February 21st, 2012
06:39 AM ET

Could the U.S. military stop Iran?

With a lot of attention given to the New York Times' dissection of Israel's capabilities to strike Iran, Time's Battleland blog looks at another possibility – could the U.S. effectively disable Iran's nuclear infrastructure?

As former Defense Intelligence Agency analyst tells Time's Mark Thompson, the biggest differentiator between the U.S. and Israel is "the ability to keep going."

“We have a lot more capability than Israel does, in terms of the number of aircraft, the kinds of attacks we could carry out, and the kinds of ordnance we could put on the targets,” says White, now at the Washington Institute for Near East Studies.

Read Battleland's breakdown of U.S. capabilities here.

 

Post by:
Filed under: Iran • Israel • Middle East • Military • Nuclear • Time's Battleland blog
soundoff (159 Responses)
  1. bloomers1234

    Stupid idiots on this website. Who gave USA the right to stop any country from testing nuclear stuff? NOONE. Iran stood up for the muslim population. IRAN STOOD UP AGAINST THE USA TO STOP IT BOMBING THE COUNTRIES IT IS BOMBING. You guys think you will get more oil? Do you doubt that Iran could not destroy Saudia Arabias oil resoirces or that it position near the Persian gulf could not help it block 50% of the worlds oil? That happens. you idiots will be paying thrice the normal price of oil.

    April 13, 2017 at 11:07 am | Reply
  2. persiaaa

    attack us..even if u make the most advanced weapons u cant do anything about iran.iran is different.
    we are waiting for u:D

    February 2, 2014 at 4:49 pm | Reply
    • RJ

      Hey Buddy. I am an American. I dont want war, and I know the people of Iran dont want war and like America. Dont give me a one sided view. I do know.. My wife and her whole family live in Mashhad. I have visitied many times. I get pics with lots of people simply cause I am an american. Your country is beautiful and the people are wonderful. The new government after the revolution screwed you guys and most of the people there know it. If a US bombing campaign started I would almost bet half your population would revolt and actually help the US Military. Sorry bud for your one sided argument but I am seeing both sides.. But if you are strictly speaking of Military strengeth you build a fake carrier to pretend to sink.. try a real one... like you did in 1989 how did that turn out for Iran?? Simply put you might be strong in your area, but you are speaking of a face to face fight with the USA? Iraq/Iran war lasted years and you were defeated nearly. Iraq starts crap with the USA only 2 years later and with the 4th larges army in the world backing him. He calls within a month of US actually engaging.. That was using 25-30 year old US technology, how do you plan to deal with what we have now, when you have zero idea what we have. You couldnt deal with a simply F22, so explain an F35? use a old soviet S300 missle?? Ok... like we havent figured that one out 30 years ago also.. Look again no offense nobody wants war, but dont poke a stick at someone who can seriously smash you. As an American I want to be friends with Iran, and from everything I have seen Iran PEOPLE not the GOVERNMENT wants the same.. Soon the people will take back Iran/ Persia and the BS dictatorship you have will be no more... simply put.. so death to America all you like, it isnt possible for you nor the rest of thw world to conquer the USA by military force.. just deal with that..

      April 23, 2015 at 11:22 am | Reply
    • B_Real

      Lets see, the Iran and Iraq war last eight years (1980 -1988) with neither side able to take out their opponent. The US went in and wiped out Iraq with ease in under two months. The same type of propaganda and correspondence the Iraqi government gave out sounds the same as what Iran claims. If Iran couldn't take out their neighbor after eight years, and the US went in and wiped them out in under two months with ease - other than portraying national pride, tell me why Iran believes they have any better chance then the Iraqi government did? It would be just as easy (if not easier) than the first time with the Iraqis.

      February 11, 2017 at 5:07 am | Reply
  3. escorts best

    إن لم تكن ديناصوراً أكلتك الذئاب

    May 7, 2013 at 2:51 am | Reply
  4. AMERICA IS STILL GREAT

    sooner or later iran will conduct a nuclear test..but what we know is that after that test iran will severly pay the price..america has like 5 carrier strike groups close to that egion so ofcourse we would tAKE action probably less than a week after the test..israel and all contries that have condemed irans intentions will probably jpoin us so we would npot be fighting alone..anf yes we would end up drooping a couple nukes in key strategic areas..lets leave tehran unnuked so that we can conquer it..yea

    December 24, 2012 at 12:52 am | Reply
  5. prosportsecon

    Drop about 20 megatons on Teheran and see how they like that medicine. Wipe out Iran completely.

    November 8, 2012 at 3:28 pm | Reply
  6. THE TRUTH

    Iran will go boom....then no longer exist. See, the USA has HUNDREDS of nukes. Iran is trying to create their first. That's CUTE. US did that 50+ years ago, so imagine thir technology now. Iran can't even get a missile 2000 miles.

    IRAN IS GOING TO BE WIPED OFF EARTH 🙂
    And we will celebrate in the streets.

    October 12, 2012 at 7:16 pm | Reply
  7. Noneofyourbusiness

    Israel will perish for its war crimes against humanity...no matter how hard they try, they will end up falling either slowly or the same way as they have invaded the rest of Palestine and liberate that nation to whence it were...

    September 20, 2012 at 11:08 am | Reply
  8. human

    america WEAK AND STUPID

    September 15, 2012 at 9:37 am | Reply
  9. pete

    the US has run several invasion scenarios on such an invasion and cannot find a way to predict a favorable outcome for the US. According to Gwynne Dyer if the US invaded IRAN many senior US generals would resign in protest. The US has no faced a modern army since world war II and even then Russia did most of the work. The gulf war Saddam weakened from war with iran. Vietnam was a bunch of nationalists in the jungle with small arms. The iranian people don't like the US and would actively oppose an invasion. Iran would give surface to air missles to the taliban in afgahnistan and drive the US out. Iran has experience being invaded by a modern army. we would lose they would burn the oil feilds and the world would collapse into global deppression, just look up military historian and journalist Gwynne Dyer he has all the facts about this.

    July 22, 2012 at 12:55 pm | Reply
  10. AL

    THE USA needs to do what China is dong in there region. Send a clear and present message..dont @#@#@#@ with us and we exercise our national soverign by taking what we want. Just ask all other pacific countries on what i am talking about regarding China's progression to control thier region. We should do the same to all the coutnries in our region..we are the big dog in this region, and all others should fall in line with us, after us!! What can they do, who can they complain to. If i was president our sent an aircraft carrier to CUBA and VENZAULA to send this message!!

    March 14, 2012 at 11:55 am | Reply
    • Jack Ulate

      I agree, American NEEDS to rise up and kick a little butt. It would probably help our crappy economy too. Stand up and be proud America–never mind that you have a moslem president

      March 25, 2012 at 12:21 pm | Reply
  11. OregonTom

    Iran was never able to defeat Iraq in a stand up fight. Iran wouldn't stand a chance against theUS. Hope it doesn't happen. I'm not paying for it.

    March 12, 2012 at 2:53 pm | Reply
    • drew peacock

      Hopefully afganistan gets totally riled up after the recent murders. Usa needs to kick a little ass. Usa needs a good war, fire up the economy, get citizens supporting their country again. Obama might grow a set of republcan knards if he has to lead during a war. Usa go kick ass!! Oh yeah,

      And

      Montgomery is awesome!!

      March 15, 2012 at 10:50 am | Reply
  12. D Struck

    Re: Tired of bitches nagging about Iran.

    Iran sucks!! Hopefully USA or Israel will kick their asses!!

    Watch for $140 oil!!! YeeHawwww!! Long and strong oil!!

    Montgomery is awesome!!

    March 10, 2012 at 11:13 am | Reply
    • JFB

      the cancerous regime of the terrorist state of evil Iran needs to be surgically removed. Its evil is unquantifiable

      March 11, 2012 at 5:09 am | Reply
      • Simba

        I'm sorry, I think you have Iran confused with both Israel and the United States.

        March 11, 2012 at 11:44 am |
      • D Struck

        Booya!!! Iran is worse than USA or Israel. They are terrible to their people. IRAN needs to be taken out!! USA needs their oil so lets get on with it.

        Montgomery triangle is awesome!!

        March 11, 2012 at 12:25 pm |
  13. TheLastIndependent

    Could we beat Iran straight up? Yep. We it blowback into our faces? Pretty sure about it. Will we regret it? Over time, then we'll forget it and do it again.

    March 9, 2012 at 9:24 pm | Reply
  14. antiayatoolah

    and just think of all the extra oil we can get too!!!

    March 9, 2012 at 6:01 pm | Reply
  15. gain mass

    الكمال بفضل التصميم على security.blogs.cnn.com سوف يكون بلوق مثالية لمن يريد أن يعرف عن هذا الموضوع. كنت أعرف الكثير الصعبة التي تمر بها عمليا أن يجادل معك (وليس أن أنا حقا تريد). تعيين الاطلاق تدور كلها جديدة على thats تم كتابة موضوع عن لسنوات. رائعة الأمور ، ممتازة للتو!

    March 8, 2012 at 5:41 am | Reply
  16. testosterone

    איר געמאכט עטלעכע פייַן ווייזט דאָרט. איך האבן אַ זוכן אויף דער טעמע ענין און געפונען עיקר מען וועט צושטימען מיט אייער בלאָג.

    March 8, 2012 at 5:19 am | Reply
  17. Drew Peacock

    Oil will go HIGH!! Gas prices will go up!! World economies will go DOWN because of increased commodity costs. Iran will be happy about this–hopefully Iran gets Annilhilated!! Stupid angry idiots, think that they can threaten and act lke Jackasses!! Long and strong oil!!!!!! Giddy up!!!

    Montgomery is awesome!!!

    March 7, 2012 at 10:03 am | Reply
  18. Russia tours

    אני מקווה לקבל קצת עזרה ממך אם יהיה לי שאלות.

    March 4, 2012 at 9:51 am | Reply
    • drew peacock

      Personally i want war. Am long oil!! And i dont ever really want to visit iran so lets crush those inferior monkeys.

      Montgomery is awesome!!

      March 10, 2012 at 4:19 pm | Reply
  19. personal guided tours in Saint Petersburg

    آخر مفيدة للغاية. security.blogs.cnn.com شكرا لأخذ الوقت لتبادل الرأي الخاص معنا.

    March 4, 2012 at 4:53 am | Reply
  20. Dave

    Stopping Iran, yes the US can stop Iran or put them back 50 years or more with total destruction of their communications, their military bases their air force, their sea going fleet and drive the region into unrest caused by the lack of food, health care, the blocking of their ability to purchase or obtain funds. It would all take place from the air and from the sea via cruise missiles.
    Should the US get involved, No of course not the cost to the US would be huge in a time of economic unrest in the US. We either get out of Afghanistan completely then maybe an air support on Iran could take place, if the Arab countries and the other allies supported the move to silence Iran once and for all. Will it happen, No.

    March 2, 2012 at 8:39 am | Reply
    • Richard

      We're virtually guaranteed to be involved in another war, and soon, and probably with Iran. Why? Because, the US has the largest military in the world by a large margin and it has to stay busy to justify its continued existence. Therefore, they will START wars, if needed, to justify, not only their continued existence, but also their continued growth (witness the war in Iraq, where the US pre-emptively attacked another country for the first time in our history – it won't be the last, I assure you). Disagree? Just look at the anticipated one trillion dollars the US government is already anticipating increasing defense spending over the next ten years, and we're not even in WWIII, yet.

      March 2, 2012 at 4:59 pm | Reply
      • eric

        rich, we have by far the BEST military in the world, but not even close to the biggest. Its total forese including guard and reserve is just over 700,000 and obama wants to cut that by 90,000 in the next 5 years. If we dont stand up and demand to our government that our military dramatically increase in size we are going to be in big trouble soon. our forces should NEVER drop below 1% of our population, which would be a force of 3.5 million. Just for reference, our forces at the end of WWII in 1945 were around 5.5 million

        March 10, 2012 at 1:08 pm |
    • Blooper1

      Will Arabian countries stop Iran on it's multiple way to war and destruction ? No way. They didn't and they don't stop Djihad. They watch and cash. Should US (don't even mention weapon industries in Europe) stop Iran ? If madness goes on, yes. Should we wait .. Probably. They have never been proof of courage. Posting children in the frontline in Palestine is not a sign of real devotion. Arabs fight since thousands of years (Western-Europe had recently stopped to do so) ans US goes on saving the world .. Iran probably will bomb it's own people because they are the most important treath to the imbecile 'religious' government. (cfr Syria today).
      Don't waste US (and others !) lives to soon. Scorpions do kill other scorpions at times.

      March 2, 2012 at 7:15 pm | Reply
  21. DMar

    I do think we can stop them militarily in fact we ought to because the Iranians don't listen to the international community. If the Iranians aren't working towards a transparent solution to end their quest for nuclear weapons, which I believe is exactly what they're doing, then quite frankly we have to do it for them. It's a shame that we'd have to sacrifice more lives for the effort inevitably. But do I think we'll be doing all the dirty work? Not a chance. Plenty of others who are willing to help make that entire region face the music and become men and women of peace. Even if it means another unfortunate military intervention, I say yes we can and ought to stop Iran next.

    March 2, 2012 at 6:29 am | Reply
    • USMC

      Liar and Lies.

      March 4, 2012 at 11:37 pm | Reply
    • glennrobertg

      Do we need another war we can't win. Who are these (plural) others who will support us? (Israel?). Iran need not attack the US or Israel when right across the gulf are big fat targets producing oil products. Some, 100 miles from Iran. The world oil market will be severely crippled. The Iranians will unite and fight! They will have no choice.

      March 9, 2012 at 3:54 pm | Reply
  22. Gedaliah

    First of all the U.S. has NO SHOT WHATSOEVER at stopping Iran. I ceartainly disgree that we have a better military then Israel not because of numberwise but rather because Israel knows what it means to be under attack. In fact they have been in a constant state of emergency since it's founding! Even if you COULD convince me that America has a better military would ypu be able to tell me that it's intelligence is ALSO better then Israel's?

    February 29, 2012 at 11:08 pm | Reply
    • Richard

      Remember, we're talking about men so arrogant as to believe that they can "create [their] own reality on the ground." Just because they're wrong doesn't mean they won't try to do it, anyway.

      March 2, 2012 at 5:02 pm | Reply
    • Simba

      "In fact they have been in a constant state of emergency since it's founding!"

      1. That should have been a warning to NOT have them be a state then. If we're trying to hold Palestine and other countries to the standard of NOT being at war or conflict in order to admit them, then it should be applied evenly to others. Making Israel a state was a pitty move that has proven to be nothing but a mistake.

      2. Big deal, the US has lived in a "constant state of emergency" since "9/11". As a result we've slowly been stripped of our pretended constitutional freedoms, had an ever-aggressive military and expanding military mission to occupy more countries than ever.

      3. Everyone knows that Israel sits back and makes threats from the comfort that solidarity with the US provides. If the US pulled all military aid and political backing from Israel, you'd see a much different Israel.

      Both the US and Israel are sad, in respect to how they treat the world and feel it's their right and purpose to rule it.

      March 2, 2012 at 6:00 pm | Reply
    • antiayatoolah

      wow yo man . thanks, untill now i had no idea there were crackheads in iran!!!!

      March 9, 2012 at 5:33 pm | Reply
  23. TED DAVEY

    ITS GONNA GO NUCLEAR JUST A QUESTION OF WHEN

    February 28, 2012 at 1:38 pm | Reply
    • American Teenager

      Hopefully it won't.

      February 28, 2012 at 6:13 pm | Reply
  24. jay shelley

    Iran isn't the problem - Israel is! Send the missiles to Beverly Hills, West Bloomfield and NYC to remove Jews who are pressuring the Knesset to bomb Iran. Surgery is needed to remove the cancerous connectuon to Israel and avoid the mess we are in.

    February 28, 2012 at 9:28 am | Reply
    • GMAN

      Congrats, you win the anti-semite of the day award. Loser.

      February 28, 2012 at 1:03 pm | Reply
      • Simba

        Funny how it's cool to talk about making parking lots of other people and their country, but heaven forbid Israel be dissed. There isn't a #$% thing that makes them any more or less special than any other person on the planet.

        February 28, 2012 at 1:38 pm |
      • USMC

        99% of the people living in israel are not semites – they're khazar caca-people from eastern europe. So stop with the anti-goyim comments gman.

        March 4, 2012 at 11:42 pm |
    • Bob

      Jay, right on.

      March 2, 2012 at 2:42 pm | Reply
  25. OregonTom

    Iran could not win a war against Iraq. Why would they be able to defeat the US and NATO?

    February 27, 2012 at 10:31 am | Reply
    • Adam

      Hey smarty, Iran's goal was not to topple saddam, it was to deliver a series of blows that would leave Iraq's army unable to launch a military invasion ever again, they accomplished it, look how bad they got taken out after they invaded kuwait, because all their soldiers were 3rd rate teens, their best died in the war with iran and they were then using poor ammunition and poorly trained personnel.

      February 27, 2012 at 8:56 pm | Reply
      • jyves95

        Get your things right. "Technically", Iraq won the war. They routed the Iranian army in 1988. Iran wanted peace. Iraq did not because they were winning and has already started to invade Iran.

        Iran's goal was to remove Saddam and install an Islamic Shia government in Iraq.. Guess you're really not that smart.

        February 28, 2012 at 3:27 pm |
    • shakir zebari

      check your sources...im sure u remember the 8 year war iraq and iran had in the 80s...without much of an army and revolution happening iraq lost the war with iraq.

      February 28, 2012 at 9:41 pm | Reply
      • shakir zebari

        iraq lost the war to iran

        February 28, 2012 at 9:43 pm |
    • John Ramos

      OregonTom. Iran did not fight Iraq in the 80s'. It fought Iraq, UK, France, Britain, Germany, Russia, and US all together.

      March 7, 2012 at 3:09 pm | Reply
  26. JustKoz

    The United States military can beat any military on the planet IF they were allowed to. When it comes to killing people and breaking things, there is noone better than the USA. In this day and age, warfare has changed. Our warfighters now must be concerned at not offending the enemy. In numerous situations we are not even allowed to return fire if there is the smallest chance of collateral damage. In my opinion, a strike against facilities in Iran could be successful with several hundred cruise missiles along with several hundred ballistic missiles. A small team of Spec Ops sent in to coordinate the regime change and target infrastructure should be all that we need.

    February 26, 2012 at 9:56 pm | Reply
    • jyves95

      >> When it comes to killing people and breaking things, there is noone better than the USA

      Indeed.. if we remove the Russians and the Chinese.

      February 28, 2012 at 3:29 pm | Reply
    • John Ramos

      @JustKoz. I am certainly proud of our military. But let's be real here. Our military is not exactly in wars with the best of the best. We fight poor countries that have no real armies, no navy, no air force, no nothing. You really think we could go in and "Kick A$$" against Russia, China, North Korea? Even Iran is a war they are thinking long and hard about going into.

      March 7, 2012 at 4:05 pm | Reply
  27. Dixie Normus

    Drew is right–I am watching CNN right now and they are saying that there is NO Economic recovery in sight–it is merely and Economy that is bouncing off the bottom. Wonder if Iran is planning their BS to drive price of oil up in order to further hurt the economies of Europe and USA?? How high will the price of OIL go to ?? Anyone??

    Montgomery is awesome!!

    February 26, 2012 at 11:58 am | Reply
  28. Drew Peacock

    Very smart move of Obama saying No to keystone pipeline. America really should NOT get oil from Canada. Let Canada ship their oil to Asia. America can get their oil from those great middle eastern producers, like IRAN!!! HAHAHAHHA what a joke. Oil is going to hit $140 a barrel and USA and Europe will go even deeper into Economic Chaos!! Lets all buy houses in Arizona: they will be $5000 next.

    I love it!!

    Montgomery is awesome!!

    February 23, 2012 at 11:45 am | Reply
  29. Drew Peacock

    American Teen Cheers!!

    My friend Dixie Normus self publishes through Montgomery awesome publications.

    Montgomery is awesome!!

    US kick Iran ass!!

    Iranian Biyattches!!!

    February 23, 2012 at 11:34 am | Reply
  30. American Teenager

    Drew and Adam, thanks for the compliment. And Drew I am writing a book have any publishers you'd suggest? lol

    February 23, 2012 at 10:37 am | Reply
  31. davonskevort

    Nukes... lets just use nukes... its hard to work in a radioactive area. No invasion no mess we have to clean up no nation building no hearts and minds to win. Let the nasty bombs do their job, and show them what real shock and awe is......

    February 23, 2012 at 10:06 am | Reply
  32. Drew Peacock

    Keep the posts coming american teen. You know your stuff.

    Montgomery triangle is awesome!!

    February 23, 2012 at 9:27 am | Reply
  33. American Teenager

    I didn't go into detail about why the US can easily beat Iran. That is rather easy to elaborate on and I'll be brief. The Iranian military is based off the old Soviet model, a model the Iraqis copied and to their ultimate sorrow it didn't work. It was a good doctrine for its time but the battlefield is a brutal Darwinian process, if you don't adapt you die. They haven't adapted their military enough to keep up with the US. They haven't advanced their weaponry, planes, training, equipment, or way of thinking in a competent way ever since they were basically blacklisted in the 80's. Meanwhile the US has had actual battlefields to test, learn, and adapt to the changing nature of war and pair that with overwhelming financial backing that can get the best new equipment weapons, and military intel you have the makings of a slaughter. whoever says Iran's missiles are a threat think again, when you draw attention to those weapons you only set them up for target practice. And the military knows exactly how to deal with them. Like I said money can buy some cool toys.

    February 22, 2012 at 10:13 pm | Reply
    • John Ramos

      Hi American Teenager. If what you say is so true....then why are the US and Israel talking and not fighting??? What are they waiting for? Why don't they just go and attack? That's what they did in Iraq and Afghanistan.

      March 7, 2012 at 4:11 pm | Reply
  34. American Teenager

    I think I struck a nerve with this guy.

    February 22, 2012 at 8:22 pm | Reply
  35. American Teenager

    CNN, seriously? "Can the US military stop Iran?" I've always thought you were stupid but this takes the cake.

    Of course the US can "stop" Iran. And no one say anything about our debt, the men and women in the field who would be doing the fighting could care less about what the national debt is on a battlefield. They would fight and have extreme tunnel vision as they've been trained to do and their technology and overwhelming firepower and general superiority will easily crush anything the Iranians have. Also no one say Russia or China could stop the US, I've written quite a few posts about that particular issue before and I'll quote it now.
    "1. Russia's military is not the military it once was. Severe funding cuts and stagnation of their military have made the "Rompin' Stompin' Red Ass" a thing of the past. And whatever formations they did have that are i good enough shape to fight us are stationed on the EU border and they would not be moved due to the Russians' paranoia of being attacked by German, British, American, and maybe French formations. If they did attack into Europe to try and draw attention away from Iran their forces would not last very long. Their military doctrine is a good strategy but only if you have the tools to do it properly, and right now Russia does not have those tools. That doctrine was the exact same doctrine that was used by Iraq in the First Gulf War and look what happened to them, unfortunately for those Russian soldiers it will most likely be a magnified repitition of history. In terms of getting troops to Iran the best they could do was move maybe a few Airborne and Motor-Rifle Divisions backed up by some fighter regiments. Their Black Sea Navy would obviously sortie out of port but I think we could, along with the British, French, and Italian Navies could handle their ships pretty roughly. Their other fleets would most likely be equally mauled if they make it out of port. Their Air Force would be a challenge at first but still wouldn't last long. But their biggest weakness will be their homefront. If the Russian people see their soldiers being massacred trying to fight to defend Iran of all people they would not be too happy and force their government to sue for peace.
    2. China on the other hand will be in a rather ackward postion for us to fight. Their military is designed as a defense force, to be moved by rail to the Area of Operations. They have next to no air lift capacity and whatever heavy lifters they do have are not capable of moving large formations of armourred units to where the biggest tank-on-tank battles would occur, Iran and Eastern Europe. Their navy isn't half bad but as soon as they form up into battle groups, if they make it that far, the Pacific Fleet will be right on top of them. Their subs would be wiped out in the first days and their naval bases would be laid to waste. But they have one other ally that would most definitly exploit this and attack. North Korea would surely invade South Korea, with the help of China who's army won't really have anything better to do. Russia would keep its Siberian forces on its coast for fear of invasion from Alaska. But if Japan's military is turned loose in Korea along with some Marine Expeditionary Groups, a few Army Divisions, a couple of Carriers and constant air strikes, and South Korea's own military then it will be a rather large sideshow trying to draw our attention away from Iran who's military we would have already decapitated and would be over running their defenses while wiping out their allies' reinforcements. China would obviously try and attack Taiwan but a combination of the Pacific Fleet's Carriers and Taiwan's own Air Force would easily hold China's attempts at bay. Eventually China's people would be distressed at their soldiers dying for Iran and then would sue for peace.
    3. I know that whatever casualties we sustain would be very few because of our soldiers' relentless training at exactly this type of warfare along with extensive battlefield experience and our potential enemy's lack of battlefield experience. But the only the public would get behind this "war" is if Russia and China strike first."
    I know it's long I got carried away and just couldn't stop as I was writing it.

    February 22, 2012 at 6:53 pm | Reply
    • American Teenager Sucks Cock

      FUCK OFF!
      YOU STUPID FUCKING CUNT!

      February 22, 2012 at 7:50 pm | Reply
      • American Teenager

        Listen, I mean no disrespect in any way and don't want to turn this post into a cussing contest. If you think I'm wrong say why. That's what the beauty of a post like this is for, you can say your argument and back it up with facts but let's not start this. I've seen what happens when a cussing contest boils over. Let's let cooler heads prevail.

        February 22, 2012 at 8:35 pm |
      • American Teenager

        And if you think I'm a warmonger from reading that big post of mine I don't blame you. I didn't look at that issue from a political perspective at all. I was only trying to detail a what-if situation to back up my argument about if Iran(or its allies) could beat the US, it was looked at purely from a military perspective because I honestly can't make a call on what the political ramifications of that would be, or the economic consequences. So once again, let's not start one of those arguments that'll just take up space and get in the way of the purpose of this post.

        February 22, 2012 at 8:44 pm |
      • antiayatoolah

        get real abdul, youre fucked and you know it. its not your fault your n inbred goat keeper from a third world country, i mean really dont let that bother you when your watching your entire shithole of a country getting bombed to shit by planes you cant see.

        March 9, 2012 at 5:49 pm |
    • Adam Hurst

      Do you have a publisher for your book yet? A little long there guy!

      February 23, 2012 at 1:50 am | Reply
    • Mohammed

      Haha wow, can someone say armchair general? You said nothing insightful. You're not as special as you think you are.

      February 28, 2012 at 11:33 am | Reply
      • American Teenager

        I just looked at it from a purely military point of view. I don't really get "you're not as special as you think you are" If you're saying that I am personally not so special, that's your opinion. But if you are saying that the US is not special then you have another thing coming. Who else in the world has completly destroyed entire armored divisions with a single brigade of tanks? Who else has so demoralised an air force that they refused to take off and engage the enemy out of fear? Who else has militarily won their independence from Great Britian? Who else has fought a World War on two fronts the way the US did? And who else is a super power? I don't know about you but I think those facts make the US pretty special.

        February 28, 2012 at 6:11 pm |
    • USMC

      Everybody gets nuked and for what? so the dirty evil zionists can continue stealing Arab lands while killing innocent women and children. C'mon. We ought to be nuking israel for the plague it is upon the world. Get rid of israel and there would be no talk of nuking anyone.

      What the heck, come on WW3 Baby. In the end everybody gets nuked and the best part is israel will get nuked off the planet.

      Yippppeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

      March 4, 2012 at 11:47 pm | Reply
  36. Drew Peacock

    Long and strong oil!!! Let the bombs start flying: c'mon Iran-keep making threats you monkeys!!

    Montgomery is awesome!!

    February 22, 2012 at 5:05 pm | Reply
  37. Stewart

    Who cares go ahead and start some BS so my oil and gas stocks can go higher. Start lunching all the missile you want to and watch who pays for the war. The american tax payers because they will certainly be dragged into the mess and once involved Iran has no choice but to target all the US intrest in the region and around the region. Multiple countries now involved in this mess. Saudi, UAE, Oman Bahrain and Kuwait all have huge oil refineries which will be targeted by Iran. All it takes is one missile to hit these facilities and watch the oil market go even more crazy. America your already at $4.00 in some states a gallon, Japan is at $7.50, Turkey is at $9.61, Amsterdam $8.00, France pushing nearly $8 and so on. You keep making threats and the prices will keep going up. Just wish I had a cool million to drop into the oil market right now but guess I must stick with what I aready have.

    February 22, 2012 at 1:45 pm | Reply
  38. Skorpio

    Eliminating Muslim clerics would drastically diminish the violence, terrorism, threats, hatred and discrimination around the world and specifically the Middle East. The Iranian ayatollah is the main responsible of these threats and potential attacks. He is the one pulling the trigger on any kind of weapon. Unless Islamic clerics experience the same suffering, pain, anxiety as their victims, there is NOT going to be any changes, the Islamic system will prevail because these evil creatures are the ones pulling the strings of all Islamic societies.

    February 22, 2012 at 1:06 pm | Reply
    • Geff

      OK so... "Eliminating Muslim clerics would drastically diminish the violence". Why pardner I believe your'e one of them oxie morons.

      February 22, 2012 at 9:57 pm | Reply
  39. Nick Wolf

    Iran should consider the Liquid Salt Thorium Reactor technology for nuclear power. It's safe and you cannot make a bomb out Thorium.

    The other question here is to what extent is Iran's interest in nuclear technology a defense against Sunni extremism? Iran is mostly muslims, and most of the bomb attacks in the Middle East are made against Shia. Surrounded by terrorists and al-Qaeda fans (if you can call them that) is it not possible that Iran regards this as a defense against the Taleban in Afghanistan?

    In five years time the extremistTaleban will have taken over Afghanistan, with the assistance of Pakistan. (just look what happened to Benazir Bhutto). The Shia Iranians may be more paranoid about the threat from the Taleban armed with Pakistani nukes than Israel. Anti-Israeli propaganda is good political sounding to keep the regime in power. But there are majot problems facing them from the East. Not to mention their economy and unemployment data.

    February 22, 2012 at 12:31 pm | Reply
  40. OregonTom

    Iran couldn't defeat Iraq. They wouldn't stand a chance against western forces in a stand up fight.

    February 22, 2012 at 11:54 am | Reply
  41. Drew Peacock

    This is ridiculous, Iran has continually been doing these defiant militant things. Iran cant have nukes-hopefully they do something outrageous and then Israel and the USA can take them out.

    Montgomery is awesome!!

    February 22, 2012 at 10:02 am | Reply
  42. 3sieves

    I think we will see a new generation of stealth weaponry rolled out in any military action against Iran. However, the prime consideration will always be HOW to keep China , Russia, and Pakistan out of this conflict.
    http://sieveoftruth.wordpress.com/2012/02/20/rumours-of-wars/

    February 22, 2012 at 9:26 am | Reply
    • Sayan Majumdar

      @3sieves, just convince Russia out of conflict (should not be too hard; they do not want another nuclear weapons armed neighbour).

      China has a compulsive habit of dumping its allies/stooges in time of crisis (remember the fate of Pol Pot?).

      And Pakistan? The existence of that nation is now “virtual” with limited administrative power beyond capital Islamabad.

      However, the aim should be to “de-claw” Iran in terms of nuclear weapons and NOT to grab Iran’s oil resources.

      Sayan.

      February 22, 2012 at 9:45 am | Reply
      • 3sieves

        @Sayan Majumdar I agree with about Pakistan. However Russia has already said that it will not countenance Iran being attacked by the USA. They have already dispatched some of their fleet off Lebanon to prevent any US naval launched attacks on their steadfast ally Syria. Syria is Iran's main ally and almost a puppet state. Thus Russia who only recently sold Iran its advanced SAM sites and missile systems is very much a player in this conflict.
        China buys over a quarter of its oil supplies from Iran. They are also financing petroleum refineries in Iran and helping finance the Iran-Pakistan- India gas pipeline. China lost over $40billion worth of investments in Libya recently when Gaddafi fell. They wont be so quick to lose out if Iran falls. I cover a lot of tis on my blog post 'rumours of wars' Regards http://sieveoftruth.wordpress.com/2012/02/20/rumours-of-wars/

        February 22, 2012 at 10:25 am |
  43. Ivebeentowaranditsucks

    Ive been to war. Ive seen the devistation and sensless death that comes of it. Ive held a friend dieing in my arms. Ive seen children barrely alive and deing. IVE SEEN WAR. It saddens me to see all of these angry emotional comments on here. Everyone thinks there country will win. Everyone thinks we should just kill everyone. I understand pride in yoru country. I understand being passionate about something. What I dont understand is why people want to destroy everything. Yes we (United States and Iran) dont get along but thats fine. Its ok to not get along but it doesnt mean there is a need for war. Yes Iran wants nuclear weapons because they hate Israel and want to kill them so American who is friends with Israel hates Iran because they hate America as well and its just one big viscious circle that never ends. Everyone wants to fight but most have no clue what WAR really is. NO ONE thinks about the affect War has on our future as a world not just a country. NO ONE wants to take the inititive to make this world a better place for our children. Its truely sad.

    February 22, 2012 at 7:59 am | Reply
    • hazel steward

      We need to let some people fight it out. We can't help everyone. we had the civil war no one from other countries interfeared and now we are united I think we should let some people learn to do for them selves.lets get our people home and not lose any more lives on people who don't care for us or themselves. Maybe if we do that that they will tire of war and learn to get along faster on their own

      February 22, 2012 at 3:32 pm | Reply
    • USMC

      The whole world hates israel.

      March 4, 2012 at 11:50 pm | Reply
  44. Mamoud

    Vy Oy Vy doo U alvays theenk that IRAN iss badd? tru wee hate the amerikans but thatt iss about all. Iran=#1 US=#0

    Ha ha ha stoopid ameerkans eye hate U all.

    February 22, 2012 at 1:35 am | Reply
    • haha

      learn to spell before you call people stupid

      February 22, 2012 at 8:41 am | Reply
    • Sayan Majumdar

      @mamoud, rejet theocrazy en embrass tru democrazy an wee can b pals.

      Sayan.

      Postscript: Sorry for spelling mistakes because of mamoud’s influence.

      February 22, 2012 at 8:55 am | Reply
    • paul merino

      .Hey turd brain..Never engage ur mouth untill ur dumb SHIT for BRAIN has a chance to function

      and learn to speak and write "ENGLISH" first...dumb ass

      February 22, 2012 at 3:10 pm | Reply
    • Patroit

      Is that right we like your oil too

      February 22, 2012 at 4:12 pm | Reply
  45. why we fight

    all this talk about war is eventually going to get some one to pull trigger.while all you people bicker on your comments .U have to ask yourself 1 question are the iranians here already so when we get drug into this mess they will use terrrrrrrorism in the states. you all know how sneaky they are.just thinking maybe u should look over your shoulder once in a while.we can stop them militarily sure but what will be the true outcome?

    February 22, 2012 at 12:16 am | Reply
  46. shagpal

    why? why not let festering jewsraeli jewbaggers do it, since they are the real world warmongers.

    February 21, 2012 at 11:42 pm | Reply
    • mickey1313

      agreed, let isreal iran and egypt slaughter eachother.

      February 22, 2012 at 12:49 am | Reply
  47. aesvey

    I would hope "war" would be a last resort with Israel as well as America. Should it come down to that... I would suggest "We" as Americans direct our military thru our elected representatives "not" to blow stuff up! If Israel wishes to pursue a "First Strike" option, I would ask (direct) them to create an ingress and egress route using "EMP" blasts that would effectively disable Iranian troop and missile movements. An "idea" would be to start the strike approximately 6:am local time hitting the electric plants nation wide. You need "electricity to run Nuc. Power Plants, then follow-up in a half-an-hour so you can eliminate their secondary power. The same thing with Ports, airfields, Republican Guard posts. The "idea" being not to destroy their infrastructure (that we would ultimately have to rebuild under some "guise" of Nation Building). Therefore, anything electrical would be inoperative, including the nuc. facilities. The reactors would themselves "cook-off" without us having to endanger manpower to knock them out with bombs or missiles. By now, everything should be at more or less of a stand-still. There would still be some "threats to resolve" and in the event Iran dosen't get the "big picture" then selectively target grocery stores. The country is basically desert so, knocking out the power would limit water, sewage and air-conditioning, the basic essentials to survive in the desert. Knocking out the grocery stores would remove the last survival item from the list, rendering the country inhospitable. People can't fight for long without the desert basics, even less without food. I'd also think strongly about "EMP(ing) their refineries" so that those sites don't inadvertently supply the opposition with the willpower to fight a day longer. In the event we are charged with "reconstruction" we simply build and send the generators we destroyed at their plants. The nuc. facilities that cooked-off only go to prove our point as to why they shouldn't have them anyway. The taxpayer is only charged the bill for the generators, "not" the ensuing corruption, graft, extortion, blackmail, ...etc. and let them rebuild from there. We are not the same people, Americans are extremely unaware of the "culture" differences between "Iran" and "westernized" cultures. There's no bartering, there is no negotiating as that in itself is used as a means to their ultimate (desired) end. These people were versed by the Pakistanis and North Koreans on the effective use of stalling for time until you have what you want then using it as a bargaining position. "We" should see this for what it is and support Israel with their strike as we are going to be held accountable for their actions anyway. For as much as "I" personally don't like "war" or the thought of it, this would limit all of our losses of "Blood and Treasure" something our collective governments haven't been able to perform over the last ten years. Mind all of you readers out there, this post isn't a recipe for "war", I would propose a "time-out" to think of a smarter way that didn't involve so much collateral damage that in the end "we" the "taxpayer" are going to "pay" to reconstruct their way of life when, in essence, we are still at the end of a "hard economic downturn ourselves" and that before we go blowing someone else up we should consider if this is something "Economically" feasible. I'm not waffeling here, I'm saying that if this is something we are going to do "anyway" we need to consider minimizing damage for reconstruction and minimizing the "dangers" to our troops. If we have the element of time on our side, I would suggest we utilize it. There's no "trust" so there's not that much else to do.

    February 21, 2012 at 7:59 pm | Reply
    • Random2012

      i dont reaally understand what your saying the US needs to intervene and destroy irans nuclear plants immediately

      February 21, 2012 at 9:13 pm | Reply
      • Brian

        When is someone going to tell the US Govt to stay out of other government's business.

        The US has 3000+ ICBMS, not including the ones in subs and bombers. So why is the US Govt afraid of Iran?
        WHy doesn't the US Govt dismantle is massive nuclear arsenal before telling other they cannot even have 1 nuclear bomb?

        February 21, 2012 at 11:36 pm |
      • mickey1313

        Brian, we invented the tech, it is ours, and we should fight to make the monopoly on it return. Every nation with nukes, that did not buy them from America STOLE THE TECH, they have no right to it.

        February 22, 2012 at 12:51 am |
      • Brian

        @mickey – haha. Yeah right. That's like saying since aeroplanes were invented in the USA, then all people in all other countries should not be able to fly them except for US Citizens. Get real.

        The US Govt, and people like yourself are hypocrites to the maximum. Your government is the only in history to drop nukes/atomic bombs on people. Your county sticks it's smelly nose into other countries internal affairs when within itself (inside the USA) is a complete and utter corrupt mess where your leaders only care about themselves and the large corporation who fund their re-election campaigns.

        You need to wake up. Nobody like the USA because they are unwanted world police. I hope Iran succeeds in driving up gas prices in the USA to $5.00 a gallon or more. I hope Iran builds nuclear power plants. I hope they develope their own ICBMs. If the USA is allowed to have nukes, so why can't anyone else.

        Get real man..

        February 22, 2012 at 2:55 am |
      • Brian

        The real terrorists in the world, work out of clean shiny offices in Washington, D.C.

        February 22, 2012 at 2:56 am |
    • Bill

      Your assessment of the options are on point! This would involve too many colateral civilian casualties for it to ever be considered given our new guidelines for engagement. Sadly, the reason we can never really make real headway in these skirmishes is our antiquated, irrelevant protocols involving so-called non-combatants. The old definitions of this are no longer applicable but we insist on no women or civilian-dressed people especially underage should even be inconvenienced or skip a meal or a prayer time! But your plan is great...now sell it to the pentagon and Israel.

      February 22, 2012 at 3:28 pm | Reply
    • Patroit

      Mt god you got lots to say give someone else a chance

      February 22, 2012 at 4:14 pm | Reply
      • Julia

        I wouldn't take Chossudovsky too seuroisly no doubt the US military has drawn up plans for an attack on Iran but that doesn't mean they have any intention of allowing such an attack to go ahead. The reality, as Gwynne Dwyer (a historian with a naval background) has pointed out is that Iran's anti-ship missiles are unstoppable and that their mobile shore-based launchers cannot be eliminated by anything short of an all-out nuclear attack on Iran's Gulf coastline. Without a guaranteed supply line by sea, no US commander could contemplate invading Khuzestan from Iraq. The US military cannot openly admit that it is unable to defend its own surface ships, let alone tankers, against anti-ship missiles because that would make it obvious that the carrier-based navy is a lifestyle choice for naval commanders, rather than a strategic asset. A much more interesting story is in today's Financial Times: Obama has apparently issued an ultimatum to Turkey to back down on its opposition to Israel and its support for Iran's nuclear fuel program. Does the US government really think that such clumsy bullying will bring Turkey back into the fold?

        March 3, 2012 at 12:55 pm |
  48. chan pol

    sure US can!

    February 21, 2012 at 7:31 pm | Reply
    • Jack assman

      I don't think US can prevail over Iran, something does not seem right here. Why is Iran so confident that they can hold thier own...unless China and Russia have given the the green light of backing them if that being true then it would be the worst war US would want to be involved in they would be considerably weakened for decades to come. It would essentially downgrade USA to a literally a 3rd world status. I have no doubt in my mind that EU/US will blink on this issue of nuclear Iran containing them to a 20% enrichment level. Israel will rant and rave about it but finally accept it too.

      February 22, 2012 at 12:27 am | Reply
      • mickey1313

        China and russia are terrorfied of america. We have dozens of nukes for every one of theres. They are telling Iran to chill out before the 2 superpowers are forced to fight (and loose) to America. America should have crushed china and russia post ww2, and never let them re-build, just like we should not have allowed japan to re-build.

        February 22, 2012 at 12:53 am |
      • antiayatoolah

        ohh jackass man go have some ham and watch the news.

        March 9, 2012 at 5:38 pm |
  49. John

    Sayan, you have an interesting hobby. At least with that hobby of yours, i get to read unbiased well informed comments. It's become a ritual with these articles now, read the article, read the hiliarious bickering, then find out what good old sayan has to say so i can learn something.

    February 21, 2012 at 6:10 pm | Reply
  50. Michael marchitto

    We can stop them and any other damn country that wants war!! Hoo-ah!

    February 21, 2012 at 5:45 pm | Reply
    • tpar

      i like your comment the most! And to others: the Iraqis thought they were tough s***, too. Until the U.S. Military roled in and basically took their country over before even getting to Baghdad. The only problem we had was that the people we were fighting for thought it was O.K. to fight against us. Remember":I am confident that in the end freedom and democracy will prevail over terror and tyranny. We will win this war on terror – and when we do Americans, the British, Iraqis, and people around the world will be more secure."
      Doc Hastings

      Read more: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/keywords/prevail.html#ixzz1n5hPtKg8

      February 22, 2012 at 1:47 am | Reply
    • USMC

      It's not hoo-ah – you dork. You're no military man.

      March 4, 2012 at 11:55 pm | Reply
  51. Clinton

    The US could certainly defeat the Iranian Armed forces but the question is... can our politicians decide on a course of action that allows for our armed forces to complete an objective .. we are reaching the end of 2 wars that were very short, yet required US armed forces stay in country for a very long time, rebuilding or building a Government... Basically, our Armed forces, (and believe me i speak from experience as i am a veteran of OIF) were tasked with militarily defeating Iraq's army and the taliban army, then were tasked with rebuilding both country's and changing millions of muslim's opinionsabout us while installing Democratic Governments that were supposed to convince the population are autonomous of our armed forces and our United States Government. That's an incredibly difficult task... As most of us know... you can't change people's beliefs simply by strength of arms... it's not that simple... Politicians in Washington have been asking us to not only defeat enemy forces but turn those enemy forces into friends... No other Military on Earth has been asked to do so much... We've done a heck of a job with Iraq... despite the possibility that it might slip into Civil war in the end... the bottom line is... Guns don't change minds... people have known this for thousands of years... all you can do with arms is defeat another army... asking the US military to go beyond it's intended purpose is the reason so many Americans have lost faith in their Government and it's armed forces... Lets be smart for once... if you want to fight Iran... you identify targets you want destroyed and you give those targets to the military... let them do their job and be done with it... do NOT try to put the pieces back together with Military force... it leads to drawn out guerilla warfare against us... and the hatred only builds... if you want to help the country afterwords, help through aid packages but don't send servicemen to rebuild countries... it's a ridiculously hard task to complete.

    February 21, 2012 at 5:26 pm | Reply
    • What Is

      Nation building, empire, or whatever name it is given is a task that has been attempted many times in the past, it is not new.

      Romans are a well known example. Britain is another. Incas are less well known. Mongols are perhaps the most successful example in some ways, but the Romans are hard to surpass in terms of time and success. But part of their success was in letting the conquered govern themselves, and having the non-Romans want to become Romans because of their advanced culture.

      As you say, only so much can be accomplished by the mailed fist, and you have to want to be in it for the long term. Could anyone really have thought the USA was willing to spend 30 years in Iraq? To the Romans 30 years would have been nothing. The British in paticular should have known better, they had centuries of experience with empire, or nation building.

      The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were lost before they began because too many people had no idea what they were getting into. General Franks was smart to retire immediately after the the invasion, which closely resembled my concept of how the operation should go, although I thought the Iraqis would deploy better, but it appears they may have decided on guerilla war from the outset. And the fact that no one seems to have taken into account that most Iraqis are Shiite, as is Iran, is incomprehensible.

      Iran can be bombed at will, but what would it accomplish? I do not see the US Army occupying any part of Iran. They are now conducting a strategic withdrawl to the oil fields of the Arabian peninsula, parts of which are already shifting beneath their feet in places like Bahrain, where there is a Shiite majority. I can see the Shiites in Iraq joining Iran to some degree. The position for the US in Afghanistan could be seriously endangered in a very real sense, not just in the impending loss of a guerilla war.

      The war would end when Iran wanted it to end, not the other way around.

      After two losses in Iraq and Afghanistan, to ante up for even bigger stakes a third time before the first two losses are even cashed in is not good strategy. There are many examples from history of a country rolling the dice one more time, losing the roll, and then eventually losing it all.

      China, Russia, India, and Brazil would suffer from the effects of such a war, but ultimately they would probably be the winners as they continued to build and develop while the USA exhausted itself further.

      February 21, 2012 at 6:23 pm | Reply
      • Mark

        Amazingly insightful and concise comment. Thank you.

        February 21, 2012 at 7:51 pm |
      • What Is not

        What Is, I could not help but be intrigued by your input, intelligent sounding statements, supported by a mixutre of historical facts with personal views stated with enough conviction to lend credit to them. I thought for a second that you might actually be on to something. Then I realized, wait I was there and some of the things you said are not true and I now feel like I must share how things actually happened. I hated almost every single day in Iraq, but I hate it more when people go out of their way to make it sound worse. Ever spend a day on the ground in countries you claim we lost wars in, during the war? If you have, I would be surprised, several of your statements make me believe if you had spent anytime in those warzones that you held a camera and not a gun.

        I urge and challenge everyone to question and discern opinions from facts. I am not looking for an argument or to bicker despite what it seems, but claiming no one took into account the majority of Iraq was comprised of Shiites or that the Iraqi Army originally planned on taking the fight into the asymmetric battlefield is not accurate. A lot of information was overlooked, maybe even ignored, but America is not as ignorant as you are making it seem. The Iraqi Army and military was never prepared to go "guerilla". It is public knowledge and fact that militaries across the world train to achieve operational goals and success. There was never any training or equipping of the Iraqi Army to conduct "guerilla" these operations. Some might call that a clue. To further reinforce this point the first enemies to utilize guerilla tactics were not even Iraqis. A large portion of the eventual opposition which used guerilla tactics, were comprised of former Iraqi military, but this did not occur purposefully and is a natural response to any enemy that has left you no conventional means to fight. You can take a Soldier out of the uniform and the fact that he is a Soldier does not change. Asymmetric or guerilla warfare eventually occurred because we left them no other choice, not because they had a choice.

        Finally, I believe somewhere in a parallel universe, there is a United States that decided against conflict in Iraq and myself and many of my friends who are not here today would have been better off that way. At the end of the day, it happened, it is over. Lets not continue to beat a dead horse, if we must, at least try to beat some sense into it.

        I apologize for redirecting the attention from the main topic.

        February 22, 2012 at 3:01 am |
      • What Is

        ......is Not.

        Whether the option for guerilla war was made by Iraq from the beginning is something some people may know for sure, but whatever the case guerilla war was my assessment prior to the invasion, and I made that quite clear. It seemed likely given history, and also recent events such as the Palestinian uprisings at that time, and Hezbollah's past success in driving the Israelis from Southern Lebanon.

        Analyzing Iraq is not beating a dead horse. The events the invasion set in motion are still being played out. It was a tremendous blunder that has been a disaster for the USA in many ways, such as in the rise of Shiite Iran which I have alluded to, and which the USA could not have desired. But it was extremely advantageous from the Iranian perspective.

        It is all somewhat hard to fathom. From a coldly analytical strategic perspective it was a bad decision. From a legal perspective it was questionable. From a moral viewpoint it falls short. Evaluated in terms of telling the truth it fails. Whatever common sense is, invading Iraq did not make sense.

        Stratfor, in a desperate attempt to rationalize the Iraqi invasion claimed that it would strike fear into the other countries in the area. That did not work out too well.

        Hopefully the USA has at least learned something, again. Rather than accept a high pressure sales pitch which appeals to emotion and fear people need to do a bit more thinking and examine possible outcomes from a long term perspective. Look at issues from different viewpoints. Ask intelligent questions when someone like the Secretary of State claims at the UN that the Iraqis have vans driving around the Iraqi countryside producing WMD inside!

        I have made many assessments and predictions in the past regarding military and political affairs from tactical operations to the grand strategic level, to predicting the weather. As they would say, "he is almost always right, how did he know that?"

        Naturally I hope my run continues and I keep doing whatever it is I am doing right much of the time.

        What Is (and What Will Be)

        February 22, 2012 at 12:41 pm |
  52. Sanchanim

    Uhm ok trying to understand the purpose here.
    Yes the US could wipe out Iran with it's fire power. It could also if it wanted to have a sustained operations in Iran. Israel could move quickly and strike but not necessarily have a sustained campaign. Now with joint operations Israel could.
    The US has a more global reach than Israel, in that it has drones and mid air refueling capabilities beyond Israel.

    February 21, 2012 at 5:06 pm | Reply
  53. Walter

    I'm not so sure Israel could defeat Iran assymetrically. Both countries posses first strike capabilities, but which one could go beyond bombings and missile strikes and carry out a ground invasion. The nod goes to Iran. Israel operates in hostile territory, this is a fact, and Iran has friendly relations and religious ties with the current people in power in Iraq and Syria, theoretically Iran could move troops through these regions and carry out a ground invasion on Israel. No one talks about this, but I'm sure our good people in the Pentagon have lost sleep over this. Israel could NOT afford to attack Syria or Iraq for letting enemy troops transit their territory, because this would expand the theater and scope of the war from a simple strike to take out nuclear facilities, to a war in which Israel has the ability to and can easily be defeated. Israel has the tanks, planes (with limited reach into Iran), and possibly a slightly stronger albiet smaller military, and maybe nuclear weapons, but Iran has the navy, a larger a very strong military also, allies that surround Israel, mountanous terrain in the homeland, and biological weapons of mass destruction. If Iran REALLY wanted to, often misquoted as seen here, wipe Israel off the map, it probably could. Iran has biological weapons of mass destruction and lots of nations willing to help it carry out the deed. Israel would have to use its nukes and there is NO POSSIBILITY of it invading Iran and succeeding. Israel needs the US in this, and that's why it is not going it alone like it did in Syria when Syria was developing nuclear power and maybe nuclear weapons, because Iran is much, MUCH, more formidable and threatening.

    February 21, 2012 at 3:21 pm | Reply
    • Rick from LA

      Wrong, there is no way for either country to move groundassests into each other's territory. Iran is isolated, Iraq will not allow Iranian forces through let alon Jordan or Turkey. The US has the ability use amphibious mean to deploy assault forces, and the air logistics to bring in heavier forces if needed. Israel has some air transport capabilities but will not be able to deploy them since like Iran, Jordan, and Iraq will not allow the breech of their soverignty by Israeli forces.

      February 21, 2012 at 4:54 pm | Reply
      • Stewart

        Israel does not have the firepower for a prolong war nor could their fighters bomb Iran and retun with out running out of Fuel. You ever flew a fighter plan with full of bunker busting 2 thousand pound bombs. F-16 can carry 2 plus drop tanks, F-15 can carry 5 with no drop tanks. Both aircraft has limited low level flight range. During the bombing of Iraq, Israel war plane engines where flaming out (running out of fuel )as the touched down at home base. Do the math. Look at the distance from isreal to Iran. They have to refuel and they cant do it over Iraq, Syria, Turkey or Jordan. They would have to penetrate these countries airspace flying below radar until they where near the target then they would have to drop these weapons from at lease 20 plus thousand feet to get maximum penetration on some of the intended targets making them vunerable to SAM sites and Iranian war Planes. Dont have time for LGB's because they have to keep flying straight and the laser have to stay on targets making them either more vunerable so they will either drop satelite guide weapons such as Spice 2000, and JDAM's. American pilots arent even supid enough to try that with out taking out all the missile sites and communications sites with cruise missiles and steath bombers and even then at least we have an electronic blanket to hide behind. Iran's nuclear facilities are to spread out all over the country. You must have forget that Iran has enough long range missile to easily target israel. Israel weapon assets are limited in number and would have to rely on the US for rapid re-arming for a substain war. US would play key factor in this evolution. Just hint you will do something and let the US war machine do your bidding. Oh yeh didnt Iran just dock 2 navy ships in Syria.

