Will it happen this weekend? US and Iran on collision course

[BushOut06]

http://reuters.myway.com/article/20061102/2006-11-02T102551Z_01_BLA221126_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-IRAN-MANOEUVRES-DC.html

<snip>
TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran's Revolutionary Guards fired missiles carrying cluster warheads to shouts of "God is the Greatest" at the start of 10 days of military maneuvers on Thursday, state television reported.

Tehran had said the maneuvers, which will include drills in the Gulf and Sea of Oman, were to show off "defensive strength." Days earlier, navies led by the United States practiced blocking the transport of weapons of mass destruction in the Gulf.

Tensions between Iran and Western powers are high as the latter try to agree a draft U.N. sanctions resolution aimed at forcing Tehran to scale back atomic work they fear may be used to make bombs. Iran says its aims are purely peaceful.

"Dozens of missiles were fired including Shahab-2 and Shahab-3 missiles. The missiles had ranges from 300 km (190 miles) up to 2,000 km (1,240 miles)," Iran's main state television channel reported.
<snip>

Something tells me that both countries are deliberately setting themselves up for a collision. The US wants something big right before the election, and they've been itching to take on Iran. Iran wants this because it fits right into their leader's desire for a confrontation with the West. We have two religious zealots squaring off in the Persian Gulf, I don't expect either one of them to blink. What are the chances of some "accident" happening, setting off a full-scale conflict?

[Demeter]

1. It Better Not

That would put the match to the fuse that is American.

[Stephanie]

2. I said the same thing last night.

News that the U.S. is accusing Syria and Iran of plotting a coup in Lebanon is quite chilling.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2546686&mesg_id=2546686

[populistdriven]

10. Nah, bush wants Iran to have nukes in the long run so we can have another arms race for profit

I have watched this two-faced Chimp long enough to know that the only reason he went to war in Iraq was because he was stupid enough to think it would be easy. Even the triple-chromosomed slabs of beef in the Pentagon believe Iran would be too hard a task for the US.

Wasting several billion dollars of American tax dollars to send our fleet to the Gulf to coverup his bluff and trick the world media into taking his threat seriously is as easy as letting his Neocon shoe-shine boys wax his wingtips every morning.

[RaleighNCDUer]

13. I'm less optimistic. I think he wants an excuse to actually use

his new mini-nukes, to prove how badass we are and that we can't be beat because we have the biggest stick. A couple bunker-busting mini-nukes, they think, will cause the collapse of the Iranian government, get Korea to give up its nuke program, and demoralize the resistance in Iraq.

They are, of course, wrong on all three counts.

[populistdriven]

15. good points that may be true, i forgot to mention that...

War with Iran would result in energy prices so high that we will be forced to become energy independent - in the long run this will hurt the US oil business and weaken Israeli influence in DC.

There is a sweet spot where *they* want to keep prices - war disrupts this.

*they would include US Oil co's, OPEC, Iran, Israel, US auto industry, Banks, China and more.

The hysteria over high oil prices reeks of propaganda. This is the real reason prices came down - not for the election so much.

[BushOut06]

17. OR, it could result in more demand on domestic production

Don't think that Bush wouldn't hesitate to use an emergency executive order to open up drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, protected land in Alaska, and anywhere else he thinks he might get oil. I'm also sure that his Big Oil buddies would get government subsidies to start developing alternate sources of fuel. He's not going to allow his Big Oil buddies to miss out on this.

[populistdriven]

21. Investors seem to think oil will stay at current pricing

http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topics/article.asp?cu_no=2&item_no=115514&version=1&template_id=48&parent_id=28

Saudi market extends steepest fall since crash
Published: Thursday, 2 November, 2006, 11:17 AM Doha Time

DUBAI: Saudi shares plunged to their lowest close in almost 20 months yesterday as retail investors scrambled for the door, extending the sharpest decline in the index since a Gulf Arab stock market crash ended in May.

