Printable View
Subject to debate. However, the nuclear deal is about Iran's nuclear program. Iran's funding of terrorist, recognition of Israel's right to exist, et al are red herrings used by those opposing the deal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Boon Mee
Attempting to resolve all of Iran's "offenses" via a single agreement is a historically proven exercise in futility. Hence why zero has been done to stop or slow Iran's nuclear program.
In real world, Israel will stop it when it becomes a national security threat but it would have been nicer to have an understanding and no collateral damage.Quote:
Originally Posted by Norton
They have every right to when it becomes a national security threat.Quote:
Originally Posted by Exit Strategy
What they don't have a right to is to lie through Benny's rotting teeth that it's actually a threat now.
True. But it is difficult to decide, when.Quote:
Originally Posted by harrybarracudaThey have every right to when it becomes a national security threat.Quote:
Originally Posted by Exit Strategy
What they don't have a right to is to lie through Benny's rotting teeth that it's actually a threat now.
Logistically and militarily, Israel cannot take out these sites on its own.Quote:
Originally Posted by Exit Strategy
It needs US assistance.
Israel could try on its own, but there will be Iranian retaliation.
Israel alone, that is debatable but they could. US assistance is coming now or harder with the next president. Case Orange 555, Iranian capabilities would have been shut off and Iran could not retaliate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Black HeartLogistically and militarily, Israel cannot take out these sites on its own.Quote:
Originally Posted by Exit Strategy
It needs US assistance.
Israel could try on its own, but there will be Iranian retaliation.
What is Case Orange 555?Quote:
Originally Posted by Exit StrategyIsrael alone, that is debatable but they could. US assistance is coming now or harder with the next president. Case Orange 555, Iranian capabilities would have been shut off and Iran could not retaliate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Black HeartLogistically and militarily, Israel cannot take out these sites on its own.Quote:
Originally Posted by Exit Strategy
It needs US assistance.
Israel could try on its own, but there will be Iranian retaliation.
When the time comes, you will find all about 555
Not really. Eyes in the sky and eyes on the ground, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Exit StrategyTrue. But it is difficult to decide, when.Quote:
Originally Posted by harrybarracudaThey have every right to when it becomes a national security threat.Quote:
Originally Posted by Exit Strategy
What they don't have a right to is to lie through Benny's rotting teeth that it's actually a threat now.
The Seventh Seal...
It's not 1967 so they might have trouble convincing the world that their 1st strike (starting a war) was defensive. There would be world retaliation, I hope.Quote:
Originally Posted by Black Heart
Your hope is in vain. This is the new world order, and your kind do not have a say.Quote:
Originally Posted by MrG
Just like ISIS tells the villagers it takes over. Is that your new world order?Quote:
Originally Posted by Exit Strategy
I don't think ISIS tells villagers anything except hate speech while raping the girls. ISIS and boko harem and such will go away sooner or later, this is the new world order. Appeasement... there will be peace in our lifetime... right
Opinion: The Problem with Bombing Iran
By: Cmdr. Daniel Dolan, USN (Retired)
"Nearly 60 members of the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate are visiting Israel this month to discuss with Israeli political leaders the proposed nuclear deal with Iran. Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is attempting to influence these members of congress to vote against the proposed P5+1 nuclear agreement when it comes to the floor in September.
Top military analysts and proponents of the deal contend that if the deal is derailed, the risk of a military conflict with Iran is greatly increased. In fact many of the deals opponents have vocally supported a military option in lieu of the proposed deal. These opponents to the deal claim that the use of military force “can be managed to avoid escalation.”
Can escalation be managed?
To better understand the potential consequences of a bombing campaign against Iran, I researched and co-authored an article in Proceedings titled Bomb Iran? (May 2013), with my Naval War College colleague Cmdr. Ron Oard USN (ret). The article is an in-depth historical analysis of both U.S. and Israeli punitive bombing campaigns. We specifically focused on the strategic results of these campaigns. The Bomb Iran? article was written in late 2012, a time like today, when many commentators were making claims that military strikes against Iran were both necessary and a solution to the problem. They advised then, as they do now, that airstrikes against Iran’s nuclear infrastructure would not necessarily lead to a wider conflict and that the risk of escalation was “manageable.”
After a careful study of the history of coercive bombing campaigns our conclusions illustrated that those like Senators Tom Cotton, and presidential candidates Mike Huckabee and Rick Perry whom have made repeated claims that force can be used against Iran without risking escalation, are perhaps grossly underappreciating the scale and scope of what bombing Iran may entail. Presented here are a few numbers and nuggets of information, many are condensed from the full length Bomb Iran? article. Also included are some insights into the methodology used to support our analysis.
