If only more people were as intelligent as this man.

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Kilkrazy**

Israel provided a medium term solution to nuclear proliferation by bombing the Baghdad reactor in 1981 -- of course this did not help resolve the Middle East's antipathy towards Israel.

A similar strike now by the USA or Israel would inflame Islamic opinion and lead to more terrorist problems.

**Frazzled**

Chimera_Calvin wrote:The main problem is that all politics is local.

Barack Obama went great guns about how he would resolve the Iranian crisis by meeting with Ahmedinajid without pre-conditions - yet funnily when he addressed a major Jewish lobby group on the campaign trail this turned into 'not taking military options off the table'.

Ahmedinajid has similar issues - he's many things (and more than a little crazy is probably one of them) but he's not stupid. He remains in power as long as he doesn't piss off the hard line clerics, so he has to keep railing against Israel and the West whether he genuinely believes its in his and Iran's best interest or not.

What it needs is for someone to ignore the posturing. Iran isn't going to sit down and reasonably negotiate with anyone who comes out with comments about military action and why would they? America wouldn't bargain under threat and rightly so. Similarly its too easy for people to listen to anti-western rhetoric and say 'oh well, there's no point negotiating'.

The only way that we'll get anywhere is to be the reasonable one. To make the first move. To go to Iran and say "Let's talk, let's be grown up about it. Let's try and resolve our differences."

But then, both candidates know that nothing short of instant world peace and they would be destroyed domestically by idiots and rabble rousers from the political right and the religious nutballs - so I'm not holding my breath that reason will prevail...

The issue of course is that we have made the first move. Europe has been talking with them FOR FIVE YEARS. The US has been talking on and off. There have been various sanctions for years. Nothing has changed except they are closer to the bomb. Nothing will change from talking except they will get the bomb. So either you accept they get the bomb or you don't and do something about it. Talking is a stalling tactic and irrelevant. Logically Iran will continue to stall via talking until they get a working nuke then reveal it ala NK with an AHA! They will feel both safe and emboldened.

So again, we have to either address how to deal with a nuclear Iran, or do something now if we are not prepared to deal with a nuclear Iran.

**Frazzled**

Now here's an interesting wrinkle on the Iran discussion.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1030279.html

Top Iran officials recommend preemptive strike against Israel

By Barak Ravid, Haaretz Correspondent

Tags: Israel news, nuclear, Iran, Olive Harvest

Senior Tehran officials are recommending a preemptive strike against Israel to prevent an Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear reactors, a senior Islamic Republic official told foreign diplomats two weeks ago in London.

The official, Dr. Seyed G. Safavi, said recent threats by Israeli authorities strengthened this position, but that as of yet, a preemptive strike has not been integrated into Iranian policy.

Safavi is head of the Research Institute of Strategic Studies in Tehran, and an adviser to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. The institute is directly affiliated with Khamenei's office and with the Revolutionary Guards, and advises both on foreign policy issues.
Advertisement

Safavi is also the brother of Yahya Rahim Safavi, who was the head of the Revolutionary Guards until a year ago and now is an adviser to Khamenei, and holds significant influence on security matters in the Iranian government.

An Israeli political official said senior Jerusalem officials were shown Safavi's remarks, which are considered highly sensitive. The source said the briefing in London dealt with a number of issues, primarily a potential Israeli attack on an Iranian reactor.

Safavi said a small, experienced group of officials is lobbying for a preemptive strike against Israel. "The recent Israeli declarations and harsh rhetoric on a strike against Iran put ammunition in these individuals' hands," he said.

Transportation Minister Shaul Mofaz said in June that Israel would be forced to strike the Iranian nuclear reactor if Tehran continues to pursue its uranium enrichment program.

Safavi said Tehran recently drafted a new policy for responding to an Israeli or American attack on its nuclear facilities. While the previous policy called for attacks against Israel and American interests in the Middle East and beyond, the new policy is to target Israel alone.

He added that many Revolutionary Guard leaders want to respond to a U.S. attack on Iranian soil by striking Israel, as they believe Israel would be partner to any U.S. action.

Safavi said that Iran's nuclear program is intended for peaceful purposes only, and that Khamenei recently released a fatwa against the use of weapons of mass destruction, though the contents of that religious ruling have not yet been publicized.

Regarding dialogue with the United States and the West, Safavi said Iran's decision would be influenced by the results of the U.S. presidential elections next month, as well as by the Iranian presidential elections in June and the economic situation in the Islamic Republic.

Safavi also said that a victory by U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama would pave the way for dialogue with Washington, while a John McCain presidency would bolster Iran's extreme right, which opposes dialogue. If conditions are favorable following the U.S. election, he said, Iran could draw back from President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's declaration that "the nuclear case is closed," and put it back on the agenda.

Safavi said he believed that U.S. sanctions on Iran have run their course, and that there would be no point in strengthening them. Tehran would therefore demand "firm and significant" U.S. measures in return for stopping uranium enrichment. He also said Ahmadinejad is not guaranteed victory in the June 2009 elections, particularly given the dire economic situation in Iran. Still, Iranian experts believe his only real competition is former president Mohammad Khatami, who has not yet joined the race.

