Washington: Attack Iran after Elections?

[Barbarossa]

<a href="http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun_olam/2006/09/23/former-cia-agent-bush-plans-to-attack-iran-after-november-elections/">Tikun Olam</a>

Former CIA Agent:

[nemafakei]

Um, no. The US military is overstretched as it is. November 2008, maybe.

[Edric O]

Bush. Will not. Attack. Iran.

Not only would that be political suicide, but it might well be military suicide as well.

[exatreide]

However, I can see israeli bombing the everliving crap out of them, like the did to Iraq in 81.

[Andrew]

Glass parking lot?

The cant win in Iraq or Afghanistan, therefore invading Iran would be stupid (why not invade North Korea and Libya as well? They apparently have WMD).

[nemafakei]

Libya officially stopped having WMD when they repented of their sins and were welcomed back into the fold of US compliance.

[Andrew]

Oh yah sorry. I meant Syria. So many rogue nations :P

[GUNWOUNDS]

US will not attack Iran.  Israel will attack Iran.

US will attack Iran thru Israel as a proxy.  LIke Iran attacked Israel thru lebanon w/hezbollah.

The US vs Iran war will have to be a proxy war , due to politics.

However I do not think the military is overstretched.   The US military has 2 million service men....of which 200,000 are in Iraq/Afghan.    I wouldnt say that having 10% of your army deployed is "overstretched" by any means.  Going by these numbers we could fight several more wars simulatneously... AND Donald Rumsfeld has admitted that multiple wars were possible.  When the US was invading Iraq they flew bomber jets off the coast of N. Korea as a "u better behave" warning......  and when Israel was invading lebanon they flew bomber jets by the Syrian president's palace as a "u better behave" warning.

If Israel or the US really wanted to end a conflict quickly they would go full force....Israeli Generals complained that they werent able to use all their potential force..... and the US is only using 10% of its force.

Just think what would happen if both used 100%..... total annihilation.

Guns

[nemafakei]

Gunwounds: Is that figure counting the supply lines and so forth stationed outside Iraq and Afghanistan - places like Kuwait, Germany, the UK, etc?

I was thinking more of equipment, though. While I can certainly see a few bombing raids taking place, a full scale assault is going to require a lot of logistical impetus. Unlike Iraq, which was crumbling due to a decade of sanctions, and whose leader was generally unpopular, Iran's regime has more support, and is in a much better setup.

[GhostHunter]

It doesn't matter how many soldiers we have. The military is not meant to be a God damn police force. I'm not sure where this right-wing belief that the Army is meant to destroy another militia, then settle down into patrolling streets every night comes from.

Army = Army. The entire Army is not an MP force. Even the MPs aren't necessarily fully prepared.

[VigilVirus]

Israelis are not stupid enough to attack Iran. After all, they have their own country to worry about. You do realize how small the Israeli army is compared to the Iranian? If they were to deploy a large enough portion of it into action, it would leave Israel itself completely defenseless. I'm sure Israel can bomb Iran pretty badly if they wanted to, but in the end, that would not do any good and Iran will simply send missile strikes back.

It would be suicide without direct support from US troops.

[GUNWOUNDS]

Israel has stated they would bomb Iran.  Thats a fact.  They said if UN doesnt do soemthing.... THEY will.

Israel isnt gonna sit around and let a holocaust denier build a massive nuclear arsenal.  To be honest.... it will be EASIER for israel to attack Iran.  THINK ABOUT IT.  They wont have to worry about searching through bum-f*ck woods trying to find their enemies (hezbollah guerillas).  The Iranians forces are neatly laid out in barracks and bases with airfields and tank armories.  And the city infrastructure can definitely become a target if Iran is foolish enough to strike Tel Aviv.

