The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - December 2, 2008

Dunnigan's and Bay's Latest

Advertisement



New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Squad Battles: Winter War
2.Silent War
3.Manoeuvre
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 

Online Giving

Utah SEO Firm

Xango

Smiley Gifts for Babies

Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use
Iran Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: US must Attack First!
RockyMTNClimber    5/22/2007 11:41:39 AM
Diplomacy does not work with pirates. It is truely time to use a mix of Airpower, naval blockades, and commando raids to shut down the Iranian influences in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, & the Palestinian Territories.

Don't wait, Attack!

Check Six

Rocky


Iran's secret plan for summer offensive to force US out of Iraq

Simon Tisdall
Tuesday May 22, 2007
The Guardian


US soldiers visit an Iraqi army base in Amiriya, a Sunni neighbourhood in west Baghdad. Photograph: Sean Smith



Iran is secretly forging ties with al-Qaida elements and Sunni Arab militias in Iraq in preparation for a summer showdown with coalition forces intended to tip a wavering US Congress into voting for full military withdrawal, US officials say.
"Iran is fighting a proxy war in Iraq and it's a very dangerous course for them to be following. They are already committing daily acts of war against US and British forces," a senior US official in Baghdad warned. "They [Iran] are behind a lot of high-profile attacks meant to undermine US will and British will, such as the rocket attacks on Basra palace and the Green Zone [in Baghdad]. The attacks are directed by the Revolutionary Guard who are connected right to the top [of the Iranian government]."


Article continues

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The official said US commanders were bracing for a nationwide, Iranian-orchestrated summer offensive, linking al-Qaida and Sunni insurgents to Tehran's Shia militia allies, that Iran hoped would trigger a political mutiny in Washington and a US retreat. "We expect that al-Qaida and Iran will both attempt to increase the propaganda and increase the violence prior to Petraeus's report in September [when the US commander General David Petraeus will report to Congress on President George Bush's controversial, six-month security "surge" of 30,000 troop reinforcements]," the official said.
"Certainly it [the violence] is going to pick up from their side. There is significant latent capability in Iraq, especially Iranian-sponsored capability. They can turn it up whenever they want. You can see that from the pre-positioning that's been going on and the huge stockpiles of Iranian weapons that we've turned up in the last couple of months. The relationships between Iran and groups like al-Qaida are very fluid," the official said.

"It often comes down to individuals, and people constantly move around. For instance, the Sunni Arab so-called resistance groups use Salafi jihadist ideology for their own purposes. But the whole Iran- al-Qaida linkup is very sinister."

Iran has maintained close links to Iraq's Shia political parties and militias but has previously eschewed collaboration with al-Qaida and Sunni insurgents.

US officials now say they have firm evidence that Tehran has switched tack as it senses a chance of victory in Iraq. In a parallel development, they say they also have proof that Iran has reversed its previous policy in Afghanistan and is now supporting and supplying the Taliban's campaign against US, British and other Nato forces.

Tehran's strategy to discredit the US surge and foment a decisive congressional revolt against Mr Bush is national in scope and not confined to the Shia south, its traditional sphere of influence, the senior official in Baghdad said. It included stepped-up coordination with Shia militias such as Moqtada al-Sadr's Jaish al-Mahdi as well as Syrian-backed Sunni Arab groups and al-Qaida in Mesopotamia, he added. Iran was also expanding contacts across the board with paramilitary forces and political groups, including Kurdish parties such as the PUK, a US ally.

"Their strategy takes into account all these various parties. Iran is playing all these different factions to maximise its future control and maximise US and British difficulties. Their co-conspirator is Syria which is allowing the takfirists [fundamentalist Salafi jihadis] to come across the border," the official said.

Any US decision to retaliate against Iran on its own territory could be taken only at the highest political level in Washington, the official said. But he indicated that American patience was wearing thin.

Warning that the US was "absolutely determined" to hit back hard wherever it was challenged by Iranian proxies or agents inside Iraq, he cited the case of five alleged members of the Revolutionary Guard's al-Quds force detained in Irbil in January. Despite strenuous protests from Tehran, which claims the men are diplomats, they have still not been released.

"Tehran is behaving like a racecourse gambler. They're betting on all the horses in the race, even on people they fundamentally don't trust," a senior administration official in Washington said. "They don't know what the outcome will be in Iraq. So they're hedging their bets."

The administration official also claimed that notwithstanding recent US and British overtures, Syria was still collaborating closely with Iran's strategy in Iraq.

"80% to 90%" of the foreign jihadis entering Iraq were doing so from Syrian territory, he said.

Despite recent diplomatic contacts, and an agreement to hold bilateral talks at ambassadorial level in Baghdad next week, US officials say there has been no let-up in hostile Iranian activities, including continuing support for violence, weapons smuggling and training.

"Iran is perpetuating the cycle of sectarian violence through support for extra-judicial killing and murder cells. They bring Iraqi militia members and insurgent groups into Iran for training and then help infiltrate them back into the country. We have plenty of evidence from a variety of sources. There's no argument about that. That's just a fact," the senior official in Baghdad said.

In trying to force an American retreat, Iran's hardline leadership also hoped to bring about a humiliating political and diplomatic defeat for the US that would reduce Washington's regional influence while increasing Tehran's own.

But if Iran succeeded in "prematurely" driving US and British forces out of Iraq, the likely result would be a "colossal humanitarian disaster" and possible regional war drawing in the Sunni Arab Gulf states, Syria and Turkey, he said.

Despite such concerns, or because of them, the US welcomed the chance to talk to Iran, the senior administration official said. "Our agenda starts with force protection in Iraq," he said. But there were many other Iraq-related issues to be discussed. Recent pressure had shown that Iran's behaviour could be modified, the official claimed: "Last winter they were literally getting away with murder."

But tougher action by security forces in Iraq against Iranian agents and networks, the dispatch of an additional aircraft carrier group to the Gulf and UN security council resolutions imposing sanctions had given Tehran pause, he said.

Washington analysts and commentators predict that Gen Petraeus's report to the White House and Congress in early September will be a pivotal moment in the history of the four-and-a-half-year war - and a decision to begin a troop drawdown or continue with the surge policy will hinge on the outcome. Most Democrats and many Republicans in Congress believe Iraq is in the grip of a civil war and that there is little that a continuing military presence can achieve. "Political will has already failed. It's over," a former Bush administration official said.

A senior adviser to Gen Petraeus reported this month that the surge had reduced violence, especially sectarian killings, in the Baghdad area and Sunni-dominated Anbar province. But the adviser admitted that much of the trouble had merely moved elsewhere, "resulting in spikes of activity in Diyala [to the north] and some areas to the south of the capital". "Overall violence is at about the same level [as when the surge began in February]."

Iranian officials flatly deny US and British allegations of involvement in internal violence in Iraq or in attacks on coalition forces. Interviewed in Tehran recently, Mohammad Reza Bagheri, deputy foreign minister for Arab affairs with primary responsibility for Iran's policy in Iraq, said: "We believe it would be to the benefit of both the occupiers and the Iraqi people that they [the coalition forces] withdraw immediately."


 
Quote    Reply
 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted

Pages: 1 2
RockyMTNClimber    What emboldens the Iranians?   5/22/2007 12:00:54 PM

1. The failure of the Brits to take action during their recent "kidnapping" incident (as a side note I am serious when I say expect the Iranians to try to nab a bigger UK tarket next time. Like a Frigate or Logistical ship).
 
2. Tony Blair's resignation under a cloud that the war had driven him from office early.
 
Not to leave the US's role out of this potential debacle:
 
3. US electorate changing the political winds from no cut and run, to strategic withdrawl.
 
4. The MSM continuing drum beat of pessimism over the results of the GWOT and Bush's poll standings (which are directly related).
 
5. US Congress.
 
6. The Iranians have already succeeded in attacking the US directly in Iraq with out being punished, not to mention Israel. This lack of response has created a feeling in Tehran that we will fold our tent. It may be right, but more likely the fact that the western liberals are sqwaking retreat will embolden our enemy to attack, create a response from our side, and lengthen the war, killing more on both sides.
 
Time to leave the  politics on the shore and kill our enemy before he can gravely injure us.
 
"We must hang together, or we will assuredly hang seperately..."- Ben Franklin
 
Check Six
 
Rocky
 
Quote    Reply

mithradates       5/24/2007 12:28:11 PM



1. The failure of the Brits to take action during their recent "kidnapping" incident (as a side note I am serious when I say expect the Iranians to try to nab a bigger UK tarket next time. Like a Frigate or Logistical ship).

 

2. Tony Blair's resignation under a cloud that the war had driven him from office early.

 

Not to leave the US's role out of this potential debacle:

 

3. US electorate changing the political winds from no cut and run, to strategic withdrawl.
 

4. The MSM continuing drum beat of pessimism over the results of the GWOT and Bush's poll standings (which are directly related).

 

5. US Congress.

 

6. The Iranians have already succeeded in attacking the US directly in Iraq with out being punished, not to mention Israel. This lack of response has created a feeling in Tehran that we will fold our tent. It may be right, but more likely the fact that the western liberals are sqwaking retreat will embolden our enemy to attack, create a response from our side, and lengthen the war, killing more on both sides.

 

Time to leave the  politics on the shore and kill our enemy before he can gravely injure us.

 

"We must hang together, or we will assuredly hang seperately..."- Ben Franklin

 

Check Six

 

Rocky



Touch Iran and see what happens. :)
 
Quote    Reply

reefdiver       5/24/2007 12:47:03 PM
Ahmadinejad is more than a bit deluded but here's a excerpt from his most recent blustering:
 
"If Iran's right to nuclear technology is confirmed, all nations of the world will gather under Iran's political banner. Enemies of Islamic Iran know this, and for this reason they have mobilized," Ahmadinejad said.
 
-- Though this is one of Ahmadinejad's less threatening comments, it is once again ominously indicative of the way this guy is thinking.  Perhaps at some point the west may have to start taking this guy seriously. Of course, if you truely take him seriously, you will want to (have to?) attack Iran today. This is the question: do you take Ahmadinejad and his regime - and what they say - seriously?  As often repeated, Hitler's early threats weren't taken seriously by most even as the world watched him building up arms.
 
Quote    Reply

RockyMTNClimber    Please expand on your thought.....   5/24/2007 1:41:14 PM
Touch Iran and see what happens. :)
 
Quote    Reply

reefdiver       5/26/2007 3:12:31 PM

Touch Iran and see what happens. :)


I imagine he's thinking if Iran is attacked, the US and the entire world will suffer and be thrown into chaos as Iran unleashes terrorists all over the world and perhaps sinks a couple of tankers in the gulf. Its a threat Iran keeps re-iterating in the belief that it will scare the US into refraining from attacking.  I believe that rather than keeping the US and others from attacking, this type of sabre-rattling should encourage them to attack now, rather than waiting for Iran to just keep getting stronger and someday have nukes.  No rational nation would publically make such statements.  It does not seem prudent to wait for an enemy such as Iran to choose the time and place of a future conflict after they have radically increased their arms capability. I still believe that massive lightening strikes decimating Irans military, their military industrial infrastructure (later including nuke facilities), and their oil refining capability would cut off world terrorism rather than increase it.  Iran would have to spend their money rebuilding over a period of time rather than funding terrorism. With their refineries destroyed, they'd also have to spend a lot of money importing gasoline from their neighbors - making them dependent on their neighbors. 
 
Without money, the mullahs may lose much of their power - in spite of possible increased nationalism in the country. If the attack are surgical enough (i.e. minimum civilians are killed), the citizenry might just understand the attacks were a result of the mullahs foolish decisions.
 
Quote    Reply

00_Chem_AJB       5/26/2007 3:58:33 PM
What do you do with their indoctrinated civilians/students? The ones who think and sometimes act like the Revolutionary Guard?
 
Quote    Reply

displacedjim       5/26/2007 4:26:49 PM
Basically we don't do anything with them.  We don't occupy Iran, we attack Iran.  Even if that includes inserting some ground forces to destroy some objectives, we withdraw them as soon as militarily possible.
 
Quote    Reply

00_Chem_AJB       5/26/2007 4:44:15 PM
So do what we (NATO) did to Serbia in 1999? Hmm sounds good, though something tells me any regime change in Iran (with or with out foreign intervention) wont go smoothly, it'll probably end in bloody civil war because of those extremists.
 
Quote    Reply

swhitebull    Economic Attack is More Economical   5/26/2007 4:47:15 PM
from National Review:
 

Iran Has Many Economic Woes...   [Mario Loyola]

... and perhaps the biggest is President Ahmadinejad. Here's a little comic relief from a country that hasn't provided much in recent years:

Iran's moderate press and economists Thursday slammed a decision by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to slash interest rates, describing the move as "incomprehensible" and risking "economic suicide." The rate cut, which economists said could overheat an already inflationary economy, appeared to have been taken without the knowledge of Iran's economy minister, who had said exactly the opposite just hours earlier.

"Economic suicide for banks," the Mardomsalari (Democracy) newspaper said of Tuesday's move. "The economy minister and the head of the Central Bank have to explain this decision since this decree is incomprehensible for economists," Saeed Shirkavand, economy minister in the previous reformist government, was quoted as saying.

The government spokesman said Tuesday state bank interest rates were being cut to 12 percent from 14 percent and rates at private banks to 12 percent from 17 percent in a bid to create fair competition among lenders.

The former head of the Tehran stock exchange, Hossein Abdo Tabrizi, said "this ad-hoc decision will not benefit the investment market at all and will only terrify investors. They will start to worry that maybe tomorrow there will be such decisions to control and create a price ceiling for shares," he told the Kargozaran newspaper.

The centrist Ham Mihan daily said that hours before the decision was announced, both Economy Minister Davoud Danesh Jafari and Central Bank chief Ebrahim Sheibani vowed rates would stay the same.

The report goes on to provide some context:

Money-supply growth is running at a huge 40 percent and the government is beginning to implement a gasoline rationing plan that has already seen pump prices rise by 25 percent. [...] Meanwhile, about 7,000 students from some 17 universities have signed a petition criticizing an ongoing moral crackdown, saying economic problems were of greater importance, the reformist Etemad daily reported.

Iran's suicidal economic policies may be the single best hope we have for an eventual denuclearization of the country. Those policies are ruining the prospects for Iran's long-term economic health while throwing away the current oil windfall. They have begun to generate open hostility to Ahmadinejad within the country's most powerful elites.

Iran's hardliners are now clearly on a collision-course with popular expectations of improved economic opportunity. The more unpopular the mullahs become, the more extreme the reaction is likely to be eventually ? in the direction of a government that favors free markets and good relations with the West, and is willing to give up a nuclear-breakout capability in exchange.
 
swhitebull - economy is a house of cards, and wouldnt require a lot to push it down. A refinery here, an embargo there. Iran doesnt have a lot of slack to prop itself up.

 

 
Quote    Reply

RockyMTNClimber    I was hoping that Myth would man-up and explain himself.   5/26/2007 10:41:05 PM
 
Not to be.........
 
Check Six
 
Rocky
 
Quote    Reply

YelliChink       5/26/2007 11:15:35 PM

 

Not to be.........

 

Check Six

 

Rocky


Nah...
I just think that Iran will be another Vietnam, and all commies have to do is to keep supplying weapons and training experts just like they did in the Vietnam war. Commies may also think that once strategic importance of the US is weakened due to entanglement in the Middle East, their position will be stronger and a military venture to acquire another 22.5 million slaves has higher possibility of success.
 
I am kind of pessimistic about Iranian situation. They will have nukes in probably less than IAEA estimates. Actually, I think that some people in IAEA are colaborating with Iranians. The only scenario when it is justifiable to invade Iran, is after Israeli cities are nuked by Iranians. Unfortunately, Iranians made few mistakes, and they use Hamas and the POG very well in their campaign of diversion.
 
Quote    Reply

RockyMTNClimber    Quoting DJ in response to Yelli   5/28/2007 11:37:36 AM

Basically we don't do anything with them.  We don't occupy Iran, we attack Iran.  Even if that includes inserting some ground forces to destroy some objectives, we withdraw them as soon as militarily possible.



Smash them, blockade them, let them rot, but do not occupy them. They will come around or starve to death. Allowing them nukes should not be an option.
 
Check Six
 
Rocky
 
Quote    Reply

RockyMTNClimber    Allowing them to wage a one sided war against US is certainly not an option.   5/28/2007 11:38:45 AM
 
Quote    Reply

Clausewitz    The military option is the only option!   5/28/2007 12:22:49 PM
The mullahs are determined to develop nukes. No diplomacy - whatever that means - will stop them. And there is no deterrence of shiite fanatics. When they wage a nuclear jihad against the west and conduct a nuclear holocaust it is to late. A second strike will just be a genocide on at least a partly pro western population. That will not make or deads alive. Even if Iran as a nuke power would show some sort of rational behavior there is always the threat of civil war in this unstable country. A last nuclear hurrah of the Qud revolutionary guards (Qud brigades) would be desastrous. Again no answer for the west without killing millions of innocents. And a rational nuclar Iran would use the nuke umbrella to destabilize the whole area. They could support terrorism without fear of retailation. Everywhere! And many other middle east countries would like to get nukes to. With Saudi Arabia, Egypt and others nuclear armed states in the area nuclar war will unavoidable. And nuke terror too.
So destroy the iranian nuke facilities with a combination of air strikes and raids. If they attack the sea lines the US navy should be able to hold the strait of hormuz open. And the US air force and navy shoud be capable of defending the arabioan oil fields. If Iran retailates with world wide terror the on and only iranian refinery, their oil fields and other key infrastructure targets will be destroyed. But if war is policy by other means there will no real iranian answer (just some fake counter strike). When the nuke facilities are gone there are no nuke facilities to defend. And if the west does not occupy Iran there will be no asymetric war to win. If there is no occupation and no policy of regime change - what is up to the Iranians - the military solution can easily be done. And without much risk.
 
Quote    Reply

YelliChink       5/28/2007 4:10:51 PM

 If there is no occupation and no policy of regime change - what is up to the Iranians - the military solution can easily be done. And without much risk.
I think that the most problem would be from within the US rather than from Iranians, though they can still mine the straight of Hormuz.

 
Quote    Reply
Pages: 1 2

StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2008StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy