Impending War with Iran?

[Air Force Cane]

Iran Showdown

By Jed Babbin

Published 1/23/2006 12:09:26 AM

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad may be crazy, but he's not stupid. Bashar Assad may be stupid, but he's not crazy. Between them lie Israel and Iraq. Assad aims to use Israel as the means of avoiding the consequence of ordering murder, Ahmadinejad as proof of his nation's ascendance to the status of terrorist superpower. Iraq, if Ahmadinejad succeeds, will be Iran's first colony in the new Islamic caliphate. An Iranian dissident group this past week predicted an Iranian nuclear test before March 20. It is entirely possible that Iran may be ready to test a nuclear weapon, but to do so at this moment would seem contrary to Iranian interests because such action would almost certainly result in an Israeli attack. But would it? Perhaps. Saturday, Israel's defense minister, Shaul Mofaz, said that Israel "will not accept Iran's nuclear armament" and hinted that Israeli forces were planning a strike to knock out Iran's nuclear facilities. A day later, Iranian foreign minister Hamid Reza Asefi said, "Israel knows just how much of a fatal mistake it would be [to attack Iran]....This is just a childish game by Israel." If Iran were to explode a nuclear warhead, the Israelis would be driven to attack. Israel has the ability to attack Iran, but it cannot -- due to distance and Iran's hardened and widely dispersed facilities -- attack with the conclusiveness it did in 1981 in Iraq. Iran's nuclear capability would survive, and the resulting war would be fought -- almost entirely by aircraft and missile -- across Iraq, which sits between them. And so does America.

As John Batchelor reported in AmSpecBlog two days ago, Bashar Assad of Syria accused Israel of assassinating Palestinian leader Yassir Arafat, whose cause of death has never been fully explained. It mattered little to Assad that his remarks came only days before Palestinian January 25 elections. His accusation was aimed directly at stirring Palestinian violence rather than the election. Assad is under increasing pressure from the UN investigation of the assassination of former Lebanese prime minister Rafiq Hariri, which Assad obviously ordered. If the Palestinians can be incited to begin a huge new terror campaign, attention will be drawn to Israel's response and -- Assad assumes -- the investigation will fall off the UN's radar. The Palestinians have always been a tool of Israelis' enemies, a reliable and expendable proxy force. The Syrian will -- if he can -- use the Palestinians as cannon fodder. Syrian incitement to terror will not rest on Assad's words. They will be accompanied by money, weapons and direct political pressure on Palestinian terror groups.

The two statements -- Assad's and Asefi's -- surrounding a visit by Ahmadinejad to Damascus are anything but coincidental. They help explain the Iranian endgame for the Middle East. JUST AS SYRIA WANTS TO USE the Palestinians as a diversion, so Iran wants to use Syria to begin a tidal wave of diplomatic pressure on Israel. An Iranian nuclear test would not end the European diplomatic campaign aimed at blocking Iran's nuclear weapons program, but only change its direction. The Europeans and Japan will not join a trade embargo against Iran. For them to do so would demolish their fragile welfare state economies. Iran is preparing for a long diplomatic siege, calling for a 1 million barrel per day OPEC production cut and moving its financial assets out of Europe. These measures alone (even if the production cut isn't agreed on at the late January OPEC meeting) are enough to muzzle Europe. In the coming diplomatic battles, Israel will be isolated even more than it is now. If Israel has to crack down on Palestinian terrorist and then attacks Iran, UN sanctions against Israel would be debated for months, removing any threat of action on UN sanctions against Iran.

An Iranian nuclear test would leave Israel no choice but to attack with or without American permission or help, and regardless of the fact that it could not accomplish the desired result. President Bush has said, repeatedly, that we will not permit Iran to have nuclear weapons. But his position has always been calculated on the basis that there is time to prevent that occurrence peacefully. What will he do if Iran tests a nuclear weapon? If Iran's nuclear ambition is a fait accompli, the equation is changed radically. If Iran has nuclear arms, it will -- immediately -- take the position of a regional superpower. None of its neighbors (really, none of the nations within range of an Iranian weapon except Israel) will be able to resist Iran's domination. And, with the Shahab-3 and -4 missiles the Iranians have, the threat from Iran would include nations as far away as Germany. The Islamic caliphate will have begun its restoration.

To attack Iran's nuclear capability, the president would have to risk what has been accomplished in Iraq. If an Israeli attack were made, the Israeli and Iranian air forces -- and missile exchanges -- would cross Iraqi skies. Because the antagonists' ground forces are unable to enter each others' territory, Iranian ground forces could enter southern Iraq at the invitation of radical Shia such as Moqtada al-Sadr. If an American attack on Iran were decisive -- destroying not only the nuclear capability but also decapitating the mullahs' regime -- the Iraqi Shia would not have the motive to use military force against the Sunni minority and Iran wouldn't be able to force them to do so. The Iraqi Shia are Arabs, not Persians, and aren't willing to submit themselves to Persian rule. But if an attack didn't clearly destroy the Iranians' nuclear capability, the Iraqi Shia could be forced to attack the Sunni and demand American withdrawal. A very large war will have begun that could again array all of Israel's neighbors (save only Iraq) against it. Israel barely survived its last major war in 1973. It may not survive this one. THE WAR WITH IRAN WILL have to be fought and we will, of course, defend Israel as best we can. But much bloodshed can be avoided, and Iran's nuclear objective put out of reach if we seize the advantage we gave up to Saddam in the UN. Surprise is a strategic advantage we must retain.

The alternative to a large war, which no one speaks about, is a surprise attack against Iran mounted before Israel acts, and before the predicted Iranian nuclear test happens. Such an attack would employ several unconventional weapons at once and could -- if managed properly -- be over before Iran knows it has begun. The world must know that we have done it. But after, not before.

It may be that Iran's Chinese allies are doing more than helping develop its missiles. It may be that Iran's Russian trading partner is doing more than providing defenses against air attack. But neither is likely to be providing Iran with the means of effectively defending against our other capabilities. It could, and should, be made one dark night. B-2 stealth bombers, each carrying twenty ground-penetrating guided munitions, can destroy much of Iran's nuclear facilities and government centers. Some might carry reported electro-magnetic pulse weapons that can destroy all the electronic circuits that comprise Iranian missiles, key military communications and computer facilities. And it may be that we have the ability to attack Iran's military and financial computer networks with computer viruses and "Trojan horses" that will make it impossible for Iran to function militarily and economically. Our strategy must be implemented before Ahmadinejad can test his nukes. Whether that test can happen next month or next year is immaterial. The time for us to act is now.

[Skins24]

China, Russia join call to suspend nuclear program

Hillary accuses Bush of downplaying Iran threat

1. Any action against Iran would be an UN action. There has been probably more talk from the EU about stopping Iran's program than there has been here in the States.

Do people honestly think China is willing to risk everything to help a country out that only accounts for about 10% of it's oil?

2. Any action against Iran would be an airstrike against it's facilities. If anyone can show me an credible evidence that this wouldn't be like Osirak, I'd like to see it.

[Thiebear]

Going to war to get the OIL is a war for oil.

Going to war to cause OIL prices to go up is a war for oil.

Must be nice to be able to say ANYTHING you wish even if its an outright lie.

[nelms]

"If oil prices go up, oil companies profit. Bush loves Big Oil."

nice try.

of course there is that little thing about if oil prices go up, the ECONOMY of 300 million Americans goes DOWN.

and there is that little thing called ELECTIONS where those 300 million get to do something called VOTING.

:applause: It's amazing the conspiracy theories that get passed off as fact on this board.

[Air Force Cane]

The only difficulty is a lack of political will to actually strike.

we can certainly push back their program through air strikes, F-22A Raptors are online already.

We can use B-2, B-1, B-52, Navy F-18's.

along with submarine launched missiles and Aegis Cruiser missile launches. We need to hit Natanz, Isfahan, Teheran command and control C4 sites, Revolutionary Guards positions, anti-aircraft SAM sites, radar installations, airfields and SCUD launchers.

it would take a week of continuous aerial attacks with GBU ordnance and ground penetrating weaponry.

if we could get some token British Tornadoes along with a French Mirage and then we could utilize Israeli Air Force assets. We need to just punish the Iranians in a whirlwind of strikes and degrade not only WMD but conventional arms as well..

we can do this- we just need to act.

[smsmith40]

For any historians, we are living in 1936 and Hitler just marched into the Rhineland. The French and English did nothing other than call for the League of Nations to act. And yet the German generals would have deposed Hitler had the Allies gone to war. Look what happened.