Hah...  its funny... People dont understand that while USA and Israel have a hard time fighting guerillas.... they will have ZERO problems fighting a conventional sovereign army.  THATS what their trained and optimized for.  The USA annihilated the 2 million man Iraqi army with only 200,000 US troops in under 4 weeks.  Israel leveled the lebanon infrastructure in 4 weeks.  Israel can definitely annihilate Iran in 4 weeks if it wanted to.  Its a joke to say that Iran could compete.  Iran has all vintage 1960 Anti-aircraft guns and shitty 1980 russian armory.  Its no contest.  Israel has to strike before Iran gets capability to mount a nuke on a ballistic missile and send it skyward.  THATS when Iran becomes a threat.  Iran's army as is ... is a pathetic sitting-duck.  Hezbollah has a better chance hiding in the woods of Lebanon against Israel than the Iranian soldiers sitting in a clearly satellite imaged barrracks with laser-guided bunker buster bombs inbound.

And Israel left defenseless while at war?   ahahahahhahahahaah.  Silly rabbit thats what the nukes are for.  Nobody (i.e. syria, egypt, jordan) would dare attack Israel while it is in a conflict.... because that will give israel the excuse to use a nuke in self-defense of its very existence.  No arab country is that stupid to give Israel an excuse to do that.  israel will b!tch-slap Iran like it did Lebanon (with more ease) and the UN will just ask them to nicely stop.  And the arabs wont do a damn thing about it, except maybe air a bin laden video denouncing Israel.

Come on people use your noggins.  Its pretty clear Israel and USA have this world wrapped around their pinky fingers, with the occasional backup from the British.  Its quite a joke really.

It doesn't matter how many soldiers we have. The military is not meant to be a God damn police force. I'm not sure where this right-wing belief that the Army is meant to destroy another militia, then settle down into patrolling streets every night comes from.

Army = Army. The entire Army is not an MP force. Even the MPs aren't necessarily fully prepared.

Its not about world police.... its about making sure the USA interests are protected abroad.  It is in the USA's interest to have a puppet regime in Iraq.  Just like they had in Iran with the Shah back in the 70's.  The soldiers are paid good money and recieve great benefits for being a soldier.  I for one am glad to seem them put to use instead of sitting at a military base all day drinking beer and driving up to local highschools/colleges trying to pickup up girls.  About time we made those soldiers earn their pay.  Thats my tax money going towards all those damn 50,000 dollar bonuses for those new army recruits.  I wanna see that guy pick up a rifle and go protect/reinforce american interests abroad....cuz we sure as hell dont need them here at US bases wanking off.  If anything it gives our troops good urban conflict training.  Our military could benefit from having seasoned veterans for when a "real war" breaks out.

Guns

[VigilVirus]

Damn. So much ignorance in that single post, I don't even know where to begin. But I'll try anyway.

1. Israel can bomb Iran, yes. Iran can similarly bomb the shit of out of Israel with its rather vast missile arsenal: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%27s_missile_forces. Few military casualties will be taken in either country in comparison with the thousands of civilian deaths on both sides.

2. Now that the bombing didn't have quite the full desired effect, what's the plan? Ground invasion? From the Shiite dominated Iraq? This would undoubtedly result in complete anarchy, leading to a lack of any kind of base in the area. I doubt Turkey or Pakistan would allow Israel to launch an offensive from its territory either.

3. Iran indirectly controls Hezbollah and most Shiite militias in the region. To assume that it only has conventional military forces would be a grave mistake in judgment. Any sort of attack would create a massive unrest in all occupied territories at once. 

4. Iran is nearly military self-sufficient and also has a fairly modern imported air force. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran/Military. It also has 12 million total troops. I'm not sure why you find it so easy to discount numbers when it comes to a ground invasion, when even the best soldier isn't impervious to AK-47 bullets. Consider the war between Hezbollah and Lebanon, where on average the military casualties in actual engagements were about 10:1. Is Israel really prepared to bear these sorts of losses on a major scale? Most importantly, is it really worth it for the people? After all, it's all about public support.

5. Any nation that uses nuclear weapons will be immediately condemned and relaliated upon, unless the strike was retaliatory to another nuclear strike.

It's kind of ironic, isn't it? That you justify the use of (undeclared even) nuclear weapons should Israel be threatened/invaded, yet you believe that Iran should be pre-emptively invaded even before it's known it is working towards such a capability? Historically, Israel is a far more militaristically aggressive state than Iran.

[GUNWOUNDS]

Damn. So much ignorance in that single post, I don't even know where to begin. But I'll try anyway.

1. Israel can bomb Iran, yes. Iran can similarly bomb the shit of out of Israel with its rather vast missile arsenal: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%27s_missile_forces. Few military casualties will be taken in either country in comparison with the thousands of civilian deaths on both sides.

2. Now that the bombing didn't have quite the full desired effect, what's the plan? Ground invasion? From the Shiite dominated Iraq? This would undoubtedly result in complete anarchy, leading to a lack of any kind of base in the area. I doubt Turkey or Pakistan would allow Israel to launch an offensive from its territory either.

3. Iran indirectly controls Hezbollah and most Shiite militias in the region. To assume that it only has conventional military forces would be a grave mistake in judgment. Any sort of attack would create a massive unrest in all occupied territories at once. 

4. Iran is nearly military self-sufficient and also has a fairly modern imported air force. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran/Military. It also has 12 million total troops. I'm not sure why you find it so easy to discount numbers when it comes to a ground invasion, when even the best soldier isn't impervious to AK-47 bullets. Consider the war between Hezbollah and Lebanon, where on average the military casualties in actual engagements were about 10:1. Is Israel really prepared to bear these sorts of losses on a major scale? Most importantly, is it really worth it for the people? After all, it's all about public support.

5. Any nation that uses nuclear weapons will be immediately condemned and relaliated upon, unless the strike was retaliatory to another nuclear strike.

It's kind of ironic, isn't it? That you justify the use of (undeclared even) nuclear weapons should Israel be threatened/invaded, yet you believe that Iran should be pre-emptively invaded even before it's known it is working towards such a capability? Historically, Israel is a far more militaristically aggressive state than Iran.

There's no ignorance in my statement... you're just being inflammatory because i hurt your ego.

First of all.... a bombing campaign by Israel will be 100 times more effective on Iran than Hezbollah in the jungle.

Israeli jets dont know where to drop their bombs when its some guerilla enemy hiding in woods and bunkers.

Iranian buildings, barracks, factories, powergrids, missile silos, etc will all be visible, satellite imaged and ready for destruction.  The Iranian troops will die a nice fiery death when Israel drops cluster bombs and if the USA gives Israel any higher grade weapons it'll be cake.

It will actually be in Israel's advantage for Iran to inflict heavy civilian casualties on Tel Aviv because this will allow Israel to use extreme measures such as destroying Iran's infrastructure.  They really held back on lebanon.... they could have leveled everything in days.

It makes sense for Iran to be pre-empively attacked when it spews holocaust denials, anti-semitism, and desires Israel to be wiped off the map.  Israel just wants Iran contained and under control.... they dont want Iran wiped of the face of the map.  Its no wonder Israel feels so threatened. 

Hence Israel can take the Moral High Ground which is what matters in regards to pre-emptive wars.  Come on man get a clue for crying out loud.

Also, israel wont wait for itself to be nuked before it drops a nuke... if any arab countries invade Israel or if the infrastructure damage in Israel becomes too great..... you can bet they will start dropping nukes OR they will use low yield tactical nuclear warheads.  Even Bush has shown interest in using these.  Especially on Iran's Uranium enrichment facilities.  Bush said he isnt leaving any option off the table.  Thats how serious they are taking this.

Also the airforce that Iran has will be useless.... Israel and USA use advanced radar detection systems so that they can kill enemies outside of their radar range.

However actions speak louder than words.  Just wait till Israel develops a better anti-missile defense system and tweaks their airforce and bombing capabilities as well as strategies.  When you open the newspaper in the future an see Israel attacking Iran..... you'll see me posting on these forums saying...."i told you so..."

Guns

[GUNWOUNDS]

btw... you said Iran has total 12 million troops..... thats incorrect....how about learn how to read.....

the wiki article said :

Iran's total military personnel include 420,000 active duty soldiers [2], and 350,000 reserves

That's 770,000 troops... half of Iraq's Army.  I wont deny that Iran is more sophisticated than Iraq but lets not delude ourselves....Iran hasnt "arrived" just yet to be a threat so dangerous it cant be confronted..... yet.     Thats why plans are in the works to take them down.  Hello McFly !

