Day by Day



08 March 2006

If it is to be war...


The Iranians are talking tough, no surprise there. Their intentions seem clear, establish a Persian dominance in the region, destroy Israel and establish an Islamic Hegemony.

What would an Iranian conflict look like? It would be far different from the blistering assault of steel in the Iraq War and certainly not the deft, surgical actions undertaken in the Afghan Conflict. Iran has the inherent ability to restrict oil flowing out of the Persian / Arabian Gulf with ease. Any US action would have to include the destruction of any of their numerous Silkworm anti-ship missile emplacements as well as the elimination of their Shahab IRBM facilities.

The Iranians have at least three functioning diesel submarines, very unlikely to engage a warship, but ideal for mine laying and commerce raiding. These would also have to be destroyed at their docks immediately. In short, any action by the US against Iran would have to be fairly comprehensive. It would most likely involve very hard strikes against military installations, denying the Iranians any ability to impact shipping in the Gulf, as well as neutralizing their air forces and retaliatory assets. Special forces would aid in the delivery of GPS and laser guided munitions while US Navy forces would provide protection for the numerous countries across the Gulf.

There have been a number of speculations on the outcome of any hostilities. Some of these I believe are far-fetched, some less so. The ability of Tehran to unilaterally affect the behavior of its allies and associate non-state players is in some doubt. There is no doubt that any initial action by the United States could be executed with impunity. There would likely be no follow on with ground troops, but rather a continual pressure from internal and external sources.

A retired United States Marine Corps friend of mine, a major, runs a number of wargame simulations based upon a unique rules set developed by himself and some other officers to teach young second lieutenants some basic tactical decision making. The rule set has expanded to include modern, future and Napoleaonics. He is committed to his craft and I would hope to see him pose this next potential conflict through one of the scenarios.

10 comments:

Scootmaroo said...

Would that scenario be called "Armageddon"?

How much of this is politics? And how much of this is religous extremists on both sides (including our president?) trying their damndest to fulfill prophecy?

This could well be the final battle, the one we were supposed to fight with russians forty years ago....

Citizen Deux said...

Hardly Armageddon, wrong geographical location. Iran poses a real threat, even the Europeans acknowledge it. This is not so much religion as it is idealogy, amplified by their ability to affect the global economy. Taken together, this is a pretty volatile cocktail.

Remember, we have been in a defacto conflict with Iran since the fall of the Shah.

Lord Admiral Gordon Marock said...

None of this is politics, and the religious extremists are on one side only, Iran's. When the Iranian President publicly announces that it is his duty to prepare the way for the return of the Twelfth Imam, or Mahdi, who is supposed to rise out of some fucking well inside an Iranian Mosque, and tells his buddies that he was shrouded by a green halo when speaking at the UN, you can pretty much forget politics, logic, or any attempt at formulating a response based upon reason or sanity. The only politics involved will be within the US regarding how long we are going to sit with our thumbs up our asses before we do something.

Scootmaroo said...

Hey,Gordo got my point!.Though the return of the Twelfh Imam is the important prophecy for them, the return of Christ is the one for the christofacists who want to hasten conflict in the middle east because they feel it will hasten the events predcited in the Bible: Not Armagdeddon, the place, Armageddon the concept...all the Revalations hoohaa that the people who wrote the LEFT BEHIND series are so in tune with. And they feel that Bush is with them on this desire...

Citizen Deux said...

Sorry, I don't think the general population of the west believes in the literal view of Armageddon. And real scholars of biblical texts regard the book of Revelation as criticism of those sects of Judaism who were turning against the beliefs of the time.

No comparison.

Gordon Marock said...

The solution is simple. Create a new religion where the mythos states that the coming of the messiah is preceeded by a thousand years of peace, rather than war and conflict. Then kill everyone who does not sign on.

Major John said...

Good think the Dari I learned is close to Farsi...think I'll scrounge up some more language instruction material.

Scootmaroo said...

If the general population of the west does not believe the literal view of Armageddon, than why do over HALF the citizens of the US "reject the theory of evolution and believe God created man just as they are now?"

NEW YORK A Gallup report released today reveals that more than half of all Americans, rejecting evolution theory and scientific evidence, agree with the statement, "God created man exactly how Bible describes it."

Another 31% says that man did evolve, but "God guided." Only 12% back evolution and say "God had no part."

Gallup summarized it this way: "Surveys repeatedly show that a substantial portion of Americans do not believe that the theory of evolution best explains where life came from." They are "not so quick to agree with the preponderance of scientific evidence."

The report was written by the director of the The Gallup Poll, Frank Newport.

Breaking down the numbers, Gallup finds that Republican backing for what it calls "God created human beings in present form" stands at 57% with Democrats at 44%.

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002154704

Citizen Deux said...

Okay, not having read the gallup poll, I would be VERY suspiscious of its smapling and question phrasing. I will parse and respond via post (BTW - creation and armageddon are not translatable)

gordo said...

I suspect the poll questions could have been easliy manipulated as follows:

"Did god create the universe?"
"Did god create man in his present form, or did man evlove from the apes, protozoa, austalopithicus, whatever."
I would expect a high percentage of people, even those who believe in evolution for all other living things other than man, would answer these two questions in a way that would support the pollster's "assertions." However, it never ceases to amaze me how porrly versed the general public is regarding science.