Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: SmithL

Tactically, what is important for US forces in the ME is first and foremost, a layered ballistic missile defense. Its primary defenses are directed at first protecting our fleets, second, protecting our bases in Iraq and Afghanistan, third, protecting Israel in exchange for their not retaliating with nuclear weapons, and fourth, to protect the Iraqi and Saudi oilfields.

Our ground forces are anticipating a Tet-style offensive in which several thousand Iranian agents organized into networks attempt to destabilize southern Iraq enough so that an Iranian army may invade, thus keeping the three US divisions tied down in fighting there and unavailable for invading Iran.

We are also very aware of Syria, and how Iran intends for them to be a second front against US and Israeli forces. For this reason, the rapid conquest of Damascus may be already part of our battle plan. This would essentially turn Syria over to their 80% or so Sunni majority, taking power away from the Iran and Hezbollah-allied Alawite Shiite minority that rules Syria.

A ground invasion of Iran directed towards Persia is unlikely. However, that may not be necessary, as once the Iranian nuclear infrastructure, military and Revolutionary Guard has been reduced, they would be unable to reconstitute their nuclear program if deprived of the resources to do so.

This would be done by partitioning three or four minority regions of Iran, and giving them over for protection to their respective adjacent nations. Iranian Kurdistan would join with Iraqi Kurdistan; Iranian Arab Khuzestan, with most of Iran's oil, would be joined with Arab Iraq; and mineral rich Iranian Baluchistan would be joined with Pakistani Baluchistan. And possibly even the Iranian Azeri territories joined to Azerbaijan.

This would avoid the need to invade Persia, which would be a most difficult effort, yet would prevent the Persians from rebuilding their nuclear program. And because the partitioned territories are closely related, they would be strongly defended by their adoptive nations.


57 posted on 01/16/2007 1:54:06 PM PST by Popocatapetl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Popocatapetl
We don't have the assets in place, or the will to use them.

Sorry, Iran has been of the table since 11/7/06 and will be so for the immediate future.
62 posted on 01/16/2007 1:58:59 PM PST by redgolum ("God is dead" -- Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" -- God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies ]

To: Popocatapetl
agree with your postulations. I also am of the mind that Iran is going to do something and that the "surge" and the add Carrier Group is in anticipation of that.

I am not convinced though, that Iran will merge with it's like nation neighbors - although it sounds like given a chance, it would work.

102 posted on 01/16/2007 3:09:18 PM PST by WorkerbeeCitizen (Religion of peace my arse - We need a maintenance Crusade - piss on Islam)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies ]

To: Popocatapetl
Iranian Arab Khuzestan, with most of Iran's oil, would be joined with Arab Iraq...

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

that's the one that would hurt the most...

110 posted on 01/16/2007 3:26:01 PM PST by Fred Nerks (Read THE LIFE OF MUHAMMAD free pdf download. Link on my bio page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson