Politics

[Brent in Az]

Do you think they can ever get enough evidence to go public with and say we have the goods?

No it will get covered up and swept under the rug like everything else

 

[sestoppelman]

I don't blame him or anybody else.
Some problems have no solution or a viable solution.
Iran and North Korea are trying to build nuclear weapons to use as a bargaining chip and have a seat at the table.
None of them dare to use it and risk being wiped out of this World.
They're not as stupid as people think.

Maybe not stupid, but the word fanatics comes to mind, and fanatics cannot always be reasoned with.

 

[Brent in Az]

I don't blame him or anybody else.
Some problems have no solution or a viable solution.
Iran and North Korea are trying to build nuclear weapons to use as a bargaining chip and have a seat at the table.
None of them dare to use it and risk being wiped out of this World.
They're not as stupid as people think.

I'm not so sure about that. General consensus shows some type of fear over provoking Iran.
Iran might just be crazy enough to launch a Nuke. The hatred towards Israel runs deep.

 

[CoElkHunter]

I don't blame him or anybody else.
Some problems have no solution or a viable solution.
Iran and North Korea are trying to build nuclear weapons to use as a bargaining chip and have a seat at the table.
None of them dare to use it and risk being wiped out of this World.
They're not as stupid as people think.

North Korea has had nuclear weapons for years now. And, thanks to China's technology and the West's ambivalence, they can now strike the US with a nuclear tipped ICBM in theory. But Kim Jong isn't stupid so they most likely just keep threatening everybody. Iran on the other hand, wants to destroy Israel and have said as much on many occasions. What better way to become a martyr and enter the "paradise of umpteen virgins" (or something like that) than destroying Israel even if you're destroyed yourself. Very dangerous and unpredictable.

 

[Red Leg]

If I might offer some thoughts on the utility of nuclear weapons with respect to Iran and North Korea. From their relative perspectives, their nuclear weapons are a threat to the US primarily as propaganda tools. I won't go into any details, but for the present, North Korea has relatively little chance of successfully flying an ICBM to a target in the US. For the time being, Iran does not have a nuclear capable ICBM. However, for countries like North Korea and Iran, nuclear capability is primarily useful as a very real deterrent against a possible US led incursion. Neither a beachhead nor a border penetration requires a long range or particularly sophisticated delivery system. They would make the cost of a physical invasion unbearable.

Again, without offering much in the way of detail, conventional weapons likely would be of limited utility against Iranian underground facilities. A MOAB is just a big inaccurate surface burst bomb designed for the Vietnam War to be shoved out the back of a C-130 to create helicopter landing zones in jungles. We do have some conventional deep penetration capability, but such weapons may or may not be effective in reaching Iran's buried facilities. We can obviously destroy them, but that would entail something other than conventional tools.

It is also worth noting that Iran has a fairly sophisticated air defense capability, much of it domestically produced. I am confident that it could be penetrated, but it would likely be at some cost to attacking aircraft.

Let me also add for those advocating Israeli strikes on Iran, IDF aircraft can't even reach most of the country if it wanted to carry out such attacks.

So, what would be the end state for such a US attack on Iran? The history of successfully bombing a nation into submission is a rather slim volume. Therefore, once we start such an air campaign how do we win it if Iran simply continues its attacks through its proxies? I absolutely promise you, no one wearing a uniform is advising the administration to invade of a country the size of Iran with a population of 80 million.

It is also worth remembering that Iran actually has relatively little support among the Arabs of the Middle East. Note the silence with respect to Iran's efforts to support Hamas. They are as alien to Arabs as you and I are to most in the Middle East. They are ethnically different than the Semitic Arabs. Farsi, the Indo European language of Iran, is actually more closely related to English than Arabic or Hebrew.

A portion of the Arab world does recognize the same general Islamic sect as that followed in Iran. The Shia are most prevalent in Iraq, but those religious ties have only rarely overcome ethnicity as evidenced by the Iran Iraq war. The chart below shows Shia distribution in the Middle East. I should also add that there are several Shia sects.