Stocks across the world’s top oil exporting region took their cue from the Riyadh market, the Arab world’s largest, which has fallen almost 12% since it switched on Saturday to a single session and scrapped evening trading, a move which has upset retail investors.

The exchange now closes before most Saudis finish their working day, preventing many retail investors from trading directly on a market where mutual funds account for less than 5% of daily volumes.

"Unifying the trading session in Saudi sent the wrong signal to the market. It was perceived among retail investors that the (Saudi) Capital Markets Authority wants to get rid of retail investors, which is nonsense," said Hani Baothman, chief executive of Saudi-based Aayan Capital. ~snip~

[OzarkDem]

23. Bush is spoiling for a fight in Lebanon

and why is he mad at Syria now? I thought he liked them, or at least did business with them.

[leftchick]

35. no they just share

torture techniques.

[spanone]

3. At this stage of the game, nothing would surprise me.

My cynicism runs deep.

[Swamp Rat]

4. tick ... tick ... tick ...

[IA_Seth]

5. I think this weekend would be too late...

As far as a desperate attempt to sway the vote, but perhaps I am wrong.

To me, if it were to happen for political reasons, it would have happened already, to allow time to pump up the armchair warriors who tend to get excited about such things.

Now, I am certainly not saying the fools we have in charge aren't crazy enough to do it, I just don't think it will be for purely political gains (just batshit insanity).

[MADem]

6. I doubt Iran wants to do anything more than rattle a sabre

and toss a few invectives our way.

They sure as hell don't want to get into a shooting war with us, because they'd LOSE. Even with our lousy overextended military, they'd lose, BIG time.

An overview of their capabilities: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/army.htm

[BushOut06]

7. All it would take is an accident on either side

Make that "accident". Two opposing navies in close proximity, an errant missile, some battleship accidentally gets sunk, an aircraft gets shot down. It wasn't all that long ago when we accidentally shot down an Iranian civilian airliner. With tensions this high, all it would take is for a MiG or F-18 to cross into the wrong airspace.

[MADem]

14. Why do you think we want to get up close and personal?

We want to SEE what they're doing. We want intel, and the best way to get it is to get in close.

Let me tell you, if there was an accident or incident, if it led to war, Iran would be decisively defeated. Their pilots SUCK. Their Air Force sucks. Certainly, they could mount a defense, I wouldn't expect a turkey shoot, but at the end of the day, simply due to their numbers, their aviation assets, and the quality of their pilot training, they'd end up on the short end of the stick.

If they wanted to get into it with us, they would have done in when we shot down that airbus in 88, when they had a massive military under arms from the Iran-Iraq War. Of course, their Air Force was even shittier back then, so they didn't. They're dealing with the ghosts and after-effects of that Iran-Iraq absurdity, too--they lost a big chunk of two generations in that folly.

This is sabre-rattling, nothing more.

And as for that airbus, that was a total fuckup on the bridge of the VICENNNES. A total fuck-up. Not deliberate, just pure stupidity. It's what happens when you lower standards to accomodate a six hundred ship Navy for Ronnie. Fortunately, though our Army and USMC are riddled with waiver cases and Cat IVs nowadays, the Navy has actually had a drawdown (so that total force numbers could be shifted to the groundpounders in Iraq and the Stan) and the USN quality is higher than ever. They're gonna be the ones on the tip of the spear during this evolution.

[BushOut06]

16. Are you saying Iran would be a cake-walk?

Just like Iraq? We had Iraq seriously outgunned. We beat them pretty decisively on the ground. I don't think that we would have much of a problem defeating Iran militarily. It's what would result from that war that scares the shit out of me. You think we're facing a bad problem in Iraq with insurgents? It's NOTHING compared to what we'll face if we go to war with Iran. Not to mention the very real possibility of this war spreading beyond just Iran, with Israel and Syria very likely getting involved. Let's not forget that tensions are getting pretty high between Israel and Egypt right now as well.

Do we really want to light the spark that turns the entire Middle East into a Taliban-style system?

[MADem]

19. Fuck no. I am not talking about "cakewalking" in and occupying.

If you went into the country, you'd have trouble. But if you just wanted to decimate them militarily, it's an easy matter to bomb every frigging airfield they have, bunker bust a few of their nuke facilities, blow up their ground equipment, and call it a day.

We know where the bulk of their junk is. Hell, we BUILT those bases....

[BushOut06]

22. True, but even that would have disastrous consequences

Iran wouldn't just sit back and allow us to hit them from the air. Fucking with Iran would be akin to stirring up the proverbial hornet's nest. We've already seen what happened with Iraq, now multiply that tenfold or more. Even an air campaign could very easily spill over into a regional war. That doesn't even begin to take into consideration the thousands - or possibly millions - of new "terrorists" that we would be creating, each with the intent of attacking the US.

[MADem]

25. See post 24. It would have no real negative short term consequences, aside

from the usual fist-shaking and "You Bullies!!!" shouts from here and there around the globe.

It would decimate them, and it would piss off the Iranian citizenry that the fearless Ayatullahs on the ruling council were such shitty military planners and incompetents in terms of training, equipping, and developing pipelines to secure equipment for their forces. It might even motivate regime change, if the citizenry got pissed enough at the national insult. It could possibly just weaken the regime enough to allow for a new group to seize power, one a bit less "Ayatullah-ish."

You are thinking from that paradigm that a bombing would be, MUST BE, followed by an invasion. I'm not thinking from that perspective AT ALL.

For example, when Israel took out Saddam's nuke facility, they didn't follow up with Jewish boots on the ground. Their mission was to stop Iraq from developing nukes, not to occupy the country. http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/june/7/newsid_3014000/3014623.stm

If we wanted to take Iran down ten notches militarily, we could do it without putting a single toe on Persian soil. And the Iranians know that, propagandistic pictures of pathetic guys with crappy gear rappeling out of helicopters notwithstanding.

[oc2002]

11. I think the Iranian military is way under estimated there.

Iran is not Iraq.

http://www.aliraqi.org/forums/showthread.php?t=53165


they spend a lot less than Saudi Arabia, but have a much more powerfull military, and dedication in its ranks. According to most sources, it's a meager 3.3%. Which is what makes Iran's strides, in my biased opinion, all the more impressive. The reason that Iran doesn't have to spend nearly as much on its military, and that many countries who spend more than Iran have much weaker militaries, is that Iran has become largely self-sufficient in most fields. It makes its own fighter jets, cruise missiles, tanks, armaments, night vision goggles, radar systems, UAVs...
__________________

[MADem]

18. I used to live there. It was coming along under the Shah, but they

haven't gotten back to anywhere near the late 70's glory days when Shah was starting to build the best Air Force in the Middle East. I'm very familiar with their capabilities both then and now.

Their military, for all intents and purposes, is only 25 years old, since they killed all the senior officers in '79 and sixty percent of the enlisted went over the hill once the Revolution took hold, never to return to duty.

Then, they lost MILLIONS during the Iran-Iraq war--their Vietnam. It still scars the psyche of the country.

And dedication? Well, I suppose there are some diehards, there always are in the upper ranks, and especially those close to the leadership and serving in the elite (Pasaradan) units, but a big chunk of their military is conscripted. They're probably about as dedicated as the Turks....and that ain't saying much, as they don't even have the numbers the Turks do.

I won't even go into their equipment challenges, other than to say they are significant. Their idea of maintenance is largely cannibalization. Their assets are a hodgepodge of crap from all over, some of it swiped from Iraq when most of Saddam's aircraft flew over the border hiding from the US in Gulf One. Yep, they stole Saddam's planes.

