|
There is no way Israel could attack Iran independently. They would have to fly over Iraqi airspace controlled by the U.S. They have flown over Iraq as if to attack Iran only to be turned back by U.S. fighter jets. This is done as a drill to test the Iranian response.
Bush would like to start the war in such a way that he can say we were attacked. But there will be so much preparation and foreknowledge that this won't be believed except in the U.S.
Psy-Ops, black-ops and provocations have been going on for some time now. These include detaining Iranians within Iraq, cross border bombings, drone overflights, downing commercial airliners, and kidnapping retired generals. I don't know what else.
It is interesting to question whether the President could possibly start a war without committing treason. This is based on the Iranians ability to take out U.S. warships with their supersonic antiship cruise missiles. They come in too fast for our Aegis to lock on to them. EMP counter measures have three problems. They require a nuclear device for each incoming missile launch which is impractical and expensive. Besides, the Iranian missiles, some of them are hardened against that. Embarrassingly, some of our own military electronics are not. They were supposed to be, but outsourcing to China has resulted in chips that are not hardened. Other electronic counter measures have the same problem as Aegis.
The only defense is to stay outside the range of the missiles, and to protect the area around the fleet from cruise missiles being brought within range via air, sea or submarine. Recent war games by Iran demonstrated a 210 mile capability. This is a significant increase over what they had previously and covers the entire Persian Gulf and Gulf of Oman from Iranian territory.
This takes us back to the Presidential decision. If we were to attack Iran from our strike groups in the Indian Ocean, what to do about the fifth fleet in the Persian Gulf? If you leave them there you are knowingly subjecting those seamen to a watery grave. If you evacuate the Gulf in order to attack Iran, you give up the surprise of "Oh, we were attacked by the Iranians". Plus you have to ask yourself when, if ever, we would be coming back.
Starting this war pretty much commits you to taking down the entire country, something that can't be done with air strikes alone, even with 10,000 targets.
One of the supposed known unknowns is the number of these antiship cruise missiles Iran has in its arsenal. How many of which kinds. Iran has been acquiring them for over a decade. Ukraine, North Korea, who knows, Russia, China, India?? U.S. Intelligence knows.
Iran has a well established missile industry dating back to the days of the Shah. What they will typically do is obtain a dozen or so of a particular type, improve upon it, and put it into production. We usually know when they acquire missiles. It is very difficult to know how many they have produced on their own.
Particularly intriguing to me are these new Russian/Indian missiles that have a range of 400 some odd miles, putting the launch point of the missile clearly outside the defensive perimeter of the carrier group. Now there is a supersonic antiship cruise missile that would change some battle plans. There are reportedly 1000 of these on the open market, and given the tensions, I would not be surprised if Iran has made a play for all of them. Even a handful could change the outcome of this war.
People will tell you that Iran will send a million man army across the border into Iraq. That they will shut down the Persian gulf. That they will do asymmetric terrorist attacks in Europe or the U.S. That they will send Hezbollah into Israel from Lebanon. That they will lob missiles into Israel. This is almost all propaganda. I can't believe that some of these think tank reports actually purport to be defense analysis, when every point they make has propagandistic value and relies on the enemy making multiple major strategic blunders.
Iranians are Persian, Iraqis are Arab. They fought a long and bloody war. Iran is not going to destroy whatever influence they have with a major incursion. The Iranian army is not top heavy with command and control. Each part of the army has the responsibility of defending their portion of Iranian soil. The Iranians that you do find in Iraq are diplomats and contractors based on extensive rebuilding agreements these nations have. If the Iraqi Shias do respond to a war between the U.S. and Iran with an uprising against the U.S., it will be spontaneous, and not directed from a severely compromised Iran. Although the consequences could be severe for the U.S., it could as easily not happen as happen.
Iran's army will stay where they are, with the assignment they have, to protect Iranian soil, and to act as first responders to the bombs that are falling. To think that they would respond to being attacked by the U.S. by sending their army to another country, and possibly reignite an old war is sheer fantasy.
If the Persian gulf were to be shut down, the price per barrel would go to the $210 to $250 range. Profits for Bush, Cheney, Exxon-Mobile and Chevron would skyrocket. The U.S. would lose a few percent of its oil consumption. Bush has recently doubled the size of the strategic reserve. The Bush Cheney cartel will find a way to make money off of that oil as well.
