Iran Super Thread- Merged

[a_majoor]

- They won't overthrow the regime.  They will unite behind it.  The greatest unifier in Iran would be foriegn airstrikes.

Depends on how it is done. A "Headshot" which concentrated on disrupting political leadership, Republican Guard units, C3I and transportation routes would destabilize the regime and prevent them from supressing dissent or reestablishing control over the nation. The downside of the "Headshot" is there is little means to control or influence events within Iran after the strike, so the worst case scenario is a few years breathing room while Iran descends into chaos and is unable to support Hamas, Hezbollah, long range missile development or its nuclear weapons program.

Of course a few years breathing room would take a lot of pressure off other parts of the region, so might be worth looking at on these merits alone.

 

[GAP]

How soon people forget the rioting crowds in the street of Tehran just a few years ago.....

does anyone remember what unified the country and put paid to the riots?

The nuclear issue and all the attendant sabre rattling from all sides......

 

[RJB]

Depends on how it is done. A "Headshot" which concentrated on disrupting political leadership, Republican Guard units, C3I and transportation routes would destabilize the regime and prevent them from supressing dissent or reestablishing control over the nation.

The Iranian regime is far from this unstable--indeed, the striking thing about Iran (in comparison to most regimes in the Middle East) is the low level of visible internal security.

The regime also has deep roots--quite apart from the combat units of the Revolutionary Guard, there a million (or more) members of the volunteer Basij militia. Given the decentralized nature of the Basij, and the fact that they are part-time reservists, they aren't at all vulnerable to air strike.

Finally, other commenters are correct (in my view) in stressing how an attack would cause a rally-around-the-flag effect in (fiercely nationalistic) Iran. I suspect an attack, whatever its short term effect on Iran's nuclear capacity, would strengthen the regime.

 

[a_majoor]

Not that these issues are in dispute, but a "Headshot" would reduce the ability of the regime to shape, lead or even capitalize on the nationalistic "rally round the flag" response. If the "Headshot" were to include strikes against the power infrastructure and transportation nodes then the regime would loose legitamacy as being unable to fix things or respond to a crisis. Taking out the oil infrastructure would cut the financial windpipe of the regime, and so on.

Other possible outcomes can be selected by tailoring the "Headshot"; if government offices and services were to be selectively affected, but civilian targets left alone, many people might not realise that anything happened at first. You can wargame many possible scenarios, but not predict the outcomes...

 

[RJB]

Not that these issues are in dispute, but a "Headshot" would reduce the ability of the regime to shape, lead or even capitalize on the nationalistic "rally round the flag" response. If the "Headshot" were to include strikes against the power infrastructure and transportation nodes then the regime would loose legitamacy as being unable to fix things or respond to a crisis. Taking out the oil infrastructure would cut the financial windpipe of the regime, and so on.

Other possible outcomes can be selected by tailoring the "Headshot"; if government offices and services were to be selectively affected, but civilian targets left alone, many people might not realise that anything happened at first.

"Taking out" Iran's oil infrastructure would spike the price of oil, and tip much of the world into a full-blown recession. Moreover, if Iran lost its export capacity, it would have every incentive to shut down the Straits of Hormuz, and choke other Gulf exports too. (It has a great many other retaliatory options beside, which I won't get into.)

Most transportation nodes, and some of the electrical grid, is repairable relatively quickly--and, in any case, it would be the US, not the regime, that would be the target of popular dissatisfaction that arose from this (much as it was Iraq that was blamed for the much, much greater damage inflicted on Iranian society in 1980-88). It should be kept in mind that Iran has a fairly impressive reconstruction and civil defence capacity, as was illustrated in its response to the 2003 Bam earthquake.

I haven't spoken to a single critic of the Iranian regime (inside Iran) who thinks that military action would result in political change... most, on the contrary, felt that it would consolidate the hardliners. It would probably also convince the regime that it needed to ramp up its current nuclear research programme into full-scale weapons production, something which--if the unclassified portion of the US National Intelligence Estimate are to be believed--they haven't yet done.

