A U.S.-Iran war scenario.

[Cascadian]

What I think will happen if the U.S. attacks Iran. I must tell you it will not be good and I am convinced would start a Third World War.

The U.S. launches air strikes on Iranian targets (i.e. ports, airports, and potential nuclear sites). The attack is launched on potential nuclear sites. Of course as usual, the attacks of course include many civilian casualties or "collateral damage".

The Iranians will respond by massing troops and conscripts along the Iran-Iraq border for an all-out invasion of Iraq. The Iranian Air Force will prepare for air strikes of U.S. positions in Iraq. The Iranian Navy will be sending ships into the Persian Gulf to confront U.S. Naval ships. The fundamentalist government of Ahmednijhad will receive broad support of the people of Iran thus killing off the pro-Democracy movement. Anti-Americanism reaches fever pitch throughout Iran. Other Islamic countries see massive anti-American, anti-Western demonstrations. There is also a call for volunteers of young men throughout the Islamic World to go into Iran to help in the fight.

While the airstrikes continue, the Iranian military will begin it's strike into Iraq. The armies will stream into Iraq overwhelming U.S. forces. The Iraqi Shi'ites will join with their Iranian counterparts to drive the U.S. forces from their part of Iraq. The Iranian Navy launches their attacks on the American fleet. The Iranian Air Force launches air strikes on the Green Zone in Baghdad and U.S. positions. to the East of Iraq.

The U.N., with the influence of China and Russia, gives a strong condemnation of the attacks. The Chinese and Russians quickly move closer to a formal alliance to counter the United States and the West. They also send military and relief supplies to Iran. There are also rumors that Chinese and Russian military "advisors" have been sent to Iran to assist the Iranian military.

The Arab World's disdain over the U.S. attacks intensifies when reports come out of Syria that their military has been mass mobilized and are moving closer to the border of Iraq. The U.S. warns Syria not to cross the border with Iraq.

In Baghdad, under the pressure of militants both nationalist and fundamentalist, the Iraqi government calls for a ceasefire and calls for all U.S. forces to leave Iraq under an ultimatum. A week later, the government resigns and is replaced by an anti-U.S. coalition. Despite the hatred of each other, Sunnis and Shi'ites have formed a temporary "ceasefire" and unite to get the Americans out of their country. Meanwhile, U.S. forces see heavy causalities and are slowly losing ground particularly in the Shi'ite areas. Back in the U.S., Bush sees his approval rating now at 15 per cent. An all time low for any President in history.

The Chinese and Russians invite Iran for talks in regard to Iran joining the new Beijing-Moscow Pact. Other countries like Syria, North Korea, Belarus, and Cuba express interest in joining.

This is as far as I have gone with this. You can draw up your own conclusions to what happens next but I am certain that an American attack on Iran could mean the start of a wider conflict that may affect the entire World.


Be afraid!

John

[C_U_L8R]

1. I fear it will be a lot worse than that

Lets hope something can be
done to prevent another Bush fiasco.

[OneBlueSky]

2. the $64,000 question remains . . .

given that all indications point to an imminent attack on Iran, why isn't the Congress working overtime to pass a resolution that specifically prohibits such action without their explicit approval? . . . with a potential World War III dependent only on the itchy trigger finger of the psychopath in the White House, why aren't they DOING something? . . .

[Cascadian]

3. I wished they would do something.

They need to send a strong message to the Lunatic in the White House.


John

[Bobbie Jo]

47. The same reason

They haven't drug this criminal administration out by the ear. It boggles the mind, with the mountain of published evidence detailing the criminal actions perpetrated by BushCo, that the first point of order for this Congress was not to remove these criminals so that the process of cleaning up the colossal mess could begin in earnest.

Every day they're allowed to remain in office is a threat to our national security.

[wakeme2008]

4. Good points and a nom

Iran is NOT Iraq and will not roll over if attacked. The more US war ships in the gulf the more target to hit. Iran has three kilo class subs and IMHO if I was Iran I would have made plywood mock ups to show on sat images and moved them to secret locations to be used if Iran is attacked.

[zeemike]

5. you probably have it about right

But you don't talk much about the damage we do to them which could be tremendous in lives and ships...I would predict that we would louse few ships if any and few planes but Iran would lose many. And the casualties on there part could be staggering especially if they do attack in Iraq.
And the government of Pakistan could fall too, putting the bomb in the hands of the hands of who knows who.
And because US losses were tolerable bush would argue that we won the war. May god help us all if enough fall for that one to keep him from being impeached.

[Cascadian]

6. The number of deaths and injuries would be very high.

Not too mention if they did strike at nuclear facilities, the radiation alone would make Chernobyl look like a minor fender bender. I should have add that to the mix. You're right!


John

[GreenZoneLT]

7. You really underestimate U.S. air power

All "massed armies" are in the face of air superiority is a really, really big target. Killing Iranian tanks and troop carriers in the open isn't any harder than killing Iraqi ones, and we've seen how effortless that was. You shoot the vehicle at the front of the convoy, and the vehicle at the back, and everyone in between runs away or dies. And guys on foot, without supplies, in the Iraq-Iran border region are just starvation victims looking for a place to lie down.

Two aircraft carriers and the Air Force assets in Kuwait and Qatar basically mean the Iranian air force either stays on the ground or dies. Or both, once we get around to bombing them in place. The qualitative difference is just too extreme; Iran couldn't even match the Iraqi air force in the '80s. And the Iranian Navy is a joke; just so many highly flammable floating targets for U.S. planes and ship-killer missiles, because we have satellites and airborne early-warning radar, and they don't. Iran can do a lot of things (like close the Straits of Hormuz and shut off the oil, which hurts them more than it does us), but a standup fight against the U.S. isn't one of them.

Fortunately, none of this is likely to happen. I think the Bushies may be trying to provoke Iran into something, but they're not stupid enough to attack us first and we don't have any excuse to attack them. This is just saber-rattling. More of the patented Bush "Stomp loudly and wave a big stick you don't intend to use" policy that has worked so well with North Korea.

We went to war with Iraq because it was a) easy and b) strategically neutral (in that we expected an equal amount of oil to flow either way). Iran is not nearly as easy, and war with them could wreck the world economy. It's very unlikely even Dick Cheney wants to hit them.

[Cascadian]

8. Don't undrestimate Iran's military either.

Iraq did not really have a military. Hell! They don't even have a real Navy! Iran is a different story. They have been building up their army, navy, and air force in the last 20 years. The population of Iran is far larger than Iraq's plus a larger country in terms of size. At this minute the Iranians are preparing their civil defences and their military have been going through training with a U.S. invasion or attack in mind. This is not going to be an easy fight and this may also be the one attack that could spur a draft in the U.S..

John

[GreenZoneLT]

11. Lot of ifs there.

IF we wanted to invade Iran, then, yeah, they could give us a problem. But they don't spend very much on their military; something like $7 billion a year. Less than Israel; far less than Iraqi used to. They have a lot of half-trained troops, but they don't have any expeditionary ability.

What we did in Iraq was a stupendous achievement in terms of logistics, and only possible because of our doctrine, training and equipment. Iran has a better military than they had 20 years ago, but it's still not as good as the Iraqi Army in 1991. Bigger, but not as well-equipped. All a big army does for you is increase your logistics problems.

Iran could mess up the Shaat al Arab, maybe take Basra and Umm Qasr, but that's about it (and there's no guarantee of that; the Brits are really good). Their air force has absolutely no hope of survival for more than a few days, even if they withdrew to the north. We flew longer missions than that over Afghanistan.

[leveymg]

13. The Iranian Navy is more formidable than you think because of these:

Exocet - EU


Silkworm - PRC


C-802 - PRC

AND THIS (GEOGRAPHY): (the range of early version Silkworm Iran ASM from shore batteries - range of improved Silkworm and C-802 approx. 120 kms, twice the purple area shown)

[GreenZoneLT]

19. Look, guys, I KNOW about Iran's capabilities

There's a lot more to having a capable Navy than having some decent missiles. To start with, the Silkworm is a freakin' joke; it's a variant of the first antiship missile, the Soviet Styx, and you can't hit anything with it, let alone anything protected by electronic countermeasures. The Exocet is decent, but relatively short-ranged; very difficult to get close enough to shoot it.

They have another one, forget the name, the Mach 3 thing -- Sunburn, that's it. That's a good missile, if you know where you're shooting. Carrier battle groups are invisible to radar at the ranges they stand off from land. Guess wrong by one degree on your firing bearing, and you're shooting at open water, and even if you get it right, odds are the electronic countermeasures will steer you wrong. And then you've got CAP, and long-range SAMs, and point-defense SAMs, and CWIS to get through. Takes a hell of a lucky shot.

Now, yeah, if we were stupid enough to try to fight in the Straits of Hormuz, they could really mess us up. That pink area? We don't park there. Any Iranian Navy sortie, on the other hand, is immediately picked up by the E-2, and all sorts of longer-ranged, ill-intentioned hardware heads their way. And their little frigates and gunboats DON'T have several layers of defense to protect them. Heck, they're vulnerable to a P-3 Orion carrying Harpoon missiles, let alone attack jets and Tomahawk SSMs.

[leveymg]

21. At it's widest point, the Gulf is only about 220 miles across.

The shipping channels through the straights are about a mile wide and all of 10-12 miles way from Iran. See map below. There isn't a lot of maneuvering room. USN vessels spend an awfully time within line of sight of Iranian coastal positions, even after they get through the Straits. A line of site target is extremely vulnerable - witness what happened to the Israeli ship in Lebanon. There is no real short-range defense against C-802-type ASM in the Gulf. The Silkworm is subsonic and more vulnerable to intercept, but it carries a big enough warhead so tnat one can sink anything that floats, including carriers and supertankers.

The real threat is to oil tankers and escorts which try to transit the Straits. The Iranians won't send out their Frigates. They'll be sunk before they leave port. They know that from experience.

The C-802 can be launched from mobile shore launchers, 60 foot boats, fighter-bombers.

Don't fool yourself -- Iran can sink large USN and comercial vessels. Again, we come back to the shore launchers. Unless we put boots on the ground along 4500 square miles Iranian coastline, Iran will continue to able to attack shipping for months or years.

[GreenZoneLT]

31. Have you ever been on a USN ship in the Gulf?

I have, for four months in 1985. We were NEVER in sight of the Iranian coast, except during transit of the Straits. You would assume that, in case of a fight with Iran, we would have the ships out of the Straits and over the horizon before we hit them. We're not completely retarded.

The vast majority of the Gulf is out of range of Silkworms, which are the bulk of their ASMs. And again, if you're more than 50 miles off shore, they can't see ships, or anything else that close to the water, because of the curvature of the earth. If they can't see you, they can't hit you.

Sure, Iran CAN sink individual ships, and certainly commercial carriers. I've seen tankers with big, gaping Exocet holes in them, or burned-out superstructures from a Maverick hit. There was a lot of that going on in '85, when I was there on a virtually defenseless Spruance-class.

Whether they could penetrate the layered defense of a U.S. carrier battle group is a whole 'nuther animal. It's certainly possible, but I think quite unlikely. They're not any more capable than Libya, and Libya never got within sniffing distance. Libya had Osa-class missile boats.

The biggest problem they have is getting a firing bearing. It doesn't matter how good their missiles are, if they don't know EXACTLY what bearing to fire on, they miss by miles or tens of miles at the extreme range of the missile, and blow up some water.

Iran starves to death long before they wage war for months or years; they can't survive without Gulf shipping to bring in food.

[leveymg]

35. Everything inside the Gulf at the start of a war would be effectively locked in.

The Iranians aren't going to waste their assets by hunting for ships at the western side of the Gulf. But, look at the map again. Iran holds the whole eastern side and the Straits. Given a 50-mile rule, That effectively closes down the majority of the Gulf.

BTW: Iran didn't starve during the decade-long Iran-Iraq war. Why should it during a much shorter engagement with the US and/or Israel?

[kineneb]

42. Iran will not starve

Don't forget that northern land boarder and the Caspian Sea. They have friends there.

I have lived in Iran and have family there. I do not underestimate them.

[Cascadian]

46. Like I said before Iran will have allies in Russia and China

The Russians could use the Caspian Sea as a lifeline for the Iranians and the Chinese have their ways of getting their supplies to the Iranians. They will be well looked after.



