How Iran would retaliate if it comes to war

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Military analysts are warning of severe consequences if the US begins a shooting war with Iran. While Iranian forces are no match for American technology on a conventional battlefield, Iran has shown that it can bite back in unconventional ways.

Iranian networks in Iraq and Afghanistan could imperil US interests there; American forces throughout the Gulf region could be targeted by asymmetric methods and lethal rocket barrages; and Iranian partners across the region – such as Hezbollah in Lebanon – could be mobilized to engage in an anti-US fight.

...

"One very important issue from a US intelligence perspective, [the Iranian reaction] is probably more unpredictable than the Al Qaeda threat," says Magnus Ranstorp at the Center for Asymmetric Threat Studies at the Swedish National Defense College in Stockholm.

...

"If you attack Iran you are unleashing a firestorm of reaction internally that will only strengthen revolutionary forces, and externally in the region," says Ranstorp. "It's a nightmare scenario for any contingency planner, and I think you really enter the twilight zone if you strike Iran."

...

Analysts say Iran has a number of tools to make good on those threats and take pride in taking on a more powerful enemy. "This is not something they are shying away from," says Alex Vatanka, a Middle East security analyst at Jane's Information Group in Washington.

"They say: 'Conventional warfare is not something we can win against the US, but we have other assets in the toolbox,' " says Mr. Vatanka, noting that the IRGC commander appointed last fall has been "marketed as this genius behind asymmetric warfare doctrine."

...

Any US-Iran conflict would push up oil prices, and though Iran could disrupt shipping lanes in the Persian Gulf, its weak economy depends on oil revenues.

...

Further afield, Israel is within range of Iran's Shahab-3 ballistic missiles, and Hezbollah claims its rockets – enhanced and resupplied by Iran since the 2006 war to an estimated 30,000 – can now hit anywhere in the Jewish state, including its nuclear plant at Dimona.

Closer to home, Iran has honed a swarming tactic, in which small and lightly armed speedboats come at far larger warships from different directions. A classified Pentagon war game in 2002 simulated just such an attack and in it the Navy lost 16 major warships, according to a report in The New York Times last January.

...

With some 30,000 on the payroll by one count, Iranian intelligence "is a superpower in intelligence terms in the region; they have global reach because of their reconnaissance ability and quite sophisticated ways of inflicting pain," says Ranstorp. "They have been expanding their influence.… Who would have predicted that Argentina would be the area that Hezbollah and the Iranians collectively would respond?"

http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0620/p07s04-wome.html

[mawilson 2,133]

Didn't they say the same thing about Saddam? What a tough guy he was?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Did they? I don't recall anyone ever crediting Saddam with the terror network the Iranians are known to have.

[Ban Hammer 13,352]

lethal rocket barrages;

ever heard of counterbattery?

[mawilson 2,133]

Did they? I don't recall anyone ever crediting Saddam with the terror network the Iranians are known to have.

An all-out war is what our troops are best trained for.

They try their assymetric bullsh1t, we'll retaliate with a massive bombing raid.

Kinda what Israel did to Lebanon - some say it was a failure, but they trashed the country good and proper, didn't they?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

They try their assymetric bullsh1t, we'll retaliate with a massive bombing raid.

Will we?

We don't have the stomach to give Iraq a "nice and proper" ravaging (which, btw, would have quieted the 'extremists' down years ago), what makes you think we'd do it to Iran?

[mawilson 2,133]

They try their assymetric bullsh1t, we'll retaliate with a massive bombing raid.

Will we?

We don't have the stomach to give Iraq a "nice and proper" ravaging (which, btw, would have quieted the 'extremists' down years ago), what makes you think we'd do it to Iran?

We sort of did - remember the "shock and awe" blitzkrieg?

[Dan J 277]

If anything happens with Iran, current oil prices will look cheap.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

They try their assymetric bullsh1t, we'll retaliate with a massive bombing raid.

Will we?

We don't have the stomach to give Iraq a "nice and proper" ravaging (which, btw, would have quieted the 'extremists' down years ago), what makes you think we'd do it to Iran?

We sort of did - remember the "shock and awe" blitzkrieg?

So you're saying the massive bombing we did didn't accomplish the objective of pacifying Iraq?

[HAL 9000 96]

If anything happens with Iran, current oil prices will look cheap.

Probably not b/c of their input to world supply but more so out of speculation and maybe terror targeting of drilling.

But hey at least there'd be big profiteers involved!

Edited June 20, 2008 by maviwaro

[mawilson 2,133]

So you're saying the massive bombing we did didn't accomplish the objective of pacifying Iraq?

Won the war, didn't we? "Mission accomplished" and all that, in May 2003?

What followed was the inevitable result of the prolonged occupation - something we're not very good at.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

"Mission accomplished" and all that, in May 2003?

[mawilson 2,133]

"Mission accomplished" and all that, in May 2003?

Laugh all you want - the war ended in May 2003. The occupation continues to this day.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

So you're saying the massive bombing we did didn't accomplish the objective of pacifying Iraq?

Won the war, didn't we? "Mission accomplished" and all that, in May 2003?

What followed was the inevitable result of the prolonged occupation - something we're not very good at.

Splitting the hair might fine there - as you can't really go into a country like that and start a war without the inevitable consequence of dealing with the resulting occupation.

We can make a semantic distinction - sure. But that's really all it is.

Edited June 20, 2008 by Number 6

[mawilson 2,133]

So you're saying the massive bombing we did didn't accomplish the objective of pacifying Iraq?

Won the war, didn't we? "Mission accomplished" and all that, in May 2003?

What followed was the inevitable result of the prolonged occupation - something we're not very good at.

Splitting the hair might fine there - as you can't really go into a country like that and start a war without the inevitable consequence of dealing with the resulting occupation.

We can make a semantic distinction - sure. But that's really all it is.

That's how we won the war in Afghanistan.

You don't think you can win a war without securing the peace (or occupying the country, for that matter)?

Edited June 20, 2008 by mawilson