Iran Unveils New Unmaned Drone Bomber

[SolkaTruesilver]

Iran is done for anyway the moment the U.S. attack.

No, it isn't, any more than Hussein's Iraq was "done for" when the Israelis bombed Osirac.

Yhea, I kinda went the hyperbolic on that one. But if the U.S. really strikes down and destroy Iran's naval, air and land military, they would be toothless to their neighbours.

So their strategy is to make sure the U.S. gets dragged down as far as possible in the event of such attack. Not really in term of military advantage, but simply as a deterrent. "You will regret attacking us". That was the mentality of MAD during the Cold War: "If you try this on us, we will drag your in hell with us!".

Bollocks - Ahmedwhatshisface isn't stupid, no leader of any country is, otherwise they wouldn't be the leader. He will not react to mere air strikes with a response guaranteed to bring the US military (and most of the planet) down on him like a ton of bricks Even if he did have a sudden mental breakdown and try it, Khameni wouldn't let him. Continuing to run a country with a few large smoking holes in it is greatly superior to a cell or a grave.

If there are air strikes on them, they would already have the U.S. military going down on them. The rest of the world in a non-sequitur, as there is little (nothing?) they could do the U.S. can't. The U.S. can reduce that country back to sudan-level of military development by itself, but it won't bother do a land invasion, and no country would want to go that far.

The only reason other countries would step in is, if for some reason, the U.S. don't have the ressources to prevent Iran to strike at the Strait by itself, and I'm having a hard time thinking of a way that would happen.

So Iran would have little to lose by going the whole nine yards. (Note: is that a correct use of that expression?)

[Captain Seafort]

If there are air strikes on them, they would already have the U.S. military going down on them.

Why? The US would find it far easier to justify limited strikes against the nuclear programme than levelling the entire country.

The rest of the world in a non-sequitur, as there is little (nothing?) they could do the U.S. can't.

Yes there is - they provide widespread political support for said actions. Compare the second and third Gulf Wars for example. One was most of the planet slapping Hussein down, the other was effectively the culmination of the Bush-Hussein blood feud.

So Iran would have little to lose by going the whole nine yards.

Yes, they would - they could get the entire country trashed and, more importantly from their perspective, lose power, rather than get away with just losing their nuclear programme.

[SolkaTruesilver]

If there are air strikes on them, they would already have the U.S. military going down on them.

Why? The US would find it far easier to justify limited strikes against the nuclear programme than levelling the entire country.

But the U.S. don't care that much about the nuclear program outside of public declaration. Such nuclear program doesn't directly threathen them, and can hardly be stopped by a aerial bombing anyway.

However, they do care about who controls Iraq and the military safety of their Gulf allies, which can only be breached through Iran's conventional military situation.

If they would strike at Iran, they would take out Iran's military capacity, trying to avoid civilian targets. So they wouldn't be "leveling the entire country". They wouldn't really be trying to kill all military position of Iran, just it's motorised, aerial and naval forces. They can hardly be a menace to S.A., Kuwait or UAE with only footsoldiers.

[Tyyr]

But the U.S. don't care that much about the nuclear program outside of public declaration. Such nuclear program doesn't directly threathen them, and can hardly be stopped by a aerial bombing anyway.

Weren't you just the one talking about the effect of destabilizing the world's oil supply? Seriously. Yes we do fucking care. We care because that shit hole has most of the world's oil and it's owned by some of the world's least rational people. The last thing we want is them getting nukes. It destabilizes the whole region because they all hate each other only slightly less than they hate us.

[Sionnach Glic]

One could easily say the same about Pakistan getting nukes, yet they've still managed to refrain from throwing the entire region into chaos. Ditto for Israel.

But yes, you're correct that the US does indeed care. If they didn't then they'd hardly have been trying so hard to prevent Iran from getting them in the first place.

[Tyyr]

One could easily say the same about Pakistan getting nukes, yet they've still managed to refrain from throwing the entire region into chaos. Ditto for Israel.

But yes, you're correct that the US does indeed care. If they didn't then they'd hardly have been trying so hard to prevent Iran from getting them in the first place.

1) We like Israel
2) Pakistan is more concerned with India than the middle east.

