Strike Iran? How?

Powerline Blog ^ | 7/15/06 | Steven den Beste

[P8riot]

LOL! It sure seems like the right way to me. They could even use the captured fuel and reduce the financial cost of the operation, and keep from tapping their own strategic reserves. Plus it would give them air superiority over a wider area.

[El Gato]

Do you mean the same Shah who opened the door to the mullahs by repressing his people to the point of revolution?

Or so it was spun. The Shah's "oppression" was nothing compared to that of the Ayatollahs.

[P8riot]

A Reading from the Book of Armaments, Chapter 4, Verses 16 to 20:

 

Then did he raise on high the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch, saying, "Bless this, O Lord, that with it thou mayst blow thine enemies to tiny bits, in thy mercy." And the people did rejoice and did feast upon the lambs and toads and tree-sloths and fruit-bats and orangutans and breakfast cereals ... Now did the Lord say, "First thou pullest the Holy Pin. Then thou must count to three. Three shall be the number of the counting and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither shalt thou count two, excepting that thou then proceedeth to three. Five is right out. Once the number three, being the number of the counting, be reached, then lobbest thou the Holy Hand Grenade in the direction of thine foe, who, being naughty in my sight, shall snuff it."

-- Monty Python, "Monty Python and the Holy Grail"

[El Gato]

Anyone know if a fighter jet can travel this far without refueling?

I don't know of any. However the Israelis have KC-707 tankers and their F-16s and F-15Is are equipped with aerial refueling receptacles.

[wtc911]

An authoritarian Shaw wasn't sponsoring or funding terrorist attacks on the United States or our allies. History has adequately demonstrated to me that the United States should have done all in its power to support the Shah of Iran.

-----------------------------------------------------

Agreed, but aside from being moot, it is beside the point of why the iranians threw him out.

The iranians threw reza out because his government was both corrupt and repressive (the relative degree of oppression doesn't matter if its your kneck upon which the boot stands). The shah admitted as much in a day-late and dollar-short attempt to turn things around. Too many had died, been tortured or disappeared.

The purpose of the revolution was not to install the mullahs but to create a marxist-type, student-led government. They mis-calculated when they took over the US Embassy and let it get out of control. They painted themselves into a corner of the embassy and left the rest of the field open to the ayatollah. He stepped in and before they knew it the revolutionaries were out of power themselves and subservient to the islamic rule.

Blaming Carter is foolish, unless you want us to believe that the iranians died to throw out the shah (whom we had installed by force - there never was a royal dynasty of rezas btw) simply because Jimmy wanted them to. He was complicit ex post facto but then so was Ike with Castro (and Reagan with Ortega) if one uses the same logic.

[El Gato]

While not a military strategist, it seems to me that a BUFF full of napalm could do a significant amount of damage. I'm wondering whether napalm can turn desert sand into glass anyway. Might be a good experiment.

Probably not, but the question is moot, we no longer have any stocks of Napalm.

[tarheelswamprat]

It isn't that we couldn't roll over them almost like Iraq, it is occupying a country with several times the population.

There is no need to occupy Iran beyond the time needed to locate and destroy their nuclear weapons facilities and military infrastructure and to remove the mullahs from power. Then hand it back over to the Iranian people, along with a public apology that we regret it took us 27 years to correct the injury done to them by Jimmy Carter.

[El Gato]

There's a hundred thousands US soldiers in between them that would be happy to provide some re-fuelling.

All they really need to do is "Look the other way" as the Israel fighters and tankers operate over Iraq.

[nuconvert]

"Too many had died, been tortured or disappeared."

That's BS. The only people who try to contend that, are Khomeini's followers or people who weren't there at the time and don't know any better.

And your purpose and timing of the revolution and the takeover of the U.S. embassy are way off. Take a look at a calendar for starters.

[Enterprise]

"Blaming Carter is foolish"

Ok, I won't blame Carter for the Shah's removal. I'll give Carter credit for it. Better?

[Prost1]

Israel has several nuclear capable submarines sitting in or near the Gulf. Also in the Mediterranean. The missiles have the range to take out Iran and anyone in Europe. http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/israel/sub.htm http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/israel/e20000619israelmakes.htm The City of HIFA, the submarine home port http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/israel/haifa-port.htm See: Appendix A Estimates of the Israeli Nuclear Arsenal http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/report/1999/farr.htm

[El Gato]

Israelis cannot attack Iran from bases in Israel.

Yes they can, if we allow them overflight of Iraq. (Jordan not really a problem). They have aerial tankers and their fighters can refuel in the air. How much they practice the maneuver, I don't know.

[El Gato]

I understand that, Iran, has millions of troops, ready to swarm into Iraq....and 1000s of PT boats, ready to swarm, the navy...

Just a bit of exaggeration. They have substantial forces, but not that substantial. Even it they had 1,000s of patrol boats, they'd be short work for the carrier battle groups.

[Natural Law]

The strategy is becoming apparent. The rational nations of the world will certainly deal with the axis of evil, Syria, Iran and North Korea, but they will be neutralized one at a time. The first to go will be Syria. The preservation of Israel will be our cause celeb. Once Syria is dealt with, North Korea will be toppled leaving an isolated Iran.

[AdvisorB]

"Blaming Carter is foolish,"

I think you're completely wrong about that. I think that Carter was perceived (and rightly so) as a weak POTUS who would never undertake to help the Shah. This only heartened and emboldened the Shah's many enemies (tudeh party, lenin's useful idiot leftists, many Shia clerics)to bring the Shah down. Carter's perceived weakness wasn't the only problem. Remember, Carter despised the Shah, and pressured the Shah on human rights. Carter's human rights emphasis
sent a signal to khomeini, his followers, and the Iranian secular left, that Carter was with them, not the Shah. To this Iranian flotsam, it appeared that the US had withdrawn it's unconditional support for the Shah and the Pahlavi dynasty. When the Shah wanted to crack down, he found a deaf (dumb and blind as well) ear in DC.

No, you're completely off base on this one. Carter played an undeniable role in greasing the skids for the Shah.

Also, I noticed that you didn't answer the direct question I had put to you, but I will ask it again. "You obviously believe that the "hated" Shah's progressive rule was more benign than the theocratic hell imposed on Iran in 1979, right?" I'll be waiting for your answer.

[El Gato]

They have no refueling facilities or craft.

Then what's this?

They don't have many, 5 to 7, but they have them. The F-15Is might not need them, if they could make most of the flight at cruise altitude.

[stockstrader]

LOL....yep, 'credit' works...lol

Jimmy Carter gets TWO kinds of blame (or credit) for what happened in Iran:

1. EARNED, and

2. DESERVED.

[Sam Hill]

"The purpose of the revolution was not to install the mullahs but to create a marxist-type, student-led government. They mis-calculated when they took over the US Embassy and let it get out of control. They painted themselves into a corner of the embassy and left the rest of the field open to the ayatollah. He stepped in and before they knew it the revolutionaries were out of power themselves and subservient to the islamic rule."

What a laugh.

The students took over the US embassy was taken long after Khomeini was in power.

They called themselves: "Muslim Students Following the Line of the Imam." Guess who the Imam was.

You are totally clueless.

[Sam Hill]

Here's a clue, courtesy of Wikipedia:

Iran hostage crisis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

On November 1, 1979 Iran's new leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini urged his people to demonstrate against United States and Israeli interests. Khomeini was anti-American in his rhetoric, denouncing the American government as the "Great Satan" and "Enemies of Islam".

Thousands of people gathered around the U.S. embassy in Tehran, protesting. The embassy grounds had been briefly occupied before, during the revolution, and protest crowds outside the fence were common. Iranian police were less and less helpful. On November 4, amid another chaotic occupation of the grounds, a mob of around 500 Iranian students (although reported numbers vary from 300 to 2000) calling themselves the Muslim Students Following the Line of the Imam seized the main embassy building. The guard of Marines was thoroughly outnumbered, and staff rushed to destroy communications equipment and sensitive documents... Ayatollah Khomeini claimed he was not aware of the students' plan, but he applauded the action afterwards. Supposedly, the Ayatollah had been informed on November 3.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_hostage_crisis

[YOUGOTIT]

"Blaming Carter is foolish,"

You must be too young to know or understand what went on in Iran. And I do not remember any force being used to install the Shaw. But there was force used to install the Islamic Terrorist who then took over the US Embassy. But that was long after the Mullahs took over. Jimmy u the man.