Good read about Iran and it's "Nuclear scorpion"

[Benzz0]

You think they are REALLY wanting to talk and negotiate? pfffffffft...you are a FOOL if you think so. They will continue the nuclear enrichment and make a bomb - it's all a matter of time.

And the U.N. will sit by and watch it all unfold...then blame us



IRAN'S NUCLEAR SCORPION
Why would the U.S. and Iran face off at the negotiating table when a nuclear Iran would be a Western nightmare?

Victor Davis Hanson, a senior fellow and historian at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University: Tribune Media Services
Published June 9, 2006


Why did the United States suddenly reverse course and agree to negotiate directly with the Iranians over their development of a nuclear arsenal?

There are a few reasons. It's an election year, and the Bush administration knows the American public is in no mood for even a hint of more hostilities in the Middle East. After failing to talk sense to the Iranians, the embarrassed multilateral Europeans want us to buck up their dialogue. The Russians and Chinese--for both commercial and mischievous reasons--have warned America they'll stonewall at the UN unless we begin horse-trading with Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. And, finally, it's always smart to allow a loudmouth like Ahmadinejad enough public rope to hang himself.

So, if negotiations occur--a big if--what can we expect?

For that answer, it's worth remembering the scorpion scene in "The Appaloosa," an otherwise forgettable Western from 1966. For excruciating minutes, the hero, played by Marlon Brando, arm-wrestled the talkative, confident villain who had tied a scorpion to the top of the table. In the same manner, we will go back and forth with the Iranians, each sounding off until one side's arm weakens, hits the table and gets stung.

The Iranians know from recent history that their acquisition of a bomb would have little downside. They figure that had the Israelis not destroyed Saddam Hussein's nuclear reactor at Osirak in 1981, Kuwait would still be the 19th province of Hussein's untouchable Iraq.

North Korea is the model of a rogue nuclear state. It thumbs its nose at the international community, but over the years still has earned billions in aid money (essentially bribes) from the U.S., South Korea and China. Only the bomb allows an otherwise failed, murderous regime in Pyongyang to achieve status with nearby democracies in Taiwan, Japan and South Korea.

Then there's Pakistan, a so-called American ally that, thanks in large part to its nuclear-weapon capability, can shrug off our pleas to ferret out Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri.

With a few nuclear missiles, Iran knows it could dictate the strategic landscape of the Persian Gulf--bullying Gulf sheikdoms over border disputes and petroleum output and claiming the forefront in the Islamist struggle against Israel. A "Persian bomb" wins national prestige and quells dissidents at home, while ensuring enough unpredictability to keep oil prices sky-high.

For those reasons, a nuclear Iran would be a Western nightmare. Periodically, we would have to reassure states within missile range of Tehran, from Germany to Saudi Arabia, that the United States is willing to go to war to keep them safe--and thus they need not go nuclear themselves.

Given these circumstances, why would the U.S. and Iran ever face off at the negotiating table?

Because each thinks the breathing space works in its own favor. Iran views talking with the U.S. as a reprieve from the threat of a military strike--or at least American-inspired embargoes and sanctions at the UN. If the mullahs can sweet-talk the Americans while secretly pressing ahead to get the bomb, they might get home free yet. The U.S. wants more time before a showdown as well so that we can make a better case to the international community that the oil-exporting theocracy really wants more than peaceful nuclear power.

Time also provides a window to learn exactly where Iran is on the road to full uranium enrichment, and perhaps even to allow Iranian dissidents to strengthen, or nearby democratic Iraq to stabilize, or our own military to refine its 11th-hour plans.

Such a breather would be reminiscent of the Paris peace talks with the North Vietnamese, from 1968 to 1973, in which each side thought protracted negotiations would favor its cause. The U.S. always insisted on a free autonomous South; the North never gave up its dream of a unified communist Vietnam.

In that impasse, we thought talking and periodic cease-fires would buy time for the South Vietnamese to strengthen enough to resist the inevitable aggression to come. The North Vietnamese were equally convinced the American public in the interval would grow ever more tired of the Vietnam "quagmire"--and then they could pounce.

After endless negotiations, the Watergate scandal and the Senate's curtailment of aid to the South, North Vietnam patiently waited for its moment and then renewed the war. By 1975, the communists had won what they could not in 1968.

Ahmadinejad surely remembers that precedent. No wonder he wants us to arm-wrestle over his nuclear scorpion.

[strobengh]

This should turn into the official 'Jimmy Carter Rocks' thread!

[mike]

Originally Posted by strobengh

This should turn into the official 'Jimmy Carter Rocks' thread!

I'm not quite sure I follow. Iran was screwed long before he even got into office, he just didn't help it. Besides, he was EXACTLY what Americans wanted. A President that had no spine and would only do what others wanted.

[0ILBURNER]

That's nice & all, but do you honestly think that Israel is just gonna sit on the sidelines & watch all this happen?...

[mike]

They'd need our support to do anything. It'd have to be deniable of course.

[0ILBURNER]

Originally Posted by mike

They'd need our support to do anything. It'd have to be deniable of course.

Our government is and always has said they will back Israel.

If they feel an iminent threat, they will not hesitate.

I wouldn't either.

[Benzz0]

Isreal restrained from retaliating against Iraq during the gulf war when hussain sent SCUDS over Tel Aviv

I think Isreal, with its issues on the west bank and Hamas will sit back BUT is always ready to deliver what is needed to thwart a nuclear bomb over there...

[qwiksilver]

My brother said the military is gearing up to go to Iran.

One word of warning: Iran is NOT Iraq. Their military is better trained, better equipped and larger than the Iraqis. We fight Iran and our casualties would be high very fast.

This time though, to get the Americans at home and the world at large, who are very skeptical of the word of this administration, to go along with an attack on Iran, there would have to be hard proof of a reason to invade. If we invade for the "wrong reasons" we could face an angry and unified Asia. I personally don't think we can handle the attrition rate that China can. They have people in the billions.

Next, can we do Iraq and Iran at the same time without the draft and still have enough strength here at home?

China carries our debt for the war with Iraq now? Would they extend further credit to fight Iran? Can we afford another war? Is anyone willing to pay more taxes to afford it?

Bush has less than a thousand days left in office, what will the next administration do?

Many things to think of before making rash statements.

This is one of those speak softly and carry a big stick moments.

[strobengh]

We've already seen what happens in a war of attrition with China in Korea.

Sure China has more people than we do, but what about equipment? Sure they can throw waves of peole at us, but after a while, they would be throwing inexperienced people in T-54's/Mig-17's . . .

[qwiksilver]

Originally Posted by strobengh

We've already seen what happens in a war of attrition with China in Korea.

Sure China has more people than we do, but what about equipment? Sure they can throw waves of peole at us, but after a while, they would be throwing inexperienced people in T-54's/Mig-17's . . .

We don't have all that much either. And this time, we don't have a military industrial complex or the money to create one.

Plus, how fast can we throw poor, inner city/backwoods, highschool dropouts into our high tech jets? They can't even read a McDonalds menu...they need pictures due to high illiteracy rates.

The poor are always the first drafted. The rich buy their way out. (Cheney, Bush, etc.) We also have relied in the past on immigrants to fight our wars. Immigrants were part of the reason the South lost the Civil War. The North had hordes of them coming from Ireland and Germany. Problem today is that you can't put a Mexican peon in a tank who can't speak a word of English.

See, there we are pretty equal. So it would come down to numbers.

[Haole]

Originally Posted by qwiksilver

We don't have all that much either. And this time, we don't have a military industrial complex or the money to create one.

Plus, how fast can we throw poor, inner city/backwoods, highschool dropouts into our high tech jets? They can't even read a McDonalds menu...they need pictures due to high illiteracy rates.

The poor are always the first drafted. The rich buy their way out. (Cheney, Bush, etc.) We also have relied in the past on immigrants to fight our wars. Immigrants were part of the reason the South lost the Civil War. The North had hordes of them coming from Ireland and Germany. Problem today is that you can't put a Mexican peon in a tank who can't speak a word of English.

See, there we are pretty equal. So it would come down to numbers.

The US military will never stick a illiterate person behind the stick of a fighter. They'll let them do menial work.

[qwiksilver]

Originally Posted by Haole

The US military will never stick a illiterate person behind the stick of a fighter. They'll let them do menial work.

How much menial work is there now? Some, but a lot of what has come to pass is computerized. Yeah, there's still the boots/grunt work, but the theaters have changed. In the past, if you ruled the seas you ruled the world. Now, if you rule the skies you rule the world.

When it comes, it will be as I was told in the early 80s:

A "run what ya brung" scenario. We will lose our best and have to make do with the rest.

The only thing that might save our happy fannies is the American tradition of pulling a miracle out of our ass at zero hour.

[Haole]

Originally Posted by qwiksilver

How much menial work is there now? Some, but a lot of what has come to pass is computerized. Yeah, there's still the boots/grunt work, but the theaters have changed. In the past, if you ruled the seas you ruled the world. Now, if you rule the skies you rule the world.

When it comes, it will be as I was told in the early 80s:

A "run what ya brung" scenario. We will lose our best and have to make do with the rest.

The only thing that might save our happy fannies is the American tradition of pulling a miracle out of our ass at zero hour.

And we rule the skies because we rule the seas. Those menial tasks are there. It's takes a ship with 6000 people to launch 90 planes. Those 90 planes have at most 135 pilots. I think we'll have no problem not sticking the illiterates into a plane.

[Benzz0]

menial work? You have never been on a carrier before I see... but the illiterates can be deployed on small boys (destroyers, frigates, supply ships, etc) and we always have the Boatswain mates position to clean and paint the anchor chain links

there are even fuckers who are needed to clean the sesspools down under

almost EVERY normal menial city job is pretty mucn ON a carrier

[Hooper]

Originally Posted by qwiksilver

My brother said the military is gearing up to go to Iran.

One word of warning: Iran is NOT Iraq. Their military is better trained, better equipped and larger than the Iraqis. We fight Iran and our casualties would be high very fast.

This is one of those speak softly and carry a big stick moments.

???

I have no idea where you got your information, but EVERYTHING I am reading completely refutes what you said here. Are you GUESSING at the status of Iran's military, or are you privy to some information the rest of the world is not?

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...NGHUBERIV1.DTL

Yet both outside military experts and Iranians concede that the country's antiquated conventional hardware, worn down by years of U.S. and European sanctions, would be little match for the high-tech wizardry of the United States.

"Most of Iran's military equipment is aging or second-rate, and much of it is worn," Anthony Cordesman, a military expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington, wrote in a December 2004 assessment of Iran's military.

The Western military expert said he spotted 30-year-old American-made M113 armored vehicles at recent military demonstration in the northwestern city of Qazvin. "Those tanks were able to go a few meters in front of us," he said. "But in a combat situation? I don't know."

[Hooper]

More

http://www.washington-report.org/bac...96/9604080.htm

First, Iran does not possess the ability to challenge the United States in or around the Gulf

Having seen the devastation unleashed on Iraq by Coalition forces, Iran is well aware of the results of a confrontation with the United States and its allies.

[Hooper]

More

http://milnet.com/Iranian-Military.html

"Most of Iran's military equipment is aging or second rate and much of it is worn. Iran lost some 50-60% of its land order of battle in the climatic battles of the Iran-Iraq War, and it has never had large-scale access to the modern weapons and military technology necessary to replace them. It also has lacked the ability to find a stable source of parts and supplies for most of its Western-supplied equipment, and has not have access to upgrades and modernization programs since the fall of the Shah in 1979."

Iran has, however, been able to rebuild some of its conventional capabilities during 1988-2003, and make progress towards acquiring weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles. Iran faced major financial problems until the mid-1990s and could not obtain resupply or new weapons from most Western states. It has since, however, been able toaquire more significant numbers of weapons, particularly land-based weapons. According to U.S. intelligence estimates, Iran imported $20 billion worth of arms during 1996-1999, and $600 million from 2000-2003. Iran signed $1,700 million worth of new arms agreements during 1996-1999 and $500 million in new arms agreements during 2000-2003.

"This level of arms imports, however, is only about 35% to 50% of the level of imports necessary to recapitalize and modernize all of its forces. It also helps explain why Iran lacks advanced new C4I systems, and has not been able to modernize its air forces, ground based air defenses, or develop major amphibious warfare capabilities.

So why is Iran a threat? After reading the paragraphs above one would assume that Iran only presents a minor threat. The difficulty is that compared to other Gulf military capabilities, and especially those of its direct neighbors, Iran is significantly better well off. As the CSIS report says:

"Nevertheless, Iran is still a significant military power by Gulf standards. It has some 540,000 men under arms and over 350,000 reserves. They include 120,000 Iranian Revolutionary Guards trained fro land and naval asymmetrical warfare. Iran's military also includes holdings of 1,613 main battle tanks, 21,600 other armored fighting vehicles, 3,200 artillery weapons, 306 combat aircraft, 60 attack helicopters, 3 submarines, 59 surface combatants, and 10 amphibious ships."

Clearly, the numbers could be overwhelming in an engagement were they all able to be brought to bear. Of course such numbers of vehicles and troops in movement would hardly escape observation, especially with modern overhead surveillance, however, it is sobering to any nation only half as many tanks or other armored vehicles. In other words, this is a force to be reckoned with -- even if they were not well trained and strategically savvy.

This brings to mind the issue of the average Iranian soldiers skill set. The CSIS report makes it clear that the Iranian war veteran has long ago left service, and will not be able to be called back -- having aged significantly along with the equipment. 200,000+ conscripted soldiers being trained by non battle hardened is hardly a recipe for crack troops.

[0ILBURNER]

I bet the newest shit Iran has are those jets that Saddam's 'air force' flew over there just before we went into Iraq

They have the superior military of the Arab nations, but that is a very relative term...

[Hooper]

Liberals and defeatists were saying the same things about how powerful the vaunted Republican Guard was, how we could never take Baghdad, how powerful the air defense systems were, on and on about how we could never militarily take Iraq from Saddam... We all know how THAT turned out.

Our soldiers are more than up for the task, if it came to that. I would hate for them to have to go right into another war, however. I am NOT saying an invasion of Iran is either imminent, nor a good idea.

Of course, *people* and *relatives* were saying for literally years that a ground attack on *name your country* is imminent... Their guess is as good as anyone's...

[Hooper]

Originally Posted by 0ILBURNER

I bet the newest shit Iran has are those jets that Saddam's 'air force' flew over there just before we went into Iraq

They have the superior military of the Arab nations, but that is a very relative term...

Yep. They are the biggest dog left in the Arab world, but that is not saying much at all...

[Hooper]

Originally Posted by qwiksilver

Plus, how fast can we throw poor, inner city/backwoods, highschool dropouts into our high tech jets? They can't even read a McDonalds menu...they need pictures due to high illiteracy rates.

What in the world are you babbling about? Illiterate? High School dropout? You never cease to amaze me with your nonsense and doomsday prophecies...

The poor are always the first drafted. The rich buy their way out. (Cheney, Bush, etc.)

Are you kidding me? Bush did not buy his way out. He volunteered for the air national guard. More of your ridiculous statements...

We also have relied in the past on immigrants to fight our wars. Immigrants were part of the reason the South lost the Civil War. The North had hordes of them coming from Ireland and Germany. Problem today is that you can't put a Mexican peon in a tank who can't speak a word of English.

??? None of our recent conflicts have won BECAUSE of immigrants. We have had immigrants fighting for the US, but they have not been in overwhelming numbers... Sure, immigrants played a part. I haver no idea where you are getting this idea that we are doomed because we only have non english speaking Mexican *peons* to put in tanks....

See, there we are pretty equal. So it would come down to numbers.

If there is one thing that recent conflicts have proven it is that technology trumps numbers...

[Joe_W]

I laughed at a radio commercial I heard in West Texas this week. Partly in spanish, partly in english, it came down to them saying join the army and when your done we'll expedite citizenship for ya

[JoeBlow]

It seems you all missed the real threat to American soldiers:

Despite the state of its equipment, Iran could create myriad troubles for the United States and the world.

Its security forces include a number of intelligence agencies with extensive overseas experience and assets, experts say. Iran's highly classified Quds
forces, which answer directly to Iran's spiritual leader, Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, are believed to have operations in Lebanon, the Palestinian territories,
Jordan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, Turkey, the Persian Gulf region, Central Asia, North Africa, Europe and North America, according to a December 2004
report prepared by CSIS.

Within minutes of any attack, Iran's air and sea forces could threaten oil shipments in the Persian Gulf as well as the Gulf of Oman. Iran controls the
northern coast of the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow waterway through which oil tankers must navigate, and could sink ships, mine sea routes or bomb oil
platforms, according to the CSIS report.

Iran could activate Hezbollah militants in Lebanon, whom it supports, to launch attacks on Israel. It could have operatives attack U.S. interests in Azerbaijan,
Central Asia or Turkey.

"Iran can escalate the war," said Hadian. "It's not going to be all that hard to target U.S. forces in these countries."

But most analysts agree that Iran's biggest trump card would be to unleash havoc in neighboring Iraq, where Shiites who spent years in Iran as exiles are
assuming control of the government.

Although the Bush administration charges that Tehran already has been interfering in Iraq, many Iranians brush off the low-level infiltration as minor compared
to the damage it could cause by allowing Iraqi militiamen to take heavy weapons into Iran, by backing the most extreme Islamist groups instead of the moderates
it now supports, or by dispatching operatives across the long, porous border between the two countries.

Any Iranian retaliation "would surely start with attempts to mobilize Shia partisans in Iraq to try to turn the Iraqi south into an extension of the insurgency
in the Sunni triangle," Gary Sick, professor of Middle East studies at Columbia University and former National Security Council adviser to then President
Jimmy Carter, told a congressional panel last week.

Iraqi officials, wary of their country becoming a battleground for the conflicting ambitions of Tehran and Washington, concede the damage Iran could do
in their country, which now hosts 150,000 U.S. troops.

"If Iran wanted, it could make Iraq a hell for the United States," Hamid al-Bayati, Iraq's deputy foreign minister, said recently.

[JoeBlow]

And we have been oh so successful in supressing the radicles so far!

[Hooper]

Originally Posted by JoeBlow

It seems you all missed the real threat to American soldiers:



"If Iran wanted, it could make Iraq a hell for the United States," Hamid al-Bayati, Iraq's deputy foreign minister, said recently.

That was NOT the point of what QS said.

Here, I will quote it for you since you seemed to have missed the point.

From QS

One word of warning: Iran is NOT Iraq. Their military is better trained, better equipped and larger than the Iraqis. We fight Iran and our casualties would be high very fast.

Iran is neither better equipped, nor larger than the Iraqi's...

Nor will they pose more of a problem for our military to deal with.

Radicals and insurgents are a whole other ball game. Yes, our military will have to deal with them, but on the field of battle, a pitched battle, the Iranian military doesn't have a ghost of a chance against our boys...