John

[zeemike]

24. And you forgot to mention

The rocket propelled torpedo they tested a while ago.
But we do have defenses for those missiles on board our ships that work pretty well. However there not perfect and only one of the missiles has to work so we could louse a ship or two.

[leveymg]

27. At close range, against multiple incoming ASM, they don't work well.

[leveymg]

9. Factor in hundreds of CBW and anti-ship missiles that Iran has to use or lose.

The most dangerous aspect of any armed conflict with Iran is the fact that they have hundreds of intermediate range missiles, some percentage of which are tipped with chemical 9and possibly biological) warheads.

Those missiles are vulnerable to airstrikes (even the mobile launchers), so they're on a "fire on warning" alert, which means they'll be launched at the first confirmed airstrike on Iran. They are targeted at US defense installations throughout the region, and a reserve force likely targets Israeli nuclear sites.

Some or most could be intercepted by American Patriot and Israei's Arrow anti-missile defense systems. However, a fraction -- perhaps 25-40 percent -- could hit their targets. We've crowded thousands of U.S. troops into huge bases in Iraq, Oman, Qatar, and Oman, and there's a sprawling US Navy port in Oman. The location of Israeli's nuclear reactors and plutonium processing plants are well known, as are their military airfields and naval installations. Hits with a combination of high explosives, chemical and biological warheads at those sites would cause great damage and loss of life, even if personnel are suited up.

Meanwhile, the Israelis have already stated they will retaliate with nuclear weapons against Iranian cities if any CBW strike launched by Iran. If the Israelis followed through with that threat, the Iranian casualties would number in the millions. That would likely cause a generalized uprising in the region and throughout the Islamic world. Some elements of the Pakistani military, who have a sizable nuclear arsenal, could move to seize and launch nuclear weapons at Israel. We don't want to know what follows.

In addition, the Staits of Hormuz, through which a quarter of the world's crude oil flows, would be closed. The real strength of the Iranian navy is the shore-based anti-shipping missile missiles, which they manufacture doemstically in large numbers. They have ASM batteries installed in caves and hidden as far as 15 miles inland along 300 miles of the eastern shore of the Persian Gulf. One can literally see across the Sraits of Hormuz on a clear day. Iran will be able to keep the oil flow shut down for a long time, and would have a fairly good chance of sinking American surface ships trapped inside the Gulf.

[GreenZoneLT]

12. I wasn't aware they could reach Israel

Global Security website has their current ballistic-missile inventory incapable of reaching past central Iraq. I understand they've been trying to get longer-range missiles from North Korea, but don't have them yet. None of those missiles are capable of targeting something as small as a military base, either; they're accurate to within a mile or two at best. Chemical warheads don't have a much wider kill radius than HE ones do, even when they work properly (most don't).

Yeah, they could close the Straits, if they wanted to cut off their nose to spite their face. That's where most of their food comes in, and oil to buy food goes out. They grow about a third of what they eat; they can afford closing the Straits less than we can.

[leveymg]

14. The Shahab-3 has adequate range. eom

[GreenZoneLT]

16. Ah. I stand corrected. But they have, what, 20 of them?

At the very extreme end of their range, but technically in range. But they're not much more accurate than their Scud Bs, so they could randomly kill a few Israelis, not target their nuclear facilities. And they'd run out really fast.

[leveymg]

18. We don't know exactly how many. Improved Shabab 3 first test-fired in 2004.

Has a warhead design similar to the SS9, and Iran announced development of MIRV recently. Read this:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL30427.pdf

[GreenZoneLT]

20. I read it when it came out.

Most people think that MIRV claim is just propaganda to try to buffalo the U.S.

[leveymg]

23. MIRV technology has been around for 40 years. Is it impossible?

There are two main technical challenges to producing a working, reasonably accurate MIRV: internal guidance and miniaturization. Absent reliable telemetry from satellites, which would be denied. As I understand it, an independent, self-guided reentry vehicle would need very accurate gyroscopes to track and control its own movements, or some sort of terrain-reading ability. That's a mighty big technical challenge, but not insurmountable.

The other challenge is delivering a sufficient quantity of chemical, nerve or biological agent. I believe the Shahab has a payload of some hundreds of kilos. Non-nuclear warheads would be large, and perhaps twinned with a dummy counter-measures warhead. In the worst case, if it reaches its taget, that's a lot of germs or spores spread over an area of some city blocks. Needless to say, that area might be denied for a long time. That gives Iran a considerable deterrent.

[TheBaldyMan]

28. sorry leveymg, you got the payload stuff wrong.

The heavier the payload, the shorter the range. The max. payload would limit the effective range by several percentage points. The maximum range (involved in the test firing) meant a minimum payload, either empty or a very small ballast made from concrete.

The missle might reach but would probably have a flashbang as a payload. Think of the size of the Apollo CSM compared against the size of a full Saturn V assembly.

The maximum range given by rockets are worse than misleading, they are outright lies. The effective range of a SBM is usually a fair bit shorter.

[leveymg]

29. What's an effective payload for a bio warhead?

A hundred kilo, is my guess, and I bet that the improved Shahab-3 could deliver it. Apparently, so do the Israelis. What do you think?

MissileThreat :: Range, Accuracy, and Warheads
For an SRBM, halving the payload increases its range by 150%. ... such missiles could also carry either single or multiple chemical or biological warheads. ...

www.missilethreat.com/overview/pageID.156/default.asp

http://www.missilethreat.com/overview/pageID.156/default.asp
Chapter 13 WARHEADS
A small explosive charge placed in a biological payload is useful in the dispersion of biological agents. A chemical warhead payload is designed to expel ...

www.fas.org/man/dod-101/navy/docs/fun/part13.htm

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/navy/docs/fun/part13.htm
Commission to Assess the Ballistic Missile Threat to the United Sta...
According to Michael Eisenstadt, Iraq's biological warhead was probably a ... payload (the same payload as the long range al-Abbas missile, see above). ...

www.fas.org/irp/threat/missile/rumsfeld/pt2_katz2.htm

http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/missile/rumsfeld/pt2_katz2.htm
warhead - information on warhead at Answers.com
Often, a biological or chemical warhead will use an explosive charge for rapid ... they could be equipped with an inert payload that was intended for use ...

www.answers.com/topic/warhead

http://www.answers.com/topic/warhead

Minuteman ICBM Reentry Vehicle / WarheadYield, 1000 Kilotons. Weight, Warhead: 553 lb. Length, Warhead: 47.8 in. Diameter, Warhead: 16.3 in. Number Deployed, 150 ...
www.geocities.com/minuteman_missile/warhead.htm - 34k - Cached - Similar pages

[TheBaldyMan]

34. surprisingly small, a couple of kilos (if that) - the real problem is dispersal

you have to somehow herd the microbes and viruses towards the soldiers, this problem has beset CBW technologists for years.

The problem has been so intractable that to date only one country has been able to 'weaponize' anthrax. The USA is the only country that managed to get it into a form (a fine powder) that could be dispersed by a small explosion.

Other biological agents may be used but bio-weapons are a bit of a double edged sword. They are as indiscriminate as chemical weapons and both tend to hit civilians harder because the civilian population lacks protective equipment and training.

edited for spelling

[leveymg]

36. The point is area denial, not killing everyone immediately at the target

The most likely targets for this sort of weapon are nuclear weapons facilities, and ports.

[TheBaldyMan]

38. but it can't reach the coast, it can barely reach Israel

it would be a damn nuisance but hardly enough to justify carpet bombing Tehran. I think any retaliation for that would be a definition of a disproportionate response.

[leveymg]

33. Re: SS9-type warhead - SS9 much larger than Shahab-3,

so the final stage warhead would have to be miniaturized. There's a guiding assumption that Iranian MIRV warhead design would be based on this type because SS9 warhead designs are reportedly available on the black market. Here's some more FAS data on the SS9 launch vehicle and warhead:
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/icbm/r-36.htm

The SS-9's combination of high accuracy and yield constituted a convincing threat for the American ICBMs for the first time. The SS-9 was viewed in the United States as specifically designed to attack American Minuteman ICBM Launch Control Centers (LCCs), which initially were the "Achilles heel" of the Minuteman system, as 100 LCCs controlled all 1,000 Minuteman missiles. However, by 1969, as a result of redundant internetting of Minuteman silos and a backup airborne launch control system, the LCCs no longer were the "achilles heel" of Minuteman, so building one SS-9 for each Minuteman silo required MIRVed systems.

