Attack Iran?!

[PropStop]

So here's the link to the CNN story. I know, I know, CNN, what do they know. Never the less, lots of people read/watch CNN and take it for gospel.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/01/16/hersh.iran/index.html

I think anyone who talked to this report should be held for treason. Even if it is a bad idea (I'm not debating that right now), you just don't do that. Such actions may prompt Iran to do something stupid or cause the deaths of US service men. This really pisses me off!

 

[petescheu]

Ahhh stupid liberal media reporters... what would we ever do without them and their incessant need to try and sell papers?

 

[VarmintShooter]

What's the big deal? We've got more reservists ... right? <sarcasm>

Could it be a controlled leak as sort of a scare tactic? Just a thought anyway.

 

[Red2]

The reporter, Seymour Hersh, has a fairly good track record with breaking stories like this one. He broke My Lai in 1969 and Abu Ghraib last year. I used his book, The Price of Power: Kissinger in the Nixon White House, as one of my secondary sources for my Masters thesis. While I disagree with his political leanings, I respect him as a journalist and a historian. If this is an intentional leak by the Bush administration, I doubt that Hersh would be their go-to-guy given his liberal background. Hersh would not allow himself to be used in such a way to further the administration's policies, thereby tarnishing his reputation among his fellow liberals. Also, I don't believe that he would report a story like this unless he had a reliable source; I don't think this is another Rather-gate.

I think this leak came from someone in the Pentagon who wants to prevent a military operation in Iran and is using the media to generate a public outcry against it before the United States is fully committed. There have been rumblings of a split between senior military officials and the civilian leadership; I wouldn't be surprised if this is a manifestation of that split.

 

[Brett327]

How about enforcing some of these people's non-disclosure agreements?

Brett

 

[A4sForever]

Maybe the IAF will do it for UNCLE ???

No suprise there --- the IDF, like the US, has contingencies and has "wargamed" Iran. Remember Osiriak? I do not think the Israelis can or will allow the Iranians to develop an actual weapon. So the Iranians have moved all their facilities underground, you say? Perhaps, but you have got to believe the Mossad provides the best intel in the region as to their location(s).

The 25+ F-15Is operational since 1999 (and the 100+ F-16Is) were procured first and foremost to deal with the Iranian threat. In August 2003 the Israeli Air Force demonstrated its strategic ability to strike far-off targets such as Iran (which is 1,300 kilometers away), by flying three F-15I's to Poland -- 1,600 nautical miles away. After they celebrated the Polish Air Force's 85th birthday --- on their return trip --- the IAF warplanes staged a fly-over of the Auschwitz death camp. A very nice touch ....

The Israeli F-16I Soufa/Sufah (Storm/Thunderstorm), compliments Israel's deterrent strategy by further strengthening the IAF's potential to carry out pre-emptive long-range strikes throughout the Middle East. The Soufa's extended flight range reportedly allows Israel to attack targets well within Iran --- without having to refuel. Some have offered the interpretation that the 'I' in the F-16I, stands for Iran (of course, it actually stands for Israel).

I read a report in Sep/Oct '04 that the Israelis are purchasing a couple of thousand PGM add-on "kits" and 500 "bunker-buster" PGM's from the U.S. -- suposedly to include GBU-28's. The newest Israeli F-15I Ra’am (Thunder) advertises a 4500km range and can carry GBU-28's. So does a large purchase of "bunker" PGM's mean that the IDF is getting closer to "GO"?

Predictably, there will be howls of outrage from the UN and other world(ly) governments should the IDF pull the trigger --- with or without the US in attendance. Conversely, there will be some serious repercussions if the Iranians get a deliverable nuclear weapon. The Jews have learned hard lessons about survival and I sometimes wonder if we could learn a lesson or two from them -- about survival.

International reactions? Well, let's see .... The Muslim world already hates Israel. What are the Muslims going to do? Hate the Jews more? --no change there.

The duplicitous Europeans will scream "Mon Dieux" and "Mein Gott" publicly---and then breathe a sigh of relief privately -- no change there.

We sell Israel some weapons and they do some "dirty work" for us --- no real change there, either.

 

[Flash]

A4sFroever, I have said much of the following in a previous post about attacking Iran.

http://www.airwarriors.com/forum/showthread.php?t=8925&highlight=attack+iran

In order for the F-15I's and F-16I's to get to Iran they would have to fly though American controlled airspace, either the Persian Gulf after Saudi Arabia or Iraq. Basically, we would have to let them strike Iran. An action like this would inflame world opinion in the world, especially the Middle East, to even new heights, especially after Germany, France and teh UK made a deal with the Iranians. Not a great help to us right now.

You mentioned Osirak and the fact that Iran has hardened facilities. Everything I have read in open reporting suggests that Iran has spread its facilities around their country (and it is a pretty big country), some in hardened targets. As for the hardened targets, who says the bunker busters they bought are going to punch through the bunkers they built? They can watch the news and see what happened to the Iraq's bunkers and the ones in Serbia. While we were able to take out most of the Iraqi facilities, some of the Serbian ones were never destroyed. The Serbs flew some MiG-21's out of one bunker that had been hit several times by bunker busters. You couldn't destroy Cheyenne Mountain with anything short of a nuke. While the Mossad might know where they are, that doesn't mean they will be able to destroy them. Don't underestimate the Iranians.

One point that Seymour Hersh brings up in his interview "Hersh said U.S. officials believe that a U.S. attack on Iran might provoke an uprising by Iranians against the hard-line religious leaders who run the government". I know that some people might think that, but I think they are wrong http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3758762.stm and this is not the only article I have seen on this. For the ordinary guy on the street in Tehran, why shouldn't the Iranians have nukes? Israel has them.

Lets clean up Iraq first before we start trying to fix other countries in the middle east.

 

[skidkid]

There is a signifigant chance that a more moderate group will take power in Iran either by revolution or other means. There is a whole genration tired of seeing girls get stoned to death for their first kiss and want to play with the rest of the world.
BUT, even a more moderate Iran with a nuclear weapon is not a good thing.
A strike by either the US or Israel may let the hardliners discredit teh moderates and say "see we told told you they were the great satan"
Having seen Iranian hostility personally along the border (no I wont elaborate more..sorry) I dont think the moderates have much sway right now so a precisoin strike may be necessary

 

[Brett327]

Iran

I had a skipper (former A-6 BN) a few years back who had some pretty amazing stories to tell about the brief conflict in the mid 80s w/ Iran. Stories that included taking down oil facilities and patrol craft in the Straights of Hormuz w/ CBUs. Good times!

Brett

 

[Jolly Roger]

There is a signifigant chance that a more moderate group will take power in Iran either by revolution or other means. There is a whole genration tired of seeing girls get stoned to death for their first kiss and want to play with the rest of the world.
BUT, even a more moderate Iran with a nuclear weapon is not a good thing.
A strike by either the US or Israel may let the hardliners discredit teh moderates and say "see we told told you they were the great satan"
Having seen Iranian hostility personally along the border (no I wont elaborate more..sorry) I dont think the moderates have much sway right now so a precisoin strike may be necessary

I agree with Skid, the best way to handle Iran is to arm abd push the resistance and revolutionary groups into action, then give them all the support that they need including airsupport and special forces once they make their move. There is no need for the US to get involved in a ground war there, given how ripe Iran is for internal revolution. The key with Iran is to aid the Iranians in the overthrow, but let them do most of the fighting. Something along the lines of OEF in Afghanistan I think would work.

 

[nittany03]

Nice to see where this reporter has his priorities, padding his reputation with his liberal cohorts by potentially putting those in uniform at risk. As if this nation is in any position to invade anymore countries right now, anyway. We've got enough problems already. I'm told that once upon a time, before a little thing called Watergate, reporters were generally content to report the news, without having to bring down the status quo for style points. But who knows; I wasn't around then . . .

I'm reminded of Theodore Roosevelt: "The men with the muck-rakes are often indispensable to the well-being of society; but only if they know when to stop raking the muck."

 

[A4sForever]

In order for the F-15I's and F-16I's to get to Iran .... we would have to let them strike Iran..... An action like this would inflame world opinion in the world, especially the Middle East, to even new heights ...

You mentioned Osirak and the fact that Iran has hardened facilities ... while the Mossad might know where they are, that doesn't mean they will be able to destroy them. Don't underestimate the Iranians.

Lets clean up Iraq first before we start trying to fix other countries in the middle east.

Flash: While I agree with basically 100% of your comments, I am going to take a little harder line when assessing the challenges:

1. What would be "news" about us "letting" the IDF take out the Iranian nuke program? We have let the Jews carry our water in the Middle East ever since WW2. It is only recently that we have got involved directly.

Revisit:

• June 3rd-4th, 1976 - Operation "Jonathan" - The rescue of Israeli hostages held in Entebbe, Uganda.
• June 7th, 1981 - Bombing "Osirak" - Destruction of the Iraqi nuclear plant near Baghdad
• October 1st 1985 eight Israeli F-15s made their way across the Mediterranean to strike at the PLO headquarters in Tunis in retaliation of the murder of three Israeli citizens in Larnaka, Cyprus. In the IAF's longest range attack ever, the F-15s, refuelled in flight by Boeing 707s, flew 2040km to their targets, and destroyed the buildings located on the Tunisian beachfront.

This is only a partial list --- and in each instance, the IDF got the job done while operating in "other folks" airspace. In each of these instances we either knew in advance or concurred in the outcome. As you know, probably better than I, in most cases the IDF works hand-in-glove with the US military in the Middle East. It's because of that close cooperation that the Jews held back when Saddam sent Scuds into Israel in Gulf One.

2. Inflame world opinion ... to new(er) heights !!?? I don't think "W" and his Neo-Cons care as much about "world opinion" as you might think --- certainly not as much as H.W. Bush or Clinton did, or Kerry would have ...... I know I don't; it always costs too many American lives. Please don't think me an oaf, but really, who cares? Our "friends" will stick with us out of their own self-interest -- the rest won't. That's REAL politics. The Middle East has been ruled by the "gun" or its historical equivalent since the beginning of time. How can "they" hate us or the Jews any more than "they" already do ... ? When survival is at stake (i.e., Israel, ultimately US?) , you do what you have to do ... talk comes later. I flew with some IAF A4 drivers --- they were deadly serious regarding their purpose in life and I suspect so are their sons who drive the F15Is and F16Is today ....

3. Hardened targets too hard? Striking them all -- imperfect science? No guarantees? War is hard, and it's time we understood that as a country. We did not understand this as a country during -- Korea -- Vietnam -- Gulf ONE -- the entire Cold War -- and we spent many lives for no conclusive purpose. We are still reaping the whirlwind from the politics and indecision that played center-stage in these conflicts. My policy: NEVER GO INTO A FIGHT UNLESS YOU INTEND TO WIN AND WHEN YOU DO -- GET IT DONE -- COMMIT EVERYTHING IN YOUR ARSENAL NECESSARY TO WIN.

4. Clean up Iraq first? That is where we probably part company. I see Iraq and Iran as integral parts of a larger global war. Neither can be compartmentalized and neither should be taken as an individual, separate conflict --- my opinion. WW2 would have lasted 100 years if we had approached each region as a separate problem to be finished before moving ahead. Again, just my opinion, but I think that is the biggest mistake we could make in this present conflict.

Underestimate the Iranians? No way, Jose ... I shook hands with the Shah during his visit to our ship in 1974. Nice visit, we became great buds :sleep_125 . I have trained Iranian pilots. My limo driver in Honolulu is Iranian and this GREAT SATAN :icon_rage will never turn his back on him, trust me ....

 

[A4sForever]

For the ordinary guy on the street in Tehran, why shouldn't the Iranians have nukes? Israel has them.

I forgot to answer your point: while perhaps the reasonable question, is it realistic? It doesn't matter what the Israelis have -- it really doesn't. Should these guys have nukes -- if it could be prevented?

 

[VarmintShooter]

I forgot to answer your point: while perhaps the reasonable question, is it realistic? It doesn't matter what the Israelis have -- it really doesn't. Should these guys have nukes -- if it could be prevented?

Yes, but how we see their leaders and how they do may be vastly different. I submit that most of the world feels that Bush is a scary, scary person to be in charge of our nation (and nuclear arsenal), yet we elected him.

Flash's point (I think) was that the average Iranian person on the street feels that they can trust their own leaders enough to have nukes. What we think is irrelevant to them.

Realistically, A4, you are 100% correct. Whether Israel has nukes or not shouldn't determine whether Iran gets them. On the other hand, if the Cold War Soviets got nukes and we didn't have them, we'd have thought that we were more than justified in developing them, no?

It's all about perception and comfort levels, and Iran getting nukes (or N. Korea) is well beyond my comfort level for sure, but I can still see their point.

 

[Flash]

Thanks VarmitShooter, that is pretty much what I meant.

3. Hardened targets too hard? Striking them all -- imperfect science? No guarantees? War is hard, and it's time we understood that as a country. We did not understand this as a country during -- Korea -- Vietnam -- Gulf ONE -- the entire Cold War -- and we spent many lives for no conclusive purpose. We are still reaping the whirlwind from the politics and indecision that played center-stage in these conflicts. My policy: NEVER GO INTO A FIGHT UNLESS YOU INTEND TO WIN AND WHEN YOU DO -- GET IT DONE -- COMMIT EVERYTHING IN YOUR ARSENAL NECESSARY TO WIN.

Willing to nuke a facility? I don't want to even think about it . I want to talk about the rest of your post but I am at work, at the only uclassified computer in our space. Gotta go work sooner or later :sleep_125 .