The Iranian strategy to defuse an attack over the nuclear issues

[Geronimo]

What if Iran sent a ship packed with civilians on a course that appeared to be directly headed towards a US navy vessel and ignored warnings long enough to get itself attacked?

Iran "wins" that battle so long as it's leadership doesn't mourn the loss of life and people blame the US for the consequences.

If that ship is not attacked then later, Iran sends a similar vessel packed with explosives to do the same thing. The ship seriously damages a US naval vessel and Iran "wins" by inflicting a "military defeat" on the great Satan.

The question is whether Iran would be capable of packing a ship with civilians and intentionally putting it in harms way just to test US resolve and make it look bad. I'm not sure if even they would be capable of that. Does anybody know of any confirmed cases of a government successfully using such a cynical tactic?

[Jaakko]

Originally posted by Perfection
me neither, our carriers are hella tight.

Yes, and they're powered by jingoistic hot air.

Underestimating the opponent is what morons do.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Geronimo
The question is whether Iran would be capable of packing a ship with civilians and intentionally putting it in harms way just to test US resolve and make it look bad. I'm not sure if even they would be capable of that. Does anybody know of any confirmed cases of a government successfully using such a cynical tactic?

You could at least try to be subtle...

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Darius871


You could at least try to be subtle...

Why?

If you're thinking I was trying to invite recollection of the Cole attack this is actually quite a different situation.

The vessel that attacked the Cole could not have been packed with civilians. It was much too small.

As a result of the Cole attack, the US navy would likely blow any such small ship out of the water before it could be a serious danger with little political consequence since the loss of life would be minimal.

The question is would anybody be cynical enough to try a repeat using a larger vessel that would or could potentially be packed with civilians? And if they did would the US Navy still be willing to blow it out of the water or would they be restrained by image concerns?

I'm guessing they'd blow it out of the water and if it had been packed with civilians rather than explosives this would help shore up domestic support for the Iranian government against the evil US that fires on unarmed civilian packed boats. Iran might view that as a victory and even an attractive option to exercise if their cynicism ran that deep.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by DanS
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.

A lot of those are off-limits, I believe.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Geronimo


Why?

If you're thinking I was trying to invite recollection of the Cole attack this is actually quite a different situation.

The vessel that attacked the Cole could not have been packed with civilians. It was much too small.

As a result of the Cole attack, the US navy would likely blow any such small ship out of the water before it could be a serious danger with little political consequence since the loss of life would be minimal.

The question is would anybody be cynical enough to try a repeat using a larger vessel that would or could potentially be packed with civilians? And if they did would the US Navy still be willing to blow it out of the water or would they be restrained by image concerns?

I'm guessing they'd blow it out of the water and if it had been packed with civilians rather than explosives this would help shore up domestic support for the Iranian government against the evil US that fires on unarmed civilian packed boats. Iran might view that as a victory and even an attractive option to exercise if their cynicism ran that deep.

Actually I thought you were alluding to Flight 655, not the Cole.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


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.

Any spec ops attack worth its name would be too swift for the missiles to be pulled inland.

[bipolarbear]

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.

Seriously this is like 90% assumption based on 10% fact.

[Patroklos]

In a major assault, American missiles will also be launched from submarines and underground silos in Colorado and South Dakota.

Why would we use ICBMs on Iran?

The article is pure crap because of this.

The Iranians can close the straights of Hormuz with relatively cheap short range missiles.

How many times do I have to explain why this is not the case. A few days max, maybe, is all they could do.

How successful were Iraqi coastal defense batteries at keeping us away from Kuwait and Iraq waters in 91?

Its simply going to be too hard to stop that without boots on the ground along the coast.

Why?

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

Yes.

Reviving old threads

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Last Conformist

Any spec ops attack worth its name would be too swift for the missiles to be pulled inland.

I dont know. We had a helluva time getting the missiles being fired at Israel from Anbar during the first Gulf War. I presume spec ops went in. Of course they did a "fire and move" tactic, I think. Would that be possible for coastal missiles? A different dynamic cause they are firing at moving targets? Youd coordinate spec ops with the tanker movements?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Patroklos

How many times do I have to explain why this is not the case. A few days max, maybe, is all they could do.

How successful were Iraqi coastal defense batteries at keeping us away from Kuwait and Iraq waters in 91?

I missed your earlier explanations.

Iraqi coastal defense batteries? different strategic situation, no? You hit them from the air, were they mobile? And we werent running tankers along the Kuwaiti coast were we? Im not being snarky here, I honestly dont know if the situations are comparable.

[PLATO]

I would imagine that in the event of a potential flare up that US destroyers would provide escort through the straights and that the Carriers would fly a canopy above them. Combined with Satellite survelliance on any attempts to ready fixed launchers to fire and threatening movement of mobile launchers, I think the straights will probably stay open.

When it comes to getting the oil out, the US Navy won't play.

[VetLegion]

Re: The Iranian strategy to defuse an attack over the nuclear issues

Originally posted by Sirotnikov

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/845624.html

Main point: Iran will create several escalating actions, and a limited confrontation, that will rock the boat and prevent the US from building support for an attack, in home as well as among its local allies.

Don't know if others already said it since I just read the article, but this is totally, completely and utterly ridiculous.

With USA and Israel obviously hoping and praying for any provocation or opportunity to smash Iran, Iran is going to strike first?

Siro

[BeBMan]

That's what nobody does expect!

[GePap]

I am with KH- this is a silly article. The US doesn't have enough diplomatic heft to create any sort of coolition that would support an attack against Iran. Once the Iranians perfect the enrichment cycle, they will have the knowledge they need for any clandestine nuclear program if that is their intention, and you can't bomb knowledge away.

The Iranians are better off just playing they game they are playing now, and this article ignores the fact that Iran has a complex internal system, and is not monolithic. If (big IF) the Russian and Chinese get sick of Iranian stalling, they could go along with slightly tougher sanctions, which would probavbly help the moderate conservatives convince Khameini to take a less confrontational stance than the Ahmadinejad government has yet taken, which would take the whole steam out of the attack Iran crowd anyways, without really hurting Irans quest for a nuke if they act after getting the knowledge.