Log in

View Full Version : The Continuing Push Towards The Inevitable War with Iran



PanzerJaeger
11-04-2011, 20:52
Well, it looks as though things are reaching a critical point - the sanctions haven't worked, Stuxnet has failed to do any significant damage, the continuing assassinations aren't getting the job done, and spirits are high after the 'success' in Libya. Could we really be going down the same path again?




UK military steps up plans for Iran attack amid fresh nuclear fears

British officials consider contingency options to back up a possible US action as fears mount over Tehran's capability



Nick Hopkins
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 2 November 2011 11.21 EDT
Article history



Iranian nuclear technicians in protective wear. Photograph: Mehdi Ghasemi/AP


Britain's armed forces are stepping up their contingency planning for potential military action against Iran amid mounting concern about Tehran's nuclear enrichment programme, the Guardian has learned.

The Ministry of Defence believes the US may decide to fast-forward plans for targeted missile strikes at some key Iranian facilities. British officials say that if Washington presses ahead it will seek, and receive, UK military help for any mission, despite some deep reservations within the coalition government.

In anticipation of a potential attack, British military planners are examining where best to deploy Royal Navy ships and submarines equipped with Tomahawk cruise missiles over the coming months as part of what would be an air and sea campaign.

They also believe the US would ask permission to launch attacks from Diego Garcia, the British Indian ocean territory, which the Americans have used previously for conflicts in the Middle East.

The Guardian has spoken to a number of Whitehall and defence officials over recent weeks who said Iran was once again becoming the focus of diplomatic concern after the revolution in Libya.

They made clear that Barack Obama, has no wish to embark on a new and provocative military venture before next November's presidential election.

But they warned the calculations could change because of mounting anxiety over intelligence gathered by western agencies, and the more belligerent posture that Iran appears to have been taking.

Hawks in the US are likely to seize on next week's report from the International Atomic Energy Agency, which is expected to provide fresh evidence of a possible nuclear weapons programme in Iran.

The Guardian has been told that the IAEA's bulletin could be "a game changer" which will provide unprecedented details of the research and experiments being undertaken by the regime.

One senior Whitehall official said Iran had proved "surprisingly resilient" in the face of sanctions, and sophisticated attempts by the west to cripple its nuclear enrichment programme had been less successful than first thought.

He said Iran appeared to be "newly aggressive, and we are not quite sure why", citing three recent assassination plots on foreign soil that the intelligence agencies say were coordinated by elements in Tehran.

In addition to that, officials now believe Iran has restored all the capability it lost in a sophisticated cyber-attack last year.The Stuxnet computer worm, thought to have been engineered by the Americans and Israelis, sabotaged many of the centrifuges the Iranians were using to enrich uranium.

Up to half of Iran's centrifuges were disabled by Stuxnet or were thought too unreliable to work, but diplomats believe this capability has now been recovered, and the IAEA believes it may even be increasing.

Ministers have also been told that the Iranians have been moving some more efficient centrifuges into the heavily-fortified military base dug beneath a mountain near the city of Qom.

The concern is that the centrifuges, which can be used to enrich uranium for use in weapons, are now so well protected within the site that missile strikes may not be able to reach them. The senior Whitehall source said the Iranians appeared to be shielding "material and capability" inside the base.

Another Whitehall official, with knowledge of Britain's military planning, said that within the next 12 months Iran may have hidden all the material it needs to continue a covert weapons programme inside fortified bunkers. He said this had necessitated the UK's planning being taken to a new level.

"Beyond [12 months], we couldn't be sure our missiles could reach them," the source said. "So the window is closing, and the UK needs to do some sensible forward planning. The US could do this on their own but they won't.

"So we need to anticipate being asked to contribute. We had thought this would wait until after the US election next year, but now we are not so sure.

"President Obama has a big decision to make in the coming months because he won't want to do anything just before an election."

Another source added there was "no acceleration towards military action by the US, but that could change". Next spring could be a key decision-making period, the source said. The MoD has a specific team considering the military options against Iran.

The Guardian has been told that planners expect any campaign to be predominantly waged from the air, with some naval involvement, using missiles such as the Tomahawks, which have a range of 800 miles (1,287 km). There are no plans for a ground invasion, but "a small number of special forces" may be needed on the ground, too.

The RAF could also provide air-to-air refuelling and some surveillance capability, should they be required. British officials say any assistance would be cosmetic: the US could act on its own but would prefer not to.

An MoD spokesman said: "The British government believes that a dual track strategy of pressure and engagement is the best approach to address the threat from Iran's nuclear programme and avoid regional conflict. We want a negotiated solution – but all options should be kept on the table."

The MoD says there are no hard and fast blueprints for conflict but insiders concede that preparations there and at the Foreign Office have been under way for some time.

One official said: "I think that it is fair to say that the MoD is constantly making plans for all manner of international situations. Some areas are of more concern than others. "It is not beyond the realms of possibility that people at the MoD are thinking about what we might do should something happen on Iran. It is quite likely that there will be people in the building who have thought about what we would do if commanders came to us and asked us if we could support the US. The context for that is straightforward contingency planning."

Washington has been warned by Israel against leaving any military action until it is too late.

Western intelligence agencies say Israel will demand that the US act if it believes its own military cannot launch successful attacks to stall Iran's nuclear programme. A source said the "Israelis want to believe that they can take this stuff out", and will continue to agitate for military action if Iran continues to play hide and seek.

It is estimated that Iran, which has consistently said it is interested only in developing a civilian nuclear energy programme, already has enough enriched uranium for between two and four nuclear weapons.

Experts believe it could be another two years before Tehran has a ballistic missile delivery system.

British officials admit to being perplexed by what they regard as Iran's new aggressiveness, saying that they have been shown convincing evidence that Iran was behind the murder of a Saudi diplomat in Karachi in May, as well as the audacious plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador in Washington, which was uncovered last month.

"There is a clear dotted line from Tehran to the plot in Washington," said one.

Earlier this year, the IAEA reported that it had evidence Tehran had conducted work on a highly sophisticated nuclear triggering technology that could only be used for setting off a nuclear device.

It also said it was "increasingly concerned about the possible existence in Iran of past or current undisclosed nuclear-related activities involving military-related organisations, including activities related to the development of a nuclear payload for a missile."

Last year, the UN security council imposed a fourth round of sanctions on Iran to try to deter Tehran from pursuing any nuclear ambitions.

At the weekend, the New York Times reported that the US was looking to build up its military presence in the region, with one eye on Iran.

According to the paper, the US is considering sending more naval warships to the area, and is seeking to expand military ties with the six countries in the Gulf Co-operation Council: Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Oman.



My favorite part - our very best friends and allies are again trying to push us into another Middle Eastern war to protect their own interests:


Washington has been warned by Israel against leaving any military action until it is too late.

Western intelligence agencies say Israel will demand that the US act if it believes its own military cannot launch successful attacks to stall Iran's nuclear programme. A source said the "Israelis want to believe that they can take this stuff out", and will continue to agitate for military action if Iran continues to play hide and seek.


Warn? Demand? These people act like they own America or something.... wait... :shame:

I'm definitely not the biggest fan of President Obama, but I have to believe he's learned the lessons of the past - and those are not simply to avoid committing ground forces in favor of bombing people. Iraq was a noble miscalculation (also relentlessly pushed by our Zionist overlords) based on anxiety over 9/11. There are no excuses for another such misadventure in Iran. Let's let Israel fight its own wars for once instead of putting our own soldiers in harm's way as their mercenaries - if it is important enough to them, they'll do it. Fool me once...

Ja'chyra
11-04-2011, 21:35
Couple of things:


our very best friends and allies

Thought that was us? Don't make us make you a colony again.

And, I wouldn't believe the press, this could be no more than updating contingency plans, or even moving the file to another storage area. If there's one thing I do know it's that the press might tell the truth, just not always in the right context which can take "British troops invade the Spanish mainland" to "British troops post rotate to Gibraltar".

That being said invading Iran wouldn't be a good idea for us atm what with redundancies and downsizing.

Kagemusha
11-04-2011, 21:36
War with Iran seems like a terrible idea at the moment.If Israel wants to wage war with them, go ahead and have a fight themselves.

Sasaki Kojiro
11-04-2011, 23:34
The article seems to be about missile strikes--how is that "another middle eastern war"?

PanzerJaeger
11-05-2011, 00:20
The article seems to be about missile strikes--how is that "another middle eastern war"?

How is it not?

Sasaki Kojiro
11-05-2011, 00:34
How is it not?

Well, the other ones involve tons of ground troops...so it's not really the same path. Actually I just realized you already said the lesson was "not just to avoid sending ground troops". But that seems to make a huge difference to me.

We're at war in like 7 countries now if you count bombing I think.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
11-05-2011, 00:40
Well, the other ones involve tons of ground troops...so it's not really the same path. Actually I just realized you already said the lesson was "not just to avoid sending ground troops". But that seems to make a huge difference to me.

We're at war in like 7 countries now if you count bombing I think.

Most countries are not actually "at peace", Rome closed Janus' doors only three times in her history, and not for very long.

"War" with Iran, however, would be a bad idea. Strikes into Iran would need to target SAM defences and then Nuclear plants and refining facilities, such strikes would cause considerable collateral damage and might ignite real war, not like Iraq or Libya, but a real "we're going to have to build more tanks and ships" war, not to mention it would seriously destabalise the region and probably provoke direct attacks on Israel.

Sasaki Kojiro
11-05-2011, 00:48
Most countries are not actually "at peace", Rome closed Janus' doors only three times in her history, and not for very long.

"War" with Iran, however, would be a bad idea. Strikes into Iran would need to target SAM defences and then Nuclear plants and refining facilities, such strikes would cause considerable collateral damage and might ignite real war, not like Iraq or Libya, but a real "we're going to have to build more tanks and ships" war, not to mention it would seriously destabalise the region and probably provoke direct attacks on Israel.

Well, the guy who wrote the article is scaremongering anyway. Statements like "no acceleration towards military action by the US, but that could change" are not news worthy.

Major Robert Dump
11-05-2011, 07:06
We cannot afford to keep doing this.

Iranian-supplied explosives and weapons being used on troops in Afghanistan is more justification than anything to do with Israel. However, using that rationale, we should also invade Pakistan, yet we send Pakistan money hand-over-fist.

I have an idea:

If we are going to go to the mat for Israel, can Israel at least give us some foreign aid, kind of like the US does Pakistan, except, ya know, with results?

Tellos Athenaios
11-05-2011, 07:13
If we are going to go to the mat for Israel, can Israel at least give us some foreign aid, kind of like the US does Pakistan, except, ya know, with results?

I don't think that is how the game works.

Banquo's Ghost
11-05-2011, 09:35
I don't think that is how the game works.

No, but we could sell the Iranians lots of stuff, I don't know, say weapons, via the Israelis who we could also then sell weapons to and then give more weapons to some impoverished Third World country whose death squads are just dying for the latest murderous fashion item to show we have a conscience. This way everyone makes a profit, we can have a Lovely War Against the Black Hats with unrivalled opportunities for Denial, and everyone's happy because Reaganonmics is back.

Isn't it great that modern doublethink allows us to consider bombing and firing missiles at a country as Not War? Landscape Gardening, perhaps.

Hax
11-05-2011, 10:13
Invading Iran is never a good idea. First of all, for military reasons: the Revolutionary Guard is not the same as Saddam's army; they are well-supplied and well-organised and answer only to Khamenei.

Secondly, look at the state Iran is in right now. Even inside the conservative faction of parliament there is a power struggle: Esfandiar Rahim-Mashaei and the "pragmatic" conservatives versus Ali Khamenei and the religious conservatives. Invading Iran would only unite those forces against a common enemy, that enemy being us.

And thirdly, it wouldn't be like rolling over the flatlands of Iraq. Iran is a very diverse country with loads of different terrain. You can't just roll all the way from Isfahan to Teheran to Qom and expect to blow up some Iranians here and there. It's a very hilly terrain, and trying to pacify any region would take oceans of time. It's a really, really bad idea.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
11-05-2011, 14:47
Isn't it great that modern doublethink allows us to consider bombing and firing missiles at a country as Not War? Landscape Gardening, perhaps.

Personally, I tend to think that "war" requires credible opposition and some degree of risk for both sides. What we do these days is more like a very one sides live fire exercise with poor safety margins.

Which is just horrible on every level.

Beskar
11-05-2011, 15:22
Only way a war with Iran would work is if they do a "Libya" style revolt and we assist them. Otherwise, it is a no show.

rory_20_uk
11-05-2011, 17:42
Only way a war with Iran would work is if they do a "Libya" style revolt and we assist them. Otherwise, it is a no show.

Absolutely. Even then, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait et al can pay for it.

If Saddam in Iraq had fought "sensibly" and hidden from the start I don't imagine that the outcome would have altered but after capturing Baghdad things would have been a lot worse. Iran is unlikely to make the same mistake.

~:smoking:

Noncommunist
11-05-2011, 21:24
Isn't it great that modern doublethink allows us to consider bombing and firing missiles at a country as Not War? Landscape Gardening, perhaps.

So would you count Israel's attack on Syria's nuclear facilities a war, or their attack on Iraq back in 1981?

CrossLOPER
11-06-2011, 14:25
So would you count Israel's attack on Syria's nuclear facilities a war, or their attack on Iraq back in 1981?
Why don't you explain in great detail how you would define such things?

Beskar
11-06-2011, 18:51
So would you count Israel's attack on Syria's nuclear facilities a war, or their attack on Iraq back in 1981?

Technically, Israel and Syria are still at "War", they are in a "Ceasefire".

Ja'chyra
11-06-2011, 19:04
So would you count Israel's attack on Syria's nuclear facilities a war, or their attack on Iraq back in 1981?

They are both acts of war, as are all the US drone attacks in Pakistan.

rajpoot
11-06-2011, 20:16
This at a time when our newspapers are speculating about change in oil prices after US leaving the Middle East and China taking over instead.

CountArach
11-07-2011, 11:11
They are using the nuclear excuse again? At least this time the people in question actually have some vague capacity...

I would be surprised if this goes much further, but it is already too far.

GenosseGeneral
11-10-2011, 11:22
I think Iran knows well that the West cannot afford an invasion at the moment. Europe is struggling with its economy and financial system, the US have overstretched their military in Afghanistan. Some bombing might be affordable, but Iran is huge and has a lot of mountains so they can easily dig in and hide their facilities (as they already seem to do), so a war only conducted by air and missiles might not achieve this aim.
A raid by special forces might be appealing on the first view, but even SEALs cannot take out a huge, defended bunker complex quick enough. Just look at Tora Bora, which took more time to take than just some hours. In this time Iran could send in regular forces and the guys would have to get out of there... the necessary air support which delivers the firepower to special operators would be difficult to send in, since the Iran has decent air defence, at least compared to Taliban or the Libyan army.
A large scale invasion is even more unlikely since it would simply be too expensive, Europe would not take part in it and the US cannot afford it either. As Cube already pointed out before, regular warfare in Iran would be painful. The country is huge and harder to invade than Iraq. Also, from where should the US invade? Only Iraq would be an option, though it might be questionable if the Iran-influenced Iraqi government would let the US do this.
The best option for the west would maybe an invasion by an Saudi-Israeli coalition with support by US Navy and Airforce. The Saudis could may have the military power and of course the money to do so; however the question is if their military is capable of crossing the Persian Gulf. I guess they would need US assistance here, but joint operations have to be carefully trained. Also it is questionable, if this invasion would be successful, since after crossing the Gulf, the troops would need to cross the Zagros mountains to reach Teheran or Quom, which would be nearly impossible, if the revolutionary guard entrenches there. It would be the longest lasting conflict on that scale since the First Gulf War.

gaelic cowboy
11-10-2011, 15:16
Reading between the lines I get the feeling Iran is not actually going to build a bomb at all, they will just prove they have capability and it will be a deterrent.

The West and Israel is goosed on this one Iran can prove ability and achieve hegemony without the all the bad stuff like war.

Centurion1
11-10-2011, 20:30
Reading between the lines I get the feeling Iran is not actually going to build a bomb at all, they will just prove they have capability and it will be a deterrent.

The West and Israel is goosed on this one Iran can prove ability and achieve hegemony without the all the bad stuff like war.

the concern is whether or not they will sell weapons and information to other rogue states or terrorist organizations. If they tried to bomb or drop an icbm on the US they would be the laughingstock of the modern world.

GenosseGeneral
11-10-2011, 21:11
As stated above, Idon't think the Iranian bomb can be prevented by military means. If the Iran wants to build a bomb by all means, it can and the West can do hardly anything against it. The question is though, how much of a threat this is: Even if the Iranian government is inspired by ideology, it might not mad enough to start a nuclear war if not under attack.
On the other hand (German) history prooves, that governments can be more than just mad...

Hax
11-10-2011, 21:31
Depends on who is in power in Iran. We can't really make a really good statement here, simply because we have no idea what is going on in Iran right now. Ahmadinejad in particular has been influenced by the pragmatic conservative politician Esfandiar Rahim-Mashaei, but his close allies have recently been arrested and tried over fraud allegations.

We all know that the real power lies with ‘Ali Khamenei. We also know that some of his closest allies, such as Mojtaba Khamenei (his son) and Ayatollah Jannati are dangerously mad people, who in essence have no idea about how reality works. They are also horribly uneducated on the subject of international politics. On the other hand, Ahmadinejad and Khamenei still appear to be close, but nobody really knows what is going on right now. When it comes to dealing with Iran on a political level, there are three important people:

1) Ali Khamenei, the Supreme Leader, who virtually controls everything that is going on in the country. The Quds Force (led by Qassem Sulaiman) as a special part of the Revolutionary Guard, and the Basiji (religious police) answer directly to him, leading to the second person
2) Mojtaba Khamenei, Khamenei's son. He basically controls the basiji and is a big political player. He also apparently holds major assets. In particular, he is known not to be in the least afraid to use excessive violence against anyone.
3) Mohammad Ali Jafari, commander of the Revolutionary Guard. He replaced Safavi a couple of years back in a move apparently constructed by Khamenei to remove some of Ahmadinejad's closest allies from political power.

These three people are probably the most dangerous when it comes to international politics. The problem with Iran nowadays is that there used to be a very strong pragmatic conservative group (led by people such as Hashemi Rafsanjani), but Iranian politics are now dominated more and more by fanatics, which is a very​ worrying development.

For more information:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQQKh5wmK9g

Noncommunist
11-11-2011, 04:40
As stated above, Idon't think the Iranian bomb can be prevented by military means. If the Iran wants to build a bomb by all means, it can and the West can do hardly anything against it. The question is though, how much of a threat this is: Even if the Iranian government is inspired by ideology, it might not mad enough to start a nuclear war if not under attack.
On the other hand (German) history prooves, that governments can be more than just mad...

Even if they don't start a war, their power of deterrence would deter us from invading at some point later. That and it might inspire some of the other middle eastern powers to obtain them as well as it'd be another thing to keep track of in the event of regime collapse in Iran.