January 04, 2006
Goodnight, Ahmadinejad
Iran is trying to die:
Iran is secretly trying to obtain technology and expertise needed to build a nuclear weapon, according to a leaked intelligence report that threatens to deepen a rift with the West over its nuclear programme...The report concludes that scientists in Tehran are shopping for parts for a new ballistic missile with "import requests and acquisitions ... registered almost daily", the Guardian said.
And die quickly (h/t Ace):
The Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said that there will be no dialogue with Europe because it is a waste of time. This point was underlined by the Iranian leader during his first appearance in front of the committee of foreign affairs and national security of the mullah-run majlis."The president, defined the attempts by the governments of the past 16 years to bring to the table a dialogue with Europe and to try and reduce tensions, as a waste of time which has so far not produced any tangible results for our country."
Playing a dangerous game with very little skill, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is all but assuring that he will be the final President of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Sometime between now and mid-March, air and special forces from at least one nation and possibility more will likely launch a series of debilitating strikes from which the current radical Islamic regime in Iran will not be allowed to emerge. Any U.S. involvement will not be content to only blunt Tehran's nuclear ambitions, it will, by necessity, seek to topple them from power.
Some worry that an assault on Iran will result in Iran engaging in cross-border attacks into Iraq. These fears are probably warrantless. Decapitation strikes to destabilize the Iranian government and cripple command and control capability will likely result in Iranian forces either holding their positions, or deploying to try to prop up the current regime against an expected internal uprising.
Even an attack order is not likely to initial much more than a few isolated, grossly-overmatched air-to-ground battles that would result in something akin to the 1991 Gulf War's Highway of Death or 1944 Normandy's Todesgang "Death Road" of the Falaise Gap. While Iran boasts an army of 350,000 men, 200,000 are poorly-trained conscripts, and most of their frontline equipment is of questionable repair or is obsolete.
I would not be surprised at all to find Iran under a transition to democratic government by March 13, 2006, with a correlating decline to follow in insurgent activity in Iraq.
I also suspect MoveOn.Org will start a "No Blood for Persian Carpets" campaign that will not resonate with middle America, and Bush's approval rating as a result of these strikes will pass 60%.
It may not be that easy. They have plenty in the fighting age group (18-49) and just under a million each year reaching that catagory. While they don't have the best equipment in the world they can still cause damage. This won't be as easy as Gulf War I or II. Not to mention that with Iraq not completely stable and Afganistan still up in arms (Both of which despise Iran), things could go south quick.
Something needs to be done, that's for sure. They have to be stopped or it would be a whole lot worse. I just don't think it will be as easy as what we have done in that area so far.
Posted by: Retired Navy at January 4, 2006 06:12 AMThe US needs to act sooner rather than later. I envision a task force of some EU countries, Israel, and possibly Australia. Israel needs to be able to particpate in any actions because they are the ones who are being directly threatened by the Madman of Iran and his mad mullahs.
Posted by: seawitch at January 4, 2006 08:23 AMI don't think we could stop Israel if we tried.
Posted by: Retired Navy at January 4, 2006 08:49 AMDon't forget the trump card in this scenario hasn't been mentioned - Putin's new Russia.
One that has already intimidated the West by shutting down Europes gas line.
Also watch for a larger energy crunch if Iran is attacked.We already have a convergence of potention energy supplies being squeezed, between no ANWR (thanks RINOs) Madmen, in Iran shutting off their oil, and Iraqs, and couple that with Morales of Boliva, joining Chavez in worshipping Castro style politics.
This could get nasty quickly!
