Posted on 09/01/2007 3:03:25 AM PDT by Fennie
WASHINGTON -- Although U.S. airstrikes on Iran's nuclear facilities and military would likely overwhelm their forces, Tehran could still rely on a host of weapons, from covert terror campaigns to long-range missiles, to retaliate against an American attack.
While Iran's aging conventional military forces have little hope of succesfully maintaining combat against U.S. forces in the Gulf in the case of U.S. bombing of Iran's nuclear facilities, a quick attack by Tehran on ships in the Persian Gulf, and support of anti-American militias in Iraq and Afghanistan, could prove a real threat.
French President Nicolas Sarkozy on Monday warned that an attack on Iran would be a catastrophe, but reports on Aug. 14 that the Bush administration may designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist group renewed fears that Washington may be seriously considering military strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities. The guard is a military group within the Iranian government, but separate from the regular armed forces, and is widely believed to control Tehran's nuclear program.
The International Atomic Energy Agency and Tehran recently agreed to a timeline for more negotiations on convincing Iran to abandon its nuclear ambitions, but the Bush administration dismissed the agreement as nothing more than further delay by Iran...
Ping!
Here is a much better question:
Would the United States retaliate to the the Iranian retaliation?
I advise UPI top management to fly over their airspace and find out...
If we were to attack the nuke sites, which is a big if, every shot they fire at us is only inviting many more in return. The hotter it gets, the faster they get destroyed.
Iran NEEDS an ass whoopin and everyone knows it.
If the Bush administration fails to do it it won’t get done.
You think Mrs. Clinton would do it if she is elected president?
If you think Iran is a bully no, just wit til they have operational nukes.
Casualties? Most definately. Worth doing? you bet.
My take anyways.
This month alone, there must be at least a dozen articles posted with the same, “We-can’t-let-Iran-go-nuclear-and-we can’t-do-anything-about-it,” theme.
Frenetic, media hand-wringing to the point of incontinence.
Nuke Mecca, Damascus, Tehran, and Pyongyang. Now.
They *can’t* respond when they’re dead.
Mullahs: Bring it on!
Yep. Incompetent incontinence.
3 out of 4 are capital cities of enemy nations. The other is a religious site in a an allied nation.
If memory serves, Iran fired the first shots in the extended version.
Ewww...wet stinking newspapers!
>>Nuke Mecca, Damascus, Tehran, and Pyongyang. Now.
They *can’t* respond when they’re dead.<<
So about 35,000,000 civilians if you include the metro areas.
That would get President Bush remembered with Hitler, Stalin and Mao. I usually avoid Nazi references since it tends to kill threads but in this case the numbers are actually comparable.
The real question is whether the US would retaliate if bombed.
Not if we do it right. You have to be in existence to retaliate.
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.