I am sure you all have followed it. From Panetta’s threats about Iran crossing a “red line”, to the saber-rattling of pretty much all the Republicans except Ron Paul, to the Israel’s lobby renewed efforts to get the US to not only impose illegal sanctions against Iran, but to actually attack it.
So is this really going to happen?
Last time it appeared that Iran was about to be attacked – in 2007 – I wrote a piece entitled “Iran’s asymmetrical response options” in which I took a look at the various forms a US/Israel attack could take and what Iran could do about it. While this analysis is still basically correct, the circumstances have changed rather dramatically in several key aspects since 2007.
First and foremost, the US has withdrawn the bulk of its forces from Iraq and has consolidated its remaining forces. This means that not only will the Iranians have far fewer targets to attack inside Iraq, it also means that the most exposed lines of resupply through the Basra region have now been abandoned. This is huge.
Second, with the withdrawal of the bulk of the US forces from Iraq, there are more troops available for operations against Iran.
Third, the US Air Force does not have to play its role of “airborne protector” of US troops in Iraq, meaning that its assets are now available for other operations.
Fourth, NATO, the eternal slave of the USA, is now heavily involved in Afghanistan and that, in turn, means that NATO assets are also available for any US attack on Iran. You can count on the likes of Sarkozy to send 10-20 Rafales to attack Iran just to prove that France is a “great” country…
Bottom line: the US is far better positioned to attack Iran in 2012 than it was in 2007.
Unlike many other analysts, I do not believe that Iran has the capability to block the Strait of Hormuz. Or let me put it this way: yes, Iran can sink a number of ships in and around the Strait of Hormuz, but the USA does have the means to wrestle the control of this strait back from the Iranians by force.
Worse, should the Iranians attempt to block the Strait of Hormuz it would give the USA a perfect pretext to wage war on Iran under the guise of “guaranteeing the freedom of navigation and commerce in international waters” and “not letting the Mullah’s take the rest of the planet hostage”. Frankly, I hope that the Iranians will be smart enough not to fall into this trap.
Iran would have the option of attacking US forces in Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and other countries, but the problem with that is that this could be presented by the Imperial corporate media as a “Shia attack against the Sunni”. My personal opinion is that as long as the USA and Israel attack Iran the majority of the Muslim world will see that as an infidel attack on the Muslim ummah, but any Iranian counter-attack on US basis in majority Sunni countries will inevitably rekindle sectarian tensions, much to the advantage of the USraelian Empire.
As for the “raining missiles down on Israel” option, I did not like it in 2007 and I still don’t like it. I oppose symbolic military operations on principle. Militarily speaking, hitting back with missiles at Israel will bring no advantage to Iran, so what is the point?
Frankly, I believe that the best option for Iran is to simply ride out the attack and make the USA and Israel pay a painful political price for their attack. After all, how much damage can the USA and Israel really inflict on Iran?
The Zionists (US and Israeli) can definitely hit a large section of the Iranian civilian and research nuclear program. And it can be rebuilt.
More painfully, the Zionists might use this strike to kill a number of key Iranian scientists. Such scientists are far more precious than any installation and I hope that Iran will do a better job protecting them than it did in the past (many have been killed in assassinations).
No doubt, the Zionists are capable of destroying a large part of the Iranian air defense system and several key naval ships (surface and submarines).
Finally, we can count on the Zionists to attempt to kill key members of the Iranian leadership, but considering similar efforts in the past (Nasrallah, Saddam), they are unlikely to succeed in this effort.
Now, if the Iranians strike back it will give the Zionists an excuse for a much more sustained campaign. But if the Iranians only reply with political measures, it will make it much more difficult for the Zionists to sustain and air strikes campaign similar to what they did in Kosovo or Libya.
Anyway, whatever option Iran chooses a Zionist attack on Iran is inevitable. Not because anybody in Israel or the USA seriously believes that Iran is building a nuclear weapon, but because both countries have gone far to far in their rhetoric and saber-rattling. Not to strike at Iran at this point in time is tantamount to surrender.
Don’t be deceived and mislead by all the rational arguments against a strike on Iran. Remember that these are the folks who brought you two of the most embarrassing military defeats in modern history (Lebanon in 2006 and Georgia in 2008), which have lost the war in Iraq, are loosing the war in Afghanistan and which are now elated by their apparent ‘victory’ against Libya. They are evil enough to do 9/11 and stupid enough to deploy anti-missile systems in Eastern Europe!
So make no mistake, the attack on Iran will happen, sooner or later.
The Saker
Thanks, Saker. I disagree about sectarian tensions if Iran attacks US bases in the Gulf. Quite the contrary, I think most of the Sunni world would be in favor.
Another question, Saker. I may have asked it before, but could Iran seriously hinder SoH traffic by firing simple Katyusha rockets into the shipping lanes? They have plenty of hilly high ground overlooking the straights. The missiles are dirt cheap, and while highly inaccurate, they can fire huge salvos into the lanes. Also, keep in mind that they would not be targeting one ship randomly in the ocean. The tankers in the straights are like bumper to bumper traffic on the highway.
