Iran the Next Battlefield - Thread Renamed

[eversman]

Ryan,

i can forsee a couple problems with the F-22s participating. 1st, if for whatever reason we lose one, accident or aircraft failure of some type, plausible deniability is right out the window and the tech falls into arab and russian hands immediately.

2nd problem is if we lose an aircraft, then we are down a really bad ass fighter and congress wont spend the cash to replace it due to attrition especially if its being used in an off the books mission.

with that said, if we are gonna commit assets at all, we should also contribute the B-2a Spirits to the mission too. out of diego garcia.



ev

[American Patriot]

Defense Minister Ehud Barak Tells U.S. Time Is Running Out For Iran Strike
Infolive ^ | July 11, 2008


Defense Minister Ehud Barak will head to the United States on Monday in order to convince US officials that Iran is much closer to achieving nuclear capabilities than widely believed by US Intelligence.

Barak will spend three days in the US for talks with Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley and UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon.

A week after Barak's visit, IDF Chief of General Staff Lt.-Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi will head to Washington for his own round of talks with American defense chiefs, including Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Michael Mullen, who was in Israel two weeks ago...

[American Patriot]

Israel not afraid to take action against Iran: Barak
Times of India ^ | 11 Jul 2008, 0452 hrs IST,PTI Israel has hinted at a possible military strike to halt Iran's nuclear programme, saying it is the strongest country in the region and it was "not afraid to take action" against Tehran to foil its atomic ambitions.


"Israel is the strongest country in the region and has proved in the past it is not afraid to take action when its vital security interests are at stake," Defence Minister Ehud Barak said at a Labour Party meeting here on Thursday.


(Excerpt) Read more at timesofindia.indiatimes.com ...

[American Patriot]

IRAN MISSILE TEST A BIG BLUFF: OLD ROCKETS, BOGUS VIDEO
drudge ^ Just HEADLINES so far. Interesting development.

I think the Iraqis would support Israel taking out their arch enemy, Iran, and would allow overflights & perhaps even the use of airfields.

[Toad]

When you know you're outmatched, you bluff as a last resort to stop the fight.

[Brian Baldwin]

intense rounds of saber rattling is always a sign of fear. Iran has basically no chance to defeat American troops if their attention is firmly on their nation. Right now there is no standing army in the world that could defeat us one on one. So Iran thinks that by threats, bluffs, and showing it's teeth it can impart a message to get our fat, soft, useless political left to step in and make America back off. Unfortunately for Iran, the American public is only too aware of the danger a nuclear armed Iran presents to our nation.

Were I president at this time I'd cut the chain on Israel and back them fully. Iran would be back to being nomadic in less than a year.

[Mina Harker]

If those articles ev and Mina posted are true, it is EXACTLY what I predicted the IAF would be doing to carry out a strike on Iran. I've also said there is a good chance you'd see them land in Afghanistan after a strike to fuel back up. That would give them opportunity to perhaps carry out a second run.

Truth be told, I'm hoping that we'll be actively helping the IAF. I'd like to see a number of F-22s go on escort with the IAF to provide SEAD and air superiority while the IAF carries out the ground strike.

The F-22s would be perfect for this as they are air superiority fighters and stealthy which can provide plausible deniability and, the IAF's F-16I aircraft are inherently well suited to ground strike.

How long does everyone think this kind of operation will take?

I'm guessing it will be so quick...so swift....the news about the 1st run will just be getting out when the entire thing is over with.

[Ryan Ruck]

Ryan,

i can forsee a couple problems with the F-22s participating. 1st, if for whatever reason we lose one, accident or aircraft failure of some type, plausible deniability is right out the window and the tech falls into arab and russian hands immediately.

2nd problem is if we lose an aircraft, then we are down a really bad ass fighter and congress wont spend the cash to replace it due to attrition especially if its being used in an off the books mission.

with that said, if we are gonna commit assets at all, we should also contribute the B-2a Spirits to the mission too. out of diego garcia.



ev

ev,
True enough. I suppose it comes down to weighing the risk vs. reward.

I would ask that if not for taking out the garbage known as Iran, what would warrant using the F-22? I can tell you the Ruskies already have run a couple ferret missions in their Bear bombers when our F-15s were grounded and had to be escorted by F-22s away from Alaska. So, I know they have, at least, gathered that much intel on them (radar returns, EM emissions, thermal, etc.). Plus, it would be inconceivable that they (and the Chinese) have not gathered copious intel through good old fashioned spying.

