Wednesday, July 18, 2012
Obama’s Second Term Goals—
Two Dozen of the Best Hope and Change Acts!
1. Visit every 5-Star hotel in America and make a speech as a cover for using AF-1
2. Play every championship golf course in America
3. Throw a party every third night when in town
4. Have a week’s vacation every fourth week using AF-1.
5. Visit every Muslim nation (and bow)
6. Forget about the budget each year—too busy
7. Break the previous year’s spending record each year
8, Write a new set of Executive Orders supplanting Constitutional rules each week
9. Veto all Republican legislation if they gain both houses.
10. Send wife on missions as often as possible
11. Raise taxes to cover spending orgies---via Executive Orders if Congress balks
12. Cut the military to the bone, except for the Presidential Units; but build a Presidential Army that answers only to the President
13. Dump most nuclear weapons as a unilateral gesture of peace
14. Expand government control via Obamacare and other maneuvers
15. Find ways around Constitutional blocks and the Supreme Court to do what’s wanted
16. Take steps to increase socialization of the nation and the dependency of citizens on the government
17. Seize control of industries: farming; coal; oil; transportation, education, publication, TV/radio, sports, and communication via the Czar system
18. Make it easy to seize private property and bank accounts for government use, or as punishment for not following the Obama line
19. Ensure open borders: Y’all come!
20. Grant amnesty and citizenship to illegal immigrants
21. Repeal the Patriot Act by Executive Order
22. Reallocate more taxpayer funds to support the jobless, poor and homeless
23. Seize control of the defense industry, starting with Boeing, Raytheon and Lockheed-Martin, citing a national emergency
24. Seize effective control of the financial industry via deep regulation
1. Visit every 5-Star hotel in America and make a speech as a cover for using AF-1
2. Play every championship golf course in America
3. Throw a party every third night when in town
4. Have a week’s vacation every fourth week using AF-1.
5. Visit every Muslim nation (and bow)
6. Forget about the budget each year—too busy
7. Break the previous year’s spending record each year
8, Write a new set of Executive Orders supplanting Constitutional rules each week
9. Veto all Republican legislation if they gain both houses.
10. Send wife on missions as often as possible
11. Raise taxes to cover spending orgies---via Executive Orders if Congress balks
12. Cut the military to the bone, except for the Presidential Units; but build a Presidential Army that answers only to the President
13. Dump most nuclear weapons as a unilateral gesture of peace
14. Expand government control via Obamacare and other maneuvers
15. Find ways around Constitutional blocks and the Supreme Court to do what’s wanted
16. Take steps to increase socialization of the nation and the dependency of citizens on the government
17. Seize control of industries: farming; coal; oil; transportation, education, publication, TV/radio, sports, and communication via the Czar system
18. Make it easy to seize private property and bank accounts for government use, or as punishment for not following the Obama line
19. Ensure open borders: Y’all come!
20. Grant amnesty and citizenship to illegal immigrants
21. Repeal the Patriot Act by Executive Order
22. Reallocate more taxpayer funds to support the jobless, poor and homeless
23. Seize control of the defense industry, starting with Boeing, Raytheon and Lockheed-Martin, citing a national emergency
24. Seize effective control of the financial industry via deep regulation
Labels: Nuclear Weapons, Obama, Pacifism, Secular Humanism, Socialism, Taxes, The Way Forward
Wednesday, December 28, 2011
Iran Conflict Warms Up
Threatens to close the Straits of Hormuz for oil shipments
We inch ever closer to a final resolution of the Iranian question, fueled by their own threats to close the Strait of Hormuz. At least the US and Israel are talking about where the so-called "Red Line" should be. The Red Line is that technical line Iran may cross in their quest for nuclear weapons, which would precipitate action from either or both Israel and the US. So far, it is reported that while Israel has a well-defined line, the US, especially the Obama administration, is waffling about just where it is and when it could be crossed. The issue is defined by some as: when to attack Iran's nuclear facilities.
This is foolhardy nonsense. In order to attack these facilities, the attacker must cross most of Iran, with their rings of anti-aircraft missiles, AAA, and fighter aircraft waiting for them. Further, since such an attack would be an implicit declaration of war, it is obvious that Iran would jump into a war mode and begin retaliations with a considerable armed force, and with allies in Lebanon, Syria, and Palestine to execute bombings and shootings. Around the world, cells would activate to terrorize and destroy US and Israeli facilities. Iran would indeed try to close the Strait. Thus, it would be imperative for the attackers on Iran to neutralize or wipe out the Iranian armed forces as far as possible immediately.
It is my prediction that Israel would employ an EMP nuclear weapon or weapons over Iran to knock out virtually all electrical, electronic and vehicular systems wherever found. This would freeze the military almost completely. No missiles, tanks, planes, trucks, radios, radar, or any engine-driven vehicle would be operable for some time, until repaired. This window of paralysis, which would be renewable for perhaps days or a week, would be the entree for Israel's air force and missiles to rain down on every military installation and nuclear facility in Iran with impunity, virtually destroying their capability to fight and to produce nuclear weapons. Special attention would be paid to the missile sites that threaten the Strait, the navy vessels and shore facilities, and any oil vessels belonging to Iran. Their route to Iran from Israel is no longer any difficulty for the US in Iraq since we have largely departed that nation, and the Iraqis are virtually defenseless against air overflights.
It is also my prediction of long standing that Iran would then attack US facilities worldwide using sleeper cells, thus forcing the US to join in the attacks against Iran, and including their allied organizations in Lebanon, Syria, and Palestine. In fact, I believe that common sense dictates that, instead of waiting for the retaliations to begin, we join Israel in the first instance to ensure that Iran is totally disabled militarily, and that the other allied nations and groups on the Iranian side are neutralized quickly too.
Yet another idea I have promoted is for the US, perhaps with allies, and only after we have declared war, to move large tank and troop formations with air cover into the Western and Southern sectors of Iran, daring them to come out and fight us on our terms in a pitched battle. This would accomplish several objectives: 1) It would ensure that we find all of the missile sites threatening the Strait; 2) It would occupy the most prolific oil production sites and sea accesses in Iran, cutting off their sea sources of revenue and supplies; and 3) It would ensure the destruction of the remainder of their army should they dare to come out and fight. With proper handling, the Mullahs would be overturned at this juncture.
We inch ever closer to a final resolution of the Iranian question, fueled by their own threats to close the Strait of Hormuz. At least the US and Israel are talking about where the so-called "Red Line" should be. The Red Line is that technical line Iran may cross in their quest for nuclear weapons, which would precipitate action from either or both Israel and the US. So far, it is reported that while Israel has a well-defined line, the US, especially the Obama administration, is waffling about just where it is and when it could be crossed. The issue is defined by some as: when to attack Iran's nuclear facilities.
This is foolhardy nonsense. In order to attack these facilities, the attacker must cross most of Iran, with their rings of anti-aircraft missiles, AAA, and fighter aircraft waiting for them. Further, since such an attack would be an implicit declaration of war, it is obvious that Iran would jump into a war mode and begin retaliations with a considerable armed force, and with allies in Lebanon, Syria, and Palestine to execute bombings and shootings. Around the world, cells would activate to terrorize and destroy US and Israeli facilities. Iran would indeed try to close the Strait. Thus, it would be imperative for the attackers on Iran to neutralize or wipe out the Iranian armed forces as far as possible immediately.
It is my prediction that Israel would employ an EMP nuclear weapon or weapons over Iran to knock out virtually all electrical, electronic and vehicular systems wherever found. This would freeze the military almost completely. No missiles, tanks, planes, trucks, radios, radar, or any engine-driven vehicle would be operable for some time, until repaired. This window of paralysis, which would be renewable for perhaps days or a week, would be the entree for Israel's air force and missiles to rain down on every military installation and nuclear facility in Iran with impunity, virtually destroying their capability to fight and to produce nuclear weapons. Special attention would be paid to the missile sites that threaten the Strait, the navy vessels and shore facilities, and any oil vessels belonging to Iran. Their route to Iran from Israel is no longer any difficulty for the US in Iraq since we have largely departed that nation, and the Iraqis are virtually defenseless against air overflights.
It is also my prediction of long standing that Iran would then attack US facilities worldwide using sleeper cells, thus forcing the US to join in the attacks against Iran, and including their allied organizations in Lebanon, Syria, and Palestine. In fact, I believe that common sense dictates that, instead of waiting for the retaliations to begin, we join Israel in the first instance to ensure that Iran is totally disabled militarily, and that the other allied nations and groups on the Iranian side are neutralized quickly too.
Yet another idea I have promoted is for the US, perhaps with allies, and only after we have declared war, to move large tank and troop formations with air cover into the Western and Southern sectors of Iran, daring them to come out and fight us on our terms in a pitched battle. This would accomplish several objectives: 1) It would ensure that we find all of the missile sites threatening the Strait; 2) It would occupy the most prolific oil production sites and sea accesses in Iran, cutting off their sea sources of revenue and supplies; and 3) It would ensure the destruction of the remainder of their army should they dare to come out and fight. With proper handling, the Mullahs would be overturned at this juncture.
Labels: Iran, Israel, Lebanon, Nuclear Weapons, Oil, Palestine, Syria, Terrorists, War
Friday, August 20, 2010
The Coming Choice for Israel
The Israel-Iran situation heats up---as of August 20, 2010
Here is an outline of my somewhat revised thinking about the current situation between Iran and Israel, and the rest of the West. It is a collection of posts on the blog "Outside the Beltway".
Assumption: Iran will not cave in to Western pressure to end their nuclear program.
1. Israel faces a hell of a decision: to attack Iran or not. That decision has at least two subsets: to attack essentially the nuclear facilities and any defensive systems in the way; or to attack a full package of Iranian military and nuclear facilities and all of the aircraft, weapons sites, barracks, tank and transport parks and naval ships they can find.
2. To hit only the minimum facilities that will impair Iran’s development of nuclear weapons, plus the defenses that must be reduced for that to happen has been the favorite scenario of many people. I believe that is flawed thinking. In executing such an attack, the IAF must destroy quite a few defensive capabilities, many of which are located near population centers. The list of targets must include every military airfield and military aircraft that can be found, every anti-aircraft emplacement, whether it is missile or gun based, every site that has both long and short range radar, every site that may contain long range missiles that could be used in retaliation, and the list goes on, even before starting the list of nuclear facilities that must be reduced. This is quite obviously an act of war: many civilians near the targets will be killed in the attacks, so retaliation must be expected, and blunted where possible. For Iran to rebuild its nuclear capability most likely would take 3 to 5 years. What then? We are back to square one, minus the losses on both sides.
3. To hit many of the nuclear facilities that are underground, there must be accurate targeting, and I suspect that a lot of low level reconnaissance will have to be flown to identify some of the sites by various “tells”, such as entrances and exits, air inlets, transport, tracks and so on. Further, these bunker sites will require large bombs to dig them out or to damage them adequately by overpressure effects. Such large bombs are not going to be carried by F-16C or F-15I aircraft, because they weigh over 20,000 pounds and up! The IAF will probably use C-130 aircraft for this purpose, once full air superiority has been gained. A similar method was used by the USAF to deliver MOAB’s, or Mother Of All Bombs in Vietnam, so the technique is very well known.
4.Thus there is the need for the IAF to gain complete air superiority in order to let recce proceed everywhere and to allow the slower transports, the C-130’s, to chug eventually over the nuclear sites and drop their MOAB’s. For low-flying aircraft, however, Iran has quite a number of ZSU-23-4 (23mm quad mobile gun radar-directed systems) antiaircraft weapons that are extremely deadly against low flying planes. Additional
ZSU-23-2 dual-gun systems have been reported. They still have SAM capabilities, although not the latest Russian systems they have tried to obtain. These are quite capable at altitudes where most of the IAF will be flying, or up to 40,000 feet, so they must be suppressed immediately. It is terribly expensive in aircraft and pilots to attack AA systems.
5. This leads me to a first hypothesis. The weapon of choice to suppress AA weapons, radar, AA missiles, command and control and communications systems, and aircraft, and just about anything using electronics, including vehicles, over a very wide area is a number of powerful and well-placed EMP or Electromagnetic Pulse bombs. A good part of Iran would go dark from such weapons, and during that time, the air would be mainly free from defenses of all kinds. Even ground forces would be stymied by the EMP effects on their engines and other electronics until repaired. Further, civilian areas within the effective range of the EMP blast would likewise have all of their electronics and electrical equipment disabled. There would undoubtedly be civilian casualties as a result, if only on highways and at intersections.
To obtain the necessary power in such a bomb, it would have to be a nuclear device, and it must be detonated at, as a guess, 5-to-10 thousand feet over Iran. As another guess, the radius of its effectiveness would be on the order of 30,000 ft or about 5 miles…perhaps more, I do not know. I have no idea whether Israel has such a weapon, but if they do, this attack is the time to roll it out.
6. Given this weapon’s use, a second hypothesis can be stated. With just about all of Iran, military and civil, virtually helpless and unable for some time to move in vehicles at all, it would be quite logical for Israel to take full advantage of this to destroy Iran’s military capabilities and military industrial base as fully as possible. Special Forces troops could be landed to search out additional hidden sites for destruction, for example.
7. Has the US government been made aware by Israel of such a weapon and their plan to use it? It is possible. The reaction in DC of the planned use of nuclear EMP weapons by Israel would be fierce and negative! Something like the unaccountably negative reaction of Obama during a recent visit by the Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu.
8. Without a weapon such as the EMP bomb I have speculated upon, the IAF has a daunting task, starting with the same needs: to suppress the Iranian air defenses thoroughly before their recce and transport/MOAB aircraft fly onto the scene. They must deliver a knockout blow to the Iranian air fleet or risk far too many IAF planes shot down. Airfields would be hit by multiple Israeli cruise missiles, as would known AA missile sites, such as for the SA-2, SA-5, Tor-M1 and SA-7, and would be followed up by F-16I attacks on specific airfield revetments still standing. Those Iranian aircraft, such as the F-14’s, that made it into the air must be handled by Israeli F-15I’s.
9. The low-level air defenses would have to be taken out as well, possibly by Israeli versions of US Wild Weasel fitted on F-16I’s, together with Harm anti-radar missiles for the kills. Losses to short range (up to 6 or 7 KM), hand-operated and optically sighted AA missiles of the will be moderate for fast jets such as the F-16I flown by combat-experienced pilots.
10. Once complete air superiority has been achieved, I envision waves of follow-on attacks on nuclear and other sites interspersed by recce flights to ascertain the damage done. This continued air assault would be maintained for days, until the Israeli commanders believe they have accomplished their mission.
11. The second Hypothesis holds here also, because Iran is now completely vulnerable to further air assault. The target set would be expanded to include most of the vital military targets in Iran.
12. At some point in this scenario Iran would begin their counterattacks, most likely using long range missiles, and by activating their Hezbollah and Hamas partners, if not Syria also, all targeting Israel. Whether there would be an all out attempt by Syria to invade Israel a second time is a big question; one that Israel would be prepared for this time. Lobbing missiles seems most likely.
13.The most fateful decision by Iran is whether to target US facilities and personnel worldwide, using sleeper cells or other terrorist resources to exact revenge. Such attacks would result in the US joining the attacks on Iran itself. The air war would be over in hours, if this occurs, with Iran made even more vulnerable to air assault by the USN and USAF resources in the theater. Thus enters the second hypothesis again, this time with far greater resources available.
14. Within days or weeks of the beginning of this war a ground assault on Iran can begin, and it can take several paths. First, to ensure that Iranian anti-ship missiles are destroyed in Southern Iran, US forces would effect landings to take possession of the sites threatening the Strait of Hormuz.
The third Hypothesis is that in due time US forces would also move to occupy the Western Iranian oilfield sites, thus cutting off a majority of oil revenues of Iran. This might bring a response from the Revolutionary Guard to face the US forces in ground warfare, totally without air cover. The outcome here would not be in doubt, I believe.
15. Scenarios of concern:
1. Try very hard to follow this:
Scenario 1:
1. We, the US, do not start a preemptive war against Iran.
2. Israel does attack Iran, and does a very good job of it using EMP weapons up front..
3. Iran responds by activating its surrogates, because that is all they can do (EMP damage).
4. Iran plus surrogates attack Israel AND US personnel and facilities.
5. We join the action to stop the carnage wherever it occurs.
Scenario 2
1. We, the US, do not start a preemptive war against Iran.
2. Israel does attack Iran, but does not have EMP weapons, which allows Iran to use its resources to fend off the attack or blunt its effectiveness. Iran declare war.
3. Iran activates its surrogates and pits Israel against Hezbollah, Hamas, and Syria, together with missiles from Iran.
4. Iran plus surrogates attack Israel but not US.
5. Question: what does the US do? Support Israel passively or actively, or not at all. I say we support actively by punishing Iran.
Scenario 3
1. We the US do not start a preemptive war against Iran.
2. Israel does, etc
3.Same
4.Iran plus surrogates attack Israel AND US Facilities and personnel
5 We join the action.
Scenario 4
1. we do not start a preemptive war
2. Israel does not start a preemptive war.
3. Iran uses its nuclear weapons and blasts Israel off the map.
4. Do we retaliate for this or not? I say we do.
Other scenarios?
16. My whole point has been that we do not control Israel, that Israel will attack Iran sooner or later, and that whether we join the action depends upon whether Iran and its surrogates attack US personnel and facilities. If Israel does not succeed, or is in serious trouble from the surrogates, then the question becomes what do we, the US, do about it? Do we allow Israel to go down or not? If we allow Israel to go down, do we retaliate against Iran for it, or do we simply ignore the event?
17. There have been lots of analyses as to the preferred route of attack by Israel. Most conclude that they will use many routes, but dominantly the “middle route” over Jordan and Iraq. The US has recently stated that they will not prevent the IAF from overflying Iraq. Jordan may well stand down from this also, If not, they will not provide a serious obstruction to the attack, and would lose what they put up. Over flight of Syria is a great obstacle, and it is too near Israel to use EMP fully without disabling Israeli assets. My own opinion is that Israel must try to neutralize Syria in the process regardless, since they will join the fray almost immediately anyway. How the Israelis handle Hezbollah and Hamas is a good question that I can’t answer.
18. Another question I can’t answer is will the Israelis use nukes, other than the EMP type, either strategic or tactical, if they are pressed hard? My only thought is–yes, what have they to lose?
19. I daresay that we could not cripple their war efforts in a heartbeat. Israel has been preparing for such a conflict for years, and has been carefully divorcing themselves from essential, baseline military supplies from the US, such that supplies on hand should be sufficient for a war of certain duration. The longer they have to prepare the more independent they become, such as to develop and produce their own equipment, stockpile and have refineries to produce their own fuel. It has been a standing policy for years not to become totally dependent upon the US, because they are quite aware of the twisting tides of anti-Semitism in the US, and especially within certain groups. Israel accepts much aid from the US gratefully, but their ultimate goal is to stand on their own, and they are prepared to do so now.
20. They have used the Swiss model for years, where the Swiss have prepared for a war of 6 months, planning on support coming within that time…from NATO, the US…etc. Israel, however, must rely only on themselves in the final analysis; hence, their development of nuclear weapons for the last resort, when it becomes clear that they will run out of conventional supplies to defend themselves, or are being overrun well before that happens.
Therefore, to say that the US possesses the ability to stop Israel from defending themselves in a truly dire moment is simply hogwash. They will do what they think is necessary.
21. I have expressed my opinion at key steps in the scenarios I gave above. Fundamentally, I see our role as entering the conflict to stop the counter-aggressions by Israel’s neighbors and Iran, and further nuclear or conflict-widening responses by Israel. We cannot stop the first attacks by Israel, in my opinion. Whether this could be done rapidly under the UN flag or not is probably a no, if only because of time. We may well see this UN blessing as an absolute necessity, and hence delay our operational start while the UN Security Council debates the issues. Russia and China would be vitally important to either neutralize or bring into this operation of ours, but lacking that, we must proceed anyway. Time is of essence, but there may be days involved.
22. Otherwise, we will have a ME conflagration that may not stay limited, with a hard-pressed Israel possibly electing to use its nukes wherever they are threatened, which would be a disaster for many innocent ME people, and ultimately ourselves, if this triggers a more general war—a more general nuclear war.
23. In this process of attempting to cut off the conflict, we would undoubtedly be tagged by the Islamic nations and the Socialist/Communist nations with aggression ourselves. Fine, those are words, and the people we save will live to hear them, and to compare their options that we provided them–namely life. Some days you cannot win everything.
24. Any delay, such as the UN debate might cause, or our inability to bring an adequate force to bear in a timely fashion, would work against Iran, as the Israeli attacks would keep going until they know that we can enforce a truce, which they would realize by the rapid buildup of our naval air power in the area in a matter of days. I would hope that the combination of real power in the area and very strong diplomatic efforts through all channels results in a stand down on both sides very rapidly.
25. If I see through my crystal ball clearly enough, the Israelis would take advantage of the relatively few days they have, because of the diplomatic and logistical delays inherent in the situation, to knock out as much of Iran’s nuclear and military capabilities as they could before standing down at our forceful insistence, and under our protection. So much for the air and long-range missile war, I say. Looking back at this, one sees that Iran did get its punishment, by Israel.
26. The ground and missile war that would be raging is quite another matter. Hezbollah and Hamas would not be brought to a stand-down by air power, although Syria might well.
Some form of international force would have to interpose itself between Israel and these nations that have the necessary teeth to compel conformance to the stand-down, and to stop the missiles from flying. The usual UN force is a farce.
27. This is yet another critical problem to be solved, and it would be in the best interests of all parties to solve it quickly. There are some interesting ideas on how to accomplish this task, such as to sprinkle some number of third-nation soldiers throughout Israel, Lebanon and Palestine, with the clear understanding that if harmed by opposing missiles, they will be revenged rapidly and fully, Israel included. Better ideas may be out there somewhere.
Labels: Iran, Israel, Nuclear Weapons
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
The Iranian Problem
Which way forward?
Most commenters seem to think Israel would perform a surgical strike targeting Iran's nuclear facilities. My own belief is that they would attack everything military in Iran, from RG barracks and motor pools, to airfields and aircraft revetments, to missile sites, and command centers, along with any nuclear sites known. They would be particularly careful to hit all of the anti--air capabilities they could find, because they must have a sustained attack over Iran for days, if not for weeks, to hit all they can. I believe they would fly missions against the Gulf missile sites as well in the course of the week or weeks. Instead of simply trying to delay the nuclear program, they would go for denuding Iran of all the military hardware they could, and then, at more leisure go for the nuclear sites.
It is obvoius really, that any attack on Iran is cause for a declaration of war by Iran against Israel. Therefore, Israel wants to take out Iran's air defense capabilities and retaliatory capabilities up front, insofar as possible from the air. Their dig-em-out missions may well be performed by C-130 transport planes carrying the Israeli version of MOABs, just as we have done with our MOABS. You need air superiority for that to happen.
Thus, it is not at all surprising that Israel would want a lot of time to prepare this air offensive, since many items would need to be produced and stockpiled in advance, including the MOABs. If, as one has suggested, the Israelis plan to use tactical or larger nuclear weapons, that too would require preparation time, right up to the limit. Their home defenses would have to be prepared against Hesbollah and Hamas retaliatory actions as well, which takes even more time. I fear that time is running out now.
How does one deal with "nuclear Iran?" Since there would be an ever present threat of nuclear engagement between Iran and Israel, the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction rears its head as the only practical approach. MAD makes the assumption of two rational actors in the set, whereas in this case, I seriously question the rationality of the Iranian leaders that hold the trigger. If one examines their public statements over the past years, their religious ferver just might be more than bluster and connivance. Then too, there is the question of their stability in power and how to maintain it.
In any event, should the Israelis gamble with the lives of their people on a bet that the Iranian leadership would or would not pull the trigger? There have been over six years of negotiations with Iran to stop their program. Talk has not worked and will not work.
I could also believe that with their currently-thought-to-be nuclear superiority, the Israelis might sooner or later decide to try for a silicon-fused and electronically- fried Iran to eliminate the threat, and the agonizing fears of virtually total annihilation of the Israeli people, once and for all. In fact, that approach might best be undertaken very soon now, if ever, before the retaliatory capabilities of Iran grow. Of all the surprises, this one appears to me to be the greatest that the Israelis might employ, since it condemns many Iranians to a nuclear holocaust, something Israelis would not decide to do lightly.
As for continuing to live with that nuclear sword over their heads for years, and with zero faith in MAD, I seriously doubt it would last for very long. The greater the pressure from Iran or its minions Hesbollah, Hamas and Syria on matters of land, water, trade, blockades, fences or other concessions, the more likely the ultimate response from Israel. Any lesser response might then be fatal to Israel as well.
From the US viewpoint, and from a stability of the ME view, a nuclear Iran is quite unacceptable. We must not allow the Iranians the option of holding our population centers hostage to their atomic threats while they pursue a lesser aggression in the ME, nor can we sit back and allow Iran to pass a nuclear device to a terrorist group. Thus, we have vital interest in stopping the Iranian nuclear program.
Labels: Iran, Nuclear Weapons, Terrorists, War
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Iran Versus Israel and the US
The key actor is Israel!
The crux of the Iranian situation is their pursuit of nuclear weapons, and the time it takes to marry the weapons with a suitable vehicle. We and the key Europeans have been pursuing the diplomatic approach for 5 or 6 years now, with virtually zero results.
Meanwhile under the sands of Iran is a growing pile of weapons grade material and launch vehicles that our intel projects to be ready anywhere from 6 months from now to 10 years away.
The intel we have is not reliable. That is the unfortunate truth, or else we would have a far better idea of the timing. We most likely do not have the time for a leasurely, multi-year diplomatic ploy now.
The second crucial element is Israel. I suggest that when their own intel tells them it is the critical time to stop Iran from further weapons development, they will attack Iran by air. For them it is a matter of survival, and they will ignore US attempts to stop them. To me, it is obvious that the US would not use military force to stop the Israelis.
Further, I suggest that the IAF will have to reduce Iran's air defenses before going after the nuclear sites, and that will include communications, command and control and airfield sites in order to limit the Iranian defenses seriously.
Some of the nuclear sites are carefully placed adjacent to or under population centers in order to guarantee civilian casualties in the event of attack. There will be many casualties publicized by the Iranians.
The third critical element is the question of what the US will do in this event? It has been stated by Iran officials that, if the Israelis do attack, they will go after the US as well around the world and in Iraq with their in-place supporters. This is no idle threat.
It seems logical to me that the US would respond to such attacks with full force on Iran, mainly by air, to ensure the destruction of nuclear sites, but also to reduce the shore-based missile sites that threaten the Gulf, and will by necessity reduce the Iranian air force and navy to near nothing.
I also suggest that US ground forces may well seek to capture and occupy the Western oilfields of Iran, and hope to draw the Iranian forces out into a pitched battle, which would be hugely in our favor. Without this crude oil for export, Iran will be destitute. They may also extend their occupation to Southern Iran to dig out any missile sites still operational.
Thus, our moral position would be global self-defense against Iran, and the reduction of the threat wherever found.
I suggest that once we have been attacked by Iran as threatened, the will to action would be no problem, and thus the means to "defend" ourselves would be found quickly.
This, to me, is a very likely scenario.
Labels: Iran, Israel, Nuclear Weapons
Tuesday, September 09, 2008
Talk-Talk
A recurring theme from the pacifist liberals is that we must talk to our enemies, talk some more, and then talk again. If that doesn't work, then we must talk some more. The usual quote is: Talk-Talk is better than War-War. We have been trying the Talk-Talk idea for many years to solve some knotty problems on the international scene, notably Iran and the NK and their nuclear ambitions, and Pakistan with its arsenal of nukes and turmoil in the government.
We have convened France, Germany, and Britain to go at Iran for over four years, with zip to report for progress, while the Iranians proceed with their development of nukes at a torrid pace.
We convened five nations--China, SK, Japan, Russia, and the US, to negotiate with the NK for them to halt their nuclear program. To date, the success of these talks has been abysmal, with the NK going ahead with their reactor program. this talk process has been going on since the Clinton Administration, with the only winner being the NK.
We have funneled billions of dollars to Pakistan to attempt to stabilize the government with a modicrum of democracy, and that nation is unravelling as we watch. Talks have not produced a single thing of importance, yet the danger of poorly guarded nuclear weapons in Pakistan is very clear. So is our supply line to Afghanistan across Pakistan in danger of being interdicted.
The time to talk has clearly passed for Iran. Their intrangency after these years of talking is well-documented. Iranian threats against the US and Israel are also well-documented. I had expected a more confrontational approach by Bush this year, but he seems to have backed off. The Israelis have been much more aggressive, but their current leadership is acting weak. Perhaps I am wrong, but it is my belief that after our election there will be a far greater pressure exerted on Iran to give up its nuclear weapons program, or else! They just might have two weeks to decide after November 2,, before we see hard action to deny them WMD.
There will be further negotiations with Pakistan in this period before the new president takes office in late January. If these talks do not succeed, there will be unilateral action by NATO and the US to 1) ensure our supply lines to Afghanistan; 2) to ensure that their nuclear weapons are under real security, and 3) to solve the AQ sanctuary problems and that our cross border attack rights into the tribal areas is approved. Again, with an "or else" attached, either directly or by strong implication.
The NK problem will most likely be left for the next president to work on.
Labels: Nuclear Weapons, Talk-Talk
Saturday, June 21, 2008
Attack on Iran
The time is short, and the Israelis are warming up.
Few believe the US intelligence report claiming that the Iranians have stopped their bomb preparations. This is especially true of the Israelis, who are in the direct line of attack by Iran. Their exercise last week underlines their capability to launch an an attack on the Iranian nuclear facilities on which they have good information. This may not be entirely successful because of the dispersion and secrecy of Iran's installations.
Last year, I was convinced that we would launch an attack this Spring, or at least well before the November elections. Obviously a wrong opinion. I was equally convinced that Israel would attack first, which would force us to join them sooner or later, especially after Iranian counterattacks. This may well be borne out to be so in the not too distant future.
Is it possible that the Israelis are holding off until our election is over, so that they know early in November who will be in the White House after January 20th of 2009? An attack now would possibly throw the election in a uncertain direction, to the disadvantage of the Israelis. They would be in far better shape with McCain in the White House, I believe, and I also believe that the Israelis have a much clearer idea of how much time they have before they are compelled to attack than we do.
Thus, I believe that an Obama win would delay the Israeli attack until they could find out what support they would get from Obama. Any whiffle from Obama would precipitate the attack anyway, since the Isrealis only have their nation to lose if Iraq gets nuclear bombs. The Israelis would then be counting on Iran to attack US targets in retaliation, thus dragging us into the conflict anyway.
What we will have if Obama is elected is not only a total passivistic, neophyte President in war and foreign relations, but we also will have lost the coordination and preparation time with Israel for this new phase of the ME war. This could expose both us and the Israelis to serious losses from Iranian attacks before we contained the threat, or knocked Iran out of the running.
Do we always have to play catch up?
Labels: Iran, Israel, McCain, Nuclear Weapons, Obama
