Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 9/30/2004 11:56:11 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/30/2004 11:57:10 PM EST by glockguy40]
Check out this study by the Center for Non-Proliferation Studies. It is very thorough.
A Preemptive Attack on Iran's Nuclear Facilities: Possible Consequences

Comments??? Responses???
Link Posted: 10/1/2004 12:03:37 AM EST
Iraq's airspace would almost certainly be open to Israeli aircraft.

The Iranians would be fools to attempt to attack the US after an Israeli attack.

WTF would one of the worlds petroleum rich countries be doing building three nuclear power plants and surround them with AA and burying them? Thats a lot of effort just so you don't have to burn any oil.
Link Posted: 10/1/2004 12:08:48 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/1/2004 12:09:35 AM EST by glockguy40]

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:
Iraq's airspace would almost certainly be open to Israeli aircraft.

The Iranians would be fools to attempt to attack the US after an Israeli attack.

WTF would one of the worlds petroleum rich countries be doing building three nuclear power plants and surround them with AA and burying them? Thats a lot of effort just so you don't have to burn any oil.



While I do agree that they are definitely going for a nuclear option.... there are legit answers to your question.

Iran gets most of its hard currency through trading oil.... they say they want to free up more oil for export.

Secondly, they make the claim that the we, the US, have a lot of oil in Alaska and TX etc... but we have nuclear power plants.

And finally, they point to the fact that the US built their first nuclear reactor (The Tehran nuclear research reactor) and that it was the US that first gave the Iranians the idea that they should build nuclear power plants in their country. We were the ones who did the study which stated they should build 7,000 Mwt of energy worth of nulcear power plants in the 70's.

These are all legit answers.... which serve to give cover to their nuclear weapons program
Link Posted: 10/1/2004 12:13:48 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/1/2004 12:17:29 AM EST by vito113]
If left alone, Iran will swing to the moderates and the problem will go away… we just need to provide support to the reformists and they will do the work…

Copied from a previous post of mine……

"

Unfortunately I think things may go to shit very quickly, Israel will probably launch a pre-emptive strike and we will have the Mother of All Mess's in Iran… little we can do on that score.

Now in an Ideal world scenario:

Firstly, a bit of background. Iran is not an Arab country, you must make a note of this fact, it is very important, they are not Arabs and resent being called this. Your average Iranian regards an Arab as little more than an ignorant savage.

Unlike the rest of the Middle East, they have an independent culture, language and history predating just about anyone else, 1000+BC. Islam is a new religion in Iran, before that, Zorastrianism was their religion, and it is still very popular. It bears striking similarities with Christianity which it predates. Iran is a very homogeneous country and is not divided along tribal lines like the rest of the Middle East… they see themselves as 'Iranians' so there is no chance of an 'Iraq' insurgency situation breaking out after a regime change.

Until the Islamic revolution in 1979, Iran was one of the most secular and outward looking countries in the region. The Ayatollah was welcomed as a change from the Shah, who was a bit of a bastard. His secret police, SAVAK had a fearsome reputation.

Within a year the novelty of the Islamic Revolution had worn off, but Saadam came to the Mullahs rescue by attacking Iran and giving the Mullahs a breathing space to consolidate power using the war as an excuse. Today, Islamic fervor is a very thin veneer in Iran. Sure, they lay on 'Rent-a-Mod' demonstrations for the cameras, but a westerner is very safe and will be welcomed by your Iranian in the street. Iran and Israel are two strange countries in the region, both are very similar, surprisingly so. Iran has it's mullahs, while Israel has it's hard line orthodox jews, both religious fanatics with an input into how the country is run. At the moment, the Mullahs have too much influence, but the people want to change that. Iran has a 'democracy' of sorts, OK it is very fractured and weak, but the concept of a Parliamentary Democracy, unlike in the rest of the Middle East is something they understand and endorse. Many Iranians are fascinated with Israel for this very reason, they see a Democratic model that allows them a free government but keeps religion at the forefront.

Now this is an important thing to note… Because Israel has shown that you can have Democracy and religious orthodoxy in a 'Western' style democracy the Mullahs hate Israel because it is a deadly threat to them politically.

Now how to get things changed in Iran…

Firstly KEEP THE CIA OUT OF THIS!!!!! This is most important! Iran has been mucked about by the ham-fisted actions of the CIA in the past. The overthrow of Mussadeq in the 1950's is still bitterly resented by Iranians today as is the CIA support for the Shah when it was obvious he was on the way out in the late 70's instead of supporting the Democrats and reformers. So no CIA!