FWIW, I agree with the Seymour Hersch scenario discussed in this article from last March--subversion, not direct military force, is the more likely strategy: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4860492.stm

The only way there will be a shooting war is if someone on either side, or both, gets deliberately crazy on orders from above.

I don't anticipate that happening, though.

[RaleighNCDUer]

20. sure they'd lose, but they'd do us some real damage in doing

so. They have decent surface-to-ground systems and anti-ship systems and even if their ground forces are not completely modernized, they are a nation of 60 million, fighting on their own ground, and they've watched Iraq and Afghanistan for the last 4 years, seeing how we do things.

BTW, that link isn't very up to date - it talks about deployments made in reaction to Soviet actions in Afghanistan. Huh???

[MADem]

24. No, they don't. Really. Their stuff sucks. And we wouldn't fight on their own ground

you see. We'd just bomb the crap out of them, destroy their toys, and leave it at that. Their lousy Army, and even their not-so-lousy Pasaradan, wouldn't have the opportunity to engage us, we'd be far above them, and launching from offshore as well.

FWIW, that link incorporates historical and more recent info. Navigate around the site and you'll see assessments and historical background of their Air Force, Navy, Army and so forth. Here's the cribsheet/overview from the same place as of 06:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2006/060501-iran-military.htm

Army

At 350,000 strong, the Iranian army is one of the largest in the neighborhood. But its size may not matter. More than half of the army is conscripts who are reported to be undisciplined, unmotivated, and poorly trained. In a war, many of them may be on foot as well. During the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s, the majority of Iran’s armored vehicles were captured or destroyed. Nearly three decades of arms sale restrictions have kept Iran from acquiring the spare parts and equipment it needs to maintain even its diminished inventory.

The Navy

Iran is no naval power, but it does have enough capabilities to play the spoiler. In the event of war, Iran would likely try to jam up waterways by conducting unconventional operations, including deploying small attack boats to strike at shipping tankers. Nearly a quarter of the global oil supply is shipped through the Strait of Hormuz every day. But shipping lanes would grind to a halt if Iran put its seven mine warfare ships to work. Which would make them, logically, the FIRST target on the list...!

In April, the Iranians tested what was reported to be the world’s fastest underwater missile, capable of eluding radar and traveling up to 233 miles per hour. Most experts scoffed at the announcement as little more than chest-thumping. More seriously, Iran’s navy has purchased three Russian Kilo-class submarines, whose quiet diesel engines could make them dangerous to Western warships. As with so much else about Iran’s military, however, there is a catch: The subs don’t seem to run well in the warm waters of the Persian Gulf.

Air Force

The Iranian Air Force has been in a tailspin since the shah fled his palace in 1979. International restrictions on arms purchases have made it nearly impossible for Iran to obtain spare parts for its planes, and experts suggest that fewer than half of the 300 aircraft in its inventory are airworthy. Tehran recently unveiled plans for a domestically produced fighter jet, but the first prototype won’t be completed before 2008—too late to play a role in the current crisis. It’s not just the planes that are in disrepair. The Islamic government purged U.S.-trained pilots after the revolution, and the Air Force has never recovered.And they had some good ones, too--the guy who held the altitude record in a Bell 214 was an Iranian general who was murdered by the Khomeini executioners--they hung the guy and put pictures of his corpse in the paper. I knew him and his family. It’s been more than 15 years since Iranian pilots have been able to participate in air-to-air combat simulations or other realistic training. Any combat over Iranian airspace would likely be quick and one-sided.

Ballistic Missiles

Information about Iran’s missile force is often as imprecise as the missiles themselves. Tehran likely has between 250 and 300 Scud B missiles (180-mile range) and more than 60 Scud C missiles (310-mile range). It is currently testing an 800-mile range Shahab-3 missile based on North Korean technology, and developing the Shahab-4 with a potential range of 1,250 miles. In January 2006, Jane’s Defence Weekly reported that Iran had acquired intermediate-range ballistic missiles from North Korea. Those missiles can carry nuclear warheads and travel up to 1,550 miles—not far enough to hit Western Europe, but more than enough for Jerusalem. Ubi Rubin, former director of an Israeli missile defense organization, notes, “Iran has been careful not to develop capabilities that would threaten Europe.” Regional rivals—and any Western military forces in the area—are vulnerable, however.

Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps

As the United States has discovered in Iraq, the regular military is not always the toughest opponent.....A paramilitary force independent of the regular military, {the Pasaradan} was formed by the clerical regime soon after the revolution. In essence, the military protects the country, and the Pasdaran protects the regime. It has some very prominent alums: President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and more than 80 parliamentarians are former Pasdaran members. The group also has some unsavory international contacts. The Pasdaran is widely believed to train groups such as Lebanon’s Hezbollah and Palestinian Hamas and Islamic Jihad. Numbering around 120,000 men, the Pasdaran controls most of Iran’s missiles, fields its own navy and air force, and trains several special operations groups. According to John Pike, director of GlobalSecurity.org, the Pasdaran would likely resist an invasion fiercely, mainly through attacks on naval units and on commercial shipping.

Bottom line

It is hard to envision Iran’s ramshackle forces giving a modern Western force the “burning hell” Iran’s leaders have promised. Only Iranian ingenuity has kept the military from falling into complete disarray, according to Pike. “Their understanding of war is about a century behind America’s understanding of war,” he says. Given that reality, it is not surprising that Iran may want the ultimate defense: a nuclear weapon. .....

[BushOut06]

26. That doesn't take into account other aspects

I'm sorry, but there is no way in hell that we just bomb the shit out of Iran and walk away, and it be like nothing ever happened. An attack on Iran is going to do more to stir up hatred among Muslims worldwide more than everything we have done so far combined. An attack on Iran would help to rally extremists worldwide, and would have far-reaching consequences.

If attacking Iran would be so easy, don't you think BushCo would have already done it by now?

[MADem]

29. We've done it before. We kicked the shit out of Libya and walked away.

We wanted Muamar Khaddafi to stop doing certain things, particularly with regard to his support for terrorism--that was our goal. We bombed his ass and achieved our goal. He hid out for the longest time after this event, stopped pulling his bullshit, and eventually came to terms with us.

The Aussies did a pretty concise write-up of the events: http://www.ausairpower.net/Eldorado-Canyon.html

The F-111Fs attacking the Tripoli airport destroyed three and damaged two large 11-76 Candid transports (much like a C-141) while also damaging several buildings. The Sidi Bilal naval base and barracks were also hit with the final six aircraft attacking the Bab al Aziziya army compound. This target housed Gaddafi's command post and was considered to be most important. Four aircraft dropped 16 Paveways but damage was apparently limited, although Gaddafi's adopted infant daughter was among the casualties. Gaddafi as it appears was rather lucky and survived.

Five aircraft aborted their bombing runs and one was lost, reports suggest it was hit by AAA and burning fell into the Mediterranean some distance from the coast. The Navy searched extensively but no signs were found of the aircraft or its crew, Capt. Fernando Ribas-Dominicci and Weapon Systems Officer Capt. Paul Lorence. Their aircraft is currently considered the likely source of several 2000 lb bombs which landed in a residential area of Tripoli causing some civilian casualties and damage to foreign embassies. Other collateral damage appears to have been the result of Libyan SAM and AAA firings at the fast moving and low flying one elevens. Wreckage reported by the Libyans and shown on international television as being from an F-111 turned out to be an SA-3 SAM.

