WWIII: Iran test-fires more missiles in Persian Gulf

[Sapiens]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080710/.../iran_missiles

TEHRAN, Iran - Iran test-fired more long-range missiles overnight in a second round of exercises meant to show that the country can defend itself against any attack by the U.S. or Israel, Iranian state television reported Thursday.

The weapons have "special capabilities" and included missiles launched from naval ships in the Persian Gulf, along with torpedoes and surface-to-surface missiles, the broadcast said. It did not elaborate.

A brief video clip showed two missiles being fired simultaneously in the darkness.

The report came hours after Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice warned Iran that Washington will not back down in the face of threats against Israel.

"We are sending a message to Iran that we will defend American interests and the interests of our allies," Rice said Thursday in Georgia at the close of a three-day Eastern European trip.

...

[ASH]

Re: WWIII: Iran test-fires more missiles in Persian Gulf

WWIII? More like a few weeks of bombing, followed by months or years of heightened naval escorts through the Strait of Hormuz.

... Not that a small conflict like that wouldn't have a large impact on oil prices.

[Sapiens]

Re: WWIII: Iran test-fires more missiles in Persian Gulf

WWIII? More like a few weeks of bombing, followed by months or years of heightened naval escorts through the Strait of Hormuz.

... Not that a small conflict like that wouldn't have a large impact on oil prices.

See, this is the problem, lack of imagination.

Russia threatens military response to US


Rice: We Will Defend Israel From Iran

Rice: Warns Iran That US Will Defend Allies

and on and on and ...

[Chris Coles]

Re: WWIII: Iran test-fires more missiles in Persian Gulf

Has anyone seen the movie;The Long Good Friday? In it the local hood sets out to create a little mayhem and in the end gets his comeuppance. Every move he makes turns against him and ramps up the anti.

Arabia, now called Iran was once the most successful nation on the planet. Sure, they are way behind us today, but even in their weak state they held out and beat Iraq when Saddam Hussein was our friend and we gave him access to every form of munitions short of nukes.

The more we try and threaten them, the more they will hunker down and resist. Here in the UK, last night, we saw reports that it would appear that the US has agent provocateurs in action in Iran. You want to play with fire, you get burnt.

http://www.channel4.com/news/article...tfired/2326072

http://link.brightcove.com/services/...ctid1657741060

This is more than 12 minutes long and covers the whole debate including suspicions about the real motives on your Vice President.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/7500342.stm

This will give you direct access to the BBC news feeds on this subject.

This is not going to be an easy deal, gone in a day crisis. This could easily get very bad, very quickly.

[c1ue]

Re: WWIII: Iran test-fires more missiles in Persian Gulf

Chris, I think you've gotten some switches crossed.

Arabia, now called Iran was once the most successful nation on the planet.

Actually, I thought Iran used to be Persia. You know, Farsi speakers?

Lawrence of Arabia was certainly not in Iran - the action was the west side of Saudi Arabia - Aqaba et al.

Arabia is in fact Iraq and Saudi Arabia - hence the term Arabian peninsula.

Sure, they are way behind us today, but even in their weak state they held out and beat Iraq when Saddam Hussein was our friend and we gave him access to every form of munitions short of nukes.

I think you're switching countries. It was Iran flying the F14s and F4s and Iraq using the T54s and Mig21s. Admittedly, the US wasn't Iran's friend at that time, but neither were we providing much - unless 'we' is Russia.

I think there were some chopper sales, but am equally sure these weren't a major part of the Iraqi military capability.

As for beating - I don't think anyone won the Iran/Iraq war. It was a strategic victory for Saddam/Iraq in not losing to a much larger Iran, but a tactical loss since Iraq actually invaded Iran first.

Saddam was hoping to take advantage of the post revolutionary chaos to gain some power - ironic given the situation is reversed today.

[Slimprofits]

Re: WWIII: Iran test-fires more missiles in Persian Gulf

ironic given the situation is reversed today.

Even more ironic given the situation today, is that Israel was selling (started much earlier) arms to Iran all throughout the Iran/Iraq war.

[GRG55]

Re: WWIII: Iran test-fires more missiles in Persian Gulf

...Arabia, now called Iran was once the most successful nation on the planet. Sure, they are way behind us today, but even in their weak state they held out and beat Iraq when Saddam Hussein was our friend and we gave him access to every form of munitions short of nukes.

The more we try and threaten them, the more they will hunker down and resist. Here in the UK, last night, we saw reports that it would appear that the US has agent provocateurs in action in Iran. You want to play with fire, you get burnt...

Chris: Check your history. The Persians (Iran) and the Arabs have been rivals for centuries.

You are correct in your observation that they will hunker down. They have a strong sense of their own history, which dates back much longer than the USA, and think in strategic time frames that are much, much longer than the FIRE economy/Wall Street influenced USA, which seems to have trouble thinking beyond the next quarterly earnings report, or the next Presidential election cycle.

[phirang]

Re: WWIII: Iran test-fires more missiles in Persian Gulf

Chris: Check your history. The Persians (Iran) and the Arabs have been rivals for centuries.

You are correct in your observation that they will hunker down. They have a strong sense of their own history, which dates back much longer than the USA, and think in strategic time frames that are much, much longer than the FIRE economy/Wall Street influenced USA, which seems to have trouble thinking beyond the next quarterly earnings report, or the next Presidential election cycle.

What, RIMM quarterly earnings aren't God's progonstications?

[ASH]

Re: WWIII: Iran test-fires more missiles in Persian Gulf

See, this is the problem, lack of imagination.

No -- it's a surplus of knowledge and a level head.

[phirang]

Re: WWIII: Iran test-fires more missiles in Persian Gulf

No -- it's a surplus of knowledge and a level head.

It's not about Iran: it's Syria, Egypt, Pakistan, Iraq, Israel, Palestine, Lebanon, Turkey, Russia, China, etc.

Everyone knows that the US can obliterate Iran. The problem is, Iran can provoke some serious shyte and make the US lose a lot more than it would gain.

[Sapiens]

Re: WWIII: Iran test-fires more missiles in Persian Gulf

No -- it's a surplus of knowledge and a level head.

Again, that's the problem, what makes you think the people that run our world keep a level head? You give them too much credit... ha ha ha bad pun...

[ASH]

Re: WWIII: Iran test-fires more missiles in Persian Gulf

Again, that's the problem, what makes you think the people that run our world keep a level head? You give them too much credit... ha ha ha bad pun...

I don't want to be too pushy, but for what it's worth, my opinion is based on my assessment of national capabilities and constraints external to individual leaders.

First of all, to qualify as a "world war", a decently large fraction of the world has to be involved. Since the United States is the only nation that still maintains a significant global expeditionary capacity -- and since the United States is the only power with a significant blue water navy -- how can we have anything other than a regional war? I submit to you that for now, the only conventional conflicts which are possible are regional cross-border wars or American invasions. Further, I submit that the only significant out-of-region forces which could be involved in such wars are American...

... But, of course, our ground forces -- and public support for their employment -- are essentially tapped out. Whatever results from saber-rattling in the Persian Gulf, the upshot will not be a large commitment of American ground forces, because they don't exist to be called upon. In contrast, American naval forces and air power are much less taxed by the occupation of Iraq, and the domestic political barrier to their employment is notably lower.

Here's my take on the immediate situation. Iran believes that the only way to deter American interventionism is to develop a nuclear weapons capability; further, that capability would give it parity with its greatest regional enemy (Israel) and superiority over hostile Sunni Arab neighbors. America recognizes that it could ultimately be detered from regional intervention by a Persian bomb, and that by reducing the likelihood of American intervention, a Persian bomb would reduce the value of American security guarantees and hence its influence with Arab oil-producers. For its part, Israel sees a Persian nuclear weapon as an existential threat. Broadly speaking, Europe doesn't want to see nuclear proliferation in the Middle East, based both upon general security principles and the obvious potential for a disruption of the energy market.

Europe (and to a certain extent America) have been trying to apply soft power to get Iran to give up its enrichment program -- the "good cops". Israel has been playing "bad cop" by flying a large exercise over the Mediterranean to demonstrate the ability to strike targets at the same distance from its borders as Iran's nuclear facilities. In a tit-for-tat demonstration, Iran has tested an intermediate-range ballistic missile that has enough range to strike Israel -- as if to say "see, we can reach you too."

