Iran and Syria - war of the future?

[Kirkhill]

IF, however, one was to elliminate specific targets within those nations that are clearly supplying arms to combatants in Iraq, and left all else alone, then that is completely different.

Caesar, isn't that a distinction without a difference?  In order to eliminate specific targets within Syria, without Syria's co-operation, don't you have to cross Syria's borders, violate Syria's sovereignty and thus commit an act of war against Syria?

My understanding of your logic would suggest that you believe that Henry Kissinger was right to promote strikes into Cambodia and Laos to eliminate Anti-Vietnamese elements there.  Is that right?

Cheers.

 

[a_majoor]

The logic of this conflict is beginning to resemble the tangles of the 30 years war.

Jihadis are using violence to overthrow regimes in the Middle East in order to establish a new Caliphate.

Syria is sponsoring Jihadis to prevent a democratic Iraq from establishhing itself, since freedom is contagious and will destabilize the Ba'athist dictatorship's grip on Syria.

Iran is sponsoring the Jihadis in order to strike a blow at the "Great Satan", and establish a theocracy of their design in Iraq

The United States and the coallition is fighting the Jihadis to establish a democratic Iraq, theorizing this will provide a potent counterforce to the attractions of the "Caliphate", reducing the appeal of the Jihadis. The second order effects will be to destabilize unfriendly states such as Iran. A third order effect would be to reduce the flow of arms to the region, reducing foreign trade to unfriendly states like China and North Korea (and quasi-friendly states like France).

As for the home front, we seem afraid to speak the simple truth that Islamic leaders here in Canada, the United States and the West do not speak openly and forcefully against the Jihadis, either being silent, or resorting to the "yes, but" arguments. If and when Al Qadea sleeper cells emerge in North America, which community do you think they found the shelter and resources in? If the leadership is not willing to denounce them in word and deed, do you really belive ordinary people will take action? I am not trying to be racist or inflammetory here, and some smart HUMINT and CIMIC type work will probably pay huge dividends rather than mass internments or other heavy handed actions.

 

[a_majoor]

From Stratagypage

http://www.strategypage.com//fyeo/qndguide/default.asp?target=IRAQ.HTM

IRAQ: The Only Battles That Count

Can the anti-government forces in Iraq win? Some pundits think so. But do you really think the Shia and Kurds will allow Saddam's thugs to bully their way back into power? The Kurds and Shia Arabs have 80 percent of the population, control of the oil, and American troops to back up their efforts. Iraqis indicate, to anyone who will listen, that they have no intention of folding under Baath pressure, and a growing desire to come down hard on the Sunnis who support the violence. The Kurds and Shia have names, because Saddam's thugs didn't wear masks when they ran things for three decades. Guess who is going to lose? But that thought is what is driving the resistance. The Baath Party thugs know what they will have to face eventually, if they don't regain control of Iraq.

The Baath and al Qaeda campaign against the police and government officials results in spectacular and newsworthy attacks each day. But there are still 7,000 new police and National Guard undergoing training, and another 25,000 waiting to start their training. The attacks are concentrated in two provinces; Anbar (where Fallujah is) and Nineveh (where Mosul is). Because the attacks are killing mostly Iraqis, the attackers are not very popular, even among Sunni Arabs. The police are getting more tips about anti-government activity. This includes information about where roadside bombs are planted, or where gunmen are hiding out. Although the Arab media makes a big deal about how impossible it will be to run the elections, the Iraqi people don't think so.

Read the whole thing. I've found StrategyPage to be pretty reliable, and I certainly hope they're right about this.

 

[dutchie]

Caesar, isn't that a distinction without a difference?   In order to eliminate specific targets within Syria, without Syria's co-operation, don't you have to cross Syria's borders, violate Syria's sovereignty and thus commit an act of war against Syria?

My understanding of your logic would suggest that you believe that Henry Kissinger was right to promote strikes into Cambodia and Laos to eliminate Anti-Vietnamese elements there.   Is that right?

Cheers.

For the purposes of explanation, I will compare two US military actions in the Middle East:

1- The invasion/occupation of Iraq (you'll notice I didn't refer to it as the conquer of Iraq - they haven't achieved that yet)

2- The air strike against Libya in the 80's.

One invloved the stiking of a specific target by the US Air Force, temporarily violating the sovereignty of Libya. This action was proportional to the threat.

The other involved the ground invasion and decimation of conventional forces of Iraq, and subsequent occupation, indefinately violating their sovereignty. This action was not proportional to the threat.

Huge difference.

 

[Wizard of OZ]

For the purposes of explanation, I will compare two US military actions in the Middle East:

1- The invasion/occupation of Iraq (you'll notice I didn't refer to it as the conquer of Iraq - they haven't achieved that yet)

2- The air strike against Libya in the 80's.

One invloved the stiking of a specific target by the US Air Force, temporarily violating the sovereignty of Libya. This action was proportional to the threat.

The other involved the ground invasion and decimation of conventional forces of Iraq, and subsequent occupation, indefinately violating their sovereignty. This action was not proportional to the threat.

But still technically acts of war against a sovereign nation.

Not to say that clamping down on these two might not make the world a safer place, they still are acts of war.

If it can be proven that these nations are supporting the insurjants would that to not constitute an act of war against the US or the soon to be elected government of Iraq?

As for ironclad proof, that would be interesting to see how they pull that out.

As for the anti-government forces in Iraq winning, I don't see that as real visable unless the americans abandon the kurds and the Shia again like after the 1st gulf war.  An unreal vision within the next three years anyway..

MOO

 

[Kirkhill]

If Libya had had the ability to significantly and effectively "return fire" against a useful US target might that have changed the dynamic and the response resulting in an escalation?

Does Syria have a significant US target that it can reach and on which it can inflict damage?  Are US forces in Iraq concentrated and in a posture suitable to withstand a strike at short notice or are they dispersed?  What is the drive time from the Syrian Border to Fallujah?

 

[dutchie]

If Libya had had the ability to significantly and effectively "return fire" against a useful US target might that have changed the dynamic and the response resulting in an escalation?

Are you referring to Iraq here? The US Gov has announced today that the search for WMD is over, and they admit they have come up empty-handed. So Iraq really didn't have the ability to strike the US, now did they?

Does Syria have a significant US target that it can reach and on which it can inflict damage?

Is there strong, physical evidence that they are actually preparing an attack? No, only conjecture and speculation. I bet that Syria would love to conduct a successfull attack on US forces, but desire is not reason to launch a pre-emptive attack.

What is the drive time from the Syrian Border to Fallujah?

What you should be asking is how many feet inside Iraq would Syrian forces get during an attack before being vaporized by US forces. My guess is around 50-100 feet, 200 feet if they dig a tunnel first.

In short, Iran and Syria are nations that the US and the rest of the West should watch, but neither are stupid enough to launch an attack against the US. They may hate the US/West, they may cheer everytime a US serviceman is killed by an Iraqi insurgent, they may pray for the annihilation of the West and Israel, but that is not sufficient cause for the invasion of their sovereign state. It is cause for concern, buy not (military) action.

 

[a_majoor]

Syria and Iran are doing everything in their power to aid the Jihadis, and the Jihadis have global reach (Mogadishu, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Nairobi, New York, Bali, Madrid).  It speaks volumes about the coalitions abilities that these sort of attacks are not happening more frequently.

The issue of sovereignty is a red herring in my opinion. If a nation is either directly doing actions to harm other nations, or indirectly performing these actions i.e. sheltering or supporting third parties to do the dirty work, then both International Law and common sense dictate the attacked nation acts in self defense. There was no question Lybia was sponsoring terrorism in the 1980s, and after the United States demonstrated that action could be taken by bombing Tripoli, the Lybian support for terrorists tapered off quite quickly. Once the Americans showed their fangs again in OIF, Lybia suddenly came clean about their WMD program, and proceeded to dismantle it. Coincidence? Perhaps.

The evidence for Syria and Iran's actions in Iraq are circumstantial, but quite strong. Some pieces are even posted on this thread, from the debrief of captured Jihadis to the discovery of a GPS receiver in Fallujia with the first way-point in Syria. I wonder how much evidence it will take to trigger preemtive actions, but perhaps this won't be required; coalition forces may simply execute the doctrine of "hot persuit" against retreating Jihadis and do the deed that way.

 

[onecat]

posted by a_major

"The issue of sovereignty is a red herring in my opinion. If a nation is either directly doing actions to harm other nations, or indirectly performing these actions i.e. sheltering or supporting third parties to do the dirty work, then both International Law and common sense dictate the attacked nation acts in self defense"

Your reply was interesting, does that not mean that Britian has the right to bomb the US, because though out the 60's, 70's, 80's and even in the 90's it took a blind eye to support and fund for the IRA, who were activity bombing British targets. Or does Sri lanka have the right to attack Canada because of questional Liberal ( aka gov't) support for Tamils Tigers and its known terrorist fund raising parties.

 

[Slim]

and the Jihadis have global reach

You forgot Scarborough (GTA)

 

[a_majoor]

posted by a_major

"The issue of sovereignty is a red herring in my opinion. If a nation is either directly doing actions to harm other nations, or indirectly performing these actions i.e. sheltering or supporting third parties to do the dirty work, then both International Law and common sense dictate the attacked nation acts in self defense"

Your reply was interesting, does that not mean that Britian has the right to bomb the US, because though out the 60's, 70's, 80's and even in the 90's it took a blind eye to support and fund for the IRA, who were activity bombing British targets. Or does Sri lanka have the right to attack Canada because of questional Liberal ( aka gov't) support for Tamils Tigers and its known terrorist fund raising parties.

Acting in self defense can include military actions, and given the size and strength of the Jihadi assaults, this was the correct response. The UK certainly worked through diplomatic channels in an attempt to stop NORAID and other terrorist support organizations, and I would not be surprised if files opened 30 years from now revealed British Intelligence contemplating or even doing "direct action" against players in the US. I don't think Siri Lanka has the reach to bomb Canada, but then again, we don't have a means to defend ourselves either. As an aside, there was a period in the 1980s where Indian Intelligence Agencies were actually having battles with Sikh separatists on Canadian soil (culminating with the "Air India" bombing in 1985 or so), because we were doing little or nothing to discourage the separatists from planning or supporting violent acts and actors on the Indian sub-continent.

 

[Wizard of OZ]

Caesar

The Law of Pyhsics would apply to any Iranian or Syrain action, which would be a re-action.  How many of the stratgegic targets in those two nations are withing the striking distance of the US...... oh yea all of them.  So i have to agree they may just watch this one from the VP box and give money and weapons to those who want to fight it out.  Do i think a direct attack is likely, not by those nations to start it off.

a_majoor

While i don't think the fact that the attacks happen more frequently has anything more to do with the colation forces then with your average police department.  I do agree that they have the ability to strike anywhere. 

Sovereignty aside if a nation supports another in its war making effort that to would be considered an act of war although unoffically declared.  The Land Lease program of US and UK in WWII bases for Ships and the such is an example of that.  A good example of how to support a war without the acutally decleration of one.


Now my rant

Now if the Americans strike first i have a question or two. 

1.    How many sleeper cells do you think Iran or Syria have in the North America?

2.  What do you think there targets would be?

Do you think that the US has overlooked this problem i don't that is why they may be waiting to have concrete proof.  Then they could raise the alert level to red (martial law basically) and then hammer away at Syria and/or Iran.  How flag wavey do you think they would be then.  Americans do it better then any other nation when they rally around the flag.  I can almost see it coming.

 

[jmackenzie_15]

Im going to have to agree with you on that one Oz... the americans have a nack for putting together a large sense of patriotism when someone or something threatens them.... but they are very very patriotic in general.... im a little jealous of them actually, as it isnt quite the same in canada (unfortunately).

Ive come to my own personal conclusion that taking military actions against Iran and Syria ( be it pre-emptive strikes or full blow war) is not a question of if but when.

 

[dutchie]

I don't have a problem with US military action in Syria or Iran (I am a soldier afterall), as long as it's a last resort and in response to a real threat. That threat may very well come about, but I don't think it has as of yet......at least not a big enough threat. Syrians and Iranians cominig to the aid of Iraqi resistance fighters is not reason enough. Syrian/Iranian GOVERNMENT forces coming to the aid of Iraqi resistance fighters likely would justify some action, but not invasion and total occupation of those nations as well.

Re:US patriotism. Yeah, it is kind of admirable. However, I think that if they were to invade another Middle East nation, there would be revolt more intense than in the late 60's early 70's during Vietnam. We all know what impact THAT movement had on the war effort and the morale of the nation.

 

[a_majoor]

Syrians and Iranians coming to the aid of Iraqi resistance fighters is not reason enough. Syrian/Iranian GOVERNMENT forces coming to the aid of Iraqi resistance fighters likely would justify some action, but not invasion and total occupation of those nations as well.

Syrian and Iranian support for the Jihadis is not a spontaneous outpouring of private donations of money and manpower like the US response to the Tsunami. Syria is a Ba'athist dictatorship and Iran is a Theocratic state (the Islamic Republic of Iran), where people's freedoms and actions are constrained to a degree unknown here in the west. The Jihadis are "resisting" the establishment of a free Iraq, especially since the vast majority of the Iraqi voters will not be very keen on seeing another Ba'ath party dictatorship or some new theocracy imposed on them from outside. The Syrian and Iranian governments are supporting the Jihadis to further their own ambitions and ends.