I would also play devil's advocate to your B-2 suggestion and point out that if we lost one of those, we'd be losing a $2 billion dollar aircraft with absolutely NO chance of replacement (tooling destroyed).

When you know you're outmatched, you bluff as a last resort to stop the fight.

Or, when you are trying to drag the US into yet another fight were they stand to be discredited by another "war built on lies".

Lord knows we have plenty of domestic enemies that would jump on the chance to exploit such an event.

[eversman]

Im betting that the fighters that intercepted those bears never even switched on anything but the radio. and as far as thermal goes, im certain they were gathering intel on that but the problem is for that to be effective a russian fighter has to live long enough to make use of that info....... not likely.

And yeah, the B-2 is a big dollar risk. BUT..... if we are willing to risk an F-22 we ought to be willing to risk the B-2. in for a penny, in for a pound.

as far as a bluff goes, bluffs like this only work on sane people who can be deterred. as i said above, when a bully is spoiling for a fight and he wont settle for not getting his way, theres nothing you can do but get ready for the fight, and then fight it to win it.


ev

[samizdat]

.

May 31, 1967... nuthin new under the sun...
President Abdur Rahman Aref of Iraq
stated "The existence of Israel is an error which must be rectified. This is our opportunity to wipe out the ignominy which has been with us since 1948. Our goal is clear - to wipe Israel off the map.

[eversman]

I dont think the iraqis think that way. IF the IAF and IDF is practicing inside iraq, they HAVE to have atleast TACIT approval while the iraqis look the other way. that says teh hatred isnt so strong these days, especially in lite of how the iranians are working hard to take iraq apart, and annex it into their own country.


second, even if its not the case that iraq is allowing the IAF to practice there, then they will at the least support the israelis on this, because its CERTAINLY IN THEIR INTEREST.

ev

[samizdat]

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1001526.html
U.S. President George W. Bush has given Israel an "amber light" to begin preparations for a military attack on Iran, a Pentagon official told The Sunday Times this week.

"Amber means get on with your preparations, stand by for immediate attack and tell us when you're ready," the official said.

The official told the Times that Bush informed the Israeli government he would back an Israeli plan to strike Iran's main nuclear sites with long-range aerial weapons if diplomatic talks over Tehran's contentious atomic program broke down.

	Advertisement

Bush's voice of support comes despite U.S. military officials' opposition to the risks of an aerial strike on Iran, the official told The Times. However, the U.S. would not deploy American forces for such a strike nor would Israel be able to depend on U.S. military bases in Iraq for logistical support, the official said.

The U.S. would not necessarily give the "green" light for an attack without unquestionable proof that Iran is involved in military preparations of its own, the official told The Times.

[American Patriot]

How long does everyone think this kind of operation will take?

My guess would be "seven days or less".

LOL

[Toad]

Looks like it's going to be a pretty hot summer in the Middle East this year...

[American Patriot]

Iran expects no U.S. or Israeli attack: minister
al-Reuters via WP ^ | July 12, 2008

TEHRAN - Iran's foreign minister said on Saturday he believed neither the United States nor Israel would want to get entangled in a new Middle East crisis and attack the Islamic Republic over its nuclear program.

The comments by Manouchehr Mottaki came a few days after Iranian missile tests heightened regional tension and helped send world oil prices to new record levels.

Mottaki told the official IRNA news agency that Iran's response would be "firm and pounding" if its two arch-foes launched strikes against the country.

But, he added: "Of course, the Zionist regime and the U.S. do not possess such capacities to want to involve themselves in new crises."

"The Zionist regime is still involved in the after-shocks of the war with Lebanon," Mottaki said, referring to Israel's inconclusive 2006 war with Hezbollah guerrillas.

"And the U.S. still does not possess the capacity to enter another crisis in the Persian Gulf region."

Iran says its nuclear program is aimed only at generating electricity. Western nations and Israel fear the world's fourth-largest oil exporter is seeking to build nuclear bombs.

Washington has said it wants diplomacy to end the nuclear row but has not ruled out military action should that fail.