Posted by: DL at January 4, 2006 10:04 AMI agree with you DL, this should give all an uneasy feeling. Every since the ousting of the Sha there has been trouble in the area. On the bright side would be empowering a more moderate style of government there. I worry for the Jordainians, King Abdullah seems to be doing all he can to keep trouble from his borders. But with Iran as a major supporter of HAMAS and Islamic Jihad, Jordan is stuck in the middle. Jordan has the largest population of Palistinian refugees in the region. And those two factors put Jordan at risk of a Palistinian uprising in support of Iran. I don't think Iran would get much support from the Shia's in Iraq. Syria would be a more of a threat by providing arms and giving some of those WMD"S that Sadaam transfered before the war started. Rest assuredly Assad has those. Putin is not going to help since they are there largest buyer of Russian Arms. Thats why he offerd to enrich the urainium to keep Iran from being attacked and a possible regime change. Bad for business. You don't bite the hand that feeds you!!!!!
Posted by: Faithful Patriot at January 4, 2006 01:21 PMWhy does America *have* to do anything?
Posted by: JK at January 4, 2006 04:53 PMNavy,
You are making the assumption (presumably) that the Iranian government thinks it can launch an offensive war while under assualt from superior air forces, against the most battle-hardened military that the U.S. military (and a strong British Military force) has fielded in a generation. This, while presumably facing a possible coup at home, when faced with C& C strikes disrupting communications and airpower interdicting armor from the air at will.
Perhaps the Mad Mullahs would order such an assault. I just don't see frontline commanders being suicidal enough to carry out such an assault.
JK, why would we have to do anything?
I don't know... to prevent a state that announced it would use nuclear weapons as soon as it got them from carrying out their repeated threats? To stop a massive genocide before it starts? To prevent a madman from threatening parts of three continents? Tp protect over hundreds of thousands of American and American allies within missile range?
Take your pick.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at January 4, 2006 05:47 PM
"It may not be that easy. They have plenty in the fighting age group (18-49) and just under a million each year reaching that catagory."
Oh ye of little faith, similar comments were made prior to our action in Iraq in both gulf wars and you know what happened. For my part, I have more faith in our military than apparently any of you have. Iran is surrounded by potential allies (Afganistan, Pakistan, Turkey, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan) so they can be attacked in so many directions that they will find it impossible to defend them all. Besides we will once again have overwhelming air superiority. And don't forget there is considerable number of Iranian dissidents who like the Kurds may join up with our forces at some point.
Posted by: docdave at January 4, 2006 07:14 PMLet's just hope that I am wrong. I know we are fielding the best trained and equipped military (I just retired a year ago so it's still fresh to me) but I also realize that Iranians have been told for quite a long time now that the West is evil and wants to destroy their way of life, that they are surrounded by countries that want to anniliate them who are chomping at the bit to invade, and led by clerics that preach it's good for the state to do as they are told.
Don't forget, during the Iran - Iraq war, they were handing out arms to 14 year olds who eagerly joined in the cause.
Don't get me wrong, we need to do something thats fast, decisive, and will eliminate the problem, I just see it as more of a problem because there will be a fanatical element we haven't seen yet, sort of like what was predicted for Japan during WWII.
Like I said, I hope I'm wrong.
Posted by: Retired Navy at January 4, 2006 08:38 PMIran has traditionally been a saber rattler. Not much substance. The Iran Iraq war was not much of a high tech conflict. If memory serves Iraq attacked Iran first. That was a draw. They will not last long against superior air power. Iran does have manpower but not very well trained or well equipped. Only thing, that country gave birth to the suicide bomber. The war would be lost but the after effects of a maniacal mindset would have serious after effects. I would not worry about us being in the conflict. If Netanyahu wins the election, which I think he will. Iran is toast... Remember Iran is the palistinians largest arms and financal supporter Ben for give the pun would be "killing two birds with one stone"...
Posted by: Faithful Patriot at January 5, 2006 02:56 PMAhmadinajad has declared that the Jewish Holocaust is a myth. Maybe we could remind him that the coming Iranian Holocaust will also be just as much a myth.
To paraphrase an old trope from the 1970s. "The Neutron Bomb - the bomb which kills terrorists and leaves the oil fields standing."
