'Three-day blitz' plan for Iran

your sarcasm is most becoming

the whole Iran > Israel `thing` has been going on for years - its little reported that Israel constantly threatens Iran (as it fails to match teh agenda of certain peoples)

as for an direct attack?i honestly don`t think they would strike first far - lack of `Arab` support for one - religion plays a massive role - Saudi Arabia for one do not exactly like Iran (shi`ite vs suuni of course) BUT to reply to a zionist attack? that would garber support but location play a factor - sure lobbing a few IRBM`s might achieve a `hey we bombd you` but unless its nuclear (and thats the final card and they know it) they couldn`t do massive damage to Israel

now if Israel nuked Iran pre emptively? then the bets are off and Israel would get into a mess it will never have experienced before. - thats unless Iran can get a nuclear reply.


all teh scare mongering is working - `the bogey man` is Iran - well President Ahmadinejad isn`t as stupid as the press want you to believe - look at teh way he handled the british navy

` we were tourted` turned out to be `they ran there nails over a black board` he played that game an won well.

Sorry John, that was a computer hick up on my PC and my clicking went to the thread and not to what I was attempting to fix.


About a year and a half ago, I posted this thread:.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The thread included a powerpoint by the Atlantic Monthly think tank on Iran Scenarios. Pretty interesting read if you have time, some major players were involved.

Anyways, 1200 targets in 3 days is more then doable. The article and info in the above threads indicated that when the Isreali move into Lebanon last summer was going to hell, the Pentagon was drawing up plans to hit 10,000 targets across the Mid East in an hour if Syria and Iran started getting involved. An hour, 10000 within an hour. It sounds impossible, but when you add up deployable T-LAM's, JDAMs, and ALCMs, not to mention Army systems like MLRS/TACMS it could be done, if all the delivery systems were in place. The organized Iranian Armed Forces along with its nuclear program would be obliterated.

Doable, achievable, and overwhelmingly successful. And then many of you have asked "then what???". Good question.

I don't think we will invade Iran, we can pull off the above with little or no US/Allied casualties, and actually since most of the sites hit would be away from population centers, civillian casualties in Iran could be kept relatively low as well. I could forsee possibly three ground actions that might accompany this action.

1. Actions on and possibly across the border of Iran/Iraq, in order to prevent arms and Iranian special ops/light infantry from coming into Iraq and playing havoc inside the country. Not to mention the training and supply of the insurgents in Iraq is in large part why things in Iraq are so sour. This is a whole other topic I am sure we could debate, but I'll move on .

2. An accompying move into SW Iran where Iraq, Iran, and Kuwait converge. This would help protect the Allied supply lines back to Kuwait/Saudi Arabia and (just for all you "its just about oil types") we could sieze and secure the port and the oil fields and facilaties in the area. This helps prevent Iran from turning off the oil tap and screwing the entire Western Economy.

3. Someone mentioned sending the Marines to secure the litoral areas of the Straights of Hormuz to prevent it's closure. This would also help to keep the oil running, and prevent naval retaliations in the gulf. The positions held would be covered by air power if any of these ground ops were attempted, and since the missioin would be to hold key strategic areas there would be little of no "nation building" involved like in Iraq.

3 limited ground ops, but none occupying Iran proper, so it avoids most of the problems in Iraq, because there would be no (or very limited) use of ground troops in the same role as in Iraq. Essentially an Air Campaign only.

This takes care of any Iranian Nuclear threat, (real, perceived, capable or otherwise). Most rational people in both the US, Europe, and Isreal see that this will be a necessary event at some point. In fact a previous poster mentioned that it isn't just a "Bush thing", that most of those running for US president have stated, on or off the record, they would attack Iran if necessary. The new German and French leaders have expressed similar positions. For good reason, their countries are in range of Iranian missiles, and those countries are experiencing their own problems with radical islam.

THE CONSEQUENCES:

And of course there would be. Most have been mentioned on the thread already. A quick recap.

a. Major offensives by the Taliban, Al Quedia, and insurgent forces in Iraq and Afgahnistan.

b. Probably revolts in the "moderate" Muslim states. Pakistan, Saudi, Egypt, the Gulf States, and Syria all likely to expereince problems at the very least. ove throw (or flat out siding with Iran) at the extreme.
c. Probable activation of Iranian Revolutionary Guards cells in Western Europe and the US, most likely going after soft and civillian targets, casualties will likely be high. Not to mention plenty of Al Quieda types as well.

d. Hamas and Hezbollah will have a field day in Isreal to say the least. So Isreal likely gets pulled into this one way or another.

e. There is no telling what China and Russia might do, as several have expressed. I don't think they would jump in militarily (initiating a full on WWIII, oh heck even a US/Europe vs Islam would already be WWIII which is where this almost certainly leads). However; China could threaten Tiawan. They could also dump US Treasury reserves. The Russians could move troops West towards NATO in a threatening manner, cut off gas supplies to Europe and they could jack up their nuclear forces to high state of alert.