Israel, long assumed to have its own atomic arsenal, has sworn to prevent Iran from emerging as a nuclear-armed power.

Last month it staged an air force exercise that stoked speculation about a possible assault on Iranian nuclear sites.

Iran has vowed to strike back at Tel Aviv and U.S. interests and shipping if it is attacked. Tehran says missiles fired during Revolutionary Guards wargames on Wednesday included ones that could hit Israel and U.S. bases in the Middle East.

"The recent maneuver ... and the firing of indigenously produced missiles was the display of the Islamic Republic of

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...

[Mina Harker]

My guess would be "seven days or less".

LOL

[American Patriot]

Be ready to strike Iran, US tells Israel
The Peninsula ^ | July 14, 2008

President George W Bush has told the Israeli government that he may be prepared to approve a future military strike on Iranian nuclear facilities if negotiations with Tehran break down, according to a senior Pentagon official.

Despite the opposition of his own generals and widespread scepticism that America is ready to risk the military, political and economic consequences of an airborne strike on Iran, the president has given an "amber light" to an Israeli plan to attack Iran's main nuclear sites with long-range bombing sorties, the official told The Sunday Times.

"Amber means get on with your preparations, stand by for immediate attack and tell us when you're ready," the official said. But the Israelis have also been told that they can expect no help from American forces and will not be able to use US military bases in Iraq for logistical support.

Nor is it certain that Bush's amber light would ever turn to green without irrefutable evidence of lethal Iranian hostility. Tehran's test launches of medium-range ballistic missiles last week were seen in Washington as provocative and poorly judged, but both the Pentagon and the CIA concluded that they did not represent an immediate threat of attack against Israeli or US targets.

"It's really all down to the Israelis," the Pentagon official added. "This administration will not attack Iran. This has already been decided. But the president is really preoccupied with the nuclear threat against Israel and I know he doesn't believe that anything but force will deter Iran."

The official added that Israel had not so far presented Bush with a convincing military proposal. "If there is no solid plan, the amber will never turn to green," he said.

There was also resistance inside the Pentagon from officers concerned about Iranian retaliation. "The uniform people are opposed to the attack plans, mainly because they think it will endanger our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan," the source said.

Complicating the calculations in both Washington and Tel Aviv is the prospect of an incoming Democratic president who has already made it clear that he prefers negotiation to the use of force.

Senator Barack Obama's previous opposition to the war in Iraq, and his apparent doubts about the urgency of the Iranian threat, have intensified pressure on the Israeli hawks to act before November's US presidential election. "If I were an Israeli I wouldn't wait," the Pentagon official added.

The latest round of regional tension was sparked by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, which fired nine long and medium-range missiles in war game manoeuvres in the Gulf last Wednesday.

Iran's state-run media reported that one of them was a modified Shahab-3 ballistic missile, which has a claimed range of 1,250 miles and could theoretically deliver a one-tonne nuclear warhead over Israeli cities. Tel Aviv is about 650 miles from western Iran. General Hossein Salami, a senior Revolutionary Guard commander, boasted that "our hands are always on the trigger and our missiles are ready for launch".

[American Patriot]

Ahmadinejad: We'll sever enemies' hands
Jerusalem Post ^ | 7-13-08

[threatens preemption]

Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad threatened on Sunday to "cut off the hands" of any would-be attackers of the Islamic Republic.

"Before the enemies touch the trigger, the armed forces will cut off their hands," the state-run IRNA news agency quoted the leader as saying.

Ahmadinejad said that missile tests conducted last week exhibited "only a small part" of Iran's defense capabilities, and that, if necessary, further capabilities would be revealed.

His aggressive statements contrasted strikingly with a report on Iranian state TV Sunday, which quoted him as saying that Iran would welcome the idea of setting up a US diplomatic office in Teheran.

The report quoted the firebrand Iranian leader as saying he would consider an American request to set up an interests section in Iran. He said he "welcomes any move to expand ties." But Ahmadinejad said his government hasn't received any official request for such an office.

Last month, US officials floated the idea but no formal requests were made.

Iran has operated an interests section in Washington for years. But the US hasn't had any diplomatic presence in Teheran since the 1979 Islamic Revolution and hostage-taking at the US Embassy there.