Now the Nuclear plants will have to be dealt with now the UN has dropped the ball on this one. If a military solution is sought it must be restrained. A surgical strike on the reactor building and the nuclear development plant using a few cruise missiles is the limit, ideally as a 'reprisal' to an 'incident' in the Straits of Hormuz. Now, to get this 'incident' you will probably have to lose a warship like a Perry Class Frigate, but politically it must be an attack in retaliation to a serious provocation and seen to be such. Let them have their victory which they will trumpet all over the news, then the US can exact it's revenge, and that way the public will see it as such, a counter strike after losing a warship… not an act of unprovoked agression.


Now onto the revolt……

The days of the Mullahs are numbered and they know it, ever since Ayatollah Khomeini died in June 1989 they have lost their religious legitimacy and no longer command the respect of the people.

Firstly, Ignore all the exiles and pro Shah ones especially… they are a lost cause and have no legitimacy within Iran. It may stick in the White House's throat but it will probably mean siding covertly with one of the reformist Mullahs who accept the need for democracy and reform. They do exist and they are very vocal and active in Iran. They have the popular vote but they need something to help them dislodge the Old Guards hand from power. Special forces operators should help ferment a 'revolt' in a provincial city. The last one in 1999 was nearly the end of the Mullahs, the local police would not act against the students and the Mullahs had to resort to bussing in hard liners from the rest of Iran to subdue the student protests. This went down very badly with the public. However it must be a Special Forces affair without the heavy hand of the CIA who are hated within Iran. Let the Iranians free Iran is the best option, just provide money and moral support, they will do the rest.

Iran is ripe for revolt from within, it has a large and very educated young population who are very outward looking and want change and a truly democratic government, they just need an 'edge' to unseat the Mullahs.

So there you have it, my take… you don't need to directly attack Iran except as a last resort, and if you do, only use the minimum force required. This is one country that is willing to jump over to 'our' side with a little help and a lot of common sense on our part.



Andy
Link Posted: 10/1/2004 12:20:08 AM EST
I agree... Iran will eventually have a politcal reformation take place.... but with the conservatives now firmly in control, having taken back the parliament in rigged elections, and controlling all the other levers of power in the country, it will be a long time before change takes place. We don't have that kind of time.

As Israeli Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz stated, "The question is what comes first, nuclear ability or regime change."
Link Posted: 10/1/2004 12:24:48 AM EST
Agreed… the clock is ticking and time may run out… hence my suggestion that if the facilities are attacked a 'cassus belli' of retaliating for an incident in the Straits of Hormuz would be politically the 'best' solution… well the 'least bad' solution anyway…

Andy
Link Posted: 10/1/2004 12:31:56 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/1/2004 12:39:38 AM EST by glockguy40]

Originally Posted By vito113:
If left alone, Iran will swing to the moderates and the problem will go away… we just need to provide support to the reformists and they will do the work…

Copied from a previous post of mine……

"

Unfortunately I think things may go to shit very quickly, Israel will probably launch a pre-emptive strike and we will have the Mother of All Mess's in Iran… little we can do on that score.

Now in an Ideal world scenario:

Firstly, a bit of background. Iran is not an Arab country, you must make a note of this fact, it is very important, they are not Arabs and resent being called this. Your average Iranian regards an Arab as little more than an ignorant savage.

Unlike the rest of the Middle East, they have an independent culture, language and history predating just about anyone else, 1000+BC. Islam is a new religion in Iran, before that, Zorastrianism was their religion, and it is still very popular. It bears striking similarities with Christianity which it predates. Iran is a very homogeneous country and is not divided along tribal lines like the rest of the Middle East… they see themselves as 'Iranians' so there is no chance of an 'Iraq' insurgency situation breaking out after a regime change.

Until the Islamic revolution in 1979, Iran was one of the most secular and outward looking countries in the region. The Ayatollah was welcomed as a change from the Shah, who was a bit of a bastard. His secret police, SAVAK had a fearsome reputation.

Within a year the novelty of the Islamic Revolution had worn off, but Saadam came to the Mullahs rescue by attacking Iran and giving the Mullahs a breathing space to consolidate power using the war as an excuse. Today, Islamic fervor is a very thin veneer in Iran. Sure, they lay on 'Rent-a-Mod' demonstrations for the cameras, but a westerner is very safe and will be welcomed by your Iranian in the street. Iran and Israel are two strange countries in the region, both are very similar, surprisingly so. Iran has it's mullahs, while Israel has it's hard line orthodox jews, both religious fanatics with an input into how the country is run. At the moment, the Mullahs have too much influence, but the people want to change that. Iran has a 'democracy' of sorts, OK it is very fractured and weak, but the concept of a Parliamentary Democracy, unlike in the rest of the Middle East is something they understand and endorse. Many Iranians are fascinated with Israel for this very reason, they see a Democratic model that allows them a free government but keeps religion at the forefront.

