The Iranian strategy to defuse an attack over the nuclear issues

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
wanting to provoke a crisis (given one must come) while the US is heavily tied up in Iraq, Israel is politically paralyzed, etc hardly takes genius.

Not realising that US air power is hardly tied up in Iraq takes an unbelievable level of idiocy, however.

Unless Iran is assuming that a full-out invasion is otherwise unavoidable, none of this makes any sense.

Why the **** wouldn't the US hit Iran's nuke facilities if they were already flying sorties over Iran?

This is just dumb.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

KH put it for the cheap seats in the back row.

I have no idea what this means.

d'uh, hes agreeing with you.

[Ecthy]

I just put it in a more highbrow manner, but KH is just too stupid to understand this. This is what happens when you lack a strong political science background

[KrazyHorse]

I really couldn't tell. Was he trying to say I "hit it for six" or "knocked it out of the park" or something?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Not realising that US air power is hardly tied up in Iraq takes an unbelievable level of idiocy, however.

Unless Iran is assuming that a full-out invasion is otherwise unavoidable, none of this makes any sense.

Why the **** wouldn't the US hit Iran's nuke facilities if they were already flying sorties over Iran?

This is just dumb.

air power wont be enough. The Iranians can close the straights of Hormuz with relatively cheap short range missiles. Its simply going to be too hard to stop that without boots on the ground along the coast. Thats at least one reason the US is going along with the EU-UN sanctions strategy now.

I agree, though, that strat makes sense mainly if the Iranians see an attack on them eventually as highly likely.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
I really couldn't tell. Was he trying to say I "hit it for six" or "knocked it out of the park" or something?

no, he was saying that the guys in the orchestra seats could understand his profundity, but you translated it for the guys in seats near the roof.

[KrazyHorse]

My point is that the US is not contemplating anything beyond a very limited ground engagement (special forces raids, etc) anyway. An air pounding is all that they would realistically do. This is precisely what the Iranians will get if they try anything too blatant, so their "defusing" strategy will simply guarantee them the worst available result.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


no, he was saying that the guys in the orchestra seats could understand his profundity, but you translated it for the guys in seats near the roof.

Ahh. I don't know why I couldn't see that.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
My point is that the US is not contemplating anything beyond a very limited ground engagement (special forces raids, etc) anyway.

Ive heard folks in the "lets take Iran on NOW" camp say that. And im afraid I dont buy it. You have missiles on the coast. The Spec ops guys come in, you pull the missiles back. They hit smoke. Then they have to run, before you hit them from further inland. A coastal raid strategy, to stop the missiles, without the ability to operate in force inland to protect flanks, or to hold at least coastal areas, seems problematic to me.


Besides, assuming its only spec ops. between Afghan, and Iraq, do we really even have spec ops to spare?

[MRT144]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Dan, it's just another of those silly speculative fluff pieces which assign every country outside of the West with some sort of genius ability to plan grand strategy.

or paints the US with a complete lack of ability to plan a mediocre strategy. Do we have some current examples?

[DanS]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Did you pay attention to Lebanon? That wasnt close to putting anyone in the stone age, but the political costs were dramatic.

For the US to send Iran to the stone age over a minor naval confrontation in the Gulf is out of the question. Game over, we lose.

I don't think Lebanon is an apt analogy for a number of reasons, not least of which is that Iran has lots more expensive targets from which to extract a suitable price. Iran has exposed pressure points readily at hand.

[Sirotnikov]

I think that several very limited incidents with the US navy, or even with other local navies (saudia? kuwait?) could easily shuffle the cards without actually giving enough pretext for the US to go to war.

Especially if escorted by an unidentified terrorist attack in one of the pro-Us countries (clearly Iranian work, but unprovable).

This will scare Saudi Arabia and its allies.

On the other hand it will not be enough for the US to start war.

- not enough to convince the UN / Europe.
- not enough to convince public opinion.

Unless alot of US soldiers are killed in a way directly traceable to Iran, the democrats will merely say that the Iranians are clearly a strong player, and need to be confronted with dialogue.

[Sirotnikov]

My point is that the US is not contemplating anything beyond a very limited ground engagement (special forces raids, etc) anyway. An air pounding is all that they would realistically do. This is precisely what the Iranians will get if they try anything too blatant, so their "defusing" strategy will simply guarantee them the worst available result.

I think the Iranians can be non-blatant, and yet get away with a moral victory, and creation of much greater, deterrence and intimidation towards other gulf states, and also possibly the US itself.

[DanS]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
I think that several very limited incidents with the US navy, or even with other local navies (saudia? kuwait?) could easily shuffle the cards without actually giving enough pretext for the US to go to war.

What did you have in mind? Once the first shot is fired, all bets are off. Nobody knows what would happen after that -- neither Iran nor the US.

If the US knows it couldn't control the situation to such a fine degree, what makes Iran believe that it can?

[Perfection]

Originally posted by Victor Galis
I don't quite buy the idea that Iran could get away with attacking US ships directly.

me neither, our carriers are hella tight.