Meanwhile, according to a recent AFP report, Ahmadinejad is claiming that he met with two US military commanders during his March trip to Iraq and further claims that the officers even took photographs of Ahmadinejad to mark the meeting.

The Iranian paper Jomhouri Eslami published the president's claims on Saturday and reported that the source of the comments was from a speech made just over a month ago which was initially broadcast by Iranian state-controlled TV on Wednesday.

The Iranian government has neither confirmed nor denied the report since its publication during the weekend.

Ahmadinejad was quoted as saying "when I was in Iraq…I was told that one of the occupying commanders wanted to see me," and that "apparently, he was due to leave on vacation but had his delayed [it] to see me and I agreed."

The Iranian president continued, "when he saw me he told me that he was proud of me and said 'you are in our hearts' and then asked to take a souvenir picture with me."

"So I patted him on the shoulder and I encouraged him and told him to protect Iraqi people," the president was quoted as having said.

According to the report, Ahmadinejad failed to mention the nationality of the coalition commanders specifically.

The paper which published the alleged comments and is close to Iran's conservative rule, responded skeptically by saying "if the American commanders are with Iran then how come [they] wanted to abduct the Iranian president there?"

The more reformist-oriented publication, Aftab-e Yazd, Etemad-e Melli and Sarmayeh newspapers also published Ahmadinejad's remarks. A video of the comments has also appeared on You Tube.

[American Patriot]

'Bush gave Israel amber light to attack Iran if diplomacy fails'
Jerusalem Post ^ | 7-16-08

US President George W. Bush has given Israel the "amber light" to carry out an attack on Iran if diplomatic efforts are unsuccessful in causing the Islamic Republic to back down and relinquish its nuclear program, according to a senior Pentagon official quoted by the British Sunday Times on Sunday morning.

According to the official, Bush has given Israel free reign to attack Iran's nuclear sites if sanctions fail in spite of opposition from US generals and regardless of the possible economic and political repercussions of such a strike.

"Amber means get on with your preparations, stand by for immediate attack and tell us when you're ready," the official said, adding however, that Israel had been told that it could not count on the US to lend it military support.

Contradicting recent reports to the contrary, he also said that the IAF would not be permitted to take off from American military bases in Iraq.

[American Patriot]

July 13, 2008
President George W Bush backs Israeli plan for strike on Iran

As Tehran tests new missiles, America believes only a show of force can deter President Ahmadinejad


President George W Bush: US officials acknowledge that no American president can afford to remain idle if Israel is threatened




Uzi Mahnaimi in Washington



President George W Bush has told the Israeli government that he may be prepared to approve a future military strike on Iranian nuclear facilities if negotiations with Tehran break down, according to a senior Pentagon official.


Despite the opposition of his own generals and widespread scepticism that America is ready to risk the military, political and economic consequences of an airborne strike on Iran, the president has given an “amber light” to an Israeli plan to attack Iran’s main nuclear sites with long-range bombing sorties, the official told The Sunday Times.


“Amber means get on with your preparations, stand by for immediate attack and tell us when you’re ready,” the official said. But the Israelis have also been told that they can expect no help from American forces and will not be able to use US military bases in Iraq for logistical support.


Nor is it certain that Bush’s amber light would ever turn to green without irrefutable evidence of lethal Iranian hostility. Tehran’s test launches of medium-range ballistic missiles last week were seen in Washington as provocative and poorly judged, but both the Pentagon and the CIA concluded that they did not represent an immediate threat of attack against Israeli or US targets.


“It’s really all down to the Israelis,” the Pentagon official added. “This administration will not attack Iran. This has already been decided. But the president is really preoccupied with the nuclear threat against Israel and I know he doesn’t believe that anything but force will deter Iran.”
The official added that Israel had not so far presented Bush with a convincing military proposal. “If there is no solid plan, the amber will never turn to green,” he said.


There was also resistance inside the Pentagon from officers concerned about Iranian retaliation. “The uniform people are opposed to the attack plans, mainly because they think it will endanger our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan,” the source said.


Complicating the calculations in both Washington and Tel Aviv is the prospect of an incoming Democratic president who has already made it clear that he prefers negotiation to the use of force.


Senator Barack Obama’s previous opposition to the war in Iraq, and his apparent doubts about the urgency of the Iranian threat, have intensified pressure on the Israeli hawks to act before November’s US presidential election. “If I were an Israeli I wouldn’t wait,” the Pentagon official added.


