Is Iran preparing for an Israeli attack?

[Madeline]

What are your thoughts on this, please? Is this posturing by Iran, or provocation, or both?


The Iranian military has begun a week-long simulation of air defence exercises aimed at practising responses to possible attacks on the country's nuclear sites.

The drills were announced on Saturday by Brigadier General Ahmad Mighani, the head of Iran's army air defence, who said the war games were due to threats against the country's controversial nuclear facilities.

"It is our duty to defend out nation's vital facilities and thus these manoeuvres covers Bushehr, Fars, Isfahan, Tehran and western provinces," he said.

Tensions are high between Tehran and the six world powers trying to negotiate a deal on Iran's nuclear programme.

Western powers believe that Iran's enrichment work is masking an atomic weapons programme but Tehran insists it is purely for generating electricity.

Meanwhile, Washington and Israel have never ruled out a military strike against Iran's nuclear sites, but the Islamic republic has warned it will hit back at Israel and US interests in the region if it is attacked.

Al Jazeera's Stefanie Dekker reports.


http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/11/2009112214518748592.html

[Mediocrates]

1) Iran is pursuing some kind of non 'civilian' application of atomic power
2) Most analysts understand that 1) is materially true
3) Politically the west is unprepared to do much about it

3a) Militarily there's no efficient solution
3b) There's no solution post-military solutio
3c) There's no benchmark for partial success
3d) There's no political analysis for either

i failure; day 2 what does not succeeding do?
ii success; day 2 who picks up the pieces?
In other words what does the difference between success and failure look like. If there's no physical military solution and partial success isn't an option, then what? The Iranians have nothing to lose by risking it all and nothing to gain by stopping. This is NOT a classic brinksmanship case.

So given this, who would openly attack them? There's no gain to be made by attacking them this way. A better solution would be subterfuge, espionage, sabotage, small actions, targeted assassinations. Couple this with a two-pronged political approach. One prong is to pressure their partners in Russia and China delivering basic technologies for nuclear engineering.

The other prong is to draw Iran's other influences in Lebanon and Syria and South America (Brazil and Venezuela now form part of the Axis of Uranium) to consume more of Iran's attention. Venezuela has no modern military capability. Its gear is old and broken. The military officer corps is like an Arab army that rewards political loyalty instead of skill. There's no NCO corps to speak of. The key is to openly taunt and pressure them through Colombia. Sell Colombia advanced arms and UAV's to rattle their cages. Brazil is another problem. Brazil and Venezuela are not natural allies. Brazil is buying nuclear subs to protect their own oil deposits in response to Venezuela's attempts to start a regional arms race. Brazil works with France and it would be natural fit for the high tech military and training assistance that Israel can provide. A carrot in one hand and a hammer in the other.

The problem with Lebanon and Syria is totally different. Neither can tolerate being viewed as weak. So overt pressure is to be avoided. A sure way to provoke an attack by Hezbollah is to dare them. Lebanon/Hezbollah has a credible rocket and missile force but again, it should be undercut quietly. Sabotage, sappers, etc. Work accidents, missile launchpad explosions; people and materiel suddenly becoming suddenly unreliable and vaporizing, that sort of thing. The goal is not to cripple their abilities; this would take too long. The goal is suck up resources of their benefactors in Iran. Make Iran spend an inordinate amount of time, men, money and materiel to back stop these 'problems'.

Already Iran has had several catastrophic losses in their meager AWACS ability. It's gone now. Their air power is near nil. Were it not for promised Russian AA systems they'd be fighting in the 19th Century. Keep pushing them until fluke work accidents pop up in their nuclear sites.

[Madeline]

1) Iran is pursuing some kind of non 'civilian' application of atomic power
2) Most analysts understand that 1) is materially true
3) Politically the west is unprepared to do much about it

3a) Militarily there's no efficient solution
3b) There's no solution post-military solutio
3c) There's no benchmark for partial success
3d) There's no political analysis for either

i failure; day 2 what does not succeeding do?
ii success; day 2 who picks up the pieces?
In other words what does the difference between success and failure look like. If there's no physical military solution and partial success isn't an option, then what? The Iranians have nothing to lose by risking it all and nothing to gain by stopping. This is NOT a classic brinksmanship case.

So given this, who would openly attack them? There's no gain to be made by attacking them this way. A better solution would be subterfuge, espionage, sabotage, small actions, targeted assassinations. Couple this with a two-pronged political approach. One prong is to pressure their partners in Russia and China delivering basic technologies for nuclear engineering.

The other prong is to draw Iran's other influences in Lebanon and Syria and South America (Brazil and Venezuela now form part of the Axis of Uranium) to consume more of Iran's attention. Venezuela has no modern military capability. Its gear is old and broken. The military officer corps is like an Arab army that rewards political loyalty instead of skill. There's no NCO corps to speak of. The key is to openly taunt and pressure them through Colombia. Sell Colombia advanced arms and UAV's to rattle their cages. Brazil is another problem. Brazil and Venezuela are not natural allies. Brazil is buying nuclear subs to protect their own oil deposits in response to Venezuela's attempts to start a regional arms race. Brazil works with France and it would be natural fit for the high tech military and training assistance that Israel can provide. A carrot in one hand and a hammer in the other.

The problem with Lebanon and Syria is totally different. Neither can tolerate being viewed as weak. So overt pressure is to be avoided. A sure way to provoke an attack by Hezbollah is to dare them. Lebanon/Hezbollah has a credible rocket and missile force but again, it should be undercut quietly. Sabotage, sappers, etc. Work accidents, missile launchpad explosions; people and materiel suddenly becoming suddenly unreliable and vaporizing, that sort of thing. The goal is not to cripple their abilities; this would take too long. The goal is suck up resources of their benefactors in Iran. Make Iran spend an inordinate amount of time, men, money and materiel to back stop these 'problems'.

Already Iran has had several catastrophic losses in their meager AWACS ability. It's gone now. Their air power is near nil. Were it not for promised Russian AA systems they'd be fighting in the 19th Century. Keep pushing them until fluke work accidents pop up in their nuclear sites.

So yer saying that the mullahs are posturing then. It just made me wonder, with BHO picking on Israel, Iran may pretend they are more that what meets the eye.

[Mediocrates]

Not posturing. They ARE going to build a bomb. The problem is all the noise they make about wars and drills and 'we will strike back' is just that, noise.

[Tonto]

Iran is so vulnerable and in much more trouble than most folks realize. Although they must be handled "gently" because of their suicidal volatility, they really don't amount to much as a viable force. They BUY materiel and munitions and toting them around makes them feel like a badass Detroit gansta, but their 8 year war with Iraq only demonstrated that their "war spirit" only succeeds in spending young lives needlessly. Iran is effective in motivating youngsters to be martyrs....that is their historic war talent and their strongest point. Their stated goal is to get to the conditions prophesied for the "last mahdi" or "last caliph" and the ayatollahs are more than willing to spend the lives of every muzleem on the planet for that to happen. In my opinion, their strategy sucks pretty bad. Suicide as a method to achieve a rather iffy goal......not real smart in my book. Their literal interpretation of their goof-ball religion is their biggest mistake, and the incidence of apostasy in Iran is rising. The demonstrations in their streets says that the younger generation would rather abandon "that old time religion" and get into more western culture. I feel that Iran is fast approaching a crossroads in which their PEOPLE, not the mullahs will choose the path of their future, and may not include any empowerment of any "black robes". The nuke thing is dangerous alright, but not unmanageable. Lots of options for foiling that activity if the real need arises. The big problem there is that Obama's administration is so stupid and raggedy arsed that an incident could get messy before the correction can be effected.

