Does Iran Want War?

[NATO AIR]

quite honestly, we don't know what they're thinking, and they may not know either.

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/64180.htm

April 9, 2006 -- THE most dangerous error we could make in our sharpening confronta tion with Iran is to con vince ourselves that its leaders will act rationally. Few wars are rooted in dispassionate analysis. Self-delusion sparks most such catastrophes.
The power brokers in Tehran may be on the verge of misjudging America's will and resources as profoundly as did the Japanese on Dec. 7, 1941, or al Qaeda on Sept. 11, 2001.

Stalin misread America's will when he acquiesced in the Korean Communist invasion of the south. So did Castro, when he imagined that he could impose a tyrannical regime on Grenada.

Saddam Hussein misread America, too. Twice. First, when he convinced himself that he could grab Kuwait with impunity, and, second, when he did his weapons-of-mass-destruction fan dance. (Bulletin for Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad: Don't play the I've-got-weapons-you'd-better-be-afraid-of card.)



Given that historical record, what should we expect of a radical-theocrat regime that has no serious grasp of American psychology, that rules an embittered populace it longs to excite and unify, and that believes it's literally on a mission from God?

IN recent weeks, Tehran has anxiously publicized its tests of surface-to-surface missiles, of air-to-ground missiles and even of torpedoes. The intended point is that, if the shooting starts, Iran can close the Strait of Hormuz to oil tankers - disrupting the global economy - while striking any other target between Israel and Afghanistan.

The crucial question is whether the Iranians are still playing at brinksmanship, hoping to spook us into passivity as they build nuclear weapons, or if they've already convinced themselves that a conflict with the United States is inevitable.

Given the closed nature of Iran's ruling clique, it's impossible to know. The most-probable situation is that differing factions within the leadership are at different stages of willingness for war, with some ready to fight and others fearful. Cooler heads may prevail - but "cooler heads" is a relative term in Tehran.

Have the inner-circle Iranian leaders replicated yesteryear's decision-making process of Osama bin Laden and his deputies in their Afghan camps - a hothouse atmosphere in which limited evidence was processed selectively and mutual-enablers convinced each other that a few attacks on American landmarks would drive Washington into a global retreat?

Have the Iranians failed to understand the real implications of 9/11? Do they believe that sinking a few oil tankers or even a U.S. Navy ship or two would drive us from the region? Has flawed, impassioned faith led to faulty geo-strategic calculations?

The most worrisome possibility is that they may have convinced themselves they can win.

FROM the Iranian perspec tive, it may appear that we're fully committed militarily - and they've probably wildly over-estimated the "anti-war" constituency in the U.S. Tehran certainly evidences no understanding of the depths of America's military resources, of our decision-making processes - or of NASCAR America's inevitable reaction to attacks on our Navy (or on the fuel supplies for our SUVs).

Whether or not President Ahmadinejad is a madman, he speaks like one. He has no past experience of global statecraft and no grasp of the different mental and moral structures of other civilizations. The extent to which his ability to calculate objectively has been suppressed by a psychological addiction to religious extremism remains an open question. But the portents look bleak.

What might the Iranians expect, if brinksmanship fails? Or from an impulsive leap from peace to war?

The extremists in Tehran actually may believe that they could win a military exchange, that they could stymie our Navy in the Gulf, interrupt oil exports and make any conflict so costly to us and to the world economy that we'd be forced to back down. They doubtless count on support from Beijing and Moscow - much as Saddam did.

Their calculations would be devastatingly wrong.

We can hope otherwise, but Iran's leaders may already have concluded that war is unavoidable - and even desirable, for religious, regional and domestic reasons. With Tehran pursuing nukes, parading its military, disrupting Iraq and issuing statements so rabid that they alarm even the regime's foreign backers, it's time to prepare for the worst.

SHOULD Tehran ignite a combat exchange, we need to ensure not only that Iran's nuclear-weapons program is crippled, but that its broader capabilities are shattered.

Militarily, it will be time for our Air Force to prove its worth, with the Navy in support. Iran's recent experience of conflict is of attrition-based land warfare. But there's no need for us to employ conventional ground forces inside Iran (special operations troops are another matter). We'll have to watch the Iraqi and Afghan borders, but our fight would be waged from the air and from the sea.

If we're pulled into war, we need to strike hard and fast - before Iran's allies can make mischief in international forums. We should destroy as much of Tehran's nuclear infrastructure as possible, eliminate its air force and air defenses and wreck its naval facilities beyond repair - no matter the collateral damage. The madmen in Tehran must pay an unbearable price.

The results within Iran would be unpredictable. Fiercely nationalistic, the country's core Persian population might unify behind the regime, setting back our hopes for an eventual rapprochement with a post-Islamist government.

Alternatively, the regime may be weaker than we think and could topple of its own weight. Or it may continue to muddle through miserably for years. Iran's military could remain loyal to the mullahs or, sufficiently battered, might turn upon them. We don't know what would happen because the Iranians themselves don't know. The variables and dynamics are simply incalculable.

BUT a half-hearted military response to Iranian aggres sion would only strengthen the confidence of our enemies and invite future confrontations.

We pulled too many punches in Operation Iraqi Freedom, and now we're paying the price. If Tehran drags us into war, we should make the conflict so devastating and painful that even our allies are stunned.

Ralph Peters' latest book is "New Glory: Expanding America's Global Supremacy."

 

[Dr Grump]

quite honestly, we don't know what they're thinking, and they may not know either.

Going into Iran would make Iraq look like the Teddy Bear's picnic...

 

[Gunny]

Going into Iran would make Iraq look like the Teddy Bear's picnic...

Perhaps. We thought the same thing about Iraq's vaunted Republican Guard too.

 

[BATMAN]

THE most dangerous error we could make in our sharpening confrontation with Iran is to convince ourselves that its leaders will act rationally.

I think the reason why there would be war is because they're not rational to begin with - thus the reason for not allowing them to get nukes.

 

[Semper Fi]

I think the reason why there would be war is because they're not rational to begin with - thus the reason for not allowing them to get nukes.

That irrationality mixed with vows to destroy all Jews and infidels surely yields a major theater war.

 

[Dr Grump]

Perhaps. We thought the same thing about Iraq's vaunted Republican Guard too.

Whole different kettle of fish....

 

[USMCDevilDog]

I would love to just have the Air Force and Navy demolish Iran from afar and laugh at them with pointed fingers when they realize what kinda shit they got into.

Either way, when it all boils down, World War 3 is probably gonna happen in atleast my lifetime. All this "Anti-America/Democracy" and "Kill all infidel" shit is getting outta hand and it will only be a matter of time until some leader can round up a strong enough army or whatever to cause a major war. Plus we got N. Korea and China ready to hit the U.S.

I kinda think that the U.S. gov't is forgetting that with great power, comes great responsibility and as the greatest world power, we're all the most hated...

 

[manu1959]

Whole different kettle of fish....

bomb them from 10,000 feet and send no troops ....

 

[Dr Grump]

bomb them from 10,000 feet and send no troops ....

It would have to be nukes. Dunno why America would go after them. They have shown no inclination to take over other countries. They have enough internal problems. Their current leader doesn't help the situation, but he's full of hot air IMO...

 

[manu1959]

It would have to be nukes....

no it wouldn't take nukes....

They have shown no inclination to take over other countries.

..they have threatened to wipe israel off the face of the earth....

0 for 2

 

[Dr Grump]

no it wouldn't take nukes....

Yeah it would. As I said, Iran is a whole different kettle of fish to Iraq.

..they have threatened to wipe israel off the face of the earth....

As I said, hot air and empty rhetoric.

 

[GotZoom]

We took care of Libya without nukes.

We could easily take care of Iran without nukes.

 

[Semper Fi]

Any country using nukes would pitch the world against them, us included. It would just take an overwhelming shock and awe campaign from 30,000 and naval barrages for 48 hours straight for them to give up. just watch. The American military is a machine that can destroy a whole lot more than was demonstrated in Iraq, without even splitting an atom.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Whole different kettle of fish....

woah....deep.....

 

[Dr Grump]

woah....deep.....

For you? Having read some of your posts over the past couple of days, I'd have to agree with your summation... :baby4:

 

[USMCDevilDog]

Please don't turn this damn thread into another arguement about who's dumber.

I just wanna know if we're gonna kill Iran, please? Can we! Can we!

 

[Bonnie]

quite honestly, we don't know what they're thinking, and they may not know either.

I think it comes down to an insane terrorist leader who really doesn't care what outcome he brings down on his country as long as he is seen as a martyr. He has for the last several months been openly taunting the rest of the world. Not much rational to that.

 

[Bonnie]

Yeah it would. As I said, Iran is a whole different kettle of fish to Iraq.



As I said, hot air and empty rhetoric.

So your suggesting we just sit back and wait???

 

[ekrem]

Any country using nukes would pitch the world against them, us included. It would just take an overwhelming shock and awe campaign from 30,000 and naval barrages for 48 hours straight for them to give up. just watch. The American military is a machine that can destroy a whole lot more than was demonstrated in Iraq, without even splitting an atom.

Yes you are right. USA is very very potent. But you have to come with plans that are not wrong plans as it was in some cases to troop amount in Iraq.
Bombing Iran from 10.000 meters will not stop Iranians from flocking into Iraq. There are anyway Shiites who will then try to kill you not from 10.000 Meter above, but from 3 meters in your back.

It seems that there will be an inevitable war where much damage will occur beyond Iran's boarders.
Unless you don't hit Mullah-Regime in Air-strikes you have to go in.
It is dependent on what US is wanting?
Bombing nuclear facilities, overthrow Mullahs?

 

[Semper Fi]

Yes you are right. USA is very very potent. But you have to come with plans that are not wrong plans as it was in some cases to troop amount in Iraq.
Bombing Iran from 10.000 meters will not stop Iranians from flocking into Iraq. There are anyway Shiites who will then try to kill you not from 10.000 Meter above, but from 3 meters in your back.

It seems that there will be an inevitable war where much damage will occur beyond Iran's boarders.
Unless you don't hit Mullah-Regime in Air-strikes you have to go in.
It is dependent on what US is wanting?
Bombing nuclear facilities, overthrow Mullahs?

I believe Iraq was/is a success, let me just get that on the table. However, things could have been better. For instance, locals were allowed to keep one rifle per male in their home. It doesnt matter if its one rifle or 100 rifles, it's still bullets to fly.

My solution is outlawing weapons in Iran, after we invade, provided that it will involve boots on the ground. Failproof plan. If someone has a rifle or a weapon they die, that takes care of three things: 1 less Muslim in the world, 1 more living soldier, and no more "is he a threat?" cases.

Because the focus on Iran wouldn't be to topple the government and hold their hands for a while, I would say boots on the ground would not be necessary. Bombers and fighters 30,000 feet and US warships lining the coast is the best medicine for Iran. I'm not talking wimpy stuff, either.

The Muslim people, I have been told, respect power. That is what our military is. If we show them the full force what the US Navy and Air Force have to offer, the odds of them backing down would be far greater than just hitting select targets with smart bombs.