Prepare yourself for the unthinkable: war against Iran may be a necessity

TimesOnline (UK) ^ | 1/27/2006 | Gerard Baker

[SupplySider]

After Afghanistan, the country we had the best rationale to overthrow was Iraq. While taking care of Saddam and his Ba'athist remnants, and the Islamofascists drawn into the meat grinder, world opinion has now solidified against Iran and Syria. Looks to me like things are working very well.

W's axis of evil, ridiculed at the time, is looking more and more prescient.

I think Kim Jong Il loves his big screen TV and Russian prostitutes too much to do the unthinkable, but the Iranians are nuclear suicide bombers and must be stopped.

[bill1952]

Hundreds of thousands of US soldiers would die

LOL! Yeah, our brass is so stupid that our soldiers will die en masse. Happens all of the time!

We would massacre Iranian fighters.

Did you lift that from Pravda or the NYT? LOL!

[Aliska]

When Iran has the bomb, to whom can that threat be credible? Israel? Certainly. Europe? Of course! The US? Hardly. But how about Mother Russia? Of course!

That's how I see it. Why do we have to do it, especially with few allies or unilaterally?

I'd say let them slug it out for themselves, but we'd get drawn in one way or another. We need the oil.

What do we have now? Hamas in Palestine is an ugly development, China, North Korea, Russia a wild card, want to trust them, but don't know what they will do.

I'm sorry, but I do not want any more American lives lost unless and until the rest of the free world pulls their share of the load and most of them are causing more trouble than helping.

We cannot go to war JUST to defend Israel. Let them do what they have to do.

[bill1952]

If all is fair in love and war...what's an unconscionable act?

Doing nothing.

[MikefromOhio]

If it's Iran, I think we can count on them.

We won't be alone (ok we had the British going into Iraq as well) this time around.

While the international community was debating about Saddam, there isn't ANY debate over Iran. Of course they are being very blatant in their proclamations too, unlike Saddam.

[USFRIENDINVICTORIA]

"My unhappy estimate is less than 2,500."

Maybe even under 1,000 -- maybe even under 500.

Iraq and Iran fought to a draw in 1980-88. Even though Iraq was later hammered in Gulf War I, and had sanctions imposed subsequently -- it seems reasonable to assume that Iran's military is roughly comparable to what Iraq's was.

The coalition forces won the major military battle in Iraq with about 500 casualties. The remaining have come during the nation-building. Leave out the nation building, and suffer considerably fewer casualties.

The coalition wanted to preserve as much of Iraq as possible -- for future nation building. They could just hammer Iran from the air, until it either gives up, or has no capacity for mischief.

The coalition would have two or three additional bases of operation, compared to the Iraq invasion. That would make it easier to move a lot of personnel and materiel into Iran very quickly.

If there's a larger coalition this time, a truly overwhelming force could be brought to bear -- another test of the "Powell Doctrine of Overwhelming Force".

There will be a more unified front this time -- the Mullahs won't be encouraged to hold on until the west loses its resolve.

[bill1952]

Perhaps they know that the B1B really isn't a painting.

[griffin]

"We cannot go to war JUST to defend Israel"

???????

[bill1952]

so they could wax hawkish about North Korea

In liberaltrashspeak, that means sending two Jimmy Carters to NK and sending them twice as much money.

No, I'm not kidding.

[griffin]

You are not suggesting that the only way an Iranian warhead can be utilized is by ballistic propulsion?? Have you seen the desert on our southern boarder and the tree lines on the northern?

Once Iran masters manufacture of nucs, tactical or strategic, do you think they will not disperse that technology to other groups? Then together attempt to muggle them into the 'Big Satan', or anchor them off-shore?

[griffin]

"The US? Hardly"

How do you figure that?

[derllak]

Geez and I always thought it would be the North Koreans that we had to keep our eye on. Seems Iran needs to have their lights put out first.

[blam]

"The Strategic Petroleum Reserve is a U.S. Government complex of four sites created in deep underground salt caverns along the Texas and Louisiana Gulf Coast that hold emergency supplies of crude oil."

I expect the Iranian terror squads already in this country have orders to go after these sites as soon as they hear that the strait of Hormuz is blocked.

[ProtectOurFreedom]

a billion dollar aircraft 50 ft off the water at Mach 1. Yeah, sure.

[bill1952]

Is it just me, or does the peanut farmer give the impression that he hates the USA?

What, the guy who said, on record, that the American Revolution was illegal?

Nah.

[blam]

"We won't be alone (ok we had the British going into Iraq as well) this time around."

I notice that the Brits are taking more of the load in Afghanistan under the NATO banner.

[MikefromOhio]

they are...

and the Aussies have started putting people back in Afghanistan as well....

Hopefully Iran won't need to be invaded to abandon it's course here.

But if that does happen, I think that now is the time to do it.

The Jihadis are getting their clocks cleaned in Iraq. They won't be able to successfully fight a 2 front war, so to speak.

[91B]

True, but Afghanistan should not be the main thrust. Too hard to move supplies either through Pakistan or from the former Soviet Republics. Not that many good ports and too hard to move supplies by air. Movement from Iraq lets us use our established bases in Kuwait and the ports in both Kuwait and Iraq.

[rfreedom4u]

Repelling an Iranian invasion or Iraq would be easy. To invade they would have to move massive amounts of troops and equipment. As soon as they start to move we know where they are and here come the airstrikes. Lots of dead Iranians all over the desert. If they (Iran) thought they lost a lot of troops against Iraq, they ain't seen nothing yet.

[bill1952]

Want to see B52s in that exact attitude?

Been there, done that.
TAR is old hat, but many accidents have happened doing that exact thing.- and to the B1B more than to any other aircraft.
And it is 100 feet.

Done over water because that is where TAR is the most safety effective.