So when do we invade Iran?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Vince278
As will selective reading (and being in a selective reality).

The problem is, I actually read the whole FAS piece. Again, selective bolding no good.

Forgotten the Osirak raid @1981 already?

Yes, I generally forget what is utterly irrelevant, given that in 1981 the Saudis did not have F-15's, AWACS, patriot missiles, nor advanced C3 capabilities. On top of which the strike was done by a small number of aircraft as opposed to the dozens of sorties minimum which would be needed to make an attack against a far more widespread and diffused, pluis more advance nuclear program.

In potential but not in reality. Can you name some independant examples of the accomplishments of their AWACS and aircraft?

Yes, the Gulf War.

Better question is, can you name any success by the IDF against an air defense system with AWACS capabilities, and modern anti-air defense missiles? Woops, you can't. Its hypocritical then to demand Saudi success when the most you can point to is Israeli trouncing of soviet equiped and trained Egyptian and Syrian airforces, now isn't it?

Ask yourself why the Israelis threw such a fit when the US decided to sell SA AWACS.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Joseph
I would not believed all of that crap. The F-15 has shot down every plane that has tried to take out the F-15. Until one is lost in battle I will go with the F-15.

HELLO!

BOTH the Israelis and Saudis have F-15's.

That is actually the point of the discussion.

But the difference is one F-15 will be over home base, backed by SAM's, defending, while the others are far from their final targets, en route, and attacking.

[Joseph]

Originally posted by Vince278



Same here, though I retired after 20 years of service.

Good job. I did 3, 1, and 13 day in uniform. Wanted to say in, but I wife of 4 mo. said no, but you can work for them, so I did. 30, 4, and some days.
I would had 37 but they close my base when I was only 51.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Joseph
I'm going with you on this for this reason. I have an book Atlas of the World. On page 94 there is a map of the ME. It looks like Tel Aviv is just under a 1,000 mile from Tehran in a straight line. The max range of an F-15C with fuel tanks is 3656 miles. If you go with the tanks, you reduce bombs big time. If you drop the tanks range drops big time. Plus the F-15C is a fighter and not a bomber.
They also have the F-16 which is a bomber and a fighter.
But with 6 1,000 lbs bombs, the range is only 340 miles. You could drop 4 of the bombs, but than you would need a large number of F-16s and that would be much harder to hide. If they have a tanker, that would make it a lot eaiser.
But there another problem. If a large group of aircraft took off and headed to the Red Sea, every one is the area would hear them and Iran would soon know that they were coming. I suppect that Iran had more than one spies in the area.
I'm not saying they cannot do it, but is going to very hard for them.
Maybe we can give/sell them a carrier for a dollar or two.

Thank you for helping me make my point as to the limits of IDF strike capabilities against Iran. You can add that Iran is a vast country, so there are parts of its programs hundreds of miles EAST of Tehran, menaing the Israelis are even less capable of being able to have aircraft that can reach.

[Vince278]

Originally posted by GePap

Forgotten the Osirak raid @1981 already?

Yes, I generally forget what is utterly irrelevant, given that in 1981 the Saudis did not have F-15's, AWACS, patriot missiles, nor advanced C3 capabilities. On top of which the strike was done by a small number of aircraft as opposed to the dozens of sorties minimum which would be needed to make an attack against a far more widespread and diffused, pluis more advance nuclear program.

Yes, the Gulf War.

Better question is, can you name any success by the IDF against an air defense system with AWACS capabilities, and modern anti-air defense missiles? Woops, you can't. Its hypocritical then to demand Saudi success when the most you can point to is Israeli trouncing of soviet equiped and trained Egyptian and Syrian airforces, now isn't it?

Ask yourself why the Israelis threw such a fit when the US decided to sell SA AWACS.

I really can't comment any further except to say you are wrong on a number of points. Everyone will have to accept that you don't know what you are talking about and leave it at that.

[Geronimo]

ok, lots more discussion about an israeli airstrike against Iran and about a US ground invasion of Iran. But as I asked in my (ignored?) post about 15 posts back, what if Bush were to try to repeat the strategy Clinton used in Serbia and attack Iran wholly via a massive air campaign with no effort to occupy any of the country at all?

Would this push the iranians into an invasion of Iraq and would such an invasion make the defat of the iranian military far easier than would be the case of an invasion of Iran?

Would the air campaign simply last indefinately with no capitulation by Iran and no early end to the air campaign?

Could Iran continue to pursue nuclear weapons while under such a prolonged air assault?

Would the diplomatic repercussions be any different for a massive prolonged air assault against Iran vs a ground assault?

Would Iran be any more dangerous with respect to terrorism as a failed state (following a devastating air assault with no occupation) than it is currently (daily mass death to America rallies and all)?

I find myself beginning to suppose that if Bush opts for a military response to nuclear weapons development in Iran he surely won't contemplate a ground invasion and he probably couldn't even if he wanted to, and he has no reason to expect anything from a single days commitment of air or cruise missle strikes. A prolonged air assault ala serbia seems the only military option that might get considered and yet so far discussion continues to center on small airstrike events like isreal launched against Iraq and Clinton launched on AQ camps in afghanistan or on massive ground invasions with a nation building effort to follow.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Vince278


I really can't comment any further except to say you are wrong on a number of points. Everyone will have to accept that you don't know what you are talking about and leave it at that.

Yeah, that wins you point in terms of credibility:

"I can't say anything else, you are just wrong..."

[GePap]

Originally posted by Geronimo
ok, lots more discussion about an israeli airstrike against Iran and about a US ground invasion of Iran. But as I asked in my (ignored?) post about 15 posts back, what if Bush were to try to repeat the strategy Clinton used in Serbia and attack Iran wholly via a massive air campaign with no effort to occupy any of the country at all?

Would this push the iranians into an invasion of Iraq and would such an invasion make the defat of the iranian military far easier than would be the case of an invasion of Iran?

Would the air campaign simply last indefinately with no capitulation by Iran and no early end to the air campaign?

Could Iran continue to pursue nuclear weapons while under such a prolonged air assault?

Would the diplomatic repercussions be any different for a massive prolonged air assault against Iran vs a ground assault?

Would Iran be any more dangerous with respect to terrorism as a failed state (following a devastating air assault with no occupation) than it is currently (daily mass death to America rallies and all)?

I find myself beginning to suppose that if Bush opts for a military response to nuclear weapons development in Iran he surely won't contemplate a ground invasion and he probably couldn't even if he wanted to, and he has no reason to expect anything from a single days commitment of air or cruise missle strikes. A prolonged air assault ala serbia seems the only military option that might get considered and yet so far discussion continues to center on small airstrike events like isreal launched against Iraq and Clinton launched on AQ camps in afghanistan or on massive ground invasions with a nation building effort to follow.

I doubt the Kosovo route would be worthwhile- Iran would have every incentive to start **** in Iraq, plus the political blowback around the ME would be bad. Besides, the Iranians could just sit it out- I believe the Serbs only began to move to comply when the threat of ground forces began to be talked about, given how politically ineffective the air campaignw as being.

The other problem is the US had some cover during the Kosovo campaign, as it was a general NATO operation- what political cover would the US have?

[Joseph]

Originally posted by Geronimo
ok, lots more discussion about an israeli airstrike against Iran and about a US ground invasion of Iran. But as I asked in my (ignored?) post about 15 posts back, what if Bush were to try to repeat the strategy Clinton used in Serbia and attack Iran wholly via a massive air campaign with no effort to occupy any of the country at all?

I think that will be the case. Air strike and cruise missiles.

Would this push the iranians into an invasion of Iraq and would such an invasion make the defat of the iranian military far easier than would be the case of an invasion of Iran?

They could try, but our guys would kill them by the thousands.

Would the air campaign simply last indefinately with no capitulation by Iran and no early end to the air campaign?

Yes

Could Iran continue to pursue nuclear weapons while under such a prolonged air assault?

I think not.

Would the diplomatic repercussions be any different for a massive prolonged air assault against Iran vs a ground assault?

Would Iran be any more dangerous with respect to terrorism as a failed state (following a devastating air assault with no occupation) than it is currently (daily mass death to America rallies and all)?

I find myself beginning to suppose that if Bush opts for a military response to nuclear weapons development in Iran he surely won't contemplate a ground invasion and he probably couldn't even if he wanted to, and he has no reason to expect anything from a single days commitment of air or cruise missle strikes. A prolonged air assault ala serbia seems the only military option that might get considered and yet so far discussion continues to center on small airstrike events like isreal launched against Iraq and Clinton launched on AQ camps in afghanistan or on massive ground invasions with a nation building effort to follow.

With some change, it would be like Gulf 1 or 2. F-117 and B-2 taking out Command and Control. C. Missile taking out their missile. Remember we have Sat. Those sat have already told us were every site is. Most if not all of our stuff is guided by GPS. Also we help build most of their bases back in the Shah days.

[Joseph]

Originally posted by GePap




Yeah, that wins you point in terms of credibility:

"I can't say anything else, you are just wrong..."

Ge, this is were I can say you are wrong. Many people that serve in the Military or work for the Military may work on or go somewhere that is highly classified. Those people are required to sigh a paper when they leave/retired that they can never tell about what they did.
Case in point. When I worked at my old job, I was not suppose to even admit that I worked there. That means that if you came up to me and asked me if I did work there, I was suppose to say no. If you continual to asked, then I was required to find out as mush info on you that I could and then turn you in to NIS. Then NIS would tell me how to talk to you and what to say while they and the FBI Investigated you.

[NeOmega]

Originally posted by Joseph
Young man, I can tell you have never been a part of our Military. I sent 33 + years of my life severing in and working for those people. You really don't understand how good they are.

I understand perfectly well how good they are.

It is clear all you understand is hardware specs and training requirements.

---reading over all of your posts in this thread, you quote questions posed about intelligence, economics or geopolitics, but your answers always, always, only talk hardware.


Most of my point has nothing to do with that. I am talking geopolitics, intelligence, (which, no American intelligence in Iran is not that great, I assure you), and economics. These things the American military can do little about.

But you, typical American, come back with, "nu-hu... we got the bombs, we got f-15's an' patriot missiles and M1A1's!!! Our amry is teh 1337!"

Then people are talking of Iranian invasion of Iraq. There would be no need for an invasion. Iran could cause plenty of pain simply by being the bearer of bad news: The neo-con run America is not out for spreading democracy, they are out for world domination.

Iran could promise Southern, Central and Northern Iraq their own countries, (and probably annex southern Iraq in 20 years), that would be all they need, here come the peshmerga, here come the rest of the Iraqi population, and it is no longer an insurgency, it is full blown revolution, with the American army in a vise. Casualties in Iraq spiral into the 100's of thousands, and america has caused more deaths in Iraq than Saddam did during his 30 years.

Good job USA.

[NeOmega]

the neocon crystal ball says regime change, and spreading democracy in Iran is the only solution... that means boots on the ground.

You can read about it here, in 3 articles addressing Iran:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqmiddleeast2004.htm

how accurate is this crystal ball, to which almost every pundit and power-player in the Bush administration is a member, including Dick Cheney?

Well they predicted the Invasion of Iraq in 1998:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraq-013098.htm

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

Damn, they are good, where do they get such insight into the future?

[C0ckney]

neo, any chance of you backing up your iran nuke claims?

[Alexander's Horse]

the problem iran has is north korea was given lots of chances to change course and didn't

[Sandman]

Iran can cause a lot of trouble in Afghanistan as well, lest we forget.