You can wargame many possible scenarios, but not predict the outcomes...

Which, I think, is precisely why SecDef Gates, much of the US military brass, and most of the US intelligence community appear to be counseling against a military confrontation with Iran.

 

[KevinB]

So riddle me this.

I come over - I punch you - rape your wife and leave.
You call the cops - they sit around and ignore it.
I come back over etc.

How long before you take action?

Working in Iraq I can tell you the above is a perfectly clear analogy.  I dont think anyone is saying it will be nice, or it will be easy -- but sometimes you have to act.

 

[a_majoor]

WRT an oil price spike, that might come despite anything the Alliance does or does not do. Actions like this will have more impact than the Iranian government will admit....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7498902.stm

French firm quits Iran gas deal

The head of French energy giant Total has said it will not invest in Iran because it is too politically risky.

The company had been planning to develop the huge South Pars gas field, but Christophe de Margerie says this will not now go ahead.

The announcement comes a day after Iran test-fired a series of missiles amid weeks of rising tensions with Israel and the US over its nuclear ambitions.

Analysts say Total's move will be a big blow to the Iranian energy industry.

It means Iran is now unlikely to significantly increase its gas exports until late into the next decade, they add.

In further response to the test missiles, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said on Thursday that Washington would defend the interests of America and those of its allies from attacks by Iran.

Sanctions

Total has a memorandum of understanding with the state-owned National Iranian Oil Company to develop Phase 11 of Iran's half of the South Pars field in the Gulf.

Today we would be taking too much political risk to invest in Iran because people will say: 'Total will do anything for money'
Christophe de Margerie
Chief Executive, Total

In May, Total said it was still interested in working on the project together with the Malaysian company, Petronas.

But Mr De Margerie's comments now cast serious doubt on whether the French firm will invest in the Islamic Republic in the near future.

"Today we would be taking too much political risk to invest in Iran because people will say: 'Total will do anything for money'," he told the Finacial Times.

And later he told the France 24 television station: "It is probably necessary that things get better, that Iran can again have better relations with its neighbours and the rest of the countries that today have a harsh stance towards it."

The remarks follow increasing tension between Iran and Israel over Tehran's nuclear programme.

The US has also recently stepped up the pressure to impose tougher sanctions on the Iranian government and companies that do business with it.

Total was the last major Western energy group to have seriously considered investing in the country's huge gas reserves.

It was also one of the few companies in the world to have the technology needed to exploit Iran's huge, but untapped gas reserves.

The BBC's Jon Leyne in Tehran says it has been particularly galling for Tehran to watch as Qatar pumps vast amounts of gas from the South Pars field to its side of the Gulf, helping it become one of the world's major energy suppliers.

But observers say it is not just sanctions or political pressure - international banks simply are not prepared to put up the billions of dollars needed for such investments in Iran.

'Provocative' missile test

Mr De Margerie's remarks come a day after state media reported that the Iranian Revolutionary Guards test-fired a updated version of the Shahab-3 missile, said to have a range of 2,000km (1,240 miles).

Gen Hoseyn Salami, the Guards' air force commander, said the tests demonstrated Iran's "resolve and might against enemies who in recent weeks have threatened Iran with harsh language".

State media quoted him as saying: "Our hands are always on the trigger and our missiles are ready for launch."

Tehran has tested the Shahab-3 before, but the latest launch comes amid rising tensions in the region.

William Burns, the top official handling Iranian issues at the US state department, said the launch was "very disturbing, provocative and reckless".

But US officials played down suggestions that the move had brought military confrontation with Iran any closer.

"The reality is there is a lot of signalling going on, but everybody recognises what the consequences of any kind of a conflict would be," said Defence Secretary Robert Gates.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/business/7498902.stm

Published: 2008/07/10 16:14:48 GMT

 

[RJB]

RAND has just released a report on Iranian vulnerabilities, prepared for the Strategic Planning Division of the US Air Force. Among its conclusions:

Despite these authoritarian characteristics, most Iranians perceive the regime as legitimate. In the 2005 presidential elections, more than half of all eligible voters participated. Although many Iranians are dissatisfied with the authoritarianism of the regime, few have been willing or prepared to act outside the electoral process. The regime appears to be under no imminent danger of collapse or coup.