Now this is an important thing to note… Because Israel has shown that you can have Democracy and religious orthodoxy in a 'Western' style democracy the Mullahs hate Israel because it is a deadly threat to them politically.

Now how to get things changed in Iran…

Firstly KEEP THE CIA OUT OF THIS!!!!! This is most important! Iran has been mucked about by the ham-fisted actions of the CIA in the past. The overthrow of Mussadeq in the 1950's is still bitterly resented by Iranians today as is the CIA support for the Shah when it was obvious he was on the way out in the late 70's instead of supporting the Democrats and reformers. So no CIA!

Now the Nuclear plants will have to be dealt with now the UN has dropped the ball on this one. If a military solution is sought it must be restrained. A surgical strike on the reactor building and the nuclear development plant using a few cruise missiles is the limit, ideally as a 'reprisal' to an 'incident' in the Straits of Hormuz. Now, to get this 'incident' you will probably have to lose a warship like a Perry Class Frigate, but politically it must be an attack in retaliation to a serious provocation and seen to be such. Let them have their victory which they will trumpet all over the news, then the US can exact it's revenge, and that way the public will see it as such, a counter strike after losing a warship… not an act of unprovoked agression.


Now onto the revolt……

The days of the Mullahs are numbered and they know it, ever since Ayatollah Khomeini died in June 1989 they have lost their religious legitimacy and no longer command the respect of the people.

Firstly, Ignore all the exiles and pro Shah ones especially… they are a lost cause and have no legitimacy within Iran. It may stick in the White House's throat but it will probably mean siding covertly with one of the reformist Mullahs who accept the need for democracy and reform. They do exist and they are very vocal and active in Iran. They have the popular vote but they need something to help them dislodge the Old Guards hand from power. Special forces operators should help ferment a 'revolt' in a provincial city. The last one in 1999 was nearly the end of the Mullahs, the local police would not act against the students and the Mullahs had to resort to bussing in hard liners from the rest of Iran to subdue the student protests. This went down very badly with the public. However it must be a Special Forces affair without the heavy hand of the CIA who are hated within Iran. Let the Iranians free Iran is the best option, just provide money and moral support, they will do the rest.

Iran is ripe for revolt from within, it has a large and very educated young population who are very outward looking and want change and a truly democratic government, they just need an 'edge' to unseat the Mullahs.

So there you have it, my take… you don't need to directly attack Iran except as a last resort, and if you do, only use the minimum force required. This is one country that is willing to jump over to 'our' side with a little help and a lot of common sense on our part.



Andy



First off... you state that Zorastrianism is still very popular... what has this have to do with anything??? The country is 95% Shia Muslim. Iran, also has a very sizable Kurdish population which turkey would be very concerned about in the event of a revolution/invasion/civil war.

Secondly I don't think Iran is hostile toward Israel because they view Israeli democracy as a threat.... they are hostile toward Israel because it buys them support among their Arab neighbors. As you stated, Iranians are not Arabs, and because of this they must play to Arab tastes in order to gain the favor of Arabs in the region.

Third, you advise a strike on Iran's nuclear facilities with cruise missiles. This will work for Iran's non-bunkered and exposed targets.... like the bushehr reactor, but cruise missiles lack the payload to destroy bunkered nuclear sites. Their bunkered sites would require strike air craft to do bombing runs with "bunker busters", which we can't be sure would work. And as the report stated, they probably have redunant facilities any how.

Fourth you actually advise letting the Iranians sink a US warship???? You would allow American to be put on a silver plate to be scarificed in a plan that is not certain to work???

Lastly... the mullahs have shown they are willing to be brutal and use extreme violence, unlike the Shah.... cracking down on protesters and throwing them in jail. They will continue to do so to prevent a revolution. I don't think this will work.
Link Posted: 10/1/2004 12:45:33 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/1/2004 12:48:36 AM EST by vito113]

Originally Posted By glockguy40:

Originally Posted By vito113:

Andy



First off... you state that Zorastrianism is still very popular... what has this have to do with anything??? The country is 95% Shia Muslim

The point of mentioning Zoroastrianism is that while Islam is the predominat religion, the concepts of Zorastrianism are still widely known and respected. This gives Iranians a significantly diferent and more 'enlightened' (for want of a better word), outlook on things.

Secondly I don't think Iran is hostile toward Israel because they view Israeli democracy as a threat.... they are hostile toward Israel because it buys them support among their Arab neighbors. As you stated, Iranians are not Arabs, and because of this they must play to Arab tastes in order to gain the favor of Arabs in the region.

