Mlitary and Diplomatic Report: US Strikes on Iran Would Risk Major War

[BigRedChief]

http://gma.yahoo.com/report-us-strik...023148627.html

You posters on here wanting to attack Iran had better consider the consequenses of military action. I'm on record as believing that Iran cant be allowed to have a nuclear weapon. But we really, really, really need think and consider the ramifications of a military strike.

Some excerpts:

The assessment said extended U.S. strikes could destroy Iran's most important nuclear facilities and damage its military forces but would only delay — not stop — the Islamic republic's pursuit of a nuclear bomb.
"You can't kill intellectual power," said retired Army Lt. Gen. Frank Kearney, who endorsed the report. He is a former deputy director at the National Counterterrorism Center and former deputy commander of U.S. Special Operations Command.

The report compiled by former government officials, national security experts and retired military officers is to be publicly released Thursday. It says achieving more than a temporary setback in Iran's nuclear program would require a military operation — including a land occupation — more taxing than the Iraq and Afghanistan wars combined.

Planners and pundits ought to consider that the riots and unrest following a Web entry about an obscure film are probably a fraction of what could happen following a strike — by the Israelis or U.S. — on Iran," retired Lt. Gen. Gregory Newbold, an endorser of the Iran report and a former operations chief for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said in an interview.

The report said the Obama administration's stated objective — shared by Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney — of preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear bomb is unlikely to be achieved through military force if action is limited to a combination of airstrikes, cyberattacks, covert operations and special operations strikes.

It says an extensive U.S. military assault could delay for up to four years Iran's ability to build a nuclear weapon. It also could disrupt Iranian government control, deplete its treasury and raise internal tensions.
"We do not believe it would lead to regime change, regime collapse or capitulation," it said, adding that such an attack would increase Iran's motivation to build a bomb, in part because the Iranian leadership would see building a bomb as a way to inhibit future U.S. attacks "and redress the humiliation of being attacked."

A more ambitious military campaign designed to oust the Iranian regime of hardline clerics or force an undermining of Iran's influence in the Mideast would require the U.S. to occupy part or all of the country, the report said.

"Given Iran's large size and population, and the strength of Iranian nationalism, we estimate that the occupation of Iran would require a commitment of resources and personnel greater than what the U.S. has expended over the past 10 years in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars combined," the report said.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

Dude, they dont get to use classified documents and then publish it publically.

Did you even look at the list of people that wrote the report? Well respected Generals, diplomats. This wasnt an MSNBC project.

Well respected Generals and diplomats who at one point or another had already developed an opposition to our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. They're well respected, but certainly not unbiased.

[BigRedChief]

Originally Posted by patteeu

Well respected Generals and diplomats who at one point or another had already developed an opposition to our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. They're well respected, but certainly not unbiased.

as they should of. Both of those wars cost us too many lives and treasure and for what? What have we gained? Was it worth the cost in human lives?

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

as they should of. Both of those wars cost us too many lives and treasure and for what? What have we gained? Was it worth the cost in human lives?

At least we agree that the authors of this report are biased.

As for your point here, Barack Obama has gone a long way toward insuring that the benefit for those costs has been minimized.

[BigRedChief]

Originally Posted by patteeu

At least we agree that the authors of this report are biased.

As for your point here, Barack Obama has gone a long way toward insuring that the benefit for those costs has been minimized.

I dont agree they are biased. Any person who doesnt watch Fox News all day isnt biased.

What were those benefits he minimized?

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

as they should of. Both of those wars cost us too many lives and treasure and for what? What have we gained? Was it worth the cost in human lives?

Nor has it handled terrorism. I don't buy there's been no attacks since since we had few before already. Look what's going on in the ME now that we created the vacuums in certain places.

[King_Chief_Fan]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

http://gma.yahoo.com/report-us-strik...023148627.html

You posters on here wanting to attack Iran had better consider the consequenses of military action. I'm on record as believing that Iran cant be allowed to have a nuclear weapon. But we really, really, really need think and consider the ramifications of a military strike.

Some excerpts:

The assessment said extended U.S. strikes could destroy Iran's most important nuclear facilities and damage its military forces but would only delay — not stop — the Islamic republic's pursuit of a nuclear bomb.
"You can't kill intellectual power," said retired Army Lt. Gen. Frank Kearney, who endorsed the report. He is a former deputy director at the National Counterterrorism Center and former deputy commander of U.S. Special Operations Command.

The report compiled by former government officials, national security experts and retired military officers is to be publicly released Thursday. It says achieving more than a temporary setback in Iran's nuclear program would require a military operation — including a land occupation — more taxing than the Iraq and Afghanistan wars combined.

