If Iran was attacked by Israel what would Iran do?

[Disturbed]

What is the best guess scenerio?

[Ian David]

1. Iran would attack Israel for certain...

... they'd also shoot missiles at our sitting ducks troops stationed in Iraq.

If either Israel or The U.S. attacked Iran, it would start a conflagration around the world the likes of which we cannot imagine and are unlikely to survive.

The U.S. or Israel attacks Iran.

Muslims around the world attack U.S. interests, especially "soft" targets like their local McDonalds, as well as harder targets like embassies and oil companies.

Iran attacks Israel and U.S. forces.

Israel retaliates with a "limited" nuclear strike (that's if they actually HAVE nukes, as opposed to an elaborate bluff to make the world THINK they have "secret" nukes).

Pakistan helpfully offers Iran one or more of their nukes.

Iran uses nukes against Israel.

Israel retaliates "massively" with nuclear weapons.

Meanwhile, fall-out from nuclear strikes in Iran poison neighboring countries, including our allies.

Russia and China, both of whom have interests (and personnel) in Iran consider THEIR options for retaliation...

Need I go on?

[defendandprotect]

32. I doubt it because it would give America an excuse to annihilate Iran . . . !!!

And W probably would!!!

[Ian David]

60. The PNAC plan does not call for anhialating Iran.

PNAC says that if you attack Iran with an airborne "shock and awe" campaign, a bunch of pro-democracy America-loving citizens will spontaneously rise-up against the mullahs and install a grateful Jeffersonian Democracy that will thank us with chocolate, flowers, and little Valentine hearts.

And little bearded monkeys might fly outa my butt.

[anitar1]

70. Russia and China have already warned against

attacking Iran. they have plenty of missiles ect.

[lonestarnot]

2. Sink our entire floatilla that is hanging out over there blockading.

[hack89]

5. They don't have that kind of fire power

if they even looked cross eyed at the US navy in the Gulf they would be crushed. Iran is a very weak military power - they have few modern weapons.

[lonestarnot]

9. "Iran is a very military power." What did you mean by that?

[hack89]

12. Sorry - left out the word "weak" nt

[lonestarnot]

34. I think you may have left out more than that.

:evilgrin:

[hack89]

55. The fact are what they are

it is not like it is hard to learn what Iran's actually military capabilities are. It might not be to your liking but thats life.

[Kansas Wyatt]

21. But if they closed off all oil exports.....

They would send shock waves around the world and bring the U.S. to it's knees, especially now.

[hack89]

29. A much more likely course of action

of course it would also cripple their economy. Don't forget that Iran imports gasoline due to their aging refining infrastructure. The chance of social unrest in Iran would be high.

[LynnTheDem]

62. Not quite correct.

Iran has some very modern advanced weaponry, indeed.

[hack89]

67. Well - sort of kind of

they do have a handful of MIG-29s and Kilo subs. Their big problem is that due to sanctions and other economic difficulties, they have had a very hard time maintaining them in any useful shape - the operational availability of Iranian military equipment is very low. This feeds directly into their other huge problem - they are not very proficient in the use of what high tech weapons they have. Without adequate flying hours or sea time they simply do not have the tactical proficiency to take on a modern, well trained opponent. A good example is that they seldom fly at night - US flyers, on the other hand, routinely practice complex tactics at night.

[Pavulon]

83. We do some things really well from a military perspective..

winning hearts and minds, not so much. Occupations and proxy wars, not all that good.

Destroying soviet technology is what we do well. We destroy nations and their military power.

The system (conventional) is systematically built and planned, and a plan standing by right now, ranging from punitive bombings of targets they would miss, to systematic destruction of all military assets, civil works, and systems that support life. Conventional bombing ranging up to b52s and sticks of bombs on troops and garrisons.

The assets are available and can destroy that county's conventional war fighting ability.

That is the purpose of traditional military systems build by the US and NATO.

Iran is hollow and not a threat.

[BrotherBuzz]

88. They have few modern weapons

But they do have the unproven sunburn missile. It would be a formidable weapon if it proves to do what everyone fears it can do.

[Pavulon]

91. RENSE rumor..

the weapon was co-developed with a US and Russian company for a target drone, ie something we used for targeting. It is not sophisticated, just fast.

I would bet the Navy is aware of the range and stays out of it. I would also bet that range is less than any B class of F class airframe that would destroy it.

As well as any SSN that would launch cruise missiles to destroy them before they could be used.

[Pavulon]

26. With what?

a great reason why not..strategic nuclear asset..Please dont say sunburn, we co developed that with the Russians, for a us drone.

"Praying Mantis" is a great primer on Iran's Naval capability.

[leftchick]

3. Lob missiles into Israel, Iraq and use Sunburns in the Gulf

on the US fleets there. For a start. The other question is what would China and Russia do? At any rate it would be cataclysmic.

[hack89]

4. Iran does not have Sunburns.

that is an internet myth that won't die.

[lonestarnot]

10. How are you so certain about what they have and don't have?

They are friends with the Russians.

[hack89]

11. Because there is absolutely no evidence that they have any.

You don't hide weapons like this. First off, they loose their deterrent effect if no one knows you have them. But more importantly, if you hide them you cannot train with them and without training you can not get proficient in their use. Tracking and shooting missiles at ships at long ranges is very hard - you have to practice constantly if you expect to hit anything.

The US has Iran wired - they can't sneeze without some surveillance system watching. We have never detected Sunburns in Iran.

[leftchick]

33. "we"

nice

[Pavulon]

36. Rense vs Janes Defense

Rense proclaims the weapon system to be the jesus christ of the asm world. In reality the weapon was co developed by the US with a Russian defense contractor as a target drone..For us weapon systems.

We spend trillions to negate soviet era, and russian weapon systems. That is why syria has a hole in the ground that was guarded by s300 systems. These are "state of the art" Russian systems.

Syria may want a return on that item..I bet they still have the receipt.

[hack89]

54. Are all your responses so substantive? nt

[leftchick]

31. okie dokie expert!

:eyes:

Iran: A Bridge too Far?

The weapon that could defeat the US in the Gulf

A word to the reader: The following paper is so shocking that, after preparing the initial draft, I didn’t want to believe it myself, and resolved to disprove it with more research. However, I only succeeded in turning up more evidence in support of my thesis. And I repeated this cycle of discovery and denial several more times before finally deciding to go with the article. I believe that a serious writer must follow the trail of evidence, no matter where it leads, and report back. So here is my story. Don’t be surprised if it causes you to squirm. Its purpose is not to make predictions –– history makes fools of those who claim to know the future –– but simply to describe the peril that awaits us in the Persian Gulf. By awakening to the extent of that danger, perhaps we can still find a way to save our nation and the world from disaster. If we are very lucky, we might even create an alternative future that holds some promise of resolving the monumental conflicts of our time. MG

Iran: A Bridge too Far?

by Mark Gaffney

10/26/04 "ICH" -- Last July, they dubbed it operation Summer Pulse: a simultaneous mustering of US Naval forces, world wide, that was unprecedented. According to the Navy, it was the first exercise of its new Fleet Response Plan (FRP), the purpose of which was to enable the Navy to respond quickly to an international crisis. The Navy wanted to show its increased force readiness, that is, its capacity to rapidly move combat power to any global hot spot. Never in the history of the US Navy had so many carrier battle groups been involved in a single operation. Even the US fleet massed in the Gulf and eastern Mediterranean during operation Desert Storm in 1991, and in the recent invasion of Iraq, never exceeded six battle groups. But last July and August there were seven of them on the move, each battle group consisting of a Nimitz-class aircraft carrier with its full complement of 7-8 supporting ships, and 70 or more assorted aircraft. Most of the activity, according to various reports, was in the Pacific, where the fleet participated in joint exercises with the Taiwanese navy.

But why so much naval power underway at the same time? What potential world crisis could possibly require more battle groups than were deployed during the recent invasion of Iraq? In past years, when the US has seen fit to “show the flag” or flex its naval muscle, one or two carrier groups have sufficed. Why this global show of power?

The news headlines about the joint-maneuvers in the South China Sea read: “Saber Rattling Unnerves China”, and: “Huge Show of Force Worries Chinese.” But the reality was quite different, and, as we shall see, has grave ramifications for the continuing US military presence in the Persian Gulf; because operation Summer Pulse reflected a high-level Pentagon decision that an unprecedented show of strength was needed to counter what is viewed as a growing threat –– in the particular case of China, because of Peking’s newest Sovremenny-class destroyers recently acquired from Russia.

“Nonsense!” you are probably thinking. That’s impossible. How could a few picayune destroyers threaten the US Pacific fleet?”

Here is where the story thickens: Summer Pulse amounted to a tacit acknowledgement, obvious to anyone paying attention, that the United States has been eclipsed in an important area of military technology, and that this qualitative edge is now being wielded by others, including the Chinese; because those otherwise very ordinary destroyers were, in fact, launching platforms for Russian-made 3M-82 Moskit anti-ship cruise missiles (NATO designation: SS-N-22 Sunburn), a weapon for which the US Navy currently has no defense. Here I am not suggesting that the US status of lone world Superpower has been surpassed. I am simply saying that a new global balance of power is emerging, in which other individual states may, on occasion, achieve “an asymmetric advantage” over the US. And this, in my view, explains the immense scale of Summer Pulse. The US show last summer of overwhelming strength was calculated to send a message.

The Sunburn Missile

I was shocked when I learned the facts about these Russian-made cruise missiles. The problem is that so many of us suffer from two common misperceptions. The first follows from our assumption that Russia is militarily weak, as a result of the breakup of the old Soviet system. Actually, this is accurate, but it does not reflect the complexities. Although the Russian navy continues to rust in port, and the Russian army is in disarray, in certain key areas Russian technology is actually superior to our own. And nowhere is this truer than in the vital area of anti-ship cruise missile technology, where the Russians hold at least a ten-year lead over the US. The second misperception has to do with our complacency in general about missiles-as-weapons –– probably attributable to the pathetic performance of Saddam Hussein’s Scuds during the first Gulf war: a dangerous illusion that I will now attempt to rectify.

Many years ago, Soviet planners gave up trying to match the US Navy ship for ship, gun for gun, and dollar for dollar. The Soviets simply could not compete with the high levels of US spending required to build up and maintain a huge naval armada. They shrewdly adopted an alternative approach based on strategic defense. They searched for weaknesses, and sought relatively inexpensive ways to exploit those weaknesses. The Soviets succeeded: by developing several supersonic anti-ship missiles, one of which, the SS-N-22 Sunburn, has been called “the most lethal missile in the world today.”

After the collapse of the Soviet Union the old military establishment fell upon hard times. But in the late1990s Moscow awakened to the under-utilized potential of its missile technology to generate desperately needed foreign exchange. A decision was made to resuscitate selected programs, and, very soon, Russian missile technology became a hot export commodity. Today, Russian missiles are a growth industry generating much-needed cash for Russia, with many billions in combined sales to India, China, Viet Nam, Cuba, and also Iran. In the near future this dissemination of advanced technology is likely to present serious challenges to the US. Some have even warned that the US Navy’s largest ships, the massive carriers, have now become floating death traps, and should for this reason be mothballed.

The Sunburn missile has never seen use in combat, to my knowledge, which probably explains why its fearsome capabilities are not more widely recognized. Other cruise missiles have been used, of course, on several occasions, and with devastating results. During the Falklands War, French-made Exocet missiles, fired from Argentine fighters, sunk the HMS Sheffield and another ship. And, in 1987, during the Iran-Iraq war, the USS Stark was nearly cut in half by a pair of Exocets while on patrol in the Persian Gulf. On that occasion US Aegis radar picked up the incoming Iraqi fighter (a French-made Mirage), and tracked its approach to within 50 miles. The radar also “saw” the Iraqi plane turn about and return to its base. But radar never detected the pilot launch his weapons. The sea-skimming Exocets came smoking in under radar and were only sighted by human eyes moments before they ripped into the Stark, crippling the ship and killing 37 US sailors.