If the Persian gulf were to be shut down, Iran would lose 100% of its oil exports and 90% of its revenues in a time of crises. For Iran to shut down the Gulf, it would be sabotaging the entire financial structure of the country for an indefinite period of time. If the Persian gulf were to be shut down, the U.S., not Iran, would be responsible. Iran's whole Gulf policy is to provide security and keep the shipping lanes open, in part, for their own self interest, and in part, to convince the countries of the region that they don't need the the United States. For the same reason, any asymmetric attacks in the Western Gulf states would be strictly limited to U.S. military assets, and would not target oil.
Iran does not have a network of terrorist cells around the world but it makes a good story. If Iran had any asymmetric capability outside their immediate neighborhood you would think they would apply it to the B1 airfields in Missouri,
The tanker airfields in eastern Europe, and Diego Garcia. Their strategy, it appears to me, is to take down the U.S. air assault before it gets going.
It has been speculated that China would take advantage of a U.S. attack on Iran to attack Taiwan. Disruptions in the immediate region are more likely.
Iran has a relationship with Syria, and with Hezbollah in Lebanon.
If Israel is involved in the initial strike, Iran will be obliged to make a few symbolic hits on Israel for domestic propaganda purposes. See we have retaliated against the Zionist entity. Syria, by virtue of a mutual defense agreement, might do the same, but wouldn't have to. It is in neither country's interest to draw Israel into the fray. Hezbollah in Lebanon pretty much depends on Hezbollah in Lebanon. If Israel moves into Syria and reinvades Lebanon it is something they decided to do a long time ago, and are mysteriously undeterred by their recent experience in Lebanon. An Israeli foray would be preventative in nature and followed by withdrawal and some sort of negotiation. But Israel may not be involved in the attack. I don't see a military necessity here. Then again, Iranian and Syrian retaliation against Israel could be more severe than I imagine.
There is a possibility that Turkey would move opportunistically into Iraqi Kurdistan but it would be unwise. The Kurds can defend themselves, and would win this. There would be unrest in Turkish Kurdistan. Iran might move in to protect groups that they are aligned with.
Saudi Arabia might move into Anbar province to protect the Sunnis and oppose the Insurgency. This could also be to cover for the absence of U.S. forces.
Overall I don't see the ancillary invasions that could take place necessarily would take place. In no case do I see it working out in favor of the invading party. Keep in mind that the Iran/U.S. naval/air war will be working itself out during this time each side trying to take out the strike capabilities of the other. I would not be surprised for other countries to take a wait and see attitude.
The main battle will be against the U.S. naval strike forces in the Indian Ocean. There will be about 5 groups. You can't count just Carrier groups. Some groups have a couple extra cruise missile ships in place of a carrier, and probably pack
a greater punch. The location of the battle requires that Iran have delivery systems for its antiship missiles. The U.S will probably have 15 submarines in the area and I don't see Iran being able to counter this sizable threat without Russian help. Iran has only a few subs, five or less.
Iran is also sure to use her missiles against every airfield available to the U.S. in the region, with the aim of temporarily disabling them, so that planes cannot take off or land.
The anti Iran war resolutions wending their way through congress are entirely without effect except to warn the American people and send a message to the international community that we are not behind this. They contain exemption for imminent threat and if we are attacked. Even if they didn't, Bush does not consider himself bound by any act of congress. The indications from Davinich and Conyers that all bets are off with respect to impeachment if Bush attacks Iran are particularly hollow. Think about it. You're in a shooting war, America is taking causalities, this is not the time that you start impeachment proceedings. This is the time that you wish you had started impeachment proceedings a long time ago.
There will of course be demonstrations world wide and there is speculation that the Bush administration will use this to test out their martial law procedures. Any precipitous round of resignations of military brass would be kept out of the news.
This is one of those situations where even if you win the battle, you lose the war. I look around and I don't see the ground forces that would be necessary to win this thing. It is heard to imagine our presence in the region ever coming back to what it once was. A loss of only 17 major warships, to borrow a number from recent U.S. computerized war games, would be enough to cause naval strike groups to be considered obsolete in the long term. This would have a permanent effect on our ability to project force around the world. We would eventually be forced to retreat behind strategic cruise missile, space based weaponry and the like.
This is not footnoted and linked because it is just off the top of my head. But I would encourage people to investigate the subject. You will find most of what I have discussed verified, and many writers taking the flat out opposite point of view on things I have expressed here. I think Bush and Cheney are bluffing about an attack on Iran. At least I hope they are. Either they really are monsters, or they are bluffing.
I would just like to add that Iran does not have a nuclear weapons program. The clerics have declared nuclear weapons to be anti-Islam and even the president of Iran could not hide it from them.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
