Iran Holds Military Exercises Near Border

[Nambe]

TEHRAN, Iran (AP)

Hundreds of thousands of Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards began military maneuvers Sunday near the border with Iraq, with a top commander saying the exercise was designed to reinforce Iran's resolve to defend itself against "big powers."

Mohammed Bagher Zolqadr, a senior officer of the Revolutionary Guards, did not mention the United States by name but was clearly referring to America, which leads the multinational force in neighboring Iraq.

"Our country has constantly been threatened directly or indirectly by extra- regional forces and big powers ... . We are holding the exercises to show our resolve and (our) will to defend ourselves," he told state television. ..

[nadinbrzezinski]

1. hmm could they be testing just how over extended

we are?

After all Iran has reserved the right to preemtively strike as well

Don't you love it, the rule of law means nothing thaks to the chimp

[Fleshdancer]

2. This is exactly what Bush wants

My guess is we'll be hearing more and more about Iran and less and less about Iraq and the mysterious mushroom cloud explosion in North Korea. Gotta keep the American public focused, right?

[Radius]

3. Armor and Personell

in the desert didn't fair to well in the first gulf war. Once the eye in the sky put them across the border the A-10 and B-52's would eat their lunch. They have no ability to provide air cover for their people if they invaded. There are planty of land and carrier aircraft idle, the sortees a day have dropped since the beginning of the war.

Looks like a standard wargame. It would be really dumb for Iran to invade, thay can cause us problems without invading.

[nadinbrzezinski]

6. One word that worries

those in the know

SUBMARINES, they have them... they actually have a navy... and they know how to operate in that brown water

[Radius]

8. Their subs

are old soviet diesel electrics. We have a signifigant presence there of LA class boats as well as the ASW componets of the carrier groups there. I would be very surprised if the navy in not actively tracking their naval assets and prepared to destroy them if necessary.
I work with a guy who shot the shit out of their brown navy gunboats. They picked them up on radar and put 5" cannon fire on them before they were in range to even counterfire.

Any entry by Iran into an open war would end very badly for them. They know they are better off just stoking insurgency rather than opening a hot war.

[nadinbrzezinski]

19. Yep and that place is hard to listen to becuase

it is brown water... those in the Navy do worry about them... or who just left the Navy...

[Ohio rules]

20. Last year Iran purchased from N Korea

"semi submersables".
Kind of a cross between a landing craft and a torpedo boat.
The straits of Hormuz is pretty skinny also.

Remember the USS Cole

[harpo]

44. What if they plan to take over Iraq...

Which is why they got the US to go in the first place...to help ease their takeover plans by having the US clear the way using the US forces instead of their own. Of course they would probably like to wait to get in there until we are gone...unless they think now would be a good time since we are really stretched pretty thin. Attack from the east...also at the same time have the guys in Afghanistan attack since we are VERY weak there...not sure if the Saudi's would be in on this...probably not is my guess but there are folks in SA who would be willing to assist in a great effort to defeat the US and take over Iraq at the same time. Hmmm...

[Ohio rules]

21. They would be playing right into George's hand

In the opening weeks of the 2nd Gulf war, we hit targets on that side of the border.

[Gyre]

27. WRONG!

Bush only wants victims that don't fight back. He doesn't have the balls to throw our troops up against any country that can provide real resistance.

As soon as some independent sources conclude that the "cloud" was the result of a nuclear device Bush is painted into a corner. He cannot get away with an attack on one "rogue" nation this is demonstrably not as nuclear capable as NK. That's why US media is parroting admin sources claiming whatever it is, it's not nuclear (ie, anything but nuclear). Just my 2 centavos.

Gyre

[Fleshdancer]

31. Not wrong. My theory comes straight from the PNAC website

I think the neocons want to change the entire Middle East. The reasons are numerous...oil, political ideology, religion, etc, but the end result is the same. To be the uber super power in both economy and military. To spread American democracy and Christianity all over the world.

So far they seem somewhat on schedule.

[LauraK]

4. "Maneuvers"? Sure, they're just testing their new boots.

These military maneuvers are more likely to be fortifying the region for a guerilla style war with bunkers, buried antiwar weapons, and who knows what. It is naive to say they are just running around testing their metal. With "hundreds of thousands" of their guard now familiar with the border region, they would be a big test for the over tested US forces.

[bemildred]

5. It's always good to prepare for the "unexpected".

This is just letting the Shrubites know in the most explicit
kind of way what is going to happen if they attack Bushehr.

[Radius]

7. Highway of Death

Remember the effect of airpower on exposed equipment and personell. If they cross the line every ship and sub will begin firing tomahawk missles, b-52's will begin carpet bombing, and a-10's fa-18's and f-15s will begin decimating their armor and personel.

Huge tactical mistake for them.

Ground personell have their hands full but the airforce is not being used for more than the occasional surface strike. That would open the door for us to strike their nuclear facilities.

[LauraK]

9. IMO they expect that and are preparing. We bombed Vietnam.

We practically leveled the north and still lost. There are as many muslims in the world as there were Chinese helping Nam. Unless we commit the ultimate atrocity, I think we are going to lose this war.

[Lizzie Borden]

10. I think we already have.

[Radius]

12. Trees - no trees

Iraq lost almost all its tank capability from air assault. Shooting things in the open desert is very different than shooting them in a jungle. We never bombed Hanoi flat, we didn't bomb their harbor where Russian ships were bringing in supplies for fear of dragging the sovs in.

If by ultimate atrocity you mean nuking iran, I doubt it. Iran has no use for a land war with us.

BTW we were killing 90,000 a day in Tokyo with WW2 era conventional bombing. Massed troops in the desert with no air cover have a little chance invading Iraq without being wiped out from the air. Remember what happened to the Egyptians in the Sinai and that was against a modern army and a small Israeli air force, the Iranians are running the same soviet era crap and can't cover their assault from the air.

Doesn't make sense for them.

[Nambe]

16. No offense but you sound a little like Carl Rove.

How many countries do we have to attack before we realize we can't win. We defeated Iraq. A few more victories like that and we'll be drafting rich people's kids or electing responsible politicians.

[Radius]

17. All my comments have been about defense

Never suggested an attack, just stating the obvious. Invading through a desert into Iraq is a bad tactic for Iran. It is a wargame, countries hold them all the time. Nothing extraordinary.

You should read what I posted before you attack.

[LauraK]

25. bush has been attacking Iran verbally from day one.

As I read your post, I felt you were implying they fear a military defeat. It is that point I am disagreeing with, apparently not too clearly. Not only do I believe they don't fear a military defeat, I think they believe they would ultimately be able to drive the US and Israel out of the middle east if they are 'defeated' militarily.

I'm not disputing what you are saying, I'm saying our military prowess is of little use in the big picture. I believe it is critical that we realize this, as the rest of the world and Kerry does.

[bemildred]

18. A couple comments, an idle question.

I don't believe the Iran-Iraq border is desert. Mountains and
swamp is what I see, mostly.

The vulerabilities of massed conventional armored forces is
why they won't do that.

The answer to massive firepower is dispersion.

I would not want to keep carriers in the Gulf in a hot war with
Iran. In the wargames before this mess they were the first things
attacked, and with some success.

What would happen it they just sent say 300,000 infantry in
dispersed formation across the border, armed with SAMs, ATW,
RPGs, Heavy MG, etc. with donkey cart supply caravans in coordination
with Shiite Iraqi resistance groups?

[Ohio rules]

22. Freedom of religion is the border pass they use.

They are in Iraq.

[Radius]

23. Saturation Bombing

24-7 round the clock bombing by b52's B1, B2, dropping 100k lbs of bombs at once. Cluster bombing and aerial mining. All the f and a type aircraft can detect moving vehicles on the ground at 30'000 feet, above the ceiling of their man portable sams. Anything heavier would be wiped out by HARM missiles once brought online by f117 or wild weasel units. They are using old soviet equipment like what we destroyed in gw1. Dispersion spreads out a forces ability to fight. Disrupted they would be picked off from the air and by Armor and helicopter gunships.

Carriers have defensive capability with their battle group and can can protect themselves.

In an hot war the rules would change and points of resistance would be bombed flat as in ww2. The loss of life would be huge.

However I believe this is a wargame. They are rattling their sabers and will go home when they get tired. In that event we will do nothing.

[bemildred]

26. What vehicles?

I understand the purpose of concentration of forces in conventional
war, but there is no massed conventional enemy for these fellows
to fight, and they would have no interest in engaging in such a
battle anyway, so the loss of "ability to fight" is not relevant.
You just have 300,000 more well trained, well-equipped "insurgents".

The notion that you can suppress air-defences with high-altitude
bombing well enough to allow safe operation of low level air support
in the presence of SAMs seems unrealistic to me, and Wild Weasels
are not going to be particularly effective against dismounts who are
trying to infiltrate, not pick a fight. I think the Warthogs and
Apaches are going to find this environment dangerous.

High altitude "bomb the shit out of them tactics" have been tried
many times, and while highly destructive in their way, but they are
not effective against dispersed ground forces with cover. You cannot
counter these forces by attacking Iran proper, that is merely an
attempted blackmail/terror counterstrike and will not help our troops
in Iraq at all.

But it's hard to know what would really happen.

Air power has it limits, and it cannot take and hold territory.
Reducing Iran to "failed state" status, aside from being a war crime,
would not improve the situation in the Middle East, but rather it
would make it worse.

[Radius]

29. My opinion is nothing will happen(NT)

[bemildred]

35. Most likely. Sound an fury, signifying nothing. nt

[bemildred]

40. It is worth noting that we've recently done some overflights

in Western Iran, most easily interpreted as a probing of Iranian
air defenses.

[aneerkoinos]

42. You just blew it

For to have credibility as war gamer, you should not say thing like:

"are using old soviet equipment like what we destroyed in gw1."

Iran has 90% domestic arms industry (they learned a lesson or few in the Iraq-Iran war), with up to date tech-level, e.g. better or equal tanks to T-90, very good domestically produced missile arsenal etc. Very little soviet gear.

[Gyre]

30. Defense!

For what it's worth I found this http://countrystudies.us/iran/29.htm

You want QUAGMIRE? Iran would qualify by dint of it's geography and it's military which has recent experience in warfare, a pretty sophisticated Surface to Air system, fairly advanced fighters and a very large standing army which has, no doubt, been getting refitted by the former Soviet Bloc.

Anybody who thinks we'd roll up Iran like Iraq is a bleeding idiot.

Gyre

[airstrip1]

32. Iran would be no push over

Its a big country, with a large population , diverse terrain and an intact army. The regime in Tehran is also enjoying an increasingly good relations with China. The US army can not hold down Iraq with a military force of over 130,000 personnel. It would need 3-4 times that amount of manpower to take down Iran. If Bushco do go after the Iranians then the draft is a certainty. The bankruptcy of the American economy would follow soon afterwards.

[wuushew]

11. Are you saying no level of military preparedness is appropriate?

Even if your primary mechanism of resistance is insurgency this form of warfare also benefits from group maneuvers and communication exercises. Iran does have a potent chemical weapons deterrent. If such weapons were to be used, even if quickly destroyed it would be in the interest of the defending force to practice group artillery targeting and war game exercises.

The article gives the impression that Iran is preparing for a defensive war. Since everyone is going on about the "you brake it, you buy it principal" in Iraq, a unlawfully preventative attack on Iran's nuclear program in my estimation of fairness should be repaired by the U.S. or we ourselves should supply working nuclear weapons to compensate for the destruction of their program.

[Radius]

13. Thats outside the box.

They signed the NPT and can not develop the bomb.

We should supply them nukes..That will never happen.

[LauraK]

14. bush's rhetoric is probably coming from Israel.

I think he is willing to give them his lip service but engaging with Iran militarily is really out of the question, even with a draft. Turkey has shown this week that they have a breaking point and we are pushing it now.

[Ohio rules]

24. Air power = game,set and match

only need the jet fuel supply to remain steady

[VladTheImpaler]

15. We absolutely, posotively must...

...begin meaningful negotiations with both Iran and NK!

[Nambe]

28. Well put VladTheImpaler. No chance of that with the bushistas.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

33. Facetiousness-I can smell it all over your posts

You may try using spell check also.

[Radius]

34. Rational

You were just bought by IBM. Any affiliation?

[Kathy in Cambridge]

36. None at all

though I have had a few friends work at Rational over the years. :-)

Are you a programmer?

[Radius]

37. Yes, kinda

Systems Analyst on AIX so mostly ksh and c. A little development on windows platform in vb6 and sql server but not an expert.
Can write dos script but that is a lost art..

you?

[Kathy in Cambridge]

39. I have sold security software for years-no technical degree

but a fairly good grasp of technology. I am going to try to get my CISSP-it will be tough because I don't have years of administering firewalls and other security solutions.

[Radius]

41. You

may be able to find good emulators on the web if you don't have access to the equipment.

I left IBM Redbooks on the back of the toilet to "study". If you self study you will probably over do it and do fine. Take the practice tests 8 million times and you are set.

Good luck.

[Malva Zebrina]

38. Iran moved it's troops to the border even before the invasion

as soon as the signs were unavoidable, signifying it's comprehension of what this whole thing was about and how it was going to end.

This is not a new initiative

[ckdexter]

43. Given the recent increased "chatter"

in the West (the US, Israel, and the UN) about Iran's nuclear program, and given the strange way in which the administration very quickly downplayed concerns about the North Korea explosion, I think there's good cause to suspect that Iran is next on the PNAC to-do list, and that the administration is at the very least considering it.

Iran is probably posturing because there's little else it can do. It surely knows that whatever concessions it makes, it will still be a potential target for the US, and it surely knows that it cannot withstand a fullscale US invasion. So it may be just trying to remind the US with this military display that an invasion, even if successful, would be very difficult and very costly.