Agreed, this is a major factor.

Third, you advise a strike on Iran's nuclear facilities with cruise missiles. This will work for Iran's non-bunkered and exposed targets.... like th bushehr reactor, but cruise missiles lack the payload to destroy bunkered nuclear sites. Their bunkered sites would require strike air craft to do bombing runs with "bunker busters", which we can't be sure would work. And as the report stated, they probably have redunant facilities any how.


Use missile to take down Busher, just punch a hole in the containment building… the others you can go after the power grid, no juice, no reprocessing. it's more a symbolic attack anyway. agreed, short of flattening the country you cannot get everything.

Fourth you actually advise letting the Iranians sink a US warship???? You would allow American to be put on a silver plate to be scarificed in a plan that is not certain to work???

Sometimes in the world of 'Realpolitik' hard decisions have to be made. The 'plan' is only needed to give a cause for attack, if you provoke an attack on a vessel in the straits you can use this as a reason to justify your counterstrike

Lastly... the mullahs have shown they are willing to be brutal and use extreme violence, unlike the Shah.... cracking down on protesters and throwing them in jail. They will continue to do so to prevent a revolution. I don't think this will work.

Wasn't this what ultimately unseated the Shah? progessively more brutal crackdowns on the protesters until eventually the population rose up in a popular uprising



Andy
Link Posted: 10/1/2004 12:53:07 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/1/2004 1:08:00 AM EST by glockguy40]
No, what unseated the Shah was that he ran out the country and the military didn't know what to do or who to follow... so they didn't fight ... and let the country fall. the Shah was a coward; he had fled the country 2 times prior to the actual fall of his government. The guy had no balls. The Mullahs are some evil son of a bitches and are willing to get down and dirty. If you remember... Carter was very big on human rights... when he became president.... he pushed the shah to open up the country and relax repression. The shah responded by saying "I will peal back the lid of repression until Carter begs me to put it back on." The Shah's removal of repression... his curtailing of the SAVAK's power... is what lead to the uprisings.... not his brutal crackdowns.... his lack of cracking down is what lead to the revolution. The Mullahs know if they do the same... if they don't crack down... they're all dead.

Secondly, any plan calling for the blatant sacrificing of American sailors would not be a realistic option... sorry. Not going to happen. I'm sure the Iranians could be baited into attcking us... but they will not do it directly... they're too cunning for that... they will use terrorist proxies like they always do, and attack us like they did in Lebenon. They will use their influence with terrorist groups within Iraq and get them to increase attacks on US forces there. This will distance them from attacks on US interests and soldiers. This is exactly what the report in the link above stated.
Link Posted: 10/1/2004 10:58:38 AM EST
Bumped for the day shift…
Link Posted: 10/2/2004 8:19:31 PM EST
bump
Link Posted: 10/3/2004 11:06:55 AM EST
bump
Link Posted: 10/3/2004 11:15:51 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/3/2004 11:18:02 AM EST by RustyTX]
The mullahs will nuke Israel if they are able. They too would pull a 'terrorist' attack on the US if they could. No doubts in my mind that they've had a hand in what has already happened against us and our military. All the way back to the Beirut bombing and our CIA chief being snatched.

Iran is where it all started and its where its going to end. We just keep dancing around them.

Without a civil war in Iran (that I hope we instigate) we will all deal with this one in the next few years.

Edit: and the research report that started this thread is based on the premise that iran is not already instigating the unrest in iraq. This is untrue in my opinion. For whatever that's worth
Link Posted: 10/3/2004 11:23:26 AM EST
NUKE 'EM 'TIL THEY GLOW...THEN SHOOT 'EM IN THE DARK!
Link Posted: 10/4/2004 6:25:09 PM EST
btt
Link Posted: 10/4/2004 6:56:17 PM EST
Look, this article is pantshitter BS. The REAL consequences of letting Iran get a bomb would be that Israel will get nuked, the Israeli counterstirke will take out the rest of the ME and the world economy will be wrecked without enough oil.

We cannot allow Iran to get the bomb. Full-stop.

Good men may have to die to prevent this. May God bless them and grant them success.
Link Posted: 10/4/2004 7:04:03 PM EST
We have a large stock pile of ICBMs costing millions every year to keep functional.

Its time that we thinned down our inventory, and solve a few international disputes at the same time.

Any one who doesn't like it, let them do something about it.

Maybe the U.N. will pass a resolution against us.
Link Posted: 10/4/2004 7:13:29 PM EST
Iran is the world's second largest producer of oil. Making their oil fields radioactive isn't in our interests. But you knew that right?
Top Top