...

A large majority of Iranians strongly believe that Iran has the same right as other nations to develop nuclear energy, including the construction and operation of nuclear enrichment facilities. If Iran’s facilities were to be bombed, public support for any retaliation its government took would likely be widespread....

...an attack would be unlikely to stop the Iranian nuclear program. The government would be able to finance the reconstruction of the facility and continue the current program without major budgetary consequences. The ramifications of an attack for Iranian domestic politics are less clear. Ahmadinejad has come under fire from other politicians for baiting the United States. An attack might be perceived as his comeuppance. In our view, a more likely response would be a strong push to retaliate. Critics of such a policy would likely choose to keep silent.

...attacks on Iran proper would generate a great deal of ill will and, in our view, would be unlikely to change Iranian policy.

...

A [oil] blockade, however, would probably do more to solidify public support for the regime than weaken it.... A sharp rise in the price of oil on the world market because of a massive disruption of oil exports from the Persian Gulf would probably push the world economy into recession.

...

At least in the near term, the Iranian regime is likely to be relatively stable and resistant to external pressures for dramatic change.

The full report is available at http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2008/RAND_MG693.pdf.

 

[TrexLink]

Iran's missiles may target Canadians

Matthew Fisher, National Post  Published: Monday, July 14, 2008

Iranian missiles are thought to have enough range to hit about half of Afghanistan, including Kandahar.AFP, Getty ImagesIranian missiles are thought to have enough range to hit about half of Afghanistan, including Kandahar.

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates -The BBC has raised the possibility that Iran may target NATO forces in Afghanistan, which include several thousand Canadian troops stationed in the province of Kandahar, with short-range missiles.

Those who focused on the possibility of Iran and Israel going to war or a strike against the U. S. Fifth Fleet in the Persian Gulf have overlooked the chance that attacking elsewhere might also serve Iran's strategic interests, the BBC said in an article on its Web site last week.

"People always look towards the west of Iran, but we need to look east as well," Christopher Pang, head of African and Middle Eastern research for the highly respected Royal United Services Institute, told the British network. "There are plenty of U. S. interests and international troops stationed in Afghanistan which can be targeted from the east of the country."

Worried by what Tehran describes as its power-generating civilian nuclear program, Israel has been considering if and when to try to destroy Iran's nuclear sites with air strikes and missiles launched from submarines. The Jewish state has also been improving its air defence system to protect itself against the latest variants of Iran's Shahab-3 ballistic missiles, which could reach Tel Aviv with a one-ton conventional payload between 11 and 14 minutes after being launched.

But Iran is thought to have far more short-range Shahab-2 and Zelzal missiles in its arsenal. Though neither rocket is considered very accurate, they have enough legs to hit about half of Afghanistan, including Kandahar.

(While unconnected with developments regarding Iran, Canadian commanders in southern Afghanistan would have noted with keen interest that U. S. Marines who were rushed to Kandahar this spring were told last week their tours there had been extended by one month into November).

Months before any likely conflict between Iran and Israel or Iran and the United States, a fog of war is descending on the region causing even greater anxiety about the rising price of oil.

Iran responded last week to a major Israeli long-range bombing exercise conducted in June by test firing what it claimed were new, longer-range models of the Shahab-3. But Agence France-Presse quickly discovered that Iranian photos of the Shahabs' launch had been doctored to obscure the fact that one of them had apparently misfired.

Hours before Tehran's botched war games began, USS Abraham Lincoln slipped through the Strait of Hormuz and into the Arabian Sea, ostensibly so that the aircraft carrier's warplanes could more easily bomb Taliban and al-Qaeda targets in Afghanistan. But it was also true that the capital ship was safer from attack in the deeper waters off Iran's southern coast than in the narrow, shallow confines of the Persian Gulf.