So the consequences of an Iran attack (no matter how succsesful) could bring on a downpour of dangerous and costly reactions.

The problem is: are those consequences any better or worse then Iran having the bomb??? That's the question. Because if Iran sells it, or uses it, (which they have indicated they would) they push Isreal into attacking. And then the same sets of consequences listed above unfold anyways. Puts the world in a real "damned if we do, damned if we don't" situation, and one that I don't see diplomacy solving either.

Which leads too something else I want to add personally. This scenario essentially results in the (depending on your particular interpritation of) prophecied war of Ezekiel 38 and 39 which is the beginning of the end of this current age, according to Judeah Christian eschotology (and incidently the muslims would see as the events of their 12th Imam).

Note this is an observation; I am not directly "pushing" a belief as many will undoubtly suggest. Nor do I beleive there is anything at this point that will slow down, speed up, or usher in these events. My belief, and I know it's not popular, is these events were prophecied and WILL occur.

HOWEVER; even if you don't subscribe to these beliefs, I think we all can admit this whole Iran thing has the world in a pickle, with no good options. Even putting all the various relgious aspects the play into this to the side, this situation is bad, and I personally have yet to formulate an opinion on what any course of action is best. But because of my beliefs, I just don't see one. We are in for a rocky ride soon I fear, one way or the other.

Originally posted by Harlequin
your sarcasm is most becoming

the whole Iran > Israel `thing` has been going on for years - its little reported that Israel constantly threatens Iran (as it fails to match teh agenda of certain peoples)

But why would Israel care about Iran unless they felt threaten that Iran would likely attack them if the opportunity came about? I really feel that Iran is motivated to instigate a fight to facilitate extremism.

Originally posted by The_Coo
Didnt Bush say he would not tolerate a nuclear North Korea?

The same words he uses for Iran now.

im pretty sure that
1. korea cant get us with what they have
2. korea is not developing things that can (get us) ATM.
3. Iran is getting close to the point where they can strike US targets/interests.

Attacking another country is never 'good', however attacking a country that is going to attack you is sometimes necassary.

I cant say for sure "Iran is going to attack us", but if i were forced to wager i would bet on Iran attacking.

This is the biggest part of 911 for me:

Weather or not 911 was 'an inside job' or 'aided from the inside' or even 'just let to happen' terrorist attacks had already occored off US soil many times on our interests. This is borderline intolerable and cause for war/retaliation. Secondly, I believe that attacks on us were planned directly and would have been carried out on our soil, which is directly inteolerable and requires retaliation and or pre-emptive strikes.

reply to post by jprophet420


iran attacking first i dont think so they are not a threat only what bush and the media tell you i will bet you if war happens america hits first north korea does have weapons that can hit us interests south korea americas ally

reply to post by Xtrozero


Israel attacked and attempted to sink the USS Liberty during the 3 day war , because of intelligence the USS Liberty was gaining about the attrocities commited by Israelie troops against Egyption POW`s.

The people of Israel learnt from `the best` in the 1940`s about looking after there own , and will allways look after there own even when it means killing your `friends`


Israel are (for want of a better word) scared of another nuclear power in the region - there own nuclear weapons are totally illegal - they have never signed the NPT (the same treaty iran have signed btw) never admitted they have them (even when they were outed they still denied it) and will kill anyone who goes near the Dimona breeder reactor.

Iran isn`t stupid enough to use them first - just like pakistan haven`t used them either.

Originally posted by Sr Wing Commander
Sorry John, that was a computer hick up on my PC and my clicking went
HOWEVER; even if you don't subscribe to these beliefs, I think we all can admit this whole Iran thing has the world in a pickle, with no good options. Even putting all the various relgious aspects the play into this to the side, this situation is bad, and I personally have yet to formulate an opinion on what any course of action is best. But because of my beliefs, I just don't see one. We are in for a rocky ride soon I fear

Actually the best course of action for America will result in a lot of deaths over there. That course of action is for the US to back out and let the cards fall. This would stop the reason for extremist to use the US as the reason for all their ills and that extremism would then be focused towards each other. A massive air strike on Iran is just fuel for the extremist fire and with basically unlimited funds it would just slow down Iran’s capabilities for a number of years, but would create a worldwide epidemic of asymmetrical attacks for a much longer period of time.

By allowing the different factions to play out their hands on each other then the focus will be on religion only in just that area of the world, and at some point things will calm down, but at the cost of maybe 40% of the population over there. Very bad situation anyway you look at it, but America will be the focus if we lift a single finger.

reply to post by Harlequin


i agree with you but if israels nukes are illegal which they are why doesnt the un do some thing about it like they are doing to iran how about sanctions on israel?

Originally posted by DJMessiah
The "3 days" will turn into 3 years, then to an uncertain date for troop pull out of Iran. I don't know what Bush is thinking, but we can barely find new recruits to send into Iraq, so what makes him think there are enough soldiers to serve in Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan all at the same time, while protecting US borders as well?

This is a perfect opportunity for the administration to renew the draft. We all know that a bunch of random lives dont mean squat to george, and he would not blink and eye before thinking of invading another country and sacrificing draftees lives for thr sake of his and Dicks wallets.

If we decide to invade Iran, we can all kiss our pretty lives goodbye, because we will all be rendezvous'ing in either Iraq Iran or Afghanistan. If we dont invade Iran, then we can most certainly count on Israel to go and f things up for everyone. Its a lose lose situation in my eyes.

Originally posted by Harlequin

The people of Israel learnt from `the best` in the 1940`s about looking after there own , and will allways look after there own even when it means killing your `friends`

Iran isn`t stupid enough to use them first - just like pakistan haven`t used them either.

Well Pakistan is looking in the face of an unfriendly nuclear India and so they will never use them unless they are in dire straits. Iran having them is a threat to not only Israel but the other Arab countries. Iran would love to see a secular war in Iraq and then add Iraq as part of Iran.

The whole deal over Saddam was Iraq was easy meat for Iran until we backed Saddam to prevent Iran from having a most certain victory. Iran without a doubt would if they could expand into other countries for both religious and resource reasons.

Manzoor

you tell me!-

news.bbc.co.uk...

is a consise overview - of the `none existant` nuclear programme - why would they admit inspections by an `egyption` (the enemy they are arab) run IAEA and why should they have to sign the NPT!

en.wikipedia.org...

the man who `outed` the programme - and is back in prison again.

all this hubub is all because Iran DID sign the NPT!

Israel fears an Arab bomb - and will go out of there way to stop one - there is plenty of supporting threads and information for this.

Xtrozero

hmmm Hussein and Iraq and the USA in the 1980`s went hand in hand - US firms supplied the needed agents for the Chemical weapons he used against Iranina forces (and later against the kurds) - he killed over 100,000 Iranians using chemcial bombs alone - hussein launched the war (with other arab backers ironically - kuwait was one and one reason for the 1991 invasion to not repay the monies owed some $14 billion USD)

And for Iran havng `the bomb`? well near enough all of the Arab countries repeatidy complain (to the UN) about the threat to there sovereign nation(s) from the Jewish bomb.

The secular war in Iraq was only really `stamped on` by Hussein and the his ba`ath party to keep it under control - since the control has been removed , so the secular violance has reasserted itself - BUT like any `infighting` (see chechnya) when a common enemy (in this case the usa) gets in the way - the self fighting stops and the common enemy is fought , then its back to normal beating each other up.

Well there is some hope. More voices have been added criticising the American Govt. British General Mike Jackson criticisied Donald Rumsfelt as being intellectually bankrupt. I could'nt have put it better myself. I look forward to the day that the American people elect a sane Govt and kick out Bush.
news.bbc.co.uk...


[edit on 2/9/07 by Wirral Bagpuss]

Ok, something a little more on topic..
I posted this thread back in July:

Air Force Quietly Building Iraq Presence

BALAD AIR BASE, Iraq -- Away from the headlines and debate over the "surge" in U.S. ground troops, the Air Force has quietly built up its hardware inside Iraq, sharply stepped up bombing and laid a foundation for a sustained air campaign in support of American and Iraqi forces.

Squadrons of attack planes have been added to the in-country fleet. The air reconnaissance arm has almost doubled since last year. The powerful B1-B bomber has been recalled to action over Iraq.

source

We have only seen an increase of articles that point to a military
engagement with Iran. Somehow I think the US would still launch a
full-scale strike even if Iran suddenly ceased their nuclear programs.

With this conflict escalating almost daily,
its like we're daincing on the tipping point..

Lets see is this Impossible?

The US Air Force is the largest and most advanced Air Force on earth. It has over 6000 manned aircraft and over 100 unmanned aircraft. Over 2000 Cruise Missiles.

The US Navy is the largest and most advanced Navy on Earth. Its has over 200 ships and 6,000 aircraft.

The total personnel in the US military is over 1.4 million.
Only and I mean ONLY 190,000 are deployed in Afghanistan and Iraq. The vast majority of that being the US Army.

In 1991 we flew 1,000 sorties a day against Iraq.

That was using mostly dumb bombs. Now a modern aircraft can make a large number of strikes per payload. An example would be the F/A -18 the main combat aircraft of the US Navy and US Marines.

Each one can carry up to 13,000 lbs of bombs and missiles. Seven Hard points for mounting. Over 1,000 have been built.

174 of them in the Gulf War alone flew 4,936 sorties resulting in a combined total of 4,551 strikes.

So we definitely could bomb the crap out of someone in three days.

Now whether we should is a whole different issue. If the decision is made it will happen. Iran is not Iraq of 1991 but it isn’t at this point a real challenge. A three day air campaign would wipe out their Air Force, Navy, and most of their Armored Vehicles and Long Range Artillery. If we do like Iraq 1991 not Iraq 2003 we could wipe out most of their ports, airports, power plants, radio/TV stations, railroads, bridges, factories, and fuel depots in three days. The nation would be crippled and I assume strict sanctions would be enforced in the aftermath like Iraq 1991.

Is it right? I don’t know. IT would be nice if humans didn’t make war upon each other, but we do. The Reality Is that we fight to compete and for identity. Whatever we use to justify that fight such as religion or national security doesn’t really matter. As long as humans are on the earth there will be war. If it doesn’t happen in Iran soon it will happen somewhere later that I can guarantee.

Do you REALLY think that Russia and China are going to sit back on their haunches while our air force is cutting down 1200 Iran military targets?
While your playing your xbox with ribs on the grill don't be surprised by thunderous roars of ICBMs at a movie theatre near you, except it will be a war theatre of WW3. Your ribs will be done a lot quicker than you thought.
Senate and Congress has railed against another military involvement without its consent. Unfortunately they are too busy playing happy feet in men's bathrooms and freezing bundles of money. Oh yes, we are screwed in a major fashion. Every week when your friends and family are flown home in a box just slap another ribbon on your SUV and everything will be all better. God help us all. We need it. You think this is going to make you safer? With Mexicans getting premiums to smuggle 'non' hispanic jihadists across our border. Candian border guards will now be armed with 'shoot to kill' authority. Bring our military home. Set them up at the borders, and likely terrorist targets. Then I will begin to feel safer. Let the shiite and sunnis blow the hell out of each other.

This is going to end bad for everyone. We should all be against such an attack. World War 3 is a very likely possibility now.

Maybe Nostradamus was not wrong after all.

Americans should be ashamed!

There is always a better alternative.

I feel sorry for humanity and for our civilization. Maybe we need this war to realize what matters in this world.

Peace

Originally posted by malganis
reply to post by DJMessiah

 

Well it talks about airstrikes, not an invasion. So I take it the plans don't include putting any troops into Iran in the first place, so there won't be any troop pullout date needed.

USA will just bomb the crap out of Iran then sit back and laugh as another helpless country crumbles.

I think the general consensus amongst the US war planners is to pound Iran into submission. Make the Iranian government themselves pull out the white flag after there country's measly defense's fall. I could not picture a ground invasion force unless the draft is enabled.

The Iranian people are good people. And they will be the ones who suffer the most. Their leaders do shoulder some of the blame. Religious extremism rhetoric, cannot and should not, be tolerated in the civilized world. Gas prices will more then likely double around the world if an Iran is attacked.

Ya know... I have seen this coming for a long time now.

Originally posted by jpm1602
Do you REALLY think that Russia and China are going to sit back on their haunches while our air force is cutting down 1200 Iran military targets?

Well Mr.jpm, there isnt much china or russia can do about it.

While your playing your xbox with ribs on the grill don't be surprised by thunderous roars of ICBMs at a movie theatre near you, except it will be a war theatre of WW3.

Only in hollywood Mr.jpm.



[edit on 2-9-2007 by West Coast]

Originally posted by Harlequin
hmmm Hussein and Iraq and the USA in the 1980`s went hand in hand - US firms supplied the needed agents for the Chemical weapons

Actually, that was germany along with many other eu nations. The US supplied saddam with sat imagery of when and where the Iranian military was going to attack. That was the biggest advantage that the US gave the IraqisThe Russias supplied the Iraqis more then the US did.

And for Iran havng `the bomb`? well near enough all of the Arab countries repeatidy complain (to the UN) about the threat to there sovereign nation(s) from the Jewish bomb.

Well, Israel doesnt constantly threaten the existence of the arab people.

Of course they will complain. They dont like them. Any advantage the Jews have over them is a major pain in the ass. Its a constant wang measuring contest over there. This to me, comes off as some sort of an excuse for the arabs to get 'the bomb'. Only they will use it if they were to get it, unlike the isrealis.

"well Mr. jpm you just keep telling yourself that, there's not much Russia and China can do about it"
Go back to your xbox West Coast. Class dismissed.