Very dubious analysis. In 1936 neither the UK or France had the offensive capability to stop Hitler moving into the Rhineland. Perhaps the German Generals Staff might have tried to overhtnrow him, although thats a point for debate, there is no guarantee they would have succeeded.

People sure are getting obsessed witht hte lessons of 1930s diplomacy around here at the moment.

[gchwood]

Going to war to get the OIL is a war for oil.

Going to war to cause OIL prices to go up is a war for oil.

Must be nice to be able to say ANYTHING you wish even if its an outright lie.

So.... What war was caused for the sake of getting oil?

or..... What war was caused by raising oil prices?

With the war in Iraq the price of Oil was $20 a barrel as it was for like 15 years prior. Plus we don't get Oil from any one individual country we purchase oil through OPEC. Furthermore the US reserve of Oil is enough that we could be self sufficient on it, but why use ours when we can get others.

So my question to you is What war is about oil?

[Predicto]

Very dubious analysis. In 1936 neither the UK or France had the offensive capability to stop Hitler moving into the Rhineland. Perhaps the German Generals Staff might have tried to overhtnrow him, although thats a point for debate, there is no guarantee they would have succeeded.

People sure are getting obsessed witht hte lessons of 1930s diplomacy around here at the moment.

I'm pretty sure that is wrong. In 1936 the French easily had that capacity, but lacked the will to use it.

[Air Force Cane]

interesting points smsmith40. other than the fact you are just wrong:

"The militarization of the Rhineland was a direct blow to French security inasmuch as it rendered worthless the promises of military aid by France to her eastern European allies Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia and Romania if any of them were attacked by Germany. Despite the brave talk, France was not disposed to take action without the assistance of Britain, at least. Besides, the military chiefs advised against military action and public opinion showed no enthusiasm for war. Nonetheless the timorous British attitude--favoring negotiation at all cost--was a sore disappointment to the French whose military strength at this stage greatly exceeded German strength: at the height of the 'crisis', only some 20,000 German troops had occupied the zone. Thus, the "last chance" to stop Hitler's gallop passed off with no more than denunciations and recriminations, despite the judgment of the League of Nations that Hitler had again violated the Treaty of Versailles. Hitler's gambling on the defensive posture of France paid off."

yeah, sounds NOTHING like what is happening with Iran right now :notworthy

[Air Force Cane]

"Encouraged by Mussolini’s fall out with Britain and France, Hitler took the risk of sending troops into the demilitarised zone of the Rhineland in March 1936. Though the troops had orders to withdraw at the first sign of French opposition, no resistance was offered beyond the usual protests. This was a vital step in rebuilding German power. Strong fortifications and forces here would stop France coming to the help of her East European allies.

Why did Britain and France not intervene?

France and Britain did nothing to prevent the remilitarisation of the Rhineland. The French were nervous of going to war without Britain’s backing. Many British politicians felt that Hitler should be allowed to go "into his own back garden". The British public did not yet see Hitler as a threat, rather he seemed a strong potential ally against Bolshevik Russia."

oh you are right, I apologize. Absolutely sounds nothing like what we have seen happening in the last three years...

[Thiebear]

So.... What war was caused for the sake of getting oil?

or..... What war was caused by raising oil prices?

With the war in Iraq the price of Oil was $20 a barrel as it was for like 15 years prior. Plus we don't get Oil from any one individual country we purchase oil through OPEC. Furthermore the US reserve of Oil is enough that we could be self sufficient on it, but why use ours when we can get others.

So my question to you is What war is about oil?

I was replying to this basically:

Originally Posted by Ancalagon the Black

This is probably fodder for a different topic, but doesn't this make absolute sense if it were a war for oil? If oil prices go up, oil companies profit. Bush loves Big Oil.

Originally Posted by Chomerics

Where so you get off making sense AtB??? You know there is no place for rational thought in the tailgate

[smsmith40]

Besides, the military chiefs advised against military action

AFC - If you are going to play cut and paste I would prefer it if you would source your quotes.

Even though your quotes also contain the seed of why the numbers argument falls down.

The French government was advised in 1936 and again in 1938 by its military chiefs that despite the French army's greater numbers it posessed almost not offensive capability. It was a static army designed around defending from fixed positions. The German army, on the other hand was designed for rapid offensive movement of the kind employed by Hitler in the re-taking of the Rhineland, which was after all, part of Germany.

I'm a little busy right now but I can source this analysis later.

[Air Force Cane]

I can hardly wait SMS- considering just about EVERY historian views the French not acting in 1936 as a fatal strategic mistake. I eagerly anticipate you doing "further research".

http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/triumph/tr-rhine.htm

"Once again, the whole world waited to see how the French and British would react. German troops entering the Rhineland even had orders to scoot back across the Rhine bridges if the French Army attacked. But in France, the politicians were simply unable to convince their generals to act, and were also unable to get any British support for a military response. So they did nothing. The French Army, with its one hundred divisions, never budged against the 30,000 lightly armed German soldiers occupying the Rhineland, even though France and Britain were both obligated to preserve the demilitarized zone by the Treaty of Versailles and the Locarno Pact of mutual assistance."

[Air Force Cane]

"It had been a tremendous gamble for Hitler, one that might have cost him everything if his troops had been humiliated by their old enemies. Later, Hitler would privately admit: "The forty-eight hours after the march into the Rhineland were the most nerve-racking in my life. If the French had marched into the Rhineland, we would have had to withdraw with our tail between our legs, for the military resources at our disposal would have been wholly inadequate for even a moderate resistance."

[Air Force Cane]

In fact, the French Army had some of the best tanks and armored vehicles in the world during the 1930's. Not sure where you learned about military history.

The battle of Sedan in 1940 was so successful because the BEF and French armored corps had ATTACKED towards Belgium to settle in line alongside the Dutch and Belgian armed forces.

"In 1934 the 1ère Division Légère Mécanique (DLM) was created from a fully mechanized cavalry division. By May 1940 there were 3 DLMs and a 4th forming. Each of these contained: a reconnaissance regiment with 2 armored car and 2 motorcycle squadrons,

• a tank brigade of 2 regiments equipped with Somuas and H-35s,
  
• a motor rifle brigade of 3 battalions, each with:
  
  • a light tank company of 20 AMRs,
    
  • a motorcycle company,
    
  • 2 truck born infantry companies, and
    
  • a heavy weapons company,
    

  [*]a motorized artillery regiment, and

  [*]an engineer battalion.

The function of the DLM units were to provide a screen for the deployment of the main part of the army, reconnaissance, and exploitation."

[Predicto]

The French had good equipment and good soldiers in the 1930s. What destroyed them was bad generals and political leaders. DeGaulle was the only one of the bunch with a brain, and they ignored him completely.

[Skins24]

lol, I love watching threads evolve

This isn't as big as some change it topics, but we've gone from the current situation in Iran to France's military capabilities during WW2 :laugh:

[chiefhogskin48]

France's army was nothing to laugh at during the 1930's. Meanwhile, the German army was barely in existence by 1936. The militarization of Nazi Germany was not immediate following Hitler's rise to power. It would have been too obvious.

[Predicto]

France's army was nothing to laugh at during the 1930's. Meanwhile, the German army was barely in existence by 1936. The militarization of Nazi Germany was not immediate following Hitler's rise to power. It would have been too obvious.

Plus he didn't have the money yet. He still had to woo the industrialists.

[Air Force Cane]

You are all correct, which is why SMS really doesn't know what he is talking about saying the French were too weak militarily to act.

The French had more than enough military might- Germany had only been rearming for 9 months by the time they occupied the Rhineland.

It was a failure of political will, and had nothing to do with "France had only a defensive army."

The articles I posted pretty much shot that argument out of the water. but thanks for playing!

[smsmith40]

AFC

Well I learned my History from a man called Bill Fairley who taught me to look beyond the textbooks and go and find a range of analyses before forming an opinion. He also signed my pass for the local university library, where I found, among others people like Liddell Hart, Martin Gilbert, AJP Taylor, Albert Speer, Alan Bullock, Hugh Trevor-Roper and William Shirer. If you want to know about European 20th Century Military History, these are the people you start with.

Also props to Ian Kershaw's excellent Hitler Biography (Hubris & Nemesis).

As for the state of the French army in 1936 I point you towards Lidell Harts contemporary account of European re-armament (written in 1936)

p.s I can't provide a link because my sources are all sitting on my bookshelf.

"The French Army has for long exemplified the fallacy of the old standards of guaging sttrength. If its total numbers were counted, it appeared the strongest in Europe, apart from the Russian... the impression has thus been spread that the French Army was, at any rate until recently, a serious potential threat to Germany. But the numbers had small meaning under modern conditions; a large proportion were abroad; and most of the war material was old. Although twenty-two tank batallions have been maintained in France most of them were, and still are, equipped with machines of the last war, only slightly modified."

"Thus when I last saw the French Army it seemed to me among the most backward of the Great Powers"

"Europe in Arms" by Liddell Hart (1937). Chapter 4 pages 41-42.

How would you imagine the French (or the UK) could have stopped Germany in the 1930s from expanding eastward and re-occupying the Rhineland when it couldn't even stop (an admittedly emboldened) German army from occupying Paris.

Bear in mind, the French didn't know that the German army had orders not to engage if the French army moved into the Rhineland (not that it had the transport capability to do so). They assumed that the Germans would fight and they came to the conclusion that they would lose. Given that, what choices were avaialble to Daladier in 1936, his military told him they could not prevent the re-occupation. His only other option woud have been to bluff, thay may or may not have worked, it cetainly failed in September 1939 when the direst warnings of war failed to stop Hitler invading Poland.

The Rhineland crisis of 1936 may have been the last point at which the Western Powers could have stopped Hitler short of outright war, but would that have been a desrable outcome, what is the endgame of that, Hitler being left in power? Some people have suggested that internal forces would have pulled Hitler down but the relatively sketchy evidence of a plot in 1936-38 does not suggest a significant likelyhood of success. Hitler, remember survived plots from Ernst Rohm earlier in the 1930s and the 1943 bomb plot.

Going back to my original point, you said that today's situation with Iran is comparable to that faced by the Western Powers in 1936. I completely disagree with that analysis, the US today enjoys complete miltary superiority over any other nation or combination of nations in the region. It has the capability to remotely attack Iran strategically or invade and defeat her on the ground (admittedly at siginificant human cost). That was NOT the situation faced by the UK and France in the mid 30s. They had NO strategic capability to inflict damage on Germany and their military was NOT configured to engage German forces outside their own defensive network. The situation is fundamentally different and therefore the US is able to make diffferent (and hopefully better) choices than Daladier, Cahmberlain and Halifax made.

I could go into this in much more detail if you would like.

[smsmith40]

For anybody not familiar with the foremost miltary historian/analyst of the 20th century here's a link to follow.

Liddell Hart

[smsmith40]

" Gamelin (French Chief of Staff) might talk of taking the initiative against Germany; the defnsive equipment of the French Army and the psychology of the Maginot line mde this impossible"

Origins of the Second World War by AJP Taylor , Chapter 5, pg 131

[Air Force Cane]

"Although twenty-two tank batallions have been maintained in France"

I think that is the end of our discussion right there.

Along with the 22 battalions they also had the armored division I linked to above. and how many armored battalions did the Wermacht have? (32,000 troops in the entire Rhineland)

So, you are trying to say that Hart proves your thesis, but yet ADOLF HITLER in the quote I provided doesn't?!! You stated it was IMPOSSIBLE for France to undertake offensive operations and that the Iran situation had nothing to do with the current threat we face. I could continue to post all day long about how those statements are wrong.

Thanks for your sources, I agree and have read most of their books- since my Bachelor of Arts was in Military History, I worked at the State Department, and attended Air Force Commissioning School I think I know a bit of what I am talking about.

[smsmith40]

AFC

I am glad I am talking to someone so eminently qualified, I was beginning to wonder.

Since you have used PART of my quote you will have noted that the next sentence points out thet these were all WWI machines.

Liddell Hart's next paragraph reads

"They are slow machines, employed to help the infantry forward yet with a very limited obstacle crossing capacity for that purpose"

later he goes on

"The French seemed to conceive of nothing more than the preservation of a powerful but rigid fighting machine, a machine which is likely to break down if it should ever be called upon to make a prolonged advance orr retirement. I could not help thinking that the French had renovated their steam roller by fitting an extra roller, but had forgotten to consider its motive power"

We know that even by 1940 the Frwench Army was unable to manouver effectively out of the Maginot fortifications

From Allen Brooke's diaries (I'm sure I don't have to tell you why he might be qualified to judge)

"The French , trained and equipped for one of inert defence, remained behind the Maginot Line, helpless spectators of her fate"