It seems to me that that would dissuade a lot of commercial tankers from traveling, even if no ships were actually sunk. Or at least make insurance prohibitive.
Also, could Iran target Saudi oil facilities? I’m not suggesting they should, but having the capability could prevent the US from escalating further.
Lastly, 200K NATO troops in Afghanistan are dependent entirely on two very shaky supply. Pakistan, which seems to have lost a lot of patience with the US. And the Northern distribution network, dependent on Russian good will, and hard to navigate in the best of times.
It seems to me that the US would not launch an attack on Iran if it felt someone could pull the rug out from under them in Afghanistan. They would need real assurance in advance. Otherwise Afghanistan can quickly go from being a Vietnam to becoming a Stalingrad.
What do you think?
P.S. there is one other difference now than in 2007. There is a serious global financial crisis that could (and probably will) truly become epic. And the Eurozone is at serious risk of breakup.
Now this does not mean they wont do something stupid, but I think it would reduce their tolerance for the pain Iran could inflict if it can even partially hinder SoH traffic.
P.P.S. Can US commanders be ***SURE*** that they can reopen the straights? Because it could be rather awkward if they start a war only to discover that they can’t.
@Lysander:
I disagree about sectarian tensions if Iran attacks US bases in the Gulf. Quite the contrary, I think most of the Sunni world would be in favor.
And you might well be right. The ability of the Empire to use the Sunni as a weapon against the Shia make me fear that this will happen again, but I hope that you are right.
but could Iran seriously hinder SoH traffic by firing simple Katyusha rockets into the shipping lanes?
No. In fact, the Iranians have far better weapons that multiple rocket launchers, but the USAF can turn the Iranian cost of the Straight of Hormuz “into a parking lot” as the like to say. Again, I am not saying that the Iranians cannot disrupt or temporarily shut down the Straight of Hormuz – they can – but that the USA will have the ability to beat them back and reopen it.
Also, could Iran target Saudi oil facilities?
Easily. By air, sea, rockets or even special ops. But the retaliation on Iran would be formidable.
Also, keep in mind that if/when the Iranians attempt to shut down the Strait of Hormuz and target Saudi Arabia they will have very little to deter a further sustained US operation against Iran now in the name of “protecting the world’s supply of oil”. Not something you want to hand to the USA.
200K NATO troops in Afghanistan are dependent entirely on two very shaky supply.
Very true. But, if needed, the USA will yield to Russia over the anti-ballistic missile system in Europe to keep these forces resupplied.
It seems to me that the US would not launch an attack on Iran if it felt someone could pull the rug out from under them in Afghanistan
But, Lysander, you are assuming that the US is a rational actor, not an Israeli colony unable to stand up to the Israel lobby over anything. Remember, US President Obama got 25 standing ovations in Congress, whereas Netanyahu got 29!
there is one other difference now than in 2007. There is a serious global financial crisis that could (and probably will) truly become epic. And the Eurozone is at serious risk of breakup.
Indeed. That is why the Empire needs a “good war” even more than before. Nevermind that it cannot pay for it, that is already the case with the present wars and nobody seems to care.
Can US commanders be ***SURE*** that they can reopen the straights? Because it could be rather awkward if they start a war only to discover that they can’t.
Nothing is sure in war. Nothing. But I would bet my money on the USAF and USN on this one any day. But yes, I might be missing something, possibly something obvious. I just don’t see what at this point.
Cheers!
indeed it looks like the US is determined to attack iran, insane as that is. it can only be to protect the US dollar.
the new egypt will want to support iran. just how much clout the people and their new president/parliament will have is an unknown.
what will russia/china do?
I have felt for a long time that if the Iranians won’t hand the US an opportunity (pretext) for an attack then the Iraelis will in the form of a USS Liberty-style false-flag attack.
Why hasn’t the above proven true?
Has our exposure in Iraq been the peace-maker (irony intended)?
Now that our situation in Iraq has changed – as you describe – what can be done to thwart a treacherous false-flag attack?
How far out on a limb would the Russians be willing to go?
(Help me with this, thanks.)
If the Russians are “escorting” our ships in the Gulf Of Oman, etc, could the Russians not attempt a Gambit?
A false-flag would be like a match thrown into a tinderbox. The fog of war would make it difficult to impossible to determine who (if we, the US, even wanted to!) was actually responsible for the mine or torpedo that damaged our ship.
The US is likely to “counter-attack” against Iran almost immediately.
What would be critical is that there be some hours or days for a “cool-down” period, so that saner heads (if they exist) can prevail.
If the Russians IMMEDIATELY took responsibilty, in a Gambit, for the attack upon the US ship (!!) (bear with me), then an attack upon Iran could be diverted.
An instantaneous, world-wide communique to all foreign embassies that a rogue Russian commander had fired without authorization upon the US ship and that the commander had already been seized and arrested, and other Russian ships were converging to take control of the rogue Russian ship – could this work? Could this create enough of a cool-down period to control the situation?
Blast away.
Thanks for writing this, VS. A couple of things:
1. I don’t think a Zionist attack is so inevitable, at least not in the short term. There is no unanimity among zionists themselves about the wisdom of such an attack, neither in the Zionist Regime nor in the US. Add to that the strong resistance in parts of the US military establishment to such an attack. But I would say a 40% chance in the coming year, a marked increase over previous years, in part for reasons that you discuss.
2. Although Iran’s Strait-of-Hormuz tough talk may be part bluster, I think it is virtually certain that Iran will not take an attack lying down. They have been preparing for an attack for ten years, and especially the last seven. I am no military expert but I sense an intelligent confidence — as opposed to stupid confidence a la Saddam etc — on Iran’s part that they can actually hurt the US militarily.
What do you think of the drone Iran recently captured? Is it really possible that Iran hacked it and brought it down? If that’s true, Iran may be more advanced than its enemies and other analysts give it credit for.
Anyway, thnx and
Peace
Ishamid,
Iran, whether it wants the role or not, is the defender of the entire “ummah” both Shia’ and Sunni. If Iran fell, we cam look forward to decades of overt colonialism.
The US is now placing actual troops in Israel.
“Israel, US to hold largest ever missile defense exercise this spring; thousands of US soldiers will be deployed in Israel.
Israel is moving forward with plans to hold the largest-ever missile defense exercise in its history this spring amid Iranian efforts to obtain nuclear weapons.
Last week, Lt.-Gen. Frank Gorenc, commander of the US’s Third Air Force based in Germany, visited Israel to finalize plans for the upcoming drill, expected to see the deployment of several thousand American soldiers in Israel.
The drill, which is unprecedented in its size, will include the establishment of US command posts in Israel and IDF command posts at EUCOM headquarters in Germany – with the ultimate goal of establishing joint task forces in the event of a large-scale conflict in the Middle East.
The US will also bring its THAAD (Terminal High Altitude Area Defense) and shipbased Aegis ballistic missile defense systems to Israel to simulate the interception of missile salvos against Israel.”
http://www.jpost.com/Defense/Article.aspx?id=250249
This is not a sign of peaceful times.
Saker, just thought of another question: From where would the US attack? I’m not convinced any of the Gulf States would agree to host a US attack. They would risk real painful retaliation from Iran, such as destruction of oil refineries. I don’t think they would risk it.
So, assuming the US is denied a base in the gulf to attack from, from where would they launch the attack?
To do so from AFghanistan would require cooperation from both Russia and Pakistan, which I don’t think they would get.
That leaves the carriers and Diego Garcia. If those are their only available platforms, I don’t think they will be able to unload their maximum firepower. If Serbia, which is much smaller, more vulnerable than Iran, and without any means of retaliation could hold out for 78 days, I think Iran could do much better.
Et les elections qui arrivent bientot?
Combien de pays vont gueuler si les Americains coupent le detroit d’Hormuz?
Bonne annee!!!
@Lysander:From where would the US attack? I’m not convinced any of the Gulf States would agree to host a US attack. They would risk real painful retaliation from Iran, such as destruction of oil refineries. I don’t think they would risk it.
Oh but Gulf States are not Turkey, they won’t get to even peep if Uncle Shmuel decides to go to war with Iran. Besides, if the Israelis strike first and the Iranians retaliate, Uncle Shmuel will have the hyper-pious pretext of saving the “Only Democracy in the Middle-East and Our Eternal Ally, the Jewish State of Israel With Its Undivided Capital Jerusalem” from “another Holocaust of 6 million of Jews” while “protecting the World from the Mullah’s attempts to threaten it with nuclear weapons” and while “keeping open the shipping lanes vital for our planet’s prosperity”, etc. etc. etc. You get the idea…
The reality is that the Gulf States are a Western creation, whose sole purpose is to make darn sure that the oil refineries belong to the Lord and Master of the Middle-East: the USA.
@Snoopy de DELL:Combien de pays vont gueuler si les Americains coupent le detroit d’Hormuz?
B’un pour commencer, c’est pas les ricains qui vont couper de detroit d’Hormuz, mais les Iranians, ce faisant ils vont laisser le beau role aux ricains de ce battre pour le maintenir ouvert. En plus, les pays peuvent gueuler tant qu’ils veulent, mais le seul pays qui compte pour les ricains c’est Israel, le reste ils s’en tapent totalement. Souviens-toi de la guerre contre Saddam – toute la planete etait contre et les ricains en avaient rien a foutre – le lobby Israelien etait pour, et c’est ca qui compte…
Bonne annee a toi aussi :-)
a+
@Ishamid: Although Iran’s Strait-of-Hormuz tough talk may be part bluster, I think it is virtually certain that Iran will not take an attack lying down. They have been preparing for an attack for ten years, and especially the last seven. I am no military expert but I sense an intelligent confidence — as opposed to stupid confidence a la Saddam etc — on Iran’s part that they can actually hurt the US militarily.
And you might well be right. Full disclosure: I am not a naval expert (my main expertise lies in operational art in land warfare and force planning). And I also sense what you are referring as “intelligent confidence”. In my 2007 article (vs) I write in the conclusions
“In conclusion we can see that Iran would not have to proactively do anything to make the Empire pay for an short and limited attack. Riding out the attack and letting the Neocons pay the political price for their folly would be the most likely Iranian response. In case of a long term major Imperial war against Iran, the Iranians would have a broad variety of “asymmetrical” options from which to choose, none of which would involve shutting down the Strait of Hormuz or chasing US aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf. In any scenario, time would always be on the Iranian side while the Empire would very rapidly run out of options to try force an acceptable outcome. This lack of a viable “exit strategy” would rapidly force the time-pressed Imperial High Command to consider the use of nuclear weapons to avoid getting bogged down in a rapidly worsening situation. Any actual use of nuclear weapons would result into a general collapse of the entire Neocon empire of a magnitude similar to the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. In other words, there are no possible winning strategies for an Imperial aggression against Iran.”
and I still believe that this is fundamentally true. The fact that the Empire is in a better position to strike at Iran in 2012 than it was in 2007 does in no way imply that it is in a good position to do so, or that it can prevail.
In fact, the Iranians might well decide to play a game of chicken with the USA and respond vigorously to a limited strike with the deliberate aim to force the USA to commit more time and forces with the hope to bring down the entire US policy in the Middle-East while possibly even using Hezbollah and even Syria to begin a *big* war with Israel (something which Hassan Nasrallah has mentioned several times). I hope that they do not follow that path as it is always very dangerous to “misunderestimate” (as Dubya liked to say) your opponent. Any move by Iran which would push the West, NATO and Israel into one corner – thereby uniting them – would be, IMHO, ill advised.
Confidence is good. Over-confidence is bad.
The best thing to do to bring down the US-Israeli Empire is to slowly but surely “corrode” it on all fronts, without really offering a good target to its wrath. This is exactly what Iran has been doing since Ayatollah Ali Khamenei came to power and I very much hope that this is the strategy they will stick to.
Saker, in keeping with your second comment, Iran’s best response to an Israeli strike is to seize the opportunity to withdraw from the NPT. That’s it. Maybe they can fire a few missiles in token retaliation but nothing more.
It would be hard to use either of those as a credible pretext for an American attack. And withdrawing from the NPT would be a huge political factor.
Regarding the gulf states and their puppet nature, just assuming for the sake of argument that they manage to resist pressure to be used as a base, would the US have enough platforms to conduct the kind of air campaign it needs to without them without them?
@Regarding the gulf states and their puppet nature, just assuming for the sake of argument that they manage to resist pressure to be used as a base, would the US have enough platforms to conduct the kind of air campaign it needs to without them without them?
Yes. The USN has a huge amount of aircraft potentially available on carriers, and the USAF has plenty of aircraft too. Add to this long range cruise missiles for the suppression of Iranian air defenses, and long range bombers based not only in Diego Garcia, but even in the continental USA, and you get a very large strike force. As for support (AWACS & refueling) they can be based in the secret US airfields in KSA, Turkey, and probably even in Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan and, potentially, Azerbaijan.
Believe me, the Americans truly excel at the coordinated use of this kind of decentralized network of resources. Besides, the US Army and Marine Corps is one thing, but the USN and, especially, the USAF is a totally different kind of organization, far more capable, flexible, and powerful. To underestimate the capabilities of the USAF is a mistake that nobody should ever make.
Here is the most important factor of all:
The way to defeat the US military machine is what the Serbs did in Kosovo and what Hezbollah did in Lebanon: deny them a lucrative target
I strongly believe that the Iranians should follow this maybe not externally ‘heroic’ or ‘macho’ tactic, but by far the most effective and cheap one.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/01/06/the-stolen-war/
Uri Avnery argues here (and elsewhere) that the chance of a war with Iran is zilch. He also takes the power of Iran to close the Straits of H seriously. What do you think of his arguments, Saker?
Still interested in your thoughts on the drone too, if any :-)
Peace
A few random thoughts thrown out there….
If Iran has all these hardened missle launching pads in the mountains, can’t they easily sink most carrier battle groups in the immediate area…. at least in the initial salvo? Is the US anti missle stuff as good as the hype?
If no carrier battle groups, that would then leave maybe Kuwait, Iraq, or even Saudi Arabia as a destination to launch retaliatory aircraft. All within range of Iranian commandos, and missles. And as stated, it risks drawing the host nation in.
