U.S. Forces Almost Ready For Iran Air Strike, Say Sources

[Hissyspit]

http://www.taipeitimes.com:80/News/front/archives/2007/02/11/2003348506

US forces almost ready for Iran air strike, say sources

THE GUARDIAN, WASHINGTON
Sunday, Feb 11, 2007, Page 1

US preparations for an air strike against Iran are at an advanced stage, in spite of repeated public denials by the administration of US President George W. Bush, informed sources in Washington said.

- snip -

"We are planning for war. It is incredibly dangerous," he added. Cannistraro, who worked for the CIA and the National Security Council, stressed that no decision had been made.

Last month Bush ordered a second battle group, led by the aircraft carrier USS John Stennis, to the Gulf in support of the USS Eisenhower. The Stennis is due to arrive within the next 10 days. Extra US Patriot missiles have been sent to the region, as well as more minesweepers, in anticipation of Iranian retaliatory action.

In another sign that preparations are under way, Bush has ordered oil reserves to be stockpiled.

- snip -

Colonel Sam Gardiner, a former air force officer who has carried out war games with Iran as the target, supported the view that planning for an air strike was underway.

MORE

[Purveyor]

1. So who is it the people send to arrest a President out of control?

[Tess49]

22. What if we impeached him and he refused to go? n/t

[shadowknows69]

23. Unfortunately, the Congress

gonna be a bit of a wait.

[nadinbrzezinski]

2. Damn haven't we seen this movie before?

and what is worst, I doubt it will end as "good" as part one did.

And yes, for the sarcasm imparied

:sarcasm:

But we will get more tham just punched on the nose

[Delphinus]

11. I know!

The fact that no one (other than DU) is following what this idiot in chief is doing really concerns me. It's pretty simple to see that they're demonizing Iran the same way they did Iraq - and people are still asleep.

I think Russia has allied themselves with Iran - what about China? When you say we're going to get more than a punch on the nose - I agree. And my imagination can run pretty wild with all that is implied with the statement.

[Leftisalwaysright]

3. Scared

I am very scared for the future of this country and the world. There's no telling what this man will do as his time in office winds down.

[katmondoo]

4. Who will have the guts to end this madman's further march into madness

Can it be done?

[Vidar]

5. It can be done, but we need a Churchill, not the congress full

of Neville Chamberlains we are blessed with.

[Auggie]

9. Wish I knew. Any Constitutional experts out there?

[niceypoo]

14. Now is where the democrats start lining up in support of Bush, being afraid to be labeled

"Unpatriotic" Here we go again folks. The democrats need to make a stand, "Invade and we impeach."

[necklace]

20. Absolutely!!! How Much More is Needed for Impeachment???

An attack on Iran without any real evidence, without support from Congress, without support from the UN and most of all without support from the American people, the real constituents...What else do we need?

Not only is this grounds for impeachment, but shouldn't this motherfucker be charged with crimes against humanity? Is it me, or is Saddam Hussein starting to look better with each passing day???

[ninkasi]

37. I don't understand

the fear of Democrats being labeled as unpatriotic, when the majority of the country is opposed to attacking Iran, and wants us to get out of Iraq. Citizens would back them every step of the way, if they could get us out of this unholy mess. Are they so afraid of Karl Rove, and the Republic slime machine? We're on their side, why are they so timid?

[truthisfreedom]

*yawn*

guaranteed impeachment.

[Hekate]

6. We are screwn. Now what? nt

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Trajan]

8. An airstrike is NOT a war ....

I say that not in support but against the notion that an airstrike will alter the political calculus in our favor .... The US Military CANNOT POSSIBLY invade Iran without an extreme buildup, the likes we have not seen since WWII .... So ANY action will be limited, and can only serve to antagonize the region, and lead to MORE hatred and mistrust .....

Yet another miscalculation, courtesy of the AEI war-assholes brain trust ..... THEY get their rocks off as the rockets fly, and WE pick up the dead bodies, and the tattered diplomatic mission, and WE have to rescue the already stained honor of the United States of America ..... As an added bonus: We get to pick up the tab ....

