T Nation

What an Attack on Iran Will Look Like

Scott Ritter: Former Marine captain, Combat veteran, Conservative Republican, Former UN weapons inspector and soldier who put his life on the line defending Israel
from SCUD missile attacks during Gulf War I

[quote]Mishima wrote:
Scott Ritter: Former Marine captain, Combat veteran, Conservative Republican, Former UN weapons inspector and soldier who put his life on the line defending Israel
from SCUD missile attacks during Gulf War I

[/quote]

Now I don’t believe that we should go to war with Iran but this joker just made a bunch of wild accusations without backing it up with any evidence. Argument by authority carries little weight with me. He didn’t say anything about how the “usable” nukes came into existence. He didn’t say why bombing won’t work and he didn’t say why us nuking them wouldn’t work. He also didn’t explain how we’d lose a city, though there are a few I wouldn’t mind doing away with.

He does however argue with a lot of passion, is loud, and hates George Bush. That does tend to be pretty good evidence in most liberal circles.

I also think that figuring George Bush is going to put us in a war in Iran before January is about as irrational as my belief that Hillary Clinton is still going to somehow secure the democratic nomination.

mike

[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
I also think that figuring George Bush is going to put us in a war in Iran before January is about as irrational as my belief that Hillary Clinton is still going to somehow secure the democratic nomination.
[/quote]

Good point. That being said, I would have never bought the idea that Bush would win a second term in the White House. So, you never know…

[quote]lixy wrote:
Mikeyali wrote:
I also think that figuring George Bush is going to put us in a war in Iran before January is about as irrational as my belief that Hillary Clinton is still going to somehow secure the democratic nomination.

Good point. That being said, I would have never bought the idea that Bush would win a second term in the White House. So, you never know…[/quote]

I’d really like to know what Isreal is planning. We may just allow them to take care of this. I wouldn’t be suprised if our involvement was clandestin activities only. CIA and Speciai forces are probably already in there.

Israel is the wild card in all of this. While Bush is still in the white house is their opportunity to get their licks in while they can.

Obama does not inspire confidence with how he would handle the Iranians. I think if Obama gets elected it is on.

McCain is going to want to distance himself from the Bush legacy, so he will be reluctant to act. Unless the shiite inurgency in Iraq heats up and American soldiers start getting killed. But I don’t think the Israelis expect too much from McCain either.

Right now there are no American aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf. Which means they can’t strike Iran from the Persian Gulf but they can’t get trapped in there either. But there are plenty of air force bases in the Gulf so the carriers really aren’t needed in there. The carriers are a lot safer out in the Indian ocean…

If we do not attack Iran if Israel starts something, the least thing we will see is an effort to keep the oil flowing from the Gulf (like when the US escorted oil vessels during the Iran/Iraq war).

I think the Iranians will use this opportunity to do everything in their power to draw us into a war with them.

Interesting to see how a crumbling dollar[1] and record-high inflation[2] causes major policy shifts.

US official to attend Iran talks

[i]A top US official is to attend talks aimed at persuading Iran to halt its nuclear enrichment programme.

[…]

A BBC correspondent says this is a first under the Bush administration and represents a significant policy shift. [/i]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7508748.stm

  1. http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&ct=:ePkh8BM9E4LZUQK3Iw9mnpGAi5X7pLMPd_rc5ylepGAaPvUXG1Nqzi821pz85EQgzVyUmgwA7dUTBA/13-0&fp=487e8bcf7583cb35&ei=JR1-SOTAOI-2xAGMiK07&url=http%3A//www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2008/07/16/ap5221011.html&cid=1228021186&usg=AFQjCNHCErBCuRfPPhGZBfamQG72ZOcsKw

  2. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7508748.stm


.

An attack on Iran will happen when two US carriers are nearby. Possibly during a change in station. The first one will stay, instead of leaving. A third will be close by.

I see Israel hitting them first. Iran will try and close the straight but they don’t have the military power to do so. The first missle they launch will be met with overwhelming US force and the US will decimate the Iranian Navy and Air Force.

At that point it get’s settled or they continue to try and counterattack. If they do our target list expands and we hit Republican Guard bases and government facilities, including their sole oil refinery. A naval blockade is likely at this point and a no fly zone established over Iran. No invasion but a gradual strangle hold.

If they use a nuke or other WMD against the US or Israel, they will get a response that is far more devastating to Iran. Israel will level the country. The US will be more tactical and measured about it, but it will effectively cripple Iran for decades. The use of an Iranian WMD is foolish, but certainly possible, considering the public statements the regime has made.

[quote]hedo wrote:
An attack on Iran will happen when two US carriers are nearby. Possibly during a change in station. The first one will stay, instead of leaving. A third will be close by.

I see Israel hitting them first. Iran will try and close the straight but they don’t have the military power to do so. The first missle they launch will be met with overwhelming US force and the US will decimate the Iranian Navy and Air Force.