Second, by placing US troops in israel, doesn’t that kind of act as a sacrifice? If Hezbollah launches missles, and they kill US soldiers, will that then draw us into Lebannon? Israel sure as hell couldn’t do the job last time themselves.
Also, I saw mentioned that Iran should just let the empire die a slow death… and I would like to see this result. I think the empire would prefer to see WW3 though. I heard that one of Iran’s oil refineries got blown up. Yet they downplayed it. How much infrastructure and covert attacks do they put up with before deciding enough is enough? Sometimes it’s better to fight on a date of your time and choosing, rather then letting your enemy decide.
Great post and commentary
-AAA
@Ishamid: I very much disagree with Avnery, in particular when he says “Such a war would go far beyond the dimensions of the American invasions of Iraq or Afghanistan, perhaps even of Vietnam”
Is he seriously suggesting that the US cannot flatten an relatively small area like the one around the Strait of Hormuz? Even ‘boots on the ground’ would be limited in number and area of deployment if they are well supported from the land and sea. Also, the US carriers have no need to get anywhere near Iran to strike, so forget the “small missile boats” and “missile” threats.
Closing the Strait of Hormuz would not be the ultimate weapon, but the ultimate mistake which would unite the planet behind the USA. I don’t like the “invincible US Navy” any more than Avnery does, but I do not delude myself about its capabilities because of that…
As for the drone, it proves very little. Assuming the Iranian account of its interception is true (and I believe it is), the most likely way they achieved that was by messing with the GPS signal and it is a remarkable feat if so. But that does not prove that Iran can compete with the USA in electronic warfare, encryption, or anything else for that matter. The USA *is* a superpower with something pretty close to “full spectrum dominance”, and Iran is only a *regional* power. The technological gap between these two nations is still huge.
Of course, I might be missing something and, in fact, I very much hope and pray that I do. So all my comments here come with the usual caveat: “as far as I can tell”. I have been out of professional military analysis for already 15 years and that is a long time. And, as I mentioned earlier, I am not a naval warfare specialist to begin with. So take everything I say here with a couple of pounds for salt :-)
@AAA: If Iran has all these hardened missle launching pads in the mountains, can’t they easily sink most carrier battle groups in the immediate area…. at least in the initial salvo?.
Nope. In fact, the Iranians won’t even know where the carriers are other than “within range of US carrier aviation” or “close enough to hit us” that is, and that is a big big area. It is really hard to hit, nevermind sink, a carrier, and the Iranians do not have the aircraft, subs or missiles to do such a job, of that I am sure of. Look up Tu-22M Backfire (aircraft), Oscar II SSGN (sub), Slava class cruiser (ship) or P-500 Bazalt, P-700 Granit, P-1000 Vulcan (missiles) for the kind of hardware I am talking about. This is something which is superior to anything Iran has be several orders of magnitude and which is very complex to operate.
Second, by placing US troops in israel, doesn’t that kind of act as a sacrifice?
Well, Israel will be involved from day 1, so no big difference here. Besides, there will be more US personnel and hardware in the Saudi Arabian desert than in Israel proper. It will just be kept secret (officially, that is).
Cheers!
The War Nerd is not a fan of carriers. In this article he says they’re basically scrap metal.
http://exiledonline.com/the-war-nerd-this-is-how-the-carriers-will-die/
Of course he’s talking about China rather than Iran and I’m sure the carriers will be kept well away from the Gulf anyway and will be out of range of any Iranian missiles. Still the USN may not be invincible.
Not bad, isn’t it? Especially if ‘mass produced’ part is true.
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/201640.html
http://worlddefencenews.blogspot.com/2012/01/iran-tests-ghader-anti-ship-missile.html
The real issue is the fact that Iran has upgraded its medium range conventionally-armed missiles with GPS technology, making its missiles much more accurate. This means Iran can now target Israel’s own nuclear, bio and chemical weapons stockpiles, located inside Israel, as well as the Dimona nuclear reactor.
The people running the show know what is coming in the next few years: massive economic collapse triggered by oil shortages. The current global oil (+condensate) plateau is about to transform into a decline since there are not enough new oil fields being found and developed. Since the US decided not to get off the fossil fuel crack (it was cheap and so too addictive) back in the 1970s when it had a chance it is now royally screwed. There is no way that the economy can be re-geared to alternatives in 5 years, it would take 20 years with a massive government funded “Manhattan Project” style endeavour. Current deployment of alternatives is miniscule.
So they know that there will be food riots in the USA in the near future. All these wars on “terror” are a diversion designed to change the “code base” of the US system, if you will. To me it sure looks like the Iraq and future Iran wars are all about oil and natural gas. But this is a dollar short and a day late. There is simply not going to be enough oil produced in Iraq to matter. Iran has the second largest gas reserves in the world but that is not enough to save the EU via Nabucco or the world via LNG exports.