[lowzeewee]

The article says Iran has a total troop count of 12 million. I did further browsing of related Wikipedia articles, and found that Iran had 11 million paramilitary personnel, making up the bulk of the nearly "12 million". Devil's Advocate is not wrong in saying that Iran has 12 million troops. Even the article says so. Devil's Advocate was not specifically mentioning "active duty" soldiers. I better take my leave from this thread before Gunwounds throws the usual personal insults my way along with his response post.

[exatreide]

Paramilitary? Wow how dangerous, I bet the most effective fighting force in the world(for its size) is shaking in its boots from the Paramilitary of Iran.

[VigilVirus]

It makes sense for Iran to be pre-empively attacked when it spews holocaust denials, anti-semitism, and desires Israel to be wiped off the map.  Israel just wants Iran contained and under control.... they dont want Iran wiped of the face of the map.  Its no wonder Israel feels so threatened. Hence Israel can take the Moral High Ground which is what matters in regards to pre-emptive wars.  Come on man get a clue for crying out loud.

I condemn Israel for attacking Lebanon on the pretense of kidnapping of the soldiers, as did the majority of the world with the exception of the US. Do you think many people would find that holocaust denial and anti-semitism is a justifiable cause for thousands of people to die? That's utter nonsense. I'm not sure which morals you are referring to, but they certainly aren't any that rational individuals rely on. I'm guessing they are rather similar to those same morals that Bush used when he used a false WMD report to go to war with Iraq.

Also, israel wont wait for itself to be nuked before it drops a nuke... if any arab countries invade Israel or if the infrastructure damage in Israel becomes too great..... you can bet they will start dropping nukes OR they will use low yield tactical nuclear warheads.  Even Bush has shown interest in using these.  Especially on Iran's Uranium enrichment facilities.  Bush said he isnt leaving any option off the table.  Thats how serious they are taking this.

In this case, Israel would simply ask for US assistance in its own defense. Olmert doesn't seem like the kind of irrational person to start using unconventional weaponry, because nuclear weapons are not designed to combat military forces, they're designed to inflict civilians casualties. It's impossible to hold the moral high ground if you are going to be doing that and it would turn the entire muslim world against Israel.  Or do you suggest that they use low-yield nuclear weapons within their borders? That's lunacy.

As for Iranian military, it breaks down as following - the regular forces and the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps. The first consists of those 420,000 regulars and 350,000 reserves, while the second largely consists of Basij, which is an 11 million man militia. You can think of the latter is a kind of Hezbollah. They may be ill-equipped and not very well trained, but in a ground invasion, eleven million men is still eleven million men no matter how you look at it. So, I suggest that you learn how to read and consider how terribly Israel fared against just a few thousand Hezbollah to try their luck against millions. Also, if by "holding back" on Israel's part in the war on Lebanon, you're referring to it not using nuclear weapons (I think they pretty much used every other sort of bomb in their arsenal anyway), then they'd be forced to hold back in this war as well, bringing rather similar results at the danger of being condemned in the eyes of its current allies.

Ex, Israeli army is very effective for its size, no doubt about it, but then again, it's not very large. Unlike the US army, Israel doesn't have the power to effectively project its military amphibiously either and I've described what a disaster an invasion out of Iraq could become. Then again, Iran does not have the capability to effectively invade Israel either. So, ultimately we're just talking about mutual bombings and loss of civilian life that would solve about as much as it did in the Israeli-Lebanon war.

[VigilVirus]

I was also doing some more research and came across this article:

http://web.israelinsider.com/bin/en.jsp?enPage=ArticlePage&enDisplay=view&enDispWhat=object&enDispWho=Article^l3867&enZone=Security&enVersion=0&

The most interesting details are the dates - of the article itself (Jul 19, 2004) and "The Washington Post reported in August 2003 that administration officials were increasingly concerned that Israel would launch a pre-emptive strike against Iran". Why does this all seem so new then? What else happened in 2003 that might have detracted the focus from Iran completely? Oh, wait, that's right.

