Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried

[Armanen]

Re: Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried

Yes, all the so called groups are more or less the same s*it and composed of the same types (if not the same) of people.

The campaign against the nazi's is quite interesting because as you said the globalists fought against them, but at the same time supported the rise of Nazism. Of course has always been part of their strategy of diversifying the risk(s) so to speak.

[Armenian]

Re: Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried

Iran holds naval war games in strategic waterway

Iran said it began six days of naval war games on Tuesday in the Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz, the strategic transport route for global oil supplies which the Islamic Republic has threatened to close if it is attacked. Iran often stages exercises or tests weapons to show its determination to counter any attack by the United States or Israel against sites they believe are to make nuclear arms. "The aim of this manoeuvre is to increase the level of readiness of Iran's naval forces and also to test and to use domestically-made naval weaponry," Admiral Qasem Rostamabadi told state radio. The radio said the naval manoeuvres would cover an area of 50,000 square miles, including the Sea of Oman off Iran's southern coast. "In this six-day long manoeuvre there will be more than 60 combat vessel units," Admiral Habibollah Sayyari, commander of the navy, was quoted as saying by the Kayhan daily. They would include destroyers, missile-equipped battleships, submarines, special-operations teams, helicopters, and fighter planes, he said. Iran, the world's fourth-largest crude oil producer, says its uranium enrichment activities are aimed at making fuel for electricity-generating nuclear power plants, not bombs. The United States says it wants diplomacy to end the nuclear row, but neither Washington nor Israel have ruled out military action if that fails. Iran has vowed to retaliate if pushed. Military analysts say Iran's real ability to respond could be with more unconventional tactics, such as deploying small hit-and-run craft to attack oil tankers, or using allies in the Middle East to strike at U.S. or Israeli interests. Iran has previously said it could close the Strait of Hormuz to shipping, through which about 40 percent of the world's globally traded oil passes. The United States has pledged to protect shipping routes. An Iranian naval commander was last week quoted as saying the country's navy could strike an enemy well beyond its shores and as far away as Bab al-Mandab, the southern entrance to the Red Sea that leads to the Suez Canal. Iran's 1980s war with Iraq included a period that became known as the tanker war when oil carriers and other energy installations became targets by both sides. This led to the United States stepping in to protect oil shipping.

Source: http://wiredispatch.com/news/?id=473482

In other news:

Iran-Armenia gas pipeline inaugurated

Armenia officially completed on Monday the construction of a natural gas pipeline from neighboring Iran which could reduce its heavy dependence on Russian energy resources and significantly boost its electricity exports. It remained unclear, however, when Iranian gas could start flowing into the country. The pipeline’s second and final Armenian section was inaugurated in the presence of President Serzh Sarkisian and Alexei Miller, chairman of Russia’s Gazprom giant. The two men, joined by other Armenian, Russian and Iranian officials, watched as workers welded together its last pipes. Miller’s presence at the high-profile ceremony underscored the fact that the pipeline will be controlled by the ArmRosGazprom (ARG) national gas distribution company in which Gazprom holds a controlling stake. ARG has financed and carried out work on the 197-kilometer stretch running through the country’s mountainous Syunik region. In a speech during the ceremony, Miller welcomed the completion of the “very important project.” He said its implementation testifies to a “high level of political cooperation between Russia and Armenia.” Former President Robert Kocharian was also in attendance. Kocharian had inaugurated the pipeline’s first, 41-kilometer section together with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in March 2007. Speaking to the journalists, Energy Minister Armen Movsisian said the pipeline will undergo technical testing and be ready to pump Iranian gas within weeks. But he again avoided setting any dates for the start of Iranian gas supplies. The new pipeline’s operational capacity of approximately 2.3 billion cubic meters of gas per annum essentially matches the annual volume of Armenian gas imports from Russia that are carried out via Georgia. With Russian supplies meeting Armenia’s needs, the bulk of Iranian gas is expected to be converted into electricity that will then be exported to the Islamic Republic. As Movsisian pointed out, the pipeline would be vital for Armenia’s energy security in case of “force majeure situations.” The minister clearly referred to a possible disruption or termination of Russian gas deliveries to Georgia that would almost certainly affect Armenia as well. The prospect of a cut-off in Russian supplies has become even more real since the August war between Georgia and Russia. A senior Georgian official predicted last month that the Russians will at least cut back on those supplies this winter.

Source: http://www.tehrantimes.com/index_View.asp?code=183993

[Mizzike]

Re: Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried

Ron Paul States Obvious: Iran No Threat to US


“Ron is interviewed by Michael Bendetsen for Huffpo.

MB: You are one of the few politicians in Washington who believes that Iran is not a serious threat towards the United States. Why do you reject the notion of Iran as a dangerous enemy?

RP: [Iran] does propose some problem to the United States. They are a so-called “enemy,” but it’s a consequence of our policies toward them. So, they did not one day wake up and say, “Hey we all hate Americans.” Our foreign policy has consequences. It is very well remembered by most Iranians, that in 1953 we went over to Iran and our CIA secretly overthrew their democratically elected government. This makes a mockery of what we claim to be. We fight wars, because we claim, “to spread our goodness and democracy.” However at the same time, if a democratically elected leader does not please us, we do everything possible to remove him. If there is a military dictator that supports us, we praise him and give him money. The Iranians are acting logically and in their own best interest. Even in the literal sense, they do not pose a threat. They do not have a [nuclear] weapon and they are not likely to get one. Even if they had one, they would not be so foolish as to use one. If they ever did anything and we were completely out of the area, [Iran] would not dare touch Israel. Israel has around 300 nuclear weapons and they would wipe Iran of the face of the earth rather quickly. This whole idea that we have to keep spending money, building up fear, sending troops over, and putting blockades around a country, all it does is stir up trouble and creates more enemies for us. This foreign policy does not make any sense for us. I think the Iranian situation is a typical example, of how these things backfire on us.

Read the whole interview here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michae..._b_151073.html

[robertik1]

Re: Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried

Armenian, I was wondering if you think Israel will strike Iran instead of the U.S. now?

[Armenian]

Re: Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried

Armenian, I was wondering if you think Israel will strike Iran instead of the U.S. now?

Sometime late last year or early this year, the US military high command seemed to have decided that attacking Iran is not in the US's best interests. Iran's ability to close the Strait of Hormuz (where roughly half of the world's oil flows through), Iran's ability to sink US navy ships in the Persian Gulf, Iran's ability foment serious unrest in Iraq's majority Shiite population were most likely the reasons for Washington's change of mind. Moreover, many active and retired senior US military officers are openly against a war with Iran. Simply put, Iran had the political/military upper hand over the US, as a result Washington did not attempt a mission that would prove to be impossible, not to mention catastrophic. As a return favor, Iran may have curbed its support of Iraqi insurgents, enabling US occupation troops in Iraq to take a breather and claim that the "surge" is working. According to many news reports put out during the course of this year, Israel seems to have more-or-less taken over the operation to attack Iran's nuclear facilities. I have covered the military aspect of attacking Iran within this thread, perhaps Zoravar may be able to do a better job of explaining the military nuances. In short, with direct US support, it's now up to Israel to carry out the actual attack. Militarily speaking, it will be a daunting task for Tel Aviv. Unlike the attack on Iraq's nuclear power reactor in 1983, Iran is much further away for Israeli warplanes, Iran is much better defended, Iran's nuclear facilities are dispersed throughout the nation, and Tehran is prepared for an attack. The Israeli Air Force with US support may be able to somehow carry out a successful attack, but the attack will not be a death blow. At worst, Iran's nuclear program will be set back a few years. However, the biggest question here is - If attacked, how will Tehran respond? If Tehran decides to retaliate, they have many options on the table. Their ability to respond is the primary reason why Washington and Tel Aviv have not pulled the trigger yet.

[robertik1]

Re: Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried

Thanks for the response.

[Lucin]

Re: Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried

Sometime late last year or early this year, the US military high command seemed to have decided that attacking Iran is not in the US's best interests. Iran's ability to close the Strait of Hormuz (where roughly half of the world's oil flows through), Iran's ability to sink US navy ships in the Persian Gulf, Iran's ability foment serious unrest in Iraq's majority Shiite population were most likely the reasons for Washington's change of mind.

And let's not forget Afghanistan, they can stir up unrest there too. Aren't they (the Iranians) already denying the Talibans openly while arming them?

[skhara]

Re: Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried

And let's not forget Afghanistan, they can stir up unrest there too. Aren't they (the Iranians) already denying the Talibans openly while arming them?

Do we know if Iran is/has been supplying arms to Taliban? While they ruled they were an enemy -- although it would make sense for Iran to now provide some limited backing just to keep the coalition off-balance.

[Armenian]

Re: Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried

Lucin jan, you are correct. Iran can do a lot to ruin Western plans in Afghanistan as well.

Robertik1, I just found my previous reply to a question similar to the one you posted. Read it and let me know if you have any other questions. I would like to hear Zoravar's take on this matter as well.

Good question. But a difficult/complex question. I may have attempted to answer a similar question in this thread already. I am not sure. Nevertheless, Israel can not do it alone, they will need support from the US and regional Arab states such as Saudi Arabia and Jordan. Mind you that this support does not necessarily have to be public, it could be clandestine/covert. I believe that Israel will get support from the US, Jordan and Saudi Arabia if and when they decide they will strike Iran.

Naturally, the IAF will use their upgraded F-15s and F-16s. For target acquisition they will rely on CIA and Mossad human intelligence as well as satellite/aircraft reconnaissance information. They will need an air corridor secured over Jordan and Iraq. They will most probably also need the US for aerial refueling if need be. The weapon of choice will be selected from a large array of laser guided bombs and/or missiles. The fundamental tactical problem would be range/fuel considerations and being detected on route, perhaps by Russian intelligence.

Even if the IAF solved the range/fuel problem and reached its target/s undetected there would still be a problem with knocking out all the nuclear sites. This is a serious problem. Based on what I have been reading and hearing, Iran has been spreading its nuclear facilities across the nation in many underground and undisclosed locations. At best, the IAF may be able to knock out a few of these sites, perhaps the most important ones or the biggest ones. However, knocking out the entire nuclear network may prove to be virtually impossible, unless of course they have a high level spy/agent working within Iran's nuclear program. With only a few sites hit, Iran will be able to recover relatively quickly.

Regarding anti-aircraft capabilities: Pardon the pun, but it's still up in the air. The Russian anti-aircraft systems said to be protecting some of the more sensitive sites in Iran are said to be some of the finest in the world. However, they have not been tested in combat. What's more, we don't know what countermeasures the IAF and the USAF are devising. They may have figured out a way to crack the anti-aircraft defense system. Maybe not. We know, however, that they performed a successful trial mission late last year, essentially a live fire exercise using new radar jammers, where they struck some mysterious site deep inside the Syrian desert.

Nonetheless, with or without a capable anti-aircraft defense in Iran the IAF will have a very difficult tactical task on its hands. Their mission won't succeed because the IAF will not be able to stop Iran nuclear drive. Thus, the strike may be a strategic failure. Moreover, what we are not taking into serious consideration the other strategic aspect of such a strike, the factor of the aftermath. That is where the real problem for Israel, US and the rest lies. They may succeed in hitting and destroying some sites in Iran but what kind of a response will Tehran take is the big question.

Tehran can potentially wreak havoc in the region if is chooses to -

It can shut down the Strait of Hormuz to oil tanker traffic, ruining Europe's economy within a couple of days.

It can instigate a major uprising against American troops in Iraq using its strong assets in the majority Shiite population there.

It can hit US and coalition navy ships in the Persian Gulf using various Russian and Chinese made anti-ship missiles.

It can hit various tactical and strategic targets throughout the region by its medium and long range ballistic missiles.

As you can see, it can get very ugly.

In any case, the tactical and strategic advantages lie with Tehran at this point. A strike won't stop their nuclear program and such a strike may cause very nasty repercussions. This is serious. In my opinion, nothing this serious has been faced by the US military since the Second World War. Perhaps that is why the US military as well as Israel are dragging their feet.

[robertik1]

Re: Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried

This answered my question pretty well. Thanks again.