The latest round of regional tension was sparked by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, which fired nine long and medium-range missiles in war game manoeuvres in the Gulf last Wednesday.


Iran’s state-run media reported that one of them was a modified Shahab-3 ballistic missile, which has a claimed range of 1,250 miles and could theoretically deliver a one-ton nuclear warhead over Israeli cities. Tel Aviv is about 650 miles from western Iran. General Hossein Salami, a senior Revolutionary Guard commander, boasted that “our hands are always on the trigger and our missiles are ready for launch”.


Condoleezza Rice, the US secretary of state, said she saw the launches as “evidence that the missile threat is not an imaginary one”, although the impact of the Iranian stunt was diminished on Thursday when it became clear that a photograph purporting to show the missiles being launched had been faked.


The one thing that all sides agree on is that any strike by either Iran or Israel would trigger a catastrophic round of retaliation that would rock global oil markets, send the price of petrol soaring and wreck the progress of the US military effort in Iraq.


Abdalla Salem El-Badri, secretary-general of Opec, the oil producers’ consortium, said last week that a military conflict involving Iran would see an “unlimited” rise in prices because any loss of Iranian production — or constriction of shipments through the Strait of Hormuz — could not be replaced. Iran is Opec’s second-largest producer after Saudi Arabia.
Equally worrying for Bush would be the impact on the US mission in Iraq, which after years of turmoil has seen gains from the military “surge” of the past few months, and on American operations in the wider region. A senior Iranian official said yesterday that Iran would destroy Israel and 32 American military bases in the Middle East in response to any attack.


Yet US officials acknowledge that no American president can afford to remain idle if Israel is threatened. How genuine the Iranian threat is was the subject of intense debate last week, with some analysts arguing that Iran might have a useable nuclear weapon by next spring and others convinced that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is engaged in a dangerous game of bluffing — mainly to impress a domestic Iranian audience that is struggling with economic setbacks and beginning to question his leadership.


Among the sceptics is Kenneth Katzman, a former CIA analyst and author of a book on the Revolutionary Guard. “I don’t subscribe to the view that Iran is in a position to inflict devastating damage on anyone,” said Katzman, who is best known for warning shortly before 9/11 that terrorists were planning to attack America.


“The Revolutionary Guards have always underperformed militarily,” he said. “Their equipment is quite inaccurate if not outright inoperable. Those missile launches were more like putting up a ‘beware of the dog’ sign. They want everyone to think that if you mess with them, you will get bitten.”


A former adviser to Rice noted that Ahmadinejad’s confrontational attitude had earned him powerful enemies among Iran’s religious leadership. Professor Shai Feldman, director of Middle East studies at Brandeis University, said the Iranian government was getting “clobbered” because of global economic strains. “His [Ahmadinejad's] failed policies have made Iran more vulnerable to sanctions and people close to the mullahs have decided he’s a liability,” he said.


In Israel, Ehud Olmert, the prime minister, has his own domestic problems with a corruption scandal that threatens to unseat him and the media have been rife with speculation that he might order an attack on Iran to distract attention from his difficulties. According to one of his closest friends, Olmert recently warned him that “in three months’ time it will be a different Middle East”.


Yet even the most hawkish officials acknowledge that Israel would face what would arguably be the most challenging military mission of its 60-year existence.


“No one here is talking about more than delaying the [nuclear] programme,” said the Pentagon source. He added that Israel would need to set back the Iranians by at least five years for an attack to be considered a success.


Even that may be beyond Israel’s competence if it has to act alone. Obvious targets would include Iran’s Isfahan plant, where uranium ore is converted into gas, the Natanz complex where this gas is used to enrich uranium in centrifuges and the plutonium-producing Arak heavy water plant. But Iran is known to have scattered other elements of its nuclear programme in underground facilities around the country. Neither US nor Israeli intelligence is certain that it knows where everything is.


“Maybe the Israelis could start off the attack and have us finish it off,” Katzman added. “And maybe that has been their intention all along. But in terms of the long-term military campaign that would be needed to permanently suppress Iran’s nuclear programme, only the US is perceived as having that capability right now.”


Additional reporting: Tony Allen-Mills in New York