How would a war with Iran go?

NATO may help US airstrikes on Iran

Sarah Baxter, Washington and Uzi Mahnaimi, Tel Aviv

trans.gif
WHEN Major-General Axel Tüttelmann, the head of Nato’s Airborne Early Warning and Control Force, showed off an Awacs early warning surveillance plane in Israel a fortnight ago, he caused a flurry of concern back at headquarters in Brussels.

It was not his demonstration that raised eyebrows, but what he said about Nato’s possible involvement in any future military strike against Iran. “We would be the first to be called up if the Nato council decided we should be,” he said.

NI_MPU('middle');Nato would prefer the emphasis to remain on the “if”, but Tüttelmann’s comments revealed that the military alliance could play a supporting role if America launches airstrikes against Iranian nuclear targets.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) will tomorrow confirm Iran’s referral to the United Nations Security Council for possible sanctions.

Iran insists it is developing peaceful nuclear energy, a claim regarded as bogus by America and Britain, France and Germany, which believe it wants to develop nuclear weapons. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s remarks about wiping Israel “off the map” have added to fears.

America and Israel have warned that they will not tolerate a nuclear-armed Iran. If negotiations fail, both countries have plans of last resort for airstrikes against Iran’s widely dispersed nuclear facilities.

Porter Goss, the head of the CIA, visited Recep Erdogan, the prime minister of Turkey, a Nato country, late last year and asked for political, logistical and intelligence support in the event of airstrikes, according to western intelligence sources quoted in the German media.

The news magazine Der Spiegel noted: “Washington appears to be dispatching high-level officials to prepare its allies for a possible attack.”

Nato would be likely to operate air defences in Turkey, according to Dan Goure, a Pentagon adviser and vice-president of the Lexington Institute, a military think tank.
A former senior Israeli defence official said he believed all Nato members had contingency plans.

John Pike, director of the US military studies group Globalsecurity.org, said America had little to gain from Nato military help. “I think we are attempting to bring the alliance along politically so that when all diplomatic initiatives have been exhausted and we blow up their sites, we can say, ‘Look, we gave it our best shot’.”

A senior British defence official said plans to attack Iran were pure speculation. “I don’t think anybody has got that far yet,” he said. “We’re all too distracted by Iraq.”

Israel’s special forces are said to be operating inside Iran in an urgent attempt to locate the country’s secret uranium enrichment sites. “We found several suspected sites last year but there must be more,” an Israeli intelligence source said. They are operating from a base in northern Iraq, guarded by Israeli soldiers with the approval of the Americans, according to Israeli sources.

The commander of Israel’s nuclear missile submarines warned Iran indirectly in a comment to an Israeli newspaper last week that “we are able to hit strategic targets in a foreign country”.
The Israelis fear Iran may reach the “point of no return” — at which it has the capacity to enrich uranium to bomb-grade purity — in the next few months. The Americans are more interested in the point at which Iran is close to developing an actual bomb, thought to be at least three years away.

trans.gif
Two Iranian opposition groups claimed this weekend that Iran had increased its production of Shahab 3 missiles, which have a range of 1,200 miles, sufficient to reach Israel.


Diplomatic efforts to contain Iran are likely to proceed slowly, given Russian and Chinese opposition to punitive action. A Foreign Office official said although the IAEA would refer Iran to the security council, any sanctions would be a “strictly step-by-step process”.

NI_MPU('middle');
Additional reporting: Tom Walker

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2070420,00.html
 
But how many of our NATO allies will take part in supporting a opperation against Iran.

That really depends on the political climate of the world. If Iran or a terrorist group funded by Iran hits first then we would have a force bigger than that for Desert Storm. However with the way things currently are... I could see very few nations signing up.
 
It strikes me as a bit terrifying that everyone is more focused on Iran, who does not at present have nuclear weapons, but is believed to be developing them opposed to a North Korea that HAS them, and has said that added pressure from the U.S. to give them up will be considered an act of war.

I'm not saying that Iran isn't a situation that needs to be dealt with...but N. Korea seems to be a bit more of pressing matter. At least to me.
 
It strikes me as a bit terrifying that everyone is more focused on Iran, who does not at present have nuclear weapons, but is believed to be developing them opposed to a North Korea that HAS them, and has said that added pressure from the U.S. to give them up will be considered an act of war.