[Madeline]

Iran is so vulnerable and in much more trouble than most folks realize. Although they must be handled "gently" because of their suicidal volatility, they really don't amount to much as a viable force. They BUY materiel and munitions and toting them around makes them feel like a badass Detroit gansta, but their 8 year war with Iraq only demonstrated that their "war spirit" only succeeds in spending young lives needlessly. Iran is effective in motivating youngsters to be martyrs....that is their historic war talent and their strongest point. Their stated goal is to get to the conditions prophesied for the "last mahdi" or "last caliph" and the ayatollahs are more than willing to spend the lives of every muzleem on the planet for that to happen. In my opinion, their strategy sucks pretty bad. Suicide as a method to achieve a rather iffy goal......not real smart in my book. Their literal interpretation of their goof-ball religion is their biggest mistake, and the incidence of apostasy in Iran is rising. The demonstrations in their streets says that the younger generation would rather abandon "that old time religion" and get into more western culture. I feel that Iran is fast approaching a crossroads in which their PEOPLE, not the mullahs will choose the path of their future, and may not include any empowerment of any "black robes". The nuke thing is dangerous alright, but not unmanageable. Lots of options for foiling that activity if the real need arises. The big problem there is that Obama's administration is so stupid and raggedy arsed that an incident could get messy before the correction can be effected.

But isn't their suicidal notion/mission more dangerous because they feel they have nothing to lose, but everything to gain?
They, along with a now vulnerable America, are perhaps not very efficient, but nevertheless dangerous, :scratch: me thinks.

[Tonto]

Their problem is that they can't go very far with it....they can only send out small teams. If they leave Iran itself undefended, their own population will oust the "black robes", at least the ones presently in power. The street protests have demonstrated that. Iran is pretty deadly in a small way, and anyone in the M/E is in danger from their fanaticism, but the world at large is only partially vulnerable to their terror teams....and their terror teams are foiled all the time. They get caught. Several attempts have been made on the US and have been foiled. There is no way they have what it takes to take on a real army. In 8 years of war with Saddam, they did nothing but get millions of their youngsters killed. It only took the US a matter of hours to whip Saddam's army. What does that tell you? All the little countries in the M/E that have punk-ass armies are all scared of them though. Iran could probably take any country in the M/E, except Israel and maybe Syria, any time if the US allowed them out of their cage. That's why they hate the US so much.....the US is frustrating their desire for the "Caliphate". That's the way I see it anyway.

[wat0n]

This thing is interesting:


US General: UAE's air force could take out Iran's

Centcom commander Gen. David Petraeus tells Bahrain conference calls in Mideast countries to join forces in order to curb Tehran's nuclear ambitions

Yitzhak Benhorin Published: 12.18.09, 14:43 / Israel News

WASHINGTON - The United Arab Emirates, a key US ally in the Persian Gulf, has the capability to overpower Iran's Air Force, US Centcom commander Gen. David Petraeus said last week.

Speaking at a conference in Bahrain organized by the International Institute for Strategic Studies, the American general said, "The Emirati Air Force itself could take out the entire Iranian Air Force, I believe, given that it's got ... somewhere around 70 Block 60 F-16 fighters, which are better than the US F-16 fighters."

Petraeus, who is responsible for overseeing the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and security efforts throughout the region, called on the region's countries to remain united in order to curb Iran's nuclear ambitions.

In light of the growing Iranian threat, said the general, the US has increased its participation in joint military drills held in the Middle East.

Tensions between Washington and Tehran intensified this past week after the Islamic Republic announced it had test-fired the latest version of its Sajjil-2 long-range missile, a weapon capable of hitting Israel and Europe.

The White House said Wednesday that the test undermines its insistence of peaceful intentions and will be looked upon seriously by the world.

"At a time when the international community has offered Iran opportunities to begin to build trust and confidence, Iran's missile tests only undermine Iran's claims of peaceful intentions," White House spokesman Mike Hammer said.

"Such actions will increase the seriousness and resolve of the international community to hold Iran accountable for its continued defiance of its international obligations on its nuclear program," he added.

Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad lashed the United States this week as an oil-addicted warmonger and insisted every nation have access to “clean and renewable energy sources”, including nuclear.

“For about a century, oil has constituted the basic and strategic components of US security foreign policy, the same role it played for the previous empires,” Ahmadinejad said Thursday at the UN climate talks in Copenhagen.

Source: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3821879,00.html

Is this a sign that the US is thinking about containing rather than attacking Iran?