Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

The Countdown to Iran attack

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 5>
Author
vulkan02 View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Termythinator

Joined: 27-Apr-2005
Location: U$A
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1835
  Quote vulkan02 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: The Countdown to Iran attack
    Posted: 07-Sep-2007 at 20:40
According to the latest sings of U$ domestic and international diplomatic activity, the event of a major war against Iran is become more of an imminent reality rather than a distant threat. A revealing list of events shows a clear direction to war with Iran in same road that the Iraq war was concocted.

-   At home the US congress has passed in a startling 97-0 vote an amendment that states Iran has committed "acts of war " against US and Iran's 125,000 strong IRGC is a "terrorist organization" in its alleged relation of building IDE explosives and training Shiite "terrorists" in Lebanon against Isreal.

-   New carriers, new military staff(supportive of neo-cons) and the "Surge" sent to Iraq could be be a large scale preparation for the war to come in order to dismantle Iran's regime.

-   Nearly all of the major candidates for the 2008 elections Republican or Democrat have declared that "all options are on the table" in regards to dealings with Iran and some have even stated that tactical nuclear missiles are not out of the question in this upcoming war!

"I would authorize the use of tactical nuclear weapons if there was no other way to preempt those particular centrifuges," - Rep. Duncan Hunter

 Former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani said he believed that the job "could be done with conventional weapons," but he added that "you can't rule out anything and you shouldn't take any option off the table."

-   Isreal's Foreign Minister has announced in July 2007 that " if we (Israel) starts this coflict on our own, then Europe and the US will join". OK he might be a little too optimistic about Europe excluding the UK but as for the rest....
In addition Israeli special forces are said to be already operating inside Iran to find the country's hidden nuclear sites and to gather more intelligence.

-   US and Isreali commandos units are reportedly equipping and training Iranian rebels  with links to Kurdish communities in Iran as well as Syria.

-   US STRATCOM has recently implemented a new massive plan to deal with Iran named Global Strike, which reportedly has the capability to hit over 10,000 targets in a massive mission within hours of a presidential order.


Aside from all these, a shocking revelation has also been confirmed by General Westley Clark days after the September 11 terrorist attacks in the US, detailing US Middle East policy in the years to come. I am copying this from the report I got some of the above details from:

About ten days after 9/11, I went through the Pentagon and I saw Secretary Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz. I went downstairs just to say hello to some of the people on the Joint Staff who used to work for me, and one of the generals called me in. He said, Sir, youve got to come in and talk to me a second. I said, Well, youre too busy. He said, No, no. He says, Weve made the decision were going to war with Iraq. This was on or about the 20th of September. I said, Were going to war with Iraq? Why? He said, I dont know. He said, I guess they dont know what else to do. So I said, Well, did they find some information connecting Saddam to al-Qaeda? He said, No, no. He says, Theres nothing new that way. They just made the decision to go to war with Iraq. He said, I guess its like we dont know what to do about terrorists, but weve got a good military and we can take down governments. And he said, I guess if the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem has to look like a nail. So I came back to see him a few weeks later, and by that time we were bombing in Afghanistan. I said, Are we still going to war with Iraq? And he said, Oh, its worse than that. He reached over on his desk. He picked up a piece of paper. And he said, I just got this down from upstairs -- meaning the Secretary of Defenses office -- today. And he said, This is a memo that describes how were going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran. I said, Is it classified? He said, Yes, sir. I said, Well, dont show it to me. And I saw him a year or so ago, and I said, You remember that? He said, Sir, I didnt show you that memo! I didnt show it to you! (emphasis added)


General Wesley Clark, March 2nd 2007, describing a conversation in the Pentagon in September 2001 on www.democracynow.org

N.B. Since 2001 of the seven countries mentioned; The regime has been changed in Iraq, Lebanon and Somalia. The Libyan government has changed orientation an aligned with the West. The positions of the Sudan and Syrian governments have weakened. Iran remains defiant and is logically and factually next in line.


Considering the stunning ramifications(actually you can't even imagine) of this upcoming war will have and the fact that the Iraq occupation alone could go well over 1 trillion dollars, maybe even 2, then how will a nation already in great debt pay for this? It seems the only ones hurt will be the vast majority of working people, not the plutocrats that these wars are launched to protect the first place.
Meanwhile the effects on the political stage will be difficult to fathom but probably it will throw the world into another pre-WWI scenario while severely destabilising the whole Middle East region.




The beginning of a revolution is in reality the end of a belief - Le Bon
Destroy first and construction will look after itself - Mao
Back to Top
Adalwolf View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 08-Sep-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1230
  Quote Adalwolf Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Sep-2007 at 03:42
Well sh*t.

Concrete is heavy; iron is hard--but the grass will prevail.
     Edward Abbey
Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor

Suspended

Joined: 11-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8792
  Quote Zagros Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Sep-2007 at 04:19

There will be no invasion if there is an attack and there will be no attack until spring at the earliest, anyone with a tad-bit of knowledge on the area's climate and military planning should know.  This is just media and political hype as usual instigated by certain interests in the US - CIA/Pentagon psy-ops.  <- My actual opinion. and I assume that the attacks will be conventional and the belligerent half think with a military mind.

Now, if some of the genocidal maniacs in tel-aviv and washington have their way - there will be an attack now, with high American casualties to which they would respond with nukes since they have already, in their own minds, justified their use through a 4 year barrage of deceptive propaganda.
 
what no one can predict is the outcome of such an attack, but I have a feeling that those who are salivating at the prospect will receive a well justified and firm slap to the mouth.
 
I think the real reason behind this attack is Iran's dumping of the US dollar - I import using USD - I am getting 2GBP to the USD atm - anyone else noticed a pretty much consistant slide in USD value in the last year?  Other countries have followed suit to a lesser extent and diversified their currency holdings. 
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Sep-2007 at 05:18
There needs to be some objective to an attack, you don't start wars because you felt like it?
 
The most practical senario would be to capture some territory and use that as a bargaining chip. Preferably in the Kurd or Arab areas.
Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor

Suspended

Joined: 11-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8792
  Quote Zagros Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Sep-2007 at 05:52
They don't have the manpower in the region to capture any territory and if they do they would be highly vulnerable on other fronts and logistical lines. And they are not as invincible as they like to claim in the media.  Have you ever seen footage or photos of Iraqi soldiers investigating smouldering Abrams tanks?  They claimed that until the insurgency got into full swing that no Abrams were destroyed in combat.
 
 
There were only 10,000 Iraqis defending when the coalition invaded with a quarter of a million men.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Sep-2007 at 06:38

Not right now they don't. But a limited offensive is certainly possible if they send their two armoured and two heavy divs to sector.

 

Back to Top
Ahmed The Fighter View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar
Lion of Babylon

Joined: 17-Apr-2005
Location: Iraq
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1106
  Quote Ahmed The Fighter Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Sep-2007 at 06:40

 Agree Zagros,they don't have enough troops to make it happen, first of all they must get out from the Iraqi trap.

 they are not invincible as you said but they have the most powerfull war machine in the world,so the war will cost Iran more than America.
I think in the near future the air attack will be the most likely senario,another Yoguslavia.
 
this Abrams in your post is dystroyed in Durra, south of Baghdad two days before the fall of the city.
 
"May the eyes of cowards never sleep"
Khalid Bin Walid
Back to Top
Ahmed The Fighter View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar
Lion of Babylon

Joined: 17-Apr-2005
Location: Iraq
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1106
  Quote Ahmed The Fighter Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Sep-2007 at 06:45
Originally posted by Sparten

Not right now they don't. But a limited offensive is certainly possible if they send their two armoured and two heavy divs to sector.

 

Spartan even a limited land offensive is not possible now,they must send more troops from home,if they use their divisions that working now in Iraq it will be a great risk.
what they can do now perfectly with big success is an air attack to destroy the Iranian nuke and infrastructure.
"May the eyes of cowards never sleep"
Khalid Bin Walid
Back to Top
Lmprs View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke


Joined: 30-Dec-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1869
  Quote Lmprs Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Sep-2007 at 06:48
At any case, invading Iran should be ten times harder than invading Iraq for United States.
Back to Top
SearchAndDestroy View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 15-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2728
  Quote SearchAndDestroy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Sep-2007 at 09:25
Alot of our top Generals resigned when we went to Iraq, and Admirals and Generals have said they will resign if we go into Iran. Our Military leadership is in shambles, but there are alot of critical young officers, who are our future that are very critical in the way operations have been done and are done now by the current leadership.
One thing that our military leadership relearned and the young officers have stressed in interviews, blogs, and comments are that in these kinds of wars, you have to protect the Civilian centers and not fight the convential war of just plan out destroying the enemies military. So if we attack Iran, while there will be bombings in such, there will be less of it compared to the Iraq war. Civilians are the key to defeating the insurgency, and to keep civilians on your side, there are alot of objectives that have to be done. So, no, I don't think there will be a "Genocidal" war that would happen.
"A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." E.Abbey
Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor

Suspended

Joined: 11-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8792
  Quote Zagros Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Sep-2007 at 10:34

Ahmed, in any such existential war against a ruthless and callous enemy, costs are immaterial. America would resort to using WMD and it would mercilessly bomb civilian infrastructure just like it did in Iraq and Yugoslavia, conflicts from which Iran has drawn many lessons.  The Yugos showed how to defeat hi-tech weaponry with basic methods and Iraq showed what not to do - never even give an inch to an enemy who knows nothing but violence as a means to getting his ends.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=cg6uuDAvGb0
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Sep-2007 at 11:56
The U.S. need sto keep moving its military industry.
 
I am afraid if not Iran, they will chose other target.
 
Someone has to pay the bills for new carriers and missile systems, and war is an excelent excuse to keep expending.
Back to Top
Ahmed The Fighter View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar
Lion of Babylon

Joined: 17-Apr-2005
Location: Iraq
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1106
  Quote Ahmed The Fighter Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Sep-2007 at 14:08
Originally posted by Zagros

Ahmed, in any such existential war against a ruthless and callous enemy, costs are immaterial. America would resort to using WMD and it would mercilessly bomb civilian infrastructure just like it did in Iraq and Yugoslavia, conflicts from which Iran has drawn many lessons.  The Yugos showed how to defeat hi-tech weaponry with basic methods and Iraq showed what not to do - never even give an inch to an enemy who knows nothing but violence as a means to getting his ends.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=cg6uuDAvGb0
you are right Zagros,but what about avoiding the war from the Iranian side what you think?it will be easier for the Iranian people.
"May the eyes of cowards never sleep"
Khalid Bin Walid
Back to Top
Ahmed The Fighter View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar
Lion of Babylon

Joined: 17-Apr-2005
Location: Iraq
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1106
  Quote Ahmed The Fighter Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Sep-2007 at 14:15
 Nice vedio Zagros,I saw Rajwi kissing Saddam in the video,anything about them in this vedio.
"May the eyes of cowards never sleep"
Khalid Bin Walid
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Sep-2007 at 14:39
Its never a good idea to underestimate the biggest gator in the pond. Even if a few fish got away. Or nipped his tail.(yes I know alligators don't eat fish that often but still). A conventional war is different from an insurgency, a campaign to remake a country is different from an operation with different polictical aims in mind. If the US adopts limited objectives in Iran, convince the regime to give up some of its goals, that is certainly achievable.
Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor

Suspended

Joined: 11-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8792
  Quote Zagros Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Sep-2007 at 15:42
No one is underestimating anything, I just know it is physically impossible for them to occupy any significant part of Iran, such as those you suggested, with the forces they presently have in the region.  
Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor

Suspended

Joined: 11-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8792
  Quote Zagros Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Sep-2007 at 15:54
Originally posted by Ahmed The Fighter

Originally posted by Zagros

Ahmed, in any such existential war against a ruthless and callous enemy, costs are immaterial. America would resort to using WMD and it would mercilessly bomb civilian infrastructure just like it did in Iraq and Yugoslavia, conflicts from which Iran has drawn many lessons.  The Yugos showed how to defeat hi-tech weaponry with basic methods and Iraq showed what not to do - never even give an inch to an enemy who knows nothing but violence as a means to getting his ends.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=cg6uuDAvGb0
you are right Zagros,but what about avoiding the war from the Iranian side what you think?it will be easier for the Iranian people.
 
I am speaking from a purely military perspective, the fundamentalist elements in the Iranian regime have never been good to the Iranian people and the only thing on their mind is maintaining their stranglehold on power: something the US has made a hell of a lot easier for them in recent years providing the perfect pretext for the suppression of voices of freedom, moderation and reason.
 
Glad you liked it - when it shows Rajavi the lyrics "khar be cheshme doshman, mihan foroosh" (literally: barb in the eyes of enemies and homeland sellers) are uttered.  The Rajavis are now wanted by interpol after being indicted by the Iraqi courts in theirpart in massacring Kurds and Shii in 1991.  They have been given refuge in Jordan.


Edited by Zagros - 08-Sep-2007 at 15:58
Back to Top
vulkan02 View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Termythinator

Joined: 27-Apr-2005
Location: U$A
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1835
  Quote vulkan02 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Sep-2007 at 16:00
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

Alot of our top Generals resigned when we went to Iraq, and Admirals and Generals have said they will resign if we go into Iran. Our Military leadership is in shambles, but there are alot of critical young officers, who are our future that are very critical in the way operations have been done and are done now by the current leadership.
One thing that our military leadership relearned and the young officers have stressed in interviews, blogs, and comments are that in these kinds of wars, you have to protect the Civilian centers and not fight the convential war of just plan out destroying the enemies military. So if we attack Iran, while there will be bombings in such, there will be less of it compared to the Iraq war. Civilians are the key to defeating the insurgency, and to keep civilians on your side, there are alot of objectives that have to be done. So, no, I don't think there will be a "Genocidal" war that would happen.


The top leadership, required to implement the attack, has and is being reshuffled.
Also a less intense bombing than Iraq is not likely. If the US is going to attack Iran, the speculation is that the attack will be much more massive than the bombing of Iraq because like most members have concluded, a ground attack is almost impossible because US doesn't have that local capability with Iraq continuing to drag. (or willing to risk it  anyway)

The attack will most likely be of a magnitude that the influence of the Iranian state will be severely reduced to just another oil-rich failed state in the region. The only thing that might reduce such attack is international response but the Bush administration will probably not gamble on it and give Iranians the chance to strike back.

Such a military intervention is detailed (from the report):

Major US attacks on military and related civilian targets:
1. 1000-2,500 cruise missiles and strike sorties
2. Hit all suspect facilities for nuclear, missile, BW, and C4IBM, and potentially technology base
targets including universities, dual use facilities.
3. Either strike extensively at Iranian capabilities for asymmetric warfare and to threaten tanker
traffic, facilities in the Gulf, and neighboring states or threaten to do so if Iran should deploy for
such action.
4. Would require a major portion of total US global assets. Need to combine B-2s, other bombers,
and carrier-based aircraft and sea-launched cruise missiles. Would need land base(s) in Gulf for
staging, refueling, and recovery. Staging out of Diego Garcia would be highly desirable.
5. Would probably take several weeks to two months to fully execute and validate.
6. Goal would be 70-80%-plus of most costly and major CBRN, missile and other delivery systems,
key conventional air and naval strike assets, and major military production facilities critically
damaged or destroyed.
7. Hit at all high value targets recognized by IAEA and EU3 to show credibility to Iran, minimize
international criticism, but also possible sites as well.
8. Strike at all known new sites and activities to show Iran cannot secretly proceed with, or expand
its efforts, unless hold back some targets as hostages to the future.
9. Hitting hard and underground targets could easily require multiple strikes during mission, and
follow-on restrikes to be effective.
10. Impact over time would probably be crippling, but Iran might still covertly assemble some nuclear
device and could not halt Iranian biological weapons effort.
11. Battle damage would be a significant problem, particularly for large buildings and underground
facilities.
12. Size and effectiveness would depend very heavily on the quality of US intelligence and suitability
of given ordnance, as well as the time the US sought to inflict a given effect.
13. Much of Iran's technology base would still survive; the same would be true of many equipment
items, even in facilities hit with strikes. Some impact, if any, on pool of scientists and experts.
14. Iranian response in terms of proliferation could vary sharply and unpredictably: Deter and delay
vs. mobilize and provoke.
15. Such a series of strikes might be enough of a deterrent to change Iranian behavior, particularly if
coupled to the threat of follow on strikes in the future. It still, however, could as easily produce
only a cosmetic Iranian change in behavior at best. Iran might still disperse its program even more,
and shift to multiple, small, deep underground facilities.
16. Might well provoke Iran to implement (more) active biological warfare program.
17. An oil embargo might be serious.
18. Iranian government could probably not prevent some elements in Iranian forces and intelligence
from seeking to use Iraq, Afghanistan, support of terrorism, and Hezbollah to hit back at the US
and its allies if it tried; it probably would not try.
19. International reaction would be a serious problem, and far greater than strikes that could be clearly
associated with Iran's efforts to proliferate.

Again this is the most serious (excluding tactical nuclear weapons) strike being studied but there are plenty of indications why it might be implemented.



The beginning of a revolution is in reality the end of a belief - Le Bon
Destroy first and construction will look after itself - Mao
Back to Top
Justinian View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar
King of Númenor

Joined: 11-Nov-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1399
  Quote Justinian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Sep-2007 at 16:41
God I hope not.  It seems to me we would just be leaving one mess and moving on to create another.  The Hammer analogy is an excellent one.  If we keep acting like this we'll end up one of the most intensely disliked nations in recent history, as though we all ready aren't.  We should do more diplomatically and re-connect with our european friends.
 
In regards to invading Iran conventionally, I don't see that as anything but delusional.  Where would the manpower come from?  The news is constantly discussing withdrawing troops from Iraq and sending them home.  I don't think it would go over well if they were simply transferred to another battlefront.
 
As an aside has anyone heard anything on a possible re-implementation of the draft?  I have had several people mention this to me, but I can't believe the government would be stupid enough to do that.  Personally I think that would be the worst possible move politically. 


Edited by Justinian - 08-Sep-2007 at 16:47
"War is a cowardly escape from the problems of peace."--Thomas Mann

Back to Top
Gharanai View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Afghan Empire

Joined: 26-Jan-2006
Location: Afghanistan
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1515
  Quote Gharanai Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Sep-2007 at 17:03
I would be amazed to see USA attacking Iran as the result would be the same as that happens to a person putting all ten fingers in mouth or more literally the same outcome as of Soviet Union.
Its own people and militray are already asking the government why did they attack Iraq and now doing this will just cause a sort of a rebillion within US.
 
On the otherside speaking of military terms, I don't think they could affoard a war with the deciplined and very passionate and morally high Army of Iran, while still they are dealing with insurgence in Iraq and Afgahnistan.
 
What do they think that they will attack Iran and the story will happily end for ever, no I don't think so.
     +Attacking from Iraq while cause a great turmoil within Iraq causing a back fire and they would be just caught in between where in the front would be the Iranian forces and at back the insurgents.
 
     +Attacking from Afghanistan won't be able as right now they don't have any control of the south (most of the Iran bordered region) and in the mean while if they try to move to south in full force again a back fire would be their from east and north as the north is still very much loyal to Russians and would really look for a run to power in case they run out the Americans.
 
     +Now the only think that comes to mind and which I guess could happen would be an air invasion, meaning American bombers will try to attack targets with the back support of their missiles and navy. That could be the only way one may think that they will choose as they don't have any other card on hand.
 
Meanwhile I don't really think that Russia and China will tolerate such an action as well as it is a one step more toward Russia and Central Asian countries (most of whom are trade partners of China).
 
The only negetive point to the government of Iran is its own population, most of whom aren't really found of the government and their hearts could easily be won by the GREAT US MEDIA showing them dreams of liberalism, modernism and freedom of speech and all those other crubs.


Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 5>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.109 seconds.