If I had to guess, the NSC/CENTCOM strategy is to offer Iran the option of dialing back its support of HAMAS and, of course attacks on US facilities, or risk significant long term damage to the Shia proxy network it has been nurturing since the US incursion into Iraq. Will it work? Who knows. But it would seem a more logical option than marching on Tehran.

I do find it curious that some of the most vocal voices for direct military action against Iran are the same ones loudest in their condemnation of those evil NEOCONS or demanding clear strategies and unequivocal timelines of our support to Ukraine.

 

[fourfive8]

I do find it curious that some of the most vocal voices for direct military action against Iran are the same ones loudest in their condemnation of those evil NEOCONS or demanding clear strategies and unequivocal timelines of our support to Ukraine.

Apples to oranges and most recognize that

 

[Red Leg]

Apples to oranges and most recognize that

I don't. And neither would troops on the ground or pilots dodging SAMs.

 

[Corey0372]

If I might offer some thoughts on the utility of nuclear weapons with respect to Iran and North Korea. From their relative perspectives, their nuclear weapons are a threat to the US primarily as propaganda tools. I won't go into any details, but for the present, North Korea has relatively little chance of successfully flying an ICBM to a target in the US. For the time being, Iran does not have a nuclear capable ICBM. However, for countries like North Korea and Iran, nuclear capability is primarily useful as a very real deterrent against a possible US led incursion. Neither a beachhead nor a border penetration requires a long range or particularly sophisticated delivery system. They would make the cost of a physical invasion unbearable.

Again, without offering much in the way of detail, conventional weapons likely would be of limited utility against Iranian underground facilities. A MOAB is just a big inaccurate surface burst bomb designed for the Vietnam War to be shoved out the back of a C-130 to create helicopter landing zones in jungles. We do have some conventional deep penetration capability, but such weapons may or may not be effective in reaching Iran's buried facilities. We can obviously destroy them, but that would entail something other than conventional tools.

It is also worth noting that Iran has a fairly sophisticated air defense capability, much of it domestically produced. I am confident that it could be penetrated, but it would likely be at some cost to attacking aircraft.

Let me also add for those advocating Israeli strikes on Iran, IDF aircraft can't even reach most of the country if it wanted to carry out such attacks.

So, what would be the end state for such a US attack on Iran? The history of successfully bombing a nation into submission is a rather slim volume. Therefore, once we start such an air campaign how do we win it if Iran simply continues its attacks through its proxies? I absolutely promise you, no one wearing a uniform is advising the administration to invade of a country the size of Iran with a population of 80 million.

It is also worth remembering that Iran actually has relatively little support among the Arabs of the Middle East. Note the silence with respect to Iran's efforts to support Hamas. They are as alien to Arabs as you and I are to most in the Middle East. They are ethnically different than the Semitic Arabs. Farsi, the Indo European language of Iran, is actually more closely related to English than Arabic or Hebrew.

A portion of the Arab world does recognize the same general Islamic sect as that followed in Iran. The Shia are most prevalent in Iraq, but those religious ties have only rarely overcome ethnicity as evidenced by the Iran Iraq war. The chart below shows Shia distribution in the Middle East. I should also add that there are several Shia sects.

If I had to guess, the NSC/CENTCOM strategy is to offer Iran the option of dialing back its support of HAMAS and, of course attacks on US facilities, or risk significant long term damage to the Shia proxy network it has been nurturing since the US incursion into Iraq. Will it work? Who knows. But it would seem a more logical option than marching on Tehran.

I do find it curious that some of the most vocal voices for direct military action against Iran are the same ones loudest in their condemnation of those evil NEOCONS or demanding clear strategies and unequivocal timelines of our support to Ukraine.

View attachment 584951

I'm also not convinced that the US is 100% sure that Pakistan would sit it out, if they say they are I think they're just being hopeful. While Pakistan doesn't "officially recognize Israel", and the Iranians and Pakistanis have a shared thorn in their side with the Balochistan independence movement as well as other Salafist groups, at the end of the day Pakistan needs refined oil.. badly (or yuan to buy oil/LNG from Russia). I don't think its outside the realm of possibility they would take a cheap oil offer from Iran to at a minimum not open their airspace to the US or allow the positioning of US troops within the country. An invasion from Afghanistan is obviously not a military option for the US either.


https://www.trade.gov/energy-resource-guide-pakistan-oil-and-gas

https://www.reuters.com/markets/com...nefits are being,and the United Arab Emirates.

