Iran's war threat is very real

UPI ^ | August 19, 2004 | By MARTIN SIEFF, UPI Senior News Analyst

[leadpencil1]

WASHINGTON, Aug. 19 (UPI) -- Forget an October Surprise, a much worse one could come in September: Full-scale war between the United States and Iran may be far closer than the American public might imagine.

For Iranian Defense Minister Ali Shamkhani Wednesday warned frankly and openly that if his military commanders believed the United States was serious about attacking his country to destroy its nuclear power facility at Bushehr, or to topple its Islamic theocratic form of government, they would not sit back passively and wait for the U.S. armed forces to strike the first blow, as President Saddam Hussein in neighboring Iraq did in March 2003. They would strike first.

"We will not sit to wait for what others will do to us," Shamkhani told an interviewer on the Qatar-based al-Jazeera satellite television news network, which is widely watched throughout the Middle East.

"Some military commanders in Iran are convinced that preventive operations which the Americans talk about are not their monopoly."

The Iranian defense minister was speaking in response to an increasing barrage of tough, even ominous statements from senior U.S. officials that Iranian leaders and many Middle East diplomats believe parallel the drumbeat of rhetoric that prepared the American public for the war in Iraq a year and a half ago.

On Aug. 8, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice said the world was "worried and suspicious" about Iran's nuclear program and she made clear the Bush administration was determined not to let the Iranians develop nuclear weapons from their new Russian-built reactor. So seriously did Rice intend the message to be taken that she repeated it twice in the same day in separate interviews to different network news shows.

Just this Tuesday, one of the hottest hawks in the Bush administration, Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security John Bolton told a sympathetic audience at the right-wing Hudson Institute in Washington that the Iranian nuclear program had to be taken up by the U.N. Security Council. "To fail to do so would risk sending a signal to would-be proliferators that there are no serious consequences for pursuing a secret nuclear weapons programs," he said. "We cannot let Iran, a leading sponsor of international terrorism, acquire nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them to Europe, most of central Asia and the Middle East, or beyond," Bolton said. "Without serious, concerted, immediate intervention by the international community, Iran will be well on the road to doing so."

Bolton's tough talk came after reports that the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna appears unlikely to announce next month that Iran's nuclear program contains military elements. Nor, according to these published reports, is the IAEA expected to recommend referring the Iranian nuclear program to the U.N. Security Council as Bolton and his administration colleagues clearly want.

The comments from Bolton and Rice come within weeks of leading neo-conservative pundits and activists in Washington proclaiming that Iran's nuclear program had to be destroyed, even if waging war was the only way to do it.

Influential neo-conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer wrote July 23 column in The Washington Post: "The long awaited revolution (in Iran) is not happening. Which (makes) the question of pre-emptive attack all the more urgent. If nothing is done, a fanatical terrorist regime openly dedicated to the destruction of 'the Great Satan' will have both nuclear weapons and missiles to deliver them. All that stands between us and that is either revolution or pre-emptive attack."

Krauthammer's column was widely discussed in the Tehran press, further fueling the fears there that the United States may act in cahoots with Israel to launch a pre-emptive strike on the Iranian reactor. Iranians also remember that President George W. Bush included Iran with Iraq as fellow members of the "axis of evil" in his 2002 State of the Union speech. Just over a year after that, he unleashed the U.S. armed forces to topple Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.

Iranians therefore fear that the goal of Bush and his Pentagon hawks is now exactly what Krauthammer advocated in his July 23 column: to use the new, "strong fortress" of pro-American Iraq as the launch point to destabilize and topple the Islamic Republic of Iran. Both the desired counter-revolution in Iran and a U.S.-delivered or U.S.-backed pre-emptive strike "are far more likely to succeed with 146,000 American troops and highly sophisticated aircraft standing by just a few miles away in Iraq," Krauthammer wrote.

In reality, however, Iraq is anything but a "strong fortress." The embattled U.S. troops there are hunkered down, on the defensive, an undermanned, over-stretched, over-worked exhausted force isolated in a nation that has almost universally rejected them and about which they were deceived and given no adequate preparation whatsoever.

Indeed, if a full-scale war broke out with Iran, the United States might even have to send in hundreds of thousands of more troops to relieve and rescue its current over-extended force in Iraq, or go nuclear, or implement both extreme options in order to prevent current U.S. forces there from being cut off and even possibly over-run.

Shamkhani Wednesday made clear that this possibility had already occurred to his own military planners in Tehran. "The U.S. military presence will not become an element of strength at our expense," he said. "The opposite is true because their forces would turn into a hostage."