@Robert: The War Nerd is not a fan of carriers. In this article he says they’re basically scrap metal. Actually, this is a very old debate and I can tell you that there are plenty of folks inside the US Navy who would agree with Brecher. I studied with US Navy officers who told me that the entire idea of forward deploying carriers was nonsense and that in case of a war with the USSR the USA would never try such a thing.
There is a problem here – this stuff has never been tested in real life. First, because very few nations possess carriers, much less so a full carrier battle group, and second because those who do either beat up little nations or make darn sure that their carriers stay as far away from the action as possible.
The closest example to such a situation was the Malvinas/Flaklands war in which the rather low tech but amazingly courageous Argentinian Naval Aviation manged to sink or damage a huge number of British ships. Had the Argentinians been armed with Russian Backfires instead of French Super Etendard the war would have been over really rapidly. Alas, for all their heroic courage, the Argentinians did not have enough Exocet missiles, enough Super Etendard and enough pilots. After the way, the British openly (and very honorably) acknowledged that they had badly under-estimated the Argentinians. In fact, the UK almost lost this war.
I personally never liked carriers and I tend to agree with the War Nerd. However, this does not mean that I underestimate the intelligence of the US Navy folks who are themselves often acutely aware of the risks for them and who will do whatever it takes to avoid loosing a carrier. That would be such a huge blow to the prestige of the USA as to make it unthinkable. So, believe me, the commander of the US carrier battle groups near Iran will always think of the fate of the HMS Sheffield in 1982 (or the INS Hanit in 2006!)
As for China, rumor has it that it has developed *ballistic missiles* capable of striking a US aircraft carrier (see here: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/dec/27/china-deploying-carrier-sinking-ballistic-missile/). If true, this is a new concept which has never been deployed elsewhere and which is qualitatively different from anything Iran is currently deploying.
@Anonymous0926: Not bad, isn’t it? Especially if ‘mass produced’ part is true.
Yes. Thanks for the interesting video, I was unaware of this missile. However, there is still a lot which we don’t know about this missile: guidance system? flight profile? external datalink? warhead type? velocity and angle of flight at the moment of impact? resistance to counter-measures? etc. etc. etc.
I am in no way dismissing Iranian capabilities, only saying that a range of 200km tells us very little about the capabilities of this missile.
If you find out more about this missile, please post it here (or email me).
Thanks!!
Dear Saker,
You know what, I think I am going to disappoint a lot of people with my thoughts here today, including yourself and Lysander….
Based on very long observations, I have come to the conclusion that IRAN is more pragmatic than we ALL think. Iranian Leadership is solidly anchored in RealPolitik since 1988…and the end of the devastating Iran/Iraq war.
It seems to me that Iran, USA and IsraHell need each other badly to continue to operate “intelligently” in the long run….against the SEA of Sunnis panning the Globe, especially in MENA, and as it relates to OIL and IsraHell’s survival…
ALL indications point to continued Covert dialogue between Iran, Israhell and the Great Satan for the benefit of ALL involved in the Persian Gulf, and MENA…[ Ali Larijani is key in these ongoing covert strategies ] ALL the Hoopla about wars in Hormuz and beyond lead to one thing only for decades: Tens upon Tens of Billions of Dollars of arms sold by USA and EU countries to the hapless GCC stooges, [ La vache a lait…]
By the same token, the formidable ascendency of Hizbullah since 1982 has but eliminated the PLO threat from Lebanon and from the northern Israeli borders…Hence, Hizbullah is a “necessity” for IsraHell, in order to secure its northern borders and continue the unending flow of arms from the USA, because of that formidable threat…. That’s the beauty of it all. Win, Win, Win for ALL concerned, and the attainment of a certain MAD doctrine of sorts on the Lebanon/Israel border is a plus, in order to continue these shenanigans for decades….fooling the gullible.
Sorry to break this info, but i strongly believe that we will not see any real wars in the area anytime soon…It’s ALL for show.
Best,
Joe
@Joe: interesting theory! What is your evidence (factual or logical) in support of this? Why do you single out Larijani in this role? Only because he has some Jewish blood? Are you saying that Hezbollah is in cahoots with Israel or that it is manipulated by Israel?
As Carl Sagan said “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” and I would be most interested in seeing yours :-)
Kind regards, dear friend,
The Saker
Dear Saker,
I did not imply that Hezbollah is in cahoots with Israel, nor that Hizbullah is manipulated by Israel. Hizbullah strongly believes in what it says and what it does, as far as the defense of Lebanon is concerned. PERIOD.
But the Geopolitical reality of Iran’s situation in the Gulf, central Asia and the fact that it represents a Shia minority in an ocean of Sunnis, makes it a “Natural” tentative “Ally” of the Empire and the Zios….obviously in a sense that it brings certain Realpolitik into the equation….
There are also a hundred other pointers in that direction, which are too long to enumerate here…
As far as Ali Larijani is concerned, I have solid proof about his ongoing relationship with MOSSAD, and I know it first hand…and I believe that he cannot be doing that on his own personal initiative….
