Posted on 08/29/2005 2:35:19 PM PDT by F14 Pilot
CANBERRA (Herald-Tribune) -- Iran and the United States are now on a collision course. Despite warnings from America and Europe, Iran has resumed enriching uranium, with its new President, Mahmud Ahmedinejad, insisting it has a right to do so under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty for peaceful purposes.
President George W. Bush has reacted by declaring all options open, including military action, which has drawn a stiff rebuke not only from Tehran, but also from Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder of Germany, one of America's allies. Israel is also reported to have plans for targeting Iran's nuclear facilities. But the use of force against Iran could prove to be very costly for all sides. Iran has the capacity to respond in several nonmilitary and military ways in the event of a confrontation.
Iran could block the highly strategic Strait of Hormuz, through which the bulk of oil from the Persian Gulf countries is exported to the outside world. Iran has a considerable military and naval power deployed to the north, with a preparedness to carry out commando actions to mine or sink a number of ships to block the strait.
The best way for the United States to keep the strait open would be to land troops on the Iranian side, which would mean a ground war - something that the Iranians would welcome, but America would want to avoid, especially in the light of its bitter experiences in Iraq.
Tehran can also flex its oil muscle. A substantial reduction or a complete halt in Iran's oil output about four million barrels a day would push up oil prices dramatically, with devastating economic and political consequences for the United States and its allies. Such a development would also be extremely harmful to Iran itself, but several Iranian policy makers have indicated in private that when it comes to the survival of the Islamic republic, no means will be spared.
Further, Tehran is capable of making life a lot more difficult for American forces and its allies in Iraq. Iran has so far acted with much restraint in Iraq, in the belief that the U.S. push for democracy will ultimately deliver political power to Iran's Shiite allies there. But in the event of an American or Israeli attack on Iran, all the gloves would come off.
Tehran could be expected not only to encourage its Iraqi allies to fight U.S. forces, but also to send thousands of commandos and suicide bombers to support them. It could also count on the support of many Shiite activist groups within its regional Islamic networks to target Americans and Israelis and their interests throughout the region. Given Iran's extensive cross-border ties with Afghanistan, it could even stir up trouble to undermine that country's fragile stability.
Tehran also has the capacity to take retaliatory military actions. It has a formidable military machine, equipped with both medium- and long-range Shihab missiles capable of carrying heavy payloads to hit American and Israeli targets as far as 2,000 kilometers away. While unable to match American firepower, Iranian forces could make up for this to some extent by their Islamist and nationalist fanaticism.
Given the costs of a confrontation, it is essential that Iran and its three European negotiating partners, Britain, France and Germany, work out a mutually acceptable agreement. Yet for this agreement to materialize, the parties involved may need to go beyond the nuclear issue to address the conditions that have led the Iranians to live in constant fear of the United States and Israel.
A viable resolution of the nuclear row depends very much on how the parties can come to terms with each other politically. If Washington recognized Tehran's Islamic government, stopped constantly threatening Iran, and agreed to controls on weapons of mass destruction across the region - including Israel's - it would make considerable progress in dealing with the nuclear issue. But Washington has never wished Israel to become subject to the same constraints as the Arabs and Iranians.
The International Atomic Energy Agency, the UN nuclear watchdog, has been investigating Iran for about two years but it has not found any evidence suggesting that Tehran is seeking nuclear arms.
Liberal Media helping Mullahs?
The best way for the United States to keep the strait open would be to land troops on the Iranian side, which would mean a ground war - something that the Iranians would welcome, but America would want to avoid, especially in the light of its bitter experiences in Iraq.
It was a real bitter experience taking Baghdad in a couple of weeks. Bitter for the Ba'ath party and Saddam.
It would only be disasterous if we decided to use less than massive power, got politically hamstrung and decided like idiots to care enough to stick around and help with the "rebuilding".
I'm sure that we used up all of our "shock-and-awe."
No, really.
Actually the war with Iran will be totally different, IMO.
It is true that they have an outdated armed forces but remember that we haven't bombed them for 12-13 years and they are ready for us.
Iraqis didnt have any thing that could be called an Army.
They were destroyed before the war though.
Oh, right. And I could
be having dinner tonight
with Lindsey Lohan,
I have considerable
animal magnetism . . .
Ain't gonna happen!
We shouldn't underestimate them though!
IMHO we should have had boots on the ground in Iran and Syria before the end of 2001. That's my criticism of the war- we got hypnotized by those stupid lines on a map that keep our troops from chasing terrorists into Syria and Iran- just like the VC and NVA used to operate out of Laos and Cambodia. Why the terrorist training camps in Syria's Bekka Valley weren't firebombed on 9/12/2001 I will never know.
Those Iranians sure are getting sophisticated at this propaganda thing...What a load..
Boom goes London and boom Paree
More room for you and more room for me....
....They all hate us anyhow
So let's drop the big one now
Let's drop the big one now
"The best way for the United States to keep the strait open would be to land troops on the Iranian side, which would mean a ground war - something that the Iranians would welcome, but America would want to avoid, especially in the light of its bitter experiences in Iraq."
Huh? We kicked the living daylights out of the Iraqi Army...
"Tehran could be expected not only to encourage its Iraqi allies to fight U.S. forces, but also to send thousands of commandos and suicide bombers to support them."
...and we're kicking the living daylights out of the Iranian-backed "insurgents" right now. Does this writer have any other old news?
"While unable to match American firepower, Iranian forces could make up for this to some extent by their Islamist and nationalist fanaticism. "
The Tehran Times is nuttier than a fruitcake if they think religious fanaticism trumps round-the-clock, all-weather bombing campaigns. This person has obviously not been allowed to see what happens to a battlefield during a cluster bomb or FAE attack... or after a couple of divisions of mechanized infantry have rolled through it.
Hope this article wasn't written to try aand scare anyone...
Now if we had any kind of a CIA or "Black OPS" we could
sneak a couple of nukes disguised as volvo delivery vans
and stick a couple of arab corpses in it radio control it
into the approriate target and "BAM" instant reverse jihad
Alahu Akbar!
Hypocrisy of our politicians?
Does anyone here remember Operation Praying Mantis?
Here we go again with how America will lose the ground war like in Desert Storm, Afghanistan, Iraq and now Iran.
"Does anyone here remember Operation Praying Mantis?"
Operation Praying Mantis
On 14 April 1988, watchstanders aboard USS Samuel B. Roberts (FFG 58) sighted three mines floating approximately one-half mile from the ship. Twenty minutes after the first sighting, as Samuel B. Roberts was backing clear of the minefleld, she struck a submerged mine nearly ripping the warship in half. Working feverishly for seven hours, the crew stabilized the ship. Samuel B. Roberts was sent back to the United States for repair.
Three days after the mine blast, forces of Joint Task Force Middle East executed the American response -- Operation PRAYING MANTIS. During a two-day period, the Navy, Marine Corps, Army and Air Force units of Joint Task Force Middle East destroyed two oil platforms being used by Iran to coordinate attacks on merchant shipping, sank or destroyed three Iranian warships and neutralized at least six Iranian speedboats.
Operating in conjunction with USS WAINWRIGHT (CG 28) and USS BAGLEY (FF 1069), USS SIMPSON (FFG-56) was assigned to the strike on the Iranian oil platform at Sirri, and shelled the platform. In response, the Iranian Navy missile patrol combatant JOSHAN approached the three U.S. ships. When JOSHAN was warned to stand clear, she responded by firing a Harpoon missile at the group. SIMPSON was the first ship to return fire, striking JOSHAN with the first of four successful missiles she fired that day. After JOSHAN was disabled by missile fire, she was sunk by gunfire. As a result of that action, SIMPSON and her crew were awarded the Joint Meritorious Unit Award and the Combat Action Ribbon, along with numerous personal awards received by individual crew members.
Which is probably exactly what we'd do.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.