This will go over well in Jerusalem:
Were Israel to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities, Iran would respond so strongly that it would put the Jewish state into “an eternal coma” like Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s, the Iranian defense minister said Wednesday.
Israeli Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz has said his country would not accept Iran’s acquiring nuclear weapons under any circumstances. He stopped short of threatening a military strike against Iran – as Israel destroyed an unfinished Iraqi nuclear reactor in 1981 – but he said Israel was preparing for the possible failure of diplomatic negotiations with Iran.
A newscaster on Iranian state television read out a response from Iran’s minister of defense, Gen. Mostafa Mohammad Najjar, on Wednesday.
“Zionists should know that if they do anything evil against Iran, the response of Iran’s armed forces will be so firm that it will send them into eternal coma, like Sharon,” Najjar said.
I loathe the Middle East. Well, I loathe the political climate.
Fortunately George Bush is president.
What cause is there to worry?
To which Mofaz replied “You’re mother doesn’t wear a hijab. Ooga-booga-booga.”
Hear that one John. That’s why I wish there were some way we could get the hell away from that area. I don’t mean to be one of those evil isolationist types, but I really think we’d be better off keeping a guarded distance from the place. Oh well.
I guess 9/11 didn’t make it clear enough for some people that we can’t just ‘keep a guarded distance’ and hope it will go away without harming us
*maybe if we had more fuel efficient vehicles, europe style mass transit, and higher gas taxes to help pay for it plus encourage less driving we wouldn’t need our enemies oil so much*
Were we keeping a guarded distance prior to 9/11? IIRC part of what encouraged so many saudis to be a part of that mission was our presence in their holy land. Or am I just showing a pre 9/11 mindset?
We had a guarded distance before 9/11?
Boooooo!!! I love driving.
You know we could start a conversation on how our batshit crazy oil consumption helps fund Iran’s nuclear ambitions. But that would be “socialist” thinking, somehow.
Sooner or later this country is going to have to wake up and face reality. Either we go balls-to-the-wall in a war for oil (and be honest about it*), or we start looking into alternatives. Which of these approaches would cost less?
*No, I am not saying Iraq is completely motivated by oil, but our entire ME policy is.
Bob In Pacifica
The 1963 Dallas coup gave the Big Oil/Military Alliance control of our country. If you want to get out of other people’s business, you gotta get Big Oil out of power.
And the Freemasons, don’t forget the Freemasons!
I disagree. I think its naive to think there was any other reason for getting rid of Saddam. Paul Wolfowitz said we can’t let a madman control the economic lifeline of the west. IMO we certainly couldn’t allow him to gain WMDs, then we’d be stuck with him and he’d get a seat at the big boys table. So we took him out now, while he was weak from 12 years of crippling sanctions. I just wish there was a plan for after we knocked him over.
Freemasons? I thought it was the Mormons.
And we sure as hell didn’t have a “distant” policy toward the Middle East before 9/11, as anyone even marginally literate would know.
We knocked over the democratically elected government of Mossadegh in 1953, for Judas’ sake. We propped up the Shah and his secret police for decades. This didn’t exactly win us lots of friends in Iran, you know. And why did we do it?
“Operation Iranian Liberation,” I guess.
Hadn’t been a problem before. When exactly did he cross over to madman? The mullahs have been driving Iran since 1979. And just who started Wahabbism?
Sometime during the Clinton administration. This is why I can’t respect any true conservative who says that Saddam had any chance in hell of surviving a republican administration. 9/11 and Al Qaeda had nothing to do with it. we were going anyway. Those two items just made the sell job much easier.
Heh, yeah, before 9/11, we were leaving the Middle East alone, and it came and found us. That was an extremely fact-based argument.
Which are actually 12 foot tall, shape shifting, alien lizardoids, as everyone knows.
JG, I said going into Iraq was not completely motivated by oil. Numerous other factors played into it. I think there were many people involved with very different motivations spanning from the most corrupt to altruistic — it was still a dumb-ass idea though. Certainly, Israel and domestic politics played a larger role than many care to admit.