The Navy's A-6E strike on Benghazi focussed upon the Benina airbase and the AI Jumahiriya Barracks. The A-6Es acquired their targets with AN/APQ-148 multimode radars and then zoomed in with AN/AAS-33 TRAM infra-red vision turrets (see AADR Sept 81 p63 for details) using its laser for precise ranging. These aircraft released unguided 10001b demolition bombs and 5001b CBUs, the latter used extensively at Benina. Targets confirmed destroyed include four MiG-23 Floggers, two Mil-8 Hip helos and two Fokker F27 transports. Two of the Intruders aborted their bombing runs.

You're thinking traditionally, and I'd wager, there won't be any traditional goings-on in our dealings with Iran at all. A pedestrian ground war is good for...what? Nothing. We'd gain nothing, we'd shed more blood, we couldn't prevail (the terrain is fucking brutal) and we'd piss more people off. Way easier to DESTABILIZE the government, bombing the Sweet Bee-Jeebus out of their military targets to make sure they don't have to tools to crack down on THEIR OWN population, insert the new guys (prepositioned in, say, Iranian Kurdistan, with substantial assistance from the Kurds in exchange for some REAL autonomy, or even from the west by way of Iraq, the east by way of the Stan, or the south by way of the gulf) and once your coup is complete, cut a deal with the new guys in charge.

Who will these "new guys" be? Depends on who you ask. This guy, who was a teen when his paw was forced to flee, and no small number of his pals, who are all over CAP Hill chit-chatting with our elected representatives, sure want the job, though: http://www.rezapahlavi.org/index.htm

War planning is NOT a question of it being "easy" or "hard." FWIW, the plans have been written for YEARS, under Presidents going back many decades--this isn't a BushCo drill by any stretch. There are people working in the Pentagon whose sole duty is to update those plans and coordinate any changes with other intelligence agencies. The point is, you have to decide if you have a proper REASON to do it.

The only reason an attack on Iran would take place is if they've developed a nuke they can stick on one of their pathetic little missiles and reliably aim at Israel (they've a way to go, yet--don't wanna be hitting Dome of the Rock with a nuke, now, do they?). Or, if they take it upon themselves to threaten someone else we happen to favor in the region. OR...there's a way to do a regime change, as mentioned above, and they've got a crew ready to roll and take over--not a Bay of Pigs fiasco, more like the Kermit Roosevelt--Operation Ajax--Mossadeq adventure that consolidated Shah's power in the early fifties. History repeats itself, or more correctly, use the old blueprint and improve on it?

The Ayatullahs are hemmed in to their right and their left, and they can't keep national fervor on the front burner forever, because pretty soon people want to have fun and buy shit. Odds are good they're quite sensibly feeling that just because they are paranoid doesn't mean someone might not be out to get them.

[BushOut06]

31. Completely different situation

We attacked Libya in retaliation for their involvement in a terrorist attack. Even then, it was a very limited campaign. What you're talking about in Iran would be a prolonged campaign throughout the country to take out a wide variety of targets. In addition, the climate today is completely different than it was back then.

[MADem]

34. No, I am not talking about a prolonged campaign at all

I am talking about a series of concurrent, rapid fire strikes on military targets from the east, north and south. Boom, boom, boom. Boom. Boom. You bomb the living shit out of all of their assets, or at least the ones that might cause you trouble--the stuff in the hinterlands can be left, if there's someone on the ground who can isolate the base commanders.

Concurrently, you get a coup underway and install your new Shah. In order to make this work you have to have more than a few people on the inside who can effectively lead their subordinates, or at least force them to obey. Kermit bribed people in the Mossadeq adventure, plus they had a slew of folks who were promised better situations if they came down on the right side of the grand plan. You don't have to have EVERY general on your side; just the ones who can give the orders that the military personnel MUST stand down, or act in ways that they might initially find confusing--like, say, cutting off roads, preventing access in and out of cities, airports, and so forth. Force of leadership and personality wins the day.

Coups aren't that hard to manage, so long as you have your ducks in a row internally. Look at how easily Pervez Musharaf pulled his coup off. Hell, he barely broke a sweat. Indeed, the Turks do it periodically as well, whenever the civilian government gets too shirty. There's precedent in the region for this sort of thing.