Having said ALL that, i can assure you that i am still a strong supporter of the Resistance axis against the utterly corrupt and crumbling Empire…
Best,
Joe
@Joe:the fact that it represents a Shia minority in an ocean of Sunnis, makes it a “Natural” tentative “Ally” of the Empire and the Zios..
Interesting! Looks like we found a topic on which you, dear friend, and I fundamentally disagree. To me, it’s the Sunni which are a potential, if not natural, ally of the Empire. Why? Because to one degree or another, all Sunni’s look towards Saudi Arabia, be it for money, or for theological education, or for political clout. Yes, yes, I know – not all Sunnis are in the Middle East and there are many very diverse Sunni traditions. And yet from Indonesia, to Switzerland, to Nigeria or to Bosnia, the mosques the schools and the mosques are paid for by the KSA or, in other words, by the US tax payer who, as you well know, is nothing but a milk-cow host for its Israeli parasite…
Its the Shia who are surrounded by these US backed Sunni who, when they turn ‘traditional’ turn to a *consistent* Sunni fundamentalist hostility towards the Shia, from Ibn Taymiyyah to today’s wahabi crazies. You want an example of the kind of stuff these folks are stepped in? Check out this webpage:
http://www.allaahuakbar.net/shiites/word_of_advice_to_shiites.htm
I came across this page by chance, but it is so typical I want to share it with you. It has all the typical features I refer to:
1) they are building an Islamic Centre in Mumbai, India
2) they are based in KSA
3) they are the followers of a fringe, yet influential Salafi Islamic Scholar (Muhammad bin Jamil Zeno)
4) their hatred for the Shia knows no bounds
This is perfect ‘human material’ for Israel and its puppets, is it not? Go and surf the Salafi/Wahabi Internet, and you will see that it is literally flooded with such websites…
In contrast, the Shia are fighting on all fronts at the same time: the Wahabi crazies, the secular Baathists, the pro-Western secularists (from the Hariri clan to the Mousavi folks), the US/NATO and, of course, Israel. Somehow all these anti-Shia forces end up de-facto working together against the Shia who are left with no allies at all.
Do you disagree with this assessment?
Dear Saker,
I don’t disagree with your assessment of today’s situation, the Geopolitical realities and the demographic realities which are very important in the Zio’s mind…
You know very well that i share and have shared common ground with ALL your analysis in the past and still do.
Believe me that I would like to believe what you are saying that it is the case, because it is much simpler and straightforward…!!!
But, remember that I have lived all this turmoil as a young man since the early 70s from Lebanon and various other countries that i lived and worked in around MENA, EU and USA….
I have learned that demography is paramount for the Zios…They might see the Sunni ocean as their “friend” TODAY….but they dread the day when these cowardly stooges, like Mubarak, Kaddafi and the Royals/Sheiks/Kings are overthrown by the crazies that they have created…., and what it means when these same “allies” of today will have to cater to the real public sentiment of their masses…which still sees Palestine and Al-Quds as their paramount struggle…. Hence, I believe that the crumbling Empire and the Zios have been hedging their bets ever-since they allowed Khomeini to come back into Tehran in a triumphal manner…and the anecdotes are legions in that regard!
Now, I don’t need to repeat my opinions about the ASSAD Mafia in Damascus, who have been selling their services to the Zios/CIA for decades….because you know that very well from our previous exchanges….
Keep in mind that I know also first hand how Hizbullah came into being in the early 80s, in order to counter the hegemony of the PLO in south Lebanon….
Need I say more?
Best,
Joe
@Joe:
===================
As far as Ali Larijani is concerned, I have solid proof about his ongoing relationship with MOSSAD, and I know it first hand
===================
With all due respect: An outrageous accusation like that without sharing evidence or proof is ethically slanderous. If you cannot share the proof it’s morally better to keep such things to yourself, or a private email, and outside of a public forum.
Peace
@Joe: dear friend, I have to agree with Ishamid here and I also want to ask you this: are you saying that you know something about Larijani which the (excellent) Iranian security ignore?
I don’t mean to pick on you here, so please do not take offense, but you did make some *very* bold statements here and they naturally trigger some raised eyebrows…
Dear Saker and Ishamid,
With all due respect to both of you, but you have not read carefully what I said about Larijani. Please re-read my post: I said that I don’t think that he would be meeting with Mossad without vetting his meetings with higher-ups in Iran…
By the way, the meeting that I know of first hand happened in Tehran and not overseas, but I am sorry I will say no more, despite the fact that I know the name of the Mossad guy who was in Larijani’s office, because a friend of mine happened to be meeting with Larijani next…and he crossed the Zio in front of Larijani’s office…and by the way, All three know each other, and my friend related to me the encounter and he was quite astonished as well…
Now we can all fantasize about these meetings, but who really knows for sure what goes on behind closed doors when it comes to “countries” and Governments…
I don’t pretend to know for sure what that means???
Enemy countries do meet and talk, and they continue to fight turf battles and hit each other hoping to score points in ongoing thorny issues, and it does get bloody at times, but it seems that they continue to argue and negotiate, and sometimes it gets really nasty and they go to wars, covert or overt….
But I have the right to analyze and predict certain outcomes based on what we know at least and what we experienced over the years in that neck of the woods…
Cheers,
Joe
@Joe: Please re-read my post: I said that I don’t think that he would be meeting with Mossad without vetting his meetings with higher-ups in Iran…
Here is what you said verbatim:
As far as Ali Larijani is concerned, I have solid proof about his ongoing relationship with MOSSAD, and I know it first hand…and I believe that he cannot be doing that on his own personal initiative….
Now, I can easily imagine that a person like Larijani would meet with Mossad officials in many different locations, for many different reasons, and in different capacities. But that is not what I would refer to “ongoing relationship” EVEN if it is vetted by his superiors.
For example, during the Cold War I had many encounters with officers of the KGB both inside and outside Russia, but none of that constituted a “ongoing relationship”. I am quite sure that these guys even gave me a code-name (they do for all their contacts), but that does not mean that we collaborated. In fact, in the late 1980s I even got a death threat from one of their dumbest guys (hilariously, this was not an authorized threat made in a NATO country – Spain – by a person without diplomatic cover and so that guy, a sorry SOB named Vladimir Iakovlevich Davydov, got in heaps of trouble over that, and I got an official denial from his bosses, if you can imagine that!).
Now, it is true that everybody talks to everybody, but that kind of authorized and ongoing relationship is not something a high visibility personality like Larijani would be tasked with. There are special contact persons which do relay such communications, if only because plausible deniability is so important on both sides.
Lastly, your comments about a de-facto community of interests between Israel and Iran also further gave Ishamid and myself a feeling that you were implying more than strictly what you wrote.
Your last comment clarifies your point of view and I thank you for it.
Cheers!
Dear Saker,
Thanks for your reply and the interesting anecdote about times past.
1-Look, I know that the interaction of Larijani is ongoing and extensive…
2- You have to take in mind that MOSSAD would not be sending a low profile operative to meet with Larijani. Mossad sends a very high profile individual because Larijani happens to be one of the Pillars of the Iranian regime and a huge, important personality in his own right…and a very smart and shrewd operative and a respected politician.
3- By disclosing this info, I did not mean to demean or denigrate Larijani in any way. Countries/Governments and very high profile officials have to do what is best for the higher interests of their countries. Period.
4- But, we are ALL allowed to interpret and analyze these tid-bits as we please, don’t we?
Best,
Joe
@Joe: thanks a lot for your explanations which make sense and sorry for being so insistent in my requests for clarifications :-)
Let me just add one thing: none of what you said leads me to believe that an attack on Iran is unlikely. As I am sure you well know, there are MASSIVE disagreements on this topic in Israel and Meir Dagan actually when on the record as categorically opposing it. It’s not the likes of Dagan that I fear, and its not the likes of Dagan that will take the decision – its arrogant morons like Netanyahu who will be making the call.
As for the intelligence community, I was taught that it functions according to the triple A rule:
Acquisition
Analysis
Acceptance
It’s the latter which is so often overlooked and so often the cause of disasters. You can have a top level intelligence acquisition capability, fantastic analysts, and an idiotic politician ignoring it all.
When I look at the Israeli political class, I see a bunch of arrogant and yet insecure idiots who desperately try to prove to themselves that they, being superior to the idiot goyim can do whatever the hell they want and that if they screw up, then Uncle Shmuel will always come to bail them out. These people are dangerous simply because, like all racists, they are stupid, arrogant and their ideology is far more relevant than reality.
We can discuss ad nauseam how futile, dangerous, and plainly insane and attack on Iran would be, but in their little ivory tower these people will not be affected by logic or facts.
I sure hope that you are right, but I am betting my money on an attack on Iran in the near future. Sorry.
Kind regards,
The Saker
Dear Saker,
I understand and fully agree with your last statement, ALL OF IT, Lock Stock and Barrel.
Remember that I had told you earlier about what i see as ” A fuite en avant ” by the ugly and crumbling Empire, which is what might trigger a big war somewhere.
The economics and debt situations are very much on the minds of these Zio criminals on both sides of the Atlantic…., for they are gambling on a very big Geostrategic turn-around in the Levant and the Gulf, which will not happen no matter what they attempt….
I still don’t see a specific attack on Iran because of the Nuclear issue alone.
What concerns me most now is the pressing need to retaliate for the assassination of Iran’s scientists and Moughnieh combined somewhere somehow, and I see that it is inevitable given the pressure of the street in Iran.
I think that Hizbullah has been holding on precisely because of Iranian pressure for not retaliating, but given the last assassination in Tehran, i see that it is becoming a sure thing…
What follows that is pure speculation because it all depends on the nature of the act…
Best,
Joe