More at link:  www.nationalpost.com/todays_paper/story.html?id=652649

 

[slowmode]

I think Iran is just doing this to show it has "power". I dont believe they will attack .. they know they could not win a war so why would they risk it? Lets hope nothing is aimed at our soldiers down in Afghanistan

 

[NCRCrow]

Wag the Dog or what!

 

[PuckChaser]

One missile from Iran hitting a NATO position would probably result in about 50 preplanned cruise missile strikes from the US.... I doubt the Iranians would be that stupid.

 

[Mike Baker]

I think Iran is just doing this to show it has "power". I dont believe they will attack .. they know they could not win a war so why would they risk it? Lets hope nothing is aimed at our soldiers down in Afghanistan

I agree. Why would they want to piss off the U.S., the U.K., Canada, and most every other nation, more then they already do?

If they did, I would assume there would be a lot of munitions put down range into Iran, enough that they wouldn't want to do that again.

-Deadpan

 

[Love793]

Attacking the US/NATO, would do little for them, however forcing the Israeli's into a first strike/self defence attack would however do a lot for their "street cred" in the region.

 

[a_majoor]

It has been noted in other threads that one possible effect of a NATO/US/Israeli strike against Iran would be to unite the population behind the regime, cementing their power over the nation and region for years to come. A "tit for tat" response against a launch of one or several missiles can be ridden out, and I expect that Western media and public reaction to an Iranian missile attack would be for "limited" and "proportional" response. Over all, not a bad deal for the regime, and possibly worth taking a gamble (depending on the real and perceived needs and interests of the Iranian regime. Our interests don't count)

There is a reasonably high uncertainty level involved, and a much higher level response cannot be discounted (up to and including "bomb the rubble"), which may be one of the factors staying their hand for the moment. Political developments in the US, EU, Israel and even Russia and China need to be factored in. What an unholy mess....

 

[JayJay144]

Thats a very scarey prospect. If Iran was going to first strike wouldn't they have done it by now? I agree with the most recent posts that It's in their best interests to let the West or Israel go for the pre-emptive option. Although I will admit I am not an expert by any means. Just another person.

There are more developments to this story. www.debka.com is a website made by retired intelligence officers and now Iran is provoking Israel to make moves. It's the top story.

this Iran political situation has gone on for a while now but this is getting scarey.

 

[Love793]

I wasn't saying that Iran would make the first strike.  I was stating that they would likely attempt to draw the Israeli's into making a first strike, using self defence as their legal grounds. An attack on the US or NATO, would likely result in Iran having a romantic yellowish green glowing tinge for the foreseeable future.  It would be more beneficial to close the Straight of Hormuz and attack the American economy, then to try to take on the largest (controlled) nuclear force in the world.

 

[geo]

I wasn't saying that Iran would make the first strike.  I was stating that they would likely attempt to draw the Israeli's into making a first strike, using self defence as their legal grounds. An attack on the US or NATO, would likely result in Iran having a romantic yellowish green glowing tinge for the foreseeable future.  It would be more beneficial to close the Straight of Hormuz and attack the American economy, then to try to take on the largest (controlled) nuclear force in the world.

Lets face it, Iran sees the US as having their hands full coping with Iraq and Afghanistan.
Their fastboat encounters with US warships have demonstrated the US terms of engagament as being sabre rattling
Their fastboat encounters with UK warships and their boarding parties.... well we all know how that turned out
It does not see the US as an immediate threat.  It does not consider the UK to be a threat

 

[Trauma22]

Lets face it, Iran sees the US as having their hands full coping with Iraq and Afghanistan.
Their fastboat encounters with US warships have demonstrated the US terms of engagement as being sabre rattling
Their fastboat encounters with UK warships and their boarding parties.... well we all know how that turned out
It does not see the US as an immediate threat.  It does not consider the UK to be a threat

It seems by all reports they have dug their heels in on the enrichment issue, so theyve accepted the stakes regarding the threats.  Pretty foolish to underestimate a US/Israel first strike ability, I think.

 

[Love793]

I don't think the Americans would strike first, but Isreal would have a good argument in the World Courts for a Self Defence strike, as Iran has repeatedly threatened them.