Israel preparing military option to stop Iran

[rogue yam]

As I mentioned above, I believe that US squadrons in the locale would take politically unacceptable loses. Even a ratio of 5 Iranian planes (roughly the dog-fighting ratio one could expect based on the limited air contact in GW1 with the Iraqis, who had inferior avionics) downed for every one US plane would still give the US somewhere between 50-60 loses, and possibly the equivalent of highly-skilled casualties.

The U.S. would not initiate air combat if we thought our kill ratio would be as low as 5:1. However, there is no air force on Earth that can achieve this, so it is irrelevant. The Iranians would be doing quite well to wind up on the sorry end of 50:1. Most likely it would be far worse (for them). I have no idea what you are on about with your GW1 remark, but that doesn't sound like the GW1 I remember.

 

[rogue yam]

I think you mean something along the lines of open war with Iran making it both feasible and likely that you'd get revolutionary guards and Iranian special forces etc going to ground in Iraq, supported by hordes of sympathetic shiite militias and making life extremely hard for the US/UK.

It is impossible to mass ground forces in a battlespace where your enemy has 100% air superiority. This is what cluster bombs, etc., are invented for.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

It is impossible to mass ground forces in a battlespace where your enemy has 100% air superiority. This is what cluster bombs, etc., are invented for.

Who said anything about massing ground forces, go back and read the discussion dimwit.

 

[sleaterkinney]

It is impossible to mass ground forces in a battlespace where your enemy has 100% air superiority. This is what cluster bombs, etc., are invented for.

They don't need to, they can just go into iraq and do guerilla warfare and the yanks can't stop them.

 

[TAE]

By day five of OIF, U.S. forces were flying over 1000 sorties per day against Iraq. Think about that a moment. One thousand. Per day. This action was conducted almost entirely by the U.S. Navy and the U.S. Air Force, the two branches of our armed forces least involved currently in Iraq. That capacity stands ready and awaiting orders.

I think you might be a bit optimistic there. For starters, there was a long build-up prior to the war with Iraq. If you start that kind of thing with Iran, you might not get as much time to put all your chess pieces into place before the fireworks start. Also, I get the impression that the US is not as wealthy anymore as it was before the Iraq war. Lastly, I doubt whether you would get even as much support from local governments as you had against saddam.
Apart from that, yeah we know that the US can kill lots of people. It's just a bit of a shame that your government doesn't spend that money on education and hospitals at home.

 

[rogue yam]

Having had a bit of a look at Iran's alleged military capability on places like globalsecurity I get the idea that Iran's hardware is probably a bit creaky and no more likely than Saddam's was to be a more than a casual irritation for the US in most cases.

Wow! BG said something sensible! Maybe I'll go buy a Lotto ticket. Crazy things are happening today!

So I think seriously provoking them could get quite expensive for the oil industry, and hence for the global economy, if not the US military ...

If the Iranians wanted to cause a severe world-wide economic recession, they could almost certainly do so. This must be part of the calculation for military action against them. The question is, if we targeted their nuke sites only (and air defenses so as to expose the nukes) and made clear we were not set on regime change, would the Iranians go all out in response, or just accept the limited losses we doled out to them. Who knows?

 

[Bernie Gunther]

They don't need to, they can just go into iraq and do guerilla warfare and the yanks can't stop them.

Precisely, one of the three main Shia parties is closely aligned with Iran and their militias, who are probably about the most together of the Shia militias and who actually run most of the security in many southern Iraqi cities, would I'm sure happily provide house room and local legwork for a bunch of Iranian special operations nutters and a few truckloads of explosives if it came to the crunch.

 

[oi2002]

Under those circumstances though, Iran takes some trivial damage and effectively emerges the winner in propaganda terms from the point of view of their desire to be seen as the dominant muslim power in the middle east. For example, can you imagine the impact of the US letting Israel do this from the point of view of the Iraqi Shiite majority?

Well Iran's clearly on its way there anyway and I'm fairly convinced DC is about to throw in the towel on Iraq, its all going South rapidly.

We are not dealing with responsible adults here, the US is stuck in the politics of partisan shit throwing. From a Rovian perspective irrate camel jockeys don't mean squat, on the otherhand a lot of folks in the GOP base would be real happy that Dubya allowed God's own people to bomb the heathen. It's also likely the Iranians, who have stopped acting smart, will do something dumb in retaliation... and the GWOT rolls on. Congressional mid-terms in November I believe, shall we pencil in late summer???

 

[Bernie Gunther]

<snip> If the Iranians wanted to cause a severe world-wide economic recession, they could almost certainly do so. This must be part of the calculation for military action against them. The question is, if we targeted their nuke sites only (and air defenses so as to expose the nukes) and made clear we were not set on regime change, would the Iranians go all out in response, or just accept the limited losses we doled out to them. Who knows?

If you do all this posturing, then just bruise them a bit, all you are going to do is make them heroes to anyone whose opinion they actually care about, hand them a massive propaganda victory and provoke a whole bunch of Shia terrorism in Iraq, which I suggest is something you don't need.

If you do more than bruise them, they are quite capable of serious economic and terrorist retaliation and could inflict a cost that many US voters are probably not willing to pay.

 

[rogue yam]

In reality a largely symbolic punative raid is probably all that's possible even for the US, the wider consequences of bigger actions are probably as unattractive and more predictably dire than a nuclear Iran. For DC an Israeli strike would be a middle way and would play to the GOP base.

An Israeli strike probably would be insufficient for the reasons stated in the quote you gave. W, Big Time, Rummy and Condi simply don't do "symbolic". It's not in their lexicon or playbook. Opinions differ on whether any forseeable result is worse than a nuclear Iran. My understanding is that Pres. Bush has determined that a nuclear Iran is an unacceptable risk. If this is the case, then a nuclear Iran shall not come to pass.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Well Iran's clearly on its way there anyway and I'm fairly convinced DC is about to throw in the towel on Iraq, its all going South rapidly.

We are not dealing with responsible adults here, the US is stuck in the politics of partisan shit throwing. From a Rovian perspective irrate camel jockeys don't mean squat, on the otherhand a lot of folks in the GOP base would be real happy that Dubya allowed God's own people to bomb the heathen. It's also likely the Iranians, who have stopped acting smart, will do something dumb in retaliation... and the GWOT rolls on. Congressional mid-terms in November I believe, shall we pencil in late summer???

Still, nice profit margins for the defence and oil industries eh?

 

[Bernie Gunther]

An Israeli strike probably would be insufficient for the reasons stated in the quote you gave. W, Big Time, Rummy and Condi simply don't do "symbolic". It's not in their lexicon or playbook. Opinions differ on whether any forseeable result is worse than a nuclear Iran. My understanding is that Pres. Bush has determined that a nuclear Iran is an unacceptable risk. If this is the case, then a nuclear Iran shall not come to pass.

I suggest you ponder the meaning of oi's phrase 'responsible adults' I don't see any in charge in Washington.

 

[rogue yam]

They don't need to, they can just go into iraq and do guerilla warfare and the yanks can't stop them.

This they are already doing. Why do you assume they have additional such capability held in reserve? What are they waiting for?

 

[Bernie Gunther]

This they are already doing. Why do you assume they have additional such capability held in reserve? What are they waiting for?

They have no need to inflame the situation in Iraq. They're getting everything they could possibly want right now by legitimate democratic means. Thanks to the moronic policies of the 'leadership of the free world'

 

[rogue yam]

Who said anything about massing ground forces, go back and read the discussion dimwit.

Why don't you re-read the excerpt from your post that I included in my reply and then explain what you meant by the word "hordes".

 

[rogue yam]

Sure, but if you've already scattered radioactive material all over those civilians you haven't already blown up, there is rather less for them to lose by it isn't there?

As an analogy, if you lose half of your money, does each dollar that remains become less important, or more? The dictators of Iran want to remain the dictators of Iran. This is what they would have left to lose after an American strike against their nukes.

 

[sleaterkinney]

This they are already doing. Why do you assume they have additional such capability held in reserve? What are they waiting for?

You must be kidding me, do you think that those stories are anything more than a bit of spin to deflect attention away from how badly the US is doing?.

If the Iranians did get involved the insurgency would step up a couple of more notches, and the US can't handle it as it is.

 

[rogue yam]

If you start that kind of thing with Iran, you might not get as much time to put all your chess pieces into place before the fireworks start. Also, I get the impression that the US is not as wealthy anymore as it was before the Iraq war. Lastly, I doubt whether you would get even as much support from local governments as you had against saddam.

Are you so sure you know where our "chess pieces" are now? The U.S. economy is doing fine. Ignore the MSM and just look at the numbers: growth (high), productivity (high and rising), inflation (low), unemployment (low), interest rates (low), etc. Local support is more important for massive ground operations than for what we're contemplating in Iran. The locals will feign moderate outrage and do nothing. Same old same old.

 

[TAE]

The locals will feign moderate outrage and do nothing. Same old same old.

Maybe. Or maybe some islamic radicals will overthrow the Pakistani government. Or fly another plane into another building. Or do something completely unexpected. When you stirr the pot, nasty things can come to the surface. I'd be more careful.

 

[oi2002]

An Israeli strike probably would be insufficient for the reasons stated in the quote you gave. W, Big Time, Rummy and Condi simply
don't do "symbolic".

You missed my point. It's really not about stopping the Iranian program, it's just about not looking like a wimp.

On symbolic actions consider the Iraq war. The unshocking Shock N Awe of the initial assault, which was a pale shadow of Desert Storm. Fallujah#1, no military purpose, directly against Gen. Conway's counsel, aborted for political reasons. Falliujah#2: An assault delayed by a month for the US election allowing the enemy to slip away. Rummies failure to transform the tech heavy US military for grunt intensive 21st century neo-colonial operations. The kinetic big sweep operations in the western desert. I could go on, an endless list of actions that cultivated US domestic opinion rather than victory.

Look at their record, these people do mostly symbolic lite warfare and waffle like girl scouts about liberation. Lacked the nerve to chase Bin Laden into Pakistan, failed to destroy the Iraqi army in the field. I'm afraid that's the problem is these people aren't Kissinger or even Poppy Bush. They may actually be better more moral people than bad old Henry but they are plain hopeless at convincingly resolute warfare.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

You missed my point. It's really not about stopping the Iranian program, it's just about not looking like a wimp.

On symbolic actions consider the Iraq war. The unshocking Shock N Awe of the initial assault, which was a pale shadow of Desert Storm. Fallujah#1, no military purpose, directly against Gen. Conway's counsel, aborted for political reasons. Falliujah#2: An assault delayed by a month for the US election allowing the enemy to slip away. Rummies failure to transform the tech heavy US military for grunt intensive 21st century neo-colonial operations. The kinetic big sweep operations in the western desert. I could go on, an endless list of actions that cultivated US domestic opinion rather than victory.

Look at their record, these people do mostly symbolic lite warfare and waffle like girl scouts about liberation. Lacked the nerve to chase Bin Laden into Pakistan, failed to destroy the Iraqi army in the field. I'm afraid that's the problem is these people aren't Kissinger or even Poppy Bush. They may actually be better more moral people than bad old Henry but they are plain hopeless at convincingly resolute warfare.

I don't think morality enters into it except perhaps in the cloudy and deluded mind of GW himself. I think it's all about providing spectacle to excitable dimwits for electoral purposes and pandering to the sordid needs of their financial backers. From a strategic point of view, almost everything they've done has been quite ludicrously stupid, wrong and counterproductive.

If Norman Dixon is still around, I'm sure he's now got the material for a second volume of his great work, The Psychology of Military Incompetence

 

[Hanfstaengl]

The cat was let out of the bag long ago, the nuclear bomb is no longer the preserve of the judeo christian industrialists and the Asian are not going to give it back. The US knows this and all the business about Iran and the bomb is nonsense, the real problem is Irans position relative to Russia and China. Russia dominates the region physically and looks in a good position to roll into the middle eastern oilfields just like they were always feared to. My eyes the way Russia and China move in.

 

[ViolentPanda]

By day five of OIF, U.S. forces were flying over 1000 sorties per day against Iraq. Think about that a moment. One thousand. Per day. This action was conducted almost entirely by the U.S. Navy and the U.S. Air Force, the two branches of our armed forces least involved currently in Iraq. That capacity stands ready and awaiting orders. Iranian air defenses and nuke sites simply will not exist after a week or two of such an assault, if that long.

A few points:

Go and check the definition of "sortie" the US military uses, you'll find that it doesn't mean "a squadron-sized air attack" or "a bombing raid", it means "a single mission", that includes recon, bombing, air cover, the works.

"will not exist". If you're basing this comment on Iraq then you'll be sorely disappointed. Iran has a good proportion of it's air power bunkered, something Iraq were unable to do substantially because of local geology (meaning that where they did bunker it was usually in concrete). This meant that the coalition air forces in GW1 were able to neutralise much of the Iraqi air force "on the ground" rather than in the air.

You also appear to be labouring under the impression that your seaborne aircraft platforms (the acknowledgedly weakest link in your assault chain) won't be under attack that prevents their use.

Thing is, the guys with the power over your military have little tactical and strategic experience, and the guys that do, don't get listened to. Rummy fucked up in Iraq, with his preposterous "cakewalk" fantasy, and if he's allowed to set the agenda for an assault on Iran he'll fuck up again. He's a politician and an ideologue, and the guys who know how to fight are pragmatists, with ne'er the twain meeting.

 

[ViolentPanda]

The Iranians have been throwing everything that they've got at us since 1979. When the payback comes, it will be a bitch.

Don't be ridiculous, the Iranians have barely breathed in the US's direction.

If you and your political ilk are trying to build up a "hate-on" against the Iranians at least be honest about the situation: It's because they made some US pols look like the sheep they are back in the '70s, and they dared kick the raddled old arse of your proxy Reza Pahlavi.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Any such mission that carries a return address would be very costly for them.

Your reply shows just how far you "don't get it".

The whole idea of guerrilla operations, of "sneak 'n' strike", is encapsulated in that phrase the CIA gave us, "plausible deniability". Your own nation has used it to such great effect that (unsurprisingly) other nations believe it is a rather good wheeze.

 

[ViolentPanda]

The U.S. would not initiate air combat if we thought our kill ratio would be as low as 5:1. However, there is no air force on Earth that can achieve this, so it is irrelevant. The Iranians would be doing quite well to wind up on the sorry end of 50:1. Most likely it would be far worse (for them). I have no idea what you are on about with your GW1 remark, but that doesn't sound like the GW1 I remember.

Which doesn't say much for your memory.

Here's the maths:

Subtract the volume of Iraqi aircraft destroyed on the ground by bombing raids from the total Iraqi air strength. Match what you have left to the volume of US and other coalition member's losses in air combat.

There's your ratio.

Now just because some of your press (and chickenhawk idiots) count the aircraft destroyed on the ground as dogfight kills, that doesn't make them so.

 

[ViolentPanda]

This they are already doing. Why do you assume they have additional such capability held in reserve? What are they waiting for?

If you don't grasp the reason then you understand little if anything about military strategy and tactics.

Kinda like Rummy, really.

 

[rogue yam]

Subtract the volume of Iraqi aircraft destroyed on the ground by bombing raids from the total Iraqi air strength. Match what you have left to the volume of US and other coalition member's losses in air combat.

There's your ratio.

You lie and are stupid. There were NO dogfight kills by Iraqi aircraft during GW1. None. I'd calculate the ratio, but I've studied math well enough to know not to divide by zero.

 

[rogue yam]

Thing is, the guys with the power over your military have little tactical and strategic experience, and the guys that do, don't get listened to.

You dream. No one on Earth has more experience than we do. The Iranians have none. We strike, they die. C'est tout.

 

[ViolentPanda]

You dream. No one on Earth has more experience than we do. The Iranians have none. We strike, they die. C'est tout.

Fantasy.

Your political appointees in the DoD over-rule the Pentagon brass on a daily basis. My point was about this, not about the military experience of your brass, and if you hadn't been quite so dishonest as to quote part of my reply out of context with the rest of the post you wouldn't have been able to make your anile (and incorrect) point.

Drive on, chickenhawk. You only make yourself look more and more foolish.