Politics & Policies: Iran -- What if?

UPI ^ | 1/12/2006 | CLAUDE SALHANI

[Dark Skies]

So what if Israel and/or the United States did actually venture into unchartered waters and decided to carry out military strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities? What are the likely consequences?

First, given the complexity of such an undertaking -- given that, according to Iranian dissident sources, there are anywhere between 200 and 300 possible sites -- the scope of the military operation would have to be formidable. It would require top-notch intelligence to identify and strike only at relevant sites. Assuming that 200 sites are targeted, such a military operation would require at least 600 airplanes, again assuming that only three planes were assigned to hit each facility.

The attack planes would have to include bombers, escort fighters, refueling planes and command-and-control aircrafts.

[Dark Skies]

Another interesting discussion on the subject of a nuclear attack on Iran.

[MNJohnnie]

Think 1st night of Desert Storm.

[Gay State Conservative]

If there are 200-300 possible sites,then we can't take chances...turn the entire 9th Century nation of pig fornicators into a parking lot.

[GOP_Party_Animal]

The plural of aircraft, is "aircraft", not aircrafts. Sheesh. And the B2 is the stealth bomber, not the marginally stealthy B1.

Credibility = 0

[Dark Skies]

It would be something to behold! And Ahmadinejad (man, I wish that guy would get a short nickname) hasn't really given us a choice.

[Cicero]

But time is running out. The threshold will soon be crossed when the Iranian facilities become "hot," meaning an attack on the sites would endanger the environment, most likely causing the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians in Iran. Can you say Chernobyl?

This is a witless piece of trash. Numerous reasons are given not to bomb Iran. And what's the downside if we don't bomb Iran? We might "endanger the environment"?

Oh, the horror!

Does this French idiot even considered what might happen if the fanatical leader of Iran, who thinks he's the Mahdi of the Last Days of the World, nukes Israel, or maybe New York and Los Angeles? Or would that help the environment by reducing the population?

[MNJohnnie]

I hope Ahmad catches a Tomahawk thru his bedroom window personally. (How is that for a short name for that pig?)

[Dark Skies]

But time is running out. The threshold will soon be crossed when the Iranian facilities become "hot," meaning an attack on the sites would endanger the environment, most likely causing the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians in Iran. Can you say Chernobyl?

What he is saying is we need to strike now. If we wait, the collateral damage will be greater.

[manic4organic]

It would be something to behold! And Ahmadinejad (man, I wish that guy would get a short nickname) hasn't really given us a choice.

How about Almond Jihad? Iranian nutbar.

[Dark Skies]

How about Almond Jihad? Iranian nutbar.

That'll work, lol. Hope you don't mind if I use it.

[Travis McGee]

It's foolish to study this problem only in a military context without pondering the economic fallout of a likely cutoff of all Persian Gulf crude for several weeks during and after an Iran campaign.

You can bet that an Iranian contingency plan is to fire conventional SCUDs at the Saudi oil terminals in the event they are attacked, as well as mining the Hormuz etc.

Burning tankers in the PG will lead to an immediate price surge to past $150 or even higher for crude. The economic consequences to futures, hedge funds and derivatives markets in incalculable, and could lead to a global financial meltdown.

Remember, this is Ahmadiniwakjob's ultimate goal: to cause global chaos, and bring on an islamic apocolypse leading to his worldwide caliphate. Whether he realizes his goal before or after he gets nukes is not important. A global economic catastrophe will suit his purposes nicely.

Any major war with Iran at this time (and a 300 target air campaign surely qualifies!) is likely to lead to economic fallout we cannot even imagine.

[Travis McGee]

I don't think there is a clean or easy "surgical" solution here.
The choices are Very Bad (see my last) or Even Worse.

[robowombat]

I agree. Allowing Iran to have usable nuclear forces means that we will be faced with a regime that envisions such weapons not as tools of deterrence and defense but as mechanism to destroy Israel and kill hundreds of thousands of Americans if they figure out how to get the warheads here. The national leadership of Iran is now firmly in the hands of people who are at the least dangerously unstable and at the worst in some cases perhaps certifiably insane.
This means the national defense decision process of Iran is fundamentally incoherent and unpredictable. The US literally faces an adversary where many of its leadership literally want to attack the US and plunge the world order into the maximum of chaos out of a rage of cultural/religious fanaticism and a desire to ignite the Muslim End Times scenario. For these reasons failure to do whatever, literally whatever, has to be done to deny a nuclear capability to Iran is the imperative US strategy.

[Red Badger]

Okay, let's talk IF.

IF...Iran develops a nuclear warhead, and

IF...Iran mounts it on a North Korean misslie, and

IF...Iran launches that missile at Isreal, and

IF...The detonation takes place over, say, Haifa or Tel Aviv, and

IF...Hundreds of thousands, if not Millions, are killed,

WHAT?...IF, ANYTHING, will Isreal, US, EU, or UN do about it?

Strong condemnation?

A UN resolution #87465? Launch a nuclear attack on Iran? Remember there are millions in Iran that are innocent of their government's atrocities and would like to see them gone.

Just what would take place in the aftermath?...........

[johnny7]

Anyhing from UPI is garbage.

[Dark Skies]

Any major war with Iran at this time (and a 300 target air campaign surely qualifies!) is likely to lead to economic fallout we cannot even imagine.

Can't disagree with that, but I don't think we have an alternative.

This dilemma is definitely the most interesting thing going right now. From what I hear, if we do anything, we need to act quickly. And if we act at all, it has to be comprehensive in that not only must we take out all nuclear facilities but, as you said, we must also hold the economic fallout to a minimum.

D@mned difficult puzzle to solve.

[manic4organic]

Feel free!

[WOSG]

"It's foolish to study this problem only in a military context without pondering the economic fallout of a likely cutoff of all Persian Gulf crude for several weeks during and after an Iran campaign."

You forget... in the runup to the gulf war, fears raised the price of oil ... but the first night of the gulf war, oil prices DROPPED and kept going down.

Military strike would not be a crisis but a resolution.

[txhurl]

Agreed. Much as I'd like to see them shaken down, nobody on the planet can afford it except maybe the eskimo or aborigines.

[Travis McGee]

Here is the choice any president will face:

1/ Order the preemptive air strikes. Watch Iranian hospitals on fire etc, be blamed for causing 100,000 Iranian civilian casualties etc (research centers in hospital sub basement etc.) Be crucified in the media for "He lied, people died" ad infinitum far beyond the level Bush is getting over Iraq WMD "lies."

Risk total global financial meltdown, leading to a "Greater Depression." Only this time, he knows our cities will utterly explode when the welfare and SSI checks don't clear, the ATMs, gas stations and grocery stores are cleaned out, and so on. This is not a minor consideration!


OR:

2/ Wish for the best, hope "it all turns out okay", kick the can down the road.

I bet on #2.