In the case of Iran, all they need to do is get a hold of a couple of the 'right' generals and offer them a better deal--and just about ANY deal is a better deal. If greed doesn't do the trick, greater authority and rank and access to improved hardware will sway a professional military member.

If you think "young" Reza is sitting on his hands in Virginia, think again. He's ACTIVE. He wants 'his' country back, and there are a shitload of Persians here in the states as well as in Iran who would prefer a Shah, any fucking Shah, to the bullshit and sanctions that they currently endure under the Ayatullahs. And with nukes in the equation, those sanctions are bound to get worse before they get better.

Now, I am NOT saying this WILL happen. All I am saying is that it could happen, and I'd wager that the scenario I postulate is far, far more likely than ANY "US boots on the ground in Iran" scenario that anyone might come up with. That scenario is just, well, stupid.

The only way we'll see US boots on the ground is if we reestablish mil-to-mil relations with the new Shah's military, frankly, and they give us back our old bases.

[ddbaj]

33. That's not the issue.

True, American air and sea power could easily roll over Iran's military. But what's the point? I think the assumption that it would WEAKEN the regime is false. All of the important people/things would be in secure bunkers, and the regime would emerge more popular and powerful than ever. Think Hezbollah over the summer. They hid, Lebanon took a beating, they came back and now people hate Israel more than ever. Same would happen with Iran.

However, there is other factors. Iran has ways to hurt the USA even if we don't step into their soil:

-Iraq: They can use their influence with Shiite militias to increase attacks on US forces. Note that the current insurgency is mostly Sunni. On the political front, an attack on Iran could mean the collapse of the Iraqi government since a majority of it is Shiites. Not to mention, Iranian missiles would have no trouble hitting US troops in Iraq.

-Oil: The bombing alone will raise prices, but I would not be surprised in allies like Syria and Venezuela use the oil weapon as well. Worse case scenario, we get a broad oil cut-off like in the 70s, this is not so likely though... unless...

-Hezbollah: Iran has strong influence with Hezbollah, they could direct them to strike Israel to try to make this a broaded conflict, one that would put INSANE pressure on our arab allies and the muslim world in general.

That's just three examples. I think an air/sea only operation would go just like the Israeli operation in lebanon. We'd bomb the shit out of them, they'd respond by turning Iraq into a bigger shithole and maybe killing some of our troops there. That + a possible new conflict with Israel would force us to go in with troops or would force us to just bomb to no effect.

War with Iran is STUPID.

Oh, did I mention the whole terrorism thing? yeah.

[MADem]

36. Secure bunkers? Have you seen the bases where Iran stores

their pathetic F-4s, MIGs and so forth? I have. They were so-so in the seventies, and time hasn't helped them become more hardened. Their assets are FER SHIT, you see. FER SHIT!

If they try to play the oil game (which first, they can't, without fucking CHINA, their biggest customer--we'll see how long they'd play that) they'd have to ignore their fellow OPEC members. Not gonna happen.

Hezbollah? That is absurd. They're a MESS. They took it up the ass and declared victory. They are a badly weakened proxy for Iran, because they went a step or ten too far. Iran isn't in a hurry to fund or support them in any warmongering endeavors anytime soon. If Iran even tried that, you'd see a stronger response from Israel, and it wouldn't be directed solely at Lebanon, either. And they're so tough nowadays that they are NEGOTIATING with those pesky Jews: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6104520.stm?ls And all the while, the Israelis give them the odd flyover to make sure they take their point, and don't try to pull that shit again: http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/world/20061031-0553-mideast-lebanon-mockraids.html

Iraq? A little martial law in the Iraqi shi'a region and a bit of movement limiting along key crossover points on the border (I'm quite sure our friends in Kurdistan will be helpful in that regard if asked) will nip that (unlikely in the first place)shit in the bud, and in any event, your Iranian coup is done in two or three days. You can't cause trouble if you can't move around without getting killed. I'm familiar with martial law in those regions. The SOP is shoot first, ask questions later.

