin Doctrine Still a Viable Option for Israel, begins on page 133.

[Fabius Maximus]

Jedburgh -- That is an superlative link. What's your forecast?

Here's the conclusion from the 322 page SSI study Jedburgh mentions links {above}.

As Iran gets closer to securing {nukes} two questionable courses of action ― bombing or bribing Iran ― have become increasingly popular. Neither, however, is likely to succeed and could easily make matters worse.

Hence they recommend 7 alternative measures, which range from the quixotic to impossible.

1. Diplomatic efforts to discredit the legitimacy of Iran’s nuclear program. {as if Iran cares}
2. Increasing the costs for Iran to leave or infringe the NPT by establishing more rules under the NPT. {ditto}
3. Securing Russian cooperation in these efforts by offering Moscow a lucrative U.S. nuclear cooperation agreement. {ditto}
4. Reducing Persian Gulf oil and gas production and distribution system vulnerabilities to possible terrorist disruptions by building additional back-up capabilities in Saudi Arabia. {not possible on a significant scale}
5. Limiting Iran’s freedom to threaten oil and gas shipping by proposing a Montreux-like convention to demilitarize the Straits of Hormuz and an agreement to limit possible incidents at sea. {diplomatic}
6. Isolating Iran as a regional producer of fissile materials by encouraging Israel to take the first steps to freeze and dismantle such capabilities. {suicidal}
7. Increased U.S. anti-terrorist, defense, naval border security, and nuclear nonproliferation treaties. {nice but limited relevance}

[GorTex6]

Human waves of plastic key bearing Basij attacking in swarms of suicide bombings......

[Robal2pl]

I think that main response will be Iranian controlled special operations in southern Iraq, includning suicide bombings or similar attacks as well martime special operations . - attacking US-ships in Guf in similar manner like in 1988 but with more advanced weapons. advancd sea mines coluld be very dangerous for US Navy.
Iran has 4 Kilo class submarines. How they can be used?

[Stratiotes]

I think any attempt to stop them will only result in delay. Attacks against their right to develop such weapons will only feed their paranoia that the best way to defeat such threats is by getting the weapons they want. Threats are counterproductive.

I've been re-reading Barb Tuchman's book, _The March of Folly_. In the portion on the American revolution she talks a lot about British paranoia about allowing the colonies to make their own decisions. One fear was that the colonies might begin to favor France. The majority in the British govt sought to use coercion with the punitive legal measures and eventually force of arms. Sure enough, like a jealous lover, their paranoia only served to bring about the thing they feared - a colonial alliance with France.

I think any attempts at coercion - political or military - will server only to drive the Iranians deeper into their paranoia which will result in the them gaining the object of our own paranoia. The only form of coercion that might work would be a total takeover of their country and I don't know anybody who thinks that would be an easy task.

As for the oil. I'm not certain they would cut supplies. They may reduce them but I doubt they would cut off the prime source of their money for funding whatever defense they think they need to fund. The greater they perceive the threat, the more funding they will need. Stopping the export of oil would hurt their interests as much as us I would think. But, also as in Tuchmans' book, governments are prone to choose courses that are a detriment to their own self-interests.

[Martin]

Maybe the Iranian focus could be turned towards itself.

Suppose they had some internal instability, or at least great concern for internal developments coupled with the tying down of resources in perceiving real (foreign sourced sabotage and Iranian political preps for insurgency?) or imaginary threats.

Completely focused on the inside, while assuming/thinking the threat derives partly from the outside (preferably not Iraq/Afghanistan) but be unable to retaliate because of fright of internal situation and uselessness in retaliating against outside states because of their geographical diversity (which would make threatening the source states detrimenial to regional stability and possibly cause the region to turn against them), and expected overwhelming response (including US).

Thus, align ourselves with the people while giving the Iranians the idea that civil war and regional instability is not in their interest because it would further their own demise. Nukes would also not be very practical.

Just a thought that struck me when I read this thread... not 100% realistic as laid out either.

Hmm... considering that there are other sources available for oil (who might be interested in a higher price of oil), what the Iran perceive as a tool against the west maybe could be used to strangle them if blown up a bit here and there.

Sorry guys, got carried away in the fantasies there.

Martin