No, an airstrike is NOT a war, but it is an act of war, and it appears George and Dick are again planning a party without decent caterers .... again ..... They didnt learn from the last party, I guess ....

Ah, but dont worry: the clowns will be there ....

[ixion]

10. this is such a load of crap

I really can't begin to express my disgust and anxiety and dismay at both the psychotic maladmin that just can't help but bomb the crap out of everything and the seemingly subservient congress that sits around wringing their hands, more concerned for their careers than the loss of life and international respect, not to mention more than a TRILLION of our tax dollars.

Mark my words: An act of war against Iran would be a horrifically stupid move, and will cost us dearly for years to come.

I was against the invasion of Iraq, primarily because it was common knowledge that they had almost no military capability after more than a decade of sanctions and posed no threat to neither their neighbors nor to the US.

Iran, on the other hand, has not been under sanctions. It has an operational military and is capable of defending itself, unlike Iraq.

Escalating the war to Iran will not only cause Iran to retaliate, it will cross that imaginary line in the sand, as it were, and cause a watershed reaction among the populous of both countries. It will galvanize them against the invaders (us).

This is my call, I'm very sad to say. I really can't believe that our country, which has cherished Freedom and Liberty, is now moving forward with denying those ideals to other countries, ironically in the name of bringing those ideals to their country.

We have lost our way in the world, have lost our mind, collectively speaking. :-(

[file83]

13. I'll one up you...

...I believe that if we go to war with Iran, it's the beginning of the end for the United States of America. That war will completely implode our economy and the "savior" of our nation will be the "Trans American Union" (Canada, USA, & Mexico) acting as one nation.

This is all a set up for the end of the U.S. Constitution and the beginning of the Corporate Police State.

[Cass]

12. We thought the Iraq war was a huge mistake. If they attack Iran it will

make the Iraq mistake pale in comparision. Iran is not some broken down country with no military or weapons to speak of like Iraq was. And Iran has some bad ass friends. We are in despereate need of competent leadership. The current bunch in control seems hellbent on bringing about the apocolypse.

[montanacowboy]

15. IF WE STRIKE IRAN, RUSSIA WILL BE IN ON THEIR SIDE

JUST THINK OF THAT LITTLE SPEECH PUTIN JUST GAVE; HE IS TELESCOPING IN SO MANY WORDS THAT RUSSIA WILL COME TO THE AID OF IRAN IN THE EVENT BUSHCO ATTACKS THEM

AND WHILE OUR SIMPLE MINDED CONGRESS ARGUES ABOUT STUPID NON BINDING BULLSHIT IRAQ WAR RESOLUTIONS, BUSHCO AND HIS MAD HENCHMAN PULL THE PLUG ON US

[liberal N proud]

16. MSNBC: U.S. steps up war of words with Iran

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17097658/

[Aviation Pro]

17. Buy your gas futures now.

$10.00/gallon in four weeks.

[shadowknows69]

24. I don't think i'd be able to live with myself if i did.

Shit, I feel like a war profiteer just making money, and not very much i might add, from a military base sometimes

[minnesota_liberal]

18. 709 days until we're rid of that monster

Will there be anything left of our country by then?

[Sukie1941]

44. Anything left of the USA?

I have that question right now. From conversations with my ex-husband a few years ago (he has been going to China with John Deere Industrial for at least a decade), we talked about how long it will take China to become the world's number one "superpower."

It looks to me that China is well on its way.

Nearly every 800 call I make I talk with someone overseas. Huge layoffs at American factories, just about every company has moved out of the US in some respects. GOOD jobs are hard to find.

My supplemental insurance here in Oregon through PERS (Public Employees Retirement System) went up $20 a month, which is a huge increase for me since I am on disability (former teacher). It looks more like primary insurance now, premium-wise.

There is just so much I can absorb, and I am beginning to feel scared. Each January everyone and their dog has their hands out for the small Soc Sec increase we older folks receive. This year I netted $5 a month! Car needs work (Lil Blue is 16 yrs old). Sold my home and live in my fifth wheel. At least I can move when the rent rises!!!!!!

I am whining, I know. But it is depressing.

[gordianot]

19. Bush cannot afford the Congressional Investigations that are just beginning.

Who knows the real day I suspect it will be without much warning?

The GOP really thought there would not be a backlash, that the 2006 elections could be controlled. This is all they have left "a never ending war" in a bid for survival. Bombing Iran will create a never ending war, there will be weapons of mass destruction (biological chemical) in retaliation and an excuse to selectively depopulate the planet. After trashing the Constitution we are about to find out how dangerous the Neo-Cons and collaborates are when cornered. Rumsfeld still has an office in the Pentagon.

[The Wizard]

21. (Suicide)

The spirit was freedom and justice
And it's keepers seem generous and kind
It's leaders were supposed to serve the country
But now they won't pay it no mind
'Cause the people grew fat and got lazy
And now their vote is a meaningless joke
They babble about law and order
But it's all just an echo of what they've been told
Yeah, there's a monster on the loose
It's got our heads into a noose
And it just sits there watchin'
(Monster, Steppenwolf)

[nealmhughes]

25. "Capitalism in one country" is not enough, rather than emulate Lenin,

the AEI and Heritage idiots are all channeling Trotsky in reverse.

Old Lev, to his credit, however, did know how to wage war.

Apparently, Bush wishes to be Roark and destroy the country rather than see it altered from his vision.

Attacking Iran without an act of war on their part first would be suicide for the US economy and our standing in the world and a bloodbath for the US fleet and airmen as well as the people on the streets of Iran.
I wonder where Iran would attack as retaliation? Tel Aviv perhaps? Istanbul? Rihyadh? Islaamabad? Pick a Sunni state, any Sunni state with decent ties to the US and pick a target.

The time for ignoring Mr. Bush is over. Turning our collective backs to him has had no effect. The time for action is now, or our nation will be unalterably effected in the negative. He must be removed from office with his little dog Toto, too.

Rather than squabble, a true bipartisan National Salvation Front needs be formed and our sights turned to the true problems facing us, not bogeymen with whom we have no quarrel save over our support for a tyrant that was overthrown 30 years ago.

[krispos42]

26. And the carrier USS Ronald Reagan is heading for the 'western Pacific'

And the carrier USS Nimitz is leaving San Diego in March.

Hmmmmmm.....

[pokercat999]

27. The silver lining in this cloud is that by the time these

criminals are done we will be burning Repugs, neo-cons and fundies at the stake. That is all we will have left to burn unfortunately.

[IWantAChange]

28. AEI - is that Assholes Engineering Insanity??

[IWantAChange]

29. Iran has 70mil people - 67% under 30 - apply some logic....

A Republicon air strike versus this country without provocation will unleash indescribable acts of terror against ordinary American citizens for generations IMO.

There is only one way to stop these MADMEN and that is IMPEACHMENT.

[BeHereNow]

30. And the REALLY scary part of that is...they know it and don't care.

They know precisely what they are setting in motion as
far as further blowback.
They don't care.
They will be long gone from the
scene of their crimes against the American people
and the rest of the world.

BHN

[Tekla West]

31. Stillness at dawn

Here is what we do. The one thing they can't stop. We do nothing. We don't go to work. We don't go to school. We buy NOTHING! No banking, no shopping, no bus tickets. Nothing. The real powers that be will be burning up the phone lines to DC like nothing we have ever seen. All we have to do is NOTHING. Empty shops, empty malls, empty parking lots, empty concert halls, empty buses, empty freeways. Just meet your neighbors. Take a day and talk to each other. We have the power, its time for these fools to remember what it really is. They govern on our consent. Removing that will remove them.

[JackDragna]

32. Amen.

If this happens, there should be a national strike. The federal government is completely out of control.

[sillyphoenix]

46. I agree.

Let's all stay home and make love, not war :D

[focusfan]

33. something needs to be done

the idiot (president) doesn't realize that if we hit Iran they
will come back on us with nuclear Missiles.i hope if they do
they hit him first.

[Sterling]

53. "they will come back on us with nuclear Missiles." Do you know something the

rest of the world does not? Since when did Iran get Nukes and missles that could reach the US?

[dk2]

34. This is terrible,

One little thing could spark a whole mess. It wouldn't take much for this admin to look for a reason to go again.

[And the Oscar goes]

35. Cheney can get away with it - this is how

Here's some blue skying for you.

Cheney's persuaded Bush to take it to the limit - an armed facedown on the issue of the Al-Quaeda terrorists (dozens of them) currently under house arrest in Iran. There will probably be a public ultimatum to hand them over, complete with names and photos of the leadership - this is a card that has been saved until this time. At the same time, they have upped the ante on Iranian supply of armaments to terrorists - even though the Iranians are more than likely only arming the Shiite radicals in Iraq and not the Sunni secular radicals (Baathists) or Al Quaeda (also Sunni radicals). Once Al-Quaeda is linked to Iran in the minds of the public, Bush can portray them as being "re-armed" by a state sponsor of terrorism which is currently developing nukes.

After the ultimatum, Iran will then have 2 choices - hand them over and shut down its reactor, which wd be a major coup for Bush, who could then declare a "victory" in the war on terror, maybe enough to make the repubs look good for 2008, or resist. Resistance wd be met by a massive wave of "surgical strikes" on military targets and the reactor facilities. Of course it will result in an escalation of violence in the Lebanon & Palestine against Israel, and in a surge in terrorist attacks in Baghdad and in the Shiite South, on the poorly defended supply lines. We can expect to see large nos of troop casualties in the first few days, possibly hundreds dead.

Bush will then declare the US and Israel are under attack by terrorists and announce that the US will "fight back". He can draw the analogy with 9/11 b/c of the large initial troop losses. This is why the surge was imperative for Cheney - it was not to ensure democracy - it was to put targets on the ground and then react to keep the Iraqi Shiite govt in line as Iran was getting bombed. Remember, they cannot afford to lose Baghdad - but they can afford to run an urban warfare campaign _and_ take hundreds of casualties after successfully linking Iranian nukes to Al-Quaeda.

We can expect to see rhetoric along the lines of "the final battle", "the war to end the war", and various Five Freedoms type speeches - remember that the Four Freedoms were used as the reasons for US involvement in WWII. This is a field day for any speech writer worth his or her salt, and can be sold on the patriotism argument if the US and Israel can be successfuly sold as both under attack at the same time in large campaigns because they can link the terrorists to fascism, which has not yet been successfully done.

This is a war that can successfully be sold to the US public on the conditions of a) successfully linking Al-Quaeda with Iran, b) the re-armament argument, c) suffering large nos of initial casualties in Iraq to provoke the "under attack" mentality ("Naturally the common people don't want war. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament or a communist dictatorship. All you have to do is to tell them that they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." Hermann Goering), d) invoking the "final battle" argument, which will ignite the base, d) provoking an attack on Israel, thereby showing for the first time a crystal clear link to Iran and invoking the spectre of fascism.

And then bombing the crap out of Iran, increasingly escalating until Tehran is being bombed and they use a low yield battlefield nuke on the reactor facility.

At that stage, Iran will have no choice but to capitulate, and it will be occupied by either a US force or a UN force. I'm betting Cheney's dreaming of a US force going in there. It will be a small force, and it will go in to take the oil wells and occupy key facilities in Tehran. Any resistance will be met with the threat of destroying the Iranian civilization. With US soldiers wandering round with geiger counters and radiation suits because of the radioactive dust still in the atmosphere, they will have no choice but to take that threat pretty seriously. The people will be cowed and will obey the ayatollah, who will at that stage do anything to defend Persian Islam from annihilation.

Cheney's dreaming of the oil, and he justifies itself to himself on the basis of Freedom from Want. He would justify the destruction of Iran based on the Freedom from Fear. He truly believes he is a patriot.

There is only one thing I have not yet figured out. Will the Democrats stand for this? Will Clinton and Rockefeller and Kennedy and the rest accept the Five Freedoms argument that the ends justifies the means?

They may do. They are not so dumb as to not understand Cheney's logic. Pragmatically, the invasion of Iran would have no effect on the security of the secular Islamic states of Turkey, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Pakistan and Egypt. They are Arabic Sunni states compared to the Iranian Shiite state. That's about the same kind of difference as a Catholic State and a Protestant State, and 20 years ago Iran & Iraq were at war in a conflict that killed a million people. The Sunni world has not forgotten that. The Sunnis have no great love for the Shiites and some do not even consider them to be Muslims.

There would be an upsurge of radicalism in Saudi Arabia and Egypt, but not particularly anywhere else. The Saudis could deal with it - after all, the state is the leading proponent of hard line Sunni radicalism. They know who they would need to crack down on. In Pakistan, Turkey and Syria, the military have locked down the Islamists. Egypt could become a torn country, but would receive significant aid from the secular Sunni states and from the US. If necessary, they would declare military rule and adopt a Turkish model of government. There would be sufficient support for this from the merchant class and other vested interests to make it work, I believe.

Iraq would be a problem, and the govt wd hope a beaten Iran would be able to calm things down, but in an absolutely worst case scenario of societal self-destruction and anarchy, if the US withdrew from Iraq but kept Iran, it would be a net winner.

Overall, a net win for the US.

If it worked. If chaos did not result. If the people could accept the fact that the US govt deliberately misled them to fulfil a private agenda, a diktat based on the Five Freedoms, without being voted on, without informed consent. Seemingly directly against what the will of the American people spoke for in its latest elections, the latest employment of the democratic principle.

In other words, the decision, ultimately, of one man, or at best two. Naturally, this is permissible in a representative democracy underpinned by a constitution in order to react to events:

"Well, first of all, you've got to know I don't pay attention to polls. I just don't. I've got a job to do for the American people." Interview with Sir David Frost of the BBC, Nov 12, 2003.

However, the authority of the elected representative must be sufficient to justify the decision that was made. The recent elections, coupled with historically low approval ratings, throw that authority into doubt. In this case, the freedom of the press, the legal system and the Constitution are the remaining safeguards against a repressive democracy. Murdoch has admitted using the media to attempt to manipulate US policy. Republican judges have been installed in the Supreme Court and Democrat Attorney Generals fired as a policy of the executive. 800 executive signing statements have reduced the Constitution to just a piece of paper.

What remains?

I cannot answer that question. I have no right. I am not a US citizen. You tell me.

[melody]

38. great post

That's a superb, well-thought-out post. It shows an understanding of the larger issues.

This is just another genocide-for-oil campaign and the insiders have it all figured out (or so they think).

Frankly, based upon their moronic interpretation of public trends, these people have no clue how profoundly
hated they are by the US public. As for your not "having any right" -- neither do we. We lost all those the
day Junta Bush took office.

[intaglio]

41. I read you post with interest and, up to a point, agreed with you

The point where I stopped agreeing was here

"And then bombing the crap out of Iran, increasingly escalating until Tehran is being bombed and they use a low yield battlefield nuke on the reactor facility.

At that stage, Iran will have no choice but to capitulate ..."

If Bushco think that wiping out the capital of a large country ends a war then they need to read some history because it don't work that way (Ooops sorry made myself laugh out loud putting the words bushco, read and history in the same sentence); check out Napoleon and Moscow.

Tehran and the Iranian military will be aware that the US will put it's faith in total air superiority - but air superiority does not occupy territory nor does it police unoccupied territory. They will also be aware of US vulnerabilities, those include:
a) An overextended and poorly lead ground force in nearby territory;
b) A large naval presence operating in confined waters;
of course I am ignoring the massive threat posed to the US by "irregular" forces allied with Tehran.

If the regime in Washington does attack Iran then, sadly, they will have "sown the wind" and the harvest may be a little more than just a tornado.

[And the Oscar goes]

42. OK. Let's debate this.

Your argument on the massive threat of irregular forces is anticipated by and welcomed by the scenario. It triggers the "under attack" mentality and is key to it. The overextension in Iraq works in the same way. Acceptable, sudden losses are required to engender a counter-attack mentality. If this works, they will be able to justify escalation. Frankly, they could afford to lose a destroyer to an Iranian attack. It would work in Cheney's favor: "We are facing a determined, well-armed enemy. They have hurt us. Again. But, the US people cannot concede to terrorists now that they have shown themselves. They are no longer hidden. This is the war that will end the war on terror. This is the final battle we knew would come. And for the souls of those who died on september 11 and those who died upon USS(Fill in Blank), the US ppl cannot, will not, back down." Damn, I could write Bush's speech myself. They _need_ a defeat.

So, escalation by Iran or within Iraq is the prerequisite to large-scale bombing. I don't think you challenge whether the siege mentality and resulting counter-attack mentality can be engendered.

Both Gulf Wars showed air superiority is totally, devastatingly effective in total war situations. You challenge whether it could be used to subdue Tehran. I think they could wipe it off the map with fuel air bombs. I concede that fuel air bombs, however, would not end resistance. And, I believe they need the Iranian religious leadership intact (see my previous post). This is something they learned from Iraq.

One thing would end resistance. And logically, the US could not back down at this stage. In fact, Cheney would see no reason not to escalate.

You cite Moscow. I counter cite Hiroshima and Nagasaki and revived interest in sub-strategic battlefield nukes by the Bush regime. With around a 1kt detonation on Iran's reactor site, there would be a proven first strike use of battlefield nukes. I am not suggesting they will nuke Tehran. I do not think there will be a need after first use.

First use would end resistance locally and regionally because the Ayatollah would end it. The religious authorities would have no choice and Hizbollah and Hamas would be ordered to stand down.

I concede Baathist and Al-Quaeda resistance in Iraq will continue. Iraq may fail. But, Iran then becomes the prize.

In Iran itself, there would be no occupation force - it would be a minimalist observer force, ready to be withdrawn at any moment because the threat of the nuke would stand over Tehran.

What do you think?

[intaglio]

43. Agreed but again only to a point

Every war since and including WWII has demonstrated the devastating effect of total air superiority (TAS) - but only against conventional formations. In this debate I am using the word "formations" because I do not wish to imply only "terrorism" as the complete answer to TAS

The classic answer to air superiority has always been the same - dispersal. In Vietnam the US has TAS with only occasional losses to SAM missiles and MIGs, this overwhelming advantage still did not allow the US to significantly damage the NVA. This dispersal with later concentration allowed the NVA to damage the US military and keep them (the US military) concentrated.

Against Iran the US will be able bomb the concentrated targets - the atomic omplexes, the cities and then what? They will make - errr - "surgical strikes" against "the leadership" which will be as ineffective, indeed counterproductive, as those against Saddam. Troop concentrations will be detected that will turn out to be weddings, births or funerals. Strikes against radar emitting installations will be made and will be declared sucessful despite any evidence.

I strongly suspect that the Iranians will be planning round this scenario. They will be fully aware that largely static targets such as missile launchers will be the first to go so they will use those as soon as possible after the commencement of hostilities the targets will be Naval forces in the Gulf and the fixed US bases. There will be sacrificial radar units to draw US aircraft into danger from laser or IR guided misiles. Losses to US Air commands will occur.

Unlike Iraq, Iran has a significant coastline, nearly 2000 miles, from the Shaat al-Arab to the Pakistani border near Karachi. Iran has "Silkworm" missiles which are highly mobile, hard to detect and kill ships. Also, assuming the Iranians were not excessively hyping their technology, it is possible they have "supercavitating" torpedoes which are unstoppable by current methods.

I have almost completely ignored the "terrorist" aspect of the the anti-US campaign. Infiltration along the Iran/Iraq border will occur and US troop losses will rise hugely. Contrary to expectation I do not think the Iranians will sponsor terrorism outside the war zone but I do think that they will ensure it occurs within that zone.

[And the Oscar goes]

45. What about the b/f nuke?

We are agreed that TAS has its limits and is mainly effective against conventional troop deployments and fixed targets. Even with attacks on fixed targets, Tehran survived multiple SCUD attacks during the Iran-Iraq War. However, these were not targeted attacks. How would the Iranians react to the loss of the Milad Tower, the Azadi Tower? Or both their airports? In one day? And then there are the mosques. Would Ali Khamenei allow the piecemeal destruction of Islamic heritage?

TAS proved effective in desert conditions in Iraq in the Second Gulf War even with deep bunkering in place because of thermal exhaust at night. Fuel air bombs were a cheap and effective method of countering dispersal. TAS can be used for area denial mining of border areas.

Supercavitating torpedoes is a side issue. I think it's pretty clear that even if they do have them, they have not had time for mass production.

Your point on Silkworms will be interesting. They probably also have the Yinji-82 (C802). The US will have established a well-defended, effective naval firebase. It will very likely be 100km+ from shore and effectively out of range from shore-based attacks, although I concede the Iranian navy may be employed as firing platforms. There are numerous counter-measures to the C802, both active and passive, from stealth to radio jamming and anti-missile missiles. I believe US losses would be minimal - and Stratcom is being led right now by an admiral who knows what he is doing. Anyway, in terms of propoganda, like I said previously, the loss of a destroyer would work in Cheney's favour.

All that cleared away, let us come back to the battlefield nuke. Would it not result in capitulation?

[intaglio]

47. I don't know what would happen after the use of a "battlefield" nuke

But then nobody else does. A low yield nuke over Tehran would cause massive damage & casualties but the psychological/morale effect is a mystery.

There are some indications though; look at what happens when a population is faced with an implacable, ultraviolent enemy without conscience who causes destruction on such a scale. Sometimes there is capitulation but on other occasions there is anger and increased will to fight. Japan and Hiroshima/Nagasaki were a special case because the Japanese government was already making capitulation enquiries. Hanoi, Dresden, London, Guernica; although not subject to nukes; were subject to that type of destruction and the desire of the populace was not for capitulation but for revenge.

[And the Oscar goes]

48. Like I said previously - it will not be used over Tehran

Nice to 'see' you again. I don't think it will be used in an airburst detonation over the city. Specific targeting of facilities will employ the Tomahawks. I believe the nuke would be used directly on the reactor housing facility, at an ultralow 1kt yield. This may not even penetrate the deep bunkering they have in place. However, it would render the facility practically inoperative.

Let's look at the psychological effects that may then take place. Ultraviolence will have been employed on a non-urban area with minimum casualties (in the low thousands, possibly) and the population, well-educated and not totally in line with the current Islamic authorities, will realize the capital may be next. The Iranians were famous for employing human waves in the I-I War. Their bravery and preparedness to march to their deaths is not in question. However, there is no defence again a TAS assault which has demonstrated a first strike nuclear preparedness.

So, in fact, it would be an imperative not to attack Tehran with the nuke, but to demonstrate that it _could_ realistically face total annihilation. In this situation, I think they would capitulate. Cheney wins with a checkmate.

Your opinion?

[frankieT]

50. I agree with your "realpolitik" analysis

it lacks historical and geo-strategic perspective.

Thanks to mass media, the american "democracy" and public is good at finding excuses for genocidal policies. Everyone in US, from corporate interests to "freedom lovers", can demonstrate enough hypocrisy to accept 10000(0)'s of dead (among brown people), the use of tactical nukes, especially if 100's of their cherished soldiers die in the battlefield...thousands of miles away from home. But to the rest of the world, who would not benefit from this heist, it will be clear that US is the new hitlerian Reich. The outcry and resistance around the world would be unpredictable. Iran/Persia is a very old nation, and it's culture is deeply rooted in the Euro-Asian sphere. Besides, I think you over-estimate the supposed hatred between sunnis and shiites. That's for the historical part.

For the geo-strategy, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and all the arab US client states will certainly be happy to see a major player of the region being crushed, but not Russia, nor China, nor India.
This whole "war against terrorism" or islamic fundamentalism is a diversion from the long course war between US and the major world players: Russia, CHina, Europe, India, etc. Arabs countries are "nothing" except oil-stores. It's just an excuse for US to stir instability with "low-intensity" conflicts in the ME near Europe, Russia and China. Since the 80's, Saudi Arabia and US helped every possible islamic insurgency except in states already in the US sphere: either the destabilization disrupts the euro-asian sphere (chechnya, balkans,etc), either it gives US an excuse to invade or establish bases in Central Asia around Russia and China and limit their influence there. It's a win-win situation. I think that the main war is against Russia and China, so I guess you underestimate their willingness to defend Iran from the american flag.

[And the Oscar goes]

51. Not my underestimation - Cheney's

So, we are on "Clash of Civilizations" ground here, now. I was scoping the scenario that I think Cheney et al are working through. I have my own doubts as to whether or not it would all work out in the end. I do not think their own historical and geopolitical understanding is complete, or, if it is, I believe they are assuming a 'New World Order' paradigm based on the 911 attacks giving them a wild card, tinged with Christian fundamentalism.

I do believe that chaos would result, far more than could be managed. The Eueopean countries would definitely be more exposed and attacks on US soil would result. However, the EU has no effective leverage on the US and are vulnerable to emerging rightwing sentiment in countries such as the UK, France, Germany and Austria.

I think the hatred between radical Sunnis and radical Shiites is proven. For that reason, there won't be much of an eruption of anti-US sentiment by the Sunnis beyond where it is now if the US goes into Iran. The middle ground is, well, in the middle. There was a recent crackdown on the Mu

China has been given a bone - US capitulation on the North Korea issue.

I am waiting to see how Russia will be pacified - depending on the size of the bone, we may expect to see invasion.

[And the Oscar goes]

52. Not my underestimation - Cheney's

So, we are on "Clash of Civilizations" ground here, now. I was scoping the scenario that I think Cheney et al are working through. I have my own doubts as to whether or not it would all work out in the end. I do not think their own historical and geopolitical understanding is complete, or, if it is, I believe they are assuming a 'New World Order' paradigm based on the 911 attacks giving them a wild card, tinged with Christian fundamentalism.

I do believe that chaos would result, far more than could be managed. The Eueopean countries would definitely be more exposed and attacks on US soil would result. However, the EU has no effective leverage on the US and are vulnerable to emerging rightwing sentiment in countries such as the UK, France, Germany and Austria.

I think the hatred between radical Sunnis and radical Shiites is proven. For that reason, there won't be much of an eruption of anti-US sentiment by the Sunnis beyond where it is now if the US goes into Iran. The middle ground is, well, in the middle. There was a recent crackdown on the Mu

China has been given a bone - US capitulation on the North Korea issue.

I am waiting to see how Russia will be pacified - depending on the size of the bone, we may expect to see invasion.

[lovuian]

36. When this happens WWIII will begin

China will support Iran

[And the Oscar goes]

40. No, it won't - Cheney has covered the China angle w/ North Korea

There will be massive worldwide condemnation, various sanctions might be imposed by the Arab world and there will be absolutely no military action. Carpet bombing or the detonation of a battlefield nuke that forces regime change in Iran will make everybody think twice but other countries will accept the world has changed. China will not suddenly decide to nuke Taiwan. Also, with accurate targeting of the nuke, casualties could be kept in the thousands - politically acceptable in the international forums given the civilian kill total estimates of around 100,000 to date in Iraq - and will no doubt be minimized.

A face-saving measure has been created for China. This is it: China has its own Islamic terrorist problems in its western provinces. It will accept a remodeling of the Islamic world as in its greater interests and will respect the application of 5th Freedom Principle - this is common philosophical and political ground between the US and China. So, the US has gone back to the table with North Korea. We can expect several technical concessions to be made to North Korea that cannot be understood by the average US citizen as backing down. I believe this has already started. Then, when the nuke drops, the US negotiators will look the Chinese in the eyes and they will come to an understanding. North Korea will be the stake on the board and China will cooperate.

Russia will act pissed but shares common ground in a desire for a remodeling of the Islamic states. Fifth Freedom logic is again common ground. Russia's posturing will be used for extorting trade benefits from the US in bilateral agreements. They may get some of the Iranian oil.

This is Cheney's line of reasoning. I think he's correct in that he can get away with this in terms of the fallout. No pun intended.

[Kurovski]

39. Kick.

Impeach now.

[Voltaire99]

49. Weak opposition gives imperial bozo free reign

Same old story. Same old duopoly.