Planners and pundits ought to consider that the riots and unrest following a Web entry about an obscure film are probably a fraction of what could happen following a strike — by the Israelis or U.S. — on Iran," retired Lt. Gen. Gregory Newbold, an endorser of the Iran report and a former operations chief for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said in an interview.

The report said the Obama administration's stated objective — shared by Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney — of preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear bomb is unlikely to be achieved through military force if action is limited to a combination of airstrikes, cyberattacks, covert operations and special operations strikes.

It says an extensive U.S. military assault could delay for up to four years Iran's ability to build a nuclear weapon. It also could disrupt Iranian government control, deplete its treasury and raise internal tensions.
"We do not believe it would lead to regime change, regime collapse or capitulation," it said, adding that such an attack would increase Iran's motivation to build a bomb, in part because the Iranian leadership would see building a bomb as a way to inhibit future U.S. attacks "and redress the humiliation of being attacked."

A more ambitious military campaign designed to oust the Iranian regime of hardline clerics or force an undermining of Iran's influence in the Mideast would require the U.S. to occupy part or all of the country, the report said.

"Given Iran's large size and population, and the strength of Iranian nationalism, we estimate that the occupation of Iran would require a commitment of resources and personnel greater than what the U.S. has expended over the past 10 years in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars combined," the report said.

or one well placed nuke

[RINGLEADER]

Everyone believes this would be a conventional broo-ha-ha.

Rods of the Gods.

If you look at those explosions that took out the Iranian missile bases I see the Rods of the Gods at work...

[RINGLEADER]

Originally Posted by King_Chief_Fan

or one well placed nuke

This too. Though if I was Israel I'd be afraid the N Koreans may have already given the Iranians the bomb...

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

I dont agree they are biased. Any person who doesnt watch Fox News all day isnt biased.

Well, their bias is unaffected by your lack of belief.

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

What were those benefits he minimized?

Obama's lack of commitment to the ongoing development of a relationship between the US and Iraq decreases the chances of Iraq becoming the kind of ally that they could be and increases the chances of Iranian influence, for one. He was handed a victory that he hadn't believed was possible and he may well turn it into the waste of blood and treasure that he falsely claimed it was.

[alnorth]

Originally Posted by Donger

Are you in favor of a US military strike to prevent Iran from becoming nuclear-armed, if it comes to that? In other words, sanctions and diplomacy fail?

Absolutely not.

Presuming Iran wants the bomb (I would too if I ran Iran, just so I would not be threatened with an attack), and if sanctions do nothing to dissuade them, then we simply are incapable of preventing Iran from getting a nuke without a full-blown land invasion and national occupation lasting for at least well over a decade.

That would be an extremely foolish plan, aside from the fact that we simply can not afford it.

[alnorth]

Originally Posted by patteeu

Obama's lack of commitment to the ongoing development of a relationship between the US and Iraq decreases the chances of Iraq becoming the kind of ally that they could be and increases the chances of Iranian influence, for one. He was handed a victory that he hadn't believed was possible and he may well turn it into the waste of blood and treasure that he falsely claimed it was.

I hate to break it to you but there was never, ever any chance of success in the way you envision it. (not just military, but a cultural success where Iraq becomes this thriving happy westernized democratic ally)

That "blood and treasure" was wasted as soon as Bush and co. decided to attack Iraq for really no good reason whatsoever.

[alnorth]

Originally Posted by King_Chief_Fan

or one well placed nuke

You will need a hell of a lot more than that. Fordo is built under a freaking mountain. They'll build everything under mountains if they have to.

You need a land invasion.

[ForeverChiefs58]

Originally Posted by alnorth

Absolutely not.

Presuming Iran wants the bomb (I would too if I ran Iran, just so I would not be threatened with an attack), and if sanctions do nothing to dissuade them, then we simply are incapable of preventing Iran from getting a nuke without a full-blown land invasion and national occupation lasting for at least well over a decade.

That would be an extremely foolish plan, aside from the fact that we simply can not afford it.

I agree with no boots on the ground. No invasion. No occupation. Besides radiation levels would be too high

[alnorth]

Originally Posted by ForeverChiefs58

I agree with no boots on the ground. No invasion. No occupation. Besides radiation levels would be too high

well yeah, I guess genocide and killing tens of millions is another option.

[BigRedChief]

Originally Posted by patteeu

Obama's lack of commitment to the ongoing development of a relationship between the US and Iraq decreases the chances of Iraq becoming the kind of ally that they could be and increases the chances of Iranian influence, for one. He was handed a victory that he hadn't believed was possible and he may well turn it into the waste of blood and treasure that he falsely claimed it was.

you are living in some dream world if you thought Iraq would ever be a ally of the USA.