Syria

[alaskaguy]

Actually, with the current deployments and force ratios, we could obliterate the Iranian armed forces in a long weekend.

The problem with Iraq is that we are fighting a low intensity war against people we want to live with someday, in diplomatic terms. It's a LOT harder to kill one guy in a house, than it is to annihilate a tank battalion. And right now, it is necessary to kill that one guy without killing the family that is living there.

Current US power against a CONVENTIONAL army, like the great majority of the Iranian army/air force would be a walkover.

And Iran's conventional army is not a concern, even if our forces in theater had to take them on.

I don't see Iranians and Iraqis living in "harmony". They would be fighting each other for the next 1000 years. I suggest that the thermal reaction would make what Iraqi insurgents are doing to us look like play time at kindergarten.

I tend to agree with you that Iran's conventional army is not a concern.

Nevertheless, I suspect a major confrontation with Iran would create huge concerns:

It would be counterproductive to the war on terror; it would further worsen the public opinion of the U.S. in the Muslim world;

It could really **** off the Shia Muslims in Iraq. It might radicalize them to where they support Iran; this outcome would ratchet up our troubles in Iraq;

From a military prospective if Iran could sabotage our supply lines through Southern Iraq, I would think that the entire U.S. occupation would be imperiled. Your thoughts on whether the Iranians could threaten the supply lines?

[herbiedoobie]

The supply lines have been substantially "hardened" since 2004. And to interdict the supply lines worse than they are now, would require more forces, which would make them more easily targeted by us.

No doubt, they could give us a hard time, if they were willing to expend enough assets to try. But the supply lines through southern Iraq are pretty wide open. It's a hard nut to even approach them unseen, much less move a militarily significant force close enough to seriously interdict them. Military supplies could be airlifted, if need be, and the FOBs would just do without Pizza Hut for a week, if necessary.

On the religious aspects: I think the Iraqi/Iranian Shi'ia brotherhood is waaay overblown. While Islamic cooperation happens, and usually in the defense of the faith against an "infidel," Iraqis and Iranians have issues that run much deeper than the sect of Islam they belong to. The current guy in charge for our side is using this to our advantage, right now.

That brings me to the best way to deal with Iran. Engagement. We are dealing from a position of relative strength, and imo, that is the time to engage them politically and woo them to a better way. The Israeli raid in Syria, I believe, was an attempt to show Iran that they are vulnerable, both militarily and politically. The amount of saber-rattling coming from Iran is a good thing, imo. It reveals fundamental weakness.

[iceclone]

The current guy in charge for our side is using this to our advantage, right now.

I assume you are talking about General Petraeus here, and if you have something specific to share it would be really interesting to hear about such efforts. Based on media portrayals, it appears to me that our political leaders are completely clueless and Iran is actually being effective in using the rather insignificant Sunni/Shia divide to drive a wedge into the Arab world. On the other hand, General Petraeus is a very, very smart guy, and I’m sure he has a deep understanding of the underlying issues. It will be interesting to see what he can achieve despite having to work with an inept political leadership.

[herbiedoobie]

GEN Petraeus is doing a couple good things at once. He is playing to the tribes instead of the religious aspects. Again, the religious thing only goes so far, despite conventional wisdom. He's also being doing a much better job of executing "safe and secure".

What the bad guys have just started doing, though, is taking a page out of the Israel/Lebanon 2006 book, and playing the "omg, you killed umpteen bazillion women and children and nothing else!!!!" during a raid.

And it works, because the media are chumps, at best, and sympathetic with the terrorists at worst.

In response to your political leadership question, tell me when you stopped beating your wife, and I'll answer the "working for inept political leadership" thing....

[CloneFan65]

This story just keeps getting weider.

U.N. to punish interpreter over nuke mistake - MSNBC Wire Services - MSNBC.com

Was this the translator?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOPcWdduL5w]YouTube - Uh-oh hot dog![/ame]

[Cyclonepride]

Photos said to show Israeli target in Syria - Washington Post - MSNBC.com

[alaskaguy]

Mr. Lewis said it was ironic that Syria might have been trying to build a nuclear program just as the United States was invading Iraq in the fear that Iraq was developing nuclear arms.

Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/27/wo...st&oref=slogin

[Cyclonepride]

Mr. Lewis said it was ironic that Syria might have been trying to build a nuclear program just as the United States was invading Iraq in the fear that Iraq was developing nuclear arms.

Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/27/wo...st&oref=slogin

So can we assume that Mr. Lewis would have supported a US led invasion of Syria instead? Or Iran? I'll bet not.

[iceclone]

Mr. Lewis said it was ironic that Syria might have been trying to build a nuclear program just as the United States was invading Iraq in the fear that Iraq was developing nuclear arms.

Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/27/wo...st&oref=slogin

It is interesting that this project has along history, but some of the inferences made in the article seem to be a pretty bad revisionist history. It is certain that both American and Israeli intelligence agencies have been constantly monitoring this site for years. It is also certain that back in 2003 there was not enough evidence to conclude it was a nuclear site. If that evidence had existed the Israelis would have taken it out back then. They are not shy about stuff like that. After years of diligent efforts, some new evidence recently came to light that confirmed what the analysts and policy makers may have suspected all along. Israel acted on it. That is what they do.

