and let the diplomats do their jobs until the case is abindantly and TRULY clear that Iran is totally intransigent, THEN attack if they must.

 

War is always the last option.

 

Is France up to it?

 

The French are, though their equipment isn't really ready. The rest of the EU military is tough and professional. I don't know about their sustainment, but if they use their nascent command and control and gradually adapt to the situation; they'll do okay logistically.   

 

Herald

 

One airstrike at Kharg island cuts Iran's oil exports to nil.

 

Sit back, contain the response (e.g. knock down Shahabs, sink or shoot down anything that threatens the Gulf, take on terror cells that appear)...

 

Wait until boil over - no money equals no war, no funds for terrorism, no food, and no fuel.

In any other case I would agree but this would still leave the Iranians the option of "scorched Earth". Any strike has to target completely the Iranian ability to project power.

 

-DA

We've seen the test run of how Iran would try to respond. She'd try to run guerilla war operations in eastern Iraq, and southern Afghanistan, as well as encoiurage Hafaz Assad to try his hand in Lebanon again. I doubt the Europe cells arer ready or that the Gaza cell that she's tried to build is ready, but unlike the poseurs who think in terms of la Grande Invasion, I worry about the small war.
 

The Iranians can't win, but they have options. There are always the PRC bandits, and Putin to polit6ically leverage. There is always Hizbollah and the knucklehead left to exploit.

 

And there is always the surprise Sunday punch we just might have missed; as the recent IAF raid into Syria might have uncovered and destroyed recently.       

Nobody sane goes into this war thinking its quick easy and certain.

 

In answer to the question,can the EU mount operations from US bases in Iraq to wreck Iran's air defense?

 

The following nations can.

 

Spain

France

Germany

Italy

Britain

Holland

possibly Norway

possibly Denmark

and possibly Poland 

 

Ground combat.

 

All of the above nations and Belgium included.

 

How many would participate?

 

Spain won't. She has no interest in so doing.

 

France?

 

Frankly I've no idea what Sarkozy thinks he's doing. If he wants to help he should secretly telephone George and advise him that France will be less obstructionist on the diplomatic front, but recommend that Condi Rice continue to hammer away at the sanctions option in the UN. Where France can help US is turning its DGSE loose in the shadow war. The French are very good at the shadow war. Dead Iranian agents in the gutters and alleys of the world's seamier business venues serve us in the West better than Rafales making bombing runs on Kharg Island.

 

Herald   

Herald is right and this is why I've advised against this course of action for now. It's not the big thing but all the little small things Iran can do. They would not "win" but they could make losing very harmful to our regional and even global interest. I'm not talking about FS foolish suggestions of a conventional campaign either.

 

-DA

Kouchner is only doing his job. Backing up diplomacy with a credible war threat is the only way to get a result.

Historically thats almost never worked here. Nations generally know our war criteria but gamble one way or the other based on risk vs reward. Everyone knows we would go to war with Iran if pushed to do so.

-DA

Herald -

I agree and dis-agree.  You are very right about the small war scenario.  The only way Iran can fight is via unconventional means but that is a losing strategy any way you want to cut it.  They are great with terrorist ops, and I am certain they have sleeper cells in the US but neither of these are going to be a knock-out punch.

 

However, they are very aware of how easy it would be to cripple their nation with a strike on Kharg.  Our naval superiority is the key here.  Their economy depends on exporting oil and that rests on whether we want them to or not.  They have few options but to play the unconventional card.  This is one reason why we see so much bluster but little action from Tehran.

I would see attacks in the Gulf better aimed at our allies and their oil production facilities than throwing away lives in Iraq.  Iraq in its own way is turning into a Gettysburg for the Jihadists.  They would do better attacking our economic life lines but - don't tell 'em that.

Herald -

Softwar,

If I may interject. Terrorism so far has proven to be ineffective at deterring or seriouly hurting the United States. As grievous as the 9/11 attacks were the USA recovered very well in the aftermath. The terror attacks however are a means to an end. Look at the hugely disproportionate U.S. and Allied force dedicated to dealing with insurgents. Now consider the following...North Korea, Syria, Somalia, Taiwan, Pakistan, Saudi Araia and recently Europe. Any of those places could suddenly plunge into crisis. Where is the U.S. Army? Do you see where I'm going with this?

 

 

-DA

Darth - nicely put.  I do follow but there in lies the method to my madness. 

 

A major battle with Iran is just another sucking hole like Iraq - not good there.  So addition of conventional forces in the region to deal with the issue is not an answer but a problem because we can't be everywhere at once.

 

If we are to strike (and I do not advocate an attack - in fact I argue that this is media hype and not reality) then let's do so with the least amount of lives lost, and inflict the most damage without addtional troops or forces in region.  Kharg island fits the bill nicely.

The threat of terrorist attacks is really not that much greater than it is now.  Iran has already threatened to burn us a dozen times this week.  In fact, activation of hidden cells may very well play against them with the extra monitoring systems online -  thus revealing them to our intelligence ops for destruction.

In the end, the money (logistics) is the key.  No money in the mullahs swiss bank accounts plays badly in Tehran.  No money to buy gasoline (they imported a huge chunk recently) is bad for the locals.  No money for the economy means no money for food, terror ops, Shahab missiles or even nuclear weapons.  All of these items are expensive and if the checking account is zero - with little prospect of more coming in - its only a matter of time before collapse.  Iran is not Iraq in this matter - so the timeline won't be ten years.

 

You see but this is the problem. I'll coin a term. "Techno-Terrorism". Look at the regional domiance of the Iranian coastline. If you want an idea of how dominant it is. Look at the latest appointment to command CENTCOM. Notice anything unique about a USN Admiral being placed in command of an area thus far dominated by aerial bombardments and ground invasions?

 

A LOT of shipping passes through the Gulf. A LOT. A LOT of it carrying vital energy supplies to ports all around the world. Iran will no doubt lose any direct military confrontation. But that loss would be very painful to the world indeed if the Iranians "terrorized" the oil refineries and shipping along and across from its coast with ballistic and cruise missile attacks. Any attack on Kharg will almost certainly guarantee that the Iranians will attempt to retaliate in kind to the best of their ability.

 

Now that is not to say that the USN/USAF/USMC cannot secure the coast line. But it will take considerable effort, time and almost certainly involve economic losses on "our side". We can pay this price but so long as Iran retains a coherent functional command and control function over its anti-shipping capabilities NO MATTER HOW MINOR. We will have to police the better part of  2440km of coastline. No small task. Again, note the commander of CENTCOM.

-DA

I can only agree with you on this...  I did point out that Iran's best bet would be to attack economic targets in the Gulf but pride will make them try missile attacks on Israel and strikes into Iraq - both a losing combination.

Most of these "Attack Iran" threads have centered on some sort of major response by the Iranians using division sized troop attacks across the Iraq border - or by us trying to cross division sized forces into Iran.  See FS and the long long long list of responses.  This is silly.

 

I don't forsee an attack anyway nor do I advocate one ...  Economically speaking Iran is in a basket case - its just a matter of when.  That's why the Mullahs want a war - to stay in power despite a bad economy.

 

The sea battle plays to our strength.  The Iranians would be hard pressed to make successful attacks to close the Gulf and would lose badly trying to do so.  In offensive terms, their power projection is limited in both scope and size.  There is no question that it would not be easy to counter 1000 little boats or suicide F-4 attacks but this is not a war winning strategy on their part - only a poison pill tactic.

I'm just shocked at reading this:

 

=====================

In response to Kouchner's comments, Iran's state-owned news agency accused France of pandering to the interests of the United States.