Safavi said the inflation rate in Iran is similar to that before the 1979 Islamic Revolution, but that unrest among civilians today is not as strong. This is because the current government uses oil revenues to help the poor, he said.

**dogma**

Orlanth wrote:
Understood, but the idea that Arabs should be told all the dangers of having a nuclear program, but other nations should not. if nuclear energy is inherently unsafe, it is unsafe to all. Does the article writer envision mounting an 'awareness' campaign in other countries with nuclear programs? In the USA, Europe, Russia, or in israel? If not why not, because only Arabs need be told to fear nuclear energy?

Now propoganda is a valuable tool, but US backed propoganda stating that nuclear energy is unsafe is idiotic, due to the source. This strategy can only backfire.

That depends. If the US stays away from nuclear energy as well I expect there could be some merit to this. The US has no legitimacy in the region, but even one instance in which our rhetoric meets the road can help to change that.

Orlanth wrote:
Ok. So Iraq is prosperous and pro-american. I see two problems right there.
Also the countries have been involved in a drawn out and brutal war in living memory. No using Baghdad to challenge vTehran can only mean one thing, divide and rule. The US government knows tihs is no way forward, only one nation profits from trying to get the US government to adopt a divide and rule strategy for the Middle East. Any guesses?

Clearly there are problems. That does not mean the potential of the situation should be ignored. We have already made the mistakes of Iraq, there is little reason that we should not try to capitalize on them. Especially considering how insignificant the economic costs of the war have been.

In any case, using Baghdad to challenge Tehran does not have to be a one-sided affair. Divide and rule presumes that only one side of the equation is being supported. A prosperous Iraq can build good will in the region. Good will which can open the door to the pro-American youth of Iran. Especially if it coincides with high level governmental talks.

Keep in mind this is a long term strategy for softening the Iranian disposition.

Orlanth wrote:
I remember how Iran declared its nuclear program the same week Bush promised pre-emptive strikes against countries producing WMD's as a matter of public policy. There were also some noises from beijing at the time. I cannot find the links immediately but I remember noting all three at the same time, not all with equal billing in the press.
I strongly suspect that China supported Tehran on this issue, mainly on the principle of directly challenging Washington on an issue where they had been blatantly hawkish.
The USA reacts as if it were the only superpower, this might have been true in 1990, it is not true today. From time to time Beijing shows its muscle, but it finds itself in a better postion by not being so overt about it. They are no fools.
It looked to me like a message.
Russian and India might cooperate over Iran, they might not. But don't think China will dance to your tune.

Ya, that's why I said sanctions are ineffective. There are other places to turn. Though I suspect Russia could be made to cooperate if we conceded the AMBO pipeline to them.

Orlanth wrote:
If that was mild maybe I am not cynical enough regarding my opinions of Zionist press.

You aren't.

**dogma**

@Frazzled: If Khatami can be convinced to run he could be the best hope we have for a peaceful solution with the Iranians. Here's hoping the Guardians vet him.

**Frazzled**

Maybe so. A pre-emptive strike on Israel would mean war at best. At worst case Israel pushes the Rad button and nukes Iran in response. That would negatively impact gas prices which is a bad thing.

**Railguns**

I definetely get the impression that they WANT war. They never stop talking about it, they expect it, they sound like they practically crave it. They want to just have it out and kill until they are killed back because they either don't understand or simply don't want it any other way.

**dogma**

High gas prices in the short-run is a bad thing, but in the long term it will likely strengthen the political and consumer push to alternative fuels.

In any case, much of our strategy is going to turn on the fact that Iran has almost no ability to project real military power. Short of massive emigration of the Revolutionary Guard towards the Israeli border there isn't much to worry about. Of course, I'm assuming they're not stupid enough to go nuclear and invite themselves in to hell.

**Frazzled**

dogma wrote:High gas prices in the short-run is a bad thing, but in the long term it will likely strengthen the political and consumer push to alternative fuels.

In any case, much of our strategy is going to turn on the fact that Iran has almost no ability to project real military power. Short of massive emigration of the Revolutionary Guard towards the Israeli border there isn't much to worry about. Of course, I'm assuming they're not stupid enough to go nuclear and invite themselves in to hell.

Hence my point above. The only pre-emptive attack I can envision is a ballistic missile / air strike, mayhaps backed by the latest in 1940's technology submarines off the Israeli coast. This would be combined with a Hezzbullah/Hamas assault.

I have to take it back. Here’s two scenarios.

Direct attack
*ballistic missiles and aircraft from Iran. Submarine attacks off the coast of Israel (mayhaps able to launch missiles as well). They might create havoc with the US fleet in the Persian Gulf at the same time, via Rev Guard boat attacks/submarines/ and a buttload of Chinese and home grown ballistic missiles based near the Straits of Hormuz.
*Hezzbullah and Hamas attack (maybe)
*Syria attacks.

This could be a realistic scenario. It would be under the cover of “Israeli aggression” as Hezzbullah and Hamas step up rocket attacks, generating an Israeli response.

Wildcard 1. Launching aircraft over Iraqi airspace. That’s an act of War with a capital W. As the allies are style flying over Iraqi skies that means US intercepts going out or at latest coming in. Iran will have no air force within three hours. Syria’s air fleet may survive but for the first time (?) it would be facing Israel alone. I could foresee merkavas in Baghdad in what, two days? I don’t think Syria would exist as an independent state after that. They would have attacked Israel three times at that point (and lost).

Wildcard 2. A pre-emptive strike by Iran might invite a nuclear response. It might even be automatic.

**dogma**

Your analysis is pretty much spot on. I'll just throw in a couple of caveats about the technology available to Iran. I actually get paid to study this stuff (though not much).

Iranian missile technology: Is fairly formidable, but also quite limited. The Shahab-3 and Shahab-4, the only weapons available which can reach Israel, have a payload of no larger than 75 kilograms. This is insufficient to carry even the smallest of nuclear arms. The real danger is from chemical attacks. However, given the inaccuracy of Iranian missiles, the small size of Israel, and that state's position against prevailing winds it is unlikely that a chemical/biological strike would produce catastrophic damage. Even if the damage were significant, the Israeli military is well hardened against such attacks, and would see little reduction in it retaliatory capability.

Iranian aircraft technology: Very limited. The majority of their air force is made up of derivations of the F-5. This is a low-end third generation fighter. The kill ratio between this plane and a properly equipped F-16 is something in the area of 15-1. The same ratio for the F-22 is roughly 35-1. More over, the maximum range of the best F-5 derivations is only around 3000 km. Given that the distance between Iran and Israel is a little over 1000 km this doesn't leave much room for error or tactical flight patterns. So yea, they'd be cut to pieces by the US air deployment in Iraq, and be met somewhere over Syria by equally superior Israeli interceptors.

Iranian submarines: These are diesel boats. Their extremely limited range, low number, and need to surface makes them very easy to track. They won't be let through the Suez Canal, so that leaves going around Africa; skirting the coastline and trying to make stops in African ports to refuel. Not really viable, and very easy to detect and intercept.

This leaves two options. Support Hamas/Hezbollah, and threaten to close down Hormuz. They are already supporting Hamas/Hezbollah to the best of their abilities, and closing the straights of Hormuz will have a deleterious affect on their overall oil revenues. They can threaten all they like, but the initiative isn't theirs.

**Miguelsan**

Wildcard 1. Launching aircraft over Iraqi airspace. That’s an act of War with a capital W. As the allies are style flying over Iraqi skies that means US intercepts going out or at latest coming in. Iran will have no air force within three hours. Syria’s air fleet may survive but for the first time (?) it would be facing Israel alone. I could foresee merkavas in DAMASCUS in what, two days? I don’t think Syria would exist as an independent state after that. They would have attacked Israel three times at that point (and lost).

Funny that quite a few guys don´t seem to think that Israeli fighters over Iranian flight space means the same. And I think you wanted to say Damascus I can´t figure what would be the efect of Israeli merkavas on Baghdad other than ending the US ocupation of Iraq in a bloodshed apocalypse.

M.

**Orlanth**

For a start for Israel to invade Iraq it would have to go through Syria and/or Jordan and risk a wider conflict. It would be hard to manufacture excuses to attack two nations at once.

Also regarding strikes on Irans facilities, the window is narrowing, in 1981 the status of Israels own nuclear program was not confirmed. Now the political fallout could be too great.
Thwey also have only one shot at this against a nation with a friendly high tech border and the hindsight of not putting all its eggs in one basket.

From what little I know Iran has multi sited its programs, and likely placed some of its installations in hard to bomb places. Saddam himself learned this and built his bunkers deep after 1981.

**Orlanth**

double post

**Frazzled**

Miguelsan wrote:
Wildcard 1. Launching aircraft over Iraqi airspace. That’s an act of War with a capital W. As the allies are style flying over Iraqi skies that means US intercepts going out or at latest coming in. Iran will have no air force within three hours. Syria’s air fleet may survive but for the first time (?) it would be facing Israel alone. I could foresee merkavas in DAMASCUS in what, two days? I don’t think Syria would exist as an independent state after that. They would have attacked Israel three times at that point (and lost).

Funny that quite a few guys don´t seem to think that Israeli fighters over Iranian flight space means the same. And I think you wanted to say Damascus I can´t figure what would be the efect of Israeli merkavas on Baghdad other than ending the US ocupation of Iraq in a bloodshed apocalypse.

M.

Sorry Damascus.

Yes it means the same thing, but not war with the US. If Iran is thinking logically, war with the US and Isreal at the same time, at this level of threat, likely ends Iran as a nation. Or inversely they get pounded so badly the current group of rulers will be out.