Regarding Mr. Lewis' comment. Yes, there is a certain irony. I also doubt that he was very happy with how his was quoted in this article.

[herbiedoobie]

The Syria strike was a message to Iran and Russia. Nothing more, nothing less. This is evidenced by the fact that no-one is officially talking about it, (And I mean, no-one, to include Syria) but the noise level in Iran went up 1000% after the strike.

[herbicide]

The Syria strike was a message to Iran and Russia. Nothing more, nothing less. This is evidenced by the fact that no-one is officially talking about it, (And I mean, no-one, to include Syria) but the noise level in Iran went up 1000% after the strike.

I have to respectfully disagree on this one, as Syria will take their lumps on this, as if they start talking about it, then more questions will be raised about their nuclear program. They do not want the focus on them for this.

[alaskaguy]

I'm certain that the bombing caught the attention of Iran.......

Mohammed Raad, a senior Hizballah official, suggested that the overflight was an attempt to "identify an aggressive aerial passage" for an air strike against Iran. Analysts long have pondered the potential flight routes Israeli bombers would take in the event of a decision to target Iran's nuclear sites. Given the limitations of aircraft range, one option would be to fly directly across Jordan and/or Saudi Arabia and through U.S.-patrolled Iraqi skies. Neither the Saudis or the Jordanians would shed tears if Iran's nuclear capability were destroyed in an air strike, but they could not afford to be seen as having granted the Israelis safe passage though their skies.

Even if it were not related to a bombing route, the purpose of Israel's unusual air mission last week may yet be related to Iran. In August, Syria reportedly received from Russia the first batch of 50 Pantsyr S1E short-range air defense systems, part of an alleged sale worth almost $1 billion. The deal is said to have been financed by Iran, which reportedly will receive from Syria some of the Pantsyr units and deploy them to protect its nuclear facilities. The recently developed Pantsyr, which its Russian manufacturers claim is immune to jamming, includes surface-to-air missiles and 30mm Gatling guns, providing complete defensive coverage for a range of 11 to 12 miles and 6 miles in altitude. Pantsyr batteries could pose a serious challenge to either an Israeli or a U.S. air strike on Iran. So were the Israeli aircraft playing a perilous game of chicken to assess the capabilities of the Pantsyr system in response to their countermeasures? Some in Syria believe so.

Link: Why Did Israeli Planes Enter Syria? - TIME

[Cyclonepride]

I'm certain that the bombing caught the attention of Iran.......

Mohammed Raad, a senior Hizballah official, suggested that the overflight was an attempt to "identify an aggressive aerial passage" for an air strike against Iran. Analysts long have pondered the potential flight routes Israeli bombers would take in the event of a decision to target Iran's nuclear sites. Given the limitations of aircraft range, one option would be to fly directly across Jordan and/or Saudi Arabia and through U.S.-patrolled Iraqi skies. Neither the Saudis or the Jordanians would shed tears if Iran's nuclear capability were destroyed in an air strike, but they could not afford to be seen as having granted the Israelis safe passage though their skies.

Even if it were not related to a bombing route, the purpose of Israel's unusual air mission last week may yet be related to Iran. In August, Syria reportedly received from Russia the first batch of 50 Pantsyr S1E short-range air defense systems, part of an alleged sale worth almost $1 billion. The deal is said to have been financed by Iran, which reportedly will receive from Syria some of the Pantsyr units and deploy them to protect its nuclear facilities. The recently developed Pantsyr, which its Russian manufacturers claim is immune to jamming, includes surface-to-air missiles and 30mm Gatling guns, providing complete defensive coverage for a range of 11 to 12 miles and 6 miles in altitude. Pantsyr batteries could pose a serious challenge to either an Israeli or a U.S. air strike on Iran. So were the Israeli aircraft playing a perilous game of chicken to assess the capabilities of the Pantsyr system in response to their countermeasures? Some in Syria believe so.

Link: Why Did Israeli Planes Enter Syria? - TIME

Russian technology has long been very suspect. They put most of their R&D money into spying, so that they could steal technology. To the point that the US started feeding them faulty designs during the Reagan era. I think part of the point of this was to show Syria and Iran that the Israelis and our planes can fly into their airspace at will.

[herbiedoobie]

Russian technology has long been very suspect. They put most of their R&D money into spying, so that they could steal technology. To the point that the US started feeding them faulty designs during the Reagan era. I think part of the point of this was to show Syria and Iran that the Israelis and our planes can fly into their airspace at will.

ding, ding ding! We have a winnah!

And Herbicide, nothing you said contradicted what I said (or believe) so can we respectfully agree, instead?

[alaskaguy]

Here is another take as to what happened in Syria. I'm not sure how much stock to put in the report but it was reported by the Al-Jazeera website. The Web site quoted Israeli and Arab sources as saying that two US jets armed with tactical nuclear weapons carried out an attack on a suspected nuclear site under construction. The sources were quoted as saying that Israeli F-15 and F-16 jets provided cover for the US planes. The sources added that each US plane carried one tactical nuclear weapon and that the site was hit by one bomb and was totally destroyed.

Aren't there some type of monitoring devices that would tell us whether nukes were used in Syria?

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1192380718519&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull