IRAN READYING FOR CONFLICT WITH US




 
--
IRAN READYING FOR CONFLICT WITH US
 
September 18th, 2005  
phoenix80
 
 

Topic: IRAN READYING FOR CONFLICT WITH US


IRAN READYING FOR CONFLICT WITH US
IRAN READYING FOR CONFLICT WITH US

Benador Associates| September 17, 2005 | by Amir Taheri

Incredible though it may sound there are signs that Tehran may be preparing for a military confrontation with the United States, and has convinced itself that it could win.

The first sign came last June with the election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as president of the Islamic Republic, an event that completed the conquest of all levers of power by the most radical elements of the establishment.

Since thenIran Readying for Conflict With US the revolutionary factions have conducted a little publicized purge of the military, the security, the civil service, and state-owned corporations and media.

The most significant purges have affected the military high command.

Among those replaced are the defense minister, the commander-in-chief of the regular army and his four deputies, 11 senior commanders of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), and five commanders of the paramilitary Mobilization of the Dispossessed. Some of the purged officers have been "parked" in a mysterious new organ called "The Defense Guidance Commission" attached to the office of the "Supreme Guide" Ayatollah Ali Khamenehi.

The minister of intelligence and security and the minister of the interior, who controls the police and the gendarmerie, have also been replaced.

Another sign that Tehran may be preparing for war is the appointment of military officers to posts normally held by civilians, such as governors, mayors and directors of major public corporations.

But, perhaps, the surest sign yet is the military build up under way in the five provinces bordering Iraq. The region, with a population of 20 millions, has been put under the control of the IRGC which has also taken over units of the regular army, including the 88th Division, and the border police. Iran is estimated to have 250,000 troops in the area, its biggest military build-up since the end of the Iran-Iraq war in 1988.

One of the first acts of the new Cabinet led by Ahmadinejad was to approve an "emergency" fund of $700 million to be disbursed at the discretion of "the supreme guide" for "sacred defense purposes."

The new administration has also decided to speed up defense disbursements under a five-year plan approved by Khamenehi last year. The plan aims at doubling the military budget by 2010. But it now seems that, thanks to rising oil revenues, most of the plan could be completed by 2008.

In the past few weeks top regime figures, including Khamenehi and Ahmadinejad, have made a series of unscheduled visits to Mash'had, Iran's second largest city. One curious fact revealed during these visits is that a bunker-like structure to house the "supreme guide" is being completed close to the "holy shrine" of Reza, the eighth imam. The complex could also house the top echelon of government, including the president, the Cabinet and members of the Islamic Majlis (Parliament).

The choice of Mash'had is not accidental. The city is located 1,000 km from Tehran and thus as far as possible inside Iran from American fire power in Iraq and the Gulf. The US is also expected to shrink from attacks against the Mash'had bunker for fear of collateral damage to the "holy shrine" of the imam a few hundred yards away.

The summer's comings-and-goings in Mash'had have provoked rumors that Khamenehi plans to appoint Abbas Va'ez Tabasi, the mulla who runs the eighth imam's foundation, as "deputy supreme guide", just in case!

The belief that the Americans would not attack sites close to "holy shrines' has also led to the creation of a massive new military base at Fadak, a suburb of the "holy city" of Qom where the eighth imam's sister is buried, south of Tehran. Work on the base that covers an area of 7.2 square km started in August.

Piecing together the bits of the jigsaw one may guess the outline of Tehran's scenario for what it believes is an inevitable clash with the US:

The diplomatic tussle over Iran's nuclear plans goes to the Security Council that will fail to take a decision thanks to Russian and Chinese vetoes.

The US, after much huffing and puffing launches air strikes against Iran's nuclear installations. (Tehran loves Israel to also participate because that would give the Islamic Republic a better claim to be fighting on behalf of Islam as a whole.)

Iran retaliates by ordering the forces it controls inside Iraq to attack American and British troops. At the same time the Lebanese branch of the Hezbollah launches massive rocket attacks against Israel while Hamas and the Islamic Jihad, whose leaders spent the past month in Tehran meeting Khamenehi and his aides, organize a wave of suicide operations against Israel from Jerusalem and the West Bank.

The US and its British allies, stationed in southern Iraq, launch a three-pronged attack, from Shalamcheh, Hamroun and Shatt Al-Arab to seize control of Khuzestan, the province that accounts for 70 percent of Iran's oil production.

Iranian Special Forces attack Iraq from the Zaynalkosh salient, south of the Kurdish provinces, some 80 km from Baghdad's first defenses in Ba'aqubah.

Hazara Shi'ites strikes against Kabul, the Afghan capital, from Maydanshahr while Pushtun warlord Gulbuddin Hekmatyar and the remnants of the Taleban, some of whom are under Iranian protection, attack across Afghanistan.

The Americans and their allies attack Khuzestan.

Iran closes the Strait of Hormuz.

The Americans attack the Iranian provinces of Kermanshahan and Kurdistan.

US-led forces attack across the Mandali-Ilam axis. The Iranians retreat to the Zagross mountain range, the first line of Iran's natural defenses. (To fight along the Zagross the IRGC is building new bases at Khorramabad, Pessyan, Borujerd, Zagheh and Malayer in the province of Luristan. The bases would assure the logistics of a quarter of a million troops, and provide temporary shelter for half a million refugees from the border. These bases will complement older ones further west, at Sahneh and Kangavar. )

Oil prices top $100 and the global economy plunges into a crisis.

Americans launch cruise missiles against "regime targets" in Tehran. But the regime is already in Mash'had.

Global TV networks air images of "indiscriminate carnage" and "wanton destruction" in Iranian cities.

The Security Council meets in emergency and orders a cease-fire while the American media and Congress revolt against President George W Bush and his "pre-emptive" strategy.

Anti-Bush marches in Washington and dozens of other cities with Hollywood figures and other celebrities calling for Bush to be overthrown.

Bush accepts a UN-brokered cease-fire and withdraws his forces.

The Islamic Republic emerges victorious from what Ahmadinejad sees as "a clash of civilizations."

The Americans leave Iraq and Afghanistan as Bush becomes a lame duck for the rest of his presidency.

The Islamic Republic gains new domestic legitimacy and proceeds to crush its opponents as "enemies of the nation and of Islam."

Iran can speed up making its nuclear weapons and long-range missiles without being harassed by Washington.

Iran becomes "the core power" of a new "Islamic pole" in a multipolar system with China, the European Union and Latin America, Under the Bolivarist leadership of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez emerging as other "poles".

Bush's successor acknowledges Iran's new status and sends Bill Clinton, who apologized to Iran for "our past misdeeds" in 2000, to Tehran to offer another formal apology on behalf of Bush's successor and offer Ahmadinejad "a grand bargain".

The Islamic Republic is now free to proceed to address what Khamenehi has described as its "greatest historic task" which is the destruction of Israel.

Sounds outlandish? Well, it is. The Islamic Republic is a fragile structure in a zone of political earthquakes. Logically, the last thing it should want is war. Nevertheless, former President Muhammad Khatami has warned that Tehran may be boxing itself into a position in which it will either have to surrender or fight.

http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/18347
September 18th, 2005  
Whispering Death
 
 
Interesting, I like the bit about the holy shrines. Ever noticed it seems like the Americans care more about Islamic holy sights than the "Defenders of Islam"?

If we go to a war and don't level those sites I'm going to be very very angry at my government.
September 18th, 2005  
Rabs
 
 
There not takeing into affect us haveing total air superimecy in about 2 days.
--
IRAN READYING FOR CONFLICT WITH US
September 19th, 2005  
MontyB
 
 
Well the whole process looks a little far fetched to me but if true at least they have identified their most likely enemy and are planning accordingly and you have to admire that.

As long as they stick with planning a defensive war I say good on them (incidently I dont recall anyone actually winning a defensive war in the past but I assume it has happened).
September 19th, 2005  
Whispering Death
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MontyB
As long as they stick with planning a defensive war I say good on them (incidently I dont recall anyone actually winning a defensive war in the past but I assume it has happened).
Well, no country thus far has been able to fend off an American assault.

Korea was almost completely overrun with American troops from toe to tip before the Chinese ATTACKED and drove us back.

We lost Vietnam because we fought only defensively. When we did take the offensive, for a very short time, we completely destroyed the enemy.

So I guess history teaches that the best way to win against America is to have China invade your country from the other side
September 20th, 2005  
MontyB
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whispering Death
Well, no country thus far has been able to fend off an American assault.
Umm didnt Canada do it a few hundred years ago, ended up with the Whitehouse in smouldering ruins or am I thinking of something else?
September 20th, 2005  
bulldogg
 
 
War of 1812, indeed.

And for some reason my posts to links which clearly define Vietnam as a total loss were deleted. Excuses aside it was a loss pure and simple. Its just so bloody hard for some people to swallow when the society that spawned them and the war eschew being anything other than numero uno. Its completely understandable why there are a plethera of reasons touted as to why we lost and try to make it some sort of footnote in history as though it didn't happen. To accept it as a defeat without footnotes would be to shake the very foundations of the hubris which grips American society and its self-assured status as the "best place in the world".
September 20th, 2005  
MontyB
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by bulldogg
War of 1812, indeed.

And for some reason my posts to links which clearly define Vietnam as a total loss were deleted. Excuses aside it was a loss pure and simple. Its just so bloody hard for some people to swallow when the society that spawned them and the war eschew being anything other than numero uno. Its completely understandable why there are a plethera of reasons touted as to why we lost and try to make it some sort of footnote in history as though it didn't happen. To accept it as a defeat without footnotes would be to shake the very foundations of the hubris which grips American society and its self-assured status as the "best place in the world".
Yes but to be fair Vietnam was not a military defeat it was a defeat borne of political failure had the war been left to the military to fight it would have been a victory.
I think it was a good example of how badly things turn out when you try to fight a war without goals.
September 20th, 2005  
gladius
 
A "clash of civilizations" is exactly what all those Islamic radicals want.

What was in that article is propably on Iran's wish list of short term goals. The long term goal of every Islamic radical is form an empire to have the ultimate clash of civilization against the West.

Iran is only one country and their wanting to fight. Imagine if they form empire, what will stop them from starting a war then.

The people this concerns most are the ones paying attention to this the least, namley the Europeans. They will bear the brunt of this empire, and none of their politically correct left wing socialist notions will save them.

Our last best chance to change this is Iraq by introducing democracy and openess to the region, but without the EU's cooperation even that will only have partial success, and only buy us time, if anything.
September 20th, 2005  
Whispering Death
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by bulldogg
And for some reason my posts to links which clearly define Vietnam as a total loss were deleted.
Well by your tone I can only guess at the illiegitimacy of the links you posted so that might have something to do with it. However, you arn't totally wrong, America lost the war. But I was speaking about American assaults, not defensive actions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MontyB
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whispering Death
Well, no country thus far has been able to fend off an American assault.
Umm didnt Canada do it a few hundred years ago, ended up with the Whitehouse in smouldering ruins or am I thinking of something else?
Okay I see where you are comming from on that one. But if you read me, my point was that if America is set to ATTACK, you're in some trouble. There where some little skirmishes north of the boarder that was returned by a massive Brittish assault but I consider that more of a Brittish assault than a counter-attack, the initial 'battles' where quite pathetic.

And what's more America ended up with the upper hand at the end of the war. Although politically it was a draw, the Battle of New Orelans resulted in one of the most lopsided victories in millitary history, the result of which was Brittish disengagement and recession in the entire area of American influence.

So, your choices are get China to inavde you from the other side or burn down the whitehouse and lose the war. Ha ha come to think of it that latter option sounds like a pretty realistic outcome in our modern day of Terrorism, no?