For example, to better understand the scale of a bombing campaign against Iran, we compared the geographic area and populations of Korea (1950), Vietnam (1968), Afghanistan (2001) and Iraq (2003). We were startled to discover the results of this baseline inquiry. As it turns out, Iran possesses 632,000 square miles of territory. In short, Iran would geographically represent the largest theater of battle the U.S. has fought in since the European campaign in World War II (Afghanistan, the current claimholder, is 60 percent smaller than Iran). At 78 million, Iran would by far also represent the largest population of a target country since WW II (over double that of Afghanistan, which is again the current post-WW II leader, and comparable to Germany in 1944 which had 75 million). These numbers matter, especially when considering available sanctuary to foil targeting and the near inexhaustible manpower at Iran’s disposal.
In light of the many strategic errors made by U.S. policy makers since the end of WW-II that stemmed from the failure to comprehend the basic geographic, demographic, and cultural variables of countries we have attacked and/or invaded, it seems elementary to understand that the country that some now casually claim can be attacked with “manageable” risk is rather huge, and has a very large population. Finally, it would also be important to note that the Iranian people and culture have lived on this piece of planet earth for more than 5000 years. If the eight years of bloodletting during the Iran-Iraq war is any indication, we can assume that the Iranian people will make great sacrifices to defend this corner of the planet that they have long called home.
But what about the effectiveness of coercive bombings? The 1999 operation against Serbia is perhaps the one example of a successful coercive bombing campaign achieving the desired strategic objectives. However, in terms of “manageable escalation,” the campaign protracted well beyond the planned three-to-four day demonstration of NATO airpower, into a 73 day protracted bombing campaign. Reaching the stated objective required a systematic expansion of the target list that left Serbia’s infrastructure and economy ruins. Most importantly, maintaining the peace in Kosovo required the insertion of NATO ground forces. Does anyone imagine that a similar outcome would be possible with Iran for a limited war objective?
As to the question of “manageable” risk, the historical success record is very poor. For example, Benjamin Lambeth wrote in Learning From Lebanon (2012), about Israel’s 2006 campaign into southern Lebanon that “What most accounted for the frustration felt throughout Israel as the conflict unfolded was the fact that at no time during the thirty-four days of combat were [Israeli Defense Forces] forces able to stem the relentless daily barrage of short-range Katyusha rockets…”[i] Despite more than 19,000 Israeli Air Force tactical sorties, a ground invasion of Southern Lebanon, and more than 173,000 artillery shells fired, the tide of rocket attacks on Israel was not stopped. Over the course of the 34-day conflict, Hezbollah launched an average of 170 rockets a day into Israel and on the day before the conflict ending cease-fire was enacted they launched a total of 250.[ii]
My Bomb Iran? co-author and I concluded that “the important point to be drawn from this non-US historical case is that like NATO’s 1999 operation against Serbia, Israel had hoped to limit this operation to a two-to-three day precision application of power that would coerce Hezbollah to surrender two IDF soldiers (whose abduction had sparked the conflict). Israel employed devastating stand-off precision attacks against every known enemy weapons cache, Hezbollah forces, and leadership locations—but the rocket fire into Israel continued unabated.” Here in this case, Israel’s perceived “manageable” risk of escalation soon protracted into a very costly escalation for Israel.
A comparable escalation with Iran would result hundreds of far more lethal and precise ballistic missiles being launched against US bases in the region, and Israel. Additionally, Iran’s vast array of anti-access/area denial weapons would disrupt the maritime commerce in the Persian Gulf with a ripple effect on the global economy.
The advanced arsenal of Iran’s missile forces will find ample sanctuary in the rugged landscape and coastline of Iran. Targeting dozens, if not hundreds, of mobile missile batteries in Iran’s vast landscape will certainly prove to be much more challenging than those confronted in the compact battle space of Southern Lebanon. To put it bluntly, the risk of escalation poses such extreme and costly risks, that few in the profession of arms recommend this course of action for achieving the limited objective of destroying Iran’s nuclear program. Iran can hit back, and they can hit back hard.
We also concluded that a point relevant to any potential conflict with Iran is that the “pulse of power expertly delivered by the Israeli military did not bring a rapid conclusion to the conflict or completely achieve any of Israel’s stated objectives for the war. Hezbollah was weakened but still exists as a capable enemy. Considering these results, it should be surprising that Israel believes it can achieve better results against a far more challenging target set in Iran.” Perhaps this is why they are working so hard to urge the US to do the fighting for them?
