How Iran Attacks

ha! Tempone! That dude was my first sergeant when I was a rat.

Great guy.

Outstanding. Unlike many Gazette articles, it's well composed, right on point, and exceptionally readable. Good on him.

Good piece though I do think confrontation with Iran is inevitable.

Well...

It is about time that American strategy took a more "regional" view of Iran.

While folks tend to view Iran as a future treat (nuclear weapons) they fail to view the immediate treat they pose to the region. Not only is Iran provoking instability in Iraq, but in Lebanon/Isreal via Hizbollah and Syria.

The challenge is putting together a strategy which addresses all these problems together, without initiating a conflict with Iran. A strategy which will have far-reaching implications for the region as a whole and fairly quick results in the tactical situation in Iraq in specific.

With the deployment of additional naval and anti-air assets to the region, coupled with the appointment of a Naval officer as the new Centcom, the direction the military is heading seems pretty apparent to me, and that is not air attacks on Iran.

What these moves indicate IMHO, is that the US is preparing a naval blockade of Iran. Bearing in mind that 100% of Iran's gasoline is imported and that all weapons in support of Hizbollah and Syria must travel by sea, a naval blockade will have almost an immediate impact on all three areas of concern vis a vis Iran: Iranian backing of Hizbollah and Syria against Israel, Iranian involvement in Iraq, and Iranian aspirations to build a nuclear weapon.

A naval blockade, though it may be construed as an Act of War, would be justified as an Act of Self Defense, if sufficient evidence could be presented that Iran was indeed supporting violence which put Amercian and Allied lives at risk. A naval blockade could therefore be viewed as a "response" to Iranian hostilities and not an "initiation" of hostilities that direct attacks on Iranian soil would provoke.

In my opinion, we are headed for a naval blockade of Iran. It is the correct move, both from a political standpoint in which direct hostilities against Iran are not initiated, and a military one, in which Iran's geo-political and military aspirations will be brought to an almost immediate grinding halt.

This strategy, also could very well prove to be the catalyst for internal regime change in Iran, should it prove successful.

As a note, I also posted these comments on the Black Five blog.

Regards,

Ray (aka Lava)

So, let me get this straight. We are bogged down in an increasingly unpopular war in Iraq. We have seen what high gas prices do to the United States citizens. We have seen how the EU reacts to ANY American effort in the war on terror.

So, your conclusion is that NOW the US is going to engage in a months/years long BLOCKADE of a foreign power in the Persian Gulf?!!

So, the Iranians are just going to sit back and let us do what we want rather than launch hundreds of Silkworm and SCUD missiles at US bases in Bahrain and Dubai?!! You posit a theory that instead of a massive and QUICK strike on their WMD sites- we would instead conduct a year long war against Iran in the halls of the United Nations? Does this really make sense to you?

Only if you want to win.

Ray (aka Lava)

I'm for the quick tackical strike on their nuclear weapons sights and underground bunkers. I think we could do it by proxy just like Iran uses Hezbollah. I'll leave it at that you figure out the rest.

sites

sites

What if we engaged in some "asymetrical warfare" too? Keep them guessing and on the defensive. And we may even prevent some explosives from getting into Iraq. Same with Syria.