Attack on Iran: Two Strategic Strikes One Waiting in the Wings

[kotzabasis]

In my opinion, if Iran is going to be attacked either by the US or Israel or both the strategic planning of the attack would be made up with two strikes. The first one would be to attack Iran with a devastating “rain” of conventional weapons that would target not only its nuclear plants but also its civilian, military, and religious leadership with the aim of decimating them. If however, its triangular leadership miraculously escapes its destruction and retaliates either against the naval and land forces of the US or Israel or any of the other Gulf States, then such retaliatory action by Iran would call a second strike executed either by Israel or the US with nuclear weapons. And it’s in this dual strike, if it becomes evident to the Iranian leadership of American or Israeli determination and resolve to use their powerful armaments against Iran, that a real possibility exists of a palace revolt among its leadership that would oust the radicals and replace them with moderates who would be prone to accept the international community’s demand that Iran ceases the enrichment of uranium.

http://kotzabasis11.wordpress.com

[The Reaper]

No way any nation is going to pop a nuke against Iran except POSSIBLY in retaliation.

I also believe that when targeting, we should avoid civilian casualties and go for their critical nuclear infrastructure, Air Defense, and C2 nodes.

Just my .02.

TR

[Richard]

Originally Posted by The Reaper

No way any nation is going to pop a nuke against Iran except POSSIBLY in retaliation.

I also believe that when targeting, we should avoid civilian casualties and go for their critical nuclear infrastructure, Air Defense, and C2 nodes.

Just my .02.

TR

Concur. Iran certainly does not rate such an option. And with the quality/variety of our conventional munitions inventory today and unparallelled ability to deliver them, it would be a difficult 'sell' to anyone to use a nuclear weapon - unless, as our national policy has stated for decades - it is in direct response to a nuclear attack.

One has to remember - in the world of nuclear gamesmanship, the key elements are (1) possession, (2) delivery capability, and (3) national will to use them...and in the relatively brief history of nuclear armaments - only America has actually demonstrated to the world that it does possess all three of those elements. The world knows this.

A piece of fiction - but Clancey's Sum of All Fears does give an interesting scenario which thoughtfully covers some of the complexities such a decision might entail in that particular part of the planet. A word of advice - read the book - the movie's a POS.

Richard's $.02

[afchic]

IMHO we are not going to get involved in this, tactically. Isreal will take care of whatever it sees as a threat against it. I think it is quickly coming to the point, that even if we don't agree with Israel and their plans, they are going to go ahead and do it anyway.

I honestly don't think there will be the "Muslim Outrage" many foresee, as far as governements are concerned. I believe there are many Middle Eastern nations that would be more than happy to see the Iranian nuclear program destroyed (don't see that happening) or at least delayed by a few years.

[Red Flag 1]

Originally Posted by afchic

IMHO we are not going to get involved in this, tactically. Isreal will take care of whatever it sees as a threat against it. I think it is quickly coming to the point, that even if we don't agree with Israel and their plans, they are going to go ahead and do it anyway.

I honestly don't think there will be the "Muslim Outrage" many foresee, as far as governements are concerned. I believe there are many Middle Eastern nations that would be more than happy to see the Iranian nuclear program destroyed (don't see that happening) or at least delayed by a few years.

Concur. The question will be how much US support will Isreal see?. The second question is what role will Putin play in this?



RF 1

[Blitzzz (RIP)]

I've been watching the Israeli nation being under continual missile attacks. I was wondering what thoughts were out there on Israel defending small border towns with "Phalanx" or "GoalKeeper" anti missile systems.
Seems cheeper than missile batteries and each town could be defended with one or two of these mounted on platforms. Goal keeper is 30mm. Don't know the effective ranges.
Dave

[Defender968]

Originally Posted by Richard

Concur. Iran certainly does not rate such an option. And with the quality/variety of our conventional munitions inventory today and unparallelled ability to deliver them, it would be a difficult 'sell' to anyone to use a nuclear weapon - unless, as our national policy has stated for decades - it is in direct response to a nuclear attack.