I'm not saying that Iran isn't a situation that needs to be dealt with...but N. Korea seems to be a bit more of pressing matter. At least to me.

North Korea's problem is they have a crude, heavy nuclear device and a will have a fair missile that will be able to reach Alaska in the future. The warhead minification process will be far into the future. I don't think Iran has those problems. Remember, the Enola Gay had to be stripped and modified to carry the first atomic weapon.
 
It strikes me as a bit terrifying that everyone is more focused on Iran, who does not at present have nuclear weapons, but is believed to be developing them opposed to a North Korea that HAS them, and has said that added pressure from the U.S. to give them up will be considered an act of war.

I'm not saying that Iran isn't a situation that needs to be dealt with...but N. Korea seems to be a bit more of pressing matter. At least to me.

Naw. The DPRK's nuclear weapons are being covered in many other threads across the forum and countless threads across other forums.
 
There NK closest ally and have to benfit form Iranian oil deals.
You mean,Iran gives oil to NK and NK gives N-weapon?
Ahh,that's possible.
But,NK N-weapon seems to be too heavy to be on ballistic missile.
Of course,their Su-25 can carry nuclear bomb under 6t.
So,at least 5 years is needed for Iran to attack Israel.
 
So,at least 5 years is needed for Iran to attack Israel.

Hmm is that a money back guarantee? Recent developments have shown that the world's intelligence on NK's and Iran's nuclear weapons programs is not exactly top-notch. IMO, better to take swift and decisive action NOW as one world voice than to deal with it later (in 5 years you say?) when they (NK and Iran) can hold the world ransom.
 
In five years North Korea still won't be able to hold the world for the ransom, Iran MIGHT have a nuclear weapon by then, but I honestly think the Iranian people DON't want nukes in their country. Iranians have far more exposure to the outside world than the North Koreans do and I doubt the Iranians have been as effectively indoctrinated as the North Koreans have. With five Iranians between the age of 15-18 for everyone one job available to them there will be a lot of discontent in that country. If Iran tests a nuke the people will not celebrate, they will ask why the government spent so much money on nuclear weapons when they had no jobs. If we knew anything at all about what was going on inside North Korea would we probably know the same thing, but in a country where 1 in 20 people are in the military any public denunciations of the government will be ruthlessly broken up by the government. The poeple of North Korea are starving and what does Kim do? He spends money on his million man army, nuclear weapons, new tanks and missiles and kidnapping South Korean actresses to play the lead role in his next straight to the damn burning pit movie when they were being told by their government how to eat grass.
 
but I honestly think the Iranian people DON't want nukes in their country...If Iran tests a nuke the people will not celebrate, they will ask why the government spent so much money on nuclear weapons when they had no jobs.

Really??

Where and how did you get that assumption?
 
Because if I was an 18 year old looking for a job I would be very upset if my government had spent billions creating a few jobs for only the most educated in the nation when they could have created thousands of jobs on something like... building schools, hospitals, roads, dams, the Iranian equivalent of McDonald's, whatever you will, but they have a genuine problem and instead of trying to fix that one problem they are creating a dozen more. If Iran stops their nuke program they will return to another country we have little interest in and hence not on our "to do" list.
 
Hmmmm... Do you really believe that Iran is a nuclear danger and needs to be terminated?
I think there are some other nuclear dangers in Middle East and Asia so I believe that they need to be stopped before Iran.
 
Iran is probably going to be a tough shell to crack. They have a fantical para-military group called the Pasdaran (it means "students" in Persian) these are the same freaks that took over that US embassy more than 2 decades ago, they number something like 125,000 they launched human wave attacks against Saddam in the Iraq/Iran war. they there fantical beliefs make the samuri warriors of Japan look as brave as the scumbags who are trying to find away out of our own military. They themselves are a self contained force with its own armor, artillery, aircraft, and even a few naval forces. Their rugular army has over 300,000 men. We would face a number of insurgents much larger than that of Iraq. For this invasion we would need something like 400,000 troops or maybe even 500,000. We could not gain this number without a draft.

Don't forget the so called fanatical Fedayen (Spelling ???) and the Republican Guard in Iraq. They certainly didn't live up to the hype. It's easy to talk big.
 
Back
Top