How Iran Has Bush Over A Barrel

[jpeyton]

Iran is arguably in the strongest position they've been in years; a long ways from the first time Bush uttered the words "Iran" and "axis of evil" in the same sentence. Their nuclear ambitions are all but assured as long as they can stomach the sanctions (which they have easily done so far). And once the nuclear genie is out of the bottle in Iran, Israel instantly loses much of their military dominance over Iran. Maybe that is why the Israelis are making better progress with their missile defense system than we are with ours.

Text

If wasn't clear before it should be now: the Bush Administration can't afford to attack Iran. With gas already at $4 a gallon and rising almost every day, Iran figuratively and literally has the United States over a barrel. As much as the Administration is tempted, it is not about to test Iran's promise to "explode" the Middle East if it is attacked.

The Iranians haven't been shy about making clear what's at stake. If the U.S. or Israel so much as drops a bomb on one of its reactors or its military training camps, Iran will shut down Gulf oil exports by launching a barrage of Chinese Silkworm missiles on tankers in the Strait of Hormuz and Arab oil facilities. In the worst case scenario, seventeen million barrels of oil would come off world markets.

One oil speculator told me that oil would hit $200 a barrel within minutes. But Iran's official news agency, Fars, puts it at $300 a barrel. I asked him if Iran is right, what does that mean?

"Four-dollar-a-gallon of gasoline only reflects $100 oil because the refiners' margins are squeezed," he said. "At $300, you have $12 a gallon of gasoline and riots in Newark, Los Angeles, Harlem, Oakland, Cleveland, Detroit, Dallas."

In either case, whether at $200 or $300, Bush does not want to be the President who leaves the White House on a mule-drawn cart. But Iran's blackmail is not just about oil. The Iranians truly believe they have us hostage in Iraq ? our supply lines, the acquiescence of the Shi'a in the occupation. It would all change in an instant, though, especially if we were to borrow Iraq to attack Iran. The way Fars put it: "In Iraq, fighters would rise up in solidarity with each other and begin ... making the Tet Offensive in 1968 Vietnam."

If this all sounds very alarming, Iran meant it to, and it seems to be working. On Tuesday Bush was talking about the prospect of new sanctions rather than attacking.

Which leaves Israel. Are the Israelis, who have a lot more on their minds than the price of gas in the United States, going to launch a pre-emptive attack? One hard and fast rule in the Middle East is never rule out Israel's readiness to turn the table over. But an Israeli hawk on Iran, with close ties to Israel's Ministry of Defense, told me to forget about it. "There's not a chance Israel will do anything. Maybe there's a window after the American elections and the new President but even that's doubtful. Washington does not have the stomach for another war."

Israel cannot attack or contain Iran on its own; it needs the full military might of the United States behind it. So in the meantime Israel can only huff and puff, hoping new sanctions on Iran will do the trick.

 

[Aimster]

U.S should lift U.S sanctions, Iran will drop their nuclear program.

Save everyone the headache

 

[fallout man]

Dear Leader may be a monkey, but even a monkey can recognize how touching Iran would not be in its best interest.

Let's disregard the fact that there is no legal reason to attack Iran in the first place.

Sidenote: When is Israel joining the world-wide nuclear country club? We ought to make sure that them there nukes is safe from terrists, and that they facilities is all in compliance.

Unless there is accountability, we cannot be sure that an Israeli (Uncle Sam donation) nuke doesn't get "lost" and end up causing an apocalypse.

If you don't have anything to hide, Israel, why do you have anything to worry about?!!!

 

[yllus]

Oh please. Iran would do nothing of the sort if it's the recipient of a bombing run by Israelis or Americans. The potential loss of their nuke facilities isn't worth the probability of all-out war that response would likely result in.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: Aimster
U.S should lift U.S sanctions, Iran will drop their nuclear program.

Save everyone the headache

I have some ocean front property in Arizona - interested?

 

[Aimster]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

Originally posted by: Aimster
U.S should lift U.S sanctions, Iran will drop their nuclear program.

Save everyone the headache

I have some ocean front property in Arizona - interested?

Give me and I'll stop posting

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: yllus
Oh please. Iran would do nothing of the sort if it's the recipient of a bombing run by Israelis or Americans. The potential loss of their nuke facilities isn't worth the probability of all-out war that response would likely result in.

Oil would go to $200 all by itself; no need for Iranian retaliation, because market speculators will happily run up the value of oil given any excuse.

$300 is a reality if Iran does retaliate, and I think they would.

 

[fallout man]

I retract my earlier statement, as I have been drinking.

Dear Leader has every interest in seeing oil prices sky-rocket over yet another unsubstantiated war with an oil-producing country. What was I thinking.

MAH BADS!!!

 

[Aimster]

I disagree if Iran is bombed then they will strike back. Numerous sties are going to be bombed and Iran will retaliate that very day.
I don't know about the oil but they will bomb the green zone and fire their missiles at Israel. The Green Zone will probably not be able to stop the Iranian barrage of rockets/missiles.
Israel will probably stop their Shahab-3 missiles.
Iran might try to sneak attack on the U.S Navy with one of their fast torpedoes.

Then depending on the U.S response to such an attack Iran might simply go for the oil. Their reasoning will probably be "We attacked you Kuwait because you allowed U.S navy ships to dock and they attacked us".

The problem with attacking Iranian nuclear sites is you can't just attack Iranian nuclear sites and NOT attack their military. You do not want Iranian aircraft in the air afterwards or hundreds of missile boats patrolling the area. You go after it all. You take out their air force and their navy.

 

[PokerGuy]

Originally posted by: yllus
Oh please. Iran would do nothing of the sort if it's the recipient of a bombing run by Israelis or Americans. The potential loss of their nuke facilities isn't worth the probability of all-out war that response would likely result in.

On the one hand I think you might be right, but on the other there's a distinct possibility that the Iranian regime will feel itself to be completely cornered and will see an all-out retaliation as the only way out. The consequences of that possibility would be huge, you'd quickly see $300 per barrel, not to mention the price of natural gas going through the roof, there would be instability and chaos throughout the ME etc. Not a pleasant scenario. If there wasn't a realistic chance of that bad scenario, I think you would have seen some type of military action from the US and/or Isreal long time ago.

 

[StageLeft]

Attacking Iran was untenable before and moreso now.

That said, a barage of silkworms sounds a lot like Iraqi chemica-spraying drones; a bit far-fetched. The reality as I see it is that if oil hit $300 gallon, the US could definitely pay and live at $10/gallon gas IF it really needed to. People here have and would ration/car pool, etc. if they really felt a pressing and true need, but until the US is at war (and a real one, not the "war on terror"), people will not quickly give up their comforts for a greater cause.

Iran is, as this says, in a pretty comfortable spot. It doesn't quite have the richest and militarily strongest country in the world over a barrel, though.

In terms of site-strikes Israel absolutely does not need the US on its side at all. I don't know why this guy thinks they do. For a ground campaign, sure, but that was never in the cards.

U.S should lift U.S sanctions, Iran will drop their nuclear program.

Unlikely.

Then depending on the U.S response to such an attack Iran might simply go for the oil.

With what? is Israel and/or US attacked distinct sites on their end and they started taking out naval vessels, they would have no navy or presence whatsoever even including canoes with rifleman in no time at all. As is, they have no meaningful airforce. All they could actually do is cut off their own exports; they cannot impact anybody elses.

hundreds of missile boats

Iran, for all intents and purposes, has no navy. They have some old boats and patrol craft. They have less than 20k personnel in the entire thing, contrast with superior equipment and 15X as many in the US navy, they have no meaningful military power whatsoever from a conventional standpoint.

 

[bamx2]

And he says it all - http://www.breitbart.com/artic...sx0pu2g&show_article=1 . Hopefully there will be changes within Iran soon or else .....

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: Aimster
I disagree if Iran is bombed then they will strike back. Numerous sties are going to be bombed and Iran will retaliate that very day.
I don't know about the oil but they will bomb the green zone and fire their missiles at Israel. The Green Zone will probably not be able to stop the Iranian barrage of rockets/missiles.
Israel will probably stop their Shahab-3 missiles.
Iran might try to sneak attack on the U.S Navy with one of their fast torpedoes.

Then depending on the U.S response to such an attack Iran might simply go for the oil. Their reasoning will probably be "We attacked you Kuwait because you allowed U.S navy ships to dock and they attacked us".

The problem with attacking Iranian nuclear sites is you can't just attack Iranian nuclear sites and NOT attack their military. You do not want Iranian aircraft in the air afterwards or hundreds of missile boats patrolling the area. You go after it all. You take out their air force and their navy.

Look up the Ohio class SSGNs. Then reconsider Iran's likelihood of being able to do anything to the Straights. I wouldn't doubt that all three of them would be in that area, not to mention more than a few Aegis destroyers and cruisers.

Iran would absolutely lose.

 

[Aimster]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Aimster
I disagree if Iran is bombed then they will strike back. Numerous sties are going to be bombed and Iran will retaliate that very day.
I don't know about the oil but they will bomb the green zone and fire their missiles at Israel. The Green Zone will probably not be able to stop the Iranian barrage of rockets/missiles.
Israel will probably stop their Shahab-3 missiles.
Iran might try to sneak attack on the U.S Navy with one of their fast torpedoes.

Then depending on the U.S response to such an attack Iran might simply go for the oil. Their reasoning will probably be "We attacked you Kuwait because you allowed U.S navy ships to dock and they attacked us".

The problem with attacking Iranian nuclear sites is you can't just attack Iranian nuclear sites and NOT attack their military. You do not want Iranian aircraft in the air afterwards or hundreds of missile boats patrolling the area. You go after it all. You take out their air force and their navy.

Look up the Ohio class SSGNs. Then reconsider Iran's likelihood of being able to do anything to the Straights. I wouldn't doubt that all three of them would be in that area, not to mention more than a few Aegis destroyers and cruisers.

Iran would absolutely lose.

That submarine alone cannot do anything except take out a frigate.
Great versus a Navy such as China. Useless vs. hundreds of mini boats and land-sea based missiles stations.

 

[BladeVenom]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Look up the Ohio class SSGNs. Then reconsider Iran's likelihood of being able to do anything to the Straights. I wouldn't doubt that all three of them would be in that area, not to mention more than a few Aegis destroyers and cruisers.

Iran would absolutely lose.

Can an Ohio class SSGNs locate and disarm mines?

Last Gulf War the US had to rely on the British for mine clearing.

 

[ElFenix]

i for one welcome our iranian overlords. salam!

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: Aimster

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Aimster
I disagree if Iran is bombed then they will strike back. Numerous sties are going to be bombed and Iran will retaliate that very day.
I don't know about the oil but they will bomb the green zone and fire their missiles at Israel. The Green Zone will probably not be able to stop the Iranian barrage of rockets/missiles.
Israel will probably stop their Shahab-3 missiles.
Iran might try to sneak attack on the U.S Navy with one of their fast torpedoes.

Then depending on the U.S response to such an attack Iran might simply go for the oil. Their reasoning will probably be "We attacked you Kuwait because you allowed U.S navy ships to dock and they attacked us".

The problem with attacking Iranian nuclear sites is you can't just attack Iranian nuclear sites and NOT attack their military. You do not want Iranian aircraft in the air afterwords or hundreds of missile boats patrolling the area. You go after it all. You take out their air force and their navy.

Look up the Ohio class SSGNs. Then reconsider Iran's likelihood of being able to do anything to the Straights. I wouldn't doubt that all three of them would be in that area, not to mention more than a few Aegis destroyers and cruisers.

Iran would absolutely lose.

That submarine alone cannot do anything except take out a frigate.
Great versus a Navy such as China. Useless vs. hundreds of mini boats and land-sea based missiles stations.

The Ohio class carries 154 Tomahawks each. Which are deadly accurate and will take 5-10 minutes from launch to impact in that area.

The mobile launchers (unless they are on the move) are already targeted in their truck
The attack boats have to have a place to fuel and arm. Those locations are targeted.

For both Iran "weapons platforms" unless they are on a hot standby, it will take longer to get the engines up and crew on board than they will have from launch detection to impact.

Some will escape, but the overall damage will reduce the threat to what other defensive systems should be able to handle



I hope that a military conflict will not arise. I would think based on experiences with Iraq and poor planning (after the fact), the fear is that Iran may act irrationally ie acting out the words/intentions that their President attempts to imply and generate a situation to provoke conflict with the US and/or Israel.

What they do w/ respect to Israel is out of our hands; yet if they keep generating what is perceived by Israel as threats, the same will happen as did in '81.

Should Iran directly launch an attack against the US forces in any shape that seems to be approved by the Iranian government, our forces will be unleashed without advance warning. Sub launched Tomahawks will launch first, followed by air strikes as quickly as analysts can target areas pinpointed that were missed by cruise missiles and to go after the mobile units. Some air strikes will be inbound as the Tomahawks are being launched.


The above strategy is based on plans that have been laid out since the Shah fell and fine tuned over the years based on training and intelligence.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: BladeVenom

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Look up the Ohio class SSGNs. Then reconsider Iran's likelihood of being able to do anything to the Straights. I wouldn't doubt that all three of them would be in that area, not to mention more than a few Aegis destroyers and cruisers.

Iran would absolutely lose.

Can an Ohio class SSGNs locate and disarm mines?

Last Gulf War the US had to rely on the British for mine clearing.

Yes and no.

The boat itself can locate them (via active sonar) or magnetic detection, but it would take a sailor/SEAL from within the boat to disarm/neutralize the mine.

I would think that the US now has a few ships available that can assist in mine clearing.

However, the depth needed for the SSGN would preclude them from being in the shallow waters when mines would be located.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Originally posted by: fallout man
Dear Leader may be a monkey, but even a monkey can recognize how touching Iran would not be in its best interest.

Let's disregard the fact that there is no legal reason to attack Iran in the first place.

Sidenote: When is Israel joining the world-wide nuclear country club? We ought to make sure that them there nukes is safe from terrists, and that they facilities is all in compliance.

Unless there is accountability, we cannot be sure that an Israeli (Uncle Sam donation) nuke doesn't get "lost" and end up causing an apocalypse.

If you don't have anything to hide, Israel, why do you have anything to worry about?!!!

Israel does not have American nukes. They made their own, though they will never fess up to it.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: Aimster

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Aimster
I disagree if Iran is bombed then they will strike back. Numerous sties are going to be bombed and Iran will retaliate that very day.
I don't know about the oil but they will bomb the green zone and fire their missiles at Israel. The Green Zone will probably not be able to stop the Iranian barrage of rockets/missiles.
Israel will probably stop their Shahab-3 missiles.
Iran might try to sneak attack on the U.S Navy with one of their fast torpedoes.

Then depending on the U.S response to such an attack Iran might simply go for the oil. Their reasoning will probably be "We attacked you Kuwait because you allowed U.S navy ships to dock and they attacked us".

The problem with attacking Iranian nuclear sites is you can't just attack Iranian nuclear sites and NOT attack their military. You do not want Iranian aircraft in the air afterwards or hundreds of missile boats patrolling the area. You go after it all. You take out their air force and their navy.

Look up the Ohio class SSGNs. Then reconsider Iran's likelihood of being able to do anything to the Straights. I wouldn't doubt that all three of them would be in that area, not to mention more than a few Aegis destroyers and cruisers.

Iran would absolutely lose.

That submarine alone cannot do anything except take out a frigate.
Great versus a Navy such as China. Useless vs. hundreds of mini boats and land-sea based missiles stations.

Useless? lol.

Yeah, 460 cruise missiles hitting every military installation, launch site, tent, truck, and shithouse on the shore isn't going to do anything.

That loony in charge of Iran isn't going to risk all-out war which he can't even come close to winning. His whole military would be emasculated in 24 hours.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Aimster

That submarine alone cannot do anything except take out a frigate.
Great versus a Navy such as China. Useless vs. hundreds of mini boats and land-sea based missiles stations.

Useless? lol.

Yeah, 460 cruise missiles hitting every military installation, launch site, tent, truck, and shithouse on the shore isn't going to do anything.

That loony in charge of Iran isn't going to risk all-out war which he can't even come close to winning. His whole military would be emasculated in 24 hours.

The outhouses will not be targeted.

Who wants to spread all that crap around.:disgust:

Realize that within 1 day, the subs can also sprint out to a resupply vessel for more missiles.

400 odd missiles can destroy the fuel and weapons depots quite seriously. Boat and missile launch areas that are built into caves/cliffs can be taken out by a cruise coming in over water.

They may not kill the site, but be able to do enough damage to close it down.


As LK stated, Iran hopefully is smart enough not to pick a fight that they know they will loose.
Economics will not assist them, if they have no infrastructure to take advantage of it.
Anything that Iran does w/ respect to the oil markets will harm them - they will have no oil to be able to sell at the inflated prices.

 

[bamx2]

He is very intelligent but crazy and I wouldn't be surprised at anything he does- http://www.breitbart.com/artic...1D9POG0&show_article=1


"As LK stated, Iran hopefully is smart enough not to pick a fight that they know they will loose.
Economics will not assist them, if they have no infrastructure to take advantage of it.
Anything that Iran does w/ respect to the oil markets will harm them - they will have no oil to be able to sell at the inflated prices."

 

[EagleKeeper]

If the US wanted him, they would have gotten him. No if, ands or buts about it.

 

[Aimster]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Aimster

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Aimster
I disagree if Iran is bombed then they will strike back. Numerous sties are going to be bombed and Iran will retaliate that very day.
I don't know about the oil but they will bomb the green zone and fire their missiles at Israel. The Green Zone will probably not be able to stop the Iranian barrage of rockets/missiles.
Israel will probably stop their Shahab-3 missiles.
Iran might try to sneak attack on the U.S Navy with one of their fast torpedoes.

Then depending on the U.S response to such an attack Iran might simply go for the oil. Their reasoning will probably be "We attacked you Kuwait because you allowed U.S navy ships to dock and they attacked us".

The problem with attacking Iranian nuclear sites is you can't just attack Iranian nuclear sites and NOT attack their military. You do not want Iranian aircraft in the air afterwards or hundreds of missile boats patrolling the area. You go after it all. You take out their air force and their navy.

Look up the Ohio class SSGNs. Then reconsider Iran's likelihood of being able to do anything to the Straights. I wouldn't doubt that all three of them would be in that area, not to mention more than a few Aegis destroyers and cruisers.

Iran would absolutely lose.

That submarine alone cannot do anything except take out a frigate.
Great versus a Navy such as China. Useless vs. hundreds of mini boats and land-sea based missiles stations.

Useless? lol.

Yeah, 460 cruise missiles hitting every military installation, launch site, tent, truck, and shithouse on the shore isn't going to do anything.

That loony in charge of Iran isn't going to risk all-out war which he can't even come close to winning. His whole military would be emasculated in 24 hours.

Israel couldn't stop Hezbollah rocket attacks & land-sea based missile systems.

What makes you think the U.S Navy can?

 

[EagleKeeper]

There is a difference in what defenses are setup and what is being thrown at you.

Israel has no defense setup against the rockets and the missile that was launched last year was unexpected.

The anti-missile batteries that they had worked well against the SCUDS when they were positioned and you can be sure that the Hawk & Patriot batteries have since been upgraded.


If there is a conflict the US Navy has weapon systems that are specifically designed for counteracting what Iran has. The Naval targets are much smaller and not fixed in one place. Some Iranian assets will get through, but most will have been destroyed in a first wave of Tomahawks.

Also, there will be no hands off or treating with kid gloves if a retaliation barrage is launched.

You will see the equivalent to the 100 days of air strikes that was in GWI.

Except that it will not last 100 days and will not be followed by a large scale ground assault.