And now, with all this focus on Iran, which previous monumental failure is the administration trying to take the public's attention off?

[GUNWOUNDS]

Lets clear a few things up.....

1.) I never said the USA or Israel was interested in invading Iran.

2.) I said that they would be very interested in Bombing Iran.

3.) Its a fact that a war with Iran would be more CONVENTIONAL instead of guerrilla.  And a conventional war is one that USA and Israel would THRIVE in.  Those 11 paramilitary (LOL) men would be sitting ducks as there aren't any jungles in T E H R A N  last i checked.... so stop comparing Israel's difficulty with Hezbollah with Iran's paramilitary.

4.)  Israel generals said they were held back in terms of troop amounts and conservative usage of cluster bombs.  They had sh!tty one tank patrols driving around.  They wanted to go in 100%... and deliver a crushing blow.  But Olmert was squeamish and conceded to UN and others.

5.)  If Israel hadnt been limited to tiny commando raids and one tank patrols on dangerous mountain roads, they would have crushed Hezbollah.  Of course they would never Invade Iran.... But since Iran has a conventional army in a  modernized city.... you dont need to invade.... just bomb their powergrids, water supply, barracks, nuclear facility, missile silos, skyscrapers, tank factories, training camps.... all which are nice and neatly satellite imaged.  So because Iran's targets are so neatly organized and visible a ground invasion wont be necessary..... bombing will work at optimal efficiency and we'll win the war with just pure air...... which is possible.... i do remember Bill Clinton winning a war with only air....and i am sure we can do it here.

6.) and in conclusion.... like i said they dont want to invade Iran.... if you were paying attention you would see that all they really want to do is drop bunker busters on Iran's uranium enrichment facilities....which Israel has done in the past if you had read some history books.  The only reason it is taking so long to launch the bombing attack is becuz Iran has reinforced its facilities underground this time.... and all conventional bunker busters are incapable of penetrating it.  So currently only a low yield nuke could penetrate the facilities.  So right now the USA is testing new high grade bunker busters in Arizona Desert which will be sold to Israel.  They would rather not use the low yield nukes of course... so they are trying to tweak out these new high grade bunker busters which is what the real delay is here.

As soon as the new bunker busters are ready.....and are sold....and Israel has its bombing strategy lined up... Its a done deal.  Another reason for the delay is becuz Israel was waiting for USA to take over Iraq and its airspace so that they could use Iraqi airspace to create a shorter bombing run for their bombers.... without being able to use iraqi airspace they would have to have used the longer route they used in the past when they bombed Iran previously.  This requires in-air refueling which they dont want to do.   

So its pretty clear what is going on.  Israel basically has been sitting around waiting for the USA to secure Iraqi airspace and develop a bunker buster with enough yield to destroy the enrichment facilities...and have it sold to them.  Once this is all completed... you'll be reading about it in the news.

Here's a look into the future:

*EXTRA* *EXTRA* Read all about It!  9/30/2008

Iranian Uranium Enrichment Facilities bombed by Israel! 9/30/2008

UN Delivers Immediate Condemnation over bombing of Iran...Red Cross demands to be allowed access!  10/15/2008 

Tel Aviv Hit with long range Iranian missile, Israel retaliatory strikes target Iranian Infrastructure  10/20/2008

Condolezza Rice sent to Israel Embassy to Negotiate Peace! 10/30/2008

Al Quaeda airs tape on Al-Jareeza chanting death to crusaders for bombing of Iran!  11/05/2008

UN Formally Chastises Israel/Iran for Bombings, considers sanctions, Humanitarian aid workers deployed.12/05/2008

Hezbollah leader denounces Israel "War Crimes"  12/15/2008

Israeli government forms investigation committee to investigate Israel conduct during Iranian bombing campaign 2/15/2009

I swear this world is so predictable that i often wonder if we really arent living in the matrix with pre-programmed code  :-

Paramilitary? Wow how dangerous, I bet the most effective fighting force in the world(for its size) is shaking in its boots from the Paramilitary of Iran.

Sometimes your sense of humor is spot-on.  ;D

Guns

[VigilVirus]

One assumption that you do not mention and one that the Israelis would have to make should they strike at Iran's facilities (after they receive the necessary tools to do such).

In 2002, Alireza Jafarzadeh, an Iranian dissident, revealed the existence of two unknown nuclear sites - Natanz and Arak. Natanz is the facility that's reinforced with cement walls and built 8 meters underground.

So, therefore the assumption would be that Alireza revealed all the secret Iranian nuclear sites at the time and/or he knew about all the secret nuclear sites, which is a fairly difficult assumption to make. Should the Israelis strike and be wrong, you can be sure that if Iran did not intend to build a nuclear bomb before, they would focus all efforts on building or acquiring one then.

You can't win a war with pure air if you don't know where to bomb and you're mistaken if you think it's possible for Israel to scan every inch of a vast country like Iran and recognize with certainty where a facility could be concealed and where it could not. 

[nemafakei]

Oh, yeah, and Israel can't do what they did in Iraq to Iran, as the Iranian reactors, as DA mentions, are pretty well protected (bomb-proof bunkers) and their facilities distributed.

[VigilVirus]

They obviously anticipated that they would be bombed from Iraq's example. I'm certain they have contingencies in place for all possible Israeli actions.

[Davidu]

Why not take on China if numbers and technology don't matter?

USA has a 2 million men army. That means the 200.000 you said ARE it's fighitng force. The other 90% are working to keep these guys supplied, fed, transported, coordinated, etc. The numbers are calculated this way: the army is about 10% of the country's population ( for general mobilisation) meaning all the able men to bear arms ( between 16 and 50-60). And out of this 10% of the country's pop. 10% it's the fighting core. You can use ALL of you're army's men only if you get into so much sh*t as Hitler did at the end of WWII when you take out the army's cooks, drivers, mechanics, doctors, staff, and anyone else in the army to the front.

Now, Iran is not that backwarded as you think it is, simply because they never were under the blockade Iraq was under. If Iran has a 12 million army their fighting force is about 1.2 million. And don't compare it with Lebanon. Lebanon's pop is smaller that Teheran's and Lebanon just emerged from civil war, and it had and still has a volatile political scene.

[GUNWOUNDS]

Why not take on China if numbers and technology don't matter?

USA has a 2 million men army. That means the 200.000 you said ARE it's fighitng force. The other 90% are working to keep these guys supplied, fed, transported, coordinated, etc. The numbers are calculated this way: the army is about 10% of the country's population ( for general mobilisation) meaning all the able men to bear arms ( between 16 and 50-60). And out of this 10% of the country's pop. 10% it's the fighting core. You can use ALL of you're army's men only if you get into so much sh*t as Hitler did at the end of WWII when you take out the army's cooks, drivers, mechanics, doctors, staff, and anyone else in the army to the front.

Now, Iran is not that backwarded as you think it is, simply because they never were under the blockade Iraq was under. If Iran has a 12 million army their fighting force is about 1.2 million. And don't compare it with Lebanon. Lebanon's pop is smaller that theeran's and Lebanon just emerged from civil war, and it had and still has a volatile political scene.

thats not true... 200,000 is not americas' fighting force wtih 1.8 million as support crew.... that's absurd.  Generals are asking for many more troops to be deployed and that means there are definately more grunts, pilots, marines, etc, etc, available for distribution.  Most are back home in the US on call.  And that 2 million is active duty.... that doesnt even include the reserves.

The reason we dont fight China is becuz it would F*ck up out economy.. we do so much massive trading with China that it owuld be stupid to ruin that, however we dont get sh!t from Iran or N. Korea.  In fact, up until recently WE WERE FEEDING N. KOREA SOLDIERS.  Yea..... maybe your eyes are open now.    Iran and N. Korea have no value to us thats why they are worth attacking... China is not worth attacking as it owuld only hurt us instead of help us.  Think before you post my friend.

Guns