No, we provoked them by letting our women run around without burkas wearing mini-skirts and driving cars
What’s wrong with the political climate, besides the fact that their heads of state sound like Darrell…
No, damn it, Pablo! The “12 foot tall, shape shifting, alien lizardroids” are just fairy tales made up to scare us into war.
The Freemasons are only 11′ 11″ shape shifting alient lizardroids. Get your freaking facts right!
demimondian is clearly a tool of the Zionists. Do not believe his demonic propaganda.
Your personal lizardroid companion is on his way over right now, Pablo.
i just got out of a IZC meeting (intl zionist conspiracy).
we decided we would not only bomb iran’s nuke plants but their airforce and navy and missile sites too.
Try 1990 — the invasion of Kuwait and all his wildeyed rhetoric back then put the mark of the loon on him. Ignoring UN Resolutions during the Clinton years sealed the deal.
What was there to eat?
Well, who could have predicted it?
When we took down Saddam who could have guessed that Iran might become a problem within a few years down the road?
Well, here’s a prediction I’ll stand by.
The life of a US soldier in Iraq will be strongly impacted by an attack on Iran by either the US or Israel. And if it’s more than just air strikes it’s really gonna suck in Sadr City.
Is this gonna be safe for kids?
Why didn’t we arrest al-Sadr again?
Is any part of the Iranian air force still flying? I was under the impression that they’d been having spare parts issues for a while now.
Mainly, we lie awake at night hoping that George W. Onionhead will go away with (further) harming us.
Well they did get some of Saddam’s jets as I recall.
Puppies are trafe, ppG. I can’t see serving them at a meeting of the IZC.
Davebo — yeah, but Saddam’s airforce was Russian, and therefore metric. That’s not gonna work well with any of them good old (and I mean *OLD*) ‘murkan jets.
The Other Steve
Perhaps if we banned gay marriage, abortion, drinking, gambling, women running around without burkas wearing mini-skirts, they would leave us alone.
That appears to be the Republican plan.
Post of the Day.
Ah, I see you have good intelligence. What air force is it that you speak of? Or do the freemasons have bases in Iran?
OK, so he wasn’t a madman when he was gassing the Kurds. Which is at least consistent with then-Republican thinking.
We may be closer to that then you think!
God bless compassionate conservatism.
Let me start off by saying I’m Jewish, Zionist, and not a huge fan of Iran having nukes.
But, Jeez Louise, the US and Israel are openly discussing bombing Iran. Hell, some politicians are openly suggesting nuking Iran. Of course Iran’s leaders are going to respond with threats of their own!
Have we disappeared so far down the rabbit hole that we think we can toss around scenarios that involve reducing parts of Iran to rubble, and the people we’re talking about doing that to are supposed keep their mouths shut and just take it?
That’s the same kind of mindset that thinks countries we invade and occupy ought to be grateful for it, which has worked out so well in Iraq.
off topic, but because no one is reading the Gorgeous George thread anymore, here it is.
they’re not done with georgie yet
moflicky…what is it you Republicans have with Galloway, anyway? He’s certainly clever, and I imagine that he’s fun during a night on the town, at least if your tastes run to fat, egotistical scam artists, but, if you want that, I think you can do at least as well within your own party.
No — but that doesn’t mean they should be making the threats they’re making either. The Israelis need to decide whether the Iranian posturing is just for internal consumption, or if it’s for real. The right way to handle that is to say, as Israel has, that if Iran proceeds from threats to act, then Israel will follow.
If this is all for show, then the Iranian government gets to do more posturing, and nobody’s hurt. If it isn’t all for show, though, then there’s a much better chance that some lower down will start reminding the talking heads that things probably shouldn’t go beyond words, anyway.
“i just got out of a IZC meeting (intl zionist conspiracy). we decided we would not only bomb iran’s nuke plants but their airforce and navy and missile sites too.”
Fine, but who is going to pay for it? Meanwhile, was this among the IZC pick-me-ups?::
“A conference which took place yesterday against the establishment of a mixed Arab-Jewish school in Pat, Jerusalem saw harsh attacks made by well-known rabbis. The (ha-mekubal) Rabbi David Bazri said: “The establishment of such a school is a foul, disgraceful deed. You can’t mix pure and foul. They are a disease, a disaster, a devil. The Arabs are asses, and the question must be asked, why did God did not create them walking on their fours? The answer is that they need to build and wash. They have no place in our school”.
Bush has to go to war with Iran. Their people just won the election in Iraq and we can’t leave until Tehran’s hold over our oil patch is broken.
All this nuke bullshit is just the 2006 version of the WMD canard.
Holy shit, and I mean, holy shit … pun intended.
Who are these crazy motherfuckers running this country?
I haven’t heard much bellicosity from the Israelis yet on this. It’s America and its Tom Holsingers and Charles Krauthammers that need to pipe down.
Once again, they are doing just that. In this country we have already concluded that Iran is gunning for nuclear weapons and heading for a showdown with Israel when in reality the only thing they have done is state a desire for nuclear energy. I’m going to go out on a limb and suggest we take them at their word. Ahmadinejad may be on record now as an apocalyptic space case, but this Iranian state press fellow finds the brouhaha amusing:
So there you have it. Anti-Semitism is the order of the day; so it’s business as usual. I am reversing my original position and now I feel that we must disregard the anti-Semitism if we want to make any deals with Middle Eastern pols. If we want to bring Iran back under the scrutiny of the IAEA, someone is going to have to negotiate with them and give them the green light to finish their reactors and their low grade enrichment without a hassle. Because if we keep threatening them, why wouldn’t they want a bomb?
The Iranians don’t need an air force. They have been dealing with the Russians for anti-aircraft capability for awhile now. They won’t shoot down most of our strike force, but they’ll sure as shit shoot some of it down.
Oh, and then there’s the Straits of Hormuz. Twelve well-placed Czarist mines from 1915 would shut that down. Let alone a few Silkworm or Exocet missiles.
How’s about some $200/bbl. oil?
Only a madman would attack Iran. Oh, wait: who’s in the White House?
I believe the consensus on the Galloway thread by you lefties was that he was a hero who put a US senator in his place. A hero, just like Cindy and Howard Dean.
I’m wondering why the left in this country seems to gravitate towards such loudmouth losers. Picking your enemies is easy. Picking your allies is much trickier.
Certainly, as a conservative and an Iraq war supporter, I have precious little choice but to back dubya, as much as that pains me. You guys have the whole world to choose from and these are the duds you choose as your standard bearers.
I’m not optimistic for the democrats.
Stickler, I think you’re woefully misinformed about Iran’s ability to affect our military in the straits or the air. a few wwII era mines? they’d be swept and cleared within hours. anti-aircraft? they’d have to see us before they can hit us. missiles? they might get lucky once or twice, but the second they showed their heads, that would be their last chance.
Protecting the straits for shipping traffic would be an easy proposition for our navy, and I would bet my left nut that we could fly a thousand successful sorties over Iran for every one they might stop or shoot down.
Iran is less equiped and prepared to deal with our military than Iraq was, and the nay sayers said the very same things about their military ability. didn’t the first two gulf wars teach you anything? your suppositions seem more like wishful thinking to me.
I can’t disagree with you on invasion, but not for the reasons you state.
Your position that we shouldn’t confront Iran in this way is all fine and dandy, and I’m not close to being ready to propose such a thing, but the least you could do is back up your opinion with something more than unsupportable fantasies.
Isn’t that exactly what the europeans have been offering them for the last few years? low grade enrichment, nuclear power reactors with supervision?
they’re not interested. don’t you read the newspapers?
or do you restrict your reading to official Iranian press releases?
Hey moflicky, what’s with the fuckin’ tone? Aside from that, you don’t seem to understand what they want. They don’t want any HELP from Europe, or anyone. Can you grasp that? They want to be left alone. They have stated many times that they want dialogue and IAEA compliance. Iran is simply being firm about the terms: we don’t need a sponsor or a nanny. Leave us alone. I’m putting myself in their shoes, and if this is a matter of national pride to them, I would be telling Europe to bugger off too.
RonB: Mo is just a frantic vaseline war boy who thinks if we have another war it will somehow undo all the damage from the previous one.
He listens to a lot of AM radio.
moflicky — like I said, what is it the you Republicans have with Galloway? You guys are the ones who have the consensus that Galloway is a hero to the left, not us. Like I said, if I wanted to associate myself with a fat, duplicitous psychopath, I’d stay closer to home — Karl Rove would do just as well, and he has real power. And, failing that, Newt Gingrich is a lot cleverer than either of them.
Oh, wait — are you trying to set us up for a night on the town with Galloway, Sheehan, and Churchill? Sorry, guy. Our tastes run to honest, clean government by people who actually want to make things work better. I’m afraid that your hero worship of the folk on the raical right doesn’t have a mirror image on the left.
Paddy- been there, done that as you know. I recognize the thinking.
my tone? aw, come on.
I know exactly what they want – of course they want to be left alone. That tactic sure worked well with NoKo. They’ve also for years preached that Iran will be the first islamic nuclear power.
and paddy cake, you’re just too cute to get mad at. kind of like a small child throwing a fit in the grocery store.
Mo: Nah, no kisses from you. Last thing I need right now is some ugly dude like you slobbering on my dick.
You may not give these folks the reverence of some of your ideological brethren, but re-read the last two threads about sheehan and galloway. there’s plenty of it there.
I don’t make this stuff up, I just tells it like i sees it.
whom do I worship? have I spoken about or linked to anyone?
Have I ever come to the defense of hannity, limbaugh or coulter? I don’t read watch or listen to any of them.
hell, I even think bush is a boob. It’s not my fault that there’s no one out there willing and able to articulate my viewpoints.
and contrary to cow paddy’s assertion, my radio habits tend towards NPR and classic rock.
So we should invade North Korea too? Face it. We are pretty powerless to stop either of them. Too much destruction and death at stake regarding NK, disastrous oil prices and yet another messy occupation in another. We can rattle the saber but both know that’s all we’ve got.
Bob In Pacifica
Marcus, how many wars are being fought for freemasons?
Yes, lay-dees and gennlemen! Soon, your sons and daughters can be turning the corner on the dead-enders who are floating those explosives-laden inflatables! After all, the USS Cole never happened.
Moflicky, what are you smoking, man, and where are you getting it? Somebody needs to turn your dealer in to the DEA.
said with a straight face
“Zionists should know that if they do anything evil against Iran, the response of Iran’s armed forces will be so firm that it will send them into eternal coma, like Sharon,” Najjar said.
I love this kind of rhetoric, it’s much more amusing than the bland American variety.
The Left? Have you heard of Rush, O’reilly, Hannity, Savage?
Sadly, the Iranian forces are better than you want to believe. They’re not tier one (US, UK, Germany, etc), but there are good reasons to think they might qualify as tier two (Spain, Poland, Turkey, etc.)
I like to cite three factors for this judgement. The most important is one that isn’t usually seen, but: They successfully conduct annual cooperative exercises of larger-than-division size, to include multi-department exercises. For this last, that means they conduct an exercise that has navy, air force and army units relying on each other to do their part. They’ve not yet whipped the stereotypical Middle Eastern Military flaw of divisional fiefdoms, but they’re a lot closer than just about every one of their peers.
The second major factor is their strategic logistics. Over 95% of their ground forces materiel is internally produced. They build and maintain all of their air force except their air-to-air fighters, which are in development. (If given five years, they’ll be self-produced. FWIW, they’re F5 knock-offs.) They produce their own surface naval craft up to Frigate size, to include their amphibious operations craft (reinforced mechanized battalion capacity). They licensed and produce their own anti-air and anti-ship missiles, both of which are only about one generation behind what we use. They make their own bullets and bombs and artillery pieces and… Logistically, they’re very strong in the materiel and materiel support chain.
Third strength is that their gear is pretty darn good. Single example. They produce two tanks. The heavy tank (comparing solely equipment, not how well they’re operated) compares favorably to the M-60A5. It’s got thermal sights. It’s got an onboard ballistic computer. And so on and so forth. The M1 series will out do it toe to toe. But instead of 5:1 or worse needed for what Iraq had, 3:1 is probably not comfortable for the Abrams. As for the other tank, it’s a light tank about which we don’t know a lot. Other than it’s built for coming as close as possible to matching the other tank’s performance while operating in mountains.
Not really a point in performance, but something of which to be very aware when considering attacking Iran, is those mountains. Go look at a terrain map and notice that every route we have into that nation goes through a mountain range that’s at least 200 km deep. And they’re not Appalachians, they’re Rockies (to use US comparisons). Abrams and even M60s are NOT going to like anything off the main highways.
If we had to deal with Iran and there were no other considerations we’d defeat their military but spend some blood in the process – they’re good, we’re a lot better, and we’d win air superiority (with occassional losses). But there are other considerations, and the question is whether they’re enough to make up the difference.
I agree with John. I loathe the political climate of the Middle East. But one of the oars stirring the muck is ours, so we’re stuck with it for now. That being the case, let’s not be blindly stupid about the other oars in that water.
Just curious, on what basis do you conclude that Iran’s tanks compare favorably to US tanks? This June 2005 Strategy Page article says the exact opposite
First, reread what I said and what James Dunnigan said. I did say that compared to our frontline, their tanks aren’t adequate. An M1 vs and M60, the Abrams wins. There’s no difference in what we’re saying in that regard. As to the broader point, let me begin by noting my primary source. Center for Strategic and International Studies, “Iran’s Developing Conventional Military Capabilities”, ISBN:0-89206-469-2, published May 1, 2005 (completed for publisher, according to my copy, in December of 2004).
According to this reference, Iran had about 100 of their home-grown tank (the Zulfiqar aka the T72Z) at the time of writing and had begun a production rate of some 40-50 per year. The link I’ve got in there is Global Security’s evaluation of the tank, which is a bit different from the opinion both Dunnigan (Strategypage) and Crawford (Milnet) hold – mainly based on Global Security noting the tanks are homebuilt while the other two describe them as (essentially) junkyard dogs – assemblies of parts rescued from older vehicles.
The whole of the 2000 some tank force of Iran is crap – on that everyone agrees. On the other hand, the majority of those tanks sit in what is essentially the “army reserve” of Iran with forces of equal training. The regular army (not the Republican Guard equivalents) is pretty much T-72 and Zulfiqar or Tosan (the light tank). Thus my contention that when facing the main army we’re facing more than floor sweepings in terms of equipment.
Oh – I need to correct an impression of that light tank. It’s a 90mm gun, not the 125mm of the MBTs. It’s a mountain tank, not a main battle tank. By “comparable systems” I meant the laser designator and the ballistic computer and so on and so forth – the things that potentially make it very deadly provided the crew is worth crap.
What appears to have happened is that somewhere after the Iran-Iraq war the Mullahs in charge took a somewhat honest look at what happened and decided to correct their deficiencies. Sure, if outside forces hadn’t intervened they probably would have won – they’d started regaining ground in the last six months of that war. But they lost – consistently – for several reasons, one large one being they used a heavily light-infantry force against a mechanized force on open terrain. And where they DID have mechanized forces, the equipment was crappy and supported/supplied by outsiders. In the intervening couple of decades they appear to have been working to correct that. Given another five years of the same progress it’ll be obvious. Given a decade of the same progress they’ll be the dominant force of the middle east – including over Turkey, Pakistan and Israel. (Assuming no outside aid to any of those three.) That is, of course, opinion.
geez demi, you’re asking me what I’m smoking?
I’ll type really slow so’s you’ll understand. the Cole was one. ship. docked. in. a. friendly. port. with. lots. of. shipping. traffic.
they were NOT on a war footing. they were NOT on alert. They had CLINTON as cic.
an effective blockade would require just a bit more than a few inflatables, especially against a carrier battle group on full alert, don’t you think? or don’t you think? You do understand the difference between those two scenarios, don’t you?
The Iranians -might- get lucky once. the interuption of shipping through the straits would be negligable at best.
RonB, never said that, nor am I advocating iranian invasion.
I’m only saying that our military would crush them with little casualties in an air and sea conflict. Obviously, invasion and occupation would be at least as tough as iraq has been.
But appeasement and negotiation are only effective with honorable men. NoKo and Iran have proven time and time again that they never intend to uphold their ends of the bargain.
at what point during a negotiation do you decide that giving in and giving up more and more concessions without anything in return is counter productive?
I don’t dispute any of this. I’m not arguing invasion. I’m simply pointing out that the effectiveness of all you’re talking about would be negligible in defending against air strikes against isolated land targets and in enforcing a blockade or even disruption of shipping traffic in the gulf straits – points being argued by others in this thread.
The Other Steve
I think Kirk is right, and you’re underestimating the effectiveness of an Iranian ground force. Modern combat isn’t fought on the seas or in the air, it’s on the ground.
I get the impression that Iran is far smarter than most of the other nations in southwest asia. They did, after all, trick the United States into invading Iraq and eliminating their nearest enemy.
I would not underestimate them.
Until there is a middle ground, we are stuck between those two options, between attack and concessions. I think it may be time for renewed extensive dialogue. We can defuse both crises…our attitude towards these countries has got to thaw a little. North Koreans are dying and fighting for scraps daily on the street. It’s time to stop the madness and talk with this nutcase. We have much to offer him-let’s do it and perhaps the thaw will help him make the right decision about nuclearizing.
So too with Iran-time to drop the stick and thaw relations. The Axis of Evil dictum has not borne any good fruit at all.
Mo, you say you are not in favor of invasion. What is your position? Is there an excluded middle Im not considering regarding the choice between military action and concession and renewed relations?
OK, I see I jumped in my reasoning without dragging people along. Let me backtrack a bit so you see why the quality of the ground forces matters.
If we conduct an airstrike on Iranian property, Iran declares war. From this, all sort of things change.
First and foremost, the shadow game going on in Iraq goes into a much more open status. Right now Iranian incitement and support of insurgents is as below the radar as they can manage. If a state of war exists, however, Iran gets more cards to play. Diplomatically, they can force the government of Iraq to decide between three options: neutrality, Support US, Support Iran. Neutrality has some very specific requirements but a few options as well. In common to all is that all US military forces (and materiel) are given a limited period of time to depart Iraqi soil or face internment. If Iraq chooses the US, then by the official nature of war Iran can send military forces in for strikes against Iraqi and US forces. Given that the majority of the population is Shia and a large number (see particularly the followers of al Sadr) are very, umm, fond of Iran, it’s quite possible we’d be facing a drastic increase in so-to-speak low-intensity conflict within Iraq. Eventually the only way to stop that would be to a) leave or b) overthrow Iran. And overthrow by that point will require an invasion. That’s the chain.
Actually there’s a parallel chain, and it’s where you scoffed the hardest. WWII mines is what Iran used last time. This time they’re a bit nastier. Again, let me begin with the diplomatic action. Upon declaration of war, Iran is legally (loosely speaking – international treaty) allowed to deny transit of the straits to shipping that supports its foe. That’s military and civilian transit. Ships that are not US (or declared ally) flagged are nominally safe from internment/destruction unless they are carrying supplies to or purchased by the US and/or its allies. Nominally safe is the key – accidents of war happen. And accidents of war are why insurance rates for carriers that insist on transit through a war zone jump a lot. The practical effect is two-fold with one end-result. First, every tanker adds a surcharge to petroleum transport. Second, a lot of carriers choose another route. End-result is that since less oil is leaving the area the cost of it goes up a LOT. How much is debatable, but +30% is the floor. Personally I’d bet on closer to double, but that’s my swag. Note that this is just based on insurance issues and warzone declaration – no ships sunk yet.
And this time there would probably be some shipping sunk. Ignore, please, the subs Iran bought from Russia. They’re impractical in the area, and the crews are alleged to be barely competent. That and the maintenance issue for a completely external support item make those a joke. No, Iran’s danger to transit of the straits lies in three other places. Those are mini-subs, missile boats, and mines.
Mini subs. The Iranians build the al-Sabehat-15, and are believed to have build approximately a dozen since the prototype came out in 2000. They’ve also purchased a number of min-subs from North Korea, and it’s believed they’re very similar. The sub is a joke on the open seas, but we’re not discussing open seas. It can carry three swimmers, two torpedos, and a handful of mines depending on type. It’s diesel-electric with enough range on the electric to run from one end of the straits to the other, with an estimated submerged time cap of 12 hours. It’s alleged got a loud propellor for an electric, but that’s not saying a lot. In the shallow and dirty water of the straits they’re going to be difficult for our navy to pick up. Personal bet on use: deliver mines. If they try to attack our navy they probably get one shot at a screen ship, after which they’re dead. Iran’s got a dozen (maybe) not hundreds. They probably can’t afford to lose them that fast. Second choice is sinking civilian shipping that’s known to be US flagged. See allowances of war. Note that the shipping channel is so narrow and shallow that sinking a large tanker or two effectively plugs the straits to civilian till they’re re-surveyed. Won’t stop the navy, but that’s not the point. Third choice is if they see a way to get a US capital ship – a carrier by first choice. It’s highly unlikely, and it’s a near-guaranteed writeoff of the sub. Note, please, that one reason for the ‘highly unlikely’ is that it’s believed it would take both torpedos minimum to sink a carrier barring extraordinarily good luck. Given hit probabilities and damage probabilities, it’d take two and maybe three subs actually firing, which would in turn require using and losing nearly the entire fleet to get those into position.
The second item is the missile boats. They bought 40 HuDongs from China along with (allegedly) a few hundred or so C-801/802(Sea Eagle) anti-ship missiles. (That’s the Chinese system developed from the Exocet.) Additionally, they bought the license to build both boats and missiles, and have allegedly made at least two boats and some (number unknown) missiles. Once more, if they use these against our navy they’re sitting ducks. Against civilian ships, however, we’re talking boats with a surface speed of ~35+ knots armed with a missile that’s got ~40km range. As fair note, they’ve successfully fired the missiles at targets during training. As an Oh-By-The-Way note, the Iranians also have land launch systems for these missiles. I expect in a war for most of those to be targets soon after we hit anti-air sites. But we probably won’t get them all.
Mines. Iran makes really good mines these days. They make non-magnetic free-floating command detonation mines. They got acoustic, pressure, and magnetic mines from Russia and have reverse engineered them successfully. They negotiated for and received (but are not yet believed to be building their own) rocket-propelled rising mines from China. Iran’s minesweepers are sitting ducks. The Kilo subs are a joke for mine delivery. But again I point to the mini-subs and note that’s one of the two big jobs for which they’re designed.
Bottom line: If we air-strike or blockade Iran, we get a declaration of war. If that happens, the straits of Hormuz become “transitting a war zone” with a force able to put a bit of tooth into the declaration. As a consequence we see petroleum prices spike heavily, and are goinng to find it necessary to deal with the situation, which in turn means we have to face ground forces.
Hopefully that shows my reasoning of why I jumped to the ground forces.
Oh – I should point out one more thing. If we shut down Iran’s production, we shut down an estimated 4billion bbl/day of oil at a time when the IEA estimates that a 2bn bbl/day shortfall should require nations to declare petroleum emergencies. I’ll also point out that this isn’t going to happen in a vacuum. We should keep in mind that the single largest buyer of Iranian oil is China, which gets approximately 25% of its current imported petroleum from Iran. And they’ve negotiated for and are in the process of building a dedicated production and delivery system in Iran that’ll increase that by a lot. So anybody who looks at Iran in isolation just isn’t seeing the important points.
Attack Iran, deal with China somehow. Think this administration can keep them out through diplomacy?
Correction to preceding. Million, not billion, barrels per day.