Four payload variants were tested and deployed.

The Mod 1 featured a single reentry vehicle with a warhead with a yield estimated by Western intelligence at 12 to 18 MT . This variant was assesed by Western intelligence as being capable of capable of delivering a payload of 12,500 lb to a range of 5500 nm.
The Mod 2 featured a single reentry vehicle with a warhead with a yield estimated by Western intelligence at 18 to 25 MT, although this heavy version carried a warhead with a yield of 10MT according to Russian sources. This variant was assesed by Western intelligence as being capable of capable of delivering a 13,500 lb reentry vehicle a maximum operational range of 5300 nm. The large yield, single warhead Mod 2 variant was the most extensively deployed.
The Mod 3 was a fractional-orbit, depressed-ICBM variant which combines the SS-9 first and second stages with an upper stage.
The Mod 4 variant was a three-warhead MRV which probably began as an attempt to achieve a true MIRV capability. The large throw-weight of the 8K67 missiles (up to 5.8 tons) made them suitable for carrying multiple warheads. The design for the R-36P missile carrying three warheads (8K67P) were conducted by the KB Yuzhnoye (OKB-586) in November 1967. The flight-design tests were started in August 1968. American intelligence remained divided over whether these warheads were independently targetable , or merely flying parallel trajectories , and the issue assumed considerable importance in the context of the debate over the deployment of the American anti-missile program.
The development of the R-36 missile in its heavy, light and orbital version began after its approval by the Soviet government on 16 April 1962. The leading developer was KB Yuzhnoye (OKB-586). The flight-design tests of the ballistic missiles (8K67) began on 28 September 1963, though the first Mod 1 flight test was not detected by Western intelligence until 03 December 1963. The flight-design tests of the R-36 missile were conducted at the Baikonur cosmodrome. The tests of the 8K67 ballistic missiles lasted from 28 September 1963 though May 1966.

The missile was placed in a silo of 41.5 meters deep with a shaft diameter of 8.3 meters and a door-diameter of 4.64 meters. Unlike the silo of the R-16U missile, the launch platform was not rotary, and the missile was directed to its trajectory (azimuthal guidance) through an onboard command structure after it left the silo. The SS-9 was deployed in individual, dispersed silos hardened to withstand 500-psi overpressure from a 1-MT weapon. The reaction time in the normal readiness condition is three to five minutes, with an unlimited hold time in that condition.

According to Western estimates, the initial operational capability for the SS-9 system, with both the Mod 1 and Mod 2 single reentry vehicle variants was reached in early 1966. According to Russian sources, the first regiment equipped with R-36 missiles was placed on alert on 05 November 1966, deployment of the 8K67 ballistic missiles began on 21 July 1967, and on 26 October 1970 deployment of the multiple-warhead variant began. Between 1965 and 1973 a total of 268 launchers for the R-36 missiles were constructed. Their replacement by the MIRVed R-36P began in 1975. The R-36 ballistic missile was phased out in 1978. The missile was ready for launch during its whole period of service that was originally fixed at five years but subsequently extended to 7.5 years.

[TheBaldyMan]

22. it can reach an area the size of a football field inside Israel's 67 borders

not exactly a threat, unless you live in the occupied territories in the West Bank.

Ironic that Iran would be bombarding Palestinians rather than Israelis.

Iran doesn't have nukes or chemical weapons. It has also declared their use to be 'unislamic'. So it seems they would have to be willing to risk nuclear annihilation by Israel & US in exchange for blowing up an Israeli football field at the extreme range of their longest range weapon system.

It doesn't add up.

[leveymg]

25. Iran has one of the world's largest chemical weapons stocks.

CNS - Chemical and Biological Weapons: Possession and Programs ...
Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, The Problem of Chemical and ... "Iran's chemical weapons (CW) program is one of the largest in the ...

http://cns.miis.edu/research/cbw/possess.htm

[TheBaldyMan]

30. so has Iraq according to your data (same link)

Please forgive me if I remain sceptical about this particular claim.

Iran has repeatedly declared that use of chemical and nuclear weapons is unislamic, Iran is an Islamic state.