Shamkhani also made very clear that his country would regard any pre-emptive strike against the Bushehr reactor as a casus belli: sufficient cause to unleash full-scale, unrestricted war against the United States. "We will consider any strike against our nuclear installations as an attack on Iran as a whole and we will retaliate with all our strength," he said.

Some political leaderships specialize in using tough talk that they never seriously mean to back up with equally ruthless actions. But the Iranians are not like that. They lost around a half-million dead to repel Saddam in the eight-year Iran-Iraq war from 1980 to 1988. So when Shamkhani threatens the prospect of a major war against the United States: Believe him.

[BushMeister]

Once they began massing troops we'd hammer them. Missle delivered WMD's are their only hope of catching us unaware.

They already have 4 divisions right on the border. And are you counting on infallible intelligence to preclude any surprises? We all know where that leads. Especially since there is a lot of mountainous terrain on the Iran-Iraq border.

[spectr17]

In reality, however, Iraq is anything but a "strong fortress." The embattled U.S. troops there are hunkered down, on the defensive, an undermanned, over-stretched, over-worked exhausted force isolated in a nation that has almost universally rejected them and about which they were deceived and given no adequate preparation whatsoever.

Indeed, if a full-scale war broke out with Iran, the United States might even have to send in hundreds of thousands of more troops to relieve and rescue its current over-extended force in Iraq, or go nuclear, or implement both extreme options in order to prevent current U.S. forces there from being cut off and even possibly over-run.

This guy has to be taking the piss as the Brits say. Our armor is there for one reason, to help cut off and contain Iran. The religous freaks who run Iran are now getting a little antsy knowing we're 15 minutes flight time from downtown Tehran. Iran has always been the head of the terrorist snake and we're poised to lop it off.

On another happy note, Israel just orderd them up a whole boatlaod of JDAMs from Boeing. Any guess where they're going to splode some locations? Think back to the Iraq reactor.

Here's to martydom

[Porterville]

cool- Bush would only have NK to worry about. That and a 100 million screaming liberals at home.

[Porterville]

Can you imagine? God, it is like you want to be there just for the war against Iran- that whole couple of hours would be so intense- But I wouldn't want to hang in the desert for a whole year just for two hours of cutting down Shi'ites.

[BushMeister]

Sorry about the HTML whackiness, and sorry about using the word "bombas" instead of "bomb".

I sincerely hope that this talk doesn't lead anywhere. The prospect of having to fend off hordes of possibly suicidal Iranian troops while fighting a rearguard action has me very worried. I know that the Iranian youths are supposed to be very pro-American, but I think that's overblown. If the Iranians attacked, I think they'd be much more commited to battle than Saddam's troops.

[spectr17]

They already have 4 divisions right on the border. And are you counting on infallible intelligence to preclude any surprises? We all know where that leads. Especially since there is a lot of mountainous terrain on the Iran-Iraq border.

And how many vaunted Iraqi divisions did we go through on our way to Baghdad? In how many days? CRap goes through geese at about the same rate.

Maybe a quigmire to you, I feel sorry for the poor SOBs. Attack a bunch of pissed off Marines and armor treadheads who's been getting mortared for months. It'll be another huge ass whoopin just on a grander scale.

[American in Israel]

The Iranian's most likely posses A-bombs too. The material that was found on their equipment was weapons grade plutonium not uranium. Pakistan has nukes, so the rest of the Islamics have nukes too. What they do not have is small nukes and strong nukes.

Being that the missiles that blew up on the supply train in Korea took out the village too while the Syrian Officers present that were killed were wearing bubble boy suits it is an indication that the warheads contained nuclear materials, not chemical. Nobody packs chemical or bio warheads with a lot of explosives as it destroys the payload.

This is a clear indication that NKorea is selling nuke warheads to go with the NoDongs.

I think the Terror war is a lot more dangerous than they are leaking to the press. Old Mohammad would not be so belligerent if he did not have nukes up his sleeve. They are only launching the last Jihad because they think they can win.

[glorgau]

On another happy note, Israel just orderd them up a whole boatlaod of JDAMs from Boeing. Any guess where they're going to splode some locations? Think back to the Iraq reactor.

Israel would have to get overflight approval from either Iraq (and the US) or Turkey. Neither is likely.

Syria probably wouldn't give approval either. ;-)

[BushMeister]

And how many vaunted Iraqi divisions did we go through on our way to Baghdad? In how many days? CRap goes through geese at about the same rate.

Maybe a quigmire to you, I feel sorry for the poor SOBs. Attack a bunch of pissed off Marines and armor treadheads who's been getting mortared for months. It'll be another huge ass whoopin just on a grander scale.

As I'm sure you're well aware, we fought very few actual "divisions" or cohesive Iraqi military units of any kind in OIF. Most of the hundreds of thousands of soldiers of the Iraqi Republican Guard and regular Army melted away, and didn't stand and fight. The Fedayeen Saddam and foreign fighters did most of the standing and fighting.

I can see the probability of an Iranian debacle if they dare to attack, but I also see the possibility of a serious military and political problem if they launch even a partially sucessful attack against our forces in Iraq/Afghanistan.

[veryconernedamerican]

unlikely each regime that falls serves the others particularly their soldiers a dose of our resolve
iran is trying the bluff game, their end game is at
hand

[Robert_Paulson2]

probably shoot our troops on the way out of Germany, that are to be reployed to our new forward bases on the borders of Iraq/Iran.

[BushMeister]

unlikely each regime that falls serves the others particularly their soldiers a dose of our resolve iran is trying the bluff game, their end game is at hand

Are you e.e. cummings?

[veryconernedamerican]

who? nope

[Robert_Paulson2]

It's the reason we are there, to take out iran and syria.
It's gonna happen.
I would prepare and rather count on it.

[carl in alaska]

"But imagine the shock our nation would face if we were suddenly involved in a major land war, with our troops and capabilites already stretched thin."

Our troops and capabilites are not stretched thin in Iraq. That is just BS spewed out by the liberbal media. Most of our soldiers in Iraq are currently working on nation building construction projects, while they wait to protect Iraq against a possible invasion by Iran or Syria. Only several thousand of our very best troops are fighting al-Sadr's army and the Jihadis in Fallujah. Everybody else is just working on construction, providing security for the Iraqis, and avoiding casualties. If Iran were stupid enough to invade Iraq and attack us, they would be unable to move a significant amount of armor into Iraq. All their tanks and APC's would be destroyed just after crossing the border into Iraq, probably within two hours of crossing the border. They have no weapons systems that are even in the same league with the Abrams M-1 tank, Bradley Fight Vehicle, Apache Helicopters, and all our fighter planes equipped with anti-tank missiles. We would make sure their forces never reached the major Iraqi cities. You're greatly underestimating our advantage in training, tactics, intelligence, and especially weapons. A ground war with Iran would end up very much like the first Gulf War with Iraq. Iran would be crushed within just a few days. Rumsfeld and his planners have already prepared for any invasion from Iran, Syria, or both Iran and Syria. If Iran invaded, it might be just the catalyst to bring about a revolution and get rid of that dreadful regime in Tehran.

[spectr17]

I can see the probability of an Iranian debacle if they dare to attack, but I also see the possibility of a serious military and political problem if they launch even a partially sucessful attack against our forces in Iraq/Afghanistan.

Maybe you missed "Shock and Awe I". It's hard to sustain an attack when 500lbers and precision CAS are raining down on your position 24/7. It kind of ruins the fighting spirit even for the hard core zealots. Cutting and running, you can count on it. Granted there will be the usuall fools who want to stand their ground and meet Allah but they won't be wasting oxygen long.

It's a new type of warfare and the Tangos still have figured it out yet. Many of them poor bastards still beleive our troops have the death ray, the laser aiming sights on our M-4s. It's the Jetson's meeting the Flintstones as one snake eater put it.

[BushMeister]

I'm glad you think that our troops aren't stretched thin by our operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and our other worldwide commitments. Donald Rumsfeld doesn't agree with your assesment, and has said so several times, as has Paul Wolfowitz.

If Iran launches a major attack, I don't think it would be the easy turkey shoot you envision. More importantly, if we had to send major formations of additional troops into the region, they would come from active duty Army/Marines that have recently left duty in Iraq/Afghanistan, or reserve units. Doable, but very troubling, especially with other hotspots still on the radar.

Gotta run. I hope all these posts are completely irrelevant, and that you are absolutely right if the Iranians make a move.

[carl in alaska]

By the way, this article is just an editorial, and this guy Martin Sieff has absolutely no idea what he's talking about.

[sheik yerbouty]

Probably bend over for the jihadists again..

[Robert_Paulson2]

did you see this on the other thread:
Iran 'Estatic' With Chinese Missile Navigation System

The Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps last week demonstrated the integration of a system that turns the Shihab-3 intermediate range ballistic missile from a flying metal tube into a dealy weapon against Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the United States.

The Shihab-3's problem has not been it's range, but it's accuracy. The missile, based on the North Korean No Dong, was not accurate.

The Iranians appear to have changed all that.

_Full Text, subscribers