Finally, the most puzzling number that seems to be overlooked by the opponents to the deal is 6-12 months. This is the amount of time Iran will need to produce enough fissile material for a bomb if the deal falls through. This stands in stark contrast to the 10 years – to never expert prediction if the deal is implemented. Members of the profession of arms, and students of military history should shiver when they hear proclamations of “manageable risk” from political leaders against a country as large and powerful as Iran. This echoes the fateful proclamations of wars past that “the boys will be home for Christmas.” Such boastful and confident expressions of success fail to measure up to critical historical analysis. The enemy always gets a vote, and in this case, there is little reason to believe Iran will acquiesce to coercion after having come so far to strike a deal with the worlds six most powerful nations".
Opinion: The Problem with Bombing Iran - USNI News
Sums it up nicely. The bomb Iran advocates need take note.Quote:
Originally Posted by Storekeeper
If you mean the neo-cons--Wolfowitz, Cheney and the rest--I'm afraid they're all too comfy in their loungers to worry about consequenses. Consequenses are somebody's elses to worry about.Quote:
Originally Posted by Norton
There are consequences of doing nothing as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by MrG
.Quote:
Originally Posted by MrG
You have misunderstood my post.
I did not note any "convincing" that a first strike was defensive (or offensive).
I stated above in what you quoted, that there would be Iranian retaliation.
Eg., the Shihab-III Missile.
Not known for great accuracy, but Iran has many, and they can easily reach Israeli terrtory.
And SK,
Good article you posted.
The article notes a land attack - which as noted, would be a bad idea (and will not happen).
Then there are what the article called "coercive" or surgical strikes - The Iranian have deep fortified bunkers, reinforcements to protect these facilities deep under mountainous ground.
Israel alone could not finish the job, and even with US assistance, it likely would not be be enough. Delay the program prehaps, but only delay it.
I'm afraid that's mostly bollocks these days.Quote:
Originally Posted by Norton
There are Patriot banks at every significant installation. With the oil being produced by the rest of the world, they could miss the Arabian Gulf's contribution for months before it every became an issue, and Iran wouldn't be able to close it for that long. All that would happen is speculative oil prices would spike for a while.
Meanwhile Iran would be turned into scorched earth.
Not going to happen. Shi'a are not suicidal. That's the Sunni.
Yes. I'm very much aware there are but is Patriot as effective as advertised? Perhaps not.Quote:
Originally Posted by harrybarracuda
Taken in total the analysis in SK's link is spot on.
Short of several nuke strikes, doubt it. Throw in the risk of Russia and China siding with Iran if the west strikes first and we have the makings of a very nasty situation.Quote:
Originally Posted by harrybarracuda
I repeat.
I remember a time when China was the great enemy. Still have some issues but big improvement over the bad old days. Iran doesn't trust the west and the west doesn't trust Iran. Not saying this nuke deal is perfect nor will it solve all the issues between Iran and the west but sure is better than what we have had since Iran's revolution. No reason relations with Iran, rather than military threats, can be greatly improved. Simular to what happened with China.Quote:
Originally Posted by Norton
It is these days. Remmember it's mature technology now, not the hit and miss stuff that performed fairly badly in 1991.Quote:
Originally Posted by Norton
No it isn't.Quote:
Taken in total the analysis in SK's link is spot on.
Quote:
Short of several nuke strikes, doubt it. Throw in the risk of Russia and China siding with Iran if the west strikes first and we have the makings of a very nasty situation.Quote:
Originally Posted by harrybarracuda
The scenario above does not involve the West striking first. They would respond to Iran trying to close the Strait of Hormuz and neither Russia nor China would back Iran under those circumstances - they would not risk the huge contracts they have with the GCC.
I don't advocate bombing Iran for nothing. I do advocate responding effectively if Iran starts fucking with our allies.Quote:
I repeat.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Norton
I am in favour of the deal, and I don't subscribe to the republitard/benny scare stories.Quote:
I remember a time when China was the great enemy. Still have some issues but big improvement over the bad old days. Iran doesn't trust the west and the west doesn't trust Iran. Not saying this nuke deal is perfect nor will it solve all the issues between Iran and the west but sure is better than what we have had since Iran's revolution. No reason relations with Iran, rather than military threats, can be greatly improved. Simular to what happened with China.
But Iran knows it limits - it tests them often enough.
See latest mim104 firmware updateQuote:
Originally Posted by harrybarracuda
Iron Dome 2. Prepared for Iran - we hope...:yerman:Quote:
Originally Posted by Exit Strategy
We are always prepared for everything