One has to remember - in the world of nuclear gamesmanship, the key elements are (1) possession, (2) delivery capability, and (3) national will to use them...and in the relatively brief history of nuclear armaments - only America has actually demonstrated to the world that it does possess all three of those elements. The world knows this.

A piece of fiction - but Clancey's Sum of All Fears does give an interesting scenario which thoughtfully covers some of the complexities such a decision might entail in that particular part of the planet. A word of advice - read the book - the movie's a POS.

Richard's $.02

I concur with you that we as a country DID have and display all the elements you described, but I'm not sure we still do, specifically the national will.

I would also argue that Iran will not play the same type of gamesmanship that you described above, mutually assured destruction will work on a Soviet Union, China, or even N. Korea but I don't think it will on Iran. I think it was from the movie the Peacemaker, but the theory is sound IMO, specifically of not fearing the nation with 100 Nukes, but rather the nation with only 1.

Personally I don't think we will go nuclear unless the weapon that strikes the US is on a missile that was tracked from a country and even then I'm not sure our leaders will have the stones, not to mention I doubt that will be the way we will get hit, if and when it happens. My personal feeling is that Iran will move to use their weapon shortly after it is operational, but not on top of a missile, that would take too much time as they would not only have to develop the weapon but also the delivery system. I think it's much more likely they will ship it to us one way or another through our very porous border or just use it on Israel, I think they'll hand it off to a quote on quote third party and it'll get popped, then they'll fabricate a story about it being stolen and our leaders will scold them and shake fingers and go to the UN for sanctions, but under those conditions I personally don't see us retaliating in kind at all.

I truly hope I'm wrong, but given the events of the last week and more importantly our leader’s reactions to those events I think it's just a matter of time.

Just my .02

[The Reaper]

Originally Posted by Defender968

I concur with you that we as a country DID have and display all the elements you described, but I'm not sure we still do, specifically the national will.

I would also argue that Iran will not play the same type of gamesmanship that you described above, mutually assured destruction will work on a Soviet Union, China, or even N. Korea but I don't think it will on Iran. I think it was from the movie the Peacemaker, but the theory is sound IMO, specifically of not fearing the nation with 100 Nukes, but rather the nation with only 1.

Personally I don't think we will go nuclear unless the weapon that strikes the US is on a missile that was tracked from a country and even then I'm not sure our leaders will have the stones, not to mention I doubt that will be the way we will get hit, if and when it happens. My personal feeling is that Iran will move to use their weapon shortly after it is operational, but not on top of a missile, that would take too much time as they would not only have to develop the weapon but also the delivery system. I think it's much more likely they will ship it to us one way or another through our very porous border or just use it on Israel, I think they'll hand it off to a quote on quote third party and it'll get popped, then they'll fabricate a story about it being stolen and our leaders will scold them and shake fingers and go to the UN for sanctions, but under those conditions I personally don't see us retaliating in kind at all.

I truly hope I'm wrong, but given the events of the last week and more importantly our leader’s reactions to those events I think it's just a matter of time.

Just my .02

I agree.

The only reason to launch a single weapon against the U.S. on a ballistic missile is to gain the altitude needed for an EMP burst, with which one could take out half the electric grid of the US for years.

Any ground use will almost certainly be smuggled into the U.S. via any one of a number of means (ala Tom Clancy's novel), and will be anonymous to avoid the retribution of the ever shrinking U.S. nuclear arsenal.

It would be relatively easy to shut down commerce and panic the populace of this country with a determined team of a dozen or so individuals and a small amount of financing. No, we are not going to discuss the details here.

I hope that when it happens (and I think it will in the not too distant future as we dismantle our GWOT capabilities), the American people remember it longer than they appear to have remembered 9/11, and we regain the resolve necessary to bring Hell to our enemies who wish to destroy us.

My .02 as well.

TR

[Richard]

I truly hope I'm wrong, but given the events of the last week and more importantly our leader’s reactions to those events I think it's just a matter of time.

Ever seen a weasel when it gets backed into a corner?

Richard's $.02