Some potential US issues on the overall China V. US competitive level as well...
-Afghanistan sells lithium to China - receives Yuan
-Afghanistan uses Yuan to buy oil from Pakistan (refined oil that they're buying at a discount from Iran in whatever currency Iran needs, weapons perhaps?)
-Pakistan uses Yuan to then buy LNG/more crude from Russia

 

[Jfet]

A U.S. Army’s LT’s perspective on Desert Storm

 

[Red Leg]

I'm also not convinced that the US is 100% sure that Pakistan would sit it out, if they say they are I think they're just being hopeful. While Pakistan doesn't "officially recognize Israel", and the Iranians and Pakistanis have a shared thorn in their side with the Balochistan independence movement as well as other Salafist groups, at the end of the day Pakistan needs refined oil.. badly (or yuan to buy oil/LNG from Russia). I don't think its outside the realm of possibility they would take a cheap oil offer from Iran to at a minimum not open their airspace to the US or allow the positioning of US troops within the country. An invasion from Afghanistan is obviously not a military option for the US either.


https://www.trade.gov/energy-resource-guide-pakistan-oil-and-gas

https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/pakistans-imports-russian-crude-face-port-refinery-currency-constraints-2023-07-31/#:~:text=However, the benefits are being,and the United Arab Emirates.

Some potential US issues on the overall China V. US competitive level as well...
-Afghanistan sells lithium to China - receives Yuan
-Afghanistan uses Yuan to buy oil from Pakistan (refined oil that they're buying at a discount from Iran in whatever currency Iran needs, weapons perhaps?)
-Pakistan uses Yuan to then buy LNG/more crude from Russia

That is a good point. The ruling class Islamic "moderates" and secularists in Pakistan continue to hang on, but only by their fingernails. As I am sure you can imagine, nightmare contingency planning scenarios in the building revolved around Pakistan.

 

[Altitude sickness]

Jfet, that was very well done. Thank you for posting it

 

[Red Leg]

A U.S. Army’s LT’s perspective on Desert Storm

Thank you. That brought back a lot of memories. And like the narrator, I have always been puzzled by how the battle of Medina Ridge has garnered so little attention. I assume it is because neither we nor 1stAD had a Douglas Macgregor to exaggerate our and the author's importance.

Monty Miegs was a friend and died just a couple of years ago in Austin. He commanded one of the three maneuver brigades in the division and eventually retired as a well respected Four Star and as the Commanding General USAREUR. Glad to see he had a support platoon leader doing exactly what he was supposed to be doing.

I was a Lieutenant Colonel and S3 (Operations Officer) of the 75th FA BDE which deployed from Fort Sill in September as part of XVIII Airborne Corps. We were on Tapline Road with three battalions of artillery (and the only M270 MLRS battalion then in existence) from the end of September until we were reassigned to VII Corps to support 1st ID in breaching operations and then to link up on the fly with 1st AD for the decisive battle with the Republican Guard.

We were the primary Corps counterfire unit (because of the MLRS launchers), and so were flexed to support the VII Corps' two main efforts in the attack. We silenced every Iraqi artillery unit that attempted to fire on the two divisions. We typically would have 12 to 18 rockets, each carrying 640 DPICM bomblets on the way before the first Iraqi salvo hit the ground. That means every Iraqi artillery unit was being subjected to the arrival of 8600 - 12,800 submunitions. The results were devastating. The Iraqis gave it the sobriquet of "steel rain."

At Medina Ridge, on the other hand, we were shooting at armor, and expended a couple of hundred rockets saturating the ridge along which the Medina Division of the Republican Guard had two armor brigades forward and one in reserve. The DPIM bomblet is unique because it goes off as both a small shaped charge and a fragmentation grenade. Between that rain of bomblets and the long rod penetrators of the M1's not a single Iraqi combat vehicle survived the attack. Like their armored decedents in Ukraine, the turret tosses were spectacular.

Final little note. I accomplished the most difficult tactical task of my life with the link-up with 1st AD. As the blue line in the video shows, the division was moving west to east with two brigades and a cavalry squadron forward along a swath of terrain around 20 kilometers wide. After supporting the 1st ID's breach of the Iraqi forward divisions, we passed through the division and advanced northward using our 155 battalion as our lead element to link up with 1st AD. As S3, I was responsible for planning and executing the link up. It was rather like shooting station five at skeet.

Needless to say, approaching an advancing armored division from the flank, particularly in dust at about 2 am was concerning. Fortunately, we did have five GPS sets in the Brigade as did the maneuver brigades of 1st AD (contrary to what the narrator in the video reports.) As an aside, they were about the size of a boombox! We could not have accomplished the maneuver in the dark on the move without them. We also had good coms and so managed to flow all three artillery battalions across the division sector relatively seamlessly without being engaged by an anxious tank gunner. All were in position for preparatory fires before dawn. It was a relief to simply shoot at the Iraqis.

 

[Jfet]

Thank you. That brought back a lot of memories. And like the narrator, I have always been puzzled by how the battle of Medina Ridge has garnered so little attention. I assume it is because neither we nor 1stAD had a Douglas Macgregor to exaggerate our and the author's importance.

Monty Miegs was a friend and died just a couple of years ago in Austin. He commanded one of the three maneuver brigades in the division and eventually retired as a well respected Four Star and as the Commanding General USAREUR. Glad to see he had a support platoon leader doing exactly what he was supposed to be doing.

I was a Lieutenant Colonel and S3 (Operations Officer) of the 75th FA BDE which deployed from Fort Sill in September as part of XVIII Airborne Corps. We were on Tapline Road with three battalions of artillery (and the only M270 MLRS battalion then in existence) from the end of September until we were reassigned to VII Corps to support 1st ID in breaching operations and then to link up on the fly with 1st AD for the decisive battle with the Republican Guard.

We were the primary Corps counterfire unit (because of the MLRS launchers), and so were flexed to support the VII Corps' two main efforts in the attack. We silenced every Iraqi artillery unit that attempted to fire on the two divisions. We typically would have 12 to 18 rockets, each carrying 640 DPICM bomblets on the way before the first Iraqi salvo hit the ground. That means every Iraqi artillery unit was being subjected to the arrival of 8600 - 12,800 submunitions. The results were devastating. The Iraqis gave it the sobriquet of "steel rain."

At Medina Ridge, on the other hand, we were shooting at armor, and expended a couple of hundred rockets saturating the ridge along which the Medina Division of the Republican Guard had two armor brigades forward and one in reserve. The DPIM bomblet is unique because it goes off as both a small shaped charge and a fragmentation grenade. Between that rain of bomblets and the long rod penetrators of the M1's not a single Iraqi combat vehicle survived the attack. Like their armored decedents in Ukraine, the turret tosses were spectacular.

Final little note. I accomplished the most difficult tactical task of my life with the link-up with 1st AD. As the blue line in the video shows, the division was moving west to east with two brigades and a cavalry squadron forward along a swath of terrain around 20 kilometers wide. After supporting the 1st ID's breach of the Iraqi forward divisions, we passed through the division and advanced northward using our 155 battalion as our lead element to link up with 1st AD. As S3, I was responsible for planning and executing the link up. It was rather like shooting station five at skeet.

Needless to say, approaching an advancing armored division from the flank, particularly in dust at about 2 am was concerning. Fortunately, we did have five GPS sets in the Brigade as did the maneuver brigades of 1st AD (contrary to what the narrator in the video reports.) As an aside, they were about the size of a boombox! We could not have accomplished the maneuver in the dark on the move without them. We also had good coms and so managed to flow all three artillery battalions across the division sector relatively seamlessly without being engaged by an anxious tank gunner. All were in position for preparatory fires before dawn. It was a relief to simply shoot at the Iraqis.

During that time I was trying to figure out how to get middle schoolers to dribble a basketball at Haggard Middle School in Plano, TX. Princess Bride was also pregnant with are oldest son, Wyatt. Like the song says don’t blink.

It is important that we listen to those that were there. They know things that won’t necessarily come out in the history books. The scene in the movie Patton where Gen. Patton is complaining about German‘s bombing and strafing his troops in N. Africa made more sense when I saw Princess Bride’s grandfather’s pictures. He was the logistics officer in a photo reconnaissance squadron. The picture is of him and a group of inlisted personnel digging ditches to drain the flood water out of their camp and off the of the runways as well. The Germans were flying off of concrete airstrips while the Allied aircraft fields were flooded and muddy.

You and all who served in Desert Storm are a depository of memories that has not been fully accessed and as you point out we are already losing those memories. Keep telling your story and encourage your fellow soldiers to write their stories down.

 

[Zambezi]

I'll take this as a serious question.

The usual caveats. I am no military man, nor do I claim in depth experience. I expect @Red Leg can jump in to expand on or correct my points.

However, I do know that Iran is a country of nearly 100 million people. They have a relatively rigid, authoritarian government with a strong grasp over the local populace. They have a relatively strong military in the same sort of ball park as Australia, Pakistan, Canada, Spain, Egypt. They have a decent GDP and are at least trying for nuclear capability. They are not Somalia, or Iraq or Afghanistan.

They also have a lot of support (tacit, if not explicit) in the Middle East, and if their combatant was the US, many others would pile in as well.

All that to say, the US can curbstomp them. But to achieve anything other than pissing them off, increasing their support in the region and an uptick in activity against US interests, would require a real, boots on the ground war. Not a simple bombing run, not a counter insurgency operation, not a light touch peacekeeping operation, not even just cruise missiles and a carrier group. A real, American servicemen in the face of fire, conflict of a greater magnitude than any previous Middle Eastern operation.

If you want to 'solve' the Iran problem, you're talking more effort and casualties than Korea, than Vietnam, than the entirety of the Middle East misadventures of the past 30 years. Years and years, billions of dollars, 100,000s of US servicemen in a war zone, extensive terrorist activity and thousands, likely tens of thousands of deaths. You'd win, no doubt about it, but this is not a walk in the park and it will cost lives, treasure and materiel. If this is the spark that gets them into the nuclear club (and you can be sure that'd be priority #1 if the US tries anything decisive) this could be a serious threat to any US asset within their missile range, which includes Isreal, Egypt, Oman, Saudi, the UAE, Turkey, much of Eastern Europe. Maybe even places like Greece or Italy.

Then what is the end goal? You invade, you win, you depose their government. Then what? Constant occupation in the same vein as Iraq until someone gets bored and we're back to square one? The people there are not of a culture that will readily adopt a western democratic system, or even be pleased to see US troops on the ground. It'd take at least a generation, probably two to make that stick. Does the US have the political will to occupy a hostile territory for 50 years to achieve it? Based on the failures in every other Middle Eastern nation in my lifetime, I think not...

It's easy to talk a big game, but this is one that whilst absolutely winnable, is an option that will be hugely expensive, and one that there absolutely isn't the political will for on either side of the aisle.

Sorry I haven't read all the astute responses since your post but I'd like to comment...

We support Ukraine (and I agree) to blunt Russia. We agree that Iran is a potential threat but refuse to do anything decisive right now. You advocate for a live and let live or slowly slowly approach right now. Do you seriously think they will become peace loving vegans when they actually have a nuclear capability? Pull the other one.

This is the problem with the current global situation. We see danger. We see evil but we are politically hogtied or too woke to actually do anything about it.

Let's say it is the last days in the fight between good and evil and we were on the losing end. Would we do what is necessary to win? I would think so. But we are currently donning our ballet slippers.

Appeasement and bribery only works on those who are willing to be appeased or bribed. And let me tell you a secret, the bribed always come back for more and more. Dealing with a bully when he has a slingshot is a lot easier than dealing with a bully when he has a nuke.

We are making a rod for our own back! I have always said that we should stay out of regional conflicts and powerhouses as the locals know best how to maintain stability in their own countries. This does not mean let them spread their evil. Countries messed with Rhodesia which is now a shit hole, Messed with South Africa now a shit hole. Messed with Iraq now a shit hole. Would you like me to go on?

It comes down to messing with or involving oneself in other countries for good v evil or for geopolitical gain and profit. It is nearly ALWAYS the latter. So if you want to do good then take off the ballet slippers. Believe me not dealing with a non nuclear Iran is better than waiting another 10 years. And yes, it can be done without boots on the ground. I hear it said on this forum that the "peace loving Iranians are sick of their govt and would love to overthrow them"

Iran is the heart, funder and supplier of the current aggressors around the world. Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthi, Russia... But yeah let's let them carry on until they supply munitions that could really decimate cities in one go.

 

[Red Leg]

I realize the cold open from SNL will be a sacrilege on this thread for many, but it is pretty funny. The best part starts around the five-minute mark. It must be pretty good, Citizen Free Press is outraged.

 

[Doubleplay]

If I might offer some thoughts on the utility of nuclear weapons with respect to Iran and North Korea. From their relative perspectives, their nuclear weapons are a threat to the US primarily as propaganda tools. I won't go into any details, but for the present, North Korea has relatively little chance of successfully flying an ICBM to a target in the US. For the time being, Iran does not have a nuclear capable ICBM. However, for countries like North Korea and Iran, nuclear capability is primarily useful as a very real deterrent against a possible US led incursion. Neither a beachhead nor a border penetration requires a long range or particularly sophisticated delivery system. They would make the cost of a physical invasion unbearable.

Again, without offering much in the way of detail, conventional weapons likely would be of limited utility against Iranian underground facilities. A MOAB is just a big inaccurate surface burst bomb designed for the Vietnam War to be shoved out the back of a C-130 to create helicopter landing zones in jungles. We do have some conventional deep penetration capability, but such weapons may or may not be effective in reaching Iran's buried facilities. We can obviously destroy them, but that would entail something other than conventional tools.

It is also worth noting that Iran has a fairly sophisticated air defense capability, much of it domestically produced. I am confident that it could be penetrated, but it would likely be at some cost to attacking aircraft.

Let me also add for those advocating Israeli strikes on Iran, IDF aircraft can't even reach most of the country if it wanted to carry out such attacks.

So, what would be the end state for such a US attack on Iran? The history of successfully bombing a nation into submission is a rather slim volume. Therefore, once we start such an air campaign how do we win it if Iran simply continues its attacks through its proxies? I absolutely promise you, no one wearing a uniform is advising the administration to invade of a country the size of Iran with a population of 80 million.

It is also worth remembering that Iran actually has relatively little support among the Arabs of the Middle East. Note the silence with respect to Iran's efforts to support Hamas. They are as alien to Arabs as you and I are to most in the Middle East. They are ethnically different than the Semitic Arabs. Farsi, the Indo European language of Iran, is actually more closely related to English than Arabic or Hebrew.

A portion of the Arab world does recognize the same general Islamic sect as that followed in Iran. The Shia are most prevalent in Iraq, but those religious ties have only rarely overcome ethnicity as evidenced by the Iran Iraq war. The chart below shows Shia distribution in the Middle East. I should also add that there are several Shia sects.

If I had to guess, the NSC/CENTCOM strategy is to offer Iran the option of dialing back its support of HAMAS and, of course attacks on US facilities, or risk significant long term damage to the Shia proxy network it has been nurturing since the US incursion into Iraq. Will it work? Who knows. But it would seem a more logical option than marching on Tehran.

I do find it curious that some of the most vocal voices for direct military action against Iran are the same ones loudest in their condemnation of those evil NEOCONS or demanding clear strategies and unequivocal timelines of our support to Ukraine.

View attachment 584951

Excellent post and can't agree more.
I've been trying to say the same thing all along.

 

[Doubleplay]

Sorry I haven't read all the astute responses since your post but I'd like to comment...

I highly suggest reading the other posts.

 

[Zambezi]

If I might offer some thoughts on the utility of nuclear weapons with respect to Iran and North Korea. From their relative perspectives, their nuclear weapons are a threat to the US primarily as propaganda tools. I won't go into any details, but for the present, North Korea has relatively little chance of successfully flying an ICBM to a target in the US. For the time being, Iran does not have a nuclear capable ICBM. However, for countries like North Korea and Iran, nuclear capability is primarily useful as a very real deterrent against a possible US led incursion. Neither a beachhead nor a border penetration requires a long range or particularly sophisticated delivery system. They would make the cost of a physical invasion unbearable.

So leaving them to actually attain nuclear status is preferable? Do you think they will then dial back their aggression? Easier to deal with?

Again, without offering much in the way of detail, conventional weapons likely would be of limited utility against Iranian underground facilities. A MOAB is just a big inaccurate surface burst bomb designed for the Vietnam War to be shoved out the back of a C-130 to create helicopter landing zones in jungles. We do have some conventional deep penetration capability, but such weapons may or may not be effective in reaching Iran's buried facilities. We can obviously destroy them, but that would entail something other than conventional tools.

Many was to skin a cat. Israel showed with the speeding up of their nuclear centrifuges. Cutting off funding. Embargos. Blockades. Isolation of allies et al

It is also worth noting that Iran has a fairly sophisticated air defense capability, much of it domestically produced. I am confident that it could be penetrated, but it would likely be at some cost to attacking aircraft.

Let me also add for those advocating Israeli strikes on Iran, IDF aircraft can't even reach most of the country if it wanted to carry out such attacks.

Ukraine has shown remarkable ability to think outside the box. To adapt and penetrate. I'm certain that it is possible with Iran. And yes, I am aware of the differences in theatre and practicalities.

So, what would be the end state for such a US attack on Iran? The history of successfully bombing a nation into submission is a rather slim volume. Therefore, once we start such an air campaign how do we win it if Iran simply continues its attacks through its proxies? I absolutely promise you, no one wearing a uniform is advising the administration to invade of a country the size of Iran with a population of 80 million.

If were being honest with each other their proxies are attacking everything anyway. Making Iran prioritise Iran is far batter than allowing them to fund and equip their proxies. When your own house is falling down you don't lend your shovel to the neighbour.

It is also worth remembering that Iran actually has relatively little support among the Arabs of the Middle East. Note the silence with respect to Iran's efforts to support Hamas. They are as alien to Arabs as you and I are to most in the Middle East. They are ethnically different than the Semitic Arabs. Farsi, the Indo European language of Iran, is actually more closely related to English than Arabic or Hebrew.

A portion of the Arab world does recognize the same general Islamic sect as that followed in Iran. The Shia are most prevalent in Iraq, but those religious ties have only rarely overcome ethnicity as evidenced by the Iran Iraq war. The chart below shows Shia distribution in the Middle East. I should also add that there are several Shia sects.

Agreed but they ALL want to wipe Israel of the map regardless of their differences. (The enemy of my enemy is my friend) and when it comes down to Islam we are all their enemy. We are just used and tolerated until we are not.

If I had to guess, the NSC/CENTCOM strategy is to offer Iran the option of dialing back its support of HAMAS and, of course attacks on US facilities, or risk significant long term damage to the Shia proxy network it has been nurturing since the US incursion into Iraq. Will it work? Who knows. But it would seem a more logical option than marching on Tehran.

Nobody is advocating marching on Tehran.

I do find it curious that some of the most vocal voices for direct military action against Iran are the same ones loudest in their condemnation of those evil NEOCONS or demanding clear strategies and unequivocal timelines of our support to Ukraine.

I'm not one of them.

View attachment 584951

Hope my comments are visible or I've just wasted 20 mins of typing.

 

[Zambezi]

Caught up. Can't say much has changed. More appeasement and excuses. We are simply making a rod for our own backs. Read a history book on any appeasement with evil people.

 

[Brent in Az]

The MOAB is not a bunker buster type of weapon, and would cause little to no underground damage on an Iranian nuclear facility buried deep underground and sheathed in a thick layer of reinforced concrete.
Taking it to Iran would be a "Statement bombing".