It would be nice if someone who knows much about Iran 's air defense and airforce would play the Iranian side , just to keep the "attacker" on track ;-)

Anyone ?

 

Cheers .

On my side , I 'll provide infos on what us French can do and where from . My purpose will be to try to integrate the French Forces to a coalition plan .

 

First question , what the Israeli AirForce can do on the second day (we don 't want them to strike first , it would be counter productive) . The first strikes will most probably comes from the Sea and from the Air (Tomahawks , Apaches , Storm Shadows , etc ) .

Second question , how many Carriers the USA and the UK are willing to use ?

Third question , will the US and the UK use any ground bases (airports) in the region ? Which ones ?

Fourth question , can we command and direct Commando Ops on Iranian soil to help the destruction on the ground (and bring our personals back home safe) ?

Fifth question : Is it possible to do from point 1 to point 4 within the UN rules ?

 

Cheers . 

""Fifth question : Is it possible to do from point 1 to point 4 within the UN rules ?""

 

The Operation(s) would start around March next year (2010) after the next two G5+1 reunions (USA , Russia , France , UK , China and Germany) .

 

Cheers .

Some more questions:

Do you want us to talk about a possible counter to the "Tanker war" or the closure of the Straits of Hormuz?

 

Do we also need to make assumptions as to what China/Russia/Pakistan's response will also be?

 

Are we to be at all concerned about collateral damage, either to Iranian citizens or to everyone in the west as terror attacks escalates?

It's easy to start a war. Just pick your favorite Iran nuke sites and send B-2 bombers. 

 

However, you need to ask the following question if you really are a serious strategist:

 

1. What are the goals of military action against Iran?

2. What means do I have for achieving those goals?

3. What are the enemy means of retaliation?

4. What are the consequences for the military action?

 

Unfortunately, we are likely not seeing any solid action against Iran until another 6 million Jews are murdered. Those Persians have been there for thousands of years, and they certainly are good strategy player. They have many puppets and many strings. Let's hope that's not gonna happen, but I don't see how to prevent that from happening without being a total ass first.

 

 

What the hell, I'll play.  First off, I think that if we were even able to form a "Coalition of the Willing" that incorporated the US, France, and the UK (I doubt any other European countries would join in any meaningful way) I have to believe that they would do their damndest to keep Israel on the sidelines.  I think they would do this for the same reasons they kept Israel out of the 1991 Gulf War (Desert Storm).  If Israel were to drop so much as a single bomb on Iran, then everyone in the Muslim world consider it a war of Israel and her allies against the Muslims in Iran.  Every single Iranian civilian casualty would be paraded in the world media as another Zionist war crime.  If the Americans, Brits, and French did allow Israel to participate then they would be causing irreparable damage to relations in the Muslim world and push Muslim countries to build closer relations with Russia and China.  In other words, it's the Cold War all over again. 

 

I would assume that the US would have to send two to three carriers to the Gulf, and I would assume that a lot of the bombers would be taking of from Diego Garcia.  American, British, and French fighters and fighter bombers would take off from bases in Afghanistan, and in the case of the US and Britain, Iraq.  I would expect most of the attacks to be precision, surgical airstrikes on specific targets.  The Obama Administration is very war (and military) averse, so if he could even summon enough courage to even launch an attack, I would expect it to be formulated so that it causes as few casualties as possible to both sides.  Frankly, I would expect a coordinated military strike would some damage, but it would be pretty much half assed because Obama is afraid of angering the Muslim world and his left wing supporters.  Any attack would be designed to delay development of an Iranian nuclear weapons program, not destroy it. 

As long as Carter Jr. is in the White House there will not be a strike on Iran, period! Obama those not have the stomach to lunch such an attack that would turn the whole ME upside down. Europe those not have the capabilites to go at it alone, and outside of France and UK no one in Europe would even support such an action. Israel will not go against the US, and try to do this alone for obvious reasons. It's sad to say but all we are going to see is some more meaningless sanctions and a nuclear armed Iran in a couple of years.

Yes, it's a shame we'll never see strikes on NK and Iran like those GWB made. He really knew how to set back their nuclear programs and stopped those cold didn't he.

 

Perhaps if GWB hadn't squandered the US's credibility on such things with the trumped up charges against Iraq, we might have been able to do something about the actual threats GWB ignored and let fester.

Albywan :

""Some more questions:

NK? why in the hell would we attack NK. The only way the US will go to war with NK is if the North invades the South. Outside of that scnerio, there is less then 1% chance we will ever go to war with that country. The reason is simple; the north can destroy Seoul before we can get all of our forces there to mount up a strong response, and push them back. We are not going to destroy one of the up and coming economical powerhouses, just to fight the North for the sake of fighting a dictator, who just plays games and in reality does not want a war either.

 

Now on Iran. I always said the GWB should of took care of Iran before doing anything in Iraq. The Iranian regime was ten times more dangerous, and is the worlds leading sponsor of international terrorism. Iran really is persuing wmd's, it also has a much better equiped military that can actually threaten Isreal and US interests. Unlike Saddam, there leaders are religious loons, and are the most dangerous counrty on the face of the earth. In closing, yes I think Bush also made a mistake for not going after Iran first. I think his hatred for Saddam got the best of his judgment.

My point had nothing to do with suggesting we should attack NK. It would probably have been very stupid to do so, for exactly the reasons you mention.

 

It was that your sort of blind vitriol directed at Obama on this sort of issue, tends to ignore the fact that much of the hole we are in on this issue is due directly to the incompetence of the Bush administration (though the Clinton administration isn't entirely without blame on this issue either).

 

The guy has only been in office for a little over six months and it isn't clear that there is ANY good way to deal with the situation. It's very much a dammed if you do and dammed if you don't dilemma.

 

If anyone has a solution that won't cause just as many problems, I've not heard it.

 

Now on Iran. I always said the GWB should of took care of Iran before doing anything in Iraq. The Iranian regime was ten times more dangerous, and is the worlds leading sponsor of international terrorism. Iran really is persuing wmd's, it also has a much better equiped military that can actually threaten Isreal and US interests. Unlike Saddam, there leaders are religious loons, and are the most dangerous counrty on the face of the earth. In closing, yes I think Bush also made a mistake for not going after Iran first. I think his hatred for Saddam got the best of his judgment.

I'm in complete agreement with you on this, though I'm not sure attacking Iran on would bring about any better results than what attacking Iraq brought about. Eliminating one without eliminating the other, was almost invariably going to create a power vacuum that the remaining country would be bound to fill. But I suppose Iraq was at least more boxed in with sanctions and no-fly zones.

 

I would dearly like to know exactly what the hell it was that was going through the minds of the GWB's administration with the decision to attack Iraq. I have a horrible feeling that the possiblilty, of there being any other choice or options, never even entered their minds. Their complete failure to do any planning for the post war situation and lack of interest in doing any, doesn't incline me to place much faith in their decision making process.

In protecting the Strait you will need to counter Iranian submarines, shore based Anti-shipping missiles, mines, and random small boats that could be loaded with explosives... One attack on a tanker and the price per barrel of oil skyrockets... (not desireable going into winter... )

I ask about China and Russia because they have shown reluctance to side with the west against Iran... Pakistan is a different matter, unrest there is just looking for another catalyst. A western attack on another of their neighbours would see many Pakistani's calling for Jihad.

 

And of course terrorism... It's not just France you will need to protect BW, it is everywhere French interests are that will need protection.

 

I have no answers for you, only caution...

The problem I have with trying to plan this sort of intervention, is that how to go about destroying things isn't the issue. We can destroy anything that the Iranians have and there's little they can do to stop us.

 

The real problem and issue, is how do you know WHAT to attack WHERE?

 

It's an intelligence problem, not a military one.

Discussion of what to attack in Iran may become academic if Israel decides to act on its own which will drag the US into the conflict if Iran drops mines or attacks targets in the gulf.  Then there is the prospect of domestic terrorism if Hezbollah and Iranian cells operating in the US are activated.

Even if the current administration has no plans to attack Iran, it better have contingency plans in place to deal with a the potential of unilateral Israeli action. 

Bingo.  Obama, Gordon, and Sarkozy have to keep in mind that if the West doesn't act to stop the Iranian nuclear weapons program, then at some point the Israelis will very likely go it alone.  As far as the Israelis are concerned it is a matter of life and death.  Once Iran (or Syria, or Libya, or name your Arab country) develops a nuclear weapon it is only a matter of time before it is used against Israel.  You can disagree with this assertion as much as you want, but as far as the Israelis are concerned this is indisputable.  All they have to do is tune in to Arab or Farsi television broadcasts to hear their enemies vow to wipe them off the map.  If we don't do something about the Iranian nuclear weapons program the Israelis will, and the West had better be prepared to deal with the aftermath.