Iran - How long until the invasion?

Hellm0

The Saint wrote: »

Can you provide me with a source for this being a violation of international law, especially after the International Court of Justice ruled that the hostage taking was illegal?

I didn't say it was the Iranians fault that Carter lost the election but that it was a partial consequence of why he lost the election. This view is quite widely held.

And here I thought it was his addiction to billy beer.

skelliser

a violation of soverign airspace is a violation of international law/diplomacy/moral, which law i dunno im sure the UN has it nailed somewhere.
And Im well aware of the icj ruling. Carter had ran out of options and tried to up the anti with this move, the iranians just ignored it.

I think your being pretty subjective tho, care to list the international laws america broke when she orchestrated the overthrow of the demotracically(sp) elected gov. of iran in the coup and installed the shah?

The Saint

skelliser wrote: »

a violation of soverign airspace is a violation of international law/diplomacy/moral, which law i dunno im sure the UN has it nailed somewhere.
And Im well aware of the icj ruling. Carter had ran out of options and tried to up the anti with this move, the iranians just ignored it.

After consulting my international public law book from college, written by the eminent international law expert Antonio CasseseI have found:

The conditions to be fullfilled for the use of armed force to protect nationally abroad to be lawful are, as follows:

(1) The threat or danger to the life of nationals - due either to terrorist attack or to the collapse of the central authorities, or to the condoning by those authoroties of terrorist or similar criminal activities - is serious.

(2) No peaceful means of saving their lives are open either because they have already been exhausted or because it would be utterly unrealistic to resort to them.

(3) Armed force is used for the exclusive purpose of saving or rescuing nationals.

(4) The force employed is proportionate to the danger or threat.

(5) As soon as nationals have been saved, force is discontinued.

(6) The State that has used armed force abroad immediately reports to the SC [Security Council]; in particular, it explains in detail the grounds on which it has considered it indespensable to use force and the various steps taken to this effect.

p.368

From this I believe that it would be very difficult to determine that the rescue attempt was illegal. The violation of national airspace does not even come into it. I briefly studied the legality of the issue while doing my masters and have never read anywhere the assertion that the attempt was illegal. maybe there are some writing stating that it was but I have not come across them.

skelliser wrote: »

I think your being pretty subjective tho, care to list the international laws america broke when she orchestrated the overthrow of the demotracically(sp) elected gov. of iran in the coup and installed the shah?

I don't see how I'm being subjective. You brought up the hostage crisis.

As for the overthrow of Mossadeque by the UK and US, that was illegal on many different levels.

Manic Moran

To answer the OP, I think there's a year or two yet before military force is going to be seriously considered. It can be delayed a bit, as the flash-to-bang on effectiveness is pretty short.

Unless the US media begins the war drums some time soon I would see an American lead initiative being a non issue.

It is entirely possible to conduct strikes without announcing it seven months in advance on the news. "Press release from D.C.: We went in, we did the deed, we left later that night. Any questions?"

To those saying that the US can't do the job, and points to Iraq and Afghanistan as evidence, I have the following to point out.

1) Iraq/Afghanistan are construction operations. It's a lot easier to destroy something than to rebuild it. (Witness, destroying Iraq took about two weeks and one division, building it up again has taken eight years and multiple divisions). All the US would be looking to do is destroy equipment and knowledge, not occupy, not conquer, and not install a new government. A much simpler proposition.

2) The US is not totally comitted to Iraq/Afghanistan. The Army alone consists of about 1m soldiers, split half/half between Active duty and Reserves. Iraq and Afghanistan together account for about 250,000 personnel of all branches. That leaves over 3/.4 of a million soldiers sitting at home twiddling their thumbs. They can afford to send a brigade or two to go swanning around for a week.

3) The majority of assets in a hypothetical Iran strike are not being used in Afghanistan anyway. Bombers, cruise missiles, airborne units, all are available in the US bases and warships.

4) The problem is not can the US do anything, absolutely they have the capability. The problem is 'does the US know where to do everything.' It needs to have precise intelligence and targetting information. The actual strikes themselves are dead easy. Figuring out where to strike is far more difficult.

NTM

Pride Fighter

skelliser wrote: »

the israelis will do a dawn raid like they did in iraq, but the iranians are wide to this; building multiple nuclear sites.
the only other way is to destabilize the current regime, this of course is the most likely option.

This wont happen. The only way Israel can do this is to fly over Turkish airspace. The Turkish PM recently said if Israel were to attack a nation through their airspace they would come down on them like an earthquake.

As Turkey is in NATO and Israel is not, the NATO alliances would activate and technically the US would have to come to defence of its ally Turkey and declare war on Israel.

old_aussie

Don't sacrifice allied lives, just mini nuke the 3 biggest cities.

OS119

Pride Fighter wrote: »

...The only way Israel can do this is to fly over Turkish airspace...

except that it isn't.

technically the IAF could fly all the way around the arabian peninsula and enter Iran from the north Indian Ocean, it would use all its tanker assets, and most of its strike/fighter force just getting a relatively small quantity of ordnance to a limited number of tagets, but it is do-able...

much easier would be to fly through Saudi airspace, and if you think KSA is going to go to war with Israel because Israel bashed Iran's nuclear plans then you're smoking crack.

there's not one gulf state that wouldn't greet the news of a successfull Israeli air strike on Iranian nuclear facilities with a 'how tragic.... now whats for breakfast?' - and i forecast a mystery 'technical fault' that somehow shuts down the Saudi Air Defence system on the night of any attack.

entirely coincidentally of course...

Zynks

Manic Moran wrote: »

It is entirely possible to conduct strikes without announcing it seven months in advance on the news. "Press release from D.C.: We went in, we did the deed, we left later that night. Any questions?"

Which wouldn't surprise anyone. Usual US subtle diplomacy. When it comes to US approach to nuclear power, it is Do what I say, don't do what I do...It is a bit like a father/son situation I witnessed in Spain where the father slapped the kid in the back of the head and shouted "FFS I told you not to swear".

Manic Moran wrote: »

To those saying that the US can't do the job, and points to Iraq and Afghanistan as evidence, I have the following to point out.

1) Iraq/Afghanistan are construction operations. It's a lot easier to destroy something than to rebuild it. (Witness, destroying Iraq took about two weeks and one division, building it up again has taken eight years and multiple divisions). All the US would be looking to do is destroy equipment and knowledge, not occupy, not conquer, and not install a new government. A much simpler proposition.

Let's see...they went in after WMD...no, to get rid of Sadam....no, they went to rebuild a nation. How considerate.

Manic Moran wrote: »

2) The US is not totally comitted to Iraq/Afghanistan. The Army alone consists of about 1m soldiers, split half/half between Active duty and Reserves. Iraq and Afghanistan together account for about 250,000 personnel of all branches. That leaves over 3/.4 of a million soldiers sitting at home twiddling their thumbs. They can afford to send a brigade or two to go swanning around for a week.

So why are they sending and paying private companies (mercenaries) such as Blackwater to do some of the work? Why was there talk of an increase in troops in Afghanistan meaning they had to reduce Iraq troops?

Manic Moran wrote: »

3) The majority of assets in a hypothetical Iran strike are not being used in Afghanistan anyway. Bombers, cruise missiles, airborne units, all are available in the US bases and warships.

True. It normally is their preffered tactic to flatten the place out before sending the troops in (or not).

Manic Moran wrote: »

4) The problem is not can the US do anything, absolutely they have the capability. The problem is 'does the US know where to do everything.' It needs to have precise intelligence and targetting information. The actual strikes themselves are dead easy. Figuring out where to strike is far more difficult.

They should have reasons to worry about their intelligence alright. On the other hand, I wouldn't underestimate the Iranian capability to facilities strong enough to resist attacks with known weaponry. An illegitimate failed attack would be a major embarrassment.

FunnyStuff

The US wont attack, it would more than likely be Israeli airstrikes, they have the power, skill and more importantly the will to do what they have to for their protection. Just ask the Saudis, who were in the process of constructing a plant i think it was last year, only for the IAF to reduce it to rubble, crossing into their space and flattening it without so much as being detected by radar. And how you might ask? Apparently by infecting a USB key with a virus and having it plugged into the saudi defence network by an unsuspecting official, thereby rendering the network down. As for the Turks coming down hard, and NATO, never. NATO are useless. The difference in this equation is choice, the Israelis have none. The Iranian president is a nutjob, more than once calling for Israels destruction, so if they think he suddenly has the means to do what he threatens, they will act, and with a force necessary to ensure the job is done.

Zynks

Only one detail. If Iran nuked Israel it would equally affect the Palestinians. Why would they do that?

FunnyStuff

Easy.... because they dont care about them

Ardent

FunnyStuff wrote: »

The US wont attack, it would more than likely be Israeli airstrikes, they have the power, skill and more importantly the will to do what they have to for their protection. Just ask the Saudis, who were in the process of constructing a plant i think it was last year, only for the IAF to reduce it to rubble, crossing into their space and flattening it without so much as being detected by radar. And how you might ask? Apparently by infecting a USB key with a virus and having it plugged into the saudi defence network by an unsuspecting official, thereby rendering the network down. As for the Turks coming down hard, and NATO, never. NATO are useless. The difference in this equation is choice, the Israelis have none. The Iranian president is a nutjob, more than once calling for Israels destruction, so if they think he suddenly has the means to do what he threatens, they will act, and with a force necessary to ensure the job is done.

If hostilities are to commence, I too think this is the most likley outcome. Israel must be getting mighty jittery right about now over it's neighbour.

RedPlanet

FunnyStuff wrote: »

Just ask the Saudis, who were in the process of constructing a plant i think it was last year, only for the IAF to reduce it to rubble, crossing into their space and flattening it without so much as being detected by radar. And how you might ask? Apparently by infecting a USB key with a virus and having it plugged into the saudi defence network by an unsuspecting official, thereby rendering the network down.

What kind of rubbish is this?
I think you are referring to a strike on a facility in Iraq, way back in the 80's.

Here it is:

Osirak, also spelled Osiraq, (French: Osirak; Iraqi: Tammuz 1, اوسيراك), was a French-supplied 40 MW light-water nuclear materials testing reactor (MTR) in Iraq. It was constructed by the Iraqi government at the Al Tuwaitha Nuclear Research Center, 18 km (11 miles) south-east of Baghdad in 1977. It was damaged by an Iranian air strike in 1980 during the Iran–Iraq War, then crippled by Israeli aircraft in 1981 in a surprise attack code-named Operation Opera, which was intended to prevent the regime of Saddam Hussein from using the reactor for the creation of nuclear weapons. In September 1975, then-Vice President Hussein had declared publicly that the acquisition of the French reactor was the first step in the production of an Arab atomic weapon.[1] The facility was completely destroyed by American aircraft during the 1991 Gulf War.

The Saint

My my. Where to start with this?

FunnyStuff wrote: »

The US wont attack, it would more than likely be Israeli airstrikes, they have the power, skill and more importantly the will to do what they have to for their protection. Just ask the Saudis, who were in the process of constructing a plant i think it was last year, only for the IAF to reduce it to rubble, crossing into their space and flattening it without so much as being detected by radar. And how you might ask? Apparently by infecting a USB key with a virus and having it plugged into the saudi defence network by an unsuspecting official, thereby rendering the network down.

I presume you are referring to Israels attack on a suspected Syrian nuclear facility in 2007? The Saudis have no beef really with Israel and have been pushing for a region peace deal with them. Also, Isreal would not attack such a close US ally as Saudi Arabia. Where you're getting the info on viruses on USBs I have no idea.

FunnyStuff wrote: »

As for the Turks coming down hard, and NATO, never. NATO are useless. The difference in this equation is choice, the Israelis have none. The Iranian president is a nutjob, more than once calling for Israels destruction, so if they think he suddenly has the means to do what he threatens, they will act, and with a force necessary to ensure the job is done.

The Iranian president has no say in the use of military force. He can say whatever he like but it doesn't mean he has the power to act on it. I wish people would stop bringing this non issue up.

Pride Fighter wrote: »

This wont happen. The only way Israel can do this is to fly over Turkish airspace. The Turkish PM recently said if Israel were to attack a nation through their airspace they would come down on them like an earthquake.

As Turkey is in NATO and Israel is not, the NATO alliances would activate and technically the US would have to come to defence of its ally Turkey and declare war on Israel.

I think you misunderstand Article 5 of the NATO Charter which states:

Article 5
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security .

This does not mean that other NATO members must take military action against the aggressor. Each state retains its decision on how to act. This is quite a commonly held misconception. Anyway, breach of airspace is not an act of war. There is no way that any NATO state will attack Israel or even take sanctions against it if it were to carry out a bombing raid over Turkey. The most Turkey will do is take diplomatic action against Israel which will eventually come to nothing and all will go back to normal. Despite recent disagreements between the two countries, they remain close allys.

FunnyStuff

The Saint wrote: »

My my. Where to start with this?

I presume you are referring to Israels attack on a suspected Syrian nuclear facility in 2007? The Saudis have no beef really with Israel and have been pushing for a region peace deal with them. Also, Isreal would not attack such a close US ally as Saudi Arabia. Where you're getting the info on viruses on USBs I have no idea.

Yes yr right, suspected facility, some say it may have been hiding weapons for North Korea, or maybe the North supplied specific material to the Saudi regime, nothing has been confirmed by anyone. It only emerged when Saudi government complained that Israeli aircraft had violated it airspace. As for the USB, i cant remember where i read it from, but that as far as i found was the way they took out the Saudi radar defences. In this day and age it is very difficult to penetrate and leave without being picked up somehow, but they did it. Ill try and find a link to where i might have read it.

Tipsy Mac

The sooner they get some nukes the less chance of an invasion and the safer the region will be for the future, it's insane having one bully boy in the area with nukes and US supplied military technology.

The Saint

FunnyStuff wrote: »

Yes yr right, suspected facility, some say it may have been hiding weapons for North Korea, or maybe the North supplied specific material to the Saudi regime, nothing has been confirmed by anyone. It only emerged when Saudi government complained that Israeli aircraft had violated it airspace. As for the USB, i cant remember where i read it from, but that as far as i found was the way they took out the Saudi radar defences. In this day and age it is very difficult to penetrate and leave without being picked up somehow, but they did it. Ill try and find a link to where i might have read it.

Sorry, I think you really need to take a look at a map of the Middle East. Israel shares a border with Syria (indeed occupies Syrian territory). To get to Saudi Arabia, Israel would have to go through Jordan. Saudi Arabia also does not have a border with Syria. Would be a pretty odd way of getting to Syria, through Saudi Arabia from Israel.

To save you the bother, here's a map:

The Saint

Tipsy Mac wrote: »

The sooner they get some nukes the less chance of an invasion and the safer the region will be for the future, it's insane having one bully boy in the area with nukes and US supplied military technology.

I think a better goal would be a Middle East without nuclear weapons.

Tipsy Mac

The Saint wrote: »

I think a better goal would be a Middle East without nuclear weapons.

Well one country has them and that's the problem with the instability in the area. If you look at India and Pakistan, both were at each other for years and starting wars over bordering areas, they both get nukes and it's all stopped, now they might not head out with each other for pints at the weekend but alteast they are at relative peace as a result of acquiring the nukes. Same with the cold war, Russia and America both getting nukes saved the earth from another world war.

FunnyStuff

The Saint wrote: »

Sorry, I think you really need to take a look at a map of the Middle East. Israel shares a border with Syria (indeed occupies Syrian territory). To get to Saudi Arabia, Israel would have to go through Jordan. Saudi Arabia also does not have a border with Syria. Would be a pretty odd way of getting to Syria, through Saudi Arabia from Israel.

To save you the bother, here's a map:

Sorry my mistake, it was a Syrian facility they struck. Dont know why i had Saudi in my head.

Hellm0

Update 1
Update 2

In the first article Obama himself discusses an inevitable Israeli offensive.

In the second, Hamas declares unity with Iran. A united Islamic middle east could be rather dangerous.

Edit. Also, here is what fox news has to say on the matter.

junder

I think its more likily that pakistan could be the next port of call should the militants de-stabalize the government enough to take control

Hellm0

junder wrote: »

I think its more likily that pakistan could be the next port of call should the militants de-stabalize the government enough to take control

If Israel attacks Iran there will be a united front of Islamic opposition, I would put money down the Pakistani government would either fall or the military would instigate a coup(or both). This is not a good outcome considering Pakistan has a Nuclear arsenal, especially considering India's position in all this (and that they too have the bomb).

BrianD

I don't think that the US or a western coalition would risk an invasion of Iran. I think an attack by Isreal could happen but I don't think it will get widespread support.

An interesting thing about Iran is that they have a very young population who are not as conservative as, say, their near neighbours in Saudia Arabia. Look at Iranian women for example - they don't all wear burkhas etc. They are, however, ruled by conservative clerics.

A colleague who worked with Iranian ex-pats said that there is a real demographic struggle in Iran - the young less conservative population V's the ruling clerics. There is a belief that the "younger classes" will prevail unless the clerics get a hold of "the bomb". The longer the development of a bomb takes then the more likely the younger moderates will get into power. Therefore there is some scope for surgical strikes on nuclear targets.

The only problem is that you don't have to be a supporter of a government to dislike a foreign nation attacking your country. The Iranians are a proud nation and in recent years have been developing a big tech nation (despite dreadful economic management). There is some evidence that people want democracy and it would be great to see this nurtured rather than military action.

OS119

Hellm0 wrote: »

If Israel attacks Iran there will be a united front of Islamic opposition, I would put money down the Pakistani government would either fall or the military would instigate a coup(or both). This is not a good outcome considering Pakistan has a Nuclear arsenal, especially considering India's position in all this (and that they too have the bomb).

Pakistan (particularly the military and ISI) can't stand Iran - and its mutual. Pakistans best mate is Saudi Arabia - Saudi Arabia's worst enemy is also Iran.

no grieving in either street if Irans nuclear capability were to disapear in puff of Israeli smoke.

lots of hollering from Hamas, and from the Syrian government, some from Iraq (but mostly for show), and thats it. nobody between Libya and China is going to be that upset that Iran gets reined in. expect some demo's infront of the cameras, but also that most of the radars around the Persian Gulf will accidentally 'malfuncution' around the time of the attacks.

junder

Hellm0 wrote: »

If Israel attacks Iran there will be a united front of Islamic opposition, I would put money down the Pakistani government would either fall or the military would instigate a coup(or both). This is not a good outcome considering Pakistan has a Nuclear arsenal, especially considering India's position in all this (and that they too have the bomb).

which is why i think pakistan will be next for coalition forces since pakistan already has the bomb and its only speculation that iran has or can delevlop a bomb