        February 22, 2012 at 12:42 pm |
  54. Socrates

    DIMONA, PLUTONIUM PRODUCTION: Once described as a "textile factory," the Dimona Center actually produces about 40 kilograms of weapons grade plutonium every year and has been doing so for 10 and possibly 20 years. The entire facility is protected by anti-aircraft defenses. Dimona is located 8.5 miles from the town of the same name. Given that about four kilograms of weapons grade plutonium are used in each nuclear weapon, Israel has produced enough plutonium at Dimona to construct between 100 and 200 nuclear weapons. It has also produced about 170 kilograms of Lithium-6, which would produce about 220 kilograms of lithium-6 deuteride. Roughly 6 kilograms are needed to construct a thermo-nuclear weapon. Israel could, therefore, have as many as 35 thermo-nuclear weapons. Dimona is made up of separate blocks. Currently, there are nine of these blocks, called machons. Machons 1, 2, 8 and 9 are directly involved in producing materials for nuclear or thermo-nuclear weapons; the others provide services for these four.
    Palmikhim is where missiles and rockets are assembled and tested. It is the main research and development facility. The US believes that Israel has a capability to develop and launch ICBM's (and is thus a danger to the entire world),
    Satellite photos of the area show an airfield with one runway and seven large hangars (suitable for cargo-liners) inside the security zone. In addition, there are other manufacturing facilities inside the zone. The missile assembly building is at the south end of the security zone, as is the launch site. Some sources indicate that Palmikhim may also be home to an airborne command post that would be used in wartime. Other sources suggest it is located in a hangar at Lod Airport. CHEMICAL/BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS: Beyond nuclear weapons, Israel is has biological and chemical weapons as well as the means to deliver them, primarily the Jericho missile.
    Now, who is the real danger. Iran or Israel?

    February 21, 2012 at 2:28 pm | Reply
    • Clinton

      Socrates – Who is a bigger threat? Probably the Country that has been threatening the very existence of other country's... kinda like when Ahmedinijad said Israel should be destroyed completely... Israel is allied with the US... therefor is not a threat to us... that's the difference... it's not the fact that a country has nuclear weapons... it's their intent... now considering every week for the past 30 years Iranians have marched back from their Mosques chanting death to Israel, Death to America... i would consider Iran to be a bigger threat if it obtained Nuclear weapons... you saying Israel is a bigger threat would make as much sense as saying France or the UK present the biggest threat since both of them have LARGE Nuclear Arsenals.

      February 21, 2012 at 5:33 pm | Reply
      • Simba

        " Israel is allied with the US... therefor is not a threat to us... that's the difference..."

        Yup, you're either with US or against US.

        The United States consumes 25% of the entire world's oil supply – as much as the next top 5 countries combined! . If you think they don't have a vested interest in maintaining long term viability of access to it's needed resources, think again. Countries that have natural resources or hold strategic locations for them get military involvement. Iraq – overthrown. Libya – overthrown. Iran – a matter of time.

        The United States is systematically securing access one way or another to it's needs. Why do you think North Korea – who was named as part of that whole "Axis of Evil" sound bit, has been allowed to develop nuclear weapons? What North Korea doesn't have is access to natural resources OR a viable strategic location.

        It's also one of the reasons India was allowed to have access to the VERY SAME nuclear technology that Iran has been trying to develop, without having to sign the NPT. The US will use India as an ally against China in the event of a military conflict, just as it has Israel – who has nearly 200 undeclared nuclear warheads and also refuses to sign the NPT.

        Which country is the biggest threat? The one that made sure it was exempt from the NPT when it dictated it's creation, AFTER it used multiple nuclear warheads to strike 2 civilian populations, incinerating nearly 200,000 civilians, consumes 25% of the world's oil supply, has military personnel and bases in over 75% of the world's countries, and spends over half of the entire combined world military expenditures. The US spent enough on it's military dollar vs dollar of expense, to go to war with China, Libya, Iraq, Syria and Iran 5 times each at the same time!!

        These are the cold, hard facts. You can make excuses and justifications all along the way all you like, but the country who is the actual threat is this one – the United States of America.

        You are either with US, or against US. And a couple years ago we too stated that we reserve the right, even with nuclear weapons if necessary, to preemptively strike anywhere, anyone who threatened our national security or interests.

        February 21, 2012 at 5:52 pm |
      • Stewart

        Iran already has nuclear weapons. Only a fool would believe they dont. We just dont know what they have because they want report it. look what happen to Pakistan when they reported it. The world was in an up roar now we are kissing their %*#@(. Iran is far more advanced than Pakistan.

        February 22, 2012 at 1:05 pm |
      • Simba

        Funny, the same scenario is in place with Israel, only they've had us kissing their %*#@( for a while now.

        February 22, 2012 at 1:09 pm |
    • What Is

      The oft repeated phrase that Iran has "threatened to destroy Israel" is a straw man argument that is frequently heard. The USSR once threatened to "bury" the USA. And any number of US politicians have made similar comments regarding other countries.

      One thing that can be said with some certainty, politicians should use more care when rallying nationalistic support from their domestic constituents. All politics may be local, but communications are now world-wide and instantaneous.

      Israeli decline is most likely to be slow, and more a matter of: unfavorable demographics as they are increasingly outnumbered in the Levant, declining superiority as the Muslim nations become more technologically and economically advanced, and as other nations such as China, India, and Brazil have more influence on the world stage, but without the baggage of a common judeo-christian heritage with Israel, or a history of alliance such as the USA has had. Brazil has a common religion, sort of, but not the historical baggage.

      There is a good chance Iran is correct, Israel's days as a nation as it exists today are numbered. But not with a bang but with a whimper, and to the sound of newborn babies who do not speak English or Hebrew as their first language, nor worship the same god.

      Good summary of Israeli WMD sites.

      February 21, 2012 at 10:19 pm | Reply
  55. Niall

    Of course the USA could take out Iran in a blink of an eye technically speaking, question is can they afford to? How do they convince the world and their own people of that. Iran has every reason to want nuclear power. Energy waste in Iran is abnormally high 6-7 billion dollars per year and its one of the most energy intensive countries of the world. They also have the motive to want nukes.
    Problem is although Iran might say they will wipe Israel off the map but is it in its national interest to do so? Considering Israel's Samson Option even if they wiped out Israel its estimated Israel has some 400 nukes or WMD's many of which could still hit Iran from ships or submarines even if they were "wiped off the map" Iran could wipe out Israel but it would at the cost of wiping itself out too, its one thing to make a threat but a whole different story to actually carry it out. War as ever is a business and I'm sure the west will be all to happy to cash in on a nuclear arms race in the middle east if a cold war is a more profitable option than attacking Iran.

    February 21, 2012 at 1:51 pm | Reply
    • Robert raucina

      All this talk is for nothing: We did this already in CUBA. You simply blocakde the countrys ports and allow only food in as exchange for future shipments of oil, after we see all their nuclear good pulled out of the mountain and shipped to the scrapyard. They won't last long on beans and rice. Israel also must notify them that any missiles sent their way will get a nuclear one back in response. Let them eat cake and drink oil.

      February 22, 2012 at 1:32 pm | Reply
  56. Simba

    It's amazing that we decided to spend time overthrowing Libya and Iraq, and getting involved with Afghanistan with how massive and threatening Iran is. Even North Korea, who has actually developed nuclear warheads and tested them and threatened South Korea pails in comparison to this mortal enemy of the entire planet earth.

    February 21, 2012 at 1:50 pm | Reply
    • Lord Haw-Haw

      Drinking the new bat-shit flavored Kool-Aid, are we?

      February 21, 2012 at 2:06 pm | Reply
      • Simba

        Yup, sold to me straight from the tap of American Imperialism.

        February 21, 2012 at 2:09 pm |
      • Lord Haw-Haw

        Mine was served to me at a Sick Santorum fund-raiser.

        February 21, 2012 at 2:48 pm |
  57. observer

    United States Of Israel

    February 21, 2012 at 1:29 pm | Reply
    • Lord Haw-Haw

      ........Star-Spangled Bagel.

      February 21, 2012 at 5:25 pm | Reply
  58. Yeah Right

    Somebody outta flush that aya toilet kho-meenee before it overflows again

    February 21, 2012 at 1:02 pm | Reply
  59. Rob

    This is a dumb question.. Of course we could stop Iran..They are a joke sorry to say.. I am not sure why we dont get a backbone and deal with them. Israel I am very surprised at...they have gone completely spineless these days. There is a country around the corner threatening to wipe you out when they get nukes which they admit to be working and you are debating whether to attack or not.. Get your head out and do what you need to do. Dont listen to the politically correct crap from the U.S. We attacked Iraq because we "thought" they had WMD's; We know Iran is enriching weapons grade material to make weapons and we sit here and have wishful thinking that they are going to stop. We are really dumb these days....!! Attack and get it over with Israel...!

    February 21, 2012 at 12:55 pm | Reply
  60. pamela

    Iran is a land of a bunch of nutty nut babies .........build a big wal and keep them in there im sick of hearing about them their leader is a nut with his black turban....lol nuts nuts nuts

    February 21, 2012 at 11:41 am | Reply
    • Lord Haw-Haw

      Such articulation. Such eloquence.

      Such stupidity.

      February 21, 2012 at 12:14 pm | Reply
      • Yeah Right

        Should be lord hee haw

        February 21, 2012 at 1:29 pm |
    • Socrates

      Pamela, you are a real intellectual. Your comment will keep me thinking for the rest of my life.

      February 21, 2012 at 2:19 pm | Reply
      • Kurnia

        Arnold, 1) What statement or ilamicption of mine are you addressing when you make the point about the strategic theory behind Egyptian policy2) Who in Egypt’s society do you believe agrees with that policy and who do you think disagrees? 1) The point i am addressing is one that you left unsaid in the current post, but implied, and one that you've made explicitly often enough in the past. Namley, that the primary reason that the US supports Israel is that it feels a moral responsibility' that it do so, and that there is no justification for these policies in terms of geopolitical strategy in the minds of US planners.2) Right now it seems that virtually everyone disagrees. But today's Egypt is one that is very different from the Egypt of even one year ago. I don't read Arabic, and I don't follow Egyptian politics closely, so I won't be able to quote anyone that has made an explicit statement along the lines I just did. And if there are any Egyptians or Arabs reading this, I would encourage them chime in with their input. That aside, I think the following points do establish, more or less, my reading of Egypt's public mood'.A) Sadat signed the peace treat betraying the Palestinians and other Arab states. Despite this, he remained a popular figure in Egypt long after his death. A broad swath of Egyptians must have at some level understood and accepted Sadat's reasoning, that Egypt's security was paramount and could only come at the cost of betraying their allies.B) Mubbarak excelled even Sadat's betrayal of the Arab people, and he was popular enough to reign for thirty years with almost no trouble enforcing his will at all until the very end. This does imply some level of defacto acceptance of that strategic trade off.C) Both these leaders came out of the Military, an institution that never objected and was implicit in these policies, and remains the most popular institution in Egypt to this very day.I think it is clear that the need for security from Israel has been an overwhelmingly important force in Egyptian politics, and one that prevented the Egyptian people from asserting their right to self determination.

        March 4, 2012 at 8:20 pm |
  61. mipolitic

    yes the usa military could defeat the iranian nuke threat,
    however there must be a willing resolve from the commander and chief to confront the threat and direct his assests to take action. yes the usa would defeat iran.
    but i now believe that the leadership of the usa does not want to take such action, and the result of this will either be iran acquiring nukes or israel and at war prior to that or iran will attack israel through a proxy with a weapon of mass destuction.
    israel is a small country that is densely populated with hostile boaders to its north , west , and now possibly south.
    irans M O for many decades has been to attack through some terror group and then to deny any involvement, this has worked for them for decades because they are still here doing the same old ugly actions that most of the time results in common folk being murdered by a terrorist attack. wow what a world with such an ugly threat that seems to be allowed to move forward to its goal.
    have we forgotten the repeated threat of iran { DEATH TO ISRAEL AND THE INFIDEL , THE GREAT SATAN AMERICA } i believe that the iranian nuke is that of inspiration and not of defence. iran will attack israel through a proxy. unbelievable that iran is now free from usa resolve. election rules the day, shame

    February 21, 2012 at 10:47 am | Reply
    • antiayatoolah

      well if we use enough megatons, its a pretty safe bet israel will be safe from the backwards inbreeding militant islamic shitbreeders. right?

      March 9, 2012 at 5:42 pm | Reply
  62. See DOWNLOAD MP4/3GP VIDEOS FOR FREE PLEASE NOTE: U MUST BE 18

    yes, i believe we can, just a matter of time, things will turn aroun.

    February 21, 2012 at 9:38 am | Reply
  63. John

    This is an ignorant question. The US has capabilities the world has not even seen yet. If the the US chose to do so it could tunr Iran into the world largest parking lot in a matter of minutes. A single US Fleet, the 5th or 6th, is enough to take Iran out.

    February 21, 2012 at 8:03 am | Reply
    • Lord Haw-Haw

      Wow! Another "parking lot" analogy. How original.

      February 21, 2012 at 10:16 am | Reply
    • Black Cat Smoked Crack

      With the proliferation of automobiles among 2nd and 3rd world countries, the world definitely needs more parking lots.

      February 21, 2012 at 6:03 pm | Reply
    • Adam

      Yeah and you don't think Iran has prepared? They have missiles hidden deep in mountains nobody knows where they are, they have hezbollah armed to the teeth with missiles in lebanon and proxy terror groups all over the world, stop talking such primitive propaganda, i bet you would enjoy the thought of 10s of millions of iranians dying, just as long as they aren't american right?

      February 27, 2012 at 8:58 pm | Reply
  64. michaelfury

    Stop Iran from doing what? Enriching uranium to 20%?

    Better question: Could the US military stop Israel from starting WW3?

    http://michaelfury.wordpress.com/2010/08/23/as-the-crow-flies/

    February 21, 2012 at 7:50 am | Reply
    • Buzzer

      WW3 from the countries that would get involved miltarily or simply a nuclear "exchange" between two, which BTW only one has the capability of deploying currently? No other country is getting involved utilizing their nuclear weapons to "aid" the other.

      So convetinonally speaking...

      Please list the countries in the world much less the Middle East that would go "all in" and deploy the full weight of its military behind Iran and counter attack Israel? The Arab countries got their butts collectively handed to them already and with a guarantee that the U.S. would become heavily involved at a minimum from a weapons supply aspect what do you think the prospects for success would be? Only Egypt, Turkey and maybe Saudi Arabia have close proximity and the capability to challenge Israel militarily, and even those countries have alot more to lose than to gain by siding with Iranians. China and Russia? You really think they're going to deploy their militaries to exact revenge with Iran, risking again, a confrontation with the U.S. militarily and economically? This is a regional issue, and not a global WW3 scenario...

      February 21, 2012 at 2:35 pm | Reply
      • Sandman

        Depending on which way the winds are blowing a nuke attack on Israel would also threaten many of Israels neighbors. Also if Iran does try to close the Straight it would cut off Saudi Arabia's money. Do you think they would let that happen? At this point it is a wait and see moment as Israel waits to see what Iran will do. I for one know I would not want to be at the pointy end of that small countries anger. Iran called Israel a cancer, well remember cancer kills.

        February 21, 2012 at 3:23 pm |
      • Simba

        And typically killed with chemotherapy. Though several treatments are usually indicated or needed.

        February 21, 2012 at 3:26 pm |
      • robroy

        so buzzer, exactly why should the United States get involved if Israel fires the first shots at Iran?Israel being the aggressor,they should be man enough to hold their own hands over their own nuts.Militarily Iran would have the right to defend itself with firepower right?but you folks have to stick your nose into every bodies business that's why you folks have been voted the biggest threat to world peace,your shit disturbing trophy is in the mail.

        February 21, 2012 at 6:12 pm |
      • Buzzer

        Rob you're so "insightful"...arrogantly and obviously insinuating that I agree that the U.S. should support Israel and I had a valid reason for the U.S. to get involved. I simply stated historical facts and about the realisitic chances of member states getting involved and not getting involved and their prospects for success. My statement was strictly disagreeing with MichealFury statement that this conflict would result in a full blown and widespread WW3 scale conflict. You can take your biased, blinded and uncomprehending foot out of you mouth now...

        February 21, 2012 at 7:17 pm |
      • robroy

        that's right buzzer,i'm so biased and blinded.You clearly stated that this is a regional issue,if so why are you folks sailing up and down the strait of Hormuz stirring the pot.Let those folks clean up their own backyard.If the Israeli's fire the first shot,let them face the response themselves,let the cards fall where they may.History shows that life will go on,but you folks won't leave it alone,your like a bunch of perv's watching porn,you keep playing with it and BANG,CLIMAX usually followed by a big mess.My solution,like a lot of smart people.Tie and gag those yahoo's in that 5 sided building in Washington before the climax!!!!(it'll save a lot clean up for the rest of us)

        February 21, 2012 at 9:19 pm |
      • Buzzer

        The U.S. Navy moving in and out of the Strait of Hormuz is an action the U.S. has been and is doing in response to the confrontation between Israel and Iran? This "confrontation" is the subject of this article and the subject of this particular discussion correct? Our movements are routine, the only way to dock in Bahrain, and 5th Fleet...the Naval HQ for CENTCOM...we've been conducting ops from this location well before this whole confrontation between Israel and Iran ever developed. The confrontation between Israel and Iran IS a regional issue, because no countries outside the "region" have any intentions of committing their militaries to direct action against Israel in support of Iran...that includes the U.S.. The U.S. didn't do it during the more immediate threat to Israell during the 6-day or Yom Kippur War with Israel facing multiple beligerents right on their door step and won't do it with Iran. BTW, the Pentagon doesn't set policy...the execute directives from the POTUS...when you screw up this basic tenent of U.S. military/civilian relationships, your creditability goes right down the toilet.

        February 21, 2012 at 11:16 pm |
  65. Sayan Majumdar

    The article did not take account of Israeli ballistic missile (Jericho series) strikes at Iranian nuclear infrastructures followed by precision air strikes if it is indeed planned as a “one-shot deal”.

    Such an Israeli approach will eliminate the possibility of recalling of Israeli strike elements after commencement of operations in face of international (read United States) “pressure”.

    Sayan.

    February 21, 2012 at 7:06 am | Reply

Post a comment


 

CNN welcomes a lively and courteous discussion as long as you follow the Rules of Conduct set forth in our Terms of Service. Comments are not pre-screened before they post. You agree that anything you post may be used, along with your name and profile picture, in accordance with our Privacy Policy and the license you have granted pursuant to our Terms of Service.