Iran assessment (no politics please)

[danlongman]

A couple of things that I think people should think about.
First of all.... of the proposed courses of action, which have historically turned out
the way the instigators wanted them to and how many resulted in an avalanche
of unforeseen circumstances?
Secondly everybody should have a look at what happened in the Millenium Challenge
exercise and refer back to the first point.
Just my thoughts with neither politix nor religion.
cheers i hope

[Icedawg]

ORIGINAL: Icedawg

"Iran assessment (no politics please)"

Discussing Iran without letting politics creep into the conversation?

Isn't that like talking about Pamela Anderson without mentioning her boobs?

You guys are talking about the boobs now.

[Lcp Purcell]

ORIGINAL: The Gnome

Jeff "Skunk" Baxter

very interesting talk, but in a lot of ways he was confined into the group-think box which dominated the policies of last decade. Also I never realized one of my favorite guitarist was a member of the intelligence community.

[geofflambert]

ORIGINAL: Lcp Purcell

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

impossibility of running a modern country with a 100.0% reduction in one's main / exclusive (?) cash export

a person would expect Saudi Arabia to have a far more sophisticated manufacturing center and military industrial complex than Iran, they are richer, they are better educated, they have unfettered access to import advanced technology but they don't have a better industrial complex. Because they have no need to. In 1979 we started an ongoing embargo against Iran, they could not get spare parts for their military equipment, so they figured out how to make those spare parts themselves, 30 some years of sanctions has left them fairly self reliant, while Saudi Arabia buys all their spare parts from us. Iran does not have a modern economy, they have a 19th century economy the kind we had when import tariffs ran 25%-50%

I resisted looking at this thread because I knew it was going to be a nightmare. I failed, and I found so much to disagree with. I'm going to pretend my opinion is valuable and outline some of my disagreements. I will begin with the well-meaning post above. If any nation is in a dark age, it is Saudi Arabia. The Iranians are a proud and resourceful people, and their education system is certainly not second to SA or any other Arab state, for that matter. Money is not speech, worthfulness, indicitave of intellectual accomplishment or any of the other stuff implied here (see virtuosity). What I said about the Iranis, does it remind anyone of something Admiral Yamamoto said?

The US will strenuosly (under OBama) evade an armed conflict with Iran. Without regard to Mr. Netanyahu's insistance on a commitment from the US to attack, the methods of response fall into two categories. Either we have a weapon system that involves a chain of small atomic bombs that will burrow through miles of rock to destroy what we want destroyed, or we put boots on the ground. Many may consider that Iraq was a cake walk, but Iran will be no such thing. Furthermore, if we press too severely, even before attempting such an attack, we may provoke attacks on our carrier fleets trying to pass into the Gulf, or if we decline to continue operating in that way, the attacks will sink every tanker attempting the transit. The Revolutionary Guard has planned, trained and is equipped to carry out these attacks, reminiscent of the attack on the Cole, but much more sophisticated and numerous in units attacking. This tactic will be sustained indefinitely. With all our technology, our carrier battle groups have little effective defenses against these small, fast craft suicide bombings and the Revolutionary Guard knows this. We will be forced to abandon the Gulf even after we've destroyed (and we will) every significant ship in the Irani Navy and their ports to boot. Asymetric warfare is an abstract concept that can be applied in many ways, in many different sets of circumstances.

[geofflambert]

ORIGINAL: Lcp Purcell

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


Unfortunately, given geography and the relative military strengths in the neighborhood, Iran doesn't necessarily need nukes to engage in MAD, or at least attempt it.

true, true... you know if someone blows up your nuclear reactor the natural response would be to blow up theirs. truth is Iran does not need a A-bomb to nuke Israel, they just need to get some GPS guidance into their missiles (which they most likely already have) .....

Full stop. as I was doing a bit of digging to further this post I ran across this bit of ominous news.

Iranian war fears spark closure of Israel reactor THE AUSTRALIAN, January 09, 2012 ISRAEL is preparing to shut its nuclear reactor at Dimona, where it makes nuclear weapons, because of the site’s vulnerability in a war with Iran.

The decision, taken by the Israel Atomic Energy Commission and the
country’s civil defence authorities, follows a realisation that the
facility could be vulnerable to a missile attack.

The Haaretz newspaper quoted officials last week as saying they had
concluded the reactor was no longer impenetrable in the event of war.

Deactivating the reactor in the southern Negev desert would minimise
the dangers of nuclear fallout in the area “should it be targeted by
missiles from as far away as Iran”.

My criticism is 100% frivolous, but do you realize the crazy stuff we did after the attack on Pearl Harbor?

[geofflambert]

ORIGINAL: Cribtop

I think the more interesting question is Israel. They're in a very tough spot, as arguably the Israeli geopolitical position has degraded in the past five plus years. If we take them at their word that they will strike, it becomes a very interesting question of whether to do so before or after the US elections. I also have a hunch that the IDF knows of its limited capabilities at the ranges we're taking about, and thus that they have something a little more interesting up their sleeves than "fly a bunch of F-16s over the desert and hope they hit everything."

I don't think Iran can close the Straits for more than 48 hours, but they have many other options than that as pointed out in this thread. Scary times we live in.

They can effectively close it indefinitely, unless and until we land troops on their coast near the Straight of Hormuz denying them the ability to launch wave after wave after wave of inflatable bombs and other small but deadly craft.

[geofflambert]

As to President Ach-mad-in-da-head, the Revolutionary Guard does not listen to him or answer to him. They do to the Ayatollahs. Our diplomacy must include ignoring anything Achmadinijad says or does. It's nothing but rhetoric.

[geofflambert]

Now, I wish to return to talking about those boobs. You can never know for sure what's hidden in them. For all we know, and we must assume they are, they are suicide boobs, ready to blow up in your face at any moment. Be careful out there, comrades. [8D]

[Alfred]

This thread is extremely USA centric and as a result is overlooking some extremely important ramifications.

1. In the event of military conflict the oil supply line would be completely severed. Landing American forces (and that is a very low possibility anyway) to secure the chock point at Hormuz would not reopen the oil supply line. For as long as Iran had any capability at all to possibly damage, not even sink just damage an oil tanker, shipping insurance rates would rise to completely unbearable levels.

2. Both China and Japan are completely dependent on oil shipments passing through the Straits of Hormuz. Within hours both would turn against the USA. Of the two the greatest harm would come from China, both in the UN (where it would be fully backed by Russia) and by its direct military and economic support it would then give to Iran. It is very hard to see how America could interdict the Chinese lifeline which would traverse Pakistan. Which is not to overlook the damage China could inflict to the American economy by judicious use of its economic "assets".

3. The Pakistani domestic situation, plus the need to maintain solidarity with its international friends, would see Pakistan creating great mischief to American interests.

4. There would be zero NATO support, not even from the UK, for American preemptive military action.

5. The damage caused to the Iranian economy would not be that relevant for the damage to the advance industrial economies would be severe. That includes the American economy which would be almost certainly tipped over into a prolonged stagnation, if not outright decline.

The stakes would be very high with a matching price to pay. Perhaps the cost would be worthwhile but there would be a very high price for Americans to pay.

Alfred

[Cap Mandrake]

ORIGINAL: Alfred

This thread is extremely USA centric and as a result is overlooking some extremely important ramifications.

1. In the event of military conflict the oil supply line would be completely severed. Landing American forces (and that is a very low possibility anyway) to secure the chock point at Hormuz would not reopen the oil supply line. For as long as Iran had any capability at all to possibly damage, not even sink just damage an oil tanker, shipping insurance rates would rise to completely unbearable levels.

2. Both China and Japan are completely dependent on oil shipments passing through the Straits of Hormuz. Within hours both would turn against the USA. Of the two the greatest harm would come from China, both in the UN (where it would be fully backed by Russia) and by its direct military and economic support it would then give to Iran. It is very hard to see how America could interdict the Chinese lifeline which would traverse Pakistan. Which is not to overlook the damage China could inflict to the American economy by judicious use of its economic "assets".

3. The Pakistani domestic situation, plus the need to maintain solidarity with its international friends, would see Pakistan creating great mischief to American interests.

4. There would be zero NATO support, not even from the UK, for American preemptive military action.

5. The damage caused to the Iranian economy would not be that relevant for the damage to the advance industrial economies would be severe. That includes the American economy which would be almost certainly tipped over into a prolonged stagnation, if not outright decline.

The stakes would be very high with a matching price to pay. Perhaps the cost would be worthwhile but there would be a very high price for Americans to pay.

Alfred

Item 5 is the main reason there will be no near-term American pre-emptive srike, regardless of who is in the White House. The EU is already in recession. The US is limping along. China is slowing. The oil price shock that would result would be a body blow to the world economy. Iran would be an economic basket case but that is hardly any consolation. I have to admit, however, it would be satisfying to see the Saudis trying to fish or find Frankensence trees when they can't sell their oil.

Item 4 might not be true if an Israeli strike prompted an Iranian attack on US bases In Oman or Kuwait or Bahrain or on US ships. Not sure if the NATO treaty includes the Persian gulf.

[Encircled]

Interesting point.

I never thought it did, but its a NATO mission in Afghanistan.

I can't see any Western European nation backing an US strike on Iran btw

[geofflambert]

About 25% of Aramco's oil exports leave from the terminal Yan'bu on the Red Sea. The pipeline serving this port from the oil fields in the East is operating at 50% capacity. There is also a pipeline from Kuwait to Lebanon (thru Jordan) that is inactive. Additionally there is an old pipeline to Yan'bu which was converted to shipping Methane. It probably could be converted back. I imagine the Persian Gulf terminal could be converted to a receiving terminal to accept shipments from the other Gulf States for transshipment to the Red Sea. This would require them to preposition some tankers before a crisis or use the tankers trapped in the Gulf once the crisis occurs. The Arab states should create or expand further pipelines from their oil fields to the Red Sea.

Good information at:

http://www.eia.gov/countries/cab.cfm?fips=SA

Edit: I should note, the date on this report is January of 2011