The American quandary is not so much identifying the "perps", rather devising an effective and relatively low cost means to deal with the threat. The Iraqi people will probably back their new government's efforts to oust the Jihadis and foreign interlopers, although how effective they will be in doing so remains to be seen. If they are reasonably effective, the Americans and the coallition can take a lower profile, re orientating their force posture to guard Iraq's external borders until the Iraqi army clears the Jihadis and is capable of taking over that task.

Will the US remain after that? There are the questions of where the Iraqi WMD was spirited away to, and Iranian nuclear ambitions, as well as ongoing Syrian and Iranian support for Jihadis who will now be forced to operate in other regions of the world. Iraq is an excellent regional staging point for SW Asia and even Africa, and the Iraqi government may like the economic benefits of having US base infrastructure and soldiers stationed there, (although the bases will be in out of the way locations, something like Pet  ). American presence "up close and personal" may certainly make Syria and Iran behave much more cautiously in the future.

 

[tomahawk6]

The Syrian's funded by Iran are enabling the insurgency. Former Iraqi Baathists are in Syria. The US has asked for the return of 55 of these thugs to no avail. The Syrians are buying the Kornet ATM which can destroy an Abram's MBT. The Russians are about to sell surface to air missiles to Syria so the clock is ticking. Expect to see after the elections the new Iraqi leadership will authorize Gen Casey to
take action against Syria. This action will start out with limited objectives but could escalate into a punishing campaign against the Syrian's.

 

[Edward Campbell]

posted by a_major

"The issue of sovereignty is a red herring in my opinion. If a nation is either directly doing actions to harm other nations, or indirectly performing these actions i.e. sheltering or supporting third parties to do the dirty work, then both International Law and common sense dictate the attacked nation acts in self defense"

Your reply was interesting, does that not mean that Britian has the right to bomb the US, because though out the 60's, 70's, 80's and even in the 90's it took a blind eye to support and fund for the IRA, who were activity bombing British targets. Or does Sri lanka have the right to attack Canada because of questional Liberal ( aka gov't) support for Tamils Tigers and its known terrorist fund raising parties.

Not bomb, no ... but Britain could have and should have assassinated a fairly large handful of Irish-American leaders ... Sri Lanka might, if it can manage it, do away with some Tamil community leaders in Canada, too, for that matter.   The only sin is to be found out.

Someone ... any responsible nation which believes in a human security agenda - should send special forces troops to kill Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe ... but we, Canadians, don't really care much about the human security of poor black folks unless there is really disturbing TV coverage and then our attention span is pretty short â “ starving Sudanese and oppressed Zimbabweans cannot compare with Brad and Jenna or Hillary Duff.

 

[a_majoor]

http://reuters.myway.com/article/20050116/2005-01-16T173311Z_01_N16248289_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-IRAN-USA-NEWYORKER-DC.html

Report: U.S. Conducting Secret Missions Inside Iran

Jan 16, 12:33 PM (ET)

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States has been conducting secret reconnaissance missions inside Iran to help identify potential nuclear, chemical and missile targets, The New Yorker magazine reported Sunday.

The article, by award-winning reporter Seymour Hersh, said the secret missions have been going on at least since last summer with the goal of identifying target information for three dozen or more suspected sites.

Hersh quotes one government consultant with close ties to the Pentagon as saying, "The civilians in the Pentagon want to go into Iran and destroy as much of the military infrastructure as possible."

One former high-level intelligence official told The New Yorker, "This is a war against terrorism, and Iraq is just one campaign. The Bush administration is looking at this as a huge war zone. Next, we're going to have the Iranian campaign."

The White House said Iran is a concern and a threat that needs to be taken seriously. But it disputed the report by Hersh, who last year exposed the extent of prisoner abuse at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.

"We obviously have a concern about Iran. The whole world has a concern about Iran," Dan Bartlett, a top aide to President Bush, told CNN's "Late Edition."

Of The New Yorker report, he said: "I think it's riddled with inaccuracies, and I don't believe that some of the conclusions he's drawing are based on fact."

Bartlett said the administration "will continue to work through the diplomatic initiatives" to convince Iran -- which Bush once called part of an "axis of evil" -- not to pursue nuclear weapons.

"No president, at any juncture in history, has ever taken military options off the table," Bartlett added. "But what President Bush has shown is that he believes we can emphasize the diplomatic initiatives that are underway right now."

COMMANDO TASK FORCE

Bush has warned Iran in recent weeks against meddling in Iraqi elections.

The former intelligence official told Hersh that an American commando task force in South Asia is working closely with a group of Pakistani scientists who had dealt with their Iranian counterparts.

The New Yorker reports that this task force, aided by information from Pakistan, has been penetrating into eastern Iran in a hunt for underground nuclear-weapons installations.

In exchange for this cooperation, the official told Hersh, Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf has received assurances that his government will not have to turn over Abdul Qadeer Khan, the father of Pakistan's atomic bomb, to face questioning about his role in selling nuclear secrets to Iran, Libya and North Korea.

Hersh reported that Bush has already "signed a series of top-secret findings and executive orders authorizing secret commando groups and other Special Forces units to conduct covert operations against suspected terrorist targets in as many as 10 nations in the Middle East and South Asia."

Defining these as military rather than intelligence operations, Hersh reported, will enable the Bush administration to evade legal restrictions imposed on the CIA's covert activities overseas.

Hersh is not the most reliable journalist (he "broke" the Abu Ghraib prison story months after the Pentagon announced the discovery of prisoner abuse, for example), but the underlying suppositions are probably correct. Black operations against Iranian nuclear facilities will certainly buy time so long as they are: a, effective, and; b, deniable. Staging "industreal accidents" here and there might actually do the trick in defanging Iranian nuclear ambitions, and certainly reduce the Mullah's range of options in the long term.

 

[Ali_Khl]

Hi Guys,

I just stumbled here by chance, in fact searching for pictures of the IRIAF F14 Tomcats. I thought I would post my 2 cents on the matter here.

Firstly, although many outsiders believe the opposite, Iran currently operates quite a few more than '3 or 5' F14A Tomcats, with a fairly accurate number at 60 in Inventory, with the number currently in flight not too far off from that figure. This is due to Iran fairly rapidly moving onto self-sufficeny in terms of the Military items that were sold to the nation in the Shah's time, prior to 1979. These are very much fully operational birds here, not deteriorating or without supplies as many outside sources claim (ie. places like Cia.org, and such) - some 90% of the fuselage is currently produced domestically, with the parts excluded the fairly durable but hard to manufacture Titanium structural body components. Together with this the Armed Guard devision also flies a fleet of about 35 SU25 jets, as well as the Airforce also running the Mig 29 (including the nice looking UB) force consisting of some 30-35 planes or so, as well as the fleet of F4 Phantoms and F5Es that were sold by the US previously. Oh, and there are also some 25 or so Mirage F1s, but I will not go into those now.   For further information on the 'AliCats'     do visit the ACIG Forums or IIAF (Iran Imperial Air Force) forums, with the former discussing about the current IRIAF fleet despite its name being related to the previous Air Force under the Shah. Tom Cooper of ACIG is a very knoweldgable expert on Middle East Military affairs and he has written two books on both the F14 and F4s of Iran, as well as some very informative articles that are definetly worth a read if the above sounds interesting.

Iranian domestic industries also currently manufacture a full set of set parts for at least some 100 operational AH1J Helicopters under the name of HESA, with various upgrades already undertaken, including updated display units, radar and surface to ground capabilities of up to 4km or so. It in fact looks like quite an interesting upgrade program, with the canopy changed too - further pictures can be found through google searches of the aformentioned sites.

There are also quite a few more domestic Military industry developments, including the creation of a localy designed supersonic fighter, the Shafagh, although this is at supposed prototype and testing stage. I wont bore you with any more, but these are just hints that Iran is not quite the incapable Iraq resistance that the United States defeated in their campaign.

Without doubt, however, the United States is the superior force in terms of Military might, but with a young population of over 75 million, some very mountanous and difficult terrain (being much larger than Iraq included) i feel that a campaign against Iran wouldent be something beneficial to both the United State's security, finiancial deficit and domestic support as well as the Middle East's worsening instability. Nationalism ranks very high with Iranians so i feel that an attack, even a limited one on the Nuclear Instalations, would do more worse than good as I am certain it will arouse feelings against the United States and prohibit social change furthermore, especially so with the persisting campaign in our neighbors Iraq.

Cheers,

Ali Khalili

 

[a_majoor]

Ali, welcome to Army.ca. Your information about the Iranian Air Force was quite interesting

Please don't think that we feel armed conflict is a desirable thing, but the point of this thread is to debate what is currently happening in that region, what "may" happen and the possible results of various actions. The governments of both Iran and Syria have decided to take certain actions, ranging from sheltering elements of the Iraqi Ba'ath party, sheltering Al Qaeda members, supporting the "Jihadi" fighters who are wreaking so much mayhem against Iraqi civilians and Coallition troops, possibly hiding Iraq's WMD stocks and working to develop nuclear weapons.

The United States and the coallition needs to develop prudent responses to these actions, and military action, while not desirable, may be the only workable solution. If the only desire was to forment war, there would have been military action a long time ago (OIF follows ten years of patrolling the "no fly zones", maintaining economic sanctions and attempting to identify and dismantle the Ba'athist WMD program).