How Do You Rate the Chances of a Military Confrontation Between the US and Iran?

Here are more pics from Iran's air show:

Flying Boat

"Malek Ashtar University’s “Flying Boat” ground effect project. At least two prototypes have successfully been flown. It normally fles 0.5 to 4 metres above water, but a maximum 50m flight level is also possible. It enjoys a cruising speed of 140km/h"

Iran-140 Transport Plane

 

That is a model of the fighter version of the Shafagh that is being built.

When you become Iranian, you get a vote on what Iran should or should not do. For now, you worry about fixing your problems. Let Iranians worry about fixing their's.

 

BTW, here is an example of a model versus a prototype of trainer version of the Shafagh:

The Model Version of the Trainer


The Prototype


You can learn more about the Shafagh at globalsecurity.org:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/shafaq.htm

Besides the aircraft I have shown, there are numerous other projects Iran is working on. Iran's first fighter jet was produced in 1997, called the Azarakhsh. Those fighters are already in service. The next fighter jet produced by Iran was the Saeghe (also known as Azarakhsh II) which is pictures below in a test flight.

 

Stop being presumptuous. I am actually moving to Iran, not because of the nonsensical idea that if I lived here, my opinions about Iran would hold less water than folks who have no clue and no family in Iran. But because I had been flirting with the idea for a while, and made that decision a few months ago. Send me that ticket, I will take it.

Don't be presumptuous. You are not cultured nor liberal. Not by my definition. A true liberal is not going to want to dictate to others how they should live, be it in terms of some supposedly enlightened model in their mind or another one.

And don't mischaracterize my positions. If you have questions, ask. Because I don't recognize my positions in how you have described them.

 

The true liberal voice in Iran is not, for me, found either among the radical left, or certainly the radical right. The liberal voice of Iran was President Mohammad Khatami. Iran owes him a lot, even though he was attacked from his left and right, puncturing the once great coalition that had brought together divergent voices in Iran under an enligthened umbrella.

As he leaves office, giving his place to someone who was among those on the right frustrating his plans, I wish him the best. He is leaving his office with the same class and dignity he always carried himself. His successor has done things to allay some fears about what he has in mind for Iran, but while many of the fears appear now to have been overblown, the concerns are not. Concentration of power in any one faction is unhealthy, more so for a country whose power structure already needs reforms to bring greater balance to its system of checks and balances.

Here are two articles. One as Khatami prepares to leave office, and the other about his successor and the vision he has for Iran's future in foreign policy.

In the meantime, the president-elect of Iran:

 

There is plenty Iran can do. And the US knows it.

Indeed, at this moment, the US has one and only one chance left to be able to accomplish its plans. Today, the "weak link" in Iran is actually Khamenie who is ultmately as risk averse as any dicatorial leader. Khamenie has blinked before, and they believe he will blink again even with a good hand.

Since many Iranians have been blinking for a long time, with Khamenie blinking too, the US can get itself back into the game. The game is about puttting Iran on the defensive, work to destabilize it, and do the kind of things that would turn Iran into Iraq circa 1991-1992.

On the other hand, if Khamenie does not blink, it is over for the US. There is nothing the US can do that would make sense for the US.

Air strikes are not a solution to anything; they would merely hasten Iran becoming a nuclear power by removing the constraints tha now exist (namely the NPT). In the meantime, the world economy would pretty much sink given what will happen to oil prices, while the region would be in flames and American forces would be left vulnerable and in trouble. I don't see how the US would want to go down this road, unless it was sure Iran would not react. And it won't be sure unless Khamenie keeps blinking.

The US does not have any plans to actually invade Iran. Nor does it have the resources for such a move. Indeed, it won't even be able to muster the political will, leaving aside everything else.

The only thing the US can do to Iran is what it intends to do anyway, with or without Iran compromising. What the US intends to do is to make Iran isolated diplomatically, push to destabilize its regime, impose sanctions, and if Iran is playing the part, only then use air strikes to further contain and erode Iran's capabilities. In all this, the success of America's plan hinges on Iran blinking and cooperating while getting really nothing in return, except buying some time.

Iran, unlike N.Korea, is not a dictatorship. It is harder for Iran "not to blink" because naturally there are millions of Iranian apprehensive about all this, and there are business interests which prefer to believe there might be a 'solution' in negotiations. While I don't like much of anything else when it comes to the hardliners, the one potentially positive aspect of Ahamdinejad's presidency is that the advise Khamenie will get will not be adding to the pressures to blink more. Maybe, just maybe, that will get things to the point where the US will change its plans and at least adopt the true EU position? That position is aimed at making sure Iran does not get nukes, but otherwise taking care of all the other concerns from the regime including on regime change.

If not, the issue will be whether Iran continues to blink until it has nothing else to do but to blink? Or whether Khamenie (who talks as an anti-American, but who was totally scared in 2003 and showed it) can stand firm?

 

Kami jan, It goes beyond that. Air strikes work when Iran is blinking enough to let everyone what it has, where it has them, and shows it won't be reacting even if attacked.

Otherwise, the basic components that would allow Iran to build nuclear weapons can be hidden and taken out of the equation. As long as they are hidden, the US might be able to take out the very things that pose no "proliferation threat" (such as the Bushehr reactor) but they can't take out the things that can be hidden and which can actually produce the components for a nuclear bomb.

Iran has retaliatory options that are significant. It also has the ability to make the critical parts in its in nuclear weapons program invulnerable to attack by hiding them. And not disclosing their location.

It is all up to Iran whether the US can do anything against Iran or not. It is a game of chicken, and if Iran blinks as it has been blinking, then the US indeed can hurt Iran.

 

Nicephoras can act as an "arm chair" general, but his views have absolutely no basis in any military analysis relevant to Iran.

The "optimistic" military analysis about air strikes against Iran is provided in globalsecurity.org. I call it the "optimistic" military analysis because it discusses two of the 4 most serious drawbacks to this "solution" -- and resolves those by making decisions for Iran that only Iran can make.

Namely, it considers the fact that Iran might have kept some of its facilities secret. After all, a uranium enrichment facility necesary to build a bomb can be hidden in practically any basement in downtown Terhan or anywhere else without anyone outside knowing about it. The globalsecurity analysis however concludes, albeit tentatively, that Iran probably does not have such hidden facilities. Even if they are accurate in that assumption, it does not follow that Iran could not quickly build one up in case hostilities look imminent.

A secret facility cannot be taken out by air strikes, simply because it won't even be part of any "target list". On the other hand, bombing Iran would remove any constraints that exist for Iran not to develop nuclear weapons, allowing Iran to withdraw from the NPT and build such weapons in quick order.

On this very simple part ofthe equation, the only ones who can stop Iran making a nuclear bomb are Iran's own leaders. If they fall for the idea of letting the EU/IAEA and indirectly the US know everything about Iran's program, that will just make it that much easier for the US to bomb the program out of existence!

The other constraints on air strikes are how Iran reacts or retaliates? Since Iran will surely lose at the end of any major war with the US, the assumption is that Iran's "retaliation" will be limited. More in the form of causing problems for the US in Iraq. That assumption, however, is merely a wish. Iran's military doctrine specifically has taken into account the pressures that would arise to limit Iran's retaliatory moves, and has responded by contingency plans that provide for massive retaliation within minutes of an attack. That is public knowledge based on explicit comments by Iran's miltiary commanders and Defense Minister. And no person who knows a thing about military issues doubts that in case Iran retaliates, US bases and forces in the region, as well world energy supplies, are jeopardized due to their vulnerability to Iranian atacks.

Let me give this example. Iraq's nucelar program, after Israeli's strike on the Oserick reactor, went underground and was secret. Even after the massive US bombing campaign in Desert Storm, the world found out about that program only once Saddam agreed to the UN ceasfire resolutions and let inspectors into the country. What they discovered was a program unaffected by all the bombing, and perhaps only one year away from being able to build a bomb.

Ultimately, whether Iran gets to have a nuclear bomb or not is entirely up to Iran. That is the consensus of all expert opinion on the subject. The only thing the US can hope for is that Iran's leaders, trying to appease the EU/US do the very things that ironically would make an attack on Iran more likely and fruitful.

Iran shows the EU the finger, and ther eis nothing short of a nuclear war against Iran that anyone can do to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons. And then, hopefully, for the parties to return to the neogtiating table to hammer a genuine peace deal between Iran and the US.

 

No. We are talking apples and oranges. The US could not even take out Saddam puny Scud missile force despite massive bombings during Desert Storm. Iran can easily do extensive damage in retaliation to any US attack. It will lose at the end, but not before giving the US a huge bloody nose.

The only way you will know about them is if Iran lets you know about them. Unlike Bushehr and other reactors that aren't directly relevant to making a nucelar bomb, a centrifuge facility for making enough material for a few nukes can even be built in a basement of any large building.

Over time, yes. But it would take weeks, if not months. In the meantime, Iran will have done the damage it needs to do to make the cost of all this unreasonable for anyone to want to bear.

The reformers are not traitors. They are as committed to Iran's security and nuclear program as anyone else. Some of them differ on tactical issues with the hardliners, but frankly not by much.

The "1,000 people" who wanted to run! Yeah I am sure the aspring comics, the teenage girls, and the like, are going to be heading a major opposition force!

This part of your comments can be put in the category of nonsense.

The US does not have the forces to do what you suggest. Besides, if the US wanted any troops on the ground, it would go all the way to Tehran to force regime change. It won't have its forces sit there for Iran to attack.

I think the quarterbacking on these issues should be done by those a few ranks higher than a NCO. The analysis by US military commanders is what I rely upon in terms of discussing what the US would do, while I rely on Iran's military commanders to discuss what Iran would do.

Without occupying Iran, the US does not have the means to do any of what you suggest. Not unless Iran gives the US those things voluntarily, in a desperate hope of avoiding conflict. Ironically, the more it does that, the more likely it is that it will open up the country to US plans and designs.

Iran holds all the cards, but it has a major weak link. Khamenie, despite engaging in rhetorical anti-American propaganda, is ultimately very risk averse and has so far been blinking all the time. If he stops blinking, there is nothing that the US can do. Except change policies, and come to table looking for a fair deal to end the 26 years of hostilities between the two sides.

 

A "secret" facility that you know about is neither "secret" nor "hidden".

Iran knows what the US and Israel know, because the latter feed their information to the IAEA to have them inspect different places they want inspected.

On the other hand, the US and Israel do not know what Iran might have hidden. If Khamanie is half as "cagey" as he is reputed to be, the Israeli analysis that Iran has 3 programs is not off. The Israelis claim Iran has a civilian program, a military program that feeds from the civilian program, and another secret weapons program that is kept insulated from both those two programs.