At no point have any Iranian authorities said they would use WMD. They are also signatories of the non-proliferation treaty. The Ayatollah Khameni (the Iranian premier) has said that they won't develop nukes or seek to possess them. This news doesn't get a lot of coverage in the west.

Why should we doubt them? They haven't been surrepticiously enriching uranium, they have been open about it. They freely admitted that they were restarting the enrichment process. Although this didn't please the world community their behaviour contrasts starkly with that of Israel who to this day refuses to confirm the open secret that Israel is a nuclear power. One that has never signed the NPT and refuses all access to it's facilities for producing weapons.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

15. So gla d Raygun won the cold war... things are so much

calmer now. Iran only spends x amount on "defense". Meanwhile we spend as much as the next 40 countries. It's too bad that humans are willing to destroy the only habitable planet in this solar system. Stupid is as stupid does, and that would be us, stupid enough to believe that there is a military answer to terrorism and or an insurgency. An attack on Iran would to many people be an an attack on the Shia in Iraq. God help the fool who doesn't realize this.

[TheBaldyMan]

10. ffs not another Iran scaremongering thread! can't we all go back to Edward's McMansion bashing

There will be no war with Iran.

[leveymg]

17. The Edwards house nonsense is a distraction from the scandal about his Iran War comments

I agree with your conclusion. We won't bomb Iran. But, a factual discourse on the costs of a war with Iran isn't warmongering - quite the opposite.

[Swamp Rat]

39. Then why are there so many new military bases in Iraq?

Why are there three carrier groups in and heading to the Persian Gulf?

This is not a bluff. This is a commitment.

[TheBaldyMan]

40. You mean the 14 permanent ones that were planned in 2001?

The carrier dgroups in the Gulf: one group has been on station for some time and is likely to return soon, USS Ronnie Raegan is going to the West Pacific apparently, handy for the Gulf & Indian Ocean but not yet assigned there.

[Swamp Rat]

41. They were planned before then, back in the 1990s - PNAC

Three carrier groups will be converging in the Persian Gulf: The USS Dwight D. Eisenhower strike group is already there, the aircraft carrier USS John C. Stennis is on its way, including a Patriot battalion of the 11th Air Defense Artillery Brigade, and the Nimitz strike group will soon leave San Diego. ;)

[TheBaldyMan]

43. I tthnk the Ike should be relieved by one of the groups going out

Although I admit I don't know where the US carrier groups are stationed.

[Imagevision]

26. Bottomline: Bush will have started his Iran war as he exits and leaves to next Prtesident while

Halliburton and The Carlyle Group keep raking in the gazillions. Bush will have gotten a stronger hold on the middle-east US. presence and the new Billion-dollar US. Embassy will be built in Iraq after all.

[Cascadian]

50. A Republican or a DLC President will keep the war going.

This is why we need a REAL Democrat in the White House. Maybe we have a chance to get out there sooner if not later!


John

[Liberalboy]

32. In your scenerio...

Where is Israel? A country in the middle east with nuclear weapons is just going to sit back and watch all this? I'd be interested to see how they play into the mix.

[Cascadian]

44. Israel could play into the mix but it's hard to say how they will play in.

They will probably be too busy having to deal with the Palestinians and Hezbollah in Lebanon but if they do involve themselves in the conflict with Iran then things will become 50 times worse than what my scenario plays out.


John

[Junkdrawer]

37. You watch. It'll be: "A Series of Unfortunate Events"....

We kill some Iranian Revolutionary Guards...

They fire a missile at one of our ships... (False Flag???)

We launch a punitive counter attack...

They attack Iraq and Israel via Lebanon...

We launch a larger punitive counter attack...

They launch terror attacks in the US... (False Flag???)

THEN all Hell brakes loose...

[Cascadian]

49. Maybe it will be a Gulf of Tonkin situation.

Don't think that Bush is sending that fleet just for reconnaissance or sightseeing.


John

[Unperson]

45. Could force pro-jihadist coups in Pakistan and Indonesia.

That will spell out WWIII or IV, or V.

[Cascadian]

48. Not just in those countries but in most countries friendly to the West.

The fundy nut's dream of an all-out Holy War and Armageddon are coming true! :scared:


John