Iran has gone to war with Iraq several times before. They have as a matter of national policy the destruction of one of our allies, Israel. They have attempted to screw up the Strait of Hormuz before. They are a strong supporter of terrorism. Ahmadinejad just looks sleazy. We weren't wild about India and Pakistan going nuclear but while they're not the most stable of relationships Iran is a whole new level of pain in the ass.

[Captain Seafort]

1) We like Israel

Their neighbours, on the other hand, do not. The main reason the Israeli nuclear arsenal hasn't destabilised the region is because they went about it covertly, and have a doctrine of opacity, which means that their various bolshy neighbours can turn a blind eye rather than being forced to make an issue of it. The Iranians, on the other hand, won't have have that option.

2) Pakistan is more concerned with India than the middle east.

Nonetheless, it hasn't thrown the region into chaos simply by possessing nuclear weapons. If anything their arsenal acts as a stabilising factor, since there's no way in hell they could stand up to the Indian army without it.

The key problem with an Iranian bomb isn't because they're an obnoxious bunch with a gobby President, but because they're already a strong military power even without nuclear weapons, and have plenty of territory in which to trade space for time in the event of war. The Israelis and the Pakistanis, on the other hand, are considerably weaker than their main potential adversaries, and have very limited strategic depth. They need nukes to level the playing field. The Iranians don't.

[SolkaTruesilver]

Their neighbours, on the other hand, do not. The main reason the Israeli nuclear arsenal hasn't destabilised the region is because they went about it covertly, and have a doctrine of opacity, which means that their various bolshy neighbours can turn a blind eye rather than being forced to make an issue of it. The Iranians, on the other hand, won't have have that option.

On that topic, are you interested in a STRATFOR analysis regarding the dynamic of the region? The hypothesis stated is that the current Arab leadership actually don't care about Palestinian/Israel, as they are content to see an Israel on the defensive, but not being actively belligerent save for Lebanon and the Palestinians. Openly they criticise Israel/U.S. because it's good PR to their masses, but they won't lift a finger to help bring down the Israeli, since most Arab country leaderships (specifically Jordan and Egypt) see the Palestinians as a bigger menace than Israel.

I could post it in this thread, or make another thread, or just send it via P.M. if you'd like. It's very insightful and researched.

Nonetheless, it hasn't thrown the region into chaos simply by possessing nuclear weapons. If anything their arsenal acts as a stabilising factor, since there's no way in hell they could stand up to the Indian army without it.

The key problem with an Iranian bomb isn't because they're an obnoxious bunch with a gobby President, but because they're already a strong military power even without nuclear weapons, and have plenty of territory in which to trade space for time in the event of war. The Israelis and the Pakistanis, on the other hand, are considerably weaker than their main potential adversaries, and have very limited strategic depth. They need nukes to level the playing field. The Iranians don't.

You *are* extremely well researched and informed on the topic. You are right, Iran's president is simply stating rethorics aimed at pleasing his population and throwing his ennemies off-balance, but he's actually done little save an harassment of Israel through a guerilla movement. They could strike at Israel, but they would have little to gain out of it and would be a suicidal move. They don't trust terrorist groups since most of those are Sunn'i and are backed by some Saudi Arabian interests.

A nuke for them would be simply the ultimate level of self-defense positionning, that centers around the threath they have over the Ormuz Strait. The current leadershup knows their rule over the Iranian people is unstable at best, and that they have powerful ennemies. They want to prevent foreigners to come in and topple them, and that is achieved through, as you said, a powerful military, strategic depth and the menace of retaliating agianst the World's economy.

Iran having the nuke would simply stabilise the situation of their current government and ensure that no one would risk invading them to replace them. If they get any expantionist ambitions, they aren't gonna use nukes, nor are they going to risk the World's wrath through striking at the oil shipping. Their strategy is very defensive in nature, as it has been for the past 30 years, ever since the Iranian Hostage Crisis.

Any country's ultimate desire is to preserve it's safety, either through self-defense or allied protection. Russia's behavior can be traced back to self-defense, so is the U.S.A.'s and UK's. Iran isn't different. They have little to gain by striking at Israel anyway, but they have much to gain by stating they wills trike. Rule 1 of poltiics/diplomacy: Bullshit your way to supremacy.