And as for Iranian missiles aimed at Iraq, I invite your attention to their accuracy during the Iran-Iraq War. They aren't much improved nowadays. I doubt they'd make many friends in Arab speaking Iraq by bombing the civilian population (many of whom feel that the Persians look down on them, and many of whom lost sons in the I-I war) by mistake, even if they were aiming for the Americans...ooops! And of course, they'd never get anything off the pad, anyway. Boom! we got good at that during the Clinton years, and the USAF wouldn't mind picking up that job, I'd wager. They and USN have done it enough before.

Look, I am not "endorsing" war with Iran. If you read what I've written, all I have given you is a more likely scenario than all of this absurd "Ohhhh, US troops 'on the GROUUUND' INVADING Iran" nonsense I keep seeing crop up here. "Ooooh, Bush is gonna INVADE Iran while we try to VOTE!" Fuggedaboutit.

The only US troops in any kind of coup action, were one to happen (and again I am NOT saying this WILL happen) would be Special Ops types, speaking flawless Farsi, looking totally local-yokel, accompanying native-born personnel of both the Persian, Marsh Arab and Kurdish persuasions and helping to coordinate airstrikes. You aren't gonna see tanks rolling like Iraq. Coups are different. If a reasonable sounding IRANIAN gets on television and says "Look, we've dumped the ruling council; sanctions will be lifted soon; we're going to hold REAL elections and the Ayatullahs won't be picking the rightwing candidates and dumping the lefties like last time, and a better life is in store for everyone" you can be damn sure that person would have IMMEDIATE fans, and most of them would be between the ages of sixteen and 35. That age group is READY for change, and they are the biggest percentage of the population.

The point, you see, would simply be REGIME CHANGE. That would be the ONLY point at this stage in time. Check out Sonny Reza's website. He's not got that stuff up there for his health. He's serious, and he's been meeting with our legislators for quite some time about his perspectives. He's not unknown on the Hill.

[bullimiami]

8. well the election is tuesday, they are running out of time.

[shah269]

9. why not! Jesus H Bush's pole numbers are low! He needs another war to bring them up!

Its war!
Its good fo a boy or a girl!
Or in our case soem one who thinks he's god!

[oc2002]

12. I do not believe that there is a link between the election and a strike on Iran

The election have been fixed by Dibold, and do not need further influence.

The war will begin shortly after.

[dkofos]

27. They may use it as cover for another stolen election

[blues90]

28. I'm in a tail-spin here

First off I would not put ANYTHING past the BCF and the off-spring/ corp, freaks involved .

I don't trust electronic voting one sliver , and things are so out of control NOTHING would surprise me at this point in time .

I do know these thugs will hold onto their power with any tactic and they do not care one spec about any form of life , human or animal or the planet . This much I do know , how much proof does one need .

So , yes I am very concerned with so many issues we now face and an another attack for whatever reason they feel justified in their murderous sick minds is not off of my long list of concerns .

There is no other way to feel in this new , horrid time warp titled the 21st century . Hell people are hurting almost everywhere more so than any time I can recall in my 57 years , this certainly is nothing like the america I used to know , we were begining to climb out of some of the hellish woes until bush and freaks came along .

I hope ALL those who still have a open heart no matter what part of the globe they now live on will get through all of this somehow , I really do hope this .

[HuffleClaw]

30. if ONLY to take their impending election loss off the 'front page' they would

happily go to war with iran.

[boolean]

32. No. It'll happen on MONDAY

Nobody pays attention on the weekend.

[Mr_Spock]

37. Nah, too obvious - would likely backfire

At this point I think they would hold off until after the election - at least one would hope they have the tinyest amount of sense not to get goaded into this due to our elections looming...