Briefing: Attacking Iran

[BSB]

Briefing: Attacking Iran

Up in the air

The probability of an attack on Iran’s nuclear programme has been increasing. But the chances of it ending the country’s nuclear ambitions are low

Feb 25th 2012 | from the print edition
 
THE crisis has been a long time coming. Iran started exploring paths to nuclear weaponry before the fall of the shah in 1979. Ten years ago the outside world learned of the plants it was building to provide “heavy” water (used in reactors that produce plutonium) and enriched uranium, which is necessary for some types of nuclear reactor, but also for nuclear weapons. The enrichment facilities have grown in capability, capacity and number; there has been work on detonators, triggers and missile technology, too.


http://www.economist.com/node/21548228

[Xavier_Onassis]

Attacking Iran would not end Iran's nuclear program. It would solidify Iranian opposition to US efforts to bring about a regime change. And the US invading Iran, with three times the population of Iraq, with the goal of deposing the regime and replacing it would be far too expensive and utterly insane.
'

[BSB]

This piece in The Economist is mostly concerned with a possible Israeli air strike not an American air strike, and certainly not a US ground attack. Panetta is not stupid, nor is Obama. Panetta rightly suggests that an air strike by Israel would only hold Iran back by "maybe one, possibly two years". 

I would say that one of Israel's problems since its inception has been that it's shortsighted. Or, more strongly put, they're easily spooked. How many nuclear warheads has the United States had pointed at it over the years? Thousands probably. Israel needs to stop thinking they're special. They're not.   

BSB

[Plane]

     
       No question we could defeat Iran very cheaply,very quickly.

        Then what?

        An occupation couldn't be cheap, couldn't be short.

        If we were desprate we could supress Iran and make them very miserable without spending much or really getting close.
        Not necessacerily a good idea, we would be decimateing one threat and producing the cradle of its replacement threat.

      I really think what we should do is invest a lot in spys and turncoats, then not waste the next oppurtunity to  support revolt the way we wasted the last one.

[Xavier_Onassis]

That is bogus.

We did not defeat Iraq cheaply.

We did not defeat Afghanistan cheaply.

I do not think that on a per capita basis we defeated Grenada cheaply.

The US could defeat the Iranian Air Force, sink the Iranian Navy and prevent the Army from attacking. Following that, anarchy would prevail, the oil exports would end, and the price of gasoline would soar. At this point, a majority of the American people would like to see the heads of the imbeciles who started the war on a stick.

The US could not manage an occupation in Iran any better than they managed the occupation of Iraq or Afghanistan.


The Israelis like to think of themselves as victims. I say that there is no more reason to support their occupations and aggression than to support Georgia or Armenia or South Ossetia. Let them defend their own damn selves. We have paid enough.

[BSB]

We haven't defeated anyone in Afghanistan period, let alone cheaply. We killed a load of Al Qaeda, and senior Taliban, yes, but we're trying to broker a deal with the general Taliban movement at this very moment.


BSB

[Christians4LessGvt]

That is bogus.

No Plane is spot on.

We did not defeat Iraq cheaply.
We did not defeat Afghanistan cheaply.

We won the war in Kosevo relatively cheaply,
and even though obviously no two combat theaters are exactly the same
the same basic Kosevo strategy could be used in Iran to reach several of our goals.

[Plane]

    The tecniques that lay waste are cheaper and faster than discriminating methods.
    Mass production of dumb bombs, mass delivery and massive colateral damage would lay Iran low quickly.
    Would have worked in Iran too, their climate and infrastructure would make firebombing very effective and the results incredably cruel and hard to recover from.
     Iran is much more vunerable than Iraq.

     But,

     If we break it have we bought it?
     Defeating the government of Iraq was not difficult nor expensive, Iran is not better prepared in any respect.
    But,
     Managing the result has been incredably expensive, while knocking Saddam over caused us hundreds of casualtys, occupying ,repairing has cost us thousands.

     I think that a concentrated campaign could ruin Iran's ability to resist in a few hours, not a full day.

     But then could we afford to carry our own victims?
      No I don't think so, we would be stuck with just observing their rot.


       This won't happen untill we are truly desprate, perhaps never, none of us should want it.
        But none of our friends or critics should think it can't happen, our enemys shouldn't think that their success depends on our fear.

       Rather, the continued habitability and civilisation of their enemy citys and territorys depends on our desire for a good result , if we learn to fear enough that we no longer care we can amd might create Hell on Earth.

       This is our worst alternative, not loosing , but winning so ugly.


      Isreal is another question, I don't think they can mount as heavy a barrage as we could , but they might be more likly to strike hard and never repair anything, in Isreal the fear is closer and the possibility of being on the loosing end of hell on earth is less unlikly.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Kosovo was won by bombing Serbia incessantly. Neither Serbia nor Kosovo were needed as a source of essential products. Bombing Iran would involve eliminating Iranian oil from the market. Even though we may not use their oil, taking it out of production would cause a major inflation in the price of oil. We may produce a lot of oil in the US, but that oil does not belong to the US: it belongs to a few big oil companies, who will always demand the world price.

Israel needs to be told that we will not supply them with weapons, support, spare parts or money for an attack on Iran.

[Plane]

I don't think Iran could stand as much bombing as Serbia did.

And we didn't try to repair the damage as soon as we had inflicted it .

Stomping an enemy is not as expensive as nationbuilding, esxpecially if the nationbuilding is resisted.

I can't see why knocking Iran over would be difficult , or expensive , or take very long.

Especially if we quit after ruining the economy and the fighting force.

The oil from a ruined Iran would not be more expensive than the oil from a crazy Iran, unless we actually blast away the Earth down to the natural level of the oil , it will remain availble, about the same as if we did nothing.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Oil would not be flowing at all from Iran for months. This would cause a major world crisis. And it would not prevent Iran from eventually getting nukes. They would be more dedicated to this than ever.

It would be insanity. Total insanity.

And for what? Iran has done little to the US to justify this.

Israel is not worth it.

[Plane]

   Canada by itself could replace Irans oil output.
Canada plus Russia plus Saudi Arabia  could increase production to restore supply quickly.
Prices would rise , but I think that higher gas prices are an objective of Obama administration policys anyway.

    A single bomb delivered  to Irans single refinery could ground their airfleet and park their supply trucks.

    Consider that Iran fought Iraq to a standstill for more than eight years, casualtys were heavy expenditures were extreme.
      All for a draw.
     Give Saddam a coupple years to recover and we knock him over in a few weeks of fight.

      Given all this, Iran really needs diplomacy more than we do.

      I wonder why they still like the fighting idea?

[Xavier_Onassis]

I wonder why they still like the fighting idea?

=====================================
They don't. They like to rattle sabers and sound dangerous.

Iran has not threatened to attack the US or even Israel. The Iranian government uses the Palisrael conflict to get the lumpenproletarians, yokels and Islamic bubbas on the side of the government, which has two opposing factions: Amedinejahd and the Ayatollah, both of whom are amazingly incompetent at managing the economy and both of whom are corrupt.

The big talk about military attack is coming from Israel and its flunkies in our government.

We do NOT need a war with Iran. Neither does Israel.

[Plane]

I wonder why they still like the fighting idea?

=====================================
They don't. They like to rattle sabers and sound dangerous.

Iran has not threatened to attack the US or even Israel. The Iranian government uses the Palisrael conflict to get the lumpenproletarians, yokels and Islamic bubbas on the side of the government, which has two opposing factions: Amedinejahd and the Ayatollah, both of whom are amazingly incompetent at managing the economy and both of whom are corrupt.

The big talk about military attack is coming from Israel and its flunkies in our government.

We do NOT need a war with Iran. Neither does Israel.

   Arn't they sending tonns of real rockets to the borders of Isreal?
  Didn't they send munitions into Iraq for blasting Americans?

   I think there might be better alternatives than an attack on Iran, but leaving them in peace is not a better alternative unless they are truly willing to leave us in peace .

[Xavier_Onassis]

The rockets used by Hamas are built in Gaza by Hamas. Israel killed dozens more Lebanese in Lebanon when they invaded in 1982 and stayed around until 2000.

Israelis killed 1200 Lebanese. Hezbollah, under 30 Israelis.

The US did not have any right to invade Iraq, so complaining that the Iranians had no right to annoy a few Americans is hardly a big deal.

The US shot down an Iranian civilian airliner filled with Iranians flying to Dubai in 1988 (flight 655) killing 290 people.

If anything, Iran has been less warlike towards the US than vice versa.