Iran Attack Plans? Think About it!

Gday from Australia ... I'm a newbie here!

Okay here is my say!

In the last week or two Tony Blair, Conalisa Rice and Queen Elizabeth 2nd have visited Australia!

No not for the Commonwealth Games ... maybe the Queen

But I seriously think they have been too Australia the convince the Australian Government to commit their Armed and Special Forces to an attack on Iran! Think About it!

There is no other reason why Tony Blair and Conalisa Rice would be visiting Australia!

Assuming the Australian government was to commit military personal against Iran the SAS would idealy suited to the conflict. I could imagn the SAS in a recon role locating targets for American air power.

I don't necessarily doubt that this was the puprose but i don't assume that anything is going down this year either.

The most viable way to start this war, if we really have to (and I don't think we're there yet based on the popular timeline of where Iran's nuclear program now stands and what it has yet to accomplish) is to either entice Iran into taking the first shot, compellingly frame Iran for taking the first shot, or work out a compromise through the UN and catch Iran breaking it.

If I felt convinced that we absolutely had to go to war with Iran, and was tasked with finding a way to do so, my plan would be as follows:

1. Organize an Iraqi group to make raids into Iran- preferably Kurds.
2. "Clamp down" on the above mentioned activity, but be ineffective.
3. Violate Iranian territorial waters and airspace and land borders with small operations in this "phony war" with the Kurds until Iran finally takes a shot at us.
4. Make a "limited retaliation" at least 20 times worse than what they did to us.
5. Let it errupt into a full blown war.

Of course... it would be a lot easier (and if you're religious, a lot less likely to get us sent to hell) to just give them enough rope to hang themselves with and wait until we can legitimately catch them red-handed with weapons grade uranium or other such undeniable evidence, but that would take two things that are only sometimes on America's side: patience and reliable intelligence.

The only thing that can likely stop this war is Republican losses in 2006/2008, and even then we might be in for a surprise- it's not as if a Democrat never started a war, and you'll rarely find anyone on a ballot who can't be bought. Even short of that, this administration may find a way to go even if they do lose the senate in November (I really doubt we'll go before then, but I'm wrong every now and then).

I see the geopolitical argument for the war. I won't pretend I'm opposed to the idea of America installing a friendly regime in Tehran, using that nation as a strategic asset, or even protecting the petro-dollar.
It's just that
1. I don't think we should unnecessarily do harm while protecting our own interests, which means that I don't presume in favor of military means.
2. I doubt our capability to enduringly achieve any of the above through military means based on how Iraq has gone.
3. Even if I were completely Machiavellian (and from time to time I can be accused of coming close) I would have to conclude that we'd probably hurt ourselves more than we'd help ourselves in the process of pursuing those goals

Long story short- the problem with modern hawks in my opinion is that war is not so much a means as an end sometimes. Yeah fine, aggressively further our interests (don't automatically translate aggressively to violently), but could the defense contractors maybe spare a few bucks if it has the potential to save lives on both sides, as well as the domestic and international credibility of the US Government?

But yeah... as I started out saying- they probably were going there to pitch the war, or if we're lucky, to figure out how to handle the war we're already in, but if they're still trying to bring the Aussies on board I think it backs my belief that we're not ready to go this year.

Originally posted by The Vagabond
I see the geopolitical argument for the war. I won't pretend I'm opposed to the idea of America installing a friendly regime in Tehran, using that nation as a strategic asset, or even protecting the petro-dollar.

The problem is that friendy regimes go bad in other words when they dont suit the US agenda anymore there is trouble.
Saddam is the perfect example of this.

[edit on 26-3-2006 by xpert11]

As I said, I'm not convinced that we can enduringly accomplish those goals.

What went wrong with Saddam though, in my humble opinion, was not so much a matter of him turning on us as a matter of him never being on our side.

Saddam was playing both sides against the middle in the cold war in the name of Pan Arabism, probably because of some kind of misunderstanding of how Russia handled the runup to WWII and came out so well despite being so under-dogged at the outset.

He probably thought that the NATO and Warsaw Pact would eventually come to blows and that he could stay out of it until one side was clearly going to win, then open a second front for whoever had the upper hand, either against Turkey or Iran and the Caucasus, then when the dust settled he could drop an Iron Curtain from the Med to Caspian and start consolidating power over his neighbors. He was a Stalin man afterall.

When a guy is only looking for a one night stand there aren't many ways to rope him in for good. We might have been better never to have fed that particular monster so much. Working together with Russia to stop the Iraq-Iran war would have been far more beneficial that backing that war, and it would have saved Kuwait a lot of headaches. The attack on Kuwait was basically a face-saving move after he'd been embarrassed and indebted by the war with Iran.

On the other hand, if he'd actually beaten Iran, even that would have made history substantially different. It wouldn't have made things any easier on the Iraqi people and it could have meant future trouble with Iraq over the oil, but Saddam would have been best buddies with Bush 41 and there'd be a very powerful secular government in the middle east with a lot of economic ties to America- definately a card to play in the Palestinian question.

The aftermath of going after Iran and having that government go bad might look more like Panama or Afghanistan

You have voted The Vagabond for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.

Thats all I have to say concerning The Vagabond last post.
Cheers Xpert11.

The Kurds won't wanna have anything to do with an attack on Iran and either will anyone else, no matter what happens at the SC, US would have to go alone and use Iraqi territory immediatly escualating the conflict there, Mqtada Al-Sadr recently said while visiting Syria that his Mhdi Army will start launching attacks on US Forces in Iraq (well, more attacks) if the US attacks Iran or Syria and Iran would immediatly give his militia some more sophisticated shoulder launch missiles..And then launch missiles and rockets at nearby US bases in Iraq, should be no problem since Iran has more than 5000 of them, the Americans being so close..

Patriot missle batteries could take care of missiles no problem, it's the mortars that trouble the US bases.

I think the USA would commit troops to Iran if needed, but not as many as Iraq. However I think the talks with Ms. Rice were related to China as opposed to Iran.

Originally posted by yeoldehomer
Patriot missle batteries could take care of missiles no problem, it's the mortars that trouble the US bases.

I think the USA would commit troops to Iran if needed, but not as many as Iraq. However I think the talks with Ms. Rice were related to China as opposed to Iran.

Mortars really do not do that much damage, especially when the bases are located in deserts it should be quite easy to locate these mortar teams.

The main concern is the attitude of the Iranian people and soldiers. They really won't be as easy to overrun as the Iraqi soldiers.

Besides, the poor people support the government in contrast to the inhabitants with an average or high income.

The missiles really aren't what worry me for the most part. Seersuckers couldn't hit the broad side of a barn last time they were fired at us, and the ballistics can be shot down.

The SS-22s are a bigger problem for naval access, we'd have to find and destroy those quickly.

The determination of the Iranian people bothers me not a bit, because the will to fight isn't what kills- it's ability.

The insurgents bother me a little, but only because I don't think the US is going to play it smart. Personally, if this has to happen, and I repeat just for the sake of humanity that it might not have to happen at all, my advice would be to cut off water, power, and road access to force evacuations of the cities and relocate civilians away from front and major routes of suppy and communication, thereby taking the insurgents out of the fight, if granted in a very heavy-handed way.

The terrain in Iran simplifies defense and enhances the effectiveness of artillery- that's what bothers me most. I'd be very worried about simply throwing a few mechanized divisions at the Zagros range and planning to be in Tehran in 4 days- We'd make it, but we'd bleed for it.

I'd plan this war to be fought for a month or two, not 4 days.
I'd stand off and hammer them with airpower and artillery for a good little while, push armor down their southern coast, and rely on Special Operations Forces to help target my artillery and play hell with their logistics.
Once I'd made a good dent in their artillery, I'd air assault in combination with a mechanized attack to clear the passes. Even still I'd expect a few hundred casualties on the way in- maybe over a thousand if we did a bad job on their artillery.

The other option, which lends itself to serious problems for Pakistan and Afghanistan, would be to hit them from two sides- move a large force into Afghanistan via Pakistan cross a desert instead of a mountain range- but then you're looking at a possible coup in Pakistan and if it's badly timed, having to either rush an invasion of Southern Iran and Western Pakistan, or else handle all of yoru logistics through the air- neither of those is very appealing.

Behind door number three, and probably the most humane option, if not the most advantageous, bomb Iran's nuclear program to dust and try to orchestrate a revolution there- but unlike the bay of pigs fiasco, be prepared to give them the full backing of the US by air and special operations.
When the dust settles though, you can expect anarchy, so you'll have to hammer out a compromise for a non-hostile UN relief mission, and the compromise would have to involve giving up a lot of money and influence, and maybe even letting the oil bourse stand.


As for the Kurds:
The Kurds, like any nationalist group, will do what they're told for a very short period of time if you promise them enough. All we've got to do is leave Northern Iraq to them for a while and let them think they're being taken off the leash, and then with enough money and support they probably could be taken in as pawns against Iran.

It's a pretty messed up idea- I'm not saying we should; I'm just saying that if I were one of the architects of Iraq, this is how I'd be thinking in terms of Iran. It's gives us a mild legitimacy boost at home and in friendly nations such as the UK and Australia. It won't last long either, but all you've got to do is get the shooting started so that American and British blood shows up on Iranian hands, then there'll be enough leverage to start one more wildly unpopular war- although the perps would pay dearly in the next election.


And you've probably noticed that I'm riding 2 or 3 different horses at the same time here. That's because I'm not advocating any one course of action. I'm just kicking around what I think this administration might do (repeat Iraq for the most part) what this administration should do on a tactical level, what a better administration should do on a geopolitical and moral level, and a few other odd possibilities.
Hope I'm not coming across as too disorganized.