Posted on 01/12/2006 9:35:50 AM PST by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at upi.com ...
Almond Jihad... that one's going to stick!
That is one way the dice could land.
But don't discount the effects of snake eyes instead of lucky 7.
Just because the dice landed our way one time (against an Iraq with no air defenses, useable SCUDs etc after years of sanctions) does not mean it will turn out the same way against a robust Iran, with an apocolypse-desiring madman for a leader.
"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."
Um, not... burning even a large number of tankers would have a very minor impact of global markets, less than Katrina/Rita certainly. shipping rates would go up but overall supplies would still be there.
Nor would a SCUD strike at any oil field be impactful.
Again, Katrina/Rita did more damage than an iranian military strike (and politically it would benefit us to have Iranians lash out at other middle eastern countries).
Probably the worst they could do would be to hit a few oil terminals, but even the saudi have several alternatives.
Any short term event would be met with strategic reserves.
Hitting infrastructure could have an impact, but again, look at the Gulf war experience - saddam burned entire kuwaiti oil fields, and still the oil markets calmed down.
Part of the reason is that *100 different coutries* produce oil. Yes, middle east is most important, but they are under 40% of total production. Infrastructure is more widely dispersed in the the greater scheme of things than you might assume.
Nor would an Iranian boycott produce a crisis, except in Iran. consider:
Non-OPEC oil production is going to increase 1.8 million barrels of oil this year (CERA estimate) and similar next year. That would displace Iran's full production of 3 mbd.
So, while all such scenarios could impact production or supplies, they are of a marginal amount not an absolute amount. Combined with the buffer that the strategic oil reserve provides, it results in smoothing of the impact.
IMHO, it will be major, but not a long war, just 12 hours; it will also be fast, like a coup de grace.
We WILL have the last laugh at Iran's expense.
And by the time of the Iraq invasion, Saddam had been weakened by years of sanctions and a virtual air war over his territory. When we invaded, he had no long range weapons to hurl around the ME.
Not so Iran today, which has I think 100s of mobile SCUD launchers, which it will for sure send against Saudi oil infrastructure targets the day we attack.
You honestly think the world can lose 20-40% of oil delivery for a month or so and not be seriously adversely affected? I'm talking about the financial markets, hedge funds etc.
But I do hope your rosy scenario proves out. (Rosy scenario = 12 hour air war, complete victory.) Waiting for a nuclear-armed Iran would be even worse.
"against an Iraq with no air defenses"
They had 'no defenses' because we took them out! :-)
If anything our airpower is much better than in 1990, with JDAMs and other options we lacked then. Iran 2006 may be better than Iraq 1990, but are far from a match to US.
"defenses, useable SCUDs etc after years of sanctions"
Ah, that's your mistake ... I am talking about 1990, not 2003. Our current situation is somewhat similar to 1990 IMHO. Iraq was stronger in 1990 (or perceived as such), and you may recall, had SCUDs that were able to reach Tel Aviv.
They did little real damage.
"robust Iran, with an apocolypse-desiring madman for a leader." .... Iran may be 'robust', but they are not invulnerable to a US air strike. The option I am sure is on the table. And why not? Reagan against Libya 1986. Clinton several times, including the air war against Serbia.
It's cleaner than a ground war (viz Iraq).
My point is simple: The air strike option WILL work. It will delay Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons and it will not have great collateral damage.
"As of late 2002, Iran held 90 billion barrels of proven oil reserves, or roughly 9% of the world's total. The vast majority of Iran's crude oil reserves are located in giant onshore fields in the southwestern Khuzestan region near the Iraqi border and the Persian Gulf."
source: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/oil.htm
Looks like Iran is producing somewhere around 4 million barrels a day. Note the interesting location of their reserves.
Could be Iraq gets a little bigger? maybe?
They want nukes? Let's give them one. Drop one out in the middle of the desert. Tell them the next one won't be landing in such a harmless location should they not immediatly abandon their nuclear ambitions.
An attack on Iran is not an all or nothing deal. People who say we can't affect them, that's Bull$hit. Despite dispersion, hardening and secrecy we surely can greatly affect the timeline and associated costs with developing an A-bomb. To the layperson it's a "yes" or "no" answer if an attack is effective. CNN will define what success is for the layperson. Reality is, we CAN bomb those reactors, we CAN bomb many facilities that are needed for them to produce a bomb. Will it be as easy as Israel had it in the early 80’s with Iraq – no. But we can have an effect on them
But there is another effect we can have. Create a “Cause and effect” relationship. Iran today works with impunity. Going after High Payoff targets within Iran should be done in a scope that extends BEYOND just nuclear sites but still limited to reduce Collateral Damage. If we go in, we should go after all kinds of nice to destroy targets. We should go in with the “intent” to break all the bad kids toys and make him cry. Create a causation. They operate on a different level than we do. Appeals to morals, values, international law, conventions are seen as weakness on our behalf. Breaking their toys they understand.
The one who is bluffing is “THEY”. What will Iran do that they are not doing already? Sponsor terrorist in Israel? Sponsor an insurgency in Iraq? Develop a nuke? If we bomb them, what will they do? Besides blowing hot air, they can’t do more than they already are. We are practically in a pseudo sate of war with Iran already! US SOF get seen in Iran, we kill some of their people in Iraq, US soldiers are dying at the hands of insurgents who are being equipped by Iran. Bombing Iran and doing so with the intent to follow through with a protracted bombing campaign “Balkan” style seems like a very good choice right about now.
Red6
Let's hope you're right. I still don't think a president will risk it, not after the merciless pounding Bush has taken.
"You honestly think the world can lose 20-40% of oil delivery for a month or so and not be seriously adversely affected? I'm talking about the financial markets, hedge funds etc."
Well, my point is that I dont believe there will be a disruption in oil supplies as result of this. Iran depends on oil expeorts to fund their economy. If there is oil cutoff, THE CRISIS WILL BE IN TEHRAN AND THEIR GOVERNMENT WILL COLLAPSE!
Few other points:
- Iran supplies 3 mbd, which is 4%, not 20-40%.
- SA has a pipeline direct to Red Sea side of SA.
- Weak point would be Straits of Hormuz. Simple answer of course is for US military to hae a presence there and prevent Iran from doing anything. We have a navy and airpower that Iran lacks, so any attempt by Iran to cutoff oil exports by other gulf states will fail.
- NOBODY wants Iran to have nukes. Not Sunni Saudi Arabia, not the Turks, the Indians, the Russians, not anybody.
Except the Iranian Government. We will have a lot of cooperation on Iran (that we didnt get on Iraq).
- strategic oil reserve of 600 mbd and equal amounts globally ... are enough to provide a 5 mbd buffer for about 1 year. combined with presumed high oil prices (well, they are high already), there would not be drastic supply imbalance, even if say 5-10mbd were impacted ... although it obviously would have an economic impact (slower growth, etc) were supply disruption realized.
"But I do hope your rosy scenario proves out. (Rosy scenario = 12 hour air war, complete victory.)"
My point is this: How would Iran react?
"boycott oil" and send their own economy into crisis?
sabre-rattling alone has given them their desire ... high oil prices, which are here NOW.
" Waiting for a nuclear-armed Iran would be even worse."
Yes. I've made the point that Iran is still many years away from that, and behaving openly enough to give us tools we need to stop it, so we can lay the groundwork for an internationally supported response that is successful.
They possess hundreds of new generation Silkworm type C802s and the capability to launch them from land or sea. They possess hundreds of deep water mines (hard to defend against).
They could turn the Straits of Hormuz into a blazing cauldron that would shut down oil for a lot more than a few weeks.
An Iranian sponsored attack in Maalaca would do even more damage to the world economy.
Good points. Iran has nothing to gain from striking first, and everything to lose. If Israel thinks mad mullahs with nukes are dangerous as things stand now, just wait until she tries launching a (likely ineffective) "preemptive strike."
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
That you Pollyanna? Do you honestly think that the mullahs would not close the straits ten minutes after the first strike? (btw...your assessment of what they could do and how easily we could stop them in Hormuz is fantasy - they have all they need in place already)
"there is just no surplus oil, Refineries operate on a just in time shipment if the ships stop it takes weeks to shut them down and start them back up.."
This is simply untrue... Crude inventories are at 5- year highs, and total over 300 million barrels of oil.
There is a LOT of oil inventory in the US. Some of it built up in part because of refinery shut downs, and now refineries are back on track, all inventories are now healthy.
Just this past week, gasoline and distillate inventories rose 4 million barrels equiv. each.
There is also oil production capacity surplus, of around 2 million barrels a day, mostly from Saudi Arabia which could pump more if needed. This is not alot, but that capacity surplus margin is expected to increase quite a bit this year and next due to non-OPEC oil production increases.
Let me repeat a point I've made elsewhere... the 'threat' of oil disruption from Iran is a hollow one, for a simple reason: They need oil export more than we need Iranian oil imports. For the world, losing Iran's oil may drop our GNP by 1% ... but for Iran, it drops their GNP by 60% .... WHO IS HURT WORSE?
Getting the Mullahs' nuke warheads into the U.S. will not be difficult. Our thousands of miles of unguarded borders will make it fairly easy to talke out NYC, Wash. D.C., L.A., etc.
Mullah nukes = Millions of dead Americans
"And by the time of the Iraq invasion, Saddam had been weakened by years of sanctions and a virtual air war over his territory. "
Again, my example was 1990 air war. In particular, the spectacular first night of the war, which took out a large number of targets. There was no sanctions prior to that. We took out a large number of enemy targets and had very few (if any) losses on that night. Considering that there was zero strategic surprise, this was quite an accomplishment.
Our air assets, from UAVs up to JDAMs, are far more exact, precise and powerful than in 1990.
An Iranian strike could and would look a lot like that - 12 hours of concentrated strikes, over 1000 sorties against a large number of targets.
We have the air power, that's not the problem. We even have the bunker busters to take out underground facitilies. The bottleneck will be getting the intelligence to know where to strike so we are 100% successful.
JMHO.
"Do you honestly think that the mullahs would not close the straits ten minutes after the first strike? "
Yes. I honestly believe that would (a) not work and (b) doom the Iranian Government to total collapse. As I said, oil is 60% of their economy, and such an action would cut off their own exports primarily. Their economy would collapse as would their government if they were that stupid to block their own economic power.
The fact that they have a lot of military assets that US military can take out in a matter of hours of air strikes is interesting but not determinative.
You forget that, just looking at history, say the 1980s... two oil exporting nations (Iran, Iraq) were at war for 8 years, but they kept on exporting oil! Had they stopped exporting, the war might have gotten cut short for lack of funds. :-)
The Mullahs are crazy, but they are not stupid. Even the 'fear' of war has given them the high oil prices they need, that are far more beneficial than an actual attempt to act on any such threat (which btw, they have not made; their threat is to kill Israel).
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.