The 1987 surprise attack on the Stark exemplifies the dangers posed by anti-ship cruise missiles. And the dangers are much more serious in the case of the Sunburn, whose specs leave the sub-sonic Exocet in the dust. Not only is the Sunburn much larger and faster, it has far greater range and a superior guidance system. Those who have witnessed its performance trials invariably come away stunned. According to one report, when the Iranian Defense Minister Ali Shamkhani visited Moscow in October 2001 he requested a test firing of the Sunburn, which the Russians were only too happy to arrange. So impressed was Ali Shamkhani that he placed an order for an undisclosed number of the missiles.


http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7147.htm

[hack89]

56. This is proof?

why have they never been detected in Iran? Why don't we see the Iranians practicing anti-shipping targeting in the Gulf.
You don't hide weapons like this. First off, they loose their deterrent effect if no one knows you have them. But more importantly, if you hide them you cannot train with them and without training you can not get proficient in their use. The US has Iran wired - they can't sneeze without some surveillance system watching. We have never detected Sunburns in Iran.


If you want to believe, go ahead. I would like to see some real evidence

[martymar64]

71. And you have access to Iranian intel how?

Last I checked, Cheney screwed the pooch on that when he had Scooter out Valerie Plame. So do tell, who is you source on Iranian capabilities? I'm sure the CIA would like to know.

[hack89]

74. Spent many a month floating around in the Persian Gulf

never worried for a second about Sunburns.

[martymar64]

76. Were you in Intel? Or a machinist mate?

If you weren't in intel., then you're just peddling scuttlebutt. They wouldn't even need sunburns. An attack on the oil infrastructure on the Arabian side of the Gulf would be much more effective. If 40 % of America's oil import went offline overnight, our society would collapse overnight as well. Once the trucks that deliver food to your local Ralph's or Kroger doesn't show, expect to see food riots. Also with no gas, how will you commute to work or fly off to you vacation?
Our society is based on easy, cheap oil. Without it, would would be back into the 19th century riding horses and burros quicker than you can imagine.

Clue for you, the US military is not invulnerable, anymore than the Wehrmacht was.

[Pavulon]

84. If he was it would be dated try Janes

many libraries have significant resources worth tens of thousands a year purchased from Jane's.

They provide accurate information ranging from generic to very specific details that would be classified if gathered by US dollars.

[martymar64]

86. Who is Jane's intel contact in Iran?

They are only as good as their sources. If the CIA couldn't predict the fall of the Soviet Union, I don't have faith in any other group, military or civilian.

We are a junkie hooked on oil. Cut off the spigot and we die. Simple as that.

[Pavulon]

89. We buy oil from canada, mexico and Venez. Not Iran.

cut the oil off and they starve, literally. (yes i know it is fungible, etc)

The source would be in the defense contractor that sold the equipment.

Our economy is diversified, theirs is not.

They are third world, we are not. We do not need to attack them. They do not need an UGD bomb.

If they do get it they just increase the chance they will all die to a man woman and child in a nuclear war.

[martymar64]

95. When the nuclear genie is out of the bottle, we are all at risk

Russia and China both have nuclear arsenals and if threatened enough, they will react. Don't get all gooshy hoping for nuclear war, we just might get it. Because if we launch a first strike then we will become the pariahs of the world and then ALL bets are off. Last I checked, AMERICANS ARE NOT IMMUNE TO FALLOUT.
I know you think we are invulnerable, but imagine our society with 40% less oil to use and a worthless currency and zero influence beyond our military. Without any oil to fuel trucks to bring food to market, society can crash PDQ. Not even the US Army can revive our reputation in the world other than that of a wealthy thug (picture the US as Tony Montana). There is always somebody that will come along to bring down the bully. Who knows, it may even happen within, rather than from without.
We may have military might(for now), but that is ALL we have and all we will ever have from here on out. Thank good old GW for that!
Think about that before you get a boner over the thought of conquest.

[Pavulon]

98. Dismissed

your opinion is short sighted, ignorant of economic forces, and American History. A utterly ignorant post "boner" pretty much invalidates a post.

No one mentioned a first strike. However in the context of N. Korea , now a nuclear power, the response to any bullshit is a RESPONSE. China or the US will use nuclear weapons if rockets fly towards their territories from a nuclear state.

At best Iran can join this list. Not like they are going to become a world influencing market any time soon.

Not much conquest going on these days..

[hack89]

93. Tactical intellence is classified Secret

every officer (of which I was one) has a secret clearance.

Never said that the military was invulnerable nor that Iran could not do massive damage to the US economy. I know from professional experience that combat in such a confined waterway would be a tough fight. For all these reasons I think an attack on Iran would be a massive mistake.

My only point in all of this is that Iran does not have Sunburns - if you have any real evidence that they do, perhaps now is the time to present it.

[martymar64]

96. You're GUESSING they don't have Sunburns

If it turns out they do after all, like the previously posted article talking about Iran ordering them says they do, then we are in for a world of hurt. Last I checked, not even the Phalanx or the Aegis systems can effectively counter a Sunburn, or in a tactical situation, dozens of Sunburns coming at the fleet at deck level at once. Even conservative estimates would put our casualties at high levels. Two Exocets put a hurting on the Stark. This could be much worse. Plus, the likely target for Iran would be the oil infrastructure across the Gulf. The Navy won't be able to do jack shit about that. They'll just watch 40% of the US petroleum imports go offline in one fell swoop, causing the collapse of the US economy overnight. Plus, with the Straits blocked, the fleet would lose any maneuverability, not to mention that the ground troops in Iraq will be cut off from their supply chain. The US military may be formidable, but without the fuel to run it, it's just so much scrap metal and guys in matching clothes. Just ask Joachim Peiper about the importance of fuel in battle.
I know you're not into warmongering like Pavulon, but remember, no army is invulnerable. There is always a weakness. Ours is our dependence on oil from an unstable region and a civilian leadership that is evil and insane. Hopefully the general staff is sane enough to disobey an insane order that would prove our undoing as a nation.

[hack89]

101. Lets think rationally about this

the Sunburn is an old missile - how long do you think the US Navy has been working on a counter to it? If AEGIS can shoot down satellites then perhaps killing a Sunburn is not beyond the realm of possibility? Toss in some new decoys, active jamming techniques and improved anti-air missiles and maybe it is very possible. I mean, it has only been one of the Navy's biggest priorities for for a decade or so.

Are you aware that the Navy uses Russian supersonic missiles similar to a Sunburn as targets? It is called the MA-31 and it has a top speed of Mach 2.5. Doesn't this indicate that perhaps the Navy has a capability against hyper sonic cruise missiles that is not widely publicized?

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app4/ma-31.html

[martymar64]

69. Plus they can bomb the refineries and storage tanks in . .. .

Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, the UAE. They can also sink tankers in the Straits of Hormuz, effectively closing them and leaving our fleet trapped in the gulf and leaving the troops in Iraq cut off from their supply line. Once the oil on the Arabian Peninsula is offline, everything will crumble rather quickly. Plus the ASM's in Iran's possession CAN sink the fleet. Anybody saying otherwise is whistling past the graveyard.

An attack on Iran is the worst thing that could happen since Hitler invaded Russia. Their is no possibility of victory of any kind for us or israel.

[leftchick]

109. inaddition

I believe Russia and China would gladly aid Iran. Can you say WWIII? Excellent post! :thumbsup:

[angrycarpenter]

6. I cant believe that Israel would put it's citizens at such grave risk.

On one hand you have a danger of attack sometime in the future If they use diplomacy.

On the other you have a certainty of counter-attack if Iran is attacked.

The same applies to Iran, any overt military action would be an act suicide.

The loss of life on both sides would be appalling. I can't believe that Israel would willingly fire the first shots of World War III.

I think Bush would because he doesn't have to live there.

[lonestarnot]

39. Maybe nuke subs are Cheney' s wet dream?

[The Stranger]

73. You have just described the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction.

It has been the only thing that could save the world since Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the dawn of the nuclear age.

[Wwagsthedog]

7. Ras Tanura

Kaput

[Strelnikov_]

24. That's my nightmare scenario

Some military commander goes off script and things spin out of control.

Not that this has ever happened in war . . .

[lonestarnot]

40. What does that mean?

[Wwagsthedog]

46. Try google

[lonestarnot]

75. Did learned all about that place.

[Wiley50]

81. Wanna See Some Really Ugly Oil Slicks? Ras Tamura Google Map Link

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Saudi+Arabia&ll=26.693785,50.135078&spn=0.144823,0.303326&t=k&hl=en

[bdamomma]

8. Iran would strike back, and this filthy administration

of course would rally to protect Israel.

[FarCenter]

13. Revenge is a dish best served cold

Most likely the attack would be a single, limited raid.

It's most likely effect would be to:

- set the Iranian program back at most a few years,

- trigger even more negative reaction to Israel and the US throughout the world, and

- win Iran more open alliances and cooperation from other countries.

Therefore, the optimal strategy for Iran is to absorb the blow; resume the program with greater dispersal, concealment, and hardening of assets; and take advantage better relations with most of the world to acquire better defensive weapons to render a second attack impossible.

In the meantime, a low but steadily increasing pressure could be brought to bear on the US by fomenting Islamic feelings throughout the Middle East.

At home, the public reaction and thirst for immediate revenge could be managed by playing on the Shiite sense of victimhood, which is almost as well developed as the Israeli's. These are, after all, people whose religious celebration includes whipping oneselves with chains until the back is bloodied.

[JackRiddler]

14. (oops - never mind)

[Texasgal]

15. They'd fight like hell

I cannot imagine them doing anything else but!

[Strelnikov_]

16. An attack on Iran could result in the collapse of the US

The Iran attack has been marketed to the US populace as another 'shock and awe' event in that there may be some loss of US military, but overall it carries a risk similar to that of the attack on Iraq.

Problem is, there is a scenario where an attack on Iran could result in the collapse of the United States economy. The resultant violence and starvation could result in the deaths of millions.

My estimate of the current script the 'actors' are using is as follows:

- The US (neocons) conduct 'limited' airstrikes on Iran, hitting mostly military and 'nuclear' (empty shell) sites. The purpose is to galvanize the US politicians, and to provide cover to the failed Iraq policy and distressed US economy. Basically, Goldstein (Iran) is not playing along, so we need to stir the pot a bit.

- Iran (Supreme Leader/Assembly of Experts) know that the US cannot invade, and the air strikes will have to be 'limited' in nature to avoid a backlash in the Muslim world. They plan on playing this like Hizbollah in '06. That is, take the strikes, respond militarily in a very measured way as a show of resistance, and promote themselves as having resisted the 'crusaders' attack, thus making them the rightful leaders of the Ummah.

The problem is, war tends to go off script (WW I was to be over 'before the leaves fall', Iraq II, etc.).

All it would take is for a US naval commander or Revolutionary Guard officer to go off script (overreact) to trigger a conflict that would knock half of the worlds petroleum export capacity off-line essentially overnight.

The Kaiser, the Czar, the Habsburgs etc. did not survive the conflagration they started. Could the Republican Party be next?

[Strelnikov_]

17. Part 1 - Operation Muah'dib

All data 2005.

- The Persian Gulf represents nearly 50% of the worlds petroleum export market.

- The vast majority of this resource passes through 8 to 10 major facilities (one facility in KSA alone processes 60% of its petroleum, you know, starts with a ‘A’).

- If Iran is attacked in such a way as to threaten the continuity of the regime, they could use their substantial missile inventory in taking out these facilities (I do not believe they will target Israel, as it would have no strategic purpose, and is out of range, whereas targeting the gulf energy infrastructure would strike a mortal blow against the attacking western economies, in particular the US, as I discuss below).

- The US imports ~ 12.4 Mbbl/dy (60% of total consumption) of petroleum which represents around 29% of the worlds petroleum export market.

- The next largest petroleum importers (Japan 5.2, China 3.1, Germany 2.4, South Korea 2.2, France 1.9) all have substantial dollar reserves and are significant exporters of finished goods. Basically, we will be outbid on much of what remains of the worlds petroleum export market post attack, as these countries use their export capacity in finished goods to purchase petroleum from Russia, Nigeria, Norway, and Venezuela.

- In the weeks following destruction of the Persian Gulf oil export market, the US will probably see 2/3rds of its imports sold to higher bidders or embargoed, leaving the US with about 60% of the petroleum supply we had pre-attack.

- Approx. 42% of US petroleum is used for personal transport, 22% for commercial transport (trucks that carry food to the stores, etc.). I will leave it to the reader as to the impact a nearly overnight loss of 40% of the US petroleum supply will have to the economy (not to mention the impact due to the collapse of the petrodollar system).

- Russia, India and China will take a pass. Russia stands to make a fortune. And if all the gulf petroleum goes off line, they become the worlds sole energy superpower. China and India will dig in (as they consume much less petroleum), weather the storm, and emerge in a position to snap up all those production contracts that will no longer go to US multinationals for rebuilding the gulf.

- In conclusion, Iran is not toothless. We can physically destroy the country of Iran. There is a good chance they can destroy our economy and begin the process of petrocollapse, ultimately leading to the destruction of a greatly weakened US in a few decades.

So, who wins?

He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing - Muah'dib

[Ichingcarpenter]

37. Muah'dib vs the Harkonnens,

Played it well with that spice war. Nice analysis.

[lonestarnot]

41. I wonder about one statement. "China consume much less petroleum"

Isn't their thirst for petrol on rocket rise?

[Strelnikov_]

43. Yes, they are up to 7.2 Mbbl/dy, but still only 34% of US consumption rate n/t

[lonestarnot]

44. Well with their population numbers, that shouldn't take long.

[Pavulon]

59. We drive their economy by buying their crap

they do not have a diversified economy like the UK or Japan. They would be very bad off if the US economy tanked.

[martymar64]

72. We need them more than they need us

Without them, we're broke.

[Pavulon]

77. Nope. Google our GDP

and then theirs. Startling isn't it. They buy our debt, like japan, and germany. If we fail, they fail.

Without us they starve and die.

[martymar64]

85. But we'll starve and die too

That's a heavy price to get your wargasm on.
WE ARE NOT INVULNERABLE. No matter how much you hope and pray, we, like other empires can die. Just ask Napoleon and Heinz Guderian.

[Pavulon]

90. We are not rome

iran is not bringing down the US. However we have a long history of disposing of governments we do not like. Did you know amex works in vietnam. They make nice shirts and tasty shrimp. mmm.

No more politburo. No more E. Germany.

Iran is a bit player, if they get nukes it is irrelevant. Just like they North Koreans, they will still live in a shitty third world oppressor state and we will not.

Now if N. Korea launches a rocket over japan or towards china, they will all die. Nice trade off.

BTW if gas goes up, we keep paying it. We can pay more for milk and bread, we can take a 50% increase. We will be pissed, maybe stop driving one car, or turn the ac up to 80. We will make more ethanol. We will eat, they will not.

The developing world will suffer death on a massive scale.

If you heve ever been to a developing nation and seen life on the edge of starvation you would understand how wealthy average is here.

[Strelnikov_]

19. Part 2 - The Spice Processing Facilities

The following represent 50% of the worlds petroleum export market. Probably at no time in history has so much critical infrastructure been thus concentrated. Consider the capabilities of modern weapons, and that these facilities would be staffed by an angry populace. Two possible attack vectors, same result.

Abqaiq alone processes 60% of KSA's petroleum.


Dona (Kuwait)
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&time=&date=&ttype=&q=kuwait&ie=UTF8&ll=29.364822,47.804432&spn=0.106818,0.15295&t=k&z=13&om=1

Mina Al Ahmadi (Kuwait)
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&time=&date=&ttype=&q=kuwait&ie=UTF8&ll=29.049192,48.148699&spn=0.053574,0.076475&t=k&z=14&om=1

Khiran (Kuwait)
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&time=&date=&ttype=&q=kuwait&ie=UTF8&t=k&om=1&ll=28.692169,48.373661&spn=0.053758,0.076475&z=14

Ras Ali Khafji (KSA)
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&time=&date=&ttype=&q=kuwait&ie=UTF8&t=k&om=1&ll=28.404613,48.531933&spn=0.053905,0.076475&z=14

Al Jubayl (Ras Tanura Complex) (KSA)
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&time=&date=&ttype=&q=kuwait&ie=UTF8&t=k&om=1&ll=27.079303,49.645329&spn=0.10913,0.15295&z=13

Najmah_1 (Ras Tanura Complex) (KSA)
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&time=&date=&ttype=&q=kuwait&ie=UTF8&t=k&om=1&ll=26.800171,50.022812&spn=0.109401,0.15295&z=13

Najmah_2 (Ras Tanura Complex) (KSA)
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&time=&date=&ttype=&q=kuwait&ie=UTF8&t=k&om=1&ll=26.659579,50.128212&spn=0.109536,0.15295&z=13

Abqaiq (KSA)
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&time=&date=&ttype=&q=abqaiq&sll=25.626669,49.004517&sspn=3.535873,4.894409&ie=UTF8&ll=25.935045,49.68039&spn=0.027556,0.038238&t=k&z=15&om=1

Ras Laffan (Qatar)
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&time=&date=&ttype=&q=Al+Mubarraz&sll=24.691943,54.497681&sspn=3.563055,4.894409&ie=UTF8&ll=25.915207,51.588879&spn=0.055121,0.076475&t=k&z=14&om=1

Ruwais (UAE)
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&time=&date=&ttype=&q=Al+Mubarraz&sll=24.691943,54.497681&sspn=3.563055,4.894409&ie=UTF8&om=1&ll=24.123882,52.726822&spn=0.112018,0.15295&t=k&z=13&iwloc=addr

Mina Jabal Ali (UAE)
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&time=&date=&ttype=&q=Al+Mubarraz&sll=24.691943,54.497681&sspn=3.563055,4.894409&ie=UTF8&ll=25.008617,55.059099&spn=0.055537,0.076475&t=k&z=14&om=1

Khawr Fakken (UAE)
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&time=&date=&ttype=&q=Al+Mubarraz&sll=24.691943,54.497681&sspn=3.563055,4.894409&ie=UTF8&ll=25.310123,56.370077&spn=0.0277,0.038238&t=k&z=15&om=1

Al Qurayyah (UAE)
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&time=&date=&ttype=&q=Al+Mubarraz&sll=24.691943,54.497681&sspn=3.563055,4.894409&ie=UTF8&ll=25.198922,56.357932&spn=0.027726,0.038238&t=k&z=15&om=1

Al Liwa (UAE)
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&time=&date=&ttype=&q=Al+Mubarraz&sll=24.691943,54.497681&sspn=3.563055,4.894409&ie=UTF8&ll=24.483634,56.623106&spn=0.055851,0.076475&t=k&z=14&om=1

Mina al Fahl (Oman)
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&time=&date=&ttype=&q=abqaiq&sll=25.626669,49.004517&sspn=3.535873,4.894409&ie=UTF8&ll=23.602728,58.416388&spn=0.014039,0.019119&t=k&z=16&om=1

[Strelnikov_]

20. Part 3 - The Spice Trade

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/oiltrade.html

All in Mbbl/dy

Top World Oil Net Exporters, 2005

Saudi Arabia 9.1
Russia 6.7
Norway 2.7
Iran 2.6
United Arab Emirates 2.4
Nigeria 2.3
Kuwait 2.3
Venezuela 2.2
Algeria 1.8
Mexico 1.7
Libya 1.5
Iraq 1.3
Angola 1.2
Kazakhstan 1.1
Qatar 1.0

=====

Above represents 39.9 Mbbl/dy of 42 Mbbl/dy world export market
18.7 Mbbl/dy of above in Persian Gulf region

Top World Oil Net Importers, 2005

United States 12.4
Japan 5.2
China 3.1
Germany 2.4
South Korea 2.2
France 1.9
India 1.7
Italy 1.6
Spain 1.6
Taiwan 1.0

Top World Oil Consumers, 2005 (Domestic production in parans.)

United States 20.7 (8.3 - 40%)
China 6.9 (3.8 - 55%)
Japan 5.4 (0.2 - 4%)
Russia 2.8
Germany 2.6
India 2.6
Canada 2.3
Brazil 2.2
Korea, South 2.2
Mexico 2.1
France 2.0
Saudi Arabia 2.0

[Strelnikov_]

22. Fallon postscript

Fallon is no pacifist, as there are none at that level.

History shows that there are two types of commanders, the professional (Rommel, Guderian) and the political (Jodl, Keitel).

The professional determine that a 25% risk of Iran destroying half the worlds petroleum export market as too high to engage in a war of choice.

The political fall in line with the politicians that only see a 75% chance of success.

[Pavulon]

35. Why DUNE is not a great resource on this one..

The US economy is the largest in the world by at least 4 times its nearest comparison. Germany or Japan. Any real impact in our economy, not the little ripples of late, but real failure WILL cause global economic failures. Ie no more demand for OIL, just demand for food and water.

Famines in developing nations..

When a lending problem here causes problems in the UK and Europe to the point where their central banks take action there is a hint of how intertwined it all is.

Israel may or may not blow up reactors or centrifuges, tbd. The response may be like syria's (jack shit), or Iran may take a limited action like you posted. The arab world is not going to war with israel over iran.

Any involvement of US forces would be catastrophic for Iran. The response by us could scale from limited, to tremendous (every dam and power plant destroyed at 0817 am on a given day), strategic bombing of a hollow nation, to a strategic nuclear response (backstopping Israel) to an Iranian attack on a nuclear facility. Those are all really bad for Iran.

Iran is hollow, there is no need for anyone to attack them. It would be better spending time and money to collapse them from within.

[Ichingcarpenter]

38. I disagree that they have no capabilities to respond

to an aggressive unprovoked war. That was what the original OP asked.

[Pavulon]

57. If Israel took out there 3000 centrifuges

there response would probably be to attack an israeli nuclear site. They have capability but this is not so much about capability vs what can actually be tolerated by the region.

[Newshues]

18. Simple - turn off the oil.

Since Iran cannot stand against either the US or Israel let alone both combined the simple response is

1) lob a few missiles in Israels' direction just to show the Muslim world that Iran has some macho balls.

2) turn off the oil exports until such time that the world condemns the attack and forces the US/Israel to pay for the damages....just to show the world what intellectual balls Iran has.


Right now any oil exporting country has the rest of the world over a barrel - literally and figuratively.

I don't buy that an attack on Iran would turn into a larger war. That will be saved for a later time.

[TroglodyteScholar]

107. Turn off the oil?

Yea, I'm sure they'll gladly destroy their entire economy just to spite the infidels.

[Newshues]

108. um, no

Actually, Iran doesn't wreck its economy at all. They still produce for domestic use. They just don't export any. With the surplus that's been built up from high oil prices they can afford to wait the weeks, if it takes *that* long, for the rest of the world to cave.

It's a game of attrition. It's a game in which Iran has a better hand then we do.

[two gun sid]

23. Iran strikes back at Israel with Hezbollah and the US in Iraq...

with the Mahdi Army.

I don't think we or Israel will attack Iran.

[Tektonik]

25. If Israel attacked Iran without just cause would destroy the Jewish state

Israel is fragile as it is, and if they entered into a war the US could not easily back, they'd likely be invaded by not just Iran but a coalition of Muslim nations.

[Pavulon]

27. That never seems to work out for the Arabs, 0/3 on that one

not that Israel should go attacking anyone.

[readmoreoften]

28. Why wouldn't we back a war we're egging on?

[jespwrs]

30. Short answer:

Go completely ape shit.

[Disturbed]

42. It is helpful to study the Iraq/Iran War.

Iranians are staunchly Nationalist.

I still don't feel that Israel or the US will attack Iran militarily. The leaders of both nations are rather stupid but not insane. I believe that the strategy is to bankrupt Iran by getting them to over spend on military defense.

[Wizard777]

45. At some point in time Iran will retalliate.

It could be within seconds. days, months, years or even thousands of years. But they will realliate. Israel could be ready to start another one of those multimillennial wars like they have with the Palestinians (Philistines biblically.)That's started what? About 3,000 or more years ago. 3,000 years from now Israel will still be at war with Iran.......and Palestine.

[spin]

47. Perhaps Iran wants to provoke a war...

For those unacquainted with the more obscure tenets of Islamic theology, the 12th Imam is held by devout Shi'ite Muslims to be a direct descendant of the Prophet Mohammed who went into "occlusion" in the ninth century at the age of five and hasn't been seen since.

The Hidden Imam, as he is also known by his followers, will only return after a period of cosmic chaos, war and bloodshed – what Christians call the Apocalypse – and then lead the world into an era of universal peace.

Rumors abound of Mr Ahmadinejad's devotion to the 12th Imam, and last year it was reported that he had persuaded his cabinet to sign a "contract" pledging themselves to work for his return.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/09/28/do2804.xml

So if Israel launches an attack against Iran and Iran retaliates by closing the Gulf of Hormuz cutting off oil supplies to the world, we could have a period of "cosmic chaos, war and bloodshed".

And of course, the Christians will believe all this chaos could indicate the end times and the coming of Christ, especially if the armies of the world appear to be planning an attack against Israel.

People with devout religious beliefs might cause what they believe as prophesy to actually occur.

For the sake of civilization as we know it, let's hope calm minds can prevail.

[EFerrari]

49. Iran hasn't started a conflict for something like 250 years

which is more than you can say about all the other players.

[Pavulon]

58. That meme is wrong.

the mined the straights of hormuz , an act of war. A mine was struck by a us and other vessels, causing loss of life.
Iran then proceeded to loose the first cruise missile based naval battle during Praying Mantis.
They seized and killed us Embassy staff.

Iran carried out the embassy attacks on the us and french forces in Beirut.

France bombed them in response.

I am aware of the US/British actions there, and all the lead up to the backwards revolution there. The meme they have neven been aggressive is not correct. That does not mean we should start a war.

[EFerrari]

66. That's quite a stretch. The embassy was pay back for

having the Shah imposed on them. They said that outright. It's not at all clear they did Beirut.

[Pavulon]

80. Their military carried it out,

the french retaliated directly. We made it known and punished them, quite restrained actually, in naval operations after they mined international waters. That is an act of war. The damage done to us ships could have started a shooting war there.

[readmoreoften]

68. Yes, we assassinated their elected officals and imposed a police state who destroyed their history

by tearing down thousand year old architectural pieces and building modern crap white mid-century eyesores. And also FORBID women to wear a veil and had a police state complete with torture, political prisons, and assassinations. The Revolution was called for by secular humanist college professors, communists, feminists, and the families of victims. The only group still powerful enough to carry out such a revolution were the religious. The agreement was that once the Shah was gone, it'd be a new society. Then the first thing the Ayatollah did was kill all his secular revolutionary allies in the same prisons and slaughterhouses.

If we hadn't assassinated ol' socialist moderate Mossadeq, there would've been no hostage crisis. That's not something they "started". That was retaliation for some anti-democratic crap that we pulled that destroyed them.

[Pavulon]

79. Read

"Reading Lolita in Tehran" good insight into where it stands and what it does now.

The days of the revolution are over. They are not going to dictate what happens in the next six months.

Many of the conversations here would result in jail. Many of our members would be killed there, outright.

We have no business starting a war there, but it is not the Islamic state of perpetual wealth and enlightenment over there.

[readmoreoften]

97. Well yes, I'm well aware of that. It happened because we destabilized them by kililng Mossadeq

and they had to overthrow our murderous puppet and theocratic assholes filled the power vaccuum. That's what I said. But we don't oppose them because they're totalitarian. We support a lot of totalitarian regimes.

Besides, the point was that the embassy incident was by no means an act of war but rather an act of retaliation against our aggression.

[Pavulon]

99. We serve our Interests

like every other nation. If that means supporting the British during the cold war we tip over governments.

It is all relevant to the lens you choose to view it through. Iran has killed americans to serve its interests. We kill them to serve ours.

They were willing to mine international waters, we were willing to sink their battleships.

No matter what the outcome they will not be our friends. Unless they happen to start acting like the gulf arab states distribute oil wealth and stop acting like religious nuts..

[readmoreoften]

100. Really, the only thing you said that makes them different from our allies is

"start distributing oil wealth"

All the others are religious nuts. The saudis are worse.

Every other nation doesn't tip over governments. Iran's never started shit with us that wasn't in self-defense. "Serving our interests" depends on the "our". Fucking with Iran is not in our national interest. It was a dumb idea then too. What's done with our tax dollars isn't in the interest of the US tax payer it's in the interest of multinationals.

Listen, if "serving our interests" is the protocol for proper international behavior. Fuck it, let's just go over there, slaughter everyone and take everything they have. After that, Norway and Finland. If our interests are owning and expanding--why bother stopping at all?

You wonder how we managed to survive as a nation before the 20th century.

[Pavulon]

102. We would let the house of saud burn

if it served our interest, as we should. They happen to be useful right now, thats it.

We do not need to kill people to follow this path.

We haven't taken anything from Afghanistan and Iraq has not proven to fruitful either. Iraq is terrible policy because <<it DOES NOT serve American interest>>

Whose interest should our dollars serve?

[readmoreoften]

104. Not multinationals who rebuild the nations we destroy or private security forces.

I'd rather have my money go into infrastructure and education in the US thanks.

[spin]

65. Iran wouldn't start this conflict...

Israel would.

The Arab world would view a preemptive strike by Israel as an act of war. They also would claim Israel had support from the United States and would feel free to implement terrorist activities against our interests world wide. Things could go downhill fast. Russia and China might decide to get involved. Our forces in Iraq might join in the conflict to protect precious oil.

As the situation worsened some Muslims and Christians would gleefully expect their ancient Gods or religious leaders to make a miraculous appearance.

I wonder sometimes how people would feel if we started Armageddon and no Gods bothered to show up.

Somehow, I feel the best thing that might happen is that the space aliens who have been quietly observing from their UFOs might intervene. In reality, if they exist, they probably would just film the events for their version of the history channel. I can visualize some short little gray men gathered around their virtual reality 3D HD super stereo wide screen entertainment centers eating their version of pizza and drinking their version of beer as they watch the people on earth fight and die. It might be so entertaining that it would appear on their pay per view channel.

[Hardrada]

48. We DON'T know what would happen. That's why nobody

better make any sudden moves.

[leftchick]

50. "First target for Iran: Qatar?"

very interesting and frightening article....


http://www.metimes.com/International/2007/11/26/first_target_for_iran_qatar/1356/


What would be the most logical target Iran would strike in case of a U.S. or Israeli attack on its nuclear sites?

Qatar.

In fact, Iranian Revolutionary guards have already threatened to attack Qatari oil and gas facilities (hence crippling the world economy by creating an oil and gas shock) by sea and air by using suicide boats and air missiles.

For Iran, it's a no-brainer: Qatar hosts the largest U.S. base in the Middle East (8,000 U.S. soldiers are stationed there) and is also viewed by some as being friendly with Israel.

What is Qatar doing about it?

First and foremost, Qatar has been heavily using the diplomatic weapon. Its strategy is to befriend everyone: from Israel to Hamas, from Syria to France.

Even though Qatar's deputy foreign minister Mohamed al-Ruhaimi firmly believes that "speaking to everyone allows us to have a dynamic and independent policy," it is a recipe for disaster. For instance, Qatar has not been terror-free: in fact, in March 2005, a suicide bomber (most likely linked or inspired by al-Qaida) killed one Briton and wounded 12 people in Doha in an attack at a theater frequented by Westerners.

[dipsydoodle]

92. My guess too and Ras Tanura as well

They could quickly shut down ALL oil coming out of the Middle East.

Once seen as an alarmist fear, an attack on key Saudi oil terminal could destabilise west :
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/jun/03/saudiarabia.oil

[leftchick]

105. you really could never make this shit up

these neocons are so power hungry they are insane.

[leftchick]

51. Analysis: A Mideast nuclear war?

here is a fun read.... :scared:


http://www.metimes.com/Opinion/2007/11/22/analysis_a_mideast_nuclear_war/4411/

<snip>

This would mean, Cordesman suggests, some 16 million to 28 million Iranians dead within 21 days, and between 200,000 and 800,000 Israelis dead within the same time frame. The total of deaths beyond 21 days could rise very much higher, depending on civil defense and public health facilities, where Israel has a major advantage.

It is theoretically possible that the Israeli state, economy and organized society might just survive such an almost-mortal blow. Iran would not survive as an organized society. "Iranian recovery is not possible in the normal sense of the term," Cordesman notes.

The difference in the death tolls is largely because Israel is believed to have more nuclear weapons of very much higher yield (some of 1 megaton), and Israel is deploying the Arrow advanced anti-missile system in addition to its Patriot batteries. Fewer Iranian weapons would get through.

The difference in yield matters. The biggest bomb that Iran is expected to have is 100 kilotons, which can inflict third-degree burns on exposed flesh at 8 miles; Israel's 1-megaton bombs can inflict third-degree burns at 24 miles. Moreover, the radiation fallout from an airburst of such a 1-megaton bomb can kill unsheltered people at up to 80 miles within 18 hours as the radiation plume drifts. (Jordan, by the way, would suffer severe radiation damage from an Iranian strike on Tel Aviv.)

Cordesman assumes that Iran, with less than 30 nuclear warheads in the period after 2010, would aim for the main population centers of Tel Aviv and Haifa, while Israel would have more than 200 warheads and far better delivery systems, including cruise missiles launched from its 3 Dolphin-class submarines.

[MiniMe]

52. An even bigger question is what would China and Russia do

That is the real danger in attacking Iran.

[Junkdrawer]

53. Yep. Iran is a very different kettle of fish. The US was bombing the Iraqi "No Fly Zones"...

regularly before the 2003 invasion. China has VERY good relations with Iran.

[hack89]

94. Nothing militarily

Russia would probably take advantage of the situation and make a ton of money by jacking up the price of their oil and natural gas.

[LynnTheDem]

61. Defend herself. Which Iran has a right to do.

Oh wait...it's only America & Israel who have the right to defend themselves.

[cobalt1999]

63. Not much.

Stop the flow of oil. They come out even bigger losers if they attack back, which is why Iraq never responded when Israel attacked their nuclear site.

[tekisui]

64. First response would be an automatic trigger by Hamas and Hezbollah.

Israel would face multi-front attacks. They would happen without Iran having to lift a finger or say a word.

Iran's reaction would be more strategic. Oil disruption, and maybe attacks in Iraq on US interests.

At any rate, any scenario would be devastating for the people of the region, and likely catastrophic for the global economies.

[Disturbed]

78. If the Iranian Leaders were real smart they would take

their cause to the UN & not strike back militarily, even with their proxies. This would garner much more World support than striking back.

At this time there absolutely no proof that Iran is attempting to produce nuclear weapons.

[Nordic65]

82. There will be NO attack on Iran!!!!

What is the best guess scenario?

Nothing!

There will be NO military attack on Iran by either Israel or United States or from any other nation for that matter. Simply because there is absolutely nothing to be gained. Not politically, not militarily and certainly not economically.

On the other hand, if any political leader was stupid enough to carry out an attack on Iran, and they aren't, the consequences would be grave.

In no particularly order:

- Severe risk of reduced oil-export from AG to the US and the rest of the world
- Oil-prices going through the roof ($200+ here we come)
- Increased possibility of an uprising against the US among Iraqi shiites in central and southern Iraq
- More attacks and bombings in both Iraq and Afghanistan
- More american causalities in both Iraq and Afghanistan
- Possibly even more chaos and violence throughout the politically unstable arab world
- Total isolation of Israel
- Retaliation against US and western interests in other muslim countries
- Even more trouble on Wall Street
- Worldwide stock crash
- Dollar tumbles further
- China gets into economic trouble
- Worldwide recession
- Famine and unrest in third world countries

And probably a lot much more bad shit. And for exactly what?

[readmoreoften]

106. Yeah but they don't live in the real world.

What makes you think they're sane? If they were sane they'd realize how bad they've already fucked up.

[sniffa]

87. Invade Iraq is always the answer

It's got nothing but upside.

[SergeyDovlatov]

103. Iran may send a few rockets to retaliate. No ground troups will be involved n/t