What might actually happen? At this point, America isn't that likely to start anything. The recent National Intelligence Estimate which concluded that Iran is not weaponizing its nuclear technology -- although disputed by Israel and some Europeans -- makes it politically very difficult for America to strike those facilities first. More importantly, the stresses placed upon America's economy by high energy prices make this a particularly poor time to disrupt the flow of oil through the Strait of Hormuz. Finally, it is possible that American forces in Iraq and Afghanistan are vulnerable to cross-border strikes from Iran; I doubt they are ideally positioned or equipped to defend those borders. That's why I think it is unlikely America will strike first. However, even if America does act first -- perhaps because Bush wants to claim that he dealt with entire "Axis of Evil" by the end of his time in office -- it will be limited to airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities and possibly leadership targets.

What might Israel do? I think Israel very well might start something, since it sees a nuclear Iran as an existential threat. Again, it would be airstrikes on nuclear facilities. The Iranian missile tests are not much of a deterrent, since their stock of such intermediate-range missiles cannot be very large, and their warheads are unlikely to be particularly destructive.

What might Iran do in response? It will likely hold America responsible for any attack by Israel, and I expect Iran could make our position in Iraq and Afghanistan more unpleasant than it already is. It would probably launch a number of missiles at Israel, to little effect. The big questions are whether Iran would try to disrupt shipping traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, and whether it could hasten America's departure from Iraq and Afghanistan. The Strait of Hormuz is a difficult question, because Iran can most rapidly inflict pain upon the United States by disrupting shipping there, but doing so is also the expedient most likely to invite the wrath of Iran's neighbors. I happen to think that increased Iranian support for guerillas in Iraq and Afghanistan probably would push us out sooner, and might result in a major strategic loss for the US.

Anyway, I see how this could turn into a major economic shock and a strategic loss for the United States -- I just don't see how this could turn into a "world war". Of course, that's just my opinion.

[Chris Coles]

Re: WWIII: Iran test-fires more missiles in Persian Gulf

Clue is quite correct, as I clicked the mouse my brain told me I was an idiot and it was Persia I was talking about.

Ash, you have not introduced a small matter of the Olympics. First of all, I do not see anything happening before the end of the Olympics and that leaves just a couple of months before the election in November. We are told that Cheney might be tempted to do something to destabilise the election process in favour of the Neocons. You only have to look back in history to find many examples of leadership renewals from a war, Margaret Thatcher is a very good example. The Falklands war gave her new impetus, so that is always a possibility. Never discount the possible, it just might happen.

Again, I am deeply concerned to hear reports of Agent Provocateurs, (US Special Forces), in Iran. That is the sort of thing that can create a situation that repeats itself, you might find you will get the same deal inside your own borders.

I believe that the greatest threat to peace over the next few months is Israel, not Iran. Iran has no prior record of initiating strikes outside of its borders; Israel has many times initiated such a strategy and we have still not arrived at any form of peaceful settlement in the Middle East, what, seventy years after this all started. Until they are brought to realise their strategy has not succeeded, not in seventy years, we are all in danger. THAT is a reality we all have to face up to. As we discovered in Northern Ireland, the only answer is through dialogue. Like it or not, you have to sit down and talk to them in the end and then to succeed, you have to start to see their point of view. It is too easy to start a war and incredibly difficult to stop one.

Moreover, no one has any idea of just how much trouble an angry Iran could cause to the USA. Yes, you can guess, but until they hit back, you will not know and cannot defend against speculation of what might happen. That is the wild card. You just might guess wrong.

[ASH]

Re: WWIII: Iran test-fires more missiles in Persian Gulf

Never discount the possible, it just might happen.

My apologies -- you must have read my opinion about what I think is likely to happen as a statement of what definitely will happen. The universe of what is "possible" is vast, bounded only by natural laws. Rational people plan and make decisions based upon a combination of what is already true, and an assessment of what is likely to occur. It is entirely valid to discount scenarios which are technically possible, but quite unlikely, because taking every possibility into account leads to paralysis and dilutes one's strategy. Obviously, there's not much point in debating what is possible and what isn't (in the realm of international relations, anyway); rather, we should be talking about what is likely. You should interpret my posts as stating that I think World War III is an unlikely consequence which need not be planned for, but that a regional war is a possibility.

Again, I am deeply concerned to hear reports of Agent Provocateurs, (US Special Forces), in Iran.

You make it sound very one-sided. Do you also regard the Iranian personnel and Iranian materiel captured on the Iraqi side of the border to be "provocation" as well?

At least the Iranians seem to have a coherent and workable strategy behind their covert operations in Iraq, which is to wear down the Americans by feeding weapons into the insurgency. I read that our efforts are a comparatively short-term tit-for-tat response to make Iran pay a price for its cross-border interference.

None of this is to argue that Iran is necessarily at fault here. Seeing as how our two countries don't get along, I see Iran as having a legitimate strategic interest in weakening the United States and expanding Iranian influence in Iraq. Iran's strategy in Iraq makes a lot of sense to me. When a hostile and threatening power invades the country next to you, weakening your adversary by arming and training proxies seems like a reasonable course of action. That said, our covert response -- which is short of formal hostilities -- seems both valid and proportionate.

I believe that the greatest threat to peace over the next few months is Israel, not Iran.

Oh, I quite agree. You didn't read anything in my post to the contrary, did you? I think an attack on Iran makes a fair amount of strategic sense to Israel right now. On the other hand, time is on Iran's side, so they have no need to initiate overt hostilities.

Moreover, no one has any idea of just how much trouble an angry Iran could cause to the USA.

Again, the "anything is possible" argument -- while technically true -- isn't a good basis for planning. My position is that you can't have a world war when there's only one combatant with global reach. Do you disagree? Isn't a regional war bad enough? I even posited that Iran, if angered, might be able to force the United States to abandon its occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, inflicting a strategic defeat and economic harm on America in the process. How much more trouble do you really think is realistic?

[Chris Coles]

Re: WWIII: Iran test-fires more missiles in Persian Gulf

Now I understand why you see me as misunderstanding; you assumed I was answering the post as a debate about a possible WW111. In fact, that is not true, I do not believe that WW111 is on the cards. And again, yes, you are perfectly correct to see the difficulties of trying to make too many assumptions.

But, on the other hand, a sound strategy must rely on the participants looking at every possible scenario, even if briefly to know they are logged as a "might happen" and then left on file.

One "might happen" is that the US has underestimated the intent of the Russians and their visible discomfort about the radar and rockets being based in Eastern Europe. I am reminded of a presentation given at a business conference way back in the early 1980's by a HR specialist who took us through a possible situation of conflict where everything done, instead of gaining time and calming the situation, had the unexpected opposite effect. He had an old slide projector which he did not use and right at the end of the presentation he marched up to the projector and made his point by picking up a hammer and, (to emphasise the point where everything suddenly collapsed into conflict), smashed the glass in the machine. Bang!

The very real point he made was that, at that precise point, the moment the hammer strikes the glass, you have lost the debate. You are at war, in his demonstration with your employees, in the case of the radar and rockets, the peace.

So another what if is to ask, what if the Russians really are as stimulated as the US was when the Kremlin started to site rockets on Cuba? In that case, you have, quite separately from the Iran case, another situation where exactly the same rules apply. Indeed, if I were Russia and was as up tight as the US was in the Cuban crisis and then saw the US, yes, perhaps unintentionally, becoming involved in another "local" war against Iran and thus over stretched, then the internal pressure to take advantage by stepping back into its old ways and moving against the installations might become unstoppable.

So immediately, we have to take all the small things that have happened here in Europe, (that perhaps you have not been so aware of in the US), into account too.

The European dimension starts with the idea that you can divert attention by starting a war against the Chechen's and to build up the case, someone gets the idea of blowing up a few buildings in Russia. Problem was, a journalist came across someone that described very clearly that the explosives left in the basement of a block of apartments full of innocent Russian citizens were Russian Army equipment .... just before one of the explosions.

Time passes and the journalist is now more than one and they all keep doggedly following the story to the point where, suddenly the journalists start to disappear in strange circumstances. The story surfaces and the finger of suspicion points directly at the Kremlin. That part finishes with a dissident being poisoned by the use of Polonium, a substance only available to the Russian Government. The UK objects to the murder of someone on British soil and by now all sorts of things have ramped up.


The Russians have:

• re-introduced regular bomber intrusions into British air space.
• made it clear that they now dislike normal large company and institutional ownership of Russian assets, using every trick in the book to slide foreign ownership of Russian industry back into Kremlin hands.
• Apparently, so we are told just a week or so ago, have flooded the UK with what are euphemistically described as "spys".

So, right now, we have a ramped up "situation" in the middle East that might lead to a possible local war between Israel and Iran into which the US will almost certainly get drawn. and another rising "little difficulty" with Russia and the siting of rockets and radars in Europe.

No, we are still in the debate phase, but surely, we should not discount the potential for the hammer to fall ... in more than one situation, ....... unexpectedly?