At that point it get’s settled or they continue to try and counterattack. If they do our target list expands and we hit Republican Guard bases and government facilities, including their sole oil refinery. A naval blockade is likely at this point and a no fly zone established over Iran. No invasion but a gradual strangle hold.

If they use a nuke or other WMD against the US or Israel, they will get a response that is far more devastating to Iran. Israel will level the country. The US will be more tactical and measured about it, but it will effectively cripple Iran for decades. The use of an Iranian WMD is foolish, but certainly possible, considering the public statements the regime has made.[/quote]

Ever heard of Millenium Challenge 2002?

[quote]GDollars37 wrote:

Ever heard of Millenium Challenge 2002?[/quote]

It is amazing how the invasion of Iraq played out exactly as predicted and half our Navy was sunk.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2002/020906-iraq1.htm

“Van Riper had at his disposal a computer-generated flotilla of small boats and planes, many of them civilian, which he kept buzzing around the virtual Persian Gulf in circles as the game was about to get under way. As the US fleet entered the Gulf, Van Riper gave a signal - not in a radio transmission that might have been intercepted, but in a coded message broadcast from the minarets of mosques at the call to prayer. The seemingly harmless pleasure craft and propeller planes suddenly turned deadly, ramming into Blue boats and airfields along the Gulf in scores of al-Qaida-style suicide attacks. Meanwhile, Chinese Silkworm-type cruise missiles fired from some of the small boats sank the US fleet’s only aircraft carrier and two marine helicopter carriers. The tactics were reminiscent of the al-Qaida attack on the USS Cole in Yemen two years ago, but the Blue fleet did not seem prepared. Sixteen ships were sunk altogether, along with thousands of marines. If it had really happened, it would have been the worst naval disaster since Pearl Harbor.”

Van Ripper, the Marine Vet playing Saddam in the war game got it right. Iran has been threatening to attack us with explosive loaded speedboats since the 1980’s.

This is the kind of attacks we should be preparing our army to deal with.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:

Ever heard of Millenium Challenge 2002?

It is amazing how the invasion of Iraq played out exactly as predicted and half our Navy was sunk.

[/quote]

Yes, they were wrong about that. But these kinds of tactics should be expected from a terrorist sponsoring state such like Iran.

Maybe they won’t use them, but our armed forces should train expecting that they might.
John Pike, the head of GlobalSecurity.org, a military thinktank in Washington, believes the splits over transformation and the whole Van Riper affair reflect fundamental differences of opinion on how to pursue the war on Iraq.

-edit: right Zap, from the article above:

“One way is to march straight to Baghdad, blowing up everything in your way and then by shock and awe you cause the regime to collapse,” Pike says. “That is what Rumsfeld is complaining about when he talks about unimaginative plodding. The alternative is to bypass the Iraqi forces and deliver a decisive blow.”

As far as Iraq goes, it seems Pike was the one to really get it right.

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:

Ever heard of Millenium Challenge 2002?

It is amazing how the invasion of Iraq played out exactly as predicted and half our Navy was sunk.

Yes, they were wrong about that. But these kinds of tactics should be expected from a terrorist sponsoring state such like Iran.

Maybe they won’t use them, but our armed forces should train expecting that they might.[/quote]

I agree and I am pretty sure our military also understands.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:

Ever heard of Millenium Challenge 2002?

It is amazing how the invasion of Iraq played out exactly as predicted and half our Navy was sunk.

[/quote]

Yeah, it was amazing how the invasion of Iraq played out exactly as expected, they greeted us with flowers, it cost $80 billion, and most of the troops were out by August.

[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:

Ever heard of Millenium Challenge 2002?

It is amazing how the invasion of Iraq played out exactly as predicted and half our Navy was sunk.

Yeah, it was amazing how the invasion of Iraq played out exactly as expected, they greeted us with flowers, it cost $80 billion, and most of the troops were out by August.[/quote]

I thought they were supposed to sink 16 ships and kill 20,000 sailors.

[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
hedo wrote:
An attack on Iran will happen when two US carriers are nearby. Possibly during a change in station. The first one will stay, instead of leaving. A third will be close by.

I see Israel hitting them first. Iran will try and close the straight but they don’t have the military power to do so. The first missle they launch will be met with overwhelming US force and the US will decimate the Iranian Navy and Air Force.

At that point it get’s settled or they continue to try and counterattack. If they do our target list expands and we hit Republican Guard bases and government facilities, including their sole oil refinery. A naval blockade is likely at this point and a no fly zone established over Iran. No invasion but a gradual strangle hold.

If they use a nuke or other WMD against the US or Israel, they will get a response that is far more devastating to Iran. Israel will level the country. The US will be more tactical and measured about it, but it will effectively cripple Iran for decades. The use of an Iranian WMD is foolish, but certainly possible, considering the public statements the regime has made.

Ever heard of Millenium